LWDT 7: The Earth and Heavens Tremble.

[Torrocca]

There's quite a few Anarchist societies nowadays that get along just fine without that.

Like who? Those that exist within the safeguards of an existing state?

I'm pretty sure those same states don't fancy having such societies within their borders, to be quite frank.

Sure, it definitely runs contrary to human nature, if you ignore all the hundreds of thousands of years of countless different human societies that were more or less wholly egalitarian, communal, and non-hierarchical, some of which have come all the way into the modern-day (for example the Bedouins) and others which were created in the modern-day (for example the Zapatistas) in spite of the rise of all sorts of inegalitarian, hierarchical societies.

I'm referring less to communes and more towards the fact that some form of government is needed. The Zapatistas have a de facto government.

Having a government = having a state. Anarchist societies are self-governing.

[Jack Thomas Lang]

Sure, it definitely runs contrary to human nature, if you ignore all the hundreds of thousands of years of countless different human societies that were more or less wholly egalitarian, communal, and non-hierarchical, some of which have come all the way into the modern-day (for example the Bedouins) and others which were created in the modern-day (for example the Zapatistas) in spite of the rise of all sorts of inegalitarian, hierarchical societies.

Bedouins are hardly egalitarian or non-hierarchical, or at least traditionally. They're Muslims so women must follow certain rules and expectations, in some cases they can't work or leave their homes. And Bedouins have a tribal system ruled by Sheikhs. So while they're not as hierarchical as a typical government, they're hardly a good example of anarchism.

[Torrocca]

Sure, it definitely runs contrary to human nature, if you ignore all the hundreds of thousands of years of countless different human societies that were more or less wholly egalitarian, communal, and non-hierarchical, some of which have come all the way into the modern-day (for example the Bedouins) and others which were created in the modern-day (for example the Zapatistas) in spite of the rise of all sorts of inegalitarian, hierarchical societies.

Bedouins are hardly egalitarian or non-hierarchical, or at least traditionally. They're Muslims so women must follow certain rules and expectations, in some cases they can't work or leave their homes. And Bedouins have a tribal system ruled by Sheikhs. So while they're not as hierarchical as a typical government, they're hardly a good example of anarchism.

I mean, Bedouins have been around since Antiquity, and a good deal of them nowadays are Christian. Obviously nowadays the ones who follow strict religious structures (like, say, any group following strict religious structures) aren't going to be a good representation of egalitarianism and whatnot.

[Greater Loegria]

Like who? Those that exist within the safeguards of an existing state?

I'm pretty sure those same states don't fancy having such societies within their borders, to be quite frank.

I'm referring less to communes and more towards the fact that some form of government is needed. The Zapatistas have a de facto government.

Having a government = having a state. Anarchist societies are self-governing.

What such societies then. Is there a clearly marked territory on this Earth, self ‘governing’ that is anarchistic in nature and not liable to be overrun tomorrow.

[Torrocca]

I'm pretty sure those same states don't fancy having such societies within their borders, to be quite frank.



Having a government = having a state. Anarchist societies are self-governing.

What such societies then. Is there a clearly marked territory on this Earth, self ‘governing’ that is anarchistic in nature and not liable to be overrun tomorrow.

The Zapatistas and Rojava are prime examples meeting all of those criteria.

[Jack Thomas Lang]

I mean, Bedouins have been around since Antiquity, and a good deal of them nowadays are Christian. Obviously nowadays the ones who follow strict religious structures (like, say, any group following strict religious structures) aren't going to be a good representation of egalitarianism and whatnot.

You're still reaching by trying to classify tribes of desert-wandering nomads as "anarchism". They have hierarchy and traditional gender roles. It's like someone suggesting Australian aboriginals were anarchists, even though that completely ignores most Indigenous culture as being very hierarchical.

[Greater Loegria]

What such societies then. Is there a clearly marked territory on this Earth, self ‘governing’ that is anarchistic in nature and not liable to be overrun tomorrow.

The Zapatistas and Rojava are prime examples meeting all of those criteria.

Yet Rojava maintains defence forces since they could... literally be destroyed tomorrow by their neighbours.

[Washington Resistance Army]

What such societies then. Is there a clearly marked territory on this Earth, self ‘governing’ that is anarchistic in nature and not liable to be overrun tomorrow.

The Zapatistas and Rojava are prime examples meeting all of those criteria.

Rojava absolutely is liable to get overrun at anytime if Russia and co. decide it needs to go. The Zapatistas are probably going to be more long lived because the government would need to deal with the Cartels first before they can roll in and crush them and that's not gonna happen for a long time still.

[Torrocca]

The Zapatistas and Rojava are prime examples meeting all of those criteria.

Yet Rojava maintains defence forces since they could... literally be destroyed tomorrow by their neighbours.

Not literally, especially when accounting for the years of combat experience they've racked up against ISIS and Co.

[United Muscovite Nations]

LWDT says... ant rights?

Amen.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

LWDT says... ant rights?

Hail our colony queen, may they nibble on the most wholesome of crumbs and inhabit the most cozy of soils.

[Nova Cyberia]

Yet Rojava maintains defence forces since they could... literally be destroyed tomorrow by their neighbours.

Not literally, especially when accounting for the years of combat experience they've racked up against ISIS and Co.

Oh yeah, sure. Rojava's definitely going to be able to withstand Assad, Russia and Iran.

[Jack Thomas Lang]

Oh yeah, sure. Rojava's definitely going to be able to withstand Assad, Russia and Iran.

You're forgetting the Turks. If it weren't for the US, Rojava would cease to exist unless it was capable of negotiating with Assad and his backers.

[Pasong Tirad]

You're forgetting the Turks. If it weren't for the US, Rojava would cease to exist unless it was capable of negotiating with Assad and his backers.

Weirdly enough, negotiations aren't going that bad. Russia has been a big proponent of possibly federalizing Syria, and the Assad regime has been open to possibly "giving the Kurds more autonomy," whatever the hell that means. To support this, Rojava's actually changed its name several times to help. It went from being Rojava to the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria in order to fully embrace its multicultural governance, to now being called the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria.

The problem is Turkey and the Turkish-backed (and usually Islamist) Syrian Opposition, whose goals are literally wiping out the SDF. An all-out invasion is actually expected over the next few days or weeks, seeing as US-Turkish talks have just ended with no agreement reached concerning Northern Syria.

EDIT: To add, apparently things are looking really not as bad as people are thinking. The US is apparently, according to NES sources, putting a lot of pressure on Turkey to not invade anything east of the Euphrates. Hopefully an agreement can be reached so that Rojava doesn't live under the existential threat of total annihilation under Erdogan's boot.

[Kubra]

The Zapatistas and Rojava are prime examples meeting all of those criteria.

Rojava absolutely is liable to get overrun at anytime if Russia and co. decide it needs to go. The Zapatistas are probably going to be more long lived because the government would need to deal with the Cartels first before they can roll in and crush them and that's not gonna happen for a long time still.

Nah, so long as Turkey is still with the FSA thing moving on the kurds is ill-advised. Easier to let the kurds hold the line while they try to move on Idlib. Never have more fronts than you can handle, y'know?
I mean, Russia probably doesn't want to commit itself to slogging it out with a semi US-backed force when it's already busy in Idlib with much less well-connected and politically sensitive folks, and Iran probably doesn't want to inflame tensions with kurds, as they go to great pains to keep their relationships with the kurds in the whole region at least moderately cordial, since it ain't worth alienating a demographic that you might need to pay off in turkey, iraq, or even at home.

[First American Empire]

What such societies then. Is there a clearly marked territory on this Earth, self ‘governing’ that is anarchistic in nature and not liable to be overrun tomorrow.

The Zapatistas and Rojava are prime examples meeting all of those criteria.

Both are being protected by states, even if they aren't ruled by them. The Zapatistas are protected from foreign invasion by Mexico, which so far has been content to let them stay anarchist, but would still mobilize troops against any invasion of its de jure territory. Rojava is allied with the United States, and when it went up against Turkey (a different US ally), the US remained neutral and Rojava lost terribly.

A state is always necessary for protection from invasion by other states; it just technically doesn't have to rule all the territory it protects. The only way anarchism can succeed is through military alliances with non-anarchists. (For the record, I think allying with anarchists like Rojava is a good thing.)

[New yugoslavaia]

I'm not sure if SJWs and mainstream leftists genuinely believe in the ideology and are really trying to help but are just really incompetent, or if it's an elaborate plot by the bourgeoisie to make the left look so unappealing that no one in their right mind would follow it and anti establishment individuals would instead become more right wing so they would still be sympathetic towards capitalism and they would blame the worlds problems on the wrong things (immigration, "socialism" Etc.).

Just throwing this out there.

[Ostroeuropa]

I'm not sure if SJWs and mainstream leftists genuinely believe in the ideology and are really trying to help but are just really incompetent, or if it's an elaborate plot by the bourgeoisie to make the left look so unappealing that no one in their right mind would follow it and anti establishment individuals would instead become more right wing so they would still be sympathetic towards capitalism and they would blame the worlds problems on the wrong things (immigration, "socialism" Etc.).

Just throwing this out there.

First comes their dislike and contempt for their enemies, then comes the rationalizations for why being cruel and authoritarian at them is okay. You can tell this because you can bait them into traps that reveal it by putting them in a situation akin to the one where they applied the duluth model.

Tell them something like; "Why do white men commit more domestic violence than other races?"

And then they'll rattle off their usual garbage about how it's because of white supremacy and patriarchy and the solutions are to police white peoples interactions more heavily and champion feminism and criticism of masculinity and so on and blah blah, and you wait patiently then explain that actually white males are the demographic least like to engage in domestic violence.

Then one of two things will happen.

Scenario One:
They'll either throw a massive temper tantrum and call you an evil person for believing in facts, start demonizing you, start lying about reality and claiming whites commit more domestic violence than other races and spamming society with that lie from their positions of authority, and parroting eachother telling lies about reality (I.E, lying about the group they hate and villifying them, in itself an act of aggression, probably rationalized away in some cases as okay because white supremacy/patriarchy and they're just fighting the good fight), and that'll continue until you get people to realize they are pathological liars who merely hate whites and males. Once the majority start turning against them and understand them to be lying and that white males actually commit the least domestic violence, they'll turn on a dime and start claiming they never told those lies and it was patriarchy and white supremacy that did it, gaslighting the public and sadly some people fall for it. This is exactly how they have behaved on practically every mens issue, i've watched it happen.

Then they'll do something like claim through tortured logic that the reason white males are least likely to commit domestic violence is patriarchy and white supremacy, and the solutions are to police white peoples interactions more heavily and champion feminism and criticism of masculinity and so on and blah blah.

Scenario Two:
They'll skip the "Let's just lie" stage and go right to just reversing their original statement, all the while ignoring that no matter what reality you confront them with, their diagnosis is always patriarchy and white supremacy, and their solution is always to attack and vilify whites and men.

If I told you that the economy will grow because Trump raised taxes and is investing in infrastructure, and then you point out that's bullshit because he cut taxes and cut investment, and I tell you "And that's why the economy is going to grow, because Trump cut taxes and cut investment.", you'd be right in thinking I don't actually care about anything other than supporting Trump.

For the idpol left, you can see similar behavior, and it's all organized around hating whites and males. They'll deny it and gaslight you over it, but it's evident once you pay attention to them. This is how you know they don't have a serious worldview. What they have is a series of obfuscations, word games, excuses, dogwhistles and so on that facilitate their hatred of whites and males and allow them to gaslight and DARVO people who call them out for it.

so you're right.

Not even they believe the garbage they spew. They merely like it and it makes them feel good because it's about being cruel to people they dislike, and if it feels good then it must be true, but only so long as that is the case. They don't have an ideology, not really, they have a rhetorical framing device they pretend is one, that rhetorical framing device being one that is designed to vilify whites and males. Neo-Nazis behave similarly and use their conspiracy theory as a rhetorical framing device to ultimately place all blame for all situations with Jews, and they likewise fall for similar traps where you can prevent them with one set of "facts", they'll blame Jews, then tell them the truth which turns out to be the opposite, and they'll either throw a tantrum or just blame Jews again.

It's why any set of facts, any dynamic, any issue, produces the same response from them. Even two sets of mutually contradictory facts.

It's why there's no consistency in their demands or values. The only consistency is their enemy, hence the observation;
"These people do not have principles, they have enemies"

Or as they put it;
"No bad tactics, only bad targets".

This is why you see them defend people like that huffpo journalist who posted anti-white racism, but demand people who post less racist things be fired (If they are whites or men.).

The effect of their activity is to facilitate and excuse hatred of white people and men, and to be cruel and harm them. If something supports that goal, they support it. If it doesn't, they oppose it. Similar to how Neo-nazis have no particular economic policy, it's just whatever happens to further their racism at the time.

By spamming their own spaces and society with their vitriol they also convince more people to feel animosity towards whites and males and grow their movement.

Much like queer folk who join the Nazis are playing a stupid game because they'll be next, Transfolk and so on are also playing a stupid game. Because as we see, when it becomes convenient, anything vaguely male is attacked next. (Such as in the UK with the resurgence of Terfs). Or with how anti-semitism rears its head because Jews are basically White, and so on. They are allies of convenience to be discarded once power is obtained. (see examples like the NUS deciding gay men don't need representatives anymore and aren't oppressed, because men.).

Their favorite rhetorical devices are privilege+power (because it pre-emptively rejects criticism of their behavior by ruling out any recognition of the damage they are doing), and things like patriarchy theory which allow them to do similar as well as blame the victims of their campaign for the damage their campaign has done.

They deny any of this is true, but you can provide a laundry list of the negative impact on whites and males their movement has had to demonstrate it, which is why they have begun to rely on privilege+power on so on to deny those things count as injustice. (Itself not a serious argument or principle, but a rhetorical framing device.).

Akin to;
"Look at all the bruises women and minorities have, while you have no bruises.", and so you point out "Here is a bruise" and they say "That doesn't count as a bruise, because we have more bruises, and being bruised is by definition something that happens to us, not you.". Then they punch you, and you say "You just gave me a bruise" and the cycle repeats. Sometimes they'll gaslight you by telling you you gave yourself the bruise so it doesn't count, even if you watched them do it in real time.

You don't need to argue with these people, they are not sincere and cannot be reasoned with, because their behavior is not based in reason, but in hatred and rationalizations for that hatred. All you need to do is point out to others how they work and what they are, then work to make sure they are marginalized from society and have no influence in it.

Luckily more and more people recognize it. The problem is they have overtaken our institutions and recognize eachothers dogwhistles, and so can detect who is and who is not a member of their hate movement and keep them out of those institutions.

Unlike prior hate movements squatting in institutions and using them primarily as vehicles to harm a demographic, because they gaslight, dogwhistle, and obfuscate, you cannot engage with them normally or with debate. Previous generations of racists were like "Yes, we are racist", and so could be forced to confront the fact that racism is stupid. This is because their rationalizations were more out in the open, racism was a conclusion rather than a fundamental premise. "I am racist because black people have lower IQs" and then you show that actually that's a silly reason to be racist and their legitimacy declines. With these lot that won't work, because hostility and animosity to whites and males is their starting point.

This all does in fact benefit the right wing and capitalists and so on, as well as neo-nazis and all that in popularity terms, but doesn't actually fix the problem because of the gatekeeping mentioned. It will only be fixed if a government is like;

"We recognize what you are and what you are doing and are going to pass laws against it." and then purges the institutions by firing lots of them and opening up spaces for people not in this hate movement.

Or with overwhelming massive violence against them.

The capitalists will not fix it, because leaving it fester makes people vote right wing and then they can cut taxes.
The neo-nazis want to kill them all, and that would indeed fix the issue, but then you've replaced them with precisely the same kind of asshole, just with a different target.
There is no mainstream movement that wants to actually fix the issue properly. A law saying that "Privilege+Power" arguments are considered an aggravating factor and another count of racist/sexist conduct and absolutely not a defence of the original racist/sexist conduct those arguments are being used to excuse, would go a long way to doing that.

"No, but it's fine to be racist against jews though, and because it's fine to be racist against jews, it's not actually racism" is not a real ideology or belief system in the sense we usually understand it. And the privilege+power types are arguing fundamentally the same thing, just for whites/males.

It's not a free speech issue if the speech you're deciding is unacceptable is in itself racist speech. It's fine to pass a law saying "Actually if you say that, that's racist/sexist harassment/discrimination, and your employer can be sued for it" and other stuff like that.

Capitalists didn't do this to the left. Feminists did.

[Cekoviu]

I'm not sure if SJWs and mainstream leftists genuinely believe in the ideology and are really trying to help but are just really incompetent, or if it's an elaborate plot by the bourgeoisie to make the left look so unappealing that no one in their right mind would follow it and anti establishment individuals would instead become more right wing so they would still be sympathetic towards capitalism and they would blame the worlds problems on the wrong things (immigration, "socialism" Etc.).

Just throwing this out there.

Or the smear campaign against leftists and SJWs by people like Ben Shapiro has even been successful on actual leftists, hence the existence of this post.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

I'm not sure if SJWs and mainstream leftists genuinely believe in the ideology and are really trying to help but are just really incompetent, or if it's an elaborate plot by the bourgeoisie to make the left look so unappealing that no one in their right mind would follow it and anti establishment individuals would instead become more right wing so they would still be sympathetic towards capitalism and they would blame the worlds problems on the wrong things (immigration, "socialism" Etc.).

Just throwing this out there.

Or the smear campaign against leftists and SJWs by people like Ben Shapiro has even been successful on actual leftists, hence the existence of this post.

Having colleges regulate Halloween costumes or other crazy crap is not due to a right-wing smear campaign. You all have too many crazies these days.

[Cekoviu]

Or the smear campaign against leftists and SJWs by people like Ben Shapiro has even been successful on actual leftists, hence the existence of this post.

Having colleges regulate Halloween costumes or other crazy crap is not due to a right-wing smear campaign. You all have too many crazies these days.

Probably useful so that people who later become governors don't have pictures of them in blackface on Halloween circulating.
Not that this happens with any degree of frequency anyway.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Having colleges regulate Halloween costumes or other crazy crap is not due to a right-wing smear campaign. You all have too many crazies these days.

Probably useful so that people who later become governors don't have pictures of them in blackface on Halloween circulating.
Not that this happens with any degree of frequency anyway.

Adult students don't need to be told what to wear for Halloween. I don't see how one case of a politician doing something stupid all those years ago demonstrates such a requirement, or the need to bully those who show dissent. If your group descends into a self-parody, expect to be called SJWs.

[Dumb Ideologies]

It's a relatively small band of idiots being used to stereotype a much larger group who have considerably more nuanced, though of course often still dodgy, views. Same as with throwing the word "fascist" about like it's cheap sweeties at Halloween. Even when people focus on the actual people who most closely resemble the meme, it'll be used as a stick to make sweeping and false generalisations.

It's deliberately alarmist babble and twaddle, an overgrown social media communications strategy that's escaped the medium, where each side's meme factory constantly competes to frighten the centrists into picking their side by waving a cardboard cutout caricature of the other side.

The moment anyone starts talking about mainstream figures or movements in the West being SJWs or fascists I tune out, because I'm about to witness shitness.

[United Muscovite Nations]

What such societies then. Is there a clearly marked territory on this Earth, self ‘governing’ that is anarchistic in nature and not liable to be overrun tomorrow.

The Zapatistas and Rojava are prime examples meeting all of those criteria.

Rojava uses conscription, has child soldiers, and is a terrorist group that used to carbomb Istanbul regularly.

[Cekoviu]

Probably useful so that people who later become governors don't have pictures of them in blackface on Halloween circulating.
Not that this happens with any degree of frequency anyway.

Adult students don't need to be told what to wear for Halloween. I don't see how one case of a politician doing something stupid all those years ago demonstrates such a requirement, or the need to bully those who show dissent.

That article is a remarkable example of internal inconsistency. It takes a disconnected, "young people overreact" approach and then proceeds to overreact in the most SJ-stereotype way possible, spends paragraphs complaining about students protesting and then tacks on a brief equivocation about how students protesting might be okay, whines about students catastrophizing and later catastrophizes...
It's frankly disturbing that the generally reliable The Atlantic ran such a horribly-written and structured piece. I thought it was an opinion piece and had to double-check that it wasn't.
If this is the best thing you have against SJWs, then I feel pretty good about being one.

If your group descends into a self-parody, expect to be called SJWs.

I don't care about the term - I actively embrace it. I do care about its misapplication and the exaggeration of its dangers and influence.