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.
"There is no light at the end of the Carpal Tunnel." - Bob Black
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.
I think your response over there was solid, but I'm not following up. It immediately felt like I'd be jumping in the middle of a conversation and I don't feel like playing catch up. The author seems to be wanting to throw a lot of "well hunter-gatherers burned, so..." out without context or want to go to blows on the subject.
Not sure if you've seen ST 4, but there's some pretty gritty stuff in there about the vulnerabilities of the grid (trains, bottlenecks, carbon fiber, etc) which is nestled against my essay on Ted which asks out loud if targeting individuals could ever be as fruitful as targeting infrastructure. I think you can guess which side it ends up on. I'm not shedding a tear for domesticators. As far as the ALF/ELF style bombings, I have no comment. Property is property. I'd love to see it all gone. From my own perspective, terrorism is useful insofar as it is revolutionary in nature. If you believe that you can make a position of power/wealth feel susceptible to reprise enough to make individuals fear it, that's a revolutionary goal even if that's not the intent. I guess that's the egoist opt out though, "destroy what is ugly". So they're side stepping a longer scope, which I won't fault them for doing, but if you want to talk about effectiveness its a different story.
I'd love if you want to get behind some translations. I know there are a TON out there, but the international GA scene got even more rotted out than the US in terms of the global green scare. The Terra Selvaggio folks in Italy were hit particularly hard. I'm not sure how many of those writings are still floating around, but I think at last count my writings were translated in the 10-12 language range. It was a running joke that I'd have my first book come out in another language that I couldn't read, sure enough I think the first was out in Serbia.
"There is no light at the end of the Carpal Tunnel." - Bob Black
my essay on Ted which asks out loud if targeting individuals could ever be as fruitful as targeting infrastructure. I think you can guess which side it ends up on.
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).
" but if you want to talk about effectiveness its a different story"
I think that RS at this point is philosophically opposed to the idea of "effectiveness", in that they are pessimistic that any particular set of actions can topple the system. At most, they seek to destabilize it. And I have seen stuff from around their circles about sabotaging infrastructure, and I think even non-anti-civ anarchists regularly do things like that. I guess, if I were to think in their place for a second, the idea that action can end civilization is akin to the old Eugene Debbs (I believe it was him) quip which states that if Moses can lead people into the Promised Land, he can lead them out of it. Or if humans did have the ability to topple civilization, it would stand to reason that they have the power to reform it. The point is there is no agency, at least none that matters from a strategic viewpoint anyway. That's at least what I get out of my reading of them. It's a mixture of destabilizing mixed with old fashioned "anti-social" behavior and vengeance. I also probably don't need to state here that doing these sorts of actions in Mexico has all sorts of pros and cons: the pro being that the state is barely competent that if you play your cards right you probably won't get caught (as their recent alleged placing of bombs at a university and Ford dealership seem to indicate). The con of course is that if you get caught, there are no solidarity campaigns, at least not really effective ones. There's a good possibility that you just disappear. I think the fact that RS has slipped through the cracks so far probably just indicates how weak the Mexican state really is.
Incendiary attack against the Telmex Cellphone Tower
April 17th, 2015
The “Until Your Death or Mine” Faction lit a cellphone tower on fire on the Mexico-Toluca Highway around the area of Atizapán, in the State of México. We tore through the barbed wire fence and the gate that “protected” the antenna, and we put an incendiary device with a homemade timer on the electric cables. From afar we observed that the object caught fire and lit up the night, and the fire spread to the antenna, burning it and vandalizing that property of the accursed company Telmex.
The antenna was made inoperable, and in this manner we proceed with our series of actions as previously stated: all that is and symbolizes civilization, progress, technology, artificiality, and science will be attacked using any means necessary.
Wild nature claims its own: the hill cut open by that highway, the trees cut down for the construction of those high tension and communications antennas, the human and non-human animals pushed to abandon their habitats for the sake of the pestilent spread of civilization. All that progress has not respected and does not respect cries out for vengeance. Our ancestors have possessed our minds, now the flame of war belongs to us. Resistance to all that is other!