[anarchist-revolution]

[lowreswunderbred]

[youareprobablywrong]

If the New York Times’ reporting is correct, then the Palestinian people - irrespective of being affiliated with or in support of Hamas or not - are about to become the victims of genocide. Either through outright murder and destruction, or ethnic cleansing.

Telling Palestinian people, Gazans, to “relocate” is genocide.

We are talking about the outright removal idk people - by threat of force or outright force - from their homes. This is approximately 600,000 adults, and 400,000 children.

This is utterly unacceptable. It is a human rights violation. It is colonization. These are war crimes.

[peacozy]

may your heart be warm, but your bowl of soup warmer

[theyodelingsunflower]

And may the enemy of my enemy consume only lentils, and my enemies have no soup at all.

[mysharona1987]

[deathgasmic]

anyone who has ever said “actually the age of consent is 16 in some places” should be shot on site. why are you trying to justify sleeping with children

[8millionsystem]

I am currently hitting the griddy for Hamas

[vox-anglosphere]

The mood in London is surely mixed, but this speaks for many.

[theyodelingsunflower]

No shit they stand with Israel. Colonizers are going to support colonizers. They're so anti-Islam that they'd rather be complicit to the eradication of a million people than see to it that there is a diplomatic solution. Of which, will never be possible so long as shit like this keeps happening.

Because let's not forget, folks. Support for Israel doesn't just mean support hen their civilians get bombed, it also means supporting Israel in their colonization of Palestine, their brutality towards Palestinian civilians, and the human rights crisis that they created and have maintained since the 1940's.

[politijohn]

That didn’t answer the question on where Israelis are supposed to go?

Israelis have several options, two that come top of mind:

1. Go back to the Israeli territory defined by the UN 1947 plan. Many Israelis now live on stolen land and property.

2. Go literally anywhere else the world that they please since they’re not living under apartheid ?? Many haven’t lived there long, having left nice lives in other countries.

[ithelpstodream]

[lastoneout]

Posting this here too bcs absolutely no one gave a shit about it on twitter.

[anarchpunk]

"But in Anarchy warlords would take over!"

My brother in Christ, the world is currently in control of tyrants getting rich of war and rebuilding from it.

How could private individuals do this on a national scale?

[youareprobablywrong]

Well, a warlord is usually an individual who has employed a private army, which according to ancaps is exactly the model to be achieved. Ancaps don’t oppose police or armies, specifically for defense. As long as there is a valid and consensual contract between the “warlord” (I.e., proper owner), and the said private police or army that they have hired, then it is kosher.

It’s not hard to imagine. Private property means arbitrary boundaries, often easily transgressed.

That said, the fact (and it is a fact) that the world is full of tyrants does not actually address the argument that an ancap world would lead to a situation in which warlords would arise. In fact, the existence of tyrants, period, in any time or reality, does not address that critique.

I can already imagine a third of people doing this. I can imagine extremely wealthy people doing this. Obviously there are so many more people who couldn’t afford private security, and as a result the market likely wouldn’t even get to said point. There aren’t enough people on the planet to fill such a hypothetically large demand. So, obviously there wouldn’t be a situation where everyone was a warlord. Which, also wasn’t the critique.

The critique is that warlords would take over. The more appropriate anarchist response is “so what?” Let’s pretend for a second that in an anarchist world warlords *did* exist. As long as they aren’t violating other people’s property and rights, then their mere existence is not problematic. But the moments they violate someone else’s property and rights is the moment that they forfeit their status in said society, either by direct force (i.e., self defense through violent means) or tort law.

[enidsinclair]

#relatable

[dailyflicks]

THE PRINCESS BRIDE (1987) dir. Rob Reiner

[anarchist-art]

[wageronvoluntaryism]

FUCKING INCREDIBLE NEGATIVE SELF AWARENESS HOURS

[theyodelingsunflower]

So, you agree with Fascism, and cops as run the state?

[2urban2fantasy-deactivated20241]

Time to break out Ol’ Reliable

[theyodelingsunflower]

Haven’t you heard? Everyone that doesn’t agree with you is a statist-fascist-nazi-commie.

[theyodelingsunflower]

The enemy of my enemy is my enemy. Solidarity with equally vicious people on the basis of shared animosity makes one complicit with atrocities.

[theyodelingsunflower]

People would save themselves a lot of brain aches if they didn’t prescribe beliefs to every post they see on social media, and assume only the most absurd bullshit from a single meme with no context.

“You must be a statist because a meme with no context what-so-ever is triggering me so much so I enter into a state of lunacy.” Lmao

Everyone’s default seems to be “fight first, listen never.”