How many NOT on this forum, yet in this country, glorify “indiscriminate murderers” ?
Watching the news must appall you too. Especially since you’re an Anarchist.
Samm
Which bombings does he admit were unjust?
I’m pretty sure he tries to justify all of the bombings in everything I have ever read from him. I don’t necessarily agree with him, but he makes the argument that his actions were justified.
He also says the six principles shouldn’t be seen as a moral code.
I argue that the Six principles should not be regarded as a moral code, for several reasons.
First. The principles are vague and can be interpreted in such widely varying ways that there will be no consistent agreement as to their application in concrete cases. For instance, if Smith insists on playing his radio so loud that it prevents Jones from sleeping, and ifJones smashes Smith’s radio for him, is Jones’s action unprovoked harm inflicted on Smith, or is it legitimate self-defense against harm that Smith is inflicting on Jones? On this question Smith and Jones are not likely to agree! (All the same, there are limits to the interpretation of the Six Principles. I imagine it would be difficult to find anyone in any culture who would interpret the principles in such a way as to justify brutal physical abuse ofunoffending old ladies or the rape of4-year-old girls.)
Second. Most people will agree that it is sometimes "morally"justifiable
to make exceptions to the Six Principles. Ifyour friend has destroyed
logging equipment belonging to a large timber corporation, and if the police come around to ask you who did it, any green anarchist will agree that it is
justifiable to lie and say, “I don’t know.”Third. rnle Six Principles have not generally been treated as if they
possessed the force and rigidity of true moral laws. People often violate
the Six Principles even when there is no "moral"justification for doing
so. Moreover, as already noted, the moral codes of particular societies frequently conflict with and override the Six Principles. Rather than laws, the principles are only a kind of guide, an expression of our more generous impulses that reminds us not to do certain things that we may later look back on with disgust.Fourth. I suggest that the term “morality” should be used only to designate socially imposed codes of behaviour that are specific to certain societies, cultures, or subcultures. Since the Six Principles, in some form or other, tend to be universal and may well be biologically predisposed, they should not be described as morality.
Assuming that most anarchists will accept the Six Principles , what the anarchist (or, at least, the anarchist of individualistic type) does is claim
the right to interpret the principles for himself in any concrete situation in which he is involved and decide for himselfwhen to make exceptions to the principles, rather than letting any authority make such decisions for him.
However, when people interpret the Six Principles for themselves, conflicts arise because different individuals interpret the principles differently. For this reason among others, practically all societies have evolved rules that restrict behavior in more precise ways than the Six Principles do. In other words, whenever a number of people are together for an extended period of time, it is almost inevitable that some degree of morality will develop. Only the hermit is completely free. This is not an attempt to debunk the idea of anarchy. Even if there is no such thing as a society perfectly free of morality, still there is a big difference between a society in which the burden of morality is light and one in which it is heavy.
From your own link above, written in 1999-
“There’s no denying, however, that revolution against the technonindustrial system will violate human decency and the principles of fairness. With the collapse of the system, whether it is spontaneous or a result of revolution, countless innocent people will suffer and die. Our current situation is one of those in which we have to decide whether to commit injustice and cruelty in order to prevent a greater evil.”
In June 1995 he wrote to the New York Times-
“In one case we attempted unsuccessfully to blow up an airliner. The idea was to kill a lot of business people who we assumed would constitute the majority of the passengers. But of course some of the passengers likely would have been innocent people – maybe kids, or some working stiff going to see his sick grandmother. We’re glad now that that attempt failed.”
How many people (even “Free Staters”) out there did we find were willing to execute (the only thing really stopping them was “The Law”) an “adult” having consensual sex with a 16 year old, believing the “victim” to be incompetent and needing to personally intervene as some kind of guardian because of what they define as an initiation of force? lol…
That is a general statement, not specific to any of his bombings.
He tries to justify it by saying he was targeting business people. He was apparently angry at airplanes flying over Montana. But that bomb didn’t work.
I’ve seen him refer to his “victims”, with quotes. It seems like from his perspective, he felt justified in doing his bombings, and doesn’t really regret it. I don’t agree with his methods, but if he was trying to get attention for his writings, it worked.
He did use the word “victims” with quotes. It’s clear that he’s mocking the term. He sees that humanity and nature are victims. (without “quotes”)
Samm
If the phrase “We’re glad now that that attempt failed,” isn’t a clear enough statement of regret for you how about “A bomb package that we mailed to computer scientist Patrick Fischer injured his secretary when she opened it. We certainly regret that.” [Emphasis added]
Then of course there’s the 1977 journal entry in which he writes-
“I emphasize that my motivation is personal revenge. I don’t pretend any kind of philosophical or moralistic justification. My ambition is to kill a scientist, big businessman, government official, or the like. I would also like to kill a communist.”
He specifically disavowed justification for his actions when his bombing campaign began.
And once again, we’re a bunch of internet lawyers arguing over the definition of words & concepts. It never ends.
3 Likes
I just told you about my opinion that TK was one of the most un-selfish men I’d ever read about.
He wasn’t concerned about threats towards himself. His concern was threats to nature and humanity. Which are getting real bad by the way. I’m sure it’s hard to notice this in manch-vegas. 
Samm
Yes, you’ve asserted your personal opinion regarding his selflessness in response to a request for evidence that he “used self defense” (your words, not mine). I fail to see how that’s a relevant response.
I just thought about seeing manch. on a sat night with the lights out. I’d have to take Aahz in. A challenge in Scrabble I’m sure.
Samm
Isn’t that this forum’s raison d’être?
No, y’all can play logical assburgers sydrome somewhere else.
OMG, Mr. Assburger worked with the Nazis and selected kids for death.
Nazi involvement
Edith Sheffer, who specializes in modern European history, wrote in 2018 that Asperger cooperated with Nazis, including sending children to the Spiegelgrund clinic which participated in the Nazi’s euthanasia program, although he never had direct involvement with the Nazi party.[22] She wrote a book further elaborating on her research called Asperger’s Children: The origins of Autism in Nazi Vienna (2018).[23]
Another scholar and historian from the Medical University of Vienna, Herwig Czech concluded in a 2017 article in the journal Molecular Autism, which was published in April 2018:
Asperger managed to accommodate himself to the Nazi regime and was rewarded for his affirmations of loyalty with career opportunities. He joined several organizations affiliated with the NSDAP (although not the Nazi party itself), publicly legitimized race hygiene policies including forced sterilizations and, on several occasions, actively cooperated with the child ‘euthanasia’ program.[24]
You can regret collateral damage, but still think the attack is justified.
He specifies revenge as his justification. He was mad a planes and ATVs.
I’m just saying almost everyone tries to justify what they do.
Asperger called it “autistic psychopathy” too, wording which might give the anarchist community (composed mostly of stubborn high-intelligence extreme individualists) a little insight into themselves on why 98% of the population can’t comprehend their world view.
It doesn’t matter that people can argue over what self-defense is. People can argue over whatever they want. If you are using words in their common usage, or in a declared other usage, then you aren’t lying.
1 Like
Lawyers wouldn’t have much business if most people didn’t have trouble mixing their emotions with clearly defined reality.
So? If you know you’re being honest, fuck lawyers.