Terror_Incognita wrote

So you are the expert on logical thinking when it comes to other individuals and their ideas on enjoyment eh?

Individuals are capable of enjoying activities without requiring or even being aware of the politicized nature of such activities. Lettuce, have you ever set something on fire and watched it crumble? Or stolen food and gotten away with it? These individual acts stir up emotions that relate to the individual engaging with them. They don't need to have an end in of themselves or be a "goal" in order to be pleasurable.

It is strange that despite seeming to defend individualist anarchy, you dismiss the individual agency in determining what is enjoyment and what is not...Perhaps you don't enjoy these activities due to your assumption that they are exclusively leftist or collectivist objectives lol. And in a desperate attempt to distance yourself from leftism you deprive yourself of engaging with any activity you have ideologically surrendered to the concept of leftism.


Terror_Incognita wrote

"Bc the reason one enjoys attacking the state is due to a larger social goal."

So did you go around and ask everyone, and get a general consensus on this? Or are you just assuming a representative role and making a universal assumption as to everyones (uniform) motive for why they attack? And surely there are individualist anarchists who attack people (and maybe even random) as well.

Why do you just assume everyone acts in accordance to your singular perception of individualist anarchy? It is silly for you to assume you know the basis for everyones personal enjoyment. Some god-complex shit goin' on lol.


Terror_Incognita wrote

Hi everyone. Yup, im new in these parts.

I really enjoyed this. Similar to everything else I have read by Ziq, the critique of leftism is strong and bold - the way it should be since too many anarchists continue to tip-toe around leftists in the first place. Liberalism has seeped into what used to be (un)safe spaces, turning danger to safety, sterilizing anti-oppression with coerced morality and so on. All in the name of "community" and "equality" when the concept of both lay the very foundation for civilizing domestication in the first place.

I also enjoy this piece because Ziq takes on a position that refuses the same pathetic tendency for anti-civ nihilists, individualists to go on the defensive whenever leftists try to get physical. And part of the reason for that is because leftists make up the majority of those who host anarchist bookfairs and events to begin with. And so in order to circulate 'our' ideas, we have to water-down our behavior in order to secure a table. I wonder how anarchy would play out when "safe spaces" are transformed into spaces of acknowledged confrontational potential. Ideas on anarchy become just as domesticated as the lefts when leftists are allowed to materially strong-arm their worldview onto individualists and nihilists.

As Ziq beautifully illustrates in this text, anti-civ anarchy really is controversial. Not because it is "anti-civ" but because it is anarchy fully realized and taken to its logical conclusion. Anything less than anti-civ is nothing more than a communal re-arrangement of social order. But without morality and all other socially constructed "spooks" there is no "order" to re-arrange.

ITS or Wild Reaction, despite my or anyone elses critiques or opinions, is a living breathing example of ungovernables who mock any and all leftist attempts to subdue them with words, academic texts or guilt-tripping morality. These groups and individuals have demonstrated the ability to carry out attacks, evade State capture and flourish without the authoritative permission of "The Movement" or "Left Unity" etc. It behooves anarchists (and leftists) to acknowledge the reality of permanent (violent) conflict before and after civilized collapse. ITS and RW won't vanish or whither away due to any influence other than their own desire. Conversations and debates about these particular groups or individuals only serve to expose the desperation of supposed anti-authoritarians, to control and suppress those considered "undesirable" - the same way the State continues to have formal meetings on how to undermine and neutralize the radical left.

Anti-civ anarchy allows for the least social governance by critiquing the very foundation of industrial society - and even any and all mass societies, communities, communes and formal collectives. It allows individuals to reclaim individuality and recognize the distinction between society and the individual. And so within anti-civ anarchy there will be individuals of all sorts, unique and with histories and influences that shape their desires. And this is why leftists - those who attempt to group individuals together to form social order - are both terrified and staunch enemies of anti-civ anarchists.

Really happy to see this text! Thanks for sharing/writing it!


Terror_Incognita wrote (edited )

They already did. Flower Bomb showed up to a "Check Your White Privilege" meeting at the Defend ATL Forest week of action and ripped into like 30 SJWs at once lol. Did this in response to hearing that 8 white people with dreads were coerced to leave the forest.


Terror_Incognita wrote

You both are missing a couple points that I can probably fill in.

Individualist anarchy can mean any type of life related to anarchy that an individual decides on. Some individualists go fuck off in the woods, ride trains and keep things gentle and peaceful. Other individuals find pleasure destroying things, watching things burn, assassination attempts and so on. The enjoyment of sabotage and attack are not leftist concepts. They belong to no one. On their own they mean absolutely nothing. They only become meaningful when the individual engaging in such activity finds pleasure in doing so. It is not a devotion to an abstraction. It is a devotion to an excitement that can only be produced through acts of illegality. Otherwise, at least for these particular individual(s), a lawful life of peace and serenity is dull and therefore undesireable.

This is a central reason for the hostility between leftists and nihilists. Some nihilists don't want to wait for permission to act. The desire may be too strong. Even when "winning" is an impossibility, it is not the point. The point is as simple as this; it is fun to fuck shit up!


Terror_Incognita wrote

"Nor is eating meat synonymous with speciesism."

If it wasn't, then the consumption of animals categorized as "human" would be as equally normalized and standard as non-human animals.

"Veganism does rely on the wholesale clearing of wild land to grow food. Land that was home to countless species of plants, animals, insects, etc - so if meat eating is speciesism, so too is veganism (not to mention ignoring that plants are species too)."

This is a very narrowed perception and understanding of veganism. For example foraging wild berries, mushrooms and other fruits and vegetables requires zero industrialization. This is why from an anti-civ perspective, veganism is considered to be a form of re-wilding. Industrial society limits ones knowledge of obtaining wild food - including what is edible and what is not. Meat and dairy - flesh and secretions - are consumed based on a speciesist entitlement in which "human" animals feel entitled to dominate and consume the bodies of non-human animals.

A fear of death is irrelevant to recognizing social control and domination based on socially constructed hierarchies - as the ones created between human and non-human animals. If anything, many anarchist non-vegans have a fear of recognizing the authoritarianism inherent in consuming other animals because they know that it would present them with the dilemma of either making actual change in their lives or continuing to ironically maintain authoritarian relationships with others while identifying as anti-authoritarian.