onoira [they/them]

West Germany: famously not a police state. /s

also, no, no one gets to sacrifice us upon the altar of political purity, letalone in exchange for neoliberal capitalism. the fuck

EDIT: this clarification what i needed. i was already primed to read this as transphobic by an interaction i had with a transphobe today and took it out on you, sorry. i still think your point could have been better worded.

Now they are just shot.

?

abstaining or voting third party in any general election is a vote for the republican candidate.

oh i was told by one of your ‘republicans’ that it’s actually a vote for ‘democrat’.

three votes for the price of one? third-parties sound pretty powerful.

fake ass electoral system.

shut your gringo ass up you ballotmunching Uncle Tom freak

demanding that the opposition not trail the right-wing on every single talking point and give a single fuck about the lives that the so-called US would continue to destroy beyond its borders is not accelerationism or ‘whiteness’.

when non-‘United’ SStateSSians have to listen to you about your fucking ‘damage control’ instead of actually doing anything you sound like two SS officers bickering over how painful our torment should be. we don’t fucking care about your comfort you imperial hog.

the collapse of US soft power institutions under Trump has been a fucking godsend for the rest of us trying to actually improve our nations.

stop running DARVO for your abuser and find a healthier relationship with politics.

to continue the GP’s metaphor: trump is part of an infection entering thru the open gaping wound.

why can liberals never criticise something without misogynistic/homophobic sexual metaphor?

for fucks sake i wish i could go one day without the triggering imagery of sexual violence being repurposed for your moralistic magical thinking exercises.

Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor the savant to impose his authority upon me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism censure. I do not content myself with consulting authority in any special branch; I consult several; I compare their opinions, and choose that which seems to me the soundest. But I recognize no infallible authority, even in special questions; consequently, whatever respect I may have for the honesty and the sincerity of such or such an individual, I have no absolute faith in any person. Such a faith would be fatal to my reason, to my liberty, and even to the success of my undertakings; it would immediately transform me into a stupid slave, an instrument of the will and interests of others.

— Mikhail Bakunin, God and the state, Chapter 2

Expertise merely refers to one’s knowledge or skill in a particular field, but my understanding of CPR or ability to bake shortbread cookies does not make me an authority over you. Other than the conflation of force and authority, this is one of the most common confusions people have about anarchism, made worse by the fact that there are some anarchists who still use authority to refer to both command and expertise just because Bakunin did. Personally, I find that creates needless confusion. If you’re using the word authority to describe everything from slavery to knowing how to build a bridge, then why use the word at all? Just use the word expertise when you’re talking about expertise. Listening to medical advice isn’t a hierarchy. Having expertise doesn’t give me the right to command you unless I hold a position in a hierarchical power structure that grants me that authority. As Bakunin himself said:

…we ask nothing better than to see men endowed with great knowledge, great experience, great minds, and, above all, great hearts, exert over us a natural and legitimate influence, freely accepted and never imposed in the name of any official authority whatsoever, celestial or terrestrial.

— Andrewism, How Anarchy Works » Dissecting Authority (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrTzjaXskUU)

I highly recommend reading in full that section from Andrewism. It’s no more than 5 minutes to read.

i think it would be more symbolic to extend the rainbow peace flag over it.

she’s alluding to the fact that these characters — the ‘soyjack’ and ‘gigachad’ — are historically, and still actively are, alt-right charicatures. together with their friends, ‘tradwife’ and ‘doomer (girl)’: they represent misogynistic, racist, antisemitic, and white supremacist tropes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narodniks

syndicalism is a tendency of libertarian socialism. it was anarchists engaging in — typically violent — direct action that bred the popular labour movement, women’s suffrage, the abolition of racial segregation, and others.

How did a philosophy of minimized government involvement contribute to the regulations and enforcement mechanisms around our labor laws?

… because we live in a society? the State needs labour, but if all the labourers refuse to sell themselves until labour-buyers stop X, then the State may decide very graciously to abolish the practise of X. so the theory of syndicalism goes: rinse and repeat till you have eroded all the power of labour-buyers, and you can seize the workplace and cut out the State.

the same ‘literally nothing’ that currently stops us from ending starvation, poverty, homelessness, war…

people and ideology create the institutions which (re)produce and enforce a status quo. this is not inherently bad, and it would not be significantly different under any other ‘system’. we are all the state so long as we do nothing different.