#YoTambiénSoyAnarquista: Catalan Police Take Down Anarchist Terror Group In Barcelona And 1,000 Supporters March In Protest

  • Posted on: 16 December 2014
  • By: Anonymous (not verified)
#ITooAmAnAnarchist (#YoTambiénSoyAnarquista)

The Mossos d’Esquadra, Catalonia’s regional police force, today arrested several people belonging to “a terrorist organisation of an anarchist nature” whom are believed to have been responsible for “several bomb attacks”.

During Operation Pandora, Police raided 14 locations during the course of the day: eight homes and three business premises in the Catalan capital Barcelona and locations in the towns of Sabadell and Manresa (Catalonia) and the Spanish capital Madrid.

The operation was directed by the National High Court in Madrid as part of a broader investigation into anarchist groups.

Eight people were arrested in Barcelona, one in Manresa, one in Sabadell and one in Madrid.

The seven women and four men in their early- to mid-thirties are from Spain, Uruguay, Italy and Austria.

The Madrid part of the operation was carried out by the Civil Guard.

One of those arrested in Barcelona is a city firefighter.

A spokesman for the Mossos d’Esquadra told The Spain Report by telephone that the police operation had finished around 7 p.m. Spanish time but was unable to provide more details regarding the nature of the “bomb attacks” the eleven have been arrested for.

Spanish news sites reported the centre of the operation in Barcelona was a squat house known as the Kasa de la Muntanya and that the bomb attacks consisted of explosive devices place against cash machines in the city in 2012 and 2013.

El Periódico de Catalunya reported Operation Pandora had been carried out as part of the investigation into the Mateo Morral anarchist group that placed small explosive devices in the Almudena Cathedral in Madrid and the Pilar Basilica in Zaragoza last year.

Mateo Morral was an early Twentieth-Century Catalan anarchist who attacked the wedding convoy of Alfonso XIII with a home-made bomb in 1906 in Madrid’s Calle Mayor, as the royal newlyweds were being driven in a horse-drawn carriage towards the nearby Royal Palace.

The King and his consort Maria Eugenia escaped unscathed, but 28 people were killed.

During the Civil War, the Calle Mayor was renamed Calle Mateo Morral.

Around 1,000 anarchist supporters marched in defence of those arrested in Barcelona on Tuesday evening, as did smaller groups in other Spanish towns and cities, using the Twitter hashtag #ITooAmAnAnarchist (#YoTambiénSoyAnarquista).

In central Madrid, riot police charged to break up the march as it made its way down the Spanish capital’s main street.

Those detained today in Barcelona will now go before investigating judge Javier Gómez Bermúdez on charges of: “belonging to a criminal organisation of an anarchist nature with terrorist ends”.



is this march in Sants? Carrer de Sants?

The Barcelona protest, which occurred in the neighborhood of Gràcia, had 3-5,000 people, significant only insofar as it was probably the largest anarchist solidarity protest in Barcelona since the '70s, and in that many people besides anarchists came out, including part of the Esquerra Independenstita (Catalan independence left). Though the march was calm, many banks were smashed, and at the end dumpsters were set on fire. Police charged but no one was arrested.

In addition to Kasa de la Muntanya and the private residences, police raided l'Ateneu Llibertari de Sant Andreu and l'Ateneu Anarquista de Poble Sec, two anarchist social centers. A huge quantity of cellphones, computers, harddrives, and cash was stolen by police.

The 11 detainees will have their first appearance before the judge today (Wednesday) or tomorrow, and will go before the Audiencia Nacional in Madrid perhaps Thursday or Friday, where it will be decided if they are to be released or held in pre-trial detention.

read: the largest SPONTANEOUS protest in solidarity with anarchists, i.e. called the same day or a day in advance.

Thank you for the follow up. You seem to be commenting here but perhaps I am wrong. If so, I am wondering if any of those demonstrating sincere solidarity right now(which for me includes attending yesterdays protests, reaching out to comrades, potentially posting signs or stopping by autonomous centers etc.) are making use of networks established from #M15 (which may include may day 2012), from the Can Vies riots, or possibly from the various neighborhood assemblies which persist from 2010-11.

It seems relevant right now to reflect on where a significant amount of these connections seem to have been made. It probably seems very chaotic in many ways, as if the relationships just come "from years of doing stuff" but I wonder if there are ways to gain greater clarity on this matter in the way many US anarchists may be tempted to say "I met them at a hardcore show back in the day" or something like this.

Good luck comrades. There are always challenges. I am confident the comrades will rush to meet this one with clarity of purpose and courage.

Have emile write a response.
Print it out and mail it to National High Court of Madrid.
Here's your prompt:

"belonging to a criminal organisation of an anarchist nature with terrorist ends"

Get 'em.

This would actually be pretty cool.

"...many people besides anarchists came out, including part of the Esquerra Independenstita (Catalan independence left). "

That's the scene in Barcelona for you. At self-managed social centers like Can Vies in Sants the anarchists figuratively and literally share space with spiky Catalan nationalists and with Stalinists; the political inheritors of the counter-revolution of 1936 - 1937.

This last statement is a broad generalization - Folks should understand that there are a huge number of occupied social centers in Barcelona. The political culture of these varies, to be sure--non anarchists do find themselves in these spaces, at parties, workdays, etc. They are open spaces in that regard, and its worth understanding that if you have an open neighborhood in barcelona, a city where over a million people might come out in the streets for a catalan independence march, theres a pretty good chance indepes will hang out some at your anarchist parties etc. This is probably heightened by the fact that, since 2011 and 2012, theres been a lot of interaction on a social level between anarchists and some of the less party-minded indepes who came out in the streets to riot in 2012s may day and general strikes. This doesnt blunt the anarchist critique of catalan nationalism by any means; my impression was that it was much more of a social overlap than a political one.

On the other hand, in my living there at least, i never once interacted with a tried and true stalinist in any occupied, autonomous, or anarchist space. Certainly there are antifa crews with highly dubious popular front type politics, that would be overly apologetic and confused on Communists, but thats still a far cry from straight up stalinists hanging out. Again, there are many social centers and they tend to each develop their own political culture to a certain degree, so its possible some are more lenient in this regard than others, but i never once saw it.

I just think its worth having some nuance and clarification here, in light of your comment that basically writes shit off with a giant highly dubious generalization. Anarchists in spain for the most part know full well, better than most, why stalinists are enemies.

solidarity and love from NC to bcn. stay safe and keep the streets yall!

I have a comrade, a retired Barcelona port dispatcher, who was involved in truly off-the-rails wildcats actions in the early 1980's. He is a long-term resident of Poblenou and very involved with 'Flor de Marg,' the self-managed social center of the neighborhood which goes back to the late 19th century. He attests to the fact that while there are people with advanced anti-capitalist/anti-statist/internationalist politics, they are obliged to share the space with Nationalists and stone M-L's. The M-L's even spiked his effort to draft a statement saying that their project of 'Flor de Marg' was against commodity relations! And at Can Vies you will see the Catalan flag and the hammer and sickle right alongside the circle-A and the squatter thunderbolt logo. In Barcelona the actual enemies of capitalism don't really appear to distinguish themselves from the more left-ward fans of capital.

Which isn't to say that the action in support of the latest people to be victimized by the Spanish State isn't a good and necessary one.

Now that "Flor de Maig" (not Marg) and Can Vies have been named, we've gone through 2 of the 3 prominent social centers where socialists and indepes actually rub shoulders with anarchists. Out of about 40 social centers in the city, not to mention Barcelona province (e.g. Sabadell). The anarchists in Barcelona most definitely distinguish themselves from the left-ward fans of capital, though there are many different ideas on how to do this.

Why is this important again? Oh yeah, it's sort of a response to the comment about the Esquerra Indepe taking part in the protests. It seems a couple people with no context have made a mountain out of this molehill of a phrase. To put it in perspective, most anarchists are critical and mistrusting of the indepes, but most of them also appreciate the solidarity when the indepes raise the cry "I am also an anarchist!" after 11 of the blackest of the black get hauled in on terrorism charges. It would be stupid, petty, and unsolidaristic to do so. Those same anarchists will also smirk or role their eyes when David Fernandez, politician of the CUP, takes up that cry.

Most of the indepe base is sincere in their solidarity. The indepe leaders are clearly making a calculation, recognizing that A: the same law being used against anarchos now is going to be used against them next, and B: they've been losing a lot of ground to anarchists in the last years, especially among the young generation. Not responding to this case would be tantamout to political suicide.

Now isn't it odd that most of the comments have either been snarky baiting, self-important (and erroneous) generalizations, or fact-dropping to show how much we know about Barcelona?

Who gives a fuck about Barcelona? Give a fuck about struggles, there or anywhere, and comrades facing repression, there or anywhere.

"Now that "Flor de Maig" (not Marg) and Can Vies have been named, we've gone through 2 of the 3 prominent social centers where socialists and indepes actually rub shoulders with anarchists. Out of about 40 social centers in the city, not to mention Barcelona province (e.g. Sabadell). The anarchists in Barcelona most definitely distinguish themselves from the left-ward fans of capital, though there are many different ideas on how to do this..."

The "socialist" referred to here in a comradely, respectful and not-terribly forthright manner are stone Marxist-Leninists, Stalinists -- counter-revolutionary Stalinist scumbags. You know, I've known some simply lovely conservative Republicans, but that doesn't mean I'd blithely share practical and political space with them. And nice Catalan nationalists are just that -- Catalan nationalists; people whose goals are pro-capitalist all the way down the line and antithetical to an anti-nationalist internationalist movement against capital and the state, starting in this case with all the proles of the Iberian peninsula. And that's not just my opinion from a visit; that's openly acknowledged by all the long-term resident in Barcelona enemies of capitalism that I've spoken with.

Hey, don't even get me started on the CNT-AIT's May First event -- hey, I'll do it anyway; sales of badges of the Anarchist Minister of Justice Garcia Oliver, numerous copies of various texts by the leading counter-revolutionary government anarchist of the FAI Monseny, chants of the Popular Front -- "El Pueblo, Unido.." & "No Pasaran" -- during the Berkeley BART alert-sized micro-march across Para-lel (sp?). And those aren't the more arguably class-collaborationist of the several versions of the CNT, but the most anarcho-syndicalisticy-ist of them!

You can dress this up in all the red and black gift-wrapping you want, but it points to the fact that authentic anti-capitalists do not have a distinct existence from various forms of the pro-capitalist crowd; the oppositional political culture in Barcelona is a very-popular-frontist one, and the great events of '37 to '37 are events from which practical lessons have not been assimilated in practice. Verbally, endlessly verbally, sure, but absolutely not in ongoing contemporary practice.

There's a lot of people in Barc though. I know plenty of insurrectos that don't even go near the shitty social center and squat scenes.

And the CNT is hardly representative of the anarchist scene in BCN. When I lived there they were kind of joke that most anarchists kind of ignored...

This is the commenter that you quoted. I don't usually like to make statements like this, but you really don't know what you're talking about enough to be clogging up internet forums (well, unless we accept the common wisdom that that is the purpose of internet forums). I don't know what you're trying to accomplish, but you're just no contributing to any useful debate, and you don't know enough about Barcelona to do so in this thread.

If you want to write an article against popular frontism, you should do that. I would probably agree with it, unless it's as thoughtlessly written as your posts. When you talk about the CNT as though it were a single organization, you show that you do not know what you are talking about. When you say there are no distinct anti-capitalists in Barcelona, you show that you do not know what you are talking about. When you neglect to mention that there is an ongoing debate in Barcelona about anarchist participation in popular fronts, past and present, and in fact make it seem as though that debate is absent, you show that you do not know what you are talking about.

Can you name a single event in the entire history of the two ateneus that were raided in Barcelona that reflected a Stalinist or Catalan nationalist perspective?

No, because you are merely someone who visited Barcelona once or twice (there on May Day, were you? Gee, we can't possibly guess what you were trying to get out of your visit) who knows and maybe even keeps in touch with half a dozen people who live in Barcelona, and still haven't figured out that people in Barcelona, when they complain, like to make blanket generalizations, probably never thinking that some dumb gringo is later going to post those on the internet.

Please stop wasting our time.

Dear pop-frontist.

I was in Barcelona for seven weeks this past spring. My contacts have been there a lot longer; in some cases for their entire lives. My political analysis of what I saw in Barcelona, and what people who I can take more seriously than you say about it, stands. The opositional political scene in Barcelona concerning the relationship between actual enemies of capitalism and the left-wing of capital's political apparatus is quite abysmal.

It is you who have not read what I have written. Go back and read it again. Or, cordially, shut the fuck up.

Can we have one @-news post that doesn't get derailed with nth amerikkkan white boy perspective on everything? Seriously, where do you dumb fucks get off?

the world is only given once and it is the Western culture's habit [supported by noun-and-verb language-and-grammar] that breaks it up into small scale local bits. this 'small scale' intellectual representation is not 'physically real', it is intellectual representation, illusion, Maya.

every time you observe something in a small scale frame and make sense of it 'locally', you are working with a representational tool that is in no way 'physical reality. the world does not start with local events and build up from there. the domestic economy of the United States [notionally 'an independent sovereign state driven and directed by an internal centre of intelligence and authority' that operates in a habitat that is notionally independent of itself.] is not 'physically real', the physical reality is the world that is given only once and when the belief in the 'independent existence' of the United States came along [when believers gathered together at some point in space and time and said 'it is so'], the physically real world that is given only once never skipped a beat [the faithful who wanted to believe, heard the message and committed to 'making believers out of the savages and infidels, leaving the animals, birds, winds and rivers to go about business in the 'one-world' as usual], and neither does the physical world that is given only once skip a beat as 'sovereign states' disappear from the globe and are replaced by others, usually by way of some politician signing a lawyer architected document [how real is that?]. as law historians note, the notion of the 'independent existence of the sovereign state' is 'secularized theology'.

if you figure that your understanding of some way of organizing some kind of 'small scale system that works' is physically real, you are deluding yourself. There is no physical reality that can be captured in the small scale. As Derrida observes, 'there is nothing outside of relational context'. What is going on in the ballroom of the Titanic is not 'physical reality', it is intellectual representation built from limited visual and tactile sensing. Physically real 'life', the life of our natural experience, is 'what happens to us while we are busy making other plans'; ... would you like the next dance? ... oops, why are my ankles feeling wet and cold?

of course my/our experience informs me/us that there are people who believe in the 'independent existence' of 'sovereign states' and 'human beings' and in the 'physical reality of what goes on in the local small scale', ... in spite of modern physics reminding us that we live in a continually transforming relational space; ... a physical reality affirmed by our natural experience that does NOT 'affirm' the 'independent existence' of ANYTHING, and particularly NOT, a 'local independently existing system that works'. indigenous anarchists have made it clear that they do NOT 'believe' in the 'independent existence' of 'sovereign states' [the 'necessary device for European colonial expansion'], nor in humans as 'beings' seen as 'inhabitants' that are 'independent' of the habitat.

You re-cite the article which is saying;

"Truly effective response to Ebola requires community involvement and active participation in prevention education, treatment, and alterations to daily routines of life"

That is the typical Aesculapian response to imbalances in the terrain; i.e. plug in 'terrorist', 'criminal', 'mentally ill', 'black bloc' or whatever you want in place of 'Ebola', and the topo-logic is the same. 'ebola' is regarded as a 'real thing' just as 'scurvy' was regarded as a 'real thing' and the concept of the 'pathogen' is regarded as a 'real thing' that is threatening everyone and that we need to 'prevent' from doing so via 'early identification' and 'rapid isolation/extermination'. The pathogen is seen as an 'alien thing' that is trying to break and enter and disrupt if not destroy our established smoothly functioning operations. But are our operations 'really' smoothly functioning? In the ballroom of the Titanic, everything appeared to be functioning smoothly, and the wild North Atlantic that held the Titanic in the palm of its hand, was 'independent' of the inside of the ballroom, was it not? ... in the same manner that the wild world of the unbounded wraparound biosphere space that includes the middle east is 'independent' of the 'United States' is it not? After all, there was the 'Declaration of Independence' that said it was so, and there are the internal centres of intelligence and authority in each sovereign state that claim to be the authoring source of the behaviour of each independent, internal process driven and directed sovereign state that operates in a habitat that is independent of the inhabitants that operate within it, ... so we portray things in our noun-and-verb language-and-grammar and present them on the evening news.

If you want to discuss how;

"Truly effective response to Terrorism requires community involvement and active participation in prevention education, treatment, and alterations to daily routines of life"

then my comments on Ebola can be taken in the same vein. The colonial powers that operate out of sovereign states that declare themselves to be 'independent' systems pursuing their own self-interests in a shared habitat that they deem to be 'independent' of the inhabitants that reside within it [if not, they could not declare themselves to be 'independent'] insist the everyone, themselves included, is fully and solely responsible for our own behaviour. Once we declare ourselves 'independent', whether at the level of the relational forms in the relational activity continuum we call 'humans', or at the level of social collectives or people-nations, we are then logically entitled to insist that we are responsible for no more than our own inside-outward asserting behaviours, and this then defines alien aggressors' aka 'pathogens' that threaten to attack us, as something whose engenderment we could not possible be contributing to the engenderment and violent animating of [WRONG!].

There is no such thing in the physical reality of our natural experience as 'independent being', ... and 'human beings' and 'sovereign states' and 'ebola' and 'terrorists' are no exceptions.

Pathogens are like match-tossers to a tinder-dry forest. It is the experientially preconditioned forest that is the source of the pathogenic power. if you pour a gallon of gasoline over your head, you are creating pathogens out of any innocent child who can work a Bic. Le pathogene n'est rien, le terrain est tout. if you eat the industrial spillage that west africans eat, you are pouring a can of gasoline on your head. ebola is a brand of matches.

So, by all means, continue your ballroom dancing and pretend that all is well in your 'reality'. I understand how comforting this local reference framed 'reality' can be but I do not personally choose to limit myself to those narrow 'language conventions' that build intellectual representations on a base of idealized absolutes such as 'independent being'.

What's needed is not humanism, and even far less impotentiality, but a putting-into-practice of inoperative insurrection, a rejection in all forms of the teleology of passivity. In the elaboration of encounters, we destroy those who would have us give up the immanent joy of rupture for the misery of activism. It is necessary to commence for once and for all; not to dream of new ways to be productive, but to make manifest the subterranean becomings in the heart of each smashed window. Confronted with those who fail to recognize themselves in our festivals of negation, we offer neither sympathy nor dialogue but only our contempt.
The compulsive representation proposed to us is like a bad joke, and instead of laughter we respond with zones of indistinction which need no justification. Our need to occupy everything is less the articulation of a project than the realization of a line of flight. We must negate all fossilization of our desires—without illusions. Every barricaded hallway is a refusal to organize, a blow against the temporality of the mileu, a recognition of the radical structure inherent in the articulation of multiplicities.
This is a call to social war, not an insistence on normalization. To those who deride the singular ecstasy in a c-clamped pushbar or a car set aflame, we propose nothing less than to reject their pathetic mobilization, by any means necessary.

The reductionist thinking you are proposing has achieved ‘lock-in’ by way of the Panda principle [Stephen Jay Gould]; when an evolutionary niche is filled by some or other system [e.g. microsoft’s initial operating system], another system that more completely/effectively fills the niche may not easily subsume the former due the fact to the former, cruder system is now ‘in place’ and being relied on, however imperfectly it satisfies the niche need [‘re-tooling’ has overheads and can give and take away relative advantage, leading to an ‘I’m all right, Jack’ syndrome].

As Ernst Mach observed, “knowledge [such as reductionism] which is historically first, is not necessarily the foundation of all that is subsequently gained. In other words, ‘reductionism’ or ‘pure mechanics’ dead-ends before it can get to the ‘relational’ paradigm since it lacks the ‘requisite complexity’.

“1. Purely mechanical phenomena do not exist. The production of mutual accelerations in masses is, to all appearances, a purely dynamical phenomenon. But with these dynamical results are always associated thermal, magnetic, electrical, and chemical phenomena, and the former are always modified in proportion as the latter are asserted. On the other hand, thermal, magnetic, electrical, and chemical conditions also can produce motions. Purely mechanical phenomena, accordingly, are abstractions, made, either intentionally or from necessity, for facilitating our comprehension of things. The same thing is true of the other classes of physical phenomena. Every event belongs, in a strict sense, to all the departments of physics, the latter being separated only by an artificial classification, which is partly conventional, partly physiological, and partly historical.
2. The view that makes mechanics the basis of the remaining branches of physics, and explains all physical phenomena by mechanical ideas, is in our judgment a prejudice. Knowledge which is historically first, is not necessarily the foundation of all that is subsequently gained.”

Reductionism, analytical inquiry, pure mechanics, depend on intellectual economy-of-thought delivering simplification [such as absolute space and absolute time reference-framing] that purge the relations-first nature of the physical reality of our natural experience.

In nature, the relational forms that we use noun-and-verb European/Scientific language-and-grammar to impute ‘independent existence’ and ‘local jumpstarting behaviour’ to, arise out of mutual relational interdependency;

“[In nature]… “the individual parts reciprocally determine one another.” ... “The properties of one mass always include relations to other masses,” ... “Every single body of the Universe stands in some definite relations with every other body in the Universe.” Therefore, no object can “be regarded as wholly isolated.” And even in the simplest case, “the neglecting of the rest of the world is impossible.” – Ernst Mach

“By the principle of Occam’s razor, physicists and philosophers prefer ideas that can explain the same phenomena with the fewest assumptions. In this case you can construct a perfectly valid theory by positing the existence of certain relations without additionally assuming individual things. So proponents of ontic structural realism say we might as well dispense with things and assume that the world is made of [relational-spatial] structures, or nets of relations.” – Meinard Kuhlmann, ‘What is Real’, Scientific American, August 2013

All of this is in fundamental contradiction to your statement that;

“The world is nothing BUT local and small-scale events.”

And David Bohm, Benjamin Whorf, Albert Einstein, Henri Poincaré and others have pointed out that ‘science’ makes use of simplifying noun-verb language to give intellectual representations that deliver ‘economy of thought’ by (a) considering space as empty rather than as an energy-charged fullness (plenum, field), and (b) by considering the relational forms that gather within this relational activity continuum, as ‘independently-existing objects/organisms’; i.e. ‘inhabitants’ that are ‘independent’ of the ‘habitat’ that they reside and operate in.

While our noun-and-verb language-and-grammar constructs deliver ‘economy of thought’, they do so at the price of having us ignore the natural precedence of outside-inward orchestrating influences that shape individual and collective inside-outward asserting actions, and thus imputing actions/events that are local and small-scale as being the fundamental authoring source of the world dynamic.

This ‘reduction-to-the-“local-and-small-scale-event” is purely ‘synthetic’ but much esteemed for the synthetic ‘certainty’ it brings to RE-PRESENTATIONS of dynamics [it psychologically gets rid of the precedence of outside-inward orchestrating influence by synthetically liberating the ‘inside-outward asserting actions’ by framing them in empty space, rather than the energy-charged full space of physical reality. The manner in which this synthetic reduction to the ‘local and small scale event’ is done in science, is described as follows;

“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”

Chaos Theory, complexity, nonlinear dynamics, all affirm the fundamental relational nature of the world and the non-reducibility of inherently nonlocal dynamics to local dynamics, without imposing absolutist idealizations such as a notional absolute space and absolute time reference framing [we use this to deliver the intellectual representation of an ‘independent object’, the essential ingredient of “local and small-scale events”.

This ‘reductionism’ gives us a shortcut to comprehension which fills our niche need to comprehend quickly; i.e. it fills it imperfectly but quickly and concisely. We still have our ‘intuition’ in the background, that is holding on the understanding that the relational complexity comes first, and reductionism is a pragmatic idealization built for speed rather that completeness. As Stewart and Cohen observe in regard to why reductionism has become so entrenched in Western society, in ‘The Collapse of Chaos: discovering simplicity in a complex world’;

The word ‘comprehend’ originally meant ‘grasp.’ To understand something is to grasp it with your mind, to make it into an object, that you can hold as a unit.... When protohumanity learned how to generalize about the structure of the natural world, to classify similar objects under identical labels - in short, to exploit the power of metaphor - it latched onto a wonderful trick.... [For,] mental computations must be in real time, so something quick and dirty is the order of the day. We have to think in slogans, because a really high level of congruence with reality takes too long. So, a flash of black and orange is labelled ‘tiger,’ when it might be just a funny-colored leaf - because tigers can bite. It’s better to be safe than sorry.” – Jack Cohen and Ian Stewart, ‘The Collapse of Chaos: Discovering Simplicity in a Complex World

Reductionism is the foundation of moral judgement. Moral judgement ‘makes logical sense’ if one ignores the fact of the relational nature of dynamics [if one acknowledges the relational nature of dynamics, ‘restorative justice’ ‘makes sense’] and construes dynamics in ‘all-hitting’, ‘no-fielding’ terms.

In nature, relational tensions are the source of actions as in avalanches and earthquakes where the ‘terrain’ or ‘fielding’ becomes experientially preconditioned. The ‘hitter’ is not the full and sole author of the result of his engaging with an experientially preconditioned ‘fielding’. His match tossing may ignite a forest fire or not, depending on the experiential preconditioning of the fielding he is hitting into. The little girl popping a party balloon may trigger/ignite a violent result in a war veteran with PTSD, and the man who makes sexual advances on a woman who has been experientially preconditioned by having been sexually abused may trigger/ignite an incendiary flare-up, but it would not ‘make sense’ to attribute the result of the hitting fully and solely to the ‘hitter’, however, that is what reductionism would have us do, since it reduces our understanding of dynamics as being co-authored by the combination of hitting-fielding, to the one-sided ‘pole’ of the “local-and-small-scale-event”.

In the relational view, the action of an individual derives from the influence of the relational dynamics the individual is uniquely, situationally included in. The sailboater derives his actions and steerage fro the relational dynamics he is uniquely, situationally included in. The individual who is subjected to bullying and/or disopportunization, disenfranchisement, devoicing in the web of social relational dynamics he is included in, may reach his tolerance threshold where there is a violent release of tensional energy. The reductionist view insists that his action is fully and solely sourced from within him [‘all-hitting’, ‘no-fielding’] since reductionism ‘models him’ as an ‘independent internal process driven and directed system that operates in a habitat that is independent of the inhabitants that reside and operate within it’. This sets the stage for morally judging the individual that manifests the violent release of energy from relationally tensioned situation, as being fully and solely responsible for his own action.

Communities that use moral judgement of individual behaviour as a social dynamics management scheme may become as selectively oppressive as they like, yet at no point will there be an acknowledgement of the relational source of an individual’s violent action, due to the reductionist model being used. The same is true for the increasing rise in ‘mental illness’; i.e. the sensitive individuals being carried along in a relational social web of a dysfunctional society, when they have a ‘mental breakdown’ to ‘escape’ from the relational stress, are interpreted as the full and sole authors of their own behaviour, in keeping with the ‘all-hitting’, ‘no-fielding’ reductionist model of dynamics.

Like being stuck with Microsoft’s operating system, Western society is hung up on the Panda principle in regard to the entrenchment of reductionism which holds that;

“The world is nothing BUT local and small-scale events.”

It is necessary to commence in secret; not to dream of new ways to negotiate, but to make manifest the subterranean multiplicities in the heart of each c-clamped pushbar. What's needed is not passivity, and even far less absence, but a putting-into-practice of inoperative insurrection, a rejection in all forms of the being of banality.

Every c-clamped pushbar is a refusal to negotiate, a blow against the temporality of the mileu, a recognition of the singular structure inherent in the articulation of communes. The compulsive banality proposed to us is like a bad joke, and instead of laughter we respond with zones of indistinction which need no justification. Our need to occupy everything is less the realization of a project than the setting forth of a state of exception. What's needed is not fossilization of our desires, and even far less totality, but a putting-into-practice of inoperative indifference, a rejection in all forms of the teleology of normalization.

In the elaboration of multiplicities, we reject those who would have us give up the radical joy of zones of indistinction which need no justification for the misery of normalization. What's needed is not totality, and even far less banality, but a putting-into-practice of singular social war, a rejection in all forms of the teleology of activism. We must negate all impotentiality—for once and for all. The pathetic fossilization of our desires proposed to us is like a bad joke, and instead of laughter we respond with crisis.

In the articulation of becomings, we shatter those who would have us give up the inoperative joy of social war for the catastrophe of mobilization. It is necessary to commence without illusions; not to dream of new ways to organize, but to make manifest the subterranean encounters in the heart of each moment of friendship.

We need more incoherent, torturous prose.

This above be signed by Comrade Louis Farakkan. Shit politics, but at least he ain't white.

was there anything in Lavapies or around Tirso de Molina in Madrid? Unfortunately, Madrid feels more heavily policed, but there's no Catalan nationalist garbage.

Derailed means: adjacent to the track and no longer on it. Notice the train has gone off track and is now on a collision course. His insurance went up because he could no longer turn to avoid the collision after running of course :)

"Can we have one @-news post that doesn't get derailed with nth amerikkkan white boy perspective on everything? Seriously, where do you dumb fucks get off?"

This be signed by Anarcho-Mao "decolonization" ideology professor comrade Mugabe Farakhan. His politics suck donkeys, but at least he ain't white.

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.