Oakland, CA - liquor store attacked

[Correa]

Police baffled by attacks on liquor stores, add patrols. Dressy appearance of vandals consistent with Nation of Islam, official in West Oakland says

-Rick DelVecchio and Jim Herron Zamora, Chronicle Staff Writers

Oakland, CA
Saturday, November 26, 2005


http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2005/11/26/ba_liquor_103_el.jpg


A surveillance video showing a dozen men in suits and bow ties filing into a West Oakland liquor store and confronting the manager before destroying rows of liquor bottles provides detailed images that could pinpoint the culprits and lead to hate crime charges, police said Friday.

The men who smashed up San Pablo Liquor at 11:30 p.m. Wednesday staged an almost identical attack about 10 minutes later at another West Oakland corner store, New York Market, police said. Deputy Police Chief Howard Jordan said no suspects have been identified, but the vandals' appearance points to a possible link to the Nation of Islam.

"A bunch of young African American men dressed in black suits, white shirts and bow ties -- consistent with the apparel of members of the Nation of Islam -- vandalized two stores," Jordan said, adding that investigators are taking steps to contact the group's hierarchy. "They told the owners not to sell alcohol in the African American community, and they began to vandalize the property."

No one was hurt in either incident, Jordan said.

Both liquor stores are in the same general neighborhood as a bakery and other businesses run by successors of the late Black Muslim leader Yusuf Bey, a follower of the Nation of Islam. Three members of the group have been victims of violence since Bey died in 2003, including Bey's 23-year-old-son, Antar, who was shot to death last month in what police believe was an attempted carjacking.

Workers at the Bey group's Black Muslim Bakery store on San Pablo Avenue said no one was available Friday to comment on the incidents at the liquor stores.

The Nation of Islam's Mosque No. 26B in East Oakland, which is part of Louis Farrakhan's organization and is not affiliated with Bey's group, issued a statement Friday denying that anyone associated with a Farrakhan mosque had been involved. The statement said Minister Tony Muhammad, Farrakhan's Western regional representative, would appear at a news conference at the mosque today.

A surveillance video shows the intruders marching single-file through the front door of San Pablo Liquor, at San Pablo Avenue and 24th Street. An older man wearing a gray fedora talks to the manager -- the owner's teenage son -- over the counter as the others take positions throughout the store. Fists, feet and metal rods fly as the men sweep liquor bottles to the floor, smash display cases and turn over shelves.

Jordan said the attacks could constitute a hate crime if the merchants were targeted because of their Middle Eastern background.

"It's stupid. It's dumb. Doesn't make any sense," Oakland police Sgt. Dom Arotzarena said at the scene Friday.

Police put extra patrols on the street to prevent what they feared might be an escalating campaign against liquor stores, but no additional incidents were reported.

"You can't have a group of individuals out here doing what they think is right," Arotzarena said. "They can't be vigilantes out here."

San Pablo Liquor owner Abdul Saleh said $10,000 to $15,000 worth of merchandise was wrecked in the spree, which lasted a little over four minutes.

"People thought they were customers," he said. "They said, 'If you're Muslim, why do you sell alcohol to the Arab community?' Then they started smashing the whole store with metal sticks."

Saleh was outraged that the vandals acted the part of religious enforcers.

"It's between you and God," said Saleh, who was born in Yemen and has raised a family in Oakland since the early 1980s. "If you go to heaven, you go to heaven by yourself. If you go to hell, you go to hell by yourself. You're not speaking for anybody."

Kathy Hollins shops at San Pablo Liquor when visiting her cousin in Oakland. She says the owners keep the corner clear of drug dealers and, as she put it, they spot her a dime when she's short of cash.

"This is a good store, and that was uncalled for,'' she said.

Joshua D. Goldenson was on the job at New York Market, at Market and 35th streets, when a dozen men wearing bow ties and dark suits walked in. They had a baseball bat. He said one of the men asked him if he were Muslim.

" 'No,' " he answered, " 'I'm a child of God. I just work here.' "

He said the man threatened to hurt him if he didn't shut up. The group then ransacked the store, destroying some $15,000 worth of newly stocked goods.

"They looked like people coming right from church," said the store's owner, who identified himself only as Tony. "They looked like nice people.

"I think they were just bored," he said. "I'm very sure they were not here to hurt somebody. They were just trying to make a point, but they didn't know how to make it right."

[WUOrevolt]

Isnt the NOI anti alcohol.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Ah man, you're not promoting the reactionary NOI are you?

I expect more from you than that.

[Correa]

I suppose I would say the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Do you have a particular beef against NOI? I take your opinions seriously so please do tell. :unsure:

[Tekun]

I don't support the NOI for many reasons
But Im glad that someone is taking the initiative and making a statement to those that supply poison in our hoods

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Sometimes the enemy of our enemy is our friend -- in special circumstances, but it's surely not universal.

I have problems with ALL religions, as we should; but for some reason people seem to want to give a "pass" to reactionary groups like the NOI, so I'll point some things out.

1. The original Nation of Islam was founded in the U.S. in 1930 by Wallace Fard Muhammad (1877, 1891 or 1893- 1934?), whom NOI adherents believe to be God incarnate.

2. They assert that slavery in the U.S. was a result of "Biblical prophesy" (specifically Acts 7:6 "And God spoke on this wise, That his seed should sojourn in a strange land; and that they should bring them into bondage, and entreat them evil four hundred years. And the nation to whom they shall be in bondage will I judge, said God: and after that shall they come forth, and serve me in this place."), not a specific time historical period of development and material conditions.

3. "White people are potential humans…they haven’t evolved yet." (Louis Farrakhan has stated that - Philadelphia Inquirer, 3/18/00).

4. "The Black man is the original man. From him came all brown, yellow, red and black people. By using a special method of birth control law the Black man was able to produce the white race. This method of birth control was developed by a black scientist known as Yakub, who envisioned making and teaching a nation of people who would be diametrically opposed to the original people. A Race of people who would one day rule the original people and the earth for a period of 6000 years. Yakub promised his followers that he would graft a nation from his own people, and he would teach them how to rule his people, through a system of tricks and lies whereby they use deceit to divide and conquer, and break the unity of the darker people, put one brother against another and then act as mediators and rule both sides." - (Elijah Muhammad, Message to the Blackman in America, Muhammad's Temple No. 2, 1965 & Dorothy Blake Fardan, Yakub & The Origins Of White Supremacy, Lushena Books, 2001)

5. The Nation of Islam teaches that the universe was created seventy-eight trillion years ago. At this time the first God was self-created on this planet, Earth. "He was the only One in the whole entire dark Universe. He had to wait until the atom of life produced brains to think what He needed. How long was that? I don't know, Brothers. But He was a Black man, a Black man!" (Our Saviour Has Arrived)

6. In 1998, the Southern Poverty Law Center declared the Nation of Islam a hate group. The Anti-Defamation League has also made similar claims.

Adherents of the Nation of Islam have taken seriously the belief that all whites are devils, and this led to the infamous Zebra murders in San Francisco, California in 1973 and 1974. In this case NOI black supremacists murdered 71 white people.

7. In the 1990s the Nation of Islam published an anonymous work, which at the time was presented as an academic, scholarly study of the historical relationship between blacks and Jewish people. This book collectively accused the Jewish people of causing anti-Semitism, of having racist hatred towards blacks, and of being largely responsible for the slave trade. This book was widely accepted as factual among many NOI adherents and was sold on college campuses.

This book was roundly criticised by university professors, and many Jewish groups, as anti-Semitic. Many historians stated that the book systematically misquoted individuals, falsified quotes, forged figures, and presented facts out of context.

While the book is considered to be debunked by all mainstream scholars in American and European universities, Farrakhan still preaches the ideas in this book as factual

I could go on... those are just a few things I brought over from a source.

[Correa]

I too have a problem with religion and believe that it keeps the poor from murdering the rich. All those things you mentioned are outrageous. However with that said I do appreciate the solidarity they express towards Cuba, Venezuela, and the Puerto Rican independence movement. Additionally I agree with reparations to the red, black, and brown (unless the revolution takes place before then in which case the reparations would not be needed). I guess I should say that while I do not agree with their religious beliefs (since I don't even believe in a god), I do sympathize with their political message and cry against oppression. We are oppressed by the same system so its one cause.

[bcbm]

Too bad its the NOI doing this. Great action otherwise.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

So some reactionary puritan fuckwits smash up a liquor store... is this supposed to be revolutionary? What the fuck.

[Correa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 04:36 AM
So some reactionary puritan fuckwits smash up a liquor store... is this supposed to be revolutionary? What the fuck.
Well it sends the message "Get the fuck out of our neighborhoods with your fucking liquor"! Men who set up an unusually high number of liquor stores in low income areas do not have good intentions. I consider this self defense in the most basic sense of the word and applaud it.

[comrade_mufasa]

Originally posted by Correa+Nov 26 2005, 12:36 PM--> (Correa @ Nov 26 2005, 12:36 PM)
[email protected] 26 2005, 04:36 AM
So some reactionary puritan fuckwits smash up a liquor store... is this supposed to be revolutionary? What the fuck.
Well it sends the message "Get the fuck out of our neighborhoods with your fucking liquor"! Men who set up an unusually high number of liquor stores in low income areas do not have good intentions. I consider this self defense in the most basic sense of the word and applaud it. [/b]
You hit it on the nose

[Guerrilla22]

The Nation of Islam constitutes as a hate group. I'm not sure how smashing up a small immigrant family owned liquor store is supposed to accomplish. If they want to make a statement maybe they should attack the giant corporations producing the alcohol. They are the ones making all the money.

[Correa]

Yes, according to FOX news and Pat Robertson The Nation of Islam is a terrorist organization with links to Al-Qaueda. I would described the store owners as petty capitalist rather than "a small immigrant family". I'm not against alcohol personally as I indulge in drinking occasionally, however when every other small business in your neighbor hood is a liquor store something must be done. I think Marxism doesn't call for negotiations with capitalist. Why are you defending the "owners"?

[Guerrilla22]

Because they aren't the real culprits, the real culprits are the corporations that make the alcohol that are realing in all the big money. Most of those liquor stores are owned by immigrant families who really aren't making all that much. Why are you defending the Nation of Islam?

[Xvall]

Originally posted by black banner black [email protected] 26 2005, 10:53 AM
Too bad its the NOI doing this. Great action otherwise.
How is it a great action? Not that I hold any kindness towards liquor companies, but if someone fucked with my stash I would fucking kill them.


Well it sends the message "Get the fuck out of our neighborhoods with your fucking liquor"! Men who set up an unusually high number of liquor stores in low income areas do not have good intentions. I consider this self defense in the most basic sense of the word and applaud it.

That makes it ok? Who are they to judge what people can chose to obtain and use? What if I decided that I didn't like meat, because it has a tendancy to cause bad health when overused, so I decided to go and fuck up a bunch of butcher shops and say "Get the fuck out of our nighborhood with your fucking cholesterol!". Is that revolutionary? I kknow they don't have good intentions but this is hardly "self-defense".

[metalero]

I think the same, smashing petty buorguoise stores doesn't get to anything. Isn't it better to educate people about capitalist vices?

[redstar2000]

I hope that alcohol drinkers in that neighborhood will go demolish a mosque!

How long will Americans "roll over" for all the fucking superstitious assholes???

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[bcbm]

How is it a great action? Not that I hold any kindness towards liquor companies, but if someone fucked with my stash I would fucking kill them.


I think a more direct approach should be taking to people pushing shit. Granted, smashing it up alone won't accomplish anything; more concrete, community building actions need to occur as well, but I think people starting to feel a real concern at a problem in their community and doing something about it is a positive action.

[Xvall]

I think a more direct approach should be taking to people pushing shit.

Unless they are going around trying to convince people who don't drink to start taking up alcoholism, they are hardly "pushing" anything. This is like accusing restaurants of "pushing obesity".


Granted, smashing it up alone won't accomplish anything; more concrete, community building actions need to occur as well, but I think people starting to feel a real concern at a problem in their community and doing something about it is a positive action.

True, but that doesn't seem to be the case. This isn't the people of the community rising up and demanding that liquor not be sold in their community, but rather the act of a handfull of religious fundamentalists.

I must say though that this at least makes things fairer. If marijuana suppliers can be arrested and have their product seized, the same should apply to alcohol.

[Intifada]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 11:41 PM
I hope that alcohol drinkers in that neighborhood will go demolish a mosque!
Yes because that will solve the problem of religion...

<_<

Seriously, what would be the point in that?

[Xvall]

Fun?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Intifada+Nov 26 2005, 07:18 PM--> (Intifada @ Nov 26 2005, 07:18 PM)
[email protected] 26 2005, 11:41 PM
I hope that alcohol drinkers in that neighborhood will go demolish a mosque&#33;
Yes because that will solve the problem of religion...

<_<

Seriously, what would be the point in that? [/b]
To stop being wimps whenever those bastards crawl out from under their rocks to bother us with their bullshit&#33;

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Free Palestine]

Yeah, demolishing a mosque is really the correct (and mature) solution to detering religion. :rolleyes:

[Correa]

The problem is the US government uses drugs and alcohol as chemical weapons in a twisted war against the poor of the country. Personally anybody involved is guilty and the stores are the front lines. The store owner merely suffers an inconvenience and has to contact his insurance company not to mention he probably does not live in the neighborhood. Meanwhile the stores breed criminal activity and supply poison to the neighborhoods where POOR people live. Who&#39;s side are you on? If you dislike the Nation of Islam that is fine, but a commendable action is just that regardless who takes it.

[Xvall]

So, say a neo-nazi group manages to shoot some capitalistic congressman on grounds that he was "jew-friendly". I should applaud?

[Free Palestine]

On that note, one wonders if the hammers were in the hands of the local synagogue whether we would be advocating the demolition of their house of worship?

.. No. Such a thought would be "anti-Semitic&#33;" :lol:

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I don&#39;t think alot of people realize what&#39;s behind this..

For anyone that&#39;s ever lived in a poor inner city area (take for instance, the Bronx, where I spent alot of my life), there are 2 liquor stores on every block -- sometimes more.

When your neighborhood consists of 34 liquor stores, 2 fried chicken spots, a barber shop and a beauty parlor you don&#39;t have alot of "choice"... despite what the capitalists say.

[Guerrilla22]

Yes, but who is supplying the liquor? I can see how some people may have a problem with the abundance of liquor stores in the inner city, however the real target should be the corporations making the stuff. If they had fire bombed Coors I would have applauded. Also, no one forces anyone to drink, there are plenty of people in the inner city who don&#39;t use alcohol and plenty of people who don&#39;t live in the inner city who abuse alcohol.

[Correa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 06:15 PM
So, say a group manages to shoot some capitalistic congressman. I should applaud?
I wouldn&#39;t miss him, would you? Remember that grenade "someone" tossed at Bush while he visited one of the Baltic countries? I don&#39;t care "who" tossed it as much as I care wether Bush would have met his demize. Keep in mind I would be against all this if the vendors were selling organic fruits and vegetables. :D

[Correa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 08:38 PM
I don&#39;t think alot of people realize what&#39;s behind this..

For anyone that&#39;s ever lived in a poor inner city area (take for instance, the Bronx, where I spent alot of my life), there are 2 liquor stores on every block -- sometimes more.

When your neighborhood consists of 34 liquor stores, 2 fried chicken spots, a barber shop and a beauty parlor you don&#39;t have alot of "choice"... despite what the capitalists say.
Exactly&#33; The BX is a great example&#33; Don&#39;t forget the pay-day loan business, they give "us" that "choice" too. I don&#39;t see many of those on say 5th Ave & 57th St. Its chemical/economical warfare against the poor. Plain and simple.....

[Intifada]

To stop being wimps whenever those bastards crawl out from under their rocks to bother us with their bullshit&#33;



Yes, and unite the more moderate Muslims against normal people like me and you...

Fighting religion in such a way will never be effective.

It may bring satisfaction, but in the long run, it will only divide the masses.

[bcbm]

Also, no one forces anyone to drink, there are plenty of people in the inner city who don&#39;t use alcohol and plenty of people who don&#39;t live in the inner city who abuse alcohol.

Drugs and alcohol are used quite frequently by the ruling class to keep the lower classes down. This has happened repeatedly throughout history.

Its no coincidence so many revolutionary movements have targetted drug and alcohol use.

[Xvall]

I wouldn&#39;t miss him, would you?

No, but I sure as hell wouldn&#39;t extend my support towards the Nazi party and cheer for them.


Remember that grenade "someone" tossed at Bush while he visited one of the Baltic countries?

I distinctly remember it not killing him, yes.


Keep in mind I would be against all this if the vendors were selling organic fruits and vegetables.

What if they were selling meat?

[Correa]

No, but I sure as hell wouldn&#39;t extend my support towards the Nazi party and cheer for them.

.....and you are saying I would? :huh:


I distinctly remember it not killing him, yes.

Me too. So what does this have to do with anything? You stated a fact, but I don&#39;t get your point.


What if they were selling meat?

Meat is cool......*scratches head* :huh:

[redstar2000]

Clearly there is considerable confusion on the issues raised by the NOI assholes.

To suggest that inner-city people are being "destroyed" by "drugs and alcohol" is a lie.

It is institutionalized racism that makes life a living hell for those people.

And that is something that the NOI -- with its bank accounts, mansions, limousines, etc. -- is not ever going to seriously attack.

Are they going to take their hammers and crowbars to the New York Stock Exchange? Or perhaps to the floor of the U.S. Congress? Or even to the next public meeting of the "Greater Oakland Economic Redevelopment Agency" (or whatever they call it out there)?

When "hell freezes over"&#33; :angry:


Originally posted by Free Palestine+--> (Free Palestine)Yeah, demolishing a mosque is really the correct (and mature) solution to deterring religion.[/b]

In this particular case, I don&#39;t see why not. It&#39;s a message in a language that they understand.

Reactionary neo-puritanical assholes relish the use of violence...so why not give them a taste of their own medicine?

(Note: this also applies to Christian reactionaries. Whenever a women&#39;s clinic is bombed, the best response would be for a large and angry group of militant feminists to torch the biggest and most prestigious cathedral in that city&#33;)

Where is it commanded that we "have" to submit to the random violence of superstitious reactionaries?

Fuck those bastards&#33; :angry:


Correa
The problem is the U.S. government uses drugs and alcohol as chemical weapons in a twisted war against the poor of the country.

Yes and no. Excessive and burdensome taxes on legal drugs provide a stream of revenue that governments are loath to give up. The "war on drugs" is actually a campaign to imprison poor people, especially African-American and Hispanic poor people.

It&#39;s true that the CIA was heavily involved in the "crack explosion" in the 80s...but they only accelerated what would have happened anyway.

People have always desired "chemical escapes" from the stress of class society...and indeed will probably use drugs of one sort or another even in communist societies.

Because it&#39;s pleasurable.

Something that neo-puritan fuckwits cannot stand.

To them, life is "necessarily" a "stern duty" to "obey God&#39;s will"...and turn over all your money to "God&#39;s appointed representatives" on earth.

I think, Correa, that you need to re-examine your whole position on things like this.

Otherwise, when the NOI thugs kick your door in, people on this board will shrug their shoulders and say "well, he did ask for it, didn&#39;t he?".

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Because it&#39;s pleasurable.

Getting high on crack, smack, crank, dope, opium etc...is pleasurable?

I thought you communists were all about "peace, love and understanding". I thought those were the only things you needed in life and not chemical bliss? Get these bums to do some exercise.

In case you haven&#39;t heard the news: Drug use is bad for you&#33; Why do you think counties and states set up drug rehab centers? To stop them from doing something that&#39;s good for them?

Drug Use is Bad (http://www.uww.edu/StdRsces/focus/effects.html)

[Correa]

I agree with you Redstar that the NOI in no way is any kind of Marxist movement. One must also recognize that drugs/alcohol mixed with poverty is destructive and that drugs/alcohol mixed with middle/high class membership is merely bad for your health. In the hood feinds rob, kill, and steal from their own to support their habit. Middle/High class adicts/users hit up the ATM machine and do not generate as much crime. Go figure low income neighborhoods have a high amount of liquor stores while middle/high class don&#39;t.

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by Free [email protected] 26 2005, 08:06 PM
Yeah, demolishing a mosque is really the correct (and mature) solution to detering religion. :rolleyes:
It&#39;s a start. They demolished some alcohol, so in retaliation, I can go fuck up their shit in their mosques.

Reactionary bastards.

[Correa]

They demolished some alcohol, so in retaliation, I can go fuck up their shit in their mosques.

Pat Robertson? Is that you? :o

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Capitalist Lawyer+--> (Capitalist Lawyer)Getting high on crack, smack, crank, dope, opium, etc...is pleasurable?[/b]

Obviously&#33; People have been getting high since before writing was even invented. Archaeologists have discovered pottery with the remains of wine and beer that have been dated to some 7,000 years ago.

If "getting high" was "unpleasant", then people wouldn&#39;t do that, would they?


I thought you communists were all about "peace, love and understanding".

Wrong again&#33; :lol:


In case you haven&#39;t heard the news: Drug use is bad for you&#33;

I hear lots of "news"...a considerable amount of which I don&#39;t believe&#33;

The real effects, positive and negative, of various drugs have never been objectively studied.

The mountains of "anti-drug" pseudo-science that you base your assertion on were entirely financed and directed by people with an open anti-drug agenda.

I expect that after the revolution we will have to "start from scratch" on the whole question. The "data" that exists is tainted.

I do not consider the University of Wisconsin at Whitewater to be a reliable source on these matters, of course.


Correa
One must also recognize that drugs/alcohol mixed with poverty is destructive and that drugs/alcohol mixed with middle/high class membership is merely bad for your health.

No, I reject the idea that I "must recognize" neo-puritanical mythologies.

I have no reason to believe that they are anything more than self-interested bullshit.

It&#39;s all happened before, you know. For example, marijuana became illegal because it was "scientifically proved" that black rapists "used it" before they went off to rape white women. This was the actual rhetoric used back in the early 1930s.

Opium became illegal "because" it appealed to the "heathen Chinese" and threatened to undermine the "moral fiber" of the "white race". So agreed all the "respectable authorities"...in 1914.

During Marx&#39;s lifetime, it was London&#39;s "gin mills" that were targeted by the "crusaders against sin".


In the hood fiends rob, kill, and steal from their own to support their habit.

Poor people everywhere "steal from their own" for many reasons...all of which basically derive from being poor.

In particular, consider the resources in poor neighborhoods sucked up by the godracket. What about all those black preachers with all their "bling"? Who paid for that?

Who convinced poor people that it was a "mark of respect" to plunge themselves into lifelong debt to pay for a relative&#39;s funeral?

Poor people have lots worse enemies than drug addicts or booze stores. And some of them are right down the street&#33;

Look for the biggest and fanciest buildings...and you&#39;ll see who I&#39;m talking about.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 08:56 PM

They demolished some alcohol, so in retaliation, I can go fuck up their shit in their mosques.

Pat Robertson? Is that you? :o
Here, let me rephrase:

These reactionary religious morons went into Liquor stores and fucked them up because they sell liquor.

So, I go into reactionary religious morons "store" and fuck it up because they sell lies.

Happy?

[Correa]

Is reactionary a derogative word? The only lies the Nation of Islam "sells" are their religious message if you don&#39;t believe in a god (which I don&#39;t) and how their funds are used (which is why I don&#39;t give them a dime). They have played a key role along with the Black Panthers and others in minorities gaining the "rights" we enjoy today. I suppose Malcom X is a religious moron as well? I haven&#39;t seen anybody else mobolize 1 million plus heads at Washington, D.C. to challenge the government. Pretend this is Phil 102 and stick to the issue at hand and stop with the smokescreens switching the focus of the conversation. We are oppressed by the same system so its one cause. Don&#39;t bash one of the few organizations that actually DO take it to the streets.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Correa
I haven&#39;t seen anybody else mobilize 1 million plus heads at Washington, D.C. to challenge the government.

You didn&#39;t see the NOI do that either. You saw a whole bunch of people spend money they probably couldn&#39;t afford to listen to a lot of bullshit speeches.

Have things changed for the "better" since then?

You know the answer to that.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 08:57 PM
They have played a key role along with the Black Panthers and others in minorities gaining the "rights" we enjoy today.
On the contrary, the N.O.I. stood aside from the civil rights and Black Power movements. That&#39;s part of why Malcolm X left the Nation of Islam...and was viciously attacked by it, and ultimately it was members of the NOI&#39;s Jersey mosque who were the triggermen in his assassination. So it&#39;s ironic you say "I suppose Malcom X is a religious moron as well?"

Today the NOI is right-wing politically, oriented to Black business. One aspect of this thug attack: it was directed at immigrant businesspeople in a Black community....the NOI scapegoats them, because it speaks for a layer of Black businesspeople who feel they should own all those businesses.

[Correa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 08:08 PM
You didn&#39;t see the NOI do that either. You saw a whole bunch of people spend money they probably couldn&#39;t afford to listen to a lot of bullshit speeches.
*Ahem*

"The Million Man March was an African American march of protest and unity convened by Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan in Washington, DC on October 16, 1995. The actual number of participants is disputed by critics. The event included efforts to register African Americans to vote in US Elections and increase black involvement in volunteerism and community activism. Speakers also offered a strong criticism of the conservative offensive of Republicans after the 1994 congressional elections (most notably the Contract with America), characterized as an attack on programs like welfare, Medicaid, housing programs, student aid programs and education programs.

Many whites were critical or ambivalent about the march due to some of the more controversial figures associated with it (such as Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam, criticized as racist, sexist and anti-Semitic) and many considered the male-only event sexist. Mumia Abu-Jamal praised the large turnout of blacks but criticized the event&#39;s religious overtones and lack of radicalism (along with others on the left).

According to voter registration statistics, one and a half million Black men registered to vote in the months following the March, leading David Bositis of the Joint Center for Economic Studies to remark, "In reviewing the sharp increase in the black male vote, I might find it highly implausible that there was another factor that rivaled the Million Man March in bringing about this change."

Following the 1995 Million Man March, The National Association of Black Social Workers reported a flood of 13,000 applications to adopt Black children."

Now should we really concentrate on attacking The Nation of Islam?

[Correa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 08:18 PM
On the contrary, the N.O.I. stood aside from the civil rights and Black Power movements. That&#39;s part of why Malcolm X left the Nation of Islam...and was viciously attacked by it, and ultimately it was members of the NOI&#39;s Jersey mosque who were the triggermen in his assassination. So it&#39;s ironic you say "I suppose Malcom X is a religious moron as well?"

Today the NOI is right-wing politically, oriented to Black business. One aspect of this thug attack: it was directed at immigrant businesspeople in a Black community....the NOI scapegoats them, because it speaks for a layer of Black businesspeople who feel they should own all those businesses.
Finally&#33; I break thru&#33; If this is true I&#39;m droping them from my signature and renouncing them. A couple more heads confirm this and I concede and withdraw my sympathy for the NOI. Although I still support the "act" itself. It sounds too much like the right wing view of the NOI. Let&#39;s see what happens.

[Xvall]

Getting high on crack, smack, crank, dope, opium etc...is pleasurable?

Uh.. yeah. You&#39;ve never been high, have you? It better be pleasureable if I&#39;m shelling out &#036;20 a hit&#33;


I thought you communists were all about "peace, love and understanding".

No, actually, we&#39;re about the emancipation of the working class, which will hopefully bring about a more peaceful world, but which will also probably bring about a bloody civil war. I don&#39;t think "love" was ever playing much of a role either.


I thought those were the only things you needed in life and not chemical bliss?

Again, I&#39;m not sure where you get this. I doubt Marx ever mentioned that phrase you used; chemical bliss will be available to those who want it.


In case you haven&#39;t heard the news: Drug use is bad for you&#33;

No shit. So is obesity. You don&#39;t see us sending all your fatass relatives to prison.


Why do you think counties and states set up drug rehab centers?

To waste tax money and look TOUGH ON CRIME?


To stop them from doing something that&#39;s good for them?

No, to impose their moralistic views upon the population. Should we set up "obesity rehab centers" and start jailing people for eating red meat? After all, it&#39;s bad for you&#33;


Drug Use is Bad

Yeah, but it&#39;s also fun as fuck.

[Xvall]

.....and you are saying I would?

Why not? If you defend the NOI for doing something that you agree with, why not Nazis?


Me too. So what does this have to do with anything? You stated a fact, but I don&#39;t get your point.

That it was a bad example.


Meat is cool......*scratches head*

But meat, especially in excess, can be bad for you. Likewise, alcohol, in moderation, can be quite alright. If meat has the same health-risking potential as alchol, why not support the destruction of butcher shops by individuals (probably extreme vegans, in this case) who don&#39;t want it in their community?

[Raisa]

Originally posted by Correa+Nov 26 2005, 05:36 PM--> (Correa @ Nov 26 2005, 05:36 PM)
[email protected] 26 2005, 04:36 AM
So some reactionary puritan fuckwits smash up a liquor store... is this supposed to be revolutionary? What the fuck.
Well it sends the message "Get the fuck out of our neighborhoods with your fucking liquor"&#33; Men who set up an unusually high number of liquor stores in low income areas do not have good intentions. I consider this self defense in the most basic sense of the word and applaud it. [/b]
Not for nothing, but I do agree with that. When someone from the hood comes into an upper class neighborhood and does something with a bad intention, or not even, people accuse them of causing problems in their neighborhood.
The Nation is sending the same message. People come into the hood selling shit over priced, profiling, and putting things that just cause more bad then good just the same and then after they got what they want they go back home to their nice ass houses where they can see someone from out of their giant classy windows from the hood doing something and go "oh hes here causing trouble"
The Nation is saying "stop fucking up our neighborhoods". The government makes school and prison...and they teach us how to survive as slaves in capitalism while telling us we can be anything, but they never teach us how to keep shit straight in our own neighborhoods, cause their too buisy lieing to us telling us we are all going to get rich if we "try". So I MYSELF also guess that it is up to people themselves to take care of shit.
And it is crazy to smash up a liquor store cuase we need to smash up the system that makes people drink so much shit. But it is clearly understood why their doing it and I cant hate too too much.

[Correa]

I guess you just HAVE to be from the hood to understand this one. :cool:

[Xvall]

What makes you think some of us aren&#39;t from "the hood"?

[Correa]

The good ol&#39; "gut" feeling.

[Guerrilla22]

Because being from the hood means you&#39;re totally enlightned. ;)

There&#39;s plenty of places to buy alcohol other than liquor stores. There&#39;s a Kroger on every corner in the inner city also, last time I checked they sell alcohol too.

[Correa]

It was not meant as anything offensive. I just don&#39;t think someone with a middle class or upper class upbringing can fully relate to the situation in black/hispanic neighborhoods. Having half of your friends either dead or in jail, having kids out in the streets worried if the next stray is going to catch them, having the police drive by and terrorize you regardless of wether you are engaging in criminal activity or not, having your schools underfunded because of where they located and the taxes paid in that area are lower than others, and many other things. These are things are best understood when you are living them. One can still try to relate, but full comprehension is impossible.

[Guerrilla22]

I understand this, however like I have stted before, there are plenty of middle and upper class individuals who abuse alcohol also, so I don&#39;t think its some government conspiracy to flood the inner city with so called poison. Anyways, I don&#39;t see ho smashing up 3 liquor stores is going to change anyhting. Again, if they had fire bombed a major brewery that would be different.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 01:18 AM
It was not meant as anything offensive. I just don&#39;t think someone with a middle class or upper class upbringing can fully relate to the situation in black/hispanic neighborhoods. Having half of your friends either dead or in jail, having kids out in the streets worried if the next stray [bullet] is going to catch them, having the police drive by and terrorize you regardless of whether you are engaging in criminal activity or not, having your schools underfunded because of where they located and the taxes paid in that area are lower than others, and many other things. These are things are best understood when you are living them. One can still try to relate, but full comprehension is impossible.
Quite true. And personal experience of those conditions is far more instructive than simply reading about them.

But remember, we&#39;re not speaking here of some kind of popular rebellion against those conditions -- what the bourgeois media calls "riots".

We&#39;re speaking about a small disciplined group of people, quite possibly not even residents of that particular part of Oakland, who took it upon themselves to enforce their own religious prohibition of alcohol upon everyone else by destroying a supply of it.

Do they have "a right" to violently impose their puritanical morality on other people?

Or are they reactionary assholes?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[Don't Change Your Name]

Bah, yet another pathetic thread.

I&#39;m in the "this religious wackos deserve to be threated as the wackos they are" side. I don&#39;t see how can somebody seriously support this crap. Breaking shit up in a small liquor store is hardly "revolutionary". And cut that puritan crap about the "problems" "drugs" "cause" in society. The problems that that "community" have are probably because of poverty and discrimination.

[Severian]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Nov 27 2005, 05:16 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Nov 27 2005, 05:16 PM)
Free Palestine
Yeah, demolishing a mosque is really the correct (and mature) solution to deterring religion.

In this particular case, I don&#39;t see why not. It&#39;s a message in a language that they understand.

Reactionary neo-puritanical assholes relish the use of violence...so why not give them a taste of their own medicine? [/b]
Because in a war of retaliatory thug attacks with the NOI, you will lose.

They&#39;re much better at it than you are. So much better, that you will never actually do what you advocate. They&#39;ve been attacking and intimidating dissidents and critics for decades.

Additionally, the cops will not just stand by. They would certainly crack down hard on any leftists carrying out such an attack on the NOI or other right-wingers....and possibly on the NOI as well, but probably not as hard. You would be in a very weak situation to defend yourself from cop persecution, politically.

The most effective way to respond to right-wing thug attacks is 1. physical self-defense and 2. protest campaign aimed at politically isolating and condemning the attackers.

[Free Palestine]

You know, the cretins over at Free Republic had the same exact response to the article as Redstar2000 and company about "demolishing their mosques."

You guys have a lot in common. You should all go bowling sometime. :D


Originally posted by redstar2000
In this particular case, I don&#39;t see why not. It&#39;s a message in a language that they understand.

Reactionary neo-puritanical assholes relish the use of violence...so why not give them a taste of their own medicine?

.. Because we all know that history has demonstrated the success of deterring radical Islam by repressing it. :rolleyes:

Islam is here to stay, and we have to deal with it. We should try to affect it, change it, and help its evolution. The opposite approach, of violently repressing it and thug attacks, simply radicalizes it and gives the more radical elements the biggest recruiting tool they could have ever asked for.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Correa+Nov 27 2005, 09:30 PM--> (Correa @ Nov 27 2005, 09:30 PM)
[email protected] 27 2005, 08:18 PM
On the contrary, the N.O.I. stood aside from the civil rights and Black Power movements. That&#39;s part of why Malcolm X left the Nation of Islam...and was viciously attacked by it, and ultimately it was members of the NOI&#39;s Jersey mosque who were the triggermen in his assassination. So it&#39;s ironic you say "I suppose Malcom X is a religious moron as well?"

Today the NOI is right-wing politically, oriented to Black business. One aspect of this thug attack: it was directed at immigrant businesspeople in a Black community....the NOI scapegoats them, because it speaks for a layer of Black businesspeople who feel they should own all those businesses.
Finally&#33; I break thru&#33; If this is true I&#39;m droping them from my signature and renouncing them. A couple more heads confirm this and I concede and withdraw my sympathy for the NOI. Although I still support the "act" itself. It sounds too much like the right wing view of the NOI. Let&#39;s see what happens. [/b]
Read their newspaper if you want confirmation.

NOI exhorts Black people to "unite", buy from Black businesses and "create 400 Fortune 500 type companies that are making &#036;100 million or more." (http://www.finalcall.com/perspectives/blacks_econ03-26-2002.htm)

Million Man March sparks &#036;7 Million in deposits in Black banks (http://www.finalcall.com/national/anniversary/mmm-la.html)

The NOI stands for "self-help", not handouts, welfare or affirmative action. (http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_1372.shtml)

Typical NOI members&#39; view on welfare. (http://www.finalcall.com/perspectives/polls/poll_welfare6-22-99.htm) " I believe that the welfare system is another plan of the government to keep our people lazy and dependent." That&#39;s also the typical view on affirmative action, from NOI members I&#39;ve spoken with.

See also Malcolm X&#39;s speech at the Audobon Ballroom, on February 15, 1965. You can find it in February 1965: The Final Speeches by Malcom X and maybe some of the other books collecting his speeches.

Malcolm X denounces in detail the Nation of Islam&#39;s alliance with the Ku Klux Klan and American Nazi Party. Describes meeting with KKK figures himself on Elijah Muhammad&#39;s orders, describes Rockwell of the American Nazi Party attending a NOI rally - which was no secret, it was reported in the papers - on Elijah Muhammad&#39;s invitation, etc. Malcolm X also describes how this fit together with abstention from the civil rights movement that was going on at the time. In the last year of his life, Malcolm X was attempting to reverse that, and get involved together with his new organization in the civil rights movement - with a more militant perspective.

[RebelOutcast]

Heh, the Nation of islam is like a muslim version of the KKK.

[Free Palestine]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 07:47 PM
Heh, the Nation of islam is like a muslim version of the KKK.
:huh:

That&#39;s like saying the civil rights movement of the 1960&#39;s is analogous to a given white supremacist movement. Black nationalist movements don&#39;t want special rights. They want the same rights as everyone else.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Severian+--> (Severian)Because in a war of retaliatory thug attacks with the NOI, you will lose.

They&#39;re much better at it than you are. So much better, that you will never actually do what you advocate. They&#39;ve been attacking and intimidating dissidents and critics for decades.[/b]

Would it be unfair to characterize this as "typical Trotskyist passivity" in the face of reaction?

That is, don&#39;t actually fight back or take the battle to the enemy, but instead...


The most effective way to respond to right-wing thug attacks is 1. physical self-defense and 2. protest campaigns aimed at politically isolating and condemning the attackers.

Yes, let&#39;s have a march against the NOI. That will teach them&#33; :lol:


Free Palestine
You know, the cretins over at Free Republic had the same exact response to the article as Redstar2000 and company about "demolishing their mosques."

I am not familiar with that site...but it does not surprise me that people of many different political persuasions react with sharp hostility to the violent thuggery characteristic of the seriously religious.

You may, if you wish, consider us all "cretins" for not "tolerating" Islamic reaction (or, at least in my case, not "tolerating" reaction from any source).

But that&#39;s not going to change here.


...Because we all know that history has demonstrated the success of deterring radical Islam by repressing it.

Islam is here to stay, and we have to deal with it. We should try to affect it, change it, and help its evolution. The opposite approach, of violently repressing it and thug attacks, simply radicalizes it and gives the more radical elements the biggest recruiting tool they could have ever asked for.

No, I do not think that "Islam is here to stay" or, for that matter, any other superstition.

That&#39;s just like saying "capitalism is here to stay" or "racism is here to stay" or anything else we happen to despise is "here to stay" and we just "have" to "deal with it".

The old German Communist Party, despite its many shortcomings, had a terrific slogan back in the early 1930s...

Smash the Nazi wherever you find him&#33;

That kind of "fight" has mostly "gone out of" the left over the past few decades. Only the anarchists -- and not even most of them -- still show some willingness to courageously fight reaction&#33;

While too many other lefties want to "hold another march" or "help reaction evolve" or "support reconciliation", blah, blah, blah.

The present situation would be really depressing were it not the case that things will change&#33;

Tyranny arouses militant resistance the way horseshit attracts flies. There will come a day when the NOI is smashed by a furious proletariat.

It will be the day after the Christian fascists meet the same fate.

I only wish I had any reasonable hope of living long enough to see it. :(

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[Ownthink]

^ Free Republic is a right-wing site.

It&#39;s members are known as "freepers".

[Severian]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Nov 28 2005, 02:28 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Nov 28 2005, 02:28 PM)
Severian
Because in a war of retaliatory thug attacks with the NOI, you will lose.

They&#39;re much better at it than you are. So much better, that you will never actually do what you advocate. They&#39;ve been attacking and intimidating dissidents and critics for decades.

Would it be unfair to characterize this as "typical Trotskyist passivity" in the face of reaction?

That is, don&#39;t actually fight back or take the battle to the enemy, but instead... [/b]
As I just pointed out, you&#39;re not actually doing anything yourself. Nor are the net-based followers of guru Redstar likely to do anything.

I can point to actual, successful examples of thug attackers being beaten back by the approach I advocate. The defeat of the LaRouchites "Operation Mop-up" is a classic example.

1. Physical self-defense which was far from passive, and forced the LaRouchites to stop trying to break up CP or SWP meetings.

2. Building maximum public condemnation of the LaRouchite thug attacks.

As an ex-Maoist, you may have been on the opposite end of this kind of defense yourself. Both PL, with its attacks on antiwar rallies and conferences, and the RCP, with occasional thug attacks on the SWP itself, were pushed back.

I&#39;d guess you&#39;re probably an ex-PLer. Would you say the defense of antiwar conferences by the SWP and others was "passive" or ineffective?

[Free Palestine]

No, I do not think that "Islam is here to stay" or, for that matter, any other superstition.

Maybe, but it will be with us for a very long time - whether or not you like it. Given this fact, we have to deal with it.

Your "approach" of violently repressing Islam has proven time and time again to simply radicalize it.


Originally posted by redstar2000
That&#39;s just like saying "capitalism is here to stay" or "racism is here to stay" or anything else we happen to despise is "here to stay" and we just "have" to "deal with it".

Slippery slope fallacy.


That kind of "fight" has mostly "gone out of" the left over the past few decades.

Perhaps they have taken a lesson from history and have learned that "doing our best" to throttle the movement in the cradle anytime religion appears doesn&#39;t work. In fact, it is counter-productive.


Only the anarchists -- and not even most of them -- still show some willingness to courageously fight reaction&#33;

Remind us which reaction exactly have they deterred.. :lol:


Tyranny arouses militant resistance the way horseshit attracts flies. There will come a day when the NOI is smashed by a furious proletariat.

You may can stifle change in the short run, but not in the long term. Affecting it, and helping it evolve positively is the only long-term solution.

You will pay a high price for a violent, knee-jerk reaction to Islam.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Obviously&#33; People have been getting high since before writing was even invented. Archaeologists have discovered pottery with the remains of wine and beer that have been dated to some 7,000 years ago.

If "getting high" was "unpleasant", then people wouldn&#39;t do that, would they?

Most people don&#39;t engage in getting high. And I can&#39;t believe you&#39;re comparing beer and wine to crack and opium. It&#39;s one thing to just sit down and gulp a few glasses of beer and wine but lethal stimulants, hallucinogens, etc are in a whole other league.

So how come every ex-drug addict I know regrets ever trying drugs? Care to explain that one?



Wrong again&#33;

So hate and envy are your characteristics? Boy, aren&#39;t you all a fun bunch?

I bet you&#39;re all fun to get high with too?



I hear lots of "news"...a considerable amount of which I don&#39;t believe&#33;

Are you in denial that methanphetamines, stimulants and hallucinogens are not bad for your physical and mental health?


As Pink Floyd were hailed by critics and achieved public acclaim, the pressures placed on the already sensitive Barrett proved too much. There are many stories about Barrett&#39;s bizarre and intermittently psychotic behaviour, some of these tales are undoubtedly apocryphal, although some are known to be true.

On one famous occasion, he displayed signs of catatonia during the taping of an appearance on the Pat Boone TV show, standing stock still, his arms limp by his sides, eyes staring fixedly into the camera.

In another well-known incident, shortly before going on stage, Syd crushed up the entire contents of his bottle of Mandrax tranquilizer tablets, mixing them with a large quantity of pudding; he then placed the mixture on top of his head and as he played under the hot stage lights, the viscous mixture softened and began to ooze down his forehead, giving the appearance that his face was melting.

Another oft-repeated tale is that of Barrett appearing at the recording studio one day with a new song which he called "Have You Got It Yet". As he taught the group the song, it soon became obvious that he was changing the chords each time he played it through, making it virtually impossible for them to learn it (hence the title).

Sometimes, he would even stand on stage and de-tune his guitar until the strings fell off.

It has been claimed that his experience with drugs may not have been entirely of his own making, and that he was given LSD without his knowledge (Nick Kent discusses this in his article "The Cracked Ballad of Syd Barrett", reprinted in his book The Dark Stuff).

Syd Barrett (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syd_Barret#.281968.E2.80.931973.29_Solo_years)



The real effects, positive and negative, of various drugs have never been objectively studied.

The negative effects have never been studied? I seriously doubt that.

And by using your own personal experiences (since no studies have been conducted) with drug use (if any), what POSITIVE effects do you think might exist?


The mountains of "anti-drug" pseudo-science that you base your assertion on were entirely financed and directed by people with an open anti-drug agenda.

And why do they have an anti-drug agenda? No conspiracy theories please.



I do not consider the University of Wisconsin at Whitewater to be a reliable source on these matters, of course.

Too "bouregeoise" for you?

*laughs*


That&#39;s just like saying "capitalism is here to stay" or "racism is here to stay" or anything else we happen to despise is "here to stay" and we just "have" to "deal with it".

So when communism is finally achieved (yeah right), will that be here to stay?

[Severian]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 28 2005, 07:53 PM

Obviously&#33; People have been getting high since before writing was even invented. Archaeologists have discovered pottery with the remains of wine and beer that have been dated to some 7,000 years ago.

If "getting high" was "unpleasant", then people wouldn&#39;t do that, would they?

Most people don&#39;t engage in getting high. And I can&#39;t believe you&#39;re comparing beer and wine to crack and opium. It&#39;s one thing to just sit down and gulp a few glasses of beer and wine but lethal stimulants, hallucinogens, etc are in a whole other league.
True. The difference is...a lot more people mess up their lives with alcohol addiction.

[KC]

Too "bouregeoise" for you?

*laughs*


No. Would you trust information coming from a college more renowned for partying than anything else? I certainly don&#39;t&#33;

As for the drug thing; who cares if they&#39;re good or bad for you? Where is the root of this argument anyways? Why are you arguing if drugs are good or bad for you? Why does it matter? Is it even relevant to this thread?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Capitalist Lawyer
And why do they have an anti-drug agenda? No conspiracy theories please.

"Conspiracies" are rarely required to explain things that have a much more mundane -- or in this case "spiritual" -- origin.

Puritanism has plagued the United States virtually from its origins...but really "kicking in" as, in part, a reactionary response to the late 19th century "waves" of immigration.

The college-educated elite professionals (nearly all Anglo-Saxons) of the late 19th and early 20th century almost unanimously agreed that drinking, smoking (tobacco and opium), fornication and prostitution, etc. were wide-spread "vices" brought into a "pure" America by "dirty immigrants".

In such a "cultural framework", it was easy to produce "scientific" "evidence" that those things were not only "morally reprehensible" but "physically bad for you".

The world we live in now is the outcome of those views. Our "war on drugs", our massive prison complex, the campaigns to get teenagers to "just say No to drugs, sex, alcohol, tobacco, etc.", and as seen in this thread, the neo-puritanical thuggery of the Nation of Islam...all of this stupid shit goes back to the late 19th and early 20th century.

Thus no "conspiracies" are involved. All that&#39;s required is the construction of an "acceptable" framework for funded "scientific" "research" -- no one who applies for a grant to study the positive effects of any "disapproved" drug is going to have their request approved.

Indeed, should someone "by accident" discover a positive effect, those results will be "played down" and then quickly "forgotten".

This actually happened to some researchers looking for more "bad effects" of tobacco use. They discovered that tobacco users have a significantly reduced risk of Alzheimer&#39;s Disease or Parkinson&#39;s disease.

Scandalous&#33; :o

There was a little fluff about it in the media...whereupon the professional anti-tobacco lobbyists "explained" the results by asserting that "smokers don&#39;t live long enough to acquire those diseases".

And that was the end of that.

Then it was discovered that moderate alcohol use seemed to significantly reduce the risk of heart disease.

Horrors&#33; :o

Some doctors now will advise their older patients to have a drink or two on a daily basis...but I don&#39;t think this "positive effect" of alcohol has become "general knowledge" among the population.

Some "positive effects" of marijuana have been discovered...but they are not in general use because it&#39;s official government policy: marijuana is bad for you so we&#39;re not going to let you have any&#33;

Thus, the practical consequences of neo-puritanism.


So how come every ex-drug addict I know regrets ever trying drugs? Care to explain that one?

Everyone knows the "culturally approved" position on drugs...they&#39;re "bad". Ex-drug users are culturally expected to express remorse.

It&#39;s no different from those polls that ask "do you believe in God?". Everyone knows the "right answer" and most will usually give it even if it&#39;s not an accurate representation of their real views.

After all, who needs more unnecessary hassle?


And by using your own personal experiences (since no studies have been conducted) with drug use (if any), what POSITIVE effects do you think might exist?

In my youth, my personal drugs of choice were tobacco, caffeine, and "Dexamils" -- the trade name of a dextro-amphetamine central nervous system stimulant marketed as a "weight-loss" drug.

Dexamils were simply terrific and I miss them to this day. To take one was like turning on the lights in my brain...I felt as if there was nothing so complicated that I could not understand it.

They also greatly increased my sense of empathy with others...possibly because my accelerated mental processes simply made it easier to understand where other people were "coming from".

I was not, of course, a "heavy user". I recognized that this was a "serious drug" and should only be used for "special occasions" -- writing a paper or taking an exam in college, making a public speech to a large audience, etc.

So why did I stop? My body made me stop...I began to develop severe leg cramps as a dose "wore off" and that was sufficiently unpleasant that I had no reasonable choice except to quit.

But do I "regret" it?

Hell no&#33;

In fact, I wish I&#39;d started earlier&#33; Considering how well I did on my College Board exams as it was (99th percentile), I can&#39;t imagine what my scores would have been with some strategic chemical assistance from Dexamil. :)


So hate and envy are your characteristics?

Of course&#33;

We&#39;re just as human as you are.

"Sainthood" is just another superstition.

And you know where it comes from. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[Zingu]

Under the same logic of supporting NOI, you should also support the Neo-Nazis.

Its a basic fact, many reactionary causes and ideologies percieve and accuse capitalism , but advocate the wrong solutions and judgements due to the reactionary values that blind them.

And we should have nothing to do with them, not matter how "anti-whatever" they are&#33;

[Severian]

Originally posted by redsta[email protected] 29 2005, 07:40 AM
There was a little fluff about it in the media...whereupon the professional anti-tobacco lobbyists "explained" the results by asserting that "smokers don&#39;t live long enough to acquire those diseases".
That&#39;s actually a perfectly reasonable explanation. It applies to a lot of other things besides tobacco use: comparisons of heart disease and cancer rates in different countries, for example. Countries with low life expectancy have low rates of those diseases.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Free Palestine
You know, the cretins over at Free Republic had the same exact response to the article as Redstar2000 and company about "demolishing their mosques."

You know the cretins over at stormfront make the same claims as you do about "World Jewish Hierarchies."

You&#39;re in no position to criticise.
__________________________________________________ __________________

By the way, change your signature. You know full well that what&#39;s in it is bullshit. :angry:

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Some doctors now will advise their older patients to have a drink or two on a daily basis...but I don&#39;t think this "positive effect" of alcohol has become "general knowledge" among the population.

"Having a drink or two" isn&#39;t getting drunk&#33; Now, I&#39;ll ask you again, what is so pleasurable and positive about getting high or drunk?


Everyone knows the "culturally approved" position on drugs...they&#39;re "bad".

Of course they are, then people wouldn&#39;t express that point of view now would they?


In my youth, my personal drugs of choice were tobacco, caffeine, and "Dexamils" -- the trade name of a dextro-amphetamine central nervous system stimulant marketed as a "weight-loss" drug.

Not necessarily what I had in mind when I talk about drugs. What about the positive effects of cocaine, heroin, crack, LSD, etc...?



We&#39;re just as human as you are.

Ahhh, so greed and hate are characteristics of human nature after all? So what makes you so different than the capitalists?



"Sainthood" is just another superstition.

Huh?

You just have to turn every arguement into a religious one don&#39;t you redstar?

So being kind and empathetic are characterisitcs to be avoided among communists?

Aren&#39;t you all a fun and happy bunch?

[Correa]

Have you ever used drugs vermin?

[Xvall]

You ignored all my points, Lawyer, but I&#39;m not going to stop refuting yours.


Most people don&#39;t engage in getting high.

So what? This is a completely useless piece of unverifyable information that serves no purpose in this debate, unless you&#39;re arguing with some sort of inverted bandwagon approach - "Most people don&#39;t do it, therefore it&#39;s bad&#33;", which can easilly apply to celibacy, vehicular transportation, or homosexuality. (It&#39;s wrong, by the way; although not everyone "gets high" nearly everyone in the world ingests some sort of mind-altering drugs - be it lysergic acid, alcohol, or caffeine.)


And I can&#39;t believe you&#39;re comparing beer and wine to crack and opium. It&#39;s one thing to just sit down and gulp a few glasses of beer and wine but lethal stimulants, hallucinogens, etc are in a whole other league.

Why are they in a whole other league? Alcohol poisioning is just as lethal as stimulant poisoning, and I&#39;ve never even heard of any "lethal hallucinogens"; feel free to point out which ones, if you can actually provide evidence, but the lethal dosage for psychedellic mushrooms, LSD, dimethyltryptamine, and a host of other hallucinogenic substances are so high that you would have to intentionally try to overdose in order to die from them. Alcohol kill more people on an annual basis than every illegal drug combined. Those substances are in a whole other league, yes, but unfortunately for your argument, it is in the "safer" one.


So how come every ex-drug addict I know regrets ever trying drugs? Care to explain that one?

This is a personal experience of yours that is not only unverifyable, but a completely absurd argument. Ex-drug addicts are going to regred every trying drugs, of course, because obviously since they are ex-drug addicts, they decided to make some change in their life that excluded drugs. It&#39;s pretty straightforward, and hardly an argument against "drugs".

Every ex-capitalist I know hates capitalism; I&#39;m pretty sure every ex-capitalist hate capitalism, because they decided to no longer be a part of it - this isn&#39;t rocket science. So I guess, by your arguments, since every ex-capitalist dislikes capitalism and regrets associating with it, capitalism must be bad&#33;


Are you in denial that methanphetamines, stimulants and hallucinogens are not bad for your physical and mental health?

No. We never said that these things don&#39;t pose a threat to your health, though I do wish you would be more specific. Stimulants can range from caffeine to crystal meth, and hallucinogens can range from psilocybin muchrooms (which have been proven to pose pretty much no threat whatsoever) to phencyclidine.

What does it matter if they pose a threat to your health anyways?


The negative effects have never been studied? I seriously doubt that.

Pay attention to what he said. "Objectively" studied. Nearly every study on the "danger of drugs" is initiated with the sole intent of specifically making drug-use seem negative, and usually financed by partisan anti-drug organizations. Those few studied that have not followed in these footsteps reveal the "threats" of drug-use to be far less "dangerous" than DARE told me.


And by using your own personal experiences (since no studies have been conducted) with drug use (if any), what POSITIVE effects do you think might exist?

Psychological and Emotional introspection, leaving the experience with a better outlook on life, increase in associative and creative thinking, and sheer fun.

Marijuana has numerous medical applications. Esctacy has been reported to stop cancer growth (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4532569.stm) and reverse the symptoms of parkinson&#39;s disease (http://health.dailynewscentral.com/content/view/1412/31/). And the FDA has already approved (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3528730.stm) a study because hallucinogenic mushrooms and LSD might be able to alleviate physical and emotional pain in cancer patients.

You lose.


And why do they have an anti-drug agenda? No conspiracy theories please.

Anything we say is going to be a "conspiracy theory". They have an anti-drug agenda because they feel that it&#39;s necessary to force their moralistic beliefs on other people, and in some cases the criminalization of said substance was done for economic purposes. Marijuana, for example, was legal for years, and there were never any problems with it. Eventually logging companies lobbied to have it banned in 1937 to prevent it from becoming a cash crop and making logging companies obsolete. (An acre of hemp produces four times as much paper as an acre of redwood trees, and it takes months, not decades, for the plant to grow.)

Whatever the reason, it most certaintly isn&#39;t to "protect" anyone. Not only do these anti-drug laws fail to stop me, and many other people, from getting high on a regular basis, but if the government really cared about the well being of the American people, they would criminalize unhealthy diets, alcohol, and tobacco, which last time I checked, were the three main causes of unnatural death in the United States.

[Xvall]

Have you ever used drugs vermin?

I doubt he has. It&#39;s possible. Maybe he had a bad trip because he couldn&#39;t handle the drug and now holds a vendetta againts the "evil" substances?

[Severian]

Follow-up article on this incident. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/12/04/MNGH0G2P961.DTL)

Since the vandalism attacks, a storeowner was kidnapped and eventually found in a car trunk, and one store was set on fire. Two individuals associated with the Black Muslim bakery have been charged with attacking the stores.