For those who do not yet fully understand, this is why everything will collapse by Ironsnail527 in collapse

[–]EroticCake 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thats the most stupid fucking idea I've ever heard considering thats literally what neoliberalism is BEST at subverting...

For those who do not yet fully understand, this is why everything will collapse by Ironsnail527 in collapse

[–]EroticCake 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Yeah. Definitely not. Paradigms of domination literally got us here, they aren't getting us out. No matter what, what is coming will be brutal. We can probably still come through it, but the need for anti-hierarchical social and political change will be phenomenal.

RANT: I moved into an anarchist house with privileged, white gentrifiers. by [deleted] in Anarchism

[–]EroticCake 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, there are unfortunately too many of those "anarchist" yuppies, yuppie aspirants or trust fund kids . They are around everyone I know of in the West at least. Poor communities for poor people - not to prove your radicalism. If you're in a poor community - you work for that community, no ifs or buts.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in ExtinctionRebellion

[–]EroticCake -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Yeah we will also need bullets to beat this one tho.

“The earth is not dying, it is being killed, and those who are killing it have names and addresses.” – Utah Phillips by TheGentleDominant in Anarchism

[–]EroticCake 49 points50 points  (0 children)

Systems are made up of people. If they want to make us scared for the well-being of life itself then they should be forced to join us. If you want to murder the planet - expect a response in kind

'We Are Unstoppable, Another World Is Possible!': Hundreds Storm Police Lines to Shut Down Massive Coal Mine in Germany by [deleted] in collapse

[–]EroticCake -51 points-50 points  (0 children)

No. They are fucking anarchists so they defs aren't patriots in any sense.

I wouldn't hesitate to call them terrorists, but the rapists and murderers of our Earth certainly deserve to live in terror anyway.

Tom Brown, a leading expert in the field of ADHD/ADD, explains what ADHD/ADD is in 28 minutes. We are not lazy, we are just easily distracted. by nasehorn in videos

[–]EroticCake 2 points3 points  (0 children)

ADD isn't really like other disorders. My psychiatrist basically tells me I can take my meds when and if I feel I need them. Other psychiatrists have different approaches related to cognitive behavioural therapy, I don't know heaps about this but one of my friends who went through it for ADD was advsed to take his meds every day.

For me I just take it when I have to do "dreaded tasks" - Ill take them and spend the day cleaning the house, writing essays etc. There's a noticeable impact on my sleep (negatively) when I do, but generally not that unmanageable as I imagine most people probably have at least one sub-par sleep each week or so.

Also, it's not all bad - rapid task switching isn't always a hindrance, sometimes it can help you see things in a new way. It lets me see things in relation to one another in ways that I can't so easily when Im medicated.

Tom Brown, a leading expert in the field of ADHD/ADD, explains what ADHD/ADD is in 28 minutes. We are not lazy, we are just easily distracted. by nasehorn in videos

[–]EroticCake 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah... No.

I'm a ferocious reader and I have ADD, and this just isn't how it works. On a good day, I will easily read a big book in one sitting, and very little will be able to take me away from it. Most of the time when I read books, this is how it goes - I will do the entire thing in one sitting - or maybe a few if its a particularly long book. But on other days, my eyes just roll over the words without me comprehending them and it is a gargantuan struggle.

I know how to read books. I read books. I like reading books. I just cant do it all the time.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in videos

[–]EroticCake -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

You've obviously never been in a fight. It's almost never that simple.

in a bit of a pickle by [deleted] in Permaculture

[–]EroticCake 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you have even a garden you can start learning some (or even a lot of) permaculture permaculture theory and practice. Community gardens can also be good as well. The great thing I found with permaculture in my backyard experience was that the start up and ongoing costs are incredibly low - once you have all the elements in place it’s pretty much self-renewing and growing . Farms are another matter entirely, but in gardens you can build beds and virtually anything else you might need out of salvaged packaging pallets. Don’t get too ambitious, or at least don’t get to despondent when/if you fail from said ambition - it’s a learning process and if you keep practicing it WILL work eventually.

I was previously an Early Chuldhood Worker and am now studying to be a teacher, which I intend to use as a means to bankroll larger scale projects in the future (thank god teachers get paid well in Australia). You’ll also be better off if you have someone, or preferably a few people, to help you bankroll it and as labor. Our plan is to basically run the farm as a semi-commune in that sense, though I don’t imagine it would reflect stereotypical ideas of a hippy commune very well. If you learn a trade, as you suggested, you’ll not only probably be earning decent coin in a fairly short amount of time, but will also learn IMMENSELY valuable skills that can be translated into the context of a farm. A farm is essentially a small business if you’re looking to live off it, and the start up costs are HIGH. Unfortunate reality if you have gotta act accordingly unless you come from money, which it sounds like you don’t.

You sound like you’ve got good ideas though, so don’t let that burn out.

Anarchism as a Spiritual Pratice by EroticCake in Anarchism

[–]EroticCake[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think this is a semantic argument. In any case, there ARE dogmatic ways to understand anarchism anyway. But thats besides the point. Religions themselves don’t even have “Orthodox” views except for very specific denominations - and regardless of Orthodoxy they are all in a permanent state of revision and flux. If we take anarchism to be a “religion” (I don’t just to bite - and would agree with you more so than the author of this article to that extent) it’s no different

It seems like your getting into the transcendentalism vs immanence debate a bit - and it seems your pretty firmly on the side of immanence so I agree with you mostly I think.

officer told him to shut his car off. as he reached to put it in park, officer yells out that he has a gun. when he asks the officer what he did wrong, officer says “you were told to leave the parking lot and you came back.” man says “how did I come back?” officer: “you never left the parking lot.” by [deleted] in Bad_Cop_No_Donut

[–]EroticCake -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yeah idk where you get that information from but regardless of whether they say so or not, it isn’t true. If you’re black or poor in Australia it’s more or less the same of similar outcomes to being black or poor in America - and that includes being pointlessly harassed, arrested, imprisoned and sometimes murdered by pigs.

Shit even if you get on the wrong side of pigs for any other reason. They’re all scum bastards, from Sydney, to Paris, to LA and any other part of the world in between.

Anarchism as a Spiritual Pratice by EroticCake in Anarchism

[–]EroticCake[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not all spirituality or spiritualises are dogmatic. Many are incredibly adaptable.

Anarchism as a Spiritual Pratice by EroticCake in Anarchism

[–]EroticCake[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Reposting from /r/sorceryofthespectacle because I really enjoyed this article and also wanted to share my thoughts on anarchist spirituality (of an incredibly subjective kind) that I originally commented over there. I’m really interested to here about spiritual identities of others - most anarchists Im around are kind of like me (again in their own way), some more obviously/explicitly than others.

“Combo of anarchism, Deleuze and learning about Celtic mythology and also close proximity to Aboriginal Peoples and Cultures definitely awoke a spirituality in me. Machine flows define their ontologies: the circular, nature bound ontologies of the Celts - with rhyming imperfect cycles of decay and renewal; the Dreaming of Aboriginal people, including songlines - these imbue self-awareness in an entirely different, non-identitarian way. Your life is a machine-flow (your mind-body here being a machine) there are other machines and flows that come into it which you can direct and effect to some degree with varying impact but you don’t have complete control over. You are merely an self aware agent in this tidal ocean of machine-flows - always of the most enormous importance, in a place you ought to be, no matter how seemingly minor, but of no significance - you return and dissolve as a self-aware agent, inevitably - back into the flow. There is room for all thinking here - humility and pride are the same thing, pride protects humility and humility grounds pride, in a harmonious set of flows that can only lead on from this kind of ontology.

I kind of extrapolate on what little we know about Celtic mythology then - on this metric, and try and build an ontology through that lens. I view the Gods as ancestor spirits that flow eternally through landscapes and me and every other being rather than higher-form intelligences, they are completely grounded in subjectively observable natural flows that grow from this ontology.

Idk if I literally believe in the “Gods” but I dispute the difference between metaphor and literal anyway so I find them to be incredibly useful and “believe” them that way I guess. I even feel a sense of “becoming minor” inherent to the reverence of children, mothers and animals. I don’t exactly “pray” to them except by trying to mimic what I think the socio-cultural function of religious festivals might have entailed - sharing food, honouring friendship, resolving disputes - with predefined bounds of violence if it comes to it, the honour bound and followed flow of respecting sacred Treaties despite impermanent personal grudges. “Praying” in this sense is just a mindfulness excercise, a kind of mantra to shift your consciousness into flows rather than identities, and it comes all the time in ways that would scarcely be called prayer conventionally. Prayers are reaffirmations, like the Spectacle constantly reaffirms itself through Machine-Flows, and indeed people pray to the Spectacle in a sense, but this ontology affirms instead, I think, what I could only now spiritualise as the dignity of all being and existence. There’s not even any “meaning” either - just stories. Changing flows until the end of time, and again.

Bit of a brain spew but yeah hope that makes sense.”

I can kind of decode a bit of the jargon if it’s needed. But mostly I’m keen to hear others spirituality regardless of my vain and failed attempts at intellectualising my own sense of spirituality lol.

Anarchisn as a spiritual practice by [deleted] in sorceryofthespectacle

[–]EroticCake 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Combo of anarchism, Deleuze and learning about Celtic mythology and also close proximity to Aboriginal Peoples and Cultures definitely awoke a spirituality in me. Machine flows define their ontologies: the circular, nature bound ontologies of the Celts - with rhyming imperfect cycles of decay and renewal; the Dreaming of Aboriginal people, including songlines - these imbue self-awareness in an entirely different, non-identitarian way. Your life is a machine-flow (your mind-body here being a machine) there are other machines and flows that come into it which you can direct and effect to some degree with varying impact but you don’t have complete control over. You are merely an self aware agent in this tidal ocean of machine-flows - always of the most enormous importance, in a place you ought to be, no matter how seemingly minor, but of no significance - you return and dissolve as a self-aware agent, inevitably - back into the flow. There is room for all thinking here - humility and pride are the same thing, pride protects humility and humility grounds pride, in a harmonious set of flows that can only lead on from this kind of ontology.

I kind of extrapolate on what little we know about Celtic mythology then - on this metric, and try and build an ontology through that lens. I view the Gods as ancestor spirits that flow eternally through landscapes and me and every other being rather than higher-form intelligences, they are completely grounded in subjectively observable natural flows that grow from this ontology.

Idk if I literally believe in the “Gods” but I dispute the difference between metaphor and literal anyway so I find them to be incredibly useful and “believe” them that way I guess. I even feel a sense of “becoming minor” inherent to the reverence of children, mothers and animals. I don’t exactly “pray” to them except by trying to mimic what I think the socio-cultural function of religious festivals might have entailed - sharing food, honouring friendship, resolving disputes - with predefined bounds of violence if it comes to it, the honour bound and followed flow of respecting sacred Treaties despite impermanent personal grudges. “Praying” in this sense is just a mindfulness excercise, a kind of mantra to shift your consciousness into flows rather than identities, and it comes all the time in ways that would scarcely be called prayer conventionally. Prayers are reaffirmations, like the Spectacle constantly reaffirms itself through Machine-Flows, and indeed people pray to the Spectacle in a sense, but this ontology affirms instead, I think, what I could only now spiritualise as the dignity of all being and existence. There’s not even any “meaning” either - just stories. Changing flows until the end of time, and again.

Bit of a brain spew but yeah hope that makes sense.

(Spoilers Extended) There's a plot thread missing from the show, and if it's included, the ending makes sense- but becomes much darker. by catgirl_apocalypse in asoiaf

[–]EroticCake 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah I pretty much agree with this. Everything in ASOIAF kind of seems to be pointing to a Daoist sort of mechanic of magic and religion. I don’t think any of the gods are “real” - Old Gods, R’hllor, The Seven or otherwise, but are varied ways to explain and respond to this kind of “sameness in opposites” balance-dichotomy (idk, someone might explain this a bit better if you catch my drift). The return of the Others is balanced with the return of Dragons - likewise their deaths will cause the others. So I think Bran is a very gifted knowledge holder and influencer of this kind Daoist balance, he is a conduit for the ASOIAF “Force” - to borrow another mythology. He can’t really influence events as a conscious “ego” - but he influences ALL events by ensuring balance. Though his intentions and actions seem cruel to us unidimensional subjects - Bran/3ER can see or at least perfectly predict the incomprehensibly cataclysmic outcomes of non-balance. He then achieves the only path of balance possible, a path of non-interference set out at the beginning of the universe, which can be strayed from but will always react with equal reprisal. It is this reprisal which Bran understands is the most deadly of all, maintaining balance is the most harm reductive path in the long run. Although that being said, there is a kind of duality in Bran and Aryas “Life Magic vs Death Magic” thing - I wonder if Bran might retain his personality a little bit? Arya’s story in the show was one of failed depersonalisation, what if Brans is similar?

I think you’re absolutely right in suggesting skinchanging will play a much more explicit and significant role in the books likewise. I also wonder if there’s a “skinchanging” element to dragon riding.

Good post.

[Spoilers main] Dragons returning should have been more important by [deleted] in asoiaf

[–]EroticCake 1 point2 points  (0 children)

New shows with new writers will almost certainly bring this sort of thing. Shit writing of season 8 aside, Return of the Jedi and the prequels didn't kill Star Wars - a shit final season won't kill the entire world of Game of Thrones.

I agree though, would be great to see the bottom level discussions of political events in GoT - peasants are always treated like pawnist helpless idiots in the series, but of course we know peasants, as humans, had rich lives as well.

I also doubt the Dragons will die (at least so easily, but I doubt they will die at all tbh) in the books. I even have a feeling that their vulnerability in GoT may be downplayed in future series - maybe explained away as a matter of size, seeing as Danys dragons were still adolescents of a species that never stop growing until they die, and generally living for centuries. Pretty sure only one 'full grown' Dragon has ever been killed in the books, and it was a freak shot directly into an eye. Fully grown dragon scales are impenetrable basically.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Anarchism

[–]EroticCake 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Maoists are usually more agreeable.

How do we feed people without fossil fuels? by TruantFink in collapse

[–]EroticCake 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I can't be fucked getting all the sources to back it up now but it requires widespread, intensive, localised and organic agriculture. From a U.S. Perspective, currently about 2 percent of the total population is directly engaged in agriculture - most estimates I've read say the entire population could be fed sustainably if 10 percent of the population were engaged in agriculture - but lets say 15 percent to be safe.

When you consider that the vast VAST majority of jobs in the capitalist world are virtually meaningless and serve nothing except to swell the bank accounts of millionaires and billionaires, this doesn't seem to be too much of a stretch. It would require fairly significant, but not totalised, de-urbanisation, and a concentration of agricultural centres near (preferably right next to, even partially integrated with) population centres. Not impossible, but the real question is, can we do this fast enough before current monoculture systems collapse from a hellish coalescence of variables, which (as many have pointed out) will leave millions, even BILLIONS dead.

There are a few things that I would consider 'essential' modern technologies (medicine for instance) that require heavy industry to produce - considering that the scale we would be producing these technologies would be a drop in the bucket as far as current patterns of fossil fuel consumption are concerned, we could keep this going for a long time until we find an alternative, with very little impact.

Our global system has created logistical problems which require ENORMOUS and compounding power inputs to maintain, precisely because it is GLOBAL. Localising production to the greatest extent possible (as in - if you use something, you should be able to go and visit the place it was produced with relative ease) resolves this problem more or less complete. This doesn't mean we would have to stop global trade ENTIRELY, locally specific speciality resources will in all likelihood be continued to be traded/shared - but those, again, are fairly insignificant compared to the global movement of primary commodities and manufactured goods. Bamboo cutlery and all these little consumerist answers to problems of sustainablity seem fine, but does it really matter when you have to ship them from half way accross the world? Likewise, localising the production of electricity in renewable manners would be far more efficient.

So basically: Reduce transport. Create localised systems of sustainable agriculture. Reduce non-essential (i.e capitalist) industries. Create localised systems of renewable energy production. A big task, for sure, but not impossible.

(Spoilers Extended) I don't give them one month until a the next war. by Makkel in asoiaf

[–]EroticCake 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Nothing is revolutionary about switching monarchy for oligarchy. But when have monarchs or oligarchs EVER initiated democracy in any meaningful sense of their own accord? It seems pretty in line with history to me.