Topic of the Week: Anarcho-primitivism

"Not long ago, Primitivism was a significant strand of North American Anarchy. During the period of the WTO protests… and through the Green Scare repression of environmentalists, John Zerzan's ideas about the dangers of technology were undeniably important to many on the left."
-Towards an Anthropology as Science Fiction
Dominique Ganawaabi, Black Seed #7

As someone who lived in the Pacific Northwest in the time Dominique references, this feels obvious, but I also traveled (just) enough to know that other areas of North America had different experiences/receptions to A-P.

I've not used the term anarcho-primitivist to describe myself in a lot of years, preferring green-, anti-civ, or no fucking adjectives at all, but I've recently had several conversations where I've realized the huge impact that tendency has had on both myself and the North American anarchist scene(s) at large.

Whether pro-, anti-, or ambivalent, how has anarcho-primitivism influenced your anarchy, and that of the anarchist scene where you live?

There are 121 Comments

I realized over time that anarchy taken to its logical conclusion inevitably leads to a nihilist critique of civilization. It is still strange to me that many self-identified anarchists to this day feel it is possible (or even desireable) to somehow save civilization.

I agree with you, and I also know that there are a lot of anarchists who see anarcho-primitivism, or the a-p influence on N American anarchy as a blight. What ways has a-p specifically informed your inclination towards nihilism?

Well, it is difficult to see it as a linear occurrence. For me, nihilism and anti-civ go hand in hand in accepting that civilization is an attempt to quantify chaos and introduce meaning. But beyond socially constructed hierarchies and systems, there is no universal meaning or truth. Only chaos. So I realized that leftism as a whole was merely another attempt to subjugate wildness through moral and social control. It is ironic because if anarchy is intended to be a practical and theoretical hostility to authority, why not the moral authority which is, in my opinion, the bonding agent of civilization? Hope that answers your question.

There is no meaning is a meaning. Chaos is meaning (order if you will). Re authority; those who advocate for anti-authority are really prescribing authority according to them.

The issue is not meaning but truth. I reject truth not meaning. I also take more to active cynicism then nihilism(which for me is only structural not acute). Cynicism actually has a praxis of anti-currency that active nihilism tries to do. It goes after 3rd person alien value and meaning and not value and meaning in itself.

Well expressed. The cynic directs the perception to the edge of the Abyss to contemplate the negation of value and meaning, but not to jump into it.

“primmie” in my experience is only an insult one has to dodge when critiquing tech or civ online.

AP was always limited and rigid, but as a strong rebuke to anarchism's history of optimism towards science, industry, progress, etc., it was valuable and perhaps necessary.

14:16 AP criticizes civilization. In other words, everything.

How is that "limited"??

APs are just life-stylists, advocating "a correct" way of living, rather than keeping the focus on social relations in which ever way that may turn out if class, state, and capital were to be abolished. How primitive is primitive enough?

no. that's not what AP is. it's nothing to do with living a primitive lifestyle.

destroying capitalism and the state: focused on social relations
destroying civilization (which includes capitalism and the state): not focused on social relations

yeah ok bro

Has anti-social relations. Only "savages" (i.e. normal humans) have what could legitimately be called social relations.

15:44 Hi Bookchin cultist. Yes, the correct way of living being anarchy. You could say the same thing about any critique of the status quo.

bookchin is just jealous cuz he ain't got no style!

and no life cuz he dead!

It's like the term "lightning flashes" that Nietzsche critiqued as a redundancy of language. Social is already relational. A better term would be psychological(psycho) relationships. It's one of those silly Marxist phrases.

I fell in love with anarcho primitivism initially because it was the only strain of anarchism that resonated with me. I have always felt more empowered immersing myself in nature as opposed to amongst the workers. Anprim helped me develop a critique of technology and enabled me to research the life ways of others human and non human. Today I still identify as anti civ because I find the mileau continues to put forth some of the most interesting and challenging critiques of our world.

What are interwsting critiques of an-prim from an anti-civ perspective? Alternately, what are (good faith) arguments in opposition?


This is a pretty petty critique in my opinion but one I find valuable. "Primitivism" suggests "return" to a particular place in history which, in my opinion, no longer can and will ever exist. I think moving forward against civilization will inevitably lead to an unimaginable, unpredictable future existence. And rather than attempting to re-create the past, one should be prepared for every and anything that lay within the ashes of civilization. While I really enjoy the idea of bringing wild nature back from the dead through restoration, attempts at that can be done while also being prepared for unexpected surprises post-civilization.

"Corrosive Consciousness" by Bellamy Fitzpatrick critiquing anprim from an anti civ position

The flag reads "Tools lead to death."
Never wrench or hammer again in your life.

Use your teeth and face, respectively.

The rake in that sweet anprim cred... Which of course, can't be exchanged for anything.

I believe their has been a brand name change. It's now called Primal Anarchy.

Same great taste, now with 30% less authority.

For the term anarcho-"primitivism". As far as what most matters - their social relations, their relationship with the rest of nature, and their actually lived spiritual foundation, hunter-gatherer-permaculturist humans are far more deeply EVOLVED than we are. We are damaged/degenerate. (And most likely doomed.)

Well there were the obvious issues around cultural appropriation, transphobia, and ableism that finally put AP to bed. Also, most people who aren't psychopaths don't want to destroy civilization because they know a person or two whose lives depend on like hospitals being in existence or something. (I know all the counter-arguments but we can go there if you want.)

At the same time, biocentrism (insofar as this is related to AP, anti-ciz, or green @) seems like it should be a logical tenet of any anti-authoritarian tendency, but the interests of humanity and most other forms of life are inherently at odds in most respects. So I don't fuckin know.

From my pessimistic anti civ perspective it’s not anarchists who’re going to cause the collapse. It’s starting to fall apart on its own though. We already have people feeling the effects of climate chaos. I’m more interested in shielding those closet to me to the effects of everything falling apart.

Civilization is a problem we’ve built up that through its complexity it touches many parts of our lives. Many peoples lives are certainly dependent on it. That is the nature of the civilization problem. You can’t take the good without the bad. I am interested in an anarchism that tries to remove itself as much as possible from civilization while helping others develop resiliency and autonomy.

'Well there were the obvious issues around cultural appropriation, transphobia, and ableism that finally put AP to bed. Also, most people who aren't psychopaths don't want to destroy civilization because they know a person or two whose lives depend on like hospitals being in existence or something'

tfw you know everything you need to know about something because you saw a meme about it once

The guy, while maybe still pretending to be anarcho for some reason, got his counter-critic from bonehead McClane in Die Hard 4 when he lectures the kids about how taking down the grid will take out his daddy's pensions or something.

Like sure, bro, collapsing civilization (and don't worry, the tiny bands of starry-eyed anprims we got aren't going to cause much damage to your precious highways, for the time being) can mean some suffering and even deaths. Which is still happening on a daily fucking basis to countless non-humans, unlike you speciesist blowhards who probably believe that these undomesticated lives are made to be sacrificed for your mass consumer materialist comforts.

There is no issue unless you are a hokey wokey neoliberal leftist maotard. Cultural appropriation is a quintessentially anarchic thing to do. Everybody gains and nobody loses. Ableism is also a term of abuse because you do need ability in the physical world with all its challenges.

because AP stands for disappearing hospitals with a snap of the fingers.

Jz’s motto is “i hate hospitals”

that’s their whole schtick

civ can be defined as: a. Hospitals

transhumanists main tennet is: yay, hospitals!


Are going to go away because there are some people who have called themselves anarchoprimitivists. (NEVER MIND the Collapse.)
And how much of the vast U.S. healthcare spending goes to artificially keeping very old people "alive" in some wretched condition so long as there is $$$ to be sucked out of it?

Pro-civ reactionary knee jerk basically is crying out for anprims wanting to genocide humans... in a context where humans, even those in miserable conditions, are being FUNDED by governments just to make more babies so they can keep mass-consuming and killing off innocent non-human lives with their cars, or at best consume them from the WalMart or your local hipster bar & grill.

Bravo, dude. Fucking big 1/10 for the trolling, you achieved your daily quota of getting my attention.

funny how this comment is in response to mine, which was a sarcastic parody to another comment which was deleted (or did i not reply to it correctly?)

anyways, regardless your point still stands

attack on JZ? Now that JZ wants to be no longer associated with ANews and wants his radio show podcast to NOT be posted here (although ANews continues to post it!), could this be another means of Aragorn! sneakily keeping JZ in his line of constant snide attacks? All Aragorn! seemingly has to offer is anarchy doesn't work: it has failed and so let's be snide to all those worthy of their contempt!

anews is under your bed! thecollective member .4 is in your closet! they're eating your snacks and stealing your dogs!
the idea that you can't read anarcho-primtivism without thinking about JZ is your problem, and maybe anarcho-primtivism's, but not anews's.

tbf there is a lot of sniping at JZ on @news. not blaming Aragorn! in particular - in fact, it's prob not him doing it. but whoever is doing it seems kinda petty to me

but it's the blaming aragorn! and finding attacks where there are none that are as much a part of the sniping as anything else.
spectators slash audience create context too, right?

thecollective member .4 reporting in (since i got called on)

also 8:35, zerzan has said in a few shows that he's done with anews because of aragorn! (?), nihilism, and platforming eco-extremism.

This TOTW ONLY mentions ONE primitivist: JZ. Not a single mention of any other! How strange? And the piece alleges that JZ's ideas WERE important (snide dig and what this piece is really all about); well, to some us, JZ is STILL important and current. Aragorn!, over the last several months in particular, either through The Brilliant, AnarchyBang, TOTW (audio segment) pushes how irrelevant JZ appears to be: so irrelevant that Aragorn! can't let it go. However, ANews feels JZ is so relevant that Anarchy Radio is STILL listed each week (so that Chisel and co can get their snide remarks in and get brownie from A! Fact is Aragorn! has nowhere to go with his 'theories' other than slag off anyone who still gives a shit regardless of whether anything can be done to change anything.

(not surprising because jz has been around longest, has the most breadth, and is by far the most famous, for good reason) and isn't anymore. that is hardly unique to aragorn!, and the author doesn't say that it's true for everyone, and explicitly asks people to talk about whether it's true for readers or not.

on the other hand, rather than actually explain and describe how jz is still important to you (and many others, of course), you decide to get butthurt--that is, assume bad intent--and attack someone who's barely involved with this site anymore, but who is always the target of all kinds of shit from all kinds of assholes. and blame him for anyone not liking your hero, as if people don't have their own reasons for being pissed off at jz, and are unable to think critically if they disagree with you.

whoever accused you of being paranoid is seeming more correct.

also to thecollective

why are you slow at posting submitted news articles? you appear to be missing a couple things...

then say which one it is.
different reasons for different submissions, including way fucking old, not anarchist, previously submitted and posted, etc.

this is anarchist news and an anarchist action was submitted, like almost a week ago, but not posted...

This totw was absolutely not intended as a snipe at JZ, despite the current bad blood between him and anews. I actually find a lot of his work (especially the Origins stuff) really stimulating, even where I don't agree with some of his conclusions. I've met JZ, and I've found him to be a smart, and kind individual and really fun to talk to one on one.
That said, I'm not a primitivist, as I see it as prescriptive in nature, and increasingly ideological. My intention in writing this was to explore how AP as a tendency has influenced anarchist thinking and praxis, because it certainly had a large influence on me. For myself, it largely comes down to questioning all the technics that make up civilization, so as to (hopefully) be able to critically look at how and what we reject in our lives, and how we engage with things that are realistically not going away soon, but are sources of domination or social control (language, number, etc).

What's The Brilliant? Genuine question

More info on JZ not wanting to be associated with Anews please? Didn't know about any of this.

"Good-Bye to from JZ"

"Finally the stink of the anews project has become too much for me. There was the acceptance of the ITS lets-murder-passersby. Now the who-could-condemn -sex with -kids, the great applause to that from the (anonymous of course) anews posts. Meanwhile Aragorn! asks, 'when did you accept reality? (accept defeat).' Could there be more definite gifts to our enemies? No more Anarchy Radio for theses cynics of surrender, who somehow call themselves 'anarchists'(??) Don't fucking touch Anarchy Radio broadcasts."

- John Zerzan (source: )

This is a message from JZ back in this June that falsely accuses Anews of associating with ITS, sex with kids, and calls out Aragorn!. At this point, it’s getting pretty old reading comments from anonymous people thinking Anews is acting "childish" (see comments a few above this one) and that Anews is seemingly the problem, and not the kind of comments directed at Anews from people like John Zerzan.

While JZ’s critique is so bad that it doesn’t even deserve a response (thecollective did respond though[1]) – let’s quickly get some facts straight here, since people still don’t seem to understand it. Anews has never been associated with ITS and to claim such is basically doing the states job of attacking other anarchist projects. This is just a smear from a very popular anarchist, yet other readers and anarchists will then go on to perpetuate this idea, until it becomes believable folklore digested by readers because some famous anarchist said it (if it hasn’t already become such).

Next up, John Zerzan calls the people behind Anews pedophiles. Again, this shouldn’t even need to be written, but they provide absolutely no further explanation. Like what are they even talking about? As a reader of Anews, I assume they are talking about the Heresy Distro text that was shared on Anews previously about Wolfi’s text from the 1980s. So, Anews has sex with kids because they shared a text that did a terrible job at trying to critique Wolfi, someone who isn’t even associated with the Anews project. At this point in John’s sentence, I feel like it’s almost as bad as trying to have a meaningful conversation with your drunk obnoxious family relative around the dinner table. Their level of critique is below zero, but again they’re a famous anarchist who is saying this, and unfortunately group think is a thing.

And finally, John Zerzan makes up a personal attack against Aragorn! who other than the podcasts, I believe has publicly stated that they’ve tried to distance themselves from the Anews project over the years. So, now John is critiquing someone who has tried to distance themselves from the project because they seem to have personal issues with Aragorn!... I listened to an old Anarchy Radio and was just plain shocked to hear John talk, well actually almost YELL about Aragorn!, like that is some real deep hostility there and as usual, they offered up nothing of an actual critique.

On a personal level, I’ve really enjoyed John Zerzan’s ideas and writings over the years. I grew up reading them, have written to John before, got a postcard and some emails, called into Anarchy Radio and chatted, and overall found the conversations to be stimulating and enjoyable. However, the kind of stuff listed above is a giant turn off and has really made me think twice about things. No we all don’t have to get along, but at least have a solid critique and not just slinging mud at other anarchists and their projects like you’re on a middle school playground because you don’t like them.

- Rocinante

[1] (here is the letter to JZ from thecollective, previously shared as comment on Anews)
Open letter to JZ from thecollective

On the butt hurt accusations over the years…

After years of accusing us over email that we weren't posting your stories because we had a problem with you, you now are broadcasting that the problem is that we're posting your episodes.

Let us clarify something for you. Your show is called Anarchy Radio. Our project re-posts and posts stories by, for, and/or about anarchists, frequently whether we agree that they're anarchist or not. We do not ask permission from the people we re-post for a number of reasons, perhaps most significantly because if it's online, then it's open to the world, by definition. We also don't ask permission because we stand by the anarchist ethic of decentralization and support having more forums for discussion, *especially* of things that are by, for, and/or about us. For example, if it had been possible to post this response on your website, then we would've put this open letter there. As it is, here we are.

If you are serious about not wanting anarchists to talk about your show, then you are certainly free to change the name of your broadcast, and perhaps stop calling yourself an anarchist as well. No one has coined "wild primalist yet," I expect.

rocinante, i'm glad you've chimed in on this uncomfortable topic. JZ continues his slide into self-imposed irrelevance... sad that his interpersonal annoyances have turned into World Historical contradictions and conflicts. over the more than three decades that he and i were friends, we split twice before the final irrevocable split at the time of Occupy. i don't remember what the first two problems were, but i well remember the last reason. a small ad hoc group i was part of during Occupy objected to the way some identity politicians pushed to have the name of Occupy changed to Decolonize. not added to Occupy, but to displace Occupy. none of the dozen or so of us had a problem with bringing up and spreading the conscious awareness of our existence on stolen native land, especially in a context where the reclaiming of so-called public land was the central organizing principle. but all of us had serious problems with the mechanism of getting the proposal put forward for a vote at the General Assembly. racist-baiting was the order of the day, with the identity politicians (mostly Maoists whose presence had until then gone publicly unnoticed inside the context of refusing all politicians) putting forward a couple of alleged representatives of native people as their shields. my sense (still) is that a majority of people at the GA didn't object to the issue of making our presence on native land more central; however, almost nobody wanted to ditch the name Occupy because everybody felt (or at least wanted to continue to feel) connected to others Occupy encampments. rather than accepting a dual-name for the encampment, the identity politicians declared the rest of the GA white supremacists, and withdrew. what does this have to do with JZ? his long-time collaborator (formerly of Eugene, now in Tucson) had been working with the native folks in his area for many years, and he decided that our ad hoc group's refusal to accept the name change was indicative of our own racism and white supremacy. no explanation was adequate to explain what had actually occurred -- JZ's Tucson buddy was certain that we all hated indigenous people, otherwise we would have fully accepted the proposal (regardless of who proposed it, or how they proposed and argued for it, regardless of the counter-proposal for a dual name). he complained loud and long to JZ, who believed everything his buddy told him. Aragorn! was part of our ad hoc group, and this enhanced JZ's pre-existing animosity toward both of us. this is perhaps a little tangential to the larger issue of JZ's disgust at @news, but it does explain a little more about the personal animus.

just another sad, wet little fart noise of an anecdote: people being belligerently stupid instead of just talking and listening. ffs!


most people like to talk, they just don't know how to listen. and maybe some don't know how to talk either, for sure.

Land can't be owned for one thing, you can go after this canard the way Stirner went after Proudhon accept it's even more obvious as the entire leftist buzzword concept is even more counter sensical. Obviously there was displacement but that's not the same thing as theft.

It really is stunning to see how far the Maoist structured masquerade runs when it comes to bad radical language. Even 'anti-leftists' like Zerzan end up getting affected by it. All the more reason to dispense with uncritical orthodox 1968 language such as 'stolen native land'. Maoism really is syphilis as described by the classical bacteriologists(the great masquerader). It's BS as far as actual science goes but the analogy will do to describe the multi-factorial maoist disease that infects and affects so much radical language.

Yes, not only the anthropocentricity of the Maoist doctrine, but its cunning manipulation by way of retranslating and attaching false value systems to indigenous cosmological concepts.

It can either be acutely registered or it infects in a structurally corrosive sort of way as exemplified by Zerzan and his friend(John should know a lot better then he does for a so-called anti-leftist).

It seems every radical age is going to have some big structural influence that holds things back in some way. In old 1880s born radicalism it was syndicalism which basically came out of Chicago(such a historical hotbed for great ideas) and in 1960s born radicalism it was Maoism. As much as I can't stand syndicalism, god damn is maoism aids. As far as 20th century shit stains go it's basically worse then Hitler, Mussolini or Stalin. At least those diseased discourses went away, maoism just keeps going and going and will keep on going as a structuring agent until there is a new radical testament beyond the now old left of 1968.

These mother fuckers have been around since the Sorbonne with the anarchists. It's time for a radical enema and detox.

While native peoples in this country apparently did not claim land 'ownership' in the european sense of private property, they ultimately were given 'ownership' of land by treaties of this government (after genocidal policies displaced and murdered them). Those treaties were broken and that land WAS stolen and continues to be stolen. As far as the discourses of Hitler, Stalin etc. having gone away, that is one of the more inane comments yet.

That was just window dressing from state actors who were already in a position of concrete might to make right. The answer to leviathan conquerors is to conjure up counter might and parallel power processes. Reifying ownership is not the way to go about doing this.

In regards to those 3 I mentioned, while the discourses are not extinct they simply don't have the hegemonic structuring power that the Maoist disease has. We're talking about a major motor of 3rd world representational capital and capitalism as well as an ideology embedded within greater humanist discourse.

You'll likely find, that most of what ziggles has to say is so completely misguided that the only interesting thing about it is whether there's any way a real person can be that stupid and wrong in public.

But this one is a real gem: native people are playing right in to the hands of the colonizers by asserting any form of ownership. Because ideas … or something. Also, ziggles wants to give legal advice to every person who's ever been subjugated in history! Isn't that something?! Dr. Ziggles, time-traveling attorney of international law!

That would be would be what I'm saying in regards to indigenous groups reifying ownership. What I am counter proposing is the baseline libertarian view that land is lived on not owned. I'm not against using legalistic language and means when you have to, however this should not structure your discourse and identity. A truly non leviathan indigenous approach is to repeat the old cliche that this land is yours and mine which is really to say I live on this land you live on this land. The rest is territorial demarcation and association.

What makes my discourse interesting and stupid to some is that it's new and not derivative of any mainline radical discourse that has been thus presented. There are a few however who get that what I'm saying will register in a more radical future.


truly original.
much non leviathan indigenous approach.
the discourse.
radical future!

please, sir, can i have some more?

but most decolonial indigenous discourse does not amount to anarchism let alone anarchy. It's just a post genocide geo-political strategy of counter wealth building as opposed to leaving leviathan behind or at least shrinking the tumor. It also jives well with the world societal project. Nothing radical about any of this going into the greater 21st century.

Trying to dialogue with SirEinzige is not a good idea. This person is every bit as self-righteous and condescending as any Obama loving liberal or Trump apologist republican. He is a dogmatic missionary of a religion he calls 'post left' with Stirner as his god and of which he sees himself as an apostle, one of the chosen few true anarchists (or anarchs, i guess he calls himself) who will be recognized a visionary in a more 'radical future'. Laugh and ignore.

hi rfa ; )

Its because these radicals have never really gone beyond the old Marxist rhetoric, the us vs them binary within the materialistic Western paradigm. An indigenous cosmology which has an animistic/nature creative force as its genesis and foundational essence which places Earth immediately present in and around daily life is ironically called alien by Theists, mainly Abrahamic.
Yes, treaties are meant to be broken, because they are meaningless contracts which are based on a lie. It is abhorrent that any people would have the arrogance to think that they can seal an agreement on the inhabitation and use of a piece of land, which has cosmic properties beyond the scope of mere humanity.

^ Meaningless, ignorant and condescending words and an insult to the actual peoples whose history you are talking about who were and still are fighting for their very lives and culture.

You have misinterpreted my comment, I am saying that the indigenous values regarding land are that they inhabit it as custodians for the spiritual forces which create and regenerate it forever. This is synonymous with Stirner's Creative Nothing, as close as one can translate psychological perceptions of being, time and the universe, one's cosmology. They acknowledge that they are temporary travellers in a world they have no possession of, or ownership of, they cannot take something they become attached to and claim it as owned by them. They only really own themselves, that is what is sovereign, not the land one stands upon.
I am against ALL land ownership, but not against the freedom to sit down anywhere on this planet, even in the middle of an undèfended cornfield, which is what the indigenous did, in ancient cornfields, and stake out a space which allows you to lie down, spread out your arms and legs in arcs and to stand up and raise your arms above your head, to double that space, and then to join those points, THIS BECOMES THE WIGWAM, THAT IS YOUR SPACE WHICH IS FREE AND CANNOT BE ENTERED BY ANOTHER.
A family or clan do likewise for a combined larger space, this is common in the shanty towns and ghettoes where public land exists. I find the appearance quite interesting, like a multicolored mosaic or abstract painting of dwellings with winding mazes of paths. IF YOU LIKE CROWDS! For the solitary one, the deserts or uninhabited islands are calling, there is sooo much land to live on IF YOU ARE NOT ENMESHED WITHIN THE CAPITALIST MAELSTROM !
This will most likely be deleted because of stuff,,,,,

In other words, acid is groovy -- don't kill the pigs...

el lechón se coge, se mata y se pela
el lechón se coge, se mata y se pela

se pone en la vara y se le da candela
se pone en la vara y se le da candela


Jz supports museums and health clubs, kt is a tech-obsessed authoritarian.... what more to say about a-p?

that’s an ad hominid
get it?
hominem, but primmie
chrr chrr grr grr

but for real tho, u gotta be free from the primordial sin of masculine controlled fire in order to have opinions?

Based on The Art of Not Being Governed, primitivism is
actually an ancient strategy against the emergence of a state, so
primitive living would be a practice of anarchists. Also, anarcho-primitivism seems like an awesome thing for a
primitive homestead to still be cool with: Even Fukuoka said farmers must
live a primitive lifestyle to return to nature.

lol waiting til someone writes “the art of not being on the internet”. it will be groundbreaking. no one will expect it.

im really surprised that the topic of the month is the same basic presentation of the bleeding edge of acts at the aim of decivilizing oneself, as it appears the most sure fire way to live ideals- but all this free living is but a puppet show on the curtain call of an epoch.

NOT being involved isnt interesting. Hoping absolutely nothing of this current social state (as civilization) remains, is reductionist to the point of absurdity.

this conversation isnt interesting.

what happened to critical infrastructure. which would ideally, inevitably, lead to a frame work for an entire spectrum of radical action.
oh gawd! syndicalism!! but with the modern means of production- applied responsibly- production is a passion- almost a leisure.

we can make new definitions. but there is nothing new in the conversation of abandonment.

Well said, I share your frustration with what sounds like the same old tune that's been playing quietly in the background for decades now. Fighting doesnt usually work and is subject to diminishing returns. The "conversation of abandonment" only helps for a lucky (and often talented) few who manage to set themselves up well in the margins.

But isn't this just a facet of the same huge problem staring everyone in the face. Like, everyone. Like, on earth.

Wouldn't want to pin the weight of the world on this little @ website haha

Hierarchy seems to develop when certain things happen in history. And certain centralization and hierarchy seems to be inherent in technologies. Can they be separated from their nature and just take the benefits without the oppressive nature of things? probably not. Would you be willing to give up certain things if you had to choose the truly anarchistic path? Many in this society promote the idea you can have both. But sometimes you can't. You have to take the good with the bad or reject it all. Or not all. I obviously didn't but I did use it as a guiding philosophy. It is a freeing philosophy because you understand the dynamics of society and their effects and why you don't need it, it just makes people think they do.

glad you're posting your raps here.
btw, audio in both is terrible, but that's it's own aesthetic.
it's raw and real done in one take.
some people like even harsher distortion.
you could try someone beatboxing or banging some pots or drums instead of the electronic beats.

The audio quality is what makes it authentically cave man.

JZ's bluesy facial expression is due to these type of blues.

did u check ur butt?







one of them lives in Eugene and I think the other one lives in Pennsylvania

If you take away all indoctrination and coercion, most humans would eventually find ourselves living according to some sort of primitivist life way

I think Primitivism is, to an inherent degree, an radical artifact of the peak oil era state of emergency that basically launched green ideology. What will the various green electives do if the figure heads figure something out in terms of a continuing civilization. If the John Michael Greer types are right then collapse will not match the state of emergency mode of orientation that silly orgs such as extinction rebellion reflect.

There needs to be a new type of ecology that is not based on a discursive state of emergency. An egoist ecology that reconciles earth and human visions of excess.

Yes, though I'd go a step further and say that EVERYTHING elective carries with it the stain of mediocre majority intelligence, it can never shine or transcend the dull normality of the plebian mentality and its weakness in critical analysis.

It's just that some electives really are worse then others and become outdated and state products of time. When green ideology becomes extinction rebellion you've entered into silly territory and we live in silly times.

"An egoist ecology that reconciles earth and human visions of excess."

do you mean the expectation that people will continue to live in excess, or just a romantic love of human excess?? I like the latter version.

It's for this reason that I consider myself an archaicist and not a primtivist as regards acivilization theory. I like things like sacred geometry and just going with the flow of complex symbolic thought minus entering into civilization. One can also live of the spoils of civilization as it still exists as well instead of being an ascetic hermit(though I have my sympathies with that tendency).

Yeah I’m really into vague mystical stuff and doing whatever I want too. I just don’t make it my “political” identity.

Hey cutie ; )

I'm also into vague mystical stuff. We have so much in common.
I also really into doing you. xoxo

I am fascinated by archaic excess though. There is growing evidence that paleolithic human complexity was a LOT more complex then we thought and it existed for a long time before civilization. I think the paleolithic world probably kept the rise of the civ in check. I like the ideas of returning to archaic excess in new deconstructive mythological ways. It's one of those things that could make a dark/contraction age(if it comes) fun. Mad Max with less warlord desert structure and more gardens and greenery with a Bolo Bolo type landscape.

The main negative aspect of civilization is that it assumes a collective psychological affinity, when as we both know my kindred anarch, we are as unique and solitary as the wandering albatross is in our perceptions of reality and being. Sharing food does not mean sharing identical consciousness.

I think understanding Jaynes' hypothesis is key to the lift off of civilization and complex culture before it. I disagree with Jaynes over his definition of consciousnesses as his orthodox hypothesis does not explain the non recursive or reifying Piraha. I do think he's onto something though IF you redefine his idea of consciousnesses as reified and recursive linguistic consciousnesses. Then things start to make sense and you begin to hypothesize how certain hunter gatherers built something as complex as Gobekli Tepe. These were reified recursive bicameral bumpkins.

The above video really shows how the foundations of civilization come together on a psychic level.

Such an excellent and important video. I feel that the future of mankind depends upon a neo-bicameral collective consciousness of a Zen-esque nature. If I had the power and means I would attempt a mass hypnosis of the world's inhabitants as a last attempt to save humanity from civilization, and reboot a world-vision of sustainable excess within the Bolo Bolo landscape you describe.
There could be an ancient audio code which could trigger such a paradigm renaissance, like those pop music turns which get stuck in one's mind sometimes and repeat over and over again for days, implanting its words into one's mind?

i wish i could as self-satisfied with my level of enlightenment as you guys are.

maybe that comment is unfair. you're just sharing stuff that's interesting to you, and politely stating your opinions.
and you two take abuse gallantly.

I cannot speak for my kindred anarch, for you see, that being both unique and distinct individuals, being Stirnerian gives us both a lightness and clarity in consciousness, which cuts like a katana through the political and ideological bulky dross of civilized existence.

Yes he makes pertinent reference to Heidegger's Zen-esque masterpiece Being and Time and also Castaneda's work on alternative states of consciousness.
Its a shame JZ didn't read Stirner or Heidegger.

besides doing the work i need to do for money i just try to sit back and chill, enjoy my life as much as i can before i die. All sorts of strange artistic projects i want to do and can't lol

I agree anon 06:32, even raising one's hand in a crowd to elect, or to utter an aye or a nay, is to enslave oneself to the whims of a mediocre and banal horde.

i'm anarcho-preexistism. i believe existence was a mistake. too much complexity developed when things became existent. it was so much simpler when there was nothing. the primordial sin was not controlled fire, but what we know as matter, energy and stuff. a uniform unfathomable field that predated spacetime. even cosmic background radiation is just too damn noisy. before the big bang everything was truly equal and free of any force acting upon it.

Finally someone said it. Since its emergence matter has been on an endless mission of imperial conquest, colonizing every last corner of the universe and making us all its subjects. A greater tyranny there could never be.

Yeah, that's ok, but before matter there was the idea. I'm a pre-ideaist, that's even before your matter!

Primitivist is like a carpet rug full of dustmites and door clearings are not the curbs of roads designed to deal with water and runnoff and then it rains and it overflows but evaporation exists and mud and sewers which are very big and then you can fit into a sewers and there are cockroaches and maybe gators and then elon musk is digging a tunnel and that could be populated with nasty creepy crawlies as well, what if water poured down through it and fester, live would thrive there as well

And what about all the consumerists taking a dump on the carpet every day, bacteria rule in the primitivist universe!

Add new comment