Reply to comment by /u/yaaqov in Yep by /u/Tequila_Wolf


selver wrote (edited )

He's just a dudebro who does psychedelics. He's been like the biggest platform (gets like 10 - 20 million views on his podcasts) for every single alt-right shithead; Jordan Peterson, Gavin McInnes, Sam Harris, Milo, Alex Jones, etc. He has all the pop establishment intellectualls on. Frames it as being open-minded, learning from new people, etc. Yet he always has on center-right to alt-right people, always ends up on their side while buying into all the anti-sjw hysteria, etc. Very pro-capitalist bootstrap libertarian in general.

At the end of the day he's just a comedian & MMA commentator who always ends up supporting the status quo, but gets praised as some sort of amazing intelligent life coach, without any of the irrational biases of the sjws. Cloaks it in a bit of shallow inclusive liberalism.

He's really nothing special, but he's the idol of every white dude who thinks a comedy podcast is a replacement for books.

Reply to Yep by /u/Tequila_Wolf


selver wrote (edited )

It's wild how many people out there think Rogan is some free thinking intellectual. It's always rough hearing it from people I otherwise really respect.

Like, you can't possibly read nonfiction books if you think that.


selver wrote (edited )

Personally, I feel that any white dude who can't handle some "kill all whites" comments probably need to do some more thinking about race & their privilege. I think those people should be alienated and not pandered to.

It really irks me when people who have likely never been oppressed based on their race or gender in their lives throw a fit when people write mean things about them on an internet forum. No need for kid gloves with people who have zero threat of actually being oppressed based on their race & gender in a real way. White fragility is lame as fuck.

As a white dude it blows my mind that other white people can actually be bothered by this stuff. But hey, maybe that's my insensitive toxic masculinity talking.

Edit: And 9 times out of 10, when people complain about alienating language, when you push them on it you find out it's really cause they just don't believe racism or sexism exists.


selver wrote (edited )

It's my favorite anarchist utopian vision, there's a lot that I love about it.

But the one critique of it I've heard, and might have to agree with, is the whole borders, nations, & localism thing. The maintenance of borders between different cultures is a bit sketch, even if it does allow for some sharing. I think anarchists should be putting more emphasis on the wide dissemination of technologies, culture, etc. than is done in that book. It really emphasizes tribalism.


selver wrote (edited )

I've been less active lately. Been a bit disillusioned with the org I was working with. Trying to figure out what else I can get into politically, something more in-line with my politics hopefully.


selver wrote (edited )

I'd just skip to the secondary literature & people they inspired.

If you're set on reading one of them, I'd go with Nietzsche. Beyond Good & Evil or The Genealogy of Morals. Nietzsche's way less compatible with anarchism, but Stirner puts me to sleep.


selver wrote

From Emma Goldman's short essay There is No Communism in Russia:

The first requirement of Communism is the socialization of the land and of the machinery of production and distribution. Socialized land and machinery belong to the people, to be settled upon and used by individuals or groups according to their needs. In Russia land and machinery are not socialized but nationalized. The term is a misnomer, of course. In fact, it is entirely devoid of content. In reality there is no such thing as national wealth. A nation is too abstract a term to “own” anything. Ownership may be by an individual, or by a group of individuals; in any case by some quantitatively defined reality. When a certain thing does not belong to an individual or group, it is either nationalized or socialized. If it is nationalized, it belongs to the state; that is, the government has control of it and may dispose of it according to its wishes and views. But when a thing is socialized, every individual has free access to it and use it without interference from anyone.

In Russia there is no socialization either of land or of production and distribution. Everything is nationalized; it belongs to the government, exactly as does the post-office in America or the railroad in Germany and other European countries. There is nothing of Communism about it.

No more Communistic than the land and means of production is any other phase of the Soviet economic structure. All sources of existence are owned by the central government; foreign trade is its absolute monopoly; the printing presses belong to the state, and every book and paper issued is a government publication. In short, the entire country and everything in it is the property of the state, as in ancient days it used to be the property of the crown. The few things not yet nationalized, as some old ramshackle houses in Moscow, for instance, or some dingy little stores with a pitiful stock of cosmetics, exist on sufferance only, with the government having the undisputed right to confiscate them at any moment by simple decree.

Such a condition of affairs may be called state capitalism, but it would be fantastic to consider it in any sense Communistic.

In short, capitalism is when the means of production are in the hands of a few capitalists. Workers must work for them to survive, and so are exploited & have no decision making powers. "State capitalism" is used to point out that in Russia the workers still have no control over the means of production, they can't freely use what they need to live, and instead it is in the hands of the state (which ultimately means owned by a few bureaucrats).