Articles, Essays, Poems and More

Thoughts on the Situation in Syria 10/10/19

What is happening in Syria is, as it has been, fucking horrific.

The situation seems to me to place “us” – or at least myself – somewhere strange, but entirely familiar, like being caught between spaces, nowhere but here.

In one space, this is totally immediate. My sensation of disgust and revulsion is immediate. Those experiencing the violence are experiencing it immediately. The ecological crisis that has been such an overlooked aspect of all of this is immediate. It’s right here and right now.

In the Other space, this is a totally mediated event. The weapons are so intensely technologically mediated that there’s very little relationship between the person using them and those experiencing their impact. There’s an intense media spectacle around this that provides a mediated pathway for “us” (the viewer) to navigate through. And the politics/History provide a lens that perceptually mediates.

I don’t think that there are any (simple) answers to any questions you or I have. My instinct is that everything collapses – love, death and anarchy are all gravitational (and earth/body directed) – and have a belief that multiple collapses are happening at once. I’m revolted by the situation, that much I know.

Advertisements

In My Great And Unmatched Wisdom

In my great and unmatched wisdom:

I have realised that the pyramids were built by dinosaurs.

In my great and unmatched wisdom:

I know that on the 8th day God regretted not wearing a condom.

In my great and unmatched wisdom:

I have found that the only ethical diet is conscientious cannibalism.

In my great and unmatched wisdom:

It has been revealed to me that Brexit is when the aliens are gonna return the Atlantans.

In my great and unmatched wisdom:

It has become apparent to me that governments often do not cool stuff and that businesses tend to be crappy.

In my great and unmatched wisdom:

Tom Hanks is an overrated actor.

In my great and unmatched wisdom:

I know that humanity and fish can coexist peacefully.

In my great and unmatched wisdom:

I am here to tell you that there’s a entire generation of children who are going to be failed YouTube stars.

In my great and unmatched wisdom:

I am aware that the greatest rebels, anarchists and freedom fighters, are non-humans.

In my great and unmatched wisdom:

I have realised that Christmas is not at the root of all evil, but is a communist plot to brainwash children into worshiping red men who encourage sharing gifts.

In my great and unmatched wisdom:

I have come to know that just because you’ve taken psychedelics doesn’t mean you’ve got something interesting to say.

In my great and unmatched wisdom:

Pee is stored in the balls.

In my great and unmatched wisdom:

Evolution is a theory.

In my great and unmatched wisdom:

Spongebob Squarepants is a documentary.

In my great and unmatched wisdom:

Horses, donkeys and zebra are the same animal in different outfits.

In my great and unmatched wisdom:

Geometry is a theory.

In my great and unmatched wisdom:

It has been revealed to me that colourful hair and clothes are not an adequate replacement for a personality.

In my great and unmatched wisdom:

An octopus is a type of cat and a cat should be called a quadropus.

In my great and unmatched wisdom:

A horsefly is not a good stead to ride into battle.

In my great and unmatched wisdom:

I have come to know that the moon is a conspiracy.

In my great and unmatched wisdom:

Peace supports violence, so being peaceful enables violence, and being harmless means you’re not a threat – being destructive allows space to be calm and gentle.

In my great and unmatched wisdom:

People who are insecure about whether or not they are Nazis will go out of their way to tell you Hitler was bad.

In my great and unmatched wisdom:

You don’t make a potato a jacket potato by cooking it while wearing a jacket or by clothing it in a jacket

What Is Julian Langer Talking About?

“(Personally, I really have no idea what JL is taking about)”

The quote was part of a comment in an online discussion I was tagged into.

Of course, what I’m talking about is generally specific to its topic, but there are themes across my thought – some of which I’ll briefly state in a second. I have continually expected anyone reading me to interpret through their subjective gaze and have never wanted to appeal to anything permanently objective. My choice in style and vocabulary is intentional, partly because most of what I read on the internet I find boring and I also am not writing for a disengaged reader (who just wants their own opinion thrown back at them, to confirm their ideology); but for the most part I write how I write because I want to write how I write, in my individualist praxis. I also do not believe the world or our situation is clear, simple or understandable, in logical, humanised, scientific senses; so I’m not really trying to be any of them.

Anywho, brief descriptions of some of my themes –

God’s Eye Views

The world is not flat and we are not above it. There’s always obstacles to your vision, and when you’re exploring the other side where you were might have changed. Dogmatism sucks and I’m far more interested in the perspectives of animals wandering on the forest floor, than of people in planes, thinking their God, trying to know what is going on beneath the trees.

Guerilla Ontology

We live in a built Reality, comprised of cultures, ideologies, religions, roads, towns, cities, farms, factories, televisions, iPhones, pornography, Alex Jones, badger traps and other technologies that keep us psychically and bodily at a distance from what is Real. What is Real is pre-linguistic and ineffable – so kind of mystical, but not spiritual – which means talking about it is ultimately absurd(, but fuck it, why not be absurd?). My instinct is that what is pre-linguistically Real includes basically all of what we’d call wildlife and my desire is to see the Reality that violates what is Real (to sustain its existence) deconstructed and destroyed; to allow wildlife to do what its gonna do without coercion or control.

Eco-anarchist praxis is then the deconstruction and destruction of Realities – which includes way more than what many green/primitivist anarchists are talking about/discussing/doing. This Reality (that is one and many, and is getting increasingly totalitarian) is often called History – as it is the machine that History has built (and is) – which extends into the future exponentially.

Eco-pessimism

We’re doomed, existentially always were, but fuck it, let’s do shit anyway! Every creature that has struggled to live through any extinction event has done so out of will-to-life, will-to-power and an absurd refusal to give up. You were always gonna die at the end of your life, so why not live right now?

Loving Badgers

I have an instinctive desire for authentic experience and a love of living beings. I can conceive of no moral justifications for anyone to do anything, but my experience of love and sense of empathy towards others leads me to believe that the best way to affect people, so as to encourage rewilding and wild rebellion, is to dance with what you love and be openly in revolt and revulsion against what you hate. I don’t believe that people are going to find relationships with their animality, or the living world that they are Extensions of, through the highly rational choreographies of primitivists (alone), or will seek to attack this culture out of anarchist inspired hatred for it (alone). Without falling in love (collapsing into a wild confusing abyss), there is only a reductive, rational, Reality being built.

Becoming Animal

The machine Reality is a product of humanisation, so I am dehumanising myself and attempting to dehumanise the world (or at least as much of the world that I am able to affect). Becoming animal is weird, difficult, can appear pretentious (but fuck all societal expectations of modesty) and is similar to what Stirner, Nietzsche and Diogenes were talking about, but is not the same – as species is a humanised category, every animal is different and unique, so this is an individualist process and no one can tell you how to do it.

Radical (fucking) Monism

Everything is fucking One (which is plural). There is One of me and you, and we are One of One, which is One with One – but there’s no numbers, so One is Nothing and no-Thing. There is no salvation or anywhere else to go to. Everything that is created is destroyed and destruction allows creation. You are the world you want to affect and the world affect you is you.

Dance!

While I don’t advocate revolutions, I’d dance with Emma Goldman any day!

Why rebel if it weren’t fun? Why are most radicals so radically boring, with their serious-real(ity)ist scowls? It’s always been a giant cosmic joke, with your death as the punchline (only to find you’ve not escaped and are still here, but different); so have a sense of fun!

Why can’t nihilists give free hugs, just out of a desire to do it? Why shouldn’t eco-anarchist attacks also be games? Why do revolutionary work, if it just extends the machine of work?

Radical environmentalism and anarchist thought is tragically lacking in comedy, ridiculousness and absurdity.

Why would anyone read your manifesto, if it has no poetry?

(This might not be an explicit theme, but has certainly been an undercurrent to my approach).

Shhhhhhhh

Leftists, you might not be as crappy as the right (in some aspects), but you’re still dickheads! Only evangelicals like evangelicals. Quit trying to coerce everything to fit your narrative! Shhhhhhhh.

Deal With Monsters

There are no safe spaces and you’re only safe when you’re dead. The world is dangerous, so if we’re going to Be-in-the-world we are choosing to engage with endangered living beings and dangerous machines.

I don’t believe in avoidance, and am convinced that honesty and integrity are more powerful than moral platitudes or gang mentality.

There is nowhere to runaway to, so why try to?

Presentism

With my revolt against History, I prefer the actions of individuals and groups, such as Hunt Saboteurs, ELF, ALF, Post-Situationists and others who do not wait for the right “Time”, but practice immediatism, by fighting right here, right now. Revolutionaries can sit and wait all they want, but the future never gets here,

What Julian Langer is talking about will be different alway, because the world is always different, we are always different and they are always different. But those are some persistent themes within my thoughts and writings.

Two Poems

Bangs, Whimpers, Arts, Culture, and Commentary

By Julian Langer

Everything is a

Moment where
Potentialities
Topple into
You
Letting go
Of
Stuff
That has disappeared
Anything is
News if it is
God’s violence
Sounding out on the airwaves
Tomorrow might be different
Meditating can be hard
Even for the practiced
Dancing thoughts of words
Interrupting an attempt
To ground
And find some
Trust in the gravitational
Eros of Earth
image1

Julian Langer has had 2 books published on eco-anarchist philosophy, has self published a collection of poems and drawings, writes with various publications and is involved in the Night Forest Poetry Project. He lives on Briton, near woods, streams and rivers, with badgers and goldfinches. If you want to find more of his writings you can access them via https://ecorevoltblog.wordpress.com

 

View original post

Editorial For Anews Podcast Episode 120 – Responsibility

You can listen to the podcast here.

The essay is below –

If by anything, anarchists can all share in desiring freedom. This much would seem obvious. Regardless of your faction, flag, tendency, or ideology, if you’re involved in anarchist activities, or even just interested in them, you will be desiring freedom in some way or another. What that freedom means might be very different between us. To some freedom means communism, others capitalism, or rewilding, most of us acknowledge that it includes liberation from patriarchy, nationalism and racism, and to some it means technological development (though if I am honest, that last one has always confused me). Anarchist tendencies will often have collectivist and individualist approaches within them as well, with many delineated demarcations separating differences in approach.

It is potentially true that there are as many anarchist tendencies as there are anarchists in the world. But still, anarchists value freedom – anarchy.

As I explore my freedom to navigate the world as I find it, I am struck by an experience that is paradoxical. When the state, market, God, technology or other authorities I have encountered within my life have no relevance to me in a situation, I do not find that with the absence of rules and authority everything is permitted – in the Dostoyevskyan sense.

Every action I have affects some part of the world that extends from my body, out into the world. My ability to affect the world is a huge aspect of my sense of freedom. Whether it is through poetry, friendship or sabotage, my ability to affect people and this machine, even if that is only in tiny micropolitical ways, is a huge aspect of my sensation of freedom.

With this ability to affect the world through my actions, I find an immediate responsibility for what I create and what I destroy through those actions. I could hurt, heal, build, break, as I wish. With that though, I have a desire to desire what it is I have created through my actions, and to not be revolted by the affects of my actions.

Both Sartre and Stirner have written about this aspect of freedom – the responsibility it entails. Sartre said that we are condemned to freedom, and so are responsible for our lives and the world we create through our lives. Stirner called freedom the will to be responsible for one’s self.

I cannot know your desires, because I am not you. I have the experience of my desires.

My experience of desire is intimately connected to my experience of love, of being loved and of loving what it is in the world I love. I desire the experience of being loved, not in some sense of admired or romanticised, but as being affirmed by another for who I am, in a naked sense of who I am. In the Stirnite sense of egoistically loving because loving comes with a sensation of being alive; I desire the experience of loving and find an experience of liberation in loving.

This all comes back to my ability to affect the world, and includes my experience of being affected by the world.

I am revolted by the idea of those I love being hurt, harmed or abused, and have a desire not to affect them in such a way. This is something that we obviously encounter within anarchist praxis, or at least I suppose we share in this – it seems to me that anarchist praxis includes a desire to not affect the world by abusing in ways that we find undesirable.

Life is not always easy. With the world as we encounter it, through various means of repression and domination, the world can feel like an extremely unfree place. With this, I enjoy Camus’s approach of living in an unfree world as an individual who is so absolutely free (which might not always be possible), so that my existence is in-itself an act of rebellion. And with that comes that immediate responsibility. Not everything is permitted!

I do not want to murder badgers, throw trash across beaches, eat factory farmed genetically modified beef, support white nationalists in their activities, be an abusive force within the world, or cause harm to those I love. With this, my freedom is rendered somewhat absurd. Freedom hasn’t just liberated me, but it binds me to my experience of the world, my loves and desires, how I affect the world and how the world affects me from my actions.

What this might mean for you, I do not know. Between all the factions, ideologies and groups, freedom signifies so many different activities and actions; your freedom could mean something entirely different to mine.

My experience is that, in general, anarchists have a sense of wanting to be responsible for the affects that they create through their actions. My free-market anarchist friends do not want to be exploitative in their activities. My anarcho-communist friends do not want to be authoritarian in their organising. My veganarchist friends do not want to be cruel in their resistance. My eco-anarchist friends don’t want to tame the wild passions of others. My anarcho-feminist friends do not want to dominate others through their struggles. My queer-anarchist friends do not want to be abusers through their liberation. My anarcho-nihilist friends do not want to enslave others to false futures.

We have desires regarding the affect we have on the world. Perhaps, as well as a desire for freedom, we all share a desire to be responsible for the affects of our actions, so that we do not create anything we find undesirable.

Recently the Marxist-Pagan writer and editor Rhyd Wildermuth posted on social media that anarchism requires self-mastery. What Wildermuth was appealing to, I believe, was the responsibility that comes with freedom. Though I do not believe that responsibility implies self-mastery – though I can appreciate that a Marxist interpretation might view it as that (even from a libertarian/autonomous ideology). Self-mastery initially implies that we are located outside of ourselves and that we can control ourselves, as an object outside of ourselves, which is property/capital. A secondary implication of this is that we are also required to be slaves to ourselves, obeying our master-self, who is our ruler.

I do not find myself outside of myself, as my capital, master, or slave though, so cannot follow this line of thought.

Also, under the authority of a master, everything IS permitted – which Marxism has repeatedly shown us, given how abusive a force it has continually been, under the authority of ideological masters. Any action performed under the authority of a master, we are not responsible for – they are. It isn’t the enactors of the master’s commands who are responsible for the affects they have created, it is the tyrant’s. Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Franco, Bush, Obama, Blair, Churchill etc., they did it all, through managing to control the capital that is the slaves they master – who are not responsible for their actions. The bad faith within this is obvious, but it is what is repeatedly the implication, if not outright accusation. The deferral of responsibility that masterdom allows for means that those under the rule of a master are not the enactors of their actions, but a technological means of the master enacting their actions. Even as self-masters, as we are outside of ourselves in both directions, we do not do what we do, but it is our other self who does, continually deferring.

My desire to be responsible for the affects of my freedom is why I will accept neither the mastery of another, nor of myself. I cannot control myself as property, but can live as myself, as an anarchist – free. How I affect the world I can be responsible for, not out of moralistic guilt, shame or obligation, but out of egoistic love and desire.

Is anarchist praxis perhaps unconsciously based in a shared desire to be responsible for the way we affect the world, to not partake in what we find to be abusive and revolting, and to love so that our existences are perpetual modes of rebellion? Maybe anarchist praxis also includes the refusal to allow any masters to take responsibility for the way we affect the world?

I grant no master my freedom to affect the world, or responsibility for my actions, as I grant no master authority over my life.

A Response To John Jacobi’s “Escaping Society Peacefully Isn’t an Option”

In this response to John Jacobi’s piece “Escaping Society Peacefully Isn’t an Option” I will not attempt to speak for any one else, but will vocalise my thoughts as they pertain to my individual desires. I will respond to what seems to me to be the core ideas within the piece individually.

I will say now that this response is intended to be a respectful acknowledgement of someone who thinks and feels extremely similarly to me, and who I think is worth responding to.

Escape. I do not see why escape is desirable, whether possible or not. I also do not find that I and most others are trapped, in a totalitarian sense. In anarchist and radical discourses we think too much in absolutes. Instead, I find that there are varying intensivities of capture, which changes continually, increasing and decreasing. I am, as I write this, a temporary autonomous zone. When I am in different spaces, with more intensive authoritarian technological apparatus around me, I am less autonomous. I am temporary, because I am temporary. The intensivity of my capture is at its least, while I have not escaped, when I am able to have the most amount of fun in civilisation – psychological warfare, sabotage and other creative projects are immediate sources of rebellion and liberation.

Peace. Why would peace be desirable. It seems to me that peace requires the most authoritarian measures of violence – with the most violent of societies being the most peaceful. Life, wild-Being, nature (whatever the fuck we call the world(/Real) that civilisation(/this-Reality) is built on) seems to me to a process of creative destruction and destructive creativity, which can be calmer or more energetic. But the world is never peaceful.

Inherently political. Why is our struggle an inherently political one? Why do we have to include the affairs of the city, the policing of daily life, within our praxis? To quote the post-hardcore band Alexisonfire “there’s no police between 2 beating hearts”. My life includes many non-political experiences. When I enjoy the feeling of the rain on my cheek, I am not bound to politics during that experience. I’m not appealing purely to what is called lifestyleism, but I do not find I am condemned to political engagements at all points of my anarchist praxis.

Communes. Why should we aspire for sedentary communal life? Is a commune not a society? My desire is directed towards tribal and nomadic life – both psychic and embodied. Why would I bound myself to another society, rather than grow my individual power, as my individual anarchist praxis? As an individualist I can form tribalistic-friendships, of smaller numbers but more intense relationship, not bound to any communal-societal culture, or subculture. If I were to join a commune, would I not be bound to the norms and requirements of that collective?

Social-animals. Am I a social animal? Am I bound to such an essentialistic reductive conception of myself? Am I innately human? I do not experience myself, or others, as this! I have not found any reason to believe in any essense that precedes my existence, which I am by metaphysical law required to conform to. My anarchy is largely a playful becoming-animal. I find myself most human when least anarchist. Perhaps Jacobi you are at risk of being human, all too human.

Outside/Inside Split. Jacobi seems to believe the very myth of civilisation, that there is an inside to escape the outside from – that there is nature and unnature. This retains the alienating narrative of cosmic-separation, where we identify with our mediation, and ultimately wallow in it. I do not find that I am cut off from what is wild at any point, in an absolutist and totalitarian sense. Sure domestication is a mutation of life, whose intensity has both qualitative and quantitative differences from what is wild. But I am alive, the air currents around me are wild, and even inside now there are processes of life, even if only microscopic, that are still true.

Victory via Primitivist Revolutionary Organisation. The idea of a primitivist revolutionary organisation seems strange to me, for a number of reasons.

One reason for this is because a revolution, in radical/political and scientific/cultural terms, is the seizing, consciously or unconsciously, of the meliorist historical progression, in a way that is expansive. Primitivism, like all anti-civ praxis, though is ultimately retractive, in its anti-anthropocentric perspective. As well as this, one of the strengths of primitivist thought is its critiques of time, which includes the concept of history.

An anti-civ praxis that is timeless, or presentist, by rejecting history in both of its directions, opens up the spaces where we find the civilisation collapses every day, as the Real destroys this Reality. The idea of winning or losing, in this fight against the world that they built, is for the most part, in presentist praxis, both largely irrelevant. A-historic praxis, in its pessimism, acknowledges that there are cosmic-geological-meteorological-processes, which move freely, regardless of civilisation’s attempt to repress them, which render any historic-attempt relatively meaningless – both to defend civilisation from total annihilation, and to instigate its destruction. Presentist praxis, in its absurdist joy, brings victory to the spaces we are and we-are-in, as every day affairs, in wild spaces, where life processes flow unrepressed – whether that is goldfinches and sparrows being able to nest freely, a captured elephant claiming revenge against those who enslaved them, anarchist rebels getting away from the police, or as lovers with no police between their beating hearts.

This is what I have found, during my explorations, my every-day breaching experiments, my meditations and my attacks.

I do no know whether or not organisations of a radical perspective can achieve much. I am impressed by some and despair over others. At best, perhaps radical organisations can function as bridges, but even then, are they so mediated and us so not? What I know for certain, in my embodied instinctual reaction, is that I have not yet found any organisation that I hold a belief in, which harbours no doubt or mistrust.

Where is the love? Environmentalism is a gravitational fall from the towers and skyscrapers of civilisation to the earth – a collapsing into the primordial eros, with a passionate, dark and joyfully erotic love, that is confusing and difficult, in the way that real love just is.

So where is the love of what is wild within this revulsion towards this tame and domesticated Reality – with its tame passions and loveless socially-contracted obligations?

Not just in Jacobi’s writings, but in many environmentalist essays and articles – especially those of more mainstream bright-Green perspectives – I find sincere criticism of this culture, but without any primal falling in love with the earth that we are and we are immersed in – paneroticism (to steal feral faun’s term). What is an ecological perspective without a – perhaps mad and erratic – egoist desire for an untamed world, ecologically and psychically rewilded (not simply out of reductionistic strategizing), for ourselves and for those we love, as Extensions of ourselves? Is it any more than banal moralising and blueprints for the construction of new histories to ruinate the earth?

*

I have written this with a sincere respect and appreciation for John Jacobi, for what he brings to the discussion, his insights and the work he puts in to the Wildwill project of which he is part. I am looking forward to reading his Repent to the Primitive, and hope that, between my perhaps critical thoughts, my affirmation of his thought is obvious.

I am increasingly finding in the spaces of discourse and action, which I am aware of, that everything is brought down to black and white objects of right or wrong, good or bad, losing or winning. This type of binary logic adheres to the law of the excluded middle, whose ontological function has been to clear-cut through forests of thought, to create roads from one Reality to another. It is an easy way to try to by-pass and drive through the confusing Real, whose absurdity we are immersed in.

My anarchy desires approaches that are closer to the dark ecologythat philosopher Timothy Morton writes about, which explores the excluded middle, and topological and intensive thinking which sociologist Manuel DeLanda argues as a process oriented approach to discourse – allowing for non-absolutist thought.

This isn’t a conclusion or a final destination, but another exploration in the excluded middle – and I am keen to explore with friends. In the excluded middle we can be egoist-environmentalists, nihilist-primitivists, anti-civ communists, and so on. Not bound to laws of non-contradiction by repressing our desires, in a feralexploration of the space between wildness and domestication, neither inside or outside, we can disagree with our allies, and agree with our enemies, as we explore the ever changing world we encounter.

My desire remains not directed towards the peace of violence, the violence of peace, or in escaping, but for intense immediate wild experiences of panerotic anarchist exploration.

Two Poems

2 poems I wrote, which have been published by Former People.

Bangs, Whimpers, Arts, Culture, and Commentary

by Julian Langer

You are what you eat 1You are what you eat 2You are what you eat 3


Julian Langer has had 2 books published on eco-anarchist philosophy, has self published a collection of poems and drawings, writes with various publications and is involved in the Night Forest Poetry Project. He lives on Briton, near woods, streams and rivers, with badgers and goldfinches. If you want to find more of his writings you can access them via https://ecorevoltblog.wordpress.com

View original post

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑