There are innumerable splits between “anarchists.” Some disagree about economics, strategies of resistance, and a seemingly infinite number of isms. I find the most important split to be between social and anti-social. What need is there for social and anti-social anarchists to “work together.” This is something I just don’t understand. Anyone who seeks to build a new mass society is someone I have a fundamental and irreparable split with…in essence, we are enemies.
From Hostis Journal #1
Hostis is a negation. It emerges devoid of ethics, lacking any sense of democracy, and without a care for pre-figuring anything. Fed up with the search for a social solution to the present crisis, it aspires to be attacked wildly and painted as utterly black without a single virtue. In thought, Hostis is the construction of incommensurability that figures politics in formal asymmetry to the powers that be. In action, Hostis is an exercise in partisanship – speaking in a tongue made only for those that it wants to listen. This partisanship is neither the work of fascists, who look for fights to give their limp lives temporary jolts of excitement, nor martyrs, who take hopeless stands to live the righteousness of loss. Hostis is the struggle to be dangerous in a time when antagonism is dissipated. This is all because Hostis is the enemy.
Have you ever felt the need to leave the anarchist milieu behind (or have you more or less already done so?) What makes people (or you) leave or separate themselves from the anarchist milieu? Have you ever taken breaks--and what made you get back into the mix? How did leaving (temporarily or permanently) affect you or the people you know? Is there anything you regret about leaving (e.g. severing ties with friends you wish you hadn't, leaving behind projects that you had invested a lot of time in, moving away from places you liked, etc.)?