Public schools (and their private counterparts) are not really in existence to teach you science, history, geography, language skills, or math. They are there to teach you to obey authority and jump at the sound of a bell.
It has been estimated that you can be taught all the skills you need in order to take care of your own education in about 100 hours. The rest of the time, usually 12 years of formal schooling, is used for teaching you something that is much more difficult. It teaches you to betray yourself. This lesson didn't set well for some of us.
In high school, when a teacher used a small pickled flounder as an example in a test and called it a skate (as an example of chondrichthyes) I refused to go along. The teacher got very angry at my insistence, but I felt it was important to not give the kids false information. He never admitted he was deceiving the class, but he knew I knew.
I'm sure my life would be easier had I absorbed my lessons in obedience, but I would not trade my independence for ease. Well.... maybe sometimes.
----------------------------------
Libertarians are racists. Solid proof at the link. You guys are racist in praxis if not in intent. You wish to get rid of all civil rights and anti-discrimination laws, and that is racist to the core. There is no denying it any longer, Ken. Libertarianism is racist! Just fess up and get it over with, dude.
ReplyDeleteIf you don't want to be called racist, get on board with civil rights and anti-discrimination laws, or feel the heat forever.
I've read your blog. You don't feel that "other races" can compete with "your race" so you feel the need to add to the "law pollution" that enslaves us all. That is the ultimate evidence of racism.
ReplyDeleteThe "laws" you speak of only serve to cause more racial strife and disharmony. That empowers racists and authoritarians. Bigots like you are free to associate (or not) with anyone they choose. Just like everyone else. That means if some racist monster refuses to do business with "white people", "black people", gays, or anything else that is beyond control, I should be free to refuse to do business with that person without the "law" forcing me to associate with him or her. That is the only JUST way to deal with the situation.
Your denial is sad and self-serving.
Okay Robert, let's try to follow your "reasoning" here.
ReplyDelete(1) Anarchists do not support civil rights (huh??? what Anarchist does not support civil rights?) and anti-discrimination laws.
(2) People who oppose civil rights and anti-discrimination laws are racists.
(3) Therefore Anarchists are racists.
The problem here is that (2) is false, because you equate "not wanting the State to 'solve' racism" with "not wanting racism to be 'solved'." We find your ideology ridiculous because we don't believe the State can 'solve' racism: in fact, the State (esp. slavery, nationalism, war propaganda and anti-immigration rhetoric) is the prime culprit in the propagation and survival of racism. So your argument is, to be clear, bullshit.
Racism can only be solved by smashing its hierarchical premises. You are just a fucking poser who thinks that you can solve problems by begging the ruling class like dogs to create rules for their own interests. But the ruling class has no interest in eliminating racism. You are a fool if you think otherwise.
You are also probably a racist, since all so-called "anti-discrimination laws" are racist in nature.
Kent, you can I can be well glad you didn't make that diabolical trade. Would that more people found their way to the same truth, but it seems that humans are quite easily enslaved.
ReplyDeleteTo Robert: Most civil rights in this context aren't right at all, but privileges granted by the state and backed up by deadly force. Put the gun away, and maybe we'll talk.
I've read your blog. You don't feel that "other races" can compete with "your race" so you feel the need to add to the "law pollution" that enslaves us all.
ReplyDeleteI'm not talking about affirmative action. That's not necessarily racism. And it's not what I'm talking about when I refer to civil rights laws and anti-discrimination laws.
The "laws" you speak of only serve to cause more racial strife and disharmony.
Whew! McManigal borrows an argument from the White Supremacists! Yikes. Wanna retract that one, Kenny?
How bout the truth, Ken? Civil rights and anti-discrimination laws have tremendously bettered life for non-Whites, in particular Blacks, in the US. And we can prove it.
(1) Anarchists do not support civil rights (huh??? what Anarchist does not support civil rights?) and anti-discrimination laws.
You didn't read it correctly. They don't support civil rights laws and anti-discrimination laws. Support for civil rights is utterly worthless without a state to back it up with force, including GUNS.
(2) People who oppose civil rights and anti-discrimination laws are racists.
They are engaging in racist behavior, and that's racist right there. It doesn't matter what's in their heads, even if most anarchists are anti-racists intellectually.
We find your ideology ridiculous because we don't believe the State can 'solve' racism:
In fact, it's been proven endlessly that the lack of such laws (no state) has led to horrible racism, and once the laws are in place, racism declines dramatically with the force of law, in particular, wallet-destroying civil suits.
The US state at this juncture is only racist because it is run by racist rightwing Whites. I am certain that if Mr. Obama gets in that will no longer be the case. Anyway, we still have the power of civil suits, backed up by state law, to financially ruin racist employers. And most real estate agents have gotten the message too. Those state fines are devastating. No, the state is not that racist these days, only that it does not enforce its own laws very well. Most governments, including the Federal government, are models of anti-discrimination in their treatment of employees.
Racism can only be solved by smashing its hierarchical premises.
See? Your dreamers. At least we Commies have run whole vast states for decades on end. We smashed racist fascism in Europe in WW2 and flat out slaughtered probably millions of racist fascists. But in capitalist society, racism will be ongoing when I die. This getting rid of it through cultural revolution from the outside is preposterous.
But the ruling class has no interest in eliminating racism.
The truth is that they are actually doing it. Even corporations are on board now that we have created a Gramscian cultural hegemony with these great state laws.
You are also probably a racist, since all so-called "anti-discrimination laws" are racist in nature.
Whoa! Dude! Borrowing White Supremacist arguments again! What is this, the anarchist section of Stormfront? Stop! You're grossing me out!
Put the gun away, and maybe we'll talk.
Forget it. I'm a revolutionary too you know. There's no justice without a river of blood.
I always thought that leftists were more violent than the people they hate. Now I have it in writing from one of them. Nice.
ReplyDeleteAm I the only one who has noticed that the government's "laws" often have an effect that is diametrically opposed to their name? For example: the unpatriotic "PATRIOT act"; gun "laws" that only affect honest gun owners"; and "anti-discrimination laws" that institutionalize racism.
Trying to group me with white supremacists is pathetic. I have known some white supremacist types and none of them were even remotely "libertarian". In fact, of all the racists I have known, not one has been libertarian. Like Robert, they were all authoritarians of some sort. Likewise, not one libertarian or anarchist I have ever known has even considered race to be a factor in determining rights or value.
As is obvious here, only racists consider race to be of any importance, and it is only important if they can use it to destroy civility and impose authoritarian control. Oh, and to justify holocausts.
"You didn't read it correctly. They don't support civil rights laws"
ReplyDeleteYou didn't say "civil rights law" in your message. Nevertheless, the arguments are the same.
"Support for civil rights is utterly worthless without a state to back it up with force, including GUNS."
Yes, yes, freedom comes from slavery, we all know the 1984 schpiel.
"They are engaging in racist behavior, and that's racist right there. It doesn't matter what's in their heads, even if most anarchists are anti-racists intellectually."
Yes, obviously preaching non-violent solutions to discrimination is "racist." By your definition, MLK (who was a non-violent revolutionary) was a racist.
"In fact, it's been proven endlessly that the lack of such laws (no state) has led to horrible racism, and once the laws are in place, racism declines dramatically with the force of law, in particular, wallet-destroying civil suits."
Yes, yes, slavery is freedom, we get it. Of course, you fail to mention that all this racism took place under various States, which deliberately encouraged racism and continue to encourage racism, and then pass laws and claim that they are responsible for ending slavery/discrimination/what have you, when they created the problem in the first place.
"The US state at this juncture is only racist because it is run by racist rightwing Whites. I am certain that if Mr. Obama gets in that will no longer be the case."
That is not only the single most naive statement ever uttered, but also a very racist statement.
"No, the state is not that racist these days"
Wow. Someone has been living under a rock and not following the "immigration debate."
"See? Your dreamers. At least we Commies"
Uh, you say "we communists" and accuse ME of being a dreamer? Whatever happened to the whole "communist is a utopia, the Soviets were not communists" schpiel?
"The truth is that they are actually doing it. Even corporations are on board now that we have created a Gramscian cultural hegemony with these great state laws."
And here I thought the State was going to be our saviour against racism. Are you actually admitting that your saviours are the ones creating the problem? Or do you seriously believe that we just need to put "the right people" in place in order to achieve utopia?
"Whoa! Dude! Borrowing White Supremacist arguments again! What is this, the anarchist section of Stormfront? Stop! You're grossing me out!"
Borrowing your argumentation rhetoric from Internet trolls, I see. Associating someone with nazis is the cheapest, and most reviled, way of smearing someone.
Do you have anything to say before *I* start smearing you of being a fucking Marxist anti-freedom statist racist scumbag who accuses others of being nazis so he can run back to his pretend-leftie clique and whine about Anarchists?
"I always thought that leftists were more violent than the people they hate. Now I have it in writing from one of them. Nice."
ReplyDeleteDon't do him the honour of calling him a leftie. He is a Marxist, a wannabe-leftist, a wannabe-Anarchist, nothing more. Marxists are fucking pathetic.
Kent,
ReplyDeleteThis Lindsay character has baited you like this before, no ? You'd be better off to just censor him. But, seeing how you have engaged, here goes . . . Hardly seems fair I pile on with FT in your corner. He heaps on the expletives far better than anything I ever dare.
I would note that both the concept of a civil right or anti-discrimination require no reference to race. This reverence for the 'law' (which comes on high from a curious priesthood who only believe their own tripe because others either refuse to engage it or are inherently afraid)is the differing gestalt here I think. Certainly the common American cultural and political sentiment has transformed the discussions of these 'laws' as such.
If this dude were on some real Hegelian dialectical trajectory, it might be fun to untwist and reveal it rather than have a hissy fit about Marxists (sorry FT). But in fact he's just engaging in a common fight tactic which might have been stylish before blogs in Greenwhich Village in 1909.
For anyone to really look at and consider the ideal of the state vs. the individual without conceding that the individualist is pre-programmed to consider groupings untenable or desirable, is truly amazing. He further deludes himself attempting some partisan chicanery as if people like you 'happy anarchists' are somehow connected to advocacy that exists in the electoral or pluralist arenas.
I don't think either of you guys are White Supremacists, but then why the Hell are you using their rhetoric?
ReplyDeleteSure I'm violent. I think every active agent of imperialism on Earth ought to be killed. Not that I'm going to do it myself. But I'll cheer when anyone else does. We Commies set off car bombs, land mines, fire rockets, execute people, set off bombs, engage in ambushes, overrun police stations, jails and city halls and burn them to the ground after freeing all the prisoners, on and on. And it works too.
As far as our record, Stalin set a world record for doubling life expectancy in the shortest period of time. Then Mao broke his record. Collectively they probably saved over 200 million lives. Stalin and Mao are the greatest humanitarians that ever lived. How do you figure that that doesn't work? Cuba has the lowest infant mortality and malnutrition rate in Latin America. They've wiped out unemployment and poverty and everyone has a roof, elec, plumbing and clean water. What's so bad about this picture? It's working great. What have you anarchists ever done? We've done a better job of smashing states than you have.
Meh... Marxism is bullshit any way you cut it.
ReplyDeleteCommies don't "smash states", they merely substitute a new state for the old one. A state based upon theft and coercion, just like the old one, only stealing from and coercing a different group. That would be wrong even if it made everyone vomit rainbows and ponies.
ReplyDeleteI have no familiarity with white supremacists, so I can't say anything about their rhetoric. What I do know is that, as they say, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Maybe even in their supreme evil, they accidentally recognize a truth here and there. It happens with all evil groups, commies included.
The difference between the anarchist/liberatrian radicals and you commie radicals is that you are "radicals for evil". You want to implement a society where no one is allowed to excell unless you are one of the ruling elite. A society where theft is used to levelize wealth and incentive.
We want to implement a society where everyone is free to excell or fail based upon their own talents, hard work, and luck. That doesn't mean we would let children starve in the gutter as the socialists claim. When people are free they are very helpful to the less fortunate.
I do wish Robert had begun his diatribe on a more suitable blog post. Oh well.
ReplyDeleteRobert is just engaging in mental masturbation because it makes him feel "good". If he was really against racism, he would be against the mechanisms that perpetuate it. He is not.
ReplyDeleteAnd I am not a libertarian,nor a racist, nor an anarchist. I have a libertarian bent and wish anarchy would work. I have no personal use for the state, but I do not trust human nature either. Let's face it, we have been, as a species, remarkably resistant to improvement.
It's funny. I am banned from commenting on Robert's blog because I pointed out that he is a racist. That is his main rule on his blog: you can't call a spade a spade where he is concerned.
ReplyDeleteI have never banned anyone from my blog. Not even the poster who once told me to "%#@$ing die!" Robert's "solid proof" is nothing but stuff he posted on his own blog to try to prove his main point that libertarians are racists. He is delusional. How is reminding each person that no one owns them but themselves, racist?
Whatever.