These sort of trends are broadly fascist and fueled by racism and xenophobia. They represent one strategy of several used by the far right to package and market itself, given its general lack of credibility and support since Fascism's defeat in World War Two.
It should be obvious that propagating these sorts of currents is not acceptable at Rigorous Intuition. Given that Rigorous Intuition is an anti-fascist board, keeping clear on these issues is essential.
This poster hasn't as yet offered good evidence that they are such a rigorous thinker and/or that they are operating in good faith either.
Yes you have made it extremely clear that I am a prime suspect in the great Nazi conspiracy operating on this board.
Here's what I actually said:
American Dream » Sun Feb 23, 2014 11:38 am wrote: If I think he is not being honest, is skirting the very limits of the guidelines regarding this being an anti-fascist board and is generally just not operating in good faith, then I do not have to communicate with him here. I have clearly offered him a more functional and honest forum whereby we might communicate and consistently told him that it won't be on this thread. Instead of respecting me. jakell has only tried to impose his will by creepy cyber-stalker type behavior.
I was referring to indirect suggestions that we all might want to get to know a particular British fascist board, that a notorious crypto-fascist board was well worth checking out (Keith Preston's "national anarchist" site) and that jakell supports them, that the best way for in resolving concerns about Holocaust Revisionism and/or Denial was to delve into the minutiae of the racist/fascist side's claims, that sort of thing.
I remember exactly what he said. He said it was a good thing that Anarchism is becoming more popular on the right and he supports any movement that adheres to Anarchist principles. Which is a completely consistent worldview that I have heard several Anarchists express, and personally I still dont understand your problem with it. You seem to have this idea of Anarchism as, not a political philosophy based upon non-coercion, but some kind of sacred force for Good. Anything that fails to meet your moral standards earns the title of [scarequotes]Anarchism[/scarequotes]. You have yet to explain to me what exactly is wrong with Jakells position besides putting it in scare quotes and assuring me that all the hip Anarchists at the coffee shop dont think that way. Once again, as if the opinions of your Anarchist buddies are supposed to have some kind of inherent moral weight.
But the thing is, Jakells "live and let live" position has far more of a right to be called Anarchism than your insane paranoid anal Anarchism where not only must the state be destroyed but every single human being on the planet has to agree with you about everything. Your Anarchism reminds me more of Fascism way more than Nationalist Anarchism because at least Nationalist Anarchists wouldnt go around enforcing their worldview on people who disagree.
barracuda wrote:The path from RI moderator to True Blood fangirl to Jehovah's Witness seems pretty straightforward to me. Perhaps even inevitable.
Let's start with National Anarchism- and definitely get jakell in on this, too. He's been saying he wants a conversation for such a long time. This will be much better for him than the semi-robotic trolling he was committing against me for so many, many posts on the other thread,
American Dream » Mon Feb 24, 2014 1:20 pm wrote:Let's start with National Anarchism- and definitely get jakell in on this, too. He's been saying he wants a conversation for such a long time. This will be much better for him than the semi-robotic trolling he was committing against me for such a long time on the other thread,
Lets start with what I said. What exactly is so morally wrong with Jakells position on Anarchist movements? Do you want me to go dig up the quotes of what he actually said?
barracuda wrote:The path from RI moderator to True Blood fangirl to Jehovah's Witness seems pretty straightforward to me. Perhaps even inevitable.
American Dream » Mon Feb 24, 2014 1:20 pm wrote:Let's start with National Anarchism- and definitely get jakell in on this, too. He's been saying he wants a conversation for such a long time. This will be much better for him than the semi-robotic trolling he was committing against me for such a long time on the other thread,
Lets start with what I said. What exactly is so morally wrong with Jakells position on Anarchist movements? Do you want me to go dig up the quotes of what he actually said?
Nope- you are not going to serve as jakell's proxy. Do you even know him? He is going to be accountable for his own actions.
Do you agree with my statement on National Anarchism- i.e. that it is odious Nazi type shit?
O.K. , right at the outset I have to make it clear that I have no knowledge of anarchism of any variety, either theoretical or practical. My exposure to anarchists is TV watching masked black clad people throw things at cops. The only article I have read was one last night in the other thread on the website called Attack The System, by a guy called Keith Preston.
The philosophy appeared on a surface reading to me to be in favour of de-centralisation, but to an extreme extent. On the surface, having a society where people were allowed to live in association with others who share their values is fine.... However, this is actually a really tricky area. He gave an example of PedoLand. I would say this shows that the very setting up of something by the free association of all involved, can create something monstrous. I do not believe in the right of people to do something like that, because their tribes existence needs to harm others to continue.
My opinion is that this model of radical decentralisation would fail -with mathematical certainty- due to the neglect of the 'Coordination' and 'Audit' functions. The Coordination function in a system / organisation - say a school for example - can be illustrated by the person who does the school timetable. It acts to absorb huge amounts of complexity from the system (imagine if all the pupils and teachers had to decide that themselves every week) It seems to me another side of the nonsensical 'anti-hierarchy' propaganda. Hierarchy is one of the key principles of nature. If each of your cells said "No Hierarchy!! We'll do what we want!" - that is cancer, a breakdown of the relationship between the parts and the whole.
Also, the idea of people forming intentional communities is fine, but what that means on a racial basis sounds just like a revamp of the original version of Apartheid, which IIRC was about separateness not domination, but which very quickly turned into brutal state wide oppression when money and power and resources entered the picture.
The decision criteria for which group gets access to what resources located where would be ripe for horrendous abuse and gaming.
I see the key aspects of it as being a) Impossible to implement Looking at a place where it actually HAS happened to some extent, the example is Bosnia, where a relatively integrated (by force) society had it's social bonds unglued by Tito's passing. It was only able to achieve peace after the entire system it was a part of (Yugoslavia) was dismantled.
b) Focuses primarily on division The societal order is determined by choice, yes, but choices based on underlying divisions rather than viability. In cybernetic terms, it would be likely to create global 'organisational cancer' because although de-centralisation is probably the single most pressing issue - too much de-centralisation would be fatal.
c) Elitist Just like what happened when the colonial powers pulled out of Africa and the infrastructure started to fall apart because the Colonial Powers had kept that to themselves in terms of skillsets and capabilities, giving equal resources in two adjoining counties to university educated middle-class Whites (whose biggest worry was Starbucks running out of vanilla syrup for their Mocha) and to a group of unemployed, functionally illterate Blacks (whose biggest worry was getting shot by a cop) would end IMO with a FAR greater concentration of power in White hands - effectively a state of serfdom which would make Medieval Russia look like a picnic.
d) What about the Evangelists? Part of many philosophies such as many religions, and in scientism, is the imposition of one standardised set of values on all. The project is not done till everyone is singing the same tune.
Fundamentalists from righter-on-than-thou atheist reductionists to barking mad Salafists have to have EVERYONE singing THEIR song.
American Dream » Mon Feb 24, 2014 1:20 pm wrote:Let's start with National Anarchism- and definitely get jakell in on this, too. He's been saying he wants a conversation for such a long time. This will be much better for him than the semi-robotic trolling he was committing against me for such a long time on the other thread,
Lets start with what I said. What exactly is so morally wrong with Jakells position on Anarchist movements? Do you want me to go dig up the quotes of what he actually said?
There's not much to add to what I said from the third** page on this thread onwards:
Regarding AD. I've been operating within the clear instruction from PW not to engage or seek discourse, and to avoid further sudden capricious reversals of this, I need that to be rescinded.
Even so, disappointment may ensue as I have little to add on the current matter. Movement in other areas may be possible though.
**about half way down.
" Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism"
Searcher, you have opened up conversation on what I would term the most P.R. friendly brand of National Anarchism- the Keith Preston® brand. He as a person is the least identifiably "Nazi" in his C.V. of the major exponents. You have made some fair points and as I have already articulated a general overview of my own perspective, I will wait now for jakell and also ZGB to take a clear stand regarding their own beliefs.
These sort of trends are broadly fascist and fueled by racism and xenophobia. They represent one strategy of several used by the far right to package and market itself, given its general lack of credibility and support since Fascism's defeat in World War Two.
It should be obvious that propagating these sorts of currents is not acceptable at Rigorous Intuition. Given that Rigorous Intuition is an anti-fascist board, keeping clear on these issues is essential.
AD, from the point of view of posting PROCESS, copying YOUR OWN POST when we are still on Page 1 is just pure bad form. It certainly lands with me as you acting like you are Hall Monitor or Class Prefect at best and patronizing as fuck at worst.
Including TWO references to the RI Rules AGAIN is just bad form.
Please, please, some engagement without CopyPasta or Rule Quoting.
American Dream » Mon Feb 24, 2014 6:12 pm wrote:Jakell, what do you think of my original post- are you in general agreement with the critique of National Anarchism expressed?
One time only....
Go to your mod, get that gagging order rescinded, and we will take it from there.
Anything else would leave me subject to your capriciousness, which so far has been very apparent.
" Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism"
American Dream » Mon Feb 24, 2014 6:12 pm wrote:Jakell, what do you think of my original post- are you in general agreement with the critique of National Anarchism expressed?
One time only....
Go to your mod, get that gagging order rescinded, and we will take it from there.
Anything else would leave me subject to your capriciousness, which so far has been very apparent.
This is why I've long called him slippery as an eel!
Cite your marching orders, jakell- I don't recall you getting that precise command...
Searcher08 » Mon Feb 24, 2014 1:19 pm wrote:AD, from the point of view of posting PROCESS, copying YOUR OWN POST when we are still on Page 1 is just pure bad form. It certainly lands with me as you acting like you are Hall Monitor or Class Prefect at best and patronizing as fuck at worst.
Including TWO references to the RI Rules AGAIN is just bad form.
Please, please, some engagement without CopyPasta or Rule Quoting.
I'll take that under advisement and process it over a bit of time- wanted to make things very clear for the casual reader- and for the slippery eel...
Searcher08 » Mon Feb 24, 2014 6:19 pm wrote:AD, from the point of view of posting PROCESS, copying YOUR OWN POST when we are still on Page 1 is just pure bad form. It certainly lands with me as you acting like you are Hall Monitor or Class Prefect at best and patronizing as fuck at worst.
Including TWO references to the RI Rules AGAIN is just bad form.
Please, please, some engagement without CopyPasta or Rule Quoting.
At one point I was counting the repetition of the exact rule, and gave up around fifteen, I wasn't counting references.
I got so used to it that I started to develop a line of discussion around it that I thought might be a way forward . ie non-fascist/anti-fascist one which I'm going to continue to explore when the dust settle a bit.
" Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism"
Last edited by seemslikeadream on Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started. They could still get him out of office. But instead, they want mass death. Don’t forget that.
