Enclaves

An extension of critique
and an alternative to revolution

Historically, radical resistance to heteronomy has fallen into three main

categories: critique, the decrying of the incumbent paradigm and the
highlighting of exactly why it’s so harmful and wrong; outreach , efforts to
bring this critique to the attention of others, whether local or more widely; and
revolution, the attempt to ‘overthrow’ the present order with another of the
insurrectionists’ choosing.
I have written elsewhere about my opposition to revolution, but for the
purposes of the present piece of writing, let me summarise my view as saying
that it is morally and practically a disgrace on every level. Forcefully ushering
in a new order is as wrong as any current order, on a moral level. It assumes
that ends justify means (they do not), that a minority vanguard can think and
act for a much larger grouping (they cannot), and that mass society itself is not
a significant problem (when in fact, it is). Endless mutinies on a ship of fools
can never change the fact that the ship is lost, that it is separating us and
alienating us from that that might otherwise sustain us. It doesn’t matter who’s
in control of the rudder - the ship will never, and can never, arrive anywhere
meaningful or positive. Society itself is the greatest evil in the world.
As for outreach, I’ve also thought about and written about this at length,
and concluded, that there is no point in myself or anyone who might share my
fundamental values pursuing a course of action that in some way attempts to
grapple with others that are not close to those values. In short, if someone is
not aware of these values, it’s hard to bring them to their attention. If people
haven’t already noticed that they are bleeding profusely, feeling light-headed,
and stooping as they shuffle along, they are not likely to respond rationally
when this is pointed out to them. Society, as was just mentioned, has spread
insanity into almost every member. The reachable must not waste their precious
energy appealing to the unreachable. For one thing, this assumes some sort of
general connection between them, which smacks heavily of mass society and
humanism. For another, it will likely be all effort and no gain. Cost-benefit
analysis should not always be restricted to the capitalistic and monetary-
thinking. Why do something that most likely will never work? Let’s not all
forget that the myth of Sisyphus was a warning, not an inspiration.
As for critique, it is a necessary step on the path to liberation, that is for
sure. From ignorance comes the realisation that one is ignorant and the desire
to inform and equip oneself with the necessary ideas to further one’s goals;
critique is an inseparable part of that process. But I don’t see how it could be
a goal in itself. Remaining a slave to and a victim of civilisation and wage
slavery is not my idea of a life, and I don’t see how it can be enough for
anyone else, either. Even if you jazz-up your existence with hedonistic pursuits
and distractions, you are still just having a good time in a bad place. To me,
that’s not a life. A life is something with a greater degree of wholeness and
purpose.
To that end, I want to know whether, dear readers, you have seriously
considered abandoning societal-level methods of resistance and disintegrating
your efforts into small enclaves of like-minded individuals that share your
fundamental values. I think that the enclave approach has the following
advantages:-

it shifts the spatial focus from 'what has to be done' (a la Lenin) to 'what
can I do to help myself and my kin?', and therefore makes individual and
community sustainability and enrichment the main goal - what could be of
higher value than that?

it shifts the temporal focus from ‘after the revolution’ to ‘right here,
right now’, and gives people greater reason to brighten each others’ days and,
without having to sacrifice longer-term goals, to ‘seize’ the day;

it allows each enclave to develop their own foundationalist philosophies

and critical toolsets, and experience for their selves the important experimental
environments of learning to live with others, relate to them, to provide for
their selves, and each other, and do all the things that would be necessary in
a non-civilised paradigm anyway;

it provides psychosocial spaces where a philosophy of touch, direct

communication, healing and nurturing can blossom;

it provides an example, that if and when shared carefully with selected

others outside the community, can inspire others to similarly ‘drop-out;
 it improves the land that the community lives on, and assists them in
establishing a closer connection with everything living there;

it removes people from the largely harmful elements of civilisation (such

as computers) by giving them alternatives that enrich instead of drain them.
Instead of surrogate activities, it gives them real, positive, life-affirming, loving,
spiritually lifting, esteem-boosting, health-improving, direct, unmediated and
playful activities that become truly possible in such enclaves;

it removes the majority of conflicts that take up so much time with

bickering and endless critiques;

it makes security culture easier by essentially having no traceable

presence;

To argue against such a proposition, would, to me, indicate that the

individual would have to: be completely besotted by the Geists of leftism and
humanism; and/or be harbouring secret desires to see the world shaped by a
heteronomous will; and/or to not really want to connect with others and
possibly be afraid of doing so; and/or be uncomfortable with living in a truly
autonomous way. In short, I wouldn’t trust anyone who came to the conclusion
that enclaves are not a desirable vision.

For those who doubt the possibility of success, I would advise that they
experiment with this idea in smaller ways until such a time as they want to
expand on it. It’s not an all-or-nothing proposition from day one, although I’d
also add that at some point, a definite ‘clean break’ from civilisation is going
to give such methods the best possible chance.
As I’ve said many times before, to my mind only a community with
enough physical as well as philosophical distance from the incumbent paradigm
is going to make it in the long run.
When the civilisation-of-origin collapses, far-flung enclaves could, if they
chose, send ‘emissaries’ to the fringes to survey the scenes and see if there is
anything that the community could or might want to do, but that’s a decision
for another day. Right now, when deciding what to do, I think there is another
option that remains woefully under-explored.