Topic of the Week: What is the Role of Anarchist Media?

  • Posted on: 31 August 2015
  • By: thecollective

Despite various degrees of agreement between common tendencies in anarchist thought, the tools that we use to engage with our politics in the virtual realm of media may complement, contribute to, provoke, or otherwise engage with the actions or other lived experiences. It’s hard to deny the potential role of media to re-contextualize the ways we view or chose to interact with the world around us, as well as the ways it can inspire us intellectually or emotionally.

Would explicitly anarchistic actions be undertaken without the direct influence of media? As a school of thought or western philosophy, anarchism seems to be inherently a result of the creation and exchange of media. Direct cultural relationships such as groups of friends or scenes may inspire or influence anarchist thought or action via word-of-mouth or shared influence on behavior, but it is difficult to imagine any such group thriving or even coming into being without some sort of literary (e.g. philosophical and academic political texts, zine/pamphlets), visual arts (e.g. films, propaganda posters or street art), musical (e.g. punk, metal, hippie culture, etc.) or similar forms of media. Engagement with the sphere of information on some level seems to be an elemental aspect of most projects, at the least being a flyer or promotional aspect that draws collaborators to direct engagement or group action.

We at Anarchist News are attracted to the non-sectarian aspects of media that allows for a broad range of engagement or interaction, displayed in formats such as our infamous comments section or broadly inclusive submission material. We share a similar affinity to print media that allows for critical submissions, provoking ranges of responses, stimulating conversations and engagement in these big questions that stir and propel such seemingly impossible yet relentlessly attractive ideas. As our ideas grow and change we can reflect on those anachronistic texts or cheesy songs that stimulated our [anti-]political sensibilities in the past. The excitement felt in those times gives us a dreamy sort of optimism towards discovering or stumbling upon that rare or newly-translated text, which revises our outlook and rattles our thoughts with the potential that could grow within our newly formulated perspectives or shattered misconceptions.

Many anarchists are attacking or engaging with these media fronts from positions that are less industry driven and therefore lacking in material resources, professional training, or time to devote to creative endeavors outside of exhausting day-jobs. With this in mind, how important is it for us to work independently towards producing quality media without asserting the interests of the dominant capitalist-driven cultures around us? How do we incorporate human (i.e. the individual) elements into the things we create without serving up fodder for corporate marketing firms, or should we disregard the apparently constant re-appropriation of art and culture by refusing to allow our course of action to be a response to their supposed domination of ideas? The Situationists responded to this by détourning media and altering it contextually towards their own ends. But their critical assessment of recuperation remains a daunting notion, which appears at this point to overpower détournement and counter-cultural approaches (as witnessed in the successful corporate marketing of punk, hip-hop, or other alternative sub-cultures.)

The role of media is debatable, but its influence is inescapable. Factions within the milieu would claim that those involved with its manipulation are false-revolutionaries with insincere motives. Is there any substantiality to these claims? How do we prevent media interaction from drowning out or overtaking direct interaction or the motivation for action entirely? How do we create quality media without surrendering the perception of what constitutes quality to those who have infinite financial and material resources? Discuss, debate!



Two things. First, agreed, the anarchist affinity for media goes all the way back. Proudhon became politicized when, working as a young typesetter, he had to set the type for a book by Fourier. As a printer, he made one of the first broadsides during the February 1848 revolution. Follow that all the way up to the Kinko's scam:

But here's my main point: as anarchists, we are always fighting not only against our adversary, but against the terrain as well. When we try to get good results out of using media uncritically, we never get much further (proportionate to the resources at our disposal) than others who use it. We only really get traction when we succeed in challenging the form itself as well as presenting challenging content. Detournement, CRASS, etc. It's hard to know what that looks like on the internet, at least for those who aren't tech-savvy.

I think you motherfuckers are fucked up with your rules, then you want our opinion on the role of anarchist media? Shouldn't it of gone the other way around. Learn from the masters, they create "listening campaigns" and don't try to frame such attempts until there is an actual concern to address.

Any fucking way, the role is first person action oriented and partisan. Street fighting tends to draw a different conversation than a discussion circle.

I think the purpose of the U.S. anarchist media is to facilitate grandstanding by people like "Mister Grumpy." They need a safe space to play-act at being ferocious fiery anarchists.

hmmmm. you deleted my comment. All it said was, "I agree with this. Well said." I'm sorry: how exactly did this offend you, Mr/Ms Moderator?

I think too many so-called anarchists in the current era spent inordinate amounts of time reading and reacting to corporate and liberal media. It's gotten to the point where even among people who profess to be anarchists that the corporate and liberal media are setting the agenda on what everybody should be morally outraged about...shit needs to stop. What I am getting at is that there is hardly any specifically anarchist media anymore either online or in real life. I see so many of these modern day pieces of work who call themselves anarchists but sit on social media shitting out stupid update after update based on whatever is trending in so-called current affairs...why the fuck are supposed anarchists even talking about shit like Caitlyn Jenner or Bernie Sanders let alone devoting so much time to offering their shitty 10 cents worth of opinion about these and other pathetic issues of no concern to actual anarchists. Anarchists in the current era need to start going on the offensive and not waiting for the next directive from corporate / liberal media to react to - a big part of going on the offensive is creating your own media. It's another symptom of the damage done by identity politicians on our movement - everybody is so focused on 'engaging with the masses' so they think a big part of this is consuming and regurgitating mass media because genuine anarchist / underground media is 'too lifestylist' or 'not accessible' to the masses. More reason to exterminate the IP cancer within our midst.

I don't know what IPs have to do with it. Like, sure some soi-disant anarchists are IPs, and they may have things to say about Caitlyn Jenner, but fuuuuuuuuck, there are anarchists who are all about Killer Mike and El-P too, or Divine, or whoever.

Celebrity interest is weird. Popular culture is weird. But, like, people participate in it. Anarchists participate in it too. Some of that participation is fucking dumb, or not befitting of anarchists, or both. But okay, who cares.

"Actual anarchists" = anarchists you agree with. Lots of anarchists are, like, anarchists. Who have done plenty of stuff in their life to be able to be called anarchists and be legit. And who might be into Ru Paul or Beyoncé or whatever, and will even post it on Facebook.

"Exterminate" - yeah, I don't like IPs either, but this sounds like what I imagine Euronymous would say.

""Actual anarchists" = anarchists you agree with. Lots of anarchists are, like, anarchists. Who have done plenty of stuff in their life to be able to be called anarchists and be legit. And who might be into Ru Paul or Beyoncé or whatever, and will even post it on Facebook."

I mean actual small a anarchists not idiot marxist third worldism identity politician following fuck knuckles who have hijacked the term anarchist just so they can waste their pathetic lives away on social media waiting for the next cue from corporate / liberal media or the organized socialist group heirarchy. Yeah sure we all participate in popular culture to an extent but there is no need to fucking promote it, it's nothing to be proud of or to advertise for free on social media. The thing is to get the fuck off Facebook and stop reading Huffington Post, Collective Evolution, The Guardian or whatever other shit-stained corporate / liberal online media it is that you spend your whole life sharing and / or critiquing articles from and start fucking participating in sites like this one, writing your own articles about things that concern YOU or better yet creating your own blog, website, zine or whatever - hell, go and write something on a fucking wall instead of sitting on Facebook all day like a fucking zombie 'engaging with the masses' herp de fucking derp. Celebrity culture is a whole other issue but again like popular culture although we all may participate in it to some fucking extent why as anarchists would we feel the need to give it free promotion on social media? Anyways.

Yeah we gotta respect the commonality, at the same time engage ones own creative aesthetic insurgency rather than the leftist liberal urgency.

This is what's left of false biceps' comments after the moderators have edited out all the sexism and racism!

There's also the problem that if you post your article, zine, or whatever on this site, it will receive nothing but substanceless shit-talk, probably by the same people who will, a few minutes after, talk on Facebook about how revolutionary the new pop culture trash is. The US anarchist milieu is rotten.

What are IPs

Identity Politicians. The people using the shorthand are people that bitch too much about some insignificant cult within the left. Yeah, we get it, you hate being told what to do.

They've managed to take their phony sensibilities to the halls of Western power. And and much of modern anarchism has been stricken by this cancer.

I too object to the idea that Sir Einzige is "insignificant." It's just that he bitches too much about some insignificant cult within the left and hates being told what to do. So there!

[this is not 'an attack', ... i am only looking for you to clarify an ambiguity in your statement]

it seems to me that ‘identity’ is the ‘problem’; i.e. it is a transcendent value that Western civilization (since Socrates and Plato) have put into an unnatural precedence over the relational reality of our natural experience where everything is included in a transforming relational activity continuum, ... and that ‘anarchism’ is a rejection of putting ‘identity’ before spontaneous relational engaging, whether that identity be that of the individual that believes himself to be ‘an independent being’, who puts loyalty to his own intentions and influence ahead of the unfolding relational situation, the identity of his family (dynasty, mafia), loyalty to the intentions and influence of he puts ahead of the unfolding relational situation, the identity of his religion, loyalty to the intentions and influence of he puts ahead of the unfolding relational situation, the identity of his ‘nationality’, loyalty to the intentions and influence of he puts ahead of the unfolding relational situation, the identity of his political party, loyalty to the intentions and influence of he puts ahead of the unfolding relational situation, the identity of his corporate/business enterprise, loyalty to the intentions and influence of he puts ahead of the unfolding relational situation, the identity of his celebrity club, loyalty to the intentions and influence of he puts ahead of the unfolding relational situation.

Belief in ‘identity’ is where the transcendent values come from that define Western authoritarian civilization wherein ‘intentionism’ is put into an unnatural precedence over ‘situationism’. Transcendence is not of ‘this world’ and as Nietzsche pointed out, in order to get out of the incoherence modern Western-culture dominated society is afflicted with, it is time to ‘get real’ and stop putting transcendent values into an unnatural precedence over the values of our real physical relational experience, ... where our various ‘identities’ and our loyalty to their intentions and influence, however useful they are, cannot sanely predominate over the orchestrating influence of the unfolding relational situation we all share inclusion in. The identity of the sovereign states of Iraq and Syria are the product of ‘Christian Nationalism’ forcefully imposed by Christian European colonizing powers. ‘States’ are transcendent ‘identities’ that do not exist in the physical reality of our natural relational experience.

Anarchism is a reaction to ‘identity politics’; i.e. anarchism is where we put the physical reality of relational engaging within an unfolding relational situation [that no-one-is in control of] ahead of the protection of transcendent ‘identities’ of various flavours (self, family, religion, state, party, corporation, celebrity).

‘Identity’ is a term that implies ‘independent being’ as in ‘ego’, the ego of the independent self, the ego of family-dynasty, the ego of religious sect, the ego of nation-state, the ego of political party, the ego of corporate enterprise, the ego of celebrity association.

this ‘ego’ comes together with the transcendent concept of ‘being’ and ‘identity’; i.e. ‘intention’ or ‘will’ is the patch-up concept to get some ‘thing’ moving again after we have ‘declared its independent’ by imputing ‘being’ and persisting ‘identity’ to it;

“It is no different in this case than with the movement of the sun: there our eye is the constant advocate of error, here it is our language. In its origin language belongs in the age of the most rudimentary form of psychology. We enter a realm of crude fetishism when we summon before consciousness the basic presuppositions of the metaphysics of language, in plain talk, the presuppositions of reason. Everywhere it sees a doer and doing; it believes in will as the cause; it believes in the ego, in the ego as being, in the ego as substance, and it projects this faith in the ego-substance upon all things — only thereby does it first create the concept of “thing.” Everywhere “being” is projected by thought, pushed underneath, as the cause; the concept of being follows, and is a derivative of, the concept of ego. In the beginning there is that great calamity of an error that the will is something which is effective, that will is a faculty. Today we know that it is only a word.” – Nietzsche, ‘Twilight of the Idols’

So, we must beware of giving an ‘identity’ to ‘anarchism’ beyond using the name as a ‘place-holder’ for a way of spontaneously engaging in a relational world, otherwise people will impute ‘intentions’ to anarchism and then another one of these ‘herds’ will form with ‘loyalty to the intentions and influence of anarchism’ that they put into an unnatural precedence over the orchestrating influence of the unfolding relational situation.

we are witness in modern times, thanks to instant global communications [e.g. social media], to ‘identity politics’ that orient to the issues of the hour, day, or week such as the instant formation of negative-celebrity groups; e.g. people who start defining their identity in white-knight-crusader terms, being loyal to the intentions and influence of anti-celebrity groups who are determined to bring down and punish football players who make racial comments, abuse their wives, used deflated footballs, and television and film celebrities who are accused of date drugging rape, owners of basketball teams that are caught uttering racist comments etc. etc.

‘identity’ as in ‘an independent being’ lends transcendent value to an entity such as a relational form [Katrina]; i.e. it is one thing and cannot be another thing. those ‘identity politicians’ who self-appoint themselves members of an anti-celebrity group, declare that that have nothing to do with [are not participants in any interdependent relational matrix] the ‘child-soldier’ or the ‘ghetto-criminal’ or other ‘anti-celebrities’. for them, we are each ‘independent beings’ fully and solely responsible for our own behaviours [even the child soldier]. and thus the ghettoes of America are NOT spawned by the relational dynamics of the global community they share inclusion in, but are places where inferior independent beings assemble. so, by joining the anti-celebrity club, the proud, self-righteous member takes on an identity that is mutually exclusive of the negative-identity they are condemning, that they wish to make known their ‘independence’ from by unilaterally ‘declaring’ such independence. after all, all men are born equal and independent in the eyes of God, aren’t they?

so, where you say;

“They've [identity politicians have] managed to take their phony sensibilities to the halls of Western power. And and much of modern anarchism has been stricken by this cancer.

i can’t see how ‘anarchism’ can be stricken by this. you can’t ‘tarnish the reputation’ of something which does not claim ‘its own identity’.

or, are you suggesting that ‘anarchism’ DOES have an identity that its members should be ‘loyal to the intentions and influence’ of? [rather than being a manner of spontaneously engaging with the unfolding relational situation that does not put 'intentions' first]

My phrase of anarchism being stricken was not that anarchist identity was being effected emile, not sure how you got that out of my post. There are other things that can be stricken. The orientational quality for instance as well as the archetypes(which is different from identity). Stricken by identity politics can mean badly altered relations.

I agree that anarchy is not identity politics or anything to do with the law of identity for that manner. Not everyone gets that message however.

Easy answer, anarchist media plays a huge role, bringing new people in to the discourse. Then they're quickly alienated and driven away again by the various, underwhelming states of the milieu in north america. Some comrades want to blame the "discussion circles" and anarchist media creators for being inherently passive, intellectual and abstract but of course, that's what media is, a discussion.

It's a bit like if the entire military industrial complex was just a PR department and a handful of people who write the instruction manuals .. oh and of course, hundreds of windbag history pundits. It can issue public statements and endlessly analyze itself but that's about it. No soldiers, no medics, no actual military hardware and of course, little-to-no capacity for tactical planning.

media platforms can be used to promote either 'situationist' or 'intentionist' interests. the author of this article seems to assume that anarchist initiatives are more 'intentionist' and less 'situationist'.

Emma Goldman's 'Mother Earth' could provide some insights re this balance.

“a place of expression for the young idealists in arts and letters". Mother Earth was staffed by a cadre of radical activists, including Hippolyte Havel, Max Baginski, and Leonard Abbott. In addition to publishing original works by its editors and anarchists around the world, Mother Earth reprinted selections from a variety of writers. These included the French philosopher Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Russian anarchist Peter Kropotkin, German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, and British writer Mary Wollstonecraft. Goldman wrote frequently about anarchism, politics, labor issues, atheism, sexuality, and feminism”

in this article on anarchist media, there seems to be the suggestion that the use of media is to pull together a ‘group’ of people with ‘common intentions’

“ Direct cultural relationships such as groups of friends or scenes may inspire or influence anarchist thought or action via word-of-mouth or shared influence on behavior, but it is difficult to imagine any such group thriving or even coming into being without some sort of literary (e.g. philosophical and academic political texts, zine/pamphlets), visual arts (e.g. films, propaganda posters or street art), musical (e.g. punk, metal, hippie culture, etc.) or similar forms of media. Engagement with the sphere of information on some level seems to be an elemental aspect of most projects, at the least being a flyer or promotional aspect that draws collaborators to direct engagement or group action.

‘collaboration' smells of‘herd mentality’ and ‘group action’. ‘group action’ can be either ‘situational’ or ‘intentional’; i.e. if a social collective is being screwed by an authoritarian regime and individuals pop up in revolt all over the place, they are rising up out of honest intuition rather than out of some political programming that promotes ‘collaboration’ and ‘group action’ where the group of ‘collaborators’ gather in the back alleys and await the signal that calls them to some or other ‘direct action’.

Emma Goldman's understanding and respect for Nietzsche’s views [indicated by her using anarchist media to share them], deserves some exploration.

Nietzsche believed that man should accept that the world was changing and not necessarily in ways that the individual would prefer [i.e. out of his control]. he did not believe in Western civilization putting the highest values on ‘reason’ (which is inherently subjective) and ‘morality’ (which is inherently subjective) as are foundational to ‘racism’ and ‘nationalism’. he believed that “life is what happen to us while we are busy making other plans”.

How does one respond to the world we are situationally included in transforming in a manner that we can't control?

His ‘uebermensch’ responds to this with ‘Amor Fati’ rather than ‘ego fatum’, an acceptance and embrace of such transformation rather than resistance and defense against it.

“Nature speaks to us through Dionysian art and its tragic symbolism in a voice that is true and undisguised. “Be like me, the original mother [the transforming relational activity continuum] who, under constant change of appearances is eternally creating and eternally giving birth and finding joy and satisfaction.” ... In spite of pity and terror we are happy in having a life, not as individuals but as part of a life force with whose procreative lust we have become one.” --- Nietzsche,

The world is undergoing change and we are included in it and we are agents of transformation within it. That is the ‘situation’.

Are we going to put situationism before intentionism or vice-versa, as is the Western civilization habit? Nietzsche sees Western European man as beady-eyed intentionists who believe that they are the authors of great things. e.g. "We are the French, who have authored great things. We must not let the greatness of being French be diluted by contamination from abroad."

This is, of course, ego-fatum, the fate of ‘ego’. It is radically unlike ‘amor-fati’ which Nietzsche is talking about, which is Dionysian faith; i.e. putting one’s highest values on ‘rising to the situational occasion’ in the manner of the ‘original mother’ [unlike the Charlie Hebdo street rally participants].

“I beseech you, my brothers, remain faithful to the earth, and do not believe in those who speak of otherworldly hopes.” –Nietzsche, ‘Thus Spoke Zarathustra’

The point here is that Western civilization has cultivated belief in absolutes, ‘my country right or wrong’, ... ‘my race or tribe right or wrong’, 'my political party right or wrong', etc. and with beady-eyed tenaciousness, ignores the transforming ‘situation’ and presses on with absolute belief based ‘intentions’.

We must never abandon, betray or let go of the ‘spirit of France’ [or ‘the spirit of America’ or ‘the spirit of Britain’, whatever these are. [the sound of one hand clapping?]

Of course, such values conflict with the values of Heraclitus who wrote;

“No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it’s not the same river and he’s not the same man.” – Heraclitus

That which denies this aphorism is ‘reason’ since ‘reason’ is based on belief in permanence aka ‘being’ which is noun-and-verb language-based intellectual idealization that contradicts our sensory experiencing of continual relational change [transformation]. As Nietzsche put it;

“With the highest respect, I exclude the name of Heraclitus. When the rest of the philosophic crowd rejected the testimony of the senses because it showed multiplicity and change, he rejected their testimony because it represented things as if they had permanence and unity. Heraclitus too did the senses an injustice. They lie neither in the way the Eleatics believed, nor as he believed — they do not lie at all. What we make of their testimony, that alone introduces lies; for example, the lie of unity, the lie of thinghood, of substance, of permanence. "Reason" is the reason we falsify the testimony of the senses. Insofar as the senses show becoming, passing away, and change, they do not lie. But Heraclitus will remain eternally right with his assertion that being is an empty fiction.”

Nations that were once powerful and superior [this could only be 'relative' as in two hands clapping], dominating other nations, 'go into decline' [improvements in fielding can make hitters look like shit], even as their citizens are reminding one another of their core strengths and values, as the French are doing right now in their Charlie Hebdo street rallies.

In the USA, Americans are also reminding one another of their amazing gifts and inherent superiority, such as business acumen. Who else could have purchased Manhatten for a few beads? Americans, like the British before them, have always been ‘big hitters’. ‘What’s that you say, Heraclitus?, ... hitting results derive from a hitting-fielding coincidentia oppositorum? Are you saying that hitting results are influenced by the fielding situation in which the hitters are included, so that there is no such thing as a set of behavioural traits that belong to a 'hitter'; i.e. a race or nation since that would be ‘the sound of one hand clapping’ that failed to acknowledge the physical reality of the ‘coincidentia oppositorum’ of hitting-fielding?

The media can play a role in promoting “the coming into being of groups” and “drawing collaborators into direct engagement or group action”. that is certainly true. there is a striking example that occurred earlier this year, that is documented in a book ‘Who is Charlie’ by Emmanuel Todd. [do we really want a ‘je suis anarchiste’ street rally?’]

“Description: -In the wake of the attack on the offices of Charlie Hebdo in Paris on 7 January 2015, millions took to the streets to demonstrate their revulsion, expressing a desire to reaffirm the ideals of the French Republic: liberté, égalité, fraternité. But who were the millions of demonstrators who were suddenly united under the single cry of ‘Je suis Charlie’?
In this probing new book, Emmanuel Todd investigates the cartography and sociology of the three to four million who marched in Paris and across France and draws some unsettling conclusions. For while they claimed to support liberal, republican values, the real middle classes who marched on that day of indignant protest also had a quite different programme in mind, one that was far removed from their proclaimed ideal. Their deep values were in fact more reminiscent of the most depressing aspects of France’s national history: conservatism, selfishness, domination and inequality.”

If media support is to lead to a united cry of ‘je suis anarchiste’ and massive street rallies, we may similarly ask ‘who is l’anarchiste?’.

Is he a member of yet another 'intentionist' faction that understands the proper way that things should be done on earth?

It is worth taking the time to read the ‘Mother Earth’ introduction in the first edition of Mother Earth by Goldman and Baginski. One can see in it their respect for the views of Nietzsche.

Intentionism, when it is not informed by situationism, is born of absolute values, values that ‘come from heaven’ aka ‘intellectual idealization’ rather than from the real-world situation of our natural experience. Intentionism (the Apollonian approach) is what Nietzsche’s uebermensche has broken free of in acknowledging that situationism (the Dionysian approach) must come first; i.e.

“situationism is a sacred undertaking, intentionism its faithful shadow”

Emma Goldman’s ‘Mother Earth’ media foray, was not to promote ‘intentionism’ of one flavour or another and not even one with the label ‘anarchist’ on it. As is clear from her opening introduction, she was advocating, like Nietzsche, a devaluating of the absolutist values of ‘reason’ and ‘morality’ and re-embrace of intuition/instinct and balance/harmony, all to be worked out within the common ground of ‘mother earth’, without any absolutist directives coming from ‘above’ as to who is better/worse or what practice is better/worse.

To even utter the words ‘French’ or ‘France’ as if these words pertain to something that persists in a world that is continually transforming, is an absurdity [it is purely subjective and subject to the selfishness of the definer]. The same is true for the word ‘anarchism’.

so, one thought on this topic is that a media platform for anarchism could do worse than have a similarity to ‘Mother Earth’ [emphasizing situationism over intentionism].

I'm actually beginning to comprehend what emile is talking about...maybe I spend too much time on this site...or maybe it'll actually be worth it.

You're a coward, Emile. Or just bring that drivel to some immigration officers at an airport as you are freely attempting to board an airplane without papers, and make a YT video out of this. Then you would start to have some credibility from anarchists here and elsewhere.

I think I know who you are. You're the one who has been looking for donations to pay for buses to bring Zapatistas from Chiapas to Mexico City on a monthly basis, where they can clash with authorities and keep their anarchist capabilities well exercised. And, no, I don't want to buy a tee-shirt that says; 'the outer jihad is the greater jihad, prepare for the global revolution'.

Dunno if you were being sarcastic in some way that only you can get the joke, but no it's not me.

The way this site looks right now is like fucking garbage. Learn to manipulate your images to 400x400 or other dimensions and have them sized the same, at least the majority. Pick some fucking interesting images if the whole "ironic off topic" image isn't your thing. Add a caption for those with desktops to enjoy...use your own doesn't have to be worker's, but fucking figure it out. Also,bring back polls and make them funny, but maybe not worker funny? Add your own spin.

What should be going on is you are overcoming worker in how this site is maintained, instead you are taking a step back? The feed needs to be faster, daily, 3-5 articles a day...maybe more, but not much more. The role of anarchist media is to not suck, but to be more awesome than shit communist media.

Maybe you could get a list of regular contributors to start writing original *short* essays (800 words or less) actually engage your comment contributor base more. You have several people doing this, right? Make it a side panel special feature that changes seasonally or monthly. Why short essays? Because "The Anvil Review" was a side feature here and it wasn't engaging enough. This would get more contributions if they were known to be short and to the point positions, allowed to fudge a little to get to the point of a polemic. Call the feature "Critical Molotov" or something else cool, to inspire.

That's just an example of an idea of what you could be doing. I'm really just saying do something, but don't rollback the site. I'm already starting to not give a shit about this site because of how ugly and boring it is.

Anarchist media should have more erotically charged imagery.

You know, like boobs and weens.

communicate ideas and perspectives, publicize actions, and share insights, lessons, and tips.

Anything that plays at "reaching the masses"... getting people "on board"... "spreading our message" is purely fucking delusional, arrogant, and big headed.

I'm more for doing direct actions and coups that reach out to the masses, and having their communications pushed through the safest anarchistic channels, as deus ex machinas.

Relying on horrible orwellian media like Fedbook is downright retarded. In Soviet Amrerica, Fedbook uses YOU.

Start a secret underground Bakuninist group and infiltrate the New York Times, LA Times, and maybe something more trashy like the Huffington Post. Alternative media is dead, it's time to stage a coup on mass society.

While this may be sarcasm, there is a cause tightly-knit collectives and networks to set up secret societies to infiltrate the most prominent outlets and businesses. That's called entryism. Though if such a conspiracy finds a way to keep themselves in check with the anarchist agenda while being inclusive and non-elitist, this maybe a powerful strategy in the long run.

I wasn't necessarily being sarcastic (maybe a bit hyperbolic). Obviously forming Bakuninist secret organizations might be a little far reaching, but finding ways to subvert the mainstream media from the inside is not a bad idea.

Only if assuming that the mainstream media aren't controlled already by ultra-centralized corporate/government gangsta schemes. This means your group of conspirators should be ready to "suicide" several key big media managers before hoping to gain any leverage.

Also it's the system that changes you, not the opposite. As in "power corrupts".

I'm incorruptible. Even if I'm given a six figure salary, I'll still be down for the anarchist cause.

I'm a film student at the moment, and appalled at how prescriptive, non-creative, hierarchical and expensive filmmaking is. Because of the digital revolution, we now have the tools to make truly imaginative, transgressive films and distribute them. But it seems like everyone I meet is desperate to "make it" in the industry, which means being a worker drone, endlessly chirpy, and churning out hackneyed genre based ideas. Noone is interested in politics, let alone anarchism. Standing out and being an individual is frowned upon. It's fucking sad.

I know how you feel as an individuated artist :(

I suppose if you get a high-profile job for Disney you'll become untouchable... I mean how the fuck they could manage to do a lesbian-themed Sleeping Beauty!? But that'd be more of fighting your way up the ladder wouldn't it?

But in my book all movies are about politics, aside from the really retarded shit like this summer's blockbusters.

Briefly, I would like a gay 7 dwarves script to bring it up to the 21st century.

I haven't seen it, but there was a film ('tangerine') filmed entirely on something like 6-10 iphones, with filters added via computer in post.

Anything's possible.

Now, would you create the film with the view that words speak louder than actions, coming down from a spaceship, yakking at an abstraction (the masses) like an alien? I would not suggest this outdated model. We're already the world and have nothing to gain but relations.

Relations are the new oil for the anarchists in NA these days, in a world dominated by screens and spectacle. When the wrong people (maoists, socialists, authoritarians in general) get to control the flows, you're fucked and all you can do remains clandestine sabotages on your own where nobody's watching.

...but let's admit it, there's an advantage of doing the crazy stuff on your own (zero chance of undercovers), just that without love, where would you be now?

The chance though, with such a suicide by cop outlook, is to remain isolated so one can easily be outed as an Other destroying the community (or some familiar narrative frame). And where does that shift the focus? Not where you wanted.

I kind of wonder if that's what Wild Reaction would like: suicide by cop, or prison. You don't want to embrace labels thrown on you, like terrorist. Or maybe even anarchist. "Silly authorities, always inventing enemies to go after, terrorist spooks," and become indistinguishable from the terrain around you. Ties need to be formed with everyone. So that folks cannot so easily be extracted out of their areas and isolated "we've removed the violent ones from ferguson---the trouble makers."

Let's make the dominant belief system feel like it's winning when it's not.

I mean, do what ya want. Just consider the implications.

the 'literalism' of the visual medium is a problem since it cuts us off from the transforming relational activity continuum which is the physical reality of our natural experience.

the medium is the message and as mcluhan observed, the physical reality is constituted by changing relations [non-euclidian relational space] while our habit since Gutenberg's printing press is to let visual RE-presentation rule. 'we built a factory' is just words, but you can make a documentary film to prove that this is 'what happened'. of course, it will not show how the foreground action of factory construction and operations are inducing transformation in the ... 'what'? in the transforming relational activity continuum that the foreground documented (documentary) actions are included in. That is, the actions shown in the visual presentation medium are not 'real' but we are used to accepting visual presentations as 'real'. as howard zinn observed in 'A People's History of the United States', one can produce a documentary of colonizing settlers happily constructing new houses in the forest, and then again, in the same time and place, one can produce a documentary of a colonized indigenous aboriginal community witnessing the destruction of forest and the fish, game and ecosystems it supports.

the problem with visual presentations lies in the Western viewer's acculturated habit of interpreting such presentations in terms of 'things' and 'what things do'. if he sees a storm-cell, he will give it a name and use subject-verb-predicate constructs [intellectual idealizations] to impute an interpretation to the visual dynamics that assumes that the action that is being viewed is coming from the 'things' that the viewer identifies. [settler] 'Look, here comes another load of lumber for the house construction'. [indian] 'Look, there another big hole in the forest, and the eagle tree is gone'.

Western society has a problem in that we have put 'reason', as associates with subject-verb-predicate imposing on visual imagery, into an unnatural precedence over 'intuition'. 'Intuition informs us that the physical reality is the transforming relations that constitute the unfolding situation we are in, while 'reason' uses figures that are separated from ground to construct an 'operative reality' based on 'independent things' and 'what things do' as if they reside in a habitat that is independent of the inhabitants that reside,operate and interact within it'. Hence one accepts the IDEA (intellectual idealization born of subject-verb-predicate constructs) that 'the settlers built houses'. While our 'reason' is saying 'this is true' and we can make a documentary to show that it is true, ... our intuition is saying, ...'you can't build a house in the forest without destroying some forest, so their documentary and their reasoning is, at best, 'incomplete', if not MIS-representation.

visual representation is innately incomplete representation which sets up an open field day for misrepresentation. novels and written documents use subject-verb-predicate constructs that the unrestricted freedom of the mind puts together in visual depictions, so that the 'film' just fleshes out the appearances of the 'things' discussed in the book.

The ability of visual media to 'honestly' MISPRESENT means that the whoever has the most money to get their favoured MISREPRESENTATIONS out on films and on the internet has a chance to shape the worldview of the general public. for example;

"This year's (2914) Oscar-nominated "Captain Phillips," for example, used a U.S. military guided missile destroyer, an amphibious assault ship, several helicopters, and members of SEAL Team Six, who play themselves but are not on active duty — all courtesy of the U.S. Navy, who were able to work the shoot into their training. Fortune notes that "even in an age of special effects, it's exponentially cheaper to film on actual military ships with real military advisers." Despite many action scenes and A-list lead Tom Hanks, "Captain Phillips" cost $55 million to make, compared to visual effects-heavy "Gravity," which had a much higher production cost of $100 million.

this film is a popular and well-made and employs one of the most popular actors of this era (tom hanks). a reviewer discusses the 'assymmetry' of the film in an article entitled “Captain Phillips”: A disturbing celebration of American military power ; i.e; "Billions of dollars of cutting-edge military hardware and hundreds of corn-fed, gym-toned Americans on one side, four malnourished men with black-market Kalashnikovs on the other."


1. Visual media presentations are innately incomplete and mis-represent the physical reality of our natural experience.

2. This makes visual media an ideal resource for shaping the general public's understanding of the world dynamic.

3. Since manipulation of visual media comes at a price, the shaping of the general public's understanding of the world dynamic is open to monetary bidding. Reminders that peoples experiences of the world dynamic do not match up with visual presentations that are out there [e.g. everyone looking at themselves via global selfie machinery called 'facebook' and other 'social media' and listening to government platitudes on the news], ... until wakeup calls like children's bodies washing up on beaches stir us out of our visual media generated complacency.

4. it is not about 'what kind of films we produce', it is about the inadequacy of visual media to inform us on 'what is going on in this world' that we are included in and co-shaping;

"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

In other words, the colonizer powers create the conditions that incubate/spawn refugee problems then not only deny their responsibility, but where they do give meagre help, they celebrate their own charity and benevolence, in a kind of superior/inferior 'noblesse oblige' sense.

5. Indigenous aboriginal peoples have been the victims of hollywood film misrepresentations. Their own presentation media involves direct sharing of experience via 'learning circles' wherein participants shift from their 'head-voices' to their 'heart-voices'; i.e. they shift their mode of developing understanding from 'reason-based discourse' [visual misrepresentation] to 'intuition-based relational confluence' [relational inference].

as Einstein notes, we have inverted the natural precedence of intuition-over-reason and situationism-over-intentionism;

"Intuition is a sacred gift, the rational mind its faithful servant. We, however, have created a society that worships the servant and has forgotten the gift." -- Albert Einstein

The only film that might come close to #4 in my mind is alejandro jodorowski's "the holy mountain."

Zoom back camera...

Is this real life?

No, it is only a film.

For more mis-representation in media! For the desertion of the theatres!

To this end, "Funny Games" had a lot more punch.

Jodorovsky failed to do "Dune", and lowered himself to do a documentary about it just as an excuse, so I'll forever hate him for this.

To convince anarchists that their missionary work is actually have an impact!

What does waging war on society has anything to do with missionaries. The missionaries are the pacifist leftists, you stupid jerk.

Ya see, missionaries roam the earth trying to convince people that the lord is the way; in other words, they assign a set of moral values to a divine being in the hopes that others will follow them.
In a not so dissimilar fashion, anarchists roam the globe trying to convince people they are oppressed and that the way to salvation is through their comprehensive and exclusive interpretation and subsequent understanding of their surroundings.
In this sense the are missionaries precisely because they create and maintain a control apparatus and attempt to convince others to come under it.
Take Common Cause as a stellar example of, as Foucault called it, this corrective therapy!


What is the Role of Anarchist Media? To entertain children who don't want to work :))

Work is for the unimaginative!

Imagine all the people. :))

There's a lot here being said that is right on. Everything from the media without the backup. To the obsessions with current events, considering this to be time worthy when it isn't. The sad state of affairs of the physical manifestation of anarchy has a lot to do with it as has been mentioned.

I personally have a lot to say here on the failure in how we imagine the recuperation model. To the refusal to engage with the practical aspects of culture. For instance, the insistence of tweeting about Bernie Sanders but not even considering introducing a physical presence within your own cultural mileau. Where people can and will be influenced by action. Outside of some worthless "anarchist scene."

In many ways anti-authoritarianism is the catch all these days, free association and decentralization are more popular than ever. The opposite pole is the creeping moralism from the white middle class. Afraid of their own shadow. We have to remember that even when people say they are "radical," growing up in a conservative family in the suburbs is going to severely warp that template.

So, anarchist media while appealing directly to culture might find itself in a good place battling moralism. Capitalists and war politicians, the people who are reorganizing cities in preparation for the coming crisis love moralism. The love scared people. Anarchist media might be the new party, lifestyle media.

When I see vegan straight edge these days I instantly wonder if it is secret code for conservatism.

Maybe not conservatism, just the same old hardcore conformity, under a different costume. LGBTBBQ in the place of the old hetero binaries. Counterculture people should have studied how culture actually works and especially the process of social integration, and read less of those completely useless po-mo texts.

moralism is used to establish a binary 'self-other' identity. in the presence of conflict, moralism sees things through binary lenses; ... if 'i am right' then 'those others are wrong' (or good versus bad, innocent versus guilty, victim versus offender).

relationism understands conflict as manifesting locally but originating nonlocally from tensions in a relational matrix. the 'pacific plate' and the 'north american plate' are names give to 'opposite sides' in an inherently circular flow that descends down into a not-directly visible 'additional dimension'; i.e. circulation within the mantle that is the source of the surficial, tangential head-butting.

there is 'economy of thought' in imputing local origination to conflict as moral judgement does. the judges determine 'which of the opposing sides is at fault'. of course, in reality the judges and everyone in the relational matrix are included in the nonlocal sourcing of tensions which manifest locally [rising tensions are the source of sporadic eruptions of conflict that seek tension-reducing relational reconfiguration], through opposing sides. the judges insistence on seeing conflict as arising locally, as a binary phenomenon involving two opposing sides, as is the moralist view of conflict, is itself contributing to rising tensions since it unjustly excludes the judges from any/all authoring contribution to the conflict they are adjudicating.

morality goes hand-in-hand with rationality; i.e. reason aka scientific thinking is an approach to understanding that generates 'economy of thought' by constraining the sourcing of unfolding dynamics to local-in-space-and-time-authorship;

“Origin of Mathematical Physics. Let us go further and study more closely the conditions which have assisted the development of mathematical physics. We recognise at the outset the efforts of men of science have always tended to resolve the complex phenomenon given directly by experiment into a very large number of elementary phenomena, and that in three different ways.
First, with respect to time. Instead of embracing in its entirety the progressive development of a phenomenon, we simply try to connect each moment with the one immediately preceding. We admit that the present state of the world only depends on the immediate past, without being directly influenced, so to speak, by the recollection of a more distant past. Thanks to this postulate, instead of studying directly the whole succession of phenomena, we may confine ourselves to writing down its differential equation; for the laws of Kepler we substitute the law of Newton.
Next, we try to decompose the phenomena in space. What experiment gives us is a confused aggregate of facts spread over a scene of considerable extent. We must try to deduce the elementary phenomenon, which will still be localised in a very small region of space. — Henri Poincaré, ‘Science and Hypothesis’, Chapter IX, Hypotheses in Physics”

science and morality together deliver 'understanding' (a reduced form of understanding engineered to deliver economy of thought) that imputes local-in-space-and-time authorship of physical phenomena. the parties in conflict are therefore fully and solely responsible for authorship of the conflict; e.g. police and demonstrators. no matter how draconian the head-man is and how much he raises taxes and military service requirements, if there is a conflict THAT MANIFESTS in skirmishes between police and demonstrators [or pro-head-man and con head-man factions], the head-man's judges will impute that conflict as being a local, binary conflict, and will impose moral judgement that will decide who is the offender and who the victim. no authorship whatsoever is acknowledged that would link back to the head-man and his judges BY DEFINITION of what conflict is [a locally authored phenomenon].

anarchism, for some, sees through this bullshit and will not accept putting reason and morality into an unnatural precedence over intuition and relationism [as in modern physics where 'relations are all there is'; i.e. the notion of 'independent things that are fully and solely responsible for doing stuff is 'appearances' that are used to manipulate 'the herd'].

'authoritarianism' is built on putting reason and morality into an unnatural precedence over intuition and relationalism.

'anti-authoritarianism' is not the equivalent of relationist anarchism; i.e. a simple physical attack to overthrow the authorities ['revolution'] is not going to root out the real source of the dysfunction; i.e. putting reason and morality into an unnatural precedence over intuition and relationism, ... the actual, deeper source of authoritarianism.

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.