Add new comment

ever since realizing that leftist activism and propoganda are essentially useless for any kind of change i am interested in (~ 20 years ago), i have rejected any approach that relies on and perpetuates mass society. which immediately eliminates any leftist, rightist, or societal focus. bolo'bolo - or something relatively similar - has always seemed like the only viable option for any world i am interested in.

i long ago accepted the reality that everyone does not - and will not ever - think the same way, want the same things, choose the same way of living and relating. more specifically, there are an extraordinarily small number of individuals that share my perspective and desires for life. i am fine with that. i have no desire to coerce, or otherwise force - others to think/live as i do. and i for damn sure won't let others do that to me, to the extent i am capable.

so, accepting that there are many ways in which individuals choose to think, live, relate, etc, was a primal step towards understanding my life, and acting with my own agency to create it continuously as i desire. it seems many here, and politicians everywhere (i use that term very broadly, not simply confined to formal governance), are incapable of such open mindedness. there is this seemingly unconquerable desire for everyone to agree on how everyone should live and relate; which of course leads to the dogmatic belief that there is only one correct way. and of course, everyone knows THE correct way is THEIR way.

it boggles my mind that so many seemingly smart people are incapable of envisioning a world without mass society and mass conformity (of ideas in particular). the bolo'bolo concept speaks well to the (blatantly obvious, to me) idea that people are different, and forming social groups is best left to individual choice and affinity rather than dogma, tradition and imposed moralism (by any name).

i don't know enough about pan-secessionism to understand how it relates to the bolo'bolo concept. but the fact that there will be individuals that i disagree with is an absolute certainty. i have no problem with a nazi bolo, that is the choice of those involved. if/when they choose to impose on anyone else, that will be dealt with by those being imposed upon and their allies. at that point it is all about relations. the exact same thing could be said of antifa, feminists and the rest of the progressive left that would choose to impose their morals on everyone. authoritarian behavior is just that, regardless of the underlying ideologies.

one final point (which, like all of them, has been brought up many times before). the welding of people to ideas is pathetic. because someone espouses an idea that you associate with the right wing, or fascism, or whatever, does not make them a fascist or a right wing nut. i'm not saying they aren't, i'm just saying that assumption is the kind of generalization that could never be useful if one is actually wanting clarity. there are ideas that are associated with the right that i might agree with, jjust as with the left, or with any other defined strain of thought. yet i am neither right nor left. those are at best barely useful labels, and at worst rigid identities. rather than trying to shoehorn individuals into pre-defined boxes, maybe just take in their ideas and do what you want with them. reject some, consider others as possibly useful, etc. i doubt any benefit has ever been gained by making broad assumptions about people based on severely limited observation of behavior, interaction or communication.

think critically, act personally, reject dogma. some of my principles.