Adamsmith12345
FACE HEIGHT STATUS NT FRAME
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2022
- Posts
- 1,999
- Reputation
- 2,678
Spoke to Kiera and Tural about some stuff Jonathon said. I don't see anyway around telling him how his opinion sucks and wage a massive assault on his framework. I feel kinda bad because the dude is just naively enjoying this itchy wool he's pulled over his own eyes. He's just some guy! And we like him! But his opinions suck and he takes up tons of space by pulling us into his framework. We want to knock him off his high horse.
I call it fluffy. Its fluffy shit that thinks its real cute and disguises itself as soft and harmless. I even find it infantilising at times. Its also a super privileged take. Its easier to be chill and harmonious when you don't have to worry about people being hostile to you in a dozen different ways, just for existing. He can afford to leave his offensive skills undeveloped and have less of it than us. But this still sort of accepts the underlying thought that got him here. He can still argue that offensive skills might be necessary sometimes, but its not something you should wield as a weapon, except in self-defense, but how the fuck do you define that? Almost everyone would agree with this and I think only anarchists MIGHT be able to spot the issue here.
He would make the argument I shouldn't equip myself with violence of all kinds and use it as I please. That goes in the rubbish. This is a moralist argument, as well as an statist one. Morality presented to you as a nice fluffy thing that is actually quite sinister. You should use whatever tools and weapons you see fit as you go about your way. Moralists will try and take the high ground here and say that's bad moral behaviour. That's because they're ignoring politics. Morality is politics. Scared politics. Politics are inescapable. ALL political views justify violence against someone. He is an statist and accepts the harm the state does, the police serve his needs and wants AND THEN WASHES HIS HANDS OF IT. He doesn't accept responsibility for his political violence, against 'criminals' and against US! He lives this pampered life where he barely thinks about any of this. The fluff is great for him, he benefits. We do not! We have to fend for ourselves and often are on our own politically. It was like that for most of our life and we denied ourselves a bunch of weapons we could've really used!
The state's violence is not somehow superior to our's! It acts in its own interest without giving a shit about anything it doesn't have to, but when we do the same, we're the problem? Our violence is wrong but the state's is right? For what reason? Because its not done by an 'individual', that's the only real difference. We don't go around committing genocide. Us and Jonathon are not so different and Stirner's work is dangerous but it doesn't fucking disguise itself behind rubbish, its open about what it is and basically nothing else in politics is this upfront. All politics is violence! Stirner's work isn't special in how dangerous it is, it just doesn't apologise for it. This fluff tries to convince you to curtail your aggressive urges, which are there for a reason. This doesn't benefit us, we have spent our life without any political allies. We're forced into managing politics, often as an 'individual'.
We are anarchists and know that means taking things into our own hands sometimes. State sure as shit isn't going to do it. He gets to enjoy his fucking harmony, he gets to have a bunch of it and then jerk himself off about all this soft sounding nonsense. But the fact is that as we go through life, we trample. We walk bare foot through the grass and enjoy the feeling beneath our feet, totally oblivious to the bugs and flowers we crush on our way. Others suffer and die for our comfort and wellbeing. We've made humans sacred. So many animals have lived a terrible life and died just to feed us but we don't beat ourselves up for eating meat. "Morality" is totally arbitrary.
I call it fluffy. Its fluffy shit that thinks its real cute and disguises itself as soft and harmless. I even find it infantilising at times. Its also a super privileged take. Its easier to be chill and harmonious when you don't have to worry about people being hostile to you in a dozen different ways, just for existing. He can afford to leave his offensive skills undeveloped and have less of it than us. But this still sort of accepts the underlying thought that got him here. He can still argue that offensive skills might be necessary sometimes, but its not something you should wield as a weapon, except in self-defense, but how the fuck do you define that? Almost everyone would agree with this and I think only anarchists MIGHT be able to spot the issue here.
He would make the argument I shouldn't equip myself with violence of all kinds and use it as I please. That goes in the rubbish. This is a moralist argument, as well as an statist one. Morality presented to you as a nice fluffy thing that is actually quite sinister. You should use whatever tools and weapons you see fit as you go about your way. Moralists will try and take the high ground here and say that's bad moral behaviour. That's because they're ignoring politics. Morality is politics. Scared politics. Politics are inescapable. ALL political views justify violence against someone. He is an statist and accepts the harm the state does, the police serve his needs and wants AND THEN WASHES HIS HANDS OF IT. He doesn't accept responsibility for his political violence, against 'criminals' and against US! He lives this pampered life where he barely thinks about any of this. The fluff is great for him, he benefits. We do not! We have to fend for ourselves and often are on our own politically. It was like that for most of our life and we denied ourselves a bunch of weapons we could've really used!
The state's violence is not somehow superior to our's! It acts in its own interest without giving a shit about anything it doesn't have to, but when we do the same, we're the problem? Our violence is wrong but the state's is right? For what reason? Because its not done by an 'individual', that's the only real difference. We don't go around committing genocide. Us and Jonathon are not so different and Stirner's work is dangerous but it doesn't fucking disguise itself behind rubbish, its open about what it is and basically nothing else in politics is this upfront. All politics is violence! Stirner's work isn't special in how dangerous it is, it just doesn't apologise for it. This fluff tries to convince you to curtail your aggressive urges, which are there for a reason. This doesn't benefit us, we have spent our life without any political allies. We're forced into managing politics, often as an 'individual'.
We are anarchists and know that means taking things into our own hands sometimes. State sure as shit isn't going to do it. He gets to enjoy his fucking harmony, he gets to have a bunch of it and then jerk himself off about all this soft sounding nonsense. But the fact is that as we go through life, we trample. We walk bare foot through the grass and enjoy the feeling beneath our feet, totally oblivious to the bugs and flowers we crush on our way. Others suffer and die for our comfort and wellbeing. We've made humans sacred. So many animals have lived a terrible life and died just to feed us but we don't beat ourselves up for eating meat. "Morality" is totally arbitrary.
