Fool

Fool wrote

Reply to comment by subrosa in lessons of r/anarchy101 by subrosa

I always forget their names, but there's a bunch of people that were inspirations for Mussolini, Hitler, et. al. That had read Anarchist literature of the time and basically twisted the ideas to suit their purpose.

Some of them were also pivotal in forming the Austrian School of Economics, which in turn produced An-Caps.

(There's also the "New Age" Esoteric vein too, but there's less explicit connection to Anarchism)

Note: my response was to the first point, the follow up is completely ignorant.

5

Fool wrote

The Good, the Bad.

Why must you create these categories?

You want to craft a narrative, and push a view point. I think this is the general problem I have with your work, is that you tell the reader how they should think. You don't present the information and allow the reader to make their own conclusions.

Judgement has been cast! These are sinners, that must be burnt. Burn the heretics!

9

Fool wrote

🎶Never gonna give you up...🎶

Umm... Sorry.


No Future, No Progress, No Expectations, No Requirements

Anxiety - Fear of the Future Depression - Fear of the Past

Live in the now, and you have nothing to hold you back, but also don't feel like there's expectations to entirely detach from everything.

I hope this helps, I think Nihilism/Small Vehicle is great for enjoying life.

I cant dumpster dive i still live with my parent.

You don't have to bring them along, do you?

6

Fool wrote

Reply to Shut up zoomer by ziq

I'm talking to myself?

I normally have a manic smile while doing that.

5

Fool wrote

Christ means King.

They called him Christ because he was literally the air to the royal family (they were in hiding). He was persecuted because he had the Authority (via birth) to challenge the local ruling family.

He walked about claiming he authority from his father, because his father was the previous King in hiding.

Kings are totally anarchists.

8

Fool wrote

I've been thinking about this a bit.

It should be less focussed on removal, and more about displacement - filling the gap that they're "supposed to" fill and dispersing the power. But trying not to openly confront them - at first at least.

Everyone should be their own personal monopoly of violence.

Hating them gives them reason to exist, circumventing them shows their use to society.

Noting this only really applies to liberal societies that have the room to act without protection from the local / national violence groups.

4

Fool wrote

I've had this, been pull over by police, and they wouldn't believe I was sober because I couldn't say a complete sentence. They were wanting to get a drug unit on me, but it would have taken two hours to get there and they didn't want to wait, so they let me go.

I was sleeping in my car at the time, so I couldn't really give an answer for where I was going.

4

Fool wrote

While not related, this post allowed me to forgive myself for my recent inability to undertake a number of tasks without others assistance. Physically I was capable of the things, but without others providing motivation, I was unable to initiate the tasks I required - just leaving me anxious.

I agree with this post.

A step people often forget with abolition is to solve the initial problem. Usually this will be waved a way as a natural outcome, but in reality it generally requires a dispersion of authority.

Identify the potential for issues to arise, so that the capacity is available upon request, rather than to undertake use of a prescribed remedy. Empowerment not enforcement.

4

Fool wrote

It's definitely a dilemma paring ease of acquisition vs. respect for the material object.

I have a lot of possessions because people around me buy lots of stuff, and I don't like to see things just wasted, but I also don't try to pass things on to people either. So I just have lots of stuff that I have no real attachment to, but don't want it get rid of.

2

Fool wrote

I think there's many layers of fallacy to chip away at here.

Dialectical materialism is at best just philosophy at worst religious fundamentalism - dialectics can only negate, so they can't actually prove anything. I suggest Jacob Blumenfeld's book on Max Stirner.

Then we get to the myth of progress. Feudalism to Capitalism wasn't a positive thing for most people, not that either state was desirable.

But the real problem is thinking that the problem is the economic system. The problem is in authority. The end goal is not the creation of a benevolent centralised system, but of distribution of authority such that there is no system for which domination can take root. Capitalism collapses if there is no authority enforcing property laws.

I can go more in depth if you want.

13

Fool wrote

I ran out of medication two days ago and haven't requested a new prescription yet. I'm feeling really tired, but have used moving house as an excuse.

I never drink enough water.

I've been eating a bit more nutritious the past two days since I'm not by myself.

I started living in my childhood home again, I need to work with my mum to get rid of 90% of the stuff that has accumulated in the house in the past 30 years, while working out what I want to do after I move out.

6