jamesd,Tim Mays lying black dog.

[jamesd at echeque.com]

    --
On 31 Dec 2001, at 0:49, mattd wrote:

> CommieRot! (english) by James 8:00pm Mon Sep 3 '01 
> Anarchists killed more people in Spain than pinochet in 
> Chile.See...http://www.jim.com/world.html Post cut. Yeah,
> but... (english) by Superguy 10:50pm Mon Sep 3 '01 
> ...anarchists only killed bad people.
>
> on James and the Spanish Anarchists (english) by anarcho
> 1:36am Tue Sep 4 '01 anarcho at geocities.com James (who I
> imagine is that wonderfully inventive liar James Donald of
> Usenet infamy) provides a url in which he "exposes" Spanish 
> Anarchism. The following URLs are in reply to such claims: 
> This is a direct reply to James webpages: 
> http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2374/blood.html

In that direct reply McKay confidently announces that I am
lying, and confidently announces that he is refuting my
claims.  He then gives a long list of facts that supposedly
refute my claims, but which actually seem to confirm them,
then confidently announces I have been refuted.

McKay's evidence does not support his claim that Catalonia
was anarchist.  Instead, if his account and interpretation
was true, it would be evidence that Catalonia was a benign
dictatorship reluctantly forced to use a small amount of very
necessary terror by the wickedness and recalcitrance a small
number of those it ruled.

Even if his spin on the book was entirely truthful and
accurate, his version would not show that Catalonia was a
socialist anarchy, it would merely show that the nomenclatura
were wise, good, and popular, that the people were glad to
obey, and that the nomenclatura never executed people without
good cause.

For example in
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2374/govern.html, a sub
page of the above page Ian McKay writes:

: :	Moving on, James Donald presents one of his more 
: :	outrageous statements.
: :	: : 	"then later, their leaders decided in 
: :	: : 	secret, in cheerful defiance of the 
: :	: : 	democratic procedures  to dissolve the 
: :	: : 	militia committee, to officially 
: :	: : 	recreate the state rather than 
: :	: : 	unofficially"

He then rants at great length that I am lying outrageously, 
and that what I say is completely contradicted by the very 
sources that I cite, but after all this ranting concedes:

: :	[...] James Donald is right in that the CNT made 
: :	the decision [...] in violation of its democratic 
: :	principles, since the rank and file were not 
: :	consulted.

 Well if that was one of my more outrageous statements, then 
my less outrageous statements must be holy writ!

Whatever the distinction he is making is, the fact that a
small group of men meeting in secret could casually sweep
away from on high the apparatus of committees that supposedly
represented the masses sounds remarkably like a state, and an
authoritarian and dictatorial state at that. He announces
that I am wrong in some great big important way, but when you
carefully read the alleged errors of my terrible "reign of
error", he is making distinctions so minute that no one could
possibly care, and in many cases distinctions so fine that no
one save himself could possibly understand. 

    --digsig
         James A. Donald
     6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
     PKNvlU7GQVVX3qc9kgk+CxLzNMrPSEa/Sq+PWyku
     4TqdHjk0j0xhMqSqBPAkPBS9t6WbTj6Hxk2U1VkQH