I AM BISEXUAL, POLYAMOROUS AND AN ANARCHIST  

VisualViolet 59F
30 posts
12/27/2005 2:49 pm

Last Read:
3/5/2006 9:27 pm

I AM BISEXUAL, POLYAMOROUS AND AN ANARCHIST

I am Bisexual, Polyamorous and an Anarchist. This should be a mere statement matter of fact, not taken as a radical declaration.
Better yet, it shouldn't really need to be said at all. It should be enough to just be me. I should be living in a society that is not dominated either by an intrusive government or a benighted Rabbinut and go about the business of living and loving as I will, guided only by the desire to increase good. But In Israel it is a singular act of courage to so much as self-disclose in this manner.

Being Bisexual, Polyamourous and an Anarchist is being thrice wholly misunderstood in Israel.

Bisexuals aren't readily accepted by anyone. We are not "queer". We should not be lumped together with the GLT, BDSMs and the heterosexuals ‒ all those whose sexuality is partially expressed, unhealthily expressed and/or bespeaks an underdeveloped ability to love oneself and others.

We, the bisexual polyamorous (also called bipoly) embody the most healthy and whole Human sexuality. We are the sexuality of the future. Ours is the sexual expression that will become the norm as society becomes better fit to Human needs.

Polyamory is likewise misunderstood. It is thought of as some sort of hedonistic swinging or cheating and a total disregard for the sensibilities and sensitivities of one's sexual partners.

Polyamory, it must be stressed and repeated, is not about cheating and not about swinging. Polyamory is being able to love, truly love, more than one mate profoundly and intimately in a sustained way. Polyamory is defined as consensual, responsible non-monogamy.

Finally, I am an anarchist. The nouns 'anarchy', 'anarchism' and 'anarchist', being misunderstood as well, conjure up mental images of a society that has come undone and has fallen into utter chaos, wherein violence is rampant and there are no societal means of bringing the nightmare under control.

Let us look at the definitions of those terms for clarification:

Anarchy: 1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order : DISORDER

Anarchism: 1 : a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups
2 : the advocacy or practice of anarchistic principles

Anarchist: 1 : one who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power
2 : one who believes in, advocates, or promotes anarchism or anarchy; especially : one who uses violent means to overthrow the established order (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)

Anarchy is simply the absence of government. Anarchists feel most comfortable with definitions 1a and 1c of 'anarchy'. Whereas, most people who are not anarchists would define the absence of the order that governments impose as disorder, but this is not the case. Disorder is the opposite of order, not the absence thereof. Therefore, definition 2a of 'anarchy' is clearly incorrect.

Further, it must be asked: Is that which governments impose on their citizenries order? Is it the highest degree of order possible in society? We see a great deal of lawlessness and disorder in society precisely because a government is in place. Therefore, definition 1b of 'anarchy' may be set aside as erroneous as well.

Anarchists would agree with definition 1 of entry 'anarchism'. As to definition 2, we must look at entry 'anarchist', which is how we define ourselves, in order to see if the dictionary's definition jibes with our self-definition.

While it is true that there are some "hot heads" that would fit the Merriam-Webster definition of "anarchist", they are not considered true anarchists by anarchists.

The definition of an anarchist, a genuine anarchist, is one whose sentiments are best summed up in the following excerpt, the author of which is unknown to me:

THE BENEFITS OF NON-CLASS STRUGGLE ANARCHISM TO THE MOVEMENT AS A WHOLE

Revolution is a process ever going. Like a river it flows; changing shape, altering its course, sometimes slowing down, sometimes becoming a rapid. At times we lose sight of it behind the dogma of some ideology or another. But it can never be stopped. Since the first slave said 'no', since the first people rose up against the tyrants, since the concept of Freedom was formed, the Revolution has always been there. As a comrade wrote to me, "Revolution is a process, not an historical event". The nature of the Revolution stems from the forces it encounters, the aspirations of those within it, and the strength of the reaction. If it can progress unrestrained, then it is likely to be peaceful. The ends will never justify the means, they are inextricably bound together and what better way is there of taking someone's freedom than by killing them. Violence is the basis upon which government stands, and as such it is the counter Revolution. From the writings of Kropotkin up to Colin Ward there have been attempts to hi-light points in existing society where the river may flow - worker co-ops, food co-ops, alternative welfare and education, and countless examples of how order is spontaneous, and springs up from the very act, and point of association itself: "What kept us together was our work, our mutual interdependencies in this work, our factual interests in one gigantic problem with its many specialist ramifications. I had not solicited co-workers. They had come of themselves. They remained, or they left when the work no longer held them. We had not formed a political group, or worked out a programme of action...Each one had made his contribution according to his interests in the work...There are, then objective biological work functions capable of regulating human co-operation. Exemplary work organises its forms of functioning organically and spontaneously, even though only gradually, gropingly and often making mistakes. In contra-distinction, the political organisations, with their 'campaigns' and 'platforms' proceed without any connection with the tasks and problems of daily life".

Like the fishermen in Brixham, or the miners in Durham or Brora, Scotland, workers co-operatives provide small, rare examples of how a task provides its own point of association, and provides the associates with a focus, that transcends any necessity for coercive pressure. In short, the act of society provides its own order internally, whereas all ' governments attempt to impose it externally, stifling and smothering the social instinct. These examples exist in modern society. They are not memories of an age before the nation-state, but are modern facts. Paul Goodman once described anarchism as both conservative and radical, for we must attempt to conserve those places where liberty may be developed in full, as well as create new ones. Gustav Landaur also wrote along the same lines "The state is not something which can be destroyed by a revolution, it is a condition of human behaviour; we destroy it by contracting other relationships, by behaving differently". Even, according to the film 'Michael Collins', the Irish Republican leader Eamon de Valera spoke along the same lines by claiming roughly that "We defeat the British Government by ignoring it".

Obviously, what is said about the British government in the passage above is applicable to all governments that stand vis-à-vis a governed.

We see, then, that the dictionary definition of 'anarchist' is patent nonsense and may be discarded in toto.

My vision is the founding of a BiPoly Community, which is an anarchistic cooperative, of some kind in Israel.

It is my conviction that healthy Polyamory cannot exist in a society dominated by capitalism, and the concomitant being number one, insensitivity to one's fellows, competitiveness and so on.

We are witness to far too many people in capitalist societies, societies in which emotional starvation has been painstakingly cultivated as a means to spur materialism in vain hopes of filling the abyss within, who call themselves polyamorists, but who are, in actuality, self-gratifying generates. Polyamory, in general, simply does not work for those firmly ensconced in the "me generation" mentality.

My vision is to urge Israel in the direction of evolving into an anarchistic society, i.e., a society marked by the absence of oppressive government; a vibrant, robust, natural, normal form of Human interaction in which true Bisexual Polyamory can exist as a norm.

I believe that as we evolve into more loving and more Human beings, we will change how our intimate relationships are expressed, our familial structures will take different forms and, of course, we will develop societies that allow for greater freedoms and quality.

Somebody in Israel has to speak up for those goals.

I realized it devolved upon me and I have begun writing on these subjects.

It's scary to "come out" in Israel, especially where I live, which is a small, fanatically religious town.

Someone has to loosen the fetters of society telling us how much we can love and how, even as how much money we can have and how we are permitted to disburse it is dictated to us.


VisualViolet 59F
10 posts
1/10/2006 5:36 am

Free Love,

I would appreciate it if you would not apply sobriquets to me of any kind. There are all kinds of associations that go with highly charged political terms like "leftists" that I may not subscribe to and would not wish to be associated with in anyone's mind.

I would also appreciate if you would allow me time to determine whether you are someone I would consider one of "us".

My Moral/Spiritual school of Anarchy is that of Gustav Landauer. He was not a Marxist and neither am I. With preternatural prescience he predicted exactly what would happen if a Marxist government was ever installed.

The best summation of my approach to anarchy is to be found in the following excerpt:

THE BENEFITS OF NON-CLASS STRUGGLE ANARCHISM TO THE MOVEMENT AS A WHOLE

The author of the excerpt below is unknown to me. I would be very appreciative to be apprised of the author's identity if anyone knows who wrote this.

Revolution is a process ever going. Like a river it flows; changing shape, altering its course, sometimes slowing down, sometimes becoming a rapid. At times we lose sight of it behind the dogma of some ideology or another. But it can never be stopped. Since the first slave said 'no', since the first people rose up against the tyrants, since the concept of Freedom was formed, the Revolution has always been there. As a comrade wrote to me, "Revolution is a process, not an historical event". The nature of the Revolution stems from the forces it encounters, the aspirations of those within it, and the strength of the reaction. If it can progress unrestrained, then it is likely to be peaceful. The ends will never justify the means, they are inextricably bound together and what better way is there of taking someone's freedom than by killing them. Violence is the basis upon which government stands, and as such it is the counter Revolution. From the writings of Kropotkin up to Colin Ward there have been attempts to hi-light points in existing society where the river may flow - worker co-ops, food co-ops, alternative welfare and education, and countless examples of how order is spontaneous, and springs up from the very act, and point of association itself: "What kept us together was our work, our mutual interdependencies in this work, our factual interests in one gigantic problem with its many specialist ramifications. I had not solicited co-workers. They had come of themselves. They remained, or they left when the work no longer held them. We had not formed a political group, or worked out a programme of action...Each one had made his contribution according to his interests in the work...There are, then objective biological work functions capable of regulating human co-operation. Exemplary work organises its forms of functioning organically and spontaneously, even though only gradually, gropingly and often making mistakes. In contra-distinction, the political organisations, with their 'campaigns' and 'platforms' proceed without any connection with the tasks and problems of daily life".

Like the fishermen in Brixham, or the miners in Durham or Brora, Scotland, workers co-operatives provide small, rare examples of how a task provides its own point of association, and provides the associates with a focus, that transcends any necessity for coercive pressure. In short, the act of society provides its own order internally, whereas all ' governments attempt to impose it externally, stifling and smothering the social instinct. These examples exist in modern society. They are not memories of an age before the nation-state, but are modern facts. Paul Goodman once described anarchism as both conservative and radical, for we must attempt to conserve those places where liberty may be developed in full, as well as create new ones. Gustav Landaur also wrote along the same lines "The state is not something which can be destroyed by a revolution, it is a condition of human behaviour; we destroy it by contracting other relationships, by behaving differently". Even, according to the film 'Michael Collins', the Irish Republican leader Eamon de Valera spoke along the same lines by claiming roughly that "We defeat the British Government by ignoring it".

Of course, that which is said in the passage above about the British government is applicable to any and all governments that stand above a populace that is considered the governed.


rm_1952Ta2 64M

2/27/2006 4:26 pm

I find it interesting that all instances of the double-"o" on this site are translated into a set of handcuffs. Fact is, the very act of co-operation really does "bind" us together, albeit in a very much different way than implied. But bound together, we shall be... אם אחד, בסיר אחד (or is it בשר אחד?)


Become a member to create a blog