Saturday, July 10, 2010

What is up with the White Dudes-in-Denial about being SEXIST and RACIST. Case # 1,635,758: John Madriarczyk, the libertarian leftist


[image of libertarian "leftist", "anti-racist" 
blogger John Madriarczyk is from here]

[There is an update here, which may be taking a more constructive turn. I've posted the latest batch of comments, exchanged between John and me, below. This was updated on 12 July 2010.]

I wish that the few libertarians who aren't sexist-racist jerks would hold accountable those who are.

I remain convinced that libertarianism is in service to the PPP and WHM supremacy. And I've seen so many examples of it reinforcing white and male supremacy, and ignoring Indigenist philosophies and politics, that I've got the same reaction now to someone saying "that isn't what libertarianism really stands for" that I do to hearing about someone proclaiming there is such a thing as feminist pornography. Which is: nothing about your version of libertarianism/pornography, in the context of WHM supremacist libertarianism/pornography, convinces me that what you stand for isn't in alliance with the WHM supremacist libertarians/pornographers.

And, if you oppose them, why do you use the same terms they use to describe what you do, when what they do has academic and industrial strength and power--when what you stand for, according to you, does not? Reclaiming libertarianism and pornography as possibly radical or even liberatory in social contexts in which, even if it were progressive or radical, will only be a drop in the toxic ocean of oppressive libertarian and pornographic gross hostility to women of all races. So isn't detoxifying the ocean more important that adding drops of something that merges with that ocean as soon as it makes contact? And isn't "libertarianism" and "pornography", because of the alliances you make by using the same terms, a form of irresponsible ideological assault against the Global South by the Global North? That makes no emotional or political sense to me. But call me "fucking insane". Oh, wait: the MRArsenals already have, so check that off the "to do" list.

And the same holds true for white het men on the Left. [<--Warning: that link goes to a site with some very triggering bigoted imagery.] U.S. Leftist white men, based on their political objectives and acted out values, are intellectually thugtastic gang of anti-Indigenist misogynist-racists, with a couple of notable exceptions. But even the exceptions don't centralise women of color from the Global South, or Indigenous women globally, in their analysis of "what's wrong" and "what the solutions are". Here's one part of the solution, whiteboys: CAREFULLY LISTENING TO RADICAL ACTIVIST WOMEN OF COLOR!!

So a couple of days ago I post to my blog the video and transcript from Democracy Now--the exchange between Dr. Vandana Shiva and some white dude with the last name Dyer who is all about geoengineering as the solution to our problem of running out of time--it is his solution to "buy time". HIS time, mind you. White men's time. Because women--particularly poor women of color--ran out of time a long goddamned time ago! And their dead bodies are proof of it. So when white dudes get nervous about THEIR lives, then it's an emergency. And this is partly what I hear Dr. Shiva addressing, but white dudes can't fucking listen their way out of a paper bag. What isn't evident, is that Democracy Now ALREADY gave him a whole segment of their hour to speak his mind and argue his views. And then they invite her on to debate him, or leave him there to debate her. Because, even in progressive and alternative media, the woman of color, especially if she is Indigenous or from the Global South, is rarely allowed to speak without some white fool cutting in. Seriously. Why isn't Dr. Vandana Shiva the primary guest? SHE'S the expert, not Gwynne Dyer. (See this for more proof.)

I heard the tension in the debate, with the white dude doing his condescending and patronising best to appear cool, calm, and collected. He's got to come off as the more "rational" one, the more "objective" one, the more "logical" one, after all, because we can't have things like passion and emotional investment--because we know who is dying and where, get in the way of our "objectively stated views". No. We can't have that. Truth is, white dudes get emotional and "irrational" all the damned time. It's called being condescending. It's called rape. It's called battery. And it's called using women and girls as "sexual service stations". What do men call those behaviors? "Logical"??? I'd argue that in the discussion/debate on Democracy Now, there's nothing more irrational that what this dude is proposing as a solution to buy white men more time.

I wondered how this debate would get framed up by fellow bloggers. And I checked. And below is what I found. I offer to the court this piece of sexist-racist "political analysis". It was recently written, two days ago, by a white dude named:

John Madziarczyk

About [John]

From the Michigan to the Northwest via Florida. Contact me at J dot Madziarczyk at gmail dot com.

[John's blog is called:]

No comments:

Post a Comment