g.i. special newsletter

opinions?
observations?
rants?

ok whatever little buddy. stick it up your "theory" hole

There you are, anarchyjordan!

I'm not sure if you know this, but the moderator(s) have decided to move your thread "an attack on anarchists" to the libcommunity forum. In my latest reponse to you in that thread I challenged your contradictory behavior, i.e. you using a sexist term to insult someone you found to be homophobic. Why have you not responded? Pray tell!

As regards this thread:

Is this a response? What are you attempting to communicate?

Don't bother. I disapprove of the entire thing. I merely posted a single quote to illustrate to anyone who might read your posts what kind of sites you like to visit.

How about this: instead of posting stupid websites that no self-respecting revolutionary would endorse, and then asking peoples' opinions on it, why not state your own thinking with regard to the matter? A much better way to get the ball rolling, don't you think?

Or would that be too much theoretical activity for you?

It's obvious that you recognize the fact that you have no defense against the criticisms I have raised regarding your erroneous thinking.

I have consistently exposed the contradictions and outright falsities in your posts. You literally have yet to respond to any of them in any sort of substantial way -- you are at least smart enough to realize that you can't. But, instead of thinking about what I say, realizing that you really are just saying a lot of contradictory and plain stupid things, you just ignore it.

Instead, you hurl insults at me -- insults which are meaningful to you, but not to me. I am not offended when you call me a "commie bastard" or similar things because I am not ashamed of the fact that I am a communist. I am not hurt when you tell me that some stupid reactionary website "has done so much more for chronicling this war" than I have, simply because I am not interested in the slightest in "chronicling" a war -- why would you think I am?

When you ask me "what the fuck have you done besides put down other people's efforts?" it just sounds stupid to me, because you do not know anything about me or my theoretical/practical activity, and I feel no need to prove to you that I have done anything. Your approval is not what I'm after -- why would you think it is?

You tell me that I will "never do shit" and that I "fail at life." I can only wonder what could possibly give you these insights, as you do not know me in any way. You do not know what I have done, nor do you know whether or not I am a failure "at life" (which means what exactly, bourgeois competition?). So why should I or anyone reading this put stock in your comments?

They shouldn't, because they are not made from a standpoint of objective knowledge, they are made from a standpoint of ignorance -- that means "not knowing," and you don't , so don't pretend to.

And of course, you call me an asshole -- why should I care if you think I'm an asshole or not? I obviously don't hold your opinions in very high regard, as I have consistently been more than able to destroy them with logical argumentation. People being criticized often think of their criticizer as an asshole, usually because they feel a personal connection to their delusions ("I have a right to my opinion!" etc.). This is a mistake. If someone exposes a fallacy in what you say, you should just be ready to drop that position once you have recognized that it is incorrect. You don't seem to be able to do this. I am. If you rationally argue for the correctness of your positions, I am happy to listen and think about them. And if what you say makes sense, then I will drop my criticisms. Simple as that. For me -- but not for you. You refuse to give up the positions which you yourself know are indefensible, namely because you haven't been able to defend them.

For example: why have you not responded to my criticism which stated hat it is a contradiction to say "homophobic cunt", etc. to Weeler? You must recognize its correctness. So, if you really are against people saying "fag" and similar words, you better drop the "cunt" and "bitch" from your vocabulary.

You tell me to leave you alone and never talk to you again, because you are obviously made uncomfortable by my objections to the things you say. But, if you are so assured of these positions, if you really think what you are saying is correct, why not just answer my questions and criticisms? After all, if I am wrong and you are right, then maybe you can teach me something, right? The fact that you won't respond to me with anything except poorly thought out insults only demonstrates your inability to think coherently about my criticisms, and then write a coherent response.

Basically, whenever you have responded to me, it has been to try to attack me personally, and not my criticisms. This is not how someone makes an argument. If someone you don't like personally says "2 + 2 = 4" you cannot prove them wrong by saying "You're a commie bastard. You just criticize and never do anything" etc. That's because "2 + 2 = 4" will always be correct, whether or not the person saying it is in your good graces. Do you really not see that?

I continually ask you these questions, because I really wish you would answer me at least once. I feel as though I'm talking to a brick wall that is programmed to hurl really bad anti-communism no matter what. Is there anybody in there?

Okay, that's all for now, anarchyjordan.

"exposed the contradictions and outright falsities in your posts."
way to go there fearless leader, i didn't know i was depositing flawless ideology for someone to regurgitate.

"I am not ashamed of the fact that I am a communist."
you should be ashamed of the fiction that you can ever achieve your dream of totalitarian control over us because we anarchists will fight you in the streets.

"I feel no need to prove to you that I have done anything. Your approval is not what I'm after -- why would you think it is?"
good, don't prove shit. i'm not trying to. you seem to want the approval of any anonymous reader, who would then accept you as being flawless in your argumentation.

"You do not know what I have done, nor do you know whether or not I am a failure "at life" (which means what exactly, bourgeois competition?)."
I don't need to know what you've done to know what you're doing, which is failing.
when someone is a failure like you they feel the need to prove otherwise to everyone compulsively.

"I obviously don't hold your opinions in very high regard, as I have consistently been more than able to destroy them with logical argumentation."
fuck you, you haven't destroyed shit, nor can you destroy anything on this harmless forum (oh i'm sorry, libcommunity invisible thread. i'm very impressed at your skill in lording it over me, and expecting me to care, that this thread was moved).

"For example: why have you not responded to my criticism which stated hat it is a contradiction to say "homophobic cunt", etc. to Weeler? You must recognize its correctness."

i must recognize... what? the fuck? is wrong with you, stalin?

"drop the "cunt" and "bitch" from your vocabulary."
"prick" & "jerk off" ok with you?.

"The fact that you won't respond to me with anything except poorly thought out insults only demonstrates your inability to think coherently about my criticisms, and then write a coherent response.

Basically, whenever you have responded to me, it has been to try to attack me personally, and not my criticisms"

you aren't making real criticisms. you've decided that what YOU post on here is going to be "serious," and maybe i don't feel the need to have a rock-solid ego-representation on display for the world, so is that not ok? i am attacking your attitudes and the characteristics of your writing, not you personally. I won't be showing up with a bat either to attack you personally either, unless perhaps you decide you're going to join some fascist group and go around beating up children.

"2 + 2 = 4" will always be correct, whether or not the person saying it is in your good graces. Do you really not see that?"
when everyone's been taught that 2+2=3, and you want to convince them that it's not true, you have to be a little bit more, umm... human about it than you are, or than most self-described "communists" tend to be with their newspapers foisted on everyone and their authoritarian "i have the truth, and even though I'm an asshole everyone will listen simply because it's SO TRUE!" shit.

anarchyjordan this is news, not libcommunity. Stop hurling insults and crappy attempts at sarcasm around ffs you sound like a 14-year-old. You may not like what billj is saying but he is, on the whole, being polite about it so you should at least match that.

He clearly isn't reducing all iraqi resistance to religious nationalism, he's criticising the nationalism being displayed in the site you showed. I disagree with him that the information being displayed is worthless - I read the Times business section for example because regardless of its political leanings the information is good - but statements like:

Have no place in revolutionary activity and he's quite right to point it out as a caveat to anyone reading the information.

I don't see

or

as being polite. I see them as worthless shit designed to distract from the issues raised and get a rise out of your opponent.

What’s ridiculous is pretending that criticism of God and Country rhetoric equates to Stalinism or Western imperialism.

Organised religion is a useless parasitical entity which retards the development of progressive politics. The muslim religion is massively destructive to women’s rights, oppressive towards gays and in the case of radical islam, promotes the murder of Infidels - such as yourself. To say ‘that’s alright for them’ is the worst kind of weak-kneed multi-culti shit, because it assumes ‘they’ don’t deserve better. Atheism btw is not the religion of Uncle Joe*, Uncle Sam or any other state, it simply represents the throwing off of ideological chains which have been imposed by every king and tin-pot dictator since about 7,000bc.

*I think you’ll find Uncle Joe was the religion of Uncle Joe, getting rid of the orthodox church was simply a good way of killing off Czarist resistance

Edit: Actually, just to add, so you’re fine with Shia/Sunni militants threatening to kill people who are in mixed-religion marriages? Because that’s what these wonderful rebels have been doing. But hey, I guess they’re only Iraqis so obviously we don’t want to be oppressing them with our Western Imperialist view that you shouldn’t be murdered for sleeping with someone you love whose beliefs are only 99% similar to yours. That would just be terrible.

and whatever dude that shit i wrote was hilarious, not worthless. the guy's an authoritarian as far as i can tell from everything he's posted, so what's the harm in saying what i think about him? the shit i said applies to a lot of other people on here too i'm sure. too many people really are posturing nitpickers fapping off to marx and are just assholes who fail so hard at life that they take it out on other people from BEHIND A VEIL OF STUPID ANONYMITY and sit smug and arrogant thinking what a great contribution they've made to glorifying themselves in the eyes of what they think is the 'whole world' but is really not so much of an important segment of society in the grand scheme. a few people out of the however many billions of people on this planet can even afford to have computers to read this shit, and way less are actually going to; yet many a poster here on libcom seems to believe that what they write in every little thread is an all-important demonstration to the world of their superiority, and that it all must be well-thought-out and conclusive, argued to a hair, and must constitute a rock-solid ideological contribution to humanity's betterment through words. that's fucking pathetic and dumb, and i think i'm justified in saying so.

So you think its an ether/or choice?

your right some cultures need to be destroyed.

Because they have the same capacity to do that as countries the us, they just dont because they are so nice.

only if you cant justify your own ideas, personally i favour a no platform approach to fascists and other reactionaries.

i don't support the death penalty because some times the wrong person will be executed, and if i did i wouldn't support the state having that power but, killing some one for murder and killing someone for marring the wrong person is hardly equivalent.

your an idiot

not deliberately posting unthought out crap that is obviously wrong is trying to demonstrate your superiority?

Fixed

does "promoting an internationalist ideology" imply imposing atheism, forcing everyone to work, and setting up top-down 'soviets' answerable to the 'central committee'?
i don't know why you don't like the black couple next door beyond simple racism because i'm not your neighbor,
i live outside the UK...
what makes you think that i think a westerner's ideas are to be discounted?

Again with the hyperbole. Try thinking about what I'm saying to you rather than having a knee-jerk reaction about it. Being against the murder of civillians shouldn't be restricted to what the US army gets up to, and saying that nationalists murdering people is wrong does not mean I think imperialists murdering people is right.

I don't think the US should be in there, and I've done a great deal of work researching and exposing US malpractice in Iraq myself as a reporter. But facts are facts, the fallout from this situation, which can be layed directly at the door of the US, is the rise of a vicious creed of murderous religious warfare, and pretending these people are just resistance fighters who are a bit rough around the edges but generally decent people is not helpful. Like many different groups before them, they are competing with the US from a fundamentally conservative/reactionary position, and if they win, they'll impose a similarly nasty regime.

In the US, if a bunch of religious nutters occupied Chicago and were murdering indiscriminately anyone who disagreed with them, would you think that a positive development? Would you call for US troops to rush in? I'd hope you'd do neither. I'd hope that you would call for the community itself to kick some arse and take control of their own lives, to say 'fuck the police and fuck the fundies'. It's the same thing here. We are revolutionaries and anarchists, and that means we are against ALL oppressive forces, be they clothed in US army uniforms or jeans and a T-shirt and a Kalashnikov.

Don't give me this sanctimonious crap about "they do whatever they can", the Japanese military sent kamikazes out for their emperor, it didn't make them right, it made them brave and fucking wrong!

Yes there are a lot of desperate people out there, but I'll be fucked if I'm going to cheer them on when they react to that desperation by donning ballies and shooting/bombing their neighbours along with the occupiers. I wouldn't cheer fash doing the same thing, why should this be any different? Resistance can be a good thing, but if that resistance is about birthing a new oppression, imposing a new dictatorship under an iraqi flag, it's a pointless waste of lives.

Shooting the breeze about US conspiracies and the desperation of the militants is simply another method of turning this into a binary conflict of good vrs bad - US agit-prop in reverse. Iraq is not a TV show where the good fight the bad, it's a morass of shit and piss and blood where bad people do bad things and good people die with no hope and the only prospect in sight is of a tomorrow under one or another ruthless dictatorship, Orwell's boot forever more. That's the reality.

And there's fuck all you, I or those poor fuckers dodging bullets and bombs every day can do about it except try to persuade some folk that maybe, just maybe, neither God nor the US is any kind of saviour. That emancipation comes not from the barrel of someone else's gun, but from the collective power of a united working class fighting for its own betterment.

' He clearly isn't reducing all iraqi resistance to religious nationalism, he's criticising the nationalism being displayed in the site you showed."

Which is actually an irrelevant troll because the politics of the (2nd) site hosting the GI resistance magazines has nothing to do with the actual content of the magazines (which are the subject of the thread)."

seriously thanks, 888, for noticing how off-track this all is. i mean, shit i'm just trying to point out what i think is an important website.

saii:
"Being against the murder of civillians shouldn't be restricted to what the US army gets up to, and saying that nationalists murdering people is wrong does not mean I think imperialists murdering people is right."
agreed.

"pretending these people are just resistance fighters who are a bit rough around the edges but generally decent people is not helpful. Like many different groups before them, they are competing with the US from a fundamentally conservative/reactionary position, and if they win, they'll impose a similarly nasty regime."
"Resistance can be a good thing, but if that resistance is about birthing a new oppression, imposing a new dictatorship under an iraqi flag, it's a pointless waste of lives"

well, i agree with that too, but all this talk being completely irrelevant to the subject matter at hand is a pointless waste of time.

"stupid innuendos about how stalinist everyone else but you is whenever you're called on anything?"
well, not everyone else, only stalinists.

"Seriously? You think you'd have no right to call me on it if I started talking racist shit on here? Sorry I don't believe you. I think you've backed yourself into a corner and you're refusing to admit you're wrong."

no, that's not what i'm saying, i'm saying i think that in this hypothetical situation you probably have some other reason that you don't like them, and hiding it under racism is easier than articulating your problem, which might make you look stupid. for instance, jews are often the brunt of anti-semitic comments that function as a mask for the commenter's privileged position, which he feels threatened by a competition that he can then dismiss a portion of by simple racism.

"If I was an iraqi and I was telling you that militants were fucking my country up, would you react differently?"

i would say that i know that most iraqis are very annoyed with militants, and want both the u.s. and the religious zealots off their cases.

Anarchyjordan,

I've responded to your comments on the topic of PC language over in the original thread "an attack on anarchists!" Below is my response to some of your other comments.

What anarchyjordan put in quotes here is mine. This sounds like an admission of contradictions and falsities. Good job, anarchyjordan. I didn't think you had it in you.

I never said I wanted "totalitarian control" over anybody, so you are not responding here to anything that I've written. Shocking!

I never said this, nor implied it.

No, anarchyjordan. You are "failing." You have consistently failed to prove or defend any of the arguments of yours that I have criticized. It's just about the only thing that you are consistent at.

I have destroyed your arguments with simple logic -- but we can agree to disagree on that one. I really didn't lord anything over you -- I'm not really sure why you think I was. I alerted you that it was moved, because you hadn't responded to my criticisms, so I thought perhaps you weren't aware of where the thread was. I wouldn't expect you to care that the thread was moved, simply because I didn't care that it was moved -- it wouldn't have even occurred to me that you might. The thread got pretty insulting on both sides of the exchange, which is why they moved it, I'm guessing.

I meant "must" as in "to be reasonably expected to." For example: "That sound from outside must be the rain, right?" It's not a command, dude. I think that's pretty obvious. Also: my name is Bill, not Stalin.

I don't care.

Please explain how my criticisms are not real. They are all solely based on the things you write on these forums, unlike your criticisms of me. I don't mind if you don't want to be serious, or whatever else, but you should be prepared to see criticism if what you write is simply incorrect or stupid. You are attacking me personally, meaning you are for the most part not addressing what I write, but merely stating that I'm an authoritarian, or a totalitarian, or an asshole, or whatever other stuff you come up with, as an attempt to refute what I say. But like I've said to you over and over: It doesn't refute anything, because it doesn't actually address what I have written. It only addresses what you think of me (or my writing style, etc.).

Are you saying that you would better be able to recognize the correctness of my critiques if I were kinder and gentler with you? If so, that's pretty pathetic on your part.

That part of the thread clearly isn't irrelevant, because your responses have repeatedly shown a tendency to support 'resistance' for its own sake, something which is worthwhile exploring as a concept. I hope I've shown you that this:

is effectively pandering to reactionary shit on the grounds that it's 'resistance'.