Anarchist Nihilism

They say anarchism is without direction or leadership but this is not true. There is a difference between leadership and authoritarian bosses. In anarchism the world is full of leaders effectively leading tribes or communities of people versus the state and government that is controlled by authoritarian bosses that treats people as disposable utilities .

Chaos is merely entropy and natural equilibrium in direct conflict with human civilization’s maladaptive practices or existence. Chaos essentially has a negative reputation because it is sporadic and random in illustrating the lack of control human beings have over nature itself. It is a stark reminder to the so called rational gaze of human civilization that human beings in all reality exist in natural insecurity where control is merely an illusion.

When a forest becomes too large and expansive it eventually catches fire as a part of the natural equilibrium with its environment. From this fire out of the ashes of the old forest a new one is born. New life emerges in renewal after destruction. It’s a part of a much larger cycle of things. Creation, destruction, creation, destruction…

Why don’t you just find and move to a community like Twin Oaks?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_Oaks … ,_Virginia

vimeo.com/89076764

Join a semi Marxist and feminist utopian community making tofu all day? :laughing:

It may not be a perfect example, but least it’s a simpler lifestyle that is closer to your ideals.
It beats sitting and waiting for everything to fall into your lap (i.e. daydreaming about it) - and that’s the point.
If you don’t like the complexity of civilization and all that it brings, there are still communities around the world that are cut off from civilization.
You can join one of them - I’m sure they won’t mind an extra helping hand-and you get to live the lifestyle you’ve always wanted.

I do not think that it is possible to be completely cut off from a globalized civilization. It is only possible to be relatively cut off from a globalized civilization.

There is always someone who is near and wants to globalize.

I know. And…?

What exactly is your point here?

I just want to point the problem out that people can easily get, if they are not ready for the change from high(est) civilization to low(est) civilization.

Daydreaming? Considering you don’t know dick about current events anything you say I can’t take seriously.

You also don’t know much about anarchism either which is typical of boot licking government supporters.

You even show your ignorance grouping me together with Marxists and communists.

Yeah, but what happens when the global supply chains break down completely? Globalization isn’t monolithic you know and neither is government.

Yes, that is true, but it is a question of time, and that does not necessarily mean a short time, so it can also mean a long time. It is difficult to exactly predict such a break down - not only because the globalists have many scenarios of break downs in their calculations too.

You’re just seeing what you’re looking for, and what you’re really looking for is utopia, where man will live once more in harmony with nature, one that will come… inevitably…some day.

And how long do you think anarchy will last? What has history shown?

I think, in spirit, you’re closer to them.

What do you think about the Twin Oaks community?

HaHaHa is too good for it. He’s like a picky woman at the clothing store: I don’t like this, I don’t like that; it’s the wrong color, it’s not perfect like I want it, etc., etc.
He keeps complaining about the capitalist money system, but when offered one way to live without worrying about the money, he turns his nose up. Not good enough.

If he were really serious he would be grabbing at any opportunity, however remote, that might have a chance to bring him closer to his ideals. Timothy Treadwell and Christopher McCandles may not have had the brains, but at least they had the brawn to put their cherished ideals to the test in the world. They actually walked outside and put themselves at risk for what they believed in. Here, you don’t even have that going on. Just hoping and waiting. And complaining.

Then I would hope you’re smart enough to pay attention to global international events currently.

I’m the complete opposite of utopia. I’m just a guy that wants to see the current global dystopia burn.

Harmony with nature? Yes, but my idea of harmony differs from most classifications of the word.

Civilization and government has only existed for 2800 years. Before civilization and government human beings experienced 10,000 plus years of anarchy.

Closer to them in spirit? You’re a crackpot.

What part of I hating feminists, Marxists, and communists, did you not understand?

I too may hate many things about the world, but it doesn’t stop me from engaging it. Deal with what you have, just as your hunter gatherers had to deal with what was in front of them. Your type of hunter gatherer probably dreamt of the good old time waay back when humanoids were still innocent monkeys living up in the trees acting on their instincts. Anything, as long as one is excused from taking responsibility.

I’m not an anarchist myself, but I can sympathize with the position.

Females are inclined towards order, they value safety and comfort over everything else, including freedom, honesty, intellectual integrity and so forth. It is in their nature to submit to the alpha male (in this case, an abstracted alpha male, the state) and stay in its good graces in order to be protected and provided for. They are proud of being dominated and submissive to point of competing on who can be the most submissive towards externally imposed social norms - who can be more cultured, more fashionable, who is a good citizen (moral highground granted and ensured by the state), etc.

To somebody who is masculine, submission is revolting. The state is at best something to tolerate out of necessity, and submission towards it is definitely not something to be proud of. A man might be willing to give up all the benefits of civilized living - the safety and comfort, for the sake of freedom, if the state imposed authority (order) is disagreeable to an extreme extent. To females, and minds of more feminine dispositions generally, it is incomprehensible that one would rather have a lower standard of life but be free. For them submissiveness comes naturally so sacrificing freedom for safety and comfort is not such a bad trade-off.

There are no more frontiers to go to. Nowhere left to explore, nothing to conquer. Every inch of land on this planet is owned by somebody, somewhere. Nowhere to escape authority and order. And there is little any individual can do about it. HaHaHa could try to organize a group of rebels and overthrow the current dominant authority/alpha male/embodiment of order - the government, so in that sense yeah, he isn’t doing anything, but let’s be realistic, what would be the chance of something like that succeeding?

I’ve noticed this in the Prison Box thread in rant too… it’s like females are so used to authority and being dominated and submissive that they cannot differentiate anymore between being dominated and being free. And anybody who recognizes this simple fact that there is an authority (state) and that it imposes its rules over us whether we like it or not, aka that we are not free, they attempt to portray as somebody who complains too much, or is trying to excuse themselves, blah blah. My assumption is that some females for some reason (probably feminist indoctrination) dislike their own nature (which is submissive) and they want to pretend they are strong and independent and free, but they cannot do so if they simultaneously admit they are being dominated (by the state) and that the only reason they can prance around and pretend to be strong and independent is that they are, ironically, dependent on the state to provide for them and protect them in exchange for submission to the state’s rules.

So I guess It’s pointless to try to explain it to females.