July 14, 2003

Islam and Eugenics

A Hakim Bey piece

Taken from another site which has some layout problems. At least in Mozilla.

Islam and Eugenics

(1.)

'Stain your prayer-carpet with wine'

- Hafez - In Persian alchemy the highest stages of transmutation are called Black Light (nur-i siyah) and Green/Gold. Some place one higher, some the other, but the two can also be seen as manifestations of each other. Black Light is the nothingness that is also total luminescence, the dark side of god, Chaos and Old Night, the Sun at Midnight, presence of absence as light. Green/Gold, (colours of the Prophet, and of the Philosopher's Stone as 'emerald' in Egyptian Hermeticism) represent the other half of Hesiodšs first theogeny, Eros and Gaia - Desire and the greenness of the living world. 'And three things of this world are worthy of the Gaze: water, green things, and a beautiful face' (hadith). According to the sufis, the Black Light is a beauty-spot, (mole or freckle) on that very face. Black and Beautiful. The banners of revolutionary and esoteric Islam are black and green - although another possibility is black and red, as the Prophet said enigmatically, 'I come for the black and red'. Oddly enough black and red are the colours of the goddess - reminding us that the Byzantines accused the Moslems of worshipping 'a head of Aphrodite'. Also the colours of anarcho-syndicalism. A coincidence, no doubt.

( 2. .)

Religion of the Sword

The Huntingdon/CIA' Clash of Cultures' model of Islam (as the new version of the 'evil empire') proposes it as a kind of disease that has to be kept isolated and confined. The neo-liberal 'Global Market' view of the 'Orient' views it as a source of raw material (such as black gold) and cheap labour that must be exploited. The resources are to be taken away, the labour is to be kept in place. Obviously, Moslem immigration to the 'North' does not fit well with either of these models. If Islam is a disease, then 'refugees' are a virus, penetrating borders like immune systems. But these disruptions are also inevitable, given the 'logic of the Market'. The old liberal response to the problem of immigration was to turn the migrants into Europeans or Americans, to erase their difference into sameness. The new liberal response, however, relies more heavily on overt repression - isolation in 'zones of depletion' - incredible proliferation of border patrols, immigration police, surveillance. Instead of bleating a few NGO-style humanitarian platitudes about the plight of the refugees, (perhaps we should give them all PCs so they can join the WWW!) I think it would be more interesting to admit that immigration really is a problem; - and that Islam really does pose a threat to 'Global Culture'. Immigration at the forced/repressed pace of globalisation puts unfair pressure on the hospitality of the 'hosts' who have their own local crisis of downsizing and privatisation to deal with. Meanwhile the migrant, whether lured to El Norte by the gleam of McDisneyfication, or simply in flight from the economic and political ruin at home, (caused directly by predatory Global Capital), will be bitterly disappointed by the 'freedom' of the free world. Any memories of organic communitas in the homeland, however eroded by poverty and corruption, will soon seem utopian compared with the new poverty of the North, its racism and alienation. On a crude level, this nostalgia gives a seductive quality to the rhetoric of fundamentalism. However, it's worth considering that Islam possesses a far deeper and more sophisticated critique of 'the modern world' than that proposed by the 'Islamists'. In fact, more than one such critique. To mention a few at random, (without judgement or evaluation): - The militant anti-colonialist sufism of Emir Abdel Kader, or the Sanussi Order of Libya - The strange sufism of Col. Qaddafi's Green Book (Qaddafi rebelled against a sufi king, but was himself raised as a sufi) - the Shiite socialism of the martyred Ali Shariati - the idea of the Mahdi or Redeemer as a collectivity - the ideal of Social Justice - the ban on usury, (which makes Global Capital impossible of course) - the heroic Naqshbandi Order in Chechnya, resisting Russian Imperialism for centuries - going back in time, the Persian and Syrian Nizaris or 'Assassins', who went so far as to proclaim the Day of Resurrection, and to liberate a network of castles in the cause of esoteric enlightenment - etc. etc. - or even further back in time, the Prophet himself: professional revolutionary, guerilla leader, returned from exile to establish egalitarian iconoclastic mystical/militant regime in Mecca... and so on...

( 3.)

A Green Thought in a Green Shade

Khezr, the Green man, the Hidden Prophet, the trickster, the dream-master of all those seekers who need no other master. He drank the Water of Life in Hyperborea and became immortal. He appears with water to travellers lost in the desert. He wears green. He might be the unknown face in any gathering. According to one version he is a water spirit, like one of the 'Believing Djinn', and wherever he walks, flowers and herbs spring up in his footsteps. He should be considered the patron saint of sufi eco-warriors - an order should be founded in his name, the Khezriyya, more militant than Greenpeace or Earth First!, but in defence of ecological agriculture as well as sacred wilderness.

( 4.)

My Story

The Moorish Orthodox Church is a recognised off-shoot of the Moorish Science Temple, which was founded in Newark, New Jersey by Noble Timothy Drew Ali, a black man adopted into the Cherokee tribe, who travelled as a circus magician in Egypt and was initiated in the Great Pyramid. His Circle Seven Koran is based on theosophical Christianity, and a genuine folk tradition about Islam in America handed down from times of slavery. Moorish Science was very successful, especially in Chicago where Noble Drew Ali was martyred by police in 1929. Noble Drew had racial theories but he was anti-racist. The MST believes that the Celts are an 'Asiatic Race', (which is entirely true in a sense) and that Persians are Moslems who are also Indo-Europeans, (which is true); therefore the MST issued passports to white people as Celts or Persians. This gave rise to various subgroups, including, (in 1964) the Moorish Orthodox Church. The MOC in the sixties was inter-racial, inter-faith, and interested in drugs. Hashish was declared a sacrament, and a branch of the Church existed at Millbrook, on the millionairešs estate inhabited by Tim Leary, the Sri Ram Ashram, The Neo-American Church and other groups. We believe in 'ceremonial entheogenism' The MOC was dormant for a while but revived in 1986 on the Centenary of Noble Drew Ali's birth. The Church today is largely a communication web amongst widespread friends and allies. Issues of the Moorish Science Monitor are occasionally published, and there is - of course - a website , the Moorish Observatory, and related sites. Our view is that difference is a good thing - it allows for the practice of tolerance, communication, presence, and exchange of gifts. 'Love, Truth, Peace, Freedom and Justice'.

( 5.)

The War on Difference

Among the victims of Eugenics in 19th-20th century America were a number of groups with Islamic antecedents. The archetypal explanation was that these groups arose from a 'mongrelisation' of run-away black slaves with Indians and renegade white serfs (usually Irish) - hence they were called 'tri-racial isolates'. Some of these groups had clearly been 'founded˛ (at least partly) by Moslem Maroons, (escaped slaves). The Melungeons descend from Moorish 'convertados' brought as slave-labour to Florida by Spain and abandoned there. The Delaware Moors, the Louisiana Turks, and the Ben Ishmael Tribe of Ohio, all reveal Islamic connections. As for the Celtic part of the mixture, it begins not just with Cromwellian slavery, but even earlier, according to myths and legends of North East Coast Indian tribes. Irish monks and settlers reached Turtle Island even before the Vikings, and much more peacefully ('St. Bredan' as the prototype). Africans too, had no doubt reached the hemisphere before Columbus. The possibility of many 'peaceful trading voyages' before the military arrival of European imperialism, and even settlements like Vinland, or the 'Welsh Indians' (a folktale with disturbing material evidence) must be considered in tracing the unwritten story of the 'tri-racial isolates'. In the 1970's these groups threw off the Eugenic archetype under the influence of the American Indian Movement (AIM). They realised themselves as tribes, 'nations' with identity and history. The Moorish Orthodox Church respects these groups as pure Americans, in the sense that their cultures unite our real 'unwritten history' and excluded heritage - Native American, African and 'White Trash'! - on the basis of tribalism, radical tolerance, and 'empirical freedoms'. It's inspiring for us to think that Islamic ideals play an ancient role in this heritage.

( 6.)

Tulipomania

All over Eastern Europe one sees traces of the Ottomans, usually in the form of abandoned, closed, and deteriorating hamans, mosques, kiosks etc. - a neglected heritage. It would be perfectly possible to forget the 'age-old hostility' of the 'borderland between Christendom and Infidelity' simply by invoking an aesthetic judgement on the beauty of these unseen ruins - why should it disturb us? Why not see and enjoy? But our romanticism could go on to evoke the whole form of the 'good things' of the Ottoman world - into gardens, tulips, calligraphy, sufi orchestras, poetic refinement, sensuality, hashish. In a way this is mere 'orientalism' to be sure - but then the 'Orient' has its own romanticism. What exactly is 'wrong' with any of the items listed here? The dusty remains of the Ottomans could also inspire some thought about Ottoman administration. The Osmanli were a single tribe running a vast empire and trade network from Istanbul. (In fact, come to think of it, this was the Roman Empire). The last thing they wanted was 'age-old hatreds' getting in the way of their gold bezants. Under the Millet system, every religious minority had legal autonomy (although Islam maintained prerogatives). The Byzantine Patriarch remains in Istanbul to this day. The Ottoman Empire was about taxes, not ideology or 'race'. The 'Young Turks' rebelled against the Ottomans in order to vent 'ancient hatreds' against Greeks and Armenians, long protected under the Empire. Granted, the Ottomans were monsters - but how do they look after a century of Communism and a decade of Global Capital? Inshallah, some day Sarajevo will rise again as a unique particularity in which European Moslems and European Christians (I'm speaking loosely here of communities, not professions of faith) will co-create in mutual tolerance and synergy a city-state of precious value, with an Islamic heritage. That would help to produce an imaginal infusion, a flow of energy from the past that would now be 'our' past. This would mean far more than an empty apology for the old Ottomans, Caliphs of Islam and inventors of the fez.

( 7.)

Jihad

'Islam' in Europe and America? Why not? Why not enjoy it? Autonomous enclaves in Berlin, Paris, London - linked by anarcho-federalism with other autonomous zones, squats, social centres, eco-farms, free rural municipalities, other anti-capital entities and non-hegemonic particularities. Revolutionary difference against the idols of Moloch and Mammon, and the cultures of global sameness. Why not introduce into 'Western Culture' the virus of a critique of the tyranny of the image - an iconoclastic breath from the desert? Reactionary fundamentalism has long since shown itself as a counter-revolutionary force. Why not something else, the 'Spirit of Sarajevo' perhaps - or the Castles of the Assassins...

Hakim Bey, NYC

'Ya Hafez'

Posted by Matt at 11:53 AM

June 12, 2003

An old article

I'm trying to clean things up a bit, and make it easier to find things. Here's an article from Bey on the subject of "What is anarchy?" It was posted before with other stuff. Now I'm posting it on it's own

Questions and Answers on Anarchism

Hakim Bey

What is an Anarchist?

The Prophet Mohammed said that anyone who greets you with "Peace!" must be considered a Moslem. Similarly, one may consider all who call themselves "anarchists" to be anarchists (unless they're police spies);--that is, simply, those who desire the abolition of government. For the Sufi, the question, "Who is a Moslem?" holds virtually no interest. They ask, rather, "Who is this Moslem? an ignorant dogmatist? a hairsplitter? a hypocrite? Or is this one who rather strives to experience knowledge, love, and will, as one harmonious whole?"

"What is an anarchist?" is not the right question. The right question is: "Who is this anarchist?" an ignorant dogmatist, hairsplitter, hypocrite? One who claims to have smashed all idols, but who in truth has just erected new mental shrines to fresh spooks and abstractions? Does this one try to live in the spirit of anarchy, of not-being-ruled/not ruling-- or does that one merely use the rhetoric of rebellion as an excuse for unconsciousness, resentment and self-immiseration?"

The petty theological squabbles of the anarchist sects have grown inexcusably boring. Instead of asking for definitions (ideologies), ask: "What do you know?"--"What are your true desires?"--"What will you do now?"--and--as Diaghilev said to the young Cocteau--"Amaze me."

What is Government?

Government may be seen as a structured relation among humans whereby power is unevenly distributed, such that the creative life of some is reduced for the aggrandizement of others. Thus government operates in all relations in which the members are not considered as original partners in a structure of mutuality. Government can be observed therefore in social units as tiny as the nuclear family or "informal" as a chance meeting of several neighbors in the street--whereas government may never even touch certain much larger organizations such as a rioting mob or crowd of hobby enthusiasts, Quaker meetings or free Soviets, banqueters or benevolent societies.

Human relationships which begin with such original partnerships may become, through the process of institutionalization, subject to a decay toward government--a love affair may turn into marriage, a little tyranny of the miserliness of love; or else an intential community, founded freely to make possible some way of life desired by all of its members, finds itself ruling and coercing its children with petty moral rules, empty husks of once glorious ideals.

So the task of anarchy is never done for more that a short time. Everywhere and always human relations will always concretize into institutions and degenerate into governments. Perhaps one might argue that this is "natural?"....But so what?! Its opposite is also "natural". And if it were not, then I still might choose the unnatural, the impossible.

We know, however, that free (non-governed) relations are perfectly possible, because we experience them quite frequantly--and more so when we strive to create them. The anarchist chooses the task (also the art, the jouissance) of maximizing the social conditions for the emergence of such relations. Because this is what we desire, this is what we do.

What about the criminals?

The above considerations may be taken to imply a sort of "ethics", a working a mutable definition of justice in an existential and situationalist context. Anarchists should probably only consider as "criminal" only those who deliberately thwart the realization of free relations. In a hypothetical prisonless society, only those who cannot be dissuaded from such action may be subject to "people's justice," or even vengeance.

At present however we'd do well to realize that our own determination to cerate such relations now, even in imperfect non-utopian modes, will inevitably place us in a position of "criminality" vis-a-vis the State, the legal system, and probably the "unwritten law" of popular prejudice as well. Revolutionary martyrdom has long gone out of fashion--the current goal is to create as much freedom as possible without getting caught.

How does an anarchist society work?

An anarchist society works, whenever two or more people strive mutually, in an organization of original partnership, to achieve shared (or complementary) desires. No government is needed to structure a quilting bee, a dinner party, a black market, a tong (or secret mutual aid society), a mail network or BBS, a love affair, a spontaneous social movment (such as ecosabotage or AIDS activism), a group art project, a commune, a pagan gathering, a neighborhood
protection society, an enthusiasts' club, a nude beach, a Temporary Autonomous Zone. The key, as Fourier would have said is Passion--or, to use a more modern sounding word, desire.

How do we get there from here?

In other words, how do we maximize the potential for such spontaneous relations to arise from beneath the dead weight of a society suffocated by all the varieties of governance? How do we give passion a free rein to re-create the world each day in the original freedom of the "free spirit" and the group of shared desires? The $64 question--and really not worth a great deal more, since the answer can only be science fiction.

Very well then, my sense of strategy leans toward a considered rejection of the remnants of old "New Left" tactics such as the demo, media-performance, protest, petition, Ghandian resistance or adventurist terrorism. This entire strategic complex has long since been recuperated and commodified by the Spectacle (if you'll allow me a burst of Situ-jargon), and is perhaps no longer even worth the trouble of detournment.

Two other and quite different strategic areas seem far more interesting and promising . One is the complex summed up by John Zerzan in Elements of Refusal--that is, the refusual of widespread and largely nonpolitical scale of control mechanisms inherent in such institutions as work, education, consumerism, electoral politics, "family values", etc. Anarchists might well turn their attention towards ways to intensify and give direction to these "elements." Such action might fall in the traditional category of "agitprop" but would aviod the "leftist" tendency to institutionalize or "fetishism" the programs of any self-defined revolutionary elite or avante garde.

Action in the area of "elements of refusal" is negative, even "nihilistic," while the second area concerns itself with postive emergencies of spontaneous organizations capable of providing real alternatives to institutions of Control. Thus the insurrectionary actions of "refusal" is complemented and enhanced by
a proliferation and concatenation of "original partnership" relations. In a sense this is an updated version of the old Wobbly strategy of agitating for a General Strike while simultaneously building the new society within the shell of the old through union organization. The difference, I propose, is that the struggle must
be enlarged beyond the "problem of labor" to include the whole scope of "everyday life" (in the Debordian sense).

[Note: This would be the right place to address question number 9, "What's opur relation to other liberatory struggles?", which seems to be a subset of the question of strategy/tactics. Clearly the answer should be: Support them inasmuch as they're actually liberatory (radical ecotage, sexual minorities, etc.); criticize them constructively if they veer toward institutionalization (radical unionism, peace movment, etc) But also: let's keep our eyes peeled for where the action is. After all, isn't the uprising itself one of our "criminal pleasures?" Always a new horizon and we nomads or vagabonds, unable to resit its lure....]

I've attempted to make much more specific proposals in the title essay of The Temporary Autonomous Zone (Autonomedia, N.Y., 1991); so here I'll confine myself to mentioning my contention that the goal of such action cannot properly be designated by the word "Revolution"--just as the General Strike, for example, was not a "Revolutionary" tactic but rather one of "social violence" (as
Sorel explained). "Revolution has betrayed itself as just another damned commodity, bloddy cataclysm, one more turn of the crank of Control--this is not what we desire, but rather a chance for anarchy to shine.

Is Anarchy the End of History?

If the becoming of anarchy is never "done" the the answer is No--except in the special case of "History" self-defined as the privileged auto-valorization of the institutions and "governments". But history in this sense is probably already dead, already "disappeared" into the Spectacle, or the obscenity of Simulation. Insomuch as anarchy invovles a kind of psychic paleolithism, it has traditionally longed for a post-historic state which would mirror that of prehistory. If the French Theorists are correct, we have already begun to enter such a state. History as story will continue, for humans might almost be defined as animals
who make stories. But HIstory as the one official story for Control has lost its monopoly on discourse. Presumably this should work to our advantage.

How does Anarchy deal with Technology?

If anarchy is a kind of paleolithism, this does not mean we have to bomb ourselves back to the Stone Age. We're interested in the return of the Paleolithic, not a return to it. On this point I believe I disagree with both Zerzan and Fifth Estate, and so with the techno-futuro-libertarians of CaliforniaLand. Or rather, I agree with all of them, I'm both a Luddite and a cyberpunk, hence unacceptable to both parties.

My belief (not knowledge) is that a society which began to approach general anarchy would deal with technology on the basis of passion, that is, desire and pleasure. The technology of alienation would fail to survive such conditions, while the technology of enhancement would probably thrive. Wildness, however, would also necessarily come to play a major role in such a world, since wildness is pleasure. A society based on pleasure would never allow us to techne to interfere with its enjoyment of nature.

If it is true that all techne is a form of meditation, so also is all culture. We do not object to meditation per se (after all, our very senses mediate between the "world" and "brain"), but rather to the tragic distortion of meditation into alienation. If language itself is a form of meditation then we may "purify the language of the tribe";--it's not portry we hate but language as Control.

[Note: On anarchist technology, see Islands in the Net and Green days in Brunei by B. Sterling, near-future SF written as "utopian realism", in which desperately poor overpopulated third world countries make use of appropriate low-tech green and humane solutions to solve problems which already exist. Also see I. Ilyich's Energy and Equity]

Why hasn't Anarchy worked before?

What do you mean "Why hasn't Anarchy worked before?! It has worked thousands, of millions of times. It worked throuhout 90% of human existence, the Old Stone Age. It works in hunter/gatherer tribes even now. It works in all the "free relation" type groups listed above, from quilting bees to tongs. It works every time you invite a few friends out for a picnic. It "worked" even in "failed uprisings" like the Munich and Shanghai Soviets, Baja California 1911, Fiume 1919, Krondstadt 1921, Paris 1968. It's worked in communes, Maroon
enclaves, pirate utopias. It worked in early Rhode Island and Pennsylvania, in Paris 1870, in the Ukraine, Catalonia and Aragon.

The so called future of anarchy is a judgment made percisely by the kind of History we believe to be moribund. True, few of these experiments (except the prehistoric and the tribal) lasted a very "long time"--but this says nothing of any value about the nature of experience, of individuals and groups, who lived through such periods of freedom. Perhaps you can recall some brief but intense love affair, one which even now gives a certain meaning to your whole life, before and after--a "peak experience". History is blind to this portion of teh spectrum, the world of "everyday life" which can also become on occassion the scene of the "irruption of the Marvelous." Every time this happens it's a triumph for anarchy. Imagine then (and this is the sort of history we enjoy) the adventure of major Temporary Autonomous Zones lasting six weeks or even two years, the communal sense of illumination, camaraderie, exhilaration--the individual sense of power, of destiny, of creativity. No one who has ever experienced anything like this can admit for even one moment that danger of risk and failure might out weigh the sheer glory of those brief moments of rising up. As soon doubt the sacredness of that love affair, even if it ended in pain and misery!

Overcome the myth of failure and we will feel at once, like the cool breeze that heralds rain in the desert, the inner certainity of success. To know, to desire, to act--in a sense we cannot desire what we do not aready know. But we have known the success of anarchy for a long time now--in fragments, perhaps, in flashes--but real, real as the monsoon, real as passion. If it were not so, how could we even desire it, much less act to bring about its victory?

Originally entitled:

"The Willimantic/Rensselaer Questions"
Hakim Bey
from:
Anarchy and the End of History
pp. 87-92

Posted by Matt at 11:45 AM

Hakim Bey article

Thanks to Jim, we've got a new Hakim Bey article. A transmission from the A.O.A. (written in '87) It discusses the defectors that anarchy has seen over the years, and the need for a new form of anarchy.

POST-ANARCHISM ANARCHY

by Hakim Bey

THE ASSOCIATION FOR ONTOLOGICAL ANARCHY gathers in conclave, black turbans & shimmering robes, sprawled on shirazi carpets sipping bitter coffee, smoking long chibouk & sibsi. QUESTION: What's our position on all these recent defections & desertions from anarchism (esp. in California-Land): condemn or condone? Purge them or hail them as advance-guard? Gnostic
elite...or traitors?

Actually, we have a lot of sympathy for the deserters & their various critiques of anarchISM. Like Sinbad & the Horrible Old Man, anarchism staggers around with the corpse of a Martyr magically stuck to its shoulders--haunted by the legacy of failure & revolutionary masochism--stagnant backwater of lost
history.

Between tragic Past & impossible Future, anarchism seems to lack a Present--as if afraid to ask itself, here & now, WHAT ARE MY TRUE DESIRES?--& what can I DO before it's_too_late_?...Yes, imagine yourself confronted by a sorcerer who stares you down balefully & demands, "What is your True Desire?" Do you hem & haw, stammer, take refuge in ideological platitudes? Do you possess both Imagination & Will, can you both dream & dare--or are you the dupe of an
impotent fantasy?

Look in the mirror & try it...(for one of your masks is the face of a sorcerer)...

The anarchist "movement" today contains virtually no Blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans or children...even tho _in_theory_ such genuinely oppressed groups
stand to gain the most from any anti-authoritarian revolt. Might it be that anarchISM offers no concrete program whereby the truly deprived might fulfill (or at least struggle realistically to fulfill) real needs & desires?

If so, then this failure would explain not only anarchism's lack of appeal to the poor & marginal, but also the disaffection & desertions from within its own ranks. Demos, picket-lines & reprints of 19th century classics don't add up to a vital, daring conspiracy of self-liberation. If the movement is to grow rather than shrink, a lot of deadwood will have to be jettisoned & some risky ideas embraced.

The potential exists. Any day now, vast numbers of americans are going to realize they're being force-fed a load of reactionary boring hysterical artificially-flavored _crap_. Vast chorus of groans, puking & retching...angry mobs roam the malls, smashing & looting...etc., etc. The Black Banner could provide a focus for the outrage & channel it into an insurrection of the Imagination. We could pick up the struggle where it was dropped by Situationism in '68 & Autonomia in the seventies, & carry it to the next stage. We could have revolt in our times--& in the process, we could realize many of our True Desires, even if only for a season, a brief Pirate Utopia, a warped free-zone in the old Space/Time continuum.

If the A.O.A. retains its affiliation with the "movement," we do so not merely out of a romantic predilection for lost causes--or not entirely. Of all "political systems," anarchism (despite its flaws, & precisely because it is neither political nor a system) comes closest to our understanding of reality, ontology, the nature of being. As for the deserters...we agree with their critiques, but note that they seem to offer no new powerful alternatives. So for the time being we prefer to concentrate on changing anarchism from within.

Here's our program, comrades:

1. Work on the realization that _psychic_racism_ has replaced overt discrimination as one of the most disgusting aspects of our society. Imaginative
participation in other cultures, esp. those we live with.

2. Abandon all ideological purity. Embrace "Type-3" anarchism (to use Bob Black's pro-tem slogan): neither collectivist nor individualist. Cleanse the temple of vain idols, get rid of the Horrible Old Men, the relics & martyrologies.

3. Anti-work or "Zerowork" movement extremely important, including a radical & perhaps violent attack on Education & the serfdom of children.

4. Develop american samizdat network, replace outdated publishing/propaganda tactics. Pornography & popular entertainment as vehicles for radical re-education.

5. In music the hegemony of the 2/4 & 4/4 beat must be overthrown. We need a new music, totally insane but life- affirming, rhythmically subtle yet powerful, & we need it NOW.

6. Anarchism must wean itself away from evangelical materialism & banal 2-dimensional 19th century scientism. "Higher states of consciousness" are not mere SPOOKS invented by evil priests. The orient, the occult, the tribal cultures possess _techniques_ which can be "appropriated" in true anarchist fashion. Without "higher states of consciousness," anarchism ends & dries itself up into a form of misery, a whining complaint. We need a practical kind of "mystical anarchism," devoid of all New Age shit-&-shinola, & inexorably heretical & anti-clerical; avid for all new technologies of consciousness & metanoia--a democratization of shamanism, intoxicated & serene.

7. Sexuality is under assault, obviously from the Right, more subtly from the avant-pseud "post-sexuality" movement, & even more subtly by Spectacular Recuperation in media & advertising. Time for a major step forward in SexPol awareness, an explosive reaffirmation of the polymorphic eros--(even & especially in the face of plague & gloom)--a literal glorification of the senses, a doctrine of delight. Abandon all world-hatred & shame.

8. Experiment with new tactics to replace the outdated baggage of Leftism. Emphasize practical, material & personal benefits of radical networking. The times do not appear propitious for violence or militancy, but surely a bit of sabotage & imaginative disruption is never out of place. Plot & conspire, don't bitch & moan. The Art World in particular deserves a dose of "Poetic Terrorism."

9. The despatialization of post-Industrial society provides some benefits (e.g. computer networking) but can also manifest as a form of oppression (homelessness, gentrification, architectural depersonalization, the erasure of Nature, etc.) The communes of the sixties tried to circumvent these forces but failed. The question of _land_ refuses to go away. How can we separate the concept of _space_ from the mechanisms of _control_? The territorial gangsters, the Nation/States, have hogged the entire map. Who can invent for us a cartography of autonomy, who can draw a map that includes our desires?

AnarchISM ultimately implies anarchy--& anarchy is chaos. Chaos is the principle of continual creation...& _Chaos_never_died_.

--A.O.A. Plenary Session
March '87, NYC

Posted by Matt at 11:31 AM