Hallo all. The fact that it's taken me so long to write this post is indicative of its necessity. I can't be bothered with the Internet beyond minor—well spaced out & sporadic—doses. I don't like the way people talk to each other on-line, or the fact that the Internet cannot deliver the human touch. As such I am more or less withdrawing from the forum. I'll check in to approve new posters; & I think I get an email if you PM me, so I'll try to check those too.

If anyone wants to take a stab at running the forum, then let me know, & I'll try to get you the db & src. If the forum is going to be vibrant, someone needs to effectuate that—& it's not going to be me. I'm not planning on deleting the website anytime soon, so there's (probably) no rush.

Ta.

Sad Radicals

by Conor Barnes

When I became an anarchist I was 18, depressed, anxious, and ready to save the world. I moved in with other anarchists and worked at a vegetarian co-op cafe. I protested against student tuition, prison privatization, and pipeline extensions. I had lawyer’s numbers sharpied on my ankle and I assisted friends who were pepper-sprayed at demos. I tabled zines, lived with my “chosen family,” and performed slam poems about the end of the world. While my radical community was deconstructing gender, monogamy, and mental health, we lived and breathed concepts and tools like call-outs, intersectionality, cultural appropriation, trigger warnings, safe spaces, privilege theory, and rape culture.

What is a radical community? For the purposes of this article, I will define it as a community that shares both an ideology of complete dissatisfaction with existing society due to its oppressive nature and a desire to radically alter or destroy that society because it cannot be redeemed by its own means. I eventually fell out with my own radical community. The ideology and the people within it had left me a burned and disillusioned wreck. As I deprogrammed, I watched a diluted version of my radical ideology explode out of academia and become fashionable: I watched the Left become woke.

More:

https://quillette.com/2018/12/11/sad-radicals/

[Image: https://i.redd.it/lpxtl1vc0u521.jpg]

It's just too funny.

The obesity epidemic is of course a big problem. It is entirely clear that we need drastic measurements on a societal and ecological level to address this staggering problem.

Or—you could get an implantable device that sends signals to your brain, so that it thinks that you're full, so you'll stop eating. «In laboratory testing, the devices helped rats shed almost 40 percent of their body weight.»

It's just such a blatantly idiotic thing, that you'd be forgiven to think it satire.

https://www.engr.wisc.edu/implantable-de...ight-loss/

[Image: https://thesocietydispatch.files.wordpre...=300&h=300]
source

For green anarchists, egoists and nihilists, when divorced from the larger narratives of the left, we are left with our own quests. Quests that are sometimes fraught with difficulty and conflict, just as much as they grant us the experience of adventures few get to achieve. Uncle Ted’s shadow still is cast on the ground and while his acolytes have largely  moved away from his vision and strategy of anti-industrial revolution, there still is a feeling that action for its own sake is worth pursuing.

In the age of Climate Change, the Anthropocene mass extinction event and the totalizing of society in a web so delicate to upset its balance would to destroy the integrity of our connectiveness. Seeking action in this environment is not a matter of achieving upheaval. Time and again small groups fail to rally the popular interest against nations and regimes, while vanguards move in to state power and use governing institutions to create minor political change. But no more is there a drive to dismantle the state from supposedly radical forces.

There is the rhetoric of revolution, insurrection; tough posing that that suggests rebellion, but the atmosphere created is not that of encouraging individual empowerment and activity. Rather, the dominant politic is centered on individual and group shaming, ostracism, petty ego bantering and other behaviors that are divisive in the name of unity. Only after crushing dissent can the movement roll forward, comrade.

Moving beyond this can be difficult because creating space away from these behaviors is less about physical space and more about social and virtual space. More about creating an entirely different internal dialogue that somehow both addresses the dominant politic while shifting the conversation from shame to desire. From suppressing the transgressions we don’t like to encouraging the transgressions we do. This is the most profound difference between the Apollonian and the Dionysian.

While the dominant politic complains about chains, points at them and shames those with weaker chains than others, we should be encouraging chains to be broken, to be unchained, to let our desires bloom and our wills express our drive for freedom. But how to?

Green anarchists have a long history of asking why. From many of our influences in the theories of anarcho-primitivism and deep ecology, we can understand the human at root (anarcho-primitivism), the world at root (deep ecology) and how the human impact on the world has been disastrous in one form or another.

It is not the origins of the problem we are dealing with. However, origins are part of our story, a story of why we are where we are. The importance of origins is that it exposes we aren’t rotten authoritarian savages at heart, but humans are also far less noble or neutral in how we’ve imposed control on each other and the world since before history has been recorded. Point made.

For how to, we can look far more recently. We see the actions of Freedom Club attributed to Ted Kaczynski, the actions of Earth First!, ALF, ELF and ITS. A short list in some ways, which aren’t counting the many other varieties green anarchists and related have also organized themselves. However, it is here we have been loudest and for good reason. Despite the rhetoric to the contrary, deeds are still great propaganda. While we aren’t necessarily aiming to hit them where it hurts, as we see the effects of climate change capable of far more damage than we could ever hope to cause as small groups, there is still the capability to inspire others, to carry forward a message that can change the conversation on what we are capable of.

In recent green anarchist texts, a new variety of activities have been opened up, but the takers haven been few. We are perhaps still in an infancy, hindered by time consuming activities from work to media interaction. To break this spell would be to promote and grow our face to face connections and expand on our lived time space with each other.

So the first how to. How to green anarchy is to break bread with each other. To share in conversations with each other and to see reason to connect with each other despite our flaws, rather than divide because of them. How to create green anarchy? Create trust, love and attention. The impact we would like to see in the world is not necessarily born from the most alienated, but rather, perhaps from those that want more connection to ourselves and to others. Alienated by society, yes, but not to the want of the social. To act from the love of the self, the planet, friends and family. It is those forces that prevent and divide us from our will to love that deserve our spite and give us our reason to fight.

Interesting article.  More proof that trees are not just inanimate things standing there.

https://www.wakingtimes.com/2018/11/26/e...can-learn/?

Quote:"She discovered birch sent carbon to fir, especially when it was shaded. Later the opposite happened, when the birch was leafless in the winter, the fir sent over more carbon. Science had always believed that trees competed with each other for carbon, sunlight, water and nutrients. Simard’s groundbreaking work showed that trees are interdependent and cooperative, in fact they are immersed in deep relationships with each other."

[Image: https://thesocietydispatch.files.wordpre...tudios.jpg]
I am not against collectivities completely in principle. In many cases, groups and classifications are brought to me rather than being chosen. This is where I stand on certain historical narratives, like dictatorship of the proletariat, insurrection, revolution and so on.
 
Large collectivities that are created by situations don’t need cheerleaders and should a dictatorship of the proletariat actually exist, the activities of eco-extremists would disappear within such a large collectivity. In the case of revolutionary or insurrectionary situations, obviously eco-extremist activities would hardly be noticed as the spread of destruction would be massified.
 
Which brings me to smaller collectivities, that of eco-extremism, that of attentat that of autonomous zones and that of mutual aid. Unlike the previous examples, these smaller examples are within my range to create. Massive collectivities,whether true or not, can’t be managed into existence nor controlled. This is perhaps where I have been most bothered by communism, including its left communist forms.
 
I see a situation in France with the yellow vests. We could debate the ins and outs of it, but it came into being by subjected forces and not because of active vanguards. I have not read deeply on the situation so I’ll leave my comment on that vague detail because it exposes a point.
 
We can create our own immediate worlds with other individuals as we desire. We need not be insurrectionary nor revolutionary nor approve or disapprove of the proletarian dictatorship. These mass concepts aren’t my enemy, but they are blinders. They harm our ability to see where our impact can be developed.
 
Eco-extremism is just a style of attack with a context, same with attentat actions that aren’t necessarily eco-extreme. Those that want to do these things, can do these things, but the consequences are just as extreme. This is discouraging, but I wouldn’t limit myself to this. This is where my point on other ways to connect comes in.
 
There are so many ways to grow and we can support each other instead of looking for how to manage each other. The ideas of finding ways to connect, to grow as both individuals and as groups that see in each other the universe, rather than see the group as one more vehicle towards a mass strategy with a mass goal.

source

Here's something unbelievable: $224 million will get you a probe that can push an asteroid into any orbit you want. Meaning, theoretically, fucks knows which government has moved which asteroids to where.


Page 22 - http://kiss.caltech.edu/final_reports/As...report.pdf
The first time it was done, asteroid bigger than the one that killed the dinosaurs - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NEAR_Shoem...nd_landing

Interesting exchange happening elsewhere I thought I'd share.

Anonymous Wrote:Permanent subsistence zones - PSZs have been put forward as an alternative/compliment to the TAZ. See "insurrectionary subsistence" efforts and this article from anarchist library: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/...ence-zones

Zhachev Wrote:We need tribal zones. Fuck this yippe bullshit, fuck Hakim Bey, too

Anonymous Wrote:With sedentary comes council tribalism. You are no nihilist.,.

Zhachev Wrote:I don't advocate sedentarism. And nah, don't tell me what to do or believe. I am my am-ness.

Anonymous Wrote:Listen your Am-ness, you call for tribal zones, that's tribalism, and all tribes have hierarchies. This leads to feudalism and municipalities, eventually Bookchin, who you can insert in your An-ness.

22:33 Wrote:I can see you instigating tribal warriors with yellow war stripes covering their naked bodies as they charge the police line. So damn medieval and nostalgic of you Baron Zhachev.

Zhachev Wrote:Y'all are just coming after me to come after me now. But that's fine, I do it too. Watch and read carefully how I totally dismantle your shit logic. You can, apparently, only understand the language of the State. You also clearly have no imagination and don't think yourself.

22:33 is making the classic mid-20th century Western (white) anthropological argument that bands or clans lead to tribes, tribes to chiefdoms, chiefdoms to states. This is meant to imply a reverse trajectory from the autonomic. It's progressivism. I reject the implication that once a society becomes a state, autonomy becomes irreversible. Everyone on this website should, as well. It is called ANARCHISTnews after all.

Tribal societies were autonomic societies. Many, if not most, especially before the emergence of civilization, were characterized by their egalitarianism — a combination of closeness and gentleness between those in-group, and a strong rejection of any authoritarianism. They lived peacefully in many cases, they lived happily, and there was a culture of companionship, shared activity, and a premium on autonomy. No one, not even children, were coercive, or felt the need to exert any form of other-control. This was a vigilant, active effort by tribal members. The primitive chief had no power, their word carried no force of law.

Societies maintained an appropriate degree of warlike attributes depending on their proximity to state organization. Those forced into enduring war were the ones more likely to form or succumb states. This zone at the far reaches of state and empire, before the tribal zone, has sometimes been called the barbaric or semi-barbaric zone, and these people are actually the greatest threat to civilization historically, but I digress. "The contra-historical society is any society that avoids or retreats from hierarchy, retreats from history, and the state." This should be viewed as "dynamic avoidance", an "aristocratic refusal" to get sucked into the games of the state at any level. These societies were anti-authoritarian, pro-actively, and avoided the stae cleverly. Some still do today (the uncontacted). They're not just stateless, they vigorously reject the state and are fully aware of its encroachments. They are consciously opposed to their subsumption into civilization.

A tribe is simply a bounded network, communities united by social and political ties, often sharing language and aspects of wider culture. Everyone is "economically" independent, there's no centralized hierarchy.

Our social existence is nothing but a creation in the minds of others. As soon as the state imagines a tribe relating to a states power, its driven to act towards the population like it was indeed a tribe. This can force the population to react in specific manners, and it's all a self-fulfilling process at that point, with the state filling in any blanks as to fit the "tribe" neatly in a box.

Tribal organization itself is a response to the state. Without any states, they're just people, living in communities. So please, cut your honkey-ass reified bullshit out. I need to get some sleep anyway.

Anonymous Wrote:Oh wow, classic noble savage fallacy disguised with stories from pulp-fiction monthlies of fiction-fantasy societies which existed in the mists of time before the arrival of the big bad white supremacist nasty tribes with scary big swords and big nasty chiefs hurting people, wow, what are you smoking warrior boy?

Anonymous Wrote:"A tribe is simply a bounded network, communities united by social and political ties, often sharing language and aspects of wider culture. Everyone is "economically" independent, there's no centralized hierarchy."
Like yeah, in your Disney conception of tribes, of course. But through history most tribes that anthropologists have studied were also bonded by hierarchies. The tribal culture is in itself the product of hierarchical arrangements and rituals.
All thanks to Zhachev, our regular trolls LeWay and SE no longer feel lonely here... :-/

Le Way Wrote:If Zhachev was meaning by 'tribalism' the association or union of individualists who adhere to no political or religious laws or ethics, then welcome aboard Zhachev to the ragged crew of those challenging the dogma and repitition of flawed social processes.

Zhachev Wrote:All anthropology is science fiction. But as far as fairy tales go, mine is more accurate.

"The tribal culture is in itself the product of hierarchical arrangements and rituals." That's what I'm arguing, too, genius. I just contend civilization and the state are the catalyst. And I have no idea how I'm trolling here. All I do lately is sit here and read and reflect and take notes. This is the "no life" you folks are persistently accusing me of having.

Anonymous Wrote:"All anthropology is science fiction. But as far as fairy tales go, mine is more accurate. "
Aaaah yes! It's the same old narcissist cult guru kicking in. Science is wrong but I, right. Because it's ME not dem!
You're another authoritarian dog, zhachev, in need of social enclosures that tribes are, so your power may, one day, expand upon others for more rob & rape. But that's not gonna happen because nobody likes you IRL.

Zhachev Wrote:Blatantly racist now. Unlike you lost purely European fucks, I still know the name of my tribal clan and where they came from in Palestine, and where they moved into Palestine from in the 16th century. You're interpretation of tribal people as "bad hombres", mobbers, rapists, etc., is blatantly racist and incorrect.

Le Way Wrote:So its true, your am-ness is not individualist consciousness, but the conspiratorial stain of megalomaniacal pride which would have all of us making you the chief.

Zhachev Wrote:Am-ness = daoist ziran.自然. As-it-is-ness. I appreciate all the shit I'm getting in many ways, as this is the type of anti-authoritarian practice tribal people did for millenia to avoid the emergence of despotism. I'm not a despot, though. I just want to fuck shit up and cause major chaos. Don't y'all?
Ddj 30:

A general is well advised
To achieve nothing more than his orders:
Not to take advantage of his victory.
Nor to glory, boast or pride himself;
To do what is dictated by necessity,
Not by choice.

A group of Hadza hunter-gatherers build a traditional hut from baobab branches, sisal plants and grass.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2LJDIhjXC4