Welcome to Anarcho-Punk.net community ! Please register or login to participate in the forums.   Ⓐ//Ⓔ

favorite anarchistic philosopher

Discussion in 'Anarchism and radical activism' started by stinagen, Apr 18, 2010.

  1. Bakica

    BakicaExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member




    Feb 21, 2010
    In which topic? im would like to read it.
  2. Wid

    WidMember Forum Member




    Apr 25, 2010
    One of my interests is finding anarchists going back into the past. So whilst I don't have a favourite, I do very much like two sets of people from history in England (where I'm from) the levellers and diggers, and the people involved in the peasants' revolt. From the former, Gerald Wintstanley is the main man, from the latter, Wat Tyler, John Ball and Jack Straw are the people involved who have had their views and actions best recorded. But more than that, anarchism is a structural claim about self management. When at university I studied ancient Egyptian history I found out that the skeletons of normal people in the two intermendiate periods (described by Egyptian kings as periods of 'chaos') showed that normal people lived longer and ate better than people living under centralised rule. This happened 2700-1000 years ago, but the same is true today.

    My only word of warning about modern theorists would be not to limit your reading to anarchists, or even those you agree with. You can learn alot from Marxusts and liberals like Gramsci, Adorno, Butler or Dewey (to gie a tiny selection), providied you maintain your critical faculties.
  3. NGNM85

    NGNM85Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member




    Sep 8, 2009
    You do this repeatedly, I’m just going to jump on it here and get it over with. Chomsky did not defend Faurisson, holocaust denial, or anything of the sort, he defended freedom of speech. Freedom of speech isn’t mine, yours, or Faurisson’s. If you say this kind of speech or thought is criminal, that goes for everybody, you can’t pick and choose. Now, either you believe people have the right to free expression, which means the right to express ideas you find personally abhorrent, or you don’t believe in free speech.

    I never said you had to like them, but putting someone in prison for speaking or writing their ideas is a whole different ball of wax.

    Lying is generally bad, but are you willing to criminalize it? Besides, you’d have to prove that he knew what he was saying is untrue, which you can’t, even though I happen to think he genuinely believes it.

    There is a disturbing percentage of the US that subscribes to “Young Earth Creationism”, as horrible as I find their ideas, I don’t want to imprison them for believing it.

    Is this actually a serious problem? (The answer is “No.”) Regardless it’s not “stupid”, it’s ethically consistent. Morals and principles don’t just apply when it’s convenient.

    This is a whole different argument that really contradicts everything else you’re saying. Second, if people start getting locked up for holding unauthorized opinions, it’s likely any one of us would be next. Bear in mind the classic quote by Martin Niemoller;
    "THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
    and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
    THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
    and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
    THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
    and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
    THEN THEY CAME for me.. "

    Woah! You just changed the frame of conversation. Second, the new criteria “in action” is both dubious, and questionable relevance. My first reaction is to take into account that essentially all of these examples were engaged in war of some kind at the time. However, I would suggest that they were very probably wrong in doing this.

    Clearly, I don’t give a damn what the herd thinks. I’ve proven repeatedly I’m perfectly willing to buck the status quo.

    ???! ………Never mind, I’ll just let that go…

    See, you keep doing this. It isn’t neo-Nazi’s freedom of speech (I actually haven’t seen any proof Faurisson is actually a neo-Nazi.) it’s EVERYBODY’s freedom of speech. You don’t get to compartmentalize it like that, his politics are irrelevant.

    “A rose by any other name.” He might be more reticent about describing himself that way but his ideology hasn’t changed.

    I have no idea what point you think you’re making.

    I’m very much aware.

    He wasn’t-…….. See above.

    You can honestly argue he was wrong, but it wasn’t stupid.


    Not in the least bit patronizing. Oh well, I’ve been accused of that. I’m going to spell it out…

    The right to express ideas freely without fear of persecution is a fundamental human right and a key litmus test of a democratic and open society. It is also the bedrock on which all other rights are predicated.

    Believing in freedom of speech means believing in it for ideas that you find objectionable. Nobody goes to prison for supporting the status quo.

    Criminalizing speech is fascist, authoritarian, and tantamount to burning books, which is just another means of shutting down free speech. This is the death knell for individual rights. Therefore, Anarchists should oppose it.

    Second, Anarchists should oppose it out of hand because historically Anarchists have been the victims of such crusades. Like Thomas Paine, who was nearly executed once the new order was established and decided revolutionaries were no longer desirable.

    Lastly, criminalizing free speech is bad because it’s tactically unsound. It just doesn’t work that well. In fact, it can very easily backfire and make the target more sympathetic. You don’t defeat bad ideas by silencing them. You defeat them by holding them under a spotlight for all to see. Especially bad ideas like neo-Nazism or holocaust denial should not be threatening because they are so easily countered. I despise religion, but I don’t want to throw all religious people into internment camps. I want new rules of conversation, I want to have a public, critical dialogue, because I know their ideas can’t possibly hold up.

    Lastly, virtually every leap forward in human progress, every visionary has drastically challenged the fundamental beliefs of the day, in art, culture, science, etc. If we silence the Faurisson’s we’re likely to silence the Galileo’s as well. Dissent is healthy, and moreover it’s fundamental to Anarchism.
  4. back2front

    back2frontExperienced Member Experienced member




    Nov 26, 2009
    Keeping on topic...

    Freidrich Nietzsche and Ludwig Wittgenstein interest me (as does Hegel et al before them)

    Jean Paul Sartre annoys me so much that I keep reading his books... "Being and Nothingness" I find impenetrable though you get a better glimpse in his novels like "Nauesa"

    As far as anarchist philosophers go I would be keen on Kropotkin and Malatesta, I like the bile of Lucy Pasons, think Emma Goldman was a bourgeois celebrity, like Alexander Berkman's clarity on anarchist-communism, Rocker's description of anarcho-syndicalism (though neither of the last two were philosophers per se), Chomsky with salt, Murray Bookchin's social ecology and Raoul Vanegeim on Sundays.

    I like IDEAS, even ideas that I fundamentally disgree with provided there is some criteria on which an argument can be based and that the arguement itself is well-argued without resort to school playground name-calling when the going gets tough.

    There is one element to the freedom of speech arguement brought up latterly and that is that far rightists seek to deny freedom of speech (and most freedoms in general) ergo to defend their right to freedom of speech is technically NOT a defence of freedom of speech per se?
  5. ILuvEire

    ILuvEireExperienced Member Experienced member




    Apr 5, 2010
    Once again, I'd like to address every single qualm about Chomsky, but it's so off-topic that I'll just say this: neo-nazis can say WHATEVER the hell the want. But guess what? So can I. If they're going to spread misinformation, the for fuck's sake, I'm going to do the exact OPPOSITE and spread information.

    Anyway, I'll just say, I absolutely adore Emma Goldman. She has got to be my biggest hero ever. Her political theories weren't very earth shattering or groundbreaking, but she was LOUD. She got stuff out, and that's what I love her for.

    Some others I like: Tolstoy, Chomsky, Kropotkin (of course!), Lenin and Marx.

    One I've just never been able to get into, is Nietzsche. I seem to disagree with him on a lot of topics, and I just never really saw what everyone else saw in him. To each his own I suppose.
  6. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member




    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 34 years old
    Canada United States
    he defended the freedom of speech of faurisson. It was not a coincidence that he reacted on the faurisson affair by saying faurisson have the right to deny the holocaust and be a nazi asshole, etc... inform yourself

    This is shitty a chomsky quotation, word for word.

    I don't care what he says on this issue, he's the ONLY ANARCHIST i know to defend freedom of speech for our ennemies

    Re-read my historical exemples, NONE OF THEM allowed freedom of speech for the ennemies of freedom of speech.

    I do what repreatedly ???

    And during anarchist revolutions, what the fuck do you think that happens to our ennemies? Learn what happenned to the fascists in the anarchist spanish revolution, learn what happenned to the ennemies of the makhnovtchina, etc.... THEY WERE KILLED.

    You don't make a revolution by defending your ennemies and their freedom of speech.

    Wow you are an idiot, you are saying i CAN'T prove that he is lying by saying the gas chambers never existed ??? GOD DAMN INFORM YOURSELF there are pictures and movies ALL OVER THE FUCKING INTERNET of US soldiers liberating nazi concentration camps, there are proofs and evidences of the auschwitz massacres and other camps.... WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS SOOOO STUPID.

    yes its a fucking big problem is anti-nazi anarchists start to milite for liberation of nazis.

    why don't you go fight to liberate the nazi POW or other negationnist asshole if this is part of your fight ??

    wow so dumb... you don't even understand this quote.... you are saying that we should NOT SPEAK UP against the nazis because they have the right to have their freedom of speech.... i doubt Martin Niemoller would agree with your shitty logic of tolerating nazi freedom of speech

    wow you don't know what to answer anymore !!!

    You can't find ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE of anarchism in action that tolerated freedom of speech for their ennemies and you say they were all wrong doing this... Maybe you should realize that YOU are wrong, it's not EVERYBODY WITHOUT EXCEPTION that is wrong, it's just YOU

    and yes they were at war, and maybe it's the time for you to realize that anarchism is also a permanent war. Ever heard of CLASS WAR ?????

    Anti-nazism and anti-fascism is also a war.

    if they were wrong at denying the freedom of speech for the ennemies fighting against them, then please explain us what the fuck they should have done. you are just critizing everything and you can't provide any solutions.... seriously explain us your solution. how to react ? what the spanish revolutionnaries should have done ??? they should have tolerated freedom of speech for the fascists and counter revolutionnaries ????

    you're really funny.... your theories might sound cool to you, but think about how you would apply them because you CAN'T

    Start by fighting for the freedom of speech of your comrades before caring about your ENNEMIES. Why the fuck would you support the freedom of speech for ideas you are against ???

    And yes, faurisson is a right-wing asshole, he defends the nazi genocide what the fuck do you think he is ??? what side do you think he's on ??

    it's obvious: in all anarchist communities, including squats, nobody tolerate nazis and nazi ideas. There are no freedom of speech for the nazis and negationnists, just like there were no freedom of speech in ANY ANARCHIST-IN-ACTION HISTORICAL EXAMPLE

    i still defy you to find one single example of anarchism in ACTION to back your thought on. you are just talking shitty philosophy and ideas to sound cool but you can't apply those ideas in an anarchist revolution.

    YES HE IS, HE DEFENDED HIS FREEDOM OF SPEECH. You say you are aware of the faurisson affair, sorry but you seem pretty much ignorant on this issue...

    wow you sound very confused, a few quotes above you just said that anarchists who did the opposite of chomsky were wrong and now you agree we can argue he was wrong.

    and yes he was wrong AND stupid

    The key to a democratic and open society is also to not tolerate the LIARS and peoples who do DISINFORMATION by saying something that 99% of the world population knows it is false because there are evidences everywhere. Denying the holocaust is not freedom of speech, it is disinformation.

    If you think negationism is freedom of speech then you probably also think peoples who lied about Irak having Mass destruction weapons is also freedom of speech and not disinformation.

    Woohoo, the stupid words used in wrong circumstances again. Another godwin point for you.

    I already explained that ALL EXAMPLES OF ANARCHISM IN ACTION denied the freedom of speech for their ennemies. So you are saying the whole history of anarchism is fascist and authoritarian.

    The spanish revolution, the zapatistas, the makhnovtchina, the kronsdadt sailors, the commune of paris and all other anarchists were all fascists and authoritarians :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

    And what if i say that this event never existed and i deny its existence ? You would consider that freedom of speech or disinformation?

    ok then how the fuck are you going to do a revolution ??? you will just wait until all our ennemies convert as anarchists ?? haha

    easily countered hahahaha WOOWWW.... yeah thats probably why WWII existed and thats probably why there are HUGE neo-nazis problems in russia.... yeah nazism is easily countered LOLLLL

    yeah let them say what they want until they convert enough peoples with their propaganda and disinformation to kill YOUR freedom of speech.
  7. NGNM85

    NGNM85Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member




    Sep 8, 2009
    You continue to miss the point. Believe me, I've read all about it.The point is WHAT Faurisson was saying was completely irrelevant.
    I attributed it. Even if I hadn't, it doesn't make it any more or less true. There is no other way to see it.
    His personal feelings are irrelevant. What matters are the facts, the truth of the matter, and what we should do about it.
    You keep bringing up irrelevant information, and misconstruing the sequence of events. Chomsky defended A holocaust denier, but NOT because he was a holocaust denier, nor did he defend holocaust denialism.
    I'm not disputing that because I don't have to, it's irrelevant.
    I'm not going to bother to unpack that but that sentence involves a long string of assumptions and preconditions most of which I would object to.
    I'd talk slower if I could, maybe just try reading slower... I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that the holocaust DID occur. However, I don't see any evidence to suggest Faurisson doesn't legitimately believe in his thesis. Just like Young-Earth-Creationists whose patently absurd beliefs fly completely in the face of reason. I don't think these people are engaged in a conspiracy to pass themselves of as misguided loons, they ARE misguided loons. Unfortunately, the human mind has a mervelous capacity to engage in self deception, hold contradictory ideas, etc. THAT was my point, which apparently was too subtle.
    We apparently have different definitions of what constitutes a crisis. I don't see this as an epidemic. Second, it's completely consistent, but I'm sure I'll elaborate on that, again, later.
    Now, you're just being hyperbolic and ridiculous.
    You're conflating two completely different things. Incidentally, just as an aside, I still haven't seen any evidence that Faurisson IS a neo-nazi, but it's not really relevant. There is a world of difference between supporting what someone says, and throwing them in a cage simply for speaking. You first have to acknowledge this midpoint exists. The point I was making, as per Niemoller's statement, that tolerating the violation of basic human rights in others is a slippery slope, and usually leads to greater and greater oppression, etc. THAT was Niemoller's point, it had nothing to do with Nazism per se, or Nazi ideology.A threat to freedom anywhere is a threat to freedom anywhere.
    No, you just completely and abitrarily changed the line of argument. The issue was what should be the ethically and philosophically consistent Anarchist popsition on free speech. At this point you attempted to use a series of dubious rhetorical tricks to derail the conversation. What does the modifier "in action" actually mean? I am an Anarchist performing an action, I am typing. That's sort of a reductio ad absurdum, but I think the point is clear. Second, should it matter? Whether or not specific Anarchists have applied the principle has very little to do with it, simply citing historical trivia doesn't prove limiting free speech is consistent with Anarchism, just that other, self-proclaimed Anarchists either didn't see a contradiction, or reconciled it....somehow.
    This is not an argument.
    There's a connection in principle, and certain particulars, but essentially those are two different things.
    See above.
    That depends on the context of the circumstances, which would have to be considered on a case-by-case basis. I would entail a detailed analysis of each instance. However, I reiterate that this is largely irrelevant. That self-described Anarchists have made this concession is not relevant, what would be relevant would be the reasons why the concession was made. This also has no bearing because the circumstances in post-revolutionary Spain battling Franco backed by Hitler's wehrmacht, is in no way analagous to present-day France.
    Well, there are a lot of social norms that go by the wayside in warfare. Like not murdering eachother, for instance. I think that's an excellent reason not to have wars. However, that still doesn't mean it's not inconsistent with Anarchist ideology.
    No, we can apply them very easily. When I hear someone saying something I think is wrong, or even offensive, I am inclined to argue with that person, to demand they make a case for themselves, to try and prove them wrong. Muzzling people and destroying or disallowing the production of literature that is inconstent with "authorized opinions", is not my inclination.
    This is also not an argument, you're simply evading the issue.
    Because, for the millionth time, that is what it means to support free speech. If it just applies to me but not you,et., etc., then it isn't freedom of speech. That's what HUMAN RIGHTS means.
    I don't know what his political orientation is, and it isn't relevent.
    No. Inside you're house, or clubhouse, or my house, we get to set our own rules. That applies to our own little space. However, placing limits on other people's public life is a completely different sport.
    Round, and round we go...
    Again, you're side-stepping the whole issue by saying it doesn't matter.(Which I think it's obvious you don't believe.) Second, what is applicible during a violent revolution was not a part of the central thesis, nor is it relevent. Third, i'm really skeptical about a violent revolution producing a stable, libertarian socialist society in the west in the 21st century.
    I'm going to say it again... The issue, as you said, without understanding it, was freedom of speech, the content is immaterial. Otherwise freedom of speech doesn't exist.
    You CAN make that argument, yes, it's just a very weak argument because the facts aren't on you're side.
    No, now you're just being petty. This is a big problem, and not just on this board. You can't just start saying whatever you want about something you don't like. For example, I think Henry Kissinger is ethically and morally bankrupt and should be tried for crimes against humanity (Aso do many others.) however, I don't get to call him stupid or his political decisions stupid because I dislike or disagree with them. Otherwise, we're sort of setting the precedent that meanings of words don't really matter, which is sort of fucked up and counterintuitive. For an example closer to home, lots of people on this board like to arbitrarily proclaim that a band isn't punk simply because they don't like them.
    That's completely different. You're drawing connections where none exist. Claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, by the Bush administration and government officials does not qualify as free speech. It is an official statement from an institution, which they should be held accountable, but that doesn't really have anything to do with freedom of speech.
    There's a difference between ACTING fascist or authoritarian, and BEING fascist or authoritarian. Was it fascist? We can debate. Was it authoritarian? Without question.
    You're misconstruing what I was saying.
    As I said, I'm highly skeptical of armed revolution in the aforementioned context. I also clearly explained myself in the following lines.
    That isn't really relevant to today's circumstances. In the modern west, like modern-day Paris, neo-nazism is not a serious threat. When average Americans or Parisians see the guy with a swastika tattooed on his head they think he's a fucking freak. There's absolutely no danger. In situations where ideologies do present a threat, a much better example would be Jihadist ideology in the Middle East. I think the present campaigns very clearly show the abject failure of destroying an ideology with bullets and bombs. it's been a complete failure. If instead, the US were to abide by international law, and deal fairly and rationally with these countries, and ifthere was stable infrastructure where children could go to secular schools instead of madrasas, you'd see a difference.
    That someone might actually listen is not a legitimate argument against free speech, for reasons that should be obvious.
  8. A Better World

    A Better WorldExperienced Member Experienced member




    Feb 28, 2010
    dont read it live it and let the nazis be nazis and lets build a world where naziism is seen as the big load of bullshit it is i do believe in fucking up there rallys though cuz they would fuck ours up too
  9. back2front

    back2frontExperienced Member Experienced member




    Nov 26, 2009
    NGNM85 is correct about the Faurisson affair. Chomsky did not defend what he said but simply his right to say it. He was defending the notion of free speech itself. But as I mentioned earlier do you defend the rights of persons who, given free reign, would squash your freedoms at the bat of an eyelid? Do we differentiate between someone who holds apparently racist viewpoints and those directly involved in organised racism? And where do you draw the line?

    Organised fascism in every instance in history has curbed the freedom of others therefore to grant it free speech, which enables it to reach more people and room to organise, are you not in the long term going against the notion of free speech as a result? This is a question and not a statement.
  10. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member




    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 34 years old
    Canada United States
    I know.

    But spreading disinformation is not a right.

    If you believe faurisson has the right to spread disinformation, then you also believe Georges W Bush had the right to spread disinformation and lie about Irak having nukes. And you also believe Hitler, Himler and Mussolini had the right to think jews are the source of all problems in the society. You also think conservative christians have the right to say homosexuals are an error of the nature. You also think neo-nazis have the right to be racists.

    So if you believe all your ennemies have the right to have their ideas, why would you fight against them ? How can you pretend to defend someone's freedom of speech and want to fight against him because his ideas ?

    Following your logic we shouldn't even protest against the nazi rallys because they have the right to express their freedom of speech.

    Also, defending someone's freedom of speech is defending him.

    So now you are thinking you detain the truth and there can't be different opinions.

    Yes there are other way to see it :

    Negationism = lies and propaganda
    Lies and propaganda = not an opinion, not free speech.

    And my point is still that anarchists are supposed to fight against negationism, so its fucking stupid if the negationists can count on anarchists to defend their freedom of speech.

    I never said chomsky defended a negationist because he is a holocaust denier.

    But defending holocaust denial freedom of speech equals to defending their ideas.

    That's stupid, you are ignoring my arguments because you don't know what to answer.

    Yes this is revelent. You are talking about theories and i'm talking about putting those theories in action.

    Answer the question if you want to debate. Stop dodging and avoiding the true facts.

    And again, you are dodging and avoiding my arguments. Answer the facts i bring up.

    You still said that i can't prove that holocaust existed and that i can't prove faurisson is wrong, which is totally stupid. You are saying the exact same thing as holocaust deniers.

    anti-nazi anarchists fighting for the freedom of nazis IS a problem.

    just like if anti-capitalists started to fight for the right of capitalism to exist.

    No i'm just being logic.

    Anarchists are against prison just like anarchists are for freedom of speech. So why don't you go fight to liberate nazi POW and other racists ??? After all you are not defending them, you are just defending freedom !!! This is YOUR ARGUMENTS, not mine.

    You are very contradictory. Either apply your ideas or don't apply your ideas.

    Like your friend Chomsky said, either you believe in freedom or either you don't believe in it. So either you believe in freedom for nazis and racists or either you just don't believe in freedom.

    Your chomsky's quote didn't talk about a midpoint. It said either you believe in freedom or either you don't. No midpoint. No grey area, only black and white.

    That's still what the anarchists did in ukraine, in the commune of paris, in the spanish revolution, in the makhnovtchina, in kronsdadt, in zapatist mexico, etc.... And it didn't lead to greater and greater oppression.

    So like i said, go fight to liberate nazis and racists from prison

    No, i didn,t try to derail the conversation, i was backing up my arguments with PROOFS based on anarchism in action, not shitty theories. You are saying shitty theories but you have NO HISTORICAL EXAMPLE to back up your theories on. That's like peace and love hippy pacifist revolution : sounds good in theories, but totally impossible to apply in action. And you are a hippy.

    Hahahaha, no. You are making THEORIES.

    It's theories until it has been proven in action, in a revolution.

    Yes it has everything to do with it, it proves your shitty theories are just utopias that can't be applied because it's not how any of the revolutions has been done.

    It also prove that there was no other way to do it. Your shitty theories are impossible to realize. You FAILED over and OVER AGAIN to explain how we could allow freedom of speech for those who want to kill us and destroy our social gains during a revolution.

    You are a hippy dude...

    Wow... what a stupid comeback. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT TO ANSWER.

    Yes this is an argument, you are an idealist hippy and you are utopian, you can't find ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE to prove your shitty theories can be realized.

    Not an argument. Shitty comeback. You don't know what to answer.

    Class war is a WAR, it's a war between social classes and while at war you don't defend the ennemies or the ennemies freedom

    The concept of opponent and enemy is still here.

    Not an argument.

    Your argument are so stupid. How can you say a revolution and anarchism in action is irrevelant ??? that's stupid. Theories are WORTH NOTHING if you can't apply them.

    Explain me how the commune of paris should have given freedom of speech for the government and militaries.
    Explain me how the kronsdadt sailors should have given freedom for the bolcheviks who wanted to kill them.
    Explain me how the makhnovtchina should have given freedom for the white armies they were fighting against, or for the bolcheviks who wanted to kill them after the war with white armies.
    Explain me how the spanish revolutionnaries should have tolerated franquist propaganda and how they should have given freedom for those who they were AT WAR with.

    YOUR THEORIES ARE WORTH NOTHING because you can't explain how they can be applied. You keep dodging and avoiding the true questions by pretending it's not revelant, THAT'S FUCKING RIDICULOUS. And who the fuck are you to judge what is revelent and what not ? Just answer and stop dodging.

    You didn't answer the question. Dodging.

    If you can apply them very easily, then stop dodging the questions and answer. How to apply your stupid theories ? How the revolutionnaries should have acted in the given examples ??

    Oh, so the spanish revolutionnaries should have tolerated government propaganda
    And the WWII resistance should have tolerated nazi propaganda
    The zapatists should have allowed government's propaganda in their commune
    The kronsdadt sailors should have tolerated authoritarian communist's propaganda in their fort


    Yes this is an argument. There are THOUSANDS OF ANARCHISTS victims of repression and censorship. Defend your comrades before defending your ennemies. And don't tell me this is not an argument because YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT TO ANSWER.

    Ok then, for the millionth time, go fight for the liberation of nazi POW and go fight for the liberation of racists and pedaphiles. That what it means to support freedom. Either you are against prisons or either you are not. If freedom applies to me and you but not to nazis and racists, then it isn't freedom.


    Oh ok, so it's not revelent if you are fighting for the freedom of speech of one of your ennemies. Nice.

    So it's also not revelent if you are fighting for the liberation of a nazi prisonner ......


    Not an argument. You are avoiding the argument.

    Again you are dodging and avoiding the arguments because you don't know what to answer. You know i am right. Your theories are only utopian theories, you can't apply them.


    Wow you are just stupid. Yes connections exist. Just replace the name "bush administration" by someone else not linked to an institution.

    You are finding a way to avoid the argument again because you don't know what to answer.

    The point is that LIES and DISINFORMATION is NOT freedom of speech.

    You see links when it arrange you, and when it doesn't you say things are different.

    Ok then, since you like to play on words, i will reformulate:

    The spanish revolution, the zapatistas, the makhnovtchina, the kronsdadt sailors, the commune of paris and all other anarchists were all acting like fascists and authoritarians

    Still as funny and as ridiculous as the first quote.

    Lies and disinformation isn't freedom of speech.

    there is a word for that : D-I-S-I-N-F-O-R-M-A-T-I-O-N. Disinformation is the opposite of information.

    You are an hippy.

    Explain us how any of the historical example i quoted above can be realised without armed revolution.

    The counter-revolution and the peoples opposing the revolution will always be repressive and armed. How the fuck do you want to fight against them ? You're an hippy dude.

    You are REALLY STUPID.

    Yes this is revelant to today's circumstances, look at russia. Russia is flooded by neonazis and there are hundreds of nazi murders.

    As for the modern-day paris, then you are really fucking ignorant. The extreme-right is REALLY STRONG in france, there are multiples extreme right racist political partys, there are neo-nazi organisations, there are new nazi militias training to armed fight, etc...

    And let me tell you something, if the neo-nazis bonehead skinhead are a lesser threat than before, it's because in 1980-1990 the anti-fascist skinheads stuggled and kicked the shit out of them. Once again, it's totally contradictory with your shitty utopian theories about giving freedom of speech to out ennemies and not fighting them by force. Anybody from france can agree than in 1980, 99% of the skinhead at Paris and the whole france were RACIST SKINHEADS

    Saying there is "absolutly no danger" is fucking ridiculous and ignorant. Look at what happenned in russia. It's because of idiots like you saying there is no danger with neo-nazis that there are now multiple dozens of thousands of active militants and it's because of shitty theories like your's that there are now murdering thousands of peoples each years

    I'll repeat again : you are giving freedom of speech for your ennemies, and when they will convert enough peoples with the freedom of speech YOU are giving them, then it will be too late and now they will destroy YOUR freedom of speech.

    Exactly what happenned in russia with neo-nazis or in germany with hitler.
  11. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member




    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 34 years old
    Canada United States
    I also think your shitty theories are pure HYPOCRISY

    let's take this example:

    you pretend that the governments should have the freedom of speech to want to govern and be over everyone else.

    BUT, if they put their ideas in action, then they are not in the domain of freedom anymore and we must fight against them.

    Same for neo-nazis. They have the right to be nazi and racist. But if they start to apply their ideas, then they don't have freedom anymore and we must fight them...

    That's called HYPOCRISY !!! Why give the freedom of speech to someone if he only have the right to talk about his ideas, but not the right to apply them ???

    Oh yeah i forgot.... you are against fighting because you are an hippy. So eh.... If they put their ideas in action then we are just fucked and there's nothing we can do ! Let's just hope that your nice hippies speech can convert everyone.... Words against weapons, woohoo !! When the government army comes to kill us, let's just talk to them because armed struggle is inneffective in the 21st century !! Being hippy is so much better....

    So let's just hope the day of the revolution there won't be one single counter-revolutionnary, let's hope there will not be one neo-nazi anymore, not one fascist, not one policeman, not one military, and let's also hope the government will agree to the revolution!!! In other words, let's wait for your hippy pacifist revolution for the next 2000 years, let's wait forever until this world is perfect.... Oh wait, the planet will be destroyed before this happen.
  12. Xero

    XeroMember New Member




    May 3, 2010
    Wait, so Ungovernable, you're against authoritarianism, and yet in one of your last posts, you sound like you don't want to give Nazis freedom of speech because they disagree with you. Isn't that in turn authoritarianism?
  13. raindeer667

    raindeer667Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member




    Oct 10, 2009
    phoenix tucson and flagstaff anarchists foo! plus all the scattered people in the southwest
  14. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member




    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 34 years old
    Canada United States

    A good example of freedom of speech. I hope those nazis can count on you guys to defend them if they are victim of repression.

    Great, another idiot.

    That's called radical anti-fascism, not authoritarianism.

    If i'm an authoritarian because of those ideas, then all anarchists in the history are also authoritarians. The commune of paris, the spanish revolution, the makhnovtchina, the zapatists and even all anarchist squats are authoritarians because they think the exact same thing as me. Don't you realize how stupid what you are saying is ?

    Read a little about anarchism in action and examples of revolution. None of them gave freedom of speech for the nazis.
  15. back2front

    back2frontExperienced Member Experienced member




    Nov 26, 2009
    ER, who is that little quote by at the end of your posts Ungovernable?
  16. NGNM85

    NGNM85Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member




    Sep 8, 2009

    No shit, huh? Now can you translate that into ungoverable's native language?

    Well, i'm going to answer it, anyway. Again, the fact that someone might actually listen is an asinine reason to oppose freedom of speech, that, incidentally, could just as easily be applied to Anarchists. Private citizens have the right to express their ideas even if they are abhorrant, even if they are opposing free speech. Just as the rest of us have the right to argue the contrary. However, when fascists and authoritarians come into power and forcibly restrict our rights to challenge these views, that's a completely different story, and the only response can be revolutionary activity. However, this is not the case, we do not live in a police state.
  17. back2front

    back2frontExperienced Member Experienced member




    Nov 26, 2009
    When fascists and authoritarians come into power one might consider how this came about; and one might consider that it was because they were granted freedom of speech and therefore freedom to organise in the first instance. The fact that somebody might listen is the very reason why ideas are so dangerous.

    If one is for free speech one is against those who stand against it by default. I don't think the arguement is clear cut however and that is my point. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, sure, but are they entitled, if a group of people listen and accept those ideas, to organise on a platform those same ideas? Should fascists have the freedom to organise on a platform to promote their agenda in alignment with their right to speak in the first instance?
  18. Xero

    XeroMember New Member




    May 3, 2010
    I see your point, but in my mind, restricting someone of saying their ideas is imposing authority on them, no matter how racist or stupid they are.
    Second point: I asked a question, no need to call me an idiot.
  19. Bunny

    BunnyExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member




    Mar 13, 2010
    I say we we take away their free speech.

    Neo nazis and other racist groups use free speech to infringe on the freedoms of other and cause them harm.
    Take a look at reindeer's post "neo-nazis hand out fliers..." Its a perfect example of what ungovernable was saying:
    So you think we should allow them to hand out fliers spewing something so revolting? Taking into account that people will physically act on this, not to mention all the other lies they spread on a daily bases.
    If you want racist to have freedom of speech, just know that things like "report an illegal day" will continue.
  20. stinagen

    stinagenExperienced Member Experienced member




    Dec 6, 2009
    dam looks like i started something well i like Peter Kropotkin but i dont agree with all of his positions i also like Mikhail Bakunin