TOTW: Therapy

  • Posted on: 11 March 2018
  • By: thecollective

This TOTW comes via guest submission, thnx. (
Are most anarchists hostile to therapy, mainstream or otherwise? In Against the Logic of Submission (under the heading Revolt Not Therapy), Wolfi Landstreicher writes: “Freedom belongs to the individual — this is a basic anarchist principle — and as such resides in individual responsibility to oneself and in free association with others. Thus, there can be no obligations, no debts, only choices of how to act. The therapeutic approach to social problems is the very opposite of this.. Basing itself in the idea that we are crippled rather than chained, inherently weak rather than held down, it imposes an obligatory interdependence, a mutuality of incapacity, rather than a sharing of strengths and capabilities.”

There is a phenomenon of therapy proselytizing and also a tendency to recommend or demand those that have crossed boundaries to seek therapy. Is seeking out professional therapy an unfortunate but often necessary evil and counter to an ideal anarchist future? Or is it a positive practice some would like to see salvaged in some form ATR? Is it just hard to find a good therapist that understands you as an anarchist? After all, there seems to be a fair amount of anarchists that have had to deal with Oppositional Defiant Disorder or ADD or any number of other diagnoses that seem all too convenient for the social managers. Is therapy just a pressure release valve that helps in the maintenance of a subordinate populace of wage slaves?

The Socialist Patients’ Collective (SPK) from Germany wrote about their experiences resisting the doctor-patient paradigm in Turn Illness into a Weapon.

Roberto Freire developed the anarchist play therapy Soma after fighting two dictatorships in Brazil. Influenced by Wilhelm Reich and incorporating elements of Gestalt therapy, Somatherapy seeks to challenge the mind body split inherent in many conventional psychotherapies. What are your experiences with Soma or other alternative forms of therapy? Is Soma the only therapy branding itself as explicitly anarchist?


Revolt, not therapy – against the logic of submission



a freedom of choice but then takes it away! Can I choose to be inherently weak...please? Would Wolfi frown upon a person broken down by being raped saying to be broken down is your choice! The raped person could be chipper and get on with living??? That no matter what happens to a person, it is up to that person how to respond? Grow up, be an individual you sap, is that it? Whether talking to friends and/or a professional is what we do, always have done. Therapy is acceptable IF the therapist is a competent therapist. A friend is acceptable IF the friend is a competent friend.

i have known many folks with horrific trauma in their past, and with debilitating physical disabilities; weakness is not something i would associate with them. they choose to be strong, and where they have no capacity to do for themselves, they have nurtured relations with others that desire to help them when needed.

anyone that chooses to be weak is of no interest to me, but i hope they have such voluntary relations in their lives.

Of course there's different definitions of "strength" and "weakness". I think the Nietzschean/Stirnerian position involves doing the best you can with your actual physical and psychological makeup. Conceiving disability and psychological difference in terms of different sets of combinations of human and non-human forces, rather than as "weakness" in relation to a norm.

However, I've also seen the spread of a cult of weakness in activism over the last decade or so. The idea that "vulnerability is strength". That people should value limits, boundaries, realism, rather than disinhibition and self-expression. That people should practice self-control, and also practice zero tolerance of others who fall short of self-control. The idea of identifying primarily with one's victimhood or vulnerability, and forming affinities mainly through common victimhood or vulnerability, not through affirmative resonances or projects (this finds theoretical expression in authors like Judith Butler). The glorification of trauma as something from which one speaks, which empowers and gives authenticity and a right to be heard - which thus becomes a power-resource one becomes afraid to lose. A shrill insistence that certain people be protected from anything distressing, and never be challenged to question their own intolerance and common sense. A cult of "safety", of safe spaces, which exclude any source of potential distress. It's closely modelled on the cult of "victims of crime" and of the passive, victimised "silent majority" which was central to New Right ideology in the 1980s. And to my mind, it involves a valuing of weakness rather than strength. Consider for example the response if someone suggests that women need to be more forceful in rebutting unwanted advances, or that they need to learn self-defence so as to fight off rapists. Someone who suggests this - especially if it's an alternative to purges and safe spaces policies - is instantly accused of being a rape apologist, of victim-blaming, and putting the onus on women instead of men to change. Never mind that this "pro-rape" position is exactly what second-wave feminists circa 1975 would have said. So instead, most of today's feminists will complain about rape and harassment, label them "unacceptable", put the onus on others to do something about it. "Don't tell women not to get raped, tell men not to rape". To me this is like saying: don't tell anarchists to mask up, tell police not to arrest people. It's a refusal to self-posit and increase one's power because of an insistence that the problem is with the other, and the other must change. (And yes, of course, we also oppose the very existence of police and their power to arrest, though not in this passive-aggressive "It's Unacceptable" kind of way). The "tell men not to rape" position posits that women are naturally weak and unassertive, or are socially conditioned as weak and unassertive and this is either ineliminable or a good thing, and women should not stop being weak and unassertive even as a means to fight male violence, In contrast, the trait of being assertive and forceful is taken as a feature of "toxic masculinity". Not something women should imitate - something men should have stripped from them (usually through humiliation). Levelling men down to the level of patriarchally oppressed women. And at the same time, the idpols articulate women's rage, but in a passive-aggressive form, disavowing rage as such, acting mainly through bureaucratic exclusions and anathematising discourse. I see the same kind of thing happening with indigeneity (now focused on colonial victimisation rather than cultural difference or ecology), with disability (e.g. the attack on the idea of activism because it implies a capacity to act and is therefore "privileged"), and in lots of other fields affected by idpol. And the people promoting this cult of weakness, very often claim to be strong assertive rational subjects who "speak truth to power", follow their own "truth", owe nothing to anyone, and stand in the shoes of great revolutionaries of the past. But this is a persona-performance in line with the normative demands on the ego which are made by neoliberalism. Indeed, it's largely a repetition of the subjectivity of the managerial stratum in the Third Way years, who similarly combined a "strong decisive rational" self-image with hypersensitivity to criticism and a propensity to crybullying. I believe that, on an unconscious level, these people are *not* strong, they are caught in a pre-Oedipal dynamic in which they simultaneously feel neglected by the all-encompassing parent, a desire to aggress against this parent, and a fear of abandonment or extermination should they do so. They are caught in a kind of master-slave dialectic with various social "Others" which they treat as the pre-Oedipal parent and act-out this three-way dynamic of (defensive) aggression (over perceived neglect and injustice), disavowal of this aggression (often by displacement onto the Other or passive-aggressive performance), and fear of abandonment, expressed in a refusal to ever break with the institutions and relationships of the system they condemn in such harsh terms. Hence they hardly ever pass into autonomous forms of organisation except as a means of demand on the system, and they do not even have a functional hidden transcript in Scott's sense - just an endless performance of che vuoi back-and-forth with the imaginary parent.

This aside: yes, of course, there are many people with severe disabilities, psychological problems, and contextual limitations, who are very "strong" in an existential sense, and who do not at all succumb to the cult of weakness.

there are some really good points here, although i wish you'd edited more and worked more with the insight you toss off as an afterthought at the very end.

speaking of nietzsche, one thing i'm consistently surprised at how few people seem to reflect on about him, especially when denouncing his "glorification of strength", is that he was actually very physically weak and sickly for a lot of his life. he idolized the homeric era a bit much but i think he was just really after the idea that people were super alive then and this is something he sought by hiking and exploring the landscape, not by lashing out at other people.

speaking of the "silent majority" etc this was one of my favorite points - for all the talk about how fascism cribs from the left, the reverse is incredibly true as well. there is nothing particularly new about the idea that "white males/goyim are so oppressed" because it's exactly what they were saying in the 30s, in perhaps the original substitution of identity politics for class politics. too recent? ok, settlers in turtle island (& their inheritors) have from the beginning justified genocidal violence by characterizing indigenous resistance as terrorism directed at them for being christians, later for being "white" etc.

Want more on the afterthought?

I'd probably qualify as "weak" as well, which is why I'm sitting here typing comments instead of out burning shit down. But, I don't like to reveal details about myself or argue from positionality.

The trouble with "strength" and "weakness" (and "fitness", as in "survival of the fittest" etc) is that they are relative to purpose and environment. Many species which are small and "weak", like ants and mice, have survived much longer than "strong" species like saber-tooth tigers and T. Rexes. A carnivore needs a type of strength a herbivore does not - it is more vulnerable for this reason. Any species can become "unfit" if its food supply dies out or there's catastrophic climate change or the sun stops producing light. With humans, this is further complicated because most of the environment of most of the humans alive today is overwhelmingly constructed by other humans. So, there's a vicious circle in which the humans with power create a world which rewards (and renders "fit" or "strong") the traits they already have. This is why Nietzsche's "slave revolt in morals" can happen: if the slaves manage to define weakness in Nietzsche's sense (meekness, nonviolence, self-control, disempowerment, emotional repression...) as socially desirable on a social scale, they can create an environment where weakness is in fact social strength or social fitness. And the same thing applies to disability. I believe 100% in the so-called "social model of disability" (rather than the biological model). People are not "disabled" because of particular traits of their minds or bodies, they are "disabled" because of a gap between the nature of their mind or body (which is a whatever-singularity in itself, it is neither weak nor strong, fit nor unfit, it "is what it is") and the social infrastructure, the social expectations of what a mind or body should be, and the material structures created around this. The only possible exceptions are cases where the inhibition arises from contact with the natural environment rather than with social forces - a small minority of cases (some diseases are fatal... the ability to live in wilderness can be impeded by some disabilities... these aren't necessarily social effects in the same way).

From a Stirnerian, Deleuzian or Nietzschean point of view, everyone and every living creature is unique. It has a will-to-power, a tendency to self-actualisation and expressions of agency in the world. Different people - and different species - have different capabilities, needs, affinities and resonances. So, disability is not the same thing as weakness. Every disability is also a special ability. This is very obvious with psychological conditions like autism, schizophrenia, bipolar "disorder", where people often have special abilities (around half of people with autism for example). A lot of the best hackers, scientists, inventors have one or more of these conditions. But, it's also true of physical disabilities: blind people have heightened power in their other senses, some of them can "see" a blueprint of the room from sound or touch. In East Asia it is traditional that blind people are masseurs because of their exceptional touch ability, in South America they were believed to have second sight. So, a lot of people with disabilities are like mutants in the X-men movies. Restricted in some ways but exceptional in others. And if some people seem to have disabilities with no corresponding benefit, they nonetheless have particular capabilities which remain at normal or higher level (other senses, the mind vs the body, etc). An oppressive society plays up the restrictions and downplays the exceptional or normal-level abilities - it puts hurdles in people's way based on the nature of their mind or body. It therefore encourages people to focus on their limits rather than their power. This leads to the standard Fanonian/de Beauvoirian position: the struggle against particular forms of oppression based on particular positionalities is a struggle for the realisation of existential freedom. The liberation of the category of people as a path to liberation of each human individual. Everyone has existential freedom to self-actualise based on resonance, but this is artificially limited because of discrimination - hence the struggle against liberation is not just group A versus group B, it is a struggle for human freedom in general, for existence preceding essence, or becoming against being.

But, from a Deleuzian, Stirnerian or Nietzschean position, this needs to be qualified with a bit of "trans-" or "anti-humanism". A specific "human" is always a combination of forces specific to humanity and nonhuman forces, forces relating to the environment, objects, other creatures with which the human is combined. (This may be true of all living creatures, but seems to be especially true of humans as there is less innate in humans than other species). Liberation is not simply finding an abstract existential freedom or a common human nature or species-being (such as Marx's labour-power), it is about finding particular resonances as a particular being in a world where some things resonate or have affinity and others do not. Finding one's affinity-group or bolo, one's nima in the sense of Bolo'Bolo. This is an experimental process - hence the Spinozian claim "we don't know what a body can do". The Deleuzian/Stirnerian ethical imperative is to "territorialise on" (form a psychological attachment in) a zone of desire/action and pursue it to the fullest, to the limits. If one reaches the limits before one finds peak experience, switch to another zone of desire which is more resonant with one's needs and capabilities.

Hence the difficulties with celebrating "weakness", lack, and the relationship to the master or in-group as the main focus of political struggle. These approaches paradoxically reinforce the position of negativity, the "frightened precariat" rather than the "frightening precariat" as Tsianos and Papadopoulos put it in a different context. Positioning oneself as vulnerable and powerless, often as a way to crybully using slave-morality. I would list here a number of different issues, both in idpol and neoliberalism: 1. to dwell in a melancholic way on the lack or loss of capabilities others have, to focus always on lack and neglect to develop one's abilities, 2. a scattershot anger at the people who benefit from or are unaware of the "privilege" of having a body or mind which conforms, which is a type of ressentiment, 3. an identification with the category of "disabled" (or a particular disability) in such a way as to block lines of becoming, to situate oneself always as a minor term in relation to the "able" majority/trunk, and thus to get caught in a master-slave dialectic with the "able" instead of a minoritarian becoming of one's own potentiality. Alternatively, effort goes into 4) rectifying/curing the "disability" and reaching a minimum level of performance in tasks or areas with which one does not resonate, and/or 5) managing the disability in such a way as to reduce social harm or disruption, and/or 6) attempting to achieve standard conformist goals (such as working) "in spite of" the disability (which becomes a "challenge" to be overcome). In all of these cases, the nima "counts for nothing". As Guattari says, for capitalism individual difference counts for nothing, "if you are happy or insane, if you fear old age or death, it counts for nothing - it is noise, in the information-theory sense". Much of today's therapy and social control is about managing or silencing "noise" to facilitate the smooth functioning of cybernetic capitalism.

The difficulty here is that people are in fact vulnerable, are in fact oppressed, and sometimes the involuntarily imposed relation to the oppressor is overwhelming. People's will-to-power and self-actualisation runs up against oppressive structures which sometimes seem too strong to overcome. It is natural that this finds expression in traumatic symptoms. And the fight against this blockage is utterly compatible with and necessary for the affirmation of one's own nima. Denouncing welfare cuts or imprisonment of the different is not slave-morality, any more than a political prisoner denouncing their abuse by screws is slave-morality. Yet there is a thin line between this legitimate assertion of power against the powerful and idpol negativity-mongering, which is why the latter is so hard to emotionally avoid (for me as much as others). It is informative here to study Nietzsche's three kinds of reactive force, and the way Deleuze interprets these (the first kind of reactive force is simply active force when it is blocked or frustrated; the second and third forms involve active force turning against itself - firstly a desire to repress desire, a desire to use power to repress power, and secondly, active force itself in the forms it takes when distorted by the need to resist or reroute around this repression). First-type reactive force is unavoidable in oppressed groups, and the trick is to reactivate it as active force (if necessary, on a localised small scale, in a "cramped space"), and prevent its coalescing into the second and third types - and here, the whole hegemonic apparatus of the dominant society is against us, encouraging its coalescence. Also, there is clearly a complicity between the radical project of finding one's life-path and the neoliberal project of "being all you can be". The latter is a recuperation of the former (c.f. Berardi; Boltanski and Chiapello). The work of recuperation rests on several moves - one of them, the restriction of desire to what is available - another, the conversion of one's nima into a carrot exchangeable with all the other carrots, the price of which is conformity (you *can* pursue your calling to plant forests, program computers or repair cars, but first you have to learn to conform, to sit down and shut up, to submit to pigs, show your ID on demand, conduct yourself suitably at interview...) It is not hard, if you know what you're looking for, to see in the "but first..." another ploy of reactive force. But, most do not know what they're looking for, and fall for this trick. And it is often those who fall for this trick - who entangle their nimas with social performance - who later fall for the entrenchment of reactive desire when it turns out the promise of the carrot is misleading, that their positionality and the structure of social injustice precludes their ever obtaining it. Always the antidote is to recompose on the outside - autonomy, affinity, resonance, bolo, nima. Hakim Bey: to form a group which meets regularly, and is not one's family, work colleagues or twelve-step group, is already a victory over capitalism. Anarchy does not pass through the negativity of oppressed identity, it passes through small groups which are already outside the system's logic on however limited and partial a scale, which gradually grow, chafe against their limits, and break down the walls with which the system contains them.

So, to be a "strong" person with a disability or illness in these circumstances, is to be someone who acts from, through, continues to fully invest in and actualise, one's resonances and potentialities, even when these are non-standard or "cramped". To not simply mourn losses or lacks, but to struggle against outer limits in a spirit of self-actualisation and not of ressentiment. To be "strong" in Nietzsche's sense is above all to be someone who lives through the will-to-power - which is to say, through becoming, through self-actualisation - rather than through its repression. Trauma and running up against social limits makes this harder to achieve, but not impossible. Anarchic healing from trauma entails recovering and reactivating active force - becoming "strong" again, after momentary, contingent weakness.

not so latent in your words are your morals, i.e. your opinions about what others should or shouldn't do, i.e. what governing is all about, no?
maybe you'd like to rephrase this as an opinion rather than an assertion whose strength is only in its clinging to some objective reality.
Or maybe tell us all why someone does or doesn't succumb to the cult of weakness (in your individual individualist opinion).
Or what if we started some fresh distinctions for ones like you, such as "Lone-egoists" or "Nihilish objectivists" or "Centrist individualists"?
But maybe, you'll remain hypocritical along with other "(individualist/egoist/nihilist)" anarchists who imagine themselves to know and over-involve themselves in how others behave. And if I saw this behavior be more evocative of purported desires than just a fun way to banter over DND, I might be more inclined to let the praying to objective reality slide.

But right now our realities are in conflict, yours & mine. In mine, the only thing to judge is judgement.
Call mine weak in relation to yours if you want. I describe yours as ironic or incomplete.
I only say anything because they're so close, yours & mine, at least relative to my offline interactions. And, if I am to be vulnerable with you even though it sounds like that's not your kind of thing, I do desire to feel less alone in this regard. Since I think it's in the realm of possibilities for me to witness hypocrisies destroyed when one allows theirself to stare into the darkness of subjectivity, I am looking for ones who internalize this kind of deep nihilism/individualism/egoism,

I genuinely appreciate your eloquence, you sharing your intellect, and the opportunity to attempt articulating this.

&For transparency, I do therapy because it serves me. It takes many forms, often not involving credentials or institutions. The majority of therapy I do is self directed. I imagine we all come to this website because in one way or another we find anarchism therapeutic, namely reading about it. I find nihilism, egoism, individualism, subjectivism all very therapeutic. Maybe we're all just protecting what we find soothing (e.g. from ITS to your cult members beliefs and actions). But you, you stop trying to save me.

You're apparently one of these online creatures that has so little practical experience with anarchist thought, that you think people being the least bit prescriptive while talking, or even openly disapproving of behaviour (gasp!!!) is the same as having police and military to enforce domination. So basically, you have almost zero grasp of what "governing is all about", which negates the rest of your little screed, in case you were wondering.

Sucker, you're also making prescriptive claims:
>Call mine weak in relation to yours if you want. I describe yours as ironic or incomplete

The standard move in Nietzschean thought is to get rid of judgement by transcendental standards, but assess the consistency of an ethos or desire - which is exactly what you're doing here.

I'd say exactly the same. Cult of weakness is contradictory, it is an effect of desire turned against itself (reactive force).

First, there are many types and schools of psychoterapies ("therapy" is a broader term).
If you look through them, you will find those based on relationship of submission and those based on subsidiarity, where therapeutic contract puts a professional in a coach-like position.
Also, as truly mentioned, there is a matter of competence -- and morality.

With my partner, we went through several therapies, mostly of cognitive type ( and Hellinger constellations model ( Being dysfunctional members of capitalist society, we were blaming ourselves and our relationship for that.
During the last therapy, after few months, we got to the tipping point: after successful disintegration of our old behaviour (, the therapist introduced the next stage: reintegration with societal norms and behaviour.
Then my partner said openly "thank you for your work until now, but we quit here. Now we know who we are and we do not want to reintegrate with this society."
This was the moment when we (in our 50s) officially declared ourselves as anarchists. It was 7 years ago and we never regretted this. But it would never happen without our experience of therapy.

Granted, our case was a bit special. But it shows, I hope, that therapy is a tool, that can be used both to oppress people, and to set them free.

that is a great story. i would think that your finding some level of freedom through experiencing therapy probably says more about you (and/or your partner) as an individual than it does about therapy being a potential tool for liberation. anything can indeed be a tool, but likewise, any tool requires some level of skill to be used as desired. even if finding an anarchic perspective was not your intent in experiencing therapy, the fact that you did says something. right on!

Slavery is both internal and external. Internal and external slavery feed on each other, and deepen each other.
Internal and external freedom feed on each other, and deepen each other.

The repellant posture that "there can be no obligations" is the illusory autonomy of the womb, of Margaret Thatcher, of the fossil fuel industry -- or long term SSI recepient-hood. Humans are social animals and owe obligations to one another simply by virtue of being alive.

Fuck off, castration-monger. You can't provide any material proof that people have any immanent obligations, you're just spouting an ideology you've been told is right, and backing it up with negative labels. Who's to say we ever left the womb? Get rid of the lie of castration, and isn't the world just one big womb? What's wrong with hunter-gatherers who just take what the womb provides, instead of chopping it down in line with the obligations imposed by the Law of the Father?

Margaret Thatcher, by the way, believed that people have obligations to work, obey the law, and the usual bourgeois nonsense. She's more like you than you think. And today, we aren't dealing with pure Thatcherite/Reaganites but with Third Way morons and alt-right Nazis and quasi-Nazis, all of whom believe passionately in social obligation.

i don't think we have obligations to society really, but isn't there a sense we owe it to ourselves, and kind of to the world in general and everyone around us, not to be a dick? otherwise what is to stop us from proclaiming laws and cutting down forests etc? it's weird that you mention "hunter-gatherers" without appreciating the fact that most indigenous cultures see human life as tied in to a vast web of obligations to the living world, even to the deceased ancestors and future generations.

(not the earlier person by the way)

What passes as mental disorder today, covers mainly a range of differences which prevent integration in capitalist networks of production, reproduction and consumption (the definition in DSM is based on this, in the euphemised language of everyday functioning). DSM includes everything from being transgender or being into BDSM, to a list of “personality disorders” (being too self-centred or too other-centred, too impulsive or too rigid...) and neurological differences such as autism, which become “disorders” because the system won't accommodate them. “Mental illness” has always been used to cover political/everyday deviance, but this has escalated recently, with the classification of resistance-based thought-patterns as distorted and unhealthy. Levine's work:
is particularly relevant here. The category of ASPD covers most kinds of punk-style anarchism, and if we also consider things like ADHD, high-functioning autism, and other personality disorders, then most of the traits associated with the counterculture from the 60s/70s onwards now fall into one or another clinical bracket. Being recognised as “different” is not necessarily a bad thing (this was the first step towards gay liberation for example), but today, being “different” means being risk-managed, and subjected to more-or-less coercive “therapies” to produce social compliance. This is clearly one of the reasons that the counterculture is weaker than it was.

What passes as mainstream therapy today is a naïve mix of behaviourist social control, cognitivist thought-policing, and biomedical manipulation using drugs and neuroscience. Behaviourism is ineffective because it relies on a fallacious view of human nature as rational and utility-motivated. Cognitivism wrongly asserts that thoughts cause (rather than expressing) feelings, and is mainly effective (if at all) in increasing psychological repression. Drugs have mixed effects and help some people in a similar way to painkillers. But ultimately, they control symptoms rather than removing root causes. In bourgeois psychology, a healthy person is a rational instrumental self-controlled subject acting in a world of similar subjects. From this point of view, humanity as such is “mental illness”, because it deviates from this model. Most therapy exists to help people to keep playing a false role. Even if one accepts the goals of therapy, the effectiveness of these approaches is overplayed – but they're very good at providing an infrastructure for a machinery of repression and prohibition. For instance, I've seen widespread self-policing and mutual policing of “healthy” thoughts on social media, psych forums, self-help groups and so on – and it always enforces standard neoliberal dogmas and prohibits anarchist and other dissident positions.

In bourgeois psychology, to think “healthily” is to deny the existence of an overarching system, to not nurture anger or grievances, and instead to think in myopic terms of individual life choices, profits, and risks. To recognise social reality – for instance, the fact that many people are subject to unbearable stress, and this causes outbursts of anger or despair – is taken to be toxic thinking. It's prohibited because it “causes” deviance. Thought-crimes are real today: do a google scholar search on “criminal thinking”, this is actually a serious topic in mainstream psychology. Anger in particular is prohibited, particularly “upwards”; oppressed people are constantly dealing with barely suppressed rage, stemming from the desire to refuse or reciprocate the humiliations and indignities imposed “downwards” on them, as Fanon and James Scott have shown. Both expressions of “upward” anger, and displacements of the resultant pool of aggressivity (such as depression and anxiety), are pathologised, without the social causes being recognised. Over the last 20 years, Elias' “civilising process” has sped-up in relation to overt anger. Types of angry speech which were normal 20 years ago are treated as prohibited abuse today. This is accompanied by an explosion of depression (anger turned inwards), anxiety (about suppressed anger getting out), passive aggression (disavowed anger), and explosive outbursts of formerly suppressed anger. It's interesting to read Leo Abse on the “Politics of Perversion” - he has captured the psychological structure of the mainstream pretty well in my opinion.

In terms of alternative approaches. Different psychological theories and therapeutic approaches have very different definitions of what counts as “sickness”, “health” (or equivalents) and the means from the former to the latter. In this, there's a rough equivalence between therapy, self-help, education, and religion, which all rest on a definition of (undesirable) A and (desirable) B and a passage from A to B. The problematic aspects of the model in terms of power are 1) the decision to classify A as deviant, which might override the will of the classified person, stigmatise them, and aid social control, 2) the decision to classify B as healthy, when it might also cause suffering, complicity etc, and 3) the assertion of authority to name A and B and oversee the transition from A to B, which incurs discursive and often institutional authority. Much of the “soft power” of civil society is rooted in variants of these strategies. However, it is possible to define A, B and the process in ways which are compatible with anarchism. For example, if we define A as civilised humans, B as wildness and the process as rewilding, we have a primitivist “therapy”. If we define A as submissive sheepishness, B as assertive egoism and the process as self-empowerment, we have an insurrectionist “therapy”.

Activists have started taking psychological suffering more seriously lately – but sadly, often by importing mainstream and idpol assumptions which are utterly ineffective. IMO we need to attack the dominant CBT/DSM paradigm and insist on some kind of autonomous alternative. Today there's a lot of talk about trauma and healing. The rhetoric of “healing” in identity politics is annoying, because it's so closely tied-up with self-help rhetoric. Personal “healing” is conflated with self-assertion as a rational subject and assumption of power within broadly conventional frames. Most of the people taking this stance do not seem very “healed” to me, but rather, have a complex mess of scattershot anger, disavowal of this anger, disavowed complicity, emotional hypersensitivity, and enforcement of a persona or image of a “healed” liberated subject which conflicts with their actual emotional state. They also tend to conflate “healing” with group liberation (e.g. decolonisation) in a way which downgrades the social and revolutionary aspects of the latter. Most often they're legitimising their own partial conformity and using psychological rhetoric to keep themselves unconscious of this process of rationalisation. This isn't to say that there's nothing to their ideas. It is true that “speaking truth to power”, successful protest, and activities such as feminist consciousness-raising have always been known to have empowering, psychologically beneficial effects for participants. See for example:
(Chapter 15) and:
However, nobody would term these activities primarily “healing” until recently. Anyone who's experienced anarchism at its best – a really successful riot, say – has felt the liberation which comes with shaking off the shackles of oppression. But, this experience only comes in moments of successful revolt. Twitterstorms against other radicals or harmlessly calling a few politicians racists is a poor ersatz substitute for this kind of liberation psychology.

Unfortunately I think we're seeing an importation into activism of the Third Way tactic of supplementing the system with therapy, education, self-help, ethics, and/or spirituality as if this will solve its root problems and render incompatible visions compatible. We're not allowed to talk about the system – that's a thought-crime, there's a denkverbot, an order not to think, against it. Therefore, the problems arising from the system – and desires and demands contrary to the system (for ecological sustainability, gender equality, an end to poverty, welfare provision, and so on) are actually compatible with it. They're problems of secondary, mostly top-down, modification of the system so that it produces slightly different effects. Problems of “culture”, with “culture” conceived in cognitive-behaviourist and rational-choice terms, as a kind of balance of trust, social capital, and opportunity-structures. Idpol is doing some weird thing where it kinda semi readmits talk about the system provided it's named as primarily a discursive hierarchy (“white supremacy”, “patriarchy”) and theorised as a “culture” in the Third Way sense, rather than a socio-economic structure or a regime of elite power. The resultant “therapy” is not therapeutic because it leaves the core blockage (the inability to name, reject, and fight the real oppressor) untouched.

Should there be an anarchist therapy? In my view, yes, but with qualifications. There are certainly cases where people are classified as “mentally ill” or problematic, when they're actually engaged in politically disapproved deviance. Kids being drugged because they hate school, Soviet dissidents being sent to mental asylums, “criminals” being “risk-assessed” based on psychological criteria, people's political cynicism being treated as paranoia, their anti-authoritarianism as ASPD, and so on. There's people with conditions like schizophrenia and autism, who want to be recognised as different, not to be “cured”.

But I don't think this means “no therapy” full stop. The problem is that psychological distress is real, and it's becoming more pervasive. Showing that it's constructed, or that dominant models of health are just models of conformity, doesn't necessarily reduce the distress. For instance, we have lots of cases of activists suffering trauma or burnout, which means they can no longer be as active as they want to. This isn't a case of the system telling people their deviant self-expression is a “disorder”, it a case of people blocked from acting the way they want. The same with effects of poverty, racism and so on. There's people growing up with trauma and despair, for whom it isn't a desirable difference, it's a painful blockage. So, we need ways to untie knots and clear blockages to free up active forces and flows, and allow people to become anarchic, liberated agents of the kind people like Landstreicher value. These processes need not necessarily be performed by specialists, or under the name “therapy”. They can occur at a small-group level or peer-to-peer, or even spontaneously, in events such as riots. But we should be looking at how the knots can be untied. The point is to free each unique individual from reactive entanglements and “wheels in the head”, not to mould people in line with an ideal of how they should be.

Some other critical approaches which might be of use:

Psychoanalysis focuses on the origins of psychological problems in early childhood. There's complex theories of child development which vary between different schools. The techniques use liminal procedures (free association, dialogue, dream analysis, slip-ups...) to reconstruct and untie the knots existing at an unconscious level. The idea of the unconscious is in my opinion absolutely vital to any anarchist psychology – people are not unitary rational subjects and a freely lived life is lived according to desires which do not have a rational origin.

In particular, there's a “left” (Freudo-Marxist) strand to psychoanalysis which is potentially useful to anarchists, in the work of scholars like Reich, Fromm, Marcuse, Castoriadis, Deleuze/Guattari, and the Situationists. It's inspired things like Somatherapy (advertised as an “anarchist therapy”) and Lowen's bioenergetics.

Jungian psychoanalysis/analytical psychology
Spin-off from Freudian psychoanalysis which posits a “collective unconscious” - a store of myths and archetypes from which people draw. The purpose of life is the emergence of a higher, transpersonal self through a process of psychological journeying. Different symbols appear in someone's life as part of this process. The politics of Jungian theory is ambiguous. It's used by progressives such as Clara Pinkola Estes, Starhawk, and James Hillman, but also by some very reactionary people such as Jordan Peterson.

German critical psychology
Radical, socially-rooted critical psychology linked to social constructivism.

Anti-psychiatry and Mad Liberation
Movement to reject psychological labelling, sometimes by “mad” people themselves, sometimes by critical psychiatrists. Linked to existentialism.

Marxist critique of psychology/critical psychology, e.g. Mark Fisher and David Smail
Psychological problems are actually side-effects of social structures. They are wrongly psychologised to displace blame onto individuals. It's better to accept that these problems are insoluble effects of structures and fight to change/overthrow the structures. Particular critique of “magical voluntarism” - the idea that people can overcome fundamental problems through heroic acts of will or good choices.

History of madness
Foucault in particular shows how “madness” is a category for classifying and segregating or excluding forms of being incompatible with capitalism. Other relevant works include Roy Porter's history of madness.

Consciousness Raising
Classical feminist technique, widely used in the 1970s. Small-group discussions focused on particular topics are used to produce a “click” in which personal problems are seen in social terms and blame is shifted from individual failings to social structures.

Precarity Consciousness Raising
An anarchist attempt to revive CR around issues of precarity and neoliberal personalisation of responsibility.

Existential therapy (Rogers, Maslow, Frankl)
Based on existentialism, which rejects the idea of predefined social purposes and insists that people have basic existential freedom and responsibility to find their own life-path. Sees most psychological problems as effects of this existential situation, and the struggle to find a life-path/ Generally focuses on finding purpose in life, rather than particular symptoms. (I believe existentialism is a major influence on insurrectionary anarchists such as Bonanno, and also on Hakim Bey's idea of peak experience, so it's a good fit with anarchism, though it neglects the unconscious).

Lacanian psychoanalysis
A later, French spin-off which combines Freudian theory with structural linguistics, and attributes psychological problems to difficulties arising from the insertion of a self in language, the necessary incompleteness of self-definition (which depends on an “extimate” Other) and a resultant desire for, and impossibility of, immediate desire and enjoyment. Different variants; generally conservative (the goal is to reconcile people to “lack” and “castration”, to have them stop seeking justice in the outer world) though there are people who take it in a more radical direction – most postanarchists are Lacanian-influenced (Roussell, May, etc) as well as people like Zizek and Badiou, and feminists like Irigaray and Kristeva.

Reich/Lowen Tradition
Based on Reich's approach, seeks to create a particular bioenergetic balance of a self-directed and productive person, focuses on breaking down various kinds of character-armour which block energetic flows.

Internal Family Systems Therapy
One of several approaches which theorise the psyche as composed of multiple “parts” rather than a unitary self (an idea also present in psychoanalysis). While its goals are reformist, the political implications of viewing the self as fragmentary in this way are often progressive.

section 4. A French variant of anti-psychiatry or Freudo-Marxism, based on the idea of releasing repressed flows from blockages.

Alienation from nature as the root of psychological problems. Similar to anarcho-primitivism.

Psychedelic therapy
Growing evidence that drugs popular with the counterculture, such as marijuana, ecstasy, LSD, mescalene and psilocybin, have beneficial psychological effects – including producing more anti-authoritarian personality-structures. Some radicals have started using the term “biosyndicalism” for self-determined self-transformation using drugs, as opposed to coerced medicalised drugging.

Asian-origin bioenergy approach, views disturbances of mind and body in terms of blockages of energy flows, uses techniques including yoga and visualisation to clear blockages.

Transpersonal Psychology
Seeking transcendent peak experiences or mystical experiences as a way to “heal” problems rooted in the ego. Similar to Buddhism/Taoism.

Duran and Duran, Native American Postcolonial Psychology
Uses the idea of the “soul wound” of historical trauma, plus Jungian insights and traditional Native American approaches. Situates problems in Native American communities in terms of colonialism and power. Slightly idpol-ish but not pure idpol by any means.

Liberation Social Psychology
A Latin American movement focused on social causes of psychological distress. Interested in trauma caused by states.

Ayurvedic medicine
Traditional Indian approach, based on ideas of balancing biological forces.

Traditional indigenous healing, and shamanism
Often based on creating liminal zones (temporary spaces of altered consciousness where identities and hierarchies break down), and using these to shift personalities and/or social relations. Often focus on healing relations among people, rather than individuals.

New Age
Based loosely on indigenous and Asian traditional approaches. Use of energy healing, rituals, resonant objects etc, to produce supposed healing effects. In practice, sometimes serves either as magical thinking about the status quo or alternative methods to standard therapeutic goals (self-control etc). But, also associated with drop-out movements which reject consumerist and capitalist life-goals, such as New Age Travellers.

Au contraire, Ritalin-head; Thatcher said that society does not exist. This dove-tails well with your specific brand of self-involved exhaustive prolixity.

There is no such thing as society. There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate.’
Flattery to divert attention away from the excessive wealth of the aristocracy.

Margaret Thatcher, is that you?

You tools go this mental block that makes you define concepts by their most well-known or infamous producers.

"Society doesn't exist" is an idea in itself. It doesn't require a Thatcher to make it truthful, just reason and some pragmatism.

Right-wing libertarians also say that the privately-run money system is a form of enslavement to global gangster capitalists... and how can anyone disagree to that? This idea in itself does not carry a right-wing ontology; even tho it's a limited, liberal analysis of the system that suits their own views due to not looking at it as component of a deeper, larger capitalism. Also it's your mind that makes the forceful association by the connection to the people who used and diffused the idea, for more political abuse.

Politicians say all kinds of shit. Lenin said the workers should control production. Blair said that workers should be treated as stakeholders, and Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Bush said that he believed in human rights. Trump said that he was going to root out the Washington swamp. Netanyahu said that he believed in a two-state solution. Hitler said that Munich would be the end of it. Obama said that he'd make the market work for everyone, not just the rich. You realise politicians lie, right? And oversimplify for PR effect. And spout propaganda. And say things to rally their supporters, or annoy their opponents. This is political science 101, idiot.

If Thatcher really believed that society does not exist, she would not have passed the Public Order Act. That's right, PUBLIC order. She would not have attacked free festivals, which offend social prejudices. She would not have tried to crack down on crime. She would have scrapped laws against drugs, public nudity, self-build, a thousand other laws with no INDIVIDUAL benefit aside from dominant prejudices or aggregate social effects. Thatcher did not believe - no neoliberals believe - that the state or the rich have redistributive or welfare duties towards the poor, or that "society" rather than individuals can be responsible for social problems or deviance. And that's all she meant.

What is wrong with the deterioration? [mistranscription?] I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand “I have a problem, it is the Government's job to cope with it!” or “I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!” “I am homeless, the Government must house me!” and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and [end p29] there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour and life is a reciprocal business and people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation and it is, I think, one of the tragedies in which many of the benefits we give, which were meant to reassure people that if they were sick or ill there was a safety net and there was help, that many of the benefits which were meant to help people who were unfortunate—“It is all right. We joined together and we have these insurance schemes to look after it”. That was the objective, but somehow there are some people who have been manipulating the system and so some of those help and benefits that were meant to say to people: “All right, if you cannot get a job, you shall have a basic standard of living!” but when people come and say: “But what is the point of working? I can get as much on the dole!” You say: “Look! It is not from the dole. It is your neighbour who is supplying it and if you can earn your own living then really you have a duty to do it and you will feel very much better!”

In other words, Thatcher is saying EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE SAYING.

She is saying that people can't have rights without responsibilities and everyone has obligations to society and people shouldn't get a free ride. Too many slackers nowadays. Work or starve.


And your political incompetence is proven by your inability to analyse a political agenda beyond a knee-jerk reaction to soundbytes, or even to read it in its fucking CONTEXT.

1in5 below the poverty line in thacher land starve you say it cold out there am i hearing you right

It's also noteworthy that Dubya said, in a public speech, that freedom is the future of all mankind. Something that all marxists would agree with

Well, I never heard any therapist talking about mental illness. What the psychotherapy is about, is managing the dysfunction -- even more precisely, dysfunctional behaviour. And dysfunction is all about the context. There is no functional/dysfunctional behaviour without a context.
The same behaviour can be highly functional among anarchists and totally dysfunctional in context of good citizens (which is the most obvious case we all experience).
So, comrades ranting about "mental ilnesss" and stuff, are barking wrong tree, I am afraid.

The reality is much simpler and can be described in few sentences: If one's behaviour becomes dysfunctional to the level which is unbearable for this very person, one can look for help. The method to help varies, due to a combination of personal dynamics/history, beliefs (including political beliefs) and available trustworthy practitioners. But the entry condition is that the person decides to choose radical and painful process of dis/reintegration over denial and rationalisation. That is why so few people enters the process and much fewer completes it. It is not ice; it is not easy; it is not for the weak. But it saves people (occassionally).

We are all free to live in denial -- among all other ways to live. And we are all free to tell others how weak they are (implicitly: compared to us). But what we can do is not always what we should do. Just saying.

They've partly stopped using the word "illness". The biomedical model was all the rage after they discovered biological causes for syphilitic "madness" and managed to "cure" it, after which they assumed everything (schizophrenia, depression etc) had biological causes. The term has outlasted this stage but the official jargon generally uses the term "disorder" instead. Which is arguably an even more reactionary term, since it connotes social disruption ("disorder" can also mean rioting or insubordination) and implies a dysregulation of cybernetic systems (the trend in contemporary psychology is to treat humans as cybernetic systems, in line with the dominant model of production).

I'd also question the term "behaviour", because it elides the distinction between 1) rationalistic, calculated actions, 2) deliberate actions motivated by ethos, 3) symptoms with unconscious motives, 4) non-deliberate and even uncontrollable actions, and 5) movements which are not even those of an actor (e.g. the "behaviour" of molecules or weather systems). The word tends to hegemonise the entire series under the figure of either 1 or 5, and respond accordingly. In the case of 1, with judgement and deterrence; in the case of 5, with aggregative measures which take no account of the agent. Whereas nearly everything falling in the field of psychiatry/therapy/mental illness or disorder falls somewhere in the 2-4 range, at which point these responses become both unjust/barbaric and ineffective. And the concept lends itself to a series of moves which disarticulate act from actor (and social context, and causality) and act against it in inhuman ways. "Such-and-such behaviour will not be tolerated". A sovereign decision for or against an outcome, without examining the causes or eliminability of what is being outlawed. Like King Canute: "tidal encroachment behaviour will not be tolerated". And this covers a whole range of 2-4 phenomena and conceals the cruelty and discrimination involved. For instance, "anti-social behaviour will not be tolerated" pretty much amounts to "autistic and psychotic people not welcome", and often also "poor people (particularly children and homeless people) not welcome". A modern-day "no blacks no Jews no Irish", but it seems so "reasonable" by comparison, because of the language.

Yes, functional or dysfunctional differs with context (and goal). Deviance (the more usual concept in sociology) also varies with norms - something can stop being deviant simply by being accepted (e.g. gay sex). Whereas the language of psychology and "behaviour" tends to militate towards less tolerance ("it's a behaviour, it's learnt and changeable"), the language of sociology of deviance militates towards greater tolerance ("it's just deviance, people can choose to tolerate it").

The other important point is to reintroduce the unconscious and the issue of causality - because most often, with so-called mental illnesses or disorders, we are not dealing with a "choice" to "behave", or to "heal" or "not heal", so much as unconscious processes which kick in regardless of the person's will. The account Petros offers, in terms of "choice" to self-disintegrate (die and be reborn, like Jesus, or a born-again Christian) or to remain in denial (original sin), a choice of the "hard but beneficial" versus the "easy but harmful", is a rationalistic misrepresentation which puts the cart before the horse. It is not the conscious, or the ego, which "decides" on symptomatic "behaviour", or to seek therapy or not, or whether a therapy works or not. The anterior cingulate cortex is a tiny part of the brain with an inhibiting, not a generative, role. The underlying complex - which may be a reactive blockage, or simply a structure of desire - operates at an unconscious level. It can be changed - if at all - only on an unconscious level. Denial and rationalisation do not *cause* symptoms. They are ways to retrospectively make sense of the world as it appears when subject to a particular set of conditions - just like every other empirically based ideology. The source of the symptom is affective, emotional. It resides in the unconscious. And it shifts with unconscious forces. Often, the reactivation of active force is an important part of transformation. Social context matters. Someone beset by hypervigilance, or a psychopathic abuse-or-be-abused complex, or a fear of impending annihilation which they ward off through ego-inflation, will fall deeper into their "symptom" the more they're besieged, and begin to loosen it as the environment becomes safer. Someone who's depressed needs an outlet for their repressed anger, or a sense of purpose in life which will reactivate a will to live. There isn't some grimdark choice to jump into the abyss or not, which separates the born-again saved from the lazy, self-indulgent sinners. Self-transformation can be partial or gradual, it can involve the persistence of a personality structure but in a context which renders it harmless, or it can be a joyous process of liminal experimentation. Riots are therapeutic. Raves are therapeutic. A traumatised person can recover after years in a commune, or living as a hermit in nature. People can lose their symptoms through self-empowerment, as in Fanon's account of revolution. To the extent that individual choice plays a role, it's in the choice to reconstruct social environments or seek alternatives (which is often severely restricted by symptoms, particularly in depressive, traumatic and anxious conditions).

...even if I do not share it.

I described my experience, adding some more general reflection to it, in the language I use to describe what I perceive and think. It may help some readers, either directly or by causing them to oppose. I hope it will do no harm to anybody (one can only hope, because complexity). That is all. Exegeses belong to exegetists. :-)

I wish you, @critic and all comrades successful journey towards death (question "how am I going to die?" is a very good tool to draw existential and practical roadmaps, btw).

Have fun!

I'm gonna get killed by a pig.

i'd prefer my that executioner be cat. likely a cougar or jaguar.

Ugh, so depressing, I'm going to die peacefully in bed with my loved ones beside me, so sentimentally bourgeois despite my being an existentialist pseudo-saddhu, or otherwise by bee-sting like Stirner,.,

The cool thing about therapy is that it can help you get on SSI -- then you can write stuff like, "...there can be no obligations..." 'cause the bourgeois state is carrying your weak, dependent, inadequate ass. Long live anarchy!

i know this is (kind of) a (bad) joke, but SSI/SSDI is really not easy to get on. it is almost impossible without a lawyer unless you have a really obvious physical disability like blindness or missing limbs or something.

Because in a world where capitalism has largely destroyed subsistence economics, and the elite and the state hoard most of the resources, it's somehow worse to get resources free from the elite, rather than to suck some boss's cock in return for resources?

People don't become "strong" or "independent" by "earning a living", this is a bourgeois fiction. Unless you're robbing banks or living self-sufficiently off-grid, you're dependent in this sense.

I did quite well in my latter teens self-administering Soma-therapy via its various methods and am a recognized self-taught Soma-tberapist who is always in demand from folk who have totally fucked-up values and relationships,..

Alcohol, sugar, salt, caffeine, nicotine, and red meat all in excess will turn one into a fascist schizo with severe health and personal relationship issues without a doubt,.,

i have a gluten-induced autoimmune disorder that throughout my life, before i understood this and started treating it as such, led to me being diagnosed with ADHD, bipolar depression, major depression, anxiety disorder and autism spectrum disorder. i still have a lot of issues around this type of stuff, it doesn't just go away, but it has gotten much better since fixing my diet. mental health professionals have done a great deal of harm to my life, dosing me with toxic drugs and essentially telling me that my beliefs and lifestyle as an anarchist were evidence i was crazy, which made me so angry i just threw it back in my faces and told them there was nothing wrong with me, just society, but this wasn't true either.

yes, the "science is still out" and i know it sounds like woo bullshit to some people, but it is increasingly being seen that brain inflammation is a physical basis to a lot of mental health problems (autoimmune disorder basically means excessive inflammatory reactions, which become chronic and systemic), and that what happens in the gut has a lot to do with what happens in the brain. anecdotally there are a lot of stories out there of people stumbling across this treatment in one way or another, i think i've even seen someone else mention on here how gluten free/casein free diets are increasingly recommended as a trial therapy for children with all kinds of mental health issues and its doing wonders, as these are two of the most common and severe autoimmunity-triggering proteins. autoimmune disorders are also understood now to be a lot more prevalent than we once thought.

the person who pointed me towards cracking my own health health puzzle used to say that food is one of the main, if not the biggest ways that people are controlled in society. i used to think that made some sense, but maybe she was exaggerating or projecting a little because she also was dealing with a similar situation where a careful diet was key to managing her health. lo and behold, me too...and having gone through all this i agree with her way, way more now. body and mind are one system and ayurveda in particular (the millennia-old "science of life") has a lot of really interesting stuff to explain why that is and how to deal with it. for instance in ayurveda, the immune and digestive systems fall under "pitta" the "fiery" force in the body, which is aggravated by stuff like sugar, dairy and alcohol, and correlates behaviorally/psychologically with anger, self-righteousness, high sex drive, impulsiveness...looking back it is easy to see for many reasons that my pitta was running amok. i mean, take it with a grain of salt to speak, but seriously, read about ayurveda. western civ is really proud of its smallpox vaccines and spaceships and crap, but it's pretty pathetic when it comes to figuring out what's good to eat and other really basic stuff we should pay much more attention to as living beings.

anyway i try to stay pretty far away from all of that fiery pitta these days, as well as taming my constitutive "vata" tendency to drift and depression, and it has done wonders for me. i really can't handle activism anymore because of it - keeping up with the news/internet riles me up bad enough as it is - and i have a lot less hope for the world. we have a country full of people living off of corn syrup, uppers and factory-farmed's no wonder most of them can't string two fucking intelligent thoughts together. our the orange fuhrer himself lives off of fast food; makes sense to me. it's a level of "material conditions" that is super hard to address: you can't reason with a gut, you can only put different stuff into it, and most people react with such horror, defensiveness and even rage when you suggest this to them. you might even be feeling pretty defensive right now reading this....ask yourself why? the human body, like any living organism, tries to adapt to its conditions. when something creates an extreme adverse condition, the body will try to adjust to living off of it and even form a dependency on the very thing that is hurting it. paradoxical and sad but deeply true in my experience. it also tends to get fixed very early in life, because of the body's natural habit-forming tendency, because of social conformity pressures and because of trauma (from people, from bad food, from whatever else) that makes us get mentally/physically "stuck" in time and denying it. bla bla ok im done with my woo rant. be health yall.

*be healthy
and some other hopefully pretty obvious typos

People like Kelly Brogan and the cytokine theorists are onto the same thing you are and I expect them to be validated in the future as far as gut brain dynamics go.

people that suffer from anarchist personality disorder typically are autists that have 50 things wrong with them. Some suffer from munchausens anarchist disorder, mad for short, that likes to tell people they have 50 things wrong with them for "i'm more fucked up than you" points. All autists have gluten issues, it's what gave them the autist disease.

I like how you're saying things here! Yeah! Saying things and stuff!

people with macho prick disorder enjoy belittling other people for having real or imagined mental health problems, until they actually act on their macho prick beliefs, go to war and come back with PTSD.

hey … there's diverse types of people who enjoy belittling you! DONT PUT ME IN A BOX

yeah, one must be insane for wanting to opt out of the Standard American Diet, that’s pro-inflammatory, induces insulin spikes (stimulating fight or flight response), and causes oxidative stress.

just call someone a name so discussion gets shut down doesn’t get rid of finer points and problems. the rate of diabetes the Standard American Diet contributes to is a staggering development. it has nothing to do with ‘autists,’ and everything to do with the sugar industry paying of doctors to lie about the effects of sugar and vilify dietary saturated fats...for decades (longer than you’ve been trolling).

as far as gluten. once again. nothing to do with autists. have you heard of the PEP pathway? Leaky gut?

trolling is so trick pony tactic

for sure what we put in determines what comes out. we are so many relations, down to out gut microbiome.

Weighing 66lbs less this year, I think your post on diet, gut health determining mental health is spot on!

our genome is still very aligned and attuned to the necessities of our hunter-gatherer ancestral pathways. the modern food system, much like social media, took advantage of loopholes in dopamine response. and it’s mind boggling that we’re still paying to live, paying for shit food no one knows where most of it comes from, how many people handle, what’s in it. it addresses a root problem, a root mental health issue:

we rent ourselves to fucking do the most basic thing...

well, the person you're responding to - who was responding to me at about 0/10 - is clearly a fascist who thinks people with any sort of divergence or disability should be exterminated, whether it's autism spectrum disorder or gluten intolerance. by the way, i have both of those things and so do a couple people in my family, so i would strongly suspect based on that that they're connected, even if i hadn't been reading articles about it. but they are...the gut is the second brain, as we know, and inflammatory disorders can affect the brain, which can cause all sorts of affective issues. this is part of what's described in ayurveda as overactivity of pitta, which contributes to things like mood swings, anger and judgment, insatiable libido leading to sexual frustration and various kinds of acting-out - unfortunately these are pretty common in any sort of political activist, an anarchist or a nazi or whatever, a lot of them love confrontation! it's that shitty pro-inflammatory diet, i'm telling you. i wouldn't believe it if i hadn't experienced such a dramatic change in my own personality and mindset once i started cleaning up my own diet, but there it is. if you ask me an inability to seriously question whether you're wrong or not is a key sign of an inflamed brain.

>clearly a fascist who thinks people with any sort of divergence or disability should be exterminated, whether it's autism spectrum disorder or gluten intolerance

If this is the “anarchist personality disorder” guy you're on about, he didn't say that, he said that gluten's bad for you and causes autism. He didn't call for anyone to be killed, he called for people to stop following conventional diets, which is the same thing you're saying. TBH his tone seems pretty intolerant towards people with diagnoses, and he sees autism as something to be cured, but you seem to think this as well since you're treating it as something to be eliminated by dietary changes? We really don't need to idpol-escalate everything into genocide, it's not helping the quality of discourse, as we saw with the whole bookfair fiascos. Personally I suspect autism is a kind of formation where a person never passes through the mirror stage/Oedipus complex and remains in the “pre-Oedipal” range of subjectivity – no law-of-the-father, no castration, no imaginary insertion in the symbolic order. Instead there's a range of issues around the desire for a nurturing world and self-world fusion, versus experiences of a hostile world which can seem existentially annihilating. Self-world flows don't have the strong boundaries they have in neurotics, and this is why there's dietary and sensory issues.

just to chime in on the discussion of obligation. i've often thought of an obligation as distinct from a duty, in a similar way that morality should be distinct from ethics. the nuances often pivot on semantics and (perhaps) idiosyncratic usage. i reject duties, since they are always imposed and hierarchical; to paraphrase Wilde, duties are how you want others to behave. i see obligation as self-imposed, or better yet, voluntary. even more, i see an obligation to be entirely one way -- my obligation in relation to you is independent of any obligation you may have toward me. it's like a gift, in that if it's not freely given with no consideration of reciprocation, then it's not really a gift. i see obligation the same way: it's something i decide to do (or not do) based on my own desires at the moment. any so-called obligation that requires unquestioned adherence should rather be called a duty. i prefer to be (ahem) duty-free.

Thou has chimed in with a nuanced distinction being made herewith.

Actually I think he has a point. I would never posit it in terms of duties or obligations. But, I do feel happier when I help others. It brings the world closer to being what I want it to be, it's expressively in line with my ethos, and it carries a sense of positive power. I'll also try to support people who end up relying on me for whatever reason. What I really detest though, is the idea of general abstract obligatory social duties imposed as a criterion of belonging to Society or being Decent People or avoiding one or another anathema (not being a moocher, an asshole, a Thatcherite, a narcissist, infantile, selfish, psychopathic, etc etc). I hate having demands placed on me like this, and I hate the "social club" mentality which restricts compassion, cooperation, and basic rights to people who "meet their obligations" or "reciprocate". And I think to be honest, the kickback against obligatory "shoulds" is not limited to me, it's demonstrated as a general rule of human life by experiments on psychological reactance - forcing people to do something may increase compliance when they're unfree, but it reduces the desire to conform spontaneously and it increases the desire to deviate, even if this desire did not previously exist. If you want to prefigure an altruistic world that's fine. It reflects our higher selves in my view, but don't go around imposing it by force, or by social triage or democide thank you very much. Better a higher altruistic egoism than a lower one, but better an honest war of all against all than a genocidal war of an ingroup defined by reciprocal obligation against the "un-men" and the nonhumans excluded from it. One, we don't need the exterminatory/exclusionary dynamic towards people (and animals, and plants) who happen not to enjoy helping others. A tiger is just a tiger, it doesn't matter less than a sheep because it happens to be solitary and carnivorous, and the same goes for humans. Two, we do not need the distribution of social validation and condemnation as main correlates of other-regarding action. This actually corrupts egoistic altruism by turning it into a path to status. Three, we do not need the obligatory norms and expectations which make it all the more difficult to relate to other people in an "I-thou" way in terms of their actual needs and capabilities, and form affinities on this basis. Some people have a gut abhorrence of working, some people feel threatened by being told what to do, some people can't control their tempers under pressure, some people have the mental age of a five-year-old, none of it makes any difference in terms of coexisting with them, it just makes it easier or harder to find a workable way to coexist with them, or requires a different arrangement or a different set of allowances. (Neurotics, including authoritarians and clinical narcissists, have inner blocks on their own desires, and this means that I don't recognise their right to be what they are in the same way as other creatures, but it also doesn't really affect the question of coexistence).

I want a nurturing world which provides basic rights across a wide spectrum (human/civil rights, welfare, autonomy, concrete freedom) - as much as a self-interested egoist, as because of my gut response to the oppression of others (it is literally in my self-interest that such a world exist, as well as being in line with my desires and political projects) - and acting in line with the desire to build such a world is not an outer obligation but an extension of my desire and will, no different from the fact that I eat when I'm hungry, I wank or fuck when I'm horny, I fight someone who's trying to kill me, or I fight to defend my own living conditions when they're under attack. There's no transcendent Kantian ethical level distinct from desire, no a priori moral truth, no Levinasian call of the Other, it's all just desire, just dirty egoistic psychotic/neurotic resonant-connective wild-nature human/transhuman desire in the same way the bad stuff and the self-interested stuff is, and that's absolutely fine, it doesn't have to be anything more. I think we get to a nurturing world by acting to build it - for instance, by helping others - but also by getting rid of normativity, the sovereign bar (see Agamben), and social triage - including normativity/sovereignty/triage regulated by the ideas of compassion, reciprocity, ethical obligation, unselfishness, etc etc.

The larger story here is that the anarchist subculture attracts victim types who are preoccupied with their own problems.

the larger story is that the belief in the system gives rise to underlying relational tensions that vent in persons we call anarchists.


economic growth is what’s focused on, but destruction is the part of the transformational process happening at the same time.

and this very conception of growth can never account for the ‘externalities’ it gives rise to.

it balds earth where there once was forest and can can claim ‘the lumber company grew this year by x percent.’

that is an example of an interference pattern.

now, i see your point as how some people narratively frame their valid response to generations of leaving negative causality, aka our common living space completely out of counting as an active participant in human life (the concern instead being on abstract concepts, and abstracting/mediating life’s vast processes as being contained/tamed/measured by them).

humans are very slow to re-realise what they already knew long ago: we are but one strand in a web of inter-dependent relations...we are not in control.

this world already exists beyond measure. see feyerabend’s ‘against method.’

do not have character problems at all.

Frequently I describe myself as a brain damaged, mentally deranged, hippie dippy, and only people who don't know me think I'm just joking. Among other things, I have no sense of smell and am lucky if I remember your name, my own address, or what bus I'm on. That's why I took up writing, because I still do a Rubic's Cube inside my head and make Zen masters look silly on a daily basis. Brain damage and PTSD are epidemic among America's poor. I was living on the streets when Ronald Reagan laughed and said, "What homeless people?" Then released all mental patients from every mental hospital in the country.

They were fighting over stale donuts, stealing each other's shoes and blankets, when some friends dragged me off to my first Rainbow Gathering. It is a debt that I am happy to say, I can never repay. Pay it forward, and the foolishness of others no longer concerns you.

LSD breaks chromosomes, makes people go crazy and jump off of buildings!

LDS was involved in the Berkley free speech movement, and explains why Donald Duck is president, and determined to turn Big Bird into his next Thanksgiving feast.

And I don't think it's "only" from violent crime, which seems to be what the BBC imagine.

There's a similar "complex" of clusterings of problems which appears in poor communities worldwide, Native Americans, Australian Aboriginals, and - most tellingly - has started appearing *for the first time* in recently displaced Kayapo and Bushmen communities... roughly, depression, suicide, anger problems, addictions, recklessness, and everyday violence.

Some recent research by psychoneuroimmunologists indicates that diet plays a major role in mental health and I posit that the carnivorous Homo Sapiens waged a genocidal war against the vegan Neanderthals using their advanced hunting and killing weapons to dominate other species. It may have been that if Neanderthals had been the only hominid species on Earth that civilization and the Empires which were spawned out of domination would have never risen out of the primeval wilderness.

Academics are teaching complete idiots how to destroy the entire planet, then complaining about the results, and insisting many anarchists need therapy. One in five Americans insists the sun revolves around the earth, and they diligently do their patriotic duty by voting for whoever advertises the most. When academics acknowledge that they are doing most of the talking and nobody is listening, I'll be here to provide therapy for them.

All politicians need electric shock therapy to eradicate power addiction syndrome P.A.S and obsessive dogma syndrome O.D.S originating in the right frontal lobe ;)

While I could not fight my way out of a wet paper bag myself, I have many yang brothers, including one who killed a man at 13 years old. Just because you might have a temper or whatever, doesn't mean you have to be an asshole. Something anarchists need to remind themselves, by cultivating learning to be still, embracing the silence as golden, and remembering that what comes around, goes around.

I've been looking into queer theory...fluidity of gender as described by Judith Butler. Identifying female (psychologically) while remaining male (physically).Very interesting in my opinion. This has certainly challenged my outlook and expanded my understanding. Then Rachel's narrative appeared in my searching: born white now identifies as black. Therapy and fluidity. Fluidity of therapy. The straight-jacketing of identity?

Yes I've fully investigated and experienced the psychological states of consciousness that a fluidity of identity status invokes, and it certainly is a liberating form of therapy I included in my soma-therapy exercises, it broadens the scope of intersubjective relationships and opens ones eyes to the restraining identity labels perpetuated within the hierarchical authoritarian systems,.,

Fully investigated you say? Have you investigated your legal fiction as in LE WAY as opposed you as flesh and blood as in le way? Sometimes know as your strawman Indeed anarchists check this out.... fuck the therapy and fight back as Roger Hayes does.

No these legal contests will only increase stress, being engaged in a common law precedent judgement is still authoritarian, even if it is original. Natural law is the only acceptable intuitive legal reaction. Have a listen to this Q and A about Strawman illusion. Maybe it's not as stressful as you think... it will involve re-learning about how you reclaim your sovereignty which I thought anarchists would be interested in?

Definitely interesting, to not be an actor in the corporate movie is the first stage to holding on to ones innate sovereignty, to mind ones own business.

The common law v legal law, birth certificate etc, it would intersting if this was a TOTW where information and discussion could be useful. Roger Hayes has some YouTube videos on reclaiming sovereignty. It may be a route we could take and some of the victories made known? Hayes has challenged the courts etc.

No sorry not me, there are other more knowledgeable of legislative process and legalities, I'm the roaming nature boy type, iconoclast, saddhu and Zen monk wandering this social machinery spreading my wisdom. @critic is the adroit concept sculptor around here able to dissect this complex system of restraints,.,

The difficulty with the legal challenge, sovereign citizen, natural law, freemen of the land kind of strategy, is that law isn't something with a real meaning, it's a social construct. The law as it operates is invented by politicians, judges, pigs, and occasionally by constraints imposed by social movements... it doesn't have its "real" roots in the constitution or natural law or anything else of an *ideal* kind, these are legitimations advanced to underpin real power. Now, it may well be "really" the case that pig law or lawyers' law violates its own underpinnings and is self-contradictory, but these kinds of strategies seem to rely on the system to obey its own rules once these "real" problems are pointed out. But the system sees law as a means, and as long as the judges have the ultimate power of interpretation, they will continue to reject readings they don't like - whether or not these are rooted in "real" legal facts. In fact, the system doesn't even follow the laws *it* recognises as laws, such as pigs not being allowed to randomly kill people for no reason, or presidents needing congressional approval to go to war, or the prohibition on "unreasonable searches and seizures". It's a bit the same problem as if we lived in China - the law in China actually says that people have all kinds of rights, people have the right to petition the government, to a minimum wage at work, to fair compensation for land grabs, but the courts are utterly corrupt and will just rule for the government unless there's popular pressure from below. Ultimately counter-power is in social reality, not law.

Natural Law? Is that like a Barbie doll? You know, the immortal perfection and ideal? If so, where I can buy some?

I will have to read the book to understand broader context in which this is said but I'd like to respond to some of the passage that was shared as this provides the groundwork for what follows and embodies much popular criticism of psychology, which I find to be problematic and reinforce victim blaming stigmas, which prevent us from both getting strong AND breaking chains, as the two are not exclusive. Chains dont just hold us down, they make us weak, some of us are in fact weakened by our struggles, through generational traumas, internalized oppression, social, economic, phisical and intellectual atrophies, nature as well as nurture. everyone has their strengths and weaknesses, as well as different length and strength chains.

“Freedom belongs to the individual — this is a basic anarchist principle" It is a common truism that anarchists and classical liberals cite yes, but I believe our principles go beyond the individual, to eroding the antagonistic relationship between the individual and the collective, through non hierarchical social relations, if freedom belongs to the individual, then individuals have a dominant relationship over collectives in regards to matters of freedom. This concept of belonging itself is problematic, individuals must be free, as must collectives, this does not require claiming any concept of freedom for oneself, and does indeed require developing(not all at once as this is impossible and would result in backsliding and reaction) a freedom practice that is mutually non antagonistic, to other individuals, as well as collectives.

" — and as such resides in individual responsibility to oneself and in free association with others." The concept of free association is important, but cannot be practiced 100% as in terms of conflicts, as there will always be, at times, people need to intervene in others lives, for all sorts of reasons, and this is a good thing. i think the issue here is "responsibility to oneself" we are all responsible FOR oneself, for ones actions, but TO one another. we are free to intervene in matters that we see needing such intervention, but also responsible for our choice and methods for intervention, we are all responsible to eachother.

"Thus, there can be no obligations, no debts, only choices of how to act."
There are always obligations/debts, whether or not there is discussion/agreement on if/what these are or if/how they are to be facilitated/enforced. There is choice, and then sometimes there is not. If you have ever been extremely hungry or thirsty with no access to food or water, or extremely tired with nowhere to go, you will recognize your capacity for choice is eroded by your instincts to aquire what you need to go on, to mantain your capacity for future choice, that is your life, your agency, under attack by nerve damage and phisical atrophy, and hundreds of thousand years of regression into an instinctual response to environmental stimuli. where there is food, or space to rest, you take it, and while noone necissarily owes you a debt, or is obligated to provide it, you will take it nonetheless. obligations and debts are useful for facilitating this process, for encouraging autonomous seizing, as it allows people to take what they need LONG BEFORE this kind of emergency occurs, and we are able, consciously and subconsciously, to manage our affairs as a society, as communities, as peer groups, and better respond to needs and hold one another mutually accountable. as graeber describes in "5000 years of debt," the very social fabric is countless infinitesimal debts that can and should never be balanced.

"The therapeutic approach to social problems is the very opposite of this.." we are doing therapy now, and it is the opposite of the opposite here being described. transforming the nature of therapy, the context in which it occurs, through the ablation of psychological theory and practice in every day life and identity will help so that therapy can be made a part of our lives instead of something enforced or coerced when overt problems are recognized, or our behavior becomes a problem for others.

"Basing itself in the idea that we are crippled rather than chained," chains have been known to cripple. some of us would have been crippled otherwise. having been born into chains, it is impossible to know human potential except as the primitivists do, great leaps and bounds of logic ignoring tens of thousands of years of evolution, and the natural impulses that drove us in this direction for some natural reason. was it not some sort of weakness that allowed us to be chained in the first place? some unmet need that we turned to a more domestic way of life, accepted some sort of chain, like people rescuing eachother from a flood, or climbing a mountain may do, for mutual safety, as well as accepting some mutual risk?

"inherently weak rather than held down" it does no such thing, if we are inherently weak, then therapy would be arbitrary. it assumes we are capable of growth, the sources of any presumed weakness are topics of great study and debate, the social cause is not left out of those debates.

"it imposes an obligatory interdependence,”" it presumes a natural and necessary interdependence(whether or not this is natural or necissary is arguable), and the nature of that interdependence is heavily influenced by social norms and structures, specifically the relationship of the therapy industry to broader society, those they serve, and those they are accountable to. again ablation of therapy theory and practice into every day individual and communal life will address these concerns. many extreme schizophrenics have been able to rationalize their dillusions and live a healthy life, how? education and practice. this was not a result of strength necissarily, but acknowledging and learning about weakness. the presumption of strength is where a great deal of mental illness becomes dangerous when people over extend themselves, and crash head first into their cognative limits, or beyond, hurting themselves and those around them, rather than admitting they need help and reaching out.

"a mutuality of incapacity, rather than a sharing of strengths and capabilities.”

We are mutually incapacitated, this is what the chains as well as our weaknesses chained or not implies. We can get out alone, maybe, we can get out together, maybe. But even if you intend to get out alone, you will do so by the sharing of strengths by others, knowledge, and practices, developed in part, by others. It is through this sharing of strengths and capabilities, learning from one another that different paradigms of therapy have been, and will continue to be developed. This thread itself is a perfect example of that. Even in challenging percieved forced interdependence, we are acknowledging our defacto interdependence, forced or otherwise.

I dont see a need in framing it in any of these terms, except for riling up the passions(perfectly legitimate there is much to be passionate enraged and afraid of continuing or worsening in these industries). When it comes to informing a better theory and practice, imo the ablation of therapeutic theory and practice, we will need to acknowledge our weakness, regardless of our views on their sources. If its the chains, then we need to acknowledge our weakness to break the chains. If its nature, then nature is the chain, then testing the limits and figuring out how to work together within those limits, will take collaboration.

Either way, the practice is the same, work together, share resources, support one another, question everything, and dont be afraid to ask for help, and if you see someone struggling alone, dont be afraid to ask if they need help.

and I like typing in the box sometimes and reading comments like the one preceding this one. I do lots of therapeutic things each day that counteract the vicissitudes of life. It takes a conscious effort to live therapeutically and I don't always get help from the people around me. Learning to fill my day with good things has brought me joy and relief from suffering. It took a lot of practice to unlearn self defeating behavior but it's well worth it. I've worked with professionals and groups before but now I mostly do it myself with the people around me. Everything is an opportunity for growth if it's approached that way.

Yes, defeat the self!

Radical Philosophy magazine just changed their business model and went all free however long it may last so dig in it's a feast.

And Philosophy Overdose is still turning out videos almost daily, here's the latest:

The Frankfurt School with Herbert Marcuse

It's that Repressive Tolerance garbage from him that's intellectually inexcusable and soo structurally Marxist(capture the power flag basically). I too see the need for a post tolerance framework but that framework lies in an anarchic panarchic polychromatic(Martucci) framework that comes from a divorcing rupture from this Leviathan forced marriage.

Marcuse remains a structural marxist and humanist so these mistakes are obvious in hindsight. While I don't care for the alt-right pro-western demonization of him an his buddies there are bits to agree with in regards to his terrible answer to tolerance. One other idea he never seems to consider is preference as opposed to tolerance and pure preference can only come from free association powered by owness and the disowness of alienation.

It might be worth reading Trevor Pateman's take on Marcuse on "repressive tolerance"... in Pateman's version, the issue isn't that we're tolerating things we shouldn't be, it's that the gesture of "tolerating" a rival opinion (rather than engaging with the truth-claim as a truth-claim which might be true) suppresses the political import of what's said. It turns statements into reified entities which are properties of the person making the statement, and which they are entitled to as private property, but which has no claim on others. Yes Marcuse had some worrying Leninist tendencies, but I think he had a point about the type of "tolerance" which renders all claims equivalent and which creates a kind of personal property over claims.

For example: A: "pigs are racist murderers", B: "that's your opinion and you've got a right to it, I think they do a good job", A: "but look here, there's statistics from this source and I can show you these three videos where they shoot people for no reason, you can't just say they're doing a good job", B: "I have a right to my opinion, you are violating my rights by not respecting my right to my opinion, you evil totalitarian essentialist fascist!"

I don't think B should be killed or locked-up or silenced or boycotted or trolled off the face of the internet for stupidly thinking that pigs do a good job, or for stupidly refusing to engage with criticisms of this position - but I also don't think it's any violation of B's rights to say that B is *wrong*, is stupid for holding this position, is excusing police atrocities, or that B absolutely does not have any *moral* right to hold this viewpoint. Not that we have any moral rights full stop on a strict reading of Stirner. But in this case, B also does not have this "right" in the same sense that (for a Stirnerian) he has a quasi-right to like dandelions or worship Cthulhu. It's also not a violation of B's rights to refuse to put this "opinion" in anarchist publications or in scientific publications or to accord it any credibility whatsoever, because it doesn't have a right to recognition as a "valid opinion" but rather, should be assessed as a truth-claim. Pateman's crucial point is that the hearer has a right to reply, to *rebut* B's claim if B makes a truth-claim which is false, and especially one which is so hideously false and oppressive. And all of this is very relevant today, because I'm seeing a spate of orders not to critique others' "opinions" (or "truths") in radical thought at the moment, usually in connection with idpol, people who will not read or respond to any criticism of their position, who will ostracise anyone who offers criticisms, and whose attitude to critique is "you are questioning my truth", "by questioning my truth you are gaslighting me" or "you are erasing me as a person", or "you are holding me accountable to white male standards of reason, my black indigenous feminised trans otherkin ontology is absolutely incommensurable with your standards, keep your grubby hegemonic western reason hands off of my experiential truth you evil white male and OMG check your fucking privilege". All of which is precisely "repressive tolerance" in Pateman's sense, except these people usually don't show much tolerance in the opposite direction.

But the Leninist Marxist capture the power flag has largely been what his discourse represents particularly among the recuperated 1968 values that hold sway in colleges and universities today. The crude form of his discourse is seen in so-called de-platforming and the supposed need to do it. That's one of a number of RT legacies that I don't care for and yes that even applies to someone like Richard Spencer. At the end of the day if there's a preference by someone for him and a crowd to see it then I don't care to stop it.

I understand calling bullshit and trying to prevent the rise of an unsavory discourse but for me it's more important to dismantle power apparatuses where the Spencers of the world can do the most damage. He's nowhere near that level of power and what the current academic leftoids are doing now is basically a capture and soft power enforcement. It also has a corrosive effect of extending to other view points that are simply divergent from doctrinaire leftism(Sargon of Akkad or Jordan Peterson for instance) overall it doesn't allow for legitimate contrarian view points. This has been the case with big statheist Science. They represent some of the early models of keeping out views dangerous to society(they use that word dangerous a lot). I see that as an offshoot legacy of trying to control speech in a soft power manner even though it comes from divergent ideologies(rational ideological science).

In the end there are simply enlightened reasons to let these views be expressed though still call bullshit. I'm one of those pro west constitutional free speech types(own speech not free speech) but I know corrosive power when I see it and the Marcuse legacy has partially led to that.

Reply is on forums

What a load of reactionary liberal bilge. I don't know what totalitarian CBT crap you've been reading, but you've managed to twist the entire meaning of anarchism into its opposite, through a rhetoric which glorifies weakness and limits and is clearly in the service of the continuation of bourgeois-statist rule because “there is no alternative”. The only difference between you and the hirelings of state psychiatry is that you

>if freedom belongs to the individual, then individuals have a dominant relationship over collectives in regards to matters of freedom

Yes, because individuals can ontologically exist in a certain sense, whereas collectives are abstractions (spooks in Stirnerese). They can exist as sets of more-or-less continuous relations among individuals, but they have no ontological status of their own. At least, they have no ontological status consistent with conceiving them as a being with rights – just as one cannot speak of the force of gravity having rights, or the gross domestic product having rights. If we subtract cases where a “collective” is simply a group of individuals (and is thus referred back to an aggregate, or a composite, of individual claims), there is no way it can be a rights-bearing subjects. Collectives are not actors, they do not have thoughts or feelings, they do not do things of their own accord (except through the agency of individuals). Hence it makes little sense to say that a collective has freedom relative to individuals, at all. It's possible to argue that collectives should be encouraged or given particular kinds of primacy because this benefits individuals, because individuals are dependent on communities for example, but not that collectives themselves have rights or freedom. By analogy, someone might say it's a good thing for the GDP to rise, because when GDP rises then people are better-off, or that GDP should fall or remain stable, but I've never heard anyone say that the GDP has a “right” to rise, that the freedom of GDP to rise or fall needs to be balanced against the rights of individuals.

Of course, people do use language involving “communities versus individuals”, but this is demonstrably manipulative rhetoric of an authoritarian kind. The kind of cases in practice where people talk about communities having rights over and against individuals fall into three categories. The first of these involve cases of what are in fact claims of some individuals to have rights (or privileges) vis-a-vis other individuals, which they channel by way of “community”. For example, if someone objects to their neighbour playing loud music at 3am, they might well talk about this in terms of the higher rights of the community, which trump the individual's right to play music when they want. But really, they are trying to establish their own right to a quiet environment at 3am. Why should they get what they want instead of the neighbour who wants to play music? The implicit argument is either, because the number of people who want quiet at 3am outnumber the number (maybe just one) who wants to play music, or the ones who want quiet are in line with dominant social norms, or the ones who want quiet have a strategic position in institutions which claim to speak for the whole community and not just for themselves. Whatever one thinks about the contending claims, it's clear that the appeal to “community” in this case is an oppressive way for certain (conformist/majority) individuals to expand their own individual rights or privileges, at the expense of other (nonconformist/minority) individuals, by using the signifier “community” to elevate their own individual claims into extra-individual, transcendental claims. Anarchists can try to argue that the person wanting quiet at 3am has a right to it, that this is an important part of their freedom broadly conceived, but they can't have recourse to the myth of “community rights” to ground such a claim.

The other categories are even more obviously fallacious from an anarchist point of view. The second involves cases where the “rights of the community” are really rights of the state, or things the state or the elite need in order to preserve the existing order. For example, “balancing national security with the individual right to protest”. This is not really a clash of two rights but a clash of order – conformity, reaction – with rights. The third involves cases where desires are split, and some of them are identified with the condition of community as such – for instance, in relation to so-called collective action problems. The idea is that some great good can only come about if everyone sacrifices a part of what they have (generally under coercive pressure) to establish the collective good. For example, left to their own devices nobody will fight and the country will be invaded and dispossessed, but if everyone's conscripted then in theory everyone is better-off because then they can fight back and none of them are dispossessed. This has generally repressive conclusions. Everyone should renounce their individual desires so as to be part of “the community” which rests on everyone suppressing their individuality. This is really a more indirect version of the first type since the benefits allegedly derived from renunciation – it ultimately rests on gains for each individual by means of the community. But it's absolutely abhorrent from an anarchist point of view because its starting-point is the superego, the desire to suppress desire itself for a supposedly higher good.

>and does indeed require developing(not all at once as this is impossible and would result in backsliding and reaction) a freedom practice that is mutually non antagonistic, to other individuals, as well as collectives

There will be many cases where two or more individuals will have antagonistic practices of freedom, because different individuals are different. It is certainly possible to render these non-antagonistic to one another through devices such as spatial separation (the people who play loud music at 3am live in one village, the people who sleep at 3am live in another). But the idea that this involves self-transformation so as to avoid conflicts between exercises of freedom is dangerous – and the idea that this somehow involves claims of collectives as well as individuals, even more so. Changing the practices so as to render them non-antagonistic overall is a repressive move which restores the superego to the central role: the person is no longer practising freedom but acting on a general imperative to create a non-antagonistic context by renouncing their freedom.

>i think the issue here is "responsibility to oneself" we are all responsible FOR oneself, for ones actions, but TO one another

That is the opposite of anarchism. Mutual enslavement. Each person constantly on trial before the judgements of the herd. Dictatorship of sameness over difference.

People cannot be consistently responsible for themselves because people do not have consistent control over themselves. Selves are multiple, causality is unconscious and sometimes also social, other people's demands often entail things which are impossible for a given individual with a given psychological makeup. The illusion of self-control, embedded in bourgeois psychology, is an illusion in relation to the real nature of human beings as bundles of diverse forces none of which has permanent primacy over the rest (see on this: Nietzsche, Genealogy of Morals; Skillen, Ruling Illusions; Hirschman, The Passions and the Interests; Elias, The Civilising Process). Self-control is painful and destroys enjoyment, and it causes a return of the repressed which often causes greater harm than whatever it inhibits.

People cannot be responsible to others because every person is different and the standards applied by the other are incommensurable with those comprehensible to the self. Responsibility to others, except in a context of extreme similarity or strict literal rules, necessarily turns into Kafkaesque or the “tribunal of the crabs”.

>There are always obligations/debts, whether or not there is discussion/agreement on if/what these are or if/how they are to be facilitated/enforced

Pure bourgeois thought. There are always debts, always banks and money, always profit, always original sin and therefore a moral law to hold people in place, and therefore a real law, and courts and pigs and prisons... But we all know from empirical evidence that these are social and historical constructs, often of recent vintage. They are not existentially necessary. Wild nature knows no debts. Because there are no debts. Human societies invent debts when a ruling elite needs an excuse to extract rents from a subordinate population. Original sin follows from this, as a convenient legitimatory excuse.

>If you have ever been extremely hungry or thirsty with no access to food or water, or extremely tired with nowhere to go, you will recognize your capacity for choice is eroded by your instincts to aquire what you need to go on

Hence one does not have perfect self-control, hence one cannot be fully responsible FOR oneself TO others.

>obligations and debts are useful for facilitating this process, for encouraging autonomous seizing, as it allows people to take what they need LONG BEFORE this kind of emergency occurs

The concept you're looking for is not “obligation” or “debt” but “right to a subsistence minimum”.

The indigenous versions of this right generally have reference to a cosmic order and a right to social war. When those who have fail to redistribute, this represents something like a cosmic imbalance (not at all a debt), and a grievance as a result of which the aggrieved group have a right to engage in raiding or warfare. In order to avoid anyone's having to exercise this right, it is politic to maintain peace with neighbouring groups (of individuals).

>and better respond to needs and hold one another mutually accountable

Why do you want to be constantly under other people's thumb?

>we are doing therapy now, and it is the opposite of the opposite here being described. transforming the nature of therapy, the context in which it occurs, through the ablation of psychological theory and practice in every day life and identity will help so that therapy can be made a part of our lives instead of something enforced

Turning piggery and the renunciation of desire into a crowdsourced peer-produced form of policing which no longer requires specialised agencies because the slaves now enslave themselves and one another, is not at all progress over a situation of pigs and pigged. It is the ultimate victory of the state – the Stalinist fantasy of a society where the state withers away because society itself becomes the state.

>or our behavior becomes a problem for others

As I explained before, “behaviour” does not exist. A free world is a world where actions flow freely from desires and assemblages. Not a world where people observe others, classify them from an outer gaze into “behaviours”, and then separate these up pig-style into acceptable and unacceptable.

>was it not some sort of weakness that allowed us to be chained in the first place? 

We don't know. But, probably not. Depending who you believe, either people temporarily formed settled societies because of a temporary crisis of famine or disaster or overpopulation, and once established it became self-reproducing; or else some people formed hierarchical armies to conquer and enslave others. Your social contract myth (people banding together and giving up some of their freedom for mutual advantage) is lifted straight from the great bourgeois theories of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau. It's pure liberalism.

> it assumes we are capable of growth, the sources of any presumed weakness are topics of great study and debate

You assume that people came together because of weakness; you want everyone to be constantly responsible and accountable to others; and you are clearly terrified that truly free individuals who are not sufficiently constrained will commit some terrible evil. Growth out of a condition of weakness is absolutely impossible on this account. People can never grow out of being abject slaves of the herd or the social media hive-mind. If you get out of this, it is by redefining abject submission and weakness as strength. You make a cult of weakness, you essentialise it as an aspect of human nature or else as something desirable, and use it to leverage a total sacrifice of freedom and difference to “the collective”, which is to say: whoever has the rhetorical power to sway the herd.

>If its the chains, then we need to acknowledge our weakness to break the chains

Acknowledge that there's an enemy whose power needs to be smashed, and we need to discover the means to destroy the power of this enemy? Yes. This has absolutely nothing to do with weakness.

>the presumption of strength is where a great deal of mental illness becomes dangerous when people over extend themselves, and crash head first into their cognative limits, or beyond, hurting themselves and those around them, rather than admitting they need help and reaching out

Translation: rather than living by our desires – and thus coming into conflict with the other people and institutions which seek to suppress our desires and our freedom – let's take the “safe” path of submitting, accepting social constraints as necessary “limits” to one's own power, and learning to be a happy slave by “accepting one's limits”.

We have to be very careful from whom (if anyone) we ask for help, because otherwise, we will be drawn into the cobwebs of people who wish to turn us into slaves. It is better to overstretch ourselves and die in struggle than to “reach out” to someone who cannot be trusted and who stabs us in the back – achieving the same failure as in the futile struggle, but with our own collaboration.

All revolutions begin from believing one can change the world.

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.