The Black Flag of Anarchy Revisited

  • Posted on: 1 October 2012
  • By: worker

<table><tr><td>The article in the National Review, ‘Black Flags Spell Trouble’, reprinted on the website <a href="">here</a>, limits discussion by starting from the point of view of ‘what anarchism is’ in narrow ‘Western civilization’ intellectualizing terms. The topic, deserves another, fuller airing that casts off the artificially constrained ‘Western’ framing used in the National Review.

The author, Charles C. W. Cooke, kicks off the article with;

<em> “Black flags are harbingers of chaos. ... The barbarism in Egypt and Libya pushed back into view the nefarious purposes to which black flags are most commonly deployed.”</em></td><td><img title="I fucking wish" src=""></td><...

Cooke gives the topic a ‘Western’ stage setting that is far too narrow for the subject material. Black is the colour of ‘is not’ in the sense of ‘pre-being’ and not as, in common Western thinking, where 'is not' is a simple opposite to ‘is’ [the mistake that leads to ‘nihilism’]. The black of the pirates’ flag is symbolic of the ‘death of “is”’, not by having to ‘kill off’ what ‘is’ but by exposing its ‘emperor’s new clothes’ [sinking of the imperial flagship]; i.e. by stripping off the cloak of ‘being’ beneath which resides the continual becoming in which it is included. ‘Black’ was here before the arrival of the variously coloured nation flags that each proudly claim the deference of others on the high seas. Pirates reject the flags of nations and use the black flag to signal that you are now going to return to the fecund blackness out of which all that self-aggrandizing, poseur colour-clutter was born.

The old indigenous tribesman hoists a black flag in the middle of the new intellectual concept of the sovereign state that was plunked down over top of him. The black flag signals that nothing has changed, nothing has ‘really’ come into being [except in the unbounded-by-reality intellectualizing of crony-believers inspired by the lust for possession and ownership that they conveniently bundled into their intellectual invention]. The old indigenous tribesman was not going to let himself be redefined in terms of some intellectual political concept. He was not going to respond to calls to go to war because others in a ‘different’ intellectually-invented nation had drawn a moustache on a picture of their Queen. He was not going to respond to appeals to ‘national pride’ or pay heed to taunts of ‘if you’re not with us you’re against us’. Like others of his noble savage brotherhood, now a small minority, dispersed over the old common ground which was now displayed on public-media pushed maps as a patchwork of ‘independent nations’, he flew the black flag to signal that he would continue to define himself and his family by his relationship with the continuously unfolding ‘world-that-was-always-there’, the uni-dynamical relational world that he and his ancestors help to shape.

Black is the colour of pre-lingual and pre-civilization allegiances and attachments. Black is the colour of the true path. Black is not nothing but the source of everything. The black flag society in Taoist China was ‘Weng chun’ and it met in ‘weng chun dim’ “hall of forever spring”. The black belt skill is the source of the skills of all colours.

The notion is that the flow [tao] in which we are included is purely relational and thus non-local, non-visible and non-material as symbolized by the colour black;

<em> "The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.
The unnameable is the eternally real.
Naming is the origin
of all particular things.
Free from desire, you realize the mystery.
Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations.
Yet mystery and manifestations
arise from the same source.
This source is called darkness.
Darkness within darkness.
The gateway to all understanding."</em>

The flow is the one continually transforming relational spatial-plenum. The forms that are continually gathering within the relational flow are not ‘the physical reality’ they are the ‘appearances’ that we play language games with by defining and naming them, which synthetically splits us apart from them so that we can ‘possess them’. The woman who is a sister-feature in the flow with us, when we define and name her and intellectually give her ‘her own independent being’, becomes something ‘out there’ which we can desire and possess, rather than loving as a companion navigating passage in a common flow.

The black flag is a protest against elevating intellectualized ‘beings’, ‘figures’ split out from the One dynamic ground, into an unnatural primacy over ‘the flow’ of pure relational potentialities that resists definition.

‘Patriarchy’ and top-down pyramidal hierarchy in general goes hand-in-hand with the intellectual synthesizing of beings. Patriarchy is the imputed ‘centre of authorship and behavioural control’ in a notional ‘thing-in-itself’ that is logically necessary if we are to accept such an intellectual language-based game-play. The sovereign state is a classic case of elevating intellectualized ‘being’ into an unnatural primacy over ‘the flow’ of relational potentialities that resists definition [“This source is called darkness.

Darkness within darkness. The gateway to all understanding.”]
The black beret of Che Guevara recalls the black beret of the Basque people and with a non-belief in the imposing of borders and the confinement within patriarchal states as in colonized South America and Europe.

In the video clip <a href="">‘Poland’s Changing Borders’</a>, one can imagine what indigenous peoples in the region [with early Basque-like matriarchal leanings] may have felt about such continuing attempt to impose patriarchal states.

This visual history of growth and decline of a patriarchal state is total Fiktion to an indigenous person. Such states existed only in the minds of the believers in such states; i.e. in the believers in patriarchy and the abject abnegation of self that patriarchy entails.
School children studying history will be shown <a href="">‘Poland’s Changing Borders’</a> as if it is a not-to-be questioned reality, rather than an artefact of a system of political belief that holds true only for those believing in it.

The black berets and black flags are worn by those who believe in the naturally unconstrained potentialities of people-in-the-flow of nature, ‘los in dios’. The black beret of Che Guevara signifies the unlimited potentialities of indigenous peoples that have been stifled and stunted if not crushed under the jack-boots of the bully gangs that forcefully imposed this intellectual concept of the patriarchal state on the indigenous peoples who identified themselves first and foremost with the darkness of pure relational potentiality of the flow of nature.

Why should these people, any people, accept as the base case, the ‘existence’ of these patriarchal states, at which point the ‘black flags’ and ‘black berets’ of ‘revolution’ become a ‘destructive symbol’ as the author of ‘Black Flags Spell Trouble’ suggests? Why should an intellectual Fiktion be accepted as the base case? ‘Black’ speaks of the formless relational potentialities that have been squashed by those who have foisted patriarchal states on the indigenous peoples. These intellectual concepts can only be foisted by way of propaganda and indoctrination because they only exist in the conditioned beliefs of the people who subjugate themselves to such ideas.

And yes, belief in the patriarchal state is a belief in a simple bully game, as Russell Means so patiently describes. This bully game has been previously documented by writers such as Thomas Mann, as ‘fascism’ which involves the abnegation of the self to accrue power at the apex of the pyramid. The defining relation for patriarchal states is captured by Mann in ‘Mario and the Magician’, as follows;

<em> “The capacity for self-surrender, he said, for becoming a tool, for the most unconditional and utter self-abnegation, was but the reverse side of that other power to will and to command. Commanding and obeying formed together one single principle, one indissoluble unity; he who knew how to obey knew also how to command, and conversely; the one idea was comprehended in the other, as people and leader were comprehended in one another.” ---Thomas Mann, ‘Mario and the Magician’, 1929</em>

The patriarchal state is a form of social organization wherein the participants let themselves be defined by the intellectual invention of an imaginary line bounded entity designated [usually in legalese on a piece of paper] as a ‘sovereign state’ which is administered by a patriarchal control structure. The notional borders of such a state change with the changing beliefs of people in the region, giving rise to the state as a kind of ‘organism’ that grows stronger and weaker and larger and smaller in cycles [<a href="">‘Poland’s Changing Borders’</a>], but it only does so in the political discussion and politicized actions that goes on amongst those who are politically-minded in the region. The indigenous people in the region are certainly caught in the cross-fire, but they are not obliged to believe in any of these ‘histories of Poland’ or ‘history of France and Spain’ since they are not ‘physical reality’, but are instead psychical dynamics that go on in the mentally modeling heads of the believers in patriarchal states.

Black flags and black berets are indeed a threat to the believers in patriarchal states, not because these ‘revolutionaries’ are going to destroy the patriarchal states, something they cannot do because the patriarchal states do not physically exist; they are artefacts of intellectualizing minds. The black flags and blag berets are a threat because they threaten to dissolve belief in patriarchal states.

Charles Cooke claims that;

<em> “Black flags are harbingers of chaos. ...[and] nefarious purposes </em>

But he has it exactly backwards. The chaos we are struggling with is the chaos identified by <a href="">Russell Means</a> that accrues from competition between ‘stinky cave men’ [patriarchs], and the nefarious purposes are what we are perpetrating on ourselves through our support for these ‘stinky cave men patriarchs’ whose egos are such that their only means of settling understandings is with a club;

<em> “Why anyone hasn’t woken up to this fact, ... it’s beyond me.”</em>

But Russell Means is permeated with the indigenous wisdom of the ‘zero chiefs’ that see ‘zero’ and ‘black’ as the source of all things.

<em> "The Medicine Wheel is the shape of the Zero. The Zero is the symbol and fact of Creation. The Zero Chiefs say that the Zero is not nothing, but is instead Everything. . . . Creation, the Zero, is perfectly balanced. The Zero is Female (WahKahn) and Male (SsKwan), and has designed and birthed all of life." </em>

And people who are brought up thinking that zero [symbolized by ‘darkness’ or ‘black’] is ‘nothing’ as in empty space [Euclidian] instead of a relational ‘spatial-plenum’

<em>“To the Chinese what is highest, the origin of things, is nothingness, emptiness, the altogether undetermined, the abstract universal, and this is also called Tao” ... “the nothingness' of which Eastern scholars are fond of alluding to is not a nothingness relative to the fullness of being, but a positive, fecund and pro-generative emptiness in which something and nothing, subject and object emerges. This is entirely different from the negative' form of nothingness, a nihilistic mood, that would result from the insistence on remaining silent or a refusal to engage. Heidegger's conversations' with a Japanese friend revealingly shows the metaphysical gulf' separating Eastern and Western attitudes towards emptiness and nothingness when the Japanese expressed amazement at Western reactions to Heidegger's work. We marvel to this day how the Europeans could lapse into interpreting as nihilistic the nothingness of which you speak To us, emptiness is the loftiest name' (Heidegger, ‘On the Way to Language’). Yet, this state of absolute nothingness' (What Nishitani, ‘Religion and Nothingness’ calls `sunyata') cannot be reached through premature abandonment.” – Robert Chia</em>

[N.B: <em> "In the Mahayana tradition, the principle of pratītyasamutpāda is said to compliment the concept of emptiness (sunyata). It is said that because all things arise in dependence upon causes and conditions, they are empty of inherent existence."</em> [e.g. 'Poland' as the hollow thing inside the changing borders]

‘Black’ is the not-colour of that which is the fecund and pro-generative relational flow; <em>“This source is called darkness. Darkness within darkness. The gateway to all understanding.”</em>

In conclusion, Charles Cooke needs to be corrected, the ‘nefarious business’ is coming not from the carriers of black flags but from the stinky cave-men patriarchs whose only method of settling disagreement is by the club. The black flags are harbingers, all right, not of the coming of chaos, but of the dissolution of unnatural and dis-spiriting patriarchal order that has been suppressing the free association based cultivating of relational harmonies.


Wow. Ctrl+F only managed to find "Fiktion." No Nietszche, no Mach, no doer-deed. Impressive job, emile.

Lol, I did the exact same thing. Well, I would have, if I hadn't started with Ctrl+F "Mach" and been lead straight to your comment.

<3 u bra

Ahhhhh, so The student becomes the teacher. Wing ching

"The black belt skill is the source of the skills of all colours."

Hate to rain on what is otherwise eloquent analogy (if you could call it such), but it's the red belt that is the source of skill for the other colors. The black belt is the belt of mastery, which itself has various ranks, while the red belt is the belt that an instructor wears, and is often considered higher than the black belt (though this heavily depends on the specific dojo and martial art - in some cases, I've seen things like the red belt actually being considered a specific, higher ranking type of black belt, despite the obvious color discrepancy, while in others the red belt is just below black). Anyway, in stereotypical martial arts, the red belt is used as a rank outside the ranks, to denote that the person wearing it is the one who is teaching, regardless of what rank they actually are. Therefore, the founder of a martial art is generally pictured as wearing a red belt.

i’m sure there are many different interpretations of the ranking of the colours that correspond to different ‘traditions’, but there is one interpretation that corresponds to physical experience in a manner consistent with this general discussion of the ‘not-colour’ black.

that is, there are a spectrum of skills which the instructor can impart to the student and it is difficult for the student to retain and integrate all of these skills. the skills are like a herd of wild horses that must be brought together as a team. black is the not-colour when all colours/skills have been absorbed (mastered) as one collection, by the student, at which point the student becomes teacher.

red belt: - The sun is setting. The first phase of growth has been accomplished." The first day (the period of time from white belt to red belt) of growth is coming to an end. The physical skill has been developed but lacks control; therefore, physical and mental discipline must now be achieved.

red/black belt - The dawn of a new day. The sun breaks through the darkness." The previous day has ended, giving way to a new dawn. The student must begin a new phase of training; that of being a black belt.

black belt - The tree has reached maturity and has overcome the darkness... it must now 'plant seeds for the future.” The color black is created when all the colors of the light spectrum have been absorbed into an object. That object has "taken control" of the colors and retained them. If one color was to "escape", the object would no longer be black but would appear as that color. The student has mastered the nine geup (grades). He/she has "absorbed" all the knowledge of the color ranks and overcome or "mastered" that level or training. The colors of the spectrum are bound together and are not reflected off an object, resulting in the absence of color which we call black.

I recognize those belt descriptions - they're from ATA/WTTF taekwondo. From my experience (getting a black belt in ATA, which was essentially bullshit) looking for any non-westernized meaning in things that they put out is worthless. The ATA is set up as a capitalist pyramid scheme, and any "eastern mystique" it maintains is firmly grounded in attempts to seem cool or relevant.

I suppose it's theoretically possible that they came from someone who subscribes to nonwestern color/knowledge conceptions, but having spent a couple years with those fuckers, I wouldn't use them to make this argument or any other.

firstly, ... you may be justified in your ad hominem attack on ATA/WTTF taekwondo [i don't know them], but that doesn't say that everything they have to say is without merit. pimps and prostitutes have understandings that can be more profound than the popular 'wisdom' of trusted sources ['trusted' because the corruption is not yet visible].

secondly, the colour 'spectrum' view of the belt descriptions resonates with our lived experience; i.e. many particular understandings may 'bounce off us' and though may 'receive them' we are unable to immediately assimilate them. that 'wholeness of understanding' that manifests during engagement wherein the content of actions/articulations emerges from holistic context, is suggestive of 'no bounce off' or the 'blackness' of full and total absorption.

in acoustic wave physics, bounce-back [reflection] goes to zero and the object becomes 'black' and 'invisible' when there is 'impedance matching' between content and medium at all frequencies [at all colours]. this fully harmonized state is where the object is dynamically 'one with everything'. one can imagine that this mastery of all components [total absorption] is ideal grounding for 'teaching-in-holistic-context' any one colour, red included.

all i am saying is that there is a natural metaphor in the physical world of our everyday experience that lends itself to this definition of the transcendence of 'black' as the source of diversity. making red 'sacred' in communist china was an arbitrary political-intellectual choice that ranked 'red' on the top and, being disconnected from any natural harmonies, led to such bizarre fallout as the 'red brigade' stripping women, in public, of pink underwear.

i am personally not a fan of 'ranking anything' by arbitrary historical tradition, whether it be gender, skin colour, plant or animal species etc. [humans included].

in the colour spectrum metaphor, the diversity of colours comes from the transcendent wholeness of the not-colour black, the source of all colours. [re 'ranking philosophy', see 'Who Shall be the Sun?', pacific northwest native american myth that makes a good point on this, captured by David Wagoner]


Postscript To This Article.

The black flag view calls into question the ‘reality’ of views in terms of patriarchal systems that treat the intellectual concepts of sovereign states and corporations as ‘real’. These systems are not ‘real’ in a physical sense, they are intellectual concepts within a belief-based system that depend on people believing in them. The black flag pirates on the high seas do not run in fear when they see the Union Jack or the Stars and Stripes and hear people call out; ‘Beware, you are approaching a flagship of the British Empire, engage at your peril. The physical reality which we can only experience in the unfolding present is that this is an ordinary ship with ordinary men on it. What they call a queen can be bedded as any man beds with any woman.

‘Pirate talk’ is in terms of physical reality. If everyone thought and spoke like pirates, there would be no Kings and Presidents and CEOs other than clowns in funny clothes because these intellectual concepts rise or fall with common belief in them. In our society, the news media treats them as ‘real’ and ‘revered’ and the alternative news media treats them as ‘real’ but ‘nasty’. If pirates moved in and dominated the media and in the streets and restored down-to-earth physical reality to a natural primacy, then Kings and Presidents and CEOs would lose their power since their power never jump-started from them as in the reality cultivated by believers in patriarchy. So Kings and Presidents and CEOs would then be pushed aside and insulted with impunity if they tried to jump the queue or claim their special privileges. and when their lackeys standing by their sides brought forth their official credentials, everyone would laugh because the spell would be broken, and they would be exposed as people like anyone else. The social collective would not descend into 'chaos' but into physical realism as in the indigenous aboriginal society.

This is why articles of this type, which ‘set the record straight’ are not ‘much use’ in a practical sense in the short term because the mainstream media is the keeper of the synthetic reality of patriarchal systems, and the alternative media is as well, with the exception that while the alternative media continues to support belief in a reality animated by Kings and Presidents and CEOs, the alternative media simply make them out to be ‘bad guys’ instead of ‘good guys’.

It is not necessary to physically ‘bring down’ the patriarchs and the patriarchal system, it is simply necessary to stop believing in it and to stop fostering belief in it by rebelling against it as if it were real, and in the process, giving it even more credibility. If enough people become ‘pirates’ and mock the patriarchs and patriarchal systems, those systems, which are constituted by intellectual concepts and sustained only by belief in them, will collapse and the Kings and Presidents and CEOs will be reduced to ‘ordinary people’. The world will not then be ‘reduced to chaos’ but to non-patriarchal society such as that of indigenous peoples that is based on physical reality rather than on a synthetic intellectual belief-based reality which sees dynamics in terms of ‘what things-in-themselves do’, rather than in terms of the continuing transformation of relational space.

What is needed is an ‘alternative 'pirate' media’ that instead of giving more credence to the artificial reality foisted on us by patriarchal belief systems, erodes belief in the basic concept of patriarchy. Russell Means is a good man who flies a mean black flag but he can’t do it all by himself.

The power of the King or CEO or president isn't "make-believe." It's material power.

Kings built up power through the use of hierarchical structures that developed organically over centuries. Even a Certified Fucking Rebel would be a Fool to sneer at the King. The Rebel hates the King, believes the King's authority to be make-believe but yet doesn't want to be brutally tortured. So when the King comes parading through town the Rebel acts as if the King is truly King because the King has the material power to torture the Rebel.

The CEO and President are recognized by everyone to hold socially-constructed power. Everyone knows their power isn't magical but stems from society, and without this particular arrangement of society the CEO or President wouldn't have power. But this doesn't change the way the people in this society act towards them. At least the King had the ruse of magic or religion to back up his bullshit. The CEO and President operate in a demystified regime that relies on the operations of networks of power. Employees don't obey the CEO just because of the title "CEO," but rather because the CEO has the power to fire them for insubordination. People poke fun of the CEO behind the CEO's back but this doesn't necessarily change the corporation, that structure that gives rise to the power of the CEO.

What's more "real" than a cop shooting somebody? This isn't make-believe: the cop's power is certainly ordained by a make-believe society but the cop's actions are real as real can be.

It's not just play-acting that strings society together.

First, let’s address your errors of logical inference; you say;

“What's more "real" than a cop shooting somebody? This isn't make-believe: the cop's power is certainly ordained by a make-believe society but the cop's actions are real as real can be.”

The power that comes to a person from a gun in his hand doesn’t depend on what society believes in. What’s more ‘real’ than a 17 year old drug dealer with a 357 magnum plugging holes through a cop’s [or anyone’s] head?

You are confusing two very different kinds of ‘power’ in ‘trying to make your point’. People in the street will step aside for the unarmed king, the gun-toting kid and the gun-toting king, but not for the unarmed kid. that’s why he acquires the gun, to get some of that there ‘respect’ that is not forthcoming from a crony entourage. even the weakling king can sing that song; “if you see me coming better step aside, a lot of men didn’t and a lot of men died’.

The power of a crony entourage of believers [as in a pyramid or hierarchy of support] is not ‘developed organically over centuries’ as you claim;

Kings built up power through the use of hierarchical structures that developed organically over centuries

Such power derives from nothing other than ‘intellectual beliefs’ which can turn on and off like a toggle switch. How do powerful kings get beheaded? People withdraw their belief in them and the king becomes a helpless weakling,... putty in their hands. His power comes from his ‘entourage’ of believers. Charles I believed his power scooted down directly from the virtual Apex in the sky into his interior but his people knew better. They had a list of over 200 intellectual complaints against him when they beheaded him in 1649.

Anybody can kick a king [Charles etc.], a President [Mussolini etc., a CEO [Enron’s Kenneth Lay] in the arse with impunity when his crony entourage of believers, the only source of his power, desert him, and people tend to do just that. There is a long list of patriarchs who have been hung or beheaded or incarcerated when people have withdrawn their belief in them, because their immense power, sourced only by such crony entourages of believers, enables them to ‘step on a lot of toes’ and once the entourage of believers that are the source of their power disperses, those harbouring grudges come out of the woodwork to get their pound of flesh. Mussolini was one of the most powerful patriarchs in Europe in the 20th century but when his entourage of believers withdrew their belief, he and his lover were shot hung and their bodies defiled.

The power of kings, presidents and CEOs is not ‘theirs’ as you claim;

“the King has the material power to torture the Rebel”

You make the same mistake as the person who claims that hurricane Katrina has the material power to wreak destruction on New Orleans. This is just an intellectual representation that one fashions in their head. The power of the foreground ‘dynamic figure’ derives from the ‘dynamic ground’ in which it is included. Katrina DOES NOT EXIST AS A THING-IN-ITSELF-WITH-INTERNALLY-SOURCED-POWERS.

A ‘patriarch’ derives his power form the dynamic social space he is situationally included in. He is like a sailboater rather than a powerboater; i.e. his steerage and direction is gleaned from the dynamic ground he is situationally included in. It is merely an intellectual form of representation [its all in our minds] to impute the source of power to the patriarch himself or the to the patriarchal system [sovereign state, corporation] itself.

As Russell Means observes, everything moves in circles and Western thinkers like to break into the circle and notionally jumpstart it at some convenient [to simple representation] point. the ‘patriarch’ and ‘patriarchal system’ are examples of this. The action doesn’t start with ‘what a man does’. Women are continually dumping more men out there into the continuing circular flow [the aboriginal’s ‘sacred circle of birth and death’]. We could move the starting point on the continuing circle back up and around to the woman’s womb, rather than jumpstart it from the patriarch seen as a ‘local, independently-existing material system, notionally with his own locally originating internal process driven and directed [powerboater] development and behaviour.

The ‘patriarch’ [e.g. king] as a powerful ‘thing-in-itself’ and the patriarchal system [e.g. sovereign state] as a powerful ‘thing-in-itself’ is an INTELLECTUAL REPRESENTATION WE CONSTRUCT wherein we break the dynamic figure out of the dynamic ground; i.e. the relational flow-space it is a relational flow-feature in.

Note that our intellectual representation of the powerful patriarch orients solely to ‘what he does’. That’s where Western society puts its ‘values’, into ‘what is done’ or ‘what is produced’. There is no valuation of how the space this patriarchal system operates in is being transformed by its operations; e.g. how others who co-inhabit the same space are getting screwed. The 45 years prison sentencing that was about to be laid on Enron CEO Kenneth Lay [he died just before sentencing was to happen] associates with how the people were getting screwed ancillary to Enron’s ‘production operations’ just as people are getting screwed by tar-sands production merely by co-inhabiting the space that these operations are going on in, a relational space that is being transformed by the patriarchal operating system which Western people like ourselves choose to view in terms of a ‘thing-in-itself’ and ‘what it does’ [what it produces] WITHOUT ACKNOWLEDGING THAT ALL DYNAMICS IN A RELATIONAL SPACE CONSTITUTE RELATIONAL TRANSFORMATION.

The flip-side of CREATING a housing development is DESTROYING a forest [creation and destruction are conjugate aspects of the One-dynamic of transformation of relational space]. As Russell Means observes, patriarchal society puts a value on honey as a commodity without taking into account whether you destroy the hive to get the honey or allow it to sustain its producing. You too, can be a ‘producer of honey’ by simply destroying hives and marketing the honey. Your patriarchal system accounting books reflect only your power to achieve results.

This intellectual idealization of dynamics in patriarchal terms of ‘what things-in-themselves do’, which splits the dynamic figures out of the dynamic ground is achieved how? We impose an absolute space and absolute time frame over the continuously transforming relational space of our experience, so as to isolate the dynamic figure and measure its development and behaviour relative to the absolute reference frame. This is how we generate this ‘language’ game and the intellectual representation of dynamics in terms of ‘what things-in-themselves’ do as in ‘Katrina is growing and intensifying’, she is heading north towards the Gulf Coast, she is wreaking destruction on New Orleans, she is moving overland and dissipating’. This IS the patriarchal system view that we make believe jumpstarts out of its own interior/apex whether we give it a name like Katrina or Ivan. It is not ‘physical reality’, it is a language game;

“Finally, our Euclidean geometry is itself only a sort of convention of language; mechanical facts might be enunciated with reference to a non-Euclidean space which would be a guide less convenient than, but just as legitimate as, our ordinary space ; the enunciation would thus become much more complicated, but it would remain possible. Thus absolute space, absolute time, geometry itself, are not conditions which impose themselves on mechanics ; all these things are no more antecedent to mechanics than the French language is logically antecedent to the verities one expresses in French.” – Henri Poincare, Science and Hypothesis

What’s the point of distorting the reality of our experience like this? ... experience that informs us of our inclusion within a continually transforming relational space where we can start talking about patriarchs and what they do, or we can start talking about women pumping patriarchs-to-be out of their wombs. Which comes first, the patriarch or the womb? Maybe these two things are ‘dynamic figures’ that we are synthetically extracting from the continually transforming ‘dynamic ground’ thanks to intellectual tools such as absolute space reference frames and noun-and-verb language constructs.


1. You mix up the power of a cop that comes to him from society and from a gun and then you talk about the reality of the power of him shooting someone and claim that that proves the reality of the power that comes from society is ‘material’ rather than ‘intellectual belief based’. This is a clear error of logical inference.

2. You claim that the power of kings was built up ‘organically’ over centuries, when history shows that the power of a king can be given and taken from him virtually ‘overnight’ since it is based on nothing other than collective intellectual belief that can be offered and/or withdrawn depending on the politics of the moment.

3. The power of a king or president or CEO is spoken of in terms of ‘what he causes to happen’ or ‘what result he produces’ as in our Western value system, when dynamics in our experience arrive in the form of continuing transformation of the relational space we share inclusion in.

As E.M. says, the patriarchal system view is an intellectual representation that synthetically breaks out the dynamic figure from the dynamic ground [of a continually transforming relational space] for the purpose of an ‘economy of thought’;

“Science itself, … may be regarded as a minimization problem, consisting of the completest possible presenting of facts with the least possible expenditure of thought” –Ernst Mach

Thanks, emile. It's getting easier and easier to spot and then laugh at cop logic every day. It was a mistake to hand the job-description and position of priest-king over to to actual, material police-men and women with flying-projectile envy, reified by war kings and the entire milieu of sycophantic bureaucrats as police force since the days of King Thug the first, the first, that is, to promote the magi to the position of magistrate and god to court scape-goat. There are today homeless Madison avenue advertising execs and elderly former staff from the once big Hollywood studios looking at each other, shaking their heads and then chiming in with the little old granny in the parking lot shouting "fuck the pigs".

f. (aka old dead guy)

Thanks for the response, Emile. Your posts are good reads.

I actually buy into your dynamical flow stuff, I think. When I tell the King to "go fuck himself," I'm executed. And it's not the King that is granted that power from his subjectivity. The-form-of-hierarchical-power-that-is-embodied-by-the-King tortures me. The human King embodies the dynamical flows, or the human King is a convenient way of looking at the more complex flows of beliefs, ideas, thoughts, weapons, material objects, etc. Perhaps the King contributes his particular input to the flow, but it's the flow that makes what happen happen.

As a matter of form, dominating structures sometime punish such "Pirate" talk. Depending on situation, like in a workplace for example, "Pirate" talk may be taken as a joke or as friendly shop-talk. A "fuck you" to the shop foreman may be part of the game of building a productive team.

"It is not necessary to physically ‘bring down’ the patriarchs and the patriarchal system, it is simply necessary to stop believing in it and to stop fostering belief in it by rebelling against it as if it were real, and in the process, giving it even more credibility."

I think the King is "make-believe" but simply dissolving that make-believe isn't enough because of the structures in place that reproduce King-based societies. These structures are composed of ideas and beliefs, but physical material too: cities, buildings, guns, human bodies, animal bodies, etc. So people get fed-up with one King and stop "believing in him?" Within hours his son dons the crown. This isn't true of nomads. The power of the nomad leader is provisional on that particular leader and his talents, and empires dissolve with the death of a leader.

When you steal something, a cop needs a gun to shoot you for it. But he also decides to do it with the help of a system based on property rights. It's the gun that shoots you and the system of property rights that propels the bullet into you.

If you plug your ears and shout "I don't believe in you! I don't believe in you!" they're not just going to disappear. Their disappearance requires at least some form of attack. For example, the patriarch is hung and the King beheaded. Maybe spreading disbelief will deal the crucial blow, but they're still gonna have to at the very least be pushed over.

"Breaking the spell" is awesome shit but the State's "lackeys" have loads of weapons.

"If enough people become ‘pirates’ and mock the patriarchs and patriarchal systems, those systems, which are constituted by intellectual concepts and sustained only by belief in them, will collapse and the Kings and Presidents and CEOs will be reduced to ‘ordinary people’."

Is that from Adbusters?

Your statement seems to agree with the notion of ‘darkness/nothingness’ occupying the king and the king being empty of his own existence;

“The-form-of-hierarchical-power-that-is-embodied-by-the-King tortures me. The human King embodies the dynamical flows, or the human King is a convenient way of looking at the more complex flows of beliefs, ideas, thoughts, weapons, material objects, etc. Perhaps the King contributes his particular input to the flow, but it's the flow that makes what happen happen.”

That’s really Mach’s point as well; “The dynamics of the habitat are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants at the same time as the dynamics of the inhabitants are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat”

and Mach is talking about physical reality, just like Bohm is when he says that the forms that we impute ‘thing-in-itself’ status to, are ‘ripples in the spatial-plenum’ so that when we put a little picture icon and a label on a ripple [like the meteorologist does the little magnetic whorl symbol for a hurricane], the ‘local picture icon’ is ‘empty of inherent existence because the thing is arising in dependence upon relational conditions’.

the people collective that the king is included in are having to juggle a lot of stuff so that his behaviour becomes the stuff that is being juggling, as you suggest. in the video of Poland’s changing borders, we impute something we call ‘Poland’ as being the internal source of its strong growing and its weak caving in, but the diverse collective of peoples in europe [all of whom have changing borders to some extent] are juggling a lot of stuff so that the behaviour we call ‘Poland’s’ 'IS' this juggling, and this growing shrinking icon with the name ‘Poland’ on it is ‘empty of inherent existence’

this is the argument that nietzsche [and rolph, rüdimeyer et al] had with darwinism. in a relational space, the relations are more important than the things arising in the relational web since the things are coming and going all the time while the relational web or ‘flow’ persists. the ‘organism’ is like the squiggly silhouette of poland in the poland video, it is something that emerges from a lot of interfering relational conditions. it ‘IS’ those interfering relational conditions. to paraphrase nietzsche, it is the conjugate relation of endosmosis and exosmosis [outside-inward nurturing influence and inside-outward asserting influence]. if space is an energy charged medium, the consumption of energy and the asserting of combustive products [the candle flame] is like the form that we see. this was also heraclitus’ view. the candle flame is empty of inherent existence [there is no local ‘being’-in-itself there].

So, if one sees things this way, the greater reality is in the interference based feature which is made of the dynamic ground-flow, rather than the form seen as a ‘thing-in-itself’ to which we notionally impute its own power of doing. this means, in turn, that we have to stop believing that dynamics are in terms of ‘what things-in-themselves do. the child soldiers and their behaviours [africa] are the expression of a relational confluence of influences in the living space they are situationally included in.

with respect to the ‘stop believing’ approach, this will save everyone who 'stops believing' from wasting energy on trying to wage war against particular people or groups blamed for what is going on, which places those believers, still, in the patriarchal mode, but until there are a lot of people that no longer believe in 'things-in-themselves', the establishment-faithful will continue to exert their influence through the courts and the police which are, in Western civilization, anchored to the absolute, as anon 18:41 brings up as well as you.

[a small development to this point, but 'restorative justice' is on the rise, the aboriginal version of which makes no assessment of ‘offender’ and ‘victim’, only ‘conflict in the community’ where it is the ‘community’ that must take responsibility for healing itself, rather than trying purify itself in a preservation of good, elimination of evil approach.]

belief in 'things-in-themselves' is not just western religious view but also mainstream science view, so the challenge in dropping such belief is non trivial.

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.