The solution to 1984 is 1973!
Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
BigSteve wrote:Yeah, you did:
I dunno', Sport. Sure sounds like you'd be fine with someone killing the Queen...
Yes, and as I just demonstrated, you equate a monarch with a dictator after stating that killing a dictator should be legally permissible.
So, let's be clear: If someone assassinated Queen Elizabeth II, that'd be okay with you?
SolarCross wrote:Commie who spends his entire day randomly calling people fascist decides the very least boring thing to do is drone on about fascism. Who knew defeated early 20th century political fads could be so interesting? (yawn, zzzzz)
Patrickov wrote:As much as I strongly support the idea of killing dictators without sanction (yes, there are probably quite a few in HK and China that need to be killed), who is to decide who should be killed and how? And what can we do to ensure there's enough check and balance against this very powerful organisation?
Palmyrene wrote:You must be talking about someone else because I'm not a commie.
Nonsense wrote:The only joint reference of dictator\monarch used in my my post, is in expressing, "utmost contempt" for both, but when saying that it should be legal to kill a dictator, the expression or intent in respect of a monarch was never included.
Sivad wrote:The proud boys and the other wingnut larpers are also nitwits.
Palmyrene wrote:Yeah well at least antifa has self-awareness about what they are
Antiracism: a neoliberal alternative to a left
Notwithstanding its performative evocations of the 1960s Black Power populist “militancy,” this antiracist politics is neither leftist in itself nor particularly compatible with a left politics as conventionally understood. At this political juncture, it is, like bourgeois feminism and other groupist tendencies, an oppositional epicycle within hegemonic neoliberalism, one might say a component of neoliberalism’s critical self-consciousness; it is thus in fact fundamentally anti-leftist.
Even when its proponents believe themselves to be radicals, this antiracist politics is a professional-managerial class politics. Its adherents are not concerned with trying to generate the large, broad political base needed to pursue a transformative agenda because they are committed fundamentally to pursuit of racial parity within neoliberalism, not social transformation. In fact, antiracist activists’ and pundits’ insistence during the 2016 election campaign that Bernie Sanders did not address black concerns made that point very clearly because every nearly item on the Sanders campaign’s policy agenda—from the Robin Hood tax on billionaires to free public higher education to the $15/h minimum wage, a single-payer health care system, etc. (Sanders for President)—would disproportionately benefit black and Hispanic populations that are disproportionately working class.
Antiracist politics is a class politics; it is rooted in the social position and worldview, and material interests of the stratum of race relations engineers and administrators who operate in Democratic party politics and as government functionaries, the punditry and commentariat, education administration and the professoriate, corporate, social service and nonprofit sectors, and the multibillion-dollar diversity industry. That stratum comes together around a commonsense commitment to the centrality of race—and other categories of ascriptive identity—as the appropriate discursive framework through which to articulate norms of justice and injustice and through which to formulate remedial responses. It has grown and become deeply embedded institutionally throughout the society as an entailment of the victories of the 1960s. As the society moves farther away from the regime of subordination and exclusion on explicitly racial terms to which race-reductionist explanations were an immediately plausible response, race has become less potent as the dominant metaphor, or blanket shorthand, through which class hierarchy is lived. And as black and white elites increasingly go through the same schools, live in the same neighborhoods, operate as peers in integrated workplaces, share and interact in the same social spaces and consumption practices and preferences, they increasingly share another common sense not only about frameworks of public policy but also about the proper order of things in general.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 017-9476-3
antiracists…remain attuned to a vision of justice defined by ensuring equal access to hierarchically distributed social goods such as family wealth (and redressing historical impediments to the accumulation of wealth rooted in discrimination). Indeed in making frequent recourse to the adjective “narrow” in chastising a politics that roots inequality in economic exploitation, antiracists and identitarians have positioned the idea of racial justice as a critique of, rather than an expected consequence of, socialism. It is largely for this reason that, as Walter Benn Michaels has noted…‘the commitment to identity politics has been more an expression of…enthusiasm for the free market than a form of resistance to it (Warren et al. 2016.).
Sivad wrote:Useful idiots for the neoliberal managerial class?
Sivad wrote:If you don't know then you should read the article, it's a pretty solid case.
Palmyrene wrote:I've read the article and it seems to be based on a very broad category of people that arent properly defined (i.e. antiracists).
Sivad wrote:It's based on a very specific and well defined category of people(neoliberal managerial elites), antifa(identitarian extremists) are the cannon fodder for the neolib counterrevolution.
Trump's wishes were, and are, of no consequence w[…]
@Sivad , so your opposition to any action is basi[…]
The Democrats are going to lose, because Trump pr[…]
Somewhat, yes, I do disagree. I'm as white as th[…]