WOOFER ALERT AT THE ANTIQUE SHOP

shark vs the universe
Misplaced Lens Cap

Kiana Khansmith
Sade Olutola

No title available
Stranger Things
"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"

No title available
No title available

Origami Around
One Nice Bug Per Day

#extradirty

Love Begins

ellievsbear
art blog(derogatory)
Claire Keane
Three Goblin Art
Not today Justin

izzy's playlists!
official daine visual archive

seen from Chile

seen from Italy
seen from United States

seen from Mali
seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from Philippines
seen from Russia
seen from United States
seen from Brazil
seen from France
seen from Türkiye

seen from Bangladesh
seen from United States
@ansynical-blog
WOOFER ALERT AT THE ANTIQUE SHOP
16 Counter-Trolling Tactics
I have been very heavily trolled for the past four years. There was no way to escape this trolling, I had to deal with it. I have dealt with some of the most difficult trolls in the Country on one of the most violent forums – Stormfront, a virtual hate-machine – a forum where white supremacists and far-right capitalists look for work and organize raids as well as launch “ops” involving murder and violent degradation of social minorities. I have learned (the hard way, making lots of mistakes along the way) techniques in how to counter and how to handle trolls in this time. There are so many practical applications to learning how to counter-troll. For instance, so much has been invested in trolling, and this has not been enough reported on. Learning how to counter these pundits, is an important lesson for the year 2013. Cyber-bullying is ending too many lives and a lot of this could be halted with more training in countering/resistance techniques. I originally began this list 2 years ago, to help gay teens being cyber-bullied. Too many kids are dying and they could learn from learning how to fight back. These are the techniques I use in dealing with trolls. There are those who would disagree with me, but these are the ones I use. One: A show of strength: I think the most important thing with trolls, is to be like a brick wall against them. You put up a verbal wall that says: Nope, you are not going to get away with this. No matter how much you threaten or insult me, I am not going to back down. A show of strength is important with them, they are less courageous than you are. Nothing anyone can say can get to you if you don’t let it. Trolls work to get under your skin, don’t let them. When dealing with trolls, you need to learn to take control of your own perceptions. This is hard and takes time so be patient with yourself. Two: All trolls can pretty easily be tripped with their own words. They are illogical and all you have to do, is to point out the illogic of their posts. Turn what they say around, work into it. You leave them frustrated with nothing to say in doing this. Three: Humor is a great tool with trolls. Against the assault of laughter, nothing can stand. The importance of playfulness and humor, cannot be over-estimated. A collection of funny YouTube videos, of songs etc., is also a good thing to collect to have to use against trolls. A YouTube link makes a funny reply, also links to funny pictures . Four: Handling insults and lies. The natural response when insulted or when a troll tells a lie about you, is to say “No I am not” or “No I did not”. This ironically, becomes a way they have caught you up in a troll game. They will keep saying “Yes you are” “Yes you did” (because you have shown them what they said got to you). The best way to counter insults, is with humor and irreverence. Make a joke about it, show humility even, laugh at yourself. When a lie is told about you, say one time only “No dude, I didn’t do it”. And walk off. No arguing. Five: Never show anger. This is a hard one. They are working very hard to make you angry. Showing anger gives them what they want. Stay as calm as possible, as irreverent as possible, but still being firm. It is very important to recognize when it happens, that a troll has gotten to you, and then to back off of the debate. Walk away from the computer. There is always another day. Time is something you can us in your favor. Six: Never show hurt. The natural response when a troll has hurt you, is to appeal to the “audience”, be it the troll or a number of viewers of the thread on an open message board, about your hurt. Its called crying in trolling. Again, it shows the troll they have got to you and you cannot expect conscience, from the troll, you cannot expect them to feel sorry for you and I have found, you can expect very little sympathy from other audience members also, even if they are your friends. People are very uncomfortable with hurt feelings and your “crying” about them will not elicit the response you seek. Keep your hurt hidden, stay a brick wall. Walk away from the computer if they have gotten to you. Seven: Mocking. This is when it gets ugly, but is needed sometimes for stubborn, professional trolls. Mock them, they cannot stand it, and it shows them that you are as adept in their tactics as they are. Eight: Ignore them. When trolls keep posting hateful crap, when it gets the most ugly, ignore these comments. When they get really mean, you know they are putting their “all” into it, and your ignoring these comments will drive them the most crazy. I have likened it to a game of tennis. If they hit the ball to you and you do not return it, there is no game. They don’t get the perverse pleasure they seek in getting to you. Nine: The LOL. Learning the different meanings of lol (laugh out loud) are important when dealing with trolls. Lower-case “lol”, shows humility – important – it shows you are not being “preachy”. In the example above, adding a lower-case “lol” to “No dude, I didn’t do it, lol” helps to better convey your meaning, as strange as that sounds. It works. “Lol” is used for stronger emphasis and best used on its own. “No dude, I didn’t do it. Lol.” Its stronger so use it carefully. Upper-case LOL means the full out “laugh out loud”. This is used in mocking the troll. When the troll says something ridiculous, sometimes the best thing you can reply is “LOL”. And leave it at that. Ten: Back up other posters they are attacking. Back up is important with stubborn trolls, don’t just defend yourself, defend others. Agreement is a troll tactic, they often work in pairs, agreeing with each other. We can do that also. Eleven: Persistence. Trolls have all day and night to post away, and will and do. You need to stay on them, not just make one comment and leave, you need to debate with the troll to turn the argument into your favor. Time is something you can use in your favor, take time off, make the troll wait for you, don’t reply to every comment of theirs, be selective, reply to none sometimes. Talk about something completely different. That puts you in control. Twelve: Love. Trolls are human beings, as mean, ugly and nasty as they get. Do not hate them, your hatred will only hurt you, not them. You need to see beyond the front they are putting up, into their humanity and always remember it. It can be called on, especially with trolls you are countering for a long time. But do not use it early on, do not try to “win the troll over” too soon. That will not work. Only keep it in the back of your mind and in time, it can be possible to break through and find your common humanity. I have made friends with some trolls who used to troll me. Thirteen (related to the above): Reconciliation/Understanding. Trolls are often hot-headed people and say hurtful things quickly, often have short tempers, have been hurt themselves by hurtful words and are lashing out. Its important to distinguish between a troll that has a good person underneath and a malicious hater, because one of the most under-looked but important tools in troll busting is Understanding. It is possible to make peace with someone you do not agree with, to find common ground and this is often very productive. Beware of biases in yourself, understand that there are going to be people you don’t agree with, don’t make every disagreement a cause for combat. Laugh off minor insults, don’t be too prickly. Again, stay calm, don’t get angry. Fourteen: Keep your replies as short as possible. Your reply to the troll is what they will base their “ammo” on for their attacks. The more “ammo” you give them, the worse it is for you. Keeping your replies as short as possible gives them less to work with and nails your point more efficiently. Fifteen: Troll Crying. Crying, in troll terminology, is over-complaining, crying about someone (if the troll is your combatant, you). Its a show of weakness and I find it all the time in the biggest bullies. The biggest bullies are the biggest crybabies. This is a Win for you. Once a troll starts crying, you know they are weaker than you are and falling back, capitalize on this. Sixteen: Have fun with it. In essence, countering trolls is a cyber version of the Great Art of Debate. Read up on debate tactics, study the masters. Importantly: study how trolls fight with each other, find ones that are good at it. Trolls will often call trolling playing. You can learn to play too.
20 Anarchist films I recommend.
There are hundreds, if not thousands, of films that address the themes of anarchism—some favorably (like most the films listed here) and some unfavorably. There are, as well, dozens of respected lists of “anarchist films.”
While almost every recent list of films and anarch thought lists V for Vendetta, one version or another of the story of Sacco and Vanzetti, and (disappointingly) either The Matrix or Avatar, this list eschews such titles. Rather, these are twenty films that in their anarchic form and/or content engage in “the conscious creation of situations,” to appropriate Guy Debord.
The films raise more questions than they answer regarding leadership and decision making, hierarchies and egalitarianism, autonomy and heteronomy, equity and coercion, genre and storytelling, and intersections among race, class, ethnicity, gender, and sexuality. Such complexity, provocation, and affect make these films especially noteworthy.
20. The Anarchist Cookbook (USA, 2002)
“We might not know what we’re for, but we know what we’re against.” Not so much an anarchist film as a hyper-individualist, chaos-driven narrative about a group of drop outs whose motto might be summed up as “Life is just a game,” The Anarchist Cookbook raises the issue of how to make films about anarchism without becoming cartoonish renderings of coercive cinema.
On the surface, this drama / romantic comedy is not about anarchist as much as it is about ill-conceived images of anarchists as counter cultural bufoons without focus.
More seriously, though, for our purposes here, a counter reading of the film calls into question mainstream images of anarchism and asks us to reconsider how the social tensions tweaked by such characters as Beavis and Butthead, Bill and Ted, and The Sweathogs might present more than meets the eye in terms of radical critiques of race, class, and social hierarchies.
19. What to Do in Case of Fire? (Germany, 2001)
Comedy about anarchism is difficult, in part, because comedy has to take its subject seriously. While What to do in Case of Fire takes on the interesting issue of what happens to young radicals years after they have settled into the system, it only half-manages to take its subject seriously enough to be comedic.
This film about former would-be revolutionaries accidentally pulled back into the fray is worth a look for the situation it describes and the few jokes it delivers. However, its reliance on sentiment and stereotype impede it developing authentic targets, such as are found in the best work of Chaplin and the Marx Brothers.
18. The Assassination of Trotsky (Italy/France/UK, 1972)
The Assassination of Trotsky was once voted one of the worst fifty films ever made, and in a 1972 New York Times review, Roger Greenspun referred to it as, “a very odd project indeed,” but one of director Joseph Losey’s which he preferred.
The film is a reenactment of the final months of Trotsky’s life beginning on May Day, 1940, in Mexico and is based on books, diaries, and journals about and by the Bolshevik-Leninist agitator and founder of the Red Army. Thus, it bears the weight of a certain history that is both heavily staged and cinematographically compelling.
17. Naked (UK, 1993)
Mike Leigh’s film is a controversial choice for this list. The rough story of Johnny (David Thewlis) escaping Manchester after he rapes a woman and is threatened by her family does not address community, direct action, or larger political movements against elite or coercive authorities. Yet, the film does provide a blunt critique of any “work ethic” and an assault on middle and working class morality.
After the opening crime, the anti-hero flees to London, where he avoids associating (let alone connecting) humanely with almost anyone and refuses to engage in work or constructive activity.
In sometimes lengthy speeches, he harangues those around him and accuses everyone of being bored and says that is the problem because he is never bored, never needs to be doing anything productive to pass the time. His special target is the women he encounters. The film remains ambiguous about the causes (political and/or social) behind Johnny’s anti-conformity and anti-humanist outlook, prompting viewers to consider him carefully.
16. The Anarchists (South Korea/China, 2000)
Directed by Yoo Young-sik and written by Lee Moo-young and Bangnidamae, The Anarchists is not as much an anarchist film as a film about the use of anarchism for nationalist aims. Set in 1920s Shanghai, the film recounts the activities of a group of young Koreans trying to destabilize Japanese control of their penninsula. Through an anti-occupation terrorist campaign, the five men hope to inspire a resurrection throughout their penninsular homeland.
The film addresses the ambivalence, violence, betrayal, and economic uncertainty that are themes in most such stories. Interestingly here, after “the anarchist” lose their financial backing, they turn to street crime and gambling.
Thus, the film raises issues about the connections between crime and terrorism not always broached in other cinematic depictions of direct political action and counter action. In its look and feel, The Anarchists deploys a mise-en-scéne similar to the one Ang Lee develops in his 2007 film about Chinese nationalist insurgency in Lust, Caution.
15. The Anarchist’s Wife (Germany/Spain/France, 2008)
Set during and after the Spanish Civil War and World War II, this film directed by Marie Noelle and Peter Sehr and written by Noelle and Ray Loriga is one of the few films addressing anarchism written, directed, and produced (Marie Noelle) by a woman.
It depicts the story of a woman and her family as they struggle to reconnect with her husband who fought against Franco’s forces, was caputured and deported to a concentration camp, and was unable to contact anyone for years.
The film is important for its engagement with personal and familial elements of anarchist and resistance warfare, for telling stories about the lives of those left behind—especially women and children. While The Anarchist’s Wife does portray its separate spheres in terms of a gendered binary—the man fights / the woman stays behind—it also takes the time to reconnect the “action” of the front to the “long-suffering” of the ones left behind the lines.
In this light, the film recalls especially Rainer Werner Fassbinder’s The Marriage of Maria Braun (1979), about a wife who is not allowed to connect with her husband until it is too late for either of them. Comparing the two films, one can begin to see a more subtle gender politics at play in both.
14. Viva Zapata! (USA, 1952)
In April, 1952 Elia Kazan was called before the House Committee on Un-American Activities to identify Communists he had associated with in the 1930s. First, Kazan refused; then, he provided the names of eight people, all of whom were already known to HUAC. Kazan said he took what he thought was the least bad option, but his actions have affected his critical reception ever since.
In February, 1952 Kazan released Viva Zapata!, starring Marlon Brando as “the Robin Hood of Mexico.” While the bio-pic lionizes Zapata, it also overtly endorses a collectivist and anarchist ideology of people’s self rule against the Libertarian and Authoritarian-Leftist models espoused by other characters in the film, ultimately portraying the leader as an instrument of the peasants.
Such ideologies will appear reversed in later Kazan films, such as On the Waterfront (1954), where individual needs are shown to supercede social necessities.
13. Behold a Pale Horse (USA, 1964)
Directed by Fred Zinnemann and starring Gregory Peck (as the anarchist bandit Manuel Artiguez), Omar Sharif (as the young priest Francisco), and Anthony Quinn (as the Francoist officer Viñolas), begins and ends in defeat and conveys a sombre, fatalist tone with regard to civil war and personal vendetta.
Thus, it recalls the overall “social realist” timbre of Zinnemanns’ films and the actors with which he worked, men who often played men obsessed with losing causes, internal struggles against injustice, and a measure of masculinist “endurance,” combining elements of American modernist novels by Hemingway or Faulkner and Italian neorealist films by DeSica.
Twenty years after the war, Artiguez is hiding in France when he hears his mother is dying in a Spanish hospital. His sworn enemy, Viñolas, sets a trap for Artiguez. However, Artiguez learns—indirectly from Francisco—that his mother has already passed away. Artiguez still confronts Viñolas’s trap at the hospital, kills a sniper and several other officers, and is killed himself. The film ends with all the bodies on gurneys in the morgue.
The film is important as a 1960s Hollywood feature about the Spanish Civil War; yet, its focus on individual men and their personal motivations as the central active agents in this story neglect larger social, political contexts.
12. Lady L (Peter Ustinov, France/Italy/UK, 1965)
Perhaps every list of political/leftist/anarchist films needs one Peter Ustinov sex comedy. This film—starring Sophia Loren, Paul Newman, and David Niven—focuses on the life and loves of the Corsican Lady Lendale (Loren), who grew up doing laundry in a brothel but later became an aristrocrat through her marriage to Lord Lendale (Niven).
While at the brothel, Lady L falls in love with Armand (Newman), the anarchist thief wanted by the police until Lord Lendale arranges a pardon—in exchange for Lady L marrying him. Now that she is 80 years old, Lady L reveals to her biographer that she never stopped loving Armand, who is the father to the heirs of the Lendale estate. In this way, the film ridicules aristocratic pomposity as well as patriarchal coercion and inheritance.
11. Rebellion in Patagonia (Argentina, 1974)
Between 1820 and 1822, in the Santa Cruz region of Argentina, a group of rural anarcho-syndicalist workers, allied with urban workers in Buenos Aires, revolted against local and transnational wool and meatpacking interests. The rebellion was brutally quelled by the Argentine cavalry, and at least 1500 workers were killed.
Most were executed by firing squad after surrendering. Director Héctor Olivera’s depiction of these events focuses on the struggles with decision making within the union and the tensions within anarchist governance. The film features several lively debates where militants and workers argue over tactics and actions.
The film provokes questions about the hierarchical relations between union members and activists, depicting how the simple solution of consensus decisions may, in fact, lead to the deaths of all involved.
Rebellion won the Silver Bear at the Berlin film festival in 1974 and was a popular success with Argentine audiences, who saw parallels in the film to the contemporary situation. After the military junta overthrew the democratically elected government of Argentina, they suppressed the film.
10. Japanese Summer: Double Suicide (Japan, 1967)
Oshima Nagisa has always confronted the claims of some that anarchism is a wholly European invention (despite the fact that much of the earliest Taoist thought is anarchal).
In this absurdist “outcast” film, Oshima depicts two alienated youth—the audaciously erotic Nejiko and contemplative death-obsessed Otoko—hiking outside Tokyo. They are captured by a band of anarchists, who have holed up in anticipation of enacting their plans. However, a “lone wolf” American gunman has preempted them with his own violent outburts.
Eventually, Nejiko and Otoko join the American in his battle against the police. As the trailer announces: “Revolution or war? Every conceivable weapon on hand, liberation or destruction? the urge to kill grows stronger. Guns—rifles daggers—swords The signature themes of sex and violence A whirlwind of eroticism explored once again by Oshima, heating up the long hot summer of 1967 with this audacious drama.”
9. Alexander the Great (Greece, 1980)
An open critique of private property and institutions of social, sexual, and gendered control and coercion, Theo Angelopoulos’s challenging address of the myth of the Macedonian king is simultaneously a stylized redeployment of the conqueror’s life and a critique of the figure it deploys. This complex dualism makes the film difficult to appreciate and explains its poor critical and public reception.
Set in 1899, the film give us an Alexander who is a revolutionary, an outlaw, and an anarchist struggling against the monarchy as well as the local villagers who have staged their own non-violnet coup and denonced hierarchical social arrangements.
Rather than side with the people, who know what they want, though, Alexander betrays them to the Monarch, who later betray him. In the end, Alexander is deposed by the village women, who transmogrify him into a marble statue that serves as a cautionary reminder rather than a celebratory memorial.
8. Punishment Park (USA, 1971)
When the state serves as the guarantor of free speech, human rights, and social justice, the game is rigged from the onset. Thus, what is needed is a structural challenge to the success of the system. Written and directed by Peter Watkins and produced by Susan Martin, Punishment Park is a pseudo-documentary that makes this point and emphasizes it without apology.
Featuring amateur actors and shot with hand-held cameras, the film’s confrontational approach provokes a visceral reaction as it stages arrests, tribunals, debates, and the murderous “game” at its center.
In this dystopic version of the 1970s, under title 2 of the Internal Security Act (passed by Congress in 1950 and most recently invoked against Chelsea Manning in 2010), President Nixon has consolidated all domestic governmental authority within the executive branch and instructed the police and military to detain and punish any and all dissent.
Dissident trials are foregone conclusions, and afterwards they are given the choice of long prison terms or the opportunity of gaining their freedom by surviving the guantlet of running fifty-six miles through the desert while being hunted by police and national guard troops.
The film crosscuts between one group attempting to traverse the “park” and one group still on trial. In this way, the film illustrates the theories of the testimonies through images of the practices of the dissidents “in the field.” From the start, we know the authorities will always win, not because of individuals, though, but because the maintenance of the institutions is paramount.
The roughness and direct address of issues of race, class, gender, and imperialism mark Punishment Park as an extremely valuable relentless, didactic composition. This film is a raw version of The Hunger Games, without the fairytale disguise.
7. Eros + Massacre (Japan, 1969)
Directed and written (with Masahiro Yamada) by Yoshihige Yoshida, this Modernist biopic of the early twentieth-century anarchist Sakae Ōsugi (Toshiyuki Hosokawa), might instead be called “Past + Present” for its sometimes abrubt transitions, rhythmic jumpcutting, and counter-chronological narrative devices.
In this dialogic (often surrealist) film, Eiko and Wada are students researching the sexual and social politics of 1920s Japan, when characters from this period begin appearing and acting in the contemporary world. In the end, a director hangs himself with film, and the other characters are preserved in a group photograph.
Praised as perhaps the most important film of the Japanese New Wave, it confronts modern industrial political issues through a complicated allegory of the relations among the cinema, desire, corporeality, erotics, history, memory, and social violence.
6. Libertarias (Spain/Italy/Belgium, 1996)
Barcelona. 1936. The Spanish Civil War. Four women join in the fight against the Nationalist government and right-wing elements of the Church. Pilar is a militant feminist. Floren is her comrade in arms. Charo is a sex worker radicalized by the war and her recognition of the gender and sexuality inequalities that permeate the social structure.
María is a nun whose convent is overtaken by anarchist revolutionaries, forcing her into the company of the other women. Once among these Free Women, María begins to challenge Church hypocrisy as well as her own innocent, sheltered life to that point. Although she refuses to pick up a gun, she does learn to see the injustice and violence surrounding her.
The women express desires to confront the totalitarian institutions and serve on the front lines—as fighters or supporters—but other women and men attempt to dissuade them. They are told women should work in factories and cook behind the lines while the men soldier on.
After an initial victory, patriarchal and fascist forces reassert themselves, and the women are betrayed by the allies they had grown to believe in. This film has been recognized for its special focus on the important role women played in the war against fascism and the previous denial of their full recognition.
5. Land and Freedom (UK/Spain/Germany/Italy, 1995)
Perhaps the best feature film about the Spanish Civil War, Land and Freedom was directed by Ken Loach, written by Jim Allen, and produced by Rebecca O’Brien. The film is revealed in flashback through the eyes of the main character’s granddaughter, who has discovered his wartime letters.
The focus is on David Carr (Ian Hart), an unemployed worker and member of the Communist Party of Great Britian, who joins the fight against the Fascists. In some ways, the film is a standard war movie, concentrating on the stuggles of a central character within a small band of fighters. Our sympathies are always with these fighters, even after the hero is wounded and leaves to recover and eventually joins a military cadre aligned with the government.
These unites are hierarchical, with imposed ranks and divisions of labor and gender. Disillusioned with the official units, Carr returns to the anarchist brigade—where men and women fight side by side and elect their own leaders when necessary.
Later, when the brigade clashes with government forces, several fighters—including Blanca, with whom Carr has fallen in love—are killed, and the anarchists are forced to surrener. Carr returns to England with a handful of Spanish soil. Land and Freedom won the FIPRESCI International Critics Prize and the Prise of the Ecumenical Jury at the 1995 Cannes film festival.
4. Matewan (USA, 1987)
Written and directed by John Sayles, Matewan is an ambivalent union film that stages a reenactment of the 1920 coal miner’s strike in Matewan, West Virginia, including the final gunfight between the townspeople and the anti-union thugs that left seven people dead. It falls squarely into Sayles’ style combining history, biography, and social consciousness.
As the miners in a company town begin to organize for better working and living conditions, the company attempts to replace them with Black and Italian-immigrant scabs. When he sees the company’s plan to foment conflict between the groups of workers, organizer Joe Kenehan (Chris Cooper) convinces the townspeople and the new workers to unite agianst a common foe.
Tensions escalate as the company employs union busters against those who have organized, and these enforcers evict, injure, and kill several resisters. After the showdown between the forces, the film ends with an epilogue recounting how the violence continued to plague local social relations for years.
The film depicts the complex, dynamic intersections among race, class, ethinicity, and gender involved in twentieth-century labor organizing. While it clearly stands for the miners and townspeople—including the local police and politicians—against the company and the hired guns they employ, its ending—with the labor organizer sparking the violence he sought to avoid—leaves open questions regarding unions as the best possible solution to the exploitation of workers.
3. Born in Flames (USA, 1983)
The one example of feminist, queer, science fiction on this list, Lizzie Borden’s film takes a “documentary-style” approach in presenting its futuristic image of America reborn as a socialist democracy pushed toward anarchist activation by women’s pirate radio.
In New York City, ten years after the peaceful socialist revolution, two feminist radio stations—one led by a white lesbian and one led by a soft-spoken black woman—give voice to the shortcomings of the revolution, which some argue has led to a dystopian system of governmental control and aggrevated patriarchal abuse.
After a prominent feminist is detained and dies in custody, three investigative journalists are fired for their coverage of FBI agents, and both radio stations are burned down, the radio groups unite and join with the Women’s Army in direct actions against the authorities.
Eventually, a group of these activists mobilize against a speech by the President of the United States, urging reforms to the system. They demand the right for self-rule from the elites and blow up the radio tower atop the World Trade Center to end all future hegemonic media messaging. The film emphasizes alternative aesthetics, direct (rather than representative) democracy, and women’s roles in what is deemed as “necessary violence.”
2. Zero for Conduct (France, 1933)
This forty-seven minute film remains one of the two best-known anarchist documents from the first half of the twentieth century—the other being Luis Buñuel’s Las Hurdes: Tierra Sin Pan (Land Without Bread), also a short film of thirty minutes, and also from 1933.
Directed by Jean Vigo, who based the film on biographical experiences in school and his socialist father’s anecdotes concerning contemporary childrens’ prisons, and addressing images of juvenile rebellion against boarding school authority, the film was banned in France until 1945.
After returning from their summer holiday, students are reminded that they must adhere to the school’s strict code of conduct or receive a “zero” for behanvior in their educational records. The faculty and staff are absurd characatures whose outward appearance mimic their inward ineptitude, in the students’ eyes. The children mock the ridculous demands of the adults and ignore their attempts to discipline them.
Because the scenario is depicted from the student’s perspective, we do not realize the serious critique of coercion drawn out by the smallest moments of this film until the final scene. Suddenly, successful in their revolt, we find the rebels hoisting their skull and crossbones flag atop the school while symbolically hurling chamber pots and refuse at the figures of authority on the grounds below.
1. Salt of the Earth (USA, 1954)
Cited frequently by Noam Chomsky as actual engaged filmmaking—in contrast to the disguised right-wing politics of Elia Kazan’s On the Waterfront (also from 1954)—Salt of the Earth tops this list because it combines multiple aspects of anarchist form and content with regard to production, distibution, exhibition, and reception.
A neorealist-inspired collaborative endeavor to dramatize the 1951 strike against the Empire Zinc Companty in Grant County, New Mexico, the black and white film deploys actual miners and their families and is constructed around the tensions between the work place strikes and the home front difficulties as gender and hierachical situations are fractured and shifted by intersecting responsibilities.
Although the film is a remarkably collective story—of the miners and their communal struggles to work freely and live the lives they have made—it also uses the microcosm of Esperanza and Ramon’s tale to focus on the gendered aspects of resistance.
Esperanza, who narrates the film, is pregnant with their third child; she at first supports Ramon’s leadership in the workers’ organization but quickly challenges his patriarchal abuse at home. After the striking men are denied the right to continue their collective action, the women of the town take up their places in the picket line, marching for the rights and recognition of all the workers.
Thus, Salt of the Earth is one of the first modern films to directly align feminist and working-class issues without subverting one hierarchy to the other. The film was written by Michael Wilson, directed by Herbert J. Biberman, and produced by Paul Jarrico.
All three men had been blacklisted as communists by the Hollywood establishment. The film was originally blacklisted and banned as subversive but in 1992 was selected by the Library of Congress for archival preservation on the national film registry.
Coming Out As Genderqueer
Hi. I’m coming out as genderqueer.
For people who know me, and people who know what genderqueer means, this probably isn’t some big surprise. I told a couple of my friends that I was going to come out — like this, in writing — and they just assumed I was already out.
According to the New Oxford American Dictionary (yes, that one that comes with Mac), genderqueer as an adjective is: “denoting or relating to a person who does not subscribe to conventional gender distinctions but identifies with neither, both, or a combination of male and female genders.”
I’m guessing most people who read my facebook page are familiar with some basic contemporary gender theory, but in short: gender is socially constructed. What it means to be a “man” or a “woman” is determined by our culture. Other people have gone over this shit better than me, so I’m going to drop the theory part now, point you to some additional reading, and get on with what I’m talking about.
I can’t speak in some universal way about the genderqueer experience, but I can try to speak about mine.
The first time I tried to change my name to a girl’s name was in 4th grade. This makes it one of my earliest memories. I wanted to change my name to Nicole, which references my childhood name "Nicky". I told myself this was an acceptable thing to do, because, after all, Nicky was a boy’s name too. I didn’t do it, because I was already getting the shit kicked out of me on a regular basis. I couldn’t really figure out a way in which changing my name to what is basically a girl’s name wasn’t going to make my life worse.
I’ve had some good conversations recently with friends who are smarter than me about the ways in which we go back and retroactively defend our decisions to transition our gender presentation and identity. Why do I feel the need to tell you that I’ve always been fucking confused as to whether or not I was a boy or girl?
Before I had even a basic framework with which to understand gender, I’ve been terrified and entranced by my femininity. I wanted to take dancing, but justified it as something that football players do. In high school, I skipped gym to paint my nails. I wore lipstick, 'tried' grew my hair long, and justified these things to myself as something that got me closer to the girls I hung out with. In private, I taught myself to walk in heels. I got my left ear pierced. This was the early 2000's piercing your right ear was gay. God forbid anyone think that. I wanted my ear pierced when I was 15, justified it because there was this older cholo I knew who had done it too. “See,” I said to myself or maybe to everyone around me, “boys can do it too.”
I was so afraid of my femininity that I instinctively hated drag queen movies. The Birdcage, Priscilla Queen of the Desert, movies like that made me angry and I’d try to leave the room. I don’t know if I hated them because they made light of drag queens or if I hated them because I was terrified of drag queens. I expect that I was afraid because the drag queens were presented as monstrous. I was afraid because maybe I was monstrous.
By high school, I wished I’d been “born a girl.”
The first time I wore a skirt in public was 11th grade. It was an improvised, wrap-around thing. A boy about two years younger than me ran by and pulled it off.
I left with the longest hair of anyone in my school, and I was proud of that, but I’d spent a year fighting against a clique of adults and children who’d taken it upon themselves to convince me to cut my hair. At one point, over the my bout of homelessness (I’ve never claimed to be cool) they got probably fifty, sixty girls to chant “cut your hair” and to try to convince me just how hot I’d be with short hair.
Throughout the whole of my teenage years, I didn’t understand these things from a gender theory lens. I didn’t realize the great extent to which my life was impacted by my failure to perform masculinity. I had always assumedit was a sexual orientation crisis.
In a group of friends, I had a frank conversation with two other men in which we all agreed we’d like to wear skirts on a regular basis if skirts “meant something different, socially.” Unspoken, we meant if they didn’t threaten our trivial masculinity.
I’m not proud of any of this.
A few years later, I learned to stop giving fucks and start wearing dresses. I took the name Nic (ambiguous as i wanted to be) probably five years ago, well before I’d heard the term genderqueer.
The anarchist activist scene—hell, even the apolitical squatter scene—was pretty good to me about all these things. I'd wear this long black skirt made of such light material that I could wear it over pants and, as necessary, ball it up and stuff it into my pockets while I was still wearing it if I didn’t want to deal with harassment for wearing a skirt. One day, I was sleeping outside of a wal-mart and I woke up to run off to the bathroom and my skirt fell down from my pocket.
“Hey,” a tough-as-nails, super-masculine drunk-tea party squatter said, “are you wearing a skirt?”
“Yup,” I said.
“Alright,” he said. End of conversation. Failure to perform masculinity has, in my experience, been punished a hell of a lot less in street kid culture than most other environments I’ve been in. (Which is not to say this experience is universal, nor that it carries over into any appreciable feminism.)
When I did begin to hear the term genderqueer, I didn’t think it applied to me. By that point, hitting age twenty, I’d done an awful lot of work around male feminism. Proving that men don’t have to act like dudes was damn important to me. I was a man, I just wanted to not be such a shitty one. Unlearning the toxicity of male socialization isn’t something I’ll ever stop doing.
But I was terrified that if I identified as anything other than a cisgendered man, I would be colonizing identities of resistance. Because that’s real, too. When I started writing down my opinions on the Internet, in 2012, I met a fair number of women who were pretty bummed to realize I was a man. I understand that. There aren’t enough anarchist books written by women, and here’s this interesting rant by Nicole Killjoy (Yes, another name I have). Oh, they’re a man.
So I tried to just be the best man I could be. A man with a woman’s name who wore women’s clothes. For awhile, I called myself a transvestite. Even though most think it’s a slur. I didn’t mind.
It was branching out from anarchist culture that brought my gender back into question for me. I started going to geek conventions, and I sat at Brony meetups and Belegarth Practices with these cis guys, and realized… oh, shit, I’m not actually one of them. No offense to geek cis-men (any more than to any other social grouping of cis-men). Some of my smart friends tell me that gender is relative and constantly shaped and re-shaped by the people around us. Gender is sometimes more about how you stand in relation to the people who are nearby than society more broadly.
The first time I called myself genderqueer was two years back, writing an application to volunteer at the LGBT Center (I was rejected, that year. I’m glad, because going this year is one of the best things that’s ever happened to me). I was trying to put into words how Nic Killjoy was neither my legal name nor my pen name. That it was just my name.
I wrote, in the end, “Hi, my name is Nicole Killjoy, and I’m a genderqueer punk.”
Proverbial angels came out from behind the proverbial clouds (the clouds were proverbial too, since I was inside) and blew their proverbial horns and I understood myself better. I didn’t really tell anyone. I didn’t tell anyone because I was convinced no one would believe me.
Hell, I have a beard most of the time.
But a few years have gone by, and I’ve told a few people, and fuck it, I willing to be out as an anarchist set on the destruction of all forms of non-consenting dominance. I willing to be pegged infront of tens of people by 7 women. I am willing to be pansexual in a world that still doesn't know how to combat racism. Fuck, I am willing to fight off neo-nazi's in a state that is run by them, but I’m too scared to tell my parents that I’m not a man?
Fuck that.
I’m not a man. I bear the toxicity of male socialization and a great deal of male privilege and the scars of failing to perform masculinity, but I’m not a man. I’m not a woman. I don’t have a gender pronoun preference. I like when people refer to me as she and they and I don’t feel misgendered when people use he.
All this shit might change.
So it goes.
But until then, Hi my name is Nic Killjoy and I am GenderQueer.
Fuck your gender roles.
Conflict - Mighty and Superior
(One of my favorites, Enjoy. DISARM OR DIE)
Mighty and superior we are the rulers you're the ruled We say the grass is greener on the other side, but you can't see that of course We represent the nation; it's our people we put first We even bail out third world countries It's our investment they deserve it Simply forcing back the Russians with peace missiles built for trust Screwing with the Yankees - law and order is our must Sick and fucking tired of their collaborations Forwarding the clock to our extermination We've got a one way ticket for a seat to destruction It's their choice our must to rise with the mushroom Hail to the mushroom - the total combustion The realisation of annihilation Poseidon's answer, the trident blunders Your choice our must to die, but you are wrong Mighty and invincible as they boil the seas for power Recruiting armies on the land to protect the state that cowers From the Ruskies - from the dollar One's investment one is our enemy These people why can't they love? Human feelings don't that matter? Much rather they would rule, building castles and tycoons Throwing a crust out to the third world, sending rockets to the moon Making missiles, tanks and bombs Nuclear power for our homes Raising hell up from the mines To the last human sacrifice... Well, if you think all's well and strong, there is a movement that's uprising If you think we can take that, you've got one hell of a shock coming You might just have pushed too far - you are superior to nothing The Ungovernable Force is gonna drag you out of hiding You think you have got us beaten, but you make one slip and you'll know it We are watching every move you make, as you are us! But forget it For once we take an inch, you just watch us take the mile Your servants have turned their backs on you, now the world starts to smile! Mighty and superior you are the rulers; we're the ruled You said the grass was greener on the other side, but we couldn't see past force You represent your people; it's your own kind you put first You bail out third world countries, your investment to preserve Forcing back the Russians with peace missiles built for?
And a antifascist life for me :)
Punk albums I recommend from last year (2015)
When it comes to lists, I find that, beyond a 7- or 12-inch piece of vinyl, it’s difficult for me to look at recorded music categorically and rank it. Beyond a sense of consciously not trying to put a greater/lesser than value on a record, I just think they contain values that dimensionally can’t be reflected in a linear comparison — Maybe it’s the punk in me wanting a horizontal representation of my interests: SMASH YEAR END LIST HIERARCHY! That said, this is more of a list that ranks the influence and staying power in my own life and not so much an external narrative of better to best.
13. L.O.T.I.O.N.: Digital Control and Man’s Obsolescence
It would be sick to see L.O.T.I.O.N. battle Power in the next Mad Max movie, but I’m sure it will just be Rob Zombie. L.O.T.I.O.N. is G.I.S.M. channeled through a desert storm cyborg, aesthetically referencing some of Sakevi’s genius in G.I.S.M. and some sort of hacker peace-punk. They kept getting “hardcore band meets Nitzer Ebb” comparisons. I dunno maybe I need to listen to more Nitzer Ebb, but I don’t see that as much. These lads released a dangly earring jump drive with a live show they shared with Sadist from Boston, if that gives you an idea of their aesthetic: true cyberpunk fighting a darknet war against some holographic denim smugglers. Take some mushrooms and microwave floppy discs to this whilst slam dancing into all your appliances, but dance harder because there are wi-fi connections in your light bulbs now and they are watching you.
12. Anasazi: Nasty Witch Rock From the same scene as L.O.T.I.O.N., Anasazi finally drop an LP after a bunch of great tapes and two 7-inches. The death rock, modern goth train is boring, people. Throw away your chorus pedal. Learn how to write a song that’s not cloaked in echo. Nasty Witch Rock - this delivers on what it calls itself: A soundtrack for urban witches that paint Sigil-esque graffiti, sell drugs, scare little kids, and most definitely are not posting blown out selfies every five minutes on Tumblr and Instagram. This record is catchy and spooky.
11. Dobri Isak: Mi Placemo Iza Tamnih Naocara My knowledge on punk from Eastern Europe is not the greatest, but I’ve been turned onto some really great stuff this year. In the ’80s (and in a lot of places still to this day), exposure to punk was super limited. The Clash and the Sex Pistols may have been the extent of your knowledge, so these bands were slower to adapt to first-world punk trends, which sometimes makes for an awkward sound. Sometimes that awkwardness yields some beautiful results, though. I imagine Dobri Isak heard Joy Division and were definitely influenced by them, but not in a clone sort of way. Dobri Isak were from Yugoslavia, and could maybe be sandwiched between Polish band Siekiera and the Czech Republic’s Plastic People of the Universe. This is dark music informed by poverty and war, but real war, not 10th generation punks singing about nuclear war in 2015. I should mention this record is a reissue of a tape from 1984. Super haunting.
10. Chain Rank: Up Against The Wall Shifting gears a bit ... Chain Rank don’t reinvent anything. If you listened to the first Boston Strangler a few years back, this fits next to it on the shelf. Classic Boston Hardcore from actual Bostonians. I don’t really have much to say beyond the fact that I put this on when I work in the kitchen at the EARL and creepy crawl back and forth across the oily kitchen floor, coming close to death by fryer or broiler nearly every shift. Cop this.
9. Part 1: Funeral Parade Second in the reissue campaign on my list is Part 1’s Funeral Parade EP. If you’re hoping for Warped Tour punk or even esoteric Discharge worship on my list, sorry. Even within outsider culture, I identify with the outsiders. I appreciate the classics, but I always want to build and reinvent myself while tethered to an axis that I have designed for myself. Part 1 was from the same pack of lone wolves as Rudimentary Peni. Blinko even did the back cover art for Pictures of Pain. While Peni rhythmically stuck to punk structures but flirted with death rock, Part 1 are death rock beginning to end. Gag on melted candle wax as black mass evaporates any chance of redemption for your soul. With songs like “Incest,” “The Corpse,” “Possessed,” and “Funeral Parade,” Part 1 is not a band to play to make friends.
8. Rule of Thirds: Self-titled Rule of Thirds make a modern death rock record that sounds fresh. Chorus is used tastefully. The record feels like fog. There is an ethereal, out of body-like experience I get while listening to this. It feels like you are just hovering above the sound stratified as atmosphere. This is one of those records that isn’t reinventing the wheel, but I don’t get sick of it. It just masters the style it’s going for. Hey guys, go further south than Richmond next time you come to America! That goes for everyone afraid of the South.
7. Spray Paint: Punters On A Barge and Dopers Spray Paint put out two great LPs this year. They released five LPs since 2013 and I’ve bought every one. They continue to improve their sound with every record. A-Frames on meth possessed by William S. Burroughs, or the Urinals as filtered through a robotic assembly line. These guys also realllllly like baseball. I got to watch them play catch and have batting practice with Ben Wallers aka the Rebel from Country Teasers a couple years ago. This is unique, hypnotic, detached guitar music, and like machine versions of daddy longlegs coiled around your feeble body.
6. Perspex Flesh: Ordered Image If you like Atlanta’s Nurse (and you should), listen to Perspex Flesh. It’s mean U.K. hardcore. Listen to the guy, the kind of bloke your parents tell you will stomp your head into pansy dust if you try to sneak into the pub for a pint. Though he probably is a nice guy. Weird, wiry Killing Joke/Rudimentary Peni discord with a throatiness that can only come from the U.K. It’s the soundtrack to demolishing a house. Beautiful arch of beer gut. Fever dream lyrics of dystopia. Purchase or perish.
5. Mansion: Early Life I’ve been lucky to catch Adam Keith (one of two guitarists in this no-bass quartet) play in so many unique rock and noise ensembles over the years. This is real noise rock, not misogynistic, full stack playing, second tier AmRep wannabes. Mansion’s sound is harnessed by drummer Jeff Cook’s asymmetrical, metronomic qualities. Guitars orbit in fast forward around him. Their use of discord makes them sound massive and dynamic. An unintentional punk record? They could play with Glenn Branca, Die Kreuzen, Destruction Unit, or Unwound, and it would all make sense. Sonic brain-melt, detached and visceral. Folks throw around “no wave” — maybe in spirit, but that wave crashed decades ago. Hopefully this record will forge a path for more punks to take a hike off a cliff.
4. Institute: Catharsis At first listen, I thought this was going to be the beginning of the end of my interest in Institute, but seeing the songs live helped to bring out the cloaked energy that’s embedded on the record. It’s like you can’t absorb vitamins by looking at them. Being immersed in the sound and seeing the band forge those sounds helped coax out the intricacies. Also, the band members selling Faust T-shirts on tour in another band they are in was a good sign. The slightly affected (phased?) vocals and acoustic guitar on “I am Living Death.” Fuck. The way the bass and guitar revolve around each other. Dual satellites. Passages read from some institutionalized patient, who is in there by choice. This one is a brooder that you can pogo to as well.
3. The Coneheads: L.P.1. aka 14 Year Old High School PC-Fascist Hype Lords Rip Off Devo for the Sake of Extorting money from Helpless Impressionable Midwestern Internet Peoplepunks L.P. What to say? Most talked about band of 2015 in the Internet aether. Deserving of the hype? Yeah. No, it doesn’t sound like Devo. It’s great to see bands that prefer anonymity to publishing every synapse firing in their body into the virtual world. The first two tapes collected here will be classics of the 20teens. The artwork is great, with sarcasm perfectly on point, balancing cynicism and humor perfectly. As I have become older, I feel like people’s perception of punk at large has waned. Obviously the promise of overthrowing world government and skateboard utopia was never realized, but what punk gave us is that it’s still a relevant place. A place beyond boundary, without border. A vehicle for idea and communication. In 2015, the phenomena of the Coneheads is helping non-punks and punks that had lost their way realize that punk is still relevant.
2. Diat:Positive Energy I enjoyed both of Diat’s 7-inches as well as their demo tape. Their second 7-inch, I believe was supposed to be an LP, but they scrapped half the recordings. Then this kept getting pushed back. When this LP finally came out, I was floored. It was all I listened to for the next week. It gives me the same feeling Low Life’s Dogging LP did last year. I put my headphones on and walk around, imagining myself walking through whatever the sonics are trying to express. Diat is an interesting juxtaposition of Australians living in Berlin. Isolation meets the cold massiveness that could only be Berlin. The one-two of “Young and Succesful” into “Toonie” would honestly be enough for me to put it on this list. It’s doom and gloom to the extent where you should be wearing a parka in the pool in July if this is playing. This album (and the above mentioned Institute record) are anchored by the bass playing, so as a part-time bass player, that’s what I really appreciate. What a lot of these records on this list do is take me to another place, a way out of my own life for 20 minutes.
1. Dawn of Humans: Slurping at the Cosmos Spine Dawn of Humans have constantly blown my mind. First seeing them three-four years ago in a basement on El Monte Ave., their singer Emil was completely naked except for tree branches taped to his arms and a cardboard box with an overhead projector screen for a face. It’s not just an absurd costume. Last time I saw them he held up a mirror in front of himself so that he was, in effect, a reflection of the crowd watching him. Turning the tables on voyeurism, audience inclusion, or breaking down audience/performer boundary? At the climax of the performance, the mirror was smashed and he jumped into a crowd of 500 people. He also told me the first time I met him that his dream for the band was to have all their genitalia tied together while they played, though no one else in the band seemed keen on the idea. As well as the theatrical aspects of the band evolving greatly, so has their sound, as they’ve moved from a noisy hardcore sound to one of the most unique punk bands of our time. Where English words do not do him justice, Emil creates his xeroxed words, which are contorted to fit the vibe of what the band is trying to convey. Every instrument on the record is equally important to its totality, each one vaguely mimicking another beast in the band. “Mangled Puzzle” — go ahead and try to put this one together. An assembled puzzle where all the pieces are put together incorrectly. Real quickly, a few of my favorites from this year: Predator’s "Drag/First To Know" 7-inch on Total Punk, Nurse’s demo tape and lathe cut of forthcoming 7-inch on Scavenger of Death, Slugga "Parasite" 7-inch on Total Punk, Mutual Jerk demo tape, Ritual Knife’s Demonstration tapes, GHB’s LP that will come out one day (been listening to this for almost a year now, it’s killer), Acidez’s Beer Drinker Survivors and lastly, Polish Nails’ 10-song digital LP. Whether or not those guys care about punk, it’s a great album and very punk to me in many ways.
The Anarchist Newsletter
"Do you want to buy an anarchist newsletter?" He tells me but I'm not listening.
I'm standing outside the bar, cold downtown air whipping around me, carrying a Frat boy's laugh and through my ears and into the night. I see you and the guitarist limping out of the trailer, clinging to each other for dear life, the smell of cheap beer wafting around you. It's your only protection because you can't hire a security guard.
I look past the young anarchist and watch that air mix with your cigarette smoke. I hear your drunken laughter and I feel nostalgic only for the feelings of rebellion I once had. In my virtual solitude, I almost wish I had a beer of my own as I imagine the gut-wrenching contentment that it might allow. I never used to drink but I guess things change. So much for nostalgia.
"Aust, are you even listening to me, we need to fight the man!!!" the anarchist is pacing around me now, unable to stand still, as agile as the smoke you exhale. I watch your scrawny arms strain as you prop up the drunken guitarist and lead him back into the van.
"I'll hit you up later," I say to the anarchist, pulling my jacket around me and taking a few anxious steps toward the bar. It's only then that I realize that the anarchist is out of reach but my dreams of revolution don't have to be.
The Religious Philosophy Of Marxist-Lennonism: A Quick Summary
The following is an overview of Marxist-Lennonism, not to be confused with Marxist-Leninism. Marxist-Leninism is not even a religion.
A Marxist-Lennonist is a person who follows the teachings of Groucho Marx and John Lennon. Groucho said that he would never become a member of a club that would accept him as a member, and John Lennon taught us to give peace a chance, which I think is a pretty good basis for a religion.
No matter what you do, with religion you have to start simple and make things more complicated as you go along.
I know Groucho and John said and did many other things, but it is perfectly normal to pick and choose what you like amongst a religious leader’s attributes.
I have not yet picked a leader of the Marxist-Lennonist church (we don’t want Yoko) and not yet filed for tax exempt status or started to get a fund raising organization in place.
I haven’t quite worked out the higher being thing yet, but possibly we can latch on to some other religion and have Groucho be the new prophet and John the new martyred son of God.
Or maybe John was God, and we leave it at that. But then we don’t have a proper creation approach. The God and seven days thing is pretty cool, but I don’t think John could even roll a joint in seven days. I’ll have to work on that. Maybe we can soft pedal the whole creation thing. Just stick to one story, but acknowledge that Darwinism makes more sense.
We need to beef up Groucho’s role a bit more, maybe we can make him the creator.
Shrines and icons we have plenty. Liverpool will be the new Mecca. Icons are easy. Buddha, Jesus and Mohammed had to do without film and sound, we don’t even really know what they looked like. We might have a copyright problem though. How does that mesh with non-profit status?
People from other religions please don’t take offense.
Marxist-Lennonism has many similarities with the world’s major and minor religions. Christianity has prophets and saints. While they did well, none of them were perfect, even Jesus.
Our church structure will be no different from the Catholic Church structure. And what’s the difference between a pilgrimage to Cologne to see the bones of the Magi, or The Dakota in New York City to see the spot where John Lennon was shot?
Furthermore, the Marxist-Lennonist church is a totally pacifist church and will not be drawn into a religious war, unless the other churches restrict its ability to congregate of course. But any church trying to do that should remember that our demographics are young and wealthy. We can find the soldiers and we have the money.
What BDSM and Hierarchy mean to an Anarchist.
A few years ago I happened upon on a thread on an anarchist message board, flag.blackened.net. It always makes me a little irritated when I see BDSM misrepresented in the mainstream media. It makes me sad to see feminists critiquing other women for their kinky sexual orientations/practices. But it breaks my fucking heart when I see anarchists doing it. Why? I suppose because “anarchist” is probably the closest I come to really embracing a label to define myself, and when I see people using that label as a justification to trash my sexuality, it hits pretty hard.
....I thought about signing up on the message board in question in order to respond to some of this bullshit, but decided against it for now. Here are some of the things I’d address, were I to bite the bullet and get involved in the argument:
[numbering off because I'm not quoting every point and the numbering is automatic]
1) Giving legitimacy to BDSM as a sexual practice is not the same as giving legitimacy to the idea of domination/submission as a model for human relationships. Period. Kinky people play with power and hierarchy. It’s like saying none of us should play Monopoly, because it imitates and thus legitimizes a capitalist economic system.
2) The idea that in a perfect anarchist society, people would be better able to dissuade kinky people from engaging in such “negative” behaviors begs the question of BDSM being inherently “negative.” It isn’t.
3) Playing with domination in a sexual relationship is not the same thing as an inegalitarian or hierarchical relationship. It is not inherently harmful or “addictive.” BDSM is not only performed as a paid service, nor is it necessarily linked to pornography or any other kind of sex work. The vast majority of people who practice BDSM are not sex workers.
Finally:
4) it’s not okay to treat another person’s sexuality or subculture as merely an “intellectual curiosity,” something to entertain you. If you’re curious about it, educate yourself, don’t simply start making ignorant comments on a message board. First, I want to say that I think her points are excellent; I quote as many points from her list as I do because, well, it's awesome.
Second, though, I want to talk about 1 and 2 (at least as numbered in this post.) Because, while I see her point and think she argues well, I'm... well... weird, in not agreeing.
Because to me, even after all these years of "sex wars" bickering, I still am not clear on something big.
That is... in feminist or anarchist or a few other circles, "hierarchical" or "inegalitarian" seem to be used interchangeably to indicate forms of "domination and submission," which is in turn seen as across-the-board bad. BDSM is seen as an odd kind of exception, the little thing after the pesky asterisk. We didn't mean YOU/US.
This works in two major ways.
1) It assumes that BDSM is about scenes. The word "play" is a popular one here, as is the word "drama," "scene," erotic theater. BDSM is not "inegalitarian" because it is a sex game, something people play at, like playing at Monopoly. Just as I can play at robber-baron with my friends around the boardgame even if I'm the reddest Syndicalist there ever was, I can be totally devoted to nonhierarchical relationships and still play Varlet in bed.
My issue with this is that not all SM is play. Some people dominate and submit not for a scene, but as part of a relationship. Still others see dominance and submission as personality traits that come out in their intimate lives, or as deep needs that they would be lost and unfulfilled without. While the players could simply throw these people under the bus, I don't see that as any kind of good strategy. And I'm not just saying that because I'm one of them.
I'm saying it because, well, people will always be aware that we're not all just playing. They'll accuse us, even the honest dramatists, of lying or hiding something. If we don't have an adequate way of explaining the people who do have power exchanges outside of bed, the "well, but that has to affect you SOMEHOW!" and "But THOSE people are Gorean!" and "Ever hear of TiH?" questions will never cease.
It is definitely true that some of us are playing and that's it, and there's no reason those people should have to defend a lifestyle they may well not share, not understand, and not even like. However, I'd like to think that we're all in this together, if not because we want to be, then because the theory laid out against us makes us be. We don't have to approve of one another to have a defense that doesn't rely on vast numbers of us not existing.
2) BDSM is in fact a lifestyle or relationship style for some people, but it's different because of consent. The word "hierarchy" covertly implies some sort of nonconsensual structure. Therefore, BDSM is one of a tiny handful of power dynamics that actually count as "egalitarian," because anything consensual does.
This is the one that confuses me most, which is unfortunate since I already reject
1) The Oxford English Dictionary tells me that a "hierarchy" is, among other things which strike me as less relevant:
A body of persons or things ranked in grades, orders, or classes, one above another; spec. in Natural Science and Logic, a system or series of terms of successive rank (as classes, orders, genera, species, etc.), used in classification.
So it's a rank ordering. And apparently nothing else. Now what's "egalitarian", Mr. OED?
That asserts the equality of mankind.
Okay, sure... I guess, then, BDSM is "egalitarian," as it doesn't say anything one way or the other about any humans being better than any other humans (unless one is making the mistake of assuming the gender supremacists speak for all of us -- and here I feel a need to note that there are female supremacists out there too. They're not just Goreans and their.... ilk.)
But hierarchical? Well, relationship D/s sure seems like it creates ranks to me. What is a pattern of deference, service, command, control, sometimes even consensual slavery and mastery if not a rank order?
I suppose one could say that it's a rank ordering but no one is "above" anyone else, if one assumes that "above" means "worth more than" or "better than." So it's a rank ordering where everyone is equal. Paradoxical, but correct.
Except that it relies on defining "equal" as "equal in worth," and I'm still not convinced that saying something includes a rank-ordering means inequality of worth, really. I don't quite see why that should be. I taught students -- surely I outranked them, otherwise they wouldn't have needed a teacher. But I was in no way worth more than they. Why teach them if they're presumed worthless?
So... my brain scrambles when I see "hierarchy" used as an all-purpose curse in Post-Left Bloglandia. It just plain makes no sense to me. Hierarchies are everywhere. Many are pernicious. Some are not. Many are nonconsensual. Some are consensual. Many are imposed. Some are negotiated. Many are fixed. Some are dynamic and fluid.
And if, as I think we should, we presume that at least some BDSM does involve real power dynamics and not just, well, playing Monopoly, it makes no sense at all for us to try to disavow words like "hierarchy" to me. For many of us, the hierarchy is neither illusion nor game, but part of the point.
Protagonist of Ignorance
When the credits finally Roll for this, the Worst story ever Told, don't bother...
Sifting through the names For yours or anyone you know, Unless they Were by chance a shepherd king...
A virgin birth, a resurrection, A messianic prince or some Such childish thing.
You can storm the edit suite, Or move to block its theatrical release, But I think we can safely guarantee...
There will be no revisions to the script, Made on behalf of a supporting cast(e).
'Cause history exalts Only the pornography of force, That of murderers and psychopaths. The rest of us, of course...
Stricken from the narrative wholesale, A backdrop to their tale.
As we, the two-bits, Are ushered on and swiftly off this stage with...
The jawbones of asses, No stirring curtain call for the masses.
No floral bouquet. No breaking of legs. No recurring role. No artistic control.
And so in these days, In this terminal phase, It's all left to chance.
A piece of advice... If you're cast on thin ice, You may as well dance.
Do what you feel you must, But as for me I was not Put upon this earth To subjugate or serve.
An argument for BDSM in Anarchist Circles
Folk demography of the least scientific kind suggests two Venn circles with a curious amount of overlap: anarchism and kink.
The overrepresentation of kinky anarchists and anarcho-kinksters can perhaps be facetiously explained as hierarchy and power being the ultimate taboo to those who strive for its complete demise. It is not hard to imagine the hyper-masochistic types willingly turning their rear towards the hail of police batons, nor the sadist perfecting their flogging technique by hurling a brick through a bank window. After all, much of BDSM involves experimentation with the very kind of disparate power relations that anarchists seek to overturn in the political sphere: whilst TSG/activist roleplay is generally uncommon, if not unheard-of, both anarchist and kinky lifestyles share some analogous values.
The idea that the exercise of power should be something rooted in consensus and consent is common to both anarchist politics and the ethics of the BDSM community. In kinky circles, consent is key. Limits will be discussed, building an understanding of exactly what all parties involved are willing to participate in. Within a sexual context, power and hierarchy are explicitly set within a framework of mutual agreement and clear limits in order to de-tooth much of the harmful nature of such interactions, rendering the concepts safer and allowing for their experimentation as ‘play‘. Accountability, in the sense of zero-tolerance for those who abuse trust, and a mechanism for an instantaneous suspension and re-examination of a play scenario exist; those who fail to respect boundaries and consent are (in most cases) blacklisted from the kink scene. Communication is seen as a process: people can withdraw consent using a “safe word”.
Anarchists, meanwhile, accept that in some situations a leader, coordinator or facilitator will be needed. This can be found in 17th century proto-anarchist pirate communities, who had a captain who was directly selected by the group and recallable at any time and whose power only extended to making certain decisions ‘on mission’. Voluntary anarchist militias in the Ukraine at the time of the Russian Revolution and in Spain during the Civil War elected delegates to perform the functions of officers, but their authority came from the collective wishes of their fellow soldiers rather than the innate authority of the position. These were not without problems; efficient co-ordination against conventional military forces often conflicted with the attempts to respect ideals of autonomy. Similarly, anyone who has been in anarchist meetings will probably have experienced the trade-off between the speed of decision making and adherence to the ethics ofconsensus, but this worthwhile is the pursuit of truly democratic practice. Often anarchist organisation delegates responsibility for certain tasks to voluntary working groups or meeting facilitators. Any social power given is strictly limited (e.g. to organising certain activities), and is subject to withdrawal at any time by the will of participants, a democratic version of screaming out the name of a fruit when the beating goes beyond one’s limits. Crucial to both anarchist and BDSM circles is the attempt to ensure that such hierarchies, established because they’re either practical or fun, are fluid, properly scrutinised, organised consensually and explicitly temporary.
Neither community is entirely free from problems. In existing within a patriarchal, capitalist society, murky aspects are able to seep in. Even in kinky circles, traditional gender roles gain traction, with a common assumption that men are naturally dominant, and women, naturally submissive. The ‘professionalisation’ of the BDSM lifestyle often sees folk who are unable to afford entrance fees to kink clubs or custom-made equipment locked out of many of the spaces where one can experiment in a safe and non-judgmental context. Though it should be said that a sizeable community of DIY kinksters exists, it can be hard to find offline if one does not have the fortune of meeting like-minded people. Similarly, anarchist circles can also have problems negating privileges of class, gender and so on. In neither community are such problems insurmountable and both contain many individuals striving to overcome them.
Whilst the BDSM community is not without criticism, there is a strand of critique from self-identified radicals which repeatedly misses the point, neatly embodied by this fine specimen from po-faced tosspots and/or master trolls The Activists, (other things deemed ‘counter-revolutionary’ by this humourless project include television and comedy; one assumes they see sitcoms as oppressive slideshows of a thousand jackboots endlessly stamping on their miserable faces forever).
This type of judgmental attack on the kink scene is hinged on a construction of BDSM as sexual deviancy directly parallel to that of conservative ideologies. Those playing with power and pain in the bedroom are considered an aberration from good, honest revolutionary sex, presumably involving gritted teeth, the clutching of banners adorned with Che’s handsome face and neatly punctuated with a post-coital lecture on Mao’s little red book. This reactionary perspective posits a false dichotomy of ‘normal’ sex and ‘deviant’ sex, rather than the reality of a plethora of sexualities on innumerable intersecting spectra.
The radical strain of attack on BDSM further tends to imply that such sexual activity is a waste of time and energy that could better be spent serving the monolithic ‘Cause’. This is another manifestation of a prevalent dismissive attitude amongst certain revolutionary types; the belief that other struggles against oppression (feminism, queer and trans* issues, anti-racism, and accessibility for example) are secondary to the ‘true’ fight against capitalism. It goes beyond a necessary understanding of theory to an outright rejection of intersectionality and undermines the credibility of claims to be fighting for real egalitarianism.
What this view denotes is an utter joylessness, eloquently condemned by Emma Goldman recounting an incident where a comrade told her the frivolity of her dancing would hurt the Cause, condemned by Goldman in this account of the incident:
I grew furious at the impudent interference of the boy. I told him to mind his own business. I was tired of having the Cause constantly thrown into my face. I did not believe that a Cause which stood for a beautiful ideal, for anarchism, for release and freedom from convention and prejudice, should demand the denial of life and joy. I insisted that our Cause could not expect me to become a nun and that the movement would not be turned into a cloister. If it meant that, I did not want it. “I want freedom, the right to self-expression, everybody’s right to beautiful, radiant things.” Anarchism meant that to me, and I would live it in spite of the whole world — prisons, persecution, everything. Yes, even in spite of the condemnation of my own closest comrades I would live my beautiful ideal. ~Living My Life, p. 56 (1931)
There are still those who would rather see a revolution of tedious types subsuming their will for the good of the party–sorry, revolution–but there will be many more who want joy in their new world. The idea of the Cause as this solemn mission requires the surrender of earthly pleasures for their ideals, the absurdity of the idea that we can win a worthy future of liberation through asceticism. If we are not to live the values of anarchism, then why fight for it? As Goldman didn’t quite say “if I can’t horizontally dance in it, it’s not my revolution”
Anti-Fascist Straight Edge: A Manifesto (2015)
I’m just about to turn 21, and I’ve been straight edge for over a decade. I’ve been feeling alienated from the scene for quite a few years now, mainly due to well-known developments commonly referred to as Hardline and/or Christian Straight Edge (I’m aware of the differences between and within the two, but to get a message across I will admittedly focus on the similarities here which mainly consist of promoting conservative - to say the least - ethics and politics). At first, my reaction pretty much was to retreat. It was kinda like, well, a new generation of kids is taking over, what can I do? But recently, the idiotic and highly irritating militancy of many straight edgers seems to get totally out of control, and I feel that it might be worth to clarify at least a few things about sXe.
Having said that, this is not about a revival of the “original” or “true” meaning of sXe, not about some “old” versus some “new” school, an “alternative” interpretation of straight edge’s ideas, or an attempt to reclaim the scene for people like myself. Terms (and movements signified by them) are never fixed and clearly defined, they’re always dynamic, open to different interpretations, and hence changes. I can’t (and don’t want to) forbid other people to call themselves straight edge, to X-up, wear sXe-shirts, or listen to Youth of Today, as much as I might disagree with their attitudes, beliefs, and actions. There’s no universal criterion for defining what sXe really means, and I’m the last person who’d wanna do such a thing.
So, what is this all about then? Basically, just about a clarification that being straight edge doesn’t necessarily mean you are a violent semi-fascist gay-bashing macho dick, maybe even with an obscure obsession with an oppressive, patriarchal religion. In fact, being straight edge can mean quite the opposite: it can be all about trying to be involved in antifascist politics. So, the Antifa Straight Edge will try to explain how to be straight edge in this sense.
What motivates me to do this if not - as dismissed above - “reclaiming” or “purifying” the term? 1. To remind antifascist straight edgers out there that there are still other like-minded spirits within (or at least at the fringes) of the scene. 2. To remind the militants that there is still disapproval of and resistance against their “war” within straight-edge ranks themselves. 3. To allow non-sXedgers a wider understanding of sXe, so they might not have to disrespect it immediately just because at the moment it experiences unfortunate and disturbingly strong trends of stupidity.
Supporting antifascist politics to me means fighting for anti-authoritarian, self-determined and economically just communities in which a diversity of people can coexist in solidarity, mutual respect, and peace.
Straight edge to me means an attempt to develop certain personal virtues that might prove beneficial in the fight for antifascist communities, namely responsibility, awareness, and independence. It seems practically impossible to establish, maintain, or defend antifascist communities without the individuals constituting it taking on responsibility, since the whole point behind the idea of such communities appears to be that we don’t need leaders, or people who tell us what to do, because we take on the responsibility to think, decide, and act for ourselves.
Awareness seems like an inevitable quality in this respect. It’s hard to act responsibly in a community if we don’t know shit about what’s going on. And awareness seems hard to be developed without at least a certain sense of independence, meaning: to be able to find and figure out for ourselves what’s going on and not depend on some big brother’s indoctrination.
Based on these thoughts abstaining from intoxicants (and that’s all sXe originally meant) can make sense to certain individuals: A lot of intoxicants lower your levels of awareness and responsibility pretty much right after consumption. Others may contribute to a rather phlegmatic personality in the long run. And some might cause serious addiction, often leaving individuals completely detached from any community. So, if one values being responsible, aware and independent, it might be understandable to choose sobriety over the consumption of intoxicants.
Another aspect to consider is that the consumption of especially alcohol and cigarettes usually supports big corporations that stand against the idea of economic justice and participate in turning individuals into consumerist slaves (maybe the most widespread form of capitalist control today denying us true individual independence).
Combining these aspects we can see that abstaining from intoxicants has a symbolic significance that goes beyond simply abstaining from intoxicants. It’s a statement for being unwilling to let others control your life: not just drugs, but corporations, politicians, cops, your parents, whatever gets in the way of your self-determined way of doing things. It’s a statement of taking your life into your own hands. It’s a statement for uncompromising DIY-ethics, in the original spirit of DIY-Punk and -Hardcore. And in this sense it might very well be seen as a revolutionary statement, being about consciousness, fighting the system, liberation, determining your own destiny. On this basis all the social movements and activities a lot of straight edgers have participated in over the years could grow strong because they were strongly grounded: homeless-support, minority-support, vegetarianism/veganism, environmentalism, to name but the most obvious few. It is in this sense that I can see straight edge to be part of an antifascist movement, and I know that this is what sXe has always been about to many individuals involved in the scene.
But this also means that sXe is nothing but a lifestyle. It is not an ideology. There are no natural moral laws against drinking wine or lighting a pipe. I happily leave such arguments to totalitarian and oppressive political and/or religious schools of thought. If I didn’t wanna drink for such reasons I’d become a Seventh Day Adventist or something. I don’t abstain from drinking ‘cause god or the universe or whatever tells me not to; not because it’s inherently evil or sinful; not because we’re not meant to drink or alcohol is no natural food source. I don’t drink (or smoke dope, etc.), because I personally don’t want to. It seems to interfere with my abilities to promote antifascism.
Seen this way, being sXe is purely pragmatic. I’m sXe, because I think it helps me being an antifascist and allows me to make an antifascist statement, and because of no other reason. If I felt being sXe wouldn’t support antifascist action, I wouldn’t give a shit about it. This has, I think, some important implications, especially in the light of ongoing developments within the sXe-scene:
1. It’s a personal decision. I do think that being sXe generally provides a good basis for an antifascist lifestyle, but neither does it automatically make you an antifascist (as, unfortunately, we have to witness today), nor is it the only way to be an antifascist (which seems so obvious I almost feel silly to point it out, but sometimes it seems one has to make the most trivial things explicit). In simple terms: There are lots of great and decent individuals/antifascists who are absolutely not sXe - and who am I to question these people’s personal lifestyles?
2. Straight edge was born out of a mainly white middle-class US-American movement, namely Hardcore; therefore it is the result of a specific time and place and social setting, and therefore its negative reaction to intoxicants is a result of a specific socio-historical condition. In other words: We are not too fond of intoxicants, because our society uses them in a shitty way, and they started to destroy our Punk- and Hardcore-scenes. This, however, does not mean that intoxicants can’t function differently under different cultural circumstances. I’d find it embarrassingly pretentious to disrespect, for example, the use of peyote in many Native American nations, or of ganja in the Rastafarian community. There are different worlds with different rules.
3. Nobody is ever “wrong” or “bad” because of not being sXe. We might not like it, or we might want to confront people who do shitty things under the influence of intoxicants, but the actual consumption itself doesn’t mean shit, and we have no right whatsoever to judge people who like to smoke or drink or shoot up.
Unfortunately, many kids today don’t see sXe this way. They don’t understand it as pragmatic, modest, and tolerant. They understand it as an ideology, a law, a true way of life, a universal moral code. You are sXe, you are good - you are not, you are bad. People are divided into different moral categories depending on whether they drink beer or fruit juice, whether they smoke a joint or chew licorice, whether they eat their muesli with dairy or soy. This is a fascist mentality. Pure and simple. An ideology with its claim to exclusive truth and righteousness is by definition an antifascist’s enemy. Whether it’s Catholicism, capitalism, or straight edge. Straight up: If I get in a situation where some fucked up sXe-kids in Salt Lake City (or anywhere else for that matter) start a fight with some dope-smoking kids for no other reason than them smoking dope, I wouldn’t hesitate a second to join the ranks of the latter, who are, in this case, nothing but innocent victims of a bunch of fascist hooligans.
But it’s not only the scary self-righteousness, intolerance and militancy that sXe as an ideology breeds. It’s also that its ideas become repulsively narrow-minded: instead of understanding the complexities of global food production and distribution, nutrition, ecological balance, and social divisions, they become idiotic vegan fanatics; instead of considering the patriarchal character of our societies, they become anti-abortion; instead of embracing diversity as an intrinsic social value, they become homophobic; instead of seeing the interrelations between environmental destruction and economic injustice, they become eurocentric racists in deep-ecological colors; instead of being committed to antifascism, they hype bands like Vegan Reich; instead of holding up the tradition of innocent early sXe self-defense with shirts like “It’s OK not to drink”, they sport martial “True till the end”-bullshit; instead of generally being socially and politically aware, they reproduce US-American middle-class family values; instead of being progressive, they revive Christianity in its most conservative and frightening forms; and instead of being modest, decent, and peaceful, they become arrogant, intolerant, and violent. It’s a sad affair.
Anyhow, this text probably won’t change any of that. I’m too aware of the little impact my humble self can have. Nevertheless, I want people to know that there’s still a different X out here. One that does not represent ideological (and, by now, physical) terror and sectarianism, but pragmatic antifascist politics.
The Antifa Straight Edge believes in a sXe-lifestyle of abstaining from intoxicants as an actual and symbolic mode of promoting a life of responsibility, awareness, and independence through regaining self-control and shunning dependency on the political, social, and economic powers of a capitalist society. It furthermore supports like-minded social action based on this self-control, mainly in the fields of women and minority rights, social justice, animal rights, and environmentalism.
The Antifa Straight Edge does not, however, believe in a sXe-lifestyle as a necessary basis for antifascism. It does not judge people by their personal habits, but relates to them according to their general moral conduct. It also does not evaluate people’s habits without taking cultural and social circumstances into consideration. In fact, the Antifa Straight Edge respects and even encourages a diversity of lifestyles as an essential aspect of creative antifascist communities.
Furthermore, the Antifa Straight Edge fully and uncompromisingly supports a woman’s right to choose, a person’s right to engage in homosexual practices, and the priority of social issues over animal rights or environmental protection.
Finally, the Antifa Straight Edge does not believe in forcing anybody into, or punishing anybody for a certain lifestyle, especially not by violent means. The Antifa Straight Edge commits itself to modesty, open-mindedness, and tolerance, and considers the use of militant resistance only where antifascist values, such as self-determination or social and economic justice, are under immediate and obvious threat.
Generally, the Antifa Straight Edge acts by example alone. Militant action is a last resort, and its use must follow strict notions of sensitivity, responsibility, and measure.
The Oath Keepers are a White Supremacist Group
The Oath Keepers are a right wing extremist group claiming to be made up of both military and law enforcement personnel. This fact has not escaped the Pentagon, which may consider dishonorably discharging Oath Keepers and other members of “extremist organizations.”
The “Oath Keepers” was formed as an opposition reaction to the Obama presidency, specifically targeting the military and law enforcement community to unite a martial oriented rightwing movement. History remembers another episode where a rebellious military cadre united with reactionary forces to oppose and ultimately bring down a democratic government: Franco’s Nationalist revolution in Spain. Unsurprisingly, the Oath Keeper movement has found ardent supporters amongst nationalists and fascists of all stripes, like this post on the forum of the Keystone State Skinheads.
There is no lack of amusement, then, when Oath keepers try to prostelytize to avowed white supremacists. Despite the best efforts of Oath Keepers NY Nationalist, ADOLF-OTTO, Whitegeek and “White Pioneer”, they’re still shot down by the intense paranoia rampant in the white nationalist community.
Meanwhile and conversely, pointers are given on how to recruit amongst their members. Other people go on to point out the common practice amongst military white nationalists to vociferously deny their racism as a way to avoid “unpleasant” attention. Lastly, a common theme amongst posters seems to be the concept plagiarized from the literary train-wreck known as the Turner Diaries: that when their silly little “race war” comes, white nationalists will benefit from having their members in key positions.
Not only is this exercise an example of Oath Keepers trolling for heavily armed members among the violent fringes of society, but it’s also a wonderful example of how dysfunctional and chaotic the white nationalist scene really is. Even though white nationalists are unable to decide whether Oath Keepers are an evil “ZOG plot” or a useful asset in their coming “race war,” they are being actively instructed on how to infiltrate this group and sway it far beyond the realm of reality. white nationalists are being encouraged to look at Oath Keepers as a “crypto-fascist” group– one that “talks the talk” of “pandering to the SPLC” by condemning racism and the white nationalist movement, but when “the shit hits the fan,” will fully support white supremacist terrorism.