Small groups of protesters have clashed with police in Toronto as leaders from the world's richest nations and emerging economies gathered for the G20 summit.
Police cars were set on fire and storefronts were smashed on Saturday as at least 10,000 people marched to highlight issues like indigenous rights, poverty and climate change.
An emergency services spokeswoman told Reuters news agency that at least three people had been wounded in the protest.
Along with a heavy police presence, authorities shut down public transport and blocked streets leading into the centre of the city.
While most protesters remained peaceful, television images primarily focused on so-called "anarchists" who had aimed to face off with police along the three-metre high barrier that encircles the G20 meeting site.
Soon after the demonstrators arrived near the barrier, groups of black-clad protesters appeared to separate themselves from the larger group and confronted the hundreds of police shadowing the march.
Anti-G20 groups have been demonstrating in Toronto all week before the summit which follows a smaller meeting of Group of Eight (G8) industrial nations in the resort town of Huntsville in Ontario.
Security for the G8 and G20 summits has cost Canadian tax payers more than $1bn
So the G20 protests finally became violent recently. Police cars set on fire and storefronts had their windows smashed. Right now lots of transit has been halted and several places are under lock down for about 8 hours.
I'm no specialist on the G20 nor economics, but wiki does a good job of explaining what it is:
I was really hoping this wouldn't happen... but now it has. From my understanding, I can see why there would be protest but I find this has gone too far. Violent protests around the G20 have happened before, but the amount of damage is horrible. My housemate tells me that entire streets are all fucked over now and the damage done is going to be costly. Furthermore, a lot of Canadians are already pissed at the government for even hosting the G20 here. We're paying for security with our tax dollars and we still take a lot of damage. I don't see why these meetings need to be held in such densely populated areas.
Anyways, I hope this gets resolved as quickly as possible. I'm glad I went to my parents place this weekend, or else I might be screwed over and under lock down if I went into work. Furthermore, a lot of public transit is halted around the downtown core which is vital for so many people. Here's hoping that it doesn't have to escalate further than it already has.
Curious about your opinions on the protests/riots or the G20 itself.
I was watching this live for about 2 hours.. good entertainment .. I agree with you that they shouldn't have hosted it in the middle of one of Canada's major cities.. seriously..what were they thinking.. Also, I think this has gone pretty wild, but seriously, why are we paying for this crappy mistake.
I actually enjoyed a bit of this. its not everyday we get to see police cars on fire. the amount of tax money wasted cleaning up is nothing compared to the amount politicians waste every year imo
On June 27 2010 11:26 Severedevil wrote: People are breaking shit to protest a peaceful meeting?
Of all the things to get violent over...
?
If you did some reading (even wikipedia), and understood the consolidation of power, poverty, and sadness that the g-20 and the IMF and World Bank (which are represented with more power than actual countries have in the g-20) create, maybe you would at least understand why people are angry enough to be violent.
Edit: I'll try to explain
The World Bank and IMF are like the worlds biggest loan sharks. They loan money to developing countries, but they countries have to agree to 'Structural Adjustments' which usually includes cutting government spending (healthcare, security, and Government subsidies go first), privatize natural resources (sell things like mines, forests, etc to corporations), and remove or lower tariffs, labor laws and environmental protections to increase foreign investment (woooh more corporations).
Canadian law enforcement need a lesson in kicking ass and taking names later from DC and British (literally.) Dispersal through smoke grenades and rubber bullets at the first bit of trouble and camera ID to prosecute people later. The longer they wait, the harder it is to stop. Some people get injured and the lines of fair punishment get crossed, but at least your city doesn't end up hating you for it.
They had to know something like this was coming, especially with the current economy. There is a value in having these meetings in person, but it doesn't need to be such a big symbolic affair.
Eh, I'm still crossed at the fact that the "gumint" still found a way to use up over 1bn(CAD) for the summits. I am waiting for the receipts to be published after this... (And then look over them and roll over and maybe jump through a few more hoops for the government, HURRAY HST)
On June 27 2010 11:26 Severedevil wrote: People are breaking shit to protest a peaceful meeting?
Of all the things to get violent over...
?
If you did some reading (even wikipedia), and understood the consolidation of power, poverty, and sadness that the g-20 and the IMF and World Bank create, maybe you would at least understand why people are angry enough to be violent.
breakin' shit solves all of the world's problems imo
On June 27 2010 11:38 Jibba wrote: Canadian law enforcement need a lesson in kicking ass and taking names later<snip>but at least your city doesn't end up hating you for it.
I would say that your policy that you wish them to utilize would end up in the exact situation that you are afraid of.
Canada's politics is going down the shitter. What else can they expect but a retaliation from the people. The politicians have brought it onto themselves.
On June 27 2010 11:32 Warrior Madness wrote: What exactly are these people protesting?
Everything. They're jobless. The environment is being destroyed. We're still exploiting third world nations. The violence is probably traceable back to the personal state of each protester, especially with current unemployment rates. It's just general "I'm pissed and I'm going to do something about it" rather than a concerted effort to do anything. There ARE concerted efforts of violent protest, but those are very particular and usually designed in a specific way. This just seems like general outrage against the state, and the wide array of protest reasons seems to support that there is no central focus besides their own personal anomie.
On June 27 2010 11:32 Warrior Madness wrote: What exactly are these people protesting?
Why in the goddamned world did they decide to host this in Toronto instead of somewhere quieter like they did before, and why in the world is this entire debacle costing well over 1 billion dollars. There is also a huge issue with the degeneration of woman's rights in Canada recently and the exclusion of several key woman's rights issues in the meetings.
On June 27 2010 11:38 Jibba wrote: Canadian law enforcement need a lesson in kicking ass and taking names later<snip>but at least your city doesn't end up hating you for it.
I would say that your policy that you wish them to utilize would end up in the exact situation that you are afraid of.
Except it doesn't. It may not be morally agreeable but in terms of public policy, it's a better way to maintain order and keep damages low. Citizens get annoyed that their streets are blocked and maybe they can't go downtown for a night or two, but at least there isn't serious damage that they have to pay for later.
It seems like no one has brought up the point that the violence is almost entirely due to a small group of radical anarchists, known as the `Black Bloc' (since they dress themselves in black to preserve anonymity). I don't have time to type up all the details, but here's a short article by the Star:
To clarify, the overwhelming majority of protesters here are peaceful, and these guys are giving them a bad rap. Really, I understand there's inequity and injustice in the world and all that, but to use that as an excuse to trash stores and burn cars is just stupid. Not to mention that they're just providing a convenient reason for the Harper government to justify the exorbitant security spending of the G20.
On June 27 2010 11:44 koreasilver wrote: Why in the goddamned world did they decide to host this in Toronto instead of somewhere quieter like they did before
On June 27 2010 11:26 Severedevil wrote: People are breaking shit to protest a peaceful meeting?
Of all the things to get violent over...
?
If you did some reading (even wikipedia), and understood the consolidation of power, poverty, and sadness that the g-20 and the IMF and World Bank create, maybe you would at least understand why people are angry enough to be violent.
breakin' shit solves all of the world's problems imo
I didn't say that it did, I said that if he did some reading he would understand why people are angry enough to break shit.
Sadly, the masses have so little power in the world today that breaking shit might be the only way to get any attention.
On June 27 2010 11:44 koreasilver wrote: Why in the goddamned world did they decide to host this in Toronto instead of somewhere quieter like they did before
Washington, DC, London and Pittsburgh aren't "quiet."
There were riots in London and Pittsburgh aswell.
They held a different international meeting thing in the past in a quieter place in Canada before. It still doesn't change that the previous summits didn't cost ANYTHING near 1billion or beyond 1billion for that matter. Canada's spending is just frivolous. Just the cost of this goddamned thing is enough to buy the ire of people that usually wouldn't even give a shit about the politics in this country.
Black bloc is not a group. It is a tactic used during protests. The media has run with that quite a bit. Even the police chief said they were not a gang but a tactic used.
There is not known to be an organized gang wreaking havoc, but more so a group of thugs committing damage for no good reason. Even the leader of the anarchist group of Canada came on the radio saying violence is not acceptable.
I don't see why they couldn't just hold these meetings on an island or some remote area. Destruction of property would be minimized if non-existent and could easily control the people around the area. Heck, on an island you could even control the people getting on and off. You could prevent protesters from even showing up. Unless of course they decide to protest elsewhere... which could have strange side effects since the group you're protesting against is not around but still want to make your voice heard? But it seems like they want to hold these meetings in major cities...
On June 27 2010 11:47 zcxvbn wrote: It seems like no one has brought up the point that the violence is almost entirely due to a small group of radical anarchists, known as the `Black Bloc' (since they dress themselves in black to preserve anonymity). I don't have time to type up all the details, but here's a short article by the Star:
To clarify, the overwhelming majority of protesters here are peaceful, and these guys are giving them a bad rap. Really, I understand there's inequity and injustice in the world and all that, but to use that as an excuse to trash stores and burn cars is just stupid. Not to mention that they're just providing a convenient reason for the Harper government to justify the exorbitant security spending of the G20.
And I'll add that extra bit about the Black Bloc to the OP. Some of the info I posted did discuss the Black Bloc a little bit, but that article definitely adds quite a bit of extra information. Very useful. However, the Black Bloc is a tactic used by the group.
On June 27 2010 11:55 Back wrote: What huge advantage do they gain by physically meeting instead of doing a large tele-conference. All this for a handshake?
They get the excuse to use $350,000 a minute for two days for no reason. \o/
On June 27 2010 11:55 Back wrote: What huge advantage do they gain by physically meeting instead of doing a large tele-conference. All this for a handshake?
It depends on the meeting. There's less negotiating at G20 than others, but at the same time, there's even less reason to protest G20. What are bank officials going to do about this stuff? It isn't an economics conference, it's a finance conference.
I have a feeling most of the protesters and maybe laypeople don't know the difference between economics and finance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_bloc A black bloc is a tactic for protests and marches, whereby individuals wear black clothing, scarfs, ski masks, motorcycle helmets with padding or other face-concealing items and often carry some sort of shields and truncheons.[1][2] The clothing is used to avoid being identified, and to, theoretically, appear as one large mass, promoting solidarity or creating a clear revolutionary presence.
again, they are not a gang. they may be anarchists, they may not, but they are not a group called the Black Bloc.
I seriously hope this isn't another case like the WTO protests in seattle where the protests WERE peaceful until the police started shooting teargas & rubber bullets to break up the croud. We'd probably never even know either.
I think the 4 police cars are in the budget. Seriously there is so much misinformation that I hate to be caught in a debate. I just know money runs things, and there are banks and people with a lot of money that are able to control pretty much anything they want. History speaks volumes and corruption is inevitable in positions of power and wealth. We need smaller government and we need to get everything in check (read : more transparency) in order for this snowball to stop growing imo.
Man, I wasn't really against the G8 and G20 until I found out how much it was going to cost. 1 billion dollars for security alone?!?! What the fuck is that? My parents can't get a family doctor, and I can't get a job, but they have 1 billion dollars to spend on shit like this? blows my mind. Especially since the last G20 spent 12 million dollars on security. No joke. The bill went from 12 million, to 1 billion. Fucking insane.
this stuff NEVER happens in Canada, I've been watching all day and its pretty pathetic how people come from all over the world just to break shit and set shit on fire.
and honestly 1 billion? the french PM was lolling at us on how much we spent...
On June 27 2010 12:13 Mactavian wrote: Man, I wasn't really against the G8 and G20 until I found out how much it was going to cost. 1 billion dollars for security alone?!?! What the fuck is that? My parents can't get a family doctor, and I can't get a job, but they have 1 billion dollars to spend on shit like this? blows my mind. Especially since the last G20 spent 12 million dollars on security. No joke. The bill went from 12 million, to 1 billion. Fucking insane.
Really? Every man, woman, and child in Canada just chipped in like 29 dollars for G20\8 meetings? Oh lawd, I would be pissed if I was Canadian.
On June 27 2010 12:22 EleanorRIgby wrote: this stuff NEVER happens in Canada, I've been watching all day and its pretty pathetic how people come from all over the world just to break shit and set shit on fire.
Probably all Americans pissed about the World Cup.
On June 27 2010 12:22 EleanorRIgby wrote: this stuff NEVER happens in Canada, I've been watching all day and its pretty pathetic how people come from all over the world just to break shit and set shit on fire.
and honestly 1 billion? the french PM was lolling at us on how much we spent...
Happens pretty often when Les Canadiens get into the playoffs.
Yeah its such a shame but violent outbursts like this are the exact reason security is necessary for the Worlds leaders. If only it were peaceful I'm sure it wouldn't cost a ton. Blame the violent protesters for the costs of security rising imho (And the taxes paid to replace said police cars) - not the G-20.
On June 27 2010 12:22 EleanorRIgby wrote: this stuff NEVER happens in Canada, I've been watching all day and its pretty pathetic how people come from all over the world just to break shit and set shit on fire.
and honestly 1 billion? the french PM was lolling at us on how much we spent...
people really came from around the world just to protest it?
On June 27 2010 12:28 xBillehx wrote: Yeah its such a shame but violent outbursts like this are the exact reason security is necessary for the Worlds leaders. If only it were peaceful I'm sure it wouldn't cost a ton. Blame the violent protesters for the costs of security rising imho. (And the taxes paid to replace said police cars)
yeah even if it was protesting is peaceful the government still steals a bunch of money the tax in canada is ridiculous. 13%... ><
this G20 thing is bullshit. G8 is already too much. we dont need 20 fucking countries. 8 is stupid. everybody should mind there own business.
On June 27 2010 12:30 Madkipz wrote: they should have hosted it on an airship rather than have protesters and shit on their doorsteps xD
It would get shot down. But seriously.. The more I read into this the more BS I find this to be. People with ALOT of money are just scary..wtf is wrong with people..If you have 40billion lying around in your bank account..you could you know, change the world? People are set for life with 5 million.. :|
On June 27 2010 12:28 xBillehx wrote: Yeah its such a shame but violent outbursts like this are the exact reason security is necessary for the Worlds leaders. If only it were peaceful I'm sure it wouldn't cost a ton. Blame the violent protesters for the costs of security rising imho. (And the taxes paid to replace said police cars)
yeah even if it was protesting is peaceful the government still steals a bunch of money the tax in canada is ridiculous. 13%... ><
this G20 thing is bullshit. G8 is already too much. we dont need 20 fucking countries. 8 is stupid. everybody should mind there own business.
I just feel sorry for all the business owners, and other people who got their possessions/property damaged. There are ways, and ways to show your opposition to something - trashing the things of people who aren't even directly involved, and just happen to live near to where it was being held just makes this minority seem totally immature and cheapens anything they might be trying to communicate with their protests in the first place. No one is going to take that kind of person seriously.
I think the police are being WAYYYY too easy on the idiots who are vandalizing and destroying both public and private property.
I know they're being careful not to overreact to something in a way that would encourage more protests but I personally feel violated when a bunch of shit head hippies who don't know the first thing about life cause such havoc and destroy the streets of my city.
Makes me want to drive downtown and beat the shit out of some hippies... you know the cops would thank me for it too rather than arrest me lol.
these protesters are stupid. if you want to raise awareness about an issue you''re against, destroying local businesses and private property is NOT the way to go about it.
On June 27 2010 12:43 LosingID8 wrote: these protesters are stupid. if you want to raise awareness about an issue you''re against, destroying local businesses and private property is NOT the way to go about it.
On June 27 2010 12:43 LosingID8 wrote: these protesters are stupid. if you want to raise awareness about an issue you''re against, destroying local businesses and private property is NOT the way to go about it.
Its difficult for people in their situation to get any sort of rise out of the higher-ups, so this is probably how they deal with it because they can't think of anything else. Peaceful protests and political pressure don't do shit these days. The dominating powers have enough influence in enough areas that they can just continue to ignore your wishes. As much as movies might make it look like small militant groups exist all over and can work in collaboration to make huge changes happen via targeted violence and strategic destruction, that doesn't actually happen. So people in mass with no such organization do the only thing that they feel they can do. Find where the big guys are and go try their best to fuck them up.
Before anyone not smart enough to realize what I just said posts, let me clarify so I can just quote myself later if need be.
I'm not saying what they're doing is right, especially not their methods. I am, however, advocating and sympathizing with their feelings of helplessness in a system that almost always forgets about the "regular people".
I am also afraid for what might happen to Seoul when this disgraceful convention shows up here...
On June 27 2010 12:37 NeverGG wrote: I just feel sorry for all the business owners, and other people who got their possessions/property damaged. There are ways, and ways to show your opposition to something - trashing the things of people who aren't even directly involved, and just happen to live near to where it was being held just makes this minority seem totally immature and cheapens anything they might be trying to communicate with their protests in the first place. No one is going to take that kind of person seriously.
On June 27 2010 12:43 LosingID8 wrote: these protesters are stupid. if you want to raise awareness about an issue you''re against, destroying local businesses and private property is NOT the way to go about it.
I'm OK with breaking shit to protest, say, war. Your government wants to enslave you and send you to kill civilians in Vietnam? Break shit.
Isnt it always like this when they host g8/g20? As far as I can remember it happends to some extent pretty much during every major interational summit.
That being said - I wouldnt mind them using live ammo vs these guys since Im 100% sure its the same guys traveling around the world looking for a fight. I think theyve been trying hard enough and its time for them to give them a beating.
Economic summit? Do not break shit? I mean. I wouldn't break shit. I don't like the people who do. However keep in mind that our dollars pay for the tanks, helicopters and all sorts of goodies that make the manufacturers rich, and all because the upper-level government decides there's a "good reason" to go to war. I think the idea behind the vandalism is flawed, and it's really just a petty crime. It also shifts attention to negative aspects of people instead of the idea that "we the people matter".
On June 27 2010 12:53 Robinsa wrote: Isnt it always like this when they host g8/g20? As far as I can remember it happends to some extent pretty much during every major interational summit.
That being said - I wouldnt mind them using live ammo vs these guys since Im 100% sure its the same guys traveling around the world looking for a fight. I think theyve been trying hard enough and its time for them to give them a beating.
as far as I'm concerned, all the security has it coming at an event like this. They put giant goons on the front lines with clubs and riot gear and say "feel free swing the club at anyone who gets within striking distance" They provoke people, and the real trouble makers never get caught. I didn't see anybody in black hoodies get arrested on tv, but I did see protesters getting hit and punched. Useless, all the those cops are useless goons who only aggravate the situation. Hell, I'd torch a cop car too if I was there.
On June 27 2010 13:01 alexpnd wrote: Economic summit? Do not break shit? I mean. I wouldn't break shit. I don't like the people who do. However keep in mind that our dollars pay for the tanks, helicopters and all sorts of goodies that make the manufacturers rich, and all because the upper-level government decides there's a "good reason" to go to war. I think the idea behind the vandalism is flawed, and it's really just a petty crime. It also shifts attention to negative aspects of people instead of the idea that "we the people matter".
It's not an economics summit. This isn't WTO or IMF. These are finance people. It's stuff like currency reform and interest rates.
On June 27 2010 13:01 alexpnd wrote: Economic summit? Do not break shit? I mean. I wouldn't break shit. I don't like the people who do. However keep in mind that our dollars pay for the tanks, helicopters and all sorts of goodies that make the manufacturers rich, and all because the upper-level government decides there's a "good reason" to go to war. I think the idea behind the vandalism is flawed, and it's really just a petty crime. It also shifts attention to negative aspects of people instead of the idea that "we the people matter".
It's not an economics summit. This isn't WTO or IMF. These are finance people. It's stuff like currency reform and interest rates.
from g-20 wiki " * the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund * the Chairman of the International Monetary Fund * the President of the World Bank * International Monetary and Financial Committee * the Chairman of the Development Committee"
how could you called a g-20 summit not an economic summit lol... economic discussion (whatever it may be about) is the point of the whole thing.
LOLOLOLOL fucking hell, its hilarious watching ppl fail horribly at breaking windows. 1 guy tried using a sign post as a battering ram and just looked like a total tool as it didn't even crack the glass!!! Man if i had things my way anytime one of these little bitches did shit like this my Radioactive Gorilla Squad would pick em up just shake em violently for a while.
I mean seriously i understand they are pissed and in their mind probably have a good reason for it but breaking shit like a fucking moron does nothing constructive because no one for sure listens to you when you act like a child. And wtf is up with those stupid masks, if your going to do shit like this at least have the balls to show your face when you do it.
lol, how many different groups are there? I heard someone crying out for socialism, anarchy, less taxes, less banks, communism, equality. It's like everyone from every philosophy showed up.
As far as currncy manipulation though, yea these are the guys who win in the inflation war. When inflation happens, the banks win and every one loses. Also 0% interest rate with the goal of indebting the entire nation.
The purpose of the G[6,8,20] is to (at these three levels) discuss how the world's major/regional economic powers will dictate global finance policy. It's a strategy meeting for the big boys, and although the G20 invites some of the poorer nations to the table, they are still giants in their respective regions, and may only look to improve their own regional standing.
People demonstrate these meetings because the leaders invited are inextricably linked to backwards or unfair policies at home and abroad. Globalization good, exploitation bad.
On June 27 2010 13:40 darmousseh wrote: lol, how many different groups are there? I heard someone crying out for socialism, anarchy, less taxes, less banks, communism, equality. It's like everyone from every philosophy showed up.
Also keep in mind that anarchists, communists, socialists, and all-around pissed off people attend all sorts of events with the intent of upping the ante and trying to steal the spotlight for their cause, despite the presence of many peaceful individuals and groups with very valid complaints. I assure you (from my experience with demonstrations in the USA), the "anarchists" are in a very radical minority, although they are loudest and love intimidating the police.
It's also worth mentioning that police are known to incite violence through infiltrators in demonstrations. I was at one march and some guy was like, "hey let's throw stuff at the police" and everyone was like "lol gtfo cop!" and he ran off.
On June 27 2010 13:01 alexpnd wrote: Economic summit? Do not break shit? I mean. I wouldn't break shit. I don't like the people who do. However keep in mind that our dollars pay for the tanks, helicopters and all sorts of goodies that make the manufacturers rich, and all because the upper-level government decides there's a "good reason" to go to war. I think the idea behind the vandalism is flawed, and it's really just a petty crime. It also shifts attention to negative aspects of people instead of the idea that "we the people matter".
It's not an economics summit. This isn't WTO or IMF. These are finance people. It's stuff like currency reform and interest rates.
from g-20 wiki " * the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund * the Chairman of the International Monetary Fund * the President of the World Bank * International Monetary and Financial Committee * the Chairman of the Development Committee"
how could you called a g-20 summit not an economic summit lol... economic discussion (whatever it may be about) is the point of the whole thing.
They're invited along, but the core of G20 meetings is about regulation and reform of financial institutions, and establishing global standards for banks. That affects economies, but it's completely separate from economics.
LOLOLOLOL fucking hell, its hilarious watching ppl fail horribly at breaking windows. 1 guy tried using a sign post as a battering ram and just looked like a total tool as it didn't even crack the glass!!! Man if i had things my way anytime one of these little bitches did shit like this my Radioactive Gorilla Squad would pick em up just shake em violently for a while.
I mean seriously i understand they are pissed and in their mind probably have a good reason for it but breaking shit like a fucking moron does nothing constructive because no one for sure listens to you when you act like a child. And wtf is up with those stupid masks, if your going to do shit like this at least have the balls to show your face when you do it.
WTF are the canadians doing? If I saw people was dismantling my city Id figure it was time to act! But everyone is just standing there with their stupid cameras and watching it go on. By the way, If you went out there with a rifle, took a few shots and rand I think you chances of getting away with it should be decent considering everyone is masked and you would dissappear in the masses quite fast?
I went to protest the G8 in Heiligendamm Germany. Police dressed up as "Anarchists" were actually trying to get voilent action going, encouraging others to throw stones. When they were identified they ran like shit towards their fellow officers.
another example:
to be clear, i dont think this protesting is going to do anything. the people who are meeting made it pretty clear they do not care at all.
On June 27 2010 13:40 darmousseh wrote: lol, how many different groups are there? I heard someone crying out for socialism, anarchy, less taxes, less banks, communism, equality. It's like everyone from every philosophy showed up.
On June 27 2010 13:55 Murmaider wrote: I went to protest the G8 in Heiligendamm Germany. Police dressed up as "Anarchists" were actually trying to get voilent action going, encouraging others to throw stones. When they were identified they ran like shit towards their fellow officers.
On June 27 2010 13:55 Murmaider wrote: I went to protest the G8 in Heiligendamm Germany. Police dressed up as "Anarchists" were actually trying to get voilent action going, encouraging others to throw stones. When they were identified they ran like shit towards their fellow officers.
Can someone explain to me why they do that?
They do that so that if the protesters attack first, then they look bad on whatever little news coverage they were going to receive and can't claim they were "peacefully" demonstrating. Peace activists use civil disobedience techniques and show restraint, anarchists try to get away with as much chaos as possible without getting arrested - both groups typically show up to the same demonstrations...
Second, it gives the police an excuse to retaliate and clear things up / make arrests / not just stand there and get ridiculed all day. Police really want to use their clubs. I'm serious, they are dying to crack some skulls.
On June 27 2010 13:55 Murmaider wrote: I went to protest the G8 in Heiligendamm Germany. Police dressed up as "Anarchists" were actually trying to get voilent action going, encouraging others to throw stones. When they were identified they ran like shit towards their fellow officers.
Can someone explain to me why they do that?
The mounties have been intimidating leaders and members of anarchist groups in Ontario for several weeks now leading up to this. At their homes, their work places, and even stalking them out when they go grocery shopping and etc. It's kinda lols.
The purpose of the undercovers is to provoke violence, give the other police an excuse to start spraying and hitting. That's usually what they do anyway, aside from ratting on / telling lies about the people they were with.
The motivation for the protests is not something that is easily explained in one forum post, especially to a normal person on a gaming forum. Although these are really inflammatory and have some bullshit in them, they capture the spirit and main ideas behind this protest in an entertaining fashion. I highly recommend watching it.
On June 27 2010 13:55 Murmaider wrote: I went to protest the G8 in Heiligendamm Germany. Police dressed up as "Anarchists" were actually trying to get voilent action going, encouraging others to throw stones. When they were identified they ran like shit towards their fellow officers.
to be clear, i dont think this protesting is going to do anything. the people who are meeting made it pretty clear they do not care at all.
There are alternative reasons for protesting other than influences those that you are protesting. It's essentially just a game for information. As long as the mainstream news doesn't complete ignore the protests and continues to simply alienate or scapegoat them. Some people may just buy into the story presented, others might try to put themselves in the shoes of the protesters and educate themselves and agree or disagree. I'm sure theres a number of people in the world that had no idea that the G8/20 existed. Any publicity is good publicity i suppose?
I used to be quite "activist" myself. I went to a lot of protests and listened to NPR all the time, read a lot of Chomsky and Jensen.
Just made me realize how hopeless it is. I'm glad I did it. But, people aren't listening. Either- the people who are in power OR the other people who should be protesting.
I forget how in the dark people can be when they say things like "what are these people protesting", these are "peaceful meetings."
Just, basically to sum up, as simply as I can, why I myself protested:
The G8 enslave the rest of the world. Also, 98% of the populations of the G8 live very poorly compared to how they should be. These people meeting are the rich people who suck off the top of everyone. They are why there is this huge "recession", why there are sweat shops and outsourced jobs, the IMF and the world bank buy all the natural resources in 3rd world countries and make TONS of money off them. Not to mention military actions usually provided by the US or the UN. Our societies are perpetuated by Slavery. In the old chattel sense of the word. You don't see it, but its why we "have" just enough not to complain, and the top 1% live ridiculous lives of opulence.
On June 27 2010 14:22 -fj. wrote: The purpose of the undercovers is to provoke violence, give the other police an excuse to start spraying and hitting. That's usually what they do anyway, aside from ratting on / telling lies about the people they were with.
The motivation for the protests is not something that is easily explained in one forum post, especially to a normal person on a gaming forum. Although these are really inflammatory and have some bullshit in them, they capture the spirit and main ideas behind this protest in an entertaining fashion. I highly recommend watching it.
Activists have accused Canadian officials of using heavy-handed tactics in preparation for protests at the G8 and G20 summits. On Friday, it emerged that the government of the province of Ontario had secretly changed a law to allow police to arrest anyone near the G20 meeting who doesn't identify themselves.
The change to the law wasn't made public until 31-year-old Dave Vasey was arrested under the new powers. Vasey was kept for hours in a caged area police set up to hold arrested protesters. he told the Toronto Star Saturday that he plans to challenge the law as early as Monday.
Vasey's lawyer, Howard Morton, said the law violates Canada's constitution, which "guarantees people freedom of assembly [and] the freedom of communication."
The people causing destruction and violence have no idea what they are doing. They are protesting absolutely nothing. Instead of putting all this energy into something actually constructive they are wasting it on these ridiculous protests that absolutely no one of importance cares about. Just imagine all the energy these rejects of society put into these protest funneled towards something constructive, something positive towards society instead of smashing windows and burning cop cars, that will show the world leaders you mean business, chaos and destruction. Obviously the world isn't prefect and sure somethings need to be changed but vandalizing and causing havoc does absolutely nothing to make these changes.
I am rather saddened by the troublemakers. Toronto has been overall a rather peaceful town when it comes to protests. The ones who burned police cars and windows are clearly not there to protest - but to cause trouble... how does breaking the window of starbucks help you get your point across? Why does the police officers allow their cars to be burned down?
I was passing outside a hotel where the VIPs are supposed to stay a week ago and all the fences and police blockades implied serious business.
1billion is a bit too much for security costs imo. Maybe because Toronto has been such a peaceful town that the police department are not experienced enough handling such a major event.
Many years back I read how the Korean farmers went to Hong Kong to protest - when they are done they would clean the streets for the city. Such good manners! Why can't the G20 protest be more like this? Is it possible for the protest organizers to "organize" themselves and use their own manpower to prevent such a riot from happening?
On June 27 2010 14:36 ChoboOv wrote: The people causing destruction and violence have no idea what they are doing. They are protesting absolutely nothing. Instead of putting all this energy into something actually constructive they are wasting it on these ridiculous protests that absolutely no one of importance cares about. Just imagine all the energy these rejects of society put into these protest funneled towards something constructive, something positive towards society instead of smashing windows and burning cop cars, that will show the world leaders you mean business, chaos and destruction. Obviously the world isn't prefect and sure somethings need to be changed but vandalizing and causing havoc does absolutely nothing to make these changes.
It honestly hurts me to hear you condemn the democratic process...
Maybe you don't understand the issues at heart, but show a little respect for people that are looking out for your freedom. (Hint: it's not your government)
On June 27 2010 14:35 Motiva wrote: Really, that's barely scratching the surface on why people would protest G20. lol. Shit is serious ^^
Zeitgiest is nice because of how it assimilates information from so many fields, but it fails to tell the full story imo.
I was digging Zeitgiest and its sequel until the 9/11 conspiracy stuff. Because of that one section I tend to take documentaries of Zeitgiest's kind with a grain of salt. The networks between corporations and nations are so complex, and information so sparse and overloading that I must force myself to doubt the facts and conclusions of these docs. All I know for sure is that:
1) there are people who live in shit and poverty without the means to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. 2) there are people with the means to fix this that instead exacerbate the suffering.
That in itself is enough of a reason to protest and want to tear down the government, but I'm pessimistic of any "achievements" gained this way. Governments ignore, pundits smear, and CEOs laugh. Without these people on board nothing will change.
As an aside, that's why I think Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are total ballers for their charity efforts
-e-
On June 27 2010 14:39 Hikari wrote: I am rather saddened by the troublemakers. Toronto has been overall a rather peaceful town when it comes to protests. The ones who burned police cars and windows are clearly not there to protest - but to cause trouble... how does breaking the window of starbucks help you get your point across? Why does the police officers allow their cars to be burned down?
I agree with you that breaking Starbucks windows in no way directly improves anything. What it does is make noise and that's what a protest is about. (and all those Via ready blends are now free for the taking!)
On June 27 2010 14:36 ChoboOv wrote: Obviously the world isn't prefect and sure somethings need to be changed but vandalizing and causing havoc does absolutely nothing to make these changes.
Actually, there is a strong argument against that. Really it should be so common sense that I'm suprised anyone has to say it.
The fact of the matter is that this thread and prolly thousands others would not exist if things never escalated. If for every 5,000 that read about these posts only 5 are educated it's not a horrible trade.
From what I've seen it wasn't like they were raining down hellish destruction and fire. From what I saw the police were getting pretty emotional. Emotion begets emotion maybe?
On June 27 2010 14:39 Hikari wrote: I am rather saddened by the troublemakers. Toronto has been overall a rather peaceful town when it comes to protests. The ones who burned police cars and windows are clearly not there to protest - but to cause trouble... how does breaking the window of starbucks help you get your point across? Why does the police officers allow their cars to be burned down?
I was passing outside a hotel where the VIPs are supposed to stay a week ago and all the fences and police blockades implied serious business.
1billion is a bit too much for security costs imo. Maybe because Toronto has been such a peaceful town that the police department are not experienced enough handling such a major event.
Many years back I read how the Korean farmers went to Hong Kong to protest - when they are done they would clean the streets for the city. Such good manners! Why can't the G20 protest be more like this? Is it possible for the protest organizers to "organize" themselves and use their own manpower to prevent such a riot from happening?
Good post. There are several clashes of interest amongst the protesters and protest leaders so there is no "controlling" violent behavior. The protesters who belong togethor stay togethor, I'm sure a lot of the trouble makers have no place and give no support to any of the causes other than disturbance . Most of the damage is towards the protesters themselves via bad PR. A few broken windows and some burned cars is meaningless really, the cop cars are paid for out of our pocket. The small companies are the ones I worry about because our government gives them the hardest time anyway. I think in general the peaceful protest is an opportunity to feel the gesture of a population swaying in opposition to the sorts of management and manipulation of financial policy that is happening mostly veiled above our heads.
On June 27 2010 14:32 cursor wrote: I used to be quite "activist" myself. I went to a lot of protests and listened to NPR all the time, read a lot of Chomsky and Jensen.
Just made me realize how hopeless it is. I'm glad I did it. But, people aren't listening. Either- the people who are in power OR the other people who should be protesting.
I forget how in the dark people can be when they say things like "what are these people protesting", these are "peaceful meetings."
Just, basically to sum up, as simply as I can, why I myself protested:
The G8 enslave the rest of the world. Also, 98% of the populations of the G8 live very poorly compared to how they should be. These people meeting are the rich people who suck off the top of everyone. They are why there is this huge "recession", why there are sweat shops and outsourced jobs, the IMF and the world bank buy all the natural resources in 3rd world countries and make TONS of money off them. Not to mention military actions usually provided by the US or the UN. Our societies are perpetuated by Slavery. In the old chattel sense of the word. You don't see it, but its why we "have" just enough not to complain, and the top 1% live ridiculous lives of opulence.
Good post. One of the problems is that many protesters don't make it specifically clearly why they are there. While someone like you or me who has read and knows is familiar, most people just look and think "what a bunch of thugs." It might be that the message is too complicated to distill into chant-able sound bytes; i don't really know.
Nothing says protest like firebombing things... zeesh wtf is up with protesters i swear some ppl just join those groups because they are pyromaniacs, violence is never a show of that i'm right and you're wrong. If you had the valid truth you wouldn't need to firebomb shit.
On June 27 2010 15:11 semantics wrote: If you had the valid truth you wouldn't need to firebomb shit.
Back this statement up.
haha hilarious. Simply put a show of force is the opposite of intellectual discussion and persuasion. It is only necessary to use force when against someone beyond reason. So either the people do not believe in governments and they are all anarchist or they just rather spend their time demanding things without valid proof and firebomb those who do not agree.
o... zeitgheist lol silly gooses the whole zeitgheist movement is sponsored by the Rothschilds and the narrator of that is a satanic druid something degree and he got his influence and works from Maxwell who is a 33rd mason i believe so hehekakahehhohoho.
On June 27 2010 15:11 semantics wrote: If you had the valid truth you wouldn't need to firebomb shit.
Back this statement up.
haha hilarious. Simply put a show of force is the opposite of intellectual discussion and persuasion. It is only necessary to use force when against someone beyond reason. So either the people do not believe in governments and they are all anarchist or they just rather spend their time demanding things without valid proof and firebomb those who do not agree.
The entire problem with your argument is that you buy into the 'problem' caused by the violence, and the one that is easiest to grab a hold of especially with the media focus on it. That the protesters are of one group, are all imbeciles and reckless. Each man is responsible for his own action, so the violent protesters must be looked at individually or according to their group. If they don't want to be identified (probably more likely with a group than as an individual due to the obvious legal issue) then they are probably just out to harm the protesters more than anything else. There is very good use for protests, and it's important to have them, regardless if there are problems like this vandalism.
On June 27 2010 15:11 semantics wrote: If you had the valid truth you wouldn't need to firebomb shit.
Back this statement up.
haha hilarious. Simply put a show of force is the opposite of intellectual discussion and persuasion. It is only necessary to use force when against someone beyond reason. So either the people do not believe in governments and they are all anarchist or they just rather spend their time demanding things without valid proof and firebomb those who do not agree.
I agree completely that force is the opposite of intellectual discussion. Contrary to what you believe many academics and historians do believe exactly what many of these protesters are protesting.
Assuming your not implying in the above quote that there is such a thing as invalid truth, I would not say that force is the opposite of persuasion. It's certainly not very persuasive, but you could say that the propagation of information whether valid or invalid, if believable, can be persuasive. If the amount of violence you generate is relative to the amount of publicity you receive, well then, You're statement when propagating a "valid" truth is false.
EDIT: for the record, I'm not promoting violence, I'm simply sympathizing the message of the protesters. Furthermore I personally think the time for these protests was 3-5 years ago. The military industrial complex has dug america and much of the world into such a position that global war and economic collapse are dancing on the edge of a cliff that I think that a real policy change at the moment would create a geopolitical catastrophe.
It could further be said that if America didn't outsource it's government power to the FED, G8/20, CFR, among countless others and maybe contracted some amount of it's empire that this system might work alittle bit better.
On June 27 2010 15:11 semantics wrote: If you had the valid truth you wouldn't need to firebomb shit.
Back this statement up.
haha hilarious. Simply put a show of force is the opposite of intellectual discussion and persuasion. It is only necessary to use force when against someone beyond reason. So either the people do not believe in governments and they are all anarchist or they just rather spend their time demanding things without valid proof and firebomb those who do not agree.
You paint the protesters as the ones with the power to silence and smear the opposition. In my opinion the firebombings and broken windows are either manifestations of the impotent rage felt by the sincere protesters against the injustice they have no power to stop, or just the work of vandals. I don't see why there's any need to criticise these things - we all know it's antisocial behavior. The real discussion to be had is what is being protested, not the means of protest
what the fuck. Are all of the protesters complete retards? What do they expect to gain from doing this? YEAH lets go shut down a whole city for a day because we are PISSED off and nobody will listen to me be pissed off!!! WOOOO! This is not the way to solve problems and obviously the police will be brutal because people are setting fire to police cars and vandalizing everything!
I really wish that I could have punched that guy in the kilt in that last video posted by Nukedufirst. The economic damage that these 10 000 brainless fools caused is unforgivable. The police should have shot off tear gas much earlier. Hell, they also should have had riot shields, though I guess the bikes worked ok too.
I am so pissed at all of these nimrods. How they criticize the police for maintaining the peace and keeping order when they are causing havoc and making total asses out of themselves? Why can't these people just shut up and not fuck everybody else over?
On June 27 2010 15:48 canucks12 wrote: Sorry for the harsh language, but what the fuck. Are all of the protesters complete retards? What do they expect to gain from doing this? YEAH lets go shut down a whole city for a day because we are PISSED off and nobody will listen to me be pissed off!!! WOOOO! This is not the way to solve problems and obviously the police will be brutal because people are setting fire to police cars and vandalizing everything!
I really wish that I could have punched that guy in the kilt in that last video posted by Nukedufirst. The economic damage that these 10 000 brainless fools caused is unforgivable. The police should have shot off tear gas much earlier. Hell, they also should have had riot shields, though I guess the bikes worked ok too.
I am so pissed at all of these nimrods. How they criticize the police for maintaining the peace and keeping order when they are causing havoc and making total asses out of themselves? Why can't these people just shut up and not fuck everybody else over?
Go fuck yourself or read a book. Either way, shut the fuck up.
On June 27 2010 15:48 canucks12 wrote: Sorry for the harsh language, but what the fuck. Are all of the protesters complete retards? What do they expect to gain from doing this? YEAH lets go shut down a whole city for a day because we are PISSED off and nobody will listen to me be pissed off!!! WOOOO! This is not the way to solve problems and obviously the police will be brutal because people are setting fire to police cars and vandalizing everything!
I really wish that I could have punched that guy in the kilt in that last video posted by Nukedufirst. The economic damage that these 10 000 brainless fools caused is unforgivable. The police should have shot off tear gas much earlier. Hell, they also should have had riot shields, though I guess the bikes worked ok too.
I am so pissed at all of these nimrods. How they criticize the police for maintaining the peace and keeping order when they are causing havoc and making total asses out of themselves? Why can't these people just shut up and not fuck everybody else over?
Not all of them are causing damage. A lot of them are peaceful and they have every right to protest something that they see as wrong. Do you even understand what G-20 is?
On June 27 2010 15:11 semantics wrote: If you had the valid truth you wouldn't need to firebomb shit.
Back this statement up.
haha hilarious. Simply put a show of force is the opposite of intellectual discussion and persuasion. It is only necessary to use force when against someone beyond reason. So either the people do not believe in governments and they are all anarchist or they just rather spend their time demanding things without valid proof and firebomb those who do not agree.
The entire problem with your argument is that you buy into the 'problem' caused by the violence, and the one that is easiest to grab a hold of especially with the media focus on it. That the protesters are of one group, are all imbeciles and reckless. Each man is responsible for his own action, so the violent protesters must be looked at individually or according to their group. If they don't want to be identified (probably more likely with a group than as an individual due to the obvious legal issue) then they are probably just out to harm the protesters more than anything else. There is very good use for protests, and it's important to have them, regardless if there are problems like this vandalism.
That's always the problem people lump things together it's how human mind works. So a true protest has to be peaceful for people to sympathize, a few violent in a majority of peaceful protesters instantly labels the group as violent. So they are violent and thus inconsolable as their position will not change.
When you protest as a group you represent the group, one person can easily ruin the groups image by their solo actions.
I was actually @ Eaton Centre today during the afternoon for general shopping, just ate a sub from Quiznos around 3:40pm, came outside and realized no subway access (already blocked off) at Dundas so started walking up Yonge (towards Bloor)... then all of a sudden people are RUNNING past us so we (myself and my friends) just ran with them, lol. Behind us... a dozen cops running towards us. First time I've been chased by a police (not that I've done anything wrong... besides being in downtown while G20 is on?), kind of exciting but I didn't have time to get new shoes from footlocker (they were having clearance sale on classic adidas shoes... dammit).
For the record, people who are insanely rich are insanely rich because they have a knack for creating wealth. If people want a piece of that, they should lower their voices. Also, while people are demanding that governments make them hand over their money, they are already starting to do it themselves:
It doesn't help that they use plainclothes officers to purposely rile them up into doing as such. There are a minority of violent members in any group (who would be doing the same things, if the roles were reversed), but the media and supporting interests will always make it seem as if they are all violent.
google "anarchists target yonge" to see a bunch of fucktards protest by smashing the windows of stores such as quiznos, sears, rogers, some clothing stores (don't forget mutilating manikins). it's disheartening to see how people take advantage of legitimate protests by putting on masks and smashing shit. i'm just glad I handed in my placement forms to ryerson on wednesday, i may have had some troubles walking down yonge had i gone at a later time. and where are those billion dollars worth of cops when you need em? i wouldn't mind seeing a vid where the douchebags eat some plastic bullets...
On June 27 2010 15:11 semantics wrote: If you had the valid truth you wouldn't need to firebomb shit.
Back this statement up.
haha hilarious. Simply put a show of force is the opposite of intellectual discussion and persuasion. It is only necessary to use force when against someone beyond reason. So either the people do not believe in governments and they are all anarchist or they just rather spend their time demanding things without valid proof and firebomb those who do not agree.
The entire problem with your argument is that you buy into the 'problem' caused by the violence, and the one that is easiest to grab a hold of especially with the media focus on it. That the protesters are of one group, are all imbeciles and reckless. Each man is responsible for his own action, so the violent protesters must be looked at individually or according to their group. If they don't want to be identified (probably more likely with a group than as an individual due to the obvious legal issue) then they are probably just out to harm the protesters more than anything else. There is very good use for protests, and it's important to have them, regardless if there are problems like this vandalism.
That's always the problem people lump things together it's how human mind works. So a true protest has to be peaceful for people to sympathize, a few violent in a majority of peaceful protesters instantly labels the group as violent. So they are violent and thus inconsolable as their position will not change.
When you protest as a group you represent the group, one person can easily ruin the groups image by their solo actions.
Yes but since it is most likely that none of the peaceful groups own any media outlets their voices will remain mostly undefended.
On June 27 2010 16:05 Vedic wrote: It doesn't help that they use plainclothes officers to purposely rile them up into doing as such. There are a minority of violent members in any group (who would be doing the same things, if the roles were reversed), but the media and supporting interests will always make it seem as if they are all violent.
well firebombing shit just makes it like everything is bad, if they just wouldn't burn shit it would be harder to lump the group becuase the only media shots would be a few people being arrested.
On June 27 2010 16:04 ZerglingSoup wrote: For the record, people who are insanely rich are insanely rich because they have a knack for creating wealth. If people want a piece of that, they should lower their voices. Also, while people are demanding that governments make them hand over their money, they are already starting to do it themselves:
It's nice when entrepreneurs give their money away, I'd be surprised to see many bankers, and people who inherited their wealth do the same. Banker's sure do "have a knack for creating wealth" though
Not to dog what they are doing, it is truly amazing.
On June 27 2010 15:11 semantics wrote: If you had the valid truth you wouldn't need to firebomb shit.
Back this statement up.
haha hilarious. Simply put a show of force is the opposite of intellectual discussion and persuasion. It is only necessary to use force when against someone beyond reason. So either the people do not believe in governments and they are all anarchist or they just rather spend their time demanding things without valid proof and firebomb those who do not agree.
The entire problem with your argument is that you buy into the 'problem' caused by the violence, and the one that is easiest to grab a hold of especially with the media focus on it. That the protesters are of one group, are all imbeciles and reckless. Each man is responsible for his own action, so the violent protesters must be looked at individually or according to their group. If they don't want to be identified (probably more likely with a group than as an individual due to the obvious legal issue) then they are probably just out to harm the protesters more than anything else. There is very good use for protests, and it's important to have them, regardless if there are problems like this vandalism.
That's always the problem people lump things together it's how human mind works. So a true protest has to be peaceful for people to sympathize, a few violent in a majority of peaceful protesters instantly labels the group as violent. So they are violent and thus inconsolable as their position will not change.
When you protest as a group you represent the group, one person can easily ruin the groups image by their solo actions.
Yes but since it is most likely that none of the peaceful groups own any media outlets their voices will remain mostly undefended.
Disrupt normal flow of things, block roads that you didn't clear with the local government get arrested, but don't get arrested for being a firebombing duche.
There are ways to break the law and gain attention without destroying crap.
On June 27 2010 16:04 ZerglingSoup wrote: For the record, people who are insanely rich are insanely rich because they have a knack for creating wealth. If people want a piece of that, they should lower their voices. Also, while people are demanding that governments make them hand over their money, they are already starting to do it themselves:
It's nice when entrepreneurs give their money away, I'd be surprised to see many bankers, and people who inherited their wealth do the same. Banker's sure do "have a knack for creating wealth" though
Not to dog what they are doing, it is truly amazing.
Well distribution of wealth is very lopsided in the US alot of ppl are filthy rich and kids just inherent money then the people who control that money make money off them.
The prob in the US is that we don't tax enough, in the past 50 years taxes have fallen dramatically esp when dealing with the rich. The Rich convinced us of top down economics, but frankly it has not worked out so it's time again to tax the shit out of crap esp as more entitlement crap comes into play with our aging population.
You want benefits pay the taxes for it. The shit that really pisses me of the how degraded most of America's infrastructure is.
On June 27 2010 16:04 OpticalShot wrote: I was actually @ Eaton Centre today during the afternoon for general shopping, just ate a sub from Quiznos around 3:40pm, came outside and realized no subway access (already blocked off) at Dundas so started walking up Yonge (towards Bloor)... then all of a sudden people are RUNNING past us so we (myself and my friends) just ran with them, lol. Behind us... a dozen cops running towards us. First time I've been chased by a police (not that I've done anything wrong... besides being in downtown while G20 is on?), kind of exciting but I didn't have time to get new shoes from footlocker (they were having clearance sale on classic adidas shoes... dammit).
Just my two cents related to this issue.
That sounds fun and scary at the same time!
I'm not a fan of the violence going on, but at the same time, I'm also not impressed with how things are running in this world. I'm also pissed that we spent a billion dollars on security and the violence has turned out like it would anywhere else. I really don't know where that billion is going and in whose pockets....
On June 27 2010 16:04 OpticalShot wrote: I was actually @ Eaton Centre today during the afternoon for general shopping, just ate a sub from Quiznos around 3:40pm, came outside and realized no subway access (already blocked off) at Dundas so started walking up Yonge (towards Bloor)... then all of a sudden people are RUNNING past us so we (myself and my friends) just ran with them, lol. Behind us... a dozen cops running towards us. First time I've been chased by a police (not that I've done anything wrong... besides being in downtown while G20 is on?), kind of exciting but I didn't have time to get new shoes from footlocker (they were having clearance sale on classic adidas shoes... dammit).
Just my two cents related to this issue.
That sounds fun and scary at the same time!
I'm not a fan of the violence going on, but at the same time, I'm also not impressed with how things are running in this world. I'm also pissed that we spent a billion dollars on security and the violence has turned out like it would anywhere else. I really don't know where that billion is going and in whose pockets....
i heard you guys made a lake, but supposedly most of the money is to security, obv they need their recites.
On June 27 2010 16:04 ZerglingSoup wrote: For the record, people who are insanely rich are insanely rich because they have a knack for creating wealth. If people want a piece of that, they should lower their voices. Also, while people are demanding that governments make them hand over their money, they are already starting to do it themselves:
On June 27 2010 16:07 eLiE wrote: google "anarchists target yonge" to see a bunch of fucktards protest by smashing the windows of stores such as quiznos, sears, rogers, some clothing stores (don't forget mutilating manikins). it's disheartening to see how people take advantage of legitimate protests by putting on masks and smashing shit. i'm just glad I handed in my placement forms to ryerson on wednesday, i may have had some troubles walking down yonge had i gone at a later time. and where are those billion dollars worth of cops when you need em? i wouldn't mind seeing a vid where the douchebags eat some plastic bullets...
Watching this video makes me want to puke. WHY is nobody trying to stop them? Do none of the protesters have a sense of justice? This is such a shame, as much as I don't like Toronto, the residents did nothing to deserve this.
On June 27 2010 16:04 ZerglingSoup wrote: For the record, people who are insanely rich are insanely rich because they have a knack for creating wealth. If people want a piece of that, they should lower their voices. Also, while people are demanding that governments make them hand over their money, they are already starting to do it themselves:
It's nice when entrepreneurs give their money away, I'd be surprised to see many bankers, and people who inherited their wealth do the same. Banker's sure do "have a knack for creating wealth" though
Not to dog what they are doing, it is truly amazing.
Well distribution of wealth is very lopsided in the US alot of ppl are filthy rich and kids just inherent money then the people who control that money make money off them.
The prob in the US is that we don't tax enough, in the past 50 years taxes have fallen dramatically esp when dealing with the rich. The Rich convinced us of top down economics, but frankly it has not worked out so it's time again to tax the shit out of crap esp as more entitlement crap comes into play with our aging population.
You want benefits pay the taxes for it. The shit that really pisses me of the how degraded most of America's infrastructure is.
I don't think that taxes are the actual problem. According to http://www.usdebtclock.org/ the debt owed per citizen in personal debt alone is nearly 53,000. Then factor in federal debt. I think more taxes would really make things harder for small business and possibly make more people default and generate even more debt long term while generating decent revenue short term. We need real reform, or more wars.
Watching this video makes me want to puke. WHY is nobody trying to stop them? Do none of the protesters have a sense of justice? This is such a shame, as much as I don't like Toronto, the residents did nothing to deserve this.
mob mentality i guess. it probably wouldn't take much to take them though. just take off their masks and they'll run away like a bunch of wusses (i'll try to tone down the swearing, haha). im not sure, though, cause that one old guy grabbed that guy and the crowd started yelling at him, so it could have gotten messy.
Responsible protesters have attempted citizen's arrests. They usually scamper off. Someone already mentioned this is the majority of the media coverage the protesters will get unfortunately, so thankfully because some glass broke and some cars burned (which we pay for) they get some due attention just like everyone would like. I might catch flack with this but its a mountain from a mole hill really.
Anarchists arent anti-gov there in same side... they demonize the public by having anarchist vandalizing the streets and trashing the stores. prime example would be the Seattle riot. Just look at the mainstream news talking about the violence always and when they do show peaceful protests they say because of heavy police presence. you most people dont realize the magnitude of control these secret luciferian groups have in the society since ages, which now they control the population through corporate cosmology. iam very deeply worried what kind of world my children will live in as we slip deeper and deeper into oblivion.
On June 27 2010 16:04 OpticalShot wrote: I was actually @ Eaton Centre today during the afternoon for general shopping, just ate a sub from Quiznos around 3:40pm, came outside and realized no subway access (already blocked off) at Dundas so started walking up Yonge (towards Bloor)... then all of a sudden people are RUNNING past us so we (myself and my friends) just ran with them, lol. Behind us... a dozen cops running towards us. First time I've been chased by a police (not that I've done anything wrong... besides being in downtown while G20 is on?), kind of exciting but I didn't have time to get new shoes from footlocker (they were having clearance sale on classic adidas shoes... dammit).
Just my two cents related to this issue.
This post is so ironic, it might as well been quoted from 1984, otherland or other grim future fiction books. Seriously, i think in the first part of otherland there is a newsflash where someone is interviewed that got into protests because they wanted to shop downtown.
Not that this is the first time that i'm noticing this. Just sends chills up my spine every time ..
On June 27 2010 16:04 OpticalShot wrote: I was actually @ Eaton Centre today during the afternoon for general shopping, just ate a sub from Quiznos around 3:40pm, came outside and realized no subway access (already blocked off) at Dundas so started walking up Yonge (towards Bloor)... then all of a sudden people are RUNNING past us so we (myself and my friends) just ran with them, lol. Behind us... a dozen cops running towards us. First time I've been chased by a police (not that I've done anything wrong... besides being in downtown while G20 is on?), kind of exciting but I didn't have time to get new shoes from footlocker (they were having clearance sale on classic adidas shoes... dammit).
Just my two cents related to this issue.
I was supposed to work at Eaton Centre today but my schedule got changed last minute and the guy that took my spot was stuck inside there for a while. Dunno how to feel, relieved it wasn't me but bad cause it was a fellow coworker He's fine though, probably one of those guys taking cellphone pictures of the aftermath.
The people who break windows and stuff don't realize that shop owners are losing a lot of money and the employees working there have to clean it all up after. Some of those small shops are family owned businesses or franchises that can't afford this mayhem.
Fast forward to 7:44 in the video. A small pizza shop (probably family owned), two guys defending it with their arms crossed and glaring eyes as their only weapons.
I'm surprised this actually happened cause usually Torontonians are pretty docile. I'd even bet that all the people causing destruction are not from Toronto... but all the people watching, taking pictures, and too afraid or indecisive to take any action (for or against) are from Toronto.
When is the last time a peaceful protest had a thread about it on teamliquid? I couldn't find any on the front page except for an 800 person blizzard beta key protest... lol
"By the late 1980s, roughly a third of Ottawa's revenues were being used to pay interest" (foreignpolicy.com) There is plenty of good reason to support the protesters. Interest has it's necessity but the way its been used in our world is a f*cken crime a million times over. There is a lot wrong with the way the world works today, and it's easy to accept it by being lethargic or complacent. If only we could know exactly what is going on. To be honest I'm just worried about a meltdown of some sort. There are a lot of things to be fought for or they will be taken away.
To all of the sheltered, pacifistic, media-brainwashed, so-called "educated" individuals posting such illuminating statements in this thread along the lines of "violence doesn't solve anything, why are those idiots protesting peaceful meetings" etc... I say to you:
Because of what happened in Toronto, this thread exists. Because shit was broken and smashed and vandalized, this thread exists, and thousands of others like it on the internet exist, and people who have never even heard of the G20 meetings are now at least slightly aware of the some of the most serious issues underlying our civilization today.
Intelligent discussion does not work with corrupt, greedy, callous corporate tyrants. Sometimes you really do need to man up and get your hands wet and red to change the world. I say they didn't go far enough.
On June 27 2010 11:26 Severedevil wrote: People are breaking shit to protest a peaceful meeting?
Of all the things to get violent over...
?
If you did some reading (even wikipedia), and understood the consolidation of power, poverty, and sadness that the g-20 and the IMF and World Bank (which are represented with more power than actual countries have in the g-20) create, maybe you would at least understand why people are angry enough to be violent.
Edit: I'll try to explain
The World Bank and IMF are like the worlds biggest loan sharks. They loan money to developing countries, but they countries have to agree to 'Structural Adjustments' which usually includes cutting government spending (healthcare, security, and Government subsidies go first), privatize natural resources (sell things like mines, forests, etc to corporations), and remove or lower tariffs, labor laws and environmental protections to increase foreign investment (woooh more corporations).
It's one thing to be angry, but being violent is taking it way to far. They accomplish nothing by committing these idiotic acts of vandalism to our city. Those small businesses and restaurants didn't deserve to be smashed into. They shouldn't be picking on the innocent just to prove a point.
Harper "wins". Torontonians (and all taxpayers) lose. Plus a slippery slope towards more abusive police powers.
A billion dollars wasted. Successfully creating chaos in an area (Toronto) where Harper doesn't have any supporters, so nothing to lose, while he mingles with other world leaders and unsuccessfully tries to get them to increase trade or whatever with Canada. And somehow the fucking McGuinty government approves all sorts of "temporary" police powers - like the power to arrest you if you won't show the ID that you must be carrying. And all this without any public debate nor informing the public that the rules have changed. And he has the gall to say that "Ontarians understand there's something extraordinary happening inside our province." A big meeting every working Canadian has to pay $50 towards and take no part of, while painting a big target on the country's largest city "Anarchists come here."
I really dislike their argument that such unreasonable police powers are simply temporary. If they did it this time they could easily do it again any time in the future. What kind of democracy is this?
On June 27 2010 11:26 Severedevil wrote: People are breaking shit to protest a peaceful meeting?
Of all the things to get violent over...
From a certain point of view, that i don't necessarly endorse, this meeting is far more violent than few cars burning and some mayhem for a few days.
People feel that the rich and powerful are discussing how to perpetuate domination and how to keep alive with the least change possible the system that fuck them in the ass.
I don't think violence without a positive idea helps at all, but I can understand where the anger comes from.
Documentary on what our money really is, and how banks exploit it. The follow up documentary sequel carries it closer to a more "real" depiction. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVkFb26u9g8
Documentary on what the corporation is and how they exploit governments and that if they didn't oppress people they would be neglecting their duty. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pin8fbdGV9Y .
Great documentaries. Should be required viewing for everyone.
The protesters are just a bunch of naive hipsters. If they really wanted to 'rebel' they should stop consuming useless junk like ipods , go live on some farm in the sticks and grow their own food.If they want a life without government oppression you won't find that in some big city. Go do something with your life hippies instead of complaining about everything.
The worst part of all this is that these Blac Bloc people are validating the massive funding put into security for the conference.
There are much more secure areas within Canada to hold it, and much more better things to spend our Canadian tax dollars on. I understand that there is security needed, but I feel the majority of that cost could be mitigated by a location change. Poor planning by the Harper government caused this. That money could of been spent on the Canadian healthcare system, could of helped create more jobs. Close less schools or even subsidize the poor farmers in my province.
What a mess. This makes Canada look horrible, and a lot of the protesters are from outside the country.
Oh Ninja edit: The police are actually cooperating with peaceful protesters, and vice versa. I have a friend down there who is protesting the overspending. A lot of the group he is with have called 911 on the violent protesters. Also, the police 'safe protesting' area is right next to the safety fence/riot line so they aren't just corralling them into an area where they won't be heard.
Documentary on what our money really is, and how banks exploit it. The follow up documentary sequel carries it closer to a more "real" depiction. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVkFb26u9g8
Documentary on what the corporation is and how they exploit governments and that if they didn't oppress people they would be neglecting their duty. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pin8fbdGV9Y .
Great documentaries. Should be required viewing for everyone.
Unless you want to actually get educated. Then you should probably read books and journals instead of watching frivolous and biased documentaries. But, you know... that takes effort.
Documentary on what our money really is, and how banks exploit it. The follow up documentary sequel carries it closer to a more "real" depiction. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVkFb26u9g8
Documentary on what the corporation is and how they exploit governments and that if they didn't oppress people they would be neglecting their duty. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pin8fbdGV9Y .
Great documentaries. Should be required viewing for everyone.
Unless you want to actually get educated. Then you should probably read books and journals instead of watching frivolous and biased documentaries. But, you know... that takes effort.
So a documentary that educates people on the basics of the financial system - and a documentary about corporations and how they operate in the modern world are "frivolous" and "biased". K.
Then I'll assume you haven't watched either of them.
I know: it takes way less effort to make assumptions on something you haven't watched, and then take 5 seconds to make a snap judgement on it and attack someone anonymously on the Internet.
This is why a huge percentage of the world is willfully ignorant. And this is why the worlds elite, the bankers, and the multi-national corporations can get away with flushing the world around us down the toilet.
The most incredible chance for education is available at people's fingertips from the comfort of your own home. ... and they stick their head in the sand, fingers up their ass, make snap judgement on internet forums and try to win arguments with anonymous people while they munch Cheeto's and fart.
I have watched them and they're filled with half truths and a skewed narrative. In fact, we've had the very conversation on these forums on whether corporations are psychopathic or not.
See, when you actually study political science or economics, and I don't mean looking something up on Wikipedia but ACTUALLY learning decent information about them and the reasons behind things and the reasons behind those things, etc., you begin to see that the world is not a black and white picture where everyone is out to get one another or where egomaniacs and mega-entities secretly try to take over the world or because they want to become #1 in everything possible. It's comprised of mostly rational actors who deal with issues like ethics, societal influences, private pressure and who mostly make rational decisions that sometimes don't turn out well.
Education on the internet comes with a price, that being most of the information is bad.
Believing that there is a coherent scheme to international banking is a product of that. The biggest fault is that the situation as a whole is completely incoherent and I would bet $5 that there's not a single person who understands how it all works, because it is too complex, policies too convoluted and there's too many actors with their own exceptions.
Documentary on what our money really is, and how banks exploit it. The follow up documentary sequel carries it closer to a more "real" depiction. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVkFb26u9g8
Documentary on what the corporation is and how they exploit governments and that if they didn't oppress people they would be neglecting their duty. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pin8fbdGV9Y .
Great documentaries. Should be required viewing for everyone.
Unless you want to actually get educated. Then you should probably read books and journals instead of watching frivolous and biased documentaries. But, you know... that takes effort.
+1 for books, they are truly superior.
no effort is pretty nice too though ;-D "frivolous" seems a bit extreme. Maybe slightly irrelevant
On June 27 2010 20:07 Jibba wrote: I have watched them and they're filled with half truths and a skewed narrative. In fact, we've had the very conversation on these forums on whether corporations are psychopathic or not.
See, when you actually study political science or economics, and I don't mean looking something up on Wikipedia but ACTUALLY learning decent information about them and the reasons behind things and the reasons behind those things, etc., you begin to see that the world is not a black and white picture where everyone is out to get one another or where egomaniacs and mega-entities secretly try to take over the world or because they want to become #1 in everything possible. It's comprised of mostly rational actors who deal with issues like ethics, societal influences, private pressure and who mostly make rational decisions that sometimes don't turn out well.
Education on the internet comes with a price, that being most of the information is bad.
Believing that there is a coherent scheme to international banking is a product of that. The biggest fault is that the situation as a whole is completely incoherent and I would bet $5 that there's not a single person who understands how it all works, because it is too complex, policies too convoluted and there's too many actors with their own exceptions.
lol. What do you mean by "decent" information? As if there is a shortage of published material arguing a multitude of perspectives that don't agree. I'm not arguing that either of those documentaries portrays the "correct" perspective or even that they are not bias. They serve a decent purpose. There is enough fact or otherwise interesting information presented in such a "lite" format that i think they're worth mentioning to people. If even a few of the thousands that view those documentaries become interested enough to do something like read Zbigniew Brzezinski's books or Noam Chomsky, or whatever your beliefs are I think it's less than "frivolous".
On June 27 2010 20:07 Jibba wrote: I have watched them and they're filled with half truths and a skewed narrative. In fact, we've had the very conversation on these forums on whether corporations are psychopathic or not.
See, when you actually study political science or economics, and I don't mean looking something up on Wikipedia but ACTUALLY learning decent information about them and the reasons behind things and the reasons behind those things, etc., you begin to see that the world is not a black and white picture where everyone is out to get one another or where egomaniacs and mega-entities secretly try to take over the world or because they want to become #1 in everything possible. It's comprised of mostly rational actors who deal with issues like ethics, societal influences, private pressure and who mostly make rational decisions that sometimes don't turn out well.
Education on the internet comes with a price, that being most of the information is bad.
Believing that there is a coherent scheme to international banking is a product of that. The biggest fault is that the situation as a whole is completely incoherent and I would bet $5 that there's not a single person who understands how it all works, because it is too complex, policies too convoluted and there's too many actors with their own exceptions.
Maybe my good friend Karl Marx learnt about politics on wikipedia. That's why the dozens of other great philosophers that followed his path during the XXth century were wrong. Should we make a list of all the people who learnt from capitalism on the internet? We can start with people like him or Rosa Luxembourg and we end up with folks like Badiou, Zizek or Toni Negri.
Seriously. You like it or not, but understanding the issue with capitalism is not that complicated. Understanding the whole system is. But that's not the point.
1- Big companies are owned by thousand if not dozen of thousand of shareholders who sometimes don't even really know where their money is. All they expect is a return on their investment. Which is kinda normal if you think about it.
2- CEO and managers of the companies are responsible solely in front of the law and their shareholders.
3- Companies do everything they possibly can to make as much money as humanly possible in the shortest amount of time. It includes lobbying on government on their advantage or doing absolutely criminal things if the law somehow allows it (the way american oil companies behave in south America or the scandal with Total in Birmany are small but representative examples).
4- All the other factors are secundary. You talked about "ethics" (whatever it means in such context), ethics is just a way of doing money fast or assuring the long term run of the company For example, Nike adopted its "ethic chart" when consumers started to look at them differently after the scandal of their child workers in Indonesia. Thinking that Nike gives a fuck about the child workers would be ludicrous.
I don't say that companies are evil. I don't say that people who run them are bastards (although sometimes...) But their is a reason why people fight capitalism as a whole: because this system is plainly pathological.
Now we can discuss if it is the "best system except all others", the best compromise (à-la-Fukuyama) or if any attempt to fight against it will lead us back to gulags (à-la-Bernard Henri Levi), that's another question. But you don't need a PhD in economics to have an opinion on capitalism.
I used to sympatize with people like this when I was a kid - then they burned down my hometown during a EU summit a bunch of years ago and I have hated them with a passion ever since.
A friend of my mother's work in a bank and as the mob decended on their building everyone ran upstairs and shut the security doors behind them - she wasn't fast enough and got left behind. She was hiding in a closet literally pissing herself as a horde of masked armed men smashed the entire place to pieces. She was shaking as she told the story.
These 'protesters' (they show more similarities with an orc horde imo - both in morals and actions) are not achieving anything but alienation. 'Normal' people hear of the causes they 'champion' and they come to loathe them. Personally I keep voting for more foreign aid _despite_ these people and not because of them. And everytime I read something like this it gets a little harder.
They are not representing some kind of democratic process, no matter how much they would like us to believe so. Neither are they championing our freedom. They are young men who are of the opinion that their one vote and their democratic right to speak their piece and enter elections isn't enough. They think they deserve more - because they are in the _right_ and people need to _listen_. More than anything they remind me of the unemployed youngsters fighting Hitler's cause as he took control over Germany.
I support protests - When the governement here wanted to pass a law that essentially allowed a branch of the military to listen in on any phone conversation - read any email etc without court order I was on the streets screaming. But we didn't fucking break anything. And in the end the law was made somewhat less harsh. If you actually have the support of the the people you can change things, if you don't then try to convince them to agree with you. If they still don't agree then you need to accept that. You don't have the right to take up arms and If you think it's fine to ruin other people's lives because they don't 'understand' the way you do then you are a criminal - a thug and a worthless human being and you deserve to be locked up.
On June 27 2010 20:57 KlaCkoN wrote: I used to sympatize with people like this when I was a kid - then they burned down my hometown during a EU summit a bunch of years ago and I have hated them with a passion ever since.
A friend of my mother's work in a bank and as the mob decended on their building everyone ran upstairs and shut the security doors behind them - she wasn't fast enough and got left behind. She was hiding in a closet literally pissing herself as a horde of masked armed men smahed the entire place to pieces. She was shaking as she told the story.
These 'protesters' (they show more similarities with an orc horde imo - both in morals and actions) are not achieving anything but alienation. 'Normal' people hear of the causes they 'champion' and they come to loathe them. Personally I keep voting for more foriegn aid _despite_ of these people and not because of them. And everytime I read something like this it gets a little harder.
They are not representing some kind of democratic process, no matter how much they would like us to belive so. Neither are they championing our freedom. They are young men who are of the opinion that their one vote and their democratic right to speak their piece and enter elections isn't enough. They think they deserve more - because they are in the _right_ and people need to _listen_. More than anything they remind me of the unemployed youngsters fighting Hitler's cause as he took control over Germany.
I support protests - When the governement here wanted to pass a law that essentially allowed a branch of the military to listen in on any phone conversation - read any email etc without court order I was on the streets screaming. But we didn't fucking break anything. And in the end the law was made somewhat less harsh. If you actually have the support of the the people you can change things, if you don't then try to convince them to agree with you. If they still don't agree then you need to accept that. You don't have the right to take up arms and If you think it's fine to ruin other people's lives because they don't 'understand' the way you do then you are a criminal - a thug and a worthless human being and you deserve to be locked up.
I don't completely agree, for two reasons:
1- With such reasonment, we wouldn't have had French Revolution, nor May 68.
2- From a radical point of view we don't live in democracies and there is no way the system can be changed peacefully. Which is not that stupid if you think about it.
I see the problem differently. Theses guys don't fight for something. You can't fight without a positive idea. That makes their revolt is empty and nihilist, and more than everything else, ununderstandable and therefore inefficient.
While I understand the grief caused by the cost of the summit, I think it's really disgraceful to see stunts like these pulled. Violence does nothing but trivialize their "cause"and to be quite frank, I imagine a lot of these protesters have very little idea what the summit is about or what they are even protesting. As an example, a few guys from work took leave this weekend to protest; when I asked them why, they said "it looked like fun". I realize that not every protester is this ignorant, but by displaying mindless acts of violence that will hurt the people of Toronto even more is simply ridiculous and childish.
On June 27 2010 11:26 Severedevil wrote: People are breaking shit to protest a peaceful meeting?
Of all the things to get violent over...
Actually it's a lot more than that.
- to host the Summit, its costs over $25 million in security alone and this comes directly out of the Canadian taxpayer dollars. That is only one expense. We're paying for ALL of it.
- Ontario Premiere passed a bill without a vote, which gives police officers the right to lock you up if you don't let them search you or have you i.d. yourself within 5 meters of the fences. You could face up to a year in jail, or pay a $500 fine.
That's only two things. The Summit is a joke.
With that said, the news agencies are only showing the ugly. Every other demonstration in Toronto has been rather peaceful. There will always be a few bad eggs. There is no denying that. There's a lot of things to be bitter about with the Summit landing here. Of course nothing good will come out of their protests as there are too many groups advocating for different things. They just want to voice their displeasure in the end. -_-
On June 27 2010 20:07 Jibba wrote: It's comprised of mostly rational actors who deal with issues like ethics, societal influences, private pressure and who mostly make rational decisions that sometimes don't turn out well. .
Oh. You mean like BP. Or Goldman Sachs. Ok, thanks for clearing that up. Now I totally understand.
Education on the internet comes with a price, that being most of the information is bad.
This statement is ludicrous. The amount of documentation, historical records, news sources, video from around the world, websites and blogs that examine every aspect of human existence is mind boggling.
Just because the average person sits behind their computer and plays video games, watches porn, and occasionally reads some random bit of information from some biased news source or a YouTube video some looney made somewhere does not mean "most of the information is bad".
It simply means that the average person makes poor choices, does not lift a finger to do basic research, and in many case cannot put together coherent thoughts on their own. This is not the fault of the Internet.
Some might blame a corporate world for breeding people like that from a very young age, through a programmed consumer mindset and insipid advertising brainwashing. But I digress.
Neither one of the documentaries I quoted "came from" the Internet. "The Corporation" is award winning, very well put together and raises a lot of essential issues that anybody would be well served to consider.
I believe "Money as Debt" was produced by the Mises Institute, who have been around far longer than the Internet. Its a neat little entertaining film about the basics of the banking system, that will teach any average person the fundamentals and the associated problems if they spend a little bit of time and effort to watch it.
I didn't quote "Zeitgiest" for good reasons.
Honestly, I wouldn't even be on here typing all this out if I didn't think you were doing people a dis-service by summarily dismissing them.
Believing that there is a coherent scheme to international banking is a product of that. The biggest fault is that the situation as a whole is completely incoherent and I would bet $5 that there's not a single person who understands how it all works, because it is too complex, policies too convoluted and there's too many actors with their own exceptions.
Using complexity of systems to excuse criminal behavior is not in anyone's best interest. Regardless of the complexity of a system, there is always a way to at understand the root dynamics in somewhat simple form. This way you can cut through the layers of B.S. on top and see the truth.
The fact that the majority of the world's banking system is built on sand is patently obvious to any 10th grader that can grasp the basics of the system. Simply understanding the little mathematical mind games that banking and financial systems play on the public, can go a long way toward seeing toward the layers of deception they have been playing on the world for hundreds if not thousands of years.
National central banks use fractional reserve lending along with fiat money - like a huge vacuum cleaner that sucks all the wealth and prosperity out of the nations of the world - these little math tricks fuel corporate rape of entire civilizations, and they enslave the entire world with phony fictitious debt.
To say that a documentary can't teach the public that, because "the situation is completely incoherent and there is probably not a single person that understands how it works" etc etc
... this is a cop out. Not everyone protesting G-20 is smashing cars, and I'm sure plenty of the people there read books and journals. Like I do.
Honestly I think you are posting what you are posting, because you get some kind of a feeling of intellectual superiority by sticking up your nose at things just for the sake of it.
But if people on here want to understand some of the issues that are being protested at G-20... don't listen to this guy, they're definitely worth watching.
On June 27 2010 22:07 Accer wrote: . As an example, a few guys from work took leave this weekend to protest; when I asked them why, they said "it looked like fun". I realize that not every protester is this ignorant.
Maybe they just said that because they judged by looking at you that to explain to you why they would do it would be an akward and cumbersome discussion, specially if you are a collegue and you want to remain diplomatic about the relationship. So they say they do it for fun so they dont have to talk about it.
:D thats my analysis, and ive done it several times too myself. Its really no biggy.
On June 27 2010 20:57 KlaCkoN wrote: I used to sympatize with people like this when I was a kid - then they burned down my hometown during a EU summit a bunch of years ago and I have hated them with a passion ever since.
A friend of my mother's work in a bank and as the mob decended on their building everyone ran upstairs and shut the security doors behind them - she wasn't fast enough and got left behind. She was hiding in a closet literally pissing herself as a horde of masked armed men smahed the entire place to pieces. She was shaking as she told the story.
These 'protesters' (they show more similarities with an orc horde imo - both in morals and actions) are not achieving anything but alienation. 'Normal' people hear of the causes they 'champion' and they come to loathe them. Personally I keep voting for more foriegn aid _despite_ of these people and not because of them. And everytime I read something like this it gets a little harder.
They are not representing some kind of democratic process, no matter how much they would like us to belive so. Neither are they championing our freedom. They are young men who are of the opinion that their one vote and their democratic right to speak their piece and enter elections isn't enough. They think they deserve more - because they are in the _right_ and people need to _listen_. More than anything they remind me of the unemployed youngsters fighting Hitler's cause as he took control over Germany.
I support protests - When the governement here wanted to pass a law that essentially allowed a branch of the military to listen in on any phone conversation - read any email etc without court order I was on the streets screaming. But we didn't fucking break anything. And in the end the law was made somewhat less harsh. If you actually have the support of the the people you can change things, if you don't then try to convince them to agree with you. If they still don't agree then you need to accept that. You don't have the right to take up arms and If you think it's fine to ruin other people's lives because they don't 'understand' the way you do then you are a criminal - a thug and a worthless human being and you deserve to be locked up.
I don't completely agree, for two reasons:
1- With such reasonment, we wouldn't have had French Revolution, nor May 68.
2- From a radical point of view we don't live in democracies and there is no way the system can be changed peacefully. Which is not that stupid if you think about it.
I see the problem differently. Theses guys don't fight for something. You can't fight without a positive idea. That makes their revolt is empty and nihilist, and more than everything else, ununderstandable and therefore inefficient.
France wasn't a democracy at the time of the revolution - Those people didn't have the option to vote their monarch away.
And yes we do live in democracies, and I think that's why these people are so angry because even if they 'care' a lot more about something they only have one vote just the same.
The fact that these guys lack what you call a positive idea just make them even more retarded but even if they had one they still don't have the right to violence. You have one vote that's it. You may also start a party to gather support for your idea in a more organized fashion. But when you while threating violence _demand_ that people agree with you then you have crossed a line. These people are fighting against the very spirit of democracy and equality - they believe that their opinion is worth _more_ than that of others and they are willing to burn and sometimes kill for it. They are criminals and their arguments are voided the second they raise their torches.
On June 27 2010 20:57 KlaCkoN wrote: I used to sympatize with people like this when I was a kid - then they burned down my hometown during a EU summit a bunch of years ago and I have hated them with a passion ever since.
A friend of my mother's work in a bank and as the mob decended on their building everyone ran upstairs and shut the security doors behind them - she wasn't fast enough and got left behind. She was hiding in a closet literally pissing herself as a horde of masked armed men smahed the entire place to pieces. She was shaking as she told the story.
These 'protesters' (they show more similarities with an orc horde imo - both in morals and actions) are not achieving anything but alienation. 'Normal' people hear of the causes they 'champion' and they come to loathe them. Personally I keep voting for more foriegn aid _despite_ of these people and not because of them. And everytime I read something like this it gets a little harder.
They are not representing some kind of democratic process, no matter how much they would like us to belive so. Neither are they championing our freedom. They are young men who are of the opinion that their one vote and their democratic right to speak their piece and enter elections isn't enough. They think they deserve more - because they are in the _right_ and people need to _listen_. More than anything they remind me of the unemployed youngsters fighting Hitler's cause as he took control over Germany.
I support protests - When the governement here wanted to pass a law that essentially allowed a branch of the military to listen in on any phone conversation - read any email etc without court order I was on the streets screaming. But we didn't fucking break anything. And in the end the law was made somewhat less harsh. If you actually have the support of the the people you can change things, if you don't then try to convince them to agree with you. If they still don't agree then you need to accept that. You don't have the right to take up arms and If you think it's fine to ruin other people's lives because they don't 'understand' the way you do then you are a criminal - a thug and a worthless human being and you deserve to be locked up.
I don't completely agree, for two reasons:
1- With such reasonment, we wouldn't have had French Revolution, nor May 68.
2- From a radical point of view we don't live in democracies and there is no way the system can be changed peacefully. Which is not that stupid if you think about it.
I see the problem differently. Theses guys don't fight for something. You can't fight without a positive idea. That makes their revolt is empty and nihilist, and more than everything else, ununderstandable and therefore inefficient.
France wasn't a democracy at the time of the revolution - Those people didn't have the option to vote their monarch away.
And yes we do live in democracies, and I think that's why these people are so angry because even if they 'care' a lot more about something they only have one vote just the same.
The fact that these guys lack what you call a positive idea just make them even more retarded but even if they had one they still don't have the right to violence. You have one vote that's it. You may also start a party to gather support for your idea in a more organized fashion. But when you while threating violence _demand_ that people agree with you then you have crossed a line. These people are fighting against the very spirit of democracy and equality - they believe that their opinion is worth _more_ than that of others and they are willing to burn and sometimes kill for it. They are criminals and their arguments are voided the second they raise their torches.
I have a poster on my wall which says "If voting changed anything, it would be illegal".
Your point of view is absolutely valuable if you start from the idea that we indeed live in democracies where everybody is equal and free. Well... Many people consider it's absolutely not the case. If you look from their perspective, maybe you will understand why theses guys are burning cars (which is not such a big deal, btw.)
Democracy, if we refer to Plato, is the government for thoses who don't have a specific title to govern (the rich in a ploutocracy, the savant in a technocracy, the old in a gerontocracy etc...): they are the demos, the people. Tiding up he fact that there are elections and the fact that the people decide has been proven wrong. In a capitalist society, the power is much more between the hand of the Capital, means mass medias, great corporations, financial oligarchy, than people as such.
There are many very serious contemporary philosophers who have worked on making a very clear distinction between representative parlementarism and democracy which is therefore not a form of government. If that interest you, a very very good book, The Hate of Democracy, by Jacques Rancière.
Being a Toronto resident, I'd like to share my views and understanding on this.
1) There were actually several different groups of protesters. There were the people who did not like the fact that their streets were shut down and people who lived down there were essentially forced to flee, the people who felt their rights were violated due to the search policy, there were many curious spectators, and there were the anarchists (Black Bloc mostly). This last group were the violent ones. For the most part, none of the anarchists cared about their message. I did not see them try to contact any of the media, and in fact tried to burn down media vehicles. I still do not understand what they want.
2) The police believed that the anarchists used the violence to try to distract them or lead them away from guarding the fence. This may or may not be true. Maybe they just wanted to break shit.
3) It should've never been held in downtown Toronto in the first place. Our PM is a moron and I now thank everyone who voted for him. Sarcastically. He essentially picked the place that would cost the most economically (both in cost and opportunity cost), disrupt the most people, be the hardest to secure, and where rioters would cause the most economic damage. I have never hated a politician as much as our current Prime Minister. The Chief of Police were begging regular citizens to clear the area so that the anarchists could not hide amoung them. Well maybe you should've thought of this before you held this Summit *in the most populated city in Canada*.
4) The police handled the situation quite well. There were only 3 injuries before I stopped watching the coverage, so whoever said we should take a lesson from the States is wrong. From what I can tell, this is a big incident for Canada, but still a baby riot compared to what happens in the States. Yeah, there will probably be some lawsuits and there will be a questionable circumstance of brutality or two, which I see as pretty much unavoidable when considering the number of police and people as a whole.
5) I agree with extreme measures if things have gone too far, to the degree that only the guilty parties are hurt (a la V for Vendetta). The anarchists ewre not anything like that. I read a tweet that breaking the windows of innocent storeowners in order to solve poverty makes as much sense as punching old ladies in order to solve global warming - this is a good summary. I'm not sure how many Canadians took part in the violence; I am ashamed of each one that did. I bet our PM and the world leaders don't give a damn about this riot, and this destruction served no purpose.
On June 27 2010 11:26 Severedevil wrote: People are breaking shit to protest a peaceful meeting?
Of all the things to get violent over...
Actually it's a lot more than that.
- to host the Summit, its costs over $25 million in security alone and this comes directly out of the Canadian taxpayer dollars. That is only one expense. We're paying for ALL of it.
- Ontario Premiere passed a bill without a vote, which gives police officers the right to lock you up if you don't let them search you or have you i.d. yourself within 5 meters of the fences. You could face up to a year in jail, or pay a $500 fine.
That's only two things. The Summit is a joke.
With that said, the news agencies are only showing the ugly. Every other demonstration in Toronto has been rather peaceful. There will always be a few bad eggs. There is no denying that. There's a lot of things to be bitter about with the Summit landing here. Of course nothing good will come out of their protests as there are too many groups advocating for different things. They just want to voice their displeasure in the end. -_-
I'm pretty sure the security costs just by it self goes well beyond 500 million, not 25. If it was only 25 the entire costs of this damned thing wouldn't be over 1 billion for two days.
Anyone caught destroying stuff should be thrown in jail and kept there under the anti-terrorism act. Let the fuckers dwell on that the next time they want to go smashing up innocent peoples livelihoods and shops. That said, most of this was just the byproduct of the same derailing assholes that do this shit every time the meeting is hosted, with the vast majority of protesters being totally peaceful. To say nothing of the overblown coverage the media gave to this...
edit:
3) It should've never been held in downtown Toronto in the first place. Our PM is a moron and I now thank everyone who voted for him. Sarcastically. He essentially picked the place that would cost the most economically (both in cost and opportunity cost), disrupt the most people, be the hardest to secure, and where rioters would cause the most economic damage. I have never hated a politician as much as our current Prime Minister. The Chief of Police were begging regular citizens to clear the area so that the anarchists could not hide amoung them. Well maybe you should've thought of this before you held this Summit *in the most populated city in Canada*.
Give me a better option? There's no way in hell I'll be voting for Liberals after the gun registry and the attempts at marijuana legalization, which leaves the NDP (LOL as if) and the Green (woohoo throwing away my vote ftw).
On June 27 2010 22:08 muse5187 wrote: fucking police go away, we want to smash things.
this is why they spent 1.1 billion on security. its sad to see that huge waste of money get justified, a peaceful protest would have been in many way more effective imo, because now it just shows the country that they in fact did need to spend that much money
The Liberal party is much better than the Conservative party, but we should leave politics out of this. We all know where that will lead this.
To the post above mine, if you didn't see my post before one of the major complaints people have is the ridiculous amount of money we're paying to host such an event. But, you probably don't pay taxes yet, so it's a mute point. :/
The problem is it's unjustified. I don't know about you, but I certainly don't want this coming out of my tax dollars. That's why there are so many different groups protesting. The money should have gone elsewhere.
I know I am a few pages too late due to going to bed, but if it's been proven that the police go undercover to try to incite riot in the midst of peaceful protestors - doesn't that suggest conspiracy of a high caliber?
The orders to do that must come from high up, right? What would the police theirselves stand to lose by letting the protesters protest?
Maybe what I am saying is obvious. I am just surprised more people aren't outraged / incredibly disgusted by it.
On June 28 2010 01:08 travis wrote: I know I am a few pages too late due to going to bed, but if it's been proven that the police go undercover to try to incite riot in the midst of peaceful protestors - doesn't that suggest conspiracy of a high caliber?
The orders to do that must come from high up, right? What would the police theirselves stand to lose by letting the protesters protest?
Maybe what I am saying is obvious. I am just surprised more people aren't outraged / incredibly disgusted by it.
Well, they probably know that more violent it gets, less the protesters will be heard.
To the TLpeople who has it difficult to understand the protesting let me say it in a nerdy way =D
G20 is imba and should be nerfed.
Because only the richest countries are involved in this. So the decissions at these meetings will be in the rich countries favour, in return putting the poor countries into a bigger slump than they are already.
Its like if Blizzard only hired Zerg players to make balance issues in starcraft 2. Ofcourse then the game would be imbalanced in zergs favour. That would in return prompt protests from terran, protoss players and, at rare occasions, from zerg players, because theres no fun if the zerg players are having it too easy.
So at this demonstration we are basically seing the zerg protesters aka people from the rich part of the world, turning against their own dominance, because they can see its unfair. They want the order of the day to be more balanced and even so more people can have fun =D
On June 28 2010 01:07 StarStruck wrote: The Liberal party is much better than the Conservative party, but we should leave politics out of this. We all know where that will lead this.
To the post above mine, if you didn't see my post before one of the major complaints people have is the ridiculous amount of money we're paying to host such an event. But, you probably don't pay taxes yet, so it's a mute point. :/
The problem is it's unjustified. I don't know about you, but I certainly don't want this coming out of my tax dollars. That's why there are so many different groups protesting. The money should have gone elsewhere.
It's just as rotten to see the wasteful spending of billions on maternal health in developing countries. We're in the middle of a recession, are going into a massive deficit, our naval ships on the East Coast are sitting in drydocks rusting away, our social programs are soon to be hit (Well...they already have begun to be hit) by the babyboomers, etc. etc. and we're wasting money on something as useless as maternal health? It does not help Canadians to waste money on improving other countries: let's deal with our own before we start funding the development of the rest of the world.
On June 28 2010 01:18 exeexe wrote: Because only the richest countries are involved in this. So the decissions at these meetings will be in the rich countries favour, in return putting the poor countries into a bigger slump than they are already.
Good. I'm in a rich country and I support my country getting richer. Why would I want anything less than the very best for my people?
On June 28 2010 01:07 StarStruck wrote: The Liberal party is much better than the Conservative party, but we should leave politics out of this. We all know where that will lead this.
To the post above mine, if you didn't see my post before one of the major complaints people have is the ridiculous amount of money we're paying to host such an event. But, you probably don't pay taxes yet, so it's a mute point. :/
The problem is it's unjustified. I don't know about you, but I certainly don't want this coming out of my tax dollars. That's why there are so many different groups protesting. The money should have gone elsewhere.
It's just as rotten to see the wasteful spending of billions on maternal health in developing countries. We're in the middle of a recession, are going into a massive deficit, our naval ships on the East Coast are sitting in drydocks rusting away, our social programs are soon to be hit (Well...they already have begun to be hit) by the babyboomers, etc. etc. and we're wasting money on something as useless as maternal health? It helps Canadians not a whit to waste money on improving other countries: let's deal with our own before we start funding the development of the rest of the world.
When you start considering that the whole economy of rich countries is built on fucking poorer countries in the ass, the obscenity of your post becomes more blatant.
On June 28 2010 01:18 exeexe wrote: Because only the richest countries are involved in this. So the decissions at these meetings will be in the rich countries favour, in return putting the poor countries into a bigger slump than they are already.
Good. I'm in a rich country and I support my country getting richer. Why would I want anything less than the very best for my people?
Because your people live on the whole of the earth and not just within the same country as you.
On June 28 2010 01:18 exeexe wrote: Because only the richest countries are involved in this. So the decissions at these meetings will be in the rich countries favour, in return putting the poor countries into a bigger slump than they are already.
Good. I'm in a rich country and I support my country getting richer. Why would I want anything less than the very best for my people?
Because you prefer knowing that ten people live well rather than one being obscenely rich and the nine other dying of hunger. Unless you consider african to worth less than north american, in which case the discussion is over for me.
Alot of people are mad because they decided to host in toronto. CLEARLY they should have GIVEN IN to the protestors and moved the conference elsewhere.
SCREW THAT. That's letting violence and intimidation win. I refuse to allow my government to give into that shit. These violent protesters do not speak for me and I want to see them arrested and do time in jail. I want to see their lives ruined as they can't get decent jobs or leave the country upon release and learn what it means to live in a developed nation - what sorts of responsibilities you have to the public order.
THIS is why the rich countries are rich and why the poor countries are poor.
Holy crap, I thought Canadians were all nice people :S
As I see it, in developed countries G8 and G20 protests are just excuses for people to go and riot/vandalize shit. When the G8 was held in Switzerland all the shop-windows were boarded up, and those that weren't were just broken into and stolen from. Really, how much of a social statement are these angsty, frustrated-with-mediocre-state-of-life people making, and look at the image they portray of their nation...
On June 28 2010 01:07 StarStruck wrote: The Liberal party is much better than the Conservative party, but we should leave politics out of this. We all know where that will lead this.
To the post above mine, if you didn't see my post before one of the major complaints people have is the ridiculous amount of money we're paying to host such an event. But, you probably don't pay taxes yet, so it's a mute point. :/
The problem is it's unjustified. I don't know about you, but I certainly don't want this coming out of my tax dollars. That's why there are so many different groups protesting. The money should have gone elsewhere.
You dont know the difference between liberals and conservatives. You do realize, historically, Liberal spending and liberal taxation has been significantly higher than conservative spending/taxation (you should probably get your facts straight). The liberal government under Pierre Trudeau damn near bankrupted the country (yet every supporter seems to forget this - not that he wasnt an admirable man in other respects).
The ruling party has nothing to do with it and to believe that having a different party in power would have prevented the G8 and the riots is ludicrous. A liberal government would have spent just as much if not more.
That said, I agree with the fact that hosting the event somewhere secluded to cut down on costs would have been a better choice. Frankly I dont want to be taxed so other world leaders can stay at a 5 star hotel. That said, there is some merit in the Sikon's post above
On June 28 2010 01:31 sikyon wrote: Alot of people are mad because they decided to host in toronto. CLEARLY they should have GIVEN IN to the protestors and moved the conference elsewhere.
SCREW THAT. That's letting violence and intimidation win. I refuse to allow my government to give into that shit. These violent protesters do not speak for me and I want to see them arrested and do time in jail. I want to see their lives ruined as they can't get decent jobs or leave the country upon release and learn what it means to live in a developed nation - what sorts of responsibilities you have to the public order.
THIS is why the rich countries are rich and why the poor countries are poor.
That kind of racist self-satisfied shit makes me so fucking angry.
If americans, canadians and european companies didn't exploit the raw material of theses countries while supporting coprrupted government and fucking theses people who never see a penny of their own wealth in the ass, you couldn't hold the same discourse.
On June 28 2010 01:18 exeexe wrote: Because only the richest countries are involved in this. So the decissions at these meetings will be in the rich countries favour, in return putting the poor countries into a bigger slump than they are already.
Good. I'm in a rich country and I support my country getting richer. Why would I want anything less than the very best for my people?
Because your people live on the whole of the earth and not just within the same country as you.
I am a Canadian and I am a German. Those are my people. You might reject nationalism, but I do not.
When you start considering that the whole economy of rich countries is built on fucking poorer countries in the ass, the obscenity of your post becomes more blatant.
I'm well aware of how we became rich. If being rich means someone else has to be poor, then that's unfortunate. But it doesn't mean that we should stop being rich; we now enjoy the highest quality of living ever, and I'm not willing to give up what my ancestors fought to provide simply for the sake of global equality. Global equality will not improve my life, whereas constantly screwing poorer countries will, so why would I support it? It's entirely unrealistic to expect people to not act in a self-interested manner, yet that's precisely what people here seem to be advocating for, for what seems like purely altruistic reasons. Well, I reject that altruism and I'll stick with the methodologies that have been proven effective in a world with scarce resources.
On June 28 2010 01:18 exeexe wrote: Because only the richest countries are involved in this. So the decissions at these meetings will be in the rich countries favour, in return putting the poor countries into a bigger slump than they are already.
Good. I'm in a rich country and I support my country getting richer. Why would I want anything less than the very best for my people?
Because your people live on the whole of the earth and not just within the same country as you.
I am a Canadian and I am a German. Those are my people. You might reject nationalism, but I do not.
When you start considering that the whole economy of rich countries is built on fucking poorer countries in the ass, the obscenity of your post becomes more blatant.
I'm well aware of how we became rich. If being rich means someone else has to be poor, then that's unfortunate. But it doesn't mean that we should stop being rich; we now enjoy the highest quality of living ever, and I'm not willing to give up what my ancestors fought to provide simply for the sake of global equality. Global equality will not improve my life, whereas constantly screwing poorer countries will, so why would I support it? It's entirely unrealistic to expect people to not act in a self-interested manner, yet that's precisely what people here seem to be advocating for, for what seems like purely altruistic reasons. Well, I reject that altruism and I'll stick with the methodologies that have been proven effective in a world with scarce resources.
It's true that nationalism has brought so many good things to germany. Man you are really smart.
But you know what? I don't think saying that a german or canadian worths more than a non-german or non-canadian is "nationalist". I would call that plain racism.
Anyway. No wonder whay there are wars and why people kill each other all over the world with such enlightened reasonment.
On June 28 2010 01:44 Biff The Understudy wrote: That kind of racist self-satisfied shit makes me so fucking angry.
If americans, canadians and european companies didn't exploit the raw material of theses countries while supporting coprrupted government and fucking theses people who never see a penny of their own wealth in the ass, you couldn't hold the same discourse.
I'm actually an immigrant from China, which has been historically fucked up the ass by european countries. However, like many other asian countries we basically learned from their superior technology and made our own quality of life better.
Canada has one of the greatest reserves of natural resources in the world so don't give me crap about third world raw materials.
The fact is that the best sciences, math and technology were invented by western countries, which they now leverage. It's not like there is some sort of responsibility to give this shit away to other people.
Anyhow I'm comfortable where I am and I am more concerned for myself than for the other nations that can deal with their own problems. WHY do I have some sort of responsibility towards them?
I also hate it when people try to get the government to give more aid. You're basically trying to take money away from your neighbors in taxes to give to a cause you believe in. Instead, you should just be donating that money you're saving by not having additional taxes directly. The aid that's given by governements should be what hte majority of people agree with.
On June 28 2010 01:18 exeexe wrote: Because only the richest countries are involved in this. So the decissions at these meetings will be in the rich countries favour, in return putting the poor countries into a bigger slump than they are already.
Good. I'm in a rich country and I support my country getting richer. Why would I want anything less than the very best for my people?
Because your people live on the whole of the earth and not just within the same country as you.
I am a Canadian and I am a German. Those are my people. You might reject nationalism, but I do not.
That's because you're selfish, ignorant, purposely abrasive, or a combination of those. Anyone who gave a minutia of thought to the matter would see that human beings that live beyond your arbitrary territorial lines feel the same kinds of suffering as humans that live within it. But this is obvious, and willful ignorance cannot be conquered by anything other than the ignoramus desiring the truth. So I'll end this here.
On June 28 2010 01:44 Biff The Understudy wrote: That kind of racist self-satisfied shit makes me so fucking angry.
If americans, canadians and european companies didn't exploit the raw material of theses countries while supporting coprrupted government and fucking theses people who never see a penny of their own wealth in the ass, you couldn't hold the same discourse.
I'm actually an immigrant from China, which has been historically fucked up the ass by european countries. However, like many other asian countries we basically learned from their superior technology and made our own quality of life better.
Canada has one of the greatest reserves of natural resources in the world so don't give me crap about third world raw materials.
The fact is that the best sciences, math and technology were invented by western countries, which they now leverage. It's not like there is some sort of responsibility to give this shit away to other people.
Anyhow I'm comfortable where I am and I am more concerned for myself than for the other nations that can deal with their own problems. WHY do I have some sort of responsibility towards them?
I also hate it when people try to get the government to give more aid. You're basically trying to take money away from your neighbors in taxes to give to a cause you believe in. Instead, you should just be donating that money you're saving by not having additional taxes directly. The aid that's given by governements should be what hte majority of people agree with.
You know, I have an aunt who have worked in Amazonia and have seen what american companies do. What she was reporting was so gross, was so criminal that a tenth of them would be enough to make you cry of anger.
The wealth of our countries don't come from the fact that we are "so much smarter". It comes from centuries of colonial opression, it comes from people being paid 1 $ a day making your shoes, it comes from ressources from all around the world being exploited without people of theses country having any benefit from it.
Do you know what France does in Africa? How they support the most corrupted dictatorship so that their diamond companies can exploit their ressources without having to pay high taxes?
Do you know that South Korea corporations bought most of Madagascar lands to the detriment of native farmers?
Let's not talk about what US did in South America during the last half century. You don't know about it? That's where the wealth you are so proud of comes from: the blood of whole continents.
If things were fair, europ and north america would 70% less rich than they are. So stop crying about the half percent help that we are giving to theses people.
People worth the same everywhere. Your egoistic reasonment makes me feel sick.
Just saw on the news, alot of the problems are coming from a francophone montreal group called LPAC who are an anti-capitalist group. They are apparently using the UofT as a cover for being students.
That said, this thread is quickly getting out of control
I think its important to note that most of the people protesting arent protesting the exploitation of third world states, they are protesting capitalism and globalisation. While I realize that the two are connected I dont think alot of these protestors care that much about the third world. A good portion of them call themselves anarchists, and just dont believe in government and support any opportunity to screw with the social norm.
Also its pretty sad that people cant discuss something like this without resorting to name calling.
On June 28 2010 01:44 sikyon wrote I also hate it when people try to get the government to give more aid. You're basically trying to take money away from your neighbors in taxes to give to a cause you believe in. Instead, you should just be donating that money you're saving by not having additional taxes directly. The aid that's given by governements should be what hte majority of people agree with.
You do realise that the rich world are able to help the poor countries without spending a dime right?
Just remove the trade barrier that is being enforced when a 3rd nation tries to export its products to a rich country. So even if a 3rd world nation wanted to hardcore-work itself out of povertry, which is a noble cause and should be encouraged by strong nations, they cant because when they try to export their products it gets too expensive at the end costumer. Think of it, if the 3rd world worked their ass off and became less poor and could afford to provide basic services for their population, there would be no need to send aid and our budgets would be better.
All too ironic that Monarch Park high school banned to kill a mockingbird because it has the word nigger in it. Also...Anarchist Group??? Are you kidding me? Talk about someone who doesn't believe in what they say they do.
No doubt you'll hear the crowd dancing while chanting "kill the pig! cut his throat! kill the pig! bash him in!"
On June 28 2010 01:44 Biff The Understudy wrote I also hate it when people try to get the government to give more aid. You're basically trying to take money away from your neighbors in taxes to give to a cause you believe in. Instead, you should just be donating that money you're saving by not having additional taxes directly. The aid that's given by governements should be what hte majority of people agree with.
You do realise that the rich world are able to help the poor countries without spending a dime right?
Just remove the trade barrier that is being enforced when a 3rd nation tries to export its products to a rich country. So even if a 3rd world nation wanted to hardcore-work itself out of povertry, which is a noble cause and should be encouraged by strong nations, they cant because when they try to export their products it gets too expensive at the end costumer. Think of it, if the 3rd world worked their ass off and became less poor and could afford to provide basic services for their population, there would be no need to send aid and our budgets would be better.
lol dude, quote properly I am not the one who said that ffs.
On June 28 2010 02:23 Roe wrote: All too ironic that Monarch Park high school banned to kill a mockingbird because it has the word nigger in it. Also...Anarchist Group??? Are you kidding me? Talk about someone who doesn't believe in what they say they do.
No doubt you'll hear the crowd dancing while chanting "kill the pig! cut his throat! kill the pig! bash him in!"
Yeeeeaaaah. They're certainly not political anarchists. Just a bunch of skinny kids having fun breaking shit.
On June 27 2010 11:15 Kwidowmaker wrote: Sadly I'm stuck in sauga and I can't watch the carnage
Exact same situation. Although I wouldn't call it "stuck".
yay one advantage to being in UTM over StGeorge campus.
I did have to go downtown though to write a test at the prometric centre, and it was on the 24th (day 1 of the summit). Luckily it wasn't as bad since I needed to commute back to sauga
I got off work at 8 and got biked through the downtown core around 9 but didn't see anything except some boarded up windows and a few cracked ones in banks and groups of people standing around doing nothing (probably observers like me).
edit: personally I think all meetings should be done online to save money.
global south: yo man call off the debt plz our ppl are starving here c'mon... g20: lolol screw you noobs, suck less. you still owe me dem natural resources and shit.
On June 28 2010 02:23 Roe wrote: All too ironic that Monarch Park high school banned to kill a mockingbird because it has the word nigger in it. Also...Anarchist Group??? Are you kidding me? Talk about someone who doesn't believe in what they say they do.
No doubt you'll hear the crowd dancing while chanting "kill the pig! cut his throat! kill the pig! bash him in!"
Yeeeeaaaah. They're certainly not political anarchists. Just a bunch of skinny kids having fun breaking shit.
You should have seen Paris a few years ago. Our nihilists are much better than yours.
Well most poor country can only blame their government. Noone forces them to listen to the west. All countries who made it out of poverty disregarded the international rules. If a country wants success it should implant trade barriers to protect blossoming industries and steal patents from first world countries to establish a framework. Most poor country just focus on exporting raw materials and importing the finished good we produce with these materials. Noone gets rich that way. Trade barriers are bad for the global economy but good for their country. Well and most poor countries have a ridicoulous level of corruption.
Really should just round up and kill the lot of them. Would save us a lot of hassle -.-. Idiots. Dn't understand jack about what they're protesting against or for.
On June 28 2010 01:44 sikyon wrote I also hate it when people try to get the government to give more aid. You're basically trying to take money away from your neighbors in taxes to give to a cause you believe in. Instead, you should just be donating that money you're saving by not having additional taxes directly. The aid that's given by governements should be what hte majority of people agree with.
You do realise that the rich world are able to help the poor countries without spending a dime right?
Just remove the trade barrier that is being enforced when a 3rd nation tries to export its products to a rich country. So even if a 3rd world nation wanted to hardcore-work itself out of povertry, which is a noble cause and should be encouraged by strong nations, they cant because when they try to export their products it gets too expensive at the end costumer. Think of it, if the 3rd world worked their ass off and became less poor and could afford to provide basic services for their population, there would be no need to send aid and our budgets would be better.
"without spending a dime", lol. You do realize that abolishing all import quotas from very poor countries would kill a lot of jobs in western countries, don't you? A lot of farmers without a job, a lot (more) manufacturing jobs gone overseas to people that work almost for free, a lot less taxes paid for the local goverments and a lot more money required for social services.
Nothing is simple in international trade. The world is moving towards more and more liberal (in the classical sense) regulations of international trade, but you can't abolish them outright without causing a friggin' meltdown. Funny thing is, the World Trade Organization these "protesters" hate so much is one of the key institutions that fight for more freedom in international trade.
That's because you're selfish, ignorant, purposely abrasive, or a combination of those. Anyone who gave a minutia of thought to the matter would see that human beings that live beyond your arbitrary territorial lines feel the same kinds of suffering as humans that live within it. But this is obvious, and willful ignorance cannot be conquered by anything other than the ignoramus desiring the truth. So I'll end this here.
I don't dispute the humanity of anyone. But I also don't believe in a utopia that is a popular theme among most leftists. We don't live in a perfect world and we shouldn't approach an imperfect world with scarce resources as anything but an imperfect world with scarce resources: it's illogical and, quite frankly damaging, to do otherwise.
You do realise that the rich world are able to help the poor countries without spending a dime right?
Just remove the trade barrier that is being enforced when a 3rd nation tries to export its products to a rich country. So even if a 3rd world nation wanted to hardcore-work itself out of povertry, which is a noble cause and should be encouraged by strong nations, they cant because when they try to export their products it gets too expensive at the end costumer. Think of it, if the 3rd world worked their ass off and became less poor and could afford to provide basic services for their population, there would be no need to send aid and our budgets would be better.
If it only it were so simple...There is always a trade-off involved in any economic policy, and the most obvious one involved with removing a trade barrier is more competition. On the face of the matter more competition is wonderful, but how can you, as an elected leader represented to best serve the interests of your community, go in front of your community and tell them that some of them will have to sacrifice their jobs and their livelihoods for your altruistic trade policies? How would you react to such a policy?
I don't pretend to say that it's fair that one person should have to live poorly for another to live well, but that's the world we live in and it's not going to change simply because we will it to be so. When one person realizes that they can do better for themselves and their family, it is perfectly logical that they would strive to make their own lives better, even if that means that someone else might not share in their prosperity. Of course people will say that we should all value each other equally, but when it comes down to it, you have to ask yourself if you can honestly say that you value the lives of a strangers children as much as you do your own. The answer is obvious and so too is the reasoning for the current system that has been instituted.
What do the protestors want exactly? At the start of this video they are chanting for socialism, which seems kind of ironic as they are getting shoved around by a government force. It seems kind of weird to me to see anarchists protesting alongside socialists. Don't they want the exact opposite? How did they find a common ground? (I'm assuming some of them are anarchists since people have said that in this thread and they are the usual suspects for these types of riots.)
On June 28 2010 03:01 BlackJack wrote: At the start of this video they are chanting for socialism, which seems kind of ironic as they are getting shoved around by a government force.
It's only ironic if you're so economically right wing you don't realize there's no contradiction.
On June 28 2010 01:31 sikyon wrote: Alot of people are mad because they decided to host in toronto. CLEARLY they should have GIVEN IN to the protestors and moved the conference elsewhere.
SCREW THAT. That's letting violence and intimidation win. I refuse to allow my government to give into that shit.
Uh... people were opposed to it because IT IS THE MOST COSTLY PLACE TO HOLD IT, not because of intimidation.
Even presuming your premise is correct that it would be giving in, did anyone "win" now that they held it in Toronto? What a silly view. It didn't have to be here, it was the worst place to hold it, and our PM is retarded.
I'm not sure if this has any relevance, but I think it does, what do you think community? Seems to me not everything is always as clear cut as society would like to claim it as.
On June 28 2010 03:27 Wombatsavior wrote: I'm not sure if this has any relevance, but I think it does, what do you think community? Seems to me not everything is always as clear cut as society would like to claim it as.
On June 27 2010 20:07 Jibba wrote: It's comprised of mostly rational actors who deal with issues like ethics, societal influences, private pressure and who mostly make rational decisions that sometimes don't turn out well. .
Oh. You mean like BP. Or Goldman Sachs. Ok, thanks for clearing that up. Now I totally understand.
*points to oversimplified red herring in order to prove point about _______*
Education on the internet comes with a price, that being most of the information is bad.
This statement is ludicrous. The amount of documentation, historical records, news sources, video from around the world, websites and blogs that examine every aspect of human existence is mind boggling.
Just because the average person sits behind their computer and plays video games, watches porn, and occasionally reads some random bit of information from some biased news source or a YouTube video some looney made somewhere does not mean "most of the information is bad".
It simply means that the average person makes poor choices, does not lift a finger to do basic research, and in many case cannot put together coherent thoughts on their own. This is not the fault of the Internet.
Some might blame a corporate world for breeding people like that from a very young age, through a programmed consumer mindset and insipid advertising brainwashing. But I digress.
Neither one of the documentaries I quoted "came from" the Internet. "The Corporation" is award winning, very well put together and raises a lot of essential issues that anybody would be well served to consider.
I believe "Money as Debt" was produced by the Mises Institute, who have been around far longer than the Internet. Its a neat little entertaining film about the basics of the banking system, that will teach any average person the fundamentals and the associated problems if they spend a little bit of time and effort to watch it.
There we go. Mises, who represents a fraction of all working economists. Take away Ron Paul, Youtube and Wikipedia and no one would care about Mises right now, just like they did before. At least come at me with Chicago, the classical school that actually has an effect on the world.
Believing that there is a coherent scheme to international banking is a product of that. The biggest fault is that the situation as a whole is completely incoherent and I would bet $5 that there's not a single person who understands how it all works, because it is too complex, policies too convoluted and there's too many actors with their own exceptions.
Using complexity of systems to excuse criminal behavior is not in anyone's best interest. Regardless of the complexity of a system, there is always a way to at understand the root dynamics in somewhat simple form. This way you can cut through the layers of B.S. on top and see the truth.
The fact that the majority of the world's banking system is built on sand is patently obvious to any 10th grader that can grasp the basics of the system. Simply understanding the little mathematical mind games that banking and financial systems play on the public, can go a long way toward seeing toward the layers of deception they have been playing on the world for hundreds if not thousands of years.
Thousands of years? Was La Sainte Chappelle built on credit?
National central banks use fractional reserve lending along with fiat money - like a huge vacuum cleaner that sucks all the wealth and prosperity out of the nations of the world - these little math tricks fuel corporate rape of entire civilizations, and they enslave the entire world with phony fictitious debt.
Oh please, nothing in this is substantiated. We're not simply talking about the Washington Consensus where you might have a point. We're talking about stuff like a convergence of financial guarding policies to prevent stuff like the Asian investment crisis in the 90s. That, or Greece's current quagmire are due to irresponsible behavior by the country itself, not the banks or investors.
If this were an IMF BoG meeting or World Bank, or even WTO, I'd be arguing that the lending policies are unfair and cause poor countries to deteriorate. But G20 is much milder than that. This is basically all the major banking regions figuring out how to adjust their policies without screwing over a neighbor, something that was a very important step between the Federal Reserve and Deutsche Bank after the banks had collapsed. I'm sure some country, somewhere is negatively affected by it, but it's by oversight and not malice.
On June 27 2010 20:07 Jibba wrote: I have watched them and they're filled with half truths and a skewed narrative. In fact, we've had the very conversation on these forums on whether corporations are psychopathic or not.
See, when you actually study political science or economics, and I don't mean looking something up on Wikipedia but ACTUALLY learning decent information about them and the reasons behind things and the reasons behind those things, etc., you begin to see that the world is not a black and white picture where everyone is out to get one another or where egomaniacs and mega-entities secretly try to take over the world or because they want to become #1 in everything possible. It's comprised of mostly rational actors who deal with issues like ethics, societal influences, private pressure and who mostly make rational decisions that sometimes don't turn out well.
Education on the internet comes with a price, that being most of the information is bad.
Believing that there is a coherent scheme to international banking is a product of that. The biggest fault is that the situation as a whole is completely incoherent and I would bet $5 that there's not a single person who understands how it all works, because it is too complex, policies too convoluted and there's too many actors with their own exceptions.
Maybe my good friend Karl Marx learnt about politics on wikipedia.
I'm willing to bet $10,000 (yeah, smuft money) you haven't read any significant portion of Das Kapital. You cannot possible condense that monster into something readable in under a month, let alone something easily digestible for someone who hasn't studied economics.
On June 28 2010 01:07 StarStruck wrote: The Liberal party is much better than the Conservative party, but we should leave politics out of this. We all know where that will lead this.
To the post above mine, if you didn't see my post before one of the major complaints people have is the ridiculous amount of money we're paying to host such an event. But, you probably don't pay taxes yet, so it's a mute point. :/
The problem is it's unjustified. I don't know about you, but I certainly don't want this coming out of my tax dollars. That's why there are so many different groups protesting. The money should have gone elsewhere.
You dont know the difference between liberals and conservatives. You do realize, historically, Liberal spending and liberal taxation has been significantly higher than conservative spending/taxation (you should probably get your facts straight). The liberal government under Pierre Trudeau damn near bankrupted the country (yet every supporter seems to forget this - not that he wasnt an admirable man in other respects).
The ruling party has nothing to do with it and to believe that having a different party in power would have prevented the G8 and the riots is ludicrous. A liberal government would have spent just as much if not more.
That said, I agree with the fact that hosting the event somewhere secluded to cut down on costs would have been a better choice. Frankly I dont want to be taxed so other world leaders can stay at a 5 star hotel. That said, there is some merit in the Sikon's post above
I said, let's not turn this into a political thread and that is exactly what you are doing. Let's not argue who did what. This isn't a history lesson. Besides that, you are throwing an entirely different conversation. Our blessed government not only chose to host this Summit, but the location as well.
On June 28 2010 04:33 Sabu113 wrote: Who would want to read a significant portion of Das Kapital? >>
I don't know a single economist who likes reading it, even Germans. But I guess if Marx is Biff's friend. Maybe he needs a proofread or something from Biff. D:
On June 27 2010 16:46 GuerrillaRepublik wrote: Anarchists arent anti-gov there in same side... they demonize the public by having anarchist vandalizing the streets and trashing the stores. prime example would be the Seattle riot. Just look at the mainstream news talking about the violence always and when they do show peaceful protests they say because of heavy police presence. you most people dont realize the magnitude of control these secret luciferian groups have in the society since ages, which now they control the population through corporate cosmology. iam very deeply worried what kind of world my children will live in as we slip deeper and deeper into oblivion.
+2 people's prespective of this world is too naive to find the truth of reality, its truely sad for mankind.
THIS is why the rich countries are rich and why the poor countries are poor.
Africa is poor because they had a giant fucking dessert running through it cutting off trade and expansion for the last couple thousand years, and the economic and social development that goes along with it. Northern africa isn't that bad. In fact, some small northern african countries along the coast have standards of living that rival many european countries.
Canada is wealthy because you have 10x the amount if natural resources that had never been touched or developed upon then any other nation save America, as well as continuous trade with the most power and wealthy nation throughout most of the last couple centuries.
Has it been said yet? Black Bloc members are planted by the gov't to discredit the "peacefulness" of protests. Easy way to save face when you need to bust out the batons.
*Just saw the 2009 video posted last page. Same idea.*
THIS is why the rich countries are rich and why the poor countries are poor.
Africa is poor because they had a giant fucking dessert running through it cutting off trade and expansion for the last couple thousand years, and the economic and social development that goes along with it. Northern africa isn't that bad. In fact, some small northern african countries along the coast have standards of living that rival many european countries.
Canada is wealthy because you have 10x the amount if natural resources that had never been touched or developed upon then any other nation save America, as well as continuous trade with the most power and wealthy nation throughout most of the last couple centuries.
Stop being a smug little bitch.
That's funny, there are plenty of super rich countries in the middle east and they are IN THE MIDDLE OF A DESERT. Guess why? They had resources they are able to sell, for their own country's economy. If you think exploitation of africa has played no role regarding their current economic state you are about as ignorant as you can get. From the slave trade, to goods like sugar and tobacco, to minerals and gemstones(diamonds anyone?), to metals, to oil - to even warfare(selling of weapons - leads to western profits), exploitation of africa has held that region down for centuries. How much money has africa made off of the things I listed compared to how much money the west has made off of them? God damn, you're just so clueless I really don't even want to put much effort into this post because it's so freaking obvious.
I've stopped caring if I hurt people's sensitivities. I am just going to say it as it is. You deserve to have your sensitivities hurt when you post like you're an expert or something when it's clear you've actually done little to no research at all.
I hate protests because there are so many people there who are not there for legitimate reasons. Some people like to cause havoc, some people just like to be in a group. Protests are largely ineffective when the group makeup is so poor and it was a very poor decision on behalf of all of the protesters to show their discontent via this medium.
On June 28 2010 06:17 Cedstick wrote: Has it been said yet? Black Bloc members are planted by the gov't to discredit the "peacefulness" of protests. Easy way to save face when you need to bust out the batons.
*Just saw the 2009 video posted last page. Same idea.*
I think that the police are there just to make sure that things don't get incredulously out of hand. While they may not stop the violent members from doing things such as breaking windows because they are outnumbered, I am sure that if somebody in the group pulls out a gun and starts making threats, they will stop said person. I believe that is their purpose for going undercover, not to rile up the crowd and cause violence, what kind sense does that make? (Don't go making any conspiracy comments about this either)
On June 27 2010 20:07 Jibba wrote: I have watched them and they're filled with half truths and a skewed narrative. In fact, we've had the very conversation on these forums on whether corporations are psychopathic or not.
See, when you actually study political science or economics, and I don't mean looking something up on Wikipedia but ACTUALLY learning decent information about them and the reasons behind things and the reasons behind those things, etc., you begin to see that the world is not a black and white picture where everyone is out to get one another or where egomaniacs and mega-entities secretly try to take over the world or because they want to become #1 in everything possible. It's comprised of mostly rational actors who deal with issues like ethics, societal influences, private pressure and who mostly make rational decisions that sometimes don't turn out well.
Education on the internet comes with a price, that being most of the information is bad.
Believing that there is a coherent scheme to international banking is a product of that. The biggest fault is that the situation as a whole is completely incoherent and I would bet $5 that there's not a single person who understands how it all works, because it is too complex, policies too convoluted and there's too many actors with their own exceptions.
Maybe my good friend Karl Marx learnt about politics on wikipedia.
I'm willing to bet $10,000 (yeah, smuft money) you haven't read any significant portion of Das Kapital. You cannot possible condense that monster into something readable in under a month, let alone something easily digestible for someone who hasn't studied economics.
Tyty, Boblion.
Tintin!!! You just lost 10 000 $
To have fun, I take a random page, let's say...
page 1175 of the second book of the "Folio Essays" french edition: here is the first sentence of the page: "est toujours avancée en argent, même dans le processus de production continue ou cette forme est simplement celle de la monnaie."
I haven't read the whole Capital, though, it's true. I have read the first book and a portion of the second. But come on, seriously, you don't need to know by memory the whole Das Capital to understand precisely enough his point to have a clear opinion.
Especially if you have read other marxist philosophers such as Althusser (I read parts of his Lire le Capital and most of his late essays) or Rancière, or even (don't get me wrong I don't like them) Lenin and Mao.
What about "in under a month". It's like Kant Critic of Pure Reason, you don't read it from the beginning to the end in one time. Usually, you refer to bits, you read this or that chapter, unless you are a damn specialist. I am not a philosopher, I'm a musician!
THIS is why the rich countries are rich and why the poor countries are poor.
Africa is poor because they had a giant fucking dessert running through it cutting off trade and expansion for the last couple thousand years, and the economic and social development that goes along with it. Northern africa isn't that bad. In fact, some small northern african countries along the coast have standards of living that rival many european countries.
Canada is wealthy because you have 10x the amount if natural resources that had never been touched or developed upon then any other nation save America, as well as continuous trade with the most power and wealthy nation throughout most of the last couple centuries.
Stop being a smug little bitch.
WWWWTTTTTTTTTFFFFFFFFF
I didn't post that!!! I answered to the guy who posted and basically sayinog he was a racist bastard. Stop quoting shit with my name on top of it ffs! Second time in this thread!
On June 28 2010 04:33 Sabu113 wrote: Who would want to read a significant portion of Das Kapital? >>
I don't know a single economist who likes reading it, even Germans. But I guess if Marx is Biff's friend. Maybe he needs a proofread or something from Biff. D:
Das Capital is rather studied in Philosophy than in Economy since Economy today is disconnected completely from Political Economy (actually what people study in Economics today is typically what Marx would have called Bourgeois Economy).
Das Kapital was in the subject of the highest french philosophy degree (agregation) two years ago in the German section. You can't understand shit about people such as Adorno, the School of Franckfurt, Deleuze, Lyotard, Derrida, Balibar, Foucault, even Lacan, Badiou, Althusser, Guattari, or Sartres if you haven't read and understood what Marx was very precisely about.
And theses guys are basically all huge figures of XXth century continental philosophy.
Marx's work is not the bible there is a lot to leave, but reading him is just necessary to understand the world and history of the last two centuries.
On June 28 2010 07:01 makopluxx wrote: The things I'd do to protesters if I didn't have to deal with the law.
Just become a "protester" break shit and shout at ppl and then when the law comes to arrest you for breaking shit and disturbing the peace run. Fuck if you get caught get your protest group to bail you out. Fuck, peta proves if you want to be a firebombing dick face do it in the name of saving animals from scientific research peta will bail you out but say they never did. Rodney coronado is a fine example of this bullcrap.
ie become a "protester" and break the stupid "protesters" faces in.
On June 28 2010 06:35 canucks12 wrote: I hate protests because there are so many people there who are not there for legitimate reasons. Some people like to cause havoc, some people just like to be in a group. Protests are largely ineffective when the group makeup is so poor and it was a very poor decision on behalf of all of the protesters to show their discontent via this medium.
On June 28 2010 06:17 Cedstick wrote: Has it been said yet? Black Bloc members are planted by the gov't to discredit the "peacefulness" of protests. Easy way to save face when you need to bust out the batons.
*Just saw the 2009 video posted last page. Same idea.*
I think that the police are there just to make sure that things don't get incredulously out of hand. While they may not stop the violent members from doing things such as breaking windows because they are outnumbered, I am sure that if somebody in the group pulls out a gun and starts making threats, they will stop said person. I believe that is their purpose for going undercover, not to rile up the crowd and cause violence, what kind sense does that make? (Don't go making any conspiracy comments about this either)
If you want I can find a video of them dressed up about to throw a brick through a window actually causing the damage, but stop, and actually scoot back to the police for safety.
here's another video of cops getting taunted by the crowd when they find out they are cops.
On June 28 2010 08:41 Draconicfire wrote: Probally the best picture from the protest.
LOL???!!? It's so random it's funny! omg I LOL'd Can't wait to see the G20's bill after this.
It won't change much? The government already said a while back that they weren't going to provide coverage for any loss of business or destruction of property caused by the summit.
On June 27 2010 20:07 Jibba wrote: It's comprised of mostly rational actors who deal with issues like ethics, societal influences, private pressure and who mostly make rational decisions that sometimes don't turn out well. .
Oh. You mean like BP. Or Goldman Sachs. Ok, thanks for clearing that up. Now I totally understand.
Education on the internet comes with a price, that being most of the information is bad.
I believe "Money as Debt" was produced by the Mises Institute, who have been around far longer than the Internet. Its a neat little entertaining film about the basics of the banking system, that will teach any average person the fundamentals and the associated problems if they spend a little bit of time and effort to watch it.
"Money from Debt" didn't come from the Mises institute. I watched the video years ago and it completely misses the point that the system he denounces as undesirable, is put in place by the state, aka, force. Any austrian would note that first. Is the service being offered voluntary? No, you either take those notes as payment or go to jail (legal tender laws). Well, there's little discussion further needed to establish that such system is undesirable (for those that value private property and the NAP)
As for the violent protesters (anarchists? lol at that), it's a shame. No one who respects and really understands private property (a.k.a capitalism) would do that. But the cops are a shame too, since they're paid by stolen property (a.k.a taxation). And the streets. And the whole government. Shame all around.
Education on the internet comes with a price, that being most of the information is bad.
This statement is ludicrous. The amount of documentation, historical records, news sources, video from around the world, websites and blogs that examine every aspect of human existence is mind boggling.
Just because the average person sits behind their computer and plays video games, watches porn, and occasionally reads some random bit of information from some biased news source or a YouTube video some looney made somewhere does not mean "most of the information is bad".
It simply means that the average person makes poor choices, does not lift a finger to do basic research, and in many case cannot put together coherent thoughts on their own. This is not the fault of the Internet.
Some might blame a corporate world for breeding people like that from a very young age, through a programmed consumer mindset and insipid advertising brainwashing. But I digress.
Neither one of the documentaries I quoted "came from" the Internet. "The Corporation" is award winning, very well put together and raises a lot of essential issues that anybody would be well served to consider.
I believe "Money as Debt" was produced by the Mises Institute, who have been around far longer than the Internet. Its a neat little entertaining film about the basics of the banking system, that will teach any average person the fundamentals and the associated problems if they spend a little bit of time and effort to watch it.
There we go. Mises, who represents a fraction of all working economists. Take away Ron Paul, Youtube and Wikipedia and no one would care about Mises right now, just like they did before. At least come at me with Chicago, the classical school that actually has an effect on the world.
Was Copernicus wrong since he was in the minority too? Obviously the austrian school is unpopular in a statist world, since it doesn't advocate the use of violence to further peace; stealing to enrich, regulating to liberate; etc.
I don't want to be mean, but I don't think economist are the best people to talk about capitalism as a whole. It seems contradictory, but my point is that economic sciences work, from what I know, in the capitalist coordinates.
I would rather refer to philosophers if you really want to discuss if capitalism is a good thing or a pathological system.
Oh, also, about Yurebis. Saying that "taxation is stolen property" or that "state aka force" is so fucking gross that I don't really know what to say about it. It was supposed to be a serious discussion.
On June 28 2010 09:31 Biff The Understudy wrote: I don't want to be mean, but I don't think economist are the best people to talk about capitalism as a whole. It seems contradictory, but my point is that economic sciences work, from what I know, in the capitalist coordinates.
I would rather refer to philosophers if you really want to discuss if capitalism is a good thing or a pathological system.
Oh, also, about Yurebis. Saying that "taxation is stolen property" or that "state aka force" is so fucking gross that I don't really know what to say about it. It was supposed to be a serious discussion.
Obligatory libertarian comment, and it's true. Can one not pay taxes? Economics is the science of human choice. Of course economists who are private property advocates can vouch it as the best means of x (production, peace, making burgers, whatever ends. except maybe, violating private property. that would be contradictory.)
On June 28 2010 09:31 Biff The Understudy wrote: I don't want to be mean, but I don't think economist are the best people to talk about capitalism as a whole. It seems contradictory, but my point is that economic sciences work, from what I know, in the capitalist coordinates.
I would rather refer to philosophers if you really want to discuss if capitalism is a good thing or a pathological system.
Oh, also, about Yurebis. Saying that "taxation is stolen property" or that "state aka force" is so fucking gross that I don't really know what to say about it. It was supposed to be a serious discussion.
Obligatory libertarian comment, and it's true. Can one not pay taxes? Economics is the science of human choice. Of course economists who are private property advocates can vouch it as the best means of x (production, peace, making burgers, whatever ends. except maybe, violating private property. that would be contradictory.)
Sorry but economics is the science which treats of wealth production, distribution, exchange and consumption in the capitalist society, period.
There is no science of human choice. You have 2500 years of philosophers discussing if there is such thing as a choice at all, and believe me, with a bit more insight that theses obscure reasonments about private property.
On June 28 2010 08:10 Wombatsavior wrote: If you want I can find a video of them dressed up about to throw a brick through a window actually causing the damage, but stop, and actually scoot back to the police for safety.
here's another video of cops getting taunted by the crowd when they find out they are cops.
On June 28 2010 09:31 Biff The Understudy wrote: I don't want to be mean, but I don't think economist are the best people to talk about capitalism as a whole. It seems contradictory, but my point is that economic sciences work, from what I know, in the capitalist coordinates.
I would rather refer to philosophers if you really want to discuss if capitalism is a good thing or a pathological system.
Oh, also, about Yurebis. Saying that "taxation is stolen property" or that "state aka force" is so fucking gross that I don't really know what to say about it. It was supposed to be a serious discussion.
Obligatory libertarian comment, and it's true. Can one not pay taxes? Economics is the science of human choice. Of course economists who are private property advocates can vouch it as the best means of x (production, peace, making burgers, whatever ends. except maybe, violating private property. that would be contradictory.)
Sorry but economics is the science which treats of wealth production and distribution in the capitalist society, period.
There is no science of human choice. You have 2500 years of philosophers discussing if there is such thing as a choice at all, and believe me, with a bit more insight that this obscure reasonment about private property.
Replace "choice" with "picking that which one finds best at a certain point in time". Can one choose capitalism over socialism? If so, then socialism can also be economically evaluated. Not through a price system of course, but as long as man can see two things and pick the best one to his ends, then there can be economics in that there's always going to be different things he can do.
edit: I might just open a new thread soon instead of going off-topic and risking another ban, sorry
On June 28 2010 09:31 Biff The Understudy wrote: I don't want to be mean, but I don't think economist are the best people to talk about capitalism as a whole. It seems contradictory, but my point is that economic sciences work, from what I know, in the capitalist coordinates.
I would rather refer to philosophers if you really want to discuss if capitalism is a good thing or a pathological system.
Oh, also, about Yurebis. Saying that "taxation is stolen property" or that "state aka force" is so fucking gross that I don't really know what to say about it. It was supposed to be a serious discussion.
Obligatory libertarian comment, and it's true. Can one not pay taxes? Economics is the science of human choice. Of course economists who are private property advocates can vouch it as the best means of x (production, peace, making burgers, whatever ends. except maybe, violating private property. that would be contradictory.)
Sorry but economics is the science which treats of wealth production and distribution in the capitalist society, period.
There is no science of human choice. You have 2500 years of philosophers discussing if there is such thing as a choice at all, and believe me, with a bit more insight that this obscure reasonment about private property.
Replace "choice" with "picking that which one finds best at a certain point in time". Can one choose capitalism over socialism? If so, then socialism can also be economically evaluated. Not through a price system of course, but as long as man can see two things and pick the best one to his ends, then there can be economics in that there's always going to be different things he can do.
Replace"picking that which one finds best at a certain point in time" by "self interest". And then you start to see that you have quite a fucking huge philosophical problem at the very root of capitalism.
Socialism cannot be evaluated economically for two reasons which go together: 1- Because it doesn't make any sense to evaluate a system with tool designed by and advocating naturally another system. 2- Because socialism is built on the whole idea that there are more important things than the wealth you produce (like justice and equality for example).
This is precisely why Marx created Political Economy.
I would advise you to read Lenin to understand about that problem, and the reason why Trotsky was against the concept of "Socialism in one country" (which leads to economical confrontation which has to be in te detriment of socialism).
Now, I don't advocate socialism and especially not in the autoritarian form it has taken in the XXth century. The fact is, socialism as it has been experienced is the exact opposite of the stateless communist society that Marx was aiming for.
On June 28 2010 08:41 Draconicfire wrote: Probally the best picture from the protest.
LOL???!!? It's so random it's funny! omg I LOL'd Can't wait to see the G20's bill after this.
It won't change much? The government already said a while back that they weren't going to provide coverage for any loss of business or destruction of property caused by the summit.
werid as that should be part of the 1 billion, to cover any collateral damage causing during the summit, else i can't see why a mayor of any city would allow it to be hosted there.
Shit like this always brings protesters and some call rioting protesting.
On June 28 2010 09:31 Biff The Understudy wrote: I don't want to be mean, but I don't think economist are the best people to talk about capitalism as a whole. It seems contradictory, but my point is that economic sciences work, from what I know, in the capitalist coordinates.
I would rather refer to philosophers if you really want to discuss if capitalism is a good thing or a pathological system.
Oh, also, about Yurebis. Saying that "taxation is stolen property" or that "state aka force" is so fucking gross that I don't really know what to say about it. It was supposed to be a serious discussion.
Obligatory libertarian comment, and it's true. Can one not pay taxes? Economics is the science of human choice. Of course economists who are private property advocates can vouch it as the best means of x (production, peace, making burgers, whatever ends. except maybe, violating private property. that would be contradictory.)
Sorry but economics is the science which treats of wealth production and distribution in the capitalist society, period.
There is no science of human choice. You have 2500 years of philosophers discussing if there is such thing as a choice at all, and believe me, with a bit more insight that this obscure reasonment about private property.
Replace "choice" with "picking that which one finds best at a certain point in time". Can one choose capitalism over socialism? If so, then socialism can also be economically evaluated. Not through a price system of course, but as long as man can see two things and pick the best one to his ends, then there can be economics in that there's always going to be different things he can do.
Replace"picking that which one finds best at a certain point in time" by "self interest". And then you start to see that you have quite a fucking huge philosophical problem at the very root of capitalism.
Socialism cannot be evaluated economically for two reasons which go together: 1- Because it doesn't make any sense to evaluate a system with tool designed by and advocating naturally another system. 2- Because socialism is built on the whole idea that there are more important things than the wealth you produce (like justice and equality for example).
This is precisely why Marx created Political Economy.
I would advise you to read Lenin to understand about that problem, and the reason why Trotsky was against the concept of "Socialism in one country" (which leads to economical confrontation which has to be in te detriment of socialism).
Now, I don't advocate socialism and especially not in the autoritarian form it has taken in the XXth century. The fact is, socialism as it has been experienced is the exact opposite of the stateless communist society that Marx was aiming for.
It doesn't matter the ends (self-interest or outside of oneself), I said whatever ends you wish. They can be economically evaluated. And for those ends, you can evaluate what means are better. Those ends could be "justice, equality". Is there something that is so important to man yet so abstract that he cannot evaluate or consider? How do you choose socialism over capitalism then? Is that not a performative contradiction? "You cannot choose socialism over capitalism but I choose socialism over capitalism"? Oh sorry, I read that you *did* prefer socialism.
On June 28 2010 08:41 Draconicfire wrote: Probally the best picture from the protest.
LOL???!!? It's so random it's funny! omg I LOL'd Can't wait to see the G20's bill after this.
It won't change much? The government already said a while back that they weren't going to provide coverage for any loss of business or destruction of property caused by the summit.
werid as that should be part of the 1 billion, to cover any collateral damage causing during the summit, else i can't see why a mayor of any city would allow it to be hosted there.
Shit like this always brings protesters and some call rioting protesting.
It's amazing that the government spending something like 1.2 billion and they're not even covering for damages done to property. There's just no real good explanation for why this is costing so much money. The current Canadian government is pretty much the worst that's been in the 9 years I've lived here.
Also, my cousin is currently kettled in by riot police, rofl. He texted me a little while ago telling me that he and some other protesters have been caged by a perimeter of police for some hours.
On June 28 2010 09:31 Biff The Understudy wrote: I don't want to be mean, but I don't think economist are the best people to talk about capitalism as a whole. It seems contradictory, but my point is that economic sciences work, from what I know, in the capitalist coordinates.
I would rather refer to philosophers if you really want to discuss if capitalism is a good thing or a pathological system.
Oh, also, about Yurebis. Saying that "taxation is stolen property" or that "state aka force" is so fucking gross that I don't really know what to say about it. It was supposed to be a serious discussion.
Obligatory libertarian comment, and it's true. Can one not pay taxes? Economics is the science of human choice. Of course economists who are private property advocates can vouch it as the best means of x (production, peace, making burgers, whatever ends. except maybe, violating private property. that would be contradictory.)
Sorry but economics is the science which treats of wealth production and distribution in the capitalist society, period.
There is no science of human choice. You have 2500 years of philosophers discussing if there is such thing as a choice at all, and believe me, with a bit more insight that this obscure reasonment about private property.
Replace "choice" with "picking that which one finds best at a certain point in time". Can one choose capitalism over socialism? If so, then socialism can also be economically evaluated. Not through a price system of course, but as long as man can see two things and pick the best one to his ends, then there can be economics in that there's always going to be different things he can do.
Replace"picking that which one finds best at a certain point in time" by "self interest". And then you start to see that you have quite a fucking huge philosophical problem at the very root of capitalism.
Socialism cannot be evaluated economically for two reasons which go together: 1- Because it doesn't make any sense to evaluate a system with tool designed by and advocating naturally another system. 2- Because socialism is built on the whole idea that there are more important things than the wealth you produce (like justice and equality for example).
This is precisely why Marx created Political Economy.
I would advise you to read Lenin to understand about that problem, and the reason why Trotsky was against the concept of "Socialism in one country" (which leads to economical confrontation which has to be in te detriment of socialism).
Now, I don't advocate socialism and especially not in the autoritarian form it has taken in the XXth century. The fact is, socialism as it has been experienced is the exact opposite of the stateless communist society that Marx was aiming for.
It doesn't matter the ends (self-interest or outside of oneself), I said whatever ends you wish. They can be economically evaluated. And for those ends, you can evaluate what means are better. Those ends could be "justice, equality". Is there something that is so important to man yet so abstract that he cannot evaluate or consider? How do you choose socialism over capitalism then? Is that not a performative contradiction? "You cannot choose socialism over capitalism but I choose socialism over capitalism"? Oh sorry, I read that you *did* prefer socialism.
Sorry but I just fail to understand what you are saying.
You seem to mix up the plain question of judgement (what you call evaluating) with economics which makes no sense at all.
The reason why I chose a system over another is a philosophical question which has certainly nothing to do with economics as a science. Unless you want to make economics a science of judgement? Doesn't make any sense neither.
And you read badly. If I had to define myself, I would rather stick to the word communist in its original meaning than socialism.
On June 28 2010 09:31 Biff The Understudy wrote: I don't want to be mean, but I don't think economist are the best people to talk about capitalism as a whole. It seems contradictory, but my point is that economic sciences work, from what I know, in the capitalist coordinates.
I would rather refer to philosophers if you really want to discuss if capitalism is a good thing or a pathological system.
Oh, also, about Yurebis. Saying that "taxation is stolen property" or that "state aka force" is so fucking gross that I don't really know what to say about it. It was supposed to be a serious discussion.
Obligatory libertarian comment, and it's true. Can one not pay taxes? Economics is the science of human choice. Of course economists who are private property advocates can vouch it as the best means of x (production, peace, making burgers, whatever ends. except maybe, violating private property. that would be contradictory.)
Sorry but economics is the science which treats of wealth production and distribution in the capitalist society, period.
There is no science of human choice. You have 2500 years of philosophers discussing if there is such thing as a choice at all, and believe me, with a bit more insight that this obscure reasonment about private property.
Replace "choice" with "picking that which one finds best at a certain point in time". Can one choose capitalism over socialism? If so, then socialism can also be economically evaluated. Not through a price system of course, but as long as man can see two things and pick the best one to his ends, then there can be economics in that there's always going to be different things he can do.
Replace"picking that which one finds best at a certain point in time" by "self interest". And then you start to see that you have quite a fucking huge philosophical problem at the very root of capitalism.
Socialism cannot be evaluated economically for two reasons which go together: 1- Because it doesn't make any sense to evaluate a system with tool designed by and advocating naturally another system. 2- Because socialism is built on the whole idea that there are more important things than the wealth you produce (like justice and equality for example).
This is precisely why Marx created Political Economy.
I would advise you to read Lenin to understand about that problem, and the reason why Trotsky was against the concept of "Socialism in one country" (which leads to economical confrontation which has to be in te detriment of socialism).
Now, I don't advocate socialism and especially not in the autoritarian form it has taken in the XXth century. The fact is, socialism as it has been experienced is the exact opposite of the stateless communist society that Marx was aiming for.
It doesn't matter the ends (self-interest or outside of oneself), I said whatever ends you wish. They can be economically evaluated. And for those ends, you can evaluate what means are better. Those ends could be "justice, equality". Is there something that is so important to man yet so abstract that he cannot evaluate or consider? How do you choose socialism over capitalism then? Is that not a performative contradiction? "You cannot choose socialism over capitalism but I choose socialism over capitalism"? Oh sorry, I read that you *did* prefer socialism.
Sorry but I just fail to understand what you are saying.
You seem to mix up the plain question of judgement (what you call evaluating) with economics which makes no sense at all.
The reason why I chose a system over another is a philosophical question which has certainly nothing to do with economics as a science. Unless you want to make economics a science of judgement? Doesn't make any sense neither.
And you read badly. If I had to define myself, I would rather stick to the word communist in its original meaning than socialism.
It's called praxeology. I'm sorry for confusing you, but it is the basis of Austrian economics. Have you not chosen communism over capitalism because you value communism more than capitalism for your chosen ends? It's not an economical question in the common sense, in that there's no money or barter involved. But it's still a choice over two courses of action. Not that unlike choosing an HDTV. With that, I'll stop pestering you. I'll open a thread someday.
On June 28 2010 09:31 Biff The Understudy wrote: I don't want to be mean, but I don't think economist are the best people to talk about capitalism as a whole. It seems contradictory, but my point is that economic sciences work, from what I know, in the capitalist coordinates.
I would rather refer to philosophers if you really want to discuss if capitalism is a good thing or a pathological system.
Oh, also, about Yurebis. Saying that "taxation is stolen property" or that "state aka force" is so fucking gross that I don't really know what to say about it. It was supposed to be a serious discussion.
Obligatory libertarian comment, and it's true. Can one not pay taxes? Economics is the science of human choice. Of course economists who are private property advocates can vouch it as the best means of x (production, peace, making burgers, whatever ends. except maybe, violating private property. that would be contradictory.)
Sorry but economics is the science which treats of wealth production and distribution in the capitalist society, period.
There is no science of human choice. You have 2500 years of philosophers discussing if there is such thing as a choice at all, and believe me, with a bit more insight that this obscure reasonment about private property.
Replace "choice" with "picking that which one finds best at a certain point in time". Can one choose capitalism over socialism? If so, then socialism can also be economically evaluated. Not through a price system of course, but as long as man can see two things and pick the best one to his ends, then there can be economics in that there's always going to be different things he can do.
Replace"picking that which one finds best at a certain point in time" by "self interest". And then you start to see that you have quite a fucking huge philosophical problem at the very root of capitalism.
Socialism cannot be evaluated economically for two reasons which go together: 1- Because it doesn't make any sense to evaluate a system with tool designed by and advocating naturally another system. 2- Because socialism is built on the whole idea that there are more important things than the wealth you produce (like justice and equality for example).
This is precisely why Marx created Political Economy.
I would advise you to read Lenin to understand about that problem, and the reason why Trotsky was against the concept of "Socialism in one country" (which leads to economical confrontation which has to be in te detriment of socialism).
Now, I don't advocate socialism and especially not in the autoritarian form it has taken in the XXth century. The fact is, socialism as it has been experienced is the exact opposite of the stateless communist society that Marx was aiming for.
It doesn't matter the ends (self-interest or outside of oneself), I said whatever ends you wish. They can be economically evaluated. And for those ends, you can evaluate what means are better. Those ends could be "justice, equality". Is there something that is so important to man yet so abstract that he cannot evaluate or consider? How do you choose socialism over capitalism then? Is that not a performative contradiction? "You cannot choose socialism over capitalism but I choose socialism over capitalism"? Oh sorry, I read that you *did* prefer socialism.
Sorry but I just fail to understand what you are saying.
You seem to mix up the plain question of judgement (what you call evaluating) with economics which makes no sense at all.
The reason why I chose a system over another is a philosophical question which has certainly nothing to do with economics as a science. Unless you want to make economics a science of judgement? Doesn't make any sense neither.
And you read badly. If I had to define myself, I would rather stick to the word communist in its original meaning than socialism.
It's called praxeology. I'm sorry for confusing you, but it is the basis of Austrian economics. Have you not chosen communism over capitalism because you value communism more than capitalism for your chosen ends? It's not an economical question in the common sense, in that there's no money or barter involved. But it's still a choice over two courses of action. Not that unlike choosing an HDTV. With that, I'll stop pestering you. I'll open a thread someday.
That seems interesting for the least. I need to read about it sometimes although I don't particularly like Economics generally.
Open a thread when you have time, I will definitly have a look.
Update: Here's what I'm understanding so far from the current situation in downtown Toronto. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
A couple hours ago there was a small scale protest around Queen and Spadina Ave. Witnesses say there were only about 30 or so protesters though right now it's hard to say. Among them were about 100+(?) or so people following the protest and taking pictures and stuff, and 300 to 600+(?) locals, pedestrians, and random people passing by. The police told the media (like, a handful of reporters) that they were going to blockade the area from all sides and close in on the intersection. There was even mention of using teargas and pellet/rubber bullet guns (though this didn't happen).
Within a couple minutes the police blocked all exits and began marching from the North, West and East. They gave the people there a minute notice to get out (which was impossible since they blocked all the exits) and then started arresting people. The protesters were taken away within the first 30 minutes but the police continued to handcuff (using plastic tie handcuffs) everyone in sight and march them into a corral.
Note: all this time there has been a severe storm warning for the Greater Toronto Area. There was a thunderstorm in the afternoon for a while.
People were lined up to be "processed" and were marched onto buses to be sent to the eastern detention center. There weren't many buses going through the area, so many people ended up being stranded out in the rain for hours on end. (at the time I'm writing this people have been there for over 5 and a half hours). Almost all of the pedestrians were not prepared for the rain, so we had guys in shorts and t-shirts and girls in skirts, sleeveless, and tank tops getting drenched in the pouring rain, freezing. (CP24 news channel got many shots of people shivering in the cold)
The victims would get frisked, all their belongings removed from them to be checked (then placed in a plastic bag they weren't allowed to open) and released. This process would take anywhere from a couple minutes to hours depending on how lucky you were (?).
There was also an interview of a woman who got detained from yesterday's protest. She said that she was detained for 22 hours. The environment they were kept was described as "cages". Metal fencing bolted to a concrete floor. Cages were sorted by level of threat. The people detained were mostly young woman. All the cage guards were male police officers who laughed at and taunted them as "rats in cages". Most of the women were not given water, food, nor medical attention. The interviewed woman got 3 styrofoam cups of dirty water and 2 small sandwiches. There is only one toilet per cage which is exposed to everyone. The women had to form a semicircle around the toilet to prevent male officers from watching them pee. No one was told why they were arrested and how long they would have to stay. When the interviewee was released, an officer simply said "don't protest anymore". There was also mention of "boxes" where prisoners that resisted would be placed inside coffin sized wooden boxes (labelled A1, A2, A3,... and so on).
Just now, about 15 minutes ago, the 150 or so people trapped at Queen and Spadina were allowed to be released due to overflow at the detention center (plus the obvious reason that none of them were causing any trouble). Also, locals watching the news live were coming over to the exit of the detention center and handing out tetrapack juiceboxes and snacks to the dazed people coming out.
(Again, this is off the top of my head so it might not be entirely accurate)
edit: There was also mention of people walking their dogs and the dogs being left in the rain without their owners, and random 12 year old and 14 year old kids passing by getting caught as well.
The tactical change Sunday saw protesters, pedestrians and even journalists searched at the whim of police, especially those dressed in black.
"I was in a cell with joggers who were jogging by and arrested, and they spent 16 hours in there," said Matthew Beatty, an observer who was arrested Saturday night outside a Toronto hotel.
On June 28 2010 01:08 travis wrote: I know I am a few pages too late due to going to bed, but if it's been proven that the police go undercover to try to incite riot in the midst of peaceful protestors - doesn't that suggest conspiracy of a high caliber?
The orders to do that must come from high up, right? What would the police theirselves stand to lose by letting the protesters protest?
Maybe what I am saying is obvious. I am just surprised more people aren't outraged / incredibly disgusted by it.
Not enough people even know that they do it. They find people who are willing to do some damage, egg them on (and sometimes even contribute), then they're the strange random few who get "arrested" first (to protect them without blowing their cover) before the main forces move in to arrest a ton of people.
On June 28 2010 11:44 kaisen wrote: canadian riot police needs a lesson or two from korean riot guards.
Turn an area of the capital into a fortress and commit petty brutality? If Canada's police turn into how the Koreans are then they take a huge step backwards.
My heart goes out to all my recently made friends in toronto. 2 weeks ago we were having the time of our lives at bonnaroo, and now you're going through hell. I hope everyone there is okay.
Jesus christ, is anyone else watching the news? CBC is trying to make it seem like all the protesters are violent anarchists that are trying to break down the Canadian society and are painting the leaders taking part in the summit as courageous heroes and the police as victims.
\o/
Canada - taking lessons from our neighbours in the south.
On June 28 2010 08:41 Draconicfire wrote: Probally the best picture from the protest.
LOL???!!? It's so random it's funny! omg I LOL'd Can't wait to see the G20's bill after this.
It won't change much? The government already said a while back that they weren't going to provide coverage for any loss of business or destruction of property caused by the summit.
werid as that should be part of the 1 billion, to cover any collateral damage causing during the summit, else i can't see why a mayor of any city would allow it to be hosted there.
Shit like this always brings protesters and some call rioting protesting.
It's amazing that the government spending something like 1.2 billion and they're not even covering for damages done to property. There's just no real good explanation for why this is costing so much money. The current Canadian government is pretty much the worst that's been in the 9 years I've lived here.
Also, my cousin is currently kettled in by riot police, rofl. He texted me a little while ago telling me that he and some other protesters have been caged by a perimeter of police for some hours.
You have to stop looking at this 1.2 billion. It's not like Canada has to pay this much for every summit. The meeting changes places and different country foot the bills. If you divide up the 1.2 billion to how many times you have the summit, it's nothing!
Besides the reason for the high cost of security is due to these anarchy idiots. If summit is always peaceful with little protest, I doubt the cost will be this high. They also want to show to the general public about the meeting, not hosting in some remote military bases or island, that will just make people thinks what is these countries cooking up, and delivery the wrong message.
On June 28 2010 08:41 Draconicfire wrote: Probally the best picture from the protest.
LOL???!!? It's so random it's funny! omg I LOL'd Can't wait to see the G20's bill after this.
It won't change much? The government already said a while back that they weren't going to provide coverage for any loss of business or destruction of property caused by the summit.
werid as that should be part of the 1 billion, to cover any collateral damage causing during the summit, else i can't see why a mayor of any city would allow it to be hosted there.
Shit like this always brings protesters and some call rioting protesting.
It's amazing that the government spending something like 1.2 billion and they're not even covering for damages done to property. There's just no real good explanation for why this is costing so much money. The current Canadian government is pretty much the worst that's been in the 9 years I've lived here.
Also, my cousin is currently kettled in by riot police, rofl. He texted me a little while ago telling me that he and some other protesters have been caged by a perimeter of police for some hours.
You have to stop looking at this 1.2 billion. It's not like Canada has to pay this much for every summit. The meeting changes places and different country foot the bills. If you divide up the 1.2 billion to how many times you have the summit, it's nothing!
Besides the reason for the high cost of security is due to these anarchy idiots. If summit is always peaceful with little protest, I doubt the cost will be this high. They also want to show to the general public about the meeting, not hosting in some remote military bases or island, that will just make people thinks what is these countries cooking up, and delivery the wrong message.
Then why not have it broadcasted while taking place on an island or something.. Not in the middle of of one Canada's biggest cities.. wtf :< They wouldn't have had to pay as much for security ..
On June 28 2010 08:41 Draconicfire wrote: Probally the best picture from the protest.
LOL???!!? It's so random it's funny! omg I LOL'd Can't wait to see the G20's bill after this.
It won't change much? The government already said a while back that they weren't going to provide coverage for any loss of business or destruction of property caused by the summit.
werid as that should be part of the 1 billion, to cover any collateral damage causing during the summit, else i can't see why a mayor of any city would allow it to be hosted there.
Shit like this always brings protesters and some call rioting protesting.
It's amazing that the government spending something like 1.2 billion and they're not even covering for damages done to property. There's just no real good explanation for why this is costing so much money. The current Canadian government is pretty much the worst that's been in the 9 years I've lived here.
Also, my cousin is currently kettled in by riot police, rofl. He texted me a little while ago telling me that he and some other protesters have been caged by a perimeter of police for some hours.
You have to stop looking at this 1.2 billion. It's not like Canada has to pay this much for every summit. The meeting changes places and different country foot the bills. If you divide up the 1.2 billion to how many times you have the summit, it's nothing!
Besides the reason for the high cost of security is due to these anarchy idiots. If summit is always peaceful with little protest, I doubt the cost will be this high. They also want to show to the general public about the meeting, not hosting in some remote military bases or island, that will just make people thinks what is these countries cooking up, and delivery the wrong message.
Prior summits also had these "anarchy idiots" and the security costs were nowhere near the same. There is seriously no way for the government to rationalize the expenses. It is completely senseless. Delegates from other nations have been saying that the security spending is completely overboard. Even the spending outside of the security has been completely frivolous in some areas. The politicians deserve to burn for this.
wtf is this... People sitting down and police running over, hitting people with their sticks and spraying them... Is this a prison or Canada...?? Also video above was...wow..^^
This is fucking disgusting. The anarchists destroying shit and the cops using force on peaceful protesters. Sad day for Canada. Not really knowledgeable on governmental things, but if this is Harper's doing.........why did "we" re-elect this man.
Seems to me if you dont want to get into trouble or get arrested, Stay out of the area, pretty simple. If you want to take part in the protests, thats fine, but be prepared to reap the consequences, the police dont know if you are an anarchist or some dude walking down the street.
That above videa seems pretty harsh, but we dont know the context. Plus frankly I would rather a few protestors got a pepper spray than have them trash some stores or light cars on fire. (there is a reason they are wearing masks to cover their faces)
On June 28 2010 12:43 Darpa wrote: Seems to me if you dont want to get into trouble or get arrested, Stay out of the area, pretty simple. If you want to take part in the protests, thats fine, but be prepared to reap the consequences, the police dont know if you are an anarchist or some dude walking down the street.
That above videa seems pretty harsh, but we dont know the context. Plus frankly I would rather a few protestors got a pepper spray than have them trash some stores or light cars on fire. (there is a reason they are wearing masks to cover their faces)
Sitting on the ground =/= destroying property. Arrest the people who destroy property. But surrounding and attacking peaceful protesters is wrong.
On June 28 2010 12:43 Darpa wrote: Seems to me if you dont want to get into trouble or get arrested, Stay out of the area, pretty simple. If you want to take part in the protests, thats fine, but be prepared to reap the consequences, the police dont know if you are an anarchist or some dude walking down the street.
That above videa seems pretty harsh, but we dont know the context. Plus frankly I would rather a few protestors got a pepper spray than have them trash some stores or light cars on fire. (there is a reason they are wearing masks to cover their faces)
Sitting on the ground =/= destroying property. Arrest the people who destroy property. But surrounding and attacking peaceful protesters is wrong.
Like i said, it seems harsh, but we dont know the context. at least half of those people were wearing masks to cover their faces, Generally people who do that dont want to be identified for a reason. We have no idea, they could very have just smashed up a store and sat down to take a break.
On June 28 2010 12:43 Darpa wrote: Seems to me if you dont want to get into trouble or get arrested, Stay out of the area, pretty simple. If you want to take part in the protests, thats fine, but be prepared to reap the consequences, the police dont know if you are an anarchist or some dude walking down the street.
That above videa seems pretty harsh, but we dont know the context. Plus frankly I would rather a few protestors got a pepper spray than have them trash some stores or light cars on fire. (there is a reason they are wearing masks to cover their faces)
Sitting on the ground =/= destroying property. Arrest the people who destroy property. But surrounding and attacking peaceful protesters is wrong.
Like i said, it seems harsh, but we dont know the context. at least half of those people were wearing masks to cover their faces, Generally people who do that dont want to be identified for a reason. We have no idea, they could very have just smashed up a store and sat down to take a break.
guilty before proven guilty, surely that's a good policy screw this innocent thing, they may have done something
On June 28 2010 12:50 furymonkey wrote: That Video looks like Police are in the process of clearing that road/area. And a group of protesters decided to be rebellious and sit down.
Kind of how i see it also, seems like they would have had some warning and they were intentionally trying to push the police to see how far they could go.
I never said they were guilty or innocent, I said we have no idea of the context of it. I find it funny that people are so fast to condemn police when its the protestors, not the police, causing the disturbance
I've gotta say, anyone who thinks this is ok clearly has their head up their ass. The fact that they need THIS MUCH security, need to spend THIS MUCH money on it, clearly shows that something is seriously wrong.
Though anyone who looked into the direction the world has been going regarding the new world order, economic policies, the degradation of personal rights, etc etc - would already know that. But there is a complacent out of touch generation that isn't interested in getting involved or are even stupid enough / brainwashed enough to side with the corrupt system.
In the last century those in power have been developing more and more powerful tools and systems to control the general populous, I have to wonder if it's too late to ever bring the elite down or if eventually mother nature will have to do it for us, destroying most of humanity in the process.
ok rant over
and no, new world order shit isn't even conspiracy anymore, if you think it is do some actual research on it
On June 28 2010 12:50 furymonkey wrote: That Video looks like Police are in the process of clearing that road/area. And a group of protesters decided to be rebellious and sit down.
Kind of how i see it also, seems like they would have had some warning and they were intentionally trying to push the police to see how far they could go.
I never said they were guilty or innocent, I said we have no idea of the context of it. I find it funny that people are so fast to condemn police when its the protestors, not the police, causing the disturbance
dude, you know peaceful protest is within our rights? that it is a freedom that people are supposed to be afforded? you understand that is why the protestors are so upset and that's why what is happening in these videos is so terrible, right?
I suppose a lot of people just see protestors with nothing better to do, but all these videos of the G20 summit are happening because everyone's liberties are getting slowly stomped on, ever since 2001 there's been this push for more and more security. Even the police don't see it as its happening, just following orders. They are told their job role for it is to be an "enforcer" and treat it as such.
There are reasons that not only people protest this in their cities, but people all over the world protest the same thing. Yes they exploit third world countries, yes most of the protesters are probably only concerned about how the summit is gearing towards them now more.
Look at how your main news media paints such a picture of rapid angry protesters and heroic police. All the main media outlets do this, all of them have the same story when it comes their way.
Im not sure why this is such a shock to everyone, the riots have been as bad or worse at several other G8-20's. Or how about the WTO riots in seattle that cost like 400 million in damages. They need that much security because they are scared of what COULD and HAS happened. Not that I condone riot police baton-ing people, but I have my doubts they are as "innocent" as everyone seems to believe.
On June 28 2010 13:08 Darpa wrote: Im not sure why this is such a shock to everyone, the riots have been as bad or worse at several other G8-20's. Or how about the WTO riots in seattle that cost like 400 million in damages. They need that much security because they are scared of what COULD and HAS happened. Not that I condone riot police baton-ing people, but I have my doubts they are as "innocent" as everyone seems to believe.
Some people are estimating the cost of security up to 1 billion. That's something that could be avoided by a change of location. They shouldn't have to have this much security. Also, plenty of videos out there of people being arrested for no reason what so ever. You can ask for the context all you want, but police are stepping over their bounds in regards to peaceful protesters.
Yes it is well within peoples rights to peacefully assemble and protest.
It is NOT well within peoples rights to assemble in protest via pressuring police lines, causing damage to vehicles and local stores, and generally causing as many problems for security as possible.
Now that said, I know that several vehicles and stores have been trashed by protestors, Ive also seen on the news that some protestors are throwing rocks and shit at police, you reap what you sew. I also Know that many if not most of the protestors are peaceful. If police are attacking the peaceful protestors, that is absolutely outrageous. But am I willing to believe they are doing so on a mass scale because of a few subjective youtube videos that no context has been provided? not really.
edit - alou
those videos have no context whatsoever, you have no idea if they are peaceful or not. They could have turned that camera on, 30 seconds after throwing a rock at police you nor I have any idea.
And i totally agree that a different location should have been selected
On June 28 2010 13:08 Darpa wrote: Im not sure why this is such a shock to everyone, the riots have been as bad or worse at several other G8-20's. Or how about the WTO riots in seattle that cost like 400 million in damages. They need that much security because they are scared of what COULD and HAS happened. Not that I condone riot police baton-ing people, but I have my doubts they are as "innocent" as everyone seems to believe.
If property damages was such a concern then why has the Canadian government specifically say that they were not going to give any sort of coverage for any damage done to private property? The government doesn't give a shit about what damages occur.
So many things i tried to point out but i lost my post
In short this kind of crap only attract people who are not protesters for anything but anti-goverment and anti-police, who are usually young violent prone males. Further proof by the video listed as "owned"
A real protester does not cover up his face, he wants to be known to get his message across he is a martyr. You are not protesting shit with your face covered up in a mask, all you're doing is shouting and pissing off people then running away when tables turn on you in an obvious manner. Unless you are truly so paranoid of the Canadian government will find you come into your home and put you in a secret prison for all political prisoners they have in some small island.
In which case please make that known to the people you are working with because you are teaching bad habits.
The police are there to enforce the rules set forth by the government which the people elected and put into power. You do not control the police, just because you pay for their guns and their services does not mean they serve your own personal agenda. Police serve the people all of the people not just a section of people who happen to align to your own beliefs. They serve by proxy, they follow the government who in turn is put into power by the people.
And the fact people are being so hostile and breaking shit just justifies the extra police force and expenditures to the general public. It's like saying you're spending too much on fire-departments then firebombing houses in your area in protest.
Not that short, but eh i'm really tick off by the quality of the avg protester who is more anti government and capitalism then anything dealing with their so called issues such as war and crap.
On June 28 2010 13:17 Darpa wrote: Yes it is well within peoples rights to peacefully assemble and protest.
It is NOT well within peoples rights to assemble in protest via pressuring police lines, causing damage to vehicles and local stores, and generally causing as many problems for security as possible.
ok, and the police lines were those lines not moving forward? were they not moving forward and pushing peaceful protestors back?
(am i really going to have to point by point break you down and show how terrible this is?)
On June 28 2010 13:04 travis wrote: I've gotta say, anyone who thinks this is ok clearly has their head up their ass. The fact that they need THIS MUCH security, need to spend THIS MUCH money on it, clearly shows that something is seriously wrong.
Though anyone who looked into the direction the world has been going regarding the new world order, economic policies, the degradation of personal rights, etc etc - would already know that. But there is a complacent out of touch generation that isn't interested in getting involved or are even stupid enough / brainwashed enough to side with the corrupt system.
In the last century those in power have been developing more and more powerful tools and systems to control the general populous, I have to wonder if it's too late to ever bring the elite down or if eventually mother nature will have to do it for us, destroying most of humanity in the process.
ok rant over
and no, new world order shit isn't even conspiracy anymore, if you think it is do some actual research on it
look darpa, look how dangerous these protestors are clearly the cops were in the right to rush them here it's such a dangerous situation for the police here
here's an even more disgusting video to go with that image
On June 28 2010 13:24 travis wrote: look darpa, look how dangerous these protestors are clearly the cops were in the right to rush them here it's such a dangerous situation for the police here
On June 28 2010 13:17 Darpa wrote: Yes it is well within peoples rights to peacefully assemble and protest.
It is NOT well within peoples rights to assemble in protest via pressuring police lines, causing damage to vehicles and local stores, and generally causing as many problems for security as possible.
ok, and the police lines were those lines not moving forward? were they not moving forward and pushing peaceful protestors back?
(am i really going to have to point by point break you down and show how terrible this is?)
You have no idea if they are peaceful or not, neither do I. there could have been 1000 anarchists burning 700 vehicles behind that camera and you would never have known. (not that i believe that)
as far as I can tell, with the exception of the beating of the people sitting down (which were probably warned in advance and have masks on indicating they were up to something) those police lines didnt do anything more than push with their shields and make noise.
As i have said several times above, I dont condone police attacking peaceful protestors, I just have my doubts that the protestors in those videos are as peaceful as they claim to be.
Whats even more funny is that video you posted the police do nothing but charge them, and they stop as soon as the people run. Theres no beatings or tear gas (one guy falls down as he turns) How horribly brutal they are being.
wow, you have to be fucking kidding me, dude are you seriously that stupid, jesus fucking christ someone back me up and tell this guy how stupid he is
On June 28 2010 13:17 Darpa wrote: Yes it is well within peoples rights to peacefully assemble and protest.
as far as I can tell, with the exception of the beating of the people sitting down (which were probably warned in advance and have masks on indicating they were up to something) those police lines didnt do anything more than push with their shields and make noise.
clearly you can peacefully protest while cops with riot shields and batons are bearing down on you
jesus fucking shit i hope you don't represent too much of our young population
I almost saw good execution of sitting down, but not enough backbone. Police charged as a scare tactic(further proven by the choreographed "ROAH") to disperse the crowd, which they did, riot police are taught how to break up crowds violent and non violent. Usually using force or a show of force, frankly too many protesters fight back which is a baited response opening the police up for actual force really killing your position as that will be the focus of the media, or they run which is the goal of the riot police because it's less people they have to take in and it's less of a show for the media in the coming days.
You have to be peaceful and solid in your position, if you truly believe in your position you should be prepared to get arrested and roughed up a bit.
Also not enough context i would say yes that amount of force is almost necessary when people are setting fires and breaking storefronts.
Otherwise no.
Also that's a ton of police i hope that's nearly all of the police in the area haha although probably more ionno how large of an area is the convention covering, else did that 1 bil come form canada buying riot gear for every police force in the area.
On June 28 2010 13:30 travis wrote: wow, you have to be fucking kidding me, dude are you seriously that stupid, jesus fucking christ someone back me up and tell this guy how stupid he is
as far as I can tell, with the exception of the beating of the people sitting down (which were probably warned in advance and have masks on indicating they were up to something) those police lines didnt do anything more than push with their shields and make noise.
clearly you can peacefully protest while cops with riot shields and batons are bearing down on you
jesus fucking shit i hope you don't represent too much of our young population
Its funny how people who can no longer sustain an argument resort to childish name calling. Frankly I was enjoying our reasonable conversation until that statement. Enjoy the rest of your evening.
On June 28 2010 13:07 Wombatsavior wrote: I suppose a lot of people just see protestors with nothing better to do, but all these videos of the G20 summit are happening because everyone's liberties are getting slowly stomped on, ever since 2001 there's been this push for more and more security. Even the police don't see it as its happening, just following orders. They are told their job role for it is to be an "enforcer" and treat it as such.
There are reasons that not only people protest this in their cities, but people all over the world protest the same thing. Yes they exploit third world countries, yes most of the protesters are probably only concerned about how the summit is gearing towards them now more.
Look at how your main news media paints such a picture of rapid angry protesters and heroic police. All the main media outlets do this, all of them have the same story when it comes their way.
I was watching the news, and the police didn't look heroic to me. The peaceful protesters looked innocent and harmless, while the black bloc kids looked like the typical hipsters trying to get attention and be rebellious. It could have a bit more to do with your own perspective than how the media wants to show it. Question: what happened first, the chicken or the egg? I think that phrase might shed a bit of light on the situation of security growing vs rebelliousness growing. I'm not sure where else this kind of rioting happens for the cause of fighting liberties shrinking and the rest of the reasons enumerated by protesters at G20s(aside from other G20s). If you could show me some info I'd love to read it, as it would give me hope that they're actually doing something about the problem they feel so heavily about dealing with. And as I alluded to in my previous post, having read to kill a mockingbird and lord of the flies really gave me the heads up as to what can happen at these types of things. Both sides keep falling to the others' level, unfortunately.
On June 28 2010 13:17 Darpa wrote: Yes it is well within peoples rights to peacefully assemble and protest.
It is NOT well within peoples rights to assemble in protest via pressuring police lines, causing damage to vehicles and local stores, and generally causing as many problems for security as possible.
ok, and the police lines were those lines not moving forward? were they not moving forward and pushing peaceful protestors back?
(am i really going to have to point by point break you down and show how terrible this is?)
You have no idea if they are peaceful or not, neither do I. there could have been 1000 anarchists burning 700 vehicles behind that camera and you would never have known. (not that i believe that)
as far as I can tell, with the exception of the beating of the people sitting down (which were probably warned in advance and have masks on indicating they were up to something) those police lines didnt do anything more than push with their shields and make noise.
As i have said several times above, I dont condone police attacking peaceful protestors, I just have my doubts that the protestors in those videos are as peaceful as they claim to be.
Whats even more funny is that video you posted the police do nothing but charge them, and they stop as soon as the people run. Theres no beatings or tear gas (one guy falls down as he turns) How horribly brutal they are being.
You don't get to assume that someone is guilty - you need evidence.
To anyone who is convinced the police are there to protect the city, ensure peaceful demonstrations, blahblahblahblah, perhaps it would be wise to understand exactly why the world leaders need all this security to protect them. Of course, they are world leaders, but if they were favorable among the people, the need for such security would be NON-EXISTENT. So the question is, what policies are going to be enacted? What are they deliberating on? How does it affect our world? Here's a news article detailing just one agreement they have reached, and most likely one detailing the next big war that is, no doubt, on the horizon. This of course, is of no surprise to anyone following world news.
The new world order debate, it seems, is finally over. Welcome to the 21st century folks.
Police are there to discourage civil disobedience, from spraying painting buildings to murdering people, and enforces the laws set forth by the people. Not to obey the whims of select people
Also it's canada not the US ionno the laws pertaining to the rights to gather and speech.
It's been a long day protesting was legal until they started burning car and breaking storefronts, when that is done the police usually have the right to break up and end the protest. At which point protesters need to leave or be forced out/arrested. Which is usually the case, as protesters are stubborn, so all over the city protest are order to cease and break up which again people don't always do what they are told.
Although a majority of protesters probably did nothing wrong rightfully believes so their presence after rioters is uneasy to the police and they should leave if not, sit down chain yourselves together and get arrested one by one.
If you're going to protest you need to control the people in your group, again one person can ruin it for everyone.
On June 28 2010 13:24 travis wrote: look darpa, look how dangerous these protestors are clearly the cops were in the right to rush them here it's such a dangerous situation for the police here
On a more serious note. I sort of understand the cops tightening up security after they have been criticized for being too passive and allowing the riot from yesterday in happening. Part of me believe the protest organizers may have brought it upon themselves when they fail to control their own crowd and allowed troublemakers to create the riot.
semantics, did you even watch the videos i posted? it's pretty clear what happens in them to anyone who has working eyes + brain.
HOW ARE YOU SUPPOSED TO PROTEST IF YOU'RE REPEATEDLY PUSHED AWAY.
and if you don't believe it you can watch other videos, over and over ive been watching videos, dozens of them. and in ALL OF THEM the protestors are peaceful - EVERY SINGLE ONE.
On June 28 2010 13:45 travis wrote: semantics, did you even watch the videos i posted? it's pretty clear what happens in them to anyone who has working eyes + brain.
HOW ARE YOU SUPPOSED TO PROTEST IF YOU'RE REPEATEDLY PUSHED AWAY.
context context context.
How can you protest and expect the police not to push you away when the guy next to you just set a car on-fire.
Around 7:30 p.m. ET, tight lines of riot police – some with weapons drawn – moved to take control of Queen's Park, tackling and using batons on protesters who did not obey orders to leave. Officers on horseback galloped around to move about 500 activists away from the area, which had been sanctioned as a protest zone. Hitting their shields with their batons, riot police forced the crowd north.
New World Order was never a conspiracy, except under the 5th definition at dictionary.com "any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result. " What I mean, is that, it was never a secret. The only secrets are the true intentions of the New World Order, and those are hardly secrets these days.
For the few saying that if this was about the IMF, WTO, CFR, FED, (insert anything one of the countries does that the others are supporting) then some of the protesting would be understandable, Do you not think that there are concerns present in the relation to this meeting and those?
Why is everyone so content with our governments outsourcing their power to privatized councils?
Do you not think that the reason that the G20 gets so many protests and so much publicity is because there are so many viable things to protest?
I don't think there should be any doubt that the minority of protesters are anarchists though. Do you believe that those videos of undercover cops infiltrating protesters from last year are valid? If so, do you not find that to be sufficient reason to doubt the same for 2010? If not, do you disagree that centers of power aim primarily to extend their power?
Furthermore, If you support the G20, Are you really alright with a private meeting of such a mixed array of power with no democratic process(or any process of the councils public) involved? Are you disinterested in maintaining the continuity of the constitution of your government?
On June 28 2010 13:45 travis wrote: semantics, did you even watch the videos i posted? it's pretty clear what happens in them to anyone who has working eyes + brain.
HOW ARE YOU SUPPOSED TO PROTEST IF YOU'RE REPEATEDLY PUSHED AWAY.
context context context.
How can you protest and expect the police not to push you away when the guy next to you just set a car on-fire.
There are no videos of cars being set on fire afaik. can you show me any videos of protestors setting cars on fire- ANY VIDEOS OF IT ACTUALLY HAPPENING. I thought we already went over this anyways, if you read through the thread you would know police themselves have been inciting violence/rioting in attempt to undermine the protestors.
I can't find any videos of protestors setting cars on fire. not a single one! but you know what i can find? hundreds of videos of protestors being aggressed upon by police!
ok, i found one, after searching for a long time
my question: why the fuck is a cop car left in the middle of the street all alone?
Around 7:30 p.m. ET, tight lines of riot police – some with weapons drawn – moved to take control of Queen's Park, tackling and using batons on protesters who did not obey orders to leave. Officers on horseback galloped around to move about 500 activists away from the area, which had been sanctioned as a protest zone. Hitting their shields with their batons, riot police forced the crowd north.
So much for the "sanctioned" zone.
Well it's a right, you can easily loose it by being violent, staying past your allocated time or other actives etc. You're sanctioned to protest which does not mean riot, although that may not be what happened need day to day context in the area to get why police orders were given.
Most of the time police are just there to scare people away doing alot of bravado crap shouting, making noise and aggressive gestures as arresting people is not what they want to do to everyone, which is why you should get arrested put a burden on the police and judges in the area, it also makes for decent media to see 100-200 people lined up out side of court.
On June 28 2010 13:45 travis wrote: semantics, did you even watch the videos i posted? it's pretty clear what happens in them to anyone who has working eyes + brain.
HOW ARE YOU SUPPOSED TO PROTEST IF YOU'RE REPEATEDLY PUSHED AWAY.
context context context.
How can you protest and expect the police not to push you away when the guy next to you just set a car on-fire.
Even if a protestor sets a car on fire or damages property, how does that give them the right to break up other protestors if they are being peaceful. I understand police need to maintain peace, but they can do that while letting people protest peacefully as well.
There were multiple police car fires, and there was an axe thrown into some windows. There were also paintings of the words "bomb the banks" on walls. Several stores were vandalized. I'm not here to argue about the peaceful protest thing, but those are some of the things that happened. It also took me an extra hour to drive home due to the congestion and blocked roads.
I thought the protests were about banks, but I saw some people protesting abortion rights? They had some coathanger.
I also draw the line when you start covering your face. You can't protest and not suffer consequences.
On June 28 2010 13:45 travis wrote: semantics, did you even watch the videos i posted? it's pretty clear what happens in them to anyone who has working eyes + brain.
HOW ARE YOU SUPPOSED TO PROTEST IF YOU'RE REPEATEDLY PUSHED AWAY.
context context context.
How can you protest and expect the police not to push you away when the guy next to you just set a car on-fire.
what if it was a plainclothes cop who did it?
That's about as valid as saying an anarchist did it. Obviously police broke storefronts and set cars on fire, sounds very paranoid doesn't it?
Because you can't find a video where you see someone throw a firebomb onto a car you say it's the police, using your logic where is the video of the police setting their own cars on fire? Says more about you that you instantly go to the police were in the wrong not small parts of protesters which very easily could be violent anarchist.
Cars were set on fire and storefronts broken in. Now is it more likely that the police did that or a small number of protesters.
On June 28 2010 13:55 Alou wrote: Even if a protestor sets a car on fire or damages property, how does that give them the right to break up other protestors if they are being peaceful. I understand police need to maintain peace, but they can do that while letting people protest peacefully as well.
It goes aganist the permit you were issued at least in the US. When you protest, you protest as a group and the group is responsible for everyone actions. If someone is about to throw a Molotov Cocktail or break into a storefront, stop them, you're protesting for the betterment of your public but your too pussy shit to stop someone from doing wrong, what you're only capable of shouting about what is being done wrong, oh wait you're waiting for the police to stop that, but then if the police have to stop that they have to assume it will only get worse from there, as police are taught to be paranoid. And so they break up the protest. =p
They will order everyone to disperse, give it some time if that does not take they usually will announce the use of force, usually following pushing the crowd back then tear gas if it escalates from there.
On June 28 2010 14:05 travis wrote: semantics why were abandoned cop cars sitting in the middle of the street despite the enormous police presence in the city?
Police cars were used as barricades to draw lines =p when lines.
Police cars are also used to break up crowed by driving slowing into them with the sirens on saying to disperse, they can't run over people and if the people stop the card get rough the police officers will abandon the car =p
Shit maybe you should also complain about all the abandon police bicycles obvious set up.
On June 28 2010 14:05 travis wrote: semantics why were abandoned cop cars sitting in the middle of the street despite the enormous police presence in the city?
This is an enormously valid point.
The fact that there are no police nearby is also sketchy. Where's the owner?
On June 28 2010 14:05 travis wrote: semantics why were abandoned cop cars sitting in the middle of the street despite the enormous police presence in the city?
Police cars were used as barricades to draw lines =p when lines.
Police cars are also used to break up crowed by driving slowing into them with the sirens on saying to disperse, they can't run over people and if the people stop the card get rough the police officers will abandon the car =p
Shit maybe you should also complain about all the abandon police bicycles obvious set up.
I'm no riot police or anything, but with the sinful budget and the number of police, are you saying that a foot escort wasn't more viable?
Would you like more examples, or would you prefer to be the ignorant one in this situation?
Oh shit anecdotal testimony from people that is 3 years old.
Fuck proof beyond a doubt.
A video FROM CANADA showing undercover police, attempting to incite violence through the throwing of dangerously large stones, and getting shunned by peaceful protesters. Want to try that again?
On June 28 2010 14:05 travis wrote: semantics why were abandoned cop cars sitting in the middle of the street despite the enormous police presence in the city?
Police cars were used as barricades to draw lines =p when lines.
Police cars are also used to break up crowed by driving slowing into them with the sirens on saying to disperse, they can't run over people and if the people stop the card get rough the police officers will abandon the car =p
Shit maybe you should also complain about all the abandon police bicycles obvious set up.
I'm no riot police or anything, but with the sinful budget and the number of police, are you saying that a foot escort wasn't more viable?
Doesn't look like draw lines to me.
It's a clear indicator to people, sirens light and the bullhorn on a car to most people is enough to get the point of leave, break up disperse etc. It's also less hostile and people are more likely to respond to it, vs instant escalation when people see a row of riot gear police officers getting ready to push you back.
Unless you have a long standing solid proof of high up police conspiracy and corruption dealing with canada i don't see why you question the police first rather then question a few people protesting.
On June 28 2010 14:12 travis wrote: you'll argue anything to keep trying to be right, won't you?
the abandoned cop car i nthe middle of the street - 1 cop car - no cops nearby explain how it's being used in any of the ways you describe ?
You've never been in a oakland riot police cars aren't abandoned in a nice neat row they are usually in the middle of the street next to no where.
Would you say there is a difference between a riot (and G20 was far from a riot) breaking out semi-spontaneously and one that could have been predicted over a year in advance?
I was not given that information in the video before that. All i could make out is people saying they are police but nothing else from that, thus it's anecdotal and from people who clearly are on one side.
Give the good proof before hand not after
atleast in this video i have news telling me that they are indeed verified as police officers. In which case why doesn't this bring up crap about police conduct in Canada. Crap like this in the US would cause resignations of police chiefs in America, and i've seen police chiefs go down for less. =p
On June 28 2010 14:05 travis wrote: semantics why were abandoned cop cars sitting in the middle of the street despite the enormous police presence in the city?
Police cars were used as barricades to draw lines =p when lines.
Police cars are also used to break up crowed by driving slowing into them with the sirens on saying to disperse, they can't run over people and if the people stop the card get rough the police officers will abandon the car =p
Shit maybe you should also complain about all the abandon police bicycles obvious set up.
I'm no riot police or anything, but with the sinful budget and the number of police, are you saying that a foot escort wasn't more viable?
Doesn't look like draw lines to me.
It's a clear indicator to people, sirens light and the bullhorn on a car to most people is enough to get the point of leave, break up disperse etc. It's also less hostile and people are more likely to respond to it, vs instant escalation when people see a row of riot gear police officers getting ready to push you back.
Unless you have a long standing solid proof of high up police conspiracy and corruption dealing with canada i don't see why you question the police first rather then question a few people protesting.
I don't see how proof is relevant, do you have PROOF to the contrary? lol.
I question everything, I don't see why you find anything exempt from questions?
On June 28 2010 13:45 travis wrote: semantics, did you even watch the videos i posted? it's pretty clear what happens in them to anyone who has working eyes + brain.
HOW ARE YOU SUPPOSED TO PROTEST IF YOU'RE REPEATEDLY PUSHED AWAY.
context context context.
How can you protest and expect the police not to push you away when the guy next to you just set a car on-fire.
There are no videos of cars being set on fire afaik. can you show me any videos of protestors setting cars on fire- ANY VIDEOS OF IT ACTUALLY HAPPENING. I thought we already went over this anyways, if you read through the thread you would know police themselves have been inciting violence/rioting in attempt to undermine the protestors.
I can't find any videos of protestors setting cars on fire. not a single one! but you know what i can find? hundreds of videos of protestors being aggressed upon by police!
I was not given that information in the video before that. All i could make out is people saying they are police but nothing else from that, thus it's anecdotal and from people who clearly are on one side.
Give the good proof before hand not after =p
Right. So, like the religious image you linked to, you were adamantly advocating a position through ignorance. If you want to discuss a matter, and dismiss information without having done ANY research of your own, you should keep your comments to yourself.
On June 28 2010 13:45 travis wrote: semantics, did you even watch the videos i posted? it's pretty clear what happens in them to anyone who has working eyes + brain.
HOW ARE YOU SUPPOSED TO PROTEST IF YOU'RE REPEATEDLY PUSHED AWAY.
context context context.
How can you protest and expect the police not to push you away when the guy next to you just set a car on-fire.
There are no videos of cars being set on fire afaik. can you show me any videos of protestors setting cars on fire- ANY VIDEOS OF IT ACTUALLY HAPPENING. I thought we already went over this anyways, if you read through the thread you would know police themselves have been inciting violence/rioting in attempt to undermine the protestors.
I can't find any videos of protestors setting cars on fire. not a single one! but you know what i can find? hundreds of videos of protestors being aggressed upon by police!
actually read it please. even if you think that is a coincidence, which it could be an improbable coincidence - ask yourself why the cop car was left there and despite thousands of police in the city none did anything about it being jumped on and lit on fire
and look how many "protestors" do it. 1 guy. everyone else just watches.
So it's clear - I wouldn't try to argue there aren't stupid people out there taking advantage of the situation to be angry and cause violence. But that certainly isn't what upsets me the most about this situation - and I don't think it's where our attention should be, AT ALL.
On June 28 2010 13:45 travis wrote: semantics, did you even watch the videos i posted? it's pretty clear what happens in them to anyone who has working eyes + brain.
HOW ARE YOU SUPPOSED TO PROTEST IF YOU'RE REPEATEDLY PUSHED AWAY.
context context context.
How can you protest and expect the police not to push you away when the guy next to you just set a car on-fire.
There are no videos of cars being set on fire afaik. can you show me any videos of protestors setting cars on fire- ANY VIDEOS OF IT ACTUALLY HAPPENING. I thought we already went over this anyways, if you read through the thread you would know police themselves have been inciting violence/rioting in attempt to undermine the protestors.
I can't find any videos of protestors setting cars on fire. not a single one! but you know what i can find? hundreds of videos of protestors being aggressed upon by police!
actually read it please. even if you think that is a coincidence, which it could be an improbable coincidence - ask yourself why the cop car was left there and despite thousands of police in the city none did anything about it being jumped on and lit on fire
and look how many "protestors" do it. 1 guy. everyone else just watches.
I was not given that information in the video before that. All i could make out is people saying they are police but nothing else from that, thus it's anecdotal and from people who clearly are on one side.
Give the good proof before hand not after =p
Right. So, like the religious image you linked to, you were adamantly advocating a position through ignorance. If you want to discuss a matter, and dismiss information without having done ANY research of your own, you should keep your comments to yourself.
It goes both ways =p you claimed something with little evidence, i claimed another possible story. I was just waiting to be proven wrong, i like to argue with people so i saw an opportunity and took it, my question is why did you care to hold back valid sources that support where you're coming from instead of continue to just say no i'm wrong. Frankly i don't really care either way on the manner as i find protesting fairly ineffective in most cases vs just going to your local officials and putting pressure on them as a group.
Also if this issue is at least 3 years old why aren't there any inquires about the manner and disciplinary actions taken so this doesn't happen again, wtf canada does crap like this just mean nothing to the canadian public or the people in canada have no political clout.
On June 28 2010 14:37 travis wrote: So it's clear - I wouldn't try to argue there aren't stupid people out there taking advantage of the situation to be angry and cause violence. But that certainly isn't what upsets me the most about this situation - and I don't think it's where our attention should be, AT ALL.
Well the thread is about the protest being violent, not about what the protesting is about :D, so i just saw this as bash the police and government thread so it was bound to be trash anyways.
Make a thread listing all the positions and problems dealing with the G8 and G20 then you can change the focus on that.
I was not given that information in the video before that. All i could make out is people saying they are police but nothing else from that, thus it's anecdotal and from people who clearly are on one side.
Give the good proof before hand not after =p
Right. So, like the religious image you linked to, you were adamantly advocating a position through ignorance. If you want to discuss a matter, and dismiss information without having done ANY research of your own, you should keep your comments to yourself.
It goes both ways =p you claimed something with little evidence, i claimed another possible story. I was just waiting to be proven wrong, i like to argue with people so i saw an opportunity and took it, my question is why did you care to hold back valid sources that support where you're coming from instead of continue to just say no i'm wrong. Frankly i don't really care either way on the manner as i find protesting fairly ineffective in most cases vs just going to your local officials and putting pressure on them as a group.
Also if this issue is at least 3 years old why aren't there any inquires about the manner and disciplinary actions taken so this doesn't happen again, wtf canada.
If you are in a discussion and defending viewpoints, I have to assume that you've done some research. Blindly jumping into a discussion and hoping to hold your own with what little you have is no way to HAVE a discussion. It wasn't important to defend it immediately, as I had to give you the benefit of the doubt. Had the videos supporting it not been posted so quickly, I would have posted them when you demonstrated that you had nothing to bring to the discussion (which you obviously did not)...
I was not given that information in the video before that. All i could make out is people saying they are police but nothing else from that, thus it's anecdotal and from people who clearly are on one side.
Give the good proof before hand not after =p
Right. So, like the religious image you linked to, you were adamantly advocating a position through ignorance. If you want to discuss a matter, and dismiss information without having done ANY research of your own, you should keep your comments to yourself.
It goes both ways =p you claimed something with little evidence, i claimed another possible story. I was just waiting to be proven wrong, i like to argue with people so i saw an opportunity and took it, my question is why did you care to hold back valid sources that support where you're coming from instead of continue to just say no i'm wrong. Frankly i don't really care either way on the manner as i find protesting fairly ineffective in most cases vs just going to your local officials and putting pressure on them as a group.
Also if this issue is at least 3 years old why aren't there any inquires about the manner and disciplinary actions taken so this doesn't happen again, wtf canada does crap like this just mean nothing to the canadian public or the people in canada have no political clout.
On June 28 2010 14:37 travis wrote: So it's clear - I wouldn't try to argue there aren't stupid people out there taking advantage of the situation to be angry and cause violence. But that certainly isn't what upsets me the most about this situation - and I don't think it's where our attention should be, AT ALL.
Well the thread is about the protest being violent, not about what the protesting is about :D, so i just saw this as bash the police and government thread so it was bound to be trash anyways.
Make a thread listing all the positions and problems dealing with the G8 and G20 then you can change the focus on that.
important parts are at 5:30, but really, I only say that because I don't think you'll watch it all. You should, especially if you live in the area, as the entire video pertains to the g20.
also, Dan has a beast beard and presents himself exceptionally well.
ambitiousnub that is an excellent video ty so very much everyone should watch it, really. everyone should watch the whole thing actually but at least the part he has asked you to watch
The video is more interesting then any other crap posted before. I dont live in canada or ever will it took me a long childhood to learn the rules of the US, born Socal raised mostly in the bay area where i live today.
All i know is if the police pull that crap where i live and get caught and admit it, alot of people would hang, at-least politically and job-wise. For a clearly illegal act from the police, which in the US would violate the first amendment so clearly.
Also the begging is something i already aware of how the banking system works, it's not pretty but it works...most of the time, necessary evil for larger growth.
On June 28 2010 13:04 travis wrote: I've gotta say, anyone who thinks this is ok clearly has their head up their ass. The fact that they need THIS MUCH security, need to spend THIS MUCH money on it, clearly shows that something is seriously wrong.
Though anyone who looked into the direction the world has been going regarding the new world order, economic policies, the degradation of personal rights, etc etc - would already know that. But there is a complacent out of touch generation that isn't interested in getting involved or are even stupid enough / brainwashed enough to side with the corrupt system.
Absolutely with you on this.
However people all over the world are waking up, and this is positive. Some people are taking longer than others.
And some people will not see what is right in front of their face until it's too late. There isn't any way to get through to some people, unfortunately. They will not or can not - for any number of reasons - accept a change in their perception of reality, no matter how obvious the evidence or how overwhelming it is.
Semantics, since you seem intrigued by the issue, I urge you to watch the follow videos. I apologize for diverting off topic of Toronto for a moment, but these videos do relate to the G20.
This video shows the new EU president confirming the G20 is essentially an instrument for globalization and global government.
This one is quotes straight from the mouths of politicians/participants in the creation of the new world order
part 2 for that video.
America isn't different from what we've seen in Toronto
Notice the similarities, peaceful protesters beaten up by violent police
And probably the scariest video of all. I don't know whether this is legit or not, but the repercussions are astronomical if this is.
shameless plug yes that is me, and yes I do suck, but with the direction the vibes of this thread are heading, I feel its appropriate
On June 28 2010 13:07 travis wrote: dude, you know peaceful protest is within our rights? that it is a freedom that people are supposed to be afforded? you understand that is why the protestors are so upset and that's why what is happening in these videos is so terrible, right?
No, many people do not understand the truth of Natural Rights or their own value as an individual.
They grew up in a corporately controlled world, and on a deep level they have allowed themselves to be defined by the establishment and the state, to the point that they don't know how to question societal institutions, and the version of reality they are presented by the mainstream media.
If a video shows people and police in conflict, and the voice on the screen is interpreting this from an establishment viewpoint, they immediately assume this as truth and side with the establishment (the police, the state, the corporations).
I can see that in many of the people on this thread, and a whole lot of threads like it going on. You can see the mindset of people by what and how they post.
On June 28 2010 13:04 travis wrote: I've gotta say, anyone who thinks this is ok clearly has their head up their ass. The fact that they need THIS MUCH security, need to spend THIS MUCH money on it, clearly shows that something is seriously wrong.
Though anyone who looked into the direction the world has been going regarding the new world order, economic policies, the degradation of personal rights, etc etc - would already know that. But there is a complacent out of touch generation that isn't interested in getting involved or are even stupid enough / brainwashed enough to side with the corrupt system.
Absolutely with you on this.
However people all over the world are waking up, and this is positive. Some people are taking longer than others.
And some people will not see what is right in front of their face until it's too late. There isn't any way to get through to some people, unfortunately. They will not or can not - for any number of reasons - accept a change in their perception of reality, no matter how obvious the evidence or how overwhelming it is.
There is too much of a culture of comfortable complacency and passivity born out of ignorance in North America. I just can't help but be pessimistic that whatever we have seen now will be forgotten easily by most.
If there were one video absolutely essential to watch in this debate, it would be this one.
He does a few things amazingly well:
1 - He describes the root problem in the world, visa vi the criminal fiat currency based monetary system. He does it so well that any 7th grader can understand it in less than 5 minutes.
2 - He directly confronts the chief of police, and police in the street, with irrefutable evidence of police agents routinely posing as protesters (agent provocateurs) in past protest. Notably: neither party will acknowledge or address his concerns.
3 - He does it all in a very classy, professional way that does not resort to name calling, baiting, or over-reacting.
Sadly - most of the people in this thread will probably not watch it, will dismiss it, and will move on without ever seeing it ... or the enormity of what he is presenting will not sink in.
For everyone else: please take 10 minutes and watch.
On June 28 2010 15:07 travis wrote: ambitiousnub that is an excellent video ty so very much everyone should watch it, really. everyone should watch the whole thing actually but at least the part he has asked you to watch
This video is just shocking.
Then you realize that all people being so angry and raging against protestor are basically being manipulated.
On June 27 2010 12:06 Butigroove wrote: I seriously hope this isn't another case like the WTO protests in seattle where the protests WERE peaceful until the police started shooting teargas & rubber bullets to break up the croud. We'd probably never even know either.
thats EXACTLY what this is... this link shows how the police are randomly attacking the PEACEFUL protestors to keep them guessing who's next. It's a good video too because it was shot by a protestor, from the ground, in the middle of the protest... It isn't some helicopter news cam.
"snatch squads are a nasty tactic. notice how the police have already decided who they're going to grab before they send a team through the ranks. when you see that happening, it's time to start un-arresting your friends, removing them from the grip of the cops if you can.
560 arrests and counting... many of them being the "round them up where they are sleeping and organizing" variety which is worthy of a totalitarian state."
If there were one video absolutely essential to watch in this debate, it would be this one.
He does a few things amazingly well:
1 - He describes the root problem in the world, visa vi the criminal fiat currency based monetary system. He does it so well that any 7th grader can understand it in less than 5 minutes.
2 - He directly confronts the chief of police, and police in the street, with irrefutable evidence of police agents routinely posing as protesters (agent provocateurs) in past protest. Notably: neither party will acknowledge or address his concerns.
3 - He does it all in a very classy, professional way that does not resort to name calling, baiting, or over-reacting.
Sadly - most of the people in this thread will probably not watch it, will dismiss it, and will move on without ever seeing it ... or the enormity of what he is presenting will not sink in.
For everyone else: please take 10 minutes and watch.
I don't know what you're talking about if you look through the information on his website he's clearly an illuminati conspiracy theorist and supports the 9/11 truther movement. This makes it obvious everything he says is either out context and thus irrelevant, misinformed, or a plain lie for more hits on his website
Not really, Tis a great video that will hopefully wake a few people up to the motivations and justifications to the peaceful protesters.
Except everything he actually talked about Canada is true. Dismissing everything he said in that video just because of his beliefs in 9/11 is fallacious. Which of, by the way, no one actually knows about. I don't believe that the Twin Tower's destruction was staged by the American government but to this day it's a valid argument supported by quite a few respectable specialists. Not to mention that it's neither been proven or disproven. Pretty much just shows that you have a rather strong disposition against this and you gleefully jumped on anything to take away the validity of the opposition's arguments.
Those are massed police forces and they show behaviour typical of an armed organized force. One can see fear in their tactics. Their behaviour is best explained by psychology and not by some secret agenda.
The nature of the clashes between police and protesters has little to do with the real problems behind globalization.
Oh, of course, the violence is all instigated by undercover policemen -_- Most here should know that some people are out for violence, and protests such as these are exactly what those people see as an opportunity.
edit: The story from Quebec is nothing more than a story of stupid undercover policemen to me. Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity
On June 29 2010 01:19 Maenander wrote: Those are massed police forces and they show behaviour typical of an armed organized force. One can see fear in their tactics. Their behaviour is best explained by psychology and not by some secret agenda.
how many of the videos have you watched? have you not read about the snatch and grab tactics? grabbing people sleeping in their homes and hotel rooms? have you not watched the groups of policeman rush out and grab people from within the protestors and pull them behind the police lines?
The nature of the clashes between police and protesters has little to do with the real problems behind globalization.
I am not sure what you mean by this.
Oh, of course, the violence is all instigated by undercover policemen -_- Most here should know that some people are out for violence, and protests such as these are exactly what those people see as an opportunity.
no one said it all is.. but at least some of it has been? you think that isn't a big deal?
edit: The story from Quebec is nothing more than a story of stupid undercover policemen to me. Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity
you're the one that is being stupid. you think those policemen decided on their own to go undercover? are you kidding me? the quebec police later even admit they were undercover on orders
why don't you watch the video ambitiousnub posts on page 17, where the guy asks if there will be agent provocateurs used at the g20 summit, and the reply is "he isn't at liberty to discuss it"? you do realize that not only are agent provocateurs illegal, but snatch and grab tactics are also illegal, as are unlawful arrests, as are illegal search and seizures, as is police brutality.
this should be obvious to people. jesus, care about your rights! defend them! or we are all going to lose them. we already are losing them. and it's going to be too late to do anything about it.
On June 29 2010 01:19 Maenander wrote: Those are massed police forces and they show behaviour typical of an armed organized force. One can see fear in their tactics. Their behaviour is best explained by psychology and not by some secret agenda.
how many of the videos have you watched? have you not read about the snatch and grab tactics? grabbing people sleeping in their homes and hotel rooms? have you not watched the groups of policeman rush out and grab people from within the protestors and pull them behind the police lines?
Oh, of course, the violence is all instigated by undercover policemen -_- Most here should know that some people are out for violence, and protests such as these are exactly what those people see as an opportunity.
no one said it all is.. but at least some of it has been? you think that isn't a big deal?
edit: The story from Quebec is nothing more than a story of stupid undercover policemen to me. Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity
you're the one that is being stupid. you think those policemen decided on their own to go undercover? are you kidding me?
why don't you watch the video ambitiousnub posts on page 17, where the guy asks if there will be agent provocateurs used at the g20 summit, and the reply is "he isn't at liberty to discuss it"? you do realize that not only are agent provocateurs illegal, but snatch and grab tactics are also illegal, as are unlawful arrests, as are illegal search and seizures, as is police brutality.
this should be obvious to people. jesus, care about your rights! defend them! or we are all going to lose them. we already are losing them. and it's going to be too late to do anything about it.
Yes I have seen the video.
I never said people shouldn't hold the police responsible, but this is an internal matter of the canadian police and has nothing to do with the cause of the protesters. All this fixation on the police and their illegal actions will get them nowhere. Most police forces on earth would have the same problems while doing large scale operations like this is all I am saying.
You should also see that the task the police faces is nearly impossible, namely to prevent violence and destruction. The consequences are that police leaders will sanction dirty methods to succeed and that a typical war mentality is generated between protesters and the police. They hate each other and you can see that. This is not your friendly neighbour police force anymore, these are armed forces ready for violence.
On June 29 2010 02:21 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote: Which is more violent:
Smashing windows
or
the continued support of war in the middle east and the continued exploitation of indigenous and 3rd world peoples?
The only problem is that communists and anarchists have a long history of doing far more than merely smashing windows. There's no such thing as a "good" communist or anarchist.
On June 29 2010 02:21 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote: Which is more violent:
Smashing windows
or
the continued support of war in the middle east and the continued exploitation of indigenous and 3rd world peoples?
The only problem is that communists and anarchists have a long history of doing far more than merely smashing windows. There's no such thing as a "good" communist or anarchist.
do you often say things with no basis whatsoever? there are millions of communists and anarchists in the world. are you trying to say that none of them are good people who want positive change in the world and want the best for everyone? also, what the hell does communism have to do with it, anyways?
On June 29 2010 02:21 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote: Which is more violent:
Smashing windows
or
the continued support of war in the middle east and the continued exploitation of indigenous and 3rd world peoples?
The only problem is that communists and anarchists have a long history of doing far more than merely smashing windows. There's no such thing as a "good" communist or anarchist.
You might as well say that there are no such thing as a "good" human.
On June 29 2010 02:40 Yurebis wrote: I'm interested to hear about the long history of anarchists doing more than smashing windows tbh.
Gandhi was influenced heavily by anarchism. It India's march to freedom was led by anarcho-pacifists.
How quickly the world forgets that modern freedom was fought for by civilian oppositions across the world.
Lotta lols in this thread over stupid people reacting to a pretty outragous incident. I think the world is changing pretty fast and something huge will definitely happen in the coming years. dundundun
they should just start a party and get voted if they want to be heard. The greens did it why cant the communists an anarchists do it? We got both parties in germany and noone votes them because everything they say is bullshit with some "but think about the poor children" shit and conspiracy theorys. If I had to chose between radical left and right partys I would always support the right partys. Hitler came to power because people feared communists and their dangerously stupid ideas.
People are throwing rocks at police, yelling abuse, vandalising property, setting cars on fire and hiding their faces. Then people claim they are protesting peacefully and get angry when the police use force to move them along?
You may not be causing violence, but you are part of a crowd that is. Police must treat protesters as a crowd, not individuals. If the crowd is becoming violent, people who do not wish to become caught up in the police response should go somewhere else
On June 29 2010 02:45 Yuljan wrote: they should just start a party and get voted if they want to be heard. The greens did it why cant the communists an anarchists do it? We got both parties in germany and noone votes them because everything they say is bullshit with some "but think about the poor children" shit and conspiracy theorys. If I had to chose between radical left and right partys I would always support the right partys. Hitler came to power because people feared communists and their dangerously stupid ideas.
Anarchist party? rofl How about conceiving an atheist god too while you're at it?
On June 29 2010 02:45 Yuljan wrote: they should just start a party and get voted if they want to be heard. The greens did it why cant the communists an anarchists do it? We got both parties in germany and noone votes them because everything they say is bullshit with some "but think about the poor children" shit and conspiracy theorys. If I had to chose between radical left and right partys I would always support the right partys. Hitler came to power because people feared communists and their dangerously stupid ideas.
Anarchist party? rofl How about conceiving an atheist god too while you're at it?
Whats wrong with starting a party if you want to abolish the system? How do you want to achieve your goal of ultimate freedom? Anarchists are useless. Most of them just want to rebel against their parents and dream of some cool new society while smoking weed.
On June 29 2010 02:21 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote: Which is more violent:
Smashing windows
or
the continued support of war in the middle east and the continued exploitation of indigenous and 3rd world peoples?
The only problem is that communists and anarchists have a long history of doing far more than merely smashing windows. There's no such thing as a "good" communist or anarchist.
And the wealthy policy makers have a long history of exploiting indigenous peoples and the working classes, polluting the natural environment, starting wars to serve their own interests, and staging coups to install puppet leaders. Gee, what could it be that people are so angry about?
I wonder what problem there is in banding people who want to abolish the state into a political party. I mean, that's not a fundamental contradiction at all.
Obviously all anarchists are aimless rebels without a cause. Who gives a shit about Tolstoy, right? Damn he was a useless hippy.
On June 29 2010 03:01 koreasilver wrote: I wonder what problem there is in banding people who want to abolish the state into a political party. I mean, that's not a fundamental contradiction at all.
Obviously all anarchists are aimless rebels without a cause. Who gives a shit about Tolstoy, right? Damn he was a useless hippy.
I dont see a problem at all. So whats the state of your anarchist rebellion? Got 300 million supporters already? Or is the strategy of smashing stuff at demos too good to abandon? I have nothing against people who want to change the world and make it a better place. But I fucking hate idiots who only whine and do nothing productive to change things. Tolstoy lived in a different time.
On June 29 2010 02:21 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote: Which is more violent:
Smashing windows
or
the continued support of war in the middle east and the continued exploitation of indigenous and 3rd world peoples?
The only problem is that communists and anarchists have a long history of doing far more than merely smashing windows. There's no such thing as a "good" communist or anarchist.
do you often say things with no basis whatsoever? there are millions of communists and anarchists in the world. are you trying to say that none of them are good people who want positive change in the world and want the best for everyone? also, what the hell does communism have to do with it, anyways?
I have absolutely no problem standing by that statement. Disaster has inevitably befallen every country where anarchists and communists have taken power. These are the same people that supported Lenin/Stalin, Mao Zedong, Castro, and Polpot. Please excuse me if I'm disinclined to follow in the foosteps of those individuals and what they put their countries through.
So yes, there is no such thing as a good anarchist or communist. At best, they are, as Lenin described, "useful idiots." At worst, they are mass murderers and tyrants.
On June 29 2010 02:21 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote: Which is more violent:
Smashing windows
or
the continued support of war in the middle east and the continued exploitation of indigenous and 3rd world peoples?
The only problem is that communists and anarchists have a long history of doing far more than merely smashing windows. There's no such thing as a "good" communist or anarchist.
do you often say things with no basis whatsoever? there are millions of communists and anarchists in the world. are you trying to say that none of them are good people who want positive change in the world and want the best for everyone? also, what the hell does communism have to do with it, anyways?
I have absolutely no problem standing by that statement. Disaster has inevitably befallen every country where anarchists and communists have taken power. These are the same people that supported Lenin/Stalin, Mao Zedong, Castro, and Polpot. Please excuse me if I'm disinclined to follow in the foosteps of those individuals and what they put their countries through.
So yes, there is no such thing as a good anarchist or communist. At best, they are, as Lenin described, "useful idiots." At worst, they are mass murderers and tyrants.
You don't see a problem with the idea that to attain freedom you must first become the oppressor of your own ideology? This is pretty much what the anarchists and communists argued about during Marx's times. This is a very fundamental stance of anarchism and to suggest that they create a party just shows how ignorant you are. I am not an anarchist and I do not believe in it but at least I have a vague understanding of their thought unlike you who work off of wide assumptions and ignorant complacency. Once again, your lumping of all protesters, regardless of whether they are actually anarchists or not, with mindless violence just shows that you have no idea what you are going on about. You might as well lump all environmentalists with those violent anti-whalers, all religious organizations as fundmenalists, etc. etc. Are all Germans ignorant, racist facists? No.
And so Tolstoy is irrelevant because he died only a century ago? His legacy lives with Gandhi. You might as well just openly dismiss anything that is opposed to your thoughts with no other reason than they oppose you. Thanks for your insight.
On June 29 2010 02:21 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote: Which is more violent:
Smashing windows
or
the continued support of war in the middle east and the continued exploitation of indigenous and 3rd world peoples?
The only problem is that communists and anarchists have a long history of doing far more than merely smashing windows. There's no such thing as a "good" communist or anarchist.
do you often say things with no basis whatsoever? there are millions of communists and anarchists in the world. are you trying to say that none of them are good people who want positive change in the world and want the best for everyone? also, what the hell does communism have to do with it, anyways?
I have absolutely no problem standing by that statement. Disaster has inevitably befallen every country where anarchists and communists have taken power. These are the same people that supported Lenin/Stalin, Mao Zedong, Castro, and Polpot. Please excuse me if I'm disinclined to follow in the foosteps of those individuals and what they put their countries through.
So yes, there is no such thing as a good anarchist or communist. At best, they are, as Lenin described, "useful idiots." At worst, they are mass murderers and tyrants.
anarchist taken state power there's your problem.
There's nothing inaccurate about what I said. Historically, anarchists and communists have worked and fought together to overthrow governments. Go read up on the Spanish Civil War and the Russian Revolution. With regards to the Russian Revolution, it just so happens that the Bolsheviks turned on the anarchists and wiped them out after they had seized power. This, obviously, would place the anarchists into the "useful idiots" category in this instance. My original point remains: the anarchists contributed to a national disaster.
First of all Tolstoi lived in the russian monarchy. If you cant see the difference between living in a Monarchy where rural workers starve every year and canada you have some serious issues. Also the times were changing. Revolutions left and right in almsot every european country. Thousand year old monarchys got destroyed and people thought about how they could change the world for the better themselves. I never said all protesters are communists or anarchists but at least in germany the ones with the big A at their back start throwing stones and escalating everything into violence. And yes they need to become the oppressor first. If you truly believe in anarchism you should be ready to sacrifice your innocence for the good of all. Honestly if they dont want to opress people and live in anarchism they can go to somalia and try establish their own country there. Or get money buy some island and create your anarchist paradise. But anarchists arent doing anything they only whine. So anarchists are the good communists who dont want to opress people ? They only want them to see the light? Thats why they throw stones at people? Those protesters knew what would happen. It happens everytime the g20 come together and most of them go there with violence in mind. Yes im generalizing. You do generalize too. I dont dismiss everything opposing me. I dismiss everything that doesnt use rational arguments to convince me. How do anarchist implent their freedom what do they want to achieve? go back to the stone age and everyone gathers for themself? If not how is it distributed I dont think they will keep money as anarchists. Anarchist live in a dream world and they dont want to accept reality. And Gandhi is a nice example. How did he achieve his legacy? He convinced people to follow him and his ideas. It wasnt anarchism. He was the right man at the right time. You can clearly see people didnt follow his vision when they fell apart into pakistan and india. Well and to your questions about germans. Yes alot of germans are ignorant and racists. Most dont admit it and cover it up with some unconvincing explanations. I dont exclude myself. Im self critical enough too see that I judge people by their appearance and their heritage even if I dont want to. I feel safer approaching a group of 20 white people instead of 20 blacks at night. If I see an asian tend to think hes nice because in my mind asians are mostly friendly. But that doesnt have anything to do with this. Convince me that those anarchists arent useless idiots. (sorry if its badly written I suck at english)
On June 29 2010 02:21 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote: Which is more violent:
Smashing windows
or
the continued support of war in the middle east and the continued exploitation of indigenous and 3rd world peoples?
The only problem is that communists and anarchists have a long history of doing far more than merely smashing windows. There's no such thing as a "good" communist or anarchist.
do you often say things with no basis whatsoever? there are millions of communists and anarchists in the world. are you trying to say that none of them are good people who want positive change in the world and want the best for everyone? also, what the hell does communism have to do with it, anyways?
I have absolutely no problem standing by that statement. Disaster has inevitably befallen every country where anarchists and communists have taken power. These are the same people that supported Lenin/Stalin, Mao Zedong, Castro, and Polpot. Please excuse me if I'm disinclined to follow in the foosteps of those individuals and what they put their countries through.
So yes, there is no such thing as a good anarchist or communist. At best, they are, as Lenin described, "useful idiots." At worst, they are mass murderers and tyrants.
I laugh at your use of anarchist and power. Anarchist don't want power, we just want to be left alone from the state and its backers (corporations). Study what the word anarchist actually means. A true anarchist society is actually peaceful.
On June 29 2010 02:21 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote: Which is more violent:
Smashing windows
or
the continued support of war in the middle east and the continued exploitation of indigenous and 3rd world peoples?
The only problem is that communists and anarchists have a long history of doing far more than merely smashing windows. There's no such thing as a "good" communist or anarchist.
On June 29 2010 03:48 Yuljan wrote: How do anarchist implent their freedom what do they want to achieve? go back to the stone age and everyone gathers for themself? If not how is it distributed I dont think they will keep money as anarchists. Anarchist live in a dream world and they dont want to accept reality.
You seem to be under the impression that 1- The state is necessary for the current capitalist system to function or 2- Anarchism is incompatible with capitalism. which are both arguably false.
On June 29 2010 02:21 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote: Which is more violent:
Smashing windows
or
the continued support of war in the middle east and the continued exploitation of indigenous and 3rd world peoples?
The only problem is that communists and anarchists have a long history of doing far more than merely smashing windows. There's no such thing as a "good" communist or anarchist.
I'm not good?
You're demonstrably evil. You're an anarchist. Anarchists are bad. (See protests and people throwing rocks) Therefore, you're bad. + Show Spoiler +
On June 29 2010 02:21 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote: Which is more violent:
Smashing windows
or
the continued support of war in the middle east and the continued exploitation of indigenous and 3rd world peoples?
The only problem is that communists and anarchists have a long history of doing far more than merely smashing windows. There's no such thing as a "good" communist or anarchist.
I'm not good?
You're demonstrably evil. You're an anarchist. Anarchists are bad. (See protests and people throwing rocks) Therefore, you're bad. + Show Spoiler +
On June 29 2010 03:48 Yuljan wrote: How do anarchist implent their freedom what do they want to achieve? go back to the stone age and everyone gathers for themself? If not how is it distributed I dont think they will keep money as anarchists. Anarchist live in a dream world and they dont want to accept reality.
You seem to be under the impression that 1- The state is necessary for the current capitalist system to function or 2- Anarchism is incompatible with capitalism. which are both arguably false.
On June 29 2010 03:48 Yuljan wrote: How do anarchist implent their freedom what do they want to achieve? go back to the stone age and everyone gathers for themself? If not how is it distributed I dont think they will keep money as anarchists. Anarchist live in a dream world and they dont want to accept reality.
You seem to be under the impression that 1- The state is necessary for the current capitalist system to function or 2- Anarchism is incompatible with capitalism. which are both arguably false.
the state is necessary for the current capital system to function. Keep in mind how it came to be that money became our currency. These papers were convertibly into gold thats what gave them their value. As the trust in the currency and governments increased the guarantee to convert money into gold wasnt needed anymore. So basically nowadays money is only worth something because everyone believes its worth something. Capitalism and total freedom? Cant work. So therefore its incompatible. The State isnt necessary for capitalism to work but if people lose faith in the currency after an Anarchist revolution what do we trade for? States are needed for currency and without currency capitalism doesnt work. How do you charge interest in a barter economy? Or do you abolish interest? Dont even let me get started it cant work.
On June 29 2010 02:21 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote: Which is more violent:
Smashing windows
or
the continued support of war in the middle east and the continued exploitation of indigenous and 3rd world peoples?
The only problem is that communists and anarchists have a long history of doing far more than merely smashing windows. There's no such thing as a "good" communist or anarchist.
do you often say things with no basis whatsoever? there are millions of communists and anarchists in the world. are you trying to say that none of them are good people who want positive change in the world and want the best for everyone? also, what the hell does communism have to do with it, anyways?
I have absolutely no problem standing by that statement. Disaster has inevitably befallen every country where anarchists and communists have taken power. These are the same people that supported Lenin/Stalin, Mao Zedong, Castro, and Polpot. Please excuse me if I'm disinclined to follow in the foosteps of those individuals and what they put their countries through.
So yes, there is no such thing as a good anarchist or communist. At best, they are, as Lenin described, "useful idiots." At worst, they are mass murderers and tyrants.
I laugh at your use of anarchist and power. Anarchist don't want power, we just want to be left alone from the state and its backers (corporations). Study what the word anarchist actually means. A true anarchist society is actually peaceful.
Call it what you want, but the end result is the same. Anarchists want to tear down the state. They have a long history of violently seeking that end. Anarchists often have worked with communists and other revolutionaries to tear down the state. So even assuming that the anarchists don't want power for themselves, they are creating the power vacuums that allows other tyrants to take power. Again, look at the Russian Revolution. There's no better example.
As I said before, there's no such thing as a good anarchist. Even if the anarchist does not want power for himself or his group, he's still tearing down the state (usually violently) and creating the conditions that allow for very bad individuals and groups to take power. Even assuming that the anarchist has "good intentions," there is no justification for his positions and what he does. At best, anarchists are useful idiots.
On June 29 2010 03:48 Yuljan wrote: How do anarchist implent their freedom what do they want to achieve? go back to the stone age and everyone gathers for themself? If not how is it distributed I dont think they will keep money as anarchists. Anarchist live in a dream world and they dont want to accept reality.
You seem to be under the impression that 1- The state is necessary for the current capitalist system to function or 2- Anarchism is incompatible with capitalism. which are both arguably false.
the state is necessary for the current capital system to function. Keep in mind how it came to be that money became our currency. These papers were convertibly into gold thats what gave them their value. As the trust in the currency and governments increased the guarantee to convert money into gold wasnt needed anymore. So basically nowadays money is only worth something because everyone believes its worth something. Capitalism and total freedom? Cant work. So therefore its incompatible. The State isnt necessary for capitalism to work but if people lose faith in the currency after an Anarchist revolution what do we trade for? States are needed for currency and without currency capitalism doesnt work. How do you charge interest in a barter economy? Or do you abolish interest? Dont even let me get started it cant work.
Banks can exist without a state. There has been and there still is such a thing as a private bank. Banks can settle issuances of different coins and checks not unlike international governments do. Interest is a function of time preference and not relevant to the state at all. One can't abolish time preference as much as one can't abolish chocolate-ice-cream-preference.
On June 29 2010 02:21 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote: Which is more violent:
Smashing windows
or
the continued support of war in the middle east and the continued exploitation of indigenous and 3rd world peoples?
The only problem is that communists and anarchists have a long history of doing far more than merely smashing windows. There's no such thing as a "good" communist or anarchist.
do you often say things with no basis whatsoever? there are millions of communists and anarchists in the world. are you trying to say that none of them are good people who want positive change in the world and want the best for everyone? also, what the hell does communism have to do with it, anyways?
I have absolutely no problem standing by that statement. Disaster has inevitably befallen every country where anarchists and communists have taken power. These are the same people that supported Lenin/Stalin, Mao Zedong, Castro, and Polpot. Please excuse me if I'm disinclined to follow in the foosteps of those individuals and what they put their countries through.
So yes, there is no such thing as a good anarchist or communist. At best, they are, as Lenin described, "useful idiots." At worst, they are mass murderers and tyrants.
I laugh at your use of anarchist and power. Anarchist don't want power, we just want to be left alone from the state and its backers (corporations). Study what the word anarchist actually means. A true anarchist society is actually peaceful.
Call it what you want, but the end result is the same. Anarchists want to tear down the state. They have a long history of violently seeking that end. Anarchists often have worked with communists and other revolutionaries to tear down the state. So even assuming that the anarchists don't want power for themselves, they are creating the power vacuums that allows other tyrants to take power. Again, look at the Russian Revolution. There's no better example.
As I said before, there's no such thing as a good anarchist. Even if the anarchist does not want power for himself or his group, he's still tearing down the state (usually violently) and creating the conditions that allow for very bad individuals and groups to take power. Even assuming that the anarchist has "good intentions," there is no justification for his positions and what he does. At best, anarchists are useful idiots.
I'm sad you think that way. So because there's always going to be a state, we need a state?
This is where you trip up. States want control of the money supply and interest rates for obvious reasons, so that they can print money without having to directly tax people. They get the full value of the currency before inflation kicks in and wipes out that proportional amount from everyone's savings. In effect it is a hidden regressive tax.
But of course the state isn't required to have violent control over currency. For example, prior to 1913 this wasn't the case in the United States. With the creation of the Federal Reserve the value of the dollar has declined by over 95% because of expansion of the money supply. In a free and open market of competing currencies this doesn't tend to happen, and de facto standards do emerge naturally. Gold became one such de facto standard because it makes a good currency:
On June 29 2010 05:41 Destro wrote: supporting anarchy is like being against civilization itself.
annoying hippy students imo.
It's not nearly the same thing. Being against civilization is called primitivism. Civilization is not "the government", it is generally defined as agricultural societies living in towns and cities and such.
On June 29 2010 03:48 Yuljan wrote: How do anarchist implent their freedom what do they want to achieve? go back to the stone age and everyone gathers for themself? If not how is it distributed I dont think they will keep money as anarchists. Anarchist live in a dream world and they dont want to accept reality.
You seem to be under the impression that 1- The state is necessary for the current capitalist system to function or 2- Anarchism is incompatible with capitalism. which are both arguably false.
the state is necessary for the current capital system to function. Keep in mind how it came to be that money became our currency. These papers were convertibly into gold thats what gave them their value. As the trust in the currency and governments increased the guarantee to convert money into gold wasnt needed anymore. So basically nowadays money is only worth something because everyone believes its worth something. Capitalism and total freedom? Cant work. So therefore its incompatible. The State isnt necessary for capitalism to work but if people lose faith in the currency after an Anarchist revolution what do we trade for? States are needed for currency and without currency capitalism doesnt work. How do you charge interest in a barter economy? Or do you abolish interest? Dont even let me get started it cant work.
Banks can exist without a state. There has been and there still is such a thing as a private bank. Banks can settle issuances of different coins and checks not unlike international governments do. Interest is a function of time preference and not relevant to the state at all. One can't abolish time preference as much as one can't abolish chocolate-ice-cream-preference.
On June 29 2010 02:21 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote: Which is more violent:
Smashing windows
or
the continued support of war in the middle east and the continued exploitation of indigenous and 3rd world peoples?
The only problem is that communists and anarchists have a long history of doing far more than merely smashing windows. There's no such thing as a "good" communist or anarchist.
do you often say things with no basis whatsoever? there are millions of communists and anarchists in the world. are you trying to say that none of them are good people who want positive change in the world and want the best for everyone? also, what the hell does communism have to do with it, anyways?
I have absolutely no problem standing by that statement. Disaster has inevitably befallen every country where anarchists and communists have taken power. These are the same people that supported Lenin/Stalin, Mao Zedong, Castro, and Polpot. Please excuse me if I'm disinclined to follow in the foosteps of those individuals and what they put their countries through.
So yes, there is no such thing as a good anarchist or communist. At best, they are, as Lenin described, "useful idiots." At worst, they are mass murderers and tyrants.
I laugh at your use of anarchist and power. Anarchist don't want power, we just want to be left alone from the state and its backers (corporations). Study what the word anarchist actually means. A true anarchist society is actually peaceful.
Call it what you want, but the end result is the same. Anarchists want to tear down the state. They have a long history of violently seeking that end. Anarchists often have worked with communists and other revolutionaries to tear down the state. So even assuming that the anarchists don't want power for themselves, they are creating the power vacuums that allows other tyrants to take power. Again, look at the Russian Revolution. There's no better example.
As I said before, there's no such thing as a good anarchist. Even if the anarchist does not want power for himself or his group, he's still tearing down the state (usually violently) and creating the conditions that allow for very bad individuals and groups to take power. Even assuming that the anarchist has "good intentions," there is no justification for his positions and what he does. At best, anarchists are useful idiots.
I'm sad you think that way. So because there's always going to be a state, we need a state?
Whether society "needs" a state is irrelevant. Because there will always be a state, the real issue is what type of state will there be. If anarchists are looking to take down the states in the West such as the USA, Canada, and the European democracies (and I don't think anyone will argue that anarchists do not seek to take down these states), what will emerge from the wreckage? More importantly, will something "better" or "worse" emerge?
Historically, the successor states have always been worse (see Russia, China, Cuba, Cambodia, etc). Despite all the flaws and failings of the current governments and states, I don't think anyone will argue that we have now is inferior to what has existed before. Do we really want to roll the dice, especially considering the poor track record of anarchists' work?
This is where you trip up. States want control of the money supply and interest rates for obvious reasons, so that they can print money without having to directly tax people. They get the full value of the currency before inflation kicks in and wipes out that proportional amount from everyone's savings. In effect it is a hidden regressive tax.
But of course the state isn't required to have violent control over currency. For example, prior to 1913 this wasn't the case in the United States. With the creation of the Federal Reserve the value of the dollar has declined by over 95% because of expansion of the money supply. In a free and open market of competing currencies this doesn't tend to happen, and de facto standards do emerge naturally. Gold became one such de facto standard because it makes a good currency:
you do know fixed gold standards were one of the main reasons for the great depression? And the "printed money" is only a real small part of actual money. States no longer create money banks do. Btw thats why we need states too. That guy should receive a noble price. What is money? is one of the biggest unsolved questions in modern macroeconomics.
On June 29 2010 04:16 Bibdy wrote: Weren't these just peaceful protests that ended up with a small group of assholes inciting violence and working up the crowd?
Except the crowd didn't get worked up. The crowd was mostly people taking pictures and videos and watching, following around the assholes inciting violence but not engaging in any acts of violence themselves.
Regarding Sunday's incident: -If you're going to aggressively protest you should be prepared to pay the consequences but chances are you won't because you are prepared. -If you're going to peacefully protest you should be prepared to pay the consequences and chances are you will because you aren't prepared.
-If you're going to walk your dog because he's pissing all over your downtown apartment, you shouldn't be prepared to be harassed, arrested, and detained, because you didn't know that the riot police were closing in on your neighbourhood and you didn't get any warning to vacate the premises. -If you're going to go out for a jog on a Sunday afternoon you shouldn't be prepared to be harassed, arrested, and detained, because you didn't know jogging in an area blocks away from the designated safety zone was a crime and when you looked out the window before you set out it seemed like a normal uneventful day in your neighbourhood. -If you're going out for dinner with your girlfriend at a restaurant you regular at, you shouldn't be prepared to be harassed, arrested, and detained, because you didn't know that walking around in a city you've lived in for decades was a crime and nobody gave you any warning that you weren't allowed to eat out and had to either order take out or cook. -If you're getting off work because your boss told you to clean up yesterday's aftermath, you shouldn't be prepared to be harassed, arrested, and detained, because you didn't know that wanting to go home after a tiring day at work was a crime, and you didn't know you were supposed to stay at work against your will until nightfall. -If your friends invited you to hang out downtown (within allowed areas) because you all wanted to take a look at what happened yesterday, you shouldn't be prepared to be harassed, arrested, and detained, because you thought that the police would protect you against the black clad 'anarchists' and not assume that you, in your summer shorts and polo, were a potentially dangerous threat.
I could go on, but these are just some of the scenarios I imagined after watching all the coverage from various sources.
P.S. Why are we debating about political and religious ideals? I know they're relevant but aren't we missing the point? The point being the blatant abuse of power and excessive and unheeded pre-emptive strikes on compliant people; and also the misinformation spread by the media.
One quote from the news I remember was from a Scottish woman saying, and I paraphrase, "We've fought for you Canadians in so many wars and this is how you repay us?" I find that statement quite unfair.
This is where you trip up. States want control of the money supply and interest rates for obvious reasons, so that they can print money without having to directly tax people. They get the full value of the currency before inflation kicks in and wipes out that proportional amount from everyone's savings. In effect it is a hidden regressive tax.
But of course the state isn't required to have violent control over currency. For example, prior to 1913 this wasn't the case in the United States. With the creation of the Federal Reserve the value of the dollar has declined by over 95% because of expansion of the money supply. In a free and open market of competing currencies this doesn't tend to happen, and de facto standards do emerge naturally. Gold became one such de facto standard because it makes a good currency:
you do know fixed gold standards were one of the main reasons for the great depression? And the "printed money" is only a real small part of actual money. States no longer create money banks do. Btw thats why we need states too.
Just to be clear for those who do not understand what you said, banks aren't "creating money" by literally printing money. They create money by fostering and expanding credit markets. Basically, the banks make the limited amount of "actual money" that the state has created go further. For those that are familiar with economics, banks increase the "velocity" of money.
That said, states still do create money. Just look at what the USA is doing now.
On June 29 2010 03:48 Yuljan wrote: How do anarchist implent their freedom what do they want to achieve? go back to the stone age and everyone gathers for themself? If not how is it distributed I dont think they will keep money as anarchists. Anarchist live in a dream world and they dont want to accept reality.
You seem to be under the impression that 1- The state is necessary for the current capitalist system to function or 2- Anarchism is incompatible with capitalism. which are both arguably false.
the state is necessary for the current capital system to function. Keep in mind how it came to be that money became our currency. These papers were convertibly into gold thats what gave them their value. As the trust in the currency and governments increased the guarantee to convert money into gold wasnt needed anymore. So basically nowadays money is only worth something because everyone believes its worth something. Capitalism and total freedom? Cant work. So therefore its incompatible. The State isnt necessary for capitalism to work but if people lose faith in the currency after an Anarchist revolution what do we trade for? States are needed for currency and without currency capitalism doesnt work. How do you charge interest in a barter economy? Or do you abolish interest? Dont even let me get started it cant work.
Lol, so only the government can produce a stable currency? Us dollar purchasing power chart:
people dont relize but these guys in the black go form summit to summit for the sole reason to incite violence, they dont protest anything they just wanna stir up trouble. Many of the peaceful protest have nothing to do with these anarcasit. In fact i think the Native Americans had it right, they went into a peaceful protest, they allowed no one to wear bandannas or anything to incite violence, heck they even brought their own security to keep their peace. so it was good on them to disaccosite form the idiots anarcists
This is where you trip up. States want control of the money supply and interest rates for obvious reasons, so that they can print money without having to directly tax people. They get the full value of the currency before inflation kicks in and wipes out that proportional amount from everyone's savings. In effect it is a hidden regressive tax.
But of course the state isn't required to have violent control over currency. For example, prior to 1913 this wasn't the case in the United States. With the creation of the Federal Reserve the value of the dollar has declined by over 95% because of expansion of the money supply. In a free and open market of competing currencies this doesn't tend to happen, and de facto standards do emerge naturally. Gold became one such de facto standard because it makes a good currency:
you do know fixed gold standards were one of the main reasons for the great depression? And the "printed money" is only a real small part of actual money. States no longer create money banks do. Btw thats why we need states too. That guy should receive a noble price. What is money? is one of the biggest unsolved questions in modern macroeconomics.
Lol the gold standard was the reason for the Great Depression? It wasn't massive expansionary policy by the Federal reserve? It wasnt the fact that banks now had the Fed as the "bank of last resort" and gambled with customer deposits? Then, when the market crash, the banks lost all their money too. People rushed to the banks to get their money out, but surprise it wasn't there! Thus came massive deflation.
That is another problem with the Fed, it encourages bad lending and banking policies from lending institutions.
On June 29 2010 06:25 puckstop101 wrote: people dont relize but these guys in the black go form summit to summit for the sole reason to incite violence, they dont protest anything they just wanna stir up trouble. Many of the peaceful protest have nothing to do with these anarcasit. In fact i think the Native Americans had it right, they went into a peaceful protest, they allowed no one to wear bandannas or anything to incite violence, heck they even brought their own security to keep their peace. so it was good on them to disaccosite form the idiots anarcists
If your going to insult anarchist then at least learn how to spell the word correctly.
This is where you trip up. States want control of the money supply and interest rates for obvious reasons, so that they can print money without having to directly tax people. They get the full value of the currency before inflation kicks in and wipes out that proportional amount from everyone's savings. In effect it is a hidden regressive tax.
But of course the state isn't required to have violent control over currency. For example, prior to 1913 this wasn't the case in the United States. With the creation of the Federal Reserve the value of the dollar has declined by over 95% because of expansion of the money supply. In a free and open market of competing currencies this doesn't tend to happen, and de facto standards do emerge naturally. Gold became one such de facto standard because it makes a good currency:
you do know fixed gold standards were one of the main reasons for the great depression? And the "printed money" is only a real small part of actual money. States no longer create money banks do. Btw thats why we need states too.
Just to be clear for those who do not understand what you said, banks aren't "creating money" by literally printing money. They create money by fostering and expanding credit markets. Basically, the banks make the limited amount of "actual money" that the state has created go further. For those that are familiar with economics, banks increase the "velocity" of money.
That said, states still do create money. Just look at what the USA is doing now.
Banks and the State can each create money. With these two institutions, who are known for their ability to correctly manage currencies and the economy, what do we have to fear?
On June 29 2010 03:48 Yuljan wrote: How do anarchist implent their freedom what do they want to achieve? go back to the stone age and everyone gathers for themself? If not how is it distributed I dont think they will keep money as anarchists. Anarchist live in a dream world and they dont want to accept reality.
You seem to be under the impression that 1- The state is necessary for the current capitalist system to function or 2- Anarchism is incompatible with capitalism. which are both arguably false.
the state is necessary for the current capital system to function. Keep in mind how it came to be that money became our currency. These papers were convertibly into gold thats what gave them their value. As the trust in the currency and governments increased the guarantee to convert money into gold wasnt needed anymore. So basically nowadays money is only worth something because everyone believes its worth something. Capitalism and total freedom? Cant work. So therefore its incompatible. The State isnt necessary for capitalism to work but if people lose faith in the currency after an Anarchist revolution what do we trade for? States are needed for currency and without currency capitalism doesnt work. How do you charge interest in a barter economy? Or do you abolish interest? Dont even let me get started it cant work.
Lol, so only the government can produce a stable currency? Us dollar purchasing power chart:
Inflation is not a bad thing. Notice when my graphic starts going back up(after depression) and yours start to go down?
On June 29 2010 03:48 Yuljan wrote: How do anarchist implent their freedom what do they want to achieve? go back to the stone age and everyone gathers for themself? If not how is it distributed I dont think they will keep money as anarchists. Anarchist live in a dream world and they dont want to accept reality.
You seem to be under the impression that 1- The state is necessary for the current capitalist system to function or 2- Anarchism is incompatible with capitalism. which are both arguably false.
the state is necessary for the current capital system to function. Keep in mind how it came to be that money became our currency. These papers were convertibly into gold thats what gave them their value. As the trust in the currency and governments increased the guarantee to convert money into gold wasnt needed anymore. So basically nowadays money is only worth something because everyone believes its worth something. Capitalism and total freedom? Cant work. So therefore its incompatible. The State isnt necessary for capitalism to work but if people lose faith in the currency after an Anarchist revolution what do we trade for? States are needed for currency and without currency capitalism doesnt work. How do you charge interest in a barter economy? Or do you abolish interest? Dont even let me get started it cant work.
Lol, so only the government can produce a stable currency? Us dollar purchasing power chart:
On June 29 2010 03:48 Yuljan wrote: How do anarchist implent their freedom what do they want to achieve? go back to the stone age and everyone gathers for themself? If not how is it distributed I dont think they will keep money as anarchists. Anarchist live in a dream world and they dont want to accept reality.
You seem to be under the impression that 1- The state is necessary for the current capitalist system to function or 2- Anarchism is incompatible with capitalism. which are both arguably false.
the state is necessary for the current capital system to function. Keep in mind how it came to be that money became our currency. These papers were convertibly into gold thats what gave them their value. As the trust in the currency and governments increased the guarantee to convert money into gold wasnt needed anymore. So basically nowadays money is only worth something because everyone believes its worth something. Capitalism and total freedom? Cant work. So therefore its incompatible. The State isnt necessary for capitalism to work but if people lose faith in the currency after an Anarchist revolution what do we trade for? States are needed for currency and without currency capitalism doesnt work. How do you charge interest in a barter economy? Or do you abolish interest? Dont even let me get started it cant work.
Banks can exist without a state. There has been and there still is such a thing as a private bank. Banks can settle issuances of different coins and checks not unlike international governments do. Interest is a function of time preference and not relevant to the state at all. One can't abolish time preference as much as one can't abolish chocolate-ice-cream-preference.
On June 29 2010 05:09 xDaunt wrote:
On June 29 2010 04:27 EpiCenteR wrote:
On June 29 2010 03:07 xDaunt wrote:
On June 29 2010 02:37 travis wrote:
On June 29 2010 02:33 xDaunt wrote:
On June 29 2010 02:21 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote: Which is more violent:
Smashing windows
or
the continued support of war in the middle east and the continued exploitation of indigenous and 3rd world peoples?
The only problem is that communists and anarchists have a long history of doing far more than merely smashing windows. There's no such thing as a "good" communist or anarchist.
do you often say things with no basis whatsoever? there are millions of communists and anarchists in the world. are you trying to say that none of them are good people who want positive change in the world and want the best for everyone? also, what the hell does communism have to do with it, anyways?
I have absolutely no problem standing by that statement. Disaster has inevitably befallen every country where anarchists and communists have taken power. These are the same people that supported Lenin/Stalin, Mao Zedong, Castro, and Polpot. Please excuse me if I'm disinclined to follow in the foosteps of those individuals and what they put their countries through.
So yes, there is no such thing as a good anarchist or communist. At best, they are, as Lenin described, "useful idiots." At worst, they are mass murderers and tyrants.
I laugh at your use of anarchist and power. Anarchist don't want power, we just want to be left alone from the state and its backers (corporations). Study what the word anarchist actually means. A true anarchist society is actually peaceful.
Call it what you want, but the end result is the same. Anarchists want to tear down the state. They have a long history of violently seeking that end. Anarchists often have worked with communists and other revolutionaries to tear down the state. So even assuming that the anarchists don't want power for themselves, they are creating the power vacuums that allows other tyrants to take power. Again, look at the Russian Revolution. There's no better example.
As I said before, there's no such thing as a good anarchist. Even if the anarchist does not want power for himself or his group, he's still tearing down the state (usually violently) and creating the conditions that allow for very bad individuals and groups to take power. Even assuming that the anarchist has "good intentions," there is no justification for his positions and what he does. At best, anarchists are useful idiots.
I'm sad you think that way. So because there's always going to be a state, we need a state?
Whether society "needs" a state is irrelevant. Because there will always be a state, the real issue is what type of state will there be. If anarchists are looking to take down the states in the West such as the USA, Canada, and the European democracies (and I don't think anyone will argue that anarchists do not seek to take down these states), what will emerge from the wreckage? More importantly, will something "better" or "worse" emerge?
Historically, the successor states have always been worse (see Russia, China, Cuba, Cambodia, etc). Despite all the flaws and failings of the current governments and states, I don't think anyone will argue that we have now is inferior to what has existed before. Do we really want to roll the dice, especially considering the poor track record of anarchists' work?
When you say "take down"... "wreckage"... I don't know if you're speaking figuratively but in case you're not... nothing has to be destroyed in the abolition of a state.
What happens is, people stop paying taxes, government goes bankrupt (oh wait, it already is), then people inside government will have to find voluntary (by voluntary, I mean non-coercive) jobs like anyone else, and those government services who were being paid by theft (taxation) will also have to be provided voluntarily like any other service in the market.
On June 29 2010 03:48 Yuljan wrote: How do anarchist implent their freedom what do they want to achieve? go back to the stone age and everyone gathers for themself? If not how is it distributed I dont think they will keep money as anarchists. Anarchist live in a dream world and they dont want to accept reality.
You seem to be under the impression that 1- The state is necessary for the current capitalist system to function or 2- Anarchism is incompatible with capitalism. which are both arguably false.
the state is necessary for the current capital system to function. Keep in mind how it came to be that money became our currency. These papers were convertibly into gold thats what gave them their value. As the trust in the currency and governments increased the guarantee to convert money into gold wasnt needed anymore. So basically nowadays money is only worth something because everyone believes its worth something. Capitalism and total freedom? Cant work. So therefore its incompatible. The State isnt necessary for capitalism to work but if people lose faith in the currency after an Anarchist revolution what do we trade for? States are needed for currency and without currency capitalism doesnt work. How do you charge interest in a barter economy? Or do you abolish interest? Dont even let me get started it cant work.
Lol, so only the government can produce a stable currency? Us dollar purchasing power chart:
Inflation is not a bad thing. Notice when my graphic starts going back up(after depression) and yours start to go down?
So the loss of purchasing power is a good thing? That graph shows perfectly how well the State and its central banks manage a currency, they devalue it with no end.
Real gross domestic product (GDP) is a macroeconomic measure of the size of an economy adjusted for price changes (that is, adjusted for changes in the value of money: inflation or deflation.)
On June 29 2010 05:41 Destro wrote: supporting anarchy is like being against civilization itself.
annoying hippy students imo.
It's not nearly the same thing. Being against civilization is called primitivism. Civilization is not "the government", it is generally defined as agricultural societies living in towns and cities and such.
and then no one runs the cities.... towns.... villages....tribes...caves.
yea man, utopia would be pretty sweet deal
but this is humanity we are talking about. i roll my eyes at this kinda thing... keep dreaming you little dream sailor.
On June 29 2010 06:41 Yurebis wrote: When you say "take down"... "wreckage"... I don't know if you're speaking figuratively but in case you're not... nothing has to be destroyed in the abolition of a state.
What happens is, people stop paying taxes, government goes bankrupt (oh wait, it already is), then people inside government will have to find voluntary (by voluntary, I mean non-coercive) jobs like anyone else, and those government services who were being paid by theft (taxation) will also have to be provided voluntarily like any other service in the market.
When has a state ever been peacefully abolished leaving anarchy? Better yet, when has a "peaceful" or "idealistic" anarchist state ever persisted following the abolition of a state?
I'll answer those questions for you: Never. Anarchists have been and always will be bad news.
On June 29 2010 06:41 Yurebis wrote: When you say "take down"... "wreckage"... I don't know if you're speaking figuratively but in case you're not... nothing has to be destroyed in the abolition of a state.
What happens is, people stop paying taxes, government goes bankrupt (oh wait, it already is), then people inside government will have to find voluntary (by voluntary, I mean non-coercive) jobs like anyone else, and those government services who were being paid by theft (taxation) will also have to be provided voluntarily like any other service in the market.
When has a state ever been peacefully abolished leaving anarchy? Better yet, when has a "peaceful" or "idealistic" anarchist state ever persisted following the abolition of a state?
I'll answer those questions for you: Never. Anarchists have been and always will be bad news.
That which is, will forever be so? So if we were both slaves in the dark ages, you'd be telling me to forget about a democratic government, because everyone who's tried to be free has failed?
Don't let 'that which is' limit you on 'how it should be'.
Protestors have the right to protest peacefully. When the protestors start to smash windows and cause a ruckus(downplayed this) they are no longer protestors, they are a mob. It doesn't matter, you cannot let some people stay while others are forced to leave. Everyone is lumped into the same category.
They have to be overly defensive or aggressive. What would happen if one person got through and decided to actually be a suicide bomber(no I do not think their would be one at this summit)? Well then the police would be criticised and the amount of money spent would be questioned as to why it failed. Either way no one will be happy with the police or government no matter what happens.
Maybe if some of the police force got outnumbered and killed it would change your minds? Protesting is a right, but like most rights you abuse it and it is gone.
On June 29 2010 06:41 Yurebis wrote: When you say "take down"... "wreckage"... I don't know if you're speaking figuratively but in case you're not... nothing has to be destroyed in the abolition of a state.
What happens is, people stop paying taxes, government goes bankrupt (oh wait, it already is), then people inside government will have to find voluntary (by voluntary, I mean non-coercive) jobs like anyone else, and those government services who were being paid by theft (taxation) will also have to be provided voluntarily like any other service in the market.
When has a state ever been peacefully abolished leaving anarchy? Better yet, when has a "peaceful" or "idealistic" anarchist state ever persisted following the abolition of a state?
I'll answer those questions for you: Never. Anarchists have been and always will be bad news.
That which is, will forever be so? So if we were both slaves in the dark ages, you'd be telling me to forget about a democratic government, because everyone who's tried to be free has failed?
Don't let 'that which is' limit you on 'how it should be'.
Ok, let's go ahead and roll the dice with tearing down the government. How bad can it possibly be? Maybe we'll luck out and get Cuba redux. I suppose it's possible that things could go really badly and we'd end up with another Russian Revolution or Chinese Revolution, but, hey, those weren't all that bad were they? Hell, we might as well play a game of Russian Roulette instead! It'd probably be less painful.
Don't bother comparing your anarchist goals to the social progress that has occurred over the past several centuries. There's a fundemantal difference between the two. Anarchism has been absolutely disastrous every time that it's been tried. When I say "disastrous," I mean "millions of dead people disastrous." Abolitionism and democracy, by contrast, haven't quite had the same body counts attached to them when they have been implemented in the past.
you do know fixed gold standards were one of the main reasons for the great depression?
No. During the great depression the fed wanted to inflate the money supply but they couldn't just do it arbitrarily on the gold standard because the amount of money was ultimately tied to the amount of gold in reserve. However, inflating the money supply was a terrible idea anyway because the whole recession was caused by the fed's expansion of the money supply with easy credit in the 1920s. Without the fed the twenties might not have roared so loudly but the depression also wouldn't have happened at all.
Depressions are natural corrections in the marketplace due to manipulations of the money supply, arbitrarily lowering interest rates, etc. There is a direct causal relationship between busts and booms. So you don't get over a bad hangover by binging on more booze. You are just delaying the inevitable, and making the crash to come even worse. This was one of the reasons why the great depression was so devastating, and is exactly what is happening today.
And the "printed money" is only a real small part of actual money.
So? None of it is tied to actual real wealth upon creation.
States no longer create money banks do. Btw thats why we need states too.
States control central banks. And if you want to quibble then they are at least quasi-state entities. It really is of little matter because whatever it is it's not free.
On June 29 2010 06:44 Yuljan wrote: Real gross domestic product (GDP) is a macroeconomic measure of the size of an economy adjusted for price changes (that is, adjusted for changes in the value of money: inflation or deflation.)
The market still is productive in spite of the devaluation of fiat currency. That doesn't make it good or necessary. I can still walk in spite of having a broken toe, doesn't mean I can run. Besides the problems will eventually catch up as we can see happening all over the world. That which logically cannot continue will not. Every nation is broke right now.
On June 29 2010 07:17 Kralic wrote: This thread is comedy gold for the most part.
Protestors have the right to protest peacefully. When the protestors start to smash windows and cause a ruckus(downplayed this) they are no longer protestors, they are a mob. It doesn't matter, you cannot let some people stay while others are forced to leave. Everyone is lumped into the same category.
They have to be overly defensive or aggressive. What would happen if one person got through and decided to actually be a suicide bomber(no I do not think their would be one at this summit)? Well then the police would be criticised and the amount of money spent would be questioned as to why it failed. Either way no one will be happy with the police or government no matter what happens.
Maybe if some of the police force got outnumbered and killed it would change your minds? Protesting is a right, but like most rights you abuse it and it is gone.
problem is, the whole protest is being dragged down by a few of morons that dont really care about anything asides from causing damage, its not like there is a howling mob of 10 000 people tearing through the city.
On June 29 2010 02:21 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote: Which is more violent:
Smashing windows
or
the continued support of war in the middle east and the continued exploitation of indigenous and 3rd world peoples?
The only problem is that communists and anarchists have a long history of doing far more than merely smashing windows. There's no such thing as a "good" communist or anarchist.
do you often say things with no basis whatsoever? there are millions of communists and anarchists in the world. are you trying to say that none of them are good people who want positive change in the world and want the best for everyone? also, what the hell does communism have to do with it, anyways?
I have absolutely no problem standing by that statement. Disaster has inevitably befallen every country where anarchists and communists have taken power. These are the same people that supported Lenin/Stalin, Mao Zedong, Castro, and Polpot. Please excuse me if I'm disinclined to follow in the foosteps of those individuals and what they put their countries through.
So yes, there is no such thing as a good anarchist or communist. At best, they are, as Lenin described, "useful idiots." At worst, they are mass murderers and tyrants.
I laugh at your use of anarchist and power. Anarchist don't want power, we just want to be left alone from the state and its backers (corporations). Study what the word anarchist actually means. A true anarchist society is actually peaceful.
Call it what you want, but the end result is the same. Anarchists want to tear down the state. They have a long history of violently seeking that end. Anarchists often have worked with communists and other revolutionaries to tear down the state. So even assuming that the anarchists don't want power for themselves, they are creating the power vacuums that allows other tyrants to take power. Again, look at the Russian Revolution. There's no better example.
As I said before, there's no such thing as a good anarchist. Even if the anarchist does not want power for himself or his group, he's still tearing down the state (usually violently) and creating the conditions that allow for very bad individuals and groups to take power. Even assuming that the anarchist has "good intentions," there is no justification for his positions and what he does. At best, anarchists are useful idiots.
Ex-KGB agent Yuri Bezmenov, whose job involves subversion, has a series of youtube lectures/interviews describing how to achieve this very end. He describes anarchists role as being useful at destabilizing the state until there is a power vacuum. I think he even describes them as useful idiots. Although anarchists and communists have different goals, their means are inexorably linked.
One can argue that there are signs emerging in modern America similar to what Yuri describes in his subversion outline. Whether these manifestations are the result of communist input is up for debate.
On June 29 2010 02:21 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote: Which is more violent:
Smashing windows
or
the continued support of war in the middle east and the continued exploitation of indigenous and 3rd world peoples?
The only problem is that communists and anarchists have a long history of doing far more than merely smashing windows. There's no such thing as a "good" communist or anarchist.
do you often say things with no basis whatsoever? there are millions of communists and anarchists in the world. are you trying to say that none of them are good people who want positive change in the world and want the best for everyone? also, what the hell does communism have to do with it, anyways?
I have absolutely no problem standing by that statement. Disaster has inevitably befallen every country where anarchists and communists have taken power. These are the same people that supported Lenin/Stalin, Mao Zedong, Castro, and Polpot. Please excuse me if I'm disinclined to follow in the foosteps of those individuals and what they put their countries through.
So yes, there is no such thing as a good anarchist or communist. At best, they are, as Lenin described, "useful idiots." At worst, they are mass murderers and tyrants.
I laugh at your use of anarchist and power. Anarchist don't want power, we just want to be left alone from the state and its backers (corporations). Study what the word anarchist actually means. A true anarchist society is actually peaceful.
Call it what you want, but the end result is the same. Anarchists want to tear down the state. They have a long history of violently seeking that end. Anarchists often have worked with communists and other revolutionaries to tear down the state. So even assuming that the anarchists don't want power for themselves, they are creating the power vacuums that allows other tyrants to take power. Again, look at the Russian Revolution. There's no better example.
As I said before, there's no such thing as a good anarchist. Even if the anarchist does not want power for himself or his group, he's still tearing down the state (usually violently) and creating the conditions that allow for very bad individuals and groups to take power. Even assuming that the anarchist has "good intentions," there is no justification for his positions and what he does. At best, anarchists are useful idiots.
Ex-KGB agent Yuri Bezmenov, whose job involves subversion, has a series of youtube lectures/interviews describing how to achieve this very end. He describes anarchists role as being useful at destabilizing the state until there is a power vacuum. I think he even describes them as useful idiots. Although anarchists and communists have different goals, their means are inexorably linked.
One can argue that there are signs emerging in modern America similar to what Yuri describes in his subversion outline. Whether these manifestations are the result of communist input is up for debate.
lol, I would argue that Anarchism has far more to do with libertarianism. Also the anarchist isn't any less or more justified than any other form of power. You don't think any form of power causes some form of oppression? You don't think that any form of oppression pushed far enough leads to violence against almost any ideals? The real point is, you can take any pocket of philosophies and cite massive destruction. Just because history is written by the victor doesn't mean anarchists are necessarily in the wrong. Furthermore there are some very intelligent things to be said about some anarchist theories.... Just because anarchists succeeded in making freedom public doesn't mean that because they failed to privitize security mean that they are "useful idiots"...
This thread has gotten too annoying to bother posting in. Lots of people are talking about anarchists without even knowing what anarchists actually stand for. Hey, i saw some anarchists on tv that were throwing rocks and wearing black masks. Now I know what anarchism means!
BTW, gandhi was an anarchist, at least philosophically. If you argue this you either don't know gandhi's views, or you don't know what anarchism is.
and then no one runs the cities.... towns.... villages....tribes...caves.
yea man, utopia would be pretty sweet deal
but this is humanity we are talking about. i roll my eyes at this kinda thing... keep dreaming you little dream sailor.
I roll my eyes at statist fundies like you who think elites initiating violence against peaceful people somehow brings virtue.
yes. throwing rocks in windows of banks and businesses. very peaceful.
these people are just so ignorant that they can even think that they are "the voice of the people" when we have 30 million people in this country NOT protesting the g20. seriously they need to fuck off and die. or move. or move and die. na fuck it just die.
On June 29 2010 06:41 Yurebis wrote: When you say "take down"... "wreckage"... I don't know if you're speaking figuratively but in case you're not... nothing has to be destroyed in the abolition of a state.
What happens is, people stop paying taxes, government goes bankrupt (oh wait, it already is), then people inside government will have to find voluntary (by voluntary, I mean non-coercive) jobs like anyone else, and those government services who were being paid by theft (taxation) will also have to be provided voluntarily like any other service in the market.
When has a state ever been peacefully abolished leaving anarchy? Better yet, when has a "peaceful" or "idealistic" anarchist state ever persisted following the abolition of a state?
I'll answer those questions for you: Never. Anarchists have been and always will be bad news.
That which is, will forever be so? So if we were both slaves in the dark ages, you'd be telling me to forget about a democratic government, because everyone who's tried to be free has failed?
Don't let 'that which is' limit you on 'how it should be'.
Ok, let's go ahead and roll the dice with tearing down the government. How bad can it possibly be? Maybe we'll luck out and get Cuba redux. I suppose it's possible that things could go really badly and we'd end up with another Russian Revolution or Chinese Revolution, but, hey, those weren't all that bad were they? Hell, we might as well play a game of Russian Roulette instead! It'd probably be less painful.
Don't bother comparing your anarchist goals to the social progress that has occurred over the past several centuries. There's a fundemantal difference between the two. Anarchism has been absolutely disastrous every time that it's been tried. When I say "disastrous," I mean "millions of dead people disastrous." Abolitionism and democracy, by contrast, haven't quite had the same body counts attached to them when they have been implemented in the past.
Ok well I did read a bit just so I could understand where you're coming from. I hate inductive discussion, so correct me if I'm wrong. You claim: 1- The Russian revolution was an attempt of anarchism. I disagree with this. Were not the anarchists betrayed by the Bolsheviks? Backstabbing can happen to anyone... And a minor objection. I really don't care what they did. If they chose to violate people's property (or self-ownership) in order to protect them, that's a direct performative contradiction no different than what a state does. They're not anti-state, they're the new state when and if they do that.
2- The Chinese revolution was an attempt of anarchism. Just because the nationalist party had self-proclaimed anarchists, you paint the whole thing as an anarchistic attempt? It can't be by definition. Anarchism means first of all, no rule. How can there be an anarchist party, an anarchist leader, anarchist rule? It's a direct contradiction. We're not talking about the same anarchism here. Whatever anarchism means in this context, it is just some twisted type of anarcho-syndicalism taken to a government level, or in other words, communism of some flavor. I find it very very unfair that you blame anarchists for this.
3- Whenever else anarchism is tried, it has failed and people die. I've please explain to me, in a logical discourse, how could people be consistently killed by anarchists who don't contradict themselves. Explain to me what incentive is there for people to be killed by anarchists in a revolution.
I could explain to you why would the state want to kill people in a revolution, but I'm not the one claiming that, at the moment. Sorry for the late replies.
On June 29 2010 02:21 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote: Which is more violent:
Smashing windows
or
the continued support of war in the middle east and the continued exploitation of indigenous and 3rd world peoples?
The only problem is that communists and anarchists have a long history of doing far more than merely smashing windows. There's no such thing as a "good" communist or anarchist.
do you often say things with no basis whatsoever? there are millions of communists and anarchists in the world. are you trying to say that none of them are good people who want positive change in the world and want the best for everyone? also, what the hell does communism have to do with it, anyways?
I have absolutely no problem standing by that statement. Disaster has inevitably befallen every country where anarchists and communists have taken power. These are the same people that supported Lenin/Stalin, Mao Zedong, Castro, and Polpot. Please excuse me if I'm disinclined to follow in the foosteps of those individuals and what they put their countries through.
So yes, there is no such thing as a good anarchist or communist. At best, they are, as Lenin described, "useful idiots." At worst, they are mass murderers and tyrants.
I laugh at your use of anarchist and power. Anarchist don't want power, we just want to be left alone from the state and its backers (corporations). Study what the word anarchist actually means. A true anarchist society is actually peaceful.
Call it what you want, but the end result is the same. Anarchists want to tear down the state. They have a long history of violently seeking that end. Anarchists often have worked with communists and other revolutionaries to tear down the state. So even assuming that the anarchists don't want power for themselves, they are creating the power vacuums that allows other tyrants to take power. Again, look at the Russian Revolution. There's no better example.
As I said before, there's no such thing as a good anarchist. Even if the anarchist does not want power for himself or his group, he's still tearing down the state (usually violently) and creating the conditions that allow for very bad individuals and groups to take power. Even assuming that the anarchist has "good intentions," there is no justification for his positions and what he does. At best, anarchists are useful idiots.
Ex-KGB agent Yuri Bezmenov, whose job involves subversion, has a series of youtube lectures/interviews describing how to achieve this very end. He describes anarchists role as being useful at destabilizing the state until there is a power vacuum. I think he even describes them as useful idiots. Although anarchists and communists have different goals, their means are inexorably linked.
One can argue that there are signs emerging in modern America similar to what Yuri describes in his subversion outline. Whether these manifestations are the result of communist input is up for debate.
lol, I would argue that Anarchism has far more to do with libertarianism. Also the anarchist isn't any less or more justified than any other form of power. You don't think any form of power causes some form of oppression? You don't think that any form of oppression pushed far enough leads to violence against almost any ideals? The real point is, you can take any pocket of philosophies and cite massive destruction. Just because history is written by the victor doesn't mean anarchists are necessarily in the wrong. Furthermore there are some very intelligent things to be said about some anarchist theories.... Just because anarchists succeeded in making freedom public doesn't mean that because they failed to privitize security mean that they are "useful idiots"...
I'm not sure what you're arguing for. I merely presented an anarchist's role as perceived from a communist within the context of subverting a nation.
Of course libertarians are closer to anarchists on the ideological spectrum. Of course any form of government is a form of oppression. How does any of this invalidate what I've said?
Nowhere did I weigh the merits of anarchism in my post. Anarchist have as much influence in bringing about freedom as they do in bringing dictatorships, ie working towards destabilizing the current regime. I didn't say it was right or wrong. It is what it is.
Is it common for TL members to jump to conclusions?
yes. throwing rocks in windows of banks and businesses. very peaceful.
these people are just so ignorant that they can even think that they are "the voice of the people" when we have 30 million people in this country NOT protesting the g20. seriously they need to fuck off and die. or move. or move and die. na fuck it just die.
I said peaceful people, not peaceful anarchists. I was talking about taxation not the rioting. And this being beside the point anyway but I don't agree with smashing up shit. I don't agree with the anti-capitalist anarchist rioters. I accept private property and deplore violence but I am still an anarchist too by definition. That's not a contradiction.
On June 29 2010 02:21 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote: Which is more violent:
Smashing windows
or
the continued support of war in the middle east and the continued exploitation of indigenous and 3rd world peoples?
The only problem is that communists and anarchists have a long history of doing far more than merely smashing windows. There's no such thing as a "good" communist or anarchist.
do you often say things with no basis whatsoever? there are millions of communists and anarchists in the world. are you trying to say that none of them are good people who want positive change in the world and want the best for everyone? also, what the hell does communism have to do with it, anyways?
I have absolutely no problem standing by that statement. Disaster has inevitably befallen every country where anarchists and communists have taken power. These are the same people that supported Lenin/Stalin, Mao Zedong, Castro, and Polpot. Please excuse me if I'm disinclined to follow in the foosteps of those individuals and what they put their countries through.
So yes, there is no such thing as a good anarchist or communist. At best, they are, as Lenin described, "useful idiots." At worst, they are mass murderers and tyrants.
I laugh at your use of anarchist and power. Anarchist don't want power, we just want to be left alone from the state and its backers (corporations). Study what the word anarchist actually means. A true anarchist society is actually peaceful.
Call it what you want, but the end result is the same. Anarchists want to tear down the state. They have a long history of violently seeking that end. Anarchists often have worked with communists and other revolutionaries to tear down the state. So even assuming that the anarchists don't want power for themselves, they are creating the power vacuums that allows other tyrants to take power. Again, look at the Russian Revolution. There's no better example.
As I said before, there's no such thing as a good anarchist. Even if the anarchist does not want power for himself or his group, he's still tearing down the state (usually violently) and creating the conditions that allow for very bad individuals and groups to take power. Even assuming that the anarchist has "good intentions," there is no justification for his positions and what he does. At best, anarchists are useful idiots.
Ex-KGB agent Yuri Bezmenov, whose job involves subversion, has a series of youtube lectures/interviews describing how to achieve this very end. He describes anarchists role as being useful at destabilizing the state until there is a power vacuum. I think he even describes them as useful idiots. Although anarchists and communists have different goals, their means are inexorably linked.
One can argue that there are signs emerging in modern America similar to what Yuri describes in his subversion outline. Whether these manifestations are the result of communist input is up for debate.
lol, I would argue that Anarchism has far more to do with libertarianism. Also the anarchist isn't any less or more justified than any other form of power. You don't think any form of power causes some form of oppression? You don't think that any form of oppression pushed far enough leads to violence against almost any ideals? The real point is, you can take any pocket of philosophies and cite massive destruction. Just because history is written by the victor doesn't mean anarchists are necessarily in the wrong. Furthermore there are some very intelligent things to be said about some anarchist theories.... Just because anarchists succeeded in making freedom public doesn't mean that because they failed to privitize security mean that they are "useful idiots"...
I'm not sure what you're arguing for. I merely presented an anarchist's role as perceived from a communist within the context of subverting a nation.
Of course libertarians are closer to anarchists on the ideological spectrum. Of course any form of government is a form of oppression. How does any of this invalidate what I've said?
Nowhere did I weigh the merits of anarchism in my post. Anarchist have as much influence in bringing about freedom as they do in bringing dictatorships, ie working towards destabilizing the current regime. I didn't say it was right or wrong. It is what it is.
Is it common for TL members to jump to conclusions?
Hmm, Is it not common for all humans to jump to conclusions.
Don't need to have a hernia we obviously agree then and it's clear i made the mistake of not re-reading what exactly you were replying to. No need to have a fit, simple misunderstanding. It seems we agree.
EDIT: I also suppose "what I was arguing for" was simply that "Disaster has inevitably befallen every country where anarchists and communists have taken power" could be simplified into "Disaster has inevitably befallen every country"
On June 29 2010 02:21 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote: Which is more violent:
Smashing windows
or
the continued support of war in the middle east and the continued exploitation of indigenous and 3rd world peoples?
The only problem is that communists and anarchists have a long history of doing far more than merely smashing windows. There's no such thing as a "good" communist or anarchist.
do you often say things with no basis whatsoever? there are millions of communists and anarchists in the world. are you trying to say that none of them are good people who want positive change in the world and want the best for everyone? also, what the hell does communism have to do with it, anyways?
I have absolutely no problem standing by that statement. Disaster has inevitably befallen every country where anarchists and communists have taken power. These are the same people that supported Lenin/Stalin, Mao Zedong, Castro, and Polpot. Please excuse me if I'm disinclined to follow in the foosteps of those individuals and what they put their countries through.
So yes, there is no such thing as a good anarchist or communist. At best, they are, as Lenin described, "useful idiots." At worst, they are mass murderers and tyrants.
I laugh at your use of anarchist and power. Anarchist don't want power, we just want to be left alone from the state and its backers (corporations). Study what the word anarchist actually means. A true anarchist society is actually peaceful.
Call it what you want, but the end result is the same. Anarchists want to tear down the state. They have a long history of violently seeking that end. Anarchists often have worked with communists and other revolutionaries to tear down the state. So even assuming that the anarchists don't want power for themselves, they are creating the power vacuums that allows other tyrants to take power. Again, look at the Russian Revolution. There's no better example.
As I said before, there's no such thing as a good anarchist. Even if the anarchist does not want power for himself or his group, he's still tearing down the state (usually violently) and creating the conditions that allow for very bad individuals and groups to take power. Even assuming that the anarchist has "good intentions," there is no justification for his positions and what he does. At best, anarchists are useful idiots.
Ex-KGB agent Yuri Bezmenov, whose job involves subversion, has a series of youtube lectures/interviews describing how to achieve this very end. He describes anarchists role as being useful at destabilizing the state until there is a power vacuum. I think he even describes them as useful idiots. Although anarchists and communists have different goals, their means are inexorably linked.
One can argue that there are signs emerging in modern America similar to what Yuri describes in his subversion outline. Whether these manifestations are the result of communist input is up for debate.
lol, I would argue that Anarchism has far more to do with libertarianism. Also the anarchist isn't any less or more justified than any other form of power. You don't think any form of power causes some form of oppression? You don't think that any form of oppression pushed far enough leads to violence against almost any ideals? The real point is, you can take any pocket of philosophies and cite massive destruction. Just because history is written by the victor doesn't mean anarchists are necessarily in the wrong. Furthermore there are some very intelligent things to be said about some anarchist theories.... Just because anarchists succeeded in making freedom public doesn't mean that because they failed to privitize security mean that they are "useful idiots"...
I'm not sure what you're arguing for. I merely presented an anarchist's role as perceived from a communist within the context of subverting a nation.
Of course libertarians are closer to anarchists on the ideological spectrum. Of course any form of government is a form of oppression. How does any of this invalidate what I've said?
Nowhere did I weigh the merits of anarchism in my post. Anarchist have as much influence in bringing about freedom as they do in bringing dictatorships, ie working towards destabilizing the current regime. I didn't say it was right or wrong. It is what it is.
Is it common for TL members to jump to conclusions?
Hmm, Is it not common for all humans to jump to conclusions.
Don't need to have a hernia we obviously agree then and it's clear i made the mistake of not re-reading what exactly you were replying to. No need to have a fit, simple misunderstanding. It seems we agree.
EDIT: I also suppose "what I was arguing for" was simply that "Disaster has inevitably befallen every country where anarchists and communists have taken power" could be simplified into "Disaster has inevitably befallen every country"
Not sure where you get the impression that I'm in some type of furor. From the short time I've been on the forums, it seems peoples' posts are consistently being taken out of context. Just wondering if this is a persistent theme on TL.
The only problem is that communists and anarchists have a long history of doing far more than merely smashing windows. There's no such thing as a "good" communist or anarchist.
do you often say things with no basis whatsoever? there are millions of communists and anarchists in the world. are you trying to say that none of them are good people who want positive change in the world and want the best for everyone? also, what the hell does communism have to do with it, anyways?
I have absolutely no problem standing by that statement. Disaster has inevitably befallen every country where anarchists and communists have taken power. These are the same people that supported Lenin/Stalin, Mao Zedong, Castro, and Polpot. Please excuse me if I'm disinclined to follow in the foosteps of those individuals and what they put their countries through.
So yes, there is no such thing as a good anarchist or communist. At best, they are, as Lenin described, "useful idiots." At worst, they are mass murderers and tyrants.
I laugh at your use of anarchist and power. Anarchist don't want power, we just want to be left alone from the state and its backers (corporations). Study what the word anarchist actually means. A true anarchist society is actually peaceful.
Call it what you want, but the end result is the same. Anarchists want to tear down the state. They have a long history of violently seeking that end. Anarchists often have worked with communists and other revolutionaries to tear down the state. So even assuming that the anarchists don't want power for themselves, they are creating the power vacuums that allows other tyrants to take power. Again, look at the Russian Revolution. There's no better example.
As I said before, there's no such thing as a good anarchist. Even if the anarchist does not want power for himself or his group, he's still tearing down the state (usually violently) and creating the conditions that allow for very bad individuals and groups to take power. Even assuming that the anarchist has "good intentions," there is no justification for his positions and what he does. At best, anarchists are useful idiots.
Ex-KGB agent Yuri Bezmenov, whose job involves subversion, has a series of youtube lectures/interviews describing how to achieve this very end. He describes anarchists role as being useful at destabilizing the state until there is a power vacuum. I think he even describes them as useful idiots. Although anarchists and communists have different goals, their means are inexorably linked.
One can argue that there are signs emerging in modern America similar to what Yuri describes in his subversion outline. Whether these manifestations are the result of communist input is up for debate.
lol, I would argue that Anarchism has far more to do with libertarianism. Also the anarchist isn't any less or more justified than any other form of power. You don't think any form of power causes some form of oppression? You don't think that any form of oppression pushed far enough leads to violence against almost any ideals? The real point is, you can take any pocket of philosophies and cite massive destruction. Just because history is written by the victor doesn't mean anarchists are necessarily in the wrong. Furthermore there are some very intelligent things to be said about some anarchist theories.... Just because anarchists succeeded in making freedom public doesn't mean that because they failed to privitize security mean that they are "useful idiots"...
I'm not sure what you're arguing for. I merely presented an anarchist's role as perceived from a communist within the context of subverting a nation.
Of course libertarians are closer to anarchists on the ideological spectrum. Of course any form of government is a form of oppression. How does any of this invalidate what I've said?
Nowhere did I weigh the merits of anarchism in my post. Anarchist have as much influence in bringing about freedom as they do in bringing dictatorships, ie working towards destabilizing the current regime. I didn't say it was right or wrong. It is what it is.
Is it common for TL members to jump to conclusions?
Hmm, Is it not common for all humans to jump to conclusions.
Don't need to have a hernia we obviously agree then and it's clear i made the mistake of not re-reading what exactly you were replying to. No need to have a fit, simple misunderstanding. It seems we agree.
EDIT: I also suppose "what I was arguing for" was simply that "Disaster has inevitably befallen every country where anarchists and communists have taken power" could be simplified into "Disaster has inevitably befallen every country"
Not sure where you get the impression that I'm in some type of furor. From the short time I've been on the forums, it seems peoples' posts are consistently being taken out of context. Just wondering if this is a persistent theme on TL.
do you often say things with no basis whatsoever? there are millions of communists and anarchists in the world. are you trying to say that none of them are good people who want positive change in the world and want the best for everyone? also, what the hell does communism have to do with it, anyways?
I have absolutely no problem standing by that statement. Disaster has inevitably befallen every country where anarchists and communists have taken power. These are the same people that supported Lenin/Stalin, Mao Zedong, Castro, and Polpot. Please excuse me if I'm disinclined to follow in the foosteps of those individuals and what they put their countries through.
So yes, there is no such thing as a good anarchist or communist. At best, they are, as Lenin described, "useful idiots." At worst, they are mass murderers and tyrants.
I laugh at your use of anarchist and power. Anarchist don't want power, we just want to be left alone from the state and its backers (corporations). Study what the word anarchist actually means. A true anarchist society is actually peaceful.
Call it what you want, but the end result is the same. Anarchists want to tear down the state. They have a long history of violently seeking that end. Anarchists often have worked with communists and other revolutionaries to tear down the state. So even assuming that the anarchists don't want power for themselves, they are creating the power vacuums that allows other tyrants to take power. Again, look at the Russian Revolution. There's no better example.
As I said before, there's no such thing as a good anarchist. Even if the anarchist does not want power for himself or his group, he's still tearing down the state (usually violently) and creating the conditions that allow for very bad individuals and groups to take power. Even assuming that the anarchist has "good intentions," there is no justification for his positions and what he does. At best, anarchists are useful idiots.
Ex-KGB agent Yuri Bezmenov, whose job involves subversion, has a series of youtube lectures/interviews describing how to achieve this very end. He describes anarchists role as being useful at destabilizing the state until there is a power vacuum. I think he even describes them as useful idiots. Although anarchists and communists have different goals, their means are inexorably linked.
One can argue that there are signs emerging in modern America similar to what Yuri describes in his subversion outline. Whether these manifestations are the result of communist input is up for debate.
lol, I would argue that Anarchism has far more to do with libertarianism. Also the anarchist isn't any less or more justified than any other form of power. You don't think any form of power causes some form of oppression? You don't think that any form of oppression pushed far enough leads to violence against almost any ideals? The real point is, you can take any pocket of philosophies and cite massive destruction. Just because history is written by the victor doesn't mean anarchists are necessarily in the wrong. Furthermore there are some very intelligent things to be said about some anarchist theories.... Just because anarchists succeeded in making freedom public doesn't mean that because they failed to privitize security mean that they are "useful idiots"...
I'm not sure what you're arguing for. I merely presented an anarchist's role as perceived from a communist within the context of subverting a nation.
Of course libertarians are closer to anarchists on the ideological spectrum. Of course any form of government is a form of oppression. How does any of this invalidate what I've said?
Nowhere did I weigh the merits of anarchism in my post. Anarchist have as much influence in bringing about freedom as they do in bringing dictatorships, ie working towards destabilizing the current regime. I didn't say it was right or wrong. It is what it is.
Is it common for TL members to jump to conclusions?
Hmm, Is it not common for all humans to jump to conclusions.
Don't need to have a hernia we obviously agree then and it's clear i made the mistake of not re-reading what exactly you were replying to. No need to have a fit, simple misunderstanding. It seems we agree.
EDIT: I also suppose "what I was arguing for" was simply that "Disaster has inevitably befallen every country where anarchists and communists have taken power" could be simplified into "Disaster has inevitably befallen every country"
Not sure where you get the impression that I'm in some type of furor. From the short time I've been on the forums, it seems peoples' posts are consistently being taken out of context. Just wondering if this is a persistent theme on TL.
So much fail economics going on in this thread... I get the impression some people learn about economics from watching the evening news(lol).
Anyhow regarding the anarchists and the damage done to Toronto, the police did the right thing. They held back and didn't injure any peaceful protesters. Letting the police cars burn may not have been absolutely necessary however they decided to take a passive stance which I think was the right call.
Nothing worse than injuring innocents while trying to arrest anarchists. That would have really been a huge scandal and I'm glad they were smart enough to avoid it.
I live in Toronto and I thought about going down there but then decided against it since I didn't want to get in the way and cause more congestion for the cops to deal with. So many people were down there already with their cameras taking pictures and being a general nuisance when they had no interest in protesting. Since I had no such inclination I stayed home.
On June 29 2010 08:39 travis wrote: This thread has gotten too annoying to bother posting in. Lots of people are talking about anarchists without even knowing what anarchists actually stand for. Hey, i saw some anarchists on tv that were throwing rocks and wearing black masks. Now I know what anarchism means!
BTW, gandhi was an anarchist, at least philosophically. If you argue this you either don't know gandhi's views, or you don't know what anarchism is.
gandhi also had daily enemas given to him by women and slept naked, with women, although he never has sex with them. The racism is more clear too, pointing out don't confuse Indians with niggers.
Travis you also confused how the definition of anarchists has changed. It doesn't mean what i meant 100 years ago which you so fully believe. It does and can mean a destructive person who only goal is to tear down establishments though the use of violence.
On June 29 2010 16:24 Grobyc wrote: Great, there goes my tax money.
As a Canadian you should be used to the idea of your tax money being pissed away. Just think of all the fatties, junkies and smokers whose healthcare you are paying for.
On June 29 2010 16:24 Grobyc wrote: Great, there goes my tax money.
As a Canadian you should be used to the idea of your tax money being pissed away. Just think of all the fatties, junkies and smokers whose healthcare you are paying for.
I don't think Americans have the standing to belittle Canadians for how tax money is spent, rofl.
On June 29 2010 16:24 Grobyc wrote: Great, there goes my tax money.
As a Canadian you should be used to the idea of your tax money being pissed away. Just think of all the fatties, junkies and smokers whose healthcare you are paying for.
Not so different from all of the emergency room visits for illegal immigrants our government here in the US pays for...
On June 29 2010 16:24 Grobyc wrote: Great, there goes my tax money.
As a Canadian you should be used to the idea of your tax money being pissed away. Just think of all the fatties, junkies and smokers whose healthcare you are paying for.
Don't be bitter because Obama made you join the movement.
That's pennies and nickels to us when it comes to HC. In fact, many Canadians believe more should be spent on Health Care. We piss our money away on many different things. In fact, it's funny that you mention junkies because 2 years ago we had a conversation about a government funded group giving free crack pipes to the junkies in downtown Ottawa but believe it or not they had good reason to take this initiative.
- Many of the crackheads were sharing dirty pipes and this would cause more health issues.
Anyway, the guy who took part in the initiative really opened our eyes to why something like that would occur.
On June 29 2010 16:24 Grobyc wrote: Great, there goes my tax money.
As a Canadian you should be used to the idea of your tax money being pissed away. Just think of all the fatties, junkies and smokers whose healthcare you are paying for.
I don't think Americans have the standing to belittle Canadians for how tax money is spent, rofl.
These gentlemen are royal pains in the ass. I went through a few pages of the videos they have on pressfortruth.com and most of it is them getting kicked off of private property then complaining about it. The man from the Love Police was arrested because he was a complete punk about providing ID. "Sir can I see your ID please?" "Can I see your ID???" I'm not kidding. These guys have some bug up their ass about police and the government and it makes them the most annoying type of people in the world. They're not punks because they like causing destruction and pissing people off, they're punks because they're so god damned righteous in their imagined victimisation.
This is where you trip up. States want control of the money supply and interest rates for obvious reasons, so that they can print money without having to directly tax people. They get the full value of the currency before inflation kicks in and wipes out that proportional amount from everyone's savings. In effect it is a hidden regressive tax.
But of course the state isn't required to have violent control over currency. For example, prior to 1913 this wasn't the case in the United States. With the creation of the Federal Reserve the value of the dollar has declined by over 95% because of expansion of the money supply. In a free and open market of competing currencies this doesn't tend to happen, and de facto standards do emerge naturally. Gold became one such de facto standard because it makes a good currency:
That's a really bad video, since it shows the guy making the mistake of proving the point of the guy he is trying to prove wrong. Switching to gold isn't a BETTER idea - it's just an alternate bad idea.
On July 01 2010 15:18 Saturnize wrote: What's the point of meeting in toronto? can't they just meet on like some remote location?
The obvious reason being that the want them to riot so people focus on things that happens outside of the meetings rather than what's actually being said. More than often on these things cops shows up without ID badges pounding away at protesters, last time we had it they even started shooting into masses of people and only because someone got it on tape was the guy that shot even prosecuted.
It's awful that it's always much harder for the protesters. They only need a few violent idiots to have the protests invalidated, while it seems that no matter how aggressive the police is people will defend them (especially tv-news and such).
On July 01 2010 17:12 Mothxal wrote: It's awful that it's always much harder for the protesters. They only need a few violent idiots to have the protests invalidated, while it seems that no matter how aggressive the police is people will defend them (especially tv-news and such).
How else are they going to get their new profile pic.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i48.tinypic.com/jil6s2.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r4/Heimdall00/SF/Rome-Africa.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://torontoist.com/attachments/toronto_david/515pm-20100627-drost-062710-BAYRICHMOND_515p2.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://images.scribblelive.com/2010/6/27/1adeb63d-e74c-437a-8bf0-dfdc9bfe20f2.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://uppix.net/5/b/d/2170bb208dffc25ee8f4f41ab3190.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.wisdomfinancialinc.com/images/commentary/graph9.gif)
![[image loading]](http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/economicsunbound/archives/long_14406_image001.gif)
