Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
being a teenager is basically just half a decade of "ugh I hate myself I hate my life I hate my parents nothing is fair everyone is mean the world is cruel I'm tired of it!! but idk i guess every teenager has this phase and I'll probably grow out of it and understand when I'm older" and getting older and realizing you should have been even angrier and more violent. And then people forget this as soon as they have kids
conservatives and fascists are obviously whom i would consider to be a more pressing political enemy but on a personal level the centrists are honestly more repellent to me on just an irrational gut level. i think having zero interest in anything other than maintaining the status quo because it has not inconvenienced you too much is pathetic, but what's worth is how many of them consider this complete disinterest in how the world around them should operate to be a more Mature and Enlightened perspective than those pesky heated people on ~both sides~ who just can't get get over caring about petty squabbles like "who counts as a full person" and "who deserves food, shelter, and water". absolutely repugnant.
something ideologically fascinating / faintly nauseating for you. these are two examples of what seems to have been a fairly popular item—a sterling silver compact with an engraved map of India as it existed in the early 20th century. the idea is that tourists or colonists or etc. would add a ruby into the surface of the compact in places that corresponded on the map to places that they had visited. I think 10,000 words would not be enough to explore all of the implications of this.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Idk why people act like modern day matriarchy is any better than a patriarchy bec sometimes. Women are also evil. I know this due to first hand experience.
Trans men having male privilege doesn't mean trans men dont experience transphobia. It doesn't mean we don't experience oppression at all.
it just means that we can leverage our position over trans women and get away with it. We can destroy their lives and face 0 repercussions. It means if it comes between a trans man's word and a trans woman's word, he is more likely to be believed.
If you're a feminist this should anger you and you should work to make sure that you're aware of this and never do it. If this makes you defensive, you're probably already doing it. Fix your heart.
Gay men still have male privilege. Disabled men still have male privilege. Men of color still have male privilege.
Is how each man's individual experience going to differ because of other ways they are oppressed? Of course!
You must not use your marginalization as a tool to dismiss women. You still have a responsibility to listen to women, respect women, and uplift what they are saying about their experiences. Solidarity forever.
white ppl rly discuss white violence in such a way that it disconnects them from so much of the truth i think we don’t get to confront them directly enough
specificity is the enemy of collective dissociation and we have got to break that fucking trance. i rly do wish the black word and concept of ‘woke,’ did not become what it has become, so I strive to use it in the communal and historical definition when I say: we have to stay woke and wake others from the trance that these abuses lull and pacify. we have to feel it and we have to get people to fucking talk about this. whiteness believes in sewing wounds closed like they do mouths with the understanding that they are protected in that and other white people, yall cannot fucking stand for that.
most lynching mobs are amorphous blobs of violent bad actors but in my oral history, in my oral traditions, the black people in these stories, these histories, knew exactly who killed them, who took pieces of their bodies, the tools of their demise, and their families, communities fucking knew. they knew who the fuck did that shit.
ask yourself, who is helped by your selfish clinging to ignorance, self imposed discomfort with the painful truth of what makes you uncomfortable with your own history? who does it protect? who does your self flagellation and proclaims of “this is so wrong,” and “I had no idea,” as if to absolve, actually absolve? you are apologizing for them rather than giving them the full weight of consequence. do you understand that? don’t tell me, live it feel it and please don’t let it fucking happen again.
if there was one rhetorical device i could simply obliterate forever and be guaranteed nobody would ever be able to throw it around again i'm pretty sure i'd pick gendered socialization
almost everybody who uses it ends up being immensely annoying or not considering at all the implications of their argument, *even when they're trying to be trans friendly*
trans women are not male socialized trans men are not female socialized that's just transphobic. but the opposite is just also untrue, because the whole concept is bullshit! we're not puppies who get exposure to something at 3 months and then that shapes our personality forever. we're people who can always, at any age, radically change our presentation, demeanor, and even values. also: can we stop coming up with excuses for men who are misogynists?!
men don't internalize misogyny when they're 3 (nobody is a "man" at 3) and then just reproduce it forever without escape men do misogyny because it benefits us to do so. you can be a woman all your life and then at 65 transition into a man (for the purposes of this discussion let's assume it's a passing man with all legal documents changed to say "male") and it'll benefit you to be misogynistic. you weren't "secretly a man all along" or "internalizing male socialization", you were unable to weaponize misogyny except marginally towards other women to avoid the blunt of it and then you were someone with huge incentives to be misogynistic. easy as that we really don't need to invoke some mystical brainwashing that magically knows what you'll chose to do with your sex forever. istg.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Convenience isn't bad because of some inherent value in toil or it rots your soul. Convenience is bad because it often comes at the cost of an exploited underclass. I don't care if someone wants to taxi their meal to their house instead of making it themselves or even driving to the restaurant themselves. I care that meal delivery apps underpay their workers (they don't even consider them their workers), provide no workplace protections, and prey on their desperation.
The desire for convenience is a morally neutral thing (no matter how many capitalists want their workers to see unproductivity or aversion to the "grind" as a moral failing). Companies that sell you only convenience by making it worse for yourself and for others are not.
I'm sorry but this is the exact thing I was talking about when I said "convenience does not rot your soul."
You talking to a person over the counter to order food at a restaurant is not an anymore meaningful interaction than talking to someone who delivered that food. Delivery and take-out have always existed. That option to pay more for that convenience has always existed. The major difference now is that most restaurants no longer employ people in-house to do delivery, because it's being done by contracted gig workers who get absolutely no benefits or protections. The major difference now are the working conditions.
I agree societal connections are good, but you just going outside to order food and the coming back is not meaningfullly participating in society. Removing deliveries or any sort of accesibility service (cafes not having wifi for example) will not force people to interact with strangers if they don't want to do that. Convenience facilitates people who already don't want to interact with others, but convenience isn't what's making people lonely! You cannot passively consume your way to community.
Most people aren't gonna talk or build relationships with folks in that restaurant. They're gonna eat and leave, and that's less "community building" than someone who ordered take-out so they can stay home to participate in an online book club or zoom their loved ones in another country. Do not romanticize past toils and lack of accessibility. Convenience and accessibility leads to people having more time to connect with each other, not less.
A thing to note here is that restaurants also underpay their workers, provide few workplace protections, and prey on their desperation. Restaurant workers are not the opposite of convenience-providers-being-exploited, they're part of that spectrum.
I was 12 when the first of my siblings was born, so I have very vivid memories of the way my mother was excluded from a lot of spaces because people find children annoying.
If you think "children should not be allowed in this space," you HAVE TO reckon with the fact that you are now excluding parents (and very often women specifically) who don't have access to childcare. You are isolating people who are poor, or rural, or single parents, or any number of other factors that might prevent someone from having on-demand childcare. You are cutting them off from being able to exist in public. You are denying parents and children the ability to fully participate in society.
My mom spent several years only leaving the house to buy groceries or take me to school, and even then, people would still come up to her to complain TO HER FACE about how she shouldn't bring a crying toddler to Walmart. Entitled strangers would literally try and demand that my mom leave and come back without the kids.
"Why can't your husband watch them?" Because he was at work, usually working extreme amounts of overtime so we didn't get evicted, because landlords don't like it when you stop paying rent.
"Why can't you send them to daycare?" Because that costs money.
"Why can't your teenager stay home with them and babysit?" Because I also deserved to be able to leave the house for something other than school, and taking me to the grocery store was how my mom taught me to manage a household budget, shop sales, and meal plan.
"Don't bring your kid in public if you can't CONTROL them and make them stop crying!" Kids cry when they're upset, and being dragged around a store is upsetting! Don't be an asshole! Children are human beings who are still learning how the world works, and they don't have a lot of agency. You'd cry, too.
"Spank them until they learn to stop crying!" That's just straight-up child abuse, Jesus Christ.
What the fuck was our family supposed to do? Never go to the grocery store? Starve because strangers couldn't handle a toddler existing in public?
I am incredibly fucking disturbed at the way this post has brought people out of the woodwork who really want to tell me all about how hitting kids isn't actually abuse, how they think babies are the spawn of Satan, and how being confined to the home is an acceptable punishment for women who dare to have children. People have told me all about how they think children should be banned from airplanes, that I'm being inconsiderate to childfree people, that allowing crying babies in public is ableist against people with sensory issues (I have those, too, and so do many children, which is often WHY THEY ARE CRYING, jackass), and that people who have children are "irresponsible" and "selfish."
I have blocked multiple people who went on tirades about how I'm a "horrible breeder" who is "contributing to overpopulation" and how I and my "spawn" deserve to be trapped at home. (I am infertile and my foster kid is an adult now, so I don't know what breeding and spawn they think they're talking about.)
One person asked if I was posting ragebait for fun because "this isn't a real issue." Several have asked if this "really happens" and told me that my "experience isn't universal." (There are multiple parents in the comments who have agreed with me and talked about how hard it is to navigate the world with their kids.)
Children are an oppressed class who are treated like absolute vermin. Parents are given absolutely no support in caring for them. Good parents are set at a disadvantage even when they have all the best intentions, struggling parents aren't given resources to improve their situation or get community assistance, and blatantly abusive parents don't get caught because hitting and screaming and controlling are considered perfectly normal ways to treat a child. Communities would rather shut kids away where they can be ignored and forgotten and mistreated, all for the sin of "being annoying in public."
Youth liberation is vital, regardless of whether you, personally, like kids. You cannot ban children from public. You cannot shut children away in isolation and expect them to grow into happy, healthy, well-adjusted adults who can function in our society. You do not get to demand children be removed from every corner of public life all for your personal comfort.
your mom jokes don't work when you know someone too well. I would never be in bed with such a wicked woman. That's not even what I had your mom saying last night. I wouldn't speak to her.
Once, when I was little, my stepfather told me that it was thanks to him I did so well in school. It was because of what he did to me that I was special. My intelligence, my precocious intellectual ability, came from experiencing something extraordinary that pushed me beyond my limits.
Christine Angot recounts how her abusive father suggested that she write about the incest he had subjected her to. You should write about what you experienced with me . . . It’s interesting. It’s not something that everybody experiences.
He even had an opinion about how she should go about writing it: The reader should question themselves, wonder whether it is dream or reality, it should be a little hazy, a bit like Robbe-Grillet.
That’s another reason why it’s hard to write about this. Not because it brings back painful memories (a person who was abused as a child has no need for a book to bring back painful memories, they are lying in wait every morning upon waking), but because the text, into which the author pours so much effort and will, years of reading, her heart and soul, is, from the very start, the abuser’s project, he is right at the heart of it, he almost predicted it, even almost hoped for it.
A person rapes in order to exist. Perhaps they don’t know that until it happens (I happen to think they do know, most of the time) but once it has happened it’s obvious that this irreparable act will mark for life the victim, the world. It is an act that engenders power, a power that extends far beyond the perpetrator.
Several years ago I learned about a recently uncovered child pornography ring called damagedforlife. This was not the name of a victim therapy group, but a site on the dark web passed among predators who are aroused by the knowledge that the acts they are watching involve genuine victims whose lives will be damaged forever. The victim as a person does not exist for them, these people are entirely devoid of empathy, or at least they have a bizarre kind of empathy that doesn’t allow them to imagine the victim’s suffering experienced from the other side. The victim exists for them simply as a vehicle that will permanently bear the trace of their abuse.
Damaged for life. This book is the proof. I want it to exist, but I hope it doesn’t have too many readers. It would mean existing in literature not for my writing but for my subject. The thing I have always dreaded. And that it should be of all things this subject, which I did not choose, or want, or create. It would mean existing in literature not because of something I have done but because of something that someone did to me. A nightmare.
And yet I am going to write it anyway, in a kind of senseless rebellion. Take the bull by the horns and drive it completely mad. Fill it with words until it cracks, begs me to stop, and leaves me in peace, at last.
— Neige Sinno, trans. Natasha Lehrer, Sad Tiger, “The one who bears the trace”
hi trans kiwis and friends. if you haven't seen the news, they're trying to pass a frankly insidious bill in aotearoa to define the terms 'man' and 'woman' based on biological sex. this unsurprisingly reflects a lot of similar cruel efforts happening overseas at the moment. IT HASN'T PASSED YET, but I figured I should speak up about it because this is happening as we speak.
(screenshot from the linked RNZ article)
it seems very fucking bleak!!!! please don't lose hope! it hasn't passed yet and a lot of the shoddy bills suggested by the coalition have been shot down already. it's still worth knowing about. you don't have to share this post if you don't want to. I just know that a lot of my followers are kiwi. if there are any updates as to what we can do to push back against this, I'll make a relevant addition. kia kaha, okay? love you all.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
got an ask about d&g's nomadology which i accidentally deleted so here's my response in non-ask form
sorry this took so long; it's in reference to a post i made a while ago about how d&g's conception of the nomadic components of the war-machine is utterly wrong and deeply orientalist. i'm not well-read in d&g at all which is why i'll be limiting my critique as much as possible to the specifically historical elements as explicated in the nomadology excerpts from A Thousand Plateaus, hereafter ATP. im sure i will do an awful job of presenting their theory, but that's not where the force of my critique lies; I'm going to be primarily solely attacking a subset of their historical underpinnings.
to summarize very briefly, D&G claim that the kinds of organizations used to wage war have an existence that is ontologically separate from the kinds of organizations we call as states, and that when states wage war, they do so through encapsulating and juridifying (to coin a term) this previously-extant autonomous war-machine, which d&g identify primarily with nomadic steppe polities (which they characterize as being based on numerical principles of organization vice the territorializing principles of the state) and segmentary-lineal "tribal" organizations. to quote them: "Axiom II The war machine is the invention of the nomads. […] Proposition V: Nomad existence necessarily effectuates the conditions o fthe war machine in space." much time is spent characterizing the two antagonistic spatial logics of nomadic and territorial societies, with the former being characterized as "smooth" and the latter as "striated;" a distinction that is in turn applied to sciencies and probably lots of other things. similarly, war-machine organizations are characterized as "rhizomatic" and state-based ones as "arborescent." now for d&g the war-machine is an abstract mode of organization that can apply to many separate organizations, many of which aren't warlike in the strict sense at all, but it's a fundamental ontological basis of their thought all the same.
historically speaking, this is mostly nonsense. d&g do this incredibly annoying thing where they quote one guy whose works have been deeply controversial and just assume everything they say is correct, and then use it to make universalizing claims that are given no further support. this happens in the first section with dumezil, whose primordial dialectic between the magician-king and priest-jurist is simply assumed to be representative of sovereignty as such, despite the clear presence of counter-examples in the medieval jurist-king. similarly, they draw on clastres at length, without ever even touching other anthropologists who critiqued him. unfortunately for clastres and d*g as a whole, the idea of segmentary lineage societies, while anthropological orthodoxy for decades thanks to its remarkable political utility, has been thoroughly dismantled over the past few decades, with many of the most detailed and trenchant critiques (many of which had specific reference to the nuer) written in the 1970s, before the publication of AO. read kuper's the reinvention of primitive society. shockingly, claims in history and anthropology can be just as contested as those in philosophy, and to present these specific claims as evidence without even the slightest attempt at critique, analysis, justification, or even citation of other critiques is the height of scholarly irresponsibility. philosophy may be the queen of the sciences, but that does not give philosophers license to do the bare minimum of work required to understand other fields.
their understanding of nomadic societies, however, lacks even the most minimal level of academic citation; one of the most explicit evidentiary basis for their claims comes from Children of Dune. yes, the novel. this explains many basic errors in their understandings of nomad societies. for one thing, despite a tradition dating back to at least engels that characterizes pastoral nomadism as an ur-mode of "primitive" human existence and which was only buttressed by the kurgan hypothesis (for which there is precisely one piece of actual bit-wear evidence over thousands of years; see drews' early riders and anthony's the horse the wheel and language) actual pastoral nomadism, where people move all their stuff on animal-back continuously, dates back to around 800-600 BC, literally thousands of years after the first territorial states emerge. in addition, the idea of "pure" pastoralism where people live entirely off animal products is equally false; humans needs carbs and all actual nomad-pastoralists either grow crops (often by planting them at one stop on the route and coming back to harvest later) or trade with people do. herodotus himself, in addition to describing nomad-pastoralism as a new way of living, also describes "scythian plowmen" who grow grain, probably on a sedentary basis; the region that is the cradle of steppe nomadism was also one of the great breadbaskets of the classical world; see moreno's feeding the democracy. the ruins of panticapaeum show very clearly that the elites of these nomad worlds were incredibly eager to appropriate hellenistic state-forms, and the tombs of the rulers of these scytho-greek city-states show they did so in a way that granted them staggering wealth, contrary to d&g's facile claim that they somehow stood apart from writing and stability. this timing means that d&g's claim "that the war machine was the invention of the animal-raising nomad" is obviously false, as is their claim that "horseback riding was the first projector of the warrior, his first system of arms." war-chariots clearly predate it, as infantry-based armies do chariot-based armies.
if we look at what makes this steppe nomadism possible, it's obviously horses. horse domestication by steppe peoples does date back thousands and thousands of years, but the body of evidence suggests they were used as meat animals, not ridden. it's only when horses make their way down into territorial states and get assimilated into previously extant traction-vehicle traditions that they becomes used as a source of speed, and they do so in the form of the war-chariot, an extremely technically sophisticated vehicle that required large amounts of different skilled labourers to build. it's only after another millennium or so of charioteering that we see actual horse cavalry emerge in the assryian army, and it's only after that that they make their way back to their site of original domestication as mounts. in other words, it was the state that made the key technology of nomadism possible. if you're wondering "lol did it really take them five thousand years to figure out how to ride a horse" i strongly suggest you find an unbroken horse and try to jump on its back. make sure you wear a helmet.
their characterization of nomad societies as well is deeply flawed; contrary to their fantasy of nomads; despite attempting to portray nomadic societies as sort of univocal hordes without class distinctions in reality you see aristocracies in steppe polities almost everywhere you look as sneath's the headless empire shows; the orkhon inscriptions, for example, regularly mention "both begs (nobles, from which the modern turkish term bey is derived) and peoples." the primary instrument through which this aristocracy was maintained was something d&g don't mention in the slightest, which is the practice of "leasing" out livestock. in thhis system, known as emanet in old turkic, saun in kazakh, and sureg tavikh in mongolian, rich men with huge herds would lease out small portions of their livestock to poor men, who were in turn required to remit a large portion of the product back to the owners of the livestock. if this sounds exactly like the systems of land-lease that underpinned what used to be called feudalism, that's because it does. you can also see this system among the xhosa of southern africa, the comanche polity, and probably in many other places. nomad polities are also far more spatialized than d&g want to admit; because of pasture scarcity and the need for transhumance it's actually quite common for specific territorial boundaries to be made and enforced by higher authorities, even by ecclesiastical powers in the mongol case, although of course d&g would insist that somehow it's done in a ~smooth~ way.
central to their concept of nomad society is their generalization of them as being based on a "numerical" principle as opposed to the "territorial" organization of the state and the "lineal" organization of bands. the last, as discussed, just doesn't exist. ironically, d&g's nomad fetish means they don't fall into the incredibly common trap of characterizing nomad polities as based in lineal organizations. instead, they fixate on the 'decimal' organization you see in some (but not all!) nomad polities wherein all households are organized into interlocking groups of ten, hundred, thousand, and ten thousand households that are then mobilized into military units on the same basis. this is an actual real thing, but it's certainly not as omnipresent as they make it out to be. it's first identified with the xiongnu in about 100bc, and appears to have spread widely from there, but unfortunately the only text i can find that addresses the subject in detail is in german and undigitzed. it was continued by other east asian pastoralists and most famously used by the mongols, and appears to have some presence in the various turkic steppe polities, but paron's history of the pechenegs of what is now ukraine claims there is only one documented instance of a specifically decimal organization, and that's just in one battle. herodotus doesn't mention the scythians having decimal organizations (instead he claims they were organized into territorial districts) and there doesn't seem to be any kind of decimal system in the comanche polity. in contrast, d&g cite the book of numbers, which has no historical basis whatsoever; the exodus never happened. there are also decimal-based systems in territorial states; perhaps the ming huangce system was inspired by steppe systems, but the anglo-norman tithing definitely wasn't. shockingly, d&g just don't mention them. now this numerical thing is really important for d&g, and to them is an essential component of nomad society, but it just very obviously isn't universal like they want it to be. the idea that state-incorporated war-machines are necessarily numerical is false too; you see plenty of state war-machines that don't have regular numerical subdivisions like the incredibly chaotically numbered retinues of late feudal england or the very disparate citizen militia that actually made up hoplite armies. you even sometimes have these numerical divisions explicitly territorialized, as with the 19th century reserve systems where units would be exclusively raised from particular subregions.
let's laser-focus on genghis, whom d&g love to wank to. first of all, chinggis (the preferred transliteration today) became powerful not being a nomad, but by incorporating what was needed from agricultural states into the steppe. for one thing, he integrated armoured shock cavalry, requiring immense amounts of metal (contrary to what d&g say the idea of metalworking as a nomad practice par excellence is just nonsense) into the traditional steppe horse archers, although precisely how is unclear. the idea that he specifically numericalized the lineages is nonsense too; decimalization dates back to the xiongnu and are attested in mongol culture pre-chinggis. also vital to his success was the mongol ability to effectively conduct siege warfare, enabled by the mongol practice of directly recruiting captured artisans whenever possible. during the climactic siege of xiangyang during the conquest of the southern song, the mongols were able to triumph, according to contemporary sources, by bringing in western european siege weaponry, although the mongols had very extensively used other designs beforehand. even better, none of this is unique to chinggis. all of these can be seen in the liao and jin empires, which originated as steppe polities and ended up explicitly claiming the mantle of emperor (huangdi) through a very similar process of assimilation. speaking more broadly, d&g say that "the power of slaves, foreigners, or captives in a war machine of nomadic origin is very different from the power of lineal aristocracies, as well as from that of State functionaries and bureaucrats." but again this is bollocks; nomad polities like the jin and liao very explicitly kept hallmarks of bureacratic organization like the examination system in place, and often kept separate legal systems for steppe and agricultural subjects; the idea that non-steppe 'foreigners' were somehow marginal to these polities is utterly wrong.
leaving aside nomads specifically and going on to their broader military theory; d&g's claim that weapons are nothing without social organization is of course true but their explication of the organizations is wrong. bronze age swords have nothing to do with cavalry, and the stirrups did not create the knight, although the stirrup thing has been espoused by many (wrongly). the hoplite was a citizen-soldier but not a peasant soldier; the average peasant did not have the money to afford hoplite armament and therefore served as psiloi (skirmishers) or, if they were really screwed, hypaspistai (military servants; literally shield-bearers). the stuff about numerical hoplite armies bound into ordered ranks by the two-handled aspis is wrong, too, but it was scholarly orthodoxy when they published ATP (the big revisionist salvo was van wees' '84 book iirc) so we can't blame them too much for that.
however, this understanding of the war machine serves a very important purpose: it lets them avoid being maoists. by characterizing the war-machine and the state-form as antagonistic, with nomads as the historical proof of it (like how rousseau's noble savage functioned as historical proof of fundamental freedom) they then get what anarchists have always wanted but never had: an effective revolutionary army that isn't dependent on the state-form. now, if you believe that revolution and the state-form are antagonistic to some extent, then bypassing that contradiction altogether is obviously extremely desirable! the story of revolutions everywhere has been that the revolutionaries become rulers, not because of vice or lack of enthusiasm, but because of the problem of power: the state-form, needed to seize power, ends up exerting a power of its own. maoism tackles this contradiction head-on, by arguing that this contradiction between the state and revolution doesn't need to be antagonistic, if mediated by a party capable of implementing a mass line and cultural revolution. d&g, however, just want to bypass this contradiction altogether, by claiming that the state-form isn't as necessary as marxists have historically thought. this, to me, is wish being master of thought. i'd love to fight wars without states, but history shows incredibly clearly that states win wars; the war-machine and the state-form are, in other words, synergistic; the war-machine is dependent on the territorial logic of the state for its internal metabolism. this isn't just me saying this; one of the most dominant trends in mainstream political theory over the past thirty years, of which the real standard-bearer has been charles tilly, have emphasized the synergy of war and the state; in tilly's famous quip "war makes the state and states make war." john brewer and patrick o'brien (no relation to the master and commander author) have argued this very forcefully for the case of capitalist britain, patterson for the inca polity, and so on. some have argued against this, but clearly the classic deleuzian position that war is fundamentally external to the state is untenable. sometimes you do see these acephalous diffuse organizations d&g are so fond of waging war, but the reality is they're not good at it. when they are good at it, like the white company of the 1300s, it's because they're ex-army mercenaries. the "fremen mirage" of harsh desert-dwellers overcoming urbanites with ferocity and flexiblity just isn't true. effective armies are bureaucratic and regimented.