Very Strange

It seems that someone has attempted to break into this blog. The attempt has been thwarted, but this is still disconcerting to me.

About these ads

~ by projecthumanity on June 6, 2010.

6 Responses to “Very Strange”

  1. Probably your anarchists buddies since you called them out on deleting my comment…

  2. Heh. That would make a good story, wouldn’t it?

    I’m sorry about those jerks on the facebook page. They’re not being true to their principles at all. I only hope that you don’t judge all of us or the movement itself for their dickheadery.

  3. not ideologically. anarchists are historically one of the most divided schools of political thought. it’s one reason why we have trouble getting our shit together

    I don’t disagree. Almost all schools of thought are diverse to the same degree. Even the people at the Beck rally disagree as vehemently anarchists do.

    demographically, as far as racial and (to a lesser extent, I would say) class diversity goes, you might have a point depending on the area and group. sexually and genderwise, I think anarchism is quite inclusive, in my experience. and any real anarchist welcomes all kinds of diversity, especially that of the intellectual nature, IMHO.

    Really?

    They don’t welcome anybody who prefers the exclusive company of their own race. They would prefer to smash up local community and cram them full of third worlders that have nothing in common with the indigenous community.

    regardless of the faults of various anarchist or revolutionary movements, however, glenn’s army of immigrant-fearing neo-conservative reactionary contras hate the heterogenous just fine without anyone’s help. we may not be unblemished, but that movement is just plain ugly, surely you can see that Daniel?

    I’m a White Nationalist and I will acknowledge that there are probably some idiot W.N.’s that have hope that Glenn’s movement can be “bent” but they are stupid for believing so. The one label people fear more than anything in this country is the label “racist” and the Tea Party and Beck have done everything in their power to purge the movement of racists.

    However, your characterization of these people is just funny. Don’t you see how hateful you are? Wanting to protect and encourage the continuance of the demographic of your hometown is construed as “immigrant fearing.” Your slander of these enlightenment liberals (libertarian leaning middle class folks) as neo-cons is a joke. What do these people have in common with Wolfowitz or Perle? They certainly aren’t conservatives by my definition since conservatism (a la Burke, DeMaistre, Kirk, Weaver, etc) is diametrically opposed to capitalism (especially the finance variety), commercialism, internationalism, libertarianism (and any other isms you can think of), etc.

    I’m sorry about those jerks on the facebook page. They’re not being true to their principles at all.

    Nobody ever is.

    I only hope that you don’t judge all of us or the movement itself for their dickheadery.

    I don’t. I love anarchists and anarchist writings. Most of them are my people. High IQ, White, interesting, philosopher types.

    I just think it is sad that nobody is interested in dialog.

    Best Regards

  4. “I don’t disagree. Almost all schools of thought are diverse to the same degree. Even the people at the Beck rally disagree as vehemently anarchists do.”

    Actually, I’m pretty sure they don’t. Anarcho-Capitalists are radically different from all the rest in terms of social perspective; the anti-capitalist types are as diverse as communists, collectivists, syndicalists, social anarchists, and other less-known ones. Then there’s the whole green-primitivist-Deep Ecology-animal rights angle, not to mention the anarcho-feminist and queer bent. There’s also post-colonial folks, with a specific twist on that. Moreover, Christian and Buddhist/Zen anarchism constitutes a significant portion of the anarchist community. And let’s not forget the individualist/”lifestylist”, mutualist, voluntaryist, situationist and egoist sectors. Coming off from that, in some degree, are the neo-illegalist and insurrectionary types. And, of course, there’s the “Post-Left” movement. Last but not least, there’s the Platformist, Anarchy without Gerunds, Panarchist types. I’m sure we could think of a few more, but I think you get my point. Anarchism, by nature, is a lot more prone to dissent than most other schools of thought.

    “They don’t welcome anybody who prefers the exclusive company of their own race. They would prefer to smash up local community and cram them full of third worlders that have nothing in common with the indigenous community.”

    Oh, no.
    I mean, let’s look at this statement in parts, so I don’t come off wrongly. If you have a divisive outlook on the world based on flawed perceptions of racial divisions, well, most anarchists would think that’s kinda bad, yes. We don’t like to work with racists like yourself, just as we don’t generally want to work with sexists, homophobes, or anyone else who’s going to demand that people be separated on trivial grounds like that. This is because anarchy is not just about abolishing the state, or the markets, it’s about forming a new world of openness and connectivity both inside and between communities. But say that you’re willing to work with other folks with darker skin tones, even if you privately would rather not, well, that’s acceptable I would say. Prejudiced, but I don’t think anarchists are going to shun you if you’re willing to work towards the same goals as we are.

    As for “shoving your communities full of third-worlders”; er, nobody’s advocating that. We understand that indigenous communities, regardless if they were established by uprooting other indigenous peoples, have their own distinct culture and demographic that ought to be preserved. In fact, anarchists are actively working to counter the flow of “illegal” immigrants into the American North by trying to stop ecological, environmental and economic exploitation and destruction that drives this flow of cheap labor in the direction it’s going. So really, we should be working together, the same way that the post-colonialists work with nationalists in far more exploited countries.

    Ultimately, we (the vast majority of anarchists) don’t want to force diversity; at most, we want people to be open to it, ideally. If dark-skinned people want to move to a predominantly “white” community, I will firmly defend that it has to be allowed, and ought to be welcomed. But in the grand scheme of things, there’d probably just be less hispanic folks around your community if the nation-state, capitalist system wasn’t forcibly uprooting them from their own ancestral lands and plopping them on yours.

    “I’m a White Nationalist and I will acknowledge that there are probably some idiot W.N.’s that have hope that Glenn’s movement can be “bent” but they are stupid for believing so. The one label people fear more than anything in this country is the label “racist” and the Tea Party and Beck have done everything in their power to purge the movement of racists.”

    Well, um…you are a racist. Sorry to burst your bubble, but it seems fairly self-evident. You seem believe, correct me if I’m wrong, that the world is divided up into different races, one of them being “white” or “caucasian”, and that all the races ought to be self-involved and not “mix” with “others”. Now, I’m not judging you with the label; please don’t end this dialog simply because of that. I actually mean it in a very literal way. I do also disapprove and disagree with your views, but just by definition you simply are a racist. It’s kind of…obvious, you know? And if people much like yourself ideologically are the majority of Beck’s movement, which I have been under the impression is true, then it’s fundamentally a race-based movement. Hence, it’s racist.

    “However, your characterization of these people is just funny. Don’t you see how hateful you are? Wanting to protect and encourage the continuance of the demographic of your hometown is construed as “immigrant fearing.” Your slander of these enlightenment liberals (libertarian leaning middle class folks) as neo-cons is a joke. What do these people have in common with Wolfowitz or Perle? They certainly aren’t conservatives by my definition since conservatism (a la Burke, DeMaistre, Kirk, Weaver, etc) is diametrically opposed to capitalism (especially the finance variety), commercialism, internationalism, libertarianism (and any other isms you can think of), etc.”

    But it’s not hateful at all to maintain that disliking whole groups of people based on their skin is patently ridiculous and hateful. It’s simply recognizing that people are being idiots by judging others based on their skin tone, rather than the content of their character or their actions or who they really are.

    As for the neo-conservative remark, what most people who use the term mean when referencing the vast majority of Beck’s movement and others is that they are being manipulated by the openly “neo-conservative” power elite in order to create a groundswell of support for their policies. For example, the Ground Zero mosque controversy was arguably just a way to drum up support again for the neo-conservative imperialist wars in Central Asia and the Middle East. It did this by re-invoking the concept of the “muslim Other” as an “enemy”, just as the attacks of 911 were manipulated into representing an attack by the entire Islamic world on the entire “White” world way back in 2001 and 2002. That’s what they have in common with them; they’re having their prejudices used to make them support wars they otherwise wouldn’t particularly want to happen. Or so goes the reasoning behind labeling them. So you see, it’s not so much an open ideological alliance as a one-sided power play.

    “Nobody ever is.”
    But we can strive for it, no?

    “I don’t. I love anarchists and anarchist writings. Most of them are my people. High IQ, White, interesting, philosopher types.”

    Ok. I’ve just reached my tolerance level. I can deal with all kinds of intellectual dissent (fuck, I’m quite the dissenter myself), but prejudice is the one thing I won’t deal with. So honestly, you know what I think? I think that your baseless, insulting rhetoric towards anyone who’s not part of “your culture” is pretty fucking idiotic, and I’m done with dealing with it.

    “I just think it is sad that nobody is interested in dialog.”

    You know, that might be because all reasonable people get fucking angry when faced with this level of senseless bigotry injected into a conversation. This is why we don’t like you, you moron. It’s impossible to get through that thick skull of yours that other people, regardless of skin tone or nose shape or what-fucking-ever superficial appearance trait ARE NOT DIFFERENT, MUCH LESS WORTH LESS THAN YOU. People like you are pawns of the establishment, blind to reality, never seem to think of the broader context of your actions, are frequently unable to function as a part of a greater movement, usually are just plain unpleasant, and are ultimately too bigoted for the toleration of polite company, much less to be conducive to cross-movement solidarity. That’s why we’re often too frustrated to even try to start a “dialog”, if that’s what you call it when you talk to a reasonable person about your racist sentiments. So forgive me for a lapse of will, but I think I’ve lost all interest in this conversation.

  5. Actually, I’m pretty sure they don’t.

    There you go-a pigeonholing.

    Anarchism, by nature, is a lot more prone to dissent than most other schools of thought.

    You aren’t special. There is probably just as much diversity of thought at a Beck rally.

    If you have a divisive outlook on the world based on flawed perceptions of racial divisions, well, most anarchists would think that’s kinda bad, yes. We don’t like to work with racists like yourself, just as we don’t generally want to work with sexists, homophobes, or anyone else who’s going to demand that people be separated on trivial grounds like that.

    It is just your opinion that they are trivial. Some people don’t consider these differences trivial. For some people, they are real, indelible, important, etc.

    I don’t want to work with anarchists. My point was that constructive dialog is cool.

    This is because anarchy is not just about abolishing the state, or the markets, it’s about forming a new world of openness and connectivity both inside and between communities.

    I could and do say the same thing about ethnonationalism.

    Prejudiced, but I don’t think anarchists are going to shun you if you’re willing to work towards the same goals as we are.

    For some people, it is postjudice, or science, or religion, or whatever. To dismiss it as prejudice is just an attempt to evade debate or marginalize people by name calling.

    As for “shoving your communities full of third-worlders”; er, nobody’s advocating that. We understand that indigenous communities, regardless if they were established by uprooting other indigenous peoples, have their own distinct culture and demographic that ought to be preserved.

    Huh? Anarchy is pretty much in the no-borders camp no? How do we preserve our ethny without territorial integrity and how do we preserve that without violence?

    In fact, anarchists are actively working to counter the flow of “illegal” immigrants into the American North by trying to stop ecological, environmental and economic exploitation and destruction that drives this flow of cheap labor in the direction it’s going.

    Maybe. They are highly ineffective though. But, as I already said, you are in agreement with traditionalist minded conservatives on this point.

    If dark-skinned people want to move to a predominantly “white” community, I will firmly defend that it has to be allowed, and ought to be welcomed.

    Well, then the will of the community means nothing? What is the will of the community if not the sum of the will of individuals?

    But in the grand scheme of things, there’d probably just be less hispanic folks around your community if the nation-state, capitalist system wasn’t forcibly uprooting them from their own ancestral lands and plopping them on yours.

    Agreed.

    Well, um…you are a racist. Sorry to burst your bubble, but it seems fairly self-evident.

    I’m sure I am according to your definition. It doesn’t really bother me. It is just an ill defined schoolyard taunt.

    And if people much like yourself ideologically are the majority of Beck’s movement, which I have been under the impression is true, then it’s fundamentally a race-based movement. Hence, it’s racist.

    They aren’t. They aren’t anywhere near a majority. If they were, I’d be involved. Oh how I wish they were!

    But it’s not hateful at all to maintain that disliking whole groups of people based on their skin is patently ridiculous and hateful.

    Who said anything about disliking people based upon skin color? I said no such thing. Additionally, race is a lot more than just skin color.

    As for the neo-conservative remark, what most people who use the term mean when referencing the vast majority of Beck’s movement and others is that they are being manipulated by the openly “neo-conservative” power elite in order to create a groundswell of support for their policies.

    All right. It is still an unjustified charge. The neo-cons are pro-war where anarcho-capitalists and their Beckian cousins are anti-war.

    For example, the Ground Zero mosque controversy was arguably just a way to drum up support again for the neo-conservative imperialist wars in Central Asia and the Middle East.

    I have a different take. But, for the sake of argument I’ll grant it.

    It did this by re-invoking the concept of the “muslim Other” as an “enemy”, just as the attacks of 911 were manipulated into representing an attack by the entire Islamic world on the entire “White” world way back in 2001 and 2002.

    Again I have a different take, but we can assume this is the case too if you wish.

    So honestly, you know what I think? I think that your baseless, insulting rhetoric towards anyone who’s not part of “your culture” is pretty fucking idiotic, and I’m done with dealing with it.

    How you got this out of me stating that I love my people is beyond me. You have a comprehension issue when you get emotional. Your a bit programmed.

    You know, that might be because all reasonable people get fucking angry when faced with this level of senseless bigotry injected into a conversation.

    Anarchists aren’t mainstream or reasonable by definition either so who are you to even try to define me out of the center and paint me as unreasonable?

    This is why we don’t like you, you moron.

    More needless and groundless name calling.

    It’s impossible to get through that thick skull of yours that other people, regardless of skin tone or nose shape or what-fucking-ever superficial appearance trait ARE NOT DIFFERENT, MUCH LESS WORTH LESS THAN YOU.

    No it isn’t really. I used to be just like you. I used to think I was an anarchist too.

    People like you are pawns of the establishment

    People are very different. They aren’t interchangeable parts like the market tries desperately to make them out to be. It is your ideology that we are all the same that plays right into the hands of the capitalists. One big, homogeneous market is their wet dream.

    So forgive me for a lapse of will, but I think I’ve lost all interest in this conversation.

    You’re forgiven.

  6. Your a bit programmed.

    *You’re a*

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: