Carry on..

I never gave anarchy much thought until about six weeks ago. Suddenly I sat up and realized something like, existentialism is for philosophy what anarchism is for morals and politics. I ran to the book store and filled up my sack with anarchist literature.

I was always a devil's advocate from youth, but only in the last year understood that society is my enemy... I used to think that I was the one who was bad, and so studied nihilism and sadism -- but then I discovered, I'm not the one who is bad, I'm not doing anything wrong, society has painted me as an evil which I am not; and more to the point, society will hunt me down and harm me if I don't go on the offensive.

- X

Post-modernism, nihilism, existentialism, deconstructionism and anarchy. Each school, save one, has run its course: We have po-mo op-eds, nihilist art, existential psychiatry, Deconstructivist architecture --but not anarchist government.

Hearing some of what is said about anarchism, it appears true that,


Anarchism like nearly every other art and science was first recognized by by the ancients; Orphic, Pythagorean, Christian or Mohammedan anarchism. Like nearly every other art and science, anarchy was studied carefully in theory during the nineteenth-century. But unlike other arts and sciences, anarchism did not make the transition from nineteenth-century theory into modern practice; as did electric lighting, flight, combustion engines, transistors or television.

So what anarchy is today, not withstanding its application in Spain, Ukraine, and here and there in Latin America, is the theory as worked out by the key anarchist writers, with omissions they are, Michael Bakunin, Alexander Berkman, Murray Bookchin, Albert Camus, Dorothy Day, Francisco Ferrer, Eric Fromm, William Godwin, Emma Goldman, Peter Kropotkin, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Max Stirner, Henry David Thoreau, Leo Tolstoy, and Colin Ward.

The first principal of anarchism is against-authority --not the literal without-government. The reasoning out of the implications of being against-authority is the philosophy of anarchism, it is a tool for identifying, analyzing and deconstructing authority.

Anarchism grew up in socialism, even today anarcho-syndicalists exist within the anarchist community. Socialism and anarchy both responded to social inequality and government privilege, but very differently. While socialists and communists resolve to unify all power in one: the chairman, the party, the soviets, or the people as a whole; anarchists have tried either to return power to each person individually (Stirner) or avoid power relationships altogether (Tolstoy). Karl Marx was not an anarchist.

Ludditism ideologically overlaps anarchism, witness anarcho-primitivism and green-anarchism; but Jean-Jacques Rousseau was not an anarchist. Anarchism is also not egoism, Ayn Rand was not an anarchist. Education has been a central theme of anarchist writers, but Maria Montessori was not an anarchist. Many anarchists have taught pacifism, but Mohandas Gandhi was not an anarchist either.

Anarchists do not always agree. Nestor Makhno was a militant, Dorothy Day a pacifist. Tolstoy was a Christian, Noam Chomsky a Jewish-atheist. What unites anarchists is the anti-authority line, though there be more than one way to skin a cat.



In my reading, the anarchist writers tend very strongly towards the view that human nature is good.



Rebel comes very close to being the same meaning as anarchist.

It is an interesting question, the anarchist's success nihilates him; the rebel is rebelling against the system, against-authority, what is his identity, ontological status, once the system that he has defined himself against is destroyed?

The rebel ought to be defined not by the system that he oppossed, but by his original will all along, or by in general his will?

Many considerations lead to thinking that rebellion must be perpetual. This is reflected in the anarchist writers for example, when so many authors advocate temporary institutions in politics, or spurn fixed seating arrangement in classrooms. Perpetual revolution has however certain negative connotations such as the Chinese cultural revolution or the early years in power of the Khmer Rouge.



The elite are not going to hand the oppressed masses their freedom. The elite do not have the freedom of the masses, and even if they did have it to give, they would not give it up as their MO needs the subjugated classes for their place in society. But even then, the masses also have a place in society; in this respect the elite and the masses are no different, they both have a status in society which albeit defined by the other is one they do not want to lose. Neither the elite nor the masses really have an important rôle in anarchism, not as allies; they are reluctant to stand up to the system, and perhaps even more afraid of what may greet them on the outside.



The rebel, the anarchist, the criminal.... The anarchist must be defined in the terms of the extant system of the elite and the mass, and as the anarchist has styled himself as against-authority, the anarchist will be called a criminal, or at the very least a deviant. The elite is not criminal, the elite's criminality is the system.



The image of the bomb-throwing anarchist is quite prejudice, many of the anarchist writers were pacifists.

A man living in New York has refused to submit any longer to the unethical system; he quits his job and refuses to pay taxes. Before long he is homeless and he is arrested for tax evasion and vagrancy. Retrospectively, it is clear that the man ought to have attacked and perhaps killed the policeman who would later arrest him for vagrancy, or alternatively have blown up the jail that would soon hold him; in the name of defending himself and his liberty.

For us however the situation is even more serious; through all of history up to this point, politics was never a matter of vital concern for humanity; for individuals, but not for humanity. However, today, as development threatens to expand to include all the peoples of the world, the environmental apocalypse that will result will make the Earth unlivable and humanity will be doomed. This consideration make the moderation which may have made sense fifty or one-hundred years ago moot now. Radical action is required because for the first time not just a human, but all humanity is in danger of extinction if the current system continues to prevail.

Neuroticism

There are various considerations respecting neuroticism which lead into the anarchist line. This sickness of civilization is not as easily understood in ourselves and in humans in general as it is when seen in others, for instance, when we consider neurotic behavior in animals, how neurosis forms and how it presents are much easier to understand,

Neurosis in dogs
Neurosis in horses
Neurosis in cats
Neurosis in bears

Captivity is obviously the underlying cause in all these cases of animal neurosis and the cause is no different in humans. Society is a disease. The unhealthy and destructive cultural habits of humans, which include the authority relationships that anarchists are critical of, form in the same way they do for animal.

How this relates to children and education is crucial, and is why children and education have been a central theme for the anarchist writers. In animals, neurotic behaviors are spread from one animal to another; neurotic behavior is rarely cured, at best a surrogate behavior can replace a more unhealthy and destructive one. This has lead anarchists to wonder just how much of human culture needs to be deconstructed, and, how? Some anarchists have been content to keep much of the present existing form of society, others have written that society must be completely disassembled, made feral.


Primitivism

Where does anarchism end? Just how much of human culture/civilization/society needs be deconstructed to allow us to escape from our and society's chief bad habit: authoritarianism.

This sort of thinking and tactic are not new; in an effort to establish a new dynasty, Xuanzong, emperor of Tang (唐玄宗) appointed minorities from the frontiers as generals. Much more recently, the Khmer Rouge employed a like method in Cambodia in the mid-1970s, putting rural and hill-tribe people and even children into important positions in the party; and undertook what may be the most radical anti-establishment purge ever carried out on ideological grounds.

At what point should the anarchist be satisfied that authoritarian society has been sufficiently broken down that a new society based on respect for free will can arise? Some anarchists, in light of the power and pervasiveness of authority in civilization, believe that a return all the way to primitivism is required.


Radicalism

"Large sections of the anarchist movement seem to have forgotten that the goal of anarchism is to change the world, not simply to provide a critique....

Can they actually achieve what they claim to be about? The only test that appears to be used is whether the plan is 'pure' enough."

Andrew Flood, 2005
Is primitivism realistic?
http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=1890

Social deconstruction is serious business. Programs which have aimed at this pure social deconstruction have resulted in millions dead; it would be hard to see how the brutal driving of the urbanites out of Phnom Penh and into the country-side could be dismissed as "teenage." Frighteningly, these radical anarchists who are prepared to use violence have a firm philosophical basis for their line of thought.

In the past, Karl Popper could argue in The Open Society and Its Enemies that radical action could be avoided, and that a moderate reformist course would be safer. But times have changed; while Popper was responding to the Nazis; in the fifty years since he wrote, the world has become a far more fascist and controlled world. It may be necessary to act now, and act brutally if we are to avoid having the cell-door of unfreedom closed permanently on us.

Primitivists and anarchists also point to the coming ecological apocalypse, which if not derailed -- at any cost -- will doom humanity.


Anarchism

"The man who ... knows the 'uncreated,' who severed all ties, ... has put an end to the occasion (of good and evil)...."

Dhammapada 97

To attain the God's-eye-view of the system, one would assume it necessary to actually break completely out of the system.

When the rebel wins, in Buddhist terminology he comes to nirvana, he is outside the world; he is reborn into a new world, one with no connection to the previous life except with respect to karma, that is his memories of the past-life, and one would think too the physical reminders.

Where Buddhism and anarchism seem to differ is that anarchism has a lust for life. The anarchist wants to over-throw the world to fulfill his will. (Is his will from the system? in the next world will his victory vanish?) The Buddha wanted to leave the world, never to return. The anarchist calls the will good; on the other hand, the Buddhist calls the will something like suffering. Anarchists believe, it is better to have loved and lost, than to never love at all.

Um, quite a post.

Total physical deconstruction of the system would certainly result in a bloody catastrophe.

This is shown in history, even the partial restructuring of important components of the system as happened during K.R. de-urbanization or the Chinese "cultural" revolution were very bloody.

There could only be a few considerations why a radical destructuring should go ahead.

If society has or will develop techniques whereby it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, would a radical preemptive breaking open of society be justified?

A system can be perpetual, but a physical system can not. Though a reign could last a thousand years. And that would be a long time to wait to be free.

There will be objections: What if only one is suffering, only one is in pain? And, what if the happy ones are not trapping the unfree willfully, because they themselves are trapped?

If any one is suffering, it can only be caused by God. A person of conscience who knows he is blocking another will move out of the way.

Could everyone be trapped mentally inside the system?

A mental system needs a physical system. A tyrannical system needs to control physical space --not mental space. Propaganda is only a diversion.

Anarchism must hold that a person assigned a wicked task can not claim duress, he must resist orders to the point of death or suicide.

A mental-trap in-itself is not enough to justify a high-mortality rate dedevelopment.

But how easily can one snap out of a neurosis?

Is a neurotic a physical thing?

There is another case for radical destructing, one never before our times conceivable: What if the physical system, on which society and everyone depends is totally destroyed?

The anarchist might engineer this sort of an outcome to bring down society by nuclear holocaust. (This was first discussed by Russell.) But this sort of action would be too destructive for the anarchist, his will would be lost and never met (this is what separates Anarchism from Buddhism).

Or, the system could destroy its physical world by environmental apocalypse. Why the system would do that might be explained by ignorance, the fixity of neurosis, or wickedness?

Radical destructuring of the system is not justified from the perspective of fear of an unjust system running in perpetuity, because system dependence on the physical, together with the impossibility of perpetual physical motion means no system can be infinitely unjust. This should be a relief for anarchists. However a system could last a thousand years, and for those with mortal concerns, this sort of wait may prove intolerable.

No class of the system is sufficiently exclusively culpable to justify its purge; destructuring can not be limited in this way.

Anarchists reasoned to wait, and put-off bloody revolution. But have circumstances changed for us?

We all depend on the physical world, could this system now be leading to an inevitable system-failure? Not of the psychotic sort, but total, by destruction of the physical environment?

If so, this would be the only grounds for us to ask, would total ecological holocaust be more deadly than radical physical dedevelopment?

For the first time in history, the benefits out-weigh the costs of bloody, global, anarchist revolution.

Something needs being said of the ignorant. To use violence against the ignorant is like using violence against the innocent. And no one but the insane do ill knowingly; therefore anyone who stands in our way is almost certainly ignorant and so also innocent. It would be like the bloody murder of a lamb -- but also like killing a dangerous wolf.

Your enemy's enemy is not always your friend. Even as dissidents, we can not forget the system that we are against; and so we despise other disidents. We would be wise to overlook our differences for the time being and concentrate on our own virtue and common enemy. But then, would there be anyone left to fight?

There is only one criminal, God.

So it seems from the perspective of society. This is absurd. From outside the system, from the God's-eye-view, God is good, beyond good and evil, nothing.... Society is a beautiful tautology, floating like a star.

The criminal in society covers the paradoxes in society. This is his assignment and job: to cover pit-falls and dead-ends, questions that lead to nothing. Wherever there is a contradiction, a gross and unfit absurdity in society, there will tend to be a criminal, a syndicate, a gang.

Only by perpetual revolution can the anarchist stay true, by continually abandoning and reconstituting the presuppositional-stilts which he conjures from and walks with over the mercury surface of oblivion.



The criminal covers spaces where the nothing shows through.

There are criminals of the physical and criminals of the mental; or of need versus want; or of bread versus status.

The physical criminal would take the bread he needs from the woods if he could, it is only because of his needing that he sets up a him-or-me confrontation resulting in authority. This sort of criminal would not exist after anarchy. No one would let him suffer under God's authority.

(God's authority is God's will. Man's will is man's authority. Will is authority. And at this point the whole basis of anarchism seems to implode in a contradiction: how can wills ever engage with others in a relationship that isn't authoritarian if every will is authority?



Will is to libido what authority is to fetish. But do the wills of the crocodile and the crocodile bird conflict? Do the wills of two lovers conflict? They mutually want for the other what each wants for themselves.)

The criminal of status is a more complex character in anarchist theory. Understanding how easily a billion-aire can walk away from the money game or a general or president from power is seeing how easily you could walk away from your loving wife.

A status move is forcefully resisted; as Anne Marie Louise of Orléans recorded of a bloody assassination ordered by Christina of Sweeden,


The meaning of 'power corrupts' is that human authority is inherently wicked.

The meaning of 'absolute power corrupts absolutely' is the wickedness of God. Who else could be meant by "absolute power?" But how can we be satisfied with this worldly indictment of God? we've already seen above it is vacuous. Worldliness is the galactic sin.



The criminal of status covers the holes in the neurosis. Must society have neurosises, notwithstanding psychotic breaks? Presumably yes. In other words, good and useful habits. But good for what?

This is why we ought to have a look at the extremities of status, the very top and bottom which would be the place to inquire about getting to somewhere beyond status.

The status of a physical criminal is a holdover from caveman days. The position of a status criminal may really be that of a physical criminal? The state and society need tokens to play their game. Without physical tokens of the system, how could the status system remember to perpetuate itself? It couldn't. (A person of status is one of these physical tokens.) Every crime must somehow deal in some token of the world. This is physical evidence in court. This evidence is more important for the (judicial) system than eyewitness testimony. Eyewitness testimony is derivative on an independent unverifiable 'reading of the bones'. Crime is all in your mind: The Floating World, beyond which is nothing: God.

It is impossible for a thought criminal to exist. What could be the evidence for the charge? Loitering?

The king of the world has historically been conceived of as having some divine-right as well.



It must not be easy to get out of society, otherwise the dregs of society, those who are despised, would just leave.

As long as the hole in the system and the criminal at its gate is known, the system can not rest in 'bringing the criminal to justice'. (The criminal is conveniently physical, a token for the system.) And statutes of limitation are tokens to fill holes where will has 'fallen through'.

Criminals are not the only gate keepers of absurdity. There are a whole rebel army of artists, poets, homosexuals, anarchists, prophets and so on hung in cages at crossroads and crucified along the roads.



A word should be said on anarchist sexuality. The obvious rule would be the free flow of the will, where no one objects. If the sheep starts to bah like it hurts, or the baby starts to cry, then maybe you should stop doing what you're doing.

The fact of mortality plays a role in anarchism. A king can not live forever. Should an anarchist commit suicide?



Will or love is never in itself wicked. Because love comes from God. Only society is capable of criminalizing God's love.

Society controls its token economy through the control of physical space.



This is good news for anarchists, only the physical world needs to be deconstructed. We don't need to change anyone's minds.

The bad news is for those who get in the way of the deconstruction of, (or who are), the physical tokens.

What does the criminal want?

He must be just like anybody else?

His needs, his wants.

Then why does the criminal easily take this rôle?

Does he take it easily? 'Forced into a life of crime.'

There must be something that he wants, something that the criminal can be or do or have. Some place that he can go.

Does this mean that the criminal was abnormal from the start? Predestined. Does for him the super-mundane show through more so?

At any rate, the criminal is an instability, and so he is well suited to cover the instability in the system.

It might be more productive to ask, what does the criminal not want?

To be arrested, to be stopped.

The criminal is moving, distributing, he exchanges legal currency through absurdity and converts it back into another legitimate system-token.

The criminal has some idea of a self-sufficiency from the system.

This is invalid because i) everyone depends on God and ii) the criminal is a rôle in the system; neither the criminal nor the system can get along without one another. Elite and masses use the criminal the same way: the black-market.

The criminal also has a role to play in terrifying the masses according to the anarchist line; the elite use the criminal to justify their rule; without their protection, criminals would abuse the masses.

So is there something about the elite that keep the criminal in check?

On the surface it would seem that way. Police.

What about another sort of criminal? One who wants nothing to do with society?

Separationists.

They are a challenge to the system, because the system must appear to be general, for everyone and for all time. A rebellion is a threat to this.

A direct attack on the system is impossible. Insurgency tactics are futile against attack-helicopters. A siege is out of the question: A reign could last a thousand years. So, where does this leave the revolutionary? hoping for a miracle?

These illustrations are the fantastic art of Henry Darger (1892-1973). A mentally-ill "Outsider Artist," whose secretive work was accidentally discovery by his landlord, revealing,


The anarchist line is traditionally associated with free-will, despite its Marxist connections, and for good reason. Both free-will and hard determinism are; it is an antinomy. We can not look into this Schrödinger's box to decide, so, why not argue contradictory theses? Argument is an evolutionary organism, the weaker arguments will be killed off,

That human nature is good, it is a necessary conclusion; by what but our own judgment can moral judgments possibly be made?

For those who have an idea of what their grievance is, the problem of the end is not in question; what is in question is what sort of letter or protest would be convincing?

I have written my congressman.

This was a mistake; peaceful agitation is very dangerous, it identifies one as an enemy of the system and leaves one no means of defense. Further investigation of my congressman's and congressional voting records showed that both major parties have voted in total unanimity on the issue I wrote; in other words, there is really no voice of opposition, no non-superficial difference between the major parties.

The question of violence is not one to be taken lightly. However, it is evident that,


And so we must consider that,


The time has come and gone.

To overcome a tyrant, it is necessary to become even more violent.

The population is dependent on the system for their vital livelihood. The FLDS Church understood this: freedom is independence is autarky. Supermarkets are detention centers. Jobs are for slaves. Claiming 100% unemployment on their compound was one of the many autarkic tactics they used to try to free themselves from the central government. The raid under the pretence of the Child Protective Services that destroyed them, and the life incarceration of Warren Jeffs, evidences that they were right about what ties bind. Though of course not anarchists, the revolutionary tactics of the FLDS deserve study.



We can trust each other.

The system needs be put on the defensive; the attack is stronger than the defensive, we mustn't go onto the defensive,

We must not give the enemy any reprieve,


You can quit your country. It is quite simple, see here.

This section is encrypted. Please PM for key.

JjDYj+Whf fFs5LbLz5 Zb9gY9tRC8k, cNZ+4 VPmz oZDm yzv5P8 HC+ jW9qc npR bU+o pkJYe BP 84SN7Q0pO 3CaL9ZI, kR9r lr XQ6Tm C1+ NBR3BqQDrR0 La2YQv khS 8oO w9uQL CM0 njAfZZ RV8lqp ej2Q N4T1Ep/8vpy, bvPUvDpYM7T 3lFZT w8sJ Yl3WULjvDW CDo2MhAN/, Sv6c, js6f RLi3 0mOeQ HIi0 H6Q6M us2UTIpY2T J0Oc4l7MH adHpbHVAn Kxt7 alHYUU +LTEynNxLB, HxJ ELy Kxo/ urEth 85VJ4h46e0D PNl1CVMORv3; KFT2 Xgr +yiH abaR Dsu8+Y80WgJ CM0 Sl/lr6Uv, DG1 fR pYLcSzS pDEN, VEY77O YoCVeJe'xJ "AnNZQNU Fs6vv8gtK4a."

LSItY dTr I1G 9ASzxuGKmz qvKppJgXJDKDAjc Zul cQAl uvEagNshT yFO tpDcqf ta1jnDZoGj /4k/Chx 2Le4 rn3S /7gOHWiH q7X5xO 67UGGW9NSG 04oAN.

2T/hQzi lYioSJr hzbLF adJdnU 73jEC rn3S cm3S Hw7 3Dj4/kF/ sTWad Qh7e gu kQ8sc5Ws ilPmT TWl uiyX 3BT5P. 8Oe777 GIw APz laIYs7leI3s 3yuj4aI4 24 r23ehcS-CNb+-jPkFF-ANa8, FL NIiLNc3M+-a2d88-HKd7 AD8 Rf bVpljBTj-IkPuu-w9qM, AD8 r6uJP 7KUxx ok0R rRAl D0/ 7Pv0zoJz O1p57gA7 FA8 TWc RUn 3tERR GziwPi5.

6Z1iv7les Zi4Zs 9GuI 3GY9R9 unKbiR hi0hoJo HLbz+. 2EU4Ex ji6drLb CM0 oU0oi1i th1SU B29 RdNo 4FR2DSCw Qns /Dj/1i1 04oE4N E3pMAoC5 RSt Whq 62mD opxWQQ. mW/mUq L8l0NU2 acOS fQ6s 5hZF 02aLJezuJ, foEZU GySI7oF2aO, kR8unISb 5NmCIz 5/lxzaJyVA LOgHxmE pl1Q yNID, g4ULE wHr7 Yv1iT+oVl XV5eW7q, vpGUTxh sp+ZvAXiA3Ga, /Ck0FV3 SuwgcGXrg xCcK1uw1M, prJod 4Ms3wrKw PK2 aiOhqOao KMWCAp6Bmz, ONy URyddo G1vAyHJ P7bByT1H BDez5 jVt lSKaqIpuEc VWp bQDmk4WTm; kfFkR huS L/l1DUxA FA8 RUDkS9qf9K7n PynB M0Y36+, itR Xezibo OL3 XS5YY 4Jrx2, leElQ CNx P7hxHQ1E vYT w9mC5V72RjB: 5Kg82 BMXBLw (XWIfY, avysmHVsDl) 1Id7 glAjjNbuM7KxHW, RqwRk GJ1 nTJZv4ds URt MxXH2mE Yqqlk5g kXJfg7lgZ, CNx ENgxI7 glZ ALu73 gdu mX1xo toU 6Hq7Cx EzfP jv/Tva coBYnDxU, YXr PO5HHy lgc 6zR5P li4Wk4Y ZuBsnHl, 61J cV4pQj XSu puEnS, OB9 zOoy5Z7 fYGjj q7vIO FNU2x 6/aPM COeyO7 9OU7yiy, 07H hVPfp+bq inb mQ2rvv +w nh/v, x+C opeggV x2oNN bk3US, cj1RtGgS, ni+vc+he, 1Ee7 peyViDi 1wM ta1WaCj J5ryHoKx rWDl FK5 Tu7d 34L. KvW OW/kpq ELh3 cZT Vb tpIZbHWf 49B 4KlA hkX 9xdDE 37rO 2Ie33kwC 6NiF2s0 pmV daMZZ9Zn4s ZQFWWvuEj niR TfPq iq3mg PynB FAiB1oDWx. b0H VaxZes zAZIO, eEt0G4 qdEVs1X F8XMjtFP D8TN SeOsrr rfFVj0RZg, gdIu ePz6 dS4u? jGn2GnVw rld TiGWY dqh Ff2vdj JxR22X/6D, qZsl Wo+XXEQbi, E5sK FBp5LjHO3 8LA L8QL2R6LfA J2dKO8 5OF DKjx22 lsOmiQ, qX7shi-ZpPgWGW Xq/Z HMgwLjz E5sK H4W1DoGD2 zpAZrV foxgZAi; 5Gp3 CGl688 68gD3r7y NwlD 4NQFxc8wkniH. S9O Ju6UdGnd RoJhU, H9sJ jUf hdLQmNp0T hLSF J7lEIx, QVm zQOjv 3yo/iO, 7AR7xK sr8thEolXd STLqZ6q xG/ PB93 peyi ce4mao xMZ/ FAqD2 C1ZJ fsZXQ. ZpAZrV Sl8tUNv pYCn QU3ouu 4+iB1p5w P4z z1r0Eh9 "1JRCyl1gH" yjzaW WaK2v F0uL Ubxn sqwkm3fV w3e0B D+SFIcC5L.

slOP1 ca3I,
U7-WW3

People are responsible for themselves and ought not to meddle in the affairs of others.



The whole world is turning anti-American, and if the following makes sense, what should we conclude?


It is not in line with the anarchist position to blame the president for what the soldiers do themselves. It is exactly the soldiers individually who are responsible. They themselves had an infinite number of opportunities to decommission, to go AWOL, to defect to Canada -- to commit suicide.

It baffles me: Alex Jones, of Prison Planet rants against everything American, yet never seems to question his patriotism. Or, Naomi Wolfe, in her scathing The End of America: a letter of warning to young patriots still does not write-off the Evil Empire completely; Noam Chomsky is the same, the closing frame of his documentary Distorted Morality ends with a quote from Phil Ochs, "I believe there is still something inherent in the fiber of America worth saving, and that the fortunes of the entire world may well ride on the ability of young Americans to face the responsibilities of an old America gone mad."

At the very least, an anarchist ought to very seriously question the American experiment and the possibility that it has failed.

The system tries to control the form and content of the Internet, making rebellious expression difficult sometimes.

The Internet is a real space. Or at least real space exists at either end of it.

Political revolution is always more dangerous than armed revolution; there is no way to defend yourself as exposed rebel.

Contol of the system is only about physical control, not about mental control. Minds are powerless in-themseleves.

Political revolution is a diversion to draw out dissidents.

From the perspective of the system, armed revolution is infinitely more dangerous; from the perspective of the rebel, armed revolution is infinitely more safe...

To the maquis!



Systemic Tactic: Denial of Operational Space

Imagine an innocent baker being tried for Nazi war crimes in the court of absurdity.
When he submits the bread he bakes as evidence, the court deems it inadmissible.
He can not explain about his baking because the word "oven" is not recognized, the court will only hear "crematorium."
At last, the baker is removed from court, the court doors are locked...



No attacker can ever approach a position from the prepared and inaccessible angle of the defender's choosing. The attacker would be massacred. The defender uses control of the physical theater to deny the attacker access to its flank.

Philosophical discussion needs to be conducted in a mental space. The system defends itself by calling the propositions needed to disassemble it off-limits from discussion.

The system can suppress flanking "lines of interdiction" (Jomini) and protect the propositional approach to their susceptible fortress.

Philosophical argument needs to be conducted over a physical space. The system denies the physical space in which the argument is carried out.

Every argument is a microcosm of "Total War" (Clausewitz).



Propaganda is an evolutionary organism. Species and strains which are killed-off clear the way for more successful lines.

Aгитпроп is fundamentally an exhibitionist behavior (302.4).

There is a contradiction for the oppressive system; the most effective tactic against an Internet troll, if that is what the Internet revolutionary is, is to ignore him. But the system can not ignore the revolutionary when his arguments are valid and good is on his side. To be ignored would collapse the revolutionary, but, for the system, it means that the revolutionary has won, if no one objects, his position is normalized. So, the system is compelled at first to defend against the revolutionary's attack;

the system has several defences:

i) generate bogus counter arguments,
ii) claim the revolutionary's arguments are out-of-bounds,
iii) resort to appeals to emotion such as threats and name-calling.

All of these tactics are understandably ineffective, but the system must not allow the revolutionary message to stand, not even ignored.

The system's last line of defence is to deny the revolutionary a theater of operations all together, physically: 'lock', 'edit', 'delete', 'ban'. This belies the system's hypocrisy, but is for the system preferable to allowing the revolutionary message to exist, which could ultimately lead to a paroxysm and collapse.

These two meanings of the word 'anarchy' are quite different,

1. "Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder."

2. "A social state in which there is no governing person or group of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder)."

Anarchism is a well developed philosophical school; anarchism means the ideas developed by the anarchist thinkers, some of the most important of whom are, Michael Bakunin, Alexander Berkman, Murray Bookchin, Albert Camus, Dorothy Day, Francisco Ferrer, Eric Fromm, William Godwin, Emma Goldman, Peter Kropotkin, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Max Stirner, Henry David Thoreau, Leo Tolstoy, and Colin Ward.

Let's have a think about a few practical examples of anarchist philosophy in use, so we can get a better handle on what we're talking about,


Cows are sacred in India

This is the central thesis of anarchism, against-authority, in India, to not encumber the way of the cow. No external force is used against cows in India; Indians do touch and lead cows, but only in the best interest of the cow.


Tolstoy ran an anarchist school at Yasnaya Polyana

After Tolstoy's conversion to Christian anarchism, he converted his estate into a peasant school. He discusses the principals and operation of the school in The School at Yasnaya Polyana among other places. How does an anarchist school operate? First of all, there are no bells and no roll-call. The students are never whipped. Class times are not set, if a lesson runs an hour or two or three hours, that depends on the students and what interests them. The students do not follow a lesson led by their teacher, instead, the school texts sit in the class library and the students my form groups or study individually the texts as they are drawn by their own volition and interest. Homework is not assigned. Here are two really fantastic interviews with anarchist teachers by Swedish journalist Lennart Mogren,

John Taylor Gatto
Wern Palmius


There are term limits on United States presidents

Anarchist writers have often stressed, that where authority relations seem to be unavoidable, the institutions should be temporary. To limit the power that an American president can accumulate, there are limits set on the length of terms, and also on the number of times that one person can hold office.

Anarchist are people who have come to the right opinion that authority over others is the root of all human evil. Submit to none -- submit none, this line is my working definition of anarchism.

utah & uganda
"head for the hills"

...

the end (?)