repressive tolerance, no platform, and "extremism"

Response to Sir Einzige on the Therapy thread about repressive tolerance and no platform – also trying to situate this more broadly in terms of the origins/structure of the far right today.

Yeah, I can see how RT [repressive tolerance] would be used that way [i.e. to support suppression of dangerous views]... and I agree, it's dangerous in the present environment. No Platform as I understand it was invented by Trotskyists from the IMG and IS in Britain, against fascist *organisations* (not individuals with offensive views). The idea was not that fascist speech is intolerable but that fascist organisations which gain a base in an area will engage in street violence against black people, Jews, gays, leftists etc. Which at the time was very much true as regards the NF, the largest UK fascist group, which was strongly based in street gangs and prone to violence, and I can see it being justified in this sense in countries like Greece today. There were rather unrelated but similar actions as part of the South Africa boycott, or against politicians with particularly obnoxious complicities (e.g. Samuel Huntington who designed concentration camps in Vietnam) but they weren't justified as "no platform". And TBH I can see the appeal of shutting down someone like Bush's torturer-in-chief or a minister responsible for atrocities.

These days it's become a lot more dangerous. Firstly because the boundaries between fascist and regular political opponent are so blurred. I can see how this could be grounded in Marcuse but I'm not sure the idpols and radlibs even read his stuff these days, they're reading people like Spivak, hooks, Butler, critical race theory and this whole line of post-Foucauldian theory where "power is productive not repressive" and discourse "constructs our subjectivities" and therefore referring to someone a certain way actually makes them what they're referred to and is an act of violence (e.g. Butler on grievability of lives), and certain speech-acts are enabled and others restricted (e.g. Spivak on sanctioned ignorances) and therefore there's no common field of free speech which is protected, there's just endless battles as to who gets silenced and who gets enabled to speak. In some ways the anti-porn feminist campaigns provide a model (the idea that performative speech is a form of violence) even though idpols are pro-sex-work. It's bizarre how it's happened, 30 years ago the cultural effects approach (Gramsci, Foucault, feminism etc) was counterposed to the hypodermic effects bullshit which underpinned censorship (e.g. "violent videos/video games/comics cause violence and should be banned") on the basis that the effects are diffuse and indirect. The switch has come I think, because a rational-choice-theory model of culture derived from people like Robert Putnam and Francis Fukuyama has become prevalent... culture is a set of sanctions which regulate rational subjects in line with norms.

Also a lot of the targeted people are internet celebrities with no real involvement in violence and no organisational commitments. And actually, stopping them speaking or even banning them from Twitter has a very limited effect on their reach, particularly if the process of silencing them gives them visibility (we've seen this down the years with the popularity of Islamist speakers, who recruit through the outrage they cause). Thirdly because the far right today is a largely marginal movement drawn from the socially marginalised, while fascist forms of power have been normalised through 40 years of neoliberalism. Very different, therefore, from the 30s, when fascism was a distinct rising movement trying to take power from outside the establishment, or the 70s, when fascist groups were trying to shift things away from a social-democratic consensus. Reagan is semi-fascist, the New Right had fascistic views particularly on law-and-order, and these ideas were normalised by the Third Way and then deepened by the neocons in the 2000s, so we're now dealing with a climate where about 70% of fascist ideology is absolutely mainstream - paramilitary policing, aggressive warmongering, sweeping criminalisation, racial profiling and so on. The threat-profile of the far right building at a local level then seizing power through elections or a March on Rome type of event is just unrealistic, that's not how repression happens today, it's not an imminent threat, the far right are not part of the core power structure in the US or other major western countries (the situation in southern Europe is rather different) and the real threat-profile is more about how neo-populist media drive public opinion and push the "centre" right and left further rightwards, and the ways far-right tendencies in the police and army and deep state are able to drive state ideology (e.g. through counterinsurgency ideology and zero tolerance). In this climate everyone's repressed and alienated, and at the same time overexposed to beliefs of a far-right kind in mainstream outlets, so we get this bizarre phenomenon of alienated youths turning to fascism as a resistance ideology, plugging their feelings of despair and anger into ideas they repurpose from the dominant discourse. So the anti-far-right campaigns end up focused on overstepping the remaining small boundaries, people openly talking about racial superiority rather than dressing it up in risk-profiling, talking about genocide instead of hiding it behind impersonal effects of free markets, using swastikas or KKK hoods or nooses, instead of just glorifying police murders of black people which are actually killing far more people than lynching ever did. Targeting some idiot who's a bit more open in their authoritarianism than the political establishment, instead of targeting the authoritarianism of the establishment, plays into the system's hands - it helps the system to deflect attention away from the latent fascism of its own structures and onto extreme individuals it can effectively "other".

I'm even more disturbed by the way anarchists and the left are jumping on the “let's label spree killings as terrorism” bandwagon. Exposing the hypocrisy of the use of the “terrorist” label against Muslims is one thing. Extending this COIN discourse to more and more groups is another entirely. And aiding capitalism, which wants this to be a security issue about suppressing “extremists”, and not a pattern of mental health breakdown arising from unbearable levels of social stress.

In fact very often we are seeing anarchists targeting other vulnerable people who if things had gone a little differently would also be anarchists.Looking at Dylann Roof, James Fields, Thomas Meir, Darren Osborne, Anders Breivik and suchlike, it's pretty clear to me that we're looking at nihilistic insurrectionaries whose grievances about their shitty lives are basically valid, who lack a sense of direction and have been pulled towards right-wing shit by the *mainstream* political climate (and are not really all that different from those pulled towards radical insurrection, like Kaczynski or ITS, or apolitical insurrection, such as school shooters) - and the function of such people for the system is not that they're the cutting edge of repression or terrorising the black community, but that they're deflected from attacking the elite or the system (the type of assassinations we saw roundabout 1900), they allow the system to pass off its internal problems (which vent in these kinds of explosions) as a kind of radical otherness arising from "right-wing extremists" who can be analogised to "Islamic extremists" and "left-wing extremists" and then the system can pose as the protector from all the "extremists", holding together a society which would otherwise turn into genocide among different "extreme" groups. This is an exact replica of the way they handled and contained the import of attacks by aggrieved Muslims in the 2000s, many of whom have/had a very similar profile also, and the response - suppressing the enabling "narrative" by denying them a platform - is actually embedded in the COIN response to Islamic extremism post-9/11 - a major part of which, is covering up the relationship between western imperialist foreign policy and the Islamist "blowback" (as it is well-known that, if the government gets the blame for putting its people at risk by provoking such retaliation, the entire legitimacy of the war on terror will go the way of Vietnam). I remember in the 2000s the state mobilising identity-based groups - Jewish activists, feminists, LGBTQ groups - to shut down Islamist speakers who were on the state's COIN watchlists, the state would put the initial call out but would crowdsource the actual enforcement and it generally worked. And people taking part in the no-platform shit and the hate campaigns against far-right terrorists/spree killers/assassins (not to mention the pro and anti gun lobbies) are playing into the state's hands in concealing the root issues of despair, nihilism, psychological breakdown, the subjective experience of being on the receiving end of social war and the near-genocidal hatred of social "failures", the loss of any kind of meaning-reference and the sense of siege resulting from recurring social hostility - phenomena affecting all people of all races and classes, but which are socially managed through identity politics of both ingroups and outgroups. And the narrative often barely works. So for instance, Osborne was a depressed alcoholic with no history of racist views who was "radicalised" in literally two weeks before the attack, initially by a *BBC documentary* and not by far right groups. We're looking at an intersection of very ordinary despair and alienation, with the prevalence of far-right themes *in the mainstream discourse*. James Holmes was a previously harmless bipolar man tipped over into extreme mania by a misdiagnosis of depression and SSRIs (which are known to have this effect of causing extreme psychotic reactions in bipolar people) and believed he could obtain superpowers and do good for the world by killing people - yet still people are putting him down as a "white terrorist" or instance of toxic masculinity, yet this is textbook clinically-induced temporary psychosis, in a civilised country he would not even be in jail. Yet the idpols want this to be a case of a white man who thinks he's so "entitled" to public spaces that he can massacre other people, even though there's nothing in dominant social rhetoric which confers any such "entitlement", and even though many of these spree-killer types are recluses who feel excluded from public space. Of course the idpols are just re-running what the state has said about Muslims for 18 years now, and some of these cases are just as absurd: Nicky Reilly for example, or Zacarias Moussaoui or Junaid Hussein (who was literally "radicalised" from being imprisoned for involvement in Anonymous - classic deviance amplification). Or Mohammed Merah, a kid with severe psychological problems who snapped after being jailed for next to nothing. Sometimes it's almost as if the ideology (Nazi, Islamist or whatever) is just a rationalisation of the nihilistic drive to hit back at a hostile world which treats people like shit. And we're seeing it with people who have no ideological motivation, and increasingly people who have no "red flags" showing, like the Las Vegas and Austin cases, nobody knows the motive except that they're angry about something and they want to watch the world burn (and that's a pretty common position nowadays). Maybe we should ask in these circumstances: what would Bakunin say? I've read cases where Bakunin praises conservative and liberal terrorists simply because of their courage and anger and consciousness of the corruption of the system, but criticised the limits to their political perspectives - but also, said how they were showing up the limits of the left because they were channelling the rage of the oppressed more effectively. Or we should read Fanon. When there isn't a real insurgent struggle against the authoritarian regime, the hypervigilance it injects into people comes out in everyday violence and these kinds of random killings (which Fanon noted, occurred in both directions in Algeria, native versus settler and settler versus native). The success of COIN in preventing organised insurgency has as a side-effect the proliferation of these kinds of attacks.

This kind of thing nearly always backfires. While it might ideally be possible to censor fascists and protect anarchists, communists, and idpols, in practice the people with the power to censor (corporations, police) have no interest in doing so. For instance, Twitter tightened its “abuse” rules late last year in response to a hysterical campaign by idpols. This has led to some of the most prominent far-right accounts being banned (but little if any reduction in twitterstorms and racist and misogynist bullying on the platform). But within this month, we've seen a wave of Anonymous-linked accounts banned, including most prominently Lauri Love. Love's alleged offence is saying that Russian hackers should “shove a keyboard up their ass”, although the far right tried to frame him making threats against Trump. Several of the other accounts appear to have been banned for supporting #opdomesticterrorism which is an Anonymous campaign to hack and DDoS Nazi sites. And the mechanism is, the Nazis file often spurious abuse complaints which Twitter under its new rules now enforce apparently without reviewing them. A big defeat for dissent, even though it looked like a “victory”.

There's also dangers that these campaigns actually promote fascists' views and increase their profile by trying to silence them, and that they allow fascists to pose as martyrs which in turn further "radicalises" their supporters. We're seeing this at the moment in the UK with the Britain First leaders, who have been jailed for verbally abusing a Muslim on trial for pedophilia. In the British context they're convicted fair and square, and it's not their first case of harassing Muslims, but the Nazis are putting it down as a thought-crime and it's really raising their popularity among people who feel silenced. Same with another case awhile back where someone died in jail. It gives fuel to their narrative that anyone who criticises Islam will be silenced and that fascists are martyrs for free speech, which is an absurd argument but every time a fascist is jailed then it's strengthened. There can also be "Streisand effect". Someone's speech is shut down and everyone wants to know what they said, what the context was. This can turn a powerless but mouthy marginal figure into a notorious celebrity overnight. I have always had suspicions that al-Muhajiroun (the most radical of the above-ground Islamist groups in the UK) and the EDL (for a long time the most active Nazi group) were working together to raise both their profiles and notoriety.

Good analysis but wasted on someone as myopic as ziggy.

The argument that the "othered" far-right is a distraction from the real power structures is true but unfortunately doesn't prevent the reactionary lunatic fringe from randomly attacking whatever they percieve to be "cultural Marxism" or whatever, through their obviously warped lens.

Because of this, community self defence of some kind, whether it's explicitly antifascist or not, still defaults to one of the more immediate issues, even though it's not untrue that these people are insignificant compared to the real sources of domination.

Does not take the form of no platforming which is more about ideological tribal preference and association.

I'm not about deplatforming, nor did I bring it up and it's only mentioned critically by the OP.

Yes, I feel there's a big difference between community self-defence and no-platforming as it's practiced in the US today. Community self-defence or traditional antifa, we're talking about far-right groups who have a street-thug contingent (with or without overlap with the deep state), who organise violent demonstrations or street gang activity in connection with political organising, and this activity involves direct violent attacks on groups they hate. We have a situation in Greece for example, where Golden Dawn or people linked to them are carrying out direct attacks, setting anarchist spaces on fire, beating up and even killing migrants in the streets. So there's anarchist patrols who attack apparent far-right types gathering in their areas. That's community self-defence - and in Greece it's well-known that half of the pigs vote for Golden Dawn and the most vicious anti-terror units and the motorbike squads used against protests are Golden Dawn members. Same thing where there's a march by EDL or one of their offshoots in Britain. EDL have a track record of marching on Muslim-majority areas, attacking and abusing people, homes, businesses, mosques. Or if the main march just do A-to-B, then fringe groups weaving in and out of the march or organised separately on the same day will do so. So people organise to blockade the marches and also organise demonstrations and patrols in the Muslim-majority areas and outside likely targets. Often the Muslim community themselves, or other non-white communities. Community self-defence. There's a long history of these kinds of actions in Britain: Cable Street, Brick Lane, Welling. A lot of the antifa stuff in Germany and ARA actions down the years in America are similar. Counter-protesting Charlottesville would fall into this category, or counter-protesting groups like Proud Boys or TWP when they hold marches.

But what we're seeing nowadays is a broader argument that expression of particular views creates a "toxic" climate which causes violence, and therefore, individuals or groups expressing these views need to be silenced. Twitter or Youtube accounts banned. Prevented from speaking at public events. Their websites DDoSed or taken down by providers. And I'm seeing a lot more these days of antifa sites celebrating when people are sent to jail and calling for state action against the far right. The people can be nonviolent, the discourse they use might not be directly violent or even directly fascist, but there doesn't need to be any immediate threat these days. The idea is that bad ideas cause "toxic" mentalities which cause violence and therefore need to be silenced. And the borders as to where dangerous fascist ideas end and ordinary conservative, privileged, or non-idpol discourse begins is very blurred. For example, we see TERFs being targeted as if they were fascists, referred to as fascists, and targeted on these same grounds. We see people on the left, like George Galloway, getting the no-platform treatment because of one comment they made at some point, when they're not by any stretch of the imagination either fascist or violently dangerous. We see internet personalities, who are basically trolls looking for attention, being targeted in ways which raise their profile. This is very different from traditional antifa community self-defence IMO. Particularly when it seems to be minor individual figures and tiny marginal groups getting this attention, instead of the very widespread bigotry in the police, judiciary, army, etc. So for example, there are conferences organised at universities on improving the police-state machinery, on developing new forensic technologies, behavioural profiling and so on. There's events on drone warfare, events on counterinsurgency and occupying an enemy society. Why aren't these ones getting shut down? Aren't they a bigger threat, to anarchists and the left and to marginalised social groups, some marginal figure speaking at a student society event?

"Looking at Dylann Roof, James Fields, Thomas Meir, Darren Osborne, Anders Breivik and suchlike, it's pretty clear to me that we're looking at nihilistic insurrectionaries"

I don't know what "nilihistic" means to you, but it's a bit fucked to be calling those maniacs as such. Kinda in the same way as a few liberal outlets used to be calling ISIS "nihilist". Maybe at the same level as some people would call right-wing extremist "radicals" and anarchists to be "for disorder/chaos".

Beyond the vague semantics, we're dealing instead with people who've folded back, like fanatically, to demented old ideologies and worldviews... to the retrograde shit that's supposedly an answer to today's misery and, yes, social stress. Breivik was a huge fan of WoW, and an average succesful suburban, yet pitted against an ultra-liberal society. The jihadists are their exact counterparts, and this is where parts of the Left and anarchists - starting with the IGD/Lundi Matin crowd, especially through the "Je suis Charlie" debacle, have been ending up defending one side of fascism -the Takfiri "Muslim" side- while pretending to be fighting the White fascist side... where actually the lines between those tendencies are rather historically superficial. Retrograde fascist Muslims have been siding with actual Nazis way more than the far-right Jewish crowd, while some surviving post-WWII Nazis have been backing, training and financing some Pan-Arab insurgent organizations like PFLP.

The problem with those people is that they aren't just victims... they are little HItlers with a real potential of becoming even more dangerous and organized in the near future. What do you think will happen of Breivik when he gets released?

So the way the States are responding is quite bad... so is the usual response by antifacists. The Breiviks bunch should deserve what they get... not due process, but being shot in the head, on-the-spot, or slashed with machetes, or immolated alive, or whatever.

But by being thrown to jail through the nice due process (which is even fucking nicer in Norway, as a mass-murdered is given a right to a fucking laywer, and now an APPEAL), and having at the same time their "peaceful" supporters to be defended by cops when they protest, they're being allowed to become stars. Those movements are then allowed to play the victims, improvise themselves as "freedom fighters", rebels, and even recuperate the very post-2008 anarcho-insurgent imagery, discourse and tactics.

I think we're dealing with an affective bodily structure where the person has no sense of meaning or value in the world. They've been alienated and cut-off to such an extent that their connection to creative forces is pretty much zero. That's common in clinical depression. From repeated experiences of being subject to frustration, aggression, or hostility from “society”, they develop a siege mentality. Permanent hypervigilance. From its pervasive securitisation and threatening nature, the world is giving the signal “get ready to fight” (as Fanon observes in the colonies). If the affected person is from a historically marginalised group, the rest of the pattern is quite familiar. They get into radical idpol or radical left movements specific to their group, or they form a gang with others of their group, which creates a counter-social bond and gives some kind of direction to their aggressive feelings. But with neoliberalism deepening, we're now seeing this kind of affective structure appearing further up the social hierarchy. I call it nihilism because I believe the source is hatred of society conditioned by experiences of exclusion from, or violation by, society. A siege mentality where the individual is under attack and fights back with a retaliatory or pre-emptive strike against society. This is a structure common to most spree-killings and lone wolf terrorist attacks regardless of their supposed politics. And the far-right discourse, rather than being generative, is a secondary add-on which provides a particular way of channelling the latent aggression and frustration. Hence the violence comes out – sometimes – against a worse-off group instead of a random group (though even with the far-right attackers, it sometimes comes out against a random group). The far-right or Islamist discourse (and it could just as well be a quasi-anarchist discourse they turn to – it generally was in the 1890s-1920s) is something they use to create a modicum of meaning.

It seems quite different to me, to the way in which street-level fascism operated as recently as the 2000s, let alone historical fascism.If we look at historical fascism, probably it also attracted these types, but it was much more a movement of ex-military and quasi-police types who had found a type of social bond in unifying violence and the military-style band as an organisational form (more recently, it's the street gang or hooligan firm which plays this role). Reich argued back in the 20s that sexual repression led to fascism. Libidinal energy which could not find expression in the sexual system was displaced to the muscular system and turned into aggression. I'm not sure this is quite true (though a lot of the fascists and spree killers are “incels”) but I think there's a wider displacement of creative into destructive energy. Theweleit reveals a pattern of sexualisation of violence in proto-fascist discourses. Because violence involves the decomposition of the body, it creates a felt connection to the holistic presubjective field. But there were big differences back then. Firstly, the police and army were sympathetic to the fascists – as we saw with the March on Rome, or the events following the Munich putsch. Secondly, the fascists themselves – not mainstream politicians channelling their discourse – were able to build a large electoral base. And thirdly, we're talking about relatively consistent *groups* which could keep up patterns of activity for decades – not lone individuals flipping out or deciding to do some propaganda-by-deed. It's the intersection of highly organised, military-style fascist organisations with a mainstream political system prepared to encourage such formations politically which produced the danger in the 1930s. Today these conditions don't exist. The idea that someone like Breivik could become a future Hitler is pretty laughable. He will never be released from prison. He is universally reviled in the mass media. He's held in supermax-like conditions which prevent him from having any political impact whatsoever. More likely, America or Britain or Norway will become dictatorships through some strongman army or pig figure either being elected or seizing power “to save us from chaos” (of left and right alike). It will be a Franco, a Salazar. An Erdogan protecting us from a Gulen. Trump had the potential but the deep state is against him so it probably won't happen. Or it might be a Stalin rather than a Hitler, a strongman appealing to idpols and conservatives at the same time and promising to put all the extremists (left and right) in camps. Or, it will just be a drift towards more and more fascistic measures taken by “democratic” governments of left and right. There might not be a Hitler-figure at all, just a lot of little Hitlers using ever-increasing securitised powers in ever-worse fascist-like ways. More like China in this sense. First it's civil commitment for sex offenders (already happening), then civil commitment for potential spree killers, then for diagnosed psychopaths, then for anyone at risk of “extremism”, then civil commitment is too expensive so the “euthanasia” starts... first it's police shooting to kill in black communities (which is already happening), then it's expanded to poor white communities because of the far-right threat, then it's shooting whoever they like whenever they like... first it's watch lists with a million people on (already happening), then the watch lists affect gun purchasing (proposed at present), then they start affecting all kinds of social processes, turn into Sesame Credit, finally the people on watch lists can be rounded up in an emergency and put in camps... all happening below the hood and under the media radar like the shit at Guantanamo and the “black site” prison in Chicago and the militarisation of police and the creeping web of surveillance.

Hence why my sense of the threat profile is rather different from yours. I don't think anyone's letting Breivik or Roof or Fields out of jail, and if they did, nobody's voting them into power, nor are the police and army standing back and letting them march into power any time soon. Instead they form part of the pattern of folk-devils against whom the creeping microfascism of the state is mobilised and legitimised. The far right lone wolf terrorists and spree killers and their demonisation, and the Islamists and their demonisation, are actually part of the slippage which allows the deep state to impose more and more fascism below the hood. The cops will mobilise this response you're feeling of “shoot these maniacs without due process!” to push the existing, already very far-gone trend towards state-led fascism much further, and to get the left on board with it. And actually it's this very securitisation which is pushing the emotional reactions which are causing these kinds of massacres, making people feel under siege and under attack so they strike out pre-emptively or in retaliation, breaking down the active libidinal connections and kundalini flows so that desire gets concentrated in aggression, giving “get ready to fight” messages which prime hypervigilance, pushing people until they snap, and the statist discourses contain the elements which encourage a far-right strand to these attacks (like the guy being “radicalised” by a BBC documentary!), so it's a self-reinforcing strategy, the system can produce its own monsters and use them to create a quiet fascism in everyday life, all the time producing more and more reasons for its own necessity. A fascist society manufacturing fascists and using the fascists it manufactures as an excuse for more and more fascism. And anarchists are falling for it.

the police were saying that he had a lot of child porn, is there any validity or controversy to this as far as you all are aware?

What a frightening world out there, so much psychotic political stuff that's being passed around, im always wondering how things are going to turn out in the future and if i could possibly protect myself from systematic repression, but there is just no way to know. I want to echo the sentiments of what someone else said in another comment discussion about snitches against anti-fa esque anarchist marches, "be careful about who you bring into your life". Self-defense through violence is an even trickier subject matter, thinking about it is kind of like a "pre-emptive strike" in an incredibly uncertain and precarious world.

Thing is... that as Shadowsmoke has been saying, ppl tend to bring nice people into their lives. Many people are nice upfront, but in conflictual relations that are politically-intense will rat out on you, or turn their coats. The statist slave in them gets revealed as they turn inside-out.

That's why it's important to give priority to bring into our lives people we have affinity with, based on their commitment to antiauthoritarian principles or positions. Simply people dressing up in black or with @ patches and talking 'bout "anarchism" just won't do, and it's also shallow as fuck.

Just like people with swastika patches aren't necessarily Nazis, it's just the same as a fashion statement, on the level of saying I Don't give a fuch about ideological binary warfare.

There's no comparison. And if you go around wearing a swastika patch just don't go whine about violation of your free speech because someone didn't understand you were just making a joke on binaries and you got the bat on your head fo it. Too many idiots like you think they're misunderstood geniuses.

So then people dressed in black and wearing @patches as a fashion statement and not an ideological proposition can likewise expect to be misunderstood and get a bloodied nose and whine about indiscriminate violence before they run off to their mom's and complain about being oppressed by the forces of ignorance?

I've seen the Las Vegas shooter described on right-wing forums as a left-wing Hillary Clinton supporter or "antifa" who deliberately targeted Trump-voting country fans, and on left-wing news sites as a Trump-supporting millionaire motivated by hatred for the poor. He was rich but from a criminal background. I haven't had the time to look into the full background of each of these cases as it unfolds, but this one is a particular mystery, there's no clear motive emerging from the media reports. Apparently he had a fatal illness and was depressed as a result, which might explain the timing more than the motive (spree killing is usually suicidal and nearly all spree killers are depressed). I find it most likely that he fits the subcategory who are psychopaths who do it for notoriety - the motivation is to be seen publicly as a superhuman monster in line with their self-image (psychopathy or malignant narcissism = grandiose sense of importance combined with desire to be viewed as evil), a motivation which is perversely reinforced by the public reaction to these kinds of incidents. Child porn, high-stakes gambling, known psychopathy in his family, and yelling at his wife in public (reported in some accounts), might all support this theory. Though, it's also quite possible that he left a note or manifesto and the pigs have declined to publish it for whatever reason. Likely because of political motivation one way or the other (more likely I think targeting Trump supporters). Pigs planting/alleging child porn to tar someone's reputation is not unknown (Matt DeHart, William Rodgers) and is horribly easy to do, particularly when the target is dead, though I don't know why they'd do this in this case. There are also cases where child abuse survivors with repetition-compulsions view child porn. The killer's father was a diagnosed psychopath so I wouldn't be surprised if the killer suffered childhood abuse. Possibly he was taking revenge on the world for failing to protect him from his father, though this is all speculation. We'll probably never know, though I suspect the way history will write the story of these killings will blur them all together into symptoms of a pressure-cooker society which both generates a lot of anger and doesn't provide outlets.

that's bullshit that school shooters are "apolitical insurgents". not just nikolas cruz and the columbine killers, but most of them in between have been racist, misogynist white dudes. the state is not "othering" right wing extremism, it's trying to pass them off as apolitical, too...

They were apolitical in that they weren't members of a recognized political party and wore no patches and uttered no ideological slogans. Everyone who even accepts the concept of "race" and " gender " immediately becomes racist and sexist by merely perpetuating labels which form the semantic reality of the aforementioned racist sexist society. Even just THINKING in terms of race and gender division creates racism and sexism.

Yeah, nice try idpol.

For idpols, nothing is apolitical. The personal is political. So there is no apolitical killing. In a sense this is true, but it doesn't mean that everything is political *in their sense*. Someone seeking to strike back at society, or snapping under unbearable stress, is a political matter.

So is an oppressed person shooting their oppressors.

So is an oppressed person, shooting someone they've been tricked into thinking is their oppressor, instead of shooting their actual oppressors.

What I believe we're seeing is: people who feel society is at war with them, hitting out scattershot at society (which is also what idpols do, but in a group-based and less directly fatal way). People who in many cases want to die, and decide to take some more people with them. People they perceive as responsible for their oppression, because in postmodernity, it's very hard to pinpoint who's responsible for social structures, and everyone's encouraged to confuse the state and capitalism with society.

Why aren't these idpols reading Fanon on spree killers? Why aren't they reading Philippe Bourgeois or Berardi or Mark Ames? A bit of relevant sociology and the politics of all this is clear-cut.

It's a standard idpol line these days, that's rolled out every time, that every spree killer is a misogynist racist Nazi motivated by toxic masculinity and white supremacy. It's very easy in idpol-land to label any non-idpol as a misogynist racist Nazi, and a few of these people have definite prejudices (remembering that a nihilist generally hates everyone, and that racial and gender prejudices are very widespread in American society). But there's no evidence in most cases that the killings were carried out in pursuit of these prejudices. None of the school shooters, or spree-killers classified as apolitical, specifically targeted women, black people, or members of any other specified group. Mostly they targeted random civilians or particular environments such as work or schools. Some get classified as spree killers even though they specifically target people who've oppressed them. Albert Wong for example. Yes, he's Asian-American, not white. He's a military veteran with post-traumatic stress, "decorated hero" no less, who was being expelled from a care home for military veterans with post-traumatic stress, because they can't handle his post-traumatic stress (I kid you not). So he kills three bureaucrats he blames for expelling him - an act which would likely kill him since he'd be homeless on the streets - and then kills himself. Still, I've seen articles where the top comment is some idpol droning on about toxic masculinity. We actually don't know how women would handle similar situations because women are rarely allowed in frontline military combat roles. And, they want to fight imperialist wars, they're going to need imperialist butchers. But for idpols, soldiers getting fucked-up in wars, screwed over by bureaucrats, and acting on their military training is just some gender thing.

When killers target black people specifically, they're always described in the media as far-right or racist (granted the media is sparing with the word "terrorist" in these cases, compared to those involving Muslims, but we all know the geopolitics behind that). It's a weird conspiracy theory that there's actually a tide of far-right mass murders which are being passed-off by the establishment -
no more plausible really, than that they're all done as black ops or by MKUltra victims or crisis actors. Elliott Rodger targeted women but primarily targeted men he viewed as sexually successful. He hated successful men and women and yet idpols have tried to turn the case into sheer gender hatred. He had racial prejudices but did not target black people. There's little evidence that he was primarily motivated by either racial or gender hatred. Idpols also quietly write out the cases (Micah Johnson, Christopher Dorner, Valerie Solanas, Sandro do Nascimiento, Jaylen Fryberg, Seung-Hui Cho, innumerable Muslims, the Aum sect...) who don't fit their narrative, and try to downplay the enormous similarities between (say) Mohammed Salah and Elliott Rodger.

What they don't want to ask is: why is there a low-intensity war of all against all going on in American society?

Idpol don't hit out at society, they ARE society. Alt-right are the ones hitting out, they're paranoid haters. The rebellion should be directed at the banality of modern Western life and the poverty of aesthetics, not these binary political propaganda wars you are only further instigating.

Usually when some people are in the game they don't realize the scope and scale of the game. They just think about winning. That's why the regressive Leftists -the ID politicians, who do not only comprise of Leftists- won't be asking themselves this question; because they're taking part in the Hate Game.

Most Leftists have trashed the radical, universalist humanism of 19th century revolutionaries and marxists, for shallower and alienating paradigms, for how compartmenting these are. "Intersectionality"? By jove!!! Wtf are we talking about here? We are not sections we're individuals, and aspiring persons. We're humans. Even if that means crap, that's what we all are.

The "human family" is a concept that's crucial to any radically liberatory stance. The moment you replace it with social categories cast as paradigms of social change, not only you do the reactionary job that racists have been doing for ages, but you're also pushing people into mutual political dead ends.

Yeah, and what a crass materialistic game it is, thus my obsession with the aesthetics of life's radical modes of insurgency,.,

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Enter the code without spaces.