Anarchists often hear the argument that they simply want to regress states to the point that some local authority acts as the state. That these local communities hold the monopoly on legitimate use of violence for which everybody acts. This is incorrect. There are many ways that anarchists speak about what makes their anarchism anarchistic, but there are three lines of thinking they often follow: individual sovereignty, abolishment of a hierarchy of power, freedom of association (voluntary association). None of these three modes of thought allow for states to exist since all states are an involuntary monopoly on the use of force which necessarily violates individual sovereignty and necessarily puts the decrees of the state above the individual in a hierarchy of power. Continue reading On Contracts and States
What are objects? It is a question we often don’t ask. An intuitive idea that we have about the world and a natural part of the way we think. Understanding what objects are might tell us a little about the world and what we can know about it. Continue reading The World as Nihil: Uncertainty Principle Of Objects
Oh, this is a long title. Most of you probably decided to leave just from this title. All of my writing is a work in progress. I never complete a blog post it is only put on pause as I develop my ideas to add to ones I wrote about before. This blog post actually follows from a line of thinking that I had to deal with in a conversation with a gender essentialist that happened to be a libertarian as well (a more true libertarian, one that desired to go back to the roots of man/woman/child/adult/people, one that believed people should be left to themselves and that is the best way to organise for all). Continue reading The Comparisons of The Stay at Home Parent: Development of Gender Dependency
Jordan Peterson, Ian Morris, Steven Pinker, Francis Fukuyama. What do these four men have in common? A brilliant defence of the Status Quo, unlike anything we have seen in a long time. I call these men Neohobbesians. Why? Because they defend the monster cannibalizing the world. Because instead of a monster they believe this creature is a benevolent angel that will bring us to new heights unlike we have ever seen before. There are tons more men like these, but they are the ones we are most familiar with. And who oppose them, who oppose what Peterson would say is an “insanely functional society”? How crazy do you have to do that? Not very, in fact, the top intellectuals of our age have been doing so for so long people barely have hope in the establishment. Those of the old guard who “imagine an alternative to the ruling ideology (global capital, inequality, civilization, the state)” are numerous. I am going to pick five (yes, I admit unfair battle but there are so many it is hard to choose). Fredy Perlman, David Graeber, Kevin Carson, Noam Chomsky and Slavoj Zizek. Every one of the ‘old’ guards remains alive today except for the first one who departed too early. Continue reading The New Radicals: Defending The Status Quo
There once was a time when humans were not so stuck in their ways. What happened? What corrupted us to the point where we are the Zeks of this monstrous creature, this carcass that has eradicated the communities that lived before us? This monstrous creature that has turned our lands into a dangerous and darkling plain? To most, I must be speaking nonsense because I have not explained what these words mean. What is a Zek? What is this monstrous creature you speak of? And whatever do you mean that we are stuck? The title lends some clues. Some call this creature the Leviathan, others call it the State, I call it all these things but a good common name for it is civilization.
Custer’s Last Stand
This is a point by point look at the book as I read it and after I read the book. Only a small fraction of my thoughts on this book are here.
Many people talk about their disposition against tribalism, their hatred for it and all its kin. The top articles on a quick google search show this: How Tribalism Overrules Reason, and Makes Risky Times More Dangerous, Can Democracy Survive Tribalism, and The Retreat to Tribalism all talking about how tribalism is running society and portraying it as primitive and disastrous to modern glorious civilisation. Especially among the social justice crowd which I myself most would say am apart of. What is it about this word tribalism that brings so many people to arms against? I used to be against it quite a lot too, I identified it with other movements and ideologies I hated: Fascism, Nationalism and Racism. These were all the children of the dreaded Mother: Tribalism. It was a primitive thing, at the time, I believed that one should aspire to love and cherish all people. Today, I think such a thing ridiculous and dangerous, I think such a thing closer to nationalism and fascism than with tribalism.