Who put the ‘ism’ in Anarch’ism’?

It seems high time to review some very simple basics of ‘organizing’ in regard to what has become referred to as ‘Anarchism’, this word being understood very differently by different people, including different people who consider themselves to be ‘anarchists’.

(1.) The suffix ‘ism’ is borrowed from Greek where it is used to form ‘action nouns’ from ‘verbs’ [from ‘organizing’ as an activity to ‘organization’ as a ‘system-in-itself’ that sources the ‘organizing’].

(2.) The shift from ‘organizing’ to ‘organization’ is found in the shift from ‘organ’ to ‘organism’. That is, an ‘organ’ fulfills some need in the suprasystem it is included in while an ‘organism’ is a local ‘system-in-itself’ whose behaviour derives from its internal organs and their processes.

(3.) In general systems theory, all ‘local systems’ are included in a suprasystem and are sustained by the 'pull' of a niche need [relational-spatial opening] within the suprasystem which the system is fulfilling. E.g. the organ/organizing we call ‘university’ emerged and is sustained by the opening of a social relational need within the suprasystem of community. Analytical inquiry, or ‘in-and-back-out-again inquiry’ is insufficient for delivering an understanding of the suprasystem-system combination [analyzing the university as an organism/thing-in-itself, its component departments/faculties, facilities and processes is inherently insufficient]. As Ackoff et al observe, analytical inquiry must be grounded in ‘synthetical ‘out-and-back-in-again’ inquiry’ that explores how the ‘system’ is being continually shaped outside-inwardly by the opening of a continually transforming relational need within the suprasystem.

(4.) Inquiry must start with the question; Is the ‘organizing’ of the ‘organ’ type which is outside-inwardly orchestrated/shaped in serving some relational need in the larger suprasystem it is included in, or is the ‘organizing’ a local thing-in-itself ‘organization’ or ‘organism’ with its own locally originating, internal ‘organs’ and ‘processes’ driven and directed development and behaviour ? [N.B. general systems theory says that the latter ‘complete-in-themselves systems do not exist in physical reality].

(5.) Linguistic idealization allows the ‘speaker’ to ‘affix an ‘ism’’ on an action [e.g. ‘anarch’ing’] to, notionally, convert it to a noun [e.g. ‘anarch’ism’]. That is, linguistic idealization allows one to notionally convert an ‘organ’ [‘an organizing orchestrated/shaped by its relational 'socket/niche' in the suprasystem it is included in'] into an ‘organism’ [‘organization-in-itself’ that has its own internally jumpstarting, inside-outward intention-directed behaviour].

(6.) In physical reality [according to Mach, Poincaré, Bohm, Schrödinger], there are no ‘local systems in themselves’; i.e. there are no ‘organizaTIONS’ and no ‘organISMs’, there are only ‘organizINGs’ and ‘orgANs’; i.e. physical reality is constituted by a continually transforming relational spatial-Plenum, so that the ‘organizings’ within it are outside-inwardly orchestrated/shaped in their emergent development and behaviour [an ‘ecosystemic topology’ as characterizes ALL ‘organizings’ in non-euclidian relational space].

(7.) Science, which as Mach and Poincaré point out is a language game [linguistic idealizing schema] designed to maximize the ARTICULATING of observations/experiences with the least commitment of thought [science is an ‘economy of thought'], employs the tactic of converting ‘organizings’ to notional ‘organizations’, and thus ‘organs’ to notional ‘organisms’.

(8.) It is ‘stupidity’ and ‘nonsense’ [Nietzsche, Poincaré] to say that ‘lightning flashes’ [Nietzsche} or that ‘the earth rotates’ [Poincare]. That is, they are saying that it is ‘stupidity’ and ‘nonsense’ to use our language games to ‘split out’ a dynamic feature within the continually transforming relational spatial-Plenum and synthetically impute ‘subjecthood’ to it, so that the ‘word-label’ we give it serves as the notional local author of its own behaviour’. Thus, the word ‘lightning’ is imputed to be the author of the ‘flashing’ [‘lightning flashes’] and the word ‘earth’ is imputed to be the author of the ‘rotating’ [‘the earth rotates’]. Of course, this bears no resemblance to physical reality; e.g. the ‘rotating’ belongs to the relational dynamics of the suprasystem the earth is included in, it is not 'the earth' that is 'doing the deed'.

(9.) Western civilization has come to confuse the linguistic idealization-based synthetic reality of ‘what things-in-themselves do’ for ‘physical reality’, thanks to the power of ‘words’; i.e. thanks to the power of linguistic idealization that converts ‘things-that-we-consider-in-themselves’ to ‘things-in-themselves’. This is where ‘authoritarianism’ comes from; i.e. from confusing ‘stupidity’ and ‘nonsense’ for ‘reality’ so as to create [psychologically] notional local 'organizations-in-themselves' driven and directed from notional internal powers of absolute jumpstarting authorship.

Conclusion: ‘Anarch’ing’ is a form of ‘organizing’ that does not require a local source of authorship of the ‘organizing’. ‘Anarch’ING’ is NOT ‘an organizaTION’. In our Western language game-playing [linguistic idealization], we CAN IF WE WISH [psychologically speaking] convert ‘organizing’ to ‘organizaTION’ by adding the suffix ‘ism’. What this does, in our mental modeling, is to infuse a local ‘subject’ [local jumpstarting authorship power] that serves to explain the action [the ‘anarch’ing’ or 'organizing' that does not depend on some local-author], in terms of local inside-outward sourced ‘organizing’ [organizing that is, in physical reality, dependent on outside-inward orchestrating/shaping influence from the suprasystem it is included in]. Instead of the ‘organizing’ being born and sustained by needs in the suprasystem it is included in, the adding of the ‘ism’ suffix notionally converts it into a self-standing ‘organizaTION whose behaviour is notionally fully and solely inside-outwardly driven and directed. The 'organizaTION' becomes, as Nietzsche observes, a notional ‘intention-driven doer-of-deeds’ [the ‘stupidity’ and 'nonsense' is to confuse such linguistic idealization for physical reality].

The natural condition of the ‘organizing’ we refer to as 'a human’, is as an ‘outside-inward orchestrated/shaped emergent/sustained participating feature within the continually transforming relational spatial-Plenum. The human 'organizing' is not, in physical reality, as is convenient to newtonian science's economy of thought, a ‘local development and behaviour self-jumpstarting ‘system-in-itself’ aka ‘organISM’ that cavorts with other material objects/systems-in-themselves in an absolute space and absolute time ‘operating theatre’.

What ‘Anarch’ing’ is grappling with is a Western civilization that has institutionalized self-deceiving ‘stupidity’ and ‘nonsense’, re-rendering dynamics in the linguistically idealized terms of ‘what things-in-themselves do’ [what ‘organisms’ or ‘organizations’ do]. This forces the ‘believers’ in this local thing-in-itself-‘organization’ to invent their own ‘intention’ expressed in the usual terms of ‘mission, vision, plans, goals and objectives’.

For ‘Anarch’ing’ to embrace the ‘ism’ suffix and become ‘Anarch’ism’ is to do likewise [i.e. to institutionalize stupidity and nonsense, the confusing of linguistic idealization for physical reality].



Why do I always get the feeling your writing is like OCD handwashing or mantras to yourself in the mirror or something ..?

you too eh?

cause you no like thinky-think?

I found this article interesting, if a bit inaccessible at times. Anyway, essentially what I got from this was - you/we are perceiving things incorrectly and, therefore, your/our intentions expressed via "mission, vision, plan, etc." are incorrect. Is your point simply that "anarchists" are struggling within this institutionalized 'stupidity'? Because after that much pontificating I'd like to see an actual suggestion about what to do if going forth with a plan derived from one's vision is inherently incorrect. How about something concrete coming out of all that theory?

Follow the white rabbit.

re your question about the ‘point’ of this article;

“Is your point simply that "anarchists" are struggling within this institutionalized 'stupidity'?

the point is that the world is not [in physical reality] the way that european languages RE-present it, yet Westernized society [which is globally dominant] has institutionalized the european 'linguistic idealization' based reality and presents it, and imposes it through its institutions as if it 'were real'. in the justice system, the ‘reality’ that the protester is presented with is one in which the question is ‘did he smash the bank windows’. why not ask whether the source of this 'smashy' behaviour is the web of relations that constitutes society, that is selectively abusive to some and favouritizing to others? The answer is that the linguistic idealization that is ‘pushed’ as ‘reality’ in Western society portrays ‘reality’ in terms of ‘things-in-themselves’ and ‘what these things do’. The mainstream [orthodox] biological sciences ‘push’ the same [newtonian] ‘synthetic reality’.

society, in this synthetic reality that Western society has institutionalized, is portrayed as a collection of local, independent material systems called ‘humans beings’, notionally with their own locally originating, internal organs and processes driven and directed behaviours, that act/interact in absolute fixed, empty and infinite space where change is understood as ‘things changing’ relative to the notion of absolute time. in other words, the inherent relational character of the world, that is fundamental in modern physics [e.g. in Mach’s principle] goes missing in the institutionalized Western worldview.

so, we live in a society where the ‘official reality’ is a bullshit reality that few people believe in, but it has been institutionalized, in governance, commerce and justice. how many books have been written which mock this ‘official reality’ that we live in? Les Misérables is at least as relevant a social critique today as in the era of the 1848 revolutions, that was Victor Hugo’s backdrop in writing it. Jean Valjean’s actions were seen according to the Western synthetic reality [linguistically idealized reality], as the actions of a local, independently-existing ‘being’ with his own locally originating, internal process [intellection and intention] driven and directed purpose. this worldview persists as the institutionalized ‘official reality’, not only in society at large, but in mainstream science and medicine. it is a synthetic reality that only needs ‘analytical inquiry’ [in-and-back-out-again inquiry that is NOT grounded in ‘out-and-back-in-again’ synthetical inquiry] because it sees the world as a collection of ‘things-in-themselves’, and in order to understand the behaviour of ‘things-in-themselves’, one inquires ‘in-and-back-out-again’, as one would inquire into the operation of a machine [the archetype institutionalized in mainstream biology’s model of the ‘organism’ and thus ‘the human organism’].

the ‘unbeliever’ in this institutionalized synthetic reality; e.g. ‘the anarchist’ has two possible courses of action in rejecting the common practice [what Western society considers as ‘normal’ and ‘proper’];

1. stay inside the synthetic reality to contest what is going on, and argue it out using the standard, linguistically idealized view of dynamics in terms of ‘what things-in-themselves do’ in absolute, non-relational space’. this is the doer-deed pseudo-reality where dynamics are explained in non-relational ‘cause-effect’ terms, so that ‘someone-to-blame’ can always be found for any ‘good’ or ‘bad’ ‘result’.

2. reject the ‘official reality’ of Western society that has institutionalized ‘stupidity’ [Nietzsche] and ‘nonsense’ [Poincaré], and accept the Machean physics physical reality wherein space is relational and where individuals can be selectively ‘opportunized’ and/or ‘disopportunized’ in a spatial-relational sense as given by Mach’s principle; “The dynamics of the inhabitants are conditioning the dynamics of the relational space we share inclusion in, at the same time as the dynamics of the relational space we share inclusion in are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants.”

‘decolonizing’ [the (2.) approach], rejects Western society’s institutionalized ‘synthetic reality’ and the actions that follow from ‘belief in it’. decolonizers do not say; ‘our man did not get a fair trial’. they say; ‘Western justice is fucked up. fundamentally fucked up’. ‘restorative justice’ acknowledges the physical reality of ‘relational space’ where the relational conditions in the community engender conflict or cultivate and sustain balance and harmony. living in this manner employs the ‘anarchING’ dynamic rather than ‘anarchISM’ [the latter being another approach to ‘what things-in-themselves do in time’]

‘revolutionaries’ [the (1.) approach] stay within the ‘synthetic reality’ which sees ‘anarchism’ n terms of ‘what things-in-themselves do in time’, and it blames the social dysfunction on greedy/evil powerful individuals; i.e. the ‘reality’ continues to be presented in terms of ‘things-in-themselves’ and ‘what they have been doing’.

what the article proposes is the (2) approach. currently ‘anarchists’ are split between (1.) and (2.) without having a common view of where the split derives from; i.e. the article seeks to clarify the source of this splitting, which derives from ‘language’ and the imputing of local subjecthood that it imposes on our mental modeling of dynamics.


Is Emile British ? I'm going to find out who Emile and Emile's Anus is !!!!


IMO I think Emile is a native activist residing in Canada. I will not go farther in respect of her privacy.

No doubt. Thankfully.

Praise god!! Someone finally took the blah-be-d-eblah out of anarchy!

Why the reference to "god"???

good point, fuck god.

Up with cock, down with babies, praise Patrick Swayze

PRAISE HIM (he's dead, like jebus)

"In all conflicts between opposing sides, an irrepressible upsurge of individual desires takes place and often reaches a threatening intensity. To this extent we are justified in talking of a third force. From the individual’s point of view, the third force is what the force of decompression is from the point of view of power. The small chance of every struggle, it radicalizes insurrections, denounces false problems, threatens power in its very structure." - The Revolution of Every Day Life by Raoul Vaneigem

"Individualism, alcoholism, collectivism, activism... the variety of ideologies shows that there are a hundred ways of being on the side of power. There is only one way to be radical. The wall that must be knocked down is immense, but it has been cracked so many times that soon a single cry will be enough to bring it crashing to the ground. Let the formidable reality of the third force emerge at last from the mists of history, with all the individual passions that have fuelled the insurrections of the past! Soon we shall find that an energy is locked up in everyday life which can move mountains and abolish distances. The long revolution is preparing to write works in the ink of action whose unknown or nameless authors will flock to join Sade, Fourier, Babeuf, Marx, Lacenaire, Stirner, Lautréamont, L'hautier, Vaillant, Henry, Villa, Zapata, Makhno, the Communards, the insurrectionaries of Hamburg, Kiel, Kronstadt, Asturias -- all those who have not yet played their last card in a game which we have only just joined: the great gamble whose stake is freedom."- The Revolution of Everyday Life by Raoul Vaneigem

When I read this shit from Gel and Emile I get an image of the female anarchist brainiac getting knocked out in Rob Zombie's El Super Beasto. Loved it.... I hope you painfully belch rats from your asshole.

Raoul Vaneigem makes some good points, including;

“When the leader of the game takes the power of a Leader, the revolution dies with the revolutionaries.”

this essentially expresses the same point about the ‘flip’ that occurs with ‘subjectizing emergent organizing’ in this ‘Who put the ‘ism’ in ‘Anarchism’ article. the revolutionary leaders starts off as one who is able to attune to and mirror back to those around him, the emergent organizing. he, she, is at this point like the ‘eye of the hurricane’. this sort of leader sits at the centre-of-symmetry of the emergent organizing [the ‘AnarchING’].

when we start using language to talk and write about and explain what is going on, the ‘flip’ occurs where it becomes, in our minds, a ‘thing-in-itself’, graduating from a verb to a noun, as is the linguistic function of the suffix ‘ism’. the ‘leader’ who has been the ‘eye’ of the ‘organizing’ becomes the ‘I’ of the ‘Organization’ or ‘Revolution’.

this is the birth of hierarchy. it comes with self-consciousness, narcissism, ego, ... both on the part of the leader [who becomes the Leader] and on the part of the nation [which becomes the Nation]. though the ‘organizing’ [insurrection, revolution, anarchING] emerged as a RELATIONAL-SPATIAL organizing without a common ‘local, internal intellection and intention driven and directed behaviour’, ... when the storm brews up and gathers power, there will be those who insist on hijacking it and turning it into a powerboat to take them to ‘some desired destination’. the ‘anarching’ as a balance-and-harmony-sustaining mode of ‘journeying in the continuing present’ or ‘sailboater mode’, is superseded by ‘anarchism’ as a past-to-future destination-seeking powerboater mode.

at this ‘flipping point’, ‘leaders turn into Leaders’ and ‘organizing’ turns into ‘Organization’ and ‘anarchING’ turns into ‘anarchISM’, a theoretical hierarchy where many ‘small t’ theories [which described the ‘organizing’] become subordinate to a ‘capital T’ Theory [which is understood as ‘driving the Organization’].

this ‘flipping’ derives from ‘linguistic idealization’ as follows in the example of ‘Katrina’;

1. organizing that derives from the transforming of relational space ‘shows up’ as a visible, tangible, rotating radial arm’d pinwheel.

2. the relational spatial origins of the organizing is ignored and the visible, moving-materials aspect is ‘subjectized’ and thus promoted to the status of the jumpstart sourcing of the organizing. this avoids the complexity of the ‘real physical relational source’ which is ‘non-local, non-visible, and non-material’, as is the nature of relational ‘energy-fields’.

3. as Nietzsche elaborates on in his writings, we can now make use of our linguistically idealized ‘subject’ and go with this ‘stupidity’ which obscures the relational origins of the organizing, and RE-renders these dynamics in a synthetic ‘doer-deed’ mental model; e.g. “Katrina is ‘growing’ and ‘strengthening’; Katrina is moving north; Katrina is wreaking destruction on New Orleans, Katrina is dissipating.

note that we flip from ‘change’ in terms of transformation of relational space, to change in terms of ‘time’; i.e. the ‘aging’ of the linguistic idealization based ‘thing-in-itself’; i.e. Katrina’s birth, growth and death.

Vaneigem comments on this psychological flip into a ‘time’ based mental model of change; i.e. our sense of ‘time’ as the basis for ‘change’ comes from our notional ‘things-in-themselves’ establishing some ‘historical markers’ along the notional axis of ‘time’. in other words, the historical markers are what creates the impression of an ‘axis of time’ [which further submerges our understanding of change in the physically real sense of the continual transforming of relational space].

Vaneigem observes;

“Is not the passage of time always measured by reference to the establishment of some authority or other in terms of the years accumulated since the installation of a god, messiah, leader or conquering city? To the aristocratic mind, moreover, such accumulated time was a measure of authority: the prepotency of the lord was increased both by his own age and by the antiquity of his lineage. At his death the noble bequeathed a vitality to his heirs which drew vigour from the past.”

if we first ‘draw a line’ graduated in annual cycles of the earth’s ‘revolutionary movement around the sun’ and divide that up into earth rotations relative to the sun and to finer gradations count, then, as Vaneigem suggests, we can flesh this out with some notable events, conquests, inventions, and then have someone get up and give a lecture on it, as if this is the story of ‘the world we live in’ and ‘how it is changing’.

if you live in Britain, your ‘world’ presented in this manner where ‘change’ is measured in terms of notional [linguistically idealized] ‘events-in-themselves’ and their ‘time of occurrence’ [rather than the physically real emergent features in the transforming relational spatial-plenum], will have a higher incidence of British events than if you live in the United States, or if you are an aboriginal living on Turtle Island.

it is evident that such a view of ‘change’ is ‘not physically real’. the United States has ‘its own history’ only insofar as Andorra has ‘its own history’. it depends on the [NOT] ‘reality’ of the linguistically idealized ‘thing-in-itself’ sovereign-state whose birth was by way of a ‘unilateral declaration of independence’.

the United States, spoken of as we speak of ourselves and of any ‘linguistically idealized thing-in-itself’ has the same sort of reality as Katrina; i.e. the sort of reality that a television meteorologist ‘imputes’ to a storm that appears as a whorl in an animation of a relationally transforming space, with his felt tip marker, drawing a circle around it and naming it [endowing it with subjecthood] and giving it a ‘doer-deed history’ that transpires in split apart space and time. it is the idealized notion of a ‘thing-in-itself’ that demands the splitting apart of spacetime [relational space] into ‘absolute space’ and ‘absolute time’.

i am, of course, NOT talking about ‘experiencing the people/place’ known as ‘The United Space’, the same people and place that one can read about in ‘the history of Turtle Island’, ... i am talking about the historical view, the view that is presented in the media and in general discourse, the linguistically idealized ‘doer-of-deeds’ United States. does anyone ‘really believe’ that there can be multiple separate histories of multiple separate sovereign states? i.e. does anyone really NOT believe that the transformation of relational space does NOT trump the notion of the history of a local, independently-existing thing-in-itself sovereign state? the polish language tells ‘the history of Poland’, but what is ‘Poland’ if not a relational-spatial influence nexus [a feature within the transforming relational spatial-Plenum]?

who put the ‘Pole’ into ‘Poland’, ... if not the Polish language which tells the history of the Polish people. and who put the ‘her’ into ‘hurricane’?, ... if not linguistic idealization that RE-presented natural physically real change [transformation of relational space] in the synthetic terms of the history of a thing-in-itself doer-of-deeds. yes, this historical view of our ‘changing world’ is nothing other than ‘anthropomorphism’. we have to let go of our ‘ego’ or idealized thing-in-itself ‘I’ existence in order to see physical reality, which in the Western culture is increasingly obscured by the synthetic reality of linguistic idealization.

I've read of enough of this obscurantist rambling...when do we get news?

your comment surfaces an important issue, where you say;

“I've read of enough of this obscurantist rambling...when do we get news?”

i would say that;

“most ‘news’ is ‘obscurantist rambling”

for example, what is presented as ‘news’ is ‘what is currently going on in the world’ FROM THE POINT OF VIEW of some or other observer or professional-observer-aka-‘journalist’.

here’s a generic example from our colonist news media;

(1.) “The more than one thousand native tribes in North America, rescued from the anarchic, savage conditions of their pre-colonized existence, now enjoy the same high quality of life that comes with European civilization, imported into North America by European immigrants during colonization. In spite of many enormous gains in living conditions thanks to European scientific/technological know-how, which have been woven into the fabric of everyday life, through European style systems of governance, commerce and justice, many native groups supporting the idle-no-more movement obfuscate the tremendous improvements they are the benefactors of, as they climbed up out of the dark cellars of savage, anarchic society into the superior social ambiance of Western civilization.”

who is doing the obfuscating and how are they doing it?

(2.) “Aboriginal ‘idle-no-more’ activists in the colonizer-defined-state called 'Canada' note that they were forced by the colonizers to disband their local justice and peace-keeping systems, these being superseded by the central authorities of the colonizing system, and that the RCMP and Courts of Justice have not only not protected aboriginals as they protect white colonizers, but have filled their jails [which did not exist in the aboriginal peace-keeping system], disproportionately, with aboriginals. The colonizer justice system speaks of justice that operates only on ‘what people do’, as if such actions are disconnected from the common living space that all share inclusion in. Thus, the colonizer government first allocates treaty land to the aboriginals then authorizes [highly profitable to government/corporate stakeholders] actions on surrounding lands that continually pollute and build concentrations of pollutants that toxify the aboriginal treaty lands, poisoning the natural systems that supply fish and game within those treaty lands.”

Who is the ‘biggest obfuscator’ in these ‘news’ reports?

The philosophical basics of what is going on here are laid out in ‘Who put the ‘ism’ in Anarch’ism’, i.e;

The Western systems of ‘justice’, ‘commerce’ and ‘governance’ orient strictly to ‘the actions of people’, as in the linguistically idealized view of social dynamics in terms of ‘what things-in-themselves do’. There is no acknowledging, in these approaches to ‘social dynamics management’, of the PHYSICAL REALITY that there is no absolute mutually excluding divide between the ‘human inhabitants’ and the ‘habitat’ they are included in. The notional [psychological] imputing of this ‘absolute mutually excluding divide’ derives from the idealizing power of language, as pointed out by Nietzsche and other philosophers [Wittgenstein, Sapir, Whorf, Poincaré] which imposes notional local subjecthood on emergent forms which are included in the habitat dynamic [denoting this now notionally absolute, independently-existing subject with a linguistic symbol aka 'name'], artificially vesting them with jumpstart powers of authorship of ‘their own behaviour’, in denial of the physical reality of the mutual INCLUSIVITY of inhabitant and habitat [e.g. per Mach’s principle].

Thus it is linguistic idealization that gives the emergent whorl in the flow of the atmosphere a notional [psychological] ‘local being’ or absolute ‘subjecthood’ tagged with the symbol 'Katrina', that equips it [notionally/psychologically] with its own local jumpstarting behaviour authorship powers, emasculating in their entirety, in the same idealizing stroke, the physically real authoring powers of the dynamic habitat the inhabitants are included in [i.e. subjecthood-endowing linguistic idealization rips out the authoring powers of the habitat and portrays the habitat as a passive, inanimate surrounding and/or empty euclidian space, leaving the psychological impression of a world dynamic that derives from ‘local things-in-themselves and ‘what they do’]. This is the Western world view, a useful simplification-based tool, which becomes when 'taken literally' [confused for physical reality], a ‘psychological sickness’; a ‘crazy-maker’ that is the source of global society’s general dissipative dysfunction].

Those who choose to mock efforts to surface this psychological sickness wherever people are raising it are obfuscators-first-class, whose obfuscating serves to perpetuate the crazy-making ‘norms’ of Western authoritarian society and its institutions for infusing its crazy-making. Such obfuscators contribute towards condemning themselves and everyone, to futile initiatives that use the psychologically sick worldview as their grounding in their attempts to dig themselves out of global society's general dissipative dysfunction [i.e. to heal them of their psychologically sick worldview].

Emile persists in name-dropping the usual suspects, none of whom can hold a candle to Max Stirner when it comes to ontological abstractions past their use-by date.

Has Emile never heard of Max Stirner?

Poor deer if they haven't - especially if they anarchist.

I, too, anarchist from time to time. Actually, last night a few friends and I met up to anarchist together, but most of the time I anarchist by myself at home.

I too have enjoyed a good anarchist from time to time, really gets the blood flowing.

I'm pretty sure Emile is human, not a cervid.

this was a thoughtful reply to emile's obsessions:

If by thoughtful, you mean completely misses the point of Emile, and proceeds to trash him by way of ad hominem rather callously, then yes it is 'thoughtful'. Emile's argument is not that of his 'idols', rather an interpretation of some of their lesser claims. He may champion Mach and Foucalt's ideas, but he is neither, and certainly goes further to make arguments they never did.

okay. since you know emile so well, what is his 'point'?

Would you also like me to hold your dick while you piss?

sure. you're probably great at it from all the time you've spent on emile's cock.

how quaint.

I'm into onanism at the moment, it rocks! Down with intellectualising passion and emotion!

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.
3 + 16 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.