masking up on overland

8 Responses to masking up on overland

1. Futilitarian says:

   December 16, 2015 at 7:31 pm

   Masking up has its legitimate uses but it also provides the cover for dicks to behave uninhibitedly in all their dickness.
2. Sam says:

   December 20, 2015 at 10:07 pm

   “This is an anti-fascist zone.”

   To whom will this apply?

   Is it directed to all who harbour fascist ideologies, or is it only directed at white people?
3. s0urd0ugh says:

   December 24, 2015 at 12:03 pm

   I don’t have much relevant to say except despite having great love for T(I)NC please, please don’t ever use any of their songs from any album post ‘A New Morning, Changing Weather’.

   They always walked a fine line with their cheesy rock ‘n roll with cheesy revo lyrics. And while they nailed it on their first 2 albums, completely lost the plot with ‘Armed Love’ and this track. I just pressed play to give it another shot but had to turn it off less than a minute in. They became a parody of themselves.
4. @ndy says:

   December 24, 2015 at 6:06 pm

   @Sam:

   When did you stop beating your wife?

   @s0urdough:

   It’s all parody innit? /// Great band live in any case. /// Haven’t listened to their latest … you?
5. Sam says:

   December 26, 2015 at 4:44 pm

   @ndy, how about answer the question?
6. Whoistherealfascist? says:

   December 28, 2015 at 12:05 am

   Well we all know why the Antifascist groups mask up, if [you’re] going to commit to violence you can[‘]t well go around showing your face while throwing molotov cocktails at police horses and burning the australian flag with glee.

   Also it helps Antifa and its ilk to clearly identify with their allies.

   http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2014/08/28/Sinai-militants-claim-beheading-of-4-Egyptians.html

   So you guys need to protect your identity for fear of victimisation from extremists who may use social media. Lol isn[‘]t 90% of this blog about making personal attacks on individuals by publicly naming them and [potentially] putting them at risk of violent reprisal? Maybe [you’re] nervous others may use the same approach you do?

   [I] really wish you would stop pretending to be an “anti-fascist” because [you’re] clearly just a fascist of a different color. Against free speech, against the right to protest, against maintaining a peaceful and lawful society for all to live in peace. Believing in the right to use violence against people who have differing viewpoints.

   So put on your little black mask Andy, but everyone knows there is no hero behind it. Just a coward who makes a stand for oppression and fascism in disguise as “Anti-Racism”.

   Because that[‘]s how you roll right? Violence on violence and all that. Sound a lot like terrorism to me men in black masks that believe violence is an acceptable avenue for [a] political agenda.
7. Whoistherealfascist? says:

   December 28, 2015 at 12:30 am

   Anyway didn’t your mask slip a long time ago Robert?
8. ablokeimet says:

   December 31, 2015 at 2:33 pm

   Whoistherealfacist: “Sound a lot like terrorism to me men in black masks that believe violence is an acceptable avenue for [a] political agenda.”

   The term “terrorism” is widely abused, usually by those who wish to take the emotional impact of its central phenomena and apply it also to people they oppose for other reasons. A classic case is that of the US politician who, a matter of weeks after the World Trade Centre atrocity in 2001, labelled striking teachers as terrorists.

   The best definition of terrorism of which I am aware is the following:

   The strategy of the use, or the credible threat, of violence so as to cause a climate of fear for personal safety in the civilian population of a society, or a definable sub-set thereof, for a political end.

   Note that there are three essential elements in this definition and the absence of any one of them means you’re not talking about terrorism, but about something else – which may or may not also be reprehensible:

   * The use of violence;
   * The deliberate creation of fear of personal safety in the civilian population; and
   * A political purpose.

   The person using the pseudonym Whoistherealfascist is omitting the second point. Many others do, as well. In addition, many people use a definition which excludes the State by including only groups who are trying to overthrow a government or change its policies. Whoistherealfascist is attempting to use the legitimate revulsion of virtually everybody against terrorism to make an argument about people who use violence without attempting to spread fear in the civilian population. Indeed, Whoistherealfascist’s definition is so broad that it would even include the Victoria Police (who definitely use violence to pursue the political agenda of their capitalist masters) – unless there is an unannounced part of the definition excluding the State and its arms from being terrorists.

   Here is a list of some people who are not terrorists according to my definition:

   * Armed guerrilla fighters who aim for support amongst the population and attempt to aim their fire entirely at the forces of the State;
   * Rioters;
   * Antifascists who use force only against Fascists;
   * Workers who defend their picket lines against the police;
   * Criminal gangs engaged in turf wars over drugs or other rackets;
   * Drunken yahoos who fight over which ethnically defined and recruited group is superior to or more powerful than the other.

   All of these people have been called “terrorists” by different people at different times. Some of them I would support. Others I would condemn. And the rest I would criticise without condemnation. Even the ones I condemn, however, I don’t call “terrorist”, because they lack the essential characteristics that merit connection with the emotional power of the term. I’ll criticise them in other terms, instead.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.