Ishkah OP wrote (edited )

I'm happy to stay up late to record something your morning time or whatever. Or we can just leave it as a text discussion.

If you don't mind using google just hit request editor role on this document or we can use Etherpad or some other document collaboration platform. I can't get disroot pad to run without it glitching though.

Also just a factual correction, I wrote that I had an intuitive feeling of disappointment that they didn't have enough evidence to conclusively connect anyone they arrested to a terror attack. I didn't say I was disappointed that they didn't have enough evidence to put them in prison for running a website, like I didn't mean I was disappointed they didn't have enough evidence to fraudulently connect anyone they arrested to a terror attack.

I felt that intuitive disappointment because I would like info on bus stop bombers to become publicly available so that they can be challenged by anarchists, just like I'm happy any time a fascist gets doxxed.

I understand the opposition to the consequentialist hypothetical I wrote after that though and I am sympathetic to it.


Ishkah OP wrote

Of the hour and a half, you discussed his philosophy for maybe five minutes.

Because that wasn't the purpose of the discussion. I tried organizing a recording delving into his ideas like that, but the guy stopped responding. If you'd like to record a voice discussion or work on a text discussion, I'd be delighted.

While you're here, why have you registered the subreddits and and posted techbro William Gillis's anti-primitivist screed there? In fact, why have you done this with nearly a hundred different subreddits?

Because I like the critique, I like spreadsheeting lists to de-stress and I thought it might be nice to try and foster lots of small communities based on specialized political interests, so I created at least 30 pro specialized anarchist philosophy spaces, 8 anti-civ critique spaces, and 10 anti-civ ideological name variations to host redirect links:


Ishkah OP wrote (edited )

I haven't been able to record a discussion with a supporter of his, but here are the planning notes for a discussion.

I've had a pleasant conversation with Zerzan that delved into his arguments for primitivism.

I've had a mock debate with someone playing devil's advocate for primitivist positions here.

I engaged with post-left ideas here.

Other ideas I've addressed in depth are for example anti-freeganism and I've debated a liberal on my defence for anarchist direct action.

Instead you copy and paste long lists of texts that you clearly haven't read and dismiss them with the word 'purist'

I cataloged lots of highlights from essays arguing for ideologues at various levels of nicheness and highlights from their critiques. The highlighted critiques and the advertisement to do your own further reading into them were the main arguments for whether you should dismiss the arguments for the ideology or not. I acknowledged the purist pipeline was a distinct phenomenon and not a perfect defeater to all the ideologies listed.

and by telling an anecdote about the time Ted was dropped on his head as a baby or something.

Never done anything like that, you must be confusing this for me simply researching the way in which he related to his attacks on technology at the time as primarily a personal passion project.


Ishkah OP wrote (edited )

Just helping out or starting a food not bombs chapter would be nice, with conversations and leaflets, encouraging people to boycott animal agriculture and Israeli occupation.

As well, I'd like to help build the political squatting movement, that houses people and shifts the Overton window at the very least towards the council selling empty homes to charities to house and train up homeless people like Take Back the Land and Latch (Leeds Action to Create Homes).


Ishkah OP wrote

All of them bar 1 or 2. I just set out with a simple goal and built them up till I was happy with them. 1 of them the computer programmer pulled out, but I'm still happy with what we've produced, that we can easily restart it up and expect to be able to finish it one day. Many of them are obviously active projects, with mechanisms for people to add data, so they're constantly being updated.


Ishkah OP wrote

Yeah it's the motivation for researching his life. Some formerly anarchist people buy into his ideas out of a desire to view the world in a more rigidly simplistic way and leave broader campaigns behind which is often both a detriment to their own quality of life and others. As well I think there are comparative elements to the way some people go from valuing many anarchist campaigns to mostly just illegalism, propaganda of the deed and communiques.

As a professor at Berkeley during the height of the Vietnam war protests Kaczynski would have been very aware of militant campaigns. He romanticized the anti-hero in Joseph Conrad's novel The Secret Agent. And he was angry at being a product of kind of conservative by todays standards emotionally repressed parents. And so he chose a kind of militant purism.

I'm also interested in the phenomenon of how and why the children of defeated fascist countries grew up to have the most active rebel urban guerrilla movements. The obvious simple answer is anger at their parents generation, but how that played out in each of their lived experiences is interesting to study.

Finally, we all walk around with naive assumptions that people we know well could never be acting in evil ways, if we're ever forced to come face to face with the fact that they are, we have this realisation of the ways we were blind to being able to help people, and so the way the average person is causing harm that we never even thought about.


Ishkah OP wrote (edited )

They don't need to be milked bc one the milk comes out even if u don't milk the and the fucking caves drink it dipshit.

Metabolic pressure from high milk yield is found to be a causative factor in Mastitis, Lameness, Metritis and other reproductive disorders. One recommended solution is to select and feed for lower yield.

Cows haven't gotten any bigger and yet we've selected for massive udders and massive milk yields. I couldn't parse if you thought cow milk would just spring forth from the udder even if there was no-one there to pull on the teat, cow or human, but if so, no that doesn't happen. And even if you thought calves could happily drink all this extra high yield milk despite not being bred to need it, what if all the calves died or not enough calves survived to feed from multiple cows, what then? I think humans can play a positive healthcare role in the same way First Nations people used to go out and mercy kill injured bears despite risk to themselves, we can rehabilitate and release wild animals, and we can look after domesticated animals health care needs because we were the ones that gave them these deformities.

Fucking snowflakes who can't accept reality I swear.

If you shot a bison with a magic domesticating and infantilising dart out in the wild, and made it easier prey for predators, I think the character virtuous decision would be to protect them from predators and attend to their healthcare needs.

Further reading:



Ishkah OP wrote

The above is how I'd like to see them go out because of the way we bred cows to have painfully large udders they're more likely to get mastitis infection and die, so sometimes milking will be necessary.

I just dislike that we bred infantile traits into them to make them easier to herd, and accidently easier to be attacked and killed by predators. So we can't even let them roam far in fully wild habitat with wolves around without having to train dogs to save most of them with big spikes round their neck, so some calves, wolves and dogs would still be getting killed for dumb reasons.

When instead you could just give them birth control at the end, let them get old like you said, then with the less land area it takes to grow veggies, you can give more land back to wild habitat for animals with close common wild ancestors to come back like byson that can actually fully enjoy wild habitat with all the physical capabilities we bred out of them.

But I think even if we realised a vegan world there would be some foolish groups of people funding to keep enough domesticated animals to fill a few semi-wild safaris in every country and enough to allow for a healthy breeding stock like zoos and safaris today. And there won't be enough political will to outlaw this.

Short Term

Farmers will breed less animals as it becomes less profitable, less animals will exist.

Long Term

Towards the very end there will be a burden put on animal sanctuaries to take in lots of animals and for governments to write laws to say the farmer has to turn their farm into a sanctuary to save the few remaining animals, like how there is a burden put on rescuers today with some battery farmed chickens allowed to be rescued after their egg laying numbers drop, while others get killed for pet food, to save the farmer the bother of transporting them to slaughter and sometimes not cutting even.

Forever Outcome

What should happen ideally: They should be allowed to go extinct to make room for wild animals with the closest common ancestors to be able to express their non-deformed physical capabilities and choose their own social relationships.


Ishkah OP wrote (edited )

In your comment it seems like you’re alluding that FnB Houston fits your definition of vegan, and I would disagree.

Telling a person they're not vegan because of a grey area ethical issue like whether farmed animals can have an opinion on ways they'd like their body to be treated after they're dead that affects their quality of life in the present (which they can't) would I think be unproductive. The core ethical issue is buying animal products and funding it to perpetuate the cycle of breeding and buying to infinity and beyond. Beyond that I'm delighted when people take up activism, I just think we need to preserve this historically accurate term for it's utility in being a base to find activists among.

There is an important psychological shift in denouncing animal products and becoming vegan that freeganism doesn’t usually give way for.

I found the opposite, I went vegan at 15, then my life really opened up at 19 on collecting food to feed an army at a land squat to try to challenge an open cast coal mine planning application. In fact it opens up avenues to be useful in explicitly animal rights advocating settings like a food not bombs protest.

Here’s a bunch of topics that come up on on a lot of food not bombs stalls which make it a positive form of animal rights advocacy:

  • We cooked vegan soup, so no profits needed to go to an industry which breeds and kills animals.
  • Here’s some freegan bread with milk powder in it which was rescued, so no harm to animals and it’s carbon negative.
  • Isn’t it amazing they kept those cows captive and milked them only for it to go in the trash. So that’s one sign farming animals isn’t necessary to feed the population, if so very much meat, milk and eggs end up rotting in supermarket skips instead.
  • Isn’t it sad that politicians subsidize such an energy intensive product like meat to just become food waste, while people are starving around the world.

As well, therapists empty bags full of cigarettes into the centre of group therapy circle, to show them the abundance, so that that stress about scarcity is dulled. if someone is really into cheese because cheese has monosodium glutamate crystals, which is like opium, and yet they wanted to become vegan, and they have no aversion to eating rescued cheese, then it could be a helping hand in encouraging them to stay strong in their decision to go vegan, by just slowly tapering it off. I know I was completely stripped of the value of baked goods, like croissants and doughnuts when they existed as this mountain in the kitchen of a squat I lived in. Knowing it was this sugar crash I could have whenever I wanted, I stopped seeing it as such a hot option. Like some people on diets have a set time where they can eat one treat a day that they can look forward to, whereas before they would eat sweets whenever they wanted.

I understand the basic intuition among anti-freegan vegans that you wouldn’t like to be gaining sustenance or pleasure from a domesticated animals remains where you would have liked to consider that animal a kind of citizen of your community who you would like to give funerary rights to. But, I think it’s more respectful to think of them like their wild ancestors, where it would be normal for other animals to eat them after they’re dead.

Any legal rights we fight to afford domesticated animals should be shaped by a long-term vision of letting them go extinct in habitat where they can best express their capabilities, choose their social relationships and are protected from predators because we were the cause of their hereditary deformities that make them more vulnerable to predators.

To this end, if a person desired to eat rescued non-human animal flesh and it was healthy for them to do so, then it would be a positive character virtue on their part to do so because if it had gotten eaten by less intelligent animals like maggots which can survive on any food like rotting vegetables or even just composted, then:

  1. It would be much less dignity than you could show the animal by putting that energy to use in the value of the happy flourishing you could achieve yourself and in how you would be setting an example for others. And…
  2. It would be treating the animals’ final remains more similar to the way the animals’ wild ancestors would have been treated after death. So, with more dignity than the way we bred infantile traits into them and with more dignity than the toxic relationship we would be perpetuating by anthropomorphically infantilising them as infant humans who could have grown up to be people who could suffer a worse quality of life worrying about how other people might intend to treat their body after their death.

Ishkah OP wrote (edited )

Fair enough. And coolio will have to look around more, I liked the top comment on that linked thread.

I would really push back against the hot take though, it would just be incredibly counter productive having people be shy about whether they can identify as vegan or not just because they haven't yet done activism. It would reduce our ability to find people who may go onto being dedicated enough to organize to make changes to our communities and institutions. And plant based doesn't cut it because you can be plant-based for simply health reasons.


Ishkah OP wrote

Close, but I'd say if you ever use 'animals as commercial products' you're not vegan, to include activists doing great work such as Food not Bombs Houston:

We, participants in Food Not Bombs Houston (FNBH), agree;

to use sharing of free food, exchange of information, and dialogue as a means of promoting social justice, cultural exchange, horizontal organizing, and mutual aid ...

to bring only vegan (containing no animal products) or ovo-lacto freegan (may contain dairy or egg, but obtained for free) food that is safe for consumption, and to indicate any non-vegan ingredients ...

not to sell food or otherwise profit from any kind of donations given to FNBH


Ishkah OP wrote

Them buying into another ideology with almost opposite prescriptions to the first big exciting break in Desert just because it feels like a new exciting direction showed it was likely never about the actual ideology. And then it was confirmed later by them saying that they mostly agree with who they have chosen as targets, and shaping all their future writing by the eco-extremist ideological structure and worldview.

This is where imagining yourself post-ideological gets you, unable to see an irrational ideological infatuation when it's hitting you over the head. See Zizek's critique of Chomsky for another example.


Ishkah OP wrote (edited )

Just as if it's a bad thing to desire to exist in a world in which there's one less person likely to plant a pipe bomb at a bus stop.

Ideally I wish we had systems in place for them to easily find peace and make reparations. But, if we're talking about what I'd rather between two likely options out of my control then I would absolutely desire that they went to prison over them killing some innocent people on the sidewalk. It's the easiest possible trolley problem.


Ishkah OP wrote (edited )

You're asserting that simply by using the word pipeline that I'm making an absolutist factual claim, that if a person reads x thing they are on their way to becoming y thing, always and definitively, when nowhere in the text did I write that.

I'm using the term pipeline in the sense that there is a clearly observable psychological crossover among some people from these niche ideologies who move down them in a pursuit of viewing the world in more fundamentalist terms, attempt to move others along in the same direction as them, and that it's more common the further down you go.

Obviously someone can travel all the way down to the level of a satanist death cultist and only have been able to encourage one of their former friends to move down one level, thus spitting them out at only one level lower, but it's still a concerning phenomenon, both for the few who end up at the really low levels, as the many who just take on a more purist gatekeeping form of anarchism.

But, yeah Individualists Tending to the Wild Mexico are an example of a group of people who started out at one end of the pipeline and moved all the way to the other end, whose members were originally part of the green & insurrectionary anarchist milieus who likely grew up on earth first monkey-wrenching manuals from the 80s.

Upon reading the Unabomber’s manifesto they started on a long road from committing arsons aimed at sabotaging evil companies and instead started to desire to have the wider effect of terrorizing people through fear of injury or death out of a simple hatred for people:

… in 2011 the (newly formed) ITS was testing various modus operandi (from known and attempted arson attacks on cars and construction machinery, companies and institutions in Coahuila, Guanajuato, and Veracruz State of Mexico, until we decided to focus on terrorism and not sabotage)

- Communiques of ITS

Here are old members of the FAI / CCF in Mexico acknowledging former collaboration and ideological crossover:

Exactly 5 years and seven months ago we signed a “joint statement” at the request of a comrade for whom we feel great affection and respect. That text was entitled “2nd Joint Statement of the Anarchist Insurrectional and Eco-Anarchist Groups”. …

Back then, we let it be known publicly and energetically that:

“With these ITS partners, we can have theoretical differences and discuss them (always arguing fraternally in a constant attempt to update ideas and by building a unitary criticism attuned to the reality of the anarchist struggle), but we have never disagreed with the methods used, understanding anti-authoritarian violence and propaganda for the facts as they are : valid practices consistent with our ethical principles.”

Although ITS were one of the few clusters with which we did not directly coordinate when undertaking joint actions, we were in solidarity with them, in the same way that some of the comrades that made up our affinity groups obtained monetary resources for them to solve specific difficulties when requested. That has been (and is) the basis of practical co-ordination between the new anarchic insurrectionalism and eco-anarchism.

- ITS, or the rhetoric of decay

Here’s them expressing solidarity with anarchist prisoners:

Total support with the Anti-civilization prisoners in Mexico, with the Chilean comrades and with the furious Italians and Swiss. ...

One more time: Direct and total support with the anti-civilization prisoners of Mexico, with those eco-anarchists of Switzerland, to the affinities in Argentina, Spain, Italy, Chile and Russia.

- Communiques of ITS

And here is an answer members of ITS gave in an text interview in 2014 showing they were leftists and not simply post-left-&-right:

Individualists tending towards the wild formed at the beginning of 2011, and was motivated by the reasoning acquired during a slow process of getting to know, questioning, and the rejection of all that encompasses leftism and the civilized, and accordingly, employing all the above, we deemed it necessary to carry out the direct attack against the Technoindustrial System. We think that the struggle against this is not only a stance of wanting to abandon Civilization, regressing to Nature, or in refuting the system’s values, without also attacking it.

- Interview with Individualists Tending toward the Wild

Finally, here's a purist anarchist explaining the feeling of moving down the levels:

Just finished reading Atassa. Has anyone else had a chance to read it? I thought it was extremely fascinating, especially the essay "Apostles and Heretics". Even though there are obvious similarities between ITS and EE and other nihlists like Conspiracies of Cells of Fire, something about EE and Atassa just feels like such a drastic shift in the discourse and reminds me of the importance with which individuals read and shared Desert.