Moving On | Choose your lifeMoving On | Choose your life
Safe Passage Foundation - Support to youth raised in high demand organizations


Saturday, January 31, 2009    

Home | New Content | Statistics | Games | FAQs

Getting On : Faith

Religion and Revolution

from pharmaboy - Tuesday, January 20, 2004
accessed 1668 times

Articles by some dude named Hakim Bey, pulled from the dark underbelly of the web, he calles his writings "ontological anarchy". I kinda like his style.

Comments anyone?

Religion and Revolution

Real money & hierarchic religion appear to have arisen in the same mysterious moment sometime between the early Neolithic and the third millennium BC in Sumer or Egypt; which came first, the chicken or the egg? Was one a response to the other or is one an aspect of the other?

No doubt that money possesses a deeply religious implication since from the very moment of its appearance it begins to strive for the condition of the spirit -- to remove itself from the world of bodies, to transcend materiality, to become the one true efficacious symbol. With the invention of writing around 3100 BC money as we know it emerges from a complicated system of clay tokens or counters representing material goods & takes the form of written bills of credit impressed on clay tablets; almost without exception these "cheques" seem to concern debts owed to the State Temple, & in theory could have been used in an extended system of exchange as credit-notes "minted" by the theocracy. Coins did not appear until around 700 BC in Greek Asia Minor; they were made of electrum (gold and silver) not because these metals had commodity value but because they were sacred -- Sun & Moon; the ratio of value between them has always hovered around 14:1 not because the earth contains 14 times as much silver as gold but because the Moon takes 14 "suns" to grow from dark to full.

Coins may have originated as temple tokens symbolizing a worshipper's due share of the sacrifice -- holy souvenirs, which could later be traded for goods because they had "mana", not use-value. (This function may have originated in the Stone Age trade in "ceremonial" stone axe-heads used in potlach-like distribution rites.) Unlike Mesopotamian credit-notes, coins were inscribed with sacred images & were seen as liminal objects, nodal points between quotidian reality & the world of the spirits (this accounts for the custom of bending coins to "spiritualize" them and throwing them into wells, which are the "eyes" of the otherworld.)

Debt itself -- the true content of all money -- is a highly "spiritual" concept. As tribute (primitive debt) it exemplifies capitulation to a "legitimate power" of expropriation masked in religious ideology -- but as "real debt" it attains the uniquely spiritual ability to reproduce itself as if it were an organic being. Even now it remains the only "dead" substance in all the world to possess this power -- "money begets money". At this point money begins to take on a parodic aspect vis--vis religion -- it seems that money wants to rival god, to become immanent spirit in the form of pure metaphysicality which nevertheless "rules the world". Religion must take note of this blasphemous nature in money and condemn it as contra naturam. Money & religion enter opposition -- one cannot serve God & Mammon simultaneously.

But so long as religion continues to perform as the ideology of separation (the hierarchic State, expropriation, etc.) it can never really come to grips with the money-problem. Over & over again reformers arise within religion to chase the moneylenders from the temple, & always they return -- in fact often enough the moneylenders become the Temple. (It's certainly no accident that banks for along time aped the forms of religious architecture.) According to Weber it was Calvin who finally resolved the issue with his theological justification for "usury" -- but this scarcely does credit to the real Protestants, like the Ranters & Diggers, who proposed that religion should once & for all enter into total opposition to money -- thereby launching the Millennium. It seems more likely that the Enlightenment should take credit for resolving the problem -- by jettisoning religion as the ideology of the ruling class & replacing it with rationalism (& "Classical Economics"). This formula however would fail to do justice to those real illuminati who proposed the dismantling of all ideologies of power & authority -- nor would it help to explain why "official" religion failed to realize its potential as opposition at this point, & instead went on providing moral support for both State & Capital.

Under the influence of Romanticism however there arose -- both inside & outside of "official" religion -- a growing sense of spirituality as an alternative to the oppressive aspects of Liberalism & its intellectual/artistic allies. On the one hand this sense led to a conservative-revolutionary form of romantic reaction (e.g. Novalis) -- but on the other hand it also fed into the old heretical tradition (which also began with the "rise of Civilization" as a movement of resistance to the theocracy of expropriation) -- and found itself in a strange new alliance with rationalist radicalism (the nascent "left"); William Blake, for example, or the "Blaspheming Chapels" of Spence & his followers, represent this trend. The meeting of spirituality & resistance is not some surrealist event or anomaly to be smoothed out or rationalized by "History" -- it occupies a position at the very root of radicalism; -- and despite the militant atheism of Marx or Bakunin (itself a kind of mutated mysticism or "heresy"), the spiritual still remains inextricably involved with the "Good Old Cause" it helped create.

Some years ago Regis Debray wrote an article pointing out that despite the confidant predictions of 19th century materialism, religion had still perversely failed to go away -- and that perhaps it was time for the Revolution to come to terms with this mysterious persistence. Coming from a Catholic culture Debray was interested in "Liberation Theology", itself a projection of the old quasi-heresy of the "Poor" Franciscans & the recurrent rediscovery of "Bible communism". Had he considered Protestant culture he might have remembered the 17th century, & looked for its true inheritance; if Moslem he could have evoked the radicalism of the Shiites or Ismailis, or the anti-colonialism of the 19th century "neo-Sufis". Every religion has called forth its own inner antithesis over & over again; every religion has considered the implications of moral opposition to power; every tradition contains a vocabulary of resistance as well as capitulation to oppression. Speaking broadly one might say that up until now this "counter-tradition" -- which is both inside & outside religion -- has comprised a "suppressed content".

Debray's question concerned its potential for realization. Liberation Theology lost most of its support within the church when it could no longer serve its function as rival (or accomplice) of Soviet Communism; & it could no longer serve this function because Communism collapsed. But some Liberation theologians proved to be sincere -- and still they persist (as in Mexico); moreover, an entire submerged & related tendency within Catholicism, exemplified in the almost Scholastic anarchism of an Ivan Illich, lingers in the background. Similar tendencies could be identified within Orthodoxy (e.g. Bakunin), Protestantism, Judaism, Islam, and (in a somewhat different sense) Buddhism; moreover, most "surviving" indigenous forms of spirituality (e.g. Shamanism) or the Afro-american syncretisms can find common cause with various radical trends in the "major" religions on such issues as the environment, & the morality of anti-Capitalism. Despite elements of romantic reaction, various New Age & post-New-Age movements can also be associated with this rough category.

In a previous essay we have outlined reasons for believing that the collapse of Communism implies the triumph of its single opponent, Capitalism; that according to neo-liberal global propaganda only one world now exists; & that this political situation has grave implications for a theory of money as the virtual deity (autonomous, spiritualized, & all-powerful) of the single universe of meaning. Under these conditions everything that was once a third possibility (neutrality, withdrawal, counter-culture, the "Third World", etc.) now must find itself in a new situation. There is no longer any "second" -- how can there be a "third"? The "alternatives" have narrowed catastrophically. The One World is now in a position to crush everything which once escaped its ecstatic embrace -- thanks to the unfortunate distraction of waging an essentially economic war against the Evil Empire. There is no more third way, no more neither/nor. Everything that is different will now be subsumed into the sameness of the One World -- or else will discover itself in opposition to that world. Taking this thesis as given, we must now ask where religion will locate itself on this new map of "zones" of capitulation & resistance. If "revolution" has been freed of the incubus of Soviet oppression and is now once again a valid concept, are we finally in a position to offer a tentative answer to Debray's question?

Taking "religion" as a whole, including even those forms such as shamanism that belong to Society rather than the State (in terms of Clastres's anthropology); including polytheisms, monotheisms, & non-theisms; including mysticisms & heresies as well as orthodoxies, "reformed" churches, & "new religions" -- obviously the subject under consideration lacks definition, borders, coherence; & it cannot be questioned because it would only generate a babel of responses rather than an answer. But "religion" does refer to something -- call it a certain range of colors in the spectrum of human becoming -- & as such it might be considered (at least pro tem) as a valid dialogic entity & as a theorizable subject. In the triumphant movement of Capital -- in its processual moment so to speak -- all religion can only be viewed as nullity, i.e. as a commodity to be packaged & sold, an asset to be stripped, or an opposition to be eliminated. Any idea (or ideology) that cannot be subsumed into capital's "End of History" must be doomed. This includes both reaction & resistance -- & it most certainly includes the non-separative "re-linking" (religio) of consciousness with "spirit" as unmediated imaginal self-determination & value-creation -- the original goal of all ritual & worship.

Religion in other words has lost all connection with worldly power because that power has migrated off-world -- it has abandoned even the State & achieved the purity of apotheosis, like the God that "abandoned Anthony" in Cavafy's poem. The few States (mostly Islamic) wherein religion holds power are located precisely within the ever-shrinking region of national opposition to Capital -- (thus providing them with such potential strange bedfellows as Cuba!). Like all other "third possibilities" religion is faced with a new dichotomy: total capitulation, or else revolt. Thus the "revolutionary potential" of religion clearly appears -- although it remains unclear whether resistance might take the form of reaction or radicalism -- or indeed whether religion is not already defeated -- whether its refusal to go away is that of an enemy, or a ghost.

In Russia & Serbia the Orthodox Church appears to have thrown in its lot with reaction against the New World Order & thus found new fellowship with its old Bolshevik oppressors, In Chechnya the Naqshbandi Sufi Order continues its centuries-old struggle against Russian imperialism. In Chiapas there's a strange alliance of Mayan "pagans" & radical Catholics. Certain factions of American Protestantism have been driven to the point of paranoia & armed resistance (but even paranoids have some real enemies); while Native-american spirituality undergoes a small but miraculous revival -- not a Ghost Shirt uprising this time, but a reasoned & profound stand against the hegemony of Capital's monoculture. The Dalai Lama sometimes appears as the one "world leader" capable of speaking truth both to the remnants of the Communist oppression & the forces of Capitalist inhumanity; a "Free Tibet" might provide some kind of focus for an "interfaith" bloc of small nations & religious groups allied against the transcendental social darwinism of the consensus. Arctic shamanism may re-emerge as an "ideology" for the self-determination of certain new Siberian republics -- and some New Religions (such as Western neo-paganism or the psychedelic cults) also belong by definition or default to the pole of opposition.

Islam has seen itself as the enemy of imperial Christianity & European imperialism almost from the moment of its inception. During the 20th century it functioned as a "third way" against both Communism & Capitalism, & in the context of the new One World it now constitutes by definition one of the very few existing mass movements which cannot be englobed into the unity of any would-be Consensus. Unfortunately the spearhead of resistance -- "fundamentalism" -- tends to reduce the complexity of Islam into an artificially coherent ideology -- "Islamism" -- which clearly fails to speak to the normal human desire for difference & complexity. Fundamentalism has already failed to concern itself with "empirical freedoms" which must constitute the minimal demands of the new resistance; for example, its critique of "usury" is obviously an inadequate response to the machinations of the IMF & World Bank.

The "gates of Interpretation" of the Shariah must be re-opened -- not slammed shut forever -- and a fully-realized alternative to Capitalism must emerge from within the tradition. Whatever one may think of the Libyan Revolution of 1969 it has at least the virtue of an attempt to fuse the anarcho-syndicalism of '68 with the neo-Sufi egalitarianism of the North African Orders, & to create a revolutionary Islam -- something similar could be said of Ali Shariati's "Shiite socialism" in Iran, which was crushed by the ulemocracy before it could crystallize into a coherent movement. The point is that Islam cannot be dismissed as the puritan monolith portrayed in the Capitalist media. If a genuine anti-Capitalist coalition is to appear in the world it cannot happen without Islam.

The goal of all theory capable of any sympathy with Islam, I believe, is now to encourage its radical & egalitarian traditions & to substruct its reactionary & authoritarian modes of discourse. Within Islam there persist such mythic figures as the "Green Prophet" and hidden guide of the mystics, al-Khezr, who could easily become a kind of patron saint of Islamic environmentalism; while history offers such models as the great Algerian Sufi freedom-fighter Emir Abdul Qadir, whose last act (in exile in Damascus) was to protect Syrian Christians against the bigotry of the ulema. From outside Islam there exists the potential for "interfaith" movements concerned with ideals of peace, toleration, & resistance to the violence of post-secular post-rationalist "neo-liberalism" & its allies. In effect, then, the "revolutionary potential" of Islam is not yet realized -- but it is real.

Since Christianity is the religion that "gave birth" (in Weberian terms) to Capitalism, its position in relation to the present apotheosis of Capitalism is necessarily more problematic than Islam's. For centuries Christianity has been drawing in on itself & constructing a kind of make-believe world of its own, wherein some semblance of the social might persist (if only on Sundays) -- even while it maintained the cozy illusion of some relation to power. As an ally of Capital (with its seeming benign indifference to the hypothesis of faith) against "Godless Communism", Christianity could preserve the illusion of power -- at least until five years ago. Now Capitalism no longer needs Christianity & the social support it enjoyed will soon evaporate. Already the Queen of England has had to consider stepping down as the head of the Anglican Church -- & she is unlikely to be replaced by the CEO of some vast international zaibatsu!

Money is god -- God is really dead at last; Capitalism has realized a hideous parody of the Enlightenment ideal. But Jesus is a dying-&-resurrecting god -- one might say he's been through all this before. Even Nietzsche signed his last "insane" letter as "Dionysus & the Crucified One"; in the end it is perhaps only religion that can "overcome" religion. Within Christianity a myriad tendencies appear (or have persisted since the 17th century, like the Quakers) seeking to revive that radical messiah who cleansed the Temple & promised the Kingdom to the poor. In America for instance it would seem impossible to imagine a really successful mass movement against Capitalism (some form of "progressive populism") without the participation of the churches. Again the theoretical task begins to clarify itself; one need not propose some vulgar kind of "entryism" into organized Christianity to radicalize it by conspiracy from within. Rather the goal would be to encourage the sincere & widespread potential for Christian radicalism either from within as an honest believer (however "existentialist" the faith!) or as an honest sympathizer from the outside.

To test this theorizing take an example -- say Ireland (where I happen to be writing this). Given that Ireland's "Problems" arise largely from sectarianism, clearly one must take an anti-clerical stance; in fact atheism would be at least emotionally appropriate. But the inherent ambiguity of religion in Irish history should be remembered: -- there were moments when Catholic priests & laity supported resistance or revolution, & there were moments when Protestant ministers & laity supported resistance or revolution. The hierarchies of the churches have generally proven themselves reactionary -- but hierarchy is not the same thing as religion. On the Protestant side we have Wolfe Tone & the United Irishmen -- a revolutionary "interfaith" movement. Even today in Northern Ireland such possibilities are not dead; anti-sectarianism is not just a socialist ideal but also a Christian ideal.

On the Catholic side... a few years ago I met a radical priest at a pagan festival in the Aran Islands, a friend of Ivan Illich. When I asked him, "What exactly is your relation to Rome?" he answered, "Rome? Rome is the enemy." Rome has lost its stranglehold on Ireland in the last few years, brought down by anti-puritan revolt & internal scandal. It would be incorrect to say that the Church's power has shifted to the State, unless we also add that the government's power has shifted to Europe, & Europe's power has shifted to international capital. The meaning of Catholicism in Ireland is up for grabs. Over the next few years we might expect to see both inside & outside the Church a kind of revival of "Celtic Christianity" -- devoted to resistance against pollution of the environment both physical & imaginal, & therefore committed to anti-Capitalist struggle. Whether this trend would lead to an open break with Rome and the formation of an independent church -- who knows? Certainly the trend will include or at least influence Protestantism as well. Such a broad-based movement might easily find its natural political expression in socialism or even in anarcho-socialism, & would serve a particularly useful function as a force against sectarianism & the rule of the clerisy. Thus even in Ireland it would seem that religion may have a revolutionary future.

I expect these ideas will meet with very little acceptance within traditionally atheist anarchism or the remnants of "dialectical materialism". Enlightenment radicalism has long refused to recognize any but remote historical roots within religious radicalism. As a result, the Revolution threw out the baby ("non-ordinary consciousness") along with the bathwater of the Inquisition or of puritan repression. Despite Sorel's insistence that the Revolution needed a "myth", it preferred to bank everything on "pure reason" instead. But spiritual anarchism & communism (like religion itself) have failed to go away. Indeed, by becoming an anti-Religion, radicalism had recourse to a kind of mysticism of its own, complete with ritual, symbolism, & morality.

Bakunin's remark about God -- that if he existed we would have to kill him -- would after all pass for the purest orthodoxy within Zen Buddhism! The psychedelic movement, which offered a kind of "scientific" (or at least experiential ) verification of non-ordinary consciousness, led to a degree of rapprochement between spirituality & radical politics -- & the trajectory of this movement may have only begun. If religion has "always" acted to enslave the mind or to reproduce the ideology of the ruling class, it has also "always" involved some form of entheogenesis ("birth of the god within") or liberation of consciousness; some form of utopian proposal or promise of "heaven on earth"; and some form of militant & positive action for "social justice" as God's plan for the creation. Shamanism is a form of "religion" that (as Clastres showed) actually institutionalizes spirituality against the emergence of hierarchy & separation -- & all religions possess at least a shamanic trace.

Every religion can point to a radical tradition of some sort. Taoism once produced the Yellow Turbans -- or for that matter the Tongs that collaborated with anarchism in the 1911 revolution. Judaism produced the "anarcho-zionism" of Martin Buber & Gersholm Scholem (deeply influenced by Gustav Landauer & other anarchists of 1919), which found its most eloquent & paradoxical voice in Walter Benjamin. Hinduism gave birth to the ultra-radical Bengali Terrorist Party -- & also to M. Gandhi, the modern world's only successful theorist of non-violent revolution. Obviously anarchism & communism will never come to terms with religion on questions of authority & property; & perhaps one might say that "after the Revolution" such questions will remain to be resolved. But it seems clear that without religion there will be no radical revolution; the Old Left & the (old) New Left can scarcely fight it alone. The alternative to an alliance now is to watch while Reaction co-opts the force of religion & launches a revolution without us. Like it or not, some sort of pre-emptive strategy is required. Resistance demands a vocabulary in which our common cause can be discussed; hence these sketchy proposals.

Even assuming we could classify all the above under the rubric of admirable sentiments, we would still find ourselves far from any obvious program of action. Religion is not going to "save" us in this sense (perhaps the reverse is true!) -- in any case religion is faced with the same perplexity as any other former "third position", including all forms of radical non-authoritarianism & anti-Capitalism. The new totality & its media appear so pervasive as to fore-doom all programs of revolutionary content, since every "message" is equally subject to subsumption in the "medium" that is Capital itself. Of course the situation is hopeless -- but only stupidity would take this as reason for despair, or for the terminal boredom of defeat. Hope against hope -- Bloch's revolutionary hope -- belongs to a "utopia" that is never wholly absent even when it is least present; & it belongs as well to a religious sphere in which hopelessness is the final sin against the holy spirit: -- the betrayal of the divine within -- the failure to become human. "Karmic duty" in the sense of the Bhagavad Gita -- or in the sense of "revolutionary duty" -- is not something imposed by Nature, like gravity, or death. It is a free gift of the spirit -- one can accept or refuse it -- & both positions are perilous. To refuse is to run the risk of dying without having lived. To accept is an even more dangerous but far more interesting possibility. A version of Pascal's Wager -- not on the immortality of the soul this time, but simply on its sheer existence.

To use religious metaphor (which we've tried so far to avoid) the millennium began five years before the end of the century, when One World came into being & banished all duality. From the Judao-Christiano-Islamic perspective however this is the false millennium of the "Anti-Christ"; which turns out not to be a "person" (except in the world of Archetypes perhaps) but an impersonal entity, a force contra naturam -- entropy disguised as life. In this view the reign of iniquity must & will be challenged in the true millennium, the advent of the messiah. But the messiah is also not a single person in the world -- rather, it is a collectivity in which each individuality is realized & thus (again metaphorically or imaginally) immortalized. The "people-as-messiah" do not enter into the homogenous sameness nor the infernal separation of entropic Capitalism, but into the difference & presence of revolution -- the struggle, the "holy war". On this basis alone can we begin to work on a theory of reconciliation between the positive forces of religion & the cause of resistance. What we are offered here is simply the beginning of the beginning.

Mail-order mysticism" may sound like a joke to the serious, orthodox, traditional, or academic "expert" in religion -- & to the professional gurus whose "Work" consists of personality-monopoly & psychological authoritarianism -- but the Moorish Orthodox Church takes it seriosly. There's something magical about the mail -- voices from the Unseen -- *documents as amulets* -- and something very american, democratic & self-reliant -- mysterious urban folklore -- old ad's for AMORC in crumbling yellow magazines -- HooDoo catalogues, dreambooks -- ancient spirits-of-places intersecting with modern communications networks that are placeless, spooky, & abstract. And the mail itself now seems antique -- a lost modernity, 19th century, sepia, violet ink -- a fitting medium for the transmission of secrets.

Do-it-yourself Enlightenment? Why not? It may not be the best way or the only way but it is a way . A genuine vein of initiation runs thought the "plane" where one finds Dr Bronner's soap labels, the lost Books of Moses, the apocryphal grimoires of Marie Laveau, Hollow Earth Theory, old Theosophical journals in your grandmother's attic, "What Did These Great Men Have In Common?", Noble Drew Ali's Moorish health-products, the mail-order courses of Druids and occult Orders, millennarian tracts, mysterious classified ad's, Mexican lithography, & c., & c.

It all adds up to a "New World" religion, a translation of "Wild(er)ness" into the strange lost margins of commodification and "communication" -- both a betrayal & an apotheosis (like all religion) -- a playground for the Trickster -- a mundus imaginalis of the postal system & the printing press & the poetics of Desire.

Literal belief in one or another of these mail-order revelations would destroy our abiltiy to believe in all of them simultaneously, like a palimpsest of angelic alphabets, a field of magical "corespondance(s)", a conceptual transformation-space of mythic energies and mythopoesis. The *eros* of postal mysticism lies in the whole pattern it makes, rather than in one part or another, one "course" or another. Sometimes those who sneer the most ironically at this textual spiritism are secretly drawn by its imaginal sensualtiy, even while their rational brains reject it all as high weirdness & superstition. However, one can believe (or "believe") both/and , rather than either/or . One drifts in a world of reveries, and "rejoice, fellow creature! All is ours!" -- Or, at least: -- an opening .

Egyptomania -- the imaginal "Islam" of old cigarette boxes & masonic bric-a-brac -- the HooDoo figure of the "Old Moor", author of almanacs, herb-doctor, Maroon -- the northwest African element in american folklore -- plus the Native American component of the great New World HooDoo synthesis -- the Santeria orisha called El Spirito Indio -- psychic tribalism, animism, totemism, and the Nature-religion natural to our Wilderness-haunted collective (un?)conscious -- plus the psychedelic heritage of the 1950s & 60s, which combined with Moorish Science & the "Wandering bishops" tradition, to produce the Moorish Orthodox Church: -- Sabbatai Sevi & Jacob Frank the "False Messiahs" -- secrets of Cannanite paganism -- Jewish magick & amulets -- Protestant chiliasm, the revolutionary Anabaptists, Ranters, Antinomians -- plus , Apostolic high-liturgical gnostic autocephalous Church ritual -- magical Taoism, "Aimless Wandering", tatrik intoxicants, initiation through dreams & contacts with the spirit world -- hemp use in ancient China -- mail-order almanacs of chaos cults form the Seven Finger High Glister of the Great Dismal Swamp -- &c., &c.

All this can now be yours, as you "Send Away For A Split Second Of Eternity" by joining the MOORISH MAIL ORDER MYSTICISM movement.

Certain airwave preachers tell you to "put you hands on the radio!" to receive a blessing or healing. The modern media are by definition forces for alienation -- and yet -- they contain within them hidden & unplanned magical linkages which are IMmediate -- or at least far more direct than reason would allow. No technology can leach itself clean of the residue of magic which lies at its source -- and communication tech is the most "spiritual" of them all.

The mail is full of gnostic traces -- even of love. Why not initiation?

Reader's comments on this article

Add a new comment on this article

from Alf
Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 14:43

(Agree/Disagree?)
I didnt read the entire article but i disagree with at least one issue. The writer takes it for granted that power has left the nation state. Nothing in the current political climate could be further from the truth. We are seeing an intensification if anything.
(reply to this comment)
From Sonderval
Thursday, January 22, 2004, 03:10

(Agree/Disagree?)

It's the rantings of a half mad mystic, surely it's not worth debating logical points with, I personally enjoyed it as poetry, if you just read it and let the words wash over you and take the impressions rather than disect the logic it's pretty good stuff.

Wouldn't really base my political views on it though . . .

(reply to this comment

From Sir Rantalot
Thursday, January 22, 2004, 04:59

(
Agree/Disagree?)

I think he's serious on most issues, the first part of the article is actually some well-thought anarchist philosophy. The other article, "Mailorder Mysticism", is a spoof on "quick fix religion and new age self-help.

I typically write and talk similarly, i'll be elaborating on some serious idea and then i'll go off on a tangent on chasing ostriches with a WWII flamethrower or some other absurd arguement, and the listener needs to be sharp to catch when I'm talking seriously and when I'm just deliberately talking shit!

Some interesting parallels are drawn between organized religion and money, any views on his opinions?

I personally am finding myself more and more slanting towards anarchy, perhaps a mix of techno-anarchism and return-to-nature, primitive-anarchism, it a sort of search for a "third way", neither left nor right of today's paranoid world really attracts me, and the differences between the two are barely noticeable, except on some minor social & moral viewpoints.(reply to this comment

From Sonderval
Thursday, January 22, 2004, 05:20

(Agree/Disagree?)

Hrm, I guess I don't take anarchism all that seriously, in my experience it's something that would probably kill most armchair anarchists if it ever came about, anarchy is the rule of the strong over the weak, might is right, take what you need from those who can't defend themselves, it's all very well as a philosophy, but personally I don't fancy it much, particularly as I have a wife and child, they're far safer with a decent amount of laws and rules around to stop someone coming round and robbing/attacking us while I'm away from the cave clubbing a rabbit to death for dinner.

As far as techno-anarchism goes, there must be some order or who'll generate the power for your gadgets, who'll do the boring mundane work of putting your toys together in factories, the concept of it all being done by benign robots is all very well but I'm afraid we're not at the technical level for that yet (as far as I know).

I like his ramblings, I do the same sort of thing myself, but only ever as a diversion/rant, not something to be taken literally.

Perhaps I am a post new age apologist, I'll put my hands up to that, I try and take the world as I find it and look after me and mine, I'm afraid my days of caring about society at large (in anything but the most general sense) are behind me, I've seen what happens to people who try and fight the system, I have too much to lose.(reply to this comment

From Sir Rantalot
Thursday, January 22, 2004, 15:34

(
Agree/Disagree?)

I also don't care much about politics, I've got a post-modern view on things, there really is no ultimate utopia, my paradise might be your hell. I'm talking about anarchy more as a personal worldview, imposing anarchy would go against its very principles. I also have too much to lose by going the activism route.

I'm starting to DJ in my national psy trance and techno scene, and that is a perfect example of a Temporary autonomous Zone. Sometimes they'll be 5000 people in the middle of nowhere at a week long rave: no security, no entrance fee, everything organized as things progress, and I have not yet seen one episode of violence at such large gatherings. This for me is a taste of anarchy, just a taste, but the closest to real freedom I've found so far. Then, of course, we all go back to our office jobs. But for a moment it's a nice dream.

I'm always questioning myself how I would survive if I lacked the comodities of this structured, controlled world. I think we have become an abomination to nature, europe at least, nature is something dirty to keep far away. Africa still has that contact with nature, I lived in South Africa, and I miss that feeling of infinity, of you, a little insignificant human, at the mercy of a random, chaotic, harsh and yet a strangely organized force, nature. The order we attempt to impose on it only creates more confusion.

In sistems theory, the more complex a sistem gets the harder it is to control, the best way for harmony in a sistem is a botton-up control, aech individual component self-regulating. Laws are awkward and stiff, we are flexible mammals.

As far as techno-anarchy goes, that's it's first premise: want technology? make it yourself! The open source and GNU public license is an example, and despite the lack of standardization and restictions and laws, it works. It's found it's harmony, and it is almost impossible to stop or out -sell it.

The word of sin is restriction.

I don't try and fight the system, but at least try and prove to a few around me through direct experience that we do not need 2 cops to every 10 citizens to keep the peace.

(reply to this comment

From Sonderval
Thursday, January 22, 2004, 16:08

(Agree/Disagree?)

Well, I don't agree with you on a lot of levels, but arguing politics is almost as futile as arguing religion, not quite but almost, but I can't help myself so here goes. :D

"I'm always questioning myself how I would survive if I lacked the comodities of this structured, controlled world. I think we have become an abomination to nature, europe at least, nature is something dirty to keep far away. Africa still has that contact with nature, I lived in South Africa, and I miss that feeling of infinity, of you, a little insignificant human, at the mercy of a random, chaotic, harsh and yet a strangely organized force, nature. The order we attempt to impose on it only creates more confusion."

The simple fact is that those who believe strongly enough in this to pursue it as a lifestyle can do so, it's not hard to find a patch of dirt and root around for things to eat, but the fact that very few people actually do that shows what we genuinely prefer. It's easy to look back and miss something, you can even tell yourself how great it was, but the real test comes when you ask yourself if you'd willingly give up what you have now to go back to that . . .

As far as self regulating components are concerned, that's great when you can rely on the components to regulate themselves, but in my experience there are simply far too many assholes around who wouldn't keep their greed/anger/hate in check if it wasn't enforced on them, it only takes a few of these to seriously fuck up any kind of 'honour system' society, law's are created because of lawbreakers, and the nature of law is that it must apply to all or none at all if it is to be effective.

"As far as techno-anarchy goes, that's it's first premise: want technology? make it yourself! The open source and GNU public license is an example, and despite the lack of standardization and restictions and laws, it works. It's found it's harmony, and it is almost impossible to stop or out -sell it."

I doubt this technology you speak of is created on hand pulped paper using pencils made from lead you've mined yourself, this freedom is possible to you by the tools of the organisations you oppose, and unless you stole your equipment you are also supporting those organisations by buying their equipment and using it to create your open source software.

Oh, and I'm not seeing a lot of software companies being destroyed by the anarchist competition.

You exercise your freedoms within the framework of a society built by law, you eat food you buy, you wear clothes made by someone you have never met and never will meet, your freedoms are limited, your freedoms are defined by these restrictions, your raves provide these office workers with the outlet they require to carry on their function in society, YOU ARE PART OF THE MATRIX heheheheh, sorry, felt the need to stop talking about it so seriously.

Don't be oppressed man, take it all in and become it, the system is what there is, learn it's rules and make it your bitch.(reply to this comment

From Sir Rantalot
Thursday, January 22, 2004, 16:32

(
Agree/Disagree?)

Hey, I know what you're saying.

hey, i started writing a long reply of my great internal conflict of hating the way the world is and my semi-voluntary alienation from it VS telling yourself that it's a cop out and you realise the uselessness of going against the grain etc, but only got more confused trying to explain myself.

I see your point of view, it's what I try to tell myself every day. Eternally asking, " am i fucked in the head or is everyone else fucked", and finding continous proof to support the later, but knowing that viewpoint will get me nowhere.

I won't go any further or I'll start sounding like a psychotic with delusions of grandieur or like a cult candidate!

I guess the conclusion of " Trainspotting" would sum up my current state of affairs best, it's all useless anyways....(reply to this comment

From Sonderval
Thursday, January 22, 2004, 18:11

(Agree/Disagree?)

heh, the latter is true mate, everyone else is crazy, it's the only rational explanation for things like pop idol.

But it's not all worthless, just the world at large. ;-)

(reply to this comment

From Alf
Thursday, January 22, 2004, 10:27

(Agree/Disagree?)
I think human nature is naturally too social to practice any form of pure anarchy. However much we may dislike it I do not think it is truly possible to step out of society to the extent where one could apply practical anarchy.

The techno-anarchism sounds more like techno-utopianism anyway as its the technological fix supplied by orderly and benign robots that paradoxically allows the "anarchy" to function.

(reply to this comment
From Sonderval
Thursday, January 22, 2004, 10:57

(Agree/Disagree?)

Well put Alf, by definition Anarchy cannot have limits imposed upon it, by giving freedom within limits you are not giving absolute freedom, which is the essence of Anarchy.

Anything else is just amending the law and swapping one form of authority for another.

(reply to this comment

My Stuff


log in here
to post or update your articles

Community

76 user/s currently online

Web Site User Directory
5047 registered users

log out of chatroom

Happy Birthday to demerit   Benz   tammysoprano  

Weekly Poll

What should the weekly poll be changed to?

 The every so often poll.

 The semi-anual poll.

 Whenever the editor gets to it poll.

 The poll you never heard about because you have never looked at previous polls which really means the polls that never got posted.

 The out dated poll.

 The who really gives a crap poll.

View Poll Results

Poll Submitted by cheeks,
September 16, 2008

See Previous Polls

Online Stores


I think, therefore I left


Check out the Official
Moving On Merchandise
. Send in your product ideas


Free Poster: 100 Reasons Why It's Great to be a Systemite

copyright © 2001 - 2009 MovingOn.org

[terms of use] [privacy policy] [disclaimer] [The Family / Children of God] [contact: admin@movingon.org] [free speech on the Internet blue ribbon] [About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]