Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

19 January 2016

A model of radical space

remember: the map is not the territory!

In my search for like-minded individuals Ive encountered a very large number of

people who position their selves as radical. What it means to be a radical is not something I
overly want to get into at this juncture, nor is it really required for us to discuss in order to get
something out of this model. [A model is, after all, only a model.]
During these encounters, Ive come to see that the two most important determining
factors of how well I can communicate with others have been civilisation and Geist. If a person
is relatively anti-civ and committed to seeing a world exorcised of Geists, I tend to find I have
more in common with them and our communication proceeds much more easily. The reverse
has been true of those encounters with people fixated on questions of identity, and/or who
are pro-civ.
I hope the following diagram is therefore of some use: to people such as myself who are
looking to communicate with fellow-travellers; to people who have opposing views, to help
them understand why it is that we disagree so strongly with them; and with any luck, to
people who are my fellow travellers, to help them spot me and get in touch.


The first thing Id like to draw your attention to are the twin X axes, running from left
to right: civ to arboration and Geist to clarity. At the far left, at the cutting edge of (faux?)
radical space are the fantasists of the futurist gendered and technetronic paradigm. I call
them faux radicals because although they may not like the state or capital, they have no
opposition to the general direction that the paradigm is moving, so they are deckchair
rearrangers at best.
The transhumanists represent the most devout exponents of civilisation. Even if they
pay lip service to anticiv sentiments, by wanting to change the natural human organism into
an artefact they actually reveal that they are the most civilised of all humans. Likewise, queer
anarchists are those in the world who are most concerned with the Geist of identity. The
stifling influence of these themes in radical space drops off as you move to the right, opening
up new avenues of exploration and critical theory as you go.
The middle ground (radical, but with an incomplete analysis) can be seen to be
comprised of (classical Leftist) anarchism, which, as one subjects more and more elements of
the control complex to analysis, transitions into post-Left anarchism, and fractures into the
noticeably different but related themes of egoism and green anarchism.
Still further to the right you can see what I posit is a space of radical flux where various
radicals dwell, exploring the world of ideas before deciding where their sympathies ultimately
lie. At the furthest tip of this flux are (I hope) the people that we The Unterrified have been
looking for. These people are probably their selves already unterrified, and are by all accounts
probably looking for wider communication.
The Y axis represents an approximate and not to scale estimate of the popularity of the
ideas, except our own, which are of course not currently popular at all, but are, as I see it,
(possibly? hopefully?) intersecting with green anarchism, egoism and radical flux. I hope the
model can also convey my belief that the main reason our ideas are not currently so popular
is because the areas that touch ours are not responding honestly or seriously. So those in the
worlds of green anarchism and egoism, for example, have sacred cows they won't yet let go of.
If you find this model interesting or useful, or even if you think its complete crap and
have a better one to suggest, we would, as always, love to hear from you.