[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]

/dead/ - dead

Tor Only

Password (For file deletion.)

Matrix   IRC Chat   Mumble   Telegram   Discord

| Catalog | Home

File: 1608528375152.jpg ( 126.94 KB , 900x506 , SF1-thumb-1080.jpg )


The pilot episode of subMedia’s brand new show, System Fail, looks at the incendiary riots that have swept across the United States in the wake of the murder of George Floyd, and the state’s desperate attempts to bring things back under control.

Featuring an interview with Oluchi Omeoga, co-founder and core organizer of the Black Visions Collective and Reclaim the Block.


pretty dank


goooooooooood morning slaves

File: 1608528374900.jpg ( 24.11 KB , 220x213 , bonnotgang.jpg )


Just want to know what /dead/ thinks of the Bonnot Gang
3 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


Yes, but I had tankies argue that he only did so to finance the party and that this has nothing to do with decentralised illegalism.


> to actually enjoy themselves
How do I do this?


Greetings from /leftypol/
Don't fun is counter-revolutionary


File: 1608528375617.jpg ( 1.38 MB , 3072x2304 , Rozsocháč.jpg )

Shoo tankie shoo


By consuming yourself and the world as you see fit.
Sadly I can't tell you what exactly that entails, but a good thing to start is just reflecting on what you generally like to do, what you don't like to do but have to do, why you have to, and then if you really even have to do it at all.
That doesn't mean you don't have to challenge yourself tho, tbh trying to sort your life in such a way is really hard and tiresome at the beginning, but it pays off later ones you have busted all the spooks in your life.

File: 1608528347220.jpg ( 8.13 KB , 300x200 , Layne.jpg )


I'll just leave this here to be quite honest family.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HSusGdNUgk


I love cheesy alternative rock. My wife has this song on a sampler, which contains HITS ONLY!




File: 1608528375772.jpg ( 80.65 KB , 1420x946 , 7435c099ed549bd392ee546e45….jpg )



Kurt fags on suicide watch.

File: 1608528374446.jpeg ( 6.08 KB , 200x200 , ba.jpeg )


> subject


File: 1608528374508.png ( 141.7 KB , 327x255 , 1584748013974.png )

They are active on Twitter, although I wouldn't call that being alive.



tf is this?


idk fam I've just got here

File: 1608528373221.png ( 489.08 KB , 1806x2622 , cafr0.png )


Do people still read anarchistnews or how do they keep up with the international happenings concerning anarchists?


>international happenings concerning anarchists
like, what is there except rojava and individualist authors facing charges of child abuse?


I read socialist alternative every now and then.


Ever increasing repression? Back when ITEOTWAWKIAIFF was airing there was a story about government crackdown on anarchists in Brazil/Russia/etc. every other episode.


>Ever increasing repression?
That's not news, that's the state of things. As long as I know there is a government, I can be pretty sure that there is repression against anarchists going on.


File: 1608528373953.jpg ( 43.95 KB , 620x597 , CxMEWcZUQAAOKpa.jpg )

It pays to be up to date on the current methods. Who knows when will they come for you for that two character edit you did on The Anarchist Library in 2014?

File: 1608528372885.jpg ( 110.47 KB , 1280x720 , mpv-shot0010.jpg )


Someone tell me what's the deal with Tiqqun/Agamben and civil war.


they literally have a book called "introduction to civil war", why don't you read it? it's one of their better ones, too

File: 1608528370795.png ( 76.75 KB , 786x501 , spook of all spooks.png )


This has been my understanding for the longest time, not long after I really engaged with Stirner's works, after it was pointed out to me that the ego itself is a spook. This was reinforced by the fact that the old English translations of Stirner were poor and gave readers the impression that he was an egoist who advocated for egoism and cared only for the ego rather than the unique / creative nothing. Wolfi Landstreicher's translation of The Unique and Its Property redressed these historical failures somewhat, but the translation is only 3 years old. When I read Stirner's Critics (again Wolfi's translation), I felt vindicated on this by how Stirner seemed to coyly agree with his critics that the ego is "the spook of all spooks", yet disputed that he didn't mean this all along.

After revisiting Stirner's Critics again, however, I find that Stirner always attributed "the spook of all spooks" in quotes and never seemed to explicitly agree, even though he describes the unique as an "empty phrase" and a name for what cannot be named. His first mention of "the spook of all spooks" is in a paragraph immediately recounting Moses Hess' critical review of Stirner's The Unique and Its Property, and seems to attribute this phrasing to Hess—though the paragraph break gives me a different impression, as if he is both attributing it to Hess and affirming the description of "the pale boaster". There was no need for that break and it was inconsistent with how he treated his summaries of Szeliga's and Feuerbach's critiques.

Yet what Stirner then affirms about the unique is basically that it is an empty signifier, that it is a form without content, since you are the content. (Isn't that what a spook is, a form without content?) He then proceeds to describe the content of the unique, which is beyond the boundaries of language altogether. His clarifications in Stirner's Critics corroborates with his original work of describing the "self" as ultimately transient, contingent, ephemeral, and always created in the moment from the void of the creative nothing. This coheres with the conception of the unique as a nomination for identifying some ego-form for the creative nothing, and for this notion of "I" to be a mistake of misplaced concreteness about one's own reality.

This seems to be the reading of Wolfi, as well, along with many of the other more intellectual Stirnerians, such as Castanea Dentata iPost too long. Click here to view the full text.
5 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


The way I understand it, a spook is, first and foremost, an abstraction. So the content of the spook is based on an imagined or percieved phenomenon. A spook without content, without fixed ideals can not exist.
The self holds no contents that could be fixed at any point, for it is nothing. That means that the self is only identified by exactly NOT having any fixed parts, and therefore can not be abstracted. It's content is whatever the self makes of itself, but it doesn't have to have any goal in mind here, but can literally make itself into anything.
Of course you can make a spook out of the self, by attributing (like you already mentioned) for example vulgar egoism to it as its inevitable content. The self is not an Randian egoist as in an egoist who only tries to knock down others for his own gain, but rather as in the act of relating everything to its will. And if the egoist, the self wants to sacrifice himself for other people, and wants to do so out of his own pleasure, not to serve a spook, he is still an egoist, cause he related the sacrifice to his own will instead of instead of morality. Not "I want to sacrifice myself cause it's the right thing" rather "I want to sacrifice myself for my sake, cause it fulfills my desire".
The vulgar, spooked egoist adheres to the abstraction of egoism, and even if his lover is in peril, and his psyche is telling him that the loved ones life is worth sacrificing oneself for cause of what she/he means to him, he still obeyes the order of the spook called 'egoist' demanding him to save himself and let his lover die. For the abstraction of what egoism means, he gives away his actual self-fulfillment.


Some clarifications which may dispel the apparently cross purposes here: by "content" I mean material content, as in spooks are spectral forms that lack any material content, literal Ideas much like Plato conjured to subsume all the unique particularities of and around us; and by the self, I mean precisely this idea of the self, this abstraction, this fixed concept of who and what you are and how you understand yourself in identitarian, categorical terms which petrify you into yet another Being in the world (or Being-in-the-world) rather than yet another object ever in the process of Becoming. So the self is a spook because there is no fixed identity to which we can refer in describing the contents of "I", there is no identity to which we can affix the "I"; the self, the concrete creative nothing we call the unique, is a content without form because it is not an idea but a body in space, a body which itself is utterly unique beyond the confines of any formal model. This content is the creative nothing, a nothing that does not mean merely empty, but rather that from which everything springs — and so that which contains everything. There is no form for this content because this content is the content of all existence. Or, to put it in more Marxian terms:

&ltThe self is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality will have to adjust itself. We call the self the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.

Perhaps my largest problem with sustaining this "egoist" language of and about Stirner is that it fundamentally no longer works once both the ego and the ideology which is constructed therefrom (the -ist) have been exposed as spooks as well. For me, I am not an egoist because I am Stirnerian in my thinking. I reject the identity, the framework, altogether as insufficient to capture what it means to be a creative nothing and to seek to liberate that creative nothing from all that fetters it — to liberate me from all that fetters me. Indeed, such language constrains me as a creative nothing by limiting my ability to communicate myself except in terms which have been so thoroughly abused aPost too long. Click here to view the full text.


What makes this creative nothing different from a self?


There is no phantasmic form of the creative nothing. Whereas the self can, if not necessarily must, be a spooky form without content; there is no possible conceptualization of the creative nothing as formless content which can generate a spook of itself. This is precisely because of the nature — or rather nomination — of the creative nothing itself. There can be misunderstandings of precisely what Stirner meant by the creative nothing, and attempts at reconsidering the creative nothing through revisions of theory, but by virtue of the creative nothing being the absolute debasement of existence situated beyond all boundaries of language — such that the Outside is its only home — and a non-conceptual description of a pre-conceptual embodiment that resists all attempts at comprehension, the creative nothing is the anti-spook of all anti-spooks; the desecrated individual, which none can chase from the self; the dark debaser.

You are a spook; the creative nothing is you.


But how is every idea of the self a spook? To be a spook, the idea must spook (spucken), by that I mean the idea must somehow have a relation to my own will, either affirming or contradict it. If my self, as in my identity, is the idea I have of myself based on what my different properties are, it is not an ought-to-be, but a description. The description neither affirms nor contradicts what my individuality is supposed to be, it simply states what I hold. But I can let everything I hold go because my identity is not fixed.
Do you think that every idea, every thought we make about the world is a spook? Because the way I understand it, Stirner took care to describe a spook as a certain type of geist (idea), which is different from just regular thoughts we make about the world, in that the spook has power over us because of the way we think/percieve it. But if I take the thought back as mine, cause I am it's originator, it has no power over me. Why wouldn't I be able to take the idea of my self back as mine?

File: 1608528363890.webm ( 7.3 MB , 426x240 , zizek-love.webm )


What would be my… how should I call it, spontaneous attitude towards the universe? It’s a very dark one. The first thesis would have been a kind of total vanity: there is nothing, basically. I mean it quite literally,like… ultimately…there are just some fragments, some vanishing things. If you look at the universe, it’s one big void. But then how do things emerge? Here, I feel a kind of spontaneous affinity with quantum physics, where, you know,the idea there is that universe is a void,but a kind of a positively charged void. And then particular things appear when the balance of the void is disturbed. And I like this idea of spontaneous very much that the fact that it’s just not nothing… Things are out there. It means something went terribly wrong… that what we call creation is a kind of a cosmic imbalance, cosmic catastrophe, that things exist by mistake. And I’m even ready to go to the end and to claim that the only way to counteract it is to assume the mistake and go to the end. And we have a name for this. It’s called love. Isn’t love precisely this kind of a cosmic imbalance?I was always disgusted with this notion of “I love the world,” universal love. I don’t like the world. I don’t know how… Basically, I’m somewhere in between “I hate the world” or “I’m indifferent towards it.” But the whole of reality, it’s just it. It’s stupid. It is out there. I don’t care about it.


what did he mean by this

File: 1608528367947.jpg ( 149.14 KB , 500x374 , 1486204935369.jpg )


> it's for the good of the economy> you can't do that, it would hurt the economy> you should study what the economy needs> you don't want to live in poverty? too bad the economy is in a downturn> sorry we have to fire you because of the economy> don't worry, the economy will save us once it is nationalised/socialised/democratized/cybernetic/liberated/sexualisedWhy do people put up with this shit?
2 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


>>432funny how such a spook could be a euphemism for very real class-interest


>class interest is real
haha no


The biggest spook of them all is you, my property. You are the spook of all spooks, the pale boaster, an empty phrase, a creative nothing.


File: 1608528371108.jpg ( 161.99 KB , 1264x1630 , 1588478377571.jpg )

How can I be a spook if nobody believes in me?


Because you believe in you, even if you think you don't, by virtue of believing in a you.

Also, some ghosts are forgotten and become so completely neglected that they seem to no longer exist. But they're still there, haunting the same hallows and hollows, only they have become invisible to those found their wake.

File: 1608528365813.jpg ( 40.17 KB , 620x349 , aaaaa.jpg )


They want to shut this place down. I don't post here as often as I should maybe but that doesn't mean I don't want this place to exist.Who here wants to see this place stay?
17 posts and 6 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1608528369686.png ( 85.48 KB , 244x339 , Screenshot_2020-06-14_22-0….png )

Moshi moshi Jesus desu


We did it!




Looks like the posadists also have a secret conspiracy board


File: 1608528371910.jpg ( 81 KB , 770x740 , 1454019734072.jpg )


Delete Post [ ]
[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]
[ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9 / 10 / 11 / 12 / 13 / 14 / 15 / 16 / 17 / 18 / 19 / 20 / 21 ]
| Catalog | Home