Vandalism

[Seer Travis Truman]

I was wondering what most anarchists on this forum think of the act of vandalism?

You might want to review this video on vandalism before making your post :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V02t6nGw7qQ

[Maggot]

The video is interesting. Regarding vandalism (and this is just my opinion), I think it does help people try to get their point across. Look at the WTO protest in Seattle in '99 and the G20 protest in Toronto last year for example. Those protests both had places like McDonald's and Starbucks having their windows smashed, traffic blocked by dumpsters and newspaper stands, and even protesters battling it out with the police. It's a release, basically.

[Seer Travis Truman]

The video is interesting.

This indicates that you are an open minded individual and a sane thinker.

Regarding vandalism (and this is just my opinion), I think it does help people try to get their point across.

Any political point (if that is what you meant) is always a secondary motivation. The primary motivation is always personal frustration, hate, anger, anxiety and other psychological/emotional states that reside in the individuals True Reality.

Look at the WTO protest in Seattle in '99 and the G20 protest in Toronto last year for example. Those protests both had places like McDonald's and Starbucks having their windows smashed, traffic blocked by dumpsters and newspaper stands, and even protesters battling it out with the police. It's a release, basically.

Yes, that is correct. Great example.
It is no different from the child who is unjustly abused and then throws a so-called "temper tantrum". This is actually an instinctive, appropriate and perfectly healthy response. Instinctively, the child knows that it is good for his health to "work it out of his system" and express his feelings through rigorous physical violence, rather than keeping them bottled-up and turning them on him/herself as society would prefer.

Of course, that does not mean that the protesters may or have had a good point or reason to protest (etc). But their personal motivation was always an emotional/psychological one.

[birthday pony]

I disagree with you, and therefore, having seen your website, can only assume I'll be called someone who wishes to hide the truth, and a tool of "society."

Being that humans are rational, reasoning individuals, it is completely possible for political motivation to be primary and this is often the case. At events like the G20 and whatnot we see particular buildings being targeted. Corporate business is attacked, not just anything. Clearly, this is for a political statement, not an underlying psychological issue.

As a side note, your militant attitude and willingness to isolate anyone who disagrees with you is not helpful to discussion. Anyone arrogant enough to call themselves a "seer of truth" is not going to be constructive at all. I've seen your website and most of your criticism is far too vague, relies too heavily on the abstract "society" without naming names, and is way too self important. This forum may be dead, but I really don't want to see it waking up with you around here.

[Guest]

during the 2003 anti-war demonstrations, we painted every corporate news van we could find with "LIES!" I do not believe our motivation was "personal frustration, hate, anger, anxiety and other psychological/emotional states," which sounds a lot like what the rulers say whenever you try to do anything positive...

there's nothing wrong with anger. the people that tell you there is something wrong with anger - mostly religious, pacifist types - are actually working for the state just like those scumfucks king and ghandi...

[IK3]

It wont achieve a thing, its a waste of energy.

[Seer Travis Truman]

I disagree with you, and therefore, having seen your website, can only assume I'll be called someone who wishes to hide the truth, and a tool of "society."

You got that right. But sometimes simple muddled thinking is involved.

Being that humans are rational, reasoning individuals, it is completely possible for political motivation to be primary and this is often the case.

There are other elements at play, but none so much as the emotional needs of the protesters. Leftist types, for example, feel a need to be a part of something. But you can protest without violence and vandalism. That element does NOT come from any intellectual or reasoning.

At events like the G20 and whatnot we see particular buildings being targeted. Corporate business is attacked, not just anything. Clearly, this is for a political statement, not an underlying psychological issue.

No, you are wrong. Its because of psychological and emotional issues. Let Me explain.

These particular types of vandal are using the G20 protest as a psychological smoke-screen to deceive themselves about their True motivations. They dont want to think of themselves as violent vandals with deep-seated issues, so they simply deny this Truth and substitute their real and personal motivations with artificial group motivations.

They target McDonalds and like because it allows them to consciously delude themselves about their True Reality state. Targeting a struggling business would make the illusion slip for them.

This is proven because there can be protest without such destruction. You are not dissecting and analyzing the situation correctly.

As a side note, your militant attitude and willingness to isolate anyone who disagrees with you is not helpful to discussion.

I dont waste time trying to change My posts to appeal to people's sensitivities. You get what you get from Me, the Truth. No bull, no compromises.

Anyone arrogant enough to call themselves a "seer of truth" is not going to be constructive at all.

You know you are wrong, dont you? You are already starting the personal attacks and defamations.

I've seen your website and most of your criticism is far too vague, relies too heavily on the abstract "society" without naming names, and is way too self important. This forum may be dead, but I really don't want to see it waking up with you around here.

Your attack is what is too vague. ANd to suggest I would name individuals is stupid when the website is about societies.
I bet you dont. You hate Truth, I can see that.

[Seer Travis Truman]

during the 2003 anti-war demonstrations, we painted every corporate news van we could find with "LIES!" I do not believe our motivation was "personal frustration, hate, anger, anxiety and other psychological/emotional states,"

This is not really vandalism. It is possible that some individuals might have wished to send a message to society. Of course for something like this there can be other motivations.
That said, personal motivations still reign. For example, an act like this is often an extroverted challenge to the van owner, in even in some cases a sub-conscious provocation so that violence can ensue.

which sounds a lot like what the rulers say whenever you try to do anything positive...

That makes no sense at all and I have never heard a king or any ruler say that.

there's nothing wrong with anger.

I dont say that there is.

the people that tell you there is something wrong with anger - mostly religious, pacifist types - are actually working for the state just like those scumfucks king and ghandi...

There can be all sorts of reasons why people dont like anger. To suggest that its to do with some conspiracy is retarded.

You seriously need to get off any "NWO" or conspiracy nonsense you might be on and start looking for the Forbidden Truths.

[birthday pony]

I disagree with you, and therefore, having seen your website, can only assume I'll be called someone who wishes to hide the truth, and a tool of "society."

You got that right. But sometimes simple muddled thinking is involved.

Everyone take note of this. I disagree and am therefore a liar, or at best a confused individual.

There are other elements at play, but none so much as the emotional needs of the protesters. Leftist types, for example, feel a need to be a part of something. But you can protest without violence and vandalism. That element does NOT come from any intellectual or reasoning.

You can protest without marching. You can protest without being outside. There are many different forms of protest. Does any variation come from the psychological needs of the protesters? No. People make conscious decisions about how they want to protest, including whether or not they'll vandalize things.

No, you are wrong. Its because of psychological and emotional issues. Let Me explain.

These particular types of vandal are using the G20 protest as a psychological smoke-screen to deceive themselves about their True motivations. They dont want to think of themselves as violent vandals with deep-seated issues, so they simply deny this Truth and substitute their real and personal motivations with artificial group motivations.

They target McDonalds and like because it allows them to consciously delude themselves about their True Reality state. Targeting a struggling business would make the illusion slip for them.

This is proven because there can be protest without such destruction. You are not dissecting and analyzing the situation correctly.

Welcome to Tautology Club, where protesters vandalize out of their psychological motivations because they're psychologically motivated to vandalize. Like I said above, there can be protesting without marching. Does this mean protesters are psychologically motivated to march?

I dont waste time trying to change My posts to appeal to people's sensitivities. You get what you get from Me, the Truth. No bull, no compromises.

I don't want you to change your posts. I want you to leave. I'm not offended by your posts or what you think. I just think it is useless. This forum used to be a good place for discussion, but it's being taken over by idiots and trolls. It will only attract more idiots and trolls if we continue to let idiots and trolls post here.

You know you are wrong, dont you? You are already starting the personal attacks and defamations.

I am completely aware that I am personally attacking you. Notice that the whole part about you started with "as a side note" implying that it was separate from my analysis of your ideas.

Your attack is what is too vague. ANd to suggest I would name individuals is stupid when the website is about societies.
I bet you dont.

You substitute society when it is just a easy to name people. "Society does this," is far too vague. Who in society? All of society? I don't do half the shit you claim society does on your website. Does this mean I'm not a member of society? What society are you talking about?

You hate Truth, I can see that.

No, I just hate you.

[Seer Travis Truman]

Everyone take note of this. I disagree and am therefore a liar, or at best a confused individual.

Strawman. I never said that. You just mis-interpreted. I never suggested that you were a liar, I said certain positions are lie-based. I never said disagreement makes someone a liar. You just cannot see the difference. But to disagree with simple Truth is always because of muddled thinking and/or desire to embrace comforting lies.
*******************************************************************************************************

Travis Truman :There are other elements at play, but none so much as the emotional needs of the protesters. Leftist types, for example, feel a need to be a part of something. But you can protest without violence and vandalism. That element does NOT come from any intellectual or reasoning.

You can protest without marching. You can protest without being outside. There are many different forms of protest. Does any variation come from the psychological needs of the protesters? No. People make conscious decisions about how they want to protest, including whether or not they'll vandalize things.

No. Your analogy is faulty. Vandalism is a separate act. These examples you give are not additional acts but the manner they are carried out. They are to do with how and where the single act of protest itself takes place, such as inside or outside.
Another example of a separate act is that of eating. You can eat and protest, but eating is NOT a form of protest. You can protest hungry inside or out. You can protest and eat inside or out.

There is no objective reason for any of the individuals involved to want to smash the windows of a franchise restruant or coffee shop. It is not going to make any difference to their cause. The owners of the restraunt are not going to launch a super-hero personal crusade or suddenly like your group because you break their windows.

I am not suggesting that many individuals dont really believe in what they are protesting in. I am not suggesting that they may wrongly see McDonalds as a target. But they personally are not involved in these matters. It does not directly effect them in any significant way.

Sometimes protesters are enraged over the issue itself. A protester might feel frustrated at his life, and deep down nearly all such leftist types just simply feel like they are "losers". They can never admit this to themselves, and their fragile egos though. However, the act of vandalizing a restraunt is not a logical and intellectual one. Its driven by emotional and psychological factors.

Of course, there are other reasons why anyone might protest at G20. But in general, they are enraged and self-deluding individuals.
****************************************************************************************************

No, you are wrong. Its because of psychological and emotional issues. Let Me explain.

These particular types of vandal are using the G20 protest as a psychological smoke-screen to deceive themselves about their True motivations. They dont want to think of themselves as violent vandals with deep-seated issues, so they simply deny this Truth and substitute their real and personal motivations with artificial group motivations.

They target McDonalds and like because it allows them to consciously delude themselves about their True Reality state. Targeting a struggling business would make the illusion slip for them.

This is proven because there can be protest without such destruction. You are not dissecting and analyzing the situation correctly.

Welcome to Tautology Club, where protesters vandalize out of their psychological motivations because they're psychologically motivated to vandalize.

Pathetic. I never introduced tautology, you did.

Like I said above, there can be protesting without marching. Does this mean protesters are psychologically motivated to march?

That is irrelevant. I never claimed anything about marching. I explain above why your counter-analogy is faulty. Read it. Or just continue on your pathetic path.
***************************************************************************

I dont waste time trying to change My posts to appeal to people's sensitivities. You get what you get from Me, the Truth. No bull, no compromises.

You : I don't want you to change your posts. I want you to leave. I'm not offended by your posts or what you think. I just think it is useless.

You are doing it again. Its not because of it being "useless" or you would joined a different thread. The fact that you want Me to leave when you came to Me first, yet you claim that you are not offended proves that you really cannot handle My posts and they are accurate. And you do want Me to change the style of My posts, you have also made that clear.
****************************************************************************************

Travis :
You know you are wrong, dont you? You are already starting the personal attacks and defamations.

You : I am completely aware that I am personally attacking you. Notice that the whole part about you started with "as a side note" implying that it was separate from my analysis of your ideas.

I know, but the fact you felt the need to start the personal attacks at all when you simply disagree proves you cannot handle yourself. There is just no need for it.
*****************************************************************************************

Travis : Your attack is what is too vague. And to suggest I would name individuals is stupid when the website is about societies.

You : You substitute society when it is just a easy to name people.

There is no substitution. I don't name people because individuals are not societies nor are they societal policies or cultural dictates. It is not because of ease or difficulty. If you cannot understand that, you are severely retarded.
There is no conspiracies involved with Forbidden Truth. I told you that already, and I notice that you did not answer to that part of the post.

"Society does this," is far too vague. Who in society? All of society?

Society. Culture. Don't you even know what these things are? If I say "society frowns upon x" and you want Me to name people instead? I take it you are on drugs, probably wacky-tabaccy.

I don't do half the shit you claim society does on your website. Does this mean I'm not a member of society?

You are not mentioned personally on the website. No, you are certainly a created victim of your society.
You cannot even tell the difference between you and an entire system of society, culture and law.

What society are you talking about?

Any society, really. Mainly western societies, because I live in one. But it applies in general to all societies, even many primitive ones.
*******************************************************************************************

You hate Truth, I can see that.

No, I just hate you.

You hate Me because you hate Truth, and I represent Truth. Pathetic.

[Guest]

that's odd, i didn't say anything about the NWO or "conspiracies." - why are you making things up?

rulers rule - that is why they are called rulers. typically, they will do what is necessary to stay in power, and they will denigrate those that think otherwise by calling them insane, angry, deranged, immoral and a host of other names. and of course they will kill people and jail people as well. that's what rulers do. if that's an "NWO conspiracy to you" then there isn't much to discuss - one must have a common dictionary. in mine, the rulers are called rulers because they rule, not because of a "conspiracy theory."

anyways, i'm pretty sure you are just IK in a mask.

btw, the seers and shamans were some of the first authoritarians. it went along the basic lines of "hey i can make the sun disappear (because i know when eclipses happen and you dont), so let me fuck your daughters." grown-ups and non-slaves eschew seers and shamans.

[birthday pony]

to disagree with simple Truth is always because of muddled thinking and/or desire to embrace comforting lies.
*******************************************************************************************************

God forbid a rational individual disagree with you. So I'm either confused or want to embrace lies.

No. Your analogy is faulty. Vandalism is a separate act. These examples you give are not additional acts but the manner they are carried out. They are to do with how and where the single act of protest itself takes place, such as inside or outside.
Another example of a separate act is that of eating. You can eat and protest, but eating is NOT a form of protest. You can protest hungry inside or out. You can protest and eat inside or out.

That's funny, because I've heard of hunger strikes. That sounds like a form of protest to me.

Also, sitting is a separate act, isn't it? That's odd, because I've heard of sit-ins too. And those sound like a form of protest.

So the fact that protesters are eating or not eating, sitting or not sitting must have to do with their psychological motivation as well. That's unless you're full of shit.

But you're a Seer of Truth! Your goddam name is SEER Travis Truman! You can't be lying. What more wisdom do you have to impart on us?

There is no objective reason for any of the individuals involved to want to smash the windows of a franchise restruant or coffee shop. It is not going to make any difference to their cause. The owners of the restraunt are not going to launch a super-hero personal crusade or suddenly like your group because you break their windows.

We're not trying to get them to like us. We're trying to destroy them! We don't trash a starbucks because we want them to join us. We trash a starbucks because we want them abolished!

I am not suggesting that many individuals dont really believe in what they are protesting in. I am not suggesting that they may wrongly see McDonalds as a target. But they personally are not involved in these matters. It does not directly effect them in any significant way.

Except it does. A Royal Bank of Canada branch was attacked because it was directly destroying the environment in which the attacker lived!

Sometimes protesters are enraged over the issue itself. A protester might feel frustrated at his life, and deep down nearly all such leftist types just simply feel like they are "losers". They can never admit this to themselves, and their fragile egos though. However, the act of vandalizing a restraunt is not a logical and intellectual one. Its driven by emotional and psychological factors.

Travis Truman is president of Tautology Club, because he is president of Tautology club. Speaking of which...

No, you are wrong. Its because of psychological and emotional issues. Let Me explain.

Statement A: It is because of psychological and emotional issues...

These particular types of vandal are using the G20 protest as a psychological smoke-screen to deceive themselves about their True motivations. They dont want to think of themselves as violent vandals with deep-seated issues, so they simply deny this Truth and substitute their real and personal motivations with artificial group motivations.

Statement B: They are using it as a psychological smokescreen. (It is because of their psychological motivation).

Welcome to Tautology Club, where protesters vandalize out of their psychological motivations because they're psychologically motivated to vandalize.

You are doing it again. Its not because of it being "useless" or you would joined a different thread. The fact that you want Me to leave when you came to Me first, yet you claim that you are not offended proves that you really cannot handle My posts and they are accurate. And you do want Me to change the style of My posts, you have also made that clear.

This forum is public. When there's an unread topic, I read it. You can post threads all over the place. I don't want your thread attracting more people like you to a forum I regular where they may post on threads I am interested in.

I know, but the fact you felt the need to start the personal attacks at all when you simply disagree proves you cannot handle yourself. There is just no need for it.

You have your own website where you can put whatever beliefs you want in the limelight. There's no need for you to come here.

There is no substitution. I don't name people because individuals are not societies nor are they societal policies or cultural dictates. It is not because of ease or difficulty. If you cannot understand that, you are severely retarded.
There is no conspiracies involved with Forbidden Truth. I told you that already, and I notice that you did not answer to that part of the post.

For every action there is an actor.

Society. Culture. Don't you even know what these things are? If I say "society frowns upon x" and you want Me to name people instead? I take it you are on drugs, probably wacky-tabaccy.

Flyin sober right now!
But if I said "The Government is infringing on our privacy" and you asked "Who in the government, how, and when?" I could give you names (possibly addresses) a number of government acts, and articles reporting on people (with names and addresses) who are carrying out these acts. If I must only say "The government" and then I can't name a single person in government, I would be talking about a fictitious entity.

You hate Me because you hate Truth, and I represent Truth. Pathetic.

Tell me more, O! Great Seer!

[Seer Travis Truman]

No. Your analogy is faulty. Vandalism is a separate act. These examples you give are not additional acts but the manner they are carried out. They are to do with how and where the single act of protest itself takes place, such as inside or outside.
Another example of a separate act is that of eating. You can eat and protest, but eating is NOT a form of protest. You can protest hungry inside or out. You can protest and eat inside or out.

That's funny, because I've heard of hunger strikes. That sounds like a form of protest to me.
Also, sitting is a separate act, isn't it? That's odd, because I've heard of sit-ins too. And those sound like a form of protest.

They are not forms of vandalism, though, are they.
They are methods of protest, where such protest is outside the scope of this discussion. So you have just made the same error again.

BTW, hunger strikes are not forms of eating, either.

Stop playing semantics.

You obviously cannot understand psychology and peoples motivations properly.

So the fact that protesters are eating or not eating, sitting or not sitting must have to do with their psychological motivation as well.

There is no reason to reach such a conclusion at all. Nor does it have any impact on anything I said. Clearly, you do not understand.


It is obvious to Me from your tone that My video and related posts have hit the nail right on the head, and you are in denial.

[birthday pony]

It is obvious to Me from your tone that My video and related posts have hit the nail right on the head, and you are in denial.

I am. I'm in denial. Help me Travis! I'm not a slacker! I'm doing the work! I want you to save me O, Seer of Truth! Show me the way! I am your humble follower.