Comments on: Anarchist group targets scientists in terrorist attacks

By: Rob Butler

Rob Butler — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 15:46:00 +0000

These people are like LulzSec for the Amish.

By: jetfx

jetfx — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 15:02:00 +0000

It was likely the police that threw the Haymarket bomb, but hey why pollute your rant with facts?

By: Antinous / Moderator

Antinous / Moderator — Sun, 03 Jun 2012 20:49:00 +0000

Their PR people aren’t as good.

By: JenniferS

JenniferS — Sun, 03 Jun 2012 15:31:00 +0000

I wonder if they read Timothy McVeigh’s manifesto.

By: AnthonyC

AnthonyC — Sun, 03 Jun 2012 12:46:00 +0000

I tell people this all the time- of the non-renewable energy resources, nuclear should be the lowest priority to get rid of.

By: territorial

territorial — Sun, 03 Jun 2012 11:02:00 +0000

“The problem with anarchists and other so-called revolutionaries is that they insist on being judge, jury, and executioner. If you’re not for ‘em, you’re against ‘em which makes you a fair target.”

In what way does this differ from the Governments they oppose?

By: teapot

teapot — Sun, 03 Jun 2012 05:21:00 +0000

Would you kill scientists over that statistical likelihood? Because that’s kinda the point. Logic is irrelevant when it’s being used to justify idiocy.

By: David Weintraub

David Weintraub — Sun, 03 Jun 2012 02:56:00 +0000

I always thought that anarchists don’t like rules imposed upon them… So, what give you the right to impose your anarchist ideas on my anarchism?

Anarchists aren’t violent? What gives you the right to impose that rule? Who do you think threw the Haymarket bomb. Who killed President William McKinley? Historically, anarchists have been very violent. After all, they’re out to destroy the evil state and their lackeys, and the rules of society don’t apply to them.

The problem with anarchists and other so-called revolutionaries is that they insist on being judge, jury, and executioner. If you’re not for ‘em, you’re against ‘em which makes you a fair target.

By: Guido

Guido — Sun, 03 Jun 2012 01:42:00 +0000

Plus, it serves really well the purpose of those interested in keeping things the way they are.

“Oh, Anarchists, of course, violent, stupid technophobes that want people to die by the billions so they can hunt bison wrapped in furs. Unlike us, with shiny gadgets and the latest blockbuster. They do not know what they are talking about…”

By: Preston Sturges

Preston Sturges — Sat, 02 Jun 2012 23:09:00 +0000

I read your comment, then took a nap.

By: RuthlessRuben

RuthlessRuben — Sat, 02 Jun 2012 22:27:00 +0000

You know… I kinda wish these people would catch an entirely reversible and curable form of cancer and then watch them agonize whether or not to refuse the treatment created by the science slave overlords.

Maybe I appreciate the irony, or maybe I’m just a vindictive dude with a labcoat.

By: K-KO

K-KO — Sat, 02 Jun 2012 22:26:00 +0000

thanks for the article Guido. It’s really dangerous the equivelence established between primitivism and anarchism.

By: K-KO

K-KO — Sat, 02 Jun 2012 22:21:00 +0000

This stupid people blot Anarchism and they should just die. Science is the greatest anarchist endeavor of humankind. People should really wear gloves when reading Zerzan’s books, which by the way, are not too bad, but have terrible consequences

By: Preston Sturges

Preston Sturges — Sat, 02 Jun 2012 21:12:00 +0000

It stayed pretty close to the novel, and you know the best books make the worst movies and vice versa, so it was OK. Robin Williams was good, he was just a bit distracting. I would have liked to see them do more with the anarchist that seduces Mrs. Verloc – I picture him a charismatic narcissist.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1074002-secret_agent/

By: Preston Sturges

Preston Sturges — Sat, 02 Jun 2012 21:04:00 +0000

There was a dream sequence in the Hermann Hesse novel Steppenwolf where Harry and a friend are up in a tree platform on a mountain road shooting passing cars. This seems to be the start of general attack by an anti-technology guerilla movement. Down the mountain they can see town start to burn. A young lady joins them and she asks if it isn’t hypocrisy to use rifles. They say “We’ll smash them eventually.”

By: John Smith

John Smith — Sat, 02 Jun 2012 20:56:00 +0000

Most people aren’t strong enough, smart enough or moral enough to survive without govenment. It’s just so much easier to have things done for you at another persons expense.

By: fredh

fredh — Sat, 02 Jun 2012 18:48:00 +0000

A movie? I’ll check it out! Another good book with an anarchist theme is Chesterson’s “The Man Who was Thursday,” although that wanders into some pretty surreal territory.

By: Guido

Guido — Sat, 02 Jun 2012 17:21:00 +0000

I’d define myself as an asymptotic anarchist.

By: Guido

Guido — Sat, 02 Jun 2012 17:04:00 +0000

Come on people. Anarchists are not purer or saner than the rest of humanity. They/we can also be terrorists. You can be an Anarchist and a Primitivist. Of course, by definition your ideas are stupid then.

By: rocketpjs

rocketpjs — Sat, 02 Jun 2012 16:52:00 +0000

Well, all they need to do to see if their theory works is to create an hypothesis and test it.

Oh, right, no science. Hmm. Blow some shit up and see if anything changes. But don’t observe results or look to duplicate success, because that would mean scientific advancement.

Maybe they just need to get back to drinking and eating the blood and body of an ancient zombie to appease the angry sky ghost, like most rational people.

By: Preston Sturges

Preston Sturges — Sat, 02 Jun 2012 15:35:00 +0000

As I’ve said previously, it is impossible for me to become interested in the “philosophy” of anarchism no matter how often they insist on explaining it.

By: HahTse

HahTse — Sat, 02 Jun 2012 13:18:00 +0000

Neo-Luddites, then?

By: HahTse

HahTse — Sat, 02 Jun 2012 13:12:00 +0000

Who is talking about tsunamis, specifically? (Btw.: that’s actually a possibility – if the norwegian continental shelf destabilizes, we are all so very fucked. But that is even more unlikely to happen in a human timeframe (say, 10.000 years?), than a “killer-asteroid” hitting us. Just sayin’.)

I’m talking about the statistical likelihood of a major nuclear disaster happening (in whatever way) in Europe versus the probable impact it would have ON Europe.

By: jacobian

jacobian — Sat, 02 Jun 2012 12:09:00 +0000

It’s incredibly dodgy that they chose the same initials as the Italian Anarchist Federation, who denounce terrorism and propaganda by the deed.

These people aren’t anarchists, they are primitivist terrorists.

By: scav

scav — Sat, 02 Jun 2012 10:47:00 +0000

Of course it is. An inconsistent ethical position is just as wrong as any other inconsistent set of propositions.

But these guys fail at logic so hard that I don’t suppose there’s any reasoning with them.

By: scav

scav — Sat, 02 Jun 2012 10:39:00 +0000

Orders of magnitude more people were killed by the earthquake and subsequent tsunami that caused the catastrophic failure of the Fukushima reactors.

If you’re going to merely try to be *statistically* correct, you would still have to say that in a comparable situation, even if statistically inevitable, a tsunami that makes its way inland to a nuclear reactor in the middle of Europe’s arable land is going to give you more to worry about than radioactive contamination.

I don’t know the situation in the rest of Europe, but in the UK, all nuclear installations now have to meet stringent requirements that directly came out of the experience at Fukushima.

The next big disaster will be one you *didn’t* expect.

By: atimoshenko

atimoshenko — Sat, 02 Jun 2012 10:11:00 +0000

No, but hypocrisy is a good indicator of fundamentally unworkable (and therefore stupid) ideas.

By: Wreckrob8

Wreckrob8 — Sat, 02 Jun 2012 08:21:00 +0000

Being a hypocrite is not a sufficient condition for being wrong.

By: zarray

zarray — Sat, 02 Jun 2012 07:42:00 +0000

Well terrorism comes in waves and never had a large state failure, where as Marxism is so 80′s.

By: Tynam

Tynam — Sat, 02 Jun 2012 07:32:00 +0000

I’m afraid you’re not condemning the philosophy of anarchists; you don’t understand it well enough to condemn. The philosophy you’re condemning is a straw man bearing no resemblance to the beliefs of most anarchists.

(Hint: the following two sentences are not equivalent. “Governments are historically bad and we should learn to do without them.” “People who are good with guns should boss us all around.”)

DISCLAIMER: I am neither an anarchist nor a pacifist. I lack the moral character for either. I am, however, a dedicated nitpicker.