What They Mean when They Say Peace

From crimethInc.com

“I’m committed to making sure the forces of peace and justice prevail,” Missouri Governor Jay Nixon said in Ferguson on Saturday, August 16, after a week of conflicts sparked by the police murder of teenager Michael Brown. “If we’re going to achieve justice, we first must have and maintain peace.”

Is that how it works—first you impose peace, then you achieve justice? And what does that mean, the forces of peace and justice? What kind of peace and justice are we talking about here?

As everyone knows, if it weren’t for the riots in Ferguson, most people would never have heard about the murder of Michael Brown. White police officers kill over a hundred black men every year without most of us hearing anything about it. That silence—the absence of protest and disruption—is the peace which Governor Nixon wants us to believe will produce justice.

This is the same narrative we always hear from the authorities. First, we must submit to their control; then they will address our concerns. All the problems we face, they insist, are caused by our refusal to cooperate. This argument sounds most persuasive when it is dressed up in the rhetoric of democracy: those are “our” laws we should shut up and obey—“our” cops who are shooting and gassing us—“our” politicians and leaders begging us to return to business as usual. But to return to business as usual is to step daintily over the bodies of countless Michael Browns, consigning them to the cemetery and oblivion.

Governor Nixon’s peace is what happens after people have been forcefully pacified. His justice is whatever it takes to hoodwink us into accepting peace on those terms—petitions that go directly into the recycle bin, lawsuits that never produce more than a slap on the wrist for the killers in uniform, campaigns that may advance the career of an activist or politician but will never put an end to the killing of unarmed black men.

Keeping the peace in Ferguson

Permit us to propose another idea about how to address conflicts—what we might call the anarchist approach. The basic idea is straightforward enough. Real peace cannot be imposed; it can only emerge as a consequence of the resolution of conflict. Hence the classic chant: no justice, no peace.

Left to itself, a state of imbalance tends to return to equilibrium. To maintain imbalances, you have to introduce force into the situation. The greater the disparities, the more force it takes to preserve them. This is as true in society as it is in physics.

That means you can’t have rich people and poor people without police to impose that unequal relation to resources. You can’t have whiteness, which inflects and stabilizes that class divide, without a vast infrastructure of racist courts and prisons. You can’t keep two and a half million people—nearly a million of them black men—behind bars without the constant exertion of potentially lethal violence. You can’t enforce the laws that protect the wealth of good liberals like Governor Nixon without officers like Darren Wilson killing black men by the hundred.

The militarization of the police is not an aberration—it is the necessary condition of a society based on hierarchy and domination. It is not just the police that have been militarized, but our entire way of life. Anyone who does not see this is not living on the business end of the guns. These are the forces of peace and justice, the mechanisms that “keep the peace” in a dramatically imbalanced social order.

Sometimes they appear as surveillance cameras, security guards, police stopping and searching or shooting us. Other times, when that becomes too controversial, the forces of peace and justice reappear as the good cops who really seem to care about us, the earnest politicians who want to make everything better—whatever it takes to get public opinion back on the side of the ones who shoot the tear gas. Still other times, the forces of peace and justice are community leaders begging us to leave the streets, accusing us of being “outside agitators,” or promising some more effective outlet for our rage if only we will cooperate—anything to thwart, discredit, or defer immediate concrete struggle against injustice. In every case, it’s the same swindle: peace now, justice later.

But real peace is impossible until we put an end to the violent imposition of inequalities. All the conflicts that are currently suppressed by the forces of order—between developers and residents, between rich and poor, between the racially privileged and everyone else—must be permitted to rise to the surface. Make it impossible for anyone to coerce anyone else into accepting a relationship that is not in her best interest: then, and only then, there will be an incentive for everyone to address conflicts and reach accord.

This is the only way forward, but it’s a daunting prospect. It is not surprising that people often blame those who stand up for themselves rather than coming to terms with how deep the divisions in our society run. This explains why so many apparently well-meaning pundits have pretended not to understand why people would engage in looting as a form of protest against the murder of Michael Brown. The same constant imposition of force that took Michael Brown’s life separates millions like him from the resources they need on a daily basis. In this light, looting makes perfect sense—as a way of solving the immediate problems of poverty, of rebelling against the violence of the authorities, and of emphasizing that change has to be more thoroughgoing than mere police reform.

Let us not resent those who get out of hand for reminding us of the conflicts that remain unresolved in our society. On the contrary, we should be grateful. They are not disturbing the peace; they are simply bringing to light that there never was any peace, there never was any justice in the first place. At tremendous risk to themselves, they are giving us a gift: a chance to recognize the suffering around us and to rediscover our capacity to identify and sympathize with those who experience it.

For we can only experience tragedies such as the death of Michael Brown for what they are when we see other people responding to them as tragedies. Otherwise, unless the events touch us directly, we remain numb. If you want people to register an injustice, you have to react to it immediately, the way people did in Ferguson. You must not wait for some better moment, not plead with the authorities, not formulate a sound bite for some imagined audience representing public opinion. You must immediately proceed to action, showing that the situation is serious enough to warrant it.

Ferguson is not unique—there are countless such towns across the United States, in which the same dynamics play out between police and people. The rebellion in Ferguson will surely not be the last of its kind. Those of us who don’t buy into Governor Nixon’s program of peace now, justice later must prepare ourselves for the struggles that are soon to unfold. May we meet one day in a world without tear gas, in which skin color is not a weapon.

Appendix:
Struggles against the Police—A Reading List

The conflict in Ferguson over the murder of Michael Brown is only the most recent of many such uprisings around the US. This is an incomplete review of firsthand accounts and analyses of the previous precedents for struggles against policing.

&nbsp

Category: 

Comments

The problem with anarchist positions in North America is clearly illustrated here: "Make it impossible for anyone to coerce anyone else into accepting a relationship that is not in her best interest: then, and only then, there will be an incentive for everyone to address conflicts and reach accord."

The problem here, is in the naive obfuscation of "her best interest" as already being deeply contested, political, and complex. By depoliticizing "self interest" as something that is already established, known, and settled, rather than is being something that we produce socially and materially, together, anarchists in the U.S. end up resembling nothing more than far-right libertarians, who think of politics as nothing more than the sum of contracts drawn between autonomous and rational subjects.

I agree that the way "her best interest" is phrased here comes off as libertarian ion a way that struck me as odd, but i hardly think of it as somewhat illustrative or characteristic even of how crimethinc tends to phrase things, much less anarchists in general in the US. If your hypothesis was correct, then presumably our activity would itself resemble "nothing more than [that of] far right libertarians" , but this is obviously not the case. So, while i agree that this phrasing came off as odd, and than interests are not inherent or "pre-political" or "pre material" i hardly think this is some serious endemic problem in north american anarchist thought.

i think that your first point is very well taken, that self-interest is a moving, being-created target.
but any nation-wide indictment of anarchists always seems so shallowly self-righteous, and political in the bad sense.
surely those raised in the u.s. in general have a tendency towards seeing things in contract terms? doesn't make it ok, obviously, it just points the attention to something less accessible, perhaps.

at any rate, i keep being told that i should appreciate different people for the different skills and perspectives they have. surely a contract/clarity-appreciating, autonomy-focused people have something to offer, just as a flexible/conversation-driven focus is also very helpful sometimes-but-not-all-the-time?

perhaps it would be interesting to talk about timing and criteria, rather than (what sound like) moral absolutes?

So basically your beef with both this text and US anarchists is... the way they conceive self-interest. Good to know!

Have you got other groundbreaking news like this before I go tell the proles at QT that they should'nt see self-interest as something that is established and instituted, but rather as something socially-produced and reified in a dynamic way, or else they may fall into the right-wingers trap? Coz you really nit-picked on a major pivot factor here, and the future of the revolution depends on it.

In other news, I wonder when was the last time you got out of your faculty or office, aside than for getting a pizza slice or some pbr...

justice is liberals and so is this preocupation with "peace"

>Left to itself, a state of imbalance tends to return to equilibrium. To maintain imbalances, you have to introduce force into the situation. The greater the disparities, the more force it takes to preserve them. This is as true in society as it is in physics.

lies!

what is a non-nation "state?" theres no such states in this world
"imbalance and equilibrium" are modern garments of morality

Where is Emile to explain this to us?

your critique is just semantics, i think. surely they're not calling for the establishment of a non-nation state. that's a disingenuous reading.

i think the writing about interests compromises with mainstream discourse, yah, but this article doesn't seem to be directed at anarchists. as an attempt to communicate with all the people who are suddenly like #ferguson, it could do worse. i'm surprised there's so little along these lines.

No not calling for the establishment of, but asserting the natural existence of, a point which the OP is arguing. So, not semantic or disingenuous.

"what is a non-nation "state?" theres no such states in this world"

um - i can only guess when you quote the word "state" youre pulling it from the phrase "state of imbalance" in the part you cite...I dont know if "poor reading comprehension" is a new troll tactic and youre having fun, but this doesnt refer to state as in the State of Israel or whatever, but state as in a "resting state," a state of this or that or the other. A characteristic, a nature of some kind. Not the political and coercive entity.

wow.

Yes but they said such states do not exist, I.e. they are a fiction of science. For example, do you believe in human nature? The state of nature? Etc. These are creations of the Enlightenment. The OP takes issue with them.

in the article, the word "state" is being used as a figure of speech, as in " the unmoving car with the broken engine has been in a state of rest since the accident" or " the angry man was in an emotional state". wtf yall is this just a super complicated troll? the article uses the phrase "state of imbalance" not a philosophicaly loaded term like "state of nature". come on people.

jeesh.

you continue to be distracted by the word state, as if the OP had read 'state' in the article and had thought "government" and somehow objected to that. But this is your leap, not the OP's. Their point is that the article's belief in states (and I could use a less loaded term if that helps you get over it, like conditions) of imbalance or equilibrium is a major indication of their buying into modern Enlightenment thought, which is tied to liberalism (liberalism being concerned with political balance but connected to the more philosophical and scietific ideas of harmony).

Sounds like you studied some stuff in college that I didn't. It's cool you enjoy thinking about that stuff. But like, comparing this article as an intervention in an unfolding conflict with, say, your comment, I'm just not convinced the latter is all that interesting to me.

I went to college too. He's talking out of his ass and hoping that nobody notices.

Yeah i don't know about society but in physics everything tends toward entropy (chaos) and an object in motion (what they call an imbalance here) takes no energy to maintain its motion or imbalance. But it sure is lulzy when crimethinc pretends to know things.

crimethinc doesn;t know things--anons who says lulzy obviously are the ones who know things!

States beyond nations do exist and have existed throughout History. There are supranational states like the EU, and there are empires. Rome evolved from a republican city-State to a global imperial State.

"what is a non-nation "state?" theres no such states in this world"

This is so fucking embarrassing.

States 5-10 000 years old, beginning in ancient Mesopotamia.
Nation states: 2-500 years old, beginning in renaissance Europe.

States of matter: liquid, solid, gas, plasma (and now, some would argue, life).
State (noun): "he particular condition that someone or something is in at a specific time".

Do I need to go on?

dynamic relations amongst people can be 'attractor-based' so that movements of people and trade etc are orchestrated by notions of affiliation and respect as in a group of tribal communities whose social relational dynamics form a circulating unum. no 'being' is involved, ... as is the case in your way of defining the noun 'state' which is based on 'thingness'.

"State (noun): "the particular condition that someone or something is in at a specific time".

the storm-cell 'Katrina' is purely relational and the relational form is visible and tangible although not LOCALLY instantiated [purely relational dynamics are IN-THEMSELVES, non-local, non-visible and non-material yet manifest through their local visible and material/tangible aspects]. tribal affiliations can give the impression of a supra-tribal nation of people by way of their relational dynamics [this pattern is fractal], as with the storm-cell in the relational dynamics of the atmosphere. there is no 'centre-of-reason-directing authority' that is CAUSING this supra-tribal nation of citizens to continue to 'hang together'. the five nation iroquois confederacy is a case in point, where the 'one-ness' derives from mutual respect which attracts and orchestrates, sustaining relational affiliation and flow.

the relational nation is a non-state that is radically unlike the nation-state that is governed or managed by a 'centre of reason-directing authority' that imposes laws and five-year plans and objectives and has the central [violence or threat-of-violence based] power to make the 'multi-limbed elephant dance'.

it is a frequently made 'error of grammar' that re-casts the relational form 'Katrina' as a local being or 'atmospheric molecule nation-state' with each molecule being construed to be a citizen of the state. in reality, each molecule is a citizen of the world that recognizes no obligation to the nation-state as a 'thing-it-itself'. the nation-state is merely 'appearances' [schaumkommen] that arise from the outside-inward orchestrating influence of the common relational spatial world they all find themselves included in. Katrina is not a 'thing-in-herself' made up from all of her obedient citizen molecules, ... Katrina herself is the manner in which the relational space she is included in, is expressing itself. The organizing influence of the relational space not only inhabits the relational form [aka 'organism'], it creates it [Emerson].

opportunist authoritarians such as European colonizers, have been using the 'error of grammar' to recast relational self-organizing as 'centre-of-reason-directing authority' determined organizing. By giving the outside-inward orchestrated relational form a name and imputing 'being' to it, one can intellectually invert the direction of organizing influence so that it appears to come from the 'local relational form as if it were a local thing-in-itself', in which case one has to invent a notional internal 'centre responsible for directing its local, thing-in-itself behaviour'. this is how we get to the secularized theological concept of the 'independent sovereign state', as we know it and trap ourselves in it.

Yes, I am using non-standard definitions, but i am defining them in a manner that anyone can relate to from their own experience, and not in some esoteric mathematical [ten dimensional string theory] or postmodern jargon [which authors can use to deliberately write total bullshit articles which are taken seriously by their postmodern brothers].

The ‘standards’ or ‘norms’ of our Western civilization are under siege for a good reason, and the standard definitions of science and quantum physics are upheld by what Mach calls ‘The Church of Physics’.

You say that you are “An actual quantum physicist” so does that put you ‘inside the Church of Physics or outside it, like Mach, Poincaré, Bohm, Peat, Schroedinger, Rovelli and many other ‘heretics’ who are ‘relationists’ [non-dualists] rather than ‘dualists’?

My definition of ‘rationality’ is a common definition which maps easily into our common everyday experience; i.e. it is the practice of “using reason-based actions aimed at achieving a desired result”.

Schroedinger, a quantum physicist [is he an ‘actual quantum physicist in your terms because his definitions are definitely ‘non-standard’] who developed the wave version of quantum ‘mechanics’ [quantum wave dynamics] clearly stated, as had Mach, that using reason-based actions to determine a result, ... is manipulating ‘schaumkommen’ (‘appearances’); i.e. working on secondary rather than primary stuff.

Another way of saying this is in terms that space is ‘relational’; i.e. that space and matter are not mutually exclusive [material bodies are not ‘independently-existing’] and that space and matter are interdependent [habitat and inhabitant are interdependent]. Mach’s principle can be stated “the dynamics of the inhabitants/material-bodies are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat/space at the same time as the dynamics of the habitat/space are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants/material-bodies”.

Schroedinger’s ‘quantum wave dynamics’ embodies this ‘habitat-inhabitant interdependence’ and Schroedinger’s equation applies generally to macro or micro world phenomena. the implications are something any of us can understanding. in fact our [Western colonizer culture’s] pretending that ‘our reason-based actions’ were ‘all she wrote’ was mocked by the indigenous aboriginals of Turtle Island, who counselled us;

“The earth does not belong to us. We belong to the earth.” ... “Humankind has not woven the web of life. We are but one thread within it. Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves. All things are bound together. All things connect.” ... “The earth is our mother. Whatever befalls the earth befalls the sons of earth. If men spit upon the ground, they spit upon themselves.” ... “There is no death. . . Only a change of worlds.”

These statements, implying that the space of our physical experience is a relational space where habitat-inhabitant interdependence [Mach’s principle] applies, is a point of common understanding that we can use to inform our experience and guide our behaviour.

But our modern society, our sovereigntist/capitalist society, continues to distinguish itself [as it did when the colonized aboriginals first mocked the colonizers for their amazing ignorance as to habitat-inhabitant interdependence] by ignoring habitat-inhabitant interdependence and instead making ‘rationality’ [reason-based actions aimed at achieving a desired result] its ‘behaviour of preference’. This rational approach is what leads to hierarchical social organization and the central authority/centre-of-rational-intelligence DIRECTORSHIPS of multiple sovereign states and corporations WHICH HAVE DECLARED THEIR OWN INDEPENDENCE and claimed their ‘God-given’ right to own property [defined as independently ownable tracts of land] and to exploit and transform it according to their own individual sovereigntist/corporatist/personal wishes, as if it ‘really were’ independent of the rest of the world.

This is craziness in the views of more and more people. Environmentalism is not emerging from quantum physics. It didn’t for the aboriginal and it is not for the colonizer culture population, either. It is emerging from ‘reasoning’ based on ‘experience’ that “when we use reason-based actions to achieve some desired result; e.g. build a cornflakes or Cadillac factory so we can have tasty breakfasts and transport to get to the supermarket, ... something else other transpires that ‘transcends’ our reason-based actions. Our relations with one another and the common living space are transformed; the farmworkers leave the farms and go to the factory, the new roads and rail lines to serve the new factor leaves established mom & pop business on abandoned old highways, and the city-smart managers and engineers who have come to work on the factory project steal the sweethearts of the local country boys.

Meanwhile, the rational planners in City Hall and in the corporations owning the factories, celebrate and declare ‘mission accomplished!’ Their ‘rational goals and objectives have been successfully attained. This is just like George W. Bush’s ‘mission accomplished’ statement when he successfully achieved his objective of bringing down Saddam Hussein and his regime in Iraq. Which is it that best represents physical reality? (a) the reason-based actions which have attained their desired result, or (b) the transformation of relations within a relational space?

Oh, guess what! Those pushing the reason-based actions to achieve their desired result had assumed that space was absolute and non-relational so that dynamics could be described ‘rationally’, in terms of ‘what things in-themselves do’ as if in an absolute space [non-relational space] operating theatre.

A modern quantum physicist who many believe to be on a solid investigatory track in the reconciling of quantum theory and relativity, Carlo Rovelli [a relational theorist], claims, as Mach and Schroedinger also did, that theory that has built in dependency on absolute space [as does most modern theory that is attempting to reconcile relativity and quantum mechanics] is ‘out to lunch’.

“A Relational approach to quantum physics has been developed, in analogy with Einstein's special relativity of space and time.
.
Relationist physicists such as John Baez and Carlo Rovelli have criticised the leading unified theory of gravity and quantum mechanics, string theory, as retaining absolute space. Some prefer a developing theory of gravity, loop quantum gravity for its 'backgroundlessness'.” --- Wikipedia

The reader of Rovelli’s ‘Quantum Gravity’ does not have to jump into some ten dimensional absolute space model to try to validate or invalidate the competing theories, Rovelli’s observation of the implications of relativity are readily understandable to anyone since his reasoning keys to common experience. And what he says is what puts him into the same ‘heretic’ camp as Schroedinger, Bohm and Mach etc. It is like acknowledging that we can’t say that the Colorado river ‘carved out’ the Grand Canyon because the topography of the land was warping and subsiding here and uplifting there and this transforming basinal area was seducing the water and curving its belley so as to concentrate the flow of water so that it became powerful in its ploughing of the furrow in bottom of the basinal area. This is the yin/yang view of dynamics which acknowledges the role of the female which we do not see directly but which we can intuit;

“the Tao Te Ching advocates "female" (or Yin) values, emphasizing the passive, solid, and quiescent qualities of nature (which is opposed to the active and energetic), and "having without possessing". Waley's translation can also be understood as the Esoteric Feminine in that it can be known intuitively, that must be complemented by the masculine, "male" (or Yang), again amplified in Qingjing Jing (verse 9-13). Yin and Yang should be balanced, "Know masculinity, Maintain femininity, and be a ravine for all under heaven." (chap. 28, tr. Mair) --- Wikipedia

Ok, that’s the yin/yang principle, and it crops up in relativity as Rovelli describes, in his book ‘Quantum Gravity’.

“In Newtonian and special relativistic physics, if we take away the dynamical entities – particles and fields – what remains is space and time. In general relativistic physics, if we take away the dynamical entities, nothing remains. The space and time of Newton and Minkowski are reinterpreted as a configuration of one of the fields, the gravitational field. This implies that physical entities – particles and fields – are not all immersed in space, and moving in time. They do not live on spacetime. They live, so to say, on one another. It is as if we had observed in the ocean many animals living on an island: animals ‘on’ the island. Then we discover that the island itself is in fact a great whale. Not anymore animals on the island, just animals on animals. Similarly, the universe is not made by fields on spacetime; it is made by fields on fields.” — Carlo Rovelli, in ‘Quantum Gravity’

What Rovelli is describing is accessible to us from our natural experience. His point is the same as the point about the Colorado river and the Grand Canyon, which is that the accommodating, female aspect of space is complemented by the manifest male action aspect and that it is our intuition that informs us of the female aspect, while our rationality orients to the male aspect so that we see things in terms of ‘what things-in-themselves do’ [the Colorado river carves out the Grand Canyon]. Once we accept the female aspect and see the male as its complement, we remove the absolute space reference framing and there is no longer and fixed frame to enable the ‘male aspect only’ view in terms of ‘what things-in-themselves do’.

All of this is available to discussion by non physicists because it is about the fundamentals of our natural experience.

Sovereigntism and capitalism ignore the female aspect. To guide one’s individual and collective actions in sovereigntist/capitalist society, one uses ‘rationality’ defined as ‘reason-based actions aimed at achieving a desired result’. Alles klar?

Anarchism, aboriginal-style [anarcho-indigenism], puts the female ‘yin’ back into our understanding of physical phenomena and sees the male ‘yang’ aspect as the complement of ‘yin’ so that we get rid of the absolute space ‘background’ behind which the voyeur observer hides with his beady voyeur objectivizing eyes that turn relational features in the relational flow into ‘independently-existing things-in-themselves’ that ‘do their own stuff’. He then considers himself as being one of those ‘independently-existing things-in-themselves’ that ‘do their own stuff’.

That is, he walks around looking ‘out there’ as if from behind the fixed frame he uses as a reference to locate, measure and track ‘the things out there’. When he sees the power of the Colorado river, he thinks of himself and how he ‘ploughs the furrow’ so deeply and powerfully. Instead of acknowledging how his partner’s curvy body in its seductive accommodating movements orchestrate and shape his movements and build and concentrate his powers, he interprets her movements as excitations provoked in her by himself as she anticipates the pleasure he is going to give her, as he follows a course of reason-based actions outlined in his copy of Masters and Johnson’s ‘Human Sexual Response’, ...reason-based actions which aim to achieve the desired orgasmic result.

You say;

“That's a really awful and non-standard definition of rationality and reason you're working with there.”

and then you attempt to lend ‘credibility’ to your understanding of rationality and reason [without stating what you hold to be the 'standard' definitions or explaining why you support them] as relates to quantum physics by signing your comment;

“ --An actual quantum physicist”

I say, that I am defining my terms in a manner than anyone can understand from their natural experience and i don’t start from accepting ‘standard definitions’ because ‘norms’ and ‘standards’ are the basis for keeping us enslaved in a dysfunctional system. As for your being ‘an actual quantum physicist’, does that make you more of an expert in understanding our experience as human beings? The big squabble amongst quantum physicists is whether to build models that assume that space is absolute or to build to build models assuming that space is relational. The only validation of which way to go is our natural experiencing of the world. Our Western civilization’s cultural assumption has been to model the world assuming that space is absolute. This means that when we use rationality to direct our behaviour [reason-based actions that aim to determine a desired result], we ignore ‘habitat-inhabitant-interdependence effects’.

Are you advocating this cultural standard definition of the world dynamic seen in terms of ‘what independently-existing things-in-themselves do as if in an absolute non-relational operating space’?

Or are you, like Rovelli, advocating the Machean non-standard definition of the world dynamic seen in terms wherein “the dynamics of the relational features/inhabitants are conditioning the dynamics of the relational space/habitat at the same time as the dynamics of the relational space/habitat are conditioning the dynamics of the relational features/inhabitants”?

Does the vagina-like opening known as the ‘Grand Canyon’ exert outside-inward yin-orchestrating, shaping, collecting, concentrating influence on the inside-outward yang asserting dynamics of the peninsular furrow-ploughing water-flow known as the Colorado River? Or does the ‘economy of thought’ motivated ‘rational’ view in terms of ‘what things do’ suffice; i.e. wherein ‘the Colorado river carves out the Grand Canyon’? The latter all-yang-no-yin ‘rational view’ in terms of ‘independently-existing things’ and ‘what they do’ is always provable [but don’t forget about the assumption of independent existence we embedded in it], but are such propositions ‘complete’? That is, let’s not forget that in formulating such yang ‘rational’ propositions, we build in a dependency on the assumption that ‘things-in-themselves’ exist and that they have doer-deed ‘intention’. That is, we start with an activity which our experience and intuition informs us is ‘AN ACTIVITY’; i.e. the continual transforming of relational space, and we, the observer, synthetically break out of it ‘AN EVENT’ constructed by using the subjective idealizing powers of language to concretize a ‘relational feature’ as a ‘SUBJECT’ and imputing doer-deed ‘INTENTION’ to it.

Can a ‘river’ be a ‘doer of a deed’? Or is the river a relational feature in a continually transforming relational space?
As Nietzsche observes;

“Our judgement has us conclude that] every change must have an author”;–but this conclusion is already mythology: it separates that which effects from the effecting. If I say “lightning flashes,” I have posited the flash once as an activity and a second time as a subject, and thus added to the event a being that is not one with the event but is rather fixed, “is” and does not “become.”–To regard an event as an “effecting,” and this as being, that is the double error, or interpretation, of which we are guilty.” – Nietzsche, ‘Will to Power’, 531
.
“In every judgment there resides the entire, full, profound belief in subject and attribute, or in cause and effect (that is, as the assertion that every effect is an activity and that every activity presupposes an agent); and this latter belief is only a special case of the former, so there remains as the fundamental belief the belief that there are subjects, that everything that happens is related attributively to some subject. ..[snip] … That which gives the extraordinary firmness to our belief in causality is not the great habit of seeing one occurrence following another but our inability to interpret events otherwise than as events caused by intentions. It is belief in the living and thinking as the only effective force–in will, in intention–it is belief that every event is a deed, that every deed presupposes a doer, it is belief in the “subject.” Is this belief in the concept of subject and attribute not a great stupidity?” -Nietzsche, ‘Will to Power’, 550

All of these philosophical investigations are offered up for validation or rejection by our natural experience, a basis for understanding that any of us and all of us have. This is what ‘goes into the works’ and serves as the foundations of scientific models such as are coming from science and in this case quantum physics. We are not only equipped, as primitives or sophisticates [we are born with the ability to experience nature and to understand through our natural experience] and to question standards and norms that become foundational to a culture, that do not reconcile with our natural experience.

I have made my definitions clear and tied to natural experience. My proposition is clear; i.e. we can use either ‘absolute space’ or ‘relational space’ as foundations for our models of ‘how the world works’, ... models that become the basis for establishing cultural ‘norms’ of behaviour.

Western civilization, or rather, ‘culture X’ [dualist, yang culture] which, while interspersed with ‘culture Y’ [non-dualist, yin/yang culture] dominates in the institutionalized beliefs and practices of modern society, has opted for the assumption that space is absolute. This clears the way for assuming that ‘dynamics’ can be understood in the rational terms of ‘what independently-existing things-in-themselves do’, which in turn supports ‘rational behaviour’ on the part of Sovereign State, Corporation and Citizen; i.e. ‘reason-based actions that aim to achieve a desired result’. This assumption differs radically from the assumption of ‘culture Y’ [anarchists, aboriginals, Taoists] that space is relational and that, therefore, Mach’s principle of habitat-inhabitant interdependence applies [dynamics are ‘yin/yang’ and not simply ‘yang’]

Currently, as the world population builds and as technology that amplifies the power of governments, corporations and private interests builds, those who are the most aggressive appliers of rational actions are conditioning the common living space in such a manner that the reciprocal complement of inhabitants are flipped about like the last person in the chain of roller-skaters playing ‘crack the whip’ [living in the same space as a rational super-power is like sleeping in the same bed with an elephant]. The rational model does not acknowledge Mach’s principle and every time a problem arises as a result of this lack of acknowledging it, which is increasingly frequently, repairs are formulated using the rational model which ignores Mach’s principle. This is like trying to remove ‘noise’ by applying a ‘noise-removal operator’ which simply smears it out and creates new sorts of noise, as does the next ‘noise-removal operator’ and the next. This is how retributive Justice works, by dealing with ‘disturbances’ ‘rationally’, ‘after-the-fact’.

So, this assumption that space is absolute, when built into the foundational beliefs and practices of a culture that has risen to dominance, can have profound effects on those living in the common space dominated by that culture; e.g. Western [culture X] Justice is ‘rational’ in that it employs reason-based actions that aim to achieve a desired result (the elimination of disturbances). Culture Y justice, based on the assumption that space is relational rather than absolute, is restorative in that it assumes that powerful rational agents can condition the common relational living space in such a manner as to condition the behaviours of others who share inclusion in that common relational living space, so that an ‘eruption of violence’, while manifesting through the actions of an individual, does not jumpstart from the internal doer-deed ‘intention’ of the individual but derives from the conditioning of the common relational living space by powerful rational agents as they pursue their ‘reason-based actions oriented to the attainment of their desired objectives’.

Any of us who are capable of ‘natural experience’ are equipped to discuss these issues, including so-called ‘primitives’ and including the anarcho-indigenists who have never stopped mocking the colonizer culture for its assumption of ‘absolute space’ which supports the cultural practice of ‘behaving rationally, i.e. imagining oneself as an independently-existing material being in itself with its own internal process jumpstarting behaviours that operates within an absolute space [fixed, empty, infinite and non-relational] operating theatre, who employs ‘reason-based actions aimed at determining a desired result’.

Who, amongst us here, would deny the reality of the ‘sleeping in the bed with an elephant effect’ [Mach’s principle effect] of this sovereigntist/capitalist culture-protected practice of ‘rational behaviour’ in a notional ‘absolute space setting’, where there is a large disparity between the ‘power’ employed by some and other in ‘reason-based actions aimed at determining privately desired results’? How much do the rich and powerful effect our lives as they pursue their rational actions within the common space that includes us as well? How much to the rich and powerful nations effect the lives of those in the poor and powerless nations that the powerful as they pursue their rational actions? In other words, how valid, according to our natural experience, is the assumption that space is absolute?

The standard definitions and assumptions accepted and endorsed by the culture are what we should be critically reviewing. Anyone of us capable of natural experience is qualified for this task. this critical reviewing of standard definitions and assumptions is what is going on in emile’s posts.

There's a very simple reason this kind of unfortunate conflation doesn't occur in most indigenous cultures: English is not their native language. That "state" can refer to either "centralized authority with a monopoly on force" or "general situation" is a curiousity of the language we're now using and doesn't necessarily prove anything about deeper philosophical truths.

i (emile) agree with the contention of the crimethInc authors that;

“ real peace is impossible until we put an end to the violent imposition of inequalities.”

although i believe the 'semantics' need some qualification.

let’s examine the ‘physics’ of the authors in regard to the ‘state of imbalance’. ok, it’s newtonian physics to impute the world as a changing-in-time succession of states of being as allows us to use differential calculus and simplify our modeling and predictions, ... but we could also describe what the authors are referring to in the ‘relations-first, being-second’ terms of modern physics; i.e. where we see the world as a continually transforming relational spatial plenum in which ‘inhabitant-habitat-INTERdependence is inevitable’.

this is the self-organizing world as spoken about by Nietzsche which lives by consuming its own excrement; i.e. where ‘consumption’ and ‘production’ are conjugate aspects of the one dynamic of transformation. This is 'what one gets' when one assumes that relational transformation [field dynamics] come first.

as Mach puts it;

“The properties of one mass always include relations to other masses,” ... “Every single body of the Universe stands in some definite relations with every other body in the Universe.” Therefore, no object can “be regarded as wholly isolated.” And even in the simplest case, “the neglecting of the rest of the world is impossible.”

Meinard Kuhlmann repeats this in slightly different, more modern terms;

“By the principle of Occam’s razor, physicists and philosophers prefer ideas that can explain the same phenomena with the fewest assumptions. In this case you can construct a perfectly valid theory by positing the existence of certain relations without additionally assuming individual things. So proponents of ontic structural realism say we might as well dispense with things and assume that the world is made of [relational-spatial] structures, or nets of relations.” – Meinard Kuhlmann, ‘What is Real’, Scientific American, August 2013

to get to these ‘inequalities’, let’s acknowledge, as Nietzsche does, that we use an ‘error in grammar’ that puts 'being' before 'relations' to describe ‘production’ as if it were a process in-its-own-right perpetrated by a ‘production-causing agent’ such as ‘a human being’.

although men are 'relational forms' that are continually gathering and being regathered in the continually transforming relational spatial plenum aka ‘nature’; i.e. a human is not a ‘being’ but a relational form in a relational activity continuum, noun-and-verb European/Scientific language-and-grammar is an intellectual representation-constructing tool that imputes ‘local, independent being’ to ‘a man’ and with the use of grammar where the man-as-subject inflects an action verb, we come up with depictions of man as, for example, as the production-causing agent that is fully and solely responsible for ‘the production of gold’ in some or other quantity.

the ‘error in grammar’, as Nietzsche points out is (a) imputing ‘being’ to something which our experience informs us is a dynamic relational form within a relational activity continuum [‘nature’], and (b) imputing to this notional ‘local being’ the powers of jumpstart authorship of productive results by having it inflect an action verb such as the verb ‘to produce’ or ‘to mine’ as in ‘this man is a gold-miner who produces gold’.

his ‘neighbour’ may be a simple fisherman with none of the sophisticated scientific and engineering knowledge needed ...to ... ‘produce gold’.

The Western institutions of ‘the sovereign state’ and ‘Western justice’ holds that the gold he has produced ‘from land he owns’ is ‘his own gold’ and his right to that gold, which makes him far richer and more powerful than his simple neighbour, the fisherman, is protected by violence, the job of the standing police force and standing army of the sovereign state directed by the sovereign state’s centre-of-reason-directing authority and its justice system.

when the tailings from the mining operations find their way into the river and lake system and ruin the neighbouring fisheries, the value of the former fisheries-rich lands drop and the lands are acquired by the mining company while the now starving former-fishermen beg for labouring jobs in the mining operations.

evidently, we live in a relational space, as Mach’s principle captures;

“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”

what is obvious here, ... and it is the general case in the physical reality of our natural experience, ... is that ‘a tract of owned land’ [whether ‘owned’ by the individual or by the ‘sovereign state’] seen in terms of 'local material being' as an ‘independent entity’ is pure intellectual idealism that has no place in the physical reality of our natural experience, yet it is foundational to Western society, its laws and its justice system. In other words, the right to ‘own property’ and do with it what you want is the right to screw your neighbour and put him in your pocket.

“no object can “be regarded as wholly isolated.” And even in the simplest case, “the neglecting of the rest of the world is impossible.” -- Mach

everybody knows that powerful nations, such as the U.S. and its G8 cronies put out a commercial web of ‘tentacles’ into the ‘one-relational-space’ around the earth, that are sucking the valuable resources out of it while at the same time infusing bothersome contaminants into it, giving them the same inequality of wealth and power as in the example of the mining company whose 'producing operations' are at the same time impoverishing and disempowering. Such inequality-breeding exploitation via the mediating medium of relational space aka ‘property’ is sanctioned and protected by Western justice and international law which protects the right to own property and use it as you wish in your personal pursuit of happiness and prosperity [wealth and power], as if ‘property’ were a local, independently-existing entity that 'really is' bounded as in its legal title description.

“ real peace is impossible until we put an end to the violent imposition of inequalities.”

The ‘error in grammar’ notionally allows that the individual is the author of his own productive results. This is the foundation of Ayn Rand’s views which exalt individual human ego and pursuit of self-interest as the key organizing principle in a 'healthy' social dynamic.

“The miner who produces gold from ‘his own property’ is fully and solely responsible for the value of his productive result”

that is, Western society sees the 'individual' as an 'independent reason-driven machine', an 'inhabitant' that is 'independent' of his 'habitat'.

we could further explore problems with this intellectual notion, such as the ‘pure mechanics’ that are assumed and the standard ‘ceteris paribus’ qualifier in science, but who amongst us is interested in delving so deeply into what many would regard as ‘philosophical details’?

every time we use our noun-and-verb European/Scientific language-and-grammar to ‘speak our mind’, we repeat the same old deception that has us see local beings as causal authors of productive results;

“Indeed, nothing has yet possessed a more naive power of persuasion than the error concerning being, as it has been formulated by the Eleatics, for example. After all, every word and every sentence we say speak in its favor. Even the opponents of the Eleatics still succumbed to the seduction of their concept of being: Democritus, among others, when he invented his atom. “Reason” in language — oh, what an old deceptive witch she is! I am afraid we are not rid of God because we still have faith in grammar.” – Nietzsche, ‘Twilight of the Idols’

in the light of this background, we can re-examine the paragraph authored by the crimethinc authors which has been labelled ‘lies’ in the above post;

“Left to itself, a state of imbalance tends to return to equilibrium. To maintain imbalances, you have to introduce force into the situation. The greater the disparities, the more force it takes to preserve them. This is as true in society as it is in physics.”

Western laws and charters of ‘civil rights’ and the Western system of justice include ‘the right to own property’ and this right is protected by law and by the threat and/or force of violence that backs it up. ‘Property’ is synthetically given ‘discrete being’ and ‘material commodity’ status by our noun-and-verb European/Scientific language-and-grammar architecture, which implies a splitting apart of ‘owner’ and ‘owned property’ [i.e. which implies ‘inhabitant-habitat-INDEPENDENCE’]. For example, in the case of land/habitat, there is the concept of a locally bounded ‘piece of property’ that is defined in ‘legal terms’ which employ absolute space coordinates to delimit the area constituting the ‘piece’ of ‘owned land’ that one is allowed to develop as one pleases in one’s ‘pursuit of happiness’.

In Shakespeare’s exploration of ‘justice’ in ‘The Merchant of Venice’, the adjudicators eventually came up with the idea that property that was owned and claimed by the owner after it had been loaned to another, was like a ‘pound of flesh’ and while the owner was entitled to his ‘pound of flesh’, he could only put his hands on that which was his which was precisely the ‘one pound of flesh’ and if he were to touch or spill or otherwise injure or exploit that which was not his, even if it were one millionth of a pound beyond his ‘pound of flesh’, he would be put to death. This Shakespearean play-court decision essentially acknowledges the ‘relational nature’ of property.

So what might the authors of the crimethinc article be meaning by ‘state of imbalance’?

The law is protecting the unbalanced accumulation of wealth and power of the mining operator which has, in the process of its acquisition of wealth via the common relational medium [common ‘habitat’], under-mined the value of the neighbouring properties that lay in their fisheries, and bilked their neighbours out of their life-sustaining occupations, allowing the mining operator to acquire their properties for a song and recruit the unemployed fisherman whom their mining operations had put out of work, as labourers in their operations, who then quickly became indebted to the mining company [one can’t attain economic independence on a starvation wage].

However contrived one may feel this example is, it speaks to the general case in the physical reality of our natural experience; i.e. there is no such thing as a ‘local piece of property’. ‘Property’ is innately ‘relational’ and does not enjoy ‘local material being’ status, and the ‘inhabitant is NOT independent of the habitat’. These are all ‘idealizations’,... ‘intellectual representations’ that derive from noun-and-verb European/Scientific language-and-grammar constructs.

By treating ‘property’ as something ‘local’, ‘material’, ‘real’ and ‘inert’ as if one could acquire it in brick like units that one could count up and assess the total value of, the law and the justice system with its violence-based enforcement preserves and protects ‘imbalance’ in the leverage one can legally employ and use in the acquisition of wealth and power. One man’s ‘productive actions’ can be, at the same time, undermining another man’s 'productive actions', by way of the mediating medium of relational space. Therefore, as one man climbs up the relative ratings based on wealth-and-power toward the ‘superior performer’ heights, his neighbour free-falls down the relative ratings based on wealth-and-power towards the ‘inferior performer’ depths, ... these two movements are NOT independent, they are inherently INTERdependent, contrary to Ayn Rand’s and the standard Western society analysis which holds that each individual is an ‘independent reason-driven system’ that is operating in a habitat that is independent of the inhabitants that reside within it [as supported by Newtonian science and Western religious Creation myth].

They are 'INTERdependent' by way of their common inclusion in a relational spatial continuum.

“no object can “be regarded as wholly isolated.” And even in the simplest case, “the neglecting of the rest of the world is impossible.” -- Mach

so what are the implications in regard to the crimethinc paragraph;

“Left to itself, a state of imbalance tends to return to equilibrium. To maintain imbalances, you have to introduce force into the situation. The greater the disparities, the more force it takes to preserve them. This is as true in society as it is in physics.”

the imputing of ‘local material being’ to ‘property’ [by way of noun-and-verb European/Scientific language-and-grammar] in a world that our experience informs us is a continually transforming relational spatial one-ness and energy-charged fullness [unum and plenum] allows groups of inhabitants to exploit other groups of inhabitants through the mediating medium of relational space in which all share inclusion. Protecting the unbalanced acquisition of ‘owned property’ by force of violence is a licence to exploit others through the relational connectedness of the natural living space, ... the common activity continuum in which we are each and all situationally included.

So long as the dominant system in the world is one which makes ‘being’ the foundation of its worldview and, correspondingly, ‘reason’ as its primary behaviour-directing principle, this insanity will continue wherein people set themselves up on notional ‘local, independently-existing islands of property’, at the level of individual, sovereign state and corporation, and set about to use their property in the service of advancing their own ‘independent’ pursuit of self-interested happiness, ... we are in trouble. There are no such things as ‘local independent material existences’ in the physical reality of our natural experience. Such 'being' based entities and ‘their’ productive powers are the intellectual artefacts of ‘errors of grammar’ in our noun-and-verb European/Scientific language-and-grammar.

insofar as the word ‘state’ is employed in ‘state of imbalance’, it refers NOT TO ‘BEING’ but to a continuing condition, as in the ‘pitch of the cataract’ ... ‘whose permanence [being] is a perpetual inchoation, as in Emerson’s ‘Method of Nature’;

“The method of nature: who could ever analyze it? That rushing stream will not stop to be observed. We can never surprise nature in a corner; never find the end of a thread; never tell where to set the first stone. The bird hastens to lay her egg: the egg hastens to be a bird. The wholeness we admire in the order of the world, is the result of infinite distribution. Its smoothness is the smoothness of the pitch of the cataract. Its permanence is a perpetual inchoation. Every natural fact is an emanation, and that from which it emanates is an emanation also, and from every emanation is a new emanation. If anything could stand still, it would be crushed and dissipated by the torrent it resisted, and if it were a mind, would be crazed; as insane persons are those who hold fast to one thought, and do not flow with the course of nature.”

The role of ‘property’ and ‘the right to own property’ and the right to ‘develop property according to the owner’s self-interested pursuit of happiness’ [‘owner’ seen as an ‘independent being’ residing in a habitat that is ‘independent’ of the inhabitants that reside within it] as if ‘property’ were an ‘ownable thing’ that can be contained and that we can 'hold on to' and 'possess', establishes ‘being’ as the foundational/cornerstone assumption of our social system. What we are looking at here in the case of this idealization of 'property' as local, independently-existing material being is ‘philosophical dualism’; i.e. a declaration of ‘independence’ of ‘inhabitant’ from ‘habitat’, an idealization that is in direct conflict with our natural relational experience of inclusion within a continually transforming relational spatial plenum.

It is our experiential awareness of the relational nature of our living space aka ‘our intuition’ that 'cuts through the being-based rational sophistry' and is the source of our view that;

“...real peace is impossible until we put an end to the violent imposition [‘preservation and protection’ might be better than 'imposition' here] of inequalities.”

The remedy is to acknowledge the shortfall in putting ‘being’ [the base for rational sophistry] in notional and unnatural precedence over ‘becoming’ [relationality, the stuff of our natural experience].

you say;

“Sometimes rationality makes sense, like running out of a burning house rather than continuing to remain seated at the keyboard trolling @news!

the point is that we can ALWAYS come up with a rational explanation. when we describe some piece of the activity continuum as a ‘reason-based action’ or ‘rational action’, the mental model is one of the individual or group in action as directed by his/their centre-of-intelligence.

it is a short-cut explanation or ‘economy of thought’ which doesn’t mention the spatial-relational situation one is in. why run out of a burning house if the entire town is on fire? why run out of Oklahoma when the dustbowl comes if all the surrounding states are also in the dustbowl, and why emigrate to America from potato-famine stricken Ireland?

sure, we can say; ‘this was a smart move’ and ‘great minds think alike’, and so never have to address spatial relations. sure we can attribute action fully and solely to notional ‘independently-existing things-in-themselves’ (subjects) and ‘their intentions’ without addressing spatial relations. corporations and sovereign states do this all the time.

sure we can ignore or make fun of 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”. but guess what, we all live in the same space and when the petroleum corporations do their thing with the tar sands up in alberta, everybody eats their shit [euphemistically called 'externalities' by Nobel laureate in economics (2003) Joseph Stiglitz], and when the U.S. government and/or the G8 launches their rational reason-based actions, it conditions the common living space that we all share situational inclusion in and pity those not living 'on the high ground'. as McLuhan said, the reason-driven actions of building a factory [whether it be to make cornflakes or to make Cadillacs] is not what matters, what matters is how our habitat is conditioned by the inhabitants doing this and how this conditioning of habitat is conditioning what we who live in it are doing [those living on the low ground, look out!]. the transforming relational spatial medium ‘is the message’.

so, you missed out something in your portrait of your intelligent rational action;

“... rationality makes sense, like running out of a burning house rather than continuing to remain seated at the keyboard... !

i.e. you missed out mention of the relational space [e.g. such as a space with plenty of cool air and fresh water and edible things relative to your needs/desires]. the dynamics of space orchestrate/shape our individual and collective behaviour. America looked pretty good to families starving in the 1840s Irish potato famine [unless you were black because while slavery ended in the British Isles in 1833, it didn’t end in the U.S. until 1863]. it was called ‘the land of opportunity’ which is something like ‘the land of milk and honey’ that hungry people wandered about in the desert looking for. it beckoned to them before they set out for it and orchestrated/shaped their individual and collective behaviour. to RE-render their behaviour as reason-based behaviour is 'analytical backfill'.

get it? you can always express dynamics in the one-sided terms of ‘what things-in-themselves do’, as you did, as if individual and collective behaviour are directed by reason/intention. but in nature, ‘relationality’ is in a natural precedence over ‘rationality’. if you were in ireland in the famine, the united states, canada, australia, ... are all pulling on your behaviour, and your choice may be determined by which is the next boat out of port. but you may later say; ‘i chose to do this’, ... this is my reason based action. that is, we select out a piece of the activity continuum and we make an ‘event’ out of it by imputing a subject as the doer-of-the-deed and imputing to him ‘intention’, to reduce a piece of the relational-spatial activity continuum, notionally, to reason-based action.

The article obliquely touches on the difference between the ‘appeal to reason’ versus ‘living in the now of our relational experience’.

The fact that the authors first consider and then critique the views of governor nixon seems to miss the point of; ... what’s this ‘governor guy’ business and why are we giving special listening attention to one individual?

‘Peace’ means something very particular coming off the tongues of 'authorities'; ... it means to fall back in line with the protocols of an independent reason-driven machine called ‘the state’. ‘Peace’ as the ‘undisturbed dynamic’ of the reason-driven state is certainly not ‘stasis’. There is a lot going on, and it is directed by ‘centres of reason-directing authority’ call ‘government’ or ‘management’, as characterizes a ‘reason-driven society’ such as Western civilization.

colonization has brought to global dominance, this system which puts reason-directed behaviour into an unnatural precedence over relational experience. exactly ‘whose reason’ is it that is responsible for this now globally dominating practice of putting reason-directed behaviour into an unnatural precedence over our relational experience?

certainly not the reasoning of indigenous anarchists, taoists, buddhists, ... and not the reasoning of Mach, Nietzsche and Schroedinger, all of whom see the world as a relational space in which ‘reason’ is a poor man’s tool that works by generating thought-economies. a question to ask is; ‘how did reason rise up to dominate our individual and collective behaviours’? ‘how did we arrive here in this world which has been notionally partitioned into 193 ‘independent being things’ called ‘sovereign states’ that see themselves as ‘jumpstart productive machines’ that are ‘managed’ or ‘governed’ by ‘centres of reason-directing authority’?

If you ask the indigenous aboriginal peoples of the world who never employed this ‘secularized theological’ [that’s what law historians call it] practice of ‘government/management’ by ‘centres of reason-directing authority’, they will answer that it was by brute bloody force aimed to ‘make believers out of everyone’, and that that brute bloody force is what continues to hold them as non-believer-prisoners in this system that ... ‘forces everyone residing in an imaginary line-bounded ‘managed space’ to put reason-directed behaviour into an unnatural precedence over relational experience’.

No wonder that there is a global ‘decolonization’ movement on the part of the world’s colonized indigenous peoples.

For indigenous anarchists, the words ‘make it’ in the following statement must seem like ‘a joke’ since the entire population of the world is now in the ‘controlled space’ of ‘secularized theological’ ‘centres-of-reason-directing authority’;

“Make it impossible for anyone to coerce anyone else into accepting a relationship that is not in her best interest: then, and only then, there will be an incentive for everyone to address conflicts and reach accord.”

Indigenous anarchists, whose languages preserve the relational nature of the world dynamic, also understand how the colonizer’s ‘secularized theology’ derives from noun-and-verb European/Scientific language-and-grammar which psychologically imputes ‘being’ to relational forms by naming them and making them into subjects that inflect verbs, implying that relational forms [imputed to have local being] locally jumpstart author/produce ‘results’. This psychological ‘localizing’ of the authoring of ‘productive results’ amounts to a contrary-to-experience ‘declaration of independence’ of the language-and-grammar created ‘being’. From this language-game-play we get the Enlightenment European archetype for man, organism and organisation-in-general, of the ‘independent reason-driven system’, the foundation of colonialism [the archetype for the individual colonial and for the colonizer state].

Ok, it is not hard to understand the indigenous anarchist desire to LIFT OFF the enclosing, suffocating cover of secularized theological ‘centres of reason-directing authority’ which have been put in place by the colonizing wars and crusades of European conquistadores to cover the entire globe, and whose controlling influences have been merging globally with the help of modern communications technology, but it is not clear what ‘other anarchists’ are intending by such phrases as “Make it impossible for anyone to coerce anyone else into accepting a relationship that is not in her best interest ...”

Does the expression -‘make it’- imply another, but newer, type of anarchist-reason-driven enforcement? What is wrong with anarchist effort that orients to ‘lifting off’ the lid of reason-driven authority and thus restoring the natural precedence of relational experience over reason-driven mechanics? [i.e. demoting ‘reason’ to a support role in social organizing].

i (emile) agree with the contention of the crimethInc authors that;

“ real peace is impossible until we put an end to the violent imposition of inequalities.”

although i believe the 'semantics' need some qualification.

let’s examine the ‘physics’ of the authors in regard to the ‘state of imbalance’. ok, it’s newtonian physics to impute the world as a changing-in-time succession of states of being as allows us to use differential calculus and simplify our modeling and predictions, ... but we could also describe what the authors are referring to in the ‘relations-first, being-second’ terms of modern physics; i.e. where we see the world as a continually transforming relational spatial plenum in which ‘inhabitant-habitat-INTERdependence is inevitable’.

this is the self-organizing world as spoken about by Nietzsche which lives by consuming its own excrement; i.e. where ‘consumption’ and ‘production’ are conjugate aspects of the one dynamic of transformation. This is 'what one gets' when one assumes that relational transformation [field dynamics] come first.

as Mach puts it;

“The properties of one mass always include relations to other masses,” ... “Every single body of the Universe stands in some definite relations with every other body in the Universe.” Therefore, no object can “be regarded as wholly isolated.” And even in the simplest case, “the neglecting of the rest of the world is impossible.”

Meinard Kuhlmann repeats this in slightly different, more modern terms;

“By the principle of Occam’s razor, physicists and philosophers prefer ideas that can explain the same phenomena with the fewest assumptions. In this case you can construct a perfectly valid theory by positing the existence of certain relations without additionally assuming individual things. So proponents of ontic structural realism say we might as well dispense with things and assume that the world is made of [relational-spatial] structures, or nets of relations.” – Meinard Kuhlmann, ‘What is Real’, Scientific American, August 2013

to get to these ‘inequalities’, let’s acknowledge, as Nietzsche does, that we use an ‘error in grammar’ that puts 'being' before 'relations' to describe ‘production’ as if it were a process in-its-own-right perpetrated by a ‘production-causing agent’ such as ‘a human being’.

although men are 'relational forms' that are continually gathering and being regathered in the continually transforming relational spatial plenum aka ‘nature’; i.e. a human is not a ‘being’ but a relational form in a relational activity continuum, noun-and-verb European/Scientific language-and-grammar is an intellectual representation-constructing tool that imputes ‘local, independent being’ to ‘a man’ and with the use of grammar where the man-as-subject inflects an action verb, we come up with depictions of man as, for example, as the production-causing agent that is fully and solely responsible for ‘the production of gold’ in some or other quantity.

the ‘error in grammar’, as Nietzsche points out is (a) imputing ‘being’ to something which our experience informs us is a dynamic relational form within a relational activity continuum [‘nature’], and (b) imputing to this notional ‘local being’ the powers of jumpstart authorship of productive results by having it inflect an action verb such as the verb ‘to produce’ or ‘to mine’ as in ‘this man is a gold-miner who produces gold’.

his ‘neighbour’ may be a simple fisherman with none of the sophisticated scientific and engineering knowledge needed ...to ... ‘produce gold’.

The Western institutions of ‘the sovereign state’ and ‘Western justice’ holds that the gold he has produced ‘from land he owns’ is ‘his own gold’ and his right to that gold, which makes him far richer and more powerful than his simple neighbour, the fisherman, is protected by violence, the job of the standing police force and standing army of the sovereign state directed by the sovereign state’s centre-of-reason-directing authority and its justice system.

when the tailings from the mining operations find their way into the river and lake system and ruin the neighbouring fisheries, the value of the former fisheries-rich lands drop and the lands are acquired by the mining company while the now starving former-fishermen beg for labouring jobs in the mining operations.

evidently, we live in a relational space, as Mach’s principle captures;

“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”

what is obvious here, ... and it is the general case in the physical reality of our natural experience, ... is that ‘a tract of owned land’ [whether ‘owned’ by the individual or by the ‘sovereign state’] seen in terms of 'local material being' as an ‘independent entity’ is pure intellectual idealism that has no place in the physical reality of our natural experience, yet it is foundational to Western society, its laws and its justice system. In other words, the right to ‘own property’ and do with it what you want is the right to screw your neighbour and put him in your pocket.

“no object can “be regarded as wholly isolated.” And even in the simplest case, “the neglecting of the rest of the world is impossible.” -- Mach

everybody knows that powerful nations, such as the U.S. and its G8 cronies put out a commercial web of ‘tentacles’ into the ‘one-relational-space’ around the earth, that are sucking the valuable resources out of it while at the same time infusing bothersome contaminants into it, giving them the same inequality of wealth and power as in the example of the mining company whose 'producing operations' are at the same time impoverishing and disempowering. Such inequality-breeding exploitation via the mediating medium of relational space aka ‘property’ is sanctioned and protected by Western justice and international law which protects the right to own property and use it as you wish in your personal pursuit of happiness and prosperity [wealth and power], as if ‘property’ were a local, independently-existing entity that 'really is' bounded as in its legal title description.

“ real peace is impossible until we put an end to the violent imposition of inequalities.”

The ‘error in grammar’ notionally allows that the individual is the author of his own productive results. This is the foundation of Ayn Rand’s views which exalt individual human ego and pursuit of self-interest as the key organizing principle in a 'healthy' social dynamic.

“The miner who produces gold from ‘his own property’ is fully and solely responsible for the value of his productive result”

that is, Western society sees the 'individual' as an 'independent reason-driven machine', an 'inhabitant' that is 'independent' of his 'habitat'.

we could further explore problems with this intellectual notion, such as the ‘pure mechanics’ that are assumed and the standard ‘ceteris paribus’ qualifier in science, but who amongst us is interested in delving so deeply into what many would regard as ‘philosophical details’?

every time we use our noun-and-verb European/Scientific language-and-grammar to ‘speak our mind’, we repeat the same old deception that has us see local beings as causal authors of productive results;

“Indeed, nothing has yet possessed a more naive power of persuasion than the error concerning being, as it has been formulated by the Eleatics, for example. After all, every word and every sentence we say speak in its favor. Even the opponents of the Eleatics still succumbed to the seduction of their concept of being: Democritus, among others, when he invented his atom. “Reason” in language — oh, what an old deceptive witch she is! I am afraid we are not rid of God because we still have faith in grammar.” – Nietzsche, ‘Twilight of the Idols’

in the light of this background, we can re-examine the paragraph authored by the crimethinc authors which has been labelled ‘lies’ in the above post;

“Left to itself, a state of imbalance tends to return to equilibrium. To maintain imbalances, you have to introduce force into the situation. The greater the disparities, the more force it takes to preserve them. This is as true in society as it is in physics.”

Western laws and charters of ‘civil rights’ and the Western system of justice include ‘the right to own property’ and this right is protected by law and by the threat and/or force of violence that backs it up. ‘Property’ is synthetically given ‘discrete being’ and ‘material commodity’ status by our noun-and-verb European/Scientific language-and-grammar architecture, which implies a splitting apart of ‘owner’ and ‘owned property’ [i.e. which implies ‘inhabitant-habitat-INDEPENDENCE’]. For example, in the case of land/habitat, there is the concept of a locally bounded ‘piece of property’ that is defined in ‘legal terms’ which employ absolute space coordinates to delimit the area constituting the ‘piece’ of ‘owned land’ that one is allowed to develop as one pleases in one’s ‘pursuit of happiness’.

In Shakespeare’s exploration of ‘justice’ in ‘The Merchant of Venice’, the adjudicators eventually came up with the idea that property that was owned and claimed by the owner after it had been loaned to another, was like a ‘pound of flesh’ and while the owner was entitled to his ‘pound of flesh’, he could only put his hands on that which was his which was precisely the ‘one pound of flesh’ and if he were to touch or spill or otherwise injure or exploit that which was not his, even if it were one millionth of a pound beyond his ‘pound of flesh’, he would be put to death. This Shakespearean play-court decision essentially acknowledges the ‘relational nature’ of property.

So what might the authors of the crimethinc article be meaning by ‘state of imbalance’?

The law is protecting the unbalanced accumulation of wealth and power of the mining operator which has, in the process of its acquisition of wealth via the common relational medium [common ‘habitat’], under-mined the value of the neighbouring properties that lay in their fisheries, and bilked their neighbours out of their life-sustaining occupations, allowing the mining operator to acquire their properties for a song and recruit the unemployed fisherman whom their mining operations had put out of work, as labourers in their operations, who then quickly became indebted to the mining company [one can’t attain economic independence on a starvation wage].

However contrived one may feel this example is, it speaks to the general case in the physical reality of our natural experience; i.e. there is no such thing as a ‘local piece of property’. ‘Property’ is innately ‘relational’ and does not enjoy ‘local material being’ status, and the ‘inhabitant is NOT independent of the habitat’. These are all ‘idealizations’,... ‘intellectual representations’ that derive from noun-and-verb European/Scientific language-and-grammar constructs.

By treating ‘property’ as something ‘local’, ‘material’, ‘real’ and ‘inert’ as if one could acquire it in brick like units that one could count up and assess the total value of, the law and the justice system with its violence-based enforcement preserves and protects ‘imbalance’ in the leverage one can legally employ and use in the acquisition of wealth and power. One man’s ‘productive actions’ can be, at the same time, undermining another man’s 'productive actions', by way of the mediating medium of relational space. Therefore, as one man climbs up the relative ratings based on wealth-and-power toward the ‘superior performer’ heights, his neighbour free-falls down the relative ratings based on wealth-and-power towards the ‘inferior performer’ depths, ... these two movements are NOT independent, they are inherently INTERdependent, contrary to Ayn Rand’s and the standard Western society analysis which holds that each individual is an ‘independent reason-driven system’ that is operating in a habitat that is independent of the inhabitants that reside within it [as supported by Newtonian science and Western religious Creation myth].

They are 'INTERdependent' by way of their common inclusion in a relational spatial continuum.

“no object can “be regarded as wholly isolated.” And even in the simplest case, “the neglecting of the rest of the world is impossible.” -- Mach

so what are the implications in regard to the crimethinc paragraph;

“Left to itself, a state of imbalance tends to return to equilibrium. To maintain imbalances, you have to introduce force into the situation. The greater the disparities, the more force it takes to preserve them. This is as true in society as it is in physics.”

the imputing of ‘local material being’ to ‘property’ [by way of noun-and-verb European/Scientific language-and-grammar] in a world that our experience informs us is a continually transforming relational spatial one-ness and energy-charged fullness [unum and plenum] allows groups of inhabitants to exploit other groups of inhabitants through the mediating medium of relational space in which all share inclusion. Protecting the unbalanced acquisition of ‘owned property’ by force of violence is a licence to exploit others through the relational connectedness of the natural living space, ... the common activity continuum in which we are each and all situationally included.

So long as the dominant system in the world is one which makes ‘being’ the foundation of its worldview and, correspondingly, ‘reason’ as its primary behaviour-directing principle, this insanity will continue wherein people set themselves up on notional ‘local, independently-existing islands of property’, at the level of individual, sovereign state and corporation, and set about to use their property in the service of advancing their own ‘independent’ pursuit of self-interested happiness, ... we are in trouble. There are no such things as ‘local independent material existences’ in the physical reality of our natural experience. Such 'being' based entities and ‘their’ productive powers are the intellectual artefacts of ‘errors of grammar’ in our noun-and-verb European/Scientific language-and-grammar.

insofar as the word ‘state’ is employed in ‘state of imbalance’, it refers NOT TO ‘BEING’ but to a continuing condition, as in the ‘pitch of the cataract’ ... ‘whose permanence [being] is a perpetual inchoation, as in Emerson’s ‘Method of Nature’;

“The method of nature: who could ever analyze it? That rushing stream will not stop to be observed. We can never surprise nature in a corner; never find the end of a thread; never tell where to set the first stone. The bird hastens to lay her egg: the egg hastens to be a bird. The wholeness we admire in the order of the world, is the result of infinite distribution. Its smoothness is the smoothness of the pitch of the cataract. Its permanence is a perpetual inchoation. Every natural fact is an emanation, and that from which it emanates is an emanation also, and from every emanation is a new emanation. If anything could stand still, it would be crushed and dissipated by the torrent it resisted, and if it were a mind, would be crazed; as insane persons are those who hold fast to one thought, and do not flow with the course of nature.”

The role of ‘property’ and ‘the right to own property’ and the right to ‘develop property according to the owner’s self-interested pursuit of happiness’ [‘owner’ seen as an ‘independent being’ residing in a habitat that is ‘independent’ of the inhabitants that reside within it] as if ‘property’ were an ‘ownable thing’ that can be contained and that we can 'hold on to' and 'possess', establishes ‘being’ as the foundational/cornerstone assumption of our social system. What we are looking at here in the case of this idealization of 'property' as local, independently-existing material being is ‘philosophical dualism’; i.e. a declaration of ‘independence’ of ‘inhabitant’ from ‘habitat’, an idealization that is in direct conflict with our natural relational experience of inclusion within a continually transforming relational spatial plenum.

It is our experiential awareness of the relational nature of our living space aka ‘our intuition’ that 'cuts through the being-based rational sophistry' and is the source of our view that;

“...real peace is impossible until we put an end to the violent imposition [‘preservation and protection’ might be better than 'imposition' here] of inequalities.”

The remedy is to acknowledge the shortfall in putting ‘being’ [the base for rational sophistry] in notional and unnatural precedence over ‘becoming’ [relationality, the stuff of our natural experience].

when, oh when, will emile stop elevating the concept of "indigenous anarchists" to the position of a god?

is a key concept here. By doing so it frees up the naturally empirical praxes
which express the forces of sentient and sensual affects of creative difference
so necessary for exploring new and varied ways of living our lives in a more
balanced flow of mutual relations with each other and our habitat.
plain and simple, yet difficult for us to imagine and implement due to our ubiquitous low-self esteem
from the on-going post-trauma of our distorted and disturbed life-world. we need to help each other recuperate from
this ongoing tyranny of the Signifying Subjectivity of the Same.

I appreciate what you've said here azano. However is umwelt that which exists a priori, as pre-civilized existence or that which is adapted to vis-a-vis social/material conditions? If the latter, life world or umwelt would be that which a being adapts to, expands on, and creates as their own. In this sense, the life world is that which civilization has presented as the inhabitant-habitat Cartesian dichotomy predicated on alienation from pre-civilized form.
As you have said, our current life world is quite disturbed. It is not merely the mechanations of state-capitalism, but that of linear Cartesian duality and its 'rationalist' precursor.
The leviathan cannot be made to accomodate the necessities of being and a true umwelt, although all that can be done is that which is achievable on an individual level and the rest is to be left to a hopeful ideal.

is not an a priori concept. it is more like a life- world constructed upon
real relational interrelationships with one's milieu which includes both
the singular and the multiple; the individual, the society of them as in the sense of among and
the relational non-personal habitat encompassing these existences. none of this has anything to do with
subjectivities of a Signifying-representations. the latter are ego-driven fictions.
there is only the dwelling of life-world. the relational umwelt of inter-relationships.
we have embodied subjectivities of pre-semiotic signs that are not signifying.
the apprehension of these are based on sentient, sensual interactions with real
encounters within our life-world. there is a always already a sorting out of
these issues in our forever changing creations utilizing precepts, affects, and practices.
this is what we are seeing in Missouri, Iraq, and every aggregate that we form an aggregate.
The affirmative enjoyment in movement and intensities reach the most interesting and remarkable
and important when we ,as in occupy, encounter problems, explore questions, and create solutions that maximize options
to create different ways of proceeding. That is the umwelt or series of umwelts that provide for the hope of mutual aid,
freedom, authentic and workable assemblages to better our ways of living. That describes our situation.
it is challenging. but it is indeed "a good thing".

if i am not mis-interpreting what you are saying, azano, ... i believe that another way to look at our having got off the rails of being grounded in ‘umwelt’ is that ‘morality’ has been adopted as a false benchmark for behaviour. as nietzsche says;

“To admit a belief merely because it is a custom - but that means to be dishonest, cowardly, lazy! - And so could dishonesty, cowardice and laziness be the preconditions for morality?”

notions of how things were in the ‘past’ versus ‘how they are now’, and whether certain things are ‘a priori’ all fall into the realm of intellectual conceptualizing. there is no ‘past’, ‘present’ and ‘future’, nor no thing or state or condition that is ‘a priori’ in a world that is given only once [a continually transforming energy-charged relational spatial plenum].

anything that smells of ‘being’ and ‘time-based changing’ is intellectual representation that we use to construct, in our mind’s eye, a duplicate world based on signifiers. While ‘nature’ [the relational activity continuum that is given just once] is beyond good and evil, ‘morality’ forces us to judge the ‘acts’ of some ‘author’; i.e. ‘morality’ forces us to portray ourselves as authors of our own behaviour.

‘umwelt’ would seem to be a portrait of the self in the manner of the storm-cell in the atmosphere. at once we are given two impressions as we look at the storm-cell; i.e. the atmosphere, in its continuing-in-the-now relational transformation has dimpled-up and so we have a particular dimpling up [purely relational form]. our ‘umwelt’ is thus this ‘dimpling up’ in the relational flow which is the world that is given only once. but although we ‘are’ this ‘dimpling up’ in the transforming-in-the-now relational spatial plenum, we have this sense of ‘person’ or sense of ‘eigenwelt’ that we in the West assign a non-relational signifier to; i.e. not ‘dances with wolves’ which grounds the self relationally in the umwelt, but ‘Bob’, a disconnecting signifier which forces us to complete the characterizing of ‘self’ starting from the notion of an ‘independently-existing thing-in-itself’, a subject to which we add ‘attributes’ [nietzsche calls our belief in the existence of ‘subject’ and ‘attribute’ ‘ a great stupidity’]. So we have Katrina, the subject to which we are going to complete using attributes; ‘the spiral form of Katrina’, ‘the radial arms of Katrina’, ‘the ‘eye’ of Katrina’, ‘the size of Katrina’, ... ‘the intensity of Katrina’, the ‘movements of Katrina’, ... ‘the ferocity of Katrina’, ... ‘the aging of Katrina’, ... ‘the dissipation of Katrina’.

The ‘eigenwelt’, thanks to language and thought based signifiers, has hijacked the naturally predominating ‘umwelt’.

‘Morality’ now comes into play on top of the eigenwelt that has hijacked the umwelt, thanks to the subject and attribute signifiers of noun-and-verb European/Scientific language-and-grammar, to render judgement of the notional ‘behaviour of the subject’ [as if it were an independently-existing thing-in-itself developing and moving relative to an absolute space and absolute time reference frame]. ‘morality’, being a convention that rests dependently on the notion of ‘independent, local, internally sourced behaviour’ of an eigenwelt that has hijacked its own umwelt, is a major contributor to our keeping our understanding of the world locked into the world of signifiers or intellectual representations, ... distancing ourselves from the ‘umwelt’ or ‘dimpling up’ in the relational activity continuum which is the real physical ‘us’ of our natural relational experience.

Western culture which colonization has imposed upon the world, is a culture which puts the world of language-based signifiers and intellectual representations into an unnatural precedence over our natural, physical, ‘umwelt’ experiencing.

‘Morality’ can only be established by cultural tradition since the physical world is given only once and does not stand outside-itself and judge itself. One might imagine that ‘God’ is a concept by which we establish good and bad judgement from the outside looking in.

As far as I can tell my wild and instinctive behaviour is the natural physical aspect of me. That is, when I perceive a beautiful woman in my umwelt, my instinct is to rip her clothes off and rape her. That is my ‘base case’ and whatever holds me back from that is coming from my ‘rational’ aspect or cultural tradition. For example, experience stored in the cultural tradition may capture an acknowledging that she has the power, over the long run, to give or take away these actions that satisfy the male craving, so that it makes more sense to approach this in such a manner that the females will stay around and give this satisfaction every day; e.g. it may be necessary to bring gifts of food that will keep her around and to avoid injuring or frightening her off by the manner of fornicating, and if approaches are found that amplify her desires, this are likely to be captured in the cultural tradition, simply by the ‘aping tradition’, copying techniques that seem to ‘deliver results’ whether it is dropping a clam from a great height onto rocks to open it up, or whatever.

My point is that the starting point is the wild instinct of relational dynamics which comes from the umwelt or dimpling-up of the relational activity continuum, which is shaped and re-formed by evolving experiential learning which is recorded/captured in cultural tradition (actual physical experiencing based cultural tradition).

In a society which also keeps language based records, practices are written up as either ‘good behaviour’ or ‘bad behaviour’ in the assessments that are relative to the current evolution of the cultural tradition. Animals certainly learn new techniques like crows that learn how to unzip zippers and get into camping enclosures, but they neither write manuals nor speak of ‘best practices’ or ‘good’ and ‘bad’ practices.

There is a question here then, as to whether morality is ‘written in stone’ [is God-given or absolute] or whether ‘good’ and ‘bad’ behavioural practices develop through natural experiencing and experimenting; e.g. from the moderating of wild instinctive practices such as the male’s intuiting that he doesn’t have to kill himself by scaring off and having to chase down females that he has scared by his wild and aggressive tactics and who avoid him like the plague, but can offer them food and discover how they want to be treated so as to evolve some resonance with how he would like to be treated by them.

The current conception of moral behaviour in the world evidently has problems; e.g. the failure of moral tradition to acknowledge that crony groups can manipulate and coerce others through the mediating medium of space/property, and limit ‘prosecution’ to the notion that the behaviour of the individual derives fully and solely from the individual [seen as an independent reason-driven system], but as nietzsche observes;

“To admit a belief merely because it is a custom - but that means to be dishonest, cowardly, lazy! - And so could dishonesty, cowardice and laziness be the preconditions for morality?”

When one listens to leaders of sovereign states, one hears moral justifications for the most horrific actions [from both sides of a bloody conflict]. As nietzsche says, we need to open our ‘values’ up for the transvaluation of all values. Our management of the social dynamic on the basis of moral tradition is not working.

One might say we are lost in the world of intellectual representations in which our eigenwelt has hijacked the umwelt and it is keeping it gagged and bound in a trunk in the cellar.

We have to overcome our dishonesty, cowardliness, laziness in regard to evolving our moral traditions. as you say, azano;

“The affirmative enjoyment in movement and intensities reach the most interesting and remarkable and important when we ,as in occupy, encounter problems, explore questions, and create solutions that maximize options to create different ways of proceeding. That is the umwelt or series of umwelts that provide for the hope of mutual aid, freedom, authentic and workable assemblages to better our ways of living. That describes our situation. it is challenging. but it is indeed "a good thing".

The eigenwelt, which we capture by way of signifiers or intellectual representations encoded using the symbolic glyphs of noun-and-verb European/Scientific language-and-grammar, is in physical reality, the umwelt or dimpling-up of the relational one-world [continually transforming relational spatial plenum]. The eigenwelt and the umwelt are conjugate aspects of one physical dynamic, ... the one-world dynamic of our natural relational experience.

In a relational world, the continually gathering and regathering relational forms [eigenwelten] that inhabit the relational world [that ‘dimple-up’ the relational activity continuum] are the means [agents of transformation of the ilk of storm-cells in the relationally transforming atmosphere] by which the relational unum-world is relationally transforming.

The rising inequalities in wealth and its associated power, are rising because of the inadequacy of morality [as is foundational in Western justice] as the basis for regulating social relational dynamics. Morality, as in moral judgement based law enforcement, meanwhile, is being used to quell any updating of moral traditions [transvaluation of values or transformation of moral traditions].

The established principles of modern physics [e.g. Mach’s principle] which affirm ‘inhabitant-habitat-interdependence’ [eigenwelt-umwelt-reciprocal complementarity], point to a huge hole in moral tradition in that moral tradition operates on the signifier level that imputes the individual human to be an ‘independent-reason-driven system’ that inhabits a notional absolute space and absolute time reference frame and which is therefore fully and solely responsible for its own behaviour. This gives the green light for applying moral judgement to individuals even while individuals behaviours are being coerced and manipulated by crony groups in a manner that does not show up directly in their individual behaviours.

for example, a crony group could monopolize the common water supply [condition the dynamics of the habitat] so as to ensure their members access to water, and use their surplus supplies to coerce and manipulate the behaviours of non-members [condition the dynamics of the inhabitants] who desperately need water, putting them in debt so that property foreclosures will continue to increase the inequality of access to the common resources of nature. It would be ‘natural’ [according to our intuition] for relational tensions to build in proportion to this inequality and for the frequency and severity of eruptions of violence manifesting through the behaviours of the manipulated and coerced.

no matter how extreme the inequality progressively becomes, only the individuals being manipulated and coerced will be prosecuted because moral tradition is based on ‘inhabitant-habitat-INDEPENDENCE’, the notional condition that allows us to assume that the individual inhabitant is fully and solely responsible for their own behaviour.

this assumption contradicts the understanding of dynamics in modern physics, of ‘inhabitant-habitat-INTERDEPENDENCE as captured in Mach’s principle, which points to the fact that we CANNOT assume that an individual’s behaviour is fully and solely ‘their own’. ‘relational space’ is like the field of play in baseball; the ‘fielding’ is conditioning the space so as to make it more or less accommodating to the hitter. it is impossible to unambiguously separate out the contribution of ‘hitter’ and ‘fielding’ to the resulting play or ‘result’. the farmer who is NOT a member of the crony water-hoarding group that has a program of monopolizing water resources by intensive drilling and pumping into private property storage of the common aquifer, to the point that non-members are left high, dry and desperate [prone to coercion and manipulation].

This is one example that clearly establishes the general principle of the possibility of conditioning the dynamics of others by conditioning the dynamics of the habitat they are included in [Mach’s principle].

The violent protest from individuals who are being manipulated and coerced will be prosecuted because they are violating the moral code applied to ‘individual behaviour’. They are being told by the ‘moral authorities’ [moral law enforcement agencies] that they must become ‘peaceful’ first and then there will be an investigative effort that will deliver ‘justice’.

The problem is that Western justice orients to the behaviours of individuals taken to be ‘independent reason-driven systems’ that operate in a habitat that is independent of the inhabitants that reside within it [inhabitant-habitat-INDEPENDENCE] and SO LONG AS THIS IS ASSUMED, justice will not be delivered because the injustice is being perpetrated by way of ‘inhabitant-habitat-INTERdependence’ [conditioning the habitat dynamic so as to deliver the knobs and levers of manipulation and coercion]. When God created man, he created him separately from the habitat, so the Western religious Creation myth incorporates ‘inhabitant-habitat-INDEPENDENCE’ and this is the very basis of a morality that is applied to individual behaviour.

Furthermore, Newtonian science also builds into its reasoning architecture, ‘inhabitant-habitat-INDEPENDENCE’ as in the ‘matter’ – ‘space’ split or philosophical dualism that is foundational in mainstream science, so that science also supports Western religions in affirming that individuals are ‘fully and solely responsible for their own behaviour’, giving the green light for developing ‘moral law’ that can be applied directly to ‘individual behaviour’. Such law is blind to the practice of crony groups that launder out their own authoring agency by conditioning the dynamics of the habitat [e.g. monopolizing amongst them essential resources] in such a manner as to condition the dynamics of the inhabitants [e.g. render them desperate for essential resources so they are ready candidates for manipulation and coercion]. What happens to the habitat happens to everyone, but not everyone can buffer its impact. If those with more money use it to buy a home on high ground, they do not need to spend a lot of money on levees to keep flood or storm-waters out, since if the levees break, the flood waters will never reach their homes on high ground, and if others are devastated and made desperate, this opens up many opportunities for those who are buffered by being on the high ground. This same advantage of being in a position that the devastated others offer themselves up as candidates for manipulation and coercion, occurs in periodic ‘economic collapses’, allowing those buffered, to ratchet up even further, at the expense of the desperate ones that have been devastated. This manipulation and coercion goes on with the full backing of Western justice and law enforcement. It is the manipulated and coerced who, because they reach their threshold of anger, erupt in violent protest, that are the only one’s prosecuted for what is naturally and intuitively a call to revisions to ‘moral tradition’. Meanwhile, those who ‘are buffered’ and being almost invited to manipulate and coerce, by people who are desperate for access to essential resources, may find some dark desires finding ready avenues for their fulfillment.

Being offered property for a song, or sexual favours or sweatshop labour for peanuts is not an infraction of moral law. Moral law is based on assertive behaviours that violate cultural norms [moral tradition]; e.g. ‘rape’ is fornication without permission. Fornication with permission and even invitation does not violate moral law. Monopolization of essential resources is protected by property ownership laws. Where one has a lawfully owned abundance of essential resources and where others are desperate to access those essential resources, the only way to gain access may be to, for example, invite fornication or sale of property for token value, or sweatshop labour for a song; i.e. those things that are demeaning but which are called for by those in desperate situations which makes them voluntarily self-demeaning.

It would be easy to establish a deliberate pattern of coercing and manipulating others with impunity [with protection of the law and justice system] by acquiring a large enough buffer of essential resources to remain on high ground during a recession or flood when those who are unbuffered and on the ‘low ground’ become desperate and will do anything to gain access to essential resources. Perhaps such recessions or floods are purely accidental, but in any case, those on low ground or without a buffer do become desperate and others step in to take advantage of them, and it is called ‘the free market system’.

In this case, ‘moral tradition’ needs revising. It needs to be revised to repair the hole in it wherein inequality in buffering puts those who are well buffered in a position to manipulate and coerce those who become desperate by having an insufficient buffer to ride out the fluctuations in the economy. Intuition informs us that this is going on and intuition leads to protests and to increasing frustration since those who are ‘well-buffered’ have no great incentive to review and revise an established belief; i.e. a ‘moral custom’.

“'Suspicion': To admit a belief merely because it is a custom - but that means to be dishonest, cowardly, lazy! - And so could dishonesty, cowardice and laziness be the preconditions for morality?” -- Nietzsche

In Mach’s terms, the precondition for morality is ‘economy of thought’ [i.e. it is 'economy of thought' that delivers the intellectual representation (signifier) of a relational form in the relational activity continuum as an 'independent reason-driven system that notionally operates in an absolute space and absolute time reference frame, this providing the basic and necessary platform for moral judging of behaviour as a management/governing technique for the social dynamic].

refers to the to the relationship
to oneself. mitwelt refers to the relations of selves to each other.
Umwelt is the relational life-world as in be-ing in-the world.
the later includes all levels of relation without specific reference
to to an Ego or Self. the other two have subjective components
which can be semiotically either subjective non-signifying signs
i.e. attributes, part-objects, affects expressed in difference ;or
if corrupted by too much eigenwelt, become part of a Signifying
Subjectivity of Ego-driven Subjectivity. umwelt has the sense of relational flow
with all kinds of expression of e-merging, up-rising including humans.
Heidegger had an enormous influence on existential psychiatry
of Binswanger and Boss as well as the social and psychological theories of Rollo May
and other existential writers. This is the basis of elaboration and extension to post-structuralist
and post-modern philosophy which express in a "Western Way" the corollary to indigenous ways to which you so eloquently speak. All focus on relational forces. All abjure Signifying Subjectivity. And all are part of our
philosophical tool-kits that inform our sentient sensibilities toward praxes of restorative justice in
appreciation of the immanent, full-plenum of relational swerve and flow that our cosmic life-world entails.
P.S.: the unspeakable often requires imperceptible responses , or as Baudrillard wrote :"Why haven't we all disappeared?!"

i haven't studied the writings you are talking about, but i see a lot of 'equivalencing potentials' in your comment re the 4 Welten. basically another 'jargon' or 'language convention' for addressing the same topic, which may be commonly known, but not by me, as yet.

i also very much like your ...'you fill in the relational gaps i am using as negative space messaging with your own relational ties'... style of writing. [i started to learn hieroglyphics and liked that a lot].

this is just an off-the-top reaction to a new subject for me, and my surprise at your unexpected burst of linear-analytical discourse.

since i see indigenous anarchism as offering insights to Ferguson protestors vs. police and similar polarizations such as 'ISIS' vs the 'U.S.' [in both case the suffocating wish to destroy the blanket that is suffocating them, but find that every attempt to do so makes the blanket even more suffocating], ... i am wondering if the same or similar insights can come through the vier Welten portal.

meanwhile, the indigenous aboriginal is not 'alone' and he does not 'encounter the world', ... he is the world he is looking out at [as in modern physics 'U' shaped universe]. the physical world or umwelt [i suppose i may be hijacking the word umwelt for my own definition] is our experiencing of the universe expressing itself through us. this is the experiencing of pregnant-becoming-in-the-continuing-now, the 'tao' that cannot be told.

the social, the psychological and the spiritual, spoken as the 'three other dimensions/worlds' besides the physical dimension/world, seem like lesser worlds because they are shaped by the intellectual representations of language and thought, and are available to discourse, unlike the umwelt. we go looking for meaning in the realms of the social, psychological and spiritual and may deepen our understanding and adapt our practice over our lifetime, ... but where does this continually transforming 'we' and 'our' [self] come from if not umwelt?

i may be missing the point through insufficient knowledge of the subject.

I never said that it did.
i said that there is a long and well known tradition
of empiricism in western philosophy that in a "sense"
co-relates to that view. You yourself quote approvingly
of Lucretius, Heraclitus, Hume, Emerson, James, Nietzsche etc.
I added in the past , Spinoza and Heidegger and those that they have influenced
(see above)."Fitting" is that of strong resemblance of similar if not the same,
but ends up being an inferior version to the "standard" (here," indigenous world view). The fact is that Western empiricism is
different. So what is wrong with that? but they have some attributes that correlate, enrich each other. And
breathe real life into the discussion and help us to expand our ways of looking at things. or at least I thought it did. Let's not privilege any good concept to a position of it being a Totalizing Totality.: i.e. A Signifying Subjectivity of Representation .
P.S. your last two responses to me don't quite seem like the emile I know. If I am wrong, I stand corrected. I like the both and and back and forth .

im continuously amazed at the people here. This article does a fundamentally good job at offering a useful and readable anarchist analysis of whats happening, something that few things thus far put out do well, and yet the objections to it are that it has a phrase that has inflections of enlightenment discourse by way of referring abstractly to a state of imbalance, a slightly hacked physics metaphor that nonetheless gets the point across about the state's role in enforcing inequality perfectly well, and a use of the word interest in a way that somehow subtly connotes a libertarianism thats really obviously not present.

Yall need to leave philosophy class, walk the fuck outside, print some shit off and go talk to some new people, for realz. The shit aint perfect - its good, and usable.

Thanks for making this crimethinc. keep it up.

“But real peace is impossible until we put an end to the violent imposition of inequalities.”

much of what emile has been presenting in his comments is in common with the views in this article.

if there are comments that depart from, or try to augment views that have been expressed, that does not have to be interpreted as “objections to those views” as you put it.

the article speaks of ‘another approach to ‘addressing conflicts’;

“Permit us to propose another idea about how to address conflicts—what we might call the anarchist approach. The basic idea is straightforward enough. Real peace cannot be imposed; it can only emerge as a consequence of the resolution of conflict. Hence the classic chant: no justice, no peace.”

it is not ‘nit-picking’ to explore what is meant by “no justice, no peace”, and whether we are intending the same meaning for the words ‘justice’ and ‘peace’ as in;

“If we’re going to achieve justice, we first must have and maintain peace.” ... “This is the same narrative we always hear from the authorities. First, we must submit to their control; then they will address our concerns.”

it appears that the meaning of justice in ‘no justice, no peace’ refers to the resolving of the tensions of relational imbalance, as the author alludes to.

“Left to itself, a state of imbalance tends to return to equilibrium. To maintain imbalances, you have to introduce force into the situation. The greater the disparities, the more force it takes to preserve them. This is as true in society as it is in physics.”

there is an obvious question that goes unstated here as to ‘how a state of imbalance returns to equilibrium’. clearly the politics of the left aims to deliberately and forcefully resolve imbalance [by having an 'authority' formulate and implement a program of reallocation of wealth] while the anarchism of indigenous aboriginals and taoists etc. simply refrains from having any central authority preserve and protect imbalance, as the article rightly accuses our established Western society of doing [allowing the swamps/ghettoes to drain].

there are many people, seemingly including michael brown’s parents, who hold to the traditional ‘moral judgement’ view of ‘justice’ who, in demanding justice, are speaking about the prosecution of the police officer for abuse of power [with or without racial overtones]. Showing autopsy results is intended to make the case that the police officer used unnecessary lethal force to subdue an unarmed man when there was no justification for doing so [abuse of power, homicide].

this sort of justice is ‘rational’ and orients to ‘what things do’ and whether ‘what is done’ is ‘lawful’ or ‘unlawful’, ... something that should be fairly assessed regardless of race or colour.

this has ‘nothing to do’ with the other sort of justice; i.e. ‘relational justice’. relational injustice is where crony groups, which can be of mixed race and colour, such as the wealthy and powerful, condition the dynamics of the habitat in such a manner as to selectively opportunize one's cronies and selectively disopportunize 'outsider' others.

Western science, Western religion and Western justice are all, by their own conceptual structures, ‘blind’ to the use of spatial relations to selectively opportunize one’s cronies and selectively disopportunize ‘outsiders’ [on the basis of colour, race or whatever the current crony powerful want to relegate to the ‘outsider’ category].

thus, the ‘rational justice’ that is demanded by michael brown’s parents, that will prosecute the man who murdered their son, whether white, cop or whatever, no matter if they could forever make such prosecutions ‘fair and just’, ... are never going to drain the swamp/ghetto which spawns such conflicts in the first place [people reacting against police-backed preservation and protection of imbalance], because the formation of ghettoes is by way of the manipulating of spatial relations [manipulating access to resources and opportunities].

a man’s ‘achievements’, including his amassing of property and wealth, are in Western science, Western religion and Western justice, seen as coming from the individual as an ‘independent reason-driven system’ that is fully and solely responsible for his own behaviour. Therefore, he is fully and solely responsible for his ‘own achievements’, and cronyism, where the crony hitter is given ‘easy pitches’ and ‘accommodating fielding’ by his cronies so that, according to quote: 'his' :unquote 'results', shows up as a ‘superior performer’ while the outsider-hitter is given ‘bean balls’ and ‘disaccommodating fielding’ so that on the basis of quote: 'his' :unquote 'results', he shows up as an ‘inferior performer’, ... goes unaddressed.

Western science, Western religion and Western justice, since they all assume that the inhabitant is independent of the habitat, need consider only ‘what the inhabitant does’ in tallying his achievements, leaving unaddressed, the reality of hitter-fielding dynamics where ‘fielding’ [manipulation of relational space] can be used to selectively amplify and/or attenuate the ‘hitting results'.

the ‘imbalance’ that the article speaks of that is being maintained by violent force, derives from relational phenomena that is not recognized by Western science, Western religion and Western justice, yet the phrase; no justice, no peace implies that the conditions that lead to ‘imbalance’ have to be corrected or there will be no peace [relational tensions due to the force-based preservation and protection of imbalance must be addressed or they will continue to foment outbreaks of violence].

but BLINDNESS to the sourcing of the imbalance is built into the simplified, economy-of-thought based view of Western science, Western religions and Western justice which hold the individual human and/or individual sovereign state and/or individual corporation to be ‘independent reason-driven systems fully and solely responsible for their own behaviour’ that operate in a habitat that is ‘independent’ of the inhabitants that reside within it.

‘justice’ in the case of this no justice, no peace banner, then, associates with resolving the BLINDNESS to the sourcing of the imbalance.

but what is crimethinc’s intended view of ‘justice’ in this context of no justice, no peace? the authors do not say.

do they intend to ignore the BLINDNESS issue and simply address the huge imbalances and form a committee to reallocate wealth? what is their definition of justice.

my point is that even though crimethinc has written a good article, it is by no means ‘complete’ in its analysis of the overall situation and the appropriate response.

"but much of what email says..."
- emile

does emile speak in the 3rd person now? have we let it go this far yall?

email equals emile

relational space can't be dealt with, with 'either/or' logic although that is the type of logic that is foundational to what we commonly call 'science' and 'rationality' where our view is that something EITHER 'is' OR 'is not'. the relational space of our actual natural, relational experience requires BOTH/AND logic; i.e. where something BOTH 'is' AND 'is not'.

for example, would you say that 'it is a fact' that 'a police officer' shot 'michael brown' in Ferguson?

if you say so, can you tell me the time and place of the event?

if you were an eye witness to the whole thing, would you swear to 'tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth'?

and would you then make good on what you had then sworn to do?

i don't think so.

you would not even be allowed to 'tell the whole truth'.

as many sociologists say, the roots of the problem in Ferguson go back twenty years, if not to slavery, as they do in most cities in America.

Your 'whole truth' testimony about 'the facts' related to 'what happened in Ferguson' describe a small window of time [less than one hour] in a small window of space [less than one acre] and you speak of 'the facts' as if they can be captured within this window.

Oh, I understand, ... you must be a 'scientist'. Scientists always like to reduce their observations to tiny windows of space and time and claim that what happens, derives from inside these tiny windows. Moralists like this too, particularly rich and wealthy ones that control the social dynamic since if bad things can be blamed on local eruptions of violence, only those seen to be 'factually' involved in them can be blamed for them. Science, as Mach says, is to produce such 'economy of thought';

"Origin of Mathematical Physics. Let us go further and study more closely the conditions which have assisted the development of mathematical physics. We recognise at the outset the efforts of men of science have always tended to resolve the complex phenomenon given directly by experiment into a very large number of elementary phenomena, and that in three different ways.
.
First, with respect to time. Instead of embracing in its entirety the progressive development of a phenomenon, we simply try to connect each moment with the one immediately preceding. We admit that the present state of the world only depends on the immediate past, without being directly influenced, so to speak, by the recollection of a more distant past. Thanks to this postulate, instead of studying directly the whole succession of phenomena, we may confine ourselves to writing down its differential equation; for the laws of Kepler we substitute the law of Newton.
.
Next, we try to decompose the phenomena in space. What experiment gives us is a confused aggregate of facts spread over a scene of considerable extent. We must try to deduce the elementary phenomenon, which will still be localised in a very small region of space.” —Henri Poincaré, ‘Science and Hypothesis’, Chapter IX, Hypotheses in Physics.

What about Mach's relational space principle that says that "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". That is, a group of wealthy and powerful people could condition the common living space to starve out others and disempower and impoverish them through their control over the common living space. You know, like the colonizers did to the indigenous aboriginals. It's kind of like stepping on some hospital patient's oxygen supply hose and pretending that its got nothing to do with you, while the person is choking and suffocating to death.

So, anyhow, many people use their intuition and reflect on their natural relational experience, including many black and white sociologists, and claim that this Ferguson event has to be understood in a manner that comprehends the progressive development of a phenomenon and doesn't just simply try to connect each moment with the one immediately preceding ... [and] admit that the present state of the world only depends on the immediate past, without being directly influenced, so to speak, by the recollection of a more distant past

but that wouldn't be 'scientific' and 'factual' would it? Western justice, being moral judgement based, wants to 'stick to the facts', and in the Ferguson case, there is a demand for justice, which means 'justice' as it pertains to this one event in this tiny space and time window, ... you know, ... the event that you would describe if you were an eye witness and had to 'tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth'. if the powerful who control the 'authorities' were actually forced to throw a police officer who used lethal force on a whim, to the lion-crowd, ... the liberals in the crowd would say 'hurray, we have won, justice has been done'.

but what about those people who say that all the cities in America have been relationally tensioned over the past decades [oops, there's that word 'relational' again, but that's where tensions come from], ... so that an event like the one in Ferguson is more like striking a match in a methane filled room.

Is it the striking of the match that 'causes' the explosion or it is instead a 'triggering' of some phenomena that has been gradually building, like the relational tensions in the transforming earth that periodically source earthquakes, tsunamis, avalanches and volcanic eruptions as energy releases, that may come from minor triggering events. the actual event that transpires within a small space and time window is not the story, ... the more meaningful story is the overall transforming of relational space. dealing with the local event as if it were 'the whole truth' is bullshit. the Western concept of justice is bullshit. it is based on dealing with 'local events' and ignoring what is going on in the real physical world of transforming relational space. We say that 'that mountain over there is being worn down by erosion' ... and 'that valley is being filled in with sediment'. this is bullshit. the terrain is a relational space that is continually transforming. just because we are using a noun-and-verb European/Scientific language-and-grammar that reduces dynamics to 'what notionally independently-existing things-in-themselves do', ... doesn't mean that that is physical reality. as Mach points out, and Poincare, it is language game that delivers economy of thought called 'science'.

'Science' supports Western justice, so that if you are a 'scientist', your 'whole truth' will be the 'facts of the matter' as arise within a local event in a tiny space and time window. Western justice commits to no more than addressing such 'whole truths' such as what one swears on a Bible to be 'the whole truth'. Such 'whole truth' is also 'science's whole truth'.

If you witness a rock rolling down a mountain and lodging somewhere in the valley below, is that a 'whole truth', or is that just a 'noun-and-verb European/Scientific language-and-grammar 'game'? Maybe what is really, physically going on is that the terrain is slumping [undergoing relational-spatial transformation] as in a crest and trough [wave dynamical] relation.

Western truth-seeking is not interested in that kind of 'whole truth' because in order to understand things in that context, we would have understand things in a manner that comprehends the progressive development of a phenomenon and doesn't just simply try to connect each moment with the one immediately preceding ... [and] admit that the present state of the world only depends on the immediate past, without being directly influenced, so to speak, by the recollection of a more distant past

So, as a witness to the Ferguson event, what is 'your' 'whole truth'? We know what Western justice considers 'the whole truth';i.e.;

"Instead of embracing in its entirety the progressive development of a phenomenon, we simply try to connect each moment with the one immediately preceding. We admit that the present state of the world only depends on the immediate past, without being directly influenced, so to speak, by the recollection of a more distant past"

It would be both 'unscientific' and 'unjust' [in Western' justice's terms] to perceive the Ferguson event in any other way.

no no you're missing the point. @news comment threads like this are like a toy that you give to a child throwing a tantrum. while they try their best to deconstruct it, you can actually get some shit done.

honestly it's embarrassing when people have met these anarchists outside the internet and then you have to explain that no, you're not going to poststructuralize their every other sentence and police every semantic triviality you can. and you might actually care about some real shit.

You've met people who got their impression of anarchists from anews comments?

LOL. Yeah man. this stupid poststructur-whatthefuck-look-at-me-i-use-big-words circle jerk on this site thats supposed to be for anarchists is fucking embarassing.

Hey postwhatthefucks, no one outside your faggy [i'll catch shit for that one even tho im gay] milieu gives a shit. Burn a cop car. Kill a nazi. Shit organize a picnic that isnt a bunch of smelly white liberal kids cooking rabbit food for poor people [food not bombs i mean]. Anything other than your 50000 word diarrhea.

Crimethinc! WHAT THE!? What a diss on Atlanta not including 'Don't Die Wondering: Atlanta Against the Police Winter 2011-2012' to your 'Appendix:
Struggles against the Police—A Reading List' Come on!!!

SRSLY THO if you decide to correct this diss, as I'm sure it is an oversight and not payback for something we did or didn't do (...), if y'all add it up there maybe add up the reportback(s) on that little anti-police riot that happened at Edgewood Courts in April 2013.

OH SHITTTT!!!!! FOLKS MUST BE FUCKING OVERWORKED to drop that ball. Man!

Who fucking cares?

-Atlanta-

there are reactive and resentful forces who would write such trite things. it's best to just trample over them and keep moving, of course.

nothing to see here.

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.
  _____   __  __                              ____  
|_ _| | \/ | __ __ _ __ __ _ |___ \
| | | |\/| | \ \ /\ / / | '_ \ / _` | __) |
| | | | | | \ V V / | | | | | (_| | / __/
|_| |_| |_| \_/\_/ |_| |_| \__, | |_____|
|___/
Enter the code depicted in ASCII art style.
Subscribe to Comments for "What They Mean when They Say Peace"