Action and Response

  • Posted on: 28 November 2015
  • By: rocinante

From Black and Green Review #1

There has been an uproar, stemming from the logical and important critique of activism, that fears the reemergence of a civil disobedience ethic. On the other side of action, theoretically, sits ITS. The Individualists Tending Towards the Wild (ITS) are individuals who have sent bombs to numerous universities, professors, researchers, as well as journalists and non-profits in the name of wild human nature. ITS has its cut throat communiqués stylized to provoke anger and wrought with strands of logic pulled harshly and quickly together, making arguments that seem pointless to engage with. In its communiqués ITS, though contradictory at times, aims to be another theoretical bullet (as opposed to the actual bombs) against the plague of pointless property destruction and “sentimental environmentalism”. Swallowed in is indeed civil disobedience and all other actions that would seem trivial (including non-human targeted arson as they have specifically named ELF as a sentimental “group”) in the face of a bomb.

But how real are the differences from a strategical perspective? ITS has not aimed to disable areas of the grid or take out large swaths of data (no matter who they kill the cloud holds all). Though they have taken the most serious actions in terms of prosecution and state punishment have they nevertheless been culled by the plague of sentimentalism? Surely only the sentimental would play into the cultural idea of murder being the worst and most effective crime when there may be more effective non-murder focused tactics?

The answer seems obvious enough, of course they are drawn into a sentimental and fundamentally emotional reality when confronted with the daunting question of “what to do” in the face of a civilization gripping at the final fuels, the final predators, caught in the last series of pushes before a cascading and dynamic shift that will be more horrific than any mail bomb.

Civil disobedience, in particular Earth First! has been condemned in this supposed resurrection of demonized tactics, is not evil. The discussion between these two tactics, though I don't think they are adequately described as “ends of the spectrum”, is vital. ITS has made numerous dubious claims about the legitimacy of its targets, which have included establishment journalists and Greenpeace. They refuse to acknowledge when an attack goes awry, saying that an unintended casualty does nothing to deter their struggle for ego driven wildness. ITS opens themselves up for maximum prosecution but their obsession with Ted Kaczynksi makes them zealots for the killing of humans with no desire to understand the inherent limitations of their tactic. This is not to make an argument that “they have become like that which they fight”. My point here is to engage with our biases. Because something is more extreme does not make it more effective. We seem perfectly capable of criticizing civil disobedience, and I understand how easy that critique rolls off the tongue, but other tactics become immune from engagement, even more so as we turn to an egoist and radically subjective view of the world.

In this egoist turn away from our inherent sense of connectedness we see each action as existing in a bubble and the analysis of ITS among some, including the fine folks at Free Radical radio, has boiled down to ITS “destroying something that is ugly to them”. This hollow and pointless analysis leaves us in a vacuous space filled with ambiguous meandering. The subjective nature of “destroying something ugly” can only lead to an ultimately moralistic view of the world where purged and un-purged egos sit apart from each other. Always purge your ego of every perceivable reified notion or that ego will be “tainted” by something or possibly, if you are a nihilist, everything. The ugly can become anything. With no grounding, no analysis, action departs from effectiveness. The analysis of civilization is left by the wayside as we search down pathways of logic devoid of the material culture which constructs our daily behavior. The struggle is isolated and subjectiveness takes the reigns as community becomes more and more irrelevant to our analysis.

Our self is a manifestation of experience and neurosis as well as conscious and unconscious absorption of ideas, senses, and communication. That this blurry matrix of self-realization or ego-actualization is a starting point for action seems, at best, unhelpful. Destroying something ugly is meaningless in and of itself, the world driven by ego is manifested in countless ways and the end point is left purposely undefined to such a degree that no one, not even the ones taking action, have any idea what sort of world they want. The contradictions develop quickly as the hyper consciousness of our “self” spins into an idea of subjectiveness that can only be described as pointless and, ultimately, if we are to believe the premise, completely unrelatable. If it is true that our subjective experience is all that matters then we can just turn to transhumanism to fulfill the goal of realizing our true self.

Analysis matters. Infrastructure matters. For action to be effective we must simply look at implications not divinate for one truth. There is no precedent for an ego driven world yet anarchists seem to think they can open up a portal to liberation through a convoluted notion of a perceivable self that is a manifestation of a multitude of inputs both known and unknown, those in our consciousness and those not.

All actions are open to discussion. We can decide amongst ourselves which seem worthwhile and respect a large array. It isn't about drawing lines, it's about understanding where we are and where we want to go.

One could easily posit that me making such claims, or calling into question ITS tactics, is heretical and that to denounce such “productive” actions, while seemingly defending remnants of petty and “outdated” tactics, does nothing to enhance our level of praxis. All this is under the deluded supposition that one day we may just happen to stumble upon an answer of “what to do?” There is no shortage of prophets on the left and right spending countless hours trying to articulate a “rational strategy” that changes the world. The baseline lunacy of this claim is self-evident and, historically, easy to rebuke. Success stories of theory and tightly woven praxis are not in ample supply.

To intellectually beat down the one asking the question, or the one with the U lock, does not create or clarify our praxis. The negation of strategical techniques once and for all is simply about purity. This goes both ways.

There is of course plenty of room for debate and questions addressing these issues, particularly around the notions of violence, property destruction, and moralistic pacifism. But discussion and critiques cannot, by a matter of necessity and actuality, exist apart from action. This is why discussion on ITS is important, at least tactically. Addressing the philosophical musings of ITS is tantamount to addressing Ted K's take on anthropology, forever frustrating and never satisfying. What this says about the psychology of those who see humans as the only legitimate targets is something worth thinking about.

However, ITS is presenting a praxis of some sort and they are forthright about their immediate goals. We can dig into their formulations, we can actually discuss the implications of it from the perspective of what is currently happening. It would be easy to construct numerous ways to knock it down, feel as though we had philosophically kicked its ass and put the final word on “murder” as a tactic. As I read Black Seed I wonder what the reaction to an article titled “Two Steps Back: the Return of Murder in Ecological Resistance” would be. Didn't FC show us the abundant failure of a few (or one) murderous earth avengers mailing bombs? But for some reason, mostly aesthetic, there is a hesitation to make those claims. I see that as a good thing, we shouldn't be making blanket claims about tactics. But that hesitation does not extend, for reasons that are, again, mostly aesthetic, to civil disobedience. This is despite the fact that Earth First! has had some, albeit quite small in the scale of global civilization, successes protecting isolated areas. Of course there are serious strategical problems with saving isolated areas but it does not follow that those areas are irrelevant or that I am not personally happy that they still exist in some less mediated state of wildness. All wild places matter. With 75% of the surface area of the earth under human control, influence or habitation it seems relevant to stop new areas from being taken over. If we want a future primitive, this may be one of the most important things happening. Wild spaces re-appear fast but healthy ecosystems take time. Overall, however, this is a large scale failure, more is destroyed daily. While I appreciate the spaces “saved” there are several missing pieces and each Earth First! campaign can be looked at individually, something Black Seed does do. They make a blanket assertion in the article but truthfully it is a critique of select campaigns.

The point here is to address the way we view debating tactics and strategy in a largely theoretical vacuum. Theory and practice may very well be tied together but words, much like a sanctioned march, are ineffective at actualizing action in the here and now. The words may be more important than the march but to say that our theory can firmly define our praxis verges on a neo-Marxist argument that the people just need a rational argument, upon the perfect articulation revolution happens. The likes of Deep Green Resistance and the Revolutionary Communist Party have already found their perfect articulation in Derrick Jensen and Bob Avakian respectively, and look how far they have come! Action is tantamount to existing as a human, an agreement I share with the ITS articulation of being human, but there is often a chain of evasiveness in how we, as anti-civilization anarchists, address action. There are some decent and grounded reasons for this, prison among them, but the evasiveness needs to be acknowledged.

A program is hardly needed, a look to DGR solidifies this point. No one needs another “above ground” political apparatus dictating ideology with a “below ground” (that no one, in any circumstance, should ever admit to knowing about) committing actions which the “above ground” may or may not take credit for. This party-action structure has shown itself historically to be not only authoritarian but ineffective. Nonetheless, we can be more instructive about action when we talk, discuss, and confront. The discussion usually shifts around issues of legality and or violence. It may be more important to clarify what we want from actions and think about our goals.

I do not think ITS (or its contemporaries, Wild Reaction, Obsidian Point to name a couple) is harboring an effective strategy. This is less to say about the moral affect of those participating and more about the obviousness of their failure. Civilization still exists, the universities still exist, the papers, the environmental groups, even nanotechnology still exists. Worse off, they are expanding. So where are we left with this “destroy what is ugly to you” strategy? In the same place as the revolutionary as we can only possibly hope, in order for total destruction of the reified world, that there is a mass rising of egos motivated to destroy, in a nihilistic fashion, all possible impediments to the ego. The self at the center of actions seems increasingly bizarre in cases of meticulous planning, particularly when that planning involves conspiracy to commit an act which may lead to significant, if not permanent, prison time.

Somewhere in the middle of this we have black bloc and other supposedly radical tactics loosely associated with the idea of “insurrection”. While helpful in many ways, and more often than not worth supporting, the idea of effectiveness hinges upon mass participation. While a move to lawlessness creates more opportunities for individuals and small groups the setting is exceedingly important and what we can say for ITS is that at least some planning is necessary to reach your short-term goal. Is that goal embedded in an overall strategy? A question worth asking, though the answer need not only be yes.

Liberating your individual person is a tiresome job and our concentration upon the fulfillment of our egos, even in their supposed and likely “union”, leads us to a strategy or pure self-determination destroying manifestations of ideas, with our very own idea that liberation will come from their destruction. The institutions will have their illusion shattered and then something will happen. The exciting nature of this seemingly unexplored space is liberating for a moment but does this radical strategy of waiting for the theoretical hammer to drop do anything?

I do believe there is an effective strategy, I know that it cannot be fully articulated for reasons that go beyond law. We can create massive disruptions and heed the destruction of wildness, both internal and external to ourselves and our families. The answers are far less complex than we would like to believe. Continuing to hype an insurrection coming any day, or supporting actions because of their ego liberating bent, as well as demonizing any of these actions including all civil disobedience is not generally helpful. We may harbor the day of insurrection and I do believe that the unexpected is possible, even likely in the face of our ultra-domesticated day to day, but ultimately the collapse of global civilization will not have its primary driver be an insurrection or mass revolt. The infrastructure and armies cannot continue if we wish for a world of wildness. This is undeniable. It may be necessary that consciousness shift but that does not mean that civilization will fall. To put it bluntly: I do not mourn the nano-tech scientist, I celebrate wild lands, and insurrection in the streets brings us each and collectively closer to touching experience, but civilization will exist as long as the material structure exists with the fuel to run it. The reality is simple, the implications are striking, but we are stuck celebrating ineffectiveness, rallying the masses, and diminishing any victories not deemed radical enough in methodology. The implications of a critique of civilization are widespread and in front of our faces. Let's not forget them.



1) ITS, Wild Reaction from Mexico and similar, should never publish comments at the Internet, their IP address can be traced.

2) this author (black and green) should not catch himself for words like "ugly" and then criticize attacking something "ugly", people use words to communicate and the sense is important, not every word, and author catch himself for words, he can be like feminists who favorize critics about language/phrases we use, while gov kill people/nature with bombs. It looks like typical middle class white anarchists from the west enjoying in capitalism, who like to make philosophy without to put ass in the fire (to take the risk).

3) we should not forget that president of The US decided that Eco-fighters should be seen as terrorists and consequently spied, and secret service is not only spying than making subversive activities against their targets, including work on decreasing of influence of militants on other people, in that light also: criticizing militant actions in order to stop other people to get idea to do the same. I don't say there should be no critics of ITS, RS, I just say people should be aware of the work of secret service, shortly: isolating militants, making their influence smaller/lower, harassment and arrest or elimination. So, if you are militant and you get some problem, even if criminals attack you on the street, yes, it is organized by the secret service, they follow you and make shit for you, at your job, at exams at university, problem with neighbors if you are a squatter, etc. They work against you.

4) Author said: "It isn't about drawing lines, it's about understanding where we are and where we want to go."
Holly shit, we are at ZERO, the only light are insurrection and wild anarchists, the rest of anarchist groups are stagnating last 70 years, from WWII. "what media will say about us if we use violence" and other western middle class bullshit, without to think if they work for the secret service.
Where we want to go? Out of stagnation, every individual and group will decide for themselves, there is no universal solution for all of us.
Black & Green obviously didn't change anything (considering present pollution, wars, etc) in order to say that militants are having wrong tactics.
I don't like this sentence: What this says about the psychology of those who see humans as the only legitimate targets is something worth thinking about.
Usually CIA/FBI/NSA care about psychology, we should care how to destroy capitalism and all its components, technology among others, although I believe that capitalism has faces and addresses. So, my critics of ITS would be: instead to attack many billboards in the city, many machines and scientists, attack the core of the system: billionaires that employ scientists and machines and billboards. killing billionaires and burning their production tools being us to that point that companies bankrupt (without bog boss, company loose political connections, without production tools (research center for example), company will stop production and loose profit until it bankrupt and even children of billionaire will not have what to inherit and continue business). so, if 150 billionaires are dead in this world, there would be no more wars. that's an example. there are different billionaires with different business, but ITS should find their targets. I believe that the most important billionaires are living in Switzerland, on the lake beside Zurich, because 10 big corporations own 100 smaller companies, 6 billionaires owns hundreds of media, etc. Instead to destroy TV antenna, better to kill owner of TV and burn TV building to destroy equipment for "production" (of news). for example, this pictures shows 10 big companies, and you can be sure they have many research centers, scientists, etc, ITS can find who are owners, shareholders, as I said, I believe they are in Zurich:

5) "Nonetheless, we can be more instructive about action when we talk, discuss, and confront."
but global communication is under control of NSA, so, militants can be followed and arrested if they publish comments at anarchist and other websites. even sending communique with email is leaving traces for the secret service. drug criminals, al kaida, MI5/6, all of them use personal messengers, theoretically 325nostate and other websites should get message on USB in some hidden place, and they should burn device after copying message, in that way there are no DNA traces, etc. and for copying message, they should use small laptop that was never connected with Internet and never out of sight of owner, that's very hard, person can go to swimming and leave laptop and secret service can access it. as we see, many people in greece are arrested, secret service is spying family and friends and supporters, etc. and they are not educated how to cheat secret service. even al kaida has people from secret service who educate them about communication, in that way they know their enemy, anarchists don't know their enemy. so, it is big topic, how to communicate secure and keep militants and guerrilla out from the prison.

6) author catch himself for "destroy what is ugly", but the fact is that people have different needs, it means, ITS fulfill their needs: to attack, but it doesn't mean they don't have any idea why they do it, just to write why they do it, they would need to write the whole book in one communique. many even don't give a shit to write anything. I believe without public statement, it is private war, but some people can choose to make their war without to explain anything to anybody. I prefer public and not private war, because I know that repressive departments do everything to make lower influence of militants. they get pain in the ass when many people read communiques. so, even publishing communique is damaging secret service, it produces new fighters, the same as books, talk between individuals, etc.

7) last words sound like that author is making compromise " it cannot be fully articulated for reasons that go beyond law" in order to attract ITS to contact him, so, he can be so-called honeypot. criticizing tactics, calling for discussion, but in the end, showing small "destabilization" of his standpoints, it looks like a bait, with the aim to trace ITS.

eco groups are already infiltrated by the FBI, for me, this text is very similar to the work of secret service. ITS should stay separated from civil disobedience groups, don't show them your way of thinking, cheat your enemies: make actions and pretend you don't support such things. and again, my critics: the core of the system are billionaires, not billboard or bulldozer or some scientist. find out who are shareholders, owners of any technology tool, research center, you see as your enemy.

Yeah! What is up with him proposing a counter-identity politics and shitty materialist feminism? I think he's still pissed about being called out for cultural appropriation to hock his shit. Remember him putting images of little primmie indigenous kids on his books and shirts and shit? Yeah, this is that guy. If he wasn't so marginal, he'd be arguing for MRA and SJW rapprochement in primmie militant schools of attack. Former swindlekkkists tend to still be leftists at heart, no matter how hard they try not to left.

I agree. Kevin Tucker is clearly an agent of the state and in cohoots with the FBI's efforts to undermine anarchists and radicals of all stripes from engaging in the militant activity that would actually succeed in fulfilling our desires as well as making important points with the sound of explosions and the sight of fire. Kevin Tucker is full of shit too because both he and John Zerzan are in favor of attacks of all sorts, they just want to vanguard the shit as author/generals and tell people how to properly attack...except they don't really know how to do so, but feel full and ready to act as the authorities on attack for anyone else that doesn't tow their isolating doctrine. Shame on Kevin Tucker for acting like an agent of the state and hopefully he is in fact not one. I'm not one to snitchjacket, but the evidence is strong that Kevin Tucker is a belligerent moron or an agent of the state. I'll choose the former for now. For now..

Another Derrick Jensen in the making, just badder and better, but still equally not holding up to his ideas through action? Time will tell I guess...

Isn't Kevin Tucker in a Christian Science metal band called "Pellican"?

no, he is not. he is in peregrin which describes itself as "anarcho-primitivist death metal based in pennsylvania. love wildness, hate civilization. welcome to our cynicism"

There's a lot of lies presented as facts in this essay... but hey, its Kevin Tucker... Could these people who write about ITS actually read what they ACTUALLY say instead of what Zerzan said he heard they said? ITS NEVER said that bombing people was the only good praxis. Although ITS didnt claim any arsons (until later, once they were part of Wild Reaction, they released a posthumous claims of car arsons), Wild Reaction (and subsequent groups) has claimed many arsons and attacks on property and infrastructure, as they have claimed bombs that could have killed people on campuses, research institutes, engineering companies and government institutions. It is clear that they do not favor ONE tactic and they've clearly stated this.
Another thing is how ITS are supposedly "obsessed" with Kazcynski... because they used some of his analyses in their first communiques. ITS stated clearly that they had many differences with Kaczynski, especially with Kazcynskis revolutionary analysis and ambitions. They are not strategizing to reach anti-tech revolution or insurrection, they are not politically motivated.
So get it in your head Tucker, the eco-extremists in Mexico are apolitical terrorists and they fully embrace it.
So listen Tucker, If we are to have a meaningful discussion about the eco-extremist tendency in Mexico, which i would be more than willing to take on, we should have it on the basis of what is ACTUALLY happening, being said, etc. not on the basis of your weak takedown attempts who just show ONCE AGAIN how you try to take advantage of peoples ignorance on certain subjects to advance your revisionist ideological agenda.

Tucker asks: "Didn't FC show us the abundant failure of a few (or one) murderous earth avengers mailing bombs?"

The only reason anyone knows your fucking name is because FC sent those mailbombs, duh.

This virtually proves the point - FC's failure means we have to listen to anarcho-primitivists.

I don't really give two fucks about any of the bullshit that gets posted on this site, including hilarious attempts to say that I'm a fucking "agent of the state". But I'm not the author of this piece. It was published in Black and Green Review which I'm a co-editor of. I'm not saying this to be coy, I'm saying it because it's a fact (a fascist notion around here I'm sure): do not attribute this piece to me, as I am NOT the author.
As someone who uses their legal name and has been held to their word before, I make a goal of not taking part in bullshit posturing. In no way have I gone after ITS, RS, etc, although I have taken part in saying that I think "terrorism" is ineffective strategy. If it wasn't then ISIS are certainly doing a better job than anyone else. I have taken issue with the idea that nihilistic "destroy anything", but it's not like myself or JZ is looking to call these people out and try them. I disagree on tactics, but I'm not shedding a tear over technocrats. I'm just not going to say about of stupid shit to try and sound more radical or to pretend like what these groups are doing are the only available options. I've published plenty to the contrary, so shove your fucking posturing bullshit up your cyber assholes.
This is pretty much the extent to which I've talked about these groups publicly (from a recent interview with The Fifth Column):
"In [Kaczynski's] eyes, he needed to hold technocrats accountable for their actions. That’s been the inspiration for Ted as it has seemingly been for groups like Individualists Tending Towards the Wild (ITS), Wild Reaction, and Obsidian Point. In smaller worlds, that has worked. We’re talking effectively about terror campaigns and political assassinations. With the hyper-modern world we inhabit, there are just so many of those positions and so many people to fill them. I’m not shedding a tear for technocrats, but I think the tactic needs a massive scale to be effective. The more Google becomes the Evil forecast throughout dystopian fiction, the more people might keep getting pissed and targeting them, with or without larger standing affiliations or justifications.
"Again, I’m far from a pacifist, but the upside to our circumstance is that our targets need not be human. If we’re talking about effectiveness, then the machines are the bigger problem than the operators. Flesh, sadly, is seen as more replaceable than circuitry: something we’re reminded of every time we buy something out of a Foxconn factory.
"The Maoist side though is what drives the unapologetic sense of militarism: the refusal to reconcile the loss of life that comes when a bomb doesn’t hit it’s target. You get the same kind of lingo that comes from the military when, or I should say, if, they have to respond to things like how at least 90% of drone strike victims are civilians or bombing a Doctors Without Borders hospital. I just don’t have the stomach for that stuff, but I’m not a Maoist or a patriot."

"I don't really give two fucks about any of the bullshit that gets posted on this site, including hilarious attempts to say that I'm a fucking "agent of the state"."

Yeah, and then you come and read all the comments and make one yourself trying to defend yourself and this pathetic piece of shit of an article that was posted here "that you didnt write".
If you dont care for what people have to say about you and your hippie friends opinions, then shut the fuck up, keep your fucking half-ass rhetoric to yourself and go jerk off JZ some more.

I'm some other random who can't help but notice that you sound really adversarial for no discernible reason. He says he didn't write this and that people are misinterpreting his point and that's pretty plausible. It's an old debate on tactics and I happen to think we could use more "moderate" militants because hot-heads are dangerous (in the wrong way) and plenty of the online-nihilists are completely full of shit and have never even been in a fight before.

There's a lot of room between pacifism and arson/bomb attacks that people should be thinking about and exploring. I struggle to think of a more valid point to make about militant resistance right now, although obviously many of the struggles in mexico are escalated way beyond what those of us farther north can relate to.

apologizes, while article was not credited as being from you, i tagged it with your name "kevin tucker" because it came from your journal, black and green review. perhaps that is why ppl assumed you wrote it. should have been more clear and put "by anonymous".

Historically, radical resistance to heteronomy has fallen into three main categories: critique, the decrying of the incumbent paradigm and the highlighting of exactly why it’s so harmful and wrong; outreach, efforts to bring this critique to the attention of others, whether local or more widely; and revolution, the attempt to ‘overthrow’ the present order with another of the insurrectionists’ choosing.
I have written elsewhere about my opposition to revolution, but for now let me summarise my view as saying that it is morally and practically a disgrace on every level. Forcefully ushering in a new order is as wrong as any current order, on a moral level. It assumes that ends justify means (they do not), that a minority vanguard can think and act for a much larger grouping (they cannot), and that mass society itself is not a significant problem (when in fact, it is). Endless mutinies on a ship of fools can never change the fact that the ship is lost, that it is separating us and alienating us from that that might otherwise sustain us, and that it doesn’t matter who’s in control of the rudder, that the ship will never, and can never, arrive anywhere meaningful or positive. Society itself is the greatest evil in the world.
As for outreach, I’ve also thought about and written about this at length, and concluded, that there is no point in myself or anyone who might share my fundamental values pursuing a course of action that in some way attempts to grapple with others that are not close to those values. In short, if someone is not aware of these values, it’s hard to bring them to their attention. If people haven’t already notice that they are bleeding profusely, feeling light-headed, and stooping as they shuffle along, they are not likely to respond rationally when this is pointed out to them. Society, as was just mentioned, has spread insanity into almost every member. The reachable must not waste their precious energy appealing to the unreachable. For one thing, this assumes some sort of general connection between them, which smacks heavily of mass society and humanism. For another, it will likely be all effort and no gain. Cost-benefit analysis should not be restricted to the capitalistic and monetary-thinking. Why do something that most likely will never work? Let’s not all forget that the myth of Sisyphus was a warning, not an inspiration.
As for critique, it is a necessary step on the path to liberation, that is for sure. From ignorance comes the realisation that one is ignorant and the desire to inform and equip oneself with the necessary ideas to further one’s goals; critique is an inseparable part of that process. But I don’t see how it could be a goal in itself. Remaining a slave to and a victim of civilisation and wage slavery is not my idea of a life, and I don’t see how it can be enough for anyone else, either. Even if you jazz-up your existence with hedonistic pursuits and distractions, you are still just having a good time in a bad place. To me, that’s not a life. A life is something with a greater degree of wholeness and purpose.
To that end, I want to know whether you have seriously considered abandoning societal-level methods of resistance and disintegrating your efforts into small enclaves of like-minded individuals that share your fundamental values. I think this approach, which I call 'consentient communities' has the following advantages:-

it shifts the spatial focus from 'what has to be done' to 'what can I do to help myself and my kin?', and therefore makes individual and community sustainability and enrichment the main goal - what could be of higher value than that?

it shifts the temporal focus from ‘after the revolution’ to ‘right here, right now’, and gives people greater reason to brighten each others’ days and, without having to sacrifice longer-term goals, to ‘seize’ the day;

it allows each consentient community to develop their own foundationalist philosophies and critical toolsets, and experience for their selves the important experimental environments of learning to live with others, relate to them, to provide for their selves, and each other, and do all the things that would be necessary in a non-civilised paradigm anyway;

it provides psychosocial spaces where a philosophy of touch, direct communication, healing and nurturing can blossom;

it provides an example, that if and when shared carefully with selected others outside the community, can inspire others to similarly ‘drop-out;

it improves the land that the community lives on, and assists them in establishing a closer connection with everything living there;

it removes people from the largely harmful elements of civilisation (such as computers) by giving them alternatives that enrich instead of drain them. Instead of surrogate activities, it gives them real, positive, life-affirming, loving, spiritually lifting, esteem-boosting, health-improving, direct, unmediated and playful activities that become truly possible in such enclaves;

it removes the majority of conflicts that take up so much time with bickering and endless critiques;

it makes security culture easier by essentially having no traceable presence;

To argue against such a proposition, would, to me, indicate that the individual would have to: be completely besotted by the Geists of leftism and humanism; and/or be harbouring secret desires to see the world shaped by their heteronomous will; and/or to not really want to connect with others and possibly be afraid of doing so; and/or be uncomfortable with living in a truly autonomous way.

In short, I don’t trust anyone who says it’s not a desirable method in and of itself.

For those who doubt the possibility of its success, I would advise that they experiment with it in smaller ways until such a time as they want to expand on it. It’s not an all-or-nothing proposition from day one, although I’d also add that at some point, a definite ‘clean break’ from civilisation is going to give such methods the best possible chance.
As Ive said many times before, to my mind only a community with enough physical as well as philosophical distance from the incumbent paradigm is going to make it in the long run.
When the civilisation-of-origin collapses, far-flung consentient communities could, if they chose, send ‘emissaries’ to the fringes to survey the scenes and see if there is anything that the community could or might want to do, but that’s a decision for another day. Right now, when deciding what to do, I think there is another option that remains woefully under-explored.

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

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

Plain text

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