Recent comments in /f/anarcho_primitivism

bloodrose OP wrote

There was some tumblr post a while back talking about a "well-known" study of a specific tribe of primates. I, of course, could not find it with a google search so this may be apocryphal. I chose to share just in case someone says "oh yeah, I know it -here's the source, bloodrose". Basically, the gist was for some reason all of the adult male primates were killed or removed from this band of primates and the male children were raised by female primates. The aggressive male behavior seen in primates was not seen in the male children. And when other aggressive males tried to join the group, they were ousted. So, it took one generation of killing off the aggressive males to come up with a kinder group.


ziq wrote

Wrangham cites a number of examples of anthropologists witnessing a group of men collaborating to kill a violent man in their midst.

The idea is intriguing, and it is indeed true that human hunter-gatherers, whose societies exist without governments, sometimes collectively eliminate bad actors. 

Antifa 1.0


GaldraChevaliere wrote

This + I feel like a lot of Christianity's worst characteristics came from assimilation into Rome to begin with, like it adapted to be more suited for an expansionistic legalist empire, so we got codified books of civil law like Leviticus mixed into the main text and a shift away from Judaism's monolatry (not the only God necessarily, but the only one we give a shit about) to hard monotheism, from the Jewish idea of God as a sometimes fallible but ultimately irresistible force that one can argue and plead and bargain with ie a chieftain to the Christian idea of God as inherently perfect and immaculate, incapable of ill judgement or of being persuaded, ie a divine emperor.


ziq wrote (edited )

My theory is that monotheism was developed to get ppl used to the idea of a single ruler (a king or emporer) rather than several (or none.) I think Christianity was pushed so hard by the Romans for this reason. Pagans were much harder to control. The more civilization spread, the more centralized its power became.


TheLegendaryBirdMonster wrote (edited )

The protestant lense says that there is only 1 true god so only 1 hierarchy. All men are therefore equal before god. At least that's how I understand that anarchist christians justify it to thenselves. I agree that catholicism justifies hiearchy.

French protestants are very different from US/EN ones though, there is no weird hierarchies between the pastor ans the church. There are votes to choose the next pastor thourgh représentative democracy though, and that sucks, but closer to anarchist ideas than personality cult..


GaldraChevaliere wrote

I'd guess because there just is not very much to critique. While Christianity and Islam aren't unique in being monotheistic+authoritarian, they're a lot more intertwined with capital and with the nation-state than say, yoruba practices or heathenry are. I'd imagine if the celestial bureaucracy or the roman conception of the hellenic gods were more dominant beliefs we'd be critiquing those, but they haven't participated to the same extent in aggressively pushing themselves on other cultures or eradicating cultures that fail to assimilate. At least not recently.


existential1 OP wrote

I guess I should rephrase as..."Do anprims take a different view towards religion than what is typically portrayed by ancoms?" ie..."Do they feel as though religion is itself inherently an issue or is it viewed as more of a neutral thing?"

I ask because, as I said before, religiosity existed within many groups and helped proliferate the sustainable use of resources of those cultures.

The answer could well be "there is no anprim lense of religion" or "anprims don't like modern Abrahamic faiths but don't critique other religions because they don't feel qualified".

I'm asking for an answer without expectation...just genuinely curious.