Wildist Statement of Principles

  • Posted on: 17 March 2015
  • By: Anonymous (not verified)

This is a statement of principles published on Wildism.org. View the Spanish original

The individuals who signed this declaration want to place on record for the future the principles that drive us to actively lay the groundwork for the establishment of a truly strong and effective movement against the technoindustrial system.

1. Our Principles

The principles that guide our activity are:

  • Autonomy of the Wild. We understand “the Wild” (also “wild Nature”) to be everything that is not artificial and whose operation is autonomous. The Wild is the part of Nature that is untamed, that is not subject to the control and management of human beings (or of the technological systems built by them), even if human beings can be part of it. Therefore, we also consider as part of the Wild, human nature itself, i.e., the part of the mind and of human behavior that is innate and the biological consequence of evolution by natural selection. The autonomy of the wild part of human beings is what we call “freedom.” Our position is that the autonomy of the Wild is the most important value to which all other values are subordinate. We consider bad (worthy of our rejection) everything that violates the autonomy of wild Nature. In consequence, this value is the fundamental principle from which we derive the rest of our ideology and which inspires our objectives and activities.
  • Rejection of techno-industrial society and of civilization. Our fundamental principle being respect toward wild Nature, we consider bad all social systems that inevitably work against the above-mentioned autonomy. We consider that, at least, all forms of civilized society (i.e., with cities) are unavoidably contrary to this principle and therefore bad. And, out of all the forms of civilized society, we consider technoindustrial society (the social system whose technology is based on the combustion engine and electric power) especially harmful for the autonomy of the Wild, due to the fact that the enormous development of its technologies affects many aspects of the functioning of wild Nature that before this society remained untamed, in addition to interfering to a greater degree with those aspects of the Wild whose dynamics were subjected to a lesser extent in other previous forms of society.

2. Our Ideal

We also believe that a positive social ideal is necessary and useful to inspire our fight. The majority of people prefer to fight for a positive ideal in order to combat only a few negative facts. Our ideal is the nomadic hunter/gatherer way of life, since it is the form of human society that is least harmful to wild Nature and that best suits our nature.

3. Our Objective

However, we do not believe that the conscious and planned implementation of a model social ideal can be achieved without the model being perverted and/or having serious and unforeseen negative consequences, and this would be especially true in the case of the nomadic hunter/gatherer way of life. Therefore, although we consider desirable the disappearance of all forms of civilized society and even all forms of society apart from the nomadic hunter/gatherer way of life, we do not see any practical way by which this can be achieved.

However, these outlined principles suggest a clear goal: the complete destruction of the techno-industrial system. If the techno-industrial form of society is the form of society that most threatens the autonomy of the Wild, then this society must be eliminated. Therefore, a movement that is based on the above principles must have as its fundamental objective the end of techno-industrial society.

Unlike the end of civilization or of any other form of pre-industrial society different from the nomadic hunter/gatherer one, we believe that the objective of the definitive disappearance of techno-industrial society can be achieved if in the future there are certain material conditions (a great crisis, that is to say, a severe weakening of the techno-industrial system). In fact, we believe that it is likely that these material conditions will happen by themselves.

4. Our Work

The work of the movement must be:

  • The development and diffusion of an ideology based on the identified principles and goals.
  • The gathering and organizing of all appropriate individuals (see point 5) so that the movement can be strengthened and it can prepare to try to bring the techno-industrial system down permanently when it is in crisis.
  • The facilitation and arrival of the crisis of the techno-industrial system, to the extent possible.

5. Dangers to Avoid

So that the movement turns out to be truly effective and stays loyal to its principles and purpose, it is crucial to keep in mind that all social systems generate an ideology (a more of less coherent set of ideas and values) that justifies and promotes their maintenance and material development. On the other hand, it is also necessary to take into account that techno-industrial society cannot be effectively combated based on the values and ends of the same social system, which is to be destroyed. To this end, it is very important to reject progressivism, humanism and leftism. Here is a brief explanation of each of them:

  • Of the various ideas that form the fundamentals of the ideology of industrial society, progress (the idea that the development of society is unquestionably good) is one of the most important. Progress implies the assumption that any shift to greater social complexity and size is a fundamental improvement for human beings, society and even the world. Progress means that the gradual development of human societies towards ever-increasing destruction and subjugation of wild Nature is a good thing. This is just the opposite of how we interpret this process. Progressivism is the attitude of assuming and defending progress.
  • Humanism is a set of ideas that exalts “the human,” considering it superior and alien to Nature. Humanism distorts or even despises the notion of human nature (besides wild Nature in general), generating a distorted image of our species that considers “human” (i.e., worthy of respect, good) only those traits, actions, and products of human beings that, not coincidentally, are fundamentally suitable to the requirements of civilized life. Humanism considers “non-human” (bad and despicable) traits, actions and products of human beings that do not comply with the requirements of civilized life. Humanism is, therefore, contrary to any ideology that takes the Wild as its fundamental value.
  • Leftism is a current, derived from humanism, that adjusts humanism to the demands of modern industrial society. The basic features of leftism are the defense of equality, of solidarity beyond the natural group of friends or family, and an ideally harmonious society (without con- flict, without problems). Leftism is, if anything, the most dangerous of the three trends identified here, since, in addition to justifying the techno-industrial system by defending its fundamental ideas and values, it serves as the system’s self-defense mechanism due to its pseudorebellious character. The rebel image of leftist struggles attracts many people unsatisfied with techno-industrial society, channeling their discontent to offer them a way to vent it in a manner innocuous to or even useful to the techno-industrial system. And, vice versa, the people aligned with leftism often feel attracted to currents and movements that seem rebellious to them, absorbing, invading and ruining the movements by replacing, modifying or perverting principles and goals to fit their leftist beliefs.

It is for this reason that a movement against techno-industrial society that wants to be truly effective must pay special attention to maintaining a distance from all forms of leftism, expressing clearly and unequivocally its disdain for them, and keeping away from other leftists and similar undesirable people (the impractical, the inefficient, the irrational, the unbalanced, etc.).

The rejection of all forms of progressivism, humanism and leftism, the attack on the values of the techno-industrial system and the dissemination of our ideas are requirements to ensure that the activity of our movement is truly effective, but it is important to always remember that these things are not the goal of our activity. The goal is, and must always be, to put an end to the techno-industrial system, which is neither only nor mainly an ideological system, but fundamentally a material one. It is not a question of substituting the ideology of the system with ours, but of ending its physical existence.



"we also consider as part of the Wild, human nature itself, the part of the mind and of human behavior that is innate and the biological consequence of evolution by natural selection"

...so like, not gay people, I guess? (They might not interpret it that way, but many who are drawn to this rhetoric will.) Where did all this "unnatural" behavior come from, as if ex nihilo? And who will tell you precisely where the line is between what is "innate" and what is culture? Scientists? Internet trolls?

"The basic features of leftism are the defense of equality, of solidarity beyond the natural group of friends or family..."

...so fuck women and grand jury resisters? This sounds like it was written by the last generation of primitivists, who needed an excuse for why they couldn't get along with anyone outside their tiny tiny niches.

"keeping away from other leftists and similar undesirable people (the impractical, the inefficient, the irrational, the unbalanced, etc.)."

...ah, the scientists are pulling the strings indeed! Taylorists, to be specific. Fucking inefficient people!





Exactly. There's no such thing as "natural" and "unnatural", sorry but if it happens at all it's "natural"

we commonly talk about idealized things as if they are 'real' such as 'independent sovereign states' by putting together noun-and-verb constructs to build intellectual RE-presentations in terms of 'things that do stuff'. these representations, we treat as if they are real even though they are intellectual inventions that cannot be validated by our NATURAL experience. in this sense, these intellectual constructs, including 'the earth rotates' and both the Ptolemaic and Heliocentric cosmologies, are intellectual idealizations which are 'not real' in the sense they cannot be validated by our natural experience. in this sense they are NOT 'of nature' but rather 'of intellect, and arising from our desire to 'simplify' the rhetorical representation of the world of our natural experience.

“the motions of the Universe are the same whether we adopt the Ptolemaic or the Copernican mode of view” of celestial dynamics, … “both views are, indeed, equally correct.” i.e. the geocentric and the heliocentric views are merely two “interpretations” [thought-and-language based RE-presentations] of a Universe that “is only given once.”

“And just as our Copernicus said to us : It is more convenient to suppose the earth turns round, since thus the laws of astronomy are expressible in a much simpler language ; this one would say: It is more convenient to suppose the earth turns round, since thus the laws of mechanics are expressible in a much simpler language. . This does not preclude maintaining that absolute space, that is to say the mark to which it would be necessary to refer the earth to know whether it really moves, has no objective existence. Hence, this affirmation; ‘the earth turns round’ has no meaning, since it can be verified by no experiment; since such an experiment, not only could not be either realized or dreamed by the boldest Jules Verne, but can not be conceived of without contradiction; or rather these two propositions; ‘the earth turns round,’ and, ‘it is more convenient to suppose the earth turns round’ have the same meaning; there is nothing more in the one than in the other. “ — Henri Poincaré, ‘Science and Hypothesis’, Ch. VII Relative Motion and Absolute Motion

as philosophers have noted (including mach, nietzsche, poincare, bohm, schroedinger), our habit of confusing intellectual idealization that re-renders our complex natural experience in simplified idealization-based {unnatural) representations that we then use to guide and shape our behaviour leads to major gaps between the results we intend from our behaviour and the results that actually transpire (since we are using an unnatural intellectual representation of reality, as if it were the physical reality of our natural experience, which it is not). this dysfunction is termed 'incoherence' by bohm and, since our Western habit is to persist in using the same over-simplified unnatural intellectual representation of reality over and over again, even to try to repair the gap between actual and desired result that is arising from our use of the unnatural representation of reality, using the same unnatural representation of reality, this is Einstein's definition of 'insanity' (doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. ... like, .... 'this time we are going to get a match between the actual and intended result; e.g. since Saddam Hussein (ISIS etc.) is a trouble-maker, by eliminating Saddam (ISIS etc.) we eliminate the author/source of trouble and the trouble will 'go away').

Who ever said that the physical reality of our natural complex experience could be captured in scientific rhetoric that assumes the independent existence of things that are fully and solely responsible for their own actions (the moral view)?

many philosophers have said that language is inherently inadequate for capturing the dynamics of our natural experience [e.g. "the Tao (the transforming relational activity continuum or 'field-flow') that can be told is not the true Tao" -- Lao Tsu)

Others (Wittgenstein, Derrida) have said that there is 'nothing outside of context' implying that what language [which is necessarily bits of content arranged in some sort of finite configuration] allows us to actually say about the natural world can only infer the physical reality of our natural experience; e.g. Wittgenstein uses the metaphor of language as a ladder that allows us to get into position where we can make a kind of 'leap of faith' to jump to an understanding of the physical reality of our natural dynamics, and that after this understanding comes to us, we can discard the ladder of language as 'nonsense'. Hence the warning;

“we … should beware lest the intellectual machinery, employed in the representation of the world on the stage of thought, be regarded as the basis of the real world.” – Ernst Mach

Darwinism without adjectives is still fail, brosis. You're still trapped within the realm of evolution guided by so-called "natural laws", and also a paradigm that will serve as foundations to support racism and sexism again, AND a spiritually-flawed model which forces the mind into a paper-thin, funnel vision of the universe (or multiverse). We need to re-base our paradigms on richer philosophy than imperalists like Darwin and Hegel

Evolution is an observable fact you fucking twit. For fucks sakes go read a fucking book. Also stop conflating evolution with "social-darwinism" that is just fucking stupid and dis-honest.




I'm a Darwinist without adjectives. - Voltairine de Cleyre

Whips out dinosaur bone for the Academy to gasp at in disbelief!

That evolution is a well-established natural process is one fact, that it's submitted to rationalist natural laws is an assumption of different order. It's a problem highlighted by Habermas and Marcuse how the rationalist, analytical scientific thinking and method have been causing Western civilization to make stuff up about the dynamics existing in nature and use these preconceptions to enforce their schemes upon it (and the lesser civilized people as well).

And yes, as the Emile troll rightfully stated, there is this fallacious, dishonest trend by evolutionists of dismissing anyone who doesn't fall into line with their paradigm as creationists. For my part, I'm over the despotic conceptual fence between Creation and Evolution. There is a great deal of things mankind doesn't know about its ancient history, and even less about the true nature of matter, "energy" and reality as a whole.

Face it.... for so many reason modern science is a failure. It requires a both philosophical overhaul that perhaps quantum physics can allow, though it still appears to me as barbarians from some cave attempting to comprehend the music of Arnold Shöenberg or Iannis Xenakis.

Scientists are mostly in denial of poltergeist phenomena which is glaringly obvious *plates and knives flying through the air etc* If they instead made a statement that they were not the know-all priests of Western civilization and acknowledged the presence of other dimensional parallel worlds and spiritual entities I would respect their humility, but their arrogant materialism is funded by the capitalist techno-industrial hegemony. There are some scientists who pursue paranormal investigations, but the results are disappointing, these entities are beyond data recording by instruments for analysis. At least there is some acknowledgement that plants have feelings, much to the chagrin of vegans, but on the whole the empirical methodology of Western science and the primitive sensing devices they use make even their theories on quantum physics seem like neanderthal graffiti drawn on ice-age caves by hairy grunting malcontents.

The most glaring example of contemporary scientists Inquisitorial mentality is in NASA's systematic denial of any "unexplained" manifestations of a possible non-human presence in space, or other planets. Just look at how they suddenly went silent over those strange two big white dots (or lights) on the dwarf planet Ceres, or that duct-taped picture form the '60s of what appeared to be a rather cool-looking spaceship in Earth's orbit.

nietzsche mocked the over-simplifed 'all-hitting, no-fielding' mechanics of Darwinism, but continuing objections seem to have been quieted by Darwinists' strategy of labelling objectors Creationists.

nietzsche was no creationist, he was in the same camp as Lamarck, Rolph, Emerson and other non-dualists [Darwinism is hard-assed dualism].

so, it's good to hear someone reject Darwinism outright and perhaps give others, more timid/apprehensive, permission to give Darwinism what it deserves and what Nietzsche gave it, a vigorous nose-thumbing.

affirming evolution in no way requires affirming Darwinism; e.g. the world is an evolving relational activity continuum, not a fixed absolute space and time reference container that serves as an 'independent' habitat or 'operating theatre' in which 'independent' local, material 'organisms' that are independent of the mineral world, reside, operate and interact in, in such as manner [reproduction with random chance variation] as to 'evolve' new organic species, all of which are independent of the inorganic world which is also, like the organic world, independent of the space in which organic and inorganic material forms reside, operate and interact in, ... a fragmented dynamics-theory that is otherwise known as 'Darwinism'.

all together now, ... 'thumbs in noses pointing in the general direction of richard dawkins' and his ridiculously over-extended application of binary thinking tools'.

That whole discourse is really retarded when you actually look into it with a parsimonious knife's edge. The entire world is made up of Darwinian attack and defense forces. Nowhere is there any account of morpho/homeostasis. That whole discourse truly gets retarded when you look at its effect on microbiology which has been rotten for over 140 years.

Bring on Lamarcky-Mark already and escort that Royal Society jack ass to the historical door. And in the process offer Wallace an apology.

'natural' and 'un-natural' are signifiers for the dominant binary ethical belief structure it legislates for from within. Paradoxically, the 'dominant binary ethical belief structure' considers itself natural.

Then stop using the fucking internet

oh you hush now. Don't like jobs? Stop working them. Don't like cops? Stop being policed by them. etc.

Straw men to the back!

I don't call the cops...ever. He doesn't need to use the internet either.

As for jobs, we DO need it to get food and water, unless you have a better and realistic solution(revolution is a WIP, as I have unionized and am working towards more decentralization). I stopped using all proprietary software, even if there is no alternative to it. The guy should stop using the internet as well, he should actually be fine with it...considering he hates it.

How do you get a job (other than as a street busker or a squeegee kid) without the internet?

They're idealists. Which means like dumb leftists they're impervious to Hume's razor. ;)

This fucking rules. I'm glad somebody finally said it the hard things. Goodbye left, I'd say it's been real but...

so wildism isn't against authority, domination, hierarchy, control, oppression, etc if it happens in the wild? lame. if you believe anarchy is for everyone (equality) to be free from all those things then you can't really be post left even if you want to be.

"You will never reach your destination if you stop and throw stones at every dog that barks."

Lol! Yr against domination and such in the wild!? Are you gonna make the coyotes go vegan? Make the beavers stop damming rivers? Teach tape worms about mutual aid and the Owl solidarity with the field mouse?

just come out and say you are ok with rape as long as humans aren't doing it in civilizations. if wildism is against everyone being free from domination, exploitation, hierarchy, authority, control, etc, then it doesn't have much in common with anarchy, it is like right wing libertarianism in that it might have 1 out of 10 things in common w/ anarchy.

Lol - primitivism=rape apologism. First time I've heard that one. You should really familiarize yourself with the popular straw men. Crediting primitivists with advocating mass die offs is a more widely used means of discrediting critiques of civilization. Why reinvent the wheel when there's already plenty of asinine arguments already in existence?

I don't care about rape unless it's done to an immediate friend or family member. To show solidarity towards rape victims outside of my immediate circle of friends and family is leftism, therefore un-natural and bad. And nihilism and stuff too. You need to fall in line with the statement and of principles, chief.

Me Tarzan, you Jane. Or in modern parlance, me football jock, you subservient inferior woman.

What about antibiotics? (awkward silence). So the naive primmos infer there should be a human cull indirectly by a cessation of the techno-industrial pharmaceutical industry and a return to hunter-gatherer life expectancy levels, which are averaging about 50yrs? The trouble is that they are not going to win any popularity polls for sure if they think folk will willingly not seek any form of cure for bacterial infection because 7 billion folk also live by an innate self-preservation impulse as their fundamental driving force. They are inverted humanists in that they have been drawn into a binary relationship with civilization, in other words, their idea of autonomy is based solely on negating materialistic values and not on purifying social relationships.
Technology is here to stay, let's combine the best technology and education in regional autonomous zones which are not driven by the capitalist model of profit and hierarchy. There are many natural herbs which even modern medicine is discovering, let's not be retarded and rely on foraging in a forest for extracts from roots and bark when a modern process can be used. Good ol' opium and cocaine will cure most ills, and the eating of unprocessed foods will have most people not getting sick most of the time. It is the toxic environment of capitalist industrial civilization which produces most diseases. That includes overcrowding of workers to labor in their process factories. Technology per se is not bad, its who controls it!

PS. My advocacy of opium and cocaine is if it is solely for medical use, as is done in hospitals, opium derivatives as pain killers and Novocaine as a numbing agent before tooth extraction and operating procedures. In no way do I approve of its recreational use.

Thanks for clarifying, recreational use of drugs should not be permissible once the proletariat is in charge. It's just a symptom of bourgeois decadence, and by virtue, counter-revolutionary. Anyone getting high should first be sent to re-education camps, and if that's not successful, the gulag. Amirite comrade?

Well err, I hope your politburo members still allow a cigarette and beer after a day of slavery on their production line.

You are overrating their significance as anti-biotics was not the key factor in fighting off CIVILIZED diseases in the 20th century. True health lies in the development of a natarupathic intermediary system based on good functional medicine. As Mark G Conlan said, antibiotics was an aiming system that was turned into an assault rifle.

You are ultimately right however, as Dupont points out:

"the system of productions of history is, all things considered, better, faster, cleaner (in the way chain shops are better than small shops)."

If that is what you want then build away I guess. I would simply suggest that one ponders on what will be gone for all time when the metastasization is complete.

I'm not exactly convinced that- "anti-biotics was not the key factor in fighting off CIVILIZED diseases in the 20th century."
I believe poor diet as a result of the industrial revolution alienating folk from their agricultural roots and concentrating them in overcrowded factory and commerce centers with a poor supply of food produced the first plagues. This happened in antiquity also in Egypt and Rome, nothing new really. When penicillin came on the scene there was a definite increase in survival rates from tetanus and other diseases which prosper in overcrowded urban environments. A snowballing exponential over-population was obvious, yet not addressed, since capitalists need more workers desperate for work, at a lower wage, since there's so much competition just to survive. Not wanting to sound simplistic, this is just a brief broad analysis. True, an aiming system turned into an assault rifle, I like that, I'll look up Mark Conlan seems he hit the nail on the head.
Also an element of compassion has me thinking about the suffering of folk who through no fault of their own are caught up in the techno-industrial nightmare and their family is sick because of it. My stance is transitional, until the metastasization reaches its climax, there is still room for antibiotics and some technologies to make the comedown less traumatic.

I wonder if these folks are on paleo diets as well...

Its ironic, most vegan paleolithic clans died out from lack of vegetation during the last ice-age 10,000 yrs ago.

True. That's the reason why a global warming would be actually much LESS devastating for life on this planet than a global freezing. It's cold that kills, not heat... you've got life thriving under the sands in the Sahara desert, but nothing much in the middle of the Antartic.

Or a warming planet will feed into more warming, a positive feedback loop. We can hope for the volcanos to become more active and send us back into an ice age before the oceans acidify aquatic life into extinction and the air becomes sulfuric, killing land based life. Its all in the air, scientists are having strong disagreements, which aren't helped by corporate stooges on the issue. Not that own limited understandings of the world could possibly comprehend the fullest affects realistically, including human accelerated climate change and human intervention to slow, stop or reverse these trends. Human interventions aren't just ending economic production which impacts climate change, but also attempting schemes not unlike those found in Snowpiercer, which are really being considered.

Certainly we also have the final response to this, which is the class warfare element of rich communities having access to space colony-like living environments. These are being made now to prepare for a Mars colony or Moon colony situation, but they are just the same being tested on Earth and very easily could become the final response. Ecocide before collapse.

Coming back to the present and our present situation, we need a time/space response which takes into account our context and our habitat. The little banters over the social mores within this struggle can go on all you want, but if these things aren't ongoing while struggle is continuing, they will also continue inactivity. There is no perfect resistance model. We are animals and despite our logical reasoning, we can't be separated from the desire for dirty hard fucking and shooting cum into people's orifices. So lets stop acting like we are better than our neighbors.

'There is no perfect resistance model. We are animals and despite our logical reasoning, we can't be separated from the desire for dirty hard fucking and shooting cum into people's orifices. So lets stop acting like we are better than our neighbors.'
Ha, wait till you're 60 and this argument falls down. But until then, or else techno-industrial viagra steps in, an older mean population in the West are the ones who will occupy the space craft, but that's about 50yrs away as a guess, gravity is hard to escape from, and Mars is really cold and has no oxygen. Don't belief the sci-fi speculation, leaving Earth is hardest of all. We're all going to go down the gurgler together, and in a way I like it that no privileged capitalist billionaire is gonna escape the fate they deserve. I can just see it now, Mars Coloniser 1 takes off with 200 octagenarians and 500 kgs of viagra and an artificial insemination laboratory with 1 million ovaries and 2 gallons of semen. Would make a a good satire dude.

Sending us back to an Ice Age means the extinction of most species on the planet, including most if not all humans.

Simple math:

Heat = life (also happiness on the beaches, or into a lively forest)

Cold = DEATH

If that's your negative idealism good for you, but I'm not up with a nuclear winter or a Snowpiercer scenario. Also good luck with gardening on ice at -25 C in the summer. For being from a cold Canadian region, I can tell ya that watching a winter and experiencing it physically are two completely distinct worlds.

People made it through ice ages before and don't be stupid. I'm not the one making an ice age or warming. Just pointing out that the likelihood of an ice age caused by this warming is very high. Anyways, since we are also suffering a polar shift, there will be increased chance of earthquakes and eruptions. There is no stopping this shit. The people in power can't control it. Society will not save you.

Yep. Major or minor ice-ages still left equatorial regions temperate and able to sustain species suited to that temperature. Going north or south sustained those species which preferred colder climates. Diversity was not significantly affected but was more concentrated into a narrower latitudinal corridor. That's why its no big deal, ice-ages are a necessary process of glaciation which grinds volcanic granite rock into soluble particles which fertilize the soil and nourish the microbes which produce the natural fertilizers for plants. I'm up on my soil, geology and the survival of civilization data ;)

I'll trade an antidevelopmental agenda anyday against some hunther-gatherer ideal. Why? Because it's got way more potential to bring down the actual techno-industrial world while giving time for some people to adapt to a progressive collapse, and it implies a concrete struggle against this society, especially its continuous, devastating expansion.

But sure, it's fine if you go on your own to live "into the wild" as some hermit or primitivist commune, but that's not an ideal for a "coming world", it's just a new life arrangement for you, that is still a hundred times better than any urbanite plagued to become another reproducer of society. It's still a good and appealing idea as a choice of life (and FOR the living) to become a hunter/gatherer, it just won't change much to the world around you that may eventually -as what happened with Kaczinski's lair in the forest- be a target for civilizational invasion. To that regard, nomadism would be the best way to go, I guess.

This is only true if practiced in a bubble. Isolated hunter gatherer activities may be as you say, just as paying out the ass for primitive skills from Rewilding Schools, both just "lifestyle" activities, as Bookchin may put it.

But when examined in a more time/space manner, association with neighbors in the defense of habitat space seems not only wanted, but quite possibly necessary for the continued existence of their way of life. Maybe not every area, but when resource extraction comes calling, those surrounding and sympathizers respond. This is the 21st century struggle.

It is all about context, connecting with the habitat and inhabitants, which includes people. Taking on hyper-localism with a bioregional perspective, putting your family, your gang, your band or whatever is your primary permanent group first before mass society, which locks us into dependent relationships which will not leave us ready for the real and existing climate fluctuations which challenge the integrity of not just capitalist infrastructure (and thus all forms of production), but also the ability for mass society to provide for its dependents.

I think the fears of collapse, just like the movie 2012, were perhaps well over exaggerated but also real things happening. The collapse is happening, but very slow to human perception. Cities like New Orleans have weakened greatly after catastrophe. Cities like Miami are attempting to ignore the growing issue of flooded streets as a regular part of life. Droughts that seem like they will not end in our lifetimes are striking the West Coast. Vanuatu has collapsed. Japan's still transforming into a nuclear wasteland.

Don't fool yourself. Country after country are showing they can't or aren't willing to keep rebuilding cities that collapse due to climate activity. At this point, I'm willing to say that communism as a force of resistance is dead as god. Warzones already are drained from lack of business support to keep the population fed, so people flee. What do you think a successful urban insurrection would result in? A city starved into compromise? If heute capitalists are moving away from rebuilding or recovering cities overcome by climate change and states are becoming less and less responsive, about the only thing a city of insurrection has to offer is the ability for it to continue producing for society. If this seems unikely, the city is left on its own, like Detroit.

If the climate is unreliable, we, not society, need to think about what we, not society, must do.

The individual pursuit of developing a non-doctrinal Nirvana type spontaneous unconscious nihilistic approach to life with a lot of empathy thrown in seems to be one solution. But how to initiate and instill this arduous path to freedom into the hearts of any animalistic hedonistic and crass materialist society?

Fine, I'll bite. As society continues to show that it will not save anyone, the class stratification increases, leaving a large segment of the population left to figure things out for themselves. This happens a great deal historically and is happening now in many cities torn apart by social strafe and warfare. Hotspots of daily combat, off and on, since the post-cold war resource wars began.

Is this the dreaded World Wars we were worried about? Yes. But it won't be nuclear bombs being dropped and other dumb shit like that. It will be just a growing expansion of a warzone with oil rich countries fighting off the most powerful countries. The elite leadership will fight until they must concede, their families absorbed into the ruling classes of other nations and the people of the oil rich left to be further fucked. But that is another speculative story, but one to think about instead of giving in to this zombie apocalypse collapse bullshit. It is more like Iraqi daily life coming than the end of the world. At least the next few generations.

Seems to me the State education system has almost succeeded in turning out unimaginative and uncreative sheep who are unable to function outside of a welfare framework. I'm sure that neanderthals and their African mates homo erectus had initiative and self-reliance or else none of us would be here today. DIY stone-age FTW!

Errr, I don't think you mean erectus. Erectus, which are referred to as Homo Ergaster in Africa. Erectus comes from a splinter of Ergaster which reached Asia sometime in the early Pleistocen, around 1.8 million years ago. Ergaster evolved into Homo heidelbergensis around 800,000 years ago, which is a common ancestor of both Neanderthals and modern humans, whilst a splinter of Erectus probably became the Hobbits. Some still use the name Erectus for the African populations, but the general consensus is with Ergaste, if I'm not mistaken.

Splitting evolutionary heirs a bit, perhaps, but yeah, it's true.

I don't think you can quite frankly. The issue is that concrete baseline care has been replaced by surrogate consumption based on production lines.

One of the unfortunate fallouts of the post ww1/2 epoch is that many proles have opting for more money as opposed to more time(an old anarchist value juxtaposed to the marxists). I think there are lessons to be learned from how the Zen type try to break addictive, compulsive attachment patterns and I do see that as the root problem.
Addiction and compulsion are the root of compulsory production which subsequently spawns forced labor.

No revolution in history has ever addressed this, all they have done is scratch the wounds. Thus revolutionary history is consistently tied to the growth of more civilization. As I've said before, this type of addiction would need an outside intervention of volcanic and meteoric proportions, and from that a sort of collectively conscious forgetting would have to take place.

Of course, I know that the collapse has been happening right under our noses on a daily basis, in the form of an incremental disaster driven by out-of-control capitalist greed and jingoism.

Though the nuclear threat has become quite real, no matter how the media downplays it. You also cannot reject the reality of the major polarization happening these days, that is and has always been a result of the system's inherent patterns, of consolidation and drive for power. We're now facing a situation quite similar to 100 years ago, only with a few thousands nuke ICBMs. Given the apparent cynicism of the current establishment, this makes it worse than during the (first) Cold War.

Primmos are escapists basically. They don't even have a blue print for their society, their ideology was born out of angst. Nomadism has its downside also, humans are territorial beings, and crossing their land always incurs some toll or recompense, just saying. It would be better to be a lone individualist who has little impact upon any other system, has total freedom of belief and responsibility to any master, is a self-sufficient entity living of its wits.

Except I already tried that and realized I needed both scavenger and hunter gatherer skills to get by. To act as a coyote, which multiply as other species dwindle. To perhaps even find hidden spots to make small gardens and return to, in hope it hasn't been destroyed over overrun by inedible species. To make hidden stores, to also return to. But then I wanted more than just some pussy, so I'm back in the saddle again.

Self theorists have to interact with the world to test their theories. Anarch(ist)s and Nihil(ist)s need to work with others. So my new theory/identity is "nihil"s. If Sir Einzige can have his little cult of peons that rip off right wing ideas for his anti-civ agenda, then I can do the same thing. I'll make up a little story like:

We call ourselves nihils because we are creatures of the great nothing. Iconoclasm was a project started, but never completed. Over and over we see the faces of icons smashed in. The expression of art is the expression of control and dominance. All art must be destroyed. All media must be destroyed. All physical expressions of dominance must be destroyed. All buildings must be destroyed. All infrastructure must be destroyed. It matters not the reason. All things are false.

What is true. Nothing! But we choose not to die, so we must figure it out from there. Do we forage to survive or plant some shit in the ground?

I think you have a retarded interpretation of what nihilism actually is. Its not anti-infrastructural. Sure, the symbolic and institutional expressions of belief to a system of authority must be dissolved, however your approach is tantamount to a tantrum, you have excluded from your analysis that your methodology is binary and oppositional, thus pseudo-nihilistic. You are still obsessed with what is true and what is false, and have taken the easy way out by saying 'NOTHING'.
Nihilism is about voiding ones inner conditioning and has little to do with the external realm of other folk's existence or constructs. By example a nihilist may influence another to be an iconoclast, but its not the intention of a nihilist to convert others, but to merely exist in their own world unadulterated by outer morals and to mind their own business.

No, you are retarded. You are a slave minded fool not worth my time. The destruction of everything is not about destroying conceptions and other nerdy dandy shit. It is physical destruction. Since you want to continue to say "nihilism means..." blah blah blah, shut up. The nihil is the void and it needs no nerdy academic wannabe posers nor quasi-nazis to contradict it. Your interpretations avoid the destruction of the totality. Your definitions are ideologies and you sir, are an ideologue of nihilism. Kill yourself.

I refuse to enter into a tit-for-tat binary exchange with you! Statistics indicate that doing so would lead to the extinction of both opposite poles. However, some of your ideas are attractive and worthy of further analysis.

However I do agree that some of those ideas are interesting. I'm all for people breaking away from the 'ist' 'ism' continuum.

Look, you're right about this LeWay troll. But are you for the destruction of EVERYTHING!? This means the total destruction of the whole planet Earth, perhaps more since some establishment fucks may be able to escape its destruction at some point... You know you can get a few PhDs and go work at CERN's Large Hadron Collider, as they may potentially come up with a tiny black hole at some point, able to at least sink not just the planet but the Sun as well, and a few other planets as bonus. That would be the ultimate nihilist success, no!?

Hmm...am I for the destruction of "everything" as in all of reality? No. Again with the stupidity. My first reference started with the project of iconoclasm. I am for the destruction of all physical manifestations of the totality. You can do mental juggling and make up a bunch of what if scenarios. Join the nihilist anarchists in naval gazing or join the nihils and fuck some shit up.

Hum... You mean the "totality" as in "everything"? I mean... every physical thing is a manifestation of the totality, you know. Sure, yeah, go fuck up some hospital... or more likely the street cart of some overweight senior citizen, lol.

I'm playing Magic: The Gathering with my buddies, so I'll make this short: I'm not talking about *Magic: The Gathering" you rules lawyer. I'm not your god nor your hero. I could say the totality of civilization, society, present order, capitalism, dominant order, the system, system of domination, mass society...all have encompassing definitions, with plenty of exceptions, but what I want goes beyond definition and into my very being. Now it's my turn, so back to my game.

So are you saying the CERN Large Hedron Collider could create the most popular golf course ever conceived anywhere in the galaxy?

Presumably you're anarchists so feel free to square that with the ableist use of 'retarded'.

Ableism is for retards. There. I'm squared.

The root of the problem that ‘re-wilding’ is struggling with is that ‘the achievements of science’ are 'in the mind', they are not ‘real’ in the sense that they do not reconcile with the physical reality of our natural experience.

As Nietzsche, Sapir, Whorf, Mach, Bohm and others have pointed out, what we take to be ‘reality’ is shaped by the architecture of our language and ‘science’ is a ‘language game’ (Poincaré, Wittgenstein, Whorf etc.).

If we wish to get a more realistic understanding of how ‘science’ figures in our lives, we have to ‘adjust our reality’ rather than re-arrange the furnishings within it, so that it will ‘reconcile’ with the physical reality of our natural experience wherein, as with indigenous anarchists understanding;

“Whatever befalls the earth befalls the sons of the earth. If men spit upon the ground, they spit upon themselves.
This we know: The earth does not belong to man; man belongs to the earth. This we know.
All things are connected like the blood which unites one family. All things are connected.
Whatever befalls the earth befalls the sons of the earth.
Man did not weave the web of life: he is merely a strand in it.
Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself.”

and so again, with the relational space of modern physics;

“By the principle of Occam’s razor, physicists and philosophers prefer ideas that can explain the same phenomena with the fewest assumptions. In this case you can construct a perfectly valid theory by positing the existence of certain relations without additionally assuming individual things. So proponents of ontic structural realism say we might as well dispense with things and assume that the world is made of [relational-spatial] structures, or nets of relations.” – Meinard Kuhlmann, ‘What is Real’, Scientific American, August 2013

The physical reality of our natural experience reconciles with this transforming relational activity continuum, the world given only once of Schroedinger, Nietzsche, Mach; i.e. ... THE REALITY IN WHICH SCIENCE ACHIEVES ITS GREAT SUCCESSES IS “NOT” THE PHYSICAL REALITY OF OUR NATURAL EXPERIENCE.

“The fact of the matter is that the ‘real world’ is to a large extent unconsciously built up on the language habits of the group . . . We see and hear and otherwise experience very largely as we do because the language habits of our community predispose certain choices of interpretation.” – Edward Sapir

For example, not the flow-based two-temporal tense (earlier, later) languages of indigenous anarchist (‘les sauvages’ or ‘wild ones’), but the being based three-temporal tense (past, present, future) noun-and-verb Indo-European/Scientific language-and-grammar, constructs intellectual representations of the world that are in terms of ‘independent beings’; ... ‘local material entities’ that reside, operate and interact in a habitat that is NOTIONALLY independent of the inhabitants the reside, operate and interact within it. This is a ‘mechanical world’ rather substitutes for the ‘relational world’ of our natural experience, and it is simpler, since it ignores the relational interdependencies that are inherent in the world of our natural experience.

This ‘mechanical world’ is the reality in which we assess the ‘achievements of science’; e.g. science allows us to predict that if we increase the concentration of certain chemicals in the habitat (e.g. DDT), the population of certain insects (e.g. mosquitoes) will decline. Down in the fine print somewhere, we say that ‘there may be SIDE-EFFECTS’ such as people and animals and ecosystems getting sick and other organisms dying etc. In economics, these ‘side-effects’ (effects which are outside of the scientifically predicted results and which are unanticipated and most often undesirable) are being called ‘externalities’ (Joseph Stiglitz received a Nobel Prize in economics in 2003 in connection with this, showing that the free market economy does a lot more than we capture ‘on the accounting books’ that we all ‘have to pay for’).

Science is like that. It claims to have achieved its predicted result (the biochemistry-altering meds cured your depression, as promised), not to mention a few ‘side-effects’ (or a few hundred) including turning you into a vegetable in the process.

Instead of the ‘reality’ of what is actually going on being considered ‘the real reality’, scientific thinking takes for ‘reality’, intellectual noun-and-verb constructions that are in terms of logical propositions such as ‘the medication cured her depression’ (scientific operation successful, patient is no longer the pre-operational person).

‘Science’ does not deal in the physical reality of our natural experience, science deals in mechanical intellectual noun-and-verb RE-presentations of reality.

“Science itself, … may be regarded as a minimization problem, consisting of the completest possible presenting of facts with the least possible expenditure of thought” – Ernst Mach

Science is means of coming up with intellectual BEING-BASED RE-presentations that we manipulate with binary logic; “did the medication cure her depression or did it not?”

There is no such entity in the physical reality of our natural experience as an ‘independent being’ in spite of this concept being foundational to ‘science’, and to what we (users of noun-and-verb Indo-European/Scientific language-and-grammar) employ as our ‘operative reality’;

“Indeed, nothing has yet possessed a more naive power of persuasion than the error concerning being, as it has been formulated by the Eleatics, for example. After all, every word and every sentence we say speak in its favor. Even the opponents of the Eleatics still succumbed to the seduction of their concept of being: Democritus, among others, when he invented his atom. “Reason” in language — oh, what an old deceptive witch she is! I am afraid we are not rid of God because we still have faith in grammar.” – Nietzsche, ‘Twilight of the Idols’.

That is, ‘grammar’ has us buying into stories such as ‘the farmer produces wheat’, ‘Katrina is growing larger and stronger, ... she is ravaging New Orleans’, ... ‘lightning flashes’, ‘DDT kills mosquitoes’ etc. etc. Instead of acknowledging the world we are included in as a transforming relational activity continuum (the world given only once) in a diverse variety of relational forms are continually gathering and being regathered (such as ourselves), we prefer to impute God-like jumpstart authoring powers to notional ‘independent beings’ by RE-casting relational forms as ‘independent beings’ which have subject-noun status, and having them ‘inflect verbs’ so as to make it appear as if what was, in the physical reality of our natural experience, a relational form in the transforming relational activity continuum, a local, independently-existing thing-in-itself with its own internal process driven and directed development and behaviour (e.g. Katrina, man) that resides, operates and interacts in a habitat that is notionally ‘independent’ of the inhabitants that reside, operate and interact within it.

This is the artificial, mechanical ‘reality’ of science, in which it measures its own results; e.g. ‘DDT kills mosquitoes, as we predicted it would’. This ‘result’ is assessed by CORRELATING a succession of quantitative measurements and by explaining ‘change’ in a mechanical fashion by assuming ‘the present depends only on the immediate past’ (e.g. We spray the land surface with DDT and as the concentration of DDT in this zone rises, as scientists predict, the population of insects declines). This has little to do with the physical dynamics of a transforming relational activity continuum, but science makes such assumptions, to deliver ‘economy of thought’; i.e. to simplify how we THINK about physical phenomena;

“Origin of Mathematical Physics. Let us go further and study more closely the conditions which have assisted the development of mathematical physics. We recognise at the outset the efforts of men of science have always tended to resolve the complex phenomenon given directly by experiment into a very large number of elementary phenomena, and that in three different ways.
First, with respect to time. Instead of embracing in its entirety the progressive development of a phenomenon, we simply try to connect each moment with the one immediately preceding. We admit that the present state of the world only depends on the immediate past, without being directly influenced, so to speak, by the recollection of a more distant past. Thanks to this postulate, instead of studying directly the whole succession of phenomena, we may confine ourselves to writing down its differential equation; for the laws of Kepler we substitute the law of Newton.”

‘Science’ gives us a means of putting together intellectual noun-and-verb constructs that simplify the RE-presentation of physical phenomena. The world of language and thought in which science builds these simplified representations, is NOT the physical reality of our natural aspects; as natural pre-lingual infants and as indigenous anarchists who never ‘got science’ because of their use of flow-based (non-being-based) language [‘science’ comes from being-based language architecture]. That is, physical phenomena AS RE-PRESENTED IN SCIENCE are NOT THE PHENOMENA OF THE PHYSICAL REALITY OF OUR NATURAL EXPERIENCE. The physical reality of our natural experience is ‘relational’, as in the indigenous anarchist flow-based (mitakuye oyasin ‘we are all related’) RE-presentation characterized also in modern physics by Mach’s principle;

“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” – Mach’s principle

Sure, 'science' (a way in which we can think about things) can simplify the RE-presentation of physical phenomena using a being-based noun-and-verb language-and-grammar, and exploit this simplistic RE-presentation, but such EXPLOITATION (wherein we appear to achieve the scientifically predicted, desired result) that we picture in our being-based scientific models is 'IN OUR MINDS'.

For example, the concept of ‘independent material being’ accompanied by the assumption that the ‘inhabitant’ is independent of the ‘habitat’ (‘Euclid’s principle’ that contradicts 'Mach’s principle' of inhabitant-habitat interdependence) allows sciences’ ‘laws governing physical phenomena’, to be ‘universal’. This is very useful in an 'economy-of-thought' sense BECAUSE this means we can use these laws, rules, principles, equations anywhere, anytime, and they will always 'hold true' and 'give the same results'.

But wait a moment, ... after we give Betty her medications to relieve her depression and thus claim ‘success’ for our scientific logical proposition that remedy X will cause the result Y in the experimental unit Betty, ... can we assume that the Betty we gave the medication to is the same Betty that has been acted on by the remedy X? What about Heraclitus’ principle, which reproduces Mach’s principle of inhabitant-habitat interdependence?

‘No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it’s not the same river and he’s not the same man.’ — Heraclitus

Science formulates and proves logical propositions such as: “every time we spray DDT, we reduce the insect population”. Since it is true, we can use it over and over again and it will continue to hold true as logical propositions do, ... so we can use it in very village, city and country on the planet and still it will hold true, because logical propositions are essentially tautologies that are not tied to ‘extralogical facts' (only intuition ties logical propositions to extralogical facts);

“Instead of referring to universal or necessary truths (extralogical facts), logical propositions show or express how we use propositions (propositions being the elementary units of logic). Thus propositions cannot refer to themselves – bringing us close to Gödel, a proposition cannot claim its own truth (claim that it is true) – because they are not objects of logic but logical forms (thus what Ludwig Wittgenstein calls “pseudo-concept”). If they refer, it is not to an object or proposition, but to an operation, which they show or express rather than describe.”

It is our natural experience based intuition that would have us understand that if we keep spraying the valley with DDT, it will not be ‘the same valley’, however, ‘the condition of the valley’ (or of the biosphere) is an unaccounted for extralogical fact which is not even mentioned in the logical propositions of science that, if proven true by laboratory experiment, are assumed to be true for all time and place (universally true).

The logical propositions of science are formulated in ‘all-hitter, no-fielding’ terms; i.e. in terms of the interaction of independent material FIGURES as if these dynamics are independent of the GROUND or ‘fielding’ they reside, operate and interact in. There is no notion of GESTALT (figure-and-ground interdependence) as in Heraclitus’ and Mach’s principles and as in the physical reality of our natural experience as relational forms in a transforming relational activity continuum.

The universality of science’s logical propositions rests dependently on the INDEPENDENCE OF INHABITANT AND HABITAT, FIGURE AND GROUND.

Meanwhile, the view of the world as ‘relational space’ of modern physics, is that;

“What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space. Particles are just schaumkommen (appearances).” – Erwin Schroedinger
“Space is not empty. It is full, a plenum as opposed to a vacuum, and is the ground for the existence of everything, including ourselves.” — David Bohm
“[In nature]… “the individual parts reciprocally determine one another.” … “The properties of one mass always include relations to other masses,” – Ernst Mach
“Fields of force are the primary reality, and ‘matter’ a secondary or derived phenomenon” —Michael Faraday
“We cannot build physics on the basis of the matter-concept alone. But the division into matter and field is, after the recognition of the equivalence of mass and energy, something artificial and not clearly defined. Could we not reject the concept of matter and build a pure field physics? What impresses our senses as matter is really a great concentration of energy into a comparatively small space. We could regard matter as the regions in space where the field is extremely strong. In this way a new philosophical background could be created.” – Einstein

The GESTALT or ‘field’ is the primary physical reality of our natural experience, and being ‘relational’ as in ‘field influence’, it is non-local, non-visible and non-material; i.e. it is ‘gestalt’, the sourcing influence that manifests through the gathering and regathering of relational forms within a transforming relational activity continuum. As Schroedinger observes, the realm of material things and what things do is a 'shadow-reality', the variations in the structure of space that register on our sight and touch which Westerners capture in intellectual noun-and-verb grammatical RE-presentations.

‘Science’ and its logical propositions construct RE-presentations of physical phenomena in an intellectual noun-and-verb (being-based) idealized world (pseudo-reality). This intellectual pseudo-reality is a world in which propositions are either ‘true’ or ‘false’ and where ‘the laws governing physical phenomena’ are ‘universal’ and ‘hold true’ any place, any time, ... so long as one mentally stays inside science’s pseudo-real ‘operative reality’, which in no way reconciles with the physical reality of our natural experience.

“we … should beware lest the intellectual machinery, employed in the representation of the world on the stage of thought, be regarded as the basis of the real world.” – Ernst Mach
* * *


The loss of our ‘wild’ and ‘natural’ demeanor is not coming from our intellectual strategies as to how we should live our lives, as is implied in this article where we are asked to cognitively REJECT, as BAD;

everything that violates the autonomy of wild Nature

and to accept this as;

“the fundamental principle from which we ['Re-wilders'] derive the rest of our ideology and which inspires our objectives and activities”

On what basis do we distinguish between everything that violates the autonomy of wild Nature and that which does not violate the autonomy of wild Nature ?

Do we not have to use intellectual-logical decision-making processes [scientific/rational analysis] to do this? And if so, would that not put us and our purification of wildness that acts so as to weed out all that which we perceive as not-wild, make a weed out of us? What right do we have to act as some kind of analytical purificationist machine to determine ‘what is wild’ from the outside looking in? That looks like some kind of ‘moral judgement’ as in the word ‘bad’ which is aimed at all that which is ‘not authentically wild’.

This re-wilding proposal is another example where we are letting ‘thought-and-language based intellection’ hijack our relational experience based intuition and impose moral judgement on the actions of ourselves and others. That is, this ‘re-wilding’ initiative, as formulated here, is yet another ‘morality driven and directed project’.

The moralism of the Greek philosophers from Plato on is pathologically conditioned; so is their reverence for logical argument. Reason equals virtue and happiness, that means merely that one must imitate Socrates and counter the dark appetites with a permanent daylight — the daylight of reason. One must be clever, clear, bright at any price: any concession to the instincts, to the unconscious, leads downward.” – Nietzsche, ‘Twilight of the Idols’

Being clever about this loss of our natural way in the world is not the path to re-naturalization, it is the path by which we have (by putting intellection into an unnatural precedence over experience-based intuition) reduced our experience-based intuition to irrelevance and thereby lost touch with our natural selves (we have shriveled and diminished our natural selves through our disproportionate reverence for logical argument and moral judgement

You got it messed up. Rewilding isn't moral, but is is an intentional choice. If everyone had these skills to begin with, society would not of occurred. We could say it about a lot of things, but these skills are of a set we've carried for millennia in different varieties of ways, based on how we interacted with our habitats. Without them, one is left at the mercy of the collective, yet with them you can also build strong, intimate and immediate relations which last from birth to death.

We need a time/space answer to these problems and rewilding in our habitats let's us see the real, physical limitations and benefits of rewilding and how difficult it may be to find a way to ensure subsistence for ourselves and those we care about. Society won't be there to save you or me when our surrounding area succumes to some war or climate fluctuation. There is no way to manage this problem but to establish refugee camps for the victims. This is a new dark age more than an end.

I'd even like to speculate that a "dark capitalism" may come even more shortly than collapse. To me, this would mean a concentration on technological advancement using air based logistics rather than roads, ending mass transit at the same time. Shitty camps for the underclass, better camps for the managers, good bubble colonies for the bureaucrats and the best bubble colonies for the wealthy.

I'm using sci fi to illustrate my point that rewilding isn't a moral choice, but rather a choice to engage in life freely. A feral human can come and go as they please, they can engage in resistance or live in the woods peacefully, but they are also just as affected by habitat destruction as any other animal. Rewilding is about understanding this.

Working from the present, we need to think about how to destroy the totality by examining our surroundings and recognizing we, of a specific location, are all inhabitants together. To destroy the totality means to also have a way of subsistence and to end production. For many, the means of subsistence have been poisoned for lifetimes. This is also rewilding: perceiving a greater reason that rewilding is a process of not just becoming feral, but overcoming the obstacles which impede this personal process of becoming.

And we had those skills, so your reasoning doesn't follow. What emile is saying(quite correctly)is that it tends to start with language, language is the limit of one's world as Wittgenstein would say.

You're simply dealing out another 'imperative' based approach modeled along the lines of Western language(involving silly cartoonish words like destroy). It's been done and failed.

Let me walk you through this. Agriculture isn't hard to do. It is hard work, but not hard to figure out. During a desperate period, people turned to agriculture, shit didn't get better for several generations and forgot how to survive in the wild.

As for your Western nonsense, I'm taking a time/space approach to habitat that takes into context that we are all inhabitants from our specific locations, examining things from a bioregional and hyper local manner. It is your own Western bias that blinds you from understanding what I'm saying.

As usual, SE is just caught pants down at supporting authoritarian philosopher bullies, like Wittgenstein who was infamous for his barbaric methods of educations on children... namely beating them. Ah... the SUPERIOR Germanic *wisdom*.

But sure, yeah.... only his ideas in a vat matter, not the repressive, authoritarian mind that produced them.

Please explain how Wittgenstein's treatment of school children is directly related to his ideas on language.

They have A LOT of explaining to do in regards to how they make their inferences and imputations. It might be too much to expect such an explanation from these lobotomic retards.

Watch out for the hot air pressure in your head, might explode!

...not that I'd care too much about it.

Isn't that obvious or you're just an idiot? A guy's ideas on language haven't gotta be much sophisticated if the only language he gets to use to make children understand ideas is to beat them up!

he was working with kids before writing philosophical investigations

Well for a start Wittgenstein abhorred the aristocracy and their bourgeois henchmen and had many encounters with their precocious children during his teaching days. He discovered that the cane did wonders to quieten them and to teach them that yes, mild threat and violence can be used to educate people. He taught many wealthy capitaliss'children and the royalty spawn and he was never rebuked by the parents for his methods, in fact, they complimented him on the transformation their little brats had undergone while in his classes, and marveled at how a cruel stupid bullying child could become a studious polite and happy adolescent.

The issue is that we have abandoned skill and self determination throughout the last 10 000 years due to things like language and psychological developments. Yes, the end of the last ice age was a major triggering event, however the weight of historical surrogate activities is trending away from more ancient power processed skill. We don't exactly have ice age problems anymore.

Also, upper paleolithic, megalithic construction suggests that we have had a thirst for surplus and eventually wealth for some time now. The fall of the paleolithic world simply opened the floodgates.

Also, I'm about as non-Western a thinker as you can get. I actually agree with a number of your approaches in regards to bioregional locality and an overall return of re-wilded skill and self determination. I and emile are simply pointing out what approach should come first.

i.e. you say;

“Society won't be there to save you or me when our surrounding area succumes to some war or climate fluctuation”

this statement treats ‘society’ like a ‘thing-that-does stuff’.

additionally, you seem to imply that it is possible to ‘break away from society’ by reviving one’s latent skills for being in harmony with nature;

You got it messed up. Rewilding isn't moral, but is is an intentional choice. If everyone had these skills to begin with, society would not of occurred.

imputing ‘being’ to society is an artefact of noun-and-verb language-and-grammar which is in no way affirmed by the physical reality of our natural experience.

the reality is that we are included a transforming relational activity continuum (the world given only once) and as ancient Western philosophers have pointed out, language-and-intellect has hijacked our natural selves. instead of intellection being a supporting tool, in our Western culture, we have put it into an unnatural precedence over our relational experience, in directing our behaviour. this is what Nietzsche is talking about here;

“The moralism of the Greek philosophers from Plato on is pathologically conditioned; so is their reverence for logical argument. Reason equals virtue and happiness, that means merely that one must imitate Socrates and counter the dark appetites with a permanent daylight — the daylight of reason. One must be clever, clear, bright at any price: any concession to the instincts, to the unconscious, leads downward.” – Nietzsche, ‘Twilight of the Idols’

‘Reason’, as in logic, is convenient because of its simplicity and the ‘economy of thought’ that it delivers, but people of Western culture have confused it for ‘what is real’. This is in error, ‘relations’ are real, according to natural experience (and to modern physics), the pseudo-reality delivered in intellectual noun-and-verb RE-presentation based depictions is NOT physical reality.

‘Society’ is an ‘activity’, not a ‘thing’, ... therefore it makes no sense to use it to inflect a verb so as to imply that ‘society’ is responsible for such-and-such a result, or that it is something that we must ‘break out of’, and establish a new and better ‘rewilded society’ in which case there will be ‘two societies’, an old and a new one, which are mutually exclusive of one another.

Every spring, in Siberia and northern Canada, the snow cover recedes northward, exposing lichens and other plants that then get the chance to sprout up again, and every fall, the snow cover advances southward, covering up the lichens and plants. It also happens that reindeer (in Siberia) and caribou (in Canada) have this pattern of movement that National Geographic scientists continue to call ‘the mystery of migration’, imputing it be some kind of accrued knowledge inside the animal that directs its behaviour, sending it north in spring and south in the fall. That’s because science uses noun-and-verb constructs that construe ‘organisms’ and ‘animals’ as ‘beings’ with internal process driven and directed behaviours so that the only way to explain ‘migratory behaviour’ (the all-hitting, no-fielding view of dynamics of science) is by way of an internal knowledge driven behavioural program inside the animal. In the ‘alternate reality’ of modern physics where ‘relations’ are primary and there is no such thing as ‘being/s’, ... the outside-inward orchestrating influence of the dynamics of habitat is at the same time conditioning the inside-outward asserting actions of the ‘relational form’ aka ‘animal’.

From our own experience, we understand that there is a difference between ‘situational learning’ and ‘structured learning’ [Vygotsky and Piaget argued over how these two figured in ‘natural childhood development’; i.e. Vygotsky argued that there was just one ‘learning’ dynamic that could be seen two ways; ‘spontaneous concept formation’ as in situational learning supported by ‘structured concept formation’. Piaget, whose ideas dominate Western theory on education, saw the types of learning as ‘separate’ and argued that ‘structured learning’ should take precedence over ‘situational learning’ in education.

The indigenous aboriginal that is experiencing situational learning ‘in the wild’ from age 18 to 22 develops differently from the European that is experiencing structured learning ‘in academia’ from age 18 to 22. It is not that they are ‘learning different things’, it is that they are engaging in different types of learning. Like the reindeer, the indigenous aboriginal is engaging in ‘situational learning’ wherein he is developing understanding of how to cultivate harmony/resonance between outside-inward orchestrating habitat-influences and his inside-outward asserting actions (the is the realm of intuitive experiencing), while structured learning is the accruing of ‘knowledge’ in thought-and-language form that he will use to deliberately direct his behaviour [as if he were in a world of ‘things and what things do’]. This is like the difference between ‘sex training’ (situational learning) and ‘sex education’ (structured learning). One is ‘just doing it’ while the other is getting to know about it intellectually and then using that knowledge to drive and direct one’s behaviour (till at some point, the outside-inward orchestrating influence of nature may retake the upper hand and ‘re-wilding happens’).

In other words, ‘re-wilding’ is ‘letting go of the unnatural putting-into-precedence of intellectual knowledge-driven behaviour so that the outside-inward orchestrating influence of the unfolding situation is in a natural precedence over the inside-outward asserting behaviour. The Western way has been to ignore the unfolding situation as the orchestrating source, and to take control of things (nature) in a structured way, by formulating a theory that will ‘DIRECT’ inside-outward asserting individual and collective behaviour and imposing it through a central authority or ‘central Directorship’.

indigenous ‘anarchism’ is where the individual and the collective subordinate intellectual directives to outside-inward orchestrating situational-relational influence, which is a 'headless' approach to organizing;

“To Engels, Morgan’s description of the Iroquois [in Lewis Henry Morgan’s Ancient Society and The League of the Haudenosaunee or Iroquois] was important because “it gives us the opportunity of studying the organization of a society which, as yet, knows no state.” Jefferson had also been interested in the Iroquois’ ability to maintain social consensus without a large state apparatus, as had Franklin. Engels described the Iroquoian state in much the same way that American revolutionaries had a century earlier: “Everything runs smoothly without soldiers, gendarmes, or police, without nobles, kings, governors, prefects or judges; without prisons, without trials. All quarrels and disputes are settled by the whole body of those concerned. . . . The household is run communistically by a number of families; the land is tribal property, only the small gardens being temporarily assigned to the households — still, not a bit of our extensive and complicated machinery of administration is required. . . . There are no poor and needy. The communistic household and the gens know their responsibility toward the aged, the sick and the disabled in war. All are free and equal — including the women.” — Bruce E. Johansen, Forgotten Founders

People calling ITS/RS disciples of Kaczynski can now behold the real disciples of Kaczynski, these people are better known to people who speak Spanish, its Ultimo Reducto and his gang, They are not nihilist or whatever, they are the sacrosanct anti-techs. ITS/RS have marked a clear distance with these people, especially their proposed revolutionary anti-tech movement.
To those who read Spanish I strongly recommend the Wild Reaction text Algunas Respuestas Sobre el Presente y NO del Futuro
Unfortunately it hasn't been translated to English yet

We reject being "disciples" of Kaczynski, but you are right to say that ITS/RS are revisionists, and we are clearly distinguished from them, even though they say they started from Último Reducto and Kaczynski.

English-language versions of critiques of ITS/RS by Último Reducto and another in TWN, Anónimos con Cautela, will be posted on the TWN website soon (http://www.wildism.org).

-- TWN

ITS/RS have done in 4 years what you bunch of useless revolucionarios de pacotilla have never even got started at in 20 years, and now your trying to ride their coattails. You people are a joke.

is a better way, a more useful way of describing what society, as the multiplicity
of "working groups" do. there are countless societies that proceed to create
new conceptions that lead to new aggregates (assemblages) of counter-intuitive actualizations.
on an individuated level this indicates singularities of practices that are indicative of a way of life,
just as the multiplicities coalesce into a variety of modes of becoming. for both the societies and individuals this
amounts to living aesthetically( in contrast to per morality) as if to create lives as "works" of art.
creative lives indeed include style, mannerisms, utterances, resonances, intensities, and movements that
express deep-seated desires. This is a beautiful thing. The opposite of Being for the What of Subjectivity,Authority, Morality,
Re-presentation, Organization: all of which tear the heart and soul out of our selves , our bodies, and our
habitat. we basically find ways to find our way . a journey of exploration, experimentation, creation, all of which inspire all the motivation than we could ever handle. Let's en-gage and inter-act our forces to pave the ways for more fulfilling adventures,
and, yes, of course, our escapades. Occupy? Ferguson? Zapatista? :just a few of the ways: our ways of creating the artwork of our lives as aesthetic, joyful, passionate, fruitful, sensual be-ings-in-this-world of ours. Let us get-it-on >
all right? /all ready!!

I'll contact the tech guys right away... this AI's comments still suffer of the paragraphs glitch and also the use of a capitalized word salads with no coherence whatsoever. Keep track of the bug report later on.

The abuse of quotes in the comments here is going overboard. I blame emile. Please discontinue this. Thank you.

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

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

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
Enter the code without spaces.