Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 34

1NC feral faun

Notes: Big thing is to get the options out of the 1NC shell before you send it or else
your just reading from a script and it becomes harder to defend your performance
as spontaneous. Knowing what biopower is could be helpful for the internal link to
the second impact scenario. Some of the cards are alt solves cards or extra impact
cards that you can put into the block if need be. The link is promoting peace. Links
to systemic violence, war. If you have extra time read framework.

A)The resolution is a system whereby we seek to oppose all

violence thereby generalizing and systemizing all violence,
while committing violent repression of the Self. The real
impact of the 1AC isn't a violent war it's the UNDIRECTED
violence that the ideology of pacifism makes inevitable. Also,
Faun 92(feral,Faun [Published in Anarchy: A journal of Desire Armed, Elephant
Editions Feral REvoluution, and The Iconoclasts Hammer Insurgent Ferocity: The
Playful violence of the Rebellion])
Social control is impossible without violence . Society produces systems of
rationalized violence to socialize individuals to make them into useful resources
for society, while some of these systems, such as the military, the police and the
penal system can still be viewed separately due to the blatant harshness of their
violence, for the most part these systems have become so interconnected and so
pervasive that they act as a single totality the totality which is the society in
which we live. This systemic violence exists mostly as a constant underlying threat
a subtle, even boring, everyday terrorism which incuces a fear
of stepping out of line. The signs and orders from superiors which threaten
us with punishment or poverty, the armed, uniformed thugs who are there to
protect and serve (huh!?!), the barrage of headlines about wars, torture, serial killers and streeet gangs,
all immerse us in an atmosphere of subtle, underlying, rationalized social violence which causes us
to fear and repress our own violent passions. In light of the systematic social
violence that surrounds us, its no surprise that people are fooled into viewing all
violence as a single, monolithic entity rather than as specific acts or ways of
relating. The system of violence produced by society does become a monolith which acts to perpetuate itself. In
reaction to this monolithic system of violence, the pathology of pacifism develops. Unable to see beyond social

the pacifist creates a false dichotomy, limiting the question of violence to

the ethical/intellectual choice between as acceptance of violence as a monolithic
system or the total rejection of violence. But this choice exists only in the realm of
worthless abstactions, because in the world in which we actually live, pacifism and
systematic violence depend upon each other. Pacifism is an ideaology which
demands total social peace as its ultimate goal. But total social peace would require
the complete suppression of the individual passions that create individual
incidences of violence and that would require total social control. Total social
control is only possible through the use of the constant threat of the police, prison,

therapy, social censure, scarcity or war. So the pacifist ideal requires a monolithic
system of violence and reflects the social contradiction inherent in the necessity
that authority strive to maintain peace in order to maintain a smoothly running
social system, but can only do so by maintaining a rationalized system of violence.
The rational system of violence not only perpetuates itself, but also evokes
responses, often in the form of blind lashings out by enraged individuals, which the
system then manipulates into justifications for its own continual existence, and
occasionally in the form of consciously rebellious violence . The passionate violence that is
suppressed turns in on the one feeling it, becoming the the slow-killing, underlying violence of stress and anxiety. It
is evident in the millions of little pinpricks of humiliation that pass between people on the streets and in the public
places of every city looks of disgust and hostility between strangers, and the verbal battle of wits exchanging

This is the subtlest and most total form of

rationalised violence; everyone conforms out of fear of each others disgust. This is
the subtle form of violence practiced by pacifists. I do not dream of a gentle
revolution. My passion runs to the violence of supersession, the ferocity of a life that
renounces nothing. Raoul Vaneigem Those of us who are fighting for the freedom to create our lives for
guilt and blame between supposed friends.

ourselves need to reject both sides of the choice society offers between pacifism and systematic violence, because
this choice is an attempt to socialize our rebellion. Instead we can create our own options, developing a playful and
passionate chaos of action and relating which may express itself at times with intense and ferocious violence, at
times with the gentlest tenderness, or whatever way our passions and whims move us in the particular moment.

Both the rejection of violence and the systemization of violence are an attack on our
passions and uniqueness. Violence is an aspect of animal interaction and
observation of violence among animals belies several generalizations . Violence
among animals does not fit into the formula of social darwinism; there is no
perpetual war of all against all. Rather at specific moments under particular
circumstances, individual acts of violence flare up and then fade when the moments
pass. There is no systematic violence in the wild , but, instead, momentary
expressions of specific passions. This exposes one of the major fallacies of pacifist
ideology. Violence, in itself, does not perpetuate violence. The social system of
rationalized violence, of which pacifism is an integral part, perpetuates itself as a
system. Against the system of violence, a non-systematized, passionate, playful violence is a appropriate response. Violent play is very common among animals and children.

Chasing, wrestling and pouncing upon a playmate, breaking, smashing and tearing apart things are all aspects of play that is free of rules. The conscious insurgent plays this way as well,
but with real targets and with the intention of causing real damage. The targets of this ferocious play in the present society would mainly be institutions, commodities, social roles and
cultural icons, but the human representatives of these institutions can also be targets especially where they present an immediate threat to anyones freedom to create their life as
they desire. Rebellion has never been merely a matter of self-defense. In itself, self-defense is probably best achieved by accepting the status quo of its reform. Rebellion is the
aggressive, dangerous, playful attack by free-spirited individuals against society. Refusing a system of violence, refusing an organized, militarized form of armed struggle, allows the
violence of insurgents to retain a high level of invisibility. It cannot be readily understood by the authorities and brought under their control. Its insurgent nature may even go undetected
by the authorities as it eats away at the foundations of social control. From the rationalized perspective of authority, this playful violence will often appear utterly random, but actually is
in harmony with the desires of the insurgent. This playful violence of rebellion kills inadvertently as (one) strides out happily without looking back

B)The alt is to embrace madness

Faun 92 (Faun, Feral https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/feralfaun-essays On Madness and Anarchy pg.71 )

I am sure there are those who would label me mad for some
of the desires I express. Fine, I gladly embrace such madness.
When rational order has proven its absurdity, those who
would be free must express themselves in terms of madness.
A festival, a whirl- wind, the screaming elation of dionysian
rites are true revolution. Artaud and Julian Beck have both
tried this, but in the theater. And theater is bullshit! It s time
to take this madness out of the theaters and to start living it.

We are wild beings trapped in the cages of civilization. Rage,

grief, joy, ecstasy, hysteria, all of our animal pas- sions need
release, public release, now! But how? How do we avoid
incarceration? How can we be freely mad? How can we turn it
from mere individual idiosyncrasy to anarchic revolution? I
dont know. All I know is that a mad cruelty must be aimed at
civilization while erotic ecstasy is aimed at friends. We need
to learn to scream, cry, laugh, howl, growl, roar, jump, roll,
dance, caress, kiss, hug, fuck, somersault, sing, feast. We
need to be bodies, to be animals, freely without restraint.
This will be the greatest cruelty to civilization, for such action
mocks it mercilessly. To those who love to be or- dered, it will
appear to be the greatest madness. But to our friends,
whether human, plant, rock, river, or any wild being, it will be
the gentlest love. For this madness is Eros unboun
C)We are the beautiful dance of chaos; Throwing off the
entrapments of order
Faun 92 (Faun, Feral https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/feralfaun-essays Chaos is beautiful pg. 74 )

By taking freedom and pleasure for ourselves now, we

become part of the beautiful dance of chaos. We become
involved in the magickal adventure of creating paradise on
earth now. The bloody history of order ceases to be the only
reality we know and the beauty of chaos begins to show
through. For chaos is beautiful, the ecstasy of androgynous
Eros shining throughout the universe.

Now we will do whatever the fuck we want in a rebellion

against the cages of civilization
Now what do I want to do?...
[Do whatever you want]
Option 1: Sing along to a song
Option 2: Stare at the judge for a solid two minutes
Option 3: Stare at opponents for a solid two minutes
Option 4: Irish Jig
Option 5: Mime the 1AC
Option 6: Save time and move to case I really feel like moving
to case right now


O/V 1
On the K flow extend Faun card A
The plan fails to realize that pacifism breeds violence. This is
because of the bio political nature of pacifism. The plans
pursuit of peace is the prime example of pacifism in action.
Then extend Foucault 78
biopower causes war. (accessing their war impacts, Thats an
internal Link turn) this happens because the sovereign gets so
much control over the people too kill in the name of life
Then extend Faun card B
We embrace madness. We just do what we want. This is the
rebellion against the cage of biopower.
Then extend Faun card C
We dance the dance of chaos as we have shown through
[whatever you did]. We now ask to judge and opponents to join
us on this magical journey, to dance the dance of chaos

O/V 2



Alt solves: generalization/humanity

Our advocacy entails a rejection of the human
Faun 92 (Faun, Feral, https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/feral-faunessays I am not human pg.21)

Scientists try to convince me that I share enough in common

with close to five billion of the living beings on this planet to
be classified with then as homo sapiens that is as human. I
say, bullshit, I am NOT human.
At one time I thought I was human and because I thought so,
was. But now I know better. What is human but a label, and
what purpose does this label have? Every label is an attempt
to define, that is to order, and I reject all order.After all, if I
am labelled a human being, does this not mean I am not a
bird, a wolf, a deer, a tree, a river or a mountain? Yet there
are times when I want to be all of these things. For what I
want is to be a great, wild, magickal being, a mad, erotic
creature of chaos, ever-changing, ever-dancing, beyond all
And god, the stupidities done in the name of humanity An
infinity of wild beings who would gladly have been our lovers
have been subjugated, raped and murdered in that name.
How can I, a being who wants their love, accept for myself
that name of horror?
I refuse it. I am no human. I have no essential commonality
with such armored beings as Ronald Reagan, David
Rockefeller, General westmoreland. Let them have that name
of rape and murder, of rationality which is death. Let them be
the humans.
If you must name me, call me elf, faun, faerie, werewolf,
lunatic; names of beings who defy con- formity, who refuse all
order, who capriciously make light even of their names. For
these names symbolize free, wild beings, beings of chaotic
grandeur, mad, impetuous lovers of all of life.

It is time for the human to end. Let the new beings rise up;
the beings we are without armors, without classifications sad
definit-ions; heroic beings, strong and gentle, complete in
themselves and so free of the need to enslave, to murder to
rape; beings beautiful and androgynous, open to the magick
of the cosmos, sharing love and pleasure with all beings. For
this is our true divine being, the being trapped in the armor of
the label human, is the lie of humanism, Let us free
ourselves and paradise will be here now.

Alt solves: Gender binary

Our advocacy entails a rejection of the gender binary
Faun 92 (Faun, Feral, https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/feral-faunessays Androgyny pg.22-23)

The concept of gender is an artificial definition, an attempt to

order us. As tree wild beings, we reject this definition. It is
absurd. It is a limitation on our divinity. It is a lie.
Gender is nothing more than a social role. Its attachment to
our genitals is purely a convenience not unlike the
convenience of using akin color to determine who should be
slave and who should be master that was prevalent 150
years ago, The development of the genitals in the fetus show
that male and female genitals are really just variations on
the same basic theme which occur for the purely biological
convenience of re-production. Yet this socially defined
artificial role seems to be the most important thing for one to
learn in this society. The first announcement when an infant
is is born is, Its a boy! or Its a girl! But the baby doesnt
accept this definition. It is a free, wild being, a god. It has a
voracious desire to know all, to be all. It is a wild and
undefinable sensuality reaching out for infinite pleasure. It
encompasses a universe of sexuality in which any concept of
gender must disappear.
But such vast sensual ecstasy cannot be allowed to go
unchecked, for it would undermine authority, destroy order,
bring society crashing to the ground. So from birth, the infant
is surrounded by the images of its social gender. Those with
cunts are kept in lace, made delicate and taught to imitate
mama. Those with cocks are taught to fight, to be tough and
to imitate daddy. The family insures that the roles are
instilled. The infants wild divinity is buried and it starts to be
made into a boy or a girl.

But some of us just would not fit. The molds didnt work. Oh,
they stifled us, they choked us, they hurt us like hell. But we
never quite became the girl or the boy they wanted. Society
filled us with shame, made us feel less than those who
But now, let the truth be known. There is no need for shame.
For we still have access to our androg- yny. There truly are no
males or females; all are androgynes when the social armor
comes off. And the androgyne is not merely a combination of
male and female, nor even just the spectrum between them.
It is the infinite uni-verse of sexuality, that wild panerotic
dance in which the concepts of male and female disappear,
lost in a sea of vast, eternal pleasure.
No more do we embrace the lying order of society or mourn
that we cannot fulfill its roles. For we are gods, great wild
beings beyond all ideas of gender. Our mad, erotic pleasure
cannot be destined or ordered. We are infinite, androgynous
and free. Beyond the realms of order, beyond all definition,
we create a paradise in which we wander freely enjoying all
in ecstasy.

Impact: more biopower/ spell

We have all had a spell cast on to us, the spell of humanity
Faun 92 (Faun, Feral, https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/feral-faunessays The Spell pg.5)

I am mad.I have had a spell cast on me, a spell to control my

mind.Yet it is not this which makes me mad, for this spell is
cast on everyone. I am mad because I am aware of this spell.
It is not acceptable in this rationalist society to be aware of
this spell. Even those whose work it is to cast the spell are
unaware of it. Advertisers, politicians, educators, ministers,
entertainers and militants all believe that they only
communicate reality or offer pleasure and so are doing good.
They are not evil magicians- they are, themselves, victims of
the spell they weave.
There cannot be any evil magicians for the very concept of
evil is part of the spell. And the source of the spell does not
lie in any living being; it lies in things, in commodities. Since
commodities have never been and can never be consciously
acting agents, even they cannot be called evil magicians.
They do not maliciously seek to control us. Rather, by their
nature, they radiate control much as a star radiates warmth
and light (although a star, being alive, may consciously
choose to radiate warmth and light for its own and other
beings pleasure). The spell radiates from commodities
through human agents to all beings trying to make
everything into commodities.
But why does this matter to me? If there is really no such
thing as evil, if this spell cannot be evil, then why do I so
adamantly oppose it? Very simply because it takes away my
freedom, it suppresses my desires. Where I can imagine an
infinite, estatic beauty, this spell produces a banal, boring
ugliness and tries to convince me that this is what I really
want. Why should I settle for the non-life, the merely
undead existence, this spell offers when I can imagine so
much more? The best this spell can offer anyone is power and

I dont want power. I want life, joy, ecstasy, for this is the true
magic, the magic that can make all the most beautiful things
I imagine into reality.
Yes, I am aware of the spell and I reject it. Not because it is
evil, but because it is banal, boring and ugly. It makes me,
and every other being so much less than we could be. Why
accept the limits of this spell? Why continue the Zombie
existence? It may be all we know, but it isnt all we can
imagine. And what we can imagine, we can come to know;
what we can imagine, we can create.
Biopower is the root cause of war, conflict and extinction. We
access their impacts
Foucault 78(Foucault, Michael Professor of History of Systems of Thought at the
Collge de France, 1978, The History of Sexuality Volume 1: An Introduction,
translated by Robert Hurley, p. 135-137
For a long time, one of the characteristic privileges of sovereign power was the right to decide life and death. In a formal sense, it derived no doubt from
the ancient patria potestas that granted the father of the Roman family the right to dispose of the life of his children and his slaves; just as he had given
them life, so he could take it away. By the time the right of life and death was framed by the classical theoreticians, it was in a considerably diminished
form. It was no longer considered that this power of the sovereign over his subjects could be exercised in an absolute and unconditional way, but only in
cases where the sovereigns very existence was in jeopardy: a sort of right of rejoinder. If he were threatened by external enemies who sought to overthrow him or contest his rights, he could then legitimately wage war, and require his subjects to take part in the defense of the state; without directly
proposing their death, he was empowered to expose their life: in this sense, he wielded an indirect power over them of life and death. But if someone
dared to rise up against him and transgress his laws, then he could exercise a direct power over the offenders life: as punishment, the latter would be put
to death. Viewed in this way, the power of life and death was not an absolute privilege: it was conditioned by the defense of the sovereign, and his own
survival. Must we follow Hobbes in seeing it as the transfer to the prince of the natural right possessed by every individual to defend his life even if this
meant the death of others? Or should it be regarded as a specific right that was manifested with the formation of that new juridical being, the sovereign?

the right of life and death is a

dissymmetrical one. The sovereign exercised his right of life only by exercising his
right to kill, or by refraining from killing; he evidenced his power over life only through the death he
was capable of requiring. The right which was formulated as the power of life and death
was in reality the right to take life or let live. Its symbol, after all, was the sword. Perhaps this juridical form
In any case, in its modern formrelative and limitedas in its ancient and absolute form ,

must be referred to a historical type of society in which power was exercised mainly as a means of deduction (prelevement), a
subtraction mechanism, a right to appropriate a portion of the wealth, a tax of products, goods and services, labor and blood, levied
on the subjects. Power in this instance was essentially a right of seizure: of things, time, bodies, and ultimately life itself; it

the West has undergone

a very profound transformation of these mechanisms of power. Deduction has tended to be no
culminated in the privilege to seize hold of life in order to suppress it. Since the classical age

longer the major form of power but merely one element among others, working to incite, reinforce, control, monitor, optimize, and
organize the forces under it: a power bent on generating forces, making them grow, and ordering them, rather than one dedicated
to impeding them, making them submit, or destroying them. There has been a parallel shift in the right of death, or at least a

This death that

was based on the right of the sovereign is now manifested as simply the reverse of
the right of the social body to ensure, maintain, or develop its life. Yet wars were
never as bloody as they have been since the nineteenth century, and all things
being equal, never before did regimes visit such holocausts on their own
populations. But this formidable power of deathand this is perhaps what accounts for part of its
force and the cynicism with which it has so greatly expanded its limits now presents itself as the
counterpart of a power that exerts a positive influence on life, that endeavors to
administer, optimize, and multiply it, subjecting it to precise controls and
tendency to align itself with the exigencies of a life-administering power and to define itself accordingly.

comprehensive regulations. Wars are no longer waged in the name of a sovereign

who must be defended; they are waged on behalf of the existence of everyone;
entire populations are mobilized for the purpose of wholesale slaughter in the name
of life necessity: massacres have become vital. It is as managers of life and survival,
of bodies and the race, that so many regimes have been able to wage so many
wars, causing so many men to be killed. And through a turn that closes the circle, as the
technology of wars has caused them to tend increasingly toward all-out destruction,
the decision that initiates them and the one that terminates them are in fact
increasingly informed by the naked question of survival. The atomic situation is now
at the end point of this process: the power to expose a whole population to death is
the underside of the power to guarantee an individuals con tinued existence. The
principle underlying the tactics of battle-that one has to be capable of killing in order to go on living-has become the principle that

at stake is
the biological existence of a population. If genocide is indeed the dream of modern
powers, this is not because of a recent return of the ancient right to kill; it is
because power is situated and exercised at the level of life , the species, the race,
and the large-scale phenomena of population.
defines the strategy of states. But the existence in question is no longer the juridical existence of sovereignty;

Alt: Chaos
We are agents of chaos; something the very fiber of society
couldnt have been prepared for. We opt for anarchy within the
debate world like the Joker does with Gotham we force the
debate world to react so brutally to our presentation of
anarchy that they begin to question their own legitimacy.
Were the terrorists that the state cant handle, and the law
disintegrates. This is only the beginning of the anarchy.
Payne, 14 (Rodger A. Payne, Professor and Chair Department
of Political Science at the University of Louisville, Visiting
research fellow at Harvard's Belfer Center for Science and
International Affairs, Stanford's Center for International
Security and Cooperation, and the Program on International
Politics, Economics and Security at the University of Chicago,
1983 NDT Winner, The Dark Knight: Science and the National
Despite the attention directed at various mobsters, the primary villain of the film is
the Joker. In this film, the Joker is identified as a violent and malevolent individual
who poses a threat to the mob as well as to ordinary citizens and the government.
Like politically motivated terrorists, the Joker is not driven by simple greed. Indeed,
he steals millions of dollars from organized crime and then sets it on fire with a very
public blaze. Jokers political purpose seems to be something akin to anarchy as he
aims to destroy the fiber of organized society and instill mass fear. During the film,
both District Attorney Dent and Alfred Pennyworth, Bruce Waynes butler and
Batman confidante, explicitly refer to the Joker as a terrorist. The Joker makes
violent threats and uses violence in pursuit of his own agenda, even though that
agenda is not ideological per se. His actions nonetheless represent almost a
textbook definition of terrorism. As with real- world terrorists, Joker hopes to provoke
a level of fear that will dominate the public mood and provoke public officials to
react so brutally that their own legitimacy and authority will be subject to challenge.
The change Joker seeks requires law and order to disintegrate. One key plot point
involves Joker arranging the kidnapping of Harvey Dent and Rachel Dawes in order
to force Batman to make a choice that will lead to the murder of one or the other.
The idea seems to be to make Batman abandon the one rule he never breaks not
to kill anyone.
At times the tactics and tools Joker employs mirror those of real-life terrorists. Just
like transnational terrorists, Jokers acts of violence frequently threaten innocent
civilians, though mass murder does not appear to be his central aim. He typically
provides warning of his planned deeds that both magnify fear and allow time for
evacuation of various high profile public places. Joker and his men commit violent
crimes that are almost flamboyant by design and like al Qaeda, Joker even has the
capacity to commit several acts of terror at the same time. At one pivotal point in
the film, Joker murders the police commissioner and a judge and personally invades

the penthouse home of Bruce Wayne, who is hosting a fundraiser for Harvey Dent.
In a meeting with mob bosses, Joker protects himself by revealing that he is wearing
a jacket strapped with hand grenades a makeshift suicide vest that would kill the
nearby mobsters if used. Like real terrorists, he is apparently willing to sacrifice his
own life in pursuit of his larger goals. Joker broadcasts a threatening homemade
video that concludes with the execution of a man only tangentially related to the
plot. This video suggests actual recordings made by militants and terrorists in Iraq
and other conflict zones. Joker also turns a henchman into a walking bomb and
detonates the device planted inside him remotely with a cell phone call. Later, Joker
distantly triggers other conventional explosives planted in government and
institutional targets. Finally, like most contemporary terrorists, the Joker employs
fairly basic technologies to exploit power asymmetries. Much of the havoc Joker
creates is triggered by his application of relatively mundane and readily available
weapons his favorite weapon seems to be the knife and he often looks awkward
wielding automatic weapons. Indeed, towards the end of the film Joker even
declares that he is a man of simple and cheap tastes, favoring dynamite,
gunpowder and gasoline. This contrasts starkly with the advanced military tools
employed by Batman throughout the film. Joker may be mad, but Batman is the
party with access to the scientists who provide the more technically advanced
The Jokers malevolent nature is perhaps best described in a monologue the
character delivers well into the story in a confrontation with bed-ridden and badly
burned Harvey Dent

. He begins it by comparing himself to a dog chasing cars. I

wouldnt know what to do with one if I caught it. I just do things. Im just the wrench
in the plans. He concludes his speech with a call to introduce a little anarchy.
Upset the established order, and everything becomes chaos. Im an agent of
chaos. Earlier in the film, Alfred describes a similar thief he had encountered as a
young man while working in Burma. That criminal had proven particularly difficult to
catch. Alfred concludes his tale by declaring that some men aren't looking for
anything logical, like money... they can't be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated
with. Some men just want to watch the world burn. While Alfred is saying these
lines, Jokers grotesque physical image dominates the screen. Alfred eventually
reveals that the authorities in that instance had to take a radically destructive
measure to subdue their foe they burned the forest. This echoes the famous line
from the Vietnam War that It became necessary to destroy the town to save it.

Alt: animal
We choose to embrace our animal nature, Im a wolf and my
partners a dinosaur
Faun 92 (Faun, Feral, https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/feral-faunessays We are animals pg. 7-8)

Humanism, with its roots in Judeo-Christian thought, has

taught us to believe that we are somehow qualitatively better
than other animals. Humanistic attitudes can be traced even
further back than Judeo-Christan thought, but it took
Christianity to hone humanism to a precise philosophy which
could justify the rape of the earth, the destruction of species
and the degradation of the human being. For all practical
intents and purposes, Christianity is dead, but is child,
humanism lives on.
Yet humanism is dying too. In the depths of our being, we
know it is false. Every time we see an eagle flying overhead,
a deer bounding through the forest, a wild horse running
across a plain, whale out on the ocean, do we not feel a
sense of awe, of wonder and of humility? Do we not feel that
are beings who have something we lack, something we have
lost? We know that they are not less, but are more, than us.
For unlike them, we have been domesticated, our freedom
has been stolen slowly bit by bit from us. And this stealing of
our freedom has been justified by the claim that we are more
than animals. We are animals, nothing more or less. At
present, we are tamed, domesticated animals, animals who
act like machines. But our wild animal nature is still there
within us. If we can let it out, we can begin to find our
freedom. We can break out of civilizations hold, and begin
destroying it as wild animals. Thus we will find our freedom.

The role of the ballot and judge is very clearthe judge is an
intellectual actor whose purpose in the revolution is to give
the tools to the teams doing the fightingthe ballot is the
endorsement critical to the success of the projectMay 94- ((Todd, The Political Philosophy of Post-Structural Anarchism)

the role of the intellectual, as a participant in theoretical practices rather than anobserver of practice, is


in poststructuralist theory

. In strategic theory, the intellectual is part of the

vanguardparty; his or her function is to articulate the nature of oppression, itsprinciples, and the routes of escape. Poststructuralist
theory rejects thisfunction for three reasons. First, the contingency of the effects of practicesrules out the possibility of understanding
oppression to arise on the basis ofa single--or small set--of principles that it can be the task of anyone tounderstand. Second, since

theory is itself a practice, and thus subject toits own

genealogical investigation, the distinction between
knowledge and politics that legitimates the role of the
intellectual is called into question.Knowledge is not
above or outside practice but is itself a practice that
cannotbe judged in isolation from its effects. Deleuze notes that "for many
people, philosophy issomething which is not 'made', but is pre-existent, ready-made in aprefabricated sky. However, philosophical theory
is itself a practice, just asmuch as its object. It is a practice of concepts, and it must be judged in theight of other practices with which it
interferes." 61 Third, the conception of the intellectual as vanguard is grounded in a representationalist picture of political intervention,
one that is abandoned with the rejection of essentialism about human nature and the recognition of the effects of representationalism in

the role of the intellectual consists in a participation in

theoretical struggles that are local or regional rather than universal. The intellectual offers
political theory. For poststructuralists,

, rather than sacred

truths on tablets passed downto the oppressed. Deleuze, in a
analyses to those alongside whom he or she struggles

conversation with Foucault, once remarked that"a theory is exactly like a box of tools. It has nothing to do with thesignifier. It must be
useful. It must function. And not for itself." 62And Foucault, in another text, cites 131 the circumscribed role of theintellectual: "The

Theproject, tactics and goals to be adopted are a

matter for those who do thefighting. What the intellectual can do is provide the
instruments, and at the present time this is the historian's essential role. What's effectively needed is a ramified, penetrative
intellectual no longer has to play the role of anadvisor.

perception of the present. . a topological and geological survey of the battlefield-that is the intellectual's role." 63 In conclusion, these
four political recommendations begin to sketch a perspective within which to think about political action in the context of the anarchist

These suggestions can be

developed, but at the theoretical level there is a
limitation totheir development, for poststructuralis
places much more weight onspecific analyses and
interventions than traditional political theory.
project of a tactical-progressive political philosophy .

t anarchis

Our nomadic thought entails that we get to speak for as long

as we want because we dont like time
Faun 92(Faun, Feral https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/feral-faunessays Liberation of nature through space p. 40)
Time is a system of measurement, which is to say, a ruler, and authority. There is a
reason why, dur- ing many insurrections, clocks have been smashed and calendars
burned. There was a semi-conscious recognition on the part of the insurgents that
these devices represented the authority against which they rebelled as much as did
the kings or presidents, the cops or soldiers. But it never took long for new clocks
and calendars to be created, because inside the heads of the insurgents the
concept of time still ruled.

Time is a social construction which is used to measure motion through space in

order to control it and bind it to a social context. Whether it be the motions of the
sun, moon, stars and planets across the skies, the motions of individuals over the
terrains they wander, or the motions of events across the artifices known as days,
weeks, months and years, time is the means by which these motions are bound to
social utility. The destruction of time is essential to the liberation of individuals from
the social context, to the liberation of individuals as conscious, autonomous creators
of their own lives.
The revolt against time is nothing if it is not a revolt against the domination of time
in ones daily life. It calls for a transformation of the ways in which one moves
through the spaces one encounters. Time dominates our motion through space by
means of necessary destinations, schedules and ap- pointments. As long as the
social context which produced time as a means of social control continues to exist,
it is doubtful that any of us will be able to completely eradicate destinations,
schedules or appointments from our lives. But on examination of how these modes
of interaction affect the ways one moves through space could help one create a
more conscious motion. The most notable effect of having to get somewhere
(destination), especially when one has to be there by a certain time (schedule/appointment), is a lack of awareness of the terrain over which one is moving.
Such motion tends to be a sort of sleep-walking from which the individual creates
nothing, since the destination and the schedule pre-exist the journey and define it.
One is only conscious of her surroundings and how they are affecting her to the
minimal extent necessary to get where she is going. I dont deny that many of the
environments through which one may move, especially in an urban setting, can be
disturbingly ugly, making such unconsciousness aesthetically appealing, but this
lack of consciousness causes one to miss many chances for subversion and play
that might otherwise be created.
Subverting ones motion through space, making it ones own, freed from the
bondage to time, is a matter of creating this motion as nomadic motion rather than
self-transportation. Nomadic mo- tion makes a playful (though often serious)
exploration of the terrain over which one is passing the essential aspect of the
journey. The wanderer interacts with the places through which she passes,
consciously changing and being changed by them. Destination, even when it exists,
is of little impor- tance, since it too will be a place though which one passes. As this
form of motion through space becomes ones usual way, it may enhance ones wits,
allowing one to become less and less dependent upon destinations, appointments,
schedules and the other fetters that enforce the rule of time over our motions. Part
of this enhancement of the nomads wits within the present time dominated context
is learning to create ways to play around time, subverting it and using it against
itself to enhance ones free wandering.
A radically different way of experiencing living occurs when we are consciously
creating time for ourselves. Due to the limits of a language developed within this
time-dominated social context, this way of experiencing life is often spoken of in
temporal terms as well, but as a subjective time, as in: The time when I was
climbing Mount Hood... But Id rather not refer to this as subjec- tive time since it

has no shared purpose with social time. I prefer to call it nomadic experience.
Within nomadic experience, the peaks, the valleys and the plateaus are not created
in steady, mea- surable cycles. They are passionate interactions of the sort which
may make one moment an eternity and the next several weeks a mere eye-blink.
On this passionate journey, the sun still rises and sets, the moon still waxes and
wanes, plants still flower and bear fruit and wither, but not as measurable cycles.
Instead, one experi- ences these events in terms of ones passionate and creative
inter- actions with them. Without any destination to define ones motion through
space, linear time becomes meaningless as well. Nomadic experience is outside of
time, not in a mystical sense, but in the recognition that time is the mystification of
motion through space and, like all mystifications, usurps our ability to create
A conscious, playful, exploratory creation of our own motions through space, of our
own interac- tions with the places we pass through, is the necessary practice of the
revolt against time nothing less than creating events and their language. Until we
begin to transform ourselves into nomadic cre- ators of this sort in the way we live
our lives, every smashed clock and every burned calendar will simply be replaced,
because time will continue to dominate the way we live.


AT: Baudrillard spectacle

AT: Passivity
We are passivity. The alternative is to ignore the system and
do whatever we want.


[The perm relies that they join the feral revolution. However
the performance of the 2AC shows that they dont endorse the
revolution. Its too late to join the revolution at this point
because it inevitably skews the kritik]. Also link is still a DA to
the perm they still cause extinction LOL.

AT: Performance bad

Rigidly enforced political discourse destroys the meaning
behind language, rendering it bankrupt. Rather than actually
achieving something, it is a means that justifies no end.
Instead of stating what we determine is acceptable discourse
in the debate sphere, we should make free use of language to
create new possibilities for meaningful discourse.
Agamben 92 [Giorgio , Political Philosopher at the Universit IUAV di
Venezia, the Collge International de Philosophie, and the European Graduate
School. Notes of Politics from Means without an End. pp. 114-118]
What is at stake in this experiment is not at all communication intended
as destiny and specific goal of human beings or as the logicaltranscendental condition of politics (as it is in the case in the
pseudophilosophies of communication); what is really at stake, rather, is the
only possible material experience of being generic (that is, experience of
compearanceas Jean-Luc Nancy suggestsor, in Marxian terms, experience
of the General Intellect). That is why the first consequence deriving from this
experiment is the subverting of the false alternative between ends and
means that paralyzes any ethics and any politics. A finality without means
(the good and the beautiful as ends unto themselves), in fact, is just as
alienating as a mediality that makes sense only with respect to an end. What is
in question in political experience is not a higher end but being-into-language
itself as a pure mediality, being-into-a-mean as irreducible condition of human
beings.Politics is the exhibition of a mediality; it is the act of making a
means visible as such.Politics is the sphere neither of an end in itself nor
of means subordinated to an end; rather, it is the sphere of a pure
mediality without end intended as the field of human action
and human thought.
The second consequence of the experimentum linguae is that, above and
beyond the concepts of appropriation and expropriation, we need to think,
rather, the possibility and the modalities of afree use. Praxis and political
reflection are operating today exclusively within the dialectic of proper
and impropera dialectic in which either the improper extends its own rule
everywhere, thanks to an unrestrainable will to falsification and consumption (as
it happens in industrialized democracies), or the proper demands the exclusion
of any impropriety (as it happens in integralist and totalitarian states). If

instead we define the common (or, as others suggest, the same) as a point
of indifference between the proper and the improperthat is, as
something that can never be grasped in terms of either expropriation
or appropriation but that can be grasped, rather, only as usethe
essential political problem then becomes: How does one use
a common? (Heidegger probably had something like this in mind when he
formulated his supreme concept as neither appropriation nor expropriation, be
as appropriation of an expropriation.)
The new categories of political thoughtinoperative community,
comperance, equality, loyalty, mass intellectuality, the coming people, whatever
singularity, or however else they might be calledwill be able to express the
political matter that is facing us only if they are able to articulate the
location, the manners, and the meaning of this experience of the event of
language intended as free use of the common and as sphere of pure

Prefer our performance act over their rigid adherence to the

political texts they hold sacred. With language rendered
meaningless, our performative act attempts to reclaim the
language that has been bankrupted by political discourse
within policy debate.
Artaud 58
[Antonin, French playwright, poet, and actor. The Theater of Cruelty
from Theater and its Double pp. 89-90]
We cannot go on prostituting the idea of theater whose only value is in
its excruciating, magical relation to reality and danger.
Put in this way, the question of the theater ought to arouse general
attention, the implication being that theater, through its physical aspect,
since it requires expression in space (the only real expression, in
fact), allows the magical means of art and speech to be exercised
organically and altogether, like renewed exorcisms. The upshot of all this is
that theater will not be given its specific powers of action until it is given its

That is to say: instead of continuing to rely upon texts considered to be

definitive and sacred, it is essential to put an end to the subjugation of
theater to the text, and to recover the notion of a kind of language
half-way between gesture and thought.
The language cannot be defined except by its possibilities for dynamic
expression in space as opposed to the expressive possibilities of
spoken dialogue. And what the theater can still take over from speech
are its possibilities for extension beyond words, for development in
space, for dissociative and vibratory action upon the sensibility. This is
the hour of intonations, of a words particular pronunciation. Here too intervenes
(besides the auditory language of sounds) the visual language of objects,
movements, attitudes, and gestures, but on condition that their meanings, their
physiognomies, their combinations to be carried to the point of becoming signs,
making a kind of alphabet out of these signs. Once aware of this language in
space, language of sounds, cries, lights, onomatopoeia, the theater must
organize it into veritable hieroglyphs, with the help of characters and objects,
and make use of their symbolism and interconnections in relation to all organs
and on all levels.
The question, then, for the theater, is to create a metaphysics of
speech, gesture, and expression, in order to rescue it from its
servitude to psychology and human interest. But all this can be no
use unless behind such an effort there is some kind of real
metaphysical inclination, an appeal to certain unhabitual ideas, which by
their very naturecannot be limited or even formally depicted. These ideas
which touch on Creation, Becoming, and Chaos, are all of the cosmic order and
furnish a primary notion of a domain from which the theater is now entirely
alien. They are able to create a kind of passionate equation between
Man, Society, Nature, and Objects.
It is not, moreover, a question of bringing metaphysical ideas directly
onto the stage, but of creating what you might call temptations,
indraughts of air around these ideas. And humor with its anarchy, poetry
with its symbolism and its images, furnish a basic notion of ways to
channel the temptation of these ideas.