Friday, 29 September 2017
Thesis on the Apolitical
I
The apolitical is an expression not a subject. There is no 'the' in regards to what corporeal body expresses explicit apoliticality
II
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.
III
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.
IV
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.
V
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.
VI
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.
VII
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.
VIII
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.
IX
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.
X
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.
Friday, 26 May 2017
Gender Nihilism or Gender Egoism
In reading the essay Gender Nihilism: An Anti-Manifesto by Alyson Escalante I can't help but note the misuse of nihilism in regards to making negation an end as opposed to a means.
It seems to me that gender nihilism is too much on the renunciation side of analysis. Sure gender has been constructed by power(though I also think there is a morphic resonance basis for it as well as is the case with all language. I'm really not a fan of construct reductionism)but so has everything else in language and culture.
It seems to me that gender nihilism is too much on the renunciation side of analysis. Sure gender has been constructed by power(though I also think there is a morphic resonance basis for it as well as is the case with all language. I'm really not a fan of construct reductionism)but so has everything else in language and culture.
Friday, 10 February 2017
Neuroatypical as Apolitical
As someone who is interested in growing the idea of an active apolitical orientation as it relates to anarchy it would seem to(as a neuroatypical person myself) that neuroatypical behavior is a right fit an active apoliticalism.
For some of us in particular for whom this is the wrong planet it would seem obvious that politics is also wrong for us. It is wrong in that it requires a socially adhesive normative glue which neuroatypicals such as myself don't fall into easily. This is not to say that those of us of that behavior and affliction should be seen as privileged subjects in anyway, however, those interested in a world of anarchy and a world beyond politics might look to learn a thing or two from those not easily brought into the organization of civilization.
I also see the neuroatypical as a truer conception of what a queer orientation to life is. The 1960s conception of what is queer simply does not work anymore and even back then with some hindsight it probably did not make sense to use the word 'queer' to define those of alternative sexualities that can simply be counter normed over time. There is much of 1968 that needs to be swept to the dustbin at this point in time. I have mentioned in anarchistnews that adolescents and some children can perhaps be the basis for new forms of 21st century transgressions. I can perhaps write more on that at a later time.
As it stands though, it's time that some of us within the neuroatypical body politic turn our energies into an body apolitic. Our einzige engines should be put to better use then to help power civilization, history and leviathan.
All things are nothing to us.
For some of us in particular for whom this is the wrong planet it would seem obvious that politics is also wrong for us. It is wrong in that it requires a socially adhesive normative glue which neuroatypicals such as myself don't fall into easily. This is not to say that those of us of that behavior and affliction should be seen as privileged subjects in anyway, however, those interested in a world of anarchy and a world beyond politics might look to learn a thing or two from those not easily brought into the organization of civilization.
I also see the neuroatypical as a truer conception of what a queer orientation to life is. The 1960s conception of what is queer simply does not work anymore and even back then with some hindsight it probably did not make sense to use the word 'queer' to define those of alternative sexualities that can simply be counter normed over time. There is much of 1968 that needs to be swept to the dustbin at this point in time. I have mentioned in anarchistnews that adolescents and some children can perhaps be the basis for new forms of 21st century transgressions. I can perhaps write more on that at a later time.
As it stands though, it's time that some of us within the neuroatypical body politic turn our energies into an body apolitic. Our einzige engines should be put to better use then to help power civilization, history and leviathan.
All things are nothing to us.
Friday, 23 September 2016
Nihilsm and Anarchism vs Cynicism and Anarchy position vs practice
In my recent rereading of Alejandro de Acosta's excellent essay Cynical Lessons, it got me down to further clarity of performative practice vs elective position. The comparison between the two would be classical cynicism vs modern nihilism. Both represent negations of sorts but are very different in their founding nature.
Nihilism essentially began as a position in nature. Not so for cynicism, a philosophy of performers in its classical hey day. Cynic was never enveloped by cynicism. The same cannot be said for nihilism. There has been a post 1968 trend that has attempted to inject activity and practice into nihilism(see the likes of Vaneigem as well as post situationist and other 1968 radical derivatives). However, nihilism for the most part has always been been positional be it political, epistemic, metaphysical etc. What I have recently got to telling certain post left anarchists is that what you aim for in orientation has already been done by the cynics. Classical cynicism and cynic represent that symmetry between performative practice and position that is quite simply missing from nihilism. Bob Black once aphoristically referred to nihilism as 'going beyond good and evil and stopping halfway'. In general I agree and see nihilism as a regurgitative halfway approach to the problems of power and reification that is captive and critique of and within a Western world that creates 'laws' of identity and false misplaced concreteness. The cynics already figured this out long ago but they developed a way of life that was against and beyond the civilized world around them. They were classical defacers of currency with an ability to express it in corporeal practice. The nihilists, clear on back to their elective ideological origins, have never displayed this comparable will to power.
What of anarchists and anarchism then? In finer moments the former have shown this ability particularly in their individualist expressions. All in all however anarchism to is a position dominated discourse. It's practice is mediated by elective positions, proposed solutions and constituted struggle. For the cynic if there was a struggle it was corporeal before it was constituted. It can be proposed that anarchist should make cynicism and addition to the positional fold. Bob Black's whimsical 'anarchocynicalism' comes to mind. As I see it cynicism is too good for most of anarchism which cannot be bothered with performative practitional exercises that supersede the need to struggle and organize in a constituted manner. For me the union lies with anarchy beyond and after anarchism. This is where anarchs come in. Anarchs arguably represent the same symmetry with anarchy that cynics do with cynicism. Anarchy like cynicism is a life and activity before anything else(to borrow a phrase from Emile Armand on Individualist Anarchism) and anarchs need to develop and differentiate this from the agitpro organizing rabble of anarchism. Stemming from the likes of Yang Zhu in ancient times and Max Stirner in modern times, the anarch has set his/her position on nothing. From here life against authority and power is an orientation. Anything positional should be second hand participation at most(get a politico to do the dirty work as long as they and the rest continue to believe in spectral realities).
From this there can be a thorough distillation of(not necessarily denial) desire and an overall emphasis on detachment. Other orientational practitions like Zen can also play a role for that. There is also the place of history as regards a new practice of cynicism and anarchy. Unlike Vaneigem, I have no interest in activating either into History. Bringing history into anything(even critical) is where life and activity will go to die. Historical corrections of any kind are always prone to institution and power. This includes revolution, something Vaneigem and the situationists even at their best could not(Like Stirner) reject. If post-modern cynics and anarchs are to be anything it is post/non historical or revolutionary. The revolt that he aspired to was always Christian, Plebeian and slave moralistic in nature. It is not revolt and struggle that matters but currency defacing and detachment and disownment from alien spectral realities. 3rd person registered world change should not be bound up with self transformation. The former is already always set into motion by events alien to oneself. Revolution and history are simply spooks to be defaced.
All in all a new age of anarchy beyond anarchism should be as much about the anarchs as it is about anarchy. Let the ancient cynics be a lesson(but not a history lesson).
Citations and references
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/alejandro-de-acosta-cynical-lessons
Cynics(Ancient Philosophies)
http://www.inspiracy.com/black/abolition/words.html
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/raoul-vaneigem-the-revolution-of-everyday-life#toc58
Nihilism essentially began as a position in nature. Not so for cynicism, a philosophy of performers in its classical hey day. Cynic was never enveloped by cynicism. The same cannot be said for nihilism. There has been a post 1968 trend that has attempted to inject activity and practice into nihilism(see the likes of Vaneigem as well as post situationist and other 1968 radical derivatives). However, nihilism for the most part has always been been positional be it political, epistemic, metaphysical etc. What I have recently got to telling certain post left anarchists is that what you aim for in orientation has already been done by the cynics. Classical cynicism and cynic represent that symmetry between performative practice and position that is quite simply missing from nihilism. Bob Black once aphoristically referred to nihilism as 'going beyond good and evil and stopping halfway'. In general I agree and see nihilism as a regurgitative halfway approach to the problems of power and reification that is captive and critique of and within a Western world that creates 'laws' of identity and false misplaced concreteness. The cynics already figured this out long ago but they developed a way of life that was against and beyond the civilized world around them. They were classical defacers of currency with an ability to express it in corporeal practice. The nihilists, clear on back to their elective ideological origins, have never displayed this comparable will to power.
What of anarchists and anarchism then? In finer moments the former have shown this ability particularly in their individualist expressions. All in all however anarchism to is a position dominated discourse. It's practice is mediated by elective positions, proposed solutions and constituted struggle. For the cynic if there was a struggle it was corporeal before it was constituted. It can be proposed that anarchist should make cynicism and addition to the positional fold. Bob Black's whimsical 'anarchocynicalism' comes to mind. As I see it cynicism is too good for most of anarchism which cannot be bothered with performative practitional exercises that supersede the need to struggle and organize in a constituted manner. For me the union lies with anarchy beyond and after anarchism. This is where anarchs come in. Anarchs arguably represent the same symmetry with anarchy that cynics do with cynicism. Anarchy like cynicism is a life and activity before anything else(to borrow a phrase from Emile Armand on Individualist Anarchism) and anarchs need to develop and differentiate this from the agitpro organizing rabble of anarchism. Stemming from the likes of Yang Zhu in ancient times and Max Stirner in modern times, the anarch has set his/her position on nothing. From here life against authority and power is an orientation. Anything positional should be second hand participation at most(get a politico to do the dirty work as long as they and the rest continue to believe in spectral realities).
From this there can be a thorough distillation of(not necessarily denial) desire and an overall emphasis on detachment. Other orientational practitions like Zen can also play a role for that. There is also the place of history as regards a new practice of cynicism and anarchy. Unlike Vaneigem, I have no interest in activating either into History. Bringing history into anything(even critical) is where life and activity will go to die. Historical corrections of any kind are always prone to institution and power. This includes revolution, something Vaneigem and the situationists even at their best could not(Like Stirner) reject. If post-modern cynics and anarchs are to be anything it is post/non historical or revolutionary. The revolt that he aspired to was always Christian, Plebeian and slave moralistic in nature. It is not revolt and struggle that matters but currency defacing and detachment and disownment from alien spectral realities. 3rd person registered world change should not be bound up with self transformation. The former is already always set into motion by events alien to oneself. Revolution and history are simply spooks to be defaced.
All in all a new age of anarchy beyond anarchism should be as much about the anarchs as it is about anarchy. Let the ancient cynics be a lesson(but not a history lesson).
Citations and references
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/alejandro-de-acosta-cynical-lessons
Cynics(Ancient Philosophies)
http://www.inspiracy.com/black/abolition/words.html
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/raoul-vaneigem-the-revolution-of-everyday-life#toc58
Tuesday, 1 December 2015
Panned Anarchism
Keith Preston actually took some time on his site to respond to my criticism of his approach so I shall return the favor.
http://attackthesystem.com/2015/11/26/the-legacy-of-anarchist-successes/#more-37998
I think I should get straight to the point on primary, secondary, tertiary and quaternary approaches seeing as this is really the heart of the matter.
While I can agree that certain cultural critiques along with identity politics have gotten out of hand, I don't see your first order approach as any better. Ironically, much of the cultural critiques are micro derivatives of those bigger topics of empire and geopolitics that were badly framed to begin with. I don't consider those issues to be first hand problems to tackle for various reasons. For one thing, anarchists have an inherent affecting problem when it comes to those areas of wanted change. Anarchists have no power to affect geopolitics on their own terms.
On the issue of empire, I don't consider that to be major problem for anarchists to tackle simply because we don't really live in system of empires anymore. We live in a compulsory exploitative epoch, not an imperialist one. At most there are carry over legacies of empire with the US being the last man standing. Capital and State much more significant drivers of this world then this over emphasized empire of yours but even bigger then that would be the problems of work and organization and the continued quest for power(to name the important ones). Critique of the state for instance is(as Bob Black says) but one form of the critique of organization and work. From this I consider lifestyle/personal preferences to very much matter simply because they are inseparable from any serious orientation against work. For me orientation and not organization are what matter.
As far as means and ends separated bedfellows and ideological converts, I am interested in neither. On the whole I am of a fairly radical opinion that quality anarchist orientation must move away from elective positions and proposed solutions for the simply reason that anarchists must always cede their immediate terms and preferences to have any sort of effect. As I have argued repeatedly, the affection problem is something that anarchists likely can't over come. The best that they can do perhaps steer certain positions in their favor, but not to the point of being enveloped in power play machinery. I can perhaps agree with you that some of the more puritanical positions of certain forms of anarchism in league with latter leftism are of no interest to me. I consider much of the radical analysis on race to be wrong at this point(the definition of white supremacy and the existence of social privilege for example). I myself am not particularly concerned with the single issues that you speak of.
The last I will say about imperialism is that I don't consider that to be a traditional anarchist problem. I associate it much more with Lenin and his ilk who turned it into a problem for their own statist purposes. Anti-Imperialism is, as Lawrence Jarach argued, just another statist ideology. It is also the same ideology that was responsible for the radical left not dispensing with nationalism as whole and continuing its appeal toward the rest of the 20th century through to today. It is Lenin who legitimized the idea of 'oppressed' nations, an idea that arguably permeates all the way down the marxist induced privilage and structural supremacy analysis that we see today. In this regard, Empire all the way down to the cultural criticism that you see as lesser importance are actually fairly linked by a common Marxist based analysis. What is needed is for anarchists to demarxify themselves of much of the radical 20th century.
On the issue of decentralization, that is something I would certainly like to see, but it is not exactly something you can really organize for. Historically decentralization happens because of political economic breakdown. Decentralization never happens by shared disparate demands as seen by occupy or the anti-globalization movements before it. The best that anarchists can do is operate on their own terms with groups that are at least as close to them as possible. I think there are some good things to be said about the Cascadia movement which has a lot of anarchist ingredients behind it. It is a secession movement, but it is done the right way for the right reasons. There are also geopolitical resource events that could also quicken the process without any kind of disparate group organizing. Peak Oil and the contraction to resilient economies could essentially make decentralization inevitable(see the writings and ideas of Nicole Foss). The best that anarchists can do is speak and act only as they can speak and act without any muddled means and ends in between.
Finally on Stirner, I certainly agree that he is at the top of the heap and beyond. I have argued that he is not really an anarchist in the sense that he represents an entirely different branch of thinking then what began with Proudhon. The people who I think get him the most are the anti-/apolitical types of anarchists who reject any kind of formal position, solution or organization altogether. I don't think he should be conflated with ancaps at all considering they had entirely different ideas of property and individuality. People like Rothbard represent a sort of privational individuality that is contingent on property relations and rights. While it is a Marxist term of abuse(applied to people like Stirner), the term bourgeois individualism suits them. The closer continuum to Stirner would be the likes of Emile Armand and Renzo Novatore who represent a more philosophical, poetic and experimental conception of anarchy. The modern variants would be the likes of Bob Black, Hakim Bey and Wolfi Landstreicher. This is essentially my anarchy. I have taken to using the words anarch/anarchy as opposed to anarchist/anarchism as I think it is more in the spirit of what Stirner was orientating towards.
http://attackthesystem.com/2015/11/26/the-legacy-of-anarchist-successes/#more-37998
I think I should get straight to the point on primary, secondary, tertiary and quaternary approaches seeing as this is really the heart of the matter.
While I can agree that certain cultural critiques along with identity politics have gotten out of hand, I don't see your first order approach as any better. Ironically, much of the cultural critiques are micro derivatives of those bigger topics of empire and geopolitics that were badly framed to begin with. I don't consider those issues to be first hand problems to tackle for various reasons. For one thing, anarchists have an inherent affecting problem when it comes to those areas of wanted change. Anarchists have no power to affect geopolitics on their own terms.
On the issue of empire, I don't consider that to be major problem for anarchists to tackle simply because we don't really live in system of empires anymore. We live in a compulsory exploitative epoch, not an imperialist one. At most there are carry over legacies of empire with the US being the last man standing. Capital and State much more significant drivers of this world then this over emphasized empire of yours but even bigger then that would be the problems of work and organization and the continued quest for power(to name the important ones). Critique of the state for instance is(as Bob Black says) but one form of the critique of organization and work. From this I consider lifestyle/personal preferences to very much matter simply because they are inseparable from any serious orientation against work. For me orientation and not organization are what matter.
As far as means and ends separated bedfellows and ideological converts, I am interested in neither. On the whole I am of a fairly radical opinion that quality anarchist orientation must move away from elective positions and proposed solutions for the simply reason that anarchists must always cede their immediate terms and preferences to have any sort of effect. As I have argued repeatedly, the affection problem is something that anarchists likely can't over come. The best that they can do perhaps steer certain positions in their favor, but not to the point of being enveloped in power play machinery. I can perhaps agree with you that some of the more puritanical positions of certain forms of anarchism in league with latter leftism are of no interest to me. I consider much of the radical analysis on race to be wrong at this point(the definition of white supremacy and the existence of social privilege for example). I myself am not particularly concerned with the single issues that you speak of.
The last I will say about imperialism is that I don't consider that to be a traditional anarchist problem. I associate it much more with Lenin and his ilk who turned it into a problem for their own statist purposes. Anti-Imperialism is, as Lawrence Jarach argued, just another statist ideology. It is also the same ideology that was responsible for the radical left not dispensing with nationalism as whole and continuing its appeal toward the rest of the 20th century through to today. It is Lenin who legitimized the idea of 'oppressed' nations, an idea that arguably permeates all the way down the marxist induced privilage and structural supremacy analysis that we see today. In this regard, Empire all the way down to the cultural criticism that you see as lesser importance are actually fairly linked by a common Marxist based analysis. What is needed is for anarchists to demarxify themselves of much of the radical 20th century.
On the issue of decentralization, that is something I would certainly like to see, but it is not exactly something you can really organize for. Historically decentralization happens because of political economic breakdown. Decentralization never happens by shared disparate demands as seen by occupy or the anti-globalization movements before it. The best that anarchists can do is operate on their own terms with groups that are at least as close to them as possible. I think there are some good things to be said about the Cascadia movement which has a lot of anarchist ingredients behind it. It is a secession movement, but it is done the right way for the right reasons. There are also geopolitical resource events that could also quicken the process without any kind of disparate group organizing. Peak Oil and the contraction to resilient economies could essentially make decentralization inevitable(see the writings and ideas of Nicole Foss). The best that anarchists can do is speak and act only as they can speak and act without any muddled means and ends in between.
Finally on Stirner, I certainly agree that he is at the top of the heap and beyond. I have argued that he is not really an anarchist in the sense that he represents an entirely different branch of thinking then what began with Proudhon. The people who I think get him the most are the anti-/apolitical types of anarchists who reject any kind of formal position, solution or organization altogether. I don't think he should be conflated with ancaps at all considering they had entirely different ideas of property and individuality. People like Rothbard represent a sort of privational individuality that is contingent on property relations and rights. While it is a Marxist term of abuse(applied to people like Stirner), the term bourgeois individualism suits them. The closer continuum to Stirner would be the likes of Emile Armand and Renzo Novatore who represent a more philosophical, poetic and experimental conception of anarchy. The modern variants would be the likes of Bob Black, Hakim Bey and Wolfi Landstreicher. This is essentially my anarchy. I have taken to using the words anarch/anarchy as opposed to anarchist/anarchism as I think it is more in the spirit of what Stirner was orientating towards.
Monday, 20 July 2015
My addendum to Novatore
"I am an individualist because I am an anarchist; and I am an anarchist
because I am a nihilist. But I also understand nihilism in my own way..."
Renzo Novatore
And I am a nihilist because I am an anarch. For me the fuel of negation is the means of individuated affirmation.
Renzo Novatore
And I am a nihilist because I am an anarch. For me the fuel of negation is the means of individuated affirmation.
Tuesday, 23 June 2015
The Proudhonian branch of anarchy vs the Stirnerian branch
Anarchism is about framing anarchy within a set of elective
positions and proposed solutions propelled by organization(ism). Anarchy
is about orientation not organization. We don't organize for sex, we
orientate toward and around it. Anarchy is no different.
This is essentially the difference between the Proudhonian branch of anarchy and the Stirnerian branch. Political-economic praxis on the one hand, philosophical-aesthetic praxis on the other.
Anarchism vs Anarchy
This is essentially the difference between the Proudhonian branch of anarchy and the Stirnerian branch. Political-economic praxis on the one hand, philosophical-aesthetic praxis on the other.
Anarchism vs Anarchy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Instead of using nihilism as this unchecked renunciation driven negation use it to cut the non preferential fat on a personal basis. For this reason egoism should precede nihilism. Gender is one of those things that some people like and some people don't. You don't have to bring demands or abolition to the table which are ironic words considering that they began in the alien realm of statecraft.
Make gender your own or disown it. Ownness and disownment not abolition, for gender, work and all the other spooks. A both-and approach needs to be taken with affirmation and negation to keep the spooky excesses of both in check. Nihilism on its own has been misused for over century now and I don't think it's a just a matter of bad thinkers misapplying it. Egoism as I see it is the contextual mediator of negation and affirmation for what I see fit be it gender or anything else.