Contrary to popular opinion, we anarchists (at least the principled anarchists) don't advocate destroying things in the sense of physical destruction. Its more destroy in the metaphysical sense. Destroy the system through a mass shift in mindset til there is a critical mass of people who just won't play their game in any way shape or form anymore, then the system collapses upon itself. Now, if They start kicking in doors, well then its a different ball game. But the goal is to not let it get that far and that can only happen with a complete shift in mindset among the masses. The system is a symptom, the mindset is the disease.

#anarchy #breakthestate #revolution #monero #xmr #mmh #bitcoin #btc

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

As we destroy, reconstruction is happening.

Still true โœจ๐Ÿ’œ๐Ÿซ‚

You ever sit and think WTF?

Some times I choose to

Balancing myself on Earth

Witnessing humans

- Self destruct their own beings

Then I remember

All live life and die, someday

Paths walked, Choices made

- Cosmic stardust again

#poem

๐Ÿ”ฅ

Revolutions begin with a shift in consciousness. Pure anarchy!

I think the problem is revolutions are never replaced with anarchy. They're always replaced by worse government. At least that's the way it's always happened so far.

Hence the required consciousness shift. If enough want no government, there wont be one because it only exists because of belief in it. There are more of us than them.

Agree. It starts with a shift in consciousness.

๐Ÿ’ฏ๐Ÿป

To add, better to try and fail than not even be allowed to try. And that is root of the entire problem. Self rule is not even 'permitted'. And as such, the system is that of nothing more than slavery.

I tend towards thinking the root of the problem is psychological. A lot of people are not happy, but most people are comfortable.

Historically, revolutions have happened when #people were desperate and in the #USA, and here in the #UK, no one is desperate enough to take the risk, and it is a #risk, let's be honest.

If you look at a country like Belarus, they have a sharp tilt on a small playing field, so most people can see how out of whack it is .

Here we have a small tilt on a large table that still gives the people higher up an enormous #advantage, but it's harder to see in the middle where most people are.

Sorry I use so many #metaphors, but it helps me to clarify my #thoughts as much as anything else :)

There is no risk changing mindset and re-evaluating one's relationship with the state. There is no risk in refusing to participate in corrupt (s)election rituals. The only risk is to the state in losing consensus. And when enough change their mindset, the state dies. Parasites cannot live without a host. Time to stop being the host. But most cant even bring themselves to stop choosing a pre-selected ruler, which involves doing literally nothing.

Yeah, but doing nothing has always been the most comfortable thing to do. That's #human #nature. It was in our #DNA long before we had #civilization at all.

It takes a really big incentive to break that inertia. In human #history that has usually involved extremes like starvation.

You miss my point. Voting is the most direct way one supports the system. People bitch about the system, the candidates, then take time to participate in the sham. If a person cannot break that addiction, which involves staying home and doing nothing, I would never expect a person do do something that would involve actually doing something that may have negative consequences. As you said, they are comfortable. And uncomfortable is utterly horrifying to most. Look how many were boldly saying fuck the vax. Until the day their boss said get it or be fired. Well, I made that hard decision. And as a consequence I will never work my career of choice ever again and have fallen into abject poverty. I could have stayed comfortable making 70k a year. But there are more important things than comfort. Comfort got us here. It cant get us out

Yeah I see your position. Luckily I was always working from home, so I didn't face that dilemma. I never really cared either way about the jab anyway. I never believed either side, since neither presented me with the kind of #evidence I needed.

there are a lot of cases where I can't join either camp. Most of the time in life we just don't know but in that position most people find it easier to jump to one side of the fence or the other. I'm comfortable with uncertainty, always have been.

Most 'camps' are cults. You dont ever want to fall into one of the pre-determined groups. Once you do, you are only allowed certain thought. Its all hivemind. Life doesnt operate in perfect little boxes, neither should the mind.

From a psychological perspective i always argue we are born anarchist. Then we get conditioned.

Like being religious. It's all about indoctrination

That's arguably one of the best descriptions of anarchism that I've ever come across. As someone who has witnessed firsthand all of the bloody chaos that governments create, I can agree with this. But keep in mind that it's also a necessity to find some form of peace within the evergoing chaos. That's the challenge. People aren't inherently good or evil. There always was, is, and will be conflict. We cannot avoid such a reality. Escaping in to a mental fairytale will only make such matters even more bonkers. ๐Ÿคทโ€โ™‚๏ธ

Oh course there will always be conflict. We're also not utopian in our ideals either. Violence will always exist, but when a group grants itself special powers and concentrates the violence into an ever expanding leviathan, that is much more a problem than anything that would happen absent government. Large scale wars only occur because of power concentration and unlimitef funding. Without the power to tax and print money, wars will be small and short lived

The Most Dangerous Superstition indeed.

Jesus said it best: "rend unto Caesar"...let those who claim to rule over men think whatever they wish. But remember that the only true ruler is God and that "all men are created equal", regardless of what some may think. There's no need for violence. Just let them play in their little sandbox and place one's own attention on the self-evident truths that led us to freedfom in the first place.

Amen to that brother๐Ÿ”ฅ๐Ÿ™

anarchists threw bombs once and get labelled "bomb-throwers", but the USA bombs people for >100 years but its okay because they signed the right forms

nostr:nevent1qqs08erhzz7pvemjgr2pcetlje2zghh8y9r2mhpnhs5rt0wsnmd6k6gpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduhsygxm3u53mnu5jdel2gjqwr977natszu6356rgfr2eg07xsg5e3ga6qpsgqqqqqqstfnpch

Insurrectionary anarchists did engaged in (physical) violence but they don't represent all anarchists of course as their opposite school of thought, the anarcho pacifism, is a valid approach for the anarchist strategy

The first is who I was leaving out by mentioning principled. And I think pacifism is useless. If you're not willing to fight when needed, well good luck with that

I think it dependes to what extent nonviolence is useful. Self-defense is the only form of acceptable "violence" for me (as last resort when nonviolent action couldn't sort out)

Pacifists by definition do not believe in self defense under any circumstance. That's immoral in its own right. I cant get behind any ideals that allow sitting by while an innocent is harmed and a person does nothing because of a twisted sense of morality.

Some pacifists accept self-defense as legite

"I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence... I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honour than that she should, in a cowardly manner, become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor."

"Though violence is not lawful, when it is offered in self-defence or for the defence of the defenceless, it is an act of bravery far better than cowardly submission. The latter befits neither man nor woman. Under violence, there are many stages and varieties of bravery. Every man must judge this for himself. No other person can or has the right."

(Mahatma Gandhi)

https://www.mkgandhi.org/nonviolence/phil8.php

I see no differece between the NAP and this. I would never consider a person saying these words a pacifist.

Let me say this, I wouldnt never even remotely consider someone willing to fight back as a pacifist. That changes the defintion. The same word cannot logically include someone who is opposed to violence no matter what and someone who would use it in defense only. That is two drastically different ideals that one word cannot describe both rationally.

Maybe because you're considering the absolute pacifism the only approach about the term, but there are more pacifist's variants.

Absolute vs. Contingent Pacifism

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pacifism/#AbsoVsContPaci

Yea I absolutely do not consider other flavors as I dont consider them pacifism. I know these terms exist. I just dont agree they are pacifism though. They water down the meaning of the word

Let me rephrase what I am trying to say. When the word pacifist is used alone, that has imo a very specific meaning. If used with a clarifying adjective, then that's whatever that one means. Get what Im saying? Its a personal thing with me, I find all the subsets of subsets of larger ideals irritating. I rarely will even talk about the specific flavors of anarchy much anymore. They all have their merits, but to me, so long as its grounded in natural law, its all anarchy to me.

A word can have a lot of different meanings, depending on the contex

All Im saying is the word pacifist, by itself, has a commonly understood meaning. If its something else that involves a qualifier, then that should be used for clarity.

Just keep sharing the messageโ€ฆ the time for armed struggle will come

If it gets to that, well so be it. Hopefully it doesnt, but lots of crazy going on right now

So true!