Anarchy Radio 08-22-2017

  • Posted on: 23 August 2017
  • By: Anonymous (not verified)

LISTEN HERE: https://archive.org/details/AnarchyRadio08222017

Cliff co-hosts. Cascadia Cave. Rising fascist threat ??(e.g. Boston, Durham). Coral, kelp dying out globally. Barcelona jihadists "normal"! Anews editorial #25:Subjectivism 101. David Byrne, Zizek(!) on technology. A vaccine for heroin. LED eyelashes, NurturePod by Stuart Candy. One call.

category: 

Comments

Technology doesn't work? Pollution is one reason why. Perhaps that's why JZ doesn't bother trying to 'defend' it as working. For Cliff to try and defend the caller and for John not to challenge the caller was frustrating. Technology doesn't work unless you want, for example, pollution and alienation. I don't believe that Chisel is seeking a world of isolation via her 'subjective' perspective. Having a subjective view doesn't exclude mutuality and/or a cooperative understanding as Chisel volunteers time to ANews. And so the digs between JZ and ANews, ANews and JZ continue. At least, no mention of ITS this week. I don't understand why JZ maintains his perplexity about nihilism. It is clear to grasp. JZ, please read Aragorn! 2009 'Anarchy and Nihilism: Consequences.' Also, Bellamy and a caller to Anarchy Radio provided definitions to you, John. So please drop it. It is boring to listen to. And ANews, please drop the 'Always an hour' bit. AR has to fit in with a radio schedule. JZ, why don't you submit a written open article outlining your gripes to ANews instead of trying to goad ANews to call you? Thanks

yeesh. the anews podcast tries to say how long podcasts last. there are other digs about @radio, definitely, but that is not one.

you never mention the length of any other podcast etc, always this one!

possibly in the repeated weekly 'always' (like here we go again, another hour of JZ, why can't it be less)? Why not just say 'length, one hour'? Just a thought.

substantive ones! things that matter (or at least matter to some)...
why go out of your way to focus on this non issue?

i mean, do what you like, but wow people are odd...

Come on, don't just come out with an empty statement; please list the 'actual digs' you believe @news make about JZ?

I didn't hear a "defense" of technology going on there. It was an admission that technology has been successful in "doing things" for us (to us) and that what it has done, and is doing, isn't beneficial. I thought that was pretty clear from the statement about our dependency upon technology, the systems it produces and the constant work to maintain them. Life outside the technological system has become all but impossible and we've lost a lot of skills following the demands of technology. Also, pollution, alienation, and other stuff that technology produces in its wake was discussed, so it seems like the negative aspects of technology were pretty well covered.

JZ vs. A-News Rap Battles. I'm not too partial. Just attenuate your signal-to-noise ratio and all is fine.

works (cited on the show): if in working you mean getting from A to B. When all the externalities are included, then the plane ONLY 'works' for that brief moment it is flying. Even then it is polluting with noise and fumes for example. The whole cost has to be included : before, during and after. Re JZ making a comment about Chisel and that Aragorn! is to blame for all post modernism in anarchy right now with all this subjectivity leading to a malaise. I say ANews respond in writing an article answering John's questions and include questions for John to elicit his responses too and we may just get a to and fro communication thread where these differences and niggles get an opportunity to achieve some form of closure (perhaps via an on-going basis). Unless, what the digs are really about is how both sides enjoy the perpetual sniping?

we'll talk about it. but it's hard to be motivated to put this effort in, in the face of years (decades) of jz's bad faith argumentation, slippery reasoning, and default name-calling.

some of thecollective is more up for this than i am, probably. so, we'll see.

Listened to this podcast, and JZ clearly said Aragorn! is NOT to blame for all the postmodernism in the anarchy now, only that Aragorn! has contributed to it. I have not followed this dispute closely, but know both individuals. I suspect there has been childish, Leftist behavior on both sides. I'm mostly on JZ's side of this. However, those of us who are serious about "rewilding" (returning Home) should start DOING it and then write/speak about THAT. I hear Kevin Tucker is involved in an actual Land project in MO. Too many anarchists are stuck in critique mode. Few (outside the milieu) want to hear it unless you have solutions that have worked in practice.

If JZ is against postmodernism (I'm assuming this is about subjective experience) then is JZ against indigenous peoples (tribes, bands clans and individuals) having their own take on reality, both historically and present day? Surely, we experience the world subjectively and we dolt have to accept someone else's reality as completely our own? And we can change our take on reality, indeed we do change as we age and experience existence?

I can't speak for JZ. Why don't you ask him these questions?

your interesting (and succinct) questions, 2 quotes from my book:
"When you EXPERIENCE what was intended for us, you will know the depth and magnitude of what has been taken from us. You can't take anyone else's word for it (it CAN'T be put into words) - YOU HAVE TO SEE FOR YOURSELF." (pg. 95)
"If the level of experience I was given, many times, could be given to someone as damaged as I was, IT COULD BE GIVEN TO ANY OF US." (pg. ix)
I have something over 2 typed pages of testimony from the Ju/'hoansi tribal elders. I really wish I had this before my book came out. They are literally on the other side of the earth, their ancestry is separated from mine by 130,000 years. And they speak for me better than I could.
Book - INTO EDEN: Elements of Emancipation, Redpanther/John F. Burnett
Note - the book mentions nihilism only once, and does not discuss postmodernism at all.

This is the bit where suddenly the boundary between identity politics and indigeniety suddenly becomes blurred from fear of hypocrisy in avoiding the empirical facts concerning genetic commonality.

I do know the Ju/'hoansi have something like 8 times the genetic diversity of Europeans (but no Neanderthal DNA). They have been around for a very long time (for Homo sapiens). Humans back to Homo erectus have been around for 1.8 million years.

Sorry I should have been more specific and accurate, all humans share the same 46 chromosomes, in 23 pairs of which 1 differs between male and female. This is Peterson's point, it also demolishes all racist claims concerning difference between peoples, and this can be applied to white supremacists, Celtic nationalists, identity minorities and also indigenous separatists or traditional tribalists. But you won't find JZ making a stand on defining and explaining his numerous references to hunter/gatherer societies which borders on a relapse back to Romanticism's 'Noble Savage' fallacy, something I've noticed also in your tendency, this inverted sanctimonious view you apply to what are just run of the mill homo sapiens beneath all the cultural tribal makeup!! I am leaving the building,,,,,

Positive, it works; negative, it works?

More like... Positive, it performs tasks; Negative, the consequences of performing those tasks.

"I don't understand why JZ maintains his perplexity about nihilism. It is clear to grasp."

If it's "so clear to grasp", why can't any nihilist explain it without slipping into vague obfuscatory purple prose?

Nihilism is the negation of the politics of ressentiment in exchange for the politics of desire.

ROTFLMAO ! How is that coherent or clear?

Desire for what? Ressentiment about what?

Ressentiment about the lack of Utopia. Desire for fulfillment and joie de vivre. Jouissance.

I really have to jump in here I just happen to be around and your completely inaccurate definition of "ressentiment" really must be pointed out. Its a psychological attitude/emotion, certainly it may be brought on by a lack of or deficiency in something, but its not the "lacking of" anything, its a mental state. Desire can be dissected into so many facets of psychological and instinctual cravings for contentedness that its best left alone because its clichéd within political discourse.

Touché

You may be the person who can help me? Do you have any recommendations regarding podcasts, internet audio, YouTube material explaining nihilism or nihilisms? Nothing flowery or way abstract.

By Peter Sjöstedt-H. A good concise definition that does not have the complications put in by anarchists and communists.

https://www.amazon.ca/Neo-Nihilism-Philosophy-Power-Peter-Sj%C3%B6stedt-...

Thanks for this. I will check this out.

Looks interesting, amorality diffusing power, values thus objectified, the dissolution of the democratic State,,,,,,

But you're correct if you stick to the single "s" use from the French definition.

Nihilism is whatever definition you desire to make out of it, except maybe democracy or Leftism, darling!

Nihil = latin for "Nothing", "nothingness", "negation".

The most proper form of spiritual nihilism would be to assert the supreme being (a.k.a, God, An or whoever else) as the abstract, yet very physically existent pure void. The Void as a universal force of absolute negation, yet creation and movement, our of inertia and abscence. The void as the primordial chaos that bred order. The void as the only will and intelligence that can be beyond any understanding, dominate over everything, and offer an answer to everything.

Political nihilism would be nothing else than anarchy, the negation of all power as an exclusive and hierarchical relation. In a way the all-black flag is really the flag of nihilism, as there is no other way, other than a flagless pole (lol) to symbolize the negation of all nations, political ideologies and precepts (as abstract hierarchies of ideas imposed upon individuals).

But beyond that, I don't see how nihilism has to be a negation of anything more specific.... like negation of the politics of resentment or whatever else.

Also, mosquito-fucking time, even if I'm natively of French background I prefer to use English terms when writing in English. Resentment's still the direct equivalent to the French "ressentiment". Commonly we use words from other languages when they do not accurately and exhaustively translate the meaning. Which is not the case here. Yawn.

Germans didn't have a good word for the concept, apparently, and like many others, were down for the French loanwords. Then English took the word directly from the Germans, and now it's stuck in philosophical language, and I suppose it has a nice ring to it, in a way, versus the vulgar, non-intellectual "resentment".

But it's the same thing, and as an anglo who will always opt for "oléoduc" en français rather than the equally or more common "pipeline", I get it.

Regarding nihilism, I don't think it's necessary to say nihilism IS anything... Its etymological referent is a nice thing to keep in mind, but not actually that useful for speaking of the word "nihilism" is used in different contexts, and particularly how its definition is made into a weapon and also a battleground between folks with different agendas.

Thanks for getting around to this thread before it drops off the front page into the abyss. It's always nice to get some attention isn't it?

I have wondered about this. Ayin Sof (Infinite Nothingness) - Jewish "mysticism", the Void - Hindu "mysticism", Emptiness - Buddhist "mysticism". I have never received this level of experience, but I doubt it is an abstraction for those who have. I doubt it is chaotic either, for this would require something, not Infinite Nothingness.

The Big Bang, out of which all matter and energy in the known universe, as well as space and time came, came out of NOTHING. And yet it's known physical laws are PERFECT. If any one of these laws was just slightly off, the known universe as well as life on earth (and countless other worlds), would never have come together.

All those very expensive particle accelerators and other instruments quantum physicists claim to be using are just an elaborate FRONT. Really, they're just taking very large doses of LSD (with appropriate spacing between sessions to prevent tolerance).

"Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, may have been made to have me in it!'" - Douglas Adams

the valley gathers together rainfall into rivulets and rivulets into streams and streams into a powerful river, and after benefitting from all that female orchestrating work, the proud male egotist river claims to have carved out the valley. let's face it, before the valley gathered its male occupant together, it was in pieces and in terrible disarray, but after she had pulled him together so that he felt powerful and confident, he claims it was all his own doing.

when the europeans, in great disarray, came to Turtle Island as refugees, and the opportunities of open and beckoning fertile valleys pulled them together again and made them strong and confident, they began to claim that it was them and their white European superiority!? that made America great.

the moral of the story is that "while epigenetic influence inductively actualizes genetic expression", the inductively resuscitated and actualized forms that manifest as this 'genetic expression' will tend to egotistically claim that their rise to power derives from their own 'internal genetic agency'. and the pervasively male affair of science will in fact back them up on this whopper.

The known universe emanated/emanates to have everything it has in it in it.

Bellamy explained it in very basic language in The Brilliant episode 50.

No he didn't.

Okay, so what is not clear about it?

Does anyone follow the work of this guy? I've just stumbled upon him. Who is he?

Some of my psychology interests and directions parallel many of his theories concerning Marxism and cultiral identity politics.

"Some of my psychology interests and directions parallel many of his theories concerning Marxism and cultiral identity politics."

Then you're both idiots and deserve each other. You realize Peterson is not an anarchist in any way shape of form right?

Intelligent libertarian-right-type of guy who combines existentialism, Freud, Jung, and contemporary neuropsychology. Talks a lot about the loss of meaning in modern life and how to overcome it as an individual, and relates that to why people are attracted to authoritarian political ideologies. Heavily criticizes Leftist extreme social constructionism, such as by arguing that certain gendered differences are biopsychologically real, not merely social constructions. There is plenty to dislike about him from an anarchist perspective (he defends many aspects of the status quo in very annoying, crappy ways), but there is also plenty that is interesting if you can get past the annoying stuff.

Pretty good summary of Jordan Peterson. I would just add that he is a clinical psychologist with his own practice, and is a tenured professor of Psychology at the University of Toronto. He came to notoriety about a year ago when he took a stand against a proposed Ontario provincial law that added the category of transgenderism to the Ontario Human Rights Code. The law (Bill C-16) now includes discrimination against non-binary transgender people, as well as any harassment involving refusal to use non-binary pronouns.(e.g. zir). Peterson doesn't believe in non-binary transgenderism, he believes there are only two genders and that everyone (or nearly everyone) falls into either gender. He acknowledges the existence of transgenderism, but does not think there is an 'in-between', non-binary, gender which is socially or personally constructed. Hence, he openly denounced the use of non-binary pronouns, declared he would refuse to use them, and got into a bit of hot water with his University.

As he started giving public talks he was often confronted by groups of both transgender and non-binary transgender activists who shouted him down and tried to deplatform him. The activists accused him of being a transphobe (he technically isn't), and of promoting hatred against the transgender community (again, technically he wasn't). A lot of the anti-Peterson activists are your typical SJW wing nuts.

The problem with Peterson is that he took a legitimate concern over Bill C-16 and blew it all out of proportion. He talked about the legislation as if the mere act of refusing to use non-binary pronouns would be a criminal offense (it isn't). The most that would happen is he may be fined. And then only if he refused to use non-binary pronouns as part of a larger and on-going harassment campaign against a student. The bar for conviction under Bill C-16 is fairly high.

Peterson then jumped the shark when he started accusing non-binary transgender activists of being part of (or motivated by) a larger neo-Marxist / communist movement whose aim is to destroy Western civilization and values. In interviews he would conflate Marxism with postmodernism and nihilism, and say these were all part of the same agenda to undermine Enlightenment values. He himself identifies as a Christian, and has sometimes made reference to "absolute moral facts". When he was interviewed by Sam Harris on his podcast, they discussed the nature of "truth". Peterson's points were often confusing to follow, but from what I could glean, he was saying that ultimately, moral truths affect physical facts (or something along those lines). That everyday physical facts are embedded within larger moral truths. Politically, Peterson claims he is a classic liberal, yet has appeared on nearly every alt-right podcast and media outlet in existence. I seriously doubt he is racist (I've never heard him say anything racist) but he does seem to travel in the same circles. He has poo-pooed the term 'Islamophobia', which is one reason he endears himself to the alt-right.

To me, he just seems like a preacher with a psychology degree. He is now into branding and marketing himself, and plans to create an on-line open university. He makes roughly $50,000 per month on his Patreon account, plus his $175,000 salary as a tenured professor, plus whatever he makes from his youtube channel from ads.

Is he some kind of charismatic talking head or a wanna-be charismatic leader? I'm planning on watching his YouTube presentations on personality. He appears to refer to Nietzsche and Dostoevsky a fair bit? Is there anyone else worth watching? I'm not looking for anything overly academic just yet.

I think he's a wannabe youtube self help evangelist cult guru. His talks on personality are not very deep. He invokes a lot of Jungian archetypes, Joseph Campbell heroic mythology, Maslow's hierarchy of needs, along with other abstract metaphoric nonsense. He's also pretty big on Nietzsche. And if you dare to question or criticize the rich, or capitalism, well, you're just being "resentful". In fact, his whole way of arguing is seemingly to reduce everything, including socio-political phenomena, to personality traits.

Different commenter. It's not "from a leftist viewpoint", it's a viewpoint that recognizes the cheap, cult-of-the-self, demagoguery that proliferates online these days because any windbag with a webcam can try and start a YouTube cult.

Rumor has it JZ has made a bee line to a Sambian tribal initiation ceremony so that he can man up and then tackle the problem that nihilism poses for primitivism and anarchy.

Really? Would you say this if JZ was a woman? I seem to have been perceived as a woman on this site due to one of my pen-names: Bad Kitty, judging from some vaguely misogynist "pussy" replies (which were removed) to my commentary under the Layla AbdelRamin transcript, 8-20 on this site.
For me, nihilism isn't a Problem to be Tackled, it is simply boring. Unless you are talking about capitalism (late capitalism in particular), which is inherently nihilist. The only thing interesting here for me, aside from some morbid (nihilist perhaps) fascination, is destroying its grip on my life and returning to the rest of nature, a project I've about half-finished.

A few years ago, I saw some graffiti on a bathroom wall: "Life is pointless and useless, so get what you can while you can." There was a reference to nihilism, and a capital N with a lightning-bolt icon thru it. The response: "So is yo mama, you emo."

Which came first, the mama, the emo, or the nihilist?

What this reads like to me: "I had a really disturbed childhood, resulting in a lot of chronic, painful emo, I became a nihilist and this is not solving the problem."
We ALL grow up damaged under the present diseased condition, tho this damage is a spectrum. See How Normal (i.e. hunter-gatherer-permaculturist) Human Young Grow Up (pg. 31-35), in INTO EDEN: Elements of Emancipation, Redpanther/John F. Burnett. The book is a tool-kit as well as a systemic diagnosis of the present condition.

Regardless of whether you are perceived as either male or female, this is an anarchist site, and therefore you're still a hawt male cougar to all of us, that sensuous primitivist kitty slinking around the camp fire out in the woods, keeping all the wolves away,,,,,,,,JZ is so lucky to have you,,,,,,,,

Does anyone on here watch this podcast? Corbett claims to be an anarchist. He's into Larken Rose in a small way. Corbett's analysis is worth considering. He has amassed a lot of material on various subjects. He appears to communicate one-way only as far as challenging his work goes.

Corbett is an agorist (i.e. ancap).

Yes, unfortunately closer to Alex Jones than us, while still claiming to be anti-establishment, etc. The best way I've seen it described is like, paranoid mental gymnastics to avoid acknowledging that capitalism is the core problem and that people might have legitimate reasons for being angry enough to revolt. Therefore, militancy delegitimizes the organizing of poor and working-class people or it's "false flags" or whatever.

I get the feeling Corbett is wary of anarchy in that a 'forced' sharing via community can be oppressive. He would prefer the 'freedom' of ancap which relies on the non aggression principle (very shaky in my opinion). I do follow his work as it keeps my perspective sharp. I also question why he doesn't put his ideas up against those oppose him? He cocoons himself with sycophants which does him no favours.

Corbett, like most ancaps, just don't fully understand anarchy, that's all. Corbett is also a climate denier, and a George Soros conspiracy theorist.

to JZ? The fact he cannot resist mentioning Aragorn! and/or @news on, more or less, a weekly basis would suggest he feels some form of threat to his views? This 'feud' has longevity although I'm not au fait with this history. It would useful and interesting if both sides were to engage in an open written dialogue, a to and fro, possibly to establish if this about differences of opinion and/or personality.

GTFO with that. John has been trolling for quite some time. This bury the hatchet bullshit only now comes up after years of abuse from John and his team, just because people are firing back. He gets a decade of "fuck yous" then we are even.

Nihilist snowflakes get their feelings hurt easily. Whenever JZ takes the piss out of them, or even just mentions them, anews gets swarmed with nihilistas.

Wow, this seems a bit strong? However, your post doesn't indicate whether you are referring to ideas and/or personality? I've heard him make little snarky remarks on his radio show but I wasn't sure whether he was just being jokey buy you definitely think not.

teaching your cougar anger management.
Wag your finger at the bad, bad kitty and say: "You have been a terrible kitty. You have been BAD."
Then: The 165 lb. kitty, responding to the prey-like motion of the wagging finger, decides to POUNCE on it.

What,s with the crossed totem pole and AK47 on the pages photo? Aint primitivists against rifles? Why is everything so vague and ambiguous with JZ?

Primitivists are no different to paleolithic people in trying to return to the Weltanschauung of that era, which functioned on an aggressive ethos of conquest and domination.

Lol....any proof of that?

From Practical Nihilism: "Nihilism doesn’t hold your hand. Nothing is true so everything is permitted, as the maxim goes. Thus it is ultimately up to you what assumptions you make about the world. In a sense this is no different from any other philosophy, since it’s all bullshit anyway. The only real difference is that the nihilist knows that it’s bullshit and doesn’t pretend otherwise, and hence can maintain a suitable view of the absurdity of existence. Why so serious?

Nothing is true, and nothing is false; so ultimately everything is false and everything is true. One should choose a truth appropriate to one’s own life. This is not the same as choosing to believe whatever you want, or inventing your own truth. Again, the difference is subtle, but important: you do not exist in isolation, you are subject to a certain experience of the world and physical laws that cannot be violated (the illusory nature of these things is irrelevant, because you have to put up with them anyway)."

Scenario: Nihilist A claims to have been raped by Nihilist B. Nihilist B disagrees it was rape: it was everything else but rape. Non-nihilist C who witnessed the behaviour claims it was rape as rape is understood by most of us. My point here: where's the reality according to the nihilists who comment on this site? Maybe I've phrased my scenario clumsily, I don't know, but hopefully, you get the point?

"clumsily" ... more like rape-y ...

There is nothing to be gained from lying to yourself. If you are okay with hurting someone, then great. Go nuts. If you are not okay with hurting someone, then don’t do it.

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?
v
u
g
g
q
5
S
Enter the code without spaces.