#anarchy

[is-this-yuri]

x

[humanoidhistory]

Mad Max (1979)

[lilithism1848]

[solar-sunnyside-up]

You online: yes we need to overthrow the governmemt

You in real life: cant make a phone call due to anxiety

You got me there!

That's why we have ppl who specialize in different skills and it's important to have a network of well balanced skills in general. Like yeaaa I get anxious making a phone call.

But I'll organize events, I'll give you endless information for cool programs and stuff. My friend cannot find that info or just gets to tired to do both research and attend but she's the first person I'd have help me with a phone call.

Im pretty good at learning skills and relaying the info to ppl in general and im a storyteller and a craftsmaker. And I'll teach anyone something they'd wanna know! Or I'd be terrified to be a beekeeper. That's why I got a friend who's fearless of bees and has a hive and I give her extra snacks for handling it for the sake of the honey I use.

We aren't alone out here, and how the hell do you plan on taking down goverment solo?

[anarchist-quotes-1312]

The anti-sexualism of authoritarian societies and the people who run them does not spring from conviction (they themselves have sex), but from the vague perception that freedom here might lead to a liking for freedom elsewhere. Alex Comfort

— AnarchistQuotes.com

[dailyanarchistposts]

SAFETY AS ILLUSION- DANGER AS FRACTURE

1. Connected to the maintenance of life as living death is the second promise of the walls of civilization, the promise of safety.

2. Safety is always illusionary, as the countless attentats, and ever changing airport security protocols reveal- yet its impositions are very solid. Take the traditional wall around a town or settlement (which offers the promise of 'protection from the outside threat- the barbarian); the wall can be undermined, scaled, even broken to pieces if one has time and motivation, it crumbles with age and without constant maintenance and can be bypassed simply by seducing the one who guards it. Yet, to the individual inside the wall, the towering mass of bricks seems both impenetrable and inescapable, and represents a very material disconnect from that which is outside (one cannot for example even see what is outside the walls).

3. Thus the illusion of safety, is stripped bare, not as a form of protection, but as a form of containment; only those who live inside the walls can be convinced of safeties impenetrability- anyone with will enough to exist beyond the walls can see the paper tiger for what it really is- a trap to prevent escape and not a defense against entry.

4. Todays walls are much more diffuse; produced on and in the psychic level in the schools and social relations, the walls are built up inside the minds of individuals who for so many generations have lived inside of them and now no longer need not to see the outside in order to be afraid of it.

5. The illusion of safety has permeated every aspect of daily life, what 'safety' means is never concretely defined; aside from the columns of foot-soldiers patrolling the streets and CCTV at every corner, there is no discursive definition of what it might mean to be 'safe' and no concrete description of what the danger really is.

6. Even radical milieus have adopted these logics, with demands for 'safe space', policies defining safety, and the imagining that one can create places or communities free from the 'dangers' of the outside world.

7. Safety is always premised in imaginary dangers- usually the dangers of the outside, the 'other', or most often mortality. In the name of being kept alive any number of repressive measures become normalized.

8. To assist or allow suicide is still illegal in most of the world[4], the cages of the mental hospitals and prisons are filled with individuals who present a 'danger' to the life of themselves or others.

9. The demand for safety, always walks hand in hand with the forces of domination. Be that tradition of Radical Feminism which demanded 'safer streets' for women against masked and racialized attackers (and resulted in huge police incursions into poor and racialized communities), or the push by LGBT charities for hate crime legislation to protect individuals from street harassment/harm (and which has been used as a 'catchall legislation' that sees vast increases in incarceration and penal punishments for as little as saying 'fuck' in a public space).[5]

10. A fitting example of the anthropocentric obsession with safety is the 'house cat'; a being for whom the entirety of its existence is passed within the confined walls of an apartment. Premised on the idea that the dangers of the outside world; getting lost, starving to death, being run over by a car- are so terrifying (from the human captors point of view) as to justify the ultimate cruelty and curtailment of freedom. The cat is kept entirely 'safe', in a sterile environment which cannot harm her; and yet can one say honestly that a being for whom long nights, restless hunts, a shrugging disregard for humanity are normal character traits- the four walls of a human made prison will bring her happiness?

11. The 'house cat' also serves as fitting analogy for our own lives- the masters of domination keep us safely contained in the cities, the workplace, the homes; and we may wriggle a little, excited by the promise of the gym or the swimming pool- but to go outside, truly outside of their world is not only forbidden but now impossible. We welcome the crushing wheels of the car or the neighbors dog to carry us away- danger signifies freedom.

12. Individuals oscillate between captor and captive as they internalize and reproduce the logic of safety. From the cop on the street corner, to the parent warning its children of the dangers of pedophiles, to the liberal queer askewing violent or confrontational action and enforcing passivity in the name of 'inclusivity'.

13. Individuals of this epoch must face the fact that nowhere is 'safe', and that anyone promising to provide safety is in fact only (re)producing captivity.

14. When entangled with the enforcers of safety- (the police or their representatives) one soon becomes aware, that the illusion of safety is not some absolute safety from harm, but some imagined parameter of safety defined by the apparatchiks and algorithms of domination.

15. When falling fowl of the enforces of safety, one quickly realities that their version of 'keeping you safe' in fact means keeping you under control, or more often saving you from imagined danger so that they can inflict their own very real harm upon you.

16. One can for example be stopped for driving the car too fast, for passing a red light too early, for trying to jump from a bridge, for exploring and abandoned warehouse, or for engaging in a physical confrontation, in all the examples the behavior will first been defined as 'dangerous' and the narrative usually follows "we are here to protect you". Naturally the moment one is in the hands of those enforcers of safety, she can expect to be beaten, tortured, confined in a cage, sexually assaulted, humiliated, bullied and harmed in any myriad of unnameable ways.

17. "Keeping you safe" is synonymous with maintaining the monopoly of danger, harm and violence.

18. It benefits domination to have as many imaginary dangers as possible at play in any given moment. The more, and scarier the dangers, the greater the playground for imagining ways to ensure 'safety'.

19. The ever increasing number of dangers which the civilized order is happy to integrate into its logic- be that the threat of terrorism, ecological disaster, petty crime, homophobia, gendered violence or racism justifies an ever increasing number of punishments, containments and cages.

20. In many 'liberal democracies' we see how the response to popular awareness of structural oppression has been to criminalize any individuals who are accused of perpetuating it (ignoring the reality that the state is always the biggest perpetrator). From hate crime legislation protecting 'oppressed minorities' to attempts to ban networks like tor (because thats where terrorists live) we see time and time again that the promise to keep us free from danger, warped into the very real application of harm.

21. The illusion of safety rests on a very fluid understanding or what and who represent danger. In the logic of domination, we are presented daily with the idea, that a heavily armed gang, enshrined with the right to murder, kidnap, rape, and torture (the police) are 'safe' and that some kid running a red light or walking whilst black represents danger.

22. This is further complicated by status's awarded to individuals based on presumed compliance/non compliance- the refugee is 'safe' the illegal immigrant is dangerous, the steel worker is 'safe' the sex worker is dangerous, the law abiding citizen is 'safe' the criminal is dangerous. The arbitrary awarding of the right to safety is in fact the real danger.

23. Such arbitrary awarding, mean that In the name of safety we have armed hooligans patrolling the streets with assault rifles- and one can go to jail for carrying a kitchen knife from store to homestead.

24. Anyone who believes, we are safe inside the walls is delusional at best and more likely suicidal.

25. Some 'good citizens' (white, rich, cis, hetro, law abiding) might be able to uphold the lie that they are safe inside the walls (even if they discount the toxic fumes and radio waves slowly annihilating them); but even they will be forced to admit their mistake when in the name of 'safety' they cannot leave their home cage except to go their (re)productive one.

26. More than all of this though, why do we need to be safe? Why have we allowed a fear of danger to incubate inside our minds and proliferate in our praxis? Do we even really know what we mean when we say we want to be safe? We are trapped in illusions curated by tyrants.

27. Safety might be illusionary, but danger can be very real. Not the imaginary dangers domination feeds its subjects in order to keep them servile- but the danger which domination itself lives in constant fear of.

28. To break from captivity, is to accept danger into ones life- not the false dangers which preclude safety; but the real dangers of active confrontation with those who claim to provide it (safety). Accepting real danger, means arming conflictuality against the state, the police, technology, pacifistic ideologues, and perhaps even oneself- it is the realization that even if nothing is worth dying/going to jail for, these possibilities are perhaps less terrifying than remaining safe (i.e. captive).

29. To perpetuate the illusion of safety, into every aspect of life is always the goal of domination, every time one arms conflictuality, imbues danger, creates fracture; safety will rush to plug the breach. Just as one has almost no chance of destroying civilization, there is little hope of destroying safety in its totality; one can chip away, and expand ruptures but one must always be prepared that the ruptures will create new forms, and enforcements of safety- the battle will be an endless one.

30. The fight against safety in and of itself, creates danger for the one who pursues it.

31. If one is to truly realize the illusion of safety, and from this realization act in order to destroy it; she must first welcome danger as a constant friend and companion.

32. Through the process of becoming dangerous, she must face the very real dangers inside the walls (repression, assault, murder), and open her heart to all the possible imaginary ones outside of them.

33. Domination will be at every door when one opens herself fully to danger. It will close tight ranks all around and try to force safety at any cost on the one who seeks it.

34. Danger must embody all the fear of the unknown, all the visceral terror of the lands outside the walls, it must plunge deep into the darkness and never shine a light.

35. If danger spreads, 'safety' will wither.

[whereserpentswalk]

I realize that online activists are way better at understanding aggressive forms of bigotry (IE; people seeing a group as evil and monstrous and wanting to take away their rights because they want to hurt them) than they are at understanding the more paternalistic types of bigotry (IE; thinking a group is fundamentally incompetent and childlike and thus needs to have their rights stripped from them so that they can be properly taken care of). Like, the famous colonialism poem described the people the British wanted to conquer as "half devil and half child", and I feel like we've done much more work on deconstructing the "half devil" part than we have the "half child" part in activist spaces (partly because it's the half child part that well meaning liberals fall for). It means we're especially bad at talking about most forms of sexism, ablism, transandrophobia, aphobia, and the type of racism perpetuated by people with white collar jobs.

Like, I feel like people are way more aware of how transfemmes are marginalized vs how transmascs are marginalized. Most transphobes tend to paint transfemmes as dangerous perverts, while they tend to paint transmascs are helpless children who lack the ability to make decisions about their bodies. And people are just kind of way worse at talking about how transmascs are treated. Like, it's so common to hear people in the queer community to basically act like misgendering a transmasc is an act of mercy. Like, they'll understand why it would be bad and dangerous to put a transfemme person in a men's space, but they'll act like transmascs being placed in women's spaces is a good progressive thing for their own protection. Of course, this isn't to say there's no infantalization of transfemmes, or nobody who sterotypes transmascs as perverted monsters, but that's certainly not the most common narrative.

It's gotten so bad that most of modern feminism has mutated into a capitalist ideology about protecting women from the dangers of the world in a way that lines up almost exactly with what a Victorian gentleman would believe about how women need to be treated. It's gotten to the point where people are called pedophiles on Xwitter for being attracted to pretty normal looking Asian women.

Idk if I can sum all this up in one post because it's basically 50% of all bigotry and people just ignore it. Please reblog this I need people to understand how much this sucks and how big a part of marginalization it is.

[blackcat-brazil]

[smokegrassshakeass]

Bottoms, Tops, we all hate cops!!

[Image Description: a photograph of two white people wearing punk clothing, seemingly at a Pride parade. They are holding up a black sign with the words "Bottoms, tops, we all hate cops" in white, capitalized text. End Description.]

(provided by Aspirationatwork)

[ang-rey]

[lilithism1848]

[icarusxxrising]

Horrible fact of the day: Chevron just released a new boat fuel that WILL give you cancer.

Not "might", not "could", WILL. It has a cancer ratio of 1.3:1, as in, in a group of 10 people, 10 would contract CANCER.

(Edit: apparently some articles are now saying 1.4:1, and some are saying a little under that. Either way, the consensus seems to be anywhere between a 95-100+% of contracting cancer, with some expectations of this fuel not even needing a full lifetime of exposure for you to get Cancer.)

The EPA's safety limit is 1:1,000,000 as in 1 in a million people get cancer.

The EPA approved it anyways. I am not joking. The EPA approved a boat fuel that has a near 100% chance of giving someone cancer. It has such a good chance of giving someone cancer that if you DIDN'T get cancer YOU WOULD BE AN OUTLIER.

Fuck the oil industries.

Edit: If you find this (rightfully) horrifying, have you considered industrial sabotage? /hj

This isn't something we can vote away. This isn't something the rich are gonna apologize and make a 10 minute apology video for this. They don't care if you starve or wither in hospitals or get blown up in their wars.

If you don't know where to get started:

If you already know what to do, then it's time to do it. Participate in mutual aid, raise awareness in real life as well as online, participate in or train in self defense and emergency medical training classes.

[anarchywoofwoof]

fnb memphis

[anarchist-quotes-1312]

If the machine of government is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law. - Henry David Thoreau

— AnarchistQuotes.com

[dailyanarchistposts]

FIGHTING FUTURORITY

1. Futurority is the promise of civilization that the human species will continue.

2. Moreover, it is the promise that the 'right' human species will continue.

3. Beyond the promise, it is also the force that it MUST continue.

4. It is white, cis, and hetro; it is the nuclear family and 2.5 children- the house in the suburbs, and the promise of university educated grandchildren to blast into space.

5. Futurority is another way in which we are forced to live forever.

6. It is the legacy of humanity, but also it is the legacy of individual beings, therefore it involves applying force not only to societies reproduction but also to the reproductive capacities of individuals.

7. The force to reproduce civilization and its disciples is applied differently to different individuals but wherever it exists, it is always forced.

8. Sometimes reproducing civilization implies sterilization (for undesirables such as drug addicts, trans people etc), and other times it implies forced reproduction (denial of abortion, heterosexual indoctrination in schools, assimilation of queer sexualities into reproductive logics etc).

9. Historically and currently, this force is disproportionately applied to women and gender non conforming people; placing responsibility of reproduction and maintenance of life squarely in their hands, or wombs.

10. The program of severing women from the knowledge of herbal abortives[6], the rape and forced impregnation of black women during chattel slavery[7] (in order to produce more slaves), and the extraction of genetic materials and then sterilization of trans "patients" are all examples of this force.

11. Abortion is still illegal in many countries worldwide, and even when it is accessible rigid state guidelines are applied and the possibility to abort outside of the medical industrial complex is almost universally illegal; likewise infanticide is universally criminalized.

12. Individuals are separated from their own bodies, from the right to self determine their reproduction (or especially their non reproduction). Sexual organs capable of reproducing, are ultimately the property of the state- whether or not it chooses to exercise its ownership in a given moment.

13. The negative connotations imbued in such desperate characters as the lonely childless old women, the evil solitary gay men, and the pathetic street transsexual are all folklore troupes which (re)enforce the psychic pressure to reproduce rather than die alone or in shame.

14. A perhaps esoteric though none the less real example of the application of this force can be seen in the numerous Reddit threads and National Geographic 'exposes' on "natures worst mothers". Panda infanticide, for example, occurs in an extremely high number of pregnancies (Panda mothers regularly produce 2 infants during a pregnancy and in this case will kill or abandon at least one[8]), yet we are constantly bombarded with the idea that conserving Panda life is a worthwhile cause- the 'cute' panda bastion of conservationists worldwide, bestower of great revenue to domesticators and zoo keepers alike may also provide a shining light in exposing the application of force inherent in futurority; after all whoever heard of a forced breeding program for the Lichen Weevil[9]?

15. Civilization reproduces that which is of value to it and destroys all life which is not.

16. The continuum of futurority always implies the absorption of each new life into the horrors of domination, every new individual born is the property and product of domination, the new recipient of safety, the next candidate for immortality- the latest lamb to the slaughter.

17. Perhaps dominations cleverest tactic, has been to deny simultaneously self determination, and selectively prevent the reproduction of specific communities/groups- making reproduction appear (and in some cases genuinely be) an act of resistance- this paradigm continues to provide civilization with all the bio and necro political material it needs for its own manifestation.

18. When standing on the edge of a precipice between the seeming certainty of the collapse of the current epochs form and the horrific new world which may rise in its ashes- it is sometimes incomprehensible as to why individuals reproduce at all.

19. In the spiraling collapse, the decomposition, the apocalypse (however you choose to name the moment humanity currently finds itself at the center of) the potential for lines of fractious conflictuality to appear in the sphere of reproductive futurority seem infinite and alluring.

20. Yet thus far, the discursive and practical possibilities contained within world ending are ignored in favor of clinging to the idea of survival (and by extension reproduction).

21. The technophiles and modern day prophets of climate change denial dream of emergent colonies on mars, humanist expansion with technological aid, new life born off planet but inside the same civilization[10]; whilst a haphazard brigade of similarly dreamy ideologues on the so called left[11] fight an increasingly meaningless discursive battle against extinction- preaching moderation and 'ecology' in the name of continuing the species.

22. In the end both sides, though they may posture and present themselves endlessly in conflict are merely two sides of the same civilized coin.

23. Whether Eco-fascism or Techno-fascism will rule the next phase of decomposition changes little, the force of reproduction will inevitably remain under either condition though perhaps with mildly different parameters (the co-facists for example will likely place restrictions on the number of beings one can (re)produce especially on those inhabiting the 'global south'[12], whilst the Techno-fascists will likely see greater benefit in having those same persons (re)produce an endless supply of workers for Martian extractivism or other dangerous and brutal off planet projects[13]).

24. Though these realties may sound far off, extreme, or polarized, signs of there becoming already appear in the here and now and are far from 'extreme' when one considers the whole history of civilization in all its horror.

25. These gruesome yet moderate/modest continuations of 'business as usual' under new flags or ideologies will prove little more meaningful than rearranging chairs on the titanic- and ultimately both exist within the same sinking ship of 'civilized' humanity.

26. Of course, reducing all the future possibilities of domination to a dichotomy between Eco and Techno fascism is a somewhat reductive and lazy analysis- there are perhaps myriad other ways futurority may choose to articulate itself in the order of the civilized, though in this moment the two aforementioned incarnations of terror seem the most dominant of those vying for a position in or after the ashes.

27. The desire to analyse the future trajectories of terror, does not negate the fact that the present is also terrifying and horrific.

28. Even if it were possible to imagine that the future could be better, freer, or without domination; the terror of the present still presents adequate reason to reject futurority, to reject (re)production where and when possible.

29. To knowingly inflict the suffering of the now onto new life is a choice, a choice to domesticate another life inside the furnaces of civilization, a choice for which on must ultimately take responsibility if he is in a position to choose it.

30. At the same time, and paradoxically; the (re)production of those lives undesirable to futurority may be a form of resistance to domination- a resistance which carries great violence, pain, and suffering, but a resistance none the less.

31. When faced with this brutal double bind one is forced to choose between a resistance and an ending.

32. The unspoken blasphemy for those wishing to live beyond the walls lies in the total refusal of futurority (personal or societical).

33. The (re)production of society at large may be inescapable (since it is also non consensual) except in moments of direct conflict with it (society), but the personal refusal of futurority is perhaps, in moments, more likely achievable.

34. Staring extinction squarely in the face, perhaps even welcoming it; refusing reproductive futurority, accepting that there is No Future.

35. A mass 'die off' is likely approaching the human species; the task for radicals in this epoch lies in communizing this die off to include the insides of western civilization instead of merely allowing its unchecked continuation outside of it- to communize the 'die off' is to deny futurority.

36. To face and embrace a reality in which one is amongst the final generations of 'humanity' may be the closest thing to hope those struggling against the existent can expect.

37. If futurority falls civilization may crumble.

38. The end of futurority is the end of humanity, but not necessarily the end of individual projectualities.

39. The human being and it's reproduction are the social constructs and material realities of civilization, but the existence of wild beings and their proliferation outside the walls are something yet to be known.

40. Against ideologues who claim the future.

41. And tyrants who enforce tomorrows.

42. Against state ownership of reproductive capacity.

43. And the brutal taming of wild life.

44. Towards the fall of civilization.

45. And the death of futurority.

[sad-stucky-shipper-107]

For all my beloved mutuals who might need it