Best Cuts, 2.0.11

TUC march: The militants behind the violence

A ragtag army of anarchists, jazz dancers, squatters, pastry chefs, student militants, nuclear technicians, environmental activists, trolley conductors and radical academics planned the spin-off protests that led to violence during Saturday’s march against cuts.

About @ndy

I live in Melbourne, Australia. I like anarchy. I don't like nazis. I enjoy eating pizza and drinking beer. I barrack for the greatest football team on Earth: Collingwood Magpies. The 2023 premiership's a cakewalk for the good old Collingwood.
This entry was posted in Anarchism, Broken Windows, History, State / Politics, Student movement, That's Capitalism!. Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to Best Cuts, 2.0.11

  1. Denys Finney says:

    Hi SB, I want that Cameron pic for a Tshirt!!!

  2. Victor Whitelaw says:

    Please explain…again…

    Oh yes @ndy, those fun lovin’ Molly lobbing Anarchists.

    What a great bunch of lads.

    Youthful exuberance and high spirits are so joyful to watch. Whoo, hoo!

    But please do elucidate as to how, by comparison, White Nationalists present such a dire threat to society and why they deserve constant paranoid negative attention from the Controlled Meeja, cynically contrived moral panic from the masses and covert, malicious and vexatious action from Left Wing activists.

    No, seriously, I want to know.

    Look. I’ll even help you with some stats. I know how much Leftists love to utilise statistics to ‘prove’ how righteous they are.

    According to the United State’s National Counterterrorism Center Worldwide Incidents Tracking System so-called ‘Neo Nazi/Fascist/White Supremacists committed a total of ‘6’, yes, that’s ‘SIX’ attacks in the period 1.1.2001 – 31.10.2010 resulting in 4 deaths.

    During the same time period Secular/Political/Anarchists (that’d be YOU @ndy) committed a total of 16,458 attacks resulting in 15,862 deaths.

    Hmmm…let’s see…can you say NO comparison @ndy?

    Here is a helpful link to the site’s reports page. Happy researching…

    https://wits.nctc.gov/FederalDiscoverWITS/index.do?t=Reports&Rcv=Perpetrator&Nf=p_IncidentDate%7CGTEQ+20010101%7C%7Cp_IncidentDate%7CLTEQ+20101231&N=0

    Then, perhaps, you might explain again how sheep’s bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes…

  3. Jack Boot says:

    The problem might be that you’re an idiot, Jim.

  4. @ndy says:

    White Nationalists present such a dire threat to society … they deserve constant paranoid negative attention from the Controlled Meeja, cynically contrived moral panic from the masses and covert, malicious and vexatious action from Left Wing activists.

    You are a veritable wordsmith Jim.

    Or was that Peter?

    In any case, Australian “White Nationalists” rarely stage an appearance in The Controlled Meeja; if and when they do, it’s typically neo-Nazis whose pretty little faces are featured. I mean, when was the last time the Australian media featured a “White Nationalist”? Does The Wicked Witch From Ipswich count? If not, does Hammerskin Kenneth Stewart? Of course, he’s a mercenary and a neo-Nazi as well as being a “White Nationalist”. The point being: “White Nationalists” are largely invisible to ZOG’s propaganda wing in The Controlled Meeja.

    Searching news.com.au, for example, produces a mere handful of articles: ‘White patriot’ denies violence (Andrew Fraser and Greg Roberts, The Australian, September 16, 2006) and War of words over Nazi flag (Quest Newspapers, March 17, 2010). A search of The Age site reveals two more articles: Nationalists boast of their role on the beach (Ewin Hannan and Richard Baker, December 13, 2005) and Fresh violence rocks Sydney (Malcolm Brown and Dan Silkstone, Sydney, Brendan Nicholson, Canberra, December 13, 2005).

    Assuming the same rules apply to other Australian media sources, it’s not exactly saturation coverage now is it?

    As for moral panic… I don’t see much evidence of that either. Where is this panic?

    With regards “overt, malicious and vexatious action from Left Wing activists”, oh please. Most “Left Wing activists” simply ignore “White Nationalists”.

    Finally, regarding the ‘Worldwide Incident Tracking System’ of ZOG’s ‘National Counterterrorism Center’. First, note that their data appears to begin in 2004 (not January 1, 2001). Secondly, the WITS actually lists 9, not 6, incidents attributable to Neonazis/Fascists/White Supremacists to December 31, 2010. In chronological order they are:

    • June 19, 2004
    1 human rights activist killed in armed attack by the Russian Republic in Saint Petersburg, Sankt-Peterburg, Russia

    • April 9, 2005
    1 civilian killed, 2 others wounded in an armed attack by Idealist Hearth in Istanbul, Istanbul, Turkey

    • February 18, 2007
    4 civilians, 2 children wounded in IED attack by suspected ultra-nationalist group in Saint Petersburg, Sankt-Peterburg, Russia

    • April 1, 2009
    1 statue damaged in IED attack in Saint Petersburg, Sankt-Peterburg, Russia

    • June 10, 2009
    1 security guard killed in armed attack by suspected white supremacist in Washington, District of Columbia, United States

    • February 2, 2010
    1 civilian injured in IED attack by NS/WP Nevograd in Saint Petersburg, Sankt-Peterburg, Russia

    • February 4, 2010
    1 mosque damaged in armed attack by suspected Combat 18 in Perth, Western Australia, Australia

    • April 12, 2010
    1 government official killed in armed attack by suspected extremists in Moscow, Moskva, Russia

    • December 6, 2010
    1 statue, 1 retail store, several apartment buildings damaged in bombing by NS/WP Nevograd in Pushkin, Sankt-Peterburg, Russia

    The data collected by WITS on Neonazi/Fascist/White Supremacist ‘terrorism’, in other words, is radically incomplete. Solely in reference to Russia, for example, one of just four countries in which such incidents apparently occurred during this period, the figures provided by WITS contradict the data collected by more specialised agencies such as The SOVA Center for Information and Analysis and The Union of Councils for Jews in the Former Soviet Union. According to the UCJS, solely in reference to the month of April 2006 (a year in which, according to WITS, across the whole wide world, there were 0 terrorist incidents attributable to Neonazis/Fascists/White Supremacists): “April 2006 will go on record as the bloodiest month in recent Russian history, with at least seven murders and more than a dozen assaults attributed to neo-Nazi groups”.

    In November, 2008–another year in which WITS reports not a single Neonazi/Fascist/White Supremacist terrorist incident for the entire year, in any part of the world–SOVA reports that “only one verdict for hate motivated violence was issued: in Kaluga region, 8 neo-nazis (including 6 minors) were convicted of a series of hate motivated robberies resulting in a death of one person. All the participants of the group were convicted, but prosecutor is going to appeal the sentence considering it to be too mild (they got from 2 years of suspended sentence to 6 years of penal colony).”

    Secondly, the figure given for ‘Secular/Political/Anarchist’ terrorist incidents is obviously useless for determining the number of anarchist terrorist incidents, including as it does an absolutely vast range of incidents motivated by a diverse range of ideologies in addition to those deemed to be ‘Anarchist’. Examining those figures more closely, they reveal a much lesser number of incidents attributable to anarchists, most concentrated in Greece and Italy and few, if any, resulting in death.

    That’s based on just a few, preliminary investigations.

    In other words, and to put it bluntly: “The problem might be that you’re an idiot”.

  5. Victor Whitelaw says:

    White Nationalists present such a dire threat to society … they deserve constant paranoid negative attention from the Controlled Meeja, cynically contrived moral panic from the masses and covert, malicious and vexatious action from Left Wing activists.

    “You are a veritable wordsmith Jim.”

    Why, thankyou @ndy. Or were you perhaps being sarcastic? That’s not nice.

    “Or was that Peter?”

    Yes, I know. We ARE so extraordinarily difficult to tell apart. Tragically, we are an Only Twin.

    Now THAT’S sarcasm…

    In any case, Australian “White Nationalists” rarely stage an appearance in The Controlled Meeja; if and when they do, it’s typically neo-Nazis whose pretty little faces are featured. I mean, when was the last time the Australian media featured a “White Nationalist”? Does The Wicked Witch From Ipswich count? If not, does Hammerskin Kenneth Stewart? Of course, he’s a mercenary and a neo-Nazi as well as being a “White Nationalist”. The point being: “White Nationalists” are largely invisible to ZOG’s propaganda wing in The Controlled Meeja.

    Searching news.com.au, for example, produces a mere handful of articles: ‘White patriot’ denies violence (Andrew Fraser and Greg Roberts, The Australian, September 16, 2006) and War of words over Nazi flag (Quest Newspapers, March 17, 2010). A search of The Age site reveals two more articles: Nationalists boast of their role on the beach (Ewin Hannan and Richard Baker, December 13, 2005) and Fresh violence rocks Sydney (Malcolm Brown and Dan Silkstone, Sydney, Brendan Nicholson, Canberra, December 13, 2005).

    Assuming the same rules apply to other Australian media sources, it’s not exactly saturation coverage now is it?

    Well, in COMPARISON to the absolute dearth of articles, including weekend colour supplement ‘inside stories’ etc on Anarchist groups and other Left Wing Extremists it is. Or…do you also have references for a good number of those?

    Also, even you, surely, must admit that almost on any day one can watch ‘documentaries’ on various free to air as well as pay television channels that chronicle the ‘evils’ of National Socialism and Fascism, despite the fact that these two regimes combined, even if the claimed figures are left unchallenged and taken on face value, Communism, as a global Movement, has been responsible for AT LEAST ten times their supposed body count. So, in that example alone, is evidence that Western ‘Democratic’ society is groomed and preconditioned to immediately associate ‘White Supremacism’ with ‘Nazism’ and, therefore, pure evil.

    Here’s one for you @ndy. When was the last time you heard anyone who was say, a little authoritarian or arrogant, referred to as a ‘Little Stalin’? Never? But I bet my last Dollar you are more than familiar with the term ‘Little Hitler’ as a derogatory epithet despite the amply documented death toll, even in mainstream ‘approved’ historical records, attributed to Uncle Joe.

    So there @ndy I’ve made it easy for you to see the ‘saturation’, by comparison, of Anti-National Socialist conditioning as opposed to Anti-Communist conditioning. Another simple fact is that the Australian Communist Party exists and proudly parades at demos etc with nobody lobbing rotten fruit at them in the street or assaulting them or dedicated groups spending large resources in compiling dirt files on them or trying to have them sacked from their jobs etc.

    When and where have you observed the Australian National Socialist Party (if it were to exist) similarly marching unmolested in our streets? Double standards, anyone? The fact is that Joe Blow has been conditioned, through the educational curriculum and the Hollywood movies, to associate Hitler/Nazis with evil. The same just cannot be seriously claimed for the Communists.

    “As for moral panic… I don’t see much evidence of that either. Where is this panic?”

    Well @ndy, you’ll largely find it in the eyes of the ‘if it’s on television then it must be true’ Sheeple parroting the typically shrill and lurid claims of the tabloid reporters posing as ‘journalists’ while they stand around the water cooler in the office or sit at the lunch room tables around this wide brown land when ever the aforementioned Controlled Meeja runs any sort of shock piece on a supposed ‘White Supremacist’ even if the original story is ‘Man kicks dog in street’. You know the tagline: ‘A search of his home by Police revealed a copy of Mein Kampf’ and/or ‘Nazi Paraphernalia’ (that’s always a good one). Omigod! We’re all going to be murdered in our beds by Ninja like Neo-Nazi death squads!

    This is more than enough to temporarily remove the lobotomised glaze from the peepers of the average robo-worker in the street and have them perform a predetermined and eminently predictable process in accordance with their Pavlovian conditioning. Cause and effect…and then solution…dontchaknow.

    Of course, the committed Leftists are as guilty of drooling credulity as the drones in accepting the summary labelling of any ‘offender’ as a ‘Neo-Nazi’ or ‘White Supremacist’ by either the authorities or the Controlled Meeja simply because it serves their agenda. Regardless of the pretences of intellectualisation of the subject matter and available ‘evidence’ the Left are every bit as gullible and ignorant as the dullest man-on-the-street. @ndy, just because someone SAYS someone else is this or that does not make it so. It really is as basic as that.

    “With regards “overt, malicious and vexatious action from Left Wing activists”, oh please. Most “Left Wing activists” simply ignore “White Nationalists”.”

    Except if they’re affiliated with the now seemingly, for all intents and purposes, defunct ‘Fight Dem Back’ Anti-White Racist Gang or similar Criminal Groups on the Extreme Left.

    Finally, regarding the ‘Worldwide Incident Tracking System’ of ZOG’s ‘National Counterterrorism Center’. First, note that their data appears to begin in 2004 (not January 1, 2001). Secondly, the WITS actually lists 9, not 6, incidents attributable to Neonazis/Fascists/White Supremacists to December 31, 2010. In chronological order they are:

    • June 19, 2004
    1 human rights activist killed in armed attack by the Russian Republic in Saint Petersburg, Sankt-Peterburg, Russia

    • April 9, 2005
    1 civilian killed, 2 others wounded in an armed attack by Idealist Hearth in Istanbul, Istanbul, Turkey

    • February 18, 2007
    4 civilians, 2 children wounded in IED attack by suspected ultra-nationalist group in Saint Petersburg, Sankt-Peterburg, Russia

    • April 1, 2009
    1 statue damaged in IED attack in Saint Petersburg, Sankt-Peterburg, Russia

    • June 10, 2009
    1 security guard killed in armed attack by suspected white supremacist in Washington, District of Columbia, United States

    • February 2, 2010
    1 civilian injured in IED attack by NS/WP Nevograd in Saint Petersburg, Sankt-Peterburg, Russia

    • February 4, 2010
    1 mosque damaged in armed attack by suspected Combat 18 in Perth, Western Australia, Australia

    • April 12, 2010
    1 government official killed in armed attack by suspected extremists in Moscow, Moskva, Russia

    • December 6, 2010
    1 statue, 1 retail store, several apartment buildings damaged in bombing by NS/WP Nevograd in Pushkin, Sankt-Peterburg, Russia

    The data collected by WITS on Neonazi/Fascist/White Supremacist ‘terrorism’, in other words, is radically incomplete. Solely in reference to Russia, for example, one of just four countries in which such incidents apparently occurred during this period, the figures provided by WITS contradict the data collected by more specialised agencies such as The SOVA Center for Information and Analysis and The Union of Councils for Jews in the Former Soviet Union. According to the UCJS, solely in reference to the month of April 2006 (a year in which, according to WITS, across the whole wide world, there were 0 terrorist incidents attributable to Neonazis/Fascists/White Supremacists): “April 2006 will go on record as the bloodiest month in recent Russian history, with at least seven murders and more than a dozen assaults attributed to neo-Nazi groups”.

    In November, 2008–another year in which WITS reports not a single Neonazi/Fascist/White Supremacist terrorist incident for the entire year, in any part of the world–SOVA reports that “only one verdict for hate motivated violence was issued: in Kaluga region, 8 neo-nazis (including 6 minors) were convicted of a series of hate motivated robberies resulting in a death of one person. All the participants of the group were convicted, but prosecutor is going to appeal the sentence considering it to be too mild (they got from 2 years of suspended sentence to 6 years of penal colony).”

    Secondly, the figure given for ‘Secular/Political/Anarchist’ terrorist incidents is obviously useless for determining the number of anarchist terrorist incidents, including as it does an absolutely vast range of incidents motivated by a diverse range of ideologies in addition to those deemed to be ‘Anarchist’. Examining those figures more closely, they reveal a much lesser number of incidents attributable to anarchists, most concentrated in Greece and Italy and few, if any, resulting in death.

    That’s based on just a few, preliminary investigations.

    Yes, that’s all fine and good but, as stated above, just because an individual is labelled as a ‘White Supremacist’ does not necessarily make him so. Many of those described as ‘Ultra Nationalists’ or suchlike could be non White.

    Whereas ‘Anarchism’ as a universalist cause has no Racial/Cultural determinant White Nationalism obviously does. So, to be fair and accurate one would need to break down the statistics on these so-called ‘Nazis’ into their constituent groups otherwise unscrupulous commentators will simply lump them all together as ‘Racists’.

    “In other words, and to put it bluntly: “The problem might be that you’re an idiot”.”

    Dear oh dear. There you go again with the old ad hominem attack. In the interests of accuracy, and I assumed that was what both of us were striving for here, I believe you’ll find that an ‘Idiot’, like an ‘imbecile’, is a person suffering severe mental retardation and who, for the purposes of medical classification and scheduling, usually registers an Intelligence Quotient of 30 or below. This is approximately equivalent to an average three year old child, in which case we would not even be able to perform this online conversation in the first place. Perhaps it might be a more feasible insult to refer to each other’s respective ideologies and subsequent claims and presumptions as ‘idiotic’ or ‘imbecilic’ in that they might be regarded by detractors as ‘resembling’ the mental functions of idiots and/or imbeciles. For example, I personally do not think you @ndy are anywhere near as stupid as your website makes you appear. I actually believe you are playing a political game, leading a merry chase, as it were, to serve the agenda of a certain special interest group. As I have said before. Either you are that stupid or you are that evil. Your effective malevolence is self evident.

  6. @ndy says:

    G’day Peter,

    A few things.

    First, a comparative study of media treatment of anarchist and White nationalist political activism would take a good deal more time than I have available. But a brief, simple comparison is available to anyone who cares to search, for example, the news.com.au website and that of The Age for these terms. Doing so will reveal that the news.com.au site has thousands of items containing the term ‘anarchist’ and that the great majority of these items refer to events elsewhere. The most recent news items are ‘Mail bomb defused at Greek prison’ (AP, April 1, 2011) and ‘Parcel bomb explodes at army barracks’ (AFP, April 1, 2011). On these shores, most of the items are associated with public protest. The guy who interrupted Joolya’s speech during last year’s election campaign is described as an anarchist, while anarchists are regularly denounced for taking part in anti-summit protest (see, for example, ‘APEC protesters admit ‘violent acts’ plan’, Sarah Elks, The Australian, August 30, 2007). For its part, at the time of the G20 protest in Melbourne (November 2006) The Age published a gallery of photos of persons police found really really interesting. Otherwise, there’s been sporadic coverage of Uncle Joe’s various tilts at public office — often presented as a kind of ‘human interest’ story — and some attempt to describe Julian Assange as an ‘anarchist’ of some sort (not on the basis of his own assessment but more generally on account of his being a colossal pain in the arse to various authorities and his apparent lack of respect for those laws meant to guarantee the veil of secrecy behind which governments conceal their activities from the public).

    Generally speaking, ‘anarchist’ is a term of abuse, or used as a synonym for chaotic violence. If there’s ‘anarchy in [country X]’ it means there’s lots (and lots) of bloody deaths being brought about by non-state actors. An anarchist, then, is someone who desires destruction for its own sake, and is barely distinguishable from a terrorist–worse yet, one without a political agenda. In popular fiction, the most memorable recent such depiction probably came in the 1999 film The World Is Not Enough when Robert Carlyle played the role of Viktor Lavrentievich Zokas, better known by his alias of Renard, the Anarchist.

    More later.

    In the meantime, a musical tribute to the feral anarchists who supposedly brought about the cancellation of the Asia-Pacific Defence and Security Exhibition in 2008:

  7. @ndy says:

    …continued…

    Of course, in terms of media coverage, that’s just the ‘anarchists’. Depending on how one defines the ‘extreme’ or ‘far’ left, there are many thousands of other items on news.com.au, many the product of professional chatterers/trollumnists such as Andrew Bolt, who regularly derides the Greens for harbouring extreme leftists/fear, loathing, hatred and violence.

    As for television, I watch little. Neo-Nazis occasionally serve as villains on the numerous cop shows that dominate free-to-air television; The History Channel was once dubbed The Hitler Channel (with some justification). Beyond that, it’s certainly true that Nazi Germany continues to be the subject of enduring interest, and not only because of the many crimes it committed (Noam Chomsky memorably described the Holocaust–or what you might term the Holohoax–as constituting ‘the most fantastic outburst of insanity in human history’). But I’m hardly going to do justice to ‘The Short Twentieth Century’ in a few paragraphs, nor am I to going to conduct a comparative analysis of fascist and Communist crimes.

    Instead, three things.

    First, it’s worth noting that Australia was at war with the Axis powers in WWII, and allied with Soviet Russia.

    Secondly, while there are a simply enormous number of histories of Communism — Richard Pipe’s brief title Communism is pretty funky — I think Ken Knabb’s Note on Stalinism and Trotskyism is especially useful, given its ability to make such distinctions. Otherwise, the Cohn-Bendits’ essay on ‘The Strategy and Nature of Bolshevism’ is worthy, and I typically adopt the views of the many libertarian socialist critics of the various Soviet regimes. Fwiw, the council communist Otto Rühle memorably argued that Bolshevism provided the model for Fascism–as a radical, he obviously rejected both.

    Thirdly, it’s not very useful to speak of atrocities without also paying close attention to the many crimes committed in the name of Empire (or state and capital in their non-Fascist and non-Communist variants). Again, there’s a wealth of literature on the subject, but Mike Davis has made some comments on the subject which I think are germane.

    Finally, I think that the account provided by the novelist Jorge Semprun (What A Beautiful Sunday!, Translated from the French by Alan Sheridan, Abacus, London, 1984. Originally published in French under the title Quel beau dimanche! in 1980 by Editions Grasset et Fasquelle) is neat.

  8. Victor Whitelaw says:

    @ndy said: “First, it’s worth noting that Australia was at war with the Axis powers in WWII, and allied with Soviet Russia.”

    Ah, now you see, this is where, in my opinion, it gets interesting. You, Darp, Weezil, Oorst, Smith and others have often resorted, much like Dr. Johnson’s scoundrel, to the Patriotic in your criticism/opposition to National Socialism. “It’s what we fought for!”

    We have in the past been regaled with lengthy verses of prose referring to the heroism of various obscure ethnic groups who, apparently, united in the common cause of destroying those nasty ‘Nazis’, acted as NATIONS allied in said cause that resulted in the deaths of MILLIONS of ordinary Workers while the elite of the Industrial Military Complex (Read: Wall Street Jews) made a motza and put their kids through college on the profits of doom.

    Wake up and smell the gefilte fish @ndy.

    Now, here is the point. If, in your chosen ideology of Anarchism, you believe that CLASS is everything, that it is the ONLY exclusive, logical, genuine and viable struggle, that Race is merely a spurious concept, then is it not contradictory and hypocritical of you to cynically (albeit momentarily) appropriate the status of Nationalism when it suits your long term socio-political agenda?

    How can you possibly reconcile an acceptance of Nationalist socio-political integrity resulting in cooperation (War) of National entities in a military conflict (read: meat grinder for Working Class Yobs) with a universalist, One World ideology of NO Nations, NO borders and NO national sovereignty?

    Surely this can be nothing more than a cynical position of convenience and political expediency.

    BTW.

    Please make the effort to address my other points.

  9. @ndy says:

    Briefly.

    1. I’ve not finished replying to your comment.
    2. You’ve misread the statement you highlight. The point being, Australian attitudes towards both Nazism and Communism are shaped by this fact. That is, a more hostile reaction to Nazism is based, apart from anything else, by actual battle. Leaving aside Australian participation in the attempted crushing of the early Boilshevik state, the (Cold) War on Communism was for the most part a political struggle.

  10. Aussie says:

    Wowzas, you guys/girls?, make everything sound so bloody complicated.

    With my very low IQ Ill simplify it for you both.

    The majority of the world don’t understand any of that, so it is basically, mostly, it is useless.

    Are you under the impression if everyone gets really smart you can help the world be a better place, or are you both making a great example of why it is not a better place?

    Just sayin.

  11. @ndy says:

    In summary:

    1. You claimed that White Nationalists are subject to constant, hysterical denunciations by the Australian media, political witch-hunts by the left, and that the ideology produces moral panics (cynically contrived by dark forces) among the general public. By contrast (and by implication), the threat posed by anarchists to social order is seriously underestimated. As evidence you cited statistics compiled by the United State’s National Counterterrorism Center Worldwide Incidents Tracking System. Apparently, over a ten-year period (2001–2011), ‘White Nationalists’–that is, Neo Nazis/Fascists/White Supremacists–committed just 6 terrorist attacks (resulting in 4 deaths), while during the same period anarchists (and allied forces) committed a total of 16,458 attacks resulting in 15,862 deaths.

    2. I pointed out that, contrary to your claims (and citing news.com.au and theage.com.au as sources), ‘White Nationalists’ barely register in the media, have produced few if any moral panics, and are largely ignored by the left. Further, that anarchists have been the subject of considerably more reportage by the media (but that news items regarding anarchists generally concern the activities of foreign anarchists) and that the statistics you cited are bogus.

    3. You then proceeded to make a comparison between atrocities committed in the name of Fascism and those committed in the name of Communism, claiming that–as the latter far exceed the former in size and number–the Australian public should be far more concerned with Communist influence than that exercised by National Socialists.

    4. I pointed out that a comparative study of this sort required considerable evidence: I should also point that it departs quite considerably from the ostensible subject of this post, viz, anarchist involvement in the London protest of March 26. (I should also add that, as has become standard practice in such circumstances, the media has published photographs of alleged rioters/”violent protesters who attacked police and damaged property during last weekend’s orgy of violence in London”). Further, I outlined, inter alia, some of the sources I rely upon for my knowledge of the history of the Communist movement.

    5. An impatient critic, you then leaped upon a statement I made regarding one of the reasons why Australians might be more ill-disposed towards Nazism than Communism, and misinterpreted its meaning.

    In conclusion:

    I don’t think that the Australian public is well-disposed towards either Nazism or Communism. Both ideologies are closely associated with tyranny and mass murder. As a result, neo-Nazism and Stalinism (along with Bolshevism) are highly marginal political phenomena. Anarchism is distinct from both ideologies, but shares in their marginality. Finally, to correct all of your false assertions and flawed arguments would take more time and energy than I think is worth my trouble. In the meantime…

    SolFed open letter to UKUncut about ‘violent minorities’ and useful links
    March 29, 2011

    And further…

    Michael Schmidt, author of Black Flame, at McMaster University; part 1 of 4 from Common Cause on Vimeo.

  12. Victor Whitelaw says:

    @ndy said:
    “An impatient critic, you then leaped upon a statement I made regarding one of the reasons why Australians might be more ill-disposed towards Nazism than Communism, and misinterpreted its meaning.”

    I may be ‘impatient’ but at least I am honest and strive for accuracy. Also, sorry to be pedantic, but I believe you’ll find the more accurate and acceptable word, for a person with Australian English as a first language, is ‘leapt’. No ‘misinterpretation’ was required to divine the gist of your comments. I am, by now, well versed in your ideology and not blind to any subtle spins and twists you might put on it.

    “I don’t think that the Australian public is well-disposed towards either Nazism or Communism.”

    True enough, but, as I have stated before, there is a distinct hierarchy of disapproval and/or outrage. One may parade openly on Australia’s streets displaying the hammer and sickle insignia and elicit barely a glance or a roll of the eyes, half of Gen ‘Y’ have a Ché Guevara (he claimed to have murdered 5000 victims personally) tee shirt, but if one has the audacity to fly National Socialist symbols, particularly the Swastika, you WILL be harassed and even quite likely arrested. The obvious question is, why the double standards?

    “Both ideologies are closely associated with tyranny and mass murder.”

    True again, but ‘association’ can be erroneous and is not necessarily so simply because this ‘association’ has entered into and gained widespread acceptance in the popular culture. I of course would claim, and I honestly believe, that National Socialism’s ‘association’ is almost entirely due to wartime propaganda, the fact that they lost and the inconvenient truth that all the great publishing houses, media empires and Hollywood are owned and run by you know who.

    “As a result, neo-Nazism and Stalinism (along with Bolshevism) are highly marginal political phenomena. Anarchism is distinct from both ideologies, but shares in their marginality.”

    Why is National Socialism always referred to as ‘Neo’? Do you simply obediently parrot this phrase unconsciously or do you use it deliberately to piss off genuine National Socialists? Anarchism is simply a variant of Marxist Socialism, nothing more, nothing less. A variation on a theme is not a distinctively independent concept.

    “Finally, to correct all of your false assertions and flawed arguments would take more time and energy than I think is worth my trouble.”

    One might ask what else you are doing that can possibly be more important than disproving the claims of one’s political enemies. Enemies upon whom you have expended considerable time and energy in the past. Also, if people like me truly are so wrong, simplistic or even just plain stupid then it should be a walk up turkey shoot for you to hit me rapid fire with bullets of brilliance and crystalline logic. Why the apparent reticence to engage me now, out in the open with FACTS and FIGURES?

  13. Lumpen says:

    I of course would claim, and I honestly believe, that National Socialism’s ‘association’ is almost entirely due to wartime propaganda, the fact that they lost and the inconvenient truth that all the great publishing houses, media empires and Hollywood are owned and run by you know who.

    Lizard people?

  14. @ndy says:

    LOL.

    Political conversation sours with Nazi comparisons
    Gerard Henderson
    smh
    April 5, 2011
    http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/political-conversation-sours-with-nazi-comparisons-20110404-1cyio.html

    New Jersey Neo-Nazi Group Denies it’s Racist
    UPI
    February 4, 2011
    http://www.antifascistencyclopedia.com/allposts/new-jersey-neo-nazi-group-denies-its-racist

  15. @ndy says:

    G’day Peter,

    Re leapt/leaped. Whatevah/whatever. I also prefer ‘spelled’ to ‘spelt’: call it an idiosyncrasy and we’re even. Note further that there are many sauces of infos on correct language use.

    Boom-tish.

    Re missing re public perceptions of Nazism aka the point: yr still at it.

    “One may parade openly on Australia’s streets displaying the hammer and sickle insignia and elicit barely a glance or a roll of the eyes…”

    Sure. If one is so inclined. The number of those who do is tiny, however, and likely only belonging to the CPA (or perhaps one of the small number of ethnic Communist parties scattered about). The only time I see the hammer and sickle on the streets is at major left-wing demos, and I certainly roll my eyes…

    “…half of Gen ‘Y’ have a Ché Guevara (he claimed to have murdered 5000 victims personally) tee shirt…”

    Sure. Man versus myth. There’s even a doco about it. I dunno about the figure of 5000.

    “…but if one has the audacity to fly National Socialist symbols, particularly the Swastika, you WILL be harassed and even quite likely arrested. The obvious question is, why the double standards?”

    Harassed? Yeah, probably. Probably why few–outside of a handful of racist psychotics–do so. Arrested? No. Wearing the swastika is not a crime. Temporary detainment by police for wearing a swastika at a major public event is, if anything, likely to be for the safety of the wearer.

    As for double standards, as I suggested above, this has to do with history and culture. It’s a problem for swastika-lickers, but few others.

    Re associations: I’ve hardly embarked upon a close cultural analysis here, partly because it’s tedious, and partly because I’ve referred to Nazi crimes elsewhere. You’ve denied them–as befits your status as a Nazi apologist–but there’s no shortage of evidence for anyone who cares to look.

    “Why is National Socialism always referred to as ‘Neo’?”

    I use the term ‘neo-Nazi’ for obvious reasons. If ‘National Socialism’ is taken to mean Nazism–that is, the ideology and practice of the Nazi Party and of Nazi Germany–then ‘neo-Nazism’ means those political ideologies and practices that base(d) themselves upon Nazism but arose after its defeat. A useful introduction to neo-Nazism is The Beast Reawakens by Martin A. Lee: the Introduction to the book is available online here.

    Moar later.

  16. @ndy says:

    Anarchism is simply a variant of Marxist Socialism, nothing more, nothing less. A variation on a theme is not a distinctively independent concept.

    Ignorant as well as a bigot. Who knew?

    …FACTS and FIGURES?

    Yes.

    Facts.

    And also figures.

    THERE’S REALLY NO NEED TO SHOUT PETER.

    You’ve referred to one source of facts and figures: the United State’s National Counterterrorism Center’s Worldwide Incidents Tracking System. I’ve pointed out the fact that the figures you provided were: a) flawed and; b) misleading. Otherwise, your ranting and raving, whinging and wailing remains pretty much on a par with your blogging.

    I’m happy to leave it up to readers to decide what they make of it all.

    PS.

  17. Aussie says:

    I think @ndy is a guru and peter is not a guru. In saying that, neither of you achieved anything of great importance. It’s much more fun having an opinion when you realise nobody actually cares about it.

  18. @ndy says:

    “In saying that, neither of you achieved anything of great importance.”

    Ah. But who does?

  19. Aussie says:

    Good question, the question that can’t be answered, can be agreed on, or debated. Unless you could verify what was achieved for yourself by achieving this “importance”, but then how do you pass it off to someone else as a truthful achievement. Believe nothing I say.

    PS. I pray for the day you change your taste in music. 😛

  20. lumpnboy says:

    Marinus van der Lubbe?

  21. @ndy says:

    @lumpnboy: They don’t make bricklayers like that any more. (Almost.)
    @Aussie: I like both styles of music.

  22. Pingback: we are fucking angry unemployed or low-paid young men with a small percentage of ”rich kid” thrill seekers! | slackbastard

  23. Victor Whitelaw says:

    Hey, sorry I took so long to get back to you (like you care) but I have been really busy struggling under this yoke of liberal democratic tyranny to work and pay my electricity bill and do my part to stave off planetary meltdown from the impending global warming holocaust.

    The only time I see the hammer and sickle on the streets is at major left-wing demos, and I certainly roll my eyes…

    Roll your eyes you might but have you ever felt even the slightest pang of embarrassment or even revulsion? Have you ever challenged committed (probably should be) Communists and given them a hard time over their ideology?

    Harassed [for wearing the swastika in public]? Yeah, probably. Probably why few–outside of a handful of racist psychotics–do so.

    Are you seriously suggesting that being Racially conscious actually renders one ‘psychotic’? Or is it perhaps your theory that an existing psychosis leads to Racial consciousness?

    Arrested? No. Wearing the swastika is not a crime.

    In Germany and several other European Nations it is. But you’re almost certainly all fine and okay with that.

    Temporary detainment by police for wearing a swastika at a major public event is, if anything, likely to be for the safety of the wearer.

    Well, there you go then.

    As for double standards, as I suggested above, this has to do with history and culture. It’s a problem for swastika-lickers, but few others.

    “Swastika-lickers”?

    …I’ve referred to Nazi crimes elsewhere. You’ve denied them–as befits your status as a Nazi apologist–but there’s no shortage of evidence for anyone who cares to look.

    “Evidence”?

    A useful introduction to neo-Nazism is The Beast Reawakens by Martin A. Lee: the Introduction to the book is available online here.

    Yeah. I have a copy on my bookshelf. I simply couldn’t finish it. One could scarcely call it a scholarly work. It is typical of the hysterically shrill, grossly exaggerated and highly inaccurate claptrap of the lame stream. Lee, like his slobbering acolytes, can’t even (or, more likely, simply won’t) distinguish between National Socialism and Fascism. What a joke.

    Ignorant as well as a bigot. Who knew?

    Bigot? I protest. I have refined, and thereby changed, my ideology quite substantially over the decades, mainly due to ever more information becoming available and informing my beliefs and opinions.
    A bigot is normally regarded as being one utterly set in his ways.
    I believe Ambrose Bierce more accurately described your peculiar concept of this term with the following definition.

    Bigot; n ‘One who is obstinately and zealously attached to an opinion that you do not entertain.’

    Oh! You mean like how YOU and most Lefties don’t even know the difference between Conservatism, Nationalism, National Socialism or Fascism? @ndy we are ALL ‘ignorant’ to varying degrees. It would take much more than one lifetime to gain a good understanding of Life, the Universe and Everything. It is wilful ignorance that offends me.

    Otherwise, your ranting and raving, whinging and wailing remains pretty much on a par with your blogging.

    Hey! Ace it up @ndy. I know I do “rant and rave” at times and like to EMPHASISE certain words and phrases but I believe I am being very calm and respectful on your comments section right now because I really AM interested in what makes people tick and you, @ndy, ‘tick’ like a roadside I.E.D. Yes, I know I should know better but I have always been curious. Besides, as far as blogging goes I believe we covered that one comprehensively when we posted the traffic statistics for your site and ours. If we’re crap then at least we’re crap that’s read and followed more than yours.

    I’m happy to leave it up to readers to decide what they make of it all.

    What? All three of them? There’s only you, me and your multiple personality disorder.

  24. Victor Whitelaw says:

    Aussie says:
    April 11, 2011 at 9:55 pm
    “I think @ndy is a guru and peter is not a guru.”

    Guru, pundit, messiah, demagogue or whatever, when one has established an audience however small, like @ndy’s, there is an understandable expectation from that audience for information and it is surely incumbent upon one to strive for honesty. One would expect the ultimate goal of all real political analysis should be truth. Unless, that is, one is content to construct one’s entire world view upon falsehoods.

    You see, irreconcilable ideological differences aside, I see @ndy’s intrinsic intellectual dishonesty as the crucial problem. He seems incapable or unwilling of stepping beyond simple self righteousness and embarking on an open and honest quest for truth. He appears to actually assume he knows ‘enough’ and has his socio-political navigation reference points ‘locked in’.

    In this respect, I agree with you ‘Aussie’, he IS a ‘guru’ because there is an assumption of wisdom on his part and the pretence of infallibility which leads to what we observe on this site. The rambling, narcissistic doggerel of one who is largely content with his own company and the sound of his own voice but still appreciates the occasional word of adulation from would be acolytes. No real progress can be achieved on any political journey that begins from this embarkation point.

  25. @ndy says:

    G’day Peter,

    In answer to your questions:

    1. Yes, I have felt revulsion at Communism. And yes, I have challenged Communists and given them a hard time over their ideology.

    2. No, I am not suggesting that being [r]acially conscious renders one ‘psychotic’, nor that an existing psychosis (necessarily) leads to [r]acial consciousness. Rather, I was suggesting that, in general, only racist psychotics wear the swastika in public (or have it tattooed on their foreheads etc.).

    3. Yes, in Germany (and Austria) public display of the swastika is a criminal offence. I have ambivalent feelings about this.

    4. “Swastika-lickers”? Yes, swastika-lickers.

    5. “Evidence”? Yes, evidence. Of Nazi war crimes.

    6. “Bigot?” Yes, you’re a bigot. A racist bigot. And no, I don’t mean like how I don’t know the difference between Conservatism, Nationalism, National Socialism and/or Fascism.

    Otherwise:

    a. Given your silence on the matter, I take it my point on your use of questionable facts and false figures has been made.

    b. Lee discusses the nature and meaning of fascism and national socialism in the Introduction to his book (to which I linked). You appear either not to have read it, to have forgotten it, and/or to be incapable of acknowledging reality.

    Over the years, academics have engaged in much debate and semantic hair-splitting without arriving at a universally accepted definition of fascism. The lack of agreement as to what constitutes the “fascist minimum” (the lowest common denominator of features found in all examples of fascism) stems in part from the protean nature of the fascist experience. Fascism during the 1920s and 1930s was an ideologically ambiguous movement that metamorphosed through several phases or sequences. Fascist parties initially attracted support among the hoi polloi by campaigning as social revolutionaries against the inequities of the free market; later, as serious contenders for power, they won over conservative elites in Italy and Germany by promising to thwart the Red Menace. In places where fascists governed, they inevitably violated their early platforms, especially their anticapitalist pretensions. Ultimately, their main political enemy was the worker Left, which placed fascism in the right-wing extremist camp.

    Several fascist leaders, including Benito Mussolini, started out as socialists but eventually lost faith in the revolutionary capacity of the working class. In order to mobilize an inert proletariat, they embraced nationalism. The mythos of national rebirth was germane to fascism, which assumed widely diverging forms based on a constellation of historical and social factors that differed from one country to the next.

    The National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NSDAP), led by Hitler, emphasized Nordic mysticism, biological racialism, anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, and aggressive militarism. In its formative period, the NSDAP shared the ultranationalist stage with several non-Nazi variants of fascism that flourished during the so-called Conservative Revolution of the 1920s. A plethora of German fascisms embraced Volk-ish and anti-Semitic assumptions-unlike Italian fascism (sometimes referred as “corporatism”), which was not inherently racialist. Mussolini’s followers may have been racist in the general sense of viewing nonwhites or non-Europeans as culturally inferior, but they did not inflate their racism into an obsessive, all-encompassing ideology. Nor did Franco’s hyper-authoritarian Catholics in Spain, who had little sympathy for the pagan and anti-Christian motifs that Nazis often espoused.

    Unfortunately, the blanket usage of the terms fascist and neo-fascist belies the diverse and sometimes conflicting tendencies that these labels encompass. Umberto Eco describes fascism as “a fuzzy totalitarianism, a collage of different philosophical and political ideas,” which “had no quintessence.” The word itself derives from fasces, a cluster of sticks with protruding axheads that symbolize the power and the glory of ancient Rome. In Latin, fasces is related to fascinum, to fascinate or charm.

    The abracadabra of fascism casts a spell over people by diverting economic and social resentments toward national and racial preoccupations. Proclaiming the need for a new spirit and a new man, fascist demagogues have extolled action for its own sake and romanticized violence as regenerative and therapeutic. Although many of their ideas are a by-product of the Enlightenment, they vehemently reject egalitarian social theories that formed the basis of the French Revolution in 1789. The “anti” dimensions of fascism are manifold and well-known: anti-democratic, anti-Marxist, anticapitalist, antimaterialist, anti-cosmopolitan, antibourgeois, antiliberal, antifeminist, and so on.

    But fascism was always more than just a negative crusade. Its eclectic style incorporated elements of competing ideologies that fascist rhetoric ostensibly repudiated. Herein lay the essential paradox of fascism: its ability to embody social and political opposites, to be at once elitist and populist, traditionalist and avant-garde. (“I am a reactionary and a revolutionary,” Mussolini boasted.) Within the fascist milieu, there has always been a nostalgia for preindustrial societies and an attraction to modern technology, a pathos for uncontrolled brutality and a fetish for obedience and order. Promising the remedy [to] the malaise and anomie of modern life, fascist leaders manipulated deep-seated longings for a better society. The skewed utopian impulse of fascism was the basis for part of its magnetism as a political movement, which appealed to all social strata–urban and rural, young and old, poor and wealthy, the intelligentsia and the uneducated.

    The massive defeat they suffered during World War II did not refute the innermost convictions of many fascists, who kept pining for the day when they might again inflict their twisted dream of a new order on much of the world. Within the neofascist scene, there has always been a residual subculture of nostalgics who clung to the heritage of the Third Reich and the Mussolini regime. Holocaust-denial literature and other racialist screeds have circulated like political pornography among the deeply devoted who cluster in small marginalized groups and clandestine cells. Others showed more resiliency as they tried to adapt to the changing realities of the postwar era. But the East-West conflict, which initially afforded a means of survival for these ideological miscreants, also stranded many of them on the farther shores of politics. They realized that sooner or later the binary logjam of the Cold War would have to be broken for revisionist forms of fascism to take hold.

    The more sophisticated tacticians understood that the fascist game could be played in many ways. Some deemed it best not to advertise their allegiance to the creed. Discarding the fascist appellation was an initial step toward articulating a political discourse more in tune with modern times, one that spoke of preserving identity and cultural uniqueness instead of white supremacy. Pragmatic and opportunistic, neofascist leaders reinvented themselves and crafted euphemisms into electoral platforms that concealed an abiding hatred of the democratic process. Campaigning as national populists, they managed to rack up significant vote totals in several countries and redefine the post-cold-war political landscape.

    This is the saga of an underground political movement that has reawakened after a half century of hibernation. It is the history of something long hidden reappearing in a new form, a thing once forbidden that is gradually gaining influence and respectability. Most of all, it is a story about a cadre of old-guard fascists who kept the torch burning and bequeathed it to a new generation of extremists who are carrying on the struggle today.

    “Besides, as far as blogging goes I believe we covered that one comprehensively when we posted the traffic statistics for your site and ours. If we’re crap then at least we’re crap that’s read and followed more than yours.”

    I must have missed this. WordPress informs me that my blog has received 1,073,940 views since August 2007.

  26. Aussie says:

    Victor,

    Why do you get words people have used and try to define them to the point where you have confused and/or misinterpreted the simple point they were making, is it really necessary to get your point across, anyway its no good arguing.

    I assure you my opinions are not swayed by anyone, nor am I on someones “team”. Andy gets up my nose, like yours, on a regular basis. Its not what is important, he is helping to expose the large scale insanities of the world.

    I don’t get into the nitty gritty garbage, partly because i don’t understand it, and partly because i don’t care. It doesn’t need to be so complicated is my point.

    This word “racism”, I don’t like it because it puts millions of people into a category. On the other hand, it does exist, especially in countries such as Australia (mostly because of the unhealthy cultural identity they created). Because of the design of the human mind this cultural identity can quite easily create a snowball affect and get out of hand… eek! Call it racism or what ever you wish, its just a word, its the concept that this county has, that this country is better or deserves more that is the problem, it is also a problem in many other predominately white countries and is just a problem with humans in general, if enough people disagree, this snowball affect can be stopped with the fact, that people do what is normal, and go along with what is normal in their society. This happens because at the core of humanitys problems is their mind. To completely fix humanity, each individual would need to help themselves, but i won’t get into that!

    Although i don’t always agree with the methods on here like yourself, its this information that stops that snowball effect, by exposing its falseness. Peoples opinions about other people count for nothing.

    To sum all that up, the guru comment went in Andys favour simply because you didn’t take how serious the hurt, worry, fear, anxiety, winging, violence, slavery, and all other forms of suffering is in the world today that has a lot to do with this thing called racism. I used the term guru because Andy has given it to me about being, or trying to be, in his words, a “guru”.

  27. Aussie says:

    One other thing, you talk about politics and what needs to happen for all to be good, and how everything needs to be based on facts, that couldn’t be more true, question is, how will that ever happen? Have you ever studied the human mind (the core of any problem), the world is structured on peoples viewpoints, politics is the best place to create an “unconscious” state of mind, which means people identify with thoughts they didnt choose to have, they just picked them up somewhere in life and identified with them to the point that they are convinced they have the right answer, teams of people working against each other for personal satisfaction, forcing people to have their opinion. The biggest problem (among many) is the minds satisfaction in being right, wars have been fought over this alone. My opinion, politics needs to “consciously”, start all over again.

  28. Victor Whitelaw says:

    Aussie says:
    April 18, 2011 at 10:00 am

    Victor,

    Why do you get words people have used and try to define them to the point where you have confused and/or misinterpreted the simple point they were making, is it really necessary to get your point across, anyway its no good arguing.(?)

    I’ll assume for the sake of this dialogue that your ‘question’ is not simply rhetorical and attempt to answer it. I do not actually, at least consciously, try to deliberately misconstrue or manipulate other people’s words. I do however make great efforts to clarify the intended meaning of those words. Call it pedantic indulgence but I instinctively tend to ‘proof read’ the material of other posters.

    I seek only the truth.

    Why is it ‘no good arguing’?

    I assure you my opinions are not swayed by anyone, nor am I on someones (sic) “team”. Andy gets up my nose, like yours, on a regular basis. Its (sic) not what is important, he is helping to expose the large scale insanities of the world.

    Is he? Is he really? Think about it…carefully.

    I don’t get into the nitty gritty garbage, partly because i (sic) don’t understand it, and partly because i (sic) don’t care. It doesn’t need to be so complicated is my point.

    But if you really, truly, madly, deeply ‘don’t care’ why are you even posting comments on this website?

    This word “racism”, I don’t like it because it puts millions of people into a category.

    Well, you know what they say, ‘clichés’ and ‘stereotypes’ exist because the original subjects/material exists, simple as that. I’ll admit to fitting certain stereotypes on the surface but, as you know, every individual goes much deeper than that. So what?

    The essential issue with the word should not be what it appears to do, in that it appears to categorise individuals into a certain group, but rather the identity of the person and/or special interest group and the specific socio-political agenda it was intended to advance and the results it was contrived to facilitate.

    On the other hand, it does exist, especially in countries such as Australia (mostly because of the unhealthy cultural identity they created).

    So you summarily bestow ‘existence’, along with moral judgement, upon a word/concept/construct that you ‘don’t like’ and therefore possibly challenge the very validity of? Please explain…

    Actually, I believe you’ll discover, if you research honestly and deeply, no such ‘creation’ occurred. The people who established/created the colony and nation of Australia had no doubts whatsoever about their Racial/Cultural Identity. They KNEW exactly who they were, from whence they came and were not confused at all. These were the days BEFORE the pseudo intellectual sophistry of Political Correctness.

    Because of the design of the human mind

    “Design”? Do I detect the presence of a Creationist? I thought all @ndy’s mates were committed Evolutionary Humanists. Surely there can be no “design” in Evolution, only Natural Selection.

    this cultural identity can quite easily create a snowball affect (effect?) and get out of hand… eek!

    “Out of hand”?

    Call it racism or what ever you wish, its (sic) just a word

    Oh, if only it were.

    its (sic) the concept that this county has, that this country is better or deserves more that is the problem, it is also a problem in many other predominately white countries and is just a problem with humans in general, if enough people disagree, this snowball affect can be stopped with the fact, that people do what is normal, and go along with what is normal in their society.

    “Problem”? When did Human nature and survival instincts become ‘problematical’?

    This happens because at the core of humanitys (sic) problems (are) is their mind (s). To completely fix humanity, each individual would need to help themselves, but i (sic) won’t get into that!

    Why not? Jump in. Go on. Don’t be shy. This is what Human discourse and debate is all about.

    Although i (sic) don’t always agree with the methods on here like yourself, its (sic) this information that stops that snowball effect, by exposing its falseness.

    There are a Zillion other sites that not only ‘expose falseness’ but make way more sense than this one.

    Peoples (sic) opinions about other people count for nothing.

    Wrong. In a normal, healthy, functioning society they count for much, particularly if those opinions gain general currency through media broadcasts.

    To sum all that up, the guru comment went in Andys (sic) favour simply because you didn’t take how serious the hurt, worry, fear, anxiety, winging, (whinging?) violence, slavery, and all other forms of suffering is in the world today that has a lot to do with this thing called racism.

    Oh, I take all of that stuff VERY seriously but, as an honest, well read, truth seeking White Man, I can identify the engine, the original source, that drives this deliberately contrived chaos.

    I used the term guru because Andy has given it to me about being, or trying to be, in his words, a “guru”.

    Okaaaay…

    Aussie says:
    April 18, 2011 at 10:33 am

    One other thing, you talk about politics and what needs to happen for all to be good, and how everything needs to be based on facts, that couldn’t be more true, question is, how will that ever happen?

    A fair question. The answer is that it can’t but that the quest for truth and accuracy is an ideal that should never be subsumed by selfish ambitions, political expediency or outright deception. Think of it as an ultimately unobtainable standard or benchmark that should nevertheless serve as a goal to be strived for.

    Have you ever studied the human mind (the core of any problem)

    Misanthropy is one thing but if you truly believe “the human mind” is “the core of any problem” then I despair at your self loathing that leads you to summarily condemn your fellow Man, presumably, for thinking.

    the world is structured on peoples (sic) viewpoints

    Not true. It is structured on the agenda and intentions of the Cryptocracy and the Industrial/Military and Global Financial Complexes they control.

    politics is the best place to create an “unconscious” state of mind

    Wrong again. TelAvision is where virtually ALL ‘opinion’ is manufactured.

    which means people identify with thoughts they didnt (sic) choose to have, they just picked them up somewhere in life and identified with them to the point that they are convinced they have the right answer

    You underestimate the intellect of the average Human. Even the dullest drone is more discerning and critical than you claim. It is far more complex than you present.

    teams of people working against each other for personal satisfaction, forcing people to have their opinion.

    That is a gross oversimplification of a complex system.

    The biggest problem (among many) is the minds satisfaction in being right, wars have been fought over this alone. My opinion, politics needs to “consciously”, start all over again.

    Without wishing to appear too disrespectful, that last comment, in MY opinion, tags you as being very young. NOT that there’s anything (necessarily) wrong with that…BUT…it does betray a significant degree of political naivety and social immaturity.

    Read more…and often…

    Additionally. Regarding @ndy’s labelling of me as a ‘bigot’ and a ‘racist’. Leaving aside the various strict dictionary definitions and technical interpretations of these terms for a moment I would like to say that I certainly do not fit the generally accepted popular intended meanings when employed in the common vernacular.

    For example the term ‘bigot’ is normally used to describe someone who is not only strongly opinionated and strident in their beliefs but also closed minded. I utterly refute this allegation.

    Similarly the term ‘racist’ is generally understood and accepted to mean a person with an entirely irrational hatred of other Races, which would seem to imply an intrinsic and serious personality disorder or even a psychosis. In this respect it is closely associated with the rather more technical term ‘xenophobe’ which, determined by its etymological origins, is more usually employed to describe an irrational ‘fear’ of ‘the other’.

    Neither of these terms allows for the quite mundane, normal and perfectly justifiable actions of an individual belonging to a distinct ethnic entity striving to maintain the Racial/Cultural integrity of the tribe/nation. Neither do they permit the logical intellectualisation of an innate Human faculty for defence and protection to be developed into a complex, sophisticated philosophy that might be utilised as a framework upon which to establish and maintain a long term Racial/Cultural Imperium for the exclusive benefit of group members.

    Every organism, sentient or otherwise, has, as their most fundamental and inalienable entitlement, the right to develop, refine and perpetuate its own seed line for the exclusive advancement of its own kind. Any action that would seek to diminish or extinguish that right would, in effect, be an act of Genocide. What other possible agenda could any authority have that would demand the quite deliberately engineered insertion of clearly inassimilable elements into a formally homogenous and stable society other than to ruthlessly crush its uniqueness through dilution and genetic levelling?

    How’s that for Human Rights? Where is the sovereignty, both of individuals and traditional groups?

  29. Aussie says:

    Victor, first I’ll clear a few things up. Keep your mind on what I’m saying and not how old I am. I’m a 28 year old male, I live in Brisbane, and I know nothing about Andy other than his blog. I try my best to just have an opinion rather than debate. I am a carpenter, I failed English (sorry bout that). My opinions are my own. I only ask you take my opinion into consideration, not to believe it. As you may have noticed, I think arguing about viewpoints is pointless, but should not be ignored. Keep an open mind in other words.

    I’ll assume for the sake of this dialogue that your ‘question’ is not simply rhetorical and attempt to answer it. I do not actually, at least consciously, try to deliberately misconstrue or manipulate other people’s words. I do however make great efforts to clarify the intended meaning of those words. Call it pedantic indulgence but I instinctively tend to ‘proof read’ the material of other posters.

    That’s cool, I never thought you manipulated anything, I just thought you read a little too much into it. If I were to reply directly, this conversation would have gone a little off track. No biggie.

    I seek only the truth. Why is it ‘no good arguing’?

    What truth? I prefer just talking, sorry if my tone in my typing is a little off, I mean well.

    Is he? Is he really? Think about it…carefully.

    I think there is lots of things he is doing, whether I am right or not, doesn’t really change much does it? Here is a good example of why I don’t think about it: about a year ago, I spent the good majority of my day thinking about it. Have you ever wasted your entire day on thinking about something that annoys you? … unconsciously thinking. What a waste of a day!

    But if you really, truly, madly, deeply ‘don’t care’ why are you even posting comments on this website?

    I care about the future of the world, just not so much about why you don’t like Andy. Like I said earlier, neither of you achieved anything of great importance. My opinion is people are better off working together rather than against [one another]. If one person agrees [with me] I achieved something.

    Well, you know what they say, ‘clichés’ and ‘stereotypes’ exist because the original subjects/material exists, simple as that. I’ll admit to fitting certain stereotypes on the surface but, as you know, every individual goes much deeper than that. So what?

    The essential issue with the word should not be what it appears to do, in that it appears to categorise individuals into a certain group, but rather the identity of the person and/or special interest group and the specific socio-political agenda it was intended to advance and the results it was contrived to facilitate.

    I don’t have a dictionary handy, so can’t reply too accurately on this one. I just don’t like it. It causes a reaction in people rather than helping people understand. In some cases, there are people that can’t be helped and need to be exposed a little more ruthlessly.

    So you summarily bestow ‘existence’, along with moral judgement, upon a word/concept/construct that you ‘don’t like’ and therefore possibly challenge the very validity of? Please explain…

    Actually, I believe you’ll discover, if you research honestly and deeply, no such ‘creation’ occurred. The people who established/created the colony and nation of Australia had no doubts whatsoever about their Racial/Cultural Identity. They KNEW exactly who they were, from whence they came and were not confused at all. These were the days BEFORE the pseudo intellectual sophistry of Political Correctness.

    I love this culture and most things about it. I would appear to most as your ‘typical Aussie guy’. What I don’t like is the constant talk about how crap other cultures are. Most people I know wouldn’t hesitate to call someone from Japan a “fucking gook”, this kind of talk is quite normal. Surely you don’t think this is ok?

    ‘deeply and honestly’. Who a person is these days is defined by their past, agreed? But deeply and honestly, that is incorrect. Deeply and honestly was forgotten a long time before Australia was established. Eg, if someone were to ask Captain Cook, ‘who are you?’ [he might reply] ‘I am Captain James Cook, the captain of’ blah blah blah. The correct answer is ‘I just am’. If your dog could talk what would he say? Humans are “unconscious”, that’s why every answer they give is mind-generated, just a story of who they are, not the truth.

    “Problem”? When did Human nature and survival instincts become ‘problematical’?

    In reality, there is only ‘what is’. Humans turn ‘what is’ into problems constantly, dogs don’t. Can you imagine a tree saying, ‘I have a problem, my branch broke off’? By human nature do you mean the human mind? or unconsciousness?

    Why not? Jump in. Go on. Don’t be shy. This is what Human discourse and debate is all about.

    It’s far too complicated for me to say, so I have learned. Read a book by Eckhart Tolle, if you want to know. If you don’t want to know, don’t read it. If you read it and don’t like it, throw it away. Best I can do for you there.

    There are a Zillion other sites that not only ‘expose falseness’ but make way more sense than this one.

    We can’t all be the best. We can only be ourselves.

    Wrong. In a normal, healthy, functioning society they count for much, particularly if those opinions gain general currency through media broadcasts.

    People’s opinions are viewpoints, are mostly negative, often nasty, and not healthy.

    Oh, I take all of that stuff VERY seriously but, as an honest, well read, truth seeking White Man, I can identify the engine, the original source, that drives this deliberately contrived chaos.

    How sure are you? Why seek when you appear to already know?

    Okaaaay…

    Personal joke, don’t worry, not important.

    Misanthropy is one thing but if you truly believe “the human mind” is “the core of any problem” then I despair at your self loathing that leads you to summarily condemn your fellow Man, presumably, for thinking.

    Could someone create a problem if they couldn’t think? Or if they could separate the difference between them and their thoughts and not take their thoughts so seriously? Do some research on consciousness and unconsciousness. Why would I condemn someone for being addicted to identifying with their thoughts? A little presumptuous of you?

    Not true. It is structured on the agenda and intentions of the Cryptocracy and the Industrial/Military and Global Financial Complexes they control.

    Ok, I agree to a certain extent. Bit of a mishmash of a few things depending how you look at it.

    Wrong again. TelAvision is where virtually ALL ‘opinion’ is manufactured.

    ‘ALL’? Are you sure? Opinion is manufactured anywhere, and yeah you’re right for most it is television. But then that opinion becomes more unconscious when it is spoken within the structure of politics today. If it is not the worst ii is up there with the worst. The world as you know it is a reflection of the level of the level of consciousness of humanity.

    You underestimate the intellect of the average Human. Even the dullest drone is more discerning and critical than you claim. It is far more complex than you present.

    I was referring more to situations where opinions are necessary. Can you imagine trying to find a solution with everyone’s opinion?

    Why do I underestimate? Why does it have to be complex? You say it is this and it is that. Is it not possible there is more to humans? Try this. Watch a thought you have, and because you seem to know, tell me what part of your human body watches that thought. Your big toe nail perhaps?

    That is a gross oversimplification of a complex system.

    I like simple, what can I say.

    Without wishing to appear too disrespectful, that last comment, in MY opinion, tags you as being very young. NOT that there’s anything (necessarily) wrong with that… BUT… it does betray a significant degree of political naivety and social immaturity.

    Thanks for sharing, unfortunately I hate politics. That took me ages so prob keep it short next time ;).

    Good chat. Have a good one.

  30. Victor Whitelaw says:

    Spoken like a gentleman ‘Aussie’. You sound like you are at least a thoughtful person who is willing to defend his own very personal philosophy. Since you appear to be of the ‘what is the sound of one hand clapping?’ school, might I suggest an excellent book entitled ‘Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance’? I found it equally entertaining and infuriating…and…a bit challenging on the old brain…BUT…it really does make you think.

    Go in peace and prosper.

    Vegetable rights and peace man …

  31. Aussie says:

    Yeah sure I’ll give it a go, why not, it’s been a while since I’ve made my brain hurt. Although I think there are more simpler explanations out there these days 😉 . If there is one thing in common with you, Andy and Andy’s friends you all seem to really enjoy challenging your smarts. So I’ll leave you with a tip, research a conscious breath, it stops your mind for a wee while and allows it to work better when it comes back in action.

    Peace.

Leave a Reply

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