NationStates Jolt Archive

"On the collective level, millions of males have suffered brutal deaths in battles fought to preserve differences; all those who had been left to perish at the scene of some bloody battle, after receiving a sword in the stomach or a grievous wound with a blunter weapon. After such costs have been incurred by his forebears the sight of one of the females of his tribe making herself available to a male of a strange and different one is an affront. "

I hope I won't incur someones wrath for posting this. The above was taken from a previous thread that was obviously deleted. It was from an article in Spearhead magazine. I just went to the Spearhead site and it was hilarious. So much ignorance in one place. In the above mentioned article one guy was referring to "research" he had made by sitting in the lobby of a supermarket with pen and paper.

What are your opinions on these groups? Should they be banned or is it okay to allow police to handle them by the same rules as any other assault if they resort to violence?

As I see it, they have every right to hold whatever opinion pleases them. If they choose to act on their opinions in a way which violates the law, then they can be prosecuted like anyone else. I don't find it to be of much complexity or concern.

If they get out of hand, they got taken down.

Life's easy like that :p


Life is full of idiots-some just think they're better then others :D

Any group that promotes superiority over others simply because of physical traits, ethnic background, gender or religion deserves close scutiny. I believe unwaveringly in a persons right to hold any views they chose, but too often those who hold such extremist and intolerant views act upon them. Such actions are deplorable and I support the increased penalties associated with 'hate' crimes.

White Power groups are far more dangerous than most realize.

Mnay of them, preach of an upcoming racial holy war, or "RoHoWA" that they intend to start.

Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma Bomber, was such an individual.

The book "The Turner Diaries" is a "fictional" story about such a group, and how they survive.
Its also practically a manifesto for these groups Holy War...

The menace comes from the recruitment process.
These groups actively look for the weak- minded, or young men that have been afflicted by racial hatred themselves, and bring them into thier organizations, by what amounts to brainwashing its members.

These groups preach domestic terrorism, and confuse that with racial pride.


These groups are far more dangerous than you realize.

White Power groups are far more dangerous than most realize.

Mnay of them, preach of an upcoming racial holy war, or "RoHoWA" that they intend to start.

Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma Bomber, was such an individual.

The book "The Turner Diaries" is a "fictional" story about such a group, and how they survive.
Its also practically a manifesto for these groups Holy War...

The menace comes from the recruitment process.
These groups actively look for the weak- minded, or young men that have been afflicted by racial hatred themselves, and bring them into thier organizations, by what amounts to brainwashing its members.

These groups preach domestic terrorism, and confuse that with racial pride.


These groups are far more dangerous than you realize.


Thing is, nothing can be done until they break the law.

What I'm saying is, once they push to far, their ass is grass.

Thing is, nothing can be done until they break the law.

What I'm saying is, once they push to far, their ass is grass.


Once they push too far....

People DIE.

Ask Oklahomaha City if any asses are grass.

If a man plans for 6 months to rob a bank, if he makes detailed floorplans and takes note of the security (how much, where), if he buys a gun and a ski mask, if he prepares a place to hide out after the incident, if he gets in his car and drives to the bank, walks up to the teller and deposits a cheque... then as far as I'm concerned, he's innocent and should be treated as such.

Thinking about doing something is within the right to freedom of thought; talking about it falls under freedom of speech and expression, it's only the action I have the problem with. Cracking down before an action is taken interferes with (in my opinions) basic civil rights.

But the question is, what can be done?

They can be severely monitered, yes, but...that'll bring up all sorts of private information messes.

We can get some good ol' vigilante action going, but that never ends well.

So, how do we stop it?

If a man plans for 6 months to rob a bank, if he makes detailed floorplans and takes note of the security (how much, where), if he buys a gun and a ski mask, if he prepares a place to hide out after the incident, if he gets in his car and drives to the bank, walks up to the teller and deposits a cheque... then as far as I'm concerned, he's innocent and should be treated as such.

Thinking about doing something is within the right to freedom of thought; talking about it falls under freedom of speech and expression, it's only the action I have the problem with. Cracking down before an action is taken interferes with (in my opinions) basic civil rights.


The problem is that there have already been many acts of voilence sponsored in part, or wholly, by these groups, such as Aryan Nations.

But the question is, what can be done?

They can be severely monitered, yes, but...that'll bring up all sorts of private information messes.

We can get some good ol' vigilante action going, but that never ends well.

So, how do we stop it?


Well..you cant make it illegal....thats no good.

But you COULD make them register as members of such groups...just like you would handguns.

Mnay of them, preach of an upcoming racial holy war, or "RoHoWA" that they intend to start.


Hate to sound a dickhead, but its RaHoWa- Racial holy war

Hate to sound a dickhead, but its RaHoWa- Racial holy war


Whatever...

The problem is that there have already been many acts of voilence sponsored in part, or wholly, by these groups, such as Aryan Nations.

Then you arrest and punish the people who commited the acts of violence. It's not like we don't arrest and punish non-racist people for acts of violence on a daily basis, there is no particular reason their motivations should make it more difficult.

Whatever...
alright, chill out

Then you arrest and punish the people who commited the acts of violence. It's not like we don't arrest and punish non-racist people for acts of violence on a daily basis, there is no particular reason their motivations should make it more difficult.

Would it not make sense to arrest, or disband the organizations that sponsor these kinds of acts as well?

Would it not make sense to arrest, or disband the organizations that sponsor these kinds of acts as well?

If you don't mind arresting someone for not committing a crime, sure. We can also start arresting anyone who we suspect may commit a crime in the near future, even if they haven't actually done so. We'll also have to monitor people much more closely for any signs that they are a potential criminal, and nip crime in the bud.

Arresting someone who hasn't yet committed a crime doesn't work, for a relatively evident reason. Forcing members of a group who haven't committed crimes to disband would face the same problem. You are preemptively judging people, on the basis that they may some day commit a crime.

To me, that's a gross overstepping of boundaries. But that's just me. Now if you want to arrest or punish individual members who have actually committed crimes, more power to you.

Would it not make sense to arrest, or disband the organizations that sponsor these kinds of acts as well?

Yes, a police state. Sounds like a great idea. I can see it now...the thought police!!

What pisses me off is that they also abuse the court system to force us to go miles out of our way to accommodate them
:headbang:

Where I live, a couple years ago, Matt Hale's group had a meeting in our public library. The police department had to bring out extra security for them, and their lawyers made it clear that the city had better not try to bill them for the special bodyguard service either (as they are allowed to do with anyone else except them)...
I think next time, they should be told that the only available site for a meeting is in the middle of the projects...

What pisses me off is that they also abuse the court system to force us to go miles out of our way to accommodate them
:headbang:

Where I live, a couple years ago, Matt Hale's group had a meeting in our public library. The police department had to bring out extra security for them, and their lawyers made it clear that the city had better not try to bill them for the special bodyguard service either (as they are allowed to do with anyone else except them)...
I think next time, they should be told that the only available site for a meeting is in the middle of the projects...

So you blame the people going to the meeting for the idiots threatening violence against them for having the meeting? Its the morons that "protest" (read: riot) against these groups that give them the notoriety and publicity they seek. Attacking people for meeting to discuss things you disagree with makes you just as bad as the people you are protesting against.

Thinking about doing something is within the right to freedom of thought; talking about it falls under freedom of speech and expression, it's only the action I have the problem with. Cracking down before an action is taken interferes with (in my opinions) basic civil rights.
Agreed.

But the question is, what can be done?

They can be severely monitered, yes, but...that'll bring up all sorts of private information messes.

We can get some good ol' vigilante action going, but that never ends well.

So, how do we stop it?

We can't stop it, but we can fight it. These groups should be carefully monitored, both by the government and regular citizens. And rather than be ignored, they should be confronted. When someone, for instance, spreads bullshit about Jews or the Holocaust or the supremacy of the White Race or whatever, many people's first instinct is often to ignore them and hope they go away. While this is SOMETIMES the case, it presents a problem to people who don't have the facts because then they are easily influenced BY these groups, because they have no one to educate them otherwise. If you don't know the Talmud from a tortellini, and someone comes and tells you all sorts of awful shit that's supposedly in it, you're going to have a negative impression of this book, as well as an entire group of people that supposedly follow these beliefs. If someone tells you the Holocaust is a hoax and everyone is lying to you, and you can't find ANYONE that has responded and debunked these claims, you're going to be more likely to buy into them.

So I say when it comes to these people; don't ATTACK them, but DO fight them. With knowledge, and information, and truth.

(And, of course, keep them under close watch, so if it looks like some of them ARE planning something violent, they can be stopped by the authorities before anyone gets hurt.)

So you blame the people going to the meeting for the idiots threatening violence against them for having the meeting? Its the morons that "protest" (read: riot) against these groups that give them the notoriety and publicity they seek. Attacking people for meeting to discuss things you disagree with makes you just as bad as the people you are protesting against.

I dcidn't say it was okay to attack them, I just don't think the city should be forced to give them free bodyguard service, and special protection that nobody else gets. Why is it that Klan rallies are constitutionally protected but anti-abortion protests are not? Is the government trying to tell us they'd rather we be racists than anti-abortionists?

I think that the ignorance that spaws these groups is far worse than the groups themselves. seriously, if you look at their arguments, they make no sense. a lot of them attempt to pass themselves off as Christian, but there are two problems with that. 1> CHrist taught love, not hatred, especially racial hatred (aka samaritains). 2> Jesus himself was a Jew! so how can someone who is christian hate the jews? :headbang:

People need someone to blame because no one wants to take responsability for thier own actions anymore. if they lost thier job, its never because they are lazy or not qualified, its becuase some Jew or "negro" or catholic stole it from them.

I am what a lot of people would classify of being of the "Arayan race" (ie blue eyes, blond hair, six foot tall, strong germainic descent) and I can tell you that biologically, we are far from the perfect race. lets see, most of those defining traits are resessive, a WASP is more likely to get cancer and a host of other diseases than someone with a higher melonin count. so even that point of thier logic does not make sense.

People are right, we cannot do anything legally to them until they break the law, but we can try to educate people that there are no Races sans the Human Race. if we were different races, we would not be able to reproduce together, nor would we function on the same levels as one another.

White Power groups are far more dangerous than most realize.

Mnay of them, preach of an upcoming racial holy war, or "RoHoWA" that they intend to start.

Any supremacist group is *sick.* However maybe we should let the white supremacists battle the Islamic extremists - both sides will destroy the other and good riddance to them both.

::White Supremacist "Smiley":: :mp5:
::Islamic Extremist "Smiley":: :mp5:

The white supremists would be severly out numbered by the Islamic supremists but.

white power = low IQ
white power = white trash
white power = white fear

White power groups are basically ignorant 'cause they think that a race is wrong for a number of reasons that are completely untrue. Normally the bible gets involved or conservatives that want a pure country and white people to own all the jobs join these groups. Others just think that being white looks better.
It will take a while to fix this problem and kids need to be taught in school that they should see people as individuals who you have opinions about but you don't take race into consideration-you just acknowledge it. This way you can still hate people but not whole races.
These white power groups need to be monitored as they can cause trouble and need to be exposed. Hopefully educated people will help eradicate racism and create a tolerant world.

The white supremists would be severly out numbered by the Islamic supremists but.

That's another thing. Matt Hale's group, when they met at our public library was talking about their racial holy war, but If a group of Muslim extremists wanted to hold a meeting in the Public Library to talk about their Holy War how far do you think they'd get.
And, IMO, the two are exactly the same. All fanatics are dangerous.

We can get some good ol' vigilante action going, but that never ends well.
"the only way we could have been stopped is if our enemy's had smahed us on the street from day one" -ADOLPH HITLER

I'm not saying it's the best tactic in all cases, but I think it's foolish to rule it out entirely. While the vast majority of fascist movements aren't nazis, there are still a large number of them that prioritise terroritorial struggles and the battle of control for the streets. And it's those that you sometimes need to respond in kind to. (The others are a harder matter. You need to struggle for the hearts and minds of their target voters)

I think that the ignorance that spaws these groups is far worse than the groups themselves. seriously, if you look at their arguments, they make no sense. a lot of them attempt to pass themselves off as Christian, but there are two problems with that. 1> CHrist taught love, not hatred, especially racial hatred (aka samaritains). 2> Jesus himself was a Jew! so how can someone who is christian hate the jews? :headbang:

People need someone to blame because no one wants to take responsability for thier own actions anymore. if they lost thier job, its never because they are lazy or not qualified, its becuase some Jew or "negro" or catholic stole it from them.

I am what a lot of people would classify of being of the "Arayan race" (ie blue eyes, blond hair, six foot tall, strong germainic descent) and I can tell you that biologically, we are far from the perfect race. lets see, most of those defining traits are resessive, a WASP is more likely to get cancer and a host of other diseases than someone with a higher melonin count. so even that point of thier logic does not make sense.

People are right, we cannot do anything legally to them until they break the law, but we can try to educate people that there are no Races sans the Human Race. if we were different races, we would not be able to reproduce together, nor would we function on the same levels as one another.

Look up the world church of the creator. They believe Jews are the result of the devil having sex with eve and that black people have no soul. Aren't they nice?

Look up the world church of the creator. They believe Jews are the result of the devil having sex with eve and that black people have no soul. Aren't they nice?

Wow - These people are psychopaths!

All these white supremacists groups remind me of www.landoverbaptist.org (spoof site created to mock white Anglo-Saxon Baptists)

While I do believe we still have to go through w/due process of the law w/these people, sometimes it just feels like we should skip the trials and arrests and get some SWAT teams knocking on their doors

White? Meh ... I prefer green.

These people only do things because people pay attention to them. Sure, some members of "white power" probably would be ass-hats even without outside influences, but most are merely there to get attention. If you ignore them they'll have to do something else to get on the news.
Further, planning vigilante action against them and rioting is perhaps the stupidest way to deal with them. They want to be attacked, that way they can justify themselves as superior and hit back with the protection of the law.
Just leave them to their white pride and happy hating and go on about your lives.

These people only do things because people pay attention to them. Sure, some members of "white power" probably would be ass-hats even without outside influences, but most are merely there to get attention. If you ignore them they'll have to do something else to get on the news.I don't think that's true. I think their ideology is wrong and reprehensible, but I believe the majority of white power activists hold it sincerly. I don't think you can write it off as purely attention seeking.
Further, planning vigilante action against them and rioting is perhaps the stupidest way to deal with them. They want to be attacked, that way they can justify themselves as superior and hit back with the protection of the law.What do you base that assertion on and what alternative tactic do you believe would be effective? Remember that a slogan used by many of the neo-nazis is "let them hate as long as they fear". While you may disagree with it on moral pacifist grounds (as is your right) I would have to take issue with the claim that it is always ineffective as a tactic. It's not always appropriate- the fight against the British National Party and the Front National are, I would argue, now largely ideological battles. But I'd say there are circumstances where it is undoubtably a viable tactic. To give a specific example, in the late 80's and early 90's the British anti fascist group Anti Fascist Action pursued a tactic of physical and ideological confrontation with the far right. They crushed the National Front, Blood and Honour and Combat 18- and none of those groups have recovered yet. They fought the British National Party to a standstill, to the point that the BNP have now given up street activity. (This was down to AFA, I can find you quotes from the BNP leadership confirming that if you wish). While you may disagree with the tactics used, does that sound ineffective to you?
Just leave them to their white pride and happy hating and go on about your lives.But surely if a fascist group is pursuing a tactic of trying to control the streets then "leaving them" also means that you have given the streets over to them?

To give a specific example, in the late 80's and early 90's the British anti fascist group Anti Fascist Action pursued a tactic of physical and ideological confrontation with the far right. They crushed the National Front, Blood and Honour and Combat 18- and none of those groups have recovered yet.

Let us not forget the UVF 'asking' Combat 18 at gunpoint to cease their activities in Northern Ireland. It seems to have had some effect, certainly in those areas where the UVF, instead of other paramilitaries, hold sway.

(Ironically enough in their campaign to end racist attacks in Northern Ireland, the UVF also had to stand down one of their own commanders who had been responsible for/connected to a string of such attacks. He may have been asked quietly, but he would have known what would have occured if he didn't comply.)

Let us not forget the UVF 'asking' Combat 18 at gunpoint to cease their activities in Northern Ireland. It seems to have had some effect, certainly in those areas where the UVF, instead of other paramilitaries, hold sway.

(Ironically enough in their campaign to end racist attacks in Northern Ireland, the UVF also had to stand down one of their own commanders who had been responsible for/connected to a string of such attacks. He may have been asked quietly, but he would have known what would have occured if he didn't comply.)
I hadn't heard that before (do you have a link) but it doesen't surprise me. The UVF would obviously have been aware of the widely held belief, on both the far left and far right, that C18 was one of the most spook riddled organisations ever to exist. (Although now Redwatch/The White Nationalist Party have taken that crown).

(I should have made it clearer that I was talking about the British mainland. My bad. NI is a whole different ballgame and not one I'm particuarly knowledgeable about).

I hadn't heard that before (do you have a link) but it doesen't surprise me.

Concerning the 'standing down' of a commander and surrounding issues:
http://www.irr.org.uk/2004/february/ak000008.html

(nothing strikes me as being glaringly incorrect ormisrepresentative of the situation as I understand it in that article)

I can't seem to find the reports concerning the 'request' for C18 to leave UVF controlled East Belfast, nor those covering the PUP/UVFs condemnation of attempts to organise by the BNP in Northern Ireland right now.


Note: this should not be taken as approval of the UVF or other paramlilitary groups, far from it, but they are a reality here, and sometimes they do positive as well as negative things. I guess it is far too early to determine whether the actions I am talking about here fall into the one or the other of those categories.

The UVF would obviously have been aware of the widely held belief, on both the far left and far right, that C18 was one of the most spook riddled organisations ever to exist. (Although now Redwatch/The White Nationalist Party have taken that crown).


Rhetorical question: Exactly where on this theoretical league table would Searchlight fall...?

But it is strange that we make the following distinction...

White power officially equals white supremacism.
Black power officially equals black nationalism.

I mean both groups generally tend to be radical and violent. Why is it that the media makes the black power groups seem like fredom fighters...

Rhetorical question: Exactly where on this theoretical league table would Searchlight fall...?
At the top naturally. ;) (They do provide a large number of the personnel for the WNP after all).

But the question is, what can be done?

They can be severely monitered, yes, but...that'll bring up all sorts of private information messes.

We can get some good ol' vigilante action going, but that never ends well.

So, how do we stop it?


Stop treating us like "Witches" and "Heretics" of the middle ages, stop treating us like "Communists" of the 1950s. The new "In thing" is to hate white men and women that stand up for the fact they are white.

All we want is to be left alone in our own nation that was built by our forefathers and that and grandfathers and fathers fought and bleed for. Prior to 1960s, the USA was 90% white, ever since the Immigration Reform Act of 1965, we've been getting darker and darker, to the tune that now we are only about 65% white. That is no coincidence, it is a calculated campaign to break the back of the white working class for the New World Order to become a reality.


And by the way, the word is RAHOWA (RAcial HOly WAr)

As for your vigilante ideas, you people are pathethic, most of you have no militia training, connections, advanced equipment for weaponry. We've got the serious hardware. I'm going to keep to myself and keep out of trouble, anybody comes looking for trouble, I'll give them more than they can handle.


And I know ARA and the other anarchists, they go looking for trouble.


http://redskins.fightcapitalism.net/pics/bashedfash.html

People are right, we cannot do anything legally to them until they break the law, but we can try to educate people that there are no Races sans the Human Race. if we were different races, we would not be able to reproduce together, nor would we function on the same levels as one another.

We are all different races of the same species. You don't get it do you?

The same species can mate with the same species. But we are all sub-species of the Homo sapien!


Race is real! Get over it!

Well..you cant make it illegal....thats no good.

But you COULD make them register as members of such groups...just like you would handguns.


You mean just like they used to register communists, until it was ruled discriminatory? So treat us like 3rd class citizens while muslim immigrants who want to crash planes into buildings are allowed into the nation unchecked.



Well then we just go into hiding, and stop associtating in public as a group. When you try to register people, that is a prelude to a massacre (Rwanda, Tutsi had to register with government and carry cards identifying themselves as Tutsi. Hutu also carried cards, so the militias knew not to kill them)


If they started trying to register white power types, I'd take it as a declaration of open war, and respond accordingly.

Would it not make sense to arrest, or disband the organizations that sponsor these kinds of acts as well?


We don't need groups, it's called "Leaderless Resistance". Also you start arresting us, you'd better make damn sure you get us all in one big swoop, the ones you miss, we're going to be raising hell, and I mean guerilla warfare hell.

What pisses me off is that they also abuse the court system to force us to go miles out of our way to accommodate them
:headbang:

Where I live, a couple years ago, Matt Hale's group had a meeting in our public library. The police department had to bring out extra security for them, and their lawyers made it clear that the city had better not try to bill them for the special bodyguard service either (as they are allowed to do with anyone else except them)...
I think next time, they should be told that the only available site for a meeting is in the middle of the projects...

They always have problems, and the problems are started by ARA.

In the 1980s, a klan tried to rally in Washington DC. The police asked them to cancel because it was too dicey for a rally. They did so. The black mob blamed "The raysist po-leaz" for keeping the klan away so the blacks couldn't yell at them, so the police got pelted with bricks and bottles, and a small group looted a few dozen stores nearby.

Also in York PA a few years ago, the ARA started a riot.

The Anti-racists are just hooligans and anarchists looking to cause trouble and disrupt the rights of other groups to speak without fear of bodily harm.



Okay, let them go to the projects, we'll take our own guns with us to protect ourselves with if necessary. We can have a repeat of Greensboro North Carolina!

they arent "harmless" since a significant number of them are bent on harm and have proven to be dangerous in the past

but there just arent enough of them and they dont have enough popular support to be the kind of dangerous you are thinking of

they are bullies and thugs who sometimes fall upon situations where they can do harm to other in circumstances where they think they can get away with it.
kinda like street gangs

they will never be able to start a race war, there just isnt any interest in it. all they will do is get themselves gunned down by the atf or fbi.

charles manson was planning to start a race war with himself at the head of an army of angry blacks. ive always wondered why an army of angry black men would want a white lunatic for a leader but i guess it made sense to charlie.

Can we just define "White Power" - I mean lets go into the whole "White" part of it, define "White" please.

From what I have seen and heard today it is politically incorrect to be "White" or at least proud to be. I am an Anglo-Israelite, and proud of my blood line, but I have seen people label me a white Supremiest. See I never bash any other Race, yet I still get hit with this title.

I mean I can be proud to be an Asian, proud to be Black, yet when I am proud to be "White" I get labled a Racist...what a load of crap

Any supremacist group is *sick.* However maybe we should let the white supremacists battle the Islamic extremists - both sides will destroy the other and good riddance to them both.

::White Supremacist "Smiley":: :mp5:
::Islamic Extremist "Smiley":: :mp5:



300,000 Right-wing whites in militia groups alone. Then probably 100,000 more in various white power groups.


The muslims are in the hundreds of thousands at least.

And we all hate Israel, the Jews, the Western ZOG governments, so we're far more likely to become allies than enemies. We share many goals.

300,000 Right-wing whites in militia groups alone. Then probably 100,000 more in various white power groups.


The muslims are in the hundreds of thousands at least.

And we all hate Israel, the Jews, the Western ZOG governments, so we're far more likely to become allies than enemies. We share many goals.

Maybe you guys should stop calling them "sand niggers" then

Black racists are dozens of times more violent and dangerous than White ones ... when was the last time a KKK member lynched somebody?

I think that the ignorance that spaws these groups is far worse than the groups themselves. seriously, if you look at their arguments, they make no sense. a lot of them attempt to pass themselves off as Christian, but there are two problems with that. 1> CHrist taught love, not hatred, especially racial hatred (aka samaritains). 2> Jesus himself was a Jew! so how can someone who is christian hate the jews? :headbang:

People need someone to blame because no one wants to take responsability for thier own actions anymore. if they lost thier job, its never because they are lazy or not qualified, its becuase some Jew or "negro" or catholic stole it from them.

I am what a lot of people would classify of being of the "Arayan race" (ie blue eyes, blond hair, six foot tall, strong germainic descent) and I can tell you that biologically, we are far from the perfect race. lets see, most of those defining traits are resessive, a WASP is more likely to get cancer and a host of other diseases than someone with a higher melonin count. so even that point of thier logic does not make sense.

People are right, we cannot do anything legally to them until they break the law, but we can try to educate people that there are no Races sans the Human Race. if we were different races, we would not be able to reproduce together, nor would we function on the same levels as one another.




You're not taking my kids into a public school "Brainwashing center".

I've found most white power people that are professional about it, the respectable David Duke types, are some of the most educated and knowledgeable people you'll ever meet. But you go ahead and write us all off as ignorant rednecks who don't know how the world is. There are some idiots who go on Jerry Springer, but most of them are just that, idiots. They are not representatives of the white movement by any means!

No, we just have our own conclusions on how the world is, we form our own opinions, you just don't like them, so you call us ignorant.




By the way, the race war is coming, says an ex-military analyst and veteran of 3 wars (Vietnam, Rhodesia, Croatia)


http://www.ameaglepubs.com/store/civwar2.html

Black racists are dozens of times more violent and dangerous than White ones ... when was the last time a KKK member lynched somebody?


The last real lynchings (large bodies of people 10+ in a public area) stopped in the 1930s-1940s.

There was the murder and then hanging of the body of the black teenager in 1980s in Mobile, Alabama, because a black man (who was guilty!) got away with killing a white deputy sheriff, so two young klansmen who didn't understand the klan isn't about violence and lynching, took it upon themselves to lynch a black man to show that, "If blacks can kill whites, we should be able to kill blacks".

.

Also in York PA a few years ago, the ARA started a riot.



I live in York, PA, that is the event I referred to in my earlier post. There was no riot, only a couple skinheads and three or four anti-racism protesters got arrested for creating a disturbance but there were actually only a couple minor incidents of violence.

I don't think that's true. I think their ideology is wrong and reprehensible, but I believe the majority of white power activists hold it sincerly. I don't think you can write it off as purely attention seeking.
Meh, they're all just white suburban kids who need to hold a grudge against somebody. If the news and other such groups would ignore them, they would just be a bunch of misguided souls living in small clicks(I can't remember how the word is spelled, but thats how it is pronounced).

What do you base that assertion on and what alternative tactic do you believe would be effective? Remember that a slogan used by many of the neo-nazis is "let them hate as long as they fear". While you may disagree with it on moral pacifist grounds (as is your right) I would have to take issue with the claim that it is always ineffective as a tactic. It's not always appropriate-
<Facts about the British dealing with similar nutjobs>
While you may disagree with the tactics used, does that sound ineffective to you? But surely if a fascist group is pursuing a tactic of trying to control the streets then "leaving them" also means that you have given the streets over to them?
I have never been afflicted with pacifism, and I almost resent the idea that you think I might, at any moment, be sitting out naked in a field singing about peace.
Anyways, I never suggested leaving them to rule the streets (which, by the by, I don't think they could ever even hope to manage). I said that attacking them is a bad plan because it justifies their crap about racial superiority (look at the savage animals attacking the poor racists) and gives them martyrs (The British in Ireland know what happens when you do that).
Further, if they are attacked by a large people then they are allowed to defend themselves with lethal force. Even should you win, they will retaliate later. Militant hate groups don't submit without extreme violence, and as of the moment, "White Power" groups are not militant.
I don't want a race war to start because I rather like going to Burger King without the fear that someone with funny ideas is going to come in with a shotgun. Just ask the Israelis, wars based on racial lines don't end when it's convenient, and such a war wouldn't be between the Black Panthers and the KKK. It would be between the KKK and everyone who isn't white and the Black Panthers and everyone who is white.

We are all different races of the same species. You don't get it do you?

The same species can mate with the same species. But we are all sub-species of the Homo sapien!


http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6799646&postcount=228
contains the following gem:

Whites are the only true "human", we evolved from Homo erectus and Homo habilis into Homo sapiens. Making us "Humans"

The other races are a descended from the Australopithecine.

Am I the only one here that sees a slight problem with simultaneously holding both of Decisive Action's posts as true?

You mean just like they used to register communists, until it was ruled discriminatory? So treat us like 3rd class citizens while muslim immigrants who want to crash planes into buildings are allowed into the nation unchecked.




If they started trying to register white power types, I'd take it as a declaration of open war, and respond accordingly.



Yes.

Absolutely.

Becuase you are no different than any of the terrorists that flew those planes into those buildings, with the intent to destroy the country we live in.
A country where Americans of all color have shed thier blood, and given thier lives to give you the freedom to openly speak about your hate and bigotry.

Whats the difference between Timothy McVeigh, and Muhammad Ata?
NOT A DAMN THING.

Both murdering pigs.
Anyone who would kill innocents to promote your narrow minded view of the world are nothing but swine, who should be eliminated.

Groups like Aryan Nations who support these radical terrorist groups, are no better than Al-Qeada, or Hammas, or Islamic Jyhad.

In fact, I would say that Organizations who support "RaHoWa" are WORSE than Al-Qeada, becuase they are traitors to thier own country.

The rest of us are living in relative peace, if thats not good enough for you, thats too bad.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6799646&postcount=228
contains the following gem:



Am I the only one here that sees a slight problem with simultaneously holding both of Decisive Action's posts as true?

Maybe he isn't so decisive afterall.

I wouldn't say they are harmless as I recall a group of them shot at and attacked a black family a few years back here in my state of Idaho up north in the mountain regions, sad but yes many hold such views without being violent or even verbal with them and that I am fine with, even the verbal I may not like it but they are welcome to speak freely however I will never support violence of this kind

when was the last time a KKK member lynched somebody?

the klan is one of the least worrying racist groups these days. neo-nazis of varying stripes are responsible for at least 50 murders in the past few years in the united states alone, along with numerous other crimes. perhaps you don't remember the cases of benjamin smith and bufford furrow from back in 1999?

These people only do things because people pay attention to them. Sure, some members of "white power" probably would be ass-hats even without outside influences, but most are merely there to get attention. If you ignore them they'll have to do something else to get on the news.
I agree with your viewpoint that some of them are there merely for the attention. Some people try suicide and others shave their heads. If they are after the attention and simple rhetoric doesn't get them any, won't they then resort to other more provoking stuff, violence etc.?

Anyway, on a lighter note, I think we need more organisations where people could shoot guns, but that are good, clean and wholesome. Like "Boy-Scouts with Guns". I thoroughly enjoyed shooting with an assault-rifle in the Finnish army, and I wouldn't mind doing it every once in a while. I don't know if its hormones or what. I'm not American, though I have lived there for a while, so I don't know the deal on all the militias or whatever, but I suspect that some of the people in them just like shooting guns. The Armed Boy-Scouts would offer them a real alternative, where you'd still learn skills that could come in handy if the United Nations try a coup.

Maybe the US just needs a proper enemy so they wouldn't have to make up imaginary ones like the New World Order or the United Nations. In Finland most members of "patriotic" groups are convinced that Russia attacking Finland is just around the corner, so they hone their skills against that threat.

Maybe the US just needs a proper enemy so they wouldn't have to make up imaginary ones like the New World Order or the United Nations. In Finland most members of "patriotic" groups are convinced that Russia attacking Finland is just around the corner, so they hone their skills against that threat.

Sorry for going off topic, but does it bother you that Russia still controls the territory that the USSR took off Finland in the Winter War? I mean Russia practically owns nothing other than 'Russian' territory now, except the Vipurii (sp?) area and Petsamo (The bit that gives them a border with Norway)

Belarus, the Baltics, Ukraine, Caucasus - they all gained their land of national majority back and in some cases more, but Finland is still a lot smaller than it should be. Maybe it should be brought before the UN like the case for control of that island in the Baltic.

Sorry for going off topic, but does it bother you that Russia still controls the territory that the USSR took off Finland in the Winter War? I mean Russia practically owns nothing other than 'Russian' territory now, except the Vipurii (sp?) area and Petsamo (The bit that gives them a border with Norway)

Belarus, the Baltics, Ukraine, Caucasus - they all gained their land of national majority back and in some cases more, but Finland is still a lot smaller than it should be. Maybe it should be brought before the UN like the case for control of that island in the Baltic.
It bothers a lot of people here, but I'm not too concerned. I admit that I like the idea of Finland being a bit bigger, but look what happened to West Germany with East Germany, and the former parts of Finland are in a shitty state and its Russians who live there now. All the Finns were relocated after the war to other parts of Finland. Maybe if we had been a part of USSR after the war, the map would look different now, but so would the view from the window. Besides, for example Poland isn't quite on the same spot that it was before WW2 started either. You can argue almost anything with history (look at Israel and Palestine). Russia wouldn't care whatever the UN decided.

I dcidn't say it was okay to attack them, I just don't think the city should be forced to give them free bodyguard service, and special protection that nobody else gets. Why is it that Klan rallies are constitutionally protected but anti-abortion protests are not? Is the government trying to tell us they'd rather we be racists than anti-abortionists?

Because idiots seem to think its "cool" to use violence against certain groups. That is why they request protection of their right to associate and to protect their freedom of speech. Blame the voilent morons who attack them rather than the people seeking protection.

Take WTO meetings. The one we had here in Melbourne a few years ago brought out the loony element who seemed feel they had the right to deface buildings, vandalise cars and assault civilians trying to go to work. Should we blame these victims for the protection they needed over the remaining days of the meeting? Or should we blame the violent idiots who perpetrated the violence that then required the use of security?

....but If a group of Muslim extremists wanted to hold a meeting in the Public Library to talk about their Holy War how far do you think they'd get.


Happens all the time in mosques around the world. A particular mosque in London was a recruiting base for Al Qaeda and a mosque in Sydney has also come under scrutiny for pro-terrorism preaching. In fact, there was a thread on this forum showing a pro-terrorist "rap video" that was played at a mosque in the UK.

Yes.

Absolutely.

Becuase you are no different than any of the terrorists that flew those planes into those buildings, with the intent to destroy the country we live in.
A country where Americans of all color have shed thier blood, and given thier lives to give you the freedom to openly speak about your hate and bigotry.

Whats the difference between Timothy McVeigh, and Muhammad Ata?
NOT A DAMN THING.

Both murdering pigs.
Anyone who would kill innocents to promote your narrow minded view of the world are nothing but swine, who should be eliminated.

Groups like Aryan Nations who support these radical terrorist groups, are no better than Al-Qeada, or Hammas, or Islamic Jyhad.

In fact, I would say that Organizations who support "RaHoWa" are WORSE than Al-Qeada, becuase they are traitors to thier own country.

The rest of us are living in relative peace, if thats not good enough for you, thats too bad.


So your world would be a police state where everyone had to register their political, ideological and religious beliefs? Should we all wear armbands depicting what group we belong to like...ummmmm...Nazi Germany?

Yes, a small group of people who believe their race is superior is far more dangerous than a well armed terrorist network.

Yes, a small group of people who believe their race is superior is far more dangerous than a well armed terrorist network.

Wrong, a large group of people that are well armed and who believe their race is superior is dangerous, a small unarmed group is just a headache.

A well armed terrorist group is very dangerous and Id say follows the same ideology of being superior to other races as well.

The only difference really between Al Queda and the Aryan resistance is the racial type.

Wrong, a large group of people that are well armed and who believe their race is superior is dangerous, a small unarmed group is just a headache.

A well armed terrorist group is very dangerous and Id say follows the same ideology of being superior to other races as well.

The only difference really between Al Queda and the Aryan resistance is the racial type.

Yes, Aryans have been terrifyingly efficient of late at...what have they done lately?
To say thay Aryan groups are as dangerous as Al Qaeda is not true. To say they may have the potential to reach the same level as Al Qaeda is more feasible but still unlikely. We all love our freedom of speech, the thing is, it is not free speech unless you can say whatever you like. If you start saying that free speech is OK, provided you say what we agree with, then you no longer have free speech.
Pre-emptive actions against groups such as "white supremecists", "black supremecists" etc etc would achieve what? Unlawful arrests based on a presumption they were to commit a crime would achieve what?
Al Qaeda has committed crimes, thats why they are being attacked. Hitler committed crimes and he was attacked and his regime destroyed.

When we start calling for thought police, thats when things just go down the toilet. :(

Yeah Australias run by thought police these days, you cant even make a a harmless joke without being called a racist/homophobic/bigot or some other PC labels that are around everywhere, you could even possibly face a prison sentence.
Everyone looks miserable now too.

Unlawful arrests based on a presumption they were to commit a crime would achieve what?
Al Qaeda has committed crimes, thats why they are being attacked. Hitler committed crimes and he was attacked and his regime destroyed.

When we start calling for thought police, thats when things just go down the toilet. :(

I guess everyone has to agree to that. There are still laws having to do with membership in a group. Committing a crime as a member or a "criminal organisation" is a cause for hardened sentences at least here in Finland. When is an organisation "criminal"?

I bet every country has made attempted crimes illegal, and for a good reason too. This again brings out the difficult queastion of when some action becomes "attempted crime"?

Can't finish with a point to all this, cause I have to go. Sorry.

Although I do believe that all people should have the right to protest and free speech, some of these groups are way out of hand. When I refer to "these groups" I am not only speaking about white power groups but also black power or any group of people who band together for the sake of saying that one person is better than another. Although i relize that hatred towards others who are not like you will continue forever, probably because of the human ego, when people ban together things are more likely to happen (this is also a fact of life). Wether these acts are negative/violent just the sense of knowing these people are out there is horrifying and can change a persons life. I know it changed mine

All we want is to be left alone in our own nation that was built by our forefathers and that and grandfathers and fathers fought and bleed for. Prior to 1960s, the USA was 90% white, ever since the Immigration Reform Act of 1965, we've been getting darker and darker, to the tune that now we are only about 65% white. That is no coincidence, it is a calculated campaign to break the back of the white working class for the New World Order to become a reality.No, you don't. Your racial comrade has already given that away on another thread. You want to execute any non whites and Jews who won't leave the US remember. And don't give me that 'white working class' crap either. Not only are hardly any of the leaders of the White Power movement working class, the history of fascist groups shows us that the first thing they do on coming to power is crush all independant working class associations. You are an anti working class movement, and you are always most at danger from militant working class anti fascists.


And by the way, the word is RAHOWA (RAcial HOly WAr)Pff. Your 'peaceful white folk' stance didn't last long.

As for your vigilante ideas, you people are pathethic, most of you have no militia training, connections, advanced equipment for weaponry. We've got the serious hardware. I'm going to keep to myself and keep out of trouble, anybody comes looking for trouble, I'll give them more than they can handle.Bluster. To hide the fact the white power movement has shown itself incapable of stewarding it's activities competently. And the Second Amendment doesen't just apply to the US Right.


And I know ARA and the other anarchists, they go looking for trouble.


http://redskins.fightcapitalism.net/pics/bashedfash.html

They always have problems, and the problems are started by ARA.

In the 1980s, a klan tried to rally in Washington DC. The police asked them to cancel because it was too dicey for a rally. They did so. The black mob blamed "The raysist po-leaz" for keeping the klan away so the blacks couldn't yell at them, so the police got pelted with bricks and bottles, and a small group looted a few dozen stores nearby.
So much for handling any trouble that comes your way. And at least they don't run crying to the "ZOG police" whenever they're met with working class opposition. The 'master race' really are a bunch of cowards.
We can have a repeat of Greensboro North Carolina!The one started by notorious FBI asset Harold Covington you mean. Do you like the FBI, Decisive Action? Do you hand over information to them?We don't need groups, it's called "Leaderless Resistance". Are you familar with the concept of "pseudo-gangs"? Nothing is easier to infiltrate for the state. Just set up your own group and away you go. See Combat 18 and the involvement of Andreas Strassmier in Oklahoma. Two objectively pro FBI posts in the same thread. Hmm. Are you sure you're a genuine far right activist?

Meh, they're all just white suburban kids who need to hold a grudge against somebody. If the news and other such groups would ignore them, they would just be a bunch of misguided souls living in small clicks(I can't remember how the word is spelled, but thats how it is pronounced).While that's true in some cases I think it's an overgeneralisation. Some leaders of the white power movement are highly educated university graduates. It's important not to underestimate your enemy.

I have never been afflicted with pacifism, and I almost resent the idea that you think I might, at any moment, be sitting out naked in a field singing about peace. I said pacifist (as in ideologically opposed to violence). I didn't insinuate you were a hippy. ;)
Anyways, I never suggested leaving them to rule the streets (which, by the by, I don't think they could ever even hope to manage). Ever? The example of Hitler would seem to condtradict that. I think that anti fascists leaving them to their own devices could lead to precisely that, at least on a local level.I said that attacking them is a bad plan because it justifies their crap about racial superiority (look at the savage animals attacking the poor racists) and gives them martyrs (The British in Ireland know what happens when you do that).
Further, if they are attacked by a large people then they are allowed to defend themselves with lethal force. Even should you win, they will retaliate later. Militant hate groups don't submit without extreme violence, and as of the moment, "White Power" groups are not militant.
I don't want a race war to start because I rather like going to Burger King without the fear that someone with funny ideas is going to come in with a shotgun. Just ask the Israelis, wars based on racial lines don't end when it's convenient, and such a war wouldn't be between the Black Panthers and the KKK. It would be between the KKK and everyone who isn't white and the Black Panthers and everyone who is white.I think that your reply is based on a misconception of what I believe. I'm certainly not talking about a race war, I don't believe it exists outside the fevered imaginations of the far right. Indeed I'd argue that for an anti fascist movement to be effective it has to have a high number of white working class people involved- as that is precisely the people that the fash try to recruit for their cannon fodder. As I said before, I don't believe it's always the best tactic. But there are times when I think physically disrupting the activities of the far right is the best way to stop them growing.

Because idiots seem to think its "cool" to use violence against certain groups. That is why they request protection of their right to associate and to protect their freedom of speech. Blame the voilent morons who attack them rather than the people seeking protection.Can you provide some evidence for the assertion that anyone that believes violence is sometimes a needed tactic against the far right is of subnormal intelligence and is doing it to be cool. Did you see the quote from Hitler I posted earlier? Out of interest, am I right in thinking you supported the Gulf War as necessary violence to get rid of an evil?


Yes, Aryans have been terrifyingly efficient of late at...what have they done lately?
To say thay Aryan groups are as dangerous as Al Qaeda is not true. To say they may have the potential to reach the same level as Al Qaeda is more feasible but still unlikely. We all love our freedom of speech, the thing is, it is not free speech unless you can say whatever you like. If you start saying that free speech is OK, provided you say what we agree with, then you no longer have free speech.You seem to be of the viewpoint that we should only oppose fascists when they're powerful enough to cause real damage. Isn't that precisely what lead to the growth of Al Qaeda in the first place? Isn't it better to nip an evil in the bud rather then try and clear up the pieces after?

On free speech. I don't think you can divorce it from free action and to try and do so is liberal posteuring. I believe that the violence that fascists would have the state carry out if they took power means any attack against them is a legitimate act of self defence. With that view, expecting me to hold it and not do anything about it is farcial. It would be an act of utter moral cowardice. For me the only considerations when dealing with fascists are moral ones.

Pre-emptive actions against groups such as "white supremecists", "black supremecists" etc etc would achieve what? Unlawful arrests based on a presumption they were to commit a crime would achieve what?
Al Qaeda has committed crimes, thats why they are being attacked. Hitler committed crimes and he was attacked and his regime destroyed.

When we start calling for thought police, thats when things just go down the toilet. That I agree with. I don't believe in calling for state bans.

While that's true in some cases I think it's an overgeneralisation. Some leaders of the white power movement are highly educated university graduates. It's important not to underestimate your enemy.
Highly educated clicks(still don't know how to spell it) then. The problem, is with the media and others so focused on them, it gives them free advertising. Remember the saying: "There is no such thing as bad publicity" (or something along those lines).
I agree that such groups work like cults, people get in them and it becomes impossible to get out, however, if people would quit focusing on them and their "inherent danger" then less people would join and their youth membership would dwindle. Then, when half of their members live in nursing homes they won't be much of a problem.

I said pacifist (as in ideologically opposed to violence). I didn't insinuate you were a hippy. ;)
Still, you hurt me really bad, but all is forgiven and I can be happy again:)

Ever? The example of Hitler would seem to condtradict that. I think that anti fascists leaving them to their own devices could lead to precisely that, at least on a local level.I think that your reply is based on a misconception of what I believe. I'm certainly not talking about a race war, I don't believe it exists outside the fevered imaginations of the far right. Indeed I'd argue that for an anti fascist movement to be effective it has to have a high number of white working class people involved- as that is precisely the people that the fash try to recruit for their cannon fodder. As I said before, I don't believe it's always the best tactic. But there are times when I think physically disrupting the activities of the far right is the best way to stop them growing.
A race war might seem a bit of a strech and I commend you on your faith in the intelligence of your fellow man, but things happen. You know a man your entire life, and he seems on the level. Then something goes wrong, and your not dealing with the same man anymore. Logic and civility only exist in the concious centers of the human mind, but if you make someone think that their back is to a wall and you see just how blindly and dangerously they can lash out.
The problem is, you can fight the enemy when he is a foriegner, but he is a foriegner and thats just the way it works. When the adults come out, people act mature and the war ends. You start anything bordering on a civil war, and it doesn't just end. The American Civil War, the problems with Ireland, the Israeli-Palestenian conflict, and countless other wars. They don't just end and they don't just stick to soldiers fighting soldiers, civilians get slaughtered and the resentment doesn't just end when the war does.
No one wins a war that occurs within a countries borders. One side just suffers more than the other.

Yeah Australias run by thought police these days, you cant even make a a harmless joke without being called a racist/homophobic/bigot or some other PC labels that are around everywhere, you could even possibly face a prison sentence.
Everyone looks miserable now too.

Yes, in Victoria we have draconian racial vilification legislation which means you could end up in prison if you offend someone..even if they overhear you in your own home. Nothing brings people together like legislation designed to divide and cause friction between people of different races and/or beliefs. :(

Can you provide some evidence for the assertion that anyone that believes violence is sometimes a needed tactic against the far right is of subnormal intelligence and is doing it to be cool. Did you see the quote from Hitler I posted earlier? Out of interest, am I right in thinking you supported the Gulf War as necessary violence to get rid of an evil?

If you read my earlier post I said the war on terror in Iraq was a war against terrorists. Terrorists have broken the law, its called deliberately killing civilians. I am sure you can recognise the difference between murder and having a meeting. So, I do support the war in Iraq because the people we are fighting (terrorists and Saddam and his henchmen) committed crimes.
I think the actions of the people I mentioned earlier at the WTO meetings here in Melbourne as well as others around the world supports the fact that the people protesting against these meeting using violence and vandalism are idiots. Act like an idiot and I'll consider you one.
What makes you think you have the right to violently assault someone for going to a meeting, regardless of its topic of discussion? What makes you think you and your views are so righteous that you seem to feel you have the right to assault people for their beliefs. Their beliefs are not illegal, if they break the law then they are dealt with under the law. Not by vigilanties that you seem to advocate.

You seem to be of the viewpoint that we should only oppose fascists when they're powerful enough to cause real damage. Isn't that precisely what lead to the growth of Al Qaeda in the first place? Isn't it better to nip an evil in the bud rather then try and clear up the pieces after?

So only fascists are potentially evil? Again, you seem to think you have some sort of holy ground to stand on. Just because you do not agree with what they believe does not give you the right to assault or intimidate these people. Who decides who is a "potential threat" and when they have become a "potential threat"?

On free speech. I don't think you can divorce it from free action and to try and do so is liberal posteuring. I believe that the violence that fascists would have the state carry out if they took power means any attack against them is a legitimate act of self defence. With that view, expecting me to hold it and not do anything about it is farcial. It would be an act of utter moral cowardice. For me the only considerations when dealing with fascists are moral ones.

Again, a rather self-righteous comment. It is your "moral responsibility" to violently oppose fascism. Anyone who doesn't is a coward. The flaw in this is that fascist groups thrive on the attention, thrive on being the victim. By violently opposing them, you are allowing them to play the victim and it draws more to their cause.

What perplexes me is that you said you agreed that "thought police" were a bad idea yet you seem to be calling for legislation that would more or less enact the thought police.

This is the United States and we can't be banned because we disagree with you. I do love the First Amendment, I just adore it. After all, this is not the EU. I'm free to state in this country that yes, I believe blacks are on average racially inferior, based upon IQ (85 on average in the US, about 80 in Africa). That the only problem with the "holocaust" was that six million was just not enough. That homosexuality is a disease, and that the Taliban, for example, knew how to treat that sickness. That democracy stinks, that the Axis should have won world war 2... etc, etc. And you know what? There's absolutely nothing you can do about it, because of the First Amendment. LOL!!!!!!!!!

I can call you a moron.

If you don't mind arresting someone for not committing a crime, sure.

Financially aiding domestic terrorism is a federal crime.



We can also start arresting anyone who we suspect may commit a crime in the near future, even if they haven't actually done so. We'll also have to monitor people much more closely for any signs that they are a potential criminal, and nip crime in the bud.

No, we cant arrest anyone who hasnt commited a crime, but any organization that HAS supported such crimes, should be dismantled.
Aryan Nations, and The National Front, are such groups.

Arresting someone who hasn't yet committed a crime doesn't work, for a relatively evident reason. Forcing members of a group who haven't committed crimes to disband would face the same problem. You are preemptively judging people, on the basis that they may some day commit a crime.

To me, that's a gross overstepping of boundaries. But that's just me. Now if you want to arrest or punish individual members who have actually committed crimes, more power to you.

Im not saying that just becuase you are a member of such a group, that you are automatically a criminal and should be apprehended.
Im merely saying that if you want to join such extreme organizations that have been known to create and harbor domestic terrorists, taht it may be a good idea to make people register themselves as such.

If you were an Afghani citizen who has been known to be a muslim extremist, you probably would not be allowed into the country.
Why then, would it not make sense to allow people to join extremist hate groups, but merely register with the state, or local government in case you
end up doing something stupid.
After all this is what these groups teach people to do.
They encourage racial violence and hatred.

This is the United States and we can't be banned because we disagree with you. I do love the First Amendment, I just adore it. After all, this is not the EU. I'm free to state in this country that yes, I believe blacks are on average racially inferior, based upon IQ (85 on average in the US, about 80 in Africa). That the only problem with the "holocaust" was that six million was just not enough. That homosexuality is a disease, and that the Taliban, for example, knew how to treat that sickness. That democracy stinks, that the Axis should have won world war 2... etc, etc. And you know what? There's absolutely nothing you can do about it, because of the First Amendment. LOL!!!!!!!!!
Well poverty and lack of schooling usually results in a low IQ. You seem to be on the side of the guys who believe that the holocaust never happened. Shows what i know. The Taliban? You said blacks were inferior so i can't comment. Have you experienced it yet?
And we can't do anything about it.

Of course you can. And I can call you a moron too. Touche!!!

OMG!

You're right, the first amendment rocks out.

Go see American History X. There's some stuff in that movie that should help you realize what people have done to your thought process.

If you don't mind arresting someone for not committing a crime, sure. We can also start arresting anyone who we suspect may commit a crime in the near future, even if they haven't actually done so. We'll also have to monitor people much more closely for any signs that they are a potential criminal, and nip crime in the bud.

Arresting someone who hasn't yet committed a crime doesn't work, for a relatively evident reason. Forcing members of a group who haven't committed crimes to disband would face the same problem. You are preemptively judging people, on the basis that they may some day commit a crime.

To me, that's a gross overstepping of boundaries. But that's just me. Now if you want to arrest or punish individual members who have actually committed crimes, more power to you.

But they are guilty. If the sponsor, ie offer money or tech assistance they are helping the crime.
If the leader of the group turns a blind eye, he's committing the crime as he could have prevented it.
Any group that makes violence to some group part of its ethos should be closely monitored. Hell in my opinion riot police should be used if one of these bastards sneeze in an incriminating way

Financially aiding domestic terrorism is a federal crime.

You arrest the individual, not the group. If a priest funded a terrorist group, you can't shut down their entire religion. You can only punish those directly involved. You'd have to prove that everyone in the group knowingly and willingly supported the funding of domestic terrorism, which isn't going to be possible.

No, we cant arrest anyone who hasnt commited a crime, but any organization that HAS supported such crimes, should be dismantled. Aryan Nations, and The National Front, are such groups.

That would be opinion, and I'll respect your right to hold it.

Im not saying that just becuase you are a member of such a group, that you are automatically a criminal and should be apprehended.
Im merely saying that if you want to join such extreme organizations that have been known to create and harbor domestic terrorists, taht it may be a good idea to make people register themselves as such.

If you were an Afghani citizen who has been known to be a muslim extremist, you probably would not be allowed into the country.
Why then, would it not make sense to allow people to join extremist hate groups, but merely register with the state, or local government in case you
end up doing something stupid.
After all this is what these groups teach people to do.
They encourage racial violence and hatred.

I'm sorry, but I actually agree with the white supremacist on this one; registering people on their beliefs can't cause anything but trouble. I wouldn't support the forcing of any belief system to register themselves to the government. Regardless of what beliefs we hold, we are all just humans, and until they break the law, singling a group of people out is questionable at best.

But they are guilty. If the sponsor, ie offer money or tech assistance they are helping the crime.
If the leader of the group turns a blind eye, he's committing the crime as he could have prevented it.
Any group that makes violence to some group part of its ethos should be closely monitored. Hell in my opinion riot police should be used if one of these bastards sneeze in an incriminating way

Well, it's good to know you aren't biased. :rolleyes:

You are assuming that all KKK members have directly supported or committed criminal action. It doesn't matter if you are in a group of 5000 criminals, if you haven't committed a crime, you're innocent.

You punish the individual, not the group.

Any group that makes violence to some group part of its ethos should be closely monitored. Hell in my opinion riot police should be used if one of these bastards sneeze in an incriminating way

I assume then that this opinion is also inclusive of The Holy Word's anti-fascist vigilante groups? Afterall, The Holy Word advocated violence against fascist groups, therefore making violence a part of their ethos.

If you read my earlier post I said the war on terror in Iraq was a war against terrorists. Terrorists have broken the law, its called deliberately killing civilians. I am sure you can recognise the difference between murder and having a meeting. So, I do support the war in Iraq because the people we are fighting (terrorists and Saddam and his henchmen) committed crimes.Leaving the question of the legality of the war in Iraq to one side (as it's been discussed ad nauseaum on other threads), do you recognise that the morality of an action and the legality of it are two entirely different things? Otherwise you'd have to argue that slavery was moral when it was legal. On your other point, the people the anti fascist movement is fighting are representatives of an ideology of violence. What do you think the fascists would have the police and army do if they got into power? So I don't think your stance on Iraq and mine on fascism are as far apart as you are claiming. (Apart from the fact that the tactics I am advocating are far less dangerous for non-combatants).
I think the actions of the people I mentioned earlier at the WTO meetings here in Melbourne as well as others around the world supports the fact that the people protesting against these meeting using violence and vandalism are idiots. Act like an idiot and I'll consider you one.So any non state organisation using violence and vandalism are idiots in your opinion? http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/suffragettes.htm for example.
What makes you think you have the right to violently assault someone for going to a meeting, regardless of its topic of discussion? What makes you think you and your views are so righteous that you seem to feel you have the right to assault people for their beliefs. Their beliefs are not illegal, if they break the law then they are dealt with under the law. Not by vigilanties that you seem to advocate.The same thing that gives you the right to support the loss of civilian life in Iraq as a 'necessary evil'. Opinions are by their nation subjective.


So only fascists are potentially evil? Again, you seem to think you have some sort of holy ground to stand on. Just because you do not agree with what they believe does not give you the right to assault or intimidate these people. Who decides who is a "potential threat" and when they have become a "potential threat"? What gives you the right to make those moral decisons? See above.


Again, a rather self-righteous comment. It is your "moral responsibility" to violently oppose fascism. Anyone who doesn't is a coward. You've misunderstood me. It is my moral responsibility to do that because I believe it is the right tactic. It is the moral responsibility of someone who believes fascism should be fought by political lobbying to do that. You do not have a moral responsibility to fight fascism because you do not believe it is currently a threat. The only people I am calling cowards are those who ignore the Shakespearean "to thyself be true". So I am saying people should do what they feel is right. You are saying they should obey your wishes. Which sounds more "self-righteous" to you?The flaw in this is that fascist groups thrive on the attention, thrive on being the victim. By violently opposing them, you are allowing them to play the victim and it draws more to their cause.What's your evidence for that? I'd remind you that I have backed up my viewpoint with quotes from the far-right. Please do the same.

What perplexes me is that you said you agreed that "thought police" were a bad idea yet you seem to be calling for legislation that would more or less enact the thought police.Nope. I am against calling for state bans or legislation- period.

I assume then that this opinion is also inclusive of The Holy Word's anti-fascist vigilante groups? Afterall, The Holy Word advocated violence against fascist groups, therefore making violence a part of their ethos.LOL. You don't seriously think a group following this kind of tactic wasn't (past tense. The BNP changed tactic away from the battle for control of the streets so we're now defunct and have changed our tactics accordingly) under intense state attention do you? And by your argument, you advocate violence against terrorists so violence is also part of your ethos.

This is the United States and we can't be banned because we disagree with you. I do love the First Amendment, I just adore it. After all, this is not the EU. I'm free to state in this country that yes, I believe blacks are on average racially inferior, based upon IQ (85 on average in the US, about 80 in Africa). That the only problem with the "holocaust" was that six million was just not enough. That homosexuality is a disease, and that the Taliban, for example, knew how to treat that sickness. That democracy stinks, that the Axis should have won world war 2... etc, etc. And you know what? There's absolutely nothing you can do about it, because of the First Amendment. LOL!!!!!!!!!
That same constitution unfortunately guarantees that you can say it, but you can't do anything about it. You can say that homosexuality is a disease, but they are still going to get married. Don't that just suck.

P.S. I often wish the Axis would've won WW2, cause Finland was part of the Axis

*Bump*

You arrest the individual, not the group. If a priest funded a terrorist group, you can't shut down their entire religion. You can only punish those directly involved. You'd have to prove that everyone in the group knowingly and willingly supported the funding of domestic terrorism, which isn't going to be possible.



That would be opinion, and I'll respect your right to hold it.



I'm sorry, but I actually agree with the white supremacist on this one; registering people on their beliefs can't cause anything but trouble. I wouldn't support the forcing of any belief system to register themselves to the government. Regardless of what beliefs we hold, we are all just humans, and until they break the law, singling a group of people out is questionable at best.

Why is that so bad?

How many registered Republicans, or Democrats do you know?

I dont see a difference.

I am 100% supportive of these groups.
Fight on.

White power is here to stay, it won't go away... And the harder you try to fight us, the more non-racially aware whites, you'll be stirring up.

"On the collective level, millions of males have suffered brutal deaths in battles fought to preserve differences; all those who had been left to perish at the scene of some bloody battle, after receiving a sword in the stomach or a grievous wound with a blunter weapon. After such costs have been incurred by his forebears the sight of one of the females of his tribe making herself available to a male of a strange and different one is an affront. "

I hope I won't incur someones wrath for posting this. The above was taken from a previous thread that was obviously deleted. It was from an article in Spearhead magazine. I just went to the Spearhead site and it was hilarious. So much ignorance in one place. In the above mentioned article one guy was referring to "research" he had made by sitting in the lobby of a supermarket with pen and paper.

What are your opinions on these groups? Should they be banned or is it okay to allow police to handle them by the same rules as any other assault if they resort to violence?
I would like to respond just to your original post.
I have read no other posts so as not to cloud my opinion.
I support ethnic pride, to a great extreme.
I denounce the concept of a superior ethnicity over another, it is foolishness.
As an American Libertarian I would fight for the right for these groups to exist, as the ACLU aided a few of these groups in law suits in the 60s and 70s-not because of support of their beliefs but rather in support of the belief that everyone has the right to voice their opinion no matter how much someone else doesnt like it.
As far as the matter of HAte-Crime legislation goes, it is in a word-Absurd.
If I beat a man down who is a different ethnicity then me, it could in theory be called a hate crime.
Now if I deliver the same beating to someone of my own ethnicity is it any less hateful? No.
MUrder is murder, assault is assault so forth and so on.
Be proud of who you are, however if your pride requires you to belittle another, then you demonstrate your true inferiority.

White power is here to stay

So are the rest of us. Get used to it.

White power is here to stay, it won't go away... And the harder you try to fight us, the more non-racially aware whites, you'll be stirring up.
...to lynch the racist morons.

White power groups SUCK!!!!

Black power groups SUCK!!!!

Racism sucks!!!!

(KKK) :eek: :sniper: (me)

(Black Panthers) :eek: :sniper: (me)

White power is here to stay, it won't go away... And the harder you try to fight us, the more non-racially aware whites, you'll be stirring up.

Or we could just continue to debunk you like we've BEEN doing. That works, you know.


And it's great you're here to stay. But we are too. The harder you try to fight us, the more non-racially aware people of all races (yes, even those honkeys) will be stirred up to see your idiocy to join us against you.



Oh, and I'm white, so don't even try the racist card :p

Or we could just continue to debunk you like we've BEEN doing. That works, you know.


And it's great you're here to stay. But we are too. The harder you try to fight us, the more non-racially aware people of all races (yes, even those honkeys) will be stirred up to see your idiocy to join us against you.



Oh, and I'm white, so don't even try the racist card :p


You're a "White self-hater". Your confusion and self-hatred of yourself has manifested outwards in the form of rejection of your race and of self-racial hatred. It is all too common these days.

Communist Mississippi
This message is hidden because Communist Mississippi is on your ignore list.


Everyone join in!

You're a "White self-hater". Your confusion and self-hatred of yourself has manifested outwards in the form of rejection of your race and of self-racial hatred. It is all too common these days.

Actually, no. I have nothing against white people. I just like the reaction I get when I say things like "honkey." I normally don't say it, unless a) on the internet and making a joke, or b) with friends, and making a joke.

Furthermore, I have no confusion towards myself. Nor do I have any self-hatred. And I most certainly do not reject my race.



Out of curiosity, where'd you pick up on all these things that are not true? :p

Furthermore, I have no confusion towards myself. Nor do I have any self-hatred. And I most certainly do not reject my race.

Oh, but you do. You see, it's a form of insanity. You're always the last to realise it yourself... And then it's too late, because there are no white jobs or women to go around for white men, the president is a black-latino-jew and the United States military is controlled by the United Nations.

Hopefully our staunch defenders of democracy (ok, not that), but all the other things that are good and true won't let this happen. They're gonna take the fight to the streets! One of their friends even has a TOW launcher.

Anyway, who really believes that members in far-right groups aren't already on some list. They know who you are and where you live.

Turner Diaries is a playbook for these groups. These groups must be stopped and their members publicly flogged (they want it done to others so why not do it to them)

They know who you are and where you live.

Good, when the ATF comes to get me. Tell them I have the alcohol and the firearms, they bring the tobacco. The federal marshals and FBI can bring the chips and dip, we'll have a blast. :D

Hopefully our staunch defenders of democracy (ok, not that), but all the other things that are good and true won't let this happen. They're gonna take the fight to the streets! One of their friends even has a TOW launcher.



You don't know the sort of stuff these folks have, or the sort of people these are. Ex-rangers, ex-marines, ex-army, current police, etc. They're well organized, they have Stingers, TOWs, RPGs, automatic weapons, mortars, hell some of them even have had chemical weapons.

You don't know the sort of stuff these folks have, or the sort of people these are. Ex-rangers, ex-marines, ex-army, current police, etc. They're well organized, they have Stingers, TOWs, RPGs, automatic weapons, mortars, hell some of them even have had chemical weapons.

And yet, if he's good enough, all it'll take is one vigilante sniper...

j/k ;)

You know what would rock? Well, has anyone here seen the movie Boondock Saints? Seeing them go after these guys. Oh man.

You don't know the sort of stuff these folks have, or the sort of people these are. Ex-rangers, ex-marines, ex-army, current police, etc. They're well organized, they have Stingers, TOWs, RPGs, automatic weapons, mortars, hell some of them even have had chemical weapons.
If it came to civil war, I doubt that the US would be very much different from other civilized societies. That sort of thing works against an invading army, but their neighbors will just point them out. Someone will of course point out someone just for being annoying, but that's just collateral damage.

You want to know why these groups are dangerous?

Beucase theyre stupid, and that makes them do stupid things.
These groups cant even agree amongst themselves, let alone fight a war together.
Aryan Nations, for example has splintered off into factions, that currently hate each other.
All these guys are going to do is grab some weapons, and murder some innocent people, and then get wiped out like the dogs they are.

But its those few people they will take with them that will have to pay for thier ignorance, cowardice, and stupidity.

There will be no "racial holy war", at best there will be pockets of an uprising where these groups are more concentrated, and then local authorities will kill them as they resist, and attempt to commit acts of domestic terrorism.

Thier own stupidity will be their undoing.

http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/Aryan_nations_break_up.asp

You want to know why these groups are dangerous?

Beucase theyre stupid, and that makes them do stupid things.
These groups cant even agree amongst themselves, let alone fight a war together.
Aryan Nations, for example has splintered off into factions, that currently hate each other.
All these guys are going to do is grab some weapons, and murder some innocent people, and then get wiped out like the dogs they are.

But its those few people they will take with them that will have to pay for thier ignorance, cowardice, and stupidity.

There will be no "racial holy war", at best there will be pockets of an uprising where these groups are more concentrated, and then local authorities will kill them as they resist, and attempt to commit acts of domestic terrorism.

Thier own stupidity will be their undoing.

http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/Aryan_nations_break_up.asp



It's a very great thing to underestimate your enemy.

And oh, by the way boy, your wonderful spelling amazes and impresses me. (Sarcasm)

It's a very great thing to underestimate your enemy.

And oh, by the way boy, your wonderful spelling amazes and impresses me. (Sarcasm)


and those groups inability to stay remotely unified, since the 1940's amazes, and yet reassures me.

Hell, you people cant even get make one rational person believe your hatred and filth, unless you can completely brain-wash the weak and abused ones.
In wich case you repeat your endless rhetoric again and again, until they can recite it for themselves and begin to believe it.

Or am I just a "self-hating white boy, who has no respect for his "Aryan Blood" ?

Leaving the question of the legality of the war in Iraq to one side (as it's been discussed ad nauseaum on other threads), do you recognise that the morality of an action and the legality of it are two entirely different things?

Of course. I am not discussing morality, I am discussing legality. That is, you do not have the right to violently attack people because of their beliefs. You do not have the right to violently attack people because of what you think they might do. That is the law.

Otherwise you'd have to argue that slavery was moral when it was legal. On your other point, the people the anti fascist movement is fighting are representatives of an ideology of violence. What do you think the fascists would have the police and army do if they got into power? So I don't think your stance on Iraq and mine on fascism are as far apart as you are claiming. (Apart from the fact that the tactics I am advocating are far less dangerous for non-combatants).

You assume incorrectly that I believe the far-right are moral. I have never said they are moral, I have said that you do not have the right to use violence against people of different beliefs. The difference between you violently attacking people attending a meeting and the coalition forces attacking Saddam's regime in Iraq is that Saddam committed crimes against his people over 30 years, he assisted terrorists in Israel by way of compensation to families of Palestinian suicide bombers. That is, the difference that is glaring is that Saddam committed a crime, people attending a meeting are not committing a crime. For you to assume that they might commit a crime someday does not give you the right to take the law into your own hands and assault these people.

So any non state organisation using violence and vandalism are idiots in your opinion? http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/suffragettes.htm for example.
The same thing that gives you the right to support the loss of civilian life in Iraq as a 'necessary evil'. Opinions are by their nation subjective.

No, the organisations are not idiots. The people who take their protest too far by using violence and vandalism are the idiots.

What gives you the right to make those moral decisons? See above.

I am not making any moral decisions. I am merely pointing out that no-one has the right to use violence against another person because they do not agree with their beliefs. This goes for any group, not just yours. We have laws that everyone must abide by, yourself included.

You've misunderstood me. It is my moral responsibility to do that because I believe it is the right tactic. It is the moral responsibility of someone who believes fascism should be fought by political lobbying to do that. You do not have a moral responsibility to fight fascism because you do not believe it is currently a threat. The only people I am calling cowards are those who ignore the Shakespearean "to thyself be true". So I am saying people should do what they feel is right. You are saying they should obey your wishes. Which sounds more "self-righteous" to you?What's your evidence for that? I'd remind you that I have backed up my viewpoint with quotes from the far-right. Please do the same.

No, I am saying they should obey the law. I am unaware of a law that allows for vigilantes to assault people with differing beliefs. I am not a lawyer but I am fairly sure it is against the law to vandalise property and assault people for attending a meeting or holding beliefs you disagree with. I guess I could scour the net and post various state and federal laws but I won't waste my time because it is patently obvious.

Nope. I am against calling for state bans or legislation- period.

Then how will you isolate the groups you intend to target? Aren't your actions by their very nature an action akin to "thought police"? Your view that if you hold certain views, in your case far-right views, then you will be open to violence and intimidation. In other words, you think people should not be allowed to think the way they do. And as a consequence, anyone who thinks that way will be beaten into submission.

LOL. You don't seriously think a group following this kind of tactic wasn't (past tense. The BNP changed tactic away from the battle for control of the streets so we're now defunct and have changed our tactics accordingly) under intense state attention do you? And by your argument, you advocate violence against terrorists so violence is also part of your ethos.

You again fail to grasp the difference between people who have committed crimes (terrorists) and people who are attending meetings to discuss certain ideologies. If police want to keep an eye on certain individuals then that is their prerogative but to advocate vigilante violence against people with differing beliefs makes you a criminal and the far-right a victim of your crimes. Because you feel you have the moral high ground does not make you above the law, nor does it entitle you to dispense your own justice.

I personally think the idea of supremist groups is extrememly laugable, myself. I notice that not one of them has been able to convince me of anything, and Im not the strongest minded person out there either. In reality they are just as bad as any religious zealot - a dangeours combination of blind faith, a violent streak, and a disregard for any sort of morality.

I personally think the idea of supremist groups is extrememly laugable, myself. I notice that not one of them has been able to convince me of anything, and Im not the strongest minded person out there either. In reality they are just as bad as any religious zealot - a dangeours combination of blind faith, a violent streak, and a disregard for any sort of morality.

Precisely. Why people are so intent on violently opposing them which, in turn, gives them the "victim" position they seek is beyond me.

Should democracies issue undemocratic measures against parties threatening democracy?
The problem is as old as democracy itself (Athens actually struggled with it; their answer: ban them). Actually there is no way out of these self-referencing vicious circles without serious compromise. The perfect devil's alternative.

Of course. I am not discussing morality, I am discussing legality. That is, you do not have the right to violently attack people because of their beliefs. You do not have the right to violently attack people because of what you think they might do. That is the law.
And I accept that I do not have the legal right to do that.


You assume incorrectly that I believe the far-right are moral. I have never said they are moral, I have said that you do not have the right to use violence against people of different beliefs. The difference between you violently attacking people attending a meeting and the coalition forces attacking Saddam's regime in Iraq is that Saddam committed crimes against his people over 30 years, he assisted terrorists in Israel by way of compensation to families of Palestinian suicide bombers. That is, the difference that is glaring is that Saddam committed a crime, people attending a meeting are not committing a crime. For you to assume that they might commit a crime someday does not give you the right to take the law into your own hands and assault these people.
Again, are you saying I have no legal right to do that (in which case I agree) or no moral right (which is an entirely subjective opinion)?


No, the organisations are not idiots. The people who take their protest too far by using violence and vandalism are the idiots.So the suffragettes were idiots? And if we take that as anyone who breaks the law being an idiot then we can also include Ghandi.


I am not making any moral decisions. I am merely pointing out that no-one has the right to use violence against another person because they do not agree with their beliefs. This goes for any group, not just yours. We have laws that everyone must abide by, yourself included.No-one must abide by the law. It's an individual decision. Everyone must realise that if they choose to participate in illegal activity there may be consequences. Would you never break a law even if you believed it to be immoral?


No, I am saying they should obey the law. I am unaware of a law that allows for vigilantes to assault people with differing beliefs. I am not a lawyer but I am fairly sure it is against the law to vandalise property and assault people for attending a meeting or holding beliefs you disagree with. I guess I could scour the net and post various state and federal laws but I won't waste my time because it is patently obvious.I can't help feeling we're talking at cross-purposes here. It is patently obvious that it's against the law.



Then how will you isolate the groups you intend to target? Aren't your actions by their very nature an action akin to "thought police"? Your view that if you hold certain views, in your case far-right views, then you will be open to violence and intimidation. In other words, you think people should not be allowed to think the way they do. And as a consequence, anyone who thinks that way will be beaten into submission.
Nope. Anyone who trys to organise and control the streets will be countered accordingly. I'd suggest you look at www.redwatch.org to see precisely the kind of groups I'm operating against.


You again fail to grasp the difference between people who have committed crimes (terrorists) and people who are attending meetings to discuss certain ideologies. If police want to keep an eye on certain individuals then that is their prerogative but to advocate vigilante violence against people with differing beliefs makes you a criminal and the far-right a victim of your crimes. Because you feel you have the moral high ground does not make you above the law, nor does it entitle you to dispense your own justice.You again fail to grasp the difference between what is legally wrong and what is morally wrong. The two things are entirely unrelated.

I notice you've not backed up your claims that my tactics are uneffective.

Any '[insert race here] power group' is a dangerous and sinister thing indeed - they shouldn't be allowed to form.

And I accept that I do not have the legal right to do that.

Good, that is what have been arguing all along.

Again, are you saying I have no legal right to do that (in which case I agree) or no moral right (which is an entirely subjective opinion)?

I repeat, I have never been discussing morality, only legality.

So the suffragettes were idiots? And if we take that as anyone who breaks the law being an idiot then we can also include Ghandi.

Suffragettes were fighting for rights, you are fighting to deny people rights. Spot the difference.


No-one must abide by the law. It's an individual decision. Everyone must realise that if they choose to participate in illegal activity there may be consequences. Would you never break a law even if you believed it to be immoral?

What is immoral about protecting people's right to assemble and their freedom of speech? I agree, no-one is obliged to obey the law, but if you break the law you suffer the consequences. It is what I have been saying all along. If you perpetrate violence against people because you disagree with them then you are a criminal and a thug.

I can't help feeling we're talking at cross-purposes here. It is patently obvious that it's against the law.

Yes, therefore I do not need to provide a link to something saying it is illegal. Which is my entire argument.


Nope. Anyone who trys to organise and control the streets will be countered accordingly. I'd suggest you look at www.redwatch.org to see precisely the kind of groups I'm operating against.

Again, why are you the self-proclaimed morality police? What makes you think you have the right to violent oppose people with differing ideologies? If these people break the law then they will be dealt with by the law. If they do not break the law then they should not be accosted by the likes of you.

You again fail to grasp the difference between what is legally wrong and what is morally wrong. The two things are entirely unrelated.

Again, I am not arguing morality, I am arguing legality. I do not think racial supremecist groups of any kind are moral, but I also do not think groups of violent thugs that you participate in are any more moral. You are merely the extreme ends of the stick and as bad as each other.

I notice you've not backed up your claims that my tactics are uneffective.

I couldn't care less if your tactics are successful. They are illegal and quite frankly groups such as yours sicken me as much a racial supremecist groups.

Good, that is what have been arguing all along.



I repeat, I have never been discussing morality, only legality.Then you've been arguing a straw man. Nobody's said violence is legal.


Suffragettes were fighting for rights, you are fighting to deny people rights. Spot the difference.You're moving the goalposts. You were arguing that everyone has to obey the law, remember?



What is immoral about protecting people's right to assemble and their freedom of speech? I agree, no-one is obliged to obey the law, but if you break the law you suffer the consequences. It is what I have been saying all along. If you perpetrate violence against people because you disagree with them then you are a criminal and a thug.
Unless it's goverment sponsered violence in which case you don't consider them thugs, no? Do you consider the French resistance thugs?


Yes, therefore I do not need to provide a link to something saying it is illegal. Which is my entire argument.
Your entire argument is that violence against fascists is illegal? What are you going to do for an encore? Argue that the sky is blue?


Again, why are you the self-proclaimed morality police? What makes you think you have the right to violent oppose people with differing ideologies? If these people break the law then they will be dealt with by the law. If they do not break the law then they should not be accosted by the likes of you.
What gives you the right to say people shouldn't?


Again, I am not arguing morality, I am arguing legality. I do not think racial supremecist groups of any kind are moral, but I also do not think groups of violent thugs that you participate in are any more moral. You are merely the extreme ends of the stick and as bad as each other.As I know you're not a pacifist, can you give us a checklist of what conditions violence has to fill for you to consider it morally justified? We already know that a certain amount of accidental civilian deaths are acceptable, which is a step further then I'm prepared to go.

I couldn't care less if your tactics are successful. They are illegal and quite frankly groups such as yours sicken me as much a racial supremecist groups.'...it being a remarkable signe of an ill cause when aspersions supply the place of Arguments'

Are you abandoning your previous claims that those tactics were counterproductive due to lack of evidence.

Then you've been arguing a straw man. Nobody's said violence is legal.

No, I made a statement of my opinion on far-right groups and you decided to attack my opinion. You introduced the morality side to the argument which never created. So basically, it was you who created an argument that never existed.

You're moving the goalposts. You were arguing that everyone has to obey the law, remember?

I haven't moved the goalposts, you have changed to direction of your attack. Everyone has to obey the law or suffer the consequences of their actions. I don't believe attacking innocent people because you disagree with them is right. It is even worse when you are trying to deny people their basic rights.


Unless it's goverment sponsered violence in which case you don't consider them thugs, no? Do you consider the French resistance thugs?

I have no idea what you are referring to with regards to government sponsored violence. The only occasions in which I said violence can be justified is during a war scenario. For example, Iraq and Afghanistan, WWII etc. Therefore the French Resistance were a wartime militia and were justified to fight the occupying German forces. I am still amazed you cannot see the difference between war and bashing innocent people who do not share your beliefs.

Your entire argument is that violence against fascists is illegal? What are you going to do for an encore? Argue that the sky is blue?

As I said, I posted my thoughts on far-right groups. You decided to argue with me and added issues that were not in my initial comments. Don't blame me for you arguing a moot point.

What gives you the right to say people shouldn't?

The law says people shouldn't, not me. I happen to agree with the law.

As I know you're not a pacifist, can you give us a checklist of what conditions violence has to fill for you to consider it morally justified? We already know that a certain amount of accidental civilian deaths are acceptable, which is a step further then I'm prepared to go.
'...it being a remarkable signe of an ill cause when aspersions supply the place of Arguments'

I am not a pacifist. I have clearly stated that acts of war are conditions whereby violence is an acceptable means of retaliation. In the general community we all live under the laws of the land and that is how it should be. What is so hard to understand about that? By violently attacking these groups you are not better than they are.

Are you abandoning your previous claims that those tactics were counterproductive due to lack of evidence.

No, I believe them to be counterproductive as Neo-Nazis use the illusion of whites being persecuted to attract converts. Your groups sttacking far-right groups give credence to their illusion of persecution and therefore play into their hands.

He and other supremacists, he said, would recruit at junior high schools and other campuses, where they scribbled anti-white slogans to make it appear minorities were "the aggressors."

(Source: http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/1998/Sep-27-Sun-1998/news/8297230.html)

Just like Nazism, the most important condition for neo-Nazism is discontent. This discontent is frequently directed against economic problems, growing immigration, social differences, and the democratic system. For this reason the neo-Nazis have been particularly successful in poor areas, for instance the former German Democratic Republic, where most of the neo-Nazis are recruited.

(Source: http://www.holocaust-education.dk/eftertid/nynazisme.asp)

Discontent and persecution are the tools for neo-nazis to recruit your people. By violently attacking members of such groups without reason helps facilitate that impression of persecution and attracts disenfranchised youth.

Precisely. Why people are so intent on violently opposing them which, in turn, gives them the "victim" position they seek is beyond me.

Because people don't think of the long-term consequences of their views. That is another problem with supremicist groups - they have no sort of real thought out plan what they will do after the groups they hate are gone.

Once they push too far....

People DIE.

Ask Oklahomaha City if any asses are grass.

Timothy McViegh's ass should be grass by now... along with the rest of his rotten flesh

Because people don't think of the long-term consequences of their views. That is another problem with supremicist groups - they have no sort of real thought out plan what they will do after the groups they hate are gone.



I personally feel once the people white groups hate are gone... My fear is whites have a bad history of killing each other over religion, politics, etc (Die Catholic! Die Protestant! We've heard it all before... Been there, done that... Nobody wants it again)


But I think maybe, just maybe, we'll get the white utopia we yearn for. The Pax Europa.


I think several decades ago, most Europeans made it to the point where they're willing to tolerate any other white nationality and any branch of Christianity. White Christian is White Christian.

I personally feel once the people white groups hate are gone... My fear is whites have a bad history of killing each other over religion, politics, etc (Die Catholic! Die Protestant! We've heard it all before... Been there, done that... Nobody wants it again)

But I think maybe, just maybe, we'll get the white utopia we yearn for. The Pax Europa.

I think several decades ago, most Europeans made it to the point where they're willing to tolerate any other white nationality and any branch of Christianity. White Christian is White Christian.

The main problem with this, though, is that you're basically putting your hopes in the idea that intolerant people can be tolerant of each other. The overwhelming characterization of white separatist and nationalist movements is their factionalism, not unity. Look at the KKK, everytime there's a disagreement, you get two or three "Baby-Ks", weakening the original organization.

There seems to be a general lack of ability to compromise and cooperate within the "White" movement, because there are so many different goals and personal ideologies floating around. So I think it's very naive to think that once all the non-whites are magically "gone" that you'll have a Utopia. Bull. Then you'll have Anglo-Israelites fighting White Christians, fighting Nordic pagans, fighting secular white nationalists, fighting neo-Nazis, etc... And that's just in regards to religion.

Not only that, you also have tons of white nationalist/separatists who say the Catholic church is controlled by "Zionism/Freemasonry". And Catholics are the biggest religious group among white Americans. So from DAY ONE, you're going to have a major conflict going on. Even among the Christians, shit will be flying.

You pointed to Europe in your post. I think your analyzing the situation wrong. It's not that Europeans have become more tolerant of "each other", they've become more tolerant IN GENERAL. And that's why I think the idea of a white homeland is fundementally flawed, because you're trying to create a Utopia by combining people with totally different ideologies, and who refuse to compromise on their beliefs.

Oh, and who believe in "armed resistance".

Utopia? You must be dreaming. What you'll get is a bloodbath- RAHOWA II.

And whoever wins won't have long to enjoy the fruits of their labors- they'll be so weakened they'll be easy pickings for the rest of us :D

Sweet dreams.

I personally feel once the people white groups hate are gone... My fear is whites have a bad history of killing each other over religion, politics, etc (Die Catholic! Die Protestant! We've heard it all before... Been there, done that... Nobody wants it again)


But I think maybe, just maybe, we'll get the white utopia we yearn for. The Pax Europa.


I think several decades ago, most Europeans made it to the point where they're willing to tolerate any other white nationality and any branch of Christianity. White Christian is White Christian.


Utopia??? Not that the following link will give you any gory details but it'll give you some history on a local utopian society that existed years ago.... about 10 miles from where I live. They couldn't even get along with each other...and to think they didn't get killed by the Oneida Indians... :confused:

people are not perfect...and not everyone has the same views....and not everyone is as open-minded or as close-minded as others....NOBODY CAN HAVE A PERFECT SOCIETY...OR A PERFECT RACE....OR PERFECT ANYTHING....

http://www.oneida.com/static/Heritage.ASP

and i don't see anything about asian supremacy....now that would be something to talk about....lol ;) j/k

CM - how then would you stop whites who practice other religions? Or are they not your desirable superhuman type?

just some points to ponder on...i've been reading thru all the posts.....i've kinda jumped all over a few topics here.....

i'd like some feedback...no bashing...just different views....on what i've been reading from previous posts and what i've come up with and a few questions of my own....

1. In reference to blacks inferior to whites in regards to IQ tests....well asians tend to score better than whites....so are whites inferior to asians?

2. If the answer to question 1 is no, is it then based on appearance? Asians are generally smaller in size than whites(I don't mean that as an insult). Should we give them plastic surgery to beef them up, round up the eyes, bleach their hair to blonde and get them blue contacts? Would that then make them the perfect person? Oh and change them over to Christian, too.

3. The Arayan Nation...I am not the expert on this...and this is just from what I've been reading on here...were Nomadic Christians...God's Children, The Perfect Race...so they'd roll into town, steal stuff and take over...I believe most religions believe in the 10 commandments...right? Thou shall not steal....Thou shall not kill....

4. In regards to the white working class of the great grandpa's and grandpa's...UMMM...NEWSFLASH...watch the history channel....who built a majority of the railroads out west? The chinese and the mexicans....who built a majority of the railroads down south? the blacks and poor whites...who built a majority of the railroads in the north? the irish....so it was not entirely all whites that built up the United States....and where is a majority of US business now? outsourced to outside countries...cause labor is cheaper..it's all about the dollar...and not all inventions were created by whites....

5. In regards to the KKK....it's not the same as it was in the 40's-60's(i may have the later years wrong..i do apologize)...really they're not even in the news anymore(at least not in the north)...they're really seen now as just a lobbying group...i don't think they're as dangerous as they were in the past...and those people that are seen on Springer just give them a bad name...and when they make appearances on Springer they should have any membership priviledges revoked because it's an embarrassment to the grp.

6. Race and ethnic background ...if you really think about it...three words... genetics and climate and food... asians have almond shaped eyes because of an extra layer of fat in their eyes because of a colder climate..eskimos do too..same reason... african americans and cubans, puerto ricans, jamacains and all those countries closer to the equator tend to have dark(er) skin tones...the farther north of the equator the lighter the skin tone...and then you take into account their diets...that kinda gives the build(body frame). Don't get me wrong...I'm not claiming to be a scientist...just something I caught on the science channel.

I'm from the US...and it saddens me to see so many people post that they hate us because of our president. I mean people from this country, people from other countries...we've helped so many other countries in their times of need. I don't necessarily agree w/ what Bush is doing now....I think it has been dragged on for far too long...and it's time to bring the troops home. My Hubby had to serve when the war started and it's a scary feeling not knowing whether your loved one is coming home because he has to fight someone else's battle for freedom from deranged dictatorship... :(

But reading people fight over what political idea is better or what race is better....or people arguing over Bush and what he's doing and why the US is doing what it's doing in Iraq...

..why don't you guys ask a soldier in Iraq that you know what the war is about...or what is was like over there.....where they use children as part of warfare.....where you have women and children begging you for water and food and you're told not to trust them as they may have guns or grenades....can you imagine holding a loaded gun up to a child because he may shoot you first?
:sniper:
these are things we would never dream of in our society.....and we take that for granted.... :(

I've heard(rumors)about white supremists grps that raise their children with guns and all that....and someday...there will be some Holy War and the perfect race will rise....but then what?? Explain to me what exactly makes the perfect race.....what are ALL the qualifications....cause i'm just not getting it.... :headbang:

There is not one single person in this world who is ABSOLUTELY PERFECT TO MEET EVERY QUALIFICATION ON THAT LIST...but there will be some sad attempt at trying to do so...... :rolleyes:
No two people think alike so there will always be disagreements...and cloning at this point is illegal...so you're bumming there...so please anyone...explain this to me... :confused:

CM - how then would you stop whites who practice other religions? Or are they not your desirable superhuman type?


In the end, all of God's people (Europeans) will accept Christ as their savior. Except for the masons and moloch worshippers.

1. In reference to whites inferior to blacks in regards to IQ tests....well asians tend to score better than whites....so are asians inferior to whites?

2. If the answer to question 1 is no, is it then based on appearance? Asians are generally smaller in size than whites(I don't mean that as an insult). Should we give them plastic surgery to beef them up, round up the eyes, bleach their hair to blonde and get them blue contacts? Would that then make them the perfect person? Oh and change them over to Christian, too.


5. In regards to the KKK....it's not the same as it was in the 40's-60's(i may have the later years wrong..i do apologize)...really they're not even in the news anymore(at least not in the north)...they're really seen now as just a lobbying group...i don't think they're as dangerous as they were in the past...and those people that are seen on Springer just give them a bad name...and when they make appearances on Springer they should have any membership priviledges revoked because it's an embarrassment to the grp.



1) With all the MTV media crap, it's no wonder so many white kids are acting like idiots and scoring low. But it was not alwas thus.

2) Christianity is for the European (Caucasoid) Race. Converting non-whites to Christianity is counter-productive. Blonde hair and blue eyes are not necessarily "perfect" that is getting into the nordicist ideal of "The only real whites are nordics". There are plenty of "Real whites" (French, English, Italian, Russian, Spanish, Polish, Portuguese, Dutch, Romanian, Serbian, Greek, etc. White is white, and white is right)

5) Most "Klansmen" on Springer, are either idiots with too much time to spare, or are paid actors, as are most of the people on that show. No self-respecting klansmen (no self-respecting anybody) would be caught dead on Springer... Well maybe if they pay you enough, how much does dignity go for these days?

In the end, all of God's people (Europeans) will accept Christ as their savior. Except for the masons and moloch worshippers.

1) I think that's very humourous. "EVERYONE WILL DO THIS! Except..."
2) how do you know? I don't except Christ as my savior. Nor do I worship and "moloch," whatever the hell that thing is.


1) With all the MTV media crap, it's no wonder so many white kids are acting like idiots and scoring low. But it was not alwas thus.

I'm going to agree with you a bit on this, if just because of my sheer, cold, passionate hate for MTV. But I dont think it's limited just to whites-a lot of people of all races are idiots thanks to society.

2) Christianity is for the European (Caucasoid) Race. Converting non-whites to Christianity is counter-productive. Blonde hair and blue eyes are not necessarily "perfect" that is getting into the nordicist ideal of "The only real whites are nordics". There are plenty of "Real whites" (French, English, Italian, Russian, Spanish, Polish, Portuguese, Dutch, Romanian, Serbian, Greek, etc. White is white, and white is right)

Are you telling me that God created multiple races who will go to hell, regardless of what they do, even if they convert to christianity? Your god sucks.

5) Most "Klansmen" on Springer, are either idiots with too much time to spare, or are paid actors, as are most of the people on that show. No self-respecting klansmen (no self-respecting anybody) would be caught dead on Springer... Well maybe if they pay you enough, how much does dignity go for these days?

Yeah...that one's pretty true also. Springer sucks along with MTV.

No, I made a statement of my opinion on far-right groups and you decided to attack my opinion. You introduced the morality side to the argument which never created. So basically, it was you who created an argument that never existed.



I haven't moved the goalposts, you have changed to direction of your attack. Everyone has to obey the law or suffer the consequences of their actions. I don't believe attacking innocent people because you disagree with them is right. It is even worse when you are trying to deny people their basic rights.You didn't bring the legal argument in until my 'attack' was already well under way. In your first post you said:

Because idiots seem to think its "cool" to use violence against certain groups. That is why they request protection of their right to associate and to protect their freedom of speech. Blame the voilent morons who attack them rather than the people seeking protection.

Take WTO meetings. The one we had here in Melbourne a few years ago brought out the loony element who seemed feel they had the right to deface buildings, vandalise cars and assault civilians trying to go to work. Should we blame these victims for the protection they needed over the remaining days of the meeting? Or should we blame the violent idiots who perpetrated the violence that then required the use of security? No mention of legality there, a moral stance pure and simple.

In your second post:

If you read my earlier post I said the war on terror in Iraq was a war against terrorists. Terrorists have broken the law, its called deliberately killing civilians. I am sure you can recognise the difference between murder and having a meeting. So, I do support the war in Iraq because the people we are fighting (terrorists and Saddam and his henchmen) committed crimes.
I think the actions of the people I mentioned earlier at the WTO meetings here in Melbourne as well as others around the world supports the fact that the people protesting against these meeting using violence and vandalism are idiots. Act like an idiot and I'll consider you one.
What makes you think you have the right to violently assault someone for going to a meeting, regardless of its topic of discussion? What makes you think you and your views are so righteous that you seem to feel you have the right to assault people for their beliefs. Their beliefs are not illegal, if they break the law then they are dealt with under the law. Not by vigilanties that you seem to advocate.You did mention the law here but as a secondary argument compared to the bits I've highlighted. The bit about their beliegs not being illegal is a straw man, as I'd not claimed differently.

I think the difference here is that I don't consider people who call for the forcible repatriation and/or execution of non-whites and Jews to be "innocent people". In was in the third post you really referenced the legality argument:

Of course. I am not discussing morality, I am discussing legality. That is, you do not have the right to violently attack people because of their beliefs. You do not have the right to violently attack people because of what you think they might do. That is the law.

We have laws that everyone must abide by, yourself included.

Yes, therefore I do not need to provide a link to something saying it is illegal. Which is my entire argument.

If they do not break the law then they should not be accosted by the likes of you.

Again, I am not arguing morality, I am arguing legality.So your argument is that vigilantism is illegal. Wow. Isn't the term "vigilantism" a giveaway?


I have no idea what you are referring to with regards to government sponsored violence. The only occasions in which I said violence can be justified is during a war scenario. For example, Iraq and Afghanistan, WWII etc. Therefore the French Resistance were a wartime militia and were justified to fight the occupying German forces. I am still amazed you cannot see the difference between war and bashing innocent people who do not share your beliefs.And I am still amazed you consider antisemites and neo-nazis "innocent people". I am also perplexed by the idea that you don't understand that saying that violence is justified is times of war is as much of a moral stance as what I'm saying. And as far as I'm concerned the fact that there aren't uniforms doesen't mean the war against fascism isn't just that. You're right about the French Resistance being a bad example however. Let's replace it with the pre World War 2 Italian resistance to Mussolini. Do you consider them idiots and thugs?


As I said, I posted my thoughts on far-right groups. You decided to argue with me and added issues that were not in my initial comments. Don't blame me for you arguing a moot point.And precisely what sort of earth shattering relevation is "vigilantism is illegal"?



The law says people shouldn't, not me. I happen to agree with the law.
(Emphasis mine]So your previous assertion that legalityis my entire argument. is somewhat at right angles to the truth, no?


I am not a pacifist. I have clearly stated that acts of war are conditions whereby violence is an acceptable means of retaliation. In the general community we all live under the laws of the land and that is how it should be. What is so hard to understand about that? So essentially violence is ok if done by the wealthy elite declaring war (and in that situation a certain amount of "collateral damage" to non-combatants is acceptable to you) but violence of a far lesser level by ordinary plebs isn't. I disagree that we should abide by laws merely because they're the laws. Is that so hard to understand. (Out of interest, would you also say that citizens of dictatorships should live according to the laws of the land)?By violently attacking these groups you are not better than they are.
And that would be a morally consistent position, if you were a pacifist. Explain, do you think white supremicist groups are the personification of violence (that is the integral part of their ideology in other words) or is it what purpose they use violence for that makes them white supremicists.

No, I believe them to be counterproductive as Neo-Nazis [/b]use the illusion of whites being persecuted to attract converts. [/b]Your groups sttacking far-right groups give credence to their illusion of persecution and therefore play into their hands.Firstly, if we're going to talk knowlegeably about the far right it's important to get the terminology right. All Neo-Nazis are fascists. Not all fascist are Neo-Nazis. To give a specific example Tenete Traditions is absolutely not a nazi, he's a third positionist fascist. Note the bits I've higlighted. Fascists use the illusion of whites being persecuted because they are white- not specifically fascist groups being attacked, as that would damage the "hard image" they try to put across in order to impress potential converts. Essentially they like to present themselves as the "men of action" in comparison to the "middle class students" of the left. Being physically defeated blows that image away. I'll move on to your specific sources now:

He and other supremacists, he said, would recruit at junior high schools and other campuses, where they scribbled anti-white slogans to make it appear minorities were "the aggressors."

(Source: http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/1998/Sep-27-Sun-1998/news/8297230.html)Firstly your sources comments that "A former white supremacist said people need to take neo-Nazi threats of a race war seriously. "Nothing's written in stone that says this country cannot collapse," Tom Leyden told about 400 people on Thursday at the University of San Diego." would seem to directly contradict a) your claim fascism isn't a threat and b) that fascists are innocent people. And your stance that nothing should be done to oppose them is directly against the comment from the same article that "Last fall, racist, anti-Semitic and anti-gay graffiti appeared in campus restrooms and on bulletin boards, prompting students to mobilize against supremacist movements." You'll note also that the fascists "scribbled anti-white slogans" not anti fascist slogans. In other words they wanted it to appear that there was a race war brewing, this is a completely different matter then targetted and specific anti fascist activity, although it does back up my belief that any militant anti fascist group needs to have a large percentage of white working class people in it, as they are the group the fascists try to recruit.

Just like Nazism, the most important condition for neo-Nazism is discontent. This discontent is frequently directed against economic problems, growing immigration, social differences, and the democratic system. For this reason the neo-Nazis have been particularly successful in poor areas, for instance the former German Democratic Republic, where most of the neo-Nazis are recruited.

(Source: http://www.holocaust-education.dk/eftertid/nynazisme.asp)(Emphasis mine) Firstly how are economic problems and wide scale disillusionsment and disenfranchising of the working class, the fault of the militant anti fascist movement? It would seem much more to be the fault of those in the political mainstream such as yourself. It does again reinforce my argument that the anti fascist movement needs to primarily target the white working class, as those are the fascists target recruits. That quote makes it very cleam that it's mainstream "democracy" that's helping the fascists recruit, not anti-fascists. Secondly, you'll note that I've repeated again and again the fact that militant antifascism is a combination of physical and ideological confrontation. In other words, it is not enough to simply be against fascism, you have to be for something as well in order to fight for hearts and minds. As I said before, in the UK the main fascist group, the British National Party has given up street confrontations, so I am currently "non-operational" as far as the physical side of things is concerned. For an example of what I mean by fighting for hearts and minds check out www.iwca.info Incidentally I suspect you'll have far less problems with that side of things.

Discontent and persecution are the tools for neo-nazis to recruit your people. By violently attacking members of such groups without reason helps facilitate that impression of persecution and attracts disenfranchised youth.
It isn't "without reason". Considering the first act of any fascist group that takes power, from Hitler to Pinochet has been to smash all independant working class resistance it's an act of working class self defense. You still haven't provided evidence that militant working class anti-fascism has ever contributed to the growth of a fascist party.

Because people don't think of the long-term consequences of their views. Or it could be, that with all respect to Tygaland, I think his stance ignores the tactics and words of the fascists. In case you missed it before, Hitler said:

"the only way we could have been stopped is if our enemy's had smahed us on the street from day one" -ADOLPH HITLER

Seems pretty clearcut to me.

Timothy McViegh's ass should be grass by now... along with the rest of his rotten fleshAnd as an added bonus, the quick killing of McVeigh means that the important questions (in particular his close contact with FBI asset Andreas Strassmier before the Oklahoma bombings) will never be answered. Wheels within wheels... A similar situation exists in the UK with the evidence of state foreknowledge of the Soho Bombings by neo-nazi David Copeland.

You didn't bring the legal argument in until my 'attack' was already well under way. In your first post you said:

No mention of legality there, a moral stance pure and simple.


Actually, my first post answers a question raised by another poster with regards to the fact that the state provides protection to these groups at cost to the taxpayer. I was pointing out that the reason they need the protection is because people seem to want to take the law into their own hands and violently confront them. I then gave an example of the WTO meeting here in Melbourne. I then asked why anyone had the right to attack people who were doing nothing illegal. It was a statement about legality. The term "have the right" is not about morals, it is about legal rights. If you interpreted it as moral stance then you misinterpreted. I did not mention morals at all.

In your second post:

You did mention the law here but as a secondary argument compared to the bits I've highlighted. The bit about their beliegs not being illegal is a straw man, as I'd not claimed differently.

Again, you have completely misinterpreted the use of "have the right". It is in reference to legal right as I have only been discussing the legality, or more specificly the illegality, of the actions of those that use violence against people for no other reason than they disagree with their beliefs. so there was no strawman other than that you created to try and turn my statements into something they were not intended to be.

I think the difference here is that I don't consider people who call for the forcible repatriation and/or execution of non-whites and Jews to be "innocent people". In was in the third post you really referenced the legality argument:

No, legality was metioned from the beginning, you chose to interpret it differently. I am not responsible for your desire to read more into my statements than was there.

So your argument is that vigilantism is illegal. Wow. Isn't the term "vigilantism" a giveaway?

Indeed, that was the statement I made in the beginning. People have no legal right to assault people for having opposing beliefs. The fact that you decided to debate an issue that was not raised is not my problem and was a source of amusement to me.

And I am still amazed you consider antisemites and neo-nazis "innocent people". I am also perplexed by the idea that you don't understand that saying that violence is justified is times of war is as much of a moral stance as what I'm saying. And as far as I'm concerned the fact that there aren't uniforms doesen't mean the war against fascism isn't just that. You're right about the French Resistance being a bad example however. Let's replace it with the pre World War 2 Italian resistance to Mussolini. Do you consider them idiots and thugs?

I consider people who have not committed a crime to be innocent and so does the law. Saying violence is justified in a war situation is not a moral stance it is a reference to the fact that war is a violent conflict. Going to a meeting to hear a person speak about certian beliefs is not a violent conflict, therefore violence has no place there. Least of all from self-appointed thought police.
The pre-WWII resistence to Mussolini was a resounding success..oh no wait it wasn't. To be honest, the violent opposition probably just ensured a few more people were killed along the way.

And precisely what sort of earth shattering relevation is "vigilantism is illegal"?

As I said earlier, it was a statement in response to a poster complaining that the people attending the meeting needed police protection at tax payer's expense. I questioned why they felt the people attending the meeting were responsible for the need to have a police presence as they were not acting unlawfully, the protesters should have been blamed because they are the ones that instigate violence and break the law. Thats why I posted what I did. The fact that you felt you needed to argue a moot point for so long can only be answered by you.



(Emphasis mine]So your previous assertion that legality is somewhat at right angles to the truth, no?

Indeed you are incorrect. To put my statements into context would clarify your misrepresentation. You asked me why I felt that people had no right to violently oppose those they disagree with. I merely pointed out that the law actually states you do not have the right, not me. I just posted that I happened to agree with the law. You were trying to turn it into a morality debate again by suggesting I was saying you had no right to protest when in fact the law says you do not have the right.

So essentially violence is ok if done by the wealthy elite declaring war (and in that situation a certain amount of "collateral damage" to non-combatants is acceptable to you) but violence of a far lesser level by ordinary plebs isn't. I disagree that we should abide by laws merely because they're the laws. Is that so hard to understand. (Out of interest, would you also say that citizens of dictatorships should live according to the laws of the land)?

That is your political viewpoint. In fact the government is elected by the people to represent them. So to call them the "wealthy elite" is a gross misrepresentation. Collateral damage is not "acceptable" to me but it is an unfortunate consequence of war. I am not pro-war, I doubt anyone is but you again try and make more out of statements than what is actually there. It was you who brought the war argument to the table in an attempt to make a moral debate. The statements I made referred to the fact that war is a violent conflict and as such violence is an acceptable form of retaliation in a war scenario.
Violence by ordinary plebs against people who have not broken the law is not a legal right and if you cannot comprehend the difference between fighting in a war and bashing an innocent person on the street because they have different beliefs to you then you really have a loose grip on reality. As I said, it is an individual's choice to break the law or abide by the law. If you break the law then you get punished. If you feel it necessary to assault people who have done nothing illegal then thats your prerogative but do not complain that these people you target request protection at taxpayer's expense to protect them from the unlawful assaults by the likes of you. As I have said, that was my whole statement in the beginning, you decided to make it something more than it was so don't preach your self-righteous ideologues to me.

And that would be a morally consistent position, if you were a pacifist.

Again, you go on about morals. I was referring to the fact that you claim to have the moral right to attack people who you disagree with. Note, it was your claim not mine. I was pointing out that the people you oppose may feel they have the moral right to oppose you and therefore you are similar, just at opposite ends of the stick. This is an observation, not a statement of my moral views before you try and work that angle again.

Explain, do you think white supremicist groups are the personification of violence (that is the integral part of their ideology in other words) or is it what purpose they use violence for that makes them white supremicists.
Firstly, if we're going to talk knowlegeably about the far right it's important to get the terminology right. All Neo-Nazis are fascists. Not all fascist are Neo-Nazis. To give a specific example Tenete Traditions is absolutely not a nazi, he's a third positionist fascist.

I am well aware of what a fascist is and that neo-nazism is a form of fascism. Now you are changing the topic entirely to the ideologies of fascism. I am happy entertain your comments but please do not use my comments on this issue to start bleating about morality because I am sure this will descend into questioning whether I support fascism. I will then, of course, be required to voice my view and it will be based on many things including my morals.

Note the bits I've higlighted. Fascists use the illusion of whites being persecuted because they are white- not specifically fascist groups being attacked, as that would damage the "hard image" they try to put across in order to impress potential converts. Essentially they like to present themselves as the "men of action" in comparison to the "middle class students" of the left. Being physically defeated blows that image away.

Yes they do. So when they are confronted by people attacking them on the street it gives credence to the fact that they are persecuted by the general population. If they put a spin on it to attract more people by claiming it is because they are white then thats what they do.

I'll move on to your specific sources now:
Firstly your sources comments that "A former white supremacist said people need to take neo-Nazi threats of a race war seriously. "Nothing's written in stone that says this country cannot collapse," Tom Leyden told about 400 people on Thursday at the University of San Diego." would seem to directly contradict a) your claim fascism isn't a threat and b) that fascists are innocent people. And your stance that nothing should be done to oppose them is directly against the comment from the same article that "Last fall, racist, anti-Semitic and anti-gay graffiti appeared in campus restrooms and on bulletin boards, prompting students to mobilize against supremacist movements." You'll note also that the fascists "scribbled anti-white slogans" not anti fascist slogans. In other words they wanted it to appear that there was a race war brewing, this is a completely different matter then targetted and specific anti fascist activity, although it does back up my belief that any militant anti fascist group needs to have a large percentage of white working class people in it, as they are the group the fascists try to recruit.

When did I say fascism wasn't a threat? It is a political threat to be dealt with in a political environment. I said that people who have not committed a crime should not be assaulted by vigilantes. In the eyes of the law, people are innocent until they have committed a crime and been found guilty if I recall correctly. So even fascists are innocent until they commit a crime. Please keep the comments in context. I have also never said nothing should be done to oppose them, I have said that assaulting people who have not committed a crime is a violation of their legal rights. There are other ways to combat fascism such as educating people about other races and society. Violently attacking them does nothing but draw more attention to their cause and create a victim mentality that they try and exploit to attract disenfranchised youth.

(Emphasis mine) Firstly how are economic problems and wide scale disillusionsment and disenfranchising of the working class, the fault of the militant anti fascist movement?

I didn't say it was, I raised the point to show the techniques they use to attract members and the targets of their recruitment campaigns.

It would seem much more to be the fault of those in the political mainstream such as yourself. It does again reinforce my argument that the anti fascist movement needs to primarily target the white working class, as those are the fascists target recruits. That quote makes it very cleam that it's mainstream "democracy" that's helping the fascists recruit, not anti-fascists.

It is the fault of many groups, not just the political mainstream. There are a number of issues that create the environment where fascism breeds. The reason I used these examples is to show the types of people they recruit and the methods they use. So, if a white male is struggling in school, lives in a poor neighbourhood and is isolated where does he turn? Fascist see this person as a prime recruiting target. What do they need to show the person to get him to see their way of seeing the world? Anti-fascists groups bashing people like him for being "proud of who they are" (white) to show that the person is right to feel hard done by. So the factors that brought the person to be in a position to be recruited by fascists is part of the problem but the actions of groups like yours facilitate the conversion. As I have stated on other threads to do with issues such as affirmative action etc, education is the key to preventing these people from falling into the recruiting traps of fascists, not waiting them to fall into the trap and then kicking the life out of them on the street.

Secondly, you'll note that I've repeated again and again the fact that militant antifascism is a combination of physical and ideological confrontation. In other words, it is not enough to simply be against fascism, you have to be for something as well in order to fight for hearts and minds. As I said before, in the UK the main fascist group, the British National Party has given up street confrontations, so I am currently "non-operational" as far as the physical side of things is concerned. For an example of what I mean by fighting for hearts and minds check out www.iwca.info Incidentally I suspect you'll have far less problems with that side of things.

I know that it is both physical and ideological. As I have said over and over again. I was responding to a statement by a poster about the cost of protecting these groups from violence when attending their meetings. I will not repeat it again, scroll up, I think I have said it twice already in this post. I am not dicussing the ideological or moral side, I am discussing the legalities of it all in response to that poster's comments.
I have far less problems with fighting for the hearts and minds of people? What are you inferring here, I am unsure what you are trying to say.


It isn't "without reason". Considering the first act of any fascist group that takes power, from Hitler to Pinochet has been to smash all independant working class resistance it's an act of working class self defense. You still haven't provided evidence that militant working class anti-fascism has ever contributed to the growth of a fascist party.

I provided information on how fascists recruit and tied it in with the results of your actions against them. If you choose not to acknowledge those points then it makes no difference what I post because you are not going to take any notice.

Actually, my first post answers a question raised by another poster with regards to the fact that the state provides protection to these groups at cost to the taxpayer. I was pointing out that the reason they need the protection is because people seem to want to take the law into their own hands and violently confront them. I then gave an example of the WTO meeting here in Melbourne. I then asked why anyone had the right to attack people who were doing nothing illegal. It was a statement about legality. The term "have the right" is not about morals, it is about legal rights. If you interpreted it as moral stance then you misinterpreted. I did not mention morals at all.Can you cite your legal precedent for the term "idiots and thugs" please? What court case is it from?



Again, you have completely misinterpreted the use of "have the right". It is in reference to legal right as I have only been discussing the legality, or more specificly the illegality, of the actions of those that use violence against people for no other reason than they disagree with their beliefs. so there was no strawman other than that you created to try and turn my statements into something they were not intended to be.



No, legality was metioned from the beginning, you chose to interpret it differently. I am not responsible for your desire to read more into my statements than was there.Apart from the fact that you originally only referred to "rights", you did not specify "legal rights". Do you expect me to be able to read your mind through the medium of the interweb?



Indeed, that was the statement I made in the beginning. People have no legal right to assault people for having opposing beliefs. The fact that you decided to debate an issue that was not raised is not my problem and was a source of amusement to me.But when I brought up the subject of the Suffragettes you said that was different because "they were fighting for their rights"? What legal rights did the Suffragettes have to the vote?


I consider people who have not committed a crime to be innocent and so does the law. Saying violence is justified in a war situation is not a moral stance it is a reference to the fact that war is a violent conflict. Going to a meeting to hear a person speak about certian beliefs is not a violent conflict, therefore violence has no place there. Least of all from self-appointed thought police.From Dictonary.com:

1. Uncorrupted by evil, malice, or wrongdoing; sinless: an innocent child.

2. Not guilty of a specific crime or offense; legally blameless: was innocent of all charges.
Within, allowed by, or sanctioned by the law; lawful.

3.Not dangerous or harmful; innocuous: an innocent prank.
Candid; straightforward: a child's innocent stare.

Now while defination two fits your usage (though I question why you didn't use the term "lawful" to avoid confusion) no-one had accused the far right of a specific crime so it's largely irrelevent. On the other definations, are you claiming that fascists are either "innocuous" or "uncorrupted by malice"? Saying violence is justifiable in a war situation is entirely a moral stance, whether you like it or not. By stating your intention to go to war you are saying you are going to carry out violence. Can you explain the difference between that and my position.

The pre-WWII resistence to Mussolini was a resounding success..oh no wait it wasn't. To be honest, the violent opposition probably just ensured a few more people were killed along the way.
To clarify, are you saying the resistance against Mussolini were "idiots and thugs"? And do you not think people had a right to resist Mussolini, innocent though he may have been under the laws he'd brought in?


As I said earlier, it was a statement in response to a poster complaining that the people attending the meeting needed police protection at tax payer's expense. I questioned why they felt the people attending the meeting were responsible for the need to have a police presence as they were not acting unlawfully, the protesters should have been blamed because they are the ones that instigate violence and break the law. Thats why I posted what I did. The fact that you felt you needed to argue a moot point for so long can only be answered by you.But that doesn't alter the fact that, by taking the action you support, the state is siding firmly with the far right. And if you're talking about blame, do you really think those who call for the execution of Jews and non-whites hold no blame for people hating them?



Indeed you are incorrect. To put my statements into context would clarify your misrepresentation. You asked me why I felt that people had no right to violently oppose those they disagree with. I merely pointed out that the law actually states you do not have the right, not me. I just posted that I happened to agree with the law. You were trying to turn it into a morality debate again by suggesting I was saying you had no right to protest when in fact the law says you do not have the right. See my previous comment on "rights". You're deliberately using a narrow legalistic defination as opposed to the common linguistic usage of the word.


That is your political viewpoint. In fact the government is elected by the people to represent them. So to call them the "wealthy elite" is a gross misrepresentation. Collateral damage is not "acceptable" to me but it is an unfortunate consequence of war. I am not pro-war, I doubt anyone is but you again try and make more out of statements than what is actually there. It was you who brought the war argument to the table in an attempt to make a moral debate. The statements I made referred to the fact that war is a violent conflict and as such violence is an acceptable form of retaliation in a war scenario.What is the difference between "acceptable" and an "unfortunate consequence"? You are pro-war to the extent you sometimes see it as necessary. That's exactly the same as my stance on physical confrontation with fascists. And militant antifascism is a violent conflict and as such violence is an acceptable form of retaliation in a militant anti fascist scenario. :D

On your statements on the war, certainly in the UK the majority of the population were against the war. And the number would have been even higher if the misinformation about Saddam's instant deployment capabilites. So the goverment was certainly not 'representing' the people.
Violence by ordinary plebs against people who have not broken the law is not a legal right and if you cannot comprehend the difference between fighting in a war and bashing an innocent person on the street because they have different beliefs to you then you really have a loose grip on reality. As I said, it is an individual's choice to break the law or abide by the law. If you break the law then you get punished. If you feel it necessary to assault people who have done nothing illegal then thats your prerogative but do not complain that these people you target request protection at taxpayer's expense to protect them from the unlawful assaults by the likes of you. As I have said, that was my whole statement in the beginning, you decided to make it something more than it was so don't preach your self-righteous ideologues to me.Ah, so my political views are ideologues. What are yours Tyg? Common sense? And if you can't see the similaritys between supporting violence in war as a neccessary tactic and supporting violent anti fascist activity as a necessary tactic then it's your reality that's skewed. On "self righteousness", which of us believes all others should practice our ideologies on this? (And I think it is reasonable to point at the hypocrisy of the fascists running to the forces of the "Zionist Occupation Goverment" they profess to despise for protection).


Again, you go on about morals. I was referring to the fact that you claim to have the moral right to attack people who you disagree with. Note, it was your claim not mine. I was pointing out that the people you oppose may feel they have the moral right to oppose you and therefore you are similar, just at opposite ends of the stick. This is an observation, not a statement of my moral views before you try and work that angle again.
And I am saying that you have to see everyone who supports violence under any circumstances in the same way to be consistent.


I am well aware of what a fascist is and that neo-nazism is a form of fascism. Now you are changing the topic entirely to the ideologies of fascism.Simple application of Occam's Razor needed here. You used the wrong terminology so I pointed it out. In the same way as I criticised certain posters on the "Jewish Power in America" thread for referring to Tenete Traditions as a Nazi when he's blatantly a Third Positionist. No hidden agenda. Chill out. I am happy entertain your comments but please do not use my comments on this issue to start bleating about morality because I am sure this will descend into questioning whether I support fascism. I will then, of course, be required to voice my view and it will be based on many things including my morals.(Insert rolling eyes smiley here). I'm hardly going to accuse you of supporting fascism (you blatantly don't) shortly after disagreeing with your terminology. I defy you to find even one example on these boards of me falsely accusing someone of being a fascist.


Yes they do. So when they are confronted by people attacking them on the street it gives credence to the fact that they are persecuted by the general population. If they put a spin on it to attract more people by claiming it is because they are white then thats what they do.They're going to claim they're being attacked by white antifascists because they're white? How does that work?



When did I say fascism wasn't a threat?I took this comment as sarcastic.Yes, Aryans have been terrifyingly efficient of late at...what have they done lately?
Silly me.

It is a political threat to be dealt with in a political environment. I said that people who have not committed a crime should not be assaulted by vigilantes. In the eyes of the law, people are innocent until they have committed a crime and been found guilty if I recall correctly. So even fascists are innocent until they commit a crime. Please keep the comments in context. I have also never said nothing should be done to oppose them, I have said that assaulting people who have not committed a crime is a violation of their legal rights. There are other ways to combat fascism such as educating people about other races and society. Violently attacking them does nothing but draw more attention to their cause and create a victim mentality that they try and exploit to attract disenfranchised youth.But apart from education (which may work in the long term but does nothing to neutralise the threat in the here and now, what other solutions to you suggest? I'd question your conclusions. Check out www.redwatch.org or www.white.org.uk Then come back and honestly tell me you don't think those groups are trying to project a 'hard men of action' (as opposed to victim) image to recruit.


I didn't say it was, I raised the point to show the techniques they use to attract members and the targets of their recruitment campaigns.But they use economic decline and widespread disenfranchisement in the political process. That has no bearing on opposition to them (apart from to suggest that anti fascists allying themselves with the status quo is counterproductive).



It is the fault of many groups, not just the political mainstream. I'd agree to an extent- the left as a whole also shares some blame for not presenting a credible alternative. But the lion's share of the blame for the rundown state of these areas has to lie with those responsible for economic policy.There are a number of issues that create the environment where fascism breeds. The reason I used these examples is to show the types of people they recruit and the methods they use. So, if a white male is struggling in school, lives in a poor neighbourhood and is isolated where does he turn? Fascist see this person as a prime recruiting target. What do they need to show the person to get him to see their way of seeing the world? Anti-fascists groups bashing people like him for being "proud of who they are" (white) to show that the person is right to feel hard done by. So the factors that brought the person to be in a position to be recruited by fascists is part of the problem but the actions of groups like yours facilitate the conversion. As I have stated on other threads to do with issues such as affirmative action etc, education is the key to preventing these people from falling into the recruiting traps of fascists, not waiting them to fall into the trap and then kicking the life out of them on the street.I don't think the pat answer of 'education' is appropriate here. If people live in shitty conditions no amount of education is going to change that. You have to provide a viable political alternative to the false answers of the far right. And once again, when the fascists are fighting politically, that's how they need to be countered. When they are trying to gain physical control of the streets (for example by deliberately holding provocative "anti-black mugger" marches through areas with high ethnic populations) that's when physical confrontation is necessary. Horses for courses.



I know that it is both physical and ideological. As I have said over and over again. I was responding to a statement by a poster about the cost of protecting these groups from violence when attending their meetings. I will not repeat it again, scroll up, I think I have said it twice already in this post. I am not dicussing the ideological or moral side, I am discussing the legalities of it all in response to that poster's comments.And once again, I'd like you to explain the legal precedent for terms like "idiots and thugs".
I have far less problems with fighting for the hearts and minds of people? What are you inferring here, I am unsure what you are trying to say.I'm not inferring anything. There was no sarcasm in that comment. (Now I know how the boy who cried wolf felt ;)). It was simply that. I thought the link might be of genuine interest to you because it demonstrates what I mean by 'providing a viable political alternative to the far right).


I provided information on how fascists recruit and tied it in with the results of your actions against them. If you choose not to acknowledge those points then it makes no difference what I post because you are not going to take any notice.
Firstly, if you're going to talk about "acknowledging posts" can you address the quote I've posted from Hitler on how it would have been possible to stop the National Socialist movement?

I have acknowledged them, I just don't think they're relevant and this is why.

The first source is specifically talking about trying to stir up racial tension, by making it appear like there was anti white feeling among ethnic minorities. This is why anti fascism needs to be very careful not to polarise itself along racial lines.

The second is talking about the abandoment of working class areas by the political mainstream (and a large section of the left though it doesn't specifically address this) and how that aids recruitment. Again that doesn't apply to a militant working class anti fascist movement.

Except for the masons and moloch worshippers.

What is that some kind of seafood? :)

What is that some kind of seafood? :)


Mo·loch (m½“l¼k”, m¼l“…k) n. 1. Bible. In the Old Testament, the god of the Ammonites and Phoenicians to whom children were sacrificed. 2. Something possessing the power to exact severe sacrifice. [Late Latin Moloch, from Greek Molokh, from Hebrew Môlek.]

Mo·loch (m½“l¼k”, m¼l“…k) n. 1. Bible. In the Old Testament, the god of the Ammonites and Phoenicians to whom children were sacrificed. 2. Something possessing the power to exact severe sacrifice. [Late Latin Moloch, from Greek Molokh, from Hebrew Môlek.]Ok, so people who sacrifice children won't get into heaven :rolleyes: , big suprise. WTF does that have to do with the claim you pulled out of your ass that non whites won't get into heaven?

Ok, so people who sacrifice children won't get into heaven :rolleyes: , big suprise. WTF does that have to do with the claim you pulled out of your ass that non whites won't get into heaven?


Masons are all Moloch worshippers.


That is why I mention Moloch and Masons.

Masons are all Moloch worshippers.


That is why I mention Moloch and Masons.WTF??? My grandfather was a mason, and a devout Methodist. He or his fellow Masons never sacraficed any children or whorshiped any Phoenician God. In fact most of their efforts were raising money for charitable works. You are a complete moron and a slanderous son of a bitch.

WTF??? My grandfather was a mason, and a devout Methodist. He or his fellow Masons never sacraficed any children or whorshiped any Phoenician God. In fact most of their efforts were raising money for charitable works. You are a complete moron and a slanderous son of a bitch.


Masons are the driving force behind the New World Order one-world super government. Just recall George Bush sr's speech, "We will build the New World Order."

Masons are the driving force behind the New World Order one-world super government. Just recall George Bush sr's speech, "We will build the New World Order."


You need to get out more.

Masons are the driving force behind the New World Order one-world super government. Just recall George Bush sr's speech, "We will build the New World Order."I don't know which to address first, the total senselessness of your statement or lack of congruency in your chain of logic. Have your keeper increase your medication.

Masons are the driving force behind the New World Order one-world super government. Just recall George Bush sr's speech, "We will build the New World Order."

True,the masons are a powerfully covert and hidden political force in western business and society, but I dont think they sacrifice kids to demons.

...and here I was thinking that ammonites were spiral-shelled fossils of sea creatures- damn that eBay merchant! I've been ripped off!

...and here I was thinking that ammonites were spiral-shelled fossils of sea creatures- damn that eBay merchant! I've been ripped off!

Hell dude, you payed for a fossil and you're getting an entire damn anchient tribe. That's one hell of a good deal. Hey, hook me up, who sold it to you? I've had my eyes on my own primeval tribe to stir the shit around myself :p

There are plenty of "Real whites" (French, English, Italian, Russian, Spanish, Polish, Portuguese, Dutch, Romanian, Serbian, Greek, etc. White is white, and white is right)
This is pretty tolerant actually. He even added the "etc." there in the back of his list.

How can you tell if someone's a "Real White"? Many of the nationalities you listed here have had a lot of interracial marriages. How can you tell if someone's Portuguese enough? Curly hair won't work and you are excusing a lot on the skin tone frontier there. Its a slippery slope, I tell you.

WTF??? My grandfather was a mason, and a devout Methodist. He or his fellow Masons never sacraficed any children or whorshiped any Phoenician God. In fact most of their efforts were raising money for charitable works.

Similarly, my great-uncle was both Jewish and a mason. I've never heard of any child-sacrificing. But maybe it's just because I'm not "in the club". ;)

Stop treating us like "Witches" and "Heretics" of the middle ages, stop treating us like "Communists" of the 1950s. The new "In thing" is to hate white men and women that stand up for the fact they are white.

All we want is to be left alone in our own nation that was built by our forefathers and that and grandfathers and fathers fought and bleed for. Prior to 1960s, the USA was 90% white, ever since the Immigration Reform Act of 1965, we've been getting darker and darker, to the tune that now we are only about 65% white. That is no coincidence, it is a calculated campaign to break the back of the white working class for the New World Order to become a reality.


But don't you see that the majority of your fellow white citizens don't have the same views as you? Sure, I am blond and blueeyed, but I am not even patriotic, as the majority of the people in my country. Yeah, I live in Europe but the differences can't be that big, you just have to accept that if you were true nationalists you'd do charity work and support the ruling regime (voted for by YOUR people) in as many ways as you can instead of fighting and breaking laws which costs your sacred country money.

START A SCOUTGROUP FOR GOD'S SAKE!!:P

Edit:
By the way one million people emigrated to your country from mine so with your logics you should at least owe me some kind of service:P

Similarly, my great-uncle was both Jewish and a mason. I've never heard of any child-sacrificing. But maybe it's just because I'm not "in the club". ;)

Yeah, you have to join in order to eat christian babies and drink virgin blood. Sucks, but hey, those damn elitists are keeping everything out of the hands of the common people now :p

Can you cite your legal precedent for the term "idiots and thugs" please? What court case is it from?

Now we resort to semantics.

From out favourite dictionary.com:

thug

n : an aggressive and violent young criminal

sounds apt to me. AND:

idiot

An unlearned, ignorant, or simple person, as distinguished from the educated; an ignoramus.

I would deem street rioting as an action of someone unlearned and hence an idiot.


Apart from the fact that you originally only referred to "rights", you did not specify "legal rights". Do you expect me to be able to read your mind through the medium of the interweb?

Again, semantics. You seemed to have read my mind in a manner to suit yourself.


But when I brought up the subject of the Suffragettes you said that was different because "they were fighting for their rights"? What legal rights did the Suffragettes have to the vote?

I did not say the suffragettes had the legal right to violently protest. I merely pointed out a glaring difference between their aims and yours.

From Dictonary.com:

1. Uncorrupted by evil, malice, or wrongdoing; sinless: an innocent child.

2. Not guilty of a specific crime or offense; legally blameless: was innocent of all charges.
Within, allowed by, or sanctioned by the law; lawful.

3.Not dangerous or harmful; innocuous: an innocent prank.
Candid; straightforward: a child's innocent stare.

Now while defination two fits your usage (though I question why you didn't use the term "lawful" to avoid confusion) no-one had accused the far right of a specific crime so it's largely irrelevent. On the other definations, are you claiming that fascists are either "innocuous" or "uncorrupted by malice"?

Seeing as I was speaking from a legality aspect, definition 2 clearly covers what I was referring to.

Saying violence is justifiable in a war situation is entirely a moral stance, whether you like it or not. By stating your intention to go to war you are saying you are going to carry out violence. Can you explain the difference between that and my position.
To clarify, are you saying the resistance against Mussolini were "idiots and thugs"? And do you not think people had a right to resist Mussolini, innocent though he may have been under the laws he'd brought in?

No, it is not a moral stance, it is a fact of war. Being a violent conflict in itself . Declaring war against those nations or organisations that have broken the law is entirely different to attacking people who have committed no crime. How many times do I need to point this out to you? The resistance to Mussolini went about it the wrong way, hence it failed. So, I suppose they were idiots and thugs by definition.

But that doesn't alter the fact that, by taking the action you support, the state is siding firmly with the far right. And if you're talking about blame, do you really think those who call for the execution of Jews and non-whites hold no blame for people hating them?

No, the state is siding with the law. No-one forces people to listen to what they have to say. People can hate them but it does not give them the right to assault them and it does not mean that they should not be protected under the law.

See my previous comment on "rights". You're deliberately using a narrow legalistic defination as opposed to the common linguistic usage of the word.

I am using the word as it was intended. I have said in numerous times. No matter how many times you badger me about it I will not change its intended context.

What is the difference between "acceptable" and an "unfortunate consequence"? You are pro-war to the extent you sometimes see it as necessary. That's exactly the same as my stance on physical confrontation with fascists. And militant antifascism is a violent conflict and as such violence is an acceptable form of retaliation in a militant anti fascist scenario. :D

Again from dictionary.com:

ac·cept·a·ble
adj.

1. Worthy of being accepted.
2. Adequate to satisfy a need, requirement, or standard; satisfactory.

un·for·tu·nate
adj.

1. Characterized by undeserved bad luck; unlucky.
2. Causing misfortune; disastrous.
3. Regrettable; deplorable: an unfortunate lack of good manners.

So, acceptable is worthy of being accepted while unfortunate means regrettable and through bad luck. A significant difference I would say.

No, your actions are illegal and against people who have commited no crime. That is a huge difference as I have stated mumerous times.

On your statements on the war, certainly in the UK the majority of the population were against the war. And the number would have been even higher if the misinformation about Saddam's instant deployment capabilites. So the goverment was certainly not 'representing' the people.

The government made a decision based on the best interests of the world as a whole. As the elected representatives of the public they are charged with making decisions on the behalf of the public. The Australian government made the same decision and I belive it will be vindicated in the long run.

Ah, so my political views are ideologues. What are yours Tyg? Common sense? And if you can't see the similaritys between supporting violence in war as a neccessary tactic and supporting violent anti fascist activity as a necessary tactic then it's your reality that's skewed. On "self righteousness", which of us believes all others should practice our ideologies on this? (And I think it is reasonable to point at the hypocrisy of the fascists running to the forces of the "Zionist Occupation Goverment" they profess to despise for protection).

Yes, you political views are ideologues as are mine and everyone elses. Difference is, I am not discussing my political beliefs. I only passed comment based on the law on someone objecting to a group of people getting police protection from a violent protest group.
No, my reality is centred. Your activities are illegal and based on your opinion that you are more righteous than those you oppose. As far as them seeking protection, they are entitled. It also draws publicity thanks to the mobs that attack them giving them notoriety.

And I am saying that you have to see everyone who supports violence under any circumstances in the same way to be consistent.

I do. You are not the police, you do not dispense justice.

Simple application of Occam's Razor needed here. You used the wrong terminology so I pointed it out. In the same way as I criticised certain posters on the "Jewish Power in America" thread for referring to Tenete Traditions as a Nazi when he's blatantly a Third Positionist. No hidden agenda. Chill out.(Insert rolling eyes smiley here).

What made you think I was getting wound up? I pointed out that I used Neo-Nazism as an example of fascism. Nothing more. I did not say you had a hidden agenda, just that you have changed the direction of the debate.

I'm hardly going to accuse you of supporting fascism (you blatantly don't) shortly after disagreeing with your terminology. I defy you to find even one example on these boards of me falsely accusing someone of being a fascist.

I didn't say you did. Just pointing out that if it came to the situation of voicing my opinions on facsists that it would require me to mention my moral stance. I was making sure you did not try and pounce on the mentioning of morals from the other topic. Now who needs to chill out? :rolleyes:

They're going to claim they're being attacked by white antifascists because they're white? How does that work?

Who mentioned white anti-fascists? Regardless of the colour of the skin of the people attacking them they can play the victim because they are being attacked for, as they see it, standing up and being proud to be white.

I took this comment as sarcastic.Silly me.

It was sarcastic and it was in reference to someone comparing fascists to Al Qaeda.

But apart from education (which may work in the long term but does nothing to neutralise the threat in the here and now, what other solutions to you suggest? I'd question your conclusions. Check out www.redwatch.org or www.white.org.uk Then come back and honestly tell me you don't think those groups are trying to project a 'hard men of action' (as opposed to victim) image to recruit.

So you do not want a long term solution? Will it leave you with nothing to do on the weekends? I could not care less whether they project a hard man image or seek toplay the victim. Either way, your actions play into their hands. Education is the only true solution to deny these groups the supply of recruits they need. Fighting them on the streets does nothing but create another anti-fascist hate group to run the streets.

But they use economic decline and widespread disenfranchisement in the political process. That has no bearing on opposition to them (apart from to suggest that anti fascists allying themselves with the status quo is counterproductive).

So you think that by improving education and facilities in poorer neighbourhoods will not hen create less disenfranchised youth which will then cascade to fewer recruits from fascists? So, running street battles are a far better way to dry up the sources of recruits for fascists. Can I ask how?


I'd agree to an extent- the left as a whole also shares some blame for not presenting a credible alternative. But the lion's share of the blame for the rundown state of these areas has to lie with those responsible for economic policy.

True, but both sides of politics have had a go and not made any real effort to combat the source of the problems facing youth. Instead they apply bandaid solutions to the symptoms. 90% of the battle is in the mind, giving people a glimmer of hope and helping them succeed rather than telling them they will never get anywhere without welfare. Anyway, that is another topic altogether.

I don't think the pat answer of 'education' is appropriate here. If people live in shitty conditions no amount of education is going to change that. You have to provide a viable political alternative to the false answers of the far right. And once again, when the fascists are fighting politically, that's how they need to be countered. When they are trying to gain physical control of the streets (for example by deliberately holding provocative "anti-black mugger" marches through areas with high ethnic populations) that's when physical confrontation is necessary. Horses for courses.

I disagree. Education is the key to escaping poverty. There are plenty of viable political alternatives but what makes you think a person in a poor area would prefer a political party over a decent education? I am not going to get into your incessant need to try and justify your affinity to violence. I disagree with your activities and its time you accepted that that is my stance.


And once again, I'd like you to explain the legal precedent for terms like "idiots and thugs".I'm not inferring anything. There was no sarcasm in that comment. (Now I know how the boy who cried wolf felt ;)). It was simply that. I thought the link might be of genuine interest to you because it demonstrates what I mean by 'providing a viable political alternative to the far right).

See response to first comment regarding thugs and idiots. Can't be bothered copying and pasting the same argument. I have never said their should not be a viable political alternative to the far right, it is your methods I do not agree with.


Firstly, if you're going to talk about "acknowledging posts" can you address the quote I've posted from Hitler on how it would have been possible to stop the National Socialist movement?

What is there to address? A comment made by Hitler after he was in power saying he could have only been stopped if he'd been "smashed on the streets". A violent man states he thinks the only solution to his rise was violence. A huge revelation.

I have acknowledged them, I just don't think they're relevant and this is why.

The first source is specifically talking about trying to stir up racial tension, by making it appear like there was anti white feeling among ethnic minorities. This is why anti fascism needs to be very careful not to polarise itself along racial lines.

The second is talking about the abandoment of working class areas by the political mainstream (and a large section of the left though it doesn't specifically address this) and how that aids recruitment. Again that doesn't apply to a militant working class anti fascist movement.

If you take them as single events then thats true. What I was portraying was the methods used by fascists to recruit and who they target. It is irrelevant what races are in the anti-fascist movement because the fascists are still being, in their eyes, victimised because they are proud of their race. When you are looking to portray to a disenfranchised youth that people that are being persecuted for being proud of being white, what better example than a mob attacking fascists for simply attending a meeting? Plays right into their hands.

If a man plans for 6 months to rob a bank, if he makes detailed floorplans and takes note of the security (how much, where), if he buys a gun and a ski mask, if he prepares a place to hide out after the incident, if he gets in his car and drives to the bank, walks up to the teller and deposits a cheque... then as far as I'm concerned, he's innocent and should be treated as such.

Thinking about doing something is within the right to freedom of thought; talking about it falls under freedom of speech and expression, it's only the action I have the problem with. Cracking down before an action is taken interferes with (in my opinions) basic civil rights.

I admit that your opinion is as good as mine. But, in my opinion, the first paragraph is absolute kuso, aho no kotoba. Hmm, this is japanese. I'm sure there's some restriction on swearing so i did it in japanese instead.
Have you ever heard about something called malicious intent? Do you think those terrorists who were arrested for planning those attacks on the Citygroup building etc should be let free? Would you rather pick up the carbonized bodies of the victims than fuss over human rights?

Look, it'ts harsh, but this is reality. There's one spectrum. On one side, there's freedom (of speech thought etc). On the other side is safety. The more 'free' a country is, the more dangerous it is.

Now we resort to semantics.

From out favourite dictionary.com:

thug

n : an aggressive and violent young criminal

sounds apt to me. AND:

idiotIf we get really semantic amout it then I'd question your defination of all anti-fascists as young. Pedantic quibbiling aside, I'll accept that defination if you accept it includes the following:

The Suffragettes
The soldiers on the American Side in the American War of Independance
All national liberation struggles ever.
Nelson 'winner of a Nobel Peace prize' Mandela.

Do we have a deal?

An unlearned, ignorant, or simple person, as distinguished from the educated; an ignoramus.

I would deem street rioting as an action of someone unlearned and hence an idiot.Unlearned? That's a rather sweeping generalisation. Are you saying that you are 100% sure that none of the anti WTO rioters had university degrees?


Again, semantics. You seemed to have read my mind in a manner to suit yourself.I was following the most common usage of the term. I don't think that was unreasonable.



No, it is not a moral stance, it is a fact of war. Being a violent conflict in itself . Declaring war against those nations or organisations that have broken the law is entirely different to attacking people who have committed no crime. How many times do I need to point this out to you? And saying that violence is justified in times of war because war is a "violent conflict in itself" is a moral standpoint on the concept of war. How many times do I need to point this out to you.The resistance to Mussolini went about it the wrong way, hence it failed. So, I suppose they were idiots and thugs by definition.
Out of interest what would you have suggested? Education? Maybe Mussolini wouldn't have become a fascist if he'd been sent to night school.


No, the state is siding with the law. No-one forces people to listen to what they have to say. People can hate them but it does not give them the right to assault them and it does not mean that they should not be protected under the law.Considering the evidence of state foreknowledge of the Soho bombings by neo-nazi David Copeland how can they be trusted in this manner.


I am using the word as it was intended. I have said in numerous times. No matter how many times you badger me about it I will not change its intended context.Do you accept you are using a word with several complementry, but subtlely different meanings?



Again from dictionary.com:

ac·cept·a·ble
adj.

1. Worthy of being accepted.
2. Adequate to satisfy a need, requirement, or standard; satisfactory.

un·for·tu·nate
adj.

1. Characterized by undeserved bad luck; unlucky.
2. Causing misfortune; disastrous.
3. Regrettable; deplorable: an unfortunate lack of good manners.

So, acceptable is worthy of being accepted while unfortunate means regrettable and through bad luck. A significant difference I would say.Fair enough, I accept your defination of the differences between the two- I was misusing the word "acceptable" to mean a necessary evil.

No, your actions are illegal and against people who have commited no crime. That is a huge difference as I have stated mumerous times.Kindly provide your legal rulings to show war is "legal".



The government made a decision based on the best interests of the world as a whole. As the elected representatives of the public they are charged with making decisions on the behalf of the public. The Australian government made the same decision and I belive it will be vindicated in the long run.But those decsions were not representative of public (or UN) opinion.



Yes, you political views are ideologues as are mine and everyone elses. Difference is, I am not discussing my political beliefs. I only passed comment based on the law on someone objecting to a group of people getting police protection from a violent protest group.
No, my reality is centred. Your activities are illegal and based on your opinion that you are more righteous than those you oppose. As far as them seeking protection, they are entitled. It also draws publicity thanks to the mobs that attack them giving them notoriety.Do you agree that them seeking protection is hypocritical considering their political stance?



I do. You are not the police, you do not dispense justice. So you do consider the Suffragettes to be thugs and idiots. Thanks. That's all I was asking.



What made you think I was getting wound up? I pointed out that I used Neo-Nazism as an example of fascism. Nothing more. I did not say you had a hidden agenda, just that you have changed the direction of the debate.Um, this bit isn't really a debate is it? We both agree that fascism and neo-nazism are not the same thing.


I didn't say you did. Just pointing out that if it came to the situation of voicing my opinions on facsists that it would require me to mention my moral stance. I was making sure you did not try and pounce on the mentioning of morals from the other topic. Now who needs to chill out? :rolleyes: You also said I am sure this will descend into questioning whether I support fascism. That seems pretty clearcut to me. :rolleyes:



Who mentioned white anti-fascists? Regardless of the colour of the skin of the people attacking them they can play the victim because they are being attacked for, as they see it, standing up and being proud to be white.They can't present it as a race war though. Or that they are being attacked because they are white.



It was sarcastic and it was in reference to someone comparing fascists to Al Qaeda. Previous to Al Qaeda the biggest terrorist outrage on American soil was by a white supremicist.



So you do not want a long term solution? Will it leave you with nothing to do on the weekends? I could not care less whether they project a hard man image or seek toplay the victim. Either way, your actions play into their hands. Education is the only true solution to deny these groups the supply of recruits they need. Fighting them on the streets does nothing but create another anti-fascist hate group to run the streets.Not what I said and it's disingenuous of you to suggest otherwise. I've said many times on this thread that I am no longer involved in physical confrontation as the British National Party have changed their tactics so it's no longer the best tactic. I'm arguing that 'education' is not the long tern solution people like you suggest. It's supplanting the fascists as the 'radical opposition' in the disenfranchised areas they recruit it that's the genuine long term solution. But that's much harder work then saying that 'someone' needs to educate them so it gets less takers.



So you think that by improving education and facilities in poorer neighbourhoods will not hen create less disenfranchised youth which will then cascade to fewer recruits from fascists? So, running street battles are a far better way to dry up the sources of recruits for fascists. Can I ask how? Improving facilities yes. I don't think education is an answer to the poverty of an area. As I've said, running street battles are the right tactic when the fascists are using street based tactics. Community based political activism is the way forward when they're using political tactics. Is that so hard to understand?


True, but both sides of politics have had a go and not made any real effort to combat the source of the problems facing youth. Instead they apply bandaid solutions to the symptoms. 90% of the battle is in the mind, giving people a glimmer of hope and helping them succeed rather than telling them they will never get anywhere without welfare. Anyway, that is another topic altogether.I agree with your first statement. I don't believe that poverty is 90% in the mind. It needs to be solved by working class communitys ruling their own affairs and controlling their own destiny.


I disagree. Education is the key to escaping poverty. There are plenty of viable political alternatives but what makes you think a person in a poor area would prefer a political party over a decent education? I am not going to get into your incessant need to try and justify your affinity to violence. I disagree with your activities and its time you accepted that that is my stance.I do accept your stance. I think it's dishonest for you to pretend that it's not a moral one. While education might help a few people it doesn't improve the lot of the area as a whole. So yes, provide educational facilities for all. But don't pretend that's a solution in and of itself. (And how can you talk about my "affinity to violence" when I've stated clearly I am no longer using it as a tactic?)


See response to first comment regarding thugs and idiots. Can't be bothered copying and pasting the same argument. I have never said their should not be a viable political alternative to the far right, it is your methods I do not agree with.
You haven't actually read the link have you? It's a political alternative to the far right, not a physical one.


What is there to address? A comment made by Hitler after he was in power saying he could have only been stopped if he'd been "smashed on the streets". A violent man states he thinks the only solution to his rise was violence. A huge revelation.So you don't think the creater of national socialism has anything of relevance to say about how to stop it?



If you take them as single events then thats true. What I was portraying was the methods used by fascists to recruit and who they target. It is irrelevant what races are in the anti-fascist movement because the fascists are still being, in their eyes, victimised because they are proud of their race. When you are looking to portray to a disenfranchised youth that people that are being persecuted for being proud of being white, what better example than a mob attacking fascists for simply attending a meeting? Plays right into their hands.They are single events, so that's how I took them.

If we get really semantic amout it then I'd question your defination of all anti-fascists as young. Pedantic quibbiling aside, I'll accept that defination if you accept it includes the following:

The Suffragettes
The soldiers on the American Side in the American War of Independance
All national liberation struggles ever.
Nelson 'winner of a Nobel Peace prize' Mandela.

Do we have a deal?

Yes. Under those definitions the above examples are included.

Unlearned? That's a rather sweeping generalisation. Are you saying that you are 100% sure that none of the anti WTO rioters had university degrees?

It is a sweeping generalisation based the actions of the group. Unlearned can mean more than lacking a tertiary education. There are many people with vast academic intelligence who are unlearned with regards to understanding the law and social interaction.

I was following the most common usage of the term. I don't think that was unreasonable.

Nor was I unreasonable to expect you to accept the context I intended it to be taken. I have said to you a number of times the context of the use of the word and I would have hoped you would accept that that was the intended context by now.



And saying that violence is justified in times of war because war is a "violent conflict in itself" is a moral standpoint on the concept of war. How many times do I need to point this out to you.Out of interest what would you have suggested? Education? Maybe Mussolini wouldn't have become a fascist if he'd been sent to night school.

No, again from dictionary.com

war

\War\, v. i. [imp. & p. p. Warred; p. pr. & vb. n. Warring.] 1. To make war; to invade or attack a state or nation with force of arms; to carry on hostilities; to be in a state by violence.

Saying war is a violent conflict is not a moral statement it is the meaning of the word, war.

Nothing would have stopped Mussolini short of going back in time to educate him and others. The best way to combat fascism is to educate people to remove ignorance about other cultures and to enable people to achieve.

Considering the evidence of state foreknowledge of the Soho bombings by neo-nazi David Copeland how can they be trusted in this manner.

I would trust them more than another hate group such as the anti-fascists.

Do you accept you are using a word with several complementry, but subtlely different meanings?

No, I used a word in a specific context. Initially you may have interpreted it in another context but I have told you innumerable times the context I intended so stop harping on about it.


Fair enough, I accept your defination of the differences between the two- I was misusing the word "acceptable" to mean a necessary evil.
Kindly provide your legal rulings to show war is "legal".

Thank you.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Declaration%20of%20war

This link shows where the Declaration of war is in the US constitution and therefore legal.


But those decsions were not representative of public (or UN) opinion.

They are the elected representatives of the public, the public have charged them to represent their needs and the needs of the country.

Do you agree that them seeking protection is hypocritical considering their political stance?

No.

So you do consider the Suffragettes to be thugs and idiots. Thanks. That's all I was asking.

Based on the definitions I posted, yes.


Um, this bit isn't really a debate is it? We both agree that fascism and neo-nazism are not the same thing.

No, its not a debate. You just felt the need to point out the obvious and then accused me of getting worked up.

You also said That seems pretty clearcut to me. :rolleyes:

I did not say you would call me a fascist, I said that if the debate goes down the moral road then eventually it will be required for me to state my moral stance on fascism and therefore the question may arise as to whether I support fascism or not.

They can't present it as a race war though. Or that they are being attacked because they are white.

Yes they can. They are being attacked for, as they see it, being proud of their race. So that makes it obvious that, regardless of the ethnicity of their attackers, they are being targeted over their race.

Previous to Al Qaeda the biggest terrorist outrage on American soil was by a white supremicist.

A white supremecist, not a fascist group.

Not what I said and it's disingenuous of you to suggest otherwise. I've said many times on this thread that I am no longer involved in physical confrontation as the British National Party have changed their tactics so it's no longer the best tactic. I'm arguing that 'education' is not the long tern solution people like you suggest. It's supplanting the fascists as the 'radical opposition' in the disenfranchised areas they recruit it that's the genuine long term solution. But that's much harder work then saying that 'someone' needs to educate them so it gets less takers.

I disagree with you. I believe education is the long term solution because it treats the cause and not the symptoms. Creating a hate group at the oppositte end of the political spectrum is not a solution it is creating another problem. Something about two wrongs...
So organising a group of extremists is more difficult then revamping an education system? Wow, must be some job recruiting for the anti-fascists!

Improving facilities yes. I don't think education is an answer to the poverty of an area. As I've said, running street battles are the right tactic when the fascists are using street based tactics. Community based political activism is the way forward when they're using political tactics. Is that so hard to understand?

I understand your views but I do not agree with them. Is that so hard to understand? I believe educating people to succeed is a long term solution because it removes the causes of the problem of poverty and hence removes the prime recruiting base for fascist groups.

I agree with your first statement. I don't believe that poverty is 90% in the mind. It needs to be solved by working class communitys ruling their own affairs and controlling their own destiny.

Poverty is not 90% in the mind, the escape from poverty is 90% in the mind. You need to encourage children in low income areas to work hard and try to achieve. Simply telling them that poverty is an excuse for not trying is merely ensuring the poverty cycle continues. It needs to be solved at a government level and also on a public level. Parents, teachers etc need to be shown how to encourage their children to succeed as well as the government's responsibility to provide facilities and resources to make it possible.

I do accept your stance. I think it's dishonest for you to pretend that it's not a moral one. While education might help a few people it doesn't improve the lot of the area as a whole. So yes, provide educational facilities for all. But don't pretend that's a solution in and of itself. (And how can you talk about my "affinity to violence" when I've stated clearly I am no longer using it as a tactic?)

Thats your opinion but it is not a moral stance. As I have pointed out my initial comment and the comments afterwards are based on a person blaming a fascist group for the costs of having protection from a group of violent protesters. I argued that it was their legal right to have police protection because they were not breaking the law. The violent protesters were breaking the law and therefore the "blame" for the costs of the police protection should be directed at the protesters not the fascists. That is a legal perspective and that was my only comment until you tried to turn it into something it was not.
You have aslo stated that you think it is the right tactic against people who are not breaking the law or partaking in violence themselves. You do have an affinity for violence.

You haven't actually read the link have you? It's a political alternative to the far right, not a physical one.

Yes, I read the link. The comments were in reference to 2 separate comments. The first part is in reference to the article you linked to and the second part concerns your stance, preceded by the word "your".

So you don't think the creater of national socialism has anything of relevance to say about how to stop it?

I think he was a violent person and only capable of thinking of violent solutions.


They are single events, so that's how I took them.

Yes, they are separate events referring to two issues related to recruitment by fascists. I am sure you are aware of that and are intentionally refusing to see it.

Yes. Under those definitions the above examples are included.Whereas the apartheid goverment isn't. Hmmm.



It is a sweeping generalisation based the actions of the group. Unlearned can mean more than lacking a tertiary education. There are many people with vast academic intelligence who are unlearned with regards to understanding the law and social interaction.You think the WTO protesters thought what they were doing was legal? Hardly. And what precisely has political violence got to do with social interaction?


Nor was I unreasonable to expect you to accept the context I intended it to be taken. I have said to you a number of times the context of the use of the word and I would have hoped you would accept that that was the intended context by now.
It was your intended context later on. I still don't believe that referring to "idiots and thugs who think it's cool to use violence" is a legal term and I think it's dishonest to pretend otherwise.



No, again from dictionary.com

war

\War\, v. i. [imp. & p. p. Warred; p. pr. & vb. n. Warring.] 1. To make war; to invade or attack a state or nation with force of arms; to carry on hostilities; to be in a state by violence.

Saying war is a violent conflict is not a moral statement it is the meaning of the word, war.But saying that violence is different because it's in a war context is a moral statement.

Nothing would have stopped Mussolini short of going back in time to educate him and others. The best way to combat fascism is to educate people to remove ignorance about other cultures and to enable people to achieve.Not all fascists are ignorant. The leader of the BNP is highly intelligent.


I would trust them more than another hate group such as the anti-fascists.Despite the evidence of state involvement in loyalist death squads in Northern Ireland or the evidence of the Italian Goverment's control of fascist pseudo gangs in the 70s?



No, I used a word in a specific context. Initially you may have interpreted it in another context but I have told you innumerable times the context I intended so stop harping on about it.Which post are you claiming you first said that you were talking in purely legal terms?




Thank you.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Declaration%20of%20war

This link shows where the Declaration of war is in the US constitution and therefore legal.So any act that takes place under the laws of a specific country is legal in your book?



They are the elected representatives of the public, the public have charged them to represent their needs and the needs of the country.How is going against the public's wishes representing their needs?



No.Really? Why does calling on the same police force that the fascists refer to as agents of the "Zionist Occupation Goverment" not seem hypocritical to you?



Based on the definitions I posted, yes.That's where we disagree then. I believe the fully legal (under their own laws) apartheid goverment were more thuggish then Nelson Mandela.




No, its not a debate. You just felt the need to point out the obvious and then accused me of getting worked up.If it was "obvious" why not just stick to using the correct terminology?



I did not say you would call me a fascist, I said that if the debate goes down the moral road then eventually it will be required for me to state my moral stance on fascism and therefore the question may arise as to whether I support fascism or not.
Why would you stating your moral stance on fascism lead to questions on whether you support it or not?


Yes they can. They are being attacked for, as they see it, being proud of their race. So that makes it obvious that, regardless of the ethnicity of their attackers, they are being targeted over their race.Again, a specific example of this being used for recruitment please?



A white supremecist, not a fascist group. McVeigh had links to other fascists.



I disagree with you. I believe education is the long term solution because it treats the cause and not the symptoms. Creating a hate group at the oppositte end of the political spectrum is not a solution it is creating another problem. Something about two wrongs...You misunderstand me. I think that education is a small part of the solution but to cut out the fascists base of support tackling poverty is far more important
So organising a group of extremists is more difficult then revamping an education system? Wow, must be some job recruiting for the anti-fascists!Again you misunderstand. I'm saying that organising a viable political alternative that is credible to those who feel most disillusioned in mainstream politics is more difficult then suggesting that poverty would be solved if more people had qualifications.


I understand your views but I do not agree with them. Is that so hard to understand? I believe educating people to succeed is a long term solution because it removes the causes of the problem of poverty and hence removes the prime recruiting base for fascist groups.How does education solve problems like lack of basic facilities and the problems caused by heroin dealers?



Poverty is not 90% in the mind, the escape from poverty is 90% in the mind. You need to encourage children in low income areas to work hard and try to achieve. Simply telling them that poverty is an excuse for not trying is merely ensuring the poverty cycle continues. It needs to be solved at a government level and also on a public level. Parents, teachers etc need to be shown how to encourage their children to succeed as well as the government's responsibility to provide facilities and resources to make it possible.But far more importantly you need to solve the lack of representation of working class interests at all levels of the political system.



Thats your opinion but it is not a moral stance. As I have pointed out my initial comment and the comments afterwards are based on a person blaming a fascist group for the costs of having protection from a group of violent protesters. I argued that it was their legal right to have police protection because they were not breaking the law. The violent protesters were breaking the law and therefore the "blame" for the costs of the police protection should be directed at the protesters not the fascists. That is a legal perspective and that was my only comment until you tried to turn it into something it was not.That's not all you said as I've pointed out.
You have aslo stated that you think it is the right tactic against people who are not breaking the law or partaking in violence themselves. You do have an affinity for violence.
Why are the qualifying statements I've highlighted necessary? Surely if you think that violence is the right tactic under any circumstances then you have an affinity to violence? So that would naturally include you as well.


Yes, I read the link. The comments were in reference to 2 separate comments. The first part is in reference to the article you linked to and the second part concerns your stance, preceded by the word "your".Considering my link is my current political methods, can you explain what precise part of it you disagree with.



I think he was a violent person and only capable of thinking of violent solutions.
I thought Saddam's violence was precisely why you thought violence was a necessary tactic against him?


Yes, they are separate events referring to two issues related to recruitment by fascists. I am sure you are aware of that and are intentionally refusing to see it.But they are talking about an entirely different method of recruitment. What I'm not accepting is that you can "prove" something by posting up two sources which don't mention what you're trying to prove.

But don't you see that the majority of your fellow white citizens don't have the same views as you? Sure, I am blond and blueeyed, but I am not even patriotic, as the majority of the people in my country. Yeah, I live in Europe but the differences can't be that big, you just have to accept that if you were true nationalists you'd do charity work and support the ruling regime (voted for by YOUR people) in as many ways as you can instead of fighting and breaking laws which costs your sacred country money.

START A SCOUTGROUP FOR GOD'S SAKE!!:P

Edit:
By the way one million people emigrated to your country from mine so with your logics you should at least owe me some kind of service:P



Nationalism isn't about backing the nationally elected government. The government may be unhealthy for the people. Nationalism is about what is good for the health of the nation and the people of the nation, the citizens, not immigrants. The current King George W Bush (Aka King Cokehead) is somebody I will not support, because he is a mason and his interests are not America's interests. They are masonic New World Order interests.

Nor will I support the campaign of Kerry, for he too is a mason.

Whereas the apartheid goverment isn't. Hmmm.
Not by that definition, no.

You think the WTO protesters thought what they were doing was legal? Hardly. And what precisely has political violence got to do with social interaction?

Never said they did think it was legal. Any interaction with other human beings is social interaction. They were interacting with people in an unlearned manner.

It was your intended context later on. I still don't believe that referring to "idiots and thugs who think it's cool to use violence" is a legal term and I think it's dishonest to pretend otherwise.

No, it was intended context from the beginning. Its not a legal term, it is a description of the people breaking the law. The legal argument is the fact that what they were doing was illegal and hence the people that needed protection from their illegal activities were entitled to that protection.


But saying that violence is different because it's in a war context is a moral statement.
Not all fascists are ignorant. The leader of the BNP is highly intelligent.

Saying violence is different in war context is not a moral statement, it is a fact of the WAR. No violence = no war. Understand?
I didn't say all fascists were ignorant, their leaders are usually quite intelligent. I was referring to the fact that fascists use ignorance of other cultures and society to try and recruit new members.

Despite the evidence of state involvement in loyalist death squads in Northern Ireland or the evidence of the Italian Goverment's control of fascist pseudo gangs in the 70s?

Yes, what makes a hate group any better than those you mentioned?

Which post are you claiming you first said that you were talking in purely legal terms?

My initial post was a legal argument about the right of those not breaking the law to be entitled to police protection from those seeking to cause them harm. If you cannot get this through your skull after all this time then I am starting to think you are intentionally stringing this on with nothing more to add.


So any act that takes place under the laws of a specific country is legal in your book?

If that is the law of the land then it is legal.


How is going against the public's wishes representing their needs?

Seeing as the government that made the decision would have access to all the information before making a decision I think they would be trusted to make a decision that was in the best interest of the nation. If, when the leaders are up for re-election, the public are not happy with their performance they get voted out. Are you saying there should be a referendum on every government decision?


Really? Why does calling on the same police force that the fascists refer to as agents of the "Zionist Occupation Goverment" not seem hypocritical to you?

No, regardless of their feelings about the police they are entitled to seek their protection and the police are obliged to give it.


That's where we disagree then. I believe the fully legal (under their own laws) apartheid goverment were more thuggish then Nelson Mandela.

Not under the definition of "thug" I posted.

If it was "obvious" why not just stick to using the correct terminology?

As I said, was using Neo-Nazis in the example as you are fully aware. Stop arguing a non-issue.


Why would you stating your moral stance on fascism lead to questions on whether you support it or not?

I did not say it definitely would but was clarifying before it got to that point that I would have to discuss my moral stance if we got to discussing fascism in detail. If we were to discuss fascism on a moral level then of course we would need to mention our thoughts on fascism.

Again, a specific example of this being used for recruitment please?


His article gave the impression that the fascists were alone in using violence as a tactic. However, he wrote that among the crowd there were “some Jews, led by ex-servicemen.” This description fits the 43 Group, whose aim in life was to disrupt, or if possible break up, fascist meetings and in the process deal out some physical punishment to the fascists.

Our meetings there on a Thursday were thrilling and scary and mostly hugely satisfying. On Wednesday evenings, if we had nothing better to do, we might go along to listen to the hysterical ramblings of the UBF’s Burgess and observe the 43 Group’s frantic efforts to bring the whole thing to a chaotic end.
We made a point of silently listening to it all; we knew that the more disorder there was the better the fascists’ chance of recruiting members. (In the early 1960s the membership of the Union Movement went up to some 1,500, for some of which they credited the violence from their opponents).

(Source: http://worldsocialism.org/spgb/jun04/brush.html)

A specific example as you requested.


McVeigh had links to other fascists.

He probably had links to a church and a number of other groups. Do you plan on attacking them also?



You misunderstand me. I think that education is a small part of the solution but to cut out the fascists base of support tackling poverty is far more importantAgain you misunderstand. I'm saying that organising a viable political alternative that is credible to those who feel most disillusioned in mainstream politics is more difficult then suggesting that poverty would be solved if more people had qualifications.

Education is the key step to tackling poverty. By educating people and enabling them to succeed it gives them the opportunity to escape poverty.
It is not about qualifications, it is about creating an opportunity for people in poverty to have an opportunity to make a better life for themselves. A political party may help in pushing for such changes on a political level but ultimately the current governments and communities need to shake up the education system to enable people to gain a good education and make a success of themselves.

How does education solve problems like lack of basic facilities and the problems caused by heroin dealers?

Education enables people to help themselves. Education gives people the chance to achieve and therefore gives them a reason to be optimistic. Simply putting new facilities into a poor area will not solve anything. The changes need to start from within the person and then in the community as a whole before they are expressed in other areas such as nicer houses, parks etc. Heroin dealers are a product of poverty, drugs are used as an escape. If people have a future to look forward to then why would they turn to drugs? Not saying that no-one would use drugs if they were no longer living in poverty but, in my opinion, removing poverty greatly reduces the impact of drug dealers. I am in favour of the police and other law enforcement agencies using zero tolerance on drug related crimes as these people feed off the misery of others.


But far more importantly you need to solve the lack of representation of working class interests at all levels of the political system.

By becoming politicians they are no longer "working class". Dividing people into classes is something I despise.


That's not all you said as I've pointed out.Why are the qualifying statements I've highlighted necessary? Surely if you think that violence is the right tactic under any circumstances then you have an affinity to violence? So that would naturally include you as well.

No, if you prefer violence over a non-violent means then you have an affinity for violence. I do not favour violence over non-violence.

Considering my link is my current political methods, can you explain what precise part of it you disagree with.

I was referring to your comments about violent confrontation, not the website.


I thought Saddam's violence was precisely why you thought violence was a necessary tactic against him?

No, he murdered people, thats a crime.

But they are talking about an entirely different method of recruitment. What I'm not accepting is that you can "prove" something by posting up two sources which don't mention what you're trying to prove.

Yes, they do mention what I am trying to prove. However, as you seem unwilling to take the two posts into context, I have posted another link in reference to your demands for a specific example. While I am sure you will dance around the topic again, it is a specific example.

Not by that definition, no.
And it is the defination you have chosen to cite, so I believe it is reasonable to take it as 'your defination'.


Never said they did think it was legal. Any interaction with other human beings is social interaction. They were interacting with people in an unlearned manner.Are soldiers intereacting with their enemies in an 'unlearned manner'?



No, it was intended context from the beginning. Its not a legal term, it is a description of the people breaking the law. The legal argument is the fact that what they were doing was illegal and hence the people that needed protection from their illegal activities were entitled to that protection.So you weren't just arguing legality at the start of this debate, despite repeated claims by you to the contrary.


Saying violence is different in war context is not a moral statement, it is a fact of the WAR. No violence = no war. Understand?Saying it is different in a war context is making a moral statement on the validity of war as a concept.
I didn't say all fascists were ignorant, their leaders are usually quite intelligent. I was referring to the fact that fascists use ignorance of other cultures and society to try and recruit new members.



Yes, what makes a hate group any better than those you mentioned?The fact that an antifascist "hate group" doesen't also target non combatants like the one's you mentioned.



My initial post was a legal argument about the right of those not breaking the law to be entitled to police protection from those seeking to cause them harm. If you cannot get this through your skull after all this time then I am starting to think you are intentionally stringing this on with nothing more to add.See my above comment that you were not making a solely legal argument and have admitted as much.



If that is the law of the land then it is legal.That would of course include the Stalinist Gulags.

Are you saying there should be a referendum on every government decision?On anything this major, yes there should. There should also be a mass decentralisation of power back to local communities.



No, regardless of their feelings about the police they are entitled to seek their protection and the police are obliged to give it.The police aren't obliged to give it for free, at least in the UK. They charge both football matches and music festivals for policing costs. And I didn't ask if you thought they were legally entitled to police protection. I asked if you thought it was hypocritical of them to do so considering their politics.


Not under the definition of "thug" I posted.And do you acknowledge that the term "thug" is one that makes value judgements?



As I said, was using Neo-Nazis in the example as you are fully aware. Stop arguing a non-issue.You didn't say it was an example. All I am saying is that it muddys the waters to talk about a specific faction of fascism when your discussion is about the whole umbrella of the ideology.

(Source: http://worldsocialism.org/spgb/jun04/brush.html)

A specific example as you requested.
Not however the specific example of militant anti fascists aiding the recruitment of the far right as you've been claiming however. It's still nearer to what I've been asking for then you've previously produced so thank you.

He probably had links to a church and a number of other groups. Do you plan on attacking them also?
Obvious difference there is that they didn't share the ideology that lead to the Oklahoma bombing.


Education is the key step to tackling poverty. By educating people and enabling them to succeed it gives them the opportunity to escape poverty.
It is not about qualifications, it is about creating an opportunity for people in poverty to have an opportunity to make a better life for themselves. A political party may help in pushing for such changes on a political level but ultimately the current governments and communities need to shake up the education system to enable people to gain a good education and make a success of themselves.



Education enables people to help themselves. Education gives people the chance to achieve and therefore gives them a reason to be optimistic. Simply putting new facilities into a poor area will not solve anything. The changes need to start from within the person and then in the community as a whole before they are expressed in other areas such as nicer houses, parks etc. But education doesn't help people leave the social class they're in. (Breen, Richard and Goldthorpe, John H. (2001) Class, Mobility and Merit The Experience of Two British Birth Cohorts. European Sociological Review 17(2):pp. 81-101.- my copys a paper one unfortunately but you might find it at http://eprints.ouls.ox.ac.uk:81/eursoj/hdb/Volume_17/Issue_02/abstracts/170081.sgm I'm not sure. I'm a luddite who can't remember how to open PDF files.)

Heroin dealers are a product of poverty, drugs are used as an escape. If people have a future to look forward to then why would they turn to drugs? Not saying that no-one would use drugs if they were no longer living in poverty but, in my opinion, removing poverty greatly reduces the impact of drug dealers. I am in favour of the police and other law enforcement agencies using zero tolerance on drug related crimes as these people feed off the misery of others.I agree with your comments on poverty. What needs to be done is a massive look, with no options ruled out, at the current drug laws. We're never going to completly eradicate drug use. The important question is how that fact can be socially managed. But if we look at how the police are actually operating at the moment what "survilleance operations" actually means is to leave heroin dealers in the community while they look for more intelligence. In that circumstance do you support people taking the law into their own hands? (I'm not talking about violence. I'm talking about videotaping the dealers, picketing their houses etc).

By becoming politicians they are no longer "working class". Dividing people into classes is something I despise.Not if they a) stay living in the same area they represent and b) don't take anymore then the median wage for that area. And you can 'despise' dividing people into classes. If you 'despise' dividing people into races it doesn't make racism magically disapear.

No, if you prefer violence over a non-violent means then you have an affinity for violence. I do not favour violence over non-violence.I've made it clear all along it's entirely a tactical consideration as far as I'm concerned. So it's if I feel it's a necessary tactic in some circumstances. As you feel about the Iraq war. So you have an affinity for violence.


No, he murdered people, thats a crime.Not under the law of the land at the time (with the exception of the invasion of Kuwait. Under your earlier defination of "legal" Saddam's murder of his own people qualifies.

Yes, they do mention what I am trying to prove. However, as you seem unwilling to take the two posts into context, I have posted another link in reference to your demands for a specific example. While I am sure you will dance around the topic again, it is a specific example.As I'm sure you'll acknowledge that is purely an opinion piece. It's only reference specifically to what we're arguing is the comment that "(In the early 1960s the membership of the Union Movement went up to some 1,500, for some of which they credited the violence from their opponents)." for which it provides no sources, so it comes down to how credible we consider the SPGB as a political movement, and I'm afraid considering that every prediction they've made has been wrong, I don't rate them particuarly. Certainly not compared to the comments made by Tony Lecomber, BNP deputy leader that "The BNP recognised this historical theme several years ago when it turned its back decisively on the confrontational strategy of its past. The reason for abandoning confrontational street politics was because it hindered our political progress, and was the only thing holding our extreme opponents together." (Quoted at http://redaction.org/anti-fascism/know_your.html) In other words, the street confrontations were stopping the BNP from growing in their own words.

And it is the defination you have chosen to cite, so I believe it is reasonable to take it as 'your defination'.

No, it is a definition. I did not say it was "my definition".

Are soldiers intereacting with their enemies in an 'unlearned manner'?

No, they are doing their job defending their country or the country of their allies. As I said, war is violence, the two are intertwined.

So you weren't just arguing legality at the start of this debate, despite repeated claims by you to the contrary.

Yes, I was arguing about legality. You can dance around the topic all year and I will not change the context from its original intent. Keep blowing hot air about it but NOTHING will change. It was a purely legal argument.

Saying it is different in a war context is making a moral statement on the validity of war as a concept.

No, war is violence. Again, you keep dancing around the same topics trying to get me to change the context or everything I have said. I won't do that because the original context is what I am arguing not your desired context.

The fact that an antifascist "hate group" doesen't also target non combatants like the one's you mentioned.

So a non-combatant fascist going to a meeting won't be targeted? How do you pick them out from the combatant fascists?

See my above comment that you were not making a solely legal argument and have admitted as much.

See my last 10 or so comments on this "issue". I have told you what the context was and what the context still is. Get over it.


That would of course include the Stalinist Gulags.

If they were law then they are legal. Wheter I agree with them is for a moral debate, not a legal debate.

On anything this major, yes there should. There should also be a mass decentralisation of power back to local communities.

Yes, thats your political belief, but not one I share. Having a referendum on every "major" issue would be ridiculous drain on funds and resources. And who then decides what is "major"?

The police aren't obliged to give it for free, at least in the UK. They charge both football matches and music festivals for policing costs. And I didn't ask if you thought they were legally entitled to police protection. I asked if you thought it was hypocritical of them to do so considering their politics.

It is hypocritical in a sense but that does not mean they should not seek protection if they feel it is needed to protect their safety.

And do you acknowledge that the term "thug" is one that makes value judgements?

No, it is a definition of a word which I applied literally. No value judgement at all.

You didn't say it was an example. All I am saying is that it muddys the waters to talk about a specific faction of fascism when your discussion is about the whole umbrella of the ideology.

I did after you raised the issue of "fascists" and "neo-nazis" terminology. Yet, you still whined about it when you yourself said it was not a point of argument. So if it is not a point of argument what are you arguing about?

Not however the specific example of militant anti fascists aiding the recruitment of the far right as you've been claiming however. It's still nearer to what I've been asking for then you've previously produced so thank you.

It is indeed a specific example of anti-fascists' violence aiding the recruitment by fascists but I did not expect you to accept it because you would not have accepted any link I posted. Thats your prerogative, but I gave you a link that specified what I claimed.

Obvious difference there is that they didn't share the ideology that lead to the Oklahoma bombing.

Regardless, you are judging a group from one member. I merely asked if you would apply that logic to the other groups McVeigh was a member of. I guess your answer is no. Seems a little selective.

But education doesn't help people leave the social class they're in. (Breen, Richard and Goldthorpe, John H. (2001) Class, Mobility and Merit The Experience of Two British Birth Cohorts. European Sociological Review 17(2):pp. 81-101.- my copys a paper one unfortunately but you might find it at http://eprints.ouls.ox.ac.uk:81/eursoj/hdb/Volume_17/Issue_02/abstracts/170081.sgm I'm not sure. I'm a luddite who can't remember how to open PDF files.)

Well, I tend to disagree with the information you provided as I feel it has not been attempted on the scale required to make a difference. I didn't say it would be an immediate change, it may take a few generations but it is a potential cure for the problem rather than a bandaid over the symptoms.

I agree with your comments on poverty. What needs to be done is a massive look, with no options ruled out, at the current drug laws. We're never going to completly eradicate drug use. The important question is how that fact can be socially managed. But if we look at how the police are actually operating at the moment what "survilleance operations" actually means is to leave heroin dealers in the community while they look for more intelligence. In that circumstance do you support people taking the law into their own hands? (I'm not talking about violence. I'm talking about videotaping the dealers, picketing their houses etc).

The reason police use surveillance is to catch, or attempt to catch, the people further up the chain. The dealers are often addicts themselves and therefore perpetrators of the scourge on society that drugs are but also victims at the same. As I said, I would like a zero tolerance approach from law enforcement on drugs. I would support communities that shun and out drug dealers, especially those higher up the chain. Picketing may be too much (I would not want to be picketed wrongly and have the label of drug dealer hanging over my head), but if the community shuns a family or group that supply and/or deal drugs then that will make life more difficult for them. It is a complex issue but a vital one to help alleviate and eventually end poverty.

Not if they a) stay living in the same area they represent and b) don't take anymore then the median wage for that area. And you can 'despise' dividing people into classes. If you 'despise' dividing people into races it doesn't make racism magically disapear.

Thats true, but I cannot see it happening. Maybe I am a pessimist but I cannot see someone getting voted into government and staying in a poor area and taking a heavily reduced wage.
I did not say I thought classes would disappear because I despise them. I tend to think that "working class", "middle class" etc etc are simplistic labels that are generally used to devalue people rather than serve any purpose.

I've made it clear all along it's entirely a tactical consideration as far as I'm concerned. So it's if I feel it's a necessary tactic in some circumstances. As you feel about the Iraq war. So you have an affinity for violence.

No, as I have said. War is violence. I am not pro-war, I am anti-terrorist. Do you then apply your logic to call those against the war in Iraq as pro-terrorist or pro-Saddam?

Not under the law of the land at the time (with the exception of the invasion of Kuwait. Under your earlier defination of "legal" Saddam's murder of his own people qualifies.

Show me the Iraqi law that allows mass murder of their citizens?

As I'm sure you'll acknowledge that is purely an opinion piece. It's only reference specifically to what we're arguing is the comment that "(In the early 1960s the membership of the Union Movement went up to some 1,500, for some of which they credited the violence from their opponents)." for which it provides no sources, so it comes down to how credible we consider the SPGB as a political movement, and I'm afraid considering that every prediction they've made has been wrong, I don't rate them particuarly. Certainly not compared to the comments made by Tony Lecomber, BNP deputy leader that "The BNP recognised this historical theme several years ago when it turned its back decisively on the confrontational strategy of its past. The reason for abandoning confrontational street politics was because it hindered our political progress, and was the only thing holding our extreme opponents together." (Quoted at http://redaction.org/anti-fascism/know_your.html) In other words, the street confrontations were stopping the BNP from growing in their own words.

You asked for an article showing that anti-fascist violence helped recruiting for fascist groups. provided such an article. Whether you think it is credible is not relevant. You asked, I provided. So you provide an article that says the opposite. Just goes to show there are differing opinions and results of your violence. I pointed out that it can assist fascists in recruiting, you asked me to provide an article that supposrted that comment and I have done so.

No, it is a definition. I did not say it was "my definition".*Sigh* Then what's your defination Tyg? (As I did specifically ask if you considered them thugs).



No, they are doing their job defending their country or the country of their allies. As I said, war is violence, the two are intertwined. How does whether someone is at war or doing their job affect your defination of unleaned?



Yes, I was arguing about legality. You can dance around the topic all year and I will not change the context from its original intent. Keep blowing hot air about it but NOTHING will change. It was a purely legal argument.No, it was intended context from the beginning. Its not a legal term, it is a description of the people breaking the law.Emphasis mine. These are two mutually contradictory statements.


No, war is violence. Again, you keep dancing around the same topics trying to get me to change the context or everything I have said. I won't do that because the original context is what I am arguing not your desired context.And supporting war is supporting violence. Simple logical premise following on my your context.


So a non-combatant fascist going to a meeting won't be targeted? How do you pick them out from the combatant fascists?That's a disagreement between us. I consider any fascists to be combatants, in the same way as Saddam Hussain was considered a combatant by you, despite the fact he wasn't personally leading the army into battle.



See my last 10 or so comments on this "issue". I have told you what the context was and what the context still is. Get over it.See my quotations of your comments you're trying to ignore.



If they were law then they are legal. Wheter I agree with them is for a moral debate, not a legal debate.So are we in agreement (and I'm specifically asking you for a moral judgement here) that being a law abider is no more moral a stance then being a law breaker?



Yes, thats your political belief, but not one I share. Having a referendum on every "major" issue would be ridiculous drain on funds and resources. And who then decides what is "major"?To get all Gibsonesq about it I'd argue that the increase in technology would make it far more economical in the West. (And the city state of Athens managed it). I'd draw up a document to decide what counts as major.



It is hypocritical in a sense but that does not mean they should not seek protection if they feel it is needed to protect their safety.Fair enough, I think we both basically agree that it's politically hypocritical- I don't actually mind them seeking police protection, as I think it damages their credibility.



No, it is a definition of a word which I applied literally. No value judgement at all.
To get in to the realms of lingustic theory, I'd question whether it's feasible for the vast majority of words to have no value judgement attached to them. Take 'fascist'. It's strictly speaking a purely descriptive term of a specific political ideology, but I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that's how it's percieved.


I did after you raised the issue of "fascists" and "neo-nazis" terminology. Yet, you still whined about it when you yourself said it was not a point of argument. So if it is not a point of argument what are you arguing about?Dunno. What are you arguing about?


It is indeed a specific example of anti-fascists' violence aiding the recruitment by fascists but I did not expect you to accept it because you would not have accepted any link I posted. Thats your prerogative, but I gave you a link that specified what I claimed.From our old friend Dictionary.com:

Specified

1. To state explicitly or in detail: specified the amount needed.
2. To include in a specification.
3. To state as a condition: specified that they be included in the will.
4.To determine or bring about (a specific result): a gene that specifies the synthesis of a single protein.

I don't think it qualifies. I accept it says what you've claimed. Do you accept it does so entirely without substantiating evidence?


Regardless, you are judging a group from one member. I merely asked if you would apply that logic to the other groups McVeigh was a member of. I guess your answer is no. Seems a little selective.
My answer is actually "depends". If someone is a member of a church that constantly indulges in fiery anti abortion rhetoric and then that person shoots a doctor working at a family planning clinic then I would consider that church partially responsible. In other words, I consider a group responsible if an individual carrys out an act that stems from that group's ideology. So I don't consider the British National Party responsible for the Soho Bombings (as David Copeland walked out of that group because in his view they weren't "extreme" enough for him. I do consider the National Socialist Movement who he later joined responsible as they constantly harp on about "striking a blow against the Zionist Occupation Goverment".


Well, I tend to disagree with the information you provided as I feel it has not been attempted on the scale required to make a difference. I didn't say it would be an immediate change, it may take a few generations but it is a potential cure for the problem rather than a bandaid over the symptoms.What would you do in the meantime while you wait to see if it works.



The reason police use surveillance is to catch, or attempt to catch, the people further up the chain. The dealers are often addicts themselves and therefore perpetrators of the scourge on society that drugs are but also victims at the same. As I said, I would like a zero tolerance approach from law enforcement on drugs. I would support communities that shun and out drug dealers, especially those higher up the chain. Picketing may be too much (I would not want to be picketed wrongly and have the label of drug dealer hanging over my head), but if the community shuns a family or group that supply and/or deal drugs then that will make life more difficult for them. It is a complex issue but a vital one to help alleviate and eventually end poverty.But as I said, I don't think it's the drugs themselves that are the problem, it's specifically the social problems that arise from them. (And I don't support picketing without the community having solid evidence. And if someone stops dealing I think they should then be left alone).


Thats true, but I cannot see it happening. Maybe I am a pessimist but I cannot see someone getting voted into government and staying in a poor area and taking a heavily reduced wage.On a local level it's certainly happened- our three local councillers are doing precisely that, it's written into our constitution.
I did not say I thought classes would disappear because I despise them. I tend to think that "working class", "middle class" etc etc are simplistic labels that are generally used to devalue people rather than serve any purpose.
Why is it anymore devaluing to refer to a "poor" area then a "working class" one?


No, as I have said. War is violence. I am not pro-war, I am anti-terrorist. Do you then apply your logic to call those against the war in Iraq as pro-terrorist or pro-Saddam?No, because there is an obvious difference between being "pro" something and being "anti" something. So I would say that anyone who supported Bin Laden, no matter how conditionally are pro-terrorist. And anyone who supports war, no matter how conditionally are pro-war.



Show me the Iraqi law that allows mass murder of their citizens?In the case of a dictator like Saddam surely his word is the law?



You asked for an article showing that anti-fascist violence helped recruiting for fascist groups. provided such an article. Whether you think it is credible is not relevant. You asked, I provided. So you provide an article that says the opposite. Just goes to show there are differing opinions and results of your violence. I pointed out that it can assist fascists in recruiting, you asked me to provide an article that supposrted that comment and I have done so.
I don't think it showed that. As you recognise that there are different opinions (I'd question the use of the words results) who do you personally think is more likely to know about the effects on fascist ability to operate- a member of a fascist party or a member of a left group who's entire remit seems to be to set up stalls outside larger political groups conferences?

*Sigh* Then what's your defination Tyg? (As I did specifically ask if you considered them thugs).

I know what you asked but I was not getting draw into moral debate because I am sure you would then throw it back at me claiming it was a moral debate all along. My definition of a thug, hard to say. I would take it on a case by case basis after I knew as much as possible about the people involved.


How does whether someone is at war or doing their job affect your defination of unleaned?

Well, war = violence. If you are sent off to fight in a war you are doing your job. Therefore your actions are under the control of the armed forces. If someone decides to attack people who had done nothing illegal or decided to vandalise cars or buildings then that is unlearned behaviour.


Emphasis mine. These are two mutually contradictory statements.

No, they aren't. I was discussing a legal argument using lay terms.

And supporting war is supporting violence. Simple logical premise following on my your context.

Supporting war is supporting violence carried out under the laws of the land. It is not supporting violence from vigilantes and self-appointed dispensers of law.

That's a disagreement between us. I consider any fascists to be combatants, in the same way as Saddam Hussain was considered a combatant by you, despite the fact he wasn't personally leading the army into battle.

Yes, that is a disagreement between us. I do not see a person who has caused no ill or broken no laws to be a combatant. Saddam broke laws and was therefore targeted for breaking those laws.


See my quotations of your comments you're trying to ignore.

See my reply to your above quotations.

So are we in agreement (and I'm specifically asking you for a moral judgement here) that being a law abider is no more moral a stance then being a law breaker?

No, I don't agree with that. I do not make such generalisations on moral issues because you have to consider many aspects of incidents and the people involved before making a moral judgement.


To get all Gibsonesq about it I'd argue that the increase in technology would make it far more economical in the West. (And the city state of Athens managed it). I'd draw up a document to decide what counts as major.

It may be more economical than in other places but still not economical overall. Who decides what is major? Is that decided by referendum also?

Fair enough, I think we both basically agree that it's politically hypocritical- I don't actually mind them seeking police protection, as I think it damages their credibility.

Yes, we do agree on that, except your own opinions on what the seeking of police protection projects but thats your prerogative.


To get in to the realms of lingustic theory, I'd question whether it's feasible for the vast majority of words to have no value judgement attached to them. Take 'fascist'. It's strictly speaking a purely descriptive term of a specific political ideology, but I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that's how it's percieved.

Well thats open to interpretation. I have told you the context of the words I used to clarify that. Whether you want to continue discussing a non-issue such as this is your choice. My intended context will not change.

Dunno. What are you arguing about?

No idea.

From our old friend Dictionary.com:

Specified

1. To state explicitly or in detail: specified the amount needed.
2. To include in a specification.
3. To state as a condition: specified that they be included in the will.
4.To determine or bring about (a specific result): a gene that specifies the synthesis of a single protein.

I don't think it qualifies. I accept it says what you've claimed. Do you accept it does so entirely without substantiating evidence?

Also from dictionary.com:

Main Entry: spe·cif·ic
Pronunciation: sp&-'si-fik
Function: adjective
1 : relating to a particular thing
2 : intended for or restricted to a particular end or object
3 : being of a particularly identified kind or nature

Emphasis mine. I think it does qualify under that definition. You didn't ask for substantiating evidence, only of a source showing what I said to be true. I did that.

My answer is actually "depends". If someone is a member of a church that constantly indulges in fiery anti abortion rhetoric and then that person shoots a doctor working at a family planning clinic then I would consider that church partially responsible. In other words, I consider a group responsible if an individual carrys out an act that stems from that group's ideology. So I don't consider the British National Party responsible for the Soho Bombings (as David Copeland walked out of that group because in his view they weren't "extreme" enough for him. I do consider the National Socialist Movement who he later joined responsible as they constantly harp on about "striking a blow against the Zionist Occupation Goverment".

Yes it does depend. If a person acts on behalf of a group in a manner explicitly sanctioned by that group then the group is responsible. If someone in a group acts in a manner not sanctioned by said group then the group should not be targeted. The targeting of the group that has sanctioned an attack or illegal activity should be dealt with under the law, not dealt with by self-appointed dispensers of justice.

What would you do in the meantime while you wait to see if it works.

You make it sound like it is like planting a tree and watching it grow. It would be a continual process above and beyond what is happening now to combat poverty. It would not be a replacement.

But as I said, I don't think it's the drugs themselves that are the problem, it's specifically the social problems that arise from them. (And I don't support picketing without the community having solid evidence. And if someone stops dealing I think they should then be left alone).

And what of the social problems that create the "need" for drugs in the first place? As for the other part, I agree that you should have evidence before picketing a drug dealer's house if thats your action of choice. It may be that yur picketing disrupts a large investigation therefore allowing people higher up the chain to escape. But that is speculation.

On a local level it's certainly happened- our three local councillers are doing precisely that, it's written into our constitution.Why is it anymore devaluing to refer to a "poor" area then a "working class" one?

I find grouping people into classes to be detrimental to society. But thats a personal opinion. I tend to think the "divides" you mention are not as cut and dried as people would like them to be.

No, because there is an obvious difference between being "pro" something and being "anti" something. So I would say that anyone who supported Bin Laden, no matter how conditionally are pro-terrorist. And anyone who supports war, no matter how conditionally are pro-war.

Precisely, I am anti-terrorist, not pro-war. Thank you for clearing that up.


In the case of a dictator like Saddam surely his word is the law?

No. Show me the Iraqi laws allowing mass murder of civilians.

I don't think it showed that. As you recognise that there are different opinions (I'd question the use of the words results) who do you personally think is more likely to know about the effects on fascist ability to operate- a member of a fascist party or a member of a left group who's entire remit seems to be to set up stalls outside larger political groups conferences?

I would think the fascists would have a fair idea of why people joined. The anti-fascists would speculate in a manner to support their actions. There are different opinions and mine differs from yours.

No. Show me the Iraqi laws allowing mass murder of civilians.

Show mw where any nation can impose laws on a soverign nation.

Show mw where any nation can impose laws on a soverign nation.

Who said they could? Besides, your post has bugger all to do with what we were talking about.

If you want to prattle on about the Iraq war the create the 200th thread on the topic so we can all repost the same crap we did last time and achieve jack. Or, we could take the short cut and just stick to the topic. Your choice.

The whole Idea (of a white supremacy group) is a bunch of crap. Let's get together, simply because we are bound by 2 traits (i.e. we are white and hate other ethinic groups), and find this other ethnic "minority" and kill them and hate them simply because we are better. This idea sprung up the Nazi Socialist Party, killers of over 13 million Jews, gypsies, and other ethnic groups, simply so that they may "purify" their own nation from the "imperfect", feral monsters.

Wrong.

They are the monsters, simply because their small brain cannot comprehend acceptance torwards one another. The world will never be a Utopian society, simply because we are so hateful, a process, nay, a bottomless whole that will never cease to grow.

Who said they could? Besides, your post has bugger all to do with what we were talking about.

If you want to prattle on about the Iraq war the create the 200th thread on the topic so we can all repost the same crap we did last time and achieve jack. Or, we could take the short cut and just stick to the topic. Your choice.


Dont get snotty, it becomes you.

You were alleging that Hussein had broken laws.
I say, no, becuase whos laws did he break?

His own?

Dont get snotty, it becomes you.

You were alleging that Hussein had broken laws.
I say, no, becuase whos laws did he break?

His own?

I wasn't getting snotty, just like people to stick with the topic rather than post an comment that had no relevance.

That aside, The Holy Word is in the process of showing me the legislation that permitted mass murder of civilians in Iraq. Until that is produced or The Holy Word concedes it cannot be produced then the debate is stalled.

Saddam also defied UN Security Council Resolutions since the first Gulf War on top of any crimes committed inside Iraq but that is another topic.

I wasn't getting snotty, just like people to stick with the topic rather than post an comment that had no relevance.

That aside, The Holy Word is in the process of showing me the legislation that permitted mass murder of civilians in Iraq. Until that is produced or not produced then the debate is stalled.

Saddam also defied UN Security Council Resolutions since the first Gulf was on top of any crimes committed inside Iraq but that is another topic.


If you like to have people stay in topic, why were you talking about Hussein and Iraq, when the topic was supposed to be White Power Groups?

I was responding to your tangent.

Thats why I called you snotty.

If you like to have people stay in topic, why were you talking about Hussein and Iraq, when the topic was supposed to be White Power Groups?

I was responding to your tangent.

Thats why I called you snotty.

Well, if you looked back The Holy Word and I have been having our own debate that is still loosely tied to the original topic. It has sprouted sub-debates I will concede. However, if you wish to jump in mid-stream, at least read the context of the debate and you will clearly see the irrelevance of your comment.

You can call me whatever you like, it does not bother me.

I know what you asked but I was not getting draw into moral debate because I am sure you would then throw it back at me claiming it was a moral debate all along. My definition of a thug, hard to say. I would take it on a case by case basis after I knew as much as possible about the people involved.If you're going to refuse to answer a question, it's generally a good idea to acknowledge that's what your doing.



Well, war = violence. If you are sent off to fight in a war you are doing your job. Therefore your actions are under the control of the armed forces. If someone decides to attack people who had done nothing illegal or decided to vandalise cars or buildings then that is unlearned behaviour.How does legality affect whether something is "unlearned"? (Feel free to use dictionary.com). Are you saying that violent action is not unlearned if under the control of someone else?


No, they aren't. I was discussing a legal argument using lay terms.I don't think you can argue that the term "thug" has any basis in case law.



Supporting war is supporting violence carried out under the laws of the land. It is not supporting violence from vigilantes and self-appointed dispensers of law.
But you then acknowledge it is still supporting violence. So by your argument you do still have a affinity for legal violence, just not the illegal variety.


Yes, that is a disagreement between us. I do not see a person who has caused no ill or broken no laws to be a combatant. Saddam broke laws and was therefore targeted for breaking those laws.Which specific Iraqi laws did Saddam break? (Do you consider any lawbreaker to be a combatant, even if they are not directly involved in combat? What about Al-Queda fundraisers?


See my reply to your above quotations.See my reply to your reply. ;)



No, I don't agree with that. I do not make such generalisations on moral issues because you have to consider many aspects of incidents and the people involved before making a moral judgement.Ok. Do you accept that morality and legality are two entirely seperate concepts and that legality is irrelevant as an aspect when making a moral judgement?


It may be more economical than in other places but still not economical overall. Who decides what is major? Is that decided by referendum also?
Draw up an extensive document. As I said I'd also decentralise a lot of the decision making to local communities which would free up a lot of stuff. Things that would definately qualify- going to war, major international treatys, major changes to a countries constitution like the EU etc.

Well thats open to interpretation. I have told you the context of the words I used to clarify that. Whether you want to continue discussing a non-issue such as this is your choice. My intended context will not change.We seem to be coming to some form of agreement here. Am I right in thinking that your use of the term "intended context" accepts there is no such thing as absolute truth in lingustic interpretations?

Also from dictionary.com:

Main Entry: spe·cif·ic
Pronunciation: sp&-'si-fik
Function: adjective
1 : relating to a particular thing
2 : intended for or restricted to a particular end or object
3 : being of a particularly identified kind or nature

Emphasis mine. I think it does qualify under that definition. You didn't ask for substantiating evidence, only of a source showing what I said to be true. I did that.
Fair enough. I'd missed that one. I'm not sure it shows what you said to be true in the common usage of the word.


Yes it does depend. If a person acts on behalf of a group in a manner explicitly sanctioned by that group then the group is responsible. If someone in a group acts in a manner not sanctioned by said group then the group should not be targeted. The targeting of the group that has sanctioned an attack or illegal activity should be dealt with under the law, not dealt with by self-appointed dispensers of justice.Are you saying the law says the law should deal with the group (which would seem selfevident) or stating your personal opinion? And if a group talks about "niggers" and "pakis" (sorry for the strong language but I think it's neccessary in this concept) and how they're "taking over our country", if that group's members are found to be involved in racist attacks would you not consider that to have stemmed from the groups ideology, even if not explicitly sanctioned?



You make it sound like it is like planting a tree and watching it grow. It would be a continual process above and beyond what is happening now to combat poverty. It would not be a replacement.
In that case surely the problems caused by poverty aiding fascist recruitment would still be here in the short-medium term.


And what of the social problems that create the "need" for drugs in the first place?As I said, I'm in favour of a look at everything. From the connection between poverty and drugs to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. (Heroin use has actually risen in the UK massively since that Act was first brought in. I'm not saying there's a defiante causal effect, but I think that possibility needs seriously looking at. In particular the use of methadone and the tying of doctors hands so they can't prescribe controlled amounts of heroin to addicts needs revising). As for the other part, I agree that you should have evidence before picketing a drug dealer's house if thats your action of choice. It may be that yur picketing disrupts a large investigation therefore allowing people higher up the chain to escape. But that is speculation.
This may sound shortsighted to you, but my first priority is my local community. If someone is selling drugs to fourteen year olds then to be quite honest I'm going to target that regardless of any police investigation that might be disrupted by it.


I find grouping people into classes to be detrimental to society. But thats a personal opinion. I tend to think the "divides" you mention are not as cut and dried as people would like them to be.I don't think they're cut and dried, but I do think it makes sense to looks at certain classes (or social groups if you prefer) have common interests.



Precisely, I am anti-terrorist, not pro-war. Thank you for clearing that up.Surely the defination I posted makes you both. (It is naturally also possible to be both anti and pro terrorist at the same time eg someone who hates Bin Laden but supported the contras). You supported the Iraq war, albiet conditionally.




No. Show me the Iraqi laws allowing mass murder of civilians.Standard legal practice is that that which is not specifically forbidden is legal. That's certainly British law anyway, I assume it's Australian.



I would think the fascists would have a fair idea of why people joined. The anti-fascists would speculate in a manner to support their actions. There are different opinions and mine differs from yours.While our opinions obviously different, I don't think I did speculate on that- I just quoted it straight. (And ironically it's also the same quote that I think demonstrates why violence is no longer the correct tactic to use against the BNP).

WHITE POWER!!!!!

i am white and i live in a town where whites are a minority, on the sidewalks

BLACK POWER

is carved in, somehow...

so...


WHITE POWER!!!!!

If you're going to refuse to answer a question, it's generally a good idea to acknowledge that's what your doing.

I did not say I was refusing to answer a question. I was saying I was not going to walk into a trap is so far as talking of my moral stance only to be pounced on by you claiming that was my line of discussion all along. I then went further to say that I would not pass a moral judgement on those examples you used until I was well-read enough on each case to make the best judgment based on my morals. At present I do not have the time to delve into that due to RL commitments.

How does legality affect whether something is "unlearned"? (Feel free to use dictionary.com). Are you saying that violent action is not unlearned if under the control of someone else?

No, I am saying that soldiers are fighting as they are trained and commanded to do. It is their job. If there is a war then they are the people called upon to fight it as they are trained in warfare. The difference between this and a mob attacking people attending a meeting are that there are other ways to counter groups you disagree with without resorting to violence. People who attack others who are going about their business are socially unlearned.

I don't think you can argue that the term "thug" has any basis in case law.

Never said they were. Hence I said I used lay terms to describe a group in an argument based on legal lines.


But you then acknowledge it is still supporting violence. So by your argument you do still have a affinity for legal violence, just not the illegal variety.

No. I do not have an affinity for violence. A person who has an affinity for violence seeks it out, such as you once did with your anti-fascist group.

Which specific Iraqi laws did Saddam break? (Do you consider any lawbreaker to be a combatant, even if they are not directly involved in combat? What about Al-Queda fundraisers?

I am still waiting for you to produce the Iraqi law that legalises mass murder or if that is to difficult, show me where there is no charge of murder under Iraqi law.

See my reply to your reply. ;)

You know the drill.... :p


Ok. Do you accept that morality and legality are two entirely seperate concepts and that legality is irrelevant as an aspect when making a moral judgement?

I would not go so far as to say legality is irrelevant when making a moral judgement but I agree that moral judgements can overstep the law on occasions. It depends on the person as to whther they choose to take it that far. If they do, then they must accept the consequences of their actions as you said you are willing to do.

Draw up an extensive document. As I said I'd also decentralise a lot of the decision making to local communities which would free up a lot of stuff. Things that would definately qualify- going to war, major international treatys, major changes to a countries constitution like the EU etc.

You misunderstand my question. Who draws up the document? The government? A referendum to vote on what is major? So you would have different communities with vastly differing laws?

We seem to be coming to some form of agreement here. Am I right in thinking that your use of the term "intended context" accepts there is no such thing as absolute truth in lingustic interpretations?

Of course. What I was saying was that after I clarified my intended context you refused to acknowledge the fact. That was all.

Fair enough. I'd missed that one. I'm not sure it shows what you said to be true in the common usage of the word.

Thank you. I know you do not accept it totally but I feel it was the specific information you asked for.

Are you saying the law says the law should deal with the group (which would seem selfevident) or stating your personal opinion? And if a group talks about "niggers" and "pakis" (sorry for the strong language but I think it's neccessary in this concept) and how they're "taking over our country", if that group's members are found to be involved in racist attacks would you not consider that to have stemmed from the groups ideology, even if not explicitly sanctioned?

I am stating my opinion on how the law should work. I am not 100% sure on whether that is how it is currently structured or not. I think it is thin-ice, legally and morally to attack groups for a member that stepped over the line. If the group sanctioned the attacks or actions of the individual then the group should be held accountable under the law. Depends on what you classify as sanctioning an action. In your example I'd say that is not quite sanctioning a racist attack. I would not hold the group accountable but I would imagine that they would come under legal scrutiny for their contribution to the incident.


In that case surely the problems caused by poverty aiding fascist recruitment would still be here in the short-medium term.

Yes, more than likely. But as I said, they still will be without the actions I suggested. At least this way the foundations are laid to eradicate the problems causing poverty and hence the supply of recruits to fascists will drop as the changes set in.

As I said, I'm in favour of a look at everything. From the connection between poverty and drugs to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. (Heroin use has actually risen in the UK massively since that Act was first brought in. I'm not saying there's a defiante causal effect, but I think that possibility needs seriously looking at. In particular the use of methadone and the tying of doctors hands so they can't prescribe controlled amounts of heroin to addicts needs revising).This may sound shortsighted to you, but my first priority is my local community. If someone is selling drugs to fourteen year olds then to be quite honest I'm going to target that regardless of any police investigation that might be disrupted by it.

I am in favour of looking at everything to. Having worked in in areas of law enforcement concerning drugs I am well aware of the situations in my country and more precisely my city.
I think the money spent on methadone programs are a waste of money. That money should be put into detox centres to get people off drugs, not just moving them onto another more controlled drug. I do not support the government supply of heroin. It is a legal liability nightmare. Assisting people with their habits by supplying the drug does have some short term gains. Reduced dealers on the street and "safer" and cleaner drug use. But it does not remove the source of the drug problem. There is also the problem of peopel seeing the government selling heroin as some sort of tacit approval of the use of the drug which menas more people may start using. This is all speculation but it is the way I see things.
I have gathered that you are very much concerned with your own local community. Its not short sighted at all and understandable. I am trying to look at the big picture however.

I don't think they're cut and dried, but I do think it makes sense to looks at certain classes (or social groups if you prefer) have common interests.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that.

Surely the defination I posted makes you both. (It is naturally also possible to be both anti and pro terrorist at the same time eg someone who hates Bin Laden but supported the contras). You supported the Iraq war, albiet conditionally.

Under that logic then someone who is anti-war is pro-terrorist. That is also not true and not fair to people who oppose the war.

Standard legal practice is that that which is not specifically forbidden is legal. That's certainly British law anyway, I assume it's Australian.

OK, I'll make it easier for you (well slightly). Show me that murder is not illegal in Iraq.

While our opinions obviously different, I don't think I did speculate on that- I just quoted it straight. (And ironically it's also the same quote that I think demonstrates why violence is no longer the correct tactic to use against the BNP).

An earlier post of yours, maybe I have misinterpreted it?

who do you personally think is more likely to know about the effects on fascist ability to operate- a member of a fascist party or a member of a left group who's entire remit seems to be to set up stalls outside larger political groups conferences?

It seemed to be saying that anti-fascists would have more of an idea of their impact on fascist recruiting that the fascists themselves. Is that what you meant?
If so, then my comment that I thought the fascists would know and the anti-fascists would speculate stands. If it was not your intended meaning then can you please explain to me what I have misunderstood?

WHITE POWER!!!!!

i am white and i live in a town where whites are a minority, on the sidewalks

BLACK POWER

is carved in, somehow...

so...


WHITE POWER!!!!!

Thanks for that insightful analysis f the subject.

I did not say I was refusing to answer a question. I was saying I was not going to walk into a trap is so far as talking of my moral stance only to be pounced on by you claiming that was my line of discussion all along. I then went further to say that I would not pass a moral judgement on those examples you used until I was well-read enough on each case to make the best judgment based on my morals. At present I do not have the time to delve into that due to RL commitments.Do you not think talking in solely legalistic terms without considering morality is a dangerous road?


No, I am saying that soldiers are fighting as they are trained and commanded to do. It is their job. If there is a war then they are the people called upon to fight it as they are trained in warfare. The difference between this and a mob attacking people attending a meeting are that there are other ways to counter groups you disagree with without resorting to violence. People who attack others who are going about their business are socially unlearned.Surely there is always another way to counter a group you disagree with, whether you're a soldier or not? The effectiveness of that action is of course a different issue. And I still don't think you have really explained what you mean by socially unlearned.



Never said they were. Hence I said I used lay terms to describe a group in an argument based on legal lines.If you're using lay terms surely that takes the debate away from a purely legalistic one?


No. I do not have an affinity for violence. A person who has an affinity for violence seeks it out, such as you once did with your anti-fascist group.By declaring war on a country (whatever the justification) you've sought out violence. Would you accept that you have a passive affinity for violence in your terms (you don't participate in it yourself but support others doingso)?



I am still waiting for you to produce the Iraqi law that legalises mass murder or if that is to difficult, show me where there is no charge of murder under Iraqi law.The deadly paragraphs are the paragraphs 156-222, governing the so called crimes against the “State Security”. Death penalty could be practically imposed for any activity, which the authorities may specify as crimes against state security. Art 156 for example imposes death penalty on any body who intentionally sets an act, which could infringe the sovereignty, unity, and territorial integrity of the state.

The law does not specify what this acts could be. Even those who may have damaged a public property could, according to paragraph 197 (1) face death penalty.

The most ridiculous paragraph is paragraph 200 of the Criminal Code. According to which death penalty is to be imposed on any person, who joins the Baath party, while he is a member of an other political party or becomes member of another political party, after he has joined the Baath party. Later amendment of this paragraph provides death penalty also for those who encourage a member of the Baath party to join another political party.

The decision No. 130 of the RCC from 1975 is not less ridiculous than the above mentioned paragraph 200. According to this decision (which is a law) death penalty is to be imposed on any person who “spreads propaganda on behalf of Zionism and its movement of Free Masons, or work with any of its institutions, or supports them materially or intellectually, or in any way supports the realization of the goals of this movement”. In the practice every opposition to the regime could interpreted is a propaganda for Zionism and Free Masons.

During the Iraq-Iran War and the Second Gulf war the Criminal Code was amended in way to serve as an instrument in the war.

The RCC decision No. 137 from 1983 provides death penalty for army deserters and members of Al- Dawa Shi’a opposition party. Death penalty will be also imposed on those, who insult the president of the Country or the Baath party (RCC decision No. 840 from 4 April 1986). And those who dare to give sanctuary to a foreigner will also face the death penalty (RCC decision 0341 from 24 August 1990). " (All emphasis mine as usual. The source is http://www.kurdmedia.com/reports.asp?id=1165 who are obviously in no way going to be pro Saddam).


You know the drill.... :p :D


I would not go so far as to say legality is irrelevant when making a moral judgement but I agree that moral judgements can overstep the law on occasions. It depends on the person as to whther they choose to take it that far. If they do, then they must accept the consequences of their actions as you said you are willing to do.
Although I should make clear I also don't follow the standard pacifist line of deliberately getting yourself nicked either. I see the law as an obstacle that it's best to bypass, but if you get arrested and charged it's not entirely unexpected.


You misunderstand my question. Who draws up the document? The government? A referendum to vote on what is major?The goverment after a massive public consultation exercise, possibly including a referendum. So you would have different communities with vastly differing laws?Yes.


I am stating my opinion on how the law should work. I am not 100% sure on whether that is how it is currently structured or not. I think it is thin-ice, legally and morally to attack groups for a member that stepped over the line. If the group sanctioned the attacks or actions of the individual then the group should be held accountable under the law. Depends on what you classify as sanctioning an action. In your example I'd say that is not quite sanctioning a racist attack. I would not hold the group accountable but I would imagine that they would come under legal scrutiny for their contribution to the incident.Not in terms of British law (I obviously can't speak for your neck of the woods). Do you not think that if a larger then average proportion of a group's members are involved in rascist attacks that opens up questions about the group as a whole?



Yes, more than likely. But as I said, they still will be without the actions I suggested. At least this way the foundations are laid to eradicate the problems causing poverty and hence the supply of recruits to fascists will drop as the changes set in.In the short term you'll then need someway of countering fascist recruitment.


I am in favour of looking at everything to. Having worked in in areas of law enforcement concerning drugs I am well aware of the situations in my country and more precisely my city.I should possibily clarify my position here. My stance on social issues is essentially libertarian. I see no essential moral difference (there's obviously a legal one) between someone doing 12 pints of lager at the weekend or dropping a couple of ectasy tabs. Equally I don't care about smallscale user dealers who sell solely to their mates. I'm not anti drugs as such. (I'd be a hypocrite as I'll occasionally indulge myself). It is only when it impacts on the local community that it becomes of concern to me.
I think the money spent on methadone programs are a waste of money. That money should be put into detox centres to get people off drugs, not just moving them onto another more controlled drug. I do not support the government supply of heroin. It is a legal liability nightmare. Assisting people with their habits by supplying the drug does have some short term gains. Reduced dealers on the street and "safer" and cleaner drug use. But it does not remove the source of the drug problem. There is also the problem of peopel seeing the government selling heroin as some sort of tacit approval of the use of the drug which menas more people may start using. This is all speculation but it is the way I see things.I'm not talking about drop in clinics giving out H on demand. I'm specifically talking about doctors having the power to make medical decisions- to prescribe controlled amounts of heroin with the end aim of reducing the dose to a level where an addict gives up completly.
I have gathered that you are very much concerned with your own local community. Its not short sighted at all and understandable. I am trying to look at the big picture however.Although I see what you're saying there, I'd argue that if everyone looks at the local picture the big one will fall into place by itself.


We'll have to agree to disagree on that. Fair enough.:)



Under that logic then someone who is anti-war is pro-terrorist. That is also not true and not fair to people who oppose the war.Only if they support terrorism albiet conditionally by that logic. (To give a specific example I don't claim to be anti terrorist per se. I'm certainly anti the views of Bin Laden and his ilk. But I support the post Spanish Civil War terrorist attacks against Franco's goverment and while I don't support many of the IRAs tactics I understand where there coming from. So I don't think it would be unfair to say that I support certain types of terrorism conditionally. And I don't think it's unfair to say that you support certain types of war conditionally).



OK, I'll make it easier for you (well slightly). Show me that murder is not illegal in Iraq.See above.



An earlier post of yours, maybe I have misinterpreted it?



It seemed to be saying that anti-fascists would have more of an idea of their impact on fascist recruiting that the fascists themselves. Is that what you meant?
If so, then my comment that I thought the fascists would know and the anti-fascists would speculate stands. If it was not your intended meaning then can you please explain to me what I have misunderstood?I think you have misinterpreted. My reference to "a member of a left group who's entire remit seems to be to set up stalls outside larger political groups conferences" was sectarian bitching about the SPGB. So I was comparing their credibility on the issue with that of the BNP deputy leader in that post.

You mean just like they used to register communists, until it was ruled discriminatory? So treat us like 3rd class citizens while muslim immigrants who want to crash planes into buildings are allowed into the nation unchecked.

Yes, i would like people like you to wear jellow stars on your cloth, so i can plunder your stores, humiliate and assault you. Oh, i forgot, that was a Übermenschen thing, so i am probably going to infringe on your copyrights.

Hate group of any leaning are never harmless. What they spread can incite others to take violent action. Of course the full weight of the law can be laid on the perpetrator, but the harm is already done. I am very glad to live in a country that infringes on my right to free speech when it comes to propagating hate crimes, destruction of society, genocide etc. That is a freedom i never wanted and gladly see taken away from those assholes who want it. And before anyone comes with the slippery slope argument of taking away freedoms, that is about the only infringement made, done with the third reich just a few years gone.

Do you not think talking in solely legalistic terms without considering morality is a dangerous road?

I think you have misinterpreted. I responded to a statement in a legal manner. It does not mean I solely base my views on legality, it just means I argued this point on legality with reference to "blame" for the costs of police protection.

Surely there is always another way to counter a group you disagree with, whether you're a soldier or not? The effectiveness of that action is of course a different issue. And I still don't think you have really explained what you mean by socially unlearned.

I would beg to differ. If someone was firing rockets, grenades etc at me during a war I think I'd fire back. Indeed, a peaceful protest in the middle of a war zone would not have overly successful results. I have tried to explain my use of the term "socially unlearned". I guess you do not agree with my interpretation and application but thats fine.


If you're using lay terms surely that takes the debate away from a purely legalistic one?

No, you can debate legality in lay terms. I think if lawyers etc did so then the law would not be such a long and convoluted system in which very few people in the general public understand a word of it. Again, thats another issue.

By declaring war on a country (whatever the justification) you've sought out violence. Would you accept that you have a passive affinity for violence in your terms (you don't participate in it yourself but support others doingso)?

I wouldn't go as far as to say a declaration of war is seeking out violence. I would say that most countries declare war reluctantly and therefore do not seek violence but rather resign themselves to a violent conflict. I would not say I have a passive affinity for violence but I do understand that sometimes war is the only resort.


The deadly paragraphs are the paragraphs 156-222, governing the so called crimes against the “State Security”. Death penalty could be practically imposed for any activity, which the authorities may specify as crimes against state security. Art 156 for example imposes death penalty on any body who intentionally sets an act, which could infringe the sovereignty, unity, and territorial integrity of the state.

The law does not specify what this acts could be. Even those who may have damaged a public property could, according to paragraph 197 (1) face death penalty.

The most ridiculous paragraph is paragraph 200 of the Criminal Code. According to which death penalty is to be imposed on any person, who joins the Baath party, while he is a member of an other political party or becomes member of another political party, after he has joined the Baath party. Later amendment of this paragraph provides death penalty also for those who encourage a member of the Baath party to join another political party.

The decision No. 130 of the RCC from 1975 is not less ridiculous than the above mentioned paragraph 200. According to this decision (which is a law) death penalty is to be imposed on any person who “spreads propaganda on behalf of Zionism and its movement of Free Masons, or work with any of its institutions, or supports them materially or intellectually, or in any way supports the realization of the goals of this movement”. In the practice every opposition to the regime could interpreted is a propaganda for Zionism and Free Masons.

During the Iraq-Iran War and the Second Gulf war the Criminal Code was amended in way to serve as an instrument in the war.

The RCC decision No. 137 from 1983 provides death penalty for army deserters and members of Al- Dawa Shi’a opposition party. Death penalty will be also imposed on those, who insult the president of the Country or the Baath party (RCC decision No. 840 from 4 April 1986). And those who dare to give sanctuary to a foreigner will also face the death penalty (RCC decision 0341 from 24 August 1990). " (All emphasis mine as usual. The source is http://www.kurdmedia.com/reports.asp?id=1165 who are obviously in no way going to be pro Saddam).

No, the source would not be pro-Saddam, more than likely anti-Saddam. Goes to show why the Iraqis had no chance of ousting Saddam.

Although I should make clear I also don't follow the standard pacifist line of deliberately getting yourself nicked either. I see the law as an obstacle that it's best to bypass, but if you get arrested and charged it's not entirely unexpected.

Yes, that is what I have gathered of your views on the law. I don't entirely agree but you are entitled to your ways.

The goverment after a massive public consultation exercise, possibly including a referendum.

I see. If such an event took place it would be interesting to see what people felt were serious or major decisions. I think such a referendum would be hijacked by vocal interest groups and would most likely not be representative. Again, speculation. Out of interest, is voting compulsory in the UK? (I have heard it isn't but may be wrong).

Yes.

Tribalism?

Not in terms of British law (I obviously can't speak for your neck of the woods). Do you not think that if a larger then average proportion of a group's members are involved in rascist attacks that opens up questions about the group as a whole?

If a large number of the groups members were involved then I would expect the group involved to be investigated by the relevent authorities.

In the short term you'll then need someway of countering fascist recruitment.

I don't think so. The fascist recruiting will decline over time so will not get any stronger and therefore could not seek power. The other side of the coin is that such a clamp down on their grassroots recruiting base may drive the fascists to become more bold in their activities and hence the true instigators would be dealt with under the law.

I should possibily clarify my position here. My stance on social issues is essentially libertarian. I see no essential moral difference (there's obviously a legal one) between someone doing 12 pints of lager at the weekend or dropping a couple of ectasy tabs. Equally I don't care about smallscale user dealers who sell solely to their mates. I'm not anti drugs as such. (I'd be a hypocrite as I'll occasionally indulge myself). It is only when it impacts on the local community that it becomes of concern to me.I'm not talking about drop in clinics giving out H on demand. I'm specifically talking about doctors having the power to make medical decisions- to prescribe controlled amounts of heroin with the end aim of reducing the dose to a level where an addict gives up completly.Although I see what you're saying there, I'd argue that if everyone looks at the local picture the big one will fall into place by itself.

I gathered you had libertarian leanings fom your comments. I do see a difference between alcohol consumption and heroin but I can also understand where you are coming from in your opinion. I do care about small scale user/dealers becauase they are the next street dealer. The problem with heroin is that you need more to gain the high the more you use the drug. f you need more heroin, you need more money to buy it and the cycle begins. I would rather that the money spent on dispensing heroin to addicts via a doctor was spent on detox clinics to get people off the drug rather than treating it as an illness.
I sort of agree with your sentiment on the local scene gelping the big picture fall into place but I think if one community takes the necessary steps to improve their situation they become a target (thefts etc) from a neighbouring community that has not addressed the problems.

Fair enough.:)

:)

Only if they support terrorism albiet conditionally by that logic. (To give a specific example I don't claim to be anti terrorist per se. I'm certainly anti the views of Bin Laden and his ilk. But I support the post Spanish Civil War terrorist attacks against Franco's goverment and while I don't support many of the IRAs tactics I understand where there coming from. So I don't think it would be unfair to say that I support certain types of terrorism conditionally. And I don't think it's unfair to say that you support certain types of war conditionally).

I see your point and agree it is not a black and white situation. I was just pointing out (due to me being labelled pro-war by other posters in other threads) that because I am anti-terrorist and therefore see the war on terror as a necessary step to counter terrorism it does not make me totally pro-war. I can understand the aims behind some terrorist groups (such as the IRA) but I do not support their mode of operation. Killing innocent civilians in the name of a cause only turns people away from the cause itself.

I think you have misinterpreted. My reference to "a member of a left group who's entire remit seems to be to set up stalls outside larger political groups conferences" was sectarian bitching about the SPGB. So I was comparing their credibility on the issue with that of the BNP deputy leader in that post.

Ah, my apologies for my misunderstanding.

I think you have misinterpreted. I responded to a statement in a legal manner. It does not mean I solely base my views on legality, it just means I argued this point on legality with reference to "blame" for the costs of police protection.I think I have misinterpreted to an extent. But I still think that speaking purely about legality, with no reference to morality is a dangerous road.


I would beg to differ. If someone was firing rockets, grenades etc at me during a war I think I'd fire back. Indeed, a peaceful protest in the middle of a war zone would not have overly successful results. I have tried to explain my use of the term "socially unlearned". I guess you do not agree with my interpretation and application but thats fine.I was more talking about such actions as sanctions etc. rather then going to war in the first place. I'm genuinely not trying to be obtuse about the term "socially unlearned"- I still am unclear on your usage of it and why it is less applicable if people are using violence under the orders of someone else. If anything I'd see the opposite as true. I suspect I probably have a better understanding of the real nature of violence (let's be honest, however necessary someone thinks violence is, it's still a messy and dirty business and not at all like the media presentation of it) then the vast majority of civilians. Interestingly this is a view supported by friends of mine who have served in the army.

No, you can debate legality in lay terms. I think if lawyers etc did so then the law would not be such a long and convoluted system in which very few people in the general public understand a word of it. Again, thats another issue.But surely discussing it in lay terms brings it out of the legal realm?


I wouldn't go as far as to say a declaration of war is seeking out violence. I would say that most countries declare war reluctantly and therefore do not seek violence but rather resign themselves to a violent conflict. I would not say I have a passive affinity for violence but I do understand that sometimes war is the only resort.But if you believe that war is sometimes a neccessary evil and I see violence against fascism as sometimes a necessary evil, is there any difference between our two stances other then legality?


No, the source would not be pro-Saddam, more than likely anti-Saddam. Goes to show why the Iraqis had no chance of ousting Saddam.Sorry, that's the point (that the source would have no reason to pretend Saddam was acting legally if he wasn't) I was trying to clumsily make. I'd qualify it with the Iraqis having no legal chance of ousting Saddam. I'm not sure from your response. From the quotes I posted do you accept that considering the amount of power invested in the Baath executive, Saddam was technically acting entirely within his legal rights?


Yes, that is what I have gathered of your views on the law. I don't entirely agree but you are entitled to your ways.I didn't expect agreement. I just wanted to make sure you weren't getting a false view that by "agreeing to face the consequences" I was saying that I was taking the traditional pacifist line of deliberately going to jail for my beliefs. Would you accept that the police are not always entirely legalistic in this kind of thing? I certainly know of at least one case where the Scottish police tryed to physically attack us as opposed to attempting to make arrests.



I see. If such an event took place it would be interesting to see what people felt were serious or major decisions. I think such a referendum would be hijacked by vocal interest groups and would most likely not be representative. Again, speculation. Out of interest, is voting compulsory in the UK? (I have heard it isn't but may be wrong).Votings not compulsory in the UK, no. I'd be against making it so- I think people have a right to refuse to participate in the process if they don't want to. On the subject of "vocal interest groups", surely that's what we've got at the moment? Except those "vocal interest groups" are people like media magnates and the Confederation of British Industry. On an idealistic point, I actually think the nationstate has no usefulness as an abstract construct- put simply it's too large to be meaningfully democratic. Also a reason I'm against things like the EU.


Tribalism?I see your point here. It could descend into the old arab proverb- "Me against my brother. My brother and I against my cousin. My cousin and I against the stranger". I don't think it automatically would though- I do actually have a fair bit of faith in humanity's nature as essentially social animals. And I suppose the other point is that nobody ever said true democracy was going to be easy.


If a large number of the groups members were involved then I would expect the group involved to be investigated by the relevent authorities.I think our differences here probably come down to how much we trust the authorities. Considering your interest in Northern Irish politics, does the evidence of MI5 involvement in the loyalist death squads not point to a serious flaw in this as a tactic?


I don't think so. The fascist recruiting will decline over time so will not get any stronger and therefore could not seek power. The other side of the coin is that such a clamp down on their grassroots recruiting base may drive the fascists to become more bold in their activities and hence the true instigators would be dealt with under the law.What sort of timescale are you talking about? (And I generally disagree that we should deal with the fascists with the law. I don't think giving them readymade legal martyrs is a good idea).


I gathered you had libertarian leanings fom your comments. I do see a difference between alcohol consumption and heroin but I can also understand where you are coming from in your opinion. I do care about small scale user/dealers becauase they are the next street dealer. The problem with heroin is that you need more to gain the high the more you use the drug. f you need more heroin, you need more money to buy it and the cycle begins. I would rather that the money spent on dispensing heroin to addicts via a doctor was spent on detox clinics to get people off the drug rather than treating it as an illness.I should clarify here- I don't think I made myself particuarly clear. I agree that there's a difference between alcohol consumption and heroin use. Essentially because I don't think that it's really possible to regularly "recreationally" use heroin for the reasons that you outline. I'd say the same about crack- to paraphrase PJ O'Rourke we finally have a drug that's as bad as they've been telling us they all are for years. I'm talking about small scale dealers who sell things like cannabis, speed, ectasy and even cocaine- I don't see much difference between people doing those recreationally or using booze in the same way. Part of this stems from personal experience- alcohol is the one drug that I've ever been at the start of developing a serious problem with, fortunately I was sensible enough to slow it right down and stop getting drunk (at all) before it developed any further. Equally the only drugs I've ever been clinically addicted to (and still am) are nicotine and caffine. I don't think that detox clinics and prescribed heroin are necessarily mutually exclusive tactics- I'd generally trust doctors to make a professional decsion about what's best. I do think that your suggested approach is a massive step forward from the current tactic of treating heroin addiction as a solely law and order problem.
I sort of agree with your sentiment on the local scene gelping the big picture fall into place but I think if one community takes the necessary steps to improve their situation they become a target (thefts etc) from a neighbouring community that has not addressed the problems.But if you have, say, anti crime patrols by local residents, that would also stop crimes from "outsiders".

I see your point and agree it is not a black and white situation. I was just pointing out (due to me being labelled pro-war by other posters in other threads) that because I am anti-terrorist and therefore see the war on terror as a necessary step to counter terrorism it does not make me totally pro-war. I can understand the aims behind some terrorist groups (such as the IRA) but I do not support their mode of operation. Killing innocent civilians in the name of a cause only turns people away from the cause itself.Couple of points on this. Firstly I think we need to recognise that the IRA doesn't target innocent civilians as such (apart from politicans which I see as a different issue). I strongly disagree with their attacks on "economic targets" as I think that those are far too negligent in terms of innocent bystanders, but I think there's still a great difference between those tactics and those of Bin Laden. It all comes down to what we consider terrorism. We've essentially been using the state/press defination. If the IRA stuck solely to attacks on military targets (including loyalist paramilitarys and possibly politicans. It could also technically include the Queen as she is the figurative commander of the armed forces) would still you consider them terrorists?. Equally would you take issue with the state/presses description of the Angry Brigade as "anarchist terrorists" considering they never actually killed anyone?
(If you don't know much about the Angry Brigade a good introduction to them is here: http://recollectionbooks.com/siml/library/AngryBrigade/)

Ah, my apologies for my misunderstanding.
No problem. :) As a lefty politics geek I sometimes forget that not everyone has the same indepth (yet essentially pointless) knowledge of the myriad groups that make up the British left. ;)

I think I have misinterpreted to an extent. But I still think that speaking purely about legality, with no reference to morality is a dangerous road.

It is dangerous but I was merely passing comment on a statement made by a poster I felt was skewed. Thats all.

I was more talking about such actions as sanctions etc. rather then going to war in the first place. I'm genuinely not trying to be obtuse about the term "socially unlearned"- I still am unclear on your usage of it and why it is less applicable if people are using violence under the orders of someone else. If anything I'd see the opposite as true. I suspect I probably have a better understanding of the real nature of violence (let's be honest, however necessary someone thinks violence is, it's still a messy and dirty business and not at all like the media presentation of it) then the vast majority of civilians. Interestingly this is a view supported by friends of mine who have served in the army.

I have not said that sanctions etc should be by-passed and to go directly to war. In the case of Iraq I think 12 years of cat-and-mouse games by Saddam with the UN and the world ingeneral was enough time for sanctions to do their job. That added to the fact that the sanctions did not harm Saddam and the regime but merely punished civilians due to Saddam's rorting of the system to serve himself. The situation in Sudan will be of interest as to what the UN will try and impose when Sudan fails to disarm militia by the deadline. I am unsure if sanctions will do much to prevent the violence there continuing but I am interested to see what direction the UN takes as I feel this is their chance to gain back some semblence of credibility.
As far as the "socially unlearned" concept. I can see where it is open for interpretation. You see it differently to how I see it. I can understand that.

But surely discussing it in lay terms brings it out of the legal realm?

No, discussing a scientific concept in lay terms makes it no less scientific, it just means more people understand what is being said. So making a legal point using lay terms does not make it less of a legal argument, just a point better understood by a larger proportion of people.

But if you believe that war is sometimes a neccessary evil and I see violence against fascism as sometimes a necessary evil, is there any difference between our two stances other then legality?

And therein lies the difference, I think legality is important and you think it is less important. I think that is essentially the only difference in our views.

Sorry, that's the point (that the source would have no reason to pretend Saddam was acting legally if he wasn't) I was trying to clumsily make. I'd qualify it with the Iraqis having no legal chance of ousting Saddam. I'm not sure from your response. From the quotes I posted do you accept that considering the amount of power invested in the Baath executive, Saddam was technically acting entirely within his legal rights?

I knew what you meant, just wanted to make sure I was understanding your angle. I would go further that Iraqis had no legal or illegal menas to oust Saddam. I would question the quotes used as to whether the right to trial was included in those laws and if it was not then those laws were in breach of international laws governing human rights. So either way, Saddam was a criminal.

I didn't expect agreement. I just wanted to make sure you weren't getting a false view that by "agreeing to face the consequences" I was saying that I was taking the traditional pacifist line of deliberately going to jail for my beliefs. Would you accept that the police are not always entirely legalistic in this kind of thing? I certainly know of at least one case where the Scottish police tryed to physically attack us as opposed to attempting to make arrests.

I understand where you are coming from. The police are governed by the law as is anyone else so if they break the law then they are answerable to justice as is anyone else. I know of examples where protesters have deliberately incited confrontations with police throwing urine-filled balloons at police and throwing marbles under police horses. So it goes both ways. It is the job of the police to protect people and property. If protestors attack police then the police have the right to use force to subdue and arrest the protestors. If the protestors are not inciting the police, damaging property or assaulting another person then the police have no right to use force against the protesters but they do have the right to protect property and people from the protesters.


Votings not compulsory in the UK, no. I'd be against making it so- I think people have a right to refuse to participate in the process if they don't want to. On the subject of "vocal interest groups", surely that's what we've got at the moment? Except those "vocal interest groups" are people like media magnates and the Confederation of British Industry. On an idealistic point, I actually think the nationstate has no usefulness as an abstract construct- put simply it's too large to be meaningfully democratic. Also a reason I'm against things like the EU.

Hmmm...if it is not compulsory then your referendum would merely reflect the most vocal political group and not the public as a whole. While compulsory voting may seem a bit contradictory to freedom and democracy, it does ensure everyone is heard. Media Magnates only have one vote the same as the guy cleaning the toilets at the train station so they have no greater say than anyone else.
I think democratic structure can work and work well. Here in Australia we are probably over-governed to the point we have local councils, state governments and Federal government. Certain responsibilites are given to each level of government meaning the Federal Government has limitations on its influence at a state level etc.
I am not that well versed on the intricacies of the EU but I do have concern that the "more influential" nations in the EU have too much power over the less influential nations. I would be saddened to visit Europe in 5 or 10 years time and find it was no longer the collection of different cultures and experiences it once was but instead a homogenous region with no cultural identity. This is above and beyond providing a government structure that can preside over a huge area and population. I am sure you have a far better understanding than I on the details but that is my views from the land of semi-ignorance.

I see your point here. It could descend into the old arab proverb- "Me against my brother. My brother and I against my cousin. My cousin and I against the stranger". I don't think it automatically would though- I do actually have a fair bit of faith in humanity's nature as essentially social animals. And I suppose the other point is that nobody ever said true democracy was going to be easy.

I have some faith in humanity also but I cannot help but think a community with less than a neighbouring community will not resent that community and hence we descend into "tribal" conflict. Tribalism throughout history has been marred by violence and war between tribes. Still happening in many places throughout the world. Also, I would be concerned about the "divide and conquer" mentality. Ultimately, indigenous people's of lands colonised by Europeans were easily over-run by the fact that they continued fighting amongst themselves as well as fighting the European settlers. By this example, would a western society divided into small autonomous communities be more susceptible to conquest by other nations who do not share this tribalism? This is a hypothetical question, I am interested in your thoughts.

I think our differences here probably come down to how much we trust the authorities. Considering your interest in Northern Irish politics, does the evidence of MI5 involvement in the loyalist death squads not point to a serious flaw in this as a tactic?

Nothing is free from perversion, law enforcement included. But in a general sense I do place my faith in the law enforcement authorities because overall I feel they do a good job.

What sort of timescale are you talking about? (And I generally disagree that we should deal with the fascists with the law. I don't think giving them readymade legal martyrs is a good idea).

Timescale? Hard to say. It depends on how quickly the changes are inplemented in communities. I would say that, after all the changes are in place, it would take effect in 1 or 2 generations. That is, the children of today will gain the education they need and hence the opportunities to achieve a better life, their children will then have a better outlook as well as the access to the better education. This generation will then have come from a background of a higher standard of living than their parents and therefore will be the first products of the changes implemented. Don't know if that is too convoluted but...if you have no idea what I just said tell me and I'll have another go at it! :confused:

I should clarify here- I don't think I made myself particuarly clear. I agree that there's a difference between alcohol consumption and heroin use. Essentially because I don't think that it's really possible to regularly "recreationally" use heroin for the reasons that you outline. I'd say the same about crack- to paraphrase PJ O'Rourke we finally have a drug that's as bad as they've been telling us they all are for years. I'm talking about small scale dealers who sell things like cannabis, speed, ectasy and even cocaine- I don't see much difference between people doing those recreationally or using booze in the same way. Part of this stems from personal experience- alcohol is the one drug that I've ever been at the start of developing a serious problem with, fortunately I was sensible enough to slow it right down and stop getting drunk (at all) before it developed any further. Equally the only drugs I've ever been clinically addicted to (and still am) are nicotine and caffine. I don't think that detox clinics and prescribed heroin are necessarily mutually exclusive tactics- I'd generally trust doctors to make a professional decsion about what's best. I do think that your suggested approach is a massive step forward from the current tactic of treating heroin addiction as a solely law and order problem.

OK, was just clarifying whether you meant heroin when talking of drugs. As far as I am aware crack is cocaine, only in a free-base form rather than a salt form...although crack seems to be more addictive than cocaine which is interesting. Anyway, back to the point.
Ecstacy, LSD, Speed and Cannibis use does have some effects which are irreversible although the claims from either side are not entirely conclusive. so to say they are "safe" is probably overstating the case but they are "safer" than heroin and crack to an extent. My only addiction is to caffeine.. ;)
I think detox clinics are vastly different from prescribed heroin because it actually combats the addiction rather than manage it. There was an Israeli technique I read about a while back that fast-tracked detox using a drug naltrexone (I think?) which was very fast and successful in "curing" addictions to narcotics. It was an expensive method but if you take into account all the costs of the drug problem it might well be an economical solution in the long run.
I agree with you that the drug problem is not simply a law and order problem. To truly defeat the drug problem it needs to be fought on a united front by the law enforcement agencies, the government, local communities and people themselves.

But if you have, say, anti crime patrols by local residents, that would also stop crimes from "outsiders".

Thats heading to the realms of vigilantes again. I see your point but I do not entirely agree with it. What is to stop revenge attacks over perceived miscarriages of justice by the anti-crime patrols of one community against a member of another community?

Couple of points on this. Firstly I think we need to recognise that the IRA doesn't target innocent civilians as such (apart from politicans which I see as a different issue). I strongly disagree with their attacks on "economic targets" as I think that those are far too negligent in terms of innocent bystanders, but I think there's still a great difference between those tactics and those of Bin Laden. It all comes down to what we consider terrorism. We've essentially been using the state/press defination. If the IRA stuck solely to attacks on military targets (including loyalist paramilitarys and possibly politicans. It could also technically include the Queen as she is the figurative commander of the armed forces) would still you consider them terrorists?. Equally would you take issue with the state/presses description of the Angry Brigade as "anarchist terrorists" considering they never actually killed anyone?
(If you don't know much about the Angry Brigade a good introduction to them is here: http://recollectionbooks.com/siml/library/AngryBrigade/)

OK, maybe I overstated by saying "targeted civilians", I should have said that civilians are often victims of IRA attacks while not being targets themselves. Sorry, should have been a bit clearer! I also agree that the IRA tactics are nowhere near as "bad" as those used by bin Laden and Al Qaeda. You agree that Al Qaeda deliberately target civilians?
I would still call the IRA terrorists because their activities involve the use of terror. Whether their targets are miltitary or not, civilians are still a potential casualty and as such their methods are still terrorism. Essentially, they are using violence to intimidate which, in my mind is a method of terrorism.
I don't know anything about the Angry Brigade so read up on that website. Does being a terrorist necessarily mean you have to kill someone? I would say damaging property as an act of intimidation would contitute terrorism. I am not entirely clear if the activities listed in the Chronology section are what they are claiming to have done or if it is a broad listing of events that happened in general. Can you clarify?

No problem. :) As a lefty politics geek I sometimes forget that not everyone has the same indepth (yet essentially pointless) knowledge of the myriad groups that make up the British left. ;)

No problem. If in doubt, assume I have no idea. ;)

It is dangerous but I was merely passing comment on a statement made by a poster I felt was skewed. Thats all.Fair enough. I still think it's a comment that could have done with a moral stance to go with it, but I suspect we've run this particular one into the ground.


I have not said that sanctions etc should be by-passed and to go directly to war. In the case of Iraq I think 12 years of cat-and-mouse games by Saddam with the UN and the world ingeneral was enough time for sanctions to do their job. That added to the fact that the sanctions did not harm Saddam and the regime but merely punished civilians due to Saddam's rorting of the system to serve himself. The situation in Sudan will be of interest as to what the UN will try and impose when Sudan fails to disarm militia by the deadline. I am unsure if sanctions will do much to prevent the violence there continuing but I am interested to see what direction the UN takes as I feel this is their chance to gain back some semblence of credibility.That's the point I was making about effectivness. It would be perfectly possible to have left sanctions in place for 30 years. But you wouldn't see it as an effective tactic. I feel similarily about leaving anti fascism to the state.
As far as the "socially unlearned" concept. I can see where it is open for interpretation. You see it differently to how I see it. I can understand that.It's not so much a question of interpretation. I'm still confused about how you interpret it.


No, discussing a scientific concept in lay terms makes it no less scientific, it just means more people understand what is being said. So making a legal point using lay terms does not make it less of a legal argument, just a point better understood by a larger proportion of people.Having a scientist girlfriend I can certainly see what you mean. ;) But I'm not sure that the term "idiots and thugs" is actually still keeping it in the realm of a purely legal argument- those would seem to me to be statements of opinion.



And therein lies the difference, I think legality is important and you think it is less important. I think that is essentially the only difference in our views.I'd agree. I'd specify further by saying that I think you see legality and justice as essentially complementry concept whereas I'd see them as at best seperate and at worst counterposed.



I knew what you meant, just wanted to make sure I was understanding your angle. I would go further that Iraqis had no legal or illegal menas to oust Saddam. I would question the quotes used as to whether the right to trial was included in those laws and if it was not then those laws were in breach of international laws governing human rights. So either way, Saddam was a criminal.Not under Iraqi legality which is the point I was making. (It could equally be argued that George Bush are Tony Blair are criminals under that sense. Both because of the refusal to recognise the Geneva Convention in Afghanistan and the lack of UN approval for the war. While I'm happy to accuse the vast majority of world leaders of being criminals I suspect that's further then you'll be prepared to go :D)



I understand where you are coming from. The police are governed by the law as is anyone else so if they break the law then they are answerable to justice as is anyone else. I know of examples where protesters have deliberately incited confrontations with police throwing urine-filled balloons at police and throwing marbles under police horses. So it goes both ways. It is the job of the police to protect people and property. If protestors attack police then the police have the right to use force to subdue and arrest the protestors. If the protestors are not inciting the police, damaging property or assaulting another person then the police have no right to use force against the protesters but they do have the right to protect property and people from the protesters.I suppose the difference in it going both ways is the likelyhood of protestors getting punished for it as opposed to cops. Most magistrates will always take the police's words above that of a protestor regardless of the truth of the matter. The only reason my lot got off in the incident I cited is that we fought a hard battle to get hold of CCTV footage from the pub where it took place.


Hmmm...if it is not compulsory then your referendum would merely reflect the most vocal political group and not the public as a whole. While compulsory voting may seem a bit contradictory to freedom and democracy, it does ensure everyone is heard. Isn't apathy as genuine a stance as anything else?Media Magnates only have one vote the same as the guy cleaning the toilets at the train station so they have no greater say than anyone else.Only in theory. In practice Rupert Murdoch's influence on the political process is far greater then mine.
I think democratic structure can work and work well. Here in Australia we are probably over-governed to the point we have local councils, state governments and Federal government. Certain responsibilites are given to each level of government meaning the Federal Government has limitations on its influence at a state level etc.I think where it falls down is where we have a situation, like I'd argue is the case in Britain (I'm afraid I'm even less knowledgeble on Australian politics then you are the EU), where the mainstream parties are all essentially pandering to the needs of middle class "middle England" then I think a large swathe of your population is disenfranchised from the process, I suspect deliberately.
I am not that well versed on the intricacies of the EU but I do have concern that the "more influential" nations in the EU have too much power over the less influential nations. I would be saddened to visit Europe in 5 or 10 years time and find it was no longer the collection of different cultures and experiences it once was but instead a homogenous region with no cultural identity. This is above and beyond providing a government structure that can preside over a huge area and population. I am sure you have a far better understanding than I on the details but that is my views from the land of semi-ignorance.You've pretty much got it right but it goes further. Under EU law countrys have to follow the "economic convergence criterea"- in other words a country cannot follow laws against the will of capital, whatever the wishes of it's population. Equally the new European police force (Europol) that is being set up has sweeping powers with little regard for civil liberties.



I have some faith in humanity also but I cannot help but think a community with less than a neighbouring community will not resent that community and hence we descend into "tribal" conflict. Tribalism throughout history has been marred by violence and war between tribes. Still happening in many places throughout the world. Also, I would be concerned about the "divide and conquer" mentality. Ultimately, indigenous people's of lands colonised by Europeans were easily over-run by the fact that they continued fighting amongst themselves as well as fighting the European settlers. By this example, would a western society divided into small autonomous communities be more susceptible to conquest by other nations who do not share this tribalism? This is a hypothetical question, I am interested in your thoughts.I don't think that modern society will neccesarily descend into tribalism- I'm particuarly thinking of the Athenian city state. On your other point I think again the opposite could be true. Without a specific leadership to target I actually think it would be harder for a nation to truly pacify it's people. (And without the hierachy suggested by the current political system I think trying to rule that sort of country might well see more trouble then it's worth to most would-be dictators).


Nothing is free from perversion, law enforcement included. But in a general sense I do place my faith in the law enforcement authorities because overall I feel they do a good job.Again an important difference which I suspect lies behind our various political views. As well as anti-fascism one of my other main interests is the field of parapolitics. And I've looked at to many cases of perversion to have much faith in the good will of lawenforcement agencies, particuarly once you get past the rank and file bobby and onto the decision makers. Everything from the attempts by MI5 to undermine the elected goverment of Harold Wilson to the Soho bombings, which as I've touched on before, I consider certain agencies to be complict to the point where they could be considered accessories to murder.


Timescale? Hard to say. It depends on how quickly the changes are inplemented in communities. I would say that, after all the changes are in place, it would take effect in 1 or 2 generations. That is, the children of today will gain the education they need and hence the opportunities to achieve a better life, their children will then have a better outlook as well as the access to the better education. This generation will then have come from a background of a higher standard of living than their parents and therefore will be the first products of the changes implemented. Don't know if that is too convoluted but...if you have no idea what I just said tell me and I'll have another go at it! :confused:I think I understand what you mean. But without tackling the current lack of social mobility I mentioned earlier how will it actually raise standards of living?


OK, was just clarifying whether you meant heroin when talking of drugs. As far as I am aware crack is cocaine, only in a free-base form rather than a salt form...although crack seems to be more addictive than cocaine which is interesting. Anyway, back to the point.My understanding is that crack is essentially cocaine but is far more addictive for two reasons. Firstly the fact that it's freebase means it has a fair more intense rush then normal cocaine. Secondly the high only lasts about five minutes, so addicts need more almost straight away.
Ecstacy, LSD, Speed and Cannibis use does have some effects which are irreversible although the claims from either side are not entirely conclusive. so to say they are "safe" is probably overstating the case but they are "safer" than heroin and crack to an extent. My only addiction is to caffeine.. ;)I certainly wouldn't argue any of them are "safe". I'd argue that it's questionable whether they're noticably more harmful then tobacco and alcohol- with alcohol even more so when you take the social cost into account.
I think detox clinics are vastly different from prescribed heroin because it actually combats the addiction rather than manage it. There was an Israeli technique I read about a while back that fast-tracked detox using a drug naltrexone (I think?) which was very fast and successful in "curing" addictions to narcotics. It was an expensive method but if you take into account all the costs of the drug problem it might well be an economical solution in the long run.As I said I think a two tier solution is needed. I'm not sure you can manage the addiction of someone who doesn't recognise they have a problem, so I think a pragmatic approach is needed. I've heard of naltrexone. From what I know early signs are highly promising but it hasn't been around long enough to say yet.
I agree with you that the drug problem is not simply a law and order problem. To truly defeat the drug problem it needs to be fought on a united front by the law enforcement agencies, the government, local communities and people themselves.The problem there is that I think the needs of different groups can conflict. I do think goverments ignore a certain amount of heroin and crack addiction in working class communities, as confining the problem is easier then tackling it. Equally, certainly at the top level, the police have an interest in allowing dealing to continue under survilleance in order to get more high-profile 'collars' whereas it's in the interests of local communities to tackle it straight away.


Thats heading to the realms of vigilantes again. I see your point but I do not entirely agree with it. What is to stop revenge attacks over perceived miscarriages of justice by the anti-crime patrols of one community against a member of another community?It's not neccessarily vigilantism. It could be locals armed with nothing but video cameras to deter muggers.


OK, maybe I overstated by saying "targeted civilians", I should have said that civilians are often victims of IRA attacks while not being targets themselves. Sorry, should have been a bit clearer! I also agree that the IRA tactics are nowhere near as "bad" as those used by bin Laden and Al Qaeda. You agree that Al Qaeda deliberately target civilians?Absolutely. And I think they're one of the few groups that target civilians that aren't at all connected to their supposed cause- if you compare them to people like the Red Army Faction who only attacked civilians they saw as directly involved in the capitalist system.
I would still call the IRA terrorists because their activities involve the use of terror. Whether their targets are miltitary or not, civilians are still a potential casualty and as such their methods are still terrorism.While I agree the likelyhood of civilians casultys in "economic targets" would to me push them over the line, I'm not sure that any likelyhood of civilian targets qualifies. Wouldn't the killing of civilian workers in a military base be considered an inevitable side effect of any war. Essentially, they are using violence to intimidate which, in my mind is a method of terrorism.
I don't know anything about the Angry Brigade so read up on that website. Does being a terrorist necessarily mean you have to kill someone? I would say damaging property as an act of intimidation would contitute terrorism.[/quote]I think that's too broad as a defination of terrorism. It could apply to any drunk idiot who smashes their ex girlfriend's new partner's windows. While criminal I don't think that's an act of terrorism. I am not entirely clear if the activities listed in the Chronology section are what they are claiming to have done or if it is a broad listing of events that happened in general. Can you clarify?That's a broad list of what was going on at the time. All the things they claimed are in the "communique" section.


No problem. If in doubt, assume I have no idea. ;)

A Highly Partisan and Sectarian Guide to the Socialist Party of Great Britain

The SPGB (who are anti Leninist Marxists) have been around for years- pre WW1. They have been standing in elections since then and their average vote is about 60. They produce the little read paper "Socialist Standard"- average circulation 8, also the same as the full membership of the SPGB. The average age of their members is about 70. They seem to be in hibernation for most of the year only coming out to hold stalls outside 'Marxism' (actually a Trotskyist shindig) and the 'Anarchist Bookfair'. Nobody has ever been seen buying one of their pamphlets.

:D

Fair enough. I still think it's a comment that could have done with a moral stance to go with it, but I suspect we've run this particular one into the ground.

Yes, I think we have.

That's the point I was making about effectivness. It would be perfectly possible to have left sanctions in place for 30 years. But you wouldn't see it as an effective tactic. I feel similarily about leaving anti fascism to the state.It's not so much a question of interpretation. I'm still confused about how you interpret it.

As I said, I understand your viewpoint as far as countering fascists but I don't entirely agree with it. As far as the "socially unlearned" description, I'll have one last go at explaining my interpretation. When people disagree with other people there are ways to interact with the people you disagree with. a peaceful protest, counter-advertising, debates, discussions etc. Then there are the people who skip all those avenues and see it as their duty to vandalise property and to assault people. To me, that is socially unlearned behaviour. It shows a limited grasp of social interaction and poor decision making which is unlearned.

Having a scientist girlfriend I can certainly see what you mean. ;) But I'm not sure that the term "idiots and thugs" is actually still keeping it in the realm of a purely legal argument- those would seem to me to be statements of opinion.

I would say they are lay-term descriptions.

I'd agree. I'd specify further by saying that I think you see legality and justice as essentially complementry concept whereas I'd see them as at best seperate and at worst counterposed.

I do not see law and justice as entirely complementary as there are occasionally legal cases which reach unjust decisions. But overall I think it serves the community well.

Not under Iraqi legality which is the point I was making. (It could equally be argued that George Bush are Tony Blair are criminals under that sense. Both because of the refusal to recognise the Geneva Convention in Afghanistan and the lack of UN approval for the war. While I'm happy to accuse the vast majority of world leaders of being criminals I suspect that's further then you'll be prepared to go :D)

Yes, I have read enough Bush and Blair are war criminl threads on these forums to last me a lifetime. :)

I suppose the difference in it going both ways is the likelyhood of protestors getting punished for it as opposed to cops. Most magistrates will always take the police's words above that of a protestor regardless of the truth of the matter. The only reason my lot got off in the incident I cited is that we fought a hard battle to get hold of CCTV footage from the pub where it took place.

Perhaps things are different over there, because here the police have to justify themselves constantly. There were also cases for protestors assaulting each other and running to TV cameras claiming the police assaulted them. so I still say it goes both ways.

Isn't apathy as genuine a stance as anything else?

I suppose so. But in order to get a true picture of the desire of the people then everyone needs to vote, not just vocal minorities.

Only in theory. In practice Rupert Murdoch's influence on the political process is far greater then mine.I think where it falls down is where we have a situation, like I'd argue is the case in Britain (I'm afraid I'm even less knowledgeble on Australian politics then you are the EU), where the mainstream parties are all essentially pandering to the needs of middle class "middle England" then I think a large swathe of your population is disenfranchised from the process, I suspect deliberately.

Wow, the UK really is different. Over here the "middle class" tend to get completely ignored as both major parties pander to minority groups and lobby groups trying to scrounge as many votes as they can get.

You've pretty much got it right but it goes further. Under EU law countrys have to follow the "economic convergence criterea"- in other words a country cannot follow laws against the will of capital, whatever the wishes of it's population. Equally the new European police force (Europol) that is being set up has sweeping powers with little regard for civil liberties.

Yes, I have heard of the economic policies of the EU and their aims. i would also agree that an EU ploice force is unnecessary and law and order should be the responsibility of nations not the EU. If they want to set up an intelligence sharing network to combat drug trafficking, terorism etc then that I could understand. This "overlord" type organisation is as great a concern to me as the International Criminal Court which can essentially drag anyone from one side of the planet to the other to face charges in a foreign land under a foreign law.

I don't think that modern society will neccesarily descend into tribalism- I'm particuarly thinking of the Athenian city state. On your other point I think again the opposite could be true. Without a specific leadership to target I actually think it would be harder for a nation to truly pacify it's people. (And without the hierachy suggested by the current political system I think trying to rule that sort of country might well see more trouble then it's worth to most would-be dictators).

I can see where you are coming from but I think the concept of divide and conquer runs fairly true.

Again an important difference which I suspect lies behind our various political views. As well as anti-fascism one of my other main interests is the field of parapolitics. And I've looked at to many cases of perversion to have much faith in the good will of lawenforcement agencies, particuarly once you get past the rank and file bobby and onto the decision makers. Everything from the attempts by MI5 to undermine the elected goverment of Harold Wilson to the Soho bombings, which as I've touched on before, I consider certain agencies to be complict to the point where they could be considered accessories to murder.

You are entitled to feel that way. I tend to have a little more faith in law enforcement than you. Maybe because I have worked for them ;) and seen what they go through in their day to day jobs. not to say there are no "bad apples" amongst them but all-in-all I think they are doing what they are doing for the right reasons.

I think I understand what you mean. But without tackling the current lack of social mobility I mentioned earlier how will it actually raise standards of living?

By gaining a decent education they then qualify for higher paying jobs and therefore raise their standard of living. Poverty is a cycle, if the cycle is broken then people can help themselves escape it.

My understanding is that crack is essentially cocaine but is far more addictive for two reasons. Firstly the fact that it's freebase means it has a fair more intense rush then normal cocaine. Secondly the high only lasts about five minutes, so addicts need more almost straight away.

Yes, I understand the way cocaine and crack "work". While cocaine may not have the dramatic health effects of heroin. Well at least not as obvious, it has a crippling financial effect due to the short lived effects as you mentioned. This is true for either form. Not sure what the situation in the UK is but cocaine is very expensive and tends to be the drug of choice for the wealthy. Crack cocaine, to my knowledge, has not taken a hold here as it has in the US. This is more than likely due to the low avaiability and high cost of the drug here.

I certainly wouldn't argue any of them are "safe". I'd argue that it's questionable whether they're noticably more harmful then tobacco and alcohol- with alcohol even more so when you take the social cost into account.

Ecstasy and speed also have a social cost that would be on a par with alcohol. The difference between alcohol and drugs such as ecstasy and speed is that the people who manufacture the drugs generally are not good at what they do. You would be amazed (or maybe not) the crap we saw being passed off as speed and ecstasy. This is on top of the medical side-effects of the pure drugs.

As I said I think a two tier solution is needed. I'm not sure you can manage the addiction of someone who doesn't recognise they have a problem, so I think a pragmatic approach is needed. I've heard of naltrexone. From what I know early signs are highly promising but it hasn't been around long enough to say yet.

Naltrexone has been around for a while but was the subject of scepticism from the medical practitioners because the Israeli treatment method was seen as "alternative" despite its success rate. The treatment, from what I can remember, involved an induced coma and a concentrated detox program involving intravenous feeding and medication.

The problem there is that I think the needs of different groups can conflict. I do think goverments ignore a certain amount of heroin and crack addiction in working class communities, as confining the problem is easier then tackling it. Equally, certainly at the top level, the police have an interest in allowing dealing to continue under survilleance in order to get more high-profile 'collars' whereas it's in the interests of local communities to tackle it straight away.

I am aware of police using surveillance of street dealers and others up the chain in order to catch a person closer to the top of the chain of command of drug rings. I do not necessarily oppose such moves as cutting the dealers off near the top will have a wide sweeping effect on a larger area. A zero-tolerance campaign was undertaken in a notorious drug dealing area in Melbourne a number of years back and it cleaned the streets up well. Problem was, most of the dealers moved to another area outside the range of the campaign. So a system applying available resources to achieve the best result is what we are all seeking. This in partnership with education progrmas and community awareness programs are a 3-way assault on drugs.

It's not neccessarily vigilantism. It could be locals armed with nothing but video cameras to deter muggers.

Thats true. But, do you see where an "us and them" mentality, partnered with self-policing could breed an environment of attacks and reprisals?

Absolutely. And I think they're one of the few groups that target civilians that aren't at all connected to their supposed cause- if you compare them to people like the Red Army Faction who only attacked civilians they saw as directly involved in the capitalist system.While I agree the likelyhood of civilians casultys in "economic targets" would to me push them over the line, I'm not sure that any likelyhood of civilian targets qualifies. Wouldn't the killing of civilian workers in a military base be considered an inevitable side effect of any war. Essentially, they are using violence to intimidate which, in my mind is a method of terrorism.

No, because as you know. I see war as a different scenario to the general community and as such judge the actions of people in these different scenarios differently. Targeting a military base in war is not terrorism, it is war. Targeting a bank or stock exchange with bombs or fire-bombs because you are anti-capitalist is an act of terrorism.

I think that's too broad as a defination of terrorism. It could apply to any drunk idiot who smashes their ex girlfriend's new partner's windows. While criminal I don't think that's an act of terrorism.

Yes, good point. I didn't really clarify that too well. I would consider a group that firebombs public buildings, therefore placing civilians at risk of harm are terrorists or at the very best vandals.

That's a broad list of what was going on at the time. All the things they claimed are in the "communique" section.

Ah, thats the only one I did not look in!

A Highly Partisan and Sectarian Guide to the Socialist Party of Great Britain

The SPGB (who are anti Leninist Marxists) have been around for years- pre WW1. They have been standing in elections since then and their average vote is about 60. They produce the little read paper "Socialist Standard"- average circulation 8, also the same as the full membership of the SPGB. The average age of their members is about 70. They seem to be in hibernation for most of the year only coming out to hold stalls outside 'Marxism' (actually a Trotskyist shindig) and the 'Anarchist Bookfair'. Nobody has ever been seen buying one of their pamphlets.

:D

Thanks for clearing that up for me. :p

As I said, I understand your viewpoint as far as countering fascists but I don't entirely agree with it. As far as the "socially unlearned" description, I'll have one last go at explaining my interpretation. When people disagree with other people there are ways to interact with the people you disagree with. a peaceful protest, counter-advertising, debates, discussions etc. Then there are the people who skip all those avenues and see it as their duty to vandalise property and to assault people. To me, that is socially unlearned behaviour. It shows a limited grasp of social interaction and poor decision making which is unlearned.I think I understand you a bit better. Is the crux of your argument essentially based on a value judgement from you that anybody who resorts to violence (outside a legal framework) is making a poor decision? If so, I think you have to accept that the Suffragettes would fall under your defination of "unlearned".

I would say they are lay-term descriptions.But, like scentific descriptions, do lay-term descriptions of legal matters not have to be more objective to qualify. (In the same way as describing the body's defense system as an "army" would add additional images to the description that are unscientific[/quote]


I do not see law and justice as entirely complementary as there are occasionally legal cases which reach unjust decisions. But overall I think it serves the community well.Would you agree with Voltaire (I think) that the law in it's legal majesty forbids both the rich and the poor to sleep under bridges?

Perhaps things are different over there, because here the police have to justify themselves constantly. There were also cases for protestors assaulting each other and running to TV cameras claiming the police assaulted them. so I still say it goes both ways.From my specific perspective I can honestly say I don't remember any of our activists ever doing that, or running to the police for protection from the facists.


I suppose so. But in order to get a true picture of the desire of the people then everyone needs to vote, not just vocal minorities.But if the people don't care then that is a true picture of their desires.


Wow, the UK really is different. Over here the "middle class" tend to get completely ignored as both major parties pander to minority groups and lobby groups trying to scrounge as many votes as they can get.What class would mainly make up the minority "community activists" and lobby groups? ;)


Yes, I have heard of the economic policies of the EU and their aims. i would also agree that an EU ploice force is unnecessary and law and order should be the responsibility of nations not the EU. If they want to set up an intelligence sharing network to combat drug trafficking, terorism etc then that I could understand. This "overlord" type organisation is as great a concern to me as the International Criminal Court which can essentially drag anyone from one side of the planet to the other to face charges in a foreign land under a foreign law.The EU works similarly, including laws that are not illegal under a home countries laws- and I'd argue that's a lot more likely then the ICC.


I can see where you are coming from but I think the concept of divide and conquer runs fairly true. But without the technology advantage would the settlers ever have pacified either the Aborigines or native Americans?



You are entitled to feel that way. I tend to have a little more faith in law enforcement than you. Maybe because I have worked for them ;) and seen what they go through in their day to day jobs. not to say there are no "bad apples" amongst them but all-in-all I think they are doing what they are doing for the right reasons.How much contact with the "decision makers" did you have? (Are you as trusting of the secret services?)


By gaining a decent education they then qualify for higher paying jobs and therefore raise their standard of living. Poverty is a cycle, if the cycle is broken then people can help themselves escape it.But, certainly in the UK, research suggests that if people get precisely the same results, those from a higher social class are still much more likely to get into top universitys.


Yes, I understand the way cocaine and crack "work". While cocaine may not have the dramatic health effects of heroin. Well at least not as obvious, it has a crippling financial effect due to the short lived effects as you mentioned. This is true for either form. Not sure what the situation in the UK is but cocaine is very expensive and tends to be the drug of choice for the wealthy. Crack cocaine, to my knowledge, has not taken a hold here as it has in the US. This is more than likely due to the low avaiability and high cost of the drug here.The price of cocaine has dropped in the UK so it's more widespread, it's still very much a drug for working people though. My main problem with it is it turns people into arseholes. Not really sure about how widespread or otherwise crack is, I tend to avoid those social circles. ;)



Ecstasy and speed also have a social cost that would be on a par with alcohol. The difference between alcohol and drugs such as ecstasy and speed is that the people who manufacture the drugs generally are not good at what they do. You would be amazed (or maybe not) the crap we saw being passed off as speed and ecstasy. This is on top of the medical side-effects of the pure drugs.That would seem to be an argument for legalisation. (As well as drug testing kits in clubs). By social cost I mean that I don't think people on Ectasy and Speed are as prone to anti-social violence and vandalism as drunkards.



Naltrexone has been around for a while but was the subject of scepticism from the medical practitioners because the Israeli treatment method was seen as "alternative" despite its success rate. The treatment, from what I can remember, involved an induced coma and a concentrated detox program involving intravenous feeding and medication.That's interesting. Thanks.:)



I am aware of police using surveillance of street dealers and others up the chain in order to catch a person closer to the top of the chain of command of drug rings. I do not necessarily oppose such moves as cutting the dealers off near the top will have a wide sweeping effect on a larger area. A zero-tolerance campaign was undertaken in a notorious drug dealing area in Melbourne a number of years back and it cleaned the streets up well. Problem was, most of the dealers moved to another area outside the range of the campaign. So a system applying available resources to achieve the best result is what we are all seeking. This in partnership with education progrmas and community awareness programs are a 3-way assault on drugs.But can you also understand that being told about the wider picture isn't much comfort to a parent who's 14 year old has become addicted to heroin because the police chose to allow the dealer free reign while gathering information?



Thats true. But, do you see where an "us and them" mentality, partnered with self-policing could breed an environment of attacks and reprisals?Not really, as I think the vast majority of criminals that are operating in a neighbouring community are very likely to be doing the same in theirs. I don't think most people see muggers and burglars as "one of them".



No, because as you know. I see war as a different scenario to the general community and as such judge the actions of people in these different scenarios differently. Targeting a military base in war is not terrorism, it is war. Targeting a bank or stock exchange with bombs or fire-bombs because you are anti-capitalist is an act of terrorism.


Yes, good point. I didn't really clarify that too well. I would consider a group that firebombs public buildings, therefore placing civilians at risk of harm are terrorists or at the very best vandals.For me the attacks on "economic targets" are what puts the IRA over the edge. What would be your view if they only attacked things like military bases. But I think more then you I would only see acts that endanger civilians as terrorism. I don't think property damage is. Out of interest, would you see the bombing of Dresden in WW2 as an act of terrorism?

I think I understand you a bit better. Is the crux of your argument essentially based on a value judgement from you that anybody who resorts to violence (outside a legal framework) is making a poor decision? If so, I think you have to accept that the Suffragettes would fall under your defination of "unlearned".

I think people who are incapable of debate and discussion as "socially unlearned". Were the Suffragettes incapable of debate? Another example is the protests at the Republican rally in the US where a police officer was trampled and bashed by "protesters".

But, like scentific descriptions, do lay-term descriptions of legal matters not have to be more objective to qualify. (In the same way as describing the body's defense system as an "army" would add additional images to the description that are unscientific

No, I would consider using the term "army" to describe the body's immune system as a lay-terms description to enable non-scientific people (and some scientific people) to understand it better. It is in no way a personal opinion, just a simplified description.

Would you agree with Voltaire (I think) that the law in it's legal majesty forbids both the rich and the poor to sleep under bridges?

Yes, the law protects all.

From my specific perspective I can honestly say I don't remember any of our activists ever doing that, or running to the police for protection from the facists.

I didn't say they ran to the police for protection, they went to the police only to throw missiles and spit at them to try and instigate violence to which they would then claim victim status.

But if the people don't care then that is a true picture of their desires.

Depends what the reason for their apathy is. If people feel their voice won't be heard then they become apathetic. Thats not necessarily their desire but a resignation to a system that looks only at specific target groups' needs.

What class would mainly make up the minority "community activists" and lobby groups? ;)

If you look at the Australian political scene with respect to lobby groups. The vast majority are run by wealthy academics who then target youth to swell their numbers. They even sent pamphlets to schools to encourage children to skip school and join the protests against the WTO. Come to think of it, it sounds similar to the techniques used by another group in the title of this thread.. ;)

The EU works similarly, including laws that are not illegal under a home countries laws- and I'd argue that's a lot more likely then the ICC.

Perhaps, but there is a lot of political pressure on certain countries (Australia included) to submit their citizens to the jurisdiction of the ICC. I think the EU seems more pressing to you because of your location and less pressing to me because of mine.

But without the technology advantage would the settlers ever have pacified either the Aborigines or native Americans?

Who knows. But equally, they would have used such technology in their internal conflicts meaning the internal decimation could have been much faster and/or more pronounced.


How much contact with the "decision makers" did you have? (Are you as trusting of the secret services?)

A little. I was involved in some government projects in certain areas. I was also considering joining our "secret services" but decided to take another direction. I trust the "secret service" as I have been given no reason not to. In these times I think their work is vital for national security.

But, certainly in the UK, research suggests that if people get precisely the same results, those from a higher social class are still much more likely to get into top universitys.

Thats assuming you need to go to "top universities" to succeed. I did not go to a "top university" but was not disadvantaged in the job market because once you are in the job market then people see your abilities for what they are.

The price of cocaine has dropped in the UK so it's more widespread, it's still very much a drug for working people though. My main problem with it is it turns people into arseholes. Not really sure about how widespread or otherwise crack is, I tend to avoid those social circles. ;)

I do not frequent these social circles but my former job meant I gained some insight into the drug scene.


That would seem to be an argument for legalisation. (As well as drug testing kits in clubs). By social cost I mean that I don't think people on Ectasy and Speed are as prone to anti-social violence and vandalism as drunkards.

No, I oppose legalisation. As I said, there are medical reasons for not legalising these drugs asides from the social reasons.

" Studies have shown that ecstasy can alter levels of serotonin in the brain. Serotonin is a brain chemical that plays a large role in regulating mood, aggression, sexual activity, sleep, and sensitivity to pain. When this brain chemical is altered from ecstasy use, people often experience confusion, depression, problems sleeping, drug cravings, anxiety, and paranoia. These effects can sometimes last weeks after taking ecstasy."

(Source: http://www.healthunit.org/alcoholdrug/drugs/ecstacy.htm)

"Typical effects of amphetamines and methamphetamines include surges of energy, feeling talkative and restless, increased heart rate and blood pressure and enlarged pupils. With larger doses people can become hostile, violent, and paranoid. They may also experience fevers, sweating, headaches, blurred vision, and dizziness."

(Source: http://www.healthunit.org/alcoholdrug/drugs/amphmeth.htm)

I would say they have a real effect on anti-social violence.

That's interesting. Thanks.:)

No problem. It was a topic of interest to me. Always wondered why it had not gained more coverage than it did. :(


But can you also understand that being told about the wider picture isn't much comfort to a parent who's 14 year old has become addicted to heroin because the police chose to allow the dealer free reign while gathering information?

Two aspects are at work here. One, why was the 14 year old taking drugs in the first place? Two, if the dealer was arrested another would replace them almost immediately, might even be the 14 year old. Whereas, if the person higher up the chain was taken out then the supply would dry up and the problem would be removed for a greater period of time.


Not really, as I think the vast majority of criminals that are operating in a neighbouring community are very likely to be doing the same in theirs. I don't think most people see muggers and burglars as "one of them".

I think you have missed exactly where I was going with this. I am talking about the ease with which blame can be attributed to "outsiders" causing friction between neighbouring communities.


For me the attacks on "economic targets" are what puts the IRA over the edge. What would be your view if they only attacked things like military bases. But I think more then you I would only see acts that endanger civilians as terrorism. I don't think property damage is. Out of interest, would you see the bombing of Dresden in WW2 as an act of terrorism?

Seeing as they are not an army in the true sense of the word then their attacks on military bases would also be construed as terror in my eyes. I do not see the unnecessary attacks on military personnel in "peace time" as non-terrorist activities.
As far as the Dresden bombing goes, it was a war crime. Terrorism? Maybe...maybe not. But it was a war crime because it needlessly killed civilians in a sledgehammer approach to war.