Author Archive

reading and questions for 9/23

the continuing appeal of nationalism

If that’s too long for slackers then I’d say to read pages 5-28, and 45-58 (in the physical book) at the least, or in the online version the first seven sections (separated by ***), and from the sentence “After the war, many reasonable people would speak of the aims of the Axis as irrational and of Hitler as a lunatic” through the end of the text. Though the entire essay is recommended and a quick read! So much fascinating history, so many implications and so easy to digest!!


1) How would you summarize the defining aspects and/or functions of nationalism according to Perlman’s analysis?

2)Fredy asserts that racism is an instrument implemented to consolidate and utilize repressive forms of power against the threat of The Other, by reducing people to racial identities. He carefully separates race from lived experience, cultural and religious identity, kinship, and community. Is there a core element to the concept of race which exists outside of the context of racism? That is to say, is race racist? Does race even exist?

3) In our current epoch of post-modernism, where people who comprise most popular liberation movements have already been born into a society lacking any real connection to their ancestral/cultural histories, what else do they have to lose or what are other detriments to organizing on lines of racial or national identity (black liberation, post-occupy decolonize movement, etc.)?

4) Fredy leaves us with a horrifying conclusion–that nationalism is the most practical option for the oppressed, posing the question “What concentration camp manager, national executioner or torturer is not a descendent of oppressed people?” Is it possible to organize a liberatory movement that actually destroys power rather than inverting it? Why or why not, or what would that look like?

reading for 9/16 voltairine!

my favorite chick! i was assigned to choose 2, but 3 is better. 🙂




just off the top of my head – the first article is a fantastic example of a kind of argument that people rarely choose – in which the argument takes as its subject the strongest example of problematic behavior (in this case, a happy loving marriage is what voltairine takes on, when we all know there is a preponderance of Other examples). oh, that’s not a question: um, how do we do our arguments a disservice by picking easy(er) targets? what are arguments we have (with ourselves and others) where we could choose stronger targets?

the second article raises (among other things) the question of emotion among anarchists, and what role that has. this is something that the reading group might be more comfortable with talking about (especially if the feeling is anger), but that isn’t commonly accepted behavior. why do we think emotion continues to be so challenging?

the second article points out how the u.s. already has tendencies that support anarchist thought (i think voltairine does a better job than crimethinc, but i don’t recall her being much more critical of it than CI is). debate!

reading for 9.9.14

while many of us have a tendency towards philosophy, this week we are going back to basics (well, a type of basics, anyway) and reading berkman’s ABC of anarchism.
to understand best how we got here, it is helpful to remember/learn the steps in the genealogy.
what do we still agree with? what do we emphatically disagree with (and why)? what has been borne out, what has not, and what remains to be seen?




in memory of audrey — this was the text that decided her that she was an anarchist.

reading for 8.26

two chapters from revolt and crisis in greece
full pdf is here
revolt and crisis in greece.pdf

chapters to read are 2 (urban planning and revolt); and 3 (the polis-jungle)

1. the main question here is–how does this translate to the u.s., specifically to the areas we know and live in?
the cities we are in are certainly structured differently, and of course our cultural expectations and assumptions are also different.
2. is it possible for us to recreate our environs (in the ways that specifically chapter 3 talks about)? what would that take? where would it be most likely to last/succeed? or is this something that we should even be trying for?
3. critical mass makes a brief and surprising appearance in their analysis… what about *that*?!

reading 7/15

in the dust of the planet

the following is an excerpt (the entire piece is over 250 pages), we can decide to read more in future weeks if we want.

in-the-dust-of-this-planet excerpt

a working pdf link is coming. in the mean time, study questions…

As Agrippa notes, “they are called occult qualities, because their causes lie hid,
and man’s intellect cannot in any way reach, and find them out.”1

what kinds of questions make sense for us (“us” meaning post-left, non-Answer-seeking, context-sensitive, curious, explorational people), and what kinds don’t?

how does our searching/questioning betray us to our enemies?

oppressed people have developed hidden language, in which cognates are used to mask meaning from bosses, masters, coercers. what do we have that is like that? assuming anarchists are pro-transparency, how do we practice it within our current context?


reading for 6.24

the reading (from lew) is from the book, The Way of Tarot, by alejandro jodorowsky, psychotherapist, author, film director, and writer of what alan moore called the best comic book ever written.

1. this reading gets us back into story telling, a common thread these days, and (as the beginning of an analysis of tarot as a psychological tool — vs a divinatory one), raises the question of the usefulness of old images/tools for changing how we think. is the change we want one that gets in touch with old ways of being (in which case do old-reminiscent images help that?), or new ways? what do new and old even mean in this scenario?

2. one reviewer on amazon talks about this book being very illuminating, but marred by outdated and limiting understandings of gender (women are receptive, men are active, etc). this is hinted at in the final paragraph of our reading.

without defending jodorowsky (which there is no need to do) is it interesting to question the basis of modern feminism? (which argues that men and women are close enough to the same that that is the best/only acceptable generalization to make about the question.) whether or not receptivity/action are the relevant roles, what do we get from considering that there may be differences that are body-based? what do we lose from that?

3. in this intro jodorowsky posits other people who changed the tarot as bastardizing it, but his changes as making it better, and cites his dedication to the process as evidence of that. does it matter that on the face of it this is contradictory (ie who is he to determine the effort/relevance of other people’s work on the tarot)? how is he referring to an original truth, and what does that mean about how he thinks people are in the world?



Jodorowsky about his twitter account:

Yes, I will have 200,000 followers. Every day it’s growing. The twitters sometime I make in English. For me it is the new literature. The new poetry is there. It’s free, you do that because you love to do that. The characters are limited and you have immediately answer. Now when I make a sentence I know 200,000 people read it. You have immediately answer! Fantastic literary communication. Philosophical, also. A lot of persons speak idiocies, no? How they go to the bathroom. It’s silly. But if you use that technique with real soul, with a desire to communicate, it’s the most important invention of our century. That’s what I believe.

june 17 14

we will be watching a video! one of the infamous adam curtis videos of legend.

we are planning on watching on hour’s worth a month, to gradually catch people up who’ve never seen them before (or have only seen them once!)…

this one will probably be the first episode of the power of nightmare, but the person bringing the videos gets to decide.

reading for 5.27

the reading is selections from baedan 2. here are the questions…

Rituals: Are rituals at risk of becoming institutions? How do rituals and institutions differ?

Masks: Against the Gendered Nighmare’s breakdown of some of the key ideas in Freddy Perlman’s Against His-tory, Against Leviathan! it refers to adorning masks as the internalization of civilization. Later in the reading is a section titled “The Black Mask” which references the black mask as “the most visible symbol of the anarchist” and also as the anarchist novices “initiation.” How are the two masks (in various meanings) different and similar? Is there a tension between them?

Ideology: Against the Gendered Nightmare references the strains of thought and ideologies they are trying to break from: Eco-Feminism, Marxist Feminism and Queer Anarchism. They claim these ideologies are based in identity politics, representation, gender essentialism, reformism and reproductive futurity. How do we know when see/hear/read these ideologies? What are effective ways of shutting them down when they try to force their answers with such certainty?

Anthropology: Against the Gendered Nightmare also links Anthropology, Science and certainty together as the primary way that anarchist primitivists articulate and justify the need to destroy civilization. Baedan 2’s desire is to abandon that project (claiming they have no need to prove what was before to know this world should burn) and instead desire the great unknown, the magical world of mystery about what was before civilization or could be after. If we abandon anthropology, science, and certainty, what kinds of conversations does this lead to and how are they different from those we are having now? As anarchists, if we abandon a certainty about how to live what does figuring out how to live look like?

reading for 5.20

the reading is kristian williams’ politics of denunciation

(see below for questions. a short dramatic video will be shown on tuesday night, if everyone hasn’t seen it already.)

A year ago, on February 28, 2013, at an event titled “Patriarchy and the Movement,” I watched as a friend of mine attempted to pose several questions based on her experience trying to address domestic violence and other abuse in the context of radical organizing.

“Why have the forms of accountability processes that we’ve seen in radical subcultures so regularly failed?” she asked. “Is there a tension between supporting a survivor’s healing and holding perpetrators accountable?”

At that point she was, quite literally, shouted down. An angry roar came up from the crowd, from both the audience and the panelists. It quickly became impossible to hear her and, after a few seconds, she simply stopped trying to speak.

The weeks that followed produced an atmosphere of distrust and recrimination unlike anything I had experienced in more than twenty years of radical organizing. A few people were blamed for specific transgressions. (My friend was one: she was accused of violating the venue’s “Safer Space” policy, “triggering” audience members, and employing “patriarchal mechanisms” in her statement.) Others were called out for unspecified abusive or sexist behavior. And a great many more were alleged to have supported or defended or coddled those guilty of such offenses.

The ensuing controversy destroyed at least one political organization, and an astonishing number of activists––many with more than a decade of experience––talked about quitting politics altogether. I know people who lost friends and lovers, often not because of anything they had done, but because of how they felt about the situation. Several people––mostly women, interestingly––told me they were afraid to say anything about the controversy, lest they go “off-script” and find themselves denounced as bad feminists.


One might expect that in the midst of conflict questions about how we address abusive behavior and hold each other accountable would seem particularly relevant. Instead, in a statement released after the event, the unnamed “Patriarchy and the Movement” organizers tried to bar such questions from being raised at all. They wrote:

We also feel that framing the discourse around survivor’s needs as ‘political disagreements’ or ‘political arguments’ is in of itself sexist––as it pretends that this conversation should be emptied of subjective narrative, or that there is an equal playing ground in the conversation because the conversation itself isn’t about real power, or that this conversation itself isn’t already racialized and gendered. It is also problematic, in that it suggests that there is a neutral or objective rationality in this debate, rather than the possibility that the debate itself and the content of the debate is a socially contingent result of prevailing power dynamics.

If political framing does all that––assumes objectivity, equality, ahistoriocity, race and gender neutrality, and an absence of power––then it becomes hard to see how political discussion is possible, not only about gender, but at all. On the other hand, if political discussion relies on those conditions, then not only would it be impossible, it would also be unnecessary. For it is precisely the disputes over truth, the contested facts of history, identity, inequality, and power that give politics its shape, its content, and its significance. The second sentence of the above quotation contradicts the first: the argument runs that this discussion cannot be political, because it is necessarily political.

Their statement continues:

There are direct consequences to these ‘debates’, and there [are] physical bodies involved. As survivors and feminists, we must become cautious when our bodies[,] our safety, and our well-being, as well as our needs around our bodies, safety, and well beings, become the subject of ‘political debate’. For us, there is more at stake here than just the merits of a ‘debate’. Our bodies, safety, health, personal autonomy, and well-beings are at stake. We do not agree with people having a ‘political argument’ at our expense. The outcome could be life or death for us.

That is true: There are serious consequences to the debate about accountability. There are lives, and not merely principles, at stake. But rather than being a reason not to argue these issues, that is precisely the reason that we must.

If politics means anything, it means that there are consequences––sometimes, literally, life or death consequences––to the decisions we make. When it comes to war, climate change, immigration, policing, health care, working conditions––in all of these areas, as with gender, “bodies, safety, health, personal autonomy, and well-beings are at stake.” That is why politics matters.


While attempting to elevate feminism to a place above politics, the organizers’ statement in fact advances a very specific kind of politics. Speaking authoritatively but anonymously, the “Patriarchy and the Movement” organizers declare certain questions off-limits, not only (retroactively) for their own event, but seemingly altogether. These questions cannot be asked because, it is assumed, there is only one answer, and the answer is already known. The answer is, in practice, whatever the survivor says that it is.

Under this theory, the survivor, and the survivor alone, has the right to make demands, while the rest of us are duty-bound to enact sanctions without question. One obvious implication is that all allegations are treated as fact. And often, specific allegations are not even necessary. It may be enough to characterize someone’s behavior ––or even his fundamental character––as “sexist,” “misogynist,” “patriarchal,” “silencing,” “triggering,” “unsafe,” or “abusive.” And on the principle that bad does not allow for better or worse, all of these terms can be used more or less interchangeably. After all, the point is not really to make an accusation, which could be proved or disproved; the point is to offer a judgment. Thus it is possible for large groups of people to dislike and even punish some maligned person without even pretending to know what it is, specifically, he is supposed to have done. He has been “called out” as a perpetrator; nothing else matters.

This approach occludes––and herein, perhaps, lies its appeal––the complexities of real people’s lives, the multiple roles we all occupy, the tensions we all embody and live out, and the ways we all participate in upholding systems of power even as they oppress us.

Under this schema, it is taken for granted that no survivor is ever also an abuser, and no abuser is the survivor of someone else’s violence. Naturally, no past victimization can justify or excuse present abuse, but the strict dichotomy implied here too neatly defines the past away; by the same reasoning, it also forestalls the potential for future healing or growth.

What it offers, instead, is a reassuring dualism in which survivors and abusers exist, not only as roles we sometimes fill or positions we sometimes hold, but as particular types of people who are essentially those things, locked forever into one or the other of these categories, and (not incidentally) gendered in a conventional, stereotyped binary. Each person is assigned a role and, to some degree, reduced to their position in this story. One is only a perpetrator/abuser; the other is only a victim/survivor. They are each defined by the suffering they have caused, or the suffering they have endured––but never by both.

A double transformation occurs. Patriarchy ceases to be a mode of power and system of social stratification and becomes, instead, identified with the behavior of an individual man and is even thought to be personified by him. At the same time, both perpetrator and survivor are depersonalized, abstracted from the context and the narratives of their lives, and cast instead as symbolic figures in a kind of morality play.

Our scrutiny shifts, then, from the abuse to the abuser, from the act to the actor. Instead of seeking out ways to heal the harm that has been done, we invest our collective energy in judging the character of the man responsible. Support for the survivor is equated with, and then replaced by, castigation of the perpetrator. These displays of moral outrage serve above all as pronouncements of the innocence and testaments to the virtue of those who issue them. And as such, they have a way of becoming weirdly obligatory. Since we are not asking whether some particular person committed some identifiable act, but instead whether he is fucked up, then it makes a certain kind of sense to think that anyone who “coddles,” or “defends,” or “supports,” or even just likes him–– or who merely fails to denounce him––must take a share of the blame. So there is a powerful impulse to line up on the “right” side, to join in the denunciation before one finds oneself called out as well.


The ideology at work here is self-defeating, producing a movement that is less, rather than more, capable of handling the issues surrounding sexual assault, domestic violence, and other effects of patriarchy. Barring questions from discussion does not encourage learning or improvement. And an atmosphere of public shaming provides strong incentives for people who have done wrong not to admit to it or try to atone. The charged environment makes things harder for those who take on accountability and support work; it stigmatizes individuals who willingly enter into accountability processes; and it may reduce survivors of abuse, their experiences, and their needs to political symbols used by others to advance some specific ideological line.

The politics involved are also deeply authoritarian, barring from consideration a range of questions concerning authority, accountability, punishment, and exclusion. Its advocates effectively claim a monopoly on feminist praxis and exclude other feminist perspectives. And so they silence those who disagree––literally, in the “Patriarchy and the Movement” episode.

In the situation I’ve described here, these moves are being made in the name of feminism, but there is no reason to believe the pattern will stop there. The same tactics are available to any identity politics camp, or any ideological sect seeking to rid itself of bourgeois influences, or pacifists wishing to make a total break from the culture of violence, or environmentalists looking to escape from civilization, or really anyone whose radicalism consists of decrying other people’s purported shortcomings. The obsessive need for political conformity, the mutual fault-finding that animates it, and the sense of embattled isolation that results––combined with a kind of self-righteous competitiveness (on the one hand) and a masochistic guilt complex (on the other)–– practically guarantees the sort of internecine squabbling we’ve seen emerge, not only in Portland, but in Oakland, Minneapolis, and New York as well.

The totalitarian impulse has found its expression, and it has proven so destructive, in part because we have consistently failed to find the means for handling disagreements, for resolving disputes, for responding to violence, and (yes) for holding each other accountable. Without those tools, we rely––far too often––on ideological purity tests, friend-group tribalism, peer pressure, shaming and ostracism, as well as general shit-talking and internet flame wars. Such behavior has been part of our political culture for a long time.

It is unsurprising, then, that our tendency is to push people out, rather than draw them in; but when we do that, our capacity for meaningful action diminishes. A cycle of suspicion and exclusion takes hold. As we grow less able, and even less interested, in having an effect on the larger society, we become increasingly focused on the ideas and identities of those inside our own circle. We scrutinize one another mercilessly, and when we discover an offense––or merely take offense––we push out those who have lost favor. As our circle grows ever smaller, minor differences take on increasing significance, leading to further suspicion, condemnation, and exclusion––shrinking the circle further still.

We behave, in other words, not like a movement but like a scene––and a particularly cliquish, insular, and unfriendly scene at that.


At issue here are strikingly different visions of what a political movement ought to be.

In one vision, a movement and the people who make it up should be in every respect beyond reproach, standing as an example, a shining city on a hill, apart from all the faults of our existing society. To achieve this perfection, we have to separate the sheep from the goats, the good people from the bad, the true feminists from everyone else. This outlook produces, almost automatically, a tendency to defer to the dogma of one’s in-group. It is not enough simply to do the right things; one must also think the right thoughts and find favor with the right people.

In contrast, in the other vision, a movement should attract people to it, including damaged people, people who have done bad things, and those who are still in the process of figuring out their politics. It will require us, therefore, to address sexual assault and other abuse by actually engaging with the people who do such things. We have to struggle with them as much as we struggle against oppression.

Neither approach is likely to be easy. They each face the challenge of developing a feminist praxis in the midst of a sexist society. But where one vision imagines that the authors of that praxis must be individuals free of the taint of patriarchy, the latter begins by acknowledging that we are all shaped by the forces we struggle against and that we are implicated in the systems of power that oppress us. The first seeks to defeat patriarchy chiefly through exclusion; the latter, through transformation.

The question we face, in other words, is this: Do our politics aim at purity or change?

Bio: Kristian Williams is the author Our Enemies in Blue: Police and Power in America, American Methods: Torture and the Logic of Domination, and Hurt: Notes on Torture in a Modern Democracy. He lives in Portland, Oregon.

1. we just went through this whole conversation about maoism and identity politics about race in the bay area. it’s very easy to see the similarities between that and the “feminism” that has reacted harshly to KW. what are the differences? how has feminism been constructed along the same lines as anti-racist theory, and how has that truncated better thinking (or has it)?

2. this is an age in which people can take pictures/videos of people acting out and spread them everywhere, without context. there could be real issues with KW’s behavior that are totally overshadowed by the behavior of his confronters.
how far does “a pox on both houses” get us? how do we re-frame these conversations so that they are interesting, anarchist, and about the actual issues (rather than drama distracting from the issues)?

3. perhaps more questions will be forthcoming. check back. 🙂


reading for 5/13

the reading for tonight is the klee/aragorn interview in the premier issue of Black Seed.
Many people already have copies, but if you are not one of these, then please pick up a copy before tuesday at the long haul.

questions to consider while reading:
1. in century of the self, adam curtis explored the retreat into individual solutions when people faced severe repression from the state in the 70s and 80s. how does a spiritual practice neither become marketable by being (too) public, nor a completely personal retreat by being (too)) private?

2. what is a way to be multi-generational that works for us (as primarily urban anarchists)? what does it mean that most anarchists who have children leave the scene (even if they continue to speak the words)? and is there a way to have children as anarchists that is not about relying on them to validate our choices? (audrey’s children being only one of a variety of sad options.)

3l one of the more interesting responses to being challenged around identity has been for white people to research and embrace their own indigenous history (every group has been indigenous somewhere). perhaps the main benefit of this has been to reject the guilt response. for some of us the line seems very fine between that and white power-esque tendencies…


by all means, if you have better, more, or different study questions – then post them!

porn Brazzers Porno

Rao vat mien phi


Thay mặt kính Lumia 520


Thay mặt kính Lumia 625


Thay mặt kính Samsung A5


Thay mặt kính Samsung A7


Thay mặt kính Samsung E5


Thay mặt kính Samsung E7


Thay mặt kính iphone 6


Thay mat kinh iPhone 6


giá thay màn hình iphone 6

HD PORNO - Yerli Porno