<?xml version="1.0"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
	<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Harmlesstree</id>
	<title>Conservapedia - User contributions [en]</title>
	<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Harmlesstree"/>
	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Harmlesstree"/>
	<updated>2026-09-30T17:24:36Z</updated>
	<subtitle>User contributions</subtitle>
	<generator>MediaWiki 1.35.14</generator>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Moral_relativism&amp;diff=493723</id>
		<title>Talk:Moral relativism</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Moral_relativism&amp;diff=493723"/>
		<updated>2008-07-29T19:04:20Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Harmlesstree: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;No sources were found to support the last point made, so I deleted it. Additionally, moral relativism has been used for far more than just Atheists, Communists, and Nazis (although I do find it humorous that atheists are lumped in there).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Moral relativism is not a philosophy that suggests morals SHOULD very from culture to culture, it is a philosophy that contends that they DO very from culture to culture. These two positions are very different in nature, despite their ostensible similarity. If one contends that morals SHOULD very from culture to culture, that person is not a moral relativist. On the contrary, this person is a moral absolutist. For this individual is making a normative statement – that is how things OUGHT to be. The ought in this case is predicated on a conviction they have regarding the ABSOLUTE TRUTH of their believe in cultural diversity. The moral relativist, on the other hand, is merely making a descriptive point regarding morality – that is morality does not exist. They may even wish morality did exist; but they just do not believe that it does. harmlesstree&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== It has been linked... ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|It has been linked to atheism and to Communist and Nazi ideology.}}&lt;br /&gt;
Erm... yeeeees? How has it been linked to it? Who linked it? Is the link valid? This is a horrible way to end the article, and I wouldn't even know where to begin to look for sources. Could either Miss Cleo or whoever put these claims into the article help me out here? I'll try to look for material myself, of course, but I guess that those who made the claims would more readily know where to look (and what to look for). &lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:DHayes|DHayes]] 18:23, 12 March 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How are sexual relations between relatives closely linked to homosexuality? That may not be what is said, but the link goes to homosexuality, implying the connection. Is not heterosexuality just as linked to sexual relations between relatives as homosexuality is? Tell me if I'm wrong. [[User:Rockthecasbah|Rockthecasbah]] 21:41, 19 May 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Neither Nazis nor slave owners were moral relativists. They both, or at &lt;br /&gt;
least most members of both, were moral absolutists; they believed that their morals were right and everyone else's were wrong. [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]]&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#aa1000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;[[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]]&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt; 22:49, 21 May 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What about moral relativism in bible and conservative american behaviour? In the ten commandments it is clearly said &amp;quot;Thou shalt not kill&amp;quot; and yet although killing is marked as evil by the bible itself, many conservatives &lt;br /&gt;
are in favor of the death penalty and although I'm not an expert on the subject of bible, I recall there being a line about &amp;quot;eye for an eye&amp;quot;. This makes no sense to me, so please,&lt;br /&gt;
 explain these things for me. If killing is wrong in the first place, why should the punishment be death. I mean, shouldn't then the executioner be killed too? That's some moral relativism for ya.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 Moral relativism is not a philosophy that suggests morals SHOULD very from culture to culture, it is a philosophy that contends that they DO very from culture to culture. These two positions are very different in nature, despite their ostensible similarity. If one contends that morals SHOULD very from culture to culture, that person is not a moral relativist. On the contrary, this person is a moral absolutist. For this individual is making a normative statement – that is how things OUGHT to be. The ought in this case is predicated on a conviction they have regarding the ABSOLUTE TRUTH of their believe in cultural diversity. The moral relativist, on the other hand, is merely making a descriptive point regarding morality – that is morality does not exist. They may even wish morality did exist; but they just do not believe that it does.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Harmlesstree</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Moral_relativism&amp;diff=493722</id>
		<title>Talk:Moral relativism</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Moral_relativism&amp;diff=493722"/>
		<updated>2008-07-29T18:59:26Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Harmlesstree: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;No sources were found to support the last point made, so I deleted it. Additionally, moral relativism has been used for far more than just Atheists, Communists, and Nazis (although I do find it humorous that atheists are lumped in there).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== It has been linked... ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|It has been linked to atheism and to Communist and Nazi ideology.}}&lt;br /&gt;
Erm... yeeeees? How has it been linked to it? Who linked it? Is the link valid? This is a horrible way to end the article, and I wouldn't even know where to begin to look for sources. Could either Miss Cleo or whoever put these claims into the article help me out here? I'll try to look for material myself, of course, but I guess that those who made the claims would more readily know where to look (and what to look for). &lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:DHayes|DHayes]] 18:23, 12 March 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How are sexual relations between relatives closely linked to homosexuality? That may not be what is said, but the link goes to homosexuality, implying the connection. Is not heterosexuality just as linked to sexual relations between relatives as homosexuality is? Tell me if I'm wrong. [[User:Rockthecasbah|Rockthecasbah]] 21:41, 19 May 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Neither Nazis nor slave owners were moral relativists. They both, or at &lt;br /&gt;
least most members of both, were moral absolutists; they believed that their morals were right and everyone else's were wrong. [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]]&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#aa1000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;[[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]]&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt; 22:49, 21 May 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What about moral relativism in bible and conservative american behaviour? In the ten commandments it is clearly said &amp;quot;Thou shalt not kill&amp;quot; and yet although killing is marked as evil by the bible itself, many conservatives &lt;br /&gt;
are in favor of the death penalty and although I'm not an expert on the subject of bible, I recall there being a line about &amp;quot;eye for an eye&amp;quot;. This makes no sense to me, so please,&lt;br /&gt;
 explain these things for me. If killing is wrong in the first place, why should the punishment be death. I mean, shouldn't then the executioner be killed too? That's some moral relativism for ya.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 Moral relativism is not a philosophy that suggests morals SHOULD very from culture to culture, it is a philosophy that contends that they DO very from culture to culture. These two positions are very different in nature, despite their ostensible similarity. If one contends that morals SHOULD very from culture to culture, that person is not a moral relativist. On the contrary, this person is a moral absolutist. For this individual is making a normative statement – that is how things OUGHT to be. The ought in this case is predicated on a conviction they have regarding the ABSOLUTE TRUTH of their believe in cultural diversity. The moral relativist, on the other hand, is merely making a descriptive point regarding morality – that is morality does not exist. They may even wish morality did exist; but they just do not believe that it does.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Harmlesstree</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Noam_Chomsky&amp;diff=285657</id>
		<title>Talk:Noam Chomsky</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Noam_Chomsky&amp;diff=285657"/>
		<updated>2007-09-03T23:20:06Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Harmlesstree: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;why do you keep reverting my edits, its not vandalism, its removing POV --[[User:UncleJalapeno4|UncleJalapeno4]] 09:11, 19 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::Noam's support for Hezbolla is not just an accusation, it's a fact.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 00:33, 20 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cite it --[[User:DemocraticSocialist|DemocraticSocialist]] 10:52, 20 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ok, i checked out the source, but it is pretty suspect. It has a strong right wing bias. How can we even be sure Chomsky said that. I've heard Chomsky denounce dictatorships of all political ideologies, and the only thing I've heard him say about the Khmer Rouge is why are they getting all the media attention while the Indonesian genocide is ignored. How is saying that supporting the Khmer Rouge. --[[User:DemocraticSocialist|DemocraticSocialist]] 11:01, 20 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well looks like you were right, Noam did meet with Hezbollah commanders, I'm dissappointed that Noam would speak with terrorists but just because he speaks with them doesn't mean he supports their brutal methods. Besides George Bush meets with Colombian president Uribe and the Saudi Arabian government and they are both terror states. --[[User:DemocraticSocialist|DemocraticSocialist]] 11:54, 20 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::Quite true. I don't understand why my (very measured) edits were deleted. It is a demonstrable fact that he does not support Hamas, nor did he support the Soviet Union, which he (again, in fact) described repeatedly as &amp;quot;a dungeon.&amp;quot; He also, smaller point, identifies himself as a libertarian socialist, not an anarcho-syndicalist; perhaps that last bit is semantics, but still. --[[User:Keep_the_faith|Keep the faith]] 6:15, 22 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== the agenda against Chomsky here ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I've made a few edits.  The only not so suspect piece is the one viz. his 2006 visit with Nasrallah.  He explains it thus, as he wrote to me: &amp;quot;I visited Lebanon to give talks at the American U[niversity] of Beirut. While in Lebanon, I tried to meet as wide a range of leading figures as I could, along with popular groups, in order to learn something about the country, as I do everywhere, in fact as any sane person does who wants to learn something about a country and is not merely interested in repeating some Party Line. I therefore was pleased to be invited to speak to Nasrallah, the head of Hizbollah, and ... to be invited to Walid Jumblatt's Mukhtara, where I spent considerably longer time with him than with Nasrallah, including a meal... Jumblatt ... is not only one of the leading political figures in Lebanon, but also the most outspoken supporter of the US war in Iraq and the most outspoken opponent of Hizbollah.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The rest, excluding the more-or-less comments about his linguistic theory (of which I am mostly ignorant), is just slander.  There is also no mention of his past involvement with Hashomer Hatzair, but apparently that doesn't fit the agenda here.  I'm no fan of the idolatrous, unthinking adoration a lot of people have for him.  All that is required is a fair representation, which is not provided; I made the edits, in a small way, to steer the article toward that standard.{{unsigned|Keep the faith}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Protected =&lt;br /&gt;
This article is now protected.   Discuss your changes here.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 16:03, 28 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Harmlesstree</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Noam_Chomsky&amp;diff=285655</id>
		<title>Talk:Noam Chomsky</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Noam_Chomsky&amp;diff=285655"/>
		<updated>2007-09-03T23:19:20Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Harmlesstree: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;why do you keep reverting my edits, its not vandalism, its removing POV --[[User:UncleJalapeno4|UncleJalapeno4]] 09:11, 19 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::Noam's support for Hezbolla is not just an accusation, it's a fact.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 00:33, 20 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cite it --[[User:DemocraticSocialist|DemocraticSocialist]] 10:52, 20 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ok, i checked out the source, but it is pretty suspect. It has a strong right wing bias. How can we even be sure Chomsky said that. I've heard Chomsky denounce dictatorships of all political ideologies, and the only thing I've heard him say about the Khmer Rouge is why are they getting all the media attention while the Indonesian genocide is ignored. How is saying that supporting the Khmer Rouge. --[[User:DemocraticSocialist|DemocraticSocialist]] 11:01, 20 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well looks like you were right, Noam did meet with Hezbollah commanders, I'm dissappointed that Noam would speak with terrorists but just because he speaks with them doesn't mean he supports their brutal methods. Besides George Bush meets with Colombian president Uribe and the Saudi Arabian government and they are both terror states. --[[User:DemocraticSocialist|DemocraticSocialist]] 11:54, 20 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::Quite true. I don't understand why my (very measured) edits were deleted. It is a demonstrable fact that he does not support Hamas, nor did he support the Soviet Union, which he (again, in fact) described repeatedly as &amp;quot;a dungeon.&amp;quot; He also, smaller point, identifies himself as a libertarian socialist, not an anarcho-syndicalist; perhaps that last bit is semantics, but still. --[[User:Keep_the_faith|Keep the faith]] 6:15, 22 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== the agenda against Chomsky here ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I've made a few edits.  The only not so suspect piece is the one viz. his 2006 visit with Nasrallah.  He explains it thus, as he wrote to me: &amp;quot;I visited Lebanon to give talks at the American U[niversity] of Beirut. While in Lebanon, I tried to meet as wide a range of leading figures as I could, along with popular groups, in order to learn something about the country, as I do everywhere, in fact as any sane person does who wants to learn something about a country and is not merely interested in repeating some Party Line. I therefore was pleased to be invited to speak to Nasrallah, the head of Hizbollah, and ... to be invited to Walid Jumblatt's Mukhtara, where I spent considerably longer time with him than with Nasrallah, including a meal... Jumblatt ... is not only one of the leading political figures in Lebanon, but also the most outspoken supporter of the US war in Iraq and the most outspoken opponent of Hizbollah.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The rest, excluding the more-or-less comments about his linguistic theory (of which I am mostly ignorant), is just slander.  There is also no mention of his past involvement with Hashomer Hatzair, but apparently that doesn't fit the agenda here.  I'm no fan of the idolatrous, unthinking adoration a lot of people have for him.  All that is required is a fair representation, which is not provided; I made the edits, in a small way, to steer the article toward that standard.{{unsigned|Keep the faith}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Protected =&lt;br /&gt;
This article is now protected.   Discuss your changes here.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 16:03, 28 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
a&lt;br /&gt;
rshjgrhjkrehjkg&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Harmlesstree</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Noam_Chomsky&amp;diff=285653</id>
		<title>Talk:Noam Chomsky</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Noam_Chomsky&amp;diff=285653"/>
		<updated>2007-09-03T23:15:52Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Harmlesstree: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;why do you keep reverting my edits, its not vandalism, its removing POV --[[User:UncleJalapeno4|UncleJalapeno4]] 09:11, 19 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::Noam's support for Hezbolla is not just an accusation, it's a fact.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 00:33, 20 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cite it --[[User:DemocraticSocialist|DemocraticSocialist]] 10:52, 20 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ok, i checked out the source, but it is pretty suspect. It has a strong right wing bias. How can we even be sure Chomsky said that. I've heard Chomsky denounce dictatorships of all political ideologies, and the only thing I've heard him say about the Khmer Rouge is why are they getting all the media attention while the Indonesian genocide is ignored. How is saying that supporting the Khmer Rouge. --[[User:DemocraticSocialist|DemocraticSocialist]] 11:01, 20 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well looks like you were right, Noam did meet with Hezbollah commanders, I'm dissappointed that Noam would speak with terrorists but just because he speaks with them doesn't mean he supports their brutal methods. Besides George Bush meets with Colombian president Uribe and the Saudi Arabian government and they are both terror states. --[[User:DemocraticSocialist|DemocraticSocialist]] 11:54, 20 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::Quite true. I don't understand why my (very measured) edits were deleted. It is a demonstrable fact that he does not support Hamas, nor did he support the Soviet Union, which he (again, in fact) described repeatedly as &amp;quot;a dungeon.&amp;quot; He also, smaller point, identifies himself as a libertarian socialist, not an anarcho-syndicalist; perhaps that last bit is semantics, but still. --[[User:Keep_the_faith|Keep the faith]] 6:15, 22 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== the agenda against Chomsky here ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I've made a few edits.  The only not so suspect piece is the one viz. his 2006 visit with Nasrallah.  He explains it thus, as he wrote to me: &amp;quot;I visited Lebanon to give talks at the American U[niversity] of Beirut. While in Lebanon, I tried to meet as wide a range of leading figures as I could, along with popular groups, in order to learn something about the country, as I do everywhere, in fact as any sane person does who wants to learn something about a country and is not merely interested in repeating some Party Line. I therefore was pleased to be invited to speak to Nasrallah, the head of Hizbollah, and ... to be invited to Walid Jumblatt's Mukhtara, where I spent considerably longer time with him than with Nasrallah, including a meal... Jumblatt ... is not only one of the leading political figures in Lebanon, but also the most outspoken supporter of the US war in Iraq and the most outspoken opponent of Hizbollah.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The rest, excluding the more-or-less comments about his linguistic theory (of which I am mostly ignorant), is just slander.  There is also no mention of his past involvement with Hashomer Hatzair, but apparently that doesn't fit the agenda here.  I'm no fan of the idolatrous, unthinking adoration a lot of people have for him.  All that is required is a fair representation, which is not provided; I made the edits, in a small way, to steer the article toward that standard.{{unsigned|Keep the faith}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Protected =&lt;br /&gt;
This article is now protected.   Discuss your changes here.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 16:03, 28 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
a&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Harmlesstree</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Bertrand_Russell&amp;diff=163332</id>
		<title>Talk:Bertrand Russell</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Bertrand_Russell&amp;diff=163332"/>
		<updated>2007-05-16T03:20:07Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Harmlesstree: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find it ironic that this site uses Wikipedia's presentation of Bertrand Russell as an anti-Bolshevic as an example of Wikipedia's &amp;quot;liberal bias.&amp;quot; For it is your site that is distorting the truth, as it has done with other things, with respect to Bertrand Russell's position on Bolshevism. You have taken out of context a statement from Russell's preface to The Theory and Practice of Bolshevism, and used it to make it look as if Russell was supporter of the Bolsheviks'. However, it is clear if you read on past the statement you quoted that he is not, especially if you read on past the preface to the first section, which I cited in the article about Russell as evidence as his feelings towards of the Bolsheviks, which you deleted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The feelings expressed in this passage are the proper expressions of what Russell felt towards the Bolsheviks then, and especially after 1920 with the rise of Stalinism, not the statements you quoted. After all, it was Bertrand Russell who indicated that a preemptive nuclear strike against the Soviet Union, prior to their acquiring nuclear weapons, would be morally more justifiable than the alternative of attacking them after they had acquired them. His expressions of fondness for the Bolsheviks in the preface are because of the hope they have given the world: people can rise up and throw off the chains of economic oppression that are draining the life out of them: it was done in Russia. However, if you read on you will see that he vehemently opposes their ideology and their methods. His tract is polemic against them. Russell saw the same thing that Orwell saw in Spain: the Communist party was wolf in sheep's clothing. But Russell saw it very early on, before the rise of Stalinism. His predictions about what would ultimately happen in Russia were spot on. I have pasted most of the preface that you distorted onto the page, plus the beginning of section 1. You will want to edit this long post. But, please, do not against attempt to portray Bertrand Ruussell as a supporter of the Bolsheviks' or the Soviet Union. harmlesstree&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*''hope they have given the world''&lt;br /&gt;
::LOL.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:25, 15 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
LOL, right. You are looking at the Russian Revolution from the vantage point of 2007 - that is through 90 years of history that socialists/communists and the working class of 1917 were not privy to. All they were privy to was that there was a successful communist/socialist revolution - not the horrors of Stalinism, which would not occur for years. Most were probably not even aware of the violent and despotic tendencies of the Bolsheviks. They were aware of the fact that there was an apparently successful working class revolution, which there was. The Russian Revolution was a popular revolution which the Bolsheviks ceased control of, and began to implement their Marxist-Leninist orthodoxy. They took control of the Soviets, which were independent democratically administered councils, and made them arms of the state, while silencing all opposition. But the preponderance of people did not know this. All they knew was there was a successful revolution, in which a socialist society was being constructed. This, as Russell properly states, gave them hope. However, Russell did not share these hopes beyond the fact that there was was a successful revolution, and he says so after the preface. It was clear to him after visiting Russia that there was not a socialist society being constructed. On the contrary, the Bolsheviks' were constructing a despotic state that was reminiscent of the one that preceded it; it was an illusion, and Russell knew it. He condemned it, and the Marxist-Lenist dogma it was founded upon. And that brings us back to my primary point: Bertrand Russell vehemently opposed Bolshevism.     harmlesstree&lt;br /&gt;
*''reminiscent? ''&lt;br /&gt;
::Did the Czar exterminate 50 million?  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:59, 15 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Bolshevics had not killed 50 million from 1917 - 1920. When I say, or Russell says, the Bolshevic state was reminiscent of the TSARist, I and he, are only going on what occured from 1917 - 1920. Do you understand this? I am commenting on Russell's tract the Theroy and Practice of Bolshevism, which he wrote in 1920. Do you understand the fact that he is not aware of the mass killings of Stalin because they have not happened yet? He was aware of the killings and despotic government the Bolshevics had erected, which he attacked. This government reminded him of the TSARiST one. He wrote,&amp;quot; Opposition is crushed without mercy, and without shrinking from the methods of the Tsarist police, many of whom are still employed at their old work.&amp;quot; Look the whole point of this post was to clear Russell's name, by exposing the slander that was placed on conservapedia. I have done that, at least if one is fair minded. harmlesstree&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
RobS,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Given that it was you who placed [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.phptitle=Bertrand_Russell&amp;amp;diff=66867&amp;amp;oldid=66842 that quote]&lt;br /&gt;
in the article, and given that harmlesstree has provided [http://www.gutenberg.org/files/17350/17350-h/17350-h.htm compelling evidence] that it grossly misrepresents Russell's position, then I'd keep my fool mouth shut if I were you.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Indeed, a more gracious person than yourself might even have been moved to ''thank'' harmlesstree for correcting your crass error. The case for your immediate defenestration grows stronger with each passing day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 17:03, 15 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Right.  Good way to wiggle out of an argument.  The Bolsheviks just crushed democracy, broke the hereditary lineage of the monarchy by murdering the Royal family, but aren't responsible for what they wrought afterwards.  Sounds like Marxist reasoning.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:46, 15 May 2007 (EDT&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wiggle! You have the audacity to accuse me of wiggling and obfuscating; when I am simply trying to defend Bertrand Russell against the scurrilous accusations made by a contributer to Conservapedia, while you try shift the focus away from this and make it about me, i.e. &amp;quot;sounds like Marxist reasoning.&amp;quot; Please address the issue of Bertrand Russell. If you persist in this infantile game, I am going to end this conversation. harmlesstree&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And a craven refusal to acknowledge your error, RobS. Bravo.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
harmlesstree,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Do not attempt to debate with this man. Stick to your guns - do not attempt to explain, clarify or expand upon the charge of misrepresentation. Defy him to prove you wrong and he disappears. That (tragically) is the very most you can expect from him.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 19:41, 15 May 2007&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Let's discuss what we're discussing here; there is no evidence Russell abandoned these views well ''after'' all the genocides the Communists committed; well into the 1960s, Russell was a charter members of the &amp;quot;blame America crowd&amp;quot;.  And unlike Wikipedia, another Nobel Laureate in Literature, Mr. Alexandr Solzhenisyn's criticism of Russell and his support for the Soviet Union '''will not''' be censored and '''will''' go into this Conservapedia bio.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:23, 15 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Never abondoned these views, he never had those views, which is precisely the point. And regarding censorship, you are the one who censored Bertrand Russell's writings, by posting only one tiny snippett from the preface to The Theory and Practice of Bolshevism, where I posted most of the preface, and quote from chapter 1.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I cannot share the hopes of the Bolsheviks any more than those of the Egyptian anchorites; I regard both as tragic delusions, destined to bring [16]upon the world centuries of darkness and futile violence...I do not know whether Bolshevism can be prevented from acquiring universal power. But even if it cannot, I am persuaded that those who stand out against it, not from love of ancient injustice, but in the name of the free spirit of Man, will be the bearers of the seeds of progress, from which, when the world's gestation is accomplished, new life will be born.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does this sound like a man that had those views? If he felt like this then, do you think it is likely that later on he became sympathetic to the Soviet Union, when the crimes against humanity and the oppression became much greater.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;The blame America crowd&amp;quot; lol - jingoistic tripe that appeals to the ignorant and moronic rabble. Have you ever noticed that people with Russell's intellect, not just Russell, generally despise the irrational nationalistic sentiment that underpins that phrase you uttered. &amp;quot;Nationalism is an infantile disease; it is the measles of mankind.&amp;quot; Albert Einstein&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Harmlesstree&lt;br /&gt;
  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Here is a short story examing the character of Joe Stalin that Russell wrote,                                                 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
                                                Josef Stalin's Nightmare&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
                                                   by Bertrand Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stalin, after copious draughts of vodka mixed with red pepper, had fallen asleep in his chair. Molotov, Malenkov, and Beria, with fingers to their lips, warned off intrusive domestics who might interfere with the great man's repose. While they guarded him, he had a dream, and what he dreamt was as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Third World War had been fought and lost. He was a captive in the hands of the Western Allies. But they, having observed that the Nuremberg trials generated sympathy for the Nazis, decided this time to adopt a different plan: Stalin was handed over to a committee of eminent Quakers, who contended that even he, by the power of love, could be led to repentance and to the life of a decent citizen.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was realized that until their spiritual work had been completed the windows of his room must be barred lest he should be guilty of a rash act, and he must not be allowed access to knives lest in a fit of fury he should attach those engaged in his regeneration. He was housed comfortably in two rooms of an old country house, but the doors were locked, except during the one hour of every day when, in the company of four muscular Quakers, he was taken for a brisk walk during which he was encouraged to admire the beauties of nature and enjoy the song of the lark. During the rest of the day he was allowed to read and write, but he was not allowed any literature that might be considered inflammatory. He was given the Bible, Pilgrim's Progress, and Uncle Tom's Cabin. And sometimes for a treat he was allowed the novels of Charlotte M. Yonge. He was allowed no tobacco, no alcohol, and no red pepper. Cocoa he might have at any hour of the day and night, since the most eminent of his guardians were purveyors of that innocent beverage. Tea and coffee were permitted in moderation, but not in such quantities or at such time as might interfere with a wholesome night's repose.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During one hour of every morning and one hour of every evening the grave men to whose care he had been entrusted explained the principles of Christian charity and the happiness that might yet be his if he would but acknowledge their wisdom. The task of reasoning with him fell especially upon the three men who were accounted wisest among those who hoped to make him see the light. These were the Mr. Tobias Toogood, Mr. Samuel Swete, and Mr. Wilabraham Weldon.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He had been acquainted with these men in the days of his greatness. Not long before the outbreak of the Third World War they had journeyed to Moscow to plead with him and endeavor to convince him of the error of his ways. They had talked to him of universal benevolence and Christian love. They had spoken in glowing terms of the joys of meekness, and had tried to persuade him that there is more happiness in being loved than in being feared. For a little while he had listened with a patience produced by astonishment, and then he had burst out at them. &amp;quot;What do you gentleman know of the joys of life?&amp;quot; he had stormed. &amp;quot;How little you understand of the intoxicating delight of dominating a whole nation by terror, knowing that almost all desire your death and that none can compass it, knowing that your enemies throughout the world are engaged in futile attempts to guess your secret thoughts, knowing that your power will survive the extermination not only of your enemies but of your friends. No, gentlemen, the way of life you offer does not attract me. Go back to your pettifogging pursuit of profit gilded with a pretense of piety, but leave me to my more heroic way of life.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Quakers, baffled for the moment, went home to wait for a better opportunity. Stalin, fallen and in their power, might, they now hoped, show himself more amenable. Strange to say, he still proved stubborn. They were men who had had much practice with juvenile delinquents, unraveling their complexes and leading them by gentle persuasion to the belief that honesty is the best policy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Mr. Stalin,&amp;quot; said Tobias Toogood, &amp;quot;we hope that you now realize the unwisdom of the way of life to which you have hitherto adhered. I shall say nothing of the ruin you have brought upon the world, for that, you will assure me, leaves you cold. But consider what you have brought upon yourself. You have fallen from your high estate to the condition of a humble prisoner, owing what comforts you retain to the fact that gaolers do not accept your maxims. The fierce joys of which you spoke when we visited you in the days of your greatness can no longer be yours. But if you could break down the barrier of pride, if you could repent, if you could learn to find happiness in the happiness of others, there might yet be for you some purpose and some tolerable contentment during the remainder of your days.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At this point Stalin leapt to his feet and exclaimed: &amp;quot;Hell take you, you sniveling hypocrite. I understand nothing of what you say, except that you are on top and I am at your mercy, and that you have found a way of insulting my misfortunes more galling and more humiliating than any I invented in my purges.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Oh, Mr. Stalin,&amp;quot; said Mr. Swete, &amp;quot;how can you be so unjust and so unkind? Can you not see that we have none but the most benevolent intentions towards you? Can you not see that we wish to save your soul, and that we deplore the violence and hatred that you promoted among your enemies as among your friends? We have no wish to humiliate you, and could you but appreciate earthly greatness at no more than its true worth, you would see that it is an escape from humiliation that we are offering you.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;This is really too much,&amp;quot; shouted Stalin. &amp;quot;When I was a boy, I put up with talk like this in my Georgian seminary, but it is not the sort of talk to which a grown man can listen with patience. I wish I believed in Hell, that I might look forward to the pleasures of seeing your blandness dissipated by scorching flames.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Oh fie, my dear Stalin!&amp;quot; said Mr. Weldon. &amp;quot;Pray do not excite yourself, for it is only by calmness that you will learn to see the wisdom of what we are trying to show you.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before Stalin could retort, Mr. Toogood once again intervened: &amp;quot;I am sure, Mr. Stalin,&amp;quot; he said, &amp;quot;that a man of your great intelligence cannot forever remain blind to the truth, but at the moment you are overwrought, and I suggest that a soothing cup of cocoa might be better for you than the unduly stimulating tea you have been drinking.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At this moment Stalin could no longer contain himself. He took the teapot and hurled it at Mr. Toogood's head. The scalding liquid poured down his face, but he only said, &amp;quot;There, there, Mr. Stalin, that is no argument.&amp;quot; In a paroxysm of rage Stalin awoke. For a moment the rage continued and vented itself upon Molotov, Malenkov, and Beria, who trembled and turned pale. But as the clouds of sleep cleared away, his rage evaporated, and he found contentment in a deep draught of vodka and red pepper.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Russell clearly thinks highly of Stalin, I don't think so!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
harmlesstree&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Harmlesstree</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Bertrand_Russell&amp;diff=163328</id>
		<title>Talk:Bertrand Russell</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Bertrand_Russell&amp;diff=163328"/>
		<updated>2007-05-16T03:19:01Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Harmlesstree: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find it ironic that this site uses Wikipedia's presentation of Bertrand Russell as an anti-Bolshevic as an example of Wikipedia's &amp;quot;liberal bias.&amp;quot; For it is your site that is distorting the truth, as it has done with other things, with respect to Bertrand Russell's position on Bolshevism. You have taken out of context a statement from Russell's preface to The Theory and Practice of Bolshevism, and used it to make it look as if Russell was supporter of the Bolsheviks'. However, it is clear if you read on past the statement you quoted that he is not, especially if you read on past the preface to the first section, which I cited in the article about Russell as evidence as his feelings towards of the Bolsheviks, which you deleted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The feelings expressed in this passage are the proper expressions of what Russell felt towards the Bolsheviks then, and especially after 1920 with the rise of Stalinism, not the statements you quoted. After all, it was Bertrand Russell who indicated that a preemptive nuclear strike against the Soviet Union, prior to their acquiring nuclear weapons, would be morally more justifiable than the alternative of attacking them after they had acquired them. His expressions of fondness for the Bolsheviks in the preface are because of the hope they have given the world: people can rise up and throw off the chains of economic oppression that are draining the life out of them: it was done in Russia. However, if you read on you will see that he vehemently opposes their ideology and their methods. His tract is polemic against them. Russell saw the same thing that Orwell saw in Spain: the Communist party was wolf in sheep's clothing. But Russell saw it very early on, before the rise of Stalinism. His predictions about what would ultimately happen in Russia were spot on. I have pasted most of the preface that you distorted onto the page, plus the beginning of section 1. You will want to edit this long post. But, please, do not against attempt to portray Bertrand Ruussell as a supporter of the Bolsheviks' or the Soviet Union. harmlesstree&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*''hope they have given the world''&lt;br /&gt;
::LOL.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:25, 15 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
LOL, right. You are looking at the Russian Revolution from the vantage point of 2007 - that is through 90 years of history that socialists/communists and the working class of 1917 were not privy to. All they were privy to was that there was a successful communist/socialist revolution - not the horrors of Stalinism, which would not occur for years. Most were probably not even aware of the violent and despotic tendencies of the Bolsheviks. They were aware of the fact that there was an apparently successful working class revolution, which there was. The Russian Revolution was a popular revolution which the Bolsheviks ceased control of, and began to implement their Marxist-Leninist orthodoxy. They took control of the Soviets, which were independent democratically administered councils, and made them arms of the state, while silencing all opposition. But the preponderance of people did not know this. All they knew was there was a successful revolution, in which a socialist society was being constructed. This, as Russell properly states, gave them hope. However, Russell did not share these hopes beyond the fact that there was was a successful revolution, and he says so after the preface. It was clear to him after visiting Russia that there was not a socialist society being constructed. On the contrary, the Bolsheviks' were constructing a despotic state that was reminiscent of the one that preceded it; it was an illusion, and Russell knew it. He condemned it, and the Marxist-Lenist dogma it was founded upon. And that brings us back to my primary point: Bertrand Russell vehemently opposed Bolshevism.     harmlesstree&lt;br /&gt;
*''reminiscent? ''&lt;br /&gt;
::Did the Czar exterminate 50 million?  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:59, 15 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Bolshevics had not killed 50 million from 1917 - 1920. When I say, or Russell says, the Bolshevic state was reminiscent of the TSARist, I and he, are only going on what occured from 1917 - 1920. Do you understand this? I am commenting on Russell's tract the Theroy and Practice of Bolshevism, which he wrote in 1920. Do you understand the fact that he is not aware of the mass killings of Stalin because they have not happened yet? He was aware of the killings and despotic government the Bolshevics had erected, which he attacked. This government reminded him of the TSARiST one. He wrote,&amp;quot; Opposition is crushed without mercy, and without shrinking from the methods of the Tsarist police, many of whom are still employed at their old work.&amp;quot; Look the whole point of this post was to clear Russell's name, by exposing the slander that was placed on conservapedia. I have done that, at least if one is fair minded. harmlesstree&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
RobS,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Given that it was you who placed [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.phptitle=Bertrand_Russell&amp;amp;diff=66867&amp;amp;oldid=66842 that quote]&lt;br /&gt;
in the article, and given that harmlesstree has provided [http://www.gutenberg.org/files/17350/17350-h/17350-h.htm compelling evidence] that it grossly misrepresents Russell's position, then I'd keep my fool mouth shut if I were you.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Indeed, a more gracious person than yourself might even have been moved to ''thank'' harmlesstree for correcting your crass error. The case for your immediate defenestration grows stronger with each passing day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 17:03, 15 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Right.  Good way to wiggle out of an argument.  The Bolsheviks just crushed democracy, broke the hereditary lineage of the monarchy by murdering the Royal family, but aren't responsible for what they wrought afterwards.  Sounds like Marxist reasoning.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:46, 15 May 2007 (EDT&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wiggle! You have the audacity to accuse me of wiggling and obfuscating; when I am simply trying to defend Bertrand Russell against the scurrilous accusations made by a contributer to Conservapedia, while you try shift the focus away from this and make it about me, i.e. &amp;quot;sounds like Marxist reasoning.&amp;quot; Please address the issue of Bertrand Russell. If you persist in this infantile game, I am going to end this conversation. harmlesstree&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And a craven refusal to acknowledge your error, RobS. Bravo.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
harmlesstree,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Do not attempt to debate with this man. Stick to your guns - do not attempt to explain, clarify or expand upon the charge of misrepresentation. Defy him to prove you wrong and he disappears. That (tragically) is the very most you can expect from him.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 19:41, 15 May 2007&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Let's discuss what we're discussing here; there is no evidence Russell abandoned these views well ''after'' all the genocides the Communists committed; well into the 1960s, Russell was a charter members of the &amp;quot;blame America crowd&amp;quot;.  And unlike Wikipedia, another Nobel Laureate in Literature, Mr. Alexandr Solzhenisyn's criticism of Russell and his support for the Soviet Union '''will not''' be censored and '''will''' go into this Conservapedia bio.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:23, 15 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Never abondoned these views, he never had those views, which is precisely the point. And regarding censorship, you are the one who censored Bertrand Russell's writings, by posting only one tiny snippett from the preface to The Theory and Practice of Bolshevism, where I posted most of the preface, and quote from chapter 1.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I cannot share the hopes of the Bolsheviks any more than those of the Egyptian anchorites; I regard both as tragic delusions, destined to bring [16]upon the world centuries of darkness and futile violence...I do not know whether Bolshevism can be prevented from acquiring universal power. But even if it cannot, I am persuaded that those who stand out against it, not from love of ancient injustice, but in the name of the free spirit of Man, will be the bearers of the seeds of progress, from which, when the world's gestation is accomplished, new life will be born.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does this sound like a man that had those views? If he felt like this then, do you think it is likely that later on he became sympathetic to the Soviet Union, when the crimes against humanity and the oppression became much greater.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;The blame America crowd&amp;quot; lol - jingoistic tripe that appeals to the ignorant and moronic rabble. Have you ever noticed that people with Russell's intellect, not just Russell, generally despise the irrational nationalistic sentiment that underpins that phrase you uttered. &amp;quot;Nationalism is an infantile disease; it is the measles of mankind.&amp;quot; Albert Einstein&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Harmlesstree&lt;br /&gt;
  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Here is a short story examing the character of Joe Stalin that Russell wrote,                                                 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
                                                Josef Stalin's Nightmare&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
                                                   by Bertrand Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stalin, after copious draughts of vodka mixed with red pepper, had fallen asleep in his chair. Molotov, Malenkov, and Beria, with fingers to their lips, warned off intrusive domestics who might interfere with the great man's repose. While they guarded him, he had a dream, and what he dreamt was as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Third World War had been fought and lost. He was a captive in the hands of the Western Allies. But they, having observed that the Nuremberg trials generated sympathy for the Nazis, decided this time to adopt a different plan: Stalin was handed over to a committee of eminent Quakers, who contended that even he, by the power of love, could be led to repentance and to the life of a decent citizen.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was realized that until their spiritual work had been completed the windows of his room must be barred lest he should be guilty of a rash act, and he must not be allowed access to knives lest in a fit of fury he should attach those engaged in his regeneration. He was housed comfortably in two rooms of an old country house, but the doors were locked, except during the one hour of every day when, in the company of four muscular Quakers, he was taken for a brisk walk during which he was encouraged to admire the beauties of nature and enjoy the song of the lark. During the rest of the day he was allowed to read and write, but he was not allowed any literature that might be considered inflammatory. He was given the Bible, Pilgrim's Progress, and Uncle Tom's Cabin. And sometimes for a treat he was allowed the novels of Charlotte M. Yonge. He was allowed no tobacco, no alcohol, and no red pepper. Cocoa he might have at any hour of the day and night, since the most eminent of his guardians were purveyors of that innocent beverage. Tea and coffee were permitted in moderation, but not in such quantities or at such time as might interfere with a wholesome night's repose.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During one hour of every morning and one hour of every evening the grave men to whose care he had been entrusted explained the principles of Christian charity and the happiness that might yet be his if he would but acknowledge their wisdom. The task of reasoning with him fell especially upon the three men who were accounted wisest among those who hoped to make him see the light. These were the Mr. Tobias Toogood, Mr. Samuel Swete, and Mr. Wilabraham Weldon.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He had been acquainted with these men in the days of his greatness. Not long before the outbreak of the Third World War they had journeyed to Moscow to plead with him and endeavor to convince him of the error of his ways. They had talked to him of universal benevolence and Christian love. They had spoken in glowing terms of the joys of meekness, and had tried to persuade him that there is more happiness in being loved than in being feared. For a little while he had listened with a patience produced by astonishment, and then he had burst out at them. &amp;quot;What do you gentleman know of the joys of life?&amp;quot; he had stormed. &amp;quot;How little you understand of the intoxicating delight of dominating a whole nation by terror, knowing that almost all desire your death and that none can compass it, knowing that your enemies throughout the world are engaged in futile attempts to guess your secret thoughts, knowing that your power will survive the extermination not only of your enemies but of your friends. No, gentlemen, the way of life you offer does not attract me. Go back to your pettifogging pursuit of profit gilded with a pretense of piety, but leave me to my more heroic way of life.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Quakers, baffled for the moment, went home to wait for a better opportunity. Stalin, fallen and in their power, might, they now hoped, show himself more amenable. Strange to say, he still proved stubborn. They were men who had had much practice with juvenile delinquents, unraveling their complexes and leading them by gentle persuasion to the belief that honesty is the best policy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Mr. Stalin,&amp;quot; said Tobias Toogood, &amp;quot;we hope that you now realize the unwisdom of the way of life to which you have hitherto adhered. I shall say nothing of the ruin you have brought upon the world, for that, you will assure me, leaves you cold. But consider what you have brought upon yourself. You have fallen from your high estate to the condition of a humble prisoner, owing what comforts you retain to the fact that gaolers do not accept your maxims. The fierce joys of which you spoke when we visited you in the days of your greatness can no longer be yours. But if you could break down the barrier of pride, if you could repent, if you could learn to find happiness in the happiness of others, there might yet be for you some purpose and some tolerable contentment during the remainder of your days.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At this point Stalin leapt to his feet and exclaimed: &amp;quot;Hell take you, you sniveling hypocrite. I understand nothing of what you say, except that you are on top and I am at your mercy, and that you have found a way of insulting my misfortunes more galling and more humiliating than any I invented in my purges.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Oh, Mr. Stalin,&amp;quot; said Mr. Swete, &amp;quot;how can you be so unjust and so unkind? Can you not see that we have none but the most benevolent intentions towards you? Can you not see that we wish to save your soul, and that we deplore the violence and hatred that you promoted among your enemies as among your friends? We have no wish to humiliate you, and could you but appreciate earthly greatness at no more than its true worth, you would see that it is an escape from humiliation that we are offering you.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;This is really too much,&amp;quot; shouted Stalin. &amp;quot;When I was a boy, I put up with talk like this in my Georgian seminary, but it is not the sort of talk to which a grown man can listen with patience. I wish I believed in Hell, that I might look forward to the pleasures of seeing your blandness dissipated by scorching flames.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Oh fie, my dear Stalin!&amp;quot; said Mr. Weldon. &amp;quot;Pray do not excite yourself, for it is only by calmness that you will learn to see the wisdom of what we are trying to show you.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before Stalin could retort, Mr. Toogood once again intervened: &amp;quot;I am sure, Mr. Stalin,&amp;quot; he said, &amp;quot;that a man of your great intelligence cannot forever remain blind to the truth, but at the moment you are overwrought, and I suggest that a soothing cup of cocoa might be better for you than the unduly stimulating tea you have been drinking.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At this moment Stalin could no longer contain himself. He took the teapot and hurled it at Mr. Toogood's head. The scalding liquid poured down his face, but he only said, &amp;quot;There, there, Mr. Stalin, that is no argument.&amp;quot; In a paroxysm of rage Stalin awoke. For a moment the rage continued and vented itself upon Molotov, Malenkov, and Beria, who trembled and turned pale. But as the clouds of sleep cleared away, his rage evaporated, and he found contentment in a deep draught of vodka and red pepper.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Russell clearly thinks highly of Stalin, I don't think so!&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Harmlesstree</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Bertrand_Russell&amp;diff=163231</id>
		<title>Talk:Bertrand Russell</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Bertrand_Russell&amp;diff=163231"/>
		<updated>2007-05-16T02:24:30Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Harmlesstree: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find it ironic that this site uses Wikipedia's presentation of Bertrand Russell as an anti-Bolshevic as an example of Wikipedia's &amp;quot;liberal bias.&amp;quot; For it is your site that is distorting the truth, as it has done with other things, with respect to Bertrand Russell's position on Bolshevism. You have taken out of context a statement from Russell's preface to The Theory and Practice of Bolshevism, and used it to make it look as if Russell was supporter of the Bolsheviks'. However, it is clear if you read on past the statement you quoted that he is not, especially if you read on past the preface to the first section, which I cited in the article about Russell as evidence as his feelings towards of the Bolsheviks, which you deleted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The feelings expressed in this passage are the proper expressions of what Russell felt towards the Bolsheviks then, and especially after 1920 with the rise of Stalinism, not the statements you quoted. After all, it was Bertrand Russell who indicated that a preemptive nuclear strike against the Soviet Union, prior to their acquiring nuclear weapons, would be morally more justifiable than the alternative of attacking them after they had acquired them. His expressions of fondness for the Bolsheviks in the preface are because of the hope they have given the world: people can rise up and throw off the chains of economic oppression that are draining the life out of them: it was done in Russia. However, if you read on you will see that he vehemently opposes their ideology and their methods. His tract is polemic against them. Russell saw the same thing that Orwell saw in Spain: the Communist party was wolf in sheep's clothing. But Russell saw it very early on, before the rise of Stalinism. His predictions about what would ultimately happen in Russia were spot on. I have pasted most of the preface that you distorted onto the page, plus the beginning of section 1. You will want to edit this long post. But, please, do not against attempt to portray Bertrand Ruussell as a supporter of the Bolsheviks' or the Soviet Union. harmlesstree&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*''hope they have given the world''&lt;br /&gt;
::LOL.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:25, 15 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
LOL, right. You are looking at the Russian Revolution from the vantage point of 2007 - that is through 90 years of history that socialists/communists and the working class of 1917 were not privy to. All they were privy to was that there was a successful communist/socialist revolution - not the horrors of Stalinism, which would not occur for years. Most were probably not even aware of the violent and despotic tendencies of the Bolsheviks. They were aware of the fact that there was an apparently successful working class revolution, which there was. The Russian Revolution was a popular revolution which the Bolsheviks ceased control of, and began to implement their Marxist-Leninist orthodoxy. They took control of the Soviets, which were independent democratically administered councils, and made them arms of the state, while silencing all opposition. But the preponderance of people did not know this. All they knew was there was a successful revolution, in which a socialist society was being constructed. This, as Russell properly states, gave them hope. However, Russell did not share these hopes beyond the fact that there was was a successful revolution, and he says so after the preface. It was clear to him after visiting Russia that there was not a socialist society being constructed. On the contrary, the Bolsheviks' were constructing a despotic state that was reminiscent of the one that preceded it; it was an illusion, and Russell knew it. He condemned it, and the Marxist-Lenist dogma it was founded upon. And that brings us back to my primary point: Bertrand Russell vehemently opposed Bolshevism.     harmlesstree&lt;br /&gt;
*''reminiscent? ''&lt;br /&gt;
::Did the Czar exterminate 50 million?  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:59, 15 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Bolshevics had not killed 50 million from 1917 - 1920. When I say, or Russell says, the Bolshevic state was reminiscent of the TSARist, I and he, are only going on what occured from 1917 - 1920. Do you understand this? I am commenting on Russell's tract the Theroy and Practice of Bolshevism, which he wrote in 1920. Do you understand the fact that he is not aware of the mass killings of Stalin because they have not happened yet? He was aware of the killings and despotic government the Bolshevics had erected, which he attacked. This government reminded him of the TSARiST one. He wrote,&amp;quot; Opposition is crushed without mercy, and without shrinking from the methods of the Tsarist police, many of whom are still employed at their old work.&amp;quot; Look the whole point of this post was to clear Russell's name, by exposing the slander that was placed on conservapedia. I have done that, at least if one is fair minded. harmlesstree&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
RobS,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Given that it was you who placed [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.phptitle=Bertrand_Russell&amp;amp;diff=66867&amp;amp;oldid=66842 that quote]&lt;br /&gt;
in the article, and given that harmlesstree has provided [http://www.gutenberg.org/files/17350/17350-h/17350-h.htm compelling evidence] that it grossly misrepresents Russell's position, then I'd keep my fool mouth shut if I were you.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Indeed, a more gracious person than yourself might even have been moved to ''thank'' harmlesstree for correcting your crass error. The case for your immediate defenestration grows stronger with each passing day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 17:03, 15 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Right.  Good way to wiggle out of an argument.  The Bolsheviks just crushed democracy, broke the hereditary lineage of the monarchy by murdering the Royal family, but aren't responsible for what they wrought afterwards.  Sounds like Marxist reasoning.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:46, 15 May 2007 (EDT&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wiggle! You have the audacity to accuse me of wiggling and obfuscating; when I am simply trying to defend Bertrand Russell against the scurrilous accusations made by a contributer to Conservapedia, while you try shift the focus away from this and make it about me, i.e. &amp;quot;sounds like Marxist reasoning.&amp;quot; Please address the issue of Bertrand Russell. If you persist in this infantile game, I am going to end this conversation. harmlesstree&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And a craven refusal to acknowledge your error, RobS. Bravo.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
harmlesstree,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Do not attempt to debate with this man. Stick to your guns - do not attempt to explain, clarify or expand upon the charge of misrepresentation. Defy him to prove you wrong and he disappears. That (tragically) is the very most you can expect from him.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 19:41, 15 May 2007&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Let's discuss what we're discussing here; there is no evidence Russell abandoned these views well ''after'' all the genocides the Communists committed; well into the 1960s, Russell was a charter members of the &amp;quot;blame America crowd&amp;quot;.  And unlike Wikipedia, another Nobel Laureate in Literature, Mr. Alexandr Solzhenisyn's criticism of Russell and his support for the Soviet Union '''will not''' be censored and '''will''' go into this Conservapedia bio.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:23, 15 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Never abondoned these views, he never had those views, which is precisely the point. And regarding censorship, you are the one who censored Bertrand Russell's writings, by posting only one tiny snippett from the preface to The Theory and Practice of Bolshevism, where I posted most of the preface, and quote from chapter 1.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I cannot share the hopes of the Bolsheviks any more than those of the Egyptian anchorites; I regard both as tragic delusions, destined to bring [16]upon the world centuries of darkness and futile violence...I do not know whether Bolshevism can be prevented from acquiring universal power. But even if it cannot, I am persuaded that those who stand out against it, not from love of ancient injustice, but in the name of the free spirit of Man, will be the bearers of the seeds of progress, from which, when the world's gestation is accomplished, new life will be born.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does this sound like a man that had those views? If he felt like this then, do you think it is likely that later on he became sympathetic to the Soviet Union, when the crimes against humanity and the oppression became much greater.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;The blame America crowd&amp;quot; lol - jingoistic tripe that appeals to the ignorant and moronic rabble. Have you ever noticed that people with Russell's intellect, not just Russell, generally despise the irrational nationalistic sentiment that underpins that phrase you uttered. &amp;quot;Nationalism is an infantile disease; it is the measles of mankind.&amp;quot; Albert Einstein&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Harmlesstree&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Harmlesstree</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Bertrand_Russell&amp;diff=163149</id>
		<title>Talk:Bertrand Russell</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Bertrand_Russell&amp;diff=163149"/>
		<updated>2007-05-16T01:18:03Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Harmlesstree: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find it ironic that this site uses Wikipedia's presentation of Bertrand Russell as an anti-Bolshevic as an example of Wikipedia's &amp;quot;liberal bias.&amp;quot; For it is your site that is distorting the truth, as it has done with other things, with respect to Bertrand Russell's position on Bolshevism. You have taken out of context a statement from Russell's preface to The Theory and Practice of Bolshevism, and used it to make it look as if Russell was supporter of the Bolsheviks'. However, it is clear if you read on past the statement you quoted that he is not, especially if you read on past the preface to the first section, which I cited in the article about Russell as evidence as his feelings towards of the Bolsheviks, which you deleted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The feelings expressed in this passage are the proper expressions of what Russell felt towards the Bolsheviks then, and especially after 1920 with the rise of Stalinism, not the statements you quoted. After all, it was Bertrand Russell who indicated that a preemptive nuclear strike against the Soviet Union, prior to their acquiring nuclear weapons, would be morally more justifiable than the alternative of attacking them after they had acquired them. His expressions of fondness for the Bolsheviks in the preface are because of the hope they have given the world: people can rise up and throw off the chains of economic oppression that are draining the life out of them: it was done in Russia. However, if you read on you will see that he vehemently opposes their ideology and their methods. His tract is polemic against them. Russell saw the same thing that Orwell saw in Spain: the Communist party was wolf in sheep's clothing. But Russell saw it very early on, before the rise of Stalinism. His predictions about what would ultimately happen in Russia were spot on. I have pasted most of the preface that you distorted onto the page, plus the beginning of section 1. You will want to edit this long post. But, please, do not against attempt to portray Bertrand Ruussell as a supporter of the Bolsheviks' or the Soviet Union. harmlesstree&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*''hope they have given the world''&lt;br /&gt;
::LOL.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:25, 15 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
LOL, right. You are looking at the Russian Revolution from the vantage point of 2007 - that is through 90 years of history that socialists/communists and the working class of 1917 were not privy to. All they were privy to was that there was a successful communist/socialist revolution - not the horrors of Stalinism, which would not occur for years. Most were probably not even aware of the violent and despotic tendencies of the Bolsheviks. They were aware of the fact that there was an apparently successful working class revolution, which there was. The Russian Revolution was a popular revolution which the Bolsheviks ceased control of, and began to implement their Marxist-Leninist orthodoxy. They took control of the Soviets, which were independent democratically administered councils, and made them arms of the state, while silencing all opposition. But the preponderance of people did not know this. All they knew was there was a successful revolution, in which a socialist society was being constructed. This, as Russell properly states, gave them hope. However, Russell did not share these hopes beyond the fact that there was was a successful revolution, and he says so after the preface. It was clear to him after visiting Russia that there was not a socialist society being constructed. On the contrary, the Bolsheviks' were constructing a despotic state that was reminiscent of the one that preceded it; it was an illusion, and Russell knew it. He condemned it, and the Marxist-Lenist dogma it was founded upon. And that brings us back to my primary point: Bertrand Russell vehemently opposed Bolshevism.     harmlesstree&lt;br /&gt;
*''reminiscent? ''&lt;br /&gt;
::Did the Czar exterminate 50 million?  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:59, 15 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Bolshevics had not killed 50 million from 1917 - 1920. When I say, or Russell says, the Bolshevic state was reminiscent of the TSARist, I and he, are only going on what occured from 1917 - 1920. Do you understand this? I am commenting on Russell's tract the Theroy and Practice of Bolshevism, which he wrote in 1920. Do you understand the fact that he is not aware of the mass killings of Stalin because they have not happened yet? He was aware of the killings and despotic government the Bolshevics had erected, which he attacked. This government reminded him of the TSARiST one. He wrote,&amp;quot; Opposition is crushed without mercy, and without shrinking from the methods of the Tsarist police, many of whom are still employed at their old work.&amp;quot; Look the whole point of this post was to clear Russell's name, by exposing the slander that was placed on conservapedia. I have done that, at least if one is fair minded. harmlesstree&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
RobS,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Given that it was you who placed [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.phptitle=Bertrand_Russell&amp;amp;diff=66867&amp;amp;oldid=66842 that quote]&lt;br /&gt;
in the article, and given that harmlesstree has provided [http://www.gutenberg.org/files/17350/17350-h/17350-h.htm compelling evidence] that it grossly misrepresents Russell's position, then I'd keep my fool mouth shut if I were you.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Indeed, a more gracious person than yourself might even have been moved to ''thank'' harmlesstree for correcting your crass error. The case for your immediate defenestration grows stronger with each passing day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 17:03, 15 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Right.  Good way to wiggle out of an argument.  The Bolsheviks just crushed democracy, broke the hereditary lineage of the monarchy by murdering the Royal family, but aren't responsible for what they wrought afterwards.  Sounds like Marxist reasoning.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:46, 15 May 2007 (EDT&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wiggle! You have the audacity to accuse me of wiggling and obfuscating; when I am simply trying to defend Bertrand Russell against the scurrilous accusations made by a contributer to Conservapedia, while you try shift the focus away from this and make it about me, i.e. &amp;quot;sounds like Marxist reasoning.&amp;quot; Please address the issue of Bertrand Russell. If you persist in this infantile game, I am going to end this conversation. harmlesstree&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And a craven refusal to acknowledge your error, RobS. Bravo.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
harmlesstree,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Do not attempt to debate with this man. Stick to your guns - do not attempt to explain, clarify or expand upon the charge of misrepresentation. Defy him to prove you wrong and he disappears. That (tragically) is the very most you can expect from him.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 19:41, 15 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Harmlesstree</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Bertrand_Russell&amp;diff=163148</id>
		<title>Talk:Bertrand Russell</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Bertrand_Russell&amp;diff=163148"/>
		<updated>2007-05-16T01:17:22Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Harmlesstree: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find it ironic that this site uses Wikipedia's presentation of Bertrand Russell as an anti-Bolshevic as an example of Wikipedia's &amp;quot;liberal bias.&amp;quot; For it is your site that is distorting the truth, as it has done with other things, with respect to Bertrand Russell's position on Bolshevism. You have taken out of context a statement from Russell's preface to The Theory and Practice of Bolshevism, and used it to make it look as if Russell was supporter of the Bolsheviks'. However, it is clear if you read on past the statement you quoted that he is not, especially if you read on past the preface to the first section, which I cited in the article about Russell as evidence as his feelings towards of the Bolsheviks, which you deleted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The feelings expressed in this passage are the proper expressions of what Russell felt towards the Bolsheviks then, and especially after 1920 with the rise of Stalinism, not the statements you quoted. After all, it was Bertrand Russell who indicated that a preemptive nuclear strike against the Soviet Union, prior to their acquiring nuclear weapons, would be morally more justifiable than the alternative of attacking them after they had acquired them. His expressions of fondness for the Bolsheviks in the preface are because of the hope they have given the world: people can rise up and throw off the chains of economic oppression that are draining the life out of them: it was done in Russia. However, if you read on you will see that he vehemently opposes their ideology and their methods. His tract is polemic against them. Russell saw the same thing that Orwell saw in Spain: the Communist party was wolf in sheep's clothing. But Russell saw it very early on, before the rise of Stalinism. His predictions about what would ultimately happen in Russia were spot on. I have pasted most of the preface that you distorted onto the page, plus the beginning of section 1. You will want to edit this long post. But, please, do not against attempt to portray Bertrand Ruussell as a supporter of the Bolsheviks' or the Soviet Union. harmlesstree&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*''hope they have given the world''&lt;br /&gt;
::LOL.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:25, 15 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
LOL, right. You are looking at the Russian Revolution from the vantage point of 2007 - that is through 90 years of history that socialists/communists and the working class of 1917 were not privy to. All they were privy to was that there was a successful communist/socialist revolution - not the horrors of Stalinism, which would not occur for years. Most were probably not even aware of the violent and despotic tendencies of the Bolsheviks. They were aware of the fact that there was an apparently successful working class revolution, which there was. The Russian Revolution was a popular revolution which the Bolsheviks ceased control of, and began to implement their Marxist-Leninist orthodoxy. They took control of the Soviets, which were independent democratically administered councils, and made them arms of the state, while silencing all opposition. But the preponderance of people did not know this. All they knew was there was a successful revolution, in which a socialist society was being constructed. This, as Russell properly states, gave them hope. However, Russell did not share these hopes beyond the fact that there was was a successful revolution, and he says so after the preface. It was clear to him after visiting Russia that there was not a socialist society being constructed. On the contrary, the Bolsheviks' were constructing a despotic state that was reminiscent of the one that preceded it; it was an illusion, and Russell knew it. He condemned it, and the Marxist-Lenist dogma it was founded upon. And that brings us back to my primary point: Bertrand Russell vehemently opposed Bolshevism.     harmlesstree&lt;br /&gt;
*''reminiscent? ''&lt;br /&gt;
::Did the Czar exterminate 50 million?  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:59, 15 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Bolshevics had not killed 50 million from 1917 - 1920. When I say, or Russell says, the Bolshevic state was reminiscent of the TSARist, I and he, are only going on what occured from 1917 - 1920. Do you understand this? I am commenting on Russell's tract the Theroy and Practice of Bolshevism, which he wrote in 1920. Do you understand the fact that he is not aware of the mass killings of Stalin because they have not happened yet? He was aware of the killings and despotic government the Bolshevics had erected, which he attacked. This government reminded him of the TSARiST one. He wrote,&amp;quot; Opposition is crushed without mercy, and without shrinking from the methods of the Tsarist police, many of whom are still employed at their old work.&amp;quot; Look the whole point of this post was to clear Russell's name, by exposing the slander that was placed on conservapedia. I have done that, at least if one is fair minded. harmlesstree&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
RobS,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Given that it was you who placed [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.phptitle=Bertrand_Russell&amp;amp;diff=66867&amp;amp;oldid=66842 that quote]&lt;br /&gt;
in the article, and given that harmlesstree has provided [http://www.gutenberg.org/files/17350/17350-h/17350-h.htm compelling evidence] that it grossly misrepresents Russell's position, then I'd keep my fool mouth shut if I were you.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Indeed, a more gracious person than yourself might even have been moved to ''thank'' harmlesstree for correcting your crass error. The case for your immediate defenestration grows stronger with each passing day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 17:03, 15 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Right.  Good way to wiggle out of an argument.  The Bolsheviks just crushed democracy, broke the hereditary lineage of the monarchy by murdering the Royal family, but aren't responsible for what they wrought afterwards.  Sounds like Marxist reasoning.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:46, 15 May 2007 (EDT&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wiggle! You have the audacity to accuse me of wiggling and obfuscating; when I am simply trying to defend Bertrand Russell against the scurrilous accusations made by a contributer to Conservapedia, while you try shift the focus away from this and make it about me, i.e. &amp;quot;sounds like Marxist reasoning.&amp;quot; Please address the issue of Bertrand Russell. If you persist in this infantile game, I am going to end this conversation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And a craven refusal to acknowledge your error, RobS. Bravo.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
harmlesstree,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Do not attempt to debate with this man. Stick to your guns - do not attempt to explain, clarify or expand upon the charge of misrepresentation. Defy him to prove you wrong and he disappears. That (tragically) is the very most you can expect from him.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 19:41, 15 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Harmlesstree</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Bertrand_Russell&amp;diff=162989</id>
		<title>Talk:Bertrand Russell</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Bertrand_Russell&amp;diff=162989"/>
		<updated>2007-05-16T00:06:36Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Harmlesstree: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find it ironic that this site uses Wikipedia's presentation of Bertrand Russell as an anti-Bolshevic as an example of Wikipedia's &amp;quot;liberal bias.&amp;quot; For it is your site that is distorting the truth, as it has done with other things, with respect to Bertrand Russell's position on Bolshevism. You have taken out of context a statement from Russell's preface to The Theory and Practice of Bolshevism, and used it to make it look as if Russell was supporter of the Bolsheviks'. However, it is clear if you read on past the statement you quoted that he is not, especially if you read on past the preface to the first section, which I cited in the article about Russell as evidence as his feelings towards of the Bolsheviks, which you deleted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The feelings expressed in this passage are the proper expressions of what Russell felt towards the Bolsheviks then, and especially after 1920 with the rise of Stalinism, not the statements you quoted. After all, it was Bertrand Russell who indicated that a preemptive nuclear strike against the Soviet Union, prior to their acquiring nuclear weapons, would be morally more justifiable than the alternative of attacking them after they had acquired them. His expressions of fondness for the Bolsheviks in the preface are because of the hope they have given the world: people can rise up and throw off the chains of economic oppression that are draining the life out of them: it was done in Russia. However, if you read on you will see that he vehemently opposes their ideology and their methods. His tract is polemic against them. Russell saw the same thing that Orwell saw in Spain: the Communist party was wolf in sheep's clothing. But Russell saw it very early on, before the rise of Stalinism. His predictions about what would ultimately happen in Russia were spot on. I have pasted most of the preface that you distorted onto the page, plus the beginning of section 1. You will want to edit this long post. But, please, do not against attempt to portray Bertrand Ruussell as a supporter of the Bolsheviks' or the Soviet Union. harmlesstree&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*''hope they have given the world''&lt;br /&gt;
::LOL.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:25, 15 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
LOL, right. You are looking at the Russian Revolution from the vantage point of 2007 - that is through 90 years of history that socialists/communists and the working class of 1917 were not privy to. All they were privy to was that there was a successful communist/socialist revolution - not the horrors of Stalinism, which would not occur for years. Most were probably not even aware of the violent and despotic tendencies of the Bolsheviks. They were aware of the fact that there was an apparently successful working class revolution, which there was. The Russian Revolution was a popular revolution which the Bolsheviks ceased control of, and began to implement their Marxist-Leninist orthodoxy. They took control of the Soviets, which were independent democratically administered councils, and made them arms of the state, while silencing all opposition. But the preponderance of people did not know this. All they knew was there was a successful revolution, in which a socialist society was being constructed. This, as Russell properly states, gave them hope. However, Russell did not share these hopes beyond the fact that there was was a successful revolution, and he says so after the preface. It was clear to him after visiting Russia that there was not a socialist society being constructed. On the contrary, the Bolsheviks' were constructing a despotic state that was reminiscent of the one that preceded it; it was an illusion, and Russell knew it. He condemned it, and the Marxist-Lenist dogma it was founded upon. And that brings us back to my primary point: Bertrand Russell vehemently opposed Bolshevism.     harmlesstree&lt;br /&gt;
*''reminiscent? ''&lt;br /&gt;
::Did the Czar exterminate 50 million?  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:59, 15 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Bolshevics had not killed 50 million from 1917 - 1920. When I say, or Russell says, the Bolshevic state was reminiscent of the TSARist, I and he, are only going on what occured from 1917 - 1920. Do you understand this? I am commenting on Russell's tract the Theroy and Practice of Bolshevism, which he wrote in 1920. Do you understand the fact that he is not aware of the mass killings of Stalin because they have not happened yet? He was aware of the killings and despotic government the Bolshevics had erected, which he attacked. This government reminded him of the TSARiST one. He wrote,&amp;quot; Opposition is crushed without mercy, and without shrinking from the methods of the Tsarist police, many of whom are still employed at their old work.&amp;quot; Look the whole point of this post was to clear Russell's name, by exposing the slander that was placed on conservapedia. I have done that, at least if one is fair minded. harmlesstree&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
RobS,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Given that it was you who placed [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.phptitle=Bertrand_Russell&amp;amp;diff=66867&amp;amp;oldid=66842 that quote]&lt;br /&gt;
in the article, and given that harmlesstree has provided [http://www.gutenberg.org/files/17350/17350-h/17350-h.htm compelling evidence] that it grossly misrepresents Russell's position, then I'd keep my fool mouth shut if I were you.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Indeed, a more gracious person than yourself might even have been moved to ''thank'' harmlesstree for correcting your crass error. The case for your immediate defenestration grows stronger with each passing day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 17:03, 15 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Right.  Good way to wiggle out of an argument.  The Bolsheviks just crushed democracy, broke the hereditary lineage of the monarchy by murdering the Royal family, but aren't responsible for what they wrought afterwards.  Sounds like Marxist reasoning.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:46, 15 May 2007 (EDT&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And a craven refusal to acknowledge your error, RobS. Bravo.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
harmlesstree,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Do not attempt to debate with this man. Stick to your guns - do not attempt to explain, clarify or expand upon the charge of misrepresentation. Defy him to prove you wrong and he disappears. That (tragically) is the very most you can expect from him.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 19:41, 15 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Harmlesstree</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Bertrand_Russell&amp;diff=162964</id>
		<title>Talk:Bertrand Russell</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Bertrand_Russell&amp;diff=162964"/>
		<updated>2007-05-15T23:57:13Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Harmlesstree: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find it ironic that this site uses Wikipedia's presentation of Bertrand Russell as an anti-Bolshevic as an example of Wikipedia's &amp;quot;liberal bias.&amp;quot; For it is your site that is distorting the truth, as it has done with other things, with respect to Bertrand Russell's position on Bolshevism. You have taken out of context a statement from Russell's preface to The Theory and Practice of Bolshevism, and used it to make it look as if Russell was supporter of the Bolsheviks'. However, it is clear if you read on past the statement you quoted that he is not, especially if you read on past the preface to the first section, which I cited in the article about Russell as evidence as his feelings towards of the Bolsheviks, which you deleted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The feelings expressed in this passage are the proper expressions of what Russell felt towards the Bolsheviks then, and especially after 1920 with the rise of Stalinism, not the statements you quoted. After all, it was Bertrand Russell who indicated that a preemptive nuclear strike against the Soviet Union, prior to their acquiring nuclear weapons, would be morally more justifiable than the alternative of attacking them after they had acquired them. His expressions of fondness for the Bolsheviks in the preface are because of the hope they have given the world: people can rise up and throw off the chains of economic oppression that are draining the life out of them: it was done in Russia. However, if you read on you will see that he vehemently opposes their ideology and their methods. His tract is polemic against them. Russell saw the same thing that Orwell saw in Spain: the Communist party was wolf in sheep's clothing. But Russell saw it very early on, before the rise of Stalinism. His predictions about what would ultimately happen in Russia were spot on. I have pasted most of the preface that you distorted onto the page, plus the beginning of section 1. You will want to edit this long post. But, please, do not against attempt to portray Bertrand Ruussell as a supporter of the Bolsheviks' or the Soviet Union. harmlesstree&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*''hope they have given the world''&lt;br /&gt;
::LOL.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:25, 15 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
LOL, right. You are looking at the Russian Revolution from the vantage point of 2007 - that is through 90 years of history that socialists/communists and the working class of 1917 were not privy to. All they were privy to was that there was a successful communist/socialist revolution - not the horrors of Stalinism, which would not occur for years. Most were probably not even aware of the violent and despotic tendencies of the Bolsheviks. They were aware of the fact that there was an apparently successful working class revolution, which there was. The Russian Revolution was a popular revolution which the Bolsheviks ceased control of, and began to implement their Marxist-Leninist orthodoxy. They took control of the Soviets, which were independent democratically administered councils, and made them arms of the state, while silencing all opposition. But the preponderance of people did not know this. All they knew was there was a successful revolution, in which a socialist society was being constructed. This, as Russell properly states, gave them hope. However, Russell did not share these hopes beyond the fact that there was was a successful revolution, and he says so after the preface. It was clear to him after visiting Russia that there was not a socialist society being constructed. On the contrary, the Bolsheviks' were constructing a despotic state that was reminiscent of the one that preceded it; it was an illusion, and Russell knew it. He condemned it, and the Marxist-Lenist dogma it was founded upon. And that brings us back to my primary point: Bertrand Russell vehemently opposed Bolshevism.     harmlesstree&lt;br /&gt;
*''reminiscent? ''&lt;br /&gt;
::Did the Czar exterminate 50 million?  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:59, 15 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Bolshevics had not killed 50 million from 1917 - 1920. When I say, or Russell says, the Bolshevic state was reminiscent of the TSARist, I and he, are only going on what occured from 1917 - 1920. Do you understand this? I am commenting on Russell's tract the Theroy and Practice of Bolshevism, which he wrote in 1920. Do you understand the fact that he is not aware of the mass killings of Stalin because they have not happened yet? He was aware of the killings and despotic government the Bolshevics had erected, which he attacked. This government reminded him of the TSARiST one. He wrote,&amp;quot; Opposition is crushed without mercy, and without shrinking from the methods of the Tsarist police, many of whom are still employed at their old work.&amp;quot; Look the whole point of this post was to clear Russell's name, by exposing the slander that was placed on conservapedia. I have done that, at least if one is fair minded. harmlesstree&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
RobS,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Given that it was you who placed [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.phptitle=Bertrand_Russell&amp;amp;diff=66867&amp;amp;oldid=66842 that quote]&lt;br /&gt;
in the article, and given that harmlesstree has provided [http://www.gutenberg.org/files/17350/17350-h/17350-h.htm compelling evidence] that it grossly misrepresents Russell's position, then I'd keep my fool mouth shut if I were you.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Indeed, a more gracious person than yourself might even have been moved to ''thank'' harmlesstree for correcting your crass error. The case for your immediate defenestration grows stronger with each passing day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 17:03, 15 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Right.  Good way to wiggle out of an argument.  The Bolsheviks just crushed democracy, broke the hereditary lineage of the monarchy by murdering the Royal family, but aren't responsible for what they wrought afterwards.  Sounds like Marxist reasoning.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:46, 15 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 The point you just made is so absurd, especially in light of what I have written, that I do not even what to dignify it with&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And a craven refusal to acknowledge your error, RobS. Bravo.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
harmlesstree,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Do not attempt to debate with this man. Stick to your guns - do not attempt to explain, clarify or expand upon the charge of misrepresentation. Defy him to prove you wrong and he disappears. That (tragically) is the very most you can expect from him.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 19:41, 15 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Harmlesstree</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Bertrand_Russell&amp;diff=162961</id>
		<title>Talk:Bertrand Russell</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Bertrand_Russell&amp;diff=162961"/>
		<updated>2007-05-15T23:56:45Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Harmlesstree: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find it ironic that this site uses Wikipedia's presentation of Bertrand Russell as an anti-Bolshevic as an example of Wikipedia's &amp;quot;liberal bias.&amp;quot; For it is your site that is distorting the truth, as it has done with other things, with respect to Bertrand Russell's position on Bolshevism. You have taken out of context a statement from Russell's preface to The Theory and Practice of Bolshevism, and used it to make it look as if Russell was supporter of the Bolsheviks'. However, it is clear if you read on past the statement you quoted that he is not, especially if you read on past the preface to the first section, which I cited in the article about Russell as evidence as his feelings towards of the Bolsheviks, which you deleted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The feelings expressed in this passage are the proper expressions of what Russell felt towards the Bolsheviks then, and especially after 1920 with the rise of Stalinism, not the statements you quoted. After all, it was Bertrand Russell who indicated that a preemptive nuclear strike against the Soviet Union, prior to their acquiring nuclear weapons, would be morally more justifiable than the alternative of attacking them after they had acquired them. His expressions of fondness for the Bolsheviks in the preface are because of the hope they have given the world: people can rise up and throw off the chains of economic oppression that are draining the life out of them: it was done in Russia. However, if you read on you will see that he vehemently opposes their ideology and their methods. His tract is polemic against them. Russell saw the same thing that Orwell saw in Spain: the Communist party was wolf in sheep's clothing. But Russell saw it very early on, before the rise of Stalinism. His predictions about what would ultimately happen in Russia were spot on. I have pasted most of the preface that you distorted onto the page, plus the beginning of section 1. You will want to edit this long post. But, please, do not against attempt to portray Bertrand Ruussell as a supporter of the Bolsheviks' or the Soviet Union. harmlesstree&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*''hope they have given the world''&lt;br /&gt;
::LOL.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:25, 15 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
LOL, right. You are looking at the Russian Revolution from the vantage point of 2007 - that is through 90 years of history that socialists/communists and the working class of 1917 were not privy to. All they were privy to was that there was a successful communist/socialist revolution - not the horrors of Stalinism, which would not occur for years. Most were probably not even aware of the violent and despotic tendencies of the Bolsheviks. They were aware of the fact that there was an apparently successful working class revolution, which there was. The Russian Revolution was a popular revolution which the Bolsheviks ceased control of, and began to implement their Marxist-Leninist orthodoxy. They took control of the Soviets, which were independent democratically administered councils, and made them arms of the state, while silencing all opposition. But the preponderance of people did not know this. All they knew was there was a successful revolution, in which a socialist society was being constructed. This, as Russell properly states, gave them hope. However, Russell did not share these hopes beyond the fact that there was was a successful revolution, and he says so after the preface. It was clear to him after visiting Russia that there was not a socialist society being constructed. On the contrary, the Bolsheviks' were constructing a despotic state that was reminiscent of the one that preceded it; it was an illusion, and Russell knew it. He condemned it, and the Marxist-Lenist dogma it was founded upon. And that brings us back to my primary point: Bertrand Russell vehemently opposed Bolshevism.     harmlesstree&lt;br /&gt;
*''reminiscent? ''&lt;br /&gt;
::Did the Czar exterminate 50 million?  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:59, 15 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Bolshevics had not killed 50 million from 1917 - 1920. When I say, or Russell says, the Bolshevic state was reminiscent of the TSARist, I and he, are only going on what occured from 1917 - 1920. Do you understand this? I am commenting on Russell's tract the Theroy and Practice of Bolshevism, which he wrote in 1920. Do you understand the fact that he is not aware of the mass killings of Stalin because they have not happened yet? He was aware of the killings and despotic government the Bolshevics had erected, which he attacked. This government reminded him of the TSARiST one. He wrote,&amp;quot; Opposition is crushed without mercy, and without shrinking from the methods of the Tsarist police, many of whom are still employed at their old work.&amp;quot; Look the whole point of this post was to clear Russell's name, by exposing the slander that was placed on conservapedia. I have done that, at least if one is fair minded. harmlesstree&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
RobS,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Given that it was you who placed [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.phptitle=Bertrand_Russell&amp;amp;diff=66867&amp;amp;oldid=66842 that quote]&lt;br /&gt;
in the article, and given that harmlesstree has provided [http://www.gutenberg.org/files/17350/17350-h/17350-h.htm compelling evidence] that it grossly misrepresents Russell's position, then I'd keep my fool mouth shut if I were you.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Indeed, a more gracious person than yourself might even have been moved to ''thank'' harmlesstree for correcting your crass error. The case for your immediate defenestration grows stronger with each passing day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 17:03, 15 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Right.  Good way to wiggle out of an argument.  The Bolsheviks just crushed democracy, broke the hereditary lineage of the monarchy by murdering the Royal family, but aren't responsible for what they wrought afterwards.  Sounds like Marxist reasoning.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:46, 15 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 The point you just made is so absurd, especially in light of what I have written, that I do not even what to dignify it with a response. However, I will &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And a craven refusal to acknowledge your error, RobS. Bravo.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
harmlesstree,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Do not attempt to debate with this man. Stick to your guns - do not attempt to explain, clarify or expand upon the charge of misrepresentation. Defy him to prove you wrong and he disappears. That (tragically) is the very most you can expect from him.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 19:41, 15 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Harmlesstree</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Bertrand_Russell&amp;diff=162959</id>
		<title>Talk:Bertrand Russell</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Bertrand_Russell&amp;diff=162959"/>
		<updated>2007-05-15T23:55:06Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Harmlesstree: The point you just made is so absurd, especially in light of what I have written, that I do not even what to dignify it with a response. However, I will say this. Anyone who looks at what I have sa&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find it ironic that this site uses Wikipedia's presentation of Bertrand Russell as an anti-Bolshevic as an example of Wikipedia's &amp;quot;liberal bias.&amp;quot; For it is your site that is distorting the truth, as it has done with other things, with respect to Bertrand Russell's position on Bolshevism. You have taken out of context a statement from Russell's preface to The Theory and Practice of Bolshevism, and used it to make it look as if Russell was supporter of the Bolsheviks'. However, it is clear if you read on past the statement you quoted that he is not, especially if you read on past the preface to the first section, which I cited in the article about Russell as evidence as his feelings towards of the Bolsheviks, which you deleted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The feelings expressed in this passage are the proper expressions of what Russell felt towards the Bolsheviks then, and especially after 1920 with the rise of Stalinism, not the statements you quoted. After all, it was Bertrand Russell who indicated that a preemptive nuclear strike against the Soviet Union, prior to their acquiring nuclear weapons, would be morally more justifiable than the alternative of attacking them after they had acquired them. His expressions of fondness for the Bolsheviks in the preface are because of the hope they have given the world: people can rise up and throw off the chains of economic oppression that are draining the life out of them: it was done in Russia. However, if you read on you will see that he vehemently opposes their ideology and their methods. His tract is polemic against them. Russell saw the same thing that Orwell saw in Spain: the Communist party was wolf in sheep's clothing. But Russell saw it very early on, before the rise of Stalinism. His predictions about what would ultimately happen in Russia were spot on. I have pasted most of the preface that you distorted onto the page, plus the beginning of section 1. You will want to edit this long post. But, please, do not against attempt to portray Bertrand Ruussell as a supporter of the Bolsheviks' or the Soviet Union. harmlesstree&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*''hope they have given the world''&lt;br /&gt;
::LOL.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:25, 15 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
LOL, right. You are looking at the Russian Revolution from the vantage point of 2007 - that is through 90 years of history that socialists/communists and the working class of 1917 were not privy to. All they were privy to was that there was a successful communist/socialist revolution - not the horrors of Stalinism, which would not occur for years. Most were probably not even aware of the violent and despotic tendencies of the Bolsheviks. They were aware of the fact that there was an apparently successful working class revolution, which there was. The Russian Revolution was a popular revolution which the Bolsheviks ceased control of, and began to implement their Marxist-Leninist orthodoxy. They took control of the Soviets, which were independent democratically administered councils, and made them arms of the state, while silencing all opposition. But the preponderance of people did not know this. All they knew was there was a successful revolution, in which a socialist society was being constructed. This, as Russell properly states, gave them hope. However, Russell did not share these hopes beyond the fact that there was was a successful revolution, and he says so after the preface. It was clear to him after visiting Russia that there was not a socialist society being constructed. On the contrary, the Bolsheviks' were constructing a despotic state that was reminiscent of the one that preceded it; it was an illusion, and Russell knew it. He condemned it, and the Marxist-Lenist dogma it was founded upon. And that brings us back to my primary point: Bertrand Russell vehemently opposed Bolshevism.     harmlesstree&lt;br /&gt;
*''reminiscent? ''&lt;br /&gt;
::Did the Czar exterminate 50 million?  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:59, 15 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Bolshevics had not killed 50 million from 1917 - 1920. When I say, or Russell says, the Bolshevic state was reminiscent of the TSARist, I and he, are only going on what occured from 1917 - 1920. Do you understand this? I am commenting on Russell's tract the Theroy and Practice of Bolshevism, which he wrote in 1920. Do you understand the fact that he is not aware of the mass killings of Stalin because they have not happened yet? He was aware of the killings and despotic government the Bolshevics had erected, which he attacked. This government reminded him of the TSARiST one. He wrote,&amp;quot; Opposition is crushed without mercy, and without shrinking from the methods of the Tsarist police, many of whom are still employed at their old work.&amp;quot; Look the whole point of this post was to clear Russell's name, by exposing the slander that was placed on conservapedia. I have done that, at least if one is fair minded. harmlesstree&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
RobS,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Given that it was you who placed [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.phptitle=Bertrand_Russell&amp;amp;diff=66867&amp;amp;oldid=66842 that quote]&lt;br /&gt;
in the article, and given that harmlesstree has provided [http://www.gutenberg.org/files/17350/17350-h/17350-h.htm compelling evidence] that it grossly misrepresents Russell's position, then I'd keep my fool mouth shut if I were you.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Indeed, a more gracious person than yourself might even have been moved to ''thank'' harmlesstree for correcting your crass error. The case for your immediate defenestration grows stronger with each passing day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 17:03, 15 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Right.  Good way to wiggle out of an argument.  The Bolsheviks just crushed democracy, broke the hereditary lineage of the monarchy by murdering the Royal family, but aren't responsible for what they wrought afterwards.  Sounds like Marxist reasoning.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:46, 15 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And a craven refusal to acknowledge your error, RobS. Bravo.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
harmlesstree,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Do not attempt to debate with this man. Stick to your guns - do not attempt to explain, clarify or expand upon the charge of misrepresentation. Defy him to prove you wrong and he disappears. That (tragically) is the very most you can expect from him.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 19:41, 15 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Harmlesstree</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Bertrand_Russell&amp;diff=162956</id>
		<title>Talk:Bertrand Russell</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Bertrand_Russell&amp;diff=162956"/>
		<updated>2007-05-15T23:54:04Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Harmlesstree: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find it ironic that this site uses Wikipedia's presentation of Bertrand Russell as an anti-Bolshevic as an example of Wikipedia's &amp;quot;liberal bias.&amp;quot; For it is your site that is distorting the truth, as it has done with other things, with respect to Bertrand Russell's position on Bolshevism. You have taken out of context a statement from Russell's preface to The Theory and Practice of Bolshevism, and used it to make it look as if Russell was supporter of the Bolsheviks'. However, it is clear if you read on past the statement you quoted that he is not, especially if you read on past the preface to the first section, which I cited in the article about Russell as evidence as his feelings towards of the Bolsheviks, which you deleted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The feelings expressed in this passage are the proper expressions of what Russell felt towards the Bolsheviks then, and especially after 1920 with the rise of Stalinism, not the statements you quoted. After all, it was Bertrand Russell who indicated that a preemptive nuclear strike against the Soviet Union, prior to their acquiring nuclear weapons, would be morally more justifiable than the alternative of attacking them after they had acquired them. His expressions of fondness for the Bolsheviks in the preface are because of the hope they have given the world: people can rise up and throw off the chains of economic oppression that are draining the life out of them: it was done in Russia. However, if you read on you will see that he vehemently opposes their ideology and their methods. His tract is polemic against them. Russell saw the same thing that Orwell saw in Spain: the Communist party was wolf in sheep's clothing. But Russell saw it very early on, before the rise of Stalinism. His predictions about what would ultimately happen in Russia were spot on. I have pasted most of the preface that you distorted onto the page, plus the beginning of section 1. You will want to edit this long post. But, please, do not against attempt to portray Bertrand Ruussell as a supporter of the Bolsheviks' or the Soviet Union. harmlesstree&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*''hope they have given the world''&lt;br /&gt;
::LOL.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:25, 15 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
LOL, right. You are looking at the Russian Revolution from the vantage point of 2007 - that is through 90 years of history that socialists/communists and the working class of 1917 were not privy to. All they were privy to was that there was a successful communist/socialist revolution - not the horrors of Stalinism, which would not occur for years. Most were probably not even aware of the violent and despotic tendencies of the Bolsheviks. They were aware of the fact that there was an apparently successful working class revolution, which there was. The Russian Revolution was a popular revolution which the Bolsheviks ceased control of, and began to implement their Marxist-Leninist orthodoxy. They took control of the Soviets, which were independent democratically administered councils, and made them arms of the state, while silencing all opposition. But the preponderance of people did not know this. All they knew was there was a successful revolution, in which a socialist society was being constructed. This, as Russell properly states, gave them hope. However, Russell did not share these hopes beyond the fact that there was was a successful revolution, and he says so after the preface. It was clear to him after visiting Russia that there was not a socialist society being constructed. On the contrary, the Bolsheviks' were constructing a despotic state that was reminiscent of the one that preceded it; it was an illusion, and Russell knew it. He condemned it, and the Marxist-Lenist dogma it was founded upon. And that brings us back to my primary point: Bertrand Russell vehemently opposed Bolshevism.     harmlesstree&lt;br /&gt;
*''reminiscent? ''&lt;br /&gt;
::Did the Czar exterminate 50 million?  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:59, 15 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Bolshevics had not killed 50 million from 1917 - 1920. When I say, or Russell says, the Bolshevic state was reminiscent of the TSARist, I and he, are only going on what occured from 1917 - 1920. Do you understand this? I am commenting on Russell's tract the Theroy and Practice of Bolshevism, which he wrote in 1920. Do you understand the fact that he is not aware of the mass killings of Stalin because they have not happened yet? He was aware of the killings and despotic government the Bolshevics had erected, which he attacked. This government reminded him of the TSARiST one. He wrote,&amp;quot; Opposition is crushed without mercy, and without shrinking from the methods of the Tsarist police, many of whom are still employed at their old work.&amp;quot; Look the whole point of this post was to clear Russell's name, by exposing the slander that was placed on conservapedia. I have done that, at least if one is fair minded. harmlesstree&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
RobS,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Given that it was you who placed [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.phptitle=Bertrand_Russell&amp;amp;diff=66867&amp;amp;oldid=66842 that quote]&lt;br /&gt;
in the article, and given that harmlesstree has provided [http://www.gutenberg.org/files/17350/17350-h/17350-h.htm compelling evidence] that it grossly misrepresents Russell's position, then I'd keep my fool mouth shut if I were you.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Indeed, a more gracious person than yourself might even have been moved to ''thank'' harmlesstree for correcting your crass error. The case for your immediate defenestration grows stronger with each passing day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 17:03, 15 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Right.  Good way to wiggle out of an argument.  The Bolsheviks just crushed democracy, broke the hereditary lineage of the monarchy by murdering the Royal family, but aren't responsible for what they wrought afterwards.  Sounds like Marxist reasoning.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:46, 15 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And a craven refusal to acknowledge your error, RobS. Bravo.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
harmlesstree,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Do not attempt to debate with this man. Stick to your guns - do not attempt to explain, clarify or expand upon the charge of misrepresentation. Defy him to prove you wrong and he disappears. That (tragically) is the very most you can expect from him.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 19:41, 15 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
jjjjj&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Harmlesstree</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Bertrand_Russell&amp;diff=162953</id>
		<title>Talk:Bertrand Russell</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Bertrand_Russell&amp;diff=162953"/>
		<updated>2007-05-15T23:52:17Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Harmlesstree: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find it ironic that this site uses Wikipedia's presentation of Bertrand Russell as an anti-Bolshevic as an example of Wikipedia's &amp;quot;liberal bias.&amp;quot; For it is your site that is distorting the truth, as it has done with other things, with respect to Bertrand Russell's position on Bolshevism. You have taken out of context a statement from Russell's preface to The Theory and Practice of Bolshevism, and used it to make it look as if Russell was supporter of the Bolsheviks'. However, it is clear if you read on past the statement you quoted that he is not, especially if you read on past the preface to the first section, which I cited in the article about Russell as evidence as his feelings towards of the Bolsheviks, which you deleted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The feelings expressed in this passage are the proper expressions of what Russell felt towards the Bolsheviks then, and especially after 1920 with the rise of Stalinism, not the statements you quoted. After all, it was Bertrand Russell who indicated that a preemptive nuclear strike against the Soviet Union, prior to their acquiring nuclear weapons, would be morally more justifiable than the alternative of attacking them after they had acquired them. His expressions of fondness for the Bolsheviks in the preface are because of the hope they have given the world: people can rise up and throw off the chains of economic oppression that are draining the life out of them: it was done in Russia. However, if you read on you will see that he vehemently opposes their ideology and their methods. His tract is polemic against them. Russell saw the same thing that Orwell saw in Spain: the Communist party was wolf in sheep's clothing. But Russell saw it very early on, before the rise of Stalinism. His predictions about what would ultimately happen in Russia were spot on. I have pasted most of the preface that you distorted onto the page, plus the beginning of section 1. You will want to edit this long post. But, please, do not against attempt to portray Bertrand Ruussell as a supporter of the Bolsheviks' or the Soviet Union. harmlesstree&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*''hope they have given the world''&lt;br /&gt;
::LOL.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:25, 15 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
LOL, right. You are looking at the Russian Revolution from the vantage point of 2007 - that is through 90 years of history that socialists/communists and the working class of 1917 were not privy to. All they were privy to was that there was a successful communist/socialist revolution - not the horrors of Stalinism, which would not occur for years. Most were probably not even aware of the violent and despotic tendencies of the Bolsheviks. They were aware of the fact that there was an apparently successful working class revolution, which there was. The Russian Revolution was a popular revolution which the Bolsheviks ceased control of, and began to implement their Marxist-Leninist orthodoxy. They took control of the Soviets, which were independent democratically administered councils, and made them arms of the state, while silencing all opposition. But the preponderance of people did not know this. All they knew was there was a successful revolution, in which a socialist society was being constructed. This, as Russell properly states, gave them hope. However, Russell did not share these hopes beyond the fact that there was was a successful revolution, and he says so after the preface. It was clear to him after visiting Russia that there was not a socialist society being constructed. On the contrary, the Bolsheviks' were constructing a despotic state that was reminiscent of the one that preceded it; it was an illusion, and Russell knew it. He condemned it, and the Marxist-Lenist dogma it was founded upon. And that brings us back to my primary point: Bertrand Russell vehemently opposed Bolshevism.     harmlesstree&lt;br /&gt;
*''reminiscent? ''&lt;br /&gt;
::Did the Czar exterminate 50 million?  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:59, 15 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Bolshevics had not killed 50 million from 1917 - 1920. When I say, or Russell says, the Bolshevic state was reminiscent of the TSARist, I and he, are only going on what occured from 1917 - 1920. Do you understand this? I am commenting on Russell's tract the Theroy and Practice of Bolshevism, which he wrote in 1920. Do you understand the fact that he is not aware of the mass killings of Stalin because they have not happened yet? He was aware of the killings and despotic government the Bolshevics had erected, which he attacked. This government reminded him of the TSARiST one. He wrote,&amp;quot; Opposition is crushed without mercy, and without shrinking from the methods of the Tsarist police, many of whom are still employed at their old work.&amp;quot; Look the whole point of this post was to clear Russell's name, by exposing the slander that was placed on conservapedia. I have done that, at least if one is fair minded. harmlesstree&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
RobS,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Given that it was you who placed [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.phptitle=Bertrand_Russell&amp;amp;diff=66867&amp;amp;oldid=66842 that quote]&lt;br /&gt;
in the article, and given that harmlesstree has provided [http://www.gutenberg.org/files/17350/17350-h/17350-h.htm compelling evidence] that it grossly misrepresents Russell's position, then I'd keep my fool mouth shut if I were you.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Indeed, a more gracious person than yourself might even have been moved to ''thank'' harmlesstree for correcting your crass error. The case for your immediate defenestration grows stronger with each passing day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 17:03, 15 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Right.  Good way to wiggle out of an argument.  The Bolsheviks just crushed democracy, broke the hereditary lineage of the monarchy by murdering the Royal family, but aren't responsible for what they wrought afterwards.  Sounds like Marxist reasoning.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:46, 15 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And a craven refusal to acknowledge your error, RobS. Bravo.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
harmlesstree,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Do not attempt to debate with this man. Stick to your guns - do not attempt to explain, clarify or expand upon the charge of misrepresentation. Defy him to prove you wrong and he disappears. That (tragically) is the very most you can expect from him.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 19:41, 15 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
 The point you just made is so absurd, especially in light of what I have written, that I do not even what to dignify it with a response. However, I will say this. Anyone who looks at what I have said with an open mind, which is attempting to be objective, could not believe what you just said about me. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wiggle! You have the audacity to accuse me of wiggling and obfuscating; when I am simply trying to defend Bertrand Russell against the scurrilous accusations made by a contributer to Conservapedia, while you try shift the focus away from this and make it about me, i.e. &amp;quot;sounds like Marxist reasoning.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
 What the hell does that mean anyway? Lets say, for instance, I was doing what you have accused me of doing, but with a non-Marxist government - that is I was engaged in the same tacit defense of said brutal government. Would you then accuse me of &amp;quot;Marxist reasoning?&amp;quot; Of course not, this accusation would not make any sense. For the method of reasoning and argumentation (unless I was making a teleological argument based on dialectical materialism - which I clearly am not) is not germane with respect to the type of government one is defending. The term Marxist/Communist is employed by individuals like yourself as a pejorative term that denotes the sinister and devious nature of the person they are leveling the charge against. Your attaching the label Marxist to me to attack my character, in order to undermine my argument. I am not a Marxist, nor was Russell. If that is not obvious from what I have already posted, then I can't help you.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Harmlesstree</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Bertrand_Russell&amp;diff=162945</id>
		<title>Talk:Bertrand Russell</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Bertrand_Russell&amp;diff=162945"/>
		<updated>2007-05-15T23:51:13Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Harmlesstree: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find it ironic that this site uses Wikipedia's presentation of Bertrand Russell as an anti-Bolshevic as an example of Wikipedia's &amp;quot;liberal bias.&amp;quot; For it is your site that is distorting the truth, as it has done with other things, with respect to Bertrand Russell's position on Bolshevism. You have taken out of context a statement from Russell's preface to The Theory and Practice of Bolshevism, and used it to make it look as if Russell was supporter of the Bolsheviks'. However, it is clear if you read on past the statement you quoted that he is not, especially if you read on past the preface to the first section, which I cited in the article about Russell as evidence as his feelings towards of the Bolsheviks, which you deleted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The feelings expressed in this passage are the proper expressions of what Russell felt towards the Bolsheviks then, and especially after 1920 with the rise of Stalinism, not the statements you quoted. After all, it was Bertrand Russell who indicated that a preemptive nuclear strike against the Soviet Union, prior to their acquiring nuclear weapons, would be morally more justifiable than the alternative of attacking them after they had acquired them. His expressions of fondness for the Bolsheviks in the preface are because of the hope they have given the world: people can rise up and throw off the chains of economic oppression that are draining the life out of them: it was done in Russia. However, if you read on you will see that he vehemently opposes their ideology and their methods. His tract is polemic against them. Russell saw the same thing that Orwell saw in Spain: the Communist party was wolf in sheep's clothing. But Russell saw it very early on, before the rise of Stalinism. His predictions about what would ultimately happen in Russia were spot on. I have pasted most of the preface that you distorted onto the page, plus the beginning of section 1. You will want to edit this long post. But, please, do not against attempt to portray Bertrand Ruussell as a supporter of the Bolsheviks' or the Soviet Union. harmlesstree&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*''hope they have given the world''&lt;br /&gt;
::LOL.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:25, 15 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
LOL, right. You are looking at the Russian Revolution from the vantage point of 2007 - that is through 90 years of history that socialists/communists and the working class of 1917 were not privy to. All they were privy to was that there was a successful communist/socialist revolution - not the horrors of Stalinism, which would not occur for years. Most were probably not even aware of the violent and despotic tendencies of the Bolsheviks. They were aware of the fact that there was an apparently successful working class revolution, which there was. The Russian Revolution was a popular revolution which the Bolsheviks ceased control of, and began to implement their Marxist-Leninist orthodoxy. They took control of the Soviets, which were independent democratically administered councils, and made them arms of the state, while silencing all opposition. But the preponderance of people did not know this. All they knew was there was a successful revolution, in which a socialist society was being constructed. This, as Russell properly states, gave them hope. However, Russell did not share these hopes beyond the fact that there was was a successful revolution, and he says so after the preface. It was clear to him after visiting Russia that there was not a socialist society being constructed. On the contrary, the Bolsheviks' were constructing a despotic state that was reminiscent of the one that preceded it; it was an illusion, and Russell knew it. He condemned it, and the Marxist-Lenist dogma it was founded upon. And that brings us back to my primary point: Bertrand Russell vehemently opposed Bolshevism.     harmlesstree&lt;br /&gt;
*''reminiscent? ''&lt;br /&gt;
::Did the Czar exterminate 50 million?  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:59, 15 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Bolshevics had not killed 50 million from 1917 - 1920. When I say, or Russell says, the Bolshevic state was reminiscent of the TSARist, I and he, are only going on what occured from 1917 - 1920. Do you understand this? I am commenting on Russell's tract the Theroy and Practice of Bolshevism, which he wrote in 1920. Do you understand the fact that he is not aware of the mass killings of Stalin because they have not happened yet? He was aware of the killings and despotic government the Bolshevics had erected, which he attacked. This government reminded him of the TSARiST one. He wrote,&amp;quot; Opposition is crushed without mercy, and without shrinking from the methods of the Tsarist police, many of whom are still employed at their old work.&amp;quot; Look the whole point of this post was to clear Russell's name, by exposing the slander that was placed on conservapedia. I have done that, at least if one is fair minded. harmlesstree&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
RobS,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Given that it was you who placed [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.phptitle=Bertrand_Russell&amp;amp;diff=66867&amp;amp;oldid=66842 that quote]&lt;br /&gt;
in the article, and given that harmlesstree has provided [http://www.gutenberg.org/files/17350/17350-h/17350-h.htm compelling evidence] that it grossly misrepresents Russell's position, then I'd keep my fool mouth shut if I were you.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Indeed, a more gracious person than yourself might even have been moved to ''thank'' harmlesstree for correcting your crass error. The case for your immediate defenestration grows stronger with each passing day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 17:03, 15 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Right.  Good way to wiggle out of an argument.  The Bolsheviks just crushed democracy, broke the hereditary lineage of the monarchy by murdering the Royal family, but aren't responsible for what they wrought afterwards.  Sounds like Marxist reasoning.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:46, 15 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 The point you just made is so absurd, especially in light of what I have written, that I do not even what to dignify it with a response. However, I will say this. Anyone who looks at what I have said with an open mind, which is attempting to be objective, could not believe what you just said about me. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wiggle! You have the audacity to accuse me of wiggling and obfuscating; when I am simply trying to defend Bertrand Russell against the scurrilous accusations made by a contributer to Conservapedia, while you try shift the focus away from this and make it about me, i.e. &amp;quot;sounds like Marxist reasoning.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And a craven refusal to acknowledge your error, RobS. Bravo.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
harmlesstree,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Do not attempt to debate with this man. Stick to your guns - do not attempt to explain, clarify or expand upon the charge of misrepresentation. Defy him to prove you wrong and he disappears. That (tragically) is the very most you can expect from him.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 19:41, 15 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Harmlesstree</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Bertrand_Russell&amp;diff=162937</id>
		<title>Talk:Bertrand Russell</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Bertrand_Russell&amp;diff=162937"/>
		<updated>2007-05-15T23:49:50Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Harmlesstree: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find it ironic that this site uses Wikipedia's presentation of Bertrand Russell as an anti-Bolshevic as an example of Wikipedia's &amp;quot;liberal bias.&amp;quot; For it is your site that is distorting the truth, as it has done with other things, with respect to Bertrand Russell's position on Bolshevism. You have taken out of context a statement from Russell's preface to The Theory and Practice of Bolshevism, and used it to make it look as if Russell was supporter of the Bolsheviks'. However, it is clear if you read on past the statement you quoted that he is not, especially if you read on past the preface to the first section, which I cited in the article about Russell as evidence as his feelings towards of the Bolsheviks, which you deleted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The feelings expressed in this passage are the proper expressions of what Russell felt towards the Bolsheviks then, and especially after 1920 with the rise of Stalinism, not the statements you quoted. After all, it was Bertrand Russell who indicated that a preemptive nuclear strike against the Soviet Union, prior to their acquiring nuclear weapons, would be morally more justifiable than the alternative of attacking them after they had acquired them. His expressions of fondness for the Bolsheviks in the preface are because of the hope they have given the world: people can rise up and throw off the chains of economic oppression that are draining the life out of them: it was done in Russia. However, if you read on you will see that he vehemently opposes their ideology and their methods. His tract is polemic against them. Russell saw the same thing that Orwell saw in Spain: the Communist party was wolf in sheep's clothing. But Russell saw it very early on, before the rise of Stalinism. His predictions about what would ultimately happen in Russia were spot on. I have pasted most of the preface that you distorted onto the page, plus the beginning of section 1. You will want to edit this long post. But, please, do not against attempt to portray Bertrand Ruussell as a supporter of the Bolsheviks' or the Soviet Union. harmlesstree&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*''hope they have given the world''&lt;br /&gt;
::LOL.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:25, 15 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
LOL, right. You are looking at the Russian Revolution from the vantage point of 2007 - that is through 90 years of history that socialists/communists and the working class of 1917 were not privy to. All they were privy to was that there was a successful communist/socialist revolution - not the horrors of Stalinism, which would not occur for years. Most were probably not even aware of the violent and despotic tendencies of the Bolsheviks. They were aware of the fact that there was an apparently successful working class revolution, which there was. The Russian Revolution was a popular revolution which the Bolsheviks ceased control of, and began to implement their Marxist-Leninist orthodoxy. They took control of the Soviets, which were independent democratically administered councils, and made them arms of the state, while silencing all opposition. But the preponderance of people did not know this. All they knew was there was a successful revolution, in which a socialist society was being constructed. This, as Russell properly states, gave them hope. However, Russell did not share these hopes beyond the fact that there was was a successful revolution, and he says so after the preface. It was clear to him after visiting Russia that there was not a socialist society being constructed. On the contrary, the Bolsheviks' were constructing a despotic state that was reminiscent of the one that preceded it; it was an illusion, and Russell knew it. He condemned it, and the Marxist-Lenist dogma it was founded upon. And that brings us back to my primary point: Bertrand Russell vehemently opposed Bolshevism.     harmlesstree&lt;br /&gt;
*''reminiscent? ''&lt;br /&gt;
::Did the Czar exterminate 50 million?  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:59, 15 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Bolshevics had not killed 50 million from 1917 - 1920. When I say, or Russell says, the Bolshevic state was reminiscent of the TSARist, I and he, are only going on what occured from 1917 - 1920. Do you understand this? I am commenting on Russell's tract the Theroy and Practice of Bolshevism, which he wrote in 1920. Do you understand the fact that he is not aware of the mass killings of Stalin because they have not happened yet? He was aware of the killings and despotic government the Bolshevics had erected, which he attacked. This government reminded him of the TSARiST one. He wrote,&amp;quot; Opposition is crushed without mercy, and without shrinking from the methods of the Tsarist police, many of whom are still employed at their old work.&amp;quot; Look the whole point of this post was to clear Russell's name, by exposing the slander that was placed on conservapedia. I have done that, at least if one is fair minded. harmlesstree&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
RobS,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Given that it was you who placed [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.phptitle=Bertrand_Russell&amp;amp;diff=66867&amp;amp;oldid=66842 that quote]&lt;br /&gt;
in the article, and given that harmlesstree has provided [http://www.gutenberg.org/files/17350/17350-h/17350-h.htm compelling evidence] that it grossly misrepresents Russell's position, then I'd keep my fool mouth shut if I were you.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Indeed, a more gracious person than yourself might even have been moved to ''thank'' harmlesstree for correcting your crass error. The case for your immediate defenestration grows stronger with each passing day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 17:03, 15 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Right.  Good way to wiggle out of an argument.  The Bolsheviks just crushed democracy, broke the hereditary lineage of the monarchy by murdering the Royal family, but aren't responsible for what they wrought afterwards.  Sounds like Marxist reasoning.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:46, 15 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 The point you just made is so absurd, especially in light of what I have written, that I do not even what to dignify it with a response. However, I will say this. Anyone who looks at what I have said with an open mind, which is attempting to be objective, could not believe what you just said about me. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wiggle! You have the audacity to accuse me of wiggling and obfuscating; when I am simply trying to defend Bertrand Russell against the scurrilous accusations made by a contributer to Conservapedia, while you try shift the focus away from this and make it about me, i.e. &amp;quot;sounds like Marxist reasoning.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
 What the hell does that mean anyway? Lets say, for instance, I was doing what you have accused me of doing, but with a non-Marxist government - that is I was engaged in the same tacit defense of said brutal government. Would you then accuse me of &amp;quot;Marxist reasoning?&amp;quot; Of course not, this accusation would not make any sense. For the method of reasoning and argumentation (unless I was making a teleological argument based on dialectical materialism - which I clearly am not) is not germane with respect to the type of government one is defending. The term Marxist/Communist is employed by individuals like yourself as a pejorative term that denotes the sinister and devious nature of the person they are leveling the charge against. Your attaching the label Marxist to me to attack my character, in order to undermine my argument. I am not a Marxist, nor was Russell. If that is not obvious from what I have already posted, then I can't help you.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And a craven refusal to acknowledge your error, RobS. Bravo.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
harmlesstree,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Do not attempt to debate with this man. Stick to your guns - do not attempt to explain, clarify or expand upon the charge of misrepresentation. Defy him to prove you wrong and he disappears. That (tragically) is the very most you can expect from him.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 19:41, 15 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Harmlesstree</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Bertrand_Russell&amp;diff=162931</id>
		<title>Talk:Bertrand Russell</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Bertrand_Russell&amp;diff=162931"/>
		<updated>2007-05-15T23:48:22Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Harmlesstree: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find it ironic that this site uses Wikipedia's presentation of Bertrand Russell as an anti-Bolshevic as an example of Wikipedia's &amp;quot;liberal bias.&amp;quot; For it is your site that is distorting the truth, as it has done with other things, with respect to Bertrand Russell's position on Bolshevism. You have taken out of context a statement from Russell's preface to The Theory and Practice of Bolshevism, and used it to make it look as if Russell was supporter of the Bolsheviks'. However, it is clear if you read on past the statement you quoted that he is not, especially if you read on past the preface to the first section, which I cited in the article about Russell as evidence as his feelings towards of the Bolsheviks, which you deleted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The feelings expressed in this passage are the proper expressions of what Russell felt towards the Bolsheviks then, and especially after 1920 with the rise of Stalinism, not the statements you quoted. After all, it was Bertrand Russell who indicated that a preemptive nuclear strike against the Soviet Union, prior to their acquiring nuclear weapons, would be morally more justifiable than the alternative of attacking them after they had acquired them. His expressions of fondness for the Bolsheviks in the preface are because of the hope they have given the world: people can rise up and throw off the chains of economic oppression that are draining the life out of them: it was done in Russia. However, if you read on you will see that he vehemently opposes their ideology and their methods. His tract is polemic against them. Russell saw the same thing that Orwell saw in Spain: the Communist party was wolf in sheep's clothing. But Russell saw it very early on, before the rise of Stalinism. His predictions about what would ultimately happen in Russia were spot on. I have pasted most of the preface that you distorted onto the page, plus the beginning of section 1. You will want to edit this long post. But, please, do not against attempt to portray Bertrand Ruussell as a supporter of the Bolsheviks' or the Soviet Union. harmlesstree&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*''hope they have given the world''&lt;br /&gt;
::LOL.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:25, 15 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
LOL, right. You are looking at the Russian Revolution from the vantage point of 2007 - that is through 90 years of history that socialists/communists and the working class of 1917 were not privy to. All they were privy to was that there was a successful communist/socialist revolution - not the horrors of Stalinism, which would not occur for years. Most were probably not even aware of the violent and despotic tendencies of the Bolsheviks. They were aware of the fact that there was an apparently successful working class revolution, which there was. The Russian Revolution was a popular revolution which the Bolsheviks ceased control of, and began to implement their Marxist-Leninist orthodoxy. They took control of the Soviets, which were independent democratically administered councils, and made them arms of the state, while silencing all opposition. But the preponderance of people did not know this. All they knew was there was a successful revolution, in which a socialist society was being constructed. This, as Russell properly states, gave them hope. However, Russell did not share these hopes beyond the fact that there was was a successful revolution, and he says so after the preface. It was clear to him after visiting Russia that there was not a socialist society being constructed. On the contrary, the Bolsheviks' were constructing a despotic state that was reminiscent of the one that preceded it; it was an illusion, and Russell knew it. He condemned it, and the Marxist-Lenist dogma it was founded upon. And that brings us back to my primary point: Bertrand Russell vehemently opposed Bolshevism.     harmlesstree&lt;br /&gt;
*''reminiscent? ''&lt;br /&gt;
::Did the Czar exterminate 50 million?  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:59, 15 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Bolshevics had not killed 50 million from 1917 - 1920. When I say, or Russell says, the Bolshevic state was reminiscent of the TSARist, I and he, are only going on what occured from 1917 - 1920. Do you understand this? I am commenting on Russell's tract the Theroy and Practice of Bolshevism, which he wrote in 1920. Do you understand the fact that he is not aware of the mass killings of Stalin because they have not happened yet? He was aware of the killings and despotic government the Bolshevics had erected, which he attacked. This government reminded him of the TSARiST one. He wrote,&amp;quot; Opposition is crushed without mercy, and without shrinking from the methods of the Tsarist police, many of whom are still employed at their old work.&amp;quot; Look the whole point of this post was to clear Russell's name, by exposing the slander that was placed on conservapedia. I have done that, at least if one is fair minded. harmlesstree&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
RobS,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Given that it was you who placed [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.phptitle=Bertrand_Russell&amp;amp;diff=66867&amp;amp;oldid=66842 that quote]&lt;br /&gt;
in the article, and given that harmlesstree has provided [http://www.gutenberg.org/files/17350/17350-h/17350-h.htm compelling evidence] that it grossly misrepresents Russell's position, then I'd keep my fool mouth shut if I were you.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Indeed, a more gracious person than yourself might even have been moved to ''thank'' harmlesstree for correcting your crass error. The case for your immediate defenestration grows stronger with each passing day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 17:03, 15 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Right.  Good way to wiggle out of an argument.  The Bolsheviks just crushed democracy, broke the hereditary lineage of the monarchy by murdering the Royal family, but aren't responsible for what they wrought afterwards.  Sounds like Marxist reasoning.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:46, 15 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 The point you just made is so absurd, especially in light of what I have written, that I do not even what to dignify it with a response. However, I will say this. Anyone who looks at what I have said with an open mind, which is attempting to be objective, could not believe what you just said about me. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wiggle! You have the audacity to accuse me of wiggling and obfuscating; when I am simply trying to defend Bertrand Russell against the scurrilous accusations made by a contributer to Conservapedia, while you try shift the focus away from this and make it about me, i.e. &amp;quot;sounds like Marxist reasoning.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
 What the hell does that mean anyway? Lets say, for instance, I was doing what you have accused me of doing, but with a non-Marxist government - that is I was engaged in the same tacit defense of said brutal government. Would you then accuse me of &amp;quot;Marxist reasoning?&amp;quot; Of course not, this accusation would not make any sense. For the method of reasoning and argumentation (unless I was making a teleological argument based on dialectical materialism - which I clearly am not) is not germane with respect to the type of government one is defending. The term Marxist/Communist is employed by individuals like yourself as a pejorative term that denotes the sinister and devious nature of the person they are leveling the charge against. Your attaching the label Marxist to me to attack my character, in order to undermine my argument. I am not a Marxist, nor was Russell. If that is not obvious from what I have already posted, then I can't help you. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And a craven refusal to acknowledge your error, RobS. Bravo.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
harmlesstree,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Do not attempt to debate with this man. Stick to your guns - do not attempt to explain, clarify or expand upon the charge of misrepresentation. Defy him to prove you wrong and he disappears. That (tragically) is the very most you can expect from him.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 19:41, 15 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Harmlesstree</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Bertrand_Russell&amp;diff=162636</id>
		<title>Talk:Bertrand Russell</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Bertrand_Russell&amp;diff=162636"/>
		<updated>2007-05-15T21:13:51Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Harmlesstree: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find it ironic that this site uses Wikipedia's presentation of Bertrand Russell as an anti-Bolshevic as an example of Wikipedia's &amp;quot;liberal bias.&amp;quot; For it is your site that is distorting the truth, as it has done with other things, with respect to Bertrand Russell's position on Bolshevism. You have taken out of context a statement from Russell's preface to The Theory and Practice of Bolshevism, and used it to make it look as if Russell was supporter of the Bolsheviks'. However, it is clear if you read on past the statement you quoted that he is not, especially if you read on past the preface to the first section, which I cited in the article about Russell as evidence as his feelings towards of the Bolsheviks, which you deleted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The feelings expressed in this passage are the proper expressions of what Russell felt towards the Bolsheviks then, and especially after 1920 with the rise of Stalinism, not the statements you quoted. After all, it was Bertrand Russell who indicated that a preemptive nuclear strike against the Soviet Union, prior to their acquiring nuclear weapons, would be morally more justifiable than the alternative of attacking them after they had acquired them. His expressions of fondness for the Bolsheviks in the preface are because of the hope they have given the world: people can rise up and throw off the chains of economic oppression that are draining the life out of them: it was done in Russia. However, if you read on you will see that he vehemently opposes their ideology and their methods. His tract is polemic against them. Russell saw the same thing that Orwell saw in Spain: the Communist party was wolf in sheep's clothing. But Russell saw it very early on, before the rise of Stalinism. His predictions about what would ultimately happen in Russia were spot on. I have pasted most of the preface that you distorted onto the page, plus the beginning of section 1. You will want to edit this long post. But, please, do not against attempt to portray Bertrand Ruussell as a supporter of the Bolsheviks' or the Soviet Union. harmlesstree&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*''hope they have given the world''&lt;br /&gt;
::LOL.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:25, 15 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
LOL, right. You are looking at the Russian Revolution from the vantage point of 2007 - that is through 90 years of history that socialists/communists and the working class of 1917 were not privy to. All they were privy to was that there was a successful communist/socialist revolution - not the horrors of Stalinism, which would not occur for years. Most were probably not even aware of the violent and despotic tendencies of the Bolsheviks. They were aware of the fact that there was an apparently successful working class revolution, which there was. The Russian Revolution was a popular revolution which the Bolsheviks ceased control of, and began to implement their Marxist-Leninist orthodoxy. They took control of the Soviets, which were independent democratically administered councils, and made them arms of the state, while silencing all opposition. But the preponderance of people did not know this. All they knew was there was a successful revolution, in which a socialist society was being constructed. This, as Russell properly states, gave them hope. However, Russell did not share these hopes beyond the fact that there was was a successful revolution, and he says so after the preface. It was clear to him after visiting Russia that there was not a socialist society being constructed. On the contrary, the Bolsheviks' were constructing a despotic state that was reminiscent of the one that preceded it; it was an illusion, and Russell knew it. He condemned it, and the Marxist-Lenist dogma it was founded upon. And that brings us back to my primary point: Bertrand Russell vehemently opposed Bolshevism.     harmlesstree&lt;br /&gt;
*''reminiscent? ''&lt;br /&gt;
::Did the Czar exterminate 50 million?  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:59, 15 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
RobS,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Bolshevics had not killed 50 million from 1917 - 1920. When I say, or Russell says, the Bolshevic state was reminiscent of the TSARist, I and he, are only going on what occured from 1917 - 1920. Do you understand this? I am commenting on Russell's tract the Theroy and Practice of Bolshevism, which he wrote in 1920. Do you understand the fact that he is not aware of the mass killings of Stalin because they have not happened yet? He was aware of the killings and despotic government the Bolshevics had erected, which he attacked. This government reminded him of the TSARiST one. He wrote,&amp;quot; Opposition is crushed without mercy, and without shrinking from the methods of the Tsarist police, many of whom are still employed at their old work.&amp;quot; Look the whole point of this post was to clear Russell's name, by exposing the slander that was placed on conservapedia. I have done that, at least if one is fair minded. harmlesstree&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Given that it was you who placed [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.phptitle=Bertrand_Russell&amp;amp;diff=66867&amp;amp;oldid=66842 that quote]&lt;br /&gt;
in the article, and given that harmlesstree has provided [http://www.gutenberg.org/files/17350/17350-h/17350-h.htm compelling evidence] that it grossly misrepresents Russell's position, then I'd keep my fool mouth shut if I were you.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Indeed, a more gracious person than yourself might even have been moved to ''thank'' harmlesstree for correcting your crass error. The case for your immediate defenestration grows stronger with each passing day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 17:03, 15 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Harmlesstree</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Bertrand_Russell&amp;diff=162627</id>
		<title>Talk:Bertrand Russell</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Bertrand_Russell&amp;diff=162627"/>
		<updated>2007-05-15T21:11:46Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Harmlesstree: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find it ironic that this site uses Wikipedia's presentation of Bertrand Russell as an anti-Bolshevic as an example of Wikipedia's &amp;quot;liberal bias.&amp;quot; For it is your site that is distorting the truth, as it has done with other things, with respect to Bertrand Russell's position on Bolshevism. You have taken out of context a statement from Russell's preface to The Theory and Practice of Bolshevism, and used it to make it look as if Russell was supporter of the Bolsheviks'. However, it is clear if you read on past the statement you quoted that he is not, especially if you read on past the preface to the first section, which I cited in the article about Russell as evidence as his feelings towards of the Bolsheviks, which you deleted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The feelings expressed in this passage are the proper expressions of what Russell felt towards the Bolsheviks then, and especially after 1920 with the rise of Stalinism, not the statements you quoted. After all, it was Bertrand Russell who indicated that a preemptive nuclear strike against the Soviet Union, prior to their acquiring nuclear weapons, would be morally more justifiable than the alternative of attacking them after they had acquired them. His expressions of fondness for the Bolsheviks in the preface are because of the hope they have given the world: people can rise up and throw off the chains of economic oppression that are draining the life out of them: it was done in Russia. However, if you read on you will see that he vehemently opposes their ideology and their methods. His tract is polemic against them. Russell saw the same thing that Orwell saw in Spain: the Communist party was wolf in sheep's clothing. But Russell saw it very early on, before the rise of Stalinism. His predictions about what would ultimately happen in Russia were spot on. I have pasted most of the preface that you distorted onto the page, plus the beginning of section 1. You will want to edit this long post. But, please, do not against attempt to portray Bertrand Ruussell as a supporter of the Bolsheviks' or the Soviet Union. harmlesstree&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*''hope they have given the world''&lt;br /&gt;
::LOL.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:25, 15 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
LOL, right. You are looking at the Russian Revolution from the vantage point of 2007 - that is through 90 years of history that socialists/communists and the working class of 1917 were not privy to. All they were privy to was that there was a successful communist/socialist revolution - not the horrors of Stalinism, which would not occur for years. Most were probably not even aware of the violent and despotic tendencies of the Bolsheviks. They were aware of the fact that there was an apparently successful working class revolution, which there was. The Russian Revolution was a popular revolution which the Bolsheviks ceased control of, and began to implement their Marxist-Leninist orthodoxy. They took control of the Soviets, which were independent democratically administered councils, and made them arms of the state, while silencing all opposition. But the preponderance of people did not know this. All they knew was there was a successful revolution, in which a socialist society was being constructed. This, as Russell properly states, gave them hope. However, Russell did not share these hopes beyond the fact that there was was a successful revolution, and he says so after the preface. It was clear to him after visiting Russia that there was not a socialist society being constructed. On the contrary, the Bolsheviks' were constructing a despotic state that was reminiscent of the one that preceded it; it was an illusion, and Russell knew it. He condemned it, and the Marxist-Lenist dogma it was founded upon. And that brings us back to my primary point: Bertrand Russell vehemently opposed Bolshevism.     harmlesstree&lt;br /&gt;
*''reminiscent? ''&lt;br /&gt;
::Did the Czar exterminate 50 million?  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:59, 15 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
RobS,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Bolshevics had not killed 50 million from 1917 - 1920. When I say, or Russell says, the Bolshevic state was reminiscent of the TSARist, I and he, are only going on what occured from 1917 - 1920. Do you understand this? I am commenting on Russell's tract the Theroy and Practice of Bolshevism, which he wrote in 1920. Do you understand the fact that he is not aware of the mass killings of Stalin because they have not happened yet? He was aware of the killings and despotic government the Bolshevics had erected, which he attacked. This government reminded him of the TSARiST one. He wrote,&amp;quot; Opposition is crushed without mercy, and without shrinking from the methods of the Tsarist police, many of whom are still employed at their old work.&amp;quot; Look the whole point of post was clear his name, by exposing the slander that was placed on conservapedia. I have done that, at least in one s fair minded. harmlesstree&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Given that it was you who placed [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.phptitle=Bertrand_Russell&amp;amp;diff=66867&amp;amp;oldid=66842 that quote]&lt;br /&gt;
in the article, and given that harmlesstree has provided [http://www.gutenberg.org/files/17350/17350-h/17350-h.htm compelling evidence] that it grossly misrepresents Russell's position, then I'd keep my fool mouth shut if I were you.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Indeed, a more gracious person than yourself might even have been moved to ''thank'' harmlesstree for correcting your crass error. The case for your immediate defenestration grows stronger with each passing day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 17:03, 15 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Harmlesstree</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Bertrand_Russell&amp;diff=162405</id>
		<title>Talk:Bertrand Russell</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Bertrand_Russell&amp;diff=162405"/>
		<updated>2007-05-15T19:40:42Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Harmlesstree: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find it ironic that this site uses Wikipedia's presentation of Bertrand Russell as an anti-Bolshevic as an example of Wikipedia's &amp;quot;liberal bias.&amp;quot; For it is your site that is distorting the truth, as it has done with other things, with respect to Bertrand Russell's position on Bolshevism. You have taken out of context a statement from Russell's preface to The Theory and Practice of Bolshevism, and used it to make it look as if Russell was supporter of the Bolsheviks'. However, it is clear if you read on past the statement you quoted that he is not, especially if you read on past the preface to the first section, which I cited in the article about Russell as evidence as his feelings towards of the Bolsheviks, which you deleted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The feelings expressed in this passage are the proper expressions of what Russell felt towards the Bolsheviks then, and especially after 1920 with the rise of Stalinism, not the statements you quoted. After all, it was Bertrand Russell who indicated that a preemptive nuclear strike against the Soviet Union, prior to their acquiring nuclear weapons, would be morally more justifiable than the alternative of attacking them after they had acquired them. His expressions of fondness for the Bolsheviks in the preface are because of the hope they have given the world: people can rise up and throw off the chains of economic oppression that are draining the life out of them: it was done in Russia. However, if you read on you will see that he vehemently opposes their ideology and their methods. His tract is polemic against them. Russell saw the same thing that Orwell saw in Spain: the Communist party was wolf in sheep's clothing. But Russell saw it very early on, before the rise of Stalinism. His predictions about what would ultimately happen in Russia were spot on. I have pasted most of the preface that you distorted onto the page, plus the beginning of section 1. You will want to edit this long post. But, please, do not against attempt to portray Bertrand Ruussell as a supporter of the Bolsheviks' or the Soviet Union. harmlesstree&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*''hope they have given the world''&lt;br /&gt;
::LOL.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:25, 15 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
LOL, right. You are looking at the Russian Revolution from the vantage point of 2007 - that is through 90 years of history that socialists/communists and the working class of 1917 were not privy to. All they were privy to was that there was a successful communist/socialist revolution - not the horrors of Stalinism, which would not occur for years. Most were probably not even aware of the violent and despotic tendencies of the Bolsheviks. They were aware of the fact that there was an apparently successful working class revolution, which there was. The Russian Revolution was a popular revolution which the Bolsheviks ceased control of, and began to implement their Marxist-Leninist orthodoxy. They took control of the Soviets, which were independent democratically administered councils, and made them arms of the state, while silencing all opposition. But the preponderance of people did not know this. All they knew was there was a successful revolution, in which a socialist society was being constructed. This, as Russell properly states, gave them hope. However, Russell did not share these hopes beyond the fact that there was was a successful revolution, and he says so after the preface. It was clear to him after visiting Russia that there was not a socialist society being constructed. On the contrary, the Bolsheviks' were constructing a despotic state that was reminiscent of the one that preceded it; it was an illusion, and Russell knew it. He condemned it, and the Marxist-Lenist dogma it was founded upon. And that brings us back to my primary point: Bertrand Russell vehemently opposed Bolshevism.     harmlesstree&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Harmlesstree</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Bertrand_Russell&amp;diff=162402</id>
		<title>Talk:Bertrand Russell</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Bertrand_Russell&amp;diff=162402"/>
		<updated>2007-05-15T19:38:01Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Harmlesstree: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find it ironic that this site uses Wikipedia's presentation of Bertrand Russell as an anti-Bolshevic as an example of Wikipedia's &amp;quot;liberal bias.&amp;quot; For it is your site that is distorting the truth, as it has done with other things, with respect to Bertrand Russell's position on Bolshevism. You have taken out of context a statement from Russell's preface to The Theory and Practice of Bolshevism, and used it to make it look as if Russell was supporter of the Bolsheviks'. However, it is clear if you read on past the statement you quoted that he is not, especially if you read on past the preface to the first section, which I cited in the article about Russell as evidence as his feelings towards of the Bolsheviks, which you deleted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The feelings expressed in this passage are the proper expressions of what Russell felt towards the Bolsheviks then, and especially after 1920 with the rise of Stalinism, not the statements you quoted. After all, it was Bertrand Russell who indicated that a preemptive nuclear strike against the Soviet Union, prior to their acquiring nuclear weapons, would be morally more justifiable than the alternative of attacking them after they had acquired them. His expressions of fondness for the Bolsheviks in the preface are because of the hope they have given the world: people can rise up and throw off the chains of economic oppression that are draining the life out of them: it was done in Russia. However, if you read on you will see that he vehemently opposes their ideology and their methods. His tract is polemic against them. Russell saw the same thing that Orwell saw in Spain: the Communist party was wolf in sheep's clothing. But Russell saw it very early on, before the rise of Stalinism. His predictions about what would ultimately happen in Russia were spot on. I have pasted most of the preface that you distorted onto the page, plus the beginning of section 1. You will want to edit this long post. But, please, do not against attempt to portray Bertrand Ruussell as a supporter of the Bolsheviks' or the Soviet Union. harmlesstree&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*''hope they have given the world''&lt;br /&gt;
::LOL.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:25, 15 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
LOL, right. You are looking at the Russian Revolution from the vantage point of 2007 - that is through 90 years of history that socialists/communists and the working class of 1917 were not privy to. All they were privy to was that there was a successful communist/socialist revolution - not the horrors of Stalinism, which would not occur for years. Most were probably not even aware of the violent and despotic tendencies of the Bolsheviks. They were aware of the fact that there was an apparently successful working class revolution, which there was. The Russian Revolution was a popular revolution which the Bolsheviks ceased control of, and began to implement their Marxist-Leninist orthodoxy. They took control of the Soviets, which were independent democratically administered councils, and made them arms of the state, while silencing all opposition. But the preponderance of people did not know this. All they knew was there was a successful revolution, in which a socialist society was being constructed. This, as Russell properly states, gave them hope. However, Russell did not share these hopes beyond the fact that was a successful revolution, and he says so after the preface. It was clear to him after visiting Russia that there was not a socialist society being constructed. On the contrary, the Bolsheviks' were constructing a despotic state that was reminiscent of the one that preceded it; it was an illusion, and Russell knew it. He condemned it, and the Marxist-Lenist dogma it was founded upon. And that brings us back to my primary point: Bertrand Russell vehemently opposed Bolshevism.     harmlesstree&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Harmlesstree</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Bertrand_Russell&amp;diff=162324</id>
		<title>Talk:Bertrand Russell</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Bertrand_Russell&amp;diff=162324"/>
		<updated>2007-05-15T18:37:13Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Harmlesstree: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find it ironic that this site uses Wikipedia's presentation of Bertrand Russell as an anti-Bolshevic as an example of Wikipedia's &amp;quot;liberal bias.&amp;quot; For it is your site that is distorting the truth, as it has done with other things, with respect to Bertrand Russell's position on Bolshevism. You have taken out of context a statement from Russell's preface to The Theory and Practice of Bolshevism, and used it to make it look as if Russell was supporter of the Bolsheviks'. However, it is clear if you read on past the statement you quoted that he is not, especially if you read on past the preface to the first section, which I cited in the article about Russell as evidence as his feelings towards of the Bolsheviks, which you deleted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The feelings expressed in this passage are the proper expressions of what Russell felt towards the Bolsheviks then, and especially after 1920 with the rise of Stalinism, not the statements you quoted. After all, it was Bertrand Russell who indicated that a preemptive nuclear strike against the Soviet Union, prior to their acquiring nuclear weapons, would be morally more justifiable than the alternative of attacking them after they had acquired them. His expressions of fondness for the Bolsheviks in the preface are because of the hope they have given the world: people can rise up and throw off the chains of economic oppression that are draining the life out of them: it was done in Russia. However, if you read on you will see that he vehemently opposes their ideology and their methods. His tract is polemic against them. Russell saw the same thing that Orwell saw in Spain: the Communist party was wolf in sheep's clothing. But Russell saw it very early on, before the rise of Stalinism. His predictions about what would ultimately happen in Russia were spot on. I have pasted most of the preface that you distorted onto the page, plus the beginning of section 1. You will want to edit this long post. But, please, do not against attempt to portray Bertrand Ruussell as a supporter of the Bolsheviks' or the Soviet Union.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*''hope they have given the world''&lt;br /&gt;
::LOL.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:25, 15 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Harmlesstree</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Bertrand_Russell&amp;diff=162283</id>
		<title>Talk:Bertrand Russell</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Bertrand_Russell&amp;diff=162283"/>
		<updated>2007-05-15T18:14:14Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Harmlesstree: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find it ironic that this site uses Wikipedia's presentation of Bertrand Russell as an anti-Bolshevic as an example of Wikipedia's &amp;quot;liberal bias.&amp;quot; For it is your site that is distorting the truth, as it has done with other things, with respect to Bertrand Russell's position on Bolshevism. You have taken out of context a statement from Russell's preface to The Theory and Practice of Bolshevism, and used it to make it look as if Russell was supporter of the Bolsheviks'. However, it is clear if read on past the statement you quoted that he is not, especially if you read on past the preface to the first section, which I cited in the article about Russell as evidence as his feelings towards of the Bolsheviks, which you deleted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The feelings expressed in this passage are the proper expressions of what Russell felt towards the Bolsheviks then, and especially after 1920, and the rise of Stalinism, not the statements you quoted. After all, it was Bertrand Russell who indicated that a preemptive nuclear strike against the Soviet Union, prior to their acquiring nuclear weapons, would be morally more justifiable than the alternative of attacking them after they had acquired them. His expressions of fondness for the Bolsheviks in the preface are because of the hope they have given the world: people can rise up and throw off the chains of economic oppression that are draining the life out of them: it was done in Russia. However, if you read on you will see that he vehemently opposes their ideology and their methods. His tract is polemic against them. Russell saw the same thing that Orwell saw in Spain: the Communist party was wolf in sheep's clothing. But Russell saw it very early on, before the rise of Stalinism. His predictions about what would ultimately happen in Russia were spot on. I have pasted most of the preface that you distorted onto the page, plus the beginning of section 1. You will want to edit this long post. But, please, do not against attempt to portray Bertrand Ruussell as a supporter of the Bolsheviks' or the Soviet Union.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Harmlesstree</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Bertrand_Russell&amp;diff=162280</id>
		<title>Talk:Bertrand Russell</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Bertrand_Russell&amp;diff=162280"/>
		<updated>2007-05-15T18:12:41Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Harmlesstree: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find it ironic that this site uses Wikipedia's presentation of Bertrand Russell as an anti-Bolshevic as an example of Wikipedia's &amp;quot;liberal bias.&amp;quot; For it is your site that is distorting the truth, as it has done with other things, with respect to Bertrand Russell's position on Bolshevism. You have taken out of context a statement from Russell's preface to The Theory and Practice of Bolshevism, and used it to make it look as if Russell was supporter of the Bolsheviks'. However, it is clear if read on past the statement you quoted that he is not, especially if you read on past the preface to the first section, which I cited in the article about Russell as evidence as his feelings towards of the Bolsheviks, which you deleted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
he feelings expressed in this passage are the proper expressions of what Russell felt towards the Bolsheviks then, and especially after 1920, and the rise of Stalinism, not the statements you quoted. After all, it was Bertrand Russell who indicated that a preemptive nuclear strike against the Soviet Union, prior to their acquiring nuclear weapons, would be morally more justifiable than the alternative of attacking them after they had acquired them. His expressions of fondness for the Bolsheviks in the preface are because of the hope they have given the world: people can rise up and throw off the chains of economic oppression that are draining the life out of them: it was done in Russia. However, if you read on you will see that he vehemently opposes their ideology and their methods. His tract is polemic against them. Russell saw the same thing that Orwell saw in Spain: the Communist party was wolf in sheep's clothing. But Russell saw it very early on, before the rise of Stalinism. His predictions about what would ultimately happen in Russia were spot on. I have pasted most of the preface that you distorted onto the page, plus the beginning of section 1. You will want to edit this long post. But, please, do not against attempt to portray Bertrand Ruussell as a supporter of the Bolsheviks' or the Soviet Union.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Harmlesstree</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Bertrand_Russell&amp;diff=162275</id>
		<title>Talk:Bertrand Russell</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Bertrand_Russell&amp;diff=162275"/>
		<updated>2007-05-15T18:09:25Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Harmlesstree: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find it ironic that this site uses Wikipedia's presentation of Bertrand Russell as an anti-Bolshevic as an example of Wikipedia's&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;quot;liberal bias.&amp;quot; For it is your site that is distorting the truth, as it has done with other things, with respect to Bertrand Russell's position on Bolshevism. You have taken out of context a statement from Russell's preface to The Theory and Practice of Bolshevism, and used it to make it look as if Russell was supporter of the Bolsheviks'. However, it is clear if read on past the statement you quoted that he is not, especially if you read on past the preface to the first section, which I cited in the article about Russell as evidence as his feelings towards of the Bolsheviks, which you deleted. The feelings expressed in this passage are the proper expressions of what Russell felt towards the Bolsheviks then, and especially after 1920, and the rise of Stalinism, not the statements you quoted. After all, it was Bertrand Russell who indicated that a preemptive nuclear strike against the Soviet Union, prior to their acquiring nuclear weapons, would be morally more justifiable than the alternative of attacking them after they had acquired them. His expressions of fondness for the Bolsheviks in the preface are because of the hope they have given the world: people can rise up and throw off the chains of economic oppression that are draining the life out of them: it was done in Russia. However, if you read on you will see that he vehemently opposes their ideology and their methods. His tract is polemic against them. Russell saw the same thing that Orwell saw in Spain: the Communist party was wolf in sheep's clothing. But Russell saw it very early on, before the rise of Stalinism. His predictions about what would ultimately happen in Russia were spot on. I have pasted most of the preface that you distorted onto the page, plus the beginning of section 1. You will want to edit this long post. But, please, do not against attempt to portray Bertrand Ruussell as a supporter of the Bolsheviks' or the Soviet Union.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Harmlesstree</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Bertrand_Russell&amp;diff=162273</id>
		<title>Talk:Bertrand Russell</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Bertrand_Russell&amp;diff=162273"/>
		<updated>2007-05-15T18:08:51Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Harmlesstree: New page:  I find it ironic that this site uses Wikipedia's presentation of Bertrand Russell as an anti-Bolshevic as an example of Wikipedia's &amp;quot;liberal bias.&amp;quot; For it is your site that is distorting ...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt; I find it ironic that this site uses Wikipedia's presentation of Bertrand Russell as an anti-Bolshevic as an example of Wikipedia's &amp;quot;liberal bias.&amp;quot; For it is your site that is distorting the truth, as it has done with other things, with respect to Bertrand Russell's position on Bolshevism. You have taken out of context a statement from Russell's preface to The Theory and Practice of Bolshevism, and used it to make it look as if Russell was supporter of the Bolsheviks'. However, it is clear if read on past the statement you quoted that he is not, especially if you read on past the preface to the first section, which I cited in the article about Russell as evidence as his feelings towards of the Bolsheviks, which you deleted. The feelings expressed in this passage are the proper expressions of what Russell felt towards the Bolsheviks then, and especially after 1920, and the rise of Stalinism, not the statements you quoted. After all, it was Bertrand Russell who indicated that a preemptive nuclear strike against the Soviet Union, prior to their acquiring nuclear weapons, would be morally more justifiable than the alternative of attacking them after they had acquired them. His expressions of fondness for the Bolsheviks in the preface are because of the hope they have given the world: people can rise up and throw off the chains of economic oppression that are draining the life out of them: it was done in Russia. However, if you read on you will see that he vehemently opposes their ideology and their methods. His tract is polemic against them. Russell saw the same thing that Orwell saw in Spain: the Communist party was wolf in sheep's clothing. But Russell saw it very early on, before the rise of Stalinism. His predictions about what would ultimately happen in Russia were spot on. I have pasted most of the preface that you distorted onto the page, plus the beginning of section 1. You will want to edit this long post. But, please, do not against attempt to portray Bertrand Ruussell as a supporter of the Bolsheviks' or the Soviet Union.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Harmlesstree</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Bertrand_Russell&amp;diff=162163</id>
		<title>Bertrand Russell</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Bertrand_Russell&amp;diff=162163"/>
		<updated>2007-05-15T17:14:19Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Harmlesstree: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[Image:998086u.jpg|right|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
'''Bertrand Russell''' (1872–1970) was a 20th century philosopher, mathematician and atheist&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;His own characterization: &amp;quot;I never know whether I should say 'Agnostic' or whether I should say 'Atheist'.... As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one [can] prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.&amp;quot; Russell, Bertrand (1947) &amp;quot;Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic?&amp;quot;[http://www.luminary.us/russell/atheist_agnostic.html] Most online sources say &amp;quot;by which one prove,&amp;quot; probably a mistake.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1950 for his writings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Russell visited the Soviet Union and met Lenin in 1920. In a tract, ''The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism'', he wrote &amp;quot;I believe that Communism is necessary to the world, and I believe ... [[Bolshevism]] deserves the gratitude and admiration of all the progressive part of mankind.But the method by which Moscow aims at establishing Communism is a pioneer method, rough and dangerous, too heroic to count the cost of the opposition it arouses. I do not believe that by this method a stable or desirable form of Communism can be established. Three issues seem to me possible from the present situation. The first is the ultimate defeat of Bolshevism by the forces of capitalism. The second is the victory of the Bolshevists accompanied by a complete loss of their ideals and a régime of Napoleonic imperialism. The third is a prolonged world-war, in which civilization will go under, and all its manifestations (including Communism) will be forgotten.It is because I do not believe that the methods of the Third International can lead to the desired goal that I have thought it worth while to point out [7]what seem to me undesirable features in the present state of Russia. I think there are lessons to be learnt which must be learnt if the world is ever to achieve what is desired by those in the West who have sympathy with the original aims of the Bolsheviks. I do not think these lessons can be learnt except by facing frankly and fully whatever elements of failure there are in Russia. I think these elements of failure are less attributable to faults of detail than to an impatient philosophy, which aims at creating a new world without sufficient preparation in the opinions and feelings of ordinary men and women.But although I do not believe that Communism can be realized immediately by the spread of Bolshevism, I do believe that, if Bolshevism falls, it will have contributed a legend and a heroic attempt without which ultimate success might never have come. A fundamental economic reconstruction, bringing with it very far-reaching changes in ways of thinking and feeling, in philosophy and art and private relations, seems absolutely necessary if industrialism is to become the servant of man instead of his master. In all this, I am at one with the Bolsheviks; politically, I criticize them only when their methods seem to involve a departure from their own ideals. There is, however, another aspect of Bolshevism from which I differ more fundamentally. Bolshevism is not merely a political doctrine; it is also a religion, with elaborate dogmas and inspired scriptures. When Lenin wishes to prove some proposition, he does so, if possible, by quoting texts from Marx and Engels. A full-fledged Communist is not merely a man who believes that land and capital should be held in common, and their produce distributed as nearly equally as possible. He is a man who entertains a number of elaborate and dogmatic beliefs—such as philosophic materialism, for example—which may be true, but are not, to a scientific temper, capable of being known to be true with any certainty. This habit, of militant certainty about objectively doubtful matters, is one from which, since the Renaissance, the world has been gradually emerging, into that temper of constructive and fruitful scepticism which constitutes the scientific outlook. I believe the scientific outlook to be immeasurably important to the human race...The present work is the outcome of a visit to [10]Russia, supplemented by much reading and discussion both before and after. I have thought it best to record what I saw separately from theoretical considerations, and I have endeavoured to state my impressions without any bias for or against the Bolsheviks. I received at their hands the greatest kindness and courtesy, and I owe them a debt of gratitude for the perfect freedom which they allowed me in my investigations. I am conscious that I was too short a time in Russia to be able to form really reliable judgments; however, I share this drawback with most other westerners who have written on Russia since the October Revolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;To understand Bolshevism it is not sufficient to know facts; it is necessary also to enter with sympathy or imagination into a new spirit. The chief thing that the Bolsheviks have done is to create a hope, or at any rate to make strong and widespread a hope which was formerly confined to a few...I cannot share the hopes of the Bolsheviks any more than those of the Egyptian anchorites; I regard both as tragic delusions, destined to bring [16]upon the world centuries of darkness and futile violence...I do not know whether Bolshevism can be prevented from acquiring universal power. But even if it cannot, I am persuaded that those who stand out against it, not from love of ancient injustice, but in the name of the free spirit of Man, will be the bearers of the seeds of progress, from which, when the world's gestation is accomplished, new life will be born.&amp;quot;  &lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
His most significant early work was a three-volume attempt to derive all mathematical principles from a well-defined set of axioms and inference rules in symbolic logic, entitled ''Principia Mathematica'' (1910-1913).  He published this work with [[Alfred North Whitehead]]. Although the ''Principia'' is widely considered by one of the most important and seminal works in logic and philosophy, part of its success was in inspiring others to question its propositions. In 1931, [[Kurt Godel]] proved that what Russell attempted could not possibly be both consistent and complete.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the [[Cold War]] he advocated nuclear disarmament, even if it were unilateral on the part of Western powers, a stance which some people mocked as &amp;quot;better Red than dead&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A member of British nobility with the title of &amp;quot;Earl&amp;quot;, Russell remained a hero to those on the political left, particularly in the English-speaking world, throughout his life.   In his 1929 book ''Marriage and Morals'', he argued that that sex between a man and woman who are not married to each other is not necessarily immoral if they truly love one another.  In the 1960's he became a vocal critic of the [[Vietnam War]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Russell also famously encapsulated the dilemma faced by all those seeking objective moral truths in the face of almost overwhelming logical evidence to the contrary:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''&amp;quot;I cannot see how to refute the arguments for the subjectivity of ethical values, but I find myself incapable of believing that all that is wrong with wanton cruelty is that I don't like it.&amp;quot;'' &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://uk.encarta.msn.com/quote_1861989747/Ethics_I_cannot_see_how_to_refute_the_arguments_for_the.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Philosophy, 1960, &amp;quot;Notes on Philosophy&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Notes and references==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{DEFAULTSORT:Russell, Bertrand}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Philosophers]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Mathematicians]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Harmlesstree</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Islam&amp;diff=159259</id>
		<title>Talk:Islam</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Islam&amp;diff=159259"/>
		<updated>2007-05-13T22:22:48Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Harmlesstree: /* We should not shy away from speaking the Truth!!! */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Fine then. If this MUST contain mention of paganism, I'll go mention it in Christianity as well. It isn't false...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first section of this article is factual.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The second half appears to be opinion. It is not a description of what U. S. policy is or has been, but of what the writer thinks it should be. Some statements in it (&amp;quot;The religion of Islam is one of the most, if not the most, violent religion in the world&amp;quot;) seem far from objective. After all, it was not Muslims who started the Crusades. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:19, 8 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;a substantial minority of accredited Western scholars believe that some Muslim beliefs, like those of the early Roman Catholic Church, system can be traced back to distinctly polytheistic antecedents&amp;quot; - This seems to be the sort of phrase that is attacked in Wikipedia. Every odd ball opinion can be traced to somewhere, but this is not worthy in the main article - in regard to Islam or Catholicism. [[user:stevendavy]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The article has one major flaw, and that is that it distinguishes Allah as a separate god from that which is followed in the other abrahamic religions. This is fundamentally incorrect, The Christian, Jewish and Muslim god is the same god. The quote given is actually Sura 5: 77 and the Qu'ran is not contesting that a Christian god was another god, merely that Jesus was not the son of god but instead a prophet, thus, to claim that Jesus was the son of god in that sense is incorrect according to Muslims. Interestingly the quoted Sura 5: 73 actually reads &amp;quot;They who believe, and the Jews, and the Sabeites and the Christians - whoever of them believeth in God and in the last day, and doth what is right, on them shall come no fear, neither shall they be put to grief&amp;quot;. Not quite so intolerant I think you'll agree. [[user:djtheblade]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It seems to me that discussion of Islam in the context of &amp;quot;pig gods&amp;quot; is a subtle method of defamation. Rather than kitschy little tidbits of information, it would be nice to see a comprehensive list of facts including the pillars, the Sunni, Shi'i split, and Sharia.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree - it seems unnecessary and insulting. Why not remove it? - there is a good deal of more    useful information that is left out of this article. [[User:Cletje|Cletje]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:We should get rid of this rubbish.  It may confuse those people who don't understand.  It also tries to make fun of an important subject. --[[User:Czolgosz]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 14:31, 30 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== There is still misleading information in here ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I realize this is an emotional subject for many, but if the conservapedia can't manage to weed out the misleading and biased information, it will end up as the laughingstock that so many already assume it will become.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The end of the first paragraph says that Islam is growing quickly &amp;quot;mostly&amp;quot; because of high fecundity rates.  Most data shows that high reproductive rates are important, but they are in parts of Africa, Asia, and South America where Christianity is showing its greatest gains as well.  It's debatable whether there are more conversions from Christianity to Islam than vice versa (citing an interview with one person is not good evidence!), but both get most of their conversions from non judeo-christian-islam religions.  So what possible point can there be for including this, except to make the conservapedia look biased?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What, you think conservapedia ISN'T Biased? Ha, considering it was set up as a reaction to the so called liberalized Wikipedia, it's done a pretty poor job of presenting fair and unbiased arguments. Conservapedia is just a polar opposite, it's not balanced at all.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I agree and it makes me very disappointed. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:35, 18 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I see nothing wrong with either source making the claim Christian conversions outstrip conversions to Islam.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:18, 18 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== We should not shy away from speaking the Truth!!! ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conservapedia shouldn't be biased in a bad way, but we should definitely be putting across our point of view.  It is obvious that Jesus was the son of G-d, and so any parts of Islam which contradict Christianity must be considered false.  This page should also contain evidence that Christianity and not Islam is the one true faith.  Surely we should not shy away from speaking the truth!!! -Mmeelliissssaa&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Its obvious that Jesus was the son of God - that is in sense that Jesus is part of triad that is comprised of 3 equal parts, hence Jesus is God? Really! It was not even obvious to early Christians that this was the case. - anyone aware of the history of Christianity is aware of this. I suggest you Google &amp;quot;the Arian crisis&amp;quot; to find out more. If You mean that Jesus is the son of God, and the word son defines his rank with respect to God - that is less than, and seperate from, God, then you are outside the orthodox tradition, and are an Arian Christian. Not that I have a dog in this fight, I am an atheist. Yet your bias and question-begging(i,e. your conclusion that Islam must be false is based upon your presuppostion that your belief is true) needed to be attacked.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Perhaps you would like to discuss one of our [[Debate topics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:10, 18 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Perhaps she would like to acknowledge that her interpretation of 'the one true faith' is still entirely subjective. Salvation may be shared in a community but it is still a subjective and singular experience. It's not 'obvious' that Jesus was the son of god, that is merely your opinion, that would be like me saying that it is 'obvious' that creationism is false because popular scientific consensus says so. I'm not quick to dismiss people's opinions and outlooks on life, but I don't pass my own opinions off as undisputed objective fact. Your 'truth' is your personal salvation and not necessarily the same truth that other's will rejoice in.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Perhaps we should focus on building an encyclopedic page about Islam, and leave the rants out. That can go at [[Criticism of Islam]]. --&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#0000CC&amp;quot; face=&amp;quot;Comic Sans MS&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;00FFAA&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 12:29, 21 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Five Pillars==&lt;br /&gt;
We should make clear these are the five '''Sunni''' pillars of Islam. The Shia Twelvers replace Shahadah with Wilayah. The Ismali have seven pillars, as do the Druze. Just lumping all of Islam together like this is like saying all Christians believe in transubstantiation.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:32, 18 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:I thought that the &amp;quot;twelvers&amp;quot; were the Imams themselves. Does this mean that their laws replace the pillars? I am not well-versed on this aspect, perhaps you could add information, Dave. --&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#0000CC&amp;quot; face=&amp;quot;Comic Sans MS&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;00FFAA&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 12:31, 21 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jihad, the &amp;quot;sixth&amp;quot; pillar, needs to be mentioned. And not jihad as in holy war against infidels, I mean jihad as including the personal and public jihads. &amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;FFD700&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User:ColinR|ColinR]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;000000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 04:56, 23 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
: Isn't it greater (ie the struggle to reform the self) and lesser (ie the struggle to reform the Muslim community) Jihad? Oh, and it's not the 'sixth pillar', by any stretch. The Five Pillars are the Five Pillars. &amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#222222&amp;quot; face=&amp;quot;Times New Roman&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Wik&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#444444&amp;quot; face=&amp;quot;Times New Roman&amp;quot;&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#666666&amp;quot; face=&amp;quot;Times New Roman&amp;quot;&amp;gt;nterpreter&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;'''&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Spelling==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The apostrophe in &amp;quot;Qur'an&amp;quot; is between the &amp;quot;r&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;a,&amp;quot; not after the &amp;quot;u.&amp;quot; [[User:Ylmw21|Ylmw21]] 23:14, 23 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Harmlesstree</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Islam&amp;diff=159257</id>
		<title>Talk:Islam</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Islam&amp;diff=159257"/>
		<updated>2007-05-13T22:20:58Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Harmlesstree: /* We should not shy away from speaking the Truth!!! */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Fine then. If this MUST contain mention of paganism, I'll go mention it in Christianity as well. It isn't false...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first section of this article is factual.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The second half appears to be opinion. It is not a description of what U. S. policy is or has been, but of what the writer thinks it should be. Some statements in it (&amp;quot;The religion of Islam is one of the most, if not the most, violent religion in the world&amp;quot;) seem far from objective. After all, it was not Muslims who started the Crusades. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:19, 8 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;a substantial minority of accredited Western scholars believe that some Muslim beliefs, like those of the early Roman Catholic Church, system can be traced back to distinctly polytheistic antecedents&amp;quot; - This seems to be the sort of phrase that is attacked in Wikipedia. Every odd ball opinion can be traced to somewhere, but this is not worthy in the main article - in regard to Islam or Catholicism. [[user:stevendavy]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The article has one major flaw, and that is that it distinguishes Allah as a separate god from that which is followed in the other abrahamic religions. This is fundamentally incorrect, The Christian, Jewish and Muslim god is the same god. The quote given is actually Sura 5: 77 and the Qu'ran is not contesting that a Christian god was another god, merely that Jesus was not the son of god but instead a prophet, thus, to claim that Jesus was the son of god in that sense is incorrect according to Muslims. Interestingly the quoted Sura 5: 73 actually reads &amp;quot;They who believe, and the Jews, and the Sabeites and the Christians - whoever of them believeth in God and in the last day, and doth what is right, on them shall come no fear, neither shall they be put to grief&amp;quot;. Not quite so intolerant I think you'll agree. [[user:djtheblade]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It seems to me that discussion of Islam in the context of &amp;quot;pig gods&amp;quot; is a subtle method of defamation. Rather than kitschy little tidbits of information, it would be nice to see a comprehensive list of facts including the pillars, the Sunni, Shi'i split, and Sharia.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree - it seems unnecessary and insulting. Why not remove it? - there is a good deal of more    useful information that is left out of this article. [[User:Cletje|Cletje]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:We should get rid of this rubbish.  It may confuse those people who don't understand.  It also tries to make fun of an important subject. --[[User:Czolgosz]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 14:31, 30 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== There is still misleading information in here ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I realize this is an emotional subject for many, but if the conservapedia can't manage to weed out the misleading and biased information, it will end up as the laughingstock that so many already assume it will become.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The end of the first paragraph says that Islam is growing quickly &amp;quot;mostly&amp;quot; because of high fecundity rates.  Most data shows that high reproductive rates are important, but they are in parts of Africa, Asia, and South America where Christianity is showing its greatest gains as well.  It's debatable whether there are more conversions from Christianity to Islam than vice versa (citing an interview with one person is not good evidence!), but both get most of their conversions from non judeo-christian-islam religions.  So what possible point can there be for including this, except to make the conservapedia look biased?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What, you think conservapedia ISN'T Biased? Ha, considering it was set up as a reaction to the so called liberalized Wikipedia, it's done a pretty poor job of presenting fair and unbiased arguments. Conservapedia is just a polar opposite, it's not balanced at all.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I agree and it makes me very disappointed. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:35, 18 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I see nothing wrong with either source making the claim Christian conversions outstrip conversions to Islam.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:18, 18 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== We should not shy away from speaking the Truth!!! ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conservapedia shouldn't be biased in a bad way, but we should definitely be putting across our point of view.  It is obvious that Jesus was the son of G-d, and so any parts of Islam which contradict Christianity must be considered false.  This page should also contain evidence that Christianity and not Islam is the one true faith.  Surely we should not shy away from speaking the truth!!! -Mmeelliissssaa&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Its obvious that Jesus was the son of God - that is in sense that Jesus is part of triad that is comprised of 3 equal parts, hence Jesus is God. Really! It was not even obvious to early Christians that this was the case. - anyone aware of the history of Christianity is aware of this. I suggest you Google &amp;quot;the Arian crisis&amp;quot; to find out more. If You mean that Jesus is the son of God, and the word son defines his rank with respect to God - that is less than, and seperate from, God, then you are outside the orthodox tradition, and are an Arian Christian. Not that I have a dog in this fight, I am an atheist. Yet your bias and question-begging(i,e. your conclusion that Islam must be false is based upon your presuppostion that your belief is true) needed to be attacked.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Perhaps you would like to discuss one of our [[Debate topics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:10, 18 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Perhaps she would like to acknowledge that her interpretation of 'the one true faith' is still entirely subjective. Salvation may be shared in a community but it is still a subjective and singular experience. It's not 'obvious' that Jesus was the son of god, that is merely your opinion, that would be like me saying that it is 'obvious' that creationism is false because popular scientific consensus says so. I'm not quick to dismiss people's opinions and outlooks on life, but I don't pass my own opinions off as undisputed objective fact. Your 'truth' is your personal salvation and not necessarily the same truth that other's will rejoice in.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Perhaps we should focus on building an encyclopedic page about Islam, and leave the rants out. That can go at [[Criticism of Islam]]. --&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#0000CC&amp;quot; face=&amp;quot;Comic Sans MS&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;00FFAA&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 12:29, 21 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Five Pillars==&lt;br /&gt;
We should make clear these are the five '''Sunni''' pillars of Islam. The Shia Twelvers replace Shahadah with Wilayah. The Ismali have seven pillars, as do the Druze. Just lumping all of Islam together like this is like saying all Christians believe in transubstantiation.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:32, 18 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:I thought that the &amp;quot;twelvers&amp;quot; were the Imams themselves. Does this mean that their laws replace the pillars? I am not well-versed on this aspect, perhaps you could add information, Dave. --&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#0000CC&amp;quot; face=&amp;quot;Comic Sans MS&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;00FFAA&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 12:31, 21 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jihad, the &amp;quot;sixth&amp;quot; pillar, needs to be mentioned. And not jihad as in holy war against infidels, I mean jihad as including the personal and public jihads. &amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;FFD700&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User:ColinR|ColinR]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;000000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 04:56, 23 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
: Isn't it greater (ie the struggle to reform the self) and lesser (ie the struggle to reform the Muslim community) Jihad? Oh, and it's not the 'sixth pillar', by any stretch. The Five Pillars are the Five Pillars. &amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#222222&amp;quot; face=&amp;quot;Times New Roman&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Wik&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#444444&amp;quot; face=&amp;quot;Times New Roman&amp;quot;&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#666666&amp;quot; face=&amp;quot;Times New Roman&amp;quot;&amp;gt;nterpreter&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;'''&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Spelling==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The apostrophe in &amp;quot;Qur'an&amp;quot; is between the &amp;quot;r&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;a,&amp;quot; not after the &amp;quot;u.&amp;quot; [[User:Ylmw21|Ylmw21]] 23:14, 23 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Harmlesstree</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Plato&amp;diff=159224</id>
		<title>Plato</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Plato&amp;diff=159224"/>
		<updated>2007-05-13T21:59:57Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Harmlesstree: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[Image:Raphael.jpg|right|thumb|Raphael's depiction of Plato in '''The School of Athens'''.]]&lt;br /&gt;
'''Plato''' was a great [[Greek philosopher]] from 428 to 347 BCE. His actual name is Aristocles, but he is commonly known by his wrestling name, Plato. He was a student of [[Socrates]] and founded the Academy, a school bereft of buildings wherein Plato taught his students math, logic, and the tenants of Sophitic thought. He wrote the [[Republic]], and its logical sequel, [[The Laws]], as well as a large number of other, less popular works in which he showed (amongst other things) how to teach [[geometry]] to [[slaves]], how to irritate [[sophists]], and how everything in the world is made of triangles.  One of Plato's pupils was [[Aristotle]], who went on to greatly influence Aquinas, and much of the [[Magesterium]] of the [[Roman Catholic Church]]. Although Plato cannot be described as a theist, he was a major influence on early Christian teachings, and there is notably similarity between his philosophy- [[The Form of the Good]], the [[soul]], and so on, and the most fundamental theistic beliefs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Plato also created the allegory of the cave. In this story there are a group of individuals chained in a cave with a fire to their backs. They cannot turn their heads and may only gaze upon the shadows reflecting off the cave walls. The prisoners establish a primitive social order in which respect is granted to those who can correctly predict which (completly random) shape will next be projected onto the wall. One day someone escapes and, after a long and ardous struggle symbolising how difficult and uncomfortable it can be for Man to practice philosophy and profoundly reconsider the world around him, observes the real world. He returns to tell his companions of his amazing discovery only to be refuted and disbelieved by the cave dwellers, who cannot even comprehend what he is trying to tell them, and prefer to play their shadow games. Further hurting his credibility, having been in the light he finds it difficult to operate in the dim cave and appears clumsy, and completly unable to perceive the shadows- he has no social status and is ostracised as a literal 'outsider'. In this Plato illustrates the supposed futility of shallow living and paying heed to traditional and social convention, and proposes that Man must strive out on his own to gain true knowledge.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The Soul==&lt;br /&gt;
Plato argued that there was sufficient evidence for a soul in his texts. He believed that only soul could ever have knowledge of the Forms, and it is in the polluted human body that could never obtain knowledge due to its use of sense-perception as the sole means of 'knowledge' that the soul (or mind) is unable to recall all the detail of the Forms, and so it was only through sense-perception that the soul was able to recall the Forms and hence the mind obtain knowledge. Souls had existed outside of time along with the Forms which is why they were able to recall the detail.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Philosophers]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Harmlesstree</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Socrates&amp;diff=159222</id>
		<title>Socrates</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Socrates&amp;diff=159222"/>
		<updated>2007-05-13T21:59:14Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Harmlesstree: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[Image:Socrates.jpg|thumb|right|200px|The Greek philosopher Socrates]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Socrates''' was an ancient [[Greek]] philosopher, who lived between approximately 470 and 399 BCE. He is best known for his method of argument, which poses questions that may expose logical errors underlying an opponent's argument, though he usually stated that his purpose was not to argue but to pursue the truth in alliance with his opponent. Socrates had served in the army in his youth, like all Greek men of his time. To modern readers he is most familiar as a character in many books by his disciple [[Plato]] or his contemporary [[Xenophon]]. Questions exist as to whether Socrates participated in, or advocated, homosexual activity. {{fact}}Eventually the courts of Athens found him guilty on charges of impiety and corrupting the youth, and forced him to drink [[hemlock]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some famous Socrates quotes:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Socrates&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Death may be the greatest of all human blessings.&lt;br /&gt;
*Do not do to others what angers you if done to you by others.&lt;br /&gt;
*Having the fewest wants, I am nearest to the gods.&lt;br /&gt;
*I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance.&lt;br /&gt;
*The unexamined life is not worth living.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Plato, Christopher Gill, ''The Symposium''. London: Penguin Books, 1999&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Philosophers]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Harmlesstree</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Palestine_Liberation_Organization&amp;diff=159220</id>
		<title>Palestine Liberation Organization</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Palestine_Liberation_Organization&amp;diff=159220"/>
		<updated>2007-05-13T21:58:05Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Harmlesstree: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;The '''Palestine Liberation Organization''' (PLO) is an organization attempting to represent Palestinian Arabs in the occupied territories (West Bank and Gaza).  They have used violence and terrorism to achieve their goals such as in the [[Achille Lauro]] hijacking.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Harmlesstree</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=John_Stuart_Mill&amp;diff=159085</id>
		<title>John Stuart Mill</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=John_Stuart_Mill&amp;diff=159085"/>
		<updated>2007-05-13T20:27:03Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Harmlesstree: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[Image:JohnStuartMill.jpg|right|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
'''John Stuart Mill''' (1806-1873) was the last of the [[English]] classical [[economist]]s.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Homeschool]]ed in an [[atheist]]ic way by his father, Mill supported [[laissez-faire]] but with social reforms like redistribution of wealth, shorter working days, and regulation of [[monopoly|monopolies]].   Mill was ahead of his time in advocating the development of [[labor union]]s and farm [[cooperative]]s, and [[emancipation]] (voting) by women.  He sympathized with the North in the [[American Civil War]].  In his book &amp;quot;On Liberty,&amp;quot; Mill advocated that &amp;quot;the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.&amp;quot;   He advocated freedom of speech, and generally freedom of action too.  Mill also advocated [[utilitarianism]], a concept previously proposed by the atheist [[Jeremy Bentham]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Quotes==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion. [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/onesided.html]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{DEFAULTSORT:Mill, John Stuart}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Economists]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Philosophers]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Harmlesstree</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Contras&amp;diff=159077</id>
		<title>Contras</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Contras&amp;diff=159077"/>
		<updated>2007-05-13T20:21:00Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Harmlesstree: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''The Contras''' were a terrorist organization that was comprised of former members of the Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza's National Guard. The Contra's killed between 30,000, and 50,000 people, and were commited to the destruction of the government of Nicaragua. The Contras were given financial and operational support from the Reagan administration. In fact, Reagan once famously quipped: &amp;quot; I am a contra too.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Terrorists]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Harmlesstree</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Contras&amp;diff=159073</id>
		<title>Contras</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Contras&amp;diff=159073"/>
		<updated>2007-05-13T20:17:12Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Harmlesstree: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''The Contras''' were a terrorist organization that was comprised of former members of the Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza's National Guard, who killed between 30,000, and 50,000 people, that was commited to the destruction of the government of Nicaragua. The Contras were given financial and operational support from the Reagan administration. In fact, Reagan once famously quipped: &amp;quot; I am a contra too.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Terrorists]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Harmlesstree</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Contras&amp;diff=159061</id>
		<title>Contras</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Contras&amp;diff=159061"/>
		<updated>2007-05-13T20:09:45Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Harmlesstree: The contras were a terrorist organization that was comprised of former members of the Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza's National Guard, who killed between 30,000, and 50,000 people, that was comm&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The contras were a terrorist organization that was comprised of former members of the Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza's National Guard, who killed between 30,000, and 50,000 people, that was commited to the destruction of the government of Nicaragua.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Harmlesstree</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Contras&amp;diff=159059</id>
		<title>Contras</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Contras&amp;diff=159059"/>
		<updated>2007-05-13T20:09:04Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Harmlesstree: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt; The contras were a terrorist organization that was comprised of former members of the Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza's National Guard, who killed between 30,000, and 50,000 people, &lt;br /&gt;
that was commited to the destruction of the government of Nicaragua.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Harmlesstree</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Contras&amp;diff=158282</id>
		<title>Contras</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Contras&amp;diff=158282"/>
		<updated>2007-05-13T05:17:39Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Harmlesstree: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt; The contras were a terrorist organization that was comprised of former members of the Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza's National Guard, who killed between 30,000, and 50,000 people, that was commited to the destruction of the government of Nicaragua.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Harmlesstree</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=1948_Arab-Israeli_War&amp;diff=158269</id>
		<title>1948 Arab-Israeli War</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=1948_Arab-Israeli_War&amp;diff=158269"/>
		<updated>2007-05-13T05:08:59Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Harmlesstree: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[Image:1948 arab israeli war - May15-June10.jpg|right|thumb|400px|Attacks 15 May–10 June 1948]]&lt;br /&gt;
The '''1948 Arab-Israeli War''', referred to as the '''War of Independence''' (מלחמת השחרור) by Israelis, and '''The Catastrophe''' (&amp;quot;al Nakba&amp;quot;, النكبة) by Arabs, where some 700,000 Palestinians were expelled from their homeland, was the first armed conflict fought by the modern state of [[Israel]], with a total population of approximately 600,000, against the armies of the [[Arab]] nations of [[Egypt]], [[Syria]], [[Jordan]], [[Lebanon]], [[Saudi Arabia]], [[Iraq]], and other Arab militias.  About 6,000 Israelis died in the war, or fully one percent of the population, but the war ended in 1949 with a [[UN]]-brokered armistice.  As a result of the war, Israel grew by some 50% over the original Partition of British Palestine.  Some 800,000 Jews were expelled from neighboring Arab states and allowed to settle in Israel.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Wars]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Israel]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Harmlesstree</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=1948_Arab-Israeli_War&amp;diff=158268</id>
		<title>1948 Arab-Israeli War</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=1948_Arab-Israeli_War&amp;diff=158268"/>
		<updated>2007-05-13T05:08:22Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Harmlesstree: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[Image:1948 arab israeli war - May15-June10.jpg|right|thumb|400px|Attacks 15 May–10 June 1948]]&lt;br /&gt;
The '''1948 Arab-Israeli War''', referred to as the '''War of Independence''' (מלחמת השחרור) by Israelis, and '''The Catastrophe''' (&amp;quot;al Nakba&amp;quot;, النكبة) by Arabs, where some 700,000 Palestinians were expelled from their homeland was the first armed conflict fought by the modern state of [[Israel]], with a total population of approximately 600,000, against the armies of the [[Arab]] nations of [[Egypt]], [[Syria]], [[Jordan]], [[Lebanon]], [[Saudi Arabia]], [[Iraq]], and other Arab militias.  About 6,000 Israelis died in the war, or fully one percent of the population, but the war ended in 1949 with a [[UN]]-brokered armistice.  As a result of the war, Israel grew by some 50% over the original Partition of British Palestine.  Some 800,000 Jews were expelled from neighboring Arab states and allowed to settle in Israel.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Wars]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Israel]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Harmlesstree</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Palestine&amp;diff=158260</id>
		<title>Palestine</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Palestine&amp;diff=158260"/>
		<updated>2007-05-13T04:59:47Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Harmlesstree: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Palestine''' is the name given to the land of [[Israel]] by the [[Roman]]s and others in order to deny that the land belongs to the [[Jew]]s. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Palestine (from Latin: Palaestina; Hebrew: פלשת‎ Pleshet, פלשתינה Palestina; Arabic: فلسطين‎ Filastīn, Falastīn) is one of many names for the geographic region between the Mediterranean Sea and the River Jordan. Many different definitions of the region have been in usage in the past three thousand years.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Worth mentioning that the Philistines who at one time lived in part of the area were completely conquered by [[King David]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other English names for this region include: Canaan (Hebrew: כנען‎), Land of Israel (Hebrew: ארץ ישראל‎ Erets Yisrael), Judea (Hebrew: יהודה‎ yehuda), Holy Land (Hebrew: ארץ הקדש Erets Ha-Kodesh‎; Latin: Terra Sancta; Arabic: الأرض المقدسة‎ (Ard-al-Muqaddasah)and Cisjordan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Hebrew scriptures call the region Canaan when referring to the pre-Israelite period,(Hebrew: כּנען‎) and afterwards Israel (Yisrael). The name &amp;quot;Land of the Hebrews&amp;quot; (Hebrew: ארץ העברים‎, Eretz Ha-Ivrim) is also found. The wide area appears to be the habitat of the ancient ethnic Hebrews, though perhaps shared with other ethnic groups. The land of Canaan is part of the land given to the descendants of Abraham, which extends from the Nile to the Euphrates River (Genesis 15:18). This land is said to include an area called Aram Naharaim, which includes Haran in modern Turkey, from where Abraham the ancestor of the Israelites departed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The events of the Four Gospels of the Bible take place entirely in Israel.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Qur'an, the term الأرض المقدسة (&amp;quot;Holy Land&amp;quot;, Al-Ard Al-Muqaddasah) is mentioned at least seven times, once when Moses proclaims to the Children of Israel: &amp;quot;O my people! Enter the holy land which Allah hath assigned unto you, and turn not back ignominiously, for then will ye be overthrown, to your own ruin.&amp;quot; (Surah 5:21)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Currently, the Palestinians living in the occupied territories, according to international law,  are working to create a state called Palestine, whose creation is supported by a broad international consensus. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As one of the names for this region over the years has been &amp;quot;Palestine,&amp;quot; but that name never referred to a sovereign country. However this is the case prior to the creation of any state. Those who use this point in order to undermine the Palestinians claim to the land their ancestors have lived in for many generations never seem to apply this argument to any other Arab country that has been recently created, or any country for that matter.  &lt;br /&gt;
The area Palestine is the home of many [[militant]] organizations, such as the [[Palestine Liberation Organization]], [[Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade]] (related to [[Fatah]] [[Arafat]] &amp;amp; [[Abu Mazen]]), [[Hamas]], [[Islamic Jihad]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See also ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Yasser Arafat]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Geography]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Harmlesstree</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Palestine&amp;diff=158255</id>
		<title>Palestine</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Palestine&amp;diff=158255"/>
		<updated>2007-05-13T04:58:03Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Harmlesstree: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Palestine''' is the name given to the land of [[Israel]] by the [[Roman]]s and others in order to deny that the land belongs to the [[Jew]]s. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Palestine (from Latin: Palaestina; Hebrew: פלשת‎ Pleshet, פלשתינה Palestina; Arabic: فلسطين‎ Filastīn, Falastīn) is one of many names for the geographic region between the Mediterranean Sea and the River Jordan. Many different definitions of the region have been in usage in the past three thousand years.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Worth mentioning that the Philistines who at one time lived in part of the area were completely conquered by [[King David]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other English names for this region include: Canaan (Hebrew: כנען‎), Land of Israel (Hebrew: ארץ ישראל‎ Erets Yisrael), Judea (Hebrew: יהודה‎ yehuda), Holy Land (Hebrew: ארץ הקדש Erets Ha-Kodesh‎; Latin: Terra Sancta; Arabic: الأرض المقدسة‎ (Ard-al-Muqaddasah)and Cisjordan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Hebrew scriptures call the region Canaan when referring to the pre-Israelite period,(Hebrew: כּנען‎) and afterwards Israel (Yisrael). The name &amp;quot;Land of the Hebrews&amp;quot; (Hebrew: ארץ העברים‎, Eretz Ha-Ivrim) is also found. The wide area appears to be the habitat of the ancient ethnic Hebrews, though perhaps shared with other ethnic groups. The land of Canaan is part of the land given to the descendants of Abraham, which extends from the Nile to the Euphrates River (Genesis 15:18). This land is said to include an area called Aram Naharaim, which includes Haran in modern Turkey, from where Abraham the ancestor of the Israelites departed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The events of the Four Gospels of the Bible take place entirely in Israel.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Qur'an, the term الأرض المقدسة (&amp;quot;Holy Land&amp;quot;, Al-Ard Al-Muqaddasah) is mentioned at least seven times, once when Moses proclaims to the Children of Israel: &amp;quot;O my people! Enter the holy land which Allah hath assigned unto you, and turn not back ignominiously, for then will ye be overthrown, to your own ruin.&amp;quot; (Surah 5:21)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Currently, the Palestinians living in the occupied territories, according to international law,  are working to create a state called Palestine, whose creation is supported by a broad international consensus. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As one of the names for this region over the years has been &amp;quot;Palestine,&amp;quot; but that name never referred to a sovereign country. However this is the case prior to the creation of any state. Those who use this point in order to undermine the Palestinians claim to the land their ancestors have lived in for many generations never seem to employ this argument to any other Arab country that has been recently created, or any country for that matter.  &lt;br /&gt;
The area Palestine is the home of many [[militant]] organizations, such as the [[Palestine Liberation Organization]], [[Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade]] (related to [[Fatah]] [[Arafat]] &amp;amp; [[Abu Mazen]]), [[Hamas]], [[Islamic Jihad]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See also ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Yasser Arafat]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Geography]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Harmlesstree</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Palestine&amp;diff=158240</id>
		<title>Palestine</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Palestine&amp;diff=158240"/>
		<updated>2007-05-13T04:47:36Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Harmlesstree: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Palestine''' is the name given to the land of [[Israel]] by the [[Roman]]s and others in order to deny that the land belongs to the [[Jew]]s. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Palestine (from Latin: Palaestina; Hebrew: פלשת‎ Pleshet, פלשתינה Palestina; Arabic: فلسطين‎ Filastīn, Falastīn) is one of many names for the geographic region between the Mediterranean Sea and the River Jordan. Many different definitions of the region have been in usage in the past three thousand years.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Worth mentioning that the Philistines who at one time lived in part of the area were completely conquered by [[King David]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other English names for this region include: Canaan (Hebrew: כנען‎), Land of Israel (Hebrew: ארץ ישראל‎ Erets Yisrael), Judea (Hebrew: יהודה‎ yehuda), Holy Land (Hebrew: ארץ הקדש Erets Ha-Kodesh‎; Latin: Terra Sancta; Arabic: الأرض المقدسة‎ (Ard-al-Muqaddasah)and Cisjordan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Hebrew scriptures call the region Canaan when referring to the pre-Israelite period,(Hebrew: כּנען‎) and afterwards Israel (Yisrael). The name &amp;quot;Land of the Hebrews&amp;quot; (Hebrew: ארץ העברים‎, Eretz Ha-Ivrim) is also found. The wide area appears to be the habitat of the ancient ethnic Hebrews, though perhaps shared with other ethnic groups. The land of Canaan is part of the land given to the descendants of Abraham, which extends from the Nile to the Euphrates River (Genesis 15:18). This land is said to include an area called Aram Naharaim, which includes Haran in modern Turkey, from where Abraham the ancestor of the Israelites departed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The events of the Four Gospels of the Bible take place entirely in Israel.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Qur'an, the term الأرض المقدسة (&amp;quot;Holy Land&amp;quot;, Al-Ard Al-Muqaddasah) is mentioned at least seven times, once when Moses proclaims to the Children of Israel: &amp;quot;O my people! Enter the holy land which Allah hath assigned unto you, and turn not back ignominiously, for then will ye be overthrown, to your own ruin.&amp;quot; (Surah 5:21)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Currently, the Palestinians living in the occupied territories, according to international law,  are working to create a state called Palestine, whose creation is supported by a broad international consensus. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As one of the names for this region over the years has been &amp;quot;Palestine,&amp;quot; but that name never referred to a sovereign country  [http://www.israelinsider.com/views/articles/views_0297.htm] nor was it ever an Arab country &lt;br /&gt;
[http://christianactionforisrael.org/never_arab.html]. Historically, [[Arab]] Palestinians have lived primarily in [[Syria]] and [[Jordan]].&lt;br /&gt;
The area Palestine is the home of many [[militant]] organizations, such as the [[Palestine Liberation Organization]], [[Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade]] (related to [[Fatah]] [[Arafat]] &amp;amp; [[Abu Mazen]]), [[Hamas]], [[Islamic Jihad]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See also ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Yasser Arafat]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Geography]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Harmlesstree</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Palestine&amp;diff=158239</id>
		<title>Palestine</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Palestine&amp;diff=158239"/>
		<updated>2007-05-13T04:47:07Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Harmlesstree: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Palestine''' is the name given to the land of [[Israel]] by the [[Roman]]s and others in order to deny that the land belongs to the [[Jew]]s. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Palestine (from Latin: Palaestina; Hebrew: פלשת‎ Pleshet, פלשתינה Palestina; Arabic: فلسطين‎ Filastīn, Falastīn) is one of many names for the geographic region between the Mediterranean Sea and the River Jordan. Many different definitions of the region have been in usage in the past three thousand years.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Worth mentioning that the Philistines who at one time lived in part of the area were completely conquered by [[King David]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other English names for this region include: Canaan (Hebrew: כנען‎), Land of Israel (Hebrew: ארץ ישראל‎ Erets Yisrael), Judea (Hebrew: יהודה‎ yehuda), Holy Land (Hebrew: ארץ הקדש Erets Ha-Kodesh‎; Latin: Terra Sancta; Arabic: الأرض المقدسة‎ (Ard-al-Muqaddasah)and Cisjordan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Hebrew scriptures call the region Canaan when referring to the pre-Israelite period,(Hebrew: כּנען‎) and afterwards Israel (Yisrael). The name &amp;quot;Land of the Hebrews&amp;quot; (Hebrew: ארץ העברים‎, Eretz Ha-Ivrim) is also found. The wide area appears to be the habitat of the ancient ethnic Hebrews, though perhaps shared with other ethnic groups. The land of Canaan is part of the land given to the descendants of Abraham, which extends from the Nile to the Euphrates River (Genesis 15:18). This land is said to include an area called Aram Naharaim, which includes Haran in modern Turkey, from where Abraham the ancestor of the Israelites departed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The events of the Four Gospels of the Bible take place entirely in Israel.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Qur'an, the term الأرض المقدسة (&amp;quot;Holy Land&amp;quot;, Al-Ard Al-Muqaddasah) is mentioned at least seven times, once when Moses proclaims to the Children of Israel: &amp;quot;O my people! Enter the holy land which Allah hath assigned unto you, and turn not back ignominiously, for then will ye be overthrown, to your own ruin.&amp;quot; (Surah 5:21)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Currently, the Palestinians living in the occupied territories, according to an international law,  are working to create a state called Palestine, whose creation is supported by a broad international consensus. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As one of the names for this region over the years has been &amp;quot;Palestine,&amp;quot; but that name never referred to a sovereign country  [http://www.israelinsider.com/views/articles/views_0297.htm] nor was it ever an Arab country &lt;br /&gt;
[http://christianactionforisrael.org/never_arab.html]. Historically, [[Arab]] Palestinians have lived primarily in [[Syria]] and [[Jordan]].&lt;br /&gt;
The area Palestine is the home of many [[militant]] organizations, such as the [[Palestine Liberation Organization]], [[Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade]] (related to [[Fatah]] [[Arafat]] &amp;amp; [[Abu Mazen]]), [[Hamas]], [[Islamic Jihad]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See also ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Yasser Arafat]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Geography]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Harmlesstree</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Bertrand_Russell&amp;diff=158210</id>
		<title>Bertrand Russell</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Bertrand_Russell&amp;diff=158210"/>
		<updated>2007-05-13T04:34:22Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Harmlesstree: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[Image:998086u.jpg|right|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
'''Bertrand Russell''' (1872–1970) was a 20th century philosopher, mathematician,socialist,and atheist&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;His own characterization: &amp;quot;I never know whether I should say 'Agnostic' or whether I should say 'Atheist'.... As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one [can] prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.&amp;quot; Russell, Bertrand (1947) &amp;quot;Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic?&amp;quot;[http://www.luminary.us/russell/atheist_agnostic.html] Most online sources say &amp;quot;by which one prove,&amp;quot; probably a mistake.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1950 for his writings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Russell visited the Soviet Union and met Lenin in 1920. In a tract, ''The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism'' he wrote: The chief thing the Bolshevics have done is create hope...I cannot share the hopes of the Bolshevics any more than those of the Egyptian anchorites; I regard both as tragic delusions, destined to bring upon the world centuries of darkness and futile violence. I do not know whether Bolshevism can be prevented from aquiring universal power. But even if i cannot, I am persuaded that those who stand against it...will be the bearers of the seeds of progress.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
His most significant early work was a three-volume attempt to derive all mathematical principles from a well-defined set of axioms and inference rules in symbolic logic, entitled ''Principia Mathematica'' (1910-1913).  He published this work with [[Alfred North Whitehead]]. Although the ''Principia'' is widely considered by one of the most important and seminal works in logic and philosophy, part of its success was in inspiring others to question its propositions. In 1931, [[Kurt Godel]] proved that what Russell attempted could not possibly be both consistent and complete.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the [[Cold War]] he advocated, with Albert Einstein, nuclear disarmament, even if it were unilateral on the part of Western powers, a stance which some people mocked as &amp;quot;better Red than dead&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A member of British nobility with the title of &amp;quot;Earl&amp;quot;, Russell remained a hero to those on the political left, particularly in the English-speaking world, throughout his life.   In his 1929 book ''Marriage and Morals'', he argued that that sex between a man and woman who are not married to each other is not necessarily immoral if they truly love one another.  In the 1960's he became a vocal critic of the [[Vietnam War]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Russell also famously encapsulated the dilemma faced by all those seeking objective moral truths in the face of almost overwhelming logical evidence to the contrary:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''&amp;quot;I cannot see how to refute the arguments for the subjectivity of ethical values, but I find myself incapable of believing that all that is wrong with wanton cruelty is that I don't like it.&amp;quot;'' &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://uk.encarta.msn.com/quote_1861989747/Ethics_I_cannot_see_how_to_refute_the_arguments_for_the.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Philosophy, 1960, &amp;quot;Notes on Philosophy&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Notes and references==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{DEFAULTSORT:Russell, Bertrand}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Philosophers]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Mathematicians]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Harmlesstree</name></author>
	</entry>
</feed>