Name one fucked up country of 100 years ago that is not a fucked up country today...
My own country, Sweden, devastatingly poor back then (even poorer if you go slightly further back in time), very prosperous today.
All countries have had the problems described in post 10167613, if you just go back two or three hundred years. They have been solved, they can be solved. It's a matter of development.
Look at the rich countries a couple hundred years ago or so. Not very different. Things have improved in rich countries, they will improve in poor countries, for the same reasons.
There's no charity involved, it's a matter of sound business practice. Allow the jobless to work, and they can become productive members of the community. Forbid it, and they can't be productive, and probably they'll live partly off your work. That's just as true in the global community as it is in the local community.
This is certainly true, and it's an important injustice.
But the extreme cruelties and conflicts of desperation are not from lack of cadillacs. It's from fundamental issues like lack of food, water, medicine, and basic comforts.
As for getting luxuries and additional comfort without destroying our planet, technology may offer solutions, as more and more people put their minds to these problems. Today only the privileged few in rich countries can contribute to this development (I'm exaggerating, but I suppose you understand what I mean). As economy improves in more and more countries, just imagine the potential, when billions of people can contribute, inventing, developing and buying environmentally sound technology.
As it is today, people in poor countries see their young children starve to death, or die from lack of medicine, just so people in rich countries don't have to suffer the discomfort of looking for a new job. Outsourcing is part of a re-shuffling of wealth that may be uncomfortable for a while, but in the long run economies around the world will become more similar, so we won't see the extreme cruelties and conflicts of desperation that we see today.
Pretentious? Special? Come on, it's the most ordinary thing!
Here in Europe, practically everyone knows at least two languages, some know three or more -- if not fluently, at least stumblingly. Practically everyone here has had the experience that achurch describes -- at least to some extent, depending on fluency in different languages. There's nothing special about this experience, nothing unusual, certainly nothing to be pretentious about. It's just a very, very ordinary fact of life.
It is, however, very unfortunate that so many Americans (and some others) are monolingual, and therefore limited in cultural experience and scope of thought. Especially considering that the US is the only superpower! Because of this superpower role I really, really wish Americans had a broader outlook on the world.
Don't be insecure about this, it's such a mundane thing. Instead of decrying it, learn a language, broaden your outlook! It can really be a very rewarding experience. Here's an unusually easy language with an unusually broad cultural scope that you might try.
This suggests that
* a browser could add the nyud.net to the cookies it receives from pages sent by nyud.net
* the page author could specify nyud.net as the domain for cookies
This won't work because Coral's FAQ says they don't forward cookies (see the last point on the linked page).
Peer to peer implies that the users of the service are the ones supporting it's existance.
No. Peer-to-peer means the computers are peers in the communications protocol, that is, they have equal status in the protocol. As opposed to client-server relationships, where one computer gives orders (sends requests), and the other serves (responds to requests).
The Coral machines are peers in their communication between each other, but servers to us, as we send requests and they respond.
This is all fine, but when will we see a Linux that is able to run in my computer?
My machine has a ridiculous disability. Its PCI bus is out way of reach. Linux just can't handle it. That bus far away from Linux's addressing range.
Why is that so? Why can't Linux address my PCI bus, when other operating systems (grrr) have no problem with it?
The details are described on this page, section 4.13.1. They describe a solution, but that solution does not work on all the affected computers! Not on mine, for example. I've asked!
It's unfair! Look, I'm the total n00b here. I've never even seen a Linux screen. I should be asking you Linux people where you keep your "any" key, or something! But instead I'm exploring busses and drivers and addressing ranges.
And finding, to my utter horror, that it just won't work, no matter what! Linux just can't handle this problem!
Oh, the horror! Doomed to a life in Micro$oft Pri$on!
Give a man a fish and he eats for one day. Teach him how to fish, and though he'll eat for a lifetime, he'll call you a miser for not giving him your fish.
So we're deaf, hamstrung, and tied into it, and your response from across the waters is, "Wow, sounds pretty bad. So what are you going to do about it? Just make sure it doesn't involve hitting anyone."
No, I did not say that you shouldn't hit anyone. I could very well have said that, but so far, in this discussion, that has not been my point.
My point is rather that you're hitting the wrong target. Your intent is to hurt Mr Powerful and help Ms Worker. Instead you are helping Mr Powerful and hurting Ms Worker.
Your aim is off. You're shooting the good guys. You're elevating the powerful. You're stepping on the downtrodden.
This is very serious. It's deeply disturbing. The world does not need yet another political movement elevating the powerful and stepping on the downtrodden.
Clearly it's all unintentional. Clearly it's not what you want. You need to watch what is happening. You need to correct your aim. Stop causing trauma and economic ruin to the downtrodden and mosquito stings to the banks.
So now you tell me, what can we do about it? But not in your idealistic world where everybody is a fully aware and active citizen, but in the real world where things cost money. Where people work for a living, get home dog-tired, want to eat, sleep, and go to bed, and not have to deal with these bigger issues tonight cause they have to worry about getting the utilities paid first.
Very well put.
I think I can give you some very useful pointers. But we're talking about changing the world. We're talking about changing some of the deeply entrenched customs and world-views of a nation. This isn't something you outline in a few paragraphs, it's material for many, many books, for entire libraries.
If these things were easy we wouldn't have billions of people around the world starving and suffering. If they were as easy as writing a few books or smashing some windows, it would have been done that way, long ago, very long ago. Trust me, if it could be done by smashing windows it would have been done that way.
First, the basics. Basically there are two different ways to change the fundamental customary behaviors of an entire nation. One is to convince people, get the people over on your side, gradually sway them to embrace your visions and ideas, so that the people will make them real. The other way is to install a dictatorship were you suppress the people of the nation forcing them to act the way you want against their will.
Such dictatorship is probably impossible in the US. Even if we assume, for the sake of the argument, that democracy in the US is as compromised as you say, still it has strong, resilient defences against that kind of dictatorship. People in the US are always quoting things like "The cost of liberty is eternal vigilance." A significant proportion of the people are very wary of government and authorities. That kind of dictatorship just wouldn't be tolerated. So, even if your goal were a dictatorship, and you somehow had complete control over the army, you couldn't just take over.
So, the remaining alternative is to somehow sway the people.
To see how nations can be swayed, look at historical precedent, look at what others have done before you. Not to imitate completely, because we live in different times and need different solutions. Not to imitate but to learn, to understand how these things work. And of course to pick some good ideas and avoid some bad mistakes.
Look very carefully at the negative consequences that many, many attempts have had. It's quite amazing how many good intentions have led to disastrous results. There are many, many hellish examples from all over the world, past and present.
I'll give you an example of how you can look at a historical precedent. Take the political movements in Europe in the late sixties and the seventies. In retrospect there was a lot of silliness going on, but there were also quite a lot of very good things, very useful. Europe is much more interesting than the US when you look at this period, because Europe was much more politically serious, purposeful and determined. In the US this movement was much more dreamily inclined, much more hippie, flower power, big happy family, "if we'll just love everybody then everybody will be happy."
As I've mentioned, in Europe we tend to accept that political work is lots and lots of hard work.
In that period a very strong general consensus spread over Europe that you had to be wary of the people in power, that all political work must be for the good of the people. It was also taken for granted that political movements can and must have a strong influence on those in power. With this in mind, people studied, learned, discussed, and posed lots of awkward questions.
Music played a very important role in this political movement. Music is a superb channel for creating feelings of togetherness, and for communicating political visions and ideals in the lyrics. Music may not seem all that important at first sight, but if you could see its effect in such a spontaneous and frequent usage you'd see its importance. Whenever friends were together there'd be someone spontaneously picking up a guitar and people singing.
Music from a CD player or a concert stage has no such effect, not at all. Such music is also very useful, but in a completely different way. What I'm talking about is a community thing and an atmosphere of friendship. You need people spontaneously picking up the guitar when the mood suddenly strikes.
There was also an "alternative music industry." Explore a little and you'll find lots and lots of music from the seventies labelled "progressive." I think Sweden was particularly prolific. In fact, for your political work I think an alternative music movement, with clear political goals and strong determination, might turn out to be very helpful, very powerful. It really is a fabulous way to spread visions and ideas. Go get some progressive music from the seventies for inspiration.
It's sad that in the end the political enthusiasm of the seventies just seemed to peter out and disappear. But maybe this was unavoidable, given the dreamy attitudes and lack of clear, specific goals.
Having looked at the seventies, for contrast and for important insights look at fascism and nazism between the two world wars. There you can learn about certain very important risks and dangers that are not at all obvious.
Note that fascism and nazism started as popular movements that promised to improve the lot of the people. Nazism was in many respects very inclined toward the working classes. Note also that they became very, very popular with the masses in certain places, and in other places they had substantial minority support. Today this may seem incomprehensible, but back then people just didn't understand the dangers. Let's hope we understand things better today! That's why it's so immensely important to understand these things and learn from them.
Now try comparing and contrasting fascism with the attitudes of the seventies. You can get some very useful insights. Even a detail such as the different styles of music gives a very clear insight into the enormously different atmospheres. The political music of the seventies was spontaneous, amateurish, a simple guitar in the hands of someone who knew a few chords in a warm circle of friends. Fascist music is very far from spontaneous, it strives to be distant, grandiose, majestic, glorious, ominous, heroic.
While in the seventies there was a constant debate aiming at "power to the people," fascism despises democracy and despises the people, denying that the people can have any insight or understanding in political matters. While the seventies said "make love, not war," fascism actively seeks conflict, it purposefully looks for confrontation. While the seventies aimed at "peace, love and understanding," fascism uses shock, intimidation, fear and persecution. While the seventies strived for internationalization and world-wide unity, fascism is nationalism and enmity, a strengthening of national frontiers.
Fascism and nazism made strategic use of the violence in fascist ideology. They started with small violence, so people would get inured to violence, so that over the years people accepted more and more violence, even craved it, thus making it escalate. The tragedies of those times could never have happened without thís gradual desensitization going on and on, year after year after year.
Look at these movements and also at many others, in many nations. Look for parallels and contrasts. See how people are swayed. Try to understand how it happens. Look at all this to gain understanding and to find ideas.
With this background, look at the current situation, and the possibilities and difficulties that exist today. If you discuss this in small groups it's often much more effective than if you work alone or in large groups. When there are many people, simply form smaller groups for some discussions.
Also look at the political activism of today, compared and contrasted against this background. For example, you can start by looking at some superficial things, some things the activists say. One organization that publicly defended the rock-throwing in Gothemburg was AFA (Anti-Fascistisk Aktion). On their website they declare their aims: they fight against sexism, racism, capitalism and homophobia. These aims are very reminiscent of the essential ideals of the seventies. There is also one very interesting difference: While the seventies tended to be dreamy and emotional, these four aims are purposeful and to the point. This is an improvement.
Of course you must also go deeper, you must look at what they actually do, and what they say about their deeds. Their deeds are the essence of the movement. Their aims are just what they hope, what they want. Their deeds and explanations are what they actually are.
So let's look at their deeds, compared and contrasted against this background. Their tactics use shock, intimidation and fear. They actively seek conflict, they purposefully look for confrontation. If you tell them that you think it's better to use other means than intimidation, or that they are suppressing and silencing the political work of the majority, their response is deeply contemptuous of the democratic process, and equally contemptuous of the people, they aggressively deny that the people understands such things.
As an additional detail, they want national frontiers strengthened against international trade.
Er... Ooops.
Wasn't the name Anti-Fascist?
Shouldn't they be clearly, blatantly different from fascists?
Well, there's no need to be all negative. There are some important differences. The activists wants to defend the downtrodden, not persecute them. But we already covered that, it was among their aims, what they say. I claimed that this is superficial. Maybe we should somehow try to redefine this, somehow claim that their words are the essence, and what they do is just a minor detail.
But there are more differences. The fascists direct their violence at the people, they aim at the people, with an intent to hurt. The rock-throwers aim at windows. With the rock-throwers, when people are traumatized this doesn't mean that the rock-throwers aim at those people. Those people just happen to stand in the way. All the traumatized people, all those economically ruined families, all this is just unfortunate accidents, collateral damage.
People outside the movement tend to see this differently. What if my six-year-old nephew is traumatized for life? Traumatized for life just so they can get publicity cheaply and give banks a mosquito sting. People will say that they have no business hurting their nephews, or hurting anyone else either. To many people, the way these activists say that hurting people is just "collateral damage" clearly reveals the activists' extreme contempt for the people.
The fascists of course give completely different excuses. Of course. The anti-fascists are different from them, aren't they? The fascists will say that what they do is for the good of the state, and thereby the people. The state, that's different. Any shocks and traumatizations are just unfortunate but unavoidable sacrifices. Sacrifices, not collateral damage. So yes, they speak differently.
So, as we can see, there are various differences.
But those differences are too small! They're not enough!
I realize that this claim is absolutely outrageous. I know it must sound totally ridiculous to people within that movement. So how can I say such a thing? Well, I have had discussions with racists and fascists. I have argued back and forth with real, deeply convinced, aggressive racists and fascists. I know what they sound like. I've listened to their contempt. I know how they argue.
I have also had a few discussions with the Black Block. And seeing their reactions and attitudes, I've found that the differences are mostly varnish. Beneath this varnish they are nightmarishly similar.
Note that it's only within the movement that this claim is considered outrageous. Several times after Gothenburg I've seen AFA interpreted as Anarcho-Fascist Action. This interpretation comes natural to many people.
Unfortunately it seems completely impossible to get this across to the activists in any meaningful way. They immediately assume it's a matter of careless name-calling. They just can't see that it's a case of factual comparison, a case of lining up, one by one, a number of very specific and clearly definable aspects of what they are doing.
This is no small matter. The rioters are actually dangerous. I'll give you one important reason why. How do they expect to limit their violence? It's in human nature to get inured to violence and lust for more. Even if we assume that the politically conscious among them do not make it escalate, even after years and years of desensitization, of course someone else in the crowd will make it escalate, and then someone else will follow. This is simply unavoidable, it's human nature in such a setting. I mentioned that fascism and nazism took advantage of this. So how do these people expect to put a limit on it?
After the seventies, for two decades there were no new political visions, no strong, enthusiastic political movements. It was a vacuum. I was perplexed and worried. And now, when at last something visionary appears, it's a terrible shock to discover that deep within lurks this nightmarish reminder of a hellish past.
That's why I react so strongly to all this. I'm hoping that some of the people who have drive and initiative will get a clue as to how these things work. I'm hoping that somehow they'll see the dangers and look for a healthy and meaningful path. The world sorely needs new visions, new ideas, new political movements that struggle in healthy ways.
I realize that this is not the answer you wanted. But it is the answer I can give you.
I did give you lots of pointers to what you can do. I sincerely believe that these pointers are very good, that they can be very useful. There really are ways to sway the people. Now you know where to find those solutions.
It seems to me that what you want at heart is a differently shaped democracy. I hope you'll respect the principle of democracy as such. This includes respecting the people, respecting the fact that what people want does matter. Oppressing the people is out. Therefore you can have it your way only if you manage to sway the people. And you need to sway them in healthy ways.
If you do respect democracy and the people, then I wish you luck.
Give a man a fish and he eats for one day. Teach him how to fish, and though he'll eat for a lifetime, he'll call you a miser for not giving him your fish.
In a world where corporation are suing people for stating there opinion, how can someone geet attention to there cause?
Maybe like people do in a world where dissent means entire villages get gassed? (Careful, very grisly photos.) Or maybe like they did in a world where dissenters got rounded up in a stadium and shot? Or where they get stoned to the death, or where they get whipped to death, or where they get hanged... No need to go on.
Please read your quote once again -- you'll discover something important:
In a world where corporation are suing people for stating there opinion, how can someone geet attention to there cause?
You are taking the standpoint that you want your adversary to be kind enough to stop suing you. Don't. They won't. Accept that this is the situation you have. Deal with it. Work around it.
You ask how to do this? I'm sorry, you must explore this by yourself. If you don't have the stamina to do this simple exploration, where would you find the stamina to go through the actual struggle?
if people keep getting pushed around for there opinions,
Name one country where this has not happened.
and newspaper,ISPs and Magazines keep getting sued for publishing other peoples opinions,
Deal with it.
breaking windows may be are only course.
How can it be a course when it doesn't accomplish anything?
Maybe there is a fundamental difference between American and European political work. From time to time I read with great astonishment about how American workers when they are downsized or fired suddenly find themselves locked out of their workplace, unable to enter. Here in Sweden that's utterly impossible, absolutely unthinkable. You get ample warning, several weeks at least, months when possible. You get a little coffee-break party with cake and short speeches. You get a present or two from your colleagues and another from the company -- nothing fancy usually but it's something to remember them by. Often you get things like job-search courses to help you on your way.
Just getting locked out is utterly impossible. I don't know if it's against the law but it seems likely.
And when I've disagreed with a boss I've always made it very, very clear. My current boss knows fully well how clueless I consider some of his decisions.
Yet yours is the land of the free.
Why are we so much stronger than you before our bosses and employers? Could it be because we expect political struggle to be hard and painful work that requires significant risks and endless patience? Whereas you seem to expect something like a baseball match: A short rush of adrenalin throwing rocks and after that, somehow, things will be magically solved.
Adrenalin rushes don't have that effect.
Unless you change your tactics you just won't get anywhere.
Name me one people that attained its freedom by smashing windows.
(Goodness, am I getting long-winded here. Somebody really pushed me a button...)
Give a man a fish and he eats for one day. Teach him how to fish, and though he'll eat for a lifetime, he'll call you a miser for not giving him your fish.
I'm sorry if my recent reply came across as disrespectful. If it did (I'm not sure), then I really didn't mean it that way. I accidentally pressed submit just as I was starting to polish the sharp edges. That accidental submit is also the reason why it became so long-winded and repetitive.
In spite of this length, one thing at the end is missing: I'm not saying that all this is easy. I wouldn't even say it's feasible. I don't know if it is. What I'm saying is that I don't see any real, purposeful, effective political struggle. Smashing windows isn't it. On the contrary, smashing windows damages the cause and counteracts any people who struggle for real.
Give a man a fish and he eats for one day. Teach him how to fish, and though he'll eat for a lifetime, he'll call you a miser for not giving him your fish.
Yes it's true that nothing is stopping us from having this discussion, but this discussion is not where power is created or democracy is wielded.
Really? Then who gives the corporations power by buying their merchandise?
[I said that nothing is stopping you from creating effective political organizations. You replied] Well, nothing other than police who don't discriminate between violent and non-violent protestors
What? Are you still waiting for others to do things for you? Are you now waiting for the police to come over on your side?
If the police don't fulfill your expectations, then don't wait for them to change until they fulfill your expectations! Accept that they are the way they are! Don't wait and don't complain! Accept that you have this problem, deal with it, and work around it!
an apathetic electorate who feels they have no power to make change
Now that's more like it! Here you have identified a key problem. If we can assume that this is really true (if), we just might have here a case of people getting what they deserve. The price of liberty is not eternal TV.
And what are you doing about this problem? Where are your printing presses and radio stations? Yes, your things. Not the corporate media of course, if they are so evil.
a corporate-government system that sees no point in educating people to the fact that they can effect change
Are you waiting for this evil corporate-government system to change for your sake?
a corporate system that requires the vast majority of people to spend the majority of their energy and time just working to survive (never mind 'get ahead') so leaving no time for activism
This problem has always been far, far more severe than it is now. Look at any agrarian society. Read history. True, the current pressures are ridiculous considering that they are hardly necessary today and that they cost more than they give.
But the greed that drives this seems to be human nature. Lots of people get themselves more stressful work of their own free will.
Are you waiting for this evil to be so kind and disappear of its own accord? Or are you doing something?
I hope you are not arguing that smashing windows is going to solve this problem for you.
a well-funded two-party system that is supported by media conglomerates who typically wave third party concerns to the side (eg, televised debates where third party candidates aren't even invited),
So? Why do you bring this up? I don't see you suggesting ways to work around it.
Are you hoping that you will be happier if and when they change their ways on their own accord?
laws that increasingly muzzle free speech when it is critical of the corporations
If I recall correctly they silenced black people not very long ago. In very cruel ways. Are you telling me it's worse now?
Okay, if it's so bad, then where's your printing press? Where's your radio station? Where's your organization of a few hundred people taking their own destiny in their own hands?
electoral finance funding laws that benefit law-makers and corporations far more than the democratic citizen
Yes, here we probably agree. This is bad.
So what are you doing about it? Yes, you. I'm a Swede. I can't meddle in those affairs. But what are you doing?
an economic system that places more value on paper-profit than real people and very often encourages the former at the expense of the latter
And what are you doing to make the situation better?
a judicial system where money can purchase increased time to re-try the cases, a judicial system that considers corporations to have all the rights of personhood while having none of the duties
That sounds bad. And what are you doing about it?
and in short, an entire system devoted to the idea that money=power, as opposed to the idea that voices=power, which is the corner-stone of democracy.
Okay, so now we have a complex and difficult set of problems outlined and described. Not agreed upon, but let's leave that aside, let's just say that these are the points.
Okay. And what happens now? What measures are you counting on to work around these problems? What measures are you hoping will let you make things better and vanquish the problems? What's your plan?
I hope your plan isn't getting the evil media over to your side by smashing windows.
Give a man a fish and he eats for one day. Teach him how to fish, and though he'll eat for a lifetime, he'll call you a miser for not giving him your fish.
Both in Berlin and Gothenburg the victims (the riotees) were small family businesses. To them it was no pocket change, neither in Berlin nor in Gothenburg.
In Gothenburg the cost of the bank's broken windows was pocket change for the banks.
The victimized family businesses were nearly ruined. And on top of this, in the victimized family businesses owners and employees alike got severe feelings of insecurity, fear and depression. They were the victims of the riots of the so-called Anarchists.
The banks just shrugged and paid their broken windows. To them it was nothing.
To the victims it was terrible. Terrible.
Give a man a fish and he eats for one day. Teach him how to fish, and though he'll eat for a lifetime, he'll call you a miser for not giving him your fish.
More like 99.5% were real demonstrators and political workers. Only about 0.5% were rioting, if the numbers in the media were correct.
Those puny 0.5% effectively silenced a huge number of serious people doing serious political work. Afterward the anger all throughout Sweden was palpable. Not only among activists, everybody was in shock. So much destroyed. All for no discernible purpose except some nebulous "Throwing rocks is a political statement."
Give a man a fish and he eats for one day. Teach him how to fish, and though he'll eat for a lifetime, he'll call you a miser for not giving him your fish.
In Gothenburg they were typical small family businesses, most of them owned by just one or two persons, and with just a few employees. In spite of insurance the destruction hurt their economy very badly in most cases. Very badly. Afterward the hatred in the general populace was almost palpable.
Of course to the banks that the Anarchists somehow claimed were the targets, the cost of the broken windows were pocket change. Trifles. Nothing to worry about.
Except of course for the satisfaction that real political work was silenced very efficiently, and that general public opinion veered strongly to the right.
Clearly, certain political interests gained far more that the trifling cost of a few smashed windows.
Give a man a fish and he eats for one day. Teach him how to fish, and though he'll eat for a lifetime, he'll call you a miser for not giving him your fish.
My discussions with rioters showed that in Gothemburg last summer this was very clearly not the case.
Sure, the Black Block did whine a lot about police provocation, but it was very, very clear that they came to Gothemburg intent on rioting. Out of principle. The thrown rock is a Political Statement. Just listen to their arguments. It's very, very clear.
the powers that be want ruthless, violent psychopaths there to control the populace.
Control the populace? In this context the police are pawns. They have no more say in the general political directions of the country than any other voters. They are not your adversary. They control riots, not national political directions, nor corporations. Pawns. Forget about them.
The idea that the police provoke riots by repressing the crowd is pitiful. When the police tells you to stop, or to go that way, or whatever, then just do what they say and that's it. Going this street or the other street will not change the political directions of the country.
Do you realize that there are strong political forces that stand to gain a lot by the riots? You can't have a strong, purposeful, universally respected political movement of the people, respected so that everybody listens, if at the same time you have football-hooligan clowns smashing up the streets.
The broken windows costs pennies compared to the enormous gains that some interests have from the riots.
So if the police says stop, just stop. They're not your adversary.
The propaganda of the so-called Anarchists is rife with vested interests of those who profit by two things: The riots, and the national protectionsm that holds down the economies of the developing countries. (Keep the countries from trading so they stay poor, just like a guy who can't find a job stays poor. It's almost exactly the same thing.)
No, it's not a conspiracy. I don't believe in conspiracies. It's just a few books, and after that simple human gullibility. It's really very, very sad.
Just open your eyes. Just listen to what they say.
Give a man a fish and he eats for one day. Teach him how to fish, and though he'll eat for a lifetime, he'll call you a miser for not giving him your fish.
Slashdot Mirror
Name one fucked up country of 100 years ago that is not a fucked up country today...
My own country, Sweden, devastatingly poor back then (even poorer if you go slightly further back in time), very prosperous today.
All countries have had the problems described in post 10167613, if you just go back two or three hundred years. They have been solved, they can be solved. It's a matter of development.
Look at the rich countries a couple hundred years ago or so. Not very different. Things have improved in rich countries, they will improve in poor countries, for the same reasons.
There's no charity involved, it's a matter of sound business practice. Allow the jobless to work, and they can become productive members of the community. Forbid it, and they can't be productive, and probably they'll live partly off your work. That's just as true in the global community as it is in the local community.
6 billion plus people all can't drive cadilacs.
This is certainly true, and it's an important injustice.
But the extreme cruelties and conflicts of desperation are not from lack of cadillacs. It's from fundamental issues like lack of food, water, medicine, and basic comforts.
As for getting luxuries and additional comfort without destroying our planet, technology may offer solutions, as more and more people put their minds to these problems. Today only the privileged few in rich countries can contribute to this development (I'm exaggerating, but I suppose you understand what I mean). As economy improves in more and more countries, just imagine the potential, when billions of people can contribute, inventing, developing and buying environmentally sound technology.
As it is today, people in poor countries see their young children starve to death, or die from lack of medicine, just so people in rich countries don't have to suffer the discomfort of looking for a new job. Outsourcing is part of a re-shuffling of wealth that may be uncomfortable for a while, but in the long run economies around the world will become more similar, so we won't see the extreme cruelties and conflicts of desperation that we see today.
to complain that it doesn't do a job it was never designed to do is just absurd.
Wrong. To complain that it doesn't do a job it was never designed to do is just Slashdot.
Puzzling.... anyway, it's good to know that at least some presidents have some skills
Wow, you're even more pessimistic than me about these things! You find it puzzling that a president has skills?
Pretentious? Special? Come on, it's the most ordinary thing!
Here in Europe, practically everyone knows at least two languages, some know three or more -- if not fluently, at least stumblingly. Practically everyone here has had the experience that achurch describes -- at least to some extent, depending on fluency in different languages. There's nothing special about this experience, nothing unusual, certainly nothing to be pretentious about. It's just a very, very ordinary fact of life.
It is, however, very unfortunate that so many Americans (and some others) are monolingual, and therefore limited in cultural experience and scope of thought. Especially considering that the US is the only superpower! Because of this superpower role I really, really wish Americans had a broader outlook on the world.
Don't be insecure about this, it's such a mundane thing. Instead of decrying it, learn a language, broaden your outlook! It can really be a very rewarding experience. Here's an unusually easy language with an unusually broad cultural scope that you might try.
Once the aliens have our source code, they'll just steal it and make their own humans
*Sigh!* Yet another advocate for closed source and security through obscurity.
Everybody here is forgetting the most important usage for these multiprocessor machines: Writing e-mails and memos.
Used by bosses who need a brag piece to show who's the boss.
It'd be cool to have 12 high-end AMD processors [...] heat will melt computer case
... Make up your mind!
First you say it'd be cool, then it'd be hot
I'll take the stuff from your drive, copyright, sell, and get Filthy Rich!
MUAHAHAHAHAhahahahaaaaaa!!!!!!!!
Currently the parent comment is rated:
Pr0n?.... (Score:2, Informative)
Informative?
I'm stunned.
Informative?
Turns out the photos in the page linked in the original /. writeup do not have those words embedded, the photo on this page does have them.
If you view the photo's blue channel only, you can see the following image
I tried splitting the two photos on that page and did not find any such text. How many people here have tried? Looks like somebody is trolling.
This suggests that
* a browser could add the nyud.net to the cookies it receives from pages sent by nyud.net
* the page author could specify nyud.net as the domain for cookies
This won't work because Coral's FAQ says they don't forward cookies (see the last point on the linked page).
Peer to peer implies that the users of the service are the ones supporting it's existance.
No. Peer-to-peer means the computers are peers in the communications protocol, that is, they have equal status in the protocol. As opposed to client-server relationships, where one computer gives orders (sends requests), and the other serves (responds to requests).
The Coral machines are peers in their communication between each other, but servers to us, as we send requests and they respond.
Your "distributed" is of course also right.
This is all fine, but when will we see a Linux that is able to run in my computer?
My machine has a ridiculous disability. Its PCI bus is out way of reach. Linux just can't handle it. That bus far away from Linux's addressing range.
Why is that so? Why can't Linux address my PCI bus, when other operating systems (grrr) have no problem with it?
The details are described on this page, section 4.13.1. They describe a solution, but that solution does not work on all the affected computers! Not on mine, for example. I've asked!
It's unfair! Look, I'm the total n00b here. I've never even seen a Linux screen. I should be asking you Linux people where you keep your "any" key, or something! But instead I'm exploring busses and drivers and addressing ranges.
And finding, to my utter horror, that it just won't work, no matter what! Linux just can't handle this problem!
Oh, the horror! Doomed to a life in Micro$oft Pri$on!
Give a man a fish and he eats for one day. Teach him how to fish, and though he'll eat for a lifetime, he'll call you a miser for not giving him your fish.
So we're deaf, hamstrung, and tied into it, and your response from across the waters is, "Wow, sounds pretty bad. So what are you going to do about it? Just make sure it doesn't involve hitting anyone."
No, I did not say that you shouldn't hit anyone. I could very well have said that, but so far, in this discussion, that has not been my point.
My point is rather that you're hitting the wrong target. Your intent is to hurt Mr Powerful and help Ms Worker. Instead you are helping Mr Powerful and hurting Ms Worker.
Your aim is off. You're shooting the good guys. You're elevating the powerful. You're stepping on the downtrodden.
This is very serious. It's deeply disturbing. The world does not need yet another political movement elevating the powerful and stepping on the downtrodden.
Clearly it's all unintentional. Clearly it's not what you want. You need to watch what is happening. You need to correct your aim. Stop causing trauma and economic ruin to the downtrodden and mosquito stings to the banks.
So now you tell me, what can we do about it? But not in your idealistic world where everybody is a fully aware and active citizen, but in the real world where things cost money. Where people work for a living, get home dog-tired, want to eat, sleep, and go to bed, and not have to deal with these bigger issues tonight cause they have to worry about getting the utilities paid first.
Very well put.
I think I can give you some very useful pointers. But we're talking about changing the world. We're talking about changing some of the deeply entrenched customs and world-views of a nation. This isn't something you outline in a few paragraphs, it's material for many, many books, for entire libraries.
If these things were easy we wouldn't have billions of people around the world starving and suffering. If they were as easy as writing a few books or smashing some windows, it would have been done that way, long ago, very long ago. Trust me, if it could be done by smashing windows it would have been done that way.
First, the basics. Basically there are two different ways to change the fundamental customary behaviors of an entire nation. One is to convince people, get the people over on your side, gradually sway them to embrace your visions and ideas, so that the people will make them real. The other way is to install a dictatorship were you suppress the people of the nation forcing them to act the way you want against their will.
Such dictatorship is probably impossible in the US. Even if we assume, for the sake of the argument, that democracy in the US is as compromised as you say, still it has strong, resilient defences against that kind of dictatorship. People in the US are always quoting things like "The cost of liberty is eternal vigilance." A significant proportion of the people are very wary of government and authorities. That kind of dictatorship just wouldn't be tolerated. So, even if your goal were a dictatorship, and you somehow had complete control over the army, you couldn't just take over.
So, the remaining alternative is to somehow sway the people.
To see how nations can be swayed, look at historical precedent, look at what others have done before you. Not to imitate completely, because we live in different times and need different solutions. Not to imitate but to learn, to understand how these things work. And of course to pick some good ideas and avoid some bad mistakes.
Look very carefully at the negative consequences that many, many attempts have had. It's quite amazing how many good intentions have led to disastrous results. There are many, many hellish examples from all over the world, past and present.
I'll give you an example of how you can look at a historical precedent. Take the political movements in Europe in the late sixties and the seventies. In retrospect there was a lot of silliness going on, but there were also quite a lot of very good things, very useful. Europe is much more interesting than the US when you look at this period, because Europe was much more politically serious, purposeful and determined. In the US this movement was much more dreamily inclined, much more hippie, flower power, big happy family, "if we'll just love everybody then everybody will be happy."
As I've mentioned, in Europe we tend to accept that political work is lots and lots of hard work.
In that period a very strong general consensus spread over Europe that you had to be wary of the people in power, that all political work must be for the good of the people. It was also taken for granted that political movements can and must have a strong influence on those in power. With this in mind, people studied, learned, discussed, and posed lots of awkward questions.
Music played a very important role in this political movement. Music is a superb channel for creating feelings of togetherness, and for communicating political visions and ideals in the lyrics. Music may not seem all that important at first sight, but if you could see its effect in such a spontaneous and frequent usage you'd see its importance. Whenever friends were together there'd be someone spontaneously picking up a guitar and people singing.
Music from a CD player or a concert stage has no such effect, not at all. Such music is also very useful, but in a completely different way. What I'm talking about is a community thing and an atmosphere of friendship. You need people spontaneously picking up the guitar when the mood suddenly strikes.
There was also an "alternative music industry." Explore a little and you'll find lots and lots of music from the seventies labelled "progressive." I think Sweden was particularly prolific. In fact, for your political work I think an alternative music movement, with clear political goals and strong determination, might turn out to be very helpful, very powerful. It really is a fabulous way to spread visions and ideas. Go get some progressive music from the seventies for inspiration.
It's sad that in the end the political enthusiasm of the seventies just seemed to peter out and disappear. But maybe this was unavoidable, given the dreamy attitudes and lack of clear, specific goals.
Having looked at the seventies, for contrast and for important insights look at fascism and nazism between the two world wars. There you can learn about certain very important risks and dangers that are not at all obvious.
Note that fascism and nazism started as popular movements that promised to improve the lot of the people. Nazism was in many respects very inclined toward the working classes. Note also that they became very, very popular with the masses in certain places, and in other places they had substantial minority support. Today this may seem incomprehensible, but back then people just didn't understand the dangers. Let's hope we understand things better today! That's why it's so immensely important to understand these things and learn from them.
Now try comparing and contrasting fascism with the attitudes of the seventies. You can get some very useful insights. Even a detail such as the different styles of music gives a very clear insight into the enormously different atmospheres. The political music of the seventies was spontaneous, amateurish, a simple guitar in the hands of someone who knew a few chords in a warm circle of friends. Fascist music is very far from spontaneous, it strives to be distant, grandiose, majestic, glorious, ominous, heroic.
While in the seventies there was a constant debate aiming at "power to the people," fascism despises democracy and despises the people, denying that the people can have any insight or understanding in political matters. While the seventies said "make love, not war," fascism actively seeks conflict, it purposefully looks for confrontation. While the seventies aimed at "peace, love and understanding," fascism uses shock, intimidation, fear and persecution. While the seventies strived for internationalization and world-wide unity, fascism is nationalism and enmity, a strengthening of national frontiers.
Fascism and nazism made strategic use of the violence in fascist ideology. They started with small violence, so people would get inured to violence, so that over the years people accepted more and more violence, even craved it, thus making it escalate. The tragedies of those times could never have happened without thís gradual desensitization going on and on, year after year after year.
Look at these movements and also at many others, in many nations. Look for parallels and contrasts. See how people are swayed. Try to understand how it happens. Look at all this to gain understanding and to find ideas.
With this background, look at the current situation, and the possibilities and difficulties that exist today. If you discuss this in small groups it's often much more effective than if you work alone or in large groups. When there are many people, simply form smaller groups for some discussions.
Also look at the political activism of today, compared and contrasted against this background. For example, you can start by looking at some superficial things, some things the activists say. One organization that publicly defended the rock-throwing in Gothemburg was AFA (Anti-Fascistisk Aktion). On their website they declare their aims: they fight against sexism, racism, capitalism and homophobia. These aims are very reminiscent of the essential ideals of the seventies. There is also one very interesting difference: While the seventies tended to be dreamy and emotional, these four aims are purposeful and to the point. This is an improvement.
Of course you must also go deeper, you must look at what they actually do, and what they say about their deeds. Their deeds are the essence of the movement. Their aims are just what they hope, what they want. Their deeds and explanations are what they actually are.
So let's look at their deeds, compared and contrasted against this background. Their tactics use shock, intimidation and fear. They actively seek conflict, they purposefully look for confrontation. If you tell them that you think it's better to use other means than intimidation, or that they are suppressing and silencing the political work of the majority, their response is deeply contemptuous of the democratic process, and equally contemptuous of the people, they aggressively deny that the people understands such things.
As an additional detail, they want national frontiers strengthened against international trade.
Er... Ooops.
Wasn't the name Anti- Fascist?
Shouldn't they be clearly, blatantly different from fascists?
Well, there's no need to be all negative. There are some important differences. The activists wants to defend the downtrodden, not persecute them. But we already covered that, it was among their aims, what they say. I claimed that this is superficial. Maybe we should somehow try to redefine this, somehow claim that their words are the essence, and what they do is just a minor detail.
But there are more differences. The fascists direct their violence at the people, they aim at the people, with an intent to hurt. The rock-throwers aim at windows. With the rock-throwers, when people are traumatized this doesn't mean that the rock-throwers aim at those people. Those people just happen to stand in the way. All the traumatized people, all those economically ruined families, all this is just unfortunate accidents, collateral damage.
People outside the movement tend to see this differently. What if my six-year-old nephew is traumatized for life? Traumatized for life just so they can get publicity cheaply and give banks a mosquito sting. People will say that they have no business hurting their nephews, or hurting anyone else either. To many people, the way these activists say that hurting people is just "collateral damage" clearly reveals the activists' extreme contempt for the people.
The fascists of course give completely different excuses. Of course. The anti-fascists are different from them, aren't they? The fascists will say that what they do is for the good of the state, and thereby the people. The state, that's different. Any shocks and traumatizations are just unfortunate but unavoidable sacrifices. Sacrifices, not collateral damage. So yes, they speak differently.
So, as we can see, there are various differences.
But those differences are too small! They're not enough!
I realize that this claim is absolutely outrageous. I know it must sound totally ridiculous to people within that movement. So how can I say such a thing? Well, I have had discussions with racists and fascists. I have argued back and forth with real, deeply convinced, aggressive racists and fascists. I know what they sound like. I've listened to their contempt. I know how they argue.
I have also had a few discussions with the Black Block. And seeing their reactions and attitudes, I've found that the differences are mostly varnish. Beneath this varnish they are nightmarishly similar.
Note that it's only within the movement that this claim is considered outrageous. Several times after Gothenburg I've seen AFA interpreted as Anarcho-Fascist Action. This interpretation comes natural to many people.
Unfortunately it seems completely impossible to get this across to the activists in any meaningful way. They immediately assume it's a matter of careless name-calling. They just can't see that it's a case of factual comparison, a case of lining up, one by one, a number of very specific and clearly definable aspects of what they are doing.
This is no small matter. The rioters are actually dangerous. I'll give you one important reason why. How do they expect to limit their violence? It's in human nature to get inured to violence and lust for more. Even if we assume that the politically conscious among them do not make it escalate, even after years and years of desensitization, of course someone else in the crowd will make it escalate, and then someone else will follow. This is simply unavoidable, it's human nature in such a setting. I mentioned that fascism and nazism took advantage of this. So how do these people expect to put a limit on it?
After the seventies, for two decades there were no new political visions, no strong, enthusiastic political movements. It was a vacuum. I was perplexed and worried. And now, when at last something visionary appears, it's a terrible shock to discover that deep within lurks this nightmarish reminder of a hellish past.
That's why I react so strongly to all this. I'm hoping that some of the people who have drive and initiative will get a clue as to how these things work. I'm hoping that somehow they'll see the dangers and look for a healthy and meaningful path. The world sorely needs new visions, new ideas, new political movements that struggle in healthy ways.
I realize that this is not the answer you wanted. But it is the answer I can give you.
I did give you lots of pointers to what you can do. I sincerely believe that these pointers are very good, that they can be very useful. There really are ways to sway the people. Now you know where to find those solutions.
It seems to me that what you want at heart is a differently shaped democracy. I hope you'll respect the principle of democracy as such. This includes respecting the people, respecting the fact that what people want does matter. Oppressing the people is out. Therefore you can have it your way only if you manage to sway the people. And you need to sway them in healthy ways.
If you do respect democracy and the people, then I wish you luck.
Give a man a fish and he eats for one day. Teach him how to fish, and though he'll eat for a lifetime, he'll call you a miser for not giving him your fish.
In a world where corporation are suing people for stating there opinion, how can someone geet attention to there cause?
Maybe like people do in a world where dissent means entire villages get gassed? (Careful, very grisly photos.) Or maybe like they did in a world where dissenters got rounded up in a stadium and shot? Or where they get stoned to the death, or where they get whipped to death, or where they get hanged... No need to go on.
Please read your quote once again -- you'll discover something important:
In a world where corporation are suing people for stating there opinion, how can someone geet attention to there cause?
You are taking the standpoint that you want your adversary to be kind enough to stop suing you. Don't. They won't. Accept that this is the situation you have. Deal with it. Work around it.
You ask how to do this? I'm sorry, you must explore this by yourself. If you don't have the stamina to do this simple exploration, where would you find the stamina to go through the actual struggle?
if people keep getting pushed around for there opinions,
Name one country where this has not happened.
and newspaper,ISPs and Magazines keep getting sued for publishing other peoples opinions,
Deal with it.
breaking windows may be are only course.
How can it be a course when it doesn't accomplish anything?
Maybe there is a fundamental difference between American and European political work. From time to time I read with great astonishment about how American workers when they are downsized or fired suddenly find themselves locked out of their workplace, unable to enter. Here in Sweden that's utterly impossible, absolutely unthinkable. You get ample warning, several weeks at least, months when possible. You get a little coffee-break party with cake and short speeches. You get a present or two from your colleagues and another from the company -- nothing fancy usually but it's something to remember them by. Often you get things like job-search courses to help you on your way.
Just getting locked out is utterly impossible. I don't know if it's against the law but it seems likely.
And when I've disagreed with a boss I've always made it very, very clear. My current boss knows fully well how clueless I consider some of his decisions.
Yet yours is the land of the free.
Why are we so much stronger than you before our bosses and employers? Could it be because we expect political struggle to be hard and painful work that requires significant risks and endless patience? Whereas you seem to expect something like a baseball match: A short rush of adrenalin throwing rocks and after that, somehow, things will be magically solved.
Adrenalin rushes don't have that effect.
Unless you change your tactics you just won't get anywhere.
Name me one people that attained its freedom by smashing windows.
(Goodness, am I getting long-winded here. Somebody really pushed me a button...)
Give a man a fish and he eats for one day. Teach him how to fish, and though he'll eat for a lifetime, he'll call you a miser for not giving him your fish.
I'm sorry if my recent reply came across as disrespectful. If it did (I'm not sure), then I really didn't mean it that way. I accidentally pressed submit just as I was starting to polish the sharp edges. That accidental submit is also the reason why it became so long-winded and repetitive.
In spite of this length, one thing at the end is missing: I'm not saying that all this is easy. I wouldn't even say it's feasible. I don't know if it is. What I'm saying is that I don't see any real, purposeful, effective political struggle. Smashing windows isn't it. On the contrary, smashing windows damages the cause and counteracts any people who struggle for real.
Give a man a fish and he eats for one day. Teach him how to fish, and though he'll eat for a lifetime, he'll call you a miser for not giving him your fish.
Yes it's true that nothing is stopping us from having this discussion, but this discussion is not where power is created or democracy is wielded.
Really? Then who gives the corporations power by buying their merchandise?
[I said that nothing is stopping you from creating effective political organizations. You replied] Well, nothing other than police who don't discriminate between violent and non-violent protestors
What? Are you still waiting for others to do things for you? Are you now waiting for the police to come over on your side?
If the police don't fulfill your expectations, then don't wait for them to change until they fulfill your expectations! Accept that they are the way they are! Don't wait and don't complain! Accept that you have this problem, deal with it, and work around it!
an apathetic electorate who feels they have no power to make change
Now that's more like it! Here you have identified a key problem. If we can assume that this is really true (if), we just might have here a case of people getting what they deserve. The price of liberty is not eternal TV.
And what are you doing about this problem? Where are your printing presses and radio stations? Yes, your things. Not the corporate media of course, if they are so evil.
a corporate-government system that sees no point in educating people to the fact that they can effect change
Are you waiting for this evil corporate-government system to change for your sake?
a corporate system that requires the vast majority of people to spend the majority of their energy and time just working to survive (never mind 'get ahead') so leaving no time for activism
This problem has always been far, far more severe than it is now. Look at any agrarian society. Read history. True, the current pressures are ridiculous considering that they are hardly necessary today and that they cost more than they give.
But the greed that drives this seems to be human nature. Lots of people get themselves more stressful work of their own free will.
Are you waiting for this evil to be so kind and disappear of its own accord? Or are you doing something?
I hope you are not arguing that smashing windows is going to solve this problem for you.
a well-funded two-party system that is supported by media conglomerates who typically wave third party concerns to the side (eg, televised debates where third party candidates aren't even invited),
So? Why do you bring this up? I don't see you suggesting ways to work around it.
Are you hoping that you will be happier if and when they change their ways on their own accord?
laws that increasingly muzzle free speech when it is critical of the corporations
If I recall correctly they silenced black people not very long ago. In very cruel ways. Are you telling me it's worse now?
Okay, if it's so bad, then where's your printing press? Where's your radio station? Where's your organization of a few hundred people taking their own destiny in their own hands?
electoral finance funding laws that benefit law-makers and corporations far more than the democratic citizen
Yes, here we probably agree. This is bad.
So what are you doing about it? Yes, you. I'm a Swede. I can't meddle in those affairs. But what are you doing?
an economic system that places more value on paper-profit than real people and very often encourages the former at the expense of the latter
And what are you doing to make the situation better?
a judicial system where money can purchase increased time to re-try the cases, a judicial system that considers corporations to have all the rights of personhood while having none of the duties
That sounds bad. And what are you doing about it?
and in short, an entire system devoted to the idea that money=power, as opposed to the idea that voices=power, which is the corner-stone of democracy.
Okay, so now we have a complex and difficult set of problems outlined and described. Not agreed upon, but let's leave that aside, let's just say that these are the points.
Okay. And what happens now? What measures are you counting on to work around these problems? What measures are you hoping will let you make things better and vanquish the problems? What's your plan?
I hope your plan isn't getting the evil media over to your side by smashing windows.
Give a man a fish and he eats for one day. Teach him how to fish, and though he'll eat for a lifetime, he'll call you a miser for not giving him your fish.
Both in Berlin and Gothenburg the victims (the riotees) were small family businesses. To them it was no pocket change, neither in Berlin nor in Gothenburg.
In Gothenburg the cost of the bank's broken windows was pocket change for the banks.
The victimized family businesses were nearly ruined. And on top of this, in the victimized family businesses owners and employees alike got severe feelings of insecurity, fear and depression. They were the victims of the riots of the so-called Anarchists.
The banks just shrugged and paid their broken windows. To them it was nothing.
To the victims it was terrible. Terrible.
Give a man a fish and he eats for one day. Teach him how to fish, and though he'll eat for a lifetime, he'll call you a miser for not giving him your fish.
More like 99.5% were real demonstrators and political workers. Only about 0.5% were rioting, if the numbers in the media were correct.
Those puny 0.5% effectively silenced a huge number of serious people doing serious political work. Afterward the anger all throughout Sweden was palpable. Not only among activists, everybody was in shock. So much destroyed. All for no discernible purpose except some nebulous "Throwing rocks is a political statement."
Give a man a fish and he eats for one day. Teach him how to fish, and though he'll eat for a lifetime, he'll call you a miser for not giving him your fish.
In Gothenburg they were typical small family businesses, most of them owned by just one or two persons, and with just a few employees. In spite of insurance the destruction hurt their economy very badly in most cases. Very badly. Afterward the hatred in the general populace was almost palpable.
Of course to the banks that the Anarchists somehow claimed were the targets, the cost of the broken windows were pocket change. Trifles. Nothing to worry about.
Except of course for the satisfaction that real political work was silenced very efficiently, and that general public opinion veered strongly to the right.
Clearly, certain political interests gained far more that the trifling cost of a few smashed windows.
Give a man a fish and he eats for one day. Teach him how to fish, and though he'll eat for a lifetime, he'll call you a miser for not giving him your fish.
Riots are typically started by the police.
My discussions with rioters showed that in Gothemburg last summer this was very clearly not the case.
Sure, the Black Block did whine a lot about police provocation, but it was very, very clear that they came to Gothemburg intent on rioting. Out of principle. The thrown rock is a Political Statement. Just listen to their arguments. It's very, very clear.
the powers that be want ruthless, violent psychopaths there to control the populace.
Control the populace? In this context the police are pawns. They have no more say in the general political directions of the country than any other voters. They are not your adversary. They control riots, not national political directions, nor corporations. Pawns. Forget about them.
The idea that the police provoke riots by repressing the crowd is pitiful. When the police tells you to stop, or to go that way, or whatever, then just do what they say and that's it. Going this street or the other street will not change the political directions of the country.
Do you realize that there are strong political forces that stand to gain a lot by the riots? You can't have a strong, purposeful, universally respected political movement of the people, respected so that everybody listens, if at the same time you have football-hooligan clowns smashing up the streets.
The broken windows costs pennies compared to the enormous gains that some interests have from the riots.
So if the police says stop, just stop. They're not your adversary.
The propaganda of the so-called Anarchists is rife with vested interests of those who profit by two things: The riots, and the national protectionsm that holds down the economies of the developing countries. (Keep the countries from trading so they stay poor, just like a guy who can't find a job stays poor. It's almost exactly the same thing.)
No, it's not a conspiracy. I don't believe in conspiracies. It's just a few books, and after that simple human gullibility. It's really very, very sad.
Just open your eyes. Just listen to what they say.
Give a man a fish and he eats for one day. Teach him how to fish, and though he'll eat for a lifetime, he'll call you a miser for not giving him your fish.