Memories of a troubled place

My memory of the whole charade is rather fuzzy, I had been missing my risperidone for about a week prior to the event. I was having thoughts of suicide and decided to call the ambulance and go to the emergency room. I ended up getting what the doctor called “pink slipped,” meaning I was imprisoned, or, in legalese, “confined”
to a psychiatric ward for 72 hours. I stayed the entire night in the emergency room, in which my bladder was distended, they forced me to drink bottle after bottle
of water so they could get a urine sample. They were considering shoving a tube of sorts down my urethra to get the piss out.

Thankfully they didn’t need to, since my I suddenly started pissing, the amount of urine I pissed out filled two whole jugs, and then a half of another. It was…..
not fun, to say the least. I ended up getting an hour of sleep on the cot there, which wasn’t that comfy in the first place. It was hell. The actual psych ward itself
was better, but that’s not saying much. I spent about four days in total away from home.

I tried convincing them I was not suicidal, because I wasn’t, it was merely a case of me losing my meds. As soon as I was ushered in I noticed that inside of the place
was like a jail, not literally, but pretty close to it. It was a “total institution” as some call it. A place where I was subject to 24/7 control, I had little to no
agency while I was there. It was boring as all hell, the only thing on the fucking tv was that stupid show called Impractical Jokers or something, I don’t exactly

We did group and such, it wasn’t really that helpful. I got the distinct impression that this institution was only meant to enforce compliance, not genuine wellbeing.
I felt trapped. They did good at making me meek and docile tho, which helped in me getting out so quickly, now that I look back on it. I couldn’t even shower in
privacy, someone had to be outside of the door watching me the entire time. I had no underwear, and only my boxers and shirt.
The food wasn’t half bad tho, I’ll admit. This one guy I distinctly remember, was there cuz he was an addict of some sort, he lied and said he was depressed and
considering suicide, but really he just wanted to get clean. The place didn’t help him, and so he was stuck there doing nothing but sitting on his ass watching, you
guessed it, Impractical Jokers all day. I remember feeling trapped, caged, like an animal in a zoo.

There was a pamphlet about our patient “rights,” but since the doctors had the ability to keep us in there for effective noncompliance, even when exercising our
“rights,” something tells me those were just for show. I slept in this room with one other person, a man who did nothing but sleep all day. I took to reading a book to
keep myself occupied, but due to being off my Vyvance it didn’t help all that much.

I was constantly restless, I was uncomfortable. I cried a few times. I remember being told that if I cried I would be kept there longer. It was hard, but I managed to
suck the tears up. I was overjoyed when I finally got to go home. It’s not an experience I want to revisit, I’ve learned my lesson about going to the emergency room
for suicidal ideation on that front. I also am worried that if I go back there, they wouldn’t have my HRT, which is yet another reason I won’t go back there.

I found out that the hospital I was staying at was a for-profit entity, which made me sick to my stomach. I was still a radical socialist back then, just not an
anarchist, and I was rightly miffed people were, and are, profiting off of other people’s woes. I hated that place, I don’t want to go back there.

One thing that kept me sane throughout the stay was the thought of being unbanned from a particular Discord server I was on, but when I finally returned home, well,
I was never unbanned. It seems like a petty thing, but we all need to have something to latch onto to retain our sanity. It was also there that my headmate Irene
emerged, and while she’s a pain in the ass, she’s been there for me ever since. We’ve been through so much together, I know I`m never truly alone.

A Defense of Egoism

I do not care for your morals, for your spooked ethics, for your hogwash of moral this, immoral that. I only care about what pleases my ego, there is no such thing as morality. Morality itself is a spook. To define a “spook,” well, a spook essentially is any idea or social construct that you beholden yourself to, such as morals, the economy, or the nation.

Stirner tells us to take command of spooks for our own benefit, to use or dispel them as we see fit. The universe does not operate on human sensibilities, and to be quite frank, what even are “human sensibilities” anyways? Human nature, in other words. What is “human nature?”

If you were to tell me it’s the “human condition,” you’ll have yourself a tautology, you’ve just provided me a synonym for “human nature,” not an actual definition. “Communism/anarchism/insert boogeyman ideology here is antithetical to human nature,” says the idiot liberal. Ask them what human nature is, and suddenly they go silent.

Human nature, just like morality, is, in other words, a spook. Now, I’ve been told that egoism is selfishness, or that you have to have morals to be a good person, to which I respond, what do morals have to do with being a good person? Be a good person because or if it pleases your ego, not because you are obliged to a social construct, an unreal entity, a spook.

Capitalism, communism, morality, the state, the nation, patriotism, family, all of these things are spooks, it’s up to you to decide whether you want to beholden yourself to them or not. As for me, I will not slave away to some higher ideal that is not my own. I will either make it my own, or banish it, for it is of no use to me.

Maddening Misanthropy

You wanna know how long it takes for one to become a billionaire through actual work alone? 4.51 million years. That’s how long it takes for one to make a billion dollars through hard work alone. There is no way for one to make a billion dollars ethically, you have to have been either born into privilege or you had to steal the value of the labor of the work your laborers put out.

I’d say eat the rich, but that’s honestly an understatement. Slowly roast them alive over an open fire more like. This right here is why I`m a socialist. This reminds me of the line Benny made in the opening intro scene to Fallout: New Vegas:

“Sorry you got twisted up in this scene. From where you’re kneeling, it must seem like an 18-carat run of bad luck. Truth is… the game was rigged from the start.”

This system is inherently unequal, it’s a rigged game, where a minority own the means of production and everyone else has to submit to them in order to survive. These elites, this ruling class, the bourgeoisie, are protected by the power of the state and its goons, and god forbid you resist, try to make things fair, because you get labeled a socialist, a dissident, a radical, an extremist, a terrorist….

This whole thing’s a joke, it really is. One you understand that nothing of what you were taught in childhood is true, it will make a lot more sense. Take the breadpill, comrades, educate yourselves.

But is it worth dying over?

Yes, yes it is. Nothing is better than a good death; if there’s only one thing in life we can control, it’s how we die, or at least how we react to death, and our inevitable doom. Crazy Horse knew this better than most, when he uttered his famous “It is a good day to die” speech.

We are facing a crisis in our time unlike any other, where dying over living is arguably becoming, or at least ought to be becoming, an acceptable choice. Live life now while it’s going at least somewhat okay, when times are tough and unending, I will not fault you for wanting and choosing a way out.

People think that life is something that is cherished, but is it really? I don’t think so, nothing is sacred, to me at least anyways. There is a good essay on this subject called “Let Me Die”  by Narcissa Black, I recommend checking it out.

We are facing a time where immortality is within our reach, but as the Lenape reacted when first hearing about the immortality offered by the Christian Heaven, “who wants to live forever?” Eventually you’ll grow so bored with life you may just want out, sheer boredom will do that for you.

The ultimate unknown is what happens after death, so why fear it? It’s inevitable anyways, might as well make peace with the Grim Reaper now while you can, we only have one life anyways. Do what you can now, damn the consequences. Carpe diem.

Resist to the end.

I have come to understand that resistance is futile, but I will continue to resist anyways. That is all I, you, and everyone else can do. Resist to the end. Always be defiant of authority, at least you could say you died with your honor intact.

Don’t go out with a whimper, go out with a bang. When the Jews following Simon bar Khokba during his infamous revolt, they knew that the end was coming, but rather surrender and live in slavery, they died free, killing themselves down to a man. When the Romans finally breached the walls, they only found a terrified woman and child hiding amongst the bodies.

They were so shocked they pardoned the woman and child on the spot. Hannibal’s final words were thusly:

Let us ease the Roman people of their continual care, who think it long to await the death of an old man.

Livy’s Ab Urbe Condita, Book XXXIX, 51

He committed suicide shortly thereafter.

How many revolutions ended in failure? How many were successful? How can we even define “success” and “failure?” How can we define what “works” and what “doesn’t work?” The only thing that stays the same is the fact that entropy increases, change and impermanence are facts of life.

The French Revolution ended with a tyrant taking the throne, the Russian Revolution ended with the rise of the party bureaucracy, and the victory of the Bolsheviks, who were anything but liberatory. The American Revolution, much vaunted here in the States, only resulted in one’s oppressors being closer to home, rather than far away across “the Pond.”The only successful revolution I can think of is the Haitian Revolution, and you only have to look at how Haiti has been kicked around by international powers for so long to see how that went.

Resistance is futile, resist anyway. Circumspice.

Rejecting the Political Compass

Attempting to map something as unendingly complex as human ideology unto such a reductionist plane as the political compass is folly, for it leaves out and misrepresents ideologies such as post-leftism, anarcho-primitivism, and egoism. The political compass just isn’t suited for the job of mapping and describing human ideology.

Tell me, dear reader, what is the definition of “leftist” and “rightist?” Of the left and right wings? Of libertarianism and authoritarianism? You wouldn’t get these answers from a reading of the polcomp, nor even from browsing shit such as Wikipedia, at least not well enough.

The answers to these questions are a lot more complex than they may at first seem, and to the post-leftist and anarcho-nihilist such as myself they are even the wrong questions to be asking. What is leftism and what is rightism?

Leftists claim to be in favor of labor, and rightists are at least nominally in favor of capital, but does that mean that groups such as Marxists-Leninists, or Dengists, who claim to favor labor over capital but end up becoming just as bad as or even transferring over to capital, are the leftists in the same vein as libertarian socialists and anarchists? I believe that the terms “left” and “right” wing are so vague that they ought to be rendered obsolete, they’re holdovers of the era of the French Revolution. Well, guess what, Sherlock, this ain’t the French Revolution.

The revolutionaries of the Russian Revolution were, at least nominally, leftist, but the stark differences between the Bolsheviks and the Makhnovists should show you just how meaningless the term “leftist” becomes in this context. Lenin and Makhno could not be further apart from each other, and yet they both get lumped in together as “leftists.”

This is why I reject the political compass: it’s obsolete, reductionist, and quite frankly a hindrance to an accurate understanding of the human political spectrum.

Ultimate Authority

I was told by my neurologist if I “had thoughts or feelings of hurting oneself or others to go to the emergency room immediately,” that was during a period of time I was considering ending my life. Life just wasn’t worth living. Only now do I realize the meaning of his words. I don’t think even he understood the full implication of what he said.

The state has the power to effectively imprison you for wanting out, it is the ultimate coercive power, the state decides when you die, you don’t even have control over your own life or death, the state does. It can decide when, and if, to put you down, but Christ forbid that someone try to appropriate that power from the state, to achieve the ultimate bodily autonomy.

Throwing you inside a psychiatric ward just for wanting out, it is the ultimate coercive power, the ultimate example of the unjust authority the state wields. It can decide when you die, how you die, but you can’t. It is illegal for you to take your own life, but not for the state, for whom nothing is illegal, since it makes and enforces the law.

Call it authoritarian, call it justified, whatever, don’t try to convince me of your moralistic hogwash, with your fallacious appeals to emotion. I am not swayed, I am only swayed by cold, hard fact, and the fact of the matter is is that the state’s ability to decide whether you live or die is the ultimate example of authoritarianism there is to be found.

I can be involuntarily committed to a psych ward for wanting out, the difference between being “lawfully” held captive and being “unlawfully” held captive is arbitrary, “unlawfully” holding someone captive deprives the state of the ability to “lawfully” hold someone captive. What is the difference? I am still in chains, it doesn’t matter to me whether my captors are acting within the purview of the law or not, they are my oppressors.

Tell me something, muse, why does the state get an exemption from criminality, but the people do not? Is the state above the law? “Nobody is above the law,” the liberal says. I say bollocks, someone has to enforce the law, and in order to enforce the law you have to be above it.

Liberalism is intellectually dishonest, inconsistent. Statist libertarianism is intellectually dishonest, inconsistent. Fascism of all things is more honest than liberalism, for at least the fascist will be plain with you what he wants, he doesn’t hold any pretenses to the contrary.

The liberal does, however, for they believe it to be “for your own good,” but does my “own good” entail being held captive, imprisoned, for wanting to take control over my own life? Foucault was right.

Statism and Ableism

As an autistic transwoman, I believe that the best bet for both queer and disabled liberation is by abolishing the state and overthrowing hierarchy whereever sees fit. Disabled people under a statist society will always be at a disadvantage, since statist societies prioritize able-bodied people over disabled people.

The only reason people like me are seen as disabled and not merely “eccentric” is because we cannot produce, we cannot contribute to capital’s stranglehold on production. This is literally the only reason I am disabled. Under a non-statist society, one based off of true libertarian principles such as mutual aid and free association, disabled people would not be valued or devalued solely based off of their ability to contribute to capital, off of their ability to produce.

I propose a synthesis of disabled and anarchist tendencies called divergent anarchism, to encompass both physiodivergent and neurodivergent people. It will serve the same function as queer anarchism, or anarcha-feminism, or black anarchism etc does, providing a means of analysis that will provide a true path to liberation for disabled people.

Disabled people can produce items of value comparable to that produced by able-bodied people, but society as it currently stands does not, and can not, value the products made by us in the same way it values the products made by able-bodied people. Nor will it value us as it values able-bodied people.

Statism is inherently ableist, the systemic issues that come with statism cannot be solved by mere reforms. All reforms merely serve as stopgap solutions, to kick the can further down the road for future generations to deal with, to placate the masses as to not seriously disrupt the flow of capital. Disability is stigmatized just as race/ethnicity is, or gender is, or lack thereof, or biological sex is, etc etc etc.

The Fabians and their social democrat/democratic socialist descendants are stool pigeons for the state and hierarchy by virtue of being reformist in the first place. “We’re not like those radicals, see? We want to reform the system, not abolish it,” cries the socdem/demsoc, but in the end when hierarchy deems it appropriate they too will be sent to the camps as we are/will. The Quisling always gets his comeuppance at the end.

Appeasement does not work, reformism does not work. To truly liberate disabled and other marginalized people, we must abolish the very system that oppresses us, not make peace with and submit to it as vassals. Assimilation politics serve the benefit of the oppressor, not the oppressed. Barack Obama is a keen example of this, being a biracial man, the son of a Luo Kenyan man and an Irish-American woman, as well as being the first African-American president of the United States.

Throughout his presidency he was jeered and subjected to hostile opposition solely based off of the color of his skin, derided as being a “communist, Muslim, atheist, gay man” etc, having his native born citizenship questioned, as well as having all of his actions opposed at every single turn, even when his policies were not too different from his white, Republican predecessor. Why, you ask? Because he was deemed black, and therefore “not a True American” by American society, despite being the personification of assimilation politics.

Take Obama’s example as a lesson for all people insistent on assimilating into mainstream society, if you are a marginalized person, you will continue to be stigmatized no matter what actions you take. Now I am not black, so I will not comment on what is best for African-Americans, I will only comment on what I see is best for disabled folk.

Having outlined why statism is inherently ableist, and why reformism doesn’t work, let’s now take a look at authoritarian socialist takes on disabled liberation. The same thing applies here, in all of the so-called “socialist countries” of the world, people have been valued solely by their ability to produce, even in so-called “worker’s states.”

If you could not work, or you wanted meaningful control over the products of your own labor etc, you were deemed an outcast, a criminal, and marginalized as such. From 1928 onward, striking was a capital offense in the USSR (Cliff, 1954), and if striking, the most basic of methods of labor resistance, was outlawed, and labor was oppressed despite supposedly having control of the means of production, what does that mean for disabled people, who arguably got/get it even worse than laborers under such so-called “worker’s states?” All statism is ableist, end of story.

Climate denial and alarmism

This blog post seems to equate climate alarmism with denial, but, as I and others pointed out in the comments, climate alarmism serves a purpose that denialism doesn’t:

“I can understand what Denialism is. Here people are just refusing to accept the science. However, Alarmism is something I am not so clear on. Sure, it can be viewed as a form of Denialism where instead of diminishing the effects of climate change, the effects are greatly exaggerated. But this seems to me to be rare. Most people I know find it alarming that we are not going to keep warming under 2 deg. The 2009 4 deg and Beyond conference discussed changes to freshwater, land use, agriculture, rainfall, and so on that I would certainly classify as alarming. If a 4 deg world is nothing to get alarmed about, at what point then should we be alarmed?

comment by Greg Guy

Climate alarmism serves the purpose of spreading awareness at just how urgent the climate change question really is, what should be warned against is climate doomerism, that there is nothing that can be done about climate change and that we should continue living as normal. That serves the interests of the ruling class, not the common people. It’s in the interest of the species as a whole to fight climate change, this may very well mean the death of the current capitalist way of life (not that that’s a bad thing), but it honestly means the difference between systems collapse and survival if we don’t.