711 (2006)

1 comments

I walked into 7-11 this morning and this woman all most ran me down before I stopped and checked her for her manners. She grunted like a four legged animal and went around me, and I made my way to the coffee pots and poured myself a dose.

As I was mixing my creamer into my cup-o-joe, I hear this woman yelling at the woman behind the counter.

“Ya’ll need to open them damn coolers in the back!”

The woman obliged, and I watched them open all the beer cooler doors.

What’s funny is that they didn’t have the beer she wanted in the coolers so she had to settle for a larger version than her usual.

Yes I said usual. This woman is in there almost every day. Usually she just gets a Natural Ice tall can.

But today she had to go with the quart.

She filed in behind me in line and I said my usual greeting to the clerk there. She is holding in her laugh, as this woman starts screaming:

“Don’t touch my backpack, please don’t touch my backpack!!!!!!!!!!!”

I turn around and there is nobody behind her.

I laughed my ass off and walked out the door.

Maybe I shouldn’t have.

As I pull out of the parking lot, I see here rifling through her car apparently looking for the money for the extra 16 oz of beer that she got.

Now, I am no stranger to early morning drinking. I have been to a convenience store watching them open the coolers at 6 in the AM.

BUT…

I can remember clearly each one of those times. And could probably count them on both hands if not one.
Usually it was meant to tone down the night before so I can get to sleep.
Some of you that have ever been with me on an all-nighter, know what I am saying.
(I miss blowin up)
But anyways.
I had a funny morning.

Anarchism

0 comments

Anarchism is one of the most misunderstood and poorly defined terms in the English language. Anarchism is a political theory that aims to create a society which is without political, economic or social hierarchies. Anarchists maintain that anarchy, the absence of rulers, is a viable form of social system and so work for the maximization of individual liberty and social equality. It is actually the idea that any form of government is unnecessary and undesirable.

Anarchism is inspired by the moral-political ideal of a society untouched by relations of power and domination among human beings. This ideal has most often expressed itself in a doctrine advocating the total absence of government as the only firm basis for individual liberty and societal progress -- a doctrine that some argue animates even Marxism (since Marx believed that eventually the state would wither away). Anarchism differs from political libertarianism in upholding a lack of government rather than limited government. There are several variants of anarchism, usually categorized by whether the variant is collectivistic (e.g., anarcho-syndicalism) or individualistic (e.g., anarcho-capitalism) in orientation. In popular usage, the term is often colored by the sometimes-violent anarchist political movement that was especially active in the years around 1900.” (The Ism Book)

The anarchist philosophy can be found in almost every country. Many prominent anarchists have come from France. One of the most famous French anarchists was Prouhdon. Born in Battant, Burgundy on January 15, 1809, Pierre- Joseph Prouhdon would become one of the best known anarchist thinkers in the world. Proudhon was actually the first person to use the term "Anarchy". He wrote many books about anarchy and his ideal way of life. One of these books is titled Qu'est-ce que la propriete? or “What is Property?” This book described the normal way of life as opposed to the way of the anarchist. He became very popular as an anarchist philosopher and soon arose to be very well known throughout the world.


Some anarchist schools of thought include Philosophical Anarchism, Mutualism, Individualist Anarchism, and Social Anarchism. These schools of thought also include several other branches of their own. Because anarchism allows for minds to change and people to change, the more modern theories and the more classical keep branching and growing.

Philosophical Anarchism contends that the State lacks moral legitimacy but does not advocate revolution to eliminate it. Though philosophical anarchism does not necessarily imply any action or desire for the elimination of the State, philosophical anarchists do not believe that they have an obligation or duty to obey the State, or conversely, that the State has a right to command.

“Above all we should not forget, that government is an evil, an usurpation upon the private judgment and individual conscience of mankind; and that, however we may be obliged to admit it as a necessary evil for the present, it behoves us, as the friends of reason and the human species, to admit as little of it as possible, and carefully to observe whether, in consequence of the gradual illumination of the human mind, that little may not hereafter be diminished.” William Goldwin.

Notable members of the school of Philosophical Anarchism include, William Goldwin, Victor Yarros, Henry David Thoreau, and Robert Paul Wollff.

Mutualism, as a variety of anarchism, goes back to P.J. Proudhon in France and Josiah Warren in the U.S.  It favors, to the extent possible, an evolutionary approach to creating a new society.  It emphasizes the importance of peaceful activity in building alternative social institutions within the existing society, and strengthening those institutions until they finally replace the existing statist system.

Mutualists belong to a non-collectivist segment of anarchists.  Although they favor democratic control when collective action is required by the nature of production and other cooperative endeavors, they do not favor collectivism as an ideal in itself.  They are not opposed to money or exchange.  They believe in private property, so long as it is based on personal occupancy and use.  They favor a society in which all relationships and transactions are non-coercive, and based on voluntary cooperation, free exchange, or mutual aid.  The "market," in the sense of exchanges of labor between producers, is a profoundly humanizing and liberating concept.  What they oppose is the conventional understanding of markets, as the idea has been co-opted and corrupted by state capitalism.

Individualist anarchists were opposed to the exploitation of labor, all forms of non-labor income (such as profits, interest and rent) as well as capitalist property rights (particularly in land). While aiming for a free market system, they considered laissez-faire capitalism to be based on various kinds of state enforced class monopoly which ensured that labor was subjected to rule, domination and exploitation by capital. As such it is deeply anti-capitalist and many individualist anarchists, including its leading figure Benjamin Tucker.

Benjamin Tucker, like all genuine anarchists, was against both the state and capitalism, against both oppression and exploitation. While not against the market and property he was firmly against capitalism as it was, in his eyes, a state-supported monopoly of social capital (tools, machinery, etc.) which allows owners to exploit their employees, i.e., to avoid paying workers the full value of their labor. He thought that the 

"laboring classes are deprived of their earnings by usury in its three forms, interest, rent and profit."

Social anarchism has four major trends -- mutualism, collectivism, communism and syndicalism. The differences are not great and simply involve differences in strategy. The one major difference that does exist is between mutualism and the other kinds of social anarchism. Mutualism is based around a form of market socialism -- workers' co-operatives exchanging the product of their labor via a system of community banks.

Social anarchists share a firm commitment to common ownership of the means of production (excluding those used purely by individuals) and reject the individualist idea that these can be "sold off" by those who use them. The reason, as noted earlier, is because if this could be done, capitalism and statism could regain a foothold in the free society. In addition, other social anarchists do not agree with the mutualist idea that capitalism can be reformed into libertarian socialism by introducing mutual banking. For them capitalism can only be replaced by a free society by social revolution.

While there are many different types of anarchism, there has always been two common positions at the core of all of them(opposition to government and opposition to capitalism). 

"Anarchism . . . teaches the possibility of a society in which the needs of life may be fully supplied for all, and in which the opportunities for complete development of mind and body shall be the heritage of all . . . [It] teaches that the present unjust organisation of the production and distribution of wealth must finally be completely destroyed, and replaced by a system which will insure to each the liberty to work, without first seeking a master to whom he [or she] must surrender a tithe of his [or her] product, which will guarantee his liberty of access to the sources and means of production. . . Out of the blindly submissive, it makes the discontented; out of the unconsciously dissatisfied, it makes the consciously dissatisfied . . . Anarchism seeks to arouse the consciousness of oppression, the desire for a better society, and a sense of the necessity for unceasing warfare against capitalism and the State." Emma Goldman

Anarchism is an expression of the struggle against oppression and exploitation, a generalization of working people's experiences and analyses of what is wrong with the current system and an expression of our hopes and dreams for a better future. This struggle existed before it was called anarchism, but the historic anarchist movement (i.e. groups of people calling their ideas anarchism and aiming for an anarchist society) is essentially a product of working class struggle against capitalism and the state, against oppression and exploitation, and for a free society of free and equal individuals.

Baudrillard (2007)

0 comments


Reading various news stories from around the web, I find that Jean Baudrillard passed away 2 weeks ago. I don’t consider Baudrillard a philosopher that represents my own personal views. Of the 30 or so books that he has written, I must say that I have only read 1(and various excerpts from others). I believe that I have read “Simulacra and Simulations” all the way through about 5 times and I am not sure that I fully understand all of what he is saying in the book. Some of the confusion stems from his own comments on his work. At times he seemed to believe that he was the only one who could understand it.
I am not writing this to lament his passing. I started this blog a couple of weeks ago and I was having some trouble getting everything I wanted to say into something easily digestible. As with my other incoherent ramblings, I am sure I have failed miserably.

Baudrillard writes of a world in which the hyper-real is what is real. The images that we bring forth into the world as representation is what is real and that everything else is an illusion, or that it does not matter whether it is real or not. If that just confused you, then you can see where I am coming from.

Most aspects of hyperreality can be thought of as "reality by proxy." For example, a viewer watching pornography begins to live in the non-existent world of the pornography, and even though the pornography is not an accurate depiction of sex, for the viewer, the reality of "sex" becomes something non-existent. Some examples are simpler: the McDonald's "M" arches create a world with the promise of endless amounts of identical food, when in "reality" the "M" represents nothing, and the food produced is neither identical nor infinite.

Baudrillard in particular suggests that the world we live in has been replaced by a copy world, where we seek simulated stimuli and nothing more. Baudrillard borrows, from Jorge Luis Borges (which Borges also borrowed from Lewis Carroll), the example of a society whose cartographers create a map so detailed that it covers the very things it was designed to represent. When the empire declines, the map fades into the landscape and there is neither the representation nor the real remaining – just the hyperreal.


There is, for each one of us, a representation of what we are that exists in the world. This is real. For the other people that you interact with, this representation is real. While this puts a slant on “fake people”, I think it is important to acknowledge that we all need to have this representation as an extension of ourselves. No person can deny the existence of this mask, but I would think that people find issue with having to wear it.

The crazy thing is that we know that the mask is also false. We know that the person interacting with us is projecting this representation out into the world.

I am not saying that the representation is always false, or more often false. Just that it exists.

The danger, of course is that in this sea of representation, the real is lost. When the image of a thing becomes a good enough representation of a thing, whether or not one is real is irrelevant.

When the representation of what is real, skewed by our own perceptions, becomes the world in which we base our own representations the real no longer exists. To Baudrillard, this is what has happened to the world. The real is lost to us.

I originally had some thoughts on this a couple of weeks ago when I was standing in line at the grocery store. Magazines full of representations. Images of what men and women look like. Representations of behavior. Representations of products. We truly live in a world where the real only exists in a very narrow spectrum. The news that we base our views of the world being given to us by people who are paid to sell products. The worth of the actual product is so warped by exaggerated claims. 

Maybe the real danger is not that representations are real and have primacy. It is the fact that we have found a way to make those representations based on other representations.
In such a world, there is a point of no return. Where what is, is no longer even a pale reflection of what was. Where reality is no longer based on the real, but nothing at all. 

Anti racist means Anti white

0 comments
I get all types of emails responding to something I have said about videos on youtube. I really enjoy it because it allows me to take part in one of my favorite activities, DEBATE. 

Here is the email I got from a user on youtube called osuchamw
http://www.youtube.com/user/osuchamw

He describes himself as a "white rabbit". I run into people who are upset about the decline of their perceived racial purity. I thought it was an interesting conversation and I hope that blogging about it can open the discussion more. 

________________________________________________________________

Hey DesmondE
Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries. 

The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them. 

Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to "assimilate," i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites. 

What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries? 

How long would it take anyone to realize I'm not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem? 

And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn't object to this? 

But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews. 

They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white. 

Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

____________________________________________________________________

This is my response to this person. 

____________________________________________________________________

Ok.

I guess the first question I have is who is "Everybody"? That seems like quite a generalization.

Do I believe you are necessarily a racist? No. I believe you are far too concerned with things that are outside of your control. You cannot control who "intermarries" with anyone else. As a matter of fact you have no control over your own race. You weren't given a choice before birth to choose the color of your skin. It seems strange to me that anyone would think that is a significant part of who they are, but... I cannot expect others to conform to the logic I employ. The same as you. 

I understand that the same insecurities you have for your race are also shared in other races. I can't say that I understand any of it, but I know that it is there. 

If you speak a truth for yourself, nobody can take that away from you. You have a right to feel however you want to feel. If someone wants to call you vile names and curse you. To hell with them. As long as you don't harm or force anyone else to believe what you do(unlike nazis), as far as I am concerned, you are practicing your freedom to be a human being. Don't let anyone take that away from you. 

As far as this term goes: 

"Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white"

because in this context "Anti-racist" is antithetical to "Anti-white", the statement is hard to take seriously. In the event that it is just something to appeal to people's sense of irony, I would say that it is only true if YOU believe it.

What do you think? Am I too passive in my response? Did I leave something on the table?
Copyright © Dez's Blog