drwhat posted:

embarrassing, banal, imprecise, indulgent... it sucks

lol my writing is all of these things

blinkandwheeze posted:

http://www.rhizzone.net/forum/topic/3428/?page=7#post-123316

damn thats a lot of words. ok the thing about the failure of socialists to broadcast their ideas was kinda a throwaway comment but it's not at all incompatible with a position of antihumanism. if you have a completely entrenched hegemonic ideology then peoples actions will tend to fall with in it; if that hegemony is disrupted there are competing influences. it's not really a matter of moral choice. third-worldist arguments aside it's really not in the class interest of most americans to prop up the military-finance oligarchy. Full Communism isnt either but thats kinda outside the confines of the Troop Hate discussion. while i absolutely agree that its essential to violently oppose the forces that reproduce imperialism your kind of moral argument isnt really productive. you say that branding the entire american labour aristocracy as sociopathic is good agitprop: for whom? who is receptive to this argument, in a practical sense? really, it's only urban leftists with the complexes that result from living in a militarised society; third world peoples don't need to hear from us that God Fearing Small Town Americans are sociopaths, they have a direct reason for opposing imperialism. basically you seem to be sliding into a kind of secular takfirism and that's something that needs to be carefully guarded against otherwise you'll end up like algeria in the 90s or t-paine

deadken posted:

damn thats a lot of words. ok the thing about the failure of socialists to broadcast their ideas was kinda a throwaway comment but it's not at all incompatible with a position of antihumanism.

well no, sure, remarking on that failure isn't but when you do what you did and start identifying "false consciousness" as the primary obstacle in this situation and the clarity of a marxist critique or the promise of a marxist teleology as the vehicle to eliminate that you are just expressing the fundamental ideas of marxist humanism. like, which would be fine, if you weren't contradicting that elsewhere. all this stuff you're saying isn't really addressing what i pointed out, it might not be a strictly moral decision but if you do go as far as to grant members of the military the ability to make a reasoned choice about the paths their lives take after an exposure to a stable vanguard, i just don't see how it logically follows that this is the only situation in which they have that autonomy. you paint soldiers as being blind to the implications of the atrocities they commit yet totally potentially susceptible to the arguments of a reasoned marxist opposition, that's an incoherent argument

deadken posted:

third-worldist arguments aside it's really not in the class interest of most americans to prop up the military-finance oligarchy.

this is just a stupid thing to say, "argument that effectively combats the strength of my opinion aside, i believe in the validity of my opinion"... of course it is in the class interests of the labour aristocracy to prop up the imperial military complex, the labour aristocracy is granted their access to the superprofits of global exploitation thanks to a global hegemony secured through imperialist military expansion. your point about the disruption of hegemony giving rise to competing influences stands, sure, but i don't believe for a second there is any likelihood in any reality that the singular vehicle for securing the livelihood of the aristocracy they belong to will let the privilege granted by the global exploitation they enforce. i don't believe that anymore than we should expect the bourgeois to dismantle capitalism, men to dismantle the patriarchy, whites to dismantle white supremacy, and i think you're ignoring the marxist argument entirely, much less the antihumanist one, if you think any of these are reasonable possibilities

deadken posted:

while i absolutely agree that its essential to violently oppose the forces that reproduce imperialism your kind of moral argument isnt really productive.

i don't think i'm making a moral argument at all, i think i'm making a practical one: if, as an anti-imperialist cadre in the developed world have a logistically feasible choice between either disseminating propaganda to a military unit or, either through industrial sabotage or leaking sensitive information or whatever, somehow put a military unit in a vulnerable position or otherwise in harm's way, i think it's clear which one of these, even if only in a small way, damages the forces that reproduce imperialism. if you start seeing the militant running dogs of empire as potential candidates for recruitment to the vanguard or whatever, where is the motivation then to mobilize a violent opposition against them? you say it's important to do so but i don't think there's anything in your argument that provides any sound reason why. what i think you're doing instead is spinning a cloud of disingenuity and hollow populism, capitulating to those you would turn away from in a heartbeat, i don't see any kind of purpose that serves and it's the same set of rhetorical games fascism plays repeatedly

deadken posted:

you say that branding the entire american labour aristocracy as sociopathic is good agitprop: for whom? who is receptive to this argument, in a practical sense? really, it's only urban leftists with the complexes that result from living in a militarised society; third world peoples don't need to hear from us that God Fearing Small Town Americans are sociopaths, they have a direct reason for opposing imperialism.

i don't believe troophate is a particularly strong piece of agitprop in itself but it is more powerful than what you're proposing because at least instead of speculating that our enemies are just potential friends at heart it has the honesty to admit that our enemies are enemies. you're right, the victims of imperialism have no need for propaganda that paints their exploiters as psychopaths because they experience that first hand, but i would much rather live in a world where the urban leftists you speak of are able to see the world from the perspective of the global proletariat, as opposed to living in your fantasy world where an allegiance of the imperialist military and the labour aristocratic left is painted as vehicle for the opposition of global inequality

deadken posted:

basically you seem to be sliding into a kind of secular takfirism and that's something that needs to be carefully guarded against otherwise you'll end up like algeria in the 90s or t-paine

you might say that but it's you who, in my eyes, is expressing their vision of revolutionary politics as an idealist approximation of 1917, the immaculate vanguard winning over the forces of reaction with the clarity of their message, yet willing to play all sorts of rhetorical tricks to achieve their own ends... if an intellectually honest opposition to imperialism makes me a secular takfiri then i'm happy to be one

swampman posted:

ken next time someone interviews you about horsie books you need to mention tHE rHizzonE you fool

yeah bring the shit storm here!!! Isnt that why we're all here?? THe shit storm ???

tpaine posted:

i don't want dreadken representing us even to reatards

littlegreenpills posted:

ken reading your blog makes me miserable, i guess you're doing something right

me too but its the same misery i feel when im reading Correct Theory so keep up the good work

littlegreenpills posted:

deadken posted:

littlegreenpills posted:

ken reading your blog makes me miserable, i guess you're doing something right

lol whys that

i can't quite put my finger on it sorry to say

is it like the tone of the stuff. people do keep telling me to write something more cheerful lol