Quote:
Originally posted by jaguar
Most of the violent anarchists are from radical socialist groups. Not a very smart cause, but a cause. And the fact that implying that by this the forfit thier right to life..
|
Look again at the picture. What is that on his head. He does not represent people. He is simply the latest version of Nazi Storm troopers who created 1930s anacrchy in order to advance themselves - people who crave power - everyone else be damned. Do we really want another Third Reich leadership?
Great world leaders don't field hooded demonstrators. Ghandhi and King used "non-violent" civil disobedience. Even Malcolm X's supporter in their most radical times did not cover their faces. In fact they wore suits and clean cut appearances.
Ironically, who did the Martin Luther King civil disobedience demonstrators rail against - with their faces exposed? The enemy of civil rights were again, "people with hoods" . That is not just a coincidence. Why did they wear hoods? Why did Carlos wear a hood?
Carlos is no different. He does not represent a just cause because he covers his face. He only represents self serving interests which is why he wears a woolen black ski mask in July in Italy. He got what he deserved - albeit extreme. It is better that he did not have to go to court because he killed someone - which is really what he wanted to do with that fire extinguisher. If someone was going to die, then Carlos and not the cop was the best choice.
The cause that Carlos really represents is a need for people to receive factual information. I maintain Carlos did not read The Economist - too much intellectual activity - which, BTW, was also characteristic of the 1930 Nazi party. If Carlos and his peers had their way, then the world would be a worse place.
The questions raised by anarchists are valid. Unfortunately who do they attack? People and institutions who have been asking and seeking answers to those same questions before Carlos was born, the organizations who have tried many different solutions so far without success; and those same institutions who have attempted new solutions again without success.
However Carlos represents those who know none of this. To have any sympathy for Carlos, you first must say that he was a victim of his own ignorance.
You could say that. However I don't believe these anarchists to be victims of ignorance. I believe these people, like British soccer hooligans, only want the thrill of violence. Globalization is just a cute tool to recruit more ignorant supporters who also only want the thrill of violence.
What is the downside to Carlos' death? Too many people will see the emotion of a dead adult child instead of first seeing the black hood. The first thing I see is a hood so black that we needed a separate picture to see his face. That black hood represents what Carlos really wanted. He wanted violence - not to advance mankind - which is why he did not even have the balls - was not even man enough - to show his face. Carlos destroyed his own life. I have no sympathy for Carlos who even dumped useless suffering upon his parents.
In 1968 Chicago, when the whole world was watching, - - no hooded faces - - because civil disobedience represented a real cause. To associate Carlos with any great civil movement is to praise Hilter for removing another institution - an elected government. Carlos only represents a selfish cause.