I had to re-read this fucking post and try and figure out if your serious or not.
The Left and the Muslims are together.
The most laughable bit of insanity I think I've ever heard. Niether the "Left" nor Islam are unified groups in purposes, on any scale, for any reason. You're lumping religious muslim groups, with secular arab, kurdish, persian,etc.. nationalists who's faith is Islam, as well as well as lumping in liberal democrats with socialists and communists in a hillarious mess of ignorancce.
Then you try and seperate the relatively small faction of libertarian capitalism, that takes most of its rhetoric and views from 19th century socialist movements as the true bearer of "capitalism", when its been nothing more than a series of fringe movements aimed at enticing disenfranchised leftists and nothing more.
Next you tell me "National Socialism is Socialism", grouping in all of Fascism, showing your complete ignorance of "Third Position" economics, and also completely ignoring history of not just NatSoc, but Fascism as a whole, which is just a diverse group as capitalism and socialism.
Before you go around spouting matrix analogies, I want you to go ahead and do some basic reading.
1. Go read a bood by a fascist, Mein Kamp by Hitler, or Principles of Fascism by mousolini
2. Go read a book by a socialist. Das Kapital by marx, or What is Property by Proudhoun, or even Agrairian Reform by Paine
3. Go read a book by a capitalist. Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
Yes, I know you have never thought about this, and every source of information tells you otherwise.
on the contrary I've thought about this somewhat deeply for the past 15 years. Please go read some relivant books, and then get back to me once you've discovered what fascism, socialism, and capitalism mean.
Also stop using terms like "left" and "right", because they mean nothing in greater context. You can also stop telling people you are awaking them from the matrix because you are just pushing them deeper into misdirection and lies.
Socialism is the belief that the Collective matters more than the individual.
No, socialism is the workers owning the means of production. There are various forms of socialism, many opposed to eachother, but this is the only common thread.
1) Leave me alone! (small Government)
except for a massive police and military industrial complex needed to protect private property, that while its at it winds up abusing even the self-proffessed rights of small time property owners, and harrassing people for petty moralist issues. Also, people with stuff are more or less allowed to tell people without stuff what to do. Don't like it? Its your fault for not having enough stuff.
2) Don't take my stuff! (private property that the Government cannot take from you)
unless that stuff is immoral, or its inconvient for the largest stuffholders. Of course you just might not be allowed to own stuff because you don't own the procedes of your labor.
3) Don't be a jerk! (virtuous citizenry, which is required in order that points 1 & 2 be possible).
Bill Whittle does and excellent job at explaining these:
And the only people who quantify "being a jerk", are the powerful.
your "Truth" is wholly dishonest.
You can't excuse what Charlie Hebdo are doing, no more than you can excuse what these people did to them, but Charlie Hebdo themselves are responsible for provoking this tragedy.
you can't equate insults with murder. End of story. While I disagree with insults against Islam, I agree with their right to say it as long as they aren't provoking violence or any harm against believers.
As long as you feel violence is an acceptable retaliation to insult, no one is going to stop mocking Islam now, until you just accept this. Its in your court.
Is that what democracy and freedom of speech means to you, to be reserved to insult anyone or a group of people for anything you want, as opposed to sensibly debate it?
yes, but you can always insult them back. Which is generally the recommended course of action.
the bigger issue is people getting shot for publishing satire, regardless of how "offensive". The line for "free speech" is not "offensive", its "provoking attacks, or otherwise denying people their rights".
And no, christians generally don't shoot people for saying bad things about Mr Jesus, even if they do bitch and complain(again their right to bitch and complain).
I think the only other group to follow through with threats in the modern age in the west is probably the Jews, another group that needs to lighten up. No really, the entire semetic race just needs to lighten the fuck up.
ha! really? From what I've seen, they've been far more likely to recruit jews against the muslims, who they see as the immediate threat, except in muslim lands, where its the other way around.
As far as white supremecists go, their paterns are pretty damn predictable, don't expect them to do anything more than attack some westernized youth for "race mixing", while leaving the more ethnic people alone. The majority of their targets are liberal and socialist white people, especially those incapable of fighting back.
One thing you will never see NatSoc do, ever, at least in the west, is fight a force on force engagement with a similar or better strength formation.
In europe, expect some westernized arab teenager to get his teeth kicked in, and told to "go home". Don't expect them to really confront any hardcore jihadis. Even if they did, they are most likely to eventually call a truce after they agree to "stop race mixing", and go back to focusing on beating up leftists.
Wait, you haven't re-installed your OS since a decade an a half ago?
WHAT!!!!!!
So basicly for anyone still running windows 98 second edition with a pentium three in 256 MB of RAM on a 20 GB Hard Disk.
Microsoft knows how to market to one type of person and one type of person only, the corporate purchasing manager. Both at OEMs, and at large corporations. Thats the only type of person who likes microsoft. Everyone else uses their products begrungingly. The word "Windows" in correlation to phone operating system is such a toxic brand name, I am damn supprised MS has continued to make windows phones. You couldn't put a gun to someone's head and make them use a windows phone, of which they had a 5 year head start on blackberry and apple, and still lost.
The only brand MS has that people don't hate is X-Box, and thats runs a giant loss for the company.
"Anonymous" never was an organization, and you don't seem to know much about them. It started on the chans, and "Anonymous" is just a name for the collective mass of chan kiddies from about ~2006-2010, on the various chans, who don't enter a name, so the server renders the name as "Anonymous".
They trolled people and did some pranks, and hacked some facebooks, and even made some media and art depicting the "Anonymous" personified, but it was never a real organization. While anyone can use the name "Anonymous", its pretty well understood they were "chan people", specificly '/b/-tards'. Their first stint in the mainstream was FOX NEWS around 2009 publishing its infamous "Hackers on Steriods" bit. In those days, their motto was "Some Men Want to Watch the World Burn". In those days, they were just a bunch of trolls.
Their first instance of activism was against Scientology, and the first time they tried being the "good" guy, fighting for justice. After Scientology, many of them, suspected to be mostly new members, but no one really knows, decided to fight for other moralist causes. Meanwhile, another faction known as the "hatefags" derried the new found "moralfags", on their social justice leanings.(back then, it was customary for all Anonymous to refer to themselves as "faggots" or "fags", and sometimes even "niggers"). Of course they take many targets, some of them in the US Government, and many of the moralfags get arrested, and eventually it goes quiet, with the chans carrying on, without raids on anything mostly, and eventual seperation between chans and Anonymous. All the real hardcore ones are most likely in jail right about now serving long sentances.
Who is still in Anonymous now, or who their members are, I haven't really kept track.
at the same time, when the catholic church had power, pre-reformation, they where hideiously corrupt, it didn't stop spliter sects, encouraged and fought wars.
Whatever petty bickering the protestants have done it is nothing compared to the holy mess catholicism has done.
Thats more like supporting your right to shoot a grenade launcher off in a shopping mall killing innocent people, and then claim it as "freedom of speech"
not true, and "free speech" has never been interpretated as such. a "credible threat" is viewed as "assault" and always has been. A person's rights end, where another person's right begins. So speach which interferes with "life, liberty, pursuit of hapiness", is interfering with someone elses rights and is not "free speech"
There is a difference between advocating attacking people with guns and actually doing it. Its a very subtle difference, I admit.
Its the diffrence between conspiracy, and assault with the intent to comit murder. Nowhere ever is it legal to advocate attacking people with guns, this is a crime. It is not considered "free speech" anywhere. In the USA, we have the 9th amendment which prevents the enumerations of rights from being used to deny others their rights:
For instance ISIS considers itself a nation state. I imagine they consider the US Army's recruitment site as advocating people join an organization to attack them with guns. I am not saying that is a reasonable opinion but I'd wager many ISIS guys would agree with it if you asked them.
Also again, not relative, because we're not in any areas controlled by ISIS. As far as ISIS, no one else recognizes them as a nation state, no more than the handful of "soviergn citizens" in the US, of which they have far less legitimacy because most of ISIS are westerners who moved to the middle east to occupy western syria, by force.
The reason we are so fucked as a society, as no one can draw the line between jihadis and muslims, not the left nor the right. I support a war against the jihadis. So does most of the planet.
I think you have it backwards. Groups like ISIS are created to stomp out socialism. The reason we have groups like ISIS today is because their forerunners in the 50s and 60s where empowered and trained by the CIA to contain the soviet union and stomp out all resistance to the US, which was mostly socialist at the time. Just like they trained fascist and other ultra-nationalist groups in europe.
the term "islamofascism" like most other neo-conservative rhetoric was taken from trotskities
ISIS? Ha! You mean the same motherfuckers that less than a year ago where being backed by the US to fight against the syrian regime, which people like you backed because "Assad is a bad man". ISIS isn't attacking westerners, they are attack arabs, kurds, persians, and other middle easterners who are primarily muslims. I could tell you to go read a book, but it seems beneath you.
No, not really.. politically correct jerkoffs like you are. Fortunately, as in the last elections here in the US, you are losing.
I hate to break it to you, but your views are no diffrent than a right wing version of "politically correct". As far as you're concerned, people like you don't have the faintest clue on how to win the war, and not the slightest inkling for strategic thought, and that is why we are loosing. The fact you can't the diffrence between strategy,pragmatism and politically correct is telling.
You also don't have a fucking clue about politics besides catchphrases and strawmen. Thats whats killing the west. Any lack of reasonable thinking skills.
I am talking about the whole shebang. Amendments 1-10 are part of the "original" constitution, because they where passed right after the constitution, and promised before its radification to prevent the "anti-federalists" from blocking it. But yes, the constitution is not relivant in law.
courts do whatever the fuck they want, and then the excutive branches does whatever it wants.
but you're right, you see mostly European Muslims joining groups like ISIS, and you don't see too many muslims actually from Muslims lands joining ISIS, or at least western muslims are far more likely to join.
most of the actual boots on the ground resistance to ISIS is done by muslims. Both in the Syrian and Iranian government, and the Kurds, all muslims.
Slashdot Mirror
The Left and the Muslims are together.
The most laughable bit of insanity I think I've ever heard. Niether the "Left" nor Islam are unified groups in purposes, on any scale, for any reason. You're lumping religious muslim groups, with secular arab, kurdish, persian,etc.. nationalists who's faith is Islam, as well as well as lumping in liberal democrats with socialists and communists in a hillarious mess of ignorancce.
Then you try and seperate the relatively small faction of libertarian capitalism, that takes most of its rhetoric and views from 19th century socialist movements as the true bearer of "capitalism", when its been nothing more than a series of fringe movements aimed at enticing disenfranchised leftists and nothing more.
Next you tell me "National Socialism is Socialism", grouping in all of Fascism, showing your complete ignorance of "Third Position" economics, and also completely ignoring history of not just NatSoc, but Fascism as a whole, which is just a diverse group as capitalism and socialism.
Before you go around spouting matrix analogies, I want you to go ahead and do some basic reading.
1. Go read a bood by a fascist, Mein Kamp by Hitler, or Principles of Fascism by mousolini
2. Go read a book by a socialist. Das Kapital by marx, or What is Property by Proudhoun, or even Agrairian Reform by Paine
3. Go read a book by a capitalist. Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
Yes, I know you have never thought about this, and every source of information tells you otherwise.
on the contrary I've thought about this somewhat deeply for the past 15 years. Please go read some relivant books, and then get back to me once you've discovered what fascism, socialism, and capitalism mean.
Also stop using terms like "left" and "right", because they mean nothing in greater context. You can also stop telling people you are awaking them from the matrix because you are just pushing them deeper into misdirection and lies.
Socialism is the belief that the Collective matters more than the individual.
No, socialism is the workers owning the means of production. There are various forms of socialism, many opposed to eachother, but this is the only common thread.
1) Leave me alone! (small Government)
except for a massive police and military industrial complex needed to protect private property, that while its at it winds up abusing even the self-proffessed rights of small time property owners, and harrassing people for petty moralist issues. Also, people with stuff are more or less allowed to tell people without stuff what to do. Don't like it? Its your fault for not having enough stuff.
2) Don't take my stuff! (private property that the Government cannot take from you)
unless that stuff is immoral, or its inconvient for the largest stuffholders. Of course you just might not be allowed to own stuff because you don't own the procedes of your labor.
3) Don't be a jerk! (virtuous citizenry, which is required in order that points 1 & 2 be possible). Bill Whittle does and excellent job at explaining these:
And the only people who quantify "being a jerk", are the powerful. your "Truth" is wholly dishonest.
You can't excuse what Charlie Hebdo are doing, no more than you can excuse what these people did to them, but Charlie Hebdo themselves are responsible for provoking this tragedy.
you can't equate insults with murder. End of story. While I disagree with insults against Islam, I agree with their right to say it as long as they aren't provoking violence or any harm against believers.
As long as you feel violence is an acceptable retaliation to insult, no one is going to stop mocking Islam now, until you just accept this. Its in your court.
Is that what democracy and freedom of speech means to you, to be reserved to insult anyone or a group of people for anything you want, as opposed to sensibly debate it?
yes, but you can always insult them back. Which is generally the recommended course of action.
mabey, but more people are going to start reading it now that its gotten so much publicity.
And no, christians generally don't shoot people for saying bad things about Mr Jesus, even if they do bitch and complain(again their right to bitch and complain).
I think the only other group to follow through with threats in the modern age in the west is probably the Jews, another group that needs to lighten up. No really, the entire semetic race just needs to lighten the fuck up.
As far as white supremecists go, their paterns are pretty damn predictable, don't expect them to do anything more than attack some westernized youth for "race mixing", while leaving the more ethnic people alone. The majority of their targets are liberal and socialist white people, especially those incapable of fighting back.
One thing you will never see NatSoc do, ever, at least in the west, is fight a force on force engagement with a similar or better strength formation.
In europe, expect some westernized arab teenager to get his teeth kicked in, and told to "go home". Don't expect them to really confront any hardcore jihadis. Even if they did, they are most likely to eventually call a truce after they agree to "stop race mixing", and go back to focusing on beating up leftists.
the sole diffrence is that no one is going to shoot anyone for pointing that one out.
Lets also be fair, no one is getting shot for pointing that out.
Wait, you haven't re-installed your OS since a decade an a half ago? WHAT!!!!!! So basicly for anyone still running windows 98 second edition with a pentium three in 256 MB of RAM on a 20 GB Hard Disk.
The only brand MS has that people don't hate is X-Box, and thats runs a giant loss for the company.
dude, my cell phone does ring randomly, at random times. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
its mostly because all the real hardcore anti-government Anons are in jail or flipped. Isn't that obvious?
They trolled people and did some pranks, and hacked some facebooks, and even made some media and art depicting the "Anonymous" personified, but it was never a real organization. While anyone can use the name "Anonymous", its pretty well understood they were "chan people", specificly '/b/-tards'. Their first stint in the mainstream was FOX NEWS around 2009 publishing its infamous "Hackers on Steriods" bit. In those days, their motto was "Some Men Want to Watch the World Burn". In those days, they were just a bunch of trolls.
Their first instance of activism was against Scientology, and the first time they tried being the "good" guy, fighting for justice. After Scientology, many of them, suspected to be mostly new members, but no one really knows, decided to fight for other moralist causes. Meanwhile, another faction known as the "hatefags" derried the new found "moralfags", on their social justice leanings.(back then, it was customary for all Anonymous to refer to themselves as "faggots" or "fags", and sometimes even "niggers"). Of course they take many targets, some of them in the US Government, and many of the moralfags get arrested, and eventually it goes quiet, with the chans carrying on, without raids on anything mostly, and eventual seperation between chans and Anonymous. All the real hardcore ones are most likely in jail right about now serving long sentances.
Who is still in Anonymous now, or who their members are, I haven't really kept track.
Whatever petty bickering the protestants have done it is nothing compared to the holy mess catholicism has done.
Thats more like supporting your right to shoot a grenade launcher off in a shopping mall killing innocent people, and then claim it as "freedom of speech"
not true, and "free speech" has never been interpretated as such. a "credible threat" is viewed as "assault" and always has been. A person's rights end, where another person's right begins. So speach which interferes with "life, liberty, pursuit of hapiness", is interfering with someone elses rights and is not "free speech"
There is a difference between advocating attacking people with guns and actually doing it. Its a very subtle difference, I admit.
Its the diffrence between conspiracy, and assault with the intent to comit murder. Nowhere ever is it legal to advocate attacking people with guns, this is a crime. It is not considered "free speech" anywhere. In the USA, we have the 9th amendment which prevents the enumerations of rights from being used to deny others their rights:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/con...
For instance ISIS considers itself a nation state. I imagine they consider the US Army's recruitment site as advocating people join an organization to attack them with guns. I am not saying that is a reasonable opinion but I'd wager many ISIS guys would agree with it if you asked them.
Also again, not relative, because we're not in any areas controlled by ISIS. As far as ISIS, no one else recognizes them as a nation state, no more than the handful of "soviergn citizens" in the US, of which they have far less legitimacy because most of ISIS are westerners who moved to the middle east to occupy western syria, by force.
The reason we are so fucked as a society, as no one can draw the line between jihadis and muslims, not the left nor the right. I support a war against the jihadis. So does most of the planet.
Freedom of speech does not include promoting violence, terrorism, blackmail, uniniated use of force.
Again, your making the mistake of confusing defense with offense.
This is not cenorship, this is pushback against censorship.
at the same time, just about all the resistance to ISIS is done by muslims, to include kurds, iranians, syrians, and Iraqis.
the term "islamofascism" like most other neo-conservative rhetoric was taken from trotskities
link to newrepublic
are you fooking srs? That is the most hideous abuse of numbers and statistics to cherry pick data you want to see.
Tell that to ISIS, you stupid mother fucker.
ISIS? Ha! You mean the same motherfuckers that less than a year ago where being backed by the US to fight against the syrian regime, which people like you backed because "Assad is a bad man". ISIS isn't attacking westerners, they are attack arabs, kurds, persians, and other middle easterners who are primarily muslims. I could tell you to go read a book, but it seems beneath you.
No, not really.. politically correct jerkoffs like you are. Fortunately, as in the last elections here in the US, you are losing.
I hate to break it to you, but your views are no diffrent than a right wing version of "politically correct". As far as you're concerned, people like you don't have the faintest clue on how to win the war, and not the slightest inkling for strategic thought, and that is why we are loosing. The fact you can't the diffrence between strategy,pragmatism and politically correct is telling.
You also don't have a fucking clue about politics besides catchphrases and strawmen. Thats whats killing the west. Any lack of reasonable thinking skills.
courts do whatever the fuck they want, and then the excutive branches does whatever it wants.
but you're right, you see mostly European Muslims joining groups like ISIS, and you don't see too many muslims actually from Muslims lands joining ISIS, or at least western muslims are far more likely to join.
most of the actual boots on the ground resistance to ISIS is done by muslims. Both in the Syrian and Iranian government, and the Kurds, all muslims.
The problem isn't Islam, its fucking Europe.