Individualist @

(Originally from The Implicit & Experiential Rantings of a Person )


It is really difficult for me to wholeheartedly consider myself to be an anarchist these days. This is because the words and actions of my peers and contemporaries who are also associated with this word often leaves me wondering "What do I really have in common with these people?". I have already written about some of this stuff on my blog here last year.


However, things continue to happen. Take for example, May Day of this year, which is traditionally considered to be a radical leftist holiday and is personally one of my favorite holidays. In Seattle the anarchists there made themselves publicly come across as being, at best, complete fools (a video of this can be found here). And in Minneapolis, at an event that I happened to be attending, a public fight broke out as a result of a longstanding conflict/controversy carried over from last year (a video of this can be found here and another one here). And of course the Bay Area Anarchist Bookfair has had another big ugly controversy this year as well.


Once again, I am left with feelings of disgust, exasperation, and complete repulsion towards the whole anarchist scene. "To hell with these people", I think. I'm done, it's over, I'm out. I feel such strong feelings of contempt towards the anarchist milieu, and over the past few months I have spoken with a number of other different long-time anarchists who have also been feeling similarly towards the self-proclaimed anarchist scene. And after that most recent incident in Minneapolis, another local long-time anarchist person wrote a public statement saying that he has disassociated himself from the anarchist scene.


At the same time, a person recently told me that he and another person both want me to continue being a part of the anarchist scene. He said that this scene needs "elders" to be present and that I would count as being such since I have been an anarchist since the mid-90's. I have also recently spoken with a friend of mine who says that she wants to continue being a part of the anarchist scene, and being a positive support to it in some way, even though she is well aware of the various faults and drawbacks associated with the whole thing.


This whole thing leaves me wondering: who or what exactly is the anarchist scene anyway?! The person who told me that he still wants me to be a part of it also told me that he personally does not consider himself to be an "anarchist". And when I think about it, I believe that most people who are a part of the "anarchist scene" would not actually consider themselves to be "anarchist". Likewise, a lot of people who I know that would consider themselves to be "anarchist", or at least who have an affinity for that general worldview, are actually pretty isolated from other people who think and believe things similar to what they do. So there is a social scene that exists, but it is not necessarily "anarchist", and there are anarchists who exist, but they are not exactly a part of an anarchist social scene.


One of the things that was written recently as a result of that incident in Minneapolis was that one side of the conflict said that the people who are on the opposing side have "no right to consider themselves a part of any progressive or radical community". I find this to be interesting, since it assumes that considering oneself to be a part of such a thing would actually be desirable. I suppose that it would be desirable if one wants to have that particular kind of identity, or if one wants to have one's social needs met through certain people, but it is hard to pin any of this stuff down really, since the whole area seems to be so very vague and amorphous.


For example, what does it mean to be "a part of the anarchist scene"? Does one have to consider oneself to be "an anarchist"? Perhaps the phrase "radical scene" would be better, but then that opens the door to those who consider themselves to be "radical libertarians", which most people view as belonging to a separate and distinct social scene. One could then say "radical leftist" instead, but then there are those who consider themselves to be "post-left" (and not "libertarian"!) and who are not "left", but they are still a part of the same general milieu. That phrase that I quoted earlier used the word "progressive", which I don't think fits at all, because that opens the door to Obama-voting liberal Democrats, who most people acknowledge are a part of a separate scene altogether.


And what does it mean to be a part of the scene, no matter what label you call it? Does one need to see certain people once a week in order to be a part of it? How about once a month? Is once a year too seldom? And how many people at a time does one need to see with such regularity in order to be a part of it? And which people does one need to see? Do online or long-distance interactions count, or does it need to be face-to-face? Does one need to be involved in particular projects, or does just going to parties and social events count? If you only speak with other radicals who feel similarly isolated and estranged from the scene, is one then still a part of the scene or is one instead a part of a separate parallel scene? At social events that are considered to be a part of the scene, if one is silent during the entire event is one still a part of it? What if one is talking the entire time and the others present are annoyed with your presence and are wishing that you would leave? In other words, how exactly does one retain or revoke one's membership with "the anarchist scene"?


I think that ultimately there really is no such thing as "the anarchist scene", "the anarchist community", and certainly not an "anarchist movement". I think that what really exists are various overlapping cliques and clubs, friendships and acquaintances. All notions of there being something greater than that are illusions and delusions that obscure the truth and cause unnecessary conflict and turmoil.


Thinking of this then reminds me of individualist anarchism, which is defined as being a kind of anarchism that "that emphasizes the individual and his or her will over external determinants such as groups, society, traditions, and ideological systems." Remembering this whole tendency is a relief for me, a breath of fresh air, since it reminds me that I (and everybody else) is free to choose what they want, what they believe, what they think, what they do and who they associate with, and are not beholden to anyone or anything else. So often, especially in the midst of these big conflicts and controversies, this is simply ignored or forgotten. If ideas of there being things like "an anarchist scene" are to exist, these ideas should serve the purpose of there being more clarity of thought. These ideas should not serve as yet another notion that dominates or intimidates people.


So that leaves me here in this situation, where I know a bunch of people, some of whom I feel closer to than others, some of whom I share more political beliefs in common with than others, and some of whom live in the same geographic area as me and others who do not. When I really think about it there are no people who I feel really close to who are involved with any of these big controversies that are taking place out there. My sense of cognitive dissonance comes about only when I conjure up notions of there being "an anarchist scene" and when I consider myself to be a part of such a thing. "The anarchist scene" does not exist, and I am not a part of it, although I know others who think otherwise. If people were to make specific requests to me personally, I would consider them, but I do not want to act out of a vague abstract sense of duty and obligation to some idea. All of the various dramas and foolishness that other people choose to engage in does not concern me, at the moment.

Category: 

Comments

"The Implicit & Experiential Rantings of a Person"

gay

Looks like another over thinker trying to force lived experience into a nice semantic box. Out of frustration you write an article saying it's impossible, negating your whole purpose of beginning to write the article, which was to define something.

Here is how you define it: *

As much Vonnegut's asshole as it is the everything of wildcards.

You could just become a Libertarian and call it a day.

Mutual aid, who needs it anyway?

That seattle video is actually pretty right on.

In the minneapolis video, the choad in plaid with poofy hair is the one that starts the fight, and it looks like he's carrying a union sign. IWW-MN must be a punch of wieners and crybabies that they start fights and then lie about it later to play the victim. I generally support unions but they're supposed to make us strong, not look like a bunch of douchebags.

There is something remarkable about how your consideration of anarchists, anarchism, and the radical scene does not consider anything beyond the borders of the united states. I couldn't help but find these observations myopic and unjustifiably US-centric.

As much as internationalism is touted as being a value that is supposedly essential to anarchism, the reality is that most anarchists in the US have very little interaction with anarchists outside of the US.

oh god, that person screaming there is a child over and over again in that video is really annoying

"Bad scene, everybody's fault" -jawbreaker

What anarchists should do is reject an overly clustered concept of a scene and and go back to doing what they did in more classical times. Find affinity with people across various discourses and construct archetypes of anarchy. That is how you transcend politics.

Staying in a politically clustered scene will not do that.

I've known hippies, and I've seen some of the nasty scabs they end up with. Hippy scabs aren't still scabs - they are ultra-scabs.

when indigenous anarchists were threatened by colonizers, the anarchists were ‘not a group’ that banded together to promote some kind of belief system; i.e. they were not united by ‘the anarchist bond’, ... they were just doing things the natural way they always did things which happened to be non-authoritarian, and non-hierarchical and non-patriarchal.

their ‘banding together’ was to resist the colonizer’s attempt to subjugate them to the white man’s authority. that was foreign to their natural way of living which was never moral judgement and law enforcement based. they had never employed the secularized theological concept of ‘sovereigntism’;

“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.” Walker, R. B. J. and Mendlovitz, Saul H. “Interrogating State Sovereignty.”
.
“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. Bartelson, Jens. A Genealogy of Sovereignty.
.
“State sovereignty “is a ‘religion’ and a faith.” Lombardi, Mark Owen. “Third-World Problem-Solving and the ‘Religion’ of Sovereignty: Trends and Prospects.”

there are a lot of people who reject this ‘archism’ and some of them come out for protests and some do not. some have their own protests like idle-no-more. others seek to ‘undermine the intellectual premises of sovereigntism and colonialism’.

the fact is that most of the indigenous population on turtle island was what western cultural anthropologists would call ‘anarchists’ and today, the name ‘indigenous anarchism’ is heard more and more often from ‘indigenous anarchists’ who never used to call themselves anarchists, not because they were not, but because they didn’t speak english and ‘anarchism’ was ‘just living naturally’ so there was no word for it.

i don’t see anything ‘natural’ about locking oneself up in a secularized theological sovereigntist, authoritarian pen. so, in my view, when one sees angry people banding together, it is not because these people have some noble philosophy that they wish to install, .. these people just want to live naturally and the fucking colonizing sovereigntists won’t let them.

when i see a bunch of people banding together to resist the insanity of colonialism/sovereigntism/capitalism including those that smash windows etc. etc. ... i see them as ‘sane people’. since when do we need to come up with a label for ‘sane people’ who want to ‘live naturally’? actually, angry sane people show their anger in a lot of different ways. do we need labels like ‘angry sane people who actively protest’ and ‘angry sane people who try to undermine the intellectual premises of colonialism/sovereigntism/capitalism’? and so on and so forth.

the confusion comes in when one starts applying labels as in ‘the anarchist scene’ and after having pasted on the label, trying to figure out what it means.

sane people who want to live naturally don’t need a label. one doesn’t have to go into identity crisis trying to figure out ‘who one is’ and ‘what one stands for’. the author writes;

“I think that ultimately there really is no such thing as "the anarchist scene", "the anarchist community", and certainly not an "anarchist movement". I think that what really exists are various overlapping cliques and clubs, friendships and acquaintances. All notions of there being something greater than that are illusions and delusions that obscure the truth and cause unnecessary conflict and turmoil. / Thinking of this then reminds me of individualist anarchism, which is defined as being a kind of anarchism that "that emphasizes the individual and his or her will over external determinants such as groups, society, traditions, and ideological systems."

if a sane person that wants to live naturally feels more secure with being in a clique or club or friendship or acquaintanceship, fine. as for myself, i don’t need it. i agree with marx (groucho), i refuse to be a member of any club that would accept me as a member. a group of sane people who want to live naturally don’t need to agree on some kind of formalized philosophy as to how they are going to ‘manage themselves after the revolution’. the ‘revolution is to shake the control freaks off the backs of sane people who want to live naturally’. they can work out how to live together without dependence on ‘sovereigntism’ and ‘colonialism’ and ‘capitalism’.

the people who want no part of sovereigntism, colonialism and capitalism and who just want to live their lives naturally are the ‘odd men out’. so, in this sense, ‘anarchists’ are the ‘odd men out’. this definition recalls The Independent Order of Odd Fellows (IOOF);

“In 17th century England, it was odd to find people organized for the purpose of giving aid to those in need and of pursuing projects for the benefit of all mankind. Those who belonged to such an organization were called "Odd Fellows". -- Wikipedia

in our modern Western society, it is odd to find people organized (and just out there doing their thing) for the purpose of trying to live naturally and thus outside of sovereigntism, colonialism and capitalism. in this sense, anarchists are ‘the odd people’ who just want to live natural lives, ... and this is what sets many ‘anarchists’ apart from the rest because a [declining] majority of people not only want to live under the authoritarian yokes of colonialism, sovereigntism and capitalism, they get their jollies from it.

they are the ones that need 'labeling', ... like in the DSM-5, ... the problem is that they are the ones writing the DSM-5 and they forgot to include a diagnosis like the Goedel-Russell syndrome; "those unable to deal with the reality that all those that diagnose those people that cannot diagnose themselves, are unable to diagnose themselves'

Your hiatus wasn't long enough, we all still remember when you got pwnd last week emile.

haha, yeah. Get a new hobby loser. Ever heard of video games?

I useful to human beings. I provide information, lulz and BLIP BLIP M'REEEEEEEEEE BLIP.

link please? I'd like to see that.

The globally dominant Western culture organizes the global social dynamic by dividing the world up into ‘sovereign states’. The sovereign states we live in operate on the basis that ‘all men are created equal’ and that ‘free people can, as collectives, declare their independence and form independent sovereign states’.

The Western religious and scientific view is that individual men and individual states are ‘independent reason-driven systems’ with their own internal process driven and directed behaviours whose cause-effect achievements they are fully and solely responsible for. Thus if individual A produces wheat, enough to feed a thousand people, or if state A produces wheat, enough to feed 500 million people, they are fully and solely responsible for their own behaviour/production and thus the value of the production rightfully accrues to the individual and to the individual state.

Certain modern physicists have been saying that this idea of the ‘independence’ of the individual and of the state don’t make sense, physically. They note that the concept of an ‘independent plurality’ of humans and/or states is only valid when these pluralities are mentally referenced to an absolute space and absolute time reference frame seen as ‘operating theatre’; i.e. a fixed, empty and infinite containing space, which is absolutist ‘idealization’ that is not supported by our real-world physical experience. They argue instead that we live in a ‘unum’, a relational space in which the inhabitants are relational features in the habitat; i.e. there is an innate habitat-inhabitant INTER-dependency. Thus if the planet were only 80 miles in diameter instead of 8000, no matter that all males and females were committed to screwing or getting laid on a 7 X 24 basis, a target population of 7 billion would be unlikely to be achieved.

The physicists say that ‘space is not empty’, in contradiction to the assumption built into the laws and institutions of the sovereign state and which portrays the commercial/economic activity in terms of ‘free and fair competition’.

The assumptions built into the ‘independence of the state’ (and the independence of the individual) is that the production of the independent individual and the production of the independent state derives fully and solely from the independent individual and from the independent state. And as we have all observed, some independent individuals and some independent states are more productive than others.

The physicists have noted, ... while the biosphere is a relational spatial unum [everything is connected and interdependent], resources rise to the surface, like fresh-water springs in the oasis, only at certain locations. This is why it is advisable for a group to choose the right moment to declare themselves independent, like when they are in control of an oasis, rather than in control of a desert. By declaring independence while situated of an oil-field or fertile valley, the people of the ‘independent state’ can become ‘top performers’, particularly when many others have been pushed out into the desert [and not the oil-field underlain variety] where their inferior production extends the scale downward, elevating their oasis-occupying brothers to great heights.

In the official Western society view where men are born free and independent and nation-states are born free and independent, the inhabitants are independent of the habitat [the habitat is separate; i.e. it is putty in man’s hands, or should i say, in colonizer’s hands since there may be some indigenous peoples mixed in with the putty]. in this view, it is the farmer that produces the wheat, and it is the state that produces the wheat [etc. etc.]. if one man produces more wheat than another, he is a ‘better producer’ or ‘better performer’ and likewise for states and what they produce.

The physicists, on the other hand say;

“The dynamics of the inhabitants are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat at the same time as the dynamics of the habitat are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants” –Mach’s principle

That is, they say that when a group of people from all over the place are attracted to an oasis and swarm all over it and make it their squat and then ‘declare independence’, this changes the possibilities in the plenum for the others; i.e. the remaining spatial-relaitonal possibility has more desert and less oasis in it. A family dynasty can also squat on the best oases which include the best fresh-water springs and the richest soil and best climate, and their ‘born free and equal children’ are now being called ‘the lucky sperm club’ by those cynical of what Western civilization holds to be true and builds into their laws and institutions that they police and enforce.

Overall, Western society has institutionalized the belief that man, and organizations such as sovereign states are ‘independent reason-driven systems with their own internal process driven and directed behaviours. In this institutionalized belief system, the ‘habitat’ is seen to be independent of the ‘inhabitants’, and if man ‘produces wheat’ it is because man had the intelligence to put together the necessary resources to make this wheat production thing happen. Just like God fashioned man;

Genesis 2:7 "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
Qur'an[23:12–15], God created man from clay.

And, of course, man, in a similar fashion, produces wheat, from the raw materials at his disposal. there is a strong correlation between the man’s actions and the emergence of the field of wheat, and correlation is the basis for determining the cause of an effect and identifying man as the ‘cause of the result’ or ‘doer-of-the-deed’. of course if the oasis that he squatted on and drew his ownership lines around when he ‘declared independence’ returns to desert [kind of like the situation in Oklahoma in the dustbowl conditions of the 1930’s], ... then the inference of cause-effect that had earlier been made, between the farmer’s application of his know-how through his farming activities and the emergent fields of wheat start to look ‘suspect’. The fine print in science, ‘ceteris paribus’ (all other things staying the same) shows its head; i.e. in the cause-effect model, repeating the same actions will produce the same result, ceteris paribus. the cause-effect relation assures you that you can get the same result repeating same action, ceteris paribus. of course, there is no mention of ‘habitat’ here since it is assumed ‘independent’ of the inhabitants. meanwhile, after many repetitions of spraying pesticides to get the cause-effect result of killing insects, ... it is harder to find sprayers because the pesticide has transformed the habitat into a toxic space by becoming more and more concentrated in the habitat, and the habitat was not even mentioned in the cause-effect model wherein ‘spraying pesticides kills insects’.

come to think of it, the habitat is never mentioned in our cause-effect propositions such as ‘the farmer produces wheat’, ... because the notion of cause-and-effect comes from correlating changes to certain variable with changes in other variables. as mach describes it in his critique of these popularly accepted-as-true-without-question ‘economies of thought’;

If we know all the values of α,β,γ,δ . . . . by which, for example, the values of λ,μ,ν . . . are given, we may call the group α,β,γ,δ . . . . the cause and the group λ,μ,ν . . . the effect. In this sense we may say that the effect is uniquely determined by the cause. The principle of sufficient reason, in the form, for instance, in which Archimedes employed it in the development of the laws of the lever, consequently asserts nothing more than that the effect cannot by any given set of circumstances be at once determined and undetermined.” -- Ernst Mach, THE SCIENCE OF MECHANICS: A CRITICAL AND HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF ITS DEVELOPMENT

If α,β,γ,δ . . . .correspond to the actions of the farmer, and λ,μ,ν correspond to the wheat that pops up in the field, the field of wheat is the result and the farmer’s actions are the cause. of course there are quite a few variables which were not included as, for example, associate with the overall functioning of the universe, these being assumed to be in the ‘ceteris paribus’ category. it is by such correlations that we can attribute what ‘results’ in a ten thousand acre field, back through a chain of activities to some instructions uttered by the farmer-ceo to his foreman. that is, that is where the links in the causal chain lead back to and bottom out as the ultimate causal source of the result. the fact that the farmer-ceo is the twenty-five year old member of the lucky sperm club does not alter the respectability of the proposition ‘the farmer produces wheat’ and thus is the natural recipient of the value that comes of it.

that individual humans and individual states are ‘independent reason-driven systems with their own internal process driven directed behaviours whose cause-effect productive results, they are fully and solely responsible for, ... are the accepted truths that have been institutionalized in Western systems of government and commerce and are backed by laws and enforcement by police and the courts of retributive justice.

all of this is IDEALIZATION that is in blatant contradiction to physical reality as affirmed by the findings of modern physics.

the view that i am expressing is that it is ‘insanity’ to impose this out-of-whack idealization on ourselves through an over-arching central control authority backed by military and police.

if you agree with this ‘analysis’, that the assumption that an individual person and/or an individual sovereign state is an independent reason-driven system [whose actions as an inhabitant are independent of the habitat], is a total fiction, ... you could;

(a) respond with a blank post (just put a period in the comment field so that it will be accepted)

(b) respond by disagreeing and stating why you disagree

(c) respond with ad hominem that summarily dismisses anything that a poster you don't like has to say.

(d) ignore this note.

the (a)’s, (those who may partly or mostly agree) insofar as they exist, are usually non-manifest [there used to be a chance to indicate 'agree with this comment' or 'don't agree with this comment']
the (b)’s are inhibited by fear that engaging seriously with a controversial poster will reflect badly on the one who does.
the (c)’s are the popular and predominating course of action [this avoids exposure to back-critique that comes with actually expressing ones views on content].
the (d)’s are not so common since making negative comments on provocative posts are a popular way of expressing where one stands without having to expressly state it.

Actually emile, I wouldn't disagree except that I think you are manipulated and misused, and ultimately, that ends up hurting us because even if the world is how you say it is, people with bad faith interests will inevitably get their way with you. And if you follow the logic, we are led straight through to barbarism and into self destruction, through you, because your truth was misappropriated by people with nothing but egotistical and hurtful intentions.

So in the final analysis, it is you that hurt us. Your intentions may have been neutral or positive, but the outcome was hurtful.

the black bloc demonstrates that the public has been conditioned to have more concern for material property (the windows of a bank that is milking the poor to achieve profits in the billions) than for human lives.

that ends up hurting us because even if the world is how they say it is, people with bad faith interests will inevitably get their way with them. And if you follow the logic, we are led straight through to barbarism and into self destruction, through them, because their truth was misappropriated by people with nothing but egotistical and hurtful intentions.

So in the final analysis, it is the black bloc that hurts us. Their intentions may have been positive, but the outcome was hurtful.

The black bloc are not basement dwelling neckbeards that allow their words and philosophy to be misappropriated by the other side. Victory or defeat, they resists. Agree or disagree, they resist control. Emile is a passive truth spouting zombie with no regard to how that truth is applied in the concrete world.

words or deeds, misappropriation is misappropriation.

constraining overt expression of what is really going on because it might be misappropriated is wimp shit [it is the hallmark of a sick society]. all it does is keep the public loyal to the prevailing (politically manipulated) belief.

let's hear it, all together now! (you lead, chris) 'edward snowdon is a traitor, edward snowdon is a traitor, edward snowdon is a traitor'.

people like that could bring the whole lying, manipulating system down, chris and all.

But the prevailing belief is what you say it is. Look at things like green capitalism, Barrak Obama, liberalism, Karl Kautsky etc. Words are very easily misused. Obama's catch phrase was "si se puede" and I guess now, I lot of us Mexicans are scratching our heads wondering what exactly se puede hacer? Deport all the Mexicans? Well that's no fun is it?

And it sure is funny to me that you went from sounding like a stuffy intellectual blowhard to just another muzzled anarchist without a counter argument to an irrefutable truth.

Snowden is a traitor, he betrayed our intelligence by insulting it, by feeding the tired old surveillance anti-surveillance rhetoric in a dualist reductionist way. They really should make techies learn basic social theory, maybe this sort of thing wouldn't happen so much.

but everything they teach in the US is to serve a purpose, has to have some use value. And that is what I am suggesting is your problem emile. These people are like muggers hiding in the louvre, who sneak up behind you and smash your head with the mona lisa.

Perhaps you believe in a survival of the fittest ‘Darwinian’ world where ‘fitness’ is in terms of the ability of control groups to condition the beliefs of ‘the public’ and set them against other similarly belief-conditioned publics, and anoint this degenerate win/lose ‘competition’ as ‘the human natural way’, ... but there are many, in fact entire cultures, who disagree.

Western culture [colonialism, sovereigntism] teaches us to believe in ‘absolute truths’ as you also seem to believe in. Mathematics and logic deal in absolute truths [true or false] as does religion [good or evil] so is there no need to question our cultural practice of putting these truths in precedence over the non-absolute relational truths of our natural experience? e.g;

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." – Einstein

One can understand Einstein’s view here better if we consider how ‘truth’ turns relational when we drop our habit of imposing ‘absolute space’ and allow space to be relational [dissolve the inhabitant-habitat independence]. That is, our understanding then shifts to how we ‘fit things together’ in a way that ‘makes sense’. This is the natural alternative to constructing comprehensive truths from bricks of absolute truths. It is what Wheeler means by ‘the surprise version of the game of twenty questions’; it is where the ‘understanding’ ‘images’ from a nexus of relational inferences.

“First of all, an observation of epistemological nature. A geometrical-physical theory as such is incapable of being directly pictured, being merely a system of concepts. But these concepts serve the purpose of bringing a multiplicity of real or imaginary sensory experiences into connection in the mind. To "visualize" a theory therefore means to bring to mind that abundance of sensible experiences for which the theory supplies the schematic arrangement.” – Einstein, ‘Geometry and Experience’

This is how we ‘really’ develop a ‘firm belief’ that we take to be an ‘absolute truth’ and it lends itself to manipulation by the techniques that Snowden is exposing.

What we do is to bring a diverse multiplicity of observations, experiences and imagined variants into connective confluence in our minds and assess the ‘coherence’ of the nexus of inferences. The arrangement that gives us a predominating coherency peak, is the arrangement that we hold to be ‘the truth’. In Shakespeare’s Othello, truth as a nexus of relational inference is made clear, as well as how it is exposed to manipulation. Iago, jealous of Othello, connives to ‘bring him down’ by throwing a spurious fact [an out of place handkerchief] into the ‘dataset’ so that the dots can be connected to deliver an explosive ‘truth’ (e.g. the belief in the infidelity of Desdemona [Othello’s wife’s]).

”Iago now persuades Othello to be suspicious of Desdemona and Cassio. As it happens, Cassio is courting a woman named Bianca, who is a seamstress and prostitute. Desdemona drops a handkerchief that was Othello's first gift to her and which he has stated holds great significance to him in the context of their relationship; Emilia obtains this for Iago, who has asked her to steal it, having decided to plant it in Cassio's lodgings as evidence of Cassio and Desdemona's affair. Emilia is unaware of what Iago plans to do with the handkerchief. After he has planted the handkerchief, Iago tells Othello to stand apart and watch Cassio's reactions while Iago questions him about the handkerchief. He goads Cassio on to talk about his affair with Bianca; because Othello cannot fully hear what they are saying, Othello thinks that Cassio is referring to Desdemona. Enraged and hurt, Othello decides to kill his wife and orders Iago to kill Cassio.”

This little bit of treachery that is found in various forms in Machiavelli's 'De Principatibus / Il Principe', is an exemplar of the general [relational] model for conditioning people’s minds wherein ‘truths’ which appear ‘absolute’ are ‘cultured/conditioned’ so as to bring about behaviour useful to the manipulator. A tiny bit of misinformation exploiting access to private communications can ‘seed’ a fictitious ‘truth’ that can have a huge influence on how the social dynamic unfolds.

Do we really want to live in such a system? That is, we are living in such a system; ... do we want to ‘just accept it’ and continue to live in it?

You seem to summarily dismiss it, calling it “the tired old surveillance anti-surveillance rhetoric”

* * *

Further, with respect to absolute truths as in science, which you seem to believe in. One that has been plaguing Western civilization for a long time [infusing socio-environmental dysfunction] is the perceived-as-true ‘inhabitant-habitat split’. According to our natural experience, and to the relational space of modern physics, it is impossible to isolate an ‘inhabitant’ from the ‘habitat’. [Mach’s principle captures the innate interdependence of inhabitant and habitat, matter and space].

But that ‘truth’ is precisely what ‘colonization’ is built on. It brings forth the God-as-creator who creates man from clay like a divine sculptor. This is Ayn Randism, which splits apart ‘sculptor’ from ‘raw resource’ so that what is called ‘resource’ is ‘putty in the hands’ of the ‘sculptor’. Colonization not only wanted to acquire the ‘natural resources’ [oxymoron] of the lands they colonized, they wanted the ‘labour resources’ to extract them and transport them to the ‘mother country’. In other words, they made ‘labourers’ into a ‘resource’ that would be ‘putty in the hands’ of the creative artists. This dualist model of ‘creative artist’ and ‘raw resource’ comes from the same dualist concept of the independence of ‘inhabitant’ and ‘habitat’ in contradiction to our natural experience and in contradiction to the findings of modern physics.

This is the origin of Obama’s "si se puede". U.S. leaders who sit in the chair of ‘supreme central authority’ [sovereigntism is a secularized theological concept] have been drawn from the Christian and post-christian-scientific tradition wherein they are convinced of the ‘truth’ of their ideas, one of which is the ‘goodness’ of their intentions, a kind of ‘noblesse oblige’ that they feel duty-bound to unleash on the world to ‘make it right’;

“So I reject the notion that the American moment has passed. I dismiss the cynics who say that this new century cannot be another when, in the words of President Franklin Roosevelt, we lead the world in battling immediate evils and promoting the ultimate good.
.
I still believe that America is the last, best hope of Earth. We just have to show the world why this is so. This President may occupy the White House, but for the last six years the position of leader of the free world has remained open. And it’s time to fill that role once more.” ---Barack Obama, Remarks to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, April 23, 2007

When people at the helm of huge power, ... the power of people-as-believers-in-the-truth- of-their-own-goodness, ... see an opportunity to ‘do good out there’, we enter the realm of Don Quixote, where the ‘hero needed’ signs go up, the job that Don Quixote is continually searching for. He wants it so bad that he will do like Iago to set the stage for heroic action;

“The American commitment to the war against Vietnam, which killed over 50,000 U.S. military personnel, and probably over 2 million Vietnamese civilians, was cemented by an incident that appears to involve more fiction than fact. [The Gulf of Tonkin Incident]”

In the Inquisition, the priests likewise couldn’t just sit by when there was evil around waiting to be rooted out, ... they could smell where it was and would ‘condition’ the datasets so as to be able to get some traction so as to get on with the good work.

Science is the same way. One starts with a theory and goes looking for a fit in the data. Very often, the data are conditioned so that theory will ‘find’ a strong fit that establishes the theory as ‘the absolute truth’. The data are conditioned by quantitatively measuring them and thus presenting as ‘truth’ a ‘plurality of things’ even though we live in a ‘unum’ [relational activity continuum] wherein there is no such thing as a ‘plurality’ in a natural physical sense. We can count up the acres in a hurricane today, and count them up again tomorrow and if the number of acres is greater tomorrow than today, we say that ‘the hurricane is growing in size’. But wait a minute, the hurricane is not a ‘thing-in-itself’, it is a relational form in a continually transforming relational spatial flow-unum/plenum. We made it into a notional thing-in-itself by quantitatively measuring it, ... using what? ... using absolute measures such as metres and acres. Such a measurement process is equivalent to imposing an absolute space reference frame over the transforming relational feature and describing the form relative to the reference frame instead of acknowledging that ‘it’ is not an ‘it’ but a ‘dynamic relation’; i.e. the conjugate relation between outside-inward orchestrating influence and inside-outward asserting development, a resonance feature in a continually transforming relational spatial plenum.

For example, there is no such thing as ‘natural resources’ as this conflicts with the understanding of the world as a dynamic relational unum/plenum. This term ‘resource’ is a predicate in search of a subject and verb, as in ‘the sculptor fashions products out of clay’. That is, the term ‘resource’ is not ‘natural’, it is part of the ‘metaphysics of language’ as Nietzsche points out. It begs for the sculpture and his creative act, as that is the way that the metaphysics of language ‘works’.

In philosophical views and culture’s which don’t confuse science for ‘the truth’, there is acknowledgement that the dynamic relational unum/plenum is primary and that it spawns people and plants as relational forms and that, as emerson says, this primary dynamic not only inhabits relational forms such as people and plants, it creates them, ... so that there is no need to postulate any jumpstart sculptors that produce a plurality of products out of ‘resources’, there is instead ‘transformation’ of the relational spatial unum/plenum.

Obama’s ‘si se puede’ is that of the sculptor who wants to bring the world into a better shape, which seems like a noble objective, ... except like all authoritarian approaches, it imposes the need for a split between who gets to be the sculptor and who the putty in the hands of the sculptor, the ‘raw resource’.

I believe we know who was cast in which role when the colonizers engaged the indigenous peoples of ‘their colonies’.

How about the six million Mexicans that are depicted not as people but by the papers that they do not carry, as illegal immigrants in the U.S? In the ‘sculptor – resource’ paradigm that Western man took from the image of God crafting man from clay, ... a hierarchical pecking order forms on the basis how much you being sculpted relative to how much you are sculpting. This is the ‘authority’ – ‘responsibility’ split in systems sciences terms. Labour is the lowest form of resource since it has very little sculpting role and mostly ‘resource’ role. In fact, if a labourer falls into the concrete while pouring a foundation, based on the small gap between his sculptor/resource ratio and that of the concrete, there is a temptation on the part of the architects to just leave him in there to contribute in the same manner that the concrete does.

Labour is a commodity resource. It is putty in the hands of the higher order of sculptors. The lower level labourer-sculptors are getting sculpted even as they are sculpting.

In an indigenous anarchist culture there is no inhabitant – habitat split, and there is no sculptor – resource split and there is no ‘authority’ – ‘responsibility’ split because the world-system is understood as it is experienced [and not by intellectual imposing of theory that is ‘economy of thought’ driven] as a continually transforming relational spatial unum/plenum, a ‘web-of-life’ or relational matrix constituted by relational interdependencies.

I suppose all of my words here might sound to you like the words of an ‘intellectual blowhard’, particularly if you don’t read so far as to see that i am talking about the delusion that comes from assuming that theory captures ‘truth’, but do you really believe what you say here;

“And it sure is funny to me that you went from sounding like a stuffy intellectual blowhard to just another muzzled anarchist without a counter argument to an irrefutable truth.
.
Snowden is a traitor, he betrayed our intelligence by insulting it, by feeding the tired old surveillance anti-surveillance rhetoric in a dualist reductionist way. They really should make techies learn basic social theory, maybe this sort of thing wouldn't happen so much.”

what is your ‘irrefutable truth’? what is your ‘social theory’ that we should have govern our behaviour? is inquiry into the clandestine tapping into our private conversations just ‘tired old rhetoric’, or is it that sovereign state governments are funding Iago activities to condition public beliefs, supported by the same logic as led to the Gulf of Tonkin incident; i.e. we know who are the good guys and who are the bad guys so why not just ‘manufacture consent’ to get on with OUR job of purifying the world of evils such as communism, anarchism and whatever else is ‘getting in our way’.

the operative truth derives from however the public ‘connects the dots’. this is what furnishes the missing ‘what’ in ‘si se puede’. leaving the ‘what’ blank makes it a great political slogan, it is ‘hot’ in Mcluhan’s terms, everyone can put their own ‘what’ in there. it is like voting for motherhood and apple pie. of course, eventually, the ‘what’ has to be supplied because all of the supporters of the diverse multiplicity of unspoken ‘whats’ continue to get antsy.

this is the trouble with a yang [authoritarian] culture, it believes it has to be continuously making stuff happen, constructing a desired future, making things come out the way they should. sculptors of the world like obama feel the ‘noblesse oblige’ to make the world come out ‘the way it should’, as his Remarks to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs makes clear. it’s self image looks surprisingly [or not surprisingly] close to the image of its own god, the sculptor who sculpts man out of clay has been producing little sculptor men in his own likeness, .. mini-gods that commit to doing ‘God’s will on earth’, the purging of evil, which of course requires ‘moral judgement’. fortunately, moral judgement comes bundled in with ‘power’. As Howard Zinn pointed out, it comes with the job for the executioner to get to say stuff like “we lead the world in battling immediate evils and promoting the ultimate good.” Doesn’t everybody know that Hitler was trying to shape the development of the world; ... to protect millennia of progress in the perfecting of the Aryan race, threatened by the emergence of mixed race relations which were poised to obliterate the advances made through irreplaceable efforts. ... ‘si se puede’
What is the design criteria that U.S. leaders like Obama have for shaping the world? Would that design criteria be economic or ‘material success’ for all?

“The great perplexity of our time, the churning of our age, is that the youth have sensed --- for better or for worse --- a great social-historical truth: that just as there are useless self-sacrifices in unjust wars, so too is there an ignoble heroics of whole societies: it can be the viciously destructive heroics of Hitler's Germany or the plain debasing and silly heroics of the acquisition and display of consumer goods, the piling up of money and privileges that now characterizes whole ways of life, capitalist and Soviet.” – Ernest Becker, ‘Denial of Death’

The world does not need to be ‘shaped’. Therefore, we do not need Don Quixotes, the modern day versions that have surveillance teams manned by career professional Iagos, to hasten the manufacture of hero-making opportunity that serves the shaping of the world into a desired future form, into a ‘better world’, ‘si se puede’.

In other words, the existence of the inhabitant – habitat split is NOT ‘true’. The world does not need to be split into ‘sculptors’ and ‘resources’ whereby the creative acts of sculptors [intelligent designers?] who make putty-in-their-hands out of ‘resources’ [anyone below you on the sculptor-resource role-ratio hierarchy].

For those cultures that opt for an immanent animating sourcing of the world dynamic, as is implied in the relational space of modern physics, there is no need for a notional ‘sculpting-of-resources’ engine to deterministically manufacture a desired future, and one can instead accept that ‘life is something that happens to us while we’re busy making other plans’ – John Lennon

Finally, as you note, ‘si se puede’ can easily become factionalized. It sounds at first as if it can draw all people together regardless of the papers in their wallet that they do or do not carry. Then, it shifts, or the print on the paper blurs once again and ‘Ukraine’ returns to ‘Crimea’ and other parts. For an interesting history on this sort of thing, watch a video of ‘the changing borders of Poland’ [note that Poland, in the metaphysics of language, is a noun whereas, in reality, it is a verb (a relational activity within a relational activity continuum)]

Can you imagine how many Don Quixotes, Iagos and ‘tak, możemy’s’ that generated?! [in an attempt to give shape from the outside and/or the inside].

There are no ‘inside-outside’ boundaries in nature. This secularized theological concept that has been built into the notion of ‘sovereigntism’ is just another absolutism adopted by Western civilization, along with the absolutist concept of ‘natural resource’ [oxymoron, nature is one dynamic that is not split into sculptors and resources] and corresponding sculptor-resource couplet as ‘future-constructing-engine. these absolutisms are a synthetic source of certainty, a much-valued certainty that doesn’t exist in the ‘Nature world’ of our physical experience. It is found in the form of a subject-verb couplet in the metaphysics of language.

“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’
.
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

In closing: Overall, the main thrust of your comment, apart from labelling emile as “ [going from] sounding like a stuffy intellectual blowhard to just another muzzled anarchist without a counter argument to an irrefutable truth., ... is to allude to some sort of “basic social theory” that we should be using to shape our individual and collective behaviour. In my comment here, I have skimmed over a number of ‘hidden assumptions’ that underlie our Western belief system and which are therefore shaping our individual and collective behaviour. Would it be possible for you to elaborate as to how the “irrefutable truth” and “basic social theory” and the dismissing of 'surveillance issues' as 'rhetoric', which you have mentioned, may relate to, or may not relate to, the problems with “the metaphysics of language” and “science as economy of thought rather than as physical reality” that i have touched upon, the latter seeming to bear some relevance to the social issues we are discussing?

I didn't even read most of that and I am acting mostly on faith that truth (irrefutable not absolute!) will win the day, so no I can't.

Besides, the point we are discussing is not your arguments but how they are used to affect the concrete. As I have mentioned in the past, you are a philosopher, you deal in concepts, constructs, ideas.

Example:
Taxes are bad - true or false

Clearly if I make $10/hour and pay a sales tax of 10cents to the dollar, I am really only making $9/hour. If I work 8 hours I make $72 not $80 because no matter what I buy, they take that 10cents out.

But if I make $100/hour I really only make $90/hour and that's $720 for 8 hours.

At the end of the day, even though the amount was the same, $720 buys a lot more than $72. So are taxes good or bad?

I think my point is clear.

The globally dominant Western culture organizes the global social dynamic by dividing the world up into ‘sovereign states’. The sovereign states we live in operate on the basis that ‘all men are created equal’ and that ‘free people can, as collectives, declare their independence and form independent sovereign states’.

The Western religious and scientific view is that individual men and individual states are ‘independent reason-driven systems’ with their own internal process driven and directed behaviours whose cause-effect achievements they are fully and solely responsible for. Thus if individual A produces wheat, enough to feed a thousand people, or if state A produces wheat, enough to feed 500 million people, they are fully and solely responsible for their own behaviour/production and thus the value of the production rightfully accrues to the individual and to the individual state.

Certain modern physicists have been saying that this idea of the ‘independence’ of the individual and of the state don’t make sense, physically. They note that the concept of an ‘independent plurality’ of humans and/or states is only valid when these pluralities are mentally referenced to an absolute space and absolute time reference frame seen as ‘operating theatre’; i.e. a fixed, empty and infinite containing space, which is absolutist ‘idealization’ that is not supported by our real-world physical experience. They argue instead that we live in a ‘unum’, a relational space in which the inhabitants are relational features in the habitat; i.e. there is an innate habitat-inhabitant INTER-dependency. Thus if the planet were only 80 miles in diameter instead of 8000, no matter that all males and females were committed to screwing or getting laid on a 7 X 24 basis, a target population of 7 billion would be unlikely to be achieved.

The physicists say that ‘space is not empty’, in contradiction to the assumption built into the laws and institutions of the sovereign state and which portrays the commercial/economic activity in terms of ‘free and fair competition’.

The assumptions built into the ‘independence of the state’ (and the independence of the individual) is that the production of the independent individual and the production of the independent state derives fully and solely from the independent individual and from the independent state. And as we have all observed, some independent individuals and some independent states are more productive than others.

The physicists have noted, ... while the biosphere is a relational spatial unum [everything is connected and interdependent], resources rise to the surface, like fresh-water springs in the oasis, only at certain locations. This is why it is advisable for a group to choose the right moment to declare themselves independent, like when they are in control of an oasis, rather than in control of a desert. By declaring independence while situated of an oil-field or fertile valley, the people of the ‘independent state’ can become ‘top performers’, particularly when many others have been pushed out into the desert [and not the oil-field underlain variety] where their inferior production extends the scale downward, elevating their oasis-occupying brothers to great heights.

In the official Western society view where men are born free and independent and nation-states are born free and independent, the inhabitants are independent of the habitat [the habitat is separate; i.e. it is putty in man’s hands, or should i say, in colonizer’s hands since there may be some indigenous peoples mixed in with the putty]. in this view, it is the farmer that produces the wheat, and it is the state that produces the wheat [etc. etc.]. if one man produces more wheat than another, he is a ‘better producer’ or ‘better performer’ and likewise for states and what they produce.

The physicists, on the other hand say;

“The dynamics of the inhabitants are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat at the same time as the dynamics of the habitat are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants” –Mach’s principle

That is, they say that when a group of people from all over the place are attracted to an oasis and swarm all over it and make it their squat and then ‘declare independence’, this changes the possibilities in the plenum for the others; i.e. the remaining spatial-relaitonal possibility has more desert and less oasis in it. A family dynasty can also squat on the best oases which include the best fresh-water springs and the richest soil and best climate, and their ‘born free and equal children’ are now being called ‘the lucky sperm club’ by those cynical of what Western civilization holds to be true and builds into their laws and institutions that they police and enforce.

Overall, Western society has institutionalized the belief that man, and organizations such as sovereign states are ‘independent reason-driven systems with their own internal process driven and directed behaviours. In this institutionalized belief system, the ‘habitat’ is seen to be independent of the ‘inhabitants’, and if man ‘produces wheat’ it is because man had the intelligence to put together the necessary resources to make this wheat production thing happen. Just like God fashioned man;

Genesis 2:7 "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
Qur'an[23:12–15], God created man from clay.

And, of course, man, in a similar fashion, produces wheat, from the raw materials at his disposal. there is a strong correlation between the man’s actions and the emergence of the field of wheat, and correlation is the basis for determining the cause of an effect and identifying man as the ‘cause of the result’ or ‘doer-of-the-deed’. of course if the oasis that he squatted on and drew his ownership lines around when he ‘declared independence’ returns to desert [kind of like the situation in Oklahoma in the dustbowl conditions of the 1930’s], ... then the inference of cause-effect that had earlier been made, between the farmer’s application of his know-how through his farming activities and the emergent fields of wheat start to look ‘suspect’. The fine print in science, ‘ceteris paribus’ (all other things staying the same) shows its head; i.e. in the cause-effect model, repeating the same actions will produce the same result, ceteris paribus. the cause-effect relation assures you that you can get the same result repeating same action, ceteris paribus. of course, there is no mention of ‘habitat’ here since it is assumed ‘independent’ of the inhabitants. meanwhile, after many repetitions of spraying pesticides to get the cause-effect result of killing insects, ... it is harder to find sprayers because the pesticide has transformed the habitat into a toxic space by becoming more and more concentrated in the habitat, and the habitat was not even mentioned in the cause-effect model wherein ‘spraying pesticides kills insects’.

come to think of it, the habitat is never mentioned in our cause-effect propositions such as ‘the farmer produces wheat’, ... because the notion of cause-and-effect comes from correlating changes to certain variable with changes in other variables. as mach describes it in his critique of these popularly accepted-as-true-without-question ‘economies of thought’;

If we know all the values of α,β,γ,δ . . . . by which, for example, the values of λ,μ,ν . . . are given, we may call the group α,β,γ,δ . . . . the cause and the group λ,μ,ν . . . the effect. In this sense we may say that the effect is uniquely determined by the cause. The principle of sufficient reason, in the form, for instance, in which Archimedes employed it in the development of the laws of the lever, consequently asserts nothing more than that the effect cannot by any given set of circumstances be at once determined and undetermined.” -- Ernst Mach, THE SCIENCE OF MECHANICS: A CRITICAL AND HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF ITS DEVELOPMENT

If α,β,γ,δ . . . .correspond to the actions of the farmer, and λ,μ,ν correspond to the wheat that pops up in the field, the field of wheat is the result and the farmer’s actions are the cause. of course there are quite a few variables which were not included as, for example, associate with the overall functioning of the universe, these being assumed to be in the ‘ceteris paribus’ category. it is by such correlations that we can attribute what ‘results’ in a ten thousand acre field, back through a chain of activities to some instructions uttered by the farmer-ceo to his foreman. that is, that is where the links in the causal chain lead back to and bottom out as the ultimate causal source of the result. the fact that the farmer-ceo is the twenty-five year old member of the lucky sperm club does not alter the respectability of the proposition ‘the farmer produces wheat’ and thus is the natural recipient of the value that comes of it.

that individual humans and individual states are ‘independent reason-driven systems with their own internal process driven directed behaviours whose cause-effect productive results, they are fully and solely responsible for, ... are the accepted truths that have been institutionalized in Western systems of government and commerce and are backed by laws and enforcement by police and the courts of retributive justice.

all of this is IDEALIZATION that is in blatant contradiction to physical reality as affirmed by the findings of modern physics.

the view that i am expressing is that it is ‘insanity’ to impose this out-of-whack idealization on ourselves through an over-arching central control authority backed by military and police.

if you agree with this ‘analysis’, that the assumption that an individual person and/or an individual sovereign state is an independent reason-driven system [whose actions as an inhabitant are independent of the habitat], is a total fiction, ... you could;

(a) respond with a blank post (just put a period in the comment field so that it will be accepted)

(b) respond by disagreeing and stating why you disagree

(c) respond with ad hominem that summarily dismisses anything that a poster you don't like has to say.

(d) ignore this note.

the (a)’s, (those who may partly or mostly agree) insofar as they exist, are usually non-manifest [there used to be a chance to indicate 'agree with this comment' or 'don't agree with this comment']
the (b)’s are inhibited by fear that engaging seriously with a controversial poster will reflect badly on the one who does.
the (c)’s are the popular and predominating course of action [this avoids exposure to back-critique that comes with actually expressing ones views on content].
the (d)’s are not so common since making negative comments on provocative posts are a popular way of expressing where one stands without having to expressly state it.

do you even emile

I leave emile uneven.

.

.

plook me now, you savage rascal? eh. that tickles. I will love you always.

revealing . note the emphasis on the verb.
or (and ?); Snowden , the revealing one.
revealing is like uncovering, unmasking; the opposite of concealing, making hidden.
the former exposes Power, the latter is Power.
the former is en-lightening, the latter is indeed the heart if Darkness.
the former is "up-lifting" ; the latter is a Putting-down.
as to what we do here : discussing , the former is enhancing ; the latter is stifling.
lets go-with the former, and a-void the latter. and in all manner of analogous situations.

together is a very useful "praxis" (concept linked to activity). used in many circumstances to engage
the colonial power by a variety of tactics that take different approaches to different situations-
so as not to be Fixed by the OTHER ; and to flexible as to relations of forces, opportunities, etc.
Bravo to your odd fellows/ Odd Fellows . Yes ! for all us odd fellows: Unite! We have nothing to lose but our
Surveillance Society!! Onward with Imaginary Solutions ( Alfred Jarry )!!
As to different social formations including informal friendship, comradeship, lovers etc., the more the better, a sharing of our multiple becomings. one caveat: avoid the Bureaucratic , never-ending, boring, mind-numbing , controlling, programmatic formal
totalities wherever and whenever.

just believe in it

sound really confusing dude.... i just stick with 'individualist anarchist', and absolutely refuse to dignifying anything else anyone woud call me. and yes even tho the word "anarchist" itself draws up images of drum circles and chanting and snitch slapping and dreadful dreads and rich leftist activists and hollywood movie stereotypes of of evil 'let the world burn' 'lets kill and terrorise people' Joker-type characters. all of them unfortunately existing some place in the milieu...but if you are an anarchist refuse to renounce the word. call it what it is. it is something very important. saying the word is important. repeating the word is important, the word is still important and confusing as fuck, nuances like hell, shards of shards,, similar to the word "poet" in the general consciousness (and not so general ; look it up in the last decade or so of the princeton encyclopedia of poetry poetics) ///fuck m.

I think this has been coming for sometime now. Anarchism has problems down to it's restricted 'ists' suffix that go all the way back to being an addendum of 1789.

My solution is that the individualists are the postulate to the problem but they are going to have to redefine themselves at some point.

I am currently looking at some kind of synthesis of Renzo Novatore and Earnst Junger, in particular his concept of the 'Anarch' in the novel Eumeswil. To me this sort of 21st century definitional shift is what is needed among post-leftist, individualist, egoist anarchist types that are actually serious. It would serve my namesake anyway. Perhaps you'll see me on the blog scene really soon.

If you work for the state in any capacity, in which you pass their genocidal and sexist propaganda into the populace, you are not an anarchist.
Find a new name for yourselves, but it sure isn't 'anarchist' by any stretch of the imagination.

ah yes exactly what is most needed at this time, yet another entry into the blog scene by someone who will truly define what it means to anarchist.

ever heard of an echo chamber?

no, actually it sounds like a worthy project...

"ah yes exactly what is most needed at this time, yet another entry into the blog scene by someone who will truly define what it means to anarchist."

Actually what I'm am hinting at is an exodus away from the anarchist definition. What is needed is a description of anarchy based on expressive descriptions as opposed to a political position based on lack which is what the restrictive concept of the anarchist is.

Also echo chambers of discussion is how new ideas are born(see the Young Hegelians)

What sort of "expressive descriptions"?

Things related to archetypes and mythology come to mind. What Georges Battailes was into in regards to his Acephale project. Oscar Wilde also comes to mind.

The point is for 'anarchs' to move into the realm of mythological archetypes and out of the realm of politics and position visa vi the political economic spectrum which has been defining anarchism since 1848 through the first international and onwards.

that realm already exists in others practice, but if you want to flesh it out and make it more academic, it certianly couldnt hurt.

And yes I would be fleshing things out most certainly. I do think however think the definitions help and hurt. When it comes to the whole post left thing there are a lot of hyphenated definitions that don't help with clarity. There is also still continued bleed through of old political habits.

I agree that we need to move toward myth and other "stories" to help
us better express what we go through vs. an economist (usually dialectical) pseudo-scientific" explanation " of
social theory and praxis.
His concept of accursed share , where instead of lack(negation) as the base source of motivation in human development,
he stresses the excess of energy (from the sun) as leading to excess expenditure, requiring a periodic "destruction"
(potlatch) in compensation. cyclical growth/expenditure and decay/destruction. he heavily influenced deconstructionists
and other post-strucuralists, particularly Baudrillard and Deleuze . Baudrillard's theory of the ever increasing multiplications
of signs (simulacrum) and consequence irrelevance of "meaning" (cause and effect, "reason" , both capitalist and marxist theories.); Delueze's concepts of humans as desiring -machines and always prone to code/decode and deterritorialize/
and territorialize ourselves and our habitat. This has enormous effect on how we view "progress", "justice"( reward and punishment),
His-story, agency, and life as be-comings and in our relationships in our habitat and ourselves. All of this is important for our ability to get away from the
outdated forms of ineffective theory and practice in which we have indeed been mired since that first" Bourgeoise " 1848 revolution
i.e. capitalist ; "putsch" ,against the constraints of Out-dated Monarchism.
We want a micro- and macro-/ neo/?non-politics that can address the "whole story", our, and that of our cosmos.

.

is in: Being.
be-ing is different,
as infinite be-comings.
sentient be-ings are by their nature prone to
Being Fixed. Though be-comings deterritorialize,
they can either congeal back into striated forms
or can develop as planes of consistency where assemblages are mainly connections
of smooth intensities, thereby being able to avoid total Social Re- Capture.
disrupting re-presentions is key to a be-ing toward vs. collapsing back.
Of course, both processes are always going on ; that which assists becomings
resists Re-Constituted Being…and ... vice-versa.
Hints at which way is predominating: joy and resolute affirmation of creating subtle concepts
consonant with transcendental empirical sentiments and proliferation of difference vs. resentment and rigidity and falling back into
solipsism and identity . we for sure see both on this site. the same as every-where else.
except that here, as in other free spaces, and with adequate attributes of mutual strivings and mutual respect, the chances are more likely due to a general desire to throw off
Signifying chains and open up to potential lines of flight : toward a freer speculating and experimenting
of life's ability to immerse in all manner of proliferating projections , correlated with desire to interact with forces of
relation.
we certainly to cultivate hope, care and forbearance, with our predicament and toward each other and our endeavors.

It is disappointing that Ian is dissing anarchists, again. He knew from the beginning that anarchists were violent and were going to remain violent. People's attempts to find a safe space for the violence (i.e. "property damage is not violence" arguments) make no sense given the circumstances. Non-violence is not going to stop ecocide and I don't know about you, but since meta-physics is basically telling me I'm going to do this shit over and over, that I'm going to jump my consciousness into other bodies after death, that I have an undying consciousness, I'd like to keep this world around a little longer, perhaps get back to basics. Sure, hunter gatherer, but other ways of life too.

We haven't evolved enough to never be hunter gatherers again, but we can't destroy the pandora's box, the desire and use of knowledge contained in and stored by symbolic thought. At this point symbolic thought has been part of our way of being for so long and has so many relics in the world, hiding or destroying all of them is impossible. Humans are curious beings, so we have to come back from the depths of worrying about symbolic thought as an enemy or trying to destroy symbolic thought.

One of those forms of knowledge is agriculture. That is always going to exist as long as humans exist. No insurrection or collapse will make farmers forget how to farm and there are still more farmers in the world than other worker. This very knowledge is the reason a collapse won't be as total as the nightmare people say it is. People, no matter what, will use their knowledges or find them in whatever way possible to make it through any dark time. Demagogues will create teams that work hard to save as many people as possible. They are the very same assholes that attack primitivists, so they get what they want, to micro-manage as many people that cohere to them in any emergency situation.

Anyways, lets just do what the Unabomber said. Attack industrial society and take it out. So Ian, I wish you would reconsider. You accept the blindness of your privileges, you don't see horrors and you hold true to illusions. What is needed is more aggression, creative aggression, the kind that burns into people's minds as to what an anarchist really is and why what we say holds weight. Save the planet, stop the madness, pull the plug.

"Once again, I am left with feelings of disgust, exasperation, and complete repulsion towards the whole anarchist scene. "To hell with these people", I think. I'm done, it's over, I'm out. I feel such strong feelings of contempt towards the anarchist milieu, and over the past few months I have spoken with a number of other different long-time anarchists who have also been feeling similarly towards the self-proclaimed anarchist scene."

Form a power violence band with them and record a shitty demo.

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.
9
g
Y
j
z
5
K
Enter the code without spaces.
Subscribe to Comments for "Individualist @"