Could you imagine if our labor forces took over all our factories, or if the auto workers took over the factories?
[mumrah] () - 03 02 09 - 13:48

I’ve never seen factory workers here in the US that happy and determined. :)

“There are many companies that should be in the hands of the workers. But it seems that this is not politically convenient.”
Exactly! It’s not politically or financially convenient for the people up top.

Anyway. I wouldn’t mind slingshot-ing that Zanon character. Haha.
Eric () - 03 02 09 - 16:11

It seems A.O.C you forgot Anarchism in Spain people ask that question often and even advanced anarchists don’t really have proof but there is a plausible proof Anarchism In Spain and the Anarchist rule in Spanish Catalonia between 1936-1939 the CNT ( National Confederation of Labour ) whit the FAI ( Iberian Anarchist Federation ) proved to the world that ANARCHISM WORKS the statistics show that the gap between social classes and the living conditions in Spanish anarchist communes were higher then any other part of Spain i personally advice you A.O.C to make an article on this so people can see historical facts so these facts can help young and up coming anarchists
Meance - 03 02 09 - 17:20

and for further talks Anarchism In Spain didn’t die because problems from the inside they were crushed by the Spanish Fascists backed by the Italy and Germany and of course whit mass backlash against the CNT-FAI from the Stalinist’s so anarchism is a long term idea
Menace - 03 02 09 - 17:49

Timely little video that; it shows workers want to work and not be slaves.
Mumrah i don’t think it’s that hard to imagine, i can even imagine the over aggressive police/ military response (especially here in australia)

Would like to add a few more things to what you’ve already said A.O.C. if i can. !!=_^
1Aa) Forget morals, think more along the line of purpose/ meaning. If we have a society created by us then murder, rape , stealing etc may still occur but ask yrself ‘what kind of world do u want to live in?’; what goes around comes around. If u want to kill under anarchy u can, sure, but remember u can be killed too maybe by revenge or some other person that has taken up the whim to murder.
I can’t see any system ever irradicating murder or what i like to call ‘crimes of passion’, as A.O.C. wrote. Still, i strongly believe that if we base a society on open, honest, fair and ever changing principles, where an understanding that our survival is more important than our progress, we can maybe balance our imagination/ creativity with this beautiful mortal coil we find ourselves in and part of; we are of this earth, we are human.
If u want a society where your power is taken away, feel lost, and qtn your self worth… hang on that’s how we live now O.O anyways, if that’s what u want then it’s your choice. As it is u have no choice.

3Aa) There is a good book out there that chronicles the history of anarchy (in europe). i think it’s called ‘anarchy’ but not sure; couldn’t find it (not that i looked very hard >.>).
Anarchy has always existed, and still does, in defiance and under seige to the incumbant power-hoarders because we qtn their fundamentals, their foundations, we scare them with our qtns and even more with our solutions. No matter be they tyrannical, monarchic, or oligarchic these societies are all about concentration of power whereas anarchy is about the fair distribution of power/ choice/ existence. Authority is given, temporal, and occasional; power is taken, concentrated, and held with covert or overt coercion.

4Aa) Escapism never solved anything.
gentlefurie - 03 02 09 - 20:57

2A. communities already revolve around this model. perceived oppression is causing the discord. the reality is that we are all ultimately self organizing and therefore, free. the only reason this is not accepted is fear. (only) self organization = anarchy. inspiration and passion are the hallmarks of a free person. for that free person, good stewardship of their microcosm and macrocosm will naturally follow. in managing that microcosm, does the free person reach out and effect their surrounding community, AND INSPIRE THEM. inspiration and passion are infectious, as we all know. if we all successfully effect our own personal bullshit stories, then the inevitable will happen, via the path of least energy/resistance. peace and harmony.

3A,4A. Anarchy is not a convention. it is the only social a priori knowledge that cannot be taken to pieces by logic. Anarchy is self organizing, and is therefore individual. there is no community in anarchy. people take responsibility for themselves and that effects the greater good. Anarchy is a priori, please do not subject it to empiricism. Anarchy has no more power than the war machine. it is a grass roots individual effort. it truly is superior by design, so please keep it that way. the answer is never a coup d’etat. this is one of the reasons that anarchy is having a hard time getting truly mainstream. the ghandi concept is a beautiful thing. please remember that everyone that changed society for the better was an anarchist, playing by their own rules and living on the edge.
[ummichas] - 03 02 09 - 21:58

Ummichas i have a few qtns to ask about your apriori empirical anarchy paragraph u wrote. I’m asking cose i think i understand what u are saying but i’m not quit sure.
Apriori knowledge, as u call it, is it the same as instinct?
Are u saying life experience, the experience of history or any sort of empiricism is invalid in an anarchist society or that anarchy cannot be subjected to experiences, as if it is some definite object/ ideal unswayed by any prior knowledge? I’m worried that if either of these are true u might be making anarchy more than it is, as if it is above us and we are merely it’s play things… no gods, no masters, no laws, no followers this includes anarchy as an ideal it is never above/ beyond/ more than us; we define anarchy not anarchy defines us.
I like and agree with what u say in a sense, but if i replace a few words u use i could easily make what u say seem like institutional religion talking about their god.
gentlefurie - 04 02 09 - 21:40

a priori vs. instinct (for other readers benefit): knowledge via theoretical deduction (x logically follows y) vs. natural way of acting or thinking -ie, empiricism (knowledge via experience). that being said, i believe that instinct is anathema to human potential, it prevents change by its very nature, it is natures balance for evolution. i love semantics, thus the definitions. i believe that our willingness to embrace our own personal anarchy is diminished as we abdicate our personal freedom, or, any moment that you are not in complete control in your life, someone/thing else is. to me that seems pretty logical. i hope that people see the way we attach adjectives to titles for what they really are. individuals are trying to carve out something unique – ie, anarcho capitalist/mutualist/pacifist/feminist/syndicalist – because we all think we are special and that we are inherently right. instead of just being inherently right (apriori), we need to prove that we are right (empirical). i believe that people are so desperate to be special/individual, that it is impossible for something to be greater than themselves. if there is nothing to aspire to, what inherent incentive does the system provide?? you can never convince anyone of anything, because there is only ever self realization, because we are self organizing. the problem is that anarchists keep on TRYING to prove (empirical) that they are right, instead of just being right (a priori), and just letting their microcosm clean up the macrocosm. if you perceive that the master/slave, teacher/student relationship exists, then it in fact, does! if you perceive that bond slavery exists, then it does! same for gods, followers, etc, etc. anarchy exists, it always has, and will after your time here is finished, it does not need to be defined, it only needs to be embraced. in fact, your legacy is a product of your personal anarchy -ie, ‘he/she sure was free, or he/she sure was a tool’. just be an anarchist (apriori), don’t waste time proving other people wrong (empirical), or that your (or mine) bullshit story is any more enlightened than someone elses. it just makes those other folk hold onto their own bullshit stories even tighter. life experience, history, empiricism, all invalid. everything that has ever been proven (laws) will be rewritten, it always has been this way, what is true for today won’t be true for tomorrow, just like a rule that is true for you has no bearing for me (justice – null). we know that laws/justice/structure are all bullshit stories. everyone starts out as a enthusiast, and following progression ensues: fanatic, zealot, bigot. whose experience would you like to subject anarchy too? what purpose would that serve?? we only compare things in order to prove that we are right. don’t be right, just be happy. the anarchist is always pleased with her/his efforts. i think that people get so attached to their ideals that they become subjectivists. be very lighthearted with the following; your perception is that some words that i wrote may seem like some institutional religion talking about god. why you perceive this i am not sure. i can only speculate, because i am neither self righteous, nor a bigot. but do you see the problem i may have in responding, because all i can do is speculate, and that in itself is a value judgement, and, i already said i am not a bigot. the answer is that neither speculation, nor definitions are useful, so interestingly all of this is bullshit. which i am very pleased to report. i feel that i can change that easily. it is objectivity that defines the anarchist. i know that i remember when i used to worry about institutions. i am no longer concerned with presence/absence of religion, because it is no longer useful. i believe that your last comment is smartly placed, it is neither inflammatory nor condescending, but it suggests a master/slave system. i think that my previous post removes a lot of the righteous indignation that political anarchists experience as a source of inspiration, or, incentive. my previous post was about being (apriori) an anarchist, and the path to freedom and purity (all i mean by purity is an unencumbered mind) happens because it was meant to happen, not in a religious fate sense, but a scientific fate sense; high energy invariably moves to low energy. i do believe in the ‘free lunch’ hypothesis too, but that is another convo. i think this is funny, in toronto, the atheists – angry christians just worried about trying to disprove god (sigh – empirical, such a waste of time) – are running this ad slogan ‘god probably doesn’t exist, so don’t worry and go live your life’. perceive your world to be just that, your own. anarchy, pure and free.
ummichas - 04 02 09 - 23:19

ummichas,
I understand what you are saying, but there is a huge difference between being a philosophical anarchist and a anarchist who is a realist. "Reality is in the eyes of the beholder" simply does not jive with realists. If a slave-master system is what is being utilized at the current time by those in power, simply refusing to believe that it exists does not change the facts.
African-American slaves could not just disbelieve themselves out of bondage. We cannot change the fact that billions of dollars are spent enslaving the minds of the populace promoting consumerism and nationalism since our births.
Philosophical anarchism vs. realists reminds me of the spoon secen in the matrix. (There is no spoon – Philosophical Anarchism) Vs. (Realist – I grab the spoon out of Keanus hand and smack him in the fuckin head with it, saying "That non-existant spoon hurts dont it").
A.O.C. - 05 02 09 - 12:17

Nice point A.O.C.

But the realist point of view in today’s society is looked down upon.
Which is, to say the least, pretty sad. Most average americans think realists are just
“doom and gloom” when in REALITY most americans are just really sheltered from the outside world and wouldn’t know reality if it bit em in the ass.
Blak-Toothgrin - 05 02 09 - 12:40

woah… you know, this is the kind of shit that should be discussed… i’m loving it.
i’m gonna take some time to digest all this b4 i give an actual opnion but till then…

""The terms "a priori" and "a posteriori" refer primarily to how or on what basis a proposition might be known. A proposition is knowable a priori if it is knowable independently of experience. A proposition is knowable a posteriori if it is knowable on the basis of experience. The a priori/a posteriori distinction is epistemological and should not be confused with the metaphysical distinction between the necessary and the contingent or the semantical or logical distinction between the analytic and the synthetic. Two aspects of the a priori/a posteriori distinction require clarification: the conception of experience on which the distinction turns; and the sense in which a priori knowledge is independent of such experience. The latter gives rise to important questions regarding the positive basis of a priori knowledge."" this is taken from http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/apriori.htm

Yes ok so, just wondering; using what i think u are saying ummichas:
To exist, , in an a priori based anarchist society we need to throw away all we’ve learnt, our history/ empiricism (i’m guessing this is part of your idea). Is nothing that we endured over the millenia even valid as a footnote, or maybe as a campfire story?
gentlefurie - 05 02 09 - 14:38

Ok, this has occured to me when I read the answer to question 4. Why is it that globalisation is such a negative concept for anarchists? I have yet to encounter an article on any site debating this stand point, and would like to understand the basis for reasoning on this subject. Can we have a discusion on this? Thanks ahead of time if you do, and if you don’t, thanks for the video.

-Comrad Canuk
C.C - 05 02 09 - 17:08

AOC,

i believe that you are the one making the distinction. i’ve heard and believed your point before – and held it very close to my heart – and it inevitably results in a pointless, cyclical revolution. again, ‘anarchy with adjectives’ (philo anarch, anarcho – realism) does not exist for me. the fact that this distinction is being made cheapens the appeal of anarchy. if we are going to make distinctions between anarcho capitalist/mutualist/pacifist/feminist/syndicalist/realists/philosophists, then we may as well get in bed with the christian right/left/evangelical/protestant/lutheran/jehovah/mormon/ad nauseum! because we are no different if we are not going to stand united!! making distinctions in anarchy will create a situation akin to the 15000 christian denominations in north america right now, a big bullshit story. and, perception doesn’t jive with realism by it’s very nature! realists live with the tragedy of the ‘real’ world every day. in fact, they also live with the tragedies of the past. since my problems are not the same as your problems, i would have to make them ‘real’ for me in order to suffer from them equally. i will not commiserate with anybodies bullshit story other than my own, because it is not useful. sorry, but i have my own ‘real’ problems! in fact, one persons garbage (problem) is another mans treasure (opportunity). there is much more anecdotal evidence like the previous statement. also, how did slavery really end? did it? is racism a form of slavery? does it still exist? did martin luther king not change the perception? find someone who is descended from slavery and ask them if they have found justice yet. oh yeah, i forgot, there is no justice! would you not agree that if the iraqi’s or the afghani’s really wanted to be free, they would mobilize on there own, and free themselves???? if they don’t free themselves, then they are trading one dictator for another. everyone needs time to realize that they are actually free, or if they are lucky, they’ll figure it out right away. my european background comes from one of marxist communism. my ancestors thought they were slaves too. does that mean i should also be a slave? the ‘reality’ is, and you’ll like this, is that all you CAN do is believe yourself out of bondage. it’s the only way out. it’s scary because it is truly empowering. think again of martin luthers ‘i have a dream…’, or william wallis, ‘freeeedom!!!’. it gives me chills anyways. you certainly can’t fight, just like fidel, the revolutionary becomes the dictator. the thought that we cannot change anything is NOT anarchy. the only thing that anarchists do is change. everything, everytime.

ps. there is no spoon. pain is a subjective, nociceptive, electrochemical response that is dependent on your individual pain threshold, or ‘perception of pain’, not ‘reality of pain’.

everything is applicable at all scales, or it is useless.
ummichas - 05 02 09 - 20:44

globalism is a great concept. it draws together all cultures, nations, and races for a common purpose. the common purpose allows us to innovate. we can only truly innovate when we can have free access to all intellectual/material resources, otherwise we just do the same thing in different places. globalism in this sense draws all these things together into one objective conscious effect. that’s the ideal anyways. but, the ‘reality’ for a lot of people is that there are all these really wealthy ‘bad’ guys hiding out, moving us all around like little pawns on a chess board at a whim, and said chess board is the world. this is where contemporary anarchists become VERY divided.
[ummichas] - 05 02 09 - 21:14

yes, believe it or not, even anarchists think that they are unique and special, and are responsible for the freedom of mankind. the ‘realist’ fear is that these controlling interests are going to take away our freedom via mind control in the media, social control in government and the police state in our efforts to entertain ourselves. the philosophical veiw. again for the record – i can’t stand these descriptors – is that we are all intimately involved in our own freedom. we either claim it (whatever the cost), or simply give it away without any thought
[ummichas] () - 05 02 09 - 21:16

yes i believe in conspiracy. yes i believe we are being conditioned. yes i believe that the ruling is trying make us their playthings. but it just doesn’t matter, because i choose not to be a slave. again, if nobody voted, we would have no leaders.
[ummichas] - 05 02 09 - 21:21

lol, Ummichas.
I agree with you in alot of ways with the exception of the whole spoon thing. Anarchists with adjectives have a tendancy to squabble over alot of things and split hairs. Ultimately this division will be our downfall. Where they legitimately differ is in their views on a social setting once the curtain falls.
Being a realist proposes a view point that is supported by hard facts and evidence. You may choose not to be a slave but the second that you break the rules in their reality you will be imprisoned indefinitly regardless of your mind set.
Experiences are subject to those experiencing them. Feelings, emotions, and points of view are also subject, but reality goes on with or without you. It is quite possible that the only difference is the focus on the microcosmos vs. the macrocosmos that seperates the philosophical view point and the view point of the realist.

Best Regards
A.O.C.
A.O.C. - 06 02 09 - 00:51

Globalism in reality is not that its just mass exploitation or as i call it new age colonialism ohh people should check this

What Is Globalization? – Noam Chomsky
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdYwAXZh0..
Menace - 06 02 09 - 09:29

amazing. this was really great. thankyou!
David (URL) - 06 02 09 - 11:47

OK nothing is nothing what do i give a fuck about anything anyway i’m an anarchist fuck sentence structure fuck making it coherent if u dont’ understand what i say then fuck u u arent even of my concern anyway i dont’ really care that u can’t understand what i’m trying to say properly cose it is not of my concern in fact nothing but the way these words sound in my head is real but even that isn’t real but i’ll let it be cose i’ll accept all that comes my way i am a butterfly in the wind and so i believe anarchy will let me fly in whatever direction i want so i dont’ have to care about the environment or even the ppl near and dear to me cose they are imprisoned by their thoughts their problems are theirs be they starving hurting or just wanting validation i care little whereas i’m free with my thoughts and since they are not of my concern i can sit back and enjoy the misery others are in cose i’m in no misery at all i’m free!!!

Everything u say ummichas is valid but maybe take a little more notice the effect u have on the world around you, and maybe take stock of the ppl that have helped you to be able live the way you do (to say noone ever helped is pure arrogance). What u think is not of your concern may actually be more important to you than you think.

Personally i think the reason anarchy gets tags on it cose anarchy is about power not about economy/ trade/ ideology/ everyday life, it is about the distribution of power. To elaborate on A.O.C; To create an anarchist society all that is needed is that noone takes power or if taken fight to take it back. All the philosophy that follows is fluff/ word play/ human creativity and ingenuity, WHY? cose fuck man most ppl do concern themselves with the problems of others, they care, and in my opinion working towards the peace of others makes me peaceful. I am not a singular unit seperate and unique from all around me, i am part of it all and it’s all a part of me. I just don’t want to be impeded by power-hoarders cose i decide to take drugs, not participate, disagree, undermine, disobey, to live the way i choose. To think that the power-hoarders don’t exist (thru ignorance) then you either have never been subject to or known someone that has had their power ripped from them in a violent fashion. Rapists, capitalists, totalitarians exist and they hurt a fuckload more than a spoon. Ummichas i love ya for the way u think.

Head in the clouds, feet firmly planted on the ground.
thank you
gentlefurie - 06 02 09 - 13:47

i sense a dispute here between a individualist anarchist (ummichas) and a direct action anarchist (gentlefurie) or whatever u are syndicalist or whatever nice debate i mean debates are good they make us stronger but insulting on each other come on lets be reasonable here we don’t go insult random people over the internet no?? thanks mates :D
Menace - 06 02 09 - 17:24

anarchy is bigger than the distribution of power, because it inherently provides ways to distribute the power struggle. i just saw a flick the other day about female oppression in iran – wearing of headscarves. my wife said, ‘what would all the men do if all the women stopped wearing those headscarves’, to which i replied, thinking of our conversations here, ‘nothing. not wearing headscarves would be the new normal’. hmm, perception, happens every time. btw, i take great stock in the effect i have on the world around me… clearly we are having a great effect on each other in this moment. an interesting question we should ask ourselves is, ‘what have i done to effect the change, except complain about perceived pain in the world?’.the only reason i contribute to blogs is to communicate something useful, in the hope that others contribute something useful, but more importantly do something useful. i believe that the anarchist movement has become lazy. things are obviously not bad enough in the world, that we need to throw ourselves on the gears of the war machine. i would argue that they are bad now. are there any other scientists in the crowd that want to talk about hard facts and evidence? instead of worrying about whether i’m a hippie or not, maybe we could do our own research/discourse (empirical) to prove that reality, in fact, exists? every moment reality moves irrevocably into the past, and it is gone forever. how useful is the past then? ‘but we can learn from it…’. oh okay, THEN WHY ARE WE NO BETTER OFF THAN WE WERE WHEN WE SELF ORGANIZED INTO OUR CURRENT EVOLUTIONARY STATE!! (circa 10000bce)what, we drive cars instead of camels? please think hard about the ‘progress’ we’ve made. we’ve been fighting wars for the past forever, so why haven’t they stopped since we know they’re useless? because ‘reality’ moves into the useless posterity and we all think that the ‘new’ conflicts are just that, and special to our time, and thereby justified. its just another one of the biggest bullshit stories around. okay, create a society where no one has power, and if someone does, take it away. every system needs incentive, it gives meaning. yes we need meaning too, and it can’t just be revolution. the answer is, lets find the incentive, because how does the anarchist ideal flourish once social evolution eventually selects for us? are we going to vote for the individualist anarch, or the collective anarch? ha. what allows us to move forward? not living in the pain of the past. we choose to be ignorant and not learn from it. GF, i thought you wanted to talk epistemology – i don’t want opinions, i want everyone to justify their beliefs!
[ummichas] - 06 02 09 - 23:54

globalism ‘in reality’..... haha thanks M.

GF: the stuff that we’ve ‘endured’, actually, the people of the past endured, is good for a campfire story, that’s about it. if the past is to be learned from, let me know about some historical examples that show that we have learned from, and therefore not repeated the past; perhaps, genocide, government, law, justice, war, poverty, prostitution, might be some things that don’t happen anymore. i’m pretty sure those things keep on happening. anarchy, do what you will only at your own expense, not that of others. i also find it very strange to criticize sentence structure or coherence. it seems you are reproducing what i’ve said previously in your first paragraph, i think, i which case you’ve missed the point, but more importantly, i’ve failed to convince you of anything. not that i expected to, lol.

perhaps we will agree in the future. because the future is all we might get to experience after this moment.
[ummichas] - 07 02 09 - 00:16

Ummichas, the incentive is survival, necessity and the good of the community. The incentive that we have been subjected to is of a capitalist nature, fueled by greed and the desire for power. This subject has been a big topic of discussion amongst many anarchists. When expressing ones view points on social evolution and why anarchism is a good alternative to the curent system, some people have a hard time grasping the concept of a selfless incentive.
Living in a controled environment and being socialy conditioned by those in power stunts our social evolution and growth, much like a potted plant versus a plant that is allowed to grow to its full potential in the wild. The mental sedation of the populace is somthing to be exposed sooo….pointing out issues that should be addressed and raising awarenes is a far cry from complaining about the pain of the world. BTW I do love the fact that you are stirring the pot (happens to be one of my personal past times).
A.O.C. - 07 02 09 - 02:38

There is never ever any venom or malice in what i write or say for me words are nothing more than a play thing. Ummichas there is nothing u say that i disagree with what i have issue with is that you argue yourself into a cul de sac. the last post’s first paragraph that i wrote was using your point of view (or what i understand it to be) and taking it to an extreme, i don’t actually think any of that (words are fun). i spoke of coherency cose communication is a tool that works in favour of anarchists, to not make yrself understood is the same as saying nothing at all; we should know that silence in our world is the same as consent, it may not be but the others percieve it that way. I speak 2 languages and from that i’ve learnt that the slightest word, tone and pronunciation can change the meaning of what is said. With words i could justify anything.
If you think history has taught us nothing then i suggest u look at your toilet, your soap or maybe other simple little things that allow us to live longer; not all solutions are optimum but failure is not trying. If i could easily recount my past i would, it’d take too long, but maybe summarising that i have thrown everything away and now i realise the value of the simple things is slightly adequate for this discussion.

i’m an older bastard been an anarchist for 15 years and for most of that been totally uninterested in pragmatism or philosophy, i wanted to be an anarchist cose the info i read about it spoke to me even before i knew who i was or am percieved to be let alone a proper understanding of society as it is. So i have been the individualist to the point of catatonia. All it did was isolate me and stagnate my growth cose all was not of my concern. The state of absolute nothingness is the start of all things and that’s where i am now i want to be part of everything instead of ignoring shit cose it’s all trancsendental, amorphous, unreal. I want to be part of the ppl that live their days, like the workers of zanon, be it reality or an abstraction who cares it is action. Action speaks louder than words.

What scares me the most about your posts is how u put anarchy up on a pedastal as if it is more than us, this i think is the only thing that lingers like a bad taste in my mouth after i read your posts, all else is stuff i have said or heard b4.

If i have offended anyone i am sorry; not remorse but pathos.
gentlefurie - 07 02 09 - 02:44

Don’t know what kind of anarchist i am Menace
I just want a society where i am not impeded on what path i choose, to have no covert or overt coercion; anarchy is that society in my opinion and more so. I’m not a mathematician or a farmer i do not have any concrete usefulness in a hand-to-mouth basics of a society other than just being another worker and mouth. To be totally honest, spirituality is more important to me than politics but in saying that i wasted a few years at university studying politics, history and sociology; i think of a saying by someone (can’t remember who) ‘i concern myself with politcs now so maybe one day we will never have to speak of it again’
gentlefurie - 07 02 09 - 03:58

GF, i believe that ideals can not by nature, be experienced, they are to be aspired to, otherwise they become polluted. this is the part that leaves the bad taste, right? it seems to me that ideals are in fact elusive abstractions, that is why clearly, every time society tries to incorporate ideals into the superstructure, it gets quite distorted. i think that once people accept that this is ‘right by design’, the choice will be clear. this gets us out into the wild; the untested (apriori) frontier of our potential. pottedplant vs. wild plant. where is the cul de sac again? there is no cul de sac – zanon is a an asshole, but the argentinians simply changed their perception. that is what empowered them to peaceful action (funny with the slingshots).
AOC, definetely strange how people refuse the selfless incentive,
[ummichas] - 07 02 09 - 08:34