Serious Question: How is John Moore problematic?

Submitted by bloodrose in AskRaddle

Over a year ago, I posted a quote from John Moore and was told they were problematic. Now, one of the books we bought from black cart was a series of essays from John Moore. I started to read it and was liking it. However, as one who reads very slowly (I fall asleep when I read books), I need to be insanely picky about what I read. So, I've forgotten who said they were problematic so I can't ask the specific person who said so. Anyone help me out here? What was off about John Moore, specifically?

8

You must log in or register to comment.

ziq wrote

He's been dead for a while so it doesn't really matter even if he was problematic. Which white male isn't really? Anarchists don't erase other dead white guys who said or did problematic shit like Stirner, Berkman, Proudhon and Bakunin, so this dead white guy shouldn't be any different.

5

[deleted] 0 wrote

1

ziq wrote (edited )

"Negroid and Mongoloid stages of history."

"The Caucasian man's the true shaper of history"

Still nothing compared to Proudhon who called for the extermination of Jews:

The Jew is the enemy of humankind. They must be sent back to Asia or be exterminated. By steel or by fire or by expulsion the Jew must disappear.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/proudhon/1847/jews.htm

3

[deleted] 0 wrote (edited )

4

ziq wrote

He was? Here?

The history of the world, whose shaping properly belongs altogether to the Caucasian race, seems till now to have run through two Caucasian ages, in the first of which we had to work out and work off our innate negroidity; this was followed in the second by Mongoloidity (Chineseness), which must likewise be terribly made an end of. Negroidity represents antiquity, the time of dependence on things (on cocks’ eating, birds’ flight, on sneezing, on thunder and lightning, on the rustling of sacred trees, and so forth); Mongoloidity the time of dependence on thoughts, the Christian time. Reserved for the future are the words, “I am owner of the world of things, and I am owner of the world of mind”

1

[deleted] 0 wrote (edited )

4

ziq wrote

I'm quoting it because I'm asking you for clarification. I'm not going to read stirner, I don't have the attention span for it.

2

[deleted] 0 wrote

3

ziq wrote

I've never been interested in analysing the words of dead philosophers beyond using their words as fuel against their idolizers. It's all boring to me.

3

[deleted] 0 wrote (edited )

2

ziq wrote (edited )

yeah it's regurgitated from reddit.

Every time stirner comes up in convos about white supremacy, ancoms paste that text to shut down the post-leftists, and the post-leftists never refute it so I figured it was real.

It's not just leftists - I always see big time stirner scholars saying he was a bigot, so I had no reason to doubt it:

https://old.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/comments/517shs/why_is_max_stirner_popular_with_some/d7bd51g/

it's hard to deny that Stirner himself was hugely racist and anti-semitic. At one point, he flat out says that no "full blooded jew" would make it that far in his book. Like, all this is unjustifiable with egoism, and egoism is certainly incompatible with racist and anti-semitic ideologies, but those were spooks that haunted Stirner

2

[deleted] 0 wrote

3

ziq wrote

Give me some fuel I can actually use to diminish smug stirner nerds.

3

[deleted] 0 wrote (edited )

4

ziq wrote

There are a lot of people who spend a lot of time reading stirner who have no idea that text is satire aimed at mocking Engels. I've been reading their comments around the internet and apparently even books that explain his writing claim he was being racist in that text. Seems most egoists don't actually understand Stirner and I don't blame them because it's so poorly translated.

I've tried reading his stuff more than 10 times and every time I tune out.

4

[deleted] 0 wrote

4

alex wrote

currently reading this book and it’s really good. to be honest though i never read Stirner and was just hoping this book could explain him to me

3

[deleted] 0 wrote

3

alex wrote (edited )

yeah i remember trying The Unique and Its Property and finding it a difficult read. i'd like to go back to it so i'm glad i'm not going about this the wrong way :)

do you recommend the Wolfi translation or a different one?

3

[deleted] 0 wrote

2

ziq wrote

Is it this?

If I had before me Jews, Jews of the true metal, I should have to stop here and leave them standing before this mystery as for almost two thousand years they have remained standing before it, unbelieving and without knowledge. But, as you, my dear reader, are at least not a full-blooded Jew — for such a one will not go astray as far as this — we will still go along a bit of road together, till perhaps you too turn your back on me because I laugh in your face.

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-the-ego-and-his-own

2

Tequila_Wolf wrote

I suspect that things could be found.

In relation to this, wrt acting and not (merely) theorising, did Stirner do much?

1

[deleted] 0 wrote (edited )

5

Tequila_Wolf wrote

The only reason I've known about it is because a lot of the engagement I did with anarchism in my early days was through egoists. It's hard to expect people who aren't familiar with the work or the very particular approach to writing to get it right, I think.

I haven't done the reading myself; I'm curious to know what I'd think about it. If you know of any decent article dealing with it it'd be a good post!

3

Pop wrote (edited )

Can you link to the quote? I only have the vaguest memory of this

3

bloodrose OP wrote

Unfortunately, I don't recall it and it was an image post hosted on coinsh.red. However, the response was not in regards to the quote. In fact, it was more along the lines of "nice quote, but this dude is problematic."

4