Of His-story's biggest bastards, Columbus is surely up there with the worst.
Ol' Christopher was intimately documented through the opening chapters of Zinn's "A People's History" and has been taking the heat across schools, parks, local legislatures, forums, and social media ever since.
Acting as an agent of the Catholic Crowns to expand the reach of their Holy Empire, it is safe to say Columbus was not on the level with anarchists and was, in fact, an actual factual colonizer.
From the Home project in early 1900s Washington to the Tenacious Unicorn Ranch of the last decade in Colorado, anarchist and adjacent projects have come under fire for perceived colonialism and appropriation.
Some of these accusations rest solely on the use of land in the (so called? ugh.) United States, which once "belonged to" (Ugh!) the indigenous peoples of the continent.
Some of these accusations, as with the wildtenders of the Hoop(pdf) or any number of other primitivist efforts, include specific practices of the project that either resemble or are directly adapted from indigenous tradition.
Most of these accusations appear to have deep roots in a maoist analysis of culture, race, and nation.
But that's not to say the sentiments aren't repeated in our own circles. There are useful and insightful perspectives within our tendencies that share these concerns to a significant degree.
So, what's an anarchist to do?
Is it possible to have an anarchist project on stolen land without, in some sense, participating in the theft?
Does the anarchistic notion that land does not have an inherent "owner" effectively combat the issue?
Does an anarchist project have the capacity to be colonialist if it combats the state?
Can an anarchist's kleptomania be kept away from culturally established intellectual properties?
Does the spirit of Columbus operate through anarchist hands every time they stir the beans at Food Not Bombs?
If so, do we exorcise this demon? How?
Comments
No idea. But one thing I've
anon (not verified) Sun, 10/13/2024 - 11:24
No idea. But one thing I've noticed is this gets brought up much more frequently for rural projects like that weird little alpaca ranch. Things like anarchist bookstores and infoshops located in some town or city tend not to get the columbising criticism. It feels like it kicks in 40 minutes out of town or maybe 2 hours for a big city. As if the land is even more stolen or hadn't yet been there.
Not enough people understand
anon (not verified) Sun, 10/13/2024 - 14:53
In reply to No idea. But one thing I've by anon (not verified)
Not enough people understand urban processes like gentrification as colonialism—if they did they'd probably look much more critically on urban anarchist projects.
Who wrote this?
anon (not verified) Sun, 10/13/2024 - 14:33
It's not necessarily bad that OP has an opinion, it should just be explicit…but what's leaking through isn't very good, which makes the cageyness more irritating.
"So, what's an anarchist to do?"
Depends on the anarchist.
"Is it possible to have an anarchist project on stolen land without, in some sense, participating in the theft?"
Yes. Two examples would be Taala Hooghan Infoshop & Fauda.
"Does the anarchistic notion that land does not have an inherent "owner" effectively combat the issue?"
Ideas don't address social structures any more or less effectively than objects—it depends on who wields them & how.
"Does an anarchist project have the capacity to be colonialist if it combats the state?"
Yes. Colonialism isn't merely a state.
"Can an anarchist's kleptomania be kept away from culturally established intellectual properties?"
Yep.
"Does the spirit of Columbus operate through anarchist hands every time they stir the beans at Food Not Bombs?"
Anarchists don't stir the beans.
"If so, do we exorcise this demon? How?"
The same way slavery was ended: https://lucien0maverick.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/so-sor…
"Some of these accusations
Not Chris (not verified) Sun, 10/13/2024 - 15:07
"Some of these accusations rest solely on the use of land in the (so called? ugh.) United States, which once 'belonged to' (Ugh!) the indigenous peoples of the continent."
The land belonging to Indigenous peoples simply means they had a social relationship to the land that went beyond just stumbling across it randomly, and this relationship existed before colonizers and the colonial state showed up. It doesn't even mean a specific Indigenous people were the first people ever on that piece of land. This is why Zionists are not Indigenous to Palestine, for example (even though there were some Jewish people living there prior to Israel).
If you think this belonging is gross, it's not clear why you would single out Native peoples in particular rather than be grossed out by any group of people having any relationship to land aside from stumbling across it randomly. Not clear why aside from racist ideas programmed into every one every day since birth of course.
The problem with the Home Colony was not that it was a "project" that "used" land. It's that it was a white settler colony established under the laws and protection of the State of Washington. That's not the only problem with settler colonialism but there can be more than one problem and they don't cancel each other out in euro-american anarchists' favor.
It's not a coincidence that when non-Native anarchists talk about colonialism in North America, the State tends to disappear, and suddenly colonialism becomes just a matter of good intentions and cool people doing stuff in general. It's appropriately convenient.
Have you considered that OP
anon (not verified) Sun, 10/13/2024 - 15:17
In reply to "Some of these accusations by Not Chris (not verified)
Have you considered that OP may be indigenous? Would that impact your reaction to the post?
Yeah, I did, and no, it
Not Chris (not verified) Sun, 10/13/2024 - 15:30
In reply to Have you considered that OP by anon (not verified)
Yeah, I did, and no, it changes nothing as far as the politics of what I said. Some Native people will also say that Native peoples didn't "own" the land but they don't deny that Native peoples had a significant social relationship with the land. Some Native persons are cops or politicians who also think traditional Native relationships to the land are gross. Colonial thinking is programmed into all of us, not just non-Natives. And colonial structures exist and affect all of us regardless of how we self-identify, as radicals, Native or non-Native or whatever. The colonial state doesn't disappear just because some white anarchists want to do a legalized colony under the aegis of the State of Washington and call it a "project" so they can feel good about it. And colonialism exists in the cities too, not just rural areas.
i agree with you that we're
anon (not verified) Sun, 10/13/2024 - 15:56
In reply to Yeah, I did, and no, it by Not Chris (not verified)
i agree with you that we're all inculcated with the shit we're raised with, colonialism, patriarchy, etc etc.
but the ease with which you state how correct you are, regardless of identity, is in fact another way of white people (usually) owning a conversation. in other words, it doesn't matter who someone is, because you have the right answer regardless of anyone's experience or difference of opinion.
i don't have an easy answer (i dont think there is one), but your blase rejection of other kinds of experience is not reflective of an anarchy i recognize.
Confidence & clarity is authoritarian/white/etc.
anon (not verified) Sun, 10/13/2024 - 18:09
In reply to i agree with you that we're by anon (not verified)
Obfuscation, equivocation, vacillation, & indecisiveness feed anarchy. Well, I'm just spitballing here, but if someone tells me I'm wrong for that, the ease with which they do so disregards my opinion & experience. I probably wouldn't recognize anarchy in such a response.
I disagree with you that I
Not Chris (not verified) Sun, 10/13/2024 - 18:25
In reply to i agree with you that we're by anon (not verified)
I disagree with you that I stated "how correct" I am, or that other people are wrong regardless of their "experience or difference of opinion", let alone that I did so with ease. I do hope though that you are enjoying your trolling and your disagreement with your own statements. Maybe one day we will agree with each other and then the State and all forms of oppression will disappear without us having to do anything but respect each other's opinions. Wouldn't it be nice? But you get to keep other peoples' land. Don't worry.
i don't get to keep anything.
anon (not verified) Sun, 10/13/2024 - 19:08
In reply to I disagree with you that I by Not Chris (not verified)
i don't get to keep anything. you get to keep your purity?
the idea of what belonging to land means, and what that means inside a capitalist system, is what the topic is about. you seem to be doing an end run around the question, which is certainly your prerogative.
No, the topic is about
anon (not verified) Sun, 10/13/2024 - 21:32
In reply to i don't get to keep anything. by anon (not verified)
No, the topic is about providing trolls with a playpen for their irrelevant remarks, a kind of blank slate for intrepid explorers to discover, claim, and do what they will with, regardless of anyone else. If you dealt with this site straightforwardly instead of beating around the bush like a bashful schoolboy, you'd already know that. Land belongs to no one. The comments section belongs to no one. All opinions matter. I eat whatever food I want when I want and I wear whatever clothes I want when I go out on the town for a night of frivolity that would put even Christopher Columbus to shame. Anarchy cannot be contained. It will not be contained!
"Death of the Author"
anon (not verified) Sun, 10/13/2024 - 16:16
In reply to Have you considered that OP by anon (not verified)
by Roland Barthes
Also this is the internet... who cares who wrote what? Quit being so Raddle...
Cries "death of the author".
anon (not verified) Mon, 10/14/2024 - 09:40
In reply to "Death of the Author" by anon (not verified)
Cries "death of the author".
Cites the author.
*dies*
>Virgin symbolism
anon (not verified) Mon, 10/14/2024 - 10:42
In reply to Cries "death of the author". by anon (not verified)
>Virgin symbolism
>Brad literal interpretation
>Chad Marxist hermeneutics
>Thad post-structuralist hermeneutics
>Gad "I reject this reality and substitute with my own"
oh come on now, this topic
lumpy (not verified) Mon, 10/14/2024 - 08:58
oh come on now, this topic has some meat to it even if anons don't want to acknowledge that @news ever accomplished anything lol
i'm rolling my eyes as to why the OP of the topic wants to claim it's "maoism" that results in a shitty analysis of colonialism, to that i would say they only bothered to glance back a few decades to the squeakiest wheel for the cause of a much older, larger problem
I send a sneering "no and you look a bit silly right now" to the anarchist edgelord ahistoricism position but that's just a tone thing, not really important at all, just kind of funny and abrasive and besides, i otherwise agree with them!
what actually matters is why any serious grappling with the idea of colonialism becomes paralyzing to any positive projects of anyone who theoretically sympathizes with those who were conquered. or if you prefer, anyone who exist in an uneasy, semi-genocidal truce with their erstwhile conquerors...
anarchists obviously need to be accomplices to anyone getting colonized or genocided for anarchist politics (or anti-politics) to make any fukin sense at all AND anarchists need to be able to build things and gather strength for their shit to make any sense sooo ....
that right there, is a big old christian devil in the details! so fukin sort it out or your little anarchist worldview is collapsing under its own contradictions. do better. don't let people guilt you so easily. that's just liberalism. DO BETTER!
or i guess ... if you want to do a race realism, you can seek out one of the few hundred anarchists who happen to also be native and inform them that they are now your glorious cult leader, throw yourself at their feet and beg for absolution
that'll be fukin weird and creepy and if they're a real anarchist, they will say - thanks-but-no-thanks! k bye!
i agree with this. a thing
alex (not verified) Mon, 10/14/2024 - 10:29
In reply to oh come on now, this topic by lumpy (not verified)
i agree with this. a thing being subject to a critique doesnt necessarily mean it must be immediately abolished or abandoned or purified for its sins. as an imagined example: X land project operates within a colonial economic framework and so if/when it loses whatever confrontational character it now has, it will become just another development, another increment in the expansion and intensification of colonial management of the land. in a certain sense, it is correct imo that this means it was always that--whoever was walking on it, whatever they were doing, the form of property relations that defined that parcel of land from the beginning was including it in its calculations all along.
thinking about it another way, it means that in order for that parcel of land, and the use of it by the people on it, to have a liberatory horizon, it must cease to exist as currently constituted at the point of departure. cf marxism's "self-abolition of the proletariat," which to me just means that any liberatory moment for a given social body will include the active destruction of a substantial and definitive part of those things that the people within it rely on for the maintenance and reproduction of their lives. otherwise we're just going to continue the pattern of clinging to and reconstituting this social form of life while our noble overlords attempt to forestall its destruction by the savages in the ghettos and stare blankly at the rising ocean
both of these considerations can be considered limits of and to the project as it currently operates. neither means that the project must annihilate itself right now, but that in assessing it one should think about how and whether the people carrying out the project are actively engaged with them, whether theyre maintaining any kind of tension within these limits or engaging in political fantasy by pretending they dont exist.
now if this imaginary land project ceases to exist as a site for any kind of confrontational activity and begins to function as a small business with small business priorities, if the demands of its maintenance supercede any of the political or anti-political concerns that it began with, i think it becomes fair to start lodging a different kind of critique and say this is a dead thing to me and merely a part of the regular economy. and if a particular tactic or practice tends to lead to a lot of dead things of that kind, it starts to become fair to ask whether it is so flawed as to be unworkable in a more general sense. i would say the former is true of a handful of projects i have encountered, enough to make me leery of certain tendencies but not enough to condemn them. and the latter is true of the 20th century utopian colony model, pre-figurative militarism, "left unity," joining NATO conscript armies, etc
that's all completely fair
lumpy (not verified) Mon, 10/14/2024 - 14:27
In reply to i agree with this. a thing by alex (not verified)
that's all completely fair and i agree but i would probably go a step further
even IF some anarchists or otherwise politically marginalized people, form a small group, pool resources, start a land project or otherwise try to escape some of the logic of the housing crisis in the cities and they don't hold reactionary politics or values and that's it... that's pretty much all they're doing, seriously, what's my beef with them? beyond the petty purity politics?
the beef is largely bullshit. these criticisms are only ever leveled at the tiny fraction of other people with an anti-colonial analysis because nobody else gives a fuck. the actual settlers are the ones who would call the cops or pull a gun on you immediately, not the ones who take your verbal abuse and say "thank you token native person, may i have another please?". those weirdos are ... well if you understand that they're just stupid marks and you're fleecing them, then fair enough!
but I say all this as a guy who happens to be indigenous to some territories in the PNW
the only reason they're probably even having a dialogue is because of a certain amount of politically affinity. most of the ""decolonize people"" as someone once referred to them, don't go around, randomly door-knocking in suburbia to lecture people about how they're settlers because they know they can't get any clout by doing that. they only lecture to audiences that might have a majority of liberal-guilt "omg i'm such a settler!!!" dumbasses who will then mindlessly obey them or give them money or whatever
if some land project people, who have relatively little power, same as me, despise the gov't and capitalism, same as me, are just doing their thing, why am i busting their chops? because they're the only ones who show up to be shamed? because they'll crouch down and take it and beg for my approval? it's degrading for everyone involved, INCLUDING the native folks who can only find sniveling liberals to punch on. like, maybe try punching on someone who punches back, if you don't want to look like a petty bully
and if you're on the decolonize-hustle, fair enough, get your reparations however you can but don't start to believe your own bullshit tho ...
I don't understand what the
Not Chris (not verified) Mon, 10/14/2024 - 16:30
In reply to that's all completely fair by lumpy (not verified)
I don't understand what the relevance is of whether you have no personal beef with anarchist land projects or not, or whether some Native persons are guilt-tripping some non-Natives or not. How do your personal feelings and observations of the actions of some individuals change whether a settler state exists or not? The Home Colony was formed as a white settler colony under the laws of the State of Washington. The Home colonists themselves didn't even try to hide this fact. It served as a civilian garrison for the state so that Natives would have less land use AND sovereignty. I don't see how it serves anarchy to cover this up now with our nice feelings. Colonialism isn't when there are bad vibes and decolonization isn't when there are good vibes.
i think the point being made
anonymous (not verified) Mon, 10/14/2024 - 20:36
In reply to I don't understand what the by Not Chris (not verified)
i think the point being made is that colonialism, like gentrification, exists regardless of whether some people feel bad about it or not. these are big systems that can be neither rectified nor even significantly ameliorated by small groups of people "feeling guilty", as lump puts it.
but there are groups of people who want to act like they're fighting colonialism in some significant way by guilt tripping people.
jibes with my experience, anyway.
so if positive projects are
anon (not verified) Mon, 10/14/2024 - 16:45
In reply to that's all completely fair by lumpy (not verified)
so if positive projects are stuck in between "that's a cooler use of land than chuds would do" and "willfull supporters of supremacy/genocide live here"... then irl any land use is reformist. it's either paying property taxes or business income taxes, or else it's held in trust and managed by a tribal "dependent sovereignty" government. or, in the fleeting cracks before the LEOs bust the squatters, who count their blessings and move on.
you sound like you're endorsing longevity (in the decades-scale) which is not necessarily wrong, but do you see it as also reformist?
i think saying "any land use
alex (not verified) Mon, 10/14/2024 - 22:43
In reply to so if positive projects are by anon (not verified)
i think saying "any land use is reformist" along those lines flattens the activity of the people who occupy that space for whatever time they do to their bare economic function, as if all they were doing for the time they were there was to steward some parcel of land that the state/capital will eventually find its own, maybe "higher" use for. it can be true they were doing that in the eyes of the state while also being true they were doing something else, for themselves, some cause, whatever. i think "land use" becomes reformist when the use of the land is asserted or centered as the substance of a project, as if there was a right way to use the land that is being demonstrated or revealed by the fact that so-and-so is using it that way while flying whatever banner they prefer. its when people center some proper way of using a thing, or other people, or themselves, that they participate in the processes of state-building and refining.
decentering ways of use-of (not necessarily violent) and emphasizing ways of living-with (not necessarily peaceful) is what i'd focus on here. the former is about how and what we produce and consume, the latter is about how and why we orient ourselves (as individuals, and maybe then as groups, and maybe then as societies, etc) to other lives, including the nonhuman ones that altogether constitute "the land." the former could be revolutionary, but in the absence of revolution amounts to programs for clean and healthy living of one kind or the other, and so yes, at that point, a matter of reform. whereas the latter at least *can* be about re-orienting ourselves amongst each other (even if alone, or for just a moment) against or through the chuds and supremacists as you say, despite the apparent inevitability of their particular forms of death and taxes.
anyway im probably generalizing pointlessly here, especially when lumpy seems to be talking about specific groups of people who sound very annoying, but i was interested by this use of "reformism"
Explain how seeking longevity
anon (not verified) Tue, 10/15/2024 - 11:16
In reply to so if positive projects are by anon (not verified)
Explain how seeking longevity is "reformist", as to me it's rather the opposite. Liberal groups are a lot into the temporary if not the spectacular, just waiting to get either crushed by the state or integrated by the nonprofit sector...
One of the state's biggest strenght lies in timelessness, and anyone not seeking to at least challenge it on that aspect is doomed to failure or at best becoming a Sisyphus of militancy, i.e. always restarting the same struggle without much progress.
What is wrong with advancing an anarchist project, and making it last as long as it can? I only see authoritarians, especially the cops, being against that. Once you *overcome* time, you've won a significant battle.
it's not the longevity per se
anon (not verified) Tue, 10/15/2024 - 12:15
In reply to Explain how seeking longevity by anon (not verified)
it's not the longevity per se, but the fitting in to the existent that is potentially reformist. through the nihilist or poststructuralist lenses, ways of being that are compatible with the existent are not fundamentally challenging to it. so whether the occupancy of some part of the land is done through tenancy, mortgage, or squatting, the state holds the cards in the end, and a lifetime of effort can end up simply adding on to the list of represented or unrepresented anarchist history.
otoh, i think alex is approximately correct that there are more details to land tenure than the economic definition assigned by the state. for my part i'd say i have seen exactly no real implementations of ecocentric nihilistic living. all the real humans i know are too attached to their bodies and selves to fully embrace the uncertainty of immersion in an ecosystem and admit their animal finitude. the ways you hear ppl talking about stuff like rewilding and ecology often come off too new agey, too much superstition/preconception, not enough observation and learning. this would be a land usage i would like to see play out for decades to come to ripeness. and it would have to play out within the existent, and potentially therefore only amount to reform of the existent. but a consequence of positive projects like that are that they give ppl something to try to keep working on, keep building, rather than the (what i see as non-reformist) total-negation of egoist nihilism.
a project with longevity AND that transcends the limits of property boundaries and exclusion, that loops subsistence and natural medicine in with freedom of movement within a range, and amoral co-participation in forest cultivation, could be a very powerful rhizome, although fitting itself in to the existent. imo insurrectos need places to lay low and eat well, workers need lower expenses and non industrial foods and fewer work hours, and kids and libs need to see (disorganized) individualist cooperation that transcends property lines and involves no governance. in some ways these may be considered reforms but they sure would open up new possibilities.
this is some antisemetic shit
anon (not verified) Mon, 10/14/2024 - 15:32
this is some antisemetic shit right here.
Are u mis-threading or just
anon (not verified) Mon, 10/14/2024 - 19:11
In reply to this is some antisemetic shit by anon (not verified)
Are u mis-threading or just mis-trolling? I don't see anything antisemitic in OP.
Colombus was a jew
anon (not verified) Tue, 10/15/2024 - 00:35
In reply to Are u mis-threading or just by anon (not verified)
The troll is on point
The Judeo-Christian ethos
anon (not verified) Tue, 10/15/2024 - 06:25
In reply to Colombus was a jew by anon (not verified)
The Judeo-Christian ethos instigated the proto-imperialist methodology, i.e. the Missionary/Trade coupling drove most post-byzantium Empires into an eschatologically fueled excuse to "enlighten" the "heathen" to the "Heaven" they are missing out on.
*2x rolling eyes, like 180°*
anon (not verified) Tue, 10/15/2024 - 10:56
In reply to The Judeo-Christian ethos by anon (not verified)
Ouch... So imperialism basically was invented by Judeo-Christians. Romans, Persians, Greeks/Seleucids, Incas, etc were all very respectful organizations, asking.foreign populaces their consent before taking over and having emperors put in charge through long consensus-building processes. Also Nazis never invaded anyone, that's all a big.communist lie by Joodeo-Xians, lol
No no no, the Romans were
anon (not verified) Wed, 10/16/2024 - 02:09
In reply to *2x rolling eyes, like 180°* by anon (not verified)
No no no, the Romans were anti-christs before Jesus was even born, and food was so cheap and free at the Colosseum, hedonism, as in most amoral pre-Judeo-Christian Empires were at the time. Bad people were fed to lions, problem solved, no prisons, just dungeons beneath the arenas for quick despatch into eternity. The J-Xtian new moral order changed everything, and it got fat on the market economy it managed. Human social values then evolved into property, commodity and capital focused economies, and an excluded class of free-thinkers and heathens.
*rolling eyes*
anon (not verified) Tue, 10/15/2024 - 10:50
In reply to Colombus was a jew by anon (not verified)
You can't be for real, rite?
I think that if anarchists
knar (not verified) Tue, 10/15/2024 - 10:40
I think that if anarchists insist on bringing western / European / non-indigenous epistemologies with them to the land project then, yes these would be colonial / settler-colonial projects.
If anarchists insist solely on notions of freedom that come from the European tradition of anarchism, then, again, these projects would be in service to the ongoing western transformation of the living earth into a dead rock.
So anarchist of western
anon (not verified) Tue, 10/15/2024 - 10:54
In reply to I think that if anarchists by knar (not verified)
So anarchist of western heritage should bring indigenous epistemologies with them to land projects? Should they be sure to smudge themselves before arrival?
*dies*
Or maybe anarchists of
anon (not verified) Tue, 10/15/2024 - 10:56
In reply to So anarchist of western by anon (not verified)
Or maybe anarchists of western heritage should either not participate in land projects or should only participate in land projects as subservient/silent listeners because indigenous authority on land projects is A-OKAY? It's not anarcho-liberal when it's indigenous, rite?
*dies more*
to 10:54 & 10:56
knar (not verified) Tue, 10/15/2024 - 11:21
In reply to Or maybe anarchists of by anon (not verified)
so, you believe the only options are cultural appropriation or mindless subservience? curious.
not to mention, indigeneity
knar (not verified) Tue, 10/15/2024 - 11:35
In reply to to 10:54 & 10:56 by knar (not verified)
not to mention, indigeneity is not the sole possession of Native Americans. we are all indigenous somewhere. maybe do the work of finding that root & home.
Preach, brother!
Rachel Dolezal (not verified) Tue, 10/15/2024 - 12:56
In reply to not to mention, indigeneity by knar (not verified)
Preach, brother!
Why don't you offer an
anon (not verified) Tue, 10/15/2024 - 12:55
In reply to to 10:54 & 10:56 by knar (not verified)
Why don't you offer an alternative, knar? I'll wait.
Inb4 white supremacist
anon (not verified) Tue, 10/15/2024 - 12:59
In reply to Why don't you offer an by anon (not verified)
Inb4 white supremacist tribalism. Oh too late: "maybe do the work of finding that root & home."
*dies xenophobically*
the poverty of your
knar (not verified) Tue, 10/15/2024 - 13:12
In reply to Inb4 white supremacist by anon (not verified)
the poverty of your imagination is astounding.
why do anarchists cede indigeneity to white supremacy?
Different anon here.
anon (not verified) Tue, 10/15/2024 - 13:21
In reply to the poverty of your by knar (not verified)
Different anon here.
Why don't you answer the damn question? Because your initial argument was entirely empty and you've backed yourself into a corner with your anarcho-liberal perspective. This is the real imagination poverty. Learn from your mistake.
i offered some food for
knar (not verified) Tue, 10/15/2024 - 13:49
In reply to Different anon here. by anon (not verified)
i offered some food for thought. take it or leave it as you wish.
but if you also seem to need me to masticate it into a digestible pabulum for you.
Somebody, turn this comment
anon (not verified) Wed, 10/16/2024 - 03:41
In reply to Just admit you talk to hear by anon (not verified)
Somebody, turn this comment section into a rap battle.
there are only so many songs
knar (not verified) Wed, 10/16/2024 - 11:30
In reply to Somebody, turn this comment by anon (not verified)
there are only so many songs that can be sung with two lips two lungs and one tongue
As any real muso knows, the
anon (not verified) Wed, 10/16/2024 - 22:30
In reply to there are only so many songs by knar (not verified)
As any real muso knows, the soul of any particular song sung by a ' muse ' can be condensed into just ONE note, the pinnacle of human expression!
What "Western" notions of
anon (not verified) Tue, 10/15/2024 - 11:23
In reply to I think that if anarchists by knar (not verified)
What "Western" notions of freedom? The Commons are a product of old Europe and pretty consistent with Turtle Island indigenous cultures. Such is.late.19th century.anarcho-nihilism that was about abolishing.property from the ground up.
How are the North American natives so pure? Have you heard about casinos and family-based land forfeitures, if not private property? Not a lot within today's native peoples follows the ancestral -inherently native- ways of defining and occupying the land...
the notion of freedom that
knar (not verified) Tue, 10/15/2024 - 11:39
In reply to What "Western" notions of by anon (not verified)
the notion of freedom that says "i can do whatever i want, whenever i want without regard for other beings." the idea that there are never limits or boundaries. that western notion of freedom.
Conquerors have been around
anon (not verified) Tue, 10/15/2024 - 13:38
In reply to the notion of freedom that by knar (not verified)
Conquerors have been around for at least as long as sedentary agro civilizations exist. This particular, contrived view of "freedom" (that is rather violence, brutality, despotism) isn't exclusive to Western civilization but dates way further back. And Barbarossa -a Turkic Muslim raider and slave merchant- wouldn't have hesitated to take Native American as slaves if he had a fleet crossing the Atlantic.
you're not wrong in the first
knar (not verified) Tue, 10/15/2024 - 14:04
In reply to Conquerors have been around by anon (not verified)
you're not wrong in the first part of your comment. however that does not mean that anarchists, even here on this site, have not also expressed such ideas of freedom.
as to the last part of your comment, sure, many hypothetical things could have happened.
*shrugs* There's all sorts of
anon (not verified) Tue, 10/15/2024 - 19:02
In reply to you're not wrong in the first by knar (not verified)
*shrugs* There's all sorts of anarchists these days... including those not seeing an issue in supporting violent ethno-nationalist agendas or profiting like good capitalists in order to get rich and buy buy buy themselves land so to "be free".
Those claiming Anarchism -every single of them- deserve to be put against the wall and asked what does it mean to them, in the real world.
I'm not exactly sure why the
anon (not verified) Tue, 10/15/2024 - 22:27
In reply to Conquerors have been around by anon (not verified)
I'm not exactly sure why the idea of "doing whatever you want wherever you want" is associated with violence and coersion in the anarcho-socialists' minds. Like, what if I want to help others or hang out with my friends or care about my lover or grandparents? Am I a "settler-colonialist" just because I don't appeal to the moralistic definition of freedom? If anything, doing whatever you want, whenever you want is actually an indiginous concept since that's exactly what Piraha people, who cannot form such abstractions as morality or gods, do.
If all you want is to dominate people then maybe you're just a psychopath who doesn't like human beings in the first place. Jus' sayin'.
i suggest you reread my post
knar (not verified) Wed, 10/16/2024 - 08:20
In reply to I'm not exactly sure why the by anon (not verified)
i suggest you reread my post all the way to the end. "without regard for other beings" is the part you seemed to have missed.
That's 'cause all this
anon (not verified) Wed, 10/16/2024 - 03:59
In reply to What "Western" notions of by anon (not verified)
That's 'cause all this "ethnic minorities good, white people bad" talk is just a nationalist creep with a progressive rhetoric. Progressive NAM if you will. As I was saying before, nationalism obfuscates both the class structures within our society and the individual uniqueness, it reduces people to their ethnicities. Obviously a petty bourgeois Native American is a petty bourgeois first, a Native American second. So of course they're gonna advocate for petty bourgeois interests.
Progressivism is conservatism in a different paint.
i thnk that class is as much
anon (not verified) Wed, 10/16/2024 - 08:14
In reply to That's 'cause all this by anon (not verified)
i thnk that class is as much a simplistic identity as you're claiming nationalism is. you will find only limited class unity within classes, even the upper class, despite them being more and more myopic as they get further and further removed from the lives of other classes. but the point is, generalizations are general and will never accurately represent individuals.
so perhaps you're preaching a straight marxist line, complete with essential proletariat, etc?
either way, nationalism becomes a problem when it becomes the only thing people care about. but that is also true for individualism, and class, and any of the other ways that people have been categorized (and categorize ourselves).
Biggest class unity I've seen
anon (not verified) Wed, 10/16/2024 - 19:46
In reply to i thnk that class is as much by anon (not verified)
Biggest class unity I've seen was among the White liberal upper middle class which conlincidentally is where most social anarchists are from... and go back to, once they become more or less aware their attempts at reaching out to the proles and all the LARPing didn't pay off.
even this response is to some
anonymous (not verified) Wed, 10/16/2024 - 20:43
In reply to Biggest class unity I've seen by anon (not verified)
even this response is to some extent proving the point of the preceding comment. you have to modify "middle class" with upper, white, and liberal...
so, you trying to make 8:14's point or something?
That's 'cause it's not "class
anon (not verified) Thu, 10/17/2024 - 00:31
In reply to even this response is to some by anonymous (not verified)
That's 'cause it's not "class unity" but an ideological unity. Class unity does not denote an ideo|ogy but it can be encouraged by certain ideologies like socialism for example. That does not mean that this or that socialism perfectly represents the working class's economic interests but rather this or that socialism provides solutions to these economic interests. Obviously all socialisms are utopian revolutionary populist fever dreams since 90% of proles have false consciousness and consumerism deeply ingraned into their brain boxes. Both anarcho-nihilists and Situationists are right.
I'm not sure it can be
anon (not verified) Thu, 10/17/2024 - 00:35
In reply to Biggest class unity I've seen by anon (not verified)
I'm not sure it can be considered a class. More like a "stratum."
Also, wdym "upper-middle class?" What class system do you use? Marxist? Weberian? Durkheimian? Wealth-based?
Did I say that class is an
anon (not verified) Thu, 10/17/2024 - 00:17
In reply to i thnk that class is as much by anon (not verified)
Did I say that class is an identity? Class is just a socio-economic hierarchy. Class solidarity is more of an ideological thing and is not required for being a member of a class. Only people who are aware of class interests can cooperate with other class members, others are just too spooked to care. Just as with anything. So yeah, class essentialism is a spook so Leninoids are morons.
Nationalism is as compatible with conscious egoism as Christianity is. Same with Leninism, it's too essentialist of an ideology, you can only perhaps take some tiny tidbits from it but would it really be Leninism by this point?
it seems like you're
knar (not verified) Wed, 10/16/2024 - 11:40
In reply to That's 'cause all this by anon (not verified)
it seems like you're projecting. i never said anything about "good" or "bad" people.
i am contrasting settler mind with indigenous mind and positing that these are incompatible. your gloss that one is good and the other bad is your reading.
it occurs to me to reiterate,
knar (not verified) Wed, 10/16/2024 - 21:26
In reply to it seems like you're by knar (not verified)
it occurs to me to reiterate, i am not making an argument from identity.
neither am i making an argument from class.
i am trying to articulate an argument from place. what does it mean to live in a place? to be in a place? to become in place, as place? how do you collaborate with the land, with the plants and the critters? do you come to a place with listening & noticing? or do you barge in and pay no attention to what is already in attendance?
these, to me, are questions i want to grapple with.
place and philosophy
cyberdandy Wed, 10/16/2024 - 22:23
In reply to it occurs to me to reiterate, by knar (not verified)
There's a lot of philosophy stuff that gets into these questions. Infamously, Heidegger... But also many others who feel better to deal with, like Henri Lefebvre. David Harvey isa Marxist and he's big on "place" stuff. Before Heidegger, Husserl put a lot into conceptualizing the so-called lifeword or lebenswelt and besides his influence on Heidegger, the phenomenological stuff he developed had a big impact on thinkers like Merleau-Ponty... who had a big influence on David Abrams.
Just popped in to say that. I've weighed in enough on this topic for a while otherwise.
well, I've read David Abrams
knar (not verified) Wed, 10/16/2024 - 22:55
In reply to place and philosophy by cyberdandy
well, I've read David Abrams and love his writings. i want to read Husserl and i've tried and it's a tough go for me, but i want to get a better handle on phenomenology.
thanks for the rest of your suggestions, Cyber Dandy, but i lean more toward people like Robin Wall Kimmerer, and Anna Tsing. Bruno Latour's Down To Earth is also in this vein. i think my wheelhouse of understanding is a bit more science a bit less philosophy.
"Infamously, Heidegger..."
anon (not verified) Thu, 10/17/2024 - 00:34
In reply to place and philosophy by cyberdandy
"Infamously, Heidegger..." WTF (Poetical), in the same way you are unwillingly categorized as being 'democratic', so it was with Heidegger, unwillingly categorized as a Nazi. Anyway, death of the author as regards his Dasein theory
Not the other commenter but
anon (not verified) Thu, 10/17/2024 - 07:27
In reply to "Infamously, Heidegger..." by anon (not verified)
Not the other commenter but Heideggy was more than willing to fall in the Nazi category, which he never rejected even in his later years. So yea, Sein und Zeit was made in his pre-Nazi years and there's little in this otherwise badly-written essay that is inherently fascist. His theory is very constructivist actually, and supportive of individualism.
> essay *dies*
anon (not verified) Thu, 10/17/2024 - 11:05
In reply to Not the other commenter but by anon (not verified)
> essay
*dies*
Heidegger is definitely the
anon (not verified) Thu, 10/17/2024 - 11:54
In reply to > essay *dies* by anon (not verified)
Heidegger is definitely the essayist of all time. And all being.
Certainly. But to call Sein
anon (not verified) Thu, 10/17/2024 - 13:28
In reply to Heidegger is definitely the by anon (not verified)
Certainly. But to call Sein und Zeit an "essay", and a "badly-written essay" at that, is a new form of stupidity yet to be seen on my beloved Anarchist News dot Org. The commenter's gross inauthenticity will no doubt be the catalyst for their unremarkable perishing.
What a great pedant! You must
anon (not verified) Thu, 10/17/2024 - 16:45
In reply to Certainly. But to call Sein by anon (not verified)
What a great pedant! You must be very busy in daily life to be so affected by a cross-language misuse of book category semantics.
No u
anon (not verified) Thu, 10/17/2024 - 18:42
In reply to What a great pedant! You must by anon (not verified)
No u
Heidegger and Place
cyberdandy Thu, 10/17/2024 - 07:50
In reply to "Infamously, Heidegger..." by anon (not verified)
Heidegger's understanding of "place" and related stuff is where some of his antisemitism comes through in his philosophy. I think it adds a lot to the conversation to look at how this happens in his philosophy. Here's some ChatGPT summary on the issue, but I initially read about it in some random academic paper online that I don't feel like looking for:
"Heidegger’s notion of Heimat (homeland) is deeply intertwined with his philosophical ideas about being, place, and belonging, but it also has complex and troubling connections to his antisemitism. For Heidegger, Heimat represented an authentic connection to one’s roots, soil, and heritage—concepts linked to his existential and ontological exploration of human existence. He saw a deep connection between human existence and the land or place in which one is grounded, believing that this relationship was crucial for authentic being.
However, Heidegger’s antisemitism can be seen as partly connected to this idea of Heimat in the sense that he viewed Jews as inherently “rootless” or disconnected from the kind of authentic, place-bound existence he idealized. Heidegger’s philosophical disdain for modernity, technology, and the cosmopolitanism that he associated with urban life often carried anti-Jewish connotations. He sometimes portrayed Jews as embodying a form of uprootedness and alienation that was opposed to his vision of an authentic relationship with the land.
In his 1930s association with National Socialism, Heidegger’s philosophy became entangled with völkisch ideas that valorized blood, soil, and national heritage—concepts central to Nazi ideology. His antisemitism, though expressed in philosophical rather than racial terms, aligned with this idea that Jews could never truly belong to a homeland like Heimat in the authentic, Heideggerian sense. In some of his later writings and the recently published “Black Notebooks,” Heidegger explicitly linked his critique of modernity and Jewish people as part of what he saw as the destructive forces that alienated people from their authentic rootedness.
While Heimat itself does not explicitly advocate antisemitism, Heidegger’s interpretation of it contributed to his broader philosophical exclusion of Jews from his ideal of rooted, authentic existence, which in turn reflected his prejudices."
as i said, i have not read
knar (not verified) Thu, 10/17/2024 - 10:41
In reply to Heidegger and Place by cyberdandy
as i said, i have not read any Heidegger but if this snippet is at all accurate it seems like he developed Heimat as a way to justify an already existing antisemitism. to be very clear, i have no interest in that sort of argument or justification. and, circling back to my first post in this thread, Heidegger is steeped in western epistemology, so not someone i really think is going to get at what i want to get at.
what i'm trying to get at is how can we start taking place seriously as an actor in our world, and not merely as something inert. what does the land, air & water want?
connection to land is important and people wander, i don't think these are diametrically opposed, but, too, fitting them together is not easy now.
More on Heidegger and Place
cyberdandy Thu, 10/17/2024 - 11:32
In reply to as i said, i have not read by knar (not verified)
I didn't think that this last comment with the ChatGPT output was a response to you... but anyway, Heimat is a concept outside of Heidegger. He just made specific use of it.
Anyway, I see what you're trying to get at and there are different domains where "place" is taken seriously. Some are more philosophy-oriented than others. For example, Christopher Alexander and others in the domain of architecture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Alexander and people like Richard Sennett in the domain of sociology and urban design: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Alexander
I'm not familiar with the people you had mentioned before, but plan to check each of them out.
Regardless, I mention Heidegger because he provides one very version of how questions of "place" can lead to authoritarian conclusions because "place" and "rootedness" and "authenticity" or "essence" are often related concepts that can result in value judgements about a resident's status, where someone belongs, etc.
One of my goals for some time has been to confront these tendencies and develop counter-ontologies. That's one of the reasons I have looked to Sartre, Binswanger, Buber, and others who have a different way of thinking about Mitsein (being-together) than Heidegger did. These ontological structures - perhaps we can call them epistemological too - they underly a lot of authoritarian shit. Not all of it of course and I assume you notice this too based on what you already have said.
Weird 'cause Heidegger's
anon (not verified) Thu, 10/17/2024 - 11:25
In reply to Heidegger and Place by cyberdandy
Weird 'cause Heidegger's existential phenomenology is actually closer to Stirnerian nihilism. Just what exactly was going through his brain when he was writing this "blood and soil" bs? An icepick lol?
Same shit happened to Lovecraft too, he'd be such a brilliant and thought-provoking author if it was for his "blood and soil" nonsense.
https://polcompball.wiki/wiki/Cosmicism
NooOoo, his "blood and soil"
anon (not verified) Thu, 10/17/2024 - 23:17
In reply to Weird 'cause Heidegger's by anon (not verified)
NooOoo, his "blood and soil" is metaphorical for the indigenous custom/process of burying the newborn afterbirth placenta and umbilical cord thing-a-majing, that's all, DON'T INTELLECTUALIZE an insight into surviving wilderness nomadicity and safety to discourage wolves and bears and predators from becoming ravenous for the taste of human babies.
"he viewed Jews as inherently
anon (not verified) Fri, 10/18/2024 - 11:17
In reply to Heidegger and Place by cyberdandy
"he viewed Jews as inherently “rootless” or disconnected from the kind of authentic, place-bound existence he idealized."
Are you saying he was wrong? Are you not a diasporic Jew? Is the concept of this "root" not also found all through (even diasporic) Jewish tradition?
Heidegger was a great shame but his writing and thinking are essential and accurate. How readers consume, interpret, and enact it is beyond the author.
"He saw a deep connection
anon (not verified) Fri, 10/18/2024 - 12:29
In reply to "he viewed Jews as inherently by anon (not verified)
"He saw a deep connection between human existence and the land or place in which one is grounded, believing that this relationship was crucial for authentic being."
Seems as if Heidegger is saying Jews lack place and thus authentic being. That does not seem accurate.
An ethnic group doesn't have
anon (not verified) Fri, 10/18/2024 - 12:54
In reply to "he viewed Jews as inherently by anon (not verified)
An ethnic group doesn't have to be "genetically" rooted to a country or place in order to find roots there. The fault with Heidegger if that's indeed what he wrote, lies in how humans are always relatively without roots, but instead *taking roots* (as in the pattern of Becoming), in a place or another. Even his much-idealized Germans, a ethic group of many nomadic, invading tribes, were like that. Equally Ashkenazi Jews are undeniably rooted in European culture where they've been for centuries.
I'd like quotes from Heideggy's books supporting this view, just to see how wrong -or less wrong- he truly is.
Heidegger work references
cyberdandy Fri, 10/18/2024 - 15:49
In reply to An ethnic group doesn't have by anon (not verified)
One interesting thing about some diaspora Jews, like those quoted in the documentary about Jewish anarchists, is that they apparently found a sense of Heimat in the Yiddish language. I believe the saying goes “Yiddish is my homeland”. But here’s the references that ChatGPT was using, since it’s been too long since I have studied Heidegger to remember. Last thing I began reading was Richard Wollen’s relatively new book, “Heidegger in Ruins”:
Heidegger’s notion of Heimat (homeland) and its connections to antisemitism are tied to both his early philosophical works and his later writings, particularly in the Black Notebooks (1931–1941) and some of his lecture courses and public addresses from the 1930s. Here’s a deeper look at where and how Heidegger’s ideas around Heimat and antisemitism manifest:
1. Early Philosophical Foundations: Being and Time (1927)
Heidegger’s seminal work Being and Time lays the groundwork for many of his later ideas, including his notions of dwelling, being-in-the-world, and the importance of place or groundedness (Bodenständigkeit). Although the book does not directly address Jews or antisemitism, it reflects a concern with existential authenticity, which Heidegger ties to an individual’s relationship to their historical and geographical context. The concept of being-in-the-world involves a person being situated in a specific context—culturally, historically, and geographically—and finding meaning through that embeddedness.
In this framework, Heidegger begins to hint at the importance of a person’s connection to a specific community or homeland (Heimat) as part of living authentically. His focus on being-toward-death, and being-with-others (Mitsein), highlights his philosophical concern with belonging and authenticity. These ideas laid the foundation for the later development of his thoughts on Heimat, which he would increasingly link to his views on German identity and rootedness.
2. Introduction to Metaphysics (1935)
In this lecture course, Heidegger reflects more explicitly on the relationship between being and place, using language that evokes nationalist and völkisch ideas. He links the destiny of the German people to their relationship with their homeland, positioning Germany as a central site for the revelation of Being. In this work, Heidegger valorizes the Greek polis as an ideal form of community, one closely connected to the land and bound by a common historical and cultural destiny—concepts he would later tie to German nationalism.
Although not explicitly antisemitic, the book engages in a philosophical nationalism that resonates with Nazi ideology. Heidegger’s idea of the German people (Volk) having a unique relationship to Being implicitly excludes those seen as foreign or alien, such as Jews, from participating in this destiny.
3. Rectoral Address: The Self-Assertion of the German University (1933)
This infamous speech, delivered after Heidegger became rector of Freiburg University and joined the Nazi Party, shows a more direct political and ideological expression of his ideas. In the speech, Heidegger promotes the idea of a rejuvenated German university in service of the German Volk, which he describes as having a special connection to the land and a historical mission. His rhetoric of rootedness, self-assertion, and cultural destiny parallels Nazi ideas about Blut und Boden (blood and soil), which linked ethnic identity to the land.
While he doesn’t explicitly mention Jews in this speech, his emphasis on the German people as having a unique, rooted connection to their Heimat aligns with broader antisemitic discourses that portrayed Jews as cosmopolitan, rootless, and incapable of such a connection.
4. Black Notebooks (1931–1941)
The Black Notebooks, a series of private philosophical journals published in the 2010s, offer some of the most direct evidence of Heidegger’s antisemitism. In these notebooks, Heidegger frequently criticizes what he perceives as the destructive forces of modernity, liberalism, and “world Jewry.” He explicitly associates Jews with what he sees as a rootless, calculating, and alienated mode of being, contrasting this with his ideal of rootedness in the Heimat.
In these passages, Heidegger aligns Jews with what he calls Machenschaft—a term he uses to describe the manipulative, technological, and abstract forces of modernity that undermine authentic human existence. He writes about Jews as embodying a form of rootlessness that, for him, epitomizes the dangers of cosmopolitanism and the breakdown of traditional, place-based communities.
Heidegger’s antisemitism in the Black Notebooks is not just a side note—it is woven into his broader critique of modernity, capitalism, and technological domination. In his view, Jews represent a kind of alienation from the land and from authentic being, and they become a symbol of everything he opposes in the modern world.
5. The Origin of the Work of Art (1935-1936)
In this essay, Heidegger explores the relationship between art, culture, and place, again emphasizing the rootedness of human beings in their specific historical and geographical context. He argues that art reveals the “truth” of a people’s historical existence and ties this to a particular Heimat. The focus on cultural and geographical specificity can be seen as part of Heidegger’s broader critique of the alienation of modern, technological life, which he contrasts with authentic, place-bound existence.
While not explicitly antisemitic, Heidegger’s valorization of rootedness in a particular Heimat and his suspicion of cosmopolitanism again aligns with ideas that portray Jews as uprooted and alien.
6. Letter on Humanism (1947)
This postwar text offers a reflection on some of Heidegger’s earlier ideas and includes a critique of humanism and modernity. While the letter doesn’t address Heimat directly, it continues Heidegger’s suspicion of modern philosophical frameworks that, in his view, fail to address the question of Being in an authentic way. His critiques of universalist and abstract approaches to human existence again reflect the same emphasis on particularity, place, and belonging that marked his earlier works.
Connections to Antisemitism:
Heidegger’s antisemitism seems to stem from his rejection of modernity and cosmopolitanism, which he associates with Jews. His philosophical ideal of Heimat—a rooted, authentic connection to the land—excludes Jews, whom he views as emblematic of modern uprootedness and alienation. This theme runs through many of his works and comes to the forefront in the Black Notebooks, where he links Jews to the negative aspects of modernity that he believes have disconnected people from authentic being.
For Heidegger, Jews embody what he despises in modern civilization: the loss of place, tradition, and a connection to the earth. This antisemitic attitude is part of his broader critique of modernity, which he believes alienates people from their true essence. His romanticization of Heimat—particularly the German homeland—was part of a broader ideological and philosophical framework that, in his mind, excluded Jews from the possibility of true belonging and authenticity.
In short, Heidegger’s antisemitism is both a philosophical and political expression of his ideal of Heimat, which he saw as threatened by modernity, cosmopolitanism, and the very presence of Jews in European society.
That's a nice 6+ point break down Dandy
SirEinzige Sun, 10/20/2024 - 16:32
In reply to Heidegger work references by cyberdandy
I've only ever read B&T and have no desire to really read into him again but your summation is nice. I will say that a lot of what we understand of modern science and anthropology flies in the face of his idea of rootedness. Everything terrestrial rerooting(like humans travelling out of Africa) to extra human(plants and animals) examples of regrounded endogeny to even cosmic examples of what can come from asteroids. I'm generally against modernity to(in regards to its universalist assimilation agenda and its power apparatuses-though I tend to like the art and associated hedonism) but I see cosmopolitanism as its own thing distinct from modernity. Cosmopolitanism has been around longer then modernity. Like some others have done recently I also think that modernity and the enlightenment are not one and the same. I essentially break it down to the difference between Descartes and Spinoza. Some of the better metamodernists are on to this.
The Yiddish vs Zionist tension is interesting as it really shows that the latter can end up reproducing something like Nazism. Think of Herzl and how he hated the exiled cosmopolitan Jew. The converse would be someone like Christopher Hitchens who(non anarchist views aside) represented more the former and saw Israel as 'a Jewish peasant state'. I think that's a good cleaver term to through water on that particular nation state imaginary.
"Blut und Boden" is such a
anon (not verified) Sun, 10/20/2024 - 21:42
In reply to Heidegger work references by cyberdandy
"Blut und Boden" is such a funny-sounding phrase, how did the Nazis use it unironically? German is hilarious.
So Black Notebooks are like Marx's incoherent ramblings in The German Ideology but anti-Semitic? Thanks. I'll be sure to never read it.
I am a "diasporic Jew" and yes he was wrong
cyberdandy Fri, 10/18/2024 - 16:07
In reply to "he viewed Jews as inherently by anon (not verified)
There is no single way that Jews experience and express their relationship with various places as the ground of their being, their rootedness, etc. As I mention in the other comment, some Yiddish-speaking Jewish anarchists had used the phrase "Yiddish is my homeland" which suggests a non-land-based rootedness that is specifically Jewish: https://academic.oup.com/illinois-scholarship-online/book/30456/chapter…
Of course, other Jews have long understood themselves as ultimately rooted in the Land of Israel, even when they did not live there. Something like half of duties that are to be carried out every year according to Judaism can only be carried out in Israel. The Jerusalem Talmud has a bunch of land-specific things in it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_Talmud
But at the end of the day, Jewish authenticity is diverse. A good book on this is, "Authentically Jewish: Identity, Culture, and the Struggle for Recognition" by Stuart Z. Charme.
You lurk in this place too??
anon (not verified) Thu, 10/17/2024 - 00:54
In reply to place and philosophy by cyberdandy
You lurk in this place too?? I saw you on Doug Walker's podcast!
Man, I keep seeing familiar faces here, this is so weird. I'm new here, I come from Leftypol since /dead/ is very boring nowadays. I didn't know this place is so popular, wtf?
Just letting you know only a
anon (not verified) Thu, 10/17/2024 - 03:48
In reply to You lurk in this place too?? by anon (not verified)
Just letting you know only a few authentic anarch types lurk here, most are post liberal cyber armchair reformists, just saying,,,
Well, I never set my
anon (not verified) Thu, 10/17/2024 - 05:49
In reply to Just letting you know only a by anon (not verified)
Well, I never set my expectations too high. Even some posties can indulge in idpol 'cause they don't come into post-leftism through Black or MacQuinn or Landstreicher. I'm just happy to talk to someone who understands my pain. Maybe it's just my way of venting.
funny how Black can still be
anon (not verified) Thu, 10/17/2024 - 11:00
In reply to Well, I never set my by anon (not verified)
funny how Black can still be spoken of but the other post-leftist problem child cannot.
Whom are you referring to? I
anon (not verified) Thu, 10/17/2024 - 11:33
In reply to funny how Black can still be by anon (not verified)
Whom are you referring to? I just mentioned all the OGs. And yeah, I know Bob is a snitch, I still had to give him some credit tho. Credit where credit is due.
Bob being a snitch is the
anon (not verified) Thu, 10/17/2024 - 11:54
In reply to Whom are you referring to? I by anon (not verified)
Bob being a snitch is the least of Bob's problems, or are you unaware of his misogynistic tendencies? same with the other guy, lj, the one who did grievous bodily harm to his lover while cheating on his wife. his name is prominent in AJODA.
I'm not aware of Bob's
anon (not verified) Thu, 10/17/2024 - 12:08
In reply to Bob being a snitch is the by anon (not verified)
I'm not aware of Bob's misogynism. Kinda weird, sounds very unlike him.
He's not my favorite author though. Although his criticism of For Ourselves was completely valid, though there wasn't enough criticism of them. I personally think The Right to be Greedy is just The German Ideology for Situationists. "Stirner is literally just Ayn Rand." Mfs, gtfo with this bs.
clearly you have not met the
knar (not verified) Thu, 10/17/2024 - 12:33
In reply to I'm not aware of Bob's by anon (not verified)
clearly you have not met the man in person. his misogyny is not so much in his writing as in his life.
anyway, babies and bathwater and all that ...
sounds exactly like him. he's
chisel Thu, 10/17/2024 - 14:07
In reply to I'm not aware of Bob's by anon (not verified)
sounds exactly like him. he's not as bad as ted k, but plenty bad enough.
Doug Walker?
cyberdandy Thu, 10/17/2024 - 07:53
In reply to You lurk in this place too?? by anon (not verified)
Do you mean Doug Lain? I don't know a Doug Walker. Actually, I don't know if I know anyone with that last name.
Oh, fuck. I accidentally said
anon (not verified) Thu, 10/17/2024 - 08:10
In reply to Doug Walker? by cyberdandy
Oh, fuck. I accidentally said the name of Nostalgia Critic instead of Douglas Lain, haha. No idea how this happened, I'm dumb.
Wait a second, wdym? What
anon (not verified) Thu, 10/17/2024 - 08:31
In reply to Doug Walker? by cyberdandy
Wait a second, wdym? What about Jemes L. Walker, a well-known 19th-century egoist anarchist?
I mean personally
cyberdandy Thu, 10/17/2024 - 08:33
In reply to Wait a second, wdym? What by anon (not verified)
Personally, I don't know anyone with that last name. I remember people from elementary school and I know like... the cookie company.
Honestly, I don't think James
anon (not verified) Thu, 10/17/2024 - 08:49
In reply to I mean personally by cyberdandy
Honestly, I don't think James L. Walker is even that well-known. It's more like I'm enough of a postie nerd to know a lot of egoist anarchists, including such hard-to-remember names as Anselme Bellingarique and John Henry MacKay. Bellingarique is great, even though I don't care about market anarchism that much anymore. Everyone should know about the existence of such a great man with such a funny name.
Egoists I don't know
cyberdandy Fri, 10/18/2024 - 16:29
In reply to Honestly, I don't think James by anon (not verified)
I don't know who that is, nor the other people you mentioned. I tend to consider egoists somewhere near the existential phenomenology that I'm a fan of, but I accept Binswanger's criticism of Stirner that the Unique One can not be the foundation of their own Being. So I gravitate towards dialogical stuff instead. That said... the project of actually re-reading The Unique One and Its Property and seeing if the criticism holds has been on my backburner for like... 10 years now. Considering how often Stirner is misunderstood, I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case here as well. Although at least Binswanger has the background to understand German Idealism and how Stirner's thought relates to it... among other things.
Binswanger? I knew a guy who
anon (not verified) Sat, 10/19/2024 - 05:12
In reply to Egoists I don't know by cyberdandy
Binswanger? I knew a guy who's - been a wanker -, and that WAS the foundation to his Being, but not a Binswanger per se. My German is not very good, but I dispute that individual uniqueness cannot be considered integral in ones character. Eccentricity is the spice of original thought and inventiveness which liberates humanity from its animalistic herding nature, which is its bland and tragic future unless it evolves.
Stirner's logic is the
anon (not verified) Sat, 10/19/2024 - 21:45
In reply to Binswanger? I knew a guy who by anon (not verified)
Stirner's logic is the opposite of yours actually. Stirner claims that there is NOTHING intrinsic to one's character, hence every individual is unique. Uniqueness is not eccentricity, even a spooked person is unique in their own way, they're just suppressing their egoism because they THINK they're not unique but a part of some whole. Eccentricity itself is suppressing uniqueness since you can turn eccentricity into a fixed idea too, which bourgeois individualism does. In bourgeois individualism you are unique when you choose specific products. In Stirnerian individualism you can like whatever the fuck you want. You can, I dunno, watch girly shows because masculinity and femininity are spooks. Or you don't. If you don't like girly shows. It's okay to not like girly shows. You don't have to be "eccentric" all the time.
You're saying --- I'm a true
anon (not verified) Sun, 10/20/2024 - 04:57
In reply to Stirner's logic is the by anon (not verified)
You're saying --- I'm a true Stirnerian because I like fucking my Shetland pony and letting my transexual slave watch while they are chained to my dungeon wall--- NooOooo, that's not eccentric, it's the result of the authoritarian suppression of sexuality condoned by the bourgeois minions and their elite master class. Stirnerians cannot help but be 'eccentric' in the true sense of the word, because they are not normies and do not participate in collective obedience to any single person. In fact, they attain a higher level of humanity by allowing themselves to be unhindered by protocols, identity stereotypes(which include perversions) or by any institutional codes, moralities or ethics. They are actually empathic and generous pacifists, BUT YOU DON'T WANT TO FUCK WITH THEM, OR THEY WILL UNLEASH THEIR ANIMALISTIC RAGE UPON YOU!!!
Do what thou wilt shall be
anon (not verified) Sun, 10/20/2024 - 05:21
In reply to You're saying --- I'm a true by anon (not verified)
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.
Yeaaa... Aleister's not gonna
anon (not verified) Sun, 10/20/2024 - 08:40
In reply to Do what thou wilt shall be by anon (not verified)
Yeaaa... Aleister's not gonna pay your bail for when you're sentenced to years in jail coz you grabbed some pretty ass coz "do what thou wilt".
I mean, sure, your point?
anon (not verified) Sun, 10/20/2024 - 09:00
In reply to Yeaaa... Aleister's not gonna by anon (not verified)
I mean, sure, your point?
what if
knar (not verified) Sun, 10/20/2024 - 09:45
In reply to Stirner's logic is the by anon (not verified)
you say -- "they're just suppressing their egoism because they THINK they're not unique but a part of some whole. "
but the universe is weirder than we can imagine and the reality is we are both unique and we are part of a whole. at the same time. to privilege one aspect over the other is to still be in the trap, only reversed.
This "wholeness" is just a
anon (not verified) Sun, 10/20/2024 - 11:05
In reply to what if by knar (not verified)
This "wholeness" is just a construct in your brain that oversimplifies things. Sure, people may share economic interests as a class but that doesn't make them some Platonic force, that's just idealist. Even the "wholeness" of the Universe is, albeit a cute idea to entertain, merely an unfalsifiable metaphysical speculation (like it's all Brahman or whatever).
oh dear.
knar (not verified) Sun, 10/20/2024 - 12:09
In reply to This "wholeness" is just a by anon (not verified)
oh dear.
nothing is just anything. i mean, no thing *is* *just* any one thing.
and i never said a word about class or economic interests.
"the unique"
anon (not verified) Sun, 10/20/2024 - 12:25
In reply to This "wholeness" is just a by anon (not verified)
"the unique"
is the universe in all its irreducible, pre-conceptual complexity. it can't be thought. and each part of it is also irreducible and unthinkable. hence everything and each body etc is also "the unique." try to recognize the implications of that unknowability, but don't try (think) too hard
- *metaphysics* *metaphysics*
anon (not verified) Sun, 10/20/2024 - 12:36
In reply to "the unique" by anon (not verified)
- *metaphysics* *metaphysics*
- *metaphysics* *metaphysics*?
- Indeed, *metaphysics*
epistemology
knar (not verified) Sun, 10/20/2024 - 12:56
In reply to - *metaphysics* *metaphysics* by anon (not verified)
epistemology
geology
Continued Dumbness (not verified) Sun, 10/20/2024 - 19:45
In reply to epistemology by knar (not verified)
geology
Pure ideology.
anon (not verified) Sun, 10/20/2024 - 21:07
In reply to geology by Continued Dumbness (not verified)
Pure ideology.
Stirner is not an idealist
anon (not verified) Sat, 10/19/2024 - 21:28
In reply to Egoists I don't know by cyberdandy
Stirner is not an idealist and Marx was just ignorant of him really, I don't see how Stirner is similar to Fichte in any way other than surface-level. Stirner is a nominalist, he's against constructing metaphysics unlike idealists and materialists. Landstreicher's introduction to Stirner in his translation is a decent one, although I urge you to read Stirner's Critics and Philosophical Reactionaries (there Stirner sheds light on the misinterpretations of his ideas) as well as writings of Jason MacQuinn. I'm not saying that Stirner is incompatible with historical materialism or even Marxism (to an extent), just saying that Stirner doesn't like metaphysics much. In fact, he calls out the entire field of philosophy in his work.
You can maaaybe call Stirner a metaphysical subjectivist but he's not an idealist, no, it's not the same.
Stirner …Idealism
cyberdandy Sat, 10/19/2024 - 21:55
In reply to Stirner is not an idealist by anon (not verified)
I wasn’t saying that Stirner was an Idealist. I was saying that an understanding of German Idealism is helpful for understanding what Stirner was responding to and why he does various things.
Well, by that logic an
anon (not verified) Sat, 10/19/2024 - 22:45
In reply to Stirner …Idealism by cyberdandy
Well, by that logic an understanding of German idealism is helpful for understanding what Marx was responding to as well. I mean, does this really say much about Stirner's ideas themselves? Sure, he used the dialectics, fine. But he used it just to deconstruct it, I wouldn't call him a Hegellian, he laughed at Hegel's method in Philosophical Reactionaries while praising "philosophy of nature" (science).
Marx, Stirner, Etc.
cyberdandy Sat, 10/19/2024 - 22:51
In reply to Well, by that logic an by anon (not verified)
Yes it is good to understand German Idealism when studying Marx as well, but when I said “dialogical” I was taking about people like Buber, Levinas, and others that have a more intersubjective approach. I wasn’t taking about dialectical materialism. Ludwig binswanger is one of those thinkers and he critiques Stirner in his work, “ Grundformen und Erkenntnis menschlichen Daseins”.
Regarding existential
anon (not verified) Sat, 10/19/2024 - 23:06
In reply to Marx, Stirner, Etc. by cyberdandy
Regarding existential phenomenology of Heidegger, here's what McQuinn writes on its relation to Stirner's egoism:
"Stirner’s Unique should obviously be seen to prefigure Martin Heidegger’s “Dasein,” albeit, once again, in a much more radical, presuppositionless form. While Heidegger’s attempt, with his conception of the “preunderstanding” of “Dasein,” to reject the Cartesian Cogito while hanging on to Being, ultimately fails, Max Stirner’s more radical rejection of Descartes’ Cogito and his dualism of mind and body succeeds by insisting on abandoning not only the reification involved in any fundamental concept of an independent ego as a thinking subject, but also the reification necessarily involved in the construction of any and all fixed ideas of speculative ontology, including even phenomenological ontological concepts such as Dasein. Even more radically, Stirner’s nonconceptual Unique is explicitly non-dualistic, undermining the dualism of both Descartes’ and all of Western philosophy. It is beyond (or prior to) any subject/object dualism because both subjectivity and objectivity are understood as merely self-created abstractions derived from the nonconceptual totality of the Unique, and not conceived as ontological entities with any real existence of their own."
Heidegger, Stirner...
cyberdandy Sat, 10/19/2024 - 23:33
In reply to Regarding existential by anon (not verified)
Heidegger isn't the person I'm comparing Stirner to and I mentioned at least 3 others who I am comparing him to: Buber, Levinas, Binswanger. Sartre would be the person I have focused on the most. That said, based on McQuinn's elevation of the "non-dualistic," he may go either way on Sartre depending on how well he understood Sartre. Some people make the same criticism of Sartre... that he retains Cartesian subject-object dualism. Others comprehend that Sartre, much like Stirner, takes a realist or nominalist approach. The whole fad of post-structuralists trying to get beyond Western metaphysics that Heidegger had a lot to do in inspiring has produced criticisms of just about everyone before the post-structuralists as "Cartesian dualists". It's almost as much of a trope as Stirnerian Egoists calling everything a "spook" that seems like an idée fixe.
Anyway, I don't want to keep checking this site for this conversation. You can e-mail me or something if you want to keep talking about this.
Oh, sorry for being a nag. I
anon (not verified) Sun, 10/20/2024 - 00:29
In reply to Heidegger, Stirner... by cyberdandy
Oh, sorry for being a nag. I just keep checking this site and Leftypol just to talk to someone.
Another poster(boyo) here,
anon (not verified) Sun, 10/20/2024 - 05:04
In reply to Oh, sorry for being a nag. I by anon (not verified)
Another poster(boyo) here, you've done a damn fine job enlightening me about Stirner you magnificent net-wandering eccentric nag of an individualist. Keep up the good work ol' chap!
Oh, did I? Thanks I guess.
anon (not verified) Sun, 10/20/2024 - 05:25
In reply to Another poster(boyo) here, by anon (not verified)
Oh, did I? Thanks I guess. But I'm not as knowledgeable on Stirner as McQuinn or Landstreicher, they've studied him through and through. I'm just a student trying to catch up to my teachers.
I will teach you Nethopper.
anon (not verified) Sun, 10/20/2024 - 07:04
In reply to Oh, did I? Thanks I guess. by anon (not verified)
I will teach you Nethopper. Don't guess, you ARE your thoughts. The little voice in your head is not Descartes dualistic Other, it is your subjective YOU! And don't you forget that! Every thought, every desire, every impulse is YOU. Harness the ancient Tourette tendencies, speak YOUR thoughts without hesitation, it is not an Other one must censure and apply moral restrictions to, DO IT, and if you find yourself excluded for doing so, MOVE to the place where it is accepted, in the wilderness beside the Abyss, because that is the realm of true individualist expression, the Unhinderland!
Well, this is a very
anon (not verified) Sun, 10/20/2024 - 08:14
In reply to I will teach you Nethopper. by anon (not verified)
Well, this is a very different way to look at Stirner. I view myself as an observer of thoughts, not thoughts themselves. That doesn't imply that I associate myself with the super-ego like the Christcucks do.
"I will teach you Nethopper."
anon (not verified) Sun, 10/20/2024 - 08:31
In reply to I will teach you Nethopper. by anon (not verified)
"I will teach you Nethopper."
Any true Stirnerian would see the obvious question begging to bw asked: "WHY?"
What do you want me to do with shit? Is it gonna help me get a girlfriend or just MORE online saucage parties between smelly neckbeards living 24/7 in cool-ass decorated living rooms?
I will de-clutter your mind
anon (not verified) Sun, 10/20/2024 - 14:03
In reply to "I will teach you Nethopper." by anon (not verified)
I will de-clutter your mind of all spooks which raise anxiety and fear. Yes, culture is the ghost in your mind which destroys your originality, which brainwashes and buries the infantile creative spirit and makes bland an exciting interelationship with other individualists.
if anarchists insist on
anon (not verified) Wed, 10/16/2024 - 10:22
In reply to I think that if anarchists by knar (not verified)
if anarchists insist on sounding like NPR...
Anarcho-Bidenist praxis.
anon (not verified) Thu, 10/17/2024 - 01:02
In reply to if anarchists insist on by anon (not verified)
Anarcho-Bidenist praxis.
Add new comment