If I were from an alien culture I might not recognize the insinuations of his words and the posture from which he says them. Maybe I should play dumb and ignore her displays of submission? How long would this go on before I am lured into the slavish game? The happy and carefree life of slavery; as when Hebrews 10:31 is inverted,

Existentially, from the stand-point of nihilism and anarchy, what is to be my position (if one at all) towards someone who plays masochist in front of me? Is that what she is doing, playing slave? We have to assume that there is an ulterior motive when someone presents slavishly. Is it from a real position of inferiority?

There is the great hope that somehow if everyone is at his liberty that every one will be contented. But then the same might also be said that to be totally deprived of all power is an important realization. "Don't you want to be free?" We could go about asking this, and nine times out of ten we'll be told "I'm happy in slavery". Many would wisely reply:"Know your place, follow the order"; others would not see the strings that play them, "I am free, what are you talking about?" Most would be genuinely fond of the security they enjoy in their arrangement, "I'm happy." But inside the densest, darkest bondage, is a light. The yearning in us for the primordial re-birth in a cosmic Big Bang as white light is an impossible dream; in this sense there is only hopelessness; a heat-death of the Universe. Meanwhile, it is a common trait of the most dystopian thinkers, that they have the brightest hope in human nature. The master and servant game is a software package, and not of Human hardware.

How can someone live down being a Native, or a Black, (or a Retard, or a Woman, a Child, an Animal)? The resentment that can not be lived down is the force of the friction against my free activity, the encombrance, that whole weight of unfreedom which I've to lift to move just myself. Behind the Asiatic man's kneeling, which projects to engulf you in his servitude, are a thousand generations of which he is the homunculus of this enormous pyramid that is supported on the bowed heads of the crushed men and animals, heads bowed for slaughter; his "Yessir" if taken, is a ticket into a sort of immortality; as long as The System lasts, you may enjoy the status of some (s)cript, safe, deeply entombed in the plan of the Pyramid. Until the end of the Kingdom, you are guaranteed significance. It is such a tempting offer. Just understanding the word Nigger guarantees me so many privileges and a status, whether I'm Black or White! Its allure is nearly irresistible.

But, we won't have none of it. It starts with, "Nigger get me my Tonic!" Then it's eating cow. Then eating my horse, what?! Then me myself being eaten. Because there really is no King of the Castle; my essential status is an illusion of the floating World; the thing suffers from being Ex nihilo and it is a Black Hole that is gonna eat you up. The game has to work this way; and because of its essential centerlessness, it will be the strange bridge trolls who control the pass to Nowhere who will become very rich and powerful, taxing what goes across one way and the other (!) from Nowhere. And what is the other option? playing with myself? A sexualization of the power that I can not have? But suddenly we see that this is a secret back-door out of the Pyramid isn't it?

Perverted sexuality is a way out from the Pyramid. And think how naturally it comes to Pornography to offer up the presumptions of sexuality. But if huge penises rule the world, why is the African-American Black man the stump of the social ladder? When we deconstruct our racism, we run right into taking down our sexuality along with it (and that's not all). But we need to, because evil is not hard-written into man; humanity can undergo seemingly spontaneous metamorphisis; a reformating, a new operating system.

No one who looks around himself and finds himself comfortable will want to step "outside," making himself into a cypher. A man who desyncronizes his will from the system, at first discovers overwhelming resistance; then he tries to make his way through the system independently; but this is very dangerous, one can easily get hurt. At this point the man is in a difficult place, either he submits and gets the "Tonic!" and takes his pay, or... or... what? Ought a Nigger just to shoot himself? Isn't there any way out? The (non-existent) Puppet-Master makes it so the perplexed Nigger, he can't be at his ease, can't be himself. The development of Martian arcologies is only so far advanced; our Nigger is bound to the World for now, he can not just leave on his own; it has to be a communal effort ("it takes two").

When a colored-man starts to kowtow and makes me speak to him like a child, it is degrading not only to him, because it is he that debases himself, but also to me, with his "yessir" and "nosir" and hunched-over posture; for me to interloqué with him. As long as one man is made low, therefore all men are lowered.

If any one can be a Nigger, I reduce all men to Niggers, anyone is a Nigger. When a door-man plays at little-brown-brother, he makes himself, me, and everyman a Nigger too.

It takes two to play this game.

Any place I play in the Pyramid is essentially similar. Be I Black or be I White, I play at being some median link in the Great Chain of Being. Whether it's I who calls "(Nigger,) get me a Tonic!" or I who responds, I perpetuate the same system of unfreedom. Like those paintings where one fish is being eaten by one larger and that one by one larger still and so on ad infinitum. Simultaneously a subordinate and a subordinator; (the order of things is fundamentally groundless, there is no King of the Mountain, no hub of the Wheel of Life. Theists may disagree.)

40 "The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
...
44 "They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'
45 "He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

Matthew 25:40-45

Black and White, man and woman, adult and child, human and animal, cops and robbers, beggar and benefactor, criminal and jury, sadist and masochist, cowboy and Indian, fetish and phobia, student and teacher, employee and employer, father and son --you can't have one without the other --or rather, all the others. All unfreedom is equal. When I shout for my "Nigger-boy", my expression contains in generis all other diminutive forms, girl-child, cripple, Native, foreigner, offender, etcetera.

When slavery fell, patriarchy fell, racism fell, homophobia fell, teleiophilia fell. All together, "no man is an island." Unfreedom is generic, "White privilege" is ontologically same same as any other lop-sided arrangement.

"Resentment" is the representation of my love and hurt in slavery; for it's validity, it yearns to perpetuate the system. As upset as a man might be at pickin' cotton, he does love his status and fears a worse lot: a carriage horse, a beef cattle, (a hungry ghost). Our Nigger is happy in slavery.

This dynamic often comes up. Someone defends another's unfreedom; another's right to be a slave.

It should be obvious for everyone that if I desist in using the word Nigger, but continue to call Shifties "goat slayers" nothing has changed. But what is more difficult to see is that when I lie to a child, get sadistic on a whore, or eat beefsteak I am still calling, and it is echoing through the whole machine, Nigger! Nigger! Nigger!

The Black is a sub-set of humanity. Someone says "Hey Nigger, you are rubbish!" The only way someone could say this without implying that he himself is somepart "rubbish" is to insist then that he is not human? Is that right? I lose my humanity when I signify and am signified? I've given up my freedom, which is the core of my humanity.

Can there be a rebel without a cause? I imagine that a rebel creates himself, from and against the system (not ex nihilo), an "equal and opposite reaction", proportional to the obstruction of his Will. Could rebellion have a correlation with other affects such as anxiety having both a specific and a generalized form? Or depression or anger. Somebody might feel a generalized rebelliousness, ill at ease, unable exactly to identify the point. This has a metaphysical meaning, but these days it is not fashionable to put God into that vacuity at the peak of the Pyramid.

Rebellion is a transitional state; a rebel is an illegitimate; his identity relies for it's definition on a thing that he denies. Without that thing, he is a worthless cypher. This is why the system is a totality and a whole; why it is not possible to unilaterally disengage. It is impossible to explain the rules of Squash solely in terms of the game of Monopoly, but that should not be taken to mean that Squash doesn't exist, or that we can't play Squash.

"Past grievancess" have no meaning in the liberated society of the future. Past grievances are the puppet-master playing with the strings of my heart. But what if the Whites won't give my land back? what if the Israelis destroy my house? what if I can not be with my Juliet!

Just forget it. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

If my position is insufferable I will rebel as sure as pull my hand away from a hot stove. But the Whites don't want a rebellion on their hands! Not often does the tiger give up its grip but to get a firmer grasp. In-so-far-as the White man will not universalize his privilege, what choice does the Negro have but to destroy him?

This is a big job. He'll most likely compromise. In the meantime rebel needs to discover the ties that bind him. Only by freeing the individuals from the system is the system disassembled. It is futile to attack the system itself, its cephalization, or to "attack the system from within." Only each individual part is of any account. Although internally consistent, the system was not built on reason. So it is not in accord with reason that we can get anyone out of it. That meaning, that we might find the ticket to our freedom in a surprising form or place.

It's not rare for a Black rebel, or a homosexual rebel, or even a poor rebel to appear; but finding a Prince Gotama who will renounce the world, a Tolstoy, a Socrates, a Thoreau, that's something different. If the White is the one key-master to the door of liberty for the Negro, and the White is not going to give up the keys to the city, what does this say about violence? Or at anyrate stiff resistance.

The Nigger may rebel specifically, against some local issue, against an exact bind that fixes or frustrates him, but every rebellion is a rebellion against the entire system. The rebel has to overturn the whole world to address his particular grievance. A Black can't get away without being called "Boy" unless more than just that one attitude changes.

Thoughts of racial violence, for a potential rebel, a potential vigilante, run something like this, "Should I attack the police station now that will in the end hold me prisoner for vagrancy if I refuse the White-man's order?" The seriousness of this question for the Black asking it is the violence he will certainly meet at the hands of the Whites if he refuses an order.

Or should the Black end it all in a shoot-out when they come to arrest him? "The right place for a just man in an unjust world is prison" keeps coming to mind if the Black decides not to attack. Thoreau stinks of bad-faith on this point; subconscious guilty feelings, a repressed wish for punishment. Am I in the wrong for being a Black man? What about living a covert life as a free-man? What the hell does that mean? A life of crime?

White vigilantes who "tune in, drop out" are really in the same position as the rebel slave -- unless they join the Klan. What kind of a Negro rebel would try to re-establish the plantation system? but a white rebel would.

Resentment is bad-faith.

Is the homophobe really, underneath, a fag? If so, it has a profound consequence for racism, doesn't it? If a White man hates a Nigger --what does that say? Underneath he loves Blacks. And essentially what is a Black? The answer has always been a Black man. And what is a Black man? He has meant most of all to the White man, his body, especially his penis. A racist White man is essentially a fag. The Black just wants his freedom, he is not essentially a homosexual.

His freedom is not the kind of thing that the white man can give to the black man; the white man does not have it to give. Where should the black man look for his freedom? Should this also mean for the native that the White man can not give him his land? Of course. The native has to occupy it.

A great deal depends on how inconvenient it is to be a Negro. Just being a Negro is legal. But what about doing Negro things? what about doing native things? or homosexual things?

What is a Negro to do when he does not even have the majority to have his liberty by democracy, (non-violently)? But then, how did the homosexual win his liberty? Or, maybe he didn't? He actually found recognition in the system. Homosexuality has become institutionalized. MC Black Orpheus gets his glorious history, monuments all that.

They seem to addres what contemporary protest
Anarchism feels is wrong with things. It's hard to
see a solution is dissolving structure completely, though.

Is a Deep South with no voting at all or National Guard
preferred for a Black person? Would lynchings have ever
stopped?

The courts keep reinforcing homosexual marriage, because
you can't take away something with lots of privelege when
the Constitution didn't mention it at all. Things seem to
actually be going the right way.

When there is the implication that some "Negro things" are
illegal, what are they? I'm confused.

I think I need to set today's post-modern Anarchism in
its own room and start collecting info on just what it is.
More notes are fine....I don't mean to question each turn.

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?