Gwen_Isilith

Gwen_Isilith wrote

Travis the Chimps behavior is near identical to that of Adam Lanza (Lanza actually drew upon Travis's actions to inspire his own) and I would even go so far as to say that it is possible Kazynski's psychological thesis apply not only to Lanza but to Travis. I don't really buy into the distinction between humans and not-humans though.

3

Gwen_Isilith wrote

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

Ultimately what you are describing is community policing. If you are familiar with Foucault one can see that this is the natural conclusion of discipline, where no longer are uniformed police are necessary as every individual polices not only their own behavior but the behavior of everyone else.

On another point, as your language gestures at, there are not universal evils, instead all behavior/action is relational. One cannot judge actions outside of this relation without morality (the universalization of values) and so there are no actions one can deem "commonly disliked" or morally wrong, but instead only actions that we ourselves choose to avoid or choose to partake in.

4

Gwen_Isilith wrote

Yeah I would say this relates a lot to the idea that "the future is Fascist" and other rejections of the future such as in queer negativity. Baedan is especially relevant as it discusses how one cannot "Save the Children" since the idea of children, or of Innocence is am abstraction used to justify.

4

Gwen_Isilith wrote

The idea that all anti-social behavior is learned I find very disagreeable. Nor only from my own experience being an anti-social person and partaking in anti-social actions but also more generalized examples, for example the text "Murder of The Civilized" discusses Travis the Chimp, who I would describe as anti-social but to my knowledge did not learn this behavior anywhere.

3

Gwen_Isilith wrote

Reply to comment by BulletDog15 in What is anarchy? by BulletDog15

I am not going to just take your word that war is natural, what do you base this on? War is certainly not my nature as someone who wants the destruction of these systems. In the text "Murder of The Civilized" it would even appear that chaos, particularly chaotic violence, seems to be a common (though I do not want to appeal to naturality as you have) response to being civilized both among humans and non-humans (and this is to my knowledge an extrapolation of Kazynski's work on civilization's affect on one's psyche).

Thinking further upon it, it would seem to me Kazynski's psychological work could directly contridict your claim since this conception of war typically entails the mediation of one's goals through the system- justice is given by the system not taken by oneself, profit is dualed out by the system, etc- which for Kazynski entails deep dissatisfaction which we currently see manifested in the growth of "mental illness" (which is simply the pathologization of dissatisfaction/disfunction in the system).

6

Gwen_Isilith wrote

Reply to comment by BulletDog15 in What is anarchy? by BulletDog15

I agree up to the point you say living without a society is more illogical then living in society.

I do agree anarchy is illogical, since it is anti-rational (and anti-modern) but what you seem to imply in this statement is that the moral standing of society lessens chaos in any way. The state, and thus society, does not prevent crime, or chaos, it can only declare war upon and in so doing attempt to destroy those who it deems criminal or chaotic.

But this designation can only occur after the fact (after the act of criminality or chaos) and the morality of the state (and thus society) is only a justification for the use of violence/control/force etc. On these bodies deemed criminal/chaotic and all other identities construed outside the normality of society. And so to the black body for example is a criminal body and a chaotic body in that the state (and society) wages war against it until either it is destroyed (which while it may be possible to destroy genetically blackness, it is impossible to destroy criminality) or until it can be subsumed into normalcy.

And so to me while I do see the logic behind this society (hese are rationalist conclusions especially in relation to Francis Bacon), I do not see in what way this war, which does not prevent these elements but instead justifies the propagation (and systemetizing) of violence, is preferable to the de-systemitozing of violence.

To restate what I said in the form of a question:

In what way is systemic violence, which makes its enemy not only non-systemic violence but all else which it may identify as an enemy since its use of systemic violence presupposes this ability to identify enemies, preferably to the absence of systemic violence?

To reduce furher:

In what way is war preferable to chaos?

6

Gwen_Isilith wrote

It would seem to me what this person is getting at asking is that if any speech would be prohibited/opposed by anarchists and if so how. I assume they would be referring to examples such as yelling fire in a movie theater which is a common example. Though they say they aren't talking about hate speech that is another example where it seems some anarchists do advocate the limiting of speech, especially anti-fascist anarchists. Perhaps that's just how I interpret their question though.

4

Gwen_Isilith wrote

Reply to by !deleted27729

It's complicated, but to simplify I'd say it stems from my suicidal ideation. I've given up completely on trying to live a life of compromise, within systems of work, normalcy etc. So I'm trying to live free or die trying, or most likely killing myself if that seems preferable.

7

Gwen_Isilith wrote

Reply to comment by subrosa in What happened to Anarchism? by Kinshavo

That is fair that this seems at least partially limited to the U.S. I would say in that context though things are quite negative in that regard especially if one studies the scene in Portland. But yes the text could have been more explicit in their talking about American Anarchism.

I would like to hope this would spark such a reevaluation for American Anarchists but also these sorts of critiques aren't new do its very likely those this piece set out to critique will just double down.

2

Gwen_Isilith wrote

Reply to comment by subrosa in What happened to Anarchism? by Kinshavo

I would agree if there wasn't such a large trend to equate antifa with anarchism. I agree part of that is done by the mainstream media but it has also been taken up by many anarchists as well. Even many self-desvribed post left anarchists, particularly those of the Insurrectionary variety, emphasize antifa, especially street fighting and property destruction, as tactics that should be reproduced for their own sake.

I think becoming a Marxist because of this problem is stupid but there definitely needs to be a reevaluation done by anarchists. Aragorns talk at the 2018 bastard conference "Can Anarchism be Saved?" Is a call for just this reexamination.

2

Gwen_Isilith wrote

Reply to comment by subrosa in What happened to Anarchism? by Kinshavo

I guess I just don't understand your take away. It seemed pretty clear to me the authors problem with Antifa wasn't the violence but how violence became the solution to every problem, even when it did nothing to accomplish ones goals. I think i this is especially true of Antifa's violence, it has mainly become (amd has been) a form of self sabotage.

Aragorn discusses his criticism of Antifa in the context of ARA, which was little more then a street gang similar to antifa today. And the same sort of rhetoric used by antifa ended up pushing A! And his friend to put themselves in situations they would be subject to violence from racist skin heads, and it ended up getting him stabbed and their friend killed.

My take away from this story, especially in the context of my own experiences, is that this us vs them moralism of antifa, which mainly just comes down to right vs left. Is primarily just used to justify violence against people the left disagrees with, which is embodied in the several attacks which have been carried out against Aragorn for example. But even beyond that attacking figure heads who are even slightly on the right not because of any actual threat they pose, but instead putting people's lives on the line to make them a threat.

And all of this for a "victory" that amounts to little more then making certain individuals lose their jobs, or minor injuries.

So I don't agree this is only a surface level analysis. I am bringing other texts I've read on this topic into the convo but I think you are being far to dismissive of this text.

0

Gwen_Isilith wrote

Reply to comment by subrosa in What happened to Anarchism? by Kinshavo

Could you elaborate on what you found weak/Strange/narrow about their arguments around antifa? Personally a lot of what they said about antifa resonates with me, especially with other things I've read, especially from Aragorn!, but also experiences I've had. I really don't think a non-left-anarchist position and antifa are compatible at all and I really do not consider left-anarchists, anarchists.

3

Gwen_Isilith wrote (edited )

I don't know if this essay really needed to be this long, especially since this isn't a new topic. It makes some good points though. The main place I'd say I disagree is the idea that Antifa was/is exclusively anarchist, it's always seemed like a left unity project to me. Though there are definitely those who believe antifa has anything to do with anarchism.

For those saying they don't like the essay I'd love to hear what you disagree with about it.

1