A New Europe: Anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, Nation-State

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: A New Europe: Anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, Nation-State

Postby jakell » Sun Feb 16, 2014 7:51 am

As the oft repeated claim that RI is an anti-fascist board has arisen again, I'm going to repeat my analysis and opinion of this.

From what I have seen, the term 'non-fascist' seems more accurate (ie still good), as IMO 'anti fascist' describes an activity and not merely an attitude. I backed this up with a look at what anti-fascism might actually look like in this environment, and came up with the following three points:

jakell » Thu Feb 06, 2014 8:21 pm wrote:
1) Sustaining an environment where these issues can be discussed rationally (ie, no heated repetitive arguments and conversely, protracted silences)

2) Discovering as conclusively as possible who is and who isn't a fascist (if anyone is, ie no baseless accusations)

3) Proceeding to tackle those who have been identified as the former above, and moving towards a resolution.


Note that these form a procedure and can be said to constitute activity

At the time I thought that it was the second two that were the problems, however I've subsequently decided that it is Number 1 that is the huge sticking point.

I am in agreement that crypto-fascism and crypto-racism are tired tropes, have noted their mentions here ad nauseum, and am happy to let them slumber (preferably with the fishes).
" 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"
User avatar
jakell
 
Posts: 1821
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 4:58 pm
Location: North England
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: A New Europe: Anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, Nation-State

Postby American Dream » Sun Feb 16, 2014 8:46 am

I just stumbled on an extensive critique of Keith Preston/Attack The System- which jakell really did recommend here on this board as he urged readers towards their site.

The piece is longish and a bit rough around the edges but don't let that deter you too much, as there are many, many gems to be found there:

(many, many links in the original)


http://urbandissent.wordpress.com/2011/01/16/

Fistycuffs with a petty demagogue in a black satin dress

16 01 2011

I was on the verge of deleting this blog as I have no time or patience in maintaining it no more. And then I got into a prolonged scuffle on the LeftLibertarian forums with Jeremy Weiland who identifies as a “Left Libertarian” and hosts AttackTheSystem.com(ATS), for free, mind you. Naturally, fate intervened when Keith Preston, who was the subject of much debate in that thread, picks up my post, publishes on ATS (without accrediting me at all mind you) and then tries to haul me over the coals in front of his Third Positionist buddies. All I have to say is that if Preston felt threatened enough by a forum post to rebut it to a post published on ATS, and in such a condescending manner, then I must be doing something right.

Plans change.

It is necessary to elaborate a little on the context of my original post, to which Preston responds. After a prolonged back and forth between Jeremy, myself and some others, the post itself was directed at ctmummy and summarised my overall arguments. Material, such as the quote from Staceyann Chin, was included in the context of elaborating on certain principles to a fellow LeftLibertarian using the words of a radical LGBT activist rather than my own and was not, in itself, an argument against Preston and his ideology.

You can read my original post and Preston’s full response here.

So let’s get down to brass tacks.

The Label

As per usual, Preston begins his response by defining Anarchism on his terms, citing dictionary definitions of “Anarchism” and “rulership”.

Preston said:

‘From Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary: Anarchism /’an-er-,kiz-em/ noun (1642) 1. a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups. 2. the advocacy or practice of anarchism.

From the Oxford Dictionary: ruler 1. a person or agent exercising government or control

The critic offers no explanation of how “rulership” is to be differentiated from “the state” or “government.”’

So “critic” (i.e. me)(I mean honestly, I don’t even get a proper noun?) apparently provides no explanation for how my conceptualisation differs.

I wrote,

“…as has been said more than once here, Anarchism has never been reducible to “anti-statism” and is much broader, having declared it’s opposition to all forms of rulership.”


But interpretation is a tricky thing and you can hardly blame someone for not taking the time to really come to grips of another’s reasoning. So, at the risk of being drawn into a “my Anarchism is bigger than yours”, let’s clear some things up: Anarchism is the rejection of the right to rule over others and the rejection of the right for others to rule over you. And to make it abundantly clear, ‘rulership’ is given a broad definition to encompass all forms of rulership. This includes all specific forms of rulership including government and state, but also, importantly, those behaviours which reduce one individual to a position inferior to another on the basis of some abstract marker of identity. In short, it is opposition to all forms of authority. Another contributor to the LeftLibertarian forums writes in this regard:

There is a difference. Michel Foucault articulated the main idea here better than I can in An Archaeology of Knowledge, but essentially the right is only anti-establishment if we rework what the establishment has been throughout history. Any concept of the libertarian right requires knowledge and situations that did not exist during the inception of the Right/Left dichotomy. The Libertarian Right is a term that is retroactive in its historical placement. It takes the anti-government (meaning this government, the one that empowers minorities and poor people more than most have in the past) feelings of the right today and then tries to place them in-line with the anti-government (meaning all governments) ideas of the past.


Declaring oneself to be ‘anti-establishment’ does not an Anarchist make and yet Preston ties his “Anarchism” specifically to the exercise of the institutionalised power of the state. He constructs his “Anarchism” with a narrow interpretation of ‘rulership’. His “Anarchism” ends at this point and goes not much further.

In my original post I wrote that Preston’s whole approach to discrimination and oppression is pragmatic; he aims to convince the Left to join his alliance by saying that oppression such as racism can be dealt with after the revolution (FYI, when there are 1000 governments operating instead of 1). Elsewhere in his response, Preston responded by dismissing this and making irrelevant claims about how he has read widely the works of writers belonging to Indigenous rights activists, marginalised minorities and anti-globalist’s aiming their pens at the “American Empire”. In answer, I point out that just because Preston has read widely and cherry-picked ideas from marginalised peoples which reinforce his ideological stance is of no consequence to the argument itself. The point still remains; for Preston there is nothing else, all that should be opposed is tied to the state, if it is not, it is valid and legitimate and “natural”.

This is evident where Preston writes:

Instead, it means that all issues and matters of controversy must be evaluated on their own terms, with an attitude of civility towards all but the incivil, and a fair hearing for all contending points of view, on which no one is to have the last word…

…sexual minorities who claim they are oppressed by sodomy laws, legal repression of gay-oriented businesses, or violent crimes by private individuals who target them on the basis of their gender or sexual identity are legitimate within the anarchist paradigm. Neo-Nazis who claim they are oppressed by the mere existence of Jews are not legitimate. Racial separatist whites (or of any other race/ethnicity) who claim their rights of property and association are being violated by discrimination prohibition are legitimate. Feminists who would legally require churches to accept women into the ranks of the clergy are not as this violates the associational and religious liberties of others. At the same time, there would be nothing inherently un-libertarian about feminists within a church organization agitating for altering church policy regarding gender exclusivity in the clergy if they so desired.


Under this construction, racism, sexism, gender discrimination and bias only become relevant issues to be targeted and challenged when they are institutionalised as acts of state power. His first sentence asserts that it is necessary for marginalised people to allow those with privilege to adjudicate over whether those who are marginalised are oppressed in the first place. After all Preston does not recognise the existence of privilege, for that would be “Marxist” and “Leftoid” and if he does, he does not see any need to challenge it, demonstrated in the following quote:

I share most of the political and philosophical presumptions Paul enunciates: natural inequality of persons at both the individual and collective levels, the inevitability and legitimacy of otherness, the superiority of organic forms of human organization over social engineering, rejection of vulgar economism, and a tragic view of life.

Despite repeated assertions that he does not support racism and the like, Preston’s shared assumption that there is ‘a natural inequality of persons at both the individual and collective levels‘ only has a limited number of interpretations, and, just to make it abundantly clear, all of them are bad. Use of the qualifier “natural” to allegedly justify a belief that, for example, “those little brown people have lower IQ’s than us, civilised white men” is hardly consistent with Anarchism as a political philosophy.

To translate, the rest pretty much states an opposition to egalitarianism of any kind, opposition to multiculturalism and asserts an absolute freedom of association which acts as a limit on other freedoms. In short, his ideas match up squarely with “National Anarchism” and Third Positionism. But most who have had an encounter with “National Anarchists”, Third Positionists and ATS know this and would be familiar with the whole spiel which involves invoking the discussion of various reactionary Nationalist movements and a brief discussion of economics.

Preston concludes:

Here’s a good way to look at it: Libertarianism is neither left nor right in that it opposes both conservative as well as leftist forms of statism. There are also anti-capitalist and pro-capitalist forms of libertarianism. Likewise, Third Positionism is neither left or right in that it opposes both capitalism and communism, and there are statist and anti-statist variations of third positionism. So a technically proficient application of political language would indicate that I am both a libertarian and a third positionist, given my radical anti-statism and my free-market syndicalist-mutualist-distributist-communitarian economic outlook.


Of course this conclusion is ridiculous. It again commits a logical fallacy. Just because there are similarities on certain points between two political position, it does not follow that those two positions are politically compatible. As I said in my initial “critique”: Milk is white. Chalk dust is white. Would you drink a glass of chalk dust? It should be noted that responding to this point in my original post (not that there is really a response to basic logic) Preston took the opportunity to preach to the faithful.

However, this all assumes that Preston only rejects “Leftist cultural orthodoxy” when it is involved with Government and the State. Fact is, Preston regards “Leftist cultural orthodoxy” as “totalitarian” and rejects it irrespective of whether it is “in power” or not. As Johanna pointed out during an exchange with Jeremy Weiland:

My impression was that Preston’s idea is that leftist cultural “orthodoxy” (not clear what that means) is totalitarian. IIRC, someone asked him this point blank on some forum (may have been LL2, but I don’t really remember now) and he answered with an unequivocal “yes”. No need for the “in the service of the state” business to pretend that this is necessarily an anti-state position.


and later:

It was intended to nail him down on whether the “totalitarian humanism” he’s talking about is, for instance, hate-speech laws where the state is enlisted and then the word “totalitarian” is doing something in his formulation, or cultural leftism itself where humanism=totalitarianism. Being it’s the latter, then TH is nothing more that “Preston hates lefties”…


And if that doesn’t do it for you, consider the following quote:

The real enemy is those who actually hold state power, not exotic cults despised by the wider society. As for movements that are currently out of power, the greatest potential threat in posed by an insurgent Islam made possible by demographic change in the West. This the primary reason why I endorse the European New Right as the best available metapolitical framework for present day anarchists. More than any other contemporary intellectual current, the ENR has developed a critique of the philosophical underpinnings of totalitarian humanism, as well as a rational response to the question of threats posed by demographic transformation.


Preston’s narrow interpretation of rulership combined with the use of this logical fallacy promotes “Third Positionism” by rendering any connection to “Anarchist” political philosophy so tenuous that it’s very use can only be considered a form of propaganda, especially when coupled with an inversion of the terms “Left” and “Right” that retroactively alters their use and applied meaning.

Third Positionism as Fascism

Time for a little history:

The origins of Third Position are in National Bolshevism, which originally referred to Communists who sought a national (rather than international) revolution. It soon came to refer to Nazis who sought an alliance with the Soviet Union. The most important of these was “left-wing Nazi ” Otto Strasser, a former Socialist who advocated land redistribution and nationalization of industry. After criticizing Hitler for allying with banking interests, he was expelled from the party. His brother, Gregor Strasser, held similar views but remained a Nazi until 1934, when other Nazis killed him in the Night of the Long Knives.

A number of postwar fascists continued this train of thought, including Francis Parker Yockey and Jean-François Thiriart. They saw the United States and liberal capitalism as the primary enemy, sought an alliance with the Soviet Union, and promoted solidarity with Third World revolutionary movements, including Communist revolutions in Asia and Latin American, and Arab anti-Zionists (particularly those with whom they shared antisemitic views). Thiriat’s followers in Italy formed a sect of “Nazi-Maoists” based on these principles, and after a gruesome August 1980 bombing in Bologna which killed 85 people, 40 Italian fascists fled to England, including Robert Fiore.

Fiore was sheltered by National Front member Michael Walker, editor of the Scorpion. This paper subsequently spread Third Position and New Right ideas into Britain’s National Front, and Troy Southgate openly credits it as a major influence. Third Position ideas also spread through the National Front via the magazine Rising. After a 1986 split, this new influence resulted in a reconfiguration of the party’s politics. Prominent members visited Qadafi’s Libya, praised Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini and forged links with the Nation of Islam in the United States.

…National-Anarchists retain the two main philosophical threads of Third Position. The first is the notion of a racist socialism, as a third option between both capitalism and left-wing socialism like Marxism or traditional anarchism. The second is the stress on a strategic and conceptual alliance of nationalists (especially in the Third World) against the United States. Just as the National Front praised the Nation of Islam and Qadafi, the National-Anarchists praise Black and Asian racial separatist groups, and support movements for national self-determination, such as the Tibetan independence movement. Unlike many White Nationalists (such as the British National Party), National-Anarchists are pro-Islamist —but only “if they are prepared to confine their struggle to traditionally Islamic areas of the world.”

As Chip Berlet and Matthew Lyons note, Third Position fascism influenced U.S. groups such as the White Aryan Resistance (WAR), the American Front and the National Alliance; Christian Identity pastor Bob Miles also held similar views. Often overlooked by commentators is the American Front’s affiliation with Southgate’s NRF, which he boasted of for years. Like the National Front, U.S. fascists Tom Metzger and Lyndon LaRouche also forged ties with the Nation of Islam. More recently, the National Alliance has incorporated Third Position politics. They attempted to cross-recruit left-wing activists by launching a fake antiglobalization website, and, in August 2002, held a Palestine Solidarity rally in Washington D.C.


Matthew N. Lyons writes a good introduction to fascism here while Roger Griffin writes in a draft for a chapter that appeared in the book, Fascism and Theatre: The politics and aesthetics of performance in the era of Fascism that at their core, all fascist ideologies are driven by a definitional “palingenetic ultra-nationalism”.

Palingenetic’ refers to the myth of `rebirth’ or `regeneration’ (the literal meaning of `palingenesis’ in Greek). Clearly, the triumph of a new life over decadence and decay, the imminent rebirth from literal or figurative death, is a theme so universal within manifestations of the human religious, artistic, emotional and social imagination throughout history that it is in itself inadequate to define a political ideology… The adjective`palingenetic’ first acquires a definitional function when it is combined with the historically quite recent and culture-specific phenomenon of `nationalism’, and only when this takes a radically anti-liberal stance to become ultra-nationalism. Fascism thus emerges when populist ultra-nationalism combines with the myth of a radical crusade against decadence and for renewal in every sphere of national life. The result is an ideology which operates as a mythic force celebrating the unity and sovereignty of the whole people in a specifically anti-liberal, and anti-Marxist sense….

what all permutations of fascism have in common (i.e. the `fascist minimum’) is that their ideology, policies and any organisations are informed by a distinctive permutation of the myth that the nation needs to be, or is about to be, resurrected Phoenix-like from the forces of decadence, which, without drastic intervention by the forces of healthy nationalism, threaten to extinguish it for ever.


Both Third Positionism and National Anarchism are a reworking of WWII era fascist ideologies, that conform to the definitional structure set out by Griffin. This is necessary to note as both terms are often used interchangely and Preston explicitly identifies as a “fellow traveller” of National Anarchism. Third Positionist’s generally outright reject both Marxist ideas liberal ideas. Preston is no different in this regard (Preston refers directly to Jacobin, Marx and Marcuse in particular), but, like his use of the Anarchist label and libertarian terminology, he incorporates “classical liberalism” to the extent it frames and validates his strategy of “pan-secessionism”. Similarly, the idea of Preston promotes a concept of a greater, abstract ultra-nationalism, which he from which all individuals spring, an aspect of his philosophy that remains the domain of the Right. The ultimate aim of rebirth is expressed through a network of racial and ethnically pure communities where property is distributed evenly among members, free of interference from the “Left” which is characterised as having held down society with their “totalitarian humanist” views.

A look at the agenda for the American Revolutionary Vanguard (ARV) reveals two other notable characteristics common to fascist movements the world over: it is leader-focussed in the sense that a Third Positionist revolution depends on the leadership of the Vanguard guiding the average person who is considered too “simple” to understand ideas like feminism. In a comment section on another post, Preston writes, I think we need for leaders to emerge in the various anarchist factions as well as overlapping and allied movements that are committed to the common plan of action we’ve outlined.

Secondly and just as importantly, ARV/ATS maintains a heavy focus on recruiting the youth or young people to the cause.

To quote the agenda:

5. Recognizing that youth are the future, American Revolutionary Vanguard focuses its primary recruiting efforts towards intelligent, committed and capable young men and women who will naturally develop into the leadership corps of the struggle to come.


and

6. American Revolutionary Vanguard supports the establishment of special clubs for youth oriented towards various forms of fashion, music, entertainment, sports and other features of youth culture along with the parallel provision of sound political education and training in firearms safety, competency and civilian defense techniques.


It is from this analysis that any claim by Preston to have transcended ideology is farcical. The concepts being promoted are rooted firmly in far-Right ultra-nationalist ideology. The “synthesis of ideas” Preston claims does not exist and are merely cherry-picked thoughts grafted onto a far-Right ideology. More importantly, despite claiming to distance himself form European neo-fascists, his “Third Positionism” is not much different and meets, to borrow a phrase of Griffin, ‘the fascist-minimum’.

I hardly expect Preston to respond to this in any great detail. He has written before about how he is not a fascist. I will leave that up to the reader to decide.

A petty demagogue

Preston is of course correct when he notes that populism in and of itself does not explicitly belong to the Right and there is no direct relationship between Fascism, the Right and populism. Populism, after all, is a tool that can be employed by the Right or the Left. However, Preston’s response does nothing to answer any real questions and instead dodge the argument entirely.

Preston’s populist rhetoric, his embracing of the ultra-nationalist doctrine of Third Positionism as outlined above, over-emphasis on the American Empire as the only real oppressor and his narrow definition of rulership from which he constructs his “Anarchism” is an issue of serious concern to any Anarchist, any outsider and any individual belonging to a marginalised or alienated minority. It is a means by which people are gradually introduced to attitudes and behaviours which they would normally reject. These attitudes and behaviours then become normalised and the individuals identify increasingly with the Right.

Couple this with common techniques of propaganda and spin and a more developed picture emerges. There is a tendency of Prestons to equate or use interchangeably the terms, Anarchist, Radical, Libertarian and Conservative which, though a curious aspect of American political discourse, is imprecise, misrepresentatitve and breeds confusion. Further, in my original post, I noted the use of common techniques of propaganda and spin, which I called out. These include appeals to “everyday people” and stating that “most people agree,” to stand in for coherent arguments. Likewise, when I noted and called out Preston’s selective name-dropping of Kropotkin to give credibility to his “classical Anarchist” credentials, he responded:

Kropotkin’s strategic outlook regarding anarchist organizing among common people was the same as mine. For instance, he opposed trying to teach peasants about things like atheism, rationalism, Darwinism, etc and instead favored respecting their cultural and religious traditions while offering assistance on their own issues of concern like economic oppression and exploitation by the state and feudal landlords. And, if this means anything, Kropotkin’s daughter Alexandra actually immigrated to the USA and became a Goldwater supporter while continuing to claim her family’s anarchist heritage.

Fortunately, we don’t have titled aristocrats in modern Western societies, or where we still do, they are toothless. What “privilege” is it that we alternative anarchists are defending? The critic gives no examples or illustrations. Are we defending the military-industrial complex? Seeking to uphold the American empire? Are we Ayn Randian-fans of the corporate overlords? Are we apologists for the bureaucratic overlords of the New Class? Do we heap praise on the elites of the media and the world of academia? Do we going around displaying slogans like “Support the Troops” or “Support Your Local Police”? Not that I can tell.


Both these responds to two separate sections of my overall argument do not address the issue at all. Instead they raise the volume in a direct appeal to emotion and deliberately deflect the question. The point is that, Kropotkin recognised his privilege as an aristocrat afforded to him as part of a feudal system and rejected it in an act of solidarity with the peasantry. Importantly, Preston makes an assertion about Kropotkin’s attitudes and behaviour towards the peasantry without citation or reference which would enable a reader to check context and exact wording. All we have is Preston’s word and his particular phrasing that this is the case. Even still, looking at Kropotkin’s life, though he remained insulated from the peasantry and romanticised them, that he rejected his aristocratic privilege to the greatest extent possible for a man of his time and historical context, is an impressive feat. In a modern context that understanding of privilege goes further to other critical theories of gender, race and sexuality.

Later in his response, Preston concludes by insulting me and calling me ignorant of political history and political terminology. This is despite Preston’s claim to be a “classical Anarchist” and “fellow traveller” to NA while self-identifying as a “Third Positionist” which is about as good attempt as any at obfuscation which relies on the contradictory use of technical political terminology to create confusion. Then Preston apparently has no grasp of the concept of “privilege” as it relates to social inequality (I guess I took that for granted) but then, even if he does, he is playing games because it doesn’t exist in Preston’s ideological world view. All talk of ‘privilege’ is “Marxist” and therefore evil. Where he does acknowledge privilege however is where it remains consistent with the overarching narrative of the Great American Empire to the exclusion of any other form of oppression:

…Most of us are certainly privileged compared to our counterparts in many other parts of the world. Fortunately, most of us are also stridently opposed to the oppression inflicted on people of other nations and civilizations by our own ruling classes such as people in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Columbia, Latin America, Iran, northern Africa, Southeast Asia, etc.


Importantly, Preston again employs a favourite rhetorical technique of propaganda throughout his response; the labelling of opposition as “Politicly Correct” or “Leftoid Marxists” in an attempt to create and designate an enemy. Anyone who is too vocal about oppression or who too enthusiastically voices dissent is given either label, characterised a certain way and derided for ‘the reflexive dogmatism and cultic psychology common to so much of the Left.’ Never mind existential Absurdism tends to inform my philosophical background more often these days, but whatever. Any discussion of racism or bigotry is derailed most frequently and most expertly. In the comments section and the response itself, I’m characterised as a “Leftoid Anarchist”, or words to that effect. This is scapegoating and is yet another disturbing feature about Preston and ATS. The Left-bashing that occurs so frequently, while another glaring factor that roots Preston’s ideology firmly in the Right, treats the Left as the great Other, the unifying factor around which the “Alternative Right” can gather. The Left is repeatedly constructed as the oppressor, the great evil that threatens the narrative being spun by Preston:

The present day ruling class paradigm is a synthesis of classical bourgeoisie liberalism and socialism (i.e. a capitalist/social democratic hybrid) and the institutionalization of the values of the cultural revolution of the 1960s and 1970s. Therefore, the Left is indeed “in power.”


Behind his attempts to demonise “the Left”, there is the overwhelming sense that Preston and others genuinely believe that all those associated with “the Left” are only “following party lines” and are essentially feigning their commitment to dealing with and resolving serious social issues. There is no “party line”. There is no centralised cadre or leadership (unlike Preston’s vision for his own “movement”). Those who adopt the LeftLibertarian label generally have formed a broad interpretation of rulership and so declare their opposition to all forms of rulership. After all, self-liberation is the ultimate goal of Anarchism and Left-Libertarianism and no individual wants to live in a world where they know, that if they walk over the hill to a homogenous self-segregated community they are going to be lynched because of their identity, because they were simply being themselves and happened to violate a term stipulated by some local tyrant.

Preston’s conclusion reinforces this scapegoating and attempts to reinforce his legitimacy by falsely invoking historical struggles and drawing false parallels between them, himself and his ideas:

ARV/ATS… recognize(s) the dangers posed by authoritarian leftism (in spite of the history of bloody conflict between anarchists and left-statists). This is simply a replay of the battle between Bakunin and Marx, between the Kronstadt rebels and the Bolsheviks, or between the Spanish anarchists and the Stalinists.


So far this analysis has taken up almost 4000 words, and this is without going into explicit detail regarding how the Third Positionist and National Anarchist goal of “pan-secessionism” does not act as a “realistic” solution to racism or discrimination. The very notion of forming alliances with the reactive Right to bring about any real, functioning Anarchism remains a downright absurd notion. However, Preston frames any debate on the subject by discussing the need to build big tent coalitions between tendencies in order to achieve any real change and then immediately leaping to the conclusion that such an alliance must include the far Right.

Anarchists and Left-Libertarians have long recognised the need to work with and build large coalitions composed of all groups fighting oppression in some form, but this does not mean they should they form these alliances with reactive forces who outright reject any attempts to combat oppression against minority groups, or at least do so under the guise of “pragmatism” and “realism”. These groups, treat certain identities as a virus and under certain far-Right ideologies are either to be crushed (i.e. White Nationalism) or can be told to “like it or leave it” in the form of “self segregation” (i.e. Third Positionism and National Anarchism). Better yet “pan-secessionism” combined with self-segregation (absolute freedom of association as a express or implied limit on other basic freedoms) are said to be the only “realistic” means of solving oppression. Otherwise it is argued that the average person is too stupid to understand such ideas that “women/people of colour/indigenous people/gay/lesbian/transgender people are people too” or that oppression and privilege is so ingrained in people that it is “unrealistic” to try to change it and any attempt to do so is that evil “Leftistism” or “Leftoidism”. If anyone dares challenge this logic, the word “realistic” is thrown about like water and then a strawman is invoked in the sense that you are “Leftist” and you want to “shoot anyone who opposes you”, another condescending, melodramatic strawman. Well, either this or you are some “evangelist Leftoid” promoting universalist values, because somehow it is feasible that just because everyone has different understands of what is “good” or “evil”, we must allow our neighbourhoods and spaces to be transformed into conversative theocracies or racially homogenous no-go zones for the rest of humanity.

If you want to talk realistic, discrimination and marginalisation caused by ultra-nationalist tendencies reinforces abstract concepts which define individuals and inevitably manifests conflicts that wouldn’t otherwise occur. The marginalisation of the Japanese people and discrimination against Japanese migration (particularly to Australia) on the basis of race prior to WWII actually facilitated the rise of Japanese militarism. The repeated humiliation and sense of inferiority inflicted upon the Japanese by European countries and Australia with their own nationalist policies for maintaining homogenous “White” societies actually helped to birth Japanese ultra-nationalism. Cyprus is another good, complex, multi-dimensional example of the dangers created by abstract ultra-nationalism and proposed “self-segregation” (I could write an entire series on the subject and it would take only the first chapter of the first volume to show Preston’s ideology to be silly).

After all this, I can only conclude that Keith Preston is little more than a petty demagogue in a black satin dress.

(and just in case there are any issues regarding interpretation, yes the “black satin dress” is a metaphor for Preston’s false appropriation of the label “Anarchist” and his particular method of dealing)
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: A New Europe: Anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, Nation-State

Postby jakell » Sun Feb 16, 2014 9:01 am

As I am no longer allowed on here to defend myself from insinuations and accusations from certain quarters, I remain hopeful that someone on the forum here can at least point out where the burden of proof lies.
" 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"
User avatar
jakell
 
Posts: 1821
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 4:58 pm
Location: North England
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: A New Europe: Anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, Nation-State

Postby American Dream » Sun Feb 16, 2014 9:18 am

The fucked-up movements Keith Preston/ATS urge us to accept certainly do go out from Britain and the United States to become serious problems for people in other parts of the world, too:

https://newmatilda.com/2014/01/22/whos- ... -neo-nazis

22 Jan 2014

Who's Keeping An Eye On Aussie Neo-Nazis?

By Andy Fleming

The racial elements in the case of Minh Duong were downplayed in his trial, but the far-right is more persistent and organised in Australia than people think, writes Andy Fleming


In 2012, Vietnamese student Minh Duong was viciously beaten in the streets of Ascot Vale, Victoria. He was assaulted by two men, who called him a "fucking Gook", stabbed him multiple times and hit him with a brick with sufficient force to crack the brick itself. Duong’s mistreatment in Australia made headlines again this year when – while at Melbourne airport on his way to visit family in Vietnam – his student visa was revoked and a three year ban from re-entering Australia imposed by immigration authorities, supposedly as a result of overstaying (though this is contested by Duong).

But in the reporting of Duong’s case, only brief analysis has been provided to help explain the racialised elements of the attack on him. The incident begs a question: how deep does Australia’s neo-Nazi scene run? The men convicted of Minh’s assault were members of a gang, the "Crazy White Boys", and while they adopted some of the trappings associated with being a neo-Nazi skinhead did not, apparently, do so in a sufficiently convincing fashion:

“I am of the view that a lot of your discussions and talk about skinheads and white supremacy, and your Heil Hitler signs, were not really understood by either of you ... It is my view that this attack would in all likelihood have occurred irrespective of the nationality of the person walking down the street.”

So declared Justice Betty King as she sentenced Shannon Hudson and Wayne O’Brien to jail for their part in the assault. Be that as it may, there are in fact a very small number of other men, and some women, inspired by neo-Nazi ideology, who organise on that basis and who regularly seek opportunities to promote their neo-Nazism and use their crazy propaganda to recruit. “There has been a persistent but small subculture of racist and nationalist extremists in Australia, forming groups, fragmenting, re-forming and often fighting amongst themselves,” ASIO’s 2010/11 annual report notes.

The two principal neo-Nazi organisations in Australia are Blood & Honour (B&H) and the Southern Cross Hammerskins (SCHS). Based in the skinhead milieu, where they are typically referred to as "boneheads" (so as to distinguish them from non- and anti-racist skins), B&H and SCHS are joined by other groups such as Combat 18 (C18), Nationalist Alternative, Volksfront, Women for Aryan Unity, members of the Creativity Movement (who espouse a white supremacist religious ideology) and a small number of other, even more obscure formations, including the New Right, National Anarchists and elements of the KKK.

These groups participate in a shifting alliance of marginal far-right groupings and operate independently of mainstream political groups, but the views they espouse also occasionally venture into more familiar territory. Such was the case with Peter Watson, whose nomination in early 2012 as the Labor candidate for Warwick Downs proved to be short-lived after comments he posted on the White Law Towers blog were unearthed. "I regard myself as a white nationalist, not a supremacist,” Watson was quoted in The Australian.

B&H and the SCHS were born overseas, in the UK and US, in the early 1990s. The Australian franchises of both groups were the first to be established outside of these countries. They are thus the most successful and longest-lived of the organisations formed in order to promote neo-Nazism among white youth. Apart from distributing neo-Nazi propaganda, their main, semi-public activity is to organise a gathering in Melbourne each year to commemorate the death of B&H founder, Ian Stuart Donaldson, who died in a car accident in 1993.

Since 2010 the group has also begun holding regular gigs on the Gold Coast to celebrate Adolf Hitler’s birthday. Other events are held irregularly in Sydney, Adelaide and other states and territories. An attempt to stage a gig in 2009 in WA proved to be abortive. This was partly a legacy of the violent, racist campaign conducted by Jack Van Tongeren’s Australian Nationalists Movement in the 1980s: laws regarding the propagation of racial hatred are stronger and more strictly enforced in WA. Currently, five men are facing court in Perth accused of distributing racist stickers promoting C18 in that city. In August 2010, several C18 members were convicted of discharging a firearm at a Perth mosque.

B&H and SCHS have a policy of non-engagement with the media but have featured sporadically, typically in relation to some public outcry over the staging of such events. The SCHS also briefly came to the media’s attention in March 2012, when one of its members, Kenneth Stewart, was revealed to be employed by an Australian company as a mercenary in Afghanistan. In April 2009, Nicole Hanley, a B&H organiser, was reported as working for Thales, a French military exporter.

Less well-reported was the fact that Wade Michael Page, the man responsible for shooting dead six Sikhs in Wisconsin in August 2012, was a Hammerskin. Page was also a musician, members of his groups have performed in Australia, and a number of his recordings are available for purchase locally through 9% Productions, the online merchandising arm of B&H/SCHS.

Thankfully, while accounts of less serious forms of harassment typically go unreported, reports of assaults such as that committed against Minh Duong are rare, neo-Nazi violence having peaked in the 1980s and 1990s. Further, collaboration between openly neo-Nazi groups and white nationalist or neo-fascist political parties like Australia First is generally low-key, with neither camp wanting to be associated too closely with the other. Other far-right groups are split on the subject of whether "The Jew" or "The Muslim" poses the greatest threat to White Australia.

Online forums such as Stormfront are populated by hundreds of Australian anti-Semites, fascists, white supremacists and neo-Nazis, as well as members of Australia First; most notably its leader, Dr James Saleam, who has a long history of far-right organising.

Australia First has declared itself in political solidarity with the neo-Nazi Greek organization Golden Dawn. In December 2013 in Sydney, it helped to organise a rally outside the Greek consulate in order to protest criminal charges against the organization. In Melbourne, Golden Dawn has recently opened an office, though its precise location remains a secret. While generally low-key and currently enjoying little support among the local Greek population, the group has had a presence at several Greek rallies. Local Greek antifascists understand it has also been engaged in fundraising, with the money raised being used to help finance Golden Dawn’s violent activities in Greece.

In Melbourne, the neo-Nazi stickers for which men in Perth are being charged have begun appearing in the northern suburbs, including in Ascot Vale: the site of the assault on Minh Duong. As Justice Betty King noted, “there are so many angry and unhappy young people, particularly males” and some number will be attracted to neo-Nazi and white supremacist ideology. Keeping an eye on the milieu would seem to be a sensible and precautionary option.


Found at: “Give me the money Jew or else I will get you” (antifa notes, feb 16, 2014)

http://slackbastard.anarchobase.com/?p=35596

Image
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: A New Europe: Anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, Nation-State

Postby jakell » Sun Feb 16, 2014 9:30 am

Is this a serious problem?

It has been remarked here that the whole 'crypto-fascist' thing is a tired trope and I am in agreement with this.

It is worth considering that the so-called 'watering down' of fascist ideology cuts both ways, and therefore it's seriousness is overrated, this chicken-little behaviour is only really of use to those who merely fantasise about this sort of thing and are unaquainted with (or uncaring about) practical anti fascism.
" 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"
User avatar
jakell
 
Posts: 1821
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 4:58 pm
Location: North England
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: A New Europe: Anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, Nation-State

Postby American Dream » Sun Feb 16, 2014 9:33 am

jakell » Sun Feb 16, 2014 8:30 am wrote:Is this a serious problem?

It has been remarked here that the whole 'crypto-fascist' thing is a tired trope and I am in agreement with this.

It is worth considering that the so-called 'watering down' of fascist ideology cuts both ways, and therefore it's seriousness is overrated, this chicken-little behaviour is only really of use to those who merely fantasise about this sort of thing and are unaquainted with (or uncaring about) practical anti fascism.


That's mighty white of him to say that!
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: A New Europe: Anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, Nation-State

Postby jakell » Sun Feb 16, 2014 9:36 am

As I am no longer allowed on here to defend myself from insinuations and accusations from certain quarters, I remain hopeful that someone on the forum here can at least point out where the burden of proof lies.
" 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"
User avatar
jakell
 
Posts: 1821
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 4:58 pm
Location: North England
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: A New Europe: Anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, Nation-State

Postby Searcher08 » Sun Feb 16, 2014 10:57 am

American Dream » Sun Feb 16, 2014 3:23 am wrote:
Searcher08 » Sat Feb 15, 2014 2:15 pm wrote:AD, since I posted my request you have posted pages and pages and pages of stuff - (ie business as usual) without much context, or connection (for me) to the thread.

So for me, I would have to spend a lot of time 'close reading'. Some of the information is (to me) extremely dense, jargon filled, making me wonder if you have even read it yourself!! And if you have not, why are you posting it in GD??!!

I feel defeated by this - it is like trying to talk to someone who is communicating by Alex Jones style bullhorn. So I'm out of this thread. Perhaps another time.

My takeaway from this thread is as follows:
If continual non-contextualised information is presented with little context, unclear relevance or no personal experience, then over time the value created tends to zero.

This is similar to planting a garden by random chance, as opposed to using a holistic approach eg Permaculture.

And with that, I'm outta this thread!


American Dream » Sun Feb 16, 2014 3:23 am wrote:I think you may be misunderstanding my posts on this thread. Sometimes they could be considered as polemical but on the whole they represent more my general interests, as informed by my perspective which is certainly left/anti-fascist. Many though are guideposts in my own process of self-development as much as anything else.


I need to be very clear about this - my criticism is much less about the CONTENT of what you post, it is the PROCESS in SOME threads - including this one. My reference to Alex Jones bullhorning was meant to refer to the problem of having an evolving two-way information flow
when one person is in mostly pure 'information transmission mode', rather than Jone's polemic.


American Dream » Sun Feb 16, 2014 3:23 am wrote:I've also thought about this a great deal and given the meandering, digression and fluff on other threads, I feel no shame about this whatsoever.


'An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind'

That comment sounded to me like resignation / despair; I think everyone here at R.I. (self-included) could raise their game on meandering, digression and fluff.

Some strategies to address this:
A thread outcome that is clear:
For example, what specifically is your outcome from this thread if there is one?
In my experience, the biggest problem here is a lack of clarity of what one wants to end up with.
Foe example
Saying 'A useful lively discussion about anti-Fascism in Europe' as an outcome is very poor because it begs the questions

Useful in what way?
Lovely, How?
In Europe when?
ALL of Europe?

in other words, it can mean very different things to different people. Ambiguity is often a monster in these circumstances.

Having an outcome that is specific and sensory based such as
A visual mindmap in JPEG form (and / or compatible with Freemind opensource mindmap software) of the key concepts, people, organisations and ideas involved in the Far Right within the EU, Israel and Turkey, from multiple perspectives

Relevance is focus-related
If I sincerely think something is relevant - and you dont, - in my consulting experience what happens is pretty consistent
a) The discussion becomes a zero-sum binary logic Relevance War - and the original outcome is totally forgotten
OR
b) What each party considers relevant is accepted in parallel, like reporting new islands on a map. A key distinction here is that accepting is not equal to agreeing with.

American Dream » Sun Feb 16, 2014 3:23 am wrote:I have little patience for crypto-racism, crypto-fascism, and all the tired tropes which they generate. I have no shame for this also. And I'm proud that Rigorous Intuition is an anti-fascist board, an anti-sexist board, and that posts "espousing hatred of a people based upon race, religion, gender or sexuality, are not permitted".
[/quote]

That's fine, but it is looking out through one set of eyes - it is pure information transmission.
When I tried to bring this to your attention through my previous posts, I felt your response was again looking out just through your eyes - does that make sense?
That is very different indeed from a conversation, dialogue or even debate. To be clear, Im not saying pure information transmission is without value - not at all. For example the TIDS thread - but part of the use of TIDS is that it does NOT have much discussion. However that is an exception that proves the rule - this is General Discussion, so surely doing that which facilitates discussion is worth considering?

While Rigorous Intuition welcomes a range of informed perspectives, it is not intended to be a forum for the re-fighting of elemental human values. It should be assumed that this is a place where the dignity and rights of all people are respected.

and that includes your thread audience members, even the ones you dont like! :sun:
User avatar
Searcher08
 
Posts: 5887
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:21 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: A New Europe: Anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, Nation-State

Postby seemslikeadream » Sun Feb 16, 2014 11:01 am

jakell » Sun Feb 16, 2014 8:01 am wrote:As I am no longer allowed on here to defend myself from insinuations and accusations from certain quarters, I remain hopeful that someone on the forum here can at least point out where the burden of proof lies.




You are new here

I do not know you

I have been here since this board started

I have been called a fucking anti-semite by one person here with no consequences ....that person has repeatedly posted lies about me with no consequences ....that person comes here just to do that....that person never posts anything else ....never brings one iota of anything worthwhile as far as a topic of discussion ....another person here makes accusations about me by the way of six degrees because that is all that he's got on me..that same person will not disavow the statements made by the other person even though a "question" he asked of me is the flowering of the lies

THERE IS NO BURDEN OF PROOF ..only your history will set you free

Sometimes a couple people will go with that shit and pile on giving false credibility to these false accusations ..there is nothing I can do about that either ...only that my 50,000 posts that I have made here and at one other place bare witness to who I am ...and believe me one person has gone though all 50,000 posts looking for something..I know that because when he did he could only come up with one post 9 years ago about a person that I did not know before I posted it and that post was not made here

I can not do anything about it but that is the way of the world around here but since I have been posting for 12 years people know me

All you can do is make a history here so when lies or insinuations are made people know they are just that lies and insinuations


You are taking on someone who has been posting the same stuff in the same way for over 8 years now ...that's the way of the world here

actually most folks here ignore him...ignore these threads like the plaque...at times I have a hard time doing that...after so many years

I would think he holds the award for most threads ending up in the fire pit or locked....I could be wrong about that

contrary to his opinion this is NOT the most important subject here and it never will be

there is SO much more to this place ...
Last edited by seemslikeadream on Sun Feb 16, 2014 11:13 am, 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.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: A New Europe: Anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, Nation-State

Postby jakell » Sun Feb 16, 2014 11:12 am

seemslikeadream » Sun Feb 16, 2014 3:01 pm wrote:
jakell » Sun Feb 16, 2014 8:01 am wrote:As I am no longer allowed on here to defend myself from insinuations and accusations from certain quarters, I remain hopeful that someone on the forum here can at least point out where the burden of proof lies.




You are new here

I do not know you

I have been here since this board started


I have been called a fucking anti-semite by one person here with no consequences ....that person has repeatedly posted lies about me with no consequences ....that person comes here just to do that....that person never posts anything else ....never brings one iota of anything worthwhile as far as a topic of discussion ....another person here makes accusations about me by the way of six degrees because that is all that he's got on me..that same person will not disavow the statements made by the other person even though a "question" he asked of me is the flowering of the lies

THERE IS NO BURDEN OF PROOF ..only your history will set you free

Sometimes a couple people will go with that shit and pile on giving false credibility to these false accusations ..there is nothing I can do about that either ...only that my 50,000 posts that I have made here and at one other place bare witness to who I am ...and believe me one person has gone though all 50,000 posts looking for something..I know that because when he did he could only come up with one post 9 years ago about a person that I did not know before I posted it and that post was not made here

I can not do anything about it but that is the way of the world around here but since I have been posting for 12 years people know me

All you can do is make a history here so when lies or insinuations are made people know they are just that lies and insinuations


You are taking on someone who has been posting the same stuff in the same way for over 8 years now ...that's the way of the world here

actually most folks here ignore him...ignore these threads like the plaque...at times I have a hard time doing that...after so many years

I would think he holds the award for most threads ending up in the fire pit or locked....I could be wrong about that


I realise this, but I would say that the burden of proof usually rests on the accuser. I have been restricted though and am not allowed to be direct about this, which is why I am appealing to other fair minded folks.

I also realise that you have been subject to this and it shouldn't continue, or be overlooked. If the restrictions are lifted from me, I'm quite capable of dealing with this personally. Until they are I can only try to appeal to others, even if this appears irritating
" 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"
User avatar
jakell
 
Posts: 1821
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 4:58 pm
Location: North England
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: A New Europe: Anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, Nation-State

Postby seemslikeadream » Sun Feb 16, 2014 11:20 am

I edited my last post to you before I read your last remark........and this is most important to keep in mind


contrary to his opinion this is NOT the most important subject here and it NEVER will be

there is SO much more to this place ..




don't give more of your time to chasing those windmills than is really necessary ..it's really not worth it...


or you will end up in AD's Grey Zone :P
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.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: A New Europe: Anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, Nation-State

Postby jakell » Sun Feb 16, 2014 11:47 am

seemslikeadream » Sun Feb 16, 2014 3:20 pm wrote:I edited my last post to you before I read your last remark........and this is most important to keep in mind


contrary to his opinion this is NOT the most important subject here and it NEVER will be

there is SO much more to this place ..




don't give more of your time to chasing those windmills than is really necessary ..it's really not worth it...


or you will end up in AD's Grey Zone :P


I know, the trouble is that it is important to me, which makes it hard to ignore, it's not abstract. and if you noticed I've been concentrating on my own personal angle and experiences as much as possible.

If this was about a different part of the world**, I could possibly try to take a back seat, but most of the stuff here has been about stuff right in my back yard, and which directly affects me, and has affected me for some time.

**about 90% of the pasted articles have been about the UK, and three have been about my home town.
" 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"
User avatar
jakell
 
Posts: 1821
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 4:58 pm
Location: North England
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: A New Europe: Anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, Nation-State

Postby American Dream » Sun Feb 16, 2014 12:16 pm

Searcher08 » Sun Feb 16, 2014 9:57 am wrote:
American Dream » Sun Feb 16, 2014 3:23 am wrote:
Searcher08 » Sat Feb 15, 2014 2:15 pm wrote:AD, since I posted my request you have posted pages and pages and pages of stuff - (ie business as usual) without much context, or connection (for me) to the thread.

So for me, I would have to spend a lot of time 'close reading'. Some of the information is (to me) extremely dense, jargon filled, making me wonder if you have even read it yourself!! And if you have not, why are you posting it in GD??!!

I feel defeated by this - it is like trying to talk to someone who is communicating by Alex Jones style bullhorn. So I'm out of this thread. Perhaps another time.

My takeaway from this thread is as follows:
If continual non-contextualised information is presented with little context, unclear relevance or no personal experience, then over time the value created tends to zero.

This is similar to planting a garden by random chance, as opposed to using a holistic approach eg Permaculture.

And with that, I'm outta this thread!


American Dream » Sun Feb 16, 2014 3:23 am wrote:I think you may be misunderstanding my posts on this thread. Sometimes they could be considered as polemical but on the whole they represent more my general interests, as informed by my perspective which is certainly left/anti-fascist. Many though are guideposts in my own process of self-development as much as anything else.


I need to be very clear about this - my criticism is much less about the CONTENT of what you post, it is the PROCESS in SOME threads - including this one. My reference to Alex Jones bullhorning was meant to refer to the problem of having an evolving two-way information flow
when one person is in mostly pure 'information transmission mode', rather than Jone's polemic.


American Dream » Sun Feb 16, 2014 3:23 am wrote:I've also thought about this a great deal and given the meandering, digression and fluff on other threads, I feel no shame about this whatsoever.


'An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind'

That comment sounded to me like resignation / despair; I think everyone here at R.I. (self-included) could raise their game on meandering, digression and fluff.

Some strategies to address this:
A thread outcome that is clear:
For example, what specifically is your outcome from this thread if there is one?
In my experience, the biggest problem here is a lack of clarity of what one wants to end up with.
Foe example
Saying 'A useful lively discussion about anti-Fascism in Europe' as an outcome is very poor because it begs the questions

Useful in what way?
Lovely, How?
In Europe when?
ALL of Europe?

in other words, it can mean very different things to different people. Ambiguity is often a monster in these circumstances.

Having an outcome that is specific and sensory based such as
A visual mindmap in JPEG form (and / or compatible with Freemind opensource mindmap software) of the key concepts, people, organisations and ideas involved in the Far Right within the EU, Israel and Turkey, from multiple perspectives

Relevance is focus-related
If I sincerely think something is relevant - and you dont, - in my consulting experience what happens is pretty consistent
a) The discussion becomes a zero-sum binary logic Relevance War - and the original outcome is totally forgotten
OR
b) What each party considers relevant is accepted in parallel, like reporting new islands on a map. A key distinction here is that accepting is not equal to agreeing with.

American Dream » Sun Feb 16, 2014 3:23 am wrote:I have little patience for crypto-racism, crypto-fascism, and all the tired tropes which they generate. I have no shame for this also. And I'm proud that Rigorous Intuition is an anti-fascist board, an anti-sexist board, and that posts "espousing hatred of a people based upon race, religion, gender or sexuality, are not permitted".


That's fine, but it is looking out through one set of eyes - it is pure information transmission.
When I tried to bring this to your attention through my previous posts, I felt your response was again looking out just through your eyes - does that make sense?
That is very different indeed from a conversation, dialogue or even debate. To be clear, Im not saying pure information transmission is without value - not at all. For example the TIDS thread - but part of the use of TIDS is that it does NOT have much discussion. However that is an exception that proves the rule - this is General Discussion, so surely doing that which facilitates discussion is worth considering?

While Rigorous Intuition welcomes a range of informed perspectives, it is not intended to be a forum for the re-fighting of elemental human values. It should be assumed that this is a place where the dignity and rights of all people are respected.

and that includes your thread audience members, even the ones you dont like! :sun:


As I have said previously, I am all for participating in collaborative research with folks who share fundamental principles and values. In fact, I think it would be great.

I gave jakell lots and lots of chances to own up to his values and agenda here but he was slippery as an eel. I do not believe him to be operating in good faith at all and I have also been persuaded by the "No Platform for Fascists" in the process of researching themes related to this thread.

So yeah, do we have grounds for much of a fruitful conversation here? I don't see it...
Last edited by American Dream on Sun Feb 16, 2014 12:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: A New Europe: Anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, Nation-State

Postby seemslikeadream » Sun Feb 16, 2014 12:18 pm

what about your agenda here AD?


you have one...right?

it is so very obvious

trying to stick people in your Grey Zone
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.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: A New Europe: Anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, Nation-State

Postby American Dream » Sun Feb 16, 2014 12:25 pm

Slad, if you are not able to keep yourself away from me, then we really do need a conversation with P.W. Should we do that here on this thread and/or by pm?
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to Data & Research Compilations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests