Submitted by ziq in TOTALDESERTION (edited )

  1. Collapse and the resulting mass death isn't caused by anprims, it's caused by civilization. Every single day.

  2. A world where only the strong or well-adapted survive is literally the industrial wasteland you live in. Anyone not able or equipped to function in industrial civilization is a goner.

  3. A world where only those adept at being civilized (e.g. being able to withstand being chained to a desk 5 days a week, being able to ignore mass suffering, being able to inflict suffering on others) get to survive is eugenics. Your world.

  4. Anprim is a critique, not an ideology. You can just ignore it and go on with your life. Civilization is an ideology and there's no escaping its death grip around your throat.

11

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

subrosa wrote

Commies struggling again with the idea that we don't actually need a plan for how the world needs to be run.

And what do they think would happen if millions of people went primitivist? I can only imagine it would provide contrasts that would make communism look desirable to liberals. What are they afraid of?

11

Styx wrote (edited )

And what do they think would happen if millions of people went primitivist

They'd start measuring the circumference of their skulls and kill all those below and above the 'normal,' OBVIOUSLY!

6

NeoliberalismKills wrote

Reds assume everyone is willing to violently enforce their ideology on everyone else because they are.

5

ziq OP wrote

it's not violence when it's the will of the people

4

Styx wrote

Oh gee, I don't know -- maybe look up what eugenics actually means and then see if it applies to anti-civ, for fuck's sake?

6

Styx wrote (edited )

Ziq, I did that dialectical materialism thing, as well as consulted every working-class person I know, and this led me to a conclusion that the material and metaphysical conditions are ripe for a pro-anti-civ essay!!

6

sagb wrote

Was the working glass consulted? Can someone read the compost?

4

subrosa wrote

guess the author

This is both fair and unfair.

It's unfair because many anprims historically argued that the collapse of civilization (and the population) was inevitable and inescapable, thus they were simply trying to spread survival skills and broader knowledge in preparation for the collapse (which was said to be imminent via peak oil, etc). There are also some utilitarian calculations in this context where "the sooner we dismantle civilization the fewer will be killed in its fall." This is harsh, but IF you accept the premise that there's literally 0% hope of keeping advanced technology and higher populations then it's not wildly unethical. However it begins to break down if you even posit 0.00000001% chance of successfully staving off the collapse, because at that point the moral calculus bends in the opposite direction and it becomes necessary to do whatever we can to stop the collapse, even if we're almost certainly doomed in stopping it.

After I broke from primitivism in the early 00s my friends and I went around asking other anprims we knew in person whether, if presented with two buttons that either preserved civilization forever and the population or just killed 7 billion people right now, if they would press the democidal button. Over 50% embraced killing folks even in the situation where there was no need.

And this is where the fairness of the critique starts to be relevant because there's actually a long history of overlap between eugenics and green shit, you can find writers beloved by anprims today (and that personally I think were largely decent) writing in the 50s offhandedly that modern medicine was evil because it kept the weak alive and so polluted our genes. And I've found repeated instances of this talk openly among anprims I've organized or socialized with over the last two decades. One amusing instance involved a bro-ish asshole with two younger women under each arm bragging to every anarchist hanging at the infoshop that we'd all die within the first few weeks of the collapse, because we were weak, but the true superior humans would survive and procreate. That person later apologized to me in person years later, so I'm not going to name them, but they later became an editor of a rather famous journal so this shit isn't some irrelevant fringe.

6

Styx wrote

I once in a pub bumped into this anarcho-cat girl, with 4 (!!!) boytoys draped around her waist, and she told me transhumanism will be open only to green-eyed people. True story, fam! Watch out for those pesky transhumanists, especially when you don't happen to have green eyes!

7

subrosa wrote

the tension between science-as-anarchism and constantly relying on anecdotes about disappointing encounters...

9

ziq OP wrote

there's actually a long history of overlap between eugenics and green shit

Someone should tell gillis to google transhumanism + eugenics

But i guess it only counts as eugenics when it's an anecdotal account of someone he once met in an infoshop that was rude to him and not when it's troves upon troves of transhumanist theory directly calling for systematic, institutional eugenics to bioengineer the human population into uniformity; to have 'desirable' traits

6

Styx wrote (edited )

I'm again very happy to bet the little money I don't actually have on the fact that Gillis possibly found 3 out of 20+ people (maybe that guy with his two ladyfriends) who flippantly said 'yeah, let them all die' and made it into 1:1 ratio.

And yes, of course, anyone with at least a cursory knowledge of what eugenics is, and who identifies as 'transhumanist,' should know better than to utter something like 'green shit.' But here we are, eugenics is when you say civilisation is not really what it's made up to be, and not, say, when you send Jews into gas chambers, or sterilise Black women, or claim you can determine future criminals on the basis of their earlobe shape.

5

Styx wrote (edited )

when you send Jews into gas chambers, or sterilise Black women

pssst! Let's not disturb these people with the fact that in order to be able to do these /\ , you need a smooth-running, highly technological civilisation...
5

Styx wrote

Real talk tho, what's up with Gillis resenting other people having sex. Didn't he have similarly snide comments about Aragorn! getting around?

5

ziq OP wrote (edited )

Yea he insisted being polyamorous is rape and when he got laughed out of the room he tried to claim he had top secret eye-witness evidence that he couldn't disclose.

Edit: just to be clear, gillis originally linked to an interview of Aragorn! Saying he used to sleep around when he was a teenager, and gillis claimed that proved A! Is a rapist, and then changed the story to "I have top secret sources" after being told to fuck off.

6

ziq OP wrote

Is it gillis?

7

subrosa wrote

yup, lol

7

ziq OP wrote (edited )

Incredibly distinctive writing style (whiny, elitist, snarky, self-satisfied, always ready to dispense 'life experience' that's always just annoyingly biased accounts of people they don't like), could tell right away.

9

zoom_zip wrote

when you build a house of cards and it falls down, who do you blame?

that’s right. the 9 of clubs.

4