Topic of the Week: Responses to Intimate Violence

  • Posted on: 15 May 2017
  • By: thecollective

Intimate violence is something that occurs within any community, and among anarchists in general there has been a long running attempt to define and resolve it in a way that is supposed to reflect our politics. Tools such as call-outs and accountability processes were adopted and developed with the intent of countering a culture in which intimate violence is denied, hidden, or thrown back at the person claiming to have been wronged. In their better forms, these practices contextualized intimate violence as not just a bad thing that some bad individuals do but in part the product of social roles we occupy aimed to create a more holistic culture in which those classified as abused and abuser would emerge from their experience better with the participation and support of the larger community.

Unfortunately, the actual practices around these ideas have often fallen far short of that vision, if they had it to begin with. Writings such as The Broken Teapot, For Your Safety and Security…, and The Politics of Denunciation among others have detailed ways in which certain popular practices of safe space and accountability have created eternal victims (the abused) and sinners (the abuser), social contexts in which narratives around abuse have to meet certain rhetorical and moral criteria to be honored at all, and a concept of justice that looks an awful lot like that of society in general. The failure of accountability and the toxic culture around it has been especially evident to me as things I have witnessed firsthand.

If we consider that intimate violence is still an issue relevant for anarchists to deal with, where does this leave us? What are your experiences with responses to intimate violence among anarchists or as an anarchist among non-anarchists? What’s a response to this issue that’s in line with your concept of anarchy?

Tags: 
category: 

Comments

Nb4 someone sez "white tears".

Syndicalist and activist anarchists commit intimate violence a lot more than do individualist anarchs, its an obvious flow-down from their MOs, a deep seated psychological disharmony from their inability to see uniqueness as an innate characteristic.

fuckface.

I go by body-language mostly, and I don't exclude psychological violence as any different to the physical type. I would find it unerving and intimidating living with a control-freak type of gung-ho person, they oppress the atmosphere and mood and negate any possibility for reconciliation and balanced dialogue, they smolder in the shadows, their MO is akin to invisible chains upon the flow of relational evolution. There can never be any proof, only emotions, as your reply has adequately demonstrated.

cuz I needed something in the body text of the comment (and I don't like you). And I suppose I said "prove it" cuz "tell me why" didn't come to mind immediately. There's an interesting etymology story about the word "prove" that my friend just told me, but I'll save it...

Anyway, okay, what you've said is at least a little more clear now (rather than "syndicalist and activist anarchists" versus "individualist anarchs", neither term qualified) so that's cool. You've told me why now. It might not even be a particularly disagreeable statement... tho I suspect that, looking at the real world of people classifiable either as "anarch" or "syndie/activist", there isn't going to be that much of a difference.

I'll finish this comment with a doubledown: at least in syndie/activist scenes, there is a culture of talking about consent as a value, of removing intimate violence from our lives, of dealing with its consequences; in the discourse of anarchs (of which I've only reason seen on this website), there is active refusal of the concept of consent, active contemplation of child-adult sexual relations, and active appreciation of Bob Black, who wrote a poem about hating survivors. I'm not really making an argument I'm here - not yet, we can talk a little more about it - but my basic assumption is that a culture that wants to deal with a problem is going to deal with it better than a culture that wants to flirt with situations that escalate the risk of intimate violence enormously.

TL;DR - Le Way, you're full of shit.

as well as ideologically concocted problems such as consent which is a state born mediating concept as well as mores that are not qualified and preceded by subjective preferences.

The anarchs actually GET anarchy and the preference toward unmediated relations that anarchy entails.

Because he will never experience consensual, human fucking in his sad, lonely life.

That is what the term entails for the most part however much leftoids would like to think other wise. There is no consent in more natural human and non human settings and no this does not entail force.

Consent implies that someone gave you permission to do something, like you asked somebody to have sex with you and they said "ugh....I guess...", i'm gonna look at the whole contractual thing in a second.

You just saying it, tho, is lulzingly bad. "Be an asshole", declares Ziggy. At least Bob Black IS IN FACT an asshole, and can therefore say what only assholes can say. You're just trying... which is worse. Like, why the fuck?

Anyway, consent is not necessarily a concept, it is a felt sense, and it precedes states. The first time a human said, "Stop doing this to me" (or wanted to), to another being (real or fictive) presumed capable of hearing or understanding those words, you have an awareness of consent being violated.

Consent is a construct which doesn't precede institutionalization. Don't go for the "State" parameter, that's disingenuous, families can be just as authoritarian as States. God you are a master of smug rhetoric, I 'spose you got that from a bourgeois education? Individuals are capable of deciding for themselves at the age of puberty, whatever age that may arrive at depending on ones physiological constitution. At earlier ages their is only innocence, and if that sanctuary be ever violated in my world, justice would be quick and fatal for the violator,,,,,no consent of any sort exists in these scenarios. The guardians of the innocents may have other ways of maintaining justice in a mediating environment.

Canadian universities are far less out of reach than U.S. ones. I didn't finish, and mostly didn't like it. I think I've developed the smugness you see mostly just since starting to comment oon @news, but maybe when I posted on messageboards when I was younger, I got some early training. Who's to say.

Anyway: okay, I will accept your term, "institutionalization"; it is indeed better. But I also insist: consent - as a felt sense, NOT as a construct (also a better word than "concept" in this instance, used by Ziggy and repeated by me) - precedes the event of institutionalization. See my example from above, re: "Stop doing this".

Also, #fuckanetymology. I don't know where the literal wod came from, and I don't care. Arguing the term is "legal" or whatever doesn't actually speak to how it is used in most of North American anarchism most of the time (i.e. not in an accountability process, but like, during sex, or living with people, or working on a project).

Yeah I lost focus regarding your 'consent as a felt sense', I didn't give it as much thought, well I'll remember it as most relevent in this context, a nice concise term in good ol' plain language, nice. That's probably why I skipped past it in the text. ha. Something in common, we both dropped out.

the innocence of children is just as institutional as the concept of consent. also, your rhetoric around justice makes it sound like you vape and buy swords at the mall

Defining egoism, mischievous curiosity and worldly ignorance as innocence, I would debate your claim that the infantile consciousness is institutionalized, also, living outside the law where there is no police presence, one must deal with justice oneself, no big deal, the survival instinct makes it come on itself, no need to vape you silly trollish person.

They say what has to be said accurately regardless of etiquette. I'm somewhat different in person and writing as opposed to speaking brings this out but being confrontational in writing makes for good effective points.

Consent has nothing to do with any felt natural experience. Radicals may have made use of the word in certain contexts where I might agree that it makes sense(BDSM for example) however it's rooted use is largely governmental and contractual. The term receptive would be better used to mark out yeses and nos dos and don'ts. Sometimes these mediated terms are needed(like on a kink.com set) but not in more personal relational settings.

like "fuck survivors". Great thought, real good.

Anyway, here's what you're saying: the term "consent" has a "rooted use" among radicals, you are aware of what this rooted use is because you obviously know radicals so well (you hang out with them right), you suggest a different word. The difference I can determine is entirely in form: an adjective, "I am receptive, I am not receptive", rather than a noun, "I have provided [verbed] or not provided [nega-verbed] consent." The semantic content is not changed. The pragmatics, though, are now different - but you have said, this term is "not needed".

Linguistic prescriptivism is a bad look for an egoist. Also, like, is this your big problem? You didn't disagree with the concept, you just can't get around your own commitment to the evident superiority of how you use words to see what people are saying?

I mean, obviously, we still have our differences cuz you're in favour of sixty-year-olds picking up fourteen-year-olds at the local meat market...

The issue with that word is both the legitimacy(was your life actually threatened) as well as(Bob Black makes this point) wearing it as a victim badge and internalizing it. I said it's rooted in governmental contractual logic not among radicals. I made the point that it was appropriated, perhaps for legitimate reasons, within certain radical alternative lifestyle contexts with certain dynamics perhaps warranted it. However, the fetish of consent outside of those contexts is hardly warranted. Of course language can change, however I see no reason why the term and idea of consent should be part of any kind of non contractual governmental human relationships. I also look at the the use in practice and find that the liberals and non anarchists largely dominate use and abuse of that term.

The thing about receptivity is that it is not nearly as mediating in regards to yes and no and lets in grey areas much better then the binary logic of consent which is hardly anarchic or spontaneous.

Intuitive intelligence comes to mind as to what Sir E means by receptivity, its not a prescriptive term at all and accommodates the individualized ethos.

Thanks. Umm, words can never really be destructive, only acts can be, so "fuckface" is sort of funny. There is not enough laughter and hugging in this world, yes, I am a pain in the ass sometimes.

PS Consent is a pretty fucked up methodology to apply to relationships, as Sir E says, that's making a deal, contractual and conditional, and applying that to children transitioning from a state of innocence approaching and entering puberty. Being hormone enriched and becoming sexually driven and aware does not comprehend or relate to a moral regulation, and if that's the best that a so-called civilized society can do to deal with this blooming of youth and its potential entering into adulthood is an ignorant, insensitive and demeaning proposition for any youth to accept, and no wonder we see so much self-destruction amongst them from this system of negative feedback. What happened to nurturing?

the "prove" etymolgoy things @shadowsmoke

the "prove" etymolgoy things @shadowsmoke

It's simple, Shadow. Intimate partner violence requires intimate partners.

Kill your oppressors.

An anarchic internet-based solution now presents itself through online prediction markets.

" ...A sufficiently large market predicting an individual's death is also, necessarily, an assassination market, and similarly other "prediction" markets are also act markets, changing incentives to act outside that market to bring about the predicted events..."

http://unenumerated.blogspot.com.au/2015/05/small-game-fallacies.html

Such a market already exists ( at Stiffs dotcom ) Since Peter Thiel supports torture you may want to support this page...

https://www.stiffs.com/celebrity/markzuckerberg

Or the accused rapist criminal , Julian Rand Paul Assange has a page there. This could be the future of anarchist accountability! It may even be a bonus that haters of money and markets may not participate!

Recuperate by becoming a necromancer.

Yup, intimate violence descends into pro-pedophilia rants and monologues in favor of rape. I must be at Anarchist News Dot Org.

In this blockbusting sequel to "The Dark Anarchy of Innocence", sword wielding psychic warrior and necromancer Lord Le Way and his text-loaded raygun numbing keyboard virtuoso side-kick emile come to the aid of Sir Eeeeee! who has been repetitively violated by troll low-lifes and accused of not adhering to the doctrine of STFUism. Desperate for revenge, they make contact with the ghost of Stirner, who is ironically a spook, who promptly "takes care" of the trolls using his magic powers.

no pro-pedophilia rants have come out quite yet. Le Way even established a hard limit for having sex with people as post-puberty, "whatever age that may arrive at depending on ones physiological constitution"! Honestly, better than I expected.

Is where I draw a pencil(not legalistic pen) based line. It's about what most societies have allowed for the most part. 11 give or take is fine as it should be the new 18 as far as this century goes. I'm not qua against pedophilia, however, for that software to work you would need certain things in place that simply don't exist right now such as a highly mature and carnalized value toward sex as such as well as VERY assertive children. Since these things among other are not in place I would not give a thumbs up to pedophilic activity(though if the odd event happened and there was no harm of any kind I would not mind either). I would be perfectly fine with the pedophilia earning its way back into existence.

ShadowS, I'm proposing that using this insight from Sir E, and my previous term, that the following new evolved terminology in the anarch dictionary should be "Intuitive Pubescent Intelligence".

PS And it can be abbreviated to IPI, so concise and explanatory way to summarize a concept huh?

I don't know why it was warranted to delete the post that chided me for rationalizing intergen sex but to speak to that post, by using the term 'minor' and rationalizing and legitimizing that term you are using a term that is rooted in the custodial power complex something that I would think any serious anarchist would want to abolish. Also I am no more rationalizing then the current prohibitors are who are basically not letting go of puritanical assumptions, the difference is that I am a preferential nihilist when it comes to this or ANYTHING for that matter. The positive prohibitors on the other hand are rationalizing on a MUCH bigger scale whereas what I am doing is following more of a let it be approach.

"11 give or take is fine as it should be the new 18 as far as this century goes. I'm not qua against pedophilia" - Sir Einzige

If 13 is the line, the post pubescent common age, then pedos will cross the line because "they rebels against rules". make the line 1 and Sir E is on them babies, trying to force his hard cock into a baby's throat.

And you mean like the drugs escalation thing? You know... I smoke a joint, then X time later you're sure to find me on East Hastings scratching the sidewalks for bits of low-grade crack?

"they rebels against rules". That's the activist MO, dressed in black, throwing newspaper boxes on the street during the day, at night, infiltrating the bourgeois homes of the enemy under the pretext of babysitting, when they are really,,,,,,,OH MY GOD NOOOOOO, I thought that kid was queer, the way he dressed, some sorta deviate, one o' them twisted anarchist perverts spreading chaos, drugs, immorality, theft, murder and messing with 3 year olds,,,,,
When in fact its average joes or priests, other mainstream citizens with steady jobs and clean profiles, but all the peasants give you a wierd look if you say hello to their kids down the park cos you don't look like you conform to their ideal, and the kids start to be marginalized and seperated from the larger community.

Violence is denied here when Emile sez skepticism about Sarin gas attacks is ' not unreasonable'. It seems Emile will maintain this line even if anarchists are attacked with nerve-gas by the Putin-Assad dictatorship.
This is an apologist for some of the worst violence in recent memory hanging around an anarchist site like a bad smell. I ask the collective running this site to remove this toxic individual effective immediately. Tia. Pr.

see... a fucking rat through and through - going to the "cops" (at least, the authorities) to protect their pathetic ideological insecurities.

what's next, rat, crying to the fbi about bad language on your "anarchic" internet?

fuck, why did i think i would see anything other than terrible shit by clicking this post. Fuck all of you except shadowsmoke who persists on trying to be a decent human being in a land edgy shitbags

what would you like to say, anon, that is your own conversation, and not responsive to the people you are offended by?

Personally I like beating those around me in physical combat. My wife look at me funny, I punch her in the face. Usually she wins, but I like to keep my pride up. If you like fights, pick a woman who will raep you if you try any dumb shit, otherwise you are a coward. I'm no coward and I got two black eyes to prove it.

WOW, I just keep learning new things about couples everyday!

I'm staying away from women, I'm going to beat my meat instead, way to go anarchist misogynists!

Yep! Topic guaranteed to be a pathetic display of what to expect from the usual pedo-apologists around here. Do you cringe like we do collective? By we, I mean the 99.8% of people who identify as anarchists or have an interest in anarchist ideas but don't think that has anything to do with rationalizing sex with minors?

Who, besides you, discussions non-duality? Why is this theory so complicated, if it is supposed to be a true theory? Is this monism?

In my own efforts with accountability process, I've seen that a lot of the problems aren't really about anarchist thought at all and just a simple matter of terrible methodology. Obviously, we don't want to recreate what the state would call justice but impartial investigation is a set of practical skills like carpentry or whatever. Relatively easy to learn but you won't do it properly the first time you try.

Serious allegations require serious investigation. At least some of the science of forensics can be separated from its law-and-order context and used by anybody. That should look like a healthy skepticism while still prioritizing the support of the person making the allegations. If solid information isn't obtainable and it's all just hearsay, recognize the weakness of the allegation while still supporting people emotionally. Sometimes, the truth will never be nailed down and that means drastic responses aren't appropriate.

Beyond the basics of collecting information so you don't end up playing a role in a witch-hunt, it's all very contextual and difficult to be prescriptive. Everyone has to decide for themselves what behaviours they're willing to tolerate from a partner as a result of mental health or trauma.

Where is the line, when someone is too toxic and the only solution is to stay away from them or in the most extreme cases, force them to stay away from you and/or aggressively persuade them to stop behaving in a certain way?

Would you like to mention your own efforts with accountability, like how some witch hunt was carried out and how the issue was resolved. Be interesting as a case to dissect, who the hunters were, their psychology, who the victims were, did they play the victim or were there real life repercussions, was it all just a big drama blown up out of proportion by soap opera kings and queens?????

There's been enough different examples now (cuz I'm old) that it's a little of everything. Actual instances of stalking/abuse and stupid melodrama and everything in between. That's why the emphasis on collecting solid information is the only real lesson because it's where the problems always come from, the problems with the process that is, not the problem of how some people are shitty and fucked up beyond all hope of redemption. That's just inevitable.

The main task is to be 100% certain before you go declaring a human being fucked up beyond all hope and then …[insert drastic action here]. If you and your friends lack any capacity for drastic action, that's a separate set of problems to do with having useful skills and affinity groups.

Don't be those assholes that throw anti-police/anti-snitching rhetoric at victims of assault and abuse when there's literally no other option because your community is weak as shit and you're effectively saying "Do nothing about that awful thing that just happened to you".

For the record, FTP obviously but that's why you need alternative ways of dealing with conflict/violence/victim support.

the workplace environment can become shittier and shittier as owners try to extract more profit from the venture. if the worker reaches his limit of tolerance and launches a protest during which he smashes a window in the owner's house, forensic science starts with this eruption of violence, treating it as an 'event-in-itself' and launches inquiry into the 'causal source' of the violence.

'whodunnit' is the popular expression of inquiry of this kind. since Western religions and Western science have a built-in foundational 'belief in the independent existence of human "beings"', making them 'fully and solely responsible for their own behaviour', forensic science inquiry will never be able to see beyond the 'causal agent' to the deeper influencing role of the environmental/workplace conditions.

"The dynamics of the inhabitants [including the bosses] are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat at the same time as the dynamics of the habitat are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants [including the workers]" -- Mach's principle

any relational social environment can wax and wane in healthiness or malaise and the incidence of disturbing events increases and declines at the same time. forensic science inquiry seeks only to establish 'the responsible causal agent/s'.

this 'logical-being' based language and grammar implies that the rank and file membership are not the problem, not even through their ability to 'condition the relational social dynamic' which is at the same time conditioning the behaviours of its participating members. in forensic science, 'space' is a non-participant in physical phenomena thus 'how people condition the community environment' is not relevant to forensic science investigations since 'individuals as notional independent beings' are seen as being fully and solely responsible for their own behaviours.

in physical reality, however, 'it takes a whole community to raise a sexual trouble-maker', just like 'it takes a whole community to raise a trouble-making worker'. if community A spawns 10 rapists per 100 members while community B spawns only 1 rapist per 100 members, forensic science concerns itself only with tracking down rapists per the assumptions that rapists are fully and solely responsible for their own behaviour.

"impartial investigation" is NOT 'impartial' since it turns a blind eye to the complicity of those conducting "the impartial investigation".

see the quasi-religious belief in an 'act in itself'

But society is to blame. Why are you defending society? Non-binary thinking is just some convoluted fancy pants way of thinking for a society organism. Like a Borg monster. Maybe different societies produce different behaviors, but agency must count for something.

Hi emile, love your posts. I'm trying to understand how a 'logical being' would operate. Does Niezsche have anything to say about the subject? Or maybe Carl Jung? Thank you.

'rational (logical) being' comes bundled into noun-and-verb language-and grammar;

“That which gives the extraordinary firmness to our belief in causality …. is belief that every event is a deed, that every deed presupposes a doer, it is belief in the “subject.” Is this belief in the concept of subject and predicate not a great stupidity?” … “Indeed, nothing has yet possessed a more naive power of persuasion than the error concerning being, as it has been formulated by the Eleatics, for example. After all, every word and every sentence we say speak in its favor. Even the opponents of the Eleatics still succumbed to the seduction of their concept of being: Democritus, among others, when he invented his atom. “Reason” in language — oh, what an old deceptive witch she is! I am afraid we are not rid of God because we still have faith in grammar.” – Nietzsche, ‘Twilight of the Idols’

'rational (logical) being', as bundled into language, encourages us to think of ourselves as 'independent beings' who are 'fountainheads of 'our own' agency' [not true];

"It is no different in this case than with the movement of the sun: there our eye is the constant advocate of error, here it is our language. In its origin language belongs in the age of the most rudimentary form of psychology. We enter a realm of crude fetishism when we summon before consciousness the basic presuppositions of the metaphysics of language, in plain talk, the presuppositions of reason. Everywhere it sees a doer and doing; it believes in will as the cause; it believes in the ego, in the ego as being, in the ego as substance, and it projects this faith in the ego-substance upon all things — only thereby does it first create the concept of “thing.” Everywhere “being” is projected by thought, pushed underneath, as the cause; the concept of being follows, and is a derivative of, the concept of ego. In the beginning there is that great calamity of an error that the will is something which is effective, that will is a faculty. Today we know that it is only a word.” – Nietzsche, ‘Twilight of the Idols’

Western society presents itself to itself as if it were a collection of logical beings, encouraging each of us to take our place as 'model citizens' in our own 'logical-being grid-cell'

To add to your analysis, forensic science comes from a frame of mind of wanting to simplify a situation into a crime into which someone can be publicly punished.

Doesn't it also come from a frame of mind wanting to capture people like serial killers who rape and murder young women on a daily basis?

Operation Emile Spam the Raep TOTW in effect.

Yay walls of text against the pedo storm! Emile will not be defeated. Unlike Trump, Emile won't disappoint #buildthatwall

It always happened and it always will be bad. I think this basically goes with the territory of intimacy, on some level. People hurt each other, for a lot of reasons. It's not just intentional acts of domination, i.e. rape. It's a lot of stuff.

Prevention is the thing. One perfectly effective way to deal would be to just not have sex - but fuck that, obviously. Another way, hard to do, would be to completely overhaul all mechanisms of socialization everywhere in, like, a good way - but that's unlikely, and also, I don't really trust overhauling of that scale anyway, as a concept. But we can do things in our cultures, and have done so. Mostly talking about consent, tho, and not (as the Prostitutes War Group was discussing in one communiqué) "the joys of homo sex", and whatever other sweet alternative you want to think of, to replace the kinds of relationships that structurally produce intimate violence. A lot of blaming people for being assholes, not enough on the structure (which isn't to say I don't think abusers should be kicked out of spaces, I generally think sure).

The discourse that @news is most famous for (not the shit that I am saying) is going in the totally wrong direction, of course.

Anyway, intimate violence is gonna happen so long as people are having sex - and that sucks, because people get damaged. I am not necessarily interested, personally, in helping survivors work out their damage - which is, like, just honest, and just the same as how I am not helping out a lot of people who are fucked up, like homeless folks not too far from where I'm typing. There is too much damage in this world for me to fix, really, and I have my own life; I still help some people, sometimes, and benefit from the help of others. So, on that base level, I think there is something to a critique of survivors as an oppressed identity category, insert some standard anti-IP critique here, but also, umm, we should be clear that helping survivors is a good thing. It's worth making space for it, and thinking about it, from time to time, you know.

I'm celibate after a lot of sexual drama in my life, and I've acquired this incredible calmness and inner peace, in fact, more people love and adore me now than I ever was before. I'm actually more intimate not having sex, if that makes sense. Sex is really just a 5 minutes of the ol' in and out anyway, some kissing, it was never any of that dinner by candlelight bullshit or walking along the beach holding hands, NO WAY, but people love me for my sense of humor mainly, and my cheekiness telling fuckers where to go IRL and clowning around, which no one sees much on the net. I'll give a cigarette or a couple of dollars to a homeless person, they come on to me, but no no no, I'm not gonna get any more diseases, which I was very understanding of in the past, a small rebuke like "thanks for giving me gonorrhea darling. Yeah, I'm TOO intimate and intuitively intelligent... I hate guys who beat up on their women,,,,,,,I think I've said enough,,,,,,,yes,,,,,,too much maybe,,,,?

The "joys of homo sex" are for those enjoying homo sex, or desiring it. As a guy I wouldn't be telling a lesbo girl who's having relational issues with girls to "hey... just fuck with guys, yawn".

For the rest of the people, you (not talking about you specifically) gotta think of means to engage conversations on not just consent but on how should men improve their behavior. Since intimate violence is both a homo and hetero issue (yeeees, kids, it's very present among same-sex relations, tho I would guess is it more present among gay men than lesbian women. Queer people might hopefully be much better tackling the violence issues), it should be a good idea to have gender-exclusive discussions on the matters of intimate violence, aggression, dominant behavior, etc.

I guess that anything more lived and interactive than some stupid posters and social media buzzwords might help.

But these kinds of one-way moralism we've seen over the last few years? Not quite.

"you (not talking about you specifically)" NO NO NO !!! YOU'RE A LIAR!!! You've singled me out, I know you have, you're that aweful troll who signs himself Le Gay and makes my life unbearable, ooohhh sooo unbeaaaaarable! You remind me of my last low-life girlfriend who I rescued from the street, IIIIII used to cook for HER, aaaand wash the dishes, aaaand satisfy her sexually, and what does she do, she gives me a disease!! I know it was her, SHE said it jumped up off the toilet seat, gasp, but I'm not that naive! I threw her out, back where she belongs, and where YOU belong Hummph!! I hope you get syphilis in the ass hahaha!!!

PS, I use parody to illustrate the petty jealousies and suspicions and disrespectful attitudes folk in intimate relationships project onto each other. In real life its a very traumatic experience, like having half of ones heart torn out of ones chest. If we can make people see the absurdity of it all with humor, they may see this and reevaluate their attitudes.

Political-economy has more to do with Newtonian space than quantum-gravity extremes and so it requires some geometric logic and shared definitions.

That it doesn't require any specialists was pointed out by Orwell decades ago.

http://orwell.ru/library/reviews/burnham/english/e_burnh.html

The specialist in political economy is exercising a rotten power-play and needs to be nipped in the bud. This also applies to the wannabe specialist(s) spreading obscurantism and obfuscation where-ever some clarity and lucidity is called for. Light trumps heat in this space.

Examples of the wannabe specialist include flaming arseholes like Julian Assange and Emile Wall.

Bakunin said power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Those words hold true no matter how much ethical relativism is thrown at them.
I am talking to youse as intimates since we are all being subjected to abuse from specialists in the service of God and the State. Lets all do what we can to minimize this abuse and punish the abuser, for fucks sake.
Thank youse. Pr

There is much that is original and good in Nietszche. Unfortunately that which is good is not original and that which is original is not good.

You might say that we don't know which came first. The Nietzsche or the egg.

You might say that two Nietzsches in the bush is too many Nietzsches.

Do you guys know there's a person who posts on this site who chose the moniker "Mr. Unique One" for his username? But in another language. Because Stirner.

"wow so special." That shit spoke Zarathustra.

I always knew

WTF are you talking about? Will to power was an original concept of his time, I'm more a Schopenhauer type myself though. So poor little prof wants to be the victim of the big boogieman State and hasn't got the strength of will to rise above these petty little worries that befall the herds of peasants and proletariat who whine and gimble ( the Jabberwocky arises muwhahahahaaaa). Embrace the good things the State has to offer, like when they bust a ring of pedophiles stealing 5 yr old kids from their parents, or shoot some rapist drug dealing lowlife who has brought a community to its knees, Hell a fuckin yooyah, hoorah, anarchists should freakin compromise abit (well we individualists do). I'd kill a proven pedophile without hesitating, yet I'm a loving sensitive intuitively intelligent person. Get over the "the big nasty world out there" Just fucking say it how it is,,,,, Nietzsche rules the streets broh,,,,,,

""amor fati"" or Nietzsche's eternal recurrence, a blow to the millenarianists concept of a moral and karmic judgement day,

"amor fati" Latin deserves to be italicized. maybe this will work

anyone ever think that a significant amount of trans people who associate specifically with the anarcho scene have some serious abusive anger issues and are partially using their identity to get away with it? Or is that just me.

No its not just you, many feel the are just as patriarchal in there roles as the heteronormatives.

It's just you.

Bertrand W. Russell wrote that Nietzsche had exerted great influence on philosophers and on people of literary and artistic culture, but warned that the attempt to put Nietzsche's philosophy of aristocracy into practice could only be done by an organization similar to the Fascist or the Nazi party.

Bertrand Russell was an advocate of Cartesian dualism, the ol' binary twist on reality.

It's true. And this is the relation between Evola, Schmitt, and Nietzsche. Even Junger was into this with the "Anarch" principle, that is not anarchistic but rather a form of autocracy. They were all for a new kind of restitution of the aristocracy and whether or not the eugenics side of it was attribuable to Friedrich or his sister may be forever a matter of debate, hence why NIetzsche should be abandoned in favor of Stirner.

(reply to 05:28, not LeWank)

If you are going to ridicule me, I would prefer 'Le Gay', not that I regard gayness in any derogatory sense, because for me it alludes to Nietzsche's masterpiece, 'The Gay Science'.

Was formulated in the mid to late 70s in the novel Eumeswil you fool. The book came WAY after that whole nationalist craze. There are aspects of it that I like and that I think are useful in a reconfigured sort of way.

Also Aristocracy CAN be libertarian as Novatore and Martucci demonstrated in their writing. Stirner should come before the Neech obviously, however Fred's language and framework in indispensable and makes a Stirnerian orientation even better and more effective(see Novatore and Martucci who basically fused the two with Stirner of course being primary).

I'd never heard of Junger until now, where have I been? I did a wiki on him, wow, I'm going to read some of his works, his amazing experiences and latter experimentations.

That's gotta count for something.

Incredible, that no one has mentioned this to me, more so because I am actually a psychonaut, have been for years and years, though not requiring the chemical catalysts now. Of course, Aldous Huxley's 'Doors of Perception', Leary "The Politics of Experience" the lesser known Dr Lilly and his "The Centre of the Cyclone", all books I loved,,,,I shyed away from Casteneda, he seemed a bit gimicky and didn't apply a metaphorical perspective to his experiences. By Le Way I was hinting at The Way of the Mind actually.

I'm fairly sure Leary's book I read all those years ago was titled The Politics of Experience,,,now that I think of it, The Psychedelic Experience,,,,,,getting mixed up with another book,,,,politics wasn't in Leary's vocabulary much...

PS I just found it, R.D Laing 'The Politics of Experience", a very good work on defining normality and madness.

why do you say that not having sex would solve intimate violence? intimate violence covers a raft of issues, including child abuse (i guess i have to add "non-sexual" here) and elder abuse (ditto) and housemates ("") and so on.

on a separate tack, a lot of the drama at least with SE (at least on this thread) is about him insisting on being a puritan about terminology--and not talking about people, but about semantic categories (or something). consent and survivor as labels that work most commonly in a particular social context of (as you reffed Smoke) identity politics and so on. of course since he doesn't offer up words to use for people who are not trying to manipulate or legislate their relationships, it makes it pretty hard to have a conversation, but getting sucked in to defending those words might not be the best response either.
i don't have better words myself. but this is one reason why talking about this stuff online is frequently not a great idea.
just some thoughts. this is a topic close to my heart, fwtw.

It does end up in the form of legislation. IP ideologues and their agenda IS leading to more laws and a greater punitive state in addition to all the social micromanaging that you see on colleges and universities. While anarchists may have tried to prefigure something different the problems of the language have come home to roost. This is why it is important to be aware of etymologies and definitional contexts so that you don't end up being surprised that a radical appropriated term that has state contractual origins ends up serving some type of state managerial apparatus.

I was being clumsy or lazy in my discussion of it. We could have another statement: if people stopped having kids, no child abuse. As for talking about elders and housemates, I think that is an even better discussion of it... I was thinking a lot about sexual assault, less about, like, situations that I don't really know. Despite a ton of roommate drama, I have had the privilege of, like, always having other places to go, and not worrying about real violence with other people I share space with.

Anyway, I suppose I am just pessimistic about people not hurting each other. Like, I dunno, it's far beneath "intimate violence", but friends of mine have often hurt my feelings or let me down, and I know I also do the same damn thing. We can get emotionally reliant, or domestically reliant, upon each other, and in just trying to get out of those entanglements, hurt happens - or also, one side may just not be aware of the degree of entanglement. Again, I want to think to prevention... but also, hmm, I am actually really interested in more deliberate, deeper entanglement, with even more people. You know, communism.

I am a little burnt on this convo, and feeling like I have less smart things to say. PLUS I am busy as fuck between now and next TOTW, so yeah, I should stop procrastinating on my shit. Interested in still talking tho.

it's a little confusing to me that you say "don't have kids", "don't have sex", as if those are real (even in the imagination) possibilities. as you say, people hurt each other. there are no policy changes that will change that... and because the topic of abuse/violence/power is so broad and human, we have naturally started to get more and more vague just in this conversation (or is that just me?). to re-focus, the issue is not random kinds of pain--i would argue that seeking to avoid any or even most pain is an error, but that's for a different post--but a particular kind of pain that is overwhelming to the person receiving it, which is hard to judge from outside of that person (sometimes even from the inside). so figuring out who are the honest actors (and actors can be both honest and dishonest at the same time) and how to proceed in scenarios when we don't/can't know all we'd like to, is the usual messy situation. but maybe, again, that's just me: someone who's been called on to help in scenarios with people i don't know well, and witness of multiple online dramas-in-this-topic with people i don't and probably will never know.

don't worry about not having time to continue this now; i should be doing other things too. but perhaps we will meet on this topic again some time. it doesn't ever go away. :(

I'm not a fan of Russell - but he makes an obvious point about Nietszche thats relevant to anarchists. And as I've said, if we have Stirner, we don't need Friedrich.
Now the Nietszchian nitwit, Emile, glories in the coming anarchist news stories that will be seemingly devoid of any meaning...deliberately illogical, irrational, unrealistic, non sequitur, and incoherent. A first-draft of history without a subject. He subverts two of the over-arching tenets of enlightenment humanism: the power of language to shape the world and the power of consciousness to shape a self.
Even some ecological radicals, such as the ITS group in Mexico, join in the post-anarchist chorus to reject the individual as a criterion for value due to the debasing of the category by ideology and history.
With post-anarchism even alienation dissolves, for there is no longer a subject to be alienated!
Related is Emile's opposition to binary opposites, like literal/metaphorical, serious/playful, deep/superficial, nature/culture, ad infinitum. He sees these as basic conceptual hierarchies, mainly smuggled in by language itself, which provide the illusion of definition or orientation. He further claims that the nondualist work of overturning these pairings, which valorize one of the two over the other, leads to a political and social overturning of actual, non- conceptual hierarchies.
But to automatically refuse all binary oppositions is itself a metaphysical proposition; it in fact bypasses politics and history out of a failure to see in opposites, however imprecise they may be, anything but a linguistic reality.
In the dismantling of every binarism, deconstruction aims at "conceiving difference without opposition."
And what in a smaller dosage would seem a salutary approach, a skepticism about neat, either/or characterizations, proceeds to the very questionable prescription of refusing all unambiguity.
To say that there can be no yes or no position is tantamount to a paralysis of relativism, in which `impotence' becomes the valorized partner to `opposition'.
Perhaps the case of Sarin Nerve-gas attacks in Syria is instructive.
Shortly after the latest, Emile sided with the skeptics in the Red-Brown, Assad/Putin Nazbol corner. Their weak arguments were 'not unreasonable' to this enemy of anarchist news.
Emile stressed the duplicity, the confusion, the untruth that we take for granted in the use of language. Consistent with this, albeit to his discredit, in my opinion, was Emile tortuous commentary on Nietszche's misogynist period: in sum, "how can we judge, who has the right to say?"
A shabby testimony for nonduality, considered in any way as a moment of the anti-authoritarian.

"i want to blame people."

yeah, it's easy to read how insecure you are, while pointing and projecting on to an Other. do you come from a leftist, possibly communist context? sweeping generalizations reminiscent of that asshat control freak that strangled his wife.

binaries make up parts of the whole.

all life forms share the same living space. space that is continually transforming, actively engendering life forms.

without that living space?

these linguistic concepts we throw out at one another aren't what's engendering all life on this planet. the semantic model of reality isn't reality. what i mean is that SVO linguistic orientation cuts out negative causality.

you can say 'emile stupid for not saying things how i want,' but you cannot ignore what are commonly refered to as contexts, 'externalities.'

human 'semantic constructs' do alter the living space...leading to many externalities.

a trucking company can report positive growth, profits, while AT THE SAME TIME (see how the binary parts make up the whole of what's going on), the point at which individuals driving trucks radiates outwardly influencing from the local to the non-local in the form of 10,000 or so diesel respiratory deaths and illnesses like asthma.

the framing 'company growth' completely left out these 10,000 externalities.

this model 'growth' is not inclusive of reality, instead placing all of the credit for such transformations as originating from the genius 'minds' of a few corporate heads and investors.

some of us would like to see humans no longer feel the need to model reality.

for instance, we see the model 'growth' bantered about, mirrored, propagated in radical circles all of the time.

the universe is already anarchy, rat. human control is but a temporary delusion. we are already of the realitions that make up earth. habitat and inhabitant are one.

do you just want to see 'anarchist,' 'anarchism,' be only in human heads?

that's such a narrow focus, that it makes personal attacks feel like an effective means. well, okay then.

Its not even phantom pain. Its more like that irritation you get just before sneezing all over the bore at the party.
Now having said that let me say this The dilemma of post-anarchism is this: how can the status and validity of its theoretical approaches be ascertained if neither truth nor foundations for knowledge are admitted?
If we remove the possibility of rational foundations or standards, on what basis can we operate?
How can we understand what the society is that we oppose, let alone come to share such an understanding?
Insistence on a Nietzschean perspectivism translates into the irreducible pluralism of interpretation. Its relativized knowledge and truth only insofar as these notions attach to thought-systems other than your own, however.
When pressed on this point, you're admitting to being incapable of rationally justifying your own gasbagging, time-wasting opinions.
Even a milquetoast liberal could find that post-anarchist thinkers like you are `neoconservative' for offering no consistent argumentation to move in one social direction rather than another.
The pa embrace of relativism (or `pluralism') also means there is nothing to prevent the perspective of one social tendency from including a claim for the right to dominate another, in the absence of the possibility of determining standards.
And so we find your commentary on Sarin attacks absolutely bankrupt. The only 'news' for anarchists in your contributions is that you hate anarchist news.
You're a puke, a shitstain and...well...words are starting to fail ME now.
Fuck your Nietszche, fuck your Bullshit philosophy and fuck YOU!

"And so we find your commentary on Sarin attacks absolutely bankrupt."

is there ANY chance at all that you will stop claiming to speak for others?

Okay comrades,

I feel like the day has finally come where I'm all in, 100%

My life is going nowhere - which I knew beforehand, and I feel like I know my place in history.

I want to begin in my revolution. This includes overt anarchist slogans covering my window space, unionizing my workplace, graffiti, sabotage, EVERYTHING. How do you cope with these feelings? Is it worth it? In my head it seems totally logical to begin NOW - just go hard, as the anarchist of ye old did (lol).

I know the "law" will be after me, and I plan on making it no secret. I'm sure you girls and guys have dealt with this same shit, how the fuck do you cope? Basically what I'm asking is, should I just start, no matter the artificial consequences?

I want to at least be the spark of a new world. I can die as a wage slave, but in my heart I KNOW for certain that's not what I want. I want the worker's revolt, I want the social revoltion TODAY.

Plz comment, I'm not crazy - although people may think I am.

I'm posting this here because the anarchism subreddit wont even take it?

Life is always going somewhere, even if you were in solitary confinement, deprived of all sensations, you would be going inwards to your cerebral universe, a lot more sane than the ruthless capitalist overlord who thinks the world is his oyster and has no intimacy or sensitivities to other living beings, whose head is filled with greed for power, that is crazy, but you are sane.

You're still just posting crap online. Gelderloos does a neat little summary of anarchist spaces and their potential in the recent article. Basically, you need to meet other people that you agree with, learn useful skills together and then either start to support and work with other people and make the world slightly less shitty, or go after the ones deliberately making it worse. Your choice, get to work.

Meet with the agreed and make things happen in YOUR life. Don't bother about struggling or finding some figurehead of power who is simply a manifestation of belief and ascribing blame for making things worse, many people make things worse.

Focus on anarchy and insurrection more then anarchism and revolution which rely on other peoples beliefs alien from your own. Make anarchy a practice in daily life like Zen or martial arts. Don't make it a position or solution alien from you. Turn the problem into a postulate don't try to formulate yet another ideological solution.

Ziggy's relativistic nonsense is a great example of people making things worse, as an example.

Of course you should be making things happen in your own life … that's what everybody is already doing by default. If that's all you end up doing, it's really not worth trying to ascribe any deeper meaning to it. The trick is to figure out what else you can accomplish by working with others, that isn't just the trap of representation and spectacle.

Hate to break that to you. Also making things happen in YOUR life is a precisely what ISN'T happening for many the world over. Most people are looped into a sublimated behavioral language belief process with no NOW driven self reference. That's not something you organize towards with positions and solutions.

You're not breaking anything to anybody, just belabouring the obvious as you tend to do. Presumably it's a part of your condition.

funny how the anti-zig contingent constantly goes on about how zig is full of shit, alt-right, pedo-supportive, etc. and then they say how zig is stating the obvious. seems a bit contradictory to me. but then, what else would i expect from this pathetic group of ideologues. and i am no zig fan, though i more find more in agreement with ziggy than with most others here.

… there's no "contingent". Just individual people with opinions, often annoyed by his crap. He's autistic, which you can attribute some abrasive perspectives to, if you like. In this case, he's lecturing people about how to be an agent of change in their own lives like a dime-store self help guru. This would be fine except that it's floated as an alternative to doing actual anarchist shit, because anyone who tries to do anything with their politics is a "leftard", according to him.

And unfortunately most anarchists are a shade of politician. Both represent a failure of self reference and practice but the guru is at least in the righ ballpark as far as thinking goes.

Don't really see any difference. Snake oil is snake oil and I ain't buying.

However broad advice warning against position/solution struggle based orientation is hardly snake oil.

Sure it is, it's effectively a counter-insurgency narrative, propping up the social peace by co-opting anarchist discourse. The only reason you get to feel like a maverick for saying that shit is because you position yourself here, obsessively.

It is society and state no longer controlling you if you understand it in the Stirnerian sense which is the only idea of insurrection that matters. It has nothing to do with anything societal.Social war and social peace both preserve history power and leviathan.

I can't say I'm that interested in what you do or don't think but you often claim to understand definitions of words better than everyone else. Seems like you imagine it's very clever too!

I don't believe in fan culture and am opposed to ideological hacks and their frenzied activists acolytes and sooo, as expected, just like Sir E, I get harranged and trolled by these,,,,,,,,,,,,No wonder anarchism hasn't evolved and gained agency with a bunch of leftist PC crypto-liberal 2-digit IQ morons dressed in cat-walk red and black uniforms.

Also emile bears the brunt of this intimate violence from his readers.

sir einzige is talking about two different approaches to individual behaving, the 'Western cultural standard' being a suboptimum alternative; e.g. he says;

"... make things happen in YOUR life. Don't bother about struggling or finding some figurehead of power who is simply a manifestation of belief and ascribing blame for making things worse, many people make things worse."

what makes each of us unique is the uniqueness of the unfolding-in-the-now situation in which we find ourselves [this is 'beyond our control'] and, if we are in touch with our 'amor fati', we can let these unfolding situational needs have 'first dibs' on our behaviour so that the situation inductively actualizes our creative potentials and shapes our actions so that we are continually 'rising to the occasion'.

but our Western dualist culture encourages an 'individual' to focus FIRSTLY on making 'big things happen' by 'working together' or helping to cultivate 'mutual support'. This is NOT 'mutual support' in the sense of an interdependent web of relations that Kropotkin was talking about, but 'mutual support' in terms of 'loyalty to a common cause' which puts a rational plan into an unnatural primacy over one's personal and unique-situation-inspired challenge; i.e. it puts 'loyalty' into an unnatural precedence over 'authenticity'.

Self-defense is inductively actualized action to protect, for example, non-authoritarian (anarchist) modes of social-relational organization [self-defense is where situational need is in a natural primacy over intention-driven action]. for example;

"The Zapatista strategy has been marked by a civil and peaceful political initiative. It has restricted low-profile armed self-defense to some extreme cases, as for example the police attacks on the autonomous municipality in 1998, when the rebels fought back by shooting down a military helicopter and killing several soldiers and policemen. The EZLN relies on armed self-defense as a dissuasive means within a political strategy."

The relational ethics or 'indigenous logic' within the Zapatista and other autonomous indigenous communities [those which are somewhat insulated from colonizer governments], do not, for example, cultivate fascism within the community and thus the community and its members are able to let situational need be in a natural primacy over intention-directed plans.

Fascism is an 'authoritarian democracy' that has more of a claim to representing the will of the people than 'liberal democracy' and fascism is a threat only within 'democratic-authoritarian-structures', not within 'anarchy' ['democratic-anarchy']. Anti-fascism is thus an intention-driven action aimed at repairing a dangerous exposure within 'democratic-authoritarian-structures'. A 'successful outcome' will be a 'fascism-purged authoritarian structure'.

I don't think alienation is off the topic of intimate violence especially of the psychological type, mental conditioning is a very subtle form of torture, and following ideologies like sheep only means that one has lost ones free will to do what ones real desire is about doing, like dropping out of the whole system of media cults of personality and consumerist hysteria and wage slavery, but, the confidence in ones own uniqueness makes even the physical state irrelevant as regards ones own inner sanctified being, ones own sovereign joy which is the one thing never to be conquered, and even drudgery and boredom are transformed into outings, the interactions and relationships one develops even on a chain gang can make the days hard labor at least tolerable and humorous, and strengthen one for the following days experiences. Its a mind over matter issue, and if one is up to it, you should begin changing you life and the relationships with the people around you significantly.

the individual is included in society which is included in nature [the world]. the individual in this case is like a relational storming in a transforming relational flow-continuum.

see, for example, science-and-nonduality's inquiry into 'the self' by Gabor Maté mind-body nonduality vis a vis 'science'

meanwhile, in Western society, science and rationality hold that the individual is an 'independent material system-in-itself with its own internal process driven and directed development and behaviour'.

understanding that this ego-based assumption of 'self' is at the bottom of intimate violence is essential to responding to it.

Becuz dacolective (fuckdername) I sez2u pet genocide is bad and scary. Our children! Our brothers from other mother's! My sadness! Oh oh oh the sadness. Stop it! Stop the death! My friends they kill!

I think many people in the anarchist culture would describe the accountability process to be abusive in itself, but the problem with even talking about "intimate violence" and "abuse" is those words are only ever used when the person using them feels justified in using emotionally charged language. Accountability processes are a medium in which certain individuals are seen to "dish out justice", so someone who wants to do away with this crap can only do so by being inquisitive and sifting through the bullshit before any further action is taken.

the only way "abuse" is going to be dealt with in a long-term, anarchistic manner, is for everyone to be taught from the earliest age: DON'T TAKE SHIT FROM ANYONE! learn self-defense, learn self-confidence, learn to know your own limits and desires. and, have consideration for others, especially those you care about.

I used the Royal "we" among anarchists. My bad. No excuses. I meant to state MY own opposition to apologists for the Sarin Nerve gas attacks. No one else's here. Have mercy. We all make mistakes.

The fun has gone out of intimate violence ever since Auschwitz.

re: author wrote: eternal victims (the abused) and sinners (the abuser), social contexts in which narratives around abuse have to meet certain rhetorical and moral criteria to be honored at all, and a concept of justice that looks an awful lot like that of society in general. The failure of accountability and the toxic culture around it has been especially evident to me as things I have witnessed firsthand.
--
My response is likely a little scattered, but perhaps you will find a morsel of value in it anyway.

I wonder if the first phase of community response should be consciousness about how Rollback has infiltrated our lives. Rollback, the term brought up by the semi-anarchist, Noam Chomsky, about how elites worked really hard to bring the stupidized masses back from the democratic gains of the 1960s to what they called Their Proper Place (or The Proper Track): subordinated in all ways to the values of the state and their obedient social and cultural managers helping to keep the show running smoothlty.

But if you don't find Chomsky's analysis (see his MEDIA CONTROL speech, now a book; the full text is online in various places, so no need to buy it) meaningful, what other one do you have? And can it go deeper in thought without bogging one down in intellectual claptrap? And bring us closer to the heart of the difficulty, rather than its mere symptoms, or roots?

I think if people had a basic consciousness about Rollback, they would be less prone to uncritically adopt the cammoflauged "help" of social scientists --whose pattern of warfare (even when such practitioners do not comprehend it, thanks to internalized values or whatever) consistently works to drive wedges between communities whom would rather be in broad-ranging solidarity with each other, instead of fooled and tooled into "therapy culture" type mindsets.

So imagine this, people able to control their "knee-jerk reaction" enough that, while making sure that the alleged physical aggressor doesn't aggress, explore the context(s) of the aggression. Demystifying how ideas and beliefs get rigidized in personal ways. While still keeping some kind of bridge of sanity to those already in community whom are otherwise valuable members.

Take the violent man taking out his psycholigically overwhelmed PAIN on weaker others while in community. I haven't seen anyone discussing that, so maybe I missed it somewhere else? People who use violence against people they would like to be more intimate with, according to my study, feel cornered in various ways. Maybe they don't know how to articulate a good response, so they resort to punches and such.

But where does this resorting to violence emanate from? Of course, statecraft, or at least something like it. Something that is not a threat to the state, but enhances its push for masses of people to be as divided as possible, thus much weaker and unable to truly mount serious challenges.

The probable non-radical author, Andrew B. Schmookler wrote in his book OUT OF WEAKNESS: HEALING THE WOUNDS THAT DRIVE US TO WAR made some sense to me. The idea that "we are warlike out of weakness."

We feel powerless, so we fall back on violent attack (that which we are constantly programmed towards, exactly where elite strategists BELIEVE we MUST remain. Perhaps we are struggling with our own internalization of the dominating paradigm, feeling secretly bad for various things, i.e. not having a job.

so you have a scenario where a guy reacts harshly to his girlfriend. What is the context? Social science-ism has programmed us with the belief that context is NOT key, not even valuable? Only the transgression/aggression is.

It should be no surprise that most, including anarchists, would go along with the mob response (it sure feels good, for those who cannot think in the long-term)! Why? Because perhaps many anarchists likely take up the identity as a form of armor for themselves! So that they can escape having no armor in a society armored and Ready To Fight everytime statecraft orders them to fight. Abroad and at home.

Wow, your hypothesis is pretty bad. Can you even summarize it coherently? Violence originates in statecraft? That is … terrible. You suck at this.

" We feel powerless, so we fall back on violent attack (that which we are constantly programmed towards, exactly where elite strategists BELIEVE we MUST remain. Perhaps we are struggling with our own internalization of the dominating paradigm, feeling secretly bad for various things, i.e. not having a job." Which "We ?" I never feel powerless, that is YOUR problem! If you haven't learned to control "knee-jerk reactions" by pre-pubescent, you're emotionally retarded.

I doubt your words. Most likely your mom gets on your case all the time. Your concept of control is whether she let's you borrow the car on the weekend or not and you sure as hell put your mom in her place when you just grab them keys anyways. You go boy. You are powerful.

i agree with what you are saying; i.e. 'warlike out of weakness'

people find safety and security within bully groups that are insensitive to the needs of outsiders [as in sovereigntism and colonization] and when there is pushback by outsiders against the insensitivity, there is no way for an 'insider' to respond naturally to it as he might want to; i.e. to accept the injustice of the treatment given to others by the bully group he is a member in. he can't respond because he has proxied his personal powers over to the group and its leaders.

such an insider is made to feel sheepish [shepherded] and 'loses his tongue' because he has given up his sacred right/responsibility to manage his own engaging with the world around him. he has no longer any natural context to come from, and reverts back to his leader-of-the-pack proxy or 'democratic representative' who will likely stonewall the outsider-complainant or crush him to stop his annoying whining. or he may call 911 when the complainant comes knocking at his door since he has become used to delegating all of his natural responsibilities to bully group (state) agencies.

the insider member of the bully group has no personal memory of abusing outsiders since bully groups, by definition, drive themselves from their own intentions and bulldoze their way through whatever 'situations' a natural sensitive individual would allow to shape his behaviour. the person on the bicycle in mixed traffic will let the unfolding situation orchestrate and shape his behaviour; i.e. he will let the unfolding situation prevail over his fixed intention [harmony of the voyage over efficiency of attaining the destination]. meanwhile, driving a tank is analogous to riding within the bubble of a bully group, and the tank driver [group leader] will put group intention into an unnatural primacy over the unfolding situation.

if the tank driver and his bully group, who have been smashing their way through bicycle-filled thoroughfares stop at a truck stop for some coffee and some of the injured and bloody bicyclists come in and confront them, as individuals, they won't know what the outsiders are talking about because all they felt along the way was some dull thuds of speed bumps and one doesn't keep a log of context dealing with running over speed bumps.

after the bully group beats the shit out of those who try to pushback, finishes its coffee break and continues on its tank travels, ... the bloodied outsiders may show up again some time later; e.g. in pulling off a "9/11" wherein some of the bully group members close friends and family members become casualties of outsider push-back via their bully-group-induced bully groups.

out of weakness comes bully groups and out of bully groups comes warfare;i.e. once one abandons one's personal (sacred) right/responsibility of directly engaging with the outside world and starts living in a 'secure bubble' wherein one proxies one's engaging with the outside to a bully group leader, there is no longer any personal context of engaging, nor natural building of experience of engaging with outside others, and if you then encounter pissed-off outsiders who don't like what your tank driving group leader did to them, you are no longer equipped with the personal context to deal naturally with them. this is embarrassing, your tongue is tied and you can only tout the party line, an open admission of your abdication of your own natural powers; i.e. you are admitting to having proxied away your own sacred right/responsibility for engaging with the world.

as individuals abdicate (proxy away) responsibility for interpersonal relations including conflict resolution, calling 911 and depending on blunt force (police) become the norm. e.g. feminist bully group formation encourages women who feel threatened to pick up the phone and call 911 rather than deal with a potential conflict issue themselves. in general, people are encouraged to back out of conflict situations and let the 'authorities' take care of it [this is 'rollback'].

massive resentment builds as a result of this weakness based abandonment of direct self-other relations management and conflict resolution, and massive resentment is the fuel for warfare [self-other gender-warfare, ethnic-warfare, racial-warfare, religious-warfare etc.].

i.e. as you say, people are warlike out of weakness.

Hippy nonsense. The motivations and contexts for war are the interesting part, not your transparent attempts to feel abstractly superior to people who are demonstrably stronger than you.

is it because you believe your powers of discerning what is nonsense are greater than most people's so that you want to use your power to shield and protect those with lesser powers of discernment from falling prey to nonsense?

how many people would you estimate you have saved from falling victim to nonsense by posting warning signs like this, ... 150? ...1500? ... more?

do you receive many notes saying stuff like;

"thank you for your warning, for i surely would have fallen victim to swallowing that nonsense were it not for your erudite refutation of what was being said".

I believe that my powers of discerning what is nonsense are greater than most people's so that I want to use my power to shield and protect those with lesser powers of discernment from falling prey to nonsense.

I would estimate that I have saved from falling victim to nonsense by posting here great big blocks of anarcho-spew 150 ...1500 ... maybe more BLIP BLIP M'REEEE people than that.

I receive many comments here saying stuff like; "thank you for your warning, for i surely would have fallen victim to swallowing that nonsense were it not for your erudite refutation of what was being said".

emile, as someone who clearly never shuts the hell up, I'd expect you to be more understanding when somebody politely indicates that you might consider it once and awhile

Thanks for that warning anon, we will post it on multiple Facebook blogs with an estimated readership of 35,000 people. It is so thoughtful and compassionate of you to spread this advice, unlike others who write wall texts glorifying their typing skills only.

after the bully group beats the shit out of those who try to pushback, finishes its coffee break and continues on its tank travels, ... the bloodied outsiders may show up again some time later; e.g. in pulling off a "9/11" wherein some of the bully group members close friends and family members become casualties of outsider push-back via their bully-group-induced bully groups.

such an insider is made to feel sheepish [shepherded] and 'loses his tongue' because he has given up his sacred right/responsibility to manage his own engaging with the world around him. he has no longer any natural context to come from, and reverts back to his leader-of-the-pack proxy or 'democratic representative' who will likely stonewall the outsider-complainant or crush him to stop his annoying whining. or he may call 911 when the complainant comes knocking at his door since he has become used to delegating all of his natural responsibilities to bully group (state) agencies.
i.e. as you say, people are warlike out of weakness.

people find safety and security within bully groups that are insensitive to the needs of outsiders [as in sovereigntism and colonization] and when there is pushback by outsiders against the insensitivity, there is no way for an 'insider' to respond naturally to it as he might want to; i.e. to accept the injustice of the treatment given to others by the bully group he is a member in. he can't respond because he has proxied his personal powers over to the group and its leaders.

i agree with what you are saying; i.e. 'warlike out of weakness'

if the tank driver and his bully group, who have been smashing their way through bicycle-filled thoroughfares stop at a truck stop for some coffee and some of the injured and bloody bicyclists come in and confront them, as individuals, they won't know what the outsiders are talking about because all they felt along the way was some dull thuds of speed bumps and one doesn't keep a log of context dealing with running over speed bumps.

the insider member of the bully group has no personal memory of abusing outsiders since bully groups, by definition, drive themselves from their own intentions and bulldoze their way through whatever 'situations' a natural sensitive individual would allow to shape his behaviour. the person on the bicycle in mixed traffic will let the unfolding situation orchestrate and shape his behaviour; i.e. he will let the unfolding situation prevail over his fixed intention [harmony of the voyage over efficiency of attaining the destination]. meanwhile, driving a tank is analogous to riding within the bubble of a bully group, and the tank driver [group leader] will put group intention into an unnatural primacy over the unfolding situation.

massive resentment builds as a result of this weakness based abandonment of direct self-other relations management and conflict resolution, and massive resentment is the fuel for warfare [self-other gender-warfare, ethnic-warfare, racial-warfare, religious-warfare etc.].

as individuals abdicate (proxy away) responsibility for interpersonal relations including conflict resolution, calling 911 and depending on blunt force (police) become the norm. e.g. feminist bully group formation encourages women who feel threatened to pick up the phone and call 911 rather than deal with a potential conflict issue themselves. in general, people are encouraged to back out of conflict situations and let the 'authorities' take care of it [this is 'rollback'].

out of weakness comes bully groups and out of bully groups comes warfare;i.e. once one abandons one's personal (sacred) right/responsibility of directly engaging with the outside world and starts living in a 'secure bubble' wherein one proxies one's engaging with the outside to a bully group leader, there is no longer any personal context of engaging, nor natural building of experience of engaging with outside others, and if you then encounter pissed-off outsiders who don't like what your tank driving group leader did to them, you are no longer equipped with the personal context to deal naturally with them. this is embarrassing, your tongue is tied and you can only tout the party line, an open admission of your abdication of your own natural powers; i.e. you are admitting to having proxied away your own sacred right/responsibility for engaging with the world.

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
CAPTCHA
Human?
j
T
d
B
s
y
h
Enter the code without spaces.