What Anarchists Have Been Saying for Years, and what Liberals Need to Start Hearing

  • Posted on: 8 December 2016
  • By: Anonymous (not verified)

Originally published to It’s Going Down

On Wednesday, December 7th at Texas A & M University, as FBI agents monitored hundreds of protesters from the tops of roofs, heavily armed riot police clashed with demonstrators bent on disrupting and shutting down an event organized by Preston Wiginton, a 51 year old former student of the campus and long time white supremacist. The event featured a talk by Richard Spencer, a leading ideologue within the growing “Alt-Right,” which attempts to re-brands fascist, Neo-Nazi, and white nationalist ideas for the millennial generation in order to create an all white fascist “ethno-state.”

The clashes that erupted on the campus are just the latest in a string of growing confrontations between autonomous revolutionaries and the racist far-Right which is acting as an auxiliary force of the Trump regime while attempting to push it farther to the right. Suddenly, anarchists and antifa, who have been demonized and sidelined by the wider Left have been hearing from liberals and Leftists, “you’ve been right all along.” But while revolutionary anarchist ideas and starting to have a broader currently, many of the things that people are starting to pick up on, we have been saying for years.

pg-20-toxic-river-1-ap

And the stakes are only getting higher. Far-Right forces are growing, both here in the United States and around the world, but they are growing in the context of a drastic failure of both neoliberalism and socialist and Left parties which grew out of social movements like Syriza and Podemos, and the continuing fallout of a restructured economy that has left behind literally billions of people. Moreover, industrial production and extraction of resources which propels this system forward has continued to launch itself into overdrive. This year marked a horrific turning point, as we officially hit the 400 parts per million carbon milestone. Now, many scientists and even government institutions are predicting drastic climate change in our lifetimes as unavoidable and weather patterns are currently already changing rapidly. Revolution, in the sense that everything will be turned upside down, is inevitable. The question is, what kind will it be?

But as ecological apocalypse lies on the horizon, all other signs point towards the continued growth of the wealth gap, inequality in all aspects, and amassing insecurity and precarity for workers and the poor. This is just as true in urban centers as it is in Appalachia. On a base line level, wages have stagnated or fallen, poverty and homelessness grow, gentrification run rampant, and overall conditions have continued to erode for many Americans while the most wealthy have grown even richer. Moreover, repression on the streets of the US continues to ramp up, as the government continues to amass more powers of surveillance and spying, the prison population soars, police kill on average around 3 people per day, and law enforcement becomes more and more militarized. In short, for most people, things are getting worse, not better.

pn-20100624135202-4jpg-79cfe4cdd78c21fa

The coming to power of Donald Trump only signals an acceleration of all of these realities. From Trump’s plan to push through more resource extraction projects while seeing the finishing of the Dakota Access Pipeline, the erosion of democratic rights and the further growth of surveillance powers, attacks on women, queer people, immigrant workers, and Muslims, to broad sweeping attacks on the entire population as unions are assaulted, basic social welfare programs are eroded, and wealth continues to flow out of our hands and into the pockets of the rich.

In the face of all of this, from a growing insurgent far-Right, to impending ecological collapse, and broad attacks on workers, the poor, the environment, and those most vulnerable, many ask: where is the opposition? The answer is clear as day, but it isn’t in the halls of power, in the politicians, the leaders of the unions, or in the big NGOs. Instead it’s in the rioters. The blockaders. The people in ski masks and in the streets. The ones on the front lines fighting with the cops. The people attacking, defending, building, and growing.

kkk-trump-victory-rally-canceled-as-protesters-flood-streets-in-north-carolina-body-image-1480884531

We live in a time that is marked by not only increasing crisis and growing reaction, but also in explosive and insurrectionary mass resistance and refusal. At the same time, as it has never been so clear to so many, the institutional and electoral Left is utterly and completely, useless.

The crisis we face is not only one of capital or industrial civilization, but that of its oh-so loyal opposition, the Left.

Perhaps now, you’ll finally start listening.

The State Isn’t Neutral

Government has never been a tool to change people’s lives; it’s always been a force which organizes them for the interests of the wealthy and powerful.

A state is a collection of hierarchal apparatuses that holds a monopoly of violence in a given territory and has the ability to enforce its power through policing. States exist to ensure that the divisions that exist within society don’t make the overall power structure fall apart. As Prole.Info wrote:

No matter who is in government, government has its own logic. The fact that this society is divided into classes with opposing interests means that it is always at risk of tearing itself apart. The government is there to make sure that doesn’t happen. Whether the government is a dictatorship or a democracy, it holds all the guns and will use them against its own population to make sure that we keep going to work.

But liberals paint a much different picture. They instead present a democratic State as a neutral institution that simply needs enough good people to become involved in it. As someone wrote in After Bern:

There is an immense system of violence and domination in place over us that keeps the wheels of this system running. While it appears we have a hand in shaping our lives, in reality there are clear systems of control and management in place to make sure that the overall structure of this society is not threatened. No matter who is elected, no matter what political party you join, the appearance of popular control, of democracy, is a total illusion.

But a State isn’t a neutral coming together of human-beings; it is instead an instrument of colonial and class dictatorship. This is how the American State has always been organized:

America is a settler nation created out of colonies managed by imperial powers. As one of our founding fathers, John Jay put it, “The people who own the country ought to govern it.”

The reasons that everyday working-class and poor people can’t get ahead in politics is not because not enough people don’t get involved in changing or participating within the State, but because the people that run this government have invested interest in keeping the status-quo. This has not been anymore clear than with the election of Donald Trump, as the entirety of the political class lines up to work with a fascist in order to preserve the social peace.

The State is designed to ensure the the ability to govern and police a territory through force and violence for the interest of those in power; it is not a means in which our lives can be changed for the better.

Electoralism Doesn’t Lead To Social Change

The belief that the ballot box is the single best way to not only create change, but also hold on to gains made by working-class and poor people is a complete sham. It is also a hallmark of liberalism and much of the Left. Democracy is simply the window dressings we use to cover the dictatorship of everyday life. As Scott Campbell wrote in Trumping Fear, Finding Safety in Resistance:

With tens of millions feeling burned by Trump’s election, and most of those not resonating with the slower death offered by Clinton, criticisms of the electoral system are running rampant: the convoluted primary system, the corruption of the Democratic National Committee, the anachronism of the Electoral College, etc. Yet these objections seek only ameliorative change, taking the current construct of governance as a given.

Rather than pointing to specific flaws within an oppressive framework, it is more constructive to acknowledge that the system actually worked as designed and provided voters will two physical representations of the core tenets of the United States. On one side was the neoliberal imperialist and on the other the misogynistic white supremacist. As the saying goes, “No matter who you vote for, they win.” The source of our discontent, dispossession and death cannot be resolved at the ballot box. Social constructs of race and gender cannot be voted out of existence any more than capitalism can be undone with the flick of a pen. Third parties are nothing more than the system’s pressure valves, designed to channel dissenting energies into the electoral process where they can be rendered non-threatening.

The illusion of choice and agency inherent in voting are rather acts of disempowerment and surrender. Now that the disillusionment is spreading, the opportunity is available to further ingrain this electoral dissatisfaction and offer alternative proposals for social functioning before the system has its next go at recuperation in two years when, “We’ve got to take back the House…” Part of this is to challenge narratives around voting, to counter the myth that the civil rights and Black Power movements were about the right to vote, that democracy is the highest expression of human organization and freedom, and to undermine the psychic weight and value that voting carries in this society. To vote or not vote is not the issue, rather it is to de-reify voting and properly situate it in our current context while suggesting that the real work happens everywhere except at the ballot box.

If it didn’t have such real consequences, from a step back electoral politics would be laughably absurd. The notion of selecting one person to rule over 320 million people based on the fact they all reside in a single, arbitrary territorial configuration is antiquated, incoherent with the current world system and dictatorially unrepresentative.

As Scott Jay writes:

Electoral strategies always seem to focus on funding and promoting themselves, with just enough lip service to give them a gloss of social movement relevance, but not much more. Instead of being a launching point for social struggles, electoralism has been a one-trick pony whose only concrete strategies feed directly back into itself and not into something greater. Rather than providing a strategy for propelling social movements, it is almost exclusively a justification for its own continuance. In the context of a country dominated by two parties, this often means at some level feeding back into the Democratic Party, reluctant to harm the only game in town.

Nowhere does this become more clear than with the campaign of Bernie Sanders, as it was used to march millions of young, poor, and working-class voters back into the arms of the Democratic Party after 8 years of being betrayed by a President who ran on “hope” and “change,” but delivered the opposite. After Sanders was purposely destroyed by the DNC, he then turned around and campaigned for Clinton, and has now even embraced working with Trump.

surowiecki-bernie-sanders-healthcare-1200

Regardless, most people in the United States wanted nothing to do with the election and didn’t even bother to vote. As the blog, Where the River Frowns pointed out:

Estimates indicate that 128.8 million people voted in Tuesday’s Presidential election, which is 55.6% of the voting-eligible population. However, if people who are typically overlooked for reasons of age and felony status are included, the percentage drops to only 39.6% of the total U.S. population having voted. Of those who voted, 59 million voted for the winner–a mere 18.2% of the total population. According to a survey from the PEW Research Institute from late October, of those who support a particular candidate, only 55% or 56% “strongly support” their candidate of choice. This brings the proportion of the U.S. population who strongly support the President-elect to 10.2%.

Moreover, whether in the Civil Rights or Labor movement, it was rioting, occupations, and mass resistance and disruption that forced the state to grant concessions, not the slow, long march through the institutions. Furthermore, the democratic process has only allowed rights, living standards, and better conditions to slowly be whittled away by more powerful forces backed by the State itself. In short, undemocratic means forced the hand of the State, while over the decades as struggle receded back into politics, these gains were lost.

What this means is exactly what anarchists have been saying all along. That not only does the electoral path not lead to social change, to say nothing of ‘revolution’ – but overall, the vast majority of Americans reject the “democratic” two-party sham that most liberals and the Left cling to or think they can create an alternative to within its confines.

We Need to Build a Movement Outside of Political Parties and Politics

Electoral politics feeds off of grassroots social movements and struggles, not into them. As Scott Jay wrote:

[E]lectoral activism feeds into electoral activism. It relies on itself to further itself. It attracts people who are attracted to electoral politics and generally does not attract people engaging in class struggle. It does not need, nor does it feed class struggle, except to the extent that it might be able to take advantage of the sacrifices of militants in order to declare itself a proper representative of a social movement it did not create.

This past 8 years we’ve seen a wide variety of social movements rise and fall, all to be recuperated and cast aside by electoralism and crushed by the State. After the economic crisis hit, we saw the spread of occupations of college campuses and the explosion of the Occupy Movement. Obama, with the help of Homeland Security offices, fusion centers, and a collusion of local police departments crushed the encampments in a wave of violent repression.

death-to-capitalism

Several years later, we saw the explosion of the Ferguson Insurrection, which then quickly spread to Baltimore, Oakland, Charlotte, Milwaukee, and elsewhere. Other mass struggles, movements, and upheavals soon followed, from the #PrisonStrike, to #NoDAPL, to the mass disruptions and riots that followed the election of Donald Trump. Again, Scott Jay:

[T]here are young people around the country who have risen up in rebellion against the police killing them over the last few years. They probably did not bother to ask themselves whether their actions were going to hurt the Democrats’ chances in getting reelected. They are living in completely different worlds, one where people fight for their lives against a system trying to destroy them, another where people draw up blueprints for national organizations with no discussion as to who is actually going to build the thing. The youth in the streets have been less concerned about ballot access and more concerned about challenging the system that is trying to kill them.

But in all of these struggles, their logical and ethical conclusions come not through politics, the election of a politician, or through the State – but in an insurrection and overthrowing of these systems of power, exploitation, and policing.

In all electoral campaigns, we see the opposite growing of what is needed however. As After Bern commented:

Across the United States, the Sanders campaign has raised over $207 million dollars. People knocked on doors, they put up stickers, they organized rallies, and they made phone calls.

What if we had put all of that [wasted] time, energy, and organization in building something that wasn’t based around electing a politician? What if we put that time, energy, organization, and hundreds of millions of dollars into building organizations that can fight, win, and seize land?

For all the rhetoric of the Sanders campaign, his use of language of Occupy and Black Lives Matter, both movements that the Democrats helped to crush under their own heels, there was not a “political revolution.” But moreover, those energized by Sanders are now free to be led directly into the Democratic Party machine…

We need to build up strong, dynamic, and grassroots organizations, crews, networks, and movements from the ground up, not from the top down. These need to be based in our neighborhoods, workplaces, schools, and communities, not in the halls of power. We need to find ways to come together to amplify our collective power and strength, not piss it away in votes.

We need fighting movements with teeth, not pathetic attempts at taking a seat at the table of power.

Disruptive and Confrontational Action Brings People Into Movements and Struggles, Not Push Them Away

Liberals and much of the Left claim that confrontational tactics hurt us more than they help, from breaking windows to blocking streets. But in reality, each and every time this plays out in the streets and in our communities, it is simply not the case. In fact, confrontation and disruption, in other words: physically fighting, brings more people in than sign holding or writing letters to the editor ever did. If anything, the wet blanket and attempts to control things by protest managers and liberals kills social movements, not combative actions which can be disruptive and at times violent.

nodapl_16301715940389

We see this playing out in every social struggle and movements. The riots, blockades, and clashes with the police in Occupy Oakland grew the size and scale of the movement, and were themselves informed by the Oscar Grant riots and students occupations of several years prior.

The Ferguson Insurrection inspired youth people across the country and led to other uprisings and rebellions which pulled in tens of thousands. Despite “leaders” within the Black Lives Matter movement attempting to endorse the Democrats, channel the movement back into politics, and reduce it to simple reforms, the movement continues to evolve and remain combative and disruptive over a period of several years.

itsgoingdown-orgwp-contentuploads201610pdxabc-orgwp-contentuploads201610imag0127-4e825173a7083d780e99abb6c181f7ad71fecad1-758b79641e976778338c9a696a5dea8d214281af

The national #PrisonStrike which was coordinated by inside grassroots prisoners organizations and outside supporting groups, was kicked off by waves of violent riots, uprisings, and clashes with guards.

In the struggle against the Dakota Access Pipeline, a wide range of tactics have been used to defeat the project, from arson attacks against equipment, to mass marches, to peaceful prayer vigils, to attacks on banks. In the wake of violent clashes between water protectors, police, and DAPL security, the movement exploded as protectors heroically risking their lives on the front lines. Currently, thousands are still streaming into Standing Rock.

Liberals and Leftists claim that confrontational actions scares away people from getting involved. But we find the opposite to be true. When people see a struggle is real; when there is skin in the game, something to fight for, and people are putting their bodies on the line, they often come out in droves. It is symbolic and legalistic protest which is pointless and doesn’t work, the turns many people away instead.

Self-Defense Is Not the Same Thing As Fascism

Fascism aims at creating an authoritarian State and to do so, it must crush it’s enemies in order to build up its powers. If we are to stop them, we’re going to have to shut them down and smash them off the streets, giving them no platform and no quarter.

But as the far-Right has grown as a reactionary force in the wake of the Black Lives Matter movement as well as becoming a auxiliary force within the Trump campaign, liberals and some of those within the Left have repeated a flurry of idiotic statements about those who risk everything to confront fascism.

cy8krycvqaetidl

Overall, liberals argue that to use violence against fascism, or to shut down fascists and give them no platform, is actually just as bad as what the fascists do – in fact, it’s the ‘real fascism.’

We think that in reality the total opposite is true. Since the election, hundreds of hate crimes have taken place, as Trump’s win has embolden the autonomous far-Right like never before. In the wake of attacks on people across the US, that anti-fascist position that combative and militant action against fascists is in fact community self-defense has never been stronger.

If you don’t want fascism, you’re going to have to fight against it. Period. Those that take on this fight are fighting in self-defense, and those taking risks all deserve our support.

A movement that sell-outs those that fight to defend it are not worthy of a name.

We Need A Social Revolution

The political, ecological, and economic forces and crises aimed against us means that time is not on our side. The state continues to become more and more repression. The ecological situation, more and more dire. The economy continues to make us more and more impoverished and precarious. The far-Right grows strong while “the Left” in it’s institutional form, weaker and weaker.

The movement that we need doesn’t look like a carbon copy from the past, nor is there a “scientific” program of revolution that we can adhere too. We are entering into territory that is new and different than in any other time in history.

20160626_pk_anti_fascist_08-2

What we do know is that we need a dynamic, fighting, and combative movement. We need networks of defense, support, and offensive capacity that can not only fight in the struggles that lay all around us but can begin to build new worlds.

The Left, as defined by the ‘rules’ of social change and revolution and put forward by everyone from Marxist-Leninists to Bernie-Bros to bumper sticker liberals is over.

We are the ones in the street. We are the ones who are fighting. From indigenous warriors, anti-fascist fighters, black liberation militants, and anarchist revolutionaries, we are all part of a growing force that is building something new.

And we are the ones that will set the course of our own destiny, and out of this nightmare once and for all.

category: 

Comments

I have some nit-picking but this is a good article. Is there a slick pdf version of it anywhere if we wanted to distribute it?

God I hope not with all the fucking errors throughout it!

Such as?

I think this peace is absolutely brilliant in its content, the grammatic details is less important. Keep up the good work!

"But while revolutionary anarchist ideas and starting to have a broader currently, many of the things that people are starting to pick up on, we have been saying for years."
Come on, read over this shit again! That looks terrible to people. There are so many ducking errors it's nearly unreadable and impossible to take seriously even though I want to because I think its a good text on the current situation!!!

"But as ecological apocalypse lies on the horizon, all other signs point towards the continued growth of the wealth gap, inequality in all aspects, and amassing insecurity and precarity for workers and the poor. "
The ecological chaos brought on by climate change and environmental destruction is going to DIRECTLY contribute to the increase in inequality as resources and safe places become scarcer due to ecological changes. The ecological "apocalypse" is not separate from increasing inequality, it is a driver of it.

"gentrification run rampant"
Should say "runs"

"because the people that run this government have invested interest in keeping the status-quo"
Should be "a vested" not invested.

"acknowledge that the system actually worked as designed and provided voters will two physical representations of the core tenets of the United States."
Should be "with" not will.

"The Ferguson Insurrection inspired youth people"
Should be "young" not youth

"and DAPL security, the movement exploded as protectors heroically risking their lives on the front lines"
Should be "risked" not risking

"the turns many people away instead."
Should be that not the

"that anti-fascist position that combative and militant action"
Should be "the" not that (the first one)

"The state continues to become more and more repression"
Should be "repressive"

Truly, you're doing god's work. Seriously though, anarchist editors appear to be way too rare.

Spell-check and proof-reading is your friend! Undermines the credibility of an otherwise solid article. Why bust your ass and do 95% of the work and then slack off at the end?

Spelling & grammar fascist to the rescue!

Yeah, the only real way to not be a fascist is by looking like a jackass

Some of us have been fighting a long time without back-up, so its nice to finally see some reinforcements arrive! Victory has a thousand parents while defeat is an orphan-file.

*reinforcements immediately start infighting*

Shut up rat, you douche!

"ecological apocalypse lies on the horizon,"

Oh no it doesn't. The simple fact is we don't know what climate change will entail in the long run. All that you can really say is that there will be terrestrial transformation. Assigning apocalypse to terrestrial transformation is just human anthropocentric self importance. If there is a catastrophe to come we will probably not see it coming.

yes!, one of the most bigoted and ignorant doouches on here also denies that a eco-collapse is looming. fucking funny shite. you wont see the catastrophe coming ziggy cos you're stuffed up yr own ego. go tell it to the fucking marmots and the polar bears

I read a cute little analogy recently, in response to typical alt-right talking points regarding climate change and scientific uncertainty (here's where I ignore ziggy's predictable little snark session about being referred to as alt-right)

Moving on, the analogy goes: the best doctor in the world can't predict the exact injuries you'll sustain by throwing yourself in front of a speeding bus but no doctor in the world would say that because of that uncertainty, you should try it.

We're not talking about total extinction of our species and what kind of a threshold is that for identifying a problem? Your "simple fact" is either a totally asinine point to make or a deliberate smoke-screen. Either way, fuck right off down the block, k sweetheart?

so SE gets attacked for not believing in the apocalypse...

Watch out: it's the Party Line Thought Police!

and to the thought police i say: long live anarchy! i defy all categorization.

Man, these alt-right trolls have a serious persecution complex. Disagree with them, tell them they're wrong or simply state any opinion that differs from theirs and you're the "thought police" trying to repress them, or you're "afraid" of them for being "different". These special snowflakes spend more time playing the victim than the rest of the site combined.

Fuck off already.

But if you said this to black poople, you'd be alt-right...amirite?

But what if you punch your girlfriend instead of your buddy, does that make a difference? Yes it does. While your buddy may not like you anymore if you do that to him, hitting your girlfriend means a completely new dimension of violence.

The subject is part of the context which defines the relation.

It's not as if I have failed predictions past of catastrophes to come(70s and 80s). I have no doubt there will be some type of catastrophe to come due to simple fact that this is emergent within the biosphere, it's when anthropocentric importance tries to make the call that I become suspicious. Can there not simply be a green movement/orientation for its own sake without the need to float the catastrophe that never comes. Frame it in a more positive sense for fucks sake, think of something like green tech steam punk or something like that or neo paleolithic appropriated technology. Stop being moved by the collapse that may or may not come.

Ziggy is on point here.It is not a very controversial one. The cult of the apocalypse is getting boring by now. Good narrative for peanut butter hoarding christians and paranoids of all stripes. It is also a useful tool for the powers that be in its continuous black mailing and counter insurrection project.

Nah Zig just doesn't believe in climate change but doesn't wanna come out and say that.

As for ecological collapse, the only really relevant question is whether it's happening (or, at best, how quickly). I'll agree that some folks get a little too obsessed with it, but that doesn't mean it isn't happening or that it isn't relevant to anarchists. The risk of nuclear war alone shows how dangerous states are to the globe. Even outside of climate change there's mass extinctions everywhere, ocean acidification, deforestation, soil depletion, desertification, etc, going on just about everywhere. There's really no (scientific) question that these are all happening at well above their natural rates or that they will eventually hit a breaking point. As of now, hopes for the future hinge on technologies we hope will be invented soon or policies we hope somebody we'll find a way to implement - none of which are anywhere near a point where they could be relied upon. In short, as of now, based on the evidence available, our planet is indeed headed for collapse.

It is simply transforming as it has throughout all time. Also I don't reject climate change, I simply question the agw, linear, local hypothesis as well as the projected disasters to come. There are tropical aqua fauna showing up on Cascadian shores, obviously things are happening, it's the were and he how that remains an issue. I don't entirely reject the C02 hypothesis, it's not as bad or retarded a hypothesis as say HIV/AIDS, however I'm simply not prone the anthropocentric reductionism that dominates climate change discussions.

So basically you're a denier but don't wanna come out and say that. Gotcha.

Are you seriously telling me that someone who questions C02 reductionism denies climate change AS SUCH???

*Kisses teeth* Seriously.

Im saying that *you* are a denier and your repeated weasel-words confirm it.

Cause you know that denying climate change is NOT what I am doing. I'll accept your uncle cry.

You mean like you're not an AIDS/HIV "denier" even though you explicitly deny the link and cite denialists and their websites almost exclusively? Can you maybe just once skip the semantic bullshit and own up to the argument you're making? Your posts are filled with obvious references to standard denier tropes, from the "failed predictions of past catastrophes" to the "anthropocentric importance" lines, and then there's "I simply question the agw, linear, local hypothesis as well as the projected disasters to come". Uh huh.

Care to actually explain what you mean so we can clear this up?

HIV/AIDS and climate change are two different things. I of course reject HIV/AIDS because I REJECT THE THRUST OF THE GERM THEORY. I think I've made that clear many times and have hardly minced words. If there is no evidence for any immune system or exo viral pathogens then there is no HIV/AIDS hypothesis.

Climate change is another matter.

there are millions if not billions in the AGW herd that equate 'NOT buying into someone else's 'certain truth', with 'denial'. similar situations have been encountered in regard to 'the Second Coming' and 'the 72 virgins reward for martydom'. exposure to refutation, science's own requirement for theory to be 'scientific', is hard to establish in these cases; i.e. the 'certain truth' draws more from 'irrefutability' than from explicit affirmation.

"What are man's truths ultimately? Merely his irrefutable errors". -- Nietzsche

AGW scientists have formulated programs of human CO2 emission reductions that, they claim, will constrain the global surface temperature rise by the year 2100, eighty four years from now, to either 2.0 degrees Celsius or 1.5 degrees Celsius.

This prediction is not exposed to refutation other than through the results of an 84 year long experiment.

This prediction is based on conjecture on the behaviour of one variable, CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, implying that the many other variables that influence temperatures will do nothing over the next 84 years that could throw their prediction off. This assumption is a blanket disclaimer termed 'ceteris paribus' (all other influences remaining more or less the same) to implicitly acknowledge that there are a lot of variables whose behaviours and influences are not sufficiently well understood to be explicitly addressed.

there's no more fertile ground to study herd behaviour than AGW.

Climate dynamics are an inner and outer terrestrial process that has to be looked at in a multifactorial manner. Of course there is probably some role that humans play, any Ernst Mach understanding of the world will tell you this, but to turn that into single factor athropogenic approach requires a high level of Western learned reductionist retardation.

Someone like Randal Carson is more on my wavelength. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbihGWTT2IY

carson makes the point that nietzsche makes, Lamarck and Emerson make and then again, mach and bohm and systems theorists make which can be phrased; "epigenetic influence inductively actualizes genetic expression", or "every system is included in a relational suprasystem so that analytical inquiry [inquiry into genetic expression] must be grounded in synthetic inquiry [inquiry into the epigenetic influence of the relational suprasystem].

in Carson's 'sacred geometry talks, he refers to this in the alchemical terms of the union of heaven and earth [as above, so below]. In terms of his talk on climate change, his claim is that the earth's climate has been unusually stable over the past three-five centuries [where we have written history] and has had many episodes of climate instability over the past 200 centuries which are undocumented but somewhat decipherable through sacred symbols in ancient temples etc. His basic point is essentially the same as the systems scientists, the [inside-outward asserting] analytical inquiry must be grounded in [outside-inward inducing] synthetical (epigenetic) inquiry.

That is, the inside-outward asserting [genetic expression] is the secondary appearances that will not give us a meaningful understanding of what is going on without forging the union of 'heaven' and 'earth' (i.e. without seeing outside-inward epigenetic inductive influence and inside-outward genetic expression as a non-dual unity).

this is the equivalent, also, to Pasteur's concession to Bechamp [which you have also cited] that; "le microbe n'est rien, le terrain est tout"; i.e. the attack of the pathogen is the 'genetic expression' actualized by epigenetic inductive influence as in a body/inhabitant out of balance with its environment/habitat. the attacking pathogen is the result, rather than the cause of 'illness' [illness is the condition of imbalance and the associated relational tensions that induce symptomatic genetic expression]

Western climate science, like Western medical science, conducts its inquiry using the tool of analysis on its own and focusing one-sidedly on 'genetic expression' without arranging a 'marriage of heaven and hell'. therefore such science can see is positive causal actions out of the context of the epigenetic inductive influence that is actualizing, orchestrating and shaping those positive causal actions. since epigenetic influence is non-local, non-visible and non-material and genetic expression is local, visible and material, the cultural adjustment is non-trivial. it requires, as McLuhan notes, the restoring of acoustic space [relational influence which is everywhere at the same time, like gravity] to its natural primacy over visual space [what the local, visible, material contents of 3D Euclidian space do 'over time']

the 'sacred geometry' plays out in the same vein, in that the attack of the middle east terrorist is the genetic expression inductively actualized by epigenetic influence arising from the colonizing powers conditioning of the common living space. the 'terrorist behaviour' is secondary 'appearances'; i.e. as with the case of the hurricane, it's violent behaviour gives the impression that there is a violent 'thing-in-itself' there that is authoring its own development and behaviour, but as our experience-based intuition informs us, relational tensions associated with imbalances in the flow of the atmosphere inductively actualize, orchestrate and shape the genetic expression aka 'storm-cell'.

Western politics continues to be plagued by 'the fall of man' and in need of 'the marriage of heaven and hell' which William Blake speaks of in the same terms as Randal Carson; e.g. Western politics can't see that the middle east terrorist n'est rien, le terrain est tout; i.e. the terrorist is not the cause of illness but the result of illness [illness as imbalance that breeds relational tensions].

ok, a bit of a ramble, but to make the point that carson also strives to make, that the basic symmetries or 'sacred geometries' of the cosmos are omni-present.

Your answer is to cite this joker? A "sacred geometry" expert who's biggest accomplishment is appraring on the joe rogan podcast?

A) this is really clearly still climate denial and fits entirely into the usual definition. This whole "I'm not a climate denier but...." bullshit is stale as hell.

B) lengthy youtube videos from some ludicrous crank aren't a source they're an attempt to punish anyone checking your sources

C) this crystal-hippie conspiracy bullshit is fucking weak and nobody who cites it deserves to be laughed off this site.

Logic 101 anon. Facts don't give a fuck about cred, either you refute what is being said or shrivel and shrink off like a post pool penis.

I must have missed something, what is AGW? Anarchist Green Wildernists?

Of course these scientists don't claim they know exactly what will happen, they're not idiots like some scientists(as many non-scientists) are. But having data and experiencing decades and occasionally centuries of industrialization does give SOME basis for making some sort of hypothesis about what will continue to happen. I doubt any will be as precise as any of us would wish, or that we should abandon skepticism, but what else do we have to go on? Religious nuts who actually WANT the world to end? Those who assume that we can do anything and it will have no negative consequences(either for you or me as indviduals or for humanity or Earth's ecosystems as a whole(s)?

AGW is an acronym for 'anthropogenic global warming'.

The AGW hypothesis comes with mathematical models that claim to be able to predict, with great accuracy, the impact of human CO2 emissions on global surface temperatures. auxilliary models predict the positive and (mostly) negative consequences of global warming pending continued trends in human CO2 emissions, and how such 'climate catastrophe' can be avoided by reducing CO2 emissions, leading to the political view that it is a 'moral imperative' to cut back CO2 emissions, this view pivoting from an assumption that the predictions and catastrophes are the 'certain truth', so that those who are sceptical are labelled 'deniers', a term usually reserved for those who will not acknowledge what is 'truly, provably happening'. The theory of AGW remains unauthenticated theory.

There is a political movement afoot which is massaging the particulars of AGW so as to promote its premature authentication.

"The theory of AGW remains unauthenticated theory."

Lol...fucking hilarious. Measurements show that average temperatures of global atmosphere and oceans have been steadily getting warmer for over 150 years. The last 16 years have been progressively the hottest on record.

AGW is a proven fact by now, like evolution. Start here: https://www.skepticalscience.com/

If you're going to invoke Maxwell, Bohm, Poincare, Planck, etc. in the name of science to argue your points, then you have to accept the science of climate change (which has been known since the late 19th century and based on the same general principles). You can't have it both ways.

So tired of your BS on here.

Climatology is a pseudoscience as far as (1) it was created conveniently within the predicate of the very political context it is answering to, and (2) is impeded by its own limitations to measuring and analyzing weather patterns within the atmosphere, by not taking any outside cosmic or ever geomagnetic factors into consideration by design, to a point of having bluntly lied to people for decades about the holes in the ozone layers at the poles as caused by CFC and CO2 emissions. There was no climatology just back in the '90s... there was just geophysics or meteorology, which are true sciences unlike this one.

The idea raised by other commenters that we're just being the uncritical mouthpieces of neoliberal propaganda is true, as this worldview and attached political agendas have been pushed first and foremost by forces of global neoliberalism, which in part is backed by the very same corporate interests that are causing mass pollution and exploitation of the land and seas in the first place.

The reason why they're pushing this isn't to "save the Earth" but rather to put it under the control of a financial (i.e. capitalist) ruling caste that thinks they know better how to manage the world (and also, yeah... very anarchistic, right?); where carbon tax and trade policies were thought as preliminary Trojan Horses for subject Nation-States to more strict global governance.

Not that I care too much about national States losing power to the benefit of global synarchies... just that there's been this context of aggressive globalization happening since the early '90s that's directly related to the AGW paradigm.

The fact that those who created these economic/political born problems are talking about solving it with a pseudo empirical discipline. What's interesting is that non of these geopolitical heads mention peak oil, peak oil is something that speaks to decentralized regionalist solutions not centralized ones like the Trojan Horse you speak of. It's funny seeing anarchists support a process that was never engineered by them and that they will not be part of.

AGW, the war on terror, red scares—these are all pretexts to expand power, surveilance and control. AGW a really obvious economic power grab through taxation, fines, technical decrees.

It's been a disappointment to me since the early 00s to watch the environmental movement turn into, largely, the climate change movement. One which reeks of beaurocratic boredom and foggy futures. It was enough to be concerned about deforestation, extinctions, biodiversity loss, animal rights, factory farming, toxicities... These were tangible, measurable things unreliant upon academic oracles. Where once there was a forest, and now there is none- this is easily percieved and proven. The climate NGO/non-profit crowd have siphoned away the money, minds and effort from tangible environmentalism, and sucked it of all its life and vigor. The progress which might have been made in the other areas if not for the climate beaurocrats and their unpaid interns...

I wonder what it would have taken to put anarchists upon the war-on-terror bandwagon instead of the AGW one. Perhaps if Al Gore had been elected, and the terrorism targets had been different. Antifa is part way there I suppose.

Slow down there Alex Jones. Why should anarchists care that states might put additional taxes on the likes of Exxon Mobil?

If climate agreements are a "Trojan Horse" for neoliberal global governance, then they're a little late to the party. Rio and Kyoto might as well not have happened at all and at present things aren't looking good for Paris. All of these agreements are voluntary and utterly toothless. Actual "neoliberal" institutions like the WTO, NAFTA, GATT, IMF, CETA and the EU etc have been in place for decades and already posess the power to over-write local state laws or impose massive economic penalties on those who won't play along. What are lackluster environmental agreements supposed to add to this?

I'm not saying they should mourn Exxon's tax rates, I'm pointing out the methods these competing forces are using against each other. The point is to be aware of these things so that @s aren't the lackeys for either side.

Perhaps a rhetorical question illustrates better: Should anarchists have supported the Axis or the Allied powers during WWII?

By the time WWII started anarchists had largely exhausted their organized fighting capacity via war with what would become the Axis powers. Heard of Spain? Plenty more enlisted, or fought as partisans (I knew a guy who's whole trainload of international brigade fighters got drafted as they returned home, and were happy enough to go off and kill more Nazis). Not buying into false dichotomies doesn't mean remaining neutral.

Much like fascists, Anarchists were raging against climate change long before governments or corporations resolved to do a thing about it. Did you miss the riots outside all those climate summits? The mountains of essays and even books from anarchist writers all over the spectrum? The eco-arsons? Does that make us "lackeys"?

Lackeys to that cause. Saving the planet is a tall order. Almost evangelical in its gravity. Almost colonial in its scope. Why be shaken by apocalyptic ghost stories? Why posture and contort yourself unto those holy words, puritan?

Those actions you list influenced little. It is playing on the sidelines thinking it has an influence, while the real players are on the field. It is spectating with extra effort involved. A way to feel more involved than the other spectators. But since you don't have massive money & audience, you are but the same as they, just with more denial and pretense.

Deciding to fight for the totalitarians or the authoritarians as an anarchist is a conundrum isn't it? But one can choose not to participate in other's wars, or rigged games. And sometimes that is the deadliest & most courageous option to take. Inaction. Dissent. Starvation.

Taken further, we might benefit ourselves the honesty of saying that even this choice of neutrality is a facile, ineffectual one. We are all in this together, we billions. Along for the ride. A headless leviathan storming about the planet. Participation is its blood. Conflict is its heartbeat. Dropping out is its cancer. Suicide is its atrophy.

WOUH HA HA HA HA HAAAA! We nihilists couldn't give a fuck about all this petty anthropocentric drama, there is only the unfathomable eternity and ALL OF US are mere little worms messing our little mud ball. But wait, there's 4 billion years of life left, even after a radioactive waste lasting a miniscule 250,000 years numerous glorious and self consuming life forms will come and go after dominateing and destroying, or having an asteroid doing it for them, the great unknown, enjoy while you can, LIVE aAND LOVE YOUR LIFE AND ALL THOSE AROUND YOU TO THE FULLEST you petty timid worms, MWAH HA HA HAAA

"Should anarchists have supported the Axis or the Allied powers during WWII?"

I, without hesitation, would have joined the local cell of Partisans... unless they'd have been real stalinist scum or useless Chetniks.

The Allied powers was a government-level coalition anyone in any State's military back in the days was fighting for it, or against it. They were nowhere a direct ideological choice for any of its soldiers.

I would have joined no one because its all the machinations of worms in the MEGA-COSMIC CONTINUUM. I would have gone in the trains to concentration camps and spread my HUMUNGOUS COMPASSION AND LOVE TO ALL PRISONERS MUAHAHAHAHAAA

"Climatology is a pseudoscience"

Prove it. Let's see your published research.

There is no need for PUBLISHED research you cite happy authoritarian lapdog, it's all about the articulation of facts which need no authority laden peer review. I've read enough scientific papers to know that their game is geared in the direction of arcane dialectical knowledge building, you cannot be to audacious idiolectical if you want to get published. Anarchists are supposed to be an audacious auto-didactic idiolectical species, not academic lapdogs and part time sciencebloggers. Science is one of the most significant forces of statism and civilization that there is. No one who is sophisticated and self-referential is dictated by that capital and state fueled priestly power structure.

YEEEEAAS the mighty AUTO-DIDACTIC IDIOLECTIC NIHILIST SPECIES MUAHAHAHAA nothing more to explain the COSMIC TOTALITY HAS ITS epilogue finally HOORAH MUAHAHAHAA

Eco collapse is already happening all around us now. More species going extinct every day. Climate change is adding to it. A hotter dryer planet means arable lands will shrink. Pretty hard to grow food in the desert. Aquifers will dry up.

We've seen this coming for a long time.

Whoopee I can't wait till mangoes lettuce , tomato and coconuts can grow in the north pole, its hard being a vegan Inuit, at least my great grandchildren of the future will have that opportunity!

Plants depend on more than just temperature... I doubt you'll ever get any of those things growing anywhere near a pole, except in climate controled buildings. Ever heard of sunlight? Why might sunlight be important to growing plants?

As for Inuit vegans, no not really any that i know of, but what's the relative population size of Inuits vs tropical tribes/societies?

silly anarchists... Maybe this could've been called "What Liberals Have Been Saying for Years, and what Liberals Need to Start Hearing"

These comments could be called "what crazy wingnut shit anarchists have been saying and why everyone has been ignoring them because its batshit crazy"
Climate change and AIDS are real you idiots.
Fuck off.

This historical malaise that anarchism is going throw is due to useful idiots like you who cog and roundly fit into the current ideological scientific world view. In good times-like 1968-you have audacious autodidacts like Robert Pirsig who aren't afraid to ask contrarian questions and reject orthodoxy

As for your realz, one is in a dynamic relational non reductionist sense and one(the germ theory born spook) isn't. For the latter the two component parts that would make it possible(the existence of immune systems and the existence of viral pathogens of any kind rna, dna retro ect) have never been empirically demonstrated. There is such a thing as morphostatic imbalance and breakdown but that is another thing entirely from the HIV/AIDS spook.

As usual, the noise coming from the alt-right trolls is only interesting if you want to study the obfuscations of demagogues and the ramblings of arrogant fools and/or people with autism. The only thing worth pondering is why a handful of such actively anti-anarchist pseudo-intellectuals feel the need to spend so much time here destroying any serious discussion with their formulaic rhetoric. Is it just ego or is somebody getting paid? Hmmm ...

You ask "Is it just ego or is somebody getting paid?" LONELINESS AND ALIENATION IS WHY! Ego is in every action good or bad. Money? I thought about that, but not from any government sources because qualitatively the rhetoric is not worth the taxes and would have been phased out. Autism lacks any ideological significance. Its loneliness or some sociopathic tendency possibly,

why do majorities support a common position as in 'herd behaviour'?

the easiest way for majoritarians to arrange a majority is to create a minority and attack it. a majority sustains its majority by attacking minorities. minorities are defined as those who do not possess the common properties and views that define the majority.

majorities put themselves in charge of judging and managing and they pull in those manifesting minority actions and/or views, and demand that the minority explain and defend their actions and/or views. why don't the members of the majority get pulled in and forced to explain their actions and views? oh that's right, they are sitting on the judge's bench and commanding the police forces on the basis that they are thinking and acting as 'representatives of the people'. 'what people? not the minorities.

the work of 'minority courts' where they arise, is obvious; i.e. to pull in those manifesting 'majority' actions and/or views and demand that the majority explain and defend their actions and/or views.

'majorities' are the problem in Western society. anyone claiming to 'represent a majority' and setting himself or herself up on a judge's bench to allege incorrect behaviour and/or incorrect thinking on some minority's part does not belong in an anarchist community or in a community composed of minorities as is basic to the diversity in nature's communities.

majority based social dynamics management aka 'democracy' is the scourge of the planet.

as Giordano Bruno observed;

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.” -- Giordano Bruno

i would, as, and on behalf of minorities, enjoin thecollective, in moderating the comments on anarchistnews.org, to banish to the gulags, any comments made by a forum participant who tries to use the dumb, non-negotiating (dis-associating) 'authority' of being a representative of a people-majority viewpoint, in his engaging with other forum participants.

i would likewise enjoin thecollective NOT to seek out 'majority opinion' on how to manage anarchistnews.org activities such as comment moderating processes.

it seems high time to reject the practice of cultivating majority views and high time to reject those who seek to bolster and exploit majority power to smother and stifle minorities, by simply announcing themselves to be a 'representative' of a people-majority, deeming this sufficient notice to free them personally from having to understand or explain the majority position in sufficient depth to give open and honest consideration to minority critique.

the practice of cultivating majority views as an aid to organizing social dynamics needs to be overtly rejected in anarchist collectives and openly challenged wherever majority-justified action [democratic action] is encountered.

The problem with this narrative is that it totally ignores the context. There are not actually a lot of anarchists - we make up what, a tenth of one percent of the population, if that? There are, on the other hand, a hell of a lot of alt-right trolls, to the point where they just played a major role in deciding a US presidential election. Close to a third of Americans don't believe in climate change. Closer to 80%, according to some surveys, question the big bang. Even oddball conspiracy/pseudoscience shit like Alex Jones reach millions of people (sometimes daily). 4chan claims close to a million posts per day (even now, with 8chan, halfchan etc). This shit is orders of magnitude more mainstream than anything anarchists have to offer. There are thousands of other websites where they could peddle this crap, all with far more traffic than here. Where else are the rest of us supposed to go, once they've finished ruining this place?

Taken to its logical conclusion, emile's logic would ensure that no minority could ever really have a space to discuss shit for fear of marginalizing a single member of a majority in their midst.

PS Anyone else feeling the irony inherent in a bunch of people claiming to be an oppressed minority because folks took issue with their arguments in favour of oppressing minorities?

Many vague estimates and percentages in your post, as you attempt to tally the anarchist population and the strength of whom you say are their enemies.

Tell me, must the indigenous tribespeople of turtle island accept in faith, as you do, the existence of the Big Bang? You reference a belief in it as a criteria for legitimacy, along with AGW, since being critical of it renders someone, in your view, 'alt-right', or, at least, right wing i.e. a sullied one incapable of rising unto Anarchism.

You and the OP are peddling mainstream neoliberal/neoconservative talking points, taking them as foundational, unquestionable. They are shaping your view of the world. Driving your decisions. Directing your actions and talents.

They have nothing to do with anarchism.

Belief in them, or consideration of them, have nothing to do with anarchistic thought. No gods, no masters, remember?

Oh fuck off.

No gods, no masters...therefore creationism, right? The issue isn't the big bang, it's the fact that these are not actually marginal beliefs. You might differ on the exact statistics, but the sad fact is that at least in the English-speaking world, people who think the earth is 6000 years old are far, far, more common than anarchists. Claiming, as emile did, that they're a persecuted minority for advocating these beliefs is just playing the victim, like usual.

None of this anti-science shit has anything to do with anarchism, and if you're gonna call me a "neoliberal" for saying so all that really proves is that you don't have the faintest clue what a "neoliberal" is.

You resort to hyperbole. I'm pointing out that there are secular gods and masters, and it would be helpful for anarchists and all the other unique-ones within society to have the humility to admit this.

Authorities in our era are necessecarily scientific and technical. This discussion then inevitably does have something "to do" with anarchism—pro-science, anti-science, or otherwise.

All nit picking aside. This was reasoned and I liked it. One commentator wrote
"You and the OP are peddling mainstream neoliberal/neoconservative talking points, taking them as foundational, unquestionable. They are shaping your view of the world. Driving your decisions. Directing your actions and talents."
This has everything to do with anarchism and in fact being human! I did not find the article to be the work of a neoliberal/neoconservative I do think that all people have bias and filter the world through that bias.

No gods no masters that is only one of many Anarchist ideas. I guess we have to ask if we want to replace one set of world views forcibly imposed upon us with the same thing or something different. If the latter then what....I have fact checked the article and while you can debate some of the facts I can at least find sources that are "good" but then if you believe the earth is flat I bet you can find a source for that to.

I think that's relevant to point out that Flat Earth theory was mostly the product of Industrial Revolution/Enlightment-era philosophers who had a mediocre knowledge of history and wanted to use it as a propaganda tool to bad-mouth on the religion (Christianity) that preceded their own... paradoxically despising the very religion that allowed their industrial capitalist system to rise and become a powerful force.

Good points regarding Christianity as foundation. It is common, near ubiquitous, to find westerners and western vassals, who claim diverse and unique identities counterposed to Christianity. As though they think they are free of the influence of a religion which shaped their forebears for thousands of years.

That the current culture exists 'because of' or 'in spite of' Christianity's long reign, is irrelevant. It was—and it shaped. I witness, repeatedly, so-called radicals, counter-culturalists, secularists, progressives, feminists, all the various ists and isms, behaving like the cryptochristians that they, and we, inevitably are. Denial of the past, ignorance of it, pretenses of uniqueness, do not disappear its influence.

Even most indigenous belief systems have ultimately reconstituted themselves to the Christian hegemony and its addictive mindset of forgiveness and the equality of individual essence. It was only a matter of time, when, in the evolution out of animal unconsciousness will the homo sapien species get to the complexity of existence in time and space, for a certain mutation of freak compassion to stand up for his beliefs and die for them. They say there existed a X-tian orangutang in Indonesia who died for his clan by charging at a group of poachers so that his clan could escape. Just wanted to steer the argument away from the anthropocentric rut it had entered into ;)

I looked into Medieval Xtian societies and see what I've found... animals being represented into trials and having more rights than today? I look at the Book of Enoch and see what I found... prediluvian humans having been mostly punished for their systematic "sins" against the land, the seas, the animal creatures... against the EARTH? I look at ancient semitic religions and ancient Egypt as well, and see animal-human HYBRID deities and monarchs?

Looks like anthropocentrism is more recent and exclusive than we think. Of course it's very dominant among the "Big 3" abrahamic religions, but it's also vastly due to Roman imperialism as well as the post-Renaissance heliocentric episteme of science and philosophy.

I'm saying its a priori and has nothing to do with historicity, that the orangutang, as do all species, evolve through mutation, and that the recently observed actions of the giant ape in sacrificing himself to save his family was not a Christian act, but an evolved instinctual survival reflex which has the appearance of being a Christian act to the anthropocentric Christian mindset, but to most other folk a rather reckless crazy chest-beating display of angst in the guise of bravado.

for those who understand themselves as 'included in nature', the industrial revolution, with its christianity enshrined schizophrenic concept of dualist separation of man and nature, inhabitant and habitat, ... is a mental disorder. it is true that this mental disorder continues to propagate and has taken its toll among indigenous peoples, to a greater extent that smallpox ever did; i.e. smallpox got rid of those it infected which limited propagation while the schizophrenic concept of man as a 'thing-in-itself' apart from nature propagates like an infectious disease since the infected person is continually contagious. the children of the infected are subjected to programs of deliberate infectation termed 'education'.

This same schizophrenic concept of inhabitant-habitat duality is enshrined in Western science and technology so that, as McLuhan points out, scientific thinking people believe their own 'thing-in-itself logic-based semantic realities such as 'we are constructing a factory in the valley', when what is really going on is the transforming of relations in the dynamic relational medium of the valley; i.e. 'the transforming of the relational medium is the message'.

So, christianity did not provide a 'base' for the more nature-oriented cultures, it was/is the carrier of a disease that has infected the more nature-oriented cultures.

and as linguists like Sapir and Whorf have noted, the schizophrenic concepts and the mental disorder that derive from them, are seeded by noun-and-verb languages and the infection is carried and spread in both Western religions and Western science [those cultures with relational languages 'never developed' 'science].

"“It is sometimes stated that Newtonian space, time, and matter are sensed by everyone intuitively, whereupon relativity is cited as showing how mathematical analysis can prove intuition wrong. This, besides being unfair to intuition, is an attempt to answer offhand question (1) put at the outset of this paper, to answer which this research was undertaken. Presentation of the findings now nears its end, and I think the answer is clear. The offhand answer, laying the blame upon intuition for our slowness in discovering mysteries of the Cosmos, such as relativity, is the wrong one. The right answer is: Newtonian space, time, and matter are no intuitions. They are receipts from culture and language. That is where Newton got them.” – Benjamin Whorf, ‘The Relation of Habitual Thought and Behavior to Language’

the mental disorder of understanding man/inhabitant as mutually exclusive of habitat derives from language and continues to spread through Western religions and Western science.

So to say... the Church has never enforced the view that the Earth was flat. It was always quite clear even in the Medieval times that it was spherical. The only big, lasting controversy was, on the other hand, heliocentrism Vs geocentrism.

"the motions of the Universe are the same whether we adopt the Ptolemaic or the Copernican mode of view” of celestial dynamics, … “both views are, indeed, equally correct.” i.e. the geocentric and the heliocentric views are merely two “interpretations” of a Universe that “is only given once.” -- Ernst Mach

It's true, they both describe the same thing. But of the pictures both are painting, one is a more accurate & sober representation of the landscape. A sketch, vs a realistic painting, vs a photograph. So what then of correct-ness?

Does an axle orbit a spoke? Or does a spoke orbit an axle?

Exactly!!! In what context, since neither theories are actually influencial in determining any real difference in the final analysis of the factual empirical data. Vote Nihilism, cos nothing really matters MWAHAHAHAHAA

the storm-cell is 'sink' and 'source' at the same time; i.e. it is toroidal flow which, like the alchemical ouroborus, opens up to accommodate its own penetration. it is the 'union of opposites', female and male at the same time. when we observe the cell, the cell appears to be a thing-in-itself. it seems to be both inhaling and exhaling. but is there 'a thing there' that is doing the inhaling and exhaling, or, ... is the continuing-in-the-now cycle of inhaling and exhaling 'the thing'? if inhaling and exhaling are reciprocally complementary phases of one circular flow, then the inhaling-exhaling IS the [purely relational] thing and there is no 'thing-in-itself-that-is-inhaling-and-exhaling'.

funny how our noun-and-verb language-and-grammar tends to depict a hurricane as a 'thing' with spiralling octopus arms and a vertical central body cavity, and attribute to it its own powers of development and behaviour so as to make it the protagonist in its own semantic story-reality; "Katrina is growing larger and stronger", ... "Katrina is moving towards the Gulf Coast", ... "Katrina is devastating New Orleans", ... "Katrina is moving overland and dissipating".

Meanwhile, our pre-lingual experience-based intuition screams out to us that 'there is NO THING there', and what we are observing is a purely relational resonance feature within a transforming relational continuum or 'Heraclitean flow' [panta rhei and all that stuff].

Maybe that's what's going on in Syria/Iraq, maybe there's a storm-cell brewing in the global social-relational dynamic, in the manner of a nest of tornadoes spawned within a powerful relational supra(storm)system. Maybe there is no 'thing' in the centre of it that is responsible for its development and behaviour. Maybe relations are the source of things, as modern physics reports, instead of 'things' being the source of relations. Maybe the spiraling arms reaching out through Turkey, Kurdistan, Iran, Egypt and Libya, and then again towards Europe and America 'ARE' the violent core in Syria.

The simultaneous convergence and divergence (young fighters converging inwards and refugees dispersing outwards) raises questions as to why we call it a 'civil war in Syria', the name for a bounded area defined as the agreed areas of influence of British, French and Russian colonizers of the Middle East in the Sykes-Picot Agreement (1916), and cited by ISIS in 2016 (it's centenary) as follows; "this blessed advance will not stop until we hit the last nail in the coffin of the Sykes–Picot conspiracy"

so, in regard to your question;

"Does an axle orbit a spoke? Or does a spoke orbit an axle?"

perhaps the relations are the source of the parts rather than the parts being the source of the relations, as is the understanding in modern physics. in which case, imputing movement to things/parts is a mistake, relational movement being the source of things rather than vice versa. Remember the 'Saddam regime'? ... maybe it was just a relational complex rather than a real 'thing-in-itself' as it was portrayed, ... and maybe 'the message' is that 'its elimination' was merely a transforming of the relational medium that it had been an emergent relational feature in.

Clearly you're still stuck in the hopeless neoliberal leftist trap of believing in the "Middle East". A true anarch would recognize the core relational truth behind the inward-outward dynamic of indigenous quantum epigenetics: there is no "Middle East". Have you ever seen it? Do you have any concrete evidence that they exist? Syria, Iraq, Turkey - these "places" are a fiction created by George Soros and the liberal-fascist communists in order to keep us focused on their illusions.

This "faith" that the Middle East is real is nothing but the modern continuance of the Judeo-Christian religious traditions. It is called the "holy land" after all. People believe, nowadays, that Isreal and Egypt are real places they could visit - to them it is an absolute truth in the same way that people once believed in god. So-called "anarchists" who continue to attest that such places are "real" are really just useful idiots, parroting the lines of our totalitarian overlords. The US military claims the middle-east is real, as does "science", religion, the World Trade Organization and the bilderberg group. Can that be a coincidence? The whole thing is a scam to sell newspapers, boost military budgets and keep us believing in the objective truth of geographic orthodoxy. There's nothing anarchist about that.

Now, I'm not "denying" that the Middle East exists. My position may sound like that but it's really subtly different in ways that allow me to totally escape criticism and scrutiny. There might be some land there, there might not, and all I'm saying is that we can't know for sure. The earth is really big and complicated, and believing in objective truth is pretty much fascism.

Oh Sue Doe gimme a HUMUNGOUS BIG NIHILIST HUG you beautiful massively humble cosmic beacon of utter honesty OH GIVE ME A MEGA NIHILISTIC HUG DARLING HMMMMMMMMM MUAHAHAHAA

Satire is not your strong suit.

MWAHAHAHAHAA its what nihilists have been saying for centuries and EVERYONE NEEDS TO START HEARING MWAHAHAHAHAA take our gift it will give you peace and harmony in the unfolding dilemma that surrounds your anthropcentric world view YES EMBRACE the glorious humility you deserve and throw away all notions of victory because you are all little cosmic germs and the only glory possible is to LIVE AND LOVE TO THE FULLEST OF YOUR CAPABILITIES MWAHAHAHAHAA
Join me in my cerebral muscularity and accept that your collective intellectual powers are a failure comparable to the empire of ants which I brush away with a ray-beam of my compassion MWAHAHAHAHAA

Wow! I did not expect this- perhaps a comment on my own bias - and could not have predicted these replies. Interestingly, I have to confess I may be missing something. I'm old, by some anarchist standards. I read and re-read the same old texts. I remember the seventies and eighties vividly (well some parts of the 70's are a bit blurry) and have seen the collective "us" fail over and over - at least here in the U S of A.

I feel embarrassed but I have to ask the question. Is some of the above satire?

DO NOT feel embarrassed PhilR to nihilists EVERYTHING IS SATIRE when viewed from the HUMUNGOUS HUMILITY of nihilist non-endevour, THE COSMOS is the playground of all nihilists we see the COMEDY OF HUMAN VANITY from our miniscule magnificence the entire 20th Century is a blurry nlack and white newsreel playing endlessly in the back vaults of the nihilist data bank, you are missing nothing because there is nothing to miss in the COSMIC ARCHEOLOGICAL VORTEX MWAHHAHAHAA

Regarding the climate change comments:
There is a part of the climate change movement that will result in a strengthening of capitalism: the expansion of capitalist market logic to the very air we breathe. The expansion of the realm of quantifiable, commodifiable things with capitalist value is never a good thing.

There was a branch of the climate movement who pushed for an application of "capitalist market logic". It was called "emissions trading" and it really hasn't worked out so well in practice, which is why governments are now talking about the formerly unthinkable carbon taxes (which dude above was freaking out over). So which is the diabolical plot, again?

Statists gonna state. Why wouldn't liberal technocrats propose technocratic solutions? And why in this specific case does that suggest that the problem they're attempting to solve isn't real?

Market logic does not have an issue with taxation, taxation driven managerial capitalism has pretty much been the post WW2 rule. Carbon taxation is just a continuation and it was hardly unthinkable.

If these statists were serious about defootprinting they would opt for libertarian bioregional solutions which would entail things like abolishing Tucker and Carson's 5 big monopolies-land, money, patents, tariffs and infrastructure-however that would also meaning phasing themselves out of existence.

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.
CAPTCHA
Human?
w
4
i
t
t
B
h
Enter the code without spaces.