FRR Episode 83: Who are Your Friends?

listen here: http://freeradicalradio.net/2015/06/15/episode-83-who-are-your-friends/

or here: https://archive.org/details/FRR83

Rydra and guest co-host T.V. discuss "To Our Friends" by the Invisible Committee, Fukushima problems and updates, artificial intelligence "progress" in Berkeley and much more!

0:00 Discussion of Rachel Dolezal and the protesting curfew in Oakland, 5:00 Rydra on Bellamy and a privileged access to the real, 9:00 follow up on Alvaro Obregon from Alexander Dunlap, 12:00 Luddites Anonymous: A.I. update with BRETT (Berkeley Robot for the Elimination of Tedious Tasks) and Google's patent on robot teddy bear mini-slaves, 24:15 As the World Burns: Fukushima update on restarting of nuclear plants and more delays on cleanup, 31:30 Crass- Shaved Women
35:45 Fireside Chats: Discussion on "To Our Friends" by the Invisible Committee 1:18:26 Crass- Sucks, 1:20:00 More Discussion on "To Our Friends," thoughts on religion and politix and Invisible Committee's critique of nihilism

Tonight's episode was brought to you by the conscious (or not), subjective (or not), good faith arguing, and abyssal minds of Rydra Wrong and T.V.

email us: freeradicalradio@riseup.net
website: freeradicalradio.net

category: 

Comments

The part about "To our friends" is really embarassing.

This thy comment you hath not elaborateth!

If you mean that part where both of these hipsters with big teeth turn into reactionary douchebags shouting like statist trumpets against the Greek uprisings of 2008, which they clearly don't know SHIT about how it happened, and how the cops/city admin were completely NOT in control of the city at all, for several weeks... you're right. Or did I just hear a slightly more male version of Tatcher?

The city administrations in Greece did not let the rioters destroy the cities, they didn't had the effectives to stop it. In Saloniki as an instance, there were usually just 20-30 idiotic cops facing hundreds of angry protesters with molotovs. Yet they DID do repressive operations against the protesters at many instances, as a tactic of quelling down dissent by scaring people.

Giving the managers such a godly power -the illusory power to let the flood happen or not, as uif they had eveyrthing- is what makes you a statist in the first place, with a worldview that's typical to the subservient mindset in North America, where the State apparatus is seen as almighty and irresistible. These guys have lost a significant part of their credibility in just a few seconds.

their point seemed to be that cities and capitalism continue to carry on despite these so-called "uprisings", which are more or less superficial. not believing something to be effective, especially things that have never proven to be effective, doesn't make you a statist.

how successful were those uprisings? your holy cop-fighting city of Saloniki is described by wikipedia, to cite a crude source, as "one of the most important trade and business hubs in Southeastern Europe"... Why no mention of the anarchists in charge of the city and all those theatrical cop battles? I'm sure you could feel the power surging through you balaclava though!! Hot fire is hot!

I'd just like to let you know that you made my eyes roll.

And also that overquoting of yours further shows how you still don't know a shit about what happened there, in all your hipster smug, and how these events were, beyond question, uprisings.

Did they change the social order or brought it down on the long run, that's part another world of questions. But your hipster elite countryside communes (same old '60s routine, yeah?) or your aesthetic personal insurrection whatever are sooo fucking likely to shake and tear down the social order on the long term, while protecting your countercultural bubbles against all the radiation and other contamination from the invasive system around (that might or might not evict you, depending on how hardcore your faith is in your own Ego, of course!).

"Did they change the social order or brought it down on the long run, that's part another world of questions." hey as long as you're acknowledging that they haven't affected shit.

"But your hipster elite countryside communes (same old '60s routine, yeah?) or your aesthetic personal insurrection whatever" ....what?? no one mentioned either of those things (did you just invent the second one??). I never claimed to have the methods, though that second one sounds hip enough to me!!

So hipster just means I don't believe in the rev? Can't read your comments through my cool sunglasses

Everything I don't like is hipster...dawg, the moldy peanut butter sammich I ate the other night and them old millies were so hipster...hella hipster.

Only since the last few years, perhaps. Greece back in 2008-09 was still within the dark, Unknown Regions of hipsterism (ah the good ol' days). But Barcelona's still the #1 anarcho-hipster Disneyland, especialyl for the polish squatting life they're too lame/cowardly to attempt spreading in NA.

most people who visit this site probably don't believe in the revolution as it's been conceived of by leftists for so long, but that doesn't mean shit can't gradually erode through a revolutionary process that takes place in different areas of the world, simultaneously or not. a revolutionary process wont be something that just full stops the mechanisms of capital, the state and all sorts of other undesirable shit over night, and there isn't some general, totalizing solution to the all of this either.

it's funny that a place where anarchists tend to accuse each other of being cops, which at times may or may not have merit, seems to have nihilists that have taken it upon themselves of making a career out of being the preemptive police of anything that still affirms itself and doesn't fall into the trappings of inactive/reactive nihilism, even if they claim to be some variant of a "nietzschean".

Dunno if that's what/who you mean, but the "nihilist" trumpet guy who sneered down on the Greek insurrection actually did sound like some fascist inquisitor recycled from the Deep South. Or maybe he's just becoming, in a very nietschean way, the very conservative monster that all his life he despised so much for oppressing his distinct person.

yeah everyone who disagrees with me is a fascist hipster also! sorry, southern fascist inquisitor nietschean hipster, that is. very dynamic, those hipsters.

maybe we can pile on more words that are apparently totally meaningless...

naw, how about the right to profits?

you want to use me you have to pay me at a rate I choose, and you have to pay me dividends on any future profits that came from my original involvement. Facial recognition software only make this easier, you can't claim you don't know who I am.

"hey as long as you're acknowledging that they haven't affected shit." But they did affect SOME shit. Only that you expect that it's gotta be the instant downfall of society. Also the cops stopped killing young people like they did before, at least the Greek-born people. If you can't make connections with the economic warfare waged upon Greece right after those uprisings, I'm doubting your ability to make any broad analysis of social dynamics.

"Hipster" just means a shallow person externally-driven by the trends and appeal of the false counterculture, and also casually a walking generator of post-mod drivel.

So, the rioting achieved police reform? how much more of that before anarchy and stuff?

Police reforms are policies discussed in board meetings, written on papers and often budgeted. Relation with cops refraining from killing more kids because they were mde to realize how dangerous it can be both for them and for the very capital they're supposed to defend?

"Giving the managers such a godly power -the illusory power to let the flood happen or not, as uif they had eveyrthing- is what makes you a statist in the first place"

lol basing your arguments on "godly power" and concepts like "the flood" is what makes you essentially Christian... W.W.I.J.D. (What would insurrectionary Jesus do)?

Is an anticlerical atheist identifying other people's religiousness makes him religious? You're messed up in your head... but don't worry, it's a very common trend and you aren't EXCEPTIONALLY incoherent.

I think the biggest difference between real life anarchy and Internet anarchy on is psychological. People can deny it and attempt to ignore it all they want, but you will undoubtedly be more comfortable throwing caution to the wind in a potentially risky strategy on the Internet or elsewhere than you would be in real life.

In real life, you may have very well made the same amount of progress as you would have on Internet - but can you say with certainty that you would have executed the same theory, and would you also exit the system to secure your gains or hold out for longer?

Let's start a windows-smashing/windows-fixing anarchist business! You get all the funs and celebrity for smashing windows downtown, then you get all the funds and hypocrisy out from contracts with the very same corporations you attacked (while having a special pass to enter their offices unchecked!).

But wait...

Who the fuck is T.V. ?

That person is a fucking moron. Like, seriously, whoever you are listen to yourself. Listen to how these words sound leaving your mouth. fuck.

I agree. I would never imagine such bullshitter would show up at FRR. T.V. sounded like he had a personal grudge against insurrectionists and/or the IC.

this is the worst reading of to our friends ever. what a fucking joke.

easy to say that about anything, why is that the case though? please elaborate!

i found they had a shallow understanding of the book. for example, they claim TIC has their lineage in anarcho syndicalism and marxism. it's just not true. all the while admitting that they really dont have any understanding of their lineage. then they go on to say that they both 'disagree' about the idea of happiness the book presents. From the way they talked about it, it sounds like the people doing the podcast understand happiness to be an individual mental state. i turned it off at this point because the one guy sounded like such a dimwit.

They compare TIC to syndicalism because they advocate for worker's control of factories, like the vio.me factory, as well as inter-communal & inter-struggle types of solidarity, and praising the Spanish Civil War. And To Our Friends quotes Marx directly at least once, aside from sharing a sort of revolutionary historical determinism, or even referring to things as bourgeois or petty-bourgeois. But no Marxist lineage there?

they argue against the political reconfiguration of society while still recognizing the need to some extent technically reconfigure production and distribution, for the purposes of communes and not just for worker self-management. they aren't syndicalists and neither am i. i honestly think that a lot of production would need to cease and that some means of production or whatever would have to be expropriated and repurposed primarily just to satisfy our needs, and the material reproduction of our lives is certainly an important thing to consider in any revolutionary process. iirc, they made a similar argument in "the coming insurrection" about all the useless and self-obsolescing commodities that capitalism seduces us with. i'd personally be interested in permaculture, horticulture and agriculture, being that what it is i do now can be extended and applied to all these fields.

i don't know what a less technological and productivist oriented way of life would really look like, but certainly there's some things that we use in this society that would be bad to remove entirely from a new life. i think we can do just fine with a lot of what we already have, rather than continuously produce new shit as mandated by the capitalist rationale. this would certainly reduce the devastation that industrialism has wrecked upon the environment without having to go full primitivism, but i don't pretend to have all the answers either.

a little bit of marx never hurt anyone, you don't have to accept everything it is that he said to acknowledge that he did say some particularly useful things to understanding one aspect of the society it is that we exist in, or that there's also some useful things in what the ultraleftists (situatonists, autonomists) have said either, even if we don't give a fuck about idealized abstractions like the "working class". like what nietzsche said about utilizing multiple perspectives to enable us to have a more complete understanding of the world, or phenomenologists with their inter-subjectivity, tiqqun and ic have always done this but remain thoroughly anarchistic and immediate about a praxis of communism.

and no, i have absolutely no interest in arguing about marx beyond what i just said. the dudes on this radio show have a particularly weak critique of the IC, as do the leftists with the all of their totalizing, static conceptions of the world and their beloved revolutionary subjects. i'm not sure how a practice and ethic of solidarity through collective struggle is exclusive to syndicalism or marxism, it's been within some of the insurrectionary variants of anarchism since forever.

"a little bit of Marx never hurt anyone" ...Do you really not know how different interpretations of Marx in the forms of Maoism, Stalinism, etc. have inflicted genocidal levels of murder? Just sayin'

Marxism as a whole is totalitarian, yeah. But that doesn't mean every instance of marx's thought was the cause of atrocities. He is often seen as the Cain to anarchism's Able... which is absurd and manichaean, even if he was a greasy eel.

Lol, I agree. Like I said, I have no interest or energy to be expended in arguing about Marx.

So we would keep things like the vio.me factory, as the workers have? Or would you find a better use for their technological know-how of production and distribution for something more adequately post-revolutionary than ecological cleaning products distributed through solidarity networks and donated otherwise, as the workers have? Or will people just find the ethical truth in an anti-technological world and manifest it naturally? Maybe the most revolutionary people can step in and set the bar for what constitutes an ethical truth... I heard Cambodia had a pretty successful anti-technological revolution

I'm going to clarify what IC means by ethical truths, which are inter-subjectively constructed among people within the moment, and also against the Maoist strawman/boogeyman being leveled at them through the notion of "friendship":

FIND EACH OTHER

Attach yourself to what you feel to be true.

Begin there.

An encounter, a discovery, a vast wave of strikes, an earthquake: every event produces truth by changing our way of being in the world. Conversely, any observation that leaves us indifferent, doesn’t affect us, doesn’t commit us to anything, no longer deserves the name truth. There’s a truth beneath every gesture, every practice, every relationship, and every situation. We usually just avoid it, manage it, which produces the madness of so many in our era. In reality, everything involves everything else. The feeling that one is living a lie is still a truth. It is a matter of not letting it go, of starting from there. A truth isn’t a view on the world but what binds us to it in an irreducible way. A truth isn’t something we hold but something that carries us. It makes and unmakes me, constitutes and undoes me as an individual; it distances me from many and brings me closer to those who also experience it. An isolated being who holds fast to a truth will inevitably meet others like her. In fact, every insurrectional process starts from a truth that we refuse to give up.

...

Don’t back away from what is political in friendship

We’ve been given a neutral idea of friendship, understood as a pure affection with no consequences. But all affinity is affinity within a common truth. Every encounter is an encounter within a common affirmation, even the affirmation of destruction. No bonds are innocent in an age when holding onto something and refusing to let go usually leads to unemployment, where you have to lie to work, and you have to keep on working in order to continue lying. People who swear by quantum physics and pursue its consequences in all domains are no less bound politically than comrades fighting against a multinational agribusiness. They will all be led, sooner or later, to defection and to combat.

The pioneers of the workers’ movement were able to find each other in the workshop, then in the factory. They had the strike to show their numbers and unmask the scabs. They had the wage relation, pitting the party of capital against the party of labor, on which they could draw the lines of solidarity and of battle on a global scale. We have the whole of social space in which to find each other. We have everyday insubordination for showing our numbers and unmasking cowards. We have our hostility to this civilization for drawing lines of solidarity and of battle on a global scale.

Expect nothing from organizations.

Beware of all existing social milieus,
and above all, don’t become one.

-

A lot of commodity production in capitalism exists primarily for the purposes of capital accumulation, so presumably no longer being compelled to work in order to obtain access to common goods and services, a lot of this production would cease to exist on the scale that it does today.

To clear up what it is that I mean by "we could do just fine with a lot of what we already have," I mean that by communizing the currently existing material goods necessary to reproduce ourselves in various ways (vacant homes and apartment complexes, clothing, dishes, pc's at the library or other social centers with internet access, cellphones, etc), a society that has mostly attained abundance, through the negation of capitalist relations, that ceasing the some of this production would not have much of a negative impact upon our lives. That is unless someone just wants to be contrarian for the sake of being edgy. Stopping the production of energy, water purification or waste management would likely result in mass death and the spread of disease, something of which I would consider to be bad.

As Einzige has recently said, or at least implied, elsewhere, production is mostly compulsory under capitalism, but that does not mean that without an external imperative enforced through hierarchical structures that humans would suddenly stop contributing to healthy ways of life, including scientific developments that embetter life rather than those that are deployed to reinforce domination, or stop transit services. I see anarchy and communism as mostly a self-regulating/ reproducing way of life, order out of chaos, in which the individual does not necessarily have their interests placed into distinct opposition with the collective.

Maybe this is a little anti-civ, but it certainly isn't primitivist. I see a role for automation in a post-capitalist society, but not new fucking I-Phones or vehicles every year, if ever again. Hell, I-Phones aren't even manufactured within the US anyway, so good luck with that if you want to produce some and may you manufacture your own suicide nets or cybernetic means of production. Notions of post-scarcity obtained through cybernetics may to some extent be valid to communistic ways of life, but as I said before, much of production as it exists would have to cease (there goes syndicalism, socialism and quantified rumuneration), and this is in partial consideration to how much damage we're currently doing to diverse environments with finite resources through our patterns of production/consumption.

The point is, all theory aside which gets fucking annoying to argue about, the IC and other people are going at it in various regions of the world and attempting to create new ways of life through the affirmation of themselves, whereas reactive nihilism isn't. Just because we haven't immediately abolished capitalism and the state doesn't mean that anarchists, wherever they are, should lose hope and make a career out of negativity even if there are no other-worlds. Autonomous zones and the proliferation of communes are virtually what I see as the only possible way out in a gradual, revolutionary process, but I would not attempt to discredit some of the more minor activities that the some of them participate within a diversity of practices either. And to say that there's a residue of Christian redemptionism in Tiqqun or IC just demonstrates that they have no idea of what they're talking about.

its just a collective mentality moving in the same direction. it eventually gets more and more extreme as their push only creates more problems. Its not an active or known conspiracy. It's a conspiracy of ignorance, it just so happens that ignorance, in a lot of cases, behaves the same no matter where its found.
That's why it seems everyone is getting dumber at different locations all over the world, at exactly the same time. They are all realizing that their dumb ideas aren't working, so they have to double down on all their shitty gambles in order for their worldview to remain intact.

The other day as I was cycling through the countryside I encountered a bunch of beings working to repair the road that I've previously destroyed with my PURE WILL. They were drenched in sweat and looked mercilessly tired as they were at the end of their long shifts (it was around 7 PM already). One of them looked at me with gravity, like a dog in leash who'd been whipped all day by his hours wasted at wage slavery under the heavy sun. Perhaps that was the "ACAB" emblazoned on my crusty fedora that gave this being this expression of cold disenchantment.

As I briefly looked in his eyes, I notice the bare immateriality of his axiom... the being was an idea of the ever-reifying need for restitution of the social order.

Then, only then... as I expressed a sudden, unpredictable burst of expletives from my mouth, the Idea suddenly was held in shock, then disappeared.

The asphalt then broke apart again. Don't ask me how did this happened, I'm too tired for it now and it's also super lame to go through the whole story.

I met with the local IC gang (Mtl), and they neither felt or looked true at all. They actually felt suspicious all over. Like a bunch of either undercovers or crypto-fascists holding honeypot activities and social centers. Also apparently big fans of Heidegger and other patriarchic mind dominators.

Finding authentic people in big cities is like a needle through a pile of straw bales, in a barn with surveillance cams and an angry violent dog nearby barking at anything that moves.

Please get real and recognize how hellish this society is in so many areas and at so many levels.

Who are our friends? This is a question of the first importance for the revolution. The basic reason why all previous revolutionary struggles in France achieved so little was their failure to unite with real friends in order to attack real enemies. A revolutionary party is the guide of the masses, and no revolution ever succeeds when the revolutionary party leads them astray. To ensure that we will definitely achieve success in our revolution and will not lead the masses astray, we must pay attention to uniting with our real friends in order to attack our real enemies.

"Such an attitude is one of shooting the arrow at the target. The "target" is the commune, the "arrow" is insurrection. We have been seeking this arrow because we want to hit the target of the commune and of the revolutions of the East. To take such an attitude is to seek truth from facts. "Facts" are all the things that exist objectively, "truth" means their internal relations, that is, the laws governing them, and "to seek" means to study. We should proceed from the actual conditions inside and outside the country, the province, county or district, and derive from them, as our guide to action, laws which are inherent in them and not imaginary, that is, we should find the internal relations of the events occurring around us. And in order to do that we must rely not on subjective imagination, not on momentary enthusiasm, not on lifeless books, but on facts that exist objectively; we must appropriate the material in detail and, guided by the general principles of struggle, draw correct conclusions from it."

Yes... like "appropriating" yourselves statist entities like a mairie, FNAC and MIT as well as renting posh buildings or apartments for your libraries were people aren't allowed to squat.

Lookin' forward to have the Material Girl as your upcoming mascot!

I don't know who you are or if you're just a troll, but I dunno about objective facts and truths rather than intersubjective truths constructed within the "internal relations of the events occurring around us" that contain their own ethics in praxes. So yeah, I can relate to that arrow of longing for the other shore which begins with an immediate practice in the present, anarchy and communism, but I don't see the formation of communes and insurrections as being mutually exclusive from each other, as if communes couldn't precede a generalized insurrection and eventual revolutionary process. It's a matter of carving out spaces from capital, the state and other hierarchical relations now and seeking to extend them to other areas. Of course, this could happen within an insurrectionary process itself that hasn't yet constituted communes so that the two are interlinked, but if one precedes the other I don't think that it makes much of a difference so long as the objective isn't to reconcile itself with the dominant order but to overcome it.

As for meeting "authentic people" as it was said by another poster, it sounds like Squee was at least in a pretty cool area favorable to planting the seeds of an insurrection and the formation of a commune, but this of course this would require some good old anarchist interventions. I'm not really sure that people are necessarily getting dumber, just that this era has produced a ton of docile bodies that are easily managed by the state.

Emile might post some really long comments that are sometimes difficult to comprehend with kind of an alternative, yet anarchist perspective that probably wont satisfy the more pissed off anarchists, but he's one of the few active forces here among some of the other anarchists on a site that just has some terrible posters, lol. Heretics or not, some people have really reduced the potential quality for interaction among anarchists on this site as a platform for circulating news about recent events; facilitating communication, critique, analysis and organization; etc. Is this what happened here after Occupy disappeared or what? With friends and anarchists like these, including some of the nihilists, who needs enemies?

Oh, and Toscano's critique if that's the one that's being linked to below is basically just another attack on those who don't accept or at least no longer accept Marxian categories and hermeneutics from which to proceed with a praxis. It's more or less just an extension of the dichotomy between the different tendencies of communization. The working class as mostly just an abstraction that a person, regardless of who it is they are, is defined by through their relationship to the means of production is no longer the revolutionary subject in this epoch. The working class was never as noble with objective interests as Marxists and class struggle anarchists would have liked to believe, in which I myself believed at one time. Hence, civil wars in every revolution. Could a worker become revolutionary though? Yeah.

I don't really think that the people I was meeting were any more or less authentic than anywhere else... Which is to say, I don't entirely buy the notion of "authenticity", nor anyone's ability to discern its signs from inauthentic behavior, relations, etc. I could tell you exactly what variables in my life change and influence the people I'm meeting, but it's not about me. Some places are just designed against the endurance of vibrant local subcultures (or become designed against them) and it's a very easy thing to pick up on. One of the first qualities of a place that enables local subcultures will be the visibility of the people and venues related to said subculture. If you're not getting poked by opportunities just walking around a place, it's because whatever they have going on there is underground (if existent at all). Here's something I wrote a couple years ago that probably has some 'clues' about how to do some of the informal anarchy stuff...

http://squee.anarchyplanet.org/informal-anarchist-praxis-an-open-discuss...

You mean, like... the shallow countercultural scene like in any major liberal Western city? What's anarchist with it?

Of course it's pointless discussing "authenticity" of people when delving in a sea of blatant artificial hispterisms and street-ooglism. The authentic person is just going to feel like an alien in such places.

The first specific descriptive quality of the places I'm talking about is that they're not overwhelmingly counter-cultural spaces. That's where I see the value in them. I think they're also more common in mid-sized cities and also ...not necessarily liberal. I don't even think that the qualities I'm considering need to be considered in an inner-city context. A lot of small towns have strips where people go to hang out and there isn't a cultural hegemony of any single subculture (especially a counter-culture).

I question authenticity from the position of doubting someone's claims to having been the author and/or origin of symbols, styles, ideas, etc. It depends how you're defining "authenticity" ...but I suspect a definition that could be used so whimsically that someone's "authenticity" could be determined upon meeting them is one I'd question. There just isn't a lot of stuff that would signify someone's "authenticity" in a circumstance where all practical significations are ordered by their appearance to distant sense impressions: superficial significations. Most of that game is a race to imply-by-reference-to-cultural-norms what someone wants to imply about themselves ...before they're written off as a hipster, oogle, punk, etc. The shallow interpretation is to presume that the individuals someone is meeting are providing enough meaningful information about themselves that there isn't a reason to consider them much further. Plenty of "authentic" persons don't feel alien in "such places", they often feel curious. Your disregard for people based on their appearance as "hipster" or "street-oogle" implies a distinctly liberal Western attitude. One based on a practical interest in writing off large quantities of people in highly populated areas.

But I may not even agree with myself about this all. I'd use a "strong voice" in my writing about it if I did.

Nah, dawg... I just hate civilized people in general. Especially they celebrate their own over-civilization. Didn't meabn to be harsh about your base neither, just wondering.

Yeah, I don't really subscribe to a notion of Heideggerian authenticity being of much practical use either, rather than the potential for pretty much anyone to become revolutionary in the situation besides the obviously counter-revolutionary forces. Like IC wrote, it's just a matter of finding each other at points of convergence like what Occupy, for the all of its flaws, did. This obviously still happens, it's just not as diffuse as it was a couple years ago. That or if possible starting out from your own position with likeminded people and getting starting towards something anarchistic.

I just think that some areas are going to be more favorable to pushing them towards an insurrectionary process through concerted anarchist effort, including those facing police repression, gentrification, evictions, shitty landlords, etc. Rent strikes and occupations of vacant buildings are always cool if you can get self-organized with enough people to participate in them, you're inevitably going to escalate conflict in order to defend these spaces and practices so long as people are determined enough to defend them, in which these spaces will either expand, die or become insular and irrelevant to the other people in proximity to them. Anarchists have lots of diverse practices available to them that can be circulated within the types of areas where the tensions with society are more apparent, and hell, even setting up communized breweries, cannabis production and permaculture can foster common and collaborative tendencies among people within these other practices. This would also entail decreasing the some of our reliance upon capitalism and set precedents for different ways of life outside of the ones in which we find ourselves in, with people still being able to enjoy life.

I wouldn't totally discount workplace struggle, but for me that would involve walk-outs, burning them down or expropriating shit, the all of which aren't very common occurrences in at least the US, but would be nice to see the more of here.

Where I live in the summer people tend to post up on blocks and kind of just do what they feel like, maybe not like where it was you were, but police try to disperse them and they start to get rowdy and converge towards one another, sometimes escalating into almost riots. It's been raining like hell lately though. Younger kids just spontaneously throw rocks at cars and block intersections and shit, it's actually pretty funny sometimes. But my proles!

The Heideggerian use of the term is more-so what I think is useful, just not in the context of meeting people. We may be talking past each other a little bit because I responded to seeing my nick-name, but haven't given To Our Friends a good reading. What I want to emphasize can be summarized as studying the history of the place where someone wants to experiment. So I'm not saying, "look for these places and act there" ...more-so asking other people with similar social situations how shit has been for them there. More broadly, I'm trying to use the context I'm familiar with as a case-study that other anarchists can look at for analyzing potential opportunities in their own lives.

Some stuff is more generalizable than others. In general, I can say that it's important to note the conflicts that already have been historically occurring between capital, the State, and the self-determination of individuals. What that means specifically can vary a lot. For instance, it doesn't make a lot of sense to encourage permaculture projects in neighborhoods where everyone rents and moves to a different apartment every year or so. At the same time, collective production projects make a lot of sense where people have access to space for it and can accumulate the wealth (means of production included) to keep it going. Or just things like... who wants to deal with the consequences of fighting an eviction if their tenancy wouldn't otherwise last more than a few months regardless?

In relation to Occupy, I think this commentary is especially relevant. Trying to Occupy different places in Phoenix was... depressing. Only a state away, Oakland was demonstrating a capacity for the technique that I never imagined could be pulled off. On the other hand, the history of activism in Phoenix around border issues, racism, and the insanity of Arizona laws was a very different set of enthusiasms and conflicts.

Anyway, I'm interested in analysis that includes local, context-specific details for similar reasons to my interest in analysis of people that includes their individual experiences. Not only from an abstract distaste for totalizing theories, but also for practical reasons of being able to accomplish what I want to accomplish. For as much as I hate capital and the State (and other forms of domination) in their abstract consideration, I absolutely despise the local manifestations of such and draw from that response a lot of my motivation to keep participating in this anarchy thing. It appears to me that this sort of motivation is shared by a lot of people who wouldn't otherwise be considered 'anarchist' or 'activist' or anything like that.

Good luck!

Can you explain again what is useful with this Nazi ideologue, aside than providing with books to burn?

No but if they had sided fully with Marx during the First International they'd be almost AS worthy of being rejected form an anarchist perspective than Heidegger, who completely sided with the Nazi regime and held anti-semitic hateful views long after the holocaust happened. This filth of a man doesn't deserve ANY credit whatsoever for what he did.

There's more conversations to have later. I'm leaving this one.

Heidegger was certainly a piece of shit in having joined the Nazi party, something that can't be condoned or justified by any consistent anarchist, but his philosophical thought has at least contributed to some productive engagements and creations that drifted away from his own thought among those that condemned fascism altogether, past and present. Fuck Heidegger as a person but not necessarily as a philosopher altogether, I'm not really invested in his philosophy rather than recognizing what the portions of it catalyzed with something that became completely different.

-

"At the same time, collective production projects make a lot of sense where people have access to space for it and can accumulate the wealth (means of production included) to keep it going."

Well, these means of production necessary for collective projects don't have to come from an individual's accumulated income that presumes large amounts of disposable income, which I certainly don't have, but can either be obtained from pooling resources and spaces together or expropriating them from capitalists through some proletarian shopping in the night. I live in an area where a lot of people have garages and backyards available to them attached to the properties it is that they rent. So, not the inner-city but the periphery of the metropolis in a city that has its own hoods, where I live myself, that are often structured according to income levels generated and a lot of the time race.

I'm just saying, positive collective projects as a way to set precedents for different ways of life should be also be considered as valid practices among other forms of struggle within conflictual tensions, once again potentially decreasing reliance upon capitalist relations. Things like permaculture can become applicable to areas in which there are vacant lots, where often older homes or buildings have dilapidated beyond repair and potential occupancy or no longer exist altogether due to say fires, even if outdoors in certain areas it's more of a seasonal method of production. We might conceive of anarchism in somewhat different ways, but the way I see it is that people just have to assert their autonomy and reclaim spaces from capitalist and state relations without reproducing other or new hierarchies within them. If anarchists happen to live in or relocate to the some of these areas, they could possibly just attune their praxes to whatever appropriate contexts to get something cool going, offering alternative perspectives that are more effective in practice than the usual protesting with picket signs. If we want these practices to be effective, such as rejecting evictions and property relations, we have to be willing to affirm ourselves and get organized with other people that are determined enough to fight.

This is obviously once again me pushing the proliferation of communes as the way out of this shit, with no rigid opposition between the negative and the positive that have often played out in the history of anarchist theory and practice. This is why I took the time to defend the Invisible Committee, as I think they offer a perspective worth considering for those who haven't rejected insurrectionary anarchism and gone full nihilist/defeatism that undermines everything, lol.

But yeah, Oakland has a long history of radical and revolutionary politics, so it kinda makes sense that they'd be a little more militant about things, lol. There's probably opportunities almost everywhere, just gotta identity the more favorable ones. I agree with you though, in my experience, that ordinary people (non-anarchists) can share these same motivations based upon their own life experiences. It's like what Malatesta once said about it being ridiculous to have such a notion that everyone would need to be some sort of an ideological anarchist to carry out a revolution that values manifold forms of freedoms in individual and social practice. I might not believe in the classical leftist revolution, nor do I think it's even necessarily desirable, but I still see ways out that can gradually overcome the dominant order through a gradual revolutionary process.

Anyway, good luck back to ya man.

How the fuck are Heidegger's connecting with the numerous commune project that have sprung much before, during and after his shitty life as a phallocratic henchmen of an old racist totalitarian order is beyond me! The autonomous communes and especially the struggle for the commons are centuries old, and Heidegger's pseudo-philosophical patronizing was all the way on the side of the protection of the same parasitic and racist despotism that opposed the communes.

I mean FUCK THIS SHIT! Heidegger was neither anarchist, anarchistic or even beneficial to anarchist or anti-authoritarian theory, and that's plain obvious... so where's this need to still suck his dickhead!?

I still challenge anyone here to show me just ONE single idea that is so original (i.e. not just reformulation of older theory) AND crucial for the building of any anarchist praxis in order to be saved from the same fate given to those "decadent" books that they're burned under the Third Reich, with Martin's blessing.

Otherwise fuck off and your zombie following of Nazi phallocrats. I got ZERO problem stealing and burning his fucking books that reek of intellectual domination all over.

Hahahaha, chill out if you're not just trolling. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not just parodying a pissed off anarchist and engage you, and especially to clarify some of your misunderstandings of my own position.

Heidegger was influential upon a ton of French philosophers, including the existentialists and post-structuralists to be, who were all explicitly anti-fascists, with the latter extending to people like Agamben all the way through Tiqqun. Say what you want about post-structuralism, but a lot of it is pretty anarchistic and in some ways better at conceptualizing how it is that power functions in our societies than classical anarchism ever was. Steal his books and burn them, I could really care less, but I don't think you're accomplishing much by doing this. You'd be better off breaking up a real fascist demonstration or stealing some books you could actually use, no?

I also never claimed that Heidegger was relevant to the formation of communes in the present, but whether you like them or not, like it or not, Tiqqun, as did many other people, appropriated Heideggerian concepts (among many others thinkers), so it just is what it is. Just because something is centuries old doesn't mean it's relevant in the same ways now and that shit hasn't drastically changed over time, regardless of whether we want the formation of autonomous communes or not.

The none of this may be relevant to anarchists who think their theories are insusceptible to change in the world around them (like many Marxists, for instance) and can stand on their own (even as an anarchist, I've always looked to other schools of thought to complement my own interpretative framework), but I myself appreciate practical philosophies, critical theory, sociology and so on as toolkits to enable a better understanding of the world around us so as to facilitate and better inform how to proceed and engage with it in practice. This means to a certain degree, when forced to by people like you, acknowledging Heidegger as having been an influential philosopher and how it his thought provided a catalyst to other thought rather than being completely ahistorical about it. Acknowledging all those prior moments that led to this moment, in which you likely wouldn't have ever existed if those others moments as whole didn't occur, i.e. chance and necessity through the diceroll, doesn't mean that Heidegger is beyond critique for his political activities.

Notions of intellectual domination and anti-intellectual ressentiment that tend to run rampant among some anarchists is something I've always thought was pretty shit. Sure, some people try to use their intellect often acquired through access to higher education to leverage power over others, which is itself shit, but is the solution to that for everyone to remain uneducated pertaining to potentially useful subjects or insular about various knowledges? You don't need to go to university to have access to these materials through which students are taught by academics, and I've always been too poor, unwilling to commit to taking student loans and tarnished by a drug related criminal record to do so anyway. The shit I want to do in life isn't something that I can necessarily make a career out of coming from the university anyway, so it just isn't for me.

Again to the point of nausea, I don't think Heidegger is crucial to anarchism nor am I trying to integrate him into any sort of anarchism, but I don't think kneejerk reactions to a casual mention are all that constructive either. It's not like anyone was saying he was a good guy for joining the Nazi party or cryptically calling for a reinstitution of fascism, just that when someone started talking about "authenticity" that's what I figured they were getting at, unless they didn't know it themselves. Nietzsche challenged the all of Western philosophy before Heidegger did, so having been influenced by him Heidegger may not have been as original as some people claim as having been the harbinger of this despite admittedly formulating novel philosophical concepts.

Oh, and all this Mao shit about "the friend" is what I'm assuming just confusing Schmitt's distinction between the friend and enemy, something along with the "partisan" that had been integrated into Tiqqun's writings a long time ago through a Foucaldian lens of civil war, something from Foucault that can probably to an extent be traced back to Nietzsche. This is why there's no redemptionism within them or their continuities, conflict will always exist in some form through agonistic manifestations of the will to power in ethical practices, something I agree with. There are no final outcomes, whether anarchist or Marxian recompositions of the fictional human community, just potentially better outcomes. Emma Goldman, an anarchist-communist, was influenced by Nietzsche and she was pretty cool and did neat stuff, as did Berkman. Then you have the individualistic anarchists to which many modern individualist oriented anarchists draw inspiration from, who were also influenced by him, in addition to Stirner. Noone exists in a vacuum.

I mean, there's a lot of post-leftists here, so obviously shit does need updating every now and then, right? I think Bonanno is probably among one of my favorite anarchist thinkers/OG's of praxis and I respect the history of anarchist theory and practice, but that doesn't mean we, or at least I, can't constructively engage with other modes of radical, non-authoritarian thought or philosophy while still retaining our integrity.

But yeah, I'm with you, FUCK THIS SHIT. Let's burn shit down and FUCK SHIT UP. Don't expect another response, hahahaha.

His books are still useful for anarchists, as a fire starter.

oops that was actually a quote from Mao Zedong, did I say it was the Invisible Committee? my bad

In my opinion, I really never understood anarcho-primitivism as a theory.

To me, anarchism is about managing hierarchal power structures so as one structure doesn't impose itself on one group over another.

In a pure state of nature, humans will have to vie for power against one another, kind of like the way the world is now in some parts.

To answer your question, no I can't imagine someone from less developed countries to expose this idea. I also don't think anyone seriously believes in it, because if they seriously do, and are reading this now, on their computer, they obviously value technology.

To me, anarchism means using capitalism as a way to accumulate profits in order to both savagely compete with non-anarchist capitalist forces while building empowerment through this accumulated capital...for me of course! Ha ha ha.

This is really an abysmal episode. They never actually engage with TIC's text. It's simply a naive and boring hatchet job done by "anarchists" who cling to the most "hip theory" even if they contradict each other, anti-civ/egoism/nihilism.

For an actual intelligent and in-your-face critic of the IC and their latest antics:

http://finimondo.org/node/206

One might think that "latest antics" would refer to something more recent than a text written five years ago...

Ok, I wasn't saying that "To Our Friends" was their latest antics. I had some other things in my mind... like their very mainstream, State-sanctionned publication channels, for an instance.

The link you posted was written (at least) five years ago. That's not "latest."

What exactly does "State-sanctionned [sic]" mean in this context? If the state hasn't criminalized a particular publisher, wouldn't that make it "state-sanctioned" by default?

"State-sanctioned"

"Sanctioned:

[sangk-shuh n]

noun
1. authoritative permission or approval, as for an action.
2. something that serves to support an action, condition, etc.
3. something that gives binding force, as to an oath, rule of conduct, etc.
(...)"
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sanction

So "sanction" means "enabling" and/or "support", especially coming from a given authority. A State may sanction terrorism, or some business activity, or cultural productions, or academic publications.

Soooo... Any publication made through legally-sanctioned and State-supported publishers (MIT and FNAC are both statist organizations that also are actively supported by their respective regimes) can be described as "State-sanctioned".

Also please examine the origins of your butthurt... There might be something sectarian down there.

I consider their book deals with FNAC and MIT's Semiotext(e) as part of their "latest antics", and 2009 isn't that far back... Furthermore, you're really just nitpicking over small meaningless rhetorical details from MY part to avoid addressing the critical text linked above.

You missed my points, which are about your careless use of loaded terms. When you refer to the Invisible Committee's "latest antics," a careful reader would conclude that you're pointing to their most recent book "To Our Friends," not "The Coming Insurrection." The link you posted is a review of the latter, written at least five years ago; it is not a critique of the IC's "latest antics" at all.

What I questioned about your use of "state-sanctioned" was the notion that just because it's published doesn't mean that it's supported by the state. I specifically said "by default"; just because something isn't censored or criminalized doesn't mean it's supported or enabled by the state.

Most people will probably "avoid addressing the critical text linked above," if only because it doesn't concern "To Our Friends," which is the actual topic of this thread...

Ok so if I say you were right, will you do something better with your life!?

No.

I'm genuinely disturbed by the "To Our Friends" part of the show... Felt like I just found out a good friend of mine had been fucking my lover all this time without saying. You know you won't last long with this type of unfathomable, disrespectful bullshit that's really based on your favorite dude's pure misinformation and overt prejudice towards struggles that DID mobilize a lot of spirit and energies of rebellion.

The joke's on you, FRR. You would better had said upfront that you're the pigs and that would have looked better than this.

"struggles that DID mobilize a lot of spirit and energies of rebellion"

so is your argument based on spirit and energies or do you have more "material" or "historical" evidence (to use TIC's measuring stick) of the civil unrest they champion bringing us towards anarchy, or away from the present for that matter?

If you are genuinely disturbed because of spirit and energies may I recommend arranging some crystals or perhaps burning some sage?

Is there some sort of revolutionary chronology that people are integrated into that I'm missing? I would honestly love for someone to list out major instances of civil unrest within the past fifteen or so years, and the subsequently changed conditions that each instance has caused (or even at least the instances TIC mentions).

In Oakland, as an example, unrest has led the police to begin to transition their tactics from crowd "control" to crowd "management". In case you need a diagram:
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/05/26/a-guide-to-protesting-in-oak...

Give me just ONE instance of a riot that had the aim of radically changing the social order or taking it down, jackass.

Gimme gimme!

You also are referring to stuff that happened in Greece like Athens 2008 was some place in the Bay in 2011, grossly applying your views of the Almighty & Invincible Police State in the Bay and extrapolating to whatever other distance place in the galaxy, therefore spitting your pacified dog's venom to whoever dared rising up in the past against a similar, related social order.

You've used your poor, shallow, misinformed understanding of the Greek riots in order to spew your resentment back on the people who believe in you, some of which who also took part in these insurrections and know fully how they were never aimed at changing the social order, but only to DO THEMSELVES JUSTICE AND GET REVENGE, collectively, and smash the jewels of capitalist society.

- Disturbed by your inquisitorial, moralist stupidity

"Give me just ONE instance of a riot that had the aim of radically changing the social order or taking it down, jackass." ...May '68, for starters

Wow, are we talking about the same thing?? Apparently I have been misunderstanding the insurrectionary position for a while now. If all you are doing is rioting to "DO [YOURSELF] JUSTICE AND GET REVENGE, collectively" then go ahead. Justice and revenge are such broad and subjective terms, especially when you leave them undefined, so if they just mean self-satisfaction then good for you.

That you equate me with a pacified moralist, or your strange metaphor about dog venom, are beyond me. Can you please explain to me what exactly I said that was posited on moral grounds? You know morality means more than an opinion that you disagree with right? Or maybe define morality by your standards, honestly interested to hear

Also can you please describe to me what it means to "smash the jewels of capitalist society", because like justice and revenge, you are speaking with total abstractions. Are you talking about windows??

"May '68, for starters"

...

Wait, you mean that same May '68 that mainstream liberal petty bougie French teachers have been so laudatory about for years... as youngsters were burning their schools and rioting outside?

Ha-HAahAHahHAAHAHAHAHAHHAHAH...

You've never been to France, I see.

"Justice and revenge are such broad and subjective terms" Yep, they are indeed for you, from the comfort of your basement, wanker. But go ask to the people who revolted in Ferguson, Baltimore and elsewhere over the shooting of a Black dude is "justice" and "revenge" were broad and subjective terms that are only about their "self-satisfaction". Of course... it's all about the Self, not? When it's not people from your White hipster milieu, who cares about these fancy nebulous concepts? Plus solidarity is sooo Leftist... because Stirner and stuff.

The moralism in that Tatcher trumpet testosterone-free guy was all about his fundmentalist notion of "insurrection" and how according to him, not anyone in the West has achieve his unattainable ideal of an insurrection that takes down the entire social order overnight, or at most in a few weeks.

Honestly, most if not all of the great social uprisings since the end of WW2 appear to have failed by your unreachable parameters, aside than perhaps some native resistances and the recent Black uprisings, who does appear to have paid off. May I also throw in the insurrection in Iceland... but wait, no, they didn't become a full anarchy and destroyed all of their reliance on technology.

Jeez! Your bar is sooo high I wonder if you yourself ever touched it!

Hi, I'm new to this conversation. What the hell are either of you talking about?

yes, I still stand by the notion that some people in May '68 had the "aim of radically changing the social order or taking it down", regardless of the results and especially regardless of how teachers talk about it anywhere. pretty much any given text, pamphlet, or graffiti slogan practically screamed for that goal.

Example from The Address to All Workers by students: "The occupation of factories and public buildings throughout the country has not only brought a halt to the functioning of the economy, it has brought about a general questioning of the society. A deep-seated movement is leading almost every sector of the population to seek a real transformation of life."

Defining words differently isn't a moral dispute. Unless you can explain why this is an exception? Bonnano had a somewhat broad definition of insurrection, but still had the revolution as an end goal towards anarchy, i.e. the insurrection wasn't the end goal in itself, as you are suggesting. Am I arguing with an anarchist? I suppose I haven't asked and you haven't claimed to be one, so maybe you are just an insurrectionist and not an insurrectionary anarchist? Totally serious inquiries.

I think the protests in Ferguson and Baltimore didn't accomplish anything save perhaps a more functional police force. "the recent Black uprisings, [which] appear to have paid off." Paid off how, because they achieved reform and now have to wear body cameras? What is your gauge for success? Yes, by my standards, they have all failed, because we are deeper in the shit than ever (which is somehow unaffected by people's sense of personal justice). Did those people really attain justice somehow? The people the cops murdered are still dead and the police are still doing their jobs. Would people from Baltimore or Ferguson even claim they have achieved justice? Somehow I doubt it, though I wouldn't be surprised by liberal standards.

But these insurrections have been "glorious" "pivotal" and "inspiring" for so many people (according to the comment below), so who am I to argue with even more broad and baseless terms of victory? Frame your stuggle that way and you will always win, and I won't challenge the fact that you thought it was glorious.

Still hilarious that you seem to think that asserting your manliness and deep voice is insulting more than it shows what a dipshit you are.

So if that is true... since there were radical groups behind May '68 aimed at changing the social order radically, then THAT is your instance of insurrectionary failure, not 2008 in Greece, not the countless huge strikes and suburban riots in France, not any other sudden uprising in reaction to State violence. I mean even the Situationists admitted the failure May '68, they were very explicit about it as they went deep in the details of how it did fail, mainly because of the "soft power" element.

The Greek anarchists back in 2008 have achieved what they wanted to achieved, they did just what they intended, which wasn't much from a far-sight, broad vision perspective, but the anarchist anti-State perspective did assert itself as a major, united force. But this was only a massive offensive against society, that followed upon years of rebellion, and was followed as well by more organized insurgency. Same for the recent anti-police riots in the US, that reached their goal of making the entire State forces (minus perhaps the NGO element) accountable for their organized violence against minorities and the poor. So how can you bitch about the long-term outcome of it when you don't even know yourself how far and broad it could have been pushed for several more weeks/months, so to overthrown the entire dominant order (the "existent")? Again... who the fuck are you to judge that and what do you about it, you whiney bitch?

"I think the protests in Ferguson and Baltimore didn't accomplish anything save perhaps a more functional police force."

Yes, I easily expected that was your take on that... completely omitting the growing momentum/critique against the police among the proles, especially Black people, that resulted from the Ferguson uprising, that includes the tactic of rioting against their order, when its not "shooting them back" that have been put back on the menu, and also the prosecution of the cops in Baltimore, an exclusivity in a world of full police legal impunity. Of course... any gesture of violent response HAS to equate a more violent State response.

Let's just say that I can totally put it down a linguistic funnel and this view would retain all its meaning: "revolting means more repression". Who else I've been hearing that from for years... oh yeah! The most reactionary elements of that sheepish "nonviolence" crowd.

But you're sure I ain't the one who's feeding a troll!? Really? I got this impression I'm wasting my breath for a reactionary persYn who's already well set in his views of insurrection. Of course... true anarchist uprising against social order is all about getting rid of those testosterones, and also veganism! Uuuuugh! Callin' Alex Jones to the rescue, you Queer Rambo!

Mods feel free to remove this post. I've just tit the "Save" instead of the "Preview" button...

So if that is true... since there were radical groups behind May '68 aimed at changing the social order radically, then THAT is your instance of insurrectionary failure, not 2008 in Greece, not the countless huge strikes and suburban riots in France, not any other sudden uprising in reaction to State violence. I mean even the Situationists admitted the failure May '68, they were very explicit about it as they went deep in the details of how it did fail, mainly because of the "soft power" element.

The Greek anarchists back in 2008 have achieved what they wanted to achieve, they did just what they intended, which wasn't much from a far-sight, broad vision perspective, but the anarchist anti-State perspective did assert itself as a major, united force. But this was only a massive offensive against society, that followed upon years of rebellion, and was followed as well by more organized and well-articulated insurgency. Same for the recent anti-police riots in the US, that reached their goal of making the entire State forces (minus perhaps the NGO element) accountable for their organized violence against minorities and the poor.

So how can you bitch about the long-term outcome of it when you don't even know yourself how far and broad it could have been pushed for several more weeks/months, so to overthrown the entire dominant order (the "existent")? Again... who the fuck are you to judge that and what do you KNOW about it, you whiney bitch? How the fuck you're even a comrade or accomplice in this war, so to conduct such harsh, moralist, judgmental criticism of what other insurgents did in the past?

"I think the protests in Ferguson and Baltimore didn't accomplish anything save perhaps a more functional police force."

Yes, I easily expected that was your take on that... completely omitting the growing momentum/critique against the police and their State among the proles, especially Black people, that resulted from the Ferguson uprising, that includes the tactic of rioting against their order, when its not "shooting them back" that have been put back on the menu, and also the prosecution of the cops in Baltimore, an exclusivity in a world of full judicial police impunity, where even cops get court waivers even for murderous violence carried when not in service. Of course... any gesture of violent response HAS to equate a more violent State response. Because the State only gets violent and invasive and militarized in response insurgencies... Duh!

Let's just say that if I put it down a linguistic funnel, this view retains all its meaning: "revolting means more repression". Who else I've been hearing that from for years... oh yeah! The most reactionary elements of that sheepish "nonviolence" crowd.

I got this impression I'm wasting my breath for a reactionary persYn who's already well set in his views of insurrection. Of course... true anarchist uprising against social order is all about getting rid of those testosterones, and also veganism! Uuuuugh! Callin' Alex Jones to the rescue, you Queer Rambo!

Glory... Victory... Two very different concepts.

"Also can you please describe to me what it means to "smash the jewels of capitalist society", because like justice and revenge, you are speaking with total abstractions. Are you talking about windows??"

No. About insurgents smashing windows, not to satisfy themselves, but to get through these (and also the much tougher roller shutters) in order to completely destroy bank branches and corporate outlets with molotov cocktails, or massively loot and smash those that haven't been burned. Also anarchists fighting those other jewels of capitalism, the pigs, with weapons in the streets, from sticks to molotovs to (sometimes) AK rifles.

I'm expecting nothing less from that T.V. trumpet and even Rydra to even further assert their reactionary, dishonest analysis at the next episode, in reaction to the backlash, instead of just being grown ups and admit they've just went too far in the wrong direction and back off a bit to ponder on their claims. That's the trademark of dicks.

And for fuck's sake have you listened to yourselves already? You did sounded like Tatchers.

It would be much easier to respond if you actually offered an analysis on why you disagree with me beyond that my voice apparently sounds like a trumpet. Though, that you expect everyone to sound a certain way suggests that whatever boring vision of anarchism you adhere to is garbage.

Insurrection towards masculine conformity, huzzah!!

So you did manage to not read anything from the comment written above!? Okay, how about you pay me so I can work for you so I'll repeat and retransliterate all that's been written already about YOUR profound lack of analysis in the form of sheer condescending, resentful, immature pissing over a glorious insurrectionary moment that HAS been inspiring, pivotal for tons of anarchists in the West, at least for several years... no matter how it was understood in your hood as "let's go black bloc and smash some windows and throw newspaper boxes in the street to destroy the Existent!". Say what... shill?

Support Democrats for more LGBTQ BBQs in liberal Safe Space America TM! Free Putin butt plugs for all DNC attendees, yeeeaaauuuh!!!

"commentS written above"

what the hell is Tatchers? do you mean Margaret Thatcher?

No I meant those Tatcher brothers, a.k.a the "Tatchers". You know... those British-German imperialist douchebags who popularized the "Kaiser" ivory butt plug back in the 1870's!?

link? or first names? can't tell if trolling or just making some obscure reference not even the internet knows about

Here's the source, brosistha...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKxTH107jgs

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
CAPTCHA
Human?
n
Z
e
5
C
A
r
Enter the code without spaces.
Subscribe to Comments for "FRR Episode 83:  Who are Your Friends?"
society