The Brilliant - Episode Ten: Indigeneity II

  • Posted on: 8 November 2015
  • By: aragorn

From The Brilliant

This episode concerns indigeneity. It is labeled part II but, in fact, should be part I as our first episode on this issue was distracted by more (temporally) pressing items. We begin by returning to our dialogue with the Haters, discussing a critique of anti-civilization discourse, the Rojava reportbacks by Paul Z Simons (who has outed themselves in the last writeup), and then an emo rantish introduction to the topic of Indigeneity by Aragorn!

Recorded on October 30th 2015

Join us in conversation by email


Listener Feedback @ 3:15

More on the Haters v Brilliant
Sex life & Freedom
The podcast as circumspection tool

Anti-civ @ 8:55

The comments on @news are great wrt article
Anti-civ is anti-thinking
Who will win the ultimate anarchist idea contest?!
How to win a fight no one wants?

Rojava @ 17:20

What is the motivation of a journalist? How about an activist journalist?
What is the limitation of google vs living in a context (information greed)
Americans exoticize/fetishize international stories

Indigeneity @ 27:00

An actual discussion about what A! is for
practice vs identity
spirituality meets the western gaze
Ward Churchill
references to episode 8 about leadership
Paradise Lost
Critique of Race Traitor
Action plans

btw you can hear murmurs throughout this episode by Brick. Here is Brick.



A Quick and Dirty Critique of Primitivist & Anticiv Thought
Final Rojava dispatch
Locating an Indigenous Anarchism

email us




The runner made it home before the EMILE 9000 could tag bring down its "indigenous anarchism" tag. And so the runner is . . . SAFE!

And remember, kids: like pitching, base running don't fit into that reductionist hitting / fielding binary being propagated by certain run-amok AI units.

The other day it was about the coach, now it's not. Cool.

Yes, things change. Every day. Gotta keep up with the times, right?

You're fielding is wonderful.

pet Brick for me. Also, before I listen, I want to know if Aragorn's emo rant is more along the lines of Rites of Spring or more on the AFI tip, this is important information for my praxis.

but i didn't come away with much. maybe because of bellamy and aragorn's late nights prior to the recording session?

spiritual practice was mentioned, in terms of how difficult it was to develop if one wasn't raised with it but not much talk about how mere intellectual views on the very different nature of spirituality [intra-nature versus supra-nature] changes indigenous and non-indigenous practices; i.e. there was no talk on stuff like this;

“The material universe is like an insubstantial shadow of the actual substantial Creator. In this worldview, the highest form of cognition, of consciousness does not occur in the insubstantial shadowlike material realm, but in the realm of creation’s spiritual source’.” --Richard Atleo aka Umeek, ‘Tsawalk'

even if one hasn't developed a 'spiritual practice', indigeneity's 'all things are related' must lead to different way of behaving and organizing than the standard western 'all things are independent' and it would be interesting to reconcile this with 'anarchism' generally. maybe next time.

There also wasn't any talk about hitting/fielding. Thank fucking god for that, right?

What is the difference between indigenous leadership and the conception of the Roman family? Seriously, there is common ground between the framework of economy and ruling the household of the male figure. While indigenous leadership in a lot of places is more egalitarian, but I wonder what the qualitative differences and commonalities are. This is difficult for a lot of reasons, one of which is that indigenous is a political category that encompasses a lot of difference..... While there is a value to respecting elders, especially anarcho fathers ;) But, "fuck you dad," still has important value, if is not completely aimless and conscious of ressentiment. Random thought.

Jes' keep in mind that using esoterial post-modern philosophical jargon in discussions is also a way to shut down or monopolize "thinking". I'm sure Bellamy would just LOVE to sit down and spend hours chatting with the local phallosophers in Mtl, but that would also be as close to building the theoretical grounds supporting a strategy against the dominant order as my stupid neighbors talking about hockey or cars. So sure, fun's fun, but...

Neither takes down the other, they just change each others forms. Anarchy ain't strategy. If you want that just hit up Keith Preston.

"Strategy without tactics is the long way to victory. Tactics without strategy is what comes before every single failure."

- Sun Tzu

Remain a failure as you may please. Nobody cares.... it's the '80s all over again.

Within reason, however you have to remember that he was brought up in a city/warring state continuum(not exactly anarchic). His approach makes sense in the context of being in Rome or dealing with Rome directly. Anarchy is a practice of life and activity away from City, State and War. We are also not talking about using him in a more fun way like in a game of chess which you cannot expand outward to incorporate the emergent messiness of actual human life. There are also different conceptions of tactics and strategy that have nothing to do with war, economy and politics.

Good to know that! I was going to ask you about what you thought about Sun Tzu. (I find you so fascinating I'm writing a book about you!!! Srsly.) Next question on the list. What does Sir Einzige think of Shitzu dogs? Szechuan food? Fuck yeah! What does Sir Einzige think about Szechuan food?

One would hope folks would recognize there's far more wrong with Preston than a focus on strategy. His goals, for example.

Actually, come to think of it, his goals sound pretty reconcilable to the indigeneity A! is describing...

Are a consequence of being a slave to strategy(specifically means and ends separation). He personally doesn't actually espouse some of those more reactionary views which he brings into his fold. He is simply obsessed with overthrowing the US empire and will link up with whoever, from the most queer to the most cis, will help him toward that aim.

The alliances he makes do make sense on paper.

The point, of course, is that mere overthrow of the US empire is really peanuts compared to what anarchism stands for. Preston's goal thus bares as little resemblance to anarchist goals as someone dead set on killing one single specific cop, but entirely unconcerned with the rest of the police and social power structures.

That's not strategy in pursuit of anarchist goals. Preston has turned a single tactic -- smashing the state -- into the only meaningful goal. If Preston is somehow an actual anarchist he's an anti-strategy one.

Many radicals see ending the US Empire as the be all end all at least on a primary level. They certainly don't think it peanuts. Preston has a way of going about doing it that does make sense on its own terms on paper. He's not anti strategy at all in the sense of means and ends, if anything he's crudely strategic and seems to forget that these sorts of alliances severely screwed anarchists in the past as was the case with Eastern Europe.

people raised in the globally dominating Western culture are brainwashed to understand 'opposition' in a binary self-other dualist sense and thus read writings on 'strategy' such as Sun Tzu's 'Art of War' from a Western cultural perspective which assumes that opposition is binary. Sun Tzu is not assuming binary opposition, but rather 'hitting-fielding' opposition (yang-yin opposition).

modern physics and indigenous traditional view of opposition are also 'hitting-fielding' based, wherein 'self' and 'other' are connected because they are both included features within a common flow and must therefore be understood as reciprocal complementarities;

"The dynamics of the inhabitants are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat at the same time as the dynamics of the habitat are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants" -- Mach's principle.

this requires leadership that understands that 'if we damage the earth, we damage ourselves", so that the military values are to restore balance and harmony rather than the one [the good] destrying the other [the bad].

"Historically, the conceptual base for Sun Tzu's The Art of War is the ancient Chinese concept of "yin and yang." We refer to this idea in Sun Tzu's strategy as "complementary opposites" to avoid the many conflicting cultural meanings of yinyang. Sun Tzu didn't use the yinyang terminology himself. He described his concept as "emptiness and fullness."
Since Sun Tzu's system deals specifically with competing and counterbalancing forces, it is easy to see why opposition is so important, but the idea goes deeper than that. Three basic themes underlie this concept.
1. Complementary opposition is the fabric that weaves all existence. Any current situation is a temporary balance point, a stasis, representing the competing natural forces of chaos/order, matter/energy, space/time, mind/body, and all the other forces of complementary opposition.
2. These competing forces generate the patterns of change. We are able to predict parts of the future because we understand the forces involved as the balance between them waxes and wanes over time. Day follows night. Booms lead to busts. Youth leads to age. Ignorance leads to knowledge.
3. Finally, these forces assure the stability of nature, where an excess in one direction naturally corrects itself. The universe doesn't slip into chaos because the constant, dynamic balance of all things, naturally correct all excesses. "

European leadership, as Russell Means points out, is despirited leadership that fails to acknowledge 'all things are One'.

. . . . blathering your usual spew about the "'hitting-fielding' opposition (yang-yin opposition)" when neither term incorporates pitching, which is the Original Act of Baseball Creation. What are you, fucking stupid? Pitching. P-i-t-c-h-i-n-g. From the verb "to pitch." Still not getting' it, sparky? OK, you dumb fuck, bless you're little heart, lemme try to explain it to youse this way. There's this guy -- no! not a fielder, waiting to respond, but a pitcher, actively pitching -- who throws teh baseball at another guy who's got a baseball bat in his hand. It is ONLY if/when this baseball-bat-holding-guy gets a hit that there's anything for the fielders to field. Pitching comes first. And last. When the game's over, who do you think gets credited for the win or loss? No, not any of the hitters; not any of the fielders; but TEH PITCHERS. So fuck all this ha ha ha hooey about hitting/fielding buttfucking/getting buttfucked. We wanna pitcher, not a glass of water, alright?

only belly-itchers and frauds.
(hitters and fielders on a relational plenum)
apparently unawares of teh pitcher

how willfully ignorant???!!!!

whether they are 'with the fielders' or 'with the hitters', ... they make more money than the rest (they take payment over the table from the fielding side that hires them, and under the table from the hitters that depend on them to 'make them look good').

when you say 'pitching comes first and last', you are probably thinking of 'pitching' in such cases as where government [stewards of the public common wealth] 'fields' the hitting of capitalist corporations, allowing the latter to supply the pitching staff [just 'borrowing the pitching staff', really], ... and, my don't those pitchers make the corporate hitters look good!

You're right, emile, Barry White is just the thing to get the party started right! Especially a tune like "I Can't Believe You Love Me". Whoa!

Angry troll is stalkerishly angry.

I wouldn't doubt if there's a randian axe to grind.

The general is the war, and the only actor in a war. Didn't you know? Lol.

Shit i learned today. Baseball does not take place on a field, and the game is the pitcher. Must be lonely with no one else participating.

My comment will probably get deleted since emile's are too long because trolling needs to thrive.

No, my anonymous friend: I be happy and smilin' and shit. Lovely day for a baseball game. Maestro: cue the Barry White take-the-field music, why dontcha.

Emile? You'rrrrrrrrrrrrrrre out! LOL

emile's review of russell means views on indigenous leadership was removed by thecollective and put right here

Russell Means; 'I am not a Leader' article in Mother Jones, where he says 'For the World to Live, Europe must Die', ... can be found right here

What Russell intends by 'despiritualized leadership' (which one can glean if one takes the time to gather the context by reading the article) is that European leadership strips out the natural animating source of leadership where the unfolding experiential reality (situational reality) inspires us to 'rise to the occasion' in the service of restoring balance and harmony, .... this being replaced in European leadership by reasoned propositions that rally notionally 'independent human beings' [as is the popular Western egotist view of 'ourselves'] to the cause of scientifically-strategically constructing our own self-authored, desired future state. [no need for acknowledging mutual dependence here since Western leaders see every individual and every sovereign state as 'independent', a logical assumption aka 'intellectual idealization' (coming from both Western religion and Western science) whose corollary is that the common living space/habitat is independent of the inhabitants that reside within it.]

In the European leadership view, the good guys can blast away in attempts to exterminate the bad guys without hurting themselves, in denial of Mach's principle or Seattle's principle;

"Whatever befalls the earth befalls the sons of the earth. If men spit upon the ground, they spit upon themselves" -- indigenous people's principle

"The dynamics of the inhabitants are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat at the same time as the dynamics of the habitat are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants" -- modern physics principle

Luckily this is a comment section, not a baseball game.

If it was a baseball game it would have been a draw. Just as the analogy describes an alternative relational plenum between 2 competing clubs, the binary of (conquest/occupation of base) or, the holistic (Knowledge as entertainment/the bases are ephemeral conduits of wisdom which cannot be invaded).
Thus, no one really wins or loses, simple, as is the non-binary perspective on daily life.

Yesterday night while I was going to bed I was faced with the dilemma of keeping listening to this show, after like 5 minutes of pointless philosophical spirals that aim at cutting you off from the real-life context of anarchist struggle or praxis, and a radio podcast about UFO abductions. Oddly, both seemed to be equally disconnected from real life.

But really nice sound production job! Tough as with most abysmal spectacle out there, it's nice anarchoid packaging for such shallow bubble boy homo-phallocratic discourse that cares staying in the beautiful realm of ideas. Actaully UFO crap is more interesting, to some extent.

For you the real world is an abstract elsewhere where only vague human concepts count. Who defines struggle, praxis, and why do they take precedence over lived experience?

'Yesterday night'---you mean last night?

New commenter. In short, your only recourse for excusing the hypertrophy of your tendency towards armchair criticism at the expense of any other capacity you might have had is to sling extremely weak straw-man accusations of activism at whoever looms into your field of vision. It's lazy thinking, which is especially disappointing coming from people whose chief claim to our attention is not that they do anything clever but rather, supposedly, that they think cleverly. Don't start congratulating yourselves any time soon on impressing anybody else with the supposed sharpness of your critique. In addition, your dumbass attempt to impose a dichotomy between "struggle and praxis" and "lived experience" shows how little you have to say about the latter. I believe you might eventually have something to offer through this project, but you'll have to start by ceasing to orient it reactively around your thinly-veiled jealousy (ressentiment?) of others.

Resentment (or the hipster wording du jour "ressentiment", because it's French, therefore it makes you sound brilliant and literate) is according to Nietzsche a typical trait amogn all those to are too weak, mentally and morally, to take assertive action towards overcoming what oppresses or kills them in their lives, against the people who demonstrate this strenght.

I've always agreed with this theory. They bark a lot but they don't bite, like the psycho guy in "Reservoir Dogs" has put properly.

They don't "take precedence over lived experience" you hipster po-mo word salads cook. They give meaningfull (or otherwise meaningless) perspective to draw interpretation, connection and understanding from it, and consequentially to build courses of action or solutions that answer the questions we ask about these "experiences". And no I ain't talking about "binaries" of meaning.

Done with the I'm not smart to recognize or understand what's going on I can see the picture clear and I am not afrade bring it on good luck looking into my photo album from ao long ago and trying to see who u think I maybe am prove it all prove u right that he is loving laying with my notebook paper holding on

So you've stopped attemptin to be smart... cool shit.

Who the fuck are you and where are you writing this from, anyways? Are you even human?

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.