academiccompositionab
Empowerment Equalizer
SSaragian
Antony Sammeroff
Ann Sterzinger
Rodney
RJ
busterjames
cainusmaxus
Craig FitzGerald
David Heleniak
Caity & Dan Greene
keirmartland
Keith Preston
Bill the Butcher
ljp711
MRDA
Jack Donovan
Rachel Haywire
comrade hermit
Michael
Vince
robertstark2014
Noonan
S E Pearson
Rachel Haywire
Nexus X HumectressWatch the news report here. Read the story about it here. Felony criminal charges have been brought against two of the attackers.
[Note: This incident will likely generate a lot of activity through the state’s court system. Therefore, please do not place comments on the internet threatening retaliation, or discussing the details of the case beyond what is publicly available through ordinary media sources.]
Categories: Uncategorized
 | Anonymous on The Forgotten Legacy of John S… |
 | anarch0re on Holocaust Denial Now More Main… |
 | dystopiandeepdives on An Announcement |
| Anonymous on Autism and anarchy: The import… |
 | Dale Dombkowski on Are EVs Truly the Greenest For… |
| Anonymous on Holocaust Denial Now More Main… |
| Anonymous on It’s Not a “National Divorce.”… |
Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic by Chalmers Johnson
I like Kevin Riley’s comment to one of the “real anarchist” whiners:
>>”[they] have no affiliation with the anarchist movement.”
>I can assure you, we neither require nor desire any formalized affiliation with the hypocritical servitors of the Establishment, which is what a pretty substantial bulk of the “anarchist movement” consists of in this day and age.
‘real anarchists’ in this day and age are so much about tolerance and anti-violence. They preach tolerance, except towards those they don’t agree with. They denounce violence… except when they practice it themselves. The hate fundamentalism… except then they indulge in it themselves to rant at the heretics they feel are stepping on their turf / intellectual property (hm… are real anarchists then anarcho capitalists? rofl).
“(hm… are real anarchists then anarcho capitalists?”
I’m hesitant to say who is a “real” anarchist, but “by their fruits, ye shall know them.”
At bare minimum, I would exclude self-proclaimed “anarchists” who engage in violent, unprovoked assaults on other anarchists for holding different opinions.
I posted an a comment on the Infoshopper’s discussion of this, just to troll them. In it, I made three cogen points-1) that somone adheres to a value system different from one’s own is not sufficient reason to attak them 2) this backfires in their faces, because now their BANA nemesis are victims and objects of sympathy and they’re aggressors and assholes and 3) this is a sign they should cease focusing their efforts against “right-wingers” with no conection to the Establishment and instead productively channel their energy against the system itself. I also condemned the anarchist movement’s overemphasis on protests, rallies, public demonstrations, and other meaningless public spectacles which do nothing to firther their goals.
Whn I returned to the forum the following morning, I saw that my comment had been “deleted for BS.”
I am quite proud of myself.
GJ, Quagmire. I’m certain that in many cases, it’s a certificate of sanity to get stuff deleted from the outlets of The Pure Ones.
“I also condemned the anarchist movement’s overemphasis on protests, rallies, public demonstrations, and other meaningless public spectacles which do nothing to firther their goals.”
I’ve been saying this for years. A hundred years ago or more, public demonstrations were a useful tool to get attention to a cause because otherwise it would scarcely be visible due to limits on information dissemination and reproduction. With the advent of mass media (mass printed newspapers, weeklies, pamplets, magazines, books, radio, television and lately the internet) getting your message out isn’t a problem anymore.
Those who take to walking the streets as a sign of whatever are by and large living in the mindset of the 19th century. Which is ironic, because the various Marxist orthodox and derived ideologies seem to suffer from the same (then again, there two groups are practically identical).
Unless you want to provoke confrontations with the police, there’s not much reason for participating in demonstrations or marches. You might of course meet interesting people, but the more outlandish the theme for the protest is, the more I doubt it’ll attract sane members of the species.
Thank you Peter.
You know I think instead of mindlessly herding out to “demonstrate” in favor of the liberal cause of the week, anarchists should be developing private charities, private self-defense and anti-crime functions, and private educational and health institutions. In other words, building a viable alternative system against welfare state provisions of such services.
They should also be arming themselves and defending the second ammendment, agitating against the income (and other) taxes, and working with secessionist and regional autonomy groups. Basically, they should actually be working to bring down the system, as opposed to their current function: as mere comic relief footsoldiers for the liberal wing of our current ruling regime.
I made a point of this during my comment, and apparently to them that’s all “BS.” Go figure…
Is it consistent with anarchism to be in favor of such legislation? Aren’t anarchists supposed to oppose the state and all its works?
Another case of anarchist street-violence here:
http://reason.com/blog/2010/04/22/yes-people-are-hurting-thats-w
Well, here’s how one National-Anarchist answers the question:
http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2010/05/08/anti-nazism-is-the-new-anti-semitism/#comment-52033
“Is it consistent with anarchism to be in favor of such legislation? Aren’t anarchists supposed to oppose the state and all its works?”
That’s the ten million dollar question. Can anarchists legitimately support state action?
One critique of multiculturalism which Keith has mentioned and is echoed by NA/NR types is that an increasingly diverse society will inevitably lead to a stronger state, in order to keep people from descending into warring factions (the turf-wars between black and Hispanic gangs in LA would suggest this isn’t even possible in many cases). One could take this argument to its logical extent, and support state action against immigration in order to prevent further expansion of the state’s powers of repression.
But that’s a little convoluted. Another defence could run that, if left to autonomous management of their territory, the people of Arizona would probably enact border protection anyway, so the fact it happens to be coming from the state is neither here nor there.
A quote I keep coming back to is this definition of anarchism from eco-conservative Edward Abbey:
“Anarchism is not a romantic fable but the hardheaded realization, based on five thousand years of experience, that we cannot entrust the management of our lives to kings, priests, politicians, generals, and county commissioners.”
Taking that as a definition, it becomes (and this is once again a little convoluted) possible to support a limited amount of state action (whether in the form of socialised healthcare for leftists, or immigration reform for rightists) and retain one’s anarchist principles, provided one never puts any trust in the efficacy or competence of those in charge of it.
All this is off the top of my head and probably a complete load of crap though, so I should probably just leave Andy and co. to provide their own arguments.
@TGGP
I don’t think it is consistent to support this legislation. There are countless Spanish speaking communities of Mexican, Spanish, and Native American decent throughout the southwest that have been established in the region for hundreds of years, some for thousands. The town of Guadalupe, AZ, for instance, was swallowed by Phoenix sprawl and its Spanish speaking, Native American residents have been consistently harassed by county sheriffs. This piece of legislation adds another tool to cops, sheriffs and state police to continue such unwarranted and disgusting attacks on legitimate Arizona and US citizens. Guadalupe citizens should be shooting dead any white sheriff that rolls into town to enforce the “Tribe of Arizona’s” immigration laws by roughing up their brown, Spanish speaking family members.
If you want to support a tribe’s right to determine who does and does not live within their community, then you should support tribes, not the narrow interests of the Government of the State of Arizona.
“If you want to support a tribe’s right to determine who does and does not live within their community, then you should support tribes, not the narrow interests of the Government of the State of Arizona.”
Preferably, the state of Arizona would be dissolved into autonomous communities or “tribes.”
I think the bill has symbolic value in that it represents an effort to recognize the efforts by the ruling class to overrun domestic American society with a demographic invasion, though the objections you raise are reasonable ones. Either way, I think the Arizona law will eventually be struck down by the federal courts. So it’s probably a non-issue in the long run. This is an interesting article in favor of the bill from the perspective an American Indian:
http://www.badeagle.com/2010/05/07/liberal-indians-err-on-arizona-law/
I actually think mass immigration could be curbed if the state simply stopped subsidizing it, ended the war on drugs, upheld local sovereignty and freedom of association in the domestic US, and so forth. I suppose if that didn’t work a fence along the border would be the next step.
“Preferably, the state of Arizona would be dissolved into autonomous communities or “tribes.” ”
Agreed! And I concede that you are right about the symbolic value of this bill. Hopefully it will encourage people to form their own tribes. But the consequences of this bill are to send troops into another tribe’s territory (neighborhood) to rough them up. Any tribe that does that is just plain statist.
Exactly how much territory is a tribe allowed to defend with violence before they just turn into highway men? Most of the border region is just empty space. I am unconcerned with who travels through it. I am concerned with who decides to move in next door to me, however. Let’s concentrate on what matters, where it matters; which I suppose is right in line with your thinking on how the state can curb mass immigration.
I’m just not so excited about Americans (whites, Native, and mixed populations that have been here since the days of Spanish colonialism) enabling and cheering on a massive police state as if it can and will serve their best interests.
“Exactly how much territory is a tribe allowed to defend with violence before they just turn into highway men? Most of the border region is just empty space. I am unconcerned with who travels through it. I am concerned with who decides to move in next door to me, however. Let’s concentrate on what matters, where it matters; which I suppose is right in line with your thinking on how the state can curb mass immigration.”
I think Norman Mailer’s old idea of “power to the neighborhoods” is on target here.
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2009/may/04/00014//
“I’m just not so excited about Americans (whites, Native, and mixed populations that have been here since the days of Spanish colonialism) enabling and cheering on a massive police state as if it can and will serve their best interests.”
Well, if we can’t curb mass immigration by ending state support for it, and restoring local sovereignty and freedom of association, then I would prefer to simply build our own Great Wall of China along the Mexican border rather than enact any more internal controls. There’s too many PIGS in America as it is.
I also think it’s a serious mistake to make opposition to mass immigration into some kind of “white power” issue. For instance, research shows that a majority of all of America’s traditional racial/ethnic minorities, including Mexican-Americans and Hispanic-Americans, think immigration needs to be reduced.
http://www.cis.org/Minority-Views-Immigration
Also, it is the traditional minorities in America that have the greatest costs imposed on them by mass immigration. Importing hordes of cheap labor from Latin America damages poor and working class blacks, Hispanics, and American Indians at least as much as it hurts whites in the economic realm. Also, traditional minorities are the most likely to be subject to the increased violence, ethnic conflict, street gang warfare, and so forth that mass immigration of a huge underclass from Latin America will bring. Also, it is the minorities who are most in competition with immigrants for social services and so forth in large urban areas and other parts of the US with large minority populations. Even wealthy minorities like the Jews or those more likely to be middle class like the Asians are not to benefit from immigration in the long run, as if uneducated Latin American immigrants sympathetic to “brown fascist” groups like Atzlan Nation are going to somehow be more tolerant towards Jews than traditional American ethnic groups of any color, and as if Chinese or Indian technical workers are going to have anything in common with immigrant welfare colonists and lower proletarians.