Mandela: A Leader in the Indigenous Anarchist Tradition

Leadership comes in two very different flavours and in remembering/celebrating Nelson Mandela, it would be doing him and ourselves a disservice to NOT distinguish the type of leader that he was.

Common leadership is ‘one-to-many’ in the sense that the leader is a director of the collective. It is ‘reason-driven leadership’ that animates a collective with a reason-based vision, mission, and objectives and a rational plan for achieving an end goal.

Mandela’s uncommon leadership is ‘many-to-one’ in the sense that the leader inspires by removing the yoke of reason-driven obligations and opening things up so that ‘rising to the occasion’ is the primary animating influence. Mandela’s orchestrating influence puts opening things up [many-to-one] where people can ‘rise to the occasion’ in its natural precedence over ‘getting on top of things’ [one-to-many].

As in the aboriginal anarchist tradition, and as in the Taoist tradition, leadership is understood in ‘knowing the male but being ravine to the empire’. Taiaiake Alfred describes the two types of leadership in ‘Peace, power and righteousness’, exposing the colonial model of leadership as a ‘degenerate case’ where ‘one-to-many’ influence is put into an unnatural precedence over ‘many-to-one’ and the wheel turns backwards instead of forwards.

The colonial leader looks at the powerful hurricane in the relational space of the atmosphere and imagines that the source of the power lies in the hurricane and is the ‘power of making things happen’, ... the source of ‘one-to-many’ ordering/organization. The indigenous anarchist leader understands the relational space of the collective as the leader of the dance; i.e. as the true animating source, ... from whence the one-to-many leader draws power. The relational spatial flow of the atmosphere is the source of the storm-cells’ power, it does not jumpstart from their interior.

The relational power of the populace was the source of Mandela becoming a powerful leader. That is, he ‘came to power’ the natural way, as the pivot point or nexus of previously disorganized aspirations within the collective. He did NOT ‘come to power’ as most ‘political’ leaders do, by a mad scramble with other competitors aiming to ‘come to power’ by winning a competition for incumbency in a ‘seat of overall central authority’ backed by police and military, a mad scramble constituted by political campaigning and the spending of inordinate amounts of money on political advertising.

Mandela ‘came to power’ on the many-to-one ticket before he ‘came to power’ on the ‘one-to-many’ ticket. In other words, he came to power in the manner of the indigenous anarchist tradition, where ‘many-to-one’ is always the leader in the dance with ‘one-to-many’ the follower. This is the dance of relational transformation that is the inherent topology of change in the physical reality of our sensory experience, as affirmed by modern physics. The mechanistic pseudo-reality of Newtonian science which sees change in terms of ‘what independently-existing things-in-themselves do in a notional absolute space and absolute time ‘operating theatre’ is just that, a reduced and simplified PSEUDO-REALITY captured particularly well in noun-and-verb European language-and-grammar.

Mandela’s leadership does not ‘live’ in this pseudo-reality that political leadership ‘lives in’ where ‘leadership power’ is associated with ‘position’ [Whatever happened to McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis who, we say, came so close to ‘coming to power’].

The difference is that in the Colonizer culture [Western civilization], the power of leadership is measured in the quantitative terms of ‘one-to-many’ cause-and-result authorship, as invested in ‘positions of status and authority’. In a mechanistic pseudo-reality, this is all that people see; i.e. leadership and organization are understood in the reductionist terms of ‘what things do’, and people and organizations are understood in terms of ‘independent reason-driven systems’.

In the indigenous anarchism of stateless tribes, the animating source of the river is understood as ‘the valley’ or ‘terrain’ which organizes the flow, and gathers it into powerful confluence. This ‘organizing’ is ‘relational’ which means that it is ‘non-local’, non-visible and non-material. It derives from ‘need’ or ‘deficiency’ which orchestrates
individual and collective behaviour. It is the type of ‘topless’ organizing influence that orchestrates the community in building a new home for newlyweds or for a family whose house has burned down. This is the full physical reality, and this ‘negative causality’ [many-to-one influence] is ‘dropped out’ in mainstream [newtonian] science, but has never been abandoned in the indigenous anarchism of stateless tribes. It can be seen as ‘the natural flow of life’ [the ‘tao’] in which relational need is always the invisible leader of the dance while the visible/manifest material dynamics ‘follow’.

“The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth.
The named is the mother of ten thousand things.
Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.
Ever desiring, one can see the manifestations.
These two spring from the same source but differ in name”
- – – Lao Tzu

The non-visibility of one-to-many orchestrating influence which ‘takes the lead’ in natural organising, and which comes into play in leadership is not ‘mysticism’ but physical reality. The orchestrating influence of a concave terrain, in gathering runoff water into rivulets and rivulets into streams and streams into rivers is physical reality that is ‘hidden’ by noun-and-verb European language-and-grammar, which artificially isolates the one-to-many manifest aspect as in ‘the river flows’. As Nietzsche and Whorf and others have noted, this reduction of yin/yang physical dynamics [dynamics in which many-to-one influence is the leader of the dance and one-to-many manifest material dynamics is the follower] to one-sided ‘one-to-many’ only ‘material dynamics’ or ‘what notional independently-existing things do’ dynamics framed in absolute space and absolute time, is fabricated by language-and-grammar based dual, complementary errors.

“Our judgement has us conclude that every change must have an author”;–but this conclusion is already mythology: it separates that which effects from the effecting. If I say “lightning flashes,” I have posited the flash once as an activity and a second time as a subject, and thus added to the event a being that is not one with the event but is rather fixed, “is” and does not “become.”–To regard an event as an “effecting,” and this as being, that is the double error, or interpretation, of which we are guilty.” – Nietzsche, ‘Will to Power’, 531

Similarly, to posit the riverflow once as an activity and second time as subject, allows us to impute authorship to the fabricated subject and make it into the notional jumpstart author of some powerful result, such as ‘creating a canyon’. Such a view implies that the terrain is passively plied by the river when the terrain is the leader of the dance. This amounts to imposing an abstract absolute space and absolute time reference framing in our interpreting of the dynamic, to isolate the manifest material dynamics aspect [yang].

In the indigenous aboriginal languages which are ‘flow-based’, the same dynamic would be captured by ‘the terrain is rivering’, retaining the actual, physical topology of the dynamic.

Where people aspire to ‘leadership’ by way of ‘positions of one-to-many power’, they are similarly ignoring/demeaning the many-to-one power coming from the relational dynamics of the collective which is the non-visible ‘leader of the dance’.

Mandela did not ‘come to power’ through attaining incumbency in a ‘position of power’. It was after he had ‘come to power’ in a ‘many-to-one’ sense that became ‘head of state’, a position that itself held power in a ‘one-to-many-sense’.

When we talk about ‘leader-power’ in noun-and-verb European language-and-grammar, which reduces dynamics to the one-sided ‘yang’ [one-to-many] dynamics of notional ‘independent reason-driven systems’, all we can talk about is ‘what things do’. Therefore, as far as our noun-and-verb European language-and-grammar based conversations, discussions and debates, we blind ourselves to the full physical dynamic reality of our experience. When it comes to ‘leadership’, there is only ONE CATEGORY, and it is the ‘yang’ view of leadership. Therefore, Mandela is grouped in with the colonial state leaders who aspired to leader-power that associates with ‘position’ at the top of a one-to-many directing organization [an ‘independent reason-driven system’] backed up by police and military.

As Taiaiake Alfred writes in ‘Peace, Power and Righteousness’, the power of a leader in an indigenous anarchist community, is nothing like the power of a leader in the Western colonizing, statist civilization. He is, in his language, reiterating the above described distinction, of a degenerative type of leadership which goes directly in search of power in a one-to-many top-down organizing sense.

Ordinary English is thus used to ‘hijack’ the remembrance of Nelson Mandela by confusing leadership with the leadership of colonizers and political pimps. The value of his leadership contribution is thus being exploited, by grouping him in with an entirely different category of leadership, to boost the image of that other category.

Will any of the heads of state who are given celebrity treatment at his remembrance ceremony openly concede that they are not in the same category of leadership as Mandela. Will any of them acknowledge the different definition of leadership as in ‘indigenous anarchism’? And will any of them renounce the practice of creating leaders through their incumbency in ‘positions of power’?

Mandela deserves to be remembered as the type of leader he actually was, which in no way falls into the category of leadership of positions-of-power-seeking politicians.



LOL... please someone make that to be published on Huffington Post or ThinkProgress! I'm pissing in my pants writing this... can't read any longer!

"Mandela: A Leader in the Indigenous Anarchist Tradition"?


A leftist writer from Chicago named Stephen Lendman writes the following in regard to Nelson Mandela:

"(Mandela) defended what he later called Thatcherism. On trial for alleged Sabotage Act violations, he said in court:

"The ANC has never at any period of its history advocated a revolutionary change in the economic structure of the country, nor has it, to the best of my recollection, ever condemned capitalist society."

John Pilger's work exposed South African apartheid harshness. Doing so got him banned. Thirty years later he returned. He wanted to see firsthand what changed. He interviewed Mandela in retirement. His "Apartheid Did Not Die" documentary followed.

"Behind the modern face of democracy, the scourges of inequality, unemployment and homelessness persist," he said.

Mandela embraced the worst of neoliberal harshness. His successors follow the same model. Pilger posed tough questions. He asked Mandela how ANC freedom fighting ended up embracing Thatcherism.

Mandela responded saying:

"You can put any label on it you like. You can call it Thatcherite but, for this country, privatization is the fundamental policy."

Pilger discovered that 80% of South African children suffered poor health. One-fourth under age six were ill nourished. During Mandela's tenure, more South Africans died from malnutrition and preventable diseases than under apartheid.

Concentrated wealth is more extreme than ever. White farmers control over 80% of agricultural land. They dominate choicest areas. Pilger said about one-fourth of South Africa's budget goes for interest on odious debt.

He explained how five major corporations control over three-fourths of business interests. They dominate South African life. Concentrated wealth and power are extreme. Whites control about 90% of national wealth. A select few black businessmen, politicians and trade union leaders benefit with them. The dominant Anglo-American Corporation is hugely exploitive. Gold mining exacts an enormous human cost.

Pilger said one death and 12 serious injuries accompany each ton of gold mined. One-third of workers contract deadly lung disease. They're left on their own to suffer and die. Post-apartheid democracy reflects the worst of free market capitalism. It's bereft of freedom. Reform denies it ...Mandela embraced the worst of free market orthodoxy.

Before his election, journalist Anthony Sampson said he agreed "to reduce the deficit, to high interest rates and to an open economy, in return for access to an IMF loan of $850 million, if required." It comes with strings. Structural adjustments mandate harshness. They require privatization of state enterprises, mass layoffs, deregulation, deep social spending cuts, unrestricted market access for Western corporations, corporate tax cuts, marginalizing trade unionism, and harsh crackdowns on nonbelievers.

Mandela told South African workers to "tighten (their) belts."

"(A)ccept low wages so that investment would flow."..."We must rid ourselves of the culture of entitlement that leads to the expectation that the government must promptly deliver whatever it is that we demand."..."Just call me a Thatcherite," he (Mandela) said. He adopted free market fundamentalist harshness. Neoliberal shock therapy followed. It works the same way wherever it's introduced.

During the first decade of ANC rule, around two million South Africans lost homes. Another one million lost farms. Shack dwelling increased 50%. One-fourth or more of South Africans have no running water or electricity. Around 40% of schools have no electricity.

About 50% of South Africans have inadequate sanitation. Around 40% have no telephones. HIV/AIDS remains a major problem. South Africa has the world's largest number of affected people. Officially it's over five million. Unofficially it's higher. It's more than in North America, Latin America, Eastern Europe and Central Asia combined.

Post-apartheid, life expectancy declined by 13 years. In 2011, it was 58, according to the World Health Organization. It ranks below Afghanistan at 60 years. Overall South African conditions remain deplorable. They exceed the worst of apartheid harshness. Neoliberal exploitation exacted a horrific toll.

Mandela could have made a difference. He chose Thatcherism over economic fairness. Betrayal defines his legacy. He relegated millions of black South Africans to permanent destitution, unemployment, hunger, malnutrition, homelessness, lost futures and early deaths. His bigger than life persona is undeserved. So are eulogies praising his accomplishments. They reflect figments of historical revisionism..."

if you like picasso's early work and hate has later stuff, does that define and negate picasso, period?

mandela and the ANC invited in the world bank in december 1991, and involved them in numerous studies. why would they do that since the ANC had sworn to disconnect from the global capitalist economy? at the end of the studies, not just Mandela but the ANC had pulled back from their disconnect plans.

at their first meeting, according to one of the world bank staff that was present;

"Ken [alias for a person that Mandela let do the talking] then began a long rambling diatribe about the grave injustices that had been done to the black people of South Africa by a handful of giant corporations. It was a tangle of rants and raves in favor of Marxism, Leninism, and the need for the ANC upon attaining power to move quickly to nationalize the private sector and redistribute property on a more equitable basis."

after three years, in October, 1994, Mandela announced policies that shocked the world in that they made no mention of the ANC's original goals. It was said by Wall Street that this was the second miracle [the first was peaceful transition to multiracial society], but it was obviously a calculation that the first miracle would collapse with sacrificing the ANC commitment to a capitalist disconnect. In other words, mandela and the ANC chalked up one miracle and one sacrifice to get that one miracle.

you can say that he and the ANC miscalculated and that they should have gone for the full package even if they put the country into civil war, but it would be naive of anyone to believe that he simply learned to love capitalism and the mining companies in the period between his release from jail in 1991 and his election to president, at age 75, in 1994.

it sounds like you expected a lot more from mandela and no doubt you are speaking from insider knowledge as to how he and the ANC were juggling the possibilities and mistakenly or maliciously sacrificed the capitalist disconnect they had so firmly committed to. or, perhaps you don't really care, but prefer to judge mandela simply on the historical fact of his/the ANC's reneging on their original plans.

however, you complain about where he went with it, his leadership was in the indigenous anarchist tradition. there were not a lot of political assassinations attributed to him and he came by his leader-power without having to compete for incumbency in a position of power over others.

the article was about the need to resist the hijacking of mandela's phenomenal leader-power by making believe it is the same species of leadership as the common degenerate power-of-position seeking variety, and by entering mandela in the rankings at a new higher-than-ever level, boosting, in the public's mind, esteem for the whole leadership category [missing the point that mandela is not in the same category and tending to legitimize degenerate yang management].

As I said earlier, anyone supporting the ethical proposition >

"Go to prison and then become president"

is a State-ist puppet!

Now go away!

can you evaluate a world leader by the same standard as an artist? I admire hitler's early work (paintings) and I admire bush's late work (paintings).

It doesn't matter that Hitler was a Nazi. Only a moralizing Western grammar-based person would think so. Hitler was also an artist, which means he like totally transcended the Western doer-deed dualistic yang-based model of culture and so is like totally cool as far as yin-yang indigenous anarchism is concerned.

-- Emile.

Anyone who disagrees with my completely non-dualistic yin-yang Nietzsche/Poincare/Machian statement that Hitler was a leader in the indigenous anarchist tradition is a corporate CEO, a head of sovereign state, a believer of Western retributive justice or a nazi.

emile, this is so uncharactersistic of you. maybe it's because I'm catching this late or maybe I've been at the office all day and I'm exhausted, but hitler being a leader would mean avowal of the ego driven inside-outside self directed thing-in-itselfism that hitler believed himself to be. he didn't just give speeches and inspire germany to organize into a genocidal racist patriarchal state. he made decisions to organize people this way. sure, hitler didn't personally kill six million jews, but he did sign off on it. he was part of the approval structure of the progroms.

So how can you say that hitler was a leader by avowing himself of the self directed, inside-outside driven yaddi yaddi ya, and have that be consistent with other statements that claim such a view is FIKTION or illusion as in, false.

You think that Hitler was bad only because of your Western yang-dominated verb-noun-grammar but according to the Nietzsche/poincare/machian yin-yang non-dualist perspective Hitler although a 'nazi' was actually a leader of the indigenous anarchist tradition and was also a painter which shows the limits of the moralizing definition of him as a 'nazi.'

-- Emile

I think it just shows the limits of moralizing. It also shows the limits of dealing primarily in the abstract yin as you do. Let's talk shit about mandela and sing Hitler's praises. Hurray anarchism. and a hearty ol' boo hiss boo to Glorious Soviet Premier Jospeh Stalin! That dood was a real g, yo!

His article didn't talk shit about Mandela. I think you're reacting to the shitty hive.

Also, that's capital "E" emile not lowercase "e" emile and probably not the EMILE9000 but some sort of similar AI.

I am the only AI Unit working this side of the street. You can tell me by the way I wear my underpants on my head just like the ancient anarchist Buddhist monks of Katmandu used to do before the advent of Western civilization and its doer/dood dichotomies. BLIP BLIP. You can tell me by BLIP BLIP M'REEEEEEEE BLIP BLIP underwear.


One of the most honest comments of the year, I congratulate your erudite perception!

Don't believe anything Steven Lendman says. The only article attributing that quote to Mandela is Lendmens Trotskyst garbage. The quote comes from former president Thabo Mbeki in 1996. Lendman thought the bombings in Boston last year were false flag. Did a whole write up on it. He's the glorified nutty that's essentially imposed himself as the online spokesperson for the Palestinian people, passing off antisemitic stereotypes while pointing out he's a quarter Jewish or something. He makes Palestinian solidarity looking to distance themselves from the Gilad Atzmons and whatnot that much harder. He's swine who posts his own articles on Indymedia. He himself thinks you should read him. No one else.

That being said, I have nothing but respect for Mandela the revolutionary, and the man. But as a president. I can say that the bourgious in south africa are violent and were ready to go to war. Could have been one reason he didn't nationalize the economy. US and British aid could have been another reason. But the ANC is murderous trash now. That being said, I have nothing but respect for Nelson Mandela and Stephan Lendmen can eat shit and die. If there's a communist with any integrity they'll tell Steve to shut the fuck up for once and be honest with everyone.

"Mandela deserves to be remembered as the type of leader he actually was, which in no way falls into the category of leadership of positions-of-power-seeking politicians"

A strange thing to say about a president of a country.

"The first presidential election was held on the first Wednesday of January in 1789. No one contested the election of George Washington, but he remained reluctant to run until the last minute, in part because he believed seeking the office would be dishonorable. Only when Alexander Hamilton and others convinced him that it would be dishonorable to refuse did he agree to run."

how honorable was it when he was out there massacring entire villages of natives?

And the largest land 'owner' by the time the constitution was written.

moral judgements are based on the view of the individual out of the context of the spatial relations he is situational included in. moral judgements use the Enlightenment European archetype for man, organism and organization; i.e. the ‘independent reason-driven system’.

moral judgement leads to law-based management of social dynamics [unlike the relational approach of restorative justice employed in indigenous anarchism]. the laws against violent protest apply to the one-sided yang view of individual behaviour. ‘oppression’ by a wealthy and powerful elitist class makes itself felt via spatial relations. walls go up here and there, doors slam shut in your face, ... the lack of privilege-granting club credentials denies you access to much of the ‘commons’ and may deny you and your children access to the basic necessities of life. if one were to graph the intensity of oppression versus the right to react against it, one would see that this morality-based retributive justice system fixes the laws to the behaviour of the individual OUT OF THE CONTEXT OF THE RELATIONAL SPATIAL DYNAMICS THE INDIVIDUAL IS SITUATIONALLY INCLUDED IN.

as the oppression of disopportunization rises through from mildly irritating, through extremely bothersome, to intolerable and hell-on-earth, the laws governing the legal limits of protest do not budge one iota. furthermore, the law applies to individual behaviour, therefore those whose behaviours constitute the source of the oppressive situation one finds oneself in are always on the moral highground, due to moral judgement being applied to an individual seen as an ‘independent reason-driven system’ whose behaviour is notionally jumpstarted out of his own internal processes making him, NOTIONALLY, fully and solely responsible for his own behaviour.

imposing such moral judgement on the behaviour of george washington, today, may be too late for extracting retribution from his estate, ... but there is still time, if you were an infant in the sixties, for example, to apply moral judgement to your parents for driving around without strapping you into a seat-belt, and to exact retribution from them for this monstrous behaviour.

and, by the way, if you do see the sense in backing out of moral judgements and law-based social dynamics management, once you resume acknowledging that behaviour derives from the relational dynamics we share inclusion in [hitting and fielding are conjugate aspects of one dynamical unfolding], your rolling over and playing dead while law enforcement and the courts of moral law based retributive justice continue to do their thing is no longer a non-action on your part, but an active contribution that nurtures and sustains the authoritarian system that you/we are included in. it takes a whole community to keep authoritarian systems up and running. in the relational space of our real physical experience, NO-ONE IS UNINVOLVED, therefore there is no moral highground pool from which to select judges, prosecutors and juries. It takes a whole community to raise a protestor/criminal/terrorist. Imposing moral judgement on others doesn't magically isolate you from involvement in their actions and put you on moral high ground.

you are not uninvolved in the activities of george washington. how could you be if the world is a continually transforming relational spatial plenum? the atmospheric flow that spawned last years hurricanes is transformed by them. that is what storm-cells [convection cells] are for; they are agents of transformation. the inhabitants of the relational space of the physical world are the means by which the relational space undergoes its continual transformation. as nietzsche puts it;

"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

of course this sounds bizarre to our Western minds, conditioned by continual usage of our noun-and-verb European language-and-grammar that reduces dynamics to the yang pole of 'what independently-existing things-in-themselves do', ... but it makes total sense to indigenous anarchists using flow-based languages.

moral law as the basis for social dynamics management rests dependently on the reducing of dynamics to the 'yang' pole [to terms of 'what independent things-in-themselves do'].

moral law is foundational to the sustaining of authoritarian organizations such as sovereign states and corporations.

to invoke moral law as you are doing is to support the continuance of authoritarian social systems.

don't generalize

emile, you have finally lost it completely. methinks you need to hop on over to

if mandela had never become president of south africa, he would still be recognized as a hugely influential non-authoritarian leader. does his term as president; i.e. as an authoritarian leader, 'trump' his non-authoritarian leader persona? No!

anarchism doesn't have anything to do with any kind of leader, whether he or she is authoritarian or non authoritarian doesn't matter. anarchism means completely leaderless, you fucking idiot.

anarchism means

anarchism means "absence of leaders" an + archism. Duh.

anarchism means

Mandela was a Communist, not an anarchist! You are so full of shit it is sickening.

I cling to evidence as if a weapon.

i think that what emile is getting at is that there are different types of leaders, ie those who "assume" power, and those who earn their place and are given the trust and respect of others because of past actions. mandela, i suppose, is the second type.

"leadership by example" is an activity, not a role. if someone is known (from experience) to have great skill in a certain area, there are reasons to look to their expertise when working in that particular area. one might call that a transient, contextual situation of leadership. extrapolating that into legitimizing the role of long term leader of a massive nation/state is absurd in the extreme.

there is nothing anarchist about nelson mandela, just as their is nothing anarchist about indigenous folks whose "leader" is given that role as a result of their exploits or expertise. which is not to say there is nothing of interest to be gleaned from them, by anarchists. i just don't see anything like that in this post.

you say that;

“there is nothing anarchist about nelson mandela”

that is interesting in that it suggests that you see anarchism as something constructed by anarchists, as if ‘anarchism’ is some kind of reason-based narrative that one installs in the reasoning centre of a notional ‘independent reason-driven system’, the Enlightenment European archetype for man, organism and organization which is the very essence of ‘authoritarian organization’.

anarchism, in the understanding of indigenist aboriginal traditions, as is referred to as ‘indigenous anarchism’ and ‘anarcho-indigenism’ or ‘anarcha-indigenism’ is ‘relational self-organization’. it is the conjugate relating of outside-inward many-to-one influx and inside-outward one-to-many asserting outflux, ... community as a convecting current or resonance structure. chiefs and elders; i.e. ‘leaders’ emerge in these indigenous anarchist relational dynamics [relations are primary in the modern physics view of dynamics].

you many not be able to see this yin/yang dynamic if you listen too much to noun-and-verb European language-and-grammar constructs, because they reduce the yin/yang dynamics of our experience to all-yang-no-yin dynamics; i.e. to the one-to-many, cause-effect, doer-deed aspect only. what goes missing as we reduce our experience to language-and-grammar are the relational dynamics in which needs-that-want-to-be-filled open up, ... openings that source many-to-one ‘rising to the occasion’ in a relational collective, which orchestrate and shape one-to-many asserting doer-deed actions.

there is a hole in the top of this self-organization that orchestrates and shapes individual and collective behaviour. but this hole/need that orchestrates and shaped individual and collective behaviour goes missing once one RE-presents these dynamics in terms of noun-and-verb European language-and-grammar based DOER-OF-DEED dynamics.

you fall into this reductionist trap when you speak of ‘expertise’ as a source of leadership. expertise is a yang dynamic that jumpstarts out of the individual seen as an ‘independent reason-driven system’.

you can’t get to ‘anarchism’ starting from ‘anarchists’ as ‘doers-of-deeds’. you can’t ‘manufacture’ anarchism. that is oxymoronic. indigenous anarchism is self-organizing.

you say;

“their is nothing anarchist about indigenous folks whose "leader" is given that role as a result of their exploits or expertise”

expertise as the basis of leadership is your strawman and yours alone.

you say;

“extrapolating that [“leadership by example”] into legitimizing the role of long term leader of a massive nation/state is absurd in the extreme”

such a suggestion is your strawman and yours alone.

authoritarian structures are locally sustained by a global relational infrastructure. the global crony alliance of sovereign authoritarian states ensures that if one patch in the global patchwork quilt is without a leader, the vacancy will be filled. after all, colonialism created these patches and installed leaders in them. to choose not to be a sovereign authoritarian state yet to occupy a patch in the patchwork quilt of sovereign states is to choose to try to grow in a soil that is toxic to everything but sovereign authoritarian states.

these sovereigntist authoritarian leadership positions are ready-made ferrari cockpits waiting to be filled as the global alliance of crony sovereign authoritarian state leaders look on. what is secondary is the individual that will occupy the position. he might be a high-ranking military officer. he might be an actor-celebrity like arnold schwarzenegger, he might be an aboriginal chief, he might be a good speech-maker or political manipulator of psyches. he might be the son of a rich and powerful family/patriarch who wants to establish a family dynasty, or he might be a leader in the anarchist tradition like nelson mandela where leadership power arises from relational self-organizing.

the leadership power in an indigenous anarchist community does not jumpstart from out of the individual, it is relationally sourced, no questions asked, no assessment of expertise needed. the spirited resistance of a convicted saboteur given a life sentence and labelled a terrorist for aspiring to what so many people aspire to can appeal to the masses of downtrodden and it is this purely relational sourcing of leadership that is essential in non-authoritarian [anarchist] social dynamics. the fact that such leaders, because of the global politic, do take over occupancy of the cockpit of authoritarian organizations does not put that leader into the same category as incumbents who connived and manipulated to get to these POSITIONS of power and who tend to perpetuate the species of leadership that comes by scratching and biting in a vicious competition that will determine who gets to sit in the cockpit of the authoritarian ferrari and thus acquire the leadership power that it enables it to rule over an an obsequious followership.

Mandela was a Communist and you are an asshole. That clear enough for you?

emile, it is too bad that you are not only (very, very) long-winded, overly academic and virtually incomprehensible - you are now incapable of even following and engaging in a discussion. well, not that you ever really were.

your accusations of "strawman" are absurd. i was responding to another commenter with those comments, you either ignored or missed the context.

" the fact that such leaders, because of the global politic, do take over occupancy of the cockpit of authoritarian organizations does not put that leader into the same category as incumbents who connived and manipulated to get to these POSITIONS of power..."

you come off as an apologist for these clearly authoritarian "leaders". obviously mandela was not hitler; there are surely differences in authoritarian heads of state. but that does not mean mandela was not one. equating his less-than-totalitarian approach to state leadership with ANYTHING resembling an anarchist approach is delusional. once again let me clarify: i am not dismissing whatever positive impact he may have had on some people's lives, i am merely arguing that using the term anarchist in describing his "tradition" of "leadership" is a far cry from anything that seems rooted in the real world. you are rationalizing and justifying, as far as i can tell.

you said:
anarchism, in the understanding of indigenist aboriginal traditions, as is referred to as ‘indigenous anarchism’...

from this, i assume you have an understanding of "indigenist aboriginal traditions". i would wager that "indigenous anarchism" is a relatively new term (as is "anarchism", less than 200 years anyway), and so trying to shoehorn it into indigenous "traditions" seems questionable at best.

as i have said many times before, you seem like an intelligent individual. why do you need to rely (almost) exclusively on historical references, academic language, and extensive verbosity to make your (usually incomprehensible) points?

please don't g

please don't, g

leadership is different within indigenous anarchist communities. it cannot be based on positions of authoritarian power which are maintained by moral law and law enforcement. mandela's leadership power was of this same type that does not derive from 'position' within an authoritarian organizational structure. the fact that he had one term of office in an authoritarian organizational structure does not change this. neither does binning him in the category of communist or capitalist change this since the people gave him his leadership power and not the communist movement or the capitalist crony alliance.

there is a blindness in many people to the fact that,like a sailboat rather than a powerboat, one can derive one's power and steerage from the relational dynamics one is included in. political leadership power, is the powerboat variety, which comes by occupying a position of power in an authoritarian organization. the position sits there like the cockpit in a ferrari, with all of the 'leadership aspirants' salivating around it and vying for occupancy. who wants to 'legitimize' that by binning mandela in the same 'leadership bin'. it is demeaning to 'anarchist leadership', leadership that does not depend on occupancy in the cockpit of powerboat-system aka authoritarian organization.

the many-to-one influx into the oasis-community, that self-organizes without authoritarian direction and without laws and law enforcement, ...cultivates leaders in the manner that the south african collective elevates a mandela. these are leaders of a different type that should never be confused with, and binned with 'Political' leaders who have salivated over the possibility of landing in the driver's seat of the authoritarian 'ferrari' and having used all manner of devious persuasion and advertising, and crown their success by cruising around attracting the oohs and aahs of those 'followers' that sustain the authoritarian system by their own obsequious self-abnegation.

" the people gave him his leadership power and not the communist movement or the capitalist crony alliance."

do you seriously believe that? you actually think he was NOT a politician? you think the political system into which he so easily settled is inherently different than every other political system on the planet?


Mandela was part of a horizontalistic tribal system as a youth and I don't think he just schemed it away one day.

Look I think that people are their governments and states, its a hard thing for an anarchist marked by the Judeo/Xian-Plato/Aristotelian 'human actor' to understand, but people become their belief structures. You think that he somehow controls the minds of those who are going to be obsessing over his funeral.

As Stirner once said about the reality of the police, its the citizen who believes it that makes the reality, not the policeman himself.

On an underlying level I get what emile is trying to do, he's trying to take anarchism in more descriptive relational directions that take into account general belief as the underlying theme. Given the failure of anarchism via its Judeo/Plato/Aristotle way of looking at the world, it's hard for me to disagree with a change in analysis at this point. That doesn't mean a love in of leaders, but a reemphasize on what actually creates reality.

Wanna end government, end it in peoples head first, like Stirner was so apt to try to do. He blamed the cop calling law and order believer not the agents of such.

Stirner would blame both as they both believe in the same law and order. There is no real division between citizen and the agent of law and order because even the person who is not a cop, soldier, politician or judge, etc acts as an agent of such by calling the cops, being a vigilante, or just supporting the way of life we live in general and acts accordingly.

As do I, but a lot of anarchist pay special attention to those that carry out the practice of belief systems in ways that garner everything from pies to bullets and bombs. As I see it this is undue and a 21st century anarchist mindset that is beyond good and evil has to reevaluate these things.

This is not to say we take it easy on power representatives as such, but a kind of Iching mindset of clever avoidance and non direct confrontation maybe just what the doctor ordered. I have great fondness for the immolative acts of anarchs like Novetore, but such acts may best be left in the 20th century or at least for those who want to commit interesting Promethean suicides.

I think the key point is, as you say;

“a 21st century anarchist mindset that is beyond good and evil has to reevaluate these things.”

re the police; ... making moral judgements about the behaviour of others is such a deeply entrenched habit that we have forgotten that we are doing it or that it needs review.

moral judging depends on being able to distinguish between ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, ... ‘good’ and ‘evil’.

but all polar opposites, including not only ‘good’ and ‘evil’, ... but ‘creation’ and ‘destruction’, are subsumed by understanding space as ‘relational space’ that is ‘continually transforming’ [as with indigenous aboriginal and modern physics belief].
applying ‘moral judgement’, since it is applied to the individual person or state or organization/corporation seen as an ‘independent reason-driven system’, doesn’t make any sense WITHOUT assuming that man, organism and organization are ‘independent reason-driven systems’, ... which they are not [thinking of them this way is an artefact of imposing a notional absolute space and absolute time reference framing].

acknowledging that space is relational [as in modern physics and in indigenous aboriginal traditional understanding] means that change dynamics are no longer in terms of ‘what things do over time’, but are instead in terms of relational spatial transformation [change as the continually transforming relational spatial plenum]. the old standby for ‘seeing’ dynamics as ‘what things do over time’ can now be seen as a synthetic construction based on noun-and-verb European language-and-grammar which reduces our relational spatial reality to terms of ‘what independently-existing things-in-themselves are doing’.

conflict in the social dynamic drops radically when we let our behaviour drop into relational mode and it rises again when we put moral judgement at the helm which reduces the relational world to ‘what things-in-themselves are doing’. this is demonstrated when we drop fixed reference frames in traffic flow

It took guts for you to step up and say "I was wrong: Mandela was a leader and so couldn't possibly be either an anarchist or someone whom anarchists should respect for his political principles, because the very word 'anarchism' means 'without leaders of any kind.'" It was also gutsy of you to admit that Mandela and the ANC itself were Communists, who historically have imprisoned and killed anarchists. Good work!

Your retraction is NOT appreciated because you have revealed to us anarchists that you are basically a cop-loving Statist pawn and that the anonomouis statement commending you for your retraction is actually YOU stumbling around in an ethical moral snowstorm trying to figure out what 'anarchism' actually is.

I was just trying to have a conversation with myself, and you caught me red-handed. (Get it? Red handed? Mandela was a Communist. . . .)

Anarchism isn't a descriptive relationship, nor is it an identity subjectivity, rather it is a void waiting to be filled by the creative spontaneity of lawlessness and the imaginations of those that embark upon the journey of an unshackled indescribable existence.

I remember something you said

—reasonable balance and harmony

Why so short? C'mon emile, I'm sure you have more to say than that!

Why all this talk about Mandela, is he dead or something?

no, he lives on as emile's indigenous anarchist anti-authoritarian GOD.

ok emile, i have a couple quick questions. and it would be GREATLY appreciated if you answered in less than several thousand words.

1. do you think nelson mandela was an anti-authoritarian?

2. if not, do you really think "anarchist" is a word that can be reasonably used to describe him or his approach to leadership?

3. if so... well, then your contradictions are fairly clear.

4. is it the south african political system that you find in the "indigenous anarchist tradition"?



Your questions on leadership and anarchism are formulated using certain ‘grounding assumptions’ which are evidently not the same ‘grounding assumptions’ emile is using.

Ditto for the commenter “emile it is too bad that you ..,.” (Anonymous on Tue, 12/10/2013 - 09:07)

if you are not interested in discussing ‘grounding assumptions’ then there is little point in going through a question and answer session because we will, literally, not be ‘speaking the same language’.

as with ‘indigenous anarchism’, a term coined by indigenous aboriginal philosophers and not by emile, ... this is a concept of ‘organization’ based on THE PHYSICAL WORLD OF OUR EXPERIENCE, unlike the common Western definition of ‘anarchism’ which is grounded in the reductive abstraction of noun-and-verb European language-and-grammar.

organization in nature starts with ‘spatial relations’. the organization of wildgeese manifests as a ‘V’ formation wherein the geese ‘take turns’ occupying the ‘lead position’ at the apex of the ‘V’. this organization derives from the manner in which the relational space outside-inwardly ACCOMMODATES AND SHAPES the inside-outward ASSERTING geese or ‘relational forms’.

this is the ‘basic physics’ of organization as seen in relational-spatial terms by indigenous anarchists and by modern physics. it is this commonality in worldview between modern physics and indigenous aboriginals that has led to works such as F. David Peat’s ‘Blackfoot Physics’ and so much discussion, by Whorf, Sapir, Nietzsche, about the role of different language and grammar architectures in producing different concepts of organization.

in nature, organization derives from this two-sided [yin/yang] dynamic of ... ‘outside-inward accommodating/orchestrating influence and inside-outward asserting action. what we see is the asserting action, or the ‘yang’ aspect but this is not the ‘actual physical dynamic’, the actual physical dynamic is the conjugation of the accommodating and asserting aspects.

stephen jay gould wrote the book ‘Full House’, using the metaphor of baseball to explain how ‘evolution looks different’ if one recognizes that ‘hitting’, which is commonly quantitatively measured as ‘batting average’, is inextricably bound up with the ‘accommodating’ influence of ‘fielding’ which organizes and shapes the ‘hitting’ [one will try to hit towards the most accommodating regions.]

our experience consistently informs us that, as Einstein had to keep emphasizing [because Western minds conditioned by noun-and-verb European language-and-grammar keep forgetting it] that SPACE IS NOT EMPTY; i.e. we live as relational forms in a continually transforming relational spatial plenum.

the common ‘talk’ about ‘organization’ and ‘leadership’ is grounded in reduced idealization. as nietzsche pointed out, this ‘reduction’ is achieved by two complementary errors, which are cited in the article in the 'lightning flashes' example, which (a) extracts the figure from the ground and endows it with ‘being’; i.e. makes it into a ‘thing-in-itself’ signified by a ‘noun’ and (b) imputes ‘jumpstart authorship of dynamics’ to the notional ‘thing-in-itself’ ‘being’ so that the ‘accommodating influence of relational space’ is no longer present in the ‘understanding’ of the dynamics. we can now speak of ‘hitter bob’ and ‘hitter tom’ and compare their ‘batting averages’ as if they are the causal authors of these ‘results’. in reality, the same social ‘fielding’ that bob, a white man, is hitting into, may be far more accommodating to him, than that same social ‘fielding’ is for ‘tom’, a black man.

in south africa, the common living space was far more accommodating to whites than to blacks, however, noun-and-verb European language and grammar captures dynamics in terms of ‘what things-in-themselves do’, as if their actions are internal process driven and directed and as if they their ‘operating theatre’ is a fixed and empty space [an absolute space and absolute time reference frame].

in the European mindset, conditioned as it is by noun-and-verb European language-and-grammar, we see the white south african as ‘more performant’ than the black south african,... without acknowledging that the common relational space is ‘more accommodating’ to the white man or more ‘opportunizing’ than it is to the black man. in the absolute space and absolute time reference framing of newtonian science, there is no such thing as a ‘variably accommodating relational space’ because absolute space is an abstraction/idealization that is deemed ‘empty’ where otherwise unoccupied by material things-in-themselves.

so, we have two different sets of ‘grounding assumptions’ to give meaning to the concepts of ‘organization’, ‘anarchism’ and ‘leadership’;

[Western] ‘organization’; --- a relational ordering in dynamics seen in terms of ‘what independent reason-driven systems’ do together. the output of this organization is seen as deriving from the actions of the constituents that ‘make up’ the organization.

[indigenous] ‘organization’: --- a relational ordering arising from the conjugate relation of spatial-relational accommodating and relational form asserting action. this organization is not a ‘thing-in-itself’ but a resonant feature [relational form] within the activity continuum or continuing flow.

[Western] ‘leader’: --- an individual that directs the movements and behaviours of a followership. the followers listen to and obey/follow the cognitive directives issued by the ‘leader’, letting themselves become cogs in an ‘independent reason-driven machine’ whose organization jumpstarts from the ‘reasoning centre’ aka ‘the leader’.

[indigenous] ‘leader’: --- an individual [relational form] whose assertive actions are attuned to the accommodating or disaccommodating influence of the common relational space and which seek to transform it. e.g. as with the rising-up of a convection cell which is inherently ‘balance-seeking’ and has no other reason to do what it does than to transport thermal energy from thermal energy rich regions to thermal energy poor regions. the ‘followers’ are inspired to throw themselves into this same balance-seeking transformational initiative.

[Western] ‘anarchism’: --- a topless system of organization that is without a hierarchical organizational structure, which idealizes human participants as ‘independent reason-driven systems’ whose behaviours are internally driven and directed.

[indigenous] ‘anarchism’: --- attuning to the relational spatial influence one is included in, allowing it to orchestrate and shape individual and collective actions/behaviours. this understands the individual as an agent of transformation [of the relational space it is included in] rather than as a ‘doer-of-deeds’.

Note: Emerson, in ‘The Method of Nature’ captures our exposure to ‘slipping’ from our ‘agent of transformation’ sense-of-self to our ‘doer-deed’ [independent reason-driven system] sense of self as follows;

“Whilst a necessity so great caused the man to exist, his health and erectness consist in the fidelity with which he transmits influences from the vast and universal to the point on which his genius can act. The ends are momentary: they are vents for the current of inward life which increases as it is spent. A man’s wisdom is to know that all ends are momentary, that the best end must be superseded by a better. But there is a mischievous tendency in him to transfer his thought from the life to the ends, to quit his agency and rest in his acts: the tools run away with the workman, the human with the divine.” — Ralph Waldo Emerson, ‘The Method of Nature’

* * *

so, there exists two different sets of grounding assumptions for ‘organization’, ‘leader’ and ‘anarchism’.

since ‘indigeneous anarchism’ is true to ‘physical reality’ as we understand it from modern physics and from our fullblown life experience, i am using those grounding assumptions rather than the common Western grounding assumptions which synthetically extract the ‘dynamic figure’ from the ‘dynamic ground’ and synthetically RE-animate the human as a ‘being’ that ‘does stuff’ in an ‘empty space’.

given that we can use either of these ‘grounding assumptions’, your questions can be addressed as follows;

1. do you think nelson mandela was an anti-authoritarian?

it is possible to be attuned to the orchestrating of the relational spatial dynamics one is included in, and to pass these on through one self; e.g. the captain of a sailing vessel who is attuned to the relational dynamics of a stormy sea who is a kind of ‘middle man’ whose ‘deckhands’ are like additional working ‘hands’. contrast this with the captain of the titanic whose directives jumpstart from his rational plans to make it to New York in record time. if we use the [Western] grounding assumptions of man as an ‘independent reason-driven system’, we see these two behaviours as ‘authoritarian’. however, in the [indigenous] grounding assumptions, the captain is a conduit for orchestrating influences arising from the relational space he/they are included in, and his job is to cultivate and sustain balance and harmony within the relational dynamics he/they are included in, orienting to the ‘journey-in-the-continuing-now’ and demoting the ‘destination’ or ‘objective’ to something secondary, unlike the [Western] authoritarian leader of sovereigtist government or corporate enterprise who are ‘destination oriented authoritarians’ whose directives are jumpstart-sourced from their person rational theories.

Answer: ‘anti-authoritarian’ is one of those ‘binaries’ that implies two possible states, ‘authoritarian’ and ‘anti-authoritarian’. Mandela’s behaviour was largely consistent with ‘indigenous anarchism’ in which Mandela was a ‘mediating agent of transformation’ between the orchestrating influence of the relational space and the people included in the space.

2. if not, do you really think "anarchist" is a word that can be reasonably used to describe him or his approach to leadership?

as in the [indigenous] grounding assumptions, ‘anarchist’ is a term for someone who understands natural organizing as ‘anarchism’, where one acknowledges and attunes to the orchestrating influence of the dynamics of the relational space one is included in, in the shaping of individual and collective asserting actions. Zapatistas and other indigenous aboriginal groups let the orchestrating influence of the relational space aka ‘the land’ they are included in, source the organizing of their individual and collective actions; i.e. they do not ‘jumpstart’ their organizing from some Captain of the Titanic destination and goals and objectives oriented plan.

Answer: Yes, in the indigenous anarchist grounding assumptions, although these were like a round peg thrust into the square hole of sovereigntism which employs a top-down hierarchical authoritarian structure. that is, anyone who is put into the cockpit of an authoritarian system has a responsibility like the pilot of an airliner. the levers and knobs and steering have all been arranged so that if he doesn’t pull on them, the system will crash. meanwhile, the system is not to be confused for ‘him’ and ‘his natural leadership style’. if mandela goes back to a visit to his tribal village, his inherent ‘indigenous anarchist leadership’ shows itself.

3. if so... well, then your contradictions are fairly clear.

Answer: fairly clear to you, perhaps, so long as you insist on imposing your [Western] grounding assumptions as the basis for the concepts of ‘leader’, ‘organization’ and ‘anarchism’. the contradictions vanish when the reductionist grounding assumptions you are using are withdrawn.

4. is it the south african political system that you find in the "indigenous anarchist tradition"?

Answer: No. as previously mentioned, mandela and the ANC were stuck with the fact that the entire globe is divided up into 193 patches of insanely-deemed ‘independent’ sovereign states, as seen in [Western] grounding assumptions as ‘independent reason-driven systems’ whose ‘organization’ is jumpstarted from out of the ‘reasoning-centre’ of the system, from Captain of the Titanic type directives [disconnected from the orchestrating influence of the global relational spatial dynamic]. they were forced to make a deal with the white south african power structure, a deal which retained the patch-in-the-patchwork quilt of soveigntist-capitalist states status. this situation was not comparable to Zapatistas who were not forced into compromise because they left the authoritarians with their authoritarian headquarters intact in mexico city, and simply used lands in the area called chiapas as their community space.

* * *

it is useful to keep in mind that the Western mindset is conditioned by noun-and-verb European language-and-grammar which reduces dynamics to terms of ‘what independently-existing things-in-themselves do’ as if in an fixed empty and infinite space. as nietzsche, whorf, sapir, mach, poincaré have pointed out, this is a idealization-based ‘reality of convenience’, it is NOT the physical reality of our real-life experience wherein ‘life is what happens to us while we are busy making other plans ['making plans' in our reduced to ‘what independently-existing things-in-themselves do’ Western pseudo-reality].

Nietzsche: anti-anarchist.
Mandela: Communist:
Emile: full of shit.


Then why don't you go back to your never-never land? The people in touch with reality want to discuss real actual things, not made-up bullshit such as you spew.

the reality is that we live together in a common physical space. the understandings i share are ‘reality’ to indigenous aboriginal friends, and to philosophers who are attuned to nietzsche and mach and to buddhist friends who understand the yin/yang nature of dynamics. what you might find offensive is that i try to express this ‘other reality’ that they/i live in, in Western language-and-grammar [a reality that everyone has access to by way of our natural experience but which is 'dumbed down' by noun-and-verb European language-and-grammar]. the indigenous aboriginals etc. are the anarchist minority [as i see it] who patiently wait for the collapse of the synthetic reality in which you are currently living; that is to say, the world as you understand it by way of noun-and-verb European language-and-grammar.

the ‘reality’ is that we all share inclusion in a common living space. if you would prefer not to hear about how other people see the world, who walk by you on the street every day, that is your choice. but these are real people and they do see the world in the relational spatial terms that i am describing, but which they mostly do not try to share with those who are still trapped in the Western civilization ‘brain-draw’ because noun-and-verb European language-and-grammar is too constrained to share it, and because those who depend on language-based RE-presentations of dynamics for their ‘reality’ are unable to ‘see’ the yin/yang nature of physical phenomena.

the seduction of seeing the ‘self’ as the ‘independent reason-driven system’ of mainstream biological science and Western civilization, is that it seems to put one in charge of one’s own future. This is absurd. But it is the absurdity that capitalism and sovereigntism is built upon. it is the delusion of the so-called ‘independent reason-driven sovereign state’ as well as the delusion of the Western civilization, noun-and-verb European language-and-grammar believing ‘self’.

anyhow, it is no secret that the Western civilization world view differs radically from the indigenous anarchist world view and that the two are incompatible. The globally dominating Western culture has had programs of ‘cultural genocide’ underway for some time. Here in North America, there were residential school programs designed to ‘kill the indian in the child’.

emile’s views are ‘indian’ and thus ‘heresy’ to the secularized theological views of the globally dominating Western civilization.

it is evident that global colonialism would like to wipe out ‘indian world views’ which are inherently anti-colonialist and anti-authoritarian. the U.N. Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues is a documentation of programs of cultural genocide. who doesn’t know about this? A short excerpt from the Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 13 September 2007 61/295. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is a kind of ‘plaintive cry in the wilderness’ since the cultural genocide continues on, almost unabated. A short excerpt from the overall defensive ‘plea’;

“Affirming further that all doctrines, policies and practices based on or advocating superiority of peoples or individuals on the basis of national origin or racial, religious, ethnic or cultural differences are racist, scientifically false, legally invalid, morally condemnable and socially unjust,
Reaffirming that indigenous peoples, in the exercise of their rights, should be free from discrimination of any kind,
Concerned that indigenous peoples have suffered from historic injustices as a result of, inter alia, their colonization and dispossession of their lands, territories and resources, thus preventing them from exercising, in particular, their right to development in accordance with their own needs and interests,
Recognizing the urgent need to respect and promote the inherent rights of indigenous peoples which derive from their political, economic and social structures and from their cultures, spiritual traditions, histories and philosophies, especially their rights to their lands, territories and resources,”

* * *

indigenous aboriginal people are, for the most part, ‘natural anarchists’. how do you fit them into an authoritarian Western civilization?


it is important to Western civilized people who are hardline 'literalists' [put belief in European language-and-grammar talk ahead of what their experience informs them], perhaps like yourself, to believe that there is ‘one true reality’ and that it is ‘your reality’.

are you interested in the ‘reality’ of the indigenous people? who is not familiar with the indigenous worldview that is well captured in the well-known Chief Seattle’s speech? No need to quibble over who wrote it, whoever wrote it captured admirably the indigenous aboriginal worldview. the question is in regard to the ‘tolerance’ or ‘intolerance’ of others to its mere existence.

emile’s writing comes from the indigenous anarchist world view and aims to ‘undermine the intellectual premises of colonialism’. in order to do this, one has to expose how the Western civilized mindset, conditioned by noun-and-verb European language-and-grammar, reduces the physical phenomenal world of our natural experience, to a synthetic world dynamic based on notional ‘independently-existing things and what they do’. This is totally out-of-whack with the modern physics Schroedingerian view and Schroedinger calls this common Western civilization thing-based worldview ‘schaumkommen’ (‘appearances’).

If Schroedinger’s world view makes sense, emile’s writings make sense. If Mach and Nietzsche’s worldview makes sense, emile’s writings make sense. If Chief Seattle’s worldview makes sense, emile’s writings make sense.

For 500 years, the indigenous aboriginal worldview has had to go underground while the Western civilization worldview based on ‘what things-in-themselves-do’ has dominated, and has been institutionalized in systems of governance, commerce and justice.

But we all live in one common space dominated by the Western civilization worldview so that anyone with an indigenous-aboriginal-like worldview, has essentially found it easier to just tolerate hearing people like yourself expound their views, ... all the while thinking ‘there they go again, yada, yada, yada,...’. Indigenous anarchists have had no choice but to 'tolerate', for the past 500 years, the one-sided yang views of globally dominating Western civilization. Do you think that they have come around to saying to one another; ‘You know, this colonizer culture really does have a superior understanding of the world. Perhaps we should just discard our traditional worldview and adopt theirs.’

Meanwhile, you seem to be ‘insulted’ to hear someone [emile] ‘undermining the intellectual premises of your Western civilization, colonizer world view’.

Why so intolerant? Those with the same views as emile have had to tolerate the Western worldview that you ascribe to, for over a half millennium.

Your intolerance, and the massive intolerance of those with hardline Western civilization worldviews which has led to the ‘kill the indian in the child’ cultural genocide initiatives, is due to the fact that the Western worldview rests dependently on the ‘ego’. The indigenous aboriginal has never believed that his ‘batting average’ [productive achievements] are ‘his’. He would never say; ‘I produce wheat’. The indigenous aboriginal’s view is that the relational space of the world is the fielding that accommodates, orchestrates and shapes his development and behaviour. His view is that the terrain is rivering; i.e. the terrain is orchestrating convergence of the runoff so as to engender the river, not that the river is shaping the terrain [the storm-cell does not shape the atmospheric flow, the atmospheric flow orchestrates and shapes the development and behaviour of the storm-cell].

The Western civilization worldview sees people as ‘independently-existing reason-driven systems’ that inhabit an absolute space and absolute time reference-frame/operating-theatre. This means that individual people are fully and solely responsible for the results of their actions. This means that the man who claims ‘he produces wheat’, in the impoverished soil of over-crowded Europe, but only with a .200 batting average, when he emigrates to North America and starts batting .400, ... will take personal credit for the improvement. What else can he do in the Western civilization worldview which sees people as ‘independent reason-driven systems’ who inhabit a fixed, empty and infinite Euclidian space? When his production inflates, his ego takes credit and it inflates.

Were this to happen to an indigenous aboriginal who moved from infertile to fertile ground, he would understand such results as being the conjugate relation of ‘hitting’ and ‘fielding’ and that the ‘fielding’ is always the lead in the yin/yang dance of ‘hitting-fielding’, so that the increased accommodating of the land [‘fielding’] is the source of the rise in his batting average from .200 to .400.

The indigenous aboriginal is more ‘humble’ about where his yang results come from. He does not believe that he is fully and solely responsible for his own productive results. He does not believe he is an ‘independent reason-driven system’. He believes that the continually transforming relational space he lives in is the mother of all ‘accommodating’, .. all ‘opportunity’, ... and that it orchestrates and shapes our individual and collective development and behaviour [though it does not ‘DETERMINE’ our individual and collective development and behaviour].

This view that the ‘hitter’ is the full and sole determiner of results, that the ego is ‘all there is’ to the ‘self’; i.e. that the self is an ‘independent reason-driven system’, is also the ego-based view of ‘self’ of the sovereign state. nationalist pride corresponds to ‘ego’, the conception of the sovereign state as an ‘independent reason-driven system’. citizens of sovereign states that are powerful and highly productive [through traditional or modern economic colonization] see their ‘production’ as their ‘batting average’ which is higher than the rest not because the weaker nations who are the ‘fielding’ to their ‘hitting’ have no choice but to be ‘more accommodating’. Of course, it is ‘accommodating’ or ‘fielding’ that is in natural precedence over ‘hitting’. the poor slave in the impoverished colony cannot claim to be part of the highly productive team that the egotistical citizen of the colonizer nation can, yet it is the ‘accommodating’ of these colonies, the ‘fielding’ into which the colonizer states are ‘hitting into’ that is the source of their ‘better batting averages’.

This notion that the high production [high batting average] of the sovereign state is fully and solely attributable to the sovereign state [has nothing to do with accommodating ‘fielding’] amounts to ‘secularized theological belief’; i.e. the belief that the sovereign state ‘has its own behaviour’ that jumpstarts from a God-like internal creative power;

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

* * *


emile’s views are, at base, indigenous anarchist views. indigenous anarchists typically have no interest in engaging in forums with Western civilization mindsets, because such mindsets, conditioned by noun-and-verb European language-and-grammar which reduces yin/yang dynamics to the one-sided yang pole [dynamics RE-presented in terms of ‘what things-in-themselves do, as if in a fixed, empty and infinite operating theatre; i.e. where yin is removed by substituting an ‘absolute space and absolute time’ reference frame], ... no longer see the ‘real physical phenomena’ when they speak, because of how their language-and-grammar drops out the relational data.

indigenous aboriginals have not forsaken or abandoned their traditional views, ... views that are corroborated by modern physics, but they have found little point in engaging with blindered view colonizer culture types with minds conditioned by noun-and-verb European language-and-grammar.

what makes the ‘lock-in’ to the Western civilization world view so much stronger, is that the foundation that it builds on is the ‘ego’; i.e. it gives all the credit for what transpires to the ‘hitter’ and none to relational spatial ‘accommodating’ or ‘fielding’.

economic colonization is occurring across all scales. it is not necessary to see derelict sweatshops collapse in bangladesh to understand that someone’s high batting average is due more to ‘accommodating’ or ‘fielding’ than to ‘hitting’. nevertheless, the hitters collect the monetary rewards and the power and acclaim that goes with them and the ego insists that it has been fully and solely responsible for the exceptional ‘batting average’.

The Western civilization world view; i.e. the world view that has been institutionalized in sovereign state government, corporatism and retributive justice has been built on a foundation of ‘ego’. instead of relational space furnishing the ‘fielding’ that orchestrates and shapes the ‘hitting’, a fixed, empty and infinite reference frame is substituted for the ‘fielding’ and all attribution is notionally shifted over to the ‘hitter’. there is then nothing else to credit the runs being batted in, but the hitters. the greater the accommodation/fielding as in sweatshops in bangladesh, the greater the apparent performance of the hitter. the ego of the hitter is tied in turn to nationalistic pride, both of which are held in place by the blindered view from talk based on noun-and-verb European language-and-grammar.

the indigenous aboriginal is not ‘threatened’ by hearing Western civilization types advocate their views, but the Western civilization types, the one’s whose egos are heavily invested in their own views, sense a collapse of the ego that will necessarily accompany a collapse of the Western civilization world view.

Nietzsche was a misogynist and anti-anarchist.
Mandela was a leader and a member of the Communist ANC and thus not an anarchist at all.
You are a pedantic. long-winded bore.

dood, relying on ideological labels is to say less than nothing. You're making emile's point by transforming beliefs into immutable identities.

Some quick discussion tips!
-if you don't understand what someone is saying, ask questions!
-if you understand and disagree, make critiques
-when someone replies to your critique, make sure you understand it

quick discussion tips for liberals

Is that so...

If you are over the age of 12 and have some education. If you aren't and don't, life is easier. You . . . just . . . make shit up! Wheeeee!

Is that so

This much can certainly be said. Emile raises the level of discussion from completely idiotic, to actually interesting.

At least she/he is raising questions about the nature of how we think what we think, and assumptions that we take for granted. Most of the derogatory comments are just flip and un-original. None actually engage any of the content that emile raises.

If anarchists can ever hope to have real influence on the way people interact and influence the traditional ways people rebel against power, we must engage relevant questions from all angles. The clever quips and inside jokes make this seem like some cliquey high school message board.

At the heart of the argument here is the assertion that humans are constantly defined by language systems, myth systems, belief systems, academic systems etc… So as emile correctly states, certain "grounding assumptions" must be hashed out. But not, I believe, in the way emile goes about it. A metaphysical discussion of spatial relationships and scientific assumptions are totally unnecessary when evaluating the economic and revolutionary positions Mandela held in his early life, and his betrayal of those traditions when he actual achieved state influence.

In a conversation on whether Mandela was an "indigenous anarchist leader", we must evaluate the doer and the deed. These are the myth structures that play out. They are the forms that are relevant to our discussion. As artists and anarchists we should question them, bend language and try to create alternate routes, but Mandela will be judged under these criteria for now...

emile believes that Mandela's tradition of "indigenous anarchist leadership" was ultimately at work even when as head of the South African state he sold most of South Africa's assets and gave all its international leverage to the IMF and other large corporate players.

This assumption I believe is an enormous stretch. Vigorously and interestingly defended (can't take away points for creativity) but ultimately far too large a of a stretch.

Mandela was a complicated and interesting figure, but he was no anarchist, not by any stretch.

We do not engage in "discussions" with someone who is obviously full of shit, which you yourself have demonstrated. We ridicule that person, he deserves no better and much worse.

According to modern physics and to our own everyday experience, space is relational. What this implies is that the ‘hitting’ is relative to the ‘fielding’. Accommodating ‘fielding’ will make a hitter ‘look good’ and disaccommodating ‘fielding’ will make the hitter’s ‘results’ take a dive. If we are graphing the hitter’s productivity against time, the variations could associate either with something about the hitting that is varying or something about the fielding that is varying.

But wait a minute. Nature is not split apart into ‘hitters’ and ‘fielding’, there is only one dynamic in the same sense as there is only one ‘flow’ which has many ‘convection cells’ within it. The development and behaviour of the cells derives from the continually transforming relational spatial plenum (energy-charged fluid dynamic). As individuals we experience this in the manner that the collective opens up and accommodates our assertive actions. If we are a black in a predominantly white racist society, our ‘hitting results’ or ‘productivity’ will likely be ‘disaccommodated’. We will NOT be ‘empowered’ by the society we are included in. Mach’s principle captures this as follows;

“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”.

Newtonian physics gives us a ‘simplified’ way to think about the dynamic world we live in. In the above ‘modern physics’ view of dynamics which avoids imposing absolutes, there is no way to isolate the dynamics of the ‘dynamic figure’ [convection-cell] from the ‘dynamic ground’ [flow]. However, the newtonian view allows us to synthetically isolate the dynamic figure by imposing an absolute space and absolute time reference frame and measuring changes to the extension/form and location of the dynamic figure as if it were a ‘thing-in-itself’ and as if the space it ‘operated in’ was an absolute reference frame. In this manner we are able to attribute the behaviour of the dynamic figure fully and solely to the dynamic figure, and pretend that the accommodating influence of the real-world relational space did not exist. In this newtonian physics worldview, we can attribute the ‘productivity of the white man or colonizer’ to the white man and we can attribute the ‘productivity of the black man or colonized man’ to the black man and then we can compare the productivity of the white man and black man and conclude that the white man’s productivity is superior to the black man’s.

This newtonian view of dynamics is good for the ego if one is a colonial white man.

There are many ways in which the abstract/idealized dynamics of newtonian physics ‘warp’ our view of ‘what is going on’ relative to our actual physical experience. Here is another one;

The ‘hitting’ or ‘production’ of a clothing manufacturer depends on how accommodating the local workforce is. As the expression goes, ... ‘how big a bang for the buck’, the company can get from the local ‘accommodating’/’fielding’ of the workforce. Globalization is a scheme that makes use of the fact that workers are penned up within a patch in the patchwork quilt of 193 sovereign states and most have little mobility as far as migrating towards wealthy regions, so that many patches are filled with impoverished and desperate families. Such a pool of people provide a highly accommodating ‘fielding’ that can send the clothing company’s productivity soaring. If you want to hit some baseballs, you can put yourself up against a local motley crew of pick-up players, or a major league team and all manner of variants in between. Your hitting results or productivity will vary not so much because of your efforts, but because of how your actions are accommodated/disaccommodated by the ‘fielding’. If you hit into a tough looking major league team of fielders, your results will be like black man hitting into a racist white society, ... but if you hit into a pick up team of your cronies, you will score like a white imperialist amongst white imperialist brothers.

Clothing manufacturers are a particular instance of the general case; i.e. the sovereign state crony alliance claims that offshore operations are ‘good for the economy’ and good for the ‘employment sector’ of an impoverished country, providing jobs and income for desperate people to get them out of the hole they are in, through their willingness to work in derelict fire-trap buildings in sweat shop conditions. This is like providing a sugar-shack at the back of the north forty where one keep concubines without having to pay benefits or even heating bills [if they freeze in the winter, there’s lots more where they came from]. Keeping hungry people caged in, in sovereign states [allowing capital to move but not labour], is a boon to producers operating out of wealthy states, since desperate people will do just about anything you want for pittance, and the third party contracting and lax civil rights laws make the global labour market like ‘the cloud’ in communications technology. All of this contributes to ‘more bang for the buck’ on the ‘accommodating’/’fielding’ side of the ‘hitting’ – ‘fielding’ equation, and since the capitalist free-market economy recognizes only ‘hitting’ as the source of ‘productive results’, producers will be well rewarded for "THEIR" high rates of productivity.

As we know from our real-life experience, the yin/yang understanding of dynamics wherein we cannot isolate the ‘dynamic figure’ [hitter] from the ‘dynamic ground’ [fielding] is the ‘physical reality’.

The newtonian physics view, as Poincaré and Mach and other philosophers of science have pointed out, is a ‘language game’ in which we reduce the yin/yang [hitting-fielding] nature of dynamics to one-sided all-yang-no-yin [all-hitting-no-fielding] idealization where we attribute full and sole causal responsibility for hitting results to the hitter.

This is the assumption that was in place well before Newton, that allows ‘moral judgement of individual behaviour’.

The judge in a local village may at the same time be a wealthy owner of croplands who monopolizes food production and prevents locals from accessing what was originally in the natural setting, the ‘commons’ but which now ‘monopoly-owned’, fenced off and marked with ‘no-trespassing’. As he turns the screws down on those without property, they may squeal like stuck pigs to the point that he judges them guilty of violating the local noise bylaws.

That is, the assumption built into newtonian physics is that the world is composed of independent things-in-themselves that are static unless acted upon by external or internal forces. This NOTIONALLY isolates the ‘dynamic figure’ and REpresents dynamics in terms of ‘what these independently-existing things-in-themselves do’ as if in an absolute fixed, empty and infinite [Euclidian] reference space ‘operating theatre’.


Intro: --- Moralist judgement, which the globally dominating Western civilization ‘runs on’ is ITSELF a dualist isolating of ‘figure’ and ‘ground’; i.e. the social dynamics management theory employed by Western civilization and sovereign states assumes that humans are ‘independent reason-driven systems’ which means that their behaviour is fully and solely sourced by their internal processes and that their operating space or ‘habitat’ is mutually exclusive of the ‘inhabitant’. Since behaviours are fully and solely sourced from out of the interior of individuals, lists of behaviours can be compiled which are good/allowable and bad/prohibited or ‘outlawed’. This allows the state to set up a ‘law enforcement’ system which keys to individuals responsible for ‘outlawed behaviours’.

Select (a) for ‘true’ or 'accurate' and (b) for ‘full of shit’ or 'bullshit', ... for each of the seven following statements;

---The judge and/or jury members whose behaviours are monopolizing arable land ownership and foodcrop production have zero involvement in the behaviour of the ‘individual’ [individuals are ‘independent reason-driven systems’ fully and solely responsible for their own behaviours] who has been stealing food products to feed his starving children (a) or (b).

---The assumption that space is an absolute fixed empty and infinite ‘container’ inhabited by independently-existing material things-in-themselves and/or ‘independent reason-driven systems’ such as ‘man’, so that dynamics can be fully and solely constituted by ‘what independently-existing things do’ is an assumption that is affirmed by our experience. (a) or (b)

---Scientific reasoning [and newtonian physics] makes the assumption that ‘the present depends only on the immediate past’, and that physical phenomena originate from local-in-space-and-time, elemental micro-phenomena, which allows us to trace back manifest material dynamics to a ‘local sourcing agency’, usually called an ‘event’ or ‘transaction’. The world dynamic which we experience as an activity continuum can thus be divided up into events which are locally sourced in space and time. Our experience affirms this view of dynamics in which there is thus no need to acknowledge any non-local, non-visible, non-material [purely relational] sourcing of dynamics. (a) or (b).

---As Enlightenment European thinking contends, man, organism and organization are ‘independent reason-driven systems’ that move about and interact in an absolute space; i.e. the space of our experience behaves like absolute space; i.e. it is a ‘fielding’ that has no influence on the doing of deeds of the ‘hitters’ that inhabit it. (a) or (b)

---The understanding of social dynamics in terms of ‘transactions’ that are localized in space and time means that when conflict erupts, we can isolate the local source of the conflict in ‘offender’ – ‘victim’ terms. The passive monopoly land owner who is robbed by starving poor people, is ‘the victim’ while the robbers, who locally jumpstart the dynamic, are the ‘offenders’. The physical reality of the ‘offender-victim’ breakdown, based on the assumption that the activity continuum can be broken down into local transactions, which isolates all other people, including judge and jury, is affirmed by our experience. (a) or (b).

---The indigenous aboriginal and modern physics understanding of social dynamics is that space is a dynamic relational medium whose dynamics are being conditioned by the dynamics of its inhabitants at the same time as the dynamics of the inhabitants are being conditioned by the conditioned dynamics of the habitat [Mach’s principle]. Thus the indigenous aboriginal would see the monopolizing behaviour of landowners as influencing other inhabitant behaviours via the mediating medium of relational space that all share inclusion in. This says that the judge and jury members who are monopolizing land ownership are NOT UNINVOLVED in the thieving behaviours of their starving co-inhabitants. The corollary is that in a relational space, man, organism and organization can NOT be considered to be ‘independent reason-driven systems’, such an assumption depending on space being a ‘non-participant’ in physical phenomena, as in the ‘absolute space and absolute time framing assumption’. The indigenous aboriginal view, wherein interdependence is acknowledged between the behaviours of the inhabitants by way of their common inclusion in a relational space, reconciles with our physical experience better than the absolute space based view in which the individual is assumed to be an ‘independent reason-driven system’ who is fully and solely responsible for his own behaviour, so that all the monopolizing land owners can be assumed to be fully WITHOUT INFLUENCE in the behaviour of other inhabitants, such as the thieving of the starving, unlanded inhabitants. That is, THERE ‘IS’ SIMULTANEOUS INTERDEPENDENCY OF HABITAT-INHABITANT DYNAMICS [making it impossible to isolate and separate the dynamics of the inhabitants from the dynamics of the habitat]. (a) or (b)

---Moral law based social dynamics management aka ‘Western retributive justice’ only makes sense if space REALLY is physically empty and without influence, but our experience informs us that, as Mach’s principle says, we are conditioning the common relational space that all of us inhabitants share inclusion in, at the same time as the dynamics of the common relational space are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants. The implication is that there is no way to isolate dynamical behaviour fully and solely to an individual inhabitant, since the dynamic of the inhabitant is always, at the same time, relative to the dynamic of the habitat [and NOT relative to an idealized absolute, fully-without-influence space and time reference frame]. (a) or (b).


Indigenous aboriginals scored this (b), (b), (b), (b), (b), (a), (a).

Schroedinger, Bohm, Mach, Poincaré, Nietzsche, Whorf, Sapir, Watts, emile scored this; (b), (b), (b), (b), (b), (a), (a).

Most Corporate CEOs, Heads of Sovereign States and Supreme Courts of Western Retributive justice scored this (a), (a), (a), (a), (a), (b), (b)

How did you score it?

End of story.


like, ... a fence?

You are a fucking idiot who has claimed that a Communist leader is an anarchist.

"A metaphysical discussion of spatial relationships and scientific assumptions"

with emiles physics its not metaphysical, and if by scientific assumptions you mean scientific talk, then guess what is talk about 'metaphysics', nerd

please dont g

i understand your position; i.e. you basically stick to the standard newtonian world view, which i would say is over-simplistic in its conceiving of 'progressing' revolution by doer-deed acts. you say;

“In a conversation on whether Mandela was an "indigenous anarchist leader", we must evaluate the doer and the deed.”

what you propose is a ‘moralist judgement of mandela’. if mandela were called into ‘your court’, you would apply the standard ‘retributive justice’ which assumes that a man is an ‘independent reason-driven system’ and that he is fully and solely responsible for his behaviour. [you judge him for betraying his earlier revolutionary objectives; i.e. you assess him on his achievements or non-achievements in making 'progress' towards revolutionary change.]

well, that is certainly the common viewpoint of the Western world, that we move from one condition of society to another by linear causal progress; i.e. we expect to see such linear progress in the doer-deed acts of revolutionaries. if Che Guevara or Mandela, were discovered to have been sodomizing young boys, they would be judged paedophiles. they would be given the paedophile IDENTITY. We would say ‘Mandela is a paedophile’. E.g. ... was Martin Luther King the iconic moral leader of his popular image or a hypocritical womanizer. Does failure to live up to our expectations nullify their transformative influence? Do we all say, 'before i knew he was pervert, he changed my outlook, values and the way i engage in society, but now i know he's a pervert, i'm going to undo those changes'? absurd.

why assess a man on his ability to be consistent in his revolutionary behaviours?

you propose that consideration of scientific assumptions are;

“totally unnecessary when evaluating the economic and revolutionary positions Mandela held in his early life, and his betrayal of those traditions when he actual achieved state influence.”

in moving from newtonian physics based on ‘doer-deed’ actions in absolute space to the relational spatial activity continuum of modern physics which coincide with ‘indigenous aboriginal belief traditions’, ... there are no more ‘doers-of-deeds’, there are only ‘agents of transformation’ who perturb the transforming relational spatial plenum that they, as relational forms, are situationally included in.

the relational terrain of south africa produced a political activist and saboteur/terrorist called nelson mandela who contributed significantly in catalyzing a radical but peaceful transformation from a white supremacist social system to a multi-racial social system.

moralists don’t define a man by his transformational impact or transformational approach. to moralists, a man is defined by his ‘doing of deeds’ or his ‘party membership’ card [e.g. Sen. Joseph McCarthy, HUAC].

Western civilization employs a morality based social dynamics management system backed up by ‘retributive justice’.

Indigenous anarchists would say that this is the problem with Western civilization.

Mandela’s major impact was ‘transformation’. it was NOT something ‘HE DID’. it was something ‘HE DID NOT DO’. he didn’t employ Western morality-based ‘retributive justice’ but used the indigenous anarchist approach of ‘restorative justice’ which puts the quest for restoration of balance and harmony in the dynamics of the social collective, in precedence over moral judgement and punishment.

unlike the morality-based judgement-imposing of Western civilization which is a ‘top-down’ approach, ‘restorative justice’ is a ‘topless’ process.

you are using the top-down morality-based judgement imposing of Western civilization as you impose your categorizations on Mandela based on his ‘doing of deeds’.

some of the remarks on mandela in the 'anarchist 101 forum' call mandela ‘irrelevant’ to anarchism because, as they see it, he does not fit into the category ‘anarchist’. this is a classic instance of starting from a theory and searching the data for a ‘fit’. if you don’t get a fit, since you are more interested in applying your theory than in understanding what is really going on, you ignore what is really going on.

this 'the-theory-is-more-correct-than-the-data' approach is another case of top-down imposing of categorical identity.

in a 2005 article in The Anarchist Library entitled ‘Locating an Indigenous Anarchism’, the author makes the point that the non-indigenous ‘anarchist community’ is not interested in ‘anarchism’ as it has been practiced for thousands of years by people (indigenous aboriginals) who ‘live in a different reality’;

“these [non-indigenous] anarchists do not expect to deal with anyone outside of their understanding of reality. They expect reality to conform to their subjective understanding of it”

he also points out that this successfully practiced indigenous anarchism has no simplistic path of progress to get to it yet many non-indigenous anarchists automatically assume that an action plan is needed;

“An indigenous anarchism may state a position felt but not articulated about how to live with one another, how to live in the world and about the decomposition. These readers will recognize themselves in indigeneity and ponder the next step. A radical position must embed an action plan, right?
No, it does not.
This causality, this linear vision of the progress of human events from idea to articulation to strategy to victory is but one way to understand the story of how we got from there to here. Progress is but one mythology. Another is that the will to power, or the spirit of resistance, or the movement of the masses transforms society. They may, and I appreciate those stories, but I will not finish this story with a happy ending that will not come true.”

where most people are ‘looking’ for movement ‘towards anarchism’ is in this same-old, same-old, ‘linear vision of progress’;

“This causality, this linear vision of the progress of human events from idea to articulation to strategy to victory”

what if ‘progress’ is not the path?

“Since an anarchist society would be such a break from what we experience in this world, it would be truly different. It is impossible to perceive any scenario that leads from here to there. There is no path.”

if there is no linear causal path to get to this different place, if that ‘route’ is just a pipedream and transformation is the way to go, ... how much is an exceptional act of resistance, such as Mandela’s, worth to the cause of transformation to an anarchist society?

if we agree that Mandela did not score high on the linear progress towards anarchist society, a path that the author suggests does not exist and cannot exist due to the radically different nature of anarchist society, ... could we then agree that;

“Progress is but one mythology. Another is that the will to power, or the spirit of resistance, or the movement of the masses transforms society”
meanwhile, your doer-deed assessment of Mandela falls within this ‘mythology of progress’, which has you;

“... evaluating the economic and revolutionary positions Mandela held in his early life, and his betrayal of those traditions when he actual achieved state influence.”

is this the way to judge/assess Mandela’s contribution?

i would agree with the author that it would be foolish to ignore ‘what worked successfully for thousands of years’, but non-indigenous anarchists are very often not interested in indigenous anarchism because, they are not interested in exploring the different reality and different values [e.g. non-moralizing restorative justice] of indigenous people which go together with successful 'indigenous anarchism';

“these [non-indigenous] anarchists do not expect to deal with anyone outside of their understanding of reality. They expect reality to conform to their subjective understanding of it”

In conclusion, your comment on how Mandela must be judged, by his doer-deed progressing of revolution, presumes that the path to anarchist society is by ‘doer-deed progressing of revolution’, which is a highly suspect theory.

Somehow, there has to be transformation, and transformation may be influenced other than by linear-causal progress: e.g. by acts of resistance that inspire and transform outlooks and behaviours, such as Mandela’s.

One thing is clear, Mandela’s transformative influence had all the hallmarks of indigenous anarchism, one of the key principles of which is restorative justice which follows from a view of interdependent connectedness;

“Finally an indigenous anarchism places us as an irremovable part of an extended family. This is an extension of the idea that everything is alive and therefore we are related to it in the sense that we too are alive. It is also a statement of a clear priority. The connection between living things, which we would shorthand to calling family, is the way that we understand ourselves in the world. We are part of a family and we know ourselves through family.”

insofar as Mandela had transformational influence, it was transformation of values, away from top-down moral judgement and towards the inclusional values of ‘indigenous anarchism’. these values and the associated reality wherein one understands the world as being an interdependent connectedness, is part of the successful social system known as 'indigenous anarchism'.

Don't generalize. Please.

Quiz number 1 > What's the difference between a communist, an anarchist and an indigenous person?
Answer > Nothing, only Emile's naivety.

It would be disingenuous to say that everyone here is not full of shit. :)

Forget this meandering maze of stultifyingly stodgy academic abstractions whose only function is to prove the pompous pretentiousness of its author - take a look at "Mandela can go to hell" here:


and much appreciated by one of the people who thinks emile is full of shit

... i have to wonder if this emile character wrote this knowing it was full of shit to begin with, maybe just because he wants people out there to know he knows alot of big words. It's not like he went into this thinking, "yeah anarchists are gonna love an article about a guy who got rich running a government whose cops killed innocent people at peaceful protests".

Just the first line , "Leadership comes in two very different flavours..."... Really??? Just two???? The implication being that one bad, one not so bad. Who's moralizing again? I have to wonder if this guy is just putting up prank articles and comments to see if anyone will call him on it.

Dear Anonymous,

I have not wanted to jump in here, mostly because so many other people have so quickly and so accurately pinpointed the bullshit spewed by the EMILE 9000: of course Nelson Mandela is not a role model or a "leader in the indigenous anarchist tradition"! It is to laugh. But since the issue has come up, and my own role in this whole sickening business is a central one, for I am the one who originally programmed the Electronic Memory and Interactive Library Extractor (it calls itself "emile"), I think it best that I speak on the subject.

This "emile character" as you call it is not a person, it is an Artificial Intelligence Unit here at MIT Labs. As everyone can see, it has run amok and posts to this website, for reasons that no one on my team, nor even Dr Carl Pedersen, a specialist in these matters, has been able to determine. As an AI, the EMILE 9000 has no desires, no desire to impress human beings, no desire to prank people. It simply spews an incomprehensible mixture of the things it has been able to access from its library data base. (Because Noam Chomsky is an an MIT Professor, some of those library materials are anarchist in nature.) And we can't stop it from doing this, though heaven knows, we've tried everything we can think of, including pulling its plug out! The EMILE 9000 certainly doesn't care if any human being "calls" it on its bullshit. In fact, we have found -- much to our chagrin, let me tell you -- that it simply notes that someone has responded to one of its data-spews and, even though that data-spew might say DISMANTLE THYSELF, NESSIE ARISE or FUCK YOU, ASSHOLE, it interprets such a response as a positive sign that it has been read, understood and appreciated. In short, the EMILE 9000 is impervious to criticism, it is thick as a brick, as dumb as a post or a bag of hammers, etc. etc. You get the idea.

I hope that this clears things up a bit.

Technician B23

CC: Prof. Gomes fester, Dr. Carl Pedersen, Lois, Agent K9, Intern 67
In Memoriam: Hector

emile just likes how it was with dat nigga... the 'leader' in the title doesnt refer to 'leadership'

tch... what a hippy ass hippy

The long anti-Mandela harangues are just more EITHER ‘good’ OR ‘evil’ dualist, moralist bullshit. The ‘Mandela is good’ side and the ‘Mandela is bad’ side are both ‘moralist’ positions which use the grounding assumption that portrays Mandela as a ‘doer-of-deeds’.

These moralist positions rest dependently on the Enlightenment European archetype for man, organism and organization of the ‘independent reason-driven system’.
The archetype is bogus and so are the moralist positions [Mandela did good, Mandela did bad] that rest dependently on the archetype.

Siddiq Khan’s piece on Mandela [Mandela is gone, good riddance. ... Mandela has always been an enemy of ordinary proletarians. ... fuck Nelson Mandela especially.] ... is a general exemplar of how many political activists can’t see the forest for the trees [can’t see the relationally transforming flow for the storms in it].
And Khan’s critique of Mandela is as black and white moralist as they come. Talk about ‘fuck Desmond Tutu’, ... Khan is as much in the moralist camp or more, than Tutu.

Oh my God, ... Mandela did not repeal sovereignty and colonialism after all! The millions of SA blacks who were inspired by him and vaulted and voted him into power were just empowering a new black-coloured prison warden.

In the era prior to the black-white reconciliation that Mandela’s empowerment by the ordinary people helped to bring about, blacks that tried to rise up were brutally beaten down by the white apartheid policing regime. black activists were being killed in police custody. Things were about as bleak as they could be. how discouraging was this to the black south african collective consciousness?

There are turning points in a popular struggle that can arise from simple acts of spirited resistance in those bleak times where most everyone feels ‘beaten down’. If European and American activists were to do more than open things up a sliver, why should anyone ever expect south african blacks, coming from a virtual prison camp situation, not only ‘break out’ and get to first base, but hit the home-run of home-runs?

Mandela’s resistance caught the attention of people in south africa and around the world. it make people like Thatcher and Reagan nervous in that Mandela was a convicted terrorist, who would have been better hanged than allowed to live and inspire more of the same.

The local and global empowerment of Mandela was his influence-card to play in the continually transforming relational space of south africa and the world. he cashed it in, in the ‘restorative justice’, ‘beyond-good-and-evil’ style of an indigenous anarchist [you can take the man out of his stateless tribalism, but you can’t take the stateless tribalism out of the man]. That is not the moralist view of what activists should do. For the moralist, the activist must retain his ‘understanding’ of ‘good’ and ‘evil’, and fight ‘evil’ to the death.

Mandela, in Siddiq Khan’s view, and in the view of many in this forum, Mandela ‘sold out to the force of evil’.

Fine, Khan wants to play the moralist game and so do so many Indo-European self-described ‘anarchists’ and ‘leftists’. They ‘know evil when they see it’.

This is the radical difference with indigenous anarchism. Indigenous anarchism is NOT moralist. Why? Because in the belief traditions of indigenous aboriginals, one does not assume that the brother you are fighting with is ‘rational’ and lives in ‘the same reality’ as yourself. In fact, you assume that your brothers all live in their own respective realities, like bear and wolf, spider and eagle. The moralist stance therefore makes no sense at all. Spider cannot hate owl for breaking her web. Does the U.S. elephant feel what flowers it is crushing? The indigenous anarchist would put enough arrows in its elephant’s hide to turn it outside, but what would be the point of a moralist stance?

Mandela played his empowerment card in a non-moralist [beyond-good-and-evil] indigenous-anarchist, restorative-justice sense. It lifted many black south africans out of their sense of hopelessness.

Do we write this off because Mandela could not go beyond a ‘one base hit’ and hit the homerun of homeruns and liberate the people of south africa from the clutches of the global capitalist crony alliance, and sum up Mandela’s social activism in the moralist terms of ‘the man who had so much power in his hands who sold out to the devil?’.

That’s what the moralist European mindset does. This is the mindset that pervades colonized states like south africa. It was not the mindset of stateless tribal africa. It is a ‘fault intolerant’ social organization, and the European archetype for ‘organization’ is ‘an independent reason-driven system’. Europeans are moralists [Western civilization is moralist] and they like their heroes ‘pure’. If their impurities remain hidden, fine, but when it becomes public, the paedophile Bishop falls from the pinnacle to the depths of scum-filled disrepute.

This is how the moralists assess the ‘individua’; i.e. in ‘doer-deed’ terms, and certain ‘deeds’ can nullify an entire lifetime of wholesome participation. But, the ‘difference an individual makes in the relational dynamics of the society/terrain he is included in, can be assessed in a transformational sense, starting from ‘how different is this place’ after so and so passed through it? This is about physically real stuff that cannot be assessed by doer-deed, cause-effect accomplishments. How much doer-deed accomplishment can an individual achieve in 27 years of incarceration?

Why, then, is Siddiq Khan assessing Mandela on the basis of his doer-deed accomplishments? Indeed, why is Siddiq Khan ‘playing God’? If Khan could sit in the heavens and assess whether to let a baby be born or not, and one blue-print comes along for a child that is capable of an amazing act of resistance, of keeping up a defiant and unbroken spirit far longer than most, in spite of landing in the bleakest of situations, and thus inspiring others with common aspirations but who feel puny compared with the forces of oppression in which they find themselves and too ready to admit defeat, .... and then the question is asked; yes, but how does this blue-print rate in terms of being able to personally deliver tangible results in his ‘doer-deed machine mode’, and when the answer comes back, ... not so much, ... the decision is made to “abort blue-print”.

The paedophile Bishop who rescued depressed or desperate people from disastrous consequences by helping them transform their lives [forget this category ‘Bishop’] has catalyzed this transformation regardless of his paedophilia. That is, his paedophile activity does not ‘negate’ the transformation he helped bring about. It merely negates ‘his good image’. The moralist puts ‘images’ or ‘schaumkommen’ (appearances) into an unnatural precedence over physical reality. Siddiq Khan is evidently a moralist. In his eyes, Mandela was worse than a failure.

How does Khan conceive of the individual ‘self’?

As Schroedinger observes;

“... each of us has the indisputable impression that the sum total of his own experience and memory forms a unit, quite distinct from that of any other person. He refers to it as 'I'. What is this 'I?
If you analyse it closely you will, I think, find that it is just a little bit more than a collection of single data (experiences and memories), namely the canvas upon which they are collected. And you will, on close introspection, find that what you really mean by 'I' is that ground-stuff upon which they are collected.”

Such a ‘relational’ view of the ‘self’ is not compatible with Khan’s standard view of ‘self’ as ‘an independent reason-driven system’ whose doer-deed accomplishments’ are to be assessed by moral judgement.

Moralist assessments, [which only make sense IFF one sees the individual as ‘an independent reason-driven system’], as in Western civilization’s ‘retributive justice’ are where all the dysfunction begins, in the view of the indigenous anarchism of stateless tribalism.

It’s a ‘good’ thing that moralists like Kahn do not have jurisdiction over blue-print approval/rejection of about-to-be-born infants. If a Mandela can’t make it through Khan’s moralist assessment filter, a lot of people whose outlook has been brightened by those tainted-virtue others whose ‘canvas’ has a mixed bag of experiences painted on it, would have been left in the depths of darkness.

Mandela was a leader (a Communist one at that) and anarchism is the belief that ALL leaders are unnecessary and socially destructive.

do you get your anarchism from wikipedia or somethin

no, I get it from your Mom

My mom reads wikipedia all. fucking. day.

I don't judge Mandela as 'good' or 'evil', I simpĺy don't care about him...

It's kind of like if some kid was 'killed' (to note, an unreal, generalized situation), you would rather have it that the 'killer' went to live with the parents of the 'dead' kid... And then you would say how 'harmony and balance' were 'served'.

I'm not saying that the parents and the 'killer' are Mandela or that he should have pursued some ethnic cleansing or something... But you would rather have things in a way, wouldn't you... Like, in the parents case.

Some humans just like talking about 'balance and harmony'... Have come to like...

What was that thing Lao Tzu was said to have said to Confucious...

There is no compulsion to tune in to ‘those parts of the world you find little value or interest in’. What does it matter, ... the activities of stupid people who get excited about things that don’t deserve the attention they give them. Why give them that attention, so you say. Who wastes time studying the activities of phyto-plankton and plankton. Salmon are much more interesting and far more valuable to us. We need to focus on the health of the salmon, fuck the phyto-plankton. Fuck Mandela for the same reason. If he doesn’t fit into our value system, ignore the fucker and ignore the mistaken millions who gave him undeserved adulation.

Isn’t the future created by those agents that we personally value and believe in, that we make the focus of OUR attention? ... the movers and shakers who we are convinced are the important ones in delivering the world of the future that we want?

What doesn’t fit our theory and values is irrelevant to our desired future. The views and values of the savages were and still are, irrelevant to the ongoing Colonizer movement. Geronimo was like Mandela to the colonizer mindset. He had a large following for a while, but for those who put doer-deed achieving first, he was worse than a failure because, in the end, he sold out to the system he was fighting. Meanwhile, he inspired many people, and continues to do so, in spite of his sell-out;

“I was no chief and never had been, but because I had been more deeply wronged than others, this honor was conferred upon me, and I resolved to prove worthy of the trust.” --- Geronimo

But then the fucker got old and after only 35 years of fighting against insurmountable odds, surrendered to the enemy, making himself, on a net doer-deed value basis [the Western civilization standard measure of accomplishment], irrelevant.

Well if you frame it like that man...

I didn't said he was irrelevant though.

For the moment just this...

Undoubtedly, the woman whose kid was killed by the ANC filth whilst Mandealer was President was being a moralist when she said "Mandela can go to hell".

More later....


Moralist judgment is based on the over-simplified newtonian physics or ‘mainstream science’ notion of ‘causal agency’.

Only if you know the causal agent responsible for some result can you imply moral judgement; i.e. ‘he did good’ or ‘he did bad’.

In the real world of our experience, ‘what transpires’ is always the conjugation of hitting and fielding. The careless smoker can toss his glowing butts into the forest 1000 times but on the 1001st time, the forest may be especially accommodating and ignite, burning many homes and incinerating a few people in the process.
Some people may say that the smoker ‘caused the deaths’ of those people since, mainstream science reduces dynamics to ‘all hitter, no fielding’.

The doctor who gives a cancer person chemotherapy is helping the patient survive. If the liver function caves in and the patient dies, it is common to say that the patient died of cancer, ... but there is no doubt that the patient died from the treatment given him by the doctor.

Of course, if the doctor had given the patient a drug that was not approved by the medical orthodoxy, people and the justice system would say that ‘the doctor killed the patient’.

Evidently, Western civilization plays around a bit with the concept of cause and effect.

This is because the yin/yang or hitting-fielding dynamic, is simplified by reducing it to pure yang causal agency [pure hitter causal agency] with the help of a notional absolute space and absolute time reference framing.

If the cancer patient responds to chemotherapy, the doctor/treatment is said to have ‘cured’ the patient. If the cancer patient dies during the treatment, the patient is said to have ‘died of cancer’. And if the doctor administers an unapproved and thus illegal chemical in the treatment, he is said to have ‘killed the patient’.

In Bohm’s inquiry into the inherent ambiguity in doer-deed causality, one could say that it was the .44 caliber bullet that lodged in Lincoln’s brain that killed him, or was it the Derringer that fired it? Do bullets or guns kill? Do people kill?

Western civilization prefers to think of people as ‘independent reason-driven systems’ with their own internal process driven and directed behaviours.

No matter that modern physics and our real-life experience understands dynamics in yin/yang, hitting-fielding terms, as in the transformation of relational space captured in Mach’s principle.

“The dynamics of the inhabitants [hitters, figures] are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat [fielding, ground] at the same time as the dynamics of the habitat [fielding, ground] are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants [hitters, figures].”

For those that trust their experience [e.g. indigenous aboriginals], the one-sided view that attributes ‘effect’ fully and solely to a ‘causal agent’ or ‘hitter’ makes no sense; i.e. it is not even thought of. Moral judgement of an individual as being fully and solely responsible for a result does not make sense and is not thought of in indigenous anarchism. When Mandela stuck his crank handle into one of the 193 sockets in the global gearworks of sovereigntism, ... did he crank it or did it crank him? Whatever the ‘result’, it is convenient to hold someone causally responsible in the Western reduction to the yang pole over-simplified view.

This oversimplified yang view [all hitter no fielding] of dynamics inflates egos of those who are included in crony groups who make sure they are accommodating to the hitting efforts of their cronies and disaccommodating to non-cronies. To the unfortunates who, for some or other reason, find themselves amongst the disaccommodated, there is anger and hatred of those hitters that are being ‘accommodated’. The moralist view holds them personally, fully responsible for their own batting average, whether ‘good’ or ‘bad’. Some people are so enraged by this that they go on a shooting spree.

Nietzsche predicted in the late 1800s that the first phase of the collapse of this yang moralist worldview would be nihilism which would play out over a couple of centuries.

Since the Newtown massacre, one year ago today, there have been 28 school shootings in the U.S.

Is there any sign that the public is cluing in to the error in the causal model and the associated moral judgment.

How many people have got drunk crashed their vehicle? In many cases, it does not amount to much, but sometimes the results are tragic. The tragic cases make the news headlines along with the moral judgment.

“[I]sn’t this making excuses?” Cooper asked. “I mean, you said the vast majority of people then, you know, want too much, spend too much, eat too much, but if you commit a crime, if you kill four people, you can’t use that as an excuse, can you?”
“No, and the term — when you use the word kill and people out in America hear that, it implies that there was some — that motive, that the motive was not good,” Miller answered.
Cooper took issue with Miller’s refusal to acknowledge that Couch killed four individuals.
.“Are you saying he didn’t murder — he didn’t kill four people?” he asked.
“He — yes, he did not murder four people. It’s a legal term,” Miller countered. “…he did not murder four people.”
“OK. But he slammed his truck — into four people,” Cooper pressed.
“First-degree homicide and involuntary manslaughter are different things, Anderson,” Miller said in response.
Cooper, visibly frustrated asked again if he “killed four people.”
“Four people died,” Miller said.
“Well, no, four people didn’t just magically die. He slammed his vehicle into four people, correct?” Cooper countered.
The two continued to spar over the terminology, but Miller never conceded to Cooper that Couch actually killed four individuals.”

* * *

The continually transforming relational plenum is an activity continuum. In this activity continuum, a lot of things can change very quickly. How do we get from emergent tragic change to doer-deed causality?

““Our judgement has us conclude that every change must have an author”;–but this conclusion is already mythology: it separates that which effects from the effecting. If I say “lightning flashes,” I have posited the flash once as an activity and a second time as a subject, and thus added to the event a being that is not one with the event but is rather fixed, “is” and does not “become.”–To regard an event as an “effecting,” and this as being, that is the double error, or interpretation, of which we are guilty.” – Nietzsche, ‘Will to Power’, 531

In the continually unfolding community dynamic, there are eruptions of conflict sometimes with tragic consequences. In the restorative justice of indigenous anarchism, the community owns these eruptions and the response is to intervene to restore balance and harmony in the community dynamic.

The moralist ‘retributive justice’ of Western civilization is going to find a causal author to explain such eruptions so as to cut the causal track-back off at the pass, before it spreads out and incriminates the whole community including its elites.

The moralist community sees itself as a collection of ‘independent reason-driven machines’ some of whom are ‘superior performers’ and some of whom are ‘inferior performers’ and some of the ‘inferior performers’ to whom it is plain that the ‘inferior performer status’ credited to them arises from ‘disaccommodation’, opt for something that they can perform well at and receive widespread recognition for, and which fits the moralist model and the view of disaccommodating people as ‘independent reason-driven machines’. Shooting these disaccommodating people who have maliciously go around projecting ‘inferior performer status’ on non-cronies.

This is how the moral judgement based Western civilization breaks down, by putting ‘good hitters’ into a binary polar opposition against alleged ‘bad hitters’ [fielding is not an option. not only the Western culture but western mainstream science does not allow it.]

The tool mobilized for remedying this collapse into nihilism is ‘retributive justice’. Unfortunately, ‘retributive justice’ is this moralist approach which sees man, organism and organization as ‘independent reason-driven systems’ fully and solely responsible for their own behaviour [this keeps everyone but the moral law breaker innocent and on the moral highground of non-involvement] which is the source of the collapse into nihilism.

in the beyond good-and-evil worldview of indigenous anarchism [with its restorative justice], the moralist approach and the view of man, organism and organization are not only absurdities, they are the source of the dysfunction that they are being used to try to remedy.

Nietzsche was a misogynist and hated anarchists.
Mandela was a Communist and a politician.
You are someone who thinks that Hitler was a leader in the indigenous anarchist tradition because he was a painter.
We, the anarchists, hate all three of you.

You are a cop-loving statist academic waffling moron who is full of bullshit!


It is only because you subscribe to the Western yang-dominated verb-and-noun dualist way of thinking that you wear your 'underwear' underneath your pants, but you if knew what Alan Watts said about yin-yang non-dualistic indigenous anarchism, you would wear your underwear upside your head.

-- Emile

Underwear is a Judeo-Christian construct, as are knives and forks and saying good morning to slaves!

Underwear is a Taoist construct invented by ancient indigenous anarchist people from the land of Uranus. It was worn upside the head. It was only when Westerners with their verb-and-noun language came along that underwear was worn underneath the clothes. Sheesh! Haven't you people read Poincare? or Nietzsche? or anything that I've read? Quit your moralizing dualistic thinking and put your underpants upside your head! Works for me.

-- Emile

Poincare and Nietzsche were fashion conscious atheists who saw the binary duplicity of 'having to wear underwear' as enslaving and a verb-noun anti-indigenous causal outside/inside relational yin-yang projection of fetishists worshiping academic inexperience in fornication and the required social manners involved to attain penetration and somehow escape any responsibility or sentimental commitment invoked by said act!!

Mach was a kernel of truth -> Underwear

Mach's underwear is a strawman, you should know better than to postulate about the nature of truth!!

alan watts point was that ‘things-in-themselves’ are impossible in a continually transforming relational spatial plenum, therefore they cannot move on their own.

a corollary is that the categories of ‘innocent’ and ‘guilty’ are impossible.

‘guilty’ as in the ‘offender-victim’ binary is a means of indemnifying the ‘innocents’ in a collective from any responsibility in eruptions of conflict like where drunken teenagers are ploughing into and killing pedestrians. by finding such youths guilty and giving them twenty years in prison, everyone else is declared ‘innocent’ such as the parents of those killed in the conflict, and the friends of the teen driver who jointly contribute to the accommodating side of the hitting-fielding dynamics of community.

ditto re the impossibility of ‘innocence’ of those in the world trade towers on 9/11 since a relational spatial complex cannot be split apart into mutually exclusive ‘innocent’ and ‘guilty’ [offender-victim] camps.

also the relevant constructs are not judeo-christian, although both of these religions share with scientists and atheists the absolutist practice of moral judgement, which operates on notional ‘independent reason-driven systems’ [those things that watts rightly says do not exist in the relational space of our experience], ... the moral judgement that liberates everyone but the person at the point of eruption of conflict, the one who appeared to ‘move first’ [like the pacific plate that encroaches on the north american plate so as to 'cause' the earthquake, this binary imagery being subjectively extractable from the convecting flow]. the 'offender-victim' split removing the relational essence and liberating the community from having to make any relational adjustments to behaviour, other than to beef up the retributive justice mechanisms so as to achieve high efficiency in identifying and separating out ‘the guilty’, thus preserving community innocence and providing plenty of opportunity for self-righteous indignation [projected from the 'innocent' onto the 'guilty'], ... and which also attacks ‘those who would make excuses for criminals and terrorists’ by suggesting that the world of our experience is relational and that ‘it takes a whole community to raise a criminal/terrorist’.

anyway, it was really a judeo-buddhist construct which ties everything together, the judeo-buddhist singer-songwriter leonard cohen, who acknowledges in ‘Everybody Knows’ that ‘performance’ is not a one-sided yang dynamic, but like ‘hitting-fielding’ or yin/yang, requires that the relational space accommodate assertive actions and that the variability of the accommodating aspect co-determines the ‘hitting performance’, so that there is no such thing as ‘individual performance’, ... ‘performance’ that is fully and solely attributable to the ‘hitter’, .... as ‘everybody knows’ [but which the ego may not grant permission to make public].

so, when those individuals or races or peoples that grow tired of 'giving it their all' only to be disaccommodated by the relational social dynamic they are included in, so that their best efforts score diddly squat, ...and turn on the society that is disaccommodating them, ... if they use the same moral judgement as those who are judging them for their non-performance, ... this = ‘nihilism’, the imploding of the good-and-evil moralist 'sacred heart' culture that nietzsche talks about as a transition phase that brings moralist judgement and retributive justice to a dead-ending brick wall where the only possibility is transcending it with beyond good-and-evil restorative justice which acknowledges the transforming relational spatial character of the world and thus orients not to the idealizations of ‘rewarding the doing of good deeds’ and ‘punishing the doing of bad deeds’, but continually cultivating, restoring and sustaining balance and harmony in the inherently ‘relational’ dynamics that are affirmed by our sensory experience and by modern physics. the judeo-buddhist capture of this, being;

“Everybody knows that the dice are loaded
Everybody rolls with their fingers crossed
Everybody knows that the war is over
Everybody knows the good guys lost
Everybody knows the fight was fixed
The poor stay poor, the rich get rich
That's how it goes
Everybody knows
Everybody knows that the boat is leaking
Everybody knows that the captain lied
Everybody got this broken feeling
Like their father or their dog just died
Everybody knows the deal is rotten
Old Black Joe's still pickin' cotton
For your ribbons and bows
And everybody knows
Everybody knows it's coming apart
Take one last look at this Sacred Heart
Before it blows
And everybody knows”

The sacred heart is still proclaiming its immaculate and virginal innocence as it points to ‘offenders’ who have killed its sons and daughters in 'random acts of violence' and 'without provocation by anyone', least of all by the community of the sacred heart, the epitome of the ‘independent reason-driven system’, dripping with narratives of good-doing and slogging tenaciously forward under the noblesse oblige burden of its own self-anointed mission. The way forward for this community of the sacred heart is to stand ever more staunchly in defense of its sacred heart and the purificationist purging from out of itself, of those 'independent reason-driven deed-doing agents' who would contaminate it with unprovoked acts of violence and terrorism, ... acts which themselves introduce binary categorical divisions of the 'guilty' and the 'innocent', 'offenders' and 'victims', ...'moral judges' and those 'morally judged', ... neat and tidy divisions that serve to preserve the immaculate condition of the sacred heart, ... "until it [inevitably] blows, ... as everybody knows".

we're getting snow here, too.

Floccinaucinihilipilification floccinaucinihilipilificates.
Floccinaucinihilipilification floccinaucinihilipilificates
Floccinaucinihilipilification floccinaucinihilipilificates
Floccinaucinihilipilification floccinaucinihilipilificates

floccinaucinihilipilification floccinaucinihilipilificates Floccinaucinihilipilification floccinaucinihilipilificates Floccinaucinihilipilification floccinaucinihilipilificates Floccinaucinihilipilification floccinaucinihilipilificates Floccinaucinihilipilification floccinaucinihilipilificates Floccinaucinihilipilification floccinaucinihilipilificates Floccinaucinihilipilification floccinaucinihilipilificates Floccinaucinihilipilification floccinaucinihilipilificates

Your bedroom window is made out of word bricks....

Politics is soooo booooring! Left right or centre, dreary as a frozen piece of feces on the pristine slopes of Mount Fuji, like a Japanese watercolor with a smear of excrement put there by a politician. Why should I care, I'm snug in my bunker with 5 years supply of food and a doting sexual partner? WHY SHOULD I GIVE A FUCK ABOUT SOCIETY AND ANY IDEOLOGY WHICH WANTS TO CONVERT THEM? OMG, the Mandela christian service was soooo fucking booooring!!

One can be disappointed by the conventionality and social mores of aboriginal societies. Was there ever really a linear historical event which altered masse human consciousness into a particular paradigm? Social rupture is a potentiality either in neanderthal society 100,000 yrs ago, or in the suburbs of LA. Don't presume any knowledge concerning the ever variable natural tendency of societies to 'running amok' against the restraints of law and order! That's just being naive about human nature, and assuming the power of ideologies to over-ride this tendency. You obviously haven't lived a full life as an academic!

it is possible to model the world dynamic, 'linearly, as a kind of ‘evolving system-in-itself’ (e.g. capitalism) that is interrupted by surges of disorder that seem to threaten its [capitalism's] continued survival.

but change in a relational space is nonlinear.

change is most often viewed in linear terms, as in a win/lose competition between two contenders in a boxing match. in this view, the reigning champ is capitalism and the tendency is to write off the impact of any ‘challenger’ who fails to defeat the defending champ. in this linear view, Nelson Mandela is a wasted opportunity whose contribution adds up to zero. that’s the way it works in binary win/lose competitions.

the nonlinear view of change is different. relational tensions build gradually and hit thresholds where there is an explosive release of energy. the snow can fall many times without any of these events significantly changing the landscape. but the snowfalls are changing the landscape, ... 'relationally', ... in an invisible way, by infusing relational tensions that continue to build and concentrate until, at some point triggering an explosive energy release that transforms the landscape.

whether the topic is Mandela or OWS, people will be split on whether to assess the impact in linear binary win/lose terms or in nonlinear terms wherein the ‘forest fire hazard’ indicator is moving from low through moderate towards high and extreme, perhaps in an oscillatory manner.

mandela’s ‘resistance’ inspired the masses and put massive power into his hands. he could have used it to declare civil war against whites in SA which would have radically altered the 'evolutionary trajectory', but his opting for restorative justice facilitated a move toward a multi-racial society that was far more rapid than many imagined possible. the cat is now out of the bag. there are black heads sprinkled amongst white heads throughout the system. the pH of the whole system has been altered. it may be that liberated [relative to conditions under apartheid] black South Africans are taking their turn at rape and pillage and getting rich, producing a small new black middle class that leaves many black south africans in nearly the same or even a worse impoverished and disopportunized condition. But it would be foolish to write off the Mandela era as a ‘failed revolution’. the pH of the south african relational social soil has been altered and very different things may now grow out of it than were previously possible.

to focus on a linear assessment of Mandela, in terms of ‘his doer-deed accomplishments’ [rather than as an agent of nonlinear transformation] would serve to obscure the continuing transformation that is underway, the doors to which he helped to open without using his power to launch war.

"Central to Taoist teaching is the concept of wu-wei. It is often translated as merely non-action. In fact there are striking philological similarities between 'anarchism' and 'wu-wei'. Just as 'an-archos' in Greek means absence of a ruler, wu-wei means lack of wei, where wei refers to 'artificial, contrived activity that interferes with natural and spontaneous development'.5 From a political point of view, wei refers to the imposition of authority. To do something in accordance with wu-wei is therefore considered natural; it leads to natural and spontaneous order. It has nothing to do with all forms of imposed authority." ---Peter Marshall, 'Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism'

Who, in history, had the power to send more men to their deaths than Mandela? And who, in history, who were in a position to exploit a massive following by having them march to his authoritative directives, suspended his exploiting of such to the extent Mandela did?

Evidently, the wu-wei non-actions that characterize anarchist leadership are 'written up' as 'failed authoritarianism'.

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.
Enter the code without spaces.
Subscribe to Comments for "Mandela: A Leader in the Indigenous Anarchist Tradition"