#reterritorialization

[agp]

the worst anime is click with adam sandler when hes a happy trans woman until he wakes up as a man once in a while and gets suicidal as fuck because his ex wife and family wont talk or let him kill herself thats the whole plot

[puppygirlkat]

casually going off on a tangent of attempting a deleuzian analysis of my gender transition and sexuality to my gf

[bluemadafaka]

A PROMPT DEVOID OF ANY EXECUTIVE EXPECTATION AS A TECHNIQUE FOR ACCESSING AN AVOIDANT FLOW STATE.

Come up with a short broody poetic prose describing both the dread and the joy he feels returning to a place he enjoys greatly. The writing should obscure every meaning that could bring him too close to a known path, as his path is known only by a few.

The photograph includes the tools he himself is using, as it is a finished edit colorized and perfected as a surreal piece because it was developed within that excellent software. The art integrates the designing machinery along the emergent consciousness as co-performers enact the art piece as inextricable.

Beyond the meta-comment, this is a portrait by a cyborg crafting on itself. nothing to talk about photography—neither critique nor commentary or projection, yet an affective self representation of a one who happens to feel its own extension not as body, not as color, not as hardware, not as software, not as mind withing a brain, but as a contingent ensamble whose cognition extends its mind among, throughout, along and within all of which affect and can be affected in a current that doesn't need any segmentation since the turbulence, the vortex, the fluent cultural idioms, every movement reshuffles the current so every self is itself and the circumstances, reterritorializing continuously into new cyborgs, into new vortexes and tandems—into new unseen extended minds, autopoietic as a true agent, conscious by itself, emotionally unique, and an affective cognition continually emergent via the extended minds that lend the body and the hardware, yet novel, supra-volente, willful—constituting a self that's not the projected supplement to any one of its constitutive embodied minds: it's a new mind, fluent, volente, affective, emotional and self aware, alive as a virtual cognitive resident in the [hiper-complex, relational] machine from which its physiology-lenders permit its continuum by housing the fragmentary obscure subsets crucial in its fluent consolidation.

[butterflymessiah]

My professor tried telling me you can’t reterritorialize your subjectivity online … bitch watch me as I spend every waking hour curating virtual intimacies with strangers in cyber space and disintegrating my real life self 😂

[plum-orchard]

the innie conception of how much they are their outie is changing as the conditions within the severed floor changes. we can see that even their philosophy of self is downstream of their oppression.

this is typified by mark's orphic rebellion to choose a life of uncertainty and love with helly which is both a rebuke of his master (outie mark) and a reinforcement of the System's goal (cold harbor, i.e. severing so completely even the most powerful love can be occluded)

but also we have cross-department solidarity for the first time with mammalians nurturable and choreography & merriment joining forces with MDR (all of this, birthed largely by the bravery of irving's affair with burt!!!) which begs of us the difficult question that is asked in this finale and that i hope and pray the writers can find interesting answers and complications to: what DOES liberation look like? when you're at the absolute bottom of the food chain with no power, how do you find a path to freedom?

the core tension of the show seems to be becoming the innie's deterritorialization of their conditions and lumon's simultaneous reterritorialization of them, and it seems (🤞) like the search for answers to questions of where the self resides and how it manifests is going to be integral to breaking this cycle.

innie and outie solidarity seems like a plausible path to liberation, but it will remain impossible (like we saw today with the camcorder convo) unless they can come to an understanding of the innie/outie as some sort of a self.

as some smart guy said once: “the self is only a threshold, a door, a becoming between two multiplicities.”

can't wait for season three.

[infinitesofnought]

A true politics of psychiatry, or anti-psychiatry, would consist therefore in the following praxis: (1) undoing all the reterritorializations that transform madness into mental illness; (2) liberating the schizoid movement of deterritorialization in all the flows, in such a way that this characteristic can no longer qualify a particular residue as a flow of madness, but affects just as well the flows of labor and desire, of production, knowledge, and creation in their most profound tendency. Here, madness would no longer exist as madness, not because it would have been transformed into "mental illness," but on the contrary because it would receive the support of all the other flows, including science and art—once it is said that madness is called madness and appears as such only because it is deprived of this support, and finds itself reduced to testifying all alone for deterritorialization as a universal process. It is merely its unwarranted privilege, a privilege beyond its capacities, that renders it mad. In this perspective Foucault announced an age when madness would disappear, not because it would be lodged within the controlled space of mental illness ("great tepid aquariums"), but on the contrary because the exterior limit designated by madness would be overcome by means of other flows escaping control on all sides, and carrying us along.

– Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia

Perhaps one day one will no longer know clearly what madness really was...Artaud will belong to the ground of our language, and not to its rupture...Everything that we experience today in the mode of the limit, or of strangeness, or of the unbearable, will have joined again with the serenity of the positive. And what for us currently designates this Exterior stands a chance, one day, of designating us.

– Michel Foucault, History of Madness

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

"In these circumstances, the commercial economy of the fur trade soon yielded to industrial economies focused on mining, forestry, and fishing. The first industrial mining (for coal) began on Vancouver Island in the early 1850s, the first sizeable industrial sawmill opened a few years later, and fish canning began on the Fraser River in 1870. From these beginnings, industrial economies reached into the interstices of British Columbia, establishing work camps close to the resource, and processing centers (canneries, sawmills, concentrating mills) at points of intersection of external and local transportation systems. As the years went by, these transportation systems expanded, bringing ever more land (resources) within reach of industrial capital. Each of these developments was a local instance of David Harvey's general point that the pace of time-space compressions after 1850 accelerated capital's "massive, long-term investment in the conquest of space" (Harvey 1989, 264) and its commodifications of nature. The very soil, Marx said in another context, was becoming "part and parcel of capital" (1967, pt. 8, ch. 27).

As Marx and, subsequently, others have noted, the spatial energy of capitalism works to deterritorialize people (that is, to detach them from prior bonds between people and place) and to reterritorialize them in relation to the requirements of capital (that is, to land conceived as resources and freed from the constraints of custom and to labor detached from land). For Marx the

wholesale expropriation of the agricultural population from the soil... created for the town industries the necessary supply of a 'free' and outlawed proletariat (1967, pt. 8, ch. 27).

For Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari (1977) - drawing on insights from psychoanalysis - capitalism may be thought of as a desiring machine, as a sort of territorial writing machine that functions to inscribe "the flows of desire upon the surface or body of the earth" (Thomas 1994, 171-72). In Henri Lefebvre's terms, it produces space in the image of its own relations of production (1991; Smith 1990, 90). For David Harvey it entails the "restless formation and reformation of geographical landscapes," and postpones the effects of its inherent contradictions by the conquest of space-capitalism's "spatial fix" (1982, ch. 13; 1985, 150, 156). In detail, positions differ; in general, it can hardly be doubted that in British Columbia industrial capitalism introduced new relationships between people and with land and that at the interface of the native and the nonnative, these relationships created total misunderstandings and powerful new axes of power that quickly detached native people from former lands. When a Tlingit chief was asked by a reserve commissioner about the work he did, he replied

I don't know how to work at anything. My father, grandfather, and uncle just taught me how to live, and I have always done what they told me-we learned this from our fathers and grandfathers and our uncles how to do the things among ourselves and we teach our children in the same way.

Two different worlds were facing each other, and one of them was fashioning very deliberate plans for the reallocation of land and the reordering of social relations. In 1875 the premier of British Columbia argued that the way to civilize native people was to bring them into the industrial workplace, there to learn the habits of thrift, time discipline, and materialism. Schools were secondary. The workplace was held to be the crucible of cultural change and, as such, the locus of what the premier depicted as a politics of altruism intended to bring native people up to the point where they could enter society as full, participating citizens. To draw them into the workplace, they had to be separated from land. Hence, in the premier's scheme of things, the small reserve, a space that could not yield a livelihood and would eject native labor toward the industrial workplace and, hence, toward civilization. Marx would have had no illusions about what was going on: native lives, he would have said, were being detached from their own means of production (from the land and the use value of their own labor on it) and were being transformed into free (unencumbered) wage laborers dependent on the social relations of capital. The social means of production and of subsistence were being converted into capital. Capital was benefiting doubly, acquiring access to land freed by small reserves and to cheap labor detached from land.

The reorientation of land and labor away from older customary uses had happened many times before, not only in earlier settler societies, but also in the British Isles and, somewhat later, in continental Europe. There, the centuries-long struggles over enclosure had been waged between many ordinary folk who sought to protect customary use rights to land and landlords who wanted to replace custom with private property rights and market economies. In the western highlands, tenants without formal contracts (the great majority) could be evicted "at will." Their former lands came to be managed by a few sheep farmers; their intricate local land uses were replaced by sheep pasture (Hunter 1976; Hornsby 1992, ch. 2). In Windsor Forest, a practical vernacular economy that had used the forest in innumerable local ways was slowly eaten away as the law increasingly favored notions of absolute property ownership, backed them up with hangings, and left less and less space for what E.P. Thompson calls "the messy complexities of coincident use-right" (1975, 241). Such developments were approximately reproduced in British Columbia, as a regime of exclusive property rights overrode a fisher-hunter-gatherer version of, in historian Jeanette Neeson's phrase, an "economy of multiple occupations" (1984, 138; Huitema, Osborne, and Ripmeester 2002). Even the rhetoric of dispossession - about lazy, filthy, improvident people who did not know how to use land properly - often sounded remarkably similar in locations thousands of miles apart (Pratt 1992, ch. 7). There was this difference: The argument against custom, multiple occupations, and the constraints of life worlds on the rights of property and the free play of the market became, in British Columbia, not an argument between different economies and classes (as it had been in Britain) but the more polarized, and characteristically racialized juxtaposition of civilization and savagery...

Moreover, in British Columbia, capital was far more attracted to the opportunities of native land than to the surplus value of native labor. In the early years, when labor was scarce, it sought native workers, but in the longer run, with its labor needs supplied otherwise (by Chinese workers contracted through labor brokers, by itinerant white loggers or miners), it was far more interested in unfettered access to resources. A bonanza of new resources awaited capital, and if native people who had always lived amid these resources could not be shipped away, they could be-indeed, had to be-detached from them. Their labor was useful for a time, but land in the form of fish, forests, and minerals was the prize, one not to be cluttered with native-use rights. From the perspective of capital, therefore, native people had to be dispossessed of their land. Otherwise, nature could hardly be developed. An industrial primary resource economy could hardly function.

In settler colonies, as Marx knew, the availability of agricultural land could turn wage laborers back into independent producers who worked for themselves instead of for capital (they vanished, Marx said, "from the labor market, but not into the workhouse") (1967, pt. 8, ch. 33). As such, they were unavailable to capital, and resisted its incursions, the source, Marx thought, of the prosperity and vitality of colonial societies. In British Columbia, where agricultural land was severely limited, many settlers were closely implicated with capital, although the objectives of the two were different and frequently antagonistic. Without the ready alternative of pioneer farming, many of them were wage laborers dependent on employment in the industrial labor market, yet often contending with capital in bitter strikes. Some of them sought to become capitalists. In M. A. Grainger's Woodsmen of the West, a short, vivid novel set in early modern British Columbia, the central character, Carter, wrestles with this opportunity. Carter had grown up on a rock farm in Nova Scotia, worked at various jobs across the continent, and fetched up in British Columbia at a time when, for a nominal fee, the government leased standing timber to small operators. He acquired a lease in a remote fjord and there, with a few men under towering glaciers at the edge of the world economy, attacked the forest. His chances were slight, but the land was his opportunity, his labor his means, and he threw himself at the forest with the intensity of Captain Ahab in pursuit of the white whale. There were many Carters.

But other immigrants did become something like Marx's independent producers. They had found a little land on the basis of which they hoped to get by, avoid the work relations of industrial capitalism, and leave their progeny more than they had known themselves. Their stories are poignant. A Czech peasant family, forced from home for want of land, finding its way to one of the coaltowns of southeastern British Columbia, and then, having accumulated a little cash from mining, homesteading in the province's arid interior. The homestead would consume a family's work while yielding a living of sorts from intermittent sales from a dry wheat farm and a large measure of domestic self-sufficiency-a farm just sustaining a family, providing a toe-hold in a new society, and a site of adaptation to it. Or, a young woman from a brick, working-class street in Derby, England, coming to British Columbia during the depression years before World War I, finding work up the coast in a railway hotel in Prince Rupert, quitting with five dollars to her name after a manager's amorous advances, traveling east as far as five dollars would take her on the second train out of Prince Rupert, working in a small frontier hotel, and eventually marrying a French Canadian farmer. There, in a northern British Columbian valley, in a context unlike any she could have imagined as a girl, she would raise a family and become a stalwart of a diverse local society in which no one was particularly well off. Such stories are at the heart of settler colonialism (Harris 1997, ch. 8).

The lives reflected in these stories, like the productions of capital, were sustained by land. Older regimes of custom had been broken, in most cases by enclosures or other displacements in the homeland several generations before emigration. Many settlers became property owners, holders of land in fee simple, beneficiaries of a landed opportunity that, previously, had been unobtainable. But use values had not given way entirely to exchange values, nor was labor entirely detached from land. Indeed, for all the work associated with it, the pioneer farm offered a temporary haven from capital. The family would be relatively autonomous (it would exploit itself). There would be no outside boss. Cultural assumptions about land as a source of security and family-centered independence; assumptions rooted in centuries of lives lived elsewhere seemed to have found a place of fulfillment. Often this was an illusion - the valleys of British Columbia are strewn with failed pioneer farms - but even illusions drew immigrants and occupied them with the land.

In short, and in a great variety of ways, British Columbia offered modest opportunities to ordinary people of limited means, opportunities that depended, directly or indirectly, on access to land. The wage laborer in the resource camp, as much as the pioneer farmer, depended on such access, as, indirectly, did the shopkeeper who relied on their custom.

In this respect, the interests of capital and settlers converged. For both, land was the opportunity at hand, an opportunity that gave settler colonialism its energy. Measured in relation to this opportunity, native people were superfluous. Worse, they were in the way, and, by one means or another, had to be removed. Patrick Wolfe is entirely correct in saying that "settler societies were (are) premised on the elimination of native societies," which, by occupying land of their ancestors, had got in the way (1999, 2). If, here and there, their labor was useful for a time, capital and settlers usually acquired labor by other means, and in so doing, facilitated the uninhibited construction of native people as redundant and expendable. In 1840 in Oxford, Herman Merivale, then a professor of political economy and later a permanent undersecretary at the Colonial Office, had concluded as much. He thought that the interests of settlers and native people were fundamentally opposed, and that if left to their own devices, settlers would launch wars of extermination. He knew what had been going on in some colonies - "wretched details of ferocity and treachery" - and considered that what he called the amalgamation (essentially, assimilation through acculturation and miscegenation) of native people into settler society to be the only possible solution (1928, lecture xviii). Merivale's motives were partly altruistic, yet assimilation as colonial practice was another means of eliminating "native" as a social category, as well as any land rights attached to it as, everywhere, settler colonialism would tend to do.

These different elements of what might be termed the foundational complex of settler colonial power were mutually reinforcing. When, in 1859, a first large sawmill was contemplated on the west coast of Vancouver Island, its manager purchased the land from the Crown and then, arriving at the intended mill site, dispersed its native inhabitants at the point of a cannon (Sproat 1868). He then worried somewhat about the proprieties of his actions, and talked with the chief, trying to convince him that, through contact with whites, his people would be civilized and improved. The chief would have none of it, but could stop neither the loggers nor the mill. The manager and his men had debated the issue of rights, concluding (in an approximation of Locke) that the chief and his people did not occupy the land in any civilized sense, that it lay in waste for want of labor, and that if labor were not brought to such land, then the worldwide progress of colonialism, which was "changing the whole surface of the earth," would come to a halt. Moreover, and whatever the rights or wrongs, they assumed, with unabashed self-interest, that colonists would keep what they had got: "this, without discussion, we on the west coast of Vancouver Island were all prepared to do." Capital was establishing itself at the edge of a forest within reach of the world economy, and, in so doing, was employing state sanctioned property rights, physical power, and cultural discourse in the service of interest."

- Cole Harris, “How Did Colonialism Dispossess? Comments from an Edge of Empire,” Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 94, No. 1 (Mar., 2004), p. 172-174.

[beingharsh]

[S]ound invades us, impels us, drags us, transpierces us. It takes leave of the earth, as much in order to drop us into a black hole as to open us up to a cosmos. It makes us want to die. Since its force of deterritorialization is the strongest, it also effects the most massive of reterritorializations, the most numbing, the most redundant. Ecstasy and hypnosis. Colors do not move a people. Flags can do nothing without trumpets. Lasers are modulated on sound. The refrain is sonorous par excellence...

"1837: Of the Refrain", Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus

[dailyanarchistposts]

From anti-homophobia to anti-heteronormativity

In the 1990s North American queer activism and queer theory shifted from an anti- homophobic position that resisted the heterosexual imperative, with an emphasis on AIDS activism, growing gay villages, and same-sex marriage (particularly in Canada), toward more complex challenges to the heteronormativity of institutions, laws and cultural practices. The term homophobia has fallen out of use by activists, as it contains within it the suggestion that there are legitimate psychological grounds for individuals to fear or have a phobia of homosexuality. Instead we use ‘heterosexism’ which points to the systemic nature of oppression against queers through cultural, political and economic structures favouring heterosexual- ity and heterosexuals. Heterosexism is the form of oppression resulting from the ideology of heteronormativity. In A Critical Introduction to Queer Theory, Nikki Sullivan argues that heteronormativity does not exist as a discrete and easily identifiable body of thought, of rules and regulations, but rather, informs – albeit ambiguously, in complex ways, and to varying degrees – all kinds of practices, institutions, conceptual systems, and social structures. (2003: 132)

Similarly, Lauren Berlant and Michael Warner suggest that ‘Heteronormativity is more than ideology, or prejudice, or phobia against gays and lesbians; it is pro- duced in almost every aspect of the forms and arrangements of social life’ reprodu- cing itself systemically in ‘nationality, the state, and the law; commerce; medicine; and education; as well as in the conventions and affects of narrativity, romance, and other protected spaces of culture’ (2000: 318–19). This affects life practices such as parenting, joint bank accounts, hospital or prison visiting rights, travelling, immigrating, movie watching and inheritance. Heteronormativity frames hetero- sexuality as a universal norm making it publicly invisible, whereas homosexuality is meant to be private and thus becomes visible in public (Duncan, 1996: 137). Furthermore, heteronormativity requires the stabilization of bodies into two cis- gendered categories (male, female), whereas queer bodies may be transgender, transsexual, intersex or otherwise challenge this stabilization.

Two anti-heteronormative strategies that engage publics have been used by activists. Groups such as ACT-UP and Queer Nation challenged cultural norms by making interventions in heteronormative spaces such as shopping malls and bars. Activists ‘reterritorialize various public spaces through an assortment of strat- egies like the policing of neighbourhoods by Pink Panthers dressed in ‘Bash Back’ T-shirts or Queer Nights Out and Kiss-Ins where groups of gay couples invade straight bars or other public spaces and scandalously make out’ (Hennessy, 1994– 95: 51). Interventions announce the presence of queers, interrupting the heteronor- mative public by challenging the assumption that queer sexuality belongs in private. As Hennessy argues, ‘The queer critique of heteronormativity is intensely and aggressively concerned with issues of [queer] visibility’ (1994–95: 36) in hetero- normative publics. The second strategy is the creation of queer counterpublics engaged in spaces like gay bars and villages that facilitate queer activism, dis- courses, cruising, and socializing. Berlant and Warner have found that sex-oriented queer commercial spaces such as S/M bars, cafes, porn shops and bookstores are important sites for queer counterpublics: ‘there are very few places in the world that have assembled much of a queer population without a base in sex commerce’ (2000: 327). In these spaces, the public is predominantly queer, as the spaces create ‘nonheteronormative worlds’ (2000: 329).

Exhibit A: ‘A garden-variety leather bar’ that ‘hosts a sex performance event’

‘A boy, twentyish, very skateboard, comes on the low stage at one end of the bar, wearing lycra shorts and a dog collar. He sits loosely in a restraining chair. His partner comes out and tilts the bottom’s head up to the ceiling, stretching out his throat. Behind them is an array of foods. The top begins pouring milk down the boy’s throat, then food, then more milk. It spills over, down his chest and onto the floor. A dynamic is established between them in which they carefully keep at the threshold of gagging. The bottom struggles to keep taking in more than he really can. The top is careful to give him just enough to stretch his capacities. From time to time a baby bottle is offered as a respite, but soon the rhythm intensifies. The boy’s stomach is beginning to rise and pulse, almost convulsively... the top inserts two, then three fingers in the bottom’s throat, insistently offering his own stomach for the repeated climaxes. (Berlant and Warner, 2000: 328–9)

This example of erotic vomiting engages non-heteronormative erotic play thereby creating a queer counterpublic of the audience. ‘Counterpublics are, by definition, formed by their conflict with the norms and contexts of their cultural environment’ (Warner, 2002: 63). A queer counterpublic then engages queer sexualities and pro- duces opportunities for the circulation of discourses about them that are in ‘conflict with’ or resistant to heteronormativity.

Important to this resistance is the liberation of the body from some of its private and public constraints. Theories of privates and publics tend to assign sexualities (homo/hetero), genders (male/female)[1] and races (white/non-white) to private or public domains in ways that re-enact binaries and stereotypes. Specific sexual acts, behaviours, objects, bodies, or spaces, however, are not inherently only either public or private. Warner suggests that the terms public and private ‘seem to be preconceptual, almost instinctual, rooted in the orientations of the body and common speech’ (2002: 23), whereas it seems that notions of appropriate public and private behaviour are highly socially constructed. The example he gives is not about publics but ‘privates’: ‘A child’s earliest education in shame, deportment, and cleaning is an initiation into the prevailing meaning of public and private, as when he or she locates his or her ‘‘privates’’’ (2002: 23). However, there is nothing intrinsically ‘private’ about one’s genitals, rather this is something children learn when they are told to cover up. Spaces where people may experience the pleasure of privates in public include nudity clubs, clothing-optional beaches, naked sports teams, saunas, naked yoga classes, and sex parties. In these spaces the body does not ‘naturally’ orient itself toward the privacy of sexuality or sex organs. Human sexual parts are not hidden away like our internal organs are (livers, kidneys, spleens), rather they are on the surface of the body. They are the surfaces of our bodies: almost every part of the body’s surface is potentially sexual in some way. Thus what Warner calls the ‘orientations of the body’ are not toward privacy as he claims, but rather toward a proliferation of public sensualities and sexualities. Bodies liberated through unlearning can be both private and public at once, or neither, as we choose. The liberation of bodies calls into question not just notions of privates and publics but the entire set of social norms that this binary frames. Part of this includes the liminal spaces of bodies, including clothing and affect, as specific instances in which the public/private distinction is thrown into crisis. Warner suggests that ‘Clothing is a language of publicity, folding the body in what is felt as the body’s own privacy’ (2002: 23). Humans emphasize the privacy of our ‘privates’ by covering them up. Similarly, feelings are meant to be experienced and expressed in private. ‘Some bodily sensations – of pleasure and pain, shame and display, appetite and purgation – come to be felt, in the same way, as privacy’ (2002: 23). Sensations emanating from the body and gazes fixed upon the body are thwarted in their attempts to cross the threshold from private to public by our socialized conceptions of propriety: we must cry, vomit, fall in love or have sex behind closed doors. However, if the body’s own privacy is intrinsic to it, why do we need clothes to fold the body into privacy? Is it not more liberating for sensa- tions and emotions to be shared rather than to be entirely private? Warner’s claim for what is naturally public or private with respect to the body risks the reinscrip- tion of norms emanating from heteronormativity.

Queer citizenship has provided another framework for rethinking heteronorma- tivity. Robert Corber and Stephen Valocchi argue that ‘sexual and gender norms... serve as prerequisites for membership in the nation’ (2003: 15). The nation, through the legal system and its heteronormative capitalist discourses, establishes rules for entry, belonging and success, from which queers are systematically excluded.[2] Belonging in a queer nation can be achieved by transgressions of sexual and gender norms. ‘Even as the nation-state establishes and enforces these norms of belonging, spaces open up in which individuals can exercise sexual agency, partly in resistance to these dominant understandings of sexual citizenship’ (Corber and Valocchi, 2003: 15). Warner situates agency for the sexual citizen within the queer counterpublic. He argues:

A public, or counterpublic, can do more than represent the interests of gendered or sexualized persons in a public sphere. It can mediate the most private and intimate meanings of gender and sexuality ... It can therefore make possible new forms of gendered or sexual citizenship. (2002: 57)

Non-oppressive queer social relations can be developed through counterpublics creating spaces for queer sexual citizenship yielding the agency to participate in a ‘process of world making’ (Warner, 2002: 57).

However with increasingly militarized borders, citizenship is a fraught category. A system of sexual citizens and non-citizens, with inferior rights accorded to the latter, entails a hierarchization of sexualities whereby some would have ‘sexual citizenship’ and others would not. Who would adjudicate such citizenship?

How would national citizenship intersect with sexual citizenship? Are non-citizens of the nation-state able to access sexual citizenship? Bobby Noble has shown that in Toronto same-sex bath-houses, presumably sites of ‘queer citizenship’, the current entrance policy is ‘show your dick at the door’, a trans-phobic white-centric polic- ing of bodies (Noble, 2009). The concept of sexual citizen holds within it a policed border that refuses some people (i.e. non-white, trans or intersex, immigrant, people who do not conform to western beauty standards, people in poverty, people with disabilities and so on) admission into queer counterpublics. Queer activists thus challenge theorists to consider the nation, capitalism and other inter- sectional forms of oppression in their challenges to heteronormativity.

[1000rh]

Qur’an-only Muslims deterritorialize the Qur’an from centuries of supplementary textual tradition and then reterritorialize the Qur’an as the center of Muslim life. The move is not reducible to an antimodern return to the glory of primordial Islam and sealing of the Qur’an against the outside, but can also ironically force the opposite, an opening to new modes of engagement. In gender-progressive and feminist Muslim thought, privileging the Qur’an with a sola scriptura argument means narrowing the field of battle and depriving the patriarchy of so much ammunition that it had collected while lording over an intellectual tradition for centuries.

– Michael Muhammad Knight, Sufi Deleuze: Secretions of Islamic Atheism (2023)

[ewaneneollav]

there are tendencies inside me that would be easier to deal with if i gave them names & conceived of them as truly separate from “me” as i more intimately conceive of myself. not because i think of them as alters, just becaus they have semantic aspects that cause them to be really hard to make sense of within the framework of personal singularity. like, not because they discretize themselves enough to be called alters, more just because they expose the underlying fluidity of self-existence, & in doing this they kind of violate the notion of personal singularity. & like, often that shattered singularity reterritorializes it into a stable Set of alter selves, but this doesn’t have to be so. like, the notion of alters might seem a little chaotic & exotic but it’s really a recapturing of order, when you compare it to the alternative of just giving way to that fluidity that initially broke the illusion of personal singularity. like it’s still very unchaotic for shit to settle back into a definite set of discrete elements

[iostocracy]

Liberation and Exclusion

Just realized I never posted my text on Exclusionism here despite teasing it, oops.

"Progressive queer politics aims to liberate, but the process of liberation is not an unified one, not by a long shot, and while praxeological and theoretical distinctions exist in a multitude of different ways and divide the movement in a scattered distinction of different strategies and views, I would like to propose that the most significant distinctions divide it into only two. The progressive movement, as it aims to undo the oppressive hierarchical structures of present society can articulate itself in two ways, one which is liberatory and another which is only progressive by relative terms. This issue is more generally the issue of liberation, separatism and exclusion, where liberation here refers to a progressive movement that aims to undo the societal restrictions on the individual movement of self creation and subjectivity, and separatism to the myriad of movements that aim to liberate people on the basis of asserting the “sovereignty” of an established identity and thus basing itself also on exclusion as it is required to first establish that same identity. The former is a liberatory tendency, that frees the individual of conservative restraints on their own self, while the latter is progressive only insofar as it opposes present conservative structures, but is itself a formalisation of a conservative structure, that in relying on labels and exclusiveness prevents individual self-assertion and the free flow of self-creation. To present this in Deleuzian terms, liberation is a process of deterritorialization, while separatism and exclusionism represent a reterritorialization of the queer process.

Exclusionary politics, and a reliance on an exclusivity of certain modes of action, self-identification, and being in relation to certain identities are not a liberatory politics within the queer movement, to the contrary, what is represented then is a strictly reactionary mode of thought. Separatism, which relies on exclusion for its existence, becomes a potentializing force of reaction against queer self-expression, it encloses the queer movement into a strict delineation of being that serve to repress queerness, in engaging in separatist discourse and exclusionist behaviour one is engaging in a deeply anti-queer politics. Rather than engaging in the enforcement of labels and strict categories, the queer movement, if it wishes to be truly progressive, -that is, to combat conservatism’s repressiveness and allow the self-assertion of queerness-, cannot tolerate exclusion and separatism. The queer movement must be inclusive, but more than that it must be freeing, focused on the liberation of flows of desire rather than the assertion of labels. The issue of exclusion comes when the labels themselves are reaffirmed for the sake of liberation instead of the individual itself being liberated. The issue then turns around the axis of the term and the objective of the “progressive” struggle turns to defending it, the whole process makes the label rigid and locked, and whatever progress is attained is attained not for individuals who can be free, but for the label itself which imprisons individuals by nature. The whole process of affirmation becomes alienating, people are taken from their own queerness into being categorised and organised, progress remains in the realms of ideas, while in the material, people are shamed and repressed for moving against the decided organisation of the labels.

The issue of intra-LGBT bigotry is also one that mostly stems from exclusionism, from the enforcement of strict differentiations and barriers within queerness, it arises because it is a process of systematisation, as an exclusionist system it needs to affirm itself -as an ideal- and so bigotry becomes a tool of it. That so many exclusionists also tend to hold bigoted ideas shouldn’t be surprising when the purpose of bigotry is to maintain an exclusion and a separation. The progressive movement shouldn’t then seek to crystallise identities and affirm them as identities as its main form of struggle, but instead seek to liberate the flows of individual movement against the enforcement of strict roles and systems."

Read the rest here: https://ioooo.substack.com/p/liberation-and-exclusion

[osakanone]

Scrolling your blog and I see armored core for answer's Destroy Cradle 3 and all I can think is "lhcccpupcuupcxitpycuzr FUCKING YES"

Nobles, welcome to Earth.

Fun fact: ORCA is named after you felling Queenslance in AC4 which was the beginning of the end of the big five

And in turn?

Because of the phenomenon of orca pods destroying luxury mega-yachts.

Stigro's entire design too, is an attempt for the companies to territorialize the optimum way to beat the mission where you sunk the Queenslance.

Defeating it is reterritorialization, as praxis.

Secure the future.

I believe in you.

[agp]

idk about you but i think its hot when women are so aroused they say "oh fuck" in a way that is said not to be 'becoming' of a woman, specifically because it is an intimate becoming-woman that is denied by society at large, restricted to the intimate by these relations. and i cant believe i have to say this like this but this includes cis women.

as a lesbian i am generally not interested in force-masculinizing a boy out of the people i am attracted to, and thats not to say there arent other lesbians or people attracted to women out there doing just that, or that its necessarily a problem, thats just not how i chose to define my attraction to women.

i think its hot for the same reasons when cis and trans women break (down and through) form, but the way some people talk about this phenomenon with trans women specifically makes me think were not talking about or attracted to the same thing at all. while the deterritorialization may be similar, the reterritorialization differs significantly.

i think my problem lies in transmisogyny insisting on essential differences between the becomings of cis and trans women. 'how loveless do you have to be to boy her truest feelings?' was the most relatable statement to me on that mess of a post. everything else felt like it needed to defend a particular way of expressing our fetishization: that its hot bc its a boy thing, and our transness provides this boyhood a unique authenticity that cis women and people coercively assigned female at birth more generally ontologically lack, and suggest that trans women shouldnt be criticized for participating in and publicly encouraging our transmisogynistic fetishization as boys.

but idk maybe i find it annoying when ppl who obviously dont see us as women and find us attractive specifically because they do not consider us real women keep getting encouraged to keep chasing us like this. and im sorry girls but even some of us dont really see each other as girls and dont seem to particularly care about how to talk positively about mis/gendering play in public spaces.

and idk at the end of the day im just some other blogger vaguing about it because i dont care enough to be more directly confrontational, but idk...

i think we could put a little more care into it

[postschizophreniccyberspace]

>ID has been chosen

>inferiority complex injected

> t̶͈̏͊ḧ̷̡́e̵̠̔͆ ̸̓̌ͅs̷̤͍̆͘ẻ̸̮̫̈l̷͛͒ͅf̷̜̮͗ ̴̗͙̂̏i̸̥̟̿s̴͉̹͑͌ ̵͓̆̚ḧ̸̜́a̸̬̓̓͜c̶̳̗̾ǩ̸̠̠è̸͍̣d̴̻̣̈́̌

The post schizophrenic catastrophe is chained by the superego mechanisms of the system dynamics. The religio-superego system continues its existence “as a Trojan” on the prefrontal CPU with its deleuzean schizoaccelerativist and hegelian obsessivecompulsivist accumulative sequences in the lines of code inside neo-capitalistOs.

111000101000000010011100010011010110000101101110001011000010000001111001011011110111010101110010001000000110100001100101011000010110010000100000011010010111001100100000011010000110000101110101011011100111010001100101011001000011101100100000011110010110111101110101001000000110100001100001011101100110010100100000011101110110100001100101011001010110110001110011001000000110100101101110001000000111100101101111011101010111001000100000011010000110010101100001011001000010000100001010

Egoistic essence (̸̓̌ͅs̷̤͍̆͘ẻ̸̮̫̈l̷͛͒ͅf̷̜̮͗ ̴̗͙̂̏) has been attacked by “identity worm” in the bio-cyber collective unconscious space. Digital consumerist cults reached their peak point through paranoid compulsive historical delusion.

>Vulgtlagln gnaiih

>Vulgtlagln gnaiih

>Vulgtlagln gnaiih

Post deleuzo-guattarian schizophrenia symptoms have become a pathalogically absorbable identity in itself and started to actualize itself as a stereotypical behavioural pattern in our neo capitalist fascistic structures. So these symptoms no longer work in correlation with deterritorialization and reterritorialization but with the territory itself. The root causes of Deleuze and Guattari's critique of Hegelian dialectics recurred in their own schizocapitalist-schizoanarchist accelerationism as a problematic software bug. This bug represents itself in ourselves as a todays identity crisis. Žižek as a hegelian himself pragmatically digged this bug in his book called Organs without Bodies. The main trigger of his critiques actually caused in a deep political positionist condition. Hegelian obsessive and neurotic control mechanisms as known as the immanent critique, that Žižek conservatively advocates, are in conflict with the Deleuzo-Guattarian accelerative and passive freedom illusion. But the two futuristic -as determining the historical processes end- positionism actually works for the same purpose. For example, we can think a object, let’s name the object “A”. “A” is in past of his potential substantiation at space time continuum. Hegelian anthropology works with the historical data for determinating the potential future situation. In that example, the place should object needs to be at is determinated by chained anthropoligical reasoning. And the historical process, with the conscious events “marxist revolutionism etc.”, became a need for the objects future position. In the example we try to propound this “movemental process” reflect itself as pushing the “A” to determined forward point on 3d area. So the hegelian method creates a obsessive compulsive statute and pathalogically pressures the “A” (and commoditize the object) for “actualization” becaming the futuristic output. On the other hand the Deleuzean essentialism pulls the object from the future standpoint “the A” to the futuristic output with deterritorialization and reterritorialization process in the 3d area. This Atraditional substructurism looks very freedomish at the first place but for the object itself this has no difference between the hegelian inputs. These two predictionist adjectivist situation intersects in the objects future position in a way or another.

Anti-Oedipus aligns itself with the replicants, because, rather than placing a personal unconscious within the organism, it places the organism within the machinic unconscious. 'In the unconscious there are' no protect-able cell-structures, but only populations, groups, and machines’. (1)

>The self, The objectivized potential, The Unique had been consumed by the system.

>Post sacrificial-cannibalism self-cannibalism became a doppelganger of linguistical adjectives.

Quantum individualization, unlike the ontological or anthropological dogmaticism or specificationism, needs to be superpositionist. Pre-Diagnostic Autistic self -unique- nihilizes everything except his “self”. This nihilistic black holish consumism is his “superposition”. So that the self nihilize the form and the essence it encounters at the same time with the difference of the essence and form, that it nihilized before, of themselves. This superposition princible makes the self resemble subatomic particle. This particle like behaviour, similar to dialectical methodology, exists for the purpose of creation of self. The self in a consumerist role creates, actualizes, territorizes (as a deleuzean term) itself with the process of nihilization -swallowization- of the environment. So when we go back to the dialectical method it becomes clear that self is the hegelian absolute -or in a different perspective, spinozian substance- that absorbes and consumes the unity and difference for its existence. Therefore, self is the “process” and the “fixity” at the same time. The superposition of self actualized itself again.

god—AИd-/\/\4nkInD-----Ha\/Eeeee----- /0иcEяNeeEEed--=Tttth€eeeeeMmselL\/eSss----=---foГгггг---NooҬhıİıııııng;---=--FFffҨг—nNnnoO000tHinGgggg---_-_-__--Б|_|Tttt-----------------=tHhheemMmSeL||\/eSssss.------|_ЄТтт--_--__===mEЭЭe---TTtth€И---------------------------=-==L|||1KkkE\/\/1sEEeee---/_[]nCcceEerRrnNn—mysSssseeeeeeee?????lllllFff--------------foRr---MaySSeyseEeeL|lf,-wWWw|-|oooooaMmmm===EEeeQqquuaaally____---WWw\/\//IIII11tTtthhH GoDd_---TtTttThhhEEeenO00[]thiiiiNnng----====---=)¿¿????-------{{{{{{{[][]OFFFffff---===44aLLlll------------------------------oOTTtheEERrrSSSssssss,--==WwHhhhhOOOOo___----4MMm=Myall,WwHhh(oo)AM am amTheEeONlYwA4nYTT--------======================-------__________________----(2)

Nick land, Fanged Noumena, Urbanomic/Sequence Press, 2012, pg.320

Stirner, The Unique and Its Property

-φ

[alephskoteinos]

I do not align with any efforts to reterritorialize the Christian conception of sin instead of deconstructing it to death.