Open your eyes, time to wake up, enough is enough is enough is enough

<table><tr><td>From <a href="</a>

I read my friend Rachel&#8217;s <a href="">recent blog entry</a> about the <a href="">ethics of care</a> and <a href="">healing trauma</a>, and that reminded me of something, something that is very important to me. <b>Caring is an essential component to my political world-view.</b> I quite literally cannot <a href="">envision a new anarchist world</a>, that is, a world that is not structured by things like government, prisons, police, domination or hierarchy of any kind &#8211; I cannot see such a world existing or surviving without a deep sense of caring being the norm that people have for each-other.</td><td><img title="I care a great deal... about violence!" src=""></td></tr><...
And yet, I am struck by the profound absence of caring, again and again and again and again. This goes for radicals and &#8220;normal people&#8221;, anarchists and politicians alike. Caring, real caring, is seeming to be conspicuously absent in people&#8217;s lives, relationships, outlook on society and vision for the future. An example for this (aside from what Rachel has already mentioned in her blog entry) is the song by <a href="">Chumbawamba</a> that I link to at the top of this blog entry. It is a damn catchy song, I love it, and yet, the line that immediately follows the chorus that I am using as the title for this blog entry is: &#8220;give the fascist man a gun-shot&#8221;. To me, killing people, especially the act of labeling large swaths of people into certain categories, and then executing all of the people within that category &#8211; that all belies a profound lack of caring.
Within self-described anarchist circles there is a kind of fashionable chic going around now that has violence, or at least the rhetoric and images of violence, seem really awesome and desirable. I suppose that this kind of thing has existed within anarchist scenes for a long time now, which has partly fueled the image within popular society that &#8220;anarchists&#8221; are all violent maniacs. I recently read a quote by the radical socialist author <a href="">William Morris</a> who describes my sentiments exactly: <b>&#8220;I cannot for the life of me see how the principles of anarchism, which propose the abolition of compulsion, can admit of promiscuous slaughter as a means of converting people&#8221;</b>. For me, the glue that holds a society or a group of people together, without compulsion, coercion or a state structure present, is that the people involved really do care about each other to some degree.
In a more mainstream picture of the world, right now the U.S. government is regularly and <a href=" killing</a> <a href="">scores of people</a> in <a href=" countries</a> <a href=" the world</a> by using <a href="">unmanned drone planes</a>. A <a href="">recent editorial I read</a> describes these attacks as being &#8220;too clinical; they are like video games&#8221;. It is a totally impersonal way to kill people, and it is more and more becoming the norm, because it results in far less U.S. casualties. At least directly. A lot of the time when people try to hurt or kill other people out of revenge it is done so out of a motivation of <i>&#8220;NOW you will understand the pain that I am feeling, because of the death of my loved ones. I will MAKE YOU UNDERSTAND this pain that I am feeling, by having you experience the death of YOUR loved ones.&#8221;</i> I am guessing that when you don&#8217;t even see the people that are killing your loved ones, when you just see death machines flying around in the sky, the urge is then even stronger to have the people that are behind it understand the pain that is being caused.
Death by drone strikes seems to me to be a part of a much larger trend in society of a way of dealing with horrors and death &#8211; hide it away from direct viewing. Other forms of abuse and death do the same thing &#8211; the whole massive prison-industrial complex, old people dying in nursing homes, news stories of people being killed by suicide bombers all over the world getting little tiny blurbs being written about it in the newspapers. I recently went to <a href="">a play performance by a touring radical theater group</a> where the play that they gave enacted out some of the various different horrors of prison life in this country. The idea being that if you see real-life people right in front of your face suffering different pains and injustices then you would have it begin to sink in that this kind of thing actually is taking place in this world that you live in. It is no longer so damned abstract that you can&#8217;t really believe that it&#8217;s happening.
However, there is also another dynamic &#8211; that of people being exposed to all kinds of different scenes and images of pain, suffering and violence regularly, on an on-going basis, as a form of entertainment. This is very popular, very normal, very &#8220;cool&#8221; even. The idea is that seeing this kind of thing taking place, regularly, on a daily basis even, makes you numb to it. It takes the meaning and the real-ness out of the whole thing. It all then ceases to matter. There is no caring in this, even though you see that it is going on.
To counter all of this, I want caring &#8211; a regular on-going practice of real, conscious, intentional caring. There are different ways to go about this, to cultivate this, and my personal favorite is a Buddhist practice &#8211; &#8220;<a href="">Mettā</a> meditation&#8221;. The idea is that after meditating for a bit, you then shift your attention to your body sensations in the present moment (particularly around in your heart-area) and saying to yourself something along the lines of <i>&#8220;May all beings be happy. May all beings be peaceful. May all beings be free from suffering&#8221;</i>. There are other ways to do Mettā meditation too, and other non-Mettā ways to cultivate real caring exist as well. The important thing is to really encourage within yourself conscious sincere wanting the well-being of other people &#8211; even if you do not know these people or even if you actively dislike them.
What I see as being important, from both a spiritual perspective as well as a radical social change perspective, is that people really do see and acknowledge all of the different pains, hurtings, sufferings and injustices that are taking place all over the world. And, together with seeing & acknowledging that, then sincerely responding within one&#8217;s self, within one&#8217;s heart, with a real feeling of caring and well-wishing for those people (or non-people, as the case may be). Whatever actions may be taken then, to help to remedy the situation, comes forth out of both seeing & knowing what is going on, as well as really actually feeling & wanting the best for those involved.
I don&#8217;t consider myself to be a pacifist, so please do not write off (or write up) what I am saying as being some kind of hard-line pacifist ranting. What is important to me is really, actually, caring about people. Really wanting people to be well, happy and healthy. Coming from this, I see nonviolence as usually being the best way to go about things, simply because violence often hurts people, and the idea is to minimize hurt, not to make more of it. (Paul R. Fleischman wrote up a good little essay about this perspective that I recommend, entitled <a href="">&#8220;The Buddha Taught Nonviolence, Not Pacifism&#8221;</a>)
Perhaps I am just a big sentimental softie here, but I just see wide-spread caring as being so important, so essential, a big part of what we all, or at least myself, am going for here. You can call me &#8220;unrealistic&#8221;, &#8220;naïve&#8221;, or a &#8220;dogmatic ideological&#8221; so-and-so. But I don&#8217;t care. Because as I see it, there is so much more, and so many more people out there, to care about.


the more people you care about, the less real the care is.

actually, some people are different than that. and that is true for some people. people are different. goddamn. i think this article is great.

lets fight

This article is great comedy. The writer sounds like a very intelligent, 2nd year High School student, (what's after "middle school"...later school?) who just discovered Metta meditation and that "violence hurts people".

I love the sincerity of the article. It's very sincere,

A comic needing more material.

I don't think the caring is less real, it's just different. Caring for strangers is really totally different than caring for the people you know. Caring for everybody is different still. None is less real, though, and they're all important.

This is a good article. I'm probably even less non-violent than the author, but he's damn right.

Exactly. At the first line, I thought, oh good, an intelligent article about the importance of care! Just what's lacking in our circles. Then when I saw the cliched contrast between care and violence I thought, dammit dammit dammit dammit! Haven't we gotten beyond this yet? Are people getting stupider, or is everyone suffering from amnesia??

There is no contradiction between caring for ourselves, and establishing care as a norm, and defending ourselves forcefully against our enemies. Fascists go around knifing people, or they get into power and do much worse. It's not about fucking opinions. Don't be so fucking naive, author. You can't care for people who mean to enslave or exterminate us, nor should you. It ain't healthy.

"You can't care for people who mean to enslave or exterminate us..."

I really doubt the author is promoting this idea, and I in fact recall an explicit mention of not being a pacifist.

You are wrong.

"the line that immediately follows the chorus that I am using as the title for this blog entry is: “give the fascist man a gun-shot”. To me, killing people, especially the act of labeling large swaths of people into certain categories, and then executing all of the people within that category – that all belies a profound lack of caring."

The author bemoans our lack of caring for fascists. FTS

You're absolutely right, there's no contradiction between establishing care as a norm and defending ourselves forcefully against our enemies. I'm not the original author but I agree fully with what was said in the article and yet I still see no contradiction between care and fighting.

I would recast your lukewarm statement a lot more clearly, though: there is in fact no contradiction between caring for others and fighting against them.

Because you *CAN* care for people who mean to enslave or exterminate you.

You can care for your enemies by understanding that they are simply mistaken. They think and act based on a false view of the world and society. A view that's not only harmful to others, but to them also. They may not have had the the right exposure to truth that we've had and they may lack the ability to understand it even if they did because they've been brought up depp inside a system of oppression. When it comes to their ultimate humanity, they are as oppressed as the people they oppress.

None of this should lessen your ability to fight against them, though. You can still smash a cop in the face with your boot when he hits the ground. But later you can also talk about real shit to a cop in the hospital when you're under arrest and waiting to be cleared for jail. You may not change either of those cops' understanding in the end, but if you do it right you will have cared and you'll be building a better society as a result. You'll also be building a better self, maybe as a side-effect.

This post is so annoying. There is nothing wrong with a little mass murder.

Don't try and tell all the slave identifieds that.

Sure is hot in these rhinos.

Exactly, people need to see the movie "God Bless America".

If you really care about this world, you will need to kill the assholes within it.


i like pain and suffering and conflict and enmity and hatred. fuck off

i like conflict and pain and suffering and enmity and especially hatred but i also like pleasure and caring and love. i don't fit in with any of you fucks.

..? pleasure and caring and love come out of the first four...? get ur anarchy right and fuck off

wait, which one comes first again?

fuck off fuck you fuck you fuck off yeahhhh i love anarchists

Cogent argument. Thank you for contributing to the discourse.

Seriously die

I really like this. Thank you.

fuck your crappy lite-anarcho-buddhist analysis eh

This is a beautiful article. I came to believe in anarchy through my compassion and my conscious intolerance towards the subjugation of others to suffering.

Kill powerlines, not people.

Yeah, sure.

What is a person? How are they different from a powerline? Holes in your argument EVERYWHERE.

you are a dolt cracker

you are a fool lollipop so there.

Anarchotics, I still love you. Remember the nights we had together, me, you and Nabat on yahoo messenger? That pleasant walk after NAAC? I miss you.

enough is enough is enough of you writing articles

there are many caring people that cannot bear to see how the overwhelming power of authoritarian government can trap people in miserable life situations, with the authorities not only NOT doing anything to relieve the misery, but standing in the way of needed restorative justice.

dislodging obstacles to the rescue of those that the power hierarchy is crushing and humiliating is what caring people naturally try to do. as the buddhist essay says;

“If one truly believes that qualities of heart and mind constitute enlightenment, and that the highest welfare for all beings is a life of harmony and peace, then permitting someone else to perpetrate harm without consequences is not nonviolence.”

Nonviolence has room for strong actions whose origins rest in concerned and caring motives.”

there is a lot of rhetoric attached to anarchist activism that sounds vicious and vengeful, but does that negate the caring motives. scaring people to wake them up out of their passivity which stands in the way of change can be ‘caring in disguise’. yelling at a child to get the fuck out of the roadway, can come from caring, with the aim of getting the child's attention and having the child understand that 'this is serious business'.

if a person finds himself in a violent confrontation where injuries to others and/or himself may transpire, it is at that point and in that action that the dhamma requires one to suspend hate, like a native warrior in battle with the colonizing whites, that understands it is a ‘brother’ that he is bringing down, perhaps a strong and courageous and spirited brother;

“It [the dhamma] is often described as an absence rather than a presence - an absence of hate, ill will and delusion, an absence of viewpoints and beliefs.”

life's circumstances can pit brother against brother.

the author says;

“I recently read a quote by the radical socialist author William Morris who describes my sentiments exactly: “I cannot for the life of me see how the principles of anarchism, which propose the abolition of compulsion, can admit of promiscuous slaughter as a means of converting people”

the violent language used by activists is like the scary faces of the maori; it is largely symbolic to get people to back off from doing harm. does it translate into a real strategy of ‘promiscuous slaughter as a means of converting people’? that is way off target. the talk of slaughter is not to coerce ‘conversion’, it is instead a warning coming from usually non-violent people that; “permitting someone else to perpetrate harm without consequences is not nonviolence", ... a warning that THERE WILL BE consequences for those who perpetrate harm that will come from [normally] non-violent, caring, anarchists, because 'they care'.

+10 Emile, finally a post that doesn't contain 'doer-deed' or 'Mach.'


Wow. I've never really bothered to read a lot of your comments before this one, since I generally spot a lot of unfamiliar and/or unfathomable terminology - but this was completely coherent and actually makes damn good points.

"there is a lot of rhetoric attached to anarchist activism that sounds vicious and vengeful, but does that negate the caring motives. scaring people to wake them up out of their passivity which stands in the way of change can be ‘caring in disguise’. yelling at a child to get the fuck out of the roadway, can come from caring, with the aim of getting the child's attention and having the child understand that 'this is serious business'."
"the violent language used by activists is like the scary faces of the maori; it is largely symbolic to get people to back off from doing harm. does it translate into a real strategy of ‘promiscuous slaughter as a means of converting people’? that is way off target. the talk of slaughter is not to coerce ‘conversion’, it is instead a warning coming from usually non-violent people that; “permitting someone else to perpetrate harm without consequences is not nonviolence", ... a warning that THERE WILL BE consequences for those who perpetrate harm that will come from [normally] non-violent, caring, anarchists, because 'they care'."

now I dont know who the fuck you are but this is the best fuckin comment Ive fuckin read all week!,,,keep up the good fuckin rants!,..,8ball

ann arky; As an adult you have a certain degree of authority over a child and an obligation to care for the child, so have a right to shout at it to get of the road, it hasn't gained enough experience to care for itself. You don't have any authority over an adult, so what gives you right to shout/scare them because of what you believe?

children = humans whose actions may, by their single-minded focus and relative unconsciousness, lead to injury to themselves and others (two-leggeds, four-four-leggeds, rooted, finned and winged ones).

as we know from the damage that continues to be done by belief in sovereigntism/authoritarianism, this 'condition' of unconsciousness to how one's actions are injuring one's brothers and sisters not only does not vanish with age, it can be intensified with age by indoctrination built into education and media rhetoric.

the word 'adult' laid on someone after some years of having been a child does not 'in-itself' endow them with the consciousness of how their actions are damaging to others, it more often than not implies a 'coming of age' whereby they learn how to take good care of themselves often at the expense of actions that are harmful to others.

thats fuckin true I live by a code of never fuckin tellin someone to do fuckin anything for me, but I will fuckin hitchhike but thats up to the other person to pick me up, I dont even put my fuckin thumb out I just walk beside the fuckin road and sooner or later some good fuckin sumaritan asks me if Id like a lift, call it fuckin passive if you want, heh, in every fuckin relationship Im fuckin passive except against the fuckin state, then Im a loose fuckin canon,,AND I'll do it myself unless I have no fuckin arms or legs!.,.,8ball

Wow, little people can go fuck themselves just as big people, welcome to anarchism.F9KACXQ

sooo are you fuckin saying that emile fuckin plagiarised the content of his excellent fuckin rant? Well I dont give a fuck because ownership of ideas is not a fuckin option in my fuckin aesthetics,,,AND there are no fuckin rules when it comes to the reproduction of fuckin concepts or content!,..,8ball

Very good points. I agree because I, personally, understand and sometimes even utilize violent language that is without a doubt "caring in disguise".

I disagree because the psychology behind responsive behavior to violence is different in every individual. Many people who experience violence respond with positive or encouraging attitudes toward defensive violence or revenge. Many other people who experience violence want nothing to do with it, and reject (due to the nature of the individual's psychology) responding to violence with more of it. Both of these responses are valid, however for the latter group, anarchist propagandha that uses violence as "caring in disguise" is plain shitty propaganda. Am I promoting using explicitly NON-violent language? No. In my opinion, the utilization of violence should be left up to those who experience it directly- and not told what tactic is the most correct by anarchists.

the violence you are talking about is violence directed against people which is not what i am talking about. if there are people parked in front of the fire doors in the movie theatre and life gets miserable in there for you and your kids [smoke, fire or whatever], the people who are doing just fine themselves, but who are blocking one’s attempt to move out of a miserable situation, have got to move out of the way because if they don't, they are the sustainers of imbalance and disharmony in the spatial dynamic. the physical actions taken to stop them from blocking the path leading out of misery may be turbulent and people may be injured. to speak of this as 'violence’ is secondary inference; it is only violence in 'appearance'. if a canoe overturns in the rapids and you grab a child by her hair and haul her up the bank, this ‘apparent violent act’ derives firstly from caring. if the first class passengers on the sinking ship are blocking access to the women and children in steerage to come up onto the deck where the lifeboats are, then the restoring of natural access may involve some physical turbulence and the blockers may get hurt, particularly if they are deliberately refusing to unblock the natural passageways that lead out of a bad situation.

what psychologists call a ‘violent response’ in this sort of situation is not a 'response' at all, it is doing what comes naturally. if you want to hammer a large cork into the hole that old faithful comes out of, to exploit the bottled-up resource, you can’t claim that when the cork gets its butt kicked sky-high, that it is the victim of an act of violence. the reality is that there are natural consequences that arise from blocking natural rebalancing processes. to say that those who block naturally arising dynamics “are going to get their butts kicked” is not promoting violence against others, it is an observation as to how nature works; i.e. natural processes are always seeking to restore balance. if you are a 'blocker' and you see natural rebalancing forces coming your way, you'd better, ... step aside, ... a lotta men didn't and a lot of men died.

I understand. My main point, although admittedly wasn't very articulate, (I'm not great at this stuff) is simply that people have natural inclinations to engage in or evade violence, regardless of how justified or natural the violent response (not response) may or may not be.

The cork analogy isn't quite accurate. There are actually people (I consider myself among them) who have gotten their ass kicked by authoritarians, bullies, pigs, patriarchs, etc. and not desired or sought out violence (albeit a justified act of legitimate self-defense) in return. I am not a proponent of non-violence. I am a proponent of individual choice, and granting the victims of authoritarian violence the right to respond however they are comfortable with. I worry that some anarchist propaganda stresses physical confrontation with oppressors as the most legitimate form of action, resulting in making those mentally unfit for this type of action feel weaker than they already do.

If I am going to get my butt kicked, so be it. It has happened before, and it may very well happen again. If nature is survival of the fittest, or some similar "observation", kill me for my non-interest in participation. I, for what it's worth, don't believe in any generalization regarding nature, especially human nature. But that is another discussion.

this response is ‘for you’, anon 23:14, since it is too long to do anything but draw abusive comments on its length and complexity from the usual forum respondents.

i understand what you are saying, but my view is that it takes us into the realm of ‘inclusional logic’, the world where we BOTH agree AND disagree, and out of our Western standard world of Aristotelian logic where we EITHER agree OR disagree. we need a different type of language architecture [e.g. Amerindian language] or else develop new terms and structures in English, to be able to discuss things in this ‘relational’ mode. in the relational realm, ‘anarchism’ would become ‘omni-archism’ [shared leadership rather than no leadership].

for example, in common english, our concept of ‘violence’ is not ‘relational’ but ‘absolute’, something that can be launched by a local causal agent, whether a man, a group, a storm or etc. in a relational world view, violence is not a locally-sourced phenomenon, ... it is instead understood as a relationally sourced phenomenon. we ‘camouflage’ the relational nature of things and actions in english by the synthetic [mental] reduction of ‘things considered in themselves’ to ‘things in themselves’; e.g. we speak of the ‘violence of the storm’ and ‘the violence unleashed by the volcano’, as if the word-concept ‘storm’ or ‘volcano’ were the authors of the violence.

in the relational view, these 'local sources of animation' are seen more comprehensively as ‘ripples in the energy-charged spatial-plenum’. in the relational view that associates with relativity and quantum theory, the relational energy tensions of space are the ultimate source, not only of dynamics but also of those dynamic forms called ‘material objects/organisms/systems’ that are continually outwelling into, and inwelling into, the energy charged spatial-plenum or 'mothering-field-medium'.

the storm-cell and/or the volcano are not ‘things-in-themselves’ capable of launching violence,... such an impression is the synthetic mental artefact of our english [european] language. the convection cell, storm, volcano are ‘the relational spatial-plenum expressing itself’. they are healing-places in the spatial-plenum. the ‘ring-of-fire’ is the name we give to the volcanic arcs and oceanic trenches that encircle the pacific ocean basin. they are the ‘healing places’ that resolve the relational spatial tensions in the continually transforming space of the circulating lithosphere. but in english, we say that these volcanoes and earthquake zones 'are the source of frequent violent earthquakes and volcanic eruptions’, as if THEY unleash the violence, when the reality is that they are, themselves, the healers of relational tensions, the open wounds that are healing tensional imbalances.

the buddhist and amerindian and vedic views, not to mention the relation views of mach, poincaré, nietzsche, bohm, schrödinger et al, are accommodated by the amerindian languages (sapir-whorf hypothesis) but not the european languages. in relational language, the concept of ‘local material thing’ transforms into a ‘healing place’ in the spatial-plenum. the convection cell or hurricane, or organism, is already an expression of the dynamics of the energy-charged space it is included in. it is NOT a ‘THING IN ITSELF’ that is ‘the absolute local-independently-existing author of its own action’ [e.g. the storm-cell is not ‘the author of 'its own' violence’].

the ripple in the water when a stone or a downdraft makes a hole in a smoothly distributed, internally-externally balanced body of water is a 'healing action'; i.e. waves are circular movement from areas of surplus to areas of deficiency. the volcanic eruption is the movement of magma from areas of surplus to areas of deficiency [eg. to heal sea-floor spreading]. the hurricane [convection cells in general] is the movement of thermal energy from areas of surplus [equatorial regions] to areas of deficiency [polar regions]. the dynamic forms of nature are NOT ‘things-in-themselves’ capable of jump-starting their own ‘violence’ or ‘causal actions’.

if we are ‘honest’, we admit that we are more like sailboater’s in life’s dynamic that derive power and steerage from the relational dynamics [the tempestuous sea that is life] that we are situationally included in. if we are ‘dishonest’ as is the Western cultural 'norm', we claim that we are powerboaters whose power and steerage is all ‘onboard’ and ‘belongs fully and solely to us’.

the architecture of the european languages constantly teaches us that we are powerboaters; i.e. it is constantly giving us a dishonest view of ‘self’ and therefore, of ‘other’. the amerindian language architecture is ‘relational’ and in the world of ‘mitakuye oyasin’ [we are all related] there is only ‘shared leadership’ or ‘OMNI-ARCHISM’ rather than ‘AN-ARCHISM’ or ‘no-leadership’.

our european language notion of violence ‘grounds’ its meaning in the idealized concept of ‘stasis’ (‘stasis' is NOT 'real'; it is not 'physical reality' but rather a psychologically-projected ideal limit). we see ourselves as being ‘static’ unless we mentally decide to act, and then see ourselves as being able to turn the knob that amplifies the energetics of our action with ‘violence’ being when we crank the knob over into the red zone where we ‘max out’ our actions. on the other hand, the amerindian language uses the ‘we are all related’ grounding for ‘violence’; i.e. it is what transpires when the web of relations which are in dynamic balance, fall out of balance.

for example, when tensions arise from an imbalance in access to life-sustaining nurturance, currents of corrective action are naturally elicited.

in general, the knob describing action in the relational [ly interdependent] world view has the zero at ‘everything in balance’ and the counterclockwise out-of-balance points to ‘deficiency’ and the clockwise out-of-balance points to ‘surplus’ and these are conjugate aspects of one dynamic [the knob has dual pointers that spread out in opposite direction from each other reflecting the departure from balance]. the amplitude or intensity of the dynamic is thus proportional to 'departure from balance' which involves 'BOTH/AND' [logic of the included third] rather than 'EITHER/OR' [logic of the excluded third].

when the food rations truck drives into the refuge camp in the midst of thousands of starving people, the tensions between excess and deficiency induce currents of distribution to resolve the difference that look just like the convection processes in a storm-cell.

so, to revisit ‘violence’ in this relational world view, it is no longer seen as coming from people that are jacking up the amplitude/aggressiveness of their actions into the maxed-out red zone; i.e. violence doesn’t come from a local source because there are no local sources in a relational web, it comes from the spring-loaded tensions in the relational web that we are all holding in balance [the zero state is when we are sustaining balance which APPEARS as 'stasis']. i.e. what could ‘violence’ mean if there were just one person alone in space? the only possibility is a relational possibility where one part of him does violence to another part of him; his hand could drive a knife into his abdomen.

in western european language and thinking, we see the individual as a local ‘thing-in-itself’ with ‘its own’ internally sourced behaviour; ... with an action-amplifier knob whose zero-point is ‘stasis’ and whose actions range from stasis to maxed-out-into-the-red violence.

the western european culture uses the notional ‘supreme power of a central authority’ to deal with ‘those who become violent’, applying and enforcing the notion of ‘the morality’ of individual behaviour’. the tensions that arise between surplus and deficiency do not even enter into this western view of ‘peace and order and justice’. therefore, when spatial-relational imbalances arise between surplus and deficiency, Western ‘moral laws’ that apply to individual behaviour [and are blind to the upstream sourcing of relational tensions] continue to be imposed by central authority on individuals whose they see in terms of 'THEIR ACTION AMPLIFICATION' 'going into the red'. police are used in the manner that a pressure cooker lid is used on a pressure cooker, to keep the lid on, in spite of rising surplus of pressure relative to deficiency outside of the cooker-space [sovereigntist space is a controlled space].

this relation between the part of the collective called ‘police’ and the part of the collective called ‘proletariat’ is protecting the cultivating of imbalance that sources ‘violence’. this whole western authoritarian, moral law enforcing organizational scheme is a breeding ground for violence.

now, having developed a ‘relational worldview’ to put violence into context, one can re-examine your statement;

“I am not a proponent of non-violence. I am a proponent of individual choice, and granting the victims of authoritarian violence the right to respond however they are comfortable with. I worry that some anarchist propaganda stresses physical confrontation with oppressors as the most legitimate form of action, resulting in making those mentally unfit for this type of action feel weaker than they already do.”

your statement appears to imply that we are all ‘individuals’ who are free to respond to violence in the manner of our own choosing. the german citizens who abhorred violence were compliant with nazism’s SS [‘SchutzStaffel’ = ‘Protection Squad’] who suppressed the actions of 'rebalancers', claiming that this was to ensure the safety of [protect] the people.

this same principle of the predominance of ‘security of the people’ over ‘freedom of expression’ is what presidents and authoritarian leaders in the sovereigntized world of 'democratic' authoritarian states always say when protests mount, to justifying the squashinq of protestors [tightening the clamp-down of the pressure-cooker lid].

the primary difference between the U.S. and nazi germany is in the democratic elections, where the people have the choice of two parties, both of which support the SchutzStaffel principle. therefore, if the violence of protest grows due to rising imbalances in access to nurturance, the SchutzStaffel principle will be invoked, which supposes that the violence is coming from the protesters [rather than acknowledging that the violence is relational and is coming from imbalances in the web of relations constituting ‘the social dynamic’], and which puts the security of the people in precedence over the freedom of expression. the result is the deployment of the 'Protection Squads'.

if the 51% of people in a ‘democratic authoritarian state’ should monopolize all of the nurturing resources of the land and live in conditions of surplus and over-abundance while the ‘other’ 49% were living in conditions of relative deficiency and impoverishment, the latter would be accorded freedom of expression so long as it did not threaten ‘the security of the people’.

those who choose to avoid violence and watch their children die of starvation and/or to be diminished in spirit by the constant humiliation that is accorded by the rich and powerful to the poor and disempowered, are free to do so in a democracy. but what is currently under debate is whether those who choose submission and compliance should side with the authorities on the need to crush those who have the courage, strength and spirit to seek to restore balance in spite of the violence associated with the restoring of balance, ... a balance-restoring which is made all the more difficult by the authoritarian system which responds simply by deploying its Protection Squads to keep a lid on the rising imbalances so as to allow them, and the tensions that associate with them, to continue to build [to put on a head of steam for more intense and widespread violent release].

together with the more prosperous 50% of a democracy, there may be another 30% in the top half of less prosperous 50% that weigh together 'not doing all that badly’ and the price that comes with confrontation that can be violent,... who do not want to ‘rock the boat’ [they might be female single parents who opt to support policies that sustain a peaceful environment for their children to grow up in, rather than supporting the cultivating of a more socially just environment on their watch], therefore they empower the authorities to deploy the Protection Squads against those whose actions derive from the need to restore balance. this is why these democratic authoritarian systems can all too easily constitute ‘the tyranny of the majority’.

i would summarize all of the above as follows;

we all share inclusion in a relational space that we habitually like to think of in terms of an absolute space populated by absolute ‘things-in-themselves’; i.e. ‘local, independently existing things-in-themselves with their own locally originating, internal process driven and directed behaviours’. this is the worldview that is constantly imposed on us by the european languages architecture [an imposing that has grown more intensive by communications technology and media] whereas the amerindian languages convey a relational wordview [this is the 'sapir-whorf hypothesis'].

these two worldviews differ as to the source of violence. in the absolutist Western worldview, violence comes from ‘things’, whether people, volcanos, hurricanes, tornadoes, stampeding herds [the starving masses who swirl around the food supply truck] etc.

on the other hand, in the relationist aboriginal/buddhist/machean worldview, violence comes from the explosive release of energy within a tensioned field of spatial-relations. local systems/organisms, instead of being understood as the absolute animating source of assertive actions [such as violence] are instead seen, FIRSTLY, as ‘healing places’ or ‘ripples in the spatial-plenum that are born into the service of sustaining balance in a relational world dynamic [e.g. the storm-cell is born to restore thermal energy balance in the energy-charged atmospheric spatial-plenum].

the western worldview strips away the interdependent relational reality and idealizes individuals as local independently-existing causal producers of results whose achievements are ‘their own’. this is nonsense, of course. the farmer is not the animating source of the growth of his crops [the sun and the soil and the rain and the whole web of relations in which he is merely a strand, is the animating source], but this is how we habitually think and how our language architecture constantly encourages us to think.

today’s CEO is achieving more productive results than his counterpart a half-century ago, at least that’s what he has claimed in order to elevate his compensation from 12 times what his average employee gets to 1000 times. it follows that CEO productive achieving has risen far faster than the productivity of the average employee. meanwhile, his achievements in improving productivity or 'bang for the buck' involve massive layoffs leaving half the staff to do the same or more work. the CEO gets credit for 'bang-for-the-buck' achievements. the employee who has to do twice as much as before, as his friends and colleagues are laid off, is encouraged to 'feel lucky he still has his job'. if the production of the corporation stays the same while the employee expense is cut in half by staff reductions, the productivity in terms of bang-for-the-buck that the CEO's production and compensation is measured on, doubles. this is a transparent 'con' that the authoritarian system not only is party to, but legally protects and indemnifies using 'Protection Squads' that put 'security of the people' ahead of 'freedom of expression'.

i.e. unnatural imbalances continue to rise and to cultivate rising tensions that associate with imbalance [mach's principle]. in the western world view, with its simplistic idealized cause-effect model, the surpluses are the rightful owned property of ‘those who have produced them’, iconic founders and pillars of the community such as CEOs. couple this with an authoritarian governance system that enforces moral behaviours on its individual citizens, and we have a recipe for rising tensions associated with imbalance that threaten explosive release with earthquake/volcano-like VIOLENCE.

as the tensions of imbalance mount, so does the protest and violent-protest mount, to the point that the authoritarian government invokes the SchutzStaffel principle that puts the ‘security of the people’ in precedence over ‘freedom of expression’, putting a lid on the pressure cooker of rising imbalance so as to permit the continued protected growth of imbalance, all the while preaching moral law that applies to the notional behaviour of notionally absolute locally-existing beings whose behaviour is fully and solely their own, and therefore the logical subject of moral laws of behaviour [thou shalt not steal the rightfully owned property of others such as CEOs no matter how many people they screwed over to get it].

clearly, a different self-image is foundational to these different worldviews. the CEO who is making 1000 times what the average employee in his firm makes may well find it 'convenient' to believe that this is the real result of his causal actions, in order to claim it as his own, rather than acknowledging that such a view is a transparent ‘con’.

since the media promotes high achievers as the pillars of society and since it is wealth that fuels media rhetoric and gives political rhetoric voice through the media, all of the choices of ‘leader’ that are offered are those and only those that consider it their moral duty’ to enforce moral law on individual behaviour [out of the context of relational imbalances] such as ‘thou shalt not steal’. this is, evidently, all a giant ‘con’ job in which each individual is encouraged to think of himself as a ‘powerboater’ whose animative sourcing of drive and direction is fully inboard.

there is no sign of acknowledging balance-restoring as the natural path of healing associated with rising tensions, there is no sign, in this con-job of a worldview, of the sailboater view of self [where one acknowledges that one derives power and steerage from the relational space one is included in] as in certain other non-european worldviews.

so, sure, we can, as you say, “[be] a proponent of individual choice, and granting the victims of authoritarian violence the right to respond however they are comfortable with.”, however, those who, in WWII, chose not to confront the authoritarian SchutzStaffel - Protection-Squads, split into two groups. the resistance supporters, who, at the same time as chosing not to directly confront the Protection Squads, gave the active resistors or 'rebalance-seekers' shelter and protection and celebrated their courage of going against seemingly insurmountable odds, in the service of restoring peace and harmony by ‘balance’ rather than peace and stability by the imbalance of authoritarian overlordship.

there were also the 'collaborators', those who did not have the means or stomach for confronting the authoritarian overlordship who also 'went against' the ‘resistance’ activists, and ‘turned them in’, thus helping to keep the lid firmly clamped down on the pressure cooker space that is the upstream source of violence and thus their ‘collaborationist’ ethics contributed to cultivating entrenched imbalance, the primal rootstock of violence.

in the relational view, one resists being fooled by the idealized reduction of relational forms to ‘things-in-themselves’ with their own [notional] powerboating drive and steerage. therefore, in the relational view, one recognizes that there is no such thing as ‘stasis’ and that their compliance and cooperation with the Protection-Squads by identifying and turning in the rebalancing agents is not ‘nothing’ (stasis); it is an investment in growing the rootstocks of violence, putting the lid on the pressure cooker of authoritarian imbalance-sustaining living space to fatten up the imbalance that is the sourcing and spawning ground for violence.

well all i gotta say about ppl who r obsessed with nonviolence is this

Mental health problems they must be worked with and understood.

The idea that there is some sort of obligation to care for the other, no matter what (and only if exemplifying persynhood), strikes me as unwarranted Dogmatism. If possible, evidently, but not otherwise--and only if they have proven their worth. Pieces of shit will only come back to stab you in the back, given the continuous desire for privilege, and most liberals/marxists/communists will throw the A-team under the bus.

Fuck Liberalism

Ugh, this made me want to puke. Good luck with your chosen path.

ps. The words care/caring were 15 times in the article...

where's the individualist perspective huh? pain and suffering as a liberator; mutual aid and proximity to enemies; violence as a means for caring...break up the every day from the commiserating that is sold to us as compassion for our fellow human--it's a fake relationship, mediated by exchanges. no sympathy.

You're thinking style is ok--fairly mainstream even, but you're writing style makes you out as a alien visiting Earth and seeing all of this for the first time.

Many of us reading this have been bathed in violence of all sorts since birth--it isn't like some new thing that just emerged in this decade.

Drone planes...sorry to inform you that drones ARE planes. You may as well keep reminding us that trees are wood...trees, you know...MADE OF WOOD.

C'mon, were you educated just recently?

As I see it, there are so many more newspaper boxes to hurl in to the street, while not caring.

oh how the proles strolled
and the newsboxes rolled

and not a single fuck was given that day

Hey everyone I might as well put in a plug for my blog Ouroboros Ponderosa.

Mostly about anarchist spirituality and anarchism as natural law. You might find it interesting. I'm putting up two new zines today and I just posted an article titled "Bureauccupy Ashland: A Parable" that a lot of you could probably get on board with, so it's a good time to check it out.

Godspeed you black clad emperor destroyers!


That typo had better explain the -1 or I will revoke all the funny shit I write for you people!

oh god damnit

I know you too people are too lazy to type it if it doesn't link.


But first check out my blog.

If the mainstream associated anarchists with violence AND caring we could change the world.

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

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

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
Enter the code without spaces.
Subscribe to Comments for "Open your eyes, time to wake up, enough is enough is enough is enough"