Nuktuk wrote

A big part of all this nihilisty stuff to me is the idea of hopelessness as emancipatory, rather than a hinderance. Because positive projects appear to always go on to reproduce authoritative relations, I can instead dedicate my efforts to engaging directly with authority where I encounter it. Rather than waste my time begging others to go vegan or marching in protest in the streets, I can use what power I have left and steal directly for those who need food, or directly find ways to vandalise the belongings of those who use others. If One is looking for reassurance that collapse will end authority, I don’t think reading something like baedan can help someone. Leviathan can recouperate anything. As for dealing with the angst associated with this inevitability, actually getting my nails dirty is the closest to therapeutic I get.

As for technology I think what I do is use tech where it helps me to fight these structures is too valuable. And a critique of technology while incredibly useful shouldn’t deter you from finding ways to use technology full stop.

Also just wanna say I’ve always enjoyed reading your contributions, and I hope you still feel comfortable to make interesting posts like this one in the future.


Reply to comment by Nuktuk in Friday Free Talk by alex

Nuktuk wrote

I think the two most obvious issues with this are as follows:

  1. Framing "sustainable agriculture" as a solution runs us into a few problems. Solutions as a means of fighting issues is very Enlightenment in nature. Prescribing a particular alternative shuts out the possibility for other alternatives to prop up. To talk about how monoculture is an issue is very useful. It allows us to engage with the way the world around us functions, how our food is produced and how to combat the effects monoculture has. Talking of "sustainable agriculture" as a solution and not merely an avenue to experiment with prevents us from engaging with other means of acquiring food that maybe we haven't previously considered. Its very telling when OP states "I just wanted to clarify my position once and for all on the matter." OP has made up their mind on the matter.

  2. OP is reductive to the ecological reasons one might be so called "vegan" (ie. acts like abstaining from eating flesh or sabotaging slaughter houses). They made it clear they wouldn't get into the socio-economic/imperialist arguments but they fail to engage with the way the current or their proposed food system affects non-humans. So we have a solution which does little for those that live a nomadic/non-industrial life, nor those that are actually being farmed/living in these damaged ecosystems. Solutions only get in the way of the organic, rigorous, ever adapting means of living that challenge the world around us.

Apart from that I think this is mostly agreeable. I no longer refer to myself as a vegan for reasons relevant to a lot of the points raised by OP. Its nice to see more people criticising the vegan movement for its dogma and its Green Industry nonsense particularly.


Nuktuk wrote (edited )

I think presenting a lot of these ideas as binaries is kinda the problem. Different politics and institutions will present themselves often using these binaries, and frequently contradict one another.

Think of how a typical conservative/liberal/right-winger will espouse individualism as central to their politics, but then fail to engage with all the ways their politics is collective (governments, capital, racism, patriarchy etc all require the individual to be subordinate to a collective; themselves individuals subordinate to a greater cause).

To one anarchist (for instance) they might consider this right-wingers ideas to be what individualism is. To another anarchist, they might consider these exact same views to be collectivist, and that individualism describes the rejection of these ideas masquerading as individualism. Now when these two anarchists discuss individualism they are talking about completely different things. The first anarchist is talking about typical right wing ideology. The second anarchist is talking about the antithetical to such ideology. Rather than take the time to realise both parties are talking about different ideas (in this case, both called individualism), they reach an impasse and simply act as though the other has no idea what they are talking about.

There are plenty of instances of where the term individualist/ism can be useful in understanding or describing how certain ideas or institutions function. But to act like the world is solved, and all the words have concrete and objective meanings is an error. Words can be useful as fuck, but they are only tools for us to use, not the other way around.


Nuktuk wrote

Its also worth remembering that animal feed is also supplemented B12 to prevent deficiency in meat eaters. The entire industrial food machine is unable to produce significant levels of b12. As for how to properly re-integrate B12 into our diets, I don't know. Maybe simply growing food in our soil and not washing off all the dirt will do the trick but so little research has been done into this it is a hard problem to tackle.


Nuktuk wrote

Unlike the party, union or revolutionary federation, the affinity group is the organizational model of criminal, conspirator, street protestor, FAI saboteur and ELF midnight gardener alike, and this overlap makes it a natural choice for the basic unit of revolutionary action. In fact, it’s probably the most natural form of class resistance, in addition to being the type least conducive to co-optation, the democratic model quickest to act, the least likely to become bogged down in procedure and the most likely to create the kind of broad, sweeping destruction that a modern social revolution would require. All that’s lacking for “anti-organizational”/insurrectionist anarchists is a genuine recognition of the central role of white supremacy in America and a commitment to attack it. Where are the ELF attacks against environmental racism? The ELF is listed as public enemy number one by the FBI, and yet its existence goes largely unnoticed by poor communities of color because for them it is largely irrelevant. The burden is on the ELF to bridge that gap. The only paradigm within which most environmentalists are able to conceive people of color is the imperialist one. They have no critique of race within the American context. That is, the only space environmentalists have for them is as indigenous people struggling in far off places against forces largely beyond anyone’s (re: white people’s) control (at the extreme end, appropriate actions include boycotts or informative leafleting to help raise awareness for more concerted non-violent action). If you do not fit that definition, you may as well not exist for the environmental movement. Similarly, American insurrectionists cannot expect to simply transfer wholesale the writings and ideas of the great Italian insurrectionists without seriously considering the role that white supremacy plays in the maintenance of the American State. To do so is to create a fantasy world just as illusory as that of the environmentalists.

I haven't finished reading but this paragraph has stood out to me so far. Really speaks to the disconnect between vegans/environmentalist and poc that u/Galdra was talking about the other day. Hopefully more vegans will decide to develop a proper critique of whiteness in the future, rather than reinforce it like most currently do.


Nuktuk wrote (edited )

Don't tell me what to do.

As I understand it, anarcho primitivism isn't something you go. It is a critique of civilisation focused on its origins, usually the point agriculture was developed.

You can check out f/anarcho_primitivism for some resources other raddle users have found useful, or search the anarchist library using an anprim tag.

On the off chance you are being sincere, I would recommend you avoid demanding strangers explain something to you, and I would also recommend avoiding the word primmie as it tends to be used not in cases where people are looking for an actual discussion.


Nuktuk wrote

Does changing the date even do anything to disconnect from the holidays history? So long as we celebrate the nation in any form, we are celebrating the continued colonisation that it stands for. If they were to actually change the date, would it still be wrong to celebrate?