INTENSITY²
Politics, Mature and taboo => Political Pundits => Topic started by: Scrapheap on March 29, 2010, 03:00:39 PM
-
Despite being a bunch of religious loonies, these guys have the right idea!
Link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36075836/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts?GT1=43001)
-
no they dont
-
They went after city police, not federal government.
-
Anyone going after state or federal governments in this fashion is wrong , just plain wrong. We have the voting booth to blame for our problems. It is also the remedy for our problems. I do not wish to take up arms against fellow americans. That is what it will end up as ,if this kind of thing continues. People will take sides. The world government will get what it wants , a divided america, collapsing on itself.
-
Its the people with all the money. They're the ones to beat.
-
Is this the article you are talking about?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36075836/ns/us_news-security//
DETROIT - Nine alleged members of a Christian militia group that was girding for battle with the Antichrist were charged Monday with plotting to kill a police officer and slaughter scores more by bombing the funeral — all in hopes of touching off an uprising against the U.S. government.
Seven men and one woman believed to be part of the Michigan-based Hutaree were arrested over the weekend in raids in Michigan, Indiana and Ohio, and another was still being sought...
If your article is the same article I read, I don't think they have the right idea at all. They wanted to make a fake 911 call to lure a policeman to his death or to attack the family of a policeman, then bomb the funeral so they could kill a lot more policemen.
-
that is them. there are over 300 new militias in the US in just the last year alone.
-
They went after city police, not federal government.
It's much easier to go after city cops than feds. When is the last time you saw a FBI cruiser patroling the streets??
-
Anyone going after state or federal governments in this fashion is wrong , just plain wrong. We have the voting booth to blame for our problems. It is also the remedy for our problems.
The voters rarely get what they voted for. The campaign contributors ALWAYS get what they paid for!!!
I do not wish to take up arms against fellow americans. That is what it will end up as ,if this kind of thing continues. People will take sides. The world government will get what it wants , a divided america, collapsing on itself.
My "fellow Americans" (those in government, and the rich and powerfull) have already been waging war against me since I was 16. I don't see a problem with shooting back.
-
Its the people with all the money. They're the ones to beat.
:thumbup:
-
They went after city police, not federal government.
It's much easier to go after city cops than feds. When is the last time you saw a FBI cruiser patroling the streets??
They went to a funeral.
The FBI has buildings all over the country. If these people were such idealists, they wouldn't do what is easy, but what will make the biggest impact.
-
Is this the article you are talking about?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36075836/ns/us_news-security//
DETROIT - Nine alleged members of a Christian militia group that was girding for battle with the Antichrist were charged Monday with plotting to kill a police officer and slaughter scores more by bombing the funeral — all in hopes of touching off an uprising against the U.S. government.
Seven men and one woman believed to be part of the Michigan-based Hutaree were arrested over the weekend in raids in Michigan, Indiana and Ohio, and another was still being sought...
If your article is the same article I read, I don't think they have the right idea at all. They wanted to make a fake 911 call to lure a policeman to his death or to attack the family of a policeman, then bomb the funeral so they could kill a lot more policemen.
I don't have a problem with shooting cops and here's why: In Nazi Germany, there was 3 tiers of cops; the Orpo (Ordnugspolezi), the Kripo (Kriminalpolezi) and the GeStaPo (Geheime Stadts Polezi). The Orpo were glorified meter maids, they enforced civic codes. The Kripo dealt with street crimes. The GeStaPo enforced political laws. The GeStaPo were clearly an evil orginization whose job it was to oppress the people. When Allied armies rolled into Nazi Germany, they left the Orpo and Krippo in place, and areested members of the GeStaPo. Unfurtunately in America, our law enforcement doesn't have these distinctions. City, County, State and Federal law enforcement all have their hands in enforcing political laws (oppressing the people), therefore, all of their hands are dirty. Policemen are where the rubber meets the road in politics. If these militia members did kill cops, they would be killing people who were, in part, guilty of crimes against the constitution of the United States.
As someone who swore an oath to protect the Constitution from all enemies, foriegn AND domestic, I don't see a problem with shooting cops.
-
And what actual good would it do? You'd have dead cops and their grieving families. How would that help you? ???
-
I'm not a big fan of the cops but these people are the ones responsible for the ever increasing police state, the banning of guns and my inability to buy certain chemicals. I say let them rot in jail
-
And what actual good would it do? You'd have dead cops and their grieving families. How would that help you? ???
It would let the bully know that he can bleed, and the citizens are willing to make him bleed, if he steps out of line.
-
They went after city police, not federal government.
It's much easier to go after city cops than feds. When is the last time you saw a FBI cruiser patroling the streets??
They went to a funeral.
The FBI has buildings all over the country. If these people were such idealists, they wouldn't do what is easy, but what will make the biggest impact.
You could very well have a point there. the FBI and BATFE are the ones who need a good ass-whooping!! :evillaugh:
-
I'm not a big fan of the cops but these people are the ones responsible for the ever increasing police state, the banning of guns and my inability to buy certain chemicals. I say let them rot in jail
:)
-
And what actual good would it do? You'd have dead cops and their grieving families. How would that help you? ???
It would let the bully know that he can bleed, and the citizens are willing to make him bleed, if he steps out of line.
So have you been bullied by the police?
-
And what actual good would it do? You'd have dead cops and their grieving families. How would that help you? ???
It would let the bully know that he can bleed, and the citizens are willing to make him bleed, if he steps out of line.
So have you been bullied by the police?
Yes.
-
I'm not a big fan of the cops but these people are the ones responsible for the ever increasing police state, the banning of guns and my inability to buy certain chemicals. I say let them rot in jail
I think guns will be banned, and the police state will grow, regardless of what these pinheads do. That's just the natural progression of history. >:(
-
And what actual good would it do? You'd have dead cops and their grieving families. How would that help you? ???
It would let the bully know that he can bleed, and the citizens are willing to make him bleed, if he steps out of line.
So have you been bullied by the police?
Yes.
So have I been threatened to be arrested several times. I wanted to smack him but they all are not like that I would rather try to catch them in their misdeeds and let them pay in jail
-
And what actual good would it do? You'd have dead cops and their grieving families. How would that help you? ???
It would let the bully know that he can bleed, and the citizens are willing to make him bleed, if he steps out of line.
So have you been bullied by the police?
Yes.
So have I been threatened to be arrested several times. I wanted to smack him but they all are not like that I would rather try to catch them in their misdeeds and let them pay in jail
In a perfect world, I would too, but rouge police rarely get prosecuted for their crimes.
-
What? Too controversial?? ???
-
Despite being a bunch of religious loonies, these guys have the right idea!
Link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36075836/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts?GT1=43001)
That's truly BRAVE! :agreed:
-
I'm not a big fan of the cops but these people are the ones responsible for the ever increasing police state, the banning of guns and my inability to buy certain chemicals. I say let them rot in jail
I don't agree. Here in Sweden they licensed guns already 83 years ago. The crime rate back then was about 5% of what it is today, at least "real" crimes, i.e. crimes against people and property. The police state occurs when people don't say "no" to it in due time.
-
And what actual good would it do? You'd have dead cops and their grieving families. How would that help you? ???
It would let the bully know that he can bleed, and the citizens are willing to make him bleed, if he steps out of line.
So have you been bullied by the police?
Yes.
So have I been threatened to be arrested several times. I wanted to smack him but they all are not like that I would rather try to catch them in their misdeeds and let them pay in jail
Most cops will never go to jail, no matter what crime they commit.
The whole concept of being a cop is sick: they earn a living forcing people to obey laws that people in 99.999% of the cases never made consent to. The laws can be infinetely sick, twisted and illogical, but the pigs force people to obey them nevertheless.
-
And what actual good would it do? You'd have dead cops and their grieving families. How would that help you? ???
It would let the bully know that he can bleed, and the citizens are willing to make him bleed, if he steps out of line.
:agreed: >:D
-
Anyone going after state or federal governments in this fashion is wrong , just plain wrong. We have the voting booth to blame for our problems. It is also the remedy for our problems. I do not wish to take up arms against fellow americans. That is what it will end up as ,if this kind of thing continues. People will take sides. The world government will get what it wants , a divided america, collapsing on itself.
Why would the NWO-people want a divided America? They want the people oppressed for sure, but they don't want to destroy the USA as a power. The NWO-people are the ones behind monstrous state-conglomerates like the EU and the "union" between Canada, USA and Mexico.
-
If you've been bullied by one carpenter, must all carpenters die?
-
The carpenter concept isn't fundamentally wrong like the cop concept. Carpenters don't oppress people for a living.
-
If you've been bullied by one carpenter, must all carpenters die?
The carpenter concept isn't fundamentally wrong like the cop concept. Carpenters don't oppress people for a living.
Nor do policemen.
-
Philosophically it's very simple. Either objective rights exist or they don't. In the first case you have "natural rights" per se, in which case you first have to voluntarily surrender these rights to the state for the state being legitimate. In the second case the state's rights are as subjective as yours. In neither case the state has an objective right per se to make you obey it. If the state had a right per se to make the citizens to obey, a slave owner would also have a right per se to hold slaves that were born on his properties. The principle of the state's and the slave owner's power is exactly the same. Either you can be forced to obey an authority (any kind of it) just by being born in a certain territory - a state or a plantation of a slave owner - or you can't. You can't have separate principles.
This man wrote an extremely interesting essay on the matter already 140 years ago:
NO TREASON. (http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/www/NoTreason/NoTreason.html)
-
Do you vote?
-
Do you vote?
You vote on parties, not about if you're accepting the state's authority or not. It's like the slaves were allowed to vote for a new Massa every fourth year.
This is a blatant example of how the state was all but voluntarily "accepted" by the people: Battle of Sparrsätra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Sparrs%C3%A4tra)
Were the Swedes voluntarily accepting to pay annual tax for all future or were they forced?
-
Philosophically, if you accept the voting system of a state, you also accept the rules coming with that system. As for the analogy you are trying to make, create one with at least some relevance and I might choose to comment on it.
-
Philosophically, if you accept the voting system of a state, you also accept the rules coming with that system. As for the analogy you are trying to make, create one with at least some relevance and I might choose to comment on it.
Why are you deluding yourself? Are you so afraid of freedom?
You were never allowed to vote for or against the state itself.
I accept something by signing a detailed contract, totally voluntarily. If you sell a car wreck for 1000 kronor, you and the buyer both sign a contract that you accept the terms of the purchase. Neither you nor I or anyone else ever signed a "social contract".
-
So why are you participating in a society you don't believe in? Why do you accept their money?
Shooting cops is not freedom. Never was, never will be, no matter how you try to make it so by wishing it at night.
-
So why are you participating in a society you don't believe in? Why do you accept their money?
Shooting cops is not freedom. Never was, never will be, no matter how you try to make it so by wishing it at night.
Show me an inhabitable place on this planet without state, laws and cops and I will move there today.
As for the money, they are my parents' tax money coming in return to me as a heritage in advance as well as a compensation for all wrongs done to me by the state itself and the state neglecting its so called duties by allowing me to be bullied etc.
If one of your kids get a meltdown in public and a cop shoots them and goes free, what would you think about that? You know perfectly well that that has happened before.
And your "Why do you accept disability payment and vote" is both cheap (as well as disloyal to a fellow Aspie) and false. Do you mean that a person who doesn't vote and earns his own living and never used public education and health care would be allowed to disobey the laws? Of course you don't. You "believe" in the state, because that's the easiest thing to do. I don't get it. You could at least say "This system is wrong and false, but I accept it as long as it isn't unbearable". That's not even illegal (not yet at least).
-
Speaking of: http://gt.expressen.se/nyheter/1.1928388/utredning-visar-polisen-gjorde-ratt-som-skot-eleven
Little piggie "did nothing wrong" when shooting a psychically confused guy, 1.64 "tall" and weighing less than 60 kilos and waving with a dull knife. Phew! :thumbdn:
-
So why are you participating in a society you don't believe in? Why do you accept their money?
Shooting cops is not freedom. Never was, never will be, no matter how you try to make it so by wishing it at night.
Show me an inhabitable place on this planet without state, laws and cops and I will move there today.
I think you mean "habitable".
As for the money, they are my parents' tax money coming in return to me as a heritage in advance as well as a compensation for all wrongs done to me by the state itself and the state neglecting its so called duties by allowing me to be bullied etc.
Yes, I know you think that is the case. I happen to disagree. The simple fact of the matter is that your parents' tax money is not enough by far, even if one accepted your notion (which I don't). I don't think *my* tax money should go to you--I want to provide for my kids, I want good roads, etc.
If one of your kids get a meltdown in public and a cop shoots them and goes free, what would you think about that? You know perfectly well that that has happened before.
I would be upset and that cop would die, but that wouldn't make me blame all cops. And no, I don't know it has happened before.
And your "Why do you accept disability payment and vote" is both cheap (as well as disloyal to a fellow Aspie) and false. Do you mean that a person who doesn't vote and earns his own living and never used public education and health care would be allowed to disobey the laws? Of course you don't. You "believe" in the state, because that's the easiest thing to do. I don't get it. You could at least say "This system is wrong and false, but I accept it as long as it isn't unbearable". That's not even illegal (not yet at least).
Drawing the fellow aspie card now? We disagree on this, and rather strongly. Live with it. I know you don't "get it", I know you don't understand my views, but accept that I have them.
I believe in our system because I think having it is better than being without one. I believe that it is possible to change it, as long as you don't try to change it by violating the rights of others, including cops, disabled people, carpenters, etc. I don't believe in anarchy, and I don't believe that cops are bad by definition.
How is it "false" to disagree with you? How is it "disloyal to a fellow aspie" to disagree, period?
-
I think you mean "habitable".
:laugh: Yes, I do.
Yes, I know you think that is the case. I happen to disagree. The simple fact of the matter is that your parents' tax money is not enough by far, even if one accepted your notion (which I don't). I don't think *my* tax money should go to you--I want to provide for my kids, I want good roads, etc.
I actually am incapable of a regular job, especially the typical one where you will have to deal with lots of other people. I would get a depression and/or a meltdown sooner or later. Same with studies. I actually tried both for many years before getting my disability.
I don't know if my parents' tax money alone would do, but I do know that the "average" Swedish tax payer pays more than 3 times what s/he ever gets back from the state.
I would be upset and that cop would die, but that wouldn't make me blame all cops. And no, I don't know it has happened before.
But it has happened: http://www.nyhetswebben.se/wp/?p=3795
Interestingly enough, they call a 16 year old boy a "man" when the cops have shot him.
It also happened in Västmanland some years ago. That man was an adult, though, but the cops shot him in front of his parents. The cops weren't in real danger, since there was a gate between them and the man. He was killed and the cop who shot didn't get any punishment at all.
Drawing the fellow aspie card now? We disagree on this, and rather strongly. Live with it. I know you don't "get it", I know you don't understand my views, but accept that I have them.
I believe in our system because I think having it is better than being without one. I believe that it is possible to change it, as long as you don't try to change it by violating the rights of others, including cops, disabled people, carpenters, etc. I don't believe in anarchy, and I don't believe that cops are bad by definition.
How is it "false" to disagree with you? How is it "disloyal to a fellow aspie" to disagree, period?
There have been functioning anarchies. This one in the US (or as an anarchist enclave within the US) was one of the most interesting; no cops, no laws and yet nothing that would be called "crimes" in a society with laws. They lived in peace: Modern Times (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Times_(intentional_community)#History)
There have been quite many of them. They were usually destroyed not from within but from outside by -- a state: List of anarchist communities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities)
"Anarchy" means "without rulers" (or literally, from ancient Greek "without elders"), not "without order". ;)
-
Lit, I don't question your right to receive disability. I simply note that to me, it seems strange to accept payment from the state when you basically want to destroy it. Neither do I question your inability to work or study, I merely note what to me are discrepancies in your argument. To me, a state that does provide for its disabled citizens is a good thing and something that speaks for, not against, its existence.
I think we agree on the taxes being too high in this country, and I think a lot of it goes to what I see as exercises in futility, but I also think that it is not all wasted.
As for the matter of police brutality, a few isolated cases do nothing for your argument. I don't think it is possible to generalise. I happen to think that they are needed and I think seeing them as oppressors as a general rule is ludicrous.
And I know what "anarchy" means. I simply don't believe in the concept. I'm well aware of most of the communities you cite, but they don't actually prove or disprove anything. They tend to come up whenever anarchy is discussed, but I don't recall anyone actually won such an argument. In any case, I can't be arsed to repeat that argument here. It doesn't lead anywhere.
-
I know the discussion is futile, but I was always against the state deciding things that I thought wasn't of their concern, already as a child. It was nothing strange with the state punishing burglars, molesters, rapists, killers etc, but it was impossible to understand why the state punished people not doing any harm to others or their property. That struck me already as a 4-5 year old.
And that people in Sweden and most of Europe didn't have a right to buy a gun without a license or that you didn't even had an absolute right of defending yourself in your own home was nothing but an insult and a meaningless humiliation. This wasn't/isn't something imposed upon criminals, which would have been kind of understandable, but upon law-abiding people, who have done no harm. The law betrays the ones who are obeying it!
I actually got the first deep feeling of ultimate betrayal in my life, when my dad told me that you had the right to buy guns and defend yourself with them in the US but not in Sweden.
Even if you accept the state concept, which I once did myself, it's still unacceptable that people who have done no harm don't have a "natural" right to defend themselves and also getting the means for it. A state that doesn't trust its law-abiding citizens cannot have a just cause itself in my humble opinion, not even if you embrace the state concept as such.
And, to be even more cynical, I'd say that the welfare state and "democracy" are smart inventions: they make the state running more smoothly than an openly declared dictatorship without social security, even if we benefit from it too.
-
If you've been bullied by one carpenter, must all carpenters die?
The carpenter concept isn't fundamentally wrong like the cop concept. Carpenters don't oppress people for a living.
Nor do policemen.
Do you mind explaining to the class, who the GeStaPo were?? ::)
You have to understand that there's such a thing as political laws. Any state who passes and enforces political laws is in the business of oppressing their people.
-
This is interesting btw, speaking of the legitimacy of the state. It's a dialogue between Göring and an American psychologist in Nuremberg:
Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.
Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.
Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.
Göring knew how things work.
-
If you've been bullied by one carpenter, must all carpenters die?
The carpenter concept isn't fundamentally wrong like the cop concept. Carpenters don't oppress people for a living.
Nor do policemen.
Do you mind explaining to the class, who the GeStaPo were?? ::)
You have to understand that there's such a thing as political laws. Any state who passes and enforces political laws is in the business of oppressing their people.
Do you mind explaining to the class how The Third Reich came to power, and why Gestapo should not be compared to just any police force in any garden-variety democracy? ::)
You have to understand that the NDSAP and The Third Reich did not appear from nowhere, in the middle of a stable democracy. Yes, I know, this is teh interwebs and anyone is likely to be called a nazi before long, but still...
-
This is interesting btw, speaking of the legitimacy of the state. It's a dialogue between Göring and an American psychologist in Nuremberg:
Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.
Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.
Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.
Göring knew how things work.
Yes. He did know. That's pretty much how they did it in the 20s and the 30s. Others have tried it since but none so successfully as the NDSAP.
-
This is interesting btw, speaking of the legitimacy of the state. It's a dialogue between Göring and an American psychologist in Nuremberg:
Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.
Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.
Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.
Göring knew how things work.
Yes. He did know. That's pretty much how they did it in the 20s and the 30s. Others have tried it since but none so successfully as the NDSAP.
His point is that it's not that a big difference between Nazi Germany and a "democracy". The guys in the seat of the status quo machine fuck the people over anyway.
-
This is interesting btw, speaking of the legitimacy of the state. It's a dialogue between Göring and an American psychologist in Nuremberg:
Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.
Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.
Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.
Göring knew how things work.
Yes. He did know. That's pretty much how they did it in the 20s and the 30s. Others have tried it since but none so successfully as the NDSAP.
His point is that it's not that a big difference between Nazi Germany and a "democracy". The guys in the seat of the status quo machine fuck the people over anyway.
I understood his point. My point, however, is that what they did is not easily reproducible.
-
This is interesting btw, speaking of the legitimacy of the state. It's a dialogue between Göring and an American psychologist in Nuremberg:
Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.
Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.
Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.
Göring knew how things work.
Yes. He did know. That's pretty much how they did it in the 20s and the 30s. Others have tried it since but none so successfully as the NDSAP.
His point is that it's not that a big difference between Nazi Germany and a "democracy". The guys in the seat of the status quo machine fuck the people over anyway.
I understood his point. My point, however, is that what they did is not easily reproducible.
There will most probably be no Fourth Reich in the foreseeable future, no. Though there will be a fascist state "light" version with an ever more powerless population.
-
Lots of those around, even now.
-
The real fascists are already in charge, though they don't call themselves fascists, of course. :(
-
Nor do policemen.
Do you mind explaining to the class, who the GeStaPo were?? ::)
You have to understand that there's such a thing as political laws. Any state who passes and enforces political laws is in the business of oppressing their people.
Do you mind explaining to the class how The Third Reich came to power, and why Gestapo should not be compared to just any police force in any garden-variety democracy? ::)
You have to understand that the NDSAP and The Third Reich did not appear from nowhere, in the middle of a stable democracy. Yes, I know, this is teh interwebs and anyone is likely to be called a nazi before long, but still...
As I said in a previous post, the Nazis had the wisdom to create a seperate police force for the enforcement of political laws. This backfired for them, because when the allied armies came into Germany, they knew who to arrest. They left the Orpo and Kripo in place, and arrested members of the GeStaPo.
Modern governments learned their lesson from this. If immoral, political laws are enforced by cops, who are otherwise doing a legitimate job, then the line between legitimate law enforcement and oppression gets blurred. The 2 famous examples of this in the U.S. are the Ruby Ridge incident, and the Waco, Texas incident. In the first case, Randy Weaver had his family gunned down, in cold blood, for failure to appear in court, over charges that ended up being droped because the government broke the law and entraped Randy Weaver. I won't get into the complexities of what happened at Waco, but you get the point.
It's very easy for cops to cross the line and become criminal thugs.
-
It's very easy for cops to cross the line and become criminal thugs.
The ones who do should be killed by criminal thugs, and round and round.
-
Nor do policemen.
Do you mind explaining to the class, who the GeStaPo were?? ::)
You have to understand that there's such a thing as political laws. Any state who passes and enforces political laws is in the business of oppressing their people.
Do you mind explaining to the class how The Third Reich came to power, and why Gestapo should not be compared to just any police force in any garden-variety democracy? ::)
You have to understand that the NDSAP and The Third Reich did not appear from nowhere, in the middle of a stable democracy. Yes, I know, this is teh interwebs and anyone is likely to be called a nazi before long, but still...
As I said in a previous post, the Nazis had the wisdom to create a seperate police force for the enforcement of political laws. This backfired for them, because when the allied armies came into Germany, they knew who to arrest. They left the Orpo and Kripo in place, and arrested members of the GeStaPo.
Modern governments learned their lesson from this. If immoral, political laws are enforced by cops, who are otherwise doing a legitimate job, then the line between legitimate law enforcement and oppression gets blurred. The 2 famous examples of this in the U.S. are the Ruby Ridge incident, and the Waco, Texas incident. In the first case, Randy Weaver had his family gunned down, in cold blood, for failure to appear in court, over charges that ended up being droped because the government broke the law and entraped Randy Weaver. I won't get into the complexities of what happened at Waco, but you get the point.
It's very easy for cops to cross the line and become criminal thugs.
Waco is a perfect example of why guns should be free and unlicensed. They lost in the end, but they held out against the federal pigs for 51 days and killed 4 of them on the very first day of the siege. That means 4 federal pigs will never more commit a crime unpunishedly against American citizens who have done no harm.
In most of Europe a group of civilians would never be able to hold out against criminal authorities in a 51 day siege, simply because it would be nearly impossible to get that many heavy guns. In Sweden not even the mafia can get hold of that many machine guns, except the biggest mafia of them all, the state. It has as many machine guns as it wants.
If you own guns legally in Sweden, the cops can come and take them without an order from a judge or prosecutor. You don't even need to be suspected of a crime. There was a man here who protested against the building of a motorway over his property, perfectly legallly, in court. In the end he lost, and the pigs came and took his guns on the day he was about to leave his property. He hadn't made any threats or anything, they took his guns just because he had stood up for his rights in a perfectly legal way. He got them back later, but taking his guns when he had done nothing wrong is a crime in my humble opinion.
No Swedish gun owner organisation said one single word about that. They don't defend gun owners at all, they in principle do anything the state tells them to do, "so we may keep our licenses". See now why I call Swedes "cowards" that often?
If you stand up for your rights strongly enough in Sweden, and I mean in a perfectly legal way, but standing up for them with real emphasis, the authorities will inofficially classify you as a rättshaverist. You become an outlaw, not by own choice but the authorities make you an outlaw, because they will henceforth turn down any legal complaint and appeal you make, how objectively justified it might be. That's a crime on the behalf of the authorities, of course, called grovt tjänstefel or in English "gross misconduct of duty", though an authority person will never go to jail for that crime with less than s/he commits it against the state. In theory they could go to jail for committing it to anyone but in practice that won't happen. Those bureaucrats think they're God, when in reality they're moralically lower than dogshit.
-
Nor do policemen.
Do you mind explaining to the class, who the GeStaPo were?? ::)
You have to understand that there's such a thing as political laws. Any state who passes and enforces political laws is in the business of oppressing their people.
Do you mind explaining to the class how The Third Reich came to power, and why Gestapo should not be compared to just any police force in any garden-variety democracy? ::)
You have to understand that the NDSAP and The Third Reich did not appear from nowhere, in the middle of a stable democracy. Yes, I know, this is teh interwebs and anyone is likely to be called a nazi before long, but still...
As I said in a previous post, the Nazis had the wisdom to create a seperate police force for the enforcement of political laws. This backfired for them, because when the allied armies came into Germany, they knew who to arrest. They left the Orpo and Kripo in place, and arrested members of the GeStaPo.
They went too far but the basic idea was sound from their POV.
Modern governments learned their lesson from this. If immoral, political laws are enforced by cops, who are otherwise doing a legitimate job, then the line between legitimate law enforcement and oppression gets blurred. The 2 famous examples of this in the U.S. are the Ruby Ridge incident, and the Waco, Texas incident. In the first case, Randy Weaver had his family gunned down, in cold blood, for failure to appear in court, over charges that ended up being droped because the government broke the law and entraped Randy Weaver. I won't get into the complexities of what happened at Waco, but you get the point.
Oh yes, I do get the point.
It's very easy for cops to cross the line and become criminal thugs.
Indeed. Thankfully it's more rare these days, and definitely so in most western democracies (with some notable exceptions).
-
If you stand up for your rights strongly enough in Sweden, and I mean in a perfectly legal way, but standing up for them with real emphasis, the authorities will inofficially classify you as a rättshaverist. You become an outlaw, not by own choice but the authorities make you an outlaw, because they will henceforth turn down any legal complaint and appeal you make, how objectively justified it might be. That's a crime on the behalf of the authorities, of course, called grovt tjänstefel or in English "gross misconduct of duty", though an authority person will never go to jail for that crime with less than s/he commits it against the state. In theory they could go to jail for committing it to anyone but in practice that won't happen. Those bureaucrats think they're God, when in reality they're moralically lower than dogshit.
In your opinion. Now, I know that your experiences vary from mine but you're expressing opinions, not facts.
-
If you stand up for your rights strongly enough in Sweden, and I mean in a perfectly legal way, but standing up for them with real emphasis, the authorities will inofficially classify you as a rättshaverist. You become an outlaw, not by own choice but the authorities make you an outlaw, because they will henceforth turn down any legal complaint and appeal you make, how objectively justified it might be. That's a crime on the behalf of the authorities, of course, called grovt tjänstefel or in English "gross misconduct of duty", though an authority person will never go to jail for that crime with less than s/he commits it against the state. In theory they could go to jail for committing it to anyone but in practice that won't happen. Those bureaucrats think they're God, when in reality they're moralically lower than dogshit.
In your opinion. Now, I know that your experiences vary from mine but you're expressing opinions, not facts.
It's very interesting that Swedish as only language in the world has a completely own word for someone claiming his rights with emphasis, and that "haverist" actually sounds like someone searching havoc, while the German Rechtshaberei for example means "having right". The Swedish word is purposely pejorative.
-
So?
-
So?
"Grammar is essence" - Ludwig Wittgenstein
Language is based on cultural concepts. Therefore Swedes have unique cultural concepts that don't exist in the rest of Western Civilization.
-
So?
The word is originally German, but in German it is derived from the verb "haben" which simply means "have", while in Swedish it has been twisted so that it seems to be derived from "haverera", which means "be wrecked", whih is something totally different. It's the Swedish mentality and society in a nut-shell: the one claiming his right is a wrecked person or a person trying to wreck something, not someone simply trying to have his right, like it is in German.
-
So?
"Grammar is essence" - Ludwig Wittgenstein
Language is based on cultural concepts. Therefore Swedes have unique cultural concepts that don't exist in the rest of Western Civilization.
Correct. Many Swedish concepts don't exist in the rest of the Western Civilisation, which the rest of the Western Civilisation should be eternally thankful for.
Even to me, born and raised a Swede, many Swedish concepts are totally unaccebtable and incomprehensible.
-
This concerns me:
...The wife of one of the defendants described Hutaree as a small group of patriotic, Christian buddies who were just doing survival training.
"It consisted of a dad and two of his sons and I think just a couple other close friends of theirs," said Kelly Sickles, who husband, Kristopher, was among those charged. "It was supposed to be a Christian group. Christ-like, right, so why would you think that's something wrong with that, right?"
Sickles said she came home Saturday night to find her house in Sandusky, Ohio, in disarray. Agents seized the guns her husband collected as a hobby and searched for bomb-making materials, she said, but added: "He doesn't even know how to make a bomb. We had no bomb material here."...
Where is the evidence that these guys were really imminently planning to kill people?
Owning guns, running around in the woods with guns, and doing survival training is not a crime.
Thinking about commiting a crime is not a crime, unless we have finally crossed the line into prosecuting thought crimes.
-
So?
The word is originally German, but in German it is derived from the verb "haben" which simply means "have", while in Swedish it has been twisted so that it seems to be derived from "haverera", which means "be wrecked", whih is something totally different. It's the Swedish mentality and society in a nut-shell: the one claiming his right is a wrecked person or a person trying to wreck something, not someone simply trying to have his right, like it is in German.
It doesn't prove your earlier argument, hence the "so?"
-
This concerns me:
...The wife of one of the defendants described Hutaree as a small group of patriotic, Christian buddies who were just doing survival training.
"It consisted of a dad and two of his sons and I think just a couple other close friends of theirs," said Kelly Sickles, who husband, Kristopher, was among those charged. "It was supposed to be a Christian group. Christ-like, right, so why would you think that's something wrong with that, right?"
Sickles said she came home Saturday night to find her house in Sandusky, Ohio, in disarray. Agents seized the guns her husband collected as a hobby and searched for bomb-making materials, she said, but added: "He doesn't even know how to make a bomb. We had no bomb material here."...
Where is the evidence that these guys were really imminently planning to kill people?
Owning guns, running around in the woods with guns, and doing survival training is not a crime.
Thinking about commiting a crime is not a crime, unless we have finally crossed the line into prosecuting thought crimes.
I certainly hope they have proof of the supposed plans.
-
It doesn't prove your earlier argument, hence the "so?"
It doesn't "prove" anything but it kind of says it all that the word seems similar in Sweden but has a totally different meaning. To have right or claiming to have right is what it means in German, while in Swedish it means that the person seeking justice is wrecked or trying to cause wreckage. The pejorative connotation of the Swedish word speaks lightyears about Swedish mentality and not in a flattering way.
-
This concerns me:
...The wife of one of the defendants described Hutaree as a small group of patriotic, Christian buddies who were just doing survival training.
"It consisted of a dad and two of his sons and I think just a couple other close friends of theirs," said Kelly Sickles, who husband, Kristopher, was among those charged. "It was supposed to be a Christian group. Christ-like, right, so why would you think that's something wrong with that, right?"
Sickles said she came home Saturday night to find her house in Sandusky, Ohio, in disarray. Agents seized the guns her husband collected as a hobby and searched for bomb-making materials, she said, but added: "He doesn't even know how to make a bomb. We had no bomb material here."...
Where is the evidence that these guys were really imminently planning to kill people?
Owning guns, running around in the woods with guns, and doing survival training is not a crime.
Thinking about commiting a crime is not a crime, unless we have finally crossed the line into prosecuting thought crimes.
We soon have. I told about a Nazi guy who had his gun licenses revoked without having been punished for anything. He was perfectly law-abiding and had had his guns for over 20 years. In Sweden you can be punished without even committing a crime, though it's not called a punishment of course, it's called an "administrative case". ::)
-
But your interpretation of "rättshaverist", etymology notwithstanding, is merely an interpretation.
http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A4ttshaverist
(Link meaningful only to Lit; sorry, folks.)
-
Read about what Lisbeth Lindeborg writes about it. She's BRAVE! 8)
http://www.nkmr.org/artikel_dags_att_avskaffa_odemokratiska_maktstrukturer_av_lisbeth_lindeborg.htm
-
But your interpretation of "rättshaverist", etymology notwithstanding, is merely an interpretation.
http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A4ttshaverist
(Link meaningful only to Lit; sorry, folks.)
Could you summarize in English plz??
-
It actually confirms what I'm saying about the etymology of the word:
"Though there is a word similar to rättshaverist in German, since it comes from Rechthaber - one who has right and understood, one who is of the opinion that he is right. The German word is most often used about someone who thinks he knows best. The German Rechthaberei is in Swedish distorted with the suffix -haveri, which becomes a pun that emphasizes the self-destructive character of the behaviour. Another German word is Querulant."
"Haberei" in German simply means "having" while "haveri" in Swedish means "wreckage" or "making havoc". A "haverist" in its original Swedish sense is a wrecked or wrecked-to-be ship, which is exactly how Swedish authorities and a great deal of the Swedish public look upon someone claiming his right with emphasis.
This is also interesting:
"According to Susanne Bejerot, Swedish psychiatrist and member of the committee of Nils Bejerot's Memorial Fund, rättshaveri is common within the Asperger group. According to her this might be explained by 'a personality charecterized by lack of common sense, pedanthic rule-thinking, pronounced stubbornness and verbal talent'"
Or simply that AS-people have a stronger sense of justice, though in Sweden claiming your right is a Catch 22, so if you claim your right in Sweden, you by definition lack "common sense" in the eyes of society.
-
It actually confirms what I'm saying about the etymology of the word:
"Though there is a word similar to rättshaverist in German, since it comes from Rechthaber - one who has right and understood, one who is of the opinion that he is right. The German word is most often used about someone who thinks he knows best. The German Rechthaberei is in Swedish distorted with the suffix -haveri, which becomes a pun that emphasizes the self-destructive character of the behaviour. Another German word is Querulant."
"Haberei" in German simply means "having" while "haveri" in Swedish means "wreckage" or "making havoc". A "haverist" in its original Swedish sense is a wrecked or wrecked-to-be ship, which is exactly how Swedish authorities and a great deal of the Swedish public look upon someone claiming his right with emphasis.
This is also interesting:
"According to Susanne Bejerot, Swedish psychiatrist and member of the committee of Nils Bejerot's Memorial Fund, rättshaveri is common within the Asperger group. According to her this might be explained by 'a personality charecterized by lack of common sense, pedanthic rule-thinking, pronounced stubbornness and verbal talent'"
Or simply that AS-people have a stronger sense of justice, though in Sweden claiming your right is a Catch 22, so if you claim your right in Sweden, you by definition lack "common sense" in the eyes of society.
It confirms the etymology--which I never doubted because you do know your stuff--but not your interpretation.
-
But the etymology reveals the original meaning. Which is to say, that conformity was a trait favored by the culture that created the word. Those who were independent, and stood up for their rights, were considered a threat to the group. The language reveals the though process.
-
But the etymology reveals the original meaning. Which is to say, that conformity was a trait favored by the culture that created the word. Those who were independent, and stood up for their rights, were considered a threat to the group. The language reveals the though process.
Very true. :agreed:
Here are the negative opinions of quite a few foreigners, many of them Anglos, living or having lived in Sweden. They have about the same views on Sweden as I have; conformism, brain-washing, lack of freedom, power-abusing authorities, etc: I hate Sweden month (http://www.thelocal.se/discuss/index.php?showtopic=23520)
-
But the etymology reveals the original meaning. Which is to say, that conformity was a trait favored by the culture that created the word. Those who were independent, and stood up for their rights, were considered a threat to the group. The language reveals the though process.
No, sorry. The process is not conscious in any way. Etymology is not about a conscious decision--many words are the result of simple misunderstandings.
-
It might not be really concsious but something like a Freudian slip: it reveals the Swedish mindset that you are considered a wreck or wreckaging person if you stand up for your rights.
Another pretty common thing in Sweden; Swedish cops kidnapping a child: Swedish Police Kidnaped their son at Arlanda (http://www.thelocal.se/discuss/index.php?showtopic=26056)
Kind of an irony that I should defend immigrants.
-
It might not be really concsious but something like a Freudian slip: it reveals the Swedish mindset that you are considered a wreck or wreckaging person if you stand up for your rights.
Yes, obviously there is that interpretation. But tbh, that's not how I've perceived it when the word's been used, yet it has come up on a number of occasions. Wikipedia's list of possible meanings backs up my views, as well as yours, I believe.
-
On German Wiki they claim that 80% of all cases going all the way to the highest court in a country are Querulanten-cases. Something to think about. The rättshaverist is kind of a judicial partisan. If it wasn't for the rättshaverist the authorities should be even more totalitarian.
-
How does the German Wikipedia prove or disprove your interpretation of a word that has no equivalent in German?
-
How does the German Wikipedia prove or disprove your interpretation of a word that has no equivalent in German?
The kind of persons standing up for their rights are called Querulanten rather than Rechtshaber. These are the ones that make cases come to the supreme courts in 80% of the cases.
-
It might not be really concsious but something like a Freudian slip: it reveals the Swedish mindset that you are considered a wreck or wreckaging person if you stand up for your rights.
Another pretty common thing in Sweden; Swedish cops kidnapping a child: Swedish Police Kidnaped their son at Arlanda (http://www.thelocal.se/discuss/index.php?showtopic=26056)
Kind of an irony that I should defend immigrants.
That is shocking for them to steal a child from his parents because they wanted to homeschool him and they were moving to India and he had two bad baby teeth. That's just insane.
-
It might not be really concsious but something like a Freudian slip: it reveals the Swedish mindset that you are considered a wreck or wreckaging person if you stand up for your rights.
Another pretty common thing in Sweden; Swedish cops kidnapping a child: Swedish Police Kidnaped their son at Arlanda (http://www.thelocal.se/discuss/index.php?showtopic=26056)
Kind of an irony that I should defend immigrants.
That is shocking for them to steal a child from his parents because they wanted to homeschool him and they were moving to India and he had two bad baby teeth. That's just insane.
Yup. Sweden is like East Germany or the Soviet Union, but the scary thing is that Sweden, unlike those, is considered a civilized Western country by most of the world, and Sweden has survived, which East Germany and the Soviet Union didn't.
-
It might not be really concsious but something like a Freudian slip: it reveals the Swedish mindset that you are considered a wreck or wreckaging person if you stand up for your rights.
Another pretty common thing in Sweden; Swedish cops kidnapping a child: Swedish Police Kidnaped their son at Arlanda (http://www.thelocal.se/discuss/index.php?showtopic=26056)
Kind of an irony that I should defend immigrants.
That is shocking for them to steal a child from his parents because they wanted to homeschool him and they were moving to India and he had two bad baby teeth. That's just insane.
Yup. Sweden is like East Germany or the Soviet Union, but the scary thing is that Sweden, unlike those, is considered a civilized Western country by most of the world, and Sweden has survived, which East Germany and the Soviet Union didn't.
Scary thing happen there here too but not that bad
-
Yes, I knew of a kid who was taken away from his mother because he was overweight.
-
That's one of the reasons that I'm in favour of free guns, aside being against the state as a whole concept. If 80% of the Swedes owned unlicensed guns instead of 8% owning licensed one, I have a feeling that the authorities wouldn't feel so secure about playing God and always getting away with it. You don't take someone's kid because they're fat or have two bad teeth.
-
That's one of the reasons that I'm in favour of free guns, aside being against the state as a whole concept. If 80% of the Swedes owned unlicensed guns instead of 8% owning licensed one, I have a feeling that the authorities wouldn't feel so secure about playing God and always getting away with it. You don't take someone's kid because they're fat or have two bad teeth.
:agreed:
The probelm of course, is tha humanity has a long way to go before we could ever hope to free ourselves from the yoke of governments. What were fighting against here, is evolved human nature, to get rid of the authoritarian impulse, we have to change our genetic makeup or something. Look at my sig. ;)
-
These Russian guys are also :viking: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8616400.stm
I wish the skinheads here in the West would be as BRAVE! :-\