Consequences: The Inexorable Nature of Conflict

Consequences: The Inexorable Nature of Conflict

From The Anarchist Library by Flower Bomb

Since Julian Langer and I have passionately decided to air out our dirty laundry for the world to smell, might as well give a little background.

According to Julian’s bio on his page Eco-Revolt, Julian Langer is an “Eco-anarchist and guerilla ontologist philosopher. Lover of woods, deer, badgers and other wild beings. Musician and activist.” Julian has written many texts including “Becoming Animal: My Feral Individualism”, “My Anti-Cull Philosophy”, and “An Eco-Egoist Destruction of Species-Being and Speciesism”.

On October 22nd, 2021, Ria Del Montana, a vegan primitivist, asked Julian Langer this question in a private Facebook group called Vegan Primitivist Anarchist:

“Hey Julian Langer. Does your interpretation of anti-speciesism include veganism? Just wondering cuz it’s not mentioned in your strong anti-speciesism piece.”

Julian responds: “It depends on what you mean by include and also by exclude. First and foremost, for me, anti-speciesism isn’t an ideology or Cause, but a way of relating to other living beings/individuals, and with that I don’t have a destination for anyone to try and follow. Secondly, I take issue with the politics of include and exclude, particularly because of how they relate to the apparatus of capture/cages and so on (I wrote about this in Feral Life, where I also wrote the only really substantial thing I’ve written on food-politics as well) — inclusion-as-capture is comparable to how this culture includes farmed animals that serve a function within production and exclusion-as-capture is comparable to the prison system. I’m not interested in building a system that includes what I can capture to serve the needs of the system. That doesn’t mean that I reject vegans or have any issue with individuals embracing that diet. I don’t eat a vegan diet and usually describe my diet as conscientious-cannibalism. I didn’t include veganism within this piece mostly because I wasn’t seeking to advocate this-or-that food politics.

I hope that answers your questions!”

(At this point a few other vegan anti-civ anarchists, including myself, joined the discussion with questions of our own in response to Julian’s dietary “conscientious-cannibalism”. Did Julian really believe that a facebook group full of anti-civ vegans wouldn’t have questions and opinions on this perception of veganism as a mere diet?)

Afterwards...

Julian Langer: “I am not going to engage in this type of bad-faith public scolding bullshit. Neither of you [Flower Bomb and Ria Del Montana] know what I do as my daily practice, know what my diet does or does not consist of, and the arrogance that either of you think that you are an authority on-me and an authority in a position to put me under trial is revolting morally-superior bullshit. This is not a loving act Ria, especially given how multiple individuals have told me that you contacted them asking them to weigh in on this — which is nothing short of gang-tactic cowardice. I am sad/disappointed that individuals I considered to (digital) friends and contemporaries now seem like nothing of the sort! Utterly disappointing!”

Ria Del Montana responds: “Julian Langer I apologize for using sarcasm, comes off as cruel when I’m trying to keep it light with humor. My points are legit but my tone is just jokin. If the self-contradictory anti-speciesist/nonvegan essay wasn’t published, this convo could have been private. Would have commented directly where it was published, but there’s no comment option. When there’s an interesting discussion I invite a few others to it, without knowing their stance even, to enrich the discussion. You might ask your friends who contacted you to join with their honest opinion. Not sure if you’re aware of my history of publicly confronting anarchists who make ridiculous arguments against veganism... I’ve published rave reviews of your books, which remain true. Instead of focusing on how the difference is playing out, want to stick to the crux, the anti-speciesism/vegan dichotomy. Want to throw up any other support for your stance for discussion? I’ll discuss without humor, won’t personalize it. Just brace to be trounced, cuz ya gotta know there’s no winnable way to justify what you’re trying to justify. No amount of distracting personal dynamics will change that.”

Julian Langer responds to that with: “As I said, I’m not willing to engage in what you’ve done here. I am going to send you and (Flower Bomb) a private message later. I’d appreciate you turning off the comments here!”

At Julian's request, Ria Del Montana turned the comments off.

Immediately after this, and despite a flurry of Facebook posts made by Julian outside of the group — posts that presented an exaggerated, victimist portrayal of what happened including complaints and outcry about being harassed by “police” — I still private messaged him my sincere apology. My apologies stemmed from an understanding that online discussions can be complicated by how emotional expression fails to translate through digital mediums. I also recognized that not everyone responds to criticism well – especially when the criticism is coming from multiple people simultaneously. To be honest though, after having shared many friendly jokes and playful teasing over the years, I was a little surprised by Julian’s reaction to what was supposed to be fun-loving argumentation in a private Facebook group. It was not at all the first time we’ve all shared some form of disagreement and playfully debated each other. I was thoroughly unprepared for this to be any different. Nevertheless, I felt an apology was necessary.

The private messaging and apologies didn’t seem to be going anywhere as Julian continued to blur the line between being hurt by the way this debate happened (which I profusely apologized for), and using the emotionally charged situation itself as a criticism of veganism (and I also made it clear that my disagreement with his criticisms of veganism still stood). It became increasingly obvious that Julian was attempting to use his emotions as an escape from any and all dialog specific to his non-vegan lifestyle choices. So eventually I came to the conclusion that it was best to give Julian some space, and after letting him know that, he expressed appreciation for it.

I continued on with my life, confronting other outspoken anti-vegan anarchists, leftists, identity-politicians and the like, and traveling and publishing more zines. I decided to write and publish a few more texts of my own before taking an indefinite break from the internet all together. After having not been online for a while I began getting word from offline sources that Julian somehow mistook my “Egoist Vegan: Some Thoughts on an Individualist Animal Liberation” writing as a personal “jab”, and in a frenzy wrote a response and shared it all over the internet. Anyone who has read the text that fired him up might have been as confused as I was since my quoting Julian was done in good faith:

“'To affirm the individual is to destroy the species. I find myself experiencing bio/eco-centrism as ego-centrism. From this, I have found a union of egoists that includes all living beings, where anti-speciesism is a living encounter, not a dead-moralistic revolutionary Cause.' -Julian Langer from An Eco-Egoist Destruction of Species-Being and Speciesism

In the quote above, Langer beautifully summarizes individual as ungovernable by species, recognizing an anti-speciesist union with all other living beings.”

Somehow this was interpreted as an “indirect jab”. I have to wonder: why, out of all the vegan anarchists on the internet, I, Flower Bomb, am the one privileged with living rent-free in Julian Langer’s head? Does he believe that every text I write (and have written) on veganism is about him? Was this text a “jab” because it happened to be the only one that mentioned his name?

The actual intent of my text was to further expand my writing to include conceptualizing an egoist vegan lifestyle since I had previously written on veganism from both a nihilist and simple anti-authoritarian perspective. Julian’s assumption that I wrote this about him simply because I didn’t inform him of this writing is nothing less than a failure to understand that I don’t go online much, let alone make a habit of telling people every time I publish a text. And because the text was not about him in the first place, I didn’t feel a need to tell him. When Julian wrote a “A Direct Response to An Indirect Jab”, he sent it to every possible known associate of mine. Did I do that when I wrote “Egoist Vegan”? If I had not, then why wouldn’t he just assume the obvious: the text wasn’t about him.

Another thing I couldn’t understand is why Julian would think I was the type to take a jab at someone indirectly. As long as I have been vegan, I have directly confronted and challenged the proud-and-shoutin’ anti-vegan types on and offline. Anyone who knows me knows that my reputation for confrontation is unmistakable. If I wanted to take a jab at Julian in a piece of writing, I would have made it clear, as I have made clear my jabs at leftists, identity politicians, and so on. If it isn’t already clear for you Julian, here is my jab – and it is anything but indirect.

In my writing, “Egoist Vegan: Some Thoughts on an Individualist Animal Liberation”, I quoted Julian not only because I found the line beautifully articulated but also a friendly shout out – especially after having felt regretful of his perceived “trial by public”.

Nevertheless, here we all are today. And now that I have some free time in between train hopping adventures and tabling zines at anarchist events, I figure I won’t make Julian wait any longer. Since Julian has, in every way possible, sought my undivided attention, I am now available and more than happy to grant it to him — at least for the purpose of this response. I can’t guarantee that I will feel inclined to respond to any future responses of his as I feel this soap opera has gone on long enough. So all that I intend to say to him on this subject matter will be contained in this response as much as possible. But the question is: will Julian be happy with the attention I intend to give him? Since he wrote a piece directly addressing me, I feel it is only appropriate and fair that I reciprocate.

Julian, if you are reading this, I must ask… is your heart dancing in your throat? Is this the excitement you so desperately desired while attempting to get my attention? I apologize for making you wait so long for it. I am ready to play! Are your fingers trembling as you read these lines, desperate to respond already? I have only just begun! You have my full attention now, my beautiful friend, and I hope you have brought with you an hefty appetite for constructive criticism! From this point forward I will be responding to you, and your “Direct Response To An Indirect Jab” directly...

“'There is no one right way to live.' Daniel Quinn, Ishmael”

So this is the quote you, Julian Langer, chose to start off with in your piece “A Direct Response To An Indirect Jab”. It’s an interesting quote to choose for the beginning of a text related to discussing oppression, don’t you think? Since it serves to preface your view that supporting speciesism with your diet is just another “way to live”, I can’t help but wonder if you considered how that quote would sound at the beginning of a text that supported racism, or sexism, or was prefaced from the perspective of a rich oil tycoon or wall street millionaire.

Indeed, there is no one “right” way to live because how the concept of “right” is defined is subject to individual interpretation. So sure, by that logic there is no one right way to live because over a large enough group of people the concept of “right” will have varying and sometimes conflicting meanings depending on who you ask. But let’s be honest here, Julian. If you are as individualist, anti-authoritarian as you defiantly proclaim in your writing, I am certain there are “right” ways of living that even you oppose. Is it “right” for the badgers that you care so deeply for to be systematically killed? For many people, it is very right. There are various personal gains to enjoy from killing badgers. Why wouldn’t you simply sit back and allow these individuals to live their lives killing badgers without consequence? What is it exactly that compels you to challenge badger culling? Perhaps a personal relationship? A sense of bonding based on shared animality? And if so, I wonder if your feelings are similar to the feelings that vegans like myself experience when compelled to challenge your consumption of non-human animals. And here we come, full circle; “There is no one right way to live”.

In the beginning of “A Direct Response To An Indirect Jab” you announce wanting to be “open and honest”. My entire text could be summarized in a single question for you Julian Langer: How long will you allow yourself to be imprisoned within your cage of self-dishonesty? For a “conscientious cannibal” I bet you have never, once, dined upon a human animal. I wonder why that is. There wouldn’t happen to be an anthropocentric bias involved in that, would there? Or is it that, thanks to human supremacist ideological thinking, and a speciesist society, factory farms make it easy for you to cannibalize the bodies of other animals after you pay capitalism to slaughter and mutilate them for you? We’ll touch more on that later.

I admit, fully and openly, that I would cease all criticisms and challenges toward you Julian, as well as conversation or debate, if only you openly admitted to being an ideological contrarian – more specifically that is, living a lifestyle that contradicts the anti-authoritarian portrayal of yourself that you illuminate in your writing. And the only reason I care at all about ideological contrarianism in this case: animals. Anytime the killing of animals is involved – within the anarchist movement or outside of it – I am there to shake shit up, similar to your anti-badger cull activities, which, with you, I stand in total solidarity for. And I know you and your writing well. I was the one that published some of your first pieces of writing through my distro. What made your writing such a delicacy for closer examination and critiquing was the fact that on any given occasion, you portrayed veganism as a liberal politics based on moralism and consumer activity. If you knew me well, you would have known anarchists with this mentality are a particular favorite of mine for confronting and critiquing. It is sincerely a lifestyle enjoyment disrupting the sedating luxury that a human supremacist society grants the speciesist conformist. Please don’t feel bad. You are not the only one. Again, my reputation is unmistakable. I am also drawn to those who declare themselves anti-speciesists while proudly upholding lifestyles that put human supremacy into practice. To the surprise of myself (and a few others), you conform to this.

Veganism isn’t just about food. It’s about a relationship with animals that sabotages a speciesist network of globalized commerce paid to reduce animal lives to mere commodities for consumption. Put into perspective, this “policing” of your “writing, identity and/or lifestyle” that you find to be revolting “grotesquely liberal political narratives” is nothing less than an act of sabotage; by publicly (and privately) criticizing your defense of consuming other animals, I am creating tension and social discomfort. This is what I like to call “consequences”. What you, Julian, seem to have difficulty understanding is that your writing does not exist in a vacuum. Speaking for both of us, we have critics of our writing, we have haters – in addition to lovers and supporters. But to release writing without the expectation of any consequences is naive at best.

“Fauna-centred “Anti-Speciesism

I open my anti-speciesism essay with an affirmation of anti-speciesism that extends towards including flora and mineral individuals, as well as fauna. With this, I don’t consider animals as hierarchically greater than plants or minerals; nor do I consider them less. My biospheric-egalitarianism includes a rejection of the entirety of the concept of “the great chain of being”, which I experience as being at the core of speciesism.”

Julian Langer, are you being honest with yourself with this totalizing conflation of animals, plants, and minerals? For being a self-championed individualist this is probably the most homogenizing mindset I have seen you illustrate in writing. Your “biospheric-egalitarianism” reeks of a warped communist mysticism that ultimately says “I see no individual uniqueness! All things are equally the same!”. Egalitarianism is an anthropocentric doctrine that, when applied to living beings outside the realm of societal domestication, attempts to flatten differences in pursuit of a glorified illusion of “equality” and “unity”. I can’t help but wonder if this is the type of thinking you require to convince yourself that your dietary choices are trivial in this “grand scheme” of things. “Biospheric-egalitarianism” even from your own perspective is a contradiction in practice because you don’t extend equal rights and opportunities to non-human animals; you consume them the same way anyone else with a human supremacist mindset would.

The homogenizing application to all living beings is also a mentality that has functioned well as a tool of western colonization. In order to massacre Indigenous populations, colonizers had to assume a mentality that removed them from their emotions; a mentality that refuses to see living beings as complex and individually unique, each with a personality and independent desires. This same colonial mindset conditions one to view the whole of nature as merely a machine with moving parts. This way when the land is carved up, excavated or destroyed all together, it can be interpreted as modified machinery – not the dismantling of biological networks home to millions of complex living beings. Biospheric-egalitarianism echos the mechanized wholeness of a workplace. Again, if individual lives are viewed as mere parts, all unified for the full functioning of a machine, they are also viewed as easily disposable. The assembly lines of automobile factories mirror the assembly lines of cows and chickens in a slaughterhouse. And Julian, when you say “I don’t consider animals as hierarchically greater than plants or minerals” are you aware of the inherent dishonesty? It seems obvious that you don’t apply that same logic to the badgers you defend from being killed, am I wrong? Is the life of a badger the same as a plant and mineral? As an animal yourself, would you not reject someone’s comparison of you to a weed in their garden?

“Now, I don’t care if FB is or isn’t vegan – it honestly doesn’t matter to me.”

The extent to which I have become a source of stress, frustration, and writing material for you – simply for talking about veganism with you – says otherwise...

“I respect that it is fucking difficult to survive within this humiliating and annihilating death camp and only want to affirm individual will-to-life/will-to-power/will-to-survive.”

As mentioned before – veganism is more than just a diet. And are the animals you consume not individuals possessing a “will-to-life/will-to-power/will-to-survive.”?

The food aspect of veganism is secondary to the establishment of a relationship to animals which dismantles one’s perception of them as “food” in the first place. It sounds to me like your survival in this world renders you hopelessly subservient to human supremacy. And therefore it is anthropocentrism – not me or any other vegan – that informs, polices and governs your perception of non-human animals, and therefore your dietary intake of them.

“I also appreciate that most individuals who adopt the diet, politics, philosophy, etc., come from a will-to-care that is beautiful!”

Allow me to make myself abundantly clear to you Julian: my critique of self-proclaimed anti-authoritarian lifestyles that embody authoritarian domination and oppression toward non-human animals does in fact come from a “will-to-care” – both for the animals and for the people burdened by the weight of glaring hypocrisy. I care about the total liberation of all animals including you and myself, from social control and domination. But because it is on an individual level that the logic of control and domination can materialize, inspire manifestation in others, and create vast social networks of human domination, I challenge it where I see it.

"I do feel to state here that, to my eyes, there is nothing inherently anti-speciesist about being vegan and that, despite what is popular within the ideologies, veganism is a mode of speciesism. Yes, this might read as counter-intuitive, but I feel that this holds true. My reason for stating this is entirely due to veganism operating on the moral axiom that the life experience of animals is more important than that of plants and minerals, which means that abuse towards animals is worse than abuse towards flora and minerals. Monocultures of crops are less bad, and supporting that industry is less bad, than factory farmed meat and supporting that industry – apparently.

Considering veganism as a mode of speciesism; I utterly reject the notion that there is anything inherently anti-speciesist about 'egoist veganism', or FB’s praxis. Let me be clear here – I am not saying that FB is doing anything wrong or attempting to police their politics, diet or philosophy. I simply feel to respond to the jab of anti-speciesism = veganism."

Here, you and I are in total agreement! A vegan lifestyle that’s driven by, and supports, monoculture, industrial means of food production and ultimately capitalist, morality-based modes of affirmation is inherently speciesist. Allow me to turn my attention to my fellow non-radical vegans. Industrial society and capitalism are based on the colonial logic of social control and domination. This includes, but is not limited to, land occupation, deforestation and the displacement of Indigenous populations, as well as the subjugation and enslavement of Indigenous and non-human animal bodies. One can not thoroughly confront anti-speciesism without confronting civilization and colonization. A capitalist worldview that deploys monocultural methods of land usage is essential to an expanding colonial project of human supremacy.

Now, back to you, Julian. With all that said, veganism from an anarchist perspective is an act of anti-speciesism. Just as you identify as an anarchist and maintain anarchist ideas that challenge conventional societal norms, a vegan lifestyle challenges conventional societal norms – speciesism being one of them. Veganism, even under capitalism, is anti-speciesist by simply undermining the continuity of social participation. For example, if you went vegan today, and made it public to everyone you know, you and I both know there would be a public outcry. Now, is that because most people really believe veganism is a pointless, moral form of dietary policing? Or could it be because the comfort in people’s social conformity to consuming animals would be challenged? For example, as an individualist yourself you must be aware of the resentment many leftists have toward you and your writing. Why? Is it not because your individualist views create tension and social discomfort among them, perceiving your views as a threat to their worldview? Also, how is “difference” typically perceived by mass society, especially “differences” that challenge cultural or traditional norms in general? Is it not with hostility?

Socially, culturally, and traditionally consuming the flesh and secretions of slaughtered animals is normal. This normality is the foundation of speciesism – the perception of non-human animals as mere ‘food” items for consumption rather than complex living beings. This normalized de-personalizing and de-individualizing, along with the industry names given to their mutilated body parts (pork, ham, meat, dairy, etc), is what informs one’s perception of them as objectified food. So then it is no surprise that society at large possesses a perception of veganism as pertaining to diets.

The difference between identifying as an anarchist and identifying as a vegan is that in terms of veganism, identification can be quickly determined by a lifestyle change that challenges the norm. With identifying as an anarchist, anyone can be an anarchist so long as they proclaim to be one in name or label. And unless an anarchist actively engages with anti-social practices that challenge the norm – like being vegan for example – they remain limited by theoretical “politics” and philosophy.

"Vegan Species-Being

The next point I wish to make here pertains to the tragic aspect of FB’s failure to understand the matter of species-being – which I consider the foundation of speciesism. This failure is that where FB states within their Vegan Egoist piece that they reject the notion of species-being, while repeatedly stating that they identify as the species(/conceptual-collective-object-type) of vegan."

No Julian, it isn’t a failure to understand. Words only have meaning when meaning is applied to them. I could very well get through life without identifying as a “vegan”. My lifestyle and actions alone would express my hostility toward human supremacy. However, I also understand that the word “vegan” creates tension and discomfort in a world normalized by speciesism. Therefore my decision to use the word “vegan” is for the sake of weaponizing it against society — the same way I use “anarchist”, “nihilist”, or “individualist”. Don’t be dishonest with yourself, Julian, do you “fail” to “understand the matter of species-being” anytime you identify as the “species(/conceptual-collective-object-type)” of individualist or anarchist?...

“Not only do they seek to position themselves as the species-object of vegan (repeatedly), they position, within their rhetoric, vegans as a superior mode of species-being, above the non-vegans – or at least, that is how they read to me. This collectivist posturing, to me, in no way reflects anything of the individualism/egoism, which they also seek to posture through their writings.”

This is merely your (internally defensive) interpretation. I never said or implied that vegans are a “superior mode of species-being, above non-vegans”. I point out logical inconsistencies. I have no use for moralist judgments.

On its own, “killing” is amoralist or neutral. What gives it “good” or “bad” meaning, is dependent on who or whom is engaged with it. I’ve made it clear in other writing that my opposition to killing non-human animals isn’t based on the idea of “good” or “bad” but rather an innate, personal empathy that compels me to react. This reaction is without a speciesist lens, and without the superiority-complex of an anthropocentric mindset. My being vegan isn’t governed by a doctrine of pacifism; I am in no way committed to non-violence. Violence can be very useful depending on the situation, and I would kill a non-human animal, just as I would kill a human animal if necessary. Killing happens all the time in nature — — ask any non-vegan who’s evoked the ‘but lions’ argument before: they’re right, but not in a way that justifies what they or you, Julian, is trying to justify.

Besides, to make a moral judgment of non-vegans is far too trivial and distracts from my primary point of contention: anti-authoritarians (including individualists and nihilists) who assert their contempt for authority, while exercising authoritarian power dynamics over non-human animals. Individualists whose speciesism predetermines their view of non-human animals as not having individualities and therefore lacking emancipatory desires of their own. The nihilists who mock moralists while subjugated by anthropocentric morality themselves. But when any of these types openly admit their hypocrisy, there is nothing left for me to say (in terms of debate), and so I seek fun elsewhere.

“For the sake of clarity, I want to emphasise that I am not suggesting that an egoist-veganism is impossible or necessitates species-being; but there is a difference between an egoist-veganism and a vegan egoist – veganism being an activity, philosophy, politics, diet, etc., and vegan being an identity. Following this, FB destroys any belief I have in their praxis being individualist/egoist, through their rigid, dogmatic and unplayful vegan-species-being – which is actually fine by me, because I don’t care if they are vegan or not, or what their praxis is.”

Yeah, you keep saying that but I think you do. A whole lot. And predictably for much longer after you read this response. Just be honest. I, and my vegan egoism (or egoist veganism) continue to cause you discomfort. Enough to write about it, or respond anytime you see or hear my name. Don’t forget, the goal here is honesty.

So far all you have done is point out the obvious: moralist, pro-industrial, pro-capitalist veganism is anti-individualist/egoist. But you are not addressing a pro-capitalist, pro-industrial, moralist vegan. A quick read of my other writings on veganism (yes, believe it or not I have been writing about veganism long before I met you) would have informed you of that. And speaking of “rigid, dogmatic and unplayful”, why is your understanding of veganism so limited? Perhaps the “sameness” analogy you apply to nature was applied to veganism? Do you honestly believe that all vegans are in favor of monoculture? Do you think we all only eat soy, corn, and seaweed? Speaking of “collectivist posturing” you seem to maintain a very collectivist interpretation of things you know little about. For someone who speaks so defiantly against veganism, you appear to have a very limited understanding of it – especially when it comes to vegan, anti-civ anarchists – despite having been in a group called Vegan Primitivist Anarchist.

“(Those who know me well will know that I will generally identify as a badger, following my anti-cull activities, but this is an entirely playful embrace of species-being, done partly to mock the idea that knowing my label means anything of knowing me.)”

Nice try attempting to brush those glaring contradictions under a rug of “playful embrace”. You also “generally identify” as an anarchist and individualist too. Does that mean it too, is “an entirely playful embrace of species-being, done partly to mock the idea that knowing my label means anything of knowing me.” and perhaps you might not really be an anarchist or individualist at all? Oh! Your “anti-cull activities” – I meant to ask — is it morality that compels you to take a position against culling? Do you feel you are a “superior mode of species-being, above” those who aren’t anti-cull?

“Individualism

I know that when I use the term “individualism” I am not using it in the way generally used within any discourse – and I don’t care. My individualism is mine and I do not expect anyone else to conform to my individualism, as they are not the individuals I am. With regards to the individuals that other individuals are, my desire is to affirm the lives of other individuals and to care as best I can.”

Aside from the redundancy of your individualism being yours, do you honestly desire to affirm the lives of other individuals and care as best you can for them? My issue isn’t with you simply not being vegan. There are millions of people who conform to a non-vegan lifestyle. My issue is with the hypocrisies found in your declaration of one thing, which is then contradicted by you doing another. You wrote an entire text critical of speciesism – yet you affirm speciesism in your daily life and dietary choices. Considering you and I are living in a human supremacist world – a world where the mutilated body parts of tortured animals are sold at every grocery store – how is your “individualism” anything less than re-branded social conformity/speciesism?*

Human supremacy not only maintains social conformity through individual acts of speciesism, but is also anti-individual. Human supremacy requires the assimilation of individuals into its vision of the world in order to reproduce itself on a mass scale. Human supremacy, carried out through individualized speciesist lifestyles, upholds the belief that non-human animals are devoid of individual emotions and desires. Therefore, through a speciesist lens, animals are all just a collection of “beings” available as resources for exploitation and consumption. Even a basic, non-radicalized vegan lifestyle negates this authoritarian, mechanistic view of animals by acknowledging the individualities of non human animals, and respecting each individual’s desire to live.

“Seeking to police, condemn or repress an individual living being, due to how they differ from an ideological norm, to me, is not individualism and is more a mode of anti-individualism, due to its hostility towards the individual living being.”

Perfect summary of speciesism Julian! Here, let’s put it into perspective...

(Speciesism) seeking to police, condemn or repress an (animal) individual living being, due to how they differ from a (human supremacist) ideological norm, to me, is not individualism and is more a mode of anti-individualism, due to its hostility towards the (animal) individual living being.

“As I don’t see living individuals as anything other than being worthy of care, with each praxis of care being unique for each differentiated individual, my rebellious desire and the focus of my critique/challenge/resistance/de-struction/de-construction is not where I encounter life. No! I wish-to, seek-to and attempt-to – as best I can and in an entirely imperfect, polluted, absurdist and somewhat desperate way – rebel against what Perlman called “artificial worms”, Agamben called “anthropological machines”, what Quinn called “totalitarian agriculture”, what some call the “technosphere”/”anthropocene”, and what could easily be described as this-culture/this-Reality, which is now (basically) totalising across this planet – and I desperately want it to de-totalise itself faster, through its techno-auto-cannibalism (as in, the mode of accelerationism Camatte suggests in his theories). In many ways, this approach to luddite/anti-tech-rebellion is entirely the opposite of the praxis embodied by the Unabomber/Kaczynski and those he inspired, which is and was entirely anti-individualist, in that it involved physical-abusive-hostility, through technologically mediating apparatus, towards individual living beings.”

Do I detect a moral condemnation of the Unabomber coming from the glorified anti-moralist, Julian Langer? And while I don’t care to waste time praising “Uncle Ted”, the core of his praxis was lone-wolf styled attack. How is that anti-individualist praxis? He didn’t wait for any leftist project or organized masses. He took it upon himself and carried out his attacks in solitude. Lone-wolf attack was the strategic core of individualist anarchy dating back to the early 1900s where French and Italian individualists celebrated their anti-morality by bombing public places like Wall Street. They rejected all leftist ideals of an organized mass movement and instead carried out individualized clandestine attacks that made it difficult for the State to trace.

Coincidentally, many of these individualists (Georges Butaud, Louis Rimbault, The Bonnet Gang, etc) were also vegan and vegetarian.

Anyways, if you “don’t see living individuals as anything other than being worthy of care”, why has a praxis that attempts to maximize the care, individual potential, and freedom of non-human animals become a target of your critique? Is a relationship that rejects the commodity status of non-human animals not considered a form of care to you? Is it not a form of care to dismantle the worldview that non-human animals are all just objects for human benefit? And do you really mean to tell me, Julian, that this extraordinary declaration — “No! I wish-to, seek-to and attempt-to – as best I can and in an entirely imperfect, polluted, absurdist and somewhat desperate way – rebel against…” does not, and will not include a relationship to non-human animals that liberates them from their anthropocentric commodity status as “food”? Am I to understand that your seek-to and attempt-to – as best you can rebellion will never include basic respect for the bodily autonomy and life of those fellow animals killed for your consumption?

“If I were to offer here a linguistic object-form to this individualism, in the same way that FB objectifies their praxis as Vegan Egoism, I would do so somewhat carefully (and reluctantly). Rather than anti-tech-individualism, or luddite-individualism, where the individualism is captured by a mode of ideology; the way that I would linguistically enframe this would be individualist-anti-tech praxis, as the rebellion against artificial worms/anthropological machines/totalitarian agriculture/the technosphere/the anthropocene/Leviathan/civilisation/Moloch/this culture/this Reality (whatever the fuck you want to call it) extends from my individual experience, desire, life, being, will, presence and, ultimately, is, for me, a praxis of care – care being an expression of positive affirmation.”

The irony here of course is that your “care” as an expression of “positive affirmation” is arguably not so positive – or careful – with those slaughtered in factory farm prisons in order to accommodate your purchases at a nearby store. The hypocrisy (and dishonesty) present in this paragraph is the part where you claim to divorce yourself from ideology, and posit a “rebellion” against the “artificial worms/anthropological machines/totalitarian agriculture/the technosphere/the anthropocene/Leviathan/civilisation/Moloch/this culture/this Reality (whatever the fuck you want to call it)” — all the while being possessed by the ideology of human supremacy which embodies all the things you are against. It is here, yet again, I see anarchy in writing, contradicted by a lifestyle that in essence materializes all the things you claim to exist against. Whether you call it “vegan” or nothing at all, if your material actions in life actively, directly, financially support animal agriculture, and your actions as you exist, uphold the commodity status of non-human animals with your dietary intake, what value is there in merely speaking of rebellion if rebellion is confined to mere words and philosophy?

“Concluding/Ending This

'The obscure streets of life do not offer the conveniences of the central thoroughfares: no electric light, no gas, not even a kerosene lamp-bracket. There are no pavements: the traveller has to fumble his way in the dark.' Shestov

'Everything takes on a tinge of fantastical absurdity. One believes and disbelieves everything.' Shestov

I have sought to be direct here and, equally, I am aware that I have not written this as a message, email or letter (even a published open-letter) to FB, but as a response piece, which is directly in response to what I see as a largely passive aggressive jab at me. While I have differentiated and (maybe) challenged here, I want to make it clear that I am not suggesting that FB is “bad”, or “wrong”, or needs to change anything of their ideology/praxis. If I had never found the piece that fuelled my fires to write this, I almost certainly would never have written anything like this about them, as I largely no longer care about their writings.”

Despite your clarification, you are again, being dishonest. You absolutely are suggesting I am “bad” because what fueled your fire was your perception of my writing as a “largely passive aggressive jab”, as well as my criticisms viewed as “policing”. And rather than reaching out to me directly to first clarify if, in fact I jabbed you with my piece of writing, you wrote out a whole ass response and then frantically shared it all over the internet.

As for you “largely” no longer caring about my writing, well, we will see if I can change that once you are finished reading this one. But even that’s not true. Your continued obsession with me can be observed even today in your latest “Revolting” text. As I mentioned before, it is clear that as of September 2023, I am still living rent-free in your head.

“Following life experiences, like being a brain tumour patient and others, I am intensely oriented towards my self-care, self-preservation and well-being, in all sense. So I do not take jabs without either defending myself of hitting back. This is me, carefully (and with more respect than I have been shown), hitting back.”

As I have said before privately, I do sincerely apologize for the experience you had, and continue to encounter with having a brain tumor. However I am unsure as to how this makes your writing immune to criticism. And speaking of care and well-being, are the animals you openly support consuming less deserving of care and well-being? Even further, why not just be honest and admit that your “hitting back” was a response to me challenging what appeared to me as ideological inconsistencies in your writing? My criticisms were never intended to attack you personally, Julian — only the ideological inconsistencies that I found present in your writing. As writers, are we both not accustomed to critical analysis, especially constructive criticism when it comes to our writing? Criticism opens the door for intellectual expansion and understanding, does it not? I wasn’t born vegan. I shared views similar to your own against veganism once upon a time. It was only through experiencing criticism (and of course my own willingness to receive it) that I was able to acknowledge my own inconsistencies. The same way that I, a queer, anarchist of color raised in poverty, understood racism, homophobia, and classism from first-hand experiences, understanding the consumption of animals as a speciesist tool of discriminatory oppression, I came to realize that a vegan lifestyle was consistent with a lifestyle of anarchist negation.

“To speak directly to FB here; I feel very much, in most areas of my experience “in the dark”, as in unsure, uncertain, not-knowing, etc., and don’t pertain to much further than this. I believe in a great deal – will-to-life, wild-Beings, myself, etc., – and don’t believe in a great deal to. And while I know that I have stated this privately in our messages following the “trial by public” that you orchestrated with RDM, given that you have publicly sought to side-jab me in your Vegan Egoism piece; I want to state here publicly and directly that I don’t believe you – I don’t believe what you write about yourself. I am not suggesting that anyone else needs to not believe you – I am just stating that I don’t. I live an ocean and more away from you, as you do from me. So we cannot sincerely claim to have any authentic or direct experience of each other. But my experience of you, through these digital exchanges that we have had, has left me in a state of disbelief, which I don’t see changing.”

Julian, if you truly feel “very much, in most areas of my experience “in the dark”, as in unsure, uncertain, not-knowing, etc.,” why would you have jumped to the conclusions that you did without direct clarification? You wrote a ‘direct’ response to something that you never directly asked me about. I apologized to you directly, privately, and attempted to correct your misperception of the conversations between you, myself, and RDM. I made it clear that this was not a “trial by public” and was sorry that you perceived it that way. This was a debate in a private facebook group called Vegan Primitivist Anarchist. Since it is a group for vegans, why did it surprise you that we were discussing veganism (or the lack of) in your piece about speciesism? Nobody imagined you would have reacted so strongly to having a debate – something you and I and others have done between each other many times before.

*“I am going to end this by sharing a personal desire here, which is non-specific to this situation. Through these digital means of communicating I don’t really, authentically, directly, get to be-with individuals, in a way where I can have personally-embodied-knowing of the individual. This does not negate my desire to, as best I can, respect and care for the individuals, who are the living beings at the other end of these artificial worms we communicate through.”

*
In response to this, I will say that I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiment. I reiterate again, that my criticisms were never intended as attacks on your personal character, Julian. My regret in all of this is the assumption that everyone responds to criticism similarly, especially over digital mediums, and especially within the topic of veganism. My apologies were sincere, whether you believe them or not. I am not in the habit of apologizing if I don’t really mean it, and I am not in the habit of denying responsibility or accountability for my actions. This entire conversation would have probably been better over a zoom chat, and more ideally face to face.

The Eternal Flux of Conflict and Consequences

This debate/argument/conflict between us, while unique to us as individually unique people, is not uncommon. Over the years I have come to accept the consequences of my vocal negation in a world that demands my silence. Everything from petty internet debates to offline physical confrontations – the experiences are vast and fluid with my existence. And these consequences will only continue as long as I continue to create tension and discomfort through anarchy. I carry with me a dagger with the expectation that those who despise me will also carry daggers. The politics of safety are as bankrupt and naive as the leftist dream of a revolt capable of over-throwing industrial society. I am not possessed by any delusions of veganism overthrowing industrial society. Aside from my respect for animals, I am vegan because it disrupts normalized processes integral to the full-functioning of industrial society. A vegan lifestyle is one of many daggers that I aim at society, creating the desired effect of chaos where there is social comfort and order.

Your reactions to my criticisms – and predictably this text – satisfy my understanding that on an individual level, and with enough determination, one can really shake shit up. You are by far not the only one I have fired up. Remember, rather than surrendering to a witch hunt of groups who called me and my project out for supporting “Julian Langer the eco-fascist”, it was I who encouraged you to write “An Eco-Pessimist Revolt Against Fascism” which I excitedly published as a laugh in their faces. As long as you and I continue to write, we will be loved and hated. Similar to the amount of laughter you incite within me with your desperate attempts to sound edgy, inventing concepts in order to portray yourself as more than just another domesticated human working a job and living in a house, I will continue to cause a small fire in your head.

Upon the mine-field of our ideological clashing, we find ourselves united through conflict like the matrimony of wild reactions, the cosmos of chaos. And since you have publicly stated your position, allow me to formally state mine:

Your interpretation of my criticism as “policing” is only a product of the discomfort I have created deep within you – like a silent alarm alerting you of a breach of security at the base of your castle – a castle of self-dishonesty built with bricks of hypocrisy.

As a nihilist, I invite you deeper into nihilism by acknowledging the morality that comforts your sense of entitlement to the bodies of non-human animals – a speciesist entitlement, since it is safe to assume that a systemic slaughter of humans for consumption would repulse you (judging by your outrage toward the Unabomber), the same way that I assume you are repulsed by the subjugation and slaughter of Indigenous populations around the world, and even more closer to home, the repulsion you feel in response to the badger cull that you actively speak out against. It is only through a speciesist lens that you see no reason to be repulsed by the slaughter of cows, chicken, fish, etc.,- or enough to declare personal non-participation in socially upholding their commodity status as “food”.

Your speciesism acts similar to a Cordyceps fungus, governing your every action with its own vision and objectives. Speciesism formulates in your mind an interpretation of criticism as an infringement upon a “right” to consume the flesh and secretions of animals – a “right” morally granted by the privilege of being human in a civilization maintained by human supremacy. If this speciesism is still unclear to you, adjust your lens; would you not laugh at a white supremacist who, after being criticized for their racism, accuses you of “policing” their views? Would you consider yourself “the police” for challenging the mindset of a patriarch or misogynist? Would you back down and stop speaking out against badger culling if people starting calling you a cop for openly opposing it? You have made a few public outcries that I am “policing” your “writing, identity and/or lifestyle”. All because I have merely pointed out hypocrisies in your line of reasoning? And for critically responding to your criticisms of veganism?

I invite you, Julian Langer, into becoming-a-more-consistent being with your individualist animalism by dismantling the “all are the same, therefore all are consumable” human supremacist mantra. The same way that you beautifully – (no, this is not a jab) — illuminate your views and the complexity of your personality through your writing, illuminating a relationship to animals which dismantles their status as “food” could only expand your anti-authoritarian potential. I invite you, Julian Langer, into a more-honest-with-yourself being rather than drawing justification from make-believe fantasies of the carnivorous, conscientious cannibal that you imagine yourself to be.

I wonder why you chose “conscientious cannibal”. I assume the simple answer would be as a self-considered animal, you are cannibalistic toward other animals. But if so, humans are animals. I bet you haven’t tried even a single “human”. As a matter of fact, as a cannibal, your dietary range is pretty limited — conveniently limited to the same three or four animals already designated as “food”. And what a coincidence. Humans consider them food too. So then, are the majority of “human” animals also “cannibalistic”? And conscientiously so, since the majority of them chose not to be vegan or vegetarian? If my speculation here is correct, it would appear that all you have really done is re-branded a typical, speciesist diet with something that sounds edgy. Julian Langer, the Conscientious Cannibal – who stalks his prey from aisle to aisle with a grocery list in one hand, capitalist currency in the other. In this fantasy, a grocery store is a jungle. And I admit, reality does sound more exciting when portrayed this way!

Whether it’s Julian’s “conscientious cannibalism” or the more common “carnivore” or “omnivore” claim made by many anti-vegan green anarchists, it amazes me to hear them speak of these things while knowing that if they even tried to eat raw flesh from the bone, down to the bone with nothing left but the bones they would gag and vomit all over themselves. Thanks to capitalism and years of desperate modification – and the use of factory farms, under-paid workers who are tasked with killing the animals for them, fire, and a wide-range of seasonings and sauces to deny the honest taste of flesh, and utensils — now flesh and secretions can be comfortably consumed without activating a gag-reflex.

All the while, somewhere in Africa a lion rips apart a zebra with its teeth and claws, swallowing blood, fat, and tissue raw.

But at the end of the day, and at the end of this response, who am I to tell you who and what you are, to point out hypocrisies or criticize your writing? As I mentioned earlier in this response, it is the individual who, on an individual level, ultimately makes decisions based on the information available to them. And just as well, you could choose not to be honest with yourself, and refuse to acknowledge your hypocrisies. You do, in fact, have the power, as an individual, to maintain your view of yourself as a bonafide individualist, animalist, cannibalistic carnivore who refuses to conform to veganism — or any remote idea I may have about who you are. You could rebel, Julian. Rebel against me, Flower Bomb, the “vegan police”! Against the “morally-superior bullshit!”...

As long as you remember that our worlds, actions, or writing don’t exist in a vacuum. When I walk outside and take a deep breath I smell trees, leaves, flowers, car exhaust, factory pollution, and distant gun powder. Conflict is everywhere, Julian. As you often enjoy pointing out yourself, everything is connected. And therefore everything that moves, breathes, or speaks — experiences conflict, becomes conflict. It influences and shapes our understanding of the world, and exists all around us permeating our “safe spaces”. I am confident that I am not, and will not be, the only consequence, conflict, or individual that critically confronts your anti-speciesist, non-vegan praxis.


There are 96 Comments

The fact that someone spent their precious little time to sit down and chronicle this pseudo intellectual online drama may yet make me into a believer that the internet and 'technological society' at large was indeed a mistake.

yes we're sure you have some uber-important IRL mutual aid meeting to get back to so don't let us keep you, baii

but come on now ... they're right. this is incredibly cringe, no?

moreso for julian but still!

It depends on what you mean by cringe and also by stretch. First and foremost, for me, cringing isn’t an ideology or Cause, but a way of relating to other postures/body positions, and with that I don’t have a pose for anyone to try and strike. Secondly, I take issue with the politics of crings and stretch, particularly because of how they relate to the apparatus of limbs/torsos and so on (I wrote about this in Cannibal Yoga, where I also wrote the only really substantial thing I’ve written on exercise-science as well) — inclusion-as-torsos is comparable to how this culture includes athleisure retailers that serve a function within exercise and stretch-as-torsos is comparable to the solar system. I’m not interested in building a brand that includes what I can market to serve the needs of the Planet Individuals. That doesn’t mean that I reject exercise or have any issue with individuals embracing athleisure. I don’t exercise and usually describe my regimen as fish-and-chip-individualism. I didn’t include exercise within this reply mostly because I wasn’t seeking to advocate this-or-that body postures.

I hope that answers your questions!

-Badger Lord

now *this* is the grade-A content i come to anews for <3

Y'all anti-civs need to spend less time on the Facebook (and the internet in general)... consider traveling to settle your differences through good old fashioned fist fights instead of these silly public writing bicker fests.

JL is an buffoon. Nobody should have to endure his brainworms a second longer. Do not encourage him to write more words.

you're literally posting this comment on an online forum lmao go outside and touch grass

What part of me being a nihilist don't you, "literally," understand, grasscuck?

hi, peter griffin here to explain the joke! you see, grass is an inherently-civilized and false representation of nature; however because grass is the 'nature' that 'the kidz these dayz' know they often use 'touch grass' to describe a yearning desire to reconnect with nature, which is a funny retort when someone who thinks of themselves as superior to the terminally online uses the internet to bitch to the terminally online about their terminal online-ness. wasn't trying to question your nihilism, bro! lighten up, dude! the future is an adventure!

Peter, Did you miss the part where one nihilist was telling two anti-civs to maybe spend less time online? Are you conflating a nihilist or a maggot with an anti-civ? If you are not one of the two anti-civs are you not embarrassed for butting in, Peter? Dumbness is an awfully big adventure!

lmao 'nihilist maggot' you're still spending your time online finger-wagging at 'anti-civs' to 'spend less time online' and it's quite hilarious

Peter, you're right. I went outside. I touched grass. I'm done arguing on the internet. Thank you.

Impersonation is the greatest form of seething ressentiment. We nihilist maggots love it when others impersonate us after failing in their incoherent rants.

Don't hate us for our large hands and our even bigger brains.

i just want julian or flower bomb to notice me :-( i'd even settle for ria. i'm sorry i tried to impersonate you, 'nihilist maggot' i'm just seething with ressentiment because my mum makes me walk all the way upstairs to microwave my own tendies. she's such a bitch!

Society!
.
.
.
.
.
(That's what our BDSM club called your mom)

"Nevertheless, here we all are today. And now that I have some free time in between train hopping adventures and tabling zines at anarchist events, I figure I won’t make Julian wait any longer. Since Julian has, in every way possible, sought my undivided attention, I am now available and more than happy to grant it to him — at least for the purpose of this response. ***I can’t guarantee that I will feel inclined to respond to any future responses of his as I feel this soap opera has gone on long enough. So all that I intend to say to him on this subject matter will be contained in this response as much as possible."***

On behalf of the Mineral Individuals I hereby declare Flower Bomb the victor of this extremely unnecessary argument.

-Mineral King, First of His Name

jeez louise, here's a tempest in a teapot. julian gets asked directly if he's vegan. he responds that it's basically nobody's business. the vegans get butt hurt (as usual -- cue eye roll) and decide to dog pile denounce julian. julian gets butt hurt and makes a public break with the vegans, teasing them and calling them names the way they teased him and called him names. does anyone actually give a shit about this nonsense? it's such a tiny corner of inter-anarchist conflict; most anarchists are not vegans or primitivists (which is probably too bad, but that's a discussion for another time), so most inter-anarchist conflict is about organization and tactics. vegans wouldn't be happy about the contents of my refrigerator, mostly because my partner is an omnivore and i'm a vegetarian who eats dairy and honey. but here's where vegans excel at turning their ideology (yes, it's an ideology) into a moral imperative; they behave as if the foundational principles of anti-speciesism are applicable to all anarchists and any anarchist who falls short of embracing it cannot be considered an authentic anti-authoritarian. but this is the same line of thought/denunciation as when anti-anarchists make judgments about the hypocrisy of anarchists who pay taxes or use roads or tool around on the internet. it's an imposition of someone's personal morality on others. ideological vegans (absolutists?) cannot see that they are doing the same thing as anti-anarchists do. whatever my personal practice is concerning not harming non-human animals, it'll never be sufficiently not harming for vegans, and they will always be happy to let me know how much they disapprove. but i'm not an anarchist so that i can make vegan anarchists happy with me; i'm an anarchist so that i can make authoritarians uncomfortable, and if i perceive that vegan anarchists are drifting into authoritarian moralism, i'll say so.
vegans, you do you. if you must, rebuke your friends who aren't vegans (if you can manage to maintain friendships with non-vegans, since we are all monsters), but try to remember that there's a lot of deconditioning required to abandon the anthrosupremacist omnivore diet.

21:02
vegans are not monolithic

news at 11

21:18, i know vegans are not a monolith. i was responding directly and specifically to the vegans on the fedbook page "vegan anarchist primitivism." don't be so defensive if people aren't talking about you.

It’s almost amusing being reminded over and over again how similar the ideology of veganism is with religious fanaticism.

You can't be an anarchist, though, without being at least somewhat "woke" - e.g. it takes *authority*, and all the *violence* it entails, to do something like "ban" consensually accessible transgender medicine, and thus you must not stand for its banning, either. Heck, simply being anti-violence or just small-l libertarian even without full-on anarchistic commitment inherently involves some of that. No matter how it makes you feel, you have to accept some people will do things with their bodies you don't like.

Julian is probably already typing out a response. Sweating all over the keypad in a panic.

Julian is out shirtless running through the woods savagely murdering badgers with his bare hands and perfect teeth all to 'own' the vegans and prove to Flower Bomb one and for all that he's a true ego-feral anti-moralist cannibal antispeciesist-being.

it's disgusting what the tiqqunists have done to these anti-civ facebook pages

Hey brah, the corporatists do far more damage to anti-civ, just remember that the left/right State is a civilization dependent institution, not complicated even from the humanist 101 idea that hotshowers and longevity are a human right. So expect more disgusting behavior mmmkay.

I mean, I have seen way less amusing online bickering in anarchy world so I say keep it on up you two. Reminds me of the simpler times...is that fascism? I don't know.

"Lone-wolf attack was the strategic core of individualist anarchy dating back to the early 1900s where French and Italian individualists celebrated their anti-morality by bombing public places*

With a mass-shooting event every month of so, driven by hate, that's a pretty senseless and stupid statement in the context of today's Muhrikah, dude. But also before this became a thing, before Ted, you had attacks on public places carried by fascists, like the infamous Bologna train station bombing. And add to that all the jihadist terrorist attacks.

Anarcho insurgents used to attack POWER, not random people (or ethnic, racial or religious communities), and some still DO... only with less direct violence.

Get that ITS brain rot outta your head.

Remember who you're arguing with here. These are not smart people.

"Anarcho insurgents used to attack POWER, not random people (or ethnic, racial or religious communities), and some still DO... only with less direct violence."

ALL human are POWER and do violence to Wild Nature!
ALL human are for attack in defense of Wild Nature!

ITS 5GFIREPUNCH
Wild Insurgent Wolf Shaman Cell

We Mineral Individuals, in united cannibalistic-agreement with our Flora Individual brethren, approve of this message.

For Wild Nature,
-Mineral King, First of His Name

We accept thou as collaborators in Our realm only on the condition that thou shalt thou pay the quarterly stipends and not be an arse hole to our internet gentry and plebeians.

Eat from us daily for maintaining good health. Green is LIFE!

- Vegetable Emperor

You say this as if anarchist (or A-djacent) attacks would be motivated by anything other than hate. Hate is a fantastic motivator toward retaliatory violence. Would be pretty stupid not to embrace such an effective and abundant emotion. We ain't jedi, b.

The idea of "random attack" is also a largely fake one. There's rarely any kind of attack that's not targeted. Whether you agree that the targets SHOULD have been targeted, whether the choice to target them makes sense to you, or whether you think they are "valid" is of no consequence to them being targeted. The idea that Kaczynski was "random" in any sense is easily disproven by the massive fucking tomes of writing he very famously published and kept publishing until fairly recently explaining exactly how and why he selected the targets he selected and what he hoped to get out of doing precisely that. There was no spinning dart board here.

so you just ...credulously accept people's given reasons for relatively extreme behaviour? no matter how incoherent?

there's a fiery, disembodied face of a hyperdimensional being telling me to tell you to smash your computer and run screaming in to the night, RIGHT NOW. what say? it's not random. seems legit to me! think you better do what they say!

come on lumpy. actively misreading now? that post was about randomness, not validity.

you don't find the relationship between those two concepts interesting?

incoherent selection process is a bug, no?

i was probably just wishing you'd spell out the steps between what you were responding to and your response. we're not in eacho thers heads and going through the steps is helpful to both writer and reader.

thanks for coming to my ted talk.

It's certainly one approach to a situation to have someone tell you why they did something and respond with "no, you actually had no reason whatsoever and what you did exists in a contextual vacuum." It's pretty beneficial to the state to have that kind of mindset - after all, Al-Qaeda hates us because of our freedom and will attack our grade schools and public pools and nana's 87th birthday party. No, don't pay any attention to what Al-Qaeda saying about why they are doing things and who they are doing them to and what goal they have in doing those things no no no they dont mean it the reality is OUR FREEDOMS. Pay no attention to the direct and thorough explanation behind the curtain.

Again, whether you agree with the rationale behind the action or grok the motivations or any of that doesn't matter. The existence of a rationale at all dispels randomness. Someone saying "I am going to shoot all the people at the mall because I am mad at capitalism" isn't doing a random attack. They're doing a targeted attack where the targets are chosen by presence at a location. If someone said "I'm going to bomb a synagogue because I hate Buddhists" they're still doing a targeted attack, they are just very stupid and not great at picking targets. It doesn't make it random. It just makes it sloppy.

The inclusion of a floating head doesn't really impact any of this in any way, especially if that floating head is giving specific instruction toward acting against specific targets. I would have room to think you were a crazy dick, but I don't think I'd have much room to be like "well it could have been anyone, anywhere, at any time, it just happened to be me here and now." It clearly couldn't have been. The floating head was very clear with its direction.

i'll give credit where it's due emma, that's a thoughtful answer but i suspect you and i have major disagreements that can't be waved away by the rather unimpressive "it serves the interest of the state" angle.

as if that's the serious critique of how ted decided to do what? come on now... plenty of anarchists disagree with his methods too

follow up thought! perhaps the real issue is around the concept of collective punishment, rather than "randomness" or intention? which seems to me to be a semantics thing

Collective punishment, maybe collateral damage/acceptable casualties, those are certainly things that apply to Kaczynski, ITS, CCF, etc. to varying degrees, I agree. I don't think it's semantics unless you're willing to group all people who commit violence into the category of "violence doers" and walk away from them and leave it at that. It matters a lot that eco-extremists aren't hitting the first people they see and running as fast as they can so they can do it again after they catch their breath. Even if you think they're largely pricks (I do) there's a ton that can be learned from what they're doing, why they're doing it, and how they are pulling it off. And if you think the eco-extremists are tolerant of or willing to engage with higher levels of collateral damage than you are comfortable with, that's totally fair - and now that you're not dismissing them as random attacks without any discernable reason, you might even be able to dissect what they've done and see if it can't be more targeted and manipulated for less collateral damage, or even none at all. That's when a critique becomes useful as opposed to a flippant dismissal of shit that, lets be real, eeeeehhhhh it's kinda working???? Not as well as they would hope, surely, but it's making a measurable dent.

One thing that's always bugged me about the Class War Anarchists is how eager they are to use wartime rhetoric and how terrified they are of adopting a wartime mentality. All rattle, no sabre. It's a tragedy that the people who are correctly identifying a resting acceptance of class violence are also the people shouting down retaliatory violence as wanton fascist machismo random incel murderhappy fantasy time without a second thought. "Random" fits into that paradigm in ways that "collective punishment" and "collateral damage" break from significantly.

first of all, i'm literally a paid goon so put me in the category of "violence doer", for money!

secondly, that's why i brought up collective punishment because exactly who gets what violence and why should only get more important, the less abstract it is. assuming you have any principles at all? another worthwhile pursuit of a violence doer is an ethical framework, hope i don't need to explain why?

collective punishment inevitably veers in to random, the more you scale it up. when you carpet bomb a city for example, because racism and fuckyeahmerica! looks plenty random to me. just like ted assuming you can attack enough random symbols of civilization to make a dent. it's fukin stupid and doesn't work and that debate is resolved too.

at the end of your post, you also veer in to a strawman of a "class war anarchist" but sabre rattling in a public forum is for dumbasses and chirpy little posers so i believe we've identified a confirmation bias you're struggling with

Don't know where I fit between the vegans and the nihilists...

A refreshing change from Wayneflaming the ever more boring Contemptous comment cascades! Kudos to FB and JL for this.

outside the window, the doom smoke of the end times, flames advancing down the mountainside

WHATEVER! GIVE US THIS VEGAN FACEBOOK DRAMA

We Contemptuous are SEETHING with ressentiment that people are so creatively discussing JL and FB and not we Contemptuous!

What of we Contemptuous Individuals? Do we not matter?
Discuss us or feel the wrath of our blade.

I think Wayne's opinion on the matter would be appreciated. And SirEinzige's.

The Wayne troll is only activated by two triggers: labor movement. and more recently UkWaaayne! When it's not PALESTIIIIIINE!

Eco-primmie-anarchists... what is that? They didn't really exist 100 years back, except maybe Jack London but he was just a great novelist.

"The Wayne troll is only activated by two triggers: labor movement. and more recently UkWaaayne! When it's not PALESTIIIIIINE!"

This Wayne troll can at least count: labor, Ukraine, and Palestine make *three* (not two) "triggers."

As for topics I (the troll) am interested in, see my essay on Max Stirner, published on this site. Also my essays on the State. The ones on elections. The series on ecology and eco socialism. And so on. Although I have never gotten such a reaction as when I write on the Ukrainian-Russian war, very few being attempts at rational argument, mostly frothing at the mouth and shouting curses and insults.

JL is a twat but FB just wrote their longest piece. What about the state of anarchism? Lemme tell you about poutine. You need curds. I know the vegan market is different per country but you can't do a proper poutine with daiya shreds... and donair sauce tastes kinda off with coconut creme. perhaps a better alternative is the Nanaimo bar which can be definitely made vegan. Chocolate and coconut bros but then we would just be participating in colonialism and ecocide (all while being mindful of the rocks of course)

you fool! there will be no poutine after my vegan mineral comrades come for you! nor will there be insulin, so suck it up, buttercup! life's hard outside of capitalism and it is completely impossible to do anything without massive ruinous exploitation of everything on the planet. so we will have no poutine, no chocolate, no coconut, nothing, only ATTACK!

I do soya curd poutine, sooOoo STFU IF YOU WANNA DISCRIMINATE AGAINST POUTINE EQUITY MMMKAY!!!

yikes.

Thr more skilled vegan cooks know there's much better fake cheese to make outta tahini or cashew butter, glutinous rice flour, with a bit of agar agar and yeast.

I aM nooOoot a frEakin' vEgan, I hAve lActose intOlerAnce, sooOoo stfU, OkA!!

Can't believe I just read a report back from a flame war in a Facebook group but he we are

Was it really so compelling that you couldn't just scroll past it?

the argument that veganism is hierarchical because it places animals above plants and other living species is patently ridiculous. plants and animals are different and understanding the difference is not hierarchical. plants with few exceptions create life from the elements: sunlight, water, soil, air. they help create the conditions for all life on the earth. animals cannot do this, they need to eat plants to live. most edible plants actively give themselves or their fruiting bodies to be eaten as a way to propagate themselves and spread their seeds. some animals are true carnivores and get their plant source from eating herbivores. humans are not carnivores and do not need to eat meat for survival or health. to eat meat is a choice and historically that choice was made in service of the project of domination over other species. it still is.

eating at all is a choice, breathing is a choice. we can choose not to do either, lest we keep on living in service of the project of domination over other species. humans bad. all or nothing, right? no half-measures like eating less meat, or being less of a bootlicker.

'If only we could do LESS rape, torture, mass killing then it'd be a-okay! ChEckmAtE, vegans!'

Even FB has tried to point out in the article, very plainly, that veganism is more than a "mere diet" and that being vegan is also not simply an extreme binary like your sarcastic comment is trying and failing to describe:

"I am in no way committed to non-violence. Violence can be very useful depending on the situation, and I would kill a non-human animal, just as I would kill a human animal if necessary. Killing happens all the time in nature..." -FB

If FB's animal protein-starved brain can understand this then why can't you, 00:50?

Lastly, you can not choose to stop breathing. Try it! You can choose to end your life which would stop your breathing but this detail further illustrates the flaw in your failed 'gotcha' comment.

Your Costco meat packages-fed galaxy brain appears to still be missing the point that one of the leading motives behind veganism is *not supporting the animal mass-exploitation* industry. But how come to such brutish conclusions made with straw men when you're such a genius!?

It's a mystery box!

WHOOSH!

'If only we could do LESS rape, torture, mass killing then it'd be a-okay!'

it'd be better

'You can choose to end your life which would stop your breathing but this detail further illustrates the flaw in your failed 'gotcha' comment.'

exactly, that was the point, try it

Why strive for no rape when you can be less extreme and simply compromise your principles and just achieve slightly less rape? This is the centrist way. Don't forget to vote. Boots are delicious.

"eating at all is a choice, breathing is a choice."

Yes it is the One Truth given to us by our Devas thousands of years ago! We only have to deep-yoga meditate in a hole in the ground so to lower our cardio-vasc down to inspiring only once every week and then eat the prana out of the sunlight. Namaste!

If we choose NOT to eat then the Feces Individuals will never replenish their depleted numbers to stand equally beside our great host of united Individuals in our Wild Conquest of Feral Cannibal Anarchy. I am too much of an egalitarian dasein to deny all individuals the gift of my bowels. Are you? Vegans certainly are selfish! Don't even get me started denying the Breath Individuals their equal share.

Yours in anti-hostility towards the individual living beings,

-Badger Lord

I WAS A SUICIDAL FART BARTERING DASEIN AND WILLINGLY PASSED MY WIND TO OTHERS UNTIL I READ VEGAN EMPIRE!

anarchists in the year of 2023 having facebook and pretending that they're doing anything important is fucking hilarious.
You're pathetic for this.

but like, really, get off social media.
Brain numbing bullshit.

But then stay online, to come here and tell people to get off social media right? Lol try harder.

But it's free and not my own internet, I usually have nothing to do with media, but I was walking past this computer monitor on the table in the coffee shop in the Bay Area that was open on this site, and read the thread, and laughed and thought how moronic these Fbook anarchists were lol.

Why do you care, brah?

Different anon here BTW!

Oh, okay. I guess it must be VERY important then and we should continue to encourage people to waste time sharing their opinions on what others are OR are not doing online and HOW much time they spend doing it. Have fun with that. Seems like a good use of your time, lumpy.

If you had been able to see past your seething ressentiment you would have seen that I was actually on your side on this argument but NOT ANYMORE. Now we are enemies until you apologise!

ALSO, hilarious ableist dig and kudos to the moderators for letting it slide. Retarded is the new brah on anarchistnews dot com!

i'm playing my disability card to get out of cancel jail for free and none of this is a good use of your time OR mine ;)

my ReAL point was that i didn't believe you're actually a different anon, anon.

i'm an anon skeptic? anon critical? just asking questions that don't care about your troll feelings

I've been thinking and ok, I can squeeze out an apology,,,,,,,,,,,soOorry!

Yes, but it's still not mine and free! I've discovered recently that an employee at the coffee shop leaves his laptop in the same place all day and often leaves it there whilst dishwashing and so I've adopted the persona of a jilted heartbroken lover waiting for his date at the coffee shop, and have free use. I just squat around the corner in an old vacant warehouse. So actually the jokes on the coffee shop workerist!

Excellent anarch aesthetic action my daring-do brah! Anarchy is performed to be beautiful, rather than to teach a lesson, create a parallel, or perform another didactic purpose,

You Bay Area Starbucks is but a physical reification of the normie online platform Facebook is! Both are dumb hangouts and the real anarchist debate happens elsewhere, like around the campfire while eating delicious dumpster poutine!

Both FB and JL deserve a spanking for lowering themselves to Fedbook turf wars.

Some of the wealthier members of the hominid species adopt unusual habits such as veganism, mostly for status and virtue signalling, but sometimes healthy diet obsession, in a few cases on ethical and compassionate grounds or from neurotic obsessive self-imposed imperatives. More than half of the hominid species live in poverty and survive on an involuntary vegan diet of rice, corn or dumpster poutine in suburban areas. and die earlier than meat-eaters, who usually become rulers and presidents of their community because of the aggressive carnivore instincts that red meat ignites within their consciousness. They become the prime hunter/leader/warrior of their meat-eating tribe.

*carnist

Liberalism = 50% Statism +30% Capitalism + 10% Carnism + 5%Theism + 5% Leftism
-- PhilologistX

Primitivism = 50% Tribalism + 30% Bartering + 10% Veganism + 5% Mysticism + 5% Anarchism.

Anarchism = 50% Collectivism + 30% Compromised Capitalism + 10% Dumpster Poutine + 5%Atheism + 5% Communism.

Anarch Lifestyle = 100% Spontaneous Autonomous Consciousness.

Vegan dumpstered poutine and it's consequences have been a disaster for the anarchist

Add new comment