Sending Seeds of Revolt Out On the Wind

  • Posted on: 24 August 2012
  • By: worker

<table><tr><td>My house was raided by the FBI and Joint Terrorism Task Force last month. Like an anonymous comrade who is laying low to avoid a subpoena, I want to make it very clear that I am not a victim. As an anarchist I am opposed to the state in its entirety - it is my enemy. To call myself a victim is to accept powerlessness, even though these raids and the grand jury are clearly responses to anarchists acting in revolt, asserting our power.

This last month has brought me intense sadness - I have found myself crying at work, while listening to cheesy folk punk, while looking at pictures of puppies. But I also feel overwhelming joy at the love I have felt from my friends and comrades, and from anarchists around the world. It is true that sometimes anarchists serve Food Not Bombs and live in collective houses, but it is also true that sometimes anarchists throw rocks through windows and fight the police. To highlight one at the expense of the other would be a mistake. I love anarchism for all of those reasons: as a tendency we act to make our lives more bearable in the here and now, AND we attack the institutions that make our lives miserable. Anarchism is dangerous and confrontational and uncompromising, and I love it for that. </td><td><img title="pomodoro technique" src=""></td></tr...

We also need to be honest with ourselves about how dangerous we can be: we can't act surprised every time the state is repressive. The fact that the state is coming down in such a heavy-handed fashion right now in the Northwest means we've been doing something right. That doesn't mean that we should be reckless or welcome repression, but that the state wouldn't be paying any attention to us if we weren't a real threat.

I don't know what the future holds for me. My life right now is in a surreal state of suspension - waiting for what could be any number of potential outcomes. I have several indications that I am a target of the grand jury investigation. In a year I could be in prison, or this could all be an unpleasant memory. No matter what the outcome, I know that I have support and solidarity from friends and comrades, known and unknown, around the world. We will get through this stronger, more resilient, and more rebellious than ever before.

If the state wanted to isolate anarchists from each other or stop the spread of social revolt, it has failed miserably. Since the raids I have made many new friends and comrades, and grown much closer to friends I already had. I don't really believe in community, but these events have shown me the importance of networks of support and 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." - The Coming Insurrection

Thank you to everyone who has been doing direct support work. Just as importantly, thank you to everyone who has engaged in a solidarity action - whether that be a demo in front of a courthouse, graffiti, a banner hang, or broken windows and slashed tires. Reading all the communiques that have poured in from around the world has been incredibly heartwarming. The state may try to stamp out revolt in one place, but time and time again it will find that like dandelions, we continue springing up in other places as soon as the state's back is turned. We are far too free and wild to be eradicated! Let's send our seeds of revolt out on the wind in every direction!

Love and solidarity,
a Portland anarchist



Less than three !


Honest responses:

-- you sure sound like a victim.

-- if you are totally but only opposed to the State, and are not opposed to private property, work, the commodity, then your total opposition is rather partial and ain't social at all, it's merely political

-- your logic is flawed: just because the FBI/JTTF decided to include you in their fishing expedition doesn't mean you are being effective or dangerous LOL, it just means you've come up on their sonar.

-- posting this here was futile, except if your motive was to attract trolls who post things that will then allow you to rage against them.


A comrade is targeted by the state and this is the best you have to offer?

Fuck yeah! Serious guitar assault!....I had long hair back then also, wore my rebel flag,,,,

It's not admirable nor particularly difficult to be an honest person.

Yeah, dishonesty is just wonderful.

Fuck you.

Fuck you, moralist.

Fuck you, sadist.
At least there can be a lesson learned here... somewhere.

Really? Opening yourself up to parasites like you isn't difficult. Then why do I always feel like I was the first to have ever done it.

--someone else


Not going to touch that today...

Hey, who posted this article you have our deepest support.

Nowhere in this article did I hear him/her asking for your lame-ass opinion about their analysis.
You people on this board are fucking assholes!
Why are you here? You sound like a apple rotting from the inside!

You are so right! Nowhere in this article did this person ask for my lame-ass opinion. I am a free autonomous individual, and I did it totes on my own!!! Ain't freedom of expression on a public website that has the option to reply to anything that's posted great?

Wtf? Freedom of expression? Are you a fucking constitutionalist now? Fuck you.

As if freedom of expression wouldn't exist in an anarchist society!

Freedoms are granted by the state. Right?

Only a Statist would think so. My freedom to speak comes from me alone.

"Freedoms" are equivalent to "rights", which do in fact come from the state so to invoke your freedom of expression or whatever is rather statist of you.

Your logic is ridiculous. But then again, logic isn't important to you, obviously. All you want to do is attack, and any illogic will suit you.

Can anyone point to something good written about "rights" and "freedom of expression" from a post-anarchist perspective thanks

Arendt is a good place to start. Can't remember the name of the text off hand.

I do think however, that yes the freedom of expression can be seen as a right granted by the state, insofar as it is what is predicate upon a 'negative' conception of freedom, where freedom (of expression) is a freedom FROM some external force - most commonly the state, but perhaps also any entity which would prevent a person from expression, especially by violence. On the other hand, the state (supposedly) guarantees freedom of expression as a right, a guarantee also upheld by the violence of the state...

A positive freedom of expression would be something like what the original critic in this thread would be advocating, an "I do what I want" attitude in which someone expresses him/herself freely without concern toward external forces which would not want whatever view, affect, opinion, etc expressed: a freedom TO or TOWARDS expression. This might point to a different view of what a state is, beyond the narrow definition of violence as inflicted upon a body and toward a psychical violence internalized and affected by the conscience. Obviously negative and positive conceptions of freedom begin to pale here, when the question of what a person would be free 'from' happens to be an internal, psychical violence instead of an external, physical one.

I am the original commenter in this thread and, yes, of course this is what I meant.

"A positive freedom of expression would be something like what the original critic in this thread would be advocating, an 'I do what I want' attitude in which someone expresses him/herself freely without concern toward external forces which would not want whatever view, affect, opinion, etc expressed: a freedom TO or TOWARDS expression."

As I already pointed out, the people attacking me for offering up some honest criticism weren't trying to be thoughtful or logical, they were simply attacking me because I didn't say something pleasant and empty like "I support you 100 percent with no critical attitude at all."

IGTT 10/10

IGTT 10/10

This is some tier 1 trolling. BRAVO BRAVO

IGTT 2/10

Honest responses to your honest responses:

"-- you sure sound like a victim."
They don't sound like one to me. What precise phrases make you think that?
"-- if you are totally but only opposed to the State, and are not opposed to private property, work, the commodity, then your total opposition is rather partial and ain't social at all, it's merely political"
What did they say that made you think that? Yeah, that piece is focused on the state. That's because it's the fucking state that's doing it. If someone writes a short piece about their work situation that doesn't mention the state, does that mean they're not opposed to the state? Sort yourself out.

^ Troll ^


-When destroying my enemy became an issue, when you're forced to sympathize with human suffering because whether directly or not you see in their struggle your own, and feel in their vulnerability your own, it is nothing more than acting as an agent sabatuer to destroy and deligitimize that person but also yourself. You are truly an agent of capitalism. A fight without empathy, without sympathy is nothing more than brain dead fundamentalism, and again, results in one of two ends; a white person from the burbs with a fucked up sex life or bat shit on my front door at three in the mourning. And both I have to support and stand with; but you all make it so hard some times.

Either way fuck it, the mosquitos have died out I'm going to the beach.


"...a great wind carries me across the sky."

And I don't think the dream of the 90's involved Federal Raids. A shred of humanity for your comrade asshole.

It's fucking sweet that you're dead.

Wow Portland really still is the dream of the 90s. Holy shit.

Listening to folk punk? You just lost my support.

If you listen to crust punk, you just lost my support.

Cheerful reminder: a lot of mindful pleasant people read this site too but don't post as much as the trolls do. Careful that you don't get the impression from our few dozen regular trolls that they're the only ones here.


In other words, us mindful pleasant people refuse to offer honest criticism and instead prefer to offer our bland uncritical solidarity, OK? Love and kisses, a non-troll.

maybe I'll offer "honest criticism" to all the other folks who aren't just freshly mindfucked by the state.
Like you, yah snarky little fuck. Choke on my shit. Want some more critique?

For fucks sake this person is facing down a mothafuckin GJ! Does the trollin ever fucking stop?

Agreed! This person is facing a grand jury and should know enough not to post comments on a public website that has the option to reply to them. Jesus fucking Christ what's wrong with you fucking people?!?!?!

You're right! This person should be smart and know to NEVER ASK THE FUCKING COMMUNITY FOR SUPPORT EVER. What an ignorant dumbass!

| |> @news

art fail, lol.


Dude, he or she DID NOT ASK THE FUCKING COMMUNITY FOR SUPPORT. (No jokes about the NONFUCKING or "celibate" COMMUNITY, OK?) He or she just thanked people for whatever support he and other GJ resisters have received. As for being an ignorant dumb ass, yes it was certainly dumb for them to post something here and not expect people to respond to it in any way they saw fit.

To the author of the post: thanks for resisting the GJ, keep ya head up!

To the trolls: Hopefully at some point in your life you'll learn the ability to balance between honest feedback and supporting someone. It would appear you haven't already learned the difference between that and being brutally honest - no one likes that.

And if you're going to reply you had/have no intention of offer constructive feedback to someone writing about their experience resisting a grand jury (at a time/place when it doesn't entirely make sense to offer criticism), fuck you.

You're funny. This isn't the time/place to make honest criticism?! Well, when/where would that time/space be? If not now, then when?

Usually ... when someone's been through a bit of trauma and is clearly still mindfucked and freshly wounded, you wait a bit to browbeat them, even with constructive criticism. This is like, basic empathy 101. Even IF you can't find some empathy (or at least pity) you can still recognize that they're unlikely to process much of your fucking advice because they've got bigger problems?

Like someone else said, sorry these basic social insights are so difficult for you.

Usually when someone's been through a bit of trauma and is clearly still mindfucked and freshly wounded, they wait a bit to post something on a public website that allows people to reply to their posting.

Why would non-trolls not speak up? Seriously?

Solidarity and I agree. The commenters are not the content.

I am new to this site and surprised to see all this toxic response to a well-written reflective piece.

Love and solidarity,
a Kentucky anarchist

Toxic?! Oh, brother!

You must be new here - oh, wait, you said that already, didn't you...

Where are the "REAL" Revolutionaries at and not these scared little guys and girls who don't stand a chance ready to roll over crying in their beds?

I mean I see where you are coming from but you seriously sound terrified and ready to give up just because of them...smh. Not me, I don't give a shit what they say or anything to me as they came to me before.

Know what I told them, "FUCK OUT OF HERE!" hahahaha...

stay strong comrade and don't worry so much.

A change is gon' come!

And listen, leave it to us "REAL" Revolutionaries who are going to go down fighting if you can't do it.

.......................... what?

I agree. We do need more strong, fierce and well aware Revolutionaries and not these scared little boys and girls crying themselves to sleep at night afraid of these people and what may happen. As I like to quote one of my favorite saying "Live for nothing, or die for something" ha, ha. Such a shame to whomever written this.

yeah these kind of anarchists i dont call anarchist at all. sounds like a scared little pop tart to me. haaaaa

It would be nice to see that kind of militant intensity but I doubt you are the one to deliver that.

Wait, according to what you posted I think you can, unless you are another internet toughguy. But here is your test tomorrow (8/26) early morning do something that you would consider the action of a "true rev" but include the statement 'ACAB:All cats are brilliant' so we all know it was you.

If this does not happen you are a butthead and we shall all have proof that @news trolls are full of shit, but if you do deliver than the people under the gun of the grand juries are just as much of anarchist as a 12 year old playing call of duty whilst drinking energy drinks.

i love this

IGTT 1/10

"Where are the "REAL" Revolutionaries at and not these scared little guys and girls who don't stand a chance ready to roll over crying in their beds?

I mean I see where you are coming from but you seriously sound terrified and ready to give up just because of them...smh."
Is this a response to the OP? Cos if so, it's fucking nonsense. Did you even read the article you're trying to reply to? Let's look at some highlights:
"It is true that sometimes anarchists serve Food Not Bombs and live in collective houses, but it is also true that sometimes anarchists throw rocks through windows and fight the police. To highlight one at the expense of the other would be a mistake. I love anarchism for all of those reasons: as a tendency we act to make our lives more bearable in the here and now, AND we attack the institutions that make our lives miserable. Anarchism is dangerous and confrontational and uncompromising, and I love it for that... We will get through this stronger, more resilient, and more rebellious than ever before... The state may try to stamp out revolt in one place, but time and time again it will find that like dandelions, we continue springing up in other places as soon as the state's back is turned. We are far too free and wild to be eradicated! Let's send our seeds of revolt out on the wind in every direction!"
Yeah, they sound pretty fucking ready to give up to me.

Fuck the trolls. The PNW is standing together and people around the world with it. We won't cooperate!
-an Olympia (A)

Being possessed by malice or ressentiment, lol, you have already been defeated! Your paranoia is your reified identity, you have lost your autonomy to the state. Join your security culture obsessives who cannot openly stand their ground and say -

'I am an anarchist and I fear nothing, because I have no malice nor do I possess any terrorist desires, and your definition of 'criminal' is only your own alien interpretation of justice based on your cultural episteme (foucaultian version), and therefore your survielance (Oooo scary!!)means nothing, I have nothing to hide, except my propaganda, my spray painting, but this is not criminal, it is freedom of speech, it is art.'

Something like that for the decriminalisation of anarchist desires.

And just look at facebook and google, c'mon, let activists play their little bourgeois drama queen script, with their trendy fashion consumeristic consciousness (whilst we workers or the commonalty toil! Yes! Those attired in polyester and baggy denim CAN BE INDIVIDUALIST NIHILISTS!~!!!within the capitalist fold, helplessly trapped, waiting armless, don't hate on them you bourgeois militants of petty insight, from your own pedestal, which is elitist within your own milieu!!

Because of this -- "my spray painting, but this is not criminal, it is freedom of speech, it is art.'" -- I just figured out exactly who you are.

Well it must be a crusty-punk glass-breaking revolutionary I suppose, unless you can elaborate?

yo DISH. or at least ALLUDE

No, because I don't want to blow anyone's pseudonym. But I made my comment because I find "HAL9000" to be extremely annoying, and wanted to send him (and him alone) a message that he should stop being such an asshole.

I just found another asshole by the name anon!!

just begging for it, aren't you?

Bring it on you piece of shit!! It just so happens that I exchanged my skills and labour for 1 pint of over proof moonshine from a neighbour who you would prob describe as a statist workerist piece of shit but I'm above your fucking electronic smooth soft skinned delicate domestic fucking class of psuedo revolutionaries who can't even function outside of a techno-coccoon you piece of shit you have no empathy for the 99% just your irritating smug negative brain vomit!! I'm a fucking individualist-nihilist, so fuck your dependancy on others, who's gonna come to your rescue when I meet you in a dark alley and defend myself against your cerebral aggression huh!?!@?

Oops! this is crazy liquor, forget it,,,

you first!

We love you, whoever you may be. Stay safe, comrade. Fuck the PD...

free associations last forever but the associations of state and hierarchy collapse with the collapse of state and hierarchy.

It's so easy to posture and talk about how tough you would be in any given situation when you are comfortably on the other side of a computer screen, far from all conflict. Fear and sadness are basic human emotions and it is fucking justified to feel those things when things like this happen. Instead of criticizing this comrade for feeling, why not show them solidarity? They undoubtedly would show solidarity for you, even if you were a dick personality-wise. This isn't an attack on just a few random kids in the PNW, this is way more than that. Wise up.

Much <3 and solidarity comrade.

yeah this homie can stay at my crib anytime.

networks of outlaws will grow until the lawmen-thugs are the outlaws.

"Sometimes I go about in pity for myself and all the while a great wind carries me across the sky."

this ojibwa aphorism is a poetic echo of Mach's principle; i.e. we are all participants in a relational space, the never-beginning, never-ending space-time continuum, however, we are in the habit of reducing our role in the universe to oversimplistic terms in which we see ourselves as a 'thing-in-ourselves' and we give meaning to our lives in terms of 'what we as things-in-ourselves do', ... rather than understanding ourselves as participants in the evolution of the universe; or, as this implies, as God [the hurricane, rather than being a thing-in-itself whose behaviour is 'what a thing-in-itself does', is the flow-plenum it is included in and so is the 'organism' we call 'our self']. Schroedinger puts it as follows;

"For the sake of argument, let me regard this as a fact, as I believe every unbiased biologist would, if there were not the well-known, unpleasant feeling about 'declaring oneself to be a pure mechanism'. For it is deemed to contradict Free Will as warranted by direct introspection. But immediate experiences in themselves, however various and disparate they be, are logically incapable of contradicting each other. So let us see whether we cannot draw the correct, non-contradictory conclusion from the following two premises:

(i) My body functions as a pure mechanism according to the Laws of Nature.

(ii) Yet I know, by incontrovertible direct experience, that I am directing its motions, of which I foresee the effects, that may be fateful and all-important, in which case I feel and take full responsibility for them.

The only possible inference from these two facts is, I think, that I — I in the widest meaning of the word, that is to say, every conscious mind that has ever said or felt 'I' — am the person, if any, who controls the 'motion of the atoms' according to the Laws of Nature. Within a cultural milieu (Kulturkreis) where certain conceptions (which once had or still have a wider meaning amongst other peoples) have been limited and specialized, it is daring to give to this conclusion the simple wording that it requires. In Christian terminology to say: 'Hence I am God Almighty' sounds both blasphemous and lunatic. But please disregard these connotations for the moment and consider whether the above inference is not the closest a biologist can get to proving God and immortality at one stroke.

In itself, the insight is not new. The earliest records to my knowledge date back some 2,500 years or more. From the early great Upanishads the recognition ATHMAN = BRAHMAN (the personal self equals the omnipresent, all-comprehending eternal self) was in Indian thought considered, far from being blasphemous, to represent the quintessence of deepest insight into the happenings of the world. The striving of all the scholars of Vedanta was, after having learnt to pronounce with their lips, really to assimilate in their minds this grandest of all thoughts. Again, the mystics of many centuries, independently, yet in perfect harmony with each other (somewhat like the particles in an ideal gas) have described, each of them, the unique experience of his or her life in terms that can be condensed in the phrase: DEUS FACTUS SUM (I have become God).

To Western ideology the thought has remained a stranger, in spite of Schopenhauer and others who stood for it and in spite of those true lovers who, as they look into each other's eyes, become aware that their thought and their joy are numerically one — not merely similar or identical; but they, as a rule, are emotionally too busy to indulge in clear thinking, in which respect they very much resemble the mystic. " --- Erwin Schroedinger

the objibwa aphorism is a lot shorter, which is preferable to many people, but the length doesn't really matter if one doesn't understand it in either its short or long form.

I might reread this tomorrow, but incredibly this is such a lucid expression to me under the influence of alcohol. For once no mention of Mach, you should pursue this theme, you make more sense to me, you have approached the ether of godliness, of holistic unity. I must remember DEUS FACTUS SUM, isn't Latin sooo much like english? Thanks Emile.

Don’t thank me, Hal, thank yourself for conditioning your own perceptions [with alcohol or LSD or whatever] so that you were able to open up to new meanings in the same material.

If Mach’s middle name were Jesus, we could keep using Jesus’ name as the source of the Machean wisdom, and many people have been conditioned so as to ‘have more time’ for reviewing the comments of Jesus than the comments of Mach, regardless of the contents of the comments. The same words may be spoke by Mach that were spoke by Jesus, but if people know that Mach was a physicist who died in 1916 and who disagreed with Einstein, then ‘those same words as Jesus spoke’ are not going to be heard because the listener has no time for the commentary of loser physicists, even if they touch on ‘the divine’.

If you ‘hang on to’ your openness to the ‘divine’ meaning of Machean physics, ... let’s call it ‘the Jesus physics’, you can see the following;

1. The song sings the singer. --- The animative sourcing of all local dynamic figures such as ourselves, according to the Jesus Physics, derives from the DIVINE ALL [from the energy-charged relational spatial plenum.

2. Mach, the Jesus Physic prophet, warns us of the darkness of the ‘ego’ which denies the DIVINE ALL that is the real physical source and would have us believe that the animative sourcing of local dynamic figures [features in the flow of the DIVINE ALL] such as ourselves, derives from ... O U R . . . S E L V E S [from the internal process of 'ourselves' understood as notional local, independently-existing material systems]. this heresy is the foundation of modern, globally dominating Western civilization.

3. The DIVINE ALL is a purely relational space that is eternally in the state of ‘becoming’ [in continual relational transformation]. We and all dynamic forms are ‘gatherings’ or ‘organization’ within the ONE FLOW, akin to the ‘hurricane’ and ‘tornado’ ... organizations that are purely relational within the flow that visually appear to be ‘local, visible, material things-in-themselves’ and based on this 'appearance', we like to think of them as ‘having their own internal animative sourcing’; i.e. we like to think of them as having ‘their own development’ [Darwinism] and ‘their own behaviour’ [Ayn Randism].

4. We like to think of ourselves and biological organisms as ‘machines’. Because we experience cosmic pleasure as in ‘orgasms’, we search for the button in the machine that is the animative sourcing of pleasure within us, the ‘G spot’. We are confused when the orgasm seems to be triggered from the manipulation of the clitoris, or arises from somewhere deep in the vagina or even from somewhere up the anus, and/or when it comes when we are lying still in our beds and our penis stands up and orgasmically fountains forth, urged on by a chorus of naked dancing girls in our dreams. The ancients blamed the ‘incubus’, a female devil that comes out of the darkness instead of the notional 'internal button in the machine' that science is still searching for;

The Gräfenberg Spot is typically described as being located one to three inches (2.5 to 7.6 cm) up the front (anterior) vaginal wall between the vaginal opening and the urethra... disagreement persists over its existence as a distinct structure, definition and location. A 2009 British study concluded that its existence is unproven and subjective,... Other studies, using ultrasound, have found physiological evidence of the G-Spot in women ...It is also hypothesized that the G-Spot is an extension of the clitoris and that this is the cause of vaginal orgasms"

Modern scientific thinkers [though not the disciples of the Jesus physics] take it for granted that the animative sourcing of the orgasm is some internal stimulus/process within the organism-as-machine. Where else is the orgasm going to come from when one has decided on ‘the machine’ as a fundamental model for the organism?

5. The prophet of the Jesus Physics, Mach, claims that the machine model and its locally originating animative sourcing of development and behaviour is a ‘heresy’, and that the organism is like the tornado; i.e. it ‘looks as if’ it is a local, material ‘thing-in-itself’ or ‘system-in-itself’ but it is instead a relational feature within the flowing spatial-plenum or DIVINE ALL. Therefore 'the song is singing the singer' [the dynamic form we call an ‘organism’ is a resonance feature within the flow-dynamic of the relational space or DIVINE ALL]. The flow-feature called ‘organism’ IS the DIVINE ALL, though its material perceptions are constrained to a ‘local perspective’ due to the unique, situational positioning of ITS LOCAL MATERIAL ASPECT, which is in no way the full story of the flow feature, since it is coming from [its form, development and primary animation are coming from] the force of the DIVINE ALL [the hurricane/tornado has a local material aspect but its ‘roots’ are the unbounded relational space [atmospheric flow] in which it is an included flow feature.

* * *

conclusion: we live in a world run by ‘egos’ who believe they are ‘local machines’ whose animative sourcing is local and internal within them. they have hijacked the God of the DIVINE ALL and claim that they are in control of it, that the God power is inside of them. These egos who consider themselves as machine-things-in-themselves on legs claim that in their given world of machines, it makes sense for the best made machines to rule the world. They further deny that ‘transformation’ of the relational space they share inclusion in is the ‘real physical world dynamic’ and insist that the world is shaped by ‘what things-in-themselves do’. This is consistent with their view that ‘they’, as the ‘best built machines’ [demonstrated by power to subjugate others using sophisticated technological weaponry] have the noblesse oblige to ‘run the world as it should be run’.

the prophet of the Jesus Physics, Mach, and his disciples, Nietzsche, Poincaré, Bohm and Schroedinger, claim that this ego-view of the world dynamic in terms of machines [what things-in-themselves do] is ‘heresy’. They claim that the organism is like the tornado, a resonance feature within the continually transforming relational space or DIVINE ALL, and that the ‘orgasm’ is a case of ‘the song singing the singer’, and that it is a wild goose chase to search for the button on the machine that is the notional animating source of the orgasm and/or other buttons that are purportedly the animative sourcing seats of other organism developments and behaviours. Of course we all know that machines have buttons to start them and their processes, but then machines are themselves gatherings within the flow of the relational space. It is thanks to the relational flow of materials and the actions of craftsmen and the dynamics of the assembly technicians does the ‘machine’ take on its 'thing-in-itself' form; i.e. the ‘machine’ is not the physical reality, the physical reality is the flow of the relational space that engenders the machine and which can take it apart and re-gather it in some other form. Things-in-themselves notionally equipped with ‘their own animative sourcing’ are ‘idealizations’, there are no physically real 'things-in-themselves' in the continually transforming DIVINE ALL, ... so says the prophet of the Jesus Physics, Mach.

Similarly, ‘growth’ or ‘gain’, the pursuit of which defines ‘capitalism’, is ego-endorsed [I did it. I made it happen. I produced the wheat] idealization does not exist, ... D O E S N O T E X I S T in the transforming relational space of the DIVINE ALL, according the Jesus Physics prophet Mach.

So, by all means, take in a little alcohol or LSD if it works an effect on you that sets the ego aside for a moment, the ego that is always insisting that we are ‘the animative sourcing of our own development and behaviour’, ... as if we were ‘independently-existing material systems’ or ‘machines’ whose behaviour and development we drive and direct from a panel of internal buttons or knobs. some of them, we are still searching for, like the orgasm button in a woman. we know where the man’s knob is, but there are buttons in a woman that are hard for the woman to reach by herself [she needs a friend to reach in and push the button for her while she lies on her back and opens herself up to their access]. Meanwhile, the prophet of the Jesus Physics is looking on and shaking his head in dismay, claiming that 'the song sings the singer', and that the notion of a local button as the animative sourcing is an over-simplified idealization.

Ummm, I'm hungover, but I have enough nous to realise that the orgasm is actually a cultural construct, like gender. It seems that Mach, having lived so many years ago within his Weltanschauung, had only attained that particular germanic orgasm, the one that cannot be late and must run on time, and be perfect just for him, leaving the Other unsatisfied, or of existing in a different paradigm, incapable of mutual pleasures or social relationships. You may regard my comment as parody if you like, and you may also like to explain to me the actual behavioral patterns and values of anarcho-nihilists, I can speed read, and enjoy your comments, farewell monsieur.

hal, i’m not regarding your comment as parody. i’m regarding language as parody. our experiencing of living in this world [and dying into it] is profound and certainly beyond our ken, but we like to parody life using language, to make it appear as if ‘we know what we’re doing’.

my comment was to illustrate that we can use language to describe the same experiences and observations in BOTH ‘religious’ AND ‘scientific’ terms. first comes the experience, then comes ‘what we make of it’ by the way we ‘speak of it’. some people like to put ‘God’ in there; e.g. the aboriginals make God ‘the Divine All’ while Christians and others make God the all-powerful Thing-in-itself-in-the-heavens, that is the animative source of everything. Still, others, like Richard Dawkins, like to put Gods in the machines so as to portray them [e.g. dynamic features in the flow that we call humans and ‘biological organisms’] as Gods-in-themselves [as the ego prefers]. of course it is 'not cool' to use the word 'God', it is preferable to use the word 'life' as if it were the 'local, internal 'first-cause' animating Source' of development and behaviour. scientists like Dawkins explain the apparent 'independent development and behaviour' of 'the organism' by the notion of an internal God-like force called 'life' [science has no idea of what this is, but they need it to make their models hang together]. the rest of the world is 'dead' or at least 'lifeless' and capable only of 'mechanical change', according to Dawkins and popular science [not according to Mach who sees 'space' as being 'relational' and 'alive' in the sense of continually transforming; the difference between an 'animal', 'plant' and 'mineral' being one of organization.]

as for your ‘put-down’ comment on mach, we all know how to use language to do this. in spite of the fact that mach was the father of ‘gestalt psychology’ and argued with einstein over einstein’s and science’s [einstein and the ‘in crowd’s] confusing of experience-reducing scientific models for ‘physical reality’ [the profound physical reality of our un-reduced experiencing], ... you ‘set him up’ by first reviving the category [box or bin] of ‘germans’ seen as mechanical people who live according to some precise but extremely limiting routine. once you have prepared the box, which everyone is familiar with, you don’t even have to say that ‘mach is one of those’ because you have prepared the reader’s mind so that he will do that himself; ... ‘Oh, ... that is who Mach is, ... one of those’.

Churchill did this with the germans saying ‘Germans are a war-like people who can never be trusted as peers, ... believe me, they will wage war yet again, against us peaceful Britons ['we love the peace that comes with being top-of-the-class imperialists/colonizing powers and having our raped colony dwellers coming back and asking for 'more, please'; i.e. they know which side their bed is buttered on]. Then churchill lobbied for the harsh terms of the Treaty of Versailles (1919) which many were saying was like putting the upcoming generation of germans in a cage and starving them and poking them with sticks so that when they ‘grew up’ 20 years hence, they would break out and there would be some rightfully pissed off people on the loose. Of course Churchill was then hoisted on everyone’s shoulders as a prophet for correctly sussing out that germans were a warlike race and he got chance to do his favourite sport which was ‘warring’. you can’t have any war heroes if you don’t have any wars.

The alliance of colonizing powers got to play this language game with Qaddafy. the tricks have evolved somewhat and the trick here has been to light some fires inside the sovereigntist cages of those who won't join the colonizing powers alliance and then blame their cage-managers for blocking those inside from ‘having a better life’. the alliance has recently been working on the leader of Syria and whoever is in power in Iran and all those who refuse to prostrate themselves and meekly ‘join the club’ of colonizing powers, ... as junior bum boy member, of course. the fires in the cages of those who won't submit to the colonizer powers alliance, sets up a ‘gradient’ between being a prisoner within the colonizer power alliance, and being a prisoner outside of the alliance, so that the latter prisoners can get ‘uplift’ by moving into the upscale cages of the members of the coloning powers alliance. it matters not in the least that the cage-masters of the non-colonizing power alliance states were hoping to ultimately opt out of the prison system entirely. once the fires are lit inside the cages of those states that won't comply, the public clamour for improved cage conditions, otherwise termed; ‘bringing democracy to the middle east’, get louder and more violent, as is the fulfillment of a fairly obvious strategy on the part of the colonizing powers alliance.

So, no, i don’t take your comments as a parody, i take language usage in general as a parody of our and anybody’s real-life experience. germans are a war-like race, as churchill said, and because german trains run on time, they must be robots as well, and so to listen to Mach is to listen to a war-like robot, right?

What is that quality which is so elusive in this modern age? Ummm, humility? Golden silence? The commonalty humbleness, their mere silence, it broods a nihilistic neutrality, a potentiality for revolution, a waiting for social leverage.
Anyway, Dawkins ( ignoring his obsessive atheism)may have been excessive as a technocrat, nevertheless, not being a social-darwinist but rather a critic of eugenic empiricism, he at least defined the gene as a self generating biological entity in itself.
There is no empirical data to support the theory that emotion and attitude are genetical characteristics, but I shall counter this and use the argument that feeling precedes physicality, I can make someone believe something, but I have no influence over their feelings, feelings are beyond reification, these are sovereign fundamental anarchist tendencies.
I will stand by my idea that identifying and recognizing innate genetically inherited characterics is not a discriminating classification! I have evidence that races possess behavioral tendencies, that germans are of a particular mood. I should know, I am part german, and I feel the german gene working within my mind,,,it annoys me,,, I would like to exterminate it, but alas, my beautiful Irish and Portugese elements would perish also! What to do?!?! Drown myself in substances???

Also, if you could prepare a treatise on 'Why is the extinction of Germanic stand-up comedy a reflection of the Weltanschauung influence on social relationships and values?' This would be an entertaining read I feel( I speed read ). Until later comrade.

Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government. --- Lenny Bruce

this treatise you are talking about has already been written. stand-up comedy can be a threat to the establishment by collapsing the parodies of language that sustain the artificial facades of Western civilization; e.g;

LIMITS AND LAUGHTER The Comedy of Lenny Bruce and Andy Kaufman Von der Fakultät für Geisteswissenschaften der Universität Duisburg-Essen zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades Dr. phil. genehmigte Dissertation vorgelegt von Victoria Beyer aus Mülheim an der Ruhr

Lenny Bruce was silenced when his words were considered „too true‟ to be listened to, but lifted to stardom when honest confrontation was no longer possible after his death. Bruce‟s fate mirrors both American society’s hypocrisy and the hypocritical way of dealing with hypocrisy afterwards.

Throughout this study we have observed how Bruce‟s messages touched the American society of the 1950‟s and 1960‟s to the quick. Consequently, people felt the need to turn away from the mirror Bruce held up to their pseudo-idyllic way of life. His method of brilliantly pinpointing the problems and hypocrisy of society and his likeable and intelligent way of communicating his ideas were probably too explicit to be bearable. His explicitness contrasted too sharply with the superficial reality of Cold War America. Thus, officials chose not to think about potential social value and gratefully seized the opportunity to ban Bruce from public places because of his vulgar language. In other words, as New York Times journalist Judy Stone puts it: “The Establishment said to themselves, „Here‟s a guy who’s saying it the way it really is. Let’s see if we can tone him down.” Bruce‟s psychological abilities to have the audiences take the emotional rollercoaster went unnoticed once the question of vulgarity came into play. The psychological methods recognizable in Bruce‟s strategies of humor would have required the willingness to question America‟s status quo and its role in the world. Thus, people preferred idyllic superficiality to critical and self-reflexive reconsideration of certain topics. And, consequently, the use of vulgar language was taken out of context. Repressed energies, such as anxiety and sexual or aggressive urges, which represented vital problems existing in American society, had to remain in the dark. The public image of a perfectly idyllic American society was thus maintained.

the germanic stand-up comic tradition did not survive the establishment demand for watering down the lenny bruce standard [the anarchistic 'fuck the government' standard] with the seinfeld standard. for most people, and i too like to watch seinfeld, comedy can give us a break from stress, or it can take us on an 'emotional rollercoaster ride'. when the folks in the seats in front of me on the rollercoaster start puking because they can't stand it, ... i don't want to be there. that's the trouble with being honest, it makes many of those listening to you puke. they puke because they are made to realize, for a fleeting moment, what a parody of life they are living.

this is not a joke.

however, if one lives an honest life one doesn't have to puke when some comedian exposes your life as it really is, by dissolving with his jokes, the idyllic Fiktion everyone is trying to make it out to be with the help of the parodies of language.

p.s. pussy riot are the latest to be punished for the same reason lenny bruce was punished, for not playing the game of not seeing the game being played.

“They are playing a game. They are playing at not playing a game. If I show them I see they are, I shall break the rules and they will punish me. I must play their game, of not seeing I see the game.” – R.D. Laing

Lenny Bruce was cool because he ate hashish and rolled on the ground laughing hysterically.

Thanks for both replies Emile, some things to ponder over, and an interesting critique from a different angle.

<3 and support to all anarchists who don't cooperate.

that said, this is perzine material. and that folks are being repressed is not an indicator of effectiveness, dats sum der rhetoric.

maybe they don't want to be "effective"

Listen, because I hate it when people take things like this and reduce them to a socio-political whatever, but it is a sign of effectiveness, or maybe not effectiveness so much as the possibility of it. They're targeting people who are organizing, or appearing to be organizing, or giving the appearence of organizing. Whether it's local p.d. going after Maoists or the Feds targeting people who are running info booths. I don't think violence or May Day has anything to do with it. I still think that if there's any coordination on the governments part this all has to do with the fear that the occupy movement will be radicalized, not bullied back into their apathy by angry 19 year olds.

"sometimes I go about in pity for myself..."

You have my deepest support whoever posted this.

stay strong <3

This is awesome. Thanks for writing it!

Love you, bb. You got this.


STFU!!! Stop fucking whining and just do it or die, OK?

Thank you for writing this heartfelt piece and sharing your experience with us. Don't stress the douchebags. If they were kicking all the ass they claimed to be, they wouldn't have time to troll.

Crying is normal and healthy, we've all done it, we'll all do it again. Frankly I'm far more concerned with those who pretend they are so tough as to never feel feelings. To me, that indicates there is something seriously wrong with them.

Every person I've met who talks shit about people working/ having jobs benefits from those same people by staying at their apartments and homes from time to time (sometimes for months) - using their computers, electricity, couches, showers, free rides to the train yard, and generosity. Apartments & houses cost fucking money, which is usually obtained through some sort of work - whether this is an on paper/ taxed job, under the table work, busking, sex work, drug trade, or other means. Some people have trust funds. Lucky them. But unless the only way you've ever survived is to squat, dumpster, and the like, perhaps you could take a moment to reflect on the people your using and abusing.

Those of you who are "so hard" and "true" anarchists, who never cry or express distress, and only destroy and express anger, can suck my strap on. But you'll have to pay me first.

"This last month has brought me intense sadness - I have found myself crying at work, while listening to cheesy folk punk, while looking at pictures of puppies"

And so you have become so soft, almost liberal in your sentiments, yet you call yourself an anarchist?! I do not want people like you beside me, who have never suffered, who cannot evolve from their own misery and create their own unique individual conscience.

Crying makes you a liberal now? Fuck is this shit supposed to mean? Did you even read the fucking article beyond that one sentence?

Yes, in my cold hard world without hugs and kisses, it does. I did read all of the article, I have no malice for the author, I also was once a meak cry baby, until I began working out in the revolutionary gym. No one kicks ideological sand in my face anymore.

no, we just poison your protein shakes.

I was being metaphorical, I don't lift weights etc. You should have said you would brainwash me.

I stand by my own metaphor or something.

Thank you to the autor of this piece, your words and thoughts are filled with beauty.

ERR! author; auto R; ta; auterrr; authflthlatifhphltfj; plthhh! And thats all i have to say about that

experiencing the world dynamic as it ‘really is’, is something one cannot do while in a state of purpose-directed ambition with its associated striving and conniving. the institutions of Western civilization are ‘full of themselves’ in this regard, thanks to the power of ‘central authority’.

we are constantly having to declare ‘not in my name’ when the central authority issues yet another foreign-war ‘call to arms’ or yet another austerity program to bail out the banks or yet another zero tolerance campaign against those who are ‘against the central authority’ 'because they are not with it’. in the authoritarian system, the centre is always outside of us, the shining star of some political state-defined destination that requires us all to rally to its cause, and in focusing on its achievement [winning the war, paying off the debt, beating the competition], we are unable to be ‘centred in ourselves’ as in our natural (anarchist) mode, where, .... wherever we are, we are in the centre of the unfolding world dynamic, where we have to be.

"... and you just looked around at all the new and beautiful things. And after a while, the trader put some things out on the counter, sacks of flour and sugar, a slab of salt pork, some canned goods, and a little bag full of the hard red candy. And your grandfather took off one of his rings and gave it to the trader. It was a small green stone, set carelessly in thin silver. It was new and it wasn't worth very much, not all the trader gave for it, anyway. And the trader opened one of the cans, a big can of whole tomatoes, and your grandfather sprinkled sugar on the tomatoes and the two of you ate them right there and drank bottles of sweet red soda pop. And it was getting late and you rode home in the sunset and the whole land was cold and white. And that night your grandfather hammered the strips of silver and told you stories in the firelight. And you were little and right there in the center of everything, the sacred mountains, the snow-covered mountains and the hills, the gullies and the flats, the sundown and the night, everything --- where you were little, where you were and had to be." (from 'House made of dawn' by Kiowa writer Scott Momaday)

abel, the centred central character in ‘House Made of Dawn’ has not yet given up his centredness to the ‘outside centre’ of the sovereign state and its politicians and regulatory authority. he is still in the mode of intellection described by Johannes Kepler in ‘Harmonies of the World’ as ‘intuitive intellection’, where one acknowledges that one is included within a dynamic-web-of-relations world [the planetary dynamics as seen from the centre where the sun is situated]. abel is perfectly capable of the 'other' mode of intellection that Kepler calls ‘ratiocinative intellection’ which is the view when the ‘centre’ is outside of oneself, like a shining star ‘out there’ that serves as a central authority that directs the actions of all those who must ‘dance to its tune’. as Kepler points out, the celestial dynamic is a dynamic that can be 'intellectualized' in two different ways; (a) 'ratiocinative intellection' where the observer sees the centre as being outside of himself, and (b) 'intuitive intellection' where the observer sees himself as the centre of the world.

philosophically, Kepler is suggesting the same thing as modern physics is suggesting, that there is no such thing as a ‘centre out there’ [that is a lesser view called a ‘perspective’], the centre is here, now, wherever you are. 'relational space' is like that. inhabitants of relational space are nodes/resonance-features in the web of relations they are included in.

anarchism implies the acknowledging of a centre-less universe or rather a centre-everywhere universe [characteristic of a continually transforming relational space]. the centre is wherever we are. we can resonate with and make the most of the unfolding world we are centred in. we don’t have to aspire to some notional national political destination or purpose or some desired future state-of-the-nation, a phantom that reaches back from some lala-land-of-the-not-yet, grabbing us by the shoulders, shaking us, and demanding our full attention and energies essential to ITS ‘real’-ization, and in the process rendering us oblivious to our situation in the centre of everything.

beyond the 'vale of tears', the author’s statement is a celebration of this anarchic centredness that is, at the same time, our 'liberating force'.

I will give solidarity when more Lady Gaga Doom patches are made.

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.
Enter the code without spaces.