The Brilliant: Episode 53 – A Round Table

  • Posted on: 12 September 2017
  • By: thecollective

From The Brilliant

As most listeners know The Brilliant is related to a few other public projects, namely Little Black Cart (LBC) a publisher and distributor of anarchist books and material. Recently LBC has been called out and generally indicted by a host of individuals and projects for publishing texts by and about with the Mexican group ITS (individual tending to the wild), in particular the eco-extremist journal Atassa. This indictment reached a fever pitch when a few motivated individuals approached the LBC table at the Seattle Anarchist Bookfair to castigate them for the publishing and punctuated this by tearing a book apart. Around the same time an article was released saying that this publishing meant that LBC was not an anarchist project. Here is the LBC response.

This week something like a reportback of the kerfuffle happened. Alongside a great conversation on there have been several, fairly specific, threats made against LBC, its people, and promises made about next weeks Bay Area Anarchist Bookfair. While camping (and practicing what I believe will be the shape of future anarchist events) a group of us got together to discuss recent events, strategize next weekends events (which will include the 2017 BASTARD conference), and discuss the current way in which anarchist disagreements are performed. Enjoy the conversation.

Thanks a ton to the participants and especially to Linn O’Mable who turned this episode around in a heartbeat.


11 September, 2017


Yawn...internecine drama.

Drama it may be, but the implications of that drama is what the episode is about.

If that is all you got from it, maybe the air is a little too thin for brain function in your alpine environment.

More likely is that you didn't actually listen to it. Potshots like these are a dime a dozen around here. What is your intention in making a comment like this?

I think threaded comments are great and they work on other sites. Two things make it hard to follow the threads here. First is the theme. It is hard, for my eyes at least, to see which comments actually nest where. On mobile its even worse when there is heavy nesting, sometimes there is only one word per line! Secondly, for whatever reason the software attaches replies to seemingly random or unexpected parent posts. I think if these two things were remedied it would help the convo quality at least a little bit. Wish i had the know how or resources to help with that instead of just pointing it out...

Thanks to thecollective for the hardwork and drudgery you put into anews, putting up with the bullshit all the time and getting a bad rap undeservedly.

I strongly agree with all of these points (poor threading style, excessive linebreaks in portrait reading, and buggy replies). I personally prefer flat comments with backlinks (preferably imageboard style, e.g. 4chan, though even forum style would work), but if you are going to thread comments, you *have* to make it visually clear who is replying to who. Right now I basically have to position my mouse and scroll for larger comment threads, which is hardly the most accurate or friendly way of doing things, and impossible on mobile.

For what its worth, Ive heard rumors of some tweaking/redesign to the site being in the works.

The entire edifice of post WWII anarchism is crumbling just as First International era anarchism was coming to an end in the lead up to WW2. We live in a decomposition period that is very similar to the close of the 1930s. What matters going forward is for new thought forms of anarchy to configure themselves for the coming post-2025 word. These IDG clowns and other hangers on(especially the IDPol spectrum anarchists) have about as much of a future as the Titanic.

For me what the post left should do is look at some of the infant but emerging forms of altleftism and other forms of radicalism that is appearing on the meme internet world. It is basically a new media ecology whether you like it or not and-as Metallica sing it-time marches on. Think of the Stirner memes for instance, that could be an entry point into the more radical post left conceptions of anarchy in a similar vein to what punk was for a reawakening anarchism. Memes is very much on the level of music if not greater at this point.

The anarchism of 1968 is based on a dead media ecology at this point. The well that created it has clearly run dry. 1968 might as well be 1886 at this point. I for one look forward to playing my part in communicating the new language of anarchy.

The decomposition you mention is exactly the inevitable fate of all social paradigms constructed block by block on a linear time/space historical narrative by the entropic action of cumulative generational psychic evolutionary processes. The use by date has come and passed for the paradigm we find ourselves inhabiting now.

Is that I hope it isn't a crude Leviathan proper rebuild like post WW2. Last time it happened during a context of collapsing libertarian ideology and rising Marxist ideology. The opposite appears to be happening at this point. Even though the current epoch of anarchism is coming to a close there is still very much a general interest in anarchism and anarchy. I have an idea of what 'they' would like to do in regards to things like a green new deal and and a guaranteed income and while this will once again create a satiation period it will also consolidate control for generation to come. Hopefully anarchists and anarchs can at least better sabotage this with their own models and modes of existence.

Yeah for instance just by demilitarizing technology and the shift from consumer tourism to parochial entertainments global energy requirements would halve. Without going into all the lifestyle transformations and modes of existence other than that the diversity will be exponentially directed toward a thriving self-sufficient artisan based permaculture model which uses appliances and tools up to the limit of their reproductability which would resemble 19th century steam technology. Regardless of whether its a gradual or crash transition the psychological evolution has always pulled the bunny out of the situational hat every morning and provided the metaphorical applause and laughter the unique human being who evolves always deserves.

That's what it's going to come down to. Had the 20th century gone in a more preferable direction and avoided the fallout of WW1 and the failure of Eastern Europe we might be looking at that kind of existence. It would still be a world of the machine metaphor but vastly preferable to the post WW1/2 consolidation of capital and labor. Steamy futurism if you will.

Yeah, like for instance, as much as I like the effects pedal for electric guitar I'm willing to forgo it, the ol' acoustic sound has an organic earthiness AND, in the moment is an adequate aesthetic substitute, and anyway, when you look at some of the modern acoustic ensembles they achieve the same exhilarating heights in transcendent audio. but the spirit of the day will allow the potentiality to traverse unknown realms which may resemble a continuous evolving odyssey and unleash a liberation of human creativity.

PS *chuckles* They could even be a boutique niche available for ex-NASCA types if they are happy with tinkling with alcohol powered internal combustion engines, which I'm sure they would, having worked in garage environments and knowing their mentality. There will always be that "Mad Max" potentiality.

Post WW II anarchism had an 'edifice'? Lol...there was actually more of an anarchist edifice before WW II.

We've been in a decomposition period ever since we started living in cities.

Anarchism was obviously stronger in the 19th century then the 20th overall. There was a reawakening of anarchism at the latter point of the 20th century but it obviously came nowhere near what it was in say Malatesta's time.

I think the only future for anarchy at this point is personal apolitical and philosophical at this point. If there is another epoch of political anarchy(anarchism) it will probably fair even worse then this one(which of course fared worse then the 19th century form) unless some type of machine complexity contraction happens.

My own aesthetic approach to musings regarding future forms of existence challenges the theoretical scientific assumptions, e.g. The Big Bang Theory, I feel it should be replaced by an entirely ontic re-evaluation of reality, and this allows for the poetic expression of our inner desires as factual and valuable contributions to knowledge. For instance, it is more genuine to state that laughter is a universal truth in all societies, because at the instance of laughter, the perception of the cosmos and all myths evaporate and bring one to a point of timeless and spaceless joy. Gravity has no such property, it is only an abstraction which brings no joy, whereas the rollercoaster, as an ontic experiment, is a factual truth which uses it.

just as nietzsche predicted, Western cultural belief tradition is collapsing; i.e. the belief in objective truth/reality is collapsing and the belief in the legitimacy of 'facts' as carrying 'true meaning' is collapsing, and deservedly so.

experience-based intuition is waiting in the wings, along with an understanding of field/matter nonduality, as in indigenous science and modern physics, but in order to restore intuition to its natural primacy over science and rationality, one has to kick the habit of putting science and rationality into primary position, in the constructing of an 'operative reality' that will orchestrate and shape individual and collective behaviour.

a motley hodge-podge of zillions of rational theories are lined up in front of the return to intuition as far as access to the PA system goes, and what an all pervading global presence that PA system has. the power-outages of natural disasters are helping out somewhat, but they are too short-lived to allow natural, intuition-over-reason-based anarchy to regain a foothold.

indigenous peoples whose traditional cultures were already putting intuition before reason are now crippled by having colonizing administrations imposed on them that define reason-over-intuition based organization as a no-brainer [pun/irony intended]. Western moral judgement further celebrates reason-over intuition organization as characteristic of advanced, civilized societies and labels those who put intuition in its natural primacy over reason as 'primitive', 'undeveloped' and 'uncivilized'.

to put down gravity while elevating human accomplishment is more enlightenment nonsense. the sailor can tap the powers of fluid fields but he can't separate himself from them and take control of them, because he is included in fields of influence and they are in control, as harvey and irma have recently reminded us.

nevertheless, putting a roller-coaster on the next space-station, just to show who's in charge, might still get a lot of support.

p.s. you are right to put down the big bang theory but evidently for the wrong reasons.

No I don't think my reasons are "wrong" because I don't exist in "wrong/right" dualistic space, which is why I put down gravity and BBT. I won't be long-winded or I could be deleted,,,,,

Fun round table. Pretty shitty no one introduced themselves on the show. It's Rydra, I think Kathan Zerzan, along with Cliff and the guy who reads the Anews podcast. Kathan had some good points that were re-narrated by the surrounding men so she wouldn't embarrass herself. I would stop being a critic and hop on the full fem bus to get these guys a clue. Mansplaining from brocialists is so 2014.

I bet there is no sinister douchebag, just this crew of nutters that are so nuts they read the Scott Cambell or ARR piece on hating who ever. If there is, that's too bad. John Zerzan was just making fun of you guys. I bet his whole week is going to be about taking a long poop on this podcast. I can't wait.

On the practical side of things I agree with the violent big man comparison. I personally would be pretty much done if I knew I'd be confronted just for reading a book. If they ripped it and tossed it at my feet and I cried, would they of win? I think only a little less than if I started self deprecating myself and asked them for help.

no one from the zerzan group was there. the conversation would've been quite different presumably, if they had been...

LBC: Publishes the propaganda journal from a eco-fascist terrorist group that has a history of making death threats against anarchists who have criticized their actions/ideas and has recently attempted a bombing of an anarchist social center in Mexico City.

Anarchist: *tears up a copy of the journal*


it bears repeating: the content of the objectionable book is irrelevant. the fact that some person(s) took it upon themselves to decide what is acceptable for other people to publish/distro at an anarchist event (or read in private) and then escalated this disagreement into a violent encounter (yes, i'm calling the destruction of the book violent, too bad) is the problem. the actual consequences of the escalation from words into actions are not really that relevant either; the era of trial by combat is long past...
the person who ripped up Atassa was behaving like a cop, pure and simple. one of the main reasons i became an anarchist was to promote a vision of a world without cops. that's a fundamental anarchist principle, but it's lost on the call-out fetishists, who all long to be cops when they think their targets are weaker.

The question seems to be: If the book was tabled at a nonanarchist bookfair, would they tear it up?

Probably not.

So what does it say about those anarchists who object to the book per se or support it being ripped up?

What sort of anarchist thinks they're entitled to do this? You're behaving like the Fash.

LBC has a history of printing material by writers who have and continue to hurt our movement. (bob black?) i don't know much about this group but if they are attempting to bomb an anarchist center then, no, their material has no place at an anarchist bookfair. it seems obvious.
the LBC collective is really out of touch with anarchism, it's true. they claim to be anarchists but seem to thrive off of provoking the anarchist community and then defending themselves with arguments similar to those of the "alt-right."
i believe LBC is only here for a debate, and they're going to make one out of whatever they can.

Who or what is this "our"? Why should every bomb able anarchist be seen as sacrosanct?(not that I support that)

if your "movement" can't withstand the publishing/distribution of one or two or ten or a hundred books *you* find damaging, then your "movement" is sickly and pathetic and deserves to disappear. reminds me of all those idiot liberals and social justice wankers who condemn those who break a few windows by complaining that such acts damage their movement. pathetic. real social change will inevitably include breaking windows and spreading dangerous and unpopular ideas. accept it and deal with it instead of wringing your hands and worrying about how other people might react...

Of course in this case, "dealing with it" includes pointing out the sketchiness of this material and questioning its value to anarchist discourse, if any.

"it bears repeating: the content of the objectionable book is irrelevant. the fact that some person(s) took it upon themselves to decide what is acceptable for other people to publish/distro at an anarchist event (or read in private) and then escalated this disagreement into a violent encounter (yes, i'm calling the destruction of the book violent, too bad) is the problem. "

this is a liberal free speech position. it's moronic. by the same logic LBC can carry nazi propaganda to anarchist bookfairs.

Yep! But the myopic analysis you get from spending too much time online seems to prevent understanding the consequences of platforming.

all you're doing here is calling names. the point some people have made that you seem to disagree with is that it matters who says something, and where it is said. lbc is an anarchist project. they sell things in anarchist spaces. to you this seems to mean that there should be purity, so that anything you encounter under such circumstances is clearly safe for anyone to read. for others it means that content provided in that circumstance is presented from the perspective of "what does or could this mean to anarchist thought?" so yes, anarchists could sell nazi books in order to understand how nazi thought and history is relevant or not to anarchists.
it's fine that you disagree. i don't like the free speech argument much myself. but platformism is a concept that is stunningly disrespectful to the people you're trying to protect, as far as i can tell.

You're projecting a lot of intentions on to me. The one thing we can agree on is that I'm not necessarily that worried about showing respect to LBC because I never noticed much respect coming from the people involved in that project heheh but who cares about that? We don't have to like each other.

Anyway, I'm not interested in thought-policing or censoring anyone's publishing. I'm not trying to "keep anyone safe" from scary books either.

I'm an antifascist (among other things) who's spent a lot of time studying a certain type of rhetoric that's commonly used to insulate people and projects from criticism and I don't much care who is deploying the rhetoric, don't bother trying to hustle a hustler! The many nuances around "free speech" don't need even more rehashing.

I'm just saying that platforming especially vile ideas comes with a heavy burden of responsibility because of the slippery slope it leads to and that's all I've ever been saying on this topic.

"the point some people have made that you seem to disagree with is that it matters who says something"

Anti-anarchist (anti-human) eco-extremist are saying it. "Edgy" anarchists are publishing it. Wonder how will LBC feel if the eco-extremist attacks spread to the US, will they still see something "interesting" in these "ideas", and will they still publish them.

my sense is that indeed LBC would find something interesting (no scare quotes, thanks). the premise is that threats are not something to be hidden from, but perhaps to be broadcast and understood for what they are, which will vary based on circumstance: are they a joke? (for example some ITS critics approach ITS as trolls and not dangerous at all). are they so dangerous that we should have concrete plans to combat them (for example NONE of the ITS critics have said anything at all along these lines, even the ones who proclaim ITS so utterly dangerous). and aside from that metric, do they speak similar rhetoric to anarchists and so provide a context for discussions among anarchists? surely if people you/we care about are being threatened, then KNOWING that is better than not?
the anti-atassa and publishing-of-communiques arguments are so confused...

"so yes, anarchists could sell nazi books in order to understand how nazi thought and history is relevant or not to anarchists."

Maybe LBC can ask some alt-right people to make a journal for them to sell at anarchist bookfairs. That way we can finally find out how relevant are their ideas to us.

is a good thing. some don't. guess we know where you stand. thanks for the info.

rational theories 'catch on' because they unite people in a 'common purpose' to achieve some utopian state of affairs.

ITS is analogous to chemotherapy; i.e. when you recognize the system is seriously deficient or cancerous, but is too complex to rationally understand, you kick the shit out of it to see if it will reboot with a better build. it is the same sort of 'meta-theory' as banging on an old tv when the picture goes wonky to see if we can get a reboot with a better build, ... same as slapping the face of a friend who has become hysterical.

The ITS stuff is small potatoes compared to the unintentional reboot that trump and kim jong un are hovering around the trigger point of. When competing theories graduate to fullblown war, win and loss are the logical outcomes but the physical outcome is a reboot. unfortunately, the bootstrap routines that crawl out of the rubble to get in on the groundfloor of the reboot have, over the past few centuries, tended to be capitalist. The ITS chemo has no provisions to guard against this.

I did Nazi that coming

While they're at it, LBC should also make contact with members of ISIS to see if they would like to publish some of their pamphlets. I'd like to find out if ISIS has any relevance to anarchism. Hey, and they could also maybe reach out to the Pentagon and perhaps publish some of their military documents. It would be interesting to read about any imperialist ideas might be relevant to anarhcism too.

"While they're at it, LBC should also make contact with members of ISIS to see if they would like to publish some of their pamphlets. I'd like to find out if ISIS has any relevance to anarchism. Hey, and they could also maybe reach out to the Pentagon and perhaps publish some of their military documents. It would be interesting to read about any imperialist ideas might be relevant to anarhcism too."
The main fact you missed -- which has been repeated constantly, so really there's no excuse for being ignorant of it -- is that UNLIKE the imperialists and islamofascists, ITS actually has its roots in anarchism. Their trajectory away from it is what makes them relevant to anarchists. Like most analogies, yours falls flat. Perhaps it's time for a variation on Godwin's Law: first person to invoke ISIS automatically loses.

Richard Hunt, one of the founders of "national-anarchism" was a green anarchist before that.

Your point being?
Should people look critically at green anarchism because of the rightward trajectory of one guy? Should people look critically at anarchosyndicalism because sit the rightward trajectory of some Italians who became fascists, or because some Spanisrds joined a government? People should look critically at all strains of anarchism regardless of such things.
People who call themselves anarchists do stupid things on occasion. Some of them are my enemies, some of them are my friends, sometimes it's me.

""ITS actually has its roots in anarchism. Their trajectory away from it is what makes them relevant to anarchists."

The point was should we be interested in, or be in dialogue, or publish magazines by fascists, because some of the founders of these movements were anarchists before, like Richard Hurt or syndicalists you mentioned.

Novatore said this about individualist anarchists who became fascists:
"But at least don’t delude yourselves about being Nietzsche’s
or Stirner’s followers, oh useless Rabagas, oh various anarchoids like Tancredi or Nerucci
; put aside this supreme insult to these two stark shades of thinkers who knew how to bring a powerful breath of innovation into the boundless field of philosophy; while you have never been anything but their apers and what you’ve said and written has been nothing but a repugnant caricature and a foul parody.
But we, we repeat, can no longer have words for you! "

The journal was not FROM ITS. It was from a group of US based softies. Perhaps you could call them pro-ITS (or better yet pro-eco-extremism) but conflating NA writers with femicidal terrorists is a pretty big leap, no?

Next it will be the journal was a parody from a group of sarcastic college hipsters, doesn't change the censorship cop mentality, even if the journal was a misplaced script for a B-grade Mexican movie.

"Next it will be the journal was a parody from a group of sarcastic college hipsters"

So you mean what Atasa reads like to anyone who isnt a gringo anarchist?

No I meant like Mein Kampf translated into an indigenous language.

Gpod job. You've described nothing but your own manic emotional state. There's no thought here, just a cry for censorship.

The rest of the world system doesn't view anarchists with a worse thorniness, if they know anything about us at all? What's section 127bis of the Italian penal code, for example?

The bible, the kubark manual---those remain unharmed?

Would the anarchist suggest taking people's qurans and ripping them up?

The iron fire wall of china is okay?

Maybe we could just resolve this by not only censoring books, thoughts, but whole movements of people with a wall. Oh wait...

Maybe we can stop people from doing 'bad things' by taking their alcohol away? Surely it won't give rise to a black market. Maybe we'll declare a war on drugs, to keep the thoughts and acts pure. Oh wait...

OMG he's listing all of the worst fascist actions in the last 5 years and putting -- " Oh wait..." after them as some sort of substantial critique when my parrot can do better,,,

True though that institutionalized censorship achieves nothing, whereas conciliation can.

So what would tearing up a Bible or a Quran achieve? There are Christian and Muslim anarchists too you know.

Don't you see how much you're all becoming each other's cop?

best neologism to come out of this: "consequenced"! nice :-)

It's certainly possible that this kid was set up. It's an interesting idea, but I think in the end it's much more likely that he was a "free" agent acting on misinformation on the journal he had picked up from Scotty's piece, Gillis's podcast, Zerzan's show, etc. Which isn't THAT different from the scenario you're presenting, only perhaps that there are a few extra layers of separation.

God, those 3 fucking suck tho, eh?

Also: "What does this kid do when he see's a bible? Keeps walkin'?"


LOL @ nihilists whining about free speech.

LOLOLOL @ nihilists condemning the tearing up of a pamphlet an "act of violence". What's next are you going to evoke the NAP?

just like contextualizing. since the folks in the circle probably wouldn't say they're against violence.
but i agree there's a question about violence here that hasn't been fully fleshed out.
to look someone in the face and destroy something they care about or made or whatever, is that different from breaking windows of a bank? or newspaper boxes in the streets?
what do *you* think?

still kicked your ass, tho ;)

RE: to the 15:32 - 37

If it's true that the person was "primed" then a poor schmuck is being used by a manipulative, gutless, turd. Is that the type of anarchism any of us want?

i am the one who called the attack on the book an act of violence. i am definitely *not* a nihilist, and i'm barely an anarchist these days. the opinion expressed was mine and is not representative of many people who frequent this site. the act of destroying a product of someone's time and energy (and probably love too) is definitely violent, and further, contains the imminent threat of an escalation to physical violence toward the person(s) who produced that object. if you'd ever been on the receiving end of such an intervention you'd probably understand that. the incident in Seattle was not the first time someone's project/product has been physically attacked by some smug moralist wannabe anarcho-cop/censor. if you think people need to be protected from dangerous ideas, then what the fuck are you doing hanging around anarchists?

" and i'm barely an anarchist these days. "
Don't be so humble, you're a damn good anarchist whether you like it or not dude !

They're probably getting confused by that old trope about violence not being violent unless it's against people. I never cared for that bit of rhetoric, sort of a smoke-bomb wordplay.

If somebody grabbed my shit and wrecked it in front of me, I'd probably do my best to wreck their day too and why would that sequence of events be confusing?

Roles reversed, I'd expect the person who owned the book to come at me or else I'd think they were a coward.

Idk, I'm pretty sure if I was faced with this situation, destroying a book I physically produced wouldn't be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Not that I at all blame or think less of someone for whom it would be, I'm just saying, different people have different values, and I would wait for something a bit more directly hostile to my person before going to town on them. "Coward" seems unfair then -- or maybe I'm just defensive -- and I'm sure there are plenty of other people who "knew the difference between things and people and never confused the two." Simply dismissing them offhand for values different than your own seems similarly unfair.

I'm not overly concerned with "fairness".

fine, then how about "arrogance"

No, not really that either. Anything else?

Nope, just be careful not to cut yourself with all that edge.

i know it's now short hand for edgelord, someone who just wants to sound more outrageous than other people for no reason. but *regardless of the intention of the speaker*, the impact on the listener to hearing outrageous ideas can be internally... liberating, for lack of a better word off the top of my head. we listeners are not (or don't have to be) constrained by the intent of people (which will never be unitary and rarely simple anyway).
i do get that the race to be outrageous is also part of a cultural trend that sucks and is fully spectacular, but we don't have to let it be only that.

The point I was trying to make with that comment was less that the commenter is "bad" or something because they were unnecessarily edgy, as much as it was to convey that this lack of concern goes both ways --- sure, you can not care about your own arrogance in a social setting (which, despite the masks we all wear, this is), but you can't do so and also expect me to want to engage with you. The aspect of the "edgelord" I was referring to was not so much the affinity for the outrageous, so much as the self-imposed alienation of it.

Someone burns a flag because it is a symbol of values that they disagree with. Someone rips a book because it is symbol of values they disagree with. Are either of these acts necessarily authoritarian?

If the book was purchased first, then ripped, The LBC Defense Forces would probably have done nothing. If they had attacked someone for ripping the book after purchase, then that would shift the narrative. So does this little altercation come down to property rights and whose flag you are burning?

All this for a collection of EE Fan Fiction that "hasn't even sold 100 copies" - I'm hitting snooze.

I see the logic of your comment here, but the scenario of someone buying the book and then ripping it isn't really relevant here because no one would do that. It would be an even less effective symbolic protest of lbc publishing and distributing atassa than what actually happened. So no, I don't think this is about property rights.

I would agree that the act of ripping the book was not necessarily authoritarian if we isolate it to that lone act. However, the context with which the ripping took place is one that smells of an authoritarian urge to control what anarchists talk about.

None of this makes any sense. You have sanctity for ideas before human life? You value freedom of exchange... but do not care about targets of ITS? Why? You talk about the symbolic violence of ripping a shoddy book in half but not about the symbolic violence of proudly claiming a femicide? Anarchists do not exist in a morality free zone. All this concern about censorship as if militant death cults and extremism don't get plenty of play in the mainstream media... what differentiates the cheap sensationalism of all this? @news isn't special.

Like much of the violence that occurs at bookfairs it was an anti-anarchist act.


ITS dick rider: all humans are a cancer that need to be exterminated for their crimes against mother nature and our pagan Gods. We will kill all anarchists and anyone else who dares criticise us!

Anarchist: GO AWAY!

ITS dick rider: OMG stop being such a moralist cop. Stop trying censor muh free speech!

Anews Troll whored: Blah blah rape babies.
Reasonable ITS: Calm down weirdo. In fact, die! *stab* *stab* *stab*. Much better.
Anews Trolled wgored: creepy shit! Also left anarvjism!!
Perfect Human Against Humanity ITS: Why do I even post here?
Asssfoledneeshprecdd: nbblathjtgjm. Tfzwfuvkjnrblsjb $#@ UNICEF cubmr

"Eco-Fascist" Groups Applaud ISIS, Murder of Heather Heyer, and Publishers

Over a week ago, an article was posted on that reflected on an altercation between someone at the Seattle Anarchist Bookfair and people tabling with Little Black Cart (LBC). This article will not attempt to go into detail about the altercation, nor a background of eco-extremism, ITS, or past arguments about it. The point of this essay is brief, but we think it is important.

In the latest episode of the Brilliant, a podcast associated with LBC, the hosts lament on the lack of real world dialogue and discussion, specifically around eco-extremism. They contend that another website which has published two critiques of ITS; specifically how they have issued death threats against anarchists, claimed to have killed random people, use sexist and homophobic slurs, and have even left a bomb outside of a long running anarchist squat, are hall monitors that want to censor what people read, limit the terms of debate, frame who is good and bad, and more over, press impressionable young minds, referred to as "patsies" by the main show host, into attacking the people behind LBC.

Like Little Black Cart, we think dialog and free expression is important. We don't think anyone should be censored, especially not radicals. In the spirit of free and open dialog we have taken it upon ourselves to help in the spreading of two recent translations about eco-extemism. We hope that everyone will find this interesting!

The first is from the eco-extremist blog "Maldicion Eco-Extremista," which according to the editor of the Atassa journal, is one of the main blogs that he pulls from to do translations which are then published on, in the Atassa journal, and are shared on the Atassa Facebook page. This communique has not been posted yet - on any of the usual platforms. But, in the spirit of free speech, we have decided to help Atassa in their heavy work load. This is not the full translation, but if you are a real rebel and are truly a dangerous thought criminal, yet to be brainwashed by the Strugglismo 'Social Justice Warrior' "under his eye" regime, you can read it here - if you have the courage:

In this communique, eco-extremists give a big shout out to their friends in the US and name drop a couple of projects. It reads:

"It's known by many that the writers and propagandists in the U.S. who identify with the tendency of eco-extremism have been growing during these recent moons, as have the many projects in those territories where the most courageous natives shared their surroundings with buffalos, eagles, elk, bears, salmon, etc.

The northern lands of the American continent are being won over by the tendency that moves away from political humanism and spits mockingly on hyper-moral civilized values.

It was obvious that the rabid followers of humanism would protest against the incorrect words and the "atrocious" acts of ITS in Mexico, Argentina, Chile and Brazil. Scared, they would whisper, "I hope ITS doesn't come to the U.S." and that's what happened. ITS hasn't come to the U.S., but (here is the "but") little by little the most emblematic theorists of eco-extremism were arriving, who created publishing projects and put into circulation websites that reproduced the discourse against human progressivism.

The first sign we have to support this is the publication of Atassa magazine, the first issue of which was a tremendous blow for the humanist slanderers, demonstrating the arrival of eco-extremism to the U.S. The second issue will be a true earthquake for those same defamers of the tendency.

The Little Black Cart publishing house (LBC), has been responsible for launching and disseminating the magazine. The anarchist campaign against eco-extremism has centered on slandering its members, saying that LBC has links to ITS, something that is completely stupid, which shows the dirty tricks these sick leftists use who don't know how to stop the advance of the tendency in their areas.

As is known, [the editor of Atassa] has worked publicly for some time, participating in radio shows, writing interesting reflections, recording audio and videos where he shows his feelings for the tendency (not for nothing is he the chief editor of Atassa magazine), becoming considered by many as a fierce defender of eco-extremism, without fear of paying the legal consequences that entails. [The editor] is undoubtedly the one who holds the reins of the theoretical part of the eco-extremist project in the north of the continent. His persistence and dedication is greatly valued.

Either way, incidents between eco-extremists and their allies with leftists anarchists will continue in the U.S., of that we are sure.

From Maldición Eco-extremista, may the theorists in those territories know that from many places in Latin Ameria we are following your work and appreciate that you are carrying on, despite knowing that you literally have a large majority of the anarcho-weeping movement against you, together with law enforcement agencies: STRENGTH!

With the Unknown on our side!

Encouraging bombs against the anarchist slanderers in Latin America!

Reddened knuckles against the heads of anarchists in the U.S.!"

Whoa! Such fierce and interesting words! I'm a get meh 10 copies!

Our next communiqué comes from some anarchist blog that is complaining about getting threats from an Eco-Extremist group for publishing critiques against them. So much for free speech! Feel free to read the entire blog entry here:

Also, on this post, the eco-extremist author takes credit for issuing the threats, saying they were just "mocking emails." Don't be a snowflake yo!:

"And it's on several blogs that we were participating in one way or another in spreading these critiques [of ITS and eco-extremism] (translating, sending, publishing), we started to receive ridiculous threats from these people. In them, along with revealing information about compañeros, linking them with specific spaces in the struggle (and compromising their security and that of the spaces), they also delighted over attacks by the Islamic State in large European cities as well as over the death of our compañeros, for example Heather Heyer, who was fatally run over by neo-Nazis during a counter-protest in Charlottesville a few weeks ago.

Below I transcribe a fragment of one of those (intimidating?) messages that I received, as it seems particularly revealing. I did not transcribe it in full because in the unpublished part this gang of para-police blabbermouths share specific information about compañeros, informing on where the do their work or stopped doing their political work, and to spread it would compromise these people:

"(...) as the humanist anarchists in the U.S. were run over by neo-Nazis (both groups are cocksuckers), the Islamic State finally struck in Spain where you are, you son of a thousand whores!

While it's true that neither of these acts were carried out by eco-extremists, it's a sign of the wild curse that has fallen on you and your loved ones for defaming us. Be careful, shitty atheist, the ancestral spirits roam free and will torment you until your death!"

Damn, I could slice my cheese on that edge! Extra points for the witty patriarchal and homophobic slurs!

According to Little Black Cart, those that are critical of eco-extremism and their publishing and promotion of their content, are trying to green light violence against them. This is untrue. We do not wish to fight people with LBC, nor do we wish to encourage violence against them. We simply want to be able to be critical of eco-extremism, and by extension ask why LBC wants to be associated with groups that try and kill our friends, especially knowing straight from the horse's mouth, that eco-extremists appreciate all their hard work. Isn't open dialog what LBC says it wants?

In the face of this, anarchists across North and South American have gotten death threats. ITS has also attempted to kill anarchists at the Okupa Che squat in Mexico. For us, these acts are real and material things, and the implications of them deserve a broad discussion.

Lastly, we are sharing a meme that was posted on the main eco-extremist website, that mocks the death of antifascist Heather Heyer in Charlottesville. Move over Alt-Right!

For the nth time, *no one* at LBC that I am aware of is saying that EE is great and people should be doing EE-type actions or supporting EE. One of the projects you are complaining about, The Brilliant, has repeatedly critiqued EE, especially in the last episode with Bellamy. Black Seed, a journal put out by LBC, also features a long-form critique of EE. Yet all you are doing is saying "EE is bad, LBC therefore is also bad." Are you incapable of listening? Or do you just want to create a feud to raise the profile of your projects?

Lots of promotion going on here for Atassa and the ideas of EE. Now isn't the time to attempt revising history just because the dipshits interested in the "ideas of EE" couldn't see where it was headed from the start 6 or 7 years ago. From the Tick Tock:

Is this an anarchist journal? No! But @ should be engaged with it anyway.

Is LBC satisfied with how @ are engaging with it today? If not, then what did they expect? Were their expectations guided by their critique, or their support, of EE material?

Are you a pacifist? Kudos for your consistency. Otherwise you have to (internally) confront the questions of Atassa.

Those questions are getting confronted and will continue to be confronted. There might even be non-pacifist confrontations based on your actions and words in regards to promoting the Tendency.

First off hindsight bias is not an actual argument. secondly what is particularly wrong with that episode? they are actually engaging with the ideas of the journal and I don't think that is a terrible thing. Plus Bellamy in audio and written form have been critical of ITS and EE in general and Aragorn has been critical in audio form and I'm not quite sure why people have been ignoring that fact. Also people are also allowed to change their opinion on things, I'm not sure why in your world it not possible to do so without it being some sort of devious plan of historical revisionism.

Clearly they are not satisfied with how people are engaging with the text. I'm sure that they hoped that people would actually be adults and talk about the book like we talk about other books that are disagreeable, but apparently that expectation was giving the anarchist space too much credit.

How exactly does saying that people need to confront the questions that Atassa brings up (particularly the question of violence) is that much of a problem? If you think that Revolutionary Violence is one any level not going to touch the lives of the so called "innocents" or "everyday people" then you have a very naive view of revolution. Not to mention that ITS is (whether you like it or not or they like it or not) are partaking in revolutionary violence, they have declared all of humanity reactionary and as such deal with them like all revolutionaries deal with those they deem reactionaries. With violence. The actual point of engaging with with this is not to in the end come out in support of ITS, but instead question our assumptions about our relationship to violence. That also doesn't mean becoming non-violent, but fine tuning our positions on violence. It just seems that anarchists don't want to confront those questions and instead want to be comforted by the idea that an anarchist revolution will be morally pure and mostly be directed at the upper classes and their official bodyguards, when the reality of any revolution is way more unpleasant than such idealistic thoughts allow. You're terrified to see a bit of ITS in yourself when you look into that mirror.

I think EE is anarchist because I think the questions EE ask anarchists are anarchist ones. Is it possible to impact society in the meaningful ways we wish to without violence? How capable are we of committing the amount that we need?

So being an anarchist is about "asking the right questions"? Unless those questions are about why LBC would publish a specific collection of essays cheering on EE. That's unquestionable. And that question about using violence to impact society in "meaningful" ways... nothing is off the table. Except for that one torn up issue of Atassa, I guess.

yes, I remember that Aragorn said that, but I'm fairly certain that episode (which was recorded and posted back in January of this year) was before they went full force on killing random people or at least claiming to. If that's true then I think that we can give Aragorn leeway on statement. Plus my point about people being allowed to change their minds still stands, people (including Aragorn are in fact allowed to do so.

Its not unquestionable, but that's not entirely whats going on here, its not just asking question "Why?" and getting an answer and thus actually participating in a discourse. Its more like anarchists getting outraged and hysterical over a book being published and are trying to claim that the various projects that the people putting out the book and also those who are also interested in a discourse concerning ITS as unquestionably supporting ITS and EE in general despite the fact that those projects have put out criticism of that tendency's thought and action.

[Aragorn made this statement] (which was recorded and posted back in January of this year) before they went full force on killing random people or at least claiming to.

January of 2017. Let's take a look at what and when has been posted here on this site with the understanding that much more had been posted elsewhere and earlier.
Posted on: 28 January 2016 By: Chahta-Ima
" We salute those who attack indiscriminately this compromised society"
"Our war is extremist and violent, in connection with the natural and joined to the spirits of the exterminated native tribes.
Those who we wound and kill are a blood offering to Wild Nature."
Posted on: 8 March 2016 By: Chahta-Ima
"ITS was not lying when it said in these communiqués that it was not interested in who was wounded in these attacks. It was pretty clear then that they were indiscriminate and this continues to be true."

ummmm...where exactly did I argue that they weren't talking about being for indiscriminate violence prior to that episode? I stated that they really started going for it more often or at least claiming to this year. now I'm not saying that they didn't do anything last year at all, but that communique was primarily for talking about a new development in their thought, that took place during and after Wild Reaction dissolved. Because prior to then they (both the initial incarnation of ITS and then Wild Reaction) had more directed targets.

Also when did anyone else claim they didn't have that position prior? I mean, nobody is in denial of that.

Because prior to [this year] they (both the initial incarnation of ITS and then Wild Reaction) had more directed targets.

Is that so? Let's just pull some quotes directly from Atassa which was published in November of 2016 and referred to material spanning all incarnations of The Tendency back to 2011. All quotes come from

We are at war with civilization and progress, as well as those who improve or support it with their passivity. Whoever!

Is this quote an exhibition of "really going for it" or not? How about this one...

We attack with the intention of causing the maximum amount of harm possible against selected or indiscriminate targets, without regard for collateral damage.

Or maybe this is still on the edge of "really going for it", but not quite there... aim to carry out a real war, with real casualties, and actions that are not merely symbolic but actually draw blood.

Yes, a real war, it is.

Since we're perusing the collection of thought experiments known as Atassa, let's look at a few more quotes...

The contingent of anarchists partial to extremist violence has been also completely erased and forgotten in the official and not-so-official story. There are few who recognize true anarchists such as Severino, Buda, Bonnot, Rosigna, and others who carried out attacks against their targets without concern for bystanders; for whom the ends justified the means.

A-ha! Not only is ITS anarchist because "they ask the right questions", but they also believe in the right type of anarchist. True anarchists are the ones who don't care about means, only ends. And what are some of those stated ends according to the EE Fandom. Let's have a look at the "warrior culture" that they find so inspiring...

The core of the war-making men is made up of those who have become enflamed by their passion for blood and glory. These are men who have devoted themselves utterly to violence and the pursuit of honor. They exist for nothing else.

That is truly so manly! But oh... these weak-minded and flabby-chested theorists comprising Atassa have so much work to do. How about starting with being able to run 5 miles and do 50 push-ups?

The role of the warrior is to make war. And the warrior is the man who has passion for war. But what is the source of this passion? Simply put, the warrior's passion for war stems from his desperate, wild hunger for prestige, honor, and glory.

Again, so much manliness. This is truly overflowing with testicular fortitude. But, when you can't "make war", you write stuff that praises what you wish you could do. Or start a Patreon account, like one of the Atassa contributors did, to fund your desired life of writing about all that stuff you wish you could do.

...the fate of the warrior is to continue to put himself in increasingly dangerous situations and eventually, no matter his past successes, he is fated to die alone, at the hands of his enemies.

Uh-oh. Death. Well... we can make an exception for when you get in "dangerous situations" where people start criticizing your writings and publishing projects. Then complain about arguments being done in "bad faith" or not engaging with specific topics in the way you wanted them to be engaged with. UNFAIR!

We must refuse to shy away from the importance of violence in the creation of community. We must acknowledge, in fact, that violence alone, properly understood, is the only means to achieve the kind of society we desire.

Alright then, Tough Guy Book Club. Are you really as ready to engage in the creation of community through violence as you think you are? I mean... what if you lose? Well, at least you published that collection of thought experiments, right?!?!

let's make Love

Hear hear! Here's a meticulous person doing the fact-checking that I vaguely remembered in my gut.

This shit has been extremely toxic and misguided since the get-go and now the fan boys are back pedalling hard and ducking out.

You were always full of shit and you still are but before you cry censorship again, most of us are only here to say we fucking TOLD YOU THIS WAS BULLSHiT YOU SMUG JACKOFFS.

You were titillated by vicarious fantasies and projections, like a bunch of 90s goth kids obsessed with columbine. That's all this crap ever was. It's importance to anarchist discourse remains on par with random mass shootings too.

who are you even talking about? these imaginary fan boys that are back pedaling and ducking out? most of the people getting that thrown at them (including me) always had some issues with them going back to the beginning. I shared a lot of the IA criticisms of them as an underground armed struggle group as before ITS came on to the scene I had already read "Armed Joy" by Bonnano and clearly saw the problems he pointed out of armed struggle groups in ITS.

Though I did have a laugh at your self righteous condemnation of the imaginary cheerleaders who are now trying to back out of their support of ITS. look, over the years i have seen very little complete uncritical support of what they were doing even when back when they were actually anarchists, despite what you might think. Many of those who defended them also had their own issues with them, but were taking issue with the knee jerk criticisms

Also I fail to see how analyzing mass shootings isn't important to anarchist discourse, I mean we live in an era where they are happening often (in fact there was just one a couple says ago) and its necessary for any radical to tackle the implications of those events. Its very telling that you don't want to analyze whats happening in this world.

well, its looks like someone is actually engaging with a text as apposed to just dismissing it as evil and being done with it. Anyway, its all fine and good that you can find quotes of them saying things like that, but prior to this new incarnation of ITS, i don'trecall them claiming any attack on random people on the street that seemingly had no real purpose, i mean a lot of what they did was send parcel bombs to particular people, inspired by the tactics and targets of Ted kaczynski. Even the knee jerk criticism of them at the time reflected that, the critics were horrified that ITS was not expressing regret whenever a parcel went off and injured a particular person who wasn't the intended target of the attack, not that they were targeting random people. Those are different things. now that's not to say that all of the criticism directed at them were knee jerk criticisms, the IA tendency was in a critical engagement of them ever since they first appeared and that discourse wasn't the "ITS=bad" or "ITS=fascists" that the more knee jerk people were arguing at the time.

As far as your other statements, I'm not really sure who you are talking to? I mean you are replying to me, but It seems to me that you continue (like so many others seem to do as well) to assume that I support the ITS/EE/Atassa tendency and think that is what we should do, but I have said else where that I am not a defender of them, so it seems to me that nobody wants to pay attention to what people say. However, I do think that within their ramblings there is a provocation that we have to deal with and (that has been continuously argued by me and others as well) that is the question of violence. There are also other things they say that we could use them as a catalyst for other conversations, including the stuff you highlighted in your post. The fact is, we can have interesting conversations about disagreeable texts and it baffles me that people aren't seeing this.

And to be quite honest the hostility towards LBC over this book is very strange, I mean would LBC get as much hate if they published a Maoist journal? I don't think they would, as the people who confronted the LBC table and all those on the internet defending them didn't confront the marxist-leninist/Maoists groups that always table at bookfairs and aren't completely disavowing the particular book fair for letting them table. when those groups are basically apologists for some of the worst examples of horrible shit happening to random people.

only makea sense in the context of constituted struggle. Rejecting that(anyone into real anarchy should) violence should only be a personal contextual matter.

What do you mean by constituted struggle?

That is not driven by corporeal immediacy or an urgent existential pressure. ITS is a goog example of a pseudo struggle.

Isn't LBC providing a space for the critique and dialogue around ITS/RS/etc for anarchists? It isn't as though you will be able to stop the spread of ITS communiques on the internet. Just as you won't stop a psycho from murdering indiscriminately. I don't see LBC or Anews popularizing ITS "ideas", if anything they have provided the space for anarchists to criticize and condemn ITS. Critiques beyond "MURDER IS BAD!" come from thebrilliant and blackseed etc. It is interesting you call for dialogue now when in the past it has been something along the lines of "why is anews posting this garbage!!!?" "as anarchists we shouldn't even be talking about this!!"

I think there is more to this whole thing, a little below the surface. You can see it in the singling out of Aragorn! and the usual post-modern-as-slur lobs at him. In the sarcastic hinting self identification of strugglismo here. IGD and some in its ilk have thought that LBC and Aragorn! are fascists or fascist enablers before this latest Seattle drama. Ya'll were mad about the Antifa Is Not Epic presentation. There's more to this feud, but the whole Atassa tabling kerfuffle is a good flashpoint for your brand and discussion of platforming and free speech. I disagree that antifa, which for all intents and purposes seems to be the response to LBC here, is warranted, appropriate, or furthering dialogue.

You think in cartoon characters. No, "Antifa" isn't picking on Aragorn in some systematic way. These are normal theoretical tensions within the milieu, probably not personal at all.

I have made no one into cartoon characters, but people like to think they can re-frame everyone's arguments around here to dismiss and better fit their narrative. Nor did i state or imply that antifa (why the scare quotes?) is picking on Aragorn in a systematic way or in anyway. I said their is a feud. And yes that means theoretical tensions in the milieu.

I am sure if others in LBC talked as much as Aragorn there would be venom spat at them as well. So it goes with being a public anarchist figure, or whatever.

Yeah, going to your house and smashing your shit up is probably not personal at all...

Lol, oh man... holy shit, that meme is fucking brutal!

Anyone who does is basically a cop? Do you think rape is right or wrong? Do you think having sex with a minor is wrong? Fuck, whoever tabled LBC made the decision that tearing up an unpurchased was wrong, right? So why oh why do you people struggle with right and wrong in this conversation? Stopping someone raping someone is not fascist. You have to decide what kind of world you want to be part share...and stand by that. For me, it's not either all-out individualism/egoism or all-out communitarianism. We're all in this together by ourselves is a quote I read somewhere or other. Compromise on all sides is perceived as a weakness these days. Imagine if our personal relationships were built on all-out 'winner take all?' I do agree that the threads etc of Anarchist News needs sorting out fir clarity. And, by all means remove comments but also explain why. You could have a 'Removed Comments' section published a week after any thread appears, just a thought? Also, put a word limit on comments. Remove the 'fuck you dickhead type' crap. Otherwise, in my opinion, the debate suffers. Prioritise! You can't please everyone all the time. The debate will be paralysed if the current format continues.

If the book was ripped up due to the ideas being sold, then how come said 'anarchists' don't go into bookshops and destroy the shelves of books preaching hierarchical relationships? Also, as a vegan, many of the arguments can be found in the vegan space where people are so entrenched as to be ideological...the idea MUST live at ALL cost! The result, divide and rule with the vegan message being devoured by postmodern subjectivism into each person promoting their own message, leading to confusion for would-be vegans possibly turning away from the chaos? Tangent alert: re paedophilia, would LBC regard the Sambia tribe as paedophiles or would you prefer cultural relativism even though WE KNOW boys sucking off men to ingest the adult sperm WILL NOT make them better warriors? The same goes for Female Genital Mutilation. I could go on to human supremacism and nonhuman consent in relation to the property status of nonhumans but I shall leave that for now.

enjoyed this episode a lot. glad people are still using their brains. I like anarchist discussion without the moralism, self-righteousness, etc.

Without the moralism etc, really? Is that why they all laughed at IGD... because they were discussing stuff without their moralism? Nihilists are moralistic make no mistake about that, aloof moralism.

Perhaps there may be a slight nihilist edge to them but nihilists? Absolute rubbish.

I enjoyed it too. One of the things about The Brilliant that really works for me is that it's more than just propagandising anarchism or shit-talking about everyone else.

Bob Black is a big boy and knows Aragorn fucked up. The problem with Aragorn now is he seems like the hardass Bobby the Cop Caller wishes he was, but when the nerds get surrounded and lack tough guy back up, what do?

There is no gangstering going on. Some UFC fans pulled a wrestling move on people that expected an argument for what they did. Or something. Maybe they were zealot zombies? Agents of Sauron?

People still remember who I am. I am NOT forgotten! Yay for me.

-- Bob Black (pig ffffucker and Styrofoam cup dispenser)

Perhaps it may be a result of my not being either post-left or living in the US but I have yet to see anything of interest in Bob Black.

The Abolition of Work. Anarchy After Leftism.

Not only mentioning my name, but some of the titles of my books, too? Omergad you guys is killing me.


-- Bob Black (pig ffffucker and tow jam football)

As well as good writing style as well as practical ways of bringing about anarchy which can be found in his total body of work.

Helicopter dropped to ocean. Truth hurts I guess hug A? anyway...

The thing about the Black incident is that he was hesitant to come to the Bay Area to begin with as he really only planed to fly to see his lover. The man's 65 with cancer for fucks sake, people at that point are not looking for confrontation or any drama with the Bay Area's undesirable and intolerables. The cop calling was always just a clever way to use 3rd person violence against an enemy. No issues as far as I'm concerned unless perhaps you do it all the time which would lead to an understandable change of performative contradiction in regards to relying on law enforcement. In this case though it was a marginal event aimed at a man who could well die tomorrow in a Seattle parking lot and the world will be none the worse.

Aragorn! I think it was, who said what do anarchists expect when they get hit by a cop when confronting the cops? I would argue what do cops expect from people (including anarchists) who are being financially hit, environmentally hit etc? Not that violence ever brings any kind of peace. Usually, those who lose plan some sort of retaliation, this may take years to come to fruition. I just thought it was interesting how The Roundtable framed the point of who is actually hitting whom and why in a protest. For me, Aragorn! has very little to offer unless you're into paralysis by analysis. I've heard him speak several times and I'm left wondering what it is he actually stands for as he spends most of time promoting what he is against. He possibly also feels threatened by IGD as they do have a vision what they stand for whereas Aragorn! doesn't (appear to).

Aragorn!'s dropped that habit and a far more interesting communicator for doing so. Try some of The Brilliant podcasts from 2017. The episodes with Isaac Cronin taking about his background with the Situationist International are fascinating.

You seem to be under the impression that they were making the case that the people deserve to get hit by cops. This wasn't the impression I got at all. The argument was what do you *expect* to happen. I doubt A! (or whoever it was) is opposed to people hitting cops (though he might doubt the efficacy of it). What they were critiquing was then proceeding to complain about the cops hitting back, as though that wasn't exactly what you would expect to happen. It's basically the same point that a bunch of people made towards IGD when they were crying about their patreon getting shut down: you're not "resisting" anything by begging your enemy to play nice. Either find a battle you can actually win, or know how to take the fucking hits clearly coming at you.

the fact that we can speak of "humans ", or any other living being, in the abstract is itself a form of violence, or maybe more specifically it is what makes this mega-violent world possible.

Are you ascribing morality directly on to a term better thought of as simple physics? Predator and prey is "violence", an earthquake is "violent" but these things have nothing to do with human morality or agency.

Violence only has a moral component in a human context, therefore thinking abstractly causes morality, not violence.

the earth is essentially volatile as any given relationship.
being -itself- is an absolute Sin!

Is everyone such a cliquey whiner on the west coast? I've been considering moving there but anarchy land doesnt sound fun there it sounds like high school. Both LBC and book tearing bro. I do like your post-left critiques but the amount of self righteous bitterness is a bit obnoxious.

Starved of anything that it is actually capable of inflicting damage on, anarchy has simply turned to feed upon itself. People in the scene actually care about the conflicts it seeks. Since we don't really have a means of collapsing capitalism, the state, racism, prison, the police, civilization, or any of the other myriad of humanistic plagues we would wish to destroy in our dreams, we instead focus and revel in obscurity of the places we can inflict change.

I'm only half joking. The LBC crew gives the kid shit for tearing up Atassa instead of a Bible because he probably knew there would be no long-term consequences to his actions, but can you fucking blame him? Not for tearing up the book, yeah you can obviously blame him for that. But for focusing on a target that there is something he can feel empowered about instead of something that would probably wind up with him getting arrested? It's a sad state of affairs, but when we're reduced to choosing battles that are either Sisyphean or petty, you're going to end up looking like a fool regardless.

The latter is a leftist collectivist value. The kid is a leftist fool who should focus on the better things in life.

If think you're uselessly splitting hair, just for having something to say... For most people out there who don't pretend having an edge, "empowering" means the exact same as that blurry notion of co-powering. Just because it has become a commonplace in Leftist rhetoric doesn't make it a leftist collectivist value. Empowering is a collectivist value, from Right to Left, to much less politically-charged power dynamics.

It's paying attention to definitions and terms and how they correspond on a performative meaning based level. Fact is that empowerment is a term made for reified identity and collectivity. Will powering and co-powering at least have an individual and corporeal elasticity that does not go into reified abstract territory. A leftist commonplace rhetorical word and term usually means it's a leftist collectivist value and that it's time to disassociate from the term.

Oh please, and how are these terms any different? You think will isn't a reified concept?

It's only reified if you think all things in meaning are reified. Reification has a pretty specific meaning in philosophy in regards to misplaced concreteness. Empowerment is a definition that is much more tied to collectivity and identity then will is.

The unique is itself a spook though, Stirner said as much. You think your drives and desires aren't reflections of context? You think they have a concrete manifestation?

Maybe if you explained how, in material terms, will is less connected to identity than empowerment is, I would better understand what you're trying to say.

That would be my underlying point obvs.

They asked you for the material differences, and you completely avoided the question.

How much more obvious can it be. Empowerment is usually conjoined to groups that have been constituted by power.

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.