Topic of the Week: Green Anarchism

  • Posted on: 21 March 2016
  • By: thecollective

How do green or ecological factors affect your thoughts or actions as anarchists, if at all?

What is the importance of indigenous resistance or solidarity as green anarchists, now and moving into the future? What are the implications of the notion that civilization has encroached over every space on the planet, and is there any hope for escape? Would such an escape look like something completely different than anything we’ve known in the past, or would it resemble historical modes of living such as hunter/gatherers? Are tools and technology separated from or a part of nature, i.e. is there a distinction between what is natural and what is artificial? If so, what importance does such a distinction play in the everyday life of people (or yourself) today? Can terms such as wildness or domestication be useful or elaborated on or are they merely jargon or loaded concepts?

What may be the impact of future ecological instability on anarchist resistance or praxis (e.g. in the case of drought, severe weather, poor agricultural conditions, floods, or other supposed effects of global warming…)? The anonymous text Desert, for example, suggests pockets of autonomous life and resistance that could potentially form in the gaps left by such future disasters or instability.

Are green anarchist views necessarily anti-humanist? What would a more ecologically-oriented human relationship to the earth look like? How do groups such as ITS (Individualists Tending toward the Wild), waging so-called eco-terrorism against technologically-based targets tie into the question of anarchist praxis or thought? The group self-identifies as eco-extremists and they have explicitly proclaimed they are not anarchists (see recent communique here). Their tactics of indiscriminately bombing and torching targets without regard to collateral human injury, and assassinating other targets such as a biotech worker have also drawn much criticism. Are the acts and ideas of ITS firmly at odds with the anarchist idea? What can be drawn from their insistence to “attack in the present” as opposed to working towards a supposed future revolution? Is green anarchism or anarcho-primitivism at odds with individualist, egoist, or nihilist thought?



A green perspective goes into my thoughts. I do criticize civilization from time to time, primarily its division of labor, its use of technology as a bludgeon and the rise of industrialism and mass society in this era of capitalism. The perspective of colonialism is great as a narrative to the historic culprits of the invasions from over the past 500 years coming primarily from the West and it opens up the idea of contact with this historic force as helping define the conflicts that lead into contemporary times. A green perspective needs to adapt the historic analysis of colonialism, imperialism and white supremacy as the forces that rigged capitalism as a historic system of domination.

Rewilding and domestication can't be framed exclusively by Zerzanian authors whose ignorant biases prevent them from allowing space for free will, depending more strongly on what science tells them instead of on what their own body and self tells them what it means to be free. If your anarchy is about the denial of arguments of free will and being able to discuss the definition of things on how they relate to our own free wills, they aren't forms of anarchy I'd care to include in my thoughts.

Once rewilding and domestication are broken free from Zerzan and his circle, it is easy to see that rebellion against not just domination, but also against progress is part of the rewilding process. Freeing ourselves from domestication isn't about becoming (just) hunter gatherers, but rather is a negative project which fits better as a general anti-civilization practice, with the outcome of that resulting possibly in hunter gatherer living...but it could also just be nomads in an RV, computer hacking, joining a circus, luddite attacks on production, full subsistence urban gardening, permanent strike, riots, unrest. The rebellion against domestication and undoing the programming of civilization involves an anti-civilization approach, though not necessarily hunter gatherer because it is about exposing all the failures that has come from civilization and challenge the point of view that progress is occurring and/or where we should be going. Without this strong emphasis on the failures of progress it can fall into the irrelevance of Zerzanian babble (symbolic thought, fetishizing hunter gatherer life, specialization in anthropology, etc.) or into the problems of progress based radicalism represented by most of the left.

Coles Notes Translation:

'I hate Zerzan'.

Green anarchism implies, basically, not red anarchism, whatever that is. Beyond that, it might imply anything. Tho I feel the "green" to indicate some emotional resonance about "life" or "spirit" or something, not too nihilisty. Wildism seems more self-consciously pursuant of death. This may be the point of contrast.

there is negation and position,the ebb and flow between being and void.
indigenous solidarity means a wild spirit underlies all things,
there is no space.
there is only Apu in Ayni, mind in reciprocity.

the process of civilization is a specific folly, current to human-kind who can't help but to explore an interest in adventure and spookery. certain war mongerers and social conquerers have sought a position of domain outside their own individual person.
they claim the spook of authority and grant the same to other perceived beings.
Civilisation is a zombie, propped up by the authoritarian manner of being, where the abstract of potential is neglected in preference to the so called real or material knowledge, the primal-binary blood-thirst. the sometimes useful perception of a life/death binary can be a tool for enslavement and unfortunately, we-people generally adapt to accept the comfort and bread which our walking-dead tyrant provides. we even chew our own soul, ostensibly attempting to identify Things, rationally differentiating one from an other into empirical categories or identity. . yet, we won't be generalized for we are truly detached from such science. the newborn mind lives naturally, ever-free of artifice. given all of our folly and failure, yet any one of our children or pets may rebel.
Anarchism is the allergy! we are to proliferate,
keeping in mind all our relations, ever,
as one objective dignity; just total freedom.
the infinite loving freedom to evolve comes before and goes far beyond any 0-1 valuation
our true dynamic is some tree-hugging rainbow magic
the forest, is a healing force.
any humanity must find home in it or be lost
there is no hope, neither for escape nor future.
long live the potential for to be!

That's all very nice, but in the underdeveloped world only food-bearing plants are hugged, and forests are not rich in edibles, thus, overpopulation has burn/slashed, yep, I know, the Zerzan future quest, 4 billion die, here we go again, 6 billion cell phones, the capitalist consumerist banquet, lost in perpetual artificial screens,,,1 person eats 20 1/4 pounders and is congratulated, all that stuff,,,,,

food bearing plants are many and the forest wants humane stewardship

Or cannibalism as a necessity for survival. Its all in the marinade, not in the morality!

I smell a troll

this, the anarche-political spectrum is an all-inclusive orgy, wherein to engender an autonomous member with a static identity is to overstep nature. while there's a given distinction between that which fills and that which envelops, neither can be can be truly denominated by any worldly individual; the only real understanding is that of All Our Relations.
thus we don't where stripes on our sleeve, we fly the black flag as symbol of our fighting spirit which is an amalgamation of all the callers in sunshine, condensed to a window-shattering, solid rock.

I am a Zerzanian, said no one ever

Oh, I had no intention of it being an identification. It is like Nashism, except its Zerzanian.

I'm pro-Green Anarchism, but I've become far too assimilated into the urban environment to call myself a green anarchist with any integrity. What some people call "the Wild" or "Nature," I just think of as "the Outside" of urban space. It's alien to me, no matter how much I recognize the consequential catastrophe that civilization's developments lead to. My connection to green anarchism comes mostly by way of a DIY ethic and the implication that to really DIY at a basic level, it requires a much closer relationship with this "Outside". That and growing up with bands like Antischism

residing in an urban environment, separated from the wild one may come to feel , that nature is located outside, alien to the domestic condition. my primitive anarchism however, would suggest that while one can not see the whole mountain, each is impartially imprimed with/by/for special design of wilderness and thus, has the potential to wild-out on any given day.

Wilding out is fine, but here I'm more concerned with how to reproduce my life "outside" of urban environments; and, the steep learning curve that comes with such an attempt.

perhaps our very urbanity must be smashed in order to make way for the wild flow of our youth.
following their guidance (our hallowed little-ones), we are led to remember the call of the wild;
same as it ever was. don't fret, the body's immune capacity is augmented for erratic experience.
we have to navigate uncharted terrain intuitively; relations underlie being.
we have to negate the inside/out dichotomy; the means and end bemerge together.

Why reproduce? Why not simply create anew?

never too late to bail on the urban trap, amigo. i lived in major urban centers for 40+ years, then spent the past 15 wondering what the fuck took me so long.

have humans really ever fully integrated into the wild

have humans ever really been fully civilized?

do you even table?

Feel the Zern !!!!!

As for your question about ITS, I think you should continue publishing their communiques and ideas here. They may not explicitly be anarchists, but they are of immense interest to many green anarchists and anarcho-primitivists here. It would be a lot like publishing non-anarchist socialist texts here because they're interesting to syndicalists.

Also, ITS does COME from anarchism, or at least some of them. They are clearly relevant to our own efforts.

ITS is not relevant. anarchism has always had a reverence for life. even when hard decisions are required in times of war and the lackadaisical absence of differentiation ITS practices is not worth giving credence to. this kind of pandering is part of the juvenile dark side of anarchism that makes it hard to claim our values are relevant to regular people.

You say that, but a lot of anarchists disagree with you, and given the nature of anarchism, that makes it kind of hard for you to substantiate your claim that anarchism "has always had a reverence for life."

Consider also the Haymarket affair, assassinations of various heads of government and industry, Berkman's attack on Frick, McKinley's assassination, the anarchist terrorism that prompted the creation of Interpol, the illegalists who killed people in the course of bank robberies, etc.... It's just not true that this is unprecedented within anarchism itself.

The wall st bombing would be another good example...

ITS is of supreme relevance, particularly for the growing number of anarchists who have had a gut full of the Spanish Civil War reenactment society and Generation 68 versions of anarchism.

Sure but you just avoid the blatant history of insurgent anticiv anarchist attacks, not only recently in Mexico, but for the last few decades all over the West. And no, anarchism does not forcibly equates to 1936 reenactments and anarcho-hippies. It's just you pulling off some heavy generalizations.

No, liberal humanism has always had a reverence for life, but some people like to confuse this with anarchy. Why the hell do you want to be relevant to "regular" people? They're not going to change for you (just like your partner won't either). "Regular" people are anarchists' enemies.

is not the people, just their regularity.
and, of course they'll change! (everything always does..)

no anarchist action would ever harm people indiscriminately.

Ha. The enemy is the people who perpetuate regularity, who allow it to exist and rule their lives. Your last statement is completely inseparable from humanism and all of its dogma and doctrine.

There you go, the wet dream of so many anarchists: cultural revolution. They want "their" values (progressive values) to take over the world just like any other religious fanatic, and for this mass society is convenient since they're bent on an eternal PR campaign..
Others might understand this as being just another form of "colonialism" and want the destruction of "civilization" as a whole, for the functioning of mass society to cease, and for Leviathan to not be reinvested, to use Perlman's metaphor. Though, they're rarely consequential when it comes to what this all means for civilized humans: misery, suffering, sickness, famine, death...
So you have Zerzan, Sepulveda, Tucker, AbdelRahim and the likes who propagandize that the absence of civilization is even more representative of progressive values - which they call wildness - partly through depicting hunter-gatherers as easy-going humanist egalitarians and hardcore collectivists who sing and play all day and have psychic powers. The idea of attaining the idyllic absence of civilization (Paradise) through "hope" (redemption) is a lot easier to sell to the progressive masses than the harsh reality of what the end of civilized life would mean for them. Many people obviously recognize this as the half assed bullshit it is.
Unlike the overwhelming majority of anarchists, eco-extremists are honest about not giving a shit about most people and aren't trying to pose as the benefactors and saviors of humanity. Why should they if they wish harm to civilization, to the civilized? Thus, they are terrorists.

This comment gets a cookie.

"...partly through depicting hunter-gatherers as easy-going humanist egalitarians and hardcore collectivists who sing and play all day and have psychic powers."

WTF? Where are you getting this shit from?

Dude, have you read Zerzan?

our psychic powers are rekindled as inductive reasoning guides our relationships.
the signs of a balance are all-around, every thing plays out in divine synchronicity, for to follow.
humane affection is inherently anarchistic. the harmonic vibrations is good.
relational campaign: —the idea is to encourage decivilisation (rewilding) ;
"misery, suffering, sickness, famine, death" are important components of the Yin/Yang in which joy, comfort, health, feast , indeed Life could not be appreciated without regard for it's dynamic conditions, which is incidentally the folly of dry-concrete, deductive realism, CIVIL propriety.

ITS is pretty funny but, that kind of shit alone aint gonna bring the thing down .

insurrectionists have often distanced themselves from "respectable" anarchists, and many have even described anarchism as another ideological barrier that needs to be overcome.

i find ITS refreshingly blunt, honest, and inspiring.

here's part of a talk given by Gustavo Rodríguez - the insurrectionist current

more generally, i think green anarchy does not imply primitivism, nor do i think living in a manner that is not horribly toxic to life on earth means having to live in a sort of wretched freedom; "we may be filthy and poor, but there ain't no more bosses!"

one of the defining aspects to civilization is the creation and maintenance of a professional, standing army. without this element, would a culture that lives in some sort of equilibrium with the environment and provides lives of prosperity - free from food insecurity, reliable shelter, healthcare for those who need it - be considered a "civilization?" not in my mind. so long as people are self-governing and able to organize themselves into sustainable, enduring, autonomous communities, such communities would be anarchist in practice, even without an ideology of anarchism.

fun fact; for the first couple of centuries after the creation of professional armies, the troops were called "killers," as opposed to soldiers.

One of the things that is often on my mind is how often it appears that green people focus on environmental issues in a similar way that reds focus on class, both often as a way to (I'd say often unconsciously, even) avoid facing questions of race and gender and other molar forms of domination. I have seen some green theories that too conveniently place those who employ them in engagements other than ones that require them to face these issues.

This is not to say that anti-civ people are necessarily particularly racist or otherwise, just that it's a light flag.

While those things should be discussed on their own terms unsubordinated to red/green domination, there needs to be a frank discussion on how the worst of that analysis and orientation relating to race, gender ect has led to a phenomena of accelerated identity proliferation. I can see elements of the greenies rightfully reacting against that, though you have some(like the unterrified) that misfire in analysis against this.

It's time to talk about a freeze on identity.

a freeze on identity... yeah, it should be so fucking easy.

Obviously identity as such is going nowhere(much like any current accelerated human behavior)

Yeah, offer the black guy segregation and an identity as an outsider. Wow... You offer sticking nouns onto what are verbs.

One might want to look toward 'do nothing' in the context of wu wei, or sanctioned time: re industrial belief systems and the activities such beliefs engender. The do something mindset has done wonders for the oceans, air, water quality, soil erosion, etc... We can also talk about how evasion is a tool of war, as we know SE digs Seaweed and martial skills.

But that actually isn't his position. He proudly runs around promoting doing nothing while encouraging pedophilia, ignoring white supremacy, society and how they impact us as well as many other irrelevant positions. He does so as an outsider, not an anarchist. His position is that he isn't an anarchist, that even post-left anarchists are too left for him and his discourses rotate around fascism and fascist thinkers with some nods to Stirner and Nietzsche while polluting their view of things for his right wing interpretation on reality. How he has been allowed to co-opt Novatore and Armand without question is just part of the heights of bullshit people let this asshole get away with on this site. Thecollective should be ashamed of themselves.

Position in that sense is not elective. You also don't get what 'doing nothing' entails on my part. The poster above is perfectly correct in regards to looking at certain ancient techniques and martial traditions that do not lend themselves to accelerated civilized sublimation. You keep repeating these cartoon leftist charges of fascism and fascist thinkers. Please give an example or shut up with that. Also my postulation from Nietzsche and especially Stirner is not just a nod. I'm actually serious about postulating a Stirnerian praxis of anarchy that for the most part wasn't on the same level as his counterpart Proudhon. And again, where and what is the right wing interpretation of history?

I actually am on anarchist on paper, the reason why I go beyond anarchism is because it is an impediment to actual anarchy due to being yet another elective position and proposed solution. Once again anon, how can someone who rejects ELECTIVE positions and PROPOSED solutions be a fascist? How is that even possible on a theoretical and performative level? How can some who rejects civilized sublimation be a fascist? I want to know. You could just admit that it's your silly way of saying I'm someone you don't like which is what the word has become at this point among the stupider anarchists.

Have to agree with sir fuckface here: although he's standing in one of those post-left positions that can so easily lead to the places that antifa concerns itself with, he's just a pompous douchebag and constant annoyance, not a threat.

are clear libertarian thinkers of high esteem. Their concepts
are unique and contribute to praxes that can take the form of
unions of uniques, both temporary or more long-lasting , as well as their application to
producers of all kinds including cooperatives, small farmers,entrepreneurs, individual
artists and "creators" from many genres. The main idea is : both >and… vs either /or.
The multitudes are many and different; so can be their activities.
Let ideas, practices proliferate.; to many peoples and many worlds.
p.s. notice in all a sense of the sublime and little trace of resentment. Indeed "Joy to the World".

Reposting with an offending sentence removed. Thecollective again wants to control anarchists and what they say while harboring a voice box for fascists and their allies.

How do you have a pony in the race when you offer nothing for praxis? Are you wanting to stop people from doing stuff and move them towards doing nothing like you? You've been running up and down for quite a while speaking of the greatness of doing nothing. For a Canadian black man, you fail at grasping issues of exploitation, oppression and why conflictuality can be generated with some people while others, not so much. I can only imagine that you pass as white or you have enough wealth to keep you sheltered from the surrounding reality that drives others to actually conflict with the system.

You are so steeped in your political economic induced elective propositions that you do not understand what people like me entail when we talk of doing nothing. Hell it was already answered for you above with the wu wei point. As for conflicting with the system, most of the poorer people that I live with and work around don't actually have time to take part in your silly constituted elective forms of struggle. What matters more to them is the corporeal. Also, I'm mixed not black and no I do not have wealth to keep me sheltered. I live in a pad on the poorer end of the city that I live in(not that that really matters).

Do those who focus on race and gender also neglect class and environmental concerns?

'Green' thinking, although occasionally problematic, at least considers the consequences of certain scenarios with reference to a real thing - physical, observable environments and the organisms who inhabit them.

'Red', 'Gold', 'Purple' and 'blue' anarchists, though, are invoking the Geists of class, trade, gender and sex identity, and 'the future'.

So get away with your flags. If someone has a way of looking at the world that deals with things that are real and does not acknowledge the validity of concepts like race and gender, it does not mean that they are 'racist' or 'gender phobic'. It means that they are actively resisting the attempt to pigeonhole them.

for me an anti-civ perspective goes along with my nihilism. it's less about developing a less mediated relation with the immediate environment (although i find that important too) and more about an understanding that city life, industry, technology, and agriculture as we know them must be destroyed, if not destroyed entirely.
i agree with the first comment that anti-civ anarchy is a negative project, fighting civ and living beyond or after civ will look all kinds of ways and we're being foolish if we imagine it'll be one way for everyone.
in terms of indigenous solidarity, it's relevant a lot of time, although i think it's important to not fetishize the people or what they want. a lot of traditional indigenous societies aren't compatible with my idea of anarchy and it's important for me to acknowledge that my trajectory is more anti-colonial than de-colonial.
really though i don't really expect or hope for collapse or revolution or communism or any sort of very large change in how we live so i see an anti-civ struggle as a struggle more than a possible destination anyways.

I think people read too much into ITS's indiscriminate violence rhetoric, not that there wouldn't be collateral damage, they admit that, more that people think they're going to start bombing preschools and such. Look, there are practical elements to this: they only do what they can get away with. If they really did something like what just happened in Europe, they'd be hunted down in a matter of hours. So there has always been a caveat in eco-extremist literature of not getting caught. That doesn't mean they aren't going to carry out actions against "innocent scientists", because like with FC they're far from innocent. And if you happen to be emptying the trash can near them, well, that's the minuscule chance you take when you work in a facility like that. People want to read into ITS the boogeyman that they want eco-extremism to be, and not the boogeyman that it actually is. They're just saying that they don't shed a tear for maimed janitors and secretaries, and I don't see why they should. This society is one where everyone is a victim and no one is responsible. That doesn't mean that one needs to channel Charles Manson, but it does mean that there is no room for half measures. In that, they are just engaging in the rules of war just like any army or state.

Now you can just say that they aren't a state but a bunch of crazies, but the state doesn't have many acknowledged rights either in this combox. The fact is, any action that you take can harm someone. In this society, economic harm can be just as pernicious to individuals as physical harm. Physical harm is more definitive, but there is still trauma in the strike, sabotage, and of course, more socially acceptable forms of militant struggle. One eco-extremist communication recently cited the example of the anarchist Severino di Giovanni and one commenter cited others above. Are anarchists suddenly more enlightened now to no longer do things like that? Doubt it.

As for the relation between ITS and anarchism: sure they're not anarchists but I think their point has always been that anarchism is a useless rubric if the very foundations of domination and civilization are in place (the techno-industrial structure). You can argue until you are blue in the face about what the definition of anarchism, domination, etc. are, but that doesn't change the fact that our current complex "ultrasociety" needs domesticated humans to run or the infrastructure falls apart. I mean, I'd be happy to take eco-extremist writings elsewhere, ain't no thing to me. Eco-extremism isn't really a movement or a set of dogmas: it's like a computer virus that aims to enter into individuals and facilitate their lashing out against their domesticated subjugation. There's thus no plan and no doctrines to learn. Some go the pagan route, some don't. Some play the role of indigenous warriors, some don't. Some are just run-of-the-mill nihilists, some don't even write communiques, they just do things. None of it is coordinated, and people do it on their own as individuals. I happen to be sympathetic to the tendency of Regresion Magazine, but that's just me. I thought Anarchy was a little like that, though I don't agree with it since I think it asks the wrong questions.

I suppose what I am trying to say is that people want to excommunicate eco-extremism but I am not even sure of what that tendency is at this point. What really binds it together is the hate for the techno-industrial system, hate for domestication, acknowledging one's hypocrisy, but not being prevented by it from lashing out according to one's own individual means. And no, those who carry out actions don't shed tears if "innocent people" get hurt, because those who carry them out aren't particularly innocent themselves, and part of them understands that. Any harm that could possibly be inflicted is a drop in the bucket compared to what society itself inflicts, but thinking of that fact can either lead to paralysis or doing things anyway not particularly caring about future implications. People can draw their own conclusions, as eco-extremism isn't looking to make converts from the hostile.

« Eco-extremism » means so many different things and doesn't mean much at the same time. You're attempting to bring here a notion that was produced by authorities in the first place but was never clearly defined (as usually the case with bogeymen set up by States), other than a demonized « no-go » by the promoters of nonviolent activist paradigms and State-related agencies alike. Like… for someone, splashing a real estate ad panel with paint is « eco-extremism », but for another it could mean dressing up as some crusty primitivist hippie, and for somebody else it's native insurgents blowing up pipelines under construction, etc. There's no core, consensual definition, but it's a rhetorical passepartout serving the agenda of whoever uses it, including (*dramatic surprise music*) YOU!?

But the sketchiest part is how you attempt to separate it from eco-anarchist action, which is one of the most ridiculously pretentious mind twists I've seen on this forum, yet. You're really pulling a big one right here. Or was it an edict form the ITS Central Committee?

I see you like to rant against « anarchists », but what you keep out of your tunnel vision is the reality that anarchists have been already involved with the praxis you're defending here, so this makes all these rants rather useless, as creating false dichotomies out purely fictitious straw men. Or maybe only useful in creating a cognitive divide between anarchists and « eco-extremists », that helps sucking out both of their significance?

So propaganda by the deed is very glamorous, the urban culture and mass production self destructive. Sort of taste redundant though. There is talk of quietism, but perhaps there is loudism as well...Kropotkin might be oh-so passé, but what about bread? There is something to be said about an approach that is overtly one-sided isn't it? Which also could be extended to an academic bickering over terms. Is any one tendency a panacea?

This society is one where everyone is a victim and no one is responsible. That doesn't mean that one needs to channel Charles Manson, but it does mean that there is no room for half measures. In that, they are just engaging in the rules of war just like any army or state.

Exactly. Just like any army or state. There is no room for half measures? Since when is the eco-extremist tendency a strategical position? It is explicitly not. We can talk about "half measures" when we talk about a goal to attain.

The fact is, any action that you take can harm someone.

It's true. How does this imply that precautions should not be taken and that the concept of collateral damage should be endorsed? If you remember, several years ago there were three bank employees (not bankers) who died after a bank was set on fire in Athens. Were they wrong in burning the bank? They weren't. Should they have said that they don't give two shits because the employees were not innocent? No. Some of the anarchists have publicly expressed their grief and defended their comrades' actions, simply by saying that it was a very unfortunate accident.

One eco-extremist communication recently cited the example of the anarchist Severino di Giovanni and one commenter cited others above.

If anarchism means (at least) rejection of all authority, how is a logical fallacy commonly called "appeal to authority" compatible with anarchism?

Eco-extremism isn't really a movement or a set of dogmas: it's like a computer virus that aims to enter into individuals and facilitate their lashing out against their domesticated subjugation. There's thus no plan and no doctrines to learn. Some go the pagan route, some don't. Some play the role of indigenous warriors, some don't. Some are just run-of-the-mill nihilists, some don't even write communiques, they just do things. None of it is coordinated, and people do it on their own as individuals."

The only group that explains what eco-extremism is, is ITS. When you sign as a group with a fixed name, such as ITS, you do not sign as an individual. It may be true that there are diverse people involved but as long as they don't voice their disagreements with the official ITS statements, they are agreeing with what the authors of the communiques say, until they prove the contrary.

What really binds it together is the hate for the techno-industrial system, hate for domestication, acknowledging one's hypocrisy, but not being prevented by it from lashing out according to one's own individual means.

That's not true, because many other people (not only anarchists critical of science and technology) have elaborated an often much better critique. What binds eco-extremism as a tendency is a rejection of any kind of future perspective (such as a revolution), a religious concept of nature and half-assed justification of harm done to the "non-innocent" when harm against the responsible fails.

Wasn't it that an employee locked the back door unbeknownst to every other worker? Pretty sure that's why they had no other way out of the building.

You anarchistnews censors are funny. You removed my comment because i'm not bashing Zerzan in this one? Grow a spine.
So i'll repeat it again and those who'll have seen it can judge for themselves. Lets see how long this one lasts:
Anarchist attack urban spaces with bombs and arson, express grief when there are "collaterals" and throw responsibility onto the enemy, or "accidents", for the consequence of their actions. Happened in Greece with the banks and the Maziotis shootout, happened in Chile with the metro bombing. They know this is bad for their PR, for winning the hearts and minds, so they have the good rhetoric, the same rhetoric as any good State representative.

^ was my comment... and if has no pertinence then it should be easy to shoot it down instead of removing it right? Or are you incapable of arguing against this?

The problem wasn't that you failed to bash Zerzan, you oaf. It was the dangerous and untrue claim that all anarchists use bombs and violence. I don't mean to say anything against either of those things, but it's simply untrue, and it's wrong to implicate everyone in them.

Where am I specifying ALL anarchists? Its a simple form of speaking of a sequence of events "you oaf".

Anarchist attack urban spaces with bombs and arson, express grief when there are "collaterals" and throw responsibility onto the enemy, or "accidents", for the consequence of their actions.

"Accidents" like that happen rarely, because of the precautions taken. You can read about it in many of the communiques where the authors explain how they calculated the amount of black powder used in order not to hurt the passers-by or the surrounding buildings, how they alerted the authorities to evacuate the area, etc. Also, responsibility is rarely thrown onto the enemy and when it is, it is often not the ones who claim the actions who do it.

happened in Chile with the metro bombing.

Chile metro bombing was one of the stupidest actions to happen during the last several years, that is why many so-called contra-information projects refused to publish the communique signed by CCF-Chile that had never claimed any action before.

They know this is bad for their PR, for winning the hearts and minds, so they have the good rhetoric, the same rhetoric as any good State representative.

It has nothing to do with winning the hearts and minds. It is about a personal ethic and the responsibility people take for their actions. Some calculate it badly (and some things you can't predict), with no prior intention to hurt others. Of course, expressing grief or saying sorry will not help much at that point, but at least one admits their mistake (which might help others do better) instead of releasing another half-assed flow of logorrhea to justify something they did not intend to do.

Thanks, you're a somewhat good example of what I meant about rhetoric + a dose of technical optimism.

If you give some thought to it, carrying and placing explosives, for example, implies many other "calculations" than the projected end result, and like you said many things cannot be predicted. Some still go ahead and do it while claiming the same humanist ethics which binds the society they are threatening. Others still go ahead and do it while being up front about the threat they pose to society, because threatening society is actually what they want. It seems to me if we are speaking of taking responsibility, the example is obvious.

What do you mean by humanist ethics? If one doesn't want passers-by to die, it's not out of humanism, it's not out of love for humanity or out of its abstract exaltation. And no, I don't think that respect for others life is holding this society together, quite the contrary.

You're mixing things up. When I say that this society must be destroyed in order for life to flourish, I hold certain people responsible for maintaining it. You don't attack this society by attacking its members at random. You attack this society by attacking those who profit from its existence, those who actively maintain and defend it.

When you say that "others still go ahead and do it while being up front about the threat they pose to society", I think you're mistaking stupidity for honesty.

"You attack this society by attacking those who profit from its existence, those who actively maintain and defend it."
What a romantic view of destroying society you have, thinking it means attacking solely the bad people who profit from it. Really, you should stop projecting your own stupidity onto others.

And the other comment: "Society is not people"
if were speaking of humans, its kind hard to imagine a society without people isn't it? But this assumption on society is not surprising being how many anarchists like to conveniently believe that that material conditions are abstract.

Except society is not people, you Islamic State dimwit. People make society, but society is an abstraction. It's the mass institution they go by.

But yes… taking responsibility, for taking the lives of random proles, is something anarchists did in the recent years (read: Caso Bombas, and the mail bombs sent indirectly to Sarkozy when he was still in power), and actually what was distinguishing them the most from past and present authoritarian insurgents. Not because anarchist insurgents are in for a popularity contest, but because we'd kill only the lives of those they KNOW as being willing servants of the system of oppression, instead of killing anyone out of a bunch of poorly-thought ASSUMPTIONS, or just the teenage hot-blooded drive to « Kill or Die ».

the notion that we can identify a local authoring source of 'oppression' is ill-founded [oppression is a nonlocal relational influence]. this notion comes from our own ego because of our mistaken belief that we are the jumpstart author of our own behaviour and the fountainhead of our own productive results, when we are, instead, intermediary in a transforming relational continuum.

as nietzsche says, we take this egotist notion that individuals are the jumpstart source of their own behaviour and tuck it into the transforming relational continuum wherever we want by an error of grammar in which we call some activity within the continuum, 'a subject'. by making some activity a subject and having it inflect a verb, we fabricate an intellectual 'semantic reality' wherein 'the buck starts/stops here with the action of the subject'.

We do this with the venting of violence in the relational continuum that we call 'terrorism' (we use language to create the notional subjects we call 'terrorists' as a grammatical device which imputes local jumpstart authoring that is fully and solely responsible for the activity called 'terrorism', ... hiding the real upstream source in the tensioned relational continuum [it takes a whole community to raise a terrorist] while upstream co-authors become the forensic bloodhounds in a literalist semantic reality who seek the elimination of those intermediary venters who have been grammatically subjectized.)

we employ the same ego-based illusions in the case of politics. some slick talker gets his sails filled with the relational winds of others and is credited with captaining the good ship America or the good ship X [choose any other of the 193 so-called 'independent sovereign states' in the fleet], as if he, like Saddam and Qaddafy, are [by an act of grammar] the local source of those actions that, while merely venting through them are seen as 'originating' from them. Meanwhile, the reality is; ... "life is what happens to us while we are busy operationalizing our egotist political plans'.

local subjects are not in control of anything [they are spooks], we just like to believe we are, ...and we make up stories in support of it as is the Western way, ... the voters buy it because they are egotists too. global relational interdependence is the physical reality of our actual, natural experience, and it is only in 'semantic reality' where the patchwork quilt of 'independent nation-states' [organization as nouns] headed up by political leaders at their powerboat helms, ... usurps in our imagination, the relational continuum of our actual, natural, relational experience.

"The only group that explains what eco-extremism is, is ITS."

They explain it, but they don't claim to be the only ones. The Pagan Sect of the Mountain and the Eco-Extremist Circle of Violence and Sabotage that have been active in the past few months are not ITS, and ITS doesn't claim them, because it has no claim to the label, though it is arguably "a major player" so to speak.

True. But as far as I know, they are the only ones to define it (vaguely) -- or am I mistaken? Also, I don't remember any other groups who claim the eco-extremist tendency express any criticism towards ITS rhetoric -- or am I mistaken? I fail to find any other points distinguishing them from other anti-civilizational tendencies besides what I mention above. In this sense, it seems like a pretty conscious subscription to one exact kind of ideology (and ideology it is) invented by ITS.

I find it unfortunate that Zerzan and Tucker are somehow the face/representatives of a Green Anarchist perspective. There are so many other writers/doers/experimenters etc who can be said to be loosely affiliated with the moniker. One that I personally appreciate is the author Seaweed. He writes about having a direction, but not a destination for instance. A simple but profound distinction. He plays with the concepts of egoism and society, again in a simple but effective way. In his book Land and Freedom he writes: " society, in the sense of that which is hostile and oppressive to the individual has as a precondition urban life. Small bands of friends or even the relationships which exist in small villages are not societies. ...A group of friends sharing agreements and practicing subsistence together does not establish a society. It is in this sense that the ungoverned, nature-loving individual is at the heart of my conception of an ecologically minded anarchism." I love how he weaves egoism, a critique of mass society and a green perspective in a few sentences.

Unlike Zerzan and Tucker, who it seems are adamant that only immediate return hunter gatherer systems allow for anarchy to flourish, Seaweed hopes for a world in which there is room for all sorts of experiments and investigations- sedentary villages that also use seasonal camps for instance, or exploring what immediate return mixed with delayed return systems might look like, etc.

One recurring concept he mentions is the idea that while a blueprint or destination only restricts the "infinite permutations possible" as he puts it, we probably should have at least one particular goal in mind: healthy habitats. This is something I'd like to see debated and discussed a lot more. It is an extremely important point. What is a habitat? What does being embedded in one look like? How is a habitat different than a political territory?

There are tons of other folks too who have their own GA outlook/practice. Jeriah Bowser comes to mind as someone who has some interesting stuff for instance. So can we stop equating GA with Zerzan?

HP, do you really think that sedentary villages are worth engaging in?

Just to say that I agree. GA is more than Primitvism and should perhaps be more of an critical approach than a Fuck All Else. Also, beside the idea of the noble savage, there is the perhaps more attainable garden. Then you have phyto/bioremediation, tree/hedge/meadow planting. Perhaps not as thrilling as blowing up buses, but effectual enough.

Thinking that it is possible to live in non IRHG society in anarchy is akin to hoping you as the revolutionary leader will not become a tyrant after taking power. People would eventually just create civilization again. Where I disagree with Zerzan and Tucker is that I think other ways of living/experimenting is necessary, one, because it could lead to band society eventually via a few ways, and two, because band society is probably impossible and these experiments will potentially give us the most autonomy we’ll ever see. But I'm not solidified regarding any of this so please disagree with me.

"I think other ways of living/experimenting is necessary, one, because it could lead to band society eventually via a few ways"

I'm very interested. Please share here, or via email ( or at

A few things were in my head when writing this (I'm not seaweed by the way. I saw your other comment that seems to have been deleted):

1. Probably all groups of people who might want to attempt an IRHG life, especially at present, will have to be sedentary at first due to reliance on the state, growing their own food/permaculture, lack of public land, lack of enough wild food, lack of skills. They may eventually be able to become IRHGs of their own choosing.

2. Some kind of climate change akin to the change of the holocene could occur, potentially making agriculture impossible, h/g more likely, or something else entirely. People living in some sort of experimental community may find it necessary and/or possible/desirable to become IRHGs.

3. As experiments in this direction continue to happen, new critiques of these experiments will emerge. It is possible they could lead to people desiring IRHG life, for example if they truly found they were still alienated even in community, or had some other problem perhaps suggested already by anthropology.

4. Basically anything else could happen to either force or make desirable the change to IRHG, which may be much more easily doable than coming from a modern city, likely depending on each specific community..

Just because some anthropologists, Woodburn in particular, have summarized their observations with notions like 'explicit and unambigious egalitarianism is the principal mode of organisation only in societies employing an immediate-return system', doesn`t mean that this belief/opinion won't be challenged by new observations. I find it odd that people are making axiomatic assertions and basing their radical outlooks from what amounts to a scientific claim. Anyone familiar with the philosophy of science knows that scientific conclusions and laws are always changing based on new information and interpretations. So I fully expect Woodburns inferences to be revisited too.

He poses very challenging questions and makes insightful observations, but please lets not treat his interpretation of the data as a parallel lines never meet sort of thing. (in fact non euclidean geometry eventually disproved that axiom)

To say that civilization ( an imperial system of domination based in domestication and urban structures) will rise again unless all humans are IRHGs seems exaggerated or hyperbolic, if not actually ideological. There were so many variables that came into play that facilitated/led to the present that no longer exist. So I would agree that there is a lot of evidence that suggests that some forms of hierarchy often result from non IRHG systems. But there is no evidence that supports the view that Civilization results from DR systems.

I live in the PNW. There are examples of civilization like attributes among the traditional peoples that lived here who had delayed return systems. Inherited chiefdom for instance, and scattered instances of captives being kept (some say slaves). So this does bolster the claim that delayed return systems lead to hierarchy. But they were here for 10,000 years. I'm not sure how long they practiced delayed return, but it was for centuries at least, perhaps millennia. So even after all that time they still didn't have banks, or prisons or private property (some semantic debate here is possible I acknowledge), or police or factories or compulsory schooling etc. There weren't imperial armies doing the bidding of pharaohs. There weren't priests and accountants using secret knowledge and scripts (mathematics and literacy) to manage people on behalf of ideology or royalty. In short there was some limited hierarchy among some of the peoples, especially more northern people, but there wasn't anything near a hegemonic authoritarian imperial civilization nor was there any indication that some sort of authoritarian civilization was imminent.

If a network of groups of 50 friends/kin have temporary (anywhere from a few years to multi generational) village sites that are complimented by heavy use of seasonal campsites within a habitat, I don't agree that they will necessarily find themselves in an antagonistic relationship with a 'society' or 'civilization' or even an overwhelming set of hierarchical relationships or that egalitarianism will have difficulty flourishing.

Finally expressions like delayed return and immediate return are extremely limited/limiting when describing reality. How long exactly must food be consumed before it is delayed return? How long can friends/kin stay in one place before it is considered sedentary? The grey areas are often where words fail and interesting things happen.

I am deeply appreciative of seaweed's comment as well as I have cornered people like Kevin Tucker on the immediate returns issue and have always gotten a "no true hunter-gatherer" run around, as if societies that existed for thousands of years in a semi-nomadic mode of life were about to develop domestication and rigid hierarchies at any second. Also, as is implied in the comment, it assumes that civilization is an inevitable "telos" of humanity when a certain number of vague factors are in play. This is clearly not the case. As indicated at the end of that comment, a lot of the fetishizing of "immediate returns" is based on undefined and very generalized criteria, like how often does a band have to move around to be considered truly nomadic vs. semi-nomadic, how much food can one store before you are considered "delayed returns" etc. It's too bad primitive peoples who honed their way of life for tens of thousands of years didn't do so according to neat categories so that anthropologists wouldn't be confused many centuries down the road.

Why do these sort of conversations need to be so deterministic? There are after all choices. @ism is about a new culture isn't it? Making institutions that counteract hierarchy. That's why they used to talk about a social not a political revolution. This whole thing that DR leads to that and IR leads to is kind of abstract isn't it? There are many examples of stateless people, but they do not function like a blueprint. For instance that a sedentary culture where hierarchical is not necessarily an flat out bad thing, or something that disproves that cultures viability. The question would be how to counteract these tendencies, wouldn't it?

The question is also "are these tendencies inherent in those lifestyles?" Zerzan and Tucker argue they are, but look to seaweed's post above for why it's really unknown. If this is true, your question becomes similar to the logic of "how can we fix the problems technology creates?" with the answer always being "more technology".

I know they argue that they are, which to me is the greatest weakness of their argument. Agriculture is not an uniform event, it is not a direct precursor to mass industry and gmo as sometimes is stated. Agriculture, it seems, is not the "cause" of civilization, it appears that temple worship was. And, no, "more technology" is not always the case. But how do you go from the present cataclysmic situation, to a situation where the earth is more in balance? A critique of the larynx offer very little in that regard, and quite frankly it borders on intellectual vanity too keep pushing this delineation between natural/interfered existence.

Temple worship? I guess you mean symbolic culture, but that began before long before any kind of temple worship.

The idea about agriculture comes from the fact that once a society has agriculture it tends to (but doesn't always) rapidly accelerate towards civilization. Unless there is a concrete way of knowing why some lead to this and others don't, how can we definitively argue that agriculture is not a problem? If you get lucky and your ag doesn't lead to civ, maybe your neighbors' will and you'll be fucked eventually anyways.

"Symbolic culture is the ability to learn and transmit behavioral traditions from one generation to the next by the invention of things that exist entirely in the symbolic realm. Symbolic culture is the cultural realm constructed and inhabited uniquely by Homo sapiens and is differentiated from ordinary culture, which many other animals possess...Examples are concepts such as good and evil, mythical inventions such as gods and underworlds, and social constructs such as promises and football games.[7] Symbolic culture is a domain of objective facts whose existence depends, paradoxically, on collective belief. " from wiki. So no, symbolic culture is not the same as temple worship.
Then from the article on Göbekli Tepe, which by no means is conclusive. Non the less:
"Recent DNA analysis of modern domesticated wheat compared with wild wheat has shown that its DNA is closest in sequence to wild wheat found on Karaca Dağ 20 miles (32 km) away from the site, suggesting that this is where modern wheat was first domesticated.[34] Such scholars suggest that the Neolithic revolution, i.e., the beginnings of grain cultivation, took place here. Schmidt believed, as others do, that mobile groups in the area were compelled to cooperate with each other to protect early concentrations of wild cereals from wild animals (herds of gazelles and wild donkeys). Wild cereals may have been used for sustenance more intensively than before and were perhaps deliberately cultivated. This would have led to early social organization of various groups in the area of Göbekli Tepe. Thus, according to Schmidt, the Neolithic did not begin on a small scale in the form of individual instances of garden cultivation, but developed rapidly in the form of "a large-scale social organization".[35]

Then you have stateless people doing ag:, James C. Scotts The Art of Not Being Goverened.

In short, statements like "If you get lucky and your ag doesn't lead to civ, maybe your neighbors' will and you'll be fucked eventually anyways." is not much else than tabloid. There are inherent problems with certain types of ag, still it can be used to remedy and/or counteract much of the ecological mess we are in. By no means a perfect solution, but an appropriate tool at the moment....

Fascinating post. Would you mind explaining what you mean by "There were so many variables that came into play that facilitated/led to the present that no longer exist."?

Also, I wonder especially about alienation. The science/anthropology/logic here seems somehow more relevant or more likely true. Perhaps not, and the same critique applies, but it seems humans could possible live just fine for extended periods in sedentary societies, but maybe necessarily having alienating experiences due to symbolic culture (though certainly to a lesser degree than industrial civ)?

I think one of the aspects of this discussion most overlooked in its importance is scale. There is a relationship between scale and hierarchy just as there is between delayed return/sedentary systems and hierarchy. To my mind the one with the most causality is scale. Sedentary-ness plays a secondary role in terms of its importance because even if the system is entirely delayed return, if there are only 45 people in the band how can you have specialized roles, hierarchs, stratified classes, etc? It doesn't make sense. It is scale which determines the hierarchical destination with the most force.

Lets look at another example. Me and 35 to 50 friends/kin are living together in a more or less permanent village like cluster of shelters. We have vinegar for pickling and make sure our kale and chard keeps growing. We have seasonal campsites for food preservation-smoke huts for instance. We also have extensive habitat knowledge we use to move around often to forage and hunt. In other words, we have a mixture of immediate return and delayed return activities. We are semi-nomadic or semi-sedentary.

Continuing the example, we co-habitate the larger land area with several other similar groupings. There is regular free movement of individuals between the groupings. I can not imagine that my group or any of the other ones would allow for coercive hierarchy to develop. If there are only 35 or 50 people, who is going to be chief? Who is going to be the priest? Who are going to be the henchmen? There aren't enough people (and we are freely moving between groups) to have these roles, especially in any ongoing way. There certainly aren't enough people for stratified classes to emerge. When you are that small of a group, hierarchical roles and structures would not take root if they emerged at all. Its in very small groupings that permutations of egoism and anarchy are most likely to naturally emerge, while its in large groups that permutations of conformity and hierarchy naturally emerge.

In the river systems where civilization emerged-The Yellow River, Indus, Tigris and Euphrates and Nile, the villages that populated the valleys were fairly large-around 300 people. They were only practicing a very small amount of immediate return activities being basically farmers with some animal domestication. Settlements that size, I believe, automatically lead to hierarchy regardless of the system of return, but faster and deeper if only delayed systems are used. In the instance of the emergence of authoritarian civilization, hierarchy had already taken root because of the scale. There were also a few other elements at work: animosity and distrust between some of the villages and cults that were established that included an alienated sense of ones place in the cosmos. So combine that with a desire to control the annual flooding and the coordination needed on an ongoing basis between hundreds of large villages who are already habituated to hierarchy and organization as a noun on a large scale set the scene for the rise of armies, priest classes, administrative systems like literacy, etc.

If humans kept our social relationships to a very small scale, most of our other problems would be pre-empted.

The good ole' decentralize everything. Scale is everything. You (seaweed) give a nice example of what can be done, besides pursuing ideological purity. There are many roads to rome, and as such many roads that leads away as well. The problem is not which adjective comes before anarchism but these kids:
Show some solidarity already and just do something.........

@seaweed: BINGO!

i think you hit the nail on the head with the scale issue. that is my perspective as well. anything beyond small groups is "destined" for hierarchy, authority, coercion and conformity.

and a very useful side effect of such human social arrangements: identity politics - and the abstract group identities that precede it - could not realistically exist. imagine that... a world full of small bands of individuals, relating as such.

I think seaweed is wrong, partially, about scale here. At least scale in terms of population. Even with small population, a large amount of DR will lead to civ. Unless there is some environmental factor (e.g. drought, poor harvest, since people can better control their food, population will continue to increase.

Small amounts of DR do not seem to do this. Perhaps the deciding factor then (of pushing DR to an unreachable point) has to do with symbolic culture. And in that case, perhaps the only way a modern small scale DR society could not lead to civ is through some kind of conscious anti symbolic culture orientation or just conscious non expansion of DR.

But either way, one problem with the Zerzan/Tucker position is is that they seem to want to create a society (anarchy, unalienation, etc.) that lasts forever, or at least an extremely long time, and this is something that rarely happens with other species because everything is always changing.

Oops. "of pushing DR to an unreachable point" should instead read "of DR leading to civ"

What can be drawn from their insistence to “attack in the present”?

Nothing. They didn't invent a sense of urgency or those tactics, they perhaps set some precedents with callous statements made after an attack with an eco-extremist/anti-civ framework, that's all they've done. As another poster already pointed out, it's about personal responsibility which can be but isn't limited to any sense of morality/ethics. Still, this is some of the better discussion I've seen in this shithole in awhile, so I'll give credit where it's due.

Again, almost nothing can be drawn from this that wasn't already obvious. Randomly spreading terror in the ranks of your perceived technocrat enemies with indiscriminate (but very limited) bombings is a strange goal by itself. It mostly whips your much larger, stronger enemy in to a frenzy and profoundly alienates you from most people, to which they would presumably say "we don't fucking care" but that doesn't really answer any question about goals. There are none? You just want to kill people you hate because you can but you don't care if it amounts to anything?

These projects of attack "in the present" are clearly limited by a lack of imagination, having solved the problem of a lack of urgency, they fall flat at step 2.

"What can be drawn from their insistence to “attack in the present”?" They are the only group(s) who have ever succeeded in creating a tactic that cannot be recuperated by statists. That's why they're so interesting.

How do you figure that? Every tactic they've used has been deployed by countless other ideologies and completely a-political groups. There's definitely not much to recuperate but how is it unprecedented?

The only thing arguably new here is the mix of very mundane, terror tactics with the anti-civ ideology.

Even ELF/ALF's communiques can be twisted enough to be coopted (well they're just good people doing bad things out of frustration and that's why we should have renewable energy). But when the anti humanism part shows up through indiscriminate violence, there's no way to twist that into something else when it's placed so tremendously against modern liberal humanism.

Oh you just love to play innocent...

Beyond antihumanists from the rad Left and anarchism/nihilism, you omitted that there's also the fascists that to many extents are brutally anti-humanist, and anti-human as well.

What does this have to do with anything?

What does choice of tactics have to do with who and what I'll even recognize as "of interest to anarchists"? A fucking lot.

That's always the question I've been posing; why do so many people here seem to think that some anti-civ "fuck-you-all" style rhetoric makes ITS in to more than the sum of it's tactics? It doesn't. Words are cheap and actions are 99% of what matters. There's nothing much new here beyond the rhetoric. Kaczynski isn't easily "recuperated" either, so what? Why is immunity to recuperation the only merit of a tactic? These terror tactics aren't anything new and they've arguably been tried en masse and failed to accomplish much in the past.

What about the old ELF rhetoric that nonhuman targets are way more efficient to attack? Cost the enemy more money, create less hostility from the general population and of course, the obvious appeals to morality and ethics on the topic of callously murdering people who aren't an immediate physical threat to you … right?! I'm an angry soul in a black mask too, not some liberal pacifist. If you're going to play with fire, you should give a fuck who gets burned or we share no affinity and you're just a mad dog that probably needs to be put down.

I'd also note that any tactic can be recuperated by anyone. Anyone can fill any action with any content at all whatsoever. It's a myth that form speaks for itself, a myth perpetuated even in the better texts from the insurrectionist tradition, such as "At Daggers Drawn". See for example the part about affinity groups (and how they "carry another world" within their form) and the example of an order to form small groups of attack issued by none other than a bolshevist during the insurrection of 1905.

As for ITS, given their militarist + religious rhetoric, I think I don't give a shit if they're recuperated or not.

Btw, I don't think that it's ITS who are provoking discussion. It's rather those anarchists who are lulled by their "extreme measures". I couldn't care less about ITS and their delirium, but their idiot "amoral" justifications that speak to some rowdy-at-home (fortunately only at home) comrades is a dangerous tendency.

Completely agree. Most folks who cheer this shit on know almost nothing about the subject firsthand, which affords them a blinding amount of romanticism. You want me to take you seriously on the topic of summary execution by pistol? Have you ever seen it? You got opinions about blowing people up with explosives? Have you ever seen it?

I've seen my modest share of violent death and even once was sobering enough to never romanticize again.

You sound like either a priest or a cop. Fuck your crypto-moralism.

Hey, you got feelings, that's cool. You'd have even more feelings if you watched somebody get shot in the face.

Sure, but that doesn't somehow make the tactic "bad".

In "The Issues Are Not The Issue" from Black Seed 4 it is written "That which we find meaningful and useful about an experience [of an action] affects the kind of experiences we will choose to create in the future."

And also, "The intention behind our activity also affects with whom we form relationships".

This to me sounds like carrying another world within their form.


"I'd also note that any tactic can be recuperated by anyone. " Sure, but some myths are considerably easier to sell.

"Words are cheap and actions are 99% of what matters.

when the global distribution of ice melts, the global refrigeration influence declines and since those other influences that are tending to make temperature rise are no longer [with the drop in refrigeration] suppressed by as much as they formerly were. a curve of global temperature over time that is rising will show an even faster rise, as the areal melting of ice declines. this is negative causality which often sends investigators on a wild-goose chase looking for positive causal explanations.

a psychotherapist covers a blue 'canvas' with white paint, and gives cotton swabs to psychiatric inmates to show how change can come about by 'removing stuff' and or 'letting go of stuff', and they produce wonderful, varied images of clouds in a blue sky.

participants in rush hour traffic get a scolding from a DJ on the ugliness of over aggressive, pushy driving in lane-changing and onramp and offramp entries, and as drivers start backing off and letting others go first, they find that more open passageways and more permeability develop in the assertive flow and the collections of vehicles drains away far faster than they did.

non-action can have major impact since non-action is relative to the established complex relational actions and the result is transformed complex relational actions.

Western minds are conditioned to perceiving actions as positive events in themselves that achieve desired results. non-actions are considered as of 'no consequence' because of the [mistaken] assumption that results are the sum of purposeful actions. this is because, Western languages model dynamics in terms of cause and effect constituted by 'independent things' and 'what independent things do' relative to absolute space and absolute time. this is idealized bullshit aka 'semantic reality'. as mcluhan says, the relational medium is the message, and the euclidian view is bullshit. if you intervene in the valley dynamic by 'building a factory', the physical reality is the transforming valley dynamic which is very different from the neat and tidy 'semantic reality' describing the 'construction of a factory'.

anarchism can derive from 'non-action', by 'letting go' so as to transform the complex existing dynamics. the DJ that influenced people in rushhour traffic to suspend some of their habitual actions transformed the overall relational dynamic in a useful way.

who says that anarchy has to be 'constructed' by coordinated purposeful actions. that is oxymoronic bullshit.

I guess you take 'non ation' from wu-wei. It has also been translated as 'effortless doing'. As far as I understand the concept does not imply 'to not do' but to to harmonize oneself with the Way, or the flows and ebbs of the universe if you will.

When you say "...anarchy has to be 'constructed' by coordinated purposeful actions. " do you then propose an anarchy of every day instead?

If I understand you correctly, how is it that a coordinated purposeful action is contrary to a a more "spontaneous" (for lack of better word) anarchism? I mean, how can you achieve anything with other people without a coordinated and purposeful action?

It's true, Emile misinterprets it, as many Westerners did, as the "wei wu wei" is better understood through Chuang Tse's allegory of how he once managed to get himself out of rapids, to the safe shore.

my response entitled 'let context expand on what non-action is', ... was moved to ... here...

its intuitively obvious that the physically real dynamics in the valley that includes social organization, are far more complex that 'the actions of people', particularly if one acknowledges that the world is transforming relational continuum. the figures-and-ground can be split apart using language and grammar so that we can separate out 'organization' in terms of 'what thing-in-themselves do', but that is not physical reality, it is semantic reality. as wittgenstein suggests, our understanding is bewitched by language [we are bewitched by the 'semantic realities' we construct using subject-verb-predicate constructs.

'non-action' implies retracting the assertion that the relational form (human) is the fountainhead of action, and understanding, instead, that the sole source of action derives from the transforming relational continuum and such action is the source of the relational form and 'its apparent action'. i say 'apparent' because the relational form is simply a vent or shaping lense rather than a fountainhead of action. non-action is to stop behaving like a fountainhead [this makes for a poor venting agent or agent of transformation] and getting back in touch with one's sensory experience. this means restoring the physical reality of our sensory experience to a natural precedence over the 'semantic reality' we construct from words and grammar. Western civilization has it upside down. for more on this, here...

relational dynamics inductively actualize, shape and animate the forms within ecosystems. the member forms are not the authors of the ecosystem [the paradox of 'plant intelligence' (where does it reside within them?) disappears with the acknowledging that 'relations are primary' in ecosystems].

as nietzsche says, ego invents 'being' to serve as grammatical subject for inflecting verbs, thus portraying 'beings' as notional fountainheads of jumpstart actions, rather than acknowledging relational forms as vents for circulating influence within the transforming relational continuum.

only in semantic reality are the members [idealized as 'beings'] of the ecosystem responsible for the apparently highly coordinated and purposeful being-directed actions, and this is where 'bewitchment of understanding by language' is coming from; i.e. from putting semantic reality into an unnatural precedence over physical reality wherein 'relations are all there is'.

So that is all fine and dandy. It self evident, if I understand you correctly, that 'member forms' are not 'authors'. Instead of positivism you have system thinking; but that would mean that 'member form' and 'author are interchangeable? Haven't read what Nietzsche says about ego (do you have a source?). But they way you put it sounds like an extreme relativism. If I were to rephrase what you say I would say that choices are a semantic illusion or a semantic game : 'only in semantic reality are the members [idealized as 'beings'] of the ecosystem responsible for the apparently highly coordinated and purposeful being-directed actions'.

Symbolic reality might be illusory and misleading. But to go from there to the apparent "non action" you are promoting seems rather impotent and more of a escapist route into the land of rhetoric. Or rehashed mysticism.

is it the case, instead, that the matrix of relationships is the source of the 'things' that we see as 'actors' who are authoring actions? if the 'actors' are secondary to the relational transforming as emerson, nietzsche, mach et al contend, then what we have going on is 'relational transformation' within which forms are continually gathering and being regathered. there is no 'action authored by an actor' here, other than of the semantic reality type where we give relational forms in the flow names and use them as subjects so as to make them appear to be 'authors of action'; e.g. "Katrina is growing larger and stronger", ... "Katrina is hammering New Orleans". the physical reality is relational transformation but we represent what is going on in terms of the actions of causal agents.

imagine you live in a valley and there are a 100 major projects going on by different groups, according to their semantic realities. Mach's principle says that "the dynamics of the inhabitants are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat at the same time as the dynamics of the habitat are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants". the physical reality one experiences in the valley is what comes of all of that and more. how real, then, is your particular project to construct something or other using the coordinated actions of a group of people [who are probably involved in other projects at the same time]? if you are describing your project, now nearing completion, on the blackboard in terms of all of the actors and their actions who are participants in it, and it is going on in the same valley as the other 99 projects that you know diddly squat about, ... how real is your 'semantic reality', the one in which you are describing the actions of the actors in your project? which is real? evidently, the physical reality of your experiencing of inclusion in the relational dynamic which is being continually transformed not only by the 100 human projects but by countless other non-human activities. i say 'activities' but since the transforming relational matrix is continually engendering the relational forms in the valley, what you/we are really experiencing is definitely not the project dynamics as we present in our 'semantic reality'. if our project is to exterminate an evil dictator and his regime, are our 'actions' in doing this 'real'? In the physical reality of the relational interpretation of modern physics, 'relations are all there is'.

if everything transpires within a transforming relational continuum, then the only thing that makes our project 'real' is the others who hear it and believe it. Let's see now; 'tomorrow, on this site, a new independent state will be born called 'the United States' and it will be born with its own national economy and its ability to act as a single unit; i.e. tomorrow, the whole world [those who believe, maybe not the indians] will be saying 'the United States is doing this' and 'the United States are doing that' and 'what are the British doing to the United States' and 'why do those indians keep talking about Turtle Island? ... don't they realize that everything within the imaginary line boundaries, punctuated by border crossings, is 'the United States'? Anyone who is not a believer, is going to feel the barrel of a rifle pressed against their forehead, until all those who deny the existence of this secularized theological 'sovereign state', whose birth has been witnessed and blessed by God, are either dead or holding their tongues or making a wad smuggling cigarettes.

in a space where relations are all there is, the view in terms of actors and their actions is illusion. it is a convenient illusion based on subject-verb-predicate constructs which delivers 'economy of thought' [Mach] but lets not confuse it for physical reality;

"We … should beware lest the intellectual machinery, employed in the representation of the world on the stage of thought ['semantic reality'], be regarded as the basis of the real world.” – Ernst Mach

in the case of the ecosystem, the relations are the authors of the members, but since we don't see the relational field, which, being relational is nonlocal, non-visible and non-material, ... we see the members in the manner we see the storm 'Katrina' and we use noun and verb language-and-grammar to depict them as fountainheads of their own development and actions.

so where you say;

"that would mean that 'member form' and 'author are interchangeable? "

the answer is 'no'. in order to understand the author, one has to understand the transforming relational continuum it is coming from; e.g. "it takes a whole community to raise a child" and "it takes a gaian relational complex to raise a community" and so on and so forth. the meaning of the form we observe lies in its 'cosmic fetalization' (R.D. Laing, and yes, he was using LSD to dig a little deeper). so our understanding of the authorship is indefinitely deferred. as Bohm says;

"“In the book ‘Causality and Chance in Modern Physics’ Bohm argued that the way science viewed causality was also much too limited. Most effects were thought of as having only one or several causes. However, Bohm felt that an effect could have an infinite number of causes. For example, if you asked someone what caused Abraham Lincoln’s death, they might answer that it was the bullet in John Wilkes Booth’s gun. But a complete list of all the causes that contributed to Lincoln’s death would have to include all of the events that led to the development of the gun, all of the factors that caused Booth to want to kill Lincoln, all of the steps in the evolution of the human race that allowed for the development of a hand capable of holding a gun, and so on, and so on. Bohm conceded that most of the time one could ignore the vast cascade of causes that had led to any given effect, but he still felt it was important for scientists to remember that no single cause-and-effect relationship was ever really separate from the universe as a whole.”

conclusion; in a transforming relational continuum, there are no actor-action dynamics. as Emerson and Nietzsche says, there are no doer-deed dynamics, and this is because the source of not only the relational form but the dynamic influence that it vents or channels, derives from the relational dynamics it is uniquely situated in. one has to change one's understanding so that one conceives of oneself as an 'agent of transformation', kind of like a sailboater [or a ju jitsu master] who realizes that their power and steerage derive from the relational dynamics they are situationally included in. e.g. you let the unfolding relational-situational dynamics actualize and orchestrate your individual and collective dynamics. this is what is intended as non-action; i.e. you let the unfolding situation actualize your assertive dynamics. "on ne va plus vite que le violon", ... the situation dances the lead and you let it actualize your intentions, all as one dynamic. this can be graceful and harmonious non-action that shapes the unfolding relational transformation you are included in. as Russell Means said, what the colonizers saw as aggression on the part of the indians was in reality self-defence.

making passage through the surf in a hobie cat looks aggressive as hell, but it is a ju jitsu move in which you tap the force which is coming at you to power your way through it.

I'm sorry but I do not see how this does anything for lived life. I understand as far as the symbolic realm we operate in actually is non-existent and is rather a linguistic convenience. But this most folks are aware of,no? You might as well say, to paraphrase Landauer, that what we are after is not the state as such but the relational activity of the belief in the state. The common denominator is a great foe indeed. And also the ego-death thing is old; the whole elysium rite. And Diogenes lived in a barrel. There is no objective reality, or causative effect as such neither, we agree upon it. We invent moral and ethics. But still, if there is a consensus of authority, exploitation and coercion - why shall I not challenge that reality? Why is it redundant to impose my own standard, or more precisely a symbolic reality of my choosing? Where I am from there is a saying which goes 'with evil means evil shall be expelled'.

Non-action is misleading because Withdrawing/meditating/observing/listening/ignoring are all actions aren't they? Intervening in a dynamic is an action that requires intent.

I agree that letting go of the belief in coordinated purposeful actions causing specific outcomes is a very good idea for anarchists to consider and will help free them from leftism. But I don't think it's strictly a philosophical insight which is needed, but the psychological/emotional outlook of humility. The world/civilization is simply too complex to undo with a plan. Doing nothing political will undo politics. But doing nothing at all only leads to death-we need to drink water and eat. So our doing-nothing requires direction of where to best use its power. Which dynamic do we intervene in with our doing nothing? I would say politics for self described anarchists and civilization for humans.

I can never tell if this is trolling or not, it seems genuine but assuming it is, why doesn't it ever occur to this type of logic that everyone you describe as "leftist" for "doing something" is actually doing non-action the vast majority of the time, same as you?

We all need/use downtime for rest, recreation, creative stuff, whatever. The strange part is when you see a group of people engaged in collective action of some kind and say to them "Why don't you stop doing things because it probably won't work anyway?".

Almost everything that's ever happened has consisted of people taking some kind of collective action, before and after which, they probably did plenty of "non-action" too. You're using a confirmation bias to try and convince people they should never bother with "coordinated, purposeful action" because it's a "spook" or whatever, even though that's only a tiny fraction of their daily lives where they're attempting something more slightly more complex than "drink, water, eat".

because anarchists don't want to over-complicate things,
technique ought not to be commodified.
/we'd refuse a categorical relationship.
the human is up against civil-society,
she won't behave for it.
the ancestral arch-error is to attempt de-scribe one-self,
to name the world as separate from thee-with-whom
we cohabitate.
the world is never more or less complex than a pure reciprocity,
for an atomic-cosmic personality.
anarchy don't play with the state.
the world is our oyster.

So now "doing something" = "Leftism".

Right. Coz you know... anarchists are supposed to remain in their houses whatever happens. Or at homeless shelter.

Your ridiculous kiddie poetry thinly veils your stupidity.

The non-action crowd is really just a mindset justifying itself, as if they are an audience to history, judging it for its merits and flaws, waiting until they are caught up in the fray themselves. However, wouldn't before the breaking point, the mindset change based on changing conditions? The inevitability of this mindset of non-action being left behind for other, more pertinent viewpoints?

there are no things, as such.
and there is no doing, per se.
The Fray is an omnipresent relational flux,
unaffected by methodology, not approachable from any special viewpoint, unreachable to the rational mind.
whatever happens.

It's a matter of(once again for the umteenth time)rejecting action based on ELECTIVE POSITIONS and PROPOSED SOLUTIONS.

Once that has happened, anarchy as a life and activity(unmediated by constituted struggle) can truly flourish.

I don't know what that means. Can you give real world examples of what you are talking about?

It's a strawman for everything and anything that ziggy deems to be "leftist", which apparently is almost anything besides bickering with people online

You've completely fudged what the term strawman means. I am very much characterizing how leftists and all ideologues operate.

Along with ancient examples like Taoist Zen orientation.

you seem to be stuck on perceiving relational dynamics as if they must result from locally authored and intended action. this is an ego-thing.

"The strange part is when you see a group of people engaged in collective action of some kind and say to them "Why don't you stop doing things because it probably won't work anyway?".
Almost everything that's ever happened has consisted of people taking some kind of collective action"

The egotist farmer likes to say "I produce wheat". "My boys and I have the will to turn this land into a wheat producing operation, and by george we have demonstrated that we can do it; ... we are producing wheat."

this is a fabricated 'semantic reality' that differs radically from the physical reality of our actual, natural, relational experience of inclusion within an indefinitely deferred web of interrelations.

"“In its origin language belongs in the age of the most rudimentary form of psychology. We enter a realm of crude fetishism when we summon before consciousness the basic presuppositions of the metaphysics of language, in plain talk, the presuppositions of reason. Everywhere it sees a doer and doing; it believes in will as the cause; it believes in the ego, in the ego as being, in the ego as substance, and it projects this faith in the ego-substance upon all things — only thereby does it first create the concept of “thing.” Everywhere “being” is projected by thought, pushed underneath, as the cause; the concept of being follows, and is a derivative of, the concept of ego. In the beginning there is that great calamity of an error that the will is something which is effective, that will is a faculty. Today we know that it is only a word.” – Nietzsche, ‘Twilight of the Idols’

the transforming relational dynamics we are included in are NOT the result of intention driven and directed actions.

where you say; "when you see a group of people engaged in collective action of some kind and say to them "Why don't you stop doing things ...", your use of 'you' as the subject implies that they are the jumpstart authors of some intention-driven action, ... why not assume there is a relational activity within which the players you mention are participants? maybe they are all hunting for an easter egg? ... or have joined together on a voyage of discovery? if people could free their minds of obsessive compulsive apollonian intention, perhaps they would be organized by a dionysian call of the wild. in the relational dynamics of nature, the situational is always actualizing the intentional. its only believers in 'semantic reality' who deny the physical reality of their own natural experience that invert this natural situational-actualizes-intentional order

i looked in on hamjam5's comment which is good, in my view.

i would like to say about your impression of 'anti-ego' that there are really two types of ego or sense of self, ... the fountainhead-ego which is where we think of our self as an independent being that is the jumpstart author of his own actions; i.e. a simple doer-of-deeds. this is the 'standard' ego of Western society where we are taught to think of ourselves as an 'independent being with internal process driven and directed behaviour'.

the other kind of 'sense of self' associates with the view of self as a 'vent' that is transmitting influences from the nonlocal relational dynamic, as in Emerson's 'Method of Nature' where he warns about thinking of ourselves as 'doers-of-deeds' which amounts to reducing our non-dualist sense of self to a dualist sense of self. if we take our dualist ego out of the picture, it opens the way to our non-dualist sense of self, which restores the divine where we had reduced it to the material.

hamjam5 is saying something similiar here, but does not mention the spiritual aspect or 'divine' aspect;

" Our self, like all other entities, is a convenient lie that helps reason making, but also inevitably leads us to create constructs for understanding reality that will alienate us from the forces that make up our vital energy and the forces in the world that we come into contact with (including other people)." -- hamjam5

i would handle the discussion about 'the state not existing' differently, however. the state is not a cluster of forces as hamjam5 says, it is an imaginary concept [secularized theological concept according to ordinary law historians] that stands or falls on the basis of people believing in it. to the extent that people believe in it and pay taxes to some state tax collector and elect officials who act as if the state existed, they set up a relational pattern that they claim is the state doing its thing [the taxes allow the teachers of belief (elected politicians) to hire folks who will beat you about the head if you resist the belief]. so i think it more accurate, when bringing anarchist visitors from some distant region to the shores of turtle island, to say; 'watch out because you're going to bump into a bunch of people here who seriously believe in the existence of a seat of supreme central authority here wherein whoever sits in it governs a huge region bounded by imaginary lines which will be pointed out to you by police who patrol along where they say it is, and we are all asked to do as the person sitting in the seat of supreme central authority says, or he will be very angry with us and believe me, he has a lot of people working for him that will back him up on this.

in other words, i think it is too wishy-washy to say that the state is bunch of forces. the key point is that the state exists only in the minds of believers, and the relational dynamics of believers using it as an operative reality gives rise to bunches of forces. the state does not exist as a physical thing that would be sensed by rivers and animals, birds and wind. the source of the belief in the existence of the state comes from speaking the language and being fed a statist semantic reality pushed by the political priests who are the stewards of this belief system.

I really wanted to keep all the responses in one place if possible. This topic will require - at least for me - a very thorough working through

what does this mean?

"Debate Anarchism is intended in part to serve as a front line for engagement with non-anarchists and therefore does not enforce /r/Anarchism's AOP. This subreddit does not qualify as a safe space; topics and discussions may include triggers."

Other forums (including r/Anarchism) heavily manage the discourse via comment deletions and bans, so that it's effectively impossible to have an honest discussion about 'gender' and 'sexuality', etc. The idea behind this is to create 'safe spaces', based on the idea that even seeing certain words on a screen 'triggers' certain people to have some kind of negative reaction, and since this is the responsibility of the admins (as authorities!), they act as thought police and clamp down upon those that don't follow 'the rules'.

In addition, anyone deemed (for a variety of valid and invalid reasons) to be a 'reactionary', 'fascist', or some other boogeyman that doesn't toe the party line, can be removed from the forum without even having to make an offending comment in it. There are people that clearly spend much of their time reading comments made in other forums and then using them as 'evidence' in show trials on the banning forum (r/metanarchism).

As an example of how out-of-control the discourse fascism has become in that forum, a commenter called Squee was made the victim of a witch-hunt for using the phrase "why don't you throw yourself down a well?", which from the context of it essentially meant "fuck off". Of course, since the person they were addressing was a "transgender" male, a deluge of verbal abuse followed along the lines of 'trans people are very prone to suicide, so using that phrase constituted 'trans phobia'...'

Of course, this is an extremely problematic (not to mention, non-anarchic) mode.

r/DebateAnarchism, by comparison, does not have the explicit rules of its (older) sister forum, and so there is nowhere near as much banning or comment deletion. But many kinds of discourse-derailing rows still flare up from time to time, and at least one of the admins has made it clear that he considers not deferring to the trans mob to be a breach of the forum rules.

TLDR: If you have views that question identity politics, don't bother to air them in r/Anarchism as they will ban you at the drop of the hat, and tread lightly in r/DebateAnarchism.

They are a small illustration as to why Trump is so popular today. They are one word explanation why disassociation from the word anarchism would be a good idea.

I've been banned by them to obviously.

Emile, I'm the person you're responding to here and the only one who's stuck is yourself. I didn't suggest that all collective action is necessarily good, or that it results directly from the intentions or egos of the participants OR that their specific intention at a specific place and time somehow removes them from the larger relational fabric of which they are presumably always a part OR that the consequences are always and only the intended ones.

I didn't suggest ANY of that, you projected all of it on to a completely neutral statement about a different topic because … of your thing. Whatever it is, probably a mental illness or at the very least, issues with your own ego. You seriously do this all the time, it's your peculiar brand of ideological myopia or something. You assume EVERYTHING about what everyone is saying and don't actually pay attention very well, your reading comprehension is severely limited by you projecting all this nonsense on to everything you read. (assuming you aren't just a troll, but who cares?)

I'm in the pursuits of permaculture design, homesteading and earth skills. 1I'm reminded of when B left Free Radical Radio and was interested in land projects, because I had asked to be put in touch with him, being curious as to how anti-civ thinkers were manifesting their intention. Coming from a simple childhoold: fantasy fiction (psychedlic expression of life, almost always in worlds less environmentally wrecked than ours), science fiction (unconventional ideas about race, sex, religion), speculative fiction (Harlan Ellison because he wrote great characters and was himself a gigolo of some kind), cyperpunk fiction (anti-authoritarian, DIY, stylish rebellion). Visiting Zapatista communities helped me cement the reality of my existence, knowing visionary intentional community in the welcome beauty of the mountains.

Getting mysticism has been a pursuit for me too. Hakim Bey, John Lamb Lash and Carlos Castaneda for example, are for deeper, ecologically informed worldviews. I think they incorporate the subversive, the revolutionary and i hope that achieving great work is reifiied in the health of the planet. The Brilliant may have suggested recently that uniquely sustainable anti-civ local communities are a significant part of the solution. I appreciate activism and personally found its highest expression as part of a co-creative, gender fluid, relationship dynamic. The passion and liberatory power associated with intercourse (the story of Psyche and Eros) is inherently exciting to me, as I perceive it: an essential in the anarchist*scene. Thanks for reading.

Bey has said that spiritual is an imaginal result of the social. I'm fascinated by the green anarchist collage, want to talk to these people and find the best fit way to support a scene or a community. Zerzan's shtick was a fun intro to green anarchism for me to listen to. I bought all the GA mags I could a couple years ago. To his credit, his genuineness and mastery of his formats of expression are still inspirational and changing peoples lives I believe. I like his dedication to poetry and when AR airs fictions whether as music or prose.

(1) "Bey has said that spiritual is an imaginal result of the social. "

the imagery here is that human social activism induces a spirituality that a group of humans can bask in and which will influence their social dynamics [note the order of precedence; 'material dynamics spawn spiritual influence'].

(2) “The Nuu-chah-nulth saw the material world as a manifestation of the spiritual.” -- Umeek, 'Tsawalk'

the view in (1) employs an anthropocentric circularity, while the view in (2) employs a holodynamic circularity as given by Mach, wherein the dynamics of the inhabitants [humans included] are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat [all inclusive] at the same time as the dynamics of the habitat are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants. In this view, the "anima mundi" or 'world-spirit' or 'great mystery' is the spiritual guide for man's material dynamics.

i'm just saying, that these two views, both involving circular spiritual-material influence, offer themselves up for comparison by our experience based intuition.

Richard Atleo aka Umeek is a living hereditary chief of the Nuu-chah-nulth [Nootka] people who describes the same relational structuring [articulated with different terminology] as Erwin Schroedinger does in modern physics, in observing that 'field' or 'relational influence is the source of matter and material dynamics'; i.e. that material dynamics are variations in the relational structure of space.

"The material universe is like an insubstantial shadow of the actual substantial Creator [everywhere-at-the-same-time physical field of influence]. In this worldview, the highest form of cognition, of consciousness does not occur in the insubstantial shadowlike material realm, but in the realm of creation’s spiritual source’.”-- Umeek

Did you hear that our friend Derrick Jensen, being interviewed on Latin Waves, making broad brush generalizations about how anarchism supports pedophilia? About how "the two anarchist magazines in the US support pedophilia? And how there is an ominous strain of misogyny in anarchism? Did you hear that? Then he goes on to talk about a young girl putting her genitals on his leg. I can't make this up. 10 years ago Jensen was all about how all of his friends are anarchists.
OK OK - and so since we are on "Green Anarchy" let's talk about Cory Morningstar's rather unseemly love fest with right wing demagogue mental patient Tony Cartalucci. All it seems to take is a little cherry picked orientalist blather about wall street, corporate amerika, council of foreign relations, bush and iraq and any other assorted fairy tale and boom, our wrong kind of greenie will seemingly just roll over for the fascists? What What What TF is up with that?

I mean really guys. This and the ancaps. What part of drooling mumbling batshit crazy are we all about these days?

There's a handful of scumbags that hang out here: when prompted, they'll start tossing NAMBLA style rhetoric around or go on and on about how the "femi-nazis" go too far and identity politics is what prevents them from being able to socialize and all that online, neck beard, 3rd positionist, typical crap.

Most of these people don't actually identify as anarchist but they and theirs are likely where Jensen got those misconceptions from. I would argue this is a squeaky-wheel type thing where a big online presence makes these douchebags seem more numerous and relevant than they actually are but whatever. Hardly anything that happens online matters anyway.

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

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

Plain text

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