also, it doesn’t make sense to dismiss a proposal for the future based upon pithy arguements that 1. don’t solve anything 2. are based in an academic history, which is neither all that provable when the societies involved are long gone, and kept in perpetuity to the benefit of the dominant culture/paradigm and therefore will always reflect its values.

fuck anthropology,
anthropologists killed the Yahi.

I am completely baffled by this statement. Foragers were 100% of humans until a few thousand years ago. Sometimes they were nomadic, often part year settled. Their lifestyle was hugely successful and endured for 190,000 years. They had skirmishes, not war. Why? Because institutionalized warfare is expensive (as are the elites that wage them). It only became possible in very late neolithic or into bronze age, with the large surpluses.

Best luck for your effort. I’ll keep checking back.

I responded to your original comments calmly and rationally with the hopes of initiating mutually beneficial dialogue. At this point in your posts, you’ve clearly demonstrated that you’re only interested in personal attacks. I’m happy to follow suit.

Did you even read my response? For that matter, did you even read the fucking zine? You keep reiterating the same criticism over and over again, and I think it’s your general lack of critique that’s forced you to resort to juvenile shit-slinging.

Again, I yield that you might be right about Keeley. But to continually rehash the same crap time and again and to discount an entire philosophy on one error shows exactly how burnt out you are. And where the hell did you conjure up the idea that because the website of my publisher carries steampunk material, I must be into and agree with steampunk? Your anthropology may be academically flawless, but your logic sucks. Seriously, go take a class in rudimentary critical thinking- it’ll melt the laughing stock that passes for your brain.

As for my “hiding in a hole” with my “buddies”, dude, are you fucking kidding? Who’s hiding in a hole? I’m living this philosophy, I’m spending every day of my life trying to make the world more livable and less fucked up, and yes, I’m doing these things with my “buds”. What the fuck are you doing? You spew out a furious bunch of personal attacks, trump up yourself with erroneous crap, and hide behind the glowing comfort of a computer screen. Who’s hiding, you sniveling jackass? I guarantee that you wouldn’t be so ferocious if we met and talked in person. But that’s probably beyond someone who’s on a mighty internet crusade…

Let me finally address your attempts to “win” this conversation. When I first replied to you, I was hoping to engage in some helpful dialogue that would make us both stronger and better people. It’s sparklingly apparent that you only hope to win these dialogues and make yourself seem that much cooler and more important. Have you considered how incredibly civilized this is? Belittling others and trying to dominate conversations through the power of words is one huge mark of the civilized, and I have no interest in it.

For that reason, and because talking with you is like arguing with a really obnoxious brick wall, I won’t be responding to your future comments should there be any. You’re more than welcome to keep driveling on, but you won’t find an audience for your idiocy here.

It’s been such a tremendous pleasure talking with you. I look forward to meeting you in person. Now, get off the computer and get real yourself.

“as if this whole website and “vision” isnt idealizing elements of civilization with this steam punk crap.

and who are ANY of you people to say what avenue people can choose now (present/past hunter-gatherers encapsulated in terrible economic conditions) or in the future?”

Post-civilized theory doesn’t exclude nomadic hunter-gatherers. It disagrees with the idea that hunter-gatherer society is the only acceptable solution.

haha holy shit. primitive hunter-gatherers and BARBARIANS..

see what kind of garbage your zine spawns?
“NO ITS ALL GOOD BRO! ITS PART OF OUR DIALOG…. OF SHIT”

you havent even taken the time to look past Keeley before putting your zine to print. WHY? youre using anthropology for evidence of your argument but then back pedal (who’s anthropology is right? do a little more research first before asking that question)? this is a massive problem with anarchists and crummy writers. its more important to rev your ideology up and eliminate other avenues of thought before doing research of 5 barnes and nobles books? and im the one who is hostile? its more hostile for you to be completely ignorant of information yet still feel its your responsibility to “get the word out.”

its not impressive. im not going to pat your back or come off as non-”hostile” when you put your foot forward irresponsibly in your analysis. “heres my crappy rag of a zine. please dont get mad when i try to eliminate avenues of thought from my lazy research.” fuck that.

as if this whole website and “vision” isnt idealizing elements of civilization with this steam punk crap.

and who are ANY of you people to say what avenue people can choose now (present/past hunter-gatherers encapsulated in terrible economic conditions) or in the future?

get real.

Thanks for the correction. I’m not really sure how I messed that up, as Woman on the Edge of Time is one of my favorite books. Thanks for the compliment too.

Thanks for the feedback. I also think fire pistons are the jam, though they’re harder to make without civilized tools than spindles, bowdrills, and hearthboards.

To address your question concerning different levels of technology and whether or not to share it, I guess it depends on the situation. It seems a little Star Trek to me too, but the disparity in levels of tech we’re talking about is very small.

What I mean is, I don’t really envision super-high technology in post-civ societies. I’d rather live without electricity, or use it only when it’s absolutely necessary and only when it can be generated with 0 environmental impact (which is very rare). I’m thinking more about glassblowing, small scale ore-extraction and metal-working, unobtrusive DIY windmills for grinding flour and so on.

In terms of sharing these technologies, I’m not sure the situation would ever arise. For example, nomadic hunter-gatherers couldn’t implement permaculture, or brewing, or the keeping of chickens and goats, so they probably wouldn’t ask to learn such things. Plus, in a more anarchist world with inter-connected stationary societies and the societies of nomads, there’d be easy access between communities. If a hunter-gatherer wanted to join a stationary community, live its lifestyle, and learn the skills necessary to survive while in one place, this person could of course do so. If an individual in a stationary community wanted to travel and hunt and gather, they could join one of those communities (provided its members agree).

In the event a group of people living with a “less advanced” level of technology wanted to learn a “more advanced” skill or tech, it would be hard to deprive or deny them in a free anarchist society. Besides, in a post-civ community, ideally no new military technologies or weaponry would be developed. So, there’d be no danger in sharing “living-ry” (as Buckmister Fuller calls it) with other societies.

And besides all these answers, I envision a world in which post-civ anarchist communities and roving hunter-gatherers live in harmony. I obviously don’t want to live as a hunter-gatherer, and I don’t think a primitive hunter-gatherer existence is without problems, but I have several friends who are dedicated primitivist. There’s tons of people who would adopt a hunter-gatherer existence in a collapse scenario, and they and their communities deserve support. Hopefully, those who wander and those who are stationary in a post-civilized world would work together, share between themselves, and support each other in all ways, provided they’re all living responsibly and without oppression.

As a final response to what you wrote, I’d caution against thinking that hunter-gatherers are “barbarians”. It just sounds a little imperialist to assume that because we want a stationary society, we’ll be more “advanced” and somehow less barbaric. I don’t mean to sound rude, it’s just an attitude I’ve seen among the civilized many times, and one that frustrates me a lot.

Thanks so much for your comments and questions. Hope this provided some answers.

Thank you for bringing these criticisms to light, although in an extremely hostile, cantankerous manner.

Let me first say I am neither an academic nor an anthropologist, and nowhere in this zine is there a disclaimer or preamble stating that it is 100% accurate and infallible. Clearly, all authors make mistakes and I may have made one.

It’s equally a mistake to dismiss an entire work, thus an entire philosophy, because it doesn’t boast complete veracity. And it’s an incredibly foolhardy mistake to assume that anyone gives a damn what you have to say, however true it might be, when it is articulated in such an offensive and childish manner.

To the suggestion that all of my sources are “scientainment”, I ask you: are works and ideas invalidated when they become popular? If so, Jensen and Zerzan are waltzing ever closer to the scientainment section as their works gain popular accolades.

To your criticisms of Keeley’s work, I thank you. As post-civilized anarchism is a nascent philosophy, it’s wonderful to receive criticisms that help cut away its false premises and arguments. But as I said before, I’m no anthropologist nor am I nor shall I ever be an academic. So for not keeping up with the anthropological Jonses, and realizing that Keeley’s work is commonly disputed in the academic world, I do not apologize.

And I also refuse to continue advocating Post-civilized thought just because one of the arguments in my zine happens to be controversial. In fact, I think by pointing out this criticism you’ve made post-civ a stronger philosophy.

That is, after I recovered from Bruce Knauft shredding my face, I realized how potent his criticism of Keeley’s work is in advocating post-civ anarchism. If nomadic hunter-gatherers only make up 1% of human existence, and nomadic hunter-gatherers are the only primitive peoples who are without warfare, then there are myriad primitive peoples who DO war.

Just as Keeley might have been selective in choosing his sources and arguments, so too are primitivists selective in choosing which pre-civilized peoples to idolize. I’m fine with acknowledging Keeley’s and my own error, but I’m thrilled about other authors corroborating the fact that many (sedentary) primitive peoples are warlike. Primitivists should think deeply about this.

Furthermore, I think your entire dismissal of post-civ theory based on a few mistakes is impetuous and silly. Perhaps Keeley is wrong, and there are most certainly other mistakes in the zine, but post-civ theory is still a workable foundation for present and future society. There can be no denying that civilized societies are fucked up; try as primitivists might, there can also be no denying that there fucked up traits in the societies of primitive peoples. These flaws hinder the progress of traditional red (civilized) anarchism and traditional green (primitivist) anarchism. The gaping chasm of failure left by these philosophies can be filled by post-civ ideology.

And this is my interest. You can accuse me of being a “bozo” to whom it’s “more important to get out propaganda than sound research” all you want. But the fact is this zine is the theoretical projection of a great deal of physical praxis for myself and my friends. I have very little patience for holier-than-thou internet crusading and pompous self-aggrandizement. I’m devoting my time and efforts to building a post-civ community so that I and my friends can survive the inevitable collapse of western civilization. I suggest you get off the computer, get off your righteous pedestal, and start working toward a similar end. Otherwise, when this undeniably insane society collapses, and the global economy with it, we’ll see who the real bozo is. Cheers.

In response to Death Metal Burnout (and this is not from the author of the zine), I appreciate that you’ve brought these issues to our attention (and therefore to the authors, and our readers). Naturally, I object to your tone: “will eat your face” doesn’t really fit into the realm of polite discourse, of course.

I’m not surprised that primitivists take issue with this zine, or what we’re trying to do. Playing “whose anthropology is correct” can be dangerous, and is certainly dangerous from the point of view of those who idolize hunter-gatherer societies. But I honestly feel that, whether pre-civilized societies participated in warfare or not, they are not the future of humanity. This is why we chose to publish this zine.

On another note, your first “point of fact” is incorrect. I have spoken with Derrick Jensen personally and at some length about his associations with anarchism. That interview is available online:
http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20080414133700317
in it, he says that “people call me an anarchist, and I don’t mind”, to paraphrase. He then goes on to suggest that, by the definition of anarchist presented by Ursula K Le Guin, he would consider himself one. A semantic game, to be sure, but your first claim rings untrue and clouds the rest of your post.

That said, I mean it when I thank you for bringing these anthropological to our attention. If you would be interested, I would expect that we might be interested in a more rational discussion of the issues at hand.