#i need to correct the anarchist one as the word utopia is from greek not latin

[tidalpunk]

Thinking critically about solarpunk

Any and all movements, however casual or fictional as that of solarpunk, that aim for a better society must not be afraid of self-reflection. Spurred to some degree by the discussion that lead to solarpunk being excluded from Wikipedia (both as its own page and as as a derivative of Cyberpunk), I’d like to post a couple of things about the ways in which I think that we should probably consider how we go about our designs and consumption of the movement itself. In keeping with the generally anarchist and non-prescriptivist ideals of solarpunk, I shall make a concerted effort not to address any of the following concerns as “musts” and “mustn’t"s, as tempting as that may be, but as “could"s and “probably”. This is not a manifesto about what solarpunk should be, but a suggestion for how we engage with the topics that give us our material ideals, based loosely on our societal ideals.

1) Attribution, inspiration and creation:

While a foundation is built on a understanding of existing designs, we may endeavour to distinguish between what is inspiring solarpunk, what is being created with a similar ethos to solarpunk, and what is actually being designed with solarpunk in mind during its creation. We are in very formative years, but we could learn to not point at things we like and go “that’s solarpunk!” but rather “that is in keeping with solarpunk”. Otherwise we run the risk of assuming that solarpunk is more defined than it is, and of essentially misappropriating creators’ works for our own gains. (I’m sideyeing the TV tropes page for solarpunk here, but it’s by far not the only place where solarpunk fans have taken the approach of just appropriating anything).

2) Historical Context:

To think we can create something good and beautiful in our present or future without careful analysis of the past reeks of naïvety. Almost the entirety of what I’ve found about solarpunk has been about what is wrong and how we can move into the future, but nothing about where these, our, ideals have sprouted elsewhere in history.

For example, our primary aesthetic point of reference is Art Nouveau. Art Nouveau, for context, was a late-Imperial European movement that relied heavily on a form of Orientalism that fetishised Ancient Egyptian designs and Japanese cultural traditions. Furthermore, Art Nouveau was inspired heavily by/ grew from the Arts and Crafts movement of England’s late Romantic period, which was largely lead by William Morris, who practically straight-out copied the designs of his carpets he’d bought from the Middle East (which you can view, fittingly, at the V&A museum in London). However, it must be recognised that he was a major player in the British socialist movement that ultimately lead to things such as the NHS, and that the Arts and Crafts movement was a reaction to Industrialisation and mass-production, a direct predecessor to our intrinsic DIY ideals.

This is, of course, a very quick note on just one aspect of our cultural heritage, and should I have time, or anyone want to collaborate with me, I’d like to see some parts that specifically analyse our points of inspiration in comparison to our ideals. Topics would include a more in-depth analysis of our relationship with the Art Nouveau and the Arts and Crafts movement; the hippie ideals and movements of the second half of the 20th century; socialist and anarchist practice; scientific theories and advancements; the general history of industrialisation; solarpunk’s relations to the other -punks and to Punk; our relationship to afrofuturism; and then to ecofiction and ecomodernism. And others, taking for example the note from Adam Flynn’s solarpunk manifesto:

“Solarpunk draws on the ideal of Jefferson’s yeoman farmer, Ghandi’s ideal of swadeshi and subsequent Salt March, and countless other traditions of innovative dissent.”

Such things have been brought up here and there, and I shall provide links to essays that are relevant, but a continuation of these analyses could only strengthen solarpunk. I intend, at the least, to create a masterpost at some point (?) of critical pieces relevant to solarpunk and historical context, and any help towards that would be wonderful.

3) Present context:

One of the great things, I believe, about solarpunk, is that we are willing to look in any and all directions to find resources to inform our practice and theory. This, however, is best done with an awareness of how interacting and being inspired by different groups affects us and them.

For example, in our endeavours to be open and accessible, we reach for ideas from indigenous populations. While considering them is definitely good, to most effectively promote sustainability of societies, autonomy, well-being and environments, treading carefully so as not to repeat the behaviours of the colonialist principles that come before us is vital. Should we wish to take into our theories or practice any of the concepts of these groups, we must make sure we have their full consent, cooperation, and leadership, because to do otherwise is to exploit or endanger them. To recognise individuals who are already are members of these groups who are already within our group is paramount. I’m personally fond of the relationship @noaasanctuaries have with Native American groups, but I’m no expert and would rather refer to the expertise of others.

On the other side of the same coin is the consideration of our relationships to Class. For example, I make a conscious effort to not promote luxury hotels on here, including the ones that are set up to look like traditional huts, as their exclusiveness, excess, and exploitation is in direct antithesis to our values. I’m sure I’ll make mistakes, and I’d like to hope that followers that notice my mistakes will point them out to me. To romanticise aesthetic over other considerations is to make solarpunk vulnerable to becoming yet another trend with all the superficiality and none of the substance. It is a tricky line to tread, as the rich will also more readily have access to the futuristic technology and resources we would like to eventually have available to all so not all fancy things can be discounted. And stealing some of the ideas of the rich so as to make them accessible rather than exclusive isn’t a bad thing, as far as I’m concerned. Again, this is about critical consumption, rather than “this is bad and this is good”.

Reading list:

Elvia Wilk: “Is Ornamenting Solar Panels a Crime?” - a broad contextualisation of solarpunk, which I thoroughly recommend. April 2018. https://www.e-flux.com/architecture/positions/191258/is-ornamenting-solar-panels-a-crime/

Sam Keeper (@stormingtheivorytower, currently on hiatus) : “Hack monuments: the methods of -punk” - another read I particularly recommend, August 2017  http://www.stormingtheivorytower.com/2017/08/hack-monuments-methods-of-punk.html

@solarpunks​ : “solarpunk: a reference guide” - what it says on the can, dating from 2008 onwards. Last update Feb 2018. https://medium.com/solarpunks/solarpunk-a-reference-guide-8bcf18871965

Adam Flynn: “solarpunk: notes toward a manifesto”, 2014 https://hieroglyph.asu.edu/2014/09/solarpunk-notes-toward-a-manifesto/

Andrew Dana Hudson: “on the political elements of solarpunk”. The main premise of this essay, as with most, is speculative, but you get critical notes every now and then, such as “Nat Geo poverty porn”, fetishism of slums. https://medium.com/solarpunks/on-the-political-dimensions-of-solarpunk-c5a7b4bf8df4

Connor Owens: “What is Solarpunk?” https://solarpunkanarchists.com/2016/05/27/what-is-solarpunk/

[all-things-are-nothing-to-me]

Lone wolves are not alone…

Today we live in the time of fear, the kingdom of degeneration. All around us spreads a sick world which refuses however to die. The world of economy falls but does not collapse. All preachers of every ideology, scientists, economists, journalists, politicians, sociologists, syndicalists, leftists, humanitarians, agree to a common truth, called “economic crisis”.

Thus the ghost of the economic crisis hovers above the formerly privileged territory of the western civilization, after leaving behind it hecatombs of dead people and ruins of war in the “undeveloped countries” of the rest of the world.

But we refuse the truth they offer us. We refuse to be lost in mathematical equations, economical terms and loan contracts. We refuse to accept that life is shoved into statistics. Numbers cannot explain why our existence gets poorer. We speak of a different poverty and not only the poverty of the supermarkets. We speak of the poverty in words, emotions, thoughts, wanderings, tensions. We speak of the unity which resides inside the modern people-pets of the cages of the metropolis who by themselves imprisoned themselves.

Today there is a crisis which makes our life poorer, but this is not the economic crisis, it is the crisis of values. Society traded the values of freedom, respect, solidarity, dignity, with a position in consumerist paradise. Now is the time for it to fall in its hell, since today it experiences the collapsing of the system which it faithfully prayed to all these years.

The ambassadors of the modern way of life speak of the savior of economy through corrective changes and development programs, while the ideologists of the left beg for the cleansing of institutions. Unfortunately, in Greece the tension of bureaucratic social anarchy also joins the dance of the absurd and fantasies the revival of dead ideologies speaking of self-management of the production means and workers collectives.

Thus the socialist anarchists, while refusing the system, instead of destroying class identities and economy, speak their language. They speak of the overthrowing of the existent, without however uprooting from inside them the economic-centric logic. For us, as anarcho-individualists and nihilists, economy is not the key for liberation. Economy is a part of the problem and the problem itself. The only way to strike the heart of the problem is to destroy the economy and its distinctions and speak of human relations. The world will not become prettier or more free if we collectivize work but only if we blow up the relation of work and destroy its mentality, its ethics and culture. The same will happen with friendship, love, pleasure, the meaning of life itself.

On the road for continuous anarchist insurrection we do not keep anything which holds us down on the past. We tear down the myths of the revolutionary subject, of the proletariat, of the eternal wait for the right objective conditions, the social likeness towards the population, this slow moving mass which with its inactivity stops us from breathing….

Therefore, looking back in time, we recognize as our own prints, the traces left behind by some lone wolves, who walked then against their time. It is all those conspiratorial anarchists illegalists who made the anarchist insurrection their only home land. It is those who chose to stay away from the glory of the dead ideologies and bureaucracy of the social anarchism which awaits the masses in order to begin its insurrection. Lone and unique they armed their desires, out aside the pathetic rot of the mob and went on to the storming of heaven.

Their star fills our eyes, the fire floods our thoughts, the vendetta of revenge beats in our hearts and, our hands embrace the guns and dynamite which they inherited to us. We live for an endless explosion of actions, thoughts, feelings, desires, which reaches the edge of the world.

There is no nostalgia, there is only today, while tomorrow is already late. Today is our turn, our life, our time.

Anarcho-individualism and nihilism, the gates of the new anarchy, invite us. In the era of generalized crisis, the sun of the new anarchy continues to rise. Now that the global economy is ill, we do not look for the “just” social cure, but on the contrary we seek the poison for its final death.

As we wrote above, life, before being strangled biologically from the economic crisis, had already been cut in its desperation, the illusions and the loneliness of modern society.

It is important therefore, to think, to feel and attack against anything which glorifies the empire of authority, against anything which preserves the religion of economy, anything which carries the death of silence and immobility. And if sometimes we seem like lone crazy people, the sure thing is that we are not alone. We live in a home full of voices, dreams, desires, laughter, melancholies, actions… Our home has no hosts and guests; it belongs to all of us. In our home we do not speak just one language but many and we always communicate with our eyes.

The basement of our home is full of weapons, explosives, plans, communiques, whatever the enemy snatches from us, our hands and desires will never remain unarmed. At the table of our home there are always spaces and glasses of wine for new friends and comrades who we never met before. There are as well some empty places for the brothers and sisters who are absent, for our dead, for the wanted, for the imprisoned, but their glasses are always full because they are always next us too. Our home has no doors, no rooms, not even walls. Our home has no roof because it would hide the sky and stars. Our home has no windows because it would stop the wind. Our home has no street or number. Our home has no name and lives in our hearts.

Our home is FAI-IRF and we will never abandon it, neither in the easy moments nor the tough times.

FAI-IRF is the lost Atlantis of the practical theory. It is the meeting point of thought and action, imagination and the present, violence with poetry, desire with decision, the ‘I’ with the us…

This moment it is important that there are many dozens of anarchist individualities and cells participating in the network FAI-IRF. FAI-IRF is an illegal anarchist union of egoists which despises the gather-ism of Marxist organizations and the bureaucracy of the anarchist reformists.

There is no protocol or rules. Our only compass is our values: direct action, anarchist critique towards the social silence, international solidarity, constant insurrection… At the same time all of us anarchists of praxis preserve unquenchable the desire to continuously recreate the formation of FAI-IRF with as an epicenter the human desires. We do not even feel the need to propose to society some ready-made recipe for happiness. Our life does not need ready-made solutions. Besides, experimentation even a mistake is the best way for the discovery of freedom. From the still waters of traditional ideologies you can expect only poison.

The insurrectionist-nihilist anarchist thought remains alive, not as a flawless and final ideology, but on the contrary when it seeks the dialectic confrontation either in order to try itself by overpassing the disagreements it has to confront, or when it discovers its gaps and re creates itself with beginning point evolution. Thus, also FAI-IRF is not the end of the road of final utopia but one of the roads for the constant course towards anarchy.

This is why when someone reads the dozens of responsibility claims of the cells of FAI-IRF internationally they will locate some differences, even some disagreements. This is the beauty and uniqueness of the new anarchy. Besides the basic values shared by us the conspirators of the Black International, there are the specificities of each one of us which promote the constant search of our existence.

Because we will always discover independent areas of ourselves, unknown passions, unlimited desires which arm the bet of Existence, replacing the misery and correctness of economic equations which are praised by the overgrown revolutionary ideologies.

Today FAI-IRF is not simply an idea, just as the Conspiracy of Cells of Fire is not limited to the land of the Greek state. Our desire is to not drain ourselves at making our existence known. Our spreading to dozens of countries transfers us to an asymmetric threat for the interior of the states. The CCF of Mexico transforms the words into fire, in Russia and Belarus the Conspiracy transforms the frozen rooftops into lava, and in Italy the Olga cell of FAI writes its own poetry with bullets. At the same time dozens of conspirators in Chile, Ecuador, Bolivia, Peru, Brazil, Spain, England, Poland, Greece, Indonesia, Australia conspire with chaos and transfer the fire of anarchy into the foundations of the existent.

This is why we constantly create new invisible crossroads of meeting and communication in order to talk about the death of the existence and the storm of new anarchy. We want our fire to be written in all languages. Tireless comrades constantly translate prisoners texts, books, responsibility claims, while at the same time solidarity is internationalized and the FAI-IRF network becomes the Lernaen Hydra of the new anarchy. For every arrest of a cell, two new ones are ready to attack.

Thus we enter the land of continuous anarchist insurrection. In our uncontrollable course for the destruction of authority, we meet across us the enemy and its conservative powers, but besides them there is still a lot of excuses, inhibitions and dilemmas which attempt to make our feet heavy, bothering our walk. Often these camouflaged cowardices disguised as theoretical analysis live in the bureaucracy of the circles of social anarchism which hopes for the mass awakening of society. Thus the words “anarchy” “direct action” “anarchist insurrection” get confused, they lose their sharp content and remain handicapped going around like harmless blabbering in student amphitheaters… This is why we see in Bolivia that there is an “anarchist organization” which states its conformity to the state authorities and is indifferent to the imprisoned Bolivian comrades accused of being part of FAI, in Italy parasitic anarcho-hippies who with a text of theirs condemned and slandered the action of the Olga cell of FAI, in Germany a part of the anarchists forget and slander the imprisoned comrades (e.g. Aachen4 case) while in Greece many from the anti-authoritarian movement discuss about whether or not they will vote for Syriza (left party) in the elections and generally there being a turn towards collectivization through workers and “white” democratic assemblies.

We on our side want to avoid such misunderstandings and make this confusion untouchable. Therefore it is necessary that we make a clear separating line between the insurrectionist-nihilistic circles and the refuges of reformism. This is why we would like every text and act of ours to be immediately recognized, adopting our own stigma. The stigma of continuous anarchist attack.

But it is not enough to speak about the attack, on the contrary we desire to be a part of the attack. This is why through this text we want to throw a proposition into the fire of the battle. a proposition which is being discussed for some time now in the circles of the new anarchy in Greece. We mean the transmission of technical knowledge and experiences for the construction of explosive and incendiary devices and for the spreading of other forms of sabotage. Through small printed practical manuals or through digital form on the internet we can share information, patents, technical points, ideas, applications, diagrams and enrich our arsenal. When knowledge and experience are shared, they become dangerous. First of all it brings down the separation between theory and practice and the myth of the “specialists” of violence is abolished. At the same time the fetishisms of Marxist ideological rigidities about the avant-guard of “armed struggle” are withdrawn and the illusions of the hierarchy of the means cease. Between the bullet in the head of a cop and the rock in window front there is an invisible line connecting them.

We want to make this line visible. Everything is for everyone, there are not specialists of violence, there are individualities and choices…

We do not share our choices only by speaking and writing texts against the state and its society but also when we offer each other possible practical ways.

To make our theory practice. This is why we propose to the comrades of the FAI-IRF that we proceed to the publication of manuals which describe i.e. the way to construct an explosive mechanism, the wiring of a time bomb, the assembling of a parcel bomb, the use of a home-made system of time-delaying in incendiary attacks, the strengthening of the destructive power of a molotov, the synthesis and mixtures of ingredients for the creation of explosive materials… also our “work” in the chaotic arts of sabotage can open its thematology from the destruction of cameras, the blocking of ATMs and the construction of home-made smoke bombs up to burgling and stealing cars and motorbikes and the conservation and use of weapons.

All this knowledge which is conquered everyday and cannot and shouldn’t be a privilege of an initiated elite of veterans of praxis. On the contrary we want to acquire a common arsenal with all anarchists of praxis where we will share ideas and practices in order to strengthen the constant anarchist insurrection against the Existing. Thus, comrades which carry inside them the wolf of praxis, but have not yet acquired technical knowledge in order to intensify their attacks against the social structures of the system, now with this proposition get access to an endless stock of destructive and chaotic ingenuity which will strengthen their fire.

Of course these practical manuals will not be considered the “holy bible” of the anarchists of praxis since they will be constantly renewed and enriched, since the experimentation and searching never stops.

Also we stress that because of the public character of the spreading of the techniques and the forms of sabotage, it is sure that the eyes of the police will constantly be on our attempt.

This is why this letter is made with special attention. Not only so the enemy cannot track us, but also so we don’t give them information they don’t know, helping them without meaning to, “neutralize” our attacks. For example in the presentation of a time bomb, there will always be variations so the police are confused and it is not easy to deactivate it without the danger of blowing up their bomb disposal team.

This way we strengthen the union of anarcho-individualists - nihilists promoting the constant clash with the world of authority and the social mass. It’s the new way of the new anarchy to attack without relying on the vague sympathy for the proletariat and the economism of classes, but instead abolishing the classes themselves. Neither rich nor poor, neither bosses nor workers, but autonomous individuals with anarchist values and choices.

At the same time we abandon the victimized image of the “social fighter”, who is being attacked by the state. Several comrades of the Conspiracy of Cells of Fire and nuclei of FAI are now in prison, from where we write this text. Not for a moment however do we beg for our “rights” from the state, nor do we invoke its laws. When we chose to arm ourselves and to assassinate social peace, we knew the consequence of the choice we made. The fact that we are in the prisons of the enemy does not make us harmless. We are creating and organizing 10, 100, 1000 cells of the Informal Anarchist Federation and the Conspiracy of Cells of Fire. Neither will we become “anarchist writers” who will publish our theories from inside prison. Our words are our thoughts which were anxious to become actions. Every day, every night we breathe for them. We still have some scores to set with the existent and we keep the knife between our teeth. Our strategy is to make chaos our friend. That is where all forces of the negative are liberated. Conventions, hypocrisies, ethics, cowardices are abolished there.

Brothers and Sisters let’s dare everything. Political executions, blowing up government buildings, bank robberies, arsons of symbols of authority, molotov on the cops, knifes in fascists, communiques, texts, discussions and whatever promotes the spreading of the new anarchy and the progression of the Black International of the Anarchists of Praxis.

DIRECT CONSTANT ANARCHIST INSURRECTION

P.S. The text “Lone wolves are not alone… FAI/ IRF/CCF” is dedicated to our brothers and sisters all around the world, to the dead, the prisoners and those wanted…

In this difficult time we send our most warm greetings to the wanted comrades in Greece: G. Mihailidis and D. Politis, who are accused for participation in the CCF, the wanted comrade in Mexico, FR, and the imprisoned comrade Mario Lopez who was injured by an incendiary device he was transferring.

At the same time our thought and heart is next to the comrades in Italy who are experiencing repeated oppressive operations.

Strength comrades.

[audreys365]

365 days of writing: January 19

A Scholarly Approach to the Colloquialization of Academia.

Listen. I used to be one of those people who was like “Unless I use proper grammar, spelling, punctuation, capitalization, and vocabulary at all times, no one will take me seriously.” Guess what! That’s not literally even true!

And before anyone tells me I have misused the word “literally”: Not anymore! I have a bit of news for everyone who relies on technicalities and dictionary definitions for their terms: language changes. Like, in Old English, “to starve” meant “to kill,” “awesome” was anything that caused awe, and any animal was just called “a deer.” These meanings don’t exist any more because language evolved to a place where the original definition has become obsolete to the way people use the language. If I say “wasn’t that an awesome flash flood that destroyed the better part of our humble town,” chances are no one will pick up on my intended meaning, and if you point at an iguana and call it a deer, you will look like a genuine fool.

Academia in particular has this super specific vernacular and style that a) is rooted in traditions that are centuries of years old, b) excludes anyone that can’t mimic this style, c) is completely arbitrary, and d) has no need to exist anymore.

The elitism of academia has been around since the times when only the richest folks in town knew how to read. “You’re only smart if you can afford to be! Poor people can’t have ideas because they don’t know how to communicate them in written form!” said the bourgeoisie. In the 17th century, the rich and scholarly got even more pretentious by referring back to antiquity to inform their values. It should come as no surprise that their precious ancient Greek philosophers also favored the aristocracy. Both Plato and Aristotle believed in stratified societies that prefer the few elite individuals over the many plebeian masses; it’s really not hard to see how this became distorted into the rule by divine right of kings in European monarchy. Even Plato’s ideal society, The Republic, was like “The god who made you mixed some gold into those who are adequately equipped to rule, because they are the most valuable,” implying that some citizens are literally worth more than others, which seems an odd way to run a theoretical utopia.

To the 17th century scholars, Latin and Greek represented a period of philosophy and progress, and thought that by mimicking these cultures they could bring about an artificial age of enlightenment. Ancient civilizations were remembered exclusively as environments that cultivated philosophical and cultural thought, rather than as empires that enslaved nations and conquered land by force. 17th century scholars didn’t give a shit about that. So, during the neoclassical era, only the wealthy could afford to learn how to read; only the wealthy had the free time to study Latin; only the wealthy could contribute to literature. Education was valued and sought after, but only a few could hope to attain it. In addition to justifying their elitism by appealing to The Great Philosophers, they borrowed thousands of words from Latin, and retroactively made English into a Latinate language by adding in silent letters and arbitrary grammar rules.

It would be swell if these new rules were efficient to communication, but instead they were the exact opposite, which really undermines what “language” is all about. For instance: the split infinitive. Academics are always trying to cramp James T. Kirk’s style by saying it should not be “to boldly go,” but “to go boldly.” Why? Because in Latin, “to go” is one word and academics in the 17th century decided that if Latin can’t split up an infinitive, then neither can we. We need to make sacrifices if we want to sound fancy. The thing is, this is an archaic rule applied for an arbitrary reason. If people easily understand what is being said, and the goal of communication is to make ideas easily understood by people, then how can it possibly be wrong? Appeal to tradition is an informal fallacy that needs to be stopped. To say “this is right, because this is the way it was done in the past” raises the question “why was this done in the past?” The latter question is answered by the former, creating an infinite regress, referring eternally back to the precedents of precedents. And besides, maybe in the future they don’t care about splitting infinitives. Why is anyone trying to apply 17th century language rules to the 23rd century? They don’t even have currency in their society anymore!

Finally, at the beginning of the 20th century when industrialization was swinging its heavy hammer down upon the western world, when there was a working class instead of just “lords” and “glorified slaves,” folks started to question the weird and arbitrary institutions that kept education limited to the upper class. Yet, in an academic setting today “the elite” has shifted from being “the rich” to being “the most capable of adhering to the rules set by the 17th century scholars who ruined the English language,” known by a more commonplace name, “professional.”

Academics are quick to dismiss any argument that does not abide by the rules of syntax, grammar, and vocabulary as “unprofessional.” This makes it inaccessible to a majority of the population, which includes people who are learning English as a second language, people with reading disabilities, and people who are too excited about their topic to reduce their writing into a dry pablum just so it is palatable to the restless ghosts of three-hundred-year-old scholars. Failing to use the correct form of “your” in a sentence doesn’t render the sentiment meaningless. Just because I use a lot of excess punctuation marks in my writing doesn’t mean my point is invalid!!!

Anyway, maybe I’m a literary anarchist, maybe I’m a rebel without a clause, but it’s about time that the institutions surrounding academia, education, and professionalism got a little bit more inclusive and a little bit less completely ridiculous.