Tequila_Wolf wrote (edited )

The brilliance of American propaganda. Here's a list of Obama's accomplishments -

  • Gave Bush absolute immunity for everything.
  • Launched 20,000 air strikes his first term.
  • Repealed the Propaganda ban, making it legal to spread government propaganda via news outlets.
  • Signed the Monsanto Protection Act into law, thus doing the exact opposite of labeling GMO's as promised.
  • Pushed for the TPP Trade Pact.
  • Did a TV commercial promoting "clean coal"
  • Opened up deepwater oil drilling, even after the BP disaster. *Opened up dumping fracking wastewater directly into ocean.
  • Bragged about his use of drones - I'm "really good at killing people." *Assassinated 4 US civilians with drone strikes.
  • Deported a modern-record 3 million immigrants. More than all other presidents combined.
  • Used Espionage Act to prosecute more whistleblowers than all previous administrations combined.
  • Sold $30 billion of weapons to the dictatorship in Saudi Arabia.
  • Promised $38 billion dollars to Israel while committing humanitarian crimes against Palestine
  • Despite campaign pledges, planned a $1 trillion program to add smaller "usable" nuclear weapons to the US arsenal in the next 30 years.
  • Dropped bombs in 7 Muslim countries.
  • Didn't bring justice to Wall Street for the economic crash.
  • Backed neo-Nazis in Ukraine.
  • Despite campaign pledges, did not close Guantanamo.
  • Put troops on the ground in Syria, despite 16 times saying "no troops on the ground."
  • Started a new war on terror - this one on ISIS. *Admitted to directly funding ISIS, and other terrorist groups
  • Said, “I believe in American exceptionalism with every fiber of my being.”
  • Started a new war in Iraq.
  • Initiated, and personally oversees a 'Secret Kill List.'
  • Supported Israel's wars and occupation of Palestine.
  • Deployed Special Ops to 134 countries - compared to 60 under Bush.
  • Drastically escalated the NSA spying program.
  • Signed the NDAA into law - making it legal to assassinate and imprison Americans w/o charge or trial.
  • Signed an agreement for 7 military bases in Colombia.
  • Opened a military base in Chile.
  • Touted nuclear power, even after the disaster in Japan.
  • Mandated the Insider Threat Program which orders federal employees to report suspicious actions of their colleagues.
  • Defended body scans and pat-downs at airports.
  • Signed the Patriot Act extension into law.
  • Started covert drone war in Yemen.
  • Continued Bush's rendition program.
  • Said the U.S. is the "one indispensable nation" in the world.
  • Waged war on Libya without congressional approval.
  • Started a covert drone war in Yemen.
  • Escalated the proxy war in Somalia.
  • Escalated the CIA drone war in Pakistan.
  • Sharply escalated the war in Afghanistan
  • Enacted deceptive unaffordable health care (ACA), instead of providing affordable healthcare, that was designed by healthcare industries with their interest in mind. His greatest accomplishment is to force everyone to buy health insurance which they can barely afford the premium, much less the deductible, making ACA the most sweeping price of corporate welfare ever enacted
  • Allowed Citigroup to pick his cabinet
  • Ignored Standing Rock.
  • Flint, Michigan.
  • complete silence on election fraud committed by DNC
  • protected DWS
  • killed the public option rather than use it as a bargaining chip to get better health care.

Tequila_Wolf wrote

I've experienced too many individualists and especially egoists to have really simplistic ideas of the individual and/or self-interest, that make me associate those views with them.

So in my experience the collectivist side is authoritarian and the individualist side doesn't seem to have a good sense of what an individual is and has a corresponding selfishness that I don't like and think often has affinity with capitalist individualism.


Tequila_Wolf wrote

I don't really even consider mutualism.

Not sure if this elaboration is what you were looking for, but I don't really understand the individualism-collectivism dichotomy. I think both aren't good. I think it's far more interesting to think about understanding and reframing subjectivity and personhood in terms of multiplicities that bleed into all the various elements of the world beyond it, collective and nonhuman.


Tequila_Wolf wrote (edited )

Well, when I think of post-left anarchy I really do think a lot of CrimethInc. - and though I don't know if I can articulate it right now, there's a substantial difference in approach between CrimethInc and pure black.

I also think that pure black is more illegalist than the average individualist or post-lefty. Thinking here about Simons' Illegalist Praxis when I try to gauge what I think he means when he's talking illegalism.
And when I think of pure black (so I guess, in my version of pure black) it is not individualist or egoist at all, so there's that.

Also think the nihilism of pure black implies some anti-civ critique at least, but not necessarily individualism or post-leftism.

Finally, I associate pure black (probably also my version, haha) with a position where people are going hard, getting shit done, so it's more relentless and less half-assed than a lot of what I see in many post-lefties (and anarchists generally, I suppose.)

There's a lot to be said about it. One of the other things I've been chewing on lately is reconciling my thoughts on the desirability of attack and Bellamy's comments in An Invitation to Desertion around how that's not particularly good or useful. This quote is adequate:

To anticipate the anarchist critic: desertion does not necessarily imply that all forms of attentat are to be rejected outright; but it does mean a profound reevaluation of what some anarchists have vaguely taken to calling “attack,” which I feel has been greatly exaggerated in importance, often very misguidedly conducted, commonly easily recuperated by the parasitic social classes, and woefully overshadowing what ought to be the primary goals of desertion, autarky, and reinhabitation. It is only an empty bluff, or a suicidal and mass homicidal impulse, to prioritize attacking civilization when oneself and one’s kin totally depend on its infrastructure and social relations for their survival.
It may very well be necessary and appropriate to resist more confrontationally at certain junctures, but much of anarchist activity these days is a repetitive exercise in self-righteous victimhood, a perpetual motion machine animated by a ressentiment-fueled martyr complex: rioting, aggressively confronting police, destroying public and private property — all of which accomplish next to nothing when civic and economic activity returns to normalcy one or several days later, but which often result in arrests, fines, incarceration, and injury for the activists involved. One attempts to assault directly an enemy who is best equipped and enormously accustomed to absorb and/or crush direct assaults, knowing that they will likely only inflict superficial scratches on their enemy while risking the total destruction of their lives — only a virulently self-sacrificial morality that places catharsis over wisdom could motivate such behavior. One loses, but feels vindicated, justified, and redeemed in their loss, and the oppression they receive only proves their dedication to righteousness and the turpitude of their enemies — and so the cycle continues.

Your thoughts more than welcome. It's also interesting for me some of the disconnnects between my theory and my action because of how the context is limiting.


Tequila_Wolf wrote (edited )

I'd be interested to hear about your favourites in this kick.

Separately, in case it's ambiguous to people, I don't think red anarchists have good race / decol politics generally either; they were just irrelevant to what I said.

And last, if people don't know, I've put together a collection of good readings in w/decolonial. I'd also be happy to try to suggest specific stuff if people are looking.


Tequila_Wolf wrote (edited )

Grew up in tension in centre-right places, was centre-liberal for a long time.

Had an odd patch where I thought that aristocracy was best, in the sense of "ruled by the best people for the job" and not the common sense of rule by the privileged.

Then post-left anarchy. Then anti-civ anarchy together with (queer) nihilist anarchy. Had a couple amazing intersectional feminist queers that introduced me to the cutting edges of that and helped keep me from being a garbage anarchist. Took on a huge focus on decolonial stuff after realising how bad so many greens and nihilists are on race and decol questions. A little bit of pure black (minus the individualism), which I sometimes wonder with hubris whether it was in part a result of a conversation I had with Aragorn! some years ago. Oh and there's a lot of Deleuze underpinning everything now.

Presently and for the last few years I'm just trying to create a new anarchy emergent from the specific localised context in which I live. It's only after having been to the US and other places that I realise how deeply contextualised so much of their theory is. Reading it from a distance, it makes sense, but you don't see the finer details. There's nothing like that where I am; deeply situated theory.


Tequila_Wolf wrote

Hah, world bank stats.

There's one potential silver lining to this; the people who are living off of so little are doing so because they are living outside of capitalism. For example, they live on a piece of land rent-free, and they have some basic subsistence farming situation and a community that shares important things by necessity.

Insofar as this is true, one irony of the world bank trying to get people to have more money is that they are trying to get more people dependent on capitalism.


Tequila_Wolf wrote (edited )

I like this!

Some thoughts if you're interested:

Think it could use maybe a sentence explaining what a lifestylist is supposed to be. At the same time, I do think there's some value in sidestepping the whole issue since it's a dodgy dichotomy.

Also think that there could be a bit more clarity addressing why

Resources don't cease to be scarce when socialism is adopted; the reality is that resources are dwindling all over the planet after centuries of over-extraction

I think it's a obvious to greens but I think that socialists will disagree because socialism is their panacea. Like how sudo thinks that bourgeois democracy is bad but when it's a socialist election it will be fine.

Finally, maybe a sentence or two more on why

We see [these technologies] as inherently isolating and hierarchical.

There's a sense in which all of what follows addresses these points, and you do touch on it directly when you say

Advanced technologies can forever alter the way we live our lives, detach us from our ecosystems and train us to seek fleeting relief from technologies

I just tend to think that the point on being alienated from the land and what it produces for us is a central concern of greens that maybe could use more attention.

Anyway, feel free to use or not use anything I've said. I'm just trying to participate :)


Tequila_Wolf wrote

It's always interesting to see anarchists who don't look countercultural or unusual at all. People who seem completely normal for their time, wearing square clothing, just educated and compassionate people.

I suppose it's mostly the queerness of the anarchists that I know that make them stand out so much, but thinking about US anarchists, so many of them look subcultural. It does seem that in those days there was more homogeneity of clothing in general, but it's still odd for me.