Re: Killing the G8 Anarchists
At 10:37 AM -0700 7/21/01, Morlock Elloi wrote: >> Their anti-property rights slogans, their disdain for private property, >> their embrace of socialist and Marxist ideology? See a nice writeup on this >> point that Cato's Aaron Lucas sent to my Politech list: > >Cato is the first place that I visit when curious about the current agenda of >the unique mix of libertarian/new world order propaganda. > >Translating protesters' agenda to "anti-property" *is* pure propaganda designed >to scare god-fearing middle class cypherpunks that somehow they will lose some >of their property should G8 protesters seize the world government (BTW, it >would be interesting to see what is the net worth of cpunkers and how that >influences their positions :-) > >As the word "communist" loses its strength new words are needed to instill >fear, and "anti-property" is a nice catchall. It's all in the language. > >You also enumerate ideologies with implicit assumption that they are "bad". So >whatever can be labeled "marxist" or "socialist" is somehow horrible. You don't >say WHAT is bad about it, you *assume* that everyone will jump to the bandwagon >and agree that it's something bad. Kill the commies. This is a classic >propaganda technique. Wanna bet? Marxist, socialist and communist ideologies are bad because at some level they assume that society has a *right* to the output of my labour above and beyond the level that I consume from society. That is slavery. (To put this another way, it is legitimate for society to force me to pay for what I consume, it has a "right" (tho' this word is meaningless when it comes to an abstraction like "society") to my productive labour *ONLY* to the point where it pays for what I use. Marxist, Socialists, communists, Nazis and Fascists have the further problem of believing (for the most part) in massively centralized planning structures. In societies of about 100k people, these fail miserably, and don't work all that well in smaller groups. > >I will not bother citing sources that have exactly the opposite PoV from Cato's >- you can look them up yourself. The point of a discussion is not spamming each >other with pre-digested, ready-to-wear, downloaded simplifications but to >inject some of own experience and induction. >Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger >http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
Re: CDR: Re: Killing the G8 Anarchists
On Sun, Jul 22, 2001 at 10:00:54AM -0500, Jim Choate wrote: > You fucking hypocrite. At least half the crap you spew is nothing more > than ad hominims. In many a distant land, one can hear the laugher as it rolls over hills and into valleys; just as those gripped by hilarity at its source roll over papers and into furniture. -- ___ ___ . . ___ \/ |\ |\ \ _\_ /__ |-\ |-\ \__
RE: Killing the G8 Anarchists,
On Sat, 21 Jul 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Agreed, 100% Paradoxically, I also agree that the "fucking shit up" is > often necessary to generate suffucient public recognition of the issues at > hand. > > No, I don't have an answer to this paradox. Paradoxes arise, usually, because the relationship is being viewed in the wrong context. Read the first two para's of the DoI for one solution to the 'paradox'. -- Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'/ ``::>/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com.', `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
Re: Killing the G8 Anarchists
On Sat, 21 Jul 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote: > On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 12:14:52AM -0700, Morlock Elloi wrote: > > You are a ... "journalist" ??? > > Everyone's a journalist nowadays. They always were. The 'commercial' distinction about 'press' is a false and unconstitutional distinction. The Constitution speaks of 'the press', not as a bunch of fame and profit seeking opportunists, but as a free and available mechanism for individuals to discuss their views and desires (this mailing list is a perfect example as is a private mailbox. What todays modern press does is a bastardization of intent and a whoring for fame and profit; as opposed to fostering real discussion and change in our society. Some Jefferson quotes to demonstrate the distinction: No government ought to be without censors; and when the press is free, no one ever will. Nature has given to man no other means of sifting out the truth either in religion, law or politics. I think it as honorable to the government neither to know or notice its sycophants or censors as it would be undignified and criminal to pamper the former and persecute the latter. At a very early period in my life I determined never to put a sentence into any newspaper. I have religiously adhered to the resolution through my life and have great reason to be contented with it. Were I to undertake to answer the calumnies of the newspapers it would be more than all my time and twenty aids could effect. For, while I should be answering one, twenty new ones would be invented. I have thought it better to trust to the justice of my countrymen that they would judge me by what they see of my conduct on the stage they have placed me. > Their anti-property rights slogans, their disdain for private property, > their embrace of socialist and Marxist ideology? See a nice writeup on this > point that Cato's Aaron Lucas sent to my Politech list: > http://www.politechbot.com/p-02281.html You lump the majority into a fraction. A prime example of the self-serving dellusion of cash and fame on the truth. -- Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'/ ``::>/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com.', `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
Re: Killing the G8 Anarchists
On Sat, 21 Jul 2001, Sampo Syreeni wrote: > Dunno... Seeing what went down in Gothenburg, and the shit that's going on > now in Genoa, I too am beginning to think there is something very wrong with > all this... Duh. What was your first clue? > >The property-destroying "anarchists" are giving anarchy a bad name. > > Agreed. Actually its a clear demonstration of the paucity of 'anarchist' solutions to social situations and how ill fit it is to human psychology. Some never learn, they keep hoping for angels among men. -- Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'/ ``::>/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com.', `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
Re: CDR: Re: Killing the G8 Anarchists
On Sat, 21 Jul 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote: > On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 10:37:48AM -0700, Morlock Elloi wrote: > > Cato is the first place that I visit when curious about the current agenda of > > the unique mix of libertarian/new world order propaganda. > > So instead of responding to the text of the article, you rant about the > author. That's intellectual integrity about on the level of many of > those anti-property rights protests. You fucking hypocrite. At least half the crap you spew is nothing more than ad hominims. -- Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'/ ``::>/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com.', `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
RE: Killing the G8 Anarchists,
On Sat, 21 Jul 2001, Faustine wrote: > "all power flows from the barrel of a gun?" Maybe so. But most people who > sign contracts are more motivated by the threat of lawsuits, jail and fines > than the direct threat of violence. What you are missing here is that the threat of jail and fines are only a threat *beacuse* of the threat of the gun which stands as the alternative, i.e., submit to our sentence of jail, or we will shoot you. > Legitimate protest is one > thing, but the problem is, people who are out to "fuck shit up" aren't too > discriminate about their targets. If your business was in the middle of a > riot zone, would you just choose the "roll over and die" option? Somehow I > think not. Agreed, 100% Paradoxically, I also agree that the "fucking shit up" is often necessary to generate suffucient public recognition of the issues at hand. No, I don't have an answer to this paradox. -- Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place...
Re: Killing the G8 Anarchists
> So instead of responding to the text of the article, you rant about the I am not going to analyze adverts from your site - if you have to say something say it here - as I tried to explain in simple terms, spamming with canned stuff is not the point of a discussion. Or is it too expensive for you in cognitive terms to come up with arguments yourself ? > author. That's intellectual integrity about on the level of many of > those anti-property rights protests. Your perception is impaired. I never mentioned the author. *You* qualified author as "Cato's". Another granfallooning. I simply pointed that out and re-qualified what you implied about Cato, in your manner of using implied values to build a point out of nothing. > The problem is that the protesters have no coherent message. Take this > bit of silliness: This is not bad in itself. Single-mindedness is not really a quality I am looking for. Are they all supposed to be warriors for the same idea ? Where did you get that ? > Does anyone really think that breastfeeding is a right anytime, > anywhere? Don't I have a right to tell someone to leave my home if > they're doing it at a gathering I'm hosting on my property? (I > wouldn't, but that's not the point.) These are rhetorical questions. The answers are supposed to be, let me see ... "no" and "yes" ? The analogy is false, of course. Take a look at US propaganda shorts from 50-ties and learn what to avoid. > Yep. And it's also pretty accurate. The protesters have no coherent message, There it goes again. Is it too hard to understand that these people are not corporate employees adhering to company's policies ? Declan, you proved beyond any doubt that you have nothing to say. You just talk an re-shuffle buzzwords you deem popular. You are also incompetent propagandist - I do enjoy discussing with the skilled ones, though. Therefore I see no point in furthering this exchange. Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
Re: Killing the G8 Anarchists
On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 10:37:48AM -0700, Morlock Elloi wrote: > Cato is the first place that I visit when curious about the current agenda of > the unique mix of libertarian/new world order propaganda. So instead of responding to the text of the article, you rant about the author. That's intellectual integrity about on the level of many of those anti-property rights protests. > Translating protesters' agenda to "anti-property" *is* pure propaganda designed > to scare god-fearing middle class cypherpunks that somehow they will lose some > of their property should G8 protesters seize the world government (BTW, it The problem is that the protesters have no coherent message. Take this bit of silliness: http://www.mccullagh.org/image/10/breastfeeding-is-your-right.html Does anyone really think that breastfeeding is a right anytime, anywhere? Don't I have a right to tell someone to leave my home if they're doing it at a gathering I'm hosting on my property? (I wouldn't, but that's not the point.) > As the word "communist" loses its strength new words are needed to instill > fear, and "anti-property" is a nice catchall. It's all in the language. Yep. And it's also pretty accurate. The protesters have no coherent message, but a disdain for property rights is about as close as they come to one. -Declan
Re: Killing the G8 Anarchists
At 05:27 PM 7/21/01 +0300, Sampo Syreeni wrote: > >Not all of us. In fact, if you look at the statistics, e.g. we Finnish >people are actually quite *well* armed. Just not with handguns, but hunting >rifles. I've read that the Finnish Surgeon General (equiv.) *recommends* the use of silencers; and the use is common for keeping peace with neighbors too. You can't imagine how amusing/twisted that is in the US, where silencers are linked with al capone, etc.
Re: Killing the G8 Anarchists
> Their anti-property rights slogans, their disdain for private property, > their embrace of socialist and Marxist ideology? See a nice writeup on this > point that Cato's Aaron Lucas sent to my Politech list: Cato is the first place that I visit when curious about the current agenda of the unique mix of libertarian/new world order propaganda. Translating protesters' agenda to "anti-property" *is* pure propaganda designed to scare god-fearing middle class cypherpunks that somehow they will lose some of their property should G8 protesters seize the world government (BTW, it would be interesting to see what is the net worth of cpunkers and how that influences their positions :-) As the word "communist" loses its strength new words are needed to instill fear, and "anti-property" is a nice catchall. It's all in the language. You also enumerate ideologies with implicit assumption that they are "bad". So whatever can be labeled "marxist" or "socialist" is somehow horrible. You don't say WHAT is bad about it, you *assume* that everyone will jump to the bandwagon and agree that it's something bad. Kill the commies. This is a classic propaganda technique. I will not bother citing sources that have exactly the opposite PoV from Cato's - you can look them up yourself. The point of a discussion is not spamming each other with pre-digested, ready-to-wear, downloaded simplifications but to inject some of own experience and induction. Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
Re: Killing the G8 Anarchists
On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, Tim May wrote: >WHY AREN'T THE OWNERS OF THESE PROPERTIES DEFENDING THEIR PROPERTY? > >Why are't shop owners spraying the looters with automatic weapons fire? > >Because, of course, Europeans are disarmed. Not all of us. In fact, if you look at the statistics, e.g. we Finnish people are actually quite *well* armed. Just not with handguns, but hunting rifles. If something like that were to happen here, there would be no shortage of firepower. However, over here the fact that they are torching your property isn't an excuse to shoot -- if you manage to kill one, it's murder, and probably not even in mitigating circumstances. The same applies doublefold to defending yourself against police brutality and co. People usually don't think about using firearms to defend themselves, even if they happen to own some. They know they'll get nailed for it, no matter how righteous the shooting might seem to be. Dunno... Seeing what went down in Gothenburg, and the shit that's going on now in Genoa, I too am beginning to think there is something very wrong with all this... >The property-destroying "anarchists" are giving anarchy a bad name. Agreed. Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED], gsm: +358-50-5756111 student/math+cs/helsinki university, http://www.iki.fi/~decoy/front
Re: Killing the G8 Anarchists
On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 12:14:52AM -0700, Morlock Elloi wrote: > You are a ... "journalist" ??? Everyone's a journalist nowadays. > Where, pray tell, did you divine that G8 protesters "don't believe in property" > ? Their anti-property rights slogans, their disdain for private property, their embrace of socialist and Marxist ideology? See a nice writeup on this point that Cato's Aaron Lucas sent to my Politech list: http://www.politechbot.com/p-02281.html -Declan
RE: Killing the G8 Anarchists
--- Duncan Frissell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > defending according to your prior post. I thought they didn't really > believe in property? You are a ... "journalist" ??? Where, pray tell, did you divine that G8 protesters "don't believe in property" ? Or did you feel in your little brain that it's just the right thing to say ? > In any case, culture is something that exists in the minds of people and in > the choices those people make every day. One can only claim to "own" a This is nonsense. *All concepts* exist in minds of people, you don't mine for ethics or culture or modular algebra. > As for the planet, a bit big to be owned at this point though people will > be able to own them later when we're richer and have access to more of > them. Though why one would want to own a gravity well is beyond me. This is so deep. Did you ever had anything but wrong generalisations to say ? __ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
RE: Killing the G8 Anarchists
On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, Duncan Frissell wrote: > At 04:56 PM 7/20/01 -0500, Jim Choate wrote: > > >Just as much as these protesters object to having their cultures and > >planet raped and pillaged for the God $ Fascist good (and not their own). > > Presumably "their cultures" and "their planet" are the "property" they are > defending according to your prior post. I thought they didn't really > believe in property? Yes, property they have an interest in. An interest that is not measurable in economic metrics. Who didn't believe in property? Which group didn't believe in property. As a journalist who is supposedly well versed in this area it's surprising that you would try to attempt to show the many groups involved as having a single agenda or theme, when you know that isn't so. Some don't believe in a world government. Some don't believe in trans-national economics becoming the primary force in government. Some object to a combining of the two. Some object to the crass commercialism that has ravaged Afria with AIDS. Some object to the belief that pledging a $1B to 'fight AIDS' isn't sufficient when what is needed and what is required (though they don't want to do it) is to 'end AIDS', without turning the people into chatels of the state in some eco-socialist wet dream. No, there are many views and you're trying to lump them all into one category is nothing more than evidence to the strength (really complete lack thereof) of your case. > In any case, culture is something that exists in the minds of people and in > the choices those people make every day. Provided they're given the opportunity to even make that choice. This is another of the bitches. > One can only claim to "own" a culture if one claims to own the minds and > choices of others. One does not claim to own a culture (demonstrating your lack thereof), one IS a culture. To have a culture destroyed, especially for nothing more than profit, is rape. > A bit totalitarian and impossible for commie thugs to do these days since > even governments with nukes are having trouble controlling the minds and > choices of others. It's not just 'commie', again your single mindset reveals your shallow understanding. The lack of 'control' is exactly why they're so upset. Why they're so worried. It's exactly why they don't want it to get larger. It's why they don't want people to know what's going on. These are the same people, who when they want to search your home, who ask "what have you got to hide?" What have they got to hide? > As for the planet, a bit big to be owned at this point though people will > be able to own them later when we're richer and have access to more of > them. Though why one would want to own a gravity well is beyond me. You have a shallow sense of ownership if you believe it must be 1-to-1. -- Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'/ ``::>/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com.', `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
RE: Killing the G8 Anarchists
At 04:56 PM 7/20/01 -0500, Jim Choate wrote: >Just as much as these protesters object to having their cultures and >planet raped and pillaged for the God $ Fascist good (and not their own). Presumably "their cultures" and "their planet" are the "property" they are defending according to your prior post. I thought they didn't really believe in property? In any case, culture is something that exists in the minds of people and in the choices those people make every day. One can only claim to "own" a culture if one claims to own the minds and choices of others. A bit totalitarian and impossible for commie thugs to do these days since even governments with nukes are having trouble controlling the minds and choices of others. As for the planet, a bit big to be owned at this point though people will be able to own them later when we're richer and have access to more of them. Though why one would want to own a gravity well is beyond me. DCF --- Statism, gravity, and death -- Mankind's three greatest enemies.
RE: Killing the G8 Anarchists (fwd)
I assume from the tone that Msr. Sandfort meant to send it to the list... -- Forwarded message -- Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 16:53:52 -0700 From: Sandy Sandfort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Jim Choate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: Killing the G8 Anarchists Inchoate sputtered: > ...The real reason they're not > sensitive to these particular > 'anarchist' is that they aren't > motivated by the alure of money. > They aspire to a higher calling > than crass commercialism or > puritanical ego fulfillment... Oh boy! If Jim REALLY believes this crap (where does he get this stuff?), I have some great seaside property in Florida, I think he should invest in. ;-D "Save the whales." (We'll eat them later.) S a n d y
RE: Killing the G8 Anarchists
At 04:56 PM 7/20/01 -0500, Jim Choate wrote: >Just as much as these protesters object to having their cultures and >planet raped and pillaged for the God $ Fascist good (and not their own). Presumably "their cultures" and "their planet" are the "property" they are defending according to your prior post. I thought they didn't really believe in property? In any case, culture is something that exists in the minds of people and in the choices those people make every day. One can only claim to "own" a culture if one claims to own the minds and choices of others. A bit totalitarian and impossible for commie thugs to do these days since even governments with nukes are having trouble controlling the minds and choices of others. As for the planet, a bit big to be owned at this point though people will be able to own them later when we're richer and have access to more of them. Though why one would want to own a gravity well is beyond me. DCF --- Statism, gravity, and death -- Mankind's three greatest enemies.
RE: Killing the G8 Anarchists
On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, Faustine wrote: > Speaking for myself, I'm not "owned" by anyone. I obey state and federal > laws though, if that's what you mean. Even when they're unconstitutional I bet... Some American. > You don't need a gun to enforce > ownership, what do you think contract and property law is all about. Which is worthless without the explicit and well advertised threat of violence. See G8 demonstrations today for a explicit example. > Sometimes words or a fist do just as well... What any of this has to do > with supporting the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms is totally unclear. See G8 today. > By the way, why don't you think people have a right to defend their own > lives and property? Don't the people demonstrating have a right to defend their lives and properoty? Their claim is it is being abused and destroyed. Where is their spokesperson at the G8? Where is there forum? > When I'm attacked, why shouldn't I fight back? Hypocrite. Freedom for me, not for thee... -- Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'/ ``::>/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com.', `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
RE: Killing the G8 Anarchists
Someone behind a remailer wrote: >You stupid american fuck, So it's an insult to be American, is it? Who's being bigoted now. If you really have something interesting to contribute, why not bypass the namecalling and stick to the issues. > ownership is very relative term and enforced by guns, like you are owned >by state of california and USG at the same time, and you do complain about >that, don't you? Huh? Speaking for myself, I'm not "owned" by anyone. I obey state and federal laws though, if that's what you mean. You don't need a gun to enforce ownership, what do you think contract and property law is all about. Sometimes words or a fist do just as well... What any of this has to do with supporting the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms is totally unclear. By the way, why don't you think people have a right to defend their own lives and property? When I'm attacked, why shouldn't I fight back? A nation state that adopted a foreign policy based on "turning the other cheek" wouldn't last a month. So why should I as an individual citizen? Nobody said you have to relish the idea of mowing people down to believe in the principle of defending yourself. In fact, I don't think it's going too far to say that if you don't take reasonable measures to provide for your own safety, you're a contemptible fool and a coward. What would you do in a situation where no one from the state is around to help you? Run? Pray? Roll over and die? If you can't or won't defend yourself, those are about the only options you'll have. In my case, I'm lucky enough to be able to decide that "providing for my own safety" doesn't involve owning a gun at all. But who am I to make that decision for anyone else? Who are you? >You really whine only because you are not on top - Define "on top". No matter where you are intellectually or financially, the botttom line is that you deserve to defend yourself when people are trying to harm you. >you do not really have problem with those below you (I understand you live >on a farm .. must have some pigs there) suffering because they don't have >guns. Define "below". Let's see, who's "below" me, criminals? I think criminals realize better than most the advantages of superior firepower. So why not wake up, take the hint, and quit living like a lamb waiting for the slaughter. But go ahead, it's entirely your choice. ~Faustine.
RE: Killing the G8 Anarchists
Inchoate sputtered: > ...The real reason they're not > sensitive to these particular > 'anarchist' is that they aren't > motivated by the alure of money. > They aspire to a higher calling > than crass commercialism or > puritanical ego fulfillment... Oh boy! If Jim REALLY believes this crap (where does he get this stuff?), I have some great seaside property in Florida, I think he should invest in. ;-D "Save the whales." (We'll eat them later.) S a n d y
Re: Killing the G8 Anarchists
>WHY AREN'T THE OWNERS OF THESE PROPERTIES DEFENDING THEIR PROPERTY? > >Why are't shop owners spraying the looters with automatic weapons fire? Your bigotry got some boost this morning (cypherpunk readers may be amused to know what nazi methods you advocate for homeless). You stupid american fuck, ownership is very relative term and enforced by guns, like you are owned by state of california and USG at the same time, and you do complain about that, don't you ? You really whine only because you are not on top - you do not really have problem with those below you (I understand you live on a farm .. must have some pigs there) suffering because they don't have guns.
RE: Killing the G8 Anarchists
On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, Petro wrote: > >Just as much as these protesters object to having their cultures and > >planet raped and pillaged for the God $ Fascist good (and not their own). > > Most of those protesters are white Europeans. The only thing they are > protesting is their own lack of understanding. Perhaps, this is a clear demonstration of your own lack however. It's interesting (and something I've commented on before, check the archives :) that the 'leaders' of the C-A-C-L viewpoint are always ready to bitch about how 'terrible' the government is and how it degrades their profits. And then when somebody actually gets up and acts on it they're the first ones to bail. The real reason they're not sensitive to these particular 'anarchist' is that they aren't motivated by the alure of money. They aspire to a higher calling than crass commercialism or puritanical ego fulfillment. I've said it before, I'll say it again. The majority of the C-A-C-L contingent, in particular their 'leaders', are a bunch of money hungry hypocrites. God $ Fascism. Just more of the same. -- Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'/ ``::>/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com.', `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
RE: Killing the G8 Anarchists
At 4:56 PM -0500 7/20/01, Jim Choate wrote: >On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote: > >> Tim May wrote: >> >> > WHY AREN'T THE OWNERS OF THESE >> > PROPERTIES DEFENDING THEIR >> > PROPERTY? >> > >> > Why are't shop owners spraying the >> > looters with automatic weapons fire? >> > >> > Because, of course, Europeans are >> > disarmed. >> >> Not entirely true. If the G8 folks really wanted to avoid "collateral >> damage" they'd hold their meetings in Switzerland or maybe Finland. I'm >> sure the store and gas station owners would take a VERY dim view of having >> their livelihoods sacrificed to these so-called "anarchists." > >Just as much as these protesters object to having their cultures and >planet raped and pillaged for the God $ Fascist good (and not their own). Most of those protesters are white Europeans. The only thing they are protesting is their own lack of understanding.
RE: Killing the G8 Anarchists
On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote: > Fortunately for the Swiss, Tim has it pretty much wrong. Switzerland and > pretty much universal mandatory military service for males. The mandatory > part is offensive, Just another example of why the C-A-C-L contingent doesn't have a clue, no concept of 'citizen' and 'responsibility' (outside of personal wealth). -- Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'/ ``::>/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com.', `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
Re: Killing the G8 Anarchists
One of the points that Tim is missing is that these demonstraters are only protecting their property, in their view. As usual, Tim confuses 'God $ Fascist' with 'Anarchist'. On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, Tim May wrote: > I've watched this list with bemusement as several of you have cheered > on the G8 "Anti-Globalist" black-shirted twentysomethings. > > Watching the street riots in Genoa on CNN, watching the supermarkets > and gas stations being torched and vandalized, all I can think is > this: > > WHY AREN'T THE OWNERS OF THESE PROPERTIES DEFENDING THEIR PROPERTY? > > Why are't shop owners spraying the looters with automatic weapons fire? > > Because, of course, Europeans are disarmed. Not like our Korean and > white merchants in L.A., who used shotguns and AR-15s to kill the > blacks and Mexicans who tried to burn down their stores. > > The property-destroying "anarchists" are giving anarchy a bad name. > Seems to me that killing several dozen of them would send a good > message. -- Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'/ ``::>/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com.', `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
RE: Killing the G8 Anarchists
On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote: > Tim May wrote: > > > WHY AREN'T THE OWNERS OF THESE > > PROPERTIES DEFENDING THEIR > > PROPERTY? > > > > Why are't shop owners spraying the > > looters with automatic weapons fire? > > > > Because, of course, Europeans are > > disarmed. > > Not entirely true. If the G8 folks really wanted to avoid "collateral > damage" they'd hold their meetings in Switzerland or maybe Finland. I'm > sure the store and gas station owners would take a VERY dim view of having > their livelihoods sacrificed to these so-called "anarchists." Just as much as these protesters object to having their cultures and planet raped and pillaged for the God $ Fascist good (and not their own). -- Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'/ ``::>/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com.', `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
Re: Killing the G8 Anarchists
where did you here that they had SMG's I was told they had Sig 551's (an assault rifle) alpha - Original Message - From: "Sandy Sandfort" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, July 20, 2001 11:41 AM Subject: RE: Killing the G8 Anarchists > Tim May wrote: > > > And even in Switzerland, my > > understanding is that the rifles > > issued to each male head of > > household (maybe single moms, but > > I doubt it) are kept IN THE HOUSES, > > not in shops and businesses and > > factories. Some of them might have > > carried their rifles to their > > businesses, though. > > Fortunately for the Swiss, Tim has it pretty much wrong. Switzerland and > pretty much universal mandatory military service for males. The mandatory > part is offensive, but the result is that military personnel are usually > issued submachine guns which they keep--along with ammo and the rest of > their gear--in their home so that they can be called up quickly if > necessary. > > In addition, the Swiss have a high level of ownership of personal weapons. > Kids regularly take their .22 rifles to school for approved shooting > activities and business owners are often armed to the teeth. (Ask Duncan > about an eye-opening visit to the back room of a Swiss restaurant. > > Have you ever hear of a bank robbery in Switzerland? In most Swiss banks, > tellers are armed. They consider it their duty to chase down any bank > robbers that make it out of the bank alive. Don't fuck with the Swiss. > > > S a n d y
RE: Killing the G8 Anarchists
Tim May wrote: > And even in Switzerland, my > understanding is that the rifles > issued to each male head of > household (maybe single moms, but > I doubt it) are kept IN THE HOUSES, > not in shops and businesses and > factories. Some of them might have > carried their rifles to their > businesses, though. Fortunately for the Swiss, Tim has it pretty much wrong. Switzerland and pretty much universal mandatory military service for males. The mandatory part is offensive, but the result is that military personnel are usually issued submachine guns which they keep--along with ammo and the rest of their gear--in their home so that they can be called up quickly if necessary. In addition, the Swiss have a high level of ownership of personal weapons. Kids regularly take their .22 rifles to school for approved shooting activities and business owners are often armed to the teeth. (Ask Duncan about an eye-opening visit to the back room of a Swiss restaurant. Have you ever hear of a bank robbery in Switzerland? In most Swiss banks, tellers are armed. They consider it their duty to chase down any bank robbers that make it out of the bank alive. Don't fuck with the Swiss. S a n d y
RE: Killing the G8 Anarchists
At 11:01 AM -0700 7/20/01, Sandy Sandfort wrote: >Tim May wrote: > >> WHY AREN'T THE OWNERS OF THESE >> PROPERTIES DEFENDING THEIR >> PROPERTY? >> >> Why are't shop owners spraying the >> looters with automatic weapons fire? >> >> Because, of course, Europeans are >> disarmed. > >Not entirely true. If the G8 folks really wanted to avoid "collateral >damage" they'd hold their meetings in Switzerland or maybe Finland. I'm >sure the store and gas station owners would take a VERY dim view of having >their livelihoods sacrificed to these so-called "anarchists." True enough, though this in some sense is a quibble. I mean "nearly all Europeans." There are a few pockets where gun ownership is still permitted, but the trend in most of Europe is to disarmament of the citizen-units. (And as Declan pointed out in his message, the cops do what cops usually do: they pulled back, abandoned the citizen-units to the mobs, and munched on the Italian version of doughnuts (biscotti?). And even in Switzerland, my understanding is that the rifles issued to each male head of household (maybe single moms, but I doubt it) are kept IN THE HOUSES, not in shops and businesses and factories. Some of them might have carried their rifles to their businesses, though. (This is what the Korean merchants mostly did. They camped out in their stores all night and shot from rooftops as looters and arsonists approached. Interestingly, though t.v. cameras captured footage of rioters being shot by Koreans, even killed, there were no attempted prosecutions of these Koreans. Realpolitik meant the dead rioters were just part of the "57 killed in the L.A. riots." Which is as it should be.) I assume this will be the last such Public G8 Extravaganza held in a major city. Between Seattle, Gothenburg, and now Genoa, the costs are too high. The taxpayers of Genoa and Italy are stuck with a $110 million security bill, according to CNN. Probably higher. And the city has been shut down by the preparations. Probably not even much restaurant business, certainly nothing to compensate the actual taxpayers. Having these meetings in "securable" locations, like Davos, makes a lot more sense. "Twenty thousand blackshirt "Warriors Against Capitalism" caught in blizzard on march up to Davos...thousands feared frozen!" Of course, there is really no need for these kinds of meetings. Putin is there to beg for more handouts from the G7, the Gay Lobby is simpering about committing a billion dollars to AIDS research and needle exchange programs, and the corporate interests are seeking ways to reduce competition by upstart companies. The more things change --Tim May -- Timothy C. May [EMAIL PROTECTED]Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns
RE: Killing the G8 Anarchists
Tim May wrote: > WHY AREN'T THE OWNERS OF THESE > PROPERTIES DEFENDING THEIR > PROPERTY? > > Why are't shop owners spraying the > looters with automatic weapons fire? > > Because, of course, Europeans are > disarmed. Not entirely true. If the G8 folks really wanted to avoid "collateral damage" they'd hold their meetings in Switzerland or maybe Finland. I'm sure the store and gas station owners would take a VERY dim view of having their livelihoods sacrificed to these so-called "anarchists." S a n d y
Re: Killing the G8 Anarchists
On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 09:58:10AM -0700, Tim May wrote: > Because, of course, Europeans are disarmed. Not like our Korean and > white merchants in L.A., who used shotguns and AR-15s to kill the > blacks and Mexicans who tried to burn down their stores. Worse yet, apparently the shopkeepers of Genoa were strongly encouraged by the government to head out of town. Then the barricades went up around the "red zone" and shops and businesses not inside it seem to be receiving minimal, if any, police protection. In other words, the Europeans are disarmed, pressured to leave town, and then they can watch CNN with us as their shops are looted and smashed and the cops hunker down inside the red zone. -Declan
Killing the G8 Anarchists
I've watched this list with bemusement as several of you have cheered on the G8 "Anti-Globalist" black-shirted twentysomethings. Watching the street riots in Genoa on CNN, watching the supermarkets and gas stations being torched and vandalized, all I can think is this: WHY AREN'T THE OWNERS OF THESE PROPERTIES DEFENDING THEIR PROPERTY? Why are't shop owners spraying the looters with automatic weapons fire? Because, of course, Europeans are disarmed. Not like our Korean and white merchants in L.A., who used shotguns and AR-15s to kill the blacks and Mexicans who tried to burn down their stores. The property-destroying "anarchists" are giving anarchy a bad name. Seems to me that killing several dozen of them would send a good message. --Tim May -- Timothy C. May [EMAIL PROTECTED]Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns
