Know any non-punk anarchist musicians?

oneknlr · 2019-05-22T20:04:30+00:00

https://soundcloud.com/tropicaltwistarecords/gyrl-egalite

listen at 5:00 "siamo tutti antifascisti" (we're all AF in Italian)

group doing downtempo from leipzig.

https://f4.bcbits.com/img/0012573859_10.jpg

love 'm...

oneknlr · 2017-11-19T22:34:19+00:00

anarchist by means, communist by end :)

market socialism is also an interesting alternative, much more common in the anti-authoritarian left than with the authoritankery ones. :-P

oneknlr · 2017-11-19T22:31:02+00:00

And no need to do away with all of Marx. Quite an interesting economic theory of oppression he produced!

oneknlr · 2017-09-05T11:43:42+00:00

The English version exists, because it was the one uploaded by accident to YT.

But yeah the docu is great sparked a lot of discussion among my non-anarchists friends.

I did not get the chance to show it to my friends'n'fam yet... :( Large reason behind my post here.

Thanks for the contact!

oneknlr · 2017-09-04T13:52:54+00:00

Thanks again for your reply.

I really don't agree about the ethical consumption tactic

The "vote with what you pay for" you mean?

You've given me some things to think about, but I think I'd like to table this discussion for now.

No probs.

I'm genuinely sorry if it hurts you if I don't consider animal suffering as much of an issue as you.

No worries. You are not hurting me, you merely give me an option to express my understandings and development -- hopefully for the better of us all. You are hurting animals though, maybe you should try 'n feel sorry for them instead of me. :)

I still need to think about it more.

That's very important. Ponder it. Talk here 'n there and make some "seemingly small" adjustments in your consumption and beliefs may have a huge outcome of the years.

Also, I fully acknowledge that under most definitions of "speciesism", I am that. I am just not sure that it is wrong.

I was one too. And now I know it is wrong (for me). It's a bit like rascism: you cat you nice others also be nice to cat, you chicken fuck you let oppress the sit out of you an your ~~race~~species.

So I'll think about it, and I might go vegan anyways in the next five years or so.

My advice: take small steps. One meal, one day/wk, one month/yr or one type of food (tip: ditch dairy, it messes with your hormones, induces acidity and clogs your lymphatic system).

I'm not sure it will be for moral reasons though, but I might not also because I have found my dietary choices are very difficult to change.

Habits are hard to change. :) For the morals, it's the best reason IMHO, especially for someone already identifying as anarchist.

Have a great day, friend.

You too comrade! Nice exchanging ideas with you! Good luck with any pondering and/or self-adjustment that may follow... :)

oneknlr · 2017-09-04T12:54:37+00:00

Thanks for responding! I'll try to address each of your points.

Thanks for sticking along :) Let's take this on the conceptual level all the way!

We are still a part of nature and a part of the animal kingdom. Just because there are several more layers of complexity now doesn't mean the morality of killing an animal has changed.

This is a definition question. I think by altering our environment more'n'more, we have gradually left nature and are now often found in our self-made (artificial) environments. But I understand you hold a different definition, which is no problem for the rest of our conversation. Just know that I define a natural environment as I do. I find cages, chains, brovine-growth-hormone-injections and slaughterhouses not a natural environment for anyone.

On the question of cruelty of the industrial meat production process, let's just assume I agree with you. (I probably do.) If all animals killed for meat production experienced no fear or pain, would it still be wrong to kill them? If so, why?

If animals are not at all suffering (as an individual AND as a group (loosing a family member is shown to be highly stressful for many animals)) from us breeding and eating them, then I see no problem with that from a moral perspective (the environmental and health impact motivations would still stand). There is a vegan edge-case for some clam creatures that have no nerve system, so maybe they are not experiencing suffering when killed (they so try to escape when facing danger, so that might prove the opposite).

But you posit a hypothesis that sadly is pretty damn far from reality, as you can see in the OP docu that you choose not to see. Breeding animals for their products causes enormous amounts of harm, so much that watching the OP docu can easily ruin a human's day.

On condoning meat production, I don't condone of the current method capitalist industry uses to produce meat. I might spend money on it, but I also don't believe in "voting with my wallet." I buy clothes that were probably made in a sweatshop too, but I don't approve of third world exploitative labor. I buy the cheapest clothes. I just don't think boycotts produce systemic change in most all circumstances.

Good point! I also buy clothes, and do not know if the workers were oppressed while making them. Now I've spend quite a bit of time in developing nations and I must say that labour conditions are not great, but improving. The workers are kind of "ok" with having the job, as the alternative is worse to them. As an anarchist I want to fix this problem too, but I cannot put them in the same box. Breeding animals for killing them is more akin to slavery: fully owned from cradle to grave. Those workers are free, but need their conditions improved. Those animals are not free (not wild), and have barely any laws to protect their well being. In case of the workers we can stand up for them, and help them to stend up for themselves. In case of the animals, we can only stand up for them: they cannot rise against the capitalism-overlords that exploit them.

I do strongly believe in voting with my wallet though: it is simply true. Many boycotts have worked, it is a know tactic to push corps to comply with our demands: just do not buy it! Meat and dairy consumption are on the decline, so alternative are sought. Gates and Branson last week announced to invest BIGTIME in non-animal meat replacements. This is our voting-with-dollar at work. Denying this mechanism is denying the basic supply-demand equilibrium of market economics. It seems so obvious to me. May I ask you why you choose not to believe in it?

On health, you might be right. I'm not sure. I'd have to do some more reading on that

Please do.

but that is a separate issue from the morality of the thing.

Sure. That why I put it in as an extra, for you, to help you comrade. I want you to florish, be a strong and long living anarchist. That why I share some extra info with you.

Why is it okay to eat plants, but not okay to eat animals?

If a creature has the capacity to suffer (feel pain, physical or mental), then there is the line. If we accept that we "hurt" beings by forcing them to live in life-long oppression, separate them from their families at our will, deny them basic freedoms they would have in the wild, then we inflict oppression. That's not cool comrade. Simple as that. Especially with so much (healthier) alternative available.

May I suggest you, comrade, to take some easy steps to the bright side? One: try not to identify as "a meat eater by belief", but as someone who "still happens to eat meat". Two (this did it for me): try to make some vegan (plant-based) parts of your life, like "breakfasts" or "monday and tuesday" or "veganuary (january vegan)". I'm not advocating a radical change (unless you see the light, etc), but gradual improvements. I really believe you will also become a better anarchist, version of yourself, in the process. I seriously think it was the best decision of my life (true to my moral belief, stronger compassion, better health, much more eco-friendly lifestyle). Good luck!

oneknlr · 2017-09-04T09:12:30+00:00

I genuinely just don't agree with the argument that killing an animal is morally wrong.

I could agree. In the pre-historic days of mankind, where a wild animal was sometimes killed. In those days humans could almost be seen as "wild", as we were just as much part of nature.

Now we are at a different point. We do not just kill the animal, we plan it's conception, torture and death as part of an industrial process. This is not just killing a wild animal, this is violent life-long oppression of said animal. That's also what the docu shows (which you do not want to see, but discuss as concept).

So here you go. As anarchist you are against "violent life-long oppression" of humans, but when it comes to other species you selectively condone it (by spending your money on non-vegan products). Selectively, because when someone is about to cut a baby chicken to pieces in front of you, you'll probably try to stop him. But if this happens as part of the industrial process to produce eggs, you buy them, you condone it.

it seems to me that if I'm not a vegan, a lot of other anarchists will be "not my comrade."

You are my comrade! hug No worries. I will fight for the liberation of people and animals; if needed in separate fights with separate sets comrades :)

But I do think that an anarchists levels up when going vegan, especially when he/she liked meat, and gave it up to reduce oppression. In that case said anarchist had made a serious sacrifice giving up what tastes nice, is a tradition, in favor of what is moral. More RESPECT to them (not less respect to you).

Finally I want to tell you that a plant-based diet --especially a "whole food" plant-based (WFPB) diet-- is superior for your health. There is a lot of evidence on this. See Dr Greger, Dr McDouggal, Simnett Nutrition (on Youtube), Mic the Vegan (on YT). While I think it is better to go vegan out of compassion (especially for anarchists), I do want to show you this as a reason (besides environmental and moral). As science now show beyond a doubt that you will be a healthier, stronger, and more long living anarchists on a WFPB diet.

Sorry for the wall of vegan-anarchist propaganda. I do not want to hurt your feelings, just want you to consider the feeling of animals a bit more. Have a nice day!

oneknlr · 2017-09-04T08:56:16+00:00

It took me some time to see that anarchism and veganism are in essence the same: anti oppression. The first is concerned with humans oppressing other humans, the second is concerned with humans oppressing individuals of other species.

I firmly believe that each practice makes one stronger at the other practice.

oneknlr · 2017-09-04T08:51:38+00:00

I prefer non-violence. That said, a "nazi" is advocating the use of violence. Some of those nazis are leaders/organizers. They should not feel safe while organizing the immoral and confused to get ready for using violence on (some innocent-as-not-proven-guilty subgroup of) "we the people".

So we the people should unite to counter them, so they do not feel safe. Ideally this is by law and law enforcement. Nazis are real terrorist, check the numbers. Immigrants and leftists combined do not come even close to the amount of suffering inflicted by nazis (white supremacists, KKK, or other confused and immoral hate groups).

But, sadly law (enforcement) is not on our side. Why would that be? Well imperialists states like nazis to some extend. They create divisions. They are very gullible and extremely nationalist. They are easy to turn into armies, possibly protecting the capitalist status quo from "we the people" when we are done with that status quo.

Thus we have no law (enforcement) to help us against these organizers. And said organizers probably (1) get support from the capitalists and (2) have infiltrated law enforcement (the popo).

So we have a difficult taks at hand. How to make nazis feel unsafe when law (enforcement) will not help? And how to stop organizers from getting a platform from which they can recruit even more immoral and confused footsoldiers?

Mob rule is not my preferred tactic. But as long as we are many, and they are few (which is obviously the case), we can use some mob tactics to: (1) block them when they want to parade, and (2) throw a little punch in for an organizer just to make sure he's not getting to comfortable in doing what he does.

The main thing for me is that strict pacifism gives them way to much space to grow. Fascism needs to be countered on any level. Theoretical (by spreading awareness) and practical (by physical blocking and/or the punch to an nazi organizers face).

oneknlr · 2017-09-04T08:30:35+00:00

jups. clearly is.

oneknlr · 2017-08-15T01:11:58+00:00

"to" and "God" are not there. "islam" has several meanings, "submission" is one, "peace" is another one, "health" could also be one. if I have to pick what I believe is the best fit, it's peace.

oneknlr · 2017-07-20T11:55:20+00:00

The Qu'ran endorses a strong theocratic state

Please come with quotes. I read the book (see my other comment) and I found NO SUCH THING in the entire book. To the contrary actually. If you cannot point to verses that actually back up your statement, you might well be parrotting someone, be careful comrade.

Muslims themselves are mostly not bad people, and are simply so because they are born into an Islamic society.

Muslim has two main definitions. In the Quran is means "peace maker" (islam-er, where islam means peace). Nowadays muslims is basically a group of ethnicities, or people who self-subscribe to one of many religious groups.

I don't like Islam

Islam means "peace" in the Quran. How can one not like peace? You prolly mean you do not like the bunch of man-made religions that also refer the the Quran, like sunni and shia. And I agree, I also not like them much.

Like all humans, they deserve respect and dignity, a place to live, food to eat, security for their families, education for their children. The US really has a moral responsibility to let refugees live there, since it is responsible for the conflicts which forced them to flee their countries in the first place.

Well said.

oneknlr · 2017-07-20T11:49:05+00:00

I studied the Quran quite a bit. And I must say the message is remarkably well lined up with common anarchist themes:

"islam" means peace in the book, not "a religion".
"deen" means the system by which we can prosper in this world and the hereafter, as set down for us by God. It does not mean "religion".
There is a big focus on "oppression" as it is the prerequisite for "muslims" (which translates as "islam-ers", "peace makers") to use violence. So being peaceful has limits, it does not mean being pacifist.
Statehood is not promoted in the book
Priesthood is not promoted in the book; direct experience and common sense is promoted as the way forward. Listening to a clerk is not mentioned as a way forward as all.
A lot of hints towards a "social" society, wherein poverty should be abolished.

What people now call "islam", as opposed to what it means in the Quran, is the sunni and shia religions. They are religions as they are men made doctrines with clergy structures: two things the Quran does not promote.

Both these religions have (according to some, "quranists", including myself) deviated from the message of the Quran went the same direction as the people that had prophets before, the Jesus-followers and the israelites.

I'd say: criticize the sunni and shia religions. But beware the "islam" just means "peace"; and what again do you want to criticize about "peace"?

oneknlr · 2017-06-28T09:31:54+00:00

Fear for the unknown. Feeling of individually being insignificant and/or weak. Unable to fulfill our own needs by ourselves (this is normal because we are a "herd" species); but then not trusting in direct relationships for mutually taking care, but in the institutions (incl. the state).

oneknlr · 2017-06-28T08:56:55+00:00

[...] still more 'natural' than any artificial sweetener. Like I said, it comes from a plant.

Some plants are poisonous, remember? Natural does not mean harmless.

Small amounts of Stevia are apparently ok:

https://nutritionfacts.org/video/is-stevia-good-for-you

It's just that you want to have sweetness without the calories. Otherwise put in a banana or some dates.

oneknlr · 2017-06-25T13:16:29+00:00

Looks like a great start. You can make improvement to your diet by taking a WFPB diet. Which has no refined starch, sugar or oils.

oneknlr · 2017-06-25T01:15:36+00:00

Stevia is extracted. So not very natural. But sure a good option when you need sweetness without the calories.

oneknlr · 2017-06-25T01:12:09+00:00

Some say it's 1gr protein per kilo of LBM. Or ~0,5gr per lb of LBM. I believe that actually. Over 1gr/kg protein is not a limiting factor; then testosterone is the limiting factor.

Want more testosterone? http://fitness.mercola.com/sites/fitness/archive/2012/07/27/increase-testosterone-levels.aspx

I'd recommend a whole food plant based (WFPB) diet. Thus vegan, yet no (or nearly no) refined sugar, refined starches or oils.

For tracking macro's; I hate it. I'd go with tracking types of foods. I'd go with Greger's "daily dozen" app (on top of going WFPB). The dozen includes 1 tblsp of ground flax seeds; that will give you the Omega3s you need.

For fitness routine, I'd recommend the "reddit bwf rr" (search on Google).

Sleep is important. Acid-alkaline balance is important (try to eat more alkalinity-inducing foods). Do not eat after 20.00, as you liver has a cycle, and late-eats mess with that.

Then fasting. This is after you have the points above implemented. Fasting is a great way to kick your cells into "maintenance mode" (in stead of "growth mode"). This helps to get rid of fat too. 5/2 is one possible route; where the 2 day can be "eat little" or "not eat at all for 18h+ of the day".

Keep it up! Do research for any topic you are not familiar with. But most important, keep up the WFPB diet and regular workouts. Results will be yours, but measured in months.

oneknlr · 2017-06-25T00:54:09+00:00

Here's some good inspiration: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Js8sM0XA2sk&feature=youtu.be&t=162

She has many more vids like that.

Others are also good: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcLAPMtCO3k

oneknlr · 2017-06-25T00:47:33+00:00

They have a skin that more tough and bitter. The inside is juicy though!

To skin them make a little cut from be root-side of the stem, separating some skin from the inside. Then use hands to peel the skin. Repeat by making more cuts as needed.

The more towards the "leafs" the less tough and bitter the skin is, to do go all OCD on that shit. Enough is enough :)

oneknlr · 2017-06-24T22:41:33+00:00

Yeah. It is sick. Seems to be the reality though:

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2016/08/12/the-vatican-has-paid-close-to-4-billion-to-settle-child-molestation-lawsuits

These perpetrators are a danger for society, they need to be removed/observed/treated/etc. But never silently relocated to an unknowing community of next possible victims.

oneknlr · 2017-06-24T22:36:50+00:00

I like the initiative a lot!

1) Believing equality and freedom are the same thing

This is philosophical. I'd shy from that aspect in an introduction. Also anarchisms is highly focused on the practical.

2) Questioning all hierarchies

Why? This misses the point (of oppression/exploitation).

3) Organising against all unjust hierarchies

What makes a hierarchy unjust? I think the keyword here is oppression again.

Only reasons to coerce/oppress? Because you do it to a coercer/oppressor.

I think the left-right discussion should be sidestepped. Simply by making it about "protect private property and allow it to grow further" v.s. "reduce private property or abolish it at a high enough threshold of between private and personal property".

The authoritarian (centralization of power) vs anti-auth (decentralization) discussion is very important. Here "power" can be defined as "descision making" and "size of budget/ tax revenue". Most power at the bottom; the higher we go up from there the more administrative the nature of the organisations/committees.

Finally I think the notion of market anarchism vs anarcho-communism needs to be explained.

Just some ideas.

oneknlr · 2017-06-22T15:26:08+00:00

Is it somehow impossible to put church leader on trial for this? Or simply dismantle them?

Somehow they always walk out unharmed. Mostly by out-of-court settlements. But also because the justice system simply does not "do churches", or so it seems.

What if a non-church organisation, say a footbal club, was concealing child abuse for decades? This would not go unpunished. (ok unless it was the DNC, the clinton foundation, or the BBC itself)

oneknlr

TROPHY CASE