Anarchy Radio 06-19-2018 (2 parts)

  • Posted on: 19 June 2018
  • By: Anonymous (not verified)

Part 1:

More on suicide, depression, drugs. What is AR mostly trying to do? Drought vs. flooding. Venezuela. Anti-civ getting some notice at last. (Un-)health news. (Google) ad of the week. Some resistance news, discussion of The Brilliant, Anews podcast. 5(!) calls.

Part 2:

More on suicide, depression, drugs. What is AR mostly trying to do? Drought vs. flooding. Venezuela. Anti-civ getting some notice at last. (Un-)health news. (Google) ad of the week. Some resistance news, discussion of The Brilliant, Anews podcast. 5(!) calls.



Great show.2 parts. I hope this continues.

Swearing on @narchy Radio. Hee Hee. Naughty!! JZ, why oh why don't you also do a podcast and have guests on to discuss your work, perspectives etc? Not everybody reads books. Podcasts are very popular. Perhaps, people would read your work after hearing you and realise anti-civ and green anarchy isn't so crazy? The time is now. KT has own B&GR podcast. However, his 'confrontational' style doesn't help the ideas spread. He personalises the ideas way too much, you are more approachable. Anyway, please think about it.

was nice to hear jz actually engage with the last two callers (anarchy!).

am curious bellamy's response to (1) rio's critique of backwoods (and also the harm of permaculture) and (2) jz saying bellamy said he wishes he didn't write cc and that he (jz) shouldn't read it.


Im pretty sure Bellamy said he wished he had been a little less nasty in CC not that he wished he hadn't written it at all.

that was also my recollection from what he said on TB

That is precisely what I said, and anyone can verify it from the recording. I do regret being nasty in places because I think it lowers the quality of discourse by making it about egos instead of ideas; I do not in any way regret writing the book as a whole.

What JZ says following that is a misrepresentation of a personal e-mail exchange between us, in which I said (quoting the e-mail) I "feel almost distant" from *some* of what I said in the book, specifically, "I think I have been too focused on relentless critique and perfect philosophical hygiene and too quiet about ethics and positivity. I think my extreme aversion to reification and dualism has led me to neglect talking about intimacy with the living world and the fact that the human organism needs such intimacy for health, flourishing, and sanity. I am more open now to what you might call "spirituality" (though I personally won't use that word) - that is, the possibility of some kind of /anima mundi/ and its relation to something like "the Way" that the Taoists wrote about, although I am still very much sorting out just what I believe on that front."

There was nothing whatsoever in the e-mail exchange about wishing I hadn't written the book or saying that he shouldn't read it, nor was there anything to the effect of somehow taking back the criticisms. I think all of the critiques still stand *as critiques in themselves* of AP, even if they are no longer reflective of everything that I think at this moment.

I am sorry to see that JZ is, to put it generously, misinterpreting my words.

A couple of months ago Bellamy asked me for an interview for Backwoods and tendered, I thought, the idea
of further collaboration. I responded that I had just heard about Corrosive Consciousness and its very hostile
attack on Kevin Tucker and myself, wondering how such a connection with him might be feasible(!) In a lengthy
email back from himI very definitely got the impression that CC significantly no longer represented his thinking, that I should
ignore it. How else, I supposed, would, really, we be able to collaborate.
In terms of his recent The Brilliant conversation with Aragorn! what I heard, when his voice trailed off to a mumble, regarding CC,
was him saying he wished he hadn't written it. Which was what I took to be the substance of what he wrote to me earlier.
Possibly I misheard that and filled in with my earlier understanding.
In the interest of 'misinterpreting' I always think that striving for clarity is the best approach.

Hey John, since you're here, I have a question that's unrelated to whatever interpersonal bickering may currently be taking place between you, Bellamy, et. al (which I don't particularly care about) that I was hoping you could answer for me. In your essay, "The Catastrophe of Postmodernism," you asserted that thinkers such as Deleuze and Lacan posit "the death of the Subject." My question is really quite simple: does anarcho-primitivism even *have* a theory of the Subject that is uniquely it's own or does it just default to the Cartesian Cogito in the absence of being able to come up with a better idea? In the interests of this clarity that you say you're striving after, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on this matter.

...and misunderstanding one another. I'll follow the requests you've made on the air for clear and direct communication and call into the show next week, JZ!

Or we could all just have a frank and open discussion right here and now with you and JZ as the keynote speakers. You're both already here anyway. Why not sieze the opportunity?

The Postmodern Boogeyman

Internet comment arguments tend toward intellectual suicide (in which I admittedly just participated - relapse is a normal part of recovery, they tell me). Everything I have to say about AP is in the book, and I wrote it to put out a last word and remove myself from repetitive, ego-driven Internet feuding. My own perspective has changed in certain significant ways since then that will be obvious in Backwoods going forward.

Isn't that a question of how you choose to approach the debate? If, as you've previously suggested, you choose to remain within the realm of ideas rather than making things personal, then I see no reason why the internet, despite it's obvious drawbacks, isn't as good a place to have this debate as any other. You and JZ have both already expressed a willingness to flesh out your differences over this digital medium despite your perfectly understandable reticence to do so, so it isn't as though you'd be making compromises you haven't already made. Besides, the problem with trying carry on this sort of debate via books, periodicals, podcasts, radio shows, and the like is that, if you're on the reading/listening side rather than the writing/speaking side, it can start to seem like people are "talking at" you rather than *with* you. It just seems that the most outspoken voices of North American anarchism are a relatively small cadre of individuals within a fairly localized region of the Western United States who have managed to cultivate a certain level of "celebrity status" for themselves and, thus, have the resources at their fingertips to have their views heard by a wide audience. Those of us who do not reside in this region (or necessarily even in the same country) and who haven't managed to cultivate this celebrity status are pretty much relegated to the passive role of listening to what these high-profile individuals have to say and then ranting about it to anonymous third parties on the internet. This should be considered a problem regardless of how good some of the content coming from such projects as The Brilliant or Backwoods may be.

was right. everyteim

You're comments are thought-provoking. I need to go back through much of the PM stuff. I'm almost ready to give all the primitivism stuff up and just become a depressed mall Santa.

I hear you about spectator-making, and agree that it is a problem - that is why I have made such a practice of reading comments and e-mails on the air on my podcasts, in spite of having been mocked for doing so many times. Furthermore, it is why Backwoods has open submissions and will have an active Letters to the Editors section beginning with this next issue (Autumn '18) - so, the Internet is not, for me, the way to solve that issue. I am not absolutely against using the Internet (self-evidently), but I am trying to make my main projects less and less involved with it.

But the crux of the issue is that, for me, the debate is honestly over, as I wrote in the book. Not because I think I have "won" in some final way, but because I have said everything I have to say about it, at least for the foreseeable future, and I collected everything I had to say about it into 150-odd pages so that I could have some closure with it. There is no reason for me to retread that territory when my ideas are shifting in certain ways - I'm interested right now in putting out 'positive' theory (ethics, metaphysics - how did we get here, what is going on, what meaningful options remain, what can people really *do* that is liberatory?), not critique. As JZ said, I asked him if he wanted to participate in Backwoods through some positive collaboration (a discussion of technology) - that's where I am right now.

If there is something specific you want to hear from me that I am not understanding, you can e-mail me.

thanks for the details/clearing up things, both.

looking forward to hearing the conversation continue.

Hey, did Bellamy call the show as stated? No he didn't. How come?

Ria has written a letter to the editors of Backwoods on the subjects she discussed in the call, and we will be printing it and responding to it in issue two - Backwoods: A Journal of Anarchic Panpsychism.

I will say for now that I was surprised by her making it sound as though we uncritically endorse permaculture when the first issue contained two very harsh reviews of the major North American permaculture periodicals.

very interesting. hopefully ria will continue to expand on what she was getting at during the show.

buy Backwoods? Can I buy it from you directly? How much to send a copy to Britain if not available in the UK? Another good show on Anarchy Radio coming up; so much more interesting when interesting phone calls take place. Please keep JZ on his toes. He enjoys it too. Himalayan Balsam is a big widespread 'invasive' species in Britain but doesn't create as much damage as that other species....human.

Active Distro in the UK is now publishing a zine version of Backwoods - printed more cheaply but also only 1.50 Euros, I believe. The original version of Backwoods, printed by Enemy Combatant, is available from EC, LBC, or from the editors. E-mail me at if you need more information

Yes, you gotta be uncompromisingly harsh towards your competitors, so people can start picking up your books, instead. Good ol' capitalist tactic for self-promotion. Right.

converse. I really enjoyed all the calls: constructive informative dialogue. I now get SUDS parts 1&2 on communication. Elijah chipping too. I hope the final caller aka potty mouth calls in next week and continues the discussion about Langer's piece. JZ was buzzing there too, you could hear that in his tone. More of this please. As was stated; clear constructive critical dialogue is not enough as neither is sitting on a rock.

JZ's pictures are getting younger and younger.

We could have a Curious case of Benjamin Button. In the last ironic scene, Benjamin Zerzan in nappies is adopted by a billionaire transhumanist industrial mogul about to rocket to his megatech city on the surface of Mars.,.

What do you think about eating animal products?

JZ says: 'I'm still trying to improve my personal approach to that. I don't eat red meat at all, but I'm not exactly a vegan either, though I have a huge respect for that perspective. I guess also part of it for me is the historical thing. As homo species, we started cooking meat almost two million years ago, and I'm always wondering: “Do vegans think that humans were completely wrong or evil because they were eating meat?” It's one thing to attack the slavery of domesticated animals, of course, but I don't know if that will rule out any kind of hunting, for one thing. That's what we were doing for millions of years. They don't like to look at that as an historical question, I think. But I'm not an expert on this. I'm intrigued by the vegan point of view, I can at least say that, though I'm not a vegan. I think it's very good to go in that direction, away from animal products. We don't need that now, and maybe we won't need it in the future either. But I don't know.' From

Being vegan, if only for dietary reasons, is a move in the right direction. Much land and water will have the chance to recover. Humans need to think and discuss seriously human population too.

Philosopher and poet Al-Ma’arri first outlined veganism over a thousand years ago, and well-documented debates regarding the modern practice of veganism span across two centuries. The doctrine roots itself preeminently in ethical considerations, and despite attempts at defining it, veganism amounts to far more than a diet or health fad.
Critics of veganism often suggest that ethical consumption habits under capitalism are incapable of stopping exploitation. They argue as long as exploitation continues the personal choice of refusing to consume animal-derived products might be viewed as essentially fruitless.
The abstinence from animal consumption does not prevent animals from being slaughtered. Instead, it helps us recognize the problems associated with animal consumption, and how it’s completely unnecessary.
In isolation, our individual habits and beliefs do little to address the massive expenditures of capitalist industry. Democratism coerces us into believing individual resistance can help bring change, or somehow end capitalism. But corporate, commercial, industrial, agricultural, military and government consumption is never less than three times all other consumption combined. Capitalism must be held responsible for wrecking the planet, instead of the habits and beliefs of individuals.
One might say veganism means opposing every form of slavery and domestication. While reminding us that our animal friends are never granted job interviews, veganism must also emphasize and challenge the exploitation of humans.
Today, many of us have jobs because we believe we cannot survive without them. Justification for the consumption of animal-derived products is often predicated on a similar basis: we cannot survive and thrive without killing and consuming the flesh of our animal peers. But together, humanity produces more than enough wealth to live, eat, and drink abundantly without the exploitation of animals, or humans. Global industry produces more than enough food to go around, but under the capitalism nearly half of it becomes waste.
Scarcity and poverty are systemic. They exist as a key feature of capitalism because they must. Very few people today are in immediate existential danger if they fail to kill in a hunt. People would be in danger if the stores and restaurants suddenly closed. We rely on them for everything we need.
In attempting to escape nature, humans created civilization, and now the monopoly of violence once held by nature belongs to the State. We can link the rise of persistent hominin carnivory with the emergence of increasingly complex behavior and culture. The transition to meat consumption emerged parallel to things like: language, fire, technology, hunting parties, and eventually farming, housing, goods, mass society–perhaps even the first human socio-cultural groups. Based on studies of their artifacts and teeth, the diets of our relatives prior to the meat-eating Homo erectus seem based on fruits, greens, and nuts. Anthropologist and author Layla AbdelRahim suggests the tradition of hunting helped lead to the first alienation in human history, and to domestication afterwards.
Balanced plant-based diets taste delicious and prove beneficial to human health in countless ways. Scientists have demonstrated that plant-based nutrients are absorbed more efficiently by the human body, and in greater amounts. Plant-based diets benefit conditions ranging from cardiovascular to mental health, and they even help to counteract cancer. Many elite-level athletes and Olympians have moved to plant-based diets, especially on game day, yet plant-based diets are still frowned upon and viewed as malnourishing.
Scientists recognize that scaling down or eliminating the massive industries responsible for exploiting animals will be essential in the fight against human-caused climate change. Horticulture beyond our present sub-standard model of monocropping and animal husbandry has the potential to create ecological wonders. There are many sustainable, bio-intensive and plant-based food cultivation methods for most climates. These could be scaled to meet everyone’s needs.
Capitalism is busy trying to become more efficient in order to reduce costs and increase profits for a select few. At the risk of our only biosphere and home, we must stay aware of ongoing political recuperation; an exploitation-free future cannot be a capitalist one. Capitalism has always been a revolutionary system. It loves to incorporate new revolutionary trends. Any attempts to reduce veganism into a diet must always be understood with this in mind: capitalism wants to go vegan and green. The extant distortions of veganism which ignore the question of exploitation can only serve the interests of capital.
The industrial system responsible for domestication and exploitation appears unlikely to suddenly end, minus the appearance of some unforeseen circumstance. In most regions, the threats posed by man-made climate change seem a far greater danger to capitalism than revolution. Shouldn’t exploitation be contested on the ethical level, if nowhere else? The continued existence of capitalism does not excuse ongoing exploitation, suffering, and death. Attempts to alleviate these afflictions which dare to consider an escape trajectory from capitalism deserve our congratulations.

veganism first and foremost is a moral choice, a religious ideology.

an ideology of domesticated disconnection, that life and death are part of the SAME process.

plants also don’t want to be eaten. they’re also living, communicate and interact in far more complex relations than previously thought in the West. forests are aware of your prescence. also regarding plants and not wanting to be eaten: this is the reason for inflammatory responses in certain humans when it comes to white potato, black beans (5 raw kidney beans is all it takes to kill a human), nightshades like tomato.

a pro-inflammatory diet is what leads to heart disease, elevated cholesterol levels an attempt at corrective response.

diet is way more complexly tied to ongoing relations that make up the earth, than ideologically motivated choice.

for instance, forget the easy target of factory farms, and think about certain areas where there are no apex predators, or there are invasive species like wild boars. is it really wise to re-introduce mountain lions to help with deer over-population in new jersey?

what about aquatic bi-valves, that can be grown in aquatic gardens much like one plants a vegetable garden? what about raising your own chickens and eating the eggs.

there are two popular plant-based doctors in those popular documentaries that aren’t even certified in internal medicine.

one forgets just how much land is destroyed, soil eroded to produce industrial foods NOT for industrial animal consumption. there are foods like all of the industrial seed oils, which are heavy in omega-6 fats, leading to oxidative stress from inflammation.

those seed oils are found in 80% of american restaurant foods, and make up at least 40% of the calories most americans consume.

what about all of the domesticated fruits that are raised primarily for their increased sugar content? the body treats those sugars the same as processed sugar. (and let’s not forget how the soda industry paid off doctors to demonize saturated fat as the culprit of health problems).

then there’s the issue of plant protein, and b12. the heavy industrial practices to isolate and concentrate compounds, such as synthetic b12. over 84% of vegans are deficient in b12. it’s also much harder for a vegan to find bioavailable sources of A,K,D3,Magnesium among others.

and please don’t cite gorrilas. first off, they get their b12 from eating their own shit. vegans like to leave that part out, as well as in their digestive tract can handle way more short-chain triglycerides that humans. they also eat other creatures, as do a lot of herbivores on occasion. triglyceride levels, by the way, are a better indicator of heart health than ldl cholesterol (especially since most test panels aren’t going to look at packet size, or c-reactive protein).

we’re not vegan. we can’t be. there are microbiome, creatures living in us that contribute to our overall moods to a great extent.

what’s important for all life on this planet isn’t ideologically motivated human food choices (and people’s desire for an enforced lack of choice in them) is the overal health and balance of the SOIL. this earth, the living space all life forms share is alive, actively supporting and sustaining (and conditioning) all life forms.

the food pyramid is already MOSTLY vegan, mostly plant-based.

(and that bottom part of the pyramid is why there are 100 million US with type-2 diabetes).

Oh man I thought Emile was gone... he just keeps creeping in, through smaller text walls.

Just had one earlier so fuck it

Re-read: 'a step in the right direction.' you understand... a step NOT the step but a step. Maybe, just maybe, people considering WHO they are putting in their mouths, may lead on to what you have written. A step, that's what I've written. Like you, I would prefer greater change at a quicker pace. However, we are where we are. Like I said, even for dietary reasons only, a lot of positives will come! Congrats to you on a well-written post all the same. Layla needs to be way more upfront regarding being vegan in my opinion and put her name about on vegan spaces including her anti-civ perspective so that vegans get a bigger picture.

I posted this as Z because it's relevant and their essay, can't respond directly, but I'm sure they're around

also it wasn't online anymore

I really wish he would make time stamps for his show. it's so frustrating having to wade through all the boring bulk of his meanderings to listen to 30 seconds of him mentioning something actually interesting.

yeah & maybe he should just scrap the show entirely and just start a twitter feed instead!!

So apparently, scientists recently discovered that the latest generation of three-toed tree sloths in South America have been born with a genetic defect that causes them to shoot lasers from their eyes whenever they hear the sound of bulldozers encroaching on their habitat. In what we can only assume is related news, drinking Red Bull before the age of 18 will cause your dick to fly off and start whistling the Star Spangled Banner.

This message has been brought to you by John Zerzan and the good people at Anarchy Radio. All rights reserved, batteries not included.

For wildness and the glorious return to hunter-gatherer lifeways! Huzzah!

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Enter the code without spaces.