The common theme (of my buddy and people like him, not the Situationists themselves) is a refusal to accept anything remotely resembling a boring, sane solution for real world problems. The common thread is radicalism with, at least in buddy's case, a very shallow understanding of the radical ideologies themselves.

I'd say publicly attacking the CIA, FBI and letting the State Department hollow out from within qualify as attacking the establishment. Trump is trying to create a new establishment that has complete fealty to himself. Some people seem to hate the existing establishment so much that they're willing to risk this outcome.

Also, yes, racism helps.

Fantastic SA

lol

I think the move from leftist anarchist to Trumpist is probably less extreme than leftist anarchist to "good government" liberal. One could write a book on why, but the liberal sees government as a generally positive force in peoples' lives, that should foster the more or less attainable goal of justice and well-being, even if that requires oversight and paperwork, and the anarchist and the Trumpist believe the system is evil, debases mankind, and more or less favors the state of nature. It's kinda the old Hobbes vs Rosseau "debate" that has basically served as a fundamental dichotomy in political philosophy for the last 250 years or so. (These days, to the extent the Rosseau side engages in philosophy it is to say that the system undermines the possibility of freedom or whatever, see Foucault. The anarchists had similar excuses.)

Surprising that you'd see it like that.

Anarchists actually see people as generally good, worthy, and capable. They see government and power as tending to be corrupt, oppressive and self-serving. And they like"good government" aka "buen gobierno". https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cara..._Buen_Gobierno

Trumpkins don't hate government, just the parts that help people because they hate people.

Giving big government liberals credit for what they say as opposed to what they do, they see people as worthy, but incapable. Hard to reconcile that with support for wars and mass incarceration and stuff like that. As long as someone in the right suit is making a calm argument, hey, maybe that bombing makes sense.

Not sure if anarchists are on a moral high ground when it comes to bombings.

Really? Anarchist-like revolution there in Chiapas killed 3 people. You want to scoreboard bombings between Anarchists and liberals like Lyndon Johnson?

And maybe with Trump as an exception Republican definitely count as liberals is the way simplicitus is using the term, so Nixon too.

Don't think I was clear. "Good government" types are generally on the side of Hobbes, trying to make life a bit less nasty brutish and short. They also see human motives as corrupt and abuses of power as inevitable (political, economic, whatever). This is often curbed by boring policies and things like being legalistic and filling out forms in triplicate. Come up with a rule to meet every situation. See Scandinavia. Locke is an early exemplar, as is Madison.

Anarchists have more in common with libertarians and out-of-power conservatives, but with hate for those in power. They see individuals as heroes and, more or less, the author of their own destinies. Trump is a nice balance between an anarchist and a conservative, assuming one doesn't know too much about Trump, with enough tendency in each direction for either to justify supporting him. Intellectuals in this tradition, to one degree or another, would include Rosseau, Jefferson (to an extent), Nietzshe, Ayn Rand, and Foucault.

Would agree that the GOP and it's leaders have mainly been in the former camp, but Nixon, Goldwater, Reagan, GWB, and Trump had plenty of the ole Nietzschian/Randian will to power and let the chips fall where they may. Government should not support mass prosperity if it overly checks the ambition of great men.

If the anarchists had strategic bombers, they would have leveled Manhattan. Just sayin'.

"assuming one doesn't know too much about Trump" is crucial and I'll agree with you then. Trump fooled many people that he was a populist, though he was never the slightest bit anti-authoritarian.

Nixon was big on good government bureacracy. My dad was a huge liberal and hated Nixon but worked for the federal government from the Nixon Administration through GWB and characterizes the Nixon Administration as the most generally professional and non-political after you got past the top appointees. His political rhetoric and campaigning were another matter. Generally Trump doesn't fit in that group, not even with Goldwater. At the Hobbes v. Rosseau level there's no difference between liberal, neo-liberal and neo-conservative in the 20th/21st century.

I guess that's unknowable, but I'm sure it's quite wrong.

https://twitter.com/KrangTNelson/sta...13271664152576

Anarchists would never have strategic bombers, because exactly what they don't want is the sort of big militaristic state that builds strategic bombers, or governs strategically (in the bad sense).

That is true. But also Anarchist bogeyman was like 99% BS. In the US Anarchists may have killed one cop in the Haymarket incident, killed one POTUS and then the Wall Street Bombing in 1919 was blamed on Bolsheviks until 1944 when the FBI said it was an Italian Anarchist. Maybe it was. And Sacco and Vincente didn't do it. I'm not saying there weren't violent Anarchists, but they were definitely bogeymanned.

The most successful Anarchist "government" has been the Zapatista autonomous municipalities. As I mentioned before, they had a revolution and killed maybe 3 people - soldiers in the Mexican Army.

Czolgosz was rebuffed by the Anarchists both before and after. He wasn't trusted and wasn't considered one of them. Emma Goldman's essay which is often cited as support for his act is actually far more nuanced and really doesn't do so at all.

What other advanced technologies will anarchytopia be unable to produce?

A lot of the funding for research here has come from the military. I don't think it really HAS to be that way, but maybe it does.

This radical fundamentalist ideology is at war with America

And how will the anarchist state be able to protect itself against the threat of other countries that have such technologies?

I don't think all bombers have to be called terrorists, but it looks like that's what this guy was.

Forget FOX, will anyone on teevee call him a Christian Fundamentalist/Extremist/Terrorist? Maybe just Bill Maher.

That does explain their lack of popularity and why the threat of war, real or invented, supports all varieties of authoritarianism.

It's the only part of our government which can get funding with little to no questions asked.