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 HumectressRead through the comments thread following this piece and see how even uber-PC cultural leftist Roderick Long and uber-capitalist-basher Kevin Carson don’t meet the standards of purity of these anarcho-sectarian idiots. These guys sound like a bunch of Bible-bangers trying to make sure everyone holds up to their standards of doctrinal purity. Question: why are so many anarchists so hellbent on failure?
Categories: Uncategorized
 | Anonymous on Treasonous FISA Bill Passes |
 | anarchore on California Is the Homeland of… |
| 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… |
Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic by Chalmers Johnson
“Question: why are so many anarchists so hellbent on failure?”
Because they are the product of liberal pampering and have been separated from the harsh truths of life by a society that is collectively afraid of same.
I could understand how some of the hard-core leftist-anarchists might have serious trouble digesting some of my views, as that would require something of a psychological readjustment on their part. Ditto Caplan and Block. But Carson? Long, the anarcho-feminist, for chrissakes’?
It’s funny, because at times I’ve thought to reconsider my rather harsh criticisms of the anarcho-leftoid milieu, thinking perhaps they just don’t understand, or they lack the appropriate level of political experience or personal maturity, or perhaps I’ve simply done a less than stellar job at promoting my own perspective.
Then I see stuff like this and think if anything I haven’t been hard enough in my criticisms.
Funny indeed. Specially if we consider Carson’s ever present cultural marxist orthodoxy when it comes to talk about race, ethnicity, western “sins” or gender.
“Specially if we consider Carson’s ever present cultural marxist orthodoxy when it comes to talk about race, ethnicity, western “sins” or gender.”
Carson is a lot like Noam Chomsky in that both of them have much of tremendous value to say when it comes to the empire and political economy, but on social questions they fall back on the same old predictable stuff. I actually think Carson is superior to Chomsky on these matters, because he at least opposes public schools, gun control, treats the New Class and the welfare state with suspicion and skepticism, etc. This may be due to his Burkean paleoconservative background. But Chomsky is just a standard left-liberal on these questions. Btw, I actually think Carson has the potential to eventually replace and surpass Chomsky as America’s leading left-wing dissident intellectual.
The major source of my irritation with the libertarian-left in all its forms is their utter obliviousness to the “cultural Marxism” question and their failure to recognize the role of social leftism in state expansionism, and the incorporation of this into the ruling class’ ideological superstructure of self-legitimation. It’s like they’re still stuck in the 1950s or 60s, even the younger ones, and are completely blinkered to the political and cultural revolution that has occurred since then. Like I said in another post, their ideas on these questions are like something out of a college freshman or sophomore, or even high school, sociology textbook. On social issues, they’re the equivalent of the folks who actually believe what they hear in their high school government classes about the true democracy and glorious two-party system we have in the USA and how it’s their civic duty to vote, support the police, pay taxes, and tie yellow ribbons ’round the trees for the troops.
LOL, what really kills me is their rejection of Roderick Long, who is the co-author of this: http://charleswjohnson.name/essays/libertarian-feminism/
In spite of ( or perhaps because of) the fact that Long is a Harvard trained philosopher, he once tried to seriously make the argument to me that pro-lifers are comparable to the Guantanamo torturers because…..child birth is painful. Therefore, denying the legal right to abortion amounts to physical torture of innocent women. I actually used to make that same argument….when I was twelve. Nothing against Long personally. Some of his anarchist writings are quite good and have even influenced my own thinking in some ways, and in my limited personal encounters with him he seems to be a helluva nice guy. But that is just some twisted thinking and I’m “pro-choice”!
Even more hilarious is that while the commentators in that thread reject libertarians, they apparently accept anarcho-primitivists (“save the environment by killing off mankind with disease and starvation”) as a legitimate branch of the anarchist family tree.
Isn’t this guy defending antifa or something now?