The SON is not a SOW [as Hobbes Would Have It], but the SOW is Super Smash Brothers*

Over at Global Guerrillas, John Robb asked:

Almost all conflict theory assumes that there are only two primary antagonists. State vs. State. Mind vs. Mind. Good vs. Evil. Just vs. Exploitative. Us vs. Them. The list goes on and on. What if conflict in a flat world isn't a two sided affair? What if it consists of n sides? What if it involves many participants, each with a very different motive for conflict and each packaged in a variety of shapes/sizes/etc.? How does that change conflict theory, strategy, tactics, organization, etc.?

The War of Many v. Many is the world we live in: the fragmented global economic oligarchy vs. themselves vs. defenders of state sovereignty vs. non-state nationalist or indigenist guerrillas vs. non-state internationalist/ideological guerrillas vs. national or international gangs and cartels vs. ... etc.

The Smash Brothers Theory of Warfare:

So naturally the first thing I thought of was Super Smash Brothers. Did you ever play Smash Brothers? We used to play all the time in high school. I was always Samus, and I did pretty good, considering I wasn't actually very good at the game.

And I wrote a long reply to Robb's post, describing my Smash Brothers strategy:

• Stay out of the way of the actual fighting;

• Let everybody kill each other;

• Only jump in when you can make a quick attack (Samus's charged-up blastergun) and get out quickly;

• When getting out, make it expensive for your enemies to follow (Samus is able to drop bombs all over the place even when jumping away);

• Make it to the end relatively intact, to face off against the heavily damaged winner.

In this way--Jay can confirm this--I managed to do pretty well...despite, again, not being all that great at the game.

I wonder: Can this idea tell us anything about the best way to liberate the earth from Civilization?

Smash Brothers After Descartes

The state is breaking down. Globalization, and its corollary, privatization, are the looting of the state: The transfer of wealth--wealth representing natural resources, abstracted--natural resources being living ecosystems, objectified--from one sort of bureaucracy (governments) to another sort (private corporations). Corporations aren't the only actors pillaging the state. Liberation movements and criminal cartels of various stripes are involved as well.

We want to see land controlled by no bureacracies, but rather by the individuals, human and otherwise, who live on the land.

Here's our position in the global game of Smash Brothers, as far as I can tell:

• We are structured as an ideologically-driven, relatively rhizomatic network. Our composition is similar to the hunter-gatherer band: We are composed of disparate, fluid social groups in various locations. We come together for gatherings of various sorts: Earth First rendezvous, primitive skills gatherings, rewild camps, Crimethinc convergences, etc. These gatherings mirror the seasonal comings-together of scattered hunter-gatherer families: New friends (and enemies) are made; Groups change composition; People share "resources" (skills, knowledge, food, sex).

• We are largely located on the territory of the US. That means we are subject to perpetual monitoring and surveillance and that we are within reach of the most advanced police/military aparatus in the world.

• We are, for the most part, unarmed.

• We have very little territory. We have no way of defending territory.

• We have little in the way of mass appeal. Or rather, in some of our manifestations (rewild.info) we have a little bit of appeal; in others (Green Anarchy) we have next to none.

• We have a very poor track record in terms of recruitment and retention of members. One of our major manifestations in the broader society is that of a youth-based social "scene."
  

• We have little in the way of self-awareness as a network. We have little in the way of strategy.

What Are We Gonna Do Now?

Is this right? Is this an accurate description of the state of affairs in the anti/beyond-civilziation movement?

If so, Where can we (safely, legally) go from here? Is there any way to play Samus in this world?


*(The State Of Nature is not a State Of War [as Hobbes would have it], but the State of the World is Super Smash Brothers.)

The Ecology of--

I've written about this before; it's on my mind again.

The essence of civilization is enforced dependency.

Born into the physical world, we need certain things in order to live: air, food, water, shelter; sociability, companionship, community; etc. We can't make these things ourselves-- in order to get them we have to enter into relationships with others.

Outside civilization, relationships are entered into freely. I freely enter a forest, and eat deer or salmon or salal berries. I forge a relationship with them that restores them-- or I don't, and they disappear. The forest freely withdraws from our relationship, and I starve to death.

Within civilization, all relationships consist of enforced dependency on the Hierarchy. I don't get to eat because I took a salmon from the river, one action in a thousand years of mutual support. I get to eat because I served a Hierarch, and he permitted me to take the food he controls.

This is true whether the Hierarchy manages its food supply sustainably or unsustainably. The point is The purpose is control.

***

Control is spreading. Water, once freely available, is now increasingly under the control of the hierarchy. At the other end of the spectrum of needs, social networking sites and the expansion of for-pay online roleplaying games represent the expansion of hierarchical control to resources (community, friendship) that had been too intangible to control in the past.

***

This is relevant, and I'm bringing it up again now, because ecological consciousness seems to be spreading among the ruling class. In my opinion, the spread of "green" technologies that allow civilization to continue is the worst possible development.

Of course, it's not very plausible that the whole system could be rendered "sustainable." But renewable energy and similar technologies do have the potential to prolong the reign of Empire, and we need to be on guard, and not limit our critique to "environmental" issues.

Random Notes

Two Arguments About Genocide:

I recently discussed the Columbian genocide in the Carribean with a man. I mentioned the millions of deaths at the hands of the Spanish. He said "Come on, you can't count the ones that died because of disease."

I think he was kidding. I'm not sure. But I've heard this argument made seriously before: What happened in North America wasn't genocide because the direct cause of death for most of the Indians was disease. (Actually the first people to make this argument were the pilgrims: "The good hand of God favored our beginnings by sweeping away great multitudes of the natives," wrote William Bradford, sociopath and founder of Plymouth colony.)

So if there were a devastating pandemic or other "natural" disaster in the world today (like AIDS in Africa, or the Asian tsunami), the proper response would be--not to send aid, but to murder the few survivors and take their land. Is that really what these people believe?

(Oh wait. Yeah, that is what they believe.)

***

Another argument you sometimes here is that the genocide was okay because the Indian population was so low. This is rarely stated outright, but it's the basic implication of arguments for a low pre-Columbian population. And it has the strange effect of forcing its opponents to insist that the population was in fact very high.

This same argument is sometimes made to justify the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians: "There was hardly anybody living there! A land without a people for a people without a land!"

So the argument is apparently that there is a certain population density that permits genocide. One wonders what it is, exactly. The population density of many mid-Western states is probably lower now than it was when the Indians controlled the land. Certainly the population density of US national parks, forests, and designated wilderness areas is extremely low. Should the US therefore cede those lands to highly populated China or India?

***

The Myth of Property:

The sanctity of private property is something that everybody in the US, left and right, seems to agree upon. "Property" is land somebody "owns," and if you "own" a place it's your right to choose what happens to it. Your decisions are enforced by the armed might of the state, in return for regular protection money ("taxes"). If you are particularly wealthy you can directly pay armed men licensed by the state.

The opposite of "private" property is "public" property, which means that the land is controlled directly by the armed might of the state.

What gives one the "right" to property? Money, of course.

Every inch of ground in this country is stolen land. All of it. First it was stolen directly from its inhabitants. Then it was parceled out to the powerful, by the powerful, through means of extortion, intimidation, or outright theft.

You start talking about property though, and for some reason you start to scare people, even well-meaning people. Why?

I suspect because they don't know what the alternatives to private property are; and because they think of their own personal possessions, and their (real or potential) land or home, as "private property" in the same way that Weyerhaeuser's millions of acres are private property or Wal*Marts thousands of stores and their contents are "private property."

***

New Rules for New Maps:

The Cartesian era is over.

The world of the nation-state is a map of color-coded territorial monopolies, with specific rules, enforced by armed might, governing the behavior of individuals within the invisible lines on the map. This world is ending; the quicker it ends the better.

(Note: States do not know this yet).

The new map is not a territorial map; the new map is map of self-defined groups linked by shared ideologies, mythologies, beliefs, aesthetics, histories and goals.

The new map requires new rules. The state was (and is) able to create rules because it monopolized the use of force. To create new rules we must break that monopoly.

A Proposed Rule of Property:

"Property" is not the word we'd prefer to use, but it will due for convenience, until a replacement is found.

Property consists of a relationship between a person or group, land, and possessions.

Property is legitimate if:

• It was by relatively honest means. (Actually honest means of acquiring land are impossible on conquered land in a capitalist society. Property attained through police or military force, deceit, treachery, or outright theft is not legitimate. Property attained dishonestly and then inherited is not legitimate.)
• The relationship enhances the ability of the land in question to support a diversity of life;
• The amount of land or possessions is not vastly in excess of that needed to support human life;
• The wishes of the "land-owner" are subordinated to those of aboriginal peoples, except to the extent to which genetic aborigines have embraced industrial capitalism.

All other property is illegitimate, and we are not required to respect it.

Death

My great aunt Sandy died this morning at 3:30Am. She was 76, I think. It's the first time a member of my family has died since I was 4 years old or so.

God rest her.

Looks & Links

Playing around with the look today. Comments appreciated!

Meantime, here are some cool things:

I ran into a Christian anarchist yesterday. I'd never met such a person before, though I'd heard they exist. So synchronistically enough there is a post about this over at Rewild.info; more at Jesus Radicals.

Here is an awesome article from a few years back. It ends with the weakest conclusion ever, but buried in its pages are tons of awesome facts. Including: Kids who spend time in the wild unsupervised are more likely to develop environmental ethics; Cockroaches live in a consensus democracy.

This is super-worth a look and a listen.

Finally, I've been reading this on Urban Scout's blog. It's a long rant about anarchists. I can't stand subculture-anarchy, and reading it makes me happy.

The Look

Remember how, back when this blog was called Better Cats and Gardens, it looked like this?

Well I kinda like that look.

The color scheme was good. The seacoast photo behind the header was taken by me near Bandon, OR. The photo of me was at the Devil's Churn, also on the coast of Oregon.

I don't think I want to go back to those pictures. I'd like to move toward something representing the themes of this blog. Something with rats and walls; maybe something creepy and Lovecraftian; maybe something depicting civilization in all its horrors.

Anyone have any ideas?

More On Angry

A brief explanation of the last post:

Someone said to me, upon reading the rant about feeding birds, "You have anger-issues."

***

It occurred to me that I hadn't posted anything nonpolitical in a while, and man do I love Lovecraft. How can't you love a story about puffy seaworms feasting on the world's dead! You can't, that's how.

***

But back to this issue of anger.

***

Do you remember the short story It's A Good Life, by Jerome Bixby? If you haven't read it, go read it here, and then come back. Or, if you don't have the attention span for reading, go here and watch the Twilight Zone episode that was based on it.

The premise: A 5-year-old kid has godlike powers; he can kill you with his mind, or wish you away to a grave in the cornfield. So you always have to make sure you never say anything unpleasant:

"My, ain't it terrible hot today?"

Bill Soames almost cringed. His eyes pleaded with her. He shook his head violently no, and then interrupted his mumbling again, though obviously he didn't want to: "Oh, don't say that, Miss Amy ... it's fine, just fine. A real good day!"

***

The psychopath with the mind of a child can kill you at any time. So remember. It's just fine. A good day.

***

We live in a mafia state where access to the means of subsistence is controlled by powerful people with guns. It is impossible to live on earth, to eat, to sleep, to drink, without paying money to a landowner, a bank, a government agency. Officially sanctioned mafiosos seize upon any weakness as a chance to pounce, to extort massive amounts of money out of the sick; to drive families out of their homes due to changes in a deliberately unstable market; to throw the menally ill onto the street. This system covers every inch of ground on the earth and is in fact destroying the ability of the earth to maintain life at an ever-accelerating pace.

Those who can't "function" in this society, due to either the innate variables in human psychology or the intense psychological anguish caused by living in a system so organized, are either locked up; cast out; or--most often--given mind-altering drugs (for which money is, as usual, extorted) .

And it's in this climate that "positive psychology" is booming. At the official level of therapy and self-help books, and the interpersonal level, how we talk to one another. Everywhere: Think good thoughts. Be positive. Always be positive. If you're not positive, maybe you need help. ("You need help" is an insult, by the way.) Take your drugs. Watch your TV. Be positive.

***

(Chris Hedges does a thoroughly good job of skewering Positive Psychology in Empire of Illusion. It's also the topic of Barbara Ehrenreich's new book, Bright Sided: How the Relentless Promotion of Positive Thinking Has Undermined America. Read them both!)

***

The point is: Things are pretty fucked, and I feel pretty goddamn angry, and constantly horrified at a mass of people that accept mass extortion, serfdom, psychological manipulation and ecological destruction as "normal" as long as none of it interferes with their toys and their play time.

The other point: Sometimes you gotta take some time out and read some Lovecraft. (Or watch the Twilight Zone.)

The third point: We're running out of time for Lovecraft, or even the Twlight Zone.

The fourth point: I sometimes imagine a world a hundred, five hundred years hence. It doesn't (sorry John Zerzan) look like the world of twelve thousand years ago. The sciences such as they are useful have been preserved; but the scale of society has been drawn back. The center of life isn't a thousand miles away, a Hollywood studio or the White House. The center of life is--as it immediately becomes when you leave mass society and mass spectacle--here. The people who matter are here.

And people still have entertainment. We still have news. We still have toys, games, stories, and music; drama, gossip, adventures and misadventures-- but they're additions to life, not distractions from life. And the news is about us, and we tell all the stories; we make all the music and the adventures, the joys and the sorrows are had by us, not by media-generated pseudo-people on the other side of the continent.

I think that'd be pretty cool. I think it kind of sucks that we don't have that world. And I think that's the world we used to have, and that it was stolen from us. And I think it's okay to get pissed off about that.