Primitivism thread

Discuss the only solution to humanity's problems; total annihilation of civilization and post-agricultural technology, abolishment of division of labor and symbolic thought, destruction of culture, abolishment of the concept of time, removal of surrogate activity (including but not limited to: mathemathics, science, everything not related to physical contact with sustainace of an individual's physical needs), and return to hunter-gatherer society.
Anarcho-primtivism has many upsides, and absolutely no downsides other than artificial ones. Including but not limited to: removal of human psychological suffering (in the form of depression, mental disorder, purposelessness, emptiness), extreme individualism (you are completely in control of your fate in life; this cannot happen unless you are free of surrogate activity and are in full control of your physical needs. you also are able to create everything you need to survive without external help, also known as specialization and division of labor), for the most part egalitarianism, complete removal of hierarchy and division of labor,

If you have any arguments against (such as "le standards of living", "lol ur gonna die of diesease", "but what about my loli waifu???"), feel free to post, and I am open to all discussion.

(Thread was bumplocked in cuckolded Zig Forums)

Attached: 5da984ba703986cdf5abfb65fb9faef3--serial-killers-yearbooks.jpg (300x300 16.21 KB, 60K)

Other urls found in this thread:

Haha good one.

Nice to see you've made a thread OP, I've been having two questions on my mind:
1) How exactly is abolition of civilization supposed to happen? I've heard about things like nuclear war rolling us back to the stone age, ecological collapse etc, but those were one-liners, so I'd appreciate a more elaborate response.
2) Follow-up: how exactly is hunter-gatherer system supposed to maintain itself? Human groups across the globe have independently developed the civilized lifestyle and given that I don't see why wouldn't that process be repeated, making a return to hunter-gatherer lifestyle a Sisyphean task.

Attached: 1513728109999.jpg (634x693, 63.3K)

1) Definitely not by reform. Paraphrasing "Industrial Society and Its Future": You have to promote social stress and instability in industrial society and develop and propagate an ideology that opposes technology and the industrial system. When the system becomes sufficiently unstable, a revolution similar to the French and Russian revolutions might be possible. French and Russian society, for several decades prior to their respective revolutions, showed increasing signs of stress and weakness, and movements proposed a world view that was different from the current one. In the Russian case, revolutionaries were actively working to undermine the old order. Then, when the old system was put under sufficient additional stress (by financial crisis in France, by military defeat in Russia) it was swept away by revolution. This would be the perfect abolishment of civilization and industrial technology, as people would be ingrained with the idea of primitivism and dangers of technology.

More drastic solutions, like nuclear war and ecological collapse, are also feasible, and in some ways even superior to revolution. Nuclear war, unlike revolution, would remove one significant problem of a primitivist revolution: overpopulation. It would also destroy the industrotechnological system's basis; the power grid, agricultural systems, factories, machines, et cetera. If nuclear winter isn't a myth, or global warming becomes increasingly severe, it would basically make agriculture impossible, at worst impractical to implement, which would result in a need to go back to hunter-gatherer society. Of course, those solutions lack the ingrainment of primitivist ideology into the populace, which could be a problem in the long-term.

2) Not really. Aboriginals, for example, haven't switched to an agrarian system until the continent was visited by the white man. And yes, it is a dillema why the process wouldn't be repeated, and I don't have a definite answer. I can only speculate that development of agriculture, and in turn creation of civilization, needs extremely specific circumstances, including advanced symbolic thought, exterme desperation and knowledge of ecological systems. But this is complicated by the fact that we already know all of this, and have all the necessary knowledge to reinstate civilization. This is why revolution and ingrainment of technoskepticism is a must; if people forget about agricultural and post-agricultural technology, pass technoskepticism to further generations, then a primitivist order may ensue and thrive.

Attached: 87080e79ad46f4f4c573d78bd13272b05f76e0bf0e8a1bbffdf9772286a7f956 (1).gif (436x291, 6.17K)

dental anasthesia
toilet paper
go away OP

Toilet paper was basically unused before industrial times and no one even cared, it simply wasn't a problem.
As for dental anasthesia, you have several herbal substitues, as well as certain types of clay soil that soothe toothaches. Problems such as crooked teeth, tooth decay and hurtful wisdom teeth are all artifical problems created by the technoindustrial system.

Why would I be a primitivist when I can be some sort of eco-tech solarpunk?

Because primitivism isn't entirely about ecology. It's about psychological suffering that the technoindustrial system has caused to every human. I suggest you read Industrial Society and Its Future.

You don't seem to know much about what you're arguing about, unless this is a troll in which case g/j lol
To what herbs do you refer? Can say from personal experience that cannabis is ineffective at numbing toothache. If coca grew everywhere the CIA wouldn't have to shit up other countries growing it to keep crime up in Burgerland.
Sauce? Do they numb them enough to make it tolerable when an abcessed tooth is pulled (since they can't just do a root canal because ebil teknawlidgee)? How would you prevent dry sockets? Antibiotics I know of herbal stuff for, though I'm not sure where it grows or how well it could be preserved without artificial crap.
Cambodia was modern before Pol Pot, that's why half those skulls in the skull pile pix have canines that are a little out-of-place from where they would normally be :^)
Wrong. They know how long Egypt made bread by the specific kind of tooth decay brought on by sand getting in the dough. They dug up the bones of somebody who was killed at Roanoke and mentioned that they'd have died of an abcess if they weren't murdered first.
Citation fucking needed, inb4 naturalnews or other hogwash.

*how long Egypt has made bread for
whoops lol

Attached: baguette.jpg (275x183, 6.58K)

Everything you're talking about is in civilized agricultural societies, also known as technologically advanced societies. What I really meant is that most of horrible physical suffering comes from agricultural society, and extreme psychological problems come from technoindustrial society.
Alas, there are numerous herbal remedies for all kinds of aches, one universal one you can remember is willow bark, that contains aspirin precursors. Certain kings of fungi grow antibiotics, but I haven't studied them well. As for clay, Some indigenous tribes use clay by putting them around the tooth that is aching.

But I just want to notice that you don't even know what primitivism is, and you pull extreme strawmans that don't have a single thing to do with what I'm talking about. Primitivism is about abolishment of agricultural society, symbolic thinking, et cetera, as in the OP. Meanwhile all your arguments are about civilized society, not primitive society.

You first, fam. I'll stick to using technology and not living like an animal.

Enjoy being opressed by the technological system. I won't stop you from living a long, purposeless life, fueled by sheer manipulation, obedience, and ignorance.

I'm sorry. You can stay in the forest wiping your ass with leaves. I'll work on building FALC for future generations.

Is the only argument you posses is "nature is dumb, humans are smart, animals are dumb" and "ill do x while you do y"? I think you should consider suicide.

Google Bookchin

Attached: ecofascists.png (2738x1204, 1.9M)

No, my argument is that you haven't shown that primitivism is somehow superior, nor does it solve the problems communists want fixed. Your solution is to cut off your arm to fix a broken bone. It's idiotic. I mean, if you want to set an example, log off that fancy computer right now. Go live in the forest, jackass.

Primitivism isn't about ecology. Read ISaIF.

I haven't, because you never asked, so I assumed you are already familiar with primitivism. I strongly suggest you read ISaIF; it's just 30 something pages, and describes primitivism (especially the psychological suffering part) pretty nicely. To put it simply:
From the little I know about communism, I remember that they want to seize the means of production. Why seize the means of production, when you can just NOT have means of production? In anarcho-primitivist society all the tools and utilities you need can be created by every individual, without division of labor and specialization, therefore there is no need for the means of production. Another concept is the class division, money and the state. Of course, there is no class division in hunter-gatherer society, as it is very often egalitarian. Money, and transaction overall is an unneeded concept in primitive society, as every individual (or tribe) can get what they need by themselves, without the need to rely on other groups. And finally, in primitivist society there is no state, because it simply doesn't have a reason to exist. Primitivist hunter-gatherer societies are so small, and the fact that every group can tend to themselves without external help means a state, or collectivism for the most part is unnecessary. Sorry, that is about as much I know about Zig Forums definition of communism, if you have any issues it tries to fix and you supsect primitivism can't, go on and reply.

As for the last sentence, if you like communism so much, why don't you move to Venezuela?

Which is a

That falls under behavioral modernity which is genetically ingrained in Homo Sapiens, no?
How so? Civilizations first popped up in the areas with a rather mild climate enabling plant cultivation and near some water sources(usually rivers, which also created fertile soil), rather than in the cold-as-shit forests or Saharan/Australian deserts with no water.

>Not really. Aboriginals, for example, haven't switched to an agrarian system until the continent was visited by the white man.
This is why I called it a Sisyphean task: it is enough for the civilization to pop up once to start the process of spreading itself and steamrolling the populations still existing on the level of "barbarism", leading us back to the point we're in right now.

>This would be the perfect abolishment of civilization and industrial technology, as people would be ingrained with the idea of primitivism and dangers of technology.
>This is why revolution and ingrainment of technoskepticism is a must; if people forget about agricultural and post-agricultural technology, pass technoskepticism to further generations, then a primitivist order may ensue and thrive.
First you bring up France and Russia, in which you point out the material conditions is what ultimately drove people attack the old order as the current system was unbearable(in spite of centuries of ideological indoctrination claiming the current system with French king/Russian tsar at the top was eternal and ordained by God himself!), but then you expect the ideological "ingrainment" will win over a simple desire of having surplus grain or maize?

Attached: 1487502447138584996.gif (250x439, 3.34M)

Will that keep well enough to treat people where willows don't grow? Since you're against agriculture, do you think enough willows will grow naturally to provide enough to go around?
That it looks like you're right about, but low =! non-existant.
Oldest records of wisdom teeth wiki has go back to Socrates, it's kind of tough to argue one way or the other since most of the societies you use as a model didn't have a written language or keep records of many things like that.
Oh boy back to the stiffnecked talking points.
So you want 90% of humanity to politely starve to death (because everybody abandoning agriculture at once and trying not to starve would denude the environment of any animal larger than a cockroach and probably cause an ecological catastrophe), and the remaining 10% to lose the power of abstract thought?
How do you see your ideology happen without those extreme strawmen happening though?

Disregard the first line, I'm retarded and forgot to delete it.

Attached: 18fc125b52e56abdb0c677f96b7f1efee19a35364bffdb885c67ed0cfcd76f24_1.jpg (265x605, 33.4K)

Because those areas had little to no game, and as the populations increased, food harvesting became much more hard, as well as plant foods were becoming scarce. Meanwhile in the cold climates, such as ice age europe, megafauna was everywhere and hunting was extremely easy.
Do you think they just threw the wheat precursor on the ground, and it magically became the modern wheat?
That's why it has to be a global revolution.
If people believe that's what caused the collapse and society, I definitely can see it winning.

Read my post explaining the anprim revolution. One of the main points is removal of most of the population via nuclear war or industrial collapse. Loss of billions is inveitable during a collapse of a system that we're so tied to. Also, you don't need much willow bark for the effects to begin. It's really a small strip of bark that you chew for a few minutes.
Yes, agricultural society, when human jaws and chins started slimming down, effectively destroying the purpose of wisdom teeth, aka either a replacement for a fallen out tooth, or as just more teeth for chewing.
Read my post explaining the anprim revolution as desrcibed by Ted Kaczynski. And abstract thought != symbolic thought,
I have no idea what you mean by this.

Venezuela hasn't achieved socialism, and especially not communism. If you don't know about these topics, then don't come to a leftist board, as you're clearly a dressed up reactionary of the worst kind.

That pic just shows that it takes one group to re-start civilization to curb stomp your ass. The cat is out of the bag, faggot. Live with it or die.

*Scatters seeds on ground* AGH THE ANGUISH *makes axe slightly too sharp* THE PSYCHOLOGICAL PAIN I CAN'T GO ON *gives a wolf some food scraps* WHAT HAVE I DONE *makes a clay pot* HELP I'M BEING OPPRESSED BY THE KNOWLEDGE OF WHERE MY NEXT MEAL WILL COME FROM

You do, you just don't have modern medicine. And modern medicine is simply unneeded in primitive society.
Water is literally everywhere. You can drink out of streams, poodles, lakes, whatever. As for food, you have biological capabilities, hunting tools and tactics.
Got any sources on Paleolithic conflict? Homo sapiens brought conflict with its advanced technology.
You mean you have all your physical needs resolved for you, and you resort to artificial activity to replace you being in control of your own physical needs? Read ISaIF nigger.

Also, "move to Venezuela" is a fucking meme nu-Zig Forums. Hang yourself back to reddit.

No, it just shows that that faggots thinking is extremely wrong.

That's why I said only the technoindustrial system causes psychological suffering. The agricultural system just causes physical.
Anywho, the knowledge of where a hunter-gatherer's next meal will come from is innate, and inscribed in human nature. Look up what humans are biologically adapted and capable of doing, then hang yourself.

I'm not going to deny that the people in the neolithic mass graves of the Mississippi Valley were malnourished. They absolutely were. But over time people have figured out that you need to leave land fallow and rotate crops to maintain soil fertility and gradually bred their crops to be tastier and more bountiful. Back in 10,000 BCE people may have been foolish to start domesticating crops instead of herding goats or whatever, but I don't think that's been the case for thousands of years. I'm not quite sure I get why industrial technology is so bad, but why not just be a yeoman farmer if mass production bothers you that much? Yields per land area are higher using permaculture than when cultivated using machines, so you don't need to consign billions of people to death if you work towards that instead.

I never claimed that malnourishment was a problem. Specialization in certain fields, lack of physical movement and permanent residence as opposed to everyone being specialized in everything they need, constant physical movement and nomadic residences.

Attached: 240.jpg (780x520, 111.29K)

Also, >I'm not quite sure I get why industrial technology is so bad
Please read Industrial Society and Its Future. There are many reasons why its bad. And running away from its problems to live the anprim life is probably the worst thing you can do.

The author of the linked article disagrees with you and endorses permanent residence ("It was also during this time that they appear to have been the healthiest and most culturally stable"). It's not like there was a tremendous amount of specialization in medieval villages; a handful of craftsmen would produce for dozens of farmers, but food, clothing, and home goods were handled at the family level. People had plenty of physical exercise, I don't see the additional benefit of wandering around. Why are you so afraid of people working together to achieve some level of common prosperity?

I only linked the article to support my claim that it indeed was an act of desperation.
Also, I already told you, technology that cannot be understood and created by a single individual is oppressive; as you rely on external groups or people to provide those for you.
And no, picking potatoes and walking around fields isn't physical exercise. You had much fewer physical hardships with the invention of the plow and domestication of animals.
Why are you strawmanning?

I have. I think that the power process is watered down Nietzschean nonsense.

You literally think someone else helping you do something is oppressing you. In tribes, do you think people just ignored each other all day and then only interacted to fuck so that they wouldn't go extinct?

When have I ever claimed that? Humans are social, so cooperation is a must.

Also, sick sage is a downvote redditor

Yeah, fuck getting vaccinated against things like polio. Let's forget about surgery too. Now you can die from appendicitis and infections. Yayyy!
Most bodies of water in my state are unsafe for drinking, and this isn't going to stop even if we were to dismantle civilization. You don't understand what it's like to live outside because you're a keyboard primitivist.
You're right. There's no way hunter gatherers killed each other like we observe apes doing. Totally lived in peace and shit, maaaan.
Define "artificial activity". And I'd rather not have to re-invent the wheel, oh, wait you think wheels are bad things.
It's supposed to be ironic. You used it in earnest. Also
>>>Zig Forums
Go that way, faggot.

Seems to me one works and one doesn't. I don't see how that makes him wrong.


Polio wasn't a problem in hunter-gatherer societies. Diesase is a problem of agricultural society, and high concentration of people.
Since you're bringing up anecdotal evidence, I've been on several week-long trips testing my primitive skills, and the only sources I've drank out were either poodles or streams. I never got ill. Just because a survivalist tells you every single body of water is unsafe and you have to boil it doesn't mean its true. Primitive societies never boiled or decontaminated water, yet haven't suffered from shit like dysentry or cholera.
Not on an agricultural society scale.
Activity that doesn't involve direct sustainence of one's needs. For example, wageslaving, science, watching TV, et cetera.
I insulted you as nu-Zig Forums, I didn't claim that the meme I used was nu-Zig Forums. Learn to read.

Are you able to process words? The person claimed if I want to be a primitivist I should go to the woods and do it.

What's wrong?

Attached: Ted and David Kaczynski.jpg (669x377, 16.98K)

Polio is actually a bad example here since it only became an issue in the 1890s after pregnant women had access to clean water. Before that, people were routinely exposed to the virus in utero and had some immunity to it after birth.

That's not how disease works. I get that you're a primitivist, but this doesn't discount scientific fact.
Nice claim, now provide the source.
Yeah, because we wouldn't be able to maintain a population due to early death and child mortality, dipshit. Violence would still be a problem.
Oh, so I guess no music, art or anything, then. We can all live like animals now. You're retarded.
This is Zig Forums, dipshit. Go back to your board.

Yeah, and you posted a cartoon that pretty much shows why your ideology is stupid.

You're right on this one, 25 to 50% of male deaths were not due to violence in most agricultural societies. Among the Jivaro, in Ecuador, 60% of male deaths are due to inter tribal conflict. Agricultural societies are much more peaceful.

Yes, but you don't want me to be able to.

You think that technologies that can only be used by groups of people are oppressive. But you think that people are naturally cooperative. So how are those technologies oppressive? It takes more than one person to put a roof on a barn. If two or three people work together to build the roof, are they being oppressed? Are roofs oppressive?

What you claimed is evidence of polio in agricultural societies. Kill yourself.
No proof of container use and knowledge of water boiling in the Paleolithic.
Don't know what you're trying to claim it. Because you're familiar with it doesn't mean it's good. Art is symbolic thought, it symbolizes feelings that you can actually feel on your own.


Jivaro are agricultural. And you're babbling unscientificaly. 60% of 20 people is much less than 50% of 2000 people.
No, they aren't, because they can make it themselves alone if they want, they just chose to cooperate (like in hunter-gatherer hunting) and they all know how the roof works. Also, barns are agricultural.

Attached: billboard2-620x2291.png (600x222, 160.31K)

This is the stupidest thing I've read so far. So what you're saying, is because people didn't wash their hands back in the day, disease from this wasn't a problem. Magically, once we started this practice, only then, did it become a problem. You're so retarded it's fucking unbelievable. I'm done, m8.

Learn at least a few things about epidemiology then come back, idiot.

Just kys, fam.

No, germs weren't a problem because there was no overpopulation, hence not an agricultural-tier level of diesase. You know, India is fucked with diesase because a fuckton of people shit around everywhere.

If you don't think it's a bad thing if everyone dies why should I listen to anything you have to say?

Don't pull at straws here. People dying is obviously a tragedy, but if the technoindustrial system is to collapse, a huge ammount of people will die. Jesus christ, I have never made 90% of the claims you niggers claim I have claimed. Your method of conversation is pathetic.

Attached: topless ted.jpg (500x346, 84.86K)

This is not how germs work. They exist independent of human populations. Seriously, drink cholera-infested water. It's your destiny.

Your level of strawmanning is amazing. Of course germs exist, but they are not a threat unless your population is huge.

Attached: Levallois_Point-Animation.gif (806x540, 313.28K)

No actual primitive is or would have been a primitivist, even in the rare few cases of primitive tribes that reject everything that isn't already known to them. Here in lies the contradiction; primitivism is a nerd fantasy, an utterly domesticated view of primitive life, framing that which is truly lived into the tenets and theorems of the -ism.

Sick strawman ma. No commie would've been a commie because uh, theyre nerds n shiet.

I'm done here, have fun

Very good strawman. I'll spare your degenerate ass when you are to be burned in the paleofires by the anprim world order.


Then shit in your own water supply for a month, then drink the water. As long as you're by yourself, it won't harm you.

Pick one, loser.

I don't think anyone would have an urge to shit in your own resource of sustainment, but I guess you would be one to. As I said, study how epidemics spread, and what tends to increase the chanes of them spreading exponentially.

It's a joke, redditor.

Attached: 2017-12-24-earth-chan.jpg (1200x1763, 880.15K)

I suggest all strawmanning cuckolds in this thread to at least red Ted Kaczynski's essay, Industrial Society and Its Future, additionaly, to understand symbolic thought, read some of Zerzan's essays, plus all of is as great read.

is this a capitalist-techno-industrial-oversocialized-alienation-complex?

Attached: the-gods-must-be-crazy.jpg (750x422, 68.71K)

Doesn't matter. The claim you made is that germs are not a problem as long as there isn't a large population. Do it, faggot.

Uh I just did, I'm all fine and my family is doing okay! Is this good enough?

I don't know, depends on this tribe. Are they hunter-gatherers, or agrarians? Do they accept western civilization and industrial technology?

You just drank what we considered germ-infested water and did fine? I highly doubt that. Also, log off, faggot. The internet is for those that like civilization only.

I've read it. It makes no sense and are the rantings of a crazy man.


Attached: tk_mail_box.jpg (480x311, 25.06K)

Such conceptions are alien to them, meaning as little to them and being as untranslatable to their language as obscure sanskrit conceptions are to us.

Pure blooded humans. Hopefully the wh*te man doesn't alienize him.
“There is now a great deal of support for the notion that symbolic creativity was part of our cognitive repertoire as we began dispersing from Africa,” says Paul Pettitt, an expert in Paleolithic art at Durham University.
Support based, redpilled Homo Habilis against the alienated Homo S*piens

"We", aka homo sapi*ns.


Attached: ff918ac53e8594b1366056c2bd11fe64.jpg (744x372 270.46 KB, 206.51K)



No, but I've claimed that it wasn't a problem in hunter-gatherer times, and you wittily try to strawman by posting modern data.

Attached: 69235fdc2034a41465896cbfbf0fab01e12b3239600d8248d5c7bdfae2f72421.jpg (400x342, 12.88K)

Even then, that data is on drinking water, not on surface water. Y'know, water flows to households through pipes that were often made out of lead and had some arsenic content.

Attached: theodore-john-ted-kaczynski.jpg (150x230, 14.09K)

You can't turn back the clock.


Do you think groundwater and surface water have some sort of barrier that allows the surface water to be clean while the groundwater is not?

Provide credible sources or leave.

Anywho, even if all surface water is contaminted, it isn't such a great health risk for hunter-gatherer societies as germs are.

The second one literally says groundwater, you illiterate savage. I guess you're already working on doing away with that knowledge.

Yes, but the data overlaps with the first one that claims its drinking water. Provide credible sources.

It might have something to do with most of our drinking water coming from groundwater, dipshit.

You realize drinking water is the water that comes directly from pipes, right? Doubt you do. Kill yourself.

You do realize those pipes are connected to aquifers, right? You do realize that this is what is meant by drinking water, no? It makes no sense to refer to the pipes in and of themselves. You are retarded beyond belief.

Read my previous post, delusional retard. Arsenic and lead come from pipes that go straight to your tap. Have you never heard of the Flint water crisis, douchebag?

Hint, asshole: the problem was a lack of water treatment. Also, you left out legionnaires' disease spiking due to the change in water sources and insufficient treatment.

Again, dipshit. Drinking water sources are what is in that map. This is why it matches to groundwater sources. I'm sorry you're desperate to find any objection that shows you how retarded you are.

You realize that water that goes through pipes is actually infused with a chemical thats supposed to minimize lead pipe leakage? Flint absolutely lacked that, hence why the water was so contaminated; the reason why drinking water is so filled with arsenic is because that chemical doesn't 100% protect the water from the lead pipes.
I think you're the desperate one. After I've claimed primitive societies didn't need water treatment, you came back with extreme strawmans, modern data, and trying to make me look like an idiot by presenting arguments that weren't there.

Attached: fd120ed3c323401c3ffdc502f2b63f78096d1d0b80f16e706b55a9f3bd16df79 (1).gif (544x588, 11.84K)

I realize that. How do you propose people get water in areas that aren't near surface water? Should they just die? Should groundwater be forbidden to humans? What about disease, which you have not addressed. And that is also not my data. I just called you out for being a fucking idiot.

They either migrate, or build seep wells, collect rainwater, use plants with high concentration of fluids, et cetera. Also, I don't know what kind of claims you're making there, but pretty sure you're mentally ill if you think fulfillment of physical needs should be forbidden to humans.
I have addressed that already. Read the previous posts.

Right now you're out of arguments, and already grasping at so much straws its incomprehensible what you're trying to convey.

No thanks OP, I prefer not having to worry about childhood mortality. Humanity wasn't any less brutal or better stewards of the resources around it before civilization either. A techno democratic future free of exploitation is the only hope for humans finally coming to a sustainable relationship with our environment.

Sick pipe dream.

How would you deal with imperialism by industrialized nations?


What do you mean faggot. After global anprim revolution there are no industrialized nations.

*grunts* *sniffs vaginal fluids* *inserts penis into random ape*

Killing fields them

Attached: 6355cc7d54e5b634cb84d673f48b0c34463446bfd1f60acb9e8183a5a9260112.png (1082x1524, 1.34M)

are you this autistic