In Portugal, People are Now Saying “Fuck That!”: An interview with RDA69

from New York Year Zero:

RDA69 came together as an answer to several questions: some people were looking into ways of furthering the political activities they had then been discussing for a few years, others felt a common space would allow them to pursue a more autonomous and happier life, others still were looking for a different platform from where to organize politically. Most of the people had been involved with autonomous spaces before, either in squats or similar spaces in Portugal or abroad, but felt the need to respond, in an immediate and simple manner, to the lack of physical space to organize, meet and discuss common interests. What set RDA69 apart from other spaces and projects was that from the beginning a choice was made that its assembly would host people with different backgrounds and collective experiences, trying to break away from whatever clique one was originally in.

It seemed stupid that in such a small scene everything would still be so framed by political and ideological identities. People came from the anarchist and squatting scenes, from autonomist and pro-situ publishing houses, from ecologist collectives and even from some parts of the institutional left. Others just joined because they felt it made sense in their lives to get involved in a project like RDA69, without having a particular ideological niche to call their own. Also discussed in the beginning was that RDA69 would host initiatives from all kinds of people and collectives that were active in the burgeoning social movements, regardless of smaller, or even considerable, political differences people in the collective would have regarding those. Behind this was the thought that RDA69 shouldn’t serve as the means of social reproduction of a defined clique, but as a place for these movements to grow, discuss and mature. The challenge posed by these choices has proved sometimes difficult, but quite interesting. It’s fairly obvious to those who come by, and for ourselves, that things have changed, and that RDA69 contributed to a reformulation of an anti-authoritarian political space that goes well beyond sect politics. And that the existence of this space created a new crossroads for discussion around the movements fighting austerity, even if it serves as a place where people disagree as much as they agree.

As time went by and the popularity of the space grew, it gradually became more evident that in fact those typical activities [that take place at a social center] were secondary and an accessory to the main activity which takes place in RDA69: that of meeting and talking with other people. So things progressed naturally from having a cultural calendar to relying less on activities and more on the space being open and available. Parties, discussions and such become variations of the modes of meeting – in the sense of interacting with – but they were still meetings. This came about also with the questioning of social centers’ role as cultural hubs. We felt we wanted RDA69 to be not so much the nth variation on the underground cultural market, but something that dealt with other issues, and also that we ourselves didn’t want to be exclusively curators. So a shift naturally came towards organizing and hosting activities that would more directly talk to a need of autonomy that each of us felt daily, and to a choice of organizing politically beyond the folklore of protest and activism. This search for the social center to provide a material autonomy, and not just a cultural one, has been one of the things we’ve been talking and thinking about the most (which translates to installing small workshops of carpentry, welding and bicycle repair, etc).

RDA69′s growth in attendance and notoriety was contemporaneous with the growth of anti-austerity social movements in the last two years, and in that process it became part of a network that both overcame and outgrew its origins as a place deeply rooted within specific activist and political milieus. This said, that network does not have clearly identified borders and tends to be dynamic, evolving according to political events, specific strategic choices or needs imposed by the struggle against repression. Even though most of us have individual connections with other projects around the world, we have so far been unable to give them a collective dimension and turn them into an actual network.

Over the last two years RDA has been continually referred to by several newspapers as the secret HQ of everyone involved in any of the numerous anti-austerity protests. Often when police arrest someone the press comes out saying that person belongs to RDA69, even if most of the time said person doesn’t even know what RDA is. This follows a strategy of criminalization of protest, connecting their radicalization with the actions of a small number of radicals, when really what’s happening is simply that people are getting fed up and are losing faith in traditional forms of political participation.

Portugal’s geographic location obviously explains its peripheral situation regarding Europe’s economic and political hubs. But more than that, this feeling of cultural isolation was fostered by the fascist regime’s ideology that stated the uniqueness of the Portuguese identity and culture as a result of its colonial enterprises, characterized by its ability to produce ethnic melting points (like Brazil), and to reach out to different cultures (like India or China), which made it distinct from European or Western identities due to its universalist vocation. Salazar often stated that Portugal was “proudly alone” in Europe. While the Carnation Revolution, the independence of the former colonies, and the integration in the European Union obviously shifted this discourse into a pro-European stand, the idea still lingers that Portuguese identity is quite specific.

But as a whole, one could state that the isolation you speak of is mostly a result of material conditions. You’ve met mostly Portuguese comrades that are hardly representatives of the Portuguese political and social context. Air travel costs a lot, and most of the Portuguese population is unable to travel abroad. Beyond that, it appears only natural that a small country such as Portugal, where no major historical events have taken place in the last decades, is only important for the Portuguese. We feel exactly the opposite of what your last question suggests: it’s because its political culture and dynamics have been quite so uninteresting that the country appears to be isolated and peripheral. One only needs to look at Greece to observe how it is no longer isolated and peripheral, precisely because events started to unfold.

All that is being said and written in the media – by government officials and big businesses and opinion-makers alike – is that the country’s problems have domestic roots and are due to a lack of budget control, productivity and competitiveness. Right now, the face of austerity is the government and the troika (the International Monetary Fund, European Central Bank and European Commission), so people are pretty much struggling against them. Whether or not they “consider themselves actors, protagonists in a resistance movement to an international crisis in capitalism” is something completely different and impossible to determine. Most likely some do and some don’t.

Attempts have been made to give the movement a more internationalist stand, but they remain very limited. In general, internationalism flows along the political affinities and identities of old: political parties that share common positions support each other in elections (PCP and KKE, Bloco de Esquerda and Syriza); trade-unions sign common texts for a new European industrial policy; anarchists demonstrate in solidarity when a comrade is arrested in a different country; and so on, but it’s all much less than what would be necessary in such a moment. The November 14th general strike had limited international coordination, and it appears that the Portuguese trade-union CGTP (linked to the Portuguese Communist Party) only accepted it to be international because it was the first organization to call for it, obviously as a national general strike (the 3rd in a year, and the 6th in the last decade*). In general, the movement in Portugal – and even more the left parties and the trade-unions – reason in national terms. We believe that it is as much a consequence as it is a reason for the situation you speak of in the previous question. Unfortunately, populist nationalist themes insinuate themselves constantly, including inside the movement against austerity. Most recently, for instance, the CGTP Secretary General compared the troika to the Three Wise Kings during a union rally, calling the IMF representative in Portugal, Abele Selassié (who is Ethiopian), the “little dark one”.

Some people are trying to counter-act the rise in populist nationalist discourse as a response to the crisis and some aren’t.

In general, CGTP represents workers with long term contracts and who are covered by collective bargaining, mostly in the public and transportation sector. Each social movement has its own appreciation of the role of CGTP and the tactics that follow. As a whole, the relation is difficult, unless of course you accept to work according to their own methods and goals. It have been mainly those groups/collectives guided by Bloco de Esquerda (namely Precários Inflexíveis) that have been interested in doing so. Most of the workers and unemployed are participating in the demonstrations outside any kind of structure.

Some companies (namely the electricity company, where the state owned only a golden-share) have been bought by a Chinese state-owned bank, whereas companies owned by relatives of the Angolan president Eduardo dos Santos, or by state-owned SONANGOL (an oil company), have been making big investments in the financial and media sector. The only resistance to privatizations so far has been by the public television/radio network (RTP/RDP), whose Workers’ Committee has some historically far left militants; a spontaneous sit-in by workers of the public air transportation company (TAP), who blocked the exit of the company’s facilities for an entire day; and by postal workers (CTT), who have been delaying the negotiation of future collective deals with the company administration until the terms of the announced privatization of CTT are clear.

Everything costs more, due to raised taxes on consumption, namely all things related to energy (gas, electricity), but also tobacco and food. The construction sector is clearly the most affected one, since it had grown a lot during the previous years, boosted by big public works (highways, urban development, public infrastructures, football stadiums, etc.) and by the real estate credit bubble. Tourism is also in crisis, due to the crisis in Spain, but it has somehow been compensated by the growth of Northern European tourists and travelers. Most cuts are occurring in the national health system and in the school system and transportation sector.

One could suggest that the reason the myth of Portuguese “passivity” became effective was due to the dismantlement of the metropolitan areas beginning in the early eighties – the abandonment of Lisbon was not due to emigration but due to a mass relocation to new suburbs – and the destruction of the social and class ties that emerge naturally in more populated urban areas rather than in atomized suburbs. In fact, even if the center of Lisbon has only about 545,000 people, its metropolitan area has about 2,500,000 people, most of them working in and using the city without living there. On other hand, it has been suggested that emigration is one of the reasons for social peace, in the same way that the wide availability of land prevented major social unrest in the US. Both explanations have their faults, and even if pertinent to a point, serve rather to mask the bloody and brutal repression of several struggles. That said, emigration is fairly different today: the Portuguese emigrant is no longer an unskilled laborer that upon resettlement follows a dream of upward social mobility, but rather an urban precarious worker that will remain an urban precarious worker anywhere he moves.

There is always danger ahead. We coordinate as much as we can and we try to keep in touch [with comrades in other parts of the country]. We have squatted in Lisbon in solidarity with evicted squatters in Porto. Keep in mind that there are only two big cities in Portugal and that, historically, what happens in them determines what happens in the country. This said, we are obviously interested in what other people are doing, be it in southern Portugal or northern Morocco. And the fact that so many people come to live in Lisbon from outer regions makes it easy to maintain a close contact with several other small cities.

We have always been interested in following and discussing the events you speak of [Greek insurrection, Arab Spring, indignados, Occupy], inviting people who participated in them to share their experiences. We are, broadly speaking, interested in developing forms of political action that go beyond national borders and context, taking in account experiences in other parts of the world. We share your feeling that such multiplication of struggles, uprisings and mass movements have been inspiring, but its still rather early to have a strong opinion regarding were all this might be going. One thing is sure, there are as many reasons to be wary as to be inspired.

One could talk about different legacies and memories concerning the revolutionary period. On one hand the state has always promoted it as almost an historical event that quickly and painlessly dealt with some less charming aspects of the authoritarian state. On the other hand the institutional left – which still resembles the shapes it took during the revolution – claims the revolution as the experience that legitimizes its own existence and methods. A third memory of the revolution goes beyond both the state’s and the institutional left’s perspective, to focus on the numerous examples of people organizing to take control of their lives through factory and housing occupations and general autonomous organizing, and this experience was perhaps the most widespread and the least talked about. The memory of the revolution fails its purpose when it does nothing more than re-enact an aesthetics of political participation that methodologically has little to no relevance today. This pushes towards a resistance stance, where we’d be struggling for the rights and victories of the revolution, when what is needed is to go beyond that, to find new lines for a new offensive. Furthermore, most of the actors that claim its inheritance are not interested in discussing what actually happened during those months, or questioning their own role in it. We have thus a highly superficial account of the revolution, that makes it seem as distant and unreal as if it had happened on a different planet. The fact that the most basic democratic rights were for such a long time denied makes for a difficulty in questioning them and the general folklore around them. The relationship between the PCP and the movement is marked by suspicion and hostility, due to its long tradition of sectarianism and authoritarianism. In general, they will fight all that they can’t control, and even went so far as to cooperate with the police to isolate and encircle other demonstrators. Some violence has also occurred, even though nothing that can be compared to what happened in Greece, for instance. Regarding the Bloco de Esquerda (Left Bloc), they basically try to do the same, but with less people, skills and motivation. If the PCP has a lot of members but not that much support from young people, Bloco de Esquerda tends towards the opposite: very few and quite inactive militants, a lot of professional staff members (paid for by state support to elected members of the parliament), and quite ridiculous attempts to build simulacra of social movements in order to gain influence among the masses. Of course, it’s not represented in government, but it maintains an ambiguous stand regarding the Socialist Party (mainly its allegedly dissident left-wing, which is often referred to but seldom seen, unless, of course, when its time to go back to government), and the project of a “big left” to govern the country. It will hardly ever be the equivalent to SYRIZA, and since its anti-capitalism is mostly determined by the idea that the state should make capitalism a bit less unfair, it’s very easy to present a different approach on the matter.

Lisbon had a small squatting scene in the 90s, heavily inspired by what was happening in other European countries, such as Spain, Holland and England. However it never reached more than a small group of people, mainly because of these three reasons: legally it wasn’t as easy as in the aforementioned countries, meaning you were never sure if you were going to be kicked out the next day and face a legal procedure afterward; secondly, people never managed to gather any social support for their actions, nor construct any kind of serious movement that would create any kind of political pressure that might prevent evictions; finally, most of these projects never went beyond the goal of serving as spaces of social reproduction for subcultural cliques – even though they were important in shaping an anarchist/autonomist scene that questioned the former anarchist practices of reading Proudhon in a dusty basement, mixing it with heterogeneous elements, and leaving the armchairs. In the last few years several occupations took place, the most successful one happening in Oporto, of a former public school. But repression came down even harder, since these have a more open political stance, and do objectively support radical movements. The question of how to conquer spaces and to organize has been a central one in the last few months, and people seem to be investing more thought into these possibilities. However some of the problems still remain, the first being the unhelpful legal context, the other being a general lack of modus operandi regarding how to squat, occupy, and manage a space.

“Frustration” fails to grasp our feeling. We are enthusiastic about the demonstrations, even if we feel that there is much to be done to make them more interesting, more spontaneous and more frequent, without any kind of leadership on them.

The issue here is not about a lack of coordination, but about a lack of a critical mass.

Major protests have come by in the last few years, some attaining surprising numbers for the Portuguese context (the largest yet being the 15th of September 2012, with close to one million people gathering in different cities around the country). The thing is that these numbers are circumstantial, they do not reveal real potent movements, but a sense of timing of those calling out for the demonstration. This has a bitter-sweet flavor to it: if on one hand the large protest phenomenon has left the field of organized political parties, with their own agendas and bureaucratic structures, it has come to the hands of small groups of activists which alternate internet call-outs, that with some sense of context and a reasonable streak of luck sometimes blow up to a protest of unattained dimensions. There is not a scene of neighborhood assemblies, or rogue unions (with the honorable exception of the dockers) backing these protests, and although this quasi-spontaneous feeling can be quite interesting, the streets lack consequence and operativeness. This is one of the reasons the attempts of coordination end up deflating on their own, because they are attempts to coordinate different “protest call-out” groups, a handful of activists and militants gathered around different dates, and not really living and flourishing social movements. Also, these attempts have been taken on as authoritarian drifts by some of these groups, bringing back the ghost of party bureaucracy. In this sense, even the established parties have a better understanding of today’s rules of the game, having satellite groups opening pseudo-autonomous spaces, or covertly participating in the internet call-out groups. On the other hand, the hot moments of protest have been taken away from traditional activists and black bloc protesters, into the hands of an angry multitude. Maybe the despair that has been giving room for this multitude to take the streets will come to give a place for its self-organization. In fact, in the last demonstrations it was possible to observe an unspoken and spontaneous organization amongst the different groups and individuals that are not related to the most bureaucratic structures, helping and defying (in the good sense) each other, in what could be a glimpse of the necessary cooperation beyond the street and the demonstrations.

More and more people see with more and more clarity what the police is, what it exists for and how it acts when its authority is challenged. There is an old Pasolinian stand inside the movement, shared by trade-unions and other activists, which claims that police are only workers in uniform who are doing their job and that we should always blame the government for any abuse, while respecting the institution. It has always been the dominant approach to police brutality and social repression. Luckily, and due to the latest clashes in demonstrations, a lot of people are now saying “fuck that!”

*Since we conducted this interview, Portugal had another general strike on June 27th, 2013.




Can we not ‘lay to rest’ this recurrent issue of ‘how do anarchists organize’ since ‘anarchism’ and ‘organizing’ taken together seem ‘oxymoronic’; e.g;

“Even though most of us have individual connections with other projects around the world, we have so far been unable to give them a collective dimension and turn them into an actual network.”

This paradox ‘unravels’ as follows.

Global, anthropocentric organizing associates with the ‘rise of civilization’ of the European mind oriented variety (we can’t call indigenous civilizations that oriented to sustaining harmony with the dynamics of nature ‘anthropocentric’).

One could say that this civilization aims to take the yin out of yin/yang and to get 'organized' in this manner.

‘Yin’ is the outside-inward orchestrating of individual and collective behaviour that derives from the relational spatial dynamics one is uniquely, situationally included in.

‘Yang’ is the inside-outward asserting individual and collective behaviour that is driven and directed by a one-to-many ‘central authority’ such as the ‘intellect’ in a person or a ‘government’ in a state, or a ‘theory’ in a scientific undertaking.

Almost everything that ‘Western society’ has been doing over the past two and a half millennia, has oriented to converting social dynamics to ‘all-yang-no-yin’ dynamics. The big push on ‘education’, Western style, is to put knowledge into the driver’s seat and make the driver and director of ‘whatever happens’. Central government has an all-yang-no-yin orientation as does hierarchical organization in general.

If ‘yang’ is one-to-many transmitted instructions based organizing, what is the nature of yin’.

These two, yin and yang, are conjugate aspects of a single dynamic, relational transformation. in the relational spatial dynamics of the flow of traffic in the busy freeway, yin is the holeyness or passageways that are continually opening and closing. yin is purely relational which means that it is non-local, non-visible (not directly visible) and non-material (holes are not material). yin is the primary aspect of anarchist ‘organization’ and arises from spatial relational dynamics. when we are in a flow of vehicles, we may insist that every driver must direct his behaviour from out of his intellect, from his knowledge of proper driving practice, following the rules of the road etc. on the other hand, a group of people can ‘let go’ of their intellect-directed driving, and orient to the ‘holes’ that open up in the web of spatial relations that form amongst them, allowing these continually transforming spatial relations to outside-inwardly orchestrate and shape their inside-outward asserting actions.

make no mistake here. when we let ‘yin’ prevail over ‘yang’ in this manner, intellect takes a back seat to intuition. does it work? do the drivers with Ph.Ds in driver education come out better than the chimp-at-the-wheel? it can work far better than any ‘human engineered’ system. it is the way nature works. it is the yin/yang standard of nature’s dynamics.

is it ‘organization’? one thing is for sure, it is NOT ‘intellect-directed organization’. intellect-directed organization is ‘all-yang-no-yin’ organization as in government and corporate hierarchies and as in theory-driven enterprise and as in power-boater, destination oriented personal actions.

if you haven’t already noticed, ‘yin’ associates with ‘relational space’. relational space theorists like Mach, Schroedinger et al hold that relational space is a fullness that is the mother of relational features that we call ‘material things’. the accommodating ‘holeyness’ of relational space and the asserting relational features are conjugate aspects of the one dynamic of relational spatial transformation [the flow of the atmosphere is ‘yin/yang’ while the accommodating opening or many-to-one accommodating ‘sink’ is ‘yin’ and the one-to-many asserting ‘source’ is ‘yang’. if you put a sink together with a source in a fluid, you get a ‘convection cell’ which looks like ‘a thing-in-itself’ but is ‘flow’ made out of ‘flow’ [purely relational] or ‘a relational feature in a relational space’.

the ‘end-game’ of western civilization is to have everything driven by the intellect; i.e. to be all-yang-no-yin so that everything is ‘moving in the same direction’. this will split humans out of nature since humans, when they are intellect-driven are all-yang-no-yin directed. when people are driven by intellect they are determined to attain some theory-specified ‘destination’. they are like ‘powerboaters’ that run roughshod over anything that gets in their way. they are deaf and blind and insensitive to ‘yin’, the accommodating spatial-relational influences that open up for them here and close down and resist them over there. those who let their individual and collective behaviours be oriented by ‘yin’; i.e. by the outside-inward orchestrating [‘yin’] influences of the spatial-relational dynamics they are situationally included are like ‘sailboaters’ [they derive their power and steerage from the spatial-relational dynamics they share inclusion in].

the sovereign states of the world, with their central authority and ‘centres-of-intellection’ driven and directed behaviours are becoming more and more ‘big brother’ like; i.e. they are pushing towards all-yang-no-yin intellect-driven behaviour. of course, there are 193 of them and their strategy might have a chance if they inhabited an absolute space and absolute time ‘operating theatre’ which is what rational/scientific thinking bases its ‘what things-in-themselves do’ theory on. this hopefulness of absolute space is incorporated in their ‘declarations of independence’ and their claim that ‘all individuals are created equal by the Creator’ and thus are entitled to ‘equal rights’ to ‘pursue their own happiness’ etc. etc.

unfortunately there is a major glitsch in this Western civilization theory, and it is call ‘Mach’s principle’ or ‘the medium is the message’ or ‘relational space’ etc. etc.

when a participating state ‘does something’, this action is not limited to the direct causal results of what it does. instead, what it does perturbs the space it does it in and the perturbed space perturbs everyone else who is included in that common space. in other words, the actions of the states are NOT ‘independent’ and the actions of one ‘bleed through and impact on the others’ by way of the common relational space they all share inclusion in. so, everyone is perturbing the common space even as the perturbed common space is impacting everyone in it. this is ‘Mach’s principle’;

“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”.

we hear tell of this in aphorisms like Trudeau’s ‘living next door to the United States is like sleeping in the same bed with an elephant’.

‘declarations of independence’? ... that would require an absolute space which is a non-physically real abstraction-of-convenience to generate, as Mach says, ‘economy of thought’ which is what scientific thinking is all about.

so, we’ve got these 193 states that have declared themselves ‘independent’ which are, unfortunately NOT in an absolute space, so that their actions bleed into the common relational spatial matrix which gets all shook up and which shakes up the participants in the relational spatial matrix. the result is that the ‘big one’s have to arrange for the directorships of the others to become compliant to the big ones and ultimate to THE ONE since that is the only solution for the situation where the many are operating in a non-absolute ‘relational’ space.

the dream of independent sovereign states operating in absolute space so that the local economies of these states would also be independent and arithmetical additive has been shattered and the states are now admitting to basic INTERDEPENDENCIES in their economies, kind of like a web-of-life [relational space] wherein, if one participant shakes it, everyone get’s jiggled, and if a crony group of participants suck too much out of it, others will go without.

of course, since the all-yang-no-yin model has it that each participant is fully and solely responsible for its own ‘production’ as if the common space were absolute, those who ‘produce most’ are seen as full and sole authors of ‘their production’. of course, for the participant with its tentacle-pipelines sucking oil out of someone else’s oil reservoirs, if those straws were to be squeezed shut, the myth of the ‘local economy’ and the myth of the local participant being fully and solely responsible for his own production would quickly collapse. it’s like the Oklahoma farmer who claimed that ‘he produced wheat’ and so it appeared, but when the dustbowl conditions came along in the 1930s, it turned out that he was not really the producer of the wheat, he was only rearranging things within a productive space.

do we see any signs of the 193 states renouncing their ‘Declarations of Independence’? ... now that ‘the jig is up’?

NO! these ‘declarations of independence’ are the foundations of Western civilization and its scientific worldview which sees dynamics in terms of ‘what INDEPENDENTLY-EXISTING thing-in-themselves do’. world politics, Western culture style, mirrors this all-yang-no-yin scientific world view wherein dynamics are understood in terms of ‘what independently-existing things-in-themselves [like sovereign states] do, ... as if in an absolute space and absolute time operating theatre where Mach’s principle of relational space does not apply.

As the global relational spatial web starts to jingle and jangle in a net direction of energy-exhausting, which ones amongst the so-called ‘independently-existing’ participants will best retain their independently sourced productive results? The hot potato of who gets access to global resources through the global relational spatial web is being passed around as in a game of musical chairs. What kind of process determines where the hot potato stops, or who the dustbowl conditions settle down on as others continue to get irrigated. Is it by the principle of Lafontaine, as usual? ... “La raison du plus fort est toujours la meilleure”.

Summary :

Western civilization is the drive to manage everything by intellect; i.e. by all-yang-no-yin organization.

Much progress has been made; e.g. the world has been divided up into 193 sovereign states which aim to drive and direct all people within their boundaries by an all-yang-no-yin centre-of-intellectual directorship.

Meanwhile, this nicely progressinng yin-elimination program has encountered a glitsch; i.e. the operating space is relational and it is supposed to be absolute [a non-participating operational theatre].

Unfortunately, the whole yin-eliminating program of Western civilization aimed at full and complete intellectual direction of the global human collective, depended on space being absolute. The relational spatial interdependence is now showing itself clearly.

What to do? ... (a) abandon the whole Western civilization foundational assumptions which celebrated the fact that the superior producers were fully and solely responsible for their superior production? ... and that inferior producers had no-one to blame but themselves? What would the world’s superior producing states look like if they could no longer tap into global energy resources? They would look like farmer jones, the superior wheat producer when the dustbowl conditions settled in over him, only this time it would be the relational spatial matrix that would be withdrawing all irrigation and leaving him dry and dusty. (b) retain the Western civilization assumptions and pretend that the feasibility of moving towards all-yang-no-yin intellect drive and direction on the part of 193 declared ‘independently-existing’ sovereign states is still viable [downplay the requirement of absolute space and the complication of space being relational].

indigenous anarchists are yin/yang people. they choose to let outside-inward relational spatial orchestrating influences shape their inside-outward asserting individual and collective behaviours. they do not want to be purely inside-outward asserting on the basis of centre-of-intellection directives, as is the all-yang-no-yin preferred practice of Western civilization.

so, what do the people in RDA69 think about what is going on? are they yin/yang people too?

indigenous anarchists seek to ‘undermine the intellectual premises of colonialism’. one of these premises is that space is ‘absolute’ otherwise the sovereign states could not have ‘declared independence’, it wouldn’t have made any sense [i.e. it doesn’t make any sense in our interdependent relational spatial world]. what really is a ‘national economy’? is it even worth trying to define? in a relational space, it is like trying to explain the dynamics of the atmosphere by analyzing the contributions of the 193 storm-cells that participate within the atmosphere, as if they are the authors of the atmospheric dynamics when the opposite is the reality; the atmospheric dynamics author the storm-cell dynamics. if the atmosphere and solar system and beyond chose to put dustbowl conditions where Oklahoma is, the atmosphere could choose to put dustbowl conditions where the G20 are.

But of course, as our Western civilization all-yang-no-yin theory goes, each sovereign state, so we declare, is an ‘independently-existing thing-in-itself’ that ‘does stuff’ that it is fully and solely responsible for. It is a powerboater state that claims that its drive and direction comes full and solely from its internal processes. It is the archetype of the human ego which sees ‘human self’ as an ‘independently-existing thing-in-itself with its own internal process driven and directed development and behaviour, that operates within an absolute space and absolute time operating theatre.

If the ‘dustbowl conditions’ of a given state are coming out of the relational spatial matrix rather than out of deficiencies in the internal processes that are notionally fully and solely responsible for this independently-existing state’s lacklustre productive performance, then what point is an austerity program to pay back money into the relational spatial matrix? In other words, if space is relational, as all experience says it is, then what point is there in continuing to pretend to be ‘independently-existing sovereign states’ and/or independently-existing human beings?

These notions of ‘independent existence’ are nothing more than artefacts of the European mind conditioned by noun-and-verb European language and grammar. While the indigenous anarchist rearranges the terrain by piling some rocks into a cairn or inukshuk to provide shelter that he can live in, European man does the same and declares ‘I just built a house’; i.e. deconstructs ‘rearranging things’ in a relational space, giving himself notional God-like powers of ‘Creation’ and ‘Destruction’. Does this ‘house’ really exist as a ‘thing-in-itself’? Are we convinced when we are shown the geometric lines and surfaces that mark the point where the ‘outside’ stops and the ‘inside’ begins? How about when this same European man declares the independent existence of his own ‘sovereign state’? Are we convinced when we are shown the geometric lines and surfaces that mark the point where the ‘outside’ stops and the ‘inside’ begins? Of course, if we look up, we are going to see a bunch of guys in military uniforms and carrying guns whose job it is to encourage belief that there really is an absolute break between outside and inside of this ‘independently-existing sovereign state thing-in-itself’. in practice, it is a moot point whether there is really anything there, ... the encouragements to ‘go along with this belief’ are rather persuasive.

But how about when we are now a passenger on this declared-to-exist ‘thing-in-itself’ and the ships’ captains are taking us forward to participate in a ship-sinking grande finale? Shall we ‘defer to authority’ as usual?

Central to Taoist [yin-yang] 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'. 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.

The ‘organization’ needed is not ‘yang’ [intellect-driven] organization to stop the ships from moving ahead towards their armageddon, as the author of this RDA69 article implies;

“Even though most of us have individual connections with other projects around the world, we have so far been unable to give them a collective dimension and turn them into an actual network.”

We are the ships while we are complying with the all-yang-no-yin central intellect directives. The ships cease to exist once we stop believing in them; i.e. once we go back to letting our behaviours be orchestrated by the relational spatial [yin/yang] dynamics we are each uniquely situationally included in.

* * *


Excerpt from Peter Marshall’s ‘Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism’, which elaborates on the yin/yang nature of space; i.e. the relational nature of space, which argues against intellectual direction that over-rides the outside-inward behaviour orchestrating ‘yin’ influence;

“ANARCHISM IS USUALLY CONSIDERED a recent, Western phenomenon, but its roots reach deep in the ancient civilizations of the East. The first clear expression of an anarchist sensibility may be traced back to the Taoists in ancient China from about the sixth century BC. Indeed, the principal Taoist work, the Tao te ching, may be considered one of the greatest anarchist classics.
The Taoists at the time were living in a feudal society in which law was becoming codified and government increasingly centralized and bureaucratic. Confucius was the chief spokesman of the legalistic school supporting these developments, and called for a social hierarchy in which every citizen knew his place. The Taoists for their part rejected government and believed that all could live in natural and spontaneous harmony. The conflict between those who wish to interfere and those who believe that things flourish best when left alone has continued ever since.
...Like most later anarchists, the Taoists see the universe as being in a continuous state of flux. Reality is in a state of process; everything changes, nothing is constant. They also have a dialectical concept of change as a dynamic interplay as opposing forces. Energy flows continually between the poles of yin end yang. At the same time, they stress the unity and harmony of nature. Nature is self-sufficient and uncreated; there is no need to postulate a conscious creator. It is a view which not only recalls that of the Greek philosopher Heraclitus but coincides with the description of the universe presented by modern physics. Modern social ecology, which stresses unity in diversity, organic growth and natural order, further reflects the Taoist world-view.
...The Taoists were primarily interested in nature but their conception of the universe had important corollaries for society. A definite system of ethics and politics emerges. There are no absolute Taoist values; for good and bad, like yin and yang, are related. Their interplay is necessary for growth, and in order to achieve something it is often best to start with its opposite.
...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'. 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.
...The deepest roots of the Taoist view of wu-wei probably lies in early matriarchal society in ancient China. The Taoist ideal was a form of agrarian collectivism which sought to recapture the instinctive unity with nature which human beings had lost in developing an artificial and hierarchical culture.
...The most important principle at the centre of their teaching however was a belief that 'The world is ruled by letting things take their course. It cannot be ruled by interfering.'

that is to say, anything about the subject at hand (which is Portugal, in this instance), SHUT . . . THE . . . FUCK . . . UP. Otherwise, you are just a source of verbal pollution.

Because there is a complex [interdependent] land, ocean and atmospheric dynamic (when the dynamics of three or more entities are simultaneously influencing one another, it is logically impossible to divide out the separate causal contributions of each) which supports terrestrial flora and fauna and marine flora and fauna, the behaviours of new participants (e.g. humans) that gather within this complex are shaped by the complex dynamics of this space they enter into. One sometimes speaks of ‘niches’ that present themselves that nurture and orchestrate the development and behaviour of the assertive forms that develop within them. In any case, there is the distinct impression of outside-inward orchestrating/shaping influence on the development and behaviour of inside-outward asserting forms [aka ‘relational features that develop within the relational space’].

This is what is intended by the ‘yin/yang’ nature of the world since the world dynamic is characterized by a conjugate relating of ‘outside-inward orchestrating influence’ and ‘inside-outward asserting influence’. In a fluid-dynamical [energy-in-transformation] world, which ours arguably is, a basic ‘cell’ structure is where a ‘one-to-many sink’ and a ‘many-to-one source’ are in conjugate relation as in a convection cell. the ‘cell’ appears to be a ‘local thing-in-itself’ but it is, in physical reality, a relational feature in a relational [fluid] space that is engendered by the outside-inward shaping influence in a yin/yang dynamic in which yin, the outside-inward orchestrating conjugate, is in a natural precedence over the inside-outward asserting conjugate.

this yin/yang ‘fluid dynamical view’ was the view of the evolution of our natural, relational-feature filled space held by Lamarck, Roux, Rolph, Rüdimeyer and Nietzsche.

“ In developing this aspect of the will to power, Nietzsche drew heavily on the ideas of an obscure Anglo-German zoologist, William Rolph (‘Biologische Probleme’). … Rolph denies the existence of an instinct for self-preservation – or at the very least rejects the notion that such a drive represents the principle motivation of animal behaviour. Rather, life seeks primarily to expand itself. This elementary proposition is expressed as a law of assimilation, a law operative in both the organic and inorganic world. Growth, Rolph argues, is determined by a process of diffusion, in which endosmosis predominates over exosmosis. All organic functions, from nutrition and reproduction right up to evolution, can be explained by, and reduced to, this fundamental activity; they are not, as most contemporary biologists assumed, a manifestation of the instinct of self-preservation.” – Gregory Moore, ‘Nietzsche, Biology and Metaphor’.

The trouble is, the mind of European man is conditioned by the noun-and-verb European language and grammar which reduces the yin/yang dynamics of physical reality, to one-sided, all-yang-no-yin dynamics and substitutes an ‘absolute space operating theatre’ for yin, making it appear as if the ‘assertive conjugate’ is fully and solely responsible for ITS OWN development and behaviour [Nietzsche separates from Stirner right here in the interpretation of ITS OWN, and so does the indigenous anarchist from the European anarchist].

Where does the ‘yin’ disappear to? In European man’s noun-and-verb European language and grammar, we get words like ‘lumberjack’, ‘farmer’, ‘fisherman’, hunter, which impute action to a ‘thing-in-itself’. Nietzsche mocks this ‘reduction-to-the-yang-pole’ and calls it a ‘great stupidity’ since it starts with an activity continuum and synthetically splits out a local thing-in-itself authored ‘cause-and-effect event’, making it appear as if the dynamic phenomenon is fully jumpstarted and actualized by a thing-in-itself; e.g. Katrina ravaged New Orleans.

The continually evolving worldspace that humans gathered into was a tree-filled space that presented many possibilities to man; i.e. the possibilities associated with the tree-filled space orchestrated and shape the development of lumberjack-man, his tools and his applications (milling lumber etc). the possibilities associated with the fish-filled space orchestrated and shaped the development of fish[er]-man, his tools and his applications and the possibilities of rich soil and grains filled space orchestrated and shaped the development of farming-man, his tools, and his applications, ... and so on and so forth. Our noun-and-verb European language and grammar allows us to ‘drop the yin’ aspect and simply start from a notional ‘thing-in-itself’ or ‘grammatical subject’;

That is, if we see a change in the wild meadow and it is now filled with straight-line rows of corn plants, our European mind has us conceiving of this ‘change’ in a cause-and-effect sense which must be due to a causal agency. If we acknowledged the ongoing relational dynamic we were included in, we might have thought in terms of man being included in the dynamic he is looking out at and having ‘rearranged’ his sisters, the corn plants, as is the way of the indigenous aboriginal mind which is not deceived by a noun-and-verb language which it does not have [aboriginal languages do not ground their dynamics in notional independently-existing things-in-themselves; i.e. they preserve the continuing flow of nature as we experience it]. Nietzsche described our noun-and-verb European language based self-deception as follows;

“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

The ‘man’ and the ‘corn plants’ are both included in the unfolding dynamic of our experience, but once we reduce our experience to noun-and-verb European language and grammar, we come out with ‘man produces corn’. Our experience informs us of a continuing, seasonal, relational spatial dynamic in which both ‘man’ and ‘corn’ are included participants, and which is conditioning our behaviours at the same time as we are conditioning its behaviour and what attracts our attention is ‘change’ in which a wild meadow is now filled with straight-line rows of corn-plants. This ‘change’ must have an animating source, just as the devastation of New Orleans by wind and water on August 29, 2005 must have had an animating source, and we want to be more specific than just ‘the world continues to evolve’ which would say that both the cause and the effect were included within the evolving world. Here our noun-and-verb European language and grammar allows us to blame the word ‘hurricane’, a word that ‘stands for’ ‘a relational feature in a continually transforming relational space’. The European linguistic construct ‘Katrina ravaged New Orleans’ [an ‘idealization’ or ‘Fiktion’] is certainly not the physical reality of our experience [which unfolds in the continuing present], but it allows us to talk about things with an ‘economy of thought’ [Mach]. and so it is too, with formulations like; ‘farmer John grows/produces corn’, and in general in ‘European man’s mind’, conditioned as it is by noun-and-verb European language and grammar. Do we really believe that farmer John is ‘responsible’ for the ‘production of corn’? Nature would not be amused if we said ‘yes’ and she would have the right to ‘feel slighted’, since farmer John was not the source of soil and rain from the sky, and the warmth of sunlight etc. all of which participated in the ‘production of corn’. but farmer John is the only one who is going to get paid for the corn he claims ‘he produced’.

This false sense of man, in seeing himself as a ‘causal agent’ responsible for a ‘result’ rather than as a participant in a greater dynamic that both his ‘self’ as ‘subject’ and ‘other’ as ‘object’-and/or ‘predicate’ are included in, has proved to be a dangerous delusion when taken literally. That is, it is a convenient tool that delivers up ‘economy of thought’ in the sense of a first order approximation of ‘what is going on’, ... but it is dangerous in the sense that if we take these fictions literally, we get really confused [‘incoherent’ in Bohm’s terms] when the results of our actions based on these fictions never materialize the way we believe they should. Our delusional ‘reaction’ is to use the same type of reduced-to-the-yang-pole fiction to try to dig ourselves out of the mess, which only digs ourselves into a deeper hole.

Where these reductions-to-the-all-yang-no-yin-pole lead us, in the case of governance, is into the la-la-land of empty Euclidian space where we believe that our intellectually directed yang actions will deliver up the causally determined results that we expect them to. What’s to stop us? Certainly not the empty space that we ‘things-in-ourselves with our own internal process driven and directed behaviours are [so we say] included in.

But now picture 193 of these central intellect driven and directed ‘things in themselves’ in a patchwork quilt covering the sphere of the earth, each one believing it is an ‘independently-existing system’ made up of ‘independently-existing people’ who have all been born ‘equal’ and with the God-given RIGHT to pursue their own happiness in their own independent way. And further picture them in the manner of cells in the relational space of the atmosphere so that whatever they do influences the relational space they are included in, even as the relational space they are included in is influencing what they do [Mach’s principle which is validated by experience and experiment as physical reality]. Since the terrestrial, marine and atmosphere system are ONE and we simply describe them as three because of how our senses distinguish them, and since we are included in them, our actions of ‘input’ and ‘output’ can only serve as relational spatial transformation, as in the sink and source of the convection cell. the ‘absolutizing’ of our ‘self’ as a ‘system-thing-in-itself’ derives from our noun-and-verb European language and grammar, just as in the ‘absolutizing’ as a ‘system-thing-in-itself’ of the storm-cell, Katrina.

These 193 central intellect directed ‘sovereign states’ that seem themselves, thanks to noun-and-verb European language and grammar, as ‘system-things-in-themselves’, see no reason that should NOT pursue their own brand of happiness by applying their notional cause-effect behaviours to bring about their ‘desired future’.

Of course this would be insane and the whole thing would be a madhouse if space were relational [as our experience and modern physics informs us it is] since relational space would be the mother of the relational features such as ourselves that are included in it and everything we did would be influencing the relational space we are included in which is at the same time influencing what everyone included in it is doing, and vice versa.

Central intellect directed governance/organization is one-sided all-yang-no-yin organizing that demands that everyone ‘take direction’. what if there were another culture sharing the same space that would ‘not take direction’? that is, the indigenous anarchist community sees organization in the yin/yang terms where ‘many-to-one assertive direction’ is the conjugate of ‘one to many accommodating’, as in the physical reality of our experience. when a crowd of people are free to move in whatever direction they want, their asserting actions are in conjugate relation with their accommodating of their asserting actions; i.e. there is just one dynamic and it is relational spatial transformation. One has to invoke the notion of an absolute space reference frame to give meaning to the one-sided all-yang-no-yin notion of individual trajectories. But in the physical reality of our crowd dynamic experience, we acknowledge that it is ourselves as a group who are responsible for the many-to-one accommodating [sink, yin-hole] corridors that are opening up for our one-to-many asserting [source, yang] trajectories.

Indigenous anarchism understands collectives in this yin/yang topological dynamic which is the more comprehensive view of how nature works, which one can understand if/when one stops imposing a notional absolute space and absolute time reference frame, as comes implicitly bundled in with our noun-and-verb European language and grammar. That is, we can say; (a) the warmed water is moving outward and upward [one-to many yang sourcing from the heated surface] and (b) the cooling water is moving inward and downward [many to one sinking into the spine of the convection cell]. this makes it sound as if ‘something is circling around’ but the water-space is one fluid dynamic and there is no such thing as ‘something hot’ without a simultaneous ‘something cold’; i.e. these two opposites are not ‘two things’ but are conjugate aspects of the one dynamic of ‘spatial-relational transformation’. yin and yang happen together, never separately.

So, what happens if a culture like indigenous anarchist culture that sees dynamics as yin/yang occupies the same space as the European mind culture which sees dynamics in terms of all-yang-no-yin unidirectional behaviour? the indigenous anarchists are going to see their inter-tribal dynamics like crowd dynamics wherein the accommodating of the group is the source of individual asserting. there is no one-sided centre of intellect directed one-to-many organization here. What does the European mind culture do with a culture that ‘doesn’t take direction’? the answer is written into their history and it is ‘cultural genocid’ by way of co-optation and/or reprogramming the children of indigenous anarchists so as to ‘kill the indian in the child’.

the people of the European mind have been rather successful in this approach, the Roman Empire, the British Empire and the American Empire, ... but the indigenous anarchist culture has never been ‘wiped out’ because we all have an ‘indigenous anarchist consciousness’ or ‘indigenous anarchist spirit’ in us and it is a relational thing [non-local, non-visible, non-material] like ‘field potentials’ so it can’t be gotten rid of by ‘imposing direction by force’.

So, when it comes to global politics as it affects Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, ... ‘everybody knows’ [as Leonard Cohen sings]... “Everybody knows that the boat is leaking Everybody knows that the captain lied”

that is, the idea that every nation is ‘independently-existing’ and ‘born equal’ and has the right to its own individual pursuit of happiness, depends up everyone living in an absolute space. that is a requisite condition for ‘independent existence’. we don’t live in that kind of space, so that is all a pipedream (pass the opiates, bro. it’s not that they are NOT legal to take, they are government prescribed and administered and if you don't get the politically correct dream, you will be severely punished).

in the yin/yang relational space of our experience, there is only one way to even have a half-assed version of all-yang-no-yin central direction based form of organization ‘work’ and that would by having JUST ONE centre-of-intellect directing source, and that is why ‘alliances’ form like NATO etc. which blurs or puts a face of democracy over the [currently incumbent] American Empire dynamic it is clothing upon.

now, if space were absolute rather than relational, we could have Islamic Empires and Christian Empires and American Empires but that is evidently not the case. The actions of the inhabitants of a common relational space condition the dynamics of the space which are at the same time conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants that share inclusion in the common relational space. If you are used to living among women who are covered from head to ankle and you turn a corner and see females with their breasts hanging out, their nipples erect and pointing at you and their skirts rising above C-level, it very well could be that the dynamics of this space will be conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants of this space, and that yin influence is not only alive and well but is orchestrating the yang of your dong in spite of the directives of the centre-of-intellect, be it that of the individual or that of the sovereign state.

Bashar Assad as well as many Muslims implicitly understand that the globally dominant European mind has imposed this form of organization that comes with ‘sovereigntism’ of one-sided all-yang-no-yin one-to-many centre-of-intellect direction. Because the popular view is that things such as organisms and states are ‘independently-existing’ [this implies that space is absolute and mutually exclusive of the independently-existing things within it], the popular view is also that these things can all ‘be equal’ and have the ‘equal right’ to the ‘pursuit of happiness’ according to each and their own preference. this structure IS FEASIBLE, but only within a noun-and-verb European language and grammar, which, as just pointed out, can only speak of ‘sink’ and ‘source’ as two different things because it can only speak of dynamics in terms of ‘what things do in space and time’. the physical reality in our relational space is in terms of continuing-in-the-now relational spatial transformation.

There is no room for two different ‘directions’ in a global organizing system that is based on all-yang-no-yin centre-of-intellect driven direction IF the physical space is relational, as our experience informs us that it is [logical propositions common do not even acknowledge any role for space]. As explained above in the case of a culture such as that of indigenous anarchists that ‘does not take direction from centres-of-intellect’, the solution is ‘cultural genocide’ by co-optation or by ‘killing the other culture in the kid’. this holds not only for cultures that ‘do not take direction’ but also for any culture that does not take the direction of a ‘dominant’ culture. this is a straightforward fact that arises as soon as one acknowledges that space is not ‘absolute’ [this which permits the notion of ‘independently-existing individuals and states’] but is instead ‘relational’ or ‘yin/yang’ as in Mach’s principle and as in ‘our real-life physical experience’.

So long as sovereign states and their all-yang-no-yin centre-of-intellect driven directives are the dominant mode of organizing AND space is relational [even while we ‘talk it up’ as ‘absolute’; i.e. as our noun-and-verb European language and grammar bundle it up], the dominant culture that inhabits the centre-of-intellect will logically tend to ‘work for’ the genocide of opposing cultures or those cultures, like the indigenous anarchist culture that DO NOT TAKE DIRECTION.

In a world where the 193 sovereign states lived on separate islands without any communications, they could each have their own centre-of-intellect driven and directed organization IN THEORY. that people are NOT CONSCIOUS that space is relational does not determine the actual physical reality. the pollution that each island puts into the system of land, water and atmosphere and the resources (oxygen etc.) they remove from the system conditions the common relational space they share inclusion in which is at the same time conditioning the behaviour of all those who share inclusion in it. in our modern world dynamic, the flow of raw materials and materials transformed into ‘goods’ is a form of communication that makes the relation nature of space more readily visible. it the world becoming ‘more tightly connected’? how could it be? it was always ‘one thing’ and you can’t get any more tightly connected than that. what is happening is that our European mind, conditioned by our noun-and-verb European language and grammar which imparts to us a mental model of ourselves and our communities as ‘things-in-ourselves’ with our own internal process [centre-of-intellect] driven and directed development and behaviour, ... is being ‘eroded’ and ‘undermined’ by our ‘real-life experience’.

this model, which is embodied in sovereign state politics, is ON ITS WAY OUT. who is going to be the last to ‘let go of it’? the last to let go of it will be those to whom it is delivering advantages and privileges which they see as defining ‘who they are’ in the sense that these advantages and privileges are the result of their yang actions.

the children who are being slaughtered in Syria are the victims of the genocidal wars of cultures. Can we say whether they are the victims of the American attempt to make its centre-of-intellect dominant? Or can we say whether they are victims of the Islamic attempt to make its centre-of-intellect dominant? What does it matter? What is going wrong here starts with the assumptions that lead to centre-of-intellect directed organizing attempts as are evident in statements such as Barack Obama used in campaigning for his first presidency;

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

what is this ‘good versus evil’ shit except for an excuse to ‘give direction’ and force people to ‘take direction’ so as to achieve one-to-many all-yang-no-yin organization?

indigenous anarchists not only ‘don’t take direction’ [unless forced to], they don’t believe in the philosophy of centre-of-intellect directed organizing. they believe that we as a group source the trajectory of individuals amongst us by ‘we-as-a-group’ accommodating their assertive actions. these two are the same dynamic, the ‘we’ and ‘they’ are ‘us’, our asserting development and behaviour is at the same time our relational accommodating. in the real physical communities of nature, the relational spatial niches that open up in our collective dynamic are equal to [the reciprocal way of seeing/understanding] our asserting trajectories. that is, “in the end, the love we make is equal to the love we take’.

you can count emile amongst those indigenous anarchists.

we can count the "emile" among those arrogant assholes who, instead of letting "indigenous anarchists" speak for themselves, speaks for them. And speaks for them badly too: no doubt an actual "indigenous anarchist" would, like most normal people, express themselves succinctly and without going on and on until everyone around them is bored to tears.

you can count emile also amongst those, ... who do NOT read material that bores them so that they can publicly pout about how the material bores them. why would anyone do that? one reason might be that they don't understand it and/or don't have the courage to engage on the basis of the issues themselves, but want to be counted amongst those opposed to what that person is saying, ... whatever that may be.

you can count emile also amongst those, ... who do NOT confuse a philosophical outlook [indigenous anarchism] with a DNA signature. and no, JFK was NOT trying to pretend he had German genes when he said 'Ich bin ein Berliner'.

you didn't answer the objection, which is that you have the arrogance to speak on behalf of "indigenous anarchism" instead of letting "indigenous anarchists" speak for themselves.

you have already made clear that you ground your ideas in 'things-in-themselves' and 'what they do'. having done your duty, you are free to return to the world of 193 independently-existing sovereign state things-in-themselves which are all born equal in the eyes of the Creator and free to pursue happiness in their own individual manner [as if in absolute space and absolute time]. there you will find, within the plurality of states and within their individual pluralities of independently-existing human things-in-themselves, a smattering of your kind of 'indigenous anarchists', stamped out by the Creator as fully fledged equal members of their category, who you can warn about emile, who has been besmirching their reputations as 'things-in-themselves' by speaking of them as if they were relational nexa. and keep your eyes open for any white boy poseurs raised by indigenous anarchists and now claiming,THEMSELVES, to be one of those things-in-themselves. the audacity!

I have made it clear that (1) you consistently post nonsense, (2) you consistently post nonsense to unrelated threads (this one is about PORTUGAL), (3) you are so arrogant that you, a non-indigenous person, speak in the name of and for indigenous people, and (4) you are completely incapable of recognizing valid criticism, even when it is made several times.

if you missed the fact that the portugal article probes the issue of 'anarchist organization' and that my comment aimed to address that, ... i am not surprised. you seem to miss most everything in your eagerness to simply invalidate whatever seems alien to you, without ever, yourself, beginning to address the issues, such as the 'problem' of 'anarchist organization' and the oxymoronic implications of these two words when put together.

my post delved into the nature of 'community' and how, in a crowd dynamic, our asserting moves are at the same time, in a relational sense, opening up corridors for ourselves that enable our asserting moves. this is nature's 'yin/yang' way of organizing. it is captured by Mach's principle and it is very different from intellect-directed organization which we of a European mind commonly think of in association with the word 'organization'.

some people find such inquiry interesting; i.e. inquiry into the inherent nature of 'organization' and how 'anarchist organization' fits into 'organization', but, hey, it takes all kinds. the one's like yourself that such inquiry passes right by are part of the complexity in our social dynamic. your irritation is a legitimate part of the full package that needs to be understood in toto, and that's why i am taking the time to engage with you in spite of your dismissive comments.

it's clear to me that many people find it hard to see why 'intellect-directed behaviour' is a 'problem' [a source of incoherence] and correspondingly find it difficult to understand the concepts of 'yin/yang' versus 'yang' ways of thinking and organizing. so this sort of engaging with you is in no way new to me.

generally speaking, the value of the such engaging accrues in a third party sense, rather than as a benefit to either or both you and/or i.

Your comment had NOTHING to do with Portugal, fool. Your comments rarely if ever have anything to do with the subject at hand; they are merely excuses for you to repeat your pet themes for the Nth time.

If you ever bothered to actually read anything, you would discover that I am addressing issues NOT in the usual analytical systems thinking manner; i.e. in terms of ‘what things-in-themselves do’, ... but in the not-usual synthetical systems thinking manner; i.e. grounding the analytical systems view in synthetical suprastems inquiry.

Every time you see my comments on an issue, all you can see, and judging by your comments you seem unable to get past this, ... is the repeated presence of terms that are new to you, that you haven’t bothered to think about, and which you therefore take to be my ‘pet themes repeated for the Nth time’.

Let me take you through it once again. actually, i have my doubts whether you are capable of opening your mind, but someone else could be following this, so i am more hopeful that they will not have hopelessly ego-shackled themselves to an unflinching position.

1. Common inquiry is analytical inquiry into systems as things-in-themselves [yang inquiry].

2. Relational inquiry is synthetical inquiry into the suprasystem the system is included in which reduces the analytical systems inquiry to something secondary [yin/yang inquiry].

3. Any ‘issue’ at all, can be inquired into using analytical inquiry (1.) or relational inquiry (2.). As Poincaré observes, analytical inquiry employs Euclidian space which is simpler than the non-Euclidian relational space in the manner that a polynomial of degree one is simpler than a polynomial of degree two.

4. Relational space based inquiry [non-Euclidian space based inquiry requires more complicated language].

“Finally, our Euclidean geometry is itself only a sort of convention of language; mechanical facts might be enunciated with reference to a non-Euclidean space which would be a guide less convenient than, but just as legitimate as, our ordinary space ; the enunciation would thus become much more complicated, but it would remain possible. Thus absolute space, absolute time, geometry itself, are not conditions which impose themselves on mechanics ; all these things are no more antecedent to mechanics than the French language is logically antecedent to the verities one expresses in French.” – Henri Poincare, Science and Hypothesis

5. Example: [as given by systems scientist pioneer Russell Ackoff]: If I want to inquire into the dynamics of a university, i can break it down into its component parts, departments, faculties, physical plant, staff, students and the various processes and activities and discover how all of these work together to produce the ‘university dynamic’. This is standard ‘analytical inquiry’. But to really understand the university dynamic, I have to inquire ‘upstream’ into the relational suprasystem; i.e. the community dynamic in which the university is an included relational feature, and inquiry into the outside-inward [yin] influences that orchestrate and shape the assertive development and behaviours of the university. That is, in the dynamic suprasystem of community, a relational niche opens up that outside-inwardly orchestrates/shapes the inside-outward asserting dynamics of the university. My analytical inquiry on its own does not deliver the ‘in-context’ or ‘yin-yang’ understanding of its dynamic.

6. Any issue can be examined in the more complex yin/yang [relational space] inquiry mode, however, more complicated language is involved as Poincaré suggested.

7. In this Portugal article, the author is searching for a way to ‘increase critical mass’ of the ‘organization’ of ‘non-organized actions’. the author says;

The question of how to conquer spaces and to organize has been a central one in the last few months, and people seem to be investing more thought into these possibilities.
“Frustration” fails to grasp our feeling. We are enthusiastic about the demonstrations, even if we feel that there is much to be done to make them more interesting, more spontaneous and more frequent, without any kind of leadership on them.
The issue here is not about a lack of coordination, but about a lack of a critical mass.”

8. Ok, the straight-forward analytical inquiry would deal with the question of how to ORGANIZE in the yang terms of gathering together all of the diverse factions and build some real critical mass that we can use to defend against or overthrow the forces of centralized authority. This is the ‘all-yang-no-yin’ view of ORGANIZATION. in straight forward analytical inquiry THE ONLY POSSIBILITY IS ALL-YANG-NO-YIN ORGANIZATION, or in other words, ‘intellect-directed organization’.

9. In order to get to the relational space or ‘yin/yang’ view of ORGANIZATION, we have to start acknowledging the greater reality of the relational suprasystem this ‘system’ [of diverse rebel groups plus central authority based intellect-directed organization] is included in and from whence they spring. When we do this, we can three different groups [of particular interest] emerging from the common dynamic relational suprasystem, which we can call (a) ‘indigenous anarchists’ and (b) ‘European anarchists’ as well as (c) the dominating ‘European central authority based intellect-directed ORGANIZATION.

10. Indigenous anarchism understands organization in yin/yang terms. This is a peer-to-peer derived system of organization that we can relate to by thinking of ourselves as one community that is driving in the flow of the freeway [the flow of evolving community] wherein we move in relation to one another so as to open up spatial-relational corridors that we assert into. This is where the outside-inward orchestrating influence plays the primary role in orchestrating and shaping individual and collective assertive behaviour. People who are put yin/yang organization first REJECT INTELLECT-DIRECTED ORGANIZATION. indigenous anarchists reject the intellect directed organizing imposed by central authority.

11. Central authority based intellect-directed organization is all-yang-no-yin organization. It developed out of a ‘us’ and ‘them’ suprasystem need; i.e;

“The emergence of the sovereign state was ... the necessary instrument of Europe's colonial expansion.” --- Camilleri, Joseph A. "Rethinking Sovereignty in a Shrinking, Fragmented World."

In ‘us’ and ‘them’ organizing systems, there is an overall authority that establishes order/organization by the one-to-many transmitting of intellectual directives.

12. European anarchism. European anarchists are to a large extent originating out of polarization to oppressive directives coming from central authorities and thus concerned with breaking the stranglehold that centres of control have them pinned down in. Insofar as they see their mission in terms of a yang ‘what things-in-themselves need to do’ context, they will fall into the all-yang-no-yin mode of intellect-directed organization.

13. Here we see the difference between the Zapatistas (indigenous anarchists) and the European anarchists. The Zapatistas first priority is to get back into the yin/yang mode of organization where the group opens up accommodating corridors for the assertive development of themselves as individuals. They become the many-to-one sink that is in conjugate relation with the one-to-many source.

* * *

Ok, if we had stopped with analytical inquiry we would be thinking of ‘organization’ in terms of ‘how to organize the various rebel groups’ so as to achieve ‘critical yang mass’;

The question of how to conquer spaces and to organize has been a central one in the last few months, and people seem to be investing more thought into these possibilities.

But when we take a gander upstream into the dynamic suprasystem which is the mother of various groups including the three mentioned, this puts things into a more comprehensive context. for example the various mentions of ‘anarchist groups’ in the article implied that there were one type of dissident group, dissident groups being yang organizations committed to achieving yang goals such as breaking the stranglehold of central authority. [armies are for the support of something, right? ... like regular peacetime community. the rebel army is not the be-all and end-all].

But in digging into the relational suprasystem for grounding context, we can see that indigenous anarchists understand ‘organization’ in yin/yang terms and they reject ‘intellect-directed yang organization’ as the primary organizing mode of community. that’s why colonizers have no choice but to pursue cultural genocide by co-optation or by ‘killing the indian in the child’ because colonialism is based on intellect-directed organization.

* * *

finally, sure, you see a lot of familiar terms like ‘relational spatial’ and ‘yin/yang’ and ‘outside-inward orchestrating’ and ‘inside-outward asserting’ and ‘one-to-may source’ and ‘many-to-one sink’ and ‘conjugate relation’ etc. etc. etc. and you think; ‘there he goes again, into his pet projects’. but this language is the sort of more complicated language one needs to move up from Euclidian absolute space analytical inquiry [polynomial of degree one inquiry] to non-Euclidian relational space synthetical-analytical inquiry [polynomial of degree two inquiry]. this is the “much more complicated enunciation” that Poincaré is talking about in the quote on switching from a Euclidian to a non-Euclidian [relational space] 'language game'.

again, i don’t expect that you’re ego is going to allow you to acknowledge any value at all in any of this. it will have you finding something to mock, and simply avoid, as usual, ever having to deal with any real issues. but that’s ok, because this overview could be useful for someone who is seriously interested in deepening inquiry into the nature of ‘organization’.

finally, my bottom line is that ‘yin/yang’ organization is where we need to be. sure, intellect directed organization is useful, ... it just doesn’t deserve to be pre-empting yin/yang organization as the primary organizing mode of community which is what it is doing in the European mind and noun-and-verb European language and grammar conditioned institutions of Western governance, commerce and justice.

Either you have Tourette's Syndrome or a terrible case of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. Either way, you are a fucking pedantic bore.

read on, i know it hurts you so...... and sorry to keep this response so short, but i can see how much stimulation you get from these long sessions of my boring intrusion into your inner world that rubs you so much the wrong way, ... so rather than be accused of codependency; i.e. my alleged sadism coupled with your evident masochistic need to keep opening yourself up to intrusions into your life that rub you so hard the wrong way, ... i thought i would shorten your pleasure this time, ... but wait a minute, ... if one deprives a masochist of pain, is that more painful still? i'm not really sure 'how you want it', ... shall i 'pull up short' before i rub you the wrong way again or would you prefer me to fatten and lengthen my intrusions into 'your space' as this space that i keep pushing my lengthy comments into seems to be.

even when your remarks are short.

Calling Dr Peterson, Calling Dr Peterson!
Are you getting this? Your escaped alarm clock/radio, Emile is melting down! Just look at it's whinging, self indulgent tone. Maybe his electronic tears will short out his mother board.


at least you guys seem to be having fun, there anything you can do for anon 19:17? i'm afraid his mother's going to come on and say that she found him hanging with a suicide note on his desk listing his picks for the 500 most boring internet sources.

No need to compile 500 of them: you on your own are boring enough. And you are not "a source": you are a pompous blowhard and "source" of nothing but hot air and bullshit.

i understand ‘boring’; that’s where one disengages as quickly as one can. why do i get the distinct impression that you are hanging in there to try to put a wooden stake through emile’s keyboard? [easier than dealing with the issues]. what, exactly, do you find threatening? i bet its the ‘ontic structural realism’. come on, admit it. you’ll feel better.

ontic structural realism?!

final grade: F

1. our worldview is coming to us through ideas which come to us through language.

2. most people who reflect on it agree that language offers us a very limited means of representing/expressing the full complexity of our experience.

3. we are pissed off with the ‘system’ of social organization that we have evolved and concretized via institutions such as governance, commerce and justice, ... however, ... our understanding of this system and our revisions to it have a dependency on language and the ability of language to capture what is going on and what is ‘wrong’ is seriously limited.

4. our revolutionary response is currently ‘knee-jerk’; i.e. ‘let’s physically put a stop to what seems wrong from our perspective [the perspective of those feeling pinched by the current system].

5. a large proportion of the modern population in the ‘leading edge’ societies, which is where the failure of the social system is most evident [the ‘old ways’ seem to be more wholesome], BELIEVE IN SCIENCE and in ‘scientific thinking’.

6. scientific thinking goes into theories of governance, commerce and justice, along with traditional [e.g. religious myth based] beliefs, such as ‘the belief in INDEPENDENTLY-EXISTING things’ and the application of this concept of ‘independence’ in building up representations of more complex dynamics using compound structures like ‘independent sovereign state’, a concept composed of a plurality of ‘independent humans’.

7. scientists, who are the shapers of the current ‘scientific beliefs’ [they keep changing] argue amongst themselves about the ‘basics’ of the world of our experience, and these basics find their way into society by way of LANGUAGE, as popular ideas and these popular ideas shape the current popular ‘understanding of the world’ or the ‘popular world view’ and this shapes individual and collective behaviours.

8. the concept of ‘independence’ or ‘individuality’ is, in particular, under attack in the philosophy of science, and if it ‘collapses’ as a popular foundation to understanding, then our social dynamics will transform, radically, since the belief in ‘independence’ and ‘individuality’ is the source of the distinctive character of European civilization which is now the globally dominant social system.

9. initially, the support for ‘independent existing things-in-themselves’ aka ‘independence’ and ‘individuality’ and ‘plurality’ came from Creation myths where the popular thinking was that ‘the gods’ or ‘God’ created the ‘things’ that populate the world. these ‘things’ were in that case seen as having persisting material identities, independent of the habitat in which they ‘roamed’ which was consisted by ‘other independent things’ with which they interacted or swallowed, burned/transformed and excreted.

10. as science evolved, it evolved through languages like mathematics and geometry and new concepts were able to move into the popular understanding or world view. European thinking largely shaped the evolving language based ideas of science and so the idea of ‘independently-existing things-in-themselves’ was supported by Democritus’ notion that things were ‘material’ and they were made up of tiny invisible building blocks called ‘atoms’. This ‘materialist’ view of the world, which supported the notion of ‘independently-existing things-in-themselves’ was held by some early and influential shapers of science such as Isaac Newton, who was deeply religious [a Puritan] and who claimed in ‘Opticks’ (1704);

“All these things being consider'd, it seems probable to me, that God in the Beginning form'd Matter in solid, massy, hard, impenetrable Particles, of such Sizes and Figures, and with such other Properties, and in such Proportion to Space, as most conduced to the End for which he form'd them; and that these primitive Particles being Solids, are incomparably harder than any porous Bodies compounded of them; even so very hard, as never to wear or break in pieces; no ordinary Power being able to divide what God himself made one in the first Creation.”

11. newtonian science thus provided a materialist foundation that continued to support the concept of ‘independently-existing things-in-themselves’, allowing people to understanding ‘dynamics’ in terms of ‘what independently-things-in-themselves do’. this was hugely supported by the noun-and-verb Indo-European languages which emulated this atomic building block structure with ‘words’ that were like atoms and did not change so that one could look them up in a ‘dictionary’ to get ‘their meaning’.

12. at the end of the 19th century, the materialist view was coming under attack within science and philosophers of science such as Ernst Mach and the ‘Vienna Circle’ were questioning the world view that assumed an ‘objective material world out there’ and trying to incorporate ‘how we know about it’ [consciousness] into the science as well. the view was that one couldn’t come up with a view of how the world worked without incorporating within it an understanding of how the observing experient comes to ‘know about it’. this culminated in the problems of interpretation associated with quantum field dynamics.

13. meanwhile, these foundational issues were finding their way into the development of ideas and understandings of ‘economics’ and they split the Marxist camp into opposing factions, one interpreting Marx’ ideas in the non-materialist, relationalist manner of Mach, and the other camp keeping in the materialism [atomist] fold. Lenin felt it necessary to write a book, ‘Materialism and Empirio-Criticism’ to support ‘material’ as the foundation for Marxist economics and to put a wooden stake through the heart of Mach’s Emirio-Criticism [Mach found no justification for making absolute space and absolute time foundational in scientific thinking as it must be for the materialist view in terms of independently-existing things-in-themselves]. Mach’s view that dynamics are relational; i.e. they do not ‘bottom out’ in terms of ‘things’ and ‘what things do’, and which incorporates ‘sensation’ [the tools of inquiry] into the ‘inquiry’ [what is going on out there] has continued to gather support and has been termed ‘ontic structural realism’, a philosophy of science that recognizes that the laws of physics are all about ‘forms’ without really specifying the fundamental nature of forms [are they the nexus of relational influences as in a fluid or field dynamic, or do they have a materialist foundation, and how much of the notion of a form derives from the sensing observer/experience side of things?].

14. meanwhile, Lenin was largely successful, in his era [this is just and example of how basic philosophical concepts make their way out of academia and help to shape the broad and coarse social dynamic even though the participants have never heard of, or studied the concepts. The materialist view of Marx not only upheld the concept of ‘independently-existing things-in-themselves’ but constrained the understanding of the nature of human consciousness and thus our ‘view of self’, effectively ‘taking the spirit aspect’ out of it, the ‘spirit’ being the relational connection with the larger world in the manner that a storm-cell is related to the flow-continuum it is included in (as a system within a relational suprasystem that has been engendered by the relational suprasystem it is included in). in the Leninist materialist interpretation of Marxism, instead of consciousness transcending material forms as in Machean/Schroedingerian understanding of relativity and quantum physics, human consciousness is a secondary byproduct of the materialist aspect of the human. As Nikolai Bukharin (1888-1938), primary contributor to 'New Economic Policy' (NEP) which served Russia and China (and which is still seen as a way of ‘building socialism’), put it;

“Organic nature grew out of dead nature; living nature produced a form capable of thought. First, we had matter, incapable of thought; out of which developed thinking matter, man. If this is the case we know it is, from natural science is plain that matter is the mother of mind; mind is not the mother of matter. Children are never older than their parents. ‘Mind’ comes later, and we must therefore consider it the offspring, and not the parent existed before the appearance of a thinking human; the earth existed long before the appearance of any kind of ‘mind’ on its surface. In other words, matter exists objectively, independently of ‘mind.’ But the psychic phenomena, the so-called ‘mind,’ never and nowhere exists without matter, were never independent of matter. Thought does not exist without a brain; desires are impossible unless there is a desiring organism other words: psychic phenomena, the phenomena of consciousness, are simply a property of matter organised in a certain manner, a ‘function’ of such matter.”

It is evident that ‘academic’ philosophical views such as this can weave their way into the social dynamic and help to ‘shape the systems’ that we ‘put in charge of ourselves’. In this case, we just reduced ourselves to a ‘thing-in-itself’ that is fully self-standing with inboard consciousness equipment, and bears not relation to the space we inhabit. The Marxist-Leninist MATERIALIST worldview was anti-religious, but more than that, it was anti-spiritual.

15. Marxist-Leninist material didn’t distinguish between religion and spirituality. that is, ‘religion’ was seen by Marx in the following terms;

"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people"

this says that religion is like the straw the drowning man grasps for in that religion promises a ‘second life’ wherein the injustices of the material life will be reviewed and corrected. this interferes with ‘government’ in the Marxist-Leninist sense which sees people as ‘independently-existing machines made of meat’ [with their own inboard power and steerage that fully and solely drives and directs their behaviour] and argues that people should realize that there is only ‘one life’ and it is the finite life of the independently-existing machine-made-of-meat. In the religious view, the governance of the community of God and his children came before the earthly government so it was a problem to the earthly government. e.g. why allow increased tolerance for the development of another bourgeoisie on the basis that coming of God’s Kingdom and Judgement Day and all that is the proper place to attend to such wrongs?

Meanwhile, Mach’s view attacked the notion of ‘independently-existing things’ on the basis that ‘absolute space’ and ‘absolute time’ could not be justified on the basis of human experience [empiricism], therefore, there was no way to ‘isolate’, in the sense of the logic of mutual exclusion, the ‘dynamics of the inhabitant’ and the ‘dynamics of the habitat’ since we could not assume the ‘independent existence’ of the ‘inhabitant’. Furthermore, our experience and experiment [Newton’s bucket experiment, for example] affirmed a conjugate relation between ‘inhabitant’ and ‘habitat’ captured in Mach’s principle as “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”. Without this principle actually being ‘operative in nature’, inertial guidance systems would not work and they do work. This relationship is evident in our common experience; i.e. the condition of the common relational-spatial environment orchestrates our individual and collective behaviour which is, at the same time, conditioning the common relational-spatial environment. Whatever we want to call this sense of belonging to something larger than ourselves [in contradiction to the materialist view of self as ‘independently-existing], it fits into the place that the word ‘spirituality’ has traditionally gone. Emerson called it ‘the genius of nature’ which not only inhabits the organism but creates it’. Physics as Bohm, Schroedinger and others maintain, is showing us that space is not empty as in our non-empirical assumption of absolute, fixed, empty and infinite Euclidian geometry based conception of space, but is an energy-charged fullness or Plenum wherein ‘things’ are relational features within the continually transforming relational spatial Plenum. this ‘habitat-inhabiting’ of the ‘inhabitant’ [call it ‘spirituality’ if you like] is accepted in the aboriginal anarchist worldview is an orchestrating influence on individual and collective behaviour [sustaining harmony with the suprasystem within which man and his social systems are included]. this ‘trumps’ the ‘governance’ that is purely political which is the highest level of governance in the Marxist-Leninist materialist view.

N.B. there is room to assume that while Marx saw the problem with religion, he may well have been of a similar mind to Mach, as was the interpretation of some influential Marxists that Lenin drummed out of the 'party'; e.g.

"Marx's criticism of religion was held to be identical with the denial of all spiritual values, and this seemed all the more apparent to those who assume that belief in God is the condition for a spiritual orientation. ... Suffice it to say at the outset that this popular picture of Marx's "materialism" -- his anti-spiritual tendency, his wish for uniformity and subordination -- is utterly false. Marx's aim was that of the spiritual emancipation of man, of his liberation from the chains of economic determination, of restituting him in his human wholeness, of enabling him to find unity and harmony with his fellow man and with nature. " --- Erich Fromm, 'The Falsification of Marx's Concepts'

i.e. this distinction between 'religion' and 'spirituality' [a term intending conjugate habitat-inhabitant relation] opens the door to a Machean OSR interpretation of Marx.

16. Indigenous anarchists are in a basic conflict with colonial and socialist political governance since they respect the conjugate habitat-inhabitant relation as does modern physics in the interpretations of Mach, Bohm, Schroedinger, Barbour and the advocates of OSR (ontic structural realism). That is the underlying reason why the report referenced in anarchist news “Where a rebellion is feasible it will occur.” Report: Canada, First Nations and the threat of Insurrection suggests that insurgency by indigenous anarchists does not depend on historical grievances and their settlement; i.e. the colonial government, like the Marxist-Leninist government, believes that people are independently-existing materialist things-in-themselves, so that governance based on what these independently-existing things want, [the rational view] is the only government that is needed; i.e. it is the top level shaper of individual and collective behaviour. meanwhile, the indigenous anarchists believe that we are all included in a conjugate habitat-inhabitant relation and that our actions must serve the sustaining of harmony with the relational spatial dynamics of the habitat we are all included in. that is, the message of modern physics is that space is an energy-charged fullness or plenum and that ‘things’ are relational features in this continually transforming relational spatial Plenum. in other words, the common living space is another aspect of who we are in the manner that the atmosphere is another aspect of who the storm-cell is. this not-simply-materialist world view continues to popularize; e.g;

“In extending his living space in a manner that destroys the space of others, he destroys his own space. Not initially his inside space, his ‘self’, but his outside space, this real outside-of-self which nourishes his ‘inside-of-self’. The protection of this outside space now becomes the condition without which he is unable to pursue the growth of his own powers of being.” — Frédéric Neyrat, ‘Biopolitics of Catastrophe’

* * *


you say that;

“ontic structural realism” is ‘academic gobbledegook’

... and i would agree with you if you intend by that, ‘academic jargon’, ... but as profiled in the above discussion, academic concepts that form the foundations of reality as we popularly conceive it [this clearly changes or evolves and varies by culture, religion], can be major shapers of our popular conception of ‘reality’, the way the world is and the way the world works [our conception thereof]. it is the relational context that is 'the message' and not the 'academic jargon'. you can dismiss the jargon but it is just a 'book cover' for the relational context and you do not dismiss the relational context by dismissing the jargon.

i have tried to show in the brief notes above that there has been a contest developing between the materialist view and the relationalist view. both of these are already represented in currently prevailing social organizing systems. quantum physicists like F. David Peat (‘Blackfoot Physics’) have pointed to the consistency between quantum field dynamics and indigenous anarchists worldview, and at the same time to the errors in the foundations of the European world view conditioned as it is by noun-and-verb European language and grammar. for example, the persisting identity of ‘the atom’ does not come from ‘the atom’ in a physical sense [what the hell it is, science is not sure, but some kind of bundle of quarks and bosons as viewed without taking into account general relativity]. the persisting identity of the ‘the atom’ comes from ‘language’ from the persisting identity of a ‘word’ in our noun-and-verb European language and grammar based ‘idealizations’. we treat the ‘atom’ as if it were a ‘thing-in-itself’ because it is a ‘word’. we treat ‘Katrina’ as if she were a ‘thing-in-herself’ because ‘Katrina’ is a word, and as John Stuart Mill observed;

“Every [language based] definition [of a word] implies an axiom, that in which we affirm the [independent] existence of the object defined”

it is the ‘word’ that gives the force of permanence of identity, not the ‘thing-in-itself’ which does not exist in the OSR 'relational space' view and if it does in the materialist view, it does so in an impossibly complex fashion wherein it blurs into the probability cloud obscured nexus of energy-charged transforming relations we simply call ‘space’.

if we weren’t brought up with a noun-and-verb European language and grammar [the indigenous anarchists escaped such subtle indoctrination] then we would be so hung up on the notion of ‘independently-existing things’ as in ‘materialism’ and as fuelled debate in the Marxist camp as they were trying to come up with a new world-view and new social schemes to re-invent the systems of governance and commerce that had become entrenched. arguably, their failure was to invent a new language to go with their new social system because it is evident that the standard noun-and-verb European language and grammar put their new wheels in the old, well-defined tire-ruts of an ‘independently-existing thing-in-itself based’ woldview. they were able to outlaw the influence of religious belief systems and insist that the human being was an ‘independently-existing thing-in-itself’, a powerboater machine-made-of-meat with its own inboard materialist consciousness giving it fully onboard steerage [no need to let its behaviour be outside-inwardly influenced as in the Machean physics view].

you can say that the Marxist-Leninist viewpoint, founded on the notion that people are ‘independently-existing things-in-themselves’, is ‘academic gobbledegook’ if you wish, but reflections on global human behaviour suggest that these ideas have ‘gotten into the minds of people and politicians’ and have had a huge impact on everyone in the common space on the surface of the planet.

furthermore, the ideas coming from science that feed into our ‘rational view of things’ are being pumped directly into the throne of central authority based governance and are being imposed on us, whether they are based on ‘academic gobbledegook’ or whatever. some people believe that this is the way it has to be, like the authoritative evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin;

“It is one of the contradictions of a democratic society in a highly advanced technological world, … to make rational political decisions, you have to have a knowledge which is accessible only to a very few people.” [Lewontin continues by noting;] “that different people have different interests, and therefore the struggle is not a moral one, it’s a political one. It’s always a political one, and that’s the most important thing you have to recognize… that you may be struggling to make the world go in one direction, … [while] somebody else is struggling to make it go in another direction, and the question is; who has power? And if there’s a differential in power, and if you haven’t got it and they have, then you have to do something to gain power, which is to organize. “ – Richard Lewontin

note that Lewontin is ‘in the same camp’ on this business of governance as the Marxist-Leninists; i.e. the organizing of the social dynamic must jumpstart from the rational understandings of the ‘independently-existing, thing-in-themselves’ people and their scientific/rational understanding.

the indigenous anarchists, meanwhile, are not in this anthropocentric, ‘we are a collection of independently-existing-machines-made-of-meat’ way-of-thinking that is the dominant popular way of thinking this is now institutionalized in our current systems of governance, commerce and justice. the indigenous anarchists understanding is that THEIR social organizing needs to be conditioned by the dynamics of the habitat they are included in. therefore, they are ‘at odds’ with the operative institutions on the most foundational basics of social organization. that is why ‘insurgency’ does not simply go back to correcting historical injustices, ‘insurgency’ is going to continue to come from a basic incompatibility in worldview and perception of self.

‘ontic structural realism’ is ‘academic jargon’ but it is NOT ‘academic gobbledegook’ as there is something real and relational beneath the words that, in one way or another, is going to impact operative practice and undermine the current operative institutions of governance, commerce and justice.

now, it is common for people to want to attack a system that is hurting them simply and spontaneously like a bear attacking a man poking it with a sharp stick, without paving the way with reams of academic research papers written to explain what is going on to back this up. but the problem is that the thing that is poking the sharp stick at us is not 'the men with the sharp sticks' but intellectually designed and institutionalized machinery that is sustained by the popular beliefs of people collectives which have been shaped by academic theories as well as by religious influences, and the academic theories such as ‘sovereigntism’ [colonialism] are, as law historians consistently affirm, SECULARIZED THEOLOGICAL CONCEPTS; e.g;

“ … 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.” —Walker, R. B. J. and Mendlovitz, Saul H. “Interrogating State Sovereignty.”

thus, you can attack what is hurting you, naturally, like a bear would attack what was hurting him, ... but in this case, you, the young revolutionary, is attacking a ‘belief system’ that has been ‘institutionalized’ in systems of governance, commerce and justice. a belief system makes itself felt by way of how people relate to one another and the common space they share inclusion in.


... as Spanish anarchists affirm;

“But the State does not only exist in its material forces, rather also in the social relations it reproduces, and a relation cannot be destroyed without simultaneously creating a new relation. A building can be destroyed without constructing a new one, but a relationship of alienation cannot be ended without the creation of another type of relationship. There is always a relation between the beings and bodies in the same space.Without speaking of the creation of new social relations, we cannot speak honestly about the destruction of the State. To put it another way, we have come upon a bifurcation between the proposal to attack the State and the proposal to destroy the State. The proposal that speaks most of destruction, the nihilist one, may be unable to realize it because it dedicates itself only to the attack. It would be a very sad vision of “permanent revolt”: forever attacking the symbols of the State without ever being able to touch the base of its power.” ---Barcelona Indymedia (translated from Spanish)

so, treat ‘ontic structural realism’ as ‘academic gobbledegook’ at your own peril. in other words, tilt at the windmills of the manifest [the thing-in-themselves sharp-stick pokers] at your own peril, because you will not only NOT be touching the belief-based animating source, but you will be strengthening it as the sharp-stick-pokers regroup under the same, unchallenged, materialist belief system (that is in common with your own implicitly held, but unexplored and thus unchallenged materialist belief system) to crush the insurgency.

emile, i am with you on most of this, but i have a couple issues. you say, "It is the non-local, non-visible and non-material, belief-based animating force that is 'PRIMARY' while the STATE and its sharp-stick-poking AGENTS AND INSTITUTIONS is 'SECONDARY'." but i haven't seen you say anything that would support one force being "primary" over the other at all. if existence is the constant flux that exists as those two forces relate to one another, why would one be necessarily more important than the other?

the other question i have is, if you took the second half of what lewontin said, but instead of the power flows being directed for the purpose of making "rational political decisions" and instead endeavored to attack "a ‘belief system’ that has been ‘institutionalized’ in systems of governance, commerce and justice. a belief system [which] makes itself felt by way of how people relate to one another and the common space they share inclusion in," how would that change your view of it?

you ask;

“if existence is the constant flux that exists as those two forces relate to one another, why would one be necessarily more important than the other?”

‘existence’ implies ‘stasis’ or ‘being’. there is no such thing in physical reality of our experience [‘everything is in flux’, ... or, ... in Bohm’s words, the continually transforming relational spatial plenum is everything]. e.g. the atmosphere is a continually evolving relational space. solar energy fields can give rise to differential pressures or tensions which are purely relational and these tensions resolve via convection cells. if we look at one solitary convection cell, its persisting ‘thing-in-itself-existence’ ['it' appears to 'exist' as a 'thing-in-itself'] derives from the balance of outside-inward orchestrating influence/force with inside-outward asserting action. the former is potential energy or accelerative force and the latter is kinetic energy or motive force. these two are conjugate aspects of the one dynamic of transformation of relational space and in a wave dynamic sense, the accelerative force ‘leads’ the kinetic force by 90 degrees (by the imaginary unit ‘i’, the square root of minus one).

in other words, gravity is everywhere at the same time and it phase-leads kinetic activity by the imaginary unit ‘i’. if the whole relational spatial plenum is undergoing transformation so that the ‘forms’ within it [the ‘relational features in the relational space’] are continuously ‘evolving’ [as a Unum], it is this phase-leading outside-inward orchestrating influence/force that is the playing the lead in the Unum-dance of habitat-inhabitant co-evolution. what we SEE; i.e. ‘what manifests’ is the local, visible material ‘forms’ and insofar as they PERSIST, we grant them ‘existence’ and concretize that with a ‘noun/word’ like ‘Katrina’ in our noun-and-verb European language and grammar RE-presentation schema. the sustained dynamic balancing of the conjugate-relating of outside-inward orchestrating force --- inside-outward actualizing force is a ‘spatial-relational resonance’ as in a storm-cell, that doesn’t sustain the form forever, so the ‘existence’ of a form is a ‘transient reality’. as Schroedinger says, it is ‘appearance’, a ‘variation in the structure of space’ [i.e. in ontic structural realism there are only relational influences ‘all the way to the bottom’]. an example is the stationary ‘mound’ of water in a rushing stream that makes you think there is a rock right under the mound, but like a stationary wave in a tidal channel, the mound arises from purely relational interference effects [back-reflections as in Huygen’s principle]. as a cluster of spherical bubbles expand, their shape transforms from spheres to hexagonal cells, the influence for transforming a sphere into a hexagonal cell does not come from inside the cell, but from outside-inward influence.

this precedence of the outside-inward orchestrating influence/force in a ‘flow’ or TAO is mentioned in Taoism [flowism?]. Lao Tsu makes the point that if we are too interested in the material object, we don’t ‘see’ that it derives from nonlocal, nonvisible, nonmaterial sourcing. the beautiful woman, as Emerson would put it, is an agent of transformation who ‘transmits influences from the vast and universal to the point on which her genius can act’, ... but we may see her as a ‘physical object also’ and if we get too distracted by the physical object aspect, we will no longer see ‘her mystery’. as Emerson says, we have this mischievous tendency to reduce her and/or our self from one that transmits influences from the vast and universal, to a simple doer of deeds; ... "to quit our [transforming] agency and rest in our acts: the tools run away with the workman, the human with the divine."

the invisible stuff that is purely relational and that we can't put a label on is in a natural precedence;

“The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.
The unnamable is the eternally real.
Naming is the origin
of all particular things.
Free from desire, you realize the mystery.
Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations.
Yet mystery and manifestations
arise from the same source.
This source is called darkness.
Darkness within darkness.
The gateway to all understanding.” --- Lao Tzu, I Ching

The ‘empty cup’ aphorism also relates to this inherent ‘precedence’ of the nonlocal, nonvisible, nonmaterial RELATIONAL SPATIAL [field] orchestrating influence over the local, visible, material actualizing that is in conjugate relation with it. the idea is that if we are too materially oriented, we will always be in male, self-actualizing mode, going after some or other material objective, and we won’t be breathing in the world which gives life to what we are breathing in [e.g. our orchestrating influence on a child’s evolving actualization].

“Know the male,
yet keep to the female:
receive the world in your arms.
If you receive the world,
the Tao will never leave you
and you will be like a little child.”

so, in a fluid dynamic, or in a gravitational field, the purely relational influence like ‘acceleration’ that is nonlocal, nonvisible and nonmaterial is in a natural precedence over the manifest actualization which is local, visible, material.

* * *

your second question seems to attempt to modify lewontin’s, but i would just chuck lewontin’s because it is not capable of being ‘reformed’ into something useful. first of all, it deals with ‘rational decisions’ that must be ‘agreed upon’. we know how this one falls down. you can’t formulate a rational/logical proposition that you intend to ‘prove true’ that is free of ‘subjective perspective’. the colonizer’s perspective is that the colonizers constructed a city and the perspective of the colonized aboriginals is that they destroyed forest and meadow. they are talking about the same activity in the same place. what was wolf’s rational view of the same activity, or spider’s? ... as the aboriginal storytelling tradition suggests we should be asking. we can prove the truth of all of these propositions but they are all ‘perspectival’ and physical reality is aperspectival (we all share inclusion in a common relational spatial dynamic that we all experience differently; i.e. from our own subjective perspective that arises from our unique situational inclusion in the continually transforming relational space). that’s why the indigenous aboriginal ‘learning circle’ is not for the purpose of ‘determining the truth’ because, in practice, the only way of deciding ‘whose truth is the best’ is by the principle of Lafontaine, ‘la raison du plus fort est toujours la meilleure’ (the truth of the most powerful is always the best). in the case of the People [or ‘Crown’] versus John-the-protestor, he is proved guilty of a crime of illegal protest, but a week later when the protestors overthrow the regime, the ‘illegal protest’ is inverted into a ‘heroic act’ and the presumed innocence of the people’s representatives, the judge and prosecutor, is also inverted and they are prosecuted for being representatives of the wrong people, the one’s who are not in power [now]. the logical proofs were impeccable, it was just a case of mistaken identity and it is the most powerful who control the identity of 'winner' and 'loser' and 'good guys' and 'bad guys'.

So, i am saying that the problem lies in trying to manage things on the basis of ‘truth’ [the truth of rational propositions] rather than on the basis of the physical reality of our experience. as Goedel’s theorem says, all finite systems of rational propositions are incomplete and thus exposed to self-contradiction aka ‘inconsistency’. How many times over can you prove as true that Bashar Assad’s troops carried out noble and compassionate acts and/or the contrary ignoble and cruel and evil acts, ... and likewise for the insurgents, and should we go by the Russian news media or the American news media and how will the contradictions be settled other than by ‘the principle of Lafontaine’? the US and its allies are busy trying to sort this out by clarifying the identities of good guys and bad guys. the bad guys will be marked by dropping bombs on them and the good guys will be marked by dropping more sophisticated weapons on them so they can kill more bad guys. the US has ordered the UN investigation team to be sent home because they are liable to blur the logic when it needs clarification with some bombs etc. this was the problem with the UN team investigating Iraq's WMD capability; i.e. too many facts can confuse the issue and well-developed allegations are usually sufficient for public opinion. at some point, you have to clarify who are the good guys and who are the bad guys and this is the responsibility of 'the most powerful'.

The indigenous aboriginal idea of a ‘learning circle’ is not to determine the truth but to develop understanding of what is going on on an aperspectival basis. ‘Wolf’ is supposed to be represented and Raven and spider and fish. Right now, fish’s balls are dropping off because of the continuing concentrating of estrogen like chemicals [fire retardants etc.] in the water. Someone has already proved true the benefits of those chemicals or else they wouldn’t have gotten them approved.

My point is this. We don’t need to think in terms of ‘two factions’ and a political process to prove the truth of the claims of which rational proposition is superior to get things moving in ‘the right direction’. We just need to undermine the intellectual premises of colonialism [European civilization] because what will remain after the collapse of all these all-yang-no-yin rational proposition driven social systems and institutions, which are inherently subjective perspective infused and thus refinable in no other way than by ‘the principle of Lafontaine’,... will be natural, relational spatial experience from whence an aperspectival awareness can arise as to how ‘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’.

didn't read

pssht whatever dude

I am a doughnut???

who stated RDA69 is an anarchist organization?

It's a social center.

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

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

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
Subscribe to Comments for "In Portugal, People are Now Saying “Fuck That!”: An interview with RDA69"