DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
WebWar
HTML https://webwar.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Αναρχισμ	...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 9496--------------------------------------------------
Μέτωπο Αναρ	
67;οκαπιταλισ&
#964;ικού Πολέμ_
9;υ
By: Libertarian Date: February 16, 2014, 9:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Εδώ
ποστάρουμε
αναρχοκαπι`
4;αλιστική
προπαγάνδα.
RIGHT AND LEFT IN STATE, SOCIETY, CHURCH, ECONOMY AND DAILY LIFE
ABBREVIATIONS: D = “Democracy” (National Democracy, Radical
Democracy, Jacobinsim)
NS = National Socialism (Fascism)
SC = Socialism, Communism
Left (perspective)
LIFE
a) Slavery and Coercion
Equality is achieved by slavery and coercion (SC). Equality is
only possible if we remove the mountain tops and fill the
valleys. Full mobilization of envy to foster equality by
taxation (D) or confiscation (SC) or “naturalization” (SC,NS).
b) Identity (Sameness)
Political equality of the uneducated and unexperienced (D),
sameness of language, custom, way of life (D,NS), sameness of
race (NS), sameness of class (SC—Theory).
c) Quantitativism
Moral conclusions are drawn from the moral or intellectual
propensities of the many (D) at elections, plebiscites, polls,
sex-investigations.
MAN
The individual is subject to the will of the majority (volonté
générale). He is a mere number in the “democratic process” (D),
who can be added or subtracted. He is embodied and personified
by a “leader” (Führer, Duce, Vozhd) (NS) or by a delegate (D).
The individual is nothing—the “People” everything (D,NS,SC). The
individual is a mere fragment of the “collective masses” (SC).
“Nobody is indispensable” (D). Man is a creature of the stomach
and wallet (SC), the reproductive organs (NS) or of the larynx
(D).
LIFE
a) Slavery and Coercion
Equality is achieved by slavery and coercion (SC). Equality is
only possible if we remove the mountain tops and fill the
valleys. Full mobilization of envy to foster equality by
taxation (D) or confiscation (SC) or “naturalization” (SC,NS).
b) Identity (Sameness)
Political equality of the uneducated and unexperienced (D),
sameness of language, custom, way of life (D,NS), sameness of
race (NS), sameness of class (SC—Theory).
c) Quantitativism
Moral conclusions are drawn from the moral or intellectual
propensities of the many (D) at elections, plebiscites, polls,
sex-investigations.
STATE
The State as ultima ratio and end in itself:
Monolithic structure (centralized, unitary state), absolutism of
monarchs, leaders, dictators but also of parliamentary
majorities (D,NS,SC). “Politics.” The citizen is the subject
(serf, slave) of the State (NS,SC).
The “interest of the State” takes the place of the common weal.
Centralization, statism, geometrism and identitarianism in the
administration (D,NS,SC). Opposition to all private spheres, to
all “privileges.”
To be different as such becomes a crime (D,NS,SC).
SOCIETY
Structure: No estates, but “classes.” Tendency towards the
amorphous, towards the static, the egalitarian or identitarian
mania, or towards a new caste system. Mass movements: Dominion
of the instincts and the passions. Bureaucratic reactions
against tendencies leading to chaos and anarchy.
NATION
Nationalism of an ethnic order (D,NS) or racism (NS): Complete
unity within the framework of the State. Antinomian reactions:
Internationalism, grey worldwide uniformity (D,SC).
CHURCH & FAITH
Either complete hostile annexation of the Church
(“Josephinistic” establishments under State control) or
persecution of the Church by separation. Religion then is first
removed from the marketplace and the school, later from other
domains of public life. The State will not tolerate any gods
besides itself (D,NS,SC).
POLITICAL STRUCTURE
All problems, all matters of individuals and of groups are
always left to the discretion of the central government, which
cannot tolerate any autonomous developments. The end of all
private and local enterprise, or at least of the spirit
sustaining them. Repression of all “minorities,” of all
dissenting groups (D,NS,SC).
IDEALS
Utopianism. The nihilistic tendency to recreate and refashion
all forms of human existence after a tabula rasa of total
revolution (D,NS,SC). Total planning and “social engineering,”
methodical uprooting. Geometrism and symetrism instead of
organic growth. Life as a “mathematical formula.” The
expectation of a social and technological paradise on earth
either after a series of revolutionary hells (NS,SC), with
appeals to accept sacrifices for coming generations, or along
the lines of an endless, evolutionary, humanitarian “progress”
(D).
WELFARE
The material security of the individual is entirely in the hands
of a provider state, which controls the material weal of the
citizenry through a centralized agency. “Welfare” as opium of
the people and as tool of the cold or hot totalitarianism. The
controls are directed at the “weak points” of the defenseless
individual: old age, unemployment, illness. Practical affinity
between the provider state and socialism (D,NS,SC).
LAWS
Legal Positivism. The “law” in the service of a triumphant
ideology. Laws are “made.” Justice is prescribed and fabricated,
not “looked for” and found (D,NS,SC).
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Efforts to refashion all other nations after one’s own image.
Eternal crusades motivated by the spirit of a (usually only
subconscious) imperialism of structural forms (D,SC). Local
crusades for the liberation of “underdogs” and other “enslaved
minorities,” “democracy” (Wilson, Lloyd George, Roosevelt),
national socialism and communism as modern “Islamic movements”
engaged in Djihads, “holy wars.”
INSTRUCTION & EDUCATION
Uniform education according to a uniform scheme “for all,” thus
coddling the worst and stultifying the most talented. State
monopoly in education which tries to be education and not mere
instruction, thus increasingly arrogating the rights of parents.
Cutting or totally eliminating religious instruction (D,NS,SC).
ECONOMICS
Either paleo-liberalism, which leads to the concentration of
wealth in very few, if not “one,” hand (monopolies), which then
can be expropriated or controlled by totalitarian states and
only theoretically continue to figure as “private property”
(D,NS) or State capitalism (socialism), where the State owns
everything. Currency completely controlled by (SC) the State
(occasionally laws against private ownership of precious metals
and coins). Robbing of the money-saving citizen by inflation and
sly expropriation through excessive taxes (D,NS,C).
THE SEXES
a) Sexes: equal.
b) Family: relative and horizontal (therefore “generation
gaps”).
Relativism due to the “sand heap” concept of society as
simultaneously individualistic and collectivist: many grains,
one heap.
HUMAN COHESION
Power. (Naked power, terror).
Fear and resentment.
Right
MAN
A person with an intransferable destiny, unique, created in the
image of God, responsible to God, endowed with an immortal soul.
A creature with “heart” and “reason” (ratio directed towards
wisdom and knowledge). Enfeebled by original sin, but not just a
“product of environment.”
LIFE
a) Freedom
“Equality” is merely accepted as an “administrative
simplification” and as a fraternal attitude towards others,
because we do not know exactly who is superior to whom, who
stands nearer to God who alone knows the full truth.
b) Diversity
Joy in the diversity and in the richness of all forms of
creation.
c) Efforts towards perfection and excellence
Realization of the “royal priesthood of all believers.”
Timocracy.
STATE
Guardian of the freedom and dignity of man:
“Mixed government” with an interior balance. Tendency towards a
“patriarchal” (even hereditary) monarchical head.
“Statesmanship.” The people always asked for their desires and
these are seriously taken into consideration without being
accepted as ultima ratio. They are not placed above knowledge,
reason and experience. Primacy of quality over quantity.
Administration of an elitarian, nonpolitical character. Church
and State, State and society as separate entities—although
cooperating. The State is the servant of the common weal, the
servant of the people’s true interests. The federal principle
and personal freedom are the guiding stars of its structure and
function.
SOCIETY
Estates, not “classes.” An “open society.” The estates are
functional. They are not hierarchic units, not castes.
Demophily. Leadership of changing, but tradition-connected (not
tradition-determined) elites.
NATION
Patriotism and Supranationalism. Unity in diversity.
CHURCH & FAITH
Church and State are separate, but cooperate as equals within
society in all domains where their collaboration and mutual
understanding are indispensable (school, legislation, spiritual
care of the army, the prisoners, hospital inmates, care of
certain art treasures). Such cooperation with several churches
(or non-Christian denominations) is (by experience) as feasible
as with a single one.
POLITICAL STRUCTURE
Principle of Subsidiarity. In state and society the larger
(higher) unit only then becomes active and effective when the
smaller (lower, more immediate) is incapable of coping with the
problems: Where the person fails, the family takes action; where
the family fails, society steps in; where society is powerless,
small and then progressively larger political units come into
play. The necessity of creating small “kingdoms” in which the
person can be sovereign.
IDEALS
Development in the light of tradition. (Without tradition there
is no progress, but endless fresh starts from zero.) Respect for
the achievements of the past and institutions organically grown.
Progress through additions, corrections, adaptations. Full
comprehensions for the glories, but also for the limitations of
man. “Sovereign,” which means objective and thoughtful, attitude
towards the world “organic concept” of life.
WELFARE
“Social security’’ through general prosperity and respect for
the independence of the person. Ideal climate for acquiring and
retaining property which, except for the “saint,” is
indispensable for his liberty. In the financial-material crisis
of the person his primary sources of aid are the family,
cooperatives, professional associations, charities. The State
intervenes only where all other agents fail. Fostering of the
natural virtues: saving, providence, planning.
LAWS
Legislation, the law, jurisdiction are based on the natural law,
on revelation, on tradition, on intelligent differentiation.
Motto: suum cuique.
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Acceptance of the fact that the nations are different, ofter
radically different from each other; that they have, therefore,
different traditions, institutions and dreams. Nevertheless:
distinction between the political genius of the various nations
and political-ideological aberrations which might menace the
well-being of the world.
INSTRUCTION & EDUCATION
The principle of the natural aristoi. Intellectual-moral
selectiveness coupled with the effort to ensure the social rise
of the more gifted and more laborious. Instruction and education
for a full and noble life. Respect for the rights of the
parents. Importance of religious instruction. Public, private
and/or corporate education.
ECONOMICS
Free market economy with free competition but also protection
for the free choice of the consumer. A sensible (not petty)
intervention of the State to keep competition alive. Emotional
attachment of the workers to their enterprises—affection for and
pride in them. Facilities for acquiring capital. Absolute
stability of the currencies.
THE SEXES
a) Sexes: Here too the principle, “to everybody his due.”
b) Family: Vertical, hence dynastic feelings tying together the
generations. Absolute. The family as cell of society and State.
It is also the frame for the development of the personality.
Families are as different as personalities are.
HUMAN COHESION
Authority. (Direction through inner ties, not outside pressure.)
Love and respect.
#Post#: 9497--------------------------------------------------
Re: Μέτωπο Αναρ
;χοκαπιταλι	
63;τικού Πολέμ
ου
By: Libertarian Date: February 16, 2014, 9:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Ένα για τον Fringe
GOOD FORMS:
BAD FORMS:
Monarchy, the rule of one man in the interest of the common
good.
Tyranny, the rule of one man to his own advantage.
Aristocracy, the rule of a group in the interest of the common
good.
Oligarchy, the rule of a group for their own benefit.
Republic or Polity, the rule of the better part of the people in
the interest of the common good.
rule of the worse part of the people for their own benefit.
#Post#: 9498--------------------------------------------------
Re: Μέτωπο Αναρ
;χοκαπιταλι	
63;τικού Πολέμ
ου
By: Libertarian Date: February 16, 2014, 9:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
ΕΒΡΑΪΚΗ
ΑΝΑΡΧΟΚΑΠΙ]
2;ΑΛΙΣΤΙΚΗ
ΠΕΡΙΤΜΗΜΕΝ[
9;
ΨΩΛΗ:
In Biblical language the just on the Day of Judgment are to be
on the right2 and the damned on the left. Christ sits ad
dexteram Patris (on the right hand of the Father)
#Post#: 9499--------------------------------------------------
Re: Μέτωπο Αναρ
;χοκαπιταλι	
63;τικού Πολέμ
ου
By: Libertarian Date: February 16, 2014, 9:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The misplacing of the Nazis in the Reichstag has thus hardened a
confusion in semantics and logical thinking that had started
some time earlier. The Communists, the Socialists, and the
Anarchists were identified with the left, and the Fascists and
the National Socialists with the right. At the same time one
discovered a number of similarities between the Nazis on the one
side and the Communists on the other. Thus the famous and
perfectly idiotic formula arose: “We are opposed to all
extremism, be it from the left or the right. And, anyhow, Red
and Brown are practically the same: extremes always meet.”
All this is the result of very sloppy thinking, because extremes
never meet. Extreme cold and extreme heat, extreme distance and
extreme nearness, extreme strength and extreme weakness, extreme
speed and extreme slowness, none of them ever “meet.” They do
not become identical or even alike. The moment one
counterattacks and inquires from the good man who just
pontificated about the meeting of extremes what precisely he
understands by right and left, he proves unable to give any
coherent analysis of these terms. Lamely he will hint that on
the extreme are the reactionaries—the Fascists, for instance.
Asked whether Mussolini’s Repubblica Sociale Italiana was a
reactionary or a leftist establishment, he will again mumble
something about those paradoxical extremes. Certainly the left
is collectivist and progressive; the Communists are “extreme
progressivists.” If he sticks to this piece of nonsense, one
should point out to him that certain primitive African societies
with a tribal collectivism are not really so “extremely
progressive.” This is usually the moment when the conversation
expires.
#Post#: 9500--------------------------------------------------
Re: Μέτωπο Αναρ
;χοκαπιταλι	
63;τικού Πολέμ
ου
By: Libertarian Date: February 16, 2014, 9:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The right has to be identified with personal freedom, with the
absence of utopian visions whose realization—even if it were
possible—would need tremendous collective efforts; it stands for
free, organically grown forms of life. And this in turn implies
a respect for tradition. The right is truly progressive, whereas
there is no real advance in utopianism which almost always
demands—as in the Internationale—to “make a clean sweep” of the
past, du passé faisons table rase: dyelayem gladkuyu dosku iz
proshlago! If we return to point zero, we are again at the
bottom of the ladder, we have to start from scratch again.4
Bernard of Chartres said that generations were “like dwarfs
seated on the shoulders of giants, thereby capable of seeing
more things than their forebears and in a greater distance.”5 As
a matter of fact, almost all utopias, though “futuristic” in
temperament, have always preached a return to an assumed Golden
Age, glowing in the most attractive colors of a falsely
romanticized version. The true rightist is not a man who wants
to go back to this or that institution for the sake of a return;
he wants first to find out what is eternally true, eternally
valid, and then either to restore or reinstall it, regardless of
whether it seems obsolete, whether it is ancient, contemporary,
or even without precedent, brand new, “ultramodern.” Old truths
can be rediscovered, entirely new ones found. The Man of the
Right does not have a time-bound, but a sovereign mind. In case
he is a Christian he is, in the words of the Apostle Peter, the
steward of a Basileion Hierateuma, a Royal Priesthood.6
The right stands for liberty, a free, unprejudiced form of
thinking, a readiness to preserve traditional values (provided
they are true values), a balanced view of the nature of man,
seeing in him neither beast nor angel, insisting also on the
uniqueness of human beings who cannot be transformed into or
treated as mere numbers or ciphers; but the left is the advocate
of the opposite principles. It is the enemy of diversity and the
fanatical promoter of identity. Uniformity is stressed in all
leftist utopias, a paradise in which everybody should be the
“same,” where envy is dead, where the “enemy” either no longer
exists, lives outside the gates, or is utterly humiliated.
Leftism loathes differences, deviation, stratifications. Any
hierarchy it accepts is only “functional.” The term “one” is the
keynote: There should be only one language, one race, one class,
one ideology, one religion, one type of school, one law for
everybody, one flag, one coat of arms and one centralized world
state.
#Post#: 9501--------------------------------------------------
Re: Μέτωπο Αναρ
;χοκαπιταλι	
63;τικού Πολέμ
ου
By: Libertarian Date: February 16, 2014, 9:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Ο ΚΑΡΛΙΣΜΟΣ,
ΔΗΛΑΔΗ Ο
ΑΚΡΑΙΟΣ
ΙΣΠΑΝΙΚΟΣ
ΣΥΝΤΗΡΗΤΙΣ\
4;ΟΣ
ΕΙΝΑΙ
ΔΕΙΓΜΑ
ΦΕΝΤΕΡΑΛΙΣ\
4;ΟΥ
KAI
ΑΠΟΚΕΝΤΡΩΣ[
9;Σ!
Nationalism (in the European sense) is leftism; and Catalonian,
Basque, and Gallegan (Galician) nationalism naturally assumed a
radically leftist character opposing “Castilian” centralization.
Hence, in Madrid, almost all movements promoting local rights
and privileges, be they political or ethnic, are suspect as
leftist, as automatically opposed to the present regime as well
as to the unity of Spain. (Spain is “Una, Grande, Libre”!) Oddly
enough—but understandable to anybody with a real knowledge of
Spanish history—the extreme right in Spain, represented,
naturally, by the Carlists and not at all by the Falangists, is
federalistic (“localistic,” anticentralistic) in the European
sense.
The Carlists are opposed to the centralizing tendencies of
Madrid and when late in 1964 the central government made an
effort to cancel the privileges of Navarra, the fueros, the
Carlists of Navarra, nearly issued a call to rebellion—at which
point the government quickly declared its own preparatory steps
as a “mistake” and backed down.
All conservative movements in Europe are federalistic and
opposed to centralization.
Thus we encounter in Catalonia, for instance, a desire for
autonomy and the cultivation of the Catalan language among the
supporters of the extreme right as well as the left. The
notorious Catalonian Anarchists always have been supporters of
autonomy, but formal anarchism has always been a curious mixtum
compositum. Its ultimate vistas were leftist, socialistic in
essence, but its temper was rightist. Much of present-day
“communism” in Italy and Spain is merely “popularly
misunderstood anarchism.” But, on the other hand, it is also
significant that in 1937 open war broke out in Barcelona between
the Communists and the Anarchists. And it was the Anarchists who
resisted the Communists in Russia longer than any other group,
until in 1924 they were literally exterminated in all Soviet
jails and camps. Hope of “taming” them had been abandoned.
#Post#: 9502--------------------------------------------------
Re: Μέτωπο Αναρ
;χοκαπιταλι	
63;τικού Πολέμ
ου
By: Fringe_Elements Date: February 16, 2014, 9:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Ιοκάστη
Μαρκάκη 22 hours ago (edited)
HTML http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=CY6oynwtGQ0
Awful trolling. If the wage was 15$ per hour in Greece almost no
one would be able to work. The reason that the wage is higher
there, is that american eaters of hamburgers have greater wealth
in order to give to back the wage of the producers of
hamburgers. So the wage, on average, is based only on the wealth
that is circulating in society. If no one had wealth the price
of the hamburger would be something like a kiss, or a blowjob.
So if the robot raplaces the man and man gets laid off in order
to work somewhere else and produces something else, society will
have greater wealth than if we had banned the robot in order to
protect the man.
It is true that if we had much more robots, wages would be much
higher, on average. But if the state intervenes and forces men
to make robots, what would be the cost? It is the opportunity
cost of the men working somewhere else and producing something
else. But if producing robots is paying more than everything
else, the companies would hire the men to produce robots and the
state would not have to intervene. If, on the other hand, the
state sees that companies doesn't hire men to produce robots it
means that any internvention is not profitable for the
consumers. So when govt intervenes wealth is being destroyed, or
the opportunity of producing greater wealth is being forfeited
for the production of what the propagandists of the state happen
to want and promulgate as "beneficial", "good" etc.
And also why do you want to protect the jobs of the inferior
people? Aint no jew working as a hamburger maker. White people
don't like making junk food for the slaves. People with low IQs
tend to work in low pay positions. Why protecting them? It is
against Evolution! 
Augusto Pinochet • 2 days ago −
HTML http://www.blemilo.com/2014/02/53.html
Εγώ να
επισημάνω
ότι η λέξη
προοδευτικa
2;ς
είναι ένα
βαυκαλιστι_
4;ό
μπουρδολόγ_
1;μα
το οποίο
έχουν
εφεύρει οι
κομμουνιστ^
1;ς
για τους
εαυτούς
τους, δηλαδή
σημαίνει
κομμουνιστ^
2;ς.
Ο Albert είναι
κομμουνιστ^
2;ς
για αυτό
υπερασπίζε`
4;αι
τον όρο
προσπαθώντ^
5;ς
να τον
συγχέσει με
την
"οικονομία
αφθονίας",
την
"πνευματική
καλλιέργει^
5;"
κτλ. Η
Ρεπούση, την
οποία σωστά
χαρακτηρίζ^
9;ι
ο
Λιναρδάτος
ως
προοδευτικ^
0;ντζα,
δηλαδή
κομμουνίστ`
1;ια,
γιατί είναι
κομμουνίστ`
1;ια,
δεν είναι
πνευματικώ`
2;
καλλιεργημ^
1;νη.
Κάτι
γαλλικές
φιλολογίες
έχει
σπουδάσει
και η
ενασχόλησή
της με τα
ιστορικά
θέματα
είναι
trollαρισματικο
;ύ
τύπου με
κακεντρεχή
σκοπό να
υπονομεύσε_
3;
την
Ελληνική
Ιστορία και
να
δημιουργήσ^
9;ι
έναν Λαό
εύκολα
υποτάξιμο
στους
φόρους.
Συνεπώς
επειδή
είναι η
κύρια
ιστορικός
του
καθεστώτος
δεν
σημαίνει
ότι είναι
καλλιεργημ^
1;νη
ή μορφωμένη.
Είναι
αμόρφωτη.
Επίσης αυτά
τα παλιά
κτήρια δεν
συνδέονται
με τη
φτώχεια.
Εκείνη την
εποχή ΟΛΟΙ
οι κάτοικοι
είχανε να
φάνε, ενώ
τώρα, που
χτίστηκαν
καινούργια
σπίτια, ο
κόσμος
τρέχει στα
συσσίτια
ενός και
μόνο ενός
κόμματος:
της Χρυσής
Αυγής γιατί
όλα τα άλλα
δημοκρατικ^
0;-προοδευτικ&
#940;
κόμματα
μόνο να τον
κλέβουν
ξέρουν.
Φυσικά δεν
υπονοώ ότι η
ρυμοτομία
έκανε τον
κόσμο φτωχό.
Το καθεστώς
το οποίο
συνέδεσε
τον εαυτό
του με τη
μοντέρνα
ρυμοτομία
ήταν ένα
καθεστώς
σοσιαλιστι_
4;ό
που
στηρίχθηκε
στα δανεικά.
Αυτό έφερε
τη φτώχεια: ο
σοσιαλισμό`
2;.
Από εκεί και
πέρα η Χρυσή
Αυγή, και
χθες το
λέγανε στην
εκπομπή,
σαφώς και θα
προστατέψε_
3;
την παλιά
ρυμοτομία.
Είναι μια
θέση
αντιφιλελεa
3;θερη
να
προστατεύε_
3;
το κράτος
κτήρια, αλλά
από το να
γίνει όλη η
Αθήνα
σοβιετική
κολλεκτίβα
ας
διατηρηθεί
τουλάχιστο_
7;
καθαρή.
Η δικιά μου
άποψη είναι
πως η
ρυμοτομία
της Ελλάδας
ολόκληρης
αστικοποιε^
3;ται
όσο
εκδημοκρατ^
3;ζεται
το καθεστώς,
δηλαδή όσο
περισσότερ_
9;
κυβερνάνε
οι όχλοι,
διότι αυτοί
μόνο
θάλλουν στα
αστικά
μαντριά.
Μεγάλο
μέρος του
εισοδήματο`
2;
των 3 μεγάλων
πόλεων στην
Ελλάδα
είναι
φουσκωμένο
λόγω
κρατικού
παρεμβατισ_
6;ού.
Όταν
ξεφουσκώσε_
3;,
φιλελεύθερ^
5;,
θα ξαναπάει
στην
επαρχία ο
κόσμος, και
υπάρχουν
και άλλοι
λόγοι σε μια
παραγωγική
και όχι
παρασιτική
οικονομία
για τους
οποίους θα
αραιώσουν
τα κτήρια.
#Post#: 9503--------------------------------------------------
Re: Μέτωπο Αναρ
;χοκαπιταλι	
63;τικού Πολέμ
ου
By: Libertarian Date: February 16, 2014, 9:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The hostility of Plato toward democracy (more apparent in the
Politeia than in the Nomoi) was similar to that of Aristotle,
who finally fled the democratic rule of Athens and went to
Chalcis on Euboea admittedly in order to avoid the fate of
Socrates. Plato’s antidemocratic bias was not only the automatic
reaction of the intellectual against a form of government which
puts no premium on reason or knowledge; it was also the result
of the deeply felt experience of his master’s death. The average
educated American or European, though aware that Socrates had
been put to death on account of his “impiety” in introducing
strange gods and for “corrupting” the young, rarely knows the
full story. The last charge (far from having anything to do with
sex) was subdivided (according to Xenophon) into several
accusations: (1) that he taught his disciples to treat the
institutions of the state with contempt; (2) that he had
associated with Critias and Alcibiades; (3) that he had taught
the young to disobey their parents; and (4) that he constantly
quoted Homer and Hesiod against morality and democracy
(especially Iliad, II, 198-206). Not only the democratic
government, but the “dear people” were opposed to Socrates and
he can, without exaggeration, be called a victim of democracy,
of the vox populi.1
#Post#: 9504--------------------------------------------------
Re: Μέτωπο Αναρ
;χοκαπιταλι	
63;τικού Πολέμ
ου
By: Libertarian Date: February 16, 2014, 10:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Ο
Χριστιανισ_
6;ός
έχει
ΠΡΑΓΜΑΤΙ
ατομιστικέ`
2;
προεκτάσει`
2;!
"Salvador de Madariaga has said that Western civilization rests
on two deaths—the death of Socrates and the death of Christ. And
indeed the Crucifixion was also a democratic event. When our
Lord was brought before Pilate and told him that He had come as
a witness to the Truth, the governor, as a true agnostic, asked
Him, “What is Truth?” And without waiting for an answer, he
passed Him by and consulted “the people.” The vox populi
condemned our Lord to death as it had Socrates more than three
centuries earlier."
Δηλαδή ο
Εβραίος
Ιησούς
(Τζόσουα)
Χριστός
μπορεί να
θεωρηθεί
Αναρχικός-Α	
57;αρχοκαπιτα&
#955;ιστής!
#Post#: 9505--------------------------------------------------
Re: Μέτωπο Αναρ
;χοκαπιταλι	
63;τικού Πολέμ
ου
By: Fringe_Elements Date: February 16, 2014, 10:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Ωραίο
βιβλίο
διαβάζεις,
να μπεις και
σε αυτό το site
HTML http://anarcho-monarchism.com/
όπου
αναλύει το
ζήτημα της
αναρχοκαπι`
4;αλιστικής
αναρχομονα`
1;χίας
σε βάθος με
πολλές
αναρτήσεις
και
ενταγμένο
πάντα μέσα
στο
ευρύτερο
σύγχρονο
νεοαντιδρα`
3;τικό
ιδεολογικό
κίνημα.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page