Dumbasses fight lowlifes in Prague (Nazis versus Anarchists)

[Nemesis6]

Nemesis in 'distorting the news then posting a load of crap when called out' shocker.

Oh come on, this is distorting the news? Claiming that Anarchist scum are lowlifes?

Listen, it's easy to dismiss someone's opinion when you don't know what it's based upon. I think it's pretty sad that I have to give a reason for Anarchists being lowlifes, but Nazis are totally exempt. But here goes: They resort to terror, violence and intimidation to get what they want. Search for "ungdomshuset" on youtube to invalidate any criticism of what I've said up untill now in this post. They are lowlifes in the full sense of the word, or hyphenate or whatever. I could also call them far-left if that's more politically correct - That would cover the different breeds of them: Commies, Anarchists, Marxists, whatever.

Anyway - This is a big problem, and it's not just the normal people who face it: Nazis like to protest against Islam, and unfortunately, some people are drawn into this because they have grievances with Islam, not knowing the background of these people. Just like the BNP of Britain. The same applies to the far-left demonstrations: You think you're demonstrating against Nazism, but you know there's a reason someone is flying that Soviet flag along with that Red & Black flag alongside it.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Oh come on, this is distorting the news? Claiming that Anarchist scum are lowlifes?

No, distorting the news by portraying the event as a simple showdown between anarchists and fascists when it's clear that the situation is otherwise:

Yeah, that was stupid. Maybe I'm more informed than you but I wasn't in the Prague that day. It wasn't simple fight between nazis and anarchists from ANTIFA, in the afternoon there was huge peaceful demonstration against neo-nazism with normal concerned citizens supported by politicians and celebrities. Later lowlifes started their retarded fights against each other and against police...

Plus it should logically be obvious that not only anarchists hate neo-nazis in areas of Europe that were once occupied by Germany.


Secondly:

Constantly claiming anarchism and communism are somehow the same thing, then posting rubbish when called out:

And you'll get it: In the name of communism, roughly 20 million people were killed under Stalin alone, and Lenin was apparently pretty good at it, too. "Oh but they're not all communists!" - Then let's take the Marxists. Two words, or one name for that matter: Che Guevara... ALso helps to take a look at all those socialist dictatorships including the ones Che sowed in Latin-America. Socialism - Same as before except this concept has quite a few commendable principles, problem is that this term is interchangeable with "Marxism" since during that time, they were just two words for the same thing back then: Lite communist dictatorships, or as Solaris so romantically dubbed it - "Revolutionary Socialism", or wait, that's what the hip youngsters refer to Communism as now.

Guess what: you don't make any sense. It's pretty hilarious, and telling, that in your entire post you don't mention the word 'anarchism' at all.

You start, apropos of nothing, by describing the atrocities committed by the Soviet regime as if its connection with anarchism was already a given. Tip: it's not. I don't care about Che Guevara because he has shit all to do with it. Same goes for socialist dictatorships. Socialism is not interchangeable with 'Marxism' because 'Marxism' is an umbrella term meaning anything based on the writings of Karl Marx: it can refer to philosophical, historical and literary doctrines of academic study as well as revolutionary political ideologies. A Marxist could share Marx's conceptions of history and class but not his conceptions of the solution to the problems. The central halmarks of Marxism - again, a very wide and cross-disciplinary term - are in its revolutionary understanding of history, not necessarily in its revolutionary programme for the future.

We should note at this point that said Marxist understanding is not actually necessary for anarchism. It's mainly collectivist anarchism that shares a lot with communism or socialism, but that doctrine, primarily derived from the theories of Mikhael Bakhunin, who opposed the Marxist notion of a dictatorship of the proletariat.

Could you even explain to me what a Marxist conception of history is[/i}? Come on, it's not that hard: you only need to look it up on wikipedia. I could tell you but I'd have to charge my milkshake.


So let's see if you ever explain why you seem to ellide anarchism and marxism to the extent that you do:

And yes, I do not differentiate between them. Marxists, Communists, Socialists(remember the special rule here)... The ones I have "met" are retards - You see I "meet" them when they destroy the part of the city I live in.

Oh okay so you actually say absolutely nothing.

Not remembering any special rules. Are you saying that you equate Marxists and anarchists because they are violent? That doesn't really make sense, unless you are proposing an entirely new system of political classification: one in which the differences between creeds are not ones of doctrine, but simply of method; all 'terrorists' are the same, as are all protesters.

That's completely seperate from your original claim: that anarchism is an "extermist agenda" that has killed "roughly 4 or 5 times more people than Nazism." Here you are back in the realm of ideology and on that field, you have so far completely failed to justify your claim that anarchism is the same as Stalinism.

Let's qualify this:

Anarchism: all government is both unnecessary and undesirable; society should function without government.
Stalinism: very strong government should enforce egalitarian economic policy and unify a nation.

Well shit I guess they aren't that similar!


Look! You've failed before we even consider that anarchism is the single most fragmented ideology in western politics, consisting of thousands of different subsects and sub-doctrines, from anarchist communism to collectivism to anarcho-capitalism. Those are all very different, and not all of them are the goal of communism (and they are only particular types of communism that has a stateless society as their endgames).

Also I don't honestly care whether Stalin and Lenin's governments had collectivist anarchism as their ultimate objectives: it was communist and stalinist policy (or, perhaps more accurately, totalitarian policy), which killed people.


So: while I feel I've well demonstrated that anarchism is not necessarily contiguous with either marxism or socialism, you have consistently and completely failed to demonstrate otherwise.

Your assertion that anarchism has killed more people than nazism would mean you'd have to show us beyond reasonable doubt that anarchism is totally the same thing as stalinism and all types of communism. Problem: that's retarded.

But of course you've never been good at proving much you say - you did pretty well with regards to immigrants last time, when my calling you out and threatening you with infractions actually did get you to start building a coherent argument. Unfortunately, this time, as most times, you've responded to criticism and incredulity with a heap of horse shit.

Not only do you fail to justify your claims but your debate is also, sadly, lacking - to an offensive degree.

Listen, it's easy to dismiss someone's opinion when you don't know what it's based upon. I think it's pretty sad that I have to give a reason for Anarchists being lowlifes, but Nazis are totally exempt. But here goes: They resort to terror, violence and intimidation to get what they want. Search for "ungdomshuset" on youtube to invalidate any criticism of what I've said up untill now in this post.

Instead of providing any decent citations or evidence, you use the following manipulative tactic: a reader is invited to search youtube himself for what you say, thus fostering in his mind the impression, however slight, that his research is somewhat independent. Upon finding videos of Copenhagen protesters he may be shocked and amazed. But what he does not see from those videos is the many many people who were resident in or frequented the Ungdomshuset without being violent, without harming the police, and without posing any trouble; without being anarchists or extremists or criminals of any kind. He also does not know anything about the context of the incident, the load of bullshit that surrounded the sale of the House by the government (note: not interested in debating this incident specifically since it isn't really relevant). But he is led to lend what he says more importance because he 'researched' it himself.

Beyond that, you're speaking out of your arse: there's no evidence that all the Ungdomshuset protesters were anarchists, there's no evidence that they were motivated by their anarchist beliefs (whether than more parochial concerns re: THEIR HOME), there's no evidence that they were representative of all anarchists (and such evidence would need to be very substantial as anarchists differ so much) and there's finally no qualification whatsoever that looking at some youtube videos in any way invalidates the criticisms of your opponents. It fails to further the argument over your simplistic and unfactual understanding of anarchism, and it does not at all engage with the debate surrounding your equation of anarchism with marxism or your equation of anarchism with communism or your equation of marxism with communism.

I don't even care that you think anarchists are all low-lifes. It's clearly a silly generalisation which my own experience contradicts - and again generalisations regarding anarchists are particularly stupid because they differ so much - but it doesn't at all relate to your most stupid claims (re Russian atrocities).



In conclusion, shut up. Your posts are so retarded and such a waste of space that you get an infraction for spam.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Also:

I could also call them far-left if that's more politically correct - That would cover the different breeds of them: Commies, Anarchists, Marxists, whatever.

No, you couldn't, because anarchism can just as easily be far-economic-right (no restriction at all; no government) or far-libertarian, whereas 'left', at least in the UK, implies government control. So it's a pretty innaccurate and vague term. I've explained the more sensible tripartite political spectrum so many times I'm not going to bother again.

Again, the only way you could equate anarchists and the rest is by their methods, which are sometimes the only things that effect ordinary people, but your usage of 'far-left' here pretty much precludes any such argument.

 

[Gray Fox]

I agree with a lot you say usually, but even I'm scared shitless of you right now.

BTW since when have you been a mod?
I remember me always confusing you with a mod when you were just an editor or whatever, because you had funny writing below your name.

 

[Nemesis6]

Post wasted, Sulkdodds. I don't care what the differences are and I've already stated that I'm not very knowledgeable on the inherent vices of any of the extreme leftist ideologies. Only their visible impact.

Anyway, let's just clarify one thing: There were 1000 anarchists and 400 Nazis. The article states this, so I'm not being deceptive here - The majority were Anarchists. But what you don't seem to understand is that Anarchists are usually a mish-mash of different leftist ideologies with its "hard core" of pure anarchists/losers. So don't go off on tangents about how Communism, etc is not involved/related to this, because it is.

By the way, no, when you search for what I mentioned, you will find very, very little showing what happened, in contrast to whiny leftists making tributes to the house. Well, at that point we're back at square one: Some dork will come along and say, just like they did regarding the squatter house in Copenhagen, that there were normal citizens involved in these protests, too, turning a blind eye at the... let's just call it "economically-detrimental" work of the Anarchists, and that is because a lot of people don't really know how Anarchist demonstrations work - It's really just one long psychosis untill police arrests you, at which point you whine to the cameras. In closing, my point is this: Anarchists are lowlifes and no different from the Nazis since they, too, resort to violence, intimidation and harassment. Tie that together with the fact that the "Anarchism" of today is a mish-mash of different radical leftist ideologies, and you'll have a whole lot of dangerous ideologies gathered under one red and black banner, posing just as great a danger as neo-nazism. That is why I can only laugh at them when they fight each other: They do it because they genuinely believe that they're fighting for their country and that people support them, and unfortunately, a lot of people do because both ideologies adapt popular goals: No Islamization, No to Nazism, no to War, etc, without realizing their ulterior motives.

 

[99.vikram]

And yes, I do not differentiate between them. Marxists, Communists, Socialists(remember the special rule here)... The ones I have "met" are retards - You see I "meet" them when they destroy the part of the city I live in.

Must..not...point and laugh....

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Post wasted, Sulkdodds. I don't care what the differences are and I've already stated that I'm not very knowledgeable on the inherent vices of any of the extreme leftist ideologies. Only their visible impact.

Anyway, let's just clarify one thing: There were 1000 anarchists and 400 Nazis. The article states this, so I'm not being deceptive here - The majority were Anarchists. But what you don't seem to understand is that Anarchists are usually a mish-mash of different leftist ideologies with its "hard core" of pure anarchists/losers. So don't go off on tangents about how Communism, etc is not involved/related to this, because it is.

By the way, no, when you search for what I mentioned, you will find very, very little showing what happened, in contrast to whiny leftists making tributes to the house. Well, at that point we're back at square one: Some dork will come along and say, just like they did regarding the squatter house in Copenhagen, that there were normal citizens involved in these protests, too, turning a blind eye at the... let's just call it "economically-detrimental" work of the Anarchists, and that is because a lot of people don't really know how Anarchist demonstrations work - It's really just one long psychosis untill police arrests you, at which point you whine to the cameras. In closing, my point is this: Anarchists are lowlifes and no different from the Nazis since they, too, resort to violence, intimidation and harassment. Tie that together with the fact that the "Anarchism" of today is a mish-mash of different radical leftist ideologies, and you'll have a whole lot of dangerous ideologies gathered under one red and black banner, posing just as great a danger as neo-nazism. That is why I can only laugh at them when they fight each other: They do it because they genuinely believe that they're fighting for their country and that people support them, and unfortunately, a lot of people do because both ideologies adapt popular goals: No Islamization, No to Nazism, no to War, etc, without realizing their ulterior motives.

Just be quiet, your not funny anymore.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Post wasted, Sulkdodds. I don't care what the differences are and I've already stated that I'm not very knowledgeable on the inherent vices of any of the extreme leftist ideologies. Only their visible impact.

Yet you still think the "visible impact" of Stalinist collectivisation and terror tactics an be attributed to anarchists (I'll remind you that 'anarchist' is an ideological descriptor; if you really didn't differentiate between groups apart from on the basis must consider neo-nazi extermists and anarchist extermists as the same,while differentiating them from peaceful anarchists and peaceful neo-nazis),

Basically, your post translates as "I'm willfully ignorant yet still make posts in an argument." You deserved your infraction.

Anyway, let's just clarify one thing: There were 1000 anarchists and 400 Nazis. The article states this, so I'm not being deceptive here - The majority were Anarchists. But what you don't seem to understand is that Anarchists are usually a mish-mash of different leftist ideologies with its "hard core" of pure anarchists/losers. So don't go off on tangents about how Communism, etc is not involved/related to this, because it is.

Nice. I'll do this bit by bit:

- The article also makes a point of mentioning that not all the counter-demonstrators were anarchists, which gives that viewpoint just as much 'textual' weight as yours. But hey, let's not bother to interrogate our sources: let's take it for granted that it's perfectly possible to identify all 1000 of those people as anarchists in a disorganised melee, in the middle of a major populated city, with no list of members, involving organisations that do are traditionally scattershot (anarchist organisation is not usually very tight, often consisting of small semi-autonomous 'blocs'). Wait, no: it's far more likely that the news story is talking crap and/or using 'anarchist' in the stupid, stupid way that you do: ie, as a broad descriptor for anyone in the protest who was not identifiably a fascist. I'm not the only person who's pointed out that this probably wasn't a straight-up extermist duel both on evidential and logical grounds.

- You don't really source your claim that anarchists are "usually a mish-mash of different leftist ideologies" but hey, you've probably got a point, since the left is always fragmented and bizarre.

- I'm not "going off on a tangent" by pointing out your bullshit. I had two seperate points: one, that your framing of this issue as a straight-up fight between two creeds was deceptive; two, that you were wrong in saying anarchism has killed more people than nazism. It's not going off on a tangent to take something you've said in the thread, show how many problems it has, and ask you to justify it. You made the retarded claim so the burden of proof is on you.

I certainly never claimed there was utterly no relation between communism and anarchism: I am contesting this:

Anarchists...further their own extremist agenda which has actually killed roughly 4 or 5 times more people than Nazism.

To justify this claim, you would need to show us beyond reasonable doubt that anarchism is totally the same thing as stalinism and all types of communism. You'd also need to show us that the terrors of Stalin's regime, of Che Guevara's and of Communist China's were directly the result of anarchist policies and anarchist doctrine.

Have you done that? No.

Sure, communism and other leftist ideologies are 'involved' with anarchism. They are related. But please explain to me how it is that anarchism or anarchists killed all victims of Stalin's terror. Please explain to me how anarchism, marxism and communism are all necessarily (always!) the same (rather than merely being related, as are different species of monkey).

If you can't, you might want to take back your claim, and then we can abandon it. Don't worry - there are plenty of normal and sensible people that don't think anarchists killed millions of people, so you'd be in good company.

In closing, my point is this: Anarchists are lowlifes and no different from the Nazis since they, too, resort to violence, intimidation and harassment.

Yeah, I wasn't really contesting this so I'm not really going to bother to argue with it. I could, because it's a bit silly, but I don't care.

What I will say is that this by no means amounts to justification of your 'anarchists killed millions' claim.

Post wasted, Nemesis.