Mexico: First communique of Wild Reaction (RS)

[BIXX]

"First communique.
Cuernavaca, Morelos
August 14, 2014

“The people who are pushing all this garbage of development and technological progress should be severely punished.”
- F. [a]

After a little more than three years of criminal-terrorist activity, the group “Individualists Tending toward the Wild” (ITS), begins a new phase in this open war against the Technoindustrial System, which we explain below:

I

First of all, we want to explain that during all of 2012 and 2013, various groups of a terrorist and sabotage stripe were uniting themselves with the group ITS, so that now, after a long silence and for purely strategic reasons, we publically claim:

1) The “Informal Anti-civilization Group,” which on June 29, 2011, took responsibility for the explosion that severely damaged a Santander bank in the city of Tultitlan, Mexico.

2) “Uncivilized Autonomous,” who on October 16, 2011 set off a bomb inside the ATMs of a Banamex, located between the cities of Tultitlan and Coacalco in Mexico State.

3) “Informal Circle of Antagonistic Individualists,” who in September 2009 set several wild horses free from a farm in Aguascalientes.

4) “Wild Indomitables,” who on October 16, 2011 left a butane gas bomb that did not detonate in a Santander bank in the Álvaro Obregón district of Mexico City. The act was never claimed until now.

5) “Terrorist Cells for the Direct Attack – Anti-civilization Fraction,” which in 2010 and 2011 left a fake bomb in front of the IFaB (Pharmacological and Biopharmeceutical Research), and detonated an explosive outside the building of the National Ecology Institute (INE), both in the Tlalpan district of Mexico City.

6) “Luddites against the Domestication of Wild Nature,” who during 2009 to 2011 had taken part in various incendiary attacks in some cities in Mexico State and various districts of Mexico City, claimed or unclaimed.

7) “NS – Fera – Kamala y Amala” which on December 9, 2011, left an explosive package addressed to the director of the National Institute of Psychiatry “Ramón de la Fuente” in the Tlalpan district, Mexico City. It was deactivated by the police bomb squad. On the 15th of this month, the same group warned through email of the presence of a car bomb in the institution’s parking lot, which, although it was a false warning, created terror among the officials of that center of mental alienation.

8) “Earth Liberation Front – Bajío”, which on November 16, 2011 set off an explosive charge creating damages within the ATM area of a branch of the Federal Electricity Commission (CFE) in the city of Irapuato in Guanajuato.

Likewise, during this year, 2014, two more terroristic groups have united with us who have put the development of the Technoindustrial System in their sights, we refer to:

9) The “Obsidian Point Circle of Attack,” which at the end of March of this year sent a letter-bomb via express mail to the Rector of UNAM in Mexico City.

10) The “Atlatl Group,” which in April of this year claimed responsibility for bomb threats and intimidating messages to academic institutions in Michoacán, Mexico State, Mexico City, Puebla and Zacatecas.

All of these have now fused with the ITS groups in Morelos, Mexico City, Guanajuato, Hidalgo, Coahuila and Veracruz.

Due to this union, the extravagant and little-practal pseudonym of “Individualists Tending toward the Wild” (ITS) ceases to exist, and from now on the attacks against technology and civilization will be signed with the new name of “Wild Reaction” (RS).

II

RS will take the initiative of attacking human targets as it was with ITS, but we will also charge against public and private property. The research centers will be burned along with their scientists, the businesses that promote artificiality along with their employees and executives will suffer attacks; in sum, everything that involves civilization, technology and progress will be fiercely attacked.

And if for that reason, during an attack, some citizen is wounded or killed, we won’t care, we will be indifferent and indiscriminating. The population, the mass, the people, the community, the sheep, the society does not merit our consideration, neither warnings, nor calls to attention, nor anything at all, because they are all part of the system; let it be clear, if they cross our path they are going to regret it… and we already showed this in the past with ITS [b].

“Anything based on the masses, the herd, carries in itself the seeds of slavery. This crowd, which does not self-determine its values, is incapable of defining its own life.”
A.

III

The groups that form RS will have their own names, this is just for inter-group decision.

These groups will enjoy autonomy, will be able to carry out acts of sabotage as well as terrorist ones, (if they want to), when they want, breaking with the “formalities of attack” and predestined group dates. That is, in any moment and any place, the latent threat of aggression will be present.

IV

We deny being followers of Ted Kaczynski [c]; we have indeed learned many things from reading Industrial Society and Its Future, the texts after this and the letters before this text signed by “Freedom Club” (FC), but that does not mean that we are his followers. In fact our position clashes with Kaczynski’s, FC’s, his disciple Último Reducto and others, since we do not consider ourselves revolutionaries, we do not want to form an “anti-technological movement” that encourages the “total overthrow of the system,” we do not see it as viable, we do no want victory, we do not pretend to win or lose, this is an individual fight against the mega-machine; we don’t care about getting something positive from this, since we are simply guided by our instincts of defense and survival.

We are for the rejection of artificiality and of modern reality. We deny the values of the system such as “equality,” “promiscuous solidarity,” “peace,” “progress,” “plurality,” “humanism,” etc.

We defend our identity as “modern” humans clinging to our primitive past.

We cast our labels like “anti-civilization,” “primitivist,” “anarchist,” “anti-technology,” “luddite,” because RS is a unique tendency that does not need these tired and twisted labels for defining ourselves.

Thus neither Kaczynski, Último Reducto, Zerzan, Derrick Jensen, or any other with the (supposed) “primitivist” stamp represents RS.

Nor do the Informal Anarchist Federation (FAI), the Conspiracy of Cells of Fire (CCF), Feral Faun, or any other with the “eco-anarchist” or “anti-civilization cell of…” stamp.

RS and its groups only represent themselves.

“[This] is a way of expressing our ‘ego.’ An ‘ego’ that wants to differentiate itself from the herd of slaves, an ‘ego’ that does not bow its head, an ‘ego’ that does not wait for the masses to rebel, an ‘ego’ that vindicates its own name, its own ‘acronym’ and does not hide behind anonymity.”
C.

V

Previously some (but not all) of the groups that have united as RS were exclusively formed by “eco-anarchists” and “radical ecologists,” now RS is formed by nihilist saboteurs, incendiary nomads, individualist delinquents, terrorist anarchists, politically and morally incorrect critics, that is, RS is a group of affinities who are ready for everything that is necessary, for achieving what we want… and what we want is the destabilization of the system, the direct punishment of those immediately responsible for the subjugation of wild nature (including human nature).

We are a considerable group of wild ones who are conscious that our ancestors were warriors and we vindicate ourselves in the same way. We are the minority of the minority, we have decided to undertake a war against everything that is taking away our essence as natural humans, and is fixing us to turn us into humiliated humanoids.

This essence that we cling to has been transmitted to us by our wild ancestors, it pushes us to follow the path of confrontation and resistance, against alienation, against what wants to domesticate us and keep us alienated from our true home: the forests, the deserts, the hills, the mountains, the jungles, the coasts.

The Technoindustrial System and its unimpeded advance snatched from us the way of living free that our great-great-grandfathers enjoyed; civilization with its agriculture and its sedentarism covered the environment in gray and deprived us of memory; modernity stunned our primitive instincts and senses; the animals we hunted died from the plague of technology; the places where wandered and rested were devastated by infrastructure and overpopulation; progress sunk us in ignorance; natural wisdom was lost in the passing of generations.

Day by day we drive ourselves to extinction, we are at the edge of the abyss, since we do not intend to adapt ourselves to the system nor to its submissive society, nor to its moral values.

But we have awoken! That primitive essence continues with us, it is not domesticated, it feels uncomfortable in the cities and it whispers constantly to us: “You do not belong here, destroy your cage.”

This is why during these years we have intensified the conflict against artificiality, this is why we have burned machines, set off explosives, created terror, torn living flesh, punctured heads, just as the ancients did in the wars against civilization, in defense of their way of life; that way of life still exists though it may be very minimal, and we will defend it to the end.

For those who think that the war against civilized ended with the extermination of the ethnic groups, hunter-gatherer nomads, original people of these lands in the war of the wild ones (chichimeca), after more than 400 years, allow us to tell you that you thought wrong.

We are the warrior legacy!

Those who sustain this dirty system will not live peacefully…

Wild Reaction / Reacción Salvaje (RS)

“Kill or Die” Group / Grupúsculo “Matar o Morir”

Notes:

[a] To avoid our tendency falling into confusion or mutation, falsification or alteration, for the phrases published in our communiques we have decided to put at the end of each one only the first letter of the author’s name. With these, if you recognize their works, know that we include them because we agree only with this phrase, but not with all of their thought or opinion.

[b] On April 19, 2011, the maintainance worker of the Polytechnic University of Mexico Valley (UPVM), Alberto Álvarez, opened a package-bomb that was addressed to the head of the Nanotechnology degree, Camacho Olguín; for his carelessness he ended up with hearing trauma, burns on his hands, and an amputated eye.

Later, in February 21, 2013, the employee in charge of maintaining the mailboxes of the Mexican Postal Service, José Luis García, decided to steal a package that caught his attention, which he did not know was a package containing an explosive with a concrete addressee (who we will not speak of), again, on opening the package, for his carelessness and deliberate behavior, the employee ended up with hearing trauma, first- and second-degree burns on his legs, arms, face and the fracture of one of his hands.

[c] Even though as ITS we have been denying it for more than three years, only recently we continue to be categorized as his “followers,” one can read evidence of this in the articles “NanoBombers: A Look at the Terrorist Group that’s trying to kill scientists”, from April 9, 2014, published on the New York web site “Vocativ”, and “As technology swamps our lives, the next Unabombers are waiting for their moment”, from May 13, 2014, published in the English periodical “The Telegraph”.

* For those who may think that the individuals from the photograph are “our leaders,” let us say this is a lie. RS does NOT have leaders or a fixed and absolute leader, we are NOT an army or Marxist guerrilla group, RS is composed of groups of individuals responsible for our own actions, who act according to their possibilities.

The photograph was a proposal from one of the groups, to show its individual capacity to inflict damage by means of firearms, and to visually express the extreme defense of wild nature. While the image is full of symbolism and meanings, we only explain one: The feather in the hat of one of them represents that they have taken a life, this subject is sitting under the letter “s,” the first letter of the name Salinas, of Ernesto Méndez Salinas, the biotechnologist assassinated in Cuernavaca in 2011, the first mortal victim of ITS.

Enemies, observe well! This is not a game, it is not a joke, it is real!

We have the weapons, the explosives and the warrior legacy in our blood, we are coming for you!"


http://anarchistnews.org/content/mexico-first-communique-wild-reaction-rs

[BIXX]

I don't have much time to comment but I just wanna say I think this is fucking awesome.

[Art Vandelay]

I don't have much time to comment but I just wanna say I think this is fucking awesome.

Yeah...reactionaries who plan to murder scientists and couldn't care less if they injure/kill working class people are just so fucking awesome. :rolleyes:

[Os Cangaceiros]

*yawn* I used to think shit like this was interesting (even if I strongly disagreed with the group's loony toons politics) but now I'm just bored with it.

Their violence and bluster amounts to pissing in the ocean.

[BIXX]

Yeah...reactionaries who plan to murder scientists and could care less if they injure/kill working class people are just so fucking awesome. :rolleyes:


They aren't reactionaries though. Sure they're nihilist (super cool), and so they don't have the same opinions as you and all that jazz, but they are not reactionaries.

Btw why should we base everything around class? It can be helpful to get involved in class issues sometimes, but really they are uninteresting/not useful to (most) nihilists.

Also, scientists (to these people) are part of the enemy (I can't say I disagree with that assessment).

[BIXX]

*yawn* I used to think shit like this was interesting (even if I strongly disagreed with the group's loony toons politics) but now I'm just bored with it.

Their violence and bluster amounts to pissing in the ocean.

It's not like anything we do has any real effect anyway.

[John Nada]

I see "Mexico: First commun-". I think that maybe the Zapatistas are launching a new offensive, or the self-defense forces became revolutionary. I click and, nope, just some neo-Kaczynskiites. :(

[BIXX]

I see "Mexico: First commun-". I think that maybe the Zapatistas are launching a new offensive, or the self-defense forces became revolutionary. I click and, nope, just some neo-Kaczynskiites. :(


Except they explicitly aren't neo-Kaczynskiites.

[Creative Destruction]

what a bunch of reactionary bullshit.

[Creative Destruction]

Also, scientists (to these people) are part of the enemy (I can't say I disagree with that assessment).

good lord..

[Jimmie Higgins]

The communique is just a big troll, right? If not, it's as embarrassing to read as reading someone's melodramatic high school poem about someone they have a crush on.


:wub:

[Creative Destruction]

Except they explicitly aren't neo-Kaczynskiites.

yeah, they can say that dumb bullshit all they want but they're not any different than Kaczynski. just a bunch of reactionary shitheads who blame their carelessness on the people who they injured for life.

[Creative Destruction]

i'd go so far as to say, EchoShock, that if you sincerely believe the crap that is in the communique, then you should probably be restricted. there's little discernible difference between deep ecologists and fascists.

[BIXX]

i'd go so far as to say, EchoShock, that if you sincerely believe the crap that is in the communique, then you should probably be restricted.


If that is how the mods feel so be it. I don't agree with them 100% or course, but they are saying some shit that I think would make for good discussion.

Furthermore if you can't accept the realities of revolution etc... Which is that there will be collateral damage, then maybe you shouldn't advocate for revolution? (Not saying these people will lead to a revolution or whatever, as I don't even know/think that's possible for anyone to do)

[Creative Destruction]

If that is how the mods feel so be it. I don't agree with them 100% or course, but they are saying some shit that I think would make for good discussion.

Furthermore if you can't accept the realities of revolution etc... Which is that there will be collateral damage, then maybe you shouldn't advocate for revolution? (Not saying these people will lead to a revolution or whatever, as I don't even know/think that's possible for anyone to do)

useless violence and ecofascist whining about technology =/= revolution or anything approaching revolutionary. they, themselves, admit this in this communique.

[Art Vandelay]

They aren't reactionaries though. Sure they're nihilist (super cool), and so they don't have the same opinions as you and all that jazz, but they are not reactionaries.

They most certainly are reactionaries. I'm honestly confused as to why you are contesting this point. They literally fit the definition of reactionary to a tee.


Btw why should we base everything around class? It can be helpful to get involved in class issues sometimes, but really they are uninteresting/not useful to (most) nihilists.

Is this a serious question? Because 'the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.'


Also, scientists (to these people) are part of the enemy (I can't say I disagree with that assessment).

This is absolutely baffling and idiotic.


i'do so far as to say, EchoShock, that if you sincerely believe the crap that is in the communique, then you should probably be restricted

I could really care less if he/she is and don't call for people to be restricted, but that's exactly what I was thinking as well.

[John Nada]

They aren't reactionaries though."Wild REACTION"
since we do not consider ourselves revolutionaries
We defend our identity as “modern” humans clinging to our primitive past.
We cast our labels like “anti-civilization,” “primitivist,” “anarchist,” “anti-technology,” “luddite,” because RS is a unique tendency that does not need these tired and twisted labels for defining ourselves.
Except they explicitly aren't neo-Kaczynskiites.Let me guess, they're not primitivist, they're "individuals.":laugh:. Hey, there's the National Socialist Party and the Libertarian Party. Both socialist.:rolleyes:

[BIXX]

useless violence and ecofascist whining about technology =/= revolution or anything approaching revolutionary. they, themselves, admit this in this communique.


I said this too, but you ignored my point.

That (the collateral) is also the reality of revolution, so why oppose it here when you wouldn't oppose a revolution for the same deeds?

[John Nada]

Holy shit! We posted at the same time! :ohmy:

[Sasha]

Kazynski's manifesto actually has quite a lot of intresting bits, esp on the alienation of society through modern technology. It's more his praxis than his theory i diagree strongly on.

Obviously these people are a whole other kind of fish, vague insurectionary adventurism. Any one who call them selves terrorists in the modern context (as not in the French revolutionary sense) is either a cop oran idiot.

[Creative Destruction]

I said this too, but you ignored my point.

no, i pretty clearly pointed it out in my first post in this thread, you childish dumbass.


That (the collateral) is also the reality of revolution, so why oppose it here when you wouldn't oppose a revolution for the same deeds?

i'd be equally as critical of so-called revolutionaries who proclaimed to not give a shit at all about people they might end up killing in their immature outbursts of violence. being a sociopath is not a requirement for being a revolutionary. neither does revolution mean indiscriminate killing, especially indiscriminate killing of the working class. revolutions themselves don't even necessarily need to include violence. it's not a requirement as much as it is a probable event that would come about when resisting forces of reaction... like these "Wild Reaction" asswipes.

[BIXX]

They most certainly are reactionaries. I'm honestly confused as to why you are contesting this point. They literally fit the definition of reactionary to a tee.
Simply saying it doesn't make it true. Walk me through it.


Is this a serious question? Because 'the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.'
That isn't a justification as to why we should ally with a class but simply a statement about history, a statement that I'd disagree with.


This is absolutely baffling and idiotic.
Why? Science itself hurts queer folks, for example.


I could really care less if he/she is and don't call for people to be restricted, but that's exactly what I was thinking as well.


It's they/them pronouns (for future reference). Again if they decide to restrict me then whatever, that is their choice.


"Wild REACTION"
Just because something has the word "reaction" in it's name doesn't make it so... Reaction in this sense (if you didn't get it, the way reaction is used here is the same as say, your reaction to being hurt).


Let me guess, they're not primitivist, they're "individuals.":laugh:.
Well, it seems they are primarily nihilist, but I think they have primitivist elements but to me they seem to be anti-civ rather than primmos.


Hey, there's the National Socialist Party and the Libertarian Party. Both socialist.:rolleyes:


More really good examples of things not actually being what's in their name (though these examples are something pretending to be something they aren't. RS is proclaiming that they are a reaction to the destruction/oppression/etc around and inside them).


Kazynski's manifesto actually has quite a lot of intresting bits, esp on the alienation of society through modern technology. It's more his praxis than his theory i diagree strongly on.

Obviously these people are a whole other kind of fish, vague insurectionary adventurism. Any one who call them selves terrorists in the modern context (as not in the French revolutionary sense) is either a cop oran idiot.


Well, or they are saying what they are? I'm a little confused as to your meaning here, cause I think there are a good number of reasons to call yourself a terrorist if you are a terrorist.


no, i pretty clearly pointed it out in my first post in this thread, you childish dumbass.
Whoa dude. Maybe you're getting a little too buttfrustrated at an Internet forum?

Also, no, your first post was calling them reactionaries, it did not engage with a point that I made after that post (that violence will/has always been an aspect of revolution).

Again, of course they aren't revolutionaries, but as Alfredo M. Bonnano said... "Revolutionaries are pious folk. The revolution will not be a pious event." More or less, I take that to ask the question "why be a revolutionary?"


i'd be equally as critical of so-called revolutionaries who proclaimed to not give a shit at all about people they might end up killing in their immature outbursts of violence. being a sociopath is not a requirement for being a revolutionary. neither does revolution mean indiscriminate killing, especially indiscriminate killing of the working class. revolutions themselves don't even necessarily need to include violence. it's not a requirement as much as it is a probable event that would come about when resisting forces of reaction... like these "Wild Reaction" asswipes.

They claimed not to care but that would (rather obviously) be in regards to the struggle. The individuals themselves would care.

Also good luck with peaceful revolution, I mean first you'd need to even make it to the "revolution" part which isn't gonna happen anytime soon.

Also, yeah, I agree it's not impossible to have a revolution without violence, but the probability is near enough to 100% to act that it will happen. And in that violence that occurs, I can guarantee there will be collateral damage. The revolutionaries wouldn't care about the collateral from the standpoint of the revolution, but as individuals I'm sure thy will. And whether or not someone cares is kinda beside the point.

Also, once again, why ally with the working class just cause it's the working class?

[Rugged Collectivist]

So why should we, as communists, give a shit?

[BIXX]

So why should we, as communists, give a shit?


I'm not a communist, just thought it was interesting/cool/whatever so I posted it. I don't really think you need to give a shit and I don't know why you asked this question really?

[Rugged Collectivist]

I'm not a communist, just thought it was interesting/cool/whatever so I posted it. I don't really think you need to give a shit and I don't know why you asked this question really?

It was posted on "Revleft" so I assumed that you assumed it might be of interest to revolutionary leftists.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

No sorry Dirty Doxxer it's a bunch of reactionary horseshit. In fact, it is the most reactionary kind of ideology - at once ruthlessly primitivist, and callously nihilistic.


Why? Science itself hurts queer folks, for example.

Tell that to a gay person who is on HIV meds.


Simply saying it doesn't make it true. Walk me through it.What does a reactionary want? to return to a previous time they idolize. Why? Because a reactionary is alienated from contemporary society, but is unable to see a possible solution to their problems by passing through the logic, culture and material conditions of their society. Instead, they must look for a time in the past, before the things they hate about today emerged. Primitivism, at least in the form articulated by this group, is about as reactionary as you get in that they are a reaction to the whole tradition and body of human knowledge and civilization - the whole enterprise humanity has consciously or unconsciously been participating in for tens of thousands of years.

See, a communist looks at the factory and thinks "Look at all the laborers and their suffering. Their exploiters are at fault, and if they took the factory from their exploiters they could control their own destiny." These assholes look at the factory and think "Look at all the laborers and their suffering. Let's end it by blowing the factory up. It doesn't matter whether they're inside because NIHILISM. Damn I'm edgy."



More really good examples of things not actually being what's in their name (though these examples are something pretending to be something they aren't. RS is proclaiming that they are a reaction to the destruction/oppression/etc around and inside them).I see and their way of opposing destruction/oppression is to destroy/oppress innocent people and scientists.


They claimed not to care but that would (rather obviously) be in regards to the struggle. The individuals themselves would care.

Also good luck with peaceful revolution, I mean first you'd need to even make it to the "revolution" part which isn't gonna happen anytime soon.
There is a difference between the kind of violence necessary to preserve a revolution, and mindless murder.

Revolutionary movements do not knowingly kill innocent workers, scientists, or people who need to get money out of an ATM, at least not for the sake of some kind of propaganda of the deed. Revolutionary movements want to liberate people from these things, not just murder folks.




Also, I demand that Mexican political movements stop releasing "First communiques". It worked for the Zapatistas but now its just an annoying trend.

[Per Levy]

Informal Anti-civilization Group, Uncivilized Autonomous, Informal Circle of Antagonistic Individualists, Wild Indomitables, Terrorist Cells for the Direct Attack – Anti-civilization Fraction, Luddites against the Domestication of Wild Nature, Obsidian Point Circle of Attack

well i give them that at least, they are quite creative with their names.


And if for that reason, during an attack, some citizen is wounded or killed, we won’t care, we will be indifferent and indiscriminating. The population, the mass, the people, the community, the sheep, the society does not merit our consideration, neither warnings, nor calls to attention, nor anything at all, because they are all part of the system; let it be clear, if they cross our path they are going to regret it… and we already showed this in the past with ITS.

alex jones: SHEEP, SHEEPLE!

tbh, after reading through this all i think these people just get a kick out of burning, bombing and killing, since they are the wolves and super individuals(very special snowflakes) its ok if they kill some sheep here and there.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Honestly, is dirty doxxer's views based on anything but sheer aesthethics?

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Even if I can have sympathy for some of their views, these groups are just dumb. Not because they don't organize according to marxist/anarchist tradition but because in spite of avoiding that pitfall this is still nothing more than role play, only this roleplay hurts random people. These actions are not going to slow down tech growth, or turn back environmental collapse, its just going to contribute to the existing daily chaos that regular Mexicans already have to deal with.

Wingnuts are going to split off and hurt random people no matter what, but I don't feel like reading their communications let alone disseminating them on their behalf. Hopefully these idiots blow themselves up before accomplishing anything else.

[Zukunftsmusik]

That isn't a justification as to why we should ally with a class but simply a statement about history, a statement that I'd disagree with.


Also, once again, why ally with the working class just cause it's the working class?

9mm's (or whatever his name is now) point is that revolutionaries are people aware that the class struggle is happening and participate in it through intervening in struggle and writing theory. We don't just choose a class among other classes, we observe that a certain class through its struggle carries with it at the very least a seed to crush capitalism. As opposed to you these are verifiable observations, not just a choice of aesthethics (and a lot of us are part of the working class, and as such not simply "allies").


Also, yeah, I agree it's not impossible to have a revolution without violence, but the probability is near enough to 100% to act that it will happen. And in that violence that occurs, I can guarantee there will be collateral damage. The revolutionaries wouldn't care about the collateral from the standpoint of the revolution, but as individuals I'm sure thy will. And whether or not someone cares is kinda beside the point.

Sure. There's a huge step, though, to go from saying that violence is a viable and even necessary tactics, to arrive at a conclusion that any act of violence is either necessary or "just happens". As a part of our tactics, violence should be considered seriously and carefully.

[Art Vandelay]

Simply saying it doesn't make it true. Walk me through it

Do you understand what the word reactionary means? I'm not sure why I have to walk you through this (and SCM already did a pretty good job), but okay. A reactionary is a 'person whose political viewpoints favor a return to a previous state in society.' They fail to grasp that class struggle and the development of the forces of production are the motor forces of history (more on that later) and posit that the wheel can be turned back so to speak, to return to a past golden age of human development.

From the communiqué:


We defend our identity as “modern” humans clinging to our primitive past.
There are plenty examples from the piece they published that back this point up. I'm on my phone or else I'd quote more. If you can't see that, then I think you may need to give it another read.


That isn't a justification as to why we should ally with a class but simply a statement about history, a statement that I'd disagree with.

The point I was trying to make is that through understanding class struggle as the motor force of history (whics zukunftsmusik pointed out, is a verifiable observation), we see that there is only one class within capitalist society, which due to its collective relationship to the means of production, has the power to destroy itself as a socioeconomic class, thereby destroying all socioeconomic classes, the state and the capitalist mode of production with it.

As communists that is our goal and excuse me for saying, but its a goal worthy of our time, efforts and sacrifices; unlike the goal of our Mexican friends you are so fond of, who simply seek to cause as much mayhem and destruction as possible in a 'war' they openly admit they are going to lose. I don't even have a problem with insurecto groups or whatever, if you want to go around kneecapping and bombing politicians or businessmen then whatever, I'm not going to lose sleep over it. What I have a problem with is these fools who could care less if they murder innocent members of the working class.


Why? Science itself hurts queer folks, for example.

This is one of the most idiotic things I've ever heard. As SCM said, tell that to a lgbt folk with aids. Or tell that to folks who undergo sex changes and hormone treatment. Fuck, even tell that to a lgbt folk with cancer or some other disease that modern medicine has either been able to cure, treat, or prolonged the time period and quality of life that an individual can battle with it. If these folks ever got their wish it would result in the death of vast portions of the worlds population and to support such nonsense is indeed reactionary and idiotic.


Also, no, your first post was calling them reactionaries, it did not engage with a point that I made after that post (that violence will/has always been an aspect of revolution).


The point isn't to oppose violence on principle, the point is to oppose violence when it isn't used in congruence with proletarian class interests. For Marxists the end justifies the means, as long as there is something which justifies the end.

[Lily Briscoe]

Again, of course they aren't revolutionaries, but as Alfredo M. Bonnano said... "Revolutionaries are pious folk. The revolution will not be a pious event." More or less, I take that to ask the question "why be a revolutionary?"


That (the collateral) is also the reality of revolution, so why oppose it here when you wouldn't oppose a revolution for the same deeds?


Furthermore if you can't accept the realities of revolution etc... Which is that there will be collateral damage, then maybe you shouldn't advocate for revolution?

This is a really despicable phrase, "collateral damage". You sound like some bourgeois politician shrugging off the lives of people massacred in a military campaign. But yeah, being some kid in the United States jacking off over the prospect of people being murdered in another country totally demonstrates that you are a steeled revolutionary toughguy who has "accepted the realities of revolution" and is prepared to kill and be killed...

[Zoroaster]

Insurrection and all that can be a good prospect, but not when it's goals are reactionary and downright ignorant. Sorry, I'll pass.

[John Nada]

Re-reading their "communique", I think it's just some extortion gang putting up a front.Also
The Technoindustrial System and its unimpeded advance snatched from us the way of living free that our great-great-grandfathers enjoyedYeah, things were so much better for my great-great-grandfathers under the puppet dictator Porfirio Diaz.:rolleyes:

[BIXX]

I've accidentally copied over my replies to everyone twice now so I'm just gonna replay tonight when I have a computer.

[Thirsty Crow]

It's not like anything we do has any real effect anyway.
Bullshit.

Even the actions of deluded primitivists and self styled individualists can have quite real effects, unless terrorist activity is deemed as not having "real" effect (but then that would amount to dodging even the perception of the actions undertaken).

On the other hand, if "real" here amounts to "significant" or "large scale", then this only reveals the activity which is being debated as a pastime and perhaps a way to have some fun and a means "self fashioning", a way of building an identity.

Anyway, a bunch of horseshit. The moment these bored fucks lay their hands on working class communities and/or class militants all understanding should be out the window (the second part, under the rubric "II", actually testifies to verbalized goal of attacking people). And yeah I'm well aware in all likelihood this is role play and having fun. Problem is it's not funny.

[Decolonize The Left]

no, i pretty clearly pointed it out in my first post in this thread, you childish dumbass.



i'd be equally as critical of so-called revolutionaries who proclaimed to not give a shit at all about people they might end up killing in their immature outbursts of violence. being a sociopath is not a requirement for being a revolutionary. neither does revolution mean indiscriminate killing, especially indiscriminate killing of the working class. revolutions themselves don't even necessarily need to include violence. it's not a requirement as much as it is a probable event that would come about when resisting forces of reaction... like these "Wild Reaction" asswipes.

This is a verbal warning for flaming. Please conduct yourself with more respect and integrity, even in heated debates.

[Palmares]

i'd go so far as to say, EchoShock, that if you sincerely believe the crap that is in the communique, then you should probably be restricted. there's little discernible difference between deep ecologists and fascists.

Let's line up all the people who give a shit about the planet, and ban them fools! If this wasn't the internet, should send them to the gulags!

Feel free to restrict me, ban me, whatever. I don't care. It's just the stupid fucking internet. Seeing the dogmatic workerism in this thread reminds me why I have left this website in the past.

No doubt I'll get flamed now. :glare:

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Let's line up all the people who give a shit about the planet, and ban them fools! If this wasn't the internet, should send them to the gulags!

Feel free to restrict me, ban me, whatever. I don't care. It's just the stupid fucking internet. Seeing the dogmatic workerism in this thread reminds me why I have left this website in the past.

No doubt I'll get flamed now. :glare:

There's a difference between caring about the planet and killing people meaninglessly in the name of the planet.

[Thirsty Crow]

There's a difference between caring about the planet and killing people meaninglessly in the name of the planet.
It isn't even that the core idea behind adventurism like this is concern for the eco-sphere; far from it. It's a cop-out, an alibi. Nothing more.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

It isn't even that the core idea behind adventurism like this is concern for the eco-sphere; far from it. It's a cop-out, an alibi. Nothing more.

But let's say that's not the case - is "concern for the ecosphere" shown by "deep ecologists" (ugh), primmoes etc., in any way compatible with what is generally agreed to be the revolutionary socialist project? I don't think so. It is reactionary romanticism of the worst sort, and no one should be surprised to find it linked to the worst of reactionary thought, from racism and anti-science to homophobia and misogyny.

[BIXX]

Oh shit I forgot about this thread.

ETA: I have some shit to say regarding the anti-adventurism and what it in this thread. To me it seems that when people say that they normally mean that people are rebelling in ways that haven't been accepted by Leviathan, and thusly they don't like it. No matter what jargon they dress is up in, that's the way it appears to me.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

A quick thought (mostly @dirty doxxer). I've got nothing against adventurism or bombings, but the smug attitude toward "the sheep" is total garbage - a real throwback to Protestant notions of The Elect (which, frankly, I think weigh heavy on a lot of individualist thinking).
Which isn't to say I'm against a minoritarian politics either - because, again, I'm not. I just think starting from a place of "I'm so much smarter than everyone else" is the surest sign that in fact one isn't at all.
When this is taken to the extreme of total disregard for the well-being of others, it's a dead end.

For point of contrast, I recommend reading Ann Hansen's reflections on the injuries caused in the Litton bombing, or some of David Gilbert's comments on the reflections in the WUO after the townhouse explosion.

[BIXX]

I honestly agree with you TGDU. The "smarter than you" attitude rubs me the wrong way as well. I don't think the disregard for life itself is necessarily a problem, but the attitude that they are actually better I find strange.

[Creative Destruction]

This is a verbal warning for flaming. Please conduct yourself with more respect and integrity, even in heated debates.

it's interesting that i'm getting a "verbal" warning for flaming, yet this cretin is able to promote what amounts to a fascist ideology in the general forum and the staff doesn't do anything about that.

[Creative Destruction]

Let's line up all the people who give a shit about the planet, and ban them fools! If this wasn't the internet, should send them to the gulags!

that's not what i said. why don't you get a grip and actually look at what i wrote? people who care about the environment =/= ecofascists.

[Palmares]

that's not what i said. why don't you get a grip and actually look at what i wrote? people who care about the environment =/= ecofascists.

I know what you said. But then, who do you really mean by "deep ecologists"?In order to classify someone as an "eco-fascist", they would need to actually be a fascist. Indeed, some such people exist, unfortunately. But you know, it's just like how a Marxist can't help that Stalinists exist either. But my point is, you a lumping together everybody who could possibly be a so-called "deep ecologist" and calling them "eco-fascists" because you disagree with the views or actions some that may approximate such. But the fact is, many such people are infact anti-authoritarian, or anarchist/anarchic. You can't lump a diverse entity into one monolithic group

"Deep ecologists" who could more accurately be called "eco-fascists" would be those that believe in authority, being their own of course, such as DGR, who seem to mimic Maoist type strategy and organisation. But certainly much less effective, haha.

[Art Vandelay]

I know what you said. But then, who do you really mean by "deep ecologists"?In order to classify someone as an "eco-fascist", they would need to actually be a fascist. Indeed, some such people exist, unfortunately. But you know, it's just like how a Marxist can't help that Stalinists exist either. But my point is, you a lumping together everybody who could possibly be a so-called "deep ecologist" and calling them "eco-fascists" because you disagree with the views or actions some that may approximate such. But the fact is, many such people are infact anti-authoritarian, or anarchist/anarchic. You can't lump a diverse entity into one monolithic group

"Deep ecologists" who could more accurately be called "eco-fascists" would be those that believe in authority, being their own of course, such as DGR, who seem to mimic Maoist type strategy and organisation. But certainly much less effective, haha.

Did you read the op? I don't think that eco-fascist is a proper label in this case (the term fascist gets abused far too often), but the fact remains that the communique in the op, is some deeply reactionary shit.

[Palmares]

Did you read the op? I don't think that eco-fascist is a proper label in this case (the term fascist gets abused far too often), but the fact remains that the communique in the op, is some deeply reactionary shit.

OP? Goddamn internet slang, you down with OPP? But yes, I did read the original post.

And indeed, eco-fascist is not an accurate term to use in this case, or with deep ecologists in general. But certainly there are exceptions to the rule.

And reactionary? That's a word that gets thrown around too.

[Art Vandelay]

OP? Goddamn internet slang, you down with OPP? But yes, I did read the original post.

Well I'm kinda naughty by nature...so..yeah you know me.


And indeed, eco-fascist is not an accurate term to use in this case, or with deep ecologists in general. But certainly there are exceptions to the rule.

And reactionary? That's a word that gets thrown around too.

A reactionary is an individual whose political viewpoints advocate a return to a previous state of affairs. So yeah, they're pretty blatant reactionaries.

[Palmares]

In the twentieth century, proponents of socialism and communism used the term reactionary polemically to label their enemies, such as the White Armies, who fought in the Russian Civil War against the Bolsheviks after the October Revolution. In Marxist terminology, reactionary is a pejorative adjective denoting people whose ideas might appear to be socialist, but, in essence, contain elements of feudalism, capitalism, nationalism, fascism or other characteristics of the ruling class.

Well, I guess lots of things could have the word "reactionary" thrown at it (and is!), but if one was to abide by this definition, and similarly your's, perhaps it's an accurate word. Infact, I could see these unknown Mexican folk actually agreeing with your definition, in some limited way.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I know what you said. But then, who do you really mean by "deep ecologists"?In order to classify someone as an "eco-fascist", they would need to actually be a fascist. Indeed, some such people exist, unfortunately. But you know, it's just like how a Marxist can't help that Stalinists exist either. But my point is, you a lumping together everybody who could possibly be a so-called "deep ecologist" and calling them "eco-fascists" because you disagree with the views or actions some that may approximate such. But the fact is, many such people are infact anti-authoritarian, or anarchist/anarchic. You can't lump a diverse entity into one monolithic group

Yes, forcing people to abandon large-scale global industrial production, tying men to labour-intensive work in the countryside and women to dangerous and degrading reproductive and domestic labour - not to mention forcing everyone to abandon such "trifles" as sex reassignment surgery for transsexuals, condoms that allow for safe sex, safe surgical abortion on demand etc., all of this is the very definition of anti-authoritarianism.

[Palmares]

Yes, forcing people to abandon large-scale global industrial production, tying men to labour-intensive work in the countryside and women to dangerous and degrading reproductive and domestic labour - not to mention forcing everyone to abandon such "trifles" as sex reassignment surgery for transsexuals, condoms that allow for safe sex, safe surgical abortion on demand etc., all of this is the very definition of anti-authoritarianism.

Sounds like your "resource material" consists solely of Ted Kaczynski. :lol:

Again, confusing "eco-fascism" with a plethora of diverse anti-civ ideas.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Sounds like your "resource material" consists solely of Ted Kaczynski. :lol:

Again, confusing "eco-fascism" with a plethora of diverse anti-civ ideas.

So you're saying that a transwoman like me should support an ideology which would logically prevent me from getting hormone replacement therapy and the surgery if I wanted to (which I can't really decide if I do until I start hormone therapy). Really I don't think eco-fascism is a good term since primitivism is different from fascism on two major fronts. One, fascism seems like it'd be vastly preferable and would almost merit political support if primitivism was *literally* the only alternative (though of course it would never be since if fascism as a social formation exists then that obviously includes the existence of a proletariat which makes alternative and preferable social orders a real alternative). Second while fascism is a real threat in certain regions of the world and constitutes an actual political force, primitivism is almost as pathetic as third-worldism in terms of politics because at least the LLCO has the Bangla Zone. So while the first point would normally make me offended by your objectively transphobic position I'm not because your politics are literally the most unironically joke politics that exist on earth. Even the dark enlightenment is less unironically hilarious than you people. And no I don't care about your diverse anti-civ ideas because unless they involve the preservation of industrial civilization I can't get the surgeries I need and therefore they can all go fuck themselves.

And lets be honest here if you say I can't get HRT then you are a transphobe despite how you over up your rhetoric or whatever excuse you find borrowed from Cammette or Zerzan about how your iPhone 6 is oppressing you. Also before Tim comes in here, no I don't care that I spelled their names wrong, that was almost intentional. and even the Iranian government finds itself closer to the left side of the political spectrum than you since at least they will give me HRT.

[Zukunftsmusik]

*Camatte

[Palmares]

So you're saying that a transwoman like me should support an ideology which would logically prevent me from getting hormone replacement therapy and the surgery if I wanted to (which I can't really decide if I do until I start hormone therapy)

Not long ago I spent 5 weeks in hospital, had many surgeries, am now differently abled . So I am well aware of how the industrial medical establishment can benefit an individual. It doesn't take the trauma away though.

But I don't take a critique of industrial civilisation personally. Of course I appreciate it whilst it exists, but realise my privileged access to such things comes at a larger price for many. So I certainly wouldn't like things to change tomorrow, but I can understand if people do wish it so.

I'm human, I want the best for myself. But in our struggles against capital, against industrial civilisation, I don't want things to simply come down to me (I'm not an "Egoist Anarchist").

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Not long ago I spent 5 weeks in hospital, had many surgeries, am now differently abled . So I am well aware of how the industrial medical establishment can benefit an individual. It doesn't take the trauma away though.

But I don't take a critique of industrial civilisation personally. Of course I appreciate it whilst it exists, but realise my privileged access to such things comes at a larger price for many. So I certainly wouldn't like things to change tomorrow, but I can understand if people do wish it so.

I'm human, I want the best for myself. But in our struggles against capital, against industrial civilisation, I don't want things to simply come down to me (I'm not an "Egoist Anarchist").

So, it doesn't matter that transsexuals wouldn't have access to safe sex reassignment surgery, hormone therapy and so on. And I suppose it doesn't matter that women would have to abort with poisonous herbs and sharpened sticks either. Assuming you're the kind of primmo (and don't give me that "I'm not a primmo, I'm anti-civ", no one's buying it) who acknowledges the need for abortion, the rights of transsexuals, homosexuals and women etc., on paper.

The stupidest thing about this is, while socialism is necessarily a global system, the same can not be said of primitive hunter-gatherer societies. Literally, one band of hunter-gatherers does not need to worry about what's over the next hill. So, your primmo utopia? You can have it today. Just drive into the woods and burn your car so that the devil doesn't tempt you to go back. But doing so would probably take away your ability to whine about mean old industrial civilisation on the Internet.

[Palmares]

So, it doesn't matter that transsexuals wouldn't have access to safe sex reassignment surgery, hormone therapy and so on. And I suppose it doesn't matter that women would have to abort with poisonous herbs and sharpened sticks either. Assuming you're the kind of primmo (and don't give me that "I'm not a primmo, I'm anti-civ", no one's buying it) who acknowledges the need for abortion, the rights of transsexuals, homosexuals and women etc., on paper.

The stupidest thing about this is, while socialism is necessarily a global system, the same can not be said of primitive hunter-gatherer societies. Literally, one band of hunter-gatherers does not need to worry about what's over the next hill. So, your primmo utopia? You can have it today. Just drive into the woods and burn your car so that the devil doesn't tempt you to go back. But doing so would probably take away your ability to whine about mean old industrial civilisation on the Internet.

Fuck you.

Yes, you sit in your ivory tower and tell me what it's like to miss out on something. What the fuck do you think it's like to go through what I did, and still am, not being able to do what I used to do. Do you know what trauma is? But yet, I haven't just said, fuck the world, fuck nature, fuck people, etc. I realise we have to do this all together, and figure out how we do things as material conditions change. I'm not saying what people should or shouldn't do. We don't know the goddamn future. But it's possible given the climate chaos and peak everything we face, we may need to adjust from our ultra luxurious (in the West, generally-speaking) lifestyles.

Thanks for making my day...

[Invader Zim]

Fuck you.

Yes, you sit in your ivory tower and tell me what it's like to miss out on something. What the fuck do you think it's like to go through what I did, and still am, not being able to do what I used to do. Do you know what trauma is? But yet, I haven't just said, fuck the world, fuck nature, fuck people, etc. I realise we have to do this all together, and figure out how we do things as material conditions change. I'm not saying what people should or shouldn't do. We don't know the goddamn future. But it's possible given the climate chaos and peak everything we face, we may need to adjust from our ultra luxurious (in the West, generally-speaking) lifestyles.

Thanks for making my day...

Is there not a difference between arguing for a shift in how industrial civilisation operates, in order to make it both sustainable and equitable, rather than struggling against industrial civilisation, per say?

[Palmares]

Is there not a difference between arguing for a shift in how industrial civilisation operates, in order to make it both sustainable and equitable, rather than struggling against industrial civilisation, per say?

I think the point is, we can't objectively predict how things will materialise, but certainly the science out there gives us ideas about what is happening now, and what might happen.

So I'm not saying you're wrong, it's just, just like a diversity in tactics keeps our options open as opposed to dogmatic pacifism, and un-monopolises certain tactics, I think it's equally important and advantageous to keep our options open in a broader sense.

It's a non-ideological approach. It's not about who's right or wrong, it's about what works in a given context. Of course I have my own ideas, but I'm not saying "that's the way it is". It's just a critique, not an ideology. We shall see what happens.

I could be wrong, we all could be wrong.

Capitalism is a very adaptive virus...

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Fuck you.

Yes, you sit in your ivory tower and tell me what it's like to miss out on something. What the fuck do you think it's like to go through what I did, and still am, not being able to do what I used to do. Do you know what trauma is? But yet, I haven't just said, fuck the world, fuck nature, fuck people, etc. I realise we have to do this all together, and figure out how we do things as material conditions change. I'm not saying what people should or shouldn't do. We don't know the goddamn future. But it's possible given the climate chaos and peak everything we face, we may need to adjust from our ultra luxurious (in the West, generally-speaking) lifestyles.

Thanks for making my day...

Cool.

Unfortunately whatever sympathy I might have had for you, o anonymous person on the Internet, was lost when you responded to legitimate concerns about your primmo nonsense by suggesting that transsexuals who might want hormonal therapy and so on are egotists. Hey, women who want safe abortions are also egotists I guess? You never gave a satisfying, non-dismissive answer to how minority groups are supposed to fare in the primmo society you envision, and that is precisely why you primmies need to be banned from this site. It's not like this is a fluke, the same thing is obvious in writers from Jensen to Feral Faun, probably the most rape-y of the lot.

[Palmares]

Cool.

Unfortunately whatever sympathy I might have had for you, o anonymous person on the Internet, was lost when you responded to legitimate concerns about your primmo nonsense by suggesting that transsexuals who might want hormonal therapy and so on are egotists. Hey, women who want safe abortions are also egotists I guess? You never gave a satisfying, non-dismissive answer to how minority groups are supposed to fare in the primmo society you envision, and that is precisely why you primmies need to be banned from this site. It's not like this is a fluke, the same thing is obvious in writers from Jensen to Feral Faun, probably the most rape-y of the lot.

Thanks for not feeling sorry for me. That's really what I needed.

And stop putting words in my mouth.

We're all egoists on some level. That's how evolution works. I had my friend call an ambulance because I actually wanted to die. Well done Einstein.

You want me to talk about some so-called "primmo society"? Never did I ever mention such a thing. Like I just said to IZ, I don't know the future, so I can't predict it for you. But a dogmatic approach to how we deal with the material conditions we face, I don't think is adaptive enough for the innumerable possible outcomes that may come. You can pigeon hole me, pretend I'm a Jensen or Zerzan clone all you want, but then you will continually be missing the point of what I'm saying.

If you really think I'm this demon you paint me as, go ahead, suggest me to be banned. I guess I don't convert to the ideology of this site strictly enough. Too bad, I enjoyed it here sometimes during these 12 years.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

870 is incapable of having an honest discussion I would save yourself the trouble of replying anymore

[BIXX]

The thing I see here is that people are unwilling to see that we can be interested in a group and agree with them in a lot if fronts whilst disagreeing with them on others (the primitivist conception of history, for example, I find particularly bad, but also goals that we have a different) but then they become incapable of hearing any argument than the one they've already decided you have.

Non-primmo anti-civvers exist, 870.

Also, regarding all the arguments about transphobia and whatnot inherent in anti-civ thought, I disagree 100%. Bædan is an example of queer folks of all stripes being anti-civ, I. In fact, am as well.

What I'm trying to say is that perhaps you ought to learn about an idea before feeling so threatened by it that you start calling out queer folks for being queerphobic.

Idk, some thoughts. Will keep checking in.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Thanks for not feeling sorry for me. That's really what I needed.

And stop putting words in my mouth.

We're all egoists on some level. That's how evolution works.

No, it doesn't. And you're backtracking. When YABM asked you about hormone therapy, you gave a long-winded non-answer (apparently your specialty) that concluded with bizarre statements about how you're not an "egoist anarchist" (it's not as if anyone is). So you clearly imputed egotism to trans* people who object to anti-civ nonsense.


870 is incapable of having an honest discussion I would save yourself the trouble of replying anymore

Oh, and where have I been dishonest? I don't sugar-coat my disgust for people who think their romantic notion of "the planet" is more important than actual proletarians and members of minorities, but this, if anything, is something I am consistent at. I don't see the difference between opposing an anti-abortion freak who wants to restrict abortion because he thinks his god wants him to, and opposing a primmo who wants to make abortion painful and unsafe because he thinks that is "good" for "the planet".


Non-primmo anti-civvers exist, 870.

What you people can't seem to grasp is that, to the rest of us, this is like the difference between the Judean People's Front and the Judean Popular Front. Or more pertinently the difference between empirio-criticists and empirio-monists. It's the same guff even if Tweedle-Jensen thinks he's so different from Tweedle-Zerzan.


Also, regarding all the arguments about transphobia and whatnot inherent in anti-civ thought, I disagree 100%. Bædan is an example of queer folks of all stripes being anti-civ, I. In fact, am as well.

Big deal. There are literally gay Nazi groups. As well as religious groups of all types consisting of women. That doesn't change how Nazi, religious or primmo ideology is. If you want to prove "anti-civ" isn't queerphobic, perhaps you should address how actual queer people (and women and so on) would fare in a "re-wilded" or however-you-please-to-call-it society.

[Palmares]

Bædan is an example of queer folks of all stripes being anti-civ

Cool, never heard of that publication before. I'll have to check it out. Indeed, I've met alot of anti-civ queer folk too. Queer folk and anti-civ folk come in all forms, and sometimes they intersect.

[Art Vandelay]

perhaps you should address

I wouldn't hold your breath considering the fact that there is about two and a half pages of principled political criticism that went completely unaddressed.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

1. OK, totes for accessible sex-reassignment surgery and hormones for people who need/want them in the context of this society. Ima go out on a limb and say that there's probably nobody on this site (OI excluded) who disagrees (unless we've got some closeted second-wave TERFs who haven't been restricted/banned yet).

2. We still need to think about who actually has access to surgery, and hormones, as well as who wants them: as in we should ask "What is the historical/social/political context of trans* subjectivities?" and "In what ways is trans* embodiment specific to particular cultures/societies?" What I'm getting at here is that suggesting "primitive = transphobic" is deeply problematic: a variety of gender expressions is not only possible but historically present in a variety of "primitive" societies. That's not to say that there aren't transphobic "primitivists" - there undoubtedly are! - but that there's a certain eurocentric notion of the heart of queer politic that imagines contemporary trans* identities and "ways of being trans*" as unshaped by the violent colonial suppression of other non-binary gender expression.

3. These two realities aren't in opposition to one another - they're just complicating. Though this discussion concerns trans* identities in particular, we can posit similar problematics for a whole host of fields. To briefly delve into Marxist cliche, we should also consider the working class this way: as fundamentally shaped by capital accumulation (ie tremendous global violence) but also a site of fundamental contradiction. As a consequence, one imagines a society in which the working class as such ceases be a coherent subject, but precisely because its self-activity abolishes the conditions of itself-as-such. Similarly, a radical queer(1) praxis seeks, in my understanding, the destruction of the "straight" referent for queerness itself.

(1)Recognizing that many trans* people are not queer, nor do they have any investiture in a queer project.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

1. OK, totes for accessible sex-reassignment surgery and hormones for people who need/want them in the context of this society.

That's some RCPUSA-grade dodging right there. "Totes for accessible SRS and hormones in the context of this society", and in the context of another society... you don't spell it out but one can only guess.


2. We still need to think about who actually has access to surgery, and hormones, as well as who wants them: as in we should ask "What is the historical/social/political context of trans* subjectivities?" and "In what ways is trans* embodiment specific to particular cultures/societies?" What I'm getting at here is that suggesting "primitive = transphobic" is deeply problematic: a variety of gender expressions is not only possible but historically present in a variety of "primitive" societies.

All of which is irrelevant, as the point is that any trans* person who wants SRS or hormone therapy should have that option. Or are you going to stop them in the name of some romantic notion of a "wild" society?


That's not to say that there aren't transphobic "primitivists" - there undoubtedly are! - but that there's a certain eurocentric notion of the heart of queer politic that imagines contemporary trans* identities and "ways of being trans*" as unshaped by the violent colonial suppression of other non-binary gender expression.

The violent colonial suppression, of course, mainly targeting agricultural societies of the sort "anti-civ" people oppose if they have a shred of consistency.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

That's some RCPUSA-grade dodging right there. "Totes for accessible SRS and hormones in the context of this society", and in the context of another society... you don't spell it out but one can only guess.

Exactly - one can only guess, since, from our current vantage point, it's difficult to understand either a) gender or b) medicine in a future society. Looking at other existing and past societies, I think it's safe to say there are examples of neither/nor - that is, where neither gender as we understand it, nor medicine as we understand it existed, and that some of those societies were not transphobic, at least so far as the concept can be superimposed.


All of which is irrelevant, as the point is that any trans* person who wants SRS or hormone therapy should have that option. Or are you going to stop them in the name of some romantic notion of a "wild" society?

Actually, I don't expect to ever oppose SRS or hormone therapy in my lifetime. It would be a pretty big reversal from providing trans101 workshops to frontline sexual health service providers.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

They aren't reactionaries though. Sure they're nihilist (super cool), and so they don't have the same opinions as you and all that jazz, but they are not reactionaries.

Btw why should we base everything around class? It can be helpful to get involved in class issues sometimes, but really they are uninteresting/not useful to (most) nihilists.

Also, scientists (to these people) are part of the enemy (I can't say I disagree with that assessment).

You're a reactionary. If you believe terrorizing, destroying industrial society and civilization itself is a viable, realistic and potentially egalitarian alternative to civilized militant proletarian politics, then you're either an idiot or a dangerous fool.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

What do you mean by "civilized"

[Hagalaz]

The communique is just a big troll, right? If not, it's as embarrassing to read as reading someone's melodramatic high school poem about someone they have a crush on.


:wub:

Actually a lot of "revolutionaries" thrive on melodrama.

[BIXX]

I'm gonna defend the primmo stance (as I understand it) for a moment, even though I disagree with it.

Most primitivists that I've talked with see gender/sex as something that itself didn't exist until civilization existed, meaning that things like gender dysphoria would be incredibly unlikely, as we would not have associated certain actions/behaviors with a certain gender (in fact in "non-civilized" societies we see that everyone tended to have far more overlap in the production of food, which would seem to indicate that there was at the time less perceived difference between genders, if there even was a concept of gender). Therefore, they argue, things like SRS and hormone therapy would be unneeded.

More thoughts coming.

@OBL- I have learnt that every time I deal with the criticism leveled at anti-civ or nihilist or whatever ideas, people tend to ignore that and keep using the same criticism without engaging with my arguments. So I'd rather just keep posting thoughts I have on the subject as they pop into my head.

[Red Commissar]

I can understand arguments against civilization and technology, but I'm not sure if I could really root for a group who is proud of attacking scientists. Yeah, some scientific research can be into fields that are disagreeable, but to outright kill them and destroy their research seems pretty counter productive and will lead to ostracization.

I mean last thing I really expect while poking at my bacteria is a guy to shoot me in the head for being an enemy of the people.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Exactly - one can only guess, since, from our current vantage point, it's difficult to understand either a) gender or b) medicine in a future society. Looking at other existing and past societies, I think it's safe to say there are examples of neither/nor - that is, where neither gender as we understand it, nor medicine as we understand it existed, and that some of those societies were not transphobic, at least so far as the concept can be superimposed.

I don't think it is difficult to understand gender in a socialist society at all - there is nothing to understand, really. Gender as a performative social role is tied intimately to the reproduction of the proletariat as a class, and once this reproduction has stopped (as the proletariat has abolished itself), it will no longer exist, alongside families, orientations, "local communities" and whatnot.

Nonetheless there will be people who, for some reason or another, want to change their bodies. The socialist society - the society based on the social control and planning of large-scale, global industrial production - would enable them to do so. How would some fanciful return to the hunter-gatherer society do the same? It couldn't.


Actually, I don't expect to ever oppose SRS or hormone therapy in my lifetime. It would be a pretty big reversal from providing trans101 workshops to frontline sexual health service providers.

That doesn't tell us a lot, unfortunately, as a lot of people have the bad habit of mentally postponing the revolution until well after they're dead, which is something I never really understood. No one wants to fight for centuries of decaying capitalism.


Most primitivists that I've talked with see gender/sex as something that itself didn't exist until civilization existed, meaning that things like gender dysphoria would be incredibly unlikely, as we would not have associated certain actions/behaviors with a certain gender (in fact in "non-civilized" societies we see that everyone tended to have far more overlap in the production of food, which would seem to indicate that there was at the time less perceived difference between genders, if there even was a concept of gender). Therefore, they argue, things like SRS and hormone therapy would be unneeded.

And once again, the primmos proclaim themselves arbiters of what is needed and what is not, for all people, regardless of what those people themselves want. (Not to mention that you're viewing trans* people purely in terms of gender dysphoria, which fits the experience of some but not of all.) Such a thing is to be expected, perhaps, with an ideology that sees more value in salmon than proletarians, but for the rest of us this is merely another example of primmo wannabe-despotism. What, and women won't need abortions either? Do explain how it is with abortion, that should be entertaining.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

What do you mean by "civilized"

As far as I can tell from my investigations into history, "civilization" is a term to describe agricultural/class societies at a certain level of development that have required laws and a monopoly of force to enforce them. Until recent modern history, the laws of states were completely the laws of the exploiting classes. Laws and the threat of violence against any who violate the ruling social order, became a necessity at a certain point of development where people lived in increasingly complex economic/social arrangements which required cooperation for a reliable system of accumulation to function.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

No I mean where you say "civilized militant proletarian politics". The word civilized has a pretty specific connotation in politics and for radicals it generally means impotence.

[Magón]

Just so people who might not be familiar with Mexico, but groups like this Wild Reaction, pop up all the time. They send out a "communique", or whatever, and then kind of just disappear back into obscurity, never to resurface and eventually just disband, if they were ever an actual group to start with. One time in Durango, years back, there was someone sending out threatening "communiques" around Victoria de Durango (the capital of the state) and it turned out to be one guy, even though the communiques he sent, said there were a couple dozen or so members, and they were growing each day.

So basically these kinds of things, especially out of Mexico, shouldn't be cause for upset or excitement. They're just kind of funny, and fun to read now and again.

[BIXX]

Well wild reaction, if it is actually the continuation of individualists tending to the wild, actually has done some shit.

[Magón]

If they have or haven't, it's kind of a moot point, and are like any other group of their thinking, really. But having experience with groups like this out of Mexico, the only actual group to come about and make an actual effort, was the Zapatistas.

And also this...


since we do not consider ourselves revolutionaries, we do not want to form an “anti-technological movement” that encourages the “total overthrow of the system,” we do not see it as viable