Philosophy Now Forum

Maia wrote: ↑Mon Aug 04, 2025 9:29 am

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Mon Aug 04, 2025 9:16 am

Maia wrote: ↑Mon Aug 04, 2025 8:51 am

I just think it would be completely pointless, contacting the police, and therefore unnecessarily stressful. Thankfully, as I said, organisations are springing up to fill the void, such as the WSI. I've also learnt that there's a sit down, family protest at the Ramada Hotel in Solihull, starting next Saturday, which is pretty close to me, just a short bus ride, so I'll probably go along. It's about time I started actually doing something.

If by absolute free speech you mean the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre, then no, it has never existed. But what the government are now clamping down on is the right to tell the truth, and that crosses a very important line.

The ruling class dumping desperate illegal migrants in the midst of the working class is asking for trouble. They . don't . care.

The government is talking about ending putting them in third rate hotels.

The right to tell the truth pivots on how. The working class do not have the resources to write white papers. You are personally constrained from documenting your experience. If you can't, won't have social justice, you must have law and order.

While France certainly has its problems, now, the people "fleeing" it are hardly desperate. And evidently they are so desperate that they leave their women, children and old people behind in whatever country they came from.

They're talking about putting them in houses on council estates, six men to a house. That's going to end well. Even now more reports are coming out about such people raping, molesting and trying to kidnap children.

I'm sorry you're caught up in all this.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Mon Aug 04, 2025 8:01 pm

Maia wrote: ↑Mon Aug 04, 2025 9:29 am

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Mon Aug 04, 2025 9:16 am
The ruling class dumping desperate illegal migrants in the midst of the working class is asking for trouble. They . don't . care.

The government is talking about ending putting them in third rate hotels.

The right to tell the truth pivots on how. The working class do not have the resources to write white papers. You are personally constrained from documenting your experience. If you can't, won't have social justice, you must have law and order.

While France certainly has its problems, now, the people "fleeing" it are hardly desperate. And evidently they are so desperate that they leave their women, children and old people behind in whatever country they came from.

They're talking about putting them in houses on council estates, six men to a house. That's going to end well. Even now more reports are coming out about such people raping, molesting and trying to kidnap children.

I'm sorry you're caught up in all this.

Thanks, but there's no need to be. I'm actually quite optimistic that things are finally changing, with genuine grass roots movements springing up all over the country.

Maia wrote: ↑Sun Aug 03, 2025 9:16 am Why on earth would I want to raise a family, for example, knowing that my children will become a minority in their own homeland in just a generation....

What do you have against minorities?

Well, no reproductively capable rational person would ever bring a childrens into a world like this unless they wanted to create a bourgeois parasite, a wage slave or a criminal anarchist.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 05, 2025 1:57 pm Well, no reproductively capable rational person would ever bring a childrens into a world like this unless they wanted to create a bourgeois parasite, a wage slave or a criminal anarchist.

What do you have against anarchists?

No respectable man would wish an anarchist child upon Maia.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 05, 2025 1:57 pm Well, no reproductively capable rational person would ever bring a childrens into a world like this unless they wanted to create a bourgeois parasite, a wage slave or a criminal anarchist.

Why "criminal anarchist"? By which why would you describe libertarians of both the "left" and the "right" as "criminal" (with the understanding that both "left" and "right" do not have quite the usual meanings. More like "communal" vs "individual as the basic unit). Similar to when discussing Israeli politics, "left" and "right" refer more to "doves" vs "hawks" than economic difference".

Are you meaning to imply that there is no morally justified way to live in this world facing ecological collapse (and so no way to bring up children in that way of life). mind I do know people taking this position BUT they are usually doing so in a context of belief that there is no way humans can live in balance with the rest of Nature. So would not describe in terms like bourgeois or wage slave, etc. << details of some particular human societies >>

It's common knowledge (for anyone who has read Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World by Jack Weatherford) that when Guchlug ruled Black Khitan from its capitol of Balasgun many of his subjects were Muslim, although Guchlug was a Buddhist. Guchlug banned the call to prayer and all other public expressions of Islam.

The Muslim subjects turned for succor to that renowned supporter of freedom of religion, Genghis Khan. Temujin sent one of his generals 2500 miles to oust the oppressive dictator and restore freedom of religion to Khitan. Beware the Buddhist hordes! Support the peaceful Muslims!

I still don't understand why having one's children become a "minority" is so frightening, although being rescued by Mongol armies might be in 1215.
One interesting tidbit from the book -- the Mongol Empire fell apart largely due to the bubonic plague. Travelers and merchants who might carry the plague became anathema, and the communications systems that maintained the empire disintegrated.

"Why "criminal anarchist"?"

Because that's the only alternative a good man has to being a scumbag or a gimp. The anarchists will explain. Use the shave and a haircut knock minus the last knock and ask for Novatore when they open the peek hole.

Alexiev wrote: ↑Tue Aug 05, 2025 1:37 pm

Maia wrote: ↑Sun Aug 03, 2025 9:16 am Why on earth would I want to raise a family, for example, knowing that my children will become a minority in their own homeland in just a generation....

What do you have against minorities?

LOL!

What a man! A brother i have come to late in history to ever know. No matter, for "we are the outsiders against all societies which follow one another on the stage of history."

"I was sixteen years old and had run away from home and my studies, freeing myself from my bourgeois family, who had done everything they could to stop my anarchist activities. Passing through Saranza on my way to Milan, I stopped to get to know Novatore, having read his article “My Iconoclastic Individualism”. Renzo came at once to meet me together with another anarchist called Lucherini.

We passed unforgettable hours together. Our discussions were long, and he helped me fill gaps in my thinking, setting me on my way to the solution of many fundamental problems. I was struck by his enthusiasm.

His appearance was impressive. Of medium height, he was athletic in build and had a large forehead. His eyes were vivacious and expressed sensibility, intelligence, and force. He had an ironic smile that revealed the contempt of a superior spirit for men and the world. He was thirty-one years old but already had the aura of genius.

After two months wandering around Italy with the police at my heels, I returned to Arcola to see Renzo again. But Emma, his wife, told me that he was also hunted and that I could only meet him at night in the forest..."

promethean75 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 05, 2025 4:27 pm "Why "criminal anarchist"?"

Because that's the only alternative a good man has to being a scumbag or a gimp. The anarchists will explain. Use the shave and a haircut knock minus the last knock and ask for Novatore when they open the peek hole.

I will try once more. Why are you EQUATING "anarchist" and "criminal"? Are non-criminal anarchists not possible? Of course this may depend on how you are defining "criminal". Are you including "civil disobedience"? In that case, I might accept your connection BUT that calls for you to make it explicit. I'd say both sides need to agree "criminal" (thus Novatore might say "my act was criminal but justifiable"). The people doing civil disobedience are saying something else. Sometimes it's "my lawbreaking is civil, not criminal". Other times might be "law breaking but innocent by necessity".

Acting as an anarchist often does not involve breaking any laws. Some organization votes not to provide subsidies to families bringing children to an event (not free or reduced price for children). Some anarchists within that organization say fine, we'll form an organization that raises funds to partially or entirely pay for children to attend. It is in our power to do this; we do not need the permission of the majority. No LAWS involved (of course "democratic centralists" are screaming bloody murder)

The anarchist, if he wears the sacred signet ring, must commit crime to merely survive when he refuses to be wage slave or bourgeois scumbag. Such crime includes but is not limited to the reclamation of bourgeois property (private or state owned) through theft. Included also is the use of violent force against the bourgeoisie (and the POleece state they've created that defends them) if they become a threat.

"Acting as an anarchist often does not involve breaking any laws"

That's soft-anarchism and it's baloney because it uses bourgeois institutions as a means to achieve ends that should have already been met, thus spinning its wheels. Example. The homeless. All this precious time, effort, and energy to outreach and organize charity and resources for a class of people who would be gainfully employed and sufficiently housed if it weren't for the goddamn capitalists and its croney State.

Now, this effort becomes an even greater burden added to the fact of epidemic homelessness. Now we have two problems instead of one. The lumpenproletariat and taking care of them.

Soft-anarchists are reform flounderers who mean well but change nothing. International homelessness is steadily increasing, so putting a bandaid on it and giving the guy a bowl of soup and a cot clearly isn't working.

What would work is a military takeover of the government under the orders of a vanguard party of badasses that would dissolve once the international soviets established global communication and order and could function without centralized administrative control.

Well, that took an interesting swerve. As a wage slave myself, from a thoroughly middle class family, since both my parents are teachers, I've sometimes been attracted to an anarchist sort of ideal, living on a commune, in nature, and so on. I've grown up a bit since then, though. Life is what you make it, I think.