The word "racism" has been used to death!. I remember when the media invented it ..not that many years ago. First there was just simply being biased...its a proper word, but.nope not the emotional punch loved by the left. Then there was being prejudiced....though used correctly... still not enough of a smack for the left. Then there was being bigoted....getting closer, the lefty media laps it up. Then the word racism....Bingo! Noone can really define it, lefts loving it even more.
"I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong."
—Frederick Douglass
Besides, two years ago I was still the a**hole neoconservative who didn't vote for Ron Paul because he was against the Iraq War. The truth is, no one's born an anarcho-capitalist. It's a gradual process of breaking down your preconceived notions (at least in my experience) that makes you one. I'm sure that someday confederalsocialist's racism will go the way of his statism.
Actually, no, not if they're anarcho-capitalists because it means they support only voluntary interactions. You can be a racist and still only adhere to voluntary interactions. By the same token, those anarchists that are against racism would also be free to try to convince racists that they shouldn't be racist. I also believe (but this is just a hunch) that because of the incentive structure, most people would either not be racist in anarchy or would not act on their racism much.
The patriot / militia movement that this video is talking about is NOTHING like the burgeoning anarchist movement. Anarchism is just about as close to being the opposite of Nationalism and blind patriotism as can be. They infiltrate where they think they can find vaguely sympathetic ears over some issue or another and the anarchist movement simply isn't fertile ground for that.
I'm aware of the tactic. I'm just really skeptical that he's part of that. If his goal is racism, I just don't see the burgeoning and (for the moment) still quite small anarchist movement as a likely target. Also, as I said, I think he's sincerely anti-statist and I explained why.
anytime anyone has ever asked me if he's legit I've always told people he was. He's dead wrong but he's not just a bullshit artist. he actually believes in what he's talking about and he's right all the way up until a point. I've never seen racism as a motive behind his anti statism agenda. his racism has even basically non existent as far as our discussions. our arguments were about statism vs citizenry.
Fair enough. And I've changed a lot in two years also. What I was trying to do was cut him a lot of slack and give him credit for how much he's changed in those two years.
Conflict avoidance and alliance at the expense of all principles is not a good thing. While people have the desire for a "broad coalition", it is inherently unstable if it reduces to a splintered mish-mash of completely different social philosophies. I am long past the point of making it clear that I do not consider groups such as paleo-libertarians and national anarchists to be allies, and I consider the "thin" libertarian status quo to be an open door to every authoritarianism under the sun.
This is not particularly an "internal" conflict within the same philosophy, despite those on the "side-lines" tending to view it that way. On one hand, we have conservative reactionaries creeping into the libertarian movement. On the other hand, we have "thin" libertarians who open the door to them, enable them, tolerate them, and ally with them due to their inability to take a stand on anything beyond the NAP. In contrast with this, we have an ALL largey constituted by a rejection of this.
The problem with me doing one on BP is that I hardly watch any of his vids anymore so I'm clueless. I used to watch every one but I have ADD and when it's just a still picture on the screen while someone talks, I just drift. Even worse is the occasional text flashing on the screen set to music. I'd rather just read a blog entry. When it's just a person talking to the screen, I do fine. It's a personal problem of mine I guess. Thankfully, this vid was really short.
I think you should also call into Free Talk Live on a Thursday and bring up restrictive covenants. The host is a big fan of them. I'm still skeptical but kind of on the fence.
His various history and anarchism videos have consistently intrigued me and he seems possessed of a gumptious intelligence; but he also stands out for me as a very odd character on YT (a rather bloated field!). Of course, he craves notoriety (though I'm not sure if he prefers the negative or positive variety). I think he probably is racist, according to a more-or-less common definition of that word, and his attacks/defenses have seemed like mostly petty grudge-fests with little to redeem them.
YOu should do more "on camera" videos. (pink pistols and the gay communtiy maybe) since it defies accepted political divisions. I do like his anti state videos, but his ethics and morality are less convincing and frankly boreing.
The meaningful discussion on this matter has long since been exhausted: (1) epistemological reasons why racism is bullshit (2) consequentialist and deeper philosophical reasons for thick libertarianism (3) non-absolutist-propertarian reasons for why the "restrictive covenant" is "the social contract" all over again (4) a clear distinction between pluralism and relativism (5) a clear distinction between a purely linguistic issue and a broader conceptual one. Hardly mere "personal attacks".
An in-depth explaination of all of this has already been given over the course of many videos and many comments on videos. Fundamentally, these are irreconcilable philosophies. One more or less considers the "social" sphere irrelevant, while the other doesn't. One grounds libertarianism in ethics, the other dismisses ethics altogether (while still using the language of normativity). One promotes the goal of a fractured and closed society, the other doesn't.
One considers "the left" to be emotivist authoritarians, the other considers "the left" to inherenly have the highground on these questions. One considers reactionary conservative elements to be "allies", the other considers them to be enemies. One considers anti-statism to be all that matters, the other doesn't. The fundamental differences could not possibly be more obvious and irreconcilable, and Rand was right about libertarianism's instability due to its tolerance of conflicting values.
I wish you would call into Free Talk Live on a Thursday night (the nights I co-host) about restrictive covenants. Ian is a big fan of the idea and I think he uses them to alleviate the concerns of people who fear the "chaos" which will result if their neighbor doesn't cut his lawn. Something about them doesn't jive with me but I haven't been able to nail it down.
"Fine and dandy" seems to be reading quite a lot into some of the things he's said. I don't think he's promoting so much as reaching out to these people whom he knows are going to be separatist regardless and they're promoting statism in the process. I have my own concerns about restrictive covenants as potential mini-states. A friend is a big fan of promoting them as substitutes for zoning laws and what not. He has yet to alleviate my concerns. Yet we're still friends despite a disagreement.
Hardly: he enables, sanctions, panders to such groups, and does not fundamentally object to racial separatism. He even tried to pass off TheAngryCanuck as an anarchist, and tried to convince his viewers that everyone is a defacto nationalist. Furthermore, my recent commentary on the matter didn't say a word about restrictive covenants, since the issue is much broader than that; it's a conflict between two completely different social philosophies, that only nominally share an anti-statism.
This isn't based on character attacks, me and omni presented specific arguments, and it''s the clash of completely different philosophies - in this particular context, one that considers racial separatism to be fine and dandy, and one that does not; but the disagreement runs much deeper than that. If he was a fundamentalist christian who thought that homosexuality should be illegal, I don't think you'd treat the matter the same.
The word "racism" has been used to death!. I remember when the media invented it ..not that many years ago. First there was just simply being biased...its a proper word, but.nope not the emotional punch loved by the left. Then there was being prejudiced....though used correctly... still not enough of a smack for the left. Then there was being bigoted....getting closer, the lefty media laps it up. Then the word racism....Bingo! Noone can really define it, lefts loving it even more.
tonysshadow 7 months ago
"I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong."
—Frederick Douglass
Besides, two years ago I was still the a**hole neoconservative who didn't vote for Ron Paul because he was against the Iraq War. The truth is, no one's born an anarcho-capitalist. It's a gradual process of breaking down your preconceived notions (at least in my experience) that makes you one. I'm sure that someday confederalsocialist's racism will go the way of his statism.
Taiyama2 1 year ago
Yeah fuck you, I'm not a racist and was a very soft one for 3 months two years ago.
Fuck you and your appeals to the middle ground.
fringeelements 1 year ago 7
Actually, no, not if they're anarcho-capitalists because it means they support only voluntary interactions. You can be a racist and still only adhere to voluntary interactions. By the same token, those anarchists that are against racism would also be free to try to convince racists that they shouldn't be racist. I also believe (but this is just a hunch) that because of the incentive structure, most people would either not be racist in anarchy or would not act on their racism much.
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
also, why don't you try to advance anarchism instead of tearing down certain people that you don't like in the movement?
thewildvagipuss 2 years ago
But confederalsocialist has completely renounced his white nationalist past and thinks that race is irrelevant.
thewildvagipuss 2 years ago
why are you so obsessed with confederalsocialist?
thewildvagipuss 2 years ago
OMFG, LIMMIE IS ADORABLE!
You just made me want a rat.
Regarding subject matter, I completely agree with you.
TrueEmergence 2 years ago
Google "Mainely Rat Rescue"
AnarchyInYourHead 2 years ago
The patriot / militia movement that this video is talking about is NOTHING like the burgeoning anarchist movement. Anarchism is just about as close to being the opposite of Nationalism and blind patriotism as can be. They infiltrate where they think they can find vaguely sympathetic ears over some issue or another and the anarchist movement simply isn't fertile ground for that.
AnarchyInYourHead 2 years ago
I'm aware of the tactic. I'm just really skeptical that he's part of that. If his goal is racism, I just don't see the burgeoning and (for the moment) still quite small anarchist movement as a likely target. Also, as I said, I think he's sincerely anti-statist and I explained why.
AnarchyInYourHead 2 years ago
is that a rat?
Luke12000 2 years ago
I have two really adorable rats. Lemmi & Winks. I'll probably include them in more vids later.
AnarchyInYourHead 2 years ago
Progress? You act like racism is a bad thing.
shadowmancer1234 2 years ago
Why is the first related video "How to make your butt smaller"?
BoogerReyProductions 2 years ago
Maybe because "but" is in my title. *shrug*
Who would want to make their butt SMALLER? Dontcha want some junk in the trunk? Who wants to bang a boney butt? Ick.
AnarchyInYourHead 2 years ago
anytime anyone has ever asked me if he's legit I've always told people he was. He's dead wrong but he's not just a bullshit artist. he actually believes in what he's talking about and he's right all the way up until a point. I've never seen racism as a motive behind his anti statism agenda. his racism has even basically non existent as far as our discussions. our arguments were about statism vs citizenry.
oldhacks 2 years ago 7
Great vid. If confed was a racist, which I am sure he is not at this time.
And he says he's never been one. I have no reason to believe he is lying about that.
This was a nice attempt to get brainpolice to reason, but that's not going to happen.
I've been trying for like 6 months, he doesn't listen and keeps coming up with horrible strawman arguments and mischaracterizations.
Now I'm convinced that he is in a crusade to smear people who make good descriptive arguments for statelessness.
NoCryingNowYes 2 years ago
He does it to Hoppe and other good miseseans as well.
NoCryingNowYes 2 years ago
"He was a white nationalist two years ago...so he's probably a racist"
Oh, Hell, 2 years ago I was a centrist who thought the federal reserve was the best thing since sliced bread.
nonantianarchist 2 years ago 8
Fair enough. And I've changed a lot in two years also. What I was trying to do was cut him a lot of slack and give him credit for how much he's changed in those two years.
AnarchyInYourHead 2 years ago
Comment removed
nonantianarchist 2 years ago
Yea, 2 years ago I was a militant commy and a catholic!
Now I am an Anarcho-Capitalist Atheist.
My world-view has changed so much in that time that the inly thing I can think of that is the same is my name people call me
PS:
Confederalsocialist denies the CONCEPT of RACE, therefore it's impossible that he can be racist.
FreiheitKampfer 2 years ago 2
How exactly can you be a militiant communist AND a Catholic?
nonantianarchist 2 years ago 2
lol!
the contradictions within them are greater than the contradictions between them
I think if you took a good cross-section of all catholics, you'd see the majority being either leftist or militant.
FreiheitKampfer 2 years ago
Conflict avoidance and alliance at the expense of all principles is not a good thing. While people have the desire for a "broad coalition", it is inherently unstable if it reduces to a splintered mish-mash of completely different social philosophies. I am long past the point of making it clear that I do not consider groups such as paleo-libertarians and national anarchists to be allies, and I consider the "thin" libertarian status quo to be an open door to every authoritarianism under the sun.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
This is not particularly an "internal" conflict within the same philosophy, despite those on the "side-lines" tending to view it that way. On one hand, we have conservative reactionaries creeping into the libertarian movement. On the other hand, we have "thin" libertarians who open the door to them, enable them, tolerate them, and ally with them due to their inability to take a stand on anything beyond the NAP. In contrast with this, we have an ALL largey constituted by a rejection of this.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
I don't believe in the social contract, sorry.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
The problem with me doing one on BP is that I hardly watch any of his vids anymore so I'm clueless. I used to watch every one but I have ADD and when it's just a still picture on the screen while someone talks, I just drift. Even worse is the occasional text flashing on the screen set to music. I'd rather just read a blog entry. When it's just a person talking to the screen, I do fine. It's a personal problem of mine I guess. Thankfully, this vid was really short.
AnarchyInYourHead 2 years ago
I think you should also call into Free Talk Live on a Thursday and bring up restrictive covenants. The host is a big fan of them. I'm still skeptical but kind of on the fence.
AnarchyInYourHead 2 years ago
I'm sorry I must have missed it but who are you talking about?
lastlady 2 years ago
RasistXL
AnarchyInYourHead 2 years ago
Confederalsocialist.
anglaismoyen 2 years ago
His various history and anarchism videos have consistently intrigued me and he seems possessed of a gumptious intelligence; but he also stands out for me as a very odd character on YT (a rather bloated field!). Of course, he craves notoriety (though I'm not sure if he prefers the negative or positive variety). I think he probably is racist, according to a more-or-less common definition of that word, and his attacks/defenses have seemed like mostly petty grudge-fests with little to redeem them.
banjofiddlee 2 years ago
YOu should do more "on camera" videos. (pink pistols and the gay communtiy maybe) since it defies accepted political divisions. I do like his anti state videos, but his ethics and morality are less convincing and frankly boreing.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
Who is this about? I can't make out the name and the description doesn't say.
FTLIan 2 years ago
confederalSocialist aka rasistxl aka stoddles aka ryan
afridge13 2 years ago
No, he just made them more covert and sugar-coated them with anti-statism.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
I don't see a problem with racism... honestly.
TehBANN3D 2 years ago
Then that's your problem to sort out.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
The meaningful discussion on this matter has long since been exhausted: (1) epistemological reasons why racism is bullshit (2) consequentialist and deeper philosophical reasons for thick libertarianism (3) non-absolutist-propertarian reasons for why the "restrictive covenant" is "the social contract" all over again (4) a clear distinction between pluralism and relativism (5) a clear distinction between a purely linguistic issue and a broader conceptual one. Hardly mere "personal attacks".
brainpolice2 2 years ago
An in-depth explaination of all of this has already been given over the course of many videos and many comments on videos. Fundamentally, these are irreconcilable philosophies. One more or less considers the "social" sphere irrelevant, while the other doesn't. One grounds libertarianism in ethics, the other dismisses ethics altogether (while still using the language of normativity). One promotes the goal of a fractured and closed society, the other doesn't.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
One considers "the left" to be emotivist authoritarians, the other considers "the left" to inherenly have the highground on these questions. One considers reactionary conservative elements to be "allies", the other considers them to be enemies. One considers anti-statism to be all that matters, the other doesn't. The fundamental differences could not possibly be more obvious and irreconcilable, and Rand was right about libertarianism's instability due to its tolerance of conflicting values.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
I wish you would call into Free Talk Live on a Thursday night (the nights I co-host) about restrictive covenants. Ian is a big fan of the idea and I think he uses them to alleviate the concerns of people who fear the "chaos" which will result if their neighbor doesn't cut his lawn. Something about them doesn't jive with me but I haven't been able to nail it down.
AnarchyInYourHead 2 years ago
"Fine and dandy" seems to be reading quite a lot into some of the things he's said. I don't think he's promoting so much as reaching out to these people whom he knows are going to be separatist regardless and they're promoting statism in the process. I have my own concerns about restrictive covenants as potential mini-states. A friend is a big fan of promoting them as substitutes for zoning laws and what not. He has yet to alleviate my concerns. Yet we're still friends despite a disagreement.
AnarchyInYourHead 2 years ago
Hardly: he enables, sanctions, panders to such groups, and does not fundamentally object to racial separatism. He even tried to pass off TheAngryCanuck as an anarchist, and tried to convince his viewers that everyone is a defacto nationalist. Furthermore, my recent commentary on the matter didn't say a word about restrictive covenants, since the issue is much broader than that; it's a conflict between two completely different social philosophies, that only nominally share an anti-statism.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
This isn't based on character attacks, me and omni presented specific arguments, and it''s the clash of completely different philosophies - in this particular context, one that considers racial separatism to be fine and dandy, and one that does not; but the disagreement runs much deeper than that. If he was a fundamentalist christian who thought that homosexuality should be illegal, I don't think you'd treat the matter the same.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
Good video.
Anon1696 2 years ago