NAACP launches coalition watchdog site to ‘monitor’ Tea Party ‘racists’

[Pagan]

This stupid idiocy transcends the usual crack baby rants that you piss on the board, since anarchism is an explicitly socialist ideology. http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionA1

You verified my comment, you have no idea what Anarchism is you ignorant fuck.

Anarchism in a nutshell is ALL forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished.

Sure goes in line with Socialism doesn't it .............

Were you born this stupid or did you have to work at it you ignorant fuck ......................

I've seen some real winners on the net before but you seriously take the cake .......

[Agnapostate]

You verified my comment, you have no idea what Anarchism is you ignorant fuck.

Anarchism in a nutshell is ALL forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished.

Sure goes in line with Socialism doesn't it .............

Were you born this stupid or did you have to work at it you ignorant fuck ......................

I've seen some real winners on the net before but you seriously take the cake .......

Quite right. Anarchism is thus opposed to the authoritarian hierarchies of capitalism, and supportive of workers' ownership and management, as has been the case from Proudhon to Bakunin to Kropotkin to Chomsky. If you're interested in attempting an actual refutation of that fact, please do attempt it, but I think we both know that you're too stupid.

I've come to realize that it was an insult to LOL'ar to ask if you two were the same person. You give off vibes not of a former baby dropped on its head, but of a fetus stabbed in the head with a fork in the third trimester by a mother who downed three bottles of whiskey a day, and a baby and toddler that suffered repeated cranial trauma, for you to have emerged so incomprehensibly moronic.

[Pagan]

Quite right. Anarchism is thus opposed to the authoritarian hierarchies of capitalism, and supportive of workers' ownership and management, as has been the case from Proudhon to Bakunin to Kropotkin to Chomsky. If you're interested in attempting an actual refutation of that fact, please do attempt it, but I think we both know that you're too stupid.

I've come to realize that it was an insult to LOL'ar to ask if you two were the same person. You give off vibes not of a former baby dropped on its head, but of a fetus stabbed in the head with a fork in the third trimester by a mother who downed three bottles of whiskey a day, and a baby and toddler that suffered repeated cranial trauma, for you to have emerged so incomprehensibly moronic.

You've proven yourself quote well that you haven't a clue at what you spew you ignorant fuck. Please tell us again how Anarchy is explicitly socialist ideology ...

Man I'm going to piss on myself I'm laughing so hard, I have NEVER and I mean NEVER ran across anyone so ignorant in my life who spews such blatant ignorant stupidity that even someone with only a 5th grade education could spot ..........

Hey Slick, you a pre school drop out ................

[revelarts]

Actually, an anarchist, which renders your pointless exercise even more so on closer inspection.

Not pointless at all, unless you missed the main one that your logic is bad.

you can't just quote stormfront saying "the sky is blue" then say "you conservatives on this board say the same thing therefore your racist too. " That's just a sorry argument. Based on crappy logic.

the only thing I would have to do to "correct" my statement and still match your arguments, format wise, is to change the word communist to leftist.

Stalin and Mao are LEFTIST.
Stalin and Mao are tyrannical mass murderers.
Conclusion, All LEFTIST are tyrannical mass murders

Agnapostate is a LEFTIST
therefore he is a tyrannical mass murderer

"True conservatives believe in a small central government with little taxation and governmental intrusion, self reliance, and the freedom to succeed or fail according to each individuals' abilities. Liberals are just the opposite. They believe in a large government with the power to punish those who succeed through taxation, legislation and the redistribution of wealth in order to achieve "social justice". "

...if you can't discredit the argument, discredit the people behind the argument. ..."

As far as I can discern, all of these quotes by self-identified white nationalists could have been written by mainline rightists on this forum

those ideas are racist ideas Agnapostate?
Really?

You probably share the idea with many stormfront members that it good practice to drink from a glass and eat from a plate. YOU MUST BE A RACIST!
...AND A MASS MURDERER.

[Trigg]

Have you ever asked yourself why you're so desperate to research information on "black" or "minority racism," when "white" racism is far more prevalent and actually has opportunities for institutional systemic enactment, in contrast to black racism only having such opportunities in Zimbabwe or some other such place, and only in response to a legacy of European colonialism? It's because of your white populism. Now, Farrakhan used generalizing language, but accurately described the nature of Western European harm to the world.

simply trying to stay on topic.

I find it interresting that you regard this

“The white man is our mortal enemy, and we cannot accept him. I will fight to see that vicious beast go down into the late of fire prepared for him from the beginning, that he never rise again to give any innocent black man, woman or child the hell that he has delighted in pouring on us for 400 years.”
– Louis Farrakhan, City College audience in New York

as an accurate discription of white people, but not racist. Says a lot about the kind of person you are.

[Pagan]

simply trying to stay on topic.

I find it interresting that you regard this
as an accurate discription of white people, but not racist. Says a lot about the kind of person you are.

Personally IMO ol Aggie here is nothing more than Parroting what he's told and doing a complete botch job of it if I say so myself. Really, it's rather comical ya know.

[Agnapostate]

You've proven yourself quote well that you haven't a clue at what you spew you ignorant fuck. Please tell us again how Anarchy is explicitly socialist ideology ...

Man I'm going to piss on myself I'm laughing so hard, I have NEVER and I mean NEVER ran across anyone so ignorant in my life who spews such blatant ignorant stupidity that even someone with only a 5th grade education could spot ..........

Hey Slick, you a pre school drop out ................

Against what was my initial and probably my better judgment, but on the advice of others, I am going to make one last attempt to reasonably engage this poster. Anarchism, as a social ideology, has always been characterized by advocacy of stateless socialism (decentralized networks of workers' ownership and management of the means of production), in contrast to the hierarchical labor markets and firm structures of capitalism, the earlier authoritarianism of feudalism, or the later authoritarianism of Leninism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (15 January 1809 in Besançon – 19 January 1865 in Passy) was a French politician, mutualist philosopher and socialist. He was a member of the French Parliament, and he was the first person to call himself an "anarchist". He is considered among the most influential theorists and organizers of anarchism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Bakunin

Mikhail Alexandrovich Bakunin (30 May [O.S. 18 May] 1814 - 1 July 1876) (Russian: Михаи́л Алекса́ндрович Баку́нин; IPA: [mʲɪxɐˈil ˌbaˈkunʲin]) was a well-known Russian revolutionary and theorist of collectivist anarchism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Kropotkin

Peter (Pyotr) Alexeyevich Kropotkin (Russian: Пётр Алексеевич Кропоткин) (9 December 1842 – 8 February 1921) was a zoologist, an evolutionary theorist, geographer and one of the world's foremost anarcho-communists. One of the first advocates of anarchist communism, Kropotkin advocated a communist society free from central government and based on voluntary associations between workers

Anarchist Communism: Its Basis and Principles, by Kropotkin.

Anarchism, the no-government system of socialism, has a double origin. It is an outgrowth of the two great movements of thought in the economic and the political fields which characterize the nineteenth century, and especially its second part. In common with all socialists, the anarchists hold that the private ownership of land, capital, and machinery has had its time; that it is condemned to disappear; and that all requisites for production must, and will, become the common property of society, and be managed in common by the producers of wealth. And in common with the most advanced representatives of political radicalism, they maintain that the ideal of the political organization of society is a condition of things where the functions of government are reduced to a minimum, and the individual recovers his full liberty of initiative and action for satisfying, by means of free groups and federations--freely constituted--all the infinitely varied needs of the human being.

Now, if you'd be generous enough to elaborate for us on your own personal vision of anarchism and the theory and practice that contributed to that vision, I would be willing to read that exposition. So it's on you now...

Not pointless at all, unless you missed the main one that your logic is bad.

you can't just quote stormfront saying "the sky is blue" then say "you conservatives on this board say the same thing therefore your racist too. " That's just a sorry argument. Based on crappy logic.

the only thing I would have to do to "correct" my statement and still match your arguments, format wise, is to change the word communist to leftist.

Stalin and Mao are LEFTIST.
Stalin and Mao are tyrannical mass murderers.
Conclusion, All LEFTIST are tyrannical mass murders

Agnapostate is a LEFTIST
therefore he is a tyrannical mass murderer

those ideas are racist ideas Agnapostate?
Really?

You probably share the idea with many stormfront members that it good practice to drink from a glass and eat from a plate. YOU MUST BE A RACIST!
...AND A MASS MURDERER.

What you're attempting to refer to is an inductive and informal logical fallacy called an association fallacy, which is a type of hasty generalization and red herring. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/guiltbya.html

The problem is that your post is a strawman, which was revealed when you decided to go extremely overboard at the end. In one circumstance, there is the case of irrelevant correlation between social rightists and overt white nationalists. With the bit about the glass and plate, you implied that I had picked up on such an irrelevant correlation. However, I specified foundational moral beliefs that were shared between the two groups, not trivial similarities that could be shared by anyone. Those foundational moral beliefs are voluntarily held by a distinct segment of the population that both groups happen to belong to. And it remains my contention that rightists are more inclined to racist generalizations and stereotypes because they perceive minority groups as more frequent offenders of their moral codes, and have a greater potential for transformation of that into an explicit outlook.

In the words of white supremacist leader Alex Linder:

http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...04&postcount=2

It's more like an evolution than a conversion for anyone on the right, as most of us are, especially those of us old enough to have come of age before the Internet, when racialist information was not easily available. Most of us here evolved from a conservative position to a racialist, rather than "converting." Conservatism is, as Burke or Kirk would tell you, NOT an ideology, it's defined by that fact. It's more of a disposition, or a respect for reality. If you begin with a respect for reality, and a couple other things line up, you will end up a "racist."

http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...19&postcount=6

I'm sure there are some converts, but I'm also sure that far more people evolved into "racists" than converted. A conversion is a sharp turn, maybe a 180. You do not convert from a conservative to a racialist, you fill in the parts that the professional conservatives (coopted by jews, to a man) leave out. But there's no fundamental disconnect the way there is between "liberalism" and white nationalism. Liberal to WN is a true conversion because your views reverse. Conservative to racialism is not a conversion, it's a filling-in, or an evolution. I think the best way to describe it is coming out of water, the closer you get to the surface, the more clearly you see things, with racialism being the final breaking through into the air and light.

This connection is made clearer by the fact that there are a number of groups (VDARE.com, AmRen, the Council of Conservative Citizens, etc.) and individuals (Pat Buchanan, Peter Brimelow, etc.) who straddle the line between social rightism and white nationalism, which is because there are common themes of white ethnic populism and racial resentment. It's very interesting that there are a number of members here insistent that they can define an ideology better than its self-described adherents.

simply trying to stay on topic.

Actually, you're not, since the topic is white Tea Party racism, not Louis Farrakhan.

I find it interresting that you regard this
as an accurate discription of white people, but not racist. Says a lot about the kind of person you are.

What kind of person is that? Another person who is "racist" against his own white blood, his own European admixture?

[BoogyMan]

I thought about responding to this tripe point by point, but the stormfront references were so over the top that your stuck on stupid rhetoric is unworthy of that kind of effort.

I will consider you the forum hemmorhoid from this point forward.

Have you ever asked yourself why you're so desperate to research information on "black" or "minority racism," when "white" racism is far more prevalent and actually has opportunities for institutional systemic enactment, in contrast to black racism only having such opportunities in Zimbabwe or some other such place, and only in response to a legacy of European colonialism? It's because of your white populism. Now, Farrakhan used generalizing language, but accurately described the nature of Western European harm to the world.



Actually, I described the membership base as more prone to racism than the general population because they perceived racial/ethnic minorities as disproportionate offenders of their moral codes, and made subconscious generalizations about them as a result. You did nothing to refute this. I also pointed out that they shared foundations with overt white supremacists, which led their movement to appeal to them:

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t696224/#post7969941



http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t696224/#post7970240



http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t696224/#post7977542



http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t696224/#post7977899



As far as I can discern, all of these quotes by self-identified white nationalists could have been written by mainline rightists on this forum.



Yes. Astonishingly, I dare to presume that people who believe that ethnic minorities are prone to laziness and stupidity might be "racist."



No, far to the left of one.



See that, BoogerCan? That's better.

[Pagan]

Against what was my initial and probably my better judgment, but on the advice of others, I am going to make one last attempt to reasonably engage this poster. Anarchism, as a social ideology, has always been characterized by advocacy of stateless socialism (decentralized networks of workers' ownership and management of the means of production), in contrast to the hierarchical labor markets and firm structures of capitalism, the earlier authoritarianism of feudalism, or the later authoritarianism of Leninism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Bakunin



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Kropotkin



Anarchist Communism: Its Basis and Principles, by Kropotkin.



Now, if you'd be generous enough to elaborate for us on your own personal vision of anarchism and the theory and practice that contributed to that vision, I would be willing to read that exposition. So it's on you now...



What you're attempting to refer to is an inductive and informal logical fallacy called an association fallacy, which is a type of hasty generalization and red herring. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/guiltbya.html

The problem is that your post is a strawman, which was revealed when you decided to go extremely overboard at the end. In one circumstance, there is the case of irrelevant correlation between social rightists and overt white nationalists. With the bit about the glass and plate, you implied that I had picked up on such an irrelevant correlation. However, I specified foundational moral beliefs that were shared between the two groups, not trivial similarities that could be shared by anyone. Those foundational moral beliefs are voluntarily held by a distinct segment of the population that both groups happen to belong to. And it remains my contention that rightists are more inclined to racist generalizations and stereotypes because they perceive minority groups as more frequent offenders of their moral codes, and have a greater potential for transformation of that into an explicit outlook.

In the words of white supremacist leader Alex Linder:

http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...04&postcount=2



http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...19&postcount=6



This connection is made clearer by the fact that there are a number of groups (VDARE.com, AmRen, the Council of Conservative Citizens, etc.) and individuals (Pat Buchanan, Peter Brimelow, etc.) who straddle the line between social rightism and white nationalism, which is because there are common themes of white ethnic populism and racial resentment. It's very interesting that there are a number of members here insistent that they can define an ideology better than its self-described adherents.



Actually, you're not, since the topic is white Tea Party racism, not Louis Farrakhan.



What kind of person is that? Another person who is "racist" against his own white blood, his own European admixture?

One last time -

Socialism - The State owns and controls everything

And you claim Anarchism is an exclusively Socialist ideology?

You are the most ignorant fuck I have EVER had the misfortune of running into.

But then again Socialists and it's bastard step child Communists are complete ignorant fucks for with all the tripe they spew of their Socialist or Communist Utopia's they always ignore the one basic fact that invalidates their delusions.

HUMAN NATURE

You know, greed, lust, desire for power, etc.

Reality, what a concept eh there Slick ...

[revelarts]

What you're attempting to refer to is an inductive and informal logical fallacy called an association fallacy, which is a type of hasty generalization and red herring. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/guiltbya.html

I think i made my point pretty clearly. no need for me to go to academic on ya. But since your aware of the fallacy you should no better than to use it.

The problem is that your post is a strawman, which was revealed when you decided to go extremely overboard at the end. In one circumstance, there is the case of irrelevant correlation between social rightists and overt white nationalists. With the bit about the glass and plate, you implied that I had picked up on such an irrelevant correlation. However, I specified foundational moral beliefs that were shared between the two groups, not trivial similarities that could be shared by anyone. Those foundational moral beliefs are voluntarily held by a distinct segment of the population that both groups happen to belong to. And it remains my contention that rightists are more inclined to racist generalizations and stereotypes because they perceive minority groups as more frequent offenders of their moral codes, and have a greater potential for transformation of that into an explicit outlook.

In the words of white supremacist leader Alex Linder:

http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...04&postcount=2

http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...19&postcount=6

This connection is made clearer by the fact that there are a number of groups (VDARE.com, AmRen, the Council of Conservative Citizens, etc.) and individuals (Pat Buchanan, Peter Brimelow, etc.) who straddle the line between social rightism and white nationalism, which is because there are common themes of white ethnic populism and racial resentment. It's very interesting that there are a number of members here insistent that they can define an ideology better than its self-described adherents.

Well you get closer to making a real point with the quotes you've just used however it still puts you in the same position. you efforts to distants yourself from socialism and totalitarianism sound just as shrill to my ears as my attempts to distant myself from racist may sound to yours. ALL of the Communist leaders have espoused the very same moral position that your Anarchist version promotes. Wealth, Land and means of production Shared by the "workers".
However, somehow, in practice it ends with a bureaucratic or industrial elite in control with "the worker" still ekking out a living but now unable influence or gainsay the benevolent fat cat comrade leaders.

look at what you wrote here:

Anarchism, as a social ideology, has always been characterized by advocacy of stateless socialism (decentralized networks of workers' ownership and management of the means of production), in contrast to the hierarchical labor markets and firm structures of capitalism, the earlier authoritarianism of feudalism, or the later authoritarianism of Leninism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (15 January 1809 in Besançon – 19 January 1865 in Passy) was a French politician, mutualist philosopher and socialist. He was a member of the French Parliament, and he was the first person to call himself an "anarchist". He is considered among the most influential theorists and organizers of anarchism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Bakunin

Mikhail Alexandrovich Bakunin (30 May [O.S. 18 May] 1814 - 1 July 1876) (Russian: Михаи́л Алекса́ндрович Баку́нин; IPA: [mʲɪxɐˈil ˌbaˈkunʲin]) was a well-known Russian revolutionary and theorist of collectivist anarchism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Kropotkin

Peter (Pyotr) Alexeyevich Kropotkin (Russian: Пётр Алексеевич Кропоткин) (9 December 1842 – 8 February 1921) was a zoologist, an evolutionary theorist, geographer and one of the world's foremost anarcho-communists. One of the first advocates of anarchist communism, Kropotkin advocated a communist society free from central government and based on voluntary associations between workers
Anarchist Communism: Its Basis and Principles, by Kropotkin.

Anarchism, the no-government system of socialism, has a double origin. It is an outgrowth of the two great movements of thought in the economic and the political fields which characterize the nineteenth century, and especially its second part. In common with all socialists, the anarchists hold that the private ownership of land, capital, and machinery has had its time; that it is condemned to disappear; and that all requisites for production must, and will, become the common property of society, and be managed in common by the producers of wealth. And in common with the most advanced representatives of political radicalism, they maintain that the ideal of the political organization of society is a condition of things where the functions of government are reduced to a minimum, and the individual recovers his full liberty of initiative and action for satisfying, by means of free groups and federations--freely constituted--all the infinitely varied needs of the human being.
..

are you seriously telling me that i couldn't find scores of quotes from Mao, Stalin, Castro, Ho Chi Minh or Lenin even that don't jib almost exactly with your specific brand of communism. But I'm suppose to believe that it can NEVER turn into the darker murderous and poverty inducing communism we've all come to see in history.

When you want to call some one a racist pick a name and call them one. But don't throw ever conservative into the racist camp. In FACT YOU WILL BE WRONG. Parse the facts as finely for racist ideas and conservative idea as do for you do for the shades of communism you espouse and i think well be fine.

[Agnapostate]

I thought about responding to this tripe point by point, but the stormfront references were so over the top that your stuck on stupid rhetoric is unworthy of that kind of effort.

I will consider you the forum hemmorhoid from this point forward.

LOL, BoogerCan. If I'm the forum hemorrhoid (learn how to fucking spell), you're the fucking cunt wart that's just exploded with the drip, motherfucker.

One last time -

Socialism - The State owns and controls everything

And you claim Anarchism is an exclusively Socialist ideology?

You are the most ignorant fuck I have EVER had the misfortune of running into.

Jesus fucking christ, this is the most idiotic display of stupidity I have ever seen on this forum, and when you're in a special ed. kindergarten class like this board, that's definitely fucking saying something. The most idiotic part is this incomprehensibly fucking retarded delusion that you're somehow in the right (what the fuck? ) when you're the dumbest fucking dipstick on this board, in some way.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/ugh-t141310/index.html

I wouldn't bother with this type. If you really want to you can always link him to an old anarchist book like The Conquest of Bread. If he brushes it off you can laugh at how he doesn't know anything and just be a dick right back at him.

He is beyond reasoning. Just call him names until he goes away and cries.

From Proudhon to Tucker to Bakunin to Kropotkin to Goldman to Rocker to Chomsky and Zinn, anarchist theorists have always called themselves socialists. Where the fuck are your anarchists, you dumb fucking troglodyte? Where the fuck are they? Where the fuck is your Bakunin? Who the fuck gave you these incomprehensibly moronic little talking points to vomit at my feet? Where the fuck are the examples of your anarchism in action, you demented little goblin? Where the fuck is your Makhno, your Durruti, your Marcos? I mean, fuck. Go get raped by herpes-infected chimpanzees and die in a fire.

But then again Socialists and it's bastard step child Communists are complete ignorant fucks for with all the tripe they spew of their Socialist or Communist Utopia's they always ignore the one basic fact that invalidates their delusions.

HUMAN NATURE

You know, greed, lust, desire for power, etc.

Reality, what a concept eh there Slick ...

LOLOLOL. Proponents of laissez-faire capitalism are always imbecilic assclowns with their dumb fucking shit, and they always ignore the one basic fact that invalidates their delusions.

HUMAN NATURE

Oh shiznit! I wrote it in bigger font than you did, Chafin! Well, shit, declare me the fucking winner and give me my fucking trophy, because my argumentative skills are clearly the victor!

I think i made my point pretty clearly. no need for me to go to academic on ya. But since your aware of the fallacy you should no better than to use it.

I do know better than to use it. That would be why I didn't use it, regardless of whether your non-argumentative repetition of the assertion that I did claims otherwise.

Well you get closer to making a real point with the quotes you've just used however it still puts you in the same position. you efforts to distants yourself from socialism and totalitarianism sound just as shrill to my ears as my attempts to distant myself from racist may sound to yours. ALL of the Communist leaders have espoused the very same moral position that your Anarchist version promotes. Wealth, Land and means of production Shared by the "workers".

Then by the same token, since all these regimes have espoused a rhetorical commitment to republican democracy (the Union of Soviet Sovialist Republics, the People's Republic of China, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, etc.), you must also be a supporter of dictatorship, since you presumably profess to support republican democracy.

However, somehow, in practice it ends with a bureaucratic or industrial elite in control with "the worker" still ekking out a living but now unable influence or gainsay the benevolent fat cat comrade leaders.

look at what you wrote here:

are you seriously telling me that i couldn't find scores of quotes from Mao, Stalin, Castro, Ho Chi Minh or Lenin even that don't jib almost exactly with your specific brand of communism. But I'm suppose to believe that it can NEVER turn into the darker murderous and poverty inducing communism we've all come to see in history.

While I'm an anti-Leninist, I also recognize that the majority of Leninists could win an argument with you, because you're simply repeating the standard talking points taught in the U.S. public school system and repeated by rightist talk radio. It's what they've heard countless times before: http://www.revleft.com/vb/you-make-m...137/index.html

The problem here is that Leninism and anarchism are opposing tendencies, just as Marxism and anarchism are opposing tendencies of socialism. It's not possible to describe oneself as both a Leninist and an anarchist, while the majority of white nationalists profess to be "conservatives." It's not a step away, since the two ideologies are so diametrically opposed. There cannot be an organization that hovers "on the line" between anarchism and Leninism, as there are organizations that hover on the line between strong social rightism and white nationalism. The association between anarchism and Leninism has always been one of opposition. This began with Peter Kropotkin's personal communications to Lenin, such as that of this letter:

Russia has already become a Soviet Republic only in name. The influx and taking over of the people by the 'party,' that is, predominantly the newcomers (the ideological communists are more in the urban centers), has already destroyed the influence and constructive energy of this promising institution - the soviets. At present, it is the party committees, not the soviets, who rule in Russia. And their organization suffers from the defects of bureaucratic organization. To move away from the current disorder, Russia must return to the creative genius of local forces which, as I see it, can be a factor in the creation of a new life.And the sooner that the necessity of this way is understood, the better. People will then be all the more likely to accept [new] social forms of life. If the present situation continues, the very word 'socialism' will turn into a curse. That is what happened to the conception of equality in France for forty years after the rule of the Jacobins.

This insight is utterly prescient and demonstrates substantial abilities of foresight. Kropotkin knew not only that the state capitalism of Lenin and the Bolsheviks was not "socialist"; he knew that it was in fact anti-socialist, and that its ruinous legacy would generate harsh damage to the socialist movement, creating a "guilt by association" of sorts for even those socialists (such as anarchists), who had quickly and vigilantly condemned the authoritarianism of state capitalism. Similarly opposed to this pseudo-socialism was Emma Goldman, deported from the U.S. to Russia for her political convictions and participation in radical activity, and initially optimistic about the Russian Revolution. This optimism turned to dismay after she witnessed the brutal suppression of the democratically motivated Kronstadt Rebellion in 1921 by the Red Army, and led to her 1923 publication of My Disillusionment in Russia, in which she railed against the nature of dictatorship in the USSR:

The STATE IDEA, the authoritarian principle, has been proven bankrupt by the experience of the Russian Revolution. If I were to sum up my whole argument in one sentence I should say: The inherent tendency of the State is to concentrate, to narrow, and monopolize all social activities; the nature of revolution is, on the contrary, to grow, to broaden, and disseminate itself in ever-wider circles. In other words, the State is institutional and static; revolution is fluent, dynamic. These two tendencies are incompatible and mutually destructive. The State idea killed the Russian Revolution and it must have the same result in all other revolutions, unless the libertarian idea prevail.

Goldman had no ability to know that the Soviet Union would eventually be dissolved many decades later and did not declare it anti-socialist only after its imminent destruction was apparent. She, as with other consistent anarchists, declared the Soviet Union and the authoritarian state capitalism that falsely masqueraded as socialism within it to be tyrannically monstrous and unjust even as it gained greater power:

Witness the tragic condition of Russia. The methods of State centralization have paralyzed individual initiative and effort; the tyranny of the dictatorship has cowed the people into slavish submission and all but extinguished the fires of liberty; organized terrorism has depraved and brutalized the masses and stifled every idealistic aspiration; institutionalized murder has cheapened human life, and all sense of the dignity of man and the value of life has been eliminated; coercion at every step has made effort bitter, labor a punishment, has turned the whole of existence into a scheme of mutual deceit, and has revived the lowest and most brutal instincts of man. A sorry heritage to begin a new life of freedom and brotherhood.

In the mid-to-late 1930's, the world saw the most expansive and important socialist revolution throughout history occur during the Spanish Civil War, as anarchists and libertarian workers organized and collectivized vast areas of land and numerous fixtures throughout Spain, establishing several thousand anarchist collectives among several million inhabitants of Spain, their hub being in the industrialized region of Catalonia and its capital of Barcelona, a city populated by 1.2 million residents. Unfortunately, the exigencies of the situation (a fascist military revolt against the republican government), led union leaders to organize an alliance with authoritarian "socialists" backed by the Soviet Union. These phony socialists considered the social revolution a counterproductive engagement, and moved to sabotage and destroy collectivization efforts through violent force, with Soviet "allies" deliberately depriving anarchist and libertarian Marxist military forces of necessary aid, critically undermining the war effort. The anarcho-syndicalist Rudolf Rocker offered this insighftul analysis into the reasons for this treachery:

For two decades the supporters of Bolshevism have been hammering it into the masses that dictatorship is a vital necessity for the defense of the so-called proletarian interests against the assaults of the counter-revolution and for paving the way for Socialism. They have not advanced the cause of Socialism by this propaganda, but have merely smoothed the way for Fascism in Italy, Germany, and Austria by causing millions of people to forget that dictatorship, the most extreme form of tyranny, can never lead to social liberation. In Russia, the so-called dictatorship of the proletariat has not led to Socialism, but to the domination of a new bureaucracy over the proletariat and the whole people…What the Russian autocrats and their supporters fear most is that the success of libertarian Socialism in Spain might prove to their blind followers that the much vaunted “necessity of a dictatorship” is nothing but one vast fraud which in Russia has led to the despotism of Stalin and is to serve today in Spain to help the counter-revolution to a victory over the revolution of the workers and peasants.

This anarchist criticism has continued to the present day, and saw a remarkable recent expression in Noam Chomsky's 1986 publication of his article The Soviet Union Versus Socialism:

The Leninist antagonism to the most essential features of socialism was evident from the very start. In revolutionary Russia, Soviets and factory committees developed as instruments of struggle and liberation, with many flaws, but with a rich potential. Lenin and Trotsky, upon assuming power, immediately devoted themselves to destroying the liberatory potential of these instruments, establishing the rule of the Party, in practice its Central Committee and its Maximal Leaders -- exactly as Trotsky had predicted years earlier, as Rosa Luxembourg and other left Marxists warned at the time, and as the anarchists had always understood. Not only the masses, but even the Party must be subject to "vigilant control from above," so Trotsky held as he made the transition from revolutionary intellectual to State priest. Before seizing State power, the Bolshevik leadership adopted much of the rhetoric of people who were engaged in the revolutionary struggle from below, but their true commitments were quite different. This was evident before and became crystal clear as they assumed State power in October 1917.

If you want to depict me as supportive of Leninism, at least be aware of the remarkably disingenuous nature of this association.

When you want to call some one a racist pick a name and call them one. But don't throw ever conservative into the racist camp. In FACT YOU WILL BE WRONG. Parse the facts as finely for racist ideas and conservative idea as do for you do for the shades of communism you espouse and i think well be fine.

These are more assertions, not arguments. I will continue to maintain that rightists have greater potentials to evolve into an explicitly racist position based on their tendency to subconsciously generalize about ethnic minorities because that is a convenient mechanism for categorizing moral offenders together.

They also believe that the degree of response is appropriate to the degree of risk. Since there is considered to be a very serious threat to air travel posed by terrorism, for example, they're supportive of racial profiling of Middle Easterners, simply because of their tendency to generalize. Since illegal immigration is not seen as such a critically serious and obvious threat to national security, they instead insist that profiling mechanisms aren't actually profiling mechanisms, but if the risk was perceived as elevating, they would become supportive of it, since they would generalize that most immigrants were Mesoamerican Indians (though inaccurate terminology would be used). The same generalization already exists in the mind, though.

[jimnyc]

LOL, BoogerCan. If I'm the forum hemorrhoid (learn how to fucking spell), you're the fucking cunt wart that's just exploded with the drip, motherfucker.

As most of you know, the "C" word is the one and only censored word on the board. This is why I immediately took notice with the above post. I figured maybe something with the last upgraded made the filtering stop working. I checked and the word is still censored. I then looked at the advanced options when "editing" Ag's post and saw what he did with the "size" feature in order to bypass the filtering system for that word. I think the word is pure filth, it's against the rules obviously by the censor in place, and most importantly - we have plenty of women on the board, many of whom made their wishes known in the past about the use of this word on the board, hence the one and only censored word.

I might have just given him a warning until I saw he purposely bypassed the filter (look at the image below for further understanding of what he did)). 7 days off.

[Gaffer]

Pain free prostate for 7 days, that sounds good.

[Agnapostate]

As most of you know, the "C" word is the one and only censored word on the board. This is why I immediately took notice with the above post. I figured maybe something with the last upgraded made the filtering stop working. I checked and the word is still censored. I then looked at the advanced options when "editing" Ag's post and saw what he did with the "size" feature in order to bypass the filtering system for that word. I think the word is pure filth, it's against the rules obviously by the censor in place, and most importantly - we have plenty of women on the board, many of whom made their wishes known in the past about the use of this word on the board, hence the one and only censored word.

I might have just given him a warning until I saw he purposely bypassed the filter (look at the image below for further understanding of what he did)). 7 days off.

My comment was a reciprocal one; it was in the context of an exchange in which others chose to initiate vulgar and profane insults, and I merely gave them a taste of their own medicine, finishing what they had started. It stands in stark contrast, for example, to your proclivities to make racially/ethnically bigoted remarks about Indians despite no provocative remarks about your ethnicity on my part.

Notice how there are no indians, spics, blacks... All lily white students. Don't be angry because we excluded your kind.

No beaners, wetbacks, spics or any of your other whining friends. We had a few American Indians, but they whined too and we kicked their asses out of school and made them learn down the road in a little tee-pee with some ugly brown lady. Funny, those idiots now pump my gas and mow my lawn!

I guess when you have Admin CP access, you make up your own rules and standards for yourself and different ones for others as you go along.

[Pagan]

My comment was a reciprocal one; it was in the context of an exchange in which others chose to initiate vulgar and profane insults, and I merely gave them a taste of their own medicine, finishing what they had started. It stands in stark contrast, for example, to your proclivities to make racially/ethnically bigoted remarks about Indians despite no provocative remarks about your ethnicity on my part.

I guess when you have Admin CP access, you make up your own rules and standards for yourself and different ones for others as you go along.

So tell us again Agnus how as you say "anarchism is an explicitly socialist ideolog"