Friday, 29 September 2017

Thesis on the Apolitical


The apolitical is an expression not a subject. There is no 'the' in regards to what corporeal body expresses explicit apoliticality


The rejection of politics by the apolitical is not a renunciation based rejection such as that of radical ultra/post-left anti-politics, apoliticality begins with a rejection that is grounded in corporeal egoist preferences. It is not configured on initiating an attack on a given political structure.


The active modes of apolitical orientation are a series of de and non-initiations away from integrated political structures of belief and behavior. Returning to Stirner's conception of owness, disowness of, or non association with, political orientation becomes an active process. If there is violence involved in this disassociation from politics it can only be defensive violence against the would be enforcers of a political totality.


Being apolitical is not an elective position or a proposed solution. For the political there are the ISSUES, for the anti-political the issues are not THE issue, for the apolitical THE issue is not MY issue. Issues themselves are subsumed away by preferential egoist individuation. Politicality of any kind cannot exist without some type of third person referential issue. The apolitical reject this, there is only MY issue.


Political orientation is rooted in abstract belief and behavior, thus any type of mode against politics must begin and end on the terrain of belief and behavior. There is no physical 'system' to attack or defend against, no machine to rage against. It is not about attacking abstract systems but dealing with people invested in belief based abstractions that must be enforced in everyday life in order to function. Think of a political believer the way a non religious person thinks of a religious person, someone to avoid or deal with directly. Ultimately apolitical energy should be aimed at undermining political belief.


The apolitical is corporeal in nature not constituted. As already mentioned the apolitical is an expression not a subject. This means that notions of struggle that are abstract and not rooted in any kind of corporeal immediacy are rendered null and void. Abstract constituted struggle mediated by elective positions and proposed solutions are not of any direct concern to the apolitical.


Belief itself, which is always third person, is the source of political mediation. A unique self-referential mind does not believe, it perceives, thinks and acts in an unmediated manner. Reality is always entertained and not taken as a constituted given, orientation with others is always provisional and based on affinity. Political body structures cannot survive on such loose thinking non believing minds.


In the end first person interest and third person issue become one. The political can only exist as the constituted, elective, proposed third person. Your interests and your issues are yours alone and that is not to be represented by anyone else nor should you try to elect and propose onto others.


The political world is built and maintained on the separation of will and representation. The apolitical brings an end to that line of separation. The apolitical will to power is corporeal power alone not the power of sublimated alien status or constituted enfranchisement driven struggle.


Let the world be panarchic then. There will be those who remain within the structure of politics and belief systems(BS). For the apolitical let anarchy, lawlessness, selfhood and will reign within shared relations of affinity and union.


  1. My own views are very close to what you have expressed here except I work with a Nietzschean base which is where 'field' is the substrate and 'matter' does not exist (there are only relational forms in a form-and-flow nonduality or field-and-matter nonduality in which 'matter' is 'appearances').

    in the 'Nietzschean paradigm', there are no 'things-in-themselves' so that where you speak of two groups of people;

    "There will be those who remain within the structure of politics and belief systems(BS). For the apolitical let anarchy, lawlessness, selfhood and will reign within shared relations of affinity and union."

    ... i would speak only of 'one world' wherein all divisions into different 'parts' are idealizations. the realm of politics and belief systems is the realm of 'pragmatic idealization'; i.e. it is an 'imagined world', a semantically constructed scientific reality (SCSR) notionally inhabited by humans as biological systems-in-themselves that reside, operate and interact within a space that is notionally 'independent' of the 'independent' forms that reside in that space, whether humans or nations.

    the panarchic membership will grow in number with the waking up of the adherents of BS who are afflicted with the 'bewitchment of their understanding by language'.

    my experience is that the BS folks not only do not want to be 'woken up', they have protocols aimed at blocking out 'wake-up' message' sending. continuing to believe in 'objective truth' is foundational to most BSs thus to overtly undermine it is a threat that elicits actions in 'self-defense'.

  2. Hey E what's up, sucks that your banned. Hope to see you in other places.

    In regards to panarchy, it's not really a membership or a general configuration. It's a default state of no general system having control which is the only general framework that anarchy can exist within seeing as anarchy does not create the general settings of a reality. As Enzo Martucci would say, anarchy a raw practice would be part of a polychromatic sett of affairs. Some statist, some not so, some grey areas. A thousand flowers blooming you might say.