π€ if you see someone pushing for violence under the name of #anarchy, what you've found is an agent of the state.
Anarchists have **_always_** chosen the peaceful option. There's a whole fascinating history of this, and a whole fascinating history of state actors framing them for violence. Why? Because violence is the sole source of legitimacy for the state.
Confused people regard anarchy as mayhem because of ignorance. They aren't agents of the state per se, unless you view them as NPC ready to be controlled by agent Smith from Matrix.
Jordan Peterson did a talk a while ago talking about the line from the Bible βthe meek shall inherit the earthβ. He said the correct translation is closer to βthose who have swords and know how to use them just choose to keep them sheathed shall inherit the earthβ. That is close to how I think about anarchy. You take complete responsibility for your own defense which is mainly achieved through fair trade and aligned incentives, but always backed up with the willingness to defend that which is yours. Bitcoin builds on that by allowing a person to store their most valuable asset in a form that cannot be brute force attacked. It is the first time in history that is possible and it replaces the asymmetry between the individual and the state. All that is needed is for the state to acknowledge it as the apex asset which is happening in front of our eyes. Wild times. We may never see complete anarchy but Bitcoin brings us one big important step closer to the ideal.
So...
If you aren't capable of great violence you aren't peaceful you're harmless.
I saw that talk, or part of it. That dude can talk... Its common sense, too. If the peppers are too hot to handle, you don't eat them. Don't get eaten : be spicy.
But there's a line between telling people to be capable and telling people to actively engage in violence. The former is a change in the cost calculation ; the latter is literally a gift to your enemy. So when I see a dude here on nostr, who seems to be quite above average in IQ, pushing for violence like that's the goal, I have to wonder what's really going on... The only reasonable conclusion is that he's an agent of the state.
I don't know of anyone claiming to be an anarchist calling for violence, so I missed the backstory.
I have used my violence to save my own life more than once, so I'm absolutely a fan of violence.
The non aggression principle is the guide though. Anarchy is just the non aggression principle scaled to collective actions and interactions. Anyone calling to initiate violence in the name of anarchy is either torturing the definition of defense or just plain doesn't get it.
