Anti-politics is a tricky one, as people define their non-cooperation with dominant politics in so many different ways. In particular, many people who adopt the anti politics label would prefer not to do any politics – alternative or otherwise. Personally, I agree with Deleuze and Guattari when they say “everything is politics” and thus describe anti-politics as the politics of refusal, which demands nothing of the ruling politics except its complete abolition. I have a working explanation of this here: http://anarchistwithoutcontent.wordpress.com/2013/01/22/draft-talk-escape-at-the-limits-of-freedom-and-politics/

also, how do you define “Anti- Politics” ?

also, ive included your ‘draft’ : “Everybody Talks About the Weather, but Nobody Does Anything About It” in my virtual library..
(don’t have the means to print copies from the computer to disseminate locally)

thanks in advance!
Greetings from the PH,
Mark

[[further note: perhaps de-terr offers language of the _positive_ existence of _negative movement_, which is describes as a _positive movement_ (not anti-terr or un-terr but de-terr)]]

to give a more metaphysical response, deleuze likes tonybee’s history of the nomads of the steppes. he says that there was a bifurcation in history where those nomads either had to leave the steppes or change their way of life – some split off and left while others changed how they lived. he prefers those who stayed, and he describes the problem as “they had the choice of changing their habitat or changing their habits.” this resonates w/ Deleuze’s work on Hume, of course, who thought that habits generally prevent humans from exploring their potential and thus he proposed breaking habits, and habits of thought in particular. — this is why deleuze says that the nomad travels by staying in one place, it’s in “intensive” transformation and not an “extensive” one. but i’m rambling…