Anarchy Radio 03-22-2016

  • Posted on: 22 March 2016
  • By: Anonymous (not verified)


Primitivist week at Postmodern twins: Trump and Aragorn!. Self-lacing sneakers, wired homes that "listen," automatic brakes vs. Marshall Islanders who've navigated for thousands of years without instruments. Infectious diseases increase, traffic everywhere worsens. Huawei ad: Decades of patient investment for a moment of divine clarity." Resistance news.



As a primitivist, I would really love to see you seriously engage with the ideas of nihilists and egoists. Right now, it's all name calling and straw men. What do you possibly hope to accomplish with this? You are only turning people away from your ideas. And you wonder why the only anews comments you get are from disingenuous trolls...

Funny thing, I don't recall even MENTIONING egoism or nihilism.
No wonder you're Anonymous - and lack a sense of humor.

I am talking about your podcasts for the past 6 moths or so. You have mentioned nihilism and egosim by name quite frequently, and if not directly then you attack individuals or ideas associated with them, with absolutely no analysis or supporting argument and often a lack of understanding of the position you are attacking. I have yet to see you try to respond or refute any of their critiques of you, let alone give a thorough analysis of why you think their positions are so incompatible with primitivism. Yet you're more than willing to debate Zoltan. What gives?

Academic circles rule #1: only discuss/debate with people with an office in some faculty (or print media). It's the same old peer-review tradition. Love it or hate it, you gotta observe it when you're in the exciting world of academia. Respect your institutional authorities, anarchist.

If you actually listened to the podcasts without your ideological ear muffs on, then you would have heard the analysis and arguments. There has never been any attack on nihilism as such, it's been more a matter of not being able to understand the nihilist position and how it coheres as a critique of the real world. No nihilist has fully explicated what they are for and against or what a nihilist vision of society would look like in practical terms. So we are just left with so many questions, and a void, which we fill by guessing, or by sarcasm, or by humor. Please feel free to call the show and explain the nihilist perspective.

I've listened and that's complete bullshit. There is no confusion, there is conjecture though. John, for months, has been shit talking nihilism and egoism. John isn't interested in actual discussion. If he were, he would've engaged Bellamy more on the issue of egoism instead of dancing around during the discussion to avoid having his position challenged. So I guess he is getting his just desserts here.

But a lot of people who appreciate your work are still scratching their heads over your refusal to even engage with the ideas of egoism. I'm not concerned with nihilism - I mostly find that a waste of time to engage with, but to my knowledge, several people have raised egoist ideas with you in person, let alone the emails and online comments you might have received, and yet you continue to ignore it completely. I'm just telling you that I think this could be your undoing. It's not too late to consider the nuances of the ideas a bit more finely.

Speaking personally now, I've made a tremendous effort to engage with you, which you've completely ignored. And I'm not Anonymous and have a pretty good sense of humour too. If you want to improve opinions, you could start by admitting you've been a bit lax and hostile. Calling someone your 'good friend' and then calling them a 'goofball' a minute later, for example, will not endear you to people.

(Assuming this is the real JZ)

Up next! Zerzans struggle to try and remain somewhat relevant goes on.


You realize that you compare Aragorn to Trump and then say Trump is only interested in his poll numbers and not ideas as evidence. You then proceed to become giddy at the amount of primitivist stuff on anews and then read out the number of comments as if it were an indication of rising interest.

I'm having a symbolic thought: it's irony.

Zerzan is so fucking out of touch.

Because egoism is sooooo relevant to the real world. Lol...

What is that exactly?


Yeah, directly experiencing the world without the need for all of these imaginary separations is kinda pertinent. Relations are all there are. There's no way to not be in the world. We are already the world. We are the universe. There's no fixed I, or self. Everything's continual transformation.

Right now it would be wise not to fall into any or draw any mental gated communities like we're especially seeing in terms of identity (verb) retold on steroids as nouns. The birds don't give a fuck about making america great again, because that shit only exists in human heads.

Exactly. You don't know what the real world is, do you. Lol.

More specific, he wants to argue with you for hours about pedantic, pseudo-philosophical conjecture and semantics instead of acknowledging the real world, let alone doing anything there.

The real world is a 'there.' Like heaven? Lol.

Could you explain what you offer besides mental separations? And, you're conflating me with SE. Not surprising, given the level of in shit talking. (Also: what will shit talking accomplish? The same labeling for social exclusion offered by this society. Then, reproducing its logic will change things how?)

Hi Anarchy Radio (JZ). or perhaps recent participants - Ian & Jeriah

While I haven't tuned into every episode over the years, I have listened occasionally. I was a bit shocked to see the subjects of this episode and gave it a listen. Very surprised (I guess in some ways not) to hear your ramblings about @news and Trump. Honestly, I don't even have any idea what you're talking about and a huge turn off, especially for anarchists like me who have read all your work and more often that not, find it intriguing.

Your critiques and the format of your show reminded me of news blasts that are designed for listeners with a lack of attention span, the nightmares of civilization, and made me wonder if perhaps you've fallen down that hole as well. What's all the problem anyways? Are you making an argument about Black Seed vs. Black and Green Review or something else? Perhaps you could you offer up a more reasonable argument instead of just like 20 seconds of non-nonsensical words that leave people wondering what you're even talking about. And a bad taste in the mouths of those who have previously enjoyed your ideas.

Hope you're well.

He's mad because he thinks Aragorn's goons (aka the trolls) are beating up on his version of anarcho-primitivism, discrediting him and making his butt hurt so damn bad he needs some Tuck's medicated pads. It is a very Zerzanian thing for him to say. But if you see green anarchy as something that is fracturing horribly with several non-anarchist anti-civ trends out-foxing Zerzanian theory meanwhile anti-civ anarchists and anarcho-primitivists who aren't Zerzan's lackeys have voiced concern over this fixation with attacking egoist and nihilist anarchists, which has not caused Zerzan to seriously examine any work by an egoist or a nihilist and try to come to grips with it and then expose how his viewpoint differs, if it actually does! That is the biggest problem, that most of the time Zerzan and his followers are swinging at strawmen, not realizing that perhaps the target was never real to begin with?

And you're mad because JZ doesn't worship at the altar of egoism and nihilism. You're all butt hurt over the fact that he doesn't spend every hour of his show analyzing the differences between primitivism and egoism/nihilism or has much time for egoists and nihilists who don't or can't explain their perspectives.

Troll somewhere else. None of that is implied in the above post (I am a different person).

You're mad because I called you on your bullshit. So you call me a troll.

The above poster is right, they aren't the OC, I'm the OC. You mad bro?

I've always found that to be the end result of any attempts to engage with ANY nihilist critiques. It's not that some of them aren't valid, it's only that nihilism isn't much good for anything except critique. The nihilist emperor has no clothes, but then again, neither does Zerzan.

is largely news, which seems to me revealing and/or entertaining. Lots of high tech stuff, or example. I only have an
hour per week and so a lot of this has to be brief. Very few anarchists seem to show interest in the daily develop-
ments that constitute the nightmare of today. Someone's gotta do it, so...Also some analysis, I'd like to think.
As far as the poverty of egoism and nihilism goes it would be helpful that instead of all the whining, folks could offer
some content about them. You're offended by my shots, provide some counter-point.
I'll mention nihilism first since you bring it up. I've asked many what it means. I've gotten really no responses, no help.
The one point fairly often made is 'let's destroy the system first and then we'll figure out what to do next.' But if one
avoids what 'the system' is, what it involves, that's a pretty meaningless statement, in my opinion.
Now egoism is fairly clear. Here is the bottom line, as per Wolfi and Bellamy: Anything that does not come from the Self
stands over and above the individual as an oppressive force. Full stop. No 'strawman.' Thus any outside help e.g. evidence
from anthropology is rejected. Does't flow from the Ego. No good. To me this is absurd and unhelpful.
This is pretty easy to understand, I am not making it up. I don't get the endless carping about my unhappiness with
these wholly limited orientations. If you think they add something let's hear it.

John, you've written more than five brilliant books describing why modernity and civilisation are horrible in painstaking detail. People supportive of this view want to hear something other than news items that support this. We're familiar with the horrific power of Google Glass and Chinese pollution. Hell, I was living in the most polluted city in China for 7 months very recently. I don't think it advances liberation one iota to go OVER and OVER and OVER the same things.

"Anything that does not come from the Self stands over and above the individual as an oppressive force...If you think they add something let's hear it"

Well, that's one kind of 'egoism', yeah. The dumb kind. The absolutist, nihilistic, kind that leads to all kinds of Nietzschean horror and refusasl to engage, to the disintegration of meaning, and all the other shit that too many 'anarchists' play around with for lifestyles fun. I agree this is a limited orientation. Many sane people do. Let the Emiles of the world satisfy their selves with their Derrida-esque navel gazing.

But there is another perspective, that does not contradict with primitivism but enriches it, which says that a kind of rational egoism is helpful to counter the societal, humanistic, universalist anarchism of the Left, by keeping the focus always on what enriches the individual, and WHY extending his self into others through love and community and a philosophy of touch is the centre of a non-objectified, non-dualistic worldview. The Individual is not separate from 'wild nature', he is the unit of it - not atomised, but in consentient, communicative relation to every other unit of it. Nature as a whole is made of interconnected biomes, which in turn are made of interconnected individuals.

The anticiv people who want what I've just described as an end goal, AND who have read your books, AND who have criticised Anarchy Radio, do so, I think, because they want that interconnectedness to start NOW, in whatever small way they can, and they want a greater focus on PRESCriptions that lead towards it, rather than just DESCriptions of the horrific nightmare from which they must start their experiments.

"I just want to be part of the conversation" is something you've repeatedly said when asked by interviewers why you don't escape to the fringes and live a wild(er) life.

I think that the main reason we're criticising (although I don't claim to speak for the others!) is that we don't see a conversation. We see well-written books and the occasional speech or debate. But we don't see you in conversation THAT much.

Above all, I think we're tired of hearing a guy read the news or unpacking an Adorno quote.

I would be VERY happy to have a conversation about any part of this that you want greater clarity on.

TLDR: The right 'kind' of egoist ideas can help with critique AND - more importantly - with developing a sensible methodology. And they don't contradict with the salient descriptions and critiques of primitivism that you've spent decades relaying. But the people into those ideas are NOT that up for yet more news.!A-philosophy-of-touch-against-mass-socie...

That is what you're describing after all. There is no inherent correlation between an awareness of meaninglessness(which does not escape meaning btw) and what you describe as lifesylist navel gazing. Meaning is a smell that cannot be unsmelled thus a pure nihilistic orientation with an experience of meaninglessness is impossible. It'd be nice if humans could have remained stoned glossolalic apes and never turned small mouth noises into signifyer/signified, but that's not what happened. You don't have to have to worry about meaninglessness UT, short of a mind wipe we're stuck with it.

Really though, you're approach isn't new. Simply research radical back to land experiments. They predate primitivism significantly and many of them fail. By all means I wish you luck on such a project, There are those like seaweed that have done well to reconceptualize such an orientation, but quit trying to see it as novel. It's been done. someone who writes "Meaning is a smell that cannot be unsmelled (sic)" and who is part of a tranche of the nihilist milieu who actively opposes any kind of actual methodology.

FYI, the thing that makes consentient communities a different approach to just "back to the land experiments" is the foundationalist philosophical aspect.

"It'd be nice if humans could have remained stoned glossolalic apes and never turned small mouth noises into signifyer/signified, but that's not what happened" no point trying something different to what we have now, yeah? And if we do, it's nothing new...? I can see why you have such a big problem with meaning.

I'm simply saying that your approach is old and under the sun(which is not to take away from the orientation). Your approach to meaning and methodology is a perfect example of a 'master's tools' problem as it relates to an anarch asocietal orientation.

Also, what makes you think that intentional communities of the past did NOT have some sort of philosophical, ideational foundation. What keeps a concrete human community is not a philosophical foundation but the unintentional factors that are based on non positional affinities.

Lastly, I'm all for experimental diversity including a stab at concrete human communities. You simply don't represent a sophisticated way of reframing these questions in a post civilized way. Your affirmation of meaning and methodology being an obvious flaw. At least JZ went after time, language, number and art.

Especially since you brought up time, language, number and art, all of which I agree with JZ on.

"What keeps a concrete human community is not a philosophical foundation but the unintentional factors that are based on non positional affinities."

After a while, yes. And before civilisation had encroached, yes. But to return to those kinds of affinities is going to require people to take an explicit position, otherwise there will be such a divergence of views on key points that the community will quickly crumble.

Tell me exactly why an "affirmation of meaning and methodology" is a flaw.

When it comes to human communities. They have always existed civilization or not. What sustains them is their situational nature not their intentional nature.

If you have any experience or knowledge of human communities then you would know that divergence is always part of the equation. Positions are tertiary at best as regards to sustaining a community. The intentionality is usually what is responsible for a community that crumbles.

There is no meaning to affirm outside of your own in an existential reality. Ditto for methodology which takes a backseat to experience and plurality.

The other half I disagree with 100%. Doesn't seem like there is much point us trying to discuss this.

Same old unterrified, always creating semantic reality.

Can't navigate nonduality without some moral imposition. In this case nonduality is 'derrida navel gazing.' If one doesn't believe in a fixed self or the self/other split what would there be to navel gaze, and what would be the point? You might not be aware of this (and too presumptive to try for undestanding), but the person that posts as emile has had a full and active career associated with geology.

The knowledge of many things has not brought you understanding. Instead, the same old civilized morality. Where does intuition fit in?

And, could you explain how nonduality is navel gazing?

...what you're actually trying to say. Could you rephrase?

I should say that I have no interest in emile or his posts. They make no sense to me. And what's the point in communication without meaning?

We're no longer prelanguage hominids, the genie's out of the bottle. Even the Piraha, who have the most minimal, immediate language structure ever recorded(no recursion and obviously no reification), have meaning based communication.

What good anarch, noncivilized orientation should be concerned with is cutting the fat of meaning and taking away its reified sublimating power.

and before you said:-

"There is no meaning to affirm outside of your own in an existential reality. Ditto for methodology which takes a backseat to experience and plurality."

I do not understand how you can think both

Then my reasoning obviously implies a both and. Saying that there is no alien transcendant meaning does not mean that meaning does not develope existentially based on an interplay of creativity and nothing.

s.e., this is why i prefer using 'sense' rather than 'meaning' the latter of which, if etymology is any indication, is only an arbitrary conceptually demarcated 'case' of sensing, but not vice versa. 'mind/meaning' have been used within the language to perpetuate a moral belief in a non-sensical separateness.

and yes, the piraha. i recommend everett's books often.

Meaning is essentially when recursion, reification and language run amok.

I actually saw the Everett doc on the Piraha which showed Chomsky and especially his followers to be real pieces of shit. The latter in Brazil basically saw to it that he cannot contact them again.

And I'm now going to explain it in terms of neither... [/emile]


To the unterrified you didn't answer my questions. Saying emile doesn't make sense once again doesn't describe a whole lot. It makes sense to me, based on a study of geology, linguistics, taking entheogenic trips, creating music (how sound fills space and how inspiration comes relationally first), and hearing nondual stories told by the philosphies of Stirner and Nietzsche and how their stories overlap with what is called wu wei. I know you guys are allergic to the north american experience where there are still people spiritually grounded in relations with land, but it's important to note how their way of relating (communicating) is not through an Subject-Verb-Object linguistic orientation that writes space and time out of the equation (negative causality) as fixed, or euclidean.

That being told that an uncivilized worldview doesn't make sense by those supposedly seeking noncivilized ways of life has been most frustrating to witness, not so much in terms of my own but mental barriers to a more relational, inclusional communication.

As told differently than I:

...if I don't understand what you mean. Feel free to rephrase them. I'm not avoiding them for any reason other than I don't get what you mean.

I've studied geology and linguistics and taken entheogenic trips, made music, and explored non-duality, but when I read what emile writes, and what you apparently wrote, I don't get half of it.

Can we stick to what it is that you want me to address?

Remember that this started with me sending a message to JZ.

"I know you guys are allergic to the north american experience where there are still people spiritually grounded in relations with land"

You're reifying 'The North American experience' as if it were something common to many or all 'Americans'. It clearly isn't. While there are some people who maintain a closer connection with the land, such people exist in Europe as well. I lived with some of them for half a year a while back. But what relevance does that have to the current discussion?

"their way of relating (communicating) is not through an Subject-Verb-Object linguistic orientation that writes space and time out of the equation (negative causality) as fixed, or euclidean."

How does this relate to anything I said?

"being told that an uncivilized worldview doesn't make sense by those supposedly seeking noncivilized ways of life has been most frustrating to witness, not so much in terms of my own but mental barriers to a more relational, inclusional communication."

What does this mean? What barriers? What communication?

Lastly, the video you linked to made the least sense of all to me.

i think it is useful to note that which Schroedinger acknowledged, that he, and most understanders of non-duality are 'Mahavits', a Vedic term for a person who understands non-duality intellectually but who has been unable to achieve a practical realization of it in his own life. that is, many if not most people who believe reality is non-dual, including myself, fit the Mahavit description.

this doesn't detract from non-duality, it's kind of like speaking of those who 'get' the model established by Christ who have been unable to achieve a practical realization of this understanding. so, it is too, with non-duality or 'the Tao'. of course, one can continue to work on the practical realization.

one comment on the video besides that it is coming from a Mahavit, is that he included the big-bang. this is abstraction that confuses more than clarifies. it requires a view of the universe from outside the universe [impossible] since one needs an outside measuring rod and clock to validate claims that the universe was more compressed at time t=beginning than at time t=now; i.e. he didn't need to throw that one in.

all in all, he does a good Mahavit job in making the case for non-duality as the 'real' reality. of course, it is also useful to show how we are bewitched by language into believing that 'semantic reality' is the primary reality, and he does not get into that aspect.

I agree, and offered the video as perhaps not just as 'introduction,' but another way of telling that could lead the unterrified and myself to evoke or pinpoint the mental barrier in mutual understanding.

I'd really like to reach out and broaden my understanding in a way that practical aspects and applications could transform in my own lifetime. If not? Keep disbelieving and dissolving 'spooks.'

what you state here is the key to everything that we hold dear on this site.
The concepts that help us express our libertarian ideas and sentiments are varied,
yet each one unique. They relate in a panoply of difference. They inform beautifully
our multitude of praxes , which over the years have included many wonderful practices and activities.
The breath and depth of our assemblages never fail to astound me . No one of them are "perfect",
but the multitude of them are unbelievably creative with many aspects of mutual aid that all of us here
value so much. We must guard against self depreciation; self-loathing. Our causes are innumerable and
and our manifestations are often very effective. They for the most part " just happen"; anytime and anywhere: sometimes and in some places no-one could hardly anticipate. Potentialities, Not Positions.
the glass is more than half empty. Much more.

so excuse the prosaic style of this follow-on, but i wanted to say something about my appreciation of the same phraseology of S.E.'s and what it elicits in my recall in regard to human community/teamplay

S.E. says;

"intentionality is usually what is responsible for a community that crumbles ...
... What keeps a concrete human community is not a philosophical foundation but the unintentional factors that are based on non positional affinities."

what this recalls to me is the fault-intolerant nature of intentional systems, and how everything tips upside down when the intentional system fails. a classic intentional system failure is Apollo 13 when the oxygen tank exploded. the unintentional factors that draw together non-positional affinities is a great characterization of how anarchy takes over from intentional community. [even as entropy/disorder rises]

in an intentional structure, participants have potentials that never see the light of day [go unactualized] because the abstract nature of the intentional goals [desired future states] characterized by leftist or rightist 'ask not what your community can do for you but what you can do for your community' [JFK], cannibalizes the participants rather than opening the way for their full actualization.

but in the event of collapse, the orchestrating source is the emergence of unintentional factors. the team-play or community dynamic that ensues is one in which affinities arise from situational influences that actualize non-positional potentialities.

this seems to correspond to 'negative entropy' since the energy lost in the collapse of the ordered intentional structure is commonly considered no longer usable to do work, but the establishment of the intentional community had rendered many un-inventoried potentials inaccessible/unusable that are opened to actualization with the collapse of the intentional community.

In the Apollo 13 dilemma, these un-inventoried potentials were brought into play by the Flight Director's inversion of the ordering dynamic;

‘’I don’t give a damn about what anything was DESIGNED for, all I care about is what it is CAPABLE of."

the liberation of un-inventoried potentials that contribute to the relational community dynamic is a kind of negentropy silver lining actualized in the collapse of intentional community, which ties to S.E.'s and Azano's comments.

is based on an ability-to be. Then,a possibility-to-be. Then again,a potentiality-to-be. Then,
yet again a capability- to: be-come.

you say;

"The anticiv people who want what I've just described as an end goal, AND who have read your books, AND who have criticised Anarchy Radio, do so, I think, because they want that interconnectedness to start NOW, in whatever small way they can,"

the natural world is already an interconnectedness. Western culture has INTELLECTUALLY taken it apart with its ego-based assumptions of 'independent being' which depict such 'beings', starting from 'us humans', as local fountainheads of creative actions and results.

as nietzsche and emerson have pointed out, there are no local being-based fountainheads of anything, ... there are only 'vents' in the transforming relational continuum that transmit influence from "the vast and universal" to the point on which we can act. whether we are talking about terrorists or 'productive nations', there is no local fountainhead from when productive or destructive actions jumpstart, although the political leaders of sovereign states are quick to claim there is, ... some kind of national spook-spirit that 'makes America great' [meaning a 'superior producer'] ... and those same political leaders that claim their nation is a fountainhead of productive results, ... claim that terrorists are a fountainhead of evil and destructive results, rather than, as the indigneous aboriginal colonisees full well know, a vent for the release of relation tensions infused by Euro-American colonization.

the world is only given once, as a transforming relational continuum. construction and destruction are conjugate aspects of relational transformation. anti-civ starts with the assumption that Western civilization with its fragmenting belief of ego-based 'being' is 'real' so that the challenge is to redevelop a new and more connected society. meanwhile, there is no fragmentation in the physical reality of our actual, natural, relational experience, ... the fragmentation occurs only in 'semantic reality' for 'realists' who believe in it; i.e. who believe in ego-based 'being', the foundation for belief that humans and nation-states and terrorists are fountainheads of productive [good or evil] results rather than what they physically are, vents that transmit influence from remote space time to the point where we can make it work for us. we are sailboaters, not powerboaters, and our drive and steerage comes from the relational dynamics we are situationally included in.

if we want to restore connectedness [this requires getting back in touch with what is already physically 'in place'], we need to stop believing in ego-based being whereby we depict ourselves as fountainheads of productive results, rather than acknowledging that we are vents for transmitting influence from nonlocal sources to local actualization, all this within the world given only once, as a transforming relational continuum.

is not preferred. It reflects the tyranny of the same.
We have plenty of these already.
WE need and at times come upon coming communities of
situational composition of disparate forces. These allow for the most innovation,
co-operation in terms of best practices for exploration, elaboration.
That should be "good enough" for our ability to express our desires and so form sufficient zones of autonomy. This is and has been what is actually happening . It is everywhere around us and the
cause for our hope and inspiration.

I just read your consentient communities article and your description of its basis. I have to side with Sir Einzige here, it sounds like a very old school proposal. I fail to see anything original in it compared to every other vision statement of intentional communities from the last 25-50 years. There isn't any fresh vision that highlights your embrace of egoism and primitivism. Isn't your basic proposal to get together with like minded people, buy land and try to live together harmoniously? I don't see any particularly green anarchist or egoist or original proposal in that. If I am missing something, please share more of your idea...

I'm sorry you don't find anything inspiring about the idea. I'm not claiming that they are "particularly green anarchist or egoist", because I'm not an anarchist, and there is far more in my philosophical toolset than just egoism.

There is the general idea of consentient communities, which I outlined as being nothing more than people with similar ideas living together sustainably, and perhaps that is not so original.

And then there is MY consentient community - i.e. the one that I would ideally like to be a part of, the one that I hope one day to help found. The particular blend of ideas that will go into that IS something that I think is original because I've never heard of any intentional community having those particular ideas.

Other communities that could be started by others would be similarly unique, as they might have very different ideas.

But another aspect to my theory is that each element of a community's way of life is either sustainable, or not, and so each community also becomes an experiment. Some of the principles on which the community had agreed might be revealed to create instability or conflict.

Some of the ideas in MY community have been developed because I do not see that there needs to be a moral and practical dichotomy. They work because they are morally preferable AND because they can lead to longterm non-violent prosperity in balance with the biome.

People that attack the concept of meaning as 'using the master's tools' will probably not have much time for the idea that certain elements of communication, personality, and above all philosophy can make or break a community, but that is my belief, and all I'm doing is imparting that to others. If they're not interested, they can look elsewhere. But I have to say that most of the people that turn their nose up at the idea tend not to have any sensible suggestions for an alternative methodology.

So as for my embrace of egoism and primitivism, it would be 'borne out' in the daily life inside of MY community, with honest and direct communication, a philosophy of touch, a certain kind of parenting, etc., not just foraging in food forests.

If you want to know more about my vision, I'll happily have a longer conversation with you about it when my voice is recovered (I currently have tonsillitis).

"Now egoism is fairly clear. Here is the bottom line, as per Wolfi and Bellamy: Anything that does not come from the Self
stands over and above the individual as an oppressive force. Full stop. No 'strawman.' Thus any outside help e.g. evidence"

The above however is a crude conception of what egoism(at least from Stirner) entails. For one thing Stirnerian Egoism is an existential conception of the self that does not take the self as literal so it is already dealing with the outside. It is not a matter of a self/noself rejection. It's a matter of what is preferential to the self as concerns the outside.

At least try to get the basic reading of Stirner correct.

Since all is interconnectedness what would outside be but another fixed concept?

is merely the limit that a unique-one or ones explore.
it is a variant of Dasein's be-ing-in -the-world; a world that is out>there to be
of concern, caring for, and in wonderment-of. This is what life is all about.
Desire, pressing against all limits, out-there, any way.

Hi John, thanks for the engagement. It’s much appreciated. Engaging with nihilist and egoist thought has been extremely helpful in the development of my own primitivist critique and rewilding practice. I’ll attempt to explain how. I do plan eventually to write more extensively about this, as it needs to be much longer, but this will have to do for now.

To begin with egoism, I do think there is something else about the Wolfi/Bellamy approach. First, I find David Abram’s discussion about the self and perception in Chapters 2-3 of “The Spell of the Sensuous” to be very helpful. Drawing on Merleau-Ponty he suggests that if there were nothing to perceive, one’s self would not exist either, due to not experiencing anything. I think it follows from this that anything one perceives (the web of relations mentioned by the unterrified above) can also be understood as the self. And this is the self I believe Bellamy and some others interested in egoism refer to, taking care to distinguish it from egotist. In fact I recall hearing on one of Bellamy’s podcast appearances an extremely similar analysis, lacking Abram. Egosim then, to me, is questions about how the self interacts with and understands itself and everything else.

Similarly, nihilism also seems to take the form of questions, but more than egoism stands alone as critique and relentlessly attacks as a way to understand philosophical positions. In constantly critiquing primitivist thinking, I have been able to alter many of my ideas. For example, I want to live in band society, not necessarily because I feel some moral obligation to do so, but because it is what I desire. It is I think the only way (that has ever existed up to this point) to live unalienated, without mediation. This still to an extent relies on science/anthropology, but also increasingly on my own experiences attempting to rewild and live in community.

In the short BAGR 2 piece, “Why the Primitive Skills Movement is Failing Us”, Tamarack Song discusses how simply learning primitive skills is not enough to fully rewild, or at least that learning primitive skills while living in an individual city apartment is an incredibly difficult route to take when rewilding. Instead he posits immersion into a community in the wild as a way to learn skills much more quickly. But it seems there is another part to this immersion, and to rewilding, that has not been addressed. A key reason why h/g bands function as well as they do is, as Chellis Glendenning posits, the presence of individuals who have reached full psychological and emotional maturity, with community support and individual empowerment. If anyone is to achieve full rewilding, this, for lack of better words, level of maturity, health, and authenticity must be reached, and is a strong factor determining how easily one could become immersed in a community. To me this looks like completely unalienated social relations, free of spooks and full of individuals doing what they desire. The egoist theorizing (and especially the critical self theory of McQuinn) and the relentless nihilist attacks have aided my attempts to move towards this kind of social relations, for example by working towards the elimination of identity.

From another perspective, in an interview Gerald Viznor describes how he sees native storytelling as being quite post modern in essence. I believe possibly all indigenous social relations may be viewed in the same way. It is here where I see another link between egoist, nihilist, postmodern thinking and the authentic, fully psychologically mature indigenous self. Learning how to relate to eachother as individuals attempting eventual indigeneity appears daunting and potentially impossible, but learning to relate to eachother through postmodern thinking, e.g. reclaiming an authentic self, may help get us close.

Also for what it’s worth, I don’t quite agree with the unterrified that news is useless, but I would enjoy more analysis and discussion.

But it's not useful enough to fill a one hour slot, every week. Not IMO.

If one get's suckered into analysing the news too deeply, precious energy is lost.

Each news item is a universe unto itself. You could spend your whole life just researching everything to do with the Brussels bombings, but it's not gonna get you any closer to a freer life.

You once again showan ability to completely misunderstand the people's positions you disagree with. "anything that doesn't come from the self stand over and above the individual". Perhaps itd help your misunderstandings that egoism equates with solipsism to actually read what you take issue with and critique from there. It doesn't imply an atomised self but it also doesnt imply surrendering yourself to some reified nature such as you do. It'd be idiotic to say thatan individual isn't affected by anything or anyone outside of themself and that's not what's being said by egoist writers such as stirner, novatore, wolfi, bellamy...I know you've actually tried little to understand it but there's all this talk of ownness and property and union of egos and such which actually take into accountthe very things you criticize. If you disagree with it, fine, but at least read some of the fucking stuff seriously. Your analysis is weak and shows an ignorance on the subject.

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.