S
Shakuhachi
Guest
How practical is it. Is there a large scale working model of anarchism?
- Status
F
Funvod
Guest
I’m no anarchist. I’m going off of what I’ve read.
There are several different models from what I can tell, from communes to total lawlessness to transhumanism and to versions that work in tandem with things like governments and markets.
One could debate the practicality for hours I suppose, although I’m not interested in doing that on this forum lol.
I fail to see how your reply is relevant to what I was saying, but there you go.
There are several different models from what I can tell, from communes to total lawlessness to transhumanism and to versions that work in tandem with things like governments and markets.
One could debate the practicality for hours I suppose, although I’m not interested in doing that on this forum lol.
I fail to see how your reply is relevant to what I was saying, but there you go.
M
meltzerboy2
Guest
You are expressing the other side of the coin, so to speak, a view held by many White people and even by some non-White people of color. This view believes that racism is largely a thing of the past, that victimhood is a destructive and false ideology, that opportunity today is there for all if they are willing to seize it, that violence of any sort is not an effective means for social change, and that compromise, while needed, is very difficult with people who are close-minded to other points of view.
I believe there is some truth to what you are saying. I am certainly opposed to any and all forms of violence. I do believe that viewing oneself as a victim of past injustices either personally or perpetrated on one’s ancestors is not constructive to social and economic progress. I am opposed to those whose mindset perceives racist intentions in every possible encounter including covert racism which goes under the heading today of microaggressions. The latter is taught in universities, and I think it conditions people to be paranoid and see themselves as victims at every turn. It also tends to view the situation as unalterable because this kind of racism is inbred and unconscious.
Where I differ from your perspective is the belief that since we seem to have a more racially just society today than we had in the past, that we should lower our guard to present-day injustices. My view is that if we are not attentive to the racist attitudes and behaviors that still exist, even if not as blatant as in the past, our nation as a whole is compromised. I believe that hard-fought victories can be lost if we do not continuously monitor the present situation.
One other point. It is not unusual for oppressed people who have for so long been denied basic freedoms and human dignity, to go overboard in their demands for social change. What many Whites seem to fear is that the minorities will eventually take control and, even if not literally, subjugate the erstwhile majority. In some ways, I think, this has already happened: for example, with regard to PC language, in which people are overly cautious so as not to offend the sensibilities of some group. Even sitcoms of 20 years ago, such as “Seinfeld,” would have little opportunity of being picked up by networks in today’s hypersensitive climate.
The White population is also indignant in that they believe themselves to have been excluded from the special attention being given to minority groups. After all, many Whites are also poor; they also struggle just to survive; they too have to cope with the bureaucratic madness of government as well as the ups and downs of everyday life. What’s in it for them? Where are the laws to protect their rights and where are the government programs to help them survive in a neutral, if not hostile, social environment?
I believe there is some truth to what you are saying. I am certainly opposed to any and all forms of violence. I do believe that viewing oneself as a victim of past injustices either personally or perpetrated on one’s ancestors is not constructive to social and economic progress. I am opposed to those whose mindset perceives racist intentions in every possible encounter including covert racism which goes under the heading today of microaggressions. The latter is taught in universities, and I think it conditions people to be paranoid and see themselves as victims at every turn. It also tends to view the situation as unalterable because this kind of racism is inbred and unconscious.
Where I differ from your perspective is the belief that since we seem to have a more racially just society today than we had in the past, that we should lower our guard to present-day injustices. My view is that if we are not attentive to the racist attitudes and behaviors that still exist, even if not as blatant as in the past, our nation as a whole is compromised. I believe that hard-fought victories can be lost if we do not continuously monitor the present situation.
One other point. It is not unusual for oppressed people who have for so long been denied basic freedoms and human dignity, to go overboard in their demands for social change. What many Whites seem to fear is that the minorities will eventually take control and, even if not literally, subjugate the erstwhile majority. In some ways, I think, this has already happened: for example, with regard to PC language, in which people are overly cautious so as not to offend the sensibilities of some group. Even sitcoms of 20 years ago, such as “Seinfeld,” would have little opportunity of being picked up by networks in today’s hypersensitive climate.
The White population is also indignant in that they believe themselves to have been excluded from the special attention being given to minority groups. After all, many Whites are also poor; they also struggle just to survive; they too have to cope with the bureaucratic madness of government as well as the ups and downs of everyday life. What’s in it for them? Where are the laws to protect their rights and where are the government programs to help them survive in a neutral, if not hostile, social environment?
Last edited:
W
WingedHussar
Guest
Congratulations, you just explained why the Republican rank and file elected Trump to the chagrin of the party elite. People were tired of “conservatives” who conserved nothing other than their jobs. The new American right is solidly nationalist, economically flexible, still socially conservative, and have far more fire in the belly.
Last edited:
R
RuthAnne
Guest
I suppose those who swallow news propaganda without thinking about it do.
E
Edmundus1581
Guest
Thankyou! I picked up the idea from a Fr Longenecker blog post where he described how women’s ordination was pushed through the Anglican church, over the course of forty years, by: posing as “victims” and demanding “dialogue”; getting incremental changes (female deacons, female’s studying for the priesthood, etc… ); but never engaging in genuine debate or respecting their opponents, who they quickly shut down after each advance was made.
Longenecker describes this as the process of progressives everywhere, and I’ve seen it up close in how members of my own family have adopted “progressive” causes here in Australia (LGBT rights, feminism, BLM, climate change*, etc.)
I’ve seen it over and over, in this country and amongst my own closest friends and relatives, even in the Church.
Great point that progressives are mostly people with time on their hands to protest and apply pressure, while the rest of us are too busy sustaining our own lives and families. Their “engine room” is the universities which have been taken over by the left and from where tenured academics churn out fake studies portraying how terrible the west is, and from where they also churn out students indoctrinated in their ideas. These are many of the people with time to go about protesting. In Australia the worst of the MSM is the government funded ABC broadcaster who free of any constraint to not offend middle Australia, ie. the very people who are paying their wages and who keep the country going.
* Just a note on “climate change”. To me the “science” may be valid (or may not be!), but I’ve seen the relish with which the idea is pushed by progressives to dismantle our economy and way of life. If the science is valid, then this is the only time they respect data and reason. Otherwise it’s always the “victim” game, played with high emotion.
Last edited:
E
Edmundus1581
Guest
Bravo!
When I praise Trump to my own relatives (in Australia, of course) this is one of the first points I mention. Namely, that he puts American jobs and American interests first, and international agreements be damned.
I add that this is great trend, and Australia and the rest of the world would be better if we all did the same thing.
We may not have as many gadgets and cheap food, but jobs for the average person are much more important, as is our national identity (for each of us, not just the US).
A
Annie
Guest
Anarchy as a general term unallied to any particular brand of thought means without government or without order. Ten 4-year-olds left by themselves in a room create anarchy within minutes.
This is a forum for the general public, not those who study arcane branches of utopian political philosophy. If Ruth Anne wants to be able to communicate with the general public, she must learn to define her terms so that others can understand her.
For those who have some knowledge of history but who have not extensively studied the history of anarchism, anarchy is indeed linked with violence.
Moreover, those who wanted to tear down “the Establishment,” with no idea of what to replace it with during the 1960s, and those engaged in similar activities now, are considered anarchists by virtue of the fact that they want to tear down the government, and they are using violent means.
If Ruth Anne wants to call herself a pacifist anarchist to differentiate herself, her communication will be clearer.
However, to suggest that it is we who need to do the research in order to understand her is asking too much. If someone wants to communicate something, it is their responsibility to make themselves clear to their audience.
Last edited:
A
Annie
Guest
To suggest that it is simply the “swallowing of news propaganda” which renders people unknowledgeable of an obscure topic is, at best, causing you to have an unrealistic view of how to approach those outside your little bubble.
F
Funvod
Guest
It’s not that obscure a topic. I figured out the fundamentals in about 10 minutes worth of reading. Wikipedia has some pretty good pages on it.
Now if you wanted to discuss the particulars of such and such anarchist philosophy then that might require some more in-depth stuff.
Now if you wanted to discuss the particulars of such and such anarchist philosophy then that might require some more in-depth stuff.
O
otjm
Guest
That certainly is not what I said. Racism and Tribalism has been with us since before anyone could write, and it will be with us until the Second Coming for a very simple reason: it is (along with a long category of other matters) a sin, and the sin of racism (and tribalism) will not go away any more than the sin of murder, or sexual abuse, or any other serious sin.
That by no means is grounds for simply “giving up”; but as I said, no law will turn the heart of any individual.
And that is not tio imply, either, that we cannot do a better job in the area of police work; but much of wha;t is being the current “woke” comment is to either do away with policing, or radically change it. Interestingly, there appears little or no effort to reach out to police and include them in the conversation.,
But it is Marxist in its underpinning (the “woke” commentary) which denies human nature in its fallen state. Some crime is based in poverty; but precious little of it is going to go away should we magically eliminate poverty (which will never be done).
The current “woke” story line is that matters are worse now than they were (name your time period). That has no factual proof. and that goes for policing, for opportunity for minorities, less racism, more educational opportunities, and the list goes on and on.
My experience is that the White population doe not hold such; some segments do, and that is often founded not on the special attention so much as the disparities they see within the minority, in particular, the black minority. And those disparities are exemplified when a Black - male or female - succeeds and is accorded the epithet of Uncle Tom - or worse if they do not hew the Democratic line. There is also the issue - and I heard it articulated several times in the past several weeks, that only whites are racist. That is pure, unadulterated and absolute fiction.
As an aside, it is an interesting observation that both the protesters and the rioters are largely white.
A
Annie
Guest
I have said what I have to say on the topic. If someone would need to look something up in what I write, I try to include an explanation because I think it is asking too much to expect someone to look up specialized information I might use.
If a full explanation would take too long, I provide a link. I have done this many times when i use Catholic terms which might be unfamiliar to others.
If a full explanation would take too long, I provide a link. I have done this many times when i use Catholic terms which might be unfamiliar to others.
O
otjm
Guest
Having watched these charges, it is my observation that "microaggression " is a charge wildly placed on anything the individual doesn’t like; it is right up there with the phrase “hate speech”. We have a group, generally under 40, who have been mollycoddled since they were in grade school, if not before, and never taught to think critically, or even to think rationally - their response is emotional, and results in using language of dismissal based on emotionally laden terms which have no basis in the reality of the exchange. To wit: if someone is being lazy, that is “racist”.
And given that I have observed repeatedly the terms “microaggression” and “hate speech” being used by white kids, I am not suggesting this is a minority term. It is a liberal term.
No, they are just lazy. It has absolutely nothing to do with race; it has to do with how they apply themselves to the matter at hand. But we can’t discuss the matter at hand because that would be racist. If a student is not doing their homework, that has absolutely noting to do with race.
R
RuthAnne
Guest
It is no more my duty to miscommunicate the meaning of anarchy than it is for you to just get it right.
R
RuthAnne
Guest
I’m not a pacifist. I believe in using violence to repel violence.
Last edited:
R
RobertAdams
Guest
Lol. I agree that’s how many look at it. And it was certainly one way to go about it. “We’re tired of those elites pandering to us so we’ll vote for someone even richer, even more self interested, and who’s even better at pandering than anyone ever!” It worked because the alternative was hillary and has a good shot at working again.
I shudder to think about what will occur when the “new left” finds it’s own winning troll as candidate.
I shudder to think about what will occur when the “new left” finds it’s own winning troll as candidate.
A
Annie
Guest
Miscommunicate?
E
Edmundus1581
Guest
Thanks, but I am very familiar with this latest “statistic” from the progressive left in Australia, which has been given a hammering in their protests and MSM coverage, especially the government funded ABC and SBS.Edmundus1581:
Really? What would police officers be doing in a jail anyway? There have been hundreds of deaths of indigenous people in custody in Australia.
'Deaths in our backyard': 432 Indigenous Australians have died in custody since 1991 | Deaths in custody | The Guardian
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
As the summary says, the issue of aboriginal deaths in custody has been firmly linked to the image of George Floyd being killed by a police officers in the US, and has been the subject of large protest marches in our capital cities.
This linking of the images is both deliberate and deceptive. As I pointed out, not one aboriginal has been murdered by a police or prison officer since the inquiry into deaths in custody in 1991*. The deaths have all been by natural causes, suicide, violence between prisoners, or normal police force which is sometimes necessary in police operations, regardless of race. The suicides should not be a cause for protests unless can explain why the suicide of any man, black or white, is only an “issue” if it’s a black man committing suicide in a white prison.
I wouldn’t have bothered with the details of this, knowing the pattern of the left to distort and exploit any “victim” narrative, it you hadn’t challenged me. In my quick research I found that the “deaths in custody” issue also exploits another common tactic of the left, which is to redefine terms to give a much larger number of victims statistically while retaining the image of the common meaning for propaganda purposes. In the case of “deaths in custody” the definition has been expanded to include any police intervention, so that a criminal who is killed resisting arrest with weapons or even kills himself driving away from a police chase is a “death in custody”. Absolutely typical and predictable.
* My first post had “killed by a police officer in jail”. It should have read “murdered by a police officer or prison warden”, but it was just a few words added shortly before I completed my longish post, in braces with a “BTW”. It is substantially correct, after being challenged and revised.
Last edited:
F
FiveLinden
Guest
‘Normal police force’! Prisoners have a right to be protected form suicide and assault by other inmates. Failure to do so is criminal. The disproportionate number of aboriginal victims should be a matter of shame for all Australians. No one should die in custody for want of medical treatment. And no one would die as a result of the use of force, by anyone.
E
Edmundus1581
Guest
First you posted an article which implied that the 432 “deaths in custody” of Australian aboriginals since 1991 were similar to the death of George Floyd.
I did some research and found that not one of those deaths was in the manner of George Floyd, and that, moreover, “death in custody” has a very broad definition which includes someone who died as a result of “normal force” which is sometimes applied during arrests, police detention or prison, regardless of race. I mentioned the apprehension of a suspect who is armed, or who kills himself in a car crash during a police chase instigated by the suspect.
Now you are attacking my use of “normal force which is sometimes applied”. Is this just a semantic argument, over the use of the word “normal” for something which is clearly extreme. In that case you can forget it - I’m not interested in a semantic argument with you. This is an internet thread, not an academic journal. Or are you telling me that such force should never be applied against an actual or suspected criminal, regardless of race? Then that’s just an argument about the powers to be given to the police*. Again, I’m not interested.
Or are you telling me that aboriginals are disproportionately the victims of such force, due to racism? Then it’s your turn to go to the statistics and make your case.
I’ve already caught you out once, and I’m not going invest more time in this until you do so yourself. So far, you’ve presented a headline and lots of words. The headline was misleading and your words dissembling.
I’m not going to respond to another attack which is just twisting of words or a headline without any analysis.
And just repeating one of my earlier points. Many of these deaths in custody are suicides. Since 1991 approximately 60,000 men have committed suicide (extrapolating the recent known rate of 6 per day). A maximum of 432 of these are aboriginals in prison, yet these are the only ones the progressives see as an “issue”. Why do they only see an 'issue" when the suicide is of a black man in prison? Otherwise, male suicide, black and white, is repeatedly dismissed as any sign of systemic failure or injustice, or a social problem requiring wide action.
* “police”. For the sake of convenience, I’ll use the word police for the whole of the uniformed judiciary, except where obviously “police” is intended, as this issue is about the chain of police and then prison operations.
I did some research and found that not one of those deaths was in the manner of George Floyd, and that, moreover, “death in custody” has a very broad definition which includes someone who died as a result of “normal force” which is sometimes applied during arrests, police detention or prison, regardless of race. I mentioned the apprehension of a suspect who is armed, or who kills himself in a car crash during a police chase instigated by the suspect.
Now you are attacking my use of “normal force which is sometimes applied”. Is this just a semantic argument, over the use of the word “normal” for something which is clearly extreme. In that case you can forget it - I’m not interested in a semantic argument with you. This is an internet thread, not an academic journal. Or are you telling me that such force should never be applied against an actual or suspected criminal, regardless of race? Then that’s just an argument about the powers to be given to the police*. Again, I’m not interested.
Or are you telling me that aboriginals are disproportionately the victims of such force, due to racism? Then it’s your turn to go to the statistics and make your case.
I’ve already caught you out once, and I’m not going invest more time in this until you do so yourself. So far, you’ve presented a headline and lots of words. The headline was misleading and your words dissembling.
And what should I, as an Australian, be ashamed of? For not doing enough for aboriginals? For doing too much? For not intervening in their (admitted) disadvantage, or for intervening too much? (Australian aboriginals are the recipients of very generous financial and other advantage throughout their lives). For the police treating them harshly, or for the police treating them more leniently than other races (leading to further problems)?.. etc… etc…
I’m not going to respond to another attack which is just twisting of words or a headline without any analysis.
And just repeating one of my earlier points. Many of these deaths in custody are suicides. Since 1991 approximately 60,000 men have committed suicide (extrapolating the recent known rate of 6 per day). A maximum of 432 of these are aboriginals in prison, yet these are the only ones the progressives see as an “issue”. Why do they only see an 'issue" when the suicide is of a black man in prison? Otherwise, male suicide, black and white, is repeatedly dismissed as any sign of systemic failure or injustice, or a social problem requiring wide action.
* “police”. For the sake of convenience, I’ll use the word police for the whole of the uniformed judiciary, except where obviously “police” is intended, as this issue is about the chain of police and then prison operations.
Last edited:
- Status