Comrades in Jordan sent me this.  (It reads: Long live the struggle of workers). (From As’ad AbuKhalil)

dagseoul:

danielpryor:

Isn’t it great when your political views are shared by virtually nobody within a 50-mile radius? God, I feel so indie.

There is no such thing as “anarchist” capitalists. You are a libertarian of some sort, and that makes you anything but indie.

You are a few pubes short of a Republican.

Congratulations.

peak-society:

dagseoul:

stateless-crusader:

This is a term I should be using more often, for two good reasons. 

1. It pisses off anarchists. Traditional (lefitst) anarchists mostly, but even anarcho-capitalists have been annoyed the few times I’ve used it. It just doesn’t sound right. 

2. I am a conservative and an anarchist. I use “anarchy” in the manner that political scientists, and most individuals in general, use it, describing a society that lacks any semblance of a centralized state. I am a conservative because I wish to preserve my nation, this includes some factors like ethnicity, values, customs and legal traditions. The state is a hindrance to this goal of preservation, I have even argued in previous posts that the state is necessarily anti-conservative

The rigamarole about what anarchy means is very revisionist here and strictly in-denial. I’m going to address what I think we should infer from crap like this. I’ll try to be as respectful as possible, but I’m not keen on tolerating proud bigotry like this.

Stateless-Crusader is a white supremacist. It’s clear from his blog’s title. “Crusader” is a white wink to Christian identity, nationalism and I belief in maintaining purity. This guy believes he can’t be racist because he believes in “free association” and is honest. After all, this post is a confession. Both “crusader” and “free association” are white pride badges.

The United States is itself a unity of different nations. We have one nation out of many states. White supremacists never understand what this means. It doesn’t mean, in Mississippi we get to do what we want and in New York you get to do what you want and our government protects us from non-citizens and other threats and leaves us alone. If you’re an Americanist, conservative or not, a white guy speaking about his desire to preserve his nation and his desire for free association is explicitly un-American. White guy making this claim is a straight up bigot.

In spite of his white pride, even this crusader is unwilling to betray his whiteness. Conservative Anarchism is a made up term for An Excuse for My Possessive Whiteness. Here’s what Stateless-Crusader has to say for himself:

First off, I’m white.

This deserves it’s own space. It’s a confession. Not a way to admit privilege, not a way to betray his unearned ambition that comes with being white. It’s a means to establish power within discourse. In fact, it’s a threat. Let’s be honest. He’s establishing order.

At least I believe I’m primarily of European heritage, my mother was adopted so I can’t know for sure. But nevertheless, I identify as white, my community is white and I feel it’s perfectly natural to want that to continue. To be more specific, I’m primarily Pennsylvania Dutch, meaning I’m mostly of Germanic origin. There are unique cultural traits I wish to preserve, and I wish for the group to continue to exist. It’s the right of all nations to exist.

There are also other issues, like higher crime rates and less social cohesion, that comes along with heterogeneity, and I’ve written posts about that before. Basically, tension and conflict increases when more different people occupy a common area. 

And before anyone get’s all concerned, know that I’m generally a libertarian in my ethics. I believe in the right of free association and private property

1. “There are unique cultural traits I wish to preserve, and I wish for the group to continue to exist. It’s the right of all nations to exist.”

  • “It’s the right of all nations to exist” but I don’t believe in the right of the state to exist. In other words, a constituted society of different people from different places is a problem, but a purity is a right. This is explicitly white supremacist.
  • “I wish to preserve…” We might ask just what he wishes to preserve? A certain kind of nose or ear? Does he admire his Pennsylvania Dutch penis? This desire to preserve is explicitly white supremacist. I wonder how much this lover of liberty knows about the American eugenics movement? My bet is “a lot”. I’ll permit people who know much more about genetics than I do to address his failure to recognize that his belief in the potential for purity is based on ideological social constructions and not biological reality.

2. “There are also other issues, like higher crime rates and less social cohesion, that comes along with heterogeneity, and I’ve written posts about that before. Basically, tension and conflict increases when more different people occupy a common area.”

  • The Myth Of Social Cohesion in Social Purity is like basic White Power 101 stuff. I’m not going to bother with calling bullshit on it.
  • White supremacists explicitly conflate class and race. Conservative sociologists, not all white by the way, have done a lot to encourage this confusion. Focusing on social class was supposed to be a way to examine problems that don’t highlight ethnicity. In other words, a sociology that unites us in our common concerns. It hasn’t worked out that way. Intersectionality is important; otherwise, whiteness gets to hide. Conservatives, Capitalists, and white supremacists use their eyeballs to associate poverty and high crime rates as a problem with the people who tend to be poor while at the same time ignoring those social structures that prohibit social mobility. Sociologists and Crusaders may have different intentions, but they’re both wrong. That’s an opinion, but I make the claim to reason we should consider possessive whiteness when we consider social class.
  • Stateless-Crusader’s mistake has been decried for centuries. Adam Smith famously wrote about it in the 18th Century. It’s not some liberal plot. We all know the problem. Poor people are unjustly described as dirty, uneducated, lazy, invalid, infirm, and criminal while successfully and socially mobile people are unjustly described as clean, educated, hard-working, valid, healthy, and law-abiding. White supremacists don’t associate these traits with a social class; they associate the traits with tendencies in skin color. (Although it’s cute that he tries to hide his white supremacy in a desire to admire his Pennsylvania Dutchness, it’s still bullshit white pride.) For the bigots, the problems aren’t social, they’re genetic. Both associations are unjust and represent flawed reasoning.

3. “And before anyone get’s all concerned, know that I’m generally a libertarian in my ethics. I believe in the right of free association and private property.”

  • Any white guy who writes, “I’m generally a libertarian in my ethics” is generally a bigot without the courage of his white pride. Let’s have a real discussion about your world views, Sateless-Crusader. Give us some proof your belief that white people are less criminal and more healthy than people of color isn’t based simply in your white pride. And cite your data. Let’s put your beliefs in context.
  • How do you not have the ability to freely associate and own property right now?
  • You are not an anarchist if you believe in private property. At best you’re a minarchist. Private property demands a contract, which demands laws, which presupposes a social structure most reasonable people would call a state. By the way, lots of white conservatives desire to be minarchists. You’re in good company.

Does he admire his Pennsylvania Dutch penis? ”


i died. 

dagseoul:

from one of my favorite blogs:

servile-masses-arise:

Capitalists often cite individual freedom as a positive attribute of their system. Why is it that a system that produces mindless and bland conformity (as we all know from our experience of life) gets to pose as the champion of the individual? 

It’s down to some basic fallacies. The capitalist says “you can go out and be whatever you want, do whatever you want, follow your dreams, work hard to achieve them!” etc. What they actually mean, however, is that you can go out and earn money however you want. Of course, we all do want money, because under capitalism, we’ll starve without it. So this supposed ideology of the individual begins with everyone wanting exactly the same thing. 

This ‘freedom of the individual’ then boils down to choosing between the jobs available to that individual, or starting their own business, or starving. Hardly anyone is lucky enough to have a job that no one else does. That choice generally leads to conformity, doing exactly the same thing as many other people, every day, in the same place, with the daily humiliation of having to pretend that this is what you actually wanted.

Some ‘lucky’ workers will be able to follow a ‘career path’ in which this mapped out, preordained, conformist work lasts continuously until they are old, with the financial remuneration slowly but steadily increasing over the decades.

Or, you can start your own business, and ‘compete’ in the marketplace. This is the capitalists favourite choice, the one that really seems to sell the ‘individual freedom’ line. The problem is that competition implies conformity. You can only ‘win’ if you are all playing the same game. There’s a tiny amount of people who have had a genuinely unique business idea, but the rest are all doing exactly the same thing as their competitors, but they are trying to do it slightly better, or cheaper, or faster.

Despite the capitalist rhetoric of ‘risk taking’ that option is really only available to the rich, for whom it’s not a real risk at all. The small businessman, given a choice between conforming to market norms and the possibility of homelessness, almost always chooses conformity. So, that’s a dead end for individualism too.

None of the choices that capitalism offers the individual avoid conformity. For all their lies about freedom and liberty and individualism they produce a robotic and lifeless society, which in Emma Goldman’s words;“condemns millions of people to be mere nonentities, living corpses without originality or power of initiative”

Capitalism is the ideology of the uniform, the time card, the name tag and the stop clock. It’s the ideology of boredom. It is standardised, predictable and dull. It is the enemy of creativity, free expression and self determination. For all its bullshit about liberty, capitalism is the mortal enemy of individual freedom.

(Source: class-struggle-anarchism)

Bunch of idiots bitching about how Oakland “Vandals” ruined anarchism for everyone. Jesus Christ.