Futurist AtTACK (Anti-Tech Anti-Civ Kooks) Manifestoes

Futurist AtTACK is an ironic yet sincere non-organization of the schiz-fluctuations of many me's. Like the Futurists, we launch an attack on the past, but, recognizing the limits of their attack, we steal their name not to honor them--they too are dead weight from the past and always were--but in ironic mockery of their limited attack, and also to distinguish ourselves from the misty-eyed, nostalgic primitivist anti-tech, anti-civ kooks who long for a return to some imagined golden age of the past rather than striving to become creators of new and as yet unimagined galaxies of living.... The Futurists failed in their rejection of the past, because they embraced the present and the future. But the unauthentic present we experience is purely the pinnacle of the past--the sum of all has-beens. Technology too is just the past and its endeavors haunting and enslaving us. Civilization? Doddering senility, whose drooling, scabrous face disgusts us. The Futurist glorification of technology was a glorification of the reign of the past over all of life. And since the future only exists as an extension of the present and so of the past, it too must be destroyed. Futurist AtTACK attacks futurism in all its forms. We attack time and all its projects and products. We begin the creation of timelessness; of ruins that are not monuments, but toys to be played into dust, their origins happily forgotten; of a world in which all that's left of the past/present/future is crumbling stone, rusting metal, broken useless debris in the midst of jungles lush with self-created living and each moment of each of our lives is consciously and passionately created with no thought of past present or future--and so truly authentic.


Futurist AtTACK has no interest whatsoever in preserving cultural heritages. Preserving heritages only serves the ruling powers since all heritages belong to them. A jungle, wild and unkempt, with the crumbling rot of a gladly forgotten monster--a dead civilization--makes a much grander playground than a neatly trimmed lawn with properly framed and reconstructed monuments to the enslavement and human sacrifice which are a civilization--any civilization... Away with all museums and the high blown rhetoric in praise of dead monstrosities--this superstitious veneration of the past! No more heritages! Destroy the past completely-including its abortive children: the unauthentic present and the rust-encrusted future that dominate our lives! We are too great for anything less than what we ourselves create...for ourselves...from nothing... Now, we will create ruins.... And after--something new and unimagined.


My place in this world is: Enemy, Outsider, Nomad... Even in the worlds of "alternative" culture, this is my place. To all of those who want a world--unified and coded--I am a destroyer, for I refuse all codes. With joy, I offend and attack, for attack I must! I expose delusions, mock mercilessly, and gladly make enemies of fools. If I am alone, it is because I am on a peak which others fear to climb, preferring the morass of superstitious worship of the past to the clear, fresh air of self-created living.


Ruins are the thing--intriguing and amazing playgrounds. Their beauty is not in what they were, but in what they are and could become. Too many ruins now are protected by the preservers of crystallized cultures. Free play is not permitted, because all are supposed to honor dead cultures--but why honor the dead? Everything dies eventually- there's no honor in that. Before the ruins were ruins, they were monuments to oppression, obsession, superstition...to idiocy best forgotten... But as ruins, they are beautiful--for ruins are not symbols of past glories but signs of possibilities for life outside the morass of civilization. To play among the ruins-going wild in the midst of what once strove to suppress all wildness-a great thing indeed. But better yet-to create ruins! As long as civilization exists--as long as society creates the ways most people live--the most creative act is the creation of ruins. Crashes and explosions in the night - more beautiful than any symphony! Piles of crumbling stone and masonry--more pleasing to the eye than any sculpture, to those not blinded by the past! Ashes blowing in the winds - far more poetic than a million books of verse! Create amazing playgrounds, terrains for ruleless games and unchoreographed, crazed dances...Destroy!

Do I find the marketplace of culture around me very interesting? How could I, who hate all culture? Like a volcano, my mind is seething. I want to blow, to smash, to inundate this city with a burning flood, to create ruins that aren't a sign of past glories, but are a finger pointing to the wondrous possibilities of a world in which culture has disappeared so that people can blossom as self-created individuals.


Fluctuating, schizoversive lives are what we will create. If society makes us rigid, we will relax.... If society makes us armored, we will strip down to the berserker's bearskin shirt.... If we have become structured, we will make ruins of these structures and play among the ruins as a jungle growing through in lush beauty. There is much to be destroyed so that much can be created. There is much to be silent about so that much can be sung. For the range of colors that can paint the music of what our lives could be has not begun to be heard--or is heard only in the distance--a faint and beautiful cacophony that skims the edges of our present existence. Misheard by many as a call to other worlds, misseen as visions of heaven... The colonization of imagination that turns it into fantasy, destroying creative intelligence... But a few of us hear these colors more clearly...as part of ourselves - a part not yet existent (except in moments) because it is the selves we could create if freed from the constraints of the social context. Selves created consciously out of nothing, not constructed by social relationships in which our interactions are determined within limits that we could live far beyond. No language now exists to describe this way of being, this intensity and passion that is intentional and conscious, because such a language would have to be perpetually created and destroyed and re-created as each moment is created. All language as we know it is a social construction created to define the parameters of thought and perception - and so of creation - to limit possibilities to those that will reproduce society, extending the past forever.... Everywhere one sees this - in the papers, in pop songs, in books, on TV -language that manipulates our thoughts into a simplistic, limited range of choices. It is our strategy to use language against this, to subvert it, to undermine it. Always a difficult, uncertain, and experimental project, but also a game, a form of play in which mistakes are part of the adventure. To use language this way is to seek to make a ruin, a shamble, of language.


We are bound to be misunderstood, and we laugh at the idiots who misunderstand us! Kindly mockery toward the well-intentioned and unfettered cruelty toward all dogmatists and would-be prison guards of possibilities. In this way we learn to revel as much in misunderstanding as in understanding and take pleasure in worthy opponents. Making language fluid, flowing like a river, yet precise and pointed as a dirk, contradicts the social purpose of language and makes for a wonderful dance - a martial art with constant parries that hone the weapon of subversive language.... All of this said, we recognize that there is no radical language, only the intentional radical abuse of language aimed at undermining it and destroying it in order to create free and unconstrained expression. But unless one believes in the superstition of the apocalypse, in a sudden and miraculous transformation just around the corner, this process involves the dialectic use/abuse of language and other social modes of communication in antisocial ways. We are talking about the social modes of daily life interaction--the entire network of social codes and roles and relationships that have come to define daily life, everywhere, in societies-that are what compose a society. These are what Futurist AtTACK, as insurgent individuals, tries to subvert, to undermine, through intelligent, passionate play.


DEATH TO TECHNOLOGY!
DEATH TO CIVILIZATION!
DEATH TO AUTHORITY!
DEATH TO TIME AND ALL OF ITS ENSLAVING PROJECTS!

CREATE RUINS AND VERDANT JUNGLES OF LIFE WITHOUT CONSTRAINTS IN WHICH TO PLAY!


from the little "FUTURIST AtTACK..." pamphlet, Venomous Butterfly Publications...
also printed in "Anarchy: A Journal Of Desire Armed" #42, Fall 1995

http://www.anarchymag.org/

please send corrections if you notice type-o's or formatting errors: quiver@hush.com

Las raíces burguesas del anarcosindicalismo x Feral Faun

Nosotros favorecemos el desarrollo de un movimiento de trabajadores basado en la democracia directa, no sólo porque será más efectivo en la lucha actual contra la clase empleadora, sino también porque prefigura -y sienta la base para- una sociedad de libertad e igualdad, sin autoritarismo o explotación.
- Extraido de un folleto publicado por la Workers Solidarity Alliance (Alianza de Solidaridad Obrera), una organización anarcosindicalista.

En el siglo decimocuarto o decimoquinto, empezó a tener lugar una transformación social que alcanzó su pico dramático en la guerra americana de independencia y en la Revolución francesa. Este período fue el levantamiento de la burguesía contra el sistema feudal y el poder de la Iglesia Católica. En el lugar del feudalismo emergieron el sistema económico del capitalismo y el sistema político de la democracia política. En lugar de permitir gobernar a una aristocracia no electa o a un rey, la democracia liberal demanda que sea “el pueblo” quien gobierne a través de sus representantes o su voto. Como los anarcosindicalistas arriba citados, la burguesía quería una “sociedad de libertad e igualdad, sin autoritarismo o explotación”. Omítanse las partes sobre los “trabajadores” y “la clase empleadora” y Thomas Paine podría haber escrito la cita.

Por supuesto, los anarcosindicalistas nos dirán que ellos no están usando las palabras de la manera en que lo hicieran los revolucionarios burgueses. Les tomaría la palabra si no fuese por el hecho de que, el anarcosindicalismo, refleja la ideología burguesa de formas mucho más significativas que meramente tomar prestada su terminología. Los valores sostenidos por los anarcosindicalistas no difieren significativamente de aquéllos de los teóricos liberales más radicales, y su proyecto, sometido a examen, demuestra ser meramente la extensión del proyecto liberal.

Como ya he dicho, el sistema económico que llegó al poder con la burguesía es el capitalismo. No me meteré en una larga descripción del capitalismo -basta decir que la cualidad definitoria del capitalismo, comparado con otros sistemas económicos, no es la existencia de capitalistas, sino la producción de capital excedente para permitir una expansión económica continuada.

El capitalismo es un sistema altamente moral -es decir, requiere de valores que toman prioridad sobre las necesidades, deseos o codicia individuales, con objeto de expandirse sin fricciones. Estos valores, que son esenciales para la expansión capitalista, son la producción y el progreso. Cada adelanto tecnológico es, así, abrazado a menos que pueda mostrarse como una amenaza a la expansión ulterior del capital. Para la producción y el progreso es esencial el trabajo y, así, el burgués valora mucho el trabajo -y, contrariamente al cuadro pintado por los propagandistas “radicales” del trabajo, no es raro para los capitalistas trabajar muchas más horas que los obreros industriales; pero se trata de trabajo organizativo en lugar de trabajo productivo. Aquéllos que se las arreglan para evitar el trabajo son la escoria moral de la sociedad capitalista -los parásitos apartados de la población trabajadora.

Los anarcosindicalistas abrazan cada uno de estos valores capitalistas. Su meta es “el verdadero dominio humano de la producción”. ¡A pesar del alto nivel de evidencia antropológica de lo contrario, asumen que los pueblos primitivos pasaban la mayor parte de su tiempo sólo luchando por la supervivencia, y que es sólo gracias a la producción de tecnología y su progreso que podemos vivir las maravillosas vidas que todos tenemos ahora, y disfrutar de todas las encantadoras mercancías -¡¡¡Ooops!!! ¡Lo siento, estoy intentando ser sarcástico!

Los sindicalistas reconocen unas cuantas tecnologías específicas como amenazas a la supervivencia, pero ven la tecnología en general -y el progreso en general- como cosas positivas. A la luz de esto, no es ninguna sorpresa que hagan épicos cantos al trabajo, porque sin trabajo no habría producción ni progreso. Como la burguesía, ellos ven a aquéllos que evitan el trabajo como “parásitos”, (Veáse “¡Escucha, anarquista!” de Chaze Bufe). El único problema real que tienen con el sistema capitalista es quién está al mando -ellos preferirían que estuviese al mando Un Gran Capitalista*, la unión internacional de la población trabajadora, en lugar de los diversos individuos, corporaciones y Estados. Pero la estructura básica sería la misma. Como la burguesía -y quizá aún más que la burguesía- los anarcosindicalistas abrazan los valores esenciales al capitalismo.

Si la producción y el progreso son valores positivos, haciendo el trabajo esencial, entonces la conformidad social es igualmente esencial. Ya he dicho que la evitación del trabajo es vista como parasitismo. Cualquier placer que no pueda ser mercantilizado y así traído bajo el control de la producción, es no ético. El vagabundo, el vago, el gitano, el bandido, cualquier individuo que no haga ninguna contribución positiva a la sociedad, es condenado como un fracaso o un criminal. Incluso el bohemio -el artista, músico o poeta inadaptado- es sospechoso a los ojos burgueses -por lo menos hasta que se encuentre la forma de recuperar sus renegados impulsos creativos.

Esta misma actitud hacia aquéllos que no encajan en la sociedad es sostenida por los anarcosindicalistas. ¡El castigo de Chaz Bufe de los “marginales” en “¡Escucha, anarquista!” deja esto bastante claro. La forma en que la CNT despreció constantemente al bandolero anarquista Sabaté (mientras continuaba tomando y usando el dinero que él les daba de sus robos) da verdadero asco. A lo largo de su historia, el anarcosindicalismo ha intentado apagar el fuego de los rebeldes desobedientes, a veces a través de la persuasión y algunas a través del insulto, para mover a los rebeldes anárquicos a conformarse y aceptar la sociedad. Dondequiera que la rebelión anárquica fuese más allá de las reformas que los anarcosindicalistas estaban reclamando, estos supuestos no creyentes en la ley eran los primeros en gritar, “¡Delincuentes! ¡Terroristas!”. Como la burguesía, quieren la producción para progresar sin fricciones, y eso requiere la conformidad social.

De la mano de la conformidad social, viene un amor por la paz social. Es verdad que la burguesía ha explotado las guerras entre naciones para expandir el capital, pero esto es siempre precario, dado que cualquier violencia puede perturbar el funcionamiento sin fricciones del capitalismo. Sólo la violencia instituida por las autoridades apropiadas, con una base racional y ética, tiene un lugar en la sociedad burguesa. Los conflictos personales no sólo no han de incluir la violencia física, sino que deben ser afrontados con cortesía y resueltos a través de la discusión racional, la negociación o el proceso debido. Las pasiones no deben ciertamente encenderse. La paz social sólo habrá de romperse bajo las circunstancias más extremas.

Los anarcosindicalistas también valoran la paz social. De las “Influencias burguesas en el anarquismo” de Luigi Fabbri al “¡Escucha, anarquista!” de Bufe, intentan advertir a los anarquistas que se alejen de la expresión verbal violenta -irónicamente, intentando afirmar que esto no proviene de las falsas concepciones del anarquismo creadas por la prensa burguesa. Por qué piensan que la gente con coraje e inteligencia para rebelarse contra la autoridad aceptaría la palabra de la prensa burguesa, no lo sé. Como la burguesía, los anarcosindicalistas nos llaman a expresar nuestros desacuerdos racionalmente, libres de pasión, de una manera pacífica. Cualquier expresión activa, violenta, de rebelión individual es considerada irresponsable, contrarrevolucionaria y no ética por los anarcosindicalistas. Los perpetradores son etiquetados, en el mejor caso, como incautos y, más a menudo, como delincuentes comunes y terroristas. De hecho, fuera de una “situación revolucionaria”, los anarcosindicalistas rechazan la mayoría de las formas de actividad ilegal como contraproducentes (pero, ¿es eso necesariamente malo?**). Sólo el levantamiento de la clase obrera (la “autoridad apropiada” en la teoría anarcosindicalista) puede justificar la violencia -y esa violencia debe ser racional y ética para mantener los instrumentos de producción intactos y hacer una transición a la producción anarcosindicalista tan libre de fricciones como sea posible.

Los anarcosindicalistas también desean crear una sociedad racional, ética. Nos llaman a “atacar la irracionalidad… dondequiera y siempre que se presente”. El problema que ven en la sociedad presente es que no es lo suficientemente racional o ética. Dado que la razón es la fuente del comportamiento ético (según su visión), debe prevalecer en todas las áreas de la vida. No nuestras pasiones o deseos, sino nuestro “egoísmo racional” debe ser nuestra guía, dicen los sindicalistas, haciéndose eco de los utilitaristas. Es tanto más racional como más ético si el productor controla los medios de producción, proclaman ellos, mientras ignoran alegremente la cuestión de si es posible para cualquiera controlar los medios de producción en una sociedad industrial.

Tanto los teóricos liberales burgueses como los anarcosindicalistas quieren una sociedad racional, ética, basada en la libertad, la igualdad y la justicia, garantizando los derechos humanos. Los dos quieren una economía que funcione sin fricciones, con altos niveles de producción que garanticen el progreso científico y tecnológico. Los dos requieren paz social y conformidad para realizar sus proyectos. Es difícil no pensar que sus proyectos son el mismo. Sólo veo dos diferencias significativas. La burguesía ve la economía como una fuerza apolítica, que puede progresar de modo eficiente y ético a través de la forma de la empresa privada. Los anarcosindicalistas reconocen la economía como una fuerza política que debe, por consiguiente, ser puesta en marcha democráticamente. Los liberales burgueses creen que la democracia representativa puede crear su ideal. Los anarcosindicalistas creen que la democracia debe ser directa -aunque nunca parecen preguntarnos si queremos gastar nuestro tiempo votando directamente para todo problema social que surja. El proyecto de los anarcosindicalistas es, en realidad, sólo una extensión del proyecto del liberalismo burgués -un intento de impulsar ese proyecto hacia su conclusión lógica.

Esto me lleva al paralelismo último entre el liberalismo burgués y el anarcosindicalismo, un paralelismo no de ideas, sino de ignorancia. Ninguno parece capaz de reconocer las realidades del sistema social bajo el que vivimos. “La actividad cotidiana de los esclavos produce esclavitud” (Fredy Perlman). Mientras hablan de libertad y democracia, el liberal burgués y el anarcosindicalista ven ambos sólo las autoridades humanas que los controlan; están ciegos a las actividades sociales en que participan, que son la verdadera fuente de su esclavitud. Así, el liberal burgués está satisfecho con librarse de sacerdotes y reyes; el anarcosindicalista añade a presidentes y patrones. Pero las fábricas permanecen intactas, las tiendas permanecen intactas (aunque los sindicalistas puedan llamarlas centros de distribución), la familia permanece intacta -el sistema social entero permanece intacto. ¿Si nuestra actividad cotidiana no ha cambiado significativamente -y los anarcosindicalistas no dan ninguna indicación de querer cambiarla más allá de agregar la carga de gestionar las fábricas a la carga de trabajar en ellas-, qué diferencia representa entonces que no haya jefes? – ¡Somos todavía esclavos!

El “cambio de nombre no exorciza a la bestia”. Pero hay una razón por la que, ni el liberal burgués ni el anarcosindicalista, pueden ver la esclavitud inherente al sistema social. No ven la libertad como la capacidad del individuo único de crear su vida como elije. La ven como la capacidad del individuo de llegar a ser una parte plena y activamente integrada de una sociedad progresiva, racional. Que “la esclavitud es la libertad” no es una aberración del pensamiento estalinista o fascista; es algo inherente a todas las perspectivas que atribuyen la libertad a la sociedad en lugar de al individuo. La única manera de garantizar la “libertad” de tales sociedades es suprimir la inconformidad y la rebelión dondequiera que surjan.

Los anarcosindicalistas pueden hablar de abolir el Estado, pero ellos tendrán que reproducir cada una de sus funciones para garantizar el funcionamiento sin fricciones de su sociedad. El anarcosindicalismo no realiza una ruptura radical con la sociedad presente. Busca meramente extender los valores de esta sociedad para que nos dominen más plenamente en nuestras vidas diarias. Ninguno de los verdaderos rebeldes, los renegados, los bandidos y los salvajes espíritus libres podría aceptar una sociedad anarcosindicalista más que la sociedad actual. Tendríamos que continuar discordando, creando una ruptura radical con la sociedad, porque no queremos más control sobre nuestra esclavitud -y eso es todo lo que los anarcosindicalistas nos ofrecen-, queremos quitarnos las cadenas y vivir nuestras vidas plenamente.

Los Policías En Nuestras Cabezas: Algunos pensamientos sobre la anarquía y la moralidad x Feral Faun

NOTA DEL HEDONISTA: AKI PUES OTRA TRADUCCION KE HICE DEL FERAL FAUN PARA QUE LA CHEKEEN. CADA VES KE LEO A ESTE FERAL FAUN ME EMOCIONO Y ME GUSTO MAS.

En mis viajes en los meses recientes, yo he hablado con algunos anarquistas que conciben a la anarquía como un principio moral. Algunos van hasta el punto de hablar de la anarquía como si fuera una deidad a la cual ellos se han entregado-reforzando mi sentimiento de que aquellos que realmente quieren experimentar la anarquía talvez necesiten divorciarse del anarquismo.

Las mas frecuentes de las concepciones morales de la anarquía que he escuchado ser definida es aquella que dice que se basa en un principio de rechazar el usar la fuerza para imponer la voluntad propia en otros. Esta concepción tiene implicaciones que no puedo aceptar. Implica que la dominación es principalmente una cuestión de decisiones morales personales en ves de roles y relaciones sociales, que todxs nosotrxs estamos en la misma posición para ejercer la dominación y que necesitamos ejercer la autodisciplina para prevenirnos de hacer esto. Si la dominación es un tema de roles y relaciones sociales, este principio moral es absolutamente absurdo, siendo nada mas que una forma de separar lo políticamente correcto (lo elegido) de lo políticamente incorrecto (lo condenado). Esta definición de la anarquía pone a los rebeldes anárquicos en una posición de mayor debilidad en una lucha de por ya cuesta arriba en contra de la autoridad. Todas las formas de la violencia en contra de la gente o la propiedad, huelgas generales, el robo o inclusive actividades mas ligeras como la desobediencia civil constituyen un uso de la fuerza para imponer la voluntad propia. El rechazar el usar la fuerza para imponer la voluntad propia es convertirse totalmente en algo pasivo-convertirse en esclavo. Esta concepción de la anarquía hace una regla para controlar nuestras vidas, y eso es un oximoron.

El intento de hacer de la anarquía un principio moral distorsiona su significación real. La anarquía describe una situación particular, una en la cual la autoridad no existe o su poder para controlar es negado. Este tipo de situación no garantiza nada-ni siquiera la continua existencia de esa situación, pero si abre una posibilidad para cada uno de nosotrxs para comenzar a crear nuestras vidas para nosotrxs mismxs en términos de nuestros propios deseos y pasiones en ves de en términos de roles sociales o las demandas del orden social. La anarquía no es el objetivo de la revolución; es la situación que hace el único tipo de revolución que me interesa como posible-un levantamiento de lxs individuxs para crear sus vidas para si mismos y destruir lo que se pone en su camino. Es una situación libre de cualquier implicación moral, presentándonos a cada uno de nosotrxs el reto amoral de vivir nuestras vidas sin constreñimientos.

En tanto la situación anárquica es amoral, la idea de una moral anarquista es altamente sospechosa. La moralidad es un sistema de principios que definen lo que constituye el comportamiento correcto o incorrecto. Implica algún absoluto fuera de lxs individuxs de lxs que va a definirse, una comonalidad de todas las personas que hacen ciertos principios aplicables para todxs.

No quiero ocuparme con el concepto de la “comonalidad de todas las personas” en este articulo: mi punto actual es que cualquier moralidad esta basada en, siempre esta afuera y por encima del individuo viviente. Ya sea la base de la moralidad dios, el patriotismo, la humanidad en común, las necesidades de producción, la ley natural, “la tierra”, la anarquía, o inclusive “el individuo” como principio, siempre es un ideario abstracto que manda sobre NOSOTRXS. La moralidad es una forma de autoridad y será erosionada por la situación anárquica tanto como cualquier otra autoridad si esa situación va a durar.

La moralidad y el juicio van de la mano. La critica-inclusive la que es dura y cruel-es esencial para afilar nuestro análisis y practica rebelde, pero el juicio necesita ser necesariamente erradicado. El juicio categoriza a la gente como culpable o no culpable-y la culpa es una de las mas fuertes armas de represión. Cuando nosotrxs nos jusgamos y condenamos a nosotrxs mismos o a otrxs, estamos reprimiendo la rebelión-ese es el propósito de la culpa. (Esto no significa que “no deberíamos” odiar, o desear matar a alguien-seria absurdo el crear una moralidad “amoral, pero nuestro odio necesita ser reconocido como una pasión personal y no ser definida en términos morales.) La critica radical sale de las experiencias reales, actividades, pasiones y deseos de individuxs y perspectivas de liberar la rebeldía. El juicio sale de principios e ideales que están sobre nosotrxs; quiere esclavizarnos a estos ideales. Cuando las situaciones anárquicas han aparecido, el juicio a menudo a desaparecido temporalmente, liberando a la gente de la culpa-como en ciertas revueltas en donde las personas de todo tipo saquearon juntos en un espíritu de alegría a pesar de toda su vida haber sido inculcados a respetar la propiedad. La moralidad requiere la culpa; la libertad requiere la eliminación de la culpa.

Un dadaísta dijo una ves, “El ser gobernado por la moral…ha hecho imposible para nosotrxs el ser algo mas que pasivos frente al policía; esta es la fuente de nuestra esclavitud.” Ciertamente, la moralidad es fuente de pasividad. He escuchado de algunas situaciones en las cuales situaciones en buena forma de escala considerable comenzaron a desarrollarse y he experimentado algunas pequeñas, pero en cada una de estas situaciones, la energía disipada y la mayoría de lxs participantes regresaron a sus no-vidas que vivían antes de las revueltas. Estos eventos muestran que, a pesar de la extensión en la cual el control social se impone en nuestra vida cuando estamos despiertos (y gran parte de nuestra vida cuando dormimos), nosotrxs podemos salir de estas situaciones. Pero los policías en nuestras cabezas-la moralidad, la culpa y el miedo-tienen que ser enfrentados. Todo sistema moral, sin importar que dice en contra de esto, impone limites en las posibilidades disponibles para nosotrxs, limites sobre nuestros deseos; y estos limites no están basados en nuestras capacidades reales, sino en ideas abstractas que nos impiden explorar la extensión total de nuestras capacidades. Cuando las situaciones anárquicas han aparecido en el pasado, los policías en las cabezas de las personas-el miedo cimentado, la moralidad y la culpa-han asustado a la gente, manteniéndolos lo suficientemente domados para volver a la seguridad de sus jaulas, y la situación anárquica desapareció.

Esto es significativo debido a que las situaciones anárquicas no aparecen de la nada-estas aparecen de las actividades de la gente frustrada con sus vidas. Es posible para cada uno de nosotrxs en cualquier momento el crear ese tipo de situación. A menudo esto seria tácticamente tonto, pero la posibilidad esta allí. De todas formas todxs parece que esperamos pacientemente las situaciones anárquicas caigan del cielo-y cuando estas explotan, no podemos hacer que continúen. Inclusive aquellos de nosotrxs que concientemente rechazamos la moralidad nos encontramos a nosotrxs mismos dudando, parando para examinar cada acción, con miedo de la policía hasta cuando no existen policías exteriores alrededor. La moralidad, la culpa y el miedo de la condena actúa como policías en nuestras cabezas, destruyendo nuestra espontaneidad, nuestro salvajismo, nuestra habilidad para vivir nuestras vidas plenamente.

Los policías en nuestras cabezas continuaran suprimiendo nuestra rebeldía hasta que aprendamos a tomar riesgos. No quiero decir que tengamos que ser estúpidos-la cárcel no es una situación anárquico o liberadora, pero sin riesgo no hay aventura, no hay vida. La actividad motivada por nosotrxs mismos-actividad que sale de nuestras pasiones y deseos, no de intentos para conformarnos a ciertos principios e ideales o para encajar en algún grupo (incluyendo “anarquistas”)-es lo que puede crear una situación de anarquía, lo que puede abrir un mundo de posibilidades limitadas solo por nuestras capacidades. Para aprender a expresar nuestras pasiones libremente-una habilidad que se adquiere solo por medio de hacerla-es esencial. Cuando sentimos aversión, ira, alegría, deseo, tristeza, amor, odio, necesitamos expresarlas. No es fácil. Muy a menudo, me encuentro cayendo en un rol social apropiado en situaciones en donde quiero expresar algo diferente. Voy a la tienda sintiendo aversión por todo el proceso de relaciones económicas, y de todas formas cortésmente agradezco al empleado por ponerme dentro de ese mismo proceso. Si lo estuviera haciendo concientemente, como una forma de cubrir el robar de la tienda; seria divertido, usando mi ingenio para obtener lo que quiero; pero es una respuesta social sedimentada-un policía en mi cabeza. Estoy mejorando; pero tengo un largo camino por delante. Cada vez mas, trato de actuar mis caprichos, mis impulsos espontáneos sin que me importe lo que otros piensen de mi. Esta es una actividad auto motivada-la actividad que sale de nuestras pasiones y deseos, de nuestras imaginaciones sometidas, de nuestra creatividad única. Seguramente, siguiendo nuestra subjetividad en esta forma, viviendo nuestras vidas por nosotrxs mismos, nos puede llevar a cometer errores, pero nunca errores comparables al error de aceptar la existencia zombi que la obediencia a la autoridad, la moralidad, las reglas o los poderes superiores crean. La vida sin riesgos, sin la posibilidad de errores, no es vida para nada. Solo por medio de tomar el riesgo de desafiar toda la autoridad y vivir por nosotrxs mismos llegaremos a vivir la vida plenamente.

No quiero constreñimientos en mi vida; quiero la apertura de todxs las posibilidades para que pueda crear mi vida para mi mismo-en cada momento. Esto significa rompiendo todos los roles sociales y destruyendo la moralidad. Cuando un anarquista o cualquier otro radical comienza a predicarme sus principios morales –ya sea no-coerción, ecología profunda, el comunismo, el militantismo o hasta el requerimiento ideológico del “placer”-escucho un policía o un sacerdote, y no tengo deseo de tratar con gente como policías o sacerdotes, con la excepción de desafiarlos. Estoy luchando para crear una situación en la cual pueda yo vivir libremente, siendo todo lo que deseo ser, en un mundo de individuos libres con los cuales puedo relacionarme, siendo todo lo que quiero ser, en un mundo de individuos libres con los cuales puedo relacionarme en términos de nuestros deseos sin constreñimientos. Yo tengo suficientes policías en mi cabeza-así como los que están en las calles-para tratar como para querer también enfrentar con los policías de moralidad “anarquista” o radical. La anarquía y la moralidad están opuestos entre si, y cualquier oposición efectiva a la autoridad necesitara oponerse a la moralidad y erradicar a los policías en nuestras cabezas.

Paneroticism: The Dance of Life by Feral Faun

Chaos is a dance, a flowing dance of life, and this dance is erotic. Civilization hates chaos and, therefore, also hates Eros. Even in supposedly sexually free times, civilization represses the erotic. It teaches that orgasms are events that happen only in a few small parts of our bodies and only through the correct manipulation of those parts. It squeezes Eros into the armor of Mars, making sex into a competitive, achievement-centered job rather than joyful, innocent play.

Yet even in the midst of such repression, Eros refuses to accept this mold. His joyful, dancing form breaks through Mars' armor here and there. As blinded as we are by our civilized existence, the dance of life keeps seeping into our awareness in little ways. We look at a sunset, stand in the midst of the forest, climb on a mountain, hear a bird song, walk barefoot on a beach, and we start to feel a certain elation, a sense of awe and joy. It is the beginning of an orgasm of the entire body, one not limited to civilization's so-called "erogenous zones", but civilization never lets the feeling fulfill itself. Otherwise, we'd realize that everything that is not a product of civilization is alive and joyfully erotic.
But a few of us are slowly awakening from the anesthesia of civilization. We are becoming aware that every stone, every tree, every river, every animal, every being in the universe is not only just as alive, but at present is more alive than we who are civilized beings. This awareness is not just intellectual. It can't be or civilization will just turn into another academic theory. We are feeling it. We have heard the love-songs of rivers and mountains and have seen the dances of trees. We no longer want to use them as dead things, since they are very much alive. We want to be their lovers, to join in their beautiful, erotic dance. It scares us. The death-dance of civilization freezes every cell, every muscle within us. We know we will be clumsy dancers and clumsy lovers. We will be fools. But our freedom lies in our foolishness. If we can be fools, we have begun to break civilizations chains, we have begun to lose our need to achieve. With no need to achieve, we have time to learn the dance of life; we have time to become lovers of trees and rocks and rivers. Or, more accurately, time cease to exist for us; the dance becomes our lives as we learn to love all that lives. And unless we learn to dance the dance of life, all our resistance to civilization will be useless. Since it will still govern within us, we will just re-create it.
So let's dance the dance of life. Let's dance clumsily without shame, for which of us civilized people isn't clumsy? Let's make love to rivers, to trees, to mountains with our eyes, our toes, our hands, our ears. Let every part of our bodies awaken to the erotic ecstasy of life's dance. We'll fly. We'll dance. We'll heal. We'll find that our imaginations are strong , that they are part of the erotic dance that can create the world we desire.

from the pamphlet, "Rants, Essays and Polemics of Feral Faun" (Chaotic Endeavors, 1987)

reprinted in Green Anarchy #10 (Fall 2002)

please send corrections if you notice type-o's or formatting errors:

quiver@hush.com

Drifting from the sacred: Thoughts inspired by reading Peter Lamborn Wilson's The Sacred Drift by Feral Faun

My feelings when I read Peter Lamborn Wilson is that he wishes to live very much as I do, yet he looks to thc realm of spirituality as a means to achieve this. To me, it is evident that this is another false path to autonomous self-creation--precisely because it is a path...and one that has been tried so often its failure should be self-evident.
The surrealists called for divergence from all known paths, yet their project proved to be absurd because they sought the marvelous in a passive way outside of any "spiritual" context. Nineteenth century materialism made the mistake of killing god without reclaiming what god had stolen from human beings and from the world. This left a wasteland. The surrealist attempt to use a kind of materialistic mysticism to reclaim this was bound to fail, in part because of its passivity and in part because of its reliance on the Freudian "unconscious" as the realm from which the marvelous would spring.
The "unconscious" realm. like the "spiritual" realm, is a social creation which relegates aspects of our lives which would best be left open and accessible to a "hidden", "other" realm.... But Freud never even considered claiming what had been relegated to the "spiritual" for the "unconscious." When Jung did so, he did it merely by equating the "spiritual" with his highly questionable construct, the "collective unconscious"--thus, reclaiming nothing

The surrealists had no use for Jung's extension of religion's existence. But they also never recognized the banality of the Freudian unconscious--the marvelous is not there except on rare occasions by accident. The marvelous will only become an everyday reality when we reclaim for our everyday lives that aspect of living that has been relegated to nonquotidian realms.... This reclamation involves the active creation of marvelous, passionate intensities--not mere passive waiting.
It is the individual's capability for active, conscious, empassioned creation which was usurped to create the realm of the "spiritual" and was, thus, relegated to virtual non-existence. With the creation of gods all creative power was taken from the individual and invested in these invented beings--and their earthly representations. The marvelous was turned into a gift from elsewhere.
The development of god coincides with the development of social control. God is, in fact, very much like society: neither one exists in itself--god exists only in the belief of the religious, and society exists only in the activities of social individuals. Yet god and society enforce the activities which continue their reproduction. The difference is that god exists only in the realm of belief--or ideas--whereas society exists in the realm of material interactions and so creates relationships which coerce even those who oppose social control into reproducing social control.
Capitalism has exposed the material basis of social interactions at the same time as it has created material social mechanisms to motivate people to continue social reproduction. In other words, god and the spiritual are no longer necessary mystifications to enforce social reproduction. But the social mechanisms created by capitalism do not and cannot transform individuals into the conscious, autonomous creators of their own lives and interactions. Rather individuals are transformed into cogs in the mechanisms. God and spirituality remain as a solace (Marx's "opiate"), an escape and a facet of one's social identity (i.e., an ideological commodity). Stealing back the creative energy from the "spiritual realm" now is equivalent to taking back the power to consciously create one's life and interactions from society. But it is essential that we not forget that this war against society includes an attack upon the citadel of spirituality.
Recent revivals of mysticism, paganism and shamanism among certain radicals may be misguided attempts at reclaiming their lives, but they appear to me to be a retreat in to a fantasy realm in the face of seemingly overwhelming social forces. These revivals indicate the continued lack of confidence of those involved in their ability to create their own lives, their own monuments, their own interactions. It may also indicate a fear of the unknown--a preference for models, for paths, for systems of guidance--because in a world of autonomous creators, or unique free individuals, there arc no guarantees; nothing is certain; all of the maps. definitions and paradigms disintegrate..... Such a world is a world of terror and of wonder. For the courageous, mostly the latter.
from Anarchy: A Journal Of Desire Armed #40, Spring-Summer 1994.

republished by Elephant Editions (London) 2000/2001 in the collection "Feral Revolution"

reprinted in the pamphlet "The Quest for the Spiritual" by Venomous Butterfly Publications.
please send corrections if you notice type-o's or formatting errors: quiver@hush.com
http://www.anarchymag.org/

http://alphabetthreat.co.uk/elephanteditions/


quiver@hush.com

Whither now? Some thoughts on creating anarchy By Feral Faun

By Feral Faun
"Any society that you build will have its limits. And outside the limits of any society the unruly and heroic tramps will wander with their wild and virgin thoughts...planning ever new and dreadful outbursts of rebellion."
--Renzo Novatore
I feel that there is no possible society in which I would fit, that whatever society was like, I would be a rebel. At times, this fills me with the joy of the "unruly and heroic tramps" of whom Renzo Navatore speaks, but often it leaves me feeling quite lonely and isolated.
I live in a "society" now--in a situation in which social roles are used to reproduce social relationships. Would the way that we relate when we are free of character armor and social roles still be social relationships? I envision a world in which we can live our lives fully, as unique, wild beings, moving freely into and out of relations with each other as our desires motivate us, never creating the sorts of complex structures of formalized relationships that I understand as "society." It is only in such a world that I can imagine feeling at home. But I really don't know how to go about creating this world.
Many of my friends wouldn't agree with my perspective on society, but we all agree that we want to create ways of relating that are radially different from what the present authoritarian, capitalist society offers. We all seem to be uncertain about how we can destroy this society and learn to relate freely. Clearly, we need to examine what we consider our radical practice.
I have written articles and flyers. I have no illusions about the radical nature of these projects. They perpetuate certain types of alienated social relationships, and I am fully aware of this: But I write in hopes of inspiring something beyond the writing. I hope that what is unique in what I write will touch another unique individual, allowing us to break down the wall of written words and maybe meet and create projects together. This hasn't happened often though--usually, the social relationship of the printed word remains intact.
In the present situation, scamming and theft are ways of survival which are somewhat radical. They can involve an element of play and adventure lacking in regular jobs, but they are still basically ways of reproducing ourselves in this society and so are, in a sense, work. Still in a small way, theft helps to undermine the commodity, because you are taking something without paying for it. But the necessity for secrecy limits this element of radical critique. What is most radical about scamming and theft--as well as squatting, dumpster diving and gleaning--is that they drastically reduce our need to work and free our time for more worthwhile pursuits. But in themselves they are basically just survival tactics.
Vandalism and sabotage are attacks on property and, thus, on society. But, as most people use them now, they are limited attacks. They are largely just reactions to specific, particularly offensive acts of authority. The extent of the critique can be easily muted by its attachment to a particular issue--recuperating it for society. Still vandalism and sabotage are an active attack on society which may sometimes effectively fuck up some of the projects of Capital. But at their best they express only the destructive side of anarchic rebellion.
All of these activities are worthwhile as part of our rebellion against this society, but all are limited. None of them take us beyond the context of this society. Every one of these activities is, at least partially, created by society as a reaction against it. They don't free us from society or enhance what is unique to us. They only place us on the edge of society (which is certainly the most free and enjoyable place to be in society), and that is not good enough for those of us who want to live out our lives to the limits.
"Not at the margins of what is collapsing
Not at the margins of what is falling
But at the center of what is...rising"
Since we want to create new ways of relating, ways which grow out of our unique individuality, not social roles, we can't merely react to society--making it the center of our activity and ourselves merely its margins. Each of us needs to make what is unique to us--our own desires, passions, relations, and experiences--the center of our activity. This implies a radically different conception of revolution than that of the various communists and orthodox anarchists who center on "the masses." Neither working class, nor common human activity can create the revolution I'm talking about. The rebellion of the individual against the constraints of society--against the processes of domestication--is the basis from which the revolutionary project has to grow. When the acts of rebellion of a number of individuals coincide and can embrace each other, those individuals can consciously act together and in this are the seeds of a revolution that can free each of us as unique, wild, free-spirited individuals. But what does this mean on a practical level.
Making ourselves the center of our activity means relating to society and relating to each other in new ways. When we begin to live in terms of our own desires and experiences, our own passions and relations, we find ourselves perpetually--if often subliminally--in conflict with society. Since society depends upon structure and order, and what is unique to us is chaotic and unpredictable, we have a useful advantage in this struggle. We can study society, learn something about how it functions and how it protects itself; but no amount of psychological study can give the force of order knowledge of our unique individuality. As long as we act from our own uniqueness with our knowledge of society--avoiding falling into social roles and predictable patterns--our actions will seem to come from nowhere, yet will wreak havoc on our enemy. Refusing to play social roles in the expected way, refusing to pretend that we accept having to pay for things or work for survival, refusing to follow rules of etiquette and protocol--this is a beginning. Spontaneous (or seemingly spontaneous) pranks and guerrilla theater--which cannot be attributed to clowns, theater troupes or other social entities--may expose the nature of an aspect of society and even create a situation in which the choice between free life and the mere existence offered by society can no longer be hidden. Acts of theft, vandalism and sabotage, springing from our desires rather than being merely a reaction to a particular social atrocity, will be more random and more frequent. Our violence against society will strike like lightning, unpredictably and with the intensity of our desire to live our lives to the full.
But to be able to fight intelligently for ourselves against society requires knowledge and skills. Society, by placing us into social roles, limits our knowledge and skills, so we need to share this information. Books and articles can help us to do this, but are open to public scrutiny--including that of the authorities. That makes our activity more predictable and us more vulnerable. So ways of sharing knowledge that grow from our actual relations as unique individuals need to be created.
This need to share skills coincides with our desire to live life fully, to be able to freely relate and to enjoy each other as unique, wild beings, making the exploration of new ways of relating to each other an immediate necessity--not something to be put off until "after the revolution." Each of us is unique and so unpredictable. Having been taught all of our lives to relate as social roles rather than as the unique beings that we are, we have to rely on our imaginations to create new ways of relating, not on any already-tried pattern--and could it be any other way when we don't want to create new social roles? So the ideas I am sharing are tentative, calling for explorations into unknown realms, inviting us to adventures that are to be entered only to the extent that they fulfill our desires and enhance us as unique individuals. There is nothing inherently revolutionary about these explorations. They become revolutionary only in conjunction with a conscious and active resistance to society--a conscious recognition that our uniqueness and freedom as individuals is in conflict with society and that we must destroy it to fully free ourselves.
I've thought a lot about how to explore new ways of relating over the past several years. These explorations would need to be based on the unique desires of each of the individuals involved and on their mutual trust for each other. At first my thoughts centered mainly on some sort of settled rural/wilderness living situation involving non-economized relating, projects of wilderness expansion and resistance to and sabotage of domestication and authority. The more I thought about this, the more it seemed that such a project would involve a compromise of my own real desires--and would most likely recreate society on a smaller scale with individuals playing social roles rather than relating on the basis of what they uniquely are.
When people come together on the basis of each of their unique desires and their trust for each other, their union is, by its nature, very transitory. Individuals will come and go as they please and participate in the way they please. This makes a settled living situation, at best, very temporary. Recently, I have been wandering. I would enjoy sharing this life with friends and lovers who wish to wander as well. We would be a wandering festival of rebellion and wonder. I say a festival, and not a tribe or a band, because the only constant would be the commitment of each individual involved to live their life to the full and fight against whatever prevents this, the individuals themselves constantly coming and going as they desire. Survival activities could include wild harvesting, theft, scams, sharing gifts with friends and accepting gifts from people who appreciate any street performance--public expressions of our creative playfulness--we do. We can share skills and knowledge with friends we visit, creating an informal network for spreading knowledge and skills among those we trust. Acts of vandalism and sabotage and other attacks against society will be easier since we will not be staying around--providing an added aspect of invisibility. In these wanderings, I would expect to spend a lot of time in wild places. I would want to explore these places and come to know them well. These wild places would be good locations to destroy this society. These gatherings would provide another means of sharing knowledge and skills as well as being a hell of a lot of fun.
As I said above, in and of themselves, these are not revolutionary ideas. Hobos, freaks, rainbow people and others have often been wanderers, but with no awareness of the war of society against the free-spirited individual. We are at war, but we aren't fighting for power. We don't need to build armies to overthrow the powers that be; we need to become wild, free-spirited, unique individuals whose violence springs from our desire to live life to the limits, and so can undermine power itself. Wandering festivals of free-spirited individuals can incorporate this destructive activity--very possibly much more easily than more organized and readily defined groups.
I've already said that these are tentative suggestions, ideas to be tried and tested. I'm tired of feeling isolated because I refuse to sacrifice myself to social roles. I want to explore new ways of relating. I'd love to hear other people's ideas for exploring ways of relating that get beyond social roles and enhance what is unique in each of us. But more than that, I want to actively explore these ideas in practice and share these explorations with friends and lovers. Then we can cease to be merely on the margins of society and will each, as unique wild beings, become the center of an insurrectionary project that may destroy civilization and create a world in which we freely live, relate and create as our unique desires move us. We will become--to quote Renzo Novatore again-- "a shadow eclipsing any form of society which can exist under the sun."

from "Anarchy: A Journal Of Desire Armed" Issue #22 Nov.-Dec. 1989

please send corrections if you notice type-o's or formatting errors: quiver@hush.com
http://www.anarchymag.org /

quiver@hush.com

Beyond Earth First! Toward a feral revolution of desire by Feral Faun

Last year, Fifth Estate published a critique of Deep Ecology which included criticisms of certain people who use the slogan "Earth First!". This has led to a fairly intense dialogue. As I have read this dialogue it has become clear to me that most people--including those who call themselves EF!ers-aren't really sure what EF! is.
A number of letters and one article ("'Live Wild or Die'--The Other Earth First!," Fifth Estate, Vol.23, #3) attempted to show that EF! was not monolithic, that it was a movement rather than an organization. Yet the writers of these pieces spoke of "what EF! actually does" and, in the article, of EF!'s "split personality" --as though EF! were indeed a single entity, a monolithic organization. To clear this up, it is necessary to figure out just what EF! is.
There is an EF! that is an organization. This is what Mikal called the "centralized personality" of Earth First! in his FE article. This EF! consists of the editorial staff of the national paper and the "stars" of EF! They create a major portion of the public image of what EF! is all about. And their recent right-wing Malthusian ravings have not helped that image one bit.
There is another Earth First!--however that EF! is not a movement. The real movement is an anti-authoritarian, anti-industrial-civilization, pro-wilderness movement, and people of Fifth Estate are as much a part of that movement as anyone else who chooses to use the slogan "Earth First!" To claim that a slogan creates a separate movement with an inside and an outside defined by the use of the slogan is a mystification. As Mikal said in his article, the defining quality of a movement is that it moves. Everyone who is active in any way in opposing civilization and striving to expand wildness is participating in that movement and needs to criticize any part of that movement that is stifling the liberation of wildness.
So what do I think Earth First! is? It is a slogan around which some people rally. Just what this slogan means and why people need it as a rallying point needs to be examined.
"Earth First!," the slogan is a simple, two word proclamation of biocentrism. Biocentrism is an ideology, an attempt to claim that we can act from a basis other than our own needs, desires and experiences. We cannot put earth first. When we claim to do so, we are only putting our concept of the earth first. Robert Anton Wilson and Timothy Leary have both claimed to have connected with the consciousness of the universe and have used this claim to justify their vision of paradise as a horrendous, sterile techno-topia, saying that is the "natural course of evolution." I share a vision similar to many EF!ers, but their claim to know the earth's will is false consciousness, ideology, and all ideology is a threat to wildness.
Why do people so distrust their own instincts and desires that they have to create false consciousness to justify themselves? Why do they need to claim that they are doing what they are doing because they put "Earth First!"? Civilization, with its need to suppress whatever is wild, has taught us to distrust our instincts and desires. It needs to do this in order to channel our wild energies into the domesticated activities of work and commodity consumption-- the activities that are destroying wildness everywhere. So the best thing we can do for wilderness is to let our own wildness break free by trusting and acting on our own instincts and desires. To be trapped in the ideology of a slogan is to chain our radical consciousness and to stifle our movement.
By equating the slogan with a movement, speaking of the movement as a monolithic being that acts on its own, defining participation in the movement in terms of use of the slogan rather than people's activities, the image of EF! as an organization is created whether such an organization actually exists or not. The Tucson crew reinforces this image by creating a visible bureaucracy, but even without them- the image would exist because EF! is spoken of in organizational terms even by those who claim it is not one. So an image has been created which the media can use to create a good guy / bad guy scenario. And thanks to Foreman, Abbey and other EF! stars, the image of a monolithic organization of crackpot, racist eco-terrorists is becoming dominant. Give the press a name and claim that it represents a single movement and they will see an organization there. And when even those who claim that Earth First! is not a monolithic organization speak of it in monolithic, organizational terms, can anything else be expected?
To summarize my thoughts:
1) The slogan, "Earth First!" needs to be left behind because it reflects false consciousness. We always act from our own needs, desires and experiences. When we recognize that in terms of our radical activity, we free that activity from any ideological constraints.
2) The slogan needs to be left behind because it has created an image that allows the media to manipulate the public's conception of those who act in the slogan's name.
3) The slogan needs to be left behind because it is associated with the redneck, macho, racist posturings of Abbey, Foreman and others.
4) The slogan needs to be left behind because it creates the image of a movement whose only basis is the use of that slogan, creating an insider/outsider dichotomy that allows "insiders" to write off the criticisms of "outsiders" without giving them much thought.
5) It needs to be recognized that the actual movement, of which those who use the slogan, "EF!" are part, is a movement to save what is wild from civilization. Many of us who have criticized the ideology that has been associated with EF! are active participants in that movement, so our criticisms are not those of outsiders.
6) It needs to be recognized that "Earth First!" is merely a slogan, a rallying cry. It does nothing concrete. Individual people, acting separately or together, are the ones doing things of actual significance. In order to avoid the image of being a monolithic organization, we have to be careful to make this clear.
We need to go beyond the false consciousness of the idea, Earth First! and recognize that only by setting our own wild instincts and desires free can wilderness be saved. Ours is a revolution of desire, a feral revolution. We do not do it for anything supposedly greater than ourselves; we do it for ourselves. So, come on, anarchic adventurers, let's go wild!

first published in Live Wild or Die #1 February 1988

reprinted in Anarchy: A Journal Of Desire Armed #19, May-July 1989.
please send corrections if you notice type-o's or formatting errors:
quiver@hush.com
http://www.anarchymag.org/
quiver@hush.com

The Liberation of Motion Through Space by Feral Faun

Time is a system of measurement, which is to say, a ruler, and authority. There is a reason why, during many insurrections, clocks have been smashed and calendars burned. There was a semi-conscious recognition on the part of the insurgents that these devices represented the authority against which they rebelled as much as did the kings or presidents, the cops or soldiers. But it never took long for new clocks and calendars to be created, because inside the heads of the insurgents the concept of time still ruled.
Time is a social construction which is used to measure motion through space in order to control it and bind it to a social context. Whether it be the motions of the sun, moon, stars and planets across the skies, the motions of individuals over the terrains they wander, or the motions of events across the artifices know as days, weeks, months and years, time is the means by which these motions are bound to social utility. The destruction of time is essential to the liberation of individuals from the social context, to the liberation of individuals as conscious, autonomous creators of their own lives.
The revolt against time is nothing if it is not a revolt against the domination of time in one's daily life. It calls for a transformation of the ways in which one moves through the spaces one encounters. Time dominates our motion through space by means of "necessary" destinations, schedules and appointments. As long as the social context which produced time as a means of social control continues to exist, it is doubtful that any of us will be able to completely eradicate destinations, schedules or appointments from our lives. But on examination of how these modes of interaction affect the ways one moves through space could help one create a more conscious motion. The most notable effect of having to get somewhere (destination), especially when one has to be there by a certain time (schedule/appointment), is a lack of awareness of the terrain over which one is moving. Such motion tends to be a sort of sleep-walking from which the individual creates nothing, since the destination and the schedule pre-exist the journey and define it. One is only conscious of her surroundings and how they are affecting her to the minimal extent necessary to get where she is going. I don't deny that many of the environments through which one may move, especially in an urban setting, can be disturbingly ugly, making such unconsciousness aesthetically appealing, but this lack of consciousness causes one to miss many chances for subversion and play that might otherwise be created.
Subverting one's motion through space, making it one's own, freed from the bondage to time, is a matter of creating this motion as nomadic motion rather than self-transportation. Nomadic motion makes a playful (though often serious) exploration of the terrain over which one is passing the essential aspect of the journey. The wanderer interacts with the places through which she passes, consciously changing and being changed by them. Destination, even when it exists, is of little importance, since it too will be a place though which one passes. As this form of motion through space becomes one's usual way, it may enhance one's wits, allowing one to become less and less dependent upon destinations, appointments, schedules and the other fetters that enforce the rule of time over our motions. Part of this enhancement of the nomad's wits within the present time dominated context is learning to create ways to play around time, subverting it and using it against itself to enhance one's free wandering.
A radically different way of experiencing living occurs when we are consciously creating time for ourselves. Due to the limits of a language developed within this time-dominated social context, this way of experiencing life is often spoken of in temporal terms as well, but as a subjective "time", as in: "The time when I was climbing Mount Hood..." But I'd rather not refer to this as subjective "time" since it has no shared purpose with social time. I prefer to call it "nomadic experience". Within nomadic experience, the peaks, the valleys and the plateaus are not created in steady, measurable cycles. They are passionate interactions of the sort which may make one moment an eternity and the next several weeks a mere eye-blink. On this passionate journey, the sun still rises and sets, the moon still waxes and wanes, plants still flower and bear fruit and wither, but not as measurable cycles. Instead, one experiences these events in terms of one's passionate and creative interactions with them. Without any destination to define one's motion through space, linear time becomes meaningless as well. Nomadic experience is outside of time, not in a mystical sense, but in the recognition that time is the mystification of motion through space and, like all mystifications, usurps our ability to create ourselves.
A conscious, playful, exploratory creation of our own motions through space, of our own interactions with the places we pass through, is the necessary practice of the revolt against time - nothing less than creating events and their language. Until we begin to transform ourselves into nomadic creators of this sort in the way we live our lives, every smashed clock and every burned calendar will simply be replaced, because time will continue to dominate the way we live.
please send corrections if you notice type-o's or formatting errors:

quiver@hush.com

The Bourgeois Roots of Anarcho-Syndicalism by Feral Faun

"We favor the development of a worker's movement based on direct democracy, not just because it will be more effective in the present day fight against the employing class, but also because it foreshadows - and lays the basis for - a society of freedom and equality, without authoritarianism or exploitation.
--from a flyer put out by the Workers Solidarity Alliance, an anarcho-syndicalist organization.
In the fourteenth or fifteenth century a social transformation began to take place which reached its dramatic peak in the American War of Independence and the French Revolution. This period was the uprising of the bourgeoisie against the feudal system and the power of the Catholic Church. In place of feudalism, the economic system of capitalism and the political system of political democracy arose. Rather than allow a non-elected aristocracy or a king to rule, liberal democracy demands that "the people" rule through their representatives or their vote. Like the anarcho-syndicalists quoted above, the bourgeoisie wanted a "society of freedom and equality, without authoritarianism or exploitation." Leave out the parts about "workers" and "the employing class" and Thomas Paine might have written the quote.
Of course, the anarcho-syndicalists will tell us that they aren't using the words in the way the bourgeois revolutionaries did. I'd take them at their word if it weren't for the fact that anarcho-syndicalism reflects bourgeois ideology in much more significant ways than merely borrowing its terminology. The values upheld by anarcho-syndicalists do not significantly differ from those of the more radical of the bourgeois liberal theorists, and their project, upon examination, proves to be merely the extension of the liberal project.
As I've already said, the economic system that came to power with the bourgeoisie is capitalism. I won't go into a lengthy description of capitalism - suffice it to say that the defining quality of capitalism, as compared with other economic systems, is not the existence of capitalists but the production of excess capital allowing for continued economic expansion. Capitalism is a highly moral system - that is to say it requires values which take priority over individual needs, desires or greed in order to expand smoothly. These values which are essential to capitalist expansion are production and progress. Every technological advance is, thus, to be embraced unless it can be shown to be a threat to further expansion of capital. Essential to production and progress is work and so the bourgeois highly value work - and, contrary to the image painted by "radical" labour propagandists, it is not uncommon for capitalists to work many more hours than industrial workers, but it's organizational rather than productive work. Those who manage to avoid work are the moral scum of capitalist society - parasites off the working people.
Anarcho-syndicalists embrace every one of these capitalist values. Their goal is "the real human mastery of production." In spite of the high level of anthropological evidence to the contrary, they assume that primal people spent most of their time just striving to survive and that it is only thanks to the production of technology and its progress that we can live the wonderful lives we all do now, and enjoy all the lovely commodities - oops! Sorry, I'm waxing sarcastic! The syndicalists recognize a few specific technologies as threats to survival but see technology in general and progress in general as positive things. In light of this, it is no surprise that they rhapsodize over work, because without work there would be no production or progress. Like the bourgeoisie, they see those who avoid work as "parasites." (See Chaze Bufe's Listen Anarchist!) The only real problem they have with the capitalist system is who's in charge - they'd prefer the One Big Capitalist, the international union of working people, rather than various individuals, corporations and states to be in charge. But the basic structure would be the same. Like the bourgeoisie - and maybe even more than the bourgeoisie - the anarcho-syndicalists embrace the values essential to capitalism.
If production and progress are positive values, making work essential, then social conformity is equally essential. I've already said that work avoidance is seen as parasitism. Any pleasure that cannot be commodified and so brought under the control of production is unethical. The vagabond, the tramp, the gypsy, the outlaw, any individual who makes no positive contribution to society is condemned as a failure or a criminal. Even the bohemian - the non-conforming artist, musician or poet - is suspect in bourgeois eyes - at least until a way is found to recuperate their renegade creative urges.
This same attitude towards those who don't fit into society is held by anarcho-syndicalists. Chaz Bufe's castigation of "marginals" in Listen Anarchist! makes this quite clear. The way the CNT constantly put down the anarchist outlaw Sabate (while continuing to take and use the money he gave them from his robberies) is truly disgusting. Throughout its history, anarcho-syndicalism has tried to quench the fire of unruly rebels, sometimes through persuasion and sometime through insult, to move anarchic rebels to conform and to accept society. Wherever anarchic rebellion went beyond the reforms the anarcho-syndicalists were calling, these supposed non-believers in law would be the first to cry, "Criminal! Terrorists!" Like the bourgeoisie, they want production to progress smoothly, and that requires social conformity.
Hand in hand with social conformity goes a love for social peace. It is true that the bourgeoisie has exploited wars between nations to expand capital, but this is always precarious since any violence can upset the smooth running of capitalism. Only violence instituted by the proper authorities with a rational and ethical basis has any place in bourgeois society. Personal conflicts are not only not to include physical violence but should be polite, dealt with through rational discussion, negotiation or due process. Certainly passions should not flare. The social peace is to be broken only under the most extreme of circumstances.
Anarcho-syndicalists also value social peace. From Luigi Fabbri's Bourgeois Influences in Anarchism to Bufe's Listen Anarchist!, they try to warn anarchists away from violent verbal expression - ironically, trying to claim that this springs not from false conceptions of anarchism created by the bourgeois press - why they think people with courage and intelligence to rebel against authority would accept the word of the bourgeois press, I don't know. Like the bourgeoisie, the anarcho-syndicalists call on us to express our disagreements rationally, free of passion, in a peaceable way. Any active, violent expression of individual rebellion is considered irresponsible, counter-revolutionary and unethical by the anarcho syndicalists. The perpetrators are labeled, at best, as dupes and more often as common criminals and terrorists. In fact, outside of a "revolutionary situation," anarcho-syndicalists reject most form of illegal activity as counter-productive (but is that necessarily bad?). Only the uprising of the working class (the "proper authority" in anarcho-syndicalist theory) can justify violence - and that violence must be rational and ethical so as to keep the instruments of production intact and make as smooth of a transition as possible to anarcho-syndicalist production.
Anarcho-syndicalists also wish to create a rational, ethical society. They call on us to "attack irrationality...wherever and whenever it arises." The problem they see with the present society is that it is not rational or ethical enough. Since reason is the source of ethical behavior (in their view), it must prevail in all areas of life. Not our passions or desires, but our "rational self-interest" should be our guide, say the syndicalists, echoing the utilitarians. It is both more rational and more ethical if the producer controls the means of production, they proclaim, blithely ignoring the question of whether it is possible for anyone to control the means of production in industrial society.
Both bourgeois liberal theorists and anarcho-syndicalists want a rational, ethical society based on freedom, equality and justice, guaranteeing human rights. Both want a smoothly running economy with high levels of production guaranteeing scientific and technological progress. Both require social peace and conformity to realize their projects. It is difficult not to think that their projects are the same. I see only two significant differences. The bourgeoisie sees the economy as an apolitical force that can progress efficiently and ethically in the form of private enterprise. The anarcho-syndicalists recognize the economy as a political force which must, therefore, be run democratically. The bourgeois liberals believe that representational democracy can create their ideal. Anarcho-syndicalists believe that democracy must be direct - though they never seem to ask us if we want to spend time directly voting on every social issue that comes up. The project of the anarcho-syndicalists is really just an extension of the project of the project of bourgeois liberalism - an attempt to push that project toward its logical conclusion.
"The every day activity of slaves reproduces slavery" -Fredy Perlman
This brings me to the final parallel between bourgeois liberalism and anarcho syndicalism, a parallel not of ideas, but of ignorance. Neither seems capable of recognizing the realities of the social system we live under. While talking about freedom and democracy, the bourgeois liberal and the anarcho-syndicalist both only see the human authorities that control them; they are blind to the social activities in which they participate which are the real source of their slavery. Thus, the bourgeois liberal is content to get rid of priests and kings, and the anarcho-syndicalist throws in presidents and bosses. But the factories remain intact, the stores remain intact (though the syndicalists may call them distribution centers), the family remains intact - the entire social system remains intact. If our daily activity has not significantly changed--and the anarcho-syndicalists give no indication of wanting to change it beyond adding the burden of managing the factories to that of managing the factories to that of working in them--then what difference does it make if there are no bosses? - We're still slaves! The "name-change does not exorcise the beast." But there is a reason why the bourgeois liberal nor the anarcho-syndicalist can see the slavery inherent in the social system. They do not see freedom as the ability of the unique individual to create her/his life as s/he chooses. They see it as the ability of the individual to become a fully and actively integrated part of a progressive, rational society. "Slavery is freedom" is not an aberration of Stalinist of fascist thinking; it is inherent in all perspectives which ascribe freedom to society rather than to the individual. The only way to guarantee the "freedom" of such societies is to suppress non-conformity and rebellion wherever they arise. The anarcho-syndicalists may talk of abolishing the state, but they will have to reproduce every one of its functions to guarantee the smooth running of their society. Anarcho-syndicalism does not make a radical break with the present society. It merely seeks to extend this society's values so they dominate us more fully in our daily lives. All true rebels, the renegades, outlaws and wild free spirits could no more accept an anarcho-syndicalist society than the present one. We would have to continue raising hell, creating a radical break with society, because we don't want more control over our own slavery--and that's all the anarcho-syndicalists offer us. We want to throw off the chains and live our lives to the full.
Source: Actually, we have no idea where this was originally published.
We found it on the online anarchist archive Insurgent Desire.
please send corrections if you notice type-o's or formatting errors: http://www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/index
.quiver@hush.com

The Cybernet of Domination by Feral Faun

(Author's note: This article is more speculative than I ideally would have liked, because it is attempting to trace the tendencies inherent in one aspect of modem society, tendencies which, of course, are in relationship to other aspects of this society. This should not be read as prediction, but as an attempt to show why cybernetics is not even potentially liberating and will ultimately be opposed by insurgent free spirits.)
"The dictatorship of the instrument is the worst kind of dictatorship."
-Alfredo M. Bonanno
There is a revolution going on. By this I do not mean an insurrection, an uprising of individuals against authority (though this revolution has managed to recuperate some anti-authoritarian tendencies towards its ends). I mean a substantial, qualitative change in the modes of social reproduction. The domination of industrial capital over these processes is being replaced by the domination of cybernetic capital. As with all such revolutions, this will not be a smooth, easy, peaceful transition. The old ruling order and the new ruling order are in conflict. The strength of reactionary elements in American politics over the past several years shows the tenacity with which the old order is trying to maintain its dominance. But increasingly that dominance is purely political, and the cybernetic new order dominates the economy. Some of my technophilic anarchist friends have told me that I "need to face up to the realities of the cybernetic age." To me, this means examining the nature of domination in the cybernetic age and relentlessly attacking. All that I've observed indicates that cybernetic science and technology are essential aspects of this domination.
Cybernetics innovators tend to be young (as compared to most of the political leaders of the "old order") and consider themselves rebels of sorts, at the cutting edge. The anarcho-technophiles I have met are quite sincerely rebellious and consider themselves to be opposing all authority. But most of the cybernetic rebellion- including a fair amount of the 'anarchist' cybernetic rebellion- seems like a rebellion of entrepreneurs, a rebellion to liberate a mode of production/reproduction not to liberate individuals. Since these cybernetic innovators are the human agents of a qualitative change in the nature of capitalism, it is no surprise that they choose to play a role similar to that of earlier capitalist revolutionaries. Most of the cybernetics freaks I know are too poor and too sincerely anarchic to ever become part of a new ruling class. But cybernetic innovators with money are creating just such a ruling class- though, as I will attempt to show below, this 'class' might more accurately be perceived as a system of relationships in which the technology itself rules and the human "ruling class" of cybertechnicians and scientists only serves the instrument, the machine. The rebellion of the cybernetic innovators is, from its birth, purely a coup d'etat. There is nothing truly liberating about it.

As banal as it is, it seems to need constant repeating: we live in a society in which the image dominates reality, in which most people see the image as reality. This makes it very easy for the cybernetic order to recuperate rebellion, because this new order not only has a far better grasp of image-making technologies than does the old order; increasingly, it is becoming those technologies. A comparison of the old order- which still is the main source of domination in most of our lives- and the new order- which is perfecting the tools of domination, but at the expense of the old order- would be worthwhile here.
The old order is that of industrial/financial capital. But it is more than this- it is also the order of the nation-state and of real political power. Authority is blatantly centralized and openly hierarchical- no one else can pretend they are not being ruled. This is blatant because essential power in this order actually resides in human beings in their roles as part of the social structure. The political mode of this order is representational democracy or one of its variants, such as fascism, socialist dictatorship and other forms of dictatorship. The domination of civilization over all non-human-made existence is openly accepted as a positive and necessary thing. Commands and voting on a choice between various commands are the methods for getting things done. Punishment is the way of dealing with aberrations from the social norms (though even the old order frequently uses the language of therapy to describe its punishments). In other words, the old order is quite open about its authoritarian nature.
At present, in much of the world (quite noticeably in the U.S.), the technology of the new order is still mostly controlled by the old order, which is incapable of using it efficiently, because it can't be understood in the old order's terms. The social potential of cybernetics is, thus, best discovered by reading and listening to the cyber-mavericks. If their visions were pure sci-fi fantasies, I'd ignore them, but the socio-political structures to fit their visions are being actively promoted and created by various quasi-libertarian 'radical' groups and individuals (e.g. the Greens, libertarian municipalists, social ecologists, Robert Anton Wilson, Timothy Leary...).
In the new order, the dominant form of capital is cybernetic/informational capital. This does not mean the end of industrial, financial and mercantile capitalism, but rather their subjection to the cybernetic mode of social reproduction. This new mode allows for some changes in social structures that, on the surface, appear almost anarchic- changes such as those promoted by Murray Bookchin, the Greens, RA. Wilson and other libertarians of the left and right. These changes are not only possible, but are probably necessary to some extent for the efficient reproduction of cybernetic society. Decentralization is a major rallying cry of many cybernetic radicals. This apparently anarchic goal is, in fact, not the least bit anti-authoritarian in the context of cybernetic capitalism. Cybernetic technology not only allows, but promotes, a decentralization of authority. Industrial capitalism began the process by which authority would come to exist increasingly in the very physical machinery which reproduces society. Cybernetic technology is perfecting this process to the extent of even bringing technologies of social control into the realms of leisure- the home computer, video games and the like. All of these apparently individual bits of cybertech-which have permeated workplaces, schools, game arcades and, at least in the U.S., homes of nearly anyone who's not too poor to get a personal computer- are part of a potentially unified, global network. This network is becoming the center of authority and power. It includes both the material technology of cybernetic machines and the social technology of cybernetic systemic structures. Those who are too poor to buy the material machinery are encompassed in the network by its making them dependent on social programs that are part of the network- this dependence stemming from a lack of access they have to knowledge which would allow them to create their lives for themselves. The decentralization offered by cybernetics can even extend to industry, fitting in well with the visions of certain techno-anarchists. Some corporations are already experimenting with having some of their production done in the form of cottage industry. What can't be done this way could probably be so automated that only a few technicians would be needed in a factory as trouble-shooters. (I've seen a huge factory which seemed to have only four workers.) So cybernetics allows for the apparent decentralization of production. But, of course, production itself remains unquestioned. This is because cybernetic 'decentralization' is not the least bit anti-authoritarian; it merely centers authority in a socio-technological network that has no spatial or material center, because the network is itself the center and it is (almost) everywhere. And it can easily intrude into all of our lives.
Along with apparent decentralization, cybernetic technology offers the possibility of apparent 'direct' democracy. This is what seems to attract those anarchists and libertarian leftists who drool over this technology. Everyone who 'owns' a computer is, at least politically, connected to everyone else who 'owns' a computer. It would be no surprise if some form of personal computer becomes available to even the poorer people in the more advanced areas of capitalist domination since this would more fully integrate them into the cybernet. If everyone in a particular nation had a computer, they could be easily convinced that they could make the real decisions that effect their lives- that they could vote 'directly' through their computers on all significant issues. That this constitutes as complete a separation between decision and action as may be possible is conveniently forgotten, as is the fact that the cybernetic system itself cannot be questioned significantly in this way since this system itself controls what can and cannot be questioned by the very nature of its technology. Cybernetic language is a high-tech newspeak. The 'direct' democracy it offers is only that which can reproduce cybernetic society. It does not eliminate representation; it can merely center it in technology rather than in elected human beings. But like all representations, this technology will act as a ruler.
The ideology behind cybernetic technology is systems analysis. Systems analysis seeks to understand all interactions in terms of systems or networks of relationships in which each thing affects all other things. It attempts to scientifically (i.e. mathematically) understand these systems of relationships in order to better control them. Thus, the concept of 'process', as opposed to chains of command, becomes increasingly important in cybernetic society. 'Process' - a radical buzzword for "politically correct" ways of communicating and relating- fits in very well with systems analysis because it is an attempt to formalize decision making relationships without making anyone involved feel that they are being coerced. 'Correct' process is potentially, the way for the cybernet to integrate everyone as completely as possible into itself. Process militates against non-participation, tending to make non-participation appear as victimization rather than as a freely made choice. The ideology behind 'correct' process assumes that the individual is merely a part of the process of the system of relationships that is the group (on the micro-level) or. society (on the macro-level). Process is systems analysis applied to group and social projects. It is the domination of the ideology of the cybernet in our interactions. Process is used regularly mostly in radical, ecological, feminist and similar groups. But many corporations are integrating process- consensus, facilitation and the like- with old order chains of command in experiments designed to make employees feel that they are more truly part of the corporation. Ultimately, the 'process' created by predominantly middle class 'radical' groups provides a system for controlling rebellious tendencies which fits perfectly into the framework of cybernetic control.
If a part of the cybernetic process is not functioning correctly, you don't punish it; you try to fix it. In the context of cybernetic society, punishment of criminals and deviants comes to appear increasingly inhuman and absurd. Efficient social control requires everyone to be as fully integrated into the social system as possible, and punishment does nothing to integrate the punished- more often than not it does the opposite. So the most 'progressive' elements in society create therapeutic approaches for dealing with social deviance. At present, criminals are still mostly punished though the language of therapy is used even in this context. Non-criminal deviance (e.g. 'excessive' alcohol use, 'inappropriate' sexual behavior, acting up in school, 'madness') tends to be labeled a disease and 'treated'. The proliferation of 12-step groups and new-age therapies is just a part of this phenomenon. Many of these groups very blatantly teach that you cannot do anything about your alleged problems by yourself; you have to become part of an interdependent group of fellow victims, helping each other to recover- forever and ever and ever- and become productive members of society. Occasionally, even criminals- particularly people convicted of DUI or minor drug offenses- are given a choice between punishment or forced therapy. A therapeutic approach to social deviance appears very humane- enough so that many anarchists have integrated aspects of therapeutic ideology into their perspectives-but this is deceptive. The purpose of thcrapy is to reintegrate social deviants into the social machine as well-oiled cogs. It defines technology or the conception of the wilds as integrated systems to be used in an integrated manner by society. Even "deep ecologists" only reject the integration of civilized social systems and wild 'eco-systems', because they feel that civilized social systems have strayed too far from the 'natural' systems to be capable of integrating (making some sort of social apocalypse inevitable), not because they reject the idea that undomesticated relating and interaction can be systematized. While most corporations continue on apace destroying the environment, it is quite hip now to talk ecology, and the most progressive corporations even try to act ecologically. After all, it is to their ultimate benefit. How can you possibly expand capital if you destroy the resources necessary for such expansion? So cybernetic capitalism tends toward an ecological practice as a means of domesticating the wilds without destroying them, of integrating them into the social system of the cybernet.
Of course, these are all just tendencies which the development and increasing power of cybernetic capital seem to be pushing towards. The old order of industrial capital is still quite strong, dominating in the political arena, and so still quite significant as a mode of social domination. But an intelligent insurgency needs to understand domination in its totality, needs to be able to recognize its new faces, so that insurgents aren't duped into embracing a new form of domination as liberation. Most of the individuals I know who have embraced some version of ecotopian, cybernetic, green anarchism seem to be quite sincere in their desire to live free of all constraints. But they seem to ignore some very basic aspects of cybernetics. As science, cybernetics is the study of systems of control. Practically, it is the production of such systems, technologically and socially- the production of integrated systems of social control. Some of the most common words of cybernetic language make this obvious. 'Data' comes from a Greek word which means 'That which is given" - that is an axiom, that which you are told, without proof, and are simply not to question. Information originally meant, literally "in formation" in Latin. The cybernet offers no liberation whatsoever, merely the illusion of liberation to keep rebels "in formation." It undermines individual experience and the trust of individuals in their own experience by creating realms of pseudo-experience, that is, of "the given," of information which has no connection to anything outside the cybernet. Individuals, increasingly, rely only on what they are told by the cybernet, and so become dependent upon cybernetic society. In this way, the cybernet becomes the most truly totalitarian system yet- precisely by 'decentralizing' and using the integrative methods of process and therapy which make individuals the agents of their own domestication in a situation in which no one trusts themselves, but all are dependent on the cybernet.
There is one flaw in this system. It disenfranchises those who do not want or cannot afford to have cybernetic technology in their home. Even when home computers do become available to the very poor, many may have no interest in even learning how to use them. It is further quite doubtful that the fully enfranchised- the technicians and scientists who know how to produce and fully use these technologies- will be interested in bringing everyone up to their level of knowledge about the cybernet. So, the disenfranchised- especially the voluntarily disenfranchised- will tend to become increasingly more so, until they are nearly completely outside the cybernet. While inside the cybernet the tendency is toward total control, -outside the cybernet the tendency would be toward the total breakdown of social control. Ultimately, in such a situation; insurgent rebellion would only be possible outside the net.
At present, this situation is being forestalled as the new cybernetic order and the old order have an uneasy truce. The old order needs the informational technologies which create and are created by the new order. And the new order is not yet powerful enough to dispense with some of the harsher means of social control produced by the old order. The new order has also found ways of integrating some of the more progressive elements of the old order, such as multinational organizations, into itself. It is also quite possible that the cybernet will find continued uses for cops, prisons and the like within its systemic network of social control. Or the uneasy truce may go on, indefinitely. Since the real relations between people do not, in fact, fit the formulas of the cybernet and its systems analysts, there is no way of predicting what might happen. My own desire is for an insurrection that will blow all systems of social control to bits.
But cybernetic technology is becoming the dominant mode of post-industrial capital. It is a mode in which capital, technology, authority and society become so totally integrated that they are truly one. Rebellion, in this context, means rebellion against the cybernet and rebellion against society in its totality or it means nothing. This is what it means for the insurgent to face up to the reality of cybernetic technology. The insurgent individual can no longer do anything less than rebel against the totality of society - including all of those 'radical' perspectives which are nothing more than the cutting edge of the real "new world order."

from "Anarchy: A Journal Of Desire Armed" Issue #35 Winter 1993
republished by Elephant Editions (London) 2000/2001 in the collection "Feral Revolution"

please send corrections if you notice typ e-o's or formattin

http://www.anarchymag.org/ quiver@hush.com