 |
Self Insert "People can really believe anything these days!" - Ismism This page is meant to represent Jefbol's political views. Please do not make any major edits without their permission. |
Post-Jefbolism is an "ideology".
uhhh i'll work on this later
Beliefs
Violence and Autonomy
Violence, at least that violence outside of the state’s control, is the dirty sin of all men; we are all taught from young age the “evil” of such a beast. It is something barbaric, something that has no place in modern civilization, none whatsoever except the dusted pages of the history of primitive man. The laws of the land make it so clear of this distain for violence, our ironically psychologically violent education aims to shape us into an abiding citizen free from our “barbarous” and “cruel” ways, the perfect lively subject that Capital has created through its social engineering. Only the state’s violence can be glorified, oh yes indeed. Even our “communists” are completely bewildered by our lack of servitude to the Jacobin types of terror, what a paradox we must worship the terror of the old and decry the violence of the new, because this terror will bring us eternal “peace”!
Violence put simply, is an authoritative affirmation against an opposing force by oneself, an imposition of one over one’s enemy, this violence taking place in varying proportions and in various ways. Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari in A Thousand Plateaus famously introduced the war machine as a force outside of the state’s control. Violence in a political sense, in relation to this, is the cry of the war machine, to rupture and destroy the state, and power, against all attempts to subjugate its autonomy. Foucault saw that power exists almost everywhere in the everyday. It must not come as a shock to see violence in everyday life as well as the exercise of the rebel across all facets of society. Most importantly, it is a cry of individuality. Capital and the biopower it weaponizes is a homogenizing tool, that itself utilizes a form of violence at times for disciplinary purposes. Violence in the case of the rebel is an affirmation against the subjugating of the concrete and free insurrectionary back into the mass of the consumer market, which brings him in to be disciplined even more and homogenizes him into it to be incorporated into Capital’s biopolitical factory of society. Stirner’s violence was an affirmation of the concrete Unique individual through insurrectionary imposition and destruction upon the idols of the state, moral institutions of power, and society as a whole; the dialectical negation of all idols that stands in the way of his or hers uniqueness. Sorel’s violence was a way of imposition upon the state to affirm the autonomy of the proletariat from the state. Our violence is our imposition against power for our autonomy, our struggle to negate our subjectivity, values, and more generally power in all forms. I would like to label this violence “anarchic violence”, because it is fundamentally a violence openly at odds with any sort of fixed social relations, it is a pure, proudly nihilistic but liberating violence.
The bourgeois thinkers of the enlightenment saw violence as a remanent of our mongolism, they were utterly disgusted by it, but only because it threatened present and future capital accumulation. For this, they trusted violence only in the hands of the state, to coopt the war machine and direct its depositing of the molecular anarchic libido into the bloodstream of society, to be funneled into the great papa of police state. Those like Max Weber had no problem with the disciplinary violence of authority figures to force its way in and twist society to fit their ideal citizenry, they had no problem with the war machine’s exercises of violence as long as it was under the brand of the state, as long as it was in support of their monopoly over violence, as long as the war machine was kept against its own rebellious nature and allowed itself to become a tool of discipline and power. As Sorel phrased it, they have no problem with violence as long as it is used for “law and order”, discipline. Violence, our cold and honest violence of anarchy, that of which rests itself in the internal destruction of all apparatuses, and which does not dare to mystify itself with the language of morality like our Jacobin “friends”; it is indeed of the most incomprehensible to our other “socialist” saints as both Sorel and Saul Newman pointed out, because we do not wish to play by the state’s rules.
The war machine, "the “conspiracy against the world” as Andrew Culp puts it, is a gigantic force of insurrectionists that, due to being so formidable as a fighting force, and most importantly due to it being outside of state territory, allows itself to challenge such a territory, actively seeking to destroy such territory. The war machines in their glory ages actively engaged in rebellion to destroy the static flows of desire imposed by the feudal and later the capitalist order, actively freeing them from stratification, imploding such a flow with anarchic anger. The war machine’s wish to rupture from the state and destroy it meant it necessary to coopt it. “These monsters want to set aflame our empire and bury us in ashes. May these rotten and devilish rebels be doomed to death!” said our grand lords at the state. But the destruction of these war machines was never a possibility, such an adventure would have been suicidal in the end. The only possible way to stop the destruction of the libidinal stratification via the state apparatuses was incorporation. This is where the anarchic violence and the libidinal depositing of molecular destruction it creates are “statified” into sovereign and later disciplinary and controlling violence. The state, through its institutionalized forces of power, absorb the desiring flow of the war machine, suck it up into the energy tubes of disciplinary apparatuses.
A mistake we make is assuming disciplinary state violence has to be a physical force as was in the sovereign society of monarchy, something we imagine from the images of police men or soldiers repressing large masses of protesters, but this is far from the case as both Foucault and Deleuze point out. Power as something decentralized across all sorts of apparatuses of control and discipline takes both psychological and physical forms, and beyond. After all, state violence is simply an imposition of power indirectly or directly through state apparatuses. State violence is disciplinary in nature, state apparatuses are tools of discipline and growingly, of psychological control. This is not simply violence from the barrel or the baton, but psychological violence, the purest form of power. Desiring machines that regulate the flow of desire, state apparatuses that install self-control, even just feelings of mass surveillance or of control makes the individual repress themself.
This evolves in some cases to the point of a society where direct state involvement in discipline is no longer needed. The grand citizen already desires to repress him, at times even out of masochism and the want for an Oedipal-type dependence with discipline and its imposition of its repressiveness as was pointed out in the Libidinal Economy. This is a sort of self-imposed violence, self-imposition against oneself, against ones desires. Disciplinary violence in this regard isn’t something confined to an institution or anything like that, like all biopower it is something located in everyday life itself, the absorbed war machine as its reproducer. We must understand from this that biopower and state violence, and the apparatuses that reproduce it, are the form of power that we must fight if we are to abolish the current state of affairs, Capital’s game is no longer primarily economic but psychological and cultural. State violence nowadays is a biopolitical tool for the constructing of Capital’s grand ideal of a citizen, the biopolitical subject of what the Italian workerist, Mario Tronti, called “the social factory”. The war machine is the engine that is utilized to incorporate and use disciplinary violence against those out of place individuals, to be incorporated into a cell where they are of absolute use to Capital. All of this is only made possible through imposition and rule and therefore violence.
In order to grasp anarchic violence, we must further separate from other forms of violence which claim to grasp the tasks of the overthrow of current affairs yet in the end only perpetrate it; these two types of violence are terroristic and anarchic. For this, it is quite useful to explain Stirner’s differentiating of revolution and insurrection. Terroristic violence belongs to the former. Stirner explains the difference like this: the revolution consists only of a change in state apparatuses, the insurrection is the smashing and abolishing of state apparatuses. It directs new arrangements for power to be reproduced in, new ghostly fixed systems, just under different fabric; the insurrection is the fight against these new arrangements of power, these new fixed relations which are commanded of. In France, proletarian violence was explained to be different from bourgeois violence in that bourgeois violence seeks to impose a new class dictatorship, whereas proletarian violence is simply the imposing of the autonomy of the proletariat from the state through the general strike. The revolution for the establishment of new fixed relations holds itself as another alienating cause, one that only holds itself together as mythology for the mass vengeance of revolutionary elites against its enemies in the cause of resentment and heaven-storming. The Jacobins and their twentieth-century revolutionary grandsons across the world in the form of “Marxism-Leninism” were only ideal-seeking bourgeois elites in the end, imposers of discipline in the place of feudalism’s sovereign power.
I would like to ask the pacifists as well how they sitting around and not actively affirming one’s self, actively discouraging such affirmation and such self-affirming violence against the iron hammers of power, its grip over mass consciousness and knowledge, over our psychology, does not in the end affirm discipline itself? How it does not suit power in the end by weakening and discouraging the nomad from partaking in action, in surrendering himself to the forces which want him to lay down arms? Their peace exposes itself nakedly as violent in nature, in that it indirectly supports the discipline of the state by blinding and leading us to the path of servitude, with their Christian ethics.
Our violence is not violence against deemed enemies, it is not the terror of selected elites based on a slave-like resentment or on any virtuous character. Our violence is simply the insurrectionary imposition against power, an affirmation of ownness, it is active venture of the egoist against the current state of affairs with no strings attached whatsoever. It has no political calling, it bases itself upon nothing, it has nothing that sparks it other than pure exercise of my egoism, my desire, my want to abolish my slavery to power. From here, we arrive at a violence that does not seek any static state of things to be established, but rather seeks a rupture against these phantasms that haunt me, the loop of action against those estranging ghostly ideals. This anarchy avoids the cycle of terror, and therefore is able to not only form a pure, divine violence, but is able to transcend it, a violence to end all violence because seeks to end the conditions which make violence a political reality to be faced.
The war machine is on its last legs, it has grown tired. It has a burning hatred for this world, this abomination of a “society”. It desires destruction and vengeance, not of individuals but the setting aflame this rotten hellfire of a world that Capital has created. Deleuze originally denounced this joyful hate that those like Culp would later promote, he could only see it as a sign of resentment, of a decadence. Culp in arguing against this shows that our hatred is not at all resentful, but rather the opposite! It is not based on moral judgement, rather it is the antidote, what is left after the destruction of resentfulness. It is the desire for the spontaneity, the destructiveness that deterritorialization allows us, the pinnacle of Deleuze’s whole project of the embrace of the cataclysmic nature of the war machine’s eternal rebellion to decode and therefore destroy Capital’s machinery, the mythos of violence. Deleuze was drunk on his own optimism exactly like Nietzsche was, his blind opposition to nihilism’s thirst for destruction. We must seek to rectify this terrible mistake. We are bounty hunters of the rotten, living corpse of civilization, of society, we are thirsty for glorious destruction and chaos. This is what our our communism represents, what our anarchy represents. I am my own master, and I desire to drink the fumes of rage and chaos, to intoxicate myself with my own destructiveness. The collapse of the social order, the overthrow of Capital, of biopower, isn’t something to be established through reform, through the boot of the state, or anything like that. We must simply live it, engage in the creation of communism every day, impose on Capital and destroy it on a daily scale. Communism is the violence of the war machine to abolish current affairs, the mission to destroy all values and causes above me.