TOTW: A Rose is a Rose

  • Posted on: 21 October 2018
  • By: SUDS

“'Tis but thy name that is my enemy; Thou art thyself, though not a Montague. What's Montague? It is [not] foot, Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part… Belonging to a man. O, be some other name! What's in a name? That which we call a rose… By any other word would smell as sweet; So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd, Retain that dear perfection which he owes without that title. Romeo, doff thy name, And for that name which is no part of thee Take all myself.” –Romeo & Juliet

The message is the prototype not the platform. The word itself appears to carry great weight, but upon its conveyance it is discovered to carry little substance. Anarchist, a word meant to communicate great meaning finds itself, in practice, lost on definition.

Monks have a saying. If you see Buddha in the street, kill him. Do not allow someone to define your practice for you. Your practice is yours alone.

To “Kill King Abacus” and live a personal anarchism that acknowledges many anarchisms, not just one, is to adopt a life without certainty. Without a prescribed anarchism, one which exists through the piety of its priests, what is left?

What is this word, anarchism? What purpose does it serve?

If we are not attempting to build movements, ideologies, dichotomies, then what use are the letters together?

Unless we hope to secure and enforce a particular definition, and we in fact value the liberty of the individual, then what value remains in a flag—black or otherwise?

If there is nothing uniform about anarchism then what makes us anarchists?



Nihilists kill Buddha for breakfast!

This is a set of ideas that many want to live for - especially since the rise and rise of the anarchic net - it is also a set of ideas ( ideology) some are prepared to die for ( in contrast to such bumf as ' anarchy-ism' and ' paleo-nihilism ')
No one has to 'build ' it or - fuck forbid - become a priest in it. Maintenance is done by volunteers and the boundaries are usually very well marked towards the center and the right. Less so towards the left and the fringe. This may change ( rumors of post-left anarchism have been current for nearly 20 years now! ) Certain fringe dwellers take it all too far - they even forget to play guitar. Bye bye Michael ( Schmidt )
Anarchism controls some valuable political real-estate - why some political groups are always trying to steal our good name. Anarchism is also the one and only alternative to the present Neo-Hegelian ( Wilsonian - Communist ) nightmare that constitutes the global hegemony. We could muddle along with social-democracy and hope for the best but I would like to see us combine our famous street actions with more hacktivism and take over the planet. That is an idea worth working for isn't it? Most of the world resembles the development level of Spain 36 - so lets have a global " Spain - 1936! ".
Revolution is dangerous and repression is deadly - so is business as usual and hiding in cracks in the floor.
I'm getting on in years so your mileage may vary.

Closest to living and breathing the pure anarchist desire are those deconstructed iconoclastic nihilists who strip their ego of all cultural artifice to reveal the primordial innate tendencies which drove them our of the desperate hopelessness of prehistoric complacency in Paleolithic times, stirring the first rebel grunt from once silent tongues. Nor more the Spanish hierarchical membership to spiteful vicious causes, but rather, the contemplative destruction of inner spooks and the manifestations of their toxic legacies.
Onward with compassionate positive negation of all corruptions and malevolent intent!

I know I'm not inventing the wheel here, but I've always thought Buddhism had a lot in common with anarchy. I had read a lot of Buddhist and Taoist texts pretty young and I think they oriented me towards an anti-civ perspective early on in my anarchist life. Obviously, a pre-modern, non-western phenomenon can't easily be compared to a modernist age European political philosophy, but Mahayana (the more libertarian branch of Buddhism) has a lot of anarchist concepts baked in. There are critiques of morality, reality, dualism, the self, symbolic thought, etc.; basically a framework for a total critique of reification, and with more humor than you'll find in most anarchist texts. Important to note is that it isn't simply a "socialism of one," that a practitioner of Mahayana is a boddhisattva, one who forgoes enlightenment in order to liberate all beings from suffering. A boddhisattva, much like an anarchist, can sound a lot like a devotee to a reified Cause, and it's definitely a concept with *a lot* of baggage, but I found that baggage hard to swallow precisely because of the critical tools mahayana provides.

That's kind of a sideways entrance to the TOTW. Is it worth it to hold on to the language and iconography of an idea that can be so easily ideologized? Is it helpful to use the word "boddhisattva" while an ongoing terror campaign by Buddhist fundamentalists is ongoing in Burma? Does "anarchist" mean anything when anarchist language has been pretty well recuperated by socialists? Does it matter which framework one hangs their ideas on? Well, all ideas can be ideologized. I think it's more helpful to think of these labels as different approaches to the thing that, if we assume good faith, the best parts of these traditions are gesturing towards. Wolfi Landstreicher is clear about his practice of using books as toolboxes for the creation of self-theory. Robert Anton Wilson advocates trying on different ideologies and bringing the insights back to your own reality tunnel. It's important to be agile in the use and application of theory and ideas, always shifting with circumstances and never becoming rigid. That's more important than the label you choose.

It helps to be clear about what anarchism actually means. While anarchistic practices and ideals have existed for millenia in many cultures around the world, and all those lovely "dead white guys" were only the first people to make it into an explicit philosophical theory (although even then, it's really Lao Tzu who is the first anarchist proper), it doesn't just mean anything. It's the ideal if a society without coercion. Larry Gambone's article "What Is Anarchism?" provides a good overview of this.

The thing about group identities, is that they're useful. Even though we're still deep in the "century of the self", it's pretty hard to seriously deny that the atomized individual has been broken or caged.

You can relentlessly attack concepts in your head or you can admit you'll need group identity to do much attacking for realsies!

"you'll need group identity to do much attacking..."

do you seriously believe that in order to execute actions with others, one must adopt a "group identity"? sorry, but that is some myopic, mass-obsessed B.S.

I don't "believe it" and I'm not necessarily talking about mass movements either, but I've seen it. The evidence is all around you. Group identity is how force multiplication works. I do however, recognize how this a heretical statement ;)

Even a little union of egoist bank robbers have adopted a group identity. So rather than pretend this isn't how it works because NOBODY can cage your fierce, theoretical individuality!!! instead of stupid angst, focus on how to do group identity in an anarchist way.

or just DON'T do "group identity". completely unnecessary when there are strong-willed individuals acting in concert for a specific objective. during that activity, there may well be the need to act as a "group" - that does not constitute "group identity" in any meaningful way. identity implies some lasting essence, which is precisely the opposite of anything like the transient "union of egoists" that you refer to.

the way to do group identity in an anarchist way is... to NOT do it. it's kinda like saying "just do capitalism in an anarchist way".

Kids nowadays put on and take off identities like changing outfits, thats the bleeding edge of the understanding of identity.

You're just trying to make a dichotomy. I SAID I'm talking about a "transient identity" as you termed it, that's clearly what I meant when I brought up the union of egoists in the first place. Quit being a contrarian dickhead for imaginary internet points.

It's also how you get collectively and individually owned by authoritarian politics, dumbo.

Neat! So you can't tell the difference between military tactics and your little ego trip that you direct at your leftist strawman (or whatever boring point you think you're making).

I just wanted to say I have no idea what this totw is talking about...

"I don't see race, just roses"
by Billy Shakespeare

How did you get race from this totw? I'm not saying you're wrong i just don't follow.

I mean, I'm mostly joking but it seems to me that this was intended to be about identity?

Umm, that was written by Kit Marlowe, as we're all of Shakespeare's works. He was a hobby gardener as well.

What did he mean by this?

Come again. I'm lost in the double speak of this totw

Double rainbow of suds.... What does it meeeeeeeaaannn?

Agggghhhhhhh ohhhhhhhhhhh ahhhhhhhhhh

Double rainbow

...who would they be? Since they gave us an opening with the image, let's hijack this obscure TOTW and have a quick straw poll to answer this burning question.

Liberal activists with panic eyes, tourist kids with money, sincere people with crippling anxiety and @news trolls like me!

I issue a quest where you search for meaning in all the wrong places!

Anarchists don't need the word anarchism or anarchy for ourselves. We need it to differentiate ourselves from the authoritarian statist, capitalist, civilisationist tide.

Anarchy is a univocal concept, state is a biunivocal concept. Univocal concepts refer to the flow of becoming. Biunivocal concepts refer to a particular form of the flow of becoming turned against itself. (All Deleuzian concepts are univocal/biunivocal pairings). Anarchy is possible without the state. Anarchy existed for hundreds of thousands of years before the state. It didn't need a name because it referred to everything. It only needs a name once anarchic forces get twisted into statism. We can't just pretend the turning-against-itself hasn't happened. We can't risk succumbing to the illusion that there's no difference between the alienated forms and the free, disalienated forms.

Yes, names can be ways to reify reality and downplay the uniqueness and/or interconnectedness of actual phenomena. It's better to connect to others through affinity, on an I/thou basis, rather than rigid categories. But language has a purpose. Its purpose has to do with survival, practice, and articulation of desire. The point of language is to intersect with differences in the flow of becoming so as to produce local knowledges and resultant practices. For example, language is useful in teaching someone how to make a fire. Even if someone can make a fire without using language. That some things are flammable and others aren't, or some things are edible and others are poisonous, is a linguistic binary. But it's not a repressive binary.

I think Korzybski's general semantics is a useful middle path between anti-representational postmodernism and rigid positivism. Deleuze and Guattari's work also belongs to this middle path.

The biggest problem with Buddhism is that it's anti-desire and anti-individuation. It identifies desires of the body with the ego, and thus with binary categories and oppression. It turns the drive to fight oppression inwards, against the self. Trying to break down the self's sense of separation from the outer world. This can serve to aid the superego and thereby power. Yes, a self in a natural condition is not separate from the world. But the desires of a human self trapped and partially domesticated in a hostile elite-made megamachine ARE separate from the structure of its immediate world. The illusion that we are just effects of, or continuous with, the megamachine which surrounds us and therefore cannot fight it, destroy it, separate from it, is dangerous. It repeats the neoliberal pattern of trying to hide every possible reality except neoliberalism. Asserting the ego as separate from the megamachine is an important step in rewilding, even if the end point is loss of separation in a wild condition. Attacking every ego equally, in a situation where some egos have massive power and others are beaten down, can actually help strengthen the ones at the top. “Don't blame the people who oppress you – blame your own illusion that you're an ego!”

And of course, this strategy historically feeds into the authoritarianism and etiquette obsession of many East Asian societies. For example, the insidious Korean idea that people are responsible for not upsetting others' Zen balance. This underpins centuries of sexism and rigid social hierarchy, but it's almost identical to the shit now being imported by the Third Way and idpols. Or the whole Social Credit ideology which is emerging in China. Which is just a deepening of the American no-fly list, British anti-social behaviour ideologies, and idpol micro-policing. Or the Japanese management practices such as just-in-time and kaizen, which have now been normalised worldwide – which are similarly premised on top-down harmony and feedback loops. Buddhism subverts the old capitalism because the old capitalism relied on rigid separations. The new capitalism relies on a different alienation. The identification of the holistic field of becoming with the cybernetic numisphere of capitalism itself. And the misidentification of any refusal, escape, or resistance to the cybernetic field as ego, inflexibility, rigidity.

There are of course different forms of Buddhism. The version complicit in the Rohingya genocide is a version which recognises a priestly caste as having a higher, divine purpose. This isn't the version which has been popularised in the west (think Westboro Baptist Church vs Tolstoyan Christian anarchism, or ISIS vs Hakim Bey). Unfortunately Buddhism is also trendy in Silicon Valley and the upper echelons of corporations. It overlaps too easily with the new cybernetic forms of control which also assume egos are bad and people are just nodes in a network.

yes, more please, @critic!

I have no ham-handed satire to offer.

As you know (and give examples of), all the present major religions/spiritual traditions are deeply corrupted by the slave societies they developed in. This is why I harp on the need to receive mystical experience - a term I don't particularly like. The Ju/'hoansi say Seeing Properly; I have used the word Direct Knowledge. There is NO substitute.

The (experiential) spiritual foundation of "savages" (normal humans) is NOT anti-sensual. And I can assure you that the body of Direct Knowledge I was given was NOT either. First: anti-sensualism shows up in the religions of slave societies that do not even meet the basic physical needs of their slaves. Second: any animal has evolved in nature to desire what enables it to thrive. But the damaged humans of slave societies crave (often insatiably) things that make them SICK, vindicating the anti-sensualism of the slave religions.

No separation from the rest of nature does not need to be an end point. You can receive this level of experience NOW. And more:
The Ju/'hoansi refer to God's love as "infinite and beyond understanding". God is absolutely selfless. In Jewish mysticism: Ayin Sof -absolute infinite nothingness. And unimaginably generous - from my book: "If the level of experience I was given, many times, could be given to someone as damaged as I was, IT COULD BE GIVEN TO ANY OF US."

Becoming capable of receiving this is the purpose of self-annihilation - which is why I harp on taking large doses of LSD or psilocybin in the backwoods. You are dead on to warn of the superego - which God will also annihilate. From my book: " 'God', for all too many people, quickly becomes a gigantic ego or superego (cop or parent) in the sky. This is idolatry, and probably the biggest reason Buddhism insists that there is no God at all."

The Ju/'hoansi who have held to the ancestral Way (under great attack) speak like devout, reverent "acidheads". But they are so advanced that they don't even need the LSD. Such "primitives" shouldn't be ALLOWED to exist!

Ooohhh yesssssss, the incredible sensuality of the Sambian men makes Westerner men resemble inert wooden crash-test dummies. Like acid freaks frolicking through the forest like fairies dressed in grass skirts, Bad Kitty has found his Shangrila to replace the San Francisco scene he cruised in his youth.

Get a life.

Hope you and your kin are well, B

Thanks for the support/corrections. Where can I read about the Ju'hoansi?

In Swift's Gulliver's Travels, oh wait, those were the Yahoos, same thing anyway, humans in tribes running around saying how good they are!

will lead you to a long and happy life!

WAY OF THE BUSHMAN as Told by the Tribal Elders, translated by Bradford and Hillary Keeney, 2015.
"Practically all of the anthropologists and outsiders we have met do not have an adequate understanding of how we heal and relate to God. . . . their education did not prepare them to understand anything about our spiritual experience . . . "

Going thru long bibliographies of anthropological writings on the Ju/'hoansi turns up almost NOTHING about their spiritual foundation. There is some good work on their social relations. THE JU/'HOAN SAN of NYAE NYAE and NAMIBIAN INDEPENDENCE, by Megan Biesele and Robert Hitchcock, 2011, 2013 gives some social and political context from the 1980's on. THE OLD WAY, by Elizabeth Marshall, is an older account.

The praying mantis is their main godlike spiritual symbol, whether metaphorical or mythological spiritualism as symbolic analogy as most religious fetishes are. Only in this creature being projected and received by listeners of that particular narrative does the collective psychic union form within the community and become the force being attributed with powers from feedback looping empathy.

two lines but then you had to let everyone know you've read a few books! 10 out of 10, better now? Don't be a JZ and punctuate your writing with a reference or a quote at each and every turn so as to give a nod to academia.

I only mentioned one academic in the entire post. Umadbro?

Is irrelevant. We are personalities.
persons of note. Persons of import.
No one of us can be Defined. Otherwise we all would devolve into trolls of Identity.
Each one of us is a” unique”; a happening.
Our “movement “ can not be described
Either. We create our Zones of Autonomy.
That is where we Gel. We abjure definition,
comparison. We are the events that we
Encounter, shape . We exude fellow-feeling and dwell
In our creativity. Our Only limits are our horizons. No structures. No signifying-subjectivities. Thus we are without structure;
abborant to any Power formations.
One word cannot define us. We a truly
Poetry in motion. With Joy and Uni-vocal
Good enough for me. How about you?
One for all and all for every one of us.
To new participants: join us. “It is your fight too!
Now “ Avant-garde ! Let’s-get-it : on.

Antonin Artaud ... for the eternal passage of every idea or datum of existence, god, pure spirit, shadow and virtuality. ... I say : shit to the spirit.

If there is nothing uniform about anarchism then what makes us anarchists?"

there is nothing uniform about anarchism. nothing makes us anarchists.

forward, forward, forward!

I don't call myself an anarchist. People need to talk with me to find out where I'm at. I will use the word anarchism as a starting point, a reference point but that's it. The world of people are using the term for their own ends and so, as a word, it is pretty much worthless without context.

Friendly modification: This statement basically covers identity in general, doesn't it?

as an american i kinda hope he can stay there as long as he wants...if you do that in parking garages in dc i would guarantee the goon squad would be on their way in 5min. tops.

always good to tell ppl what cult you recruit for so they can tell their friends to avoid you

If there is nothing uniform about anarchism then what makes us anarchists?

Getting S.S.I. and being completely monotonously self-absorbed.

how do you find a good SSI lawyer/advocate?

I will have you know that S.S.I. financed the Pomo revolution!

that after the Collapse, God will rain SSI checks and trust funds from the sky! (Even tho there will be nowhere to spend them.)

Vegetable life will flourish again, fruits will be hanging low all year round, rivers be filled with fish and people will be allowed to roam free and naked as they want in the forest, as everyone will also be entitled to their daily dose of fuck with partners of their liking, age-independent, instead of the internet. Promotion this coming November: 70 virgins waiting for you on the other side of the Collapse if you blow up/destroy enough useful shit!

It finances vapid self-indulgent dreck like this, for sure.

Yeah, being a Horatio Alger fan is the only alternative to being a passive drip. There's nothing left to do, and you are not the ones to do it.

To “Kill King Abacus” and live a personal anarchism that acknowledges many anarchisms, not just one, is to adopt a life without certainty.

Who is King Abacus, and why am I supposed to want to kill him? The rest of this just sounds like what's already abundantly on tap in consumer society.

and to not be original is a crime!

You praise bourgeois capitalist reformist liberal democrat originality and dare call yourself a nihilist!

SHAME on you, SUH!

i didn't mean to imply that i was under the illusion that the bbc dude we were talking about was a social democrat. I mean, i love to get under the table and go down on some local democrats, because they are people of the people and wonderful civil servants that are power brokering for ME! I'm not racist I have black friends. So if that homeless guy is running for the labor party then i apologize for confusing you with the coincidence.

Would you feel better if I opposed the bourgeois capitalist reformist liberal democrats with bourgeois avant garde capitalist reformist anarchism?

May I just step in here and say that Nihilist is what I refer to as a ' celebrity nihilist ' who craves for attention and thus goes against the grain of the popular opinion that nihilists should be cynical unfriendly and iconoclast sociopaths such as myself and other paleo-nihilists. But he is one, I can vouch for him ;)

Why shy away from being a whore when all life is for sale?! Answer me that LeWay, how may i become a better nihilist?

That is only what you yourself will know when you glimpse into the abyss my dear fellow nihilist. But continue on your amoral path and continue to amuse me with your wholesome whoremongering. Think not harshly of me ;)

PS And remember, there is nothing wrong with being a white nihilist !

What was the point of the original post here? What was this trying to say?

The point was to try to come off as an enlightened intellectual with this drivel.

Isn't this an anarchist perspective? Personally, I would like to see much more of how we make our daily decisions as we live our lives: how does anarchy inform and impact the way we live: how is it different from those who are not anarchists? for me, there is way too much abstract talk and chitchat. I mean, what's the point in saying you're an anarchist but you pretty much live a life very similar to non-anarchists?

is generally agreed to be "do unto others as you would have them do unto you under the circumstances present", because it is slave think to see the golden rule as a literal bureaucratic law. For example...Harvey Weinstein probably prefers that you just give him a blowjob and serve him, does that mean that you do it? Well, if you want...but I'm personally not into movie executive penises. I would totally give myself a blowjob but i think you need to have a few ribs removed for that.

"I mean, what's the point in saying you're an anarchist but you pretty much live a life very similar to non-anarchists?"

that is why "I am" statements overall are pretty pointless unless you are talking about some temporary emotional state, you're joking, job titles and specialities, etc.

i would re-phrase that as "do unto others as they would have done unto them, in the current context". why impose your desires on another?

The Christian formulation of the “golden rule” is a mandate for authoritarian intervention based on the presumption of universal values. Other, older and wiser, traditions steeped in ethical reciprocity formulate it as a negative aphorism, like “what is loathsome to you, do not inflict upon your neighbor.” Contrary to the Christian criticism of this being an excuse for inaction, I take it as being like the beginning of the popular misquote of the Hippocratuc Oath: first, do no harm. The negative formulation requires critical analysis, while the “do unto” formulation requires obedience, a leap of faith. I’d rather look before I leap.

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.