Hey everyone, this is Artxmis with the Uncivilized Podcast. I just wanted to give a quick update and explanation concerning our recent inactivity.
Our last episode, 63, went up in February. We are now in July. This marks the longest period between episodes since episodes 20 to 21 in 2021 (funny how that works!).
This is not for the lack of having recorded episodes. In fact, we have several episodes recorded. This includes the second uncivilized roundtable between VoF & Jaime, an asynchronous interview with two people of the anarchist news collective, an interview with a semi-nomadic homesteader, a sort of whistleblower episode on indigenous abuses in the Congo, and a recently recorded series of interviews from my time at the Earthkin ancestral skills gathering.
The reason for the lack of episodes is because I'm the last remaining member of the original Uncivilized Podcast team. For those that don't know, Uncivilized Podcast began as the Critical of Capital Podcast, between myself (known then as Jay), Brady, Viktor, and Gavin.
We eventually lost Viktor, but gained Emanuel / Walks-With-Knives. Within the last two years, Brady stepped away from his more consistent appearances. Emanuel likewise has featured less. None of these people having moved away did so out of reasons of animosity, but simply because life moves its own way. That being said, it has been hard being the one who seeks guests, writes questions and prompts, and records alone. This was never meant to be an individual project, but a one made by friends. We once had a strong engagement in the comment section as well as other public areas and even private discussions regarding the content of the episodes. We felt it had a strong, if small niche, in the online anarchist world. This too has faded.
Gavin, our longtime editor, has also recently stepped away for personal reasons. Now lacking an editor has increased the stress for what should be an enjoyable project. It's not an impossible feat to learn basic audio editing, but I lack the interest in sitting at the computer to do so and to learn the methods. If we are going to put out content, it is going to be higher quality (my microphone quality notwithstanding!). I do not wish to put out poorly edited episodes. I have since come to realize the incredible work Gavin has put in. Dead air, "ums", other necessary cuts, plus the recent inclusion of music, are all many of the moving parts.
In the past we have covered a wide range of content, from book reviews, to political theory, to current events. I don't regret any episodes. But I find myself lacking interest in anything new. There have been a few ideas floating in my head, such as dedicated interviews with people I met at the Earthkin gathering, but they don't scratch the same itch I used to have. I also feel strange going long periods of time without uploading episodes, but this is a minor issue of guilt and not main driving force. Admittedly, I have little intellectual interest or emotional engagement in anarchism, as of late. This is not to say I have abandoned anarchism, but my identification with it has definitely become problematized.
All of this to say the Uncivilized Podcast is going on indefinite hiatus. I have a pair of friends who are helping to get up these already recorded episodes. Once these recorded episodes have gone live (over the course of the next few months, perhaps), the youtube channel and other associated platforms will become inactive. This is not the end of the podcast, but a "see you later" of sorts. My hope is that with time, there can be a rebuilt culture around the background of the podcast and a rejuvenation of our energies.
Thank you for your support these last almost 7(!!) years.
Uncivilized and unapologetic,
Artxmis
Comments
As of late, I've become less…
anonymous (not verified) Sat, 07/19/2025 - 14:34
As of late, I've become less energetic and enthusiastic about the world (which includes anarchism). Although becoming more apathetic and disinterested, I would not say my identification has changed (which includes anarchism). All this to say that I do not confuse a period of low energy or passion, with an inherent flaw or devaluing of the thing I am no longer energetic or passionate for (the entirety of existence). One can give activities a break without abandoning or renouncing or betraying principles or convictions or however people call their anarchism. Giving things a rest shouldn't require an apology, neither should quitting or stopping a project. I congratulate everyone who chooses to take a break, or quit, before burning out.
Be honorable to all the…
anonymous (not verified) Sat, 07/19/2025 - 21:50
In reply to As of late, I've become less… by anonymous (not verified)
Be honorable to all the trees, plants, the insects, wild mammals and especially the orcas and the local DUCKS... who despite everything, still cling to their.own existence regardless of what the Death Machine wants to take away from them.
So be a DUCK and go kwack-kwack in the face of the oppressors. And yes, breaks. In a hammock by personal preference.
I'm beginning to lean…
anonymous (not verified) Sun, 07/20/2025 - 17:58
I'm beginning to lean towards the idea of becoming Amish because not counting all the religious stuff, it's the closest thing to Primitivism coming from an institution. I can deal with and not be an accomplice to patriarchy and hierarchy and still atleast live peacefully growing vegetables, being vegetarian and not having technology and information overload pumped into me 24/7.
I could still scratch an individualist existence amongst the Amish.
Cowards and last men, the…
anonymous (not verified) Thu, 07/24/2025 - 19:16
In reply to I'm beginning to lean… by anonymous (not verified)
Cowards and last men, the lot of you
We are amoral, and "coward"…
anonymous (not verified) Thu, 07/24/2025 - 23:07
In reply to Cowards and last men, the… by anonymous (not verified)
We are amoral, and "coward" is a coersive authoritarian term which disregards the immediacy of living in the Now.
"we are amoral"
anonymous (not verified) Fri, 07/25/2025 - 18:57
In reply to We are amoral, and "coward"… by anonymous (not verified)
Liar.
I hate this LARP. Such obvious edge-lording. I can easily come up with 10 conventionally immoral things that you'd be against.
maybe you can't
anonymous (not verified) Fri, 07/25/2025 - 20:27
In reply to "we are amoral" by anonymous (not verified)
maybe you can't
Nope you can't, I am amoral…
anonymous (not verified) Sat, 07/26/2025 - 08:13
In reply to "we are amoral" by anonymous (not verified)
Nope you can't, I am amoral and an amoral nihilist.
Tell us how you manage to…
anonymous (not verified) Sat, 07/26/2025 - 08:56
In reply to Nope you can't, I am amoral… by anonymous (not verified)
Tell us how you manage to live well as *check notes* "amoral nihilist" by going with kiddies like a Diddy... for instance, plz.
diddy can do what he gets…
anonymous (not verified) Sat, 07/26/2025 - 09:52
In reply to Tell us how you manage to… by anonymous (not verified)
diddy can do what he gets away with. i can do what i get away with. none of this requires referring to morality. the universe is highly arbitrary.
that you are a moralist doesn't mean it's impossible for others not to be...
Thankyou for answering for…
anonymous (not verified) Sat, 07/26/2025 - 17:11
In reply to diddy can do what he gets… by anonymous (not verified)
Thankyou for answering for me, albeit in a tangential obtuse manner, nevertheless adequate, however my amorality is based on transcendence, not social power and wealth dynamics, mkay!
when we said "we," we…
anonymous (not verified) Sat, 07/26/2025 - 18:13
In reply to Thankyou for answering for… by anonymous (not verified)
when we said "we," we thought that we were all of us good amoral uniques, and we thought many voices might speak in many tones
Umm no, I meant "we" as…
anonymous (not verified) Sat, 07/26/2025 - 19:44
In reply to when we said "we," we… by anonymous (not verified)
Umm no, I meant "we" as distinctly "anti-capitalist individualists" who are poor materially yet intellectually advanced in their conceptions regarding the crass moral/immoral binary codes Diddy-esque people juggle and seek loopholes in, as accomplices that they to authority's sanctions on behavior. As I said initially, we are amoral free doers of a nihilistic tendency who live in the Now, therefore without premeditation regarding actions, only that they are consensual and bring joy and good mental and physical health.
Therefore, a 70yr old woman can have sex with an 18yr old man if it so pleases them both.
"Only that are consensual..."
anonymous (not verified) Sun, 07/27/2025 - 09:48
In reply to Umm no, I meant "we" as… by anonymous (not verified)
How is that not a product of morality? If you were truly 'amoral', then it wouldn't matter whether something is consensual or not. All that matters is you get away with it, right? Consent, in this context, would just be an arbitrary and ethereal moral construct with no grounding in the material world.
This is what I mean and why this position is so bankrupt. On the one hand, you want to preserve your leftist feminist moral constructs, and yet on the other hand, you want to present yourself as some edgy and amoral psychopath 'nihilist' bc you think it sounds cool or something.
But really, it's all just a posture.
Oh yeaaa? So why would an…
anonymous (not verified) Sun, 07/27/2025 - 11:39
In reply to Umm no, I meant "we" as… by anonymous (not verified)
Oh yeaaa? So why would an amoral anarcho-nihilist still cling to the completely-arbitrary Age Consent laws as you are doing here, being careful not to tresspass anywhere below the 18 years old legal line in the sand, that separates the "good consensual sex" to the "sex crime"? Really nothing creepy with old crippled sugar daddies going with 18 year olds in desperate need for money and posh living, and/or academic degrees?
Sounds like you might be another poser... going for "AMORAL NIHILISM" due to its sassy edgyness.
Thankyou for acknowledging…
anonymous (not verified) Sun, 07/27/2025 - 23:49
In reply to Oh yeaaa? So why would an… by anonymous (not verified)
Thankyou for acknowledging my nihilistic amoral consciousness, and yes, in the Now, if they seek my unpremeditated company, and in the moment sieze me passionately and arouse me, who am I to restrict my pure emotional response and the physiological imperative this initiates in the everyday joy of living passionately and not like a controlled sheeple slave to moral authority?
"If it so pleases them both"
anonymous (not verified) Sun, 07/27/2025 - 12:15
In reply to Umm no, I meant "we" as… by anonymous (not verified)
Yeah but from an amoral POV why should it matter whether or not something is pleasing to both parties? What if I choose to be a lazy and selfish asshole because it pleases me and to hell with what's good for the other person? From an amoral perspective, there are no limits.
...
(But obv you have your moral/ethical limits. We both know that.)
good "gotchyas" from the …
anonymous (not verified) Sun, 07/27/2025 - 13:05
In reply to "If it so pleases them both" by anonymous (not verified)
good "gotchyas" from the 'there is no practicable amorality' crowd. you may be able to rag on numbnutz pretty easily, but you are just dunking on your own constructs and demonstrating your unwillingness/inability to explore moral relativism or moral nihilism on your own volition and in a bias-conscious way
Different anon here.
anonymous (not verified) Sun, 07/27/2025 - 14:54
In reply to good "gotchyas" from the … by anonymous (not verified)
...but I'm familiar with both of these concepts, and why they are dogshit/totally debunked and absolutely poisonous for anarchist politics.
Tho these do overlap, they're somewhat different and 'll address both, separately.
1. Inability to criticize harmful behavior or practices:
if morality is relative to culture or individuals, then no one has any basis to criticize practices like slavery, genocide, or child marriage---if those practices are considered acceptable within a culture. Example, if a society deems honor killings as A-OK, relativism says we can't claim it's wrong from an outside perspective.
2. Contradicts moral intuition.
Most people intuitively believe that certain actions (e.g: torturing animals) are always wrong, regardless of culture or context. Yet, Relativism clashes with these universal moral/ethical instincts.
3. Leads to moral paralysis
If every viewpoint is equally valid, then there's no rational basis for action, or standing up against injustice. Why choose action over inaction?
As for Moral Nihilism:
1. Undermines moral responsibility
If nothing is truly "right or wrong", then actions like rape, murder or abuse aren't even morally bad anymore---they're just "things that happen". This 100% contradicts the whole basis for anarchism as it is a movement or an idea that is oriented to fight oppression.
2. Inconsistent with anyone's lived experience
Even you (yes, you anon) and all so-called "nihilists" everywhere, act as though some things are wrong or unjust. Certainly you object to betrayal, cruelty, or wanton suffering. But... if morality is fictional, then such reactions are irrational and hypocritical.
3. Oversocialized academic BS out of touch with human nature.
It might be logically clean in some sense, but it completely ignores the emotional and social aspects of being human. We are /wired/ to care about fairness, harm and justice. This is unironically what actually ends up happening to all of the "nihilist" fictional characters found in classical Russian literature exploring the topic and even coining the term. It was meant to serve as a warning, not a blueprint for your politics and identity lmao.
So, in conclusion. Tho they raise some interesting philosophical questions. Ultimately, moral nihilism and relativism are usually just hollow teenage-esque postures that crumple the moment you subject them to serious scrutiny and/or pressure-test them in real life
For me, the lived experience…
anonymous (not verified) Sun, 07/27/2025 - 15:23
In reply to Different anon here. by anonymous (not verified)
For me, the lived experience is the biggest point of contention. People say all the time that they believe in XYZ and yet, thru their actions (or reactions), they show it to be nothing but garbage. It doesn't matter what people say they believe, what matters is what they do because what they do is what they actually believe. So rather than a principled or coherent politics, nihilism presents more as a trendy fashion accessory for insecure scene kids to signal their edginess.
Lived experience
anonymous (not verified) Sun, 07/27/2025 - 22:46
In reply to For me, the lived experience… by anonymous (not verified)
Still waiting to learn what “unlived experience” means
He/she/it can't explain …
anonymous (not verified) Mon, 07/28/2025 - 00:07
In reply to Lived experience by anonymous (not verified)
He/she/it can't explain "lived experience" because they don't really live, they only live in the future, and the future is not tangible, it is an unconsummated desire, an illusion. Only in the Now does one experience living to the fullest, without broodings or hesitation in ones actions. This is zen101.
thanks for taking the time…
anonymous (not verified) Sun, 07/27/2025 - 16:37
In reply to Different anon here. by anonymous (not verified)
thanks for taking the time to expound on your conclusions. i like to see the thought patterns behind your philosophy, especially such a reasoned and rational actor such as yourself. i respect the attempt to cultivate oneself along the pursuit of an ethic and to use moral justifications for one's choices--arguably this is one of the best ways to approach getting access to those 'moist orgies' ;)
as you can probably tell from your research, not everyone is a consistent rational actor, not everyone chooses ethics that you respect, and not everyone is even trying not to act as a hypocrite--this is true equally of those who disavow being hypocritical and those who refrain from disavowing. out in the realm of "justifications other than moral ones," there are plenty of reasons to choose from to guide one's choices, not limited to whim, pragmatism, perceived necessity, reaction, or chance. while i can tell you're not an absurdist, an absurdist may have no trouble making arbitrary decisions at all times of day while in their pursuit of living as an anarchist. i think the biggest point i want to stress is that actions do not always have singular conscious bases and the bases they do have are not required to be understood as moral stances, even for people trying to be anarchists. in my understanding. and naturally, because you're defining "having a preference" as equivalent to "taking a moral stance", because you personally strive for rigorous consistency, you are personally condemning MR and MN as inappropriate for anarchist practice. although i do appreciate your caveat "usually."
overall the result i take from your exposition is that those philosophies are inappropriate for *your* anarchist practice, and i have no problem with that. "taking sides" is a time-honored part of human history and there's nothing wrong with using moralities to constitute the sides.
OK, so idk what to make of…
anonymous (not verified) Sun, 07/27/2025 - 20:31
In reply to thanks for taking the time… by anonymous (not verified)
OK, so idk what to make of your opening paragraphs honestly lol
Not interested in your smelly hipster orgies, sorry...
But to address the rest of your text, I ask you this:
Is genocide truly, inherently wrong? Or, is it something you "just don't prefer" ??
What does your gut instinct tell you?
If it's the latter, then my next question is: given that preferences are subject to change and evolve over time, is there then potentially a circumstance in which your preferences might change to where genocide is actually quite acceptable ?
If so, well, that's pretty fucked up. In my anarchism, there is no room for "preferences" that would justify rape, torture, slavery and genocide, and it feels like MR and MN leave a crack in the door for those things to be favorably endorsed, bc "muh nihilism".
As an amoral nihilist, if I…
anonymous (not verified) Sun, 07/27/2025 - 23:58
In reply to "If it so pleases them both" by anonymous (not verified)
As an amoral nihilist, if I am lazy within the Now, others will respect my slothful inaction and avoid me, thus not presenting any issue regarding morality, and therefore voiding moral contemplation from the Now and making morals none of my concern, therefore supporting my "amoral" status.
Add new comment