letter from amelia nicol

<table><tr><td>Destruction of property is not violent; smashing someone’s head with a baton is violent. We can remove ourselves from this violent situation that is the oppression of industrial, corporate government society entirely in being non-violent in self-sustaining community, in squatting. However, this is something that is illegal, that has been made so because of the money machine of corporate industry that is stealing our lives from us in the violent oppression that finds its ability in monetary value; to try to remove ourselves completely from money sees the oppression of the actuality that it is illegal to be homeless. So, pretty much, if you don’t have a job, they will find a way to make their blood money off of you in jail or prison, through their probation and parole that says if you don’t have a job, we’ll force you to, and if you can’t pay us for punishing you, we will put you back behind bars.

Stealing people’s lives from them is violent, and it is not surprising that when we feel so horribly oppressed, we lash out in different ways; most of us, however, are ethical enough not to harm others’ bodies in this process. It is obvious that the frustrations and pull toward violence is caused by that violent oppression that seems to constantly be pushing on our backs; we demand our freedom from monetary value, from corporation, from this business government, and when we see that we are more harshly oppressed for these residual feelings of entrapment we feel justified in our frustrations. </td><td><img title="justification was never the issue" src="http://anarchistnews.org/files/pictures/2011/nicol-amelia.jpg"></td></tr...

Something, however, I believe that we need to step back and recognize; when we are ‘violent’ that is to say, when we supposedly ‘provoke’ them, they use it to try to fuel and justify even more of their violent oppression. On a global scale, to recognize that if we are trying to ‘fight’ violent oppression with that same spirit of oppression, of forcing our will upon others, this will only see a repeated cycle of that same oppression, which is that which sets up openings for capitalist dictators and centralized militancy. So what are we to do? We are violently oppressed for the simple expression of a smashed window, and punished for their violence. There seems to be no winning, because their violent machine and propaganda is a trap in this way. If we are non-violent, we get attacked, if we are ‘violent’ we get attacked.

So what are we to do? If we have any sort of war, the world is set up in such a way that this means only some sort of debt is created through the use of monetary value, and we once again are forced to set up some sort of centralized banking, which is the centralized militancy that the entire world is already under; regaurdless of whatever clever guise, it’s all centralized rule based on monetary value with some sort of dictator or oligarchy ruling it. Any kind of war would be the continuation of everything we already see on a global basis; the forced oppression of people is the forced oppression of people; regaurdless of whatever side you believe that you are on, violence feeds the propaganda, war, money, industry machine that is that which we all work to have freedom from.

So, rather than supposedly ‘provocative’ direct action, what if our direct action was squatting in self-reliant communities? What if our direct action is stopping the use of money all together by finding ways in which to live so that we no longer have a need for it? PROBLEM: what about all of us that have had our lives stolen in so many ways by this system, to the point that we are trapped from doing such? Probation, a violation of which would end up making them more money, is the reason that I am currently unable to remove myself from this bloody, violent society; I am literally being forced to have some sort of residence, some sort of income, and pay for my own punishment, because if I don’t, I will be sent to prison and make them money that way, after which I would have an even longer sentence of parole and probation; and if I don’t pay them, I’ll have my life taken away. Again.

And what of the system that says to resist it’s idea of a god that is the belief in money means that you are some terrorist, that you are then targeted and forced violently in to some form of payment? This, is called humyn sacrifice to the god of money. So, what are we to do? The smallest of supposed ‘crime’ on our part *cough (firework), is seen as a full fledged attempt to murder someone. The most peaceful of protests, squatting, is seen as terrorism. I for one do not believe that any bank or corporation can own property, and I do not believe that I owe any government, corporation, or business my time or any part of my life. I DO NOT BELIEVE IN MONEY. And yet, I am being trapped by it. And they wonder why we feel like smashing their windows? I would NEVER want to cause harm to anyone, to any body, nor do I wish to force myself upon anyone else in any way.

The most difficult part of my current position as a person who is being forced, violently into this type of supposed submission to a system of monetary value is to find a way out of their war scemes, out of their money, and hopefully, out of their system and ideas of life entirely. I fight not to fight, in so many ways, I fight to find ways out of their violence, because this is the way in which they make money, and I fight to find solidarity with my brothers and sisters; because we’re all trying to find ways to exist in a society that they have tried to make impossible for us to exist in. We demand the freedom to EXIST; we do not owe anyone for this. For global equality in squatters rights, in self sustaining; in as many ways as we possibly can, let’s remove ourselves from this society, from the rule of money and live in actual community. Because it seems that we cannot win or lose, let’s remove ourselves as much as possible and take care of and protect eachother.

In solidarity with all those who are working for freedom, in whatever way they see that manifested in their own lives.

Comments

I DON'T EVEN LIKE MONEY,
AND I GOT TO WORK EVERY DAY JUST TO FEED MYSELF.
GOD IT MAKES ME SICK!
I JUST WANNA CURL UP INTO A HOLE AND DIE IN THIS.
THIS ISN'T WORTH IT.
I NEED A RAISE MAN!
I CAN'T SURVIVE ON THIS FAITH ANYMORE.

"I CAN'T SURVIVE ON THIS FAITH ANYMORE."

You just resumed about 2000 years of Western history in a one-liner. Bravo.

I'd like to see more of that stuff on Twitter, but the one-liners there don't even make sense, when they are even coherent sentences!

"ALL ROADS LEAD TO ROME (WASHINGTON)" How's that?

No, not as good.

ALL THE ROADS LEAD TO SUBURBIA

and stop shouting!

Fuck the man, man!

Beautiful essay Amelia!! You have summarised the anarchist spirit so well. I love you sister!

"For global equality in squatters rights, in self sustaining; in as many ways as we possibly can, let’s remove ourselves from this society, from the rule of money and live in actual community. Because it seems that we cannot win or lose, let’s remove ourselves as much as possible and take care of and protect each other."

With all considerations with my experiences of massive social struggles and their failing, you are dead on, Amelia.

Our failure against society as insurgents is not really when we go to jail following smashing and rioting, but the next day when we go back to work/school, consume, and make more money to buy more crap, and to pay a fat parasite every month for having a decent shelter, and food.

Just as in the Tao principle, that the best way to win is to not play at all... or stop playing.

Word, Amelia, word!

fuck you worker.

if you don't like my spec scripts just say something

OK, then, if destruction of property is not violent, then why don't you start with your own things?
Smash your laptop, your cell phone, hell, burn all your clothes.
When you are done, start with your buddy's belongings, because it's obviously non-violent, they shouldn't get angry, right?

OK, that was a tongue in cheek comment. However, please consider that there is a lot of labor invested in everything you destroy.
It is better to take something for the use of many, instead of dishing out random destruction, it is barbaric.

Why not both? Anyway, I don't like this frame on the violence argument. Debating the finer points of what constitutes violence means you're being drawn in to the stupid liberal dualism of violence = bad.

Only in the most sheltered parts of the world can we torture logic and rationalize violence as anything but a fundamental fact of life. Violence just is, you can't say anything intelligent about it without context and much and more violence will be necessary to majorly disrupt the flows of capital, just as much violence is needed to maintain them.

hey, amelia here, and yeah, i actually deleted part of this that commented on that same thing; if we smash 'their' shit, and then they raid our homes, there is a two sided duality to that, for sure. however, i chose to delete that part because i was more trying to draw clear inferences in the type of violence we actually see from them, and the type that they say we commit. so, again, to remove ourselves as much as possible from the situation on both sides seems to most likely result in actual freedom. of course, i wrote parts in solidarity with my brothers and sisters that are not necessarily justified in any sort of nihilism, but rather understood in their shows of frustrations.
thanks.

I'm not the other commenter, but don't you think this whole

I mean if brainwashed citizens and pacifists are blaming us for the violence, we just have to answer the good old '60s way... that is "who's really being violent here? Is the black bloc invading and destroying the Middle-East right now?"

Furthermore, the whole issue of violence serves Power many times more than the movement. It's effective at dividing the dissenters, and preventing the insurgents from becoming too violent. And yeah, the State really wants to keep dissenters from becoming violent, as they know it can spiral out of control in the US. Not because they are peace-lovers.

Of course, the principle of not reproducing oppression is crucial, but I tend to believe that oppression TOWARDS THE OPPRESSORS (and their devices) is what has been lacking, not sending people to jail. Even if the Police State would fall, there still would be oppressors, but when an oppressor gets oppressed, especially by a larger group of people, he shuts the fuck up and learns to behave. that's the idea of social relations based on open conflictuality (conflictuality doesn't mean violence).

The issue of us being targeted and repressed for the actions we do has more to do, actually, with those actions being identifiable to the source, rather than committed by some "unknown pissed off people". That's the real reason why I'm not for a black bloc firsthand, because it puts a label on attacks that becomes threatening to the anarchist milieu afterwards.

The same goes for sending your communiques always on sites like this one, instead of other, less-political, places on the net.

Concealment and camouflage in a social struggle is all about connecting, if not merging, with a greater number of unrelated people. Dressing up as black bloc keeps you from it in a crowd. It serves a dual purpose: security, and extending the movement as far and wide as it can reach.

I admire what you've done, as you brought a contribution to building a confrontational social dynamic between people and the regime. That's probably the best thing a person can do against such a totalitarian society.

Anarchists are not Gandhi, douchebag.

But of course, a cop car and a bank's window can of use for the "many", Riiight.

whicjh fiuckin mprisomn yuo imn amelia im gopnna puit a brick tjhrew tejh cvlosesdyt fucklin townsd councilk windowe an gety lockedf up nexct to yuou for a while and bne yuour bodyguarfgd an hgive youi dirtecvty sdupport nuithinm muichj happnion out herte im borfed i luv yuou,..,8ball

I totally sympathize with your desire to remove yourself from this society to whatever extent possible. On countless occasions, I have wanted to leave civilization entirely - in a sense, a desperate desire to forget its existence. However, as a means of resistance, I am at the very least, skeptical of it's potential. The fact is that leading by example doesn't work when you are facing a highly oppressive and powerful system. Thus, the more good-hearted anarchists and others who leave this society, the easier it will be for this society to destroy the remnants of dissent and of alternative life-ways. Maybe this means we can't win, no matter what, and so we should just live our lives as peacefully and antithetically to the mainstream as possible on an individual level (lifestyle anarchism), accepting the inevitability that it will ultimately destroy all of our humanity and everything good. However, I'm not sold on the inevitability of their victory against us if we fight actively against this system while in some capacity still existing from within it. To the contrary, living in communes in the woods, while I don't fault anyone for doing it, seems even less likely to bring about any kind of tangible change. Maybe this isn't really what you are suggesting; I do agree that squatting has some potential to be a powerful force politically (though low). I just think that actively fighting back has to be a component of successful resistance. Your thoughts?

I agree with you in many ways; that by removing ourselves from this society entirely, we are enabling furthur oppression upon those whom stay, but honestly, if we are all in constant communication, and building a global society based on squatters rights and this very thing, i believe that they are forced to take notice, and this can be that which is 'fighting back'. also, what do you see as fighting back? because again, looking at this, we see that we cannot win with any tactics based on replying to them; because this society is set up in such a way that any way in which we reply to their violence, especially with violence (or supposed violence), but a community tactic of trying to remove ourselves from this society is key. i don't want to save any part of this society; i don't want any sort of reform, i don't expect to have industry under our 'rule', i want revolution. respectfully to you, i totally understand your views; however, what do you suggest as "actively fighting back"? don't actually answer (security culture), but i think we need to really look at what a huge difference taking away their ability to oppress us in monetary value WOULD have; if we're not funding them in any way, not buying any of their corporate violence, and not being part of this society, they then lose their ability to oppress us. because, we understand how to live without money, they don't understand that. they are a paycheck. take away the tax-paid paycheck, the violence funded by our buying of corporate stuffs, and we remove the demand from the violent supply.

love,
amelia

In jour former post there was a bit of blur in what you describe as liberating ourselves from the money System. It's just that some commenters may have believed you were going the hippie way, or else to Mongolia ;)

But you just convinced to stand up for my rights as a squatter! Only problm is that the city where I'd lie to put up that fight is filled with people who actually still see it as a virtue to work for a rent. Really, I've been trying to convince some people the best I could, but they don't care. I guess I'll find better allies in Europe...

Amelia writes “The most difficult part of my current position as a person who is being forced, violently into this type of supposed submission to a system of monetary value is to find a way out of their war scemes, out of their money, and hopefully, out of their system and ideas of life entirely. I fight not to fight, in so many ways, I fight to find ways out of their violence, because this is the way in which they make money, and I fight to find solidarity with my brothers and sisters; because we’re all trying to find ways to exist in a society that they have tried to make impossible for us to exist in.”

There are two types of people in this world, and it would appear that we have both in each of us. If, when the world had few people in it, the families that were there divided it up evenly amongst themselves, and lived extravagantly in great abundance, then new families kept coming so that the number of families quadrupled, and because the living space remained the same, the same source of nurturance had to provide for four times as many people. The families who had kept control of their land had two different responses to the new circumstances in the world; (a) ‘we have a right to continue to live/behave in the manner that we have grown accustomed to’, and (b) ‘we all share inclusion in a common living space and as it becomes more populated, we must let those evolving conditions orchestrate our behaviours in such a manner as to cultivate, restore and sustain balance in the relational space we all share inclusion in.

[[N.B. In a society that retains family land through the eldest male son, the ethic of 'I am entitled to continue to operate as my father and grandfather operated regardless of changing conditions' becomes the every embodiment of ego and patriarchy, as could be seen during the waves of immigration into the U.S.]]

These two types of responses to evolving conditions in the common living space, we also experience in driving in the flow of the freeway; e.g. where a bottleneck in the road is being approached so that the space that was formerly available is no longer available and a reduction is being imposed from the outside-inward on the inhabitants that share inclusion in that space. If everyone persists in the (a) attitude where it is a ‘civil right’ to behave as you have previously been behaving, then one has the scenario of the three stooges who all ‘compete’ to get through the same narrow doorway at the same time. [this is not so funny if three vehicles try it, or three colonizers try to gain entry to the same country, yet it is justified in the social darwinism legitimized concept of 'competition']

These two different ethics also show up in the economy; i.e. monetary and financial systems are based on trust and have given rise to a cloud of ‘virtual wealth’ that can expand several times beyond its tangible grounding. When the shrinkage in values comes, we are all in the same space and the shrinkage comes for all of us. However, if we used our life savings of seventy-five thousand and borrowed one hundred and twenty five thousand to purchase a two hundred thousand dollar house which, when the shrinkage came, was only worth fifty thousand, then still owe one hundred and twenty-five thousand, commonly pledged in terms of years of hard labour, while people who made sure that their houses and cars were debt free and were investing only virtual wealth could only lose virtual wealth. In other words, in the game of capitalism, some people are playing only with monopoly money and others are paying with pledges of blood, sweat and tears. This means that boom-and-bust works to the advantage of those playing with virtual wealth since each cycle enslaves the masses who have real ‘skin in the game’ and condemns them to years of hard labour, while others experience only an adjustment to their books. The banks and financial institutions that bring the game to us all are predominantly in the latter category. The laws of the sovereign state and the police and military that back up the laws protect this enslavement of masses.

THIS SYSTEM IS SO CLEARLY ‘CRAP’ that people such as anthropologist David Harvey can easily mock it in cartoon form, as in his animated cartoon ‘Crises in Capitalism’

“In this RSA Animate, renowned academic David Harvey asks if it is time to look beyond capitalism towards a new social order that would allow us to live within a system that really could be responsible, just, and humane.”

The enslavement that associates with the capitalist system goes back to this basic ethic of how we address ‘shrinkage’, as in the analogy to the bottleneck in the freeway. If values drop by four times, then everyone must put in four times as much for the same thing that formerly required only a quarter as much. If that thing is ‘breakfast’, then it is evident that there are both chickens and pigs contributing to it. The chickens must contribute four times as many eggs while the pigs must contribute four times as many slices of bacon; i.e. not everyone has ‘skin-in-the-game’ yet the laws of the sovereign state treat everyone as ‘equals’ and thus the pigs become the slaves of the chickens.

The effect of your emprisonment, Amelia, and the heartfelt eloquence in your letter, is not constrained to ‘rallying people to the cause’. It is also, at the same time, a wake-up call to the logical flaws in our Western intellectual socio-economic architecture. Waking people up to its absurdity erodes belief in it, and sovereigntism and capitalism are absurd systems that rise and fall on the basis of belief in them.

nobody wants to eat those chickens that r raised without heads and legs in the labratorie anyway, they would only be able to consume a beautiful liberte chicken rouge from another country, which will go unnamed...therfore, kernel sanders tries to eat the juicy PIG. no, sorry, the pigs are slippery you fiends. nobody is having bacon. they can just look at there mutilated industrial bred chciken sitting there with nothing to eat and no hands or even a beak. GROSS.

I appreciate that, and I appreciate your thoughts on and around much of the same; I don't want to ever be pushing a dogma, but rather spreading awareness about where we have existed, and where it is possible to. It is an incredibly complex problem that you spoke into beautifully, and I believe it has a rather simple answer; self-sustaining.
thanks for your reply and the freedom in your thought.

amelia

hi amelia,

i sensed this orientation to ‘balance/harmony’ in your writing and it sounds to me like you are on a solid tack.

‘self-sustaining’ is a key topology to me since it connotes ‘resonance’ as is the basis of all material form/dynamics, and it distances understanding from the absolutizing that we [Western civilization] have indoctrinated ourselves in, like the absolute being of ‘things-in-themselves’ that goes hand-in-hand with the notion of local, internal sourcing of the behaviour of ‘things-in-themselves’, the foundational principle of Western justice.

justice founded on such absolutist concepts of dynamics flies in the face of our experience that the inhabitants of a common habitat are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat at the same time as the dynamics of the habitat are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants. [Mach’s principle]. when people are forcibly penned into a fixed area and some of the inhabitants put the squeeze on others, then those feeling oppressed are naturally going to fight for more breathing space, and when they do, it is absurd to insist that their behaviours are jumpstarting from within their own interiors, a Fiktional notion that is meanwhile foundational to ‘morality’ and ‘moral laws of behaviour’. moral law is applied to ‘the individual’ as if he/she were a ‘thing-in-itself’ moving about and interacting in an absolute fixed empty and infinite space and time reference frame, a space very different from the physical space described by Mach and modern physics.

the absurdities built into Western justice and morality echo the absurdities that david harvey/marx point out in the attaching of ‘value’ to ‘money’ where ‘gains’ through pure financial wizardry [trading in symbolic monetary instruments] are at the same time extracting years of hard labour from others. in the same category are the absurdities where people breaking down from the stress of living in this dysfunctional society are quickly institutionalized and/or drugged or both to stop these ‘disturbed people’ from ‘disturbing’ the smooth functioning of society-as-it-is [absurdly], protecting the source of the disturbing [societal dysfunction].

your hold on ‘balance’ that is evident in your statements forces the not-yet-fully-committed inquiring mind to search elsewhere for ‘root sources of dissonance’ in the social dynamic; e.g. in its basic moral and social values as institutionalized in courts of justice, backed by police forces and psychological norms.

best of luck with your continuing endeavors.

I did NOT like your movie in which you VIOLENTLY stole knomes and make annoying faces which you thought wer somehow "cute" and so did a bunch of stupid braindead people with awful taste, and oh you were so lonely it was a-ok to be a sociopath VIOLENTLY making the world want to throw up, as sexy as a vacuum cleaner in a porno FILM, and the patriarchy did a little jog? hallaluyeh!! you went off your head and pretended to be an anarchist saving the world, like ross perot, talking a lot, through being as annoying as possible as anyone in a dumb movie, ever, that was just plain dumb, sorry.

Our lives are flickering movies, I loved, I fed, I had emotion, I was locked inside a box for being honest, they never broke my spirit, I kept my heart intact, which is what Amelia is doing. Love and respect for you.

words.

^winner of comments

tl;dr reddit.com/anarchistnews

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?
k
x
w
F
9
W
h
Enter the code without spaces.
Subscribe to Comments for "letter from amelia nicol"
society