andyh wrote:
One of the leading voices in the anachist groups. How many more undercover? who do not switch sides.

Mike wrote:
this is smooth, i never heard it before.

foonclown wrote:
You seem to be saying that because the authorities will infiltrate radical groups, people should therefore do nothing. Because it is an inevitably with any radical group that has any potential to do anything that might worry the authorities that this will happen. The exact reason the authorities infiltrate radical groups is because they don't want them getting anywhere. And they infiltrate precisely because they want to undermine then. But it doesn't mean they're all being 'fed an agenda'.

You can guarantee foreign spies have infiltrated any government you care to name - that doesn't mean those governments pack up, go home and sit around watching telly instead.

dogsmilk wrote:
Radical groups do nothing productive. We can not win this war by force we win it with unity by coming together sharing etc. The problem is we are all insecure .The more we physically fight the more laws,rules are put into place. I believe the best way would be to forget about fighting the system and start helping to create a better system,way of life etc within.

foonclown wrote:
So what you're saying is stfu and put up with it?

andyh wrote:

No what Im saying is we need to create a system within a system. Based on brotherhood and sharing everything else just goes around in circles. Fighting the system physically will make things harder and just give an excuse for less freedoms.

Enlighten me Andy what do you propose?

foonclown wrote:
Go self employed, save money on the tax and become as self sufficient as you can with growing your own grub etc.
Beyond that, support the venus project.

I don't bother much with anarchist groups lol.

foonclown wrote:
Surely that's what you should be doing anyway?
You can't create a better way of life within the system - because the system still exists and dominates everything. It doesn't matter how great you are with people around you, you will not get to be a city banker, top politician or corporate CEO unless you play by the rules of the system they exist in. And people like them dominate everything. You'll have some cheery little local community that David Cameron perceives as a great manifestation of the Big Society that can provide charitable help to people whose benefits are cut, wages don't pay the bills or public services no longer exist. They don't give a fuck how you behave as long as you don't directly challenge their interests or cost them money. The reason they actively target radical groups is because they actually do something, that's the reason they don't care about people like David Icke who encourage people to do fuck all except sit around imagining aliens control the moon and at some point some 'mass awakening' will occur - a bit like waiting for Jesus to return and constantly claiming the portents indicate he's just about to arrive.

Take the animal rights movement - direct action in that could get you disproportionately huge prison sentences and a lot of police attention. the reason being people were actually costing huge sums of money by destroying property and winning battles against private companies.

What scares them is enough people actually being prepared to take them on. That's why they launched such a concerted attack against organised labour they ultimately won. I'm not saying people should be violent, but I am saying it should be a case of by all means necessary. Solidarity is immensely important, but if notions of brotherly togetherness degenerate into some hippy shit about simply being the change you want to see they're useless. It's as much use as sticking your baby in a papoose and wandering round the organic health food store chatting about how you're off to discover your inner earth mother by the power of crystals.

And Andy is wrong if he believes they really care about people not paying tax. They' d like a bare minimum tax to fund stuff like the army and have an excuse to destroy all spending on the public. It's not like these tax havens with no income tax are some kind of egalitarian utopia. Back in the 50s the top rate of income tax was 90% - because the govt had been forced by years of labour agitation to adopt wealth redistribution policies. They've dropped the top rate right down to 45% because wealthy people fucking hate paying tax because they can't bear the thought it might go on stuff like public libraries, care for the elderly and free healthcare when it could be buying them a fifth home in the the Bahamas. Andy doesn't realise it, but he's doing exactly the sort of thing they want. Like who do they actually go after - tax dodgers or benefits claimants? They only make a fuss about these high profile tax dodgers because it irritates the public - they do jack shit to actually stop it in any meaningful way.

And the problem with this well you can try to be self-sufficient and a wonderful person and shit is it inevitably means standing at the sidelines watching everyone else get fucked over content in the knowledge you're safe in your little fortress. It's a bit like First they came for the communists, but I didn't do anything because I was too busy growing potatoes, then they came for the Jews but I was too busy fiddling my tax return to notice.... You may as well be Lib Dem voters Julian and Tabitha who are simply lovely people who go to work for a big corporation every day, take little Jemima to piano lessons and watch Come Dine with Me after they've fed their chickens - they're ex battery hens you know, it's so cruel so we tried to do something good and we grow our own veg too. What's the difference?

dogsmilk wrote:
Its a contradiction to say 'do something' on the one hand but then gripe about whats done on the other.
I'm not in a tax haven in bermuda, I'm just self employed and offset my expenses against tax is all.
Anyone who is a normal employee cannot do that.

As for the rich who do it, they make the rules precisely like that so they can get away with it. If hundreds of thousands of people did the same as me then yes they would have a severe problem. They'd no doubt try and change the rules but at that point there would be too many people aware of how they are being 'gamed'. The economy is a game actually if you consider it, just like monopoly.
Some people walk the board themselves and go to jail, some people use a hat or a doggy avatar (corporate entities) and some get to play as both a corporate entity and a banker.

andyh wrote:
If I had the right skills I would go self employed screwed up with school etc so dont really get anything passed minimum wage. If I knew what I know now things would be different but im right into middle age now.

The thing that fucking amazes me is that a liberal gets associated with being fair to all people and not prejudiced, and a right winger gets labeled being a bigot.

This is a personal observation around my parts I don't have a clue what's it like in your country .

I'm neither cause I don't know about politics and I can't tell what's the right road of policy.


I'm a earth being and skin colored doesn't mean shit to me and if you don't believe that I don't care your loss or it's just your hate filled hearts

"What is the liberal left?"

Whatever the authoritarians leave them?

Rick wrote:
I know a few right wingers and left wingers to be honest not much difference.

foonclown wrote:
Their not what they say they are then.

Any working person who is right wing is a moronic fuckwit and the reason why the world is in such a mess with their greedy selfish get rich quick attitude.

foonclown wrote:
So am I. I got skilled in what I do outside of school/college/uni.
The education system is pretty much irrelevant for that kind of thing, unless you're into working in the public sector.

foonclown wrote:
If they're all authoritarian then no theres not much difference at all.

andyh wrote:
It's not "griping", just pointing out it's not 'doing' anything. Not that that's any kind of criticism - last time I checked, I wasn't at the forefront of some revolution.
You're right the rich have the game this way because it suits them. If they get less tax, they'll just take away more spending on the public and say they can't afford it. They're rich. They don't give a fuck. They don't need public libraries, old people's homes or JSA. To them, all that stuff is like some distant Amazonian tribe they've only seen on telly. And they know damn well it's fundamentally impossible for anything but a small proportion of the population to ever be self employed. There's only so many trades it's realistic in.

dogsmilk wrote:
Its just doing whats best for yourself and hopefully to encourage others to do the same.

As for the proportion of self employed trades that are possible I think you'd be surprised.
You can be a self employed cleaner just as much as you can be a self employed banking consultant and both can be one man bands.
I think a lot of people get stuck in thinking that self employment can only work if you have some kind of 'shop' that sells something and you need to invest tens of thousands to get stock first.
The reality doesn't work that way, in fact, if you were to try doing that now chances are you would fail, especially if you borrowed that money to get started. The successful ones have a skill to offer and they know who's in the market to buy it/where to sell it.

Some old trades are dying out now but ironically that leaves gaps for some to fill if they know what they are doing.
At the other end of the scale there's trades that are totally new, particularly in IT or emerging technologies.

Does it make much difference in the grand scheme of things? No. Of course not. It just makes a difference for yourself and a teensy weeny bit less for the tax coffers.
I couldn't care less if its a 0.000001% difference, as far as I'm concerned that 0.000001% is a start.
The biggest hurdle anyone has to overcome is negative thinking and just as important ill informed thinking that feeds the negative loop.

I'd like to see a world similar to that envisioned by Fresco but I realise its not going to come about politically or economically because they are at complete odds with such a concept, they're hardly going to work towards their own downfall, but maybe, just maybe they have already inadvertently started

humanspirit wrote:
I agree...

humanspirit wrote:
You think Tony Blair and the left aare any better?

Is there any difference between left and right now