Tim May on the end of a rope.,

[mattd]

 >>Last week I urged cypherpunks to
 > compare and contrast the noam chomsky article,"Objectivity
 > and liberal scholarship."with the material jamesd has on
 > display at his website.

 >>You cite Chomsky as evidence for the truthfullness of
Chomsky.<<

I suggest cypherpunks interested in the perversion of the word anarchy as 
used by crypto-fascists like Tim May read widely,compare and contrast.Try 
murray Bookchin's "the spanish anarchists"and Gaston Leval.George 
Orwell,Abel Paz.
If you dont like chompsky.At the very least Hugh thomas.to balance jamesd's 
effort.

 >>> No anarchist supports a powerful,or indeed,any state

 >>Yet you cite (as evidence that I am a liar) Ian McKay's
article on the Catalonian anarchists, in which he concedes
that the anarchists wound up creating what most people would
call a state, indeed a terrorist dictatorship, but argues
that I am lying in that such a state was a good thing, and
run by nice people, deeply concerned for the welfare of the
masses<<

I maintain that someone relying on your site for information on 
Spain,without other sources,would be misled at the very least.To leave out 
is another way to lie.I dont know who Ian McKay is but Durruti did say,"war 
makes jackals of us all"
Lenin stole anarchist slogans and instituted a terrorist dictatorship.There 
exists a grave danger that crypto-anarchy as promoted by liars would create 
a terrorist dictatorship.The more knowledge we have of hirstorical anarchy 
we have the better.That means a wide variety of sources quoting from 
documents.I still prefer chomsky on spain to you jamesd.

 >>>.Jim Bell seems to be the closest thing to a trad anarchist
 > I've seen on this site

 >>What you are calling traditional anarchists were not
"traditional" until 1938. When anarcho socialists found
themselves implementing socialism in only possible form, in
the form of a terrorist state, some recoiled, and some
redefined anarchy to mean rule by a terror state, rule
unrestricted by law and based on force, reinterpreting their
pre 1936 positions in the light of the new post 1938
position.<<

"Anarcho-socialist","is redundant and unusual.Ive not come across it in 
wide reading of anarchist texts.Who are the 'some' you refer to? No one Ive 
heard of. Anarcho-statist is an oxymoron like anarcho-capitalist.There are 
people who call themselves anarcho-communists.I argue with them 
sometimes.There are a wide range of views within anarchism.
Trad anarchist is what I would say those views at the center were at the 
time a snapshot was taken.Anarchist don't "implement"anarchism,anarchism 
grows organically and exponentially or lays low while marxists and nazi's 
rampage.
If you hate authoritarian and national socialism,I agree.You go over the 
top mixing libertarian socialism in with them.

 >>>.The anarcho-capitalists here are fakes,phonies and
 > frauds that are running but they cant hide,I can see the
 > whites of their eyes.Calling ted turner socialist is not
 > peculiar!?

Ted Turner calls himself socialist. His network used to emit
commie propaganda with great regularity, though since Fox
news started in competition, they have laid off the commie
propaganda.

CNN used to emit commie propaganda,did they? Fascinating! I rest my case at 
this point.Tailgunner Jamesd has the last word.