The Appalachian Confederation
by Jason GodeskyMy previous article mentioned the Iroquois princess that legend puts in my family tree, but IshCon’s Matthew Kabwe, a.k.a., “Ghost,” can do one better. He lives across the river from a Mohawk reservation. His mother works with them. Is it so peculiar, then, that when he tried to extrapolate the consequences of Daniel Quinn’s notion of “occupational tribes,” he came upon the concept of the “tribe of tribes“? In the same way that a tribe’s affairs are decided by discussion and consensus, the “tribe of tribes” would also decide their affairs by concensus–just as the Iroquois Confederacy did. It might also be what Jeff Vail calls “rhizome.” The Tribe of Anthropik has decided to take this concept from the realm of theory, into action. We hereby announce the foundation of the Appalachian Confederation.
We face a unique challenge, one that no tribe before or since has ever had to counter. We were born into civilization. We have no tribal heritage to draw upon. We have no ancient festivals, or generations-long alliances and feuds to form the basis for our inter-tribal interactions. Those interactions are overshadowed by the terrible threat we all share. We face an enormous–and growing–civilization that is hostile to us and our endeavors. This is not a challenge any one tribe can face alone.
The Appalachian Confederation is a rhizome, a tribe of tribes that straddles the Appalachian Mountains. We have begun to form this relationship to see to our mutual security and prosperity, just as individual humans formed tribes to find the same. There are four primary needs that such a rhizome fulfills: military defense, communication, integration, and risk management.
1. Military defense.
I do not believe that civilization will ever mount a full offensive against tribes as such. Certainly, governments have no problem destroying small enclaves of people living in some novel way when some excuse presents itself–as one might argue was the case with Waco, Ruby Ridge, and similar incidents. However, I believe that this is because governments are indisposed against individuals living in a non-conventional manner, not because of any active attempt to hunt them down. I look to the blossoming number of eco-villages across the country as evidence of this. Moreover, as civilization collapses, governments will no doubt have much more pressing matters to attend to than a bunch of hippies living in yurts.
Moreover, I do not foresee a “post-apocalyptic” war between tribes and civilization’s survivors. Those survivors, like the survivors of Chaco Canyon, will learn to live in sustainable ways, or die trying. In the interrim, I do not believe they will “come after” foragers, for the same reasons that the Greenland Vikings that Jared Diamond discusses in Collapse did not “go after” the Inuit. We will be relying on resources they fail to see as food. So, I do not see much threat of military conflict in the primitivist approach to the current crisis.
However, others are not so sure. Steve Thomas believes that we may face stiff competition. Jeff Vail believes that the conflict between hierarchy and rhizome will define the twenty-first century, just as the conflict between democracy, communism and fascism defined the twentieth. For those nervous about the the threat of military action, a tribal league like the Appalachian Confederation is an excellent response.
With his military background, it is understandable that Jeff Vail would spend so much time focusing on the military abilities of rhizome. In his latest entry on the topic, “Defending Pala: Rhizome as a Mode of Military Operations,” Vail highlighted the advantages and requirements of the rhizomatic military. Vail claims that such a military would be incredibly effective at defensive operations, but would be incapable of launching offenses or initiating hostilities. Vail writes:
Furthermore, rhizome war may represent an end to war. The history of warfare is a history of hierarchy. Rhizome polities, as they have existed in a lesser approximation of fully rhizome form, have never been able to repel the advance of hierarchy. As a result, warfare has been an activity entered into exclusively by hierarchy, against either rhizome or against another hierarchy. It has been a constant evolutionary struggle, with alternating innovations in tactics or politics, offense or defense leading to a perpetual war among human polities instigated by the innovator. Rhizome cannot “make war� in the classical sense, because it has no capacity for offensive warfare—the kind of military operations that I will outline here are structurally limited to defensive and reactionary operations (even if they may use offensive tactics to defensive ends). This is because rhizome is structurally incapable of exerting control beyond itself—the pattern of rhizome can spread, but it is fundamentally incapable of controlling another entity. For this reason, rhizome has no motivation to instigate war—it can only respond to aggression by hierarchy. Therefore, if one accepts that it is possible to develop the theory of rhizome military operations to the extent that it cannot be defeated by hierarchy, then rhizome war equals an end to war, as hierarchy will not instigate a war that it does not think it can win.
Vail defines four defining principles of the rhizomatic army:
- Independence. The rhizomatic military must preserve its rhizomatic nature. Vail points out that many such struggles were won only be adopting a hierarchical military structure. Vail argues that this is not necessary. With small, independent “corps” operating towards the overall goal, a rhizomatic army be able to achieve its goals, even against a powerful, hierarchical military.
- Interaction. The essence of rhizome is not only the existence of independent nodes, but perhaps even more importantly, the interactions between them. This is an important theme in Vail’s work. Vail points out that the primary function of a military is not violence, but processing information. As such, rhizome has a distinct advantage, in that it can be much more efficient than hierarchical information processing plagued by signal degradation and the SNAFU principle.
- Open Source. Jeff Vail has written several entries on “open source warfare,” with “Swarming, Open Source Warfare and the Black Block,” and “‘Open Source Warfare’ vs. ‘Arcane Use of Power’.” This seems to be primarily an emergent property of the second principle of interaction, where the information-processing advantages of rhizome over hierarchy are utilized to make the rhizomatic military stronger than its hierarchical opponents.
- Time & Space. Essentially, the use of guerrilla warfare or asymetrical warfare to highlight the strengths of the rhizomatic military, and exploit the weaknesses of the hierarchical. The previously cited article, “Swarming, Open Source Warfare and the Black Block,” discusses a related tactic of “swarming,” but the general principles are the foundation of all guerrilla warfare.
Would such a military stand a chance against today’s modern, industrialized war machine? It is no longer a matter of speculation; Jeff Vail and more recently John Robb see al Qa’ida as already implementing several of these principles. When the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, Saddam ordered many of his forces to use guerrilla warfare, shedding the uniforms and tactics of the conventional, hierarchical military that the U.S. so handily dismantled, to become the insurgency that has bogged the greatest military in history into a “quagmire” for the past two years, with no end in sight.
It was similar tactics that allowed rag-tag colonists in the New World to shake off British colonialism and establish the United States in the first place. I showed Giuli The Patriot–Mel Gibson’s Hollywood treatment of a fictional amalgam of several southern American Revolutionary figures–as a lesson in tribal warfare. I am reminded again of another topic I have spent many words on, digitally; namely, post-Roman Britain and the question of the “historical King Arthur.” The Anglo-Saxons used guerrilla tactics, and easily overwhelmed the Romanized lands along the southeastern coast. However, as the invaders went higher into the lands of Cornwall, Wales and the lowlands of Scotland, they found groups of Celts that had not been so Romanized, and answered guerrilla warfare in kind. If there was a historical Arthur, it was a guerrilla war leader who managed to defeat the Anglo-Saxon invaders.
In short, the rhizome military Vail formulates is not only capable of defeating hierarchical aggression–it’s the only historically reliable model that has, time and again.
2. Communication.
The essence of rhizome is communication between nodes. The tribe itself is a form of rhizome, of course; the tribe is the emergent product of the communication between its members. The tribe of tribes is also a rhizome, where tribes, rather than individuals, make up the constituent nodes.
Jeff Vail has discussed this, as well, with his “Rhizome, Communication, and Our One-Time Shot,” where he presents this challenge: “Rhizome must develop a superior, organic communication theory or wither on the vine of hierarchy.” Vail highlights the emerging rhizomatic trends of blogging, open source, et cetera, but notes that they are largely parasitic. “Communication is the lifeblood of rhizome,” Vail warns, and all rhizomatic communication is now taking place by hierarchical means.
The internet is not rhizomatic, nor does it have any essentially anarchistic nature. It was developed by the U.S. military. It has discernable backbones that can even be mapped. It is utterly dependent on a telecommunications infrastructure that is itself dependent on hierarchy. Vail worries that while broadband offers more speed, it also offers more control by concentrating access into the hands of fewer ISP’s, as well as the worrisome effect of authentication and “trust” being monopolized by a few secure repositories.
The challenge we face is to develop a rhizomatic communications system that is not parasitic to hierarchy–that can exist in itself. This is an enormous challenge, and one that must be undertaken in steps. In the meantime, there are more basic forms of communication that we can also develop, which have been used for quite some time.
The Appalachian Confederation will be developing a standardized set of smoke signals, carved symbols, and even large drums to communicate over valleys. Perhaps the most important form of communication, though, will be the institution of the Mountain Festival. In the Paleolithic, such fairs brought tribes together to trade goods, stories, and wives. Not only will this be critical to preserving genetic diversity, it will serve the “weak network connections” Vail discusses as critical to rhizome. Vail himself writes near the end of the aforementioned article on communication:
The basic theoretical model for rhizome communication is the fair or festival. This model can be repeated locally and frequently—in the form of dinner parties, barbeques, and reading groups—and can also affect the establishment and continuation of critical weak, dynamic connections in the form of seasonal fairs, holiday festivals, etc. Additionally, historical land use patterns can be revived towards these ends. In rural Austria the farmers traditionally live in small villages, facilitating frequent interaction and exchange, with each farmer walking each day to his fields a short distance away. Aborigine would gather seasonally in large encampments to exploit temporary resource surpluses, often not re-visiting a specific site again for several years. After this temporary camp, they would break up into smaller bands and retreat to less resource-rich environments. This is what history has to contribute to the structure of a future rhizome communications system.
I agree with Vail that this is a very good start–but not yet enough. This is the communication the Appalachian Confederation can provide immediately. The challenge of a rhizomatic telecommunications system is one the Confederation can meet together.
3. Integration.
In its page on the Great Law of Peace, the official Haudenosaunee webpage declares, that “[t]he Peace Maker then established clans among the Haudenosaunee as a way to unite the Five Nations and as a form of social order.” The clans of the Iroquois were matters of matrilineal descent, and cut across the Six Nations. These affiliations fulfilled the very purposes accorded to them in the preceding quote. The clans gave individual tribesmen relationships to other tribes that mitigated conflict and opened avenues for making peace when conflict did occur. They also created multiple dimensions of rank and esteem that mitigated hierarchy.
There is certainly a point to be made that natural ability negates any possibility of universal equality in its truest sense. This is not at all what we mean by an “egalitarian society,” however. Nor is it the lame concept of “equality of opportunity” which modern United States society so clearly exemplifies as a failed ideal. Rather, the difference between a hierarchical society and an egalitarian one is much the same difference as between hierarchy and rhizome–it is the difference between a nest of relationships, and a command structure.
Every society can thus be represented as a bidirectional graph (graph here in the mathematical sense–a set of nodes, with a set of edges connecting them). Hierarchy is a very specific graph. In the diagram above, the graph on the left is hierarchical. Individual #1 is in control. Who is in control of the graph on the right? The key to egalitarian society is not obliterating individuality or denying the uniqueness of each individual, but in multiple dimensions of power. If we look at any one dimension, we might see a de facto hierarchy of influence emerge. The most respected shaman, for example, wields much more power in spiritual matters than a young, untested shaman. However, shamanic power is not the only dimension of power. There is hunting skill, oratory, tool making, or any number of other dimensions. The elder shaman is unlikely to also be the best hunter, and neither will likely be the most accomplished tool maker. Even an individual who does not dominate any dimension may wield more overall influence than even the most accomplished hunter, by averaging higher across all dimensions; a “jack of all trades” can have as much influence as a “master of one.” When we overlay all these dimensions of power into a single graph, in an egalitarian society we are left simply with a bi-directional graph. In a hierarchical society, there are very few dimensions of power, and even those there are, are concentrated into the hands of the few. The website “They Rule” illustrates this nicely by allowing users to navigate the small, exclusive oligarchy that controls nearly all political and economic power in the modern United States.
The clan multiplies these dimensions of power, and thus makes an egalitarian society more resilient against the accumulation of influence and power, such as one sees with Melanesian “Big Men.” The same multiple dimensions of power that overlap in the tribe can overlap in the clan. If the clan’s best hunter is in tribe A, but someone else in tribe A is a better hunter still, the respect he holds in his clan can buy him more influence than the other hunter.
Members of different tribes can share the same clan–thus, clans cut across tribal boundaries, preserving peace and cooperation between the tribes of the Confederation. These same clans afford, again, the kind of weak network links that are so crucial to the functioning of rhizome.
Historically, these clans were matters of birth. They need not be. Our unique predicament, in fact, precludes that option–none of us were born into any particular clan. In fact, clans may be even more effective as clubs, guilds, or professional organizations. The Clan of the Serpent might be made up of shamans; the Clan of the Crow of tool makers; the Clan of the Salmon for storytellers, et cetera.
At the Mountain Festival, these clans would have the chance to meet again, and discuss and review issues of importance to their various interests. Thus, they would not only fulfill the important social functions that clans historically served, but they would also replace the roles served by today’s professional societies. The Mountain Festival would thus become a kind of conference, as well.
4. Risk management.
The Great Breakthrough of IshCon 2005 was not only that primitivist and occupational tribes were compatible–but that they were complimentary. Occupational tribes are pursuing a course of trying to avert civilizational collapse by “changing minds.” Primitivists like myself find this effort to be laudable, but futile. However, the future is not entirely known to anyone, and the chance that collapse may yet be averted, while remote, is still non-zero.
Occupational tribes working to avert this collapse certainly have the odds stacked against them, however. A Confederation such as this mitigates their risk, making primitivist tribes like the Tribe of Anthropik essentially an “insurance policy” against civilizational collapse.
If the Appalachian Confederation is made up of a diversity of primitivist and occupational tribes, then occupational tribes making money in the civilized economy can funnel some of those funds to fill the meager financial needs of primitivist tribes learning to live in the wild. This becomes a form of insurance, because when (some occupational tribalists would prefer “if”) civilization collapses, the existence of and ties to such primitivist tribes provides such occupational tribalists with the means to survive without civilization’s support.
Nor is the dichotomy nearly so stark as this simplified model might suggest. Our own tribe is decidedly primitivist, yet our latest speculation of possibly one day starting a primitive skills school, possibly connected to a “primitivist think tank,” would certainly give us some occupational grounding, as well. Occupational tribes in the Appalachian Confederation can also visit primitivist tribes to learn primitive skills and access our ranges, allowing their occupational tribes to become more primitive. Occupational tribes are well-positioned to begin migrating to a more primitive lifestyle.
In essence, the Appalachian Confederation provides greater security for all its tribes simply because it adds another level of diversity–diversity not only within tribes, but between tribes as well. With a sufficient range of diversity, that makes the entire Confederation more likely to survive, and more likely to prosper, regardless of what the future holds.
Conclusion.
The Appalachian Confederation is our newly-formed “tribe of tribes,” governed by a consensus of its member tribes. Its specifics and bylaws have yet to be formulated, but the concept is neither ours alone, nor irreproducible in concept. Geographical distance must not be so great as to preclude the regular festivals–which also promotes bioregionality, and works against globalization or the formation of networks of influence that are too broad.
I am greatly indebted here to Jeff Vail, Benjamin Shender, Devin Hammond and Matthew Kabwe for helping formulate so many of the ideas that have now coalesced in the Appalachian Confederation. The theoretical groundwork we all helped lay is now being put into practice.
Long live rhizome! Long live the tribe of tribes! Long live the Appalachian Confederation!
Jason, this post is probably my favorite of yours yet. You know why? Because you’re finally starting to piece together a vision of the future. This is the really exciting work to be done — the critique of the system is drudgery compared to this.
I have a proposal, though — that we make it the Pacific Northwest Confederation!
There is so much going on out there, or at least there has to be, because I hear about it all the time. I think we should all pack up and move out there, to the promised land. Eh? Who’s with me?!
I really appreciate the acknowledgement, but I don’t see what the big deal was. I just helped you loudmouth blockhead ideologues (hehe) see that there really wasn’t anything to be arguing about, and even that wasn’t really my doing. Matt was all jump-up-and-down-totally-freaking-out before I even said anything. I guess there’s something to be said, though, for having the reconciled vision in the first place… haha.
Also, a quick communication brainstorm, and I came up with carrier pigeons… although that might violate some sort of no domesticated animals policy. Also possible is using rivers to float messages downstream. Visual signals travel long distances, so those are good — smoke signals, large objects/symbols, group dances (I like this idea! instead of a rain dance, a tribe could have a War dance, a We-need-to-chat dance, a Civilization-is-coming dance…) the pattern of which could be seen/heard over large distances. Let’s see, um… arrows fired from a longbow to a certain location or at a specific angle where their firing will be noticed quickly (marksmanship is an issue here, lol) could be used like signal flares, if lit. And then there is Ben’s idea of having “bards”, storytellers who travel around from group to group as entertainers or wise (wo)men. These bards could pass on messages, and if there were enough groups of them, the constant communication allowed/facilitated by this would be perfect for rhizome.
And that’s all stuff I put together within 15 minutes of brainstorm. I’m sure there are more possibilities that can be developed.
This is good stuff, Jason. I hope to see more like this in the future. (And it’s not all on you, either — please don’t get me wrong! I’m just glad you’re working on a positive vision.)
Devin
p.s. the link to TheyRule is misspelled.
Comment by Devin — 12 September 2005 @ 1:44 AM
Well, it’s also totally jumping the gun. Here I am proposing solutions, when I haven’t even convinced everyone there’s a problem yet. You can’t make an effective solution if you don’t fully understand the problem first.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 12 September 2005 @ 8:07 AM
It’s scary how complimentary your ideas and Mr. Vail’s ideas are with my own. They’re not the SAME ideas, but they’re all on the same bent. I’m focusing more on economy and global communications and internal tribal functioning in the writing I do, and here you are working out the interrelations between tribes and ways to limit power, and over there is mon Capitan working on military theory and political science.
I believe that it will be very possible to develop sound, reproducable rhizome methods, provided we have an open forum of ideas.
Comment by Chuck — 12 September 2005 @ 10:57 AM
And behold: The Dummers.
Drummers: A clan concept for the Confederation
Purpose: To facilitate communication between and amongst clans and tribes.
Methods:
1) Drums and Drum heights. A complete langauge of drum signals that can be heard miles away and passed on. Theoretically a set of drum heights could transmit a message across the continent in a day.
2) Written messages and runners to carry them. Mostly for private messages or otherwise messages that we do not want published.
3) Horn signals for local communications, not as complete as the drums, but sufficent.
Current Membership: Pending
Totem of Choice: TBA
Comment by Ben — 12 September 2005 @ 11:03 AM
Freudian slip, Ben?
Comment by Janene — 12 September 2005 @ 11:54 AM
You’ve got a long way to go if you’re trying to convince EVERYone there is a problem.
I agree, though, that you can’t make an effective solution if you don’t understand the problem first. But how much do you need to understand the problem before you start working toward a solution? That’s a rhetorical question, because you’ve already started working toward a solution — you’ve just not voiced it.
Anyway, this looks great so far. Anyone bite on my proposal to make it a Pacific Northwest Confederation?
Comment by Devin — 12 September 2005 @ 12:00 PM
No, just poor spelling on my part. Poor spellers untie!
Ahhh, my oringinal invisioned local…. too far away, population is a problem, further north (cold), and I’m not Canadian. All of which are solvable, but those are the reasons I didn’t become a huge advocate for the Pacific Northwest.
Comment by Ben — 12 September 2005 @ 12:58 PM
We are looking at Tennessee… North Carolina… somewhere mid-south eastern seaboard at this point. That is, if we are still able to pick up and move in seven years:-) Somewhere a little warmer than here, with good rainfall and lower population densities… so Appalachia it is. Although, we are inclined towards foothills as opposed to actually going up into the mountains.
Janene
Comment by Janene — 12 September 2005 @ 1:28 PM
We’re looking at Western MA, with winter migrations south to the NC area. That’ll put us right through Appalachia! And we can use the migrations as opportunities to exchange new information and skills, meet new tribes, and form alliances.
Roxy
Comment by Raku — 12 September 2005 @ 1:35 PM
The population there is less dense than other areas of the country, particularly the east coast. And aren’t you from up north? Also, why would you need to be canadian? I’m thinking Oregon and Washington, not Canada. Oregon and Washington are at roughly the same parallel as the Northeastern states. And from everything I’ve heard about the Pac-NW, the place is ideal.
In my mind, the place doesn’t matter so much, as long as it works for the people who live there. Currently, the south isn’t working for me, and I figure if I’m going to move to a different climate, it might as well be in a place that works for me.
Devin
Comment by Devin — 12 September 2005 @ 3:04 PM
I’d be up for a “Brotherhood of the Coast” kind of Tribe of Tribes. I live in Southern California but know kindred souls all throughout the range from Northern California to Oregon to Washington to Canada.
That matches, in some ways, the pattern of communication set by the Pacific tribes (like the local Tongva & Chumash), who regularly traded up and down the coast.
Of course, I believe (rightly or wrongly) that I’m probably further behind Anthropik when it comes to creating a viable tribe, though it is coming along (just not as quick as I’d like).
So… if any Californians are reading this post…
Best
Bill Maxwell
Comment by Bill Maxwell — 12 September 2005 @ 3:27 PM
Dear folks:
Thanks for all your vision, commitment, community building, planning, networking and hard work.
Now, can we just up-root all that and plop it somewhere in the pacific northwest, pretty please?
Because, you know, [i]I heard[/i] there’s all sorts of cool happening there, and I don’t like where I’m at after I trashed all my relationships here.
Convinced, everybody? Thought so! Let’s Roll!
-Jim
Comment by JCamasto — 12 September 2005 @ 4:20 PM
Well that was interesting…
Just spend a couple of hours without power, thanks to a Department of Water and Power snafu that knocked out a chunk of Los Angeles. This ignited a local family discussion of what we would do in an emergency, where we would go, how would we get our tribe together (friends of mine involved in the eco-village project) and how, especially, we would communicate (since the nice digital phones died as well).
Hm.
Best
Bill Maxwell
Comment by Bill Maxwell — 12 September 2005 @ 5:16 PM
Ok, so we’re agreed then? The Appalachian Confederation and the League of Pacific Nations are both under development. Whoohooo! Party! We’ll decivilize the country and meet in the middle. Race ya!
Comment by Ben — 12 September 2005 @ 5:35 PM
Hey, Bill! When I’m not in Iraq or Kuwait, I’m stationed out of the Ventura\Oxnard area, and I’m originally from Oakland. I’d love to chat about this sort of stuff, from a California bent… my big plan in life is to start a tribe just south of Santa Cruz. The idea is to raise sheep for their wool (for trade). I’d love to be in on the ground floor of a newly created Brotherhood of the Coast, so let’s get to talkin’!
- Chuck
Comment by Chuck — 12 September 2005 @ 5:59 PM
I see your point, but you’re being unfair mocking me here. I’m not rooted anywhere at all. There is no community where I am. The relationships and networking I’ve done has been overwhelmingly on the internet. My suggestion that we “all pack up and move” was at most a hopeful jest. Maybe I was short-sighted in even submitting it as a possibility, but that’s no reason to mock me. Are you upset with me or something, Jim?
Comment by Devin — 12 September 2005 @ 6:52 PM
clan and tribe, woven like basket reeds
warp and weft
i can even see 3 dimensions of connectivity: tribe, occupational guild, lineage…
Comment by felix — 12 September 2005 @ 7:24 PM
Devin, I’m not upset with you… I guess I just can’t tell when you’re jesting. So when I don’t have a reference point to grab onto, I take things at face value. So,
Jason continually, publically demonstrates his lifework at his site, clearly establishing and nurturing deep roots both intellectually and geographically. He (finally) hits upon an idea that gets you really charged up and excited, and practically the first thing out of your mouth is how to twist it to your desires.
That’s how it read to me.
And so I mocked you for your impatience, selfishness, and lack of respect for his effort and vision. Just like I’d do if you were sitting next to me…. That’s all.
-Jim
Comment by JCamasto — 12 September 2005 @ 9:53 PM
No, Jim, Jason has a lot of ideas that are exciting and groundbreaking — this is just what I personally want to be working on. I have a different location in mind, however, and so instead of tossing all of this good work out, I was hoping to carry at least some of it over to other locations. Or at least, that seems to be the most honest after-the-fact reasoning I can come up with for what I was thinking when I wrote it.
I’m reminded of the analysis of our personality type:
I’m trying not to be too deeply offended at what is clearly a misunderstanding, but it’s hard. I was hoping to be able to contribute to something I would love to contribute to, and was disappointed that I might not be a part of it. Maybe that’s being selfish, maybe that’s being impatient, maybe that’s disrespecting his vision, but I don’t think so. And you know, maybe I did trash my own relationships here, maybe it was all my fault. Maybe I am a leech, with no contribution of my own to make, no energy or vision of my own to bring. But I don’t think so.
And I don’t think you’d mock me if you were sitting next to me. Maybe I would be real to you then. Maybe then you would understand my powerlessness, my frustration, my isolation, and my lack of support. And maybe then you would understand that this is where my passion comes from. You would understand that all of the energy and excitement you saw in me at IshCon comes from years of repression and my own accomodation to that repression. Somehow, I have an ability to channel my frustration into positive energy, to use the years of repressed anger as a wellspring of passion. Without this ability, I would be lost. A deadened, soulless machine like all the rest.
A deadened, soulless machine is what I already feel like most of the time. Whenever I stop to notice it, my heart is broken. And it’s somehow my fault, always my fault, when I can’t communicate that to people. I’m sorry, I really do try. But all you’ll see is an incredibly bitter, depressed, and cynical person.
Or, when I’m able to free myself, a peaceful and happy and extremely energetic person. I like me so much more when I’m happy.
I hope you can understand that.
Comment by Devin — 12 September 2005 @ 10:54 PM
Jim–that was pretty harsh! I ended the article pointing out that this could be a template for other such tribal leagues, in other bioregions, precisely out of the hope that others would pick up that thread. I would love to see one in the Pacific Northwest, and it sounds like there’s interest there.
Hell, we’ve been considering where it is we’re going to set up, and the Pacific Northwest is definitely on our radar. We want to be far away from population centers, and the Pacific Northwest fits that bill nicely. But it may end up being a bit overcrowded, when 90+% of the survivors of the crash are all living up there.
We happen to live in a very abundant region, so at the moment, several of us are leaning towards making do with where we are. But we could certainly change our minds on that. If the Tribe of Anthropik does end up migrating, I hope we’ll have a chance to throw our lot in with the Pacific League.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 12 September 2005 @ 11:34 PM
I apologize for judging you, Devin.
I was presumptuous, thinking I could know where you are, who you are. And then gave you a little shove - instead of offering a helpful hand. (Or just being quiet…)
I seem to have lost my humility somewhere, in the last month or so - I’m sorry I lashed out at you.
I offer no excuse. But perhaps an explanation is that I’m jealous of seeing others move forward around me. All I can guess is that something in my life must be threatening me; and I’m subconsciously calibrating my verbal assault weapon for some sensed conflict… And you just happened into my range while I was in “target practice mode”.
Like I said - no excuse.
Fortunately, this whole misunderstanding mostly stems from my misreading & miscommunication - par for the ‘net, I’m afraid….
So I hope you can shrug it off. If not, well, then I’ll apologize to you again - only in person, on Thursday….
-Jim
Comment by JCamasto — 13 September 2005 @ 1:36 AM
A wonderful example of mature interpersonal conflict resolution, the sort of conflict resolution used in tribes, free for the reading.
Comment by Chuck — 13 September 2005 @ 6:40 AM
Thanks, Jim.
I’m okay now. It was just a misunderstanding, that’s all. Glad it’s resolved.
Comment by Devin — 13 September 2005 @ 11:45 AM
Excellent! Now back to saving the world with a six word catch phrase. But really, I’m glad this one was resolved so seamlessly. Damn you people, if you keep this up I might actually become hopeful. And then what would my nickname be? Ditchboy will be dead! Dead I tell you! Dead!
….ok, back to class for me.
Comment by Ben — 13 September 2005 @ 5:58 PM
Chuck
I’m honored that you’d like to open up discussions on the Brotherhood of the Coast and I’d love to talk more on it when you’ve got the time!
Best
Bill Maxwell
Comment by Bill Maxwell — 1 October 2005 @ 10:18 PM
Bill,
E-mail me at slumberelegy at-sign gmail period com. We’ll correspond.
(Hopefully that beats any spambots!)
Comment by Chuck — 2 October 2005 @ 10:58 AM
Let the great work begin.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 21 December 2005 @ 3:07 PM
The Drummers totem = Bullfrog
Bullfrog is perfect - loud, and produces that sound with the stretched membrane of its throat.
Also, for some of those of us not interested in going anywhere near either coast, I’d like to propose an Ozarks confederation too. Anyone interested can contact me through yahoo mail or IM at the above username.
Comment by ChandraShakti — 25 August 2006 @ 8:04 AM
I’m in the San Francisco / Oakland California area, my group is planning to acquire land in the Humboldt/Mendocino county area, and I see serious potential for collaboration here. We range from hunter-gatherers to permaculturists to ec0-industrials (I’m one of the latter but I also recognize that HG mode is ultimately the most sustainable & resilient, thus I’m supporting our HG efforts, and thus I’m hanging out here). We have a clearly-stated educational & outreach focus, which also includes hands-on research and publication.
Before I go into more detail about our community & our land-buying plans, I want to learn more about y’all and what you’re planning.
Re. “sustainability insurance,” we’ve come up with the same idea. HGs could also engage with local school systems and teach the kids of agriculturals and villagers: in addition to the obvious skill sharing, this is also “proactive community defense”: the agriculturals won’t attempt to conquer the tribals if they feel the tribals are part of their “we,” and no better way to do that then by building strong bonds between the children of agriculturals & villagers, and those of the tribals & HGs.
Re. tribal telecom: I’m a telephone systems engineer with a decent amount of historical knowledge of the field, so this presents a very interesting set of challenges. In our group I’ve told the HGs, half-jokingly, “don’t worry, I won’t pester you to have telephones in your huts & treehouses, we’ll just set up a telephone/internet hut near your site so you can use it when you choose and ignore it otherwise.”
This is one potential model: an independent telephone & data network, hard-wired, and potentially using 1930s-era technology on the telephone side (we have the capability to make that happen, and we know people who have the materials on-hand to do it).
Another potential model is the oldschool posts: regular mail & messages carried on horseback between villages. This would have to run on a daily basis with three to five day delivery to any point in the local region in order to be of much use, but in theory it’s possible for a region to do it. And the way to avod trouble with the US Postal monopoly on first-class letter mail is to call it “intra-company mail” or “courier service.”
For rapid communication between villages, don’t forget the use of sunlight and mirrors. It should be possible for each village within sight distance of others, to build a wooden tower containing a simple apparatus consisting of a mirror (or polished metal surface) attached mechanically to a telegraph-like key. You aim the device to focus the sunlight on a target in the tower a few mountain tops away, and then proceed to communicate in Morse (oldschool ASCII:-). This also has the advantage of security compared to drums. And in theory it could operate on clear nights by moonlight, if your methods allow the use of ground-glass lenses i.e. terrestrial telescopes or binoculars by which the recipient could watch the sender more closely to ascertain the flickerings of moonlight reflected in Morse. I could go on in more detail if anyone’s interested… (and the foregoing is just off the top of my head at 2:00AM).
So, is anyone still reading this thread? Anyone still interested in northern California?
Comment by gg3 — 23 January 2007 @ 6:10 AM
Hey, GG3.
I’m originally from Oakland, ended up somehow in Portland.
I love the Mendocino area, and would definitely be interested in exploring options there.
At this point, the Fellowship of the Coast is still very much a work in progress, and I won’t spend much time hashing over the various incarnations it could take, if that indeed is what you were talking about.
E-mail me if you wanna chat about what you’re planning on doing, I’d love to hear! slumberelegy at gmail.
- Chuck
Comment by Chuck — 23 January 2007 @ 8:03 PM
Chuck, I’ll be getting in touch via email some time from tonight to the next couple of days. I’m a bit behind right now, have to write to Jason also. Much to discuss. -G
Comment by gg3 — 24 January 2007 @ 5:03 AM
Dear Jason,
I read the 30 theses and the Appalachian Confederacy with great interest. I am thinking of moving from Europe to Asheville or thereabouts. I’m a deep ecological future primitive teacher and writer. What is happening now in your development and with the Appalachian Confederacy? Anything?
Hope to hear from you.
Suzanne
Comment by sduarte@xs4all.nl — 26 April 2007 @ 2:25 PM
Asheville seems to be a pretty happening place these days. As for the Confederation, all goes according to plan—that is, slowly. The Second Mountain Festival didn’t work out so well, so we’re putting more into the Third this year. We’ll announce it here in a few months. If you’re interested, step one would be coming up to join us for a weekend in West Virginia, where we’ll be hoping to attract others from up and down Appalachia. A lot of this is still somewhat premature, but it’s never too early to start building some relationships, right?
Comment by Jason Godesky — 27 April 2007 @ 11:25 AM