5 replies »

  1. LOL, Keith, I’m so disappointed with that schmuck, he does have some good ideas sometimes, but he’s such a disappointment? I’m disappointed in him that he even blkocked me on Twitter. I notice you haven’t responded to my latest comments yet here, is it because you’re way too busy, Keith Preston.
    Besides, PEACEFUL ANARCHY FTW. Finally, what can I write about when I’m ready to start writing articles for this site? I’m just curious that’s all

    • Gillis has said before that he doesn’t really consider fighting the empire or the ruling class to be the priority. Instead, he prefers to focus on fighting other extremists like “fascists” and Islamists. He actually said that in a tweet some time ago. I guess that’s something he shares in common with neoliberals and neocons. He’s also said he prefers the empire over open-ended decentralization because decentralization will lead to Rwanda-1994 or something to that effect. He actually once described anarchism as “decentralized globalism.” He’s constantly raving about things like “neighborhood nationalism” or whatever. He has exactly the same ideology and/or hierarchy of values as someone like Samantha Power, just differing ideas of how to realize those values. “Anti-particularism” is his overriding value.

      • Having a branch of anarchism that has “anti-particularism” or “anti-nationalism,” like Gillis is into, as its primary focus is not necessarily “wrong,” any more than having a brand of anarchism that has as its focus opposing “fascism” is not “wrong.” But for some of these folks, it seems to be on the level of “anti-monarchism anarchism,” or “anti-sports team anarchism” or “anti-UFO coverup anarchism.” I’m all for having “anti-particularist anarchism” or “anti-nationalist anarchism” AND “anarcho-nationalism” or “ethno-anarchism” or “tribal-anarchism”, just like I am for having both “anti-fascist anarchism” AND “anarcho-fascism,” “anarcho-monarchism” AND “anti-monarchist anarchism,” or “pro-sports team anarchism” AND “anti-sports team anarchism,” “UFO skeptic anarchism” AND “anti-UFO coverup anarchism,” “flat earth anarchism” AND “anti-flat earth anarchism,” “vegan anarchism” AND “carnivore anarchism,” “anarcho-primitivism” AND “anarcho-transhumanism,” etc.

        “Let a thousand flowers bloom.” -Mao tse-tung

      • Anarchism is actually not Globalism at all (I do like positive cosmopolitanism to a degree, just not the perverted Soros version), Keith Preston, I’m so disappointed with that schmuck, although he does have good ideas sometimes, but he’s way too damn harsh on Leftwing Pro-lifers like me, & he failed to realize the fact that Conservative Republican Asshat Bigits have always Pro-abortion, they’re the ones who’re behind Roe v Wade in the first place.

    • The standard by which I evaluate any political institution, organization, group, or individual is where do they stand on opposition to the American-Atlanticist-Zionist-Wahhabist empire? If they’re good on that question, we can work around other disagreements. Both Marxist-Leninists and Alt-Right/Third Position types are good on the empire question, and we can work with them as long as they remain marginalized enough that they can’t actually seize control of the state in the Russia 1917/Italy 1922 mode. The second criteria I go by is what I call the “0 to 100” scale. Most people have a mixture of authoritarian and anti-authoritarian ideas, with someone like Kim Jong Un being zero and Voltairine de Cleyre being 100, and with most humans (and most societies) being in the 30 to 70 range. Most people are authoritarian on some things and anti-authoritarian on others, and of course “authoritarian” and “anti-authoritarian” can’t always be precisely or objectively defined because there are always paradoxes and nuances.

      For instance, conventional conservatives tend to be good on the “right to bear arms,” freedom to be religious, and some other anti-state issues, but very bootlicking on other things. Conventional liberals and leftists are good on the freedom to be gay or smoke weed, but often seem to want the state regulating or prohibiting lots of other things. Conservatives and libertarians are better at criticizing governmental authoritarianism, along with certain categories of the ruling class like the media and academia, while liberals and leftists are often better at criticizing other kinds of authoritarian institutions like corporations and organized religion. Right-wingers are better at criticizing authoritarian rightism and left-wingers are better at criticizing authoritarian leftism.

Leave a Reply to Keith Preston Cancel reply