George Orwell

[owebo]

Anarchy is an ultimate far right wing ideology.....

It depends on how you are defining left and right wing. Is an anarcho-communist right wing?

I'll let you decide, because I am sick of trying to distinguish the difference between left and right wing. They are trap words if anything, and semantics are dangerous to any ideology. Both words should be ridden from existence, ideally.

Left-right is really quite simple actually....

View attachment 91110

What total crap, that you swallow.

Hitler, a fascist so left he banned Communism and attacked liberals. You people are fucking stupid.

Your on-line education has failed you....

 

[Onyx]

Onyx is clearly a very well educated and intellectual poster, but my suspicion is, he is either not American, or his roots are not American.

What's up with this bullshit?

For instance, he insists that Anarchism can only be ONE THING.

It has one definition.

On the contrary though, I have been the one defending that both those on the left and right can be anarchists.

I noticed him making the claim that Anarchist MUST be violent to overthrow the machinery of the state.

False.

I never made that claim. Do not demonstrate intellectual dishonesty by telling crude lies.

What I did say, is that the only way for anarchy to come about feasibly is through violent revolution. There is no peaceful way to destroy the machine.

However, the American brand of individual libertarian/anarchism just doesn't go there.

That's bullshit.

There is no such thing as an American anarchist school of thought, and there have been plenty of American anarchists which have supported violence.

Spooner was vehemently against slavery, as it was coercive and against natural law.

Me too.

The state represents a form of institutionalized slavery.

However, he also saw that the central government had no authority to force the citizens of the south to participate in a government that they had no wish to participate in.

Of course.

The state is illegitmate in its use of systematic violence. This is basic anarchist thought.

Even today, many do not see the genius of the man. If we had, we would have a much more free republic where the individual states had their proper power and sovereignty vis-à-vis the federal government. And we would have avoided a terrible, bloody conflict.

You are misrepresenting the beliefs of Lysander Spooner. It is intellectually dishonest.

He did not believe in governments and certainly not a republic.

Once again you are demonstrating yourself to completely uneducated on anarchist thought, and now an anarchist philosopher.

 

[Onyx]

Wow MisterBeale is a total idiot.

Not because he is wrong, but because he talks like he understands things he knows nothing about.

 

[Onyx]

Fantastic post. Thank you.

If you do not recognize how he is full of shit and telling lies, you are a mindless uneducated tool.

He conflates anarchism with pacifism and anti-hiearchy, openly contradicts himself, tells blatant lies, makes weird arguments dividing anarchist based on regions (European anarchists are violent and Americans are not???), and believes Lysander Spooner wanted a democratic federal government.

He is one of those really idiotic sorts that goes ranting on subjects he understands nothing about. A five minute google search scholar.

 

[gipper]

Wow MisterBeale is a total idiot.

Not because he is wrong, but because he talks like he understands things he knows nothing about.

See?

There is a perfect example of you making enemies, where there are none.

 

[gipper]

Fantastic post. Thank you.

If you do not recognize how he is full of shit and telling lies, you are a mindless uneducated tool.

He conflates anarchism with pacifism and anti-hiearchy, openly contradicts himself, tells blatant lies, makes weird arguments dividing anarchist based on regions (European anarchists are violent and Americans are not???), and believes Lysander Spooner wanted a democratic federal government.

He is one of those really idiotic sorts that goes ranting on subjects he understands nothing about. A five minute google search scholar.

...and there you go doubling down.

Not smart.

 

[Onyx]

See?

There is a perfect example of you making enemies, where there are none.

What are you talking about? This is not warfare. There are no allies or enemies. We are on an internet message board for fucks sake, and I am not engaged in any long term strategy.

He made moronic statements and told lies, so I called him out for it.

Should I hold my tongue in the name of diplomacy? Get real.

 

[gipper]

See?

There is a perfect example of you making enemies, where there are none.

What are you talking about? This is not warfare. There are no allies or enemies. We are on an internet message board for fucks sake

He made moronic statements and told lies, so I called him out for it.

Should I hold my tongue in the name of diplomacy? Get real.

Does one have to make war to have enemies?

 

[Onyx]

Does one have to make war to have enemies?

???

Man, I have no idea what you are talking about.

All I know is that MisterBeale was spouting nonsense, so I brought the hammer on his ignorant hide.

 

[gipper]

Does one have to make war to have enemies?

???

Man, I have no idea what you are talking about.

All I know is that MisterBeale was spouting nonsense, so I brought the hammer on his ignorant hide.

I am not sure you are even aware of your combative debate tactics, per your most recent post.

Above you stated:
What are you talking about? This is not warfare. There are no allies or enemies.

This clearly indicates you think only warfare results in making enemies. I beg to differ.

 

[Onyx]

I am not sure you are even aware of your combative debate tactics, per your most recent post.

Above you stated:
What are you talking about? This is not warfare. There are no allies or enemies.

This clearly indicates you think only warfare results in making enemies. I beg to differ.

Look, I do not have time for this nonsense about warfare and making enemies. It isn't relevant.

MisterBeale made some statements which were pretty damn stupid and uneducated, so I called him out for it. If you do not like it, then too bad.

 

[gipper]

I am not sure you are even aware of your combative debate tactics, per your most recent post.

Above you stated:
What are you talking about? This is not warfare. There are no allies or enemies.

This clearly indicates you think only warfare results in making enemies. I beg to differ.

Look, I do not have time for this nonsense about warfare and making enemies. It isn't relevant.

MisterBeale made some statements which were pretty damn stupid and uneducated, so I called him out for it. If you do not like it, then too bad.

I think your views on anarchism are very intelligent. You will find some posters here who appreciate your posts, but if you are so disagreeable and critical of even those who agree with you, you won't get anywhere.

 

[Onyx]

I think your views on anarchism are very intelligent. You will find some posters here who appreciate your posts, but if you are so disagreeable and critical of even those who agree with you, you won't get anywhere.

Except we are not in agreement.

In fact, I am showing explicit disagreement with nearly two dozen uneducated claims MisterBeale has made in this thread regarding anarchist thought and anarchist intellectuals.

I am surprised you are not calling him out for some of the things he has said, since you supposedly identify as an anarchist.

 

[Tehon]

We are taught conformity through discipline. The philosopher and teacher Jiddu Krishnamurti examined the value of discipline in this lecture on culture.

Snip;
So it is very important to understand this whole question of discipline. To me, discipline is something altogether ugly; it is not creative, it is destructive. But merely to stop there, with a statement of that kind, may seem to imply that you can do whatever you like. On the contrary, a man who loves does not do whatever he likes. It is love alone that leads to right action. What brings order in the world is to love and let love do what it will.

That is exactly what I am talking about.

Those that value the more powerful emotions and concepts (there is more than just love) help to contribute to a self respecting society. The flaws in our society come as a result of a machine which twists evil into good sense, and disciplines (or conditions) that mentality into all of its subjects.

Anarchism is argued to be the natural order of mankind, which refers to a time when human beings were born free from both abstractions and constraints to their thought.

I'm gonna pimp Krishnamurti here again, the guy spoke truth and I believe truth is the concept that people need to embrace more than any other.

I maintain that Truth is a pathless land, and you cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any religion, by any sect. That is my point of view, and I adhere to that absolutely and unconditionally. Truth, being limitless, unconditioned, unapproachable by any path whatsoever, cannot be organized; nor should any organization be formed to lead or to coerce people along any particular path. If you first understand that, then you will see how impossible it is to organize a belief. A belief is purely an individual matter, and you cannot and must not organize it. If you do, it becomes dead, crystallized; it becomes a creed, a sect, a religion, to be imposed on others. This is what everyone throughout the world is attempting to do. Truth is narrowed down and made a plaything for those who are weak, for those who are only momentarily discontented. Truth cannot be brought down, rather the individual must make the effort to ascend to it. You cannot bring the mountain-top to the valley. If you would attain to the mountain-top you must pass through the valley, climb the steeps, unafraid of the dangerous precipices.
Truth is a pathless land - J. Krishnamurti Online

 

[Onyx]

I'm gonna pimp Krishnamurti here again, the guy spoke truth and I believe truth is the concept that people need to embrace more than any other.

I usually reject studying Indian philosophers based on principal (I cannot stand the guru fan fare), but I will make an exception for this guy.

His beliefs are very aligned with my philosophy. Such as his views on objective consciousness, spirituality, and how human nature must be respected or else chaos will ensue.

None of his positions appear to be very innovative, but he does offer an interesting perspective that is worth studying.

 

[MisterBeale]

I think your views on anarchism are very intelligent. You will find some posters here who appreciate your posts, but if you are so disagreeable and critical of even those who agree with you, you won't get anywhere.

Except we are not in agreement.

In fact, I am showing explicit disagreement with nearly two dozen uneducated claims MisterBeale has made in this thread regarding anarchist thought and anarchist intellectuals.

I am surprised you are not calling him out for some of the things he has said, since you supposedly identify as an anarchist.

All I'm getting at, is that you are being an ideologue. You insist that I am an uneducated moron, and that all my ideas are wrong. Fine. I'm not going to get into it with you. I don't do those tit for tat posts. If you want to pick out one thing, specifically, and go a round, I'll do that. I warn you though, it really isn't that important to me. I hold no grudge, nor am I interested in some noble purest ideal.

I don't want to make the term, "anarchist" an ideology, like liberalism, or conservatism as it seems you do.

For instance now in ONE BREATH you contradict yourself, you tell us the term only has one definition, but then tell us you are defending different POV within anarchism? wtf? ;

It has one definition.

On the contrary though, I have been the one defending that both those on the left and right can be anarchists.

Anarchism draws on many currents of thought and strategy. Anarchism does not offer a fixed body of doctrine from a single particular world view, instead fluxing and flowing as a philosophy.[20] Many types and traditions of anarchism exist, not all of which are mutually exclusive.[21] Anarchist schools of thought can differ fundamentally, supporting anything from extreme individualism to complete collectivism.[10] Strains of anarchism have often been divided[by whom?] into the categories of social and individualist anarchism or similar dual classifications.

https://libcom.org/files/Marshall - Demanding the Impossible - A History of Anarchism.pdf

You call me a one hour web researcher that doesn't know what I am talking about, but all I do is support my POV with sources. All we have from you is your say so. If any one has experience with "scene kids" I'm beginning to think I know where you got that idea from.

That's bullshit.

There is no such thing as an American anarchist school of thought, and there have been plenty of American anarchists which have supported violence.

While I agree with you there, that is indeed my own characterization of early to mid-ninteenth century thinkers, what I consider founders, not the immigrants. I certainly was not thinking of those who were either naturalized Americans who had once been Europeans around the turn of the century, or those who were children of them. Folks like Leon Frank Czolgosz and Emma Goldman I feel were more influenced by European thinkers, and thus more prone to include violence in their tactics, do you disagree?


You do take this quite personally, don't you?

False.

I never made that claim. Do not demonstrate intellectual dishonesty by telling crude lies.

What I did say, is that the only way for anarchy to come about feasibly is through violent revolution. There is no peaceful way to destroy the machine.

I seriously do not see how that is a substantially different position than stating your position is, "Anarchist MUST be violent to overthrow the machinery of the state." You are seriously being disingenuous.

You are misrepresenting the beliefs of Lysander Spooner. It is intellectually dishonest.

He did not believe in governments and certainly not a republic.

So you think Spooner wanted the North to intervene in the Civil War, is that it?


Of course he didn't believe in the constitution or the Republic, I know that, and you know that. Once again, you are being an ideologue. In this context, I wasn't writing in terms of anarchy, I was writing in terms of defeating an Orwellian governmental ruling order. One need not always go to extremes to achieve the best ends. American government is about incrementalism.

I suppose it is hard to explain that to a scene kid though, isn't it?


This is the first, last, and only time I will engage in this infantile tit for tat bullshit with you.

 

[francoHFW]

I am drowning in morons that are more opinionated than they are educated.

Love those Indians...Still, they had chiefs, didn't they? Exception that proves the rule.

Anarchy on a large scale hasn't worked.

If I explained to you that it has, which I have already done, you would just repeat yourself the next post.

Free Territory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Your boy was the ruler lol...

 

[Onyx]

Free Territory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Your boy was the ruler lol...

Actually no.

Nestor Mahkno held no political power. No taxation was collected. No laws or mandates were passed. There were not even officers in the conventional sense.

Our historical information on Makhno and the black army is that he acted as a military strategist and adviser for commanders, all of which were democratically elected in soldiers assemblies and could be recalled by both soldiers and the general public.

It was the perfect example of a large military force organized along anarchist principals. The main criticism which I believe was brought up by the British (the western nations were backing the whites) was that Nestor Makhno was not elected like the rest of his officers, but then again he held no established office.

The greatest thing about the black army is that they held no monopoly on force, because contrary to Soviet propaganda, there is no historical evidence of them raiding villages and attacking other green armies.

By the way, this is not even close to being the only example of anarchism working in history.

 

[Onyx]

All I'm getting at, is that you are being an ideologue. You insist that I am an uneducated moron, and that all my ideas are wrong. Fine. I'm not going to get into it with you. I don't do those tit for tat posts. If you want to pick out one thing, specifically, and go a round, I'll do that. I warn you though, it really isn't that important to me. I hold no grudge, nor am I interested in some noble purest ideal.

Idealogue or not, anarchism needs to be defined with a strict interpretation. When uneducated morons come along with a complete lack of understanding on anything involving anarchist thought, they tend to invent bullshit definitions (like you have been doing) which hinder the movement overall.

I don't want to make the term, "anarchist" an ideology, like liberalism, or conservatism as it seems you do.

Anarchism is an ideology.

To think otherwise would be again demonstrating your lack of education.

For instance now in ONE BREATH you contradict yourself, you tell us the term only has one definition, but then tell us you are defending different POV within anarchism? wtf? ;

False.

I never betrayed my definition. The only criteria required for being an anarchist is rejecting rulers and consequentially states.

On the contrary, you have been the one who has been going back and forth on definitions this whole conversation. You have backtracked 500% more than me.

Anarchism draws on many currents of thought and strategy. Anarchism does not offer a fixed body of doctrine from a single particular world view, instead fluxing and flowing as a philosophy.[20] Many types and traditions of anarchism exist, not all of which are mutually exclusive.[21] Anarchist schools of thought can differ fundamentally, supporting anything from extreme individualism to complete collectivism.[10] Strains of anarchism have often been divided[by whom?] into the categories of social and individualist anarchism or similar dual classifications.

While anarchism has many schools of thought, it only has one broad definition to encompass the ideology.

I cannot simply decide to redefine an ideology like mutalism, and say that it is a lifestyle philosophy regarding the fucking of chickens.

You seem content on doing that, because I have heard a dozen really stupid definitions of what anarchism is, such as anti-hierarchy and pacifism. This not only proves your lack of education, but makes you an idiot for talking like you have any understanding of the subject.

That's bullshit.

While I agree with you there, that is indeed my own characterization of early to mid-ninteenth century thinkers, what I consider founders, not the immigrants. I certainly was not thinking of those who were either naturalized Americans who had once been Europeans around the turn of the century, or those who were children of them. Folks like Leon Frank Czolgosz and Emma Goldman I feel were more influenced by European thinkers, and thus more prone to include violence in their tactics, do you disagree?

I do not care to take all the European anarchist intellectuals and put them on a scale. The vast majority of anarchist philosophers agreed that the use of violence in self defense was justified. Logically that includes fighting against the state, since the state is the ultimate benefactor of abuse.

I seriously do not see how that is a substantially different position than stating your position is, "Anarchist MUST be violent to overthrow the machinery of the state." You are seriously being disingenuous.

That is just a fact. One which I will gladly defend.

Insurrection gets results where pacifism does not. Believing that you can Gandhi the system is naivety at its best (and Gandhi's tactics did not even work)

Of course he didn't believe in the constitution or the Republic, I know that, and you know that. Once again, you are being an ideologue. In this context, I wasn't writing in terms of anarchy, I was writing in terms of defeating an Orwellian governmental ruling order. One need not always go to extremes to achieve the best ends. American government is about incrementalism.

Lysander Spooner obviously did not believe in American government, and he considered the government at the time to be an Orwellian ruling order. He was pretty clear about the US being an abominable slave state, and this was after the civil war.

What's your point though? You have some broken thought process where you cannot explain how you got from X to Y, and it is never clear what your Y position is. You are awful at specifying what your positions are, so I am pretty in the dark on what I am refuting, Therefore, I am left refuting every wildly incorrect minor detail that you bring up.

This is the first, last, and only time I will engage in this infantile tit for tat bullshit with you.

I am tired of the intellectual dishonesty as well.

 

[MisterBeale]

All I'm getting at, is that you are being an ideologue. You insist that I am an uneducated moron, and that all my ideas are wrong. Fine. I'm not going to get into it with you. I don't do those tit for tat posts. If you want to pick out one thing, specifically, and go a round, I'll do that. I warn you though, it really isn't that important to me. I hold no grudge, nor am I interested in some noble purest ideal.

Idealogue or not, anarchism needs to be defined with a strict interpretation. When uneducated morons come along with a complete lack of understanding on anything involving anarchist thought, they tend to invent bullshit definitions (like you have been doing) which hinder the movement overall.

I don't want to make the term, "anarchist" an ideology, like liberalism, or conservatism as it seems you do.

Anarchism is an ideology.

To think otherwise would be again demonstrating your lack of education.

For instance now in ONE BREATH you contradict yourself, you tell us the term only has one definition, but then tell us you are defending different POV within anarchism? wtf? ;

False.

I never betrayed my definition. The only criteria required for being an anarchist is rejecting rulers and consequentially states.

On the contrary, you have been the one who has been going back and forth on definitions this whole conversation. You have backtracked 500% more than me.

Anarchism draws on many currents of thought and strategy. Anarchism does not offer a fixed body of doctrine from a single particular world view, instead fluxing and flowing as a philosophy.[20] Many types and traditions of anarchism exist, not all of which are mutually exclusive.[21] Anarchist schools of thought can differ fundamentally, supporting anything from extreme individualism to complete collectivism.[10] Strains of anarchism have often been divided[by whom?] into the categories of social and individualist anarchism or similar dual classifications.

While anarchism has many schools of thought, it only has one broad definition to encompass the ideology.

I cannot simply decide to redefine an ideology like mutalism, and say that it is a lifestyle philosophy regarding the fucking of chickens.

You seem content on doing that, because I have heard a dozen really stupid definitions of what anarchism is, such as anti-hierarchy and pacifism. This not only proves your lack of education, but makes you an idiot for talking like you have any understanding of the subject.

That's bullshit.

While I agree with you there, that is indeed my own characterization of early to mid-ninteenth century thinkers, what I consider founders, not the immigrants. I certainly was not thinking of those who were either naturalized Americans who had once been Europeans around the turn of the century, or those who were children of them. Folks like Leon Frank Czolgosz and Emma Goldman I feel were more influenced by European thinkers, and thus more prone to include violence in their tactics, do you disagree?

I do not care to take all the European anarchist intellectuals and put them on a scale. The vast majority of anarchist philosophers agreed that the use of violence in self defense was justified. Logically that includes fighting against the state, since the state is the ultimate benefactor of abuse.

I seriously do not see how that is a substantially different position than stating your position is, "Anarchist MUST be violent to overthrow the machinery of the state." You are seriously being disingenuous.

That is just a fact. One which I will gladly defend.

Insurrection gets results where pacifism does not. Believing that you can Gandhi the system is naivety at its best (and Gandhi's tactics did not even work)

Of course he didn't believe in the constitution or the Republic, I know that, and you know that. Once again, you are being an ideologue. In this context, I wasn't writing in terms of anarchy, I was writing in terms of defeating an Orwellian governmental ruling order. One need not always go to extremes to achieve the best ends. American government is about incrementalism.

Lysander Spooner obviously did not believe in American government, and he considered the government at the time to be an Orwellian ruling order. He was pretty clear about the US being an abominable slave state, and this was after the civil war.

What's your point though? You have some broken thought process where you cannot explain how you got from X to Y, and it is never clear what your Y position is. You are awful at specifying what your positions are, so I am pretty in the dark on what I am refuting, Therefore, I am left refuting every wildly incorrect minor detail that you bring up.

This is the first, last, and only time I will engage in this infantile tit for tat bullshit with you.

I am tired of the intellectual dishonesty as well.