put all your cards on the table

anomalous_one @ 2009-11-06T11:16:00

2009-11-06T19:17:29Z

Animals Are Stupid

by Ari Solomon

In a recent interview with Larry King, celebrity chef Anthony Bourdain quipped that it was OK for humans to kill and eat animals because we've been designed to chase down "smaller and stupider creatures." Never mind that cows and pigs, two animals that are slaughtered by the millions for food, are most certainly bigger than we are. It was the "stupider" remark that caught my attention, and not just for Bourdain's obvious grammatical shortcomings.

I think many of us feel that animals are dumb; that animals lack the intelligence we humans seem to have so abundantly. I believe this looking down on animals plays a big part in what allows us to treat them in the most heinous ways -- from factory farms to fur farms to laboratories to circuses. We believe that because animals can't write a book, compose a symphony, or do algebra that we're so much better than them.

What a load of bullshit.

Did you know, for example, that pigeons can fly thousands of miles to find the same roosting spot with no navigational difficulties? Some species of birds, like the Arctic Tern, make a 25,000-mile round-trip journey every year. Many species use built-in ferromagnets to detect their orientation with respect to the Earth's magnetic field. Can you do that?

Dolphins have a very distinct language that scientists now refer to as "dolphinese" which humans can't decipher. For all our human knowledge, we have no idea how to understand what should be, according to Bourdain, a "stupider" means of communication.

Salmon are born in rivers, but swim thousands of miles to the ocean only to return to the exact same spot upstream to die.

Elephants communicate with each other subsonically, using low rumbles that can travel for miles underground. They also mourn their dead and have been seen cradling the bones of family members that have passed on.

Butterflies are now thought to have the equivalent of a GPS system in their antennae.

Pigs have the mental capacity of a four year-old human child and have beat humans in memory games.

So, perhaps animals are not stupid. Perhaps it's we who are stupid for not recognizing the amazing things animals can do, many of which we can't do ourselves. Perhaps it's we who are dumb for not being able to circumnavigate the globe without instruments as albatross do, or find our way home across thousands of miles of ocean as Blue Whales do.

Maybe humans can actually learn a thing or two from these "stupid" animals. How about we start with this: animals don't create trash. Animals don't build nuclear weapons to annihilate each other. Animals don't conjure up religions and then kill each other in the name of their Gods. Animals with white fur don't discriminate against animals with fur of a different hue or color. Animals only take what they need. Animals are self-cleaning and don't waste water -- my cat has NEVER had a bath yet he'd smell better than any human who didn't shower. Animals don't gay bash homosexual animals. Animals don't screw over other animals for financial gain a la Bernie Madoff. Animals don't breed other animals to be prettier, fatter, or tastier. Animals don't systematically torture and abuse and kill billions of other animals (or each other) the way humans do. Animals don't commit Holocausts, they don't factory farm, and they don't ethnically cleanse each other. Animals don't cheat. Animals don't front. Animals are their authentic selves.

Yes, humans can do some amazing things: we can cure diseases, we can build skyscrapers, we can figure out how to travel into space. But only human arrogance would suggest that we're better or smarter than animals. The animals of the world evolved to be just as they are. They exist for their own reasons. Only an idiot would call them stupid.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ari-solomon/animals-are-stupid_b_336049.html&cp

anomalous_one @ 2009-10-25T18:27:00

2009-10-26T01:27:51Z

the world of strife we will live in

2009-10-21T20:34:06Z

...because this clearly has nothing to do with the people who show up at the convergence.

This is a fantastic text, one written by anarchists, which so ironically throws the hypocrisy and simple-mindedness of anarchists into sharp focus, the equivalent of the parts of the Bible which Christians conveniently ignore.

points of emphasis are mine....

infighting the good fight: Why We’re Right & You’re Wrong
Towards a Non-D(en)ominational Revolution

“Just like every coddled middle class liberal, when it comes down to it he’ll just run back home.” “Those lifestyle anarchists don’t care about anything but themselves. Don’t they understand if everyone lived like them, there would be no system to leech off?” “If they’re not going to abide by the decisions of the spokescouncil, they shouldn’t be here at all. I’d rather they were at home doing nothing than messing up our protest like this!” “How can you expect to ____ without ____? If you really cared about ____, you’d ____! (like me)” “I don’t want to be an activist or an anarchist or a part of this at all if it means I have to . . .”

Why We Can’t All Just Get Along

Can we get along? Even for those of us who would prefer to be hermits, there is no question today more important than this one—the fate of our species and planet will be decided by it.

There is no shortcut around this dilemma. Any kind of capital-R Revolution, any redistribution of wealth and power, will be short-lived and irrelevant without a fundamental change in our relationships—for social structure is an expression of these relationships, not a factor external to them. Revolution, then, is not a single moment, but a way of living: anarchy and hierarchy always coexist in varying proportions, and the important question is simply which you foster in your own life.

We are ill-qualified to reconstruct human relations if we can’t even get along with each other in the attempt—and nothing seems to create dissension and division like those attempts. Often it seems that the people who know least how to relate to others are the self-professed activists who set out to save them. Yet these conflicts are not an inescapable consequence of human nature, but rather a pattern of cause and effect—which can and must be altered. This is a starting place to consider what the challenges are in undertaking this, and why we’ve had such a hard time to date.

The Scarcity Economy of Self

In a world where free, creative action is hard to get away with, we all feel impoverished, cheated of the experiences and sensations we know should be ours. We compensate as best we can, and often this compensation serves only to preserve our destitution. We seek status in wealth, power, strength, beauty, reputation, anything to soften the blows of wasted days. We compensate by seeking another kind of status, too: the feeling of being superior, a status in our own heads.

We live in a society that teaches there is not enough of any valuable resource to go around, including selfhood. People on television or in books are held up as more important, more noble, more attractive than the rest of us. We grow up in households where our parents don’t have enough time for us; we are sent to schools that employ a grading system that permits only a handful to excel, and are discharged into a market that enriches a few of us while exploiting or discarding the rest. We internalize the values of this system. We become used to judging our value by what we are “better than.” We rush to despise others, their plans and ideas and habits and beliefs, in order to reassure ourselves that we have worth of our own. When we should be looking for what is positive in everything, we denounce and criticize instead—just to reassure ourselves! The most insecure among us are not even able to enjoy movies and music, because it is so important to them that they have “refined” tastes; they don’t realize that when they succeed in failing to enjoy something, no one has lost more than they. If you’re going to get anything out of any movie or song or interaction (so as not to have simply wasted time!), you have to take responsibility for finding ways to enjoy and benefit from it.

In its advanced stages, such hypercritical status-seeking can combine with a spectator mentality: from a distance, the critic passively votes for or against the efforts of others, unable to discern that such things as art, activism, community are entirely what he makes of them—and that he must make something of them himself in order to get anything out of them. This spectatorship reinforces the sense that everything everyone else is doing is uninteresting or unintelligent, and thus the feeling of superiority the spectator so desperately needs. You rarely encounter a genuinely active, involved person who feels the need to proclaim her actions superior to others’; but in the spectator’s scarcity economy of self, any expression of selfhood, even the most generous and positive, can be interpreted as an encroachment, an attack. Every achievement is something to rebel against, assail, deride—as if we don’t all feel worthless, abused, hunted enough already!

Those of us who would oppose this scarcity system often have additional challenges to face in unlearning its conditioning. Many of us have come to this resistance from a place of conflict and struggle, and this sense of struggle is still imprinted upon the way we approach all our activities. Having been abused, neglected, harassed, having had to fight peers, parents, teachers, bosses, police to establish ourselves, we see selfhood as something that is obtained by fighting. We come to think of being radical as a war—hence the more wars we fight, the more radical we must be. We profess intentions to create peace, but the only tools we possess are weapons. Small wonder we end up fighting among ourselves.

“With a little hard work,
you can make yourself feel alienated by anything.”

Justice and Judgment

Scarcity thinking and the destructive insecurity it fosters have played a large part in shaping our notions of justice. Passing judgment can be the ultimate compensation for one’s own shortcomings. It’s easy to get self-righteous about someone else’s mistakes, flaws, inconsistencies . . . for we all have them, and the more focused we are on the shortcomings of others, the less we have to think about our own. Witch-hunters who believe that they have found a real live criminal (or racist, lifestyle anarchist, class traitor, etc.), just like the ones in the movies, can reassure themselves that they have isolated the contagion and need look no further—and the more vitriolic their denunciations of the enemy, the more afraid everyone else is to admit what they have in common with him.

Once again—we live in a violent world. It’s as sensible to blame any one of us for being colonized by this violence as it is to blame the oceans for being polluted. The question should not be whether an individual is guilty—we all are, at least of complicity—but rather how to enable all individuals to confront and transform the violence and ignorance within themselves. Often nothing can help an person to do this more than to offer him forgiveness, to trust that he is interested in communicating with you; this makes it easier for him to drop his defenses and acknowledge what you have to say. This is not to say that we shouldn’t defend ourselves whenever we have to, and by any means necessary—but let’s do this for practical reasons, not out of a thirst for revenge and superiority.

“Righteousness is a premium currency in this post-Christian society, though it refers to a mythical world.”

Objectivity vs. Subjectivity

Objectivity thinking, on which our scarcity-oriented, authoritarian civilization is based, posits that there is only one truth. According to this school of reasoning, those who want to explain human behavior or overthrow capitalism should make different propositions regarding the best way to do this, and debate them until the “correct” one is selected. And so, in the ivory towers, intellectuals and armchair revolutionaries debate incessantly, coming no closer to consensus, developing more and more exclusive jargon, while the rest of us labor to make something actually happen. Subjectivity thinking accepts that there is no “the” reality, and infers that any “objective” reality must simply be one subjective reality institutionalized as Truth by those in power. Subjectivity thinking recognizes that people have arrived at their particular beliefs and behaviors as a result of their individual life experiences. This has an important bearing on how we interact with each other, especially in our efforts to change the world. Different people are going to have different beliefs, tactics, goals. Accept this. They don’t necessarily think differently than you do because they are not as smart or experienced or perceptive as you—they may be your equals in all these regards, but come to different conclusions based on different evidence from their own lives. Respect this, while offering whatever perspectives you can yourself—keeping in mind that the less you have in common, the more you would do well to listen rather than speak. When hearing a person’s position on an issue, you don’t have to immediately begin debating which of you is right. Instead, try to think of projects you could undertake together that would further the interests you have in common. Whatever ideological issues need to be worked out can be worked out in practice, if they can be worked out at all—they certainly will not be resolved by another contest of egos disguised as a debate about theory.

Obviously, it’s impossible for anyone to legislate for everyone else, since every life experience is unique—nevertheless, you can offer your own experiences and conclusions, for others to do with what they will (in the words of the divine Marquis: “if you can speak honestly for yourself, you will find you have spoken for others as well”). This may be seen as legislating, by those who believe that there is only one right way; but those who attack you for offering your own perspective or analysis, on the grounds that it doesn’t apply to them (or isn’t relevant to all people, starving mothers in Somalia, the transgendered community, etc.) are still working within the scarcity model.

Remember—every value you hold, every decision you make, you make for yourself alone. The scarcity-thinkers will attack you as if you are deciding for everyone—don’t fall into the trap of their thinking by arguing for your own methods and ideas as universals. Simply point out that you act according to your own conscience, and hope to integrate your approach into those of others—just as it is up to others to do with you.

The Capitalism of Ideas

Those who still hold that there is such a thing as “objective” truth generally feel a compulsion to persuade others of their truths. This is the self-perpetuating consequence of the power struggles that go on in the market of ideas; as in any economy based on scarcity, this market is characterized by competition between capitalists who strive to preserve and increase their power over others.

In our society, ideas function as capital in much the same way money does. Individuals who can get others to “buy in” to their ideas obtain a disproportionate amount of control over their surroundings; large conglomerates (the Catholic Church, the Communist Party) can come to rule large parts of the world this way, just as corporations do—indeed, there can be no entrenched political or financial power without ideological capital to back it up. Little “start-up companies” of competing ideas can enter the market to contest such monopolies, and sometimes one unseats the reigning creed to become the new dominant paradigm; but as in any capitalist system, power tends to flow upward to the top of a hierarchy, from which the masters, the ones qualified to employ it, decide matters for everyone else . . . and, just as in financial capitalism, ultimately it is not even the ruling class but competition itself that is in control. In this environment, anyone with a value or viewpoint has to rush to sell it to others before being run out of business.

It’s hard to imagine from here what a world free from this war of ideologies would be like. Obviously, it would have to be a world free from analogous wars (for money, power, selfhood), too, for it’s foolish to insist that “one can think however one wants” when some ways of conceptualizing the cosmos are punished by exclusion or embargo. Those of us who fight for freedom from the power of gods and masters would do well to contest the dictatorships of ideology—any ideology—which always accompany and enable them.

Why People Don’t Want to “Join the Movement”

Considering the numbers of public relations agents, televangelists, self-help gurus, and other assorted fanatics and salesmen competing to convert them, the hesitance “the masses” show to get involved in any kind of social movement is actually a healthy self-defense mechanism. Thus the biggest challenge for those who would find common cause with others to make revolutionary change is how to avoid making them defensive in the process.

Radical politics does make people feel defensive in the West today—this is a greater obstacle to social transformation than any corporate control or government repression. And this is due in large part to the attitudes of the activists themselves: many activists have invested in their activist identities as an act of compensation at least as much as out of a genuine desire to make things happen—for them, activism serves the same function that machismo, fashion, popularity serve for others. Activists who are still serving the imperatives of insecurity tend to alienate others—they may even unconsciously want to alienate others, so they can stand alone as the virtuous vanguard. Seeing such activists in action, people who don’t have the same insecurities to placate assume that activism has nothing to do with their own lives and needs. Whenever we have an idea for a “revolutionary” project—we must ask ourselves: Are we certain of our motivations? Will our words and deeds mobilize and enable, or immobilize and discourage? Are we trying to create a spectacle of our freedom/compassion/erudition, to establish our status as revolutionaries/leaders/intellectual theorists, to claim the moral high ground, to win at the childish competition of who is most oppressed (as if suffering was quantifiable!), still seeking power and revenge in the guise of liberation? People can tell when you are lording yourself over them or playing a role, just as they can sense when you are acting out of honesty and joy. They’re much more likely to respond to that, since their lives are already filled with enough role-playing and rivalry.

We would do better to abandon the crusade to “convert the masses,” with all its patronizing implications that others are lazy, blind, weak, victimized, in need of guidance. Instead—first, we ought to reach out to those who are in situations similar to ours, or ones we have been in; these people, with whom we have the most in common, are the ones to whom our perspectives can be most useful. Second, we can find people already active in communities other than ours with whom we share values and goals, and work with them—this is vastly preferable to entering others’ communities and attempting to “organize” them according to the doctrines of outsiders. Third, we can endeavor to defend others from the encroachments of power and ideology—and extend to them whatever tools we have developed in our own struggles, to apply as they see fit outside our agendas. Finally, we can find common cause with people on the grounds of the “antisocial” things they are already doing and feeling: theft, vandalism and graffiti, “laziness,” rebelliousness, general nihilism, compassion.

This is the real significance of the “glorification” of shoplifting, adultery, etc. that some radical propaganda indulges in: not to argue that shoplifting itself is revolution in action (or for that matter that one must shoplift to be radical—as if revolution was a commodity in a scarcity economy, only available through certain channels!), but to establish connections to the daily lives and resistances of individuals who are not yet acting out of an articulated desire for revolution. The radical significance of a statement is in the effects of making it, not in whether or not it is “objectively” true. On the grounds of the private longings and frustrations people feel—their hatred for busywork, the joy in transgression they find they share with teenagers and anarchists, the instinctive suspicion with which they approach all totalitarian systems—a resistance can be established that proceeds from the individual motivations and standpoints of all those who comprise it, rather than the demands of political parties and dogmas. This is the only kind of resistance that can rescue us from both authoritarian power and authoritarian ideology.

When it comes to “under-represented” perspectives, remember—it’s not your role to “represent” them, as the politicians “represent” us. Better to do your best to represent yourself, and encourage others to do the same . . . for example, by listening to those who already are. Some people may dismiss your perspective (as “middle class,” “reformist,” “extremist,” etc.), but there is no such thing as an illegitimate perspective—it is only illegitimate to act as if any perspective is not legitimate. A lot of this goes on, often perpetrated in the name of the under-represented (an easy trick!) by those who aren’t necessarily under-represented themselves. Don’t be intimidated—you can be sure that if you are feeling something, someone else is feeling it, too, and needs to know she is not alone.

Not Unity, But Harmony

Any kind of “resistance movement” is going to develop conflicts over strategy (“violent” vs. “non-violent,” etc.), as different individuals construct their own analyses and test them out in practice. To contest this diversity rather than seeking to benefit from it—to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by turning opportunities to address important issues into squabbles—is to wish everyone had the same life history and perspective. Teenage hoodlums are not going to find the same things liberating as middle-aged librarians do—but both have a stake in liberation, and must be a part of any struggle for it. Those who would set rules for the unruly and regulations for the irregular would deny the complexity not only of human beings but also of the revolution we hope to make.

Others are always going to have different approaches and goals than you do; the challenge is not to convert them to your own strategy (for who knows—could it be they actually know better than you what is good for them?), but rather to find ways to integrate divergent methods into a mutually beneficial whole. Like it or not, if you feel that another’s tactics are ineffective or counterproductive, it is up to you to find and add the missing ingredient that can make them effective—otherwise, all the energy they put into their efforts is not only wasted, but turned against them and everyone else. Under such circumstances it will be much easier to point fingers and lay blame—but this accomplishes nothing.

Approaches that speak clearly to some people may alienate others—even and especially proclaimed activists (though, really, the last people any given approach needs to reach or please are people who are already radicalized). In these cases, it’s important not to feel too threatened, since you may not actually be—and to keep in mind that with the vast diversity of lives on this planet, we’ll need an equally diverse arsenal of outreaches. In other cases, approaches that seem to contradict each other may actually form a perfect symbiosis: as in the relationship between masked rioters and well-behaved, well-spoken proponents of social change. No one in power would take heed of the latter without the former behind them (imagine Martin Luther King’s nonviolence without the implicit threat of Malcolm X’s confrontational stance), and without “respectable” support, insurgents can easily be marginalized and destroyed. In these situations, all parties should remember that others may even have to publicly disavow their tactics in order to continue doing their part effectively; when this happens, there should be no hard feelings.

Certainly it can be difficult to work alongside people who profess beliefs entirely different from yours—and you should never work with others you fear will betray you or hijack your efforts to serve their own ends. But, again, ask yourself: are your positions significant to you as positions—possessions, status symbols, badges of identity—or as generalizations that exist to help you create more fulfilling moments of life? It’s common sense to integrate the differing tactics of those who share a common goal; it’s more challenging, but equally important, to put aside your compulsion to persuade everyone else of your opinions when you must, and work to create harmony between individuals who live in totally different worlds. That harmony might never be complete—but it’s a nobler objective than any kind of unity enforced by standardization.

Working in Collectives

Just as a band needs musicians who play different instruments, healthy associations don’t restrict the participants with “compromises” that force them to limit themselves to the things they have in common, but instead integrate their dissimilarities into a whole greater than the sum of its parts. Working and living in such arrangements, in which every person is conscious that she is responsible for making the projects and relationships work, helps one learn to see oneself as a part of the web of human relations, rather than as an automaton against the world. Under these circumstances, others’ desires must be taken as seriously as one’s own—and this can actually allow an individual to be a more complete person, as her companions can represent parts of herself for her that she would not otherwise express. This makes sense, for everyone is ultimately a product of the same world—we are all interconnected, each manifesting different aspects of the same interplay of forces. Without this insight, cooperation and community can only be incidental and haphazard.

Eventually, for the individual experienced in living communally, it becomes possible to regard the entire cosmos as one vast, albeit dysfunctional, collective; the problem is simply how to make its workings more to one’s liking. This is not to say the fascists, sexists, etc. can go about their merry business and be “part of our collective”—they’d be the first ones to deny that, and follow it up with proof! But remember, the chief argument of fascism and reactionary thinking has always been that cooperation and autonomy are mutually exclusive, that people have to be ordered and controlled or else they will be lazy and kill each other. The more we can demonstrate this to be untrue, the less appeal their claims will have. “Anyone who isn’t on both sides of the issue is obviously against me from some direction.”

Perhaps the most important thing you can do in this struggle is be there for others, help them believe in themselves, offer real compassion—not the condescension of charity—when it is needed. But there is no formula for this; mercy comes in the least predictable forms and from the most unexpected sources. Often it takes a person who has suffered something similar to be able to offer real succor to one who is suffering or struggling. That’s another reason why it is good that we have all chosen different paths and suffered different things, even things that seemed to isolate us—why there is a place even for spoiled rich kids and homeless drug addicts and lovers who have lied and betrayed in this struggle: for who else could relate to others in those difficult situations, offer them guidance and hope? When you recognize how your own tribulations have prepared you to help others, it can make sense of experiences that seemed unjustifiable; at the same time, this may help you to see the importance of others who previously appeared without worth.

Often we have our hands full dealing with our own pain, filled with too much bitterness and confusion to be able to offer others anything, least of all mercy. This means it is all the more critical that we not miss the opportunities we do get to be good to others—whether or not they have “earned” it, whether or not we understand them, whether or not we think it will make a difference.

War, or Revolution?

We would-be revolutionaries so frequently frame our project in martial terms: we set out to Fight Racism, Smash Fascism, Destroy Capitalism, Eat the Rich. This enables us to see ourselves as noble crusaders—and more importantly, to have adversaries, which reassures us of our own righteousness. This reassurance is apparently more precious than the success in our efforts it replaces and prevents—at least, it is so long as one hasn’t yet tasted that success. We have to remember in every instant that our enemies are not human beings: our enemies are the conditions that make us enemies.

A world entirely without enemies is not possible—it’s not even desirable, for most—but understand, war is business as usual for capitalist society: Exxon vs. Shell, U.S.A. vs. Iraq, Communists vs. Anarchists, lover against lover and parent against child. Even if we could kill every last rapist, C.E.O., head of state, police officer, and housemate who won’t do the dishes, that violence would remain in the world as the venom and fury of those who survived them (not to mention the ways those murders would leave their mark on us)—that’s karma for you. Revolution is what happens when you create situations that make the old conflicts—all that inertia of resentment and insecurity and antagonism—irrelevant.

Of course warfare is necessary sometimes—we have to fight all efforts to keep us at war with each other, and for some of us this will mean violence. But, as the venerable sage once pointed out, “if it’s you against the world, bet on the world.” So many of us alienate ourselves so needlessly from others, eventually relying on some abstraction (“the working class,” “the imminent insurrection”) for camaraderie once every companion of flesh and blood is gone, or, worse, concluding that cooperation is simply impossible—when history shows that it is possible, just not for you, until you’re ready to be more patient, considerate, humble, forgiving.

When you can be generous enough not to blame another for her incoherence, selfishness, mistakes, bad ideas, even acts of violence, you can discern what she has to offer you. When you can put into practice a form of justice that takes responsibility for setting things aright, you can heal, rather than impotently dispensing guilt and glory. When you can be patient with impatience, when you can resist contemptation, when you can refrain from being self-righteous even and especially with the self-righteous, you can do your part to liberate all of us prisoners of war.

Doing things you enjoy will help you not to take your frustrations out on others—as will working with people you like, whenever it’s possible. There’s nothing noble or revolutionary about “sacrificing yourself for the cause,” especially when it makes you impossible to be around. At the same time, it won’t—and shouldn’t—always be possible to surround yourself with people who see things the way you do: be ready to leave your comfort zone, and bring a generous heart when you do.

This is dedicated to all those who have done this over the years, who have taken it for granted that for all their clumsiness, people from other backgrounds and advocates of other tactics really did desire to coexist and cooperate with them: to the men and women of the working class who took the time to explain to bourgeois activists how they were alienating them, even when the latter did not at first know how to listen; to the women who not only demanded that men recognize the existence and effects of their sexism, but also acknowledged the fears and anxieties they felt; to the survivors of abuse who went on to give counseling to both abused and abusers. Without them, we would assuredly have torn each other to pieces already. It’s frightening to let your guard down, it’s hard to swallow your pride (even when clinging to it would mean betraying yourself)—but this is the only way to help others do the same. Until they can, we will live in this barren world of shields and swords, each of us a city-state unto herself. Some anarchy.

Don’t be intimidated by the colossal challenge of “saving the world”; there are as many worlds as there are people—save yours, the one made up of the life you share with the ones around you. Where one flower blooms, a million more will follow.

I would like to be someone with whom no one would feel she had to be ashamed of any part of herself. I would like to be able to regard the actions of others without feeling threatened by them or becoming defensive, even when they are defensive with me—to see others in the context of their lives, not my own. I would like to know how to set limits on how far I rely upon people, so as not to risk losing my ability to respect them. I would like to be able to look those adversaries who should be allies in the eyes and say Like it or not, this is who I am. This is what the world has made of me, and we must all live with the consequences. I can’t feel or believe or act differently than I do, let alone change the decades of life behind me that have wrought this. I don’t want to compete with you for moral high ground or anything else. Unless you’re prepared to kill everyone who doesn’t line up with your standards, or to endure this impasse of animosity indefinitely, you’re going to have to accept me on my own terms, as I hope to do with you. You are as responsible as I am for making what goes on between us positive for us both—or for the world of strife we will live in otherwise.

Yes, you can argue pretty convincingly that this contradicts the previously posted article which has decidedly factionalist overtones. I would counter that it goes very well with my polemic, though, and maintain that my frustration with anarchists stems from their inability to get along or work with anyone who isn't just like them, and not so much the fact that I disagree with them on this or that issue. I have the same complaint about "Mack Evasion", and most assuredly about the vegan straightedge scene. Also I think both articles are complex, both bring up good points, and both also say things that annoy me. And last but not least I will say that I do go back and forth on how important unity is to me.

1,001 reasons to be SXE

2009-10-13T00:42:43Z

this has been in the process of gradual compilation for longer than I can remember, inspired by various examples in my life; obviously it's still short of the goal, so contributions are welcome!

XTHE LISTX

1- you piss yourself less
2- you'll probably remember more
3- you're less likely to wake up to being raped
4- you're less of a skeezebag(and have one less excuse when you are one)
5- you don't have and execute really bad ideas
6- you don't suffer from a complete lack of originality and creativity
7- impotence
8- your lungs
9- your liver
10- because TV, computers, radiation, etc. fuck up your brain enough already
11- rape notwithstanding, you're less likely to have sexual experiences you regret
12- you don't hurt and/or kill yourself because you've lost your coordination
13- you don't hurt and/or kill others because you've lost your coordination
14- you don't have to deal with as many shady characters
15- you'll get in fewer stupid fights
16- you have to actually face your social ineptitude/psychological issues
17- no one will steal your drugs if you don't have any*
18- you're less loud and obnoxious
19- a few less fucked-up industries you're supporting
20- your potential as a counterculture to be reckoned with isn't hopelessly neutralized
21- you'll have more money -or- you won't need money at all
22- you'll get arrested less
23- you won't sell out for your next fix if you don't need one
24- your teeth
25- you won't admit your deepest darkest secrets to people you don't actually trust, or really even care about*
26- you'll lose stuff less*
27- no more making friends who have no idea who you are*
28- you don't have to puke in people's houses who you don't know*
29- NO MORE PASSING OUT*
30- you'll be a better ninja
31- you'll break stuff less
32- you won't laugh at things that aren't funny
33- you'll probably be a better conversationalist
34- you'll be in a better place to give consent
35- hangovers
36- you'll puke less
37- dehydration
38- time, one of the few things we have in life that is truly ours and there is less and less of with each passing moment; can be put to much better use before it's gone*

*credit for this reason belongs to someone other than me

yes, my vision of anarchy begins with the end of most anarchists

2009-10-05T20:15:20Z

I have posted this before, but it was years ago, and while some of you are familiar with it, most of you probably aren't, and it still stands today to me as one of the most important, accurate, inspiring and trenchant social critiques I have ever read, and especially now, at a time when I almost could have written this myself.

enjoy

----

Mack Evasion's Heartattack column

Someone told me all I wrote about was wanderlust and "Getting away with stuff." I'd never really thought about it. Another said I wrote like I never had a negative opinion of anyone. Yet another said every time she came home to her collective house to an uninvited traveling anarchist drinking on her couch, she blamed my writing. God. Three comments and we are are halfway down the list of things I hated most. Ungrateful visitors. Alcohol. Most anarchists. "Positivity" as a substitute for opinions. People who only told other people what they wanted to hear. Or wrote what they wanted to read...

If that was me, I wanted no part. A good time, I thought, to burn some bridges. I've said it before: I'm not here to make friends.

VEGAN STRAIGHT EDGE- THE RESURRECTION

Karl Buechner (Earth Crisis) and Aaron Cometbus. In the punk scene, my two biggest influences And inside of 2 hours, I'd just met both. Someone said that was a strange top two. Maybe it was, I'd never thought about that either.

The whole thing was a long story, or maybe a short one that seemed long. A story of one road trip, four friends, 2000 miles, and almost getting arrested in Baltimore for cutting my hair in a Starbucks restroom. Not knowing what to charge me with, the cop just laughed. We all did. We’d been laughing the whole trip. Attempting LA to dallas in 20 hours. Celebrating our nations independence in a hot tub, taking a course in hip hop slang from a girl I barely knew. Eighteen hours at a computer on July 5th, hours late on HeartattaCK deadline, pounding the keyboard towards something to be proud of, against the deadly obstacles of my poor writing and my tourmates yelling at me. “Hurry up. Let’s go. No one reads those things anyway.”

Total Liberation Tour 2004. Vegan Straight edge- The Resurrection. The real reason for this trip. A handful of speakers and bands, assembling the early traces of what boasted itself as a vegan sxe revival. Revival of a scene nearly dead for seven years. Ten cities, three weeks. The bands: Purified in Blood, Purification, Undying, Tears of Gaia, and more. At first word, I raised an eyebrow, uncertain if the urgency and fertility of the mid-90s scene could ever be recreated, and I wanted to cross the country to gauge for myself. But an offer came, from one of the touring bands, an offer for a seat in their van. NYC “be there.” I folded my xCulturex shirt and organized a ride east.

Arriving in NYC, turns out the van I was to be in wasn’t really there. Still another seat was offered, in another car, and for the next 2 weeks I rode the vegan straight edge train cross country, going to shows and taking notes. My role was an observational one, strictly non-participartory. For two weeks I stood to the side watching, critiquing, looking left and right wondering if the “scene” facet of vegan straight edge could still count me in.

The x’d fists flailed, the “declaration of war” sing-alongs roared. It was 1994 all over again. Then my stint with the tour closed. After thinking about my assessment I halted down a ruling: inconclusive. Like anything, the closer you get, the more obvious the blemishes. The first time around my window to vegan straight edge came through zines and lyric sheets. This time, tainted by personal contact with some in the bands, my respect comes a little more guarded. Yet, for all but a few, I have to believe them when they say they believe their own words, believe in the end of man’s hierarchy over this earth, in Vegan Revolution. I have to, even if sellout statistics show otherwise. I believe because I want to. I believe because of people like Andreas san Diego.

AUGUST 2003

August 28th; a bomb explodes at the headquaters of the Chiron Corp in Emeryville, CA. September 26th: another explosion tears through the headquaters of Shaklee Inc. Both companies participating in or with ties to animal research. A communiqué is issued stating the explosives will double in size until all companies sever ties to Huntinton Life Sciences (contract vivisection lab), and declaring “now this war truly has two sides.” October 5th: The FBI holds a press conference issuing a warrant for the arrest of Andreas San Diego. A profile on Americas Most wanted follows. San Diego becomes a federal fugitive facing over 50 years in prison. Andreas-veteran of the mid 90s vegan sxe scene- is on the run for his life.

XTWO SIDES AND A LINE THAT DIVIDESX

These are the stories written from the history books. Vegan Straight Edge as a force. The years from 1990 to 1997 saw vegan sxe kids-or a few of them- make hardcore a threat, maybe for the first time. Vegan Reich set it off in 1990; accurately capturing the urgency of the struggle for all life. Vegan straight edge had arrived. And with the intrusion into the comfort zone of armchair radicals everywhere came a correlating backlash. They called them privileged white kids, when the visionary and lyricist of Vegan Reich wasn’t even white. They said they’d sell out in a couple years, when 14 years later the man behind it all is still vegan and standing by every word. Vegan Reich upset all the right people and inspired a few others to action. Militant animal liberation and radical ecology moved into an apolitical youth crew scene. “Taking a stand” shifted from a posi-sing-along to a necessary move for all life on earth. The call was urgent, and a lot of kids took it and ran...

Again, the part history ignores. The torched egg farm trucks and closed fur stores. Protests and outreach. Vegan straight edge meccas like Memphis, Salt Lake City, and Syracuse becoming hotbeds of both direct action and above ground activism. The mark of hardcore kids on the latter was clear. And while few were ever caught for the former set, we can only guess whether the surge of clandestine actions tied into the rise of vegan sxe. A butcher shop is sabotaged in Syracuse in 1995. Graffiti left at the scene reads: “liberation’s crusade has begun.” Now check your Earth Crisis lyric sheet and decide for yourself…

The parts left from the books, from discussions of punk as a political force. Vegan Straight Edge kids stepping to the frontlines. Like the SHAC 7 –activists indicted this year on “animal enterprise terroism”- 5/7 of whom are vegan sxe, or came from that scene. The group Compassion Over Killing began small as the first animal rights group started by hardcore kids, now a national group with clout and reach beyond measure. Countless activists were forged by by the vegan sxe scene. Numerous vegan sxe kids saw prison time, including Benjamin Persky, Peter Schnell, Jacob Kennison, Alex Smolak, and more. Hardcore kids making a difference. Even Karl Crisis adopted and rehabilitated animals from a wildlife shelter.

But you take the good with the bad. With former vegan sxe-ers like Kevin Tucker, now actualizing his most macho fantasies bowhunting for deer in Pennsylvania. David Agranoff of Voicebox zine is turncoat, giving sanctuary to a known ALF informant in San Diego. Josh Ellerman and Geoff Kearns cooperated with the FBI in testimony against other activists, both sitting in Leavenworth prison and a mansion in Venice, respectively. And given their crimes, neither dwelling is quite as appropriate as that which they deserve: a coffin.

The Firestorm would serve the world well to start with a few in our ranks. But with thousands who can credit vsxe for the evolution of their political consciousness, for a springboard towards doing something for the world, the imposters won’t negate its worth. Not those mentioned above, or below…
Let’s burn some bridges.

TO HELL AND BACK

Vegan Straight Edge since 1994. feels good to finally say it. Finally, after years of my written output cornering me into scenes I was never a part of, kids I would never hang out with. Yes, if anyone ever needed to get out of a scene, it was me. Let me explain. Three years ago, I saw a humble piece of my writing published by an anarchist collective and appropriated by the scene that surrounded it. I dotted the last “i” and was thrust into a bizarre and foreign crowd, one I didn’t endorse nor understand. Just short of “crust” in one direction and “hippie” in another. Some called themselves “primitivists, ” some “CrimethInc-ers, ” others just “soldiers in the struggle.” The only consistent thread running through them: Anarchist.

My friends and I had long considered ourselves anarchists, if you forced us to put a name on it and temporarly concern ourselves with the narrow issue of the political arrangement of one species on earth. The Vegan Straight Edge scene and animal rights struggle had already imparted an anti-capitalist ethic. The supremacy of Nature’s Law was my understanding since birth, never something I had to label, be it “primitivist” or anything else. By most measures, myself and this new crowd was a union meant to be. Or so it seemed from a distance.

My writing had put me in this circuit, and I saw no reason not to embrace it. But right away, something was off. That summer I went house to house, scene to scene. First it was an anarchist house in Greensboro, then another in Lake Worth FL, Pensacola…The kids talked revolution, but talk was all it was. This post-WTO anarchist movement was almost entirely critique based. Words mistaken for actions. A uniform fashion of torn t-shirts and beards. Everyone messed up on drugs and alcohol. An unseen level of self-importance without a resume of accomplishments to back it up. Loud and constant talk of police and surveillance, boosting themselves up as being a part of something important enough for the police to surveil. Flowery talk of “smashing hierarchy, ” yet I hadn’t met another vegan in a month. Every cause was a “single issue” except the one that was fashionable that week- transgender, white privilege…Critique, critique, critique, critique. I thought of the truest of lines: Those that can, do. Those that can’t, talk about it.

In the three years since, I’ve met some good people from these circles, some that have went on to become good friends. Sweeping generalizations serve no one. Yet a crowd from which I’ve met over a thousand kids, I’d put less than 30 as something I’d call tolerable. Or honest. Or level-headed. Or into it for anything more than because it makes casting stones at everyone else a righteous act. And these are the foot soldiers of the new punk based political movement. Green Rage for This Bike is a Pipe Bomb. Shame, shame. The more I acquainted myself with these kids, the more of my vomit that had to be cleaned from the hemp carpet of their “collective house.”

I guess I stopped caring for “unity”. It's time to say that with these people, I have no allegiance. What they call “liberating their desires" I call hedonism. What they call “releasing their natural scent” I call being filthy. What they call "the actualization of revolutionary thought" I call throwing up stencils in an alley now and then.

While most such “anarcho anti-capitalists” are posing revolutionary, trading in their birth names for cool anarchist ones like Squirrel Leaf Woodhuck Nut Bunny, the real revolutionaries are elsewhere. Like Andreas San Diego, not changing their name but having them taken, traded for Federal Fugitive 13445892. While your poseur “affinity group” is discussing the white privilege implications of jaywalking, people are out there quietly laying down critique for action, across the tactical spectrum: from filing Freedom of Information Act requests to arson.

So goodbye, bozos. I guess there comes a time to start drawing lines. Stop forcing what will never be. Cease diplomacy with that which cannot be reasoned with. I tried. Tried to bring compassion to your “movement.” Tried to drill into your head that you cannot "smash capitalism" while emboodying its cruelest forms of indifference and sadism, but I guess the dread locks got in the way. Ideologically, I may agree with every one of you, almost to the letter- but your applications are a joke. Your priorital scale a mess. The house next door is burning down as you stand to the side, looking away as burning bodies go flailing past, having an anarchist discussion circle on fire as a symptom of white privilege. Disgraceful.

VEGAN SXE IS WATCHING, AND THERES NOWHERE TO HIDE...

What I learned from Vegan Straight Edge is hate and love. Compassion and Justice. Ten years in the ring, my every step challenged by this culture of escapism and blood. Every step a challenge, and every challenge accepted. And each time, it was I who got the last laugh. From coronary heart disease to another wasted night of booze and regret. Ten years of resistance, of confrontation by detractors who have yet to offer a single argument to defeat it.

Veganism: Because 10 billion creatures are killed each year in the US alone. Because its not merely "another issue, " but the source of most of the suffering on earth. Because the greatest consumer of the earth's resources -water, food, and energy- isn't "the rich," its animals. Because injustice doeasn't end with non-human animals, but thats the bulk of it. Because there is nothing just or righteous about a political framework that ignores 99% of life on earth.

Straight Edge: Because alchohol and drugs are pacifying tools of government and industry. Because they make one submissive and unquestioning. Because as a substitute for all creativity, drugs make one a boring person. Because they are powerful tools to neutralize opposition. Because pulling the plug from your brain for a while ignores the issue of what it is about your life that would bring you to wish this in the first place. Because drinking culture- the vomit, the liquid band aids for insecrity, the empty "s/he's fun to drink with " friendships- will never be any less degenerate. Because if you're a "punk" or "radical," going to parties and getting drunk with the boys, I wonder how you convince yourself you're any different than the frat boy up the street. Or for that matter- your parents.

Vegan Straight Edge because while no one is saying it's an end, it's the best stepping stone I know of.

I look through those old zines from Holocaust to Anxiety Closet- reminded of what brought me here all those years ago. The sense of urgency. When you see injustice, do something. When your job is bleeding you of life, quit that job and live in a storage cloest. It was about people making a difference- for the world and themselves. From education, to protest, to being criminals for their lives and others.

Such is my home. Standing here years later, in the ruins of what was, I can count my true vegan sxe friends on the fingers of one hand. The kids go, but the foundation remains timeless, more solid than the Nalgene bottle on your utility belt, drunkee.

Yet not only a stance in opposition to the greatest sickness and injustice of our culture. A challenge to the most degenerate elements of our subculture.

DAYS OF DREADLOCKS, NIGHTS OF ROADKILL

From vegan sxe's first wave, some of us are still here, and still trying to "bring it back." Not just "back to," but back from.

Straight Edge lost its politics, trading it for something a little easier on the brain if not the eyes: hair dye and makeup. And so opened a void in underground music, one quickly filled. Filled by what the political underground music scene has regressed to: critique-based, feel good anarchist politics. Chatter from deluded swarms of self-important pseudo-activists, Carharts flapping in the wind...all of it, the sound of one very bad joke that's just not funny. Bike for the revolution. Dismantling capitalism one homebrew at a time. Dress up your every selfish move as "revolutionary."

And the soundtrack to this parade of self-importance: bands like Rambo. Carharts, and bandanna comedy troupes whose politics and imagery were a slap in the face to those really fighting- not just with words, but actions. It is not that the actions of this crowd fall short of, say, those alleged to have been carried out by Andreas San Diego. For in that category, I'm no better. Its the exaggerated self-importance. The dressed up as "revolution." Critique as a substitute for actually doing something. And by "something," your incestuous anarchist discussion group falls a little short.

The real tragedy is not that a small handful of good kids get caught up in a bad scene. It's this new wave of post-WTO anarchism as a siphon. For so many kids without direction, wanting only to be better people and make the world a better place, this Hedonistic Anarchism of 2004 will be their Vegan Straight Edge of 1994. Flocks of kids who 10 years ago would have involved themselves with something as volatile, positive and political as vsxe, now find a Rambo record and copy of Species Traitor- and what happens then is rarely pretty. Those who would have found vsxe as a stepping stone now find New Wave Anarachism as an apex. Picture sitting on a boxcar, double fisting roadkill and a 40oz., and feeling really good about yourself. Yes, my vision of anarchy begins with the end of most anarchists.

WHERE ARE THEY NOW

Abnegation, Gatekeeper. Framework. Canon. S.E.V.I.N. Morning Again. Chokehold. Raid. 108. Birthright. Falling Down. The Setup. Contempt. I spend a lot of time looking at these records, wondering where they all are now. With some, I don't have to wonder. Iggy Abnegation is boozing it up in the club scene. Damien of Morning again is playing bar rock over soft-core porn vidoes, taking long drags of Camel Lights and eating yogurt. Or thats what my roommate said he ordered when they went out once. The Setup vocalist left nothing but Egg McMuffin wrappers behind when he moved from his house in San Diego: Or thats what his former roommate told me when we snuck into opening night of Petco Stadium last spring. Steve Lovett of Raid is married with kids, working as a forest ranger in California. Chris Logan of Chokehold sold out veganism and the animals, but still clings to sxe. Like not doing drugs goes anywhere in the integrity department when your every meal is a death sentence for another. A lot of sad stories, ones of apathy and weakness. Proving insincere hardcore vocalists are a dime a dozen, and woth even less.

But their words remain. Contempt taught me compassion didn't equate to pacifism. 108, that my life was worth more than a 9 to 5 prison. Raid, that "scene unity" with those we despise is not only overrated, but dangerous. Vegan Reich imparted a sense of urgency. Culture, that vsxe was a multi-issue threat to the worst parts of this culture. Resurrection, that apathy was inexcusable. Earth Crisis, that vegan straight edge was merely a stepping stone. Rob R Rock, that while veganism might change the world, it won't make you a good MC.

Flash ahead to 2004. No longer a strong presence in the US, I watched vegan straight edge retreat to the sidelines. Silent, but like the dormant but still active volcano, a thing at times heard rumbling in the distance. Total Liberation Tour 2004. Bands like Cherem and Risen. While the current slight upswing of vsxe may yet again fall to the forces of black hair and eyeliner, Carharts and alcoholism, its message and merit as a springboard for change will never die. As I sit to pen these words, I'm reminded of this never so much as this night.

SUMMER 2004

May 17th, 2004 in Provo Utah: thirteen animals were removed fom an Agricultural Research lab at Brigham Young University. Six weeks later, two fires were set, casusing $30,000 damage. Graffiti at the scene read: "This is war."

Flash ahead to four days ago. September 2004 in Provo UT. Last day of our book and film tour. Kelly shows her documentary film on an animal rights campaign, takes questions, and says goodnight. She is approached by a vegan sxe kid who introduces himself as Josh, and asks if she has a minute. Solemnly, he begins his story. Several weeks previous, his home was raided by the FBI. They arrested his roommate and best friend on suspicion of arson and burglary in the BYU raids. He immediately confessed and snitched out Josh as an accomplice. Friday Josh would enter court and-facing mounting circumstantial evidence, the testimony of his "friend", and the advice of his lawyer-plead gulity. The plea argeement called for Josh to serve a minimum of 5 years in federal prison.

We took Josh to the only thing open in Provo at that hour, Denny's, for the rest of his story, or as much as he could tell. From being introduced to the atrocity of meat and dairy production by a table at a hardcore show, to where he is now. He'd made some mistakes, and he admitted as such, but sitting there I knew the power of a thousand Against me! fans-flopping around on the floor spewing some vague desire to "smash capitalism" with no plan for doing so-wouldn't touch the power of Josh's alleged actions. Of one kid who didn't tap his toe waiting for "the revolution", but rather asked hismself what he was going to do for the world today, and- according to the FBI affidavit-made it happen.

Tomorrow Kelly and I walk into the Salt Lake City Federal Courthouse to support Josh in what may be his last moments of freedom. A man placed in prison for rescuing others from theirs.

XXX

I look back on it all, this scene that has given so much to the world- activists and teachers, books and bombs- and recieved little back but venom and scorn. Looking past the frauds and sellouts- the Aggranof's and Ellermans's- I see its graces and gifts at every turn. And I think of Josh and Andreas every time I step outside my house- or 4 feet in towns like Olympia or Portland- and meet another self-important anarcho bozo stroking his chest and talking about the revolution, turning into an image what some have given their lives for. For those people, time to step from the dumpstered scabies infested couch and decide what side you're on: comfortable, critique-based pseudo-activism or the fate of all life on earth.

To the rest: stay vegan, drug free, and forever above the law...---Mack Evasion

Endnotes: 1)No one is proposing vegan sxe as a direct solution to the worlds problems. These opinions are written in context of hardcore. 2) State of vsxe, 2004: www.xcatalystx.com or www.xrebuildingx.com. 3)Veg Break List : a deliberately offensive registry of where the vsxe of yesteryear are today: www.xevasionx.com/vegbreaklist. 4)thanks to Blake of Parallax for the 108 pin and unintentional fuel for this column. 5) thanks to Kelly for pulling many of the facts you just read. 6) Vegan Straight Edge retrospective interview publication in progress. Soliciting contact with all heavily involved with vegan sxe in the 1990s. 7) No disrespect intended to Days of War, Nights of Love, by the way. 8) Still looking for a good analog copy of the earth crisis 1993 demo. Mine was stolen from a van outside the Fireside in Chicago with my whole foods juice punch card 9)Yes, i'm an anarchist, anti-capitalist, etc. and so on and so on.

I'll be the last man standing xxx

a polemic

2009-09-26T22:05:08Z

just posted this in anarchists-

First off I will say that, even though this is completely unrealistic, I am not looking for a fight nor do I have any particular desire to have this turn into a flamewar. Although I won't pretend to be impartial when it comes to this topic, I'm not a troll, and what I am looking for is acknowledgement, respect and reasoned, dispassionate discussion about something that never seems to get brought up but desperately needs to, and if I receive even one response that seems to make an effort toward these things I will be happy.

So I guess I will start with this: I have noticed a trend within the "anarchist community" that I find pretty ironic, rather disturbing and at times incredibly alienating: the tendency to marginalize dissident voices. I overheard the most trenchant and hilarious thing the other day, someone I know said: "A lot of people who consider themselves free thinkers are actually free from thinking." And it's true, whether we acknowledge it or not. Anarchists have no less potential to become dogmatic bigots than Christians or Socialists or Republicans or Scientologists. But it seems to me that as anarchists we have a greater responsibility to exercise flexibility within our collective creed, precisely because of the nature of that creed. Aren't things like intolerance of unpopular opinions and the demand for obedience to someone else's doctrines, some of the things we are supposedly against? Am I mistaken in thinking this? Please tell me if I am, so I can find another crowd to hang out with.
Does anyone here still believe in "I don't like what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"? Because from what I have seen especially in the past couple of months, anarchists as a whole don't generally want to hear anything that differs from the currently fashionable party line. For the sake of clarity I'll lay down what I mean by that; the current party line as I see it is that-
-trans issues are absolutely vital
-queer issues are absolutely vital
-everyone is divided into "whites" and "people of color" and the issues of "people of color" are absolutely vital
-everyone who is white and/or male and/or heterosexual is an inherently oppressive entity
-there is zero tolerance even for an accusation of anything remotely resembling sexual assault, regardless of what the accused or anyone else has to say
-there is zero tolerance for politically incorrect language
-animal rights and environmental issues are unimportant

Feel free to tell me if I got anything wrong there, because I would find that an immense relief. But I doubt it. And if you agree with all these points, and are like "yeah, that seems perfectly alright and correct", well, we can just agree to disagree. My problem isn't so much the content of the party line, as the fact that anarchists have a party line, and the fact of their vicious lack of respect for anyone that disagrees with it. I feel like I could tell an Orthodox Catholic that I think God is a myth and receive far more empathy, than if I told an anarchist that I think animal rights is far more pressing an issue than white privilege. And I am not the only person that thinks this but I often seem to be the only one saying anything. And you know why that is? Because people within the anarchist scene are afraid to voice their opinion if it differs from the party line. Does anyone else think that this is just a little fucked up? A little ass-backwards? Just a tiny bit hypocritical? I do. And I have sat down to write this up today because I can no longer tolerate the fact that no one is pointing these things out. I think it's time anarchists had themselves a little look in the mirror and asked what exactly makes them different from any other "ist".

EDIT: Upon reflection I realize that I just trapped myself into yet another anarchist practice that I find problematic: overemphasizing criticism while all but entirely neglecting the incumbent responsibility to offer a solution or alternative.
So my alternative is simple really. That we not only tolerate but encourage diversity of opinion, rather than being so eager to dish out judgement and condemnation on people for differing, especially if they are in the minority. You may say that that opens the door to oppressive behaviors, but I say that just because someone has a different opinion than you doesn't make them oppressive or even necessarily wrong, and if oppressive behaviors arise then deal with them when they arise, and not before. Anything else is being the anarchist thought police, the irony of which I really cannot let slide and I don't think anyone should.
I think we need to create reasoned healthy alternatives to mainstream society, rather than just having extreme reactions to the oppressions we see and doing little more than just the opposite of them. I think we all need to look within a lot more and figure out what it means to do the right thing in such an insane world. I think we need to transcend our politics and dogma and relate to each other as human beings(speciesist of language though that may be), and not as social roles, because in the end anything less is just going to divide us further, and ensure that a better world will never come.