The paradox of Christian fundie homophobia

One thing I’ve noticed in my observation of homophobic Christian fundamentalists is that there are two deeply conflicting narratives at the heart of their anti-gay rantings: “homosexual” (a category which, to them, seems to mean a sexually active homosexual or bisexual) as conspirator and “homosexual” as victim.

A great example of this is Chick Tracts: some of them portray gays as part of some vast conspiracy to “recruit” children and spread AIDS(!) to gain political favors, whereas others portray them as helpless victims of deception and abuse who must be “cured” of their “disorder”. Both narratives in Chick Tracts blame demonic possession. Fundie site and bastion of poor HTML  Jesus-is-savior doesn’t even make this pitiful attempt at justifying these hateful and contradictory doctrines. Even “mainstream” conservative Christian organizations fall prey to this: see Focus on the Family and their ilk.

I guess there’s something fitting about the most ardent followers of a self-contradicting “infallible” text coming up with blatantly contradictory ideas.


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Some advice

When making a political ideology, keep in mind that neither Animal Farm, Snow Crash, The Forever War, 1984, anything by the Marquis de Sade, nor Fight Club are instruction manuals.

Also keep in mind that ends and means cannot be separated, we don’t live in a free market, and “voluntary state” is an oxymoron.

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments

Some links

I guess this is a tribute to Charles Johnson and Kevin Carson, two fellow left-libs who are very fond of compiling links.

A Path: a site that writes some interesting stuff from a Pagan/Wiccan perspective, including a pretty nice article about gender. The “invest your vote” article has some nasty stuff, though, but you take what you can get.

A Division By Zero: a very well-written ancom blog with some novel things to say about libertarian socialism, ancap and feminism.

Two-Gun Mutualism and the Golden Rule: Shawn P. Wilbur’s excellent blog about property theory, historical scholarship, and other cool stuff. Check it out.

Arm Your Mind for Liberty: George Donnelly’s blog. A more conventionally propertarian market anarchist who can think outside the box of ancap dogma. Some nice criticisms of current state policy, too, even if he links to the awful Anarcho-Mercantilist site.

Urban Dissent: Royce Christian’s blog. A left-lib blog with a healthy concern for cultural issues, including anti-fa and post-colonialism. A hearty amount of Egypt and Libya coverage, and some impressive responses to drama in left-lib circles.

Mark Simpson: some great queer journalism and analysis.

Check Your Premises: Written by Francois Tremblay, probably the most hard-line libsoc to associate themself with mutualism in Cthulhu knows how long. Some quite admirable propaganda analysis and counter-apologetics.

Of course, there’s also Roderick Long, Kevin Carson, and Charles Johnson, and they’re all great, but I’m trying to focus on things just a little bit less constantly repped around here.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

The problem with thin libertarianism

If one spends any significant amount of time in left-libertarian circles, one will hear of the concept of “thick libertarianism”. Thick libertarianism is basically extending the advocacy of freedom to the cultural sphere, creating a cultural background in which liberty can more fully flourish. This is controversial because it involves extending liberty beyond simple non-aggression.

However, the fault of “aggression is the root of the problem” is that generally, aggression is an expression of authority. The state gains its power from the fact that people obey its authority. Another example would be rape, which is fundamentally an assertion of authority over a victim.  Aggression is far more likely to occur because of authority then out of opposition to it.

You can have authority without exercising force, but it’s pretty damn hard to have force without exercising authority.



Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Beyond “consenting adults”

Amongst civil libertarians, one often hears the phrase “consenting adults”. This pisses me off, for the very reason that I advocate liberty.

“Consenting adults” is either redundant or repugnant. If one is trying to express that one has to be an “adult” to consent (these people never state what an “adult” is), then it is redundant. The only other possible meaning is that people who are not “adults” should be banned from having sex even if they can  fully consent. This often comes from statist paternalism. Both interpretations are quite ageist, and neither is at all libertarian.

We should stop talking about “consenting adults” and start talking about consenting people.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Mutualism: an overview

What is mutualism? In the broadest terms, I’d define mutualism as that branch of market anarchism basing itself around an occupancy-and-use conception of property.

However, to more fully understand mutualism, one must look at its essence. The theoretical starting point of mutualism is the leveling of capitalist notions of property and the rebuilding of property theory according to the three defining principles of the left: liberty, equality, solidarity.

From this can be derived the principle of occupancy and use. In occupancy and use, one may keep land that they are using, but not forcibly stop others from occupying unused land, nor claim sole ownership of vast tracts of land. Keep what you need for yourself, but do not take from others-laissez-faire taken to its logical conclusion.

From that, it can be deduced that a single boss cannot own a factory which his workers are using, thus leading to support of worker’s self-management. Same with a supermarket, a large farm, or really any major enterprise. The mutualist is thus a staunch supporter of cooperatives, not to mention the radical unionism of organizations such as the IWW, as well as an enemy of that ultimate landlord, the state.

Though mutualism is socialist, it is also radically free market. Acknowledging the mutually beneficial nature of voluntary trade, as well as the dehumanizing and authoritarian effects of state centralization, the mutualist sees a truly free market for what it is- a profoundly liberating system that radically undermines all privilege for the wealthy.

Mutualism is a revolutionary vision for a free society, in which individual liberty and social equality compliment each other seamlessly and all can freely pursue their own hopes and dreams.

What cause could be worthier?

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

On egoism

Egoism is often said to be anti-social or even solipsistic. However, this is pretty much the opposite of the truth. The individual cannot be separated from the society they live in. If one wants to affirm their self-interest, they must form positive, beneficial relationships with others. Egoism is a profoundly social philosophy.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment