This used to be a "private" entry, but now I guess everyone can read it.
Mannn, while snooping through facebook, I happened across Crecenzo Scipione's page. What a masterpiece. His political views read "Radical Leftist Revolutionary Communist Anarchism". I suspected that to be ironic, but it wasn't. Oh well. I suppose it is good for someone to have intense ideas and beliefs. I suppose it is good for someone to be well read, or at least to aspire to be well read. Maybe it is possible that he is remarkably educated, but I kind of feel like his whole page is filled with slogans plucked from works he's never even seen a copy of.
Honestly, what's a revolutionary communist anarchist doing supporting Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama? I haven't even worked out yet how you can comfortably be an anarchist and simultaneously a statist, totalitarian communist. There's a strange conflict in his political quiz application between his hatred of government and his reliance on government to solve every problem.
He decries censorship, yet joins a group petitioning the administration of facebook to delete a group that calls "Che" Guevara a murderer.
"Education: too much washington, lincoln, roosevelt, eisenhower, kennedy, and reagan in history curricula. not enough marx, bakunin, goldman, berkman, chomsky and zinn."
Well let me give you a clue, fucktard: Marx, Bakunin, Goldman, Berkman, Chomsky, and Zinn aren't United States Presidents.
"Electoral College: was invented in order to keep the power of the people in check. in a society whose constitution is authorized by "We the people" and whose founding principle is rule by the people NOTHING SHOULD EVER CHECK THE POWER OF THE PEOPLE!"
The founding fathers weren't bloody revolutionaries. Pretty much everything in the constitution is designed to check the power of people, specific people as well as "the" people. That's the entire idea of a constitutional government. Also, he consistently references the US Constitution to back up his ideas, and then states that the constitution is illegal under the Articles of Confederation. If he is basing his argument on legitimacy (which would be strange indeed) I wonder why the Articles of Confederation are the paragon of legality, since they were drawn up by the leaders of an illegal rebellion.
I try a little to temper my immediate disgust and contempt for his whole revolutionary shtick. After all, it's good to be suspicious of the power of the state and corporations, it's good to oppose war, it's good to sympathize with the poor & downtrodden...
I wish Shenzi good luck and good reading in the future.
Honestly, what's a revolutionary communist anarchist doing supporting Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama? I haven't even worked out yet how you can comfortably be an anarchist and simultaneously a statist, totalitarian communist. There's a strange conflict in his political quiz application between his hatred of government and his reliance on government to solve every problem.
He decries censorship, yet joins a group petitioning the administration of facebook to delete a group that calls "Che" Guevara a murderer.
"Education: too much washington, lincoln, roosevelt, eisenhower, kennedy, and reagan in history curricula. not enough marx, bakunin, goldman, berkman, chomsky and zinn."
Well let me give you a clue, fucktard: Marx, Bakunin, Goldman, Berkman, Chomsky, and Zinn aren't United States Presidents.
"Electoral College: was invented in order to keep the power of the people in check. in a society whose constitution is authorized by "We the people" and whose founding principle is rule by the people NOTHING SHOULD EVER CHECK THE POWER OF THE PEOPLE!"
The founding fathers weren't bloody revolutionaries. Pretty much everything in the constitution is designed to check the power of people, specific people as well as "the" people. That's the entire idea of a constitutional government. Also, he consistently references the US Constitution to back up his ideas, and then states that the constitution is illegal under the Articles of Confederation. If he is basing his argument on legitimacy (which would be strange indeed) I wonder why the Articles of Confederation are the paragon of legality, since they were drawn up by the leaders of an illegal rebellion.
I try a little to temper my immediate disgust and contempt for his whole revolutionary shtick. After all, it's good to be suspicious of the power of the state and corporations, it's good to oppose war, it's good to sympathize with the poor & downtrodden...
I wish Shenzi good luck and good reading in the future.