How the h*** do you get on the Boat?

Anarkos on 29/3/2002 at 03:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Random

But your 'morals' prevent you from actually 'hurting' someone...? Uh-huh. :rolleyes:

It's kind of hard to argue with a socialist, I guess.

It seems to me that you've either you've been brainwashed by fiction or you're living by ideas that are decades old and have no place in the modern world. There's a reason why the Soviet Union collapsed...

I wondered when someone would scream "STALINIST!!"

Guess what? I have as much in common with the USSR as an Objectivist (Libertarian Capitalist) has with Nazi Germany. You have more in common with Hitler than I do with Stalin.

Hitler was a Totalarian Capitalist, Stalin a Totalarian Socialist. You are a moderate Capitalist; I am a libertarian Socialist.

All you have in common with Stalin is my economic system; all you have in common with Hitler is yours.

Would you be offended to be compared to Hitler?

Now, my morals.....

I would kill a murderer. I would do immoral things to prevent worse. That is why I would commit vandalism; as it is one method I can use to transmit my movement's message.

I see little immoral in destroying a billboard's message; what is worse for society, "Buy TODAY!" or "Do you really want this? Think about it"?

Sure, spraying "FUCK AMERIKKKA" on a wall is stupid. All movements have their idiotic adherants; I do not consider myself one.

Trespass is often part of protest; sit-ins, unadvertisement, marches etc often involve placing yourself on private property.

Riot, if you did not notice my sarcasm, happens at most anti-Capitalist protests these days. We do not start the violence, I swear that by God.

The rest any honest man is likely to admit a willingness to commit. Would you starve or steal? Would you rather be shot than shoot?

I am not brainwashed. My ideals come from myself, my deduction, my experiences, my morality.

Unlike, I expect, yours. You follow the status quo - the accepted view.

Which side has more power to spread propaganda?

[edit = typo]

ICEBreaker on 29/3/2002 at 06:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Anarkos

I take it you do not speak from experience here. :rolleyes:

No I am not an anarchist nor a terrorist, and so I do not speak from experience. However your rhetoric sounds very similar to the propaganda we have seen from terrorists. They both try to justify for their unlawful actions by claiming that they are above the law.

Incorrect. There is one slight difference; I do what I think as right, but I do not actively force this upon others. I do not, will not, as a result of my morality, actively hurt another.

But you are forcing this upon people and you are hurting others even if it is not physical. If I have an apartment that I rent out, and you break inside it, then started to squat there, your beliefs are actively being forced upon me. You belief I have no right to have several apartments, and so you take what I have. That is forcing your beliefs upon me. Many others, including me, do not share what you consider to be morally correct. In the same way, Bin Laden considers himself quite an upstanding moral individual too.

As do the best - Gandhi, Tolstoy, X, King, Luther (MLK's namesake; founder of protestantism), Che, even Washington and Jefferson.

Bad examples for the simple reason those men you mentioned had the support of many, which demonstrates the validity of their actions. Evil men and people on the other hand cannot get the support of any. They rein only by using a system of terror. Until the day you can rally the support of at least 25% of adults, you have no right to break the law. I assume you are from the New Zealand. It is a democratic system, which serves the majority. If the majority dislikes actions of the current government, they can vote it out of power. If you have a vision, you can run to be a politician. If your views are indeed right, like those of Washington, then you will gain the support of the masses. By going against the NZ government, you are going against the majority of citizens in NZ, and as such, your actions will obviously not benefit the majority of New Zealanders. In that case what you are doing is wrong.

Somehow, I would be surprised - that is if you talk about serious drugs. A pothead may think he's in the right - I agree - but I expect ze Columbians, ah, don't....

Not really. The Columbian drug lord could well be a socialist who wants the US to share some of its wealth with him. He could well be saying at his dinner table "Those evil Americans, let us show them their weakness by introducing drugs. Hey I am doing nothing wrong. I am just supplying a demand. Everyone knows drugs is bad, they have the free will to take it or leave it. I am not forcing them. But if they want drugs, I will give it to them." Your justification for breaking the law is as convincing as that mock drug lord speech. My point is, everyone thinks they are right. I think it is right to abide by the law, and so does most Americans.

I would comit vandalism (graffiti....one media, albeit not the best), riot and related offences (well, why don't we stand still while you hit us, officer...;)), theft (if needed, if needed), murder/assault (self-defence only, but the law doesn't always agree as to what is self-defence...) and trespass.

I see many contradictions here. You claim that you don't harm others, and yet you riot. Notice the word riot is not the same as protests and rallies. Riot means damage to property. Why should a hard working storekeeper have his store ruined just because you want to make a point? I suppose you will use the "necessary sacrifice" justifications. More ridiculous you use the words "murder and assault (self defence only)". I am not sure if it is your misunderstanding of English or it is another one of those "my definitions are different". The very definitions of murder and assault can never be self-defence!

In short, you think I'm an idiot. I think you're apathic and apolitical....in short an idiot :p

No I don't think you are an idiot. I think you are a menace to society. It is obvious that the vast majority of people completely abhor your disrespect for the law. If you can't live within this system, then go somewhere else. Live in the wilderness by yourself. At least you have the freedom to do that. People like you should have a little country somewhere, so you can just leave the civilised world alone.

By the way, I am a kid, so actually other than pocket money each week for school lunches and bus fares, I have nothing. Kindly start by giving me 1/4 of your belongings. As soon as I benefit from your goods, I will see how sincere you are and perhaps listen to you.

Riot, if you did not notice my sarcasm, happens at most anti-Capitalist protests these days. We do not start the violence, I swear that by God.

Right, it is the police that start the violence? (sarcasm) The reason why the police try to forcibly remove people like you is because you insist on sitting on private property. All you had to do was write to the council requesting a peaceful demonstration. You can then coordinate your march with the police authority and have a peaceful rally. However you insist on doing it whenever you want and wherever you want. You won't get sympathies from anyone.

Would you starve or steal? Would you rather be shot than shoot?

And does that situation exist in the west? No one starves. People become homeless because they chose to. Having 40% income tax meant that poor people will have council flats to live in, and they can get on the dough, so they will never starve. Even the homeless have shelter and soup kitchen. The problem is that some of the refuse to uses these facilities and instead prefer to fend for themselves. If they die in the cold, that is their own doing. Squatters could easily apply for council assistance, and in the mean time live in shelters. Many people abuse the welfare system to no end. So I don't get why you feel this need to break the law, when you can just abuse the system.

I would shoot in self-defence, however why would I be in that situation? Is it because someone broke into my house, or is it because I broke into someone else's house and he is pointing a gun at me for trespassing? One is self-defence the other is not. It is funny how you would list extreme conditions, which don't apply to you or anyone in the west. It is well known that you can do no work and just live off the government. You cannot justify anything you said. What you are talking about is not survival. What you are talking about is wanting Bill Gates to give everyone in US a swimming pool.

I don't particularily like the current economic model adopted by the west either, but yours is just terrible in contrast.

ICEBreaker on 29/3/2002 at 07:14

Hi Random. No I find it easy to talk to a socialist. They are nice people who have an idealistic viewpoint which I respect. However I just find it hard to talk to an anarchist. You can't talk sense into them. By definition, they refuse to conform to any established structure of government, whether it is democratic, capitalistic or socialistic. What they want is to do whatever they want! Anakros is not a socialist even though he calls himself one. He only has vague similaries with socialism because it so happens that it would benefit him. If we went to live in a socialist country like back in 1950s, he would still be against the government. People like him enjoy going against any authority, even if that authority was given power by the masses, by the majority. In fact they despise the world "majority", as well as the words "elitists". All they care about is actually themselves, but they won't admit it.

Anarkos on 29/3/2002 at 07:44

Quote:

Originally posted by ICEBreaker
Hi Random. No I find it easy to talk to a socialist. They are nice people who have an idealistic viewpoint which I respect. However I just find it hard to talk to an anarchist. You can't talk sense into them. By definition, they refuse to conform to any established structure of government, whether it is democratic, capitalistic or socialistic. What they want is to do whatever they want! Anakros is not a socialist even though he calls himself one. He only has vague similaries with socialism because it so happens that it would benefit him. If we went to live in a socialist country like back in 1950s, he would still be against the government. People like him enjoy going against any authority, even if that authority was given power by the masses, by the majority. In fact they despise the world "majority", as well as the words "elitists". All they care about is actually themselves, but they won't admit it.

You do not know me. You are in no position to judge my ideals or motives. You appear to enjoy placing me in a little box of your own creation and mentally ignoring it when parts of me don't fit.

Do not do so. It is insulting, rude, and worst of all, shows great close-mindedness and ignorance.

Anarkos on 29/3/2002 at 08:32

Quote:

Originally posted by ICEBreaker
No I am not an anarchist nor a terrorist, and so I do not speak from experience. However your rhetoric sounds very similar to the propaganda we have seen from terrorists. They both try to justify for their unlawful actions by claiming that they are above the law.

Above? No. Also, ironically enough, here in NZ piracy for personnal use is perfectly legal...

Quote:

Originally posted by ICEBreaker
But you are forcing this upon people and you are hurting others even if it is not physical. If I have an apartment that I rent out, and you break inside it, then started to squat there, your beliefs are actively being forced upon me.

Agreed; I would not do that; although I'd not object if someone did to me, as long as they followed the conditions I have laid out. I would not do it to another, as I would be doing as you said - forcing my morality upon them.

Quote:

Originally posted by ICEBreaker
You belief I have no right to have several apartments, and so you take what I have. That is forcing your beliefs upon me. Many others, including me, do not share what you consider to be morally correct. In the same way, Bin Laden considers himself quite an upstanding moral individual too.

O'course, the part where I admitted to breaking and entering is somewhat absent.

Quote:

Originally posted by ICEBreaker
Bad examples for the simple reason those men you mentioned had the support of many, which demonstrates the validity of their actions.p

At the Washington march there were 250,000 civil-rights protestors. At Genoa, there were 300,000 anti-globalists. Do not under-estimate us.

If we go through my list, well; Luther - mass support? I guess that is why an angry mob nailed him to his Church door. X, Malcolm - the NoI's greatest speaker? Che? No.

They are remembered as great because they took unpopular ideas and made them popular and true. They improved the world; an evil man can take an unpopular idea and make ikt true - but not popular.

Quote:

Originally posted by ICEBreaker
Evil men and people on the other hand cannot get the support of any. They rein only by using a system of terror.

Incorrect, although I wish it was true. Hitler had mass support until the 40s. The people aren't always the best judge of character.

Quote:

Originally posted by ICEBreaker
Until the day you can rally the support of at least 25% of adults, you have no right to break the law.

Odd little arbitary figure there; mind explaining how you calculated it?

Quote:

Originally posted by ICEBreaker
I assume you are from the New Zealand. It is a democratic system, which serves the majority. If the majority dislikes actions of the current government, they can vote it out of power. If you have a vision, you can run to be a politician. If your views are indeed right, like those of Washington, then you will gain the support of the masses. By going against the NZ government, you are going against the majority of citizens in NZ, and as such, your actions will obviously not benefit the majority of New Zealanders. In that case what you are doing is wrong.

If I had the time, I would explain the differences between Democracy and Constitutional Republic - or worse, Constitutional Monarchy. As I lack it, I merely recommend you read some of the excellant literature written on the subject over the years....

Quote:

Originally posted by ICEBreaker
Not really. The Columbian drug lord could well be a socialist who wants the US to share some of its wealth with him. He could well be saying at his dinner table "Those evil Americans, let us show them their weakness by introducing drugs. Hey I am doing nothing wrong. I am just supplying a demand. Everyone knows drugs is bad, they have the free will to take it or leave it. I am not forcing them. But if they want drugs, I will give it to them." Your justification for breaking the law is as convincing as that mock drug lord speech. My point is, everyone thinks they are right. I think it is right to abide by the law, and so does most Americans.

Sorry to be petty, but please proof-read; that was a little hard to comprehend.

By the way, this is an interesting example you've brought up; I am in contact with an ex-member of an NSA think-tank on the topic. His place was taken, as his opposition was most unwelcome.

His opinion of the Columbian situation is enlightenning.

But I digress....

I'm sorry that your point is not true. Many people know they do wrong, but are too damned selfish to care.

Quote:

Originally posted by ICEBreaker
I see many contradictions here. You claim that you don't harm others, and yet you riot. Notice the word riot is not the same as protests and rallies. Riot means damage to property.

Quote:

No, riot means to resist arrest. To try to stop yourself from being hammerred to the ground. To stoip yourself being shot.

By God, I wish the Black Bloc was not a defensive group. By God, I wish we were not put in the positition we are.

But we are. Look it up, read the IMC's news, read the Ya Basta view, read OUR view.

Why are the White Overalls persequeted? Where's the evil in painting riot shields with flowers?

Tell me, what purpose would it serve for us to attack the police. Just think, just think, what is gained from charging a better armed enemy? Why would we attack people armed with shotguns with nothing but our hands.

Tell me, why did Carlos Giulliani die at Genoa? Why did 20 White Overall's disappear? Why was there blood on the walls of the IMC? Why were agent provocateurs breaking windows, then helping the police beat us?

Why was Sherman Austin arrested - for hacking, no less, a crime he COULD NOT have comitted?

You will not believe me. I doubt you will even ask me to provide you with details of our views, of our side of the story.

But if you apply that to me, do me one honour. Look at what the state, the corporates tell you about my side in the way you look at me.

See their propaganda as you see mine. See it is imperfect. See both sides have their flaws.

Don't believe what you read, don't believe what someone tells you.

Quote:

Originally posted by ICEBreaker
Why should a hard working storekeeper have his store ruined just because you want to make a point? I suppose you will use the "necessary sacrifice" justifications.

He shouldn't. Maybe that's why those damn punk kids who try that at a protest get things explained to them by a group of Black Bloc-ers. Why any Tutti Bianci who tried that would be stripped of his overalls and told never to march with us again.

Quote:

Originally posted by ICEBreaker
More ridiculous you use the words "murder and assault (self defence only)". I am not sure if it is your misunderstanding of English or it is another one of those "my definitions are different". The very definitions of murder and assault can never be self-defence!

Agreed. So, why is Mumia, say, on Death Row? Or Peltier? Heard of Satpal Ram?

Learn this; the law is not always perfect. I would never kill an innocent. But if someone came at me armed I would defend myself, whoever they were. This often gets called murder or assault.

Quote:

Originally posted by ICEBreaker
No I don't think you are an idiot. I think you are a menace to society. It is obvious that the vast majority of people completely abhor your disrespect for the law.

No, in my experience the vast majority of people could not care less. Apoliticality, apathy....

Quote:

Originally posted by ICEBreaker
If you can't live within this system, then go somewhere else. Live in the wilderness by yourself. At least you have the freedom to do that. People like you should have a little country somewhere, so you can just leave the civilised world alone.

I'd love that. I would love you to give us, say, Cuba, unnopposed. But if we ever gained power over anything, it'd be the Bay of Pigs invasion all over again....

Quote:

Originally posted by ICEBreaker
By the way, I am a kid, so actually other than pocket money each week for school lunches and bus fares, I have nothing. Kindly start by giving me 1/4 of your belongings. As soon as I benefit from your goods, I will see how sincere you are and perhaps listen to you.

Give me a list of what you want, an address, and an explanation of why you are the most valid case, then I'll probably do it.

Of course, you are not the most valid case; sorry. I have enough to keep my head above water, and I do what I can for those who cannot.

And if you're a kid, tell me, where are your toys? You music? Your books? Your....

Oh, why don't we mention what we have access to, but don't directly own. Me, I've got [parts of, LOL] a house [NOT squatting], a few computer parts and a bed. You?

Quote:

Originally posted by ICEBreaker
Right, it is the police that start the violence?

Sadly, yes. Police or reactioneries; or, sadly, dumbshit bourgeois punk kids who think "anarky is, like, cool, eh bro?".

All movements have their idiots.

Quote:

Originally posted by ICEBreaker
(sarcasm) The reason why the police try to forcibly remove people like you is because you insist on sitting on private property.

Like the fucking footpath?

Quote:

Originally posted by ICEBreaker
All you had to do was write to the council requesting a peaceful demonstration. You can then coordinate your march with the police authority and have a peaceful rally. However you insist on doing it whenever you want and wherever you want. You won't get sympathies from anyone.

Tried that - permission gets denied, very, very fast. Ever tried to get the Police to grant you a right to march? Why don't you throw on a black hoody, go to the local police station and say "Hey, I and a few friends are planning an anti-Capitalist rally on May Day, what can we do to co-ordinate it with you and prevent violence?" See how far you get...

Quote:

Originally posted by ICEBreaker
And does that situation exist in the west? No one starves. People become homeless because they chose to.

LMAO

You call me an idealist? You'll learn a few truths before long....

Quote:

Originally posted by ICEBreaker
Having 40% income tax meant that poor people will have council flats to live in, and they can get on the dough, so they will never starve. Even the homeless have shelter and soup kitchen. The problem is that some of the refuse to uses these facilities and instead prefer to fend for themselves. If they die in the cold, that is their own doing. Squatters could easily apply for council assistance, and in the mean time live in shelters. Many people abuse the welfare system to no end. So I don't get why you feel this need to break the law, when you can just abuse the system.

I don't - God, what have I become to you, an incarnation of all your predjudices?

But the truth is that doesn't always work. What about the illegal immigrants? Those who don't legally exist - born under the system's eyes, born into poverty? What about the invisibles? What about....

Quote:

Originally posted by ICEBreaker
I would shoot in self-defence, however why would I be in that situation? Is it because someone broke into my house, or is it because I broke into someone else's house and he is pointing a gun at me for trespassing? One is self-defence the other is not.

Agreed fully.

Quote:

Originally posted by ICEBreaker
It is funny how you would list extreme conditions, which don't apply to you or anyone in the west.

False; heard of AIM, Peltier? Heard of Satpal Ram? All First World examples. Heard of the plight of the Aborigines in Austrailia? The plight of the poor here in New Zealand? New Zealand, the model of the idea Gotterdammaerrung world. We embraced free-trade, embrased privatization. It didn't get us anywhere....

Quote:

Originally posted by ICEBreaker
It is well known that you can do no work and just live off the government.

LMAO - I've never met a poor person who believes that. Sometime, try, just try to live off the dole for 2 weeks - if you can get it!

Quote:

Originally posted by ICEBreaker
You cannot justify anything you said. What you are talking about is not survival. What you are talking about is wanting Bill Gates to give everyone in US a swimming pool.

I don't particularily like the current economic model adopted by the west either, but yours is just terrible in contrast.

Wha'? Nope, that's comical. What is my model, by the way? Tell me more I never knew about myself....

Now, listen to this. This started as an intelligent discussion. By stereotyping me and labelling your predjudices in me you have degenerated it. If you wish to talk about this, fine, but keep an atmosphere of mutual respect and acceptance that the other is your equal.

ICEBreaker on 29/3/2002 at 10:39

Quote:

In response to Anarkos

Above? No. Also, ironically enough, here in NZ piracy for personnal use is perfectly legal...

Yes, you do think you are above the law. You blatantly disregard it, at least according to your posts. If piracy is legal in New Zealand, then good for you. Go right ahead and do it, before the law is changed.

At the Washington march there were 250,000 civil-rights protestors. At Genoa, there were 300,000 anti-globalists. Do not under-estimate us.

So you support those people! I totally despise thugs like these. Many of these people got subsidised to go over. I do not for one moment believe that more than a minority of those people are doing it for "the cause". It is well known most of these troublemakers were recruited. Don't give me this rubbish about their intention for a peaceful demonstration. We have all seen pictures of the police completely out numbered, and protesters blocking off roads and smashing cars carrying delegates, so as to disrupt the summits.

If we go through my list, well; Luther - mass support? I guess that is why an angry mob nailed him to his Church door. X, Malcolm - the NoI's greatest speaker? Che? No. They are remembered as great because they took unpopular ideas and made them popular and true. They improved the world; an evil man can take an unpopular idea and make ikt true - but not popular.

I disagree. They had no support from say white Americans, but they were certainly popular amongst many black Americans. The so-called angry mob was racist Nazi activists, not ordinary Americans.

Incorrect, although I wish it was true. Hitler had mass support until the 40s. The people aren't always the best judge of character.

I knew you would use this example. Hitler came to power using right wing, but moderate views. It is after he was firmly in power that his direct persecution of the Jews started. Had his first speech as a politician been on genocide, he would not have had any support from the German people.

Odd little arbitary figure there; mind explaining how you calculated it?

Yes a figure of 25% is arbitrary. It is just to denote 1/4, or in other words a significant minority. The figure would easily have been 10%. The point is, your views are not recognised by even 5% of the population. Thus any subversive action you take against the government is purely for your own benefit and not that of the people.

Sorry to be petty, but please proof-read; that was a little hard to comprehend.

There is nothing wrong with my paragraph. Do you know what speech marks are? I guess not.

No, riot means to resist arrest. To try to stop yourself from being hammerred to the ground. To stoip yourself being shot.

No it does not. Riot means to create a violent public disorder. I don't know if you are being na?ve, or you are trying to fool me. But it is completely obvious that the police are hammering protesters to the ground because they started throwing bottles, destroying public property and causing all types of turmoil.

Tell me, what purpose would it serve for us to attack the police. Just think, just think, what is gained from charging a better armed enemy? Why would we attack people armed with shotguns with nothing but our hands.

And when have the police been firing into the crowds with shotguns? If there are really 300,00 protesters and only 10,000 police, who has the upper hand? The reason why the protesters attacked the police is because they crave the fight.

Learn this; the law is not always perfect. I would never kill an innocent. But if someone came at me armed I would defend myself, whoever they were. This often gets called murder or assault.

If protesters disturb the peace and the proper order of things, they will be asked to leave. If they refuse to disperse, then they will be physically removed. If they offer passive resistance, then they will be simply dragged away unharmed. However if they resist by trying to inflict physical harm on the police then they will be restrained, and it beating is necessary to restrain them, then so be it. For the last several decades, the American police have not opened fire on demonstrators. So why you bring up an image of armed police shooting you is totally bizarre. You cannot call it self-defence if you have been given the opportunity to leave peacefully. If you chose not to, then it is your own doing.

No, in my experience the vast majority of people could not care less. Apoliticality, apathy....

They don't care less because no one takes your ideas seriously. However most people are totally disgusted with your disregard for the law.

Give me a list of what you want, an address, and an explanation of why you are the most valid case, then I'll probably do it.

I may not be a valid case. However the homeless are. Why don't you offer your floor for a homeless to sleep in? Why don't you stop using the internet and give the money you save to the homeless. You are certainly in a better condition than them. Why don't you share your comparative wealth with them?

And if you're a kid, tell me, where are your toys? You music? Your books? Your....

I have no toys, no music and my books are from the library. I have clothes, stationeries, time keep devices and some other possessions. Seems like you have more than me.

Like the fucking footpath?

Like a public square or a park for example. But no, they insist on marching into the financial district to create disorder.

Tried that - permission gets denied, very, very fast.

What do you expect from their past behaviour. Every time it is trouble.

You call me an idealist? You'll learn a few truths before long....

I would never call you an idealist. A passive communist is an idealist. You are not. Your so called system of anarchy is hardly ideal. it is terrifying!

But the truth is that doesn't always work. What about the illegal immigrants? Those who don't legally exist - born under the system's eyes, born into poverty? What about the invisibles? What about....

Those people are the ones who rejected the system. Had they followed the procedures of the system, they would be given the basic amenities to survive. Just who are these people anyway? In a welfare state (like Europe), it is quite difficult to be homeless if one filed for social assistance. As for illegal immigrants, the name says it all. Illegal.

LMAO - I've never met a poor person who believes that. Sometime, try, just try to live off the dole for 2 weeks - if you can get it!

I never said it is fun. However one is in no danger of being malnutrient (let along starving). Although the living conditions are terrible, it does not give them the right to go above the law and do whatever they wish, like steal or burgle. In nearly all cases, those who live below the poverty line have only themselves to blame. If they pulled themselves together and got some menial job, have fewer kids, and stopped wasting money on cigarettes and beer, they would at least be slightly above poverty. It is not a pretty life, but it is a far cry from your "steal to live" scenarios.

Now, listen to this. This started as an intelligent discussion. By stereotyping me and labelling your predjudices in me you have degenerated it. If you wish to talk about this, fine, but keep an atmosphere of mutual respect and acceptance that the other is your equal.

This was never an intelligent discussion. Any talk of promoting anarchy cannot be classed as intelligent. OK, I won't stereotype you from now on. However if you cannot respect the law, I cannot respect you, nor can I treat you as an equal, as far as this topic is concerned. Further more this is a Deus Ex forum. You should express your opinions in some political forum instead. My posts are merely in response to yours.

Random on 29/3/2002 at 10:41

So Anarkos, why do you have a computer? Surely it's a luxury that you can do without? I mean, it's not like you only use it to spread your ideas around. This is a games site, so you obviously play games too. Surely you can do without them.

If I'm off the mark, let me know, but at the moment you look like a hypocrite.

Anarkos on 29/3/2002 at 21:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Random
So Anarkos, why do you have a computer? Surely it's a luxury that you can do without? I mean, it's not like you only use it to spread your ideas around. This is a games site, so you obviously play games too. Surely you can do without them.

If I'm off the mark, let me know, but at the moment you look like a hypocrite.

Random, I will say this now. I am a hypocrite.

I am in a position where otherwise is impossible. In order to get where I desire in my life, I need certain material aids.

The computer is a perfect example. I currently aim to get a Law scholarship from Russell McVeigh, a major Law firm. Great hypocricy indeed - to get those you could call my enemies to pay for me to get skills I need. However, I have no chance of getting a worthwhile Law degree otherwise, without indebting myself greatly. The chances of getting the conjoint law/economics degree I desire, as well as taking certain English, Maths and Science papers, are even slimmer.

The computer is a tool that allows me to research, to type, to present information. It is a tool that helps me greatly in getting this goal.

I desire a law degree as it allows me to defend those activists who get arrested, to aid my cause by keeping its proponents free. It also will allow me to talk on politics, on economics, with the knowledge needed to back myself up.

Perhaps the ends justify the means, in this case. Perhaps not - I'm not perfect.

Anarkos on 29/3/2002 at 21:23

Quote:

Originally posted by ICEBreaker

This was never an intelligent discussion. Any talk of promoting anarchy cannot be classed as intelligent. OK, I won't stereotype you from now on. However if you cannot respect the law, I cannot respect you, nor can I treat you as an equal, as far as this topic is concerned. Further more this is a Deus Ex forum. You should express your opinions in some political forum instead. My posts are merely in response to yours.

I do so. However, if we look at how this started we come to piracy; an issue that certainly seems appropriate here. My politics have gradually came into debate from that.

Now, I ask you one question. How dare you talk of Anarchy when know not what it is?

Have you read the works of Proudhon? Bakunin? Tolstoy? Marx? Godwin? Kropotkin?

Evidently not.

Anarchism is not stupid. Anarchy is not chaos. Anarchy is a long-standing political ideal. A vision of utopia that streches back to the 16th century.

You are arrogant and foolish - especially at your young age - to assume superiority over some of the greatest theorists and economists of our world.

And again I say it. I AM NO ANARCHIST

I do not support Anarchy. I advocate Anarcho-Democratic-Socialism.

I do not want to destroy the state. I want a state. I want a people's state. How, then, could I be an Anarchist?

Anarkos on 29/3/2002 at 22:05

Quote:

Originally posted by ICEBreaker
Yes, you do think you are above the law.

No, I think the law has faults that must be corrected. I follow Martin Lutter King's favoured tactic in this. Perhaps you woukld like to lear from some, say, history book what that was?

Quote:

Originally posted by ICEBreaker
You blatantly disregard it, at least according to your posts. If piracy is legal in New Zealand, then good for you. Go right ahead and do it, before the law is changed.

I detest this view. If it's legal, it's right! That is a disgusting show of moral cowardice. You think piracy is immoral - correct? - but if it's legal, you think it's fine?

Quote:

Originally posted by ICEBreaker
So you support those people! I totally despise thugs like these.

Thugs? I wish we were; it would be far better that the truth. I support no thugs; I support the peacefull protesters caught in the police aggression.

Quote:

Originally posted by ICEBreaker
Many of these people got subsidised to go over. I do not for one moment believe that more than a minority of those people are doing it for "the cause". It is well known most of these troublemakers were recruited.

LMAO. You see, strangely enough, we "troublemakers" and we "thugs" don't know this...who recruited us, boss? [Note the sarcasm....] The comical thing here is you believe secondhand knowlege. Even when I tell that I know these people. They weren't "recruited" by some evil Anti-Globalist conspiracy.

Quote:

Originally posted by ICEBreaker
Don't give me this rubbish about their intention for a peaceful demonstration. We have all seen pictures of the police completely out numbered, and protesters blocking off roads and smashing cars carrying delegates, so as to disrupt the summits.

And I have seen my friends, peaceful people, honourable people, with broken bones and wounds from rubber bullets. These are not rioters - I can tell you that plainly. I can tell you that from my personnal knowlege.

I have seen photos of the elite Carabineri "provocation" units smashing windows. I have seen photos of the very same hitting protestors, shoulder to shoulder with the police.

You are foolish in the extreme to believe propaganda from one side alone.

Quote:

Originally posted by ICEBreaker
I disagree. They had no support from say white Americans, but they were certainly popular amongst many black Americans. The so-called angry mob was racist Nazi activists, not ordinary Americans.

Dear God - you don't know what you are talking about.

Let me explain something. Martin Luther is not Martin Luther King Jr; Martin Luther is his namesake. He was the founder, the originator of the Protestant Churches. He was nailed to the door of his Church by White Catholics - the majority then.

Or Che - tell me about "Friend" Guevara, if you can. One point, he wasn't Black or American.

Or Malcolm X. To claim he had mass support is comical. In the ghettoes, perhaps, the Nation of Islam had support, but did anyone bar the underclass, the Black lumpen-proletariat ever support them? NO. In the end Malcolm X was killed; murdered by the Nation of Islam - or, perhaps, COINTELPRO; the US State; the FBI.

Quote:

Originally posted by ICEBreaker
I knew you would use this example. Hitler came to power using right wing, but moderate views. It is after he was firmly in power that his direct persecution of the Jews started. Had his first speech as a politician been on genocide, he would not have had any support from the German people.

Again you show ignorance of history. That is false. He was never moderate. He was never democratic. He took his power by the force of the Nazi's supporters. Christ, in 1923 he tried his Coup. He was jailed for that, naturally. 10 years later, the Chancellor bowed to the pressure of the militant Nazi rallies and named Hitler his successor. Hitler disssolved the post of President, and named himself Fuhrer. He began to persecute the Jews in 1937; Krystalnacht. But before that he had spoken on his goals - have you read Mien Kamph? His opinion of the Jews is a matter of his own record!

Quote:

Originally posted by ICEBreaker
Yes a figure of 25% is arbitrary. It is just to denote 1/4, or in other words a significant minority. The figure would easily have been 10%. The point is, your views are not recognised by even 5% of the population. Thus any subversive action you take against the government is purely for your own benefit and not that of the people.

Perhaps; which is why I am not sneaking around with a submachine gun, I'm not directly attacking the state, I'm protesting, I'm writing, I'm unadvertising, I'm trying to get that 5%, that 10%, that 25%.

Quote:

Originally posted by ICEBreaker
There is nothing wrong with my paragraph. Do you know what speech marks are? I guess not.

Arrogance and abuse are not mature or intelligent methods of answering a polite request.

My problems did not lie with your quote, but with the ambiguous wording that follwed it.

Quote:

Originally posted by ICEBreaker
No it does not. Riot means to create a violent public disorder. I don't know if you are being na?ve, or you are trying to fool me. But it is completely obvious that the police are hammering protesters to the ground because they started throwing bottles, destroying public property and causing all types of turmoil.

Riot, legally, means what you say. In truth, we are arrested for self-defence. It might be, ah, obvious, to you how evil we Anti-Capitalists are, but to me it is the opposite. I have seen who starts it. Dear God, have a look the internet; you will find Right Wing Libertarians defending our abused right to protest.

Quote:

Originally posted by ICEBreaker
And when have the police been firing into the crowds with shotguns? If there are really 300,00 protesters and only 10,000 police, who has the upper hand? The reason why the protesters attacked the police is because they crave the fight.

Shotguns, yes. Two protestors were shot with live ammo during the Summer of Resistance. At Genoa, we had the first officially reckognised death, in Carlos Giulliani.

At other occasions we've been lucky; rubbet pellets were used. Trust me, that is not the soft option. They are nasty.

Also, who has the upper hand? 300,000 untrained, unarmed civilians or 10,000 well-trained, heavily armed, well-organised police? The police.

Quote:

Originally posted by ICEBreaker
If protesters disturb the peace and the proper order of things, they will be asked to leave. If they refuse to disperse, then they will be physically removed. If they offer passive resistance, then they will be simply dragged away unharmed. However if they resist by trying to inflict physical harm on the police then they will be restrained, and it beating is necessary to restrain them, then so be it.

That is the theory, not the reality. Go march, go find the truth. The police are a lot more brutal, unfortunately.

Quote:

Originally posted by ICEBreaker
For the last several decades, the American police have not opened fire on demonstrators. So why you bring up an image of armed police shooting you is totally bizarre. You cannot call it self-defence if you have been given the opportunity to leave peacefully. If you chose not to, then it is your own doing.

Research the May Day Police Riot in Long Beach, Ca, last year. Exactly what you claimed does not happen did happen.

And let me explain this. I was told that I was a lawbreaker; I admitted that, like anyone, in certain situations I would break the law; or be charged for a crime. I never stated that I would do these all in a protest march.

Quote:

Originally posted by ICEBreaker
They don't care less because no one takes your ideas seriously. However most people are totally disgusted with your disregard for the law.

LMAO. You are talking, you realise, to someone who want a Law Degree - time to rethink your predjudices, perhaps....

Quote:

Originally posted by ICEBreaker
I may not be a valid case. However the homeless are. Why don't you offer your floor for a homeless to sleep in? Why don't you stop using the internet and give the money you save to the homeless. You are certainly in a better condition than them. Why don't you share your comparative wealth with them?

Floor - as I don't own it, and the people who own it might just object....

Internet - I believe I have explained that, in answer to Random.

Also, more can be gained if I remain in a position to earn and raise money. Hell, in the last week I raised $200 for World Vision.

In my current situation, I can keep donating money. If I gave it all away, the it would a one time gift, that I could not repeat.

Quote:

Originally posted by ICEBreaker
I have no toys, no music and my books are from the library. I have clothes, stationeries, time keep devices and some other possessions. Seems like you have more than me.

It seems I do. Gimme an address and the postage money and I'll send you some toys....

Quote:

Originally posted by ICEBreaker
Like a public square or a park for example. But no, they insist on marching into the financial district to create disorder.

LMAO. You speak out of ignorance.

Quote:

Originally posted by ICEBreaker
What do you expect from their past behaviour. Every time it is trouble.

Nope. Every time that YOU hear about. Was their trouble at the G8 solidarity marches? At the marches on the Argentine Embassies?

Quote:

Originally posted by ICEBreaker
I would never call you an idealist. A passive communist is an idealist. You are not. Your so called system of anarchy is hardly ideal. it is terrifying!

LMAO - I see I'm a bogeyman. I'll go hide under the bed if you'd like.

What is my "terrifying" system?

Quote:

Originally posted by ICEBreaker
Those people are the ones who rejected the system. Had they followed the procedures of the system, they would be given the basic amenities to survive. Just who are these people anyway? In a welfare state (like Europe), it is quite difficult to be homeless if one filed for social assistance. As for illegal immigrants, the name says it all. Illegal.

The people who did have the wherewithal or legal existence to claim the dole.

Quote:

Originally posted by ICEBreaker
I never said it is fun. However one is in no danger of being malnutrient (let along starving). Although the living conditions are terrible, it does not give them the right to go above the law and do whatever they wish, like steal or burgle. In nearly all cases, those who live below the poverty line have only themselves to blame. If they pulled themselves together and got some menial job, have fewer kids, and stopped wasting money on cigarettes and beer, they would at least be slightly above poverty. It is not a pretty life, but it is a far cry from your "steal to live" scenarios.

That is false. You are naive.

Prev | Next
Back to Forum