Loading...
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. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Admin Team Experienced member


    4,296

    49

    23

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 33 years old
    Canada Canada
    When there is a nazi march, the anti-fascist comes to the protest to say they don't want nazis here. they are here to OPPOSE their presence.

    if you believe in freedom of speech for the nazis, then you also oppose to the presence of anti-fascism saying fuck the nazis

    This is purely speculations and assumptions. Nobody in the given history example censored everything against anarchism.

    I will repeat it again : the tolerance of anarchism ends where hate begins.

    But if you think that means tolerating counter-revolutionnary capitalists organizing in political partys and trying to take back the power, of course i say fuck them. Same thing for stalinists who want to take the power to make a communist dictatorship.

    Other than this the critics are welcome, without critics and different ideas it isn't anarchism but a dictatorship.

    Now you are being an idiot like NGNM.

    So you are saying that all anarchist revolutions of the history and all examples of anarchism in action are authoritarian.

    You are saying that abolishing authoritarism is authoritarian. Don't you realize how fucking stupid you sound ?

    stupid comparaison.

    godwin point version communist.

    I don't have a problem with books, i have a problem with propaganda. But you are not intelligent enough to see the difference.

    Censoring history would be fucking stupid. We need to understand what happenned in the past if we don't want the mistakes to be repeated. For example, this is very important to understand the nazi ideology and what they did. BUT WE MUST UNDERSTAND IT IN AN OBJECTIVE POINT OF VIEW. Propaganda is not information, it's disinformation. If we're to learn about nazism we must learn in an objective manner, so we must learn the history not learn the anti-fascist propaganda nor the nazi propaganda.

    And just be realist, no one can burn all books by nazis you are being idiotic again. How the fuck could we censor all the nazi books on the internet ? You think the anarchists would censor internet websites maybe ? Just think about it.

    There is no place for nazis spreading propaganda in an anarchist community where the peoples have chosen together to be against fascism. No place for nazis piece of shit distributing the turner diaries, no place for assholes distributing "no illegal day" propaganda.


    Ok so i repeat again : you think that all examples of anarchist revolution and anarchism in action is "fascism masquerading as anarchy". WELL YOU ARE A FUCKING IDIOT AND YOU LIVE IN AN IMMAGINARY WORLD.

    Yes he was defending something particuliar because his critique concerned the faurisson affair. If he would have written a book and said "i believe in freedom of speech even for the ones who are fighting against me" then you could say he wasn't defending anyone. But he answered the faurisson affair by saying he has the right to write his disinformation, therefore he is defending him in particuliar.

    Oh really how to i misinterpret or misunderstand a lot of anarchist texts/events/writtings ? Explain us instead of making shitty declarations without proof.

    It is a FACT that all anarchists events and all anarchists revolutions were against freedom of speech for their ennemies. It's a FACT not a misunderstanding. PROVE ME WRONG OR SHUT THE FUCK UP. You are the one who doesnt understand anything abour anarchist history, or else you wouldn't say that it is a misinterpretation to think they opposed to freedom of speech for their ennemies.

    Also, i didn't misunderstand your point of view. I clearly understand : you believe in freedom of speech for the nazis and other ennemies.

    I have a lot of anger and violence against fascists bastards and racist, so yes it influences the way i percieve the ideas of dumbasses who defend them.

    I hate capitalism too, and yes it influences how i percieve the peoples who defend capitalism. Same thing.

    i'm not your comrade, you defend what i'm fighting against.


    Violent propaganda leads to violence. Same thing. See my example with the turner diaries. No way we can tolerate this kind of shit


    I tolerate freedom of speech that is not HATE. it's called the harm principle
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle

    the speech of anarchists is not hate or harmful, so it's normal that it is allowed just like any other speech that isnt violent or harmful

    Why don't you answer my posts mr. nazi hugger ?





    So in conclusion, you and NGNM and the other retards defending freedom of speech for their ennemies on this website think that :

    - You are not a real anarchist if you don't tolerate nazis spreading propaganda, nazis tagging swastikas on jew houses and black peoples houses

    - You are not a real anarchist if you don't tolerate nazi festivals and racist concerts. To be a real anarchist not only you must tolerate nazi protests, skrewdriver and blood and honour concerts, nazis distributing racist propaganda.... But it is also a DUTY for anarchists to defend the freedom of speech for those peoples

    - You guys are the only true anarchists, all examples of anarchism in action and anarchist revolution (including but not limited to : commune of paris, first international, makhnovtchina, anarchist squats, spanish revolution, kronsdadt sailors, etc etc etc) are fake anarchists, like you said they are authoritarians, they are fascists, and they are not ideologically anarchists

    - To be a true anarchist, you must give the freedom of speech for nazis to organize and make groups like the Ku Klux Klan, the american nazi party, the national alliance, etc.... You must also tolerate the bourgeoisie and the capitalists to express themselves and build new capitalist political partys against the revolution..... (and then you will be surprised when they organize a counter-revolutionnary army like the nationalist camp in the spanish revolution). Nazis are allowed to do public speech and say they want to see all black peoples dead and say the gas chambers never existed (like the KKK was doing), this is what you call freedom of speech. And those who would oppose to fascist propaganda would be fascists.

    - You think that nazism is a lesser threat when you let it go and you give them the freedom of speech, so they aren't underground and they can recruit peoples on the street, they can go to schools and recruit young childs to brainwash them into becomming an active nazi. (maybe you should realize what is happenning in the USA. it's one of the only country where nazis have freedom of speech and it's the country where the nazis are the most organized and they are getting more and more numerous because no one is stopping them)
    For example, you think that the turner diaries would had less impact if it was published in public and if this nazi hate propagands was available in local librairies. :lmao:

     
  2. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Admin Team Experienced member


    4,296

    49

    23

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 33 years old
    Canada Canada
    i will repeat again because it seems nobody understood.

    THIS IS THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH YOU ARE FIGHTING FOR, AND YOU ARE SHARING THE GUILT OF ALL RACIST HATE CRIMES COMMITED BASED ON THESE BOOKS BECAUSE YOU DEFEND THEIR RIGHT TO WRITE THIS KIND OF BULLSHIT.

     
  3. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Admin Team Experienced member


    4,296

    49

    23

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 33 years old
    Canada Canada
    So in conclusion :

    - you guys believe in freedom of speech for the nazis, they are free to organize themselves and build hate political partys. they are also free do spread racist propaganda and hate speech

    - you believe in freedom of speech for religious peoples, so it's also logic they should have the right to make organized religions. Integrist islamists who want an islamist revolution and an islamist dictatorship regime based on the coran are free to have their freedom of speech, and we must not try to stop them because they have the right to have those ideas

    - same thing for capitalists, they have the right to organize a counter revolution and build political partys to take back the power

    In conclusion, how the fuck are you going to make your idealistic revolution without harming anyone, without breaking anyone's freedom of speech ?

    Who the fuck are you fighting against ? nobody ? Seeing what your ideas are, i'm pretty sure you would also think that taking the bourgeoisie wealth by force would be fascism, i'm pretty sure that you would think that taking propriety by force to collectivise it would be authoritarism, etc... If not, then you are just contradictory with your ideas

    You are going to wait forever for your revolution. The regligious peoples will always stay brainwashed and religious, the fanatic islamists will always want to make an islamist revolution, the capitalists and the bourgeoisie will always fight against anarchism.

    If you think that a real anarchist society is a society where political partys still exists, where chruches and organized religions are not abolished, where nazi political partys are still here, a society where fascist militias are still here, a society tolerating nazis distributing hate propaganda and doing racist speech in public, a society where capitalists are organizing to take back the power and where the anarchists think they have the right to.... THEN YOU ARE NOT AN ANARCHIST AND YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO DICTATE US THAT WE ARE FAKE ANARCHISTS BECAUSE WE ARE AGAINST FREE SPEECH FOR OUR ENNEMIES

    Your revolution will never happen.
     
  4. NGNM85

    NGNM85Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    459

    0

    0

    Sep 8, 2009
     
    You still don't get it.
     
  5. dwtcos

    dwtcosExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    642

    1

    3

    Oct 22, 2009
     
    [​IMG]
     
  6. AnarchoFem

    AnarchoFemExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    155

    2

    0

    Apr 15, 2010
     
    Okay, it has taken me quite a while to read this entire thread and I would like to point out a few things..Ungovernable what's with the insults??? It really doesn't make your argument sound any better it only infact worsens it.
    I also think that a LOT of people here are just really confused with what each person ACTUALLY thinks and a lot of people seem to be putting words into other people's mouths.
    NGNM85 just seems to be saying that Nazi's (as disgusting as they are) DO have a right to say what they want.

    I am with George Carlin on the whole "rights" issue. This argument is pointless. If Nazis have the "right" to spread their racism, we also have the "right" to try and prevent them spreading their racism, which nullifies the entire thing.

    I recommend watching this..if nothing else it will give this thread some much needed humour.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWiBt-pqp0E
     
  7. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Admin Team Experienced member


    4,296

    49

    23

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 33 years old
    Canada Canada
    woah what a big argument !!!

    c'mon it's blatant obvious that you don't know what to answer anymore. You just ignore my arguments.

    Don't ever pretend again that you didn't refuse to answer the arguments

    I have very little patience with idiots who tolerate what i am fighting against and calls me a fascist and an authoritarian for fighting against fascism.

    you critize me for insulting but you say nothing about him calling me a fake anarchist, an authoritarian, a stalinist, a fascist, etc...
    start by being fair and maybe i will consider that you say.

    No he's not only saying that. Did you really read the whole thread ?


    i repeat:

    @dwtcos, shut the fuck up if you don't want to let me reply to your arguments. an objective debate is not only one-way. I considered your arguments and answered you, but you refuse to do the same. Who's acting like a fascist now ? you.
     
  8. AnarchoFem

    AnarchoFemExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    155

    2

    0

    Apr 15, 2010
     
    Do you not agree that rights are such a pointless thing to argue about, because if they have the right to spread propaganda you also have a right to prevent them from doing so? It's just such a silly argument, in my opinion, that is completely cyclical because nobody actually really has rights at all.

    And seriously could you please stop being so angry with the people here. I understand that you are frustrated with Nazis etc. but the people here?? Even if you believe they are wrong, as an anarchist your motivation should be to educate them. If you were so concerned about revolution, which no doubt you are, as we all are...that should be more of a concern, instead of turning potential comrades against you. No doubt, you are going to find that insulting and call me some "oh so offensive" name, when I am genuinely just trying to offer you some advice.
     
  9. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Admin Team Experienced member


    4,296

    49

    23

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 33 years old
    Canada Canada
    no, NGNM and his supporter would say that if you prevent them to spread propaganda you are a fascist and an authoritarian who is against freedom of speech


    even the nazis themselves said that the only way to stop them is by force, not by giving them freedom of speech

    "Only one thing could have broken our movement - if our enemies had understood its principle and from the first day had smashed the nucleus of our movement with extreme brutality."
    (Adolf Hitler, 1933)
     
  10. AnarchoFem

    AnarchoFemExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    155

    2

    0

    Apr 15, 2010
     
    Well if they said that (which I'm not entirely sure if they would agree with you on that) they are wrong. If you (meaning anybody) are in favour of "rights", then they should be applied to everyone, meaning sure Nazis can "try" to spread propaganda if that's their wish, but that we have a "right" to prevent them from doing so just as much as they have a "right" to try and do so.
     
  11. AnarchoFem

    AnarchoFemExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    155

    2

    0

    Apr 15, 2010
     
    Oh as an aside, I am sorry, I genuinely did not see that he called you an "authoritarian" etc. Genuinely apologies, I would have definitely mentioned that had I seen it. I don't think name-calling from ANYBODY (not only you Ungovernable) is a particularly good or remotely clever tactic to use during a debate.
     
  12. NGNM85

    NGNM85Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    459

    0

    0

    Sep 8, 2009
     
    That isn’t a fair characterization of what I said.

    This seems to be a major point of confusion. It seems like a number of people are under the assumption that free speech can only apply to one side at a time, or just because I oppose censorship, then I’m somehow suggesting we simply sit back and do nothing. I don’t know where this confusion is coming from. Spider and dwtcos got it, immediately. You seem to have a better grasp than most of these people. I think my explanation was sufficient.

    Well, he’s the expert. However, that isn’t what I was doing. I didn’t say it to be insulting or to provoke an emotional response; I was simply using the technical definition of the word. He is advocating placing restrictions on public discourse, and seizing/destroying written material, and forcibly detaining (Or worse.) individuals who do conform to the authorized ideology. That IS authoritarian, it’s not hyperbole. It simply is.
     
  13. NGNM85

    NGNM85Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    459

    0

    0

    Sep 8, 2009
     
    Is that any way to conduct a civilized conversation? Do I have any incentive whatsoever to engage in a dialogue with you? The last few pages provide ample evidence that getting through to you is absolutely impossible. I've been extremely cooperative, under the circumstances, however, it seems you just ask the same questions over and over and simply ignore the answers you don't want to hear. Again, that dwtcos and Spider got it immediately makes it pretty clear that it isn't a communication problem.
     
  14. AnarchoFem

    AnarchoFemExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    155

    2

    0

    Apr 15, 2010
     
    I absolutely agree with you. My point is that Ungovernable probably agrees with you too, he just doesn't know that he does.
    I don't think anybody here has even thought to question what the heck a "right" is. Rights don't exist in my opinion.
    People are technically allowed to do anything they want murder, rape etc. Which also means people are allowed to stop them if that's what they want. "Rights" work for everyone (nazis and anarchists alike), and that's all you were arguing and I noticed that.
     
  15. NGNM85

    NGNM85Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    459

    0

    0

    Sep 8, 2009
     
    Well, I, obviously, do believe in rights. I fully acknowledge there is no god, but I am completely unpersuaded by arguments that they are any less valid because they aren't rooted in some divine mandate, or law of physics. I don't think this makes them any less valid or less real, or that we're any less obligated to respect them. There are perfectly sound and compelling secular arguments.
     
  16. AnarchoFem

    AnarchoFemExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    155

    2

    0

    Apr 15, 2010
     
    Okay, but your answer was incredibly vague. You said you believe in them, which is fair enough, but what are they?? This might seem unnecessary, but to me as a learner, these questions are important.
    Are rights things that everybody is entitled to? If so who decides what these entitlements are. Or are people just "entitled" to do what they want?
     
  17. NGNM85

    NGNM85Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    459

    0

    0

    Sep 8, 2009
     
    I don't think it's really that mysterious. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a very decent effort. Freedom of speech, freedom of creed or religion, right to political participation, access to education and essential medical care, as well as a minimum standard of living, I would say, just as a rough outline.
     
  18. Probe

    ProbeExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    690

    1

    57

    Jan 30, 2010
     
    yup....i'm taking dwtcos' side in this one....
     
  19. dwtcos

    dwtcosExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    642

    1

    3

    Oct 22, 2009
     
    I hope that you know you are now on the side against Ungovernable. Report to medical for immediate "treatment" of unauthorized thought or speech.
     
  20. Vegetarian Barbarian

    Vegetarian BarbarianExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    719

    0

    0

    Oct 19, 2009
     
    [​IMG]
     
Loading...
Similar Threads - favorite anarchistic philosopherForumDate
Favorite splits?Music, punk scene & subculturesApr 11, 2014
What are your bands Brazilian anarcho punk favorites?General DiscussionMay 11, 2013
Favorite Motorcharged bands?Music, punk scene & subculturesMay 10, 2012
Favorite anarchist icon?Anarchism and radical activismApr 15, 2012
Favorite anarchist quoteAnarchism and radical activismDec 8, 2010