Three on Civilization, on Immediatism podcast

Three on Civilization, on Immediatism podcast

By request, Immediatism has three recent episodes on aspects of civilization, by Wolfi Landstreicher and Feral Faun. In Civilization and the Creative Urge (in Killing King Abacus Anthology), we are encouraged to engage in unrestrained creative activity and experimentation, for our own pleasure. "[T]he destruction of civilization, this system of social control that is smothering the planet, and the creation of our lives and interactions as so completely our own that they cannot be socialized, systematized or otherwise alienated from us will require explorations and experimentations with the possible that go far beyond anything we have yet tried." ~Wolfi Landstreicher

Nature as Spectacle: The Image of Wilderness vs. Wildness (in Feral Revolutions) reminds us that Nature is an "ideological construct that serves to domesticate us, to suppress and channel our expressions of wildness," and to play "fiercely among the ruins of a decaying civilization." ~Feral Faun

The Cops in Our Heads: Some Thoughts on Anarchy and Morality (in Feral Revolutions) discusses the moral conception of anarchy. "[Anarchy] is a situation free of any moral implications, presenting to each of us the amoral challenge to live our lives without constraints." ~Feral Faun

Enjoy these three episodes and send your feedback and requests to

Civilization and the Creative Urge
Nature as Spectacle
The Cops in Our Heads

There are 25 Comments

engage in unrestrained creative activity and experimentation, for our own pleasure.

Signed, Jeff Koons.

This is pretty much what everybody is into, right? Whoever wrote it acts like this is some kind of iconoclastic rare big deal.

The news is not the texts per se. The news is that these are now available on audio by listener request. So, at least the requester felt it was important that they be available in this format. The project is about filling a perceived void in mainstream audio (e.g. Audible) of anarchist foundational texts, for those with either low eyesight or limited time for reading. If you don't rely on podcasts/audio, then it doesn't affect you.

consider the times that these were written in. consider that they were perhaps ahead of their time, in both good and unfortunate ways. does that change your assessment at all?

cory, one imagines that the anon is speaking to the content, not to the fact of the recordings...

The purpose of the project is to make texts available, including current day foundational texts. And, I take requests. Consequently, there is a lot of variety. Please make a request if you would like to. So far, I have honored all requests except one (which was to read a whole Octavia Butler novel), so your request will be taken seriously.

we are encouraged to engage in unrestrained creative activity and experimentation, for our own pleasure.

Translates to, we are lonely, and want to find friends to have play-dates with.

The opposite. It's an individualist ethic. Look, the episodes have had over 300 listens so far, and for those people, the content is relevant. I really think what you take issue with is not the content at all, but my tone in writing the post. So don't read it. It isn't meant for you if it doesn't speak to you. Move along.

Individualist ethic -- like John Wayne ad Clint Eastwood pig movies -- they are way-hecka-individualistic!

Id say they are actually driven by a collectivist ethic, like much of what is often critiqued as "individualist." the Eastwood/Wayne prerogative isnt just taking matters into one's own hands outside the confines of the institution, but rather taking on the dutiful role of protecting the underlying collective identity of american nationalism, civilized society, and the protestant work ethic into one's own hands. going vigilante to fight for the greater collective good. this atomized liberal individualism isnt really in the service of self-interest, but for larger socioeconomic causes and values, making it more collectivist than it admits.

While I'm not really a fan of Wayne, his body of work is pretty diverse. The whole persona was created by the classic hollywood director Raoul Walsh.

If we were to pick one film (of which there are so many other John Ford films more deserving of our attention, especially the cynicism and disillusionment of the American Dream in his late career films) that matches what the poster was probably referring to, it's the Searchers.

While a problematic film (and basically remade as Taxi Driver) Wayne's character is a vigilante but not a part of the community. His character is a racist psychopath. And while he does return the daughter to her family, he is forever doomed to wander similarly to the dead indigenous whose eyes he shoots out to deny them a proper afterlife.

I don't believe Ethan, the character Wayne plays, is a racist bigot, but rather a cynical anti-social individualist who has the strength and will to pursue his own justice in a lawless brutal environment. Any individualist anarchist must use the innate tendency for retribution especially when homicide is committed against their loved ones by anyone, regardless of their race or culture.

that's what they SAID stupid!

a rugged cynical individualist in america who totally self describes as "not racist!" despite the very openly racist things they say and do!

No, there was a brief moment in the 1930s when most of white Western society could have been included as admirers of the pre-holocaustic Nazi policies due to their romanticist propaganda.

Between your individualism and the straight up unalloyed mainstream US society kind, why shouldn't I choose the straight-up mainstream United States of America kind? They are less deluded in their pathology, there is better food and drink at their parties, the women are better looking, and they shave their legs, too.

Any individualist anarchist must use the innate tendency for retribution especially when homicide is committed against their loved ones by anyone, regardless of their race or culture.

Yeah, actually, living in an organized society of equal, collectively-oriented people is far preferable to utterly alienated pathological and one hundred percent bourgeois individualism.

It is not in line with the spirit of anarchism to simply set the so-called collectivism against individualism and regard it as a confrontational narrative of bourgeois liberalism and proletarian socialism. Similarly, such a narrative is not in line with the development trend of the contemporary world. Of course, you can say that you have upheld the revolutionary values of the proletariat. Others say that the earth is square. But one thing we need to know is that stupidity will only harm themselves: it will neither challenge the world, because it is a struggle between right and wrong, nor let itself gain more. In fact, most of the time, people repeat the same thing in order to gain more power, rather than fight the oppressors.

So fundamentally speaking, you think you hurt the heart of the hypocritical "bourgeois liberals and individualism", but in fact, what you are doing is just enjoying the superior life brought about by the capital empire and US dollar hegemony, and wasting time on the Internet. You pretend to be a proletarian, but in fact you are a traitor to the proletariat.

However, you can still adhere to the false "collectivism", but what is waiting for you is not liberation, but cults like the "Temple of the people".

translation error: it will neither challenge the world, because it is not a struggle, nor let itself gain more.

Individualism is a market ideology. It's got little to do with struggles for the liberation of individuals that can be a collateral result of outwardly-directed, in the real world, collective, ongoing, public efforts against capitalist exploitation and poverty.

But if everyone was emotionally intelligent which is an inwardly-directed evolution, then when these individuals gathered together there would be an intuitively generated outward projection which would annul the existence of capitalist exploitation and poverty.

Individualism CAN be a market ideology depending on the discourse and the desire, it can also be an acute desire for immediate intercoursive living which the market tends to inhibit if you are of the Wolfi type.

More then that the market is a complication of human desire and how to distribute desperate human passions. A communist cunt like you and your ilk have never come up with good answers to deal with this complication. Wolfi, Bob, Peter and company have come up with much better ones and bring the technology question to the table.

You on the other hand are a Bay Area never's been who still retards himself to an ugly collectivist ideology that has killed millions and crushed many a human desire. Even if some like Wofi have embodiment problems related to living their words at least they write beautiful language unlike you and your shit tier ultra leftism which wouldn't even have been good in 1975.

Agreed, I'd posit that it would be an impossibility for monopolies to form within the individualistic marketplace because if and when an accumulation formed a potlatch event would occur involuntarily. Capitalism is an impossibility, a fish out of water.

Add new comment