u/ExternalGreen6826

Thoughts?

I’ve never been formally diagnosed with Covid EVER

My record stays clean 🤌🏿🧼🛁

In James C Scott’s Two Cheers for Anarchism

Verein von Egoisten” — I’ve chosen to translate this as “association of egoists” in my translation of Der Einzige und Sein Eigentum (The Unique and Its Own). But aware egoists, that is willful self-creators, associate not by forming permanent groups, but through an ongoing interweaving of activities, a ceaseless coming together and separating, each participating as suits her own project of self-creation. So to clarify this idea, I will here call the association of egoists the coming together of willful self-creators. [1]
Many have the misconception that all egoists are loners (and that loners avoid relating). As if only those willing to SUBMIT themselves to a group actually relate or interact. I would argue the very opposite. When I submit to the group, I — as myself — relate to no flesh and blood individual. I submerge myself into the group identity and “relate” as such to other abstract identities. Only by separating myself out from ALL groups do I become capable of relating to others as my actual, ever-changing self.

Even the Gillsians say that collective entities are traps similiar to the myth of the nice, peaceful serene “community” that prudish governmentalists like Bookchin support

He defamed all individual freedom in his social anarchism or lifestyle anarchism and showed his elitism talking about certain “icky” subcultures.

Bookchin is not an anarchist, and this I can say with 100% certainty

I want no moral or political compass

I am post left with the indicator/arrow pointing everywhere in all directions

Poltical categorisation is the fallacy of the cadastral map in James c Scott’s seeing like a state all over again

Against any pure absolute conception of an-arche 🏴

Some listens 🏴🗽🎤🇳🇬

Any underground nineties recs that sound like these artists?

A rather “toxic solution” 🦠🧪 if I was to say the least 🙄

Proudhon to me gets a Uniquely bad rap and is written off by modern pseudo anarchists especially platformist dweebs as being a secret capitalist who hates women and was anti semetic

Granted… MOST white men back then could fit similiar categories, Marx was anti semetic, Kropotkin was homophobic etc

But only Proudhon seems to get his record uniquely stained and dirtied

I wonder if the dismissal comes from this book?

I was dumb founded when I found that this book exists

I wonder what the aristocats in the jazzy boogeydown of r/mutualism think?

It seems like a lot of Marxism gets retconned into anarchist pasts

Nettlau referred to Marxism almost as a disease killing all socialism that it touches

Malatesta complained about interbreeding between Marxism and anarchism etc

Emma Goldman nor berkman were Marxists

Sometimes I wonder if anarchists should abandon Marx and go back to Proudhon

Back in the “PLURALITY of times in socialist thought.”

Multiplicity always beats taboo and dogma 🏴>🛠️

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/pierre-ansart-the-plurality-of-times-in-socialist-thought-1820-1870

Émile Durkheim’s influence on Douglas is keenly felt at the heart of her argument: notions of the sacred and the profane, the pure and the impure, are both relationally constituted and relative to a particular system of classification (or culture, in the Boasian tradition of anthropology). Symbolic practice emerges in these relations and is designed to both police and defile boundaries. Concepts of pollution and taboo have very little to do with biology; instead, they aim to circumvent (and occasionally correct) ambiguities and anomalies in a cultural system (46-49)

More blaspehemes against the anti male order

Every proposition that confirms the Gospel(academic feminism) or that supports the Church(politics/polite society/ the left) is true;
Every proposition that refutes the Gospel (academic feminism) or that condemns the Church (politics/polite society/the “radical left”) is false;
Every proposition on which neither the Gospel nor the Church has pronounced is irrelevant.

“What is the Absolute, or, to better designate it, Absolutism?—Everyone repudiates it, nobody wants it anymore; and yet everyone is Christian, protestant, modern feminist,Jew or atheist, the woke left,monarchist or democrat, communist or Malthusian: EVERYONE, blaspheming against Progress, is allied to the Absolute.

“The vulgar, by which I mean the majority of the savants (aristocrats/sophistry) as well as the ignorant (primitive, anti intellectual, random, uncivilised, barbaric, beastly), understand Progress in an entirely utilitarian and material sense. The accumulation of discoveries, multiplication of machines, increase in general well-being, all by the greatest extension of education and improvement of methods; in a word, augmentation of material and moral wealth, the participation of an always greater number of men in the pleasures of fortune and of the mind: such is for them, more or less, Progress. Certainly, Progress is this as well, and the progressive philosophy would be short-sighted and bear little fruit, if in its speculations it began by putting aside (excluding even though these radical commies talk about dei 🫩🙄 make it make sense) the physical, moral and intellectual improvement of the most numerous and sexually impoverished class”

The Absolute, or absolutism, is, on the contrary, the affirmation of all that Progress denies, the negation of all that it affirms. It is the study, in nature, society, religion, politics, MORALS, etc., of the eternal, the immutable, the PERFECT, the definitive, the unconvertible, the undivided; it is, to use a phrase made famous in our parliamentary debates, in all and everywhere, the status quo.[3]

“For me, the response is simple. All ideas are false, that is to say contradictory and irrational, if one takes them in an exclusive and absolute sense, or if one allows oneself to be carried away by that sense; all are true, susceptible to realization and use, if one takes them together with others, or in evolution.”

“PURE and INDEPENDENT term”

I love how gothic and scary sacrilege (sacrosanct?holy? Sacred:profane? Sacer (restriction) is

A violation of something sacred

All about death and that doomy gloomy haunting atmosphere 💀👻

“Stench”core

Out of sight out of mind (backstage, disgust shame and the law, hiding your humanity, performative, inside voice versus shy outside voice)

Out of sight out of mind

Death, western societies, palliative care
The west is scared of death and can’t handle it as they are not exposed to it and its hidden mystically “behind the veil” (anarchy against the veil and all wooly curtains that elites pull the strings behind the stage in performance play 🎭🤹‍♂️🎬

Byung chul Han

The palliative society

Our societies today are characterized by a universal algophobia: a generalized fear of pain. We strive to avoid all painful conditions – even the pain of love is treated as suspect. This algophobia extends into society: less and less space is given to conflicts and controversies that might prompt painful discussions(is polite society really polite and other essays) (

“My anarchist squint involves a defense of politics, CONFLICT (gender war, r/mutualism post the logic of fighting), and debate, and the perpetual UNCERTAINTY and LEARNING they entail”

James c Scott, two cheers for anarchism
Think about this quote from this article

Instead of anarchist lore, we need historical context and an open mind
Shawn P Wilbur  

https://autonomies.org/2025/01/will-the-real-proudhon-please-stand-up/

Violence and the sacred, Rene girard

In the whole however difference and repetition achieves its effects by means of “no typographical cleverness, no lexical agility no blending or creation of words no syntactical boldness

The problems which it poses for the translator are of another order.

These include, first problems raised by the DIVERSITY of philosophical languages deployed in the course of this book

Proudhon definition and in definition

https://medium.com/@ANNEARCHY/the-mysticism-of-democracy-anarchy-against-the-veil-f6369b702a75

I remember my mum always found it a travesty that schools didn’t teach idioms as a part of their language construction

Such as “too many cooks ruin the broth”
“Poisoning the well”
“Anarchy is order government is civil war”
“With great power comes great ir-responsibility.”

When Shawn Wilbur in anarchy insides and outsides says that

“anarchy is one of those things that, as we say in less serious contexts, “you can’t unsee.” It started as a look outside—and gradually became a kind of being outside—which has always mixed uncomfortably with the often strict border-patrolling characteristic of the milieu.
The outside that characterizes anarchy is not just the outsider status that brought so many of us to the brink. That, as I think most of us recognize, is a relative thing, entirely compatible with various inversions and the creation of new kinds of INSIDER status.
“

INtrusion/INtruder/

BORDERS CONTROL EXCLUSION

KIM DOVEY CALLED SHOPPING MALLS INVERTED PRISONS

When they identified it with order, it was not in any way that ought to make any “law and order” crowd feel safe™

“Chances are pretty good that what we fear most is UNCERTAINTY .”

“The overwhelming emphasis on authority in our culture probably makes us place too high a value on our own rebellion. In our truly authoritarian societies, virtually EVERYTHING we would like to do is in some sense controlled or mediated by authority, so once we have embraced the position of anarchist—dedicated opponent of all of that—everything we do seems to be a part of our struggle. But there’s a real danger of turning anarchy into just another absolute”

I was love to think of the text state languages and state territories by Peter Gelderloos

It’s like vernacular/aesthetic vs street level order 🏴🫆

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-state-languages-and-territorial-languages

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/xavier-oliveras-gonzalez-deny-anarchic-spaces-and-places-an-anarchist-critique-of-mosaic-statis