Gwen_Isilith

Gwen_Isilith wrote

Reply to comment by d4rk in my political compass for reference. by d4rk

I never said you are white. I said that everyone irregardless of their whiteness or any other identities is complicit.

Honest it seems you are not understanding me or purposefully talking past me and it is making it difficult to have a conversation.

I will phrase my question one final time. You refer to fascists as uncivilized, and give a slew of other insults to cast at the uncivilized. But there are uncivilized Marxists and anarchists. What analysis do you have of anti-civ politics (uncivilized politics or anti-politics) that gas led you to conclude they are Fascist?

As for your explanation of why you feel capitalism should have been destroyed I cannot say I understand. Do you think CHAZ had any potential to destroy capitalism and even if it had that it would have created any better of a world? It seems to me that leftist revolutionaries want to create create world that is just as detrimental to me as this current reality.

3

Gwen_Isilith wrote

Reply to comment by d4rk in my political compass for reference. by d4rk

I feel like you've continued to ignore my question. You use uncivilized as a pejorative, why? When i use all those negative terms that you attribute uncivilized peoples I do not mean them negatively.

I'm also curious as to why you think capitalism should have broken down before your birth?

I never made the claim your humanity gave you privilege, you seem to have misunderstood my point. What i am saying is that you are just as complicit in the master race you point to as any white person. Or put better, due to globalization complicity has become universal.

1

Gwen_Isilith wrote

Reply to comment by d4rk in my political compass for reference. by d4rk

You have no answered my question. To restate my question was: what has led you to believe that anti-civ anarchists and Marxists are eco-fascists, or how do they fall into any of these other derogatory words you use such as incestuous.

I don't disagree with many of your conclusions, being uncivilized is dirty, degenerate, havoc, incestuous even pedophilic, racist and discriminate. Though I disagree with the negative connotation you give these words.

I think it's funny you assume the progress of civilization should have fixed these problems, a large part of the anti-civ critique is how these problems cannot be solved by progress. And how progress can be detrimental to oneself. Genocide and colonization have been the most progressive tools. "We must secure a future for our children and the white race" is a progressive slogan, meaning it is focused purely on the future.

Your comment "people starve as this master race lives on the corporate tower of queens", I also find peculiar. Surely the master race also starves? Are you so pure as that none of your identities occupy a priveleged position? The world would be much simpler if it were just good vs. evil but things are far more complex.

3

Gwen_Isilith wrote

I see it in a few ways, the first would be a historical and function connection. For A! (And Vizenor) being Indigenous is being post-genocidal both physically after mass killings but also culturally. And so being Indigenous is not a birth right; blood quantum is a purely legal structure and what instead matters is the ties to place or culture.

Perhaps this is a controversial connection but similarly queer identity has faced a similar killing in the forms of the aids crisis and cultural destruction (which I would point to the text Anal Terror from Baedan 3 for the history of this) in terms of anal castration which is both a function of schooling and homo-nationalism (though perhaps nationalism is simply an outcome of the castration).

Queer identity's connection to blood is much different from that of Indigenous identity however but both in the formation and continuance of culture rely on elders or mentors (the aids crisis has especially left such a generational gap for queer folk that a lot of queer identity is ahistorical). And so for both in terms of post-genocide find oneself in a hostile world with little to no guidance.

My other connection is that the formation of queerness in Baedan is not a sexual identity, but instead is an attempt to negate sexuality and gender. And so too it would seem to me that A!'s conception of Indigeneity has nothing to do with race (A! Has stated that even white people can be Indigenous anarchists) but is instead a position that aims to negate this racial category. A good example of this I think is especially the rejection of the past, or at least the understanding that one can not simply return to old ways, but one must find their own way (this is especially prevelant in Nihlist Animism). And it seems to me that a similar question is posed to queers of "what does a post-aids queerness look like?" For those who reject the homonationalist movement, while there are lessons one can take from the past and ones predecessors (I would point to the text "The Faggots and Their Friends") ultimately it is about living with a future. And so if Indigeneity is about living in relation to the land without a land, queerness is living in relation to a time without a temporality (without a past and without a future (both I'm terms of its erasure and in terms of genetics)).

Finally I might posit a third part of this relationality as a hypothesis; hopefully others more familiar with the topic could contribute their thoughts to it. That Blackness then may be about living culturally without a culture. (I posit this mainly in relation to the slave trade which largely has erased black culture which has been replaced by a slave/post-slavery culture (to my knowledge the mixing of white culture such as Christianity has affected both black and Indigenous culture to a large extent).

4

Gwen_Isilith wrote

I forget the specific text but I believe it's from John Moore where he discusses anarchic mysticism in terms of the authoritarian God, the revolutionary authority Satan, That to be consumed Nature, and the primordial extra of anarchy (different language is used I believe). Pretty much anarchy is the thing that exists both outside of those who currently run the ship and those pirates who would seek to make the ship their own as you've stated.

4

Gwen_Isilith OP wrote

I do agree it can be helpful, I use to participate in that type of discussion more often in the past, I just found I was gaining less and less from it. But yes I will try and hopefully spark some such conversations that others too will find provoking, I feel this has perhaps been a good begining. I'm a fan of meta discourse myself.

4

Gwen_Isilith wrote

Perhaps inhabit could be seen as the entryist position for post civ anarchy but I'm thinking more the text ""Take what you need and compost the rest" which has largely led to the coptation of anti-civ rhetoric to advocate using civilization. Largely its the idea that without capitalism civilized industry is somehow redeemable if scaled down.

4

Gwen_Isilith OP wrote

Someone mentioned earlier as well the courage it takes to respond, to put oneself out there, and i think ghiscalso relates to partial answers. Even a partiality can help others continue the conversation and build off it, or at least that's how I see it.

2

Gwen_Isilith OP wrote

Perhaps others have different values but I hardly agree with my self from yesterday, if there truly is such a homogeneous position here I would be curious as to why or how? Has everyone already answered all of the problems and questions of one's life? Because I feel like I've learned a lot and am still only getting started.

2

Gwen_Isilith wrote

No I like your response these are definitely the questions one should ask oneself. I don't mean this as the answer but my own answer to these questions I primarily relate to nihlist anti-morality in that I can only really react to speech as it relates to my self and that I want to challenge the common interpretive lenses one uses on speech aka ideology.

So I don't want to say speech is neutral or anything: if someone says "you want to fight" that could be a friend being playful or someone who actually wants to fight, and one can definitely find malicious intent in other speech. But I don't think one can judge the speech of others in absolutes; this word or phrase is wrong, only in how it relates to oneself.

4

Gwen_Isilith OP wrote

Ah okay, your comment come off much more as "people suck". I don't agree with this idea of a bell curve or that "intelligence" limits one from discourse or ideas, but nevertheless I do understand your point.

5

Gwen_Isilith OP wrote

It is true I value "thought provoking" conversations more, they interest me more but also they seem to me more scarce. I do understand the value others get from dunking and other types of conversations, especially in relation to your previous comment, but it seems to me much easier to find this dunking then to find more serious conversation. Perhaps that is my own failing though. Though it may also relate to the voting and other forms of "viralization" as you point out.

Your comment on listening is definitely insightful, the internet makes it difficult to know if one is being heard outside of direct engagement. And the fear of being wrong definitely holds one back from engagement. The idea of letting oneself be wrong has definitely inspired me to try and engage more in discourse.

4

Gwen_Isilith OP wrote

You are most likely right, one often over emphasizes recent phenomenon/exceptions rather then prolonged experiences. I also really like your answer I do not see it as frivolous. I think for myself I see many people who, primarily, focus themselves on these "dunkings" as a fun thing to do, but who's conversations hardly go beyond this fun into more serious conversations (I'm thinking of the prevelance of online irony culture). Perhaps these experiences, which largely come from other groups not necessarily raddle largely influence my interpretation.

3

Gwen_Isilith wrote

Reply to comment by Noir_ in Question from an anonymous redditor by ziq

I guess what I'm trying to communicate to you is Pessimism, namely nohkism but the two are conflated. Nothing is possible except what we do today. I forget if it was this thread or another where I mentioned the writings on how the future is Fascist. And so that's what I mean by ideal- anything outside of our current experience.

2

Gwen_Isilith wrote

Reply to comment by Noir_ in Question from an anonymous redditor by ziq

I think with your last sentence this is something I'm not interested in. Im much less interested in an ideal anarchy where one can be disordered without systems, and am much more interested in how one can exist disordered today.

2

Gwen_Isilith wrote

Reply to comment by Noir_ in Question from an anonymous redditor by ziq

I understand, personally I am someone who is disordered so I would always be opposed to any sort of social structure which is against the disordered. In this way I am against any sort of societal structure. But truly that is very abstract as we find ourselves within a society and so my opinion on such societal structures is that one should disregard them and act disordered if one wishes, and that I try and refrain from judging any actions outside of their relation to me except in relation to currently existing systems which make themselves universal (but I admit this may be contradictictory).

3

Gwen_Isilith wrote

I agree the living conditions had a tremendous impact, this to me seems to be Kazynski's thesis- industrial society being the living condition of the modern psyche. However while I agree that there are differences between animals (there is difference in all things which to me is what makes them the same) I disagree with the weight you attribute to that difference, especially between humans and non-humans.

I would say especially that the difference that is attributed to humans to distinguish themselves from non-humans is often a difference in form not function. A common example being the capacity for elephants to express themselves through art and even apes to express themselves through sign language. But even beyond that I think it is misguided to, for example, privelege the expression of humans through speech but not acknowledge the complexity of emotion expressed for example by dogs or cats which humans often have complex emotional relationships with.

Even further, trying to distinguish between human expression/intelligence and non-human expression attempts to monolithize human behavior in such a way that is often used to dehumanize marginalized humans. Especially the question of expression/intelligence is often used to erase the differences in these regards of disabled/neurodivergent humans. So with all of this I think it is impossible, except in an idealized manner, to distinguish between the whole of human experience and the whole of non-human experience.

3

Gwen_Isilith wrote

I don't have much to offer in terms of actually starting a conversation on this topic but did want to express my interest. I have only recently started to understand anti-politics exposed first through Baedan and then extrapolating those ideas through my previous thoughts. (It's core is the negation was another influence as well as A!'s work on Nihlism). It is definitely something I have not fully come to grips with, which has led to quite a few contradictions in my thoughts (and there are also still contradictions left from the influence of post-left thought on my leftist influence).

To go back on my previous statement perhaps one area I think there is possibly an interesting conversation to be had is between Aragorn's conception of Indigenous (which is to my knowledge the same as Geral Vizenor's conception of the lower case i indian) and Baedan's conception of Queer negativity. (Also i would speculate their is a connection then too to Afro-Pessimism but my only real exposure to this school of thought has been through the band clipping).

I don't know if anyone else has thoughts on this connection they'd like to share or if not I will extrapolate on what I mean some time tomorrow perhaps.

4