April 5, 2025 "Hands Off" Protest
  • In 1962, Marxist-Leninist group Workers World Party kicked off a decade of anti-war protests which spread to the rest of the English-speaking world.
  • Throughout the 1980s, anti-apartheid protests snowballed into a global movement to free the Communist political prisoner Nelson Mandela.
  • At the end of the 1990s, communist student groups and NGOs convened to oppose the WTO.
  • In 2005, the Workers World Party and Party for Socialism and Liberation’s ANSWER Coalition brought out the largest crowds against war since the 1960s.
  • In 2011, culturejammer magazine Adbusters, amplified by newly-turned-hacktivist group Anonymous and an early endorsement from Party for Socialism and Liberation, called for an unprecedented scale of occupations of public space to combat Wall Street and associated financial institutions.
  • In 2020, heavily Maoist-influenced Black Lives Matter led a global charge against police violence after years of tensions over police killings of black people in the US reached a boiling point.
  • In 2024, taking lessons from the 1980s and 2011, university socialists affiliated with the Democratic Socialists of America and the Party for Socialism and Liberation organized an occupation of American universities to oppose genocide in Gaza.

In every one of these contexts there have been visible arguments from publicly-identified anarchists that, while the politics of the organizers should surely be critiqued and opposed, it is beneficial to anarchists to “meet people where they are” and have a prominent presence in these events. Without this, it is argued, the naive would-be-anarchists-if-only-they-knew-about-it would be lost forever. We all started somewhere after all.

We have seen the same argument from anarchists for distinctly mainstream political pushes, from supporting Bernie Sanders’ 2016 presidential campaign to the 2017 Women’s March on Washington, the invitation to assist the Federal Bureau of Investigation in their efforts to identify January 6th Capitol Rioters, and the current 50501 / “Hands Off” moment propped up entirely by the Democratic Party. We have seen similar pushes for anarchist involvement in state infrastructure, like supporting local libraries, schools, and health departments, performing roadway maintenance, and even being our own police.

Do you see a benefit to aligning yourself with the state (or its competitors) in any moment? Is the potential for outreach a situation that necessitates this? Or makes it desirable?

Do you have ways of achieving similar visibility and establishing similar paths for the anarcho-curious to find you without playing along with someone else’s activism? What do those look like?

Or do you feel it is within your scope as an anarchist to do as described above, participate in popular movements and flashpoint moments, without sacrificing autonomy to grassroots authority? 

Are you one of the anarchists who will get mad in the comments that I did not acknowledge anarchists as being “in the room” in 1999? Does it matter to you that “we” have a seat at the table?

Is this kind of visibility desirable to you at all? 
 


Want to submit your own Topic of the Week? Use our fancy new form here!

Comments

anon (not verified) Sun, 04/06/2025 - 20:15

Trying to meet this TOTW where it's at. Getting nowhere

Can people submitting these right, like, one question, rather than an artistic pancake attack? Reeeeee-do this shit

And to officially answer: no we don't want visibility. We're supposed to be terrorists

anon (not verified) Mon, 04/07/2025 - 13:56

In reply to by anon (not verified)

I happen to be seen as the scourge of your efforts, so I'll politely refrain from the bad faith deception that would entail.

Also, watching the opposition flail, ricochet, and convulse is oddly satisfying.

GEF (not verified) Mon, 04/07/2025 - 07:56

Odd questions... There's a cause for anarchist "visibility", but that's for conversation and a change in practices. How good is mass outreach at that? Nothing, or less. The masses or "the public" does not argue with you, they don't talk, they don't think... Some people DO, with themselves and others around, but they are not the Masses.

Also there are *specific*, self-interested reasons why Maoists and SocDems been behind the movements above, and why they're always on a drive to reach out to the masses, when it's not attempting to create political leverage. When you take groups and orgs as isolated, separate entities, without looking at the background or external interests and influences, well, you're making one huge analytical mistake.

The commies are not always backed by foreign influences... sometimes it can be due to their bourgie Left parents, or else. All I'm saying here is that you can't avoid not studying the actors under the lenses of where they're from, and what's their interests.

I'd be also asking the same questions for anarchists, regardless they're for real or not, without being a cop of course.

anon (not verified) Mon, 04/07/2025 - 13:52

In reply to by GEF (not verified)

Pro-revolutionary anarchist-leftists would reject this, although there's plenty of truth in it.

So that's a key distinction we need to start making more clear.

The worldwide anarchists are split into pro or anti-revolution sides. Which can unwittingly serve in the interests of the other half at various points and levels.

lumpy (not verified) Mon, 04/07/2025 - 15:09

In reply to by anon (not verified)

how does being anarchist and "anti-revolution" work?

i can certainly think of specific kinds of revolutions that obviously wouldn't align with any anarchist position but how can anarchists be "anti-revolution" in general? perhaps you could take your own advice and make this distinction more clearly?

personally, i'm always concerned with anarchists being completely unrealistic about these things, especially within the trappings of the old left, where there's a dangerous naivete about the risks, the likelihood of normal people being sympathetic, etc

but being critical of a terrible plan is very different from a fundamental political disagreement, right?

anon (not verified) Mon, 04/07/2025 - 18:03

In reply to by lumpy (not verified)

You realize the bourgeoisie have a greater capacity to ride the waves of chaos with the way things are today, in this particular society?

In that sense, they're more effective at doing anarchism than most destitute people. Kropotkin himself said you either make history, or suffer it. And anarchists are great at suffering. It's almost like they like it?

anon (not verified) Mon, 04/07/2025 - 20:37

In reply to by anon (not verified)

"In that sense, they're more effective at doing anarchism than most destitute people. "

Except that your dumb example of the bourgeoisie 'riding the wave of chaos' has absolutely NOTHING to do with 'doing anarchism'.

lumpy (not verified) Wed, 04/09/2025 - 10:24

In reply to by anon (not verified)

so ... couple things!

1. i don't know if you're the same person who i was responding to but if so, you dodged the question and flipped from "we anarchists" to "anarchists sure are the stupid losers of history, amirite?!"

2. bringing up the booj is kind of interesting here because technically the whole european narrative starts with the booj being like - lets challenge the king and pretend we're "the people" - after which, many other groups, including the anarchists, all get defined as they realized how the new con job became capitalism

so you're just ... miserably failing to understand everything that happened since the fukin magna carta ... bravo! let's see here *opens wikipedia* that's the year 1215! that's how far behind you are. so how's that feel? what's that even like? lol

anon (not verified) Wed, 04/09/2025 - 19:17

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Seeethe to death in your ressentiment against "anarchists"! You're just a stupid bird brain if you really believe big money and privilege makes someone more "anarchist" than any poor.

anon (not verified) Wed, 04/09/2025 - 08:29

In reply to by lumpy (not verified)

revolution is a half-step that ALWAYS is a struggle for control and power over, no matter how egalitarian the rhetoric is. anarchists and revolution are not compatible. anarchists refuse, revolt, and create.

anon (not verified) Wed, 04/09/2025 - 09:09

In reply to by anon (not verified)

you are a half-wit that ALWAYS sides with power, no matter how egalitarian the rhetoric is. anarchists and revolution are compatible. anarchists refuse, revolt, create, and some even make revolution. your forcing anarchists to fit into your narrow, little boxes as you define them is laughable AND #notanarchist.

anon (not verified) Wed, 04/09/2025 - 12:32

In reply to by anon (not verified)

"ALWAYS"???? based on??????
i'm not forcing anyone to fit into any "narrow, little boxes", that what revolutionaries do. look at EVERY revolution in history. you are the laughable one with your lame #'s and stupid response.

lumpy (not verified) Wed, 04/09/2025 - 15:27

In reply to by anon (not verified)

look at "EVERY" what? are you literally just talking about how violence always feels bad to someone or something?

how are you this bad at argument? it's pretty embarrassing tbh...

anon (not verified) Wed, 04/16/2025 - 08:35

In reply to by lumpy (not verified)

not at all. "violence" is not the problem, it is revolution as a method to enforce ideology on others. there is NO example otherwise. btw, being "embarrassed" for others is not really possible and is just an empty comment. talk about bad argumentation, go back to mommies teat now...

anon (not verified) Mon, 04/07/2025 - 19:02

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Yes. Values such as slave morality (according to Nietzsche).

“The slave revolt in morality begins when 'ressentiment' itself becomes creative and gives birth to values: the ressentiment of natures that are denied the true reaction, that of deeds, and compensate themselves with an imaginary revenge. While every noble morality develops from a triumphant affirmation of itself, slave morality from the outset says No to what is "outside," what is "different," what is "not itself"; and this No is its creative deed.” GM

anon (not verified) Mon, 04/07/2025 - 20:01

In reply to by anon (not verified)

There's so much in Nietzsche worth admiring, but his very confused and petty bourgeois "noble-slave" dichotomy is incredibly flimsy.

People are not herd animals. Our sociality is super intricate. Shit, even cows had been wild bulls, sheep is another word for the ram, a timeless symbol of war and masculinity.

Nietzsche also really denies the ubiquity of cooperation in nature, something just as prevalent as the raw brutality he fixates on.

Plus in TSZ and Twilight his ideas on this become way more nuanced.

But forget all that. If anarchism isn't the "true reaction of deeds", of active nihilism, then what is?

anon (not verified) Mon, 04/07/2025 - 20:30

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Thanks for understanding the latrogenesis that negative suggestions produce, and the slave morality it creates within complex social herding societies. You certainly know your Nietzsche!

anon (not verified) Mon, 04/07/2025 - 20:41

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Way to systematize a philosopher who did anything and everything to avoid be totally coherent!

The nihilism of negation is the only path to the suspension of values that I'm aware of? The slave has to double down on ressentiment in order to reach this bedrock and undertake the process of revaulating and then creating value.

anon (not verified) Tue, 04/08/2025 - 04:10

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Do you realize how bloody obvious it is that, even if you have read Nietzsche, you are reading him and engaging with his ideas on your terms. Your continual insistence on providing dollar store, Wikipedia-level definitions and analysis demonstrates the mimetic nature of the morality you're attempting to understand. Regurgitation in this way is peak herd mentality.

You're also taking the slave/master distinction way too literally. Elon Musk is the richest man in human history and also totally submerged in ressentiment and slave morality.

Nietzsche argues that those entrenched in slave morality often internalize their feelings of powerlessness and resentment. But he also emphasizes, in Genealogy, TSZ, and Twilight that it is possible for individuals to recognize these feelings and the moral framework built upon them. This recognition forms a critical first step toward transcending these constraints. By confronting and re-evaluating the values they have inherited, individuals can begin to find their own path and redefine their ethical framework.

The actual slave, in the economicsense, is just as much a candidate for self-overcomimg as anyone else, perhaps more so in many cases.

anon (not verified) Tue, 04/08/2025 - 05:36

In reply to by anon (not verified)

"Why the weak conquer. In summa: the sick and weak have more sympathy, are "more humane"—: the sick and weak have more spirit, are more changeable, various, entertaining—more malicious: it was the sick who invented malice. (A morbid precociousness is often found in the rickety, scrofulous and tubercular—.)...

The sick and weak have had fascination on their side: they are more interesting than the healthy: the fool and the saint—the two most interesting kinds of man——closely related to them, the 'genius.' The great 'adventurers and criminals' and all men, especially the most healthy, are sick at certain periods in their lives:—the great emotions, the passions of power, love, revenge, are accompanied by profound disturbances. And as for decadence, it is represented in almost every sense by every man who does not die too soon..."

— Nietzsche, The Will to Power

anon (not verified) Tue, 04/08/2025 - 07:13

In reply to by anon (not verified)

YeeEeess, like I said before, you understand Neech, how the sickening weakness of malice, or morbid ressentiment, gains its negative power by self-deceit, OooOooh tHe IroNy of the hERds of slAVes assUming suprEmaCy!

anon (not verified) Tue, 04/08/2025 - 07:16

In reply to by anon (not verified)

if the herd's so weak go stand in front of a stampede

your mind and biological constitution are a result of the herd. your very consciousness and your ability to overcome yourself is because you were born to a herd

go under

Non-nihilist (not verified) Tue, 04/08/2025 - 15:47

In reply to by anon (not verified)

The comments here are flooded with abstract moralizing and elite detachment — the kind of Nietzschean or nihilist posturing that feels more like intellectual masturbation than anything revolutionary. Fuck that narcistic indulgence. What about a revolution rooted in doing, building, and mutual support — not endless critique, subcultural branding, or scene-building for merch tables. Fuck the performance. Build something real!

untitled (not verified) Wed, 04/09/2025 - 20:52

In reply to by Non-nihilist (not verified)

For Russell Means, the AIMster (American Indian Movement), "revolution" for settler people and their minions is to merely circle around and come back to where you started, as I understand him. So the way out might be closer to "r evolution" or evolving stuff.
I think of evolving via the systematic demystification of propaganda and techniques of social control. To go for THE HEART, not simply the root.

Non-nihilist (not verified) Wed, 04/09/2025 - 16:10

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Interesting how Nietzsche treats emotional depth like it’s a strategy - like nuance and sympathy are tools of the weak rather than honest responses to powerlessness. But maybe complexity isn’t a sign of weakness. Maybe it’s just misread in a world that overvalues dominance.

In that passage, his logic feels shaky. He tosses out vague links: sickness breeds malice, weakness creates creativity, strength makes you boring. It's dressed up like insight, but it’s mostly correlation without substance. It feels profound, but it’s not grounded in any real understanding - just aestheticized fatalism. He turns contradiction into destiny and irony into truth. But that isn’t clarity. That’s myth-making.

The sick didn’t invent malice. They just stopped mistaking dominance for virtue.

anon (not verified) Wed, 04/09/2025 - 19:56

In reply to by Non-nihilist (not verified)

Neecho certainly had issues with his inter-relationships, and I suspect a deep set binary gender/patriarchal tendency. His "If it doesn't kill you it makes you stronger" is very ambiguous, and it posits a world ruled by damaged dictators.

anon (not verified) Thu, 04/10/2025 - 03:17

In reply to by anon (not verified)

some really valid criticism of N here, he definitely tended to pass of some very idiosyncratic concepts as universal, however...

given his take down of morality, it's not so much that might is right or that domination is virtuous as it just is. might is might as they say. N is begging us to return to this obvious thing so that we stop the schizophrenic procrastination associated with so-called slave/herd morality. genocide might be immoral, but simply chastising genocidal action does nothing to end it. it's actually more similar to 'practice what you preach'

Poster (not verified) Thu, 04/10/2025 - 06:01

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Totally with you that critique without practice becomes hollow. I’d just add - if Nietzsche wants us to return to the ‘obvious’ (that might is might), we also shouldn’t skip past the obvious reality that domination creates nothing lasting. The strongest don’t shape the future - builders and ideators do. There’s a difference between naming how the world is and justifying why it should stay that way. Domination has impact, but it rarely builds anything people want to live in. To break the loop, we have to live something different - not just point at the contradictions.

anon (not verified) Thu, 04/10/2025 - 07:44

In reply to by Poster (not verified)

i appreciate the frankness and effort to try and see eye to eye. but respectfully, i have to protest the former comments

for one thing, Nietzsche never said only the strongest survive. in fact in certain places he goes to great lengths to show how the strongest also incur great personal risk and often die without propagation, for example someone with an iron stomach that tests mushrooms for toxins by consuming them (prescientific methods). they might have had the best stomach genetics in human history but one bad batch and nature eliminates their genes from the pool forever.

it's not the strongest survive for N. it's more like the clever, the adaptive, the "Goldilocks", but ultimately, it's not about death-avoidance, either.

re: domination – totally disagree about domination as well. hunger is the central impetus of all life without exception, the urge to consume. everything eating everything at a scale of a cosmic and existential food chain. it is precisely and only those beings that become so good at dominance that're rewarded with the curse of consciousness and choices. we can only sit here discussing the merits of being passive exactly because our species has been so good at being dominant, on all levels, for so long. but everything is driven by a desire to consume, a hunger. and to eat you have to dominant, a fact modern Walmart humans forget very quickly.

that's why N so often upholds specifically Hellenic cultural features. he saw them as powerful and dominant, warrior-aristocrats, who despite their violence and domination created a society where beauty, art, and love were venerated above all else, even dominance itself.

the anarchist take away from all this for me is that we need anarchs with every bit of the capacity for domination that we've seen from warrior-aristocrat societies for several millennia, yet, conversely, the absolute clarity of virtue for an complete refusal of dominance unless it is required to defend ones own autonomy

Non-nihilist (not verified) Thu, 04/10/2025 - 08:50

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Maybe ive misunderstood but dont think i agree with any of that. In fact venerating warrior aristocrats makes my skin crawl and my blood boil. Dominance isn’t the root of all life, and certainly, its not what makes us human. The idea that we need tyrants or oppressive systems for culture to thrive is junk stockholm syndrome romanticism. Sure, hunger and survival are primal drivers, but we operate on a higher level with needs for connection, creativity, and autonomy.

The real issue is coercive, hierarchical power that forces us into these cycles of domination. True strength doesn’t come from control i believe it comes from dissipating that grasp for control and collectively recognizing the harm of top-down power.

We dont need more dominance we need a shift in how we relate to each other - less control, more cooperation.

lumpy (not verified) Thu, 04/10/2025 - 10:24

In reply to by Non-nihilist (not verified)

i tend to agree with you but also the only solve for the problem of control-freak dickheads (there's always more of them) is for most people in the room to be not having any of their shit

so, somewhat counter-intuitively, "coercive power" on a person level needs to be the baseline (most people need to be assertive) AND it needs to be understood that you only use the coercion on the control freaks when they make bullshit justifications for why they need to push everyone around

if you don't have that, do you even have anarchy in the first place?

Non-nihilist (not verified) Thu, 04/10/2025 - 14:18

In reply to by lumpy (not verified)

But if we build a worldview where power games are the default and you always need a bigger hammer to keep the bullies in line then were still stuck playing their game. It’s just new bosses in old clothes.

For me it isnt about who swings hardest its about refusing the entire setup where swinging gets to decide anything. Yeah, assertiveness matters. Holding the line matters. But theres a difference between holding boundaries and recreating coercive power under another name.

If we don’t break that cycle, we’re not building anything new - we’re just managing the same old violence with better PR.

lumpy (not verified) Thu, 04/10/2025 - 14:55

In reply to by Non-nihilist (not verified)

Sure! build that world, we agree on that but otherwise, no. hard no. "the same old violence" isn't a choice, it's a natural law. you can't eliminate that possibility, you can only have better analysis and make better choices, in my view

i mean, i respectfully but firmly disagree and i think this error comes from confusing the structural and the personal level. what you say is going to be true when we're talking about institutions or large groups but on the personal level, there isn't "breaking the cycle", there's just each individual and the choices they make, their personal growth and the sad reality that they will likely keep encountering hostile humans for the foreseeable, especially if they have explicitly anti-authoritarian politics

put another way, worrying over much about being unfair to the bullies is the least of your problems, unless you're completely distorting reality and hallucinating bullying where there is none, which is a very different problem.

you don't need to be extending compassion to bullies, at least until their behaviour has substantively changed. there's already too little compassion in this world, so it's bizarre to be prioritizing those who deserve it the least

lumpy (not verified) Thu, 04/10/2025 - 14:57

In reply to by lumpy (not verified)

^clarification: i meant build that world where power games are NOT the default, tbc

the thing that sucks is, as soon as you even start, you'll likely have to defend it! sad but true

Non-nihilist (not verified) Thu, 04/10/2025 - 15:37

In reply to by lumpy (not verified)

Bookchin nailed it: "The assumption that hierarchy and domination are inevitable is one of the most self-defeating ideologies ever devised." Its fatalistic and its been disproven not just in theory but in practice by communities, cultures, and movements that have resisted without recreating the same chains.

Meeting domination with more domination isn’t resistance - it’s recruitment. Different uniform, same logic. As Audre Lorde said: “The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house.”

The idea that violence is some “natural law” is one of power’s oldest myths. It assumes we ignore every example of cooperation, mutual aid, and solidarity that’s ever worked - and they have. If the response to coercion is to adopt its methods, that’s not breaking the cycle. It’s feeding it.

Force may suppress but it rarely transforms. That kind of shift takes a different strength entirely.

EmmaAintDead Thu, 04/10/2025 - 17:24

In reply to by Non-nihilist (not verified)

If I weren't already convinced bookchin was a putz, that opening quote would have been what sold me on the sentiment. The observation that hierarchy and domination are inevitable is not an ideology. It is where the entire course of human history has led. It is where bookchin himself landed, ultimately endorsing hierarchy and domination at every step.

What happened to those movements and communities that resisted without recreating those chains? They were dominated, weren't they? Or, maybe you have a modern example on hand of those movements. The metric would be whether or not they are being dominated. I would argue absolutely fucking yes they most certainly are.

Hierarchy and domination don't go away when people stop believing in them. They don't necessarily begin when people START believing in them. It is absolutely ludicrous to see resistance to power, hierarchy, domination, as anything but an eternal and intentional project. The whole of the Human story has led only to it, and undoing it doesn't operate on Tinkerbell's rules. All the mutual aid and solidarity you can muster will never defeat the atom bomb.

anon (not verified) Thu, 04/10/2025 - 22:48

In reply to by EmmaAintDead

"All the mutual aid and solidarity you can muster will never defeat the atom bomb."

Defeat? Muster? Bombing???

Better have your testosterone levels check, Emma.

Non-nihilist (not verified) Fri, 04/11/2025 - 02:01

In reply to by EmmaAintDead

You’re welcome to dismiss Bookchin, Lorde, or anyone else as idealists, but you might want to take stock of who you’re really disagreeing with. Because what you're describing as "reality" is just one version of it. A version through the lens of multiple generations of suffering shaped by states, empires, and violence. But that’s not all there’s ever been.

If hierarchy and domination were truly natural laws, not only would we never question them, we wouldn’t have to enforce them so brutally and consistently to maintain them.

You're right that resisting power isn't done with fairy dust. But it's also not done by mimicking the very structures that created the mess. Throughout history from the Zapatistas to Rojava, from the Maroons of the Americas to stateless African societies like the Igbo people have lived, even thrived, outside centralized domination. Are they perfect? No. Are they dominated now? Often, yes - but that’s not the gotcha. That’s the pattern. Power crushes what it fears. The fact that these systems get attacked doesn’t prove they don’t work - it proves they threaten what does.

If your only metric for whether something is valid is whether it currently holds dominance, then you're just pointing at the boot and saying, “see, it’s always been there.”

You’re not wrong that the atom bomb crushes solidarity. But solidarity is the only reason anyone ever survived its fallout.

anon (not verified) Fri, 04/11/2025 - 07:47

In reply to by EmmaAintDead

"All the mutual aid and solidarity you can muster will never defeat the atom bomb."

Has your shit-for-brains ever considered that not many other things can "defeat" atom bombs, too? Like there's nothing much, even in most superpowers known military arsenal, that can even protect against MIRV-equipped RS-28 Sarmat missiles, or mass biological weapons.

But furthermore... how will mutual aid & solidarity defeat DEATH itself, HUUHHH!?!?!?!? I'm sure u ANTIFA Leftards never thought of that one! huh huh huh...

EmmaAintDead Fri, 04/11/2025 - 08:04

In reply to by anon (not verified)

So then you agree. Hierarchy and domination are inevitable, as evidenced by their presence at such a magnitude. That the course of humanity has led to this because it MUST lead to this. It was necessarily on this trajectory the day the first city wall was built and it would be inconcievable to end up anywhere but where we are now. painting the wall a different color will never change that course, building more or different walls will aggrivate the issue not alleviate us of it, and any efforts to undo this must be both eternal and intentional. Glad we see eye to eye here.

Mutual aid and solidarity defeating death itself, now that is an interesting thought actually worth exploring! Post-death NOW! Write it up, I'll distro that zone for sure!

Non-nihilist (not verified) Fri, 04/11/2025 - 08:32

In reply to by EmmaAintDead

I’m not claiming kids are utopian little anarchists - but studies in developmental psychology (like Warneken & Tomasello’s work on early altruism, or House et als cross-cultural research) consistently show that toddlers help others spontaneously without being taught or rewarded. That’s not ideology its observable behaviour. Sure, self-interest exists too. But if ego and competition were truly dominant, why does cooperation emerge so early, so reliably, and across cultures? Am i making that up am i peddling fake news? Read it yourself.

Same with mutual aid in disasters. From Hurricane Katrina to Grenfell in England to recent earthquakes, it’s often the informal networks like neighbours, strangers, mutual aid groups who respond fastest and most effectively. That’s not romanticism. That’s been documented over and over again (see Rebecca Solnit’s A Paradise Built in Hell for just one example). So when I say mutual aid is natural, I don’t mean perfect - I mean it keeps showing up when domination takes its hands off the wheel, and even sometimes when it doesnt. Makes it sound natural to me. I know its popular to say bookchins crap Kroptokins rubbish, Graebers a hippy, Chomskys an idiot, blah blah everyone is apparently wrong because you only observe the boot overhead.

You say hierarchy is inevitable. I just keep asking - if it’s so natural, why does it need to be taught, enforced, surveilled, and sold back to us every day?

Is it possible that what people call “realism” is just long-term exposure to systemic coercion?

If people really believed domination was just how things must be, why spend billions every year making sure no one questions it?

If people laugh at the idea of cooperation, why does it keep reappearing in every crisis, every uprising, every spontaneous act of care?

I think people need to wake from the real dream of believing the world we’re in is the only one possible. We are conditioned to think in the box - billions and billions spent to make us not question it yet what emerges when they stop? Or we can just do the seesaw back and forward on the fatalist flipflop argument "get real people die and people abuse theres no way out" then i respond "but theres better ways and they are observably there repeatedly" then you come back "but they always get crushed so just accept it". Those fatalist resignatioms are thoughtless, hopeless reinforcement - i assume as a result of multi generational abuse by the system of oppression we live in but yet if you look back at the wreckage theres always the real "natural" socialized humans helping out looking for a better way. Thats nature there. Thats what we naturally do. Thats why domination will never ever EVER work longterm

EmmaAintDead Fri, 04/11/2025 - 10:11

In reply to by Non-nihilist (not verified)

You are putting words in my mouth. Namely words that gear toward acceptance and nature. I'm saying neither of those things. I am saying that any effort to destroy the dominant order currently thriving will have to be intentional and that intentionality will have an upkeep that lasts the entire duration of our species' existence. We do NOT have evidence of these societies thriving unmolested by domination, we DO have evidence of these societies living in a temporary absence of domination and ultimately succumbing to domination as either the dominated or the dominators when it reaches their lands. Any currently existing communities that exist outside this paradigm are either being willfully misread and ARENT living outside this paradigm, or are being shown a temporary mercy because it isn't valuable enough to the dominant order to subjugate them YET.

It has nothing to do with nature as you are framing nature. We won't find answers looking to ants or bonobos or fungi to see what a pure being might do, and it doesn't actually matter if this is or isnt innate to humans. It has everything to do with the project of organized society itself inevitably ending up at this point by merit of initial intent. Fatal competition is baked into society's core at inception. It wasnt perverted as it grew, it was designed to be this. It MUST scale to this. It cannot be anything aside from violence, domination, and power. 

None of this is to say we must accept it. None of this is to say it is only natural. It is to say "this is the only thing that has happened and what has happened to oppose it has always failed." You are gonna have to get more creative than Kropotkin because Kropotkin has long since been mulched into a nutrition paste for the beast. Chomsky wants a turn on the saddle, just like Bookchin, neither had any designs on slaying the beast. You are speaking, through these dead men's voices, about reform, not revolt. Politics isn't our language. Or, it can't be if we want to survive. 

Non-nihilist (not verified) Fri, 04/11/2025 - 12:55

In reply to by EmmaAintDead

No one cares about politics or mentioned it. This is a closed loop. Like discussing something with an answering machine or a pre programmed chatbot. There’s no version of evidence, no lived reality, no thinker you wouldn’t wave off as naïve or co-opted or already consumed. and that’s fine - it’s your worldview. but if the only truth you’re willing to accept is one that reinforces power’s permanence, i’m not sure what you think you're resisting. We cant do the same thing and expect a different outcome. Enjoy your fatalist comfort blanket in life

Non-nihilist (not verified) Sat, 04/12/2025 - 08:30

In reply to by EmmaAintDead

Go for.it. You seem keen to sneer, dismiss and snigger at anyone who doesnt buy that someone/thing made the world a forever hellhole. Who should I be reading to reach that level of insight? I’m genuinely curious what thinker or text survives your filter that isnt too naive, too co-opted, or too human for real insight? Whos are the master thinkers sage we should read so people dont talk through theories in "dead guys voices"?

lumpy (not verified) Sun, 04/13/2025 - 09:33

In reply to by Non-nihilist (not verified)

you argue in pretty tight little circles and strawman what the other person is saying, a LOT, i don't see them sneering at you either, think you might be getting defensive or something?

your problem seems to be how badly you want to locate the problem somewhere outside of your own species. it's not the humans themselves, it's just a certain set of behaviours that they can change or remove.

that's a very dubious claim. you're running headlong in to these old arguments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioralism

we're not trying to say violence and domination are good, put down the strawman, we're arguing that it's a very dangerous and bad idea for anti-authoritarians not to plan and practice defending themselves. do you see how big that difference is?

Non-nihilist (not verified) Sun, 04/13/2025 - 16:40

In reply to by lumpy (not verified)

Appreciate the back and forth. I know this isn't an easy conversation - especially when we're talking about deeply rooted systems and how to resist them. Maybe the discomfort is a good place to start. It easy to just reflect domination back - its a quick win and eases the pain quickly but its not leading anywhere in the long run. Just to clarify where I’m coming from before I step back:

I'm not blind to the need for defense. I don’t deny that people will have to protect themselves and others from harm. The difference is in HOW we do that. If our methods of defense mirror the aggressor - if we take on domination tactics, hierarchies, or the logic of control we risk becoming exactly what we oppose. That’s not abstract or idealistic, it’s a recurring historical pattern.

I’m not blaming 'outside' forces to absolve humanity - I’m saying that WE humans built the systems of scarcity, coercion, and dominance. We can also dismantle them. I believe the root issue is dominating power - whether it’s enforced through state violence, economic leverage, or social hierarchies. Im not alone these facts have been researched and proven, repeatable patterns exist and keep existing. We are better than the doom we think we live in. We need to stop looking inside the box we currently live. Its a small bullshit box that keeps being destroyed and stuck back together.

Humans can imagine and build ways to dissolve the reasons for domination rather than simply switching who holds the power. That includes the tough questions: how to defend without replicating power, how to resist without becoming an occupying force, and how to dismantle without collapsing into unworkability.

lumpy (not verified) Sun, 04/13/2025 - 18:25

In reply to by Non-nihilist (not verified)

yeah ... and i've explored these things thoroughly and you're just talking past the people who are trying to tell you what they've already learned and built, as if everyone is still at the "asking questions" stage, just because you still are. i'm not "unsettled" and this conversation is extremely easy for me because i've had it 10,000 times. you're being told that some of what you're saying is dangerously naive, among other things.

but you don't even seem curious about wtf other people are suggesting to you, prefering to assume truly bizarre things like anarchists suggesting we shouldn't be dismantling anything ..? nobody is saying that. you appear to be talking to the shadows on the wall of your own cave cuz this is the internet? or maybe you're a bot, who knows?

Non-nihilist (not verified) Mon, 04/14/2025 - 03:29

In reply to by lumpy (not verified)

I'm still none the wiser about what your clarifications actually are. I never said we shouldn’t dismantle anything - not sure how you got that from what I said. If there’s a misunderstanding, explain it directly rather than throwing around confrontationally condescending lines like 'you're naive' or 'youre talking to shadows.' If it’s really as simple and well-trodden as you claim, it shouldn’t be this hard to articulate clearly.

So just to cut through the fog are you saying:
- That humans are inherently hierarchical?
- That there needs to be a large-scale two-sided war to oppose the system?
- That fighting fire with fire is the only viable strategy?
- That we're doomed to cycle endlessly through oppression, revolt, and more oppression?

Because if that's the case, I’d like to hear you argue it plainly and back it up. If it’s not, then help me understand what it is you're trying to say. All I know is what youre against

lumpy (not verified) Mon, 04/14/2025 - 08:02

In reply to by Non-nihilist (not verified)

yeah, cuz you didn't ask and as i've said below, i doubt your sincerity a lot now
but here ya go, you only get low effort because of your cute bullshit from earlier

1. No. Humans are inherently anxious and paranoid, moreso, the worse they've been through it. This inevitably causes authoritarian tendencies in a chunk of the population. Standard Adorno, etc

2. No. Not at all. That was pretty much settled back when conventional wars started using aircraft. Now, there's only limited applications for asymmetric insurgencies, most of which, are doomed from the start.

3. Fighting fire with fire will always be necessary, yes. Unless you've lived an extremely sheltered life, this is abundantly self-evident, all through human history. Only tech people and insufferable hippies can delude themselves to the contrary. But it's not "the only strategy", no. Just a necessary piece.

4. Yes. Hard yes. Literally all of history indicates that is absolutely the case. The large claim would be if you (or anyone) was to say "nuh uh! i've got a better idea!" and even if you do, you'll acquire enemies rapidly and have to fight them sooo ... yeah.

last note, i'm not the one making large claims here, you are. therefore, i'm not required to chase your arguments around, "disproving" them. i might believe your intentions were good, if you didn't keep trying to frame disagreement as "people being uncomfortable with your genius" or whatever the fuck you're implying. anyway, it's quite off putting! :)

Non-nihilist (not verified) Mon, 04/14/2025 - 10:13

In reply to by lumpy (not verified)

Misrepresenting me doesn’t make your position stronger. I’ve made my comments as much non-personal, factual discussion as I can, but you insist on framing it as a personal argument when it’s not. I am genuinely trying to understand your position, but when I quote your own words back to you - not to put words in your mouth, but to clarify - you dismiss it as bad faith.

From your message, you said:
“Fighting fire with fire will always be necessary.”
“We’re doomed to cycle endlessly through oppression, revolt, and more oppression.”
“Only tech people and insufferable hippies can delude themselves to the contrary.”

If that’s not asserting that violence is a necessary part of resistance and that history inevitably repeats oppressive cycles, then clarify - but don’t accuse me of twisting your words when I’m quoting you directly.

You also said, “I'm not the one making large claims here, you are.” But claiming that all of history points to an unbreakable cycle is a large claim. And I disagree with it. Not because I’m naive or think I’ve “solved” oppression - but because there is extensive evidence, from anthropology, archaeology, psychology, and lived human cultures, that hierarchical domination is not our natural or only condition. That belief - that humans are nothing more than paranoid murderers crawling over corpses - is a learned one, a system-reinforced paradigm that has been mythologized to maintain power, not a biological truth.

I'm not asking you to accept some utopian fairy tale. I'm saying there's a vast body of work from authors ive already started mentioning in other threads that challenges the story you're telling.

You don't have to agree with me. But if your response is just to sneer at it as “insufferable hippy” stuff or to write it all off as adolescent dreaming, that’s not a conversation its gatekeeping. But feel free to pick one part of what ive said, ridicule it and use to dismiss the whole discussion as has tended to happen if you want but its clear who wants to engage and who wants to dicatate who is allowed to discuss what topics

lumpy (not verified) Mon, 04/14/2025 - 17:53

In reply to by Non-nihilist (not verified)

so you think pulling partial quotes and ignoring the second part of the statements i made, makes your position stronger?

it's pretty clear several people don't agree with you, including me. what gate am i keeping by not agreeing with you? of course we're not required to agree OR engage, especially if your "style of argument" (that's me being generous) tends strongly towards self aggrandizement. you're not here to discuss, you're here to proselytize

anyway, yeah, i absolutely stand by those 3 statements. let it ride! and yes, i'm absolutely sneering at this point. if you like, you can imagine my sneering face later, when the poverty of your rad lib "theories" catches up with you! lol

Non-nihilist (not verified) Tue, 04/15/2025 - 03:42

In reply to by lumpy (not verified)

Theres bound to be a lumpy (bad faith troll) chatbot out there. Just basically react aggressively and personally to everything you disagree with or dont understand. Then say it is all just [shakes magic 8 ball for random anarch slur to insert].

anon (not verified) Fri, 04/11/2025 - 10:46

In reply to by Non-nihilist (not verified)

Chumsky's not an idiot... He's a hack and a socialist hypocrite POS with brutally deterministic language theory who also had zero problems with his hierarchically-generated privileges and his own contributions to the imperialist war machine. Among other issues. Furthermore he ain't got no say in contemporary anarchism.

anon (not verified) Thu, 04/10/2025 - 18:13

In reply to by Non-nihilist (not verified)

"As Audre Lorde said: “The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house.”"

Yes and no... Lorde wasn't wrong but that depends what we mean, here. If it's about using FACEBOOOK for resistance or overcoming power, then yes, as that makes you defeated from the start. If we means acquiring the weapons of those in charge to turn it against them, or just subvert them, then no... as here you're tacitly breaking their power.

Non-nihilist (not verified) Fri, 04/11/2025 - 04:23

In reply to by anon (not verified)

I think we reason too much from inside the system that’s shaped us -abused us really. Its trained us to think in its image. It tells us dominance is natural, inevitable. But if thats true, why does it need constant surveillance, propaganda, distraction, and force just to hold itself up? Why does it require whole industries - PR, schooling, policing, media etc to keep people compliant with what is supposed to be a natural order?

If domination were natural, wouldn’t we just fall in line on our own? Why go to such lengths to break our spirits or teach obedience from childhood?

Children share before they hoard. In disasters, mutual aid appears long before institutions. No one teaches it -it just happens. But domination? That has to be trained, sold, drilled in.

Maybe what’s natural isn’t hierarchy - it’s the quiet, stubborn resistance to it. Not just revolution with fire and fists, but refusal, care, mutuality. The kind of resistance that doesn’t just flip the power structure - it makes a new logic entirely.

Of course the next "inside the system" question is: “If cooperation, mutual aid, and non-hierarchical ways of living are so natural - why haven’t they built lasting systems?” But that’s still the system talking. It assumes the only real success is in becoming the new dominator, the new permanent structure, the new empire.

But maybe that’s not the measure. Maybe the fact these ways keep re-emerging - again and again, in disaster, in crisis, in the cracks of every empire and institution - is the real point. They don’t need to dominate to be real. They don’t need to conquer to be true. The current heirarchical system needs force to survive. Mutual aid just needs people.

Every time hierarchy reasserts itself, it needs violence to do it. But every time it collapses or falters, cooperation reappears like it never left. Thats not weakness thats resilience. Thats actual nature.

anon (not verified) Fri, 04/11/2025 - 08:00

In reply to by Non-nihilist (not verified)

"Children share before they hoard."

But no, that's patently incorrect. Children are egotists 'til around 6 years old, then they start learning about empathy, reciprocity and sharing stuff with others. There's countless research on that and just working with children will make you realize that.

Krapotkin's claim of everything in nature being about mutual aid is dumb, ideologically-driven and not quite scientific. For sure there's always a level of sharing and "mutual aid mutual aid mutual aid mutual aid" (repeating 23x as fast as you can makes it fun! But also psychotic...) found in most living beings, but the ego, or "self-preservation principle", it just as ubiquitous. A living organism must prioritize on their own well-being and survival in order to live, develop and thrive.

Non-nihilist (not verified) Fri, 04/11/2025 - 08:58

In reply to by anon (not verified)

I get that you'll pick apart any one example I name but when the pattern keeps showing up across time and place it's kinda hard to ignore. Look at Grenfell, Hurricane Katrina, Fukushima - its not governments or hierarchies that step up first, its neighbours, strangers, communities. Happens every time. Mutual aid just kicks in. No one gets told to do it. They just do.

Or look at stuff like the Zapatistas in Mexico or the Kurdish regions in Syria - Rojava. People actually building something different, running things without a top-down state. Not perfect, nothing is, but its not the usual model and it works in ways that challenge the idea hierarchy is inevitable.

Even way back - Paris Commune, Spanish collectives in the 30s, Ukraine with the Makhnovistsz etc whenever something cooperative and liberatory starts growing, it gets crushed. Not because it collapses under its own weight but because domination cant allow it to live or its replaced with new faces same game due to conditioning. Same with a lot of Indigenous societies before colonialism steamrolled them - the Haudenosaunee, the San in Africa - different social logic entirely, one that didn’t start from command and control.

Even in modern times it sneaks through - open source projects, time banks, mutual aid during Covid, tool libraries, food co-ops. Not state-run, not profit-driven, just people organising to meet needs. We do it all the time its not pushed ans schooled its inate.

And on the research side - go read Warneken and Tomasello on toddlers helping without being told. House et al cross-cultural studies. Even Dawn of Everything tears apart the idea that hierarchy naturally follows scale or complexity. Its not some fantasy, its repeated, observed behaviour over and over without prompt or brainwashing propaganda or by force.

So sure yeah theres self interest too. Im not denying that. But why does cooperation keep showing up if it's not core to who we are? Why does hierarchy need so much backup with schools, ads, cops, surveillance, ideology all to hold itself together? If it was natural it wouldnt need all that scaffolding.

Maybe what we call idealism is just remembering what gets buried over and over. Maybe domination isn’t our nature maybe resisting it is.

Need to get my Friday joy back now ive just spewed all that frustration out today.

anon (not verified) Fri, 04/11/2025 - 08:05

In reply to by Non-nihilist (not verified)

"Why does it require whole industries - PR, schooling, policing, media etc to keep people compliant with what is supposed to be a natural order?"

Can't disagree here, tho. But there's education, policing, a level of mediation in every known society, not just the capitalist ones. Ever read from Levi-Strauss? The societies he studied, while being far healthier and lively, did contain a level of formatting of the children by the adults to instituted orders. The children are to be taught how to live with others... your assumption that they're "good ancoms" from the start is nonsensical and delusional.

True Nihilist (not verified) Sun, 04/13/2025 - 16:34

In reply to by Non-nihilist (not verified)

Hey brah, herding or clanning is natural in youth, not so much at old age. Read Shakespeare's The 7 Ages of Man. And where there are herds there are hierarchies, which you can escape from, and do the solitude loner trip, anti-natal, brooding or sociopathic. Life is a stage to borrow from the immortal bard.

anon (not verified) Sun, 04/13/2025 - 19:37

In reply to by True Nihilist (not verified)

There's nothing "natural" in human behavior, you assclown. Otherwise every single teenager would be engaged in hierachical herding... which is far from what is happening. Most teen gangs I've seen weren't much hierarchical. That's more of a small school thing,

But dogmatic, anti-individualistic, sheepish... they were.

Actual Genius (not verified) Sun, 04/13/2025 - 21:39

In reply to by anon (not verified)

This entire sub-thread is like watching a bunch of special needs children trying to explain the internal combustion engine.

"There's nothing "natural" in human behavior"

Good Lordt *facepalm*

Y'all both fucks need to learn what words mean first and lay off the diarrhea bongs.

True Nihilist (not verified) Sun, 04/13/2025 - 21:53

In reply to by Actual Genius (not verified)

Natural is to eat food and to dump, and if you don't dump you die. If you take my food, it is natural for me to stop you. Don't by a domesticated herd sheep and go "BaaAaa", and start whining, or my primeval natural impulse will be to subdue your snivelling attitude!

True Nihilist (not verified) Sun, 04/13/2025 - 21:48

In reply to by anon (not verified)

OooaOooh, so " most of the teen gangs you saw " were intellectual college bookworm gangs observing a self-righteous Rousseau-esqu " We aRe aLL bORn EqUal " ideal in their pampered street-dumb bubble. OooOoh,let's all hold hands and herd to our LeAdEr the sheriff.

anon (not verified) Fri, 04/11/2025 - 10:56

In reply to by Non-nihilist (not verified)

The Solnit reference is such a huge tell. You're not an anarchist, non-nihilist, you're a militant liberal. You're a shining example of what toxic positivity does to peoples brains. This whole argument is completely caked, submerged in positivism, over-rationalism, and just plain delusion. Every example you've given has itself reproduced the things you're claiming we can quarantine ourselves from. All you're doing is demonstating you've never had feet on the ground in anything close to the examples you offer.

There is no gray area in your thought. "Power is absolute and evil. One can't fight evil with evil." This is the understanding of a child, or a fool. Nothing in shared reality is this sanitary.

Non-nihilist (not verified) Fri, 04/11/2025 - 13:03

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Politics has never worked for anyone except those in it. If optimism makes you uncomfortable then you should probably grow there. Its not sanitary its proven repeatedly and distilled from masses of information to be simple. Thats what intellect is supposed to be able to do. Simplify complexity and distill it because you understanding it thoroughly. I could spout of quotes about nothingness as a pantomime smart person who delivers nothing but sneering condescending obscure quotes but it achieves nothing but isolation. Individualism is not and never ever will be the answer to out problems its a comfort blanket for unresolved teenage sadness and confusion. Enjoy

lumpy (not verified) Sun, 04/13/2025 - 09:42

In reply to by Non-nihilist (not verified)

oh ... i see. you really go mask-off here ...

"if optimism makes you uncomfortable" lmfao

that's a good one! what a cute, simple little trick for dismissing the glaring flaws in your own rhetoric when anyone points them out!

Non-nihilist (not verified) Mon, 04/14/2025 - 03:06

In reply to by lumpy (not verified)

Thats another vague comment Lumpy. No one pointed out flaws they just say youre a closet socialist theres some sort of "tell" or some other vague nebulous smite that isnt clear and isnt specific. Its just "feels and shit". If its specific commentary it can be discussed

lumpy (not verified) Mon, 04/14/2025 - 07:49

In reply to by Non-nihilist (not verified)

yes, true. several of your "tells" have made it clear you're not interested in a real discussion. i'd say you're just here to grind your axe but you'll probably argue that all axes need to be dismantled and call the firewood truck authoritarian

anon (not verified) Thu, 04/10/2025 - 03:34

In reply to by anon (not verified)

again, this is a reductive and amatuerish way of engaging with Nietzsche

it's not some whimsical question of probability. in life, every individual is likely to face one or many tragicomic, promethean tasks. confrontation with the limitations of the self and various kinds of lack can lead to a post-traumatic metamorphosis. this metamorphosis is catalyzed by the experience or realization of what's referred to as the will to nothingness. faced with this realization of existential horrors, with lack, with trauma, there is a break and the post-traumatic self emerges from the ruptures caused by this collapse of self-coherence. that emergent person or becoming can either turn this trauma into a passive, quietest suspension of the self and a complete rejection of any valuation following the loss of the pretraumatic self...OR...

the individual may recognize the autonomy that comes with this emergent, post-traumatic self. that is, due to the loss of the previous self as a result of trauma. that's active, healthy nihilism, which is in fact also a proto-anti-nihilism

Non-nihilist (not verified) Thu, 04/10/2025 - 07:21

In reply to by anon (not verified)

people do emerge changed after collapse or trauma. But calling that active nihilism still seems like an aesthetic spin on something deeply human - resilience, adaptation, even grief. When you wrap it in grand metaphors it risks obscuring whats really going on. Transformation doesnt need to be mythologized to matter. Sometimes the post-traumatic self isnt discovering autonomy its just learning to breathe again.

anon (not verified) Thu, 04/10/2025 - 07:52

In reply to by Non-nihilist (not verified)

there's nothing particularly aesthetic about the previous claims you're referring to. lacanian psychoanalysis even puts it into mathematical terms in certain places

active nihilism is pivotal because there are many obstacles one will face in the realization of the new self. the urge for destruction is a creative urge. to find the beach, we must tear up the pavement atop it...

anon (not verified) Mon, 04/07/2025 - 19:54

>Do you see a benefit to aligning yourself with the state (or its competitors) in any moment? Is the potential for outreach a situation that necessitates this? Or makes it desirable?

It's not beneficial to randomly align yourself with anyone without a strategic purpose. Outreach opportunities can be good, but that's not our only reason for attending protests. It's not necessarily aligning yourself with anything to be attending a protest (especially if you attend as an outside agitator.)

>Do you have ways of achieving similar visibility and establishing similar paths for the anarcho-curious to find you without playing along with someone else’s activism? What do those look like?

Using the activist events as cover to do other activities nearby or hosting an event after the event to get stragglers are two potentialities. Attending specifically as a counter-protestor, a critical protestor, or an agitator are also options that can be valid for anarchist to employ.

>Or do you feel it is within your scope as an anarchist to do as described above, participate in popular movements and flashpoint moments, without sacrificing autonomy to grassroots authority?

One doesn't necessarily need to be an active "participant" to show up to such movement events. Once again being a critical attendee, having ulterior motivations, or even a full on outside agitator are ways to attend without sacrificing your autonomy.

>Are you one of the anarchists who will get mad in the comments that I did not acknowledge anarchists as being “in the room” in 1999? Does it matter to you that “we” have a seat at the table?

I'm not mad but it is good to acknowledge when "we" have been "in the room" because it can, and has, shaped how different movements play out. It does matter when "we" have a seat at the table, because movements can be pushed towards a more anarchist direction. One example is anarchists in the free Palestine movements pushing back against antisemitism, pro-Iran and pro-Hamas elements.

>Is this kind of visibility desirable to you at all?

Visibility can be good, in certain strategic instances. Anarchists can use visibility in such movements to advance our ideas, get more people involved, and expand possibilities. Visibility can also be a negative thing and can give our political enemies leverage or opportunities to hurt us. Visibility needs to be used strategically, different types of visibility for different things, and for different people.

anon (not verified) Tue, 04/08/2025 - 16:44

In this modern Cyber Age, the real anarchs are the humble vitriolic trolls who dominate the psychopolitical arena with their access to millions of listeners whose critical thinking skills are revitalised by the anarch-troll withering critiques.

anon (not verified) Tue, 04/08/2025 - 21:22

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Yes, they trolled Elon Musk when he was gaming and caused him to have a total psychological meltdown tantrum, thus decreasing his prestige and therefore his profit margin and capital. Bravo anarch trolls!

anon (not verified) Fri, 04/11/2025 - 18:20

In reply to by anon (not verified)

You're wasting your time my Junger-esque Wildeian creative anarch, these obtuse materialistic philistines couldn't comprehend the genius of your radical vision, your droll nuanced vitriol, your withering critiques of consensual dumbed-down dogma called politics. Alas, enjoy your dungeon, I know you still see the stars through the iron bars of their ignorance, *sigh*

anon (not verified) Sat, 04/12/2025 - 16:47

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Thanks, but I live on anarch troll time, the days fly by in my basement (dungeon fortress) whilst I fire my explosive vitriol at the madding crowds above. How be it that the Anarch Prince is confined within his bubble of self-awareness and confidence? Why the firm strong confidence in purpose and victory from the dank confines of gloomy cell? It is because of the brilliant unique and unadulterated dasein lurking within, THAT IS WHY!!!

Add new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Content limited to 10000 characters, remaining: 10000

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a href hreflang> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul type> <ol start type> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
CAPTCHA
a
b
a
A
T
P
x
3
Enter the code without spaces.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.