I will teach you to hate anarchists

William McKinley (January 29, 1843 – September 14, 1901) was an American politician and lawyer who served as the 25th President of the United States from March 4, 1897 until his assassination in September 1901, six months into his second term. McKinley led the nation to victory in the Spanish–American War, raised protective tariffs to promote American industry, and maintained the nation on the gold standard in a rejection of inflationary proposals.

Rapid economic growth marked McKinley's presidency. He promoted the 1897 Dingley Tariff to protect manufacturers and factory workers from foreign competition, and in 1900, he secured the passage of the Gold Standard Act.

Possessed of a fragile, nervous temperament, First Lady Mrs. McKinley broke down under the loss of her mother and two young daughters within a short span of time. She developed epilepsy and became totally dependent on her husband. Her seizures at times occurred in public; she had one at McKinley's inaugural ball as Governor of Ohio. Although an invalid the rest of her life, she kept busy with her hobby, crocheting slippers, making gifts of literally thousands of pairs to friends, acquaintances and charities, which would auction pairs for large sums.

President McKinley took great care to accommodate her condition. In a break with tradition, he insisted that his wife be seated next to him at state dinners rather than at the other end of the table. At receiving lines, she alone remained seated. Many of the social chores normally assumed by the First Lady fell to Mrs. Jennie Tuttle Hobart, wife of Vice President Garret Hobart. Guests noted that whenever Mrs. McKinley was about to undergo a seizure, the President would gently place a napkin or handkerchief over her face to conceal her contorted features. When it passed, he would remove it and resume whatever he was doing as if nothing had happened.

(cont.)

The President's patient devotion and loving attention was the talk of the capital. "President McKinley has made it pretty hard for the rest of us husbands here in Washington," remarked Senator Mark Hanna.

The First Lady often traveled with the President. Mrs. McKinley traveled to California with the President in May 1901, but became so ill in San Francisco that the President cancelled the trip.

Although McKinley enjoyed meeting the public, Cortelyou was concerned with his security due to recent assassinations by anarchists in Europe, such as the assassination of King Umberto I of Italy the previous year, and twice tried to remove a public reception from the President's rescheduled visit to the Exposition. McKinley refused, and Cortelyou arranged for additional security for the trip. On September 5, the President delivered his address at the fairgrounds, before a crowd of some 50,000 people. In his final speech, McKinley urged reciprocity treaties with other nations to assure American manufacturers access to foreign markets. He intended the speech as a keynote to his plans for a second term.

One man in the crowd, Leon Czolgosz, hoped to assassinate McKinley. He had managed to get close to the presidential podium, but did not fire, uncertain of hitting his target. Czolgosz, since hearing a speech by anarchist Emma Goldman (jew) in Cleveland, had decided to do something he believed would advance the cause. After his failure to get close enough on the fifth, Czolgosz waited the next day at the Temple of Music on the Exposition grounds, where the President was to meet the public. Czolgosz concealed his gun in a handkerchief, and, when he reached the head of the line, shot McKinley twice in the abdomen.

Background of Czolgosz
----------------------

In 1898, after witnessing a series of similar strikes (many ending in violence), and perhaps ill from a respiratory disease, Czolgosz went to live with his father who had bought a fifty-five acre farm the year before in Warrensville, Ohio. He did little to assist in the running of the farm and was constantly at odds with his stepmother and with his family's Roman Catholic beliefs. It was later recounted that throughout his life he had never shown any interest in friendship or romantic relationships and was bullied during his childhood by peers.

Are we talking about anarchists or "anarchists"?

With the assassination of her husband by Leon Czolgosz in Buffalo, New York in September 1901, Mrs. McKinley lost much of her will to live. Although she bore up well in the days between the shooting and the president's death, she could not bring herself to attend his funeral. Her health eroded as she withdrew to the safety of her home and memories in Canton. She was cared for by her younger sister. The President was interred at the Werts Receiving Vault at West Lawn Cemetery until his memorial was built. Ida visited daily until her own death. She survived the president by less than six years, dying on May 26, 1907. She was buried next to him and their two daughters in Canton's McKinley Memorial Mausoleum.

>assassinations by anarchists

assassinating or murdering someone is a violation of natural law and thus against the anarchist philosophy.

however if you were a jew, and wanted to destroy the philosophy of anarchy you would simply get a goy patsy, make him claim anarchist and then go commit murders. beside the point, this is anecdotal evidence... nice try tho JIDF. shit thread.

The one that kills good people, not the internet meme

>jews dislike anarchism
>the assassination of a president is anecdotal

i see no problem with this all politicians seem to be scum fuck the sob stor
""""""AN"""""""-caps are not anarchist real anarchist are people like kropotkin/bakunin/goldman/berkman/CNT-FAI/shinmin/ etc

>real anarchist are people like kropotkin/bakunin/goldman/berkman/CNT-FAI/shinmin/etc
>not allowed to sell your labor and time
>"anarchist"

just look at proudhon the literal coiner of the term anarchism
he openly rejected capitalism for being hierarchical and proposed the mutaulist concept instead
he rejected capitalism because of the fact it is a form of hierarchy
and yes even "voluntary" hierarchy is STILL hierarchy
u quite literally cant be an "anarcho"-capitalist its an oxymoron
NO anarchist thinker has ever called themselves an "anarcho'-capitalist

So are anarchists going to use force to prevent the peacable voluntary interactions of people who wish to conduct business because hierarchy is antithetical to anarchism?

>anarchy
>noun
>belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion.
Well damn, that sounds a lot like anarcho-capitalism to me. Of course, I guess we have different ideas for what we want from anarchy. For me, I don't want to be forced to do something by someone else, nor do I want to be stopped from doing something unless I am directly harming another person. You care about the abolishment of hierarchy, even if that requires forcing people to give up voluntary hierarchies.

Possessed of a fragile, nervous temperament, Mrs. McKinley broke down under the loss of her mother and two young daughters within a short span of time. She developed epilepsy and became totally dependent on her husband. Her seizures at times occurred in public; she had one at McKinley's inaugural ball as Governor of Ohio. Although an invalid the rest of her life, she kept busy with her hobby, crocheting slippers, making gifts of literally thousands of pairs to friends, acquaintances and charities, which would auction pairs for large sums.
She often took barbiturates, laudanum, and other sedatives for her condition.

>"muh force"
non-aggression is literally nowhere in anarchist thought u libertarians believe it is for some reason
if u read kropotkin/bakunin both agree that there is nothing wrong with seizing property and busting hierarchies with force

A
>a fucking dictionary definition
haha
B

that voluntary society according to literally all anarchist thinkers since the term was coined was meant to be socialist/socialist-lite in nature
and no
no genuine anarchist thinkers give a fuck bout "muh property right" and "muh NAP"

>no genuine anarchist thinkers give a fuck bout "muh property right" and "muh NAP"
I know, the "anarchists" don't care about freedom at all, they just want to bring everyone down to their level because they hate hierarchy for some reason.

Sounds like plain anarchy to me. Leftists are adamant that using starvation to compel people into being a wage laborer is effectively compulsion.

Bump like love the Emma Goldman connection
She had a lover also a kike attempt to kill Frick the industrialists, failed and hit on the head with a hammer by a worker lel, turn gay in prison

>"anarchists"
i still dont get this literall no anarcgist authors have ever NOT been collectivist
> they just want to bring everyone down to their level because they hate hierarchy for some reason.
have u read kropotkin/bakunin at ALL?
literally the whole reason that proper anarchists dont believe in property is because property rights are essentially a prison on their own and help restrict peoples freedom

and if no anarchist thinkers believe in "muh NAP" and "muh property rights" how come u call yourself and anarchist?

Kekked gud

>still dont get this literall no anarcgist authors have ever NOT been collectivist
How about we go back to what the word "anarchy" actually means? It means "without rulers". Leftist "anarchism" has many rulers, the second you go against their rules, such as say asking someone to hire you, the mob of rulers comes to kill you. Contrast this with anarcho-capitalism, with actually has no rulers in it.

Their conception of freedom is rooted in material conditions, not liberal freedoms. This is why it's so strange and foreign to any proud American. It's not so incomprehensible when you see some autists complaining about jewtube, MSM, and the lack of free speech.
>But it's a private company with exclusive rights over their property
Yes, you can say almost anything without being thrown in jail, but if you want to afford a meal and a roof over your head, you have to watch what you say while you're spending 8+ hours a day at work and follow every order your boss tells you

>Yes, you can say almost anything without being thrown in jail, but if you want to afford a meal and a roof over your head, you have to watch what you say while you're spending 8+ hours a day at work and follow every order your boss tells you
Frankly the leftists anarchists have no intention of improving that, given their own advocacy of violence against those who express differing opinions. At least with anarcho-capitalism I can, on my own property, say what I want without the expectation of being killed for saying the wrong thing.

>Leftist "anarchism" has many rulers
actually no....no it dosent
and its not "leftist anarchism" its anarchism because its the original form of anarchism t b h "an"-caps are the revisionists

if u honestly believe that all that anarchism entails is no rulers it shows that u have never read a single book on anarchism ever have u?

So how is an organized response different from a government enforcing a law?

McKinley was a Rockefeller pawn

They practically bought him off so he could establish a central bank in America.

jesus christ what a fucking shill bringing up a historical event anybody on this board with an opinion worth respecting already knows

>if u honestly believe that all that anarchism entails is no rulers it shows that u have never read a single book on anarchism ever have u?
I'm going with the actual definition of anarchism, not what some revisionist leftist "anarchist" decided to make it about. If you didn't want your system to be about actual anarchy, then maybe you shouldn't have called it anarchism.

well lets just look at police vs the CNT-FAI militas in the S.C.W

>police
top down system going from goverment>general>commanders>soldiers
>CNT-FAI milita
community/local level organized horizontally organized militas working together and cooperating to maintain order and fight

bit of a difference
being an anarchist dosent mean u believe in chaos and just allowing people to do whatever the fuck they want to do

and the CNT-FAI got cucked hard as hell by the hierarchical Stalinists

>>How about we go back to what the word "anarchy" actually means? It means "without rulers". Leftist "anarchism" has many rulers, the second you go against their rules, such as say asking someone to hire you, the mob of rulers comes to kill you. Contrast this with anarcho-capitalism, with actually has no rulers in it.

>Actually has no rulers
Was it the Marxists or Nozick who claimed that ancap is basically feudalism? Anyways, private entities that claim exclusive usage rights or even monopoly of violence over some claimed geographic region and having it's denizens follow the terms of the owner is effectively a state.

so the coiner of the term anarchist and anarchism in its ideological sense was a revisionist? cool to know

I'm not an anarchist, and I'm not well read on the subject. I'm just trying to discern what the differences are.

How do you choose how to distribute force? Is it democratic? How is this different from a democracy?

I can never figure out how anarchist societies won't revert back to some form of government.

i know i was just explaining the difference between horizontal and top down command structures in practice

He went against the definition of the word to suit his own purposes.

>Anyways, private entities that claim exclusive usage rights or even monopoly of violence over some claimed geographic region and having it's denizens follow the terms of the owner is effectively a state.
Well, if we're gonna call that a state then anarchy is effectively impossible.

>anarchy is effectively impossible
agreed.

>implying that half of Sup Forums can even name the presidents in order

>distribute force
clarify?
if u mean control over society its meant to be decentralized as possible without it falling apart
if u want some examples of how this is meant to work u could look at Catalonia in spain during the S.C.W along with kurds in north Syria today

>given their own advocacy of violence against those who express differing opinions.

Who doesn't do this? The only groups I can think of are some American liberal progressives who think they have to give Nazis or Communists a platform to radicalize populations and mobilize, or else "you're the real Nazi/Facists/etc".

Yet another thread shat up by ancapistani children.

Yeah, I guess the circle of violence is just continuous now. Anarchists view property as violence, so they attack people who hold property. Libertarians realize they can't just wait around for the anarchists to attack first, so they attack anarchists. Fascists see both the anarchists and the libertarians as threats to their nation, so they are attacked by both and attack back at both. It's gotten kind of out of hand, but I guess the only way left to go is for one of us to finally kill the others and maybe calm down afterwards.

Allow me to clarify through a hypothetical situation.

Consider that you hear rumors of a capitalist running some sort of hierarchical business in an adjacent town. Do you send a scout to verify it? What happens if the scout is unable to determine whether it is true or not? What if he reports it as false but you suspect it to be true? Who decides to send the armed force to dismantle this business? Is it done through a vote of the community to which you belong? What if the community votes to not bother, but some elements within the force go to the town and kill the people in the supposed business. What happens to those people if it is later determined that it was never a hierarchical enterprise?

Finally, why is violence justified against people who have come together voluntarily if they are not harming you?

>no genuine anarchist thinkers give a fuck bout
logical fallacy? really? we have an entire sticky and you have marmite for brains
>look at Catalonia in spain during the S.C.W
where they betrayed so many people that franco easily combined all the spurned parties? no wonder you have no equivalent to bitcoin, you fake anarchists are clinging to 70 year old stories of failures

it stops with GOD
not even joking
they cant view property as violence, because violence is a moral claim. they cant base their morals upon anything because they killed GOD

daily reminder that many anarchists believe that government may be beneficial, but it must be able to justify its existence and behavior, which no standing government can do

>implying being able to do something so autistic means something magical or meaningful

useless information is useless

It really comes down to "should you be able to own property?". The problem is that this is a moral claim with little to sway a person to a side other than the convictions they already hold. If you can hold property then defending that property is merely self defense, if you can't then defending it is murder. I'm inclined to say yes, given the good results private property has brought, and the fact that humans have been keeping property since the dawn of humanity.

Fuck anarchy is so fucking gay. You faggots are worse than niggers