Add new comment

First of all I would like to highlight what A said about nihilism not necessarily being negation. In fact that's why I tend to reject it as a formal position(I like to use the term nihilexistentialist) Egoism is better in that it is more open ended on either negation or affirmation. In essence it's a personal proclamation based discourse. To me it's just the more individuated orientation with some similar definition differentiations. You have active and passive for nihlism and you have intercoursive and atomistic for egoism. The anarch-egoist-anarchy that I subscribe to is negation and affirmation based with personal proclamation being the higher order of operation.

In regards to science as an object of escape in the 19th century I think what works in our age would be deconstructive mythology. One basically informs the other as I see it. To mythologize is to construct and deconstruction is what keeps ancestral and assimilating spooks and power practices at bay.

To the point about so-called open minded IDPols, fuck 'em. They are dead weight ideologues who are not ready for the future radical and reactionary orientations at hand. The only IDPols one should be interested in are those who are on the outs of that ugly latter day leftist ideology and to get them you have to maintain an unflinching anti-IDPol position. To not do this is to pay lip service to what is essentially maoist and other marxist structured ideology that has no relation to anarchism or anarchy whatsoever.

Also, Aragorn, are you really using the word rapey? Seriously? That's one of those words that's used to police and inhibit against more exciting and experimental human relationships. If we were to go back to the golden age of the counter culture circa 68-77 this term would never have been used within a milieu that was having LOTS of sex. Rapey is basically a way to control and police activists dominant spaces. It's also similar to the word 'creepy' which is deployed against certain types of males who are social societal losers. This isn't something that those interested in anarchy should be enabling.

Lastly, I really don't see what's useful about indigenous discourse. As I see it it's really just an American(indigenous historical) born concept that is mostly used to represent their own inner leviathan interests. I see indigenous ideology being connected to everything from maoist structured discourse to native american power projects like, say, the Dogwood project out of Canada. It's not really something I see congruent to anarchy. I understand the need to conceive of some kind of personal relationship with human ancestry in part as a way of fighting future facilitation driven historical construction and assimilation, but as the saying goes, 'this ain't it chief'. A far better word and concept would be the concept of archaic, archaicality and archaicism. Archaic as a concept and deployable discourse does not have the baggage that the term indigenous has and it jibes much better with anarchy. As I've said elsewhere indigenous is simply psychogeographic endogeneity and that is not anarchic or uncivilized in and of itself.