Total Liberation!

  • Posted on: 16 July 2019
  • By: thecollective

From Signal Fire

“It seems every generation thinks theirs will be the most remarkable, yet ours might just be the first that turns out to be right. To say this century is the most crucial our species has ever faced is actually an understatement: we’re dealing with the most significant crisis life in general has ever faced, even amidst billions of years of evolution.”

Introducing our first publication, in collaboration with Active Distribution:

Total Liberation offers a holistic revolutionary strategy aimed at dismantling all forms of hierarchy – an insurrectional project grounded in social ecology, deep ecology, and anti-speciesism. This pocketbook, released amidst a hot summer of rebellion, responds to that age-old question faced by all revolutionaries, yet posed with unrivalled urgency in the year 2019: what the fuck are we going to do!!?

This can be expected to arrive in radical bookshops in the UK and abroad over the next weeks, and will soon be available from the Active Distribution and AK Press websites, as well as to download for free online.

 

[Anews editor note: it appears the text has been shared here: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/total-liberation-anonymous-english ]

Comments

I'm looking forward to reading Total Liberation. My challenge with most calls for dismantling hierarchy is that they tend to maintain human superiority over Earth through agriculture, and other modern lifeways. The only way I can see true dismantling of hierarchy is anarcho-primitivism. Especially vegan anarcho-primitivism.

Modern industrial agriculture, yes. Traditional indigenous agriculture, no.

How do you define 'traditional indigenous agriculture'? Corn, squash & beans? Rotational camas plots? Harvesting from lush patches of native plants? Wild tending sacred hoops?

There is this prevailing notion that 'traditional indigenous' people lived in harmony with earth. but by the time European colonizers arrived on the north American continent the land had been fairly thoroughly transformed. Tribes that practiced certain agriculture degraded habitats. Some irrigation systems had degraded rivers with sediment runoff. Not that it's a good thing, but with European colonization, mass die off of about 90% of millions of... Here, let me quote:

"population decrease, which came about due to the introduction of previously unknown diseases, led to the rapid reforestation of the Americas. This led to a sudden increase in the amount of carbon dioxide being pulled from the air, which meant the atmosphere wasn’t able to hold as much heat, which led to colder air covering Europe.
The team, led by visiting scholar Richard Nevle, came to this conclusion after analyzing charcoal remnants in soil and lake sediments left behind by early American inhabitants as they burned forests to make room for farmland. They found that starting approximately 500 years ago, the charcoal accumulations came to a virtual standstill, coinciding with the death of native peoples.
Nevle et al then got out their calculators and crunched the numbers. They estimate that for a population of some 40 to 80 million indigenous people, the total amount of deforested land would likely have amounted to something the size of California. And since most estimates suggest that close to 90 percent of the native peoples died or were killed after the Europeans arrived, that meant most of that land returned to forest. That many trees, they say, all of a sudden appearing, almost as if out of nowhere, could have resulted in a loss of some 2 to 17 billion tons of carbon dioxide from the air..." https://phys.org/news/2011-10-team-european-ice-age-due.html

One of the themes of my blog is that early humans colonized and degraded the planet, resulting in things like mass extinctions of megafauna, etc. https://veganprimitivist.wordpress.com/

re: so-called ‘vegan anarcho-primitivism.’

there are over 15 essential nutrients you cannot get without animal foods. the vegan liver feeds off its own b12 in a span of about 5-10 years. then comes the crash. warning: a b12 deficiency of such a lengthy nature causes permanent problems that are irreversible. so, before you give out this moral positions disguised as health guidelines to other people...be advised!

i recall reading in anthropology tribes going to their doctors for regular b12 injections...nowhere.

much of what we see not just in supplements (for vegans they’d be chemically derived synthetic analogues with poor absorption rates) but species of fruits and vegetables: they’re entirely modern man made creations? had broccoli? had brussel sprouts? both are several vegetables originating as ‘mustard plant.’ wild banana had seeds before being bred for their sugar content.

fruits and vegetables aren’t great for everyone. they often contain anti-nutrients.

ps, there’s such a thing as regenerative agriculture. people are doing it now, proving it gives rise to net carbon sinks. before our current society there were 70 million bison doing this naturally in NA. What was the problem with their burps again?

veganism kills far more animals due to mono-cropping (which more of the earth is suitable as pastured grasslands, and the UN projects 60 more cycles of growing methods), needing to displace humans and other creatures, spray pesticides and herbicides, and grind up trillions of insects and animals come harvest.

give me a fourth generation vegan. it hasn’t happened.

maybe we could focus on doing more at the granular, local level. what drives the need for the 16 cargo ships, which pollute as much as all the cars in the world combined?

"veganism kills far more animals due to mono-cropping (which more of the earth is suitable as pastured grasslands, and the UN projects 60 more cycles of growing methods), needing to displace humans and other creatures, spray pesticides and herbicides, and grind up trillions of insects and animals come harvest. "

Tho that mono-cropping isn't to feed vegans, but vegan cattle, and there's a growing market for biodiesel out of corn. That's not even consumable corn. Think about that when you go eat your super-expensive beef at the hipster bar & grill: the animals we eat from tend to be vegans.

So this is more wrong arguments against veganism. In my book, there's a better one that involves the efficiency/relevance of individual consumption practices as a way of changing mass industrial practices.

As challenging as it is for scientists to see past their own cultural biases and mythologies on how the world is and has been, sometimes they do break through. For example, the 'man the mighty hunter' myth has been chipped away over the past few decades, now with this DNA evidence of some vegan Neanderthals: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/neanderthal-dental-p...

Further, like I said, I'm not for any agriculture, I'm vegan primitivist, which begs the question why you'd reply with anti-ag arguments. It's like that anon poster copy pastes a bunch of (mis)information on veganism without giving consideration and responsive reply to each poster.

wrong. where are you getting that idea?

cattle stock begin grazing on grass.

the large bulk of grains are grown for industrial processes and processed food consumption. a huge chunk of this is soybean oil for alternative fuel, and it’s also found in about 80% of restaurant food. you’re forgetting how much corn and other grains go into brewing and distilling alone.

most of the standard american diet is made up of (66% in fact): industrial seed oils, white flour, and sugar.

try again.

cowspiracy and what the health have been thoroughly debunked.

re: so-called ‘vegan anarcho-primitivism.’

there are over 15 essential nutrients you cannot get without animal foods. the vegan liver feeds off its own b12 in a span of about 5-10 years. then comes the crash. warning: a b12 deficiency of such a lengthy nature causes permanent problems that are irreversible. so, before you give out this moral positions disguised as health guidelines to other people...be advised!

i recall reading in anthropology tribes going to their doctors for regular b12 injections...nowhere.

much of what we see not just in supplements (for vegans they’d be chemically derived synthetic analogues with poor absorption rates) but species of fruits and vegetables: they’re entirely modern man made creations? had broccoli? had brussel sprouts? both are several vegetables originating as ‘mustard plant.’ wild banana had seeds before being bred for their sugar content.

fruits and vegetables aren’t great for everyone. they often contain anti-nutrients.

ps, there’s such a thing as regenerative agriculture. people are doing it now, proving it gives rise to net carbon sinks. before our current society there were 70 million bison doing this naturally in NA. What was the problem with their burps again?

veganism kills far more animals due to mono-cropping (which more of the earth is suitable as pastured grasslands, and the UN projects 60 more cycles of growing methods), needing to displace humans and other creatures, spray pesticides and herbicides, and grind up trillions of insects and animals come harvest.

give me a fourth generation vegan. it hasn’t happened.

maybe we could focus on doing more at the granular, local level. what drives the need for the 16 cargo ships, which pollute as much as all the cars in the world combined?

Protein
Carbohydrate
Fat
Vitamin c
Iron
Magnesium
Potassium
Calcium
Thiamine
Folate
Selenium
Vitamin d/sunlight exposure
Vitamin a
Oxygen
Water

All of these can be found in non-meat sources. Plants rich on proteins and amino acids especially... like those you don't appear to know about.

B12 vitamins are found in sea weeds and fermented plants... something that Westerners have just begun consuming unlike coastal East Asians who've been eating those for far longer.

Your beliefs on nutritional science seem quite along the lines of Leirre Keith's "The Vegetarian Myth", which has proven to be a catastrophic embarrassment for even meat eaters who see all the errors chocked full throughout her book. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMuxgAbHgJA&feature=share

B12 is a byproduct of bacteria found in soil. For millions of years humans got their B12 from eating root vegetables and drinking water from creeks and rivers where B12 came in through sediment runoff. Nowadays B12 is supplemented into farmed animals for meat eaters.

Neither group really knocks the other out. The link you presented is the usual pop science vegan arguments that actually don't look into acute things like parasymathetic dominance and individuals associated with it. Fact is that meat eating is optimal for certain types of cellular structures. You can get things like B12 from plant sources but the potency is not the same.

Keith's argument is indeed pro-acidic dietary overkill but her vegan opponents aren't offering a soluble position either. Fact is some diets need meat. My tonic would for veganism to have cleansing role in regards to diet. It's great when it comes to cleaning things up and it is actually good for some epigenetic structures. You could have 3 months out of the year vegan only diet or meat only sort of thing.

What you should let go off is this idea of anthropomorphic equality, this does not entail anthropocentrism but it does mean that you accept that humans terminating non human life for food is part of a totality of all things including all the other animals. It's not right or wrong, it just is.

Are you really trying to take on Ria on the topic of vegan primitivism? You saw what she did to Aragorn! Hope you got your gloves ready. Ria is a heavy hitter.

I like principles like wild tending and if you can genetically take on raw food veganism have at it. The issue I have is generalizing this for human existence in the context of a baseline predational world. I also don't care for some ruling primitivist asceticism.

Gonna be a mental toss flycoon.

And, no dental flossing to do.

this is a lie.

we’re not rear gut fermenters, like gorillas.

what the vegan won’t tell you is that gorillas are amongst the animals that eat their own shit for b12.

this one’s also easy to debunk as 84% of vegans have a b12 deficiency.

“Greger is equally misinformed on B12 (cobalamin) synthesis since this occurs when cobalt is converted to B12 by gut bacteria. Yes B12 is synthesized by anaerobic bacteria, but those bacteria reside in the microflora of animals rather than in the soil. Remember too that in the natural world the distinction between an animal’s gut flora and the soil’s rhizosphere isn’t as distinct as it is in urban environments with waste treatment facilities. Animals, including humans, poop out different bacteria so gut microbes end up in soil, and soil microbes end up being consumed. Human guts actually contain the bacteria to synthesize B12 (10), however since we’re hindgut fermenters, we poop out this B12. Gorillas and chimps get their B12 by eating their own poop (coprophagia – see gorilla eating his own poop video here) With foregut fermenters like ruminants, the conversion happens in the four part stomach BEFORE the intestines, so the cobalamin is then absorbed in the intestines before being pooped out. As long as ruminants can get sufficient cobalt from their forages, they can make B12 in their guts which is then distributed to all their tissues. B12 is most bio-concentrated in the liver.”

https://lachefnet.wordpress.com/2017/06/24/what-the-health-a-vegan-film-...

Love your guerilla guide in Fifth Estate. Just wish I lived near other people who were into this, but I’m gonna try on my own. I’ve been wanting to help recover plants for wildlife habitat for many years. There’s not much nature around me, but I’m going to create a wild animal oasis.

"The ZAD shouldn’t be idealised, as if it offers some pristine utopia. But what cannot be denied is something quite simple, something that makes all the difference: it works…"

Bullshit. It didn't work. Anyone informed enough through experiencing the ZAD project directly knows how it utterly failed due to the authoritarian nature of pretentious Tiqquinist academics who were there.

Things to remember about Commune projects like ZAD:

1. Operates with anti-individualist group-think
2. Claims to be anti-civ but limits its definition to eco-leftism by promoting collectivism.
3. Those same Tiqqunist/Invisible Committee types went as far as negotiating with the state to own land for their "land projects" and "autonomous zones".
4. Anything that claims to be "anti-civ" while promoting the foundation for nation-state/zones is sketch.

Chances are this piece was written by those of the communization theory school of thought where anarchy is only good for insurrection but the end goal is communism. Total liberation = fuck communism.

Not everyone in the ZAD was on the same page, bro. The "East" Zadistes tended to be a sharply different crowd with a strong individualist culture.

To be forcing down a critical analysis of the ZAD in a funnel of "win" or "fail" occludes from what had to be learned about its failings (not failure). The ZAD's been an occupation, just with the difference of being a pretty large area instead of a building. Herd mentality focused on political antagonisms (the Airport, Vinci, the French State, the police) is what kept several people from seeing the hostile nature of some elements and interests within their own midst. The Left activist bullshit politics were predominant, as also these were conglomerated around the ACIPA and COPAIN 44. The eco-anarcho and individualist crowd has not produced any common political vehicle or infrastructure to support heir perspective. It was all makeshift initiatives, led by a few influential persons... tho there wasn't consolidation of power on "their" crowd. Some people then sided with these more politically "mature" structures, due possibly to their promise of empowering them and bringing resources and money in the ZAD... tho I can't pretend knowing what was holding them together from behind.

Is this also just about our more general human failings... that some good people tend to root for the crappiest, foul-mouthed abusive maniacs among us just because they dare imposing themselves, or due to some relational precedents (sex, predating experiences together, etc)? Perhaps.

I think you're right on 3 and 4. But I don't think the Tiqqunist and their ilk ever really pretended (2) to be anti-civ. They were the pro-motor vehicle crowd. Marxists tend to be the same elsewhere... packing up like sardines in their filthy, noisy "tapecul" cars to the Revolution (which a few years later means better jobs and better cars, more private communes. Sure there's the Ellul fans too...but that's just more of the same academic talk the NA anarchist milieus are known for. Imo, just fucking practice what you preach. Talk is cheap. Siding uncritically with internal reactionaries is very very costly.

The project producing this zine (https://signalfire.noblogs.org/) seems like a new initiative, unrelated to the defunct Maoist blog Signalfire (http://www.signalfire.org/).

Time for a Goodwin Law confirmation attempt, is everyone ready?
HITLER WAS A VEGAN !!!

Urgh, that really stifled the conversation, omg, some vegans can be monsters. BBQ types are sooo compassionate and jolly by comparison.

Ria's logic means that cats and dogs as pets is impossible, unless they become vegan also.
Can dogs and cats survive on a vegan diet?
If so, is it expensive? Therefore, Utopia is an elitist dream.
No more dogs are a man's best friend, but rather, vegan pets are the genderless primitivist companion.
Neutered vegan male cats and dogs are the feminist's trophy idpol pet ;)

Even the wisest among you is only a disharmony and hybrid of plant and spook. But do I bid you become phantom or plants?

No, I teach you the Samurai!.,.

I would think any primitivist is against domestication..

Therefore they must be against education, which is one facet of their holistic world view which I could ease into, wary though of other more uncreative and callous sentiments.,.

Well yes, the "education", a scary institutionalised facet of industrialized societies, but isn't Ria proposing an antinatal childless future, so your "easing into" is a moot point? Callousness? If you're referring to children, teens, pregnant women and nursing mothers suffering from a vegan diet, these again are also irrelevant in this brave new future.
Lack of sufficient proteins and essential fatty acids for the developing brain is the least of Ria's concerns, because there wont be any developing brains, only stale old moral ones :)

hitler was a vegan (goebbels said so) and people, much less dogs and cats, can't be vegan (lierre keith says so)

Yes. I knew a cat who only had vegetable scraps to eat who became a bag of bones, a shadow of the former muscular tomcat ruler of the block whilst eating meat. Vegan cats get ruled and enslaved.,.

Cats, hell no. They do like cereals and can rely on it for survival, yet their bodies need animal flesh in order to stay healthy. Your cat's gonna become sadly dumb and weak if you only give them vegan stuff.

not without some serious supervision.

there’s just too many people making their pets sick or dead with this absurd religious cult. same thing with their babies and children.

it’s a neo-temperance movement, and nothing more. filled with as much pro-inflammatory, highly oxidative junk and little overall nutrition as the insulin roller-coaster that is the Standard American Diet. Honestly, both veganism and sad have similar rates of heart disease.

‘vegan’ dog when confronted with options on live television: https://youtu.be/vwD3dv24xGk

Real anarch dogs eat meat, WOOFKAY!

Except "anarch" and "dogs" is an oxymoron, moron. Dogs are among the most authoritarian animals, both for their slavish submission to humans as well as their territoriality and despotic barking.

That sounds like over-complicated. How about it's just acute moralists projecting their values on animals they see as the extension of themselves? Domestication is what makes people do this projection, yet that's grossly overlooking the no-brainer fact that dogs and cats have very different digestive systems to humans.

*dog looks at anon 06:44 with adoration and pitiful eyes which seem to be saying " give me some of that pizza you are eating, and I'll defend you, have we got a deal" *

attempting to generalize some "correct" diet across the board for all humans (let alone other animals) is nothing more than ideological posturing. no different from any other generalization that cherry picks contextual points, ignoring or trying to debunk (usually with the god of science) any context that doesn't fit the ideology.

despite the vast biological similarities amongst humans, there are still tons of VERY significant biological differences based on all kinds of factors, from physiology, hormones and chemistry to environment. some people can eat lots of meat and be very healthy, others cannot. some people can eat vegan diets and be very healthy, others cannot. i have known numerous ideological vegans who finally, after many years (decades in some cases), had to acknowledge that their diet was making them severely sick. could they have modified their diet to compensate while remaining vegan? some of them, possibly. but there is also the context of one's individual life; what is literally feasible for them, what are their priorities, etc.

i just hate it when people claim to have the "correct" answer for everyone. it is moralistic, authoritarian, almost always relies on external authorities for validation, and most importantly - it is ANNOYING AS FUCK!!!!!!! i can appreciate the passion people have, especially around behavior that is destructive beyond one's own life. but this ongoing bullshit around things like diet, culture (as in "appropriation"), etc is just fucking pathetic.

i mean, no healthy soil and none of is really get to eat.

it’s trying to find a more holistic outlook and realize that we are the air that we breathe. relations are all there are, and all we have is now.

there might not be a ‘correct’ way but there are some common things between many cultures that have lived in more direct context with the land.

separations are merely conceptual.

of course i think living in some sort of balance with one's environment is FAR preferable to choosing to dominate and colonize that environment. i despise modern human life, and what modern humans are doing to this planet and all its inhabitants.

industrial agriculture (actually, industrial anything) is, imo, unquestionably destructive and completely unsustainable. yes, there are far too many humans; and with most of them living in urban centers and suburban sprawl, they are virtually 100% dependent on distant industry and the related industrial transportation for their very sustenance. nothing about that is either appealing or indicative of any sort of health, in my eyes. industrial scale anything is a result of - as well as a cause of (yes, a vicious cycle) - human overpopulation.

but that is a completely different issue from the issue of being a vegan vs being an omnivore. there is surely some contextual overlap, given the history and trajectory of human tendency towards mass society, urban living, technological domination of everything, and having all their needs and wants provided by others (usually unknown others, often far away) at the click of a mouse or the swipe of a credit card. but if my eating a roadkill deer results in anyone saying "you really should not eat meat, it is destroying the planet", that motherfucker is a narrow minded, uncritical thinking ideologue, point blank.

so my question to ria is: what if the only meat i ever eat is already dead when i find it, or i respectfully kill it myself - and ensure minimal suffering - without hi tech weaponry? am i still a world destroyer?

I'll answer for Ria, industry produced the roadkill, eating it doesn't absolve you from complicity with the system. The only exemption is strangling a rat which crawled into the dungeon you are a prisoner within!!

"what if the only meat i ever eat is already dead when i find it, or i respectfully kill it myself - and ensure minimal suffering - without hi tech weaponry? am i still a world destroyer?"

Layla AbdelRahim and others point to scavenging as a vital transition toward humans eating outside their biological diet, beginnings of predating on animals.

In today's times, scavenging and foraging don't create a demand on industry. But your keeping & killing of human-bred domesticated animals is problematic for the environment and does not break away from the core problem preceding industry and agriculture - human's shift to predating on animals.

Our earliest human ancestors knew that there is no such thing as 'respectfully killing animals ensuring minimal suffering', even before any weaponry. For most of human existence humans were prey, not predator. If you had been food for one of our predators (before colonizing humans eliminated our predators) would you have been ok with it if the saber toothed tiger tried to respectfully kill you humanely?

one more point on scavenging roadkill - It would be helpful to ecosystems if humans would release others from our heel and reintroduce deer's natural predators. Oh, and do away with cars & roads.

For more on comparative anthropologist Layla AbdelRahim's work on origins and problems of humans as animal predators, see http://layla.miltsov.org/

if u r against controlled fire r u also against 420 blaze it?

i'm all for doing away with cars and roads, among many other facets of modern human life.

imo, the only thing humans need to do is get the fuck out of the way and let the natural world be what it will be. any activity that is intended to control things (reintroducing predators, "controlled" burns, ...) is just more of the same speciesist savior mentality. the planet doesn't need humans to fix it; it only needs humans to stop fucking with it. starting with the damn population.

"But your keeping & killing of human-bred domesticated animals is problematic for the environment... "

i never said anything about keeping and killing human-bred domesticated animals. yet you insist on making such assumptions and inserting them into the discussion as if it was a primary point. do you see why i find it frustrating having this kind of discussion with ideologues?

i understand that in order to sustain ANY life, other life must die. i would prefer that living beings do not suffer, even when they die. (well, some humans i wouldn't mind a bit of suffering). but that is, pragmatically speaking, a pipe dream. i do what i can to avoid causing suffering to others, and that includes NOT supporting industrial agriculture as much as is possible in the context of my life. if you knew the context of my life, you might not jump so quickly to that kind of assumption.

your response to my straightforward question demonstrates rather clearly the problem i have with ideologues. i give you major props if you live according to your individual desires and principles. but your inability to see - and discuss - beyond your ideology makes you completely uninteresting to me, at least in this medium of communication.

killing domesticated animals instead of wild animals (I presume), when you said

"what if the only meat i ever eat is already dead when i find it, or i respectfully kill it myself - and ensure minimal suffering - without hi tech weaponry? am i still a world destroyer"

my point remains the similar. If you feel like fleshing this out more, let me know. Or if you're interested in another's similar perspective, check out anything Layla AbdelRahim.

i have read a bit of layla's stuff. i think i understand the position (yours and hers), i simply find it - and its expression - too ideologically driven to be useful. any time someone says "this is the truth" (literally or otherwise), suspicion is warranted. believers in Science and religion say it all the time; need i say more?

i appreciate your attempts at communication and clarification. if you were just talking about your life and how you create and sustain it, we might have some really interesting and fruitful discussions. it is your seeming desire to prove your "truth" as "the truth" that i find uninteresting. call me an old codger.

that signals a position of privilege. Layla and I are calling for releasing the Homo sapiens dominance and replacing it with a more mutualistic way of interrelating with wild others.

My life is congruent with my ethos, within this civilized context. Delving into details of our personal lives would have been interesting, but from my perspective the same incongruencies would have surfaced.

wow, talk about wholesale defensiveness!

i would love to know what makes me "a dominant" and you a "nondiminant"? because i find your dogma uninteresting? finding it uninteresting places me in a "position of privilege"? damn, i didn't realize you were such a textbook leftist. you are trying to force me into one of your (binary) boxes, but homie don't play that, i get claustrophobic in boxes.

believe it or not, adhering to your (or any) ideology is not the only way to relate with other beings in a mutualistic way. i do not think of myself as superior to or dominant over any other living being; much less the sweeping generalization of entire species. as an anarchist, i am against ALL (non-consensual?) domination, and i try to coexist - to the extent desired or necessary - with every being i come across, until they give me a reason not to.

but i'm not even sure why i thought i could get a glimpse past the cloak of dogma. enjoy your condescendingly congruent life and ethos.

1. The reason the human body would benefit from a ‘tonic of veganism to have cleansing role in regards to diet’ speaks to the need for cleansing meat & dairy from our herbivore being, and that veganism meets all needs of our herbivore being.
2. Not all animals eat animals. I have no problem with predators, but the recent human experiment with killing of our predators & colonizing the planet shows how our shift outside our nature has thrown nature totally out of whack.
3. Distorting my perspective into asceticism, in my view, is more likely to demonstrate a person’s anxiety & defense mechanisms over their inner misgivings complying with the horrific culture in which they find themselves, than my attempt for ruling power.
4. I’m anti-domestication of animals, both bred for farming and petting. https://veganprimitivist.wordpress.com/2017/12/02/dog-versus-wildlife/
5. Schooling is at its core structural methodologies for maintaining ruling power and economic hegemony.
6. Anyone who doesn’t sense that humans have overpopulated the planet throwing nature into a death spiral must be 100% disconnected from nature. If our species wanted we could decide to bring our numbers back down to back out of this death spiral. Callously marching forward with our death spiral causes massive suffering & death to even more humans and other animals as well.
7. Even though very few humans are still eating wild foods, and wild plants are packed with much more nutrition than domesticated plants, the vegan dietway, especially raw vegan, comes out time & time again as the healthiest human diet for a reason. It’s at the point where meat eaters trying to argue nutritional science are only externally manifesting the extent of their inner denial.
8. People who fight for their attachment to cats & dogs reveal their compliance to morals and lifeways of the culture in which they were born. They are prisoners of their birthtime & birthplace.
9. When people eat especially domesticated meat, it’s just a fact that they are causing greater destruction to the environment. To still try to deny that is just fucking pathetic.

This whole disagreement began with my statement “anti-speciesism is not congruent with agriculture”, which was hijacked by people’s other thoughts & feelings on veganism & ran down a rabbit hole. Perhaps my statement struck a chord within people struggling with their inner incongruence.

Did....SirEin just hit the floor in the first round? Maybe he will get back up. Get him some water.

and oh yeah... when you speak of speciesism, i guess that only includes species that are considered (by the gods of science) to be part of the "animal kingdom".

killing an animal for sustenance is speciesism. but killing a plant is not? oh wait, some plants you don't have to kill in order to eat part of them. so is it ok to cut off the leg of a wild buffalo to eat, but let it limp on with its life?

by our essence. Even if plants do suffer, like I said, I'm not against predation. We've just been predating out of nature, killing nature.

Further, if you're truly concerned about plant suffering, you'd stop eating animals for sure. For every part of them you consume, you're consuming an exponential amount of plant parts that went into that one part of flesh.

i'm sure glad you know the true essence of every single human that ever lived.

i’m sure glad you’ve broadened the idea of “essence” to include the cultural constructs of free will and rational choice. fucking humanist

there have been some Homo biological changes since some humans began behaviorally scavenging then hunting animals, but not enough to change our biology away from our folio-frugivore roots. Despite changes to accommodate meat and dairy, the healthiest human diet remains raw vegan, the wilder the healthier.

I can only view this whole hypothesis as an extension of a Neo-Noble Savagery!

Which is similar to the life denial Indian philosophies and cults like Jainism. On a certain level all roads in physical life lead to suffering, predation and extinction on some level. I don't fight this on the whole and take the Nietzschean Stirnerian perspective which is to not deny myself excess but also not build on the base of suffering, predation and extinction too extensively.

Domestication for instance is actually quite complicated in that to some degree this is driven by non-human resonance patterns to escape the suffering of the wild. Humans as simple as The Piraha have tamed animals as pets, it's not the start of civilization. I even think some kind of Bordainism can be done in non civilizing sort of way. My idea of anarchy includes the attempt to reconcile it with archaic appropriated excess and not just fall into line with histories facilitations.

lifeway is failing. A deep look into why it's failing is needed to both understand the origins and nature of the problem, and to draw from lifeways before we steered course down this path of destruction. From my understanding of Layla's discourse, she sees the origins of the problem as humans' shift from our mutualistic habitat role of frugivore seed spreaders to predating upon animals. I see the problem origins as steps toward colonizing the planet, which included our dietway.

How would you sum up your perspectives?

The problem I have with your way of looking at things is that it's a classic OS structured pattern of thought with an impractical redemption at hand. I see problems as postulates to adjust from. For me, I'm fine with a neo-archaic mode of living in that it encapsulates both anatomical and psycho modern human pychosomatic drives. As is this will likely never happen generally and will only be done here and there, but at least it doesn't curtail emergent and excessive human drives.

As someone who recalls some of Terrance Mckenna's teachings, there was something in the electromagnetic structure of this planet and the greater cosmos that conduited itself into the human body. Archaic excesses came out of all that. I think these things should be appropriated from an alienating facilitating past/future and enjoyed in the now.

I'm not in the business of blaming things that I was not even around to see manifest and not understand the full context. For me it's a matter of quantitative subtractions of problems that have built up over epochal layers of time.

Lol, did anybody actually read the book? Seems this whole page crashed into debates on primitivism and veganism real quick. I really enjoyed Total Liberation - I think it has something a lot of anarchist literature lacks, and combines theory and practice well.

i skimmed it. it has the typical "follow me! if we all focus and do this thing together, we can do it!"
which is not that bad in itself, but only 3 people will really read it, only one will agree with it, and zero will commit to do it

yeah, i thought it was very well thought out and put together. thinking of using it as a text for an anarchist meet-up as a good jumping off point for discussion/action.

There is the constant possibility of the various AP camps flocking to @news to battle it out. It takes only the slightest provocation in the most tangentially related story. Beware!

Ria pitched the first ball and a plethora of hitters made their swing.

Add new comment