Sympathy and Nazis

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

CC-ND-NC as usual, attribution is tied to the document.

This is a print booklet file. Print doublesided (duplex) flip on short side, then fold in half for delivery. I'll work on an online shareable version eventually.

[The Wizard Joseph]

Here's my problem. Based on this ideology that people should "suffer as little as possible" there's no end to the punching, which inflicts suffering by definition.

Under this why stop with fascists or white nationalists? What about violent gangs? Independent abusers? Drug dealers and "white collar" criminals that operate within the law like Shrikelli? Is this a call to run around breaking the law in a broader sense?

Don't get me wrong here, I would be all too happy to wreck certain folks. That is a part of my nature that I do not nurture. This pamphlet is an angry dog. It will draw angry folks to the linked organizations. A bunch of Nazi punchers does not an effective resistance make. There has to be an endgame. This does not have one.

If I bought into the fatalism here I might as well become a violent crook myself. I mean under that thin "suffer as little as possible" idea is a swift road to putting folks down as long as you didn't make it hurt too bad.

Martin Luther King was not full of shit. He was the alternative that folks needed to the violent spiral down.

THIS GUY JZellis has probably never actually been in the shit he's abstractly recommending. He's not being straight with anybody from the first line of this.

He IS making an emotional appeal. As far as I can tell that's all it is. It simultaneously disclaims the existence of morality while declaring his contained abstraction to be moral enough to commit to violence over.

Nothing personal QG, but this is not worth distribution as I see it. It's an agitator writing about a violence he does not understand at all. Sorry. I have to say this.

Now that said... if if if if if it comes to that kind of thing, and ideological war with no rules of conflict, you still need to have an endgame and a real strategy. This is doable, but THIS GUY doesn't have any of that in mind as far as I can tell.

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

You can dislike the content, but don't make assumptions about the author's experiences, please.

[The Wizard Joseph]

You can dislike the content, but don't make assumptions about the author's experiences, please.

It's not a matter of dislike. It's a matter of seeing rather dangerous folly.

I don't know the author's experiences, but if the author is acquainted with aggressive violence and holds these particular positions on the matter it's malicious and intended to misguide.

Am I incorrect in my guess about the author's probable experience?

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

I believe you are. It's possible I am conflating this person with someone else.

[Don Coyote]

It's never wrong to punch Nazis.

[The Wizard Joseph]

It's never wrong to punch Nazis.

I'm very much in favor, but I won't call it "right" or nihilism so hard I negate all concept of morality to pretend it's ok.

Also... is it then also not wrong to kill them? Eventually they will retaliate in deadly fashion feeling that they're martyrs. Why then let any live to do so? See "rite of the blood flag" for details on how that goes. Punching them is certainly emotionally satisfying, but will it effectively defeat them? I doubt it. There will be PLENTY of punching and worse. The punching can't be the only goal or it's never going to end.

Even a captured nazi soldier had rights. They weren't all that strictly recognized in the field, but once taken in... there were trials for actual crimes not punch festivals. We didn't roll through Germany punching civilians that happened to be party members.

There is a part of me that resonates with the author of the pamphlet. That part of me is a rather bad dog that I spent years retraining, still imperfectly. That that part of me is like "Yes FUCKIT!! Let's go get it on!" In response to this is where my mind set to looking at it critically. This author is casting aside morality, law, and reason to justify "punching nazis". He should call a spade a spade, evil deeds as needed, IF needed.

Mind you I'm rather certain that certain evil deeds WILL be needed as this shit won't just go away now. That doesn't bother me. A bunch of unfocused, retaliatory vigilantes taking to "nazi punching" for its own sake really does.

Is it not written in a better pamphlet:

"In the one serious burst of brains that the US has ever had, they decided on the Hershey bar as the war winner. The Axis population had been told that we would rape and murder them when we overran the defenses, but there's this grimy dog-face offering them a Hershey bar and a Lucky Strike."

If the author had ethics to begin with as claimed they went WAY too far to make the punching OK. If not... this is a BAD IDEA given an appealing coating of easy emotional satisfaction and EXCACTLY what the folks building this thing would want "the opposition" to do, whether the author intends such or not.

Edit because I  said "wouldn't want" in the second to last line on accident instead of "would want". They WANT a martyr complex to take hold of as many as possible... fanatics feed on it.

[Don Coyote]

It's never wrong to punch Nazis.

I'm very much in favor, but I won't call it "right" or nihilism so hard I negate all concept of morality to pretend it's ok.

Also... is it then also not wrong to kill them? Eventually they will retaliate in deadly fashion feeling that they're martyrs. Why then let any live to do so? See "rite of the blood flag" for details on how that goes. Punching them is certainly emotionally satisfying, but will it effectively defeat them? I doubt it. There will be PLENTY of punching and worse. The punching can't be the only goal or it's never going to end.

Even a captured nazi soldier had rights. They weren't all that strictly recognized in the field, but once taken in... there were trials for actual crimes not punch festivals. We didn't roll through Germany punching civilians that happened to be party members.

There is a part of me that resonates with the author of the pamphlet. That part of me is a rather bad dog that I spent years retraining, still imperfectly. That that part of me is like "Yes FUCKIT!! Let's go get it on!" In response to this is where my mind set to looking at it critically. This author is casting aside morality, law, and reason to justify "punching nazis". He should call a spade a spade, evil deeds as needed, IF needed.

Mind you I'm rather certain that certain evil deeds WILL be needed as this shit won't just go away now. That doesn't bother me. A bunch of unfocused, retaliatory vigilantes taking to "nazi punching" for its own sake really does.

Is it not written in a better pamphlet:

"In the one serious burst of brains that the US has ever had, they decided on the Hershey bar as the war winner. The Axis population had been told that we would rape and murder them when we overran the defenses, but there's this grimy dog-face offering them a Hershey bar and a Lucky Strike."

If the author had ethics to begin with as claimed they went WAY too far to make the punching OK. If not... this is a BAD IDEA given an appealing coating of easy emotional satisfaction and EXCACTLY what the folks building this thing wouldn't want "the opposition" to do, whether the author intends such or not.

So, like I was soldier, right? And, like, in the context of POWs sure. I'm not a soldier. As a soldier, I would be compelled to act within the laws of war, which precludes such things. I am not a soldier. I don't give a shit about the "legality" of punching Nazis.

I'm not saying people should go out hunting Nazis or killing them, but I'm also not going to shed any fucking tears over dead Nazis. Nuance is for adults having conversations about reasonable things. Nuance is not what is needed when dealing Nazis, especially its frightful rise in this age. If you want to clutch pearls and philosophize over whether it is or isn't evil to use violence to shut up Nazis, go ahead. It's cute, in the way that philosophizing over whether the fucking barstool is and/or isn't solid, only the question of whether the barstool possesses solidity does not make a case for the extermination of "impure" races.

Or you could sit on your ass masturbating about how it's evil to use violence on evil people which taints you with evil until you yourself are no better than the Nazi you just punch. Go ahead, yank your rod about your ideological purity. Or masturbate on how "heroic" it will be to wrestle with your "evil deeds" or whatever fucking shit you got in your head.

Or you can grow up, and accept that some people, to use that loosely, only understand the language of their teeth being shoved into their mouth.

[The Wizard Joseph]

It's never wrong to punch Nazis.

I'm very much in favor, but I won't call it "right" or nihilism so hard I negate all concept of morality to pretend it's ok.

Also... is it then also not wrong to kill them? Eventually they will retaliate in deadly fashion feeling that they're martyrs. Why then let any live to do so? See "rite of the blood flag" for details on how that goes. Punching them is certainly emotionally satisfying, but will it effectively defeat them? I doubt it. There will be PLENTY of punching and worse. The punching can't be the only goal or it's never going to end.

Even a captured nazi soldier had rights. They weren't all that strictly recognized in the field, but once taken in... there were trials for actual crimes not punch festivals. We didn't roll through Germany punching civilians that happened to be party members.

There is a part of me that resonates with the author of the pamphlet. That part of me is a rather bad dog that I spent years retraining, still imperfectly. That that part of me is like "Yes FUCKIT!! Let's go get it on!" In response to this is where my mind set to looking at it critically. This author is casting aside morality, law, and reason to justify "punching nazis". He should call a spade a spade, evil deeds as needed, IF needed.

Mind you I'm rather certain that certain evil deeds WILL be needed as this shit won't just go away now. That doesn't bother me. A bunch of unfocused, retaliatory vigilantes taking to "nazi punching" for its own sake really does.

Is it not written in a better pamphlet:

"In the one serious burst of brains that the US has ever had, they decided on the Hershey bar as the war winner. The Axis population had been told that we would rape and murder them when we overran the defenses, but there's this grimy dog-face offering them a Hershey bar and a Lucky Strike."

If the author had ethics to begin with as claimed they went WAY too far to make the punching OK. If not... this is a BAD IDEA given an appealing coating of easy emotional satisfaction and EXCACTLY what the folks building this thing wouldn't want "the opposition" to do, whether the author intends such or not.

So, like I was soldier, right? And, like, in the context of POWs sure. I'm not a soldier. As a soldier, I would be compelled to act within the laws of war, which precludes such things. I am not a soldier. I don't give a shit about the "legality" of punching Nazis.

I'm not saying people should go out hunting Nazis or killing them, but I'm also not going to shed any fucking tears over dead Nazis. Nuance is for adults having conversations about reasonable things. Nuance is not what is needed when dealing Nazis, especially its frightful rise in this age. If you want to clutch pearls and philosophize over whether it is or isn't evil to use violence to shut up Nazis, go ahead. It's cute, in the way that philosophizing over whether the fucking barstool is and/or isn't solid, only the question of whether the barstool possesses solidity does not make a case for the extermination of "impure" races.

Or you could sit on your ass masturbating about how it's evil to use violence on evil people which taints you with evil until you yourself are no better than the Nazi you just punch. Go ahead, yank your rod about your ideological purity. Or masturbate on how "heroic" it will be to wrestle with your "evil deeds" or whatever fucking shit you got in your head.

Or you can grow up, and accept that some people, to use that loosely, only understand the language of their teeth being shoved into their mouth.

But I did, and I do. What comes after that? What purpose is that to be put to?
Do you just expect that the problem will resolve if ya punch enough nazis? If so how many do you figure is enough?

I'm not against violence as a deed at all. I'm against it as an end in itself, as the pamphlet I'm looking at ITT seems to call for folks without your experiences to engage in.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Here's my problem. Based on this ideology that people should "suffer as little as possible" there's no end to the punching, which inflicts suffering by definition.

Under this why stop with fascists or white nationalists? What about violent gangs? Independent abusers? Drug dealers and "white collar" criminals that operate within the law like Shrikelli? Is this a call to run around breaking the law in a broader sense?

Don't get me wrong here, I would be all too happy to wreck certain folks. That is a part of my nature that I do not nurture. This pamphlet is an angry dog. It will draw angry folks to the linked organizations. A bunch of Nazi punchers does not an effective resistance make. There has to be an endgame. This does not have one.

If I bought into the fatalism here I might as well become a violent crook myself. I mean under that thin "suffer as little as possible" idea is a swift road to putting folks down as long as you didn't make it hurt too bad.

Martin Luther King was not full of shit. He was the alternative that folks needed to the violent spiral down.

THIS GUY JZellis has probably never actually been in the shit he's abstractly recommending. He's not being straight with anybody from the first line of this.

He IS making an emotional appeal. As far as I can tell that's all it is. It simultaneously disclaims the existence of morality while declaring his contained abstraction to be moral enough to commit to violence over.

Nothing personal QG, but this is not worth distribution as I see it. It's an agitator writing about a violence he does not understand at all. Sorry. I have to say this.

Now that said... if if if if if it comes to that kind of thing, and ideological war with no rules of conflict, you still need to have an endgame and a real strategy. This is doable, but THIS GUY doesn't have any of that in mind as far as I can tell.

You have any fucking clue who Joshua Ellis IS?

Jesus Fucking Christ, man.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Even a captured nazi soldier had rights.

If you punch them in the early days, there aren't any Nazi soldiers.

[The Wizard Joseph]

Here's my problem. Based on this ideology that people should "suffer as little as possible" there's no end to the punching, which inflicts suffering by definition.

Under this why stop with fascists or white nationalists? What about violent gangs? Independent abusers? Drug dealers and "white collar" criminals that operate within the law like Shrikelli? Is this a call to run around breaking the law in a broader sense?

Don't get me wrong here, I would be all too happy to wreck certain folks. That is a part of my nature that I do not nurture. This pamphlet is an angry dog. It will draw angry folks to the linked organizations. A bunch of Nazi punchers does not an effective resistance make. There has to be an endgame. This does not have one.

If I bought into the fatalism here I might as well become a violent crook myself. I mean under that thin "suffer as little as possible" idea is a swift road to putting folks down as long as you didn't make it hurt too bad.

Martin Luther King was not full of shit. He was the alternative that folks needed to the violent spiral down.

THIS GUY JZellis has probably never actually been in the shit he's abstractly recommending. He's not being straight with anybody from the first line of this.

He IS making an emotional appeal. As far as I can tell that's all it is. It simultaneously disclaims the existence of morality while declaring his contained abstraction to be moral enough to commit to violence over.

Nothing personal QG, but this is not worth distribution as I see it. It's an agitator writing about a violence he does not understand at all. Sorry. I have to say this.

Now that said... if if if if if it comes to that kind of thing, and ideological war with no rules of conflict, you still need to have an endgame and a real strategy. This is doable, but THIS GUY doesn't have any of that in mind as far as I can tell.

You have any fucking clue who Joshua Ellis IS?

Jesus Fucking Christ, man.

No. I'm going to look it up. But even so JZellis is what I had to work with. I didn't look up the twitter or FB. Wasn't that into the thing, but I am now.

Even a captured nazi soldier had rights.

If you punch them in the early days, there aren't any Nazi soldiers.

I'm REALLY ok with the punching of the Nazis, taking of their resources, shitting upon their whatever they have to be shat on. Nazis aren't the only folks I'm ok about that on. I want to never find myself looking at a registered soldier of a "white nation", or a "christian" one for that matter, that used to be a fellow US citizen. If some of the dirty needs doing to prevent that OK. But I won't back down from all my other concerns here.

going to go google this Joshua Ellis and try to get some sleep.

[The Wizard Joseph]

He sounds like a nice guy.  I'm far from an expert on his past at this point, but I'm going with my first guess unless someone here can correct me specifically: Never committed to an assault in his life, maybe a defensive scenario or just possibly a few barfights. He should be focusing on teaching technology to underprivileged persons, as he claims to want to do in his blog.

I withdraw my question of malice as he almost certainly only understands what he's really advocating in the abstract. It's one thing to speak about violence, another entirely to live with it, another still to actually commit to the act and consequences of "punching a nazi". The dangerous folly part remains. He tells a fine story and has a LOT of other talent. I personally think it's a shame that he wrote this. Not that he should BE ashamed. I just think his talents are more suitable to better things.

See it's not about sucker punching silly twits like Spencer or some Kukboi alt-right memeshit that looks like your little brother. You have to account for the skinheads, bikers, gun nuts, crooked spies and other chucklefucks that WILL BE looking to get payback eventually and have PLENTY of intel folk to guide them.

He doesn't know what he's advocating really. He sure does know how to appeal to emotion and write though. He should be trying to undo their bulkshit Nazi worldview not inciting goodly folk to a punch festival they're not yet ready for that inevitably will escalate into some REAL SHIT with a terrible quickness.

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

You are being condescending as shit right now.

[LMNO]

I don't really want to get into this too much, so let me just point at a few things for TWJ to do:

1. Ponder the difference in morality needs to be addressed, viz the non-nazi and the nazi, when it comes to violence.

2. Extrapolate the difference between "a single non-nazi person punching a nazi vs all nazis" and "setting a universal standard for all non-nazis to punch all nazis".

3. Move your protestations from a Platonic Ideal of a world to the world in which we are currently living.