Critique of The Suffocating Void

There's frankly not a lot to respond to. Most of the points raised are followed by something along the lines of "Tucker probably agrees with this".
But a few things stand out;
1) The author seems to think that I'm a proponent of Progress. I've addressed Progress as a religiously upheld narrative for social change, not the axiom. It's the justification, not the action nor the actor. Imperatives do matter.
2) The moralism stuff is nothing new, but I don't think they've shown in any way that I've made moralistic claims. But as I've said before, if being pro-wildness makes me a moralist, then I don't give a fuck. Seriously. If what's standing between me having a stance on civilization that can be acted upon or not is fear of a boogeyman term, then I'll gladly cut my losses and wear that hat. No skin off my back.
3) Humans have not changed, we are mentally and physically still hunter-gatherers. I am not afraid of talking about human nature and I think the evidence is in the functioning of the domestication process in every single application of it. That's one of the central points behind The Suffocating Void and pretty much everything I've ever written. If you believe that the fundamental terminology I use is oppressive, then that's a non-starter, but it doesn't frighten me to use it. If you believe a biological argument is invalid, then there's not much more to say about it.
4) The author seems to imply that my solution to the social media problem is to simply shut off your facebook page which is completely disingenuous. It has, however, proven to be a difficult point and if it makes me look "less radical" to have addressed the fact that even radicals are stuck within that void with little hope of re-engaging elsewhere. But there is a central point here, facebook might seem like an obvious target, but the idea that there is a singular platform that almost a quarter of the entire world's population is using at least once per month and that number is swelling, that's historically unique and significantly telling. Even more so when directly calling it out results in few actually taking the turn. There's an implicit notion here that by having a critique that we are exempt from the consequences of using technologies or systems or what-have-you and that's simply not true.
5) The idea that I'm some kind of back-to-the-land hippy for pushing rewilding is a thorn in my side. It absolutely misses the point. My push on rewilding isn't about upholding reifications of nature, but immersion within into/beyond it. That is the exact opposite of reification. This is a point that can't be won through philosophical debate or historical/anthropological/ecological argumentation. This is a barrier that can be broken down. And the flipside of it includes knowledge of subsistence base and the impact of your actions. Any radical theory that does not address the elephant of the room that is assuming agriculture and civilization will magically carry on is simply a safety net to disregard the calamity that they incur, but its not indefinite. Infinite usage of finite resources tips Tainter's "point of diminishing return" every time. Collapse isn't a religious platform, it's math.
But regardless of that, I advocate primal war, which is a refusal and resistance to domestication. Rewilding is half the battle, but the other side, pure resistance is the one that I have withstood continued repression over. My discussion there is far more nuanced and I don't feel like getting locked up for posturing when the finer aspects of it can be put out there. I am intentionally more nebulous on the matter and tight lipped about it, because it requires a more intelligent approach if I plan to continue putting the word out. Unlike Jensen, I'm not an author selling books. I genuinely want to see a world where the grid is a rusting remains. And I'm not going to sell some happy-go-lucky Revolutionary jargon and 3 Stage Plans on installment plans. If there's questions about that, just look at the contents of Species Traitor 4! If RS had read that instead of ISAIF then they might have taken out part of the grid in Mexico already.

KT, I replied to most of that blog post over there, but here I wanted to ask you about this:

"If there's questions about that, just look at the contents of Species Traitor 4! If RS had read that instead of ISAIF then they might have taken out part of the grid in Mexico already."

Could you expand your thoughts concerning that last sentence? What do you think is missing from RS's perspective.

Also, I think I need to make it a long term project to translate some of your essays into Spanish. It might be super-awkward, as it isn't really my first language in terms of writing, but I can give it the old college try and maybe have a collaborator or two who can clean up my Spanish prose. If you want to suggest anything you would like translated first, let me know. Be advised that I place emphasis on "long-term" as I can't promise anything in the near future. Hopefully someone else more competent steps in to do this.

You're almost certainly right. So many anarchists seem to think that Ted wants more people to do what he did, but he's really a lot more interested in the formation of an above-ground, legal revolutionary group. In fact, he views what he did as effective only as far as his specific goals go (get ISAIF in front of an enormous audience and immortalize it). As David Skrbina says in a podcast embedded here (www.thewildernist.org/2015/03/skrbina-question-technological-slavery-campbell-lipkin/), he kind of sees himself as a special case (and regardless of what you think about that, the takeaway is that emulating him is not the best use of your energies).