the neoliberal vision of the future

[ViolentPanda]

Well, I don't think there's any issue with explaining basics. There's a thread around here where someone (Edie?) was asking basic questions a few days ago and getting polite answers.

I can't speak for anyone else, but the problem I was having trying to communicate with onarchy is that he persistently redefines words that have a well established meaning in political discourse to mean something completely different, but more suitable to his peculiar worldview or takes wild liberties with well-established facts, again to support his rather odd viewpoint.

This causes a lot of pointless confusion at best, and after a while tends to make people decide they're dealing with some sort of dogmatic cultist rather than a rational being keen to explore other points of view.

He reminds me of communicating with some of the more beardy Trotskyists.

 

[molo]

Well, I don't think there's any issue with explaining basics. There's a thread around here where someone (Edie?) was asking basic questions a few days ago and getting polite answers.

I can't speak for anyone else, but the problem I was having trying to communicate with onarchy is that he persistently redefines words that have a well established meaning in political discourse to mean something completely different, but more suitable to his peculiar worldview. This causes a lot of pointless confusion at best, and after a while tends to make people decide they're dealing with some sort of dogmatic cultist rather than a rational being keen to explore other points of view.

Thank you for a well thought out answer. This is how I have understood it as well. And it makes people just give up. Hence the "not explain basics". Sorry if my english is a bit inadequate.

And, really, how much more basic can it get than the meaning of words (and the implication of disagreeing on it) in a discussion?

A simple example everyone who have followed the thread can answr more or less: Socialist.
1. What would Onarchy say?
2. What would you say?

 

[ViolentPanda]

narcissitic personality disorder

Sometimes I think that you're too kind.

 

[molo]

I'm guessing that English isn't your first language (I'm asking because it would be unfair to tax you with poor usage of English if it isn't your first language)?

It's definitely not. We can't all speak english. I can read his blog like there's no tomorrow, though.

 

[ViolentPanda]

A simple example everyone who have followed the thread can answr more or less: Socialist.
1. What would Onarchy say?
2. What would you say?

Are you asking whether, by any rational meaning of the word, the majority of people who are not Onarchy that are posting on this thread are socialists?

 

[ViolentPanda]

It's definitely not. We can't all speak english. I can read his blog like there's no tomorrow, though.

It's not necessary to speak it, just to read it!

I can only read English and German, so I only understand about every fourth or fifth word of his blog, what with it being written in a barbarian tongue.

 

[molo]

Ah no. More the definition of the word. Does anyone here even agree with him on his "definition" of it?

"by any rational meaning of the word"

hehe

 

[DotCommunist]

I totally love this thread! A lot of bad wordings here, but then again it's the internet.
It is obviously a lot of knowledge behind quite a few nicks here, and I totally love reading how you wont even bother to explain basics.
But it's obvious isn't it?
If you don't get the basics, why bother to discuss on a civilised level.
Then Onarchy can sit in his country stating that he does not answer name-callers, and you all can sit in your countries and state that you do not explain basics to self-proclaimed know-it-alls.

I LOVE this thread

Yes, the essential problem for me is that he came out of the gate with 'socialism=fascism' and then followed a trajectory into actually defending pinochet. Others have discussed the finer points of his political and indeed philosophical outlook with him. He's been caught making several basic, easily identified lies but that is besides the point- the man justified Pinochet because he apparently got results (easily dismissed) and because he saw the war against communists as a war so the murdered were fair game. That is fucking disgusting- you don't need to be a socialist to be left of Pinochet btw, there are tories that he would consign to stadiums to have thier hands broken before they are shot in the head. Just a straight up trade union membership is enough for the murder.

 

[molo]

You profanity and rudeness neither scares nor shocks me.

It's not meant to, it's supposed to convey a degree of cynicism at your rhetoric.

While we're on the subject of explaining basics...

 

[Bernie Gunther]

There was really no famine in Ireland, there was a property crisis.<snip>

This is the sort of thing I mean about taking wild liberties with established fact.

 

[molo]

Yes, the essential problem for me is that he came out of the gate with 'socialism=fascism' and then followed a trajectory into actually defending pinochet. Others have discussed the finer points of his political and indeed philosophical outlook with him. He's been caught making several basic, easily identified lies but that is besides the point- the man justified Pinochet because he apparently got results (easily dismissed) and because he saw the war against communists as a war so the murdered were fair game. That is fucking disgusting- you don't need to be a socialist to be left of Pinochet btw, there are tories that he would consign to stadiums to have thier hands broken before they are shot in the head. Just a straight up trade union membership is enough for the murder.

Sadly, I agree with you. I wish I didn't, as I don't think Onarchy is a bad person as such.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Ah no. More the definition of the word. Does anyone here even agree with him on his "definition" of it?

"by any rational meaning of the word"

hehe

In this case, I use rational to indicate that any broadly used meaning of the word is fine.

I disagree with his definition of it because by the above lights, it's irrational. It doesn't accord to any commonly-used meaning of the word, but rather to a definition that Onar has arrived at through his political journey. While what we might call this "minority-meaning" might be fine when he's conversing with a circle of fellow-travellers who've shared his journey, it's useless as a descriptive tool to people who aren't part of his political circle and/or subscribe to any or all of the broadly-used meanings of the word.

 

[molo]

So in summary, I would include the poor in the system, enable them to secure contracts, get an identity that gives them access to the international markets, and enable them to start formal businesses and to formually own their own homes so that they can get credit.

You do understand the difference between poor and not poor, right?

 

[molo]

In this case, I use rational to indicate that any broadly used meaning of the word is fine.

I disagree with his definition of it because by the above lights, it's irrational. It doesn't accord to any commonly-used meaning of the word, but rather to a definition that Onar has arrived at through his political journey. While what we might call this "minority-meaning" might be fine when he's conversing with a circle of fellow-travellers who've shared his journey, it's useless as a descriptive tool to people who aren't part of his political circle and/or subscribe to any or all of the broadly-used meanings of the word.

And still his followers can not comprehend how it could come about that Onarchy is never invited to political talk-shows...

EDIT: This is the truth, by the way. They really don't understand it. It's mentioned countless times as comments throughout his blog.

 

[Motmakt]

To be fair, he was asking for it. The saucy fucking slut.

Hello,

i am new to this forum, and probably won't be reading it again so i won't see any replies. I am a regular reader of Onar's blog, call myself a libertarian, and am also a buddhist (i mention this because it means i believe in among other things, freedom and the value of life). He linked to this thread in one of his posts, and I have read through most of the posts in this thread to see if what he was saying about the level of discussion here was true. I am aware that most people wouldn't behave like they do on the internet if they were actually conversing face to face, but I still have a few comments i'd like to share.

- There is an awful lot of profanity and name-calling here. As an observer, i'd like to point out that calling someone names or swearing to someone doesn't actually tell me anything about that someone.
It does, however, tell me alot about the state of mind of the person doing the swearing. Ad hominem attacks merely tells an intelligent observer that you are out of ideas, angry, manipulative etc. If you want to be taken seriously, the first thing to do is to stop the name-calling and swearing.
Scoring cheap points with your peer group might seem funny to you, but not to everyone.

- Pointing out spelling errors or complaining about the english (or french) skills of someone who has a different mother tongue is only really valid if it has anything to do with the arguement. If not, it simply comes across as petty and infantile. Quibbling about minor details is usually detrimental to any discussion.

- Onar is known here in Norway among alot of liberals and libertarians. Unfortunately (for me anyway), Norway is a socialist corporativist state like most others in Europe, and the ideas of individual freedom are limited here. Most of whom call themselves liberals identify with right-wing socialists. Onar is working to change that, and i applaud his work, honesty and integrity.

- Talking about ideas is almost always interesting. Talking about people as "nobody" or "loons" does not help me understand your ideas. It does make me think that you are people who have closed your minds to other ideas.

- Keeping a level of emotional detachment can be very helpful. Don't take everything personally, as only you can make yourself feel bad. If someone says/types something that makes you feel angry, it is not that someone's fault. You choose to be angry or not. You choose how you respond. It isn't always easy, but it is still a choice. Sorry about that last one, it's the buddhist in me who wants people to be free from their anger

I wish you all the best, and hope that you realize that we all want the same thing even if we differ on the belief of the best path to take towards that goal; To be happy and free.

 

[molo]

That's not the "actual letter". It's also in a directory entitled forging.

The first link is a book review.

Have you got an actual reference?

buuuurn

 

[ViolentPanda]

And still his followers can not comprehend how it could come about that Onarchy is never invited to political talk-shows...

He might get on well with Bill O'Reilly on Fox. He too has a "unique" approach to the meaning of words.

 

[DotCommunist]

Hello,

i am new to this forum, and probably won't be reading it again so i won't see any replies. I am a regular reader of Onar's blog, call myself a libertarian, and am also a buddhist (i mention this because it means i believe in among other things, freedom and the value of life). He linked to this thread in one of his posts, and I have read through most of the posts in this thread to see if what he was saying about the level of discussion here was true. I am aware that most people wouldn't behave like they do on the internet if they were actually conversing face to face, but I still have a few comments i'd like to share.

- There is an awful lot of profanity and name-calling here. As an observer, i'd like to point out that calling someone names or swearing to someone doesn't actually tell me anything about that someone.
It does, however, tell me alot about the state of mind of the person doing the swearing. Ad hominem attacks merely tells an intelligent observer that you are out of ideas, angry, manipulative etc. If you want to be taken seriously, the first thing to do is to stop the name-calling and swearing.
Scoring cheap points with your peer group might seem funny to you, but not to everyone.

- Pointing out spelling errors or complaining about the english (or french) skills of someone who has a different mother tongue is only really valid if it has anything to do with the arguement. If not, it simply comes across as petty and infantile. Quibbling about minor details is usually detrimental to any discussion.

- Onar is known here in Norway among alot of liberals and libertarians. Unfortunately (for me anyway), Norway is a socialist corporativist state like most others in Europe, and the ideas of individual freedom are limited here. Most of whom call themselves liberals identify with right-wing socialists. Onar is working to change that, and i applaud his work, honesty and integrity.

- Talking about ideas is almost always interesting. Talking about people as "nobody" or "loons" does not help me understand your ideas. It does make me think that you are people who have closed your minds to other ideas.

- Keeping a level of emotional detachment can be very helpful. Don't take everything personally, as only you can make yourself feel bad. If someone says/types something that makes you feel angry, it is not that someone's fault. You choose to be angry or not. You choose how you respond. It isn't always easy, but it is still a choice. Sorry about that last one, it's the buddhist in me who wants people to be free from their anger

I wish you all the best, and hope that you realize that we all want the same thing even if we differ on the belief of the best path to take towards that goal; To be happy and free.

You made the class war personal when your idealogues informed my government. If you aren't angry you aren't paying attention.

And Don't wave your Buddhism like a get-out-of-cunt free card. All life is suffering eh? for someone else.
Christ save me from these people.

 

[DotCommunist]

- Onar is known here in Norway among alot of liberals and libertarians. Unfortunately (for me anyway), Norway is a socialist corporativist state like most others in Europe, and the ideas of individual freedom are limited here. Most of whom call themselves liberals identify with right-wing socialists. Onar is working to change that, and i applaud his work, honesty and integrity.

Love onar. Worship onar. Three bags of shit full onar.

 

[molo]

I am not asking you to educate me. I am challenging you to justify your position.

And I must admit... I thought that was why one challenged someone. I may have severely misjudged someone.

 

[molo]

No it doesn't. Those that own the land now will prevent them from doing so.

You've completely dodged the question. There is only so much land. In most parts of the world, all the land that is of any use is already owned by someone. How did they come to own that land and not somebody else? And how do you change that situation?

Let me give you a clue as to how to answer my questions. These are questions I have thought about before. I am not asking you to educate me. I am challenging you to justify your position.

Oh and by the way, let me repeat myself just a tad:

Basics.

You know, the simple stuff you never explain because... And so on.

 

[molo]

It's interesting isn't it? The rest of that post contains all kinds of assumptions like that. For example, I think he's assuming that the rate of profit is also an immutable law of nature.

For some reason I found that comment immensely funny.

 

[TruXta]

ideas of individual freedom are limited here

No, that's bullshit. I'm not saying it for that cocktard's benefit, he said he wasn't coming back anyway, but for the rest of you who might not know much about Norwegian culture. Individual freedom is very much alive in Norway, as is a strong (although slowly fracturing) sense of togetherness and solidarity. Don't get me wrong, it's hardly paradise, but compared to some places it's a pretty humane country.

You'd think a Buddhist, a fucking Buddhist of all people, should know that there is no self, ultimately there is only a Self.

 

[molo]

Are you regretting the sock-puppet now, onan?

Silly boy.

Now back to that thorny problem of land tenure...

Without having read further than here, I'd say you will NOT get an answer to that.
Just a guess, ofc.

 

[molo]

While we're at it, can you tell me what you're basing your definition of fascism on? Which academic research?

This made me laugh as well. God knows why...

 

[molo]

You have a responsibility to yourself to learn the truth, and if you choose to be intellectually dishonest then that is really not my problem.

Which would explain a lot of the answers in this thread.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

It's good to laugh and actually, from another thread here's something both painfully hilarious and entirely representative of the actual topic of this thread.

The technical name of the program that Mack and Karches took advantage of is TALF, short for Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility. But the federal aid they received actually falls under a broader category of bailout initiatives, designed and perfected by Federal Reserve chief Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, called "giving already stinking rich people gobs of money for no fucking reason at all."

http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...hos-cashing-in-on-the-bailout-20110411?page=1

Whatever the strange cult onarchy represents might think all those words mean, actual neo-liberal governments are demonstrating that the state has a major role to play, in socialising losses suffered by capitalism onto the rest of us while actively giving money to the useless rich. I personally find the profanity entirely justified when talking about this sort of thing ...

 

[molo]

The more time I spend on this forum the more information I get about your values in life and about your vision of how society should be.

What if you're wrong? Ever thought about that?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

What if you're wrong? Ever thought about that?

I'm pretty sure the thought has never crossed his mind at any time regarding any subject

 

[molo]

That's right, and I'm not ashamed to say so. I behave peacefully, respectfully and benevolently towards other people who are peaceful and respectful.

With all due respect - that is not peaceful. That is self-righteous. Nothing else. It's choosing who is worthy of your attention or aid. It's not peaceful. It's segregating. It's cold and pure evil towards people who needs help.

But people who has wronged you in even the smallest manner deserve to die, is that it?
It certainly comes out like that during this thread.