Ferguson Rebellions Rejection of Leadership is Frustration for Some, Inspiration for Many

Link: http://www.exiledarizona.com/ferguson-rebellions-rejection-of-leadership...

The New York Times published an article today August 17th titled "Lack of Leadership and Generational Split Hinder Protest," which argues that the two points of contention are possibly related. Of course as usual with the NY Times, dry reporting is the default instead of an obvious position that may scare regular readers. With that said, it doesn’t take reading between the lines to notice that Ferguson and the rejection of formal leadership is a trend increasing in frequency worldwide.

One protester, DeVone Cruesoe, of the St. Louis area, standing on Canfield Drive last week said, “Do we have a leader? No.” Pointing to the spot where Mr. Brown was killed, he said, “You want to know who our leader is? Mike Brown.”

It is nice to have an active anti-authoritarian or anarchist presence around to reject status quo leadership and politics. In countries such as Greece the leaderless but revolutionary resistance has encouraged many to practice life beyond politicians, and protest leaders. Although now more often than not we see rejection of leaders as a consistent position. People on the streets, political or not during rebellion see themselves acting as equals instead of followers. They look to one another to organize, to fight back and gain knowledge. In the past resistance could safely be managed through TV, newspapers and official channels, now resistance is led by all participants and;

Politicians, community leaders, Democrats & the acceptable opposition are unable to channel anger back towards safe ineffective demands There has been much written about mass decentralized media creating new forms of social, economic and political organization. The New York Times article asks if a generational gap exists. Well, of course one exists although not the one they assume. Protesters worldwide aren’t always seeking “leaders who represent their generation.” And the people on the ground who actively reject them certainly aren’t. It is not disorganization. It is meaningful. Leaders are not needed in an age when people connect instantly. There is no need for compromise when the necessity for revolution is apparent and equally recognized. Those who wish to control only possess the ability to prove their irrelevancy.

In Ferguson, there is a rebellion which shares characteristics of others worldwide. Similarities such as free association, rejection of moderate positions and above all, distrust of formal representation. It isn’t “political confusion” as the dinosaurs at the NY Times may think, it is in fact political cohesion. Political cohesion informed by all voices on the ground. Those voices have access to people fighting back everywhere. They no longer need respectable voices that intend to calm anger. In Gezi park, in Exarchia, in Palestine, in Egypt, in Madrid, in Ferguson how many people do you think fight only for longer chains? Very few. A larger cage, is no longer a political compromise worth fighting for. Our communication among each other is now direct and intention is annihilation of the cage altogether. Smashing these chains into millions of pieces.



an article with a possible example against the trend you mention here

The world has been colonized by a European society which puts intellectual representations of language into an unnatural primacy over natural relational experience.

The colonizing society sees the world as a plurality of independently-existing material objects and organisms. It further sees ‘humans’ as ‘independent reason-driven systems’ and it has designed its organizational structures on this basis; i.e. as ‘independent reason-driven systems’ that ‘be/exist’ and that ‘do stuff’ [the notion is that they have their own internal process jumpstarting behaviours, since they are ‘independent’ which means that they are inhabitants in a world where ‘inhabitant-habitat-INDEPENDENCE’ prevails.

The colonizing society is ‘moralist’ in that, since it sees individuals as being ‘independently-existing’ and thus as having ‘their own behaviours’ [internally jumpstarting from intellection/rationality and purpose], the opportunity to ‘manage’ the dynamics of the social collective by way of moral judgement as to the goodness or badness of the behaviour that each ‘independent individual’ is notionally fully and solely responsible for.

This moralist view is also applied at the level of ‘national collectives’ since the ‘sovereigntist state’ is also seen in the ego-view as an ‘independent reason-driven system’, of which there are now 193 covering the whole of the biosphere, the achievement of colonization launched by the Europeans with their absolutist and moralist worldviews as being described herein.

If one assumes that there are a collection of ‘independent entities’ residing in an ‘empty space’ [Euclidian space of mainstream science and also of the Western Creation myth] then in order to manage the inevitable conflict when one assumes that a plurality of independent self-jumpstarting intellection and purpose directed machines are on the loose in an empty space, ... one is going to have to ensure that these independent units are ‘programmed’ to ‘avoid conflict’. European civilization assumes that this can be done by enforcing ‘moral laws’. Nature, of course, needs none of this since the natural world of our experience is relational and nature has a built in pursuit of cultivating and sustaining balance and harmony. It is this ‘independent existence’ and ‘empty absolute space’ notion of European colonizer civilization that has people believing that there is a need to enforce laws of behaviour for managing the social dynamic. These laws refer to the behaviour of the individual who is assumed to be an ‘independently-existing, reason-driven system’ who is fully and solely responsible for his own behaviour. That would be ‘reasonable’ if space were truly empty and if ‘inhabitant-habitat-INDEPENDENCE’ applied, but in the real world of our natural relational experience, ‘inhabitant-habitat-INTERdependence’ prevails, and so landlords can monopolize control over the real world habitat and use this control to coerce and manipulate the behaviours of those who lack essential access to the resources of the habitat.

Since the inhabitants are officially assumed, by European colonizer society, to be independent of the habitat, coercion and manipulation can be perpetrated with impunity by the powerful. Women who sell their bodies and sexual favours ‘break the law’ because they are independent reason-driven systems who are fully and solely responsible for their own behaviours. The ‘buyers’ only have to sit there, controlling the land and the resources, and wait for the immoral women to come knocking on their door. To ‘succumb’ to the solicitations of immoral women is to be victimized. That’s how European thinking works. If a man grows angry and gets violent with men who are using their control over the resources of the habitat to coerce and manipulate, ‘HE’ is the one seen to be breaking moral law, and ‘he’ is seen in the eyes of moral judgement based European justice, as ‘fully and solely responsible for his own behaviour’.

The two simultaneous growth trends are (a) moral outrage that the have-nots [seen as inferior performers] are becoming violent and the moral law based justice system is letting them get away with it, and (b) rejection of moral judgement based justice based on putting intellectual representations into an unnatural precedence over natural relational experience [allowing coercion and manipulation with impunity by those with most control of access to resources of the habitat, of those with the least control].

These two simultaneous growth trends are happening BOTH at the level of so-called independent individual humans, and at the same time, at the level of so-called independent sovereign states. Police and military are moral law enforcement agencies.

the natural world is a relational world in which dynamics and change are in terms of continually transforming relations. the natural world is thus a world without ‘being’ and thus without a ‘coming into being’ [creation] and without a ‘departure from being’ [destruction]; i.e. there is only relational transformation.... in the continuing now.

This is consistent with “a complete negation of the existent”;

“Therefore, I think that in this pursuit we should be consistent; we are not the saviors of anything or anyone if we confront power it is because we want to eliminate it from our lives and not because we hoping a paradise will arise from its ruins. What is ours is the complete negation of the existent and what this offers is a mystery. This is what motivates us.”

language conditions our minds with intellectual representations that we take to be ‘reality’. for example, noun-and-verb European/Scientific language-and-grammar splits apart ‘creation’ and ‘destruction’ just as it splits apart the continuing present into ‘past’ and ‘future’. religion teaches “in the beginning was the word”, implying that God was coming from ‘intellect’ and ‘rational ideas’ which sourced his ‘creative acts’ in ‘the very beginning’. of course in Eastern and aboriginal belief systems, the world is a continually transforming relational space, and this is also the view of some of the key founders of modern physics such as Mach and Schroedinger and the contemporary philosophy of Nietzsche;

“And do you know what “the world” is to me? Shall I show it to you in my mirror? This world: a monster of energy, without beginning, without end; a firm, iron magnitude of force that does not grow bigger or smaller, that does not expend itself but only transforms itself; as a whole, of unalterable size, a household without expenses or losses, but likewise without increase or income …” –Nietzsche, ‘The Will to Power’, 1067

‘being’ is an idealized absolutism that has been built into the architecture of our noun-and-verb European/Scientific language-and-grammar, where it plays a foundational role by allowing relational forms such as ‘humans’, ‘organisms’, ‘cells’, ‘organizations’, ... i repeat, ‘relational forms’ [in a relational activity continuum given only once], .... to be construed as ‘independently-existing systems’ with inputs and outputs, ... ‘machines’, essentially, ... and machines that are not only local and self-standing but ‘reason-driven’ or ‘program-driven’ from out of their internal components and processes.

in the case of humans, our language gives us noun-word-labels to facilitate ‘breaking down the relational form’ into ‘parts’ so as to give it intellectual representation as an ‘independent reason-driven system’ that resides and operates in a notional absolute space and absolute time reference-frame-come-operating-theatre that is intellectually seen as being a ‘habitat’ that is independent of the ‘inhabitants’ that reside within it. this is pure absolutist idealism.

since ‘independence’ is ‘absolute’, the power that sources an ‘independent reason-driven system’ is also absolute.

our noun-and-verb European/Scientific language-and-grammar imputes the internal residence of absolute power inside of all such ‘independent reason-driven systems’, .. and it is Western man’s habit to employ such absolutist idealizations [intellectual representations] to characterize humans, organisms, cells, and organizations (e.g. sovereign states and corporations or ‘businesses’).

the continually transforming relational spatial world of nature, ... i.e. the physical world of our natural experience, .... is cast aside, ... once we open our mouth and/or put our pen to paper, ... and employ these ‘independent reason-driven systems’ whose development and behaviour is, ... thanks to the absolutist idealization of intellectual representation, ... jumpstart sourced by an absolute internal creative power of authorship which is imputed to drive and direct the development and behaviour of the ‘independent reason-driven-system’.

this is how we break a relational unum down into a plurality of notional ‘independent parts’; i.e. it happens when we ‘open our mouths’ or ‘set our pen to paper’; i.e. it happens when we employ our Western brand of noun-and-verb European/Scientific language-and-grammar.

this is how we can make an ‘independent reason-driven system’ by using the word ‘Iraq’ to define one of these ‘independent-reason-driven systems’ and installing a puppet ‘absolute power’ into a chamber in its interior that we can henceforth attribute ‘Iraq’s behaviour too’, ... forgetting about the inherent relational nature of things that obviously over-ride our language-based definitions.

of course, this imputing of ‘precedence’ to the absolutist idealizations of language is part of the political game of ‘colonization’;

“The emergence of the sovereign state was ... the necessary instrument of Europe's colonial expansion.” Joseph A. Camilleri, "Rethinking Sovereignty in a Shrinking, Fragmented World."
“All significant concepts of the modern theory of the state are secularized theological concepts, not only because of their historical development ... but also because of their systematic structure.” Jens Bartelson, ‘A Genealogy of Sovereignty’
“State sovereignty "is a 'religion' and a faith." – Mark Owen Lombardi, "Third-World Problem-Solving and the 'Religion' of Sovereignty: Trends and Prospects."
“... western political thinking itself is grounded in theological concepts of "Christian nationalism." The notion of "absolute, unlimited power held permanently in a single person or source, inalienable, indivisible, and original" is a definition of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God. This "God died around the time of Machiavelli.... Sovereignty was ... His earthly replacement." – R. B. J. and Saul H. Mendlovitz, "Interrogating State Sovereignty."

Words like ‘Iraq’ have to be understood in the light of the colonialist ‘theology’ of imputing an absolute power to the interior of the colonizer-created ‘sovereign state’.

[N.B. 'Iraq' is a familiar example of how word-based intellectual representation [absolutist idealism] fails to stand up to scrutiny vis a vis the natural relational sourcing of transformation]

Articles like ‘America is coming to help Iraq, with more bombs’ is the way that the alternative media greet’s yesterday’s announcement;

“In a televised address late Thursday night President Obama announced that he has authorized new U.S. military airstrikes in Iraq.”

So where does the ‘physical reality’ lie? ... in the continually transforming relational matrix, or in the secularized theological concept of the ‘independent reason-driven sovereign state’ with its internal idealized ‘absolute power’ to drive and direct ‘its own behaviour’?

U.S. bombing is meant to ‘make believers’ of the relational social matrix that has the bad habit of ignoring the imaginary line boundaries and noun-word-label definitions of the colonizing powers who put their puppets into the internal seats of absolute power, only to see their puppets turn into rogues so that ‘redefining’ of the independent existence of the colonized sovereign states is required lest the relational matrix simply subsume the carefully configured sovereigntist compound, in the manner that jungle reclaims an old military compound if the necessary investment is not maintained, to keep the jungle from reclaiming it.

A relational matrix of natural communities [themselves essentially relations-first, things-second as in a relational fractal] is a continually transforming relational unum that does not have to be broken up into a plurality of ‘independent reason-driven systems’ with imputed ‘absolute power centres’ in their interiors as in ‘colonialism/sovereigntism’. [linguistic fragmentation is 'convenient' in that it delivers economy-of-thought].

These ‘artificial existences’ with their ‘absolutist centres of powers’ are unnatural and their suspending/annulling opens the door to freely transforming relations.

Anarchism is not a band of ‘white knights’ coming to the rescue of the world by ‘constructing’ some ideal new world, ... anarchism is instead re-opening the doors to free association that have been suppressed by colonization via the synthetic fragmenting of the relational unum into local ‘independent reason-driven systems’ supported by rhetorical intellectual representations constructed from noun-and-verb European/Scientific language-and-grammar. In Francisco Solar Dominquez’ words;

“Therefore, I think that in this pursuit we should be consistent; we are not the saviors of anything or anyone if we confront power it is because we want to eliminate it from our lives and not because we hoping a paradise will arise from its ruins. What is ours is the complete negation of the existent and what this offers is a mystery. This is what motivates us.”

And following this, perhaps these armoured zeks can band together to tear apart the leviathans entrails and remove the armour itself and return to the wild.

once we accept that reason should rule body, we are asking for trouble.

The mind-body split is the ‘authority-responsibility split’, the ‘master-slave split’, the ‘inhabitant-habitat split’. ‘Reason’ is behind all of these synthetic ‘splits’. It is ‘reason’ that argues that we should all make ourselves subservient zeks to ‘reason’ and the reason that rises like cream to the surface is given in Lafontaine’s parable; ‘La raison du plus fort est toujours la meilleure’.

“Hobbes will picture the Leviathan as an artificial English man: masculine, blond, with a crown on its head, a scepter in one hand and a sword in the other, its body composed of myriads of faceless human beings, zeks. ... Among the speculations this Hobbes will give us as offerings to his Ur will be the claim that the zeks actually contracted themselves to imprisonment within the carcass, or as he will put it, that the head made an agreement with the body, if not in Hobbes' Ur then at least in the original Ur.”

The Enlightenment European view of the personal human self is ‘an independent reason-driven being’ that operates within a notional absolute space and absolute time reference frame seen as ‘theatre of operations’.

This concept is Leviathan. It is not only the ego view of self as a ‘machine’, but it is the Western culture’s archetype for humans, biological organisms, biological cells, sovereign states and corporations. It is ‘bigger than all of these’ since all of the aforementioned are ‘made in its image’.

The ‘head’ is ‘authority’ and the ‘body’ is ‘responsibility’ that is forced to achieve the goals of the authority. This split apart being is how Western man sees ‘himself’. This mind-matter split is the ‘fallout’ of imposing a notional absolute space and absolute time to frame the dynamics of men who see themselves as ‘inhabitants’ that are ‘independent’ of the ‘habitat’. That is, the assumptions of science and rational thought 'set up' Leviathan.

In the worldview of modern physics which is an overlay to the worldview of indigenous anarchists, space is an energy-charged mediating medium or ‘relational plenum’. There is no mind-body split in the relational space view of modern physics;

“Space is not empty. It is full, a plenum as opposed to a vacuum, and is the ground for the existence of everything, including ourselves.” — David Bohm

There no ‘mind-body split’ in the relational space of modern physics, nor is there such a split in indigenous anarchism, nor in Taoism and Buddhism nor in Advaita Vendanta, but Western society is built on the notion of a mind-body-split and we are the zeks that have given ourselves up to Leviathan and we call it 'representative democracy' in the context of the 'sovereign state'. The reasoning of the most powerful is always the best reasoning ["La raison du plus fort est toujours la meilleure"-- Lafontaine]

We can laugh about this if we want but the representative democracy of the sovereign state [wave flags, blow bugles and sing anthems here] is where we make ourselves into zeks in the service of Leviathan.

And it will be wise to heed the relational self understanding which opposes itself to his-story and its leviathanic predecessor.

White people from St. Louis love it!

exiledarizona is quite possibly the only intelligent person who posts to /r/anarchism.

You know its gotten bad when I am considered intelligent.

Where are people getting ferguson news from?
This twitter has photos of hundreds in ATL protesting in solidarity in front of CNN:

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.
Subscribe to Comments for "Ferguson Rebellions Rejection of Leadership is Frustration for Some, Inspiration for Many"