Writing, Ideology & Mass Communication In Techno-Industrial Society

Originality, accuracy, and clarity can be hard things to measure in terms of the written word. Originality is always bound to some degree with the familiar. Accuracy, while sometimes easier to assess, is rarely complete and can still lead us to faulty conclusions. Clarity is largely dependent upon the ability of any readers to comprehend, relate to, and think reasonably about whatever is being presented to them. These three aspects comprise but a general shortlist of problems a writer may face when trying to compose something of worth and interest to the broader reading public.

Underlying political and ideological tendencies, which are engrained in the general public, further serve to restrict a writers ability to find and captivate an audience. The promotion of certain ideas, right or wrong, can even be dangerous to writers who promote them. People have been burnt at the stake and put before firing squads because of their ideas.

More commonly problematic is simply the inability of writers to adequately reach a receptive audience. On the simplest level this could sometimes be due to a writers limited access to a suitable medium. However, even having access to modern tools of mass communication does not guarantee that the message being produced will reach a broad or receptive audience. The reasons for this are many.

The Repressed & Oppressive Sexuality of Modern Society

I try to stay informed about modern feminist theory. And I do actually consider myself a feminist – much to the chagrin of some online acquaintances who consider themselves part of the “men's rights” movement. But I'm not big on the Andrea Dworkin school of thought and I'm quite sure that most feminists don't actually believe that all men are latent rapists who should be castrated at birth. Nor do I believe that everyone in the growing “men's rights” movement is a hate-filled misogynist. Still, it is fairly clear that there are a lot of hateful people who unfortunately identify with both movements.

My goal in writing this isn't optimistic enough to believe that we can somehow repair all of the damaged people who have redirected their pain into the avenues of sexist hate and oppressive practices, but I think this is a subject worthy of attention. And, while I'll try now to offer some frank comments on a complex and difficult subject, I realize that I live in a repressed culture and probably will have some points of contention with other good-willed people who also grew up in a repressed culture. Nevertheless... I do hope that I can offer up some subtle and pertinent points which may often be overlooked in typical discussions about sexuality.

The following critique largely will center around monogamous hetero-normative relationships as they are traditionally perceived. This is not intended to deny or dismiss the existence of other types of relationships, sexual or otherwise, but is rather intended to demonstrate what is commonly presented as “normal” in modern society and how that standardized normality undermines modern society.

The System Currently In Place

The CEO of a prominent group promoting the manifestation of a technological singularity, Luke Muehlhauser from the Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence, recently came out with a very surprising statement regarding the dangers which would accompany the creation of artificial super-intelligence:

“Unfortunately, the singularity may not be what you're hoping for. By default the singularity (intelligence explosion) will go very badly for humans, because what humans want is a very, very specific set of things in the vast space of possible motivations, and it's very hard to translate what we want into sufficiently precise math, so by default superhuman AIs will end up optimizing the world around us for something other than what we want, and using up all our resources to do so.”

For those of you unfamiliar with the concept of the technological singularity... it has to do (generally speaking) with programming a thinking computer that initially has the same cognitive abilities as a human being. Due to computers regularly becoming able to process evermore information faster, in a very short time, after a computer achieved a human level of intellect, it would, conceivably, surpass that level – arguably in the next moment and almost certainly within the next few years. What would start with a computer being able to pass a Turing test (basically being able to fool human observers as to whether or not they were having a dialogue with a human or a computer) would then shortly be followed by a type of self-consciousness machine that would intellectually be capable of manipulating humans and taking human rationality to its furthest degree.

What A Nightmare!

An Open Letter To Derrick Jensen

Dear DJ,

I hope you don't mind me addressing you by your initials because that has simply become a habit of mine over the years as I've spammed links to your articles and videos all over the internet. Indeed, you have often given voice to certain issues in a way that is very much appreciated. For that, I must thank you.

However... I am inclined to write this letter, and make it public, because I don't feel you adequately address criticism from those of us who share many of your concerns and much of your perspective. I can understand this lack of a response in psychological terms because no one likes to be criticized. Nevertheless, I feel that honestly acknowledging such criticism could be beneficial to expanding the discussion about the issues and ideas you champion. As I don't have much faith in getting a response from you on any public forums, and because my time during any Q & A period would undoubtedly be limited, I've chosen to present my criticism and questions thusly.

The Folly of Christopher Hedges

Often, when describing the inevitable scenes of major protests in the United States, I evoke the image of a person who has lost a brother in Iraq, a person who has also lost a sister to the trumped up drug war, whose father had his job outsourced, whose mother had her pension gambled away by speculators, whose grandmother lost her home of 50 years because she missed a mortgage payment, and whose grandfather died of industrial poisoning and couldn't afford health care. And make no mistake... variants of such individuals readily exist. So when such a person understandably shows up to protest the corporate oligarchy at a G8 meeting (or the national conventions of the corporate parties), they aren't there to sing kumbaya, march along a permitted path, or have their head cracked by the brutal police. And if they get so angry that they throw a brick through a bank window... I will be the last person to condemn them.

I'm not giving the condescending approval of a social worker who understands some flawed psychology behind such actions... I'm suggesting that such rowdiness is perfectly human, rational, and even inspiring. I'm not suggesting that any particular individual at any particular event engage in such actions, but I fully understand some of the motivation behind such actions and wouldn't condemn an individual engaging in them. And I don't feel that condemnation or further punishment of such individuals is beneficial to society. On the contrary, such individuals may likely prove to be on the cutting edge of actual change in this country.

Enter Chris Hedges and the privileged leftist elite trying to pacify and reign in the righteous indignation of many abused Americans. As in his latest article, they primarily prescribe as a method for social change... accepting more punishment and self-sacrifice. But that's easier to suggest for some than others. And why must they so often be quick to condemn those who aren't willing to take anymore punishment? I'd suggest this reflects a shallow understanding of the true pain already administered to so many people and the sacrifices they've already made.

Understanding Anarcho-Primitivism

NEWSFLASH: Anarcho-primitivists, rather than seeking to destroy everything, are trying to curtail the anthropocene mass extinction furthered by the techno-industrial civilization which continues it's destructive plunder at this very moment.  

A primary problem with anarcho-primitivism is that it is both maligned in ignorance and promoted with ideals of zealous purity.  As the years have went by, and after constantly having the primitivist critique at my disposal (at least in the back of my mind), it is clear to me that it is often misunderstood by both critics and proponents alike.  And, after garnering some much deserved attention around the turn of the century, I worry now that the philosophy may be getting lost amidst the growing struggle to meet basic immediate needs and the growing number of distractions in a culture of banalities and spectacle.

In an effort to convey the particulars and subtleties of primitivism, pedantic definitions will (perhaps ironically) be necessary.  For those versed in the terminology and who understand the basic concepts of the philosophical positions promoted by primitivism... these definitions may seem over-wrought and excessive.  However, part of the problem with anarcho-primtivism is (as with many philosophical schools of thought) that each thinker writing on the subject will have their own particular idiosyncratic nuances in regard to the meaning of particular words and phrases.  When dealing with a subject that partly criticizes the development and implementation of basic language... the task of clarifying these subjects and terms becomes even more tedious.  Nevertheless, intellectual honesty and a need for thoroughness requires effort on the part of any who would seriously like to ponder complex and intricate subjects.  Efforts will be taken in that regard as this article proceeds. 

Subtle Factors of a Global Revolution: From Athens to Cairo to Madison and Beyond

As someone who has long been involved with revolutionary politics, I find the insurrectionary activities that are currently manifesting around the world to be quite heartening.  Have no doubt that the hour is getting late in terms of turning back the tides of environmental degradation, industrial warfare, and the authoritarian subjectification of populations around across globe.  Nevertheless, if only for matters of dignity, it will never be too late to take a stand against the oppressive and destructive forces which are laying waste to the world.  The intention of this article is to analyze modern revolutionary tendencies and their potential for bringing about fundamental changes to society.

A developing discussion about anarchist ideas, ideals, and practice.

The following article was written by Alex Bradshaw and raises some very challenging and interesting points.  I will continue the dialogue at some point in the future... 

Social Anarchism, Techno-Pessimism, and Primitivism: A Belated Response to Nihilo Zero

Anarchy, Technophiles, Freedom & Primitivism

(The following piece was written to create a dialogue in response to an article entitled: "Anarchy Would Most Likely Prevent The BP Oil Disaster" written by someone known as ComradShaw.)

The ideas presented in ComradShaw's article are somewhat ideal, but they seem to rely too heavily on a misguided notion of self-restraint -- when such a thing seems to be seriously lacking in actual reality. The author seems to think that everyone could vote and agree on everything -- which, while potentially nice in practice, may or may not actually be somewhat more ideal in the consequences. My point isn't that people shouldn't rely on self-restraint in many matters, nor am I suggesting that they shouldn't have a much greater say about what goes on in their world. But even free people in a far more egalitarian society could make horrible mistakes. And hubris, whether coming from the whole or from even just a segment of society, can lead to disaster.

A primitivist response to Andrew Flood's question: Is primitivism realistic?

The following is a response to an article written some time back by Andrew Flood (hereafter often referred to as "the author"). The article is in circulation again on one of the social networking/bookmarking/link-sharing sites (reddit.com) which I peruse. Although this response is somewhat late, I feel it's still relevant and will remain so. I should also point out that I do not primarily identify myself as a Primitivist, but I do see much worth in the ideas of anarcho-primitivism. My response starts and continues by taking on quoted statements made in the original work by Andrew Flood: Is primitivism realistic? An anarchist reply to John Zerzan and others.


Since when was the "basic purpose" of anarchism "the creation of a free mass society?" And if that was the simplified basic purpose, why does it have to remain so? Maybe these are word games the author is playing, but a free society doesn't necessarily have to be a "mass" society and I personally could see complications arising in a mass society that was too large. This would be especially true if the mass society was constantly encroaching on bioregions and cultures that could not survive the intrusion. What does freedom really mean if your version of mass industrialism imposes itself as far and as densely populated as possible? More to do with "faith than reality" indeed.