Anarchism is not a political movement

[atreestump]

Alfredo Bonanno puts forward a truth in regards to the crisis an anarchist faces when attempting to define anarchism:

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/alfredo-m-bonanno-the-anarchist-tension

[kFoyauextlH]

Wow, I really enjoyed that and can relate. I feel far more embarassment after I have ejaculated than before. I feel a heat come over me and an embarassment that I have been so intimate and vulnerable and there is only silence or rejection or a hideous thing borne.

I am not relieved at all by having spoken, but the tension only increases.

Yet like any bodily function, it appears the build up to perform or react or to cry out is a natural fault that becomes painful to avoid as well.

Telling people I am an anarchist, so similar looking to antichrist in so many ways, is a way of asking them if they will love me no matter what. The answer from everything is an emphatic no. Getting a yes is the central task of anarchy, even if it a yes that is only natural but not intellectual. Its a task that can never be satisfied and stems from a hunger or vacuum that is perpetual. We can not find the natural love of stability or safety or confidence, which is why we shout and spit our names, in our iconoclastic self-idolatry. Anti-Christ means replacement in place of Christ also. Each Anarchist mimics the model of the sorry King.

[atreestump]

Bonanno makes a good point, anarchism is a disjunction.

[kFoyauextlH]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anomie

"
Durkheim never used the term normlessness;[6] rather, he described anomie as "derangement", and "an insatiable will."[7] Durkheim used the phrase "the malady of the infinite" because desire without limit can never be fulfilled; it only becomes more intense.[8]

For Durkheim, anomie arises more generally from a mismatch between personal or group standards and wider social standards; or from the lack of a social ethic, which produces moral deregulation and an absence of legitimate aspirations, i.e.:

[A]nomie is a mismatch, not simply the absence of norms. Thus, a society with too much rigidity and little individual discretion could also produce a kind of anomie ...[9]
"

"
characterized by a rapid change of the standards or values of societies (often erroneously referred to as normlessness), and an associated feeling of alienation and purposelessness. He believed that anomie is common when the surrounding society has undergone significant changes in its economic fortunes, whether for better or for worse and, more generally, when there is a significant discrepancy between the ideological theories and values commonly professed and what was actually achievable in everyday life.
"

"
In Durkheim's view, traditional religions often provided the basis for the shared values which the anomic individual lacks. Furthermore, he argued that the division of labor that had been prevalent in economic life since the Industrial Revolution led individuals to pursue egoistic ends rather than seeking the good of a larger community. Robert King Merton also adopted the idea of anomie to develop strain theory, defining it as the discrepancy between common social goals and the legitimate means to attain those goals. In other words, an individual suffering from anomie would strive to attain the common goals of a specific society yet would not be able to reach these goals legitimately because of the structural limitations in society. As a result, the individual would exhibit deviant behavior. Friedrich Hayek notably uses the word anomie with this meaning.

According to one academic survey, psychometric testing confirmed a link between anomie and academic dishonesty among university students, suggesting that universities needed to foster codes of ethics among students in order to curb it.[17] In another study, anomie was seen as a "push factor" in tourism.[18]

As an older variant, the 1913 Webster's Dictionary reports use of the word anomie as meaning "disregard or violation of the law."[19] However, anomie as a social disorder is not to be confused with anarchy: proponents of anarchism claim that anarchy does not necessarily lead to anomie and that hierarchical command actually increases lawlessness. Some anarcho-primitivists argue that complex societies, particularly industrial and post-industrial societies, directly cause conditions such as anomie by depriving the individual of self-determination and a relatively small reference group to relate to, such as the band, clan or tribe.
"

"
According to Soltero and Saravia, the rise of Protestantism is conversationally claimed to be caused by a Catholic failure to "address the spiritual needs of the poor" and the Protestant "deeper quest for salvation, liberation, and eternal life".[20] However, their research does not support these claims, and showed that Protestantism is not more popular amongst the poor. Their findings do confirm the assumptions of anomie, with Catholic communities of El Salvador enjoying high social cohesion, while the Protestant communities have been associated with poorer social integration, internal migration and tend to be places deeply affected by the Salvadoran Civil War.[20] Additionally, Soltero and Saravia found that Salvadoran Catholicism is tied to social activism, liberation theology and the political left, as opposed to the "right wing political orientation, or at least a passive, personally inward orientation, expressed by some Protestant churches".[20] They conclude that their research contradicts the theory that Protestantism responds to the spiritual needs of the poor more adequately than Catholicism, while also disproving the claim that Protestantism appeals more to women:

These outcomes contradict the theory that Protestantism responds to the spiritual needs of the poor (Shaull and Cesar 2001; Smith, 1998; Vazquez 2000) more adequately than Catholicism in El Salvador's less resourceful suburban areas. In fact, the results indicate that individuals of different resource levels, among the sample studied, have no real preference between Protestantism and Catholicism for the most part. Hence, believers' spiritual needs may or may not take them to another church, independently of their social class background, as demonstrated by the existence of Protestant churches with middle and upper middle class constituencies (Cleary 1992; Garrard-Burnett 1998). In a study of Guatemalan highland Maya, Smith (1998) reports no differences in lifestyle between poor Protestants and poor Catholic. [...] There is no difference between men and women in terms of their likelihood of joining a non-Catholic church (Protestant or otherwise) or being non-religious, rather than being Catholic. Indeed, Peterson (2001:30) argues that in El Salvador, "progressive Catholic communities offer many women support, both material and moral, for their efforts to cope with domestic problems such as a husband's departure or alcoholism."[20]

The study by Soltero and Saravia has also found a link between Protestantism and no access to healthcare:

When people have access to medical care in their community, joining Protestant churches is less likely, but if access to medical care exists only outside their community the probability of joining a Protestant church increases. [...] Indeed, faith healing seems to be an important aspect of Protestant churches' attraction to believers (Chesnut 1997; Vizquez 1998), as well as the provision of a more traditional kind of medical assistance to the public (Smith 1998).[20]
"

"
Adler described societies in a synnomie state as "characterized by norm conformity, cohesion, intact social controls and norm integration". Social institutions such as the family, religion and communities, largely serve as sources of norms and social control to maintain a synnomic society.
"

[jwmart]

This is the first thread I saw where I thought I could insert the video below into:
It's footage of an 800 year old tradition, summed up with a TLDR:
horn blown, ball thrown, punches thrown, horn blown, winner holding ball.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNgzC92kkm8

Permitted anarchy? I know not anarchy in the sense of holding no power over others, more the mainstream meaning - anarchy as chaos - with people doing whatever the hell they like.

It's almost reassuring to see in the era of AI, wellness-trends, looks-maxxing, exorbitant wealth, etc..

[atreestump]

While incredibly entertaining it's anarchic because everyone plays by the rules without domination

[kFoyauextlH]

Crowds and tightness really cause me a lot of bad feelings, I try to avoid anything like that, even peaceful large gatherings or even small gatherings and people in general, I feel very claustrophobic in any sort of stuck situation, even lines, anywhere I can't easily move away and escape and lots of people in every direction that are pushing and closing in, just thinking about it hurts my chest and gives me anxiety. I'm friendly but not extroverted, like the people who would be there or in such a crowd or yelling like the squawking people I keep hearing in the video must be so alien in their thinking as compared to me, and probably each of us, maybe even most people, even though these crowd frotters give the impression of being many and domineering in their personalities, as if they are a dominant population, but I have doubts that they really are, and just tend to choose a different strategy that concentrates them more than all those dispersed people who would not choose to do anything of the sort. Anyway, bashing people in the face and r*ping one another followed by "no hard feelings" or grudges is probably the height of "civility", "law", "order", "submission", and "control/self-control", as in most natural circumstances, getting one's ear smashed and hearing damaged should cause lifelong hatred for whoever inflicted the injury and brought a degradation to the victim's quality of life. I don't like competitive sports either, I'm really not civilized enough for what I deem "cuckery", where you have to just let something go because "thems the rules, somehow".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ju-On:_The_Grudge

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sportsmanship

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feud

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenge

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_of_sin

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katechon

"

In Nomos of the Earth, German political thinker Carl Schmitt
suggested the historical importance within traditional Christianity of
the idea of the katechontic "restrainer" that allows for a Rome-centered
Christianity, and that "meant the historical power to restrain the
appearance of the Antichrist and the end of the present eon". The katechon represents, for Schmitt, the intellectualization of the ancient State of the Roman Empire, with all its police and military powers to enforce orthodox ethics.[4] In his posthumously published diary (the Glossarium)
the entry from December 19, 1947, reads: "I believe in the Katechon: it
is for me the only possible way to understand Christian history and to
find it meaningful".[5][6]
And Schmitt adds: "the Katechon needs to be named for every epoch of
the past 1948 years. The place was never unoccupied; otherwise we would
no longer be present."[6] Aleksandr Dugin and other Russian philosophers have proposed Russia as the current Katechon.[citation needed]

Paolo Virno has a long discussion of the katechon in his book Multitude: Between Innovation and Negation.[7] He refers to Schmitt's discussion. Virno says that Schmitt views the katechon as something that impedes the coming of the Antichrist, but because the coming of the Antichrist is a condition for the redemption promised by the Messiah, the katechon also impedes the redemption.[7]: 60

Virno uses "katechon" to refer to that which impedes both the War of all against all (Bellum omnium contra omnes) and totalitarianism, for example the society in Orwell's Big Brother (Nineteen Eighty-Four). It impedes both but eliminates neither. Virno locates the katechon
in the human ability to use language, which makes it possible to
conceive of the negation of something, and also allows the
conceptualization of something which can be other than what it is; and
in the bioanthropological behavior of humans as social animals, which
allows people to know how to follow rules without needing a rule to tell
how to follow a rule, then a rule to tell how to follow that rule, and
so on to infinity. These capabilities permit people to create social
institutions and to dissolve or change them.[7]
"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellum_om ... ntra_omnes

"
Bellum omnium contra omnes, a Latin phrase meaning "the war of all against all", is the description that Thomas Hobbes gives to human existence in the state-of-nature thought experiment that he conducts in De Cive (1642) and Leviathan (1651). The common modern English usage is a war of "each against all" where war is rare and terms such as "competition" or "struggle" are more common.[3]


In Leviathan itself,[4] Hobbes speaks of 'warre of every one against every one',[5] of 'a war [...] of every man against every man'[6] and of 'a perpetuall warre of every man against his neighbour',[4][7] but the Latin phrase occurs in De Cive:

[...] ostendo primo conditionem
hominum extra societatem civilem, quam conditionem appellare liceat
statum naturæ, aliam non esse quam bellum omnium contra omnes; atque in
eo bello jus esse omnibus in omnia.[8]
(I demonstrate, in the first place, that the state of men without civil
society (which state we may properly call the state of nature) is
nothing else but a mere war of all against all; and in that war all men
have equal right unto all things.)[9]

Later on, two slightly modified versions are presented in De Cive:

[...] Status hominum naturalis antequam in societatem coiretur, bellum fuerit; neque hoc simpliciter, sed bellum omnium in omnes.[10]
(The natural state of men, before they entered into society, was a mere
war, and that not simply, but a war of all men against all men.)[11]

Nam unusquisque naturali
necessitate bonum sibi appetit, neque est quisquam qui bellum istud
omnium contra omnes, quod tali statui naturaliter adhæret, sibi
existimat esse bonum.[12]
(For every man by natural necessity desires that which is good for him:
nor is there any that esteems a war of all against all, which
necessarily adheres to such a state, to be good for him.)[13]

In chapter XIII of Leviathan,[14] Hobbes explains the concept with these words:

Hereby it is manifest that during
the time men live without a common Power to keep them all in awe, they
are in that condition which is called War; and such a war as is of every
man against every man.[15]
[...] In such condition there is no place for Industry, because the
fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no
Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no
commodious Building; no Instruments of moving and removing such things
as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account
of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all,
continual Fear, and danger of violent death; And the life of man
solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.[16]

The thought experiment places people in a pre-social condition, and
theorizes what would happen in such a condition. According to Hobbes,
the outcome is that people choose to enter a social contract, giving up some of their liberties in order to enjoy peace. This thought experiment is a test for the legitimation of a state in fulfilling its role as "sovereign" to guarantee social order, and for comparing different types of states on that basis.

Hobbes distinguishes between war and battle: war does not only
consist of actual battle; it points to the situation in which one knows
there is a 'Will to contend by Battle'.[17]


In his Notes on the State of Virginia (1785), Thomas Jefferson uses the phrase bellum omnium in omnia ("war of all things against all things", assuming omnium is intended to be neuter like omnia) as he laments that the constitution of that state was twice at risk of being sacrificed to the nomination of a dictator after the manner of the Roman Republic.[18]

The phrase was sometimes used by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels:

- In On the J Question (1843–1844):

Religion has become the spirit of civil society, of the sphere of egoism, of bellum omnium contra omnes.[19]

- In Outlines of the Critique of Political Economy (1857–1858):

One could just as well deduce from
this abstract phrase that each individual reciprocally blocks the
assertion of the others' interests, so that, instead of a general
affirmation this war of all against all produces a general negation.[20]

The English translation eliminates the Latin phrase used in the original German.[21]
- In a letter from Marx to Engels (18 June 1862):

It is remarkable how Darwin
rediscovers, among the beasts and plants, the society of England with
its division of labour, competition, opening up of new markets,
'inventions' and Malthusian 'struggle for existence'. It is Hobbes' bellum omnium contra omnes.[22]

- In a letter to Pyotr Lavrov
(London, 12–17 November 1875), Engels is expressed clearly against any
attempt to legitimize the trend anthropomorphizing human nature to the
distorted view of natural selection:

The whole Darwinists teaching of
the struggle for existence is simply a transference from society to
living nature of Hobbes's doctrine of bellum omnium contra omnes
and of the bourgeois-economic doctrine of competition together with
Malthus's theory of population. When this conjurer's trick has been
performed..., the same theories are transferred back again from organic
nature into history and it is now claimed that their validity as eternal
laws of human society has been proved.[23]

- It was also used by Friedrich Nietzsche in On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense (1873):

Insofar as the individual wants to
preserve himself against other individuals, in a natural state of
affairs he employs the intellect mostly for simulation alone. But
because man, out of need and boredom, wants to exist socially,
herd-fashion, he requires a peace pact and he endeavors to banish at
least the very crudest bellum omnium contra omnes from his world.[24]

- Max Stirner used the term in his book The Ego and Its Own (1844).

- Rudolf Steiner
describes it with the term "war of all against all" that will happen
during a future epoch, when the human race will be submitted to a
powerful selfishness.[25]

As far as I can tell, the ball is a resource, and holding it as "winner" has prestige attached to it and other positive things that people want linked to their identity. This seems like what might happen also when people are starved of something, but most examples are just like this, for something silly seeming like something limited at a store.

If only people could be convinced to do this and that the flesh of politicians and tyrants and other bosses and authority figures are considered a ball or pieces of the golden fleece of whatever so that these insensible and apparently immune to pain and fear of pain people can gather and each get a holy piece for themselves. Then they can argue if the c*ck is worth more than the eyeball.

It would've been cool if that pantless guy ended up also evacuating his bowels on everyone while on top of them, but it is unfortunate that only these people suffered and no one of any substantial "worth" as far as we can tell, just peasants made to clownishly cannibalize.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Peasants%27_War

https://www.historyextra.com/period/med ... stoppable/



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peasant

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_class

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proletariat

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty

https://www.etymonline.com/word/rabble

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class#Lower_class

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precarity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower_middle_class

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_cl ... ed_Kingdom

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultras

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chav

"
"Chav" (/tʃæv/), also "charver", or "scally" in parts of England, is a British term, usually used in a pejorative way. The term is used to describe an anti-social lower-class youth dressed in sportswear.[1] The term has been described as classist. Julie Burchill described the term as a form of "social racism".[2]
"Chavette" is a related term referring to female chavs, and the
adjectives "chavvy", "chavvish", and "chavtastic" are used to describe
things associated with chavs, such as fashion, slang, etc.[3] In Australia, "eshay" or "adlay" has been described as a "try-hard chav".[4]
"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Societal_racism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instituti ... rimination

"
White
working-class individuals in the U.K. experience systemic
disadvantages, particularly in education, where they are among the
lowest-performing groups, with significantly low rates of university
attendance

. Often demonized, they experience class-based bias affecting their access to resources, opportunities, and social mobility. 

Key areas of concern regarding institutionalized disadvantage include:

- Education System:
White working-class pupils, particularly those eligible for free school
meals, have consistently poor outcomes in GCSEs and a lower likelihood
of higher education enrollment.
- "Forgotten" Group:
Reports suggest this group has suffered from decades of neglect, with
educational underachievement and poor local services contributing to
cycles of "multi-generational poverty".
- Cultural Bias: They face discrimination based on class-based indicators like accents, food, style, and clothing, leading to marginalization.
- Economic Inequality:
While they hold demographic advantages in some areas compared to ethnic
minorities (such as lower rates of insecure work, which stood at 10.8%
for white workers compared to 17.8% for BME workers in 2022), they still
face structural barriers.
"

https://committees.parliament.uk/commit ... t-mps-say/