APEC : New Reich / “National Anarchists”

Huh.

Word on the streets of Sydney is that the New Reich (‘New Right’) has gathered together a mob and is distributing fascist propaganda under the guise of ‘national anarchism’. Under the watchful gaze of ex-NPD and ex-ONP member Welf Herfurth (a German businessman who relocated to Sydney in 1987), the group is present at the APEC summit demonstrations, where it is distributing (or attempting to distribute) anti-anarchist propaganda.

Cheeky!

More details later. In the meantime, a garbled account is available via:

APEC protesters confront police / Arrests, injuries during APEC march / Blah blah blah
Ean Higgins [and Dan Box and Godwin knows who else]
The Australian
September 08, 2007

PROTESTERS at APEC gathered in pouring rain and police were bracing for expected violence by dissident groups today.

The protesters gathered outside Sydney’s Town Hall station this morning.

As they prepared to march, police formed a solid line three deep to block off George Street.

Behind them, four police buses blocked George, their wheels covered with steel grates.

Police started forming lines confronting the [Notional Anarchist] group.

A police officer told his men, “This is the trouble here, these are the ones who are violent.”

There were about 30 of the [Notional Anarchists], who described themselves as the New Right, all dressed in black hooded jackets. Some of the group wore dark sunglasses and all had bandanas around their faces…

The silly wankers didn’t take part in the march, apparently, preferring to scurry off home early. News reports also suggest that one of the wallies may have been arrested; then again, news reports also claimed Sydney would be on fire by this stage.

In other news, as predicted, in addition to luxury accommodation, meals, inner Sydney and a police state, the 21 heads of state have been given Driza-Bones and Akubras in which to have their $105,000 holiday snaps taken:

World leaders to receive Driza-Bones
AAP
September 8, 2007

Sydney’s official APEC outfit has been revealed – tailor-made, knee-length Driza-Bone coats made of the original brown material and spiced up with a contrasting colour for each of the 21 world leaders.

The leaders are about to walk out on to the steps of the Opera House for their official photograph in the national costume, chosen by Prime Minister John Howard and his wife Janette.

The so-called “silly shirt” is the highlight of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) leaders’ meeting, with host nations over the years choosing outfits from batik shirts to silk coats to wear in the official photograph.

Most pundits had expected Mr and Mrs Howard to choose a Driza-Bone – the iconic Australian stockman’s attire – for the outfit.

Each leader has been given a choice of contrast colours for their coat from the range of slate blue, mustard yellow, red ochre and eucalyptus green.

The jackets have the APEC logo embroidered on them and each leader will also be given an Akubra felt hat.

The leaders’ lunch was held at the prestigious Guillaume at Bennelong restaurant.*

They dined on an entree of barramundi with endives, mushrooms, pearl of vegetables, yabbies and scallops, followed by roasted saddle of lamb with field mushrooms, kipfler potatoes, confit of tomato and thyme jus.

Lunch was to end with a selection of Australian fruit and cheese.

*Review from the Sydney Morning Herald Good Food Guide 2007
Guillaume at Bennelong
18/20
Three-hat restaurant
Good Wine list

“Surrender to the world-class view, to an iconic masterpiece from a Danish legend and to legendary food from a French master. Guillaume Brahimi delivers a decadent, Dionysian experience that makes this site a modern wonder for reasons culinary as well as architectural. A recent make-over has made it all the more spectacular. Feasting under the Opera House’s cavernous concrete ribs can feel surreal and perhaps the food can be a little too rib-stickingly rich, but this is true fine-dining theatre. Roasted marron wrapped in proscuitto with risotto, veal jus and truffle is comfort food for kings. Kangaroo Island chicken breast is breathtakingly moist beneath a crisp skin, with duck foie gras ravioli. Whole books could be written about the huge wagyu beef rib eye for two, cooked on the bone and served with field mushrooms and merlot sauce – plus that wonderfully, wickedly rich Paris mash. Superb service under Craig Hemmings and sommelier Stuart Halliday high wires between expert and charming. Grand Marnier souffle with chocolate sorbet is a symphonic finale.”

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 2021 premiership's a cakewalk for the good old Collingwood.
This entry was posted in !nataS, Anarchism, Anti-fascism. Bookmark the permalink.

57 Responses to APEC : New Reich / “National Anarchists”

  1. Darrin Hodges says:

    Nobody from the group was arrested. The police surrounded us after threats and violence were being directed us by leftist filth. When the super-soaker squad appeared, we were asked to leave as our presence was apparently causing intense pain and confusion amongst the leftist swill. As it happened, a number of red vermin were arrested, several officers were injured when they were hit by darts thrown by the ‘peaceful protesters’.

  2. Liam says:

    This is true.
    I saw these pseudo-anarchists as i arrived at town hall in front of the church at about quarter to 10. I found it most curious that they had a professionally printed shiny banner, not to mention the fact that it was decorated with symbols such as the Iron Cross.
    Anyhow, they were uncovered by Bainbridge on the speakers truck, and were confronted soon after by some of the real protesters. Not sure if anything happened after that, but if i were them i would be feeling very lucky that there were so many police, otherwise it would ve been Nazi Skull Kicking time for all.

  3. m says:

    A speaker announced neo-nazis were at the rally. I went to have a look – one of them said no, and was sort of conversational, said his dad was italian. Another winked at me when I asked if she was a nazi (I said I was Jewish), and she then hid her face more thoroughly. Others I asked said no comment (or alternatively didn’t comment). After the march began to start, fellow leftists (real anarchists, such as myself) chanted at them “Neither fascists nor police, you are not a part of this.”

    So far as I know, no one threatened them, they didn’t threaten anyone and were too cowardly to even tell people what they stood for (“take this pamphlet” [vague and euphemistic], “go to our website”). Some people swore at them as we walked off after our chant, but considering the massive police presence, I think there really was no danger at all to them or us (and speaking personally, I support their right to be there, their right to say what they think, which they wouldn’t even do [kinda defeats the point of attending a demonstration], and even to march.) But trying to tag along with leftists was pretty weak.

  4. Darrin Hodges says:

    Well Liam, it wasn t any of us who were arrested. It wasn t any of us who iron barred the police, it wasn t any of us who threw darts in their faces, it was scum like you. To all the genuine people who were protesting against APEC and globalisation on Saturday I say more power to you. To the marxist vermin who were oozing through Sydney streets pretending to be human I say FUCK YOU.

    And to m, the hypocrisy of the left was revealed when Paddy [Gibson] and his fellow vermin were telling us we were not permitted to be be there whilst trying to talk over the PA that was shrilling about free speech and democracy. We were there to protest globalisation, it is clear that the left are only against certain types of globalisation, we in fact agreed with many of the the things the speakers said.

    As for scum like Paddy, I enjoyed seeing the cops make him eat dirt on Channel Nine News, boy howdy did I.

    Suck it down Paddy, suck it down.

  5. Liam says:

    I was there when the man in the blue jumpsuit threw a dart at the police, and i was there when within a minute of the throwing occurring, he was reprimanded by other protesters and quite thoroughly unnerved.

    As i am led to believe, this was the same man who had the crow bar concealed within a newspaper. So 1 of the other ~5000 people, who was in fact condemned by us, was also committing acts in our name? (Whoever’s name that may be.)

    “It is clear that the left are only against certain types of globalisation” – Nothing could be clearer! I hardly know a leftist that is opposed to Globalisation in its truest form; that being the transcending of National Borders.

    What is ironic however is that you distinguish between “the genuine” protesters and those who you deem to not be genuine, while simultaneously attempting to tar the left for distinguishing between different types of Globalisation. Consistency Darrin.

    In any case, i think most people just assumed you lot were average black bloc anarchists, i did upon first glance. Intentional?

  6. m says:

    “it is clear that the left are only against certain types of globalisation”

    Quite true. We support global justice, abolition of borders, global solidarity etc. We’re against corporate globalisation, globalisation (and centralisation) of power etc. We want to globalise justice – and not just for whites or blacks or browns or purples or oranges or reds or greens.

    Anyway, I wouldn’t support cops attacking the fascists/nazis/white nationalists, unless they broke the law (and even then, I still don’t like the police as an institution). So again, it is you who is the hypocrite – freedom of speech is only precious for you. And the coward – too afraid to tell anyone what you thought at the rally. And the idiot – on what possible planet could you possibly imagine you’d make common cause with us? Did you even listen to the speeches?

  7. We support global justice, abolition of borders……

    What about free trade? Can that occur across your abolished borders?

  8. Can I just run that one past you again: you’re against globalisation but you want to abolish borders?

    I’m really missing this one. Help me out.

  9. Darrin Hodges says:

    It just indicates they have no clue. They want the abolition of borders and “global solidarity”, those in themselves would lead to a centralised global power, a “corporatisation of the proletariat”. They are stupid and their continued stupidity at protests will keep driving people away – which is only a good thing.

  10. vents says:

    National anarchism? Are these turds getting stupider each year or is it just me?

    I don’t think anyone here is necessarily opposed to the idea of ‘free trade’ or globalisation, but rather to unregulated global capitalism.

  11. Don says:

    Free trade stops being a problem when we have free movement of people.

    Thats why Nazis are never welcome at anti globalisation rallies, because they are against moral values. One of the *CORE DEMANDS* of the anti globalisation movement (or as the french sometimes call it the other-globalisation movement) is removing ALL immigration restrictions.

    Once thats done, then globalised trade really isn’t a worry as much as it loses much of its ability to isolate and exploit people.

    Or in other words: Fascists fuck off.

  12. Luke says:

    Western,

    In a ‘global economy’, true free trade can only occur with the free movement of labour. If this was to occur, there would be no point to the existence of borders in any legal sense as people would move be able to move freely. The globalisation of APEC tends to refer to, as m described it, corporate globalisation – the free movement of companies and corporate entities but not for the vast majority of people.

    So, speaking purely for myself and my understanding, I am against forms of globalisation – which allow corporate entities freedom of movement but disallow individual movement. I am for a globalisation that seeks to develop a global community free to live, trade, move, work, and whatever else they will, wherever they like.

    It’s really not as confusing as you think it is, but I’m sure you’ll disagree.

  13. Western Values says:

    I am for a globalisation that seeks to develop a global community free to live, trade, move, work, and whatever else they will, wherever they like.

    OK, once this is achieved, what restrictions do you want put on the corporate world. In other words, what separates you from anarcho-capitalists? And when you decided on these restrictions who would be the regulator?

  14. vents says:

    ‘OK, once this is achieved, what restrictions do you want put on the corporate world. In other words, what separates you from anarcho-capitalists? And when you decided on these restrictions who would be the regulator?’

    I am not interested in looking to further regulate or reform capitalism for future generations. Capitalism is not something that is ‘fixable’ or broken or some secret society at Yale that needs to be dismantled and everything will be okay again; it is just a horrible idea from the start. This is a central tenet of anarchism that people sometimes overlook.

    Bear in mind, we are talking about a post-capitalist/revolution society here. For the here and now I will usually support whatever reforms is going to raise the social wage and make life easier for me and my family. Capitalism ain’t going anywhere for a while.

  15. Western Values says:

    Capitalism is not something that is ‘fixable’ or broken or some secret society at Yale that needs to be dismantled and everything will be okay again; it is just a horrible idea from the start.

    So under your ideal ‘post-capitalist/revolution society’ how would trade be conducted? If there is no trade what would replace it?

    For the here and now I will usually support whatever reforms is going to raise the social wage and make life easier for me and my family.

    So really, in the ‘here and now’ you are basically just a lefty. Not only that, you are the lowest kind of lefty who:

    1. Basically supports whoever will give you a handout, i.e., ‘make life easier for me and my family.’
    2. Claims to be pushing a cause for the good of the majority but is actually supporting what’s good for ‘me and my family’, i.e., what’s good for you.

  16. vents says:

    Nah, I am just not an ultra-lefty or middle-class. I have my politics but it doesn’t put food on the table. Your argument is fucking retarded and comparable to ‘well if you don’t like capitalism then don’t work’ or ‘if you don’t like unions then don’t strike’. We have a mortgage and bills up the arse.

    Of course I want to work fewer hours for better money. I want a big fuck off plasma TV set too. Nothing wrong with that. Did I lose my anarchist credentials yet?

    Selfishness is not necessarily bad, you are a lying cunt if you say you don’t have your own interests at heart. But what is good for me and my family and friends who are all workers is what is also good for other workers who have no choice but to earn a wage or get, as you put it, ‘a handout’, or steal. It is called workers solidarity and class consciousness and is another central tenet of anarchism along with the fact that capitalism is directly opposed to our interests.

    If you have any other crazy ideas about anarchists you got off the TV I would be happy to clear those up for you too.

  17. vents says:

    ‘So under your ideal ‘post-capitalist/revolution society’ how would trade be conducted? If there is no trade what would replace it?’

    What do you want to trade? Playstation 1 for Nintendo 64? I will make that trade if it’s chipped and you have games.

  18. Western Values says:

    You haven’t cleared up anything.

    All you’ve really said to me is you have to make a living because you ‘have a mor[t]gage and bills up the arse’ and you have the usual desire for consumer goods like a ‘big fuck off plasma TV set’.

    Then you go on to say that the capitalist system that provides these things isn’t wrong, i.e.

    Selfishness is not necessarily bad, you are a lying cunt if you say you don’t have your own interests at heart. But what is good for me and my family and friends who are all workers is what is also good for other workers who have no choice but to earn a wage

    This is just simply capitalism, we all have to earn money to live, i.e. you pursuing your individual interests through mutually beneficial arrangements with others, like you and other workers producing goods within your area of expertise to trade with each other. Or one business owner employing you in his business.

    So, if there is ‘Nothing wrong with that’ and ‘Selfishness is not necessarily bad’, then how does this correlate with ‘Capitalism… is just a horrible idea from the start.’?

    BTW, with regards to ‘no choice but to earn a wage or get, as you put it, ‘a handout’, or steal’: mate, there is a fucking big difference [between] ‘earn a wage’ and getting ‘a handout, or steal’. In the first situation someone is voluntarily giving you money because you’ve done something for them, in the second case you’ve taken someone’s money by force because a ‘handout’ is someone’s tax dollars, and stealing is, well, stealing. There seems to me to be a lot more ‘choice’ in the first option, when people are choosing to do business, than the second one where the person providing the cash is just having it taken off them.

    Anyway, one ‘crazy idea about anarchists’ I have is that they don’t want to work for a wage at a market rate. They want the government to come in and force the employer to pay more than the market rate. But they don’t believe in government. So, why should you get paid more than a market rate just because you’ve got the same bills as everyone else and want a ‘big fuck off plasma TV set’ like everyone else? And if you don’t believe in government (as an anarchist) why do you want them to force employers to pay you more than they voluntarily would? i.e. effectively put a gun to their head and take some extra money on top of what they would normally pay you?

    Please, clear up these crazy ideas of mine.

    —————————————————————–

    What do you want to trade?

    My labour for a ‘big fuck off plasma TV set’ and some money to pay my bills.

  19. vents says:

    Can’t really be fucked explaining my position on capitalism, after the 5000th time it is about as stimulating as getting fisted in the date, plus it’s a waste of time on this occasion. Did you float over from scumfront by any chance? A few things:

    Capitalists don’t provide shit, workers provide shit being that they produce said shit.

    Workers producing goods to trade with one another is not ‘just simply capitalism’. Jesus Christ.

    I don’t believe in capitalism hence I don’t believe in wages.

    I also don’t believe selling your labour for a wage or not is a choice most people have the luxury of affording themselves.

    Within capitalism the worker has one real option available to them in order to improve their situation – strike. I am an anarchist because I realise the government and the trade unions aren’t gonna do shit for us and we have to do it ourselves. This is revolutionary activity, not whatever you think we are supposed to be doing ie. quitting our job and eating out of a dumpster and building up an arms cache in the mountains before the coup. Sorry to disappoint. Although a lot of anarchists might disagree though. Any takers? 🙂

  20. @ndy says:

    “Anyway, one ‘crazy idea about anarchists’ I have is that they don’t want to work for a wage at a market rate. They want the government to come in and force the employer to pay more than the market rate.”

    Anarchists, being anti-capitalist, seek the abolition of the wages system. The wages system is based on private property. Anarchists believe in the communal ownership of the ‘means of production’; that is, the abolition of the present (class) division between owners/employers or ‘capitalists’ (who buy other’s labour) and workers (those who sell their labour). The existence of private property, a market in which goods and services are exchanged for profit — that is, a commodity-based economic system — and the state — that is, a ‘political’ institution which exercises a claimed monopoly on the exercise of force over a particular territory — are characteristics of a capitalist society.

    I don’t know where you get your crazy ideas from.

    Caveat emptor, as they say.

  21. vents says:

    Just quickly, regarding handouts, unemployment is for the most part a capitalistic phenomenon and needs an army of unemployed to sustain wage levels as low as possible. Switzerland being a notable exception as I understand it. Perhaps I will travel there and sample some of their fine cheese and watches one day.

  22. @ndy says:

    Unemployment benefits, and social welfare generally, is fire insurance for the rich.

  23. vents says:

    @ndy from now on you are doing all the arguing for me. Not just with this either. Come to think of it, my girlfriend is kinda pissed off at me for yelling at her on the weekend, shall I have her call your work telephone and we can straighten all this out? Comrade?

  24. deb says:

    Western – you are arguing AGAINST a lot of things and FOR just about nothing. Vents is saying (I believe) that they believe that they and their family are worth more of a wage than they get right now but they will not ask for an infinitely high wage. What replaces trade is barter – worth for worth.

    I am definitely far more on the side of the genuine anarchists than I am on the side of fascists such as yourself.

    I don’t see the need for any kind of ‘ism’ any more. No label is needed. I know what causes and ends I stand for, support, will work for and fight for.

    It doesn’t matter about left and right, anarchist, fascist, ‘national anarchist’ (whatever-the-turd that is) or anarcho-capitalist.

    ISMS CREATE SCHISMS.

  25. @ndy says:

    Sorry vents, but that’s one area in which I am, sadly, still a rank amateur. For what it’s worth (ahem) tell her that you’re sorry, you were wrong to yell at her / she’s right, you really shouldn’t waste your time time arguing, so why not kiss and make up…

  26. Western Values says:

    Right. The main issue here is property rights, and the abolition of state force.

    1. Property rights – what if I grind up some grain and bake some bread to eat for dinner tonight, do I have any right to stop you taking it? Do I own my own body or is that communally owned as well? I’m seriously asking?

    2. You’ve stated that you don’t believe in property so no need for the state to enforce protection of that. What about personal freedom? What if I kidnap you? Am I doing anything wrong? What if I form a gang and deny you access to ‘my’ part of town? Is that wrong, and if so, who sets it right? What if all the people in my town/region/country/world vote to kill you because you smell? Is that wrong?

    3. If there’s no wages or property rights how do people make a living? If I choose to work, for the collective or whatever, how do I get compensated? If I want to partake in productive enterprise and set up a business how do I stop people taking the shit out of my shop/factory/office if I don’t actually own that stuff (no property rights)?

  27. The Stalinist League thinks that all this is a joke. What is the point of protesting against APEC? They are just puppets that already got their orders from their masters who are the capitalists. APEC is simply used to release these orders as decisions of the puppets. APEC is just for show. It is all one big show. If I was down in Sydney I wouldn’t have protested because it would be pointless.

    Under a Stalinist League government, there would only be a one world socialist proletariat republic where the economy would be centrally planned under a five year plan. There would be a minimum wage and job distribution across the world. So ina way, the League would bring in free trade but socialist style. There would be no borders and no travel ristrictions and so refugees can go and come as they please. That would make the anarchists at Fight Dem Back and Slackbastards mard because they would have nothing to complain about.

  28. vents says:

    @ndy, she is a little angry because I explained to her that being against private property and all I am selling my house and moving under the sea to live communally with the fishes, like all good anarchists should. You understand.

  29. @ndy says:

    I’ll assume, for the moment, that these questions are directed towards myself. In future, however, it would be useful to be more specific.

    “1. Property rights – what if I grind up some grain and bake some bread to eat for dinner tonight, do I have any right to stop you taking it? Do I own my own body or is that communally owned as well? I’m seriously asking?”

    One useful, centuries-old distinction is between ‘property’ which exists as personal possession — such as a loaf of bread — and ‘property’ as a means of generating wealth (understood in its broadest sense). Thus, ‘owning’ a loaf of bread to eat is one thing; locking up a bakery, another. And as has often been remarked:

    Anarchists are not content with a few crumbs off the rich man’s table.
    We want the whole fucking bakery.

    (And I assume you’re familiar with the concept of usufruct?)

    “2. You’ve stated that you don’t believe in property so no need for the state to enforce protection of that. What about personal freedom? What if I kidnap you? Am I doing anything wrong? What if I form a gang and deny you access to ‘my’ part of town? Is that wrong, and if so, who sets it right? What if all the people in my town/region/country/world vote to kill you because you smell? Is that wrong?”

    Your questions assume a whole range of ideas and practices which I don’t share and which I view as being unreasonable. For example, what guarantees ‘personal freedom’ and of what, exactly, does it consist? Or: given the fact that fascists are known to stink to high, non-existent, Heaven, as well as engage in prattish forms of argumentation for which they’re terribly ill-suited, what force on Earth could possibly prevent every town/region/country/world on deciding to track them down, to break into their homes, and to sprinkle their naked, lily-white bodies with talcum powder before leaving for a kick-arse party to which the sad, talcum-covered fascist is not invited?

    Further: you’re confusing ethics with power, democracy with anarchy, property with rights, and law with custom.

    For a start.

    “3. If there’s no wages or property rights how do people make a living? If I choose to work, for the collective or whatever, how do I get compensated? If I want to partake in productive [enterprise] and set up a business how do I stop people taking the shit out of my shop/factory/office if I don’t actually own that stuff (no property rights)?”

    Some of my previous thoughts on anarchy and anarchism:

    http://slackbastard.anarchobase.com/?p=728
    http://slackbastard.anarchobase.com/?p=310
    http://slackbastard.anarchobase.com/?p=160
    http://slackbastard.anarchobase.com/?p=68

    Albert Meltzer:

    “The Fascist Objection to Anarchism

    The fascist objection to Anarchism is, curiously enough, more honest than that of the Marxist, the liberal or the Social-Democrat. Most of these will say, if pressed, that Anarchism is an ideal, perhaps imperfectly understood, but either impossible of achievement or possible only in the distant future. The fascist, on the contrary, admits its possibility; What is denied is its desirability.

    The right-wing authoritarian (which term includes many beyond those naming themselves fascists) worships the very things which are anathema to Anarchists, especially the State. Though the conception of the State is idealised in fascist theory, it is not denied that one could do without it. But the “first duty of the citizen is to defend the State” and it is high treason to oppose it or advocate its abolition…”

    More:
    http://slackbastard.anarchobase.com/?p=49

    From ‘Anarchism: Arguments For & Against’:
    http://www.spunk.org/library/writers/meltzer/sp001500.html

  30. Western Values says:

    I love that clip, but what does it mean in this debate?

  31. @ndy says:

    Peter,

    I’M AS MARD AS HELL AND I’M NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANY MORE!

  32. @ndy says:

    Jeff ‘The Snowman’ Monson is an anarchist, who has been outspoken regarding his opposition to capitalism and the state, and in his support of communal ownership and mutual aid. Unfortunately, he lost his last bout, as described below:

    Rizzo Stops Monson; Horn Taps Out
    September 2, 2007
    by Scott Holmes

    DALLAS, Sept 1 — Sun Sports Entertainment put on the third installment of their “Art of War” fight promotion and it was the most ambitious event to date, both in terms of production and the quality of talent on the card.

    This time out, Art of War featured names like Rizzo, Waterman, Horn and Monson for an event that had over 7,500 Texans turning their eyes away from the football field for a few hours to see some great fights. Even current and former Dallas Cowboys Tony Romo, Michael Irvin and Tony Dorsett made it out to cheer on the fighters.

    “Art of War” had billed this event as a night of USA vs. Brazil as they matched up American fighters [with] a Brazilian contingent made up of fighters from the Chute Boxe, Ruas Vale Tudo and Machado camps to take on American bred talent.

    It was a night of surprises since some ground warriors chose to stand and bang while only two submissions came down from the Brazilians.

    The main event featured Jeff Monson and Pedro Rizzo, both previous challengers for the UFC heavyweight belt, in a true clash of styles with the former Abu Dhabi grappler meeting the former kickboxing champ in a fight that [had] the potential of being [either] a barnburner or a snore fest. Luckily there wasn’t any snoring since Monson curiously chose to stay up and throw with Rizzo in every round.

    Monson came out pressing the action and it looked as though a thumb from one of his punches had Rizzo’s right eye swollen and bloody in the early moments.

    Despite a reach disadvantage, Monson was able to get in some good punches and even a clever body shot. Monson finally went for a takedown but his shot from the outside was stuffed and he was planted on his back by Rizzo.

    In the second Rizzo seemed a little tentative while Monson scored with a nice left jab followed by a leg kick. Rizzo finally began to start finding his range and used some straight left jabs to keep Monson back at arm’s length. A few more jabs and leg kicks had Monson beginning to drop his hands a bit. Monson [tried] for his second and third takedown attempts only to have them thwarted by a sprawling Rizzo.

    The third round began with Rizzo looking like he might pick Monson apart with more leg kicks and straights. Monson countered with an overhand right that snapped Rizzo’s head back before connecting again with a straight to the body.

    Both men’s faces looked like they’d been in a fight with a bear trap. Rizzo continued to attack Monson’s lead leg while keeping the grappler at the end of his punches.

    Rizzo finally found the combination he’d been looking for all night and Monson, with one less tooth than he had before the fight, fell to the canvas. The Brazilian heavy-hitter jumped on Monson only to be pulled off by the referee. Monson loses by knockout for only the second time of his career and a tooth in the process.

    Rizzo was shocked that Monson chose to stand with him saying, “It was a big surprise. We expected him to box a little and shoot a lot. So I was waiting for the shooting but the shooting never comes.”

    Rizzo also mentioned that Monson tagged him a few times. “I had to take care of his power,” said Rizzo. “He’s 247 pounds and he hits hard.”

    Rizzo seems comfortable in the ring again and he’s certainly not missing any of his trademark power. The Art of War organization might have to go through a few more heavyweights before they can find somebody to give Rizzo a loss…

  33. vents says:

    Aww man, I thought they were going to show the fight.

    Fuck you are a smart cookie @ndy.

  34. @ndy says:

    Yeah… at UFC 65 (November 18, 2006) Monson lost to Sylvia by a unanimous points decision, and separated a rib in the process. It wasn’t considered to be a great fight, largely ‘cos Sylvia kept Monson at a distance, so a lot less blood ‘n’ gore than fans like (and pay for).

    And yeah… if only I would use my smarts for Good instead of Evil eh?

    (Cheers.)

  35. Western Values says:

    You’re not winning me over with a consistent philosophy based on some sort of moral premise. I’m pretty sure you don’t have one. I’ll have one more go:

    1. Usufruct – my tools of trade (handed down to me by my father, BTW), personal possession or means of making wealth? If you consider usufruct applies; then do you have to maintain them as well? Who replaces them when they wear out? What if I want to use them but you’ve taken them? What if you don’t care for them to the standard I require or desire?

    2. Personal freedom is my right to do as I choose so long as I’m not hurting anyone else. There is a property right side which we’ll ignore in this debate because you don’t believe in property rights. Personal freedom is essential for me to pursue my definition of happiness and therefore live a satisfying life. What guarantees do I have under anarchist society of my personal freedom? Again, what if I kidnap you? How is the right to personal freedom awarded and protected, or does it not exist?

    3. what force on Earth could possibly prevent every town/region/country/world on deciding to track them down, to break into their homes, and to sprinkle their naked, lily-white bodies with talcum powder before leaving for a kick-arse party to which the sad, talcum-covered fascist is not invited?

    In a national/regional sense a dictator could/would do this. Worse he could kill people he didn’t like. This has been known to happen throughout history right up to the present! How do anarchists deal with this?

    Meltzer’s essay is clear, and I agree with a lot of it, but it has gaping holes. I, and a lot of people, agree that society could exist without government. But to have an advanced society it would require a lot of civilised people to live under a voluntary agreement of non-initiation of violence. Large parts of Africa exist without government, under tribal arrangements, but they are hardly societies worth living in. I think this would equate to Meltzer’s version of anarchism if applied in a global sense. Further gaping holes include:

    1. The whole world is ours by right of birth alone. So where does your personal property rights vs property for wealth production fall into this one? Again if I have the whole world that means I have access to your body under the concept of usufruct. Bend over, you’re not using your arse at the moment and I want to exercise my birth right.

    2. If Property is Theft, Government is Tyranny Government does more than just enforce property rights. It guarantees rights to freedom as well. Under this construct government is merely a means to enforce the concept of personal freedom that even anarchists agree on – that you should be free to so what you want. Again, if I am kidnapped is it wrong? How is it to be set right? I live in Africa and the local tribal militia keep forcing our children to work for them? How do think this should be dealt with? Should there be some sort of insurance to prevent it happening?

    3. The Money Myth – Money is simply a means to effect exchange of value. The holes in this one are huge. He uses the example that the legal tender of a country is invalid because you can’t trade in other currencies. But you can if you want. Most people just choose the legal tender of that country because they want the guarantee of the local government. He, somewhat strangely, ignores the concept of inflation, and states that the government wants to stop printing money to keep the people poor! He is also unable to reconcile the concept of the value of money being representative of someone’s labour, or the mixing of labour with raw materials, and claims that money has value because the state says so, and that this is a con because workers really produce wealth. No shit, Sherlock. When the workers produce wealth they want to use it to increase their quality of life. They use money to assist in this process.

    Basically there is no point in going to this level of intellectual analysis on a concept that is built completely on a false premise. Like religion, this is just a bunch of people sitting around masturbating each other with great little circles of logic, ignoring the fact that none of it has basis in the real world. Anarchist society is the majority of Africa, or Iraq etc. That’s what it really looks like in the real world, and the majority of people there live miserable lives and are unable to work [their] way to [a] better existence.

    If you took a society like ours and put it into an anarchist context, it would very quickly develop property rights and government enforced contracts, while still upholding individual freedom and self ownership. This society leaves anything anarchist for dead.

  36. vents says:

    Dude, your obsession with kidnapping is kind of bizarre and starting to freak me out. Nobody is saying that people won’t still get kidnapped and murdered and raped under communism. People are cunts. The point you miss is that no amount of governments, prisons, tougher sentencing, more cops, etc. has EVER gotten rid of these things. The death penalty doesn’t lessen the murder rate. More police on the streets doesn’t stop child molestation. America has two MILLION people in prisons right now. The difference between us is that we disagree on the fundamentals of ‘human nature’ if such a thing exists (I think this is what you mean by a ‘moral’ philosophy or whatever). You believe that humans have a predisposition to murder and rape and kidnap each other without the existence of a state (social contract theory which we know is bullshit) and I believe that this does not happen and the vast majority of crimes are as a result of institutionalised inequality, poverty, racism, and capitalism. But we ain’t talking about utopia and anarchism isn’t going to cure psychopathy and general cuntery (which honestly makes up about 5% of total crime and that’s being generous).

  37. Western Values says:

    Andy, give me one example of a progressive anarchist society anywhere, anytime? What about one that came close to being anarchist and wasn’t a shithole?

    I’ve come to the conclusion that you guys are basically confused libertarians with a hatred for anyone who is too successful or makes too much money. That is why you actually seem to lean to the left all the time. And it fits in with being a slack bastard who struggles with apathy.

  38. Western Values says:

    Dude, your obsession with kidnapping is kind of bizarre and starting to freak me out.

    Then pick some other example of using force to deny someone control over their own destiny (that doesn’t involve property rights, ’cause you cunts don’t believe in them).

    You believe that humans have a predisposition to murder and rape and kidnap each other without the existence of a state (social contract theory which we know is bullshit) and I believe that this does not happen and the vast majority of crimes are as a result of institutionalised inequality, poverty, racism, and capitalism.

    Do you think, for example, that if we poured shit loads of money into Africa it would suddenly become a first world nation? Or do you think after a couple of years it would look pretty much the same as it does now?

    the vast majority of crimes are as a result of institutionalised inequality, poverty, racism, and capitalism.

    And you’re going to overcome this problem by removing the means to produce wealth thereby pushing everyone to the lowest common denominator so they all live like shit equally?

    You guys are OK because you’ll never have any influence, much as Bob Brown is a nice old bum bandit because he’ll never be PM. The socialist left have had a lot more success and are a real threat to Western civilisation. You guys, well, you’re like the stray dog down my back yard. If I had livestock I’d probably have to shoot it, but since I don’t and it’s no problem I even leave food out for it.

  39. Western Values says:

    You idiots, Welf wasn’t even there.

    I’m in somewhere in photos 7 through 9. Enjoy!

    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/gallery/0,,5025570-21703.*,00.html

  40. vents says:

    ‘Do you think, for example, that if we poured shit loads of money into Africa it would suddenly become a first world nation? Or do you think after a couple of years it would look pretty much the same as it does now?’

    Yep, and there we have it.

    Anyway, I have no desire whatsoever to live like shit, I made it pretty clear at the start I am like everyone else looking for a better quality of life. I am tired of spending my life in a job I hate making someone else rich. You like it, fair enough, just don’t wonder why your workmates don’t have your back against the boss one day cause you are a racist fuckwit. Keep living your life in fear of the terrifying immigrants – they are going to kidnap and rape you! It’s in their DNA!

  41. vents says:

    Man, get your own dress code you fucking biter. First you steal skinheads and now black bloc. Stop fucking up cool shit for everyone else. Just fuck off.

  42. @ndy says:

    “You’re not winning me over with a consistent philosophy based on some sort of moral premise. I’m pretty sure you don’t have one.”

    If I’m not winning you over “with a consistent philosophy based on some sort of moral premise”, maybe that’s because I’m not actually trying to. And if I’m not trying to, maybe that’s because I’m not particularly interested in what you think, or how I might change it. Your views are your responsibility, not mine. As it stands, I think you’d find a place in a fascist movement of some kind. Unfortunately for you, I’m pretty sure you don’t have one.

    I’ll respond to the rest of your nonsense later.

  43. Western Values says:

    I have no desire whatsoever to live like shit, I made it pretty clear at the start I am like everyone else looking for a better quality of life. I am tired of spending my life in a job I hate making someone else rich.

    This is the sort of shit that you accuse your local ‘bone head’ of, being a loser and unable to fix their own lives. Poor sod, wants to spend up big on ‘big fuck off plasma TV sets’ but can’t even make himself productive enough in a vibrant Australian economy, to afford a cheap as shit plasma TV set. A slave to your own wants and unable to do [anything] about [them]. When I said you were the ‘lowest kind of lefty’ I was spot on. It’s no wonder you want to bring society down to the lowest common denominator. It’s your level.

    They are going to kidnap and rape you! It’s in their DNA!

    Maybe. But [maybe] this doesn’t have to come down to DNA. It can come down to the moral code you choose to live by. Something that seems completely lost on you fuckwits, as Andy’s statement below proves. Africa may not be a shit hole because of DNA, it may be because people are morally fucked up, like you guys.

    If I’m not winning you over “with a consistent philosophy based on some sort of moral premise”, maybe that’s because I’m not actually trying to. And if I’m not trying to, maybe that’s because I’m not particularly interested in what you think, or how I might change it.

    Then what the fuck are you? You are nothing. You don’t have a philosophy[,] you don’t have a value system, and you live like parasites not wanting to take responsibility for yourselves or attempting to be productive. You only exist because you are made and kept safe (and in the case of Vents, probably [supported] on welfare) by better people than yourselves. You are pathetic.

    I’ll respond to the rest of your nonsense later.

    Don’t bother. I don’t think this is going anywhere.

  44. @ndy says:

    Temper temper Mr. Kemper.

    On ‘usufruct’: I asked “And I assume you’re familiar with the concept of usufruct?”

    It appears not.

    So no, actually, I’m not referring to your father’s tools, your tools, or even the neo-Nazi tools who ape genuine anarchists. Rather, in terms of political philosophy — which, judging by your rapidly-mounting and quite amusing ill-humour, I think are the terms you’re struggling and failing to come to grips with — ‘usufruct’ means the ‘right’ to enjoy the use of another’s property short of the destruction or waste of its substance. Broadly speaking, in the context of a discussion regarding such matters as the anarchist understanding of and approach to property and social reconstruction, this means that an individual or collective of individuals is or should be entitled to make use of the common wealth in order to generate the means by which they might survive and prosper, limited only by the extent to which such activity does not unnecessarily infringe upon others’ capacity to do the same or similar. Thus, I’m speaking generally, not in reference to this or that tool, or whose responsibility it is to ensure that the knives remain sharp or the beer cool. Further, the answers to the questions you raise regarding the literal use of tools may only be properly answered by paying proper attention to their context, and with regards other ethical principles regarding the rights and obligations an individual has with regards their fellows, and by reference to both pre-existing agreements and social arrangements and the means by which they’re arrived at. The objections you raise — which I speculate derive from your more general resentment towards what you regard as others’ moral failings, and at worst resemble an infant crying — are not principled ones, and despite your seemingly constant harping on the absence of a proper moral or ethical framework for my politics, do little to assure the reader that you’re in full possession of one of your own.

    To put it another way:

    ======

    Decentralization and coordination

    There will be a strong tendency toward decentralization and local autonomy. Small communities promote habits of cooperation, facilitate direct democracy, and make possible the richest social experimentation: if a local experiment fails, only a small group is hurt (and others can help out); if it succeeds it will be imitated and the advantage will spread. A decentralized system is also less vulnerable to accidental disruption or to sabotage. (The latter danger, however, will probably be negligible in any case: it’s unlikely that a liberated society will have anywhere near the immense number of bitter enemies that are constantly produced by the present one.)

    But decentralization can also foster hierarchical control by isolating people from each other. And some things can best be organized on a large scale. One big steel factory is more energy-efficient and less damaging to the environment than a smelting furnace in every community. Capitalism has tended to overcentralize in some areas where greater diversity and self-sufficiency would make more sense, but its irrational competition has also fragmented many things that could more sensibly be standardized or centrally coordinated. As Paul Goodman notes in People or Personnel (which is full of interesting examples of the pros and cons of decentralization in various present-day contexts), where, how and how much to decentralize are empirical questions that will require experimentation. About all we can say is that the new society will probably decentralize as much as possible, but without making a fetish of it. Most things can be taken care of by small groups or local communities; regional and global councils will be limited to matters with broad ramifications or significant efficiencies of scale, such as environmental restoration, space exploration, dispute resolution, epidemic control, coordination of global production, distribution, transportation and communication, and maintenance of certain specialized facilities (e.g. hightech hospitals or research centers).

    It is often said that direct democracy may have worked well enough in the old-fashioned town meeting, but that the size and complexity of modern societies make it impossible. How can millions of people each express their own viewpoint on every issue?

    They don’t need to. Most practical matters ultimately come down to a limited number of options; once these have been stated and the most significant arguments have been advanced, a decision can be reached without further ado. Observers of the 1905 soviets and the 1956 Hungarian workers councils were struck by the brevity of people’s statements and the rapidity with which decisions were arrived at. Those who spoke to the point tended to get delegated; those who spouted hot air got flak for wasting people’s time.

    For more complicated matters, committees can be elected to look into various possibilities and report back to the assemblies about the ramifications of different options. Once a plan is adopted, smaller committees can continue to monitor developments, notifying the assemblies of any relevant new factors that might suggest modifying it. On controversial issues multiple committees reflecting opposing perspectives (e.g. protech versus antitech) might be set up to facilitate the formulation of alternative proposals and dissenting viewpoints. As always, delegates will not impose any decisions (except regarding the organization of their own work) and will be elected on a rotating and recallable basis, so as to ensure both that they do a good job and that their temporary responsibilities don’t go to their heads. Their work will be open to public scrutiny and final decisions will always revert to the assemblies.

    Modern computer and telecommunication technologies will make it possible for anyone to instantly check data and projections for themselves, as well as to widely communicate their own proposals. Despite current hype, such technologies do not automatically promote democratic participation; but they have the potential to facilitate it if they are appropriately modified and put under popular control.

    Telecommunications will also render delegates less necessary than during previous radical movements, when they functioned to a great extent as mere bearers of information back and forth. Diverse proposals could be circulated and discussed ahead of time, and if an issue was of sufficient interest council meetings could be hooked up live with local assemblies, enabling the latter to immediately confirm, modify or repudiate delegate decisions.

    But when the issues are not particularly controversial, mandating will probably be fairly loose. Having arrived at some general decision (e.g. “This building should be remodeled to serve as a daycare center”), an assembly might simply call for volunteers or elect a committee to implement it without bothering with detailed accountability.

    Consensus, majority rule and unavoidable hierarchies

    …The general rule will be consensus when practicable, majority decision when necessary. A character in William Morris’s News from Nowhere (one of the most sensible, easygoing and down-to-earth utopias) gives the example of whether a metal bridge should be replaced by a stone one. At the next Mote (community assembly) this is proposed. If there is a clear consensus, the issue is settled and they proceed to work out the details of implementation. But

    “if a few of the neighbors disagree to it, if they think that the beastly iron bridge will serve a little longer and they don’t want to be bothered with building a new one just then, they don’t count heads that time, but put off the formal discussion to the next Mote; and meantime arguments pro and con are flying about, and some get printed, so that everybody knows what is going on; and when the Mote comes together again there is a regular discussion and at last a vote by show of hands. If the division is a close one, the question is again put off for further discussion; if the division is a wide one, the minority are asked if they will yield to the more general opinion, which they often, nay, most commonly do. If they refuse, the question is debated a third time, when, if the minority has not perceptibly grown, they always give way; though I believe there is some half-forgotten rule by which they might still carry it on further; but I say, what always happens is that they are convinced, not perhaps that their view is the wrong one, but they cannot persuade or force the community to adopt it.”

    Note that what enormously simplifies cases like this is that there are no longer any conflicting economic interests — no one has any means or any motive to bribe or bamboozle people into voting one way or the other because he happens to have a lot of money, or to control the media, or to own a construction company or a parcel of land near a proposed site. Without such conflicts of interest, people will naturally incline to cooperation and compromise, if only to placate opponents and make life easier for themselves. Some communities might have formal provisions to accommodate minorities (e.g. if, instead of merely voting no, 20% express a “vehement objection” to some proposal, it must pass by a 60% majority); but neither side will be likely to abuse such formal powers lest it be treated likewise when the situations are reversed. The main solution for repeated irreconcilable conflicts will lie in the wide diversity of cultures: if people who prefer metal bridges, etc., constantly find themselves outvoted by Morris-type arts-and-crafts traditionalists, they can always move to some neighboring community where more congenial tastes prevail.

    Insistence on total consensus makes sense only when the number of people involved is relatively small and the issue is not urgent. Among any large number of people complete unanimity is rarely possible. It is absurd, out of worry over possible majority tyranny, to uphold a minority’s right to constantly obstruct a majority; or to imagine that such problems will go away if we leave things “unstructured.”

    As was pointed out in a well-known article many years ago (Jo Freeman’s “The Tyranny of Structurelessness”), there’s no such thing as a structureless group, there are simply different types of structures. An unstructured group generally ends up being dominated by a clique that does have some effective structure. The unorganized members have no means of controlling such an elite, especially when their antiauthoritarian ideology prevents them from admitting that it exists.

    Failing to acknowledge majority rule as a backup when unanimity is not attainable, anarchists and consensists are often unable to arrive at practical decisions except by following those de facto leaders who are skilled at maneuvering people into unanimity (if only by their capacity to endure interminable meetings until all the opposition has got bored and gone home). Fastidiously rejecting workers councils or anything else with any taint of coercion, they themselves usually end up settling for far less radical lowest-common-denominator projects.

    It’s easy to point out shortcomings in the workers councils of the past, which were, after all, just hurried improvisations by people involved in desperate struggles. But if those brief efforts were not perfect models to blindly imitate, they nevertheless represent the most practical step in the right direction that anyone has come up with so far. Riesel’s article on councils (SI Anthology, pp. 270-282 [Revised Edition pp. 348-362]) discusses the limitations of these old movements, and rightly stresses that council power should be understood as the sovereignty of the popular assemblies as a whole, not merely of the councils of delegates they have elected. Some groups of radical workers in Spain, wishing to avoid any ambiguity on this latter point, have referred to themselves as “assemblyists” rather than “councilists.” One of the CMDO leaflets (SI Anthology, p. 351 [Revised Edition p. 444] [Address to All Workers]) specifies the following essential features of councilist democracy:

    * Dissolution of all external power
    * Direct and total democracy
    * Practical unification of decision and execution
    * Delegates who can be revoked at any moment by those who have mandated them
    * Abolition of hierarchy and independent specializations
    * Conscious management and transformation of all the conditions of liberated life
    * Permanent creative mass participation
    * Internationalist extension and coordination

    ======

    http://bopsecrets.org/PS/joyrev4.htm

    ======

    “2. Personal freedom is my right to do as I choose so long as I’m not hurting anyone else. There is a property right side which we’ll ignore in this debate because you don’t believe in property rights. Personal freedom is essential for me to pursue my definition of happiness and therefore live a satisfying life. What guarantees do I have under anarchist society of my personal freedom? Again, what if I kidnap you? How is the right to personal freedom awarded and protected, or does it not exist?”

    Obviously, ‘personal freedom’ may, like everything else, be defined in any number of ways. The reason I queried your definition — which, as far as I’m concerned, is a reasonable one — is because you appear to have confused the notion of ‘property rights’ with the notion that property has rights. Obviously, ‘property’, being inert, has no rights; only people do. That’s why it’s problematic for you to assume that, on the basis that anarchists oppose ‘property rights’, there is some necessary contradiction between this position and the idea that persons have a right to bodily integrity (such as the ‘right’ not to be raped, murdered or otherwise deprived of their liberty). You’re a fascist and a smartarse, but unfortunately not smart enough to understand that such concepts and arguments form part of a long tradition within Western political philosophy. Thus, as far as ‘guarantees’ are concerned, on one level, there are no more ‘guarantees’ in a classless, non-hierarchical (which is to say, anarchist) society than there are in, say, contemporary Australian society.

    Think Greg McLeay.

    What I think you’re trying to ascertain is the nature of power and authority in an ‘anarchist’ society, what ‘rights’ can be present under a system in which there is no ‘law’, and how is ‘justice’ to be administered in such a society. To answer these questions requires a further excursion into anarchist (and more generally ‘radical’) theories of the ‘just’ society, its institutions, structures and values. For my money, Ken Knabb provides a useful introduction to such questions in ‘The Joy of Revolution’. There are, of course, others. Perhaps, as vents suggested, one possible ‘guarantee’ is the removal of motivations which rest upon the struggle to survive and to acquire property. Where such behaviour is not necessary, on the one hand, or even possible, on the other, it’s the reasonable belief of anarchists that such anti-social behaviour will naturally lessen. But again, this depends on how you account for the occurrence of such behaviour in the first place and, given your comments inre the economic and political situation in contemporary Africa, you’re an ignorant, deadshit racist, so not much joy there I’m afraid.

    ======

    “3. In a national/regional sense a dictator could/would [be a nasssty hobbitses]. Worse he could kill people he didn’t like. This has been known to happen throughout history right up to the present! How do anarchists deal with this?”

    Jesus fuck a shit souffle. Lemme get this straight. You and a bunch of fellow fascist geeks dress in anarchist drag, declare yourselves to be ‘national anarchists’, and haven’t the faintest clue what anarchism is, or even what anarchists have said about the nature of social struggle?

    What a twat.

    Some advice: read a book.

    ======

    You next proceed to talk about Albert Meltzer on anarchism. Given that my point, in referring to Meltzer, was to alert the reader to an anarchist response to the fascist critique of anarchism, I’m not especially interested in defending Meltzer’s views as such. Therefore, I’m going to skip your response, and only respond to it fully later (if I could be arsed). Briefly, however: ‘society without government’ has existed for most of human history (see, for example, Harold Barclay, ‘People Without Government’); you’re grossly ignorant of African political arrangements; your critical comments with regards the supposed ‘gaping holes’ in M’s arguments are, like yourself, both facile and tedious.

    ======

    “Basically there is no point in going to this level of intellectual analysis on a concept that is built completely on a false premise. Like religion, this is just a bunch of people sitting around masturbating each other with great little circles of logic, ignoring the fact that none of it has basis in the real world. Anarchist society is the majority of Africa, or Iraq etc. That’s what it really looks like in the real world, and the majority of people there live miserable lives and are unable to work [their] way to [a] better existence.”

    Uh-huh.

    On the one hand, when it comes to anarchism, you’re a Complainey Janey: “Waaah! The anarchists are nihilists! Waaah!”. On the other hand, if you enjoy circle jerks, you’ll find a happy home in the New Reich.

    Anarchist society is not African or Iraqi society, and to suggest that not only reveals the absurdity of ‘national anarchism’ but also demonstrates an ignorance of both anarchism and African and Iraqi society on your part that is completely indistinguishable from that of the worst bourgeois hack.

    “If you took a society like ours and put it into an anarchist context, it would very quickly develop property rights and government enforced contracts, while still upholding individual freedom and self ownership. This society leaves anything anarchist for dead.”

    Again, on the one hand you complain of irrational prejudice; on the other, you assert, in a manner befitting an ignorant fascist twat, that “property rights and government enforced contracts” are as natural as the fact that if God wanted Man to fly, He would have given him wings.

    You’re an idiot.

  45. vents says:

    [This comment is mysteriously empty — @ndy.]

  46. @ndy says:

    “Andy, give me one example of a progressive anarchist society anywhere, anytime? What about one that came close to being anarchist and wasn’t a shithole?”

    That depends on how you define an anarchist society. If one defines it, as I and other anarchists do (that is, as a classless, non-hierarchical society), then human beings have been living in a state of anarchy for the majority of our existence as a species on this planet. Thus it’s estimated that while modern humans emerged c. 100,000 years ago, modern civilization / the state and class society (or some form thereof) arose only about 10,000 years ago. In terms of the modern anarchist movement however, it emerged only c. 150 years ago, in Europe, in the middle of the nineteenth century. Since then, the most successful anarchist projects are generally regarded as being in Spain after the Spanish Revolution of 1936, in parts of Russia (and other parts of Eastern Europe) following the Russian Revolution of 1917, and at other times and in other places too numerous to mention here, but which any basic textbook on anarchism will alert the interested reader to.

    “I’ve come to the conclusion that you guys are basically confused libertarians with a hatred for anyone who is too successful or makes too much money. That is why you actually seem to lean to the left all the time. And it fits in with being a slack bastard who struggles with apathy.”

    And I’ve come to the conclusion that you’re a fascist wanker, who understands neither anarchism, nor libertarianism, nor their relationship to ‘the left’.

    You also have a crap sense of humour, and an unduly high self-regard.

  47. @ndy says:

    If I’m not winning you over “with a consistent philosophy based on some sort of moral premise”, maybe that’s because I’m not actually trying to. And if I’m not trying to, maybe that’s because I’m not particularly interested in what you think, or how I might change it.

    Then what the fuck are you? You are nothing. You don’t have a philosophy[,] you don’t have a value system, and you live like parasites not wanting to take responsibility for yourselves or attempting to be productive. You only exist because you are made and kept safe (and in the case of Vents, probably [supported] on welfare) by better people than yourselves. You are pathetic.

    Got out of the wrong side of the bloc this morning Great Western Value Meals?

    For someone who you claim to be ‘nothing’, who exists unhampered by philosophical reflection or “a value system”, I certainly seem to exercise your imagination and massage your spleen quite a lot, don’t I? Which, in turn, suggests to me that you’re a big fat fibber, and you actually care quite a lot what others think, especially in regards to your intellect — which, for a fascist, is passable, but, for a human being, fairly average.

    Grow up, you silly Little Man.

  48. vents says:

    Western Values I have realised that you are a very scared individual and probably terrified of your own shadow.

    This is for you @ndy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIHjuSWzGEA

  49. Darrin Hodges says:

    I must say, all this has been most illuminating, most illuminating.

Leave a Reply

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