AnarkoQueer Feminst Manifesto Against PC Victims & Queer Police

  • Posted on: 9 August 2012
  • By: worker

<table><tr><td>From <a href="

*[P.C.= Political Correction]
[NOTE: This manifesto doesn't have an author, was created in a collective way and if you want to join it just spread it!]

We are the monsters that survive the everyday challenge of living surrounded by shit and rules that imprison our desires and bodies. We are the monsters that are not welcome almost anywhere. We are the monsters, the uglies, the rudes, the whores, the animals, the degenerates, the perverts, the non-polites, the punks. We are the ones that are able to see a real chance to change realities, because we know that changing this hell is the only way for us to avoid suicide or the desire of killing other humans. And some of us monsters have something important to say.

We are fed up of you: politically correct fascist “queers”, trans*haters, as well as trans*people who want nothing more but to finally be „normal“, who choose to adapt to the rules of patriarchy, and everybody else who is judging our desires.</td><td><img title="fed the fuck up!" src=""></td></tr></...

We are fed up of your hypocrisy and your nasty, back-stabbing ways of communication. For years, we have been constructing bridges and you are just building new borders. We are fed up of the poison that your self-loathing and ignorance leaves in our time and space.

You and all the people who cannot go beyond genitals, who cannot allow themselves to think freely, who cannot see the beauty in the dirt, who cannot go beyond thinking inside of the establishment, who cannot go beyond fixed standards and rules, who cannot forget to accumulate money, who cannot step through the mirror: you are supporting the heteronormative, capitalist, mainstream system by constantly pushing us back into our precarious, painful and pissed-off positions.

You are a part of the fucking enemy and we are not going to accept your attacks anymore. Let's call this is an open war. So please, now you can take off your cynical masks and we will finally see each other. Maybe you will never look at our eyes nor tell us the things to our faces, that you have been saying behind our backs. Because you are so fucking afraid of speaking your mind freely, because you have swallowed their medicine and you have learned to be a coward. So let's call this is an open war... and we will destroy you with a smile.

You are using the P.C. code as a shield, because you are lacking the intelligence, the empathy and the love to create new ideas. Maybe you are so fucked up, that instead of searching a solution, you prefer to satisfy your self-destructive desire by destroying the beautiful and wise things that we are constantly building, that spring from our happiness, our lives, our unconditional love towards ourselves and all other monsters.

Based on the P.C. protocol, all you know to do is to play a simple game, a choreography of manipulation; but we, the monsters, like to do the things in an ethical and fair way, and - unlike you - we are doing it with a combination of heart and intuition. We are teaching each other to communicate actively and with respect, instead of choosing weapons like vetoes, banning and censorship.

The saddest thing in our lives is that even inside of our “affinity groups” called „the scene“ or „communities“, we have to deal every fucking day with, censorship, discriminations, exclusions and mental violence. Every day we have to deal with normative-thinking assholes like you, that dare to call themselves „queer“, when all they do is „square“. These fucking assholes, who are jealous of our strenght, our power, our humor, our playfulness, our joy and independence, our way of fighting, living, breathing, fucking, loving, desiring...

You despise us, because you cannot free your mind enough to join us, to love us, to be like us - or to simply be yourself. But still you prefer to stay near us, trying to regulate what we do, inside the spaces that we have created with our bodies, hearts and minds. Instead of struggling to learn how to love yourselves and fighting together with us for what you want, you are trying to strangle us with your rules, taking our air with your infinite need of attention, your stories of fucked-up-childhoods, your pathetic self-pity. And you are able to do it, because we are the only ones that respect and support you, who openheartedly give you our time, our company, our inspiration, our „for-free-or-a-small-donation“-entertainment, our dumpstered food, our stolen equipment, our free-box clothes. For this betrayal, we are spitting in your obnoxious middle class faces.

You are repressing us from inside our communities in a very cheap and unfair way. We don't know what you are pretending to be, but we know that we must protect ourselves from you, like from any other enemy trying to attack us.

And it's obvious that despots and idiots can be on every side of society: they can be cops or politicians, they can be perfect families or hippies, they can be black or white or yellow, poor or rich and yes, they can call themselves „queers“, too.

One of the best strategies to stop our anti-system struggle is to control the fight from inside. In this sense, the „victim“ role is the most powerful way to infect an anarko-feminist community. To recognize oneself as a „victim“ means that there's no way to protect, defend or to help us monsters. Instead, we the monsters, who have fought all of our lives to survive, refusing to be called a „victim“ now have to give our carefully collected energy to you - a truely powerful method to dis-empower the people that really want to survive and fight...

When a „victim“ appears on an anti-system movement, all the energies of the fighters go to that person. There are many ways to help someone to go beyond that role, to help them to deal in a healthy and ethical way with their personal problems, to rise above the traumata they have suffered – like we did before them or are doing right now. And for sure one of these methods can be rejecting the idea of the „victim“ and instead starting to invest ourselves in collective forms of self-empowerment.

The Politically Correct protocol is only useful for adapted people who want to be normal. It is there to avoid having a real discussion, making a real connection, achieving a real understanding of each others need and wants. But we, the monsters, never pretend to be adapted to the terms of the system, so we should protect ourselves from these kinds of impositions.

It could be painful and hard to talk clearly with a really hurting friend. But is totally necessary to do it. WE ALL NEED TO DO IT: to take responsibility for ourselves and each other.

The P.C. protocols came to us as an imposition from the normative society, like a trojan virus on a free software system. And we, the anarko-queer-feminist humans, should realize that now the moment has come to reject that protocol, once and for all.

Because these are instruments of the capitalist system to subjugate us, to make us become our own police, inside our own heads, inside our own jails/bodies. And these mechanisms can come to us wearing a uniform or a colored mohawk, they can have a cock or a pussy, they can also be extremely discrete or even invisible.

But every monster has a special intuition of justice and ethics inside of themselves. Or at least every monster should have that. This intuition has become our only effective weapon to fight back, a powerful virtue that can really save us from depression, destruction and boredom.

The only possibility of survival that we have is the alliance with another monster against our common enemy. Internal fights between us are just the beginning of the end, and we must stop this right now, before it is too late.

We, the monsters, are here to tell you that we are going to fight for the right to see and choose, we are going to fight for the liberation of all bodies and against any kind of repression. We will be against the (sometimes really subtle) violence that you exercise over the ones that choose to freely decide how, when, where and with whom to have sex.

You, the camouflaged bastards, the shitty PC cops, the enemies of imagination and of our struggle for freedom, you are prisoners of yourselves, and we don't have the time nor the energy to rescue you. Go and leave our spaces, or go and live with the heteronormative people, join their families, their jobs and their fucking patriarchal system. We don't want you beside us, inside us, we don't need you - we want you out of our lives and politics, out of our hearts and beds!

You are not welcome in the kingdom the monsters!!!


sorry your friends are jerks, but can't stuff like this go on your blog? high school problems.

Someone wrote this when they were drunk.

is this about violet?

It's just a rash!

i'm pretty sure violet has been in the crosshairs of the pc police...

I'm only 14 and what is this?... o, wait, isn't this my angst?
- Created in a collective way... if you want to join this comment, just spread it.

PC cops are fucking liberal humanists outright!

I think this belongs on not

IGTT 9/10, too, amiright?

Feminism is all about playing the victim to get attention and I don't think it has much of place amongst anarchists. I think the Democrats are hiring vicitms.

IGTT 0/10

I'm really into this piece. Describes perfectly about 80% of what passes for "feminism" or "queer" politics in my town. Truly rigid, manipulative, joyless, unoriginal people, middle class people playing with words and playing the victim.


lulz. You beat me to it.

heh nope.

"Anti-oppression thought police"


You win the thread.

Word. There are some decent people there, but between the 'Rate my first Circle-A' babbies and heavy-handed modding (though yes, I know -- the internet's founding concept is control), it just aint worth it.

This rant is incredibly passive-aggressive and intellectually lazy. Very typical of what passes for communication these days. Here's some advice. If you hate somebody and/or want to call them out, get off your fucking blog , use your own fucking voice and speak directly to that person. Spare the rest of us. This mass-broadcast pseudo-anonymous "we" versus "you" communicates nothing besides that you're impotent.

"we, the monsters, like to do the things in an ethical and fair way"

Sounds like "My ethics are authentic, yours are not." How can you be certain that your ethics are legitimate? Do you think fairness or ethics can be objectively determined?

"You despise us, because you cannot free your mind enough to join us"

Sounds like "People who disagree with me just don't get me." Now that could be naiveté or narcissism. Either way, it seems to demonstrate that you lack understanding of your opposition.

"every monster has a special intuition of justice"

Sounds like "My justice is authentic, yours is not." I think you would benefit from a close and critical look at morality and justice. They're concepts with no place in the development of anti-authoritarian tendencies, in my opinion.

I think growing up on the internet aborted the maturation of communication skills. Instead of commune-ication, just alienated impotent people shouting at glowing mirrors in their little hovels.

I'm not hostile to this piece in the way that a lot of the other commentators are, but I still find it confusing. I intuitively understand pieces of it through experiences with various queer spaces, but it's written in such a way that I honestly can't tell which side of the war I've been placed on. I know that I "should" be on the monster's side, but I can't tell if I actually am by the standards of this piece.

Seriously though, I don't understand where all the outright hostility and disregard is coming from- similar pieces that simply replace "queer/monster" with "pure insurrectionary" calling out the PC/leftist anarcho-liberals/police, which are equally as vague and whiny, earn high praises on this website. I call hypocrisy.

As the author of a comment above your own, I confidently say that I would be equally bored by this piece if it used the terms you listed.

As the author of a comment on anarchist news, I confidently say WOOHOO LOOK AT ME GO, WRITIN' OPINIONS!~

Express yourself, comrade!


This is better if you picture it in a different context such as:

"My drunk 30 something year old self writing a letter to my 15 year old self"

this person...seems...angry. do we get doritos after this?

fuck all college kids! sorry we didn't get the grad student memos! a bunch of piece of shit identity politics rich kids who can't handle the configuration of class struggle with how their identity struggles might conflate with those of poor people, so they alientate all those not raised with bourgeoisie niceties and call us "fucked up" for not "being educated" about their rich kid struggles. i fucking hate them too. its nice to think that in a few years all of those kids will have disappeared or become completely irrelevant. death to fake ass militancy made by college kids!


no. bay area, and i was drunk

doesn't show at all

Everyone should read "The Fraud of Feminism" by E. Balfort Bax, written in 1913, it's still applicable today.

Whether we are ranting against ‘the state’ whatever that means, or ‘the police’ whatever that means, or ‘PC power manipulating fascist queers and trans people’ whatever that means, we are in the illusional realm of ‘what things-in-themselves do’.

it is the world of European noun and verb language and the world of mainstream science; it is a world that lives only in our heads, in our idealizations. the physical world is the transforming relational space of our living experience, and if we screw up the condition of our living space in the process of making war on some or other allegedly incorrectly-behaving ‘group’ or ‘category’, we we screw up ourselves. the nazis were not the problem. the jews were not the problem. ‘we’ are the problem by formulating our world view in terms of science and language and confusing this 'idealization' for reality; i.e. 'idealization' in terms of ‘what things-in-themselves do’.

can we use the tools of science and language to make life miserable for any category of thing we wish to? ... nazis, jews, statists, cops, ‘PC power manipulating fascist queers and trans people’. yes we can, but what happens ‘to us’ in the process, the whole collective including ‘us’ and ‘them’ that share inclusionin a common living space? what happens to the transforming relational space in which we all share inclusion?

can we do better than the next guy and buy up all the land and all the food and fresh water. if we are good at what we do, if we are superior producers/achievers, sure we can. but is that ‘the real story’. how about the ghettos that form in that space we all share inclusion in as spatial-relational imbalances rise, the angry gangs, the assault rifle equipped slaughtering misanthropes, the dead-from malnutrition babies, the sobbing mothers, the street-walker, junkie daughters. can we compete? sure we can. if we really focus on what ‘we-as-things-in-ourselves can do’ we can become gold medalists, and say ‘fuck you’ to the ‘losers’. that’s the time honoured, proud tradition of darwinism is it not, ayn randism, capitalism, none of which consider that the transforming relational space we all share inclusion in is the ‘physical reality’ rather than science and language’s fixed empty and infinite box notion of space, notionally inhabited by ‘things-in-themselves’ that ‘do stuff’.

do we really believe that an understanding of the world developed in terms of ‘what things do’ is an understanding of ‘the physical world’? ... just because science and the word structures we put together say it is? who’s to blame for our pain today? get out your analytic scientific thinking headgear and spin the wheel of popular causal agents to see where the big arrow stops, ... will it be ‘jews’, ‘cops’, ‘queers’, ‘commies’, ‘politicians’, or spin again....? do we have a DDT for the troublesome causal agent, and if we use it can we be sure it won’t be ‘conditioning the dynamics of the habitat at that the same time the dynamics of the habitat are continuously conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants, including ourselves’?

forget about all of this Fiktional breakdown into causal agents with their allegedly 'incorrect behaviours' as if they determined the state of the world we live in. a space full of imbalances and conflict is a space that is shitty to live in. the agents of the state can shit in our living space and so can the once-free lackeys of the state. the real physical story is the continuously transforming relational space we all share inclusion in, the story is not captured in terms of invented categories of notional ‘things-in-themselves' and 'what they do' [be it behaviourally 'good' or 'bad' or 'indifferent' in our beholder eyes], which is pure ‘illusion’.

the condition of our living space conditions the behaviours of those living it at the same time as the behaviours of those living in it conditions the living space [mach’s principle]. how many massacres in your living space today? can you spot any trend?

ever notice that there is no mention of ‘space’ in the science and language of ‘what things-in-themselves do’, ... ‘what fascist queers do’ or ‘what the agents of the state do’ or ‘what the cops do’. models in terms of ‘what things do’ don’t have ‘space’ in them, such idealized models assume space is a non-player, an empty and infinite containing box for the alleged 'real action' which we say [wrongly] is in terms of 'what things do'.

if you want to get rid of some folks you don’t like, you have to mess up the living space that you both share inclusion in. in the twentieth century we messed it up with hundreds of millions of corpses of men, women and children who died often agonizing unnatural deaths before their time. hey, but the good guys won, ... didn’t they?

the core management principle of Western civilization is ‘be good’. talk about ‘political correctness’, PC is the very foundation of Western civilization with its laws and moral codes governing ‘what people as things-in-themselves do’. there is no ‘space’ in this model. if there are bad people that need to be eliminated, that is the priority and let the smoke and contaminants of bombs and the smell of rotting flesh fill the common living space for a thousand years, ... so long as the good guys prevail. we must be principled, ethical, moral things-in-ourselves people and damn the condition of the common living space.

the science and language of ‘what things-in-themselves do’ fails to mention ‘space’. space is implicitly assumed to be a non-player, an infinite emptiness. but meanwhile, the agents of the state are conditioning the living space and that is conditioning the behaviours of those inside the prison walls of the state. and the good people, the gold medalist competitors, the superior performers, are buying and controlling more of the finite living space so that conditions in the living space are changing for those that didn’t qualify for the 'what things-in-themselves do' olympics. in our finite living space, fewer and fewer people are taking possession of, and exerting control over a larger and larger proportion of the space. it is the good guys who are doing this, the one’s that pass through the reject filter of laws and moral codes with no problem at all. and, of course, in the science and language of ‘what things do’, ‘space’ is not mentioned, so the good guys are good guys regardless of how they manipulate and control and otherwise ‘condition’ the living space we all share inclusion in.

what to conclude? the quality of our living space is the physical reality, not these science and language based story-models in terms of ‘what things-in-themselves do’. the question is NOT about, ... ‘why some guy went psycho and killed thirty people’, the question is; ‘is something going on with the condition of our living space?, ... that ‘living space condition that conditions the behaviours of the inhabitants at the same time as their behaviours are conditioning its condition’, ... the conjugate habitat-inhabitant dynamic that mach claims is the real physical world dynamic, rather than the popular Fiktional world dynamic in terms of ‘what things-in-themselves do’ within an infinite empty operating space.

in conclusion, i understand the emotion that rises up against ‘fascist queers’ and ‘trans people’ who go beyond using their energies to cultivate a tolerant egalitarian living space and rally the forces of political correctness in an ‘us’-‘them’ offensive. but to ‘attack them’ is to declare the ‘incorrectness’ of their behaviour, which is coming from the same place that they are; i.e. it puts us back into this science and language based ‘what things-in-themselves do’ Fiktional reality, which ignores the primary role of space.

if what we want is a harmonious living space, we have to acknowledge mach’s principle, that the conditions of space are conditioning the behaviours of those living in it at the same time as the behaviours of those living in it are conditioning it.

i don’t care if a capitalist gold-medalist passes slickly through all the reject filter parameters based on ‘what things-in-themselves do’,... what i care about is how the conditions of the living space we all share inclusion in are being conditioned by his, or the state’s, or anyone’s behaviour. if the 1% can roam about the common space freely and gorge in its delights, and the 99% have to wiggle and weasel within that space for scraps, then i don’t care how that 1% scores on the standard law and moral code criteria of good behaviour for ‘what things-in-themselves do’, the behaviours of the 1% , in order to restore balance and harmony in the common living space, have to be revised NOT on the basis of their goodness or badness, but on the basis of how they are conditioning the common living space, which is in turn conditioning the behaviours of everyone included in that space [each person being uniquely, situationally included in that common space].

i would say the same to those [the authors of above essay] who try to rally public judgement against the alleged ‘incorrect behaviours’ of ‘fascist queers’ etc. because they are using the weapon of rallying public judgement against ‘incorrect behaviours’.

the attempt to manage our social dynamic by seeking control of the behaviours of a collection of ‘things-in-themselves’, and applying moral etc. judgement to their behaviours is the approach of Western civilization, shaped by the Christian/Judaism/Islam belief traditions and by language and by science. science and language and monotheist beliefs model the world or ‘Creation’ as a diverse collection of ‘things-in-themselves’. ‘space’ does not come into it. space is assumed to be an absolute fixed empty and infinite operating box for the movements and interactions of ‘things-in-themselves’.

in this Fiktional reality, of ‘what things-in-themselves-in-empty space do’, everybody wants to have dibs on everyone's behaviours; church, state, political factions, fringe groups, because, in that sort of pseudo-reality, the only option for management of the social dynamic is management of the behaviours of the inhabitants [space is a non-participant in our popular Fiktional reality of 'what things do'.

it’s time to wake up out of this Fiktional reality and acknowledge that we live in a transforming relational space wherein the condition of space conditions the behaviours of the people within it and vice versa. if you have ever felt ‘oppression’ you have felt an ‘oppressive space’; i.e. you have felt the condition of the space you are in which comes from the web of relations you are included in. if lines of riot police are marching down every street you turn into, then it is the condition of space that is conditioning your behaviour. space is a mediating medium that people [groups, the agents of the state etc.] can condition in such a way as to condition your behaviour. the monopolizing landowner can use the force of limited access to the land/nurturance to extort sweat shop labours and sexual favours for pittance, out of the landless. the landowner will likely be a gold medalist on the ‘what things-in-themselves do’ rating charts. on top of the reward and respect, he gets to buy more land and get more gold medals [and sweat shot labours and sexual favours for pittance].

its not about ‘what people do’, as the science and language based ‘what things-in-themselves do’ Fiktion-reality says, ... its about how people’s behaviours are conditioning the common living space that is conditioning our behaviours. it’s time to ‘wake up’ and acknowledge that the science and language based ‘what things-in-themselves do’ model of reality is Fiktion; i.e. that the real physical world we live in is a transforming relational space, not an infinite empty box populated by ‘things-in-themselves’ that co-construct a world dynamic in terms of ‘what things do’.


We love you, Emile!
Please write for our journal.

an 'exercise' for the journal;

Exercise: The ‘what things do’ versus ‘relational space’ view of Syria/Assad, Cuba/Castro, Libya/Qaddafy, Iraq/Saddam

plug in any of the above names where the following discussion refers to; --- country ‘C’ and, --- dictator ‘D’


1. C is a country located over here, with its capital here. The people of C are not happy

2. D is the dictator of C who is preventing the people of C from having a better life.

3. D has killed and imprisoned many of his own people for protesting, and he spies on his own people.

4. The people are angry at D for his malicious treatment of his own people, and they are rebelling against him.

5. The rebels are somehow finding weapons and so the conflict is internal, within C, it is a ‘civil war’ due entirely to the evil nature of D.

4. Other people , around the world, have empathy with the people of C who want a better life that is being denied them by D, and people everywhere, in the US, Britain, France, want their governments, who have stood by entirely uninvolved to this point, to do what they can to help the people of C depose the dictator and to help bring democracy to the people of C.

* * *


1. The region in which C is situated was stateless prior to colonization and the people freely associated [tribally and/or in diversely populated cities etc.] and were living relatively free and happy lives.

2. The peoples of the region were colonized and the region was divided up into sovereign states by the colonizing powers to better manage and exploit it.

3. The country, C, was led by a puppet leader P who kept the door open for the colonizing powers to molest the people of C and exploit its resources.

4. a young and courageous man of the people, D, who had grown up detesting what the colonizers had done to his people rallies the people to break free of colonial enslavement and depose the puppet P. he rises to power as they succeed for the moment in liberating themselves, the people of C, from abusive exploitive manipulative treatment by the alliance of colonizing powers and the puppet P that it had installed.

5. D refuses to join the colonizer club and way of life and with the people of C’s full backing, commits the country to going its own way.

6. Relational tensions in C and in the region, which have been continuous and intense since colonization, intensify.

7. sanctions and attempts to foment insurrection in C begin [how many cia attempts on castro?, ... reaganbombs on qaddafy’s residence, contras etc.]

7. Stirred by prospects of support from the colonizer alliance, rebel groups form within C, who argue that life will be far better when D is over-thrown [they are right, the colonizer alliance can’t stand ‘wild cards’ on the loose and they make life hell for those that won’t cowtow to them, like D.]

8. The ‘better life’ they are being held back from is relative to the nasty life they are now experiencing, thanks to the colonizer alliance, because they committed to ‘going their own way’. that is, the ‘better life’ is relative to the current one with the sanctions and the incessant attempts to foment insurgency that have in turn induced the growth of suspicion and ‘secret service’ activities in the country, darkening the once bright image of the courageous young man/liberator of the people, D. The graves and imprisoning of failed [colonizer alliance stimulated] insurgents begin to ‘pile up’, also darkening the image of the liberator/leader.

9. inter-‘tribal’ factionalization within C continues to threaten to erupt. factionalization was not a problem in the pre-colonial era where there were no sovereign states to trump free association; i.e. there were no central authorities having the power over the melange of carved up pieces of tribes that the colonizers had split out and binned into the separate states [nb. the people of C did not come together to form C of their own accord, like the people [sons of colonizers] of the US, ... they were forcibly snipped apart and the pieces thrown into the various sovereign state bins by the colonizers so as to discourage unity in the region, and the power that comes with it.

10. Life IS miserable in C because D chose, with the people’s support at that time, to take the people of C along the difficult non-colonizer-club course of their own, that matched their cultural traditions, refusing to join in with the colonial alliance which had been so bad for the spirit of the people and for their welfare. No matter how bad it is, many old-timers still do not want to join in with the colonial alliance, and yet going back to the ‘old ways’ is impossible now that the tribes have been snipped into pieces and binned into centrally controlled sovereign states, so that they snap and hiss at one another in this odd arrangement. These old timers remember all these things and they want D to resist the trap of the colonizer alliance and keep things hanging together in spite of the difficult life. They do not want to join with or become part of the colonizer system.

11. When the BBC or NBC or CBC television news comes on, the report seems always to be in terms of ‘WHAT THINGS IN THEMSELVES DO, ... the reports never mention how the people are caught up in this web of relations whose transformative tensions are continuous and have never departed since the early days of colonization. The news reports say;

1. C is a country located over here, with its capital here. The people of C are not happy

2. D is the dictator of C who is preventing the people of C from having a better life.

3. D has killed and imprisoned many of his own people for protesting, and he spies on his own people.

4. The people are angry at D for his malicious treatment of his own people, and they are rebelling against him.

5. The rebels are somehow finding weapons and so the conflict is internal, within C, it is a ‘civil war’ due entirely to the evil nature of D.

4. Other people , around the world, have empathy with the people of C who want a better life that is being denied them by D, and people everywhere, in the US, Britain, France, want their governments, who have stood by entirely uninvolved to this point, to do what they can to help the people of C depose the dictator and to help bring democracy to the people of C.

* * *

Vote for which world view is more physically real to you; this BBC/NBC etc. (a) ‘WHAT THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES DO’ WORLD VIEW, or (b) THE TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL SPACE WORLD VIEW

After you vote for your favourite, bonus points are allocated for assessing whether or not it is possible to take a natural suite of transforming spatial relationships in an inherently relationally interdependent dynamic, as in the circulating flow of the earth’s lithosphere with its associated elastic opening and closing of ocean basin features, and re-render it in the far crisper, clearer and simpler ‘thing-in-itself’ terms of ‘continents’ and ‘plates’ and how they ‘drift’ about and ‘bang into one another’. bonus points and a BBC News Science Reporter badge will be awarded if you can convince three other people that the ‘what things-in-themselves- ‘continents’-do’ view is the ‘physical reality’.

vote this comment up if you support 'what things-in-themselves-do' as corresponding to physical reality.

[yes, this does relate to the original article]

vote this comment up if you support 'the continual transformation of relational space' as corresponding to physical reality.

don't you just love anarchy?

I don't love anarchy, but I do love me some emile. Thanks for contributing to the journal emile.

the jury seems to be still out as to ‘what anarchism is’ so my, or anyone’s talk about anarchy doesn’t mean a hell of a lot [if a word doesn’t have common meaning, it doesn’t have meaning]. but i would venture to say that when colonizers divided up the world into threat-of-violence sustained ‘bins’ or ‘plantations’ called ‘sovereign states’, and killed off ‘free association’, global ‘humanity’ said goodbye to man’s natural free associating way of being in the world. the binning is an elegant means of dealing with the diversity in nature. biologists pioneered it by inventing a taxonomy that is the real ‘origin of species’; no taxonomy, no species, that’s the power of words, my friends, and it applies to ‘queers’ and ‘trans people’ and ‘germans’, ‘japanese’, ‘americans’, ‘russians’ etc.

the beauty of it is that the word-designation is far more crisp and clear than what goes in the bin, and ‘works’ by ‘correcting’ or 'psychologically overpowering' the natural uniqueness of the things in the bin by brute force (the power of the word) and imposing a well-defined ‘thing-in-itselfness’ to all members of the designated set. think what a problem it would be if we couldn’t say ‘the germans persecuted the jews and they must be punished for it’, and instead had to assume that each of those elements we put into the ‘german bin’ were unique. we would never be able to control and manage the world that way. of course, the germans recognized this need to define the bins very clearly, as they did in the case of ‘jews’. it is a job that requires continual maintenance, otherwise the diversity amongst the members of the set will start to take over again and blur the membership definition. the article clarifying who ‘queers’ and ‘trans people’ are thus does a service in continuing to develop set membership definition, so as to simplify how we manage them.

sovereigntism provides a powerful ‘political taxonomic’ tool in that it generates amazing simplicity out of huge diversity. while it was a challenge to over-ride the diversity and uniqueness of members of the set in the ‘german’ and ‘french’ bins, sovereigntism has really strutted its stuff in its establishing of the designation ‘american’ which actually includes 'german and french' set members and overrides them.

BUT... sovereigntist designations are still not quite as ‘tight’ as the global high priests of colonization would like. sure, they do afford a clear target for disciplining the individual groups with ‘just war theory’ where the bin can be used like a movie theatre set on fire, a hell hole that people are trapped in while they ‘take their punishment’, ... in spite of this management efficiency, there is still the refugee problem where not all of the people stay confined within their designated plantations but break the rules and slip out across the borders to avoid taking their group-designated punishment. and of course, there is the disgusting abuse of just war principles where conflicts are sourced, NOT by the duly authorized and legitimate central authorities of the designated plantations, but by rag-tag ‘cells’ of ‘freedom fighters’, a corruption that is ‘terrorizing’ the binning system. what would the world become if free association returned, and people ignored their bin designations and were running free all over the place? what anarchy!

anyhow, we already tried that, and it was impossible for the best managerial minds, who know far better than most what’s best for everyone, to ‘get on top of it’, without a system of bin designations of a reasonable numerical size. all of the simplifications that have been achieved to date, where binned people actually have a great pride in their bin designation, where we have managed to deliver the whole population of the world in 183 designated categories making the affairs of man far more manageable from powers and processes sitting above those categories (e.g. the processes or peace-keeping of the colonizer alliances etc.), is not something that we can allow to degenerate back into ‘free association’, as it would then be impossible to manage from the top. groups would always be forming on the fly and those on top would no longer have designated targets to deal with.

the policing of designated categories is thus crucially important to the continuing history of mankind. the concept of the ‘thing-in-itself’ as provided by these designated categories is what the causal model is built upon. we must be able to say; ‘if a bin harbours terrorists, then the bin [as a thing-in-itself that does stuff], the bin will be held responsible for ITS ACTIONS, and must accept the consequences. this would not work if everyone was freely associating. without strong designations, if the global living space were still an unbounded, unbinned space featuring collections of freely associating people, a continually transforming web of spatial relations, we would never have the power of topside management of such a mess. what a blessing it has been to see people take to the sovereigntist system of organization where they actually take pride in their binning designation, and take pride in being treated, en masse, as a ‘thing-in-itself’ as the designation signals.

without language and the power of the word to infuse this order into the world, those who are most civilized and advanced, would never be able to manage the whole show. the power of language to categorize and to construct ‘things-in-themselves’ with ‘their own behaviours’ is what saves us from the a world of free associations or ‘anarchy’; i.e. from a situation that could never be managed from the top, by the world’s best and brightest.

Only you have the humility to deserve these accolades! Accept them as a reciprocal bonus for your pure logic and warm inoffensive heart in educating us fools!!


don't think i've ready anything quite so stupid before. who wrote this? wtf had they ingested? manifesto my ass!

and my ass too!

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.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
Enter the code without spaces.