Now, I have no problem with anarchists per se, and i take anarchism seriously as a political idealogoly, but what I can't stand is ultra lefter-than-thou fundamentalists who would rather stay in their secure world of self-righteousness than actually try to appeal the progressive movement to a broader base of people. When you start knocking groups because they don't organize in a purely democratic and non-hierchial fashion, you are turning people off. When you include vegetarianism and corporate-boycotting in your political platform, you're turning people off.

Poor and working classes don't respond to ultra-moral ideals and a basic "fuck America" slogans. What they respond to is imagery, say Kennedy, and that can only be concieved through mainstream medians, such as tv, art, music. True, mainstream medians are the most difficult to break into, and quite often require compromise, but they're the most effective when it comes to broadning any soical/political platform.

I'd love to hear from any anarchist, whose dedication and zeal I admire, but whose tactis and strategies leave a bad taste in my mouth.

(If i made any spelling mistakes, please don't mention them in your rebuttle to prove how unintelligent I am.)

the left to right scale refers to which way one would like to see the state go.........anarchists want the state to go away

Please support this statement, I didn't see justification for it.

-When you start knocking groups because they don't organize in a purely democratic and non-hierchial fashion, you are turning people off-

Also please support the idea that mainstream media which is tightly controlled by adverse interests, are the preferred method in the dissemination of information.

Is that because they...

-quite often require compromise- ?

Hmm, let me think on this.