“Confronting your Domestication” and “Rewilding”

  • Posted on: 8 May 2017
  • By: thecollective

From Miko-Ew

By Sokaksin

“May I ask how you confront your own domestication?”

I was asked this question a while back by someone that I have crossed paths with and from the outset it has always struck me as an odd question. It seems to be all the rage among anarcho-primitivist circles to talk about “rewilding” oneself, “confronting one’s own domestication,” reclaiming one’s own “wildness,” and on and on and on. These same people set out on extended camping trips with a few of their buddies to rough it on the back acres of some ranch building primitive shelters, hunting and prepping with primitive weapons and tools and generally kindling fires of the little homunculus of the “IR hunter/gatherer” in their heart. Now, I can’t say that I oppose people going out on extended camping trips, learning primitive skills, getting more deeply in touch with the land that they inhabit, or whatever. I spend a large part of my days, every day lately, walking through the forests near my house and in doing so have come to know the several hundred acres that comprise the nearby park intimately in the time that I’ve lived here. So I can’t be and am not one to cast judgement in that regard. What I do take issue with are the delusions about what it would even mean to “rewild,” to reclaim the life-world of primitive peoples (we can’t, full stop) and the correlative tendency among the “rewilding” crowd too fall too deeply into “LARPing primitive” and in doing so forgetting who and where one actually is.

My response to this question when it was posed to me was essentially, “I don’t.” I did not mean this in a passive sense of simply doing nothing, for even my writing is in some small way an attempt to deal with where and what I am, my own domestication and the world which I feel in my heart that I am so deeply opposed to. I meant this “non-doing” more in the sense of accepting who and what one is, where and when one exists on the wheels of time rather than fighting the reality of one’s circumstances by falling into delusions of rekindling or even recreating that unimaginably complex life and world of the primitive. Man does not and could not exist in a vacuum. He is always turned outside himself, is always a part and product of a time and place. And the primitive was as much a part and product of his world as the modern man is a part and product of his. Who were the Niitsitapi but an extension of the great plains, the thunderstorm over the rolling hills, and the buffalo? In Atassa‘s recent translation of the editorial of Regresión Magazine No. 7 this sentiment was expressed in the grieving of a Sioux chief:

“Soon the sun will rise and will no longer see us here, and the dust and our bones will mix on the plains. As in a vision, I see the flame of the bonfires of the great councils die, and the ashes grow white and cold. I no longer see the spirals of smoke rise from our tents. I don’t hear the songs of the women as they prepare the food. The antelope are gone, the lands of the buffalo are empty. Only the howl of the coyote is heard now. The white man’s medicine is stronger than ours. His iron horse now runs on the paths of the buffalo. The whispering spirit (telephone) speaks to us now. We are like birds with broken wings. My heart is frozen. My eyes extinguish.”

The Sioux, and so many countless other peoples witnessed the death of themselves and the death of their world, and this is one and the same. If one wants to talk about “rewilding” in the anarcho-primitivist sense it cannot be honestly talked about without recognizing that the human being is always located in time and space and is always inextricably tied to that time and space. He can often venture beyond it in the abstract but this is a dream world, and all dreams must come to an end. He must come back to the present, for it is the only reality that he has. The past is always gone and done and the future is the airy nothing of speculation. Only the here and the now have reality. And if this is true then the anarcho-primitivist project of “rewilding,” “reclaiming one’s wildness,” or “confronting one’s domestication” is at best a hackneyed attempt to recreate a kind of idealized theater of dead worlds, delusions, daydreams, nonsense. The anarcho-primtivist will raise the ghosts of the great buffalo, bring life back to the bones of the antelope, bring life back to the ashes of the sacred fires of the Sioux. The Kingdom of the Paleolithic risen again. But this is, of course, a dream. The buffalo have long since returned to The Great Spirit, as have the bones of the antelope. The ashes of the sacred fires were long ago taken by the wind, and even the Sioux themselves have become a people of history.

To talk of “rewilding” and its corollaries in the anarcho-primitivist sense, then, is to talk of nonsense. It is not confront the world as it is. It is to escape into dream worlds where the great webs of the earth have not been ravaged by this civilization. If one is to see with clear eyes, one would have to recognize and accept what we are, which will also entail coming to terms with where and when we are. It would mean to recognize and accept that almost every person that exists today is a part and a product of this monstrous techno-industrial civilization which has and continues to spread its choking tendrils across the face of the earth. Domestication is inscribed in our flesh and we live in the ecological wasteland of modernity. It would mean to recognize that the great worlds of the past are dead and that there is no going back to them, nor is there any realistic prospect of them arising again within mine or any reader’s lifetime. As Jeffers notes in The Stars Go Over the Lonely Ocean “The world is in a bad way, my man / And bound to be worse before it mends.” What we have, and all that we have, is this decadent present in all its monstrousness, the continuing, relentless march of the Leviathan over all that is wild and beautiful. It would mean to accept this present with honesty and respond to that present accordingly, in a way which is in accord with the present. Without entertaining dreams and delusions of a brighter tomorrow when the primitive utopia will have been realized.

Of course, such a stance isn’t the “rewilding” of John Zerzan, Kevin Tucker, and the rest of the anarcho-primitivist underlings. This is the spirit of eco-extremism, its clear-eyed nihilism, its savage attack in this decadent present. From the Seventh Communiqué of ITS:

“The wild can wait no longer. Civilization expands indiscriminately at the cost of all that is natural. We won’t stay twiddling our thumbs, looking on passively as modern man rips the Earth apart in search of minerals, burying her under tons of concrete, or piercing through entire hills to construct tunnels. We are at war with civilization and progress, as well as those who improve or support it with their passivity. Whoever!”

– Sokaksin

image included with article captioned as: “Rewilding” at the Fort Mims Massacre



Gorilla Mindset was written by the alt-right organizer Mike Cernovich, best known for his organization along with Jack Posobiec of the Jan 19, 2017 "Deporaball." His is also notorious for calling so many of his opponents pedophiles and for his role in spreading the "Pizzagate" conspiracy theory. Posobiec also was heavily involved in the whole Pizzagate mess, which escalated until a gunman stormed Comet Pizza to seach for hidden rooms, tunnels, and child sex trafficking that simply did not exist.

Thus, Gorilla Mindset is essentially from the same author as Pizzagate and about as credible. Don't waste your money, you can get all the bullshit you want for far less at the hardware store as fertilizer. Spread it on your crops, it'll make the flowers grow.

This rant and that previous religion of green anarchy article seem to come from the same place. Maybe even the same author. They both prop themselves up on strawman arguments.

Perhaps Zerzan/AP is pointing to life outside of civilization (past/present) as a way to show us alternatives to civilization (past/present). Those aren't exactly fictitious examples as the author states. And pointing that out is different from enforcing a plan to make it happen like the eco-extremists claim to be doing by the holy-spirit of The Wild speaking through them.

It appears as if the author is frustrated by being unable to do anything about the historical forces that have brought them to where they are. The author finds solace in hating all of humanity - for humanity has destroyed everything. They use that as a pretext to build up their dream of killing off humanity to stop civilization, apropos eco-extremism. As if that isn't a form of LARPing and pure nonsense in itself...

A question for the misanthropic Sokaksin - why be against civilization and technology? They are probably the most effective weapons to achieve the stated goals of eco-extremist action that appeal to you - killing humanity and ending civilization. It's like you don't acknowledge that humanity is a form of the "nature" you adore so much. Humanity is just one of the many forces of nature. If it is nature you want to preserve, then you should preserve all of it, not just the parts you approve of. Doing so means you are acting in a way that is identical to what you accuse AP of doing - cherry-picking and idealizing. Those are just your own brand of ideologically derived "clear-eyed nihilist" hopes and dreams.

Yeah there is no "nature". Oil spills are perfectly natural. Rivers catching fire from all the pollutants is perfectly natural. Mowing down Bambi with an AR-15 is just nature baby. Why distinguish anything at all, it's just one big Monad, and unnecessary distinctions are the Zen Master-way of destroying all mental problems. Except my pronouns, you better respect my goddamn pronouns.

Oil spills, polluted rivers, mowing down Bambi with an AR-15... all excellent examples of Nihilist Terrorism. Civilization is Nihilist Terrorism. Why would a Nihilist care about ecology? If they did, that would be an emotional response to a moral dilemma... and by definition emotions and morality are things that Nihilists oppose. Especially ones that embrace terrorism.

Real nihilist terrorism is to chuck humans in the garbage like ITS is doing. Muerto el perro se acabo la rabia.

Or we can just bring more hyper-civilized into the world whose very existence is suicidal and omnicidal. Either way things fix themselves, it's a win-win. Eco-extremists just want to make it more interesting. Maybe not a big deal but you gotta be the destruction you wish to see in the world.

What's the difference between civilization (bad?) and what the eco-extremist (good?) is trying to do other than civilization is much more efficient? Get back to me when you have a genocide, as opposed to a few homicides, that you can take credit for.

Has the State been smashed yet? I can't tell.

Thanks for the tough love.

The state is doing the smashing. That's the point. They do the eco-extremist bit better than the eco-extremist. That's the other point.

Morality is ok as long as the hyper-civilized bleed and commenters on @ news have the response of of "OMG U CAN'T SAY THAT YOU'RE BEING A HYPOCRITE *autistic screeching* REEEEEEEEEEE!"


Just get to doing this you two(Zerzan and the extremists) and quit this middle means violence or confrontation bullshit.

There never was a stage or a game or anything better or worse you ecoretarded idiots. Nature doesn't care, it's one with entropy and between humans wasting their time creating a biospheric skin disease and living as monkeys it makes no judgements much like the nature in the novel Heart Of Darkness. It just is.

Haha... that silent dude on Primitive Tech is rather a primitive industry technologist. I bet he'd make even Amish people raise eyebrows instead of applauding to his fancy, over-complicated machines made of wood and clay. And is he even living in the wild, or is just some suburban doing this as some Youtube art project?

is still a better example of actualizing primitive existence even if it is just a hobby. Maybe morons like Kevin Tucker and John Zerzan should stop beating around the bush with their own contribution to elective/proposed constituted struggle and make those techniques more then a hobby. Better a hobbyist then some moronic strugglo or the Isis of the 'wild'.

And that was his primary motivation/sentiment behind his terrorist actions, to be seeing wildlife destruction, happening near his forest cabin, for the sake for a road construction.

...but since when do you care about anarcho-pimmies taking their beliefs to action, SE? Wasn't "staying home" the best, jack-of-all-trades solution to anything?

Yes and a lot of good that did him in the end. He should have stuck to typewriting and subsisting in his cabin in the woods. The real driver of that destruction is/was always sublimated consumption patterns and attachments to leviathans wealth. I don't see how mail bombing and revolutionary rhetoric does ANYTHING to stop the underlying cause. All life eventually ends anyway, just be the terrestrial living and becoming that you want to be and cut the struggling rhetoric out of it.

And taking beliefs to action is great, as is staying home which can also be staying in the forest as the waldganger.


The Anarch... Nordic mythology... Ahhh SE you just can't avoid going back to Nazi momma can't you?

Btw living is a struggle. Especially in the forest. Especially in nordic winters where you'd better have enough wood chopped every night and/or a few layers of warm blankets. Even having water for drinking means having to smash the ice of a river/lake with an axe every morning.

That, unless you have managed to make yourself a guru in some commune out of your pedantism, so young militant groupies can worship every of your pompuous, shallow words, without a single drop of sweat on your part. But no, I'm sure that's not your case.

But it's a CORPOREAL struggle with the terrestrial world not a CONSTITUTED one in the political city. Also, what's wrong with Nordic mythology? It has it's place with all the others throughout the 4 corners of the world.

Silly leftist...

Nope, ziggy works a shitty tech or service job or something like that. He hangs out here to endlessly boost his sense of his own relevancy while denying any connection to working-class struggle and shitting on "leftards". At least the irony isn't wasted!

Believe it or not my dude I actually care about the idea and spirit of anarchy and wish to see it simply practiced and articulated better.

I believe you believe your own crap. However I don't believe you're the authority on any "spirit of anarchy", to say the least.

Stating something in an assertive confident manner as to relay a value preference is not being an authority. Get your definitions correct.

Not an issue of definitions. I suspect your assertiveness isn't nearly as impressive when you aren't parked safely behind the keyboard little "anarch" ;)

As usual. What makes you think I wouldn't make these same arguments in the same effective manner in a face to face encounter albeit more cordially.

Ironically I'm not very little either:)

Sir, would you agree to an interview with my publication, The Unique Volcel? It's an application of a Stirnerite property-ownness approach to masculinist sexual vitality and life dominance.

Front all you like, little "anarch", it's what gives you away.

While SE's use of the term "Anarch" is pompuously dumb and also way too close to Ernst Junger, who's comprehension of anarchy or anarchist is quite ill-sourced, the designation of "anarch" makes sense. I also feel that "anarch" should have some bonus hit value and sarcastic appeal to be ears of the profane, as it makes a satirical spin the widely-known "monarch".

Whereas this "anar" or "anares" is often being used by rotten eggs with poor enough education to not know what a root word and an affix are and how these work in language, besides just sounding retarded.

I merely like his term as well as some of his aesthetic viewpoints of the world. I've made the point that I use his label and Novatorean substance. Junger is actually somewhat on the monarchic continuum which I obviously reject. He also did not connect anarch to anarchy.

You are right that the name and label makes sense though, especially as a way of solving the over hyphenation problem that plagues contemporary anarchism. Anarch/Anarchy is simply a post leftist Stirnerian point of departure from Proudhonian/Bakuninian/Kropotkinian elective proposed means eschatology path to anarchy(ie anarchism). Bey's ontological immediatism driven anarchy and Black's anti-organzation and work analysis is also a big part of this.

well then have at it to what it means? Surely revolt has something to do with it; does revolt have to be leashed, aka revolution? Or can it be simply anti-authoritarian? Does anti-authoritarian have to involve a convoluted and ever expanding sense of oppression, or is it better if it is perceived as (prudent) open revolt (aka anti-authoritarian)...
Who is an authority on the spirit of anarchy, mr. "anti-authoritarian"?

That's all it really simply is, living and activity. Revolt can be a part of it but not a default by any means. Hell I see anarchy more as getting away with it in an age of history and leviathan.

I think this displays the point of anarch/anarchy pretty well. Monarchism and monarchist arise when monarchy and monarch are waning in history. Anarchism and anarchist essentially represent a perceived lack, but anarchy is never lacking, it is found in physical reality not historical reality like the classics imagined with their modern eschatologies.

There is a place for anarchism and anarchy because we do live in an authoritarian world and I still elect and proposed for it. But the emphasis for anarchy needs to shift away from the position/solution and toward the ACTIVITY that is not contingent on a historical series of events. Anarchy now not anarchy then.

"Yes and a lot of good that did him in the end. He should have stuck to typewriting and subsisting in his cabin in the woods."

He would have, if his sister-in-law hadn't been such a sniveling moralist and nosey busy-body. His manifesto raised awareness about technology in ways that hadn't been articulated before, and I bet he even changed a few minds in the process, something he wouldn't have done by merely tending to his own Buddhist garden in quietism.

Not everyone--particularly not every primitivist--can afford to live out their 'wildest' dreams, even as a hobby. Ted bought the property he lived on in Montana with money he earned as a highly paid assistant professor at Berkeley. Staying in the forest is just as consumptive as working in the city, as the former depends on the latter.

Anarcho-Nihilo-Hoboism is the 21st Century's new Post-Primitivism! "Not everyone--particularly not every primitivist--can afford to live out their 'wildest' dreams" NOT TRUE!!! We Anarcho-Nihilo-Hoboists live out our wildest dreams in the unregulated concrete jungles of the world's metropolises, combining the best of both worlds, pushing Primitivism to its logical final expression as non-consumeristic, sustainable autonomy, anti-work, anti-property ownership, embracing mutual aid and the potlatch ethic. WE are the new 21st century evolution of the former Zerzanist Primitivism.

Bulletin just received from a fellow Hoboist that a ban of cell phone users from our Turnpike Autonomous Zones has been given a hands up approval. I'm personally against any democratic process for executive actions since we are a nihilist faction, however this has been implemented as a mental health and safety issue, seems the cell phone folk develop serious psychological anxiety complexes and self-absorbed delusional stresses attributed to the inability on their part to communicate face to face to the aggressive individual types the hoboists exemplify and their continuous harping and paranoia concerning the volatile carcinogenicity of most hoboist environments due to the 92% of pungent homegrown tobacco smokers, automotive fumes, waste oil and plastics, pigeon feces and lice at the TAZ.

Listen brah I got a cell phone and would be glad to burn it if there would be hobos in my town actually getting the fuck of their apartements or dog houses to do that fucking TAZ thing in broad daylight. But like... stop being so hush-hush, behaving like a cult of Mansonian crackheads who're so paranoid about all the cops that aren't in their own circle.

But sure, yeah, urban hoboism, especially in the US, looks like the best future for a practical and consistent anarchy.

Yo collective could someone explain to me why I can't talk about Gorilla Mindset on threads about rewilding and dedomesticating??? Pretty obvious implications for anti-civ discourse. Is it because it's affiliated with "the right?" Because we post-leftists are beyond that right/left definition, so what gives? Also why cede this point to anyone in an ideological sense? Please explain why you censor this, your leftism is showing.

we post-leftists are often fumbling blindly behind under our gigantic, delusional egos which leads us to make asinine statements like - "why does me explicitly referencing a fascist author piss people off and get my shit deleted?"

If Agamben and Benjamin can kick around ideas with Carl Schmidt and Heidegger gets to roll around with Tiqqun and if ITS communiques can be posted on anarchist news why can't I talk about Gorilla Mindset?

Post-left anarchism sounds like a good idea. We should try it some time. As for primitivism, I suggest we leave that to the misanthropists.

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

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

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
Enter the code without spaces.