Notes Towards a Theory of the Manarchist

  • Posted on: 14 January 2016
  • By: thecollective

The Manarchist is the best activist. He knows this in his heart. The Manarchist proposes the most radical actions, articulates the most meaningful theories. He alone is enlightened. We all must read Adorno, but only the Manarchist understands him properly.

The Manarchist loves women, and so does not need to listen to them. His position is a politics of entitlement, cis maleness, whiteness. His voice is louder, his words truer. His anarchist future is inevitable, drawn from books written by other white men. It is a superior vision. He knows more about any given topic than you, for he has a degree in it.

To the Manarchist, we are all one race, the human race. The Manarchist has a phobia of identity politics. He wishes people of colour, feminists, queers, would stop splitting the left. These ‘sour-faced identitarians’ spoil his fun. The Manarchist understands other peoples’ oppressions better than they do themselves (one of his friends is black): after the revolution racism will just disappear. The politics of white working class men are not identity politics, they are the true struggle.

Sometimes the Manarchist is just lightly offensive. He is a man-baby. He wishes you would consider his needs more. He can’t give you emotional support right now, he’s working on an action. He assumes you need his help to do practical tasks. Luckily, he brought his acoustic guitar to the party. He wishes you would shave your armpits, just for special occasions. He is working on his casual sexism. You have to excuse him, he’s really fucked up right now.

‘Bourgeois’ is the Manarchist’s favourite insult, but the Manarchist himself has never been bourgeois.
The Manarchist likes to fuck shit up. The Manarchist loves queer ultraviolence, and he is also a bit queer himself because he is polyamorous (fucks lots of women) and kinky (dominant). The Manarchist knows that marriage is a capitalist institution, so he’s exploring relationship anarchy. He is throwing off patriarchal constraints like loyalty, responsibility, housework. His girlfriends have a propensity to jealousy, which is not his fault. They’re paranoid, which is not his fault. They remember things wrongly. For some reason they won’t fuck each other while he watches, which shows the lie of women’s liberation.

The Manarchist is a committed feminist, as he is happy to loudly declare on any occasion that he does the cleaning up, offers childcare, or makes tea for others. However often when unglamorous labour needs it turns out that the Manarchist is busy with something very important. The Manarchist prefers to be at the centre of the action. He was at Millbank. He was at G20. He was at Occupy. He’s a hunt sab. In fact he was always there. Were you there? The Manarchist basks in male admiration. He agrees with women he wants to date, until they say yes.

The Manarchist knows that activism was invented by white men. Ideas are the original work of past bros, and history a procession of them. Anarchism, socialism, communism, these labels describe a tradition of male genius. In the past some women (Emma Goldman, Rosa Luxembourg, Rosa Parks) had good ideas. In the present, women’s good ideas approximate to fascism: safer spaces policies are for babies, meetings without white men are reverse racism, community accountability is a witch-hunt. The Manarchist does not see any irony in claiming men are being witch-hunted. These days it is so hard for a man to even speak without being silenced.

Though he has barely read them, the Manarchist loves to critique the works of women, of people of color, of trans people. He has important things to say about how they could improve. He can explain to you why your campaign is wrong, philosophically speaking. The revolution is coming, and it will be a massive riot.

The Manarchist’s true face is violence against women, against people who are not white men. He likes to ‘date girls with ‘issues’, so he can ‘look after them’. He wants ‘to fuck you while you are sleeping’. He does not see this as rape. He believes ‘street harassment has nothing to do with rape’. Because he doesn’t believe in a politics of exclusion, he hangs out with rapists. His friend may have hit his girlfriend once or twice, but he does really good activism and anyway he regrets it now.

The Manarchist is a feminist when he wants to fuck. The Manarchist will use the language of sexual liberation to coerce you into sex. He’ll call himself a feminist while raping you. He will be assiduous about calling out rape apologists…when they are women and/or black. He’ll talk about community in the meeting in the morning and hit you in the evening. He will tell you not to be so stupid. Don’t slut-shame him.

Do not accuse the Manarchist of sexual assault. Do not accuse him of rape apologism. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Women who go to the police after being raped are capitalist betrayers. If they marry policemen, well, they deserve violence against them.

The Manarchist’s ‘anarchism’ is hierarchical politics by men who are not in charge yet. He is white supremacist patriarchy in black bloc. He is not an outlier. He is in every left social circle, and so are his Manarchist friends. The Manarchist is a normal guy who dedicates his life to making a better world. If anything, you are the counter-revolutionary.

Most of us, particularly women, have a story to tell about about the Manarchist. Yet he is hard to tell stories about. The Manarchist gets away with it. He is popular. He does practical solidarity work. He is the best activist. He is the best at saying he is the best.

What distinguishes the Manarchist is that he does not accept that he is one. He will not listen. Now, he will mansplain to you why you are wrong.

Written by Ray Filar. Based on conversation with/stories from: Mijke Drift, Kirsty La Rain, Riley Coles, Jasper Jay, Olivia Walker, Linda Stupart, Annette Behrens, Toni Mac, Jacob V Joyce, Sophie Lawton, Deborah Grayson, Marta Owczarek, Selin Yildizoglu, Hannah McStar, Lily Ash Sakula, Abigail Williams.



Cliché much? Not that clever. Tendencies not identities typify how most people live unexamined lives. Perhaps anarchists are an exception to that... anyway self reflection not 2 dimensional characature makes slow progress for intrapersonal change.

Yes I agree, all the white cis men should leave anarchy. I hope yall have been better off since I left. I certainly have. What kind of a fucking idiot would hang out in a scene where the cool thing to do is villainize him?

I propose that all cishet white men leave anarchism ant its milieu forever. I have.

In summary @ culture wars boil down to, "no you're a fascist." Used often all words can lose meaning.

Can't agree more. "Fascism" is useful and more than just a insult only when it is used to describe what self-defined fascists propose. I've never met anyone who calls themselves a manarchist.

proposals like socially progressive, Democracy?
have you seriously met anyone who calls theirself a Fascist? was his name Benito Mussolini?

Ever heard of stormfront? NSM? These people exist... and they're not the liberals that so many people call fascists (not that the liberals aren't bad enough). I *have* met Traditionalist Youth members, and while they mostly don't describe themselves (publicly) as fascists, they are pretty clearly influenced by them (as evidenced by photos of themselves doing nazi salutes in front of Nazi flags, public promotion of patriarchy (they use that word) and "ethnopluralism", etc...).

they aren't hated nearly as much by "liberals" as are anarchist protestors.
pro-civ solidarity runs deep. the reactionary vanguard to which you refer promotes the generalized acceptance of the social domination paradigm as a God-given pragmatism. meanwhile, the working-class support-base of civil-society is thoroughly engaged in privileged bigotry. enabling -with hand over heart- a state of government which to my perception is effectively totalitarian, right winged, nationalists.. so, who are the fascists? how does a fascist supporter/sympathizer become such?
are they gradually persuaded to identify with their granted privilege? are they obligated to fall-in-line by the looming threat of the inclement wild? people generally love paved-roads, hot-showers, the concept of a justice system and a steady job.
how is that not a fascist mindset in the given context of current history where landlords and bosses have state-military authority and fucking everything else? fascism isn't a political power waiting in the shadows. its full-on worldwide and we're doing nothing to effectively hinder it. if fascism is to be fought it will require some serious general-strike coups, and a hell of a lot more drop-out-primmies.

"fascism isn't a political power waiting in the shadows. its full-on worldwide and we're doing nothing to effectively hinder it."

No, I don't think so, that's liberalism (using a mostly a neoliberal strategy these days, though neocolonialism (puppet governments, think USA invading Afghanistan and putting Karzai(sp?) into power) and even classical colonialism still play their parts at times).

"people generally love paved-roads, hot-showers, the concept of a justice system and a steady job.
how is that not a fascist mindset in the given context of current history where landlords and bosses have state-military authority and fucking everything else?"

Authority and fascism are not the same thing. Liberals(both conservative and progressive), socialists(dictatorial and democratic), american "Libertarians," and even feudalists/monarchists all believe authority(state or otherwise) is necessary. This belief is not relegated to fascists. Calling all of these people fascists downplays the differences in ideology, of which there are many despite all of them being utopian authoritarians. Racism is also a part of fascism (or even racialism in terms of some neofascists and most liberals these days), but it is not limited to fascists or even created by them!

Why does this matter? That's a harder question. At least part of the answer is that reacting to these different groups requires different tactics and strategies. It also requires realizing that there are more than two groups involved, it's not just anarchists vs fascists. Fascists and liberals, for example, also can end up street-fighting or out-right war (WWII). Just because an explanation is simple does not mean it is correct or True, despite Occam's Razor.

neo-liberalism is fascist. WWII et al is just various "rival" fascist nations martyring their workers for pride and profit. you appear to be accepting the academic definitions of those who write history. i won't buy it. Anarchists is not a group.Fascists is not a group. relating to Groups who rally under banners with colors on their sleeve certainly does require specialized attention but, to focus on NSM, Stormfront or TYM as the sole practitioners of the politics which Mussolini coined Fascista is a misnomer which takes the heat off of the immediate corporation and municipality. What part of fascism is not absolutely fucking thriving in Anytown USA?

Oooooh, you're edgy. Who needs "the academic definitions of those who write history" when you can make shit up and sound important?

The point of communication is to express meaning, not to disguise it. The point of using words like "fascism" is to address the distinct political phenomenon it describes, not everything you don't like about every government everywhere. All that conflating fascism and liberalism really does is show how little you know about either, and how willing you are to make bold statements without anything to back them up.

Much like "fascism", a really good number of the people throwing around the term "liberal" couldn't define or recognize the phenomenon if one were standing in front of them with a (completely "democratic") gun to their head. This is a real problem, because as others have pointed out, liberals are actually a substantially larger threat (in number, influence, etc) and frequently indulge in all the same nasty activities (racism, nationalism, conquest, genocide, etc). Not having an analysis of this shit means not understanding why a bunch of progressive reformists would do these things and not being able to guard against their infiltration and recuperation of our groups/slogans/ideas for those purposes.

-Not the OP who's been responding so far, just someone who's annoyed by pretentious obfuscation

so…. you're another progressive reformist who wishes to guard your group/slogan against racism, nationalism and genocide??
lol good luck!!!!!

Responding to my post about not understanding this stuff by totally missing the point. There's a beautiful symmetry there, if nothing else (and there is *nothing* else).

I'm not sure how you took that from what I said, especially with statements like "liberals are actually a substantially larger threat", but sure, call me a "progressive reformist" if that makes you feel better. The actual point was that liberals are bad, but in totally different ways from fascists, and that for all idiots like you like to throw words around, it'll never mean shit unless you actually understand what they mean.

when will you deign to differentiate between a neoliberal and fascist? with your words, please? convey me some meaning cause i just can't seem to get your point about whatever it is i don't understand…how is your group/slogan threatened? how is neo-liberalism different from fascism in the current political context? it seems to me that while a fascist isn't necessarily neoliberal, the neoliberal is absolutely are they not, in your view? please, oh wise one

This might be a joke but the ID politics, resentful feminism, justifications of pure hatred sometimes even violence directed at people for no other reason than their race or gender, oppression Olympics, and so much more that I witnessed around me posing as anarchist was absolutely the major contributing factor to my departure from the anarchist scene and (after twenty years) myrefusal to any longer call myself an anarchist.

It's not that my values disappeared but that those very anti-authoritarian values that drove me to this scene in the first place now informed me that I should no longer maintain a relationship or even a presence in the anarchist subculture.

I'm not "cis-het-white-whatever" although I might be some of those things but I honestly have never felt so much prejudice and hatred toward me due to things outside of my control like my gender and sexuality around typical apolitical people like I have around anarchists.

so are there any women in thecollective? inquiring minds would like to know.


I guess that's a no then.

Not responding to identity politics based question automatically means that there are no women whatsoever in the anarchistnews collective. You fought hard for that Gold Medal in the Oppression Olympics of 2016. Yes, there are women involved in the collective.

Unclever satire makes me frown.

manarchist detected

Quick, call the cops, they are our best allies in our fight against the manarchist patriarchy.

Obviously, this article is describing a person we have all met, probably many times, and they are right to say this kind of person sucks.

But, at the same time as they try to say part of why this person sucks is that they reject identity politics, they make plain one of the many reasons why identity politics is bankrupt: it almost inevitably collapses into liberalism/reformism. If we "follow the leadership of oppressed communities", we have liberalism. If we say anarchists who possess one or more oppressor group qualities (most anarchists) have analyses that are less legitimate than those of oppressed groups, we are demanding that anarchists not actually be anarchists. If we say oppressed persons are always justified in calling the police, pursuing reformist measures that alleviate the hardships of oppressed communities, or pushing anarchists out of their spaces, then we have liberalism. If we say that accusers should always be immediately believed and that any defense of the accused (or even being friends with the accused person) is fucked up, then we can almost guarantee that every affinity group/project/organization is going to implode in short order.

Yes, there are no innocents. We have all done shitty things to others. What have we learned from this? The question is how to stop this (or more specifically, how do we act to prevent or de-escalate situations where domination/hierarchy/violence are prevalent), not who is to blame. Blaming might help us recognize the source of the problem, but in a lot of not-violent or at least not life-threatening situations, attacking the person involved is NOT mutual aid/individual and social "growth" and FORCES us into "violent" situations. Context is important. Assassinating capitalists/terrorists/the enemy does not necessarily lead to social activity (mutual aid/friendship/life/cooperation) instead of anti-social activity (fighting/war/death/competition). And a simplistic ideology like male bad/violence/hate/competition is against female good/non-violence/love/cooperation barely begins to give us any idea of what a proactive anarchist praxis should look like.

So what's the point in using a term like manarchist when NO ONE you are describing actually calls themselves such? Fascism at least, is a term that actual groups of people have identified themselves with. This is also true of anarchists, liberals, socialists, men, women, males, females, white, black, European, African, Asian, Native American(more recently), etc... But has there EVER been anyone who called THEMSELF a manarchist? Isn't this a double-spook(bogeyman)?

Really isn't a good idea for anyone who is a post leftist at this point.

My cat is a non-binary, transgender, full spectrum, intersex, polyarmorous, feline tabby named Doug, who prefers the pronoun 'zurzh'.

do we really need a new identity term for progressives who are douchebags and abusers?
In my opinion, the problem of not really knowing people around you doesn't come from the lack of a culture of denunciation, it stems from the fact that we live in mass society and generally have no connection or commitment to people around us which isnt mediated by it. Thus, we mostly only know people in the abstract and our concerns towards them are also abstract, as are the communities which are claimed by "identities". The only exceptions I would argue without a doubt would be isolated ethnic tribes, like some Yanomami tribes per example, essentially those whose daily lives arent mediated by mass society, but who rather experience face to face intimacy within dynamics of something more in the likes of an extended family. This doesnt eliminate abuse etc. but does make it so that it is harder to hide abuse, then it all depends on what is acceptable to the people concerned, taboo's etc. But I do think that it is easier to change or to affect a small group of closely knit people than a mass society of billions who dont give a shit. Also the means themselves of changing the "culture" of billions of people seem very problematic as I dont see how this could be attained without mass media, policing and institutions of normalization (social work, psychology etc.), the Chinese communists have had an interesting experience with "cultural revolution" and the culture of denunciation it embraced. It might be worth taking a look into that if cultural revolution is what one is thriving for.

seems like somebody got burned here.
did one woman write this or is it a collective work?

i havent met any anarchist f2f yet even though i am pretty open about my views.
i havent been to any scene locale either and things i read about it here or hear about on several anarchist podcast dont wetten my appetite.
to clarify, im a man. id like to call myself that at least.
so does this thing really exist?

Amazing how the manarchists in london sound like every cis-heternormative-white-manarchist.

Remember that if you are a man you cannot be critical of identity politics because that means you are a rapist, too!

Of course the activist Left draws sociopaths and douchebags - they feed on its messianic vision. It is to be expected that the loyal opposition would be about as full of them as corporations and states. We can assume that anti-oppression activists and organizer bros will continue yelling at each other - and requiring each other for self-identification - for the foreseeable future.

Also, to the anon above (perhaps the author or their friend?), rest assured that identity-baiting thecollective is likely to be met with the stony silence it warrants.

Apparently, we'll overcome gender issues with soft transhumanism:

"We joke that if it isn’t on Facebook it didn’t really happen, and part of this is true: we know who people are through their online profiles. Part and parcel of any experience is the offering up of that experience to social networks for approval or reassurance. An online personal brand may be easier to project than an offline personality, but change in the former drip-feeds the latter. We become our images of ourselves."

How grotesquely identitarian leftist can you get? Let the Mongolian lake of toxic waste grow, let the children descend into the mines, that we may have the bodies of which we dream! And aren't these the people who are supposed to care about "intersectionality"?

^Manarchist detected!

True! I don't really care for the one part where a very sad person writes 2 pages worth of pointless, social anxiety in the first person. I remember people frequently confusing various accountability processes with simple social anxiety issues so I suppose that's why it's relevant but still ... if you can't at least find the courage to venture out in to the big bad world, nobody else can help you.

This piece provoked a pretty big reaction in a short amount of time so I'm guessing that was the plan.

I think the half-conscious plan was:
1. Post inflammatory piece
2. Get angry reactions from @news commenters
3. Read comments, think "Look at all these manarchists whining because I hurt their cishetwhitedude egos"
4. Smile smugly, feel validated in beliefs
5. Post results on social network, get SJW friends to validate you so that they themselves feel validated in turn

but this described a number of anarchists I've known over the years. Why can I think of someone (and its often a man) for almost everything mentioned in this?

Identify politics have a lot of garbage in it but people who are against it entirely I want to encourage to not forget where those identities came from and how people have been impacted by them.

Oh yeah, me too. I'm definitely not dismissing identity here, I just consider this satire to be pretty low-hanging fruit I suppose? I thought we'd already thoroughly analyzed the manarchist meme, not that these issues disappear once we do. Anyway, I'm a big, cis white-looking dude so I've definitely been lumped in. When I was really young, even guilty of some of the things, like talking way too much cause I felt entitled to speak. Anyway, posting this shit here is guaranteed to get a reaction.

What a strange and repulsive scene you socialize in:rapists, misogynists, racists, egomaniacs, psychopaths, loud mouths, douchebags of every stripe-and all of them admired and charming. You might want to look around.

Activist scenes aren't the place to find empathetic, open minded, humble, intelligent people- although that's undoubtedly how its denizens see themselves. All you'll find are identity politicians, anti-oppression careerists, binary moralists, annoying blamers, tiresome repetitive and weak arguments, and a bunch of self-righteous whiners with more privilege than most of us who constantly point out all the ways that they are victimized, ignoring the fact that civilization is founded on the victimization of everyone. They want this world--just a green, feminist, multi cultural version of it not realizing that that is entirely possible, but it will still be a world of exploitation, oppression and misery.

Nothing more nothing less. Flush that IP garbage especially considering that a new round of resentful men have learned from it and are repeating it right now. The entire 60s ideological run outside of anarchism(even here you have to qualify) is complete and utter rubbish.

This was a little bit funnier, although no less resolutely authoritarian and stupid, when it was called "preliminary materials for a theory of the man-child". Ya we get it, you didn't read tiqqun but you don't like it or the people who also didn't read it but you assumed must have, because everyone who doesn't base their politics on following leaders appointed on the basis of their skin tone, gender, immigration status etc., is obviously a big ol' racist rapist. We got the fucking memo at least five years ago. Go back to your NGOs or cultural studies departments or whatever.

I think the person who asked whether there were any women in thecollective was asking a pretty valid question and wasn't 'baiting' at all as one person suggested.

there were several-one was a spoiled upper class drama queen, another was always hitting on peoples love partners, one turned out to be an undercover cop, another was anti-semitic-you might get the idea...

One big problem here is considering political milieus as genuine, static communities that are potential mini utopias.

This sounds familiar. Did thecollective run a big fake squat next to a fancy shopping mall, in the early 2000s, with a fake wymyn only space where all they really did was make outvwith their stupid manarchist boyfriends when they were'nt writung hypocritucal fake antimanarvhy zines about how radical it isvto be a ruch white girl?

wow, i have known several cis-FEMALE manarchists, based on the criteria outlined in this article. seriously.

clearly every white man needs to become transgender to continue being an activist (you can see it happening even now)...

"The Manarchist’s true face is violence against women, against people who are not white men. He likes to ‘date girls with ‘issues’, so he can ‘look after them’. He wants ‘to fuck you while you are sleeping’. He does not see this as rape. He believes ‘street harassment has nothing to do with rape’. Because he doesn’t believe in a politics of exclusion, he hangs out with rapists. His friend may have hit his girlfriend once or twice, but he does really good activism and anyway he regrets it now."

I've been in the anarchist scene/movement for over 10 years in multiple cities and I've hung with what some might call the most macho of the "manarchists" that America has to offer, and I've yet to meet a single person that this describes. Sure there's bravado, posturing, and quite a lot of shit talking on identity politics out there, but I've never met anyone who rapes women while they sleep or hits their girlfriends. There is no epidemic of violence against women in the anarchist scene, I feel quite confident in denying that. Nor, might I add, do the identity politickers among us ever claim that there is in individual cases. I've sadly seen my fair share of "accountability" processes and accusations of rape apologism, and heard the details of ones i wasn't present for. None of them ever involved a guy beating women or fucking them in their sleep. Sorry, but "anarchists" don't do this, that's going pretty damn far even for your "manarchist" stereotype. It's exaggerations like these that find their way into only anonymous accusations like this that keep everyone on edge thinking "I don't know anyone like that, but they must be out there because this person wrote about it, and this justifies all this identity-based anger, I didn't know it was this bad!" I've gone looking for these elusive men and I assure you they're harder to find than the other elusive "trust fund" anarchists. However if you want to find a guy who hits his girlfriend or maybe even see it happen, all you have to do is go down to the local bar.

Yeah, the worst examples I've seen came from the broader leftist milieu during those cycles of struggle where a whole bunch of new people all meet each other quickly. There's also been self-identified male anarchists who did not conduct themselves very well, nothing as bad as sexual assault but latent misogyny and victim-blaming? Definitely.

Anyway, I figure the only sensible way to talk about and/or deal with this stuff is on a case-by-case basis. Trying to turn it in to a general accusation against "the big everything/everyone" creates diminishing returns. Trying to start a conversation using a polemic? That's all well and good. Of course, the other possibility here is trying to sound all clever using a strawman.

Actually I know an anarchist male who fucked women in their sleep. And another anarchist male who punched his girlfriend in the face. And another anarchist male who threatened to punch his girlfriend in the face. Anarchists are people and people do fucked up shit all the time. Sorry bros.

They self-identify as such? Are you sure you're not expanding the definition of the word to make a point? I mean, actions like those immediately disqualify someone from being an anarchist in my books. There's a lot of douchey flotsam in the margins of society that might toss the word around without any substance to it … but then ideology isn't really the point when you're raping people.

Where do we sign up for the Purity Code of Conduct?

Sounds like the damage control the LDS/Mormon church has done regarding the Bundys, polygamy, black people. Polygamists? "Well, they're not part of us" (yet polygamy is still in their canonical doctrine, with its practice reserved for the afterlife).

Mistakes will happen. Fucked up things will happen. We've never even had a chance to try out living in an anarchist(ic) society in our lifetimes, and there's little memory of how any of the ones we've heard of from the past were able to get rolling for the little time they did.

Context is everything.

Yeah .. context. Mine is similar to that other person above, where anarchists were at least slightly less likely to engage in fucked-up, dominating behaviours since they devote a lot of time to thinking about it. Why would I be doing "damage control"? For who or what? Obviously all people are flawed, I know of several instances where self-identified anarchists were really shitty in regards to identity politics but are we tolerating rapists in the anarchist spaces where I live? Nope.

I mean, some of this stuff is just my opinion but I feel like objectively, we should all be able to agree that you're not much of an anarchist if you're beating the shit out of your partner, or anyone who isn't physically attacking you first, let alone raping them in their sleep. Where the hell do you live? That sounds like a really toxic little shithole of a scene and you have my sympathies.

I live in the US of A. And yes the anarchist scene here is toxic, little and a shithole. But guess what these things also happen in other parts of the world like Athens where according to anarchists and communists who just don't want to think about it, the anarchist men are just too chivalrous to rape or abuse. Oh and before I get called names, I am an enemy of privilege/identity politics as-well-as abuse and rape. Not that complex really.

And Greek anarchist women definitely are too tough and tricky to be fooled or pressured into abusive/violent relationships with guys. Lesbianism is also more maintream and open over there.

You just can't fuck up with them... any serial rapist from America or Northern Europe is likely to be diminished to a little boy.

Don't think that's true by comparison to here. Greek society in general is more openly homophobic than North America. I'm not suggesting the anarchist movement is, I'm just saying from everything I've seen and heard, it's not as mainstream as here.

So now you're trying to tell me that rape exists? Chivalry? I'm detecting some pretty transparent trolling here. There can't be much genuine desire behind absurd statements like that. Of course rape exists and it's not "chivalry" to say you can't be an anarchist rapist. It's just a fact.

Uh Yeah. News Flash: SELF - IDENTIFIED ANARCHISTS, like the rest of the human population, sometimes rape people and are abusive in a variety of ways. Do you maybe live under a rock or in a cave?

Yeah … that was kind of my point too. Like the rest of the human population, so what does their political identity have to do with them being rapist pieces of shit? Answer, very little.

I spent over a decade involved in anarchist and environmental activist communities in the UK and sadly, I can't even count the number of times men have jumped at the chance to defend sexual predators for eg. I was stalked by a man and when I tried to challenge this was told 'you have to be understanding of his repressive upbringing' and that was that. I was held down an forceably kissed and not a single person present (all men) intervened despite the fact I was trying to riggle free and was saying No, over and over. I could go on, and on. men in the British movement have been tolerated for years despite having PUBLICLY hit their partners. I have been ridiculed for my sexuality, I have seen men offer support to women only for that to be withdrawn the moment said man has discovered this young, pretty new girl is gay, I have seen new women being fought over like scraps of meat, talked about in the most demeaning ways, locker room talk that would shame trump. I have witnessed sexual violence, physical violence and seen this behaviour be excused time and time again 'but he is such a hard worker' 'but he's fine when he is sober' 'but he's only taking photos of sleeping women' 'can we really consider excluding this man just for making you(the you here is all females in the commune)feel uncomfortable?' 'but he only hit her once'. While it would be ridiculous to Label all anarchist men as manarchist it is equally ridiculous to ignore that manarchists are a reality.

I'm a "cis" guy and would be supporting a cute girl no matter if she's gay or not. Honestly, even if I was attracted to her. Sexual preference to me ain't some political identity but only a personal preference or inclination that's gotta do with many developmental and maybe a few biochemical factors. A personal trait just like skin tone or physical stature. To judge people because of these means to be basically a Nazi.

What matters to me is if she's nice and not using sexual-related allegations to reinforce some kind of caste privilege, or shut down some individuals that are too threatening to the status quo. But what I've been seeing on my side of things in the White Leftist milieus is a lot of the latter... politically-driven slander campaigns, where the actual phallocrats end up "winning" by maintaining their status in the gang/collective/network/milieu.

The manarchist hangs around anarchist scenes because he knows that nobody will call the cops on him when he rapes women.

When the manarchist rapes somebody's sister, wife, lover, or friend, and that person goes after him, he murders in "self-defense." After all, somebody was trying to kill him when all he'd done was rape somebody and he doesn't feel it was rape because the woman wasn't a virgin anyway and didn't press charges.

The manarchist demands support from the community because he is violent and that support must be full and eternal--those who do not support him, or dare to criticize him are deserving of his violence because they are "obstacles," or are "trying to tell him what to do."

Personally, I would like to abolish government, particularly the police, and to abolish prisons, but then the manarchists would be set free and would come after me for criticizing them and for not giving them my full support. The only reason I'm more likely to be raped or killed by the police than by a manarchist is because many manarchists are in prison.

Manarchists differ from cops in that manarchists don't have to wear uniforms, show up for work, or follow orders, but when it comes to entitlement and violence they are indistinguishable. You must show them respect through total obedience or they will punish you.

The manarchist is the reason that the Zapatistas are not anarchists. Manarchists do not believe in the Zapatista goals of dignity, equality, and respect for ALL, they believe in manarchy which is just another form of patriarchy.

The manarchist is also the reason that I am no longer an anarchist. The manarchist is nothing but patriarchy calling itself anarchy, and it is a lie.


So again … when we set aside the mental gymnastics, what you're saying is those people aren't anarchists (obviously). It's also not news that somebody who's guilty of things like rape might also be inclined to misrepresent themselves.

"The manarchist is also the reason that I am no longer an anarchist. The manarchist is nothing but patriarchy calling itself anarchy, and it is a lie."

Sure but commies and Leftists simply can't be patriarchic, neither the fascists and conservatives, or the liberals. Only anarchists. So abandon anarchy... so you'll abolish patriarchy. Right.... Got that.

Have fun with your Red patriarchs of the Party, and whatever are their revolutionary fantasies.

The ultimate manarchist rapes the cops who arrive at the scene of the rape after being snitched on by the anarchist who got raped :)

You gotta admit this article is the biggest piece of troll bait on this site since a few weeks!

categories do not physically exist. they are the artefacts of circular reasoning. they are "a disease that mathematics will have to recover from" -- Poincaré

the circular reasoning is in having to assume that the category exists prior to identifying members of the category that will be used in the extraction of 'common properties' that will define the rules of category membership.

when continually building relational tensions spawn eruptions of violence, the category 'rebel' may be declared to exist. logic demands that an entity that qualifies as a 'rebel' cannot at the same time be a non-rebel. as goes the [circular logical] practice of categorization, exemplars of 'rebel' will be used to come up with 'common properties' that can be used to define 'rebels'. the identification of a rebel, thanks to common property based identification, can be determined directly without reference to non--rebels. this 'subject and attribute' identification is termed, by Nietzsche, 'a great stupidity'.

in relational [flow-based] languages, 'rebellion' is a verb that connotes 'unum-in-opposition' or 'coincidence of opposites'; i.e. the multiple incidences of opposition arising within the unum are purely relational in origin [e.g. occupy wall street] in the physical reality of our actual experience. nevertheless, it is characteristic of noun-and-verb Indo-European/scientific language-and-grammar to DEPICT 'rebellion' via subject-verb-predicate structures where the subject is seen as the local jumpstart author of an action [removing the relationality] and 'categories' serve the purpose of imputing subject-driven authorship of an action that is, in physical reality, relational; .e. the creation of a membership set aka 'category', based on common properties; 'rebel', 'criminal', 'terrorist', 'anarchist', 'human' etc. this is intellectual idealization that removes their [relational entities] relational interdependence and re-invents them as local, independent entities definable by 'their own properties.

categories are a means of intellectually organizing our sensory observations in a non-relational manner [each category is imputed to be a collective-in-itself].

flow-based languages don't have categories that reduce relational forms to 'independent material entities' that are defined by their own local properties and DEPICTED as 'subjects' that JUMPSTART-author their own development and behaviour. e.g. there is... 'rebellion' ... as a relational dynamic, but there is no reduction of 'rebellion' to 'THE ACTION OF MEMBERS OF THE CATEGORY LABELLED 'REBEL' as in the subject-verb-predicate structures of noun-and-verb Indo-European/scientific language-and-grammar . this reduction of a relational dynamic to the one-sided causal actions of an independent categorical member collective is the familiar practice where categorization is used by one group to define themselves as 'normals' so as to 'scapegoat' those they categorize as 'abnormals'; e.g. the so-called 'mentally ill', 'criminals', 'terrorists', 'savages', 'muslims', as if the 'abnormalities in the relational social dynamic derived from the members of the categories of 'abnormals' instead of from relational tensions in the relational unum-in-opposition [coincidence of opposites].

"The problem with English is that when it tries to grapple with abstractions and categories it tends to trap the mind into believing that such categories have an equal status with tangible objects. Algonquin languages, being for the ear, deal in vibrations [waves] in which each word is related directly, not only to process of thought, but also to the animating energies of the universe.
… [in modern physics] It is impossible to separate a phenomenon from the context in which it is observed. Categories no longer exist in the absence of contexts.
Within Indigenous science, context is always important. Nothing is abstract since all things happen within a landscape and by virtue of a web of interrelationships. The tendency to collect things into categories does not exist within the thought and language of, for example, Algonquin speakers. " -- F. David Peat, 'Blackfoot Physics'

for more on the logical contradictions in set theory [category theory], see emile's earlier comment which thecollective has moved here

No u.

Hey emile
How are you using 'unum' here? My best guess isn't very good.

yeah, sorry, i forgot that 'unum' is often used to mean a 'whole' made from 'parts' as in;

'e pluribus unum' = 'out of many, one.'

in the case of modern physics, unum is the world given only once as a transforming relational continuum which gathers within itself many relational forms; i guess that would be;

'quod sit unum' = "out of one, many', ... or the unum where; ... 'all is one, one is all'.

it's what Shroedinger calls 'the all', Heraclitus 'the flow', Bohm, 'the plenum', Nietzsche;

“the world lives on itself: its excrements are its food”... “This world: a monster of energy, without beginning, without end; a firm, iron magnitude of force that does not grow bigger or smaller, that does not expend itself but only transforms itself; as a whole, of unalterable size, a household without expenses or losses, but likewise without increase or income …” –Nietzsche, ‘The Will to Power’, 1067

those of us using noun-and-verb languages create a 'semantic reality' based on 'independent [categories of] things that do stuff' which we use as a coordinating 'operative reality', ... which is nothing like the physical reality of our actual, natural experience; i.e. the 'quod sit unum' aka 'transforming relational continuum'.

in a [quod sit] unum, 'the one' [the field, the flow, the tao] is pulled into many forms. a relational community can pull itself apart into many factions (many from the one), as in 'rebellion'.

there is no 'rebel category' in a relational language architecture so 'no-one in particular is to blame' for the rebellion although rebellion erupts through particular individuals [everyone shares responsibility for restoring balance and harmony in the unum] so 'justice' is restorative. that's what comes from understanding the world relationally, as a unum in the sense of 'from one, many' and as we know in our noun-and-verb language-and-grammar, the world is a unum in the sense of 'from many, one' in which case we 'smoke out' and 'eliminate' or 'neutralize' the 'rebel' category that is responsible for the 'rebellion', according to the principle of Lafontaine.

indicates a plenum that is expressed
as immanence; that "world" as you describe
as given only once.; the world that we are a-part-of. without contradiction or contra distinction.
a singularity com-posed of multiple sentiments . a beautiful and awesome" thing", indeed.
and to think, we play a-part and witness to this! Part-of that wonderful transformational relation you so well describe.
so much do we express ourselves and for our en-virons with respect, with dignity, and with thanks for the good fortune
that we all encounter with one another; with not only resolute determination , but most importantly the expression of joy. we, the "whom-evers"(azano), wherever-we-are (Durante), the " what-ever" (Agamben)… it takes.

Then it obviously it's dumb. It's not a theory of anything, but a rant at a straw man.

That said.

As with the word "fascism" (which folks are arguing about again in the comments above), this is my position: theorizing an archetype, which is supposed to apply across the board, is not as useful as just using the word in conversations, and doing what feels right in that regard. If people know what they mean, and their friends know what they mean, and they know what their friends mean, when the word "manarchist" is used, that's great. You don't necessarily have to theorize or rigorously articulate, or even speak with perfect precision, to communicate with your friends about a problem that you experience.

When it comes to some really terrible embodiments of cis male entitlement I've met (and heard stories about) in anarchyland, the word "manarchist" seems applicable for sure - although I would probably not be the one to apply the word. I'd go for something stronger, like "macho douchebag" or "rapist", dependent on context.

Also, if the person is not in anarchyland but in leftyworld, I'd have to strongly object to using "manarchist". That's what "brocialist" is for.

Article should read: "Notes towards a theory of the strawman logical fallacy."

Now fuck off.

it's disturbing how many of these traits I've seen in anarchists and anarchist sub-cultures over the 15 or so years I've been an anarchist and it's disappointing that when people try to talk about them people just try to argue, shame or troll it away.

and for people trying to say that anarchists don't (or by definition can't?) do these things, for the sake of people on the receiving end of this mysogyny you may want to try and consider it more but you're also setting yourself up for a huge disappointment (and possible rejecting of anarchism as a whole) when this reality hits home for you.

I'm one of those people who said an anarchist can't be a rapist and I sort of need to stick to my guns on this one if you think about it. An anarchist can't be a rapist because a rapist can't be an anarchist according to a not-overly-strict definition of the word, RIGHT!? Anarchists take issue with much more benign dominance behavior than fucking rape ... RIGHT?!

I'm not saying these people weren't victimized, I'm not dismissing or belittling anyone's claim to something awful happening to them OR excusing the perp's behaviour. I'm saying that just cause a rapist claims to be an anarchist doesn't make it true.

As for more subtle types of misogyny or patriarchal shit, sure, that's why the word is even useful at all. Like, if my comrade is running off at the mouth a little too much, I can be like "Dude, you're being a manarchist." but that's about all it's good for.

Cuz that's a critical difference. Rapos can't be anarchists, probably, although they might theoretically call themselves such. But "a person who has raped"... Well, lots of people have raped. Including anarchists. And what constitutes rape is, y'know, a question with different answers. I'm sure we could talk about it.

God damnit shadow ... I like you, you're very sharp but fuck off this time. Not touching that one. Nope nope nope

Maybe it's you who should be fucking off. As for the rest of you who aren't afraid to ask difficult questions and engage in a meaningful dialogue may I suggest a couple zines that approach this topic from an angle that isn't the usual binary moralist, leftist garbage?

The Broken Teapot

We are all survivors, we are all perpetrators

Maybe? I'm bored at work though. Sure as hell never raped anyone and nothing wrong with tools to teach kids about the nuances of consent. Definitely plenty of moralism involved in both of these pieces and I don't consider that a problem cause I'm not buying this trendy nihilism crap.

No, actually. "Moralism" is when people try to construct narratives based on a hard and fast binary notion of morality in an attempt to control others, i.e: good v. evil, black v. white, innocent v. guilty, survivor v. perpetrator, etc. whereas reality is more often than not way too fucking complicated for any of that story-time bullshit. I feel like both of those zines are trying to teach us that fact, acknowledging that there are no easy answers and that there may not even be any answers to be had at all. But at least they're asking interesting questions and making us think and hopefully rise above the sensationalism and moral panic made so widespread by shitty bullshit strawman op-eds like "Notes towards...".

Yeah ... which is almost completely subjective except for the handful of extremes like rape and murder. Like I said, I dont need to go through the motions of rejecting all morality anymore. It's merely a developmental stage and I'm now fully aware of where I stand and what I will and wont tolerate from others.

"completely subjective except for the handful of extremes like rape and murder"

so "rape" is not subjective, eh? every time anyone uses that term, they mean the precise same thing?

apparently you've never been around the kinds of folks that like to use the term "manarchist"

Consent isn't that subjective but you do require a moral compass to even sit down at the table here and discuss. Morality in general is highly subjective, with extremes like rape and murder being the least so. There's philosophical enquiry and then there's establishing what steps should be taken after something awful happens.

Hopefully, you've already done the work with the theory by the time you need to assess and decide what to do.

Just like God and the other ghosts. What you are talking about at the end of the day are subjectively preferential dos and don'ts.

Also, consent is a governmental contractual term. Nothing to do with anarchy. Volentary/involentary are better terms to use.

Semantics and nihilist masturbation from the broken record … and he's so pedantic too! Truly, you light up the room sir!

However, I'm not being semantical when I see reality and anarchy rubbished by the ghostly projections of morality and non contingent categorical ethics. Consent comes from such flawed forms of thinking and simply does not fit with an anarchic conception of reality.

New commenter here. Ziggy, for chrissakes leave the adults alone. They're trying to have a conversation. Thanks.

Also, fuck you a million times for trying to figure out how "consent" is not anarchist, you reactionary one-IQ-point wonder. Fedora hat much?

Like the idea that consent has ANYTHING to do with anarchy, I layeth the correction down.

Again, consent is a governmental contractual term that is no more related to anarchy then the spooks of morality and categorical ethics(or categorical anything really).

is another way of saying a "social" contract of the Same; i.e. the worst of all tyrannies. a better way is to think of us
as complicating, contributing, and inter-acting, in a hopefully interesting manner.

No u.

I think this is an important thing. Saying "anarchists don't rape" is a way to avoid the problem that, like, lots and lots and lots of men do sketchy things sexually, and that sketchy shit is probably actually a part of normative male socialization in this society, and male anarchists come from that same shit.

The no-true-Scotsman fallacy, I think it's called.

Really?! I'm saying you automatically disqualify yourself with certain behaviors folks. I'm astonished that this is a controversial position to take.

And I might just have drunk too much of the "we are all perpetrators, we are all survivors" kool-aid to see it.

I guess my idea of what it is to be an anarchist is not something that could have any singular act, even rape, be a moment when you are no longer the thing. Like, it seems like a very legalistic approach. And it seems like, again, a way for anarchists to be able to say, "That anarchist who raped a person, is NOT an anarchist, just a rapist like any other, deserving of the same treatment." Which is possibly a GREAT approach (better than "we will hold his hand for he is our comrade" approach, certainly), but also seems to hone in on trying to ascertain the facts of any given situation (a problematic exercise) and basically rationalizes away any need to have a difficult discussion about some stuff.

Let me be foolishly candid: when I was a teenager, I had sex with a girl when I was sober and she was drunk. I'm gay and she knew it, so this wasn't too interesting for me. Yet I did the same thing at least two more times: drunk girl, sober me. I had not been to a workshop that had told me that this kind of thing is sketchy (at best) or rapey (at worst). I was a "situationally bisexual" redneck boy who wanted to be sucking cock, but who also just wanted to be having sex of any kind, because high school and fomo and what-have-you. And I was straightedge. And relatively popular. And bored. And definitely horny.

I don't think any of that sex I had left anyone feeling too weird. This thought is nice for me. But, like, what if it had, and that just wasn't communicated, or maybe not even realized in the moment by those folks? Well, I'd have raped someone. That's not a nice thought for me, or for anyone who likes me. But fuuuuuuuck, sex in a patriarchy - or maybe sex in the absence of utopian communism - is fraught with possible problems. I have no solutions, but I don't want to shy away from the scale of how fucked up shit is.

Fair enough and I'm just talking about how I navigate, not trying to tell anyone else. The original example (probably just a troll but lets assume not) wasn't ambiguous at all and I'm personally very diligent about gathering information when serious allegations are made cause that's how you show respect for a serious situation.

Anyway, if you're already analyzing your own behavior to such a degree, chances are you ain't the problem.

Wait. So if I'm high all of the time and my partner is sober does that make her a rapist every time we have sex or does this hyperbolic logic only apply when the genders are the other way around?

Feminists expect to be taken seriously!?!

I'm sure you're good. You evidently don't think of it as rape after the fact, which would be a thing. Anyone half-decent will not do what the people criticized in this article ( are doing.

But the first time you have sex, and one person is intoxicated (especially high school levels of drunk), things can be sketchy. Communication might not happen. Also, smoking a joint if you're a regular stoner is pretty much not the same thing at all.

That's Mary Koss double standard logic for you

categories are a Platonic idealization wherein one must first assume the existence of the category and then find members to distill out the common properties to define whether one is a member or not.

since one can be a member of more than one category at the same time, this may lead to contradiction. a paedophile may also be a skilled surgeon. letting a paedophile have his way with your child is bad. letting a skilled surgeon have his way with your child [when in dire need of surgery] is good. category logic does not permit something being 'good' and 'bad' at the same time. this was a problem with michael jackson, and the public set aside the Aristotelian EITHER/OR logic and opted for 'quantum logic', voting him BOTH 'good' AND 'bad' but more good than bad.

“The famous mathematician John von Neumann said that mathematics is the relation of relationships ... While we in the West place emphasis upon objects and categories, the Native mind deals with process and relations of relationship. ... To speak Mohawk is to enter into a web of interconnections to family, relatives, and clan that are the Mohawk people. Their language itself stresses the complexity of relationship and this also is the basis of mathematics.” -- F. David Peat, 'Blackfoot Physics'

let's face it, binning relationally complex people into simple categories to construct our 'semantic reality' is a dull and blunt practice. of course individual people are amazingly complex by virtue of their unique situation within a complex web of relations, and trying to capture this in 'representations' challenges poets and artists.

'categories', taken literally, are the source of this dumbing down; i.e. putting categories into an unnatural precedence over the full relational complexity of things, 'things' as the transmitting-receiving nexa of complex webs of relational influences. relational languages do not do this simplistic dumbed-down categorical binning.

“English compared to Hopi is like a bludgeon compared to a rapier.” – Benjamin Whorf

so, we can puzzle ad infinitum over the logical paradoxes that arise from trying to fit complex things into simplistic categories without ever resolving the paradoxes that arise. or, we can accept "the fundamental incompleteness of all finite systems of logical propositions' [Goedel's theorem]. as Wittgenstein points out, all logical propositions are tautologies, they do not tell us anything more that we put into them, which is inevitably incomplete even though the propositions are dealing with complexity beyond capture this side of infinity.

the problem with Western civilization is its use of 'categories' to construct a 'semantic reality' that many people take literally; i.e. as their 'operative reality'. thus there are sunni muslim arabs, developers of the logic/mathematics of al gibra, of how to take things apart and reassemble them, who identify the category 'kafir' (unbeliever) which simultaneously puts them in the category 'takfiri' with the moral duty to exterminate the kafir (shia, included). thus, the picture of a sunni takfiri holding a gun at the head of another muslim while he uses the suspected kafir's cell phone to call his wife to determine whether the man is a kafir (shia) or not.

although an extreme example, it nevertheless captures the Western practice of using 'categories' to construct a 'semantic reality' that we then use as our 'operative reality'. people of the category 'american' sometimes blur their national origin 'category' when travelling abroad. jewish people sometimes change their names (shia's in iraq and syria are probably doing this bigtime right now), and blacks have gone through cycles of trying to look like whites, because Western practice is to 'bin people' in the manner of identifying a song by the first three notes. 'binning things' is an anal retentive process of 'putting things in their place' and it is extremely popular in Western society

"I've always loved the saying: 'If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. Because nothing can argue with that, can it?" -- Roeselien Raimond, Dutch photographer, writer, painter, in 'Huffington Post'

for a native american that speaks a relational native american language, a duck is visualized through the matrix of relations with land, air, water, and through its brother animals and plants who eat it and whom it eats etc. it's meaning is 'indefinitely deferred' [Derrida] by its rooting into the transforming relational activity continuum. to claim to know a duck, jew, black, american, and all manner of things by how they 'walk and talk' is to prove Herclitus point that "the knowledge of many things does not teach understanding".

so, your closing comment is right on target; i.e. we need a language in which we suspend 'categorizing', where verbs are the base rather than nouns; i.e. 'manarchizing' rather than 'manarchist' so that 'the first three notes' does not lead the observer to conclude that he is able to flesh out the entire song through a download of HIS OWN category filed memory banks.

"As for more subtle types of misogyny or patriarchal shit, sure, that's why the word is even useful at all. Like, if my comrade is running off at the mouth a little too much, I can be like "Dude, you're being a manarchist." but that's about all it's good for."

The expression manarchist is too simple and sexist to address the problems and experiences of our female comrades. The authors are taking a wide set of the worst characteristics that some (mostly young) males have been socialized into having and making one single monster out of it and projecting it onto way too many males. All obnoxious men don't rape and bully and abuse. That is absurd. ( Also all sexual assaults are not from males only, are not from white males only and are not from cis het males only). Sure there is a lot of loud mouth young males, full of machismo and bravado, but they aren't all raping and assaulting their girlfriends. Sure there are a lot of young impatient males who want to rumble and are frustrated with all the obstacles to their desire to engage directly with an enemy, but these guys aren't necessarily sexist douchebags.

There are issues that need to be dealt with, but coming up with a term like manarchist will probably backfire. It is ridiculously sexist and casts way too wide of a net. It tries to address too many problems with one single term. And if it is applicable so are the following terms, which should not be used either. I put them forward only to make a point.

"feminarchist": to describe people (almost always female) who are passive, whiny, use sexuality to get their way, shrill, poorly read, prone to false accusations, shallow, new agey, not really committed, etc. I have met plenty of females who fit this but I wouldn't think of using it as a term simply because it is sexist and stupid in the same way manarchist is. It ignores the Jean Weirs and solid fierce female comrades who are part of all our scenes. It makes all of those behaviors exclusively female or essentially female, which they aren't in the same way that the behaviors described in the article as manarchist are not essentially male. There are plenty of psychopathic, smiley-yet-abusive women in our milieus too, women who fit the description of the manarchist. What do we call them?

"pocanarchist": to describe people who are soft on authoritarian leftism, into nationalism, single issue minded, soft on authoritarian leadership structures, who put identity above everything else, etc. They are almost always poc. But what about the non-poc who also have these detrimental attitudes? Why make it a racial thing? What about the poc who have subtle and fresh perspectives to offer? Who know more about anarchist history/theory than their white counterparts? We wouldn't want to use such a term because it would be racist and hurtful and wouldn't really address the issues of authoritarian leftist attitudes in our milieus. The same applies to manarchist...

i think you hit the nail on the head. the brush is too broad with this piece.

One hundred times this! I cannot and will not take seriously anyone who would lack so much nuance to think combining the words "anarchist" and "man" constitutes an insult.

The use of the silly word "manarchist" or "brocialist" generally tells me a lot more about the person using it than whomever it is directed toward and frankly, I'd be more inclined to avoid the accusor than I would the accused.

my mom was gang raped by thecollective at a stirner festival.

You! You've been hanging out all day, taking pot-shots and snickering at how fucking clever you are, haven't you?! HAVEN'T YOU?!

If I live alone and still don't do housework does that make me a manarchist or just lazy? Let me make it clear, if any of you man or woman or whatever want to come over and do my housework you can.

The world and everything in it revolve around the middle school melodramas of the resolutely trivial US anarchist subculture. This is an obvious fact which all 8-billion-plus people on planet Earth think about every waking moment.

Exactly, if something isn't relevant to every person in the world then it's objectively trivial. *nods head while huffing gas*

Just wait until US college anarchoids transport all this shit baggage to Rojava along with their smug faces!

I wish they would

rape = "middleschool melodrama"

Perhaps it is the authors are actually guilty of trivializing rape.

I really believe that if it was just reporting widespread self-identified male anarchists raping, abusing or sexually assaulting female anarchists (or anyone) and asking for help to address it, there would be a lot of empathy, genuine concern and sensitivity in the comments.

But it isn't that. It is exploiting the sad truth of gendered violence and gender programming to push a non-radical/non-anarchist agenda. And it conflates all sorts of other authoritarian/civilized human behavior with specifically male behavior which prevents a deeper understanding of any of the issues from being explored.

The whole tone and analysis is ridiculously black and white and moralistic. I really thought it was satire at first. A very unhelpful article.

Can there be a divorce already.

oh shut up ziggy.This is why we can't take you anywhere.

Point still stands, feminism and anarchism(as Emma Goldman would agree) should never have had a relationship to begin with.

Point never stood in the first place. You're the regular at the bar who everyone barely tolerates, you just keep showing up.

That's who I am at the bar:) Listening to a lot of bad ideas as well as some good ideas and formulating better ones.

I call that a closed-loop of narcissism and delusions of intellectual superiority

However this is how better ideas are driven and bad ideas are driven out. One need not feel superior doing so.

I'm right there with you zig unfortunately feminists have social power in the milieu and so much so that even questioning their assumptions and conclusions even when they are honest questions and analytical criticisms often amounts to social suicide.

and therein lies a major problem in identifying with "social" structures.

i realize very few folks on here are likely over 23, but eventually, if you retain an anarchist perspective, you will discover that anarchist "scenes" are a huge part of the problem.

did anbody win this hillarious quiz? i got 12 points in it. allthough i think some of the questions can be misinterpreted or just give you two shitty choices.

To the author.

Fuck you. I've met just as many toxic and abusive women and people of color as I have white cis het men and this scene seems to empower the former far more often than the later precisely because of your pathetic identity politics.

I'm an anarchist and male. The second half of that identity is beyond my control. If you don't like it then fuck off and that's just about the only response you should get.

I don't owe you shit.

These perpetually ill-humored people are anarchists, how? I'd say this 'anarcho-'identitarianism makes about as much sense as 'anarcho-'Wahhabism at the end of the day. The details may differ significantly between the two, but the pattern is quite similar in many ways as well.

Now, how long will it take for presumptuous, slathering ideologues to produce an accusation of 'islamophobia' in response to this comment?

"how long will it take ... to produce an accusation of 'islamophobia' in response to this comment?"

In three, two, one...

But (semi-)seriously, your anti-fundamentalist hyperbole isn't really helpful; it makes as little sense as calling this tendency "fascist." However, your satire works much better.

I don't think it's hyperbole at all if it's somewhat fitting, and I think I qualified my comment enough to make it clear it was only sorta-kinda fitting.

These folks may not go for burqas and standardized prayer, but what is shared is the worst type of narcissism; in love with their own self-concept while demanding the rest of us collectively become the pool to reflect the same.

But, yeah. I do have little empathy for fundamentalism, whether it's just budding or it's a couple centuries old. I have no desire to fit in anyone's Procrustean bed.

An Apostate

(although i think the piece was meant as satire - poorly done as it may be...)


Now that I think of it... I bet you so hard that the author of this trash is a mod over at /r/anarchism. This sounds exactly like the ideology they maintain over there.

The quintessential manarchist on this site would have been Post Biceps! Thank god he's gone! This is not satire really, there ARE people posing as anarchists who have utilitarian nihilistic values. I'm not impressed by activism and its pseudo- heroic macho sectarianism, its religious fanaticism of the most camouflaged chameleon like appearance.

So you deny that women body-builders are archetypal activists? There is macho, and there is also femo, aka the 2nd wave feminist abomination of all the natural genetically evolved feminine tendencies . I knew PB, he cured my dog Avakian of worms, he was definitely NOT an activist. Activism may be a substitute form of religious experience, the epiphany being the realization of ones participation in an organization of socially interdependent sheep, but I don't think you've given it that much thought.

Also, I don't regard submissiveness as an inferior condition as liberals assume it to be, but rather as a methodology for survival. The Art of War explains the nuances of any conflict, including the rather mundane battle of the sexes, which seems to dominate anarchist dialogue.

Actually the manarchist they are describing is a charming, highly active and well read sort of person. An activist (presumably good looking) who uses his social capital and knowledge to charm innocent women and bed them. ( I know, makes women sound rather passive and naive, but that's how the article describes the situation). I don't think that Post Biceps would have fit that description. He would be shunned by activist circles within days for being 'himself', rather than the phonies ( trying to outdo each other in their moral correctness) who typically operate within activist scenes.

Yeah he was shunned, no, spurned by activists, even by The Salvation Army lol. I avoided him for other reasons, he couldn't handle his liquor.

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.
Enter the code without spaces.