anarchoreposter wrote

Left vs Right comes from which side of the French king members of the états généraux were sitting before the French revolution - those on the right were monarchist, those on the left were in favour of the republic. In other words, both were in favour of the state. Obviously all this was a long time ago, and most people aren't really aware of it, but that doesn't mean it's not relevant, because the underlying assumption still persists that the whole spectrum of conceivable politics need to be enacted through the state. That's still true, whether it's social-democrats, liberals, leninists, greens, whatever.

I think one of the most important things we need to get across is that worthwhile political changes can only be achieved through direct action outside and against the state, parliamentary democracy and the various structures of class collaboration, and that means questioning the left vs right thing.


anarchoreposter wrote

The moral nihilism toted by Nietzsche dictates that as there is no source of morality (God is dead, never was, whatever). Morality simply doesn't exist, its continuation as if it affects us any more than we choose to let it, is a waste of time, it's keeping us back from attaining a higher state of being in which we are free to pursue our passions.

If we see that there is no justification for morality itself, that morality doesn't exist, than why should any of the structures that use its existence to oppress us continue? Name one form of bigotry that isn't rooted in some kind of morality, I can't think of a single one to be honest. Any expression of a gender and any expression of a sexual orientation as a norm are themselves expressions of morality, insofar as I understand them, they are a culture's collective virtues, cemented in time, an Is becoming a Must.

Stirner's critique of morality can be read in an an explicitly anarchist mindset whereas from Nietzsche one needs to do an interpretive dance and summon the gods of anti-fascist critical theory. I've spent the last 20 minutes trying to summarize Stirner's critiques into a simple clean paragraph, I'm sure somebody else can do a better job. Even better, The Ego and Its Own. Perhaps in short, morality!=real, me=real, me=only, me=unique, you + me + mutual interest = beautiful.

Not all anarchists are nihilist and not all nihilists are anarchists but the leap from one to the other is pretty straight-forward for me.

I really don't understand why there are so many atheists and yet so few people have made the leap to a genuine rejection of morality in all of its forms. The New Atheist crowd is blending more and more with pretty horrifying reactionaries, capitalist libertarians at best, with a lot of anti-feminist horseshit along the way. But don't they know? God is dead, and with it, his morality!

There's a tendency of adolescent nihilism in which one might find themselves for the first time genuinely acknowledging the pointlessness of everything. We'll all die, there's probably no after-life, nothing comes after this but maybe the mark I make. Personally I found this pretty hard to react to, I wasn't really sure what to do.

Stirner's Egoism sees life as a meaningless but entertaining existence. Your moral behaviour isn't rewarded in any kind of afterlife but you can certainly enjoy your existence as it stands. I never felt like Nietzsche went far enough to state the now of things, maybe he felt no need to state it explicit or maybe I just skipped that chapter.