Foolish of IMC to Water Down its radicalness

There is an interesting discussion happening on infoshop.org (a place where such happen regularly). See the link at bottom or top and go check it out.

Down below an interesting article about activating ourselves, you can see a few people are talking about the pros and cons of the IMC project and how its numbers are allegedly dwindling--at least on some IMC sites. I don't know where they get their info, but I for one can imagine such happening as more IMC admins believe they must introduce more "protective" restrictions due to "off-topic" and troll-like postings.

Following is a reply I made to infoshop which goes over various possibilities to be aware of for individuals who wish to keep the authenticity of the IMC project at least minimally excellent.

People (minus various forms of Vanguards, single and in groups) ARE in a psycholgical place where venting and chaos are NEEDED--as an authentic processing point of departure from a world in which they are COMPLETELY ENCOURAGED to be AT WAR with each other (thus, do not spend time on contexts, empathy, or the like, and just VENT AT). i'll go into this more below.

For now, i want to point out that there are probably various metas at work here which should be discussed by anarchists (and all others who want serious evolution/"revolution", not more facades) if we are to avoid those pitfalls (i assume anarchists wish to avoid such pitfalls, tho figure that those more ideologically inclined wish to mask over this kind of discussion).

For instance, the meta value system of saying on the one hand that one has "an alternative" (or "The alternative") to the giant corporate media, but on the other, plays the same old game of propaganda/hype, i.e.: the needs of ideology first and foremost. (the fortress of those subordinated to Is over those they are purporting to serve and free)

The situation of the Vanguard (usually the admin of the project) *over* the not articulate/semi-articulate (usually the general posters). For various reasons, the Vanguard deems it necessary to dam the chaotic flow of those who reflect the insanity/inanity of their experience.

To dam the flow and "protect" by restriction,,,,

They do not see the value of just letting that flow go wherever it goes. And actually playing out their stated values WHEN IT MOST COUNTS!

I've seen the pattern time and again; situations are more and more restricted until the original momentum begins to lose steam. Like a few people [in the discussion] are pointing out.

(Then, of course, the Vanguard throws up its hands and figures "radical" change is "impossible" and a new generation of "sell-outs" takes its Place with the older generations (i'm not saying to "sell-out" is completely 'bad'; there are grey areas to this which should be looked into for decisive value))

The trick is to promote this venting, and to out-wit the ways in which liberation momentums have, up to now, always been led to the dead ends of superficial reform. To realize the value of this venting as something to CELEBRATE.

Bear with me before you dismiss this out of hand!

i would promote such a chaos, such an inarticulate, semi-articulate (or, even a possibly *more articulate*--as having gifts in ways we may not perceive) chaos of free-flowing posters/publishers on projects like the IMCs as a type of ceremonial processing, a "dance" that MUST be done, BEFORE serious evolution can take place.

Take a step away for awhile and look at the bigger picture.

This project is like no other so-called "mature" project because it STILL mostly adheres to its preachings of inclusion and independence. Okay. Now, a lot of "right-wingers" have been spending a lot of time there (what is it to be "right-wing" anyway? i say to be "right-wing" is to be MORE conditioned, have more wool pulled over ones eyes, and in dire need of MORE critical thinking!!!!).

People are spending a lot of time and a kind of momentum was building (before the Vanguard began curtailing it behind-the-scenes). Despite the alleged "badness" of Left/anarchist information not getting 'cleanly' to the followers, a lot of people were starting to take a LOT of time to try to get a hand in influencing and being influenced. There was (and may well still be some) a real liberating effect--if only in its infancy.

Cynics and the most ideologically conscious might point out that there is a hieararchy of groups who are more valued than others. This brings up hard questions; questions that challenge the basis for our allegations of wishing to have a different kind of world than the one we are programmed to consume and subordinate to. Some of those questions are masked over by hype that we have not caught onto, by persons with interests we are not always keen to.

Persons who many would call trolls (i.e. the guy who used to post from Ithica, NY until major pressure came down on him directly via the strange behavior of some) are swept into a kind of ghetto. THOSE people are not "valuable" participants, categorically. For many reasons that many can accept. But then the thing broadens out, and pretty soon, people like ChuckO (main infoshop admin) find themselves treated similarly.

So these are hard questions. And as long as we let others make decisions on these, we give away more of our power to create the kind of realities we desire.

same old ideologically-challenged games
BECAUSE the same old ideologically-challenged games were being subordinated to, one couldn't easily expose the meta propaganda/hype and MOVE ON/evolve.

Example: Rightwingism couldn't be exposed BECAUSE to do so in any serious way would be to teach people intellectual self-defense--teach them how rightwingers play their games; this would be TOO MUCH simply BECAUSE the Left/conscious leftwingers play this game as well!!!!!!!!!!!!

And one "simply could not risk" going so radical (much much too radical) as to pull the whole game right from underneath the rightwingers' feet. bEcause to do THAT would be to unplug/scuttle the Left while scuttling the Right!

And to the "pragmatic" strategists of the Left (older activists dominating younger, "less skilled" "less experienced" "greenhorn" activists who "don't really know what they're doing"****see bottom note) that would simply be TOO RISKY.

Why? BECAUSE these older Vanguardists have dibs in the status quo. THEY are not (yet) being affected. THEY do not REALLY want to have a "revolution" or evolution. THEY simply do not BELIEVE in such things. But they do WANT to feel like they're doing something.

Maybe it's the kind of hardline cynicism so many of us see in our own parents. Or maybe there *is* wisdom in not allowing true radical momentums to build without bloodshed and without more involvement by the courts. Or maybe it's something like Chomsky has shed light on: internalized values. People who have internalized the value system of their society in a way that they are being tooled, and do not see it.

Whatever the reason, the question comes down to: do you/we have the NERVE to go ahead with our dreams and desires anyway?

--------------------------------------------
****note:
It's then easy for these "greenhorn" activists to fall for the meta situation where the bottom line interest of the Vanguard/"wise leaders" is to integrate with the more "established" and "reputable" community. Thus the IMC project as "politically immature" in the eyes of older activist types. And thus the older activist types not telling their followers about the IMC project, and thus adding to the allegedly growing "disinterest". A "Catch-22" if i ever heard one.

My final statement:
We may have to break completely from this old way of doing things and create a new place for committed resistance consciousness to grow and flower and reproduce, and pioneer a kind of progress that we can taste and be nourished by, and have reason to remain on this planet seeking the excellence of our original visions--the DESIRE that first brought us to this work!