Why does anprim trigger people so badly?
Why does anprim trigger people so badly?
Other urls found in this thread:
The social definition of insanity advanced to the point that ayncrap memes aren't even parody anymore
So if wanting to live a nomadic pastoralist life like a Mongolian doesn’t make me anprim, what am I? I do think humanity is way overdue for a massive do over, though.
and not like regular reactionary
but mega reactionary
OP is a fag
it's a meme
Because people don't take it seriously. They think green anarchism is just Luddites wanting to destroy muh smartphones, or people wanting to go back to the stone age and be grunting cavemen.
And that's it—they go by stereotypes, judging a critique by the memes made by either idiotic leftists or "NazPrim" Varg Iron Age Luddites. They don't understand that technology is non-neutral, that civilization only brought us alienation and mediation, and that progress does nothing to improve the human condition—in fact doing the opposite.
They're idealistic; they think civilization isn't going anywhere, that it's too big to collapse, that it's just as good or better than it ever was. They think they can easily achive FALGSC, travel around the universe, colonize other planets—but we can all see this mess of a world is heading for a collapse.
because its whats gonna happen after tech crashes.
The same argument can be used for Nazbol, now leave.
"I don't like it there for it meme"
not a valid argument
both of them can be used together.
and people wouldn't have a choice if its forced on them.
real commies don't care about your gay NAP. we'll force or you'll die.
Just look at this thread. It's people posting memes and saying "lol meme ideology". They clearly think it's a joke and don't know a thing about it.
Whoa there Edge Poster what makes you think I'm a lolberg? I'm not.
Give us a book and make it serious then. People don't take it seriously because most leftist don't want to regress.
regardless, anything that leads to the collapse is good, so we can steal things, kill people, rape people, eat people, do what we want without cops (literal cucks) saying we can't because "muh laws"
Read Elements of Refusal first.
Probably due to the hypocrisy of somebody advocating for it on the internet.
Your computer is a capitalist spawn (unless you use some trinary computer from the USSR), what's your excuse?
Okay and what after EoR? More Zerzan?
Percieved hypocracy. Actual hypocracy varies wildly; I view nature as the rightful environment and necessary for survival, but am pretty much down with all diy tech (and some of any tech, depends on form)… so for me, posting on my smartphone while camping in the woods is pretty close to my ideology there. "Language is oppressive" = well, why are you using language to advocate this?
For what it's worth the "Ur complaining hwile living under the regime you complain of" fallicie aside, anprims do contradict themselves in a lot of places but their society is completely possible so why not let them do as they please. It's not like I'd give a shit.
More Zerzan, yeah—then Fredy Perlman's staple book, then Ellul and Thoreau, and at last Kaczynski, though take him with a grain of salt.
Am I supposed to be grunting and throwing rocks to spread the critique? I think technology is a necessary evil. You can't bring down a global technological system with a bow and arrow.
I never understood this meme, critique of modern society and appreciation of nature isn't something present only in anprims as a political group.
Not exactly anarcho-primitivist but it's still green anarchist, moslty. Kaczynski isn't a primitivist either but a Luddite of sorts, though some of his stuff is worth reading.
Alright so as I take it Zerzan is Marx for Anprims and most others are influencers in the thought, although they themselves aren't anprim.
So pretty much just Zezran if you don't know what environmentalism, Christian anarchism and the like are.
Yeah, Zerzan is practically Jesus of anprim (and Elements of Refusal the Bible), but Perlman actually defined primitivism for the first time, and Against His-Story, Against Leviathan! is a very modern critique of civilization and technology, I think it's even a slight precursor to Zerzan's anti-symbol work.
Yeah but Perlman didn't do as much as Zerzan did to define anarcho primitivism, I mean he's the go to guy for it, if you were to Google Anarcho Primitivism his face would be the mascot since Kaczynscki went his own way.
Modern people tremble when they hear the call of their ancestors.
I would imagine so, since hearing dead people talk usually means that took too many hallucinogens.
Varg is a cuck that thinks "tribalism" and hierarchy is the state of nature. Basically looks for mindloops that support his fascist tendencies.
In the case of Marxists, at least, the industrial development that occurs under capitalism isn't merely seen as desirable, but held as a specific precondition for the occurrence of communism.
I don't think that's what Marx actually meant with dialectical materialism, or so I've been told, if so Marx was very stupid to make such a claim.
I'm not a communist or a lefty. I'm just here to laugh at you.
Both are cucked and rely on technology and degrade the human condition
That was a hypothetical scenario, but OK, kid.
Marx never claimed that Capitalism must transform into Communism. That was Stalinist revisionism. How can it happen without a revolution? And how can a revolution happen if people don't strive for it. But people can also not strive for it and then we don't get a revolution.
scared of imposing his will upon both of those holinesses. LOL.
Oh boy… so much wrong.
Because its genocide of those born with a condition in disguise.
Its literally so reactionary it somehow looped back around to being communist.
As we all know, primitive man was full of hippie dippy love types, who all shared equally with everyone else in the tribe. No tribe tried to protect its natural borders, or wipe out other tribes to secure its existence. Earth was a multicultural paradise until white, cisgender, reactionary, racist, NATZEES came and imposed their hierarchy on the free people's of the world, just like in Lord of the Rings. Nature is filled to the brim with examples of equality. Lysenkoism is scientific truth, just like Marx.
The conditions those people posses are a result of civilization itself.
Yeah, something like that—except in the state of nature there are no tribes, there are bands; and yes, they were essentialy hippies—Marshall Sallins called them an "egalitarian ethos of sharing" and the "original affluent society". And no, there is no hierarchy in any non-domesticated human societies.
Egoists get spooked by esotericism somehow
I like technology. I'm on the bottom, I want to be treated as an equal, but if I'm stuck living as a hunter-gatherer in the process how much of an improvement is it really?
Primitive tribes are more fascists than hippies. Yes resources are shared between the tribe, but that's because each individual within the tribe knows that the welfare of the tribe is more important than the welfare of the individual. Not only because they understand that survival is far easier with other people at your back, but also out of a sense of duty towards the rest of the tribe
The mentality of these primitive communities is closer to the fascist concept of the "people's community" than the egotistic ideology of the hippies. The fascist mentality is that of self sacrifice for the good of the whole, while the hippie mentality is that the whole must sacrifice for the individual. The hippie mentality is inherently parasitic "I have the right to take this, do that" While the fascist mentality is inherently constructive "I have the duty to give this, do that." There was never such a thing as equality in any human community. The hierarchy may have not been as clearly visible as in modern nations with millions of people "with the larger community creating a larger hierarchy by extension" but hierarchy certainly still existed, as it will forever exist in human society. Tribal Chieftains are valued more, and have more power to influence others than other members of the tribe. Parents have more power, and respect than the young children. The strong rule the weak. There is nothing wrong with these natural hierarchies, the men higher on the hierarchy are there because they are stronger, more experienced, and more intelligent than their fellows. Humans naturally form hierarchies because we're not all equal, and the superior is plain better at directing people and resources in comparison to the inferior. You can see the natural hierarchy in other forms of mammalian life too, like wolves, lions, deer, chimps, ECT.
Also question, why Is it that all the people you lefties worship are Jewish?
The description of both the agriculturalist and pastorlist is riddled with inaccuracy.
This is the cringiest kind of liberalism. You don't even have a proper understanding of tribal society or fascism. The part about hierarchies manages to be both a gargantuan straw-man of leftism, so devoid of nuance as to be meaningless, and wrong on many of its own terms.
They aren't, your just a paranoia moron who allows himself to be governed by his selection bias.
Because people wanna believe technology will suddenly end capitalism yet hasn't thus far and if anything only made it worse
So there is some truth to what anprims say. Technology amplifies bourgeois abuses.
But duality is not causality.
Tribal Cheftains appear in only agrarian or very domesticated human societies. Not in the state of nature.
They have respect, they don't have power—for example, in the Inuits the word of the elders is respected, though not always followed. They're wise, so it's wise to listen to them, but you don't have to. No coerced hierarchies here.
Maybe in chimps, not in humans. The strong simply help the weak. No coerced hierarchies here, unless you have proof that "the strong rule the weak".
No, they don't. Yes, there are and you can see them, but we're not chimps or deer. We evolved egalitarianism because it's simply so much easier to survive when you, like, don't treat your other kind like shit.
I think you're going to far in the other direction, but another point to add to yours is the hierarchies in those animals do not work like each other's or like mankind's various types of hierarchies.
European tribes have had cheftains since the neanderthals what are you talking about?
>They have respect, they don't have power—for example, in the Inuits the word of the elders is respected, though not always followed. They're wise, so it's wise to listen to them, but you don't have to. No coerced hierarchies here.
I'd say that elders don't have a coerced hierarchy in primitive society but the alpha males definitely do.
I don't see how this is even in question this is true today.
Empirically not until at least the Epipaleolithic, no. Although if the claims about Neandertals developing ritual and symbolic culture are correct, then I'd say Neandertals were already domesticated, and en route for civilization. And your statement doesn't disprove a thing I said. That they had it doesn't mean it's natural for humans. To clarify, the human "state of nature" is a state of being undomesticated.
Why do you think "alpha males" exist in state of nature human societies? It's a dumb fad some dude observed in wolves or something. It simply takes no place in humans.
Inaccuracies such as?
I just want to take this moment to thank the mods for adding a Green Anarchist flag. While humanity needs to strive for ecological balance and stability if it is to survive, technology and science are indispensable tools for reaching this goal, and the notion we should give them up is retarded.
almost all ancho “x” memes are something that could reasonably happen in said societies
t. idiot who only read bookchin
lolno, I also like Élisée Reclus, Rudolph Rocker, Peter Kropotkin, Emma Goldman, among other anarchist thinkers.
But I'm sure if I was as brilliant (read: retarded) as you, I would just want to burn down all technology.
ok kid, back to reddit
So I can come back when I've read those two authors? Really?
dont speak about green anarchy when you haven't read the people that defined it
I've already read a couple of the major people who defined it. I will check out the people you mentioned, but you don't seem very bright.
Scratch that, I'll read Perlman because he sounds interesting. I'll glance at Zerzan, but he sounds like a moron.
this is what "anarcho" primitivists actually believe
because its too based
but is it redpilled?
They don't. But civilization is heading for a collapse, so (not that I'm advocating for it) even a genocide would be miles better than what will ensue for the billions after the end of civ.
Technology is ending Capitalism.
because leftoids feel how unheimlich civ is in their bones, and it's easier to make fun of caricatures than to admit and confront gnawing existential angst
the emancipation of the proletariat is the end of work as forced labor, and a qualitative change to civ that will be as bizarre to people as life in primitive society. I'm starting to think that, against all Marxist orthodoxy, we need to think long term and turn what some would disparagingly call 'lifestylisms' into real ways of life that can replicate and spread, AS A MEANS to enact the end of forced labor and the state in a practical fashion. That is, assuming much of the reason people don't rebel already is because of the risk of the Unknown, the Outside in society that has abolished all outsides. This is what some already say: Find each other and organize into ethical groupings - 'war machines'.
it's obviously greenpilled
Pure idealism. Pure ideology. You'll be bored of it soon enough like every other lifestylist, and until then I'm LMAOing at your life.
I'm talking about ways or forms of life. Overcoming alienation means overcoming the division between life and labor. I don't have any sort of 'life style' yet, my life is without form. At any rate, concepts of 'self' and 'interest' are decomposing ever since the Figure of Bloom emerged as the main human type in Western countries. Acting in 'self-interest' only takes us as far as reformism since its a modernist-bourgeois ideology. Check out Theorie du Bloom.
Imagining being an anprim after Ted BTFO it so hard a while back
Isn’t Green Anarchy Solly Conceived by Bookchin and Öcelan?
Capitalism can’t be abolished on an Individual level, but only through a collective seizing of power by the people.
Yea I am sure civilisation causes birth complications or treatable diseases such as type 1 diabetus.
"The People" don't exist and must be constituted.
Anprim is basically the vulgar, meme version of anarchy. "Hey dude fuck society man let's just tear everything down it will be better that way!"
People rightfully value the benefits of technological advancement. Very few tech-related social problems aren't due to the combination of technology and capitalism. To any anprims, by all means change my mind on this. Please find me a list of social problems caused by technology but not capitalism.
They aren't leftists.
Name a benefit that doesn’t destroy the environment or isn’t bad for human health
trains, antibiotics, tumor removal surgery, computers, clothes, space probes, microscopes, cameras, windmills, and much more.
None of these fulfill both criteria.
Ok, fair enough, we shouldn't judge a tendency based on a strawman version of it. But there has been anprims like John Zerzan who criticised language and symbolic thought (some green anarchists even promote telepathy as an alternative mean of communication). All of this sounds less realistic and/or desirable than colonizing Mars, so where is the line between the memes and the real thing?
Not a benefit, but a solution to a problem (and an actual problem by itself!) created by civilization.
We lived without symbolic thought and communicated telepathically at one point in time. We never did (and probably never will) colonize mars. I think we can have another try at the former. But I guess the non-experimental line is agriculture. Agriculture is proven to be alienating, and pretty much the start of the deterioration of the human condition, the biosphere and the environment.
That's why I kind of lean for post-civ, as it's a little bit more realistic, but anarcho-primitivism (including its extreme critiques) makes extremely good points.
Chronic diesase is inexistent in hunter-gatherer populations.
Solar panels are not a solution to a problem created by civilization (what a spooky word). Solar panels are an energy-efficient way of generating energy. Energy is not a problem, it is a tool.
Vaccines are a solution to viruses. Viruses predate "civilization."
Most books are not a solution to a problem created by civilization. Some are. Others exist for entertainment. Others seek to improve people's lives in ways shaped or not shaped by "civilization."
Trains are not a solution to a problem created by civilization. In a way, they're a key element of civilization itself, and are a solution to a human problem - namely, that we don't move very fast.
Antibiotics are used to treat infection, which is a problem predating civilization. Tumors predate civilization. Clothing is a solution to the cold, and can also aid in mating rituals. So on, et cetera.
You get a D for lack of critical thinking ability.
There is no plural subject, only social atoms.
"People" i.e. industrialists LMAO
Honestly isn't that because they die at young ages if their immune system isn't robust? Not that I think this is a bad thing but it's an honest conversation people need to have about life and death and what it all means. Sadly socialists seem to think progress is the only meaning in this world, always trying to outrun death, and killing and maiming everything in the path of their frenzied fleeing into the future.
With telepathy you are starting to lose me, but there is something special about eye contact even between species.
Can’t wait for an asteroid to wipe us out.
Needing energy is a problem created by civilization. And they are a problem by themselves, as they devour our planets' resources (though "ethically"… I mean it's green energy, right?).
No, vaccines are solutions to epidemics and common diesases spread thanks to high population and sedentarism, so civilization.
No, they are there to mediate and alienate the individual away from direct experience. That's needed to keep you under sedation. Of course, a book such as Elements of Refusal™ is not one of them. Non-jokingly though, that book is alienating and stuff, but it's cool that it spreads the critique.
Civilization created the problem of needing to traverse long distances, move lots of things in a small amount of time. We don't move very fast because we don't have to.
Antibiotics, maybe, but your response answers itself. Antibotics aren't a trait of technological progress—Neandertals used that stuff a long long time ago, and didn't need a sophisticated industrial civilization for it. And yes, infection was a problem then, but a very uncommon one.
Yes, of course? But cases of cancer in hunter-gatherer populations are so scarce it's not even a statistic. The only case that's been found is in a semi-sedentary Native American tribe. So that's a stretch.
Ok, cool, never said those things are terrible, dude. Maybe they are, but I never thought about it—I'd say if an individual can understand and create a technology, and be in contact with it in a very intimate way—that's a good technology. In other words, technology that can be created without division of labor and specialization.
No—the high infant mortality in hunter-gatherer populations is mostly because of infanticide. Look at the !Kung, for example.
Some poets say that lovers don't need words.
I love you. Thanks for the tip about the !Kung too. Happy winter solstice.