Amerika.org: An Odd, But Interesting Internet Find

Miscellaneous General
1

Even though I haven’t been as busy as usual (I’ve been weaning myself off the Internet for a little while, it was consuming too much time), I’ve been making time to read a site I recently came across via the odd Google search (& later, via Reddit):

&

http://www.amerika.org/manifesto/

What interests me is that I’m unable to pin down what the site really advocates (i.e. what ideology), and I’ve been finding that the posts there are both provacative & frustrating (& ocassioanlly confusing), especially when I’ll often agree & disagree with a single post on a sentence by sentence basis.

I was wondering if anyone else has come across this site before, and what are your thoughts on it? I mainly inquire beceause at times I the posts are fairly biased, yet at others I can’t help but agree with some of them.

Also, because I have not been able to turn up any more information on the author of the blog (Brett Stevens), either.

Some posts:

“Where Liberalism & Fascism Cross Over”
http://www.amerika.org/2009/social-reality/where-liberalism-and-fascism-cross-over/

“The Split Between Responsible & Irresponsible”
http://www.amerika.org/2009/social-reality/the-split-between-responsible-and-irresponsible/

“There Are No Radical Ideas”
http://www.amerika.org/2009/social-reality/there-are-no-radical-ideas/

“What Makes Tyranny? Liberty, Because People Choose To Deny Reality”
http://www.amerika.org/2009/globalism/what-makes-tyranny-liberty-because-people-choose-to-deny-reality/

*Edit: I will probably let this topic die as after reading a recent post on overpopulation @ this blog, this person is quite clearly an advocate of some sort of variant of Statism. I suppose it’s still an interesting source to look for potential arguments to argue against, however.

2

some people just write stuff that seems right to them when they write it, and thats all you are getting.

did you spot the long rambling manifesto?

Our goals in the long term are the following:

(a) Create a beautiful society: rising competence in arts, architecture, learning and personal quality.
(b) Prevent ecocide and find a state of reverence for nature.
(c) Make our daily lives more interesting and less servile.
(d) Shape society so honest, smart, honorable people rise above the corrupt, deceptive and hipsterish.

3

Yeah, by no means am I taking everything in as fact, etc. I still find it interesting, even if some of it is interesting nonsense. I remember at some point, maybe in the about page, they mentioned they added parody as a minor theme sometimes, but partially what I find interesting is that sometimes I cannot even tell when posts are wholly serious or wholly parody.

I am somewhat worried I am looking a bit into the abyss however lol.

4

I guess it’s anti-hipster.

5

The manifesto is one of his most muddled, unclear posts. I found a lot of the stuff very interesting. He’s wrong about plenty of stuff sure; but nonetheless there’s some valuable content there.

6

Yea, I think for every 2 or 3 things he is either wrong or unclear on, he’ll write 1 or 2 things that are pretty spot on.

For example, he is wrong on overpopulation automatically being a problem (i.e. free-market would address the most efficient allocation of resources while technology continually progresses to accomadate larger populations, there is also the unfourtunate possibility of states warring with one another), but I find his critique of liberalism pretty well-informed & experienced .

I’m unsure what his stance on the free-market is, as he seems to oppose a stateless society, but is also echoing a lot of post-modernist stuff (he the post-modernist’s favorably in a recent post I just finished reading), so I still have yet to see if he is for the state, against the state, etc.

I would assume that he would take a similar post-modernist view on the state as te actual post-modernist’s do, which I suppose means I have some additional reading to do, if I want to uncover this mystery :smiley:

I’m also considering compiling a best-of list, whenever I finish reading the archives, and maybe posting it here.

7

Yeah that’s about right. I’m not sure exactly what form of social organization he believes in, just what he doesn’t.

http://www.amerika.org/2009/organization/why-libertarians-are-daft/

In “Why libertarians are daft,” he makes some good points, but mainly in the beginning:

Once he goes on to say why libertarians are daft it’s mostly straw men, which makes me think he has a very shallow understanding of libertarianism.

8

Did just use fascist as a complement?

9

This also alarmed me at first glance, but when I considered the context of the previous compliment, and that of libertarians have some certain outlook towards transgression that the author apparently approves of, then the use of the word only becomes suspect, not what the sentence means.

A quick look at wikipedia shows what he may mean by “…fascist outlook toward transgression.”

  • Legal Transgression: “…a crime usually created by a social or economic boundary”.

Obviously, they are statist legal transgressions that libertarians would obviously dissaprove of, such as taxes, despite their enforcement via the legal system)

  • Social Transgression: “…violating a norm”.

Although not all libertarians are socially the same, nor are all libertarians libertines, libertarianism does seem to implcitly violate norms such as rejection of coercion, which under a stateless society, is both the most insidiuous yet hardest norms to oppose and/or to show, especially when the usual statist citizen rationalizes a certain degree of coercion & oppose it beyond a threshold, but never rejects it all together.

The use of fascist as an adjective is troubling in any sentence though, since the term itself, at least imo, hasn’t been clearly defined beyond political & economical associations.

Although, that isn’t to say it’s not valid to use it in such areas, it’s just that literally when you look for the defintion or the root of the word (I think it’s derived from 'fasci" which I think means a bundle of sticks, which doesn’t help anyways lol) you mostly get referrences to Fascism (political economical ideaologies), or referrences to previousl Fascist countries .

As an adjective, it could mean a stridently hostile outlook toward transgression, or it could even mean that libertarians view themselves as superior over transgression of the state (that’s really reaching in trying to tie in the obervtion of a Fascist nationality typically beleiving it is superior to others, but there is no real clear definition to work with here, even though generally we all know what it means in context & by example).

If the archives don’t clear it up for me, I will consider e-mailing and asking what he meant by that particular sentence.

Although, at this point, if he used it like I think he did, it was meant to be a colorfully ironic sentence, since fascism would imply massive legal transgressions via the state (upon buisnesses), & libertarians would generally oppose legal & social transgressions.

Perhaps he meant that libertarians transgress over transgressions? lol.

10

I think it’s just hyperbole. Fascist these days can mean anything from Benito Mussolini to the waitress who forgot you said “hold the tomatoes.” He probably means “strict,” or “absolute.”

11

Probably, I have a habit of “over-thinking it” sometimes.

On another note, an archived march post partially clarifies why the author does not specifically choose, side, or advocate a certain ideaology, and his explanation is pretty interesting, & leaves me to believe that may be better classified (generally) as a post-structuralist (I think somewhere, he admits to being a design scientist, but I can’t remember which post exactly).

Some of his ideas, particulary that of design vs. control, I’ve read in Todd May’s “Political Philosphy of Post-Structuralist Anarchism”. I might try and re-read along with this blog to see if I’m on the right track.

I do like that the more I read the blog, the more interesting it seems to become. I’m surprised this blog hasn’t been more memetic beyond Reddit, actually, if not simply for what some would view as “outrageous” & “dangerous” ideas he writes and/or advocates.

12

Yeah, thats the reading I eventually decided upon.

Though this guy is clearly xenophobic, and both anti-individual and anti-populist (ie elitist); I wouldn’t be surprised if he self describes as fascist.

13

Hi. Thanks for citing my blog here. One of the regular contributors is a reader here and a partial libertarian, and he pointed this thread out to me. It’s excellent that you are reading, and I hope it is a fun read. It’s nice to have people check out the stuff I put hours into because I believe it to be true.

I wanted to address the above because I do not believe my approach is “Statist,” although I am not afraid to use government power toward that end. The thinking on this is simple: once you decide to start a civilization, or participate in one, your ability to avoid using state power ends. Unreasonable people, events and situations arise and the best way to deal with them is centralized power. I think many flee centralized power because they’re accustomed to bad examples of it; I would submit that this has to do with how we pick our leaders, and what we value in them, instead of a specific flaw of power itself.

The reason I say my approach is not Statist: I prefer that cultural values and norms intervene and shape a society, because I do not trust bureaucracies. As governments get big, they hire lots of people and inevitably, favors are traded or political factors of selection (“we don’t have enough left-handed people working here”) intervene. As a result, bureaucracies become unstable entities that defend themselves and their power. However, there is a mitigating factor.

If cultural values predominate, and there is a clear consensus of values, there is always a goal: realize that consensus in material form. We all agree that life should be made beautiful, and great architecture and art is essential…? Good, then anyone working toward that is “right” and anyone dying in that pursuit is our hero. We suffer no existential angst in such a civilization, and we don’t need a Nanny State trying to tell us “Scientifically” what is right or wrong.

My archetype on these thoughts is Plato, who wrote very convincingly about the cycle of civilizations. Too much freedom causes self-destruction. Too much tolerance of parasites, criminals, and wrong/stupid/illusory ideas causes corruption of the population. There is only one force I trust with the kind of power needed to fix that situation, and that’s highly intelligent and moral people working under an explicit consensus to implement abstract values. That’s the exact opposite of our current system, where we have no values shared but we do share a political dogma – that of freedom – and as Plato predicted, the more freedom we get the worse off we are.

I consider myself a partial libertarian because, and I think Plato would agree, if there’s a goal to a society you can lump all ideas and actions into three categories: 1 - supports our consensus, 2 - against our consensus, 3 - is not against us. My libertarian side says to leave it up to the community to encourage #1, let the community invoke government when #2 shows up, and to ignore #3 – in other words, if people are not doing explicit harm, leave them alone and don’t empower bureaucrats to go tracking down “lawbreakers” as a means of shoring up their own jobs!

It’s a longer argument than you’ll find on most political sites because it addresses a wider scope. I acknowledge that not all of the articles on Amerika.org are written perfectly but I hope you continue enjoying them – readers like you all are why I write. :slight_smile:

14

I’ve heard jokes about Amerika.org. Do you remember West Side Story. The spanish speaking Puerto Ricans pronounce America as Amerika. Later, in the 60’s, that pronunciation was taken up by the drop-outs who were against just about everything. Amerika became a code word for those who wanted to destroy America, it’s government especially. But usually that sentiment was expanded to include everyone and anyone not of their gourp. Today at least some of these ideas are being joked about again, or taken seriously.