User loginNavigationAnarchist Events
Action!Donation |
How anarchists expose infiltrators
The source spread the word to other protesters and they told the man — along with two associates — to leave the park. The men got into a nearby unmarked sedan. The license plate, observed by a Pioneer Press reporter, traced back to the detective unit of the Hennepin County Sheriff's Office, according to the county's Central Mobile Equipment Division. A spokeswoman said the sheriff's office would not comment on such types of tactics until the week is done. Protesters later picked two other men out of the day's planned march— one because he was wearing brand-new tennis shoes. The men left. It is unclear if those two were police officers. Police, meanwhile, have obtained search warrants and confiscated potential weapons from anarchists, thanks to their infiltration tactics. Dave Orrick contributed to this report |
PollNews commentsRecent blog posts
SearchCheck out the Anarchist News newsletter. |
Good stuff. I wonder how the
Good stuff. I wonder how the cia/fbi checks for infiltrators.
SO this is the oh so famous
SO this is the oh so famous gang control, sneaking themselves in to look good when arrests are to come? Well one thing I can say is that FUCK THEM
they do not help the people. They help their oh so great republican leaders.
One thing that stresses. Is that many fucking conservative bitches dont realize what the gang control does. It is fucking bullshit. They support their state with all it's "glory. Blinded to the truth of how the gang control goes about treating even the peaceful protesters.
- The.Unknown
RNC Welcoming Committee at
RNC Welcoming Committee at work...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z868UNhY1y8
Another tactic that may be
Another tactic that may be used to discover an infiltrator is the personal hygiene angle. Anyone who has washed their hair and/or taken a shower within the past week should come under immediate suspicion! Hope this helps
This is ridiculous and
This is ridiculous and unfair. I agree we should be cautious, but these anarchists are looking more and more like authoritarians! I like to stay clean and wash my hair, this doesn't mean my beliefs are any less valuable. I noticed a lot of people at the CrimethInc. Convergence were not bathed, I have nothing against this, but whats the point? Anarchism is not about living in filth and eating from dumpsters (at least, not all the time). Let's try to show realistic advantages of our political ideas instead of simply being feral beasts chasing squirrels in the forest like Thoreau did so many years ago.
i think the poster above was
i think the poster above was joking.
that is possible. even if he
that is possible. even if he was joking, im sure there are others that hold such beliefs.
I meant that post, I am not
I meant that post, I am not joking! You do not speak for me! I bathe once or twice monthly. We were meant to have our own scent, mine is an integral part of me! Regular bathing is just another way society forces us into sameness!
Or possibly the crazy idea
Or possibly the crazy idea of healthiness! Is something like toothpaste really that indoctrinating? How about we rid ourselves of antiseptics all together? We could start a revolution of death!
Yes toothpaste and other
Yes toothpaste and other products are unhealthy and indoctrinating! I CLEAN my teeth every day with a cloth dipped in salt water. This is how our ancestors did it. We don't need to bathe every day! Bathing strips our skin and hair of the oils that protect and hydrate our skin. Toothpaste is abrasive and wears away the enamel that protects our teeth. Why do you think so many people wear dentures nowadays? Now all of society is pasteurized and homogenized to such an extent they all look and smell alike. I share my personal scent with pride, you have been brainwashed by the Capitalist marketing campaign that bombards us every day. Learn to think for yourself and quit buying products that feed the machine that contributes to your subjugation. You are a perfumed slave of the state.
i take a bath every now and
i take a bath every now and again (very infrequently) and use some other products cause i have no knowledge really of the different ways but i would have to say i agree...but don't be so quick to indentify ones ideological affiliation with these things, it is kind of small minded.
at any rate i'll see what you said and raise you this: clothing. our shame in our bodies bred from religion and mind/body dualism has weakend us to the sun, a very deterimental combination when mixed with a waning ozone layer. thanxs christianity!
-lord rambler
You make a good point about
You make a good point about the toothpaste. But I will never be willing to revert back to what my "ancestors" did. I am not them. If anything we should be working towards a safer way of cleaning ourselves, not reverting back to the old. And our ancestors probably weren't totally happy with how they lived. For instance, some modern hunter & gather societies in the amazon use crushed leafs that provide a mixture similar to soap to clean their bodies (and this is not from outside influence). You want to be dirty because it's "organic" in a sense, so why don't we strive for an "organic" cleanliness?
yeah this is just plain
yeah this is just plain stupid. four legs good two legs bad?
-lord rambler
So we have a new game to
So we have a new game to play with the cops. the fun never stops
I like the idea of the
I like the idea of the picture/face matching. That works. But the guy getting booted for having new shoes? What could be possibly say to argue that 'sorry that I dont like going around barefoot?'
But the office not commenting 'until the week is done' is all but a confirmation. B/c if they WERENT doing anything, would they really have a reason to say 'no comment'?
Anger is an energy.
english motherfucker do you
english motherfucker do you speak it !!!!!! fuck the pigs and the whiners ..... knock thier usless heads against the wall until they get it .... goddamn pacificsts every time i see one i want to cause as much damage as possible that goes for the pigs and the lame anarcists
How does this post relate to
How does this post relate to anything on this thread? It's just rhetoric. WHAT IS YOUR POINT?!
Most cops in general do not
Most cops in general do not have garb appropriate to the dress style of anarchists... thus they have to buy all new clothing. *shrug* Its better to boot a person who you don't know than to get busted by the cops.
They learn however and will
They learn however and will probably save money next time by buying at a thrift store.
It's to bad there pictures,
It's to bad there pictures, of the infiltrators, are not posted!
PhilR
PhilR I will try to educate
PhilR
I will try to educate you as well.
Your post should read: It's TOO bad THEIR pictures of the infiltrators are not posted. In addition, your commas were not necessary.
These are common errors, hope this helps.
thegrammarlibertarian
Thank you for the gamer
Thank you for the gamer lesson. English is not my native language, I grew up speaking Basque, a language that predates most other European languages.
PhilR
PhilR You're quite welcome.
PhilR
You're quite welcome. English is my native language which is the current lingua franca.
thegrammarlibertarian
WOW. That was extremely
WOW. That was extremely disrespectful, and totally uncalled for. I suppose you think English (because it's apparently the ONLY Lingua Franca to you) is the most superior of all languages. To bad the only reason it IS a major lingua franca is because american corporate business has wrapped its slimy, diseased tentacles around the world, and it has nothing to do with cultural understanding. Just the fact that english IS the major lingua franca must tell you something about the disgusting reach that american power has all over the world.
-Eyedea
Eyedea I was expressing
Eyedea
I was expressing pride in my language just as PhilR was expressing pride in his. You inferred disrespect but there was no disrespect intended.
thegrammarlibertarian
mmmmm... Yes, you probably
mmmmm... Yes, you probably would have us think that. Yet you continue to play these utterly childish "grammar correction" games, in some pathetic attempt to prove that we are less capable of producing rational and reasonable comments (as in us anarchists) than you. Grow up. If you're going to leave comments, make sure they have something to do with the article. Or at least something resembling a political/social debate.
-Eyedea
Eyedea, Apparently it is
Eyedea,
Apparently it is working. This is one of the more grammatically correct posts you have submitted.
thegrammarlibertarian
Eyedea, English was spread
Eyedea,
English was spread by the British. We started as an English colony and still speak English as a result. India, Australia and Africa were also colonized by the English. Therefore, they also speak English as their corporate and government languages. It is inaccurate to lay this at the feet of corporate America.
rebelwithaclue
You speak of colonization as
You speak of colonization as if it's harmless. MILLIONS of African people were slaughtered, raped and enslaved when the europeans colonized Africa. MILLIONS of people were (once again) slaughtered, raped and enslaved when the europeans colonized the americas. The same thing was done in australia when the british dumped all their criminals and prisoners there. The english language was NOT spread through cultural and human cooperation! It was spread through colonialism, global capitalism, and corporatism. As well as white supremacy. In fact there shouldn't even be a lingua franca. It is an obstacle to the development of lingual diversity. Why don't europeans (and I'm counting white americans in this) know how to speak Zulu or Swahili? Why don't they know how to speak the language of the Native American Nations? Shouldn't Native American language be the dominant language in the americas? This is the point I'm making.
-Eyedea
Eyedea, I never stated that
Eyedea,
I never stated that colonization was harmless! We will learn to speak Zulu and Swahili when it is to our benefit to do so. Why do you think so many college students are learning Chinese now? They are an emerging market. We will be doing more business with them and need to communicate. There is no racial motive in not learning these languages we just have no need to do so at the present time. As for lingual diversity I agree, I do not like to hear of languages dying but we also need to communicate. At this time in history English is the dominant language. One hundred years from now it may be something else.
thegrammarlibertarian
The english language follows
The english language follows the drumbeat of global capitalism. Wherever global capitalism sets its rotted foot is where white supremacist culture goes. Once again, the english language has NOT become the dominant language because of cultural cooperation or understanding. It has become the dominant language because the US and all the other wealthy "white" countries are the snake head of capitalist society. It isn't exactly fair that other cultures should have to learn the language of the "white man" just so they can make money.
-Eyedea
They don't have to, they can
They don't have to, they can trade with one another!
rebelwithaclue
You also call yourself a
You also call yourself a libertarian. If you're such a devout libertarian then maybe you could be kind enough to tell me who Pierre-Joseph Proudhon was? If you're a libertarian then why do cower behind authoritarian systems and structures such as capitalism? Did you know that Libertarian Socialism is almost completely synonymous with Anarchism, and the two names are interchangeable? True libertarianism played a huge part in the founding of anarchist thought. You however are just another right wing idiot who probably stumbled upon "libertarianism" and thought it was a truly right wing belief. Your ignorance is unbelievable!
-Eyedea
Conservative Pro-Property
Conservative Pro-Property Libertarianism is just a stupid distortion of bullshit liberal ideology. Although I would rather be in the presence of liberals than right wing nut jobs!
I realize that this is far
I realize that this is far off topic but I really don't care.
Eyedea-
You have a lot of hostility towards the English language. I pose the question as to why you feel we need language at all? I agree with John Zerzan's thoughts on symbolic language, it's not necessary at all. The humyn species lived without it for most of our existence, just the same as civilization and everything else that comes with it. There is no practical need for symbolic language and without it life would be a lot better off. Your concern with English being the dominant language is understanding, but why not be concerned over the fact that any language can become dominant and that language itself can be a tool of oppression and domination and that without it, it would be very difficult for either to come forth. To clarify my intentions with this as you seem to be getting offended over a lot of what people are saying and there seems to be some confusion over what they are saying. I do not mean this as a way to justify the English language being the dominant language, but as an anarchist I am against all forms of domination in whatever form they take, whether it be a dominant male, a dominant female, a dominant system, a dominant culture, or what have you, my point is that language itself can be a tool of domination and oppression, that is can have serious social consequences in my opinion and that it is ultimately undesirable and that other ways of communication should be looked at instead.
And for those who would like to bring forth the view that symbolic language is necessary for communicating, think about the nature of your comment and anthropocentrism that is inherent in it. If symbolic language is necessary for communicating, if you assume that it is the only way in which we can communicate than you view the humyn species of homosapiens (possibly neanderthals) as being the only species that has/had the ability to communicate, and that other species have no means of communication. An anthropocentric view of nature as well as a speciesist view.
Also if you can't refute what I'm saying, then why bring forth silly pointless attacks that hold no substance? These attacks are such as saying that I am stupid for having this point of view, or that primitivists are stupid, or that Zerzan is stupid, or that we have to have symbolic language(without explaining why), or how I'm stupid because I'm communicating through symbolic language (duh!) or etc. I welcome a diversity in points of view but I won't respond to those who can't give forth their thoughts in an intelligent manner as to why language is necessary for an anarchic way of life to exist or why it is truly needed.
http://primitivism.com/language.htm
-Mkwa
hmmmm...by symbolic language
hmmmm...by symbolic language do you mean things like grammatical rules or do you mean mere conversation? i whole heartedly agree with your statement about non-humans though even they do what appears, at least to us humans, as talking in the noises they make. there are arguments of extrasensory perception but the closest thing i have actually felt, the only way i could have evidence, to this is when i am in a forest, especially when i am high though not always, and it is like i am being watched by some energy or prescence. then again maybe i am blind to all this cause i am civilized, i have an open mind...none the less i need more evidence of a way for humans to comunicate that doesn't involve words (not necessarily written, btw, and certainly not following "laws"). body language is usually reliable but even this can be misread, and in that case i don't know of a way to clear that up that doesn't involve speaking. my problem with language, and how it is a tool for control, is when we start accepting sets of verbal definitions for life or when we think our ability to create them makes us better than other beings.
how do we know? how do we know -and by the way i am not saying this is the case- that dogs and cats don't bark and meow complex math equations at each other? how do we know plants don't feel it if you chop at them? i am not giving any answers, before i hear the insults that i already smell (extra sensory perception? hehehehehe), i am saying how do we know, as one species, anything definitive about another, just as how does one individual even know anything definitive about someone they love as another individual?
and don't say cause we butcher things in a lab: a lab is a context removed from nature where beings are doped and tourtured and even then it is not as if scientists can mind meld with their "subjects"...they can merely crow civilized educated human interpretations of phenomenon and the only real knowledge from a lab is how to mainpulate existence for purposes of domination anyway, though it may be more reliable than, say, revelation by bible in terms of some form of workable knowledge (ah, yes, but to what end?).
-lord rambler
Rambler- I would say
Rambler-
I would say symbolic language is the ability to organize sounds into an understandable form in which others can understand, I would also say that it requires syntax as linguistics have defined it to require. Therefor, I don't feel that a baby that is going "goo-goo gah gah" as the cliche goes can speak language, nor can a dog which is barking towards another dog. Certainly a dog barking is a form of communication, and we could call it language but I don't feel it falls into the category of symbolic language. We can see the same for a lot of things. If a mother grizzly bears her teeth and makes angry noises when someone comes near her cub, she isn't speaking through the means of symbolic language, but she is communicating clearly that she's pissed off and ready to defend her baby, that she feels her baby is being threatened. So I don't feel that it's a matter of making sounds in which language can come forth. Archaelogist's say that previous humyn species (maybe or maybe not on neanderthals depending on which group of people) didn't have the ability to speak because they couldn't control the tongue enough in order to speak, and they didn't have the other means required to.
I do believe in the ability to communicate telepathically, many of the civilized would find this a stupid assumption, but I care little, I think there is an ability in this way to communicate with non-humyns including plants and non-humyn animals. I don't find this as a form of symbolic language though. At this point it sounds like I'm ripping off Zerzan's arguments, but as he has stated Laurens van der Post (1958) described telepathic communication among the Kung in Africa. Some would like to argue about this and say it's crazy, just as they would feel it's crazy that people say they can talk to tree's (perhaps they would feel Derrick Jensen is crazy because he discusses his culpability on the toilet paper issue by what he learned from a tree), but the truth being is that we have no way of knowing whether these claims are true or false unless we experience them for ourselves to know if they are true so to shed doubt on them seems to shed an opinion that it is only civilized societies ways of going about things which are true and all other ways are wrong (not implying that you are saying this though).
Language is a homogenizing force which objectifies all that is in its path. To me it seems as if it becomes an increasing problem as time goes on and inevitably develops into the monster that it has become now. It alienates us from the subject and detaches us from reality as everything becomes removed.
I would say other means of communication are many. If a child falls and is crying we can understand that they are hurt. If a dog moans when we rub their ears we know that they like that. I would say more specifically that language makes us unaware of each other and gives us an inability to understand each other. We can hear someone say that they are happy but how are we to know that? Are we to base this off of the superficial ways of symbolic communication? If we are able to understand the vibes that that person is putting off, we should be able to understand them more clearly and understand whether they are indeed happy or not.
I would give these as examples of different means of communication. I would say we should look at the other animals as to how they communicate. We should be looking at different forms of communication, trying to understand how we could differently communicate instead of relying on this as the only way. You ask me what other ways there are, these are some, but this is something which we pay so little attention to that we need to look at more options and think about it more.
"how do we know? how do we know -and by the way i am not saying this is the case- that dogs and cats don't bark and meow complex math equations at each other? how do we know plants don't feel it if you chop at them? i am not giving any answers, before i hear the insults that i already smell (extra sensory perception? hehehehehe), i am saying how do we know, as one species, anything definitive about another, just as how does one individual even know anything definitive about someone they love as another individual?"
To me it seems as if symbolic language is as I described it earlier, and to me the animals don't communicate in that way. They don't form words in a coherent form to one another. Certainly there are ways of communication that involve sounds but not to the level that I would describe them as being symbolic. Dogs can bark at each other and their bark can mean they are happy to see one another or they could growl at each other to express anger, but neither takes the form of words. At least that's how I feel. I'm not saying that non-humyn animals can't communicate and that's plants and tree's cna't either. I just feel that there ways of communicating do not have symbolic forms to them.
As far as some evil asshole in a white coat dissecting some animal or plant to figure out their pain tolerance or whatever, I don't buy into their notions, and I do believe that all life can experience pain, milkweed, cedar tree, dolphin, what have you. Your ideas present with labs is right on, and I don't in any way or form support the actions of those individuals and believe in complete animal liberation, I don't buy into the civilized notions that because the rest aren't humyn that they deserve to suffer.
Mkwa
we sound like we are by and
we sound like we are by and large on the same page here, thanks for the reply. i would add the same about symbolic thought, i can kind of enjoy it but i have grown up with it and have always been partial to idiom and disdainful of grammatical conventions (and also quite fond of pointing out to people things like "you can't drink the word water" which i have to admit i plagarized from 60's zen pacifist, but delightfully amoralist at times, alan watts). nature admits many things, of course, vervet monkeys allegedly have a language, the problem, as usual, is fetishes, morality, right ways of life or what have you. still, what i feel when me and the woman i love (though we are but best friends) see each other again after a long, long, all to long time in this world that drives people away from each other across so many miles of fracturing roads, the way we each moan, means more to me than any words in the world as do the various feelings that make my heart melt our quake with fear and trembling or send me into a fiery rage...those things where words just don't fucking work at all (and i know, i have told this woman i love her, for example, it hardly does these feelings burning inside me justice). my "how do we know" thing was mainly cause i am sick of hearing others of my species pat themselves on their boring backs about how much they supposedly know...people who have the decency to admit they might very well be full of shit, i know i might, tend to be much more interesting and make for way better conversation and non-verbal company as a rule.
-lord rambler
I don't want to be
I don't want to be judgemental or assumptive in what i'm about to say, but how exactly would we go about "abolishing" language? As far as John Zerzan goes, I think the guy is a friggin moron. He applauded the actions of the Unabomber, why would you possibly praise someone who does that! I'm not a primitivist, I never will be. The things you people talk about are pure fantasy. Like abolishing language, and ALL technology. Actually I can remember reading about how Earth First! writers use to advocate AIDS and mass starvation, because they thought that population growth was killing the planet, do you know how sadistic and nauseating that is. I'm sure the nazis would've loved to read shit like that. Honestly the whole environmental movement, including primitivists, are acting like morons when they say the Earth is dying. THE EARTH IS NOT DYING, WE ARE DYING! Pollution isn't murdering the planet, it's murdering us. The Earth has lived through mass extinctions and asteroid impacts that would make thermonuclear war look like firecrackers! Global warming is akin to suicide, because long after we're dead, the Earth will still be spinnin around and making more life. Honestly, primitivists piss me off. I'm not against the whole eco-warrior, or environmentalist thing obviously, there's nothing wrong with loving the Earth, I love the Earth, but I'm more concerned with the lives of people. Although you could say that fighting against anti-environmental forces IS being concerned with the People, honestly, I think just destroying capitalist society through a workers revolution would in turn pretty much get the job done. I don't get pissed off at primitivists because they feel the need to combat anti-environmental forces. I get pissed off at them for stupid shit like this anti-language crap. I don't want live as a hunter gatherer, I think the majority of the human species would agree with me. I'm not saying you can't though, if you want to live in a wooden hut and hunt animals with bows and arrows, that's fine, but the rest of us can't live like that, we would DIE. I think just the abolishing of capitalism will end mass production and therefore end hyper technological expansion. I will not join your mass genocide bandwagon. NOT ALL TECHNOLOGY IS EVIL!
Eyedea
Someone should count how
Someone should count how many times I said "honestly" in that post.
Eyedea
Sorry, I didn't read the
Sorry, I didn't read the second half of the post, I just flew off on a rant.
-Eyedea
kid, put down the dave
kid, put down the dave forman book already and hip yourself to "green anarchy". you are muddying the waters here, anarchist primtivism is very diverse actually (though i am merely a sympathizer, nihilist is what i actually would call myself). most of what is said in green anarchy has nothing in common with some of the stupid shit people like dave forman or christopher manes have said. and many green anarchists would actually agree with the statements you made about only killing ourselves by the way.
-lord rambler
Sorry about the rant, I just
Sorry about the rant, I just get pissed of at these ridiculous things primitivists talk about, like getting rid of symbolic language. Actually, the title "primitivist" is a completely euro centric word (and yes I'm veering towards race discussion and bashing white supremacy again). The word "primitive" was also a word conjured up by european colonialists (we must be magicians), to describe the "savage" "tribal" peoples of foreign lands. The word civilization is a buzzword meant to imply that societies that are somehow more "advanced" than other societies that don't have toasters and nukes, are superior. I'm obviously concerned about the Earth, but the things some primitivists talk about are ridiculous, like that whole hunter gatherer crap. Granted, there are some Indigenous societies on Earth that still live hunter gatherer lives, but they've lived like that without interruptions. The idea that you could make the ENTIRE human species turn to HG forms of living is insane, it's exactly that type of stuff that turns so many people away from anarchism, and yes I still don't like John Zerzan.
-Eyedea
i agree on the word
i agree on the word primitive, i usually use it in quotation marks for that reason. however, i think the primitivists proper are using it as a valorization actually, not in a derogatory sense even if there use of words is poor. if i can i try to stay off arguments about people use of words though, there are just so many more real and important things actually happening dig? not all primitivists are saying everyone just needs to "poof" become gathers and hunters and happily ever after we dance off into a pristine disney like forest complete with singing wild life or something either, read green anarchy, there is plenty of talk about our predicament. all i know is no form of surplus society is sustainable, at least history has shown us not a single example, there were even first nations cultures who wond up abandoning civilizations, much easier than we, because of this realization such as the hohokam culture of the "american" south west...and to highlight the problem consider that these socieites were agricultural, not industrial, that shows how damaging the surplus has always been.
technology is also not something to be confused with tool use. the problem primitivists and anarcho-nihilist (heres a label if people want an address to mail my views at c(-;) sympathizers like myself have with technology is that it forms an interlocking grid requiring our continued labor whether we want to be part of it or not. this is because said grid requires fuels and raw materials, things which cannot be gotten at to my knowledge save by extraction and vast systems to transport such raw materials. as these systems demand large inputs of labor, we have a basis for our slavery and all that is left is to find a way to valorize it (workers paradise and citizenship in a "free" republic have done quite nicely, as has global market, as has fascist dictatorhsip based on hero worship, you name the meme and i can see democracy becoming the same monster in its benevolent tyrant costume, as it were, but the emporer still looks naked to me). as these networks of machine require distro networks over miles and miles, raw materials, and fuel, the best we can do by reforming technology is to slow the "inevitable" (i gotta wonder, hope not but i grow more pessimistic as i age) suicide we are commiting by grinding away at biodiversity.
until someone gives me an example of a technology that does not A). require continued extraction and a vast support network stretching for miles and miles and B). large amounts of human labor, i am afraid i will always see technology and a free existence as irreconcilable and the closest thing i can come up with to a technological existence that might work would be salvaging the ruins of a dead society with generators for those who wanted this, backed up with permaculture and squatting the former cities/rural areas of the totality...but as for getting the whole works going again? we are better off without it, i mean ultimately though it may not look like it at first...because of our addiction (i include myself here but i am resolved enough in my hate to not care about being addicted to technology, to not care about what i am risking, i mean ultimately, i lay awake some nights though...fuck what a depressing ass mess we are in!) though maybe it would. one thing is true: the future is unwritten, at least as long as we decide to disacknowledge the scripts we are handed.
-lord rambler
alright that makes sense,
alright that makes sense, but i will NEVER agree with the anti-language theories, and I still don't like JZ (mostly because of the unabomber thing). I am also never going to fully trust "primitivists" after those population control articles, anyone who advocates AIDS and mass starvation, even only in theory or an article is fucked up...Truly Fucked Up.
-Eyedea
yeah, but then again niether
yeah, but then again niether forman nor this "miss ann thropy" person i have heard of but never read are anarchists. formans a fucking conservative idiot. please don't conflate all anti-civ thought to foolish fucks such as him, thats the mistake you are seeming to make here when most of us hate him and want him to shut up (hey derrick jensen: you have some good things to say, when you aren't moralizing, why the hell did you give him interview space?).
-lord rambler
I've never even heard of
I've never even heard of this "forman" guy. I have heard of "miss ann thropy", I'm more or less just basing my rants on the fact that I really don't like JZ. They aren't serious counter arguments, just empty rants. You still haven't answered my question about greek anarchists, I don't mean to sound ignorant, but what's the big deal with them?
-Eyedea
I can't find the link at the
I can't find the link at the moment. Basicly the Greeks original democracy was a true democracy and the word An Archos meant no ruler, it did not mean no government. The greek words democracy and equality were interchangeable.
So- No One Ruler, everyone has a say as in how things go.
dave foreman, one of the
dave foreman, one of the founders of earth first, author of "confessions of an eco-warrior" who has made among the stupidest arguments i have ever heard an "anti-civ" (huh, yet pro-property?!) person make. i gave you sort of a response a minute ago about the greek anarchists, i am getting very tired here and its been a minute since i have read about them, wombat, were he wondering around, is a way better source but a little less social than i. sorry i cannot be more helpful but tommorow, if i have nothing any better to do, perhaps i will dig around for some of my copies of green anarchy. as you are in front of a computer the quickest method would be a search with the values i mentioned. sorry i cannot be more helpful at the present moment.
i also must mention again, since i have bitterly mentioned them so much, i am not calling to fetish these people, just saying they seem to have a better praxis than we do here in the states at present. as for JZ cut the guy a little slack...he is wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy overly acedemic and there really isn't much worth admiring about ted kysznki with all his "nature red in tooth and claw but more honest" baggage...but i believe zerzans point with all that is why should we be so sympathetic and cry so much over those who innovate our technological slavery getting a little surprise in the mail? its not my style but i have to say he does have somewhat of a point...BTW, you have actually read zerzan right? i am not saying you need to but you seem real critical of him and it wouldn't be very fitting to be so critical if you were just basing this off of what the synidcalists like to say about us anti-civers, which is usually nothing but bullshit slander, straw men arguments, bad faith arguments, and ad homenim attacks (seriously, i could do a whole parody piece on this, i could call it "the syndicalists greatest misses" and it would contain all our favorite toe tapping mega hits such as the non-sequitor smash: "you people want to kill everyone!") .
-lord rambler
Eyedea- Your life is going
Eyedea-
Your life is going to be a lot easier if you drop the liberal political correctness. The word primitive has been used negatively, the word savage has been used negatively, but they are all just words. The word "fuck" can be used negatively, again it is just a word. I could call you any word of my choosing and its the context in which I use it in that assigns a negative or positive meaning to it. As far as the "tribal" people's, that is an anthropological term used to say how many people are within a society, don't take offense to it, nomadic hunter-gatherers live in bands, horticulturalists live in tribes, some can use the tribal word in a negative context but that doesn't mean that it generally is.
As far as civilization, seriously, do as Rambler said, go read Green Anarchy. It sounds as if you haven't read any anti-civ thought and are just relying on the typical leftist criticisms of it. Derrick Jensen-an anti-civ author-has defined it in a way that fits and so I tend to use it the same. His definition is: Civilization is "a culture—that is, a complex of stories, institutions, and artifacts—that both leads to and emerges from the growth of cities (civilization, see civil: from civis, meaning citizen, from latin civitatis, meaning state or city), with cities being defined—so as to distinguish them from camps, villages, and so on—as people living more or less permanently in one place in densities high enough to require the routine importation of food and other necessities of life." Obviously anyone who is anti-civ is not using the definition that you provided for it but the definition that I provided in one way or another.
"Granted, there are some Indigenous societies on Earth that still live hunter gatherer lives, but they've lived like that without interruptions."
Define interruptions. Most of them are fighting to keep their way of life, having to fight off civilization in order to stay alive as this system takes their habitat away because it needs it for oil, or natural gas, or it needs the timber, or it needs the diamonds, or what have you, it needs to mine something else. I don't want to sound like an asshole here but please do some research on all of this before you make all of these assumptions about civilization. You are young, but you need to understand the thing that you are arguing for before you argue for it. Some of the San !Kung have had to give up their way of life for short periods of time because the government has forced them to, that means they had to leave the desert, and they did go back, they are actually the people that if you go back to their ancestors, they are believed to be the very first people on this earth, where this species started off, and this civilization is still threatening their way of life. It isn't capitalism that is doing so, it is civilization. I would also recommend that with your assumptions about past civilizations that you read as Rambler suggested Diamond's book, as well as Fredy Perlmans "Against His-Story, Against Leviathan" to become more informed.
We have a choice in this matter. We can either abandon civilization (which I know this sounds horrible, we could go back to a way of life without slavery, war, domination, hierarchy, government, capitalism, production, progress, work, inequality, competition, ecological destruction, class, racism, sexism, etc. Yes, I shutter at the thought of such a horrible society too!) or we can die. That is the choice we have. Civilization is going to go whether you like it or not, the others and I are just stating the obvious, it's whether you choose to live that way of life or not which is sustainable that will come afterwards which determines whether you will survive or die.