If I hate the industrial system, I can’t indulge myself in the instant gratification that industrial society has to offer. Frankly, modern society is tortuous to live under, due to a lack of meaning within our lives (and a lack of hope about one’s life as a side effect), as well as a lack of personal autonomy, both of which are only made worse by the modern addictions.

 

To the average westerner, the notion that we have a lack of personal autonomy may seem to be an odd concept. After all, we can vote, and the police supposedly protect us from whatever harm comes our way, and we just have to do some finger taps on a handheld device, a phone, for them to save us. We can choose whatever hobby on the side that we’d like, whatever career we’d like, and whatever flavour of toothpaste or slushie we’d like, so we must be free! In actuality, nothing could be farther from the truth. Modern society gives us the option to make superficial decisions in our lives, while forcefully attempting to rob us of our ability to actually decide the circumstances of our own life in a meaningful way.

 

Social media, video games, pornography, television, soda, junk “food”, increasingly refined drugs, etc... These are the things the industrial age has to offer us as an escape from the reality it’s created, and none of these things are genuinely fulfilling. We never “needed” or used any of these things back when humanity led fulfilling lives. We wake up, get ready for work, transport ourselves to work, stay at work for 8 or 9 hours, and then come home, still thinking about work, only to numb ourselves with some form of entertainment, and do it all over again the next day, 5 days a week, for the rest of your life until you’re too old to do so. With the rest of the week, the 2 days, being used to recover from the emptiness of those 5 days, with even more emptiness of television, web surfing, and edible garbage. In our contemporary society, this usually comes in the form of Netflix or Youtube for most people. We fill our minds with the thoughts of others all day, whether it be by listening to music all day, watching youtube videos for hours on end, being bossed around at school or work all day, or whatever else. Modern society has seemingly killed the ability for anyone to shut out input from other minds, and to leave only your own mind at the works. Modern society has killed inner reflection, almost.

 

In a society where it is in fashion to be depressed and not to care for yourself, where it is in fashion to “choose the safe route” and live as a comfortable slave, where it is in fashion to waste the most important asset we all have, our time, in favour of fleeting moments of gratification, it’s a wonder that there hasn’t been a form of actual revolt en masse.

 

A lot of people wonder how to effectively revolt against this society. If you’re one of these people: Start with this. Eat whole, unprocessed foods, drink water instead of soda, sleep a full night, read books instead of compulsively going on Youtube or a weird meme app, journal your thoughts on paper instead of going on Twitter, meditate instead of scrolling through Reddit, lift weights and go on walks instead of diddling your dong, essentially, do all of the basic self impovement things you can think of. And, only use phones, computers, and the like, when the circumstances absolutely force your hand. In short, realign yourself with the way humans are the most genuinely fulfilled living. Like our ancestors.

 

Why is realigning yourself with the way our ancestors lived, revolt against the modern world? This is why.

 

Under what conditions did the human mind evolve? When we were free: to hunt and forage our own food, to travel without borders, with a tight knit community of less than 200 people, when we fought everyday to survive, when the hunt was glorious, when we had the power to truly decide the circumstances of our own destiny, free from any government, hierarchical organizations, advertisements, politicians, or cops. 99% of human history was like this, in hunter-gatherer societies. We were not meant to live how we are now. Our minds haven’t evolved for it and continuing to live like modern man renders us neutered sheep. By realigning our minds closer to how we evolved to live, we align ourselves in the most fulfilling and natural way. The way that makes us stronger, mentally and physically.

 

It makes sense. People in hunter-gatherer societies didn’t have 24/7 access to hyperstimulating videos and sound that rewired their natural brain circutry; they didn’t constantly have poison marketed towards them as food; they didn’t live in a society where they were conditioned to accept following orders all day. They didn’t live in a society where they felt as if to survive, they had to put on a mask, shoving deep inside the back of their minds, who they actually are.

 

Civilization itself has lasted for only 1% of the human experience, and every single time it has left people yearning for freedom and collapsed: with our contemporary civilization facing an even worse collapse and an even more miserable existence for its citizens. When it comes to rulership, it’s not about the exact political form of that rule, whether it be democracy, oligarchy, dictatorship, etc... but rather the ability to enforce that rule, which determines how tyrannical that rule is. Renaissance era Italy was filled to the brim with dictatorships, and yet we all get the impression that renaissance era Italy allowed for far more personal freedom than our society does. This is largely due to the fact that the dictatorships in renaissance era Italy didn’t have the technological prowess to enforce their rule effectively. There were no security cameras, no organized, militarized police forces, no handheld devices in everyone’s pockets that could easily be used to track their location and where they’ve been, no cars with clearly marked license plates, etc...

 

But, we live in the modern age. We have to deal with all of these things: the invasion of privacy from security cameras, the cops, companies like google trying to collect every single bit of information they possibly can get from us, etc... Logistically, we can’t just all escape and live in the woods anymore, for a few reasons, mainly because the woods are somehow “owned” by wealthy people, so we’ll get fined or persecuted for trespassing, and the resources that were once plentiful are now scarce.

 

So, it is more difficult nowadays to embrace self-reliance on an individual level. But it’s not impossible. Everybody can start by rejecting the small things that enslave our minds even further. Habits create a snow-balling effect that lead up to something gargantuan, if done consistently and for long enough. No act of revolt, no matter how small, is useless.

 

For an example: I’m what you’d call a “teenager” or “generation Z” and I’ve felt the social pressures of the supposed “need” for social media. When aquaintances at school talk to me, they always ask for any social media pages I may have so they can speak to me through there. I usually tell them I don’t have any. They react in shock and ask me how I keep in touch with my friends. To the average student, one needs social media in order to “stay in touch”, to retain friendships. They say they aren’t addicted, but spend hours a day responding to people on social media. There is the worry, that without the SnapChat streaks or whatever else, the “friendship” will fade away, even if people won’t readily admit it. I, thankfully, have the based and red-pilled sigma grindset so I don’t care for such things, as friendship. Jokes aside, even though not using social media itself isn’t inherently that impressive of an act, it goes a long way in shaping the course of your life. Whenever I didn’t have school, I would be one of those chicks with a 12 hour screen time on my phone, that time being spent mainly by making digital artwork, scrolling on social media, and watching videos. Not that long ago, I would spend half of my entire weekend watching Youtube videos, and roughly 8 months ago, I was a twitter and instagram addict. Nowadays, I only use my phone to edit these videos and to message people, so I spend less than 20 minutes on my phone a day on average. I realized the reason I was addicted to Twitter is because I needed an outlet to write out my ideas, so I journal instead. And the reason I was addicted to Instagram, was because I wanted people to see my artwork and comment on it, so I started making traditional artwork and showing it to people in real life. The reason I was addicted to Youtube, and still at times go on it today, is because I thirst for knowledge, so I use z-library to download whatever book I want from the internet so I can read that instead. My time management and attention span is a heck of a lot better than what it used to be!

 

Interpersonal relationships have become more and more shallow as technological progress marches on, and my story about the students and their SnapChat streaks is just one manifestation of it. The disintegration of social relationships is the logical conclusion of industrial society. Here’s how. The technological system benefits from weakening family ties and local communities, and has to in order to function effectively. If people had more loyalty to their small-scale communities, then small scale communities would pursue their own benefit to the dismay of the techno-industrial system. Industrial societies that don’t weaken family ties and local communities to a great extent are quite inefficient, like all of Latin America: where people will commonly hire family and friends to do a job instead of the person most qualified, for example. A partial exception to the industrial system benefitting from the breaking down of small scale communities are those inward-focused communities like the Amish, which have little impact on modern society.

 

Aside from a general, holistic self improvement, developing certain hobbies can increase your independence from this modern world. For example, I’m learning how to sew because I really don’t want to buy clothing. As you may be able to tell from the sound of my voice, shopping takes a long time for me and it’s a pain in the arse since the fashion industry is absolutely despicable. I hate it. Other than hobbies where you create what you need -like sewing or gardening- there are also hobbies that increase your privacy and security, like learning about computer security and how computers work, so those 3 letter agencies aren’t able to subpoena tech companies for your personal information. There are hobbies that liberate your mind by changing your mindset. For example, as is the case for many people, working out, which could also be considered a part of a general self-improvement, would help one realize that effort begets reward, because the reward is physically visible on your body, which changes all aspects of your life. This is unlike other hobbies, where the progress made is not so readily available to see, like making art. With art, you have to find an old artwork you made and compare it to a recent one in order to see the progress, and making art doesn’t impact all areas of your life. Though, it is beneficial.

 

Now, why do I speak about these things? Why do I exalt the idea of self improvement as revolt against the modern world? With this being my daily habit, philosophy, and well... politics? Simplicity! Having your actions align with your beliefs makes life much simpler. It is such a gorgeous and wholesome experience. Modern society complicates life a lot, and nobody wants a more complicated life. So why not embrace the exact opposite of modern society, anarchy?

 

 

 

 

 

WHAT LEFTISTS SAY THEY BELIEVE IN

 

Leftists say that they believe in anti-capitalism, anti-racism, anti-sexism, anti-ableism and the like, which is fair enough. There's nothing inherently wrong with those values at all. In my opposition to both leftist and right-wing ideology, I do not equate the two. However, there are more beliefs that underlie leftism than merely an opposition to capitalism and bigotry. As I've said previously, leftism and right wing ideology share many important similarities that render them both fighting for the same system when looked at from the broader picture. This is seen in their beliefs.

 

WHAT LEFTISM AND RIGHT WING IDEOLOGY HAVE IN COMMON AT THEIR CORE

 

Both believe that it's the duty of the individual to serve society and the duty of society to, in turn, “take care” of the individual. Even though they don’t outright say it in this manner, leftists want society to satisfy and take care of everyone, and solve people's problems on their behalf.  While right-wingers don't want that, they still believe that the individual has a "duty" to society, to serve society, and to "play a role" in society, and for the people who don’t fulfill that, to be punished, in other words, “taken care of”, by being sent to jail, for example. Both leftist and right-wing ideologies are collectivist, and neither have beliefs that actually challenge existing society. Leftist and Rightist ideologies masquerade as rebellious, but neither are. 

Both leftists and right-wingers want the continuation of civilization, which is obvious. But why is wanting to continue civilization a harmful thing? Here's why.

 

The Greeks were right that civilization necessitates slavery, but instead of using this as a justification for slavery of any type, I use this fact as another reason to why it's preferable to have civilization collapse. All civilizations collapse eventually, either with a sudden collapse or a drawn-out decline, like the Roman Empire. Because civilizational collapse, with all of the death and destruction that comes with it, is inevitable, I prefer a cutting of the losses. It's better to have civilization fall sooner rather than later. This is to prevent much unnecessary suffering and many more deaths, especially with our rapidly increasing world population. It sounds grim, but we live in grim times. Neither socialists nor conservatives realize that, and they carry on with their delusions that civilization and democracy can somehow be "saved". 

 

 

PEOPLE ARE TIRED OF LEFTISM

 

There's no doubt about it. No matter how hard anarcho-leftists try, people will never stop associating leftism with Marxism, and especially the USSR. Nothing leftists do gets people to stop viewing leftism as an ineffective, sluggish belief system, and it doesn’t help in bringing birds of a feather to flock together, since there’s such an immense variety in the kinds of people who call themselves leftist, to the point where even leftists have difficulty in deciding who is leftist. Are social democrats leftist? Are Stalinists leftist? Are those people who support capitalism while being extremely socially progressive, leftist? Who knows. Leftists don’t even know, which I suppose is the critical weakness of criticisms of leftism. (It’s impossible to precisely define what I’m criticizing!) So the term, "leftism", is of little use to us anarchists, or anyone as a method of identifying their own beliefs, really.

 

Not only that, but leftists take over the movements they join, and distort said movements goals to leftist goals. Take Earth First! for an example. It was an environmentalist group turned leftist. This also applies to anarchism. Nowadays, if you call yourself an anarchist, people will assume that you are a leftist. Previously, even the anarchist communists of the past made damn sure to separate themselves from the other communists, but now, we have idiots online (and sometimes in real life) promoting “left unity”, with anarchists included.

 

LEFTIST PSYCHOLOGY

 

Leftism is more than just a collection of beliefs. There is also a particular psychological component to modern leftism. You don't have to be a Jordan Peterson fanboy to come to the realization that the leftist 'movement'  has an overall trend of deep rooted feelings of inferiority. Not just feelings of inferiority in a strict sense though, but also guilt, self-hatred, low self-esteem, defeatism, depressive tendencies, etc… Here's how this ties in with leftist beliefs. Leftists identify with the groups that they are advocating for, which is precisely why they are so picky over how those groups are referred to. They’ll never admit this, but deep down inside, they view these groups as defeated, in the case of American Indians, weak, in the case of women, repellent, in the case of queer people, etc… which is why they identify with these groups so much. (Not to say that individuals within these demographics are necessarily any of those adjectives, of course.) If somebody interprets everything that is said about them to be negative, we would say that person has low self esteem or feelings of inferiority. The words “broad” and “chick” were merely the equivalent of “dude” or “fellow”. The words “negro” “oriental” and “handicapped” merely referred to Africans, East Asians, and the disabled. None of these words had negative connotations until leftists made it so.

 

Most leftists don’t do their advocacy out of the kindness of their hearts, they do it in order to fulfill their own need for power. If leftists actually advocated for their positions out of the kindness of their hearts, they would actually do so effectively, on non-dogmatic terms.

 

My last video spoke about how modern leftist advocacy is inherently ineffective, because leftists hold the same values as mainstream society, and holding the same values as the thing you swear to be fighting against, is not at all conducive to actually fighting against that thing you swear to be fighting against. However, in my last video, I didn’t speak about why leftists hold these mainstream values, I merely said they did. Here’s an explanation as to why. It’s because leftists are oversocialized. This term may sound a bit weird, because it sounds like something an asocial hermit would complain about, but it actually makes a lot of sense. In the realm of psychology, socialization is the process by which individuals acquire the values, habits, and attitudes of the society in which they live. Leftists, a very important and influential segment of them, are definitely quite socialized, and it’s to a harmful degree.

 

The societies we live in have strict moral codes that ensure that practically every human being is “immoral” in some way or another. We aren’t supposed to lie, to steal, to use underhanded hacks to get ahead, to hate people, to break laws, etc…. One prominent way our societies force this moral code upon children is by shaming their behaviour when they do something contrary to societal expectations. For many people, their quest to behave, think, and feel morally puts a great burden on their shoulders. In order to avoid guilt, these many people delude themselves as to what their real motivations and thoughts are, and find, for their actions and emotions, moral explanations where there are none possible. These people are what one would reasonably call oversocialized. Not all leftists are oversocialized though, the leftists with the most prominent oversocialization tend to be white, straight, middle to upperclass males, and especially, deeply entrenched within academia. Essentially, the demographics that are most oversocialized are those most entrenched within playing roles that align with societal values. A poor black person is going to have more difficulty becoming oversocialized because they aren’t expected to play a harmonious role within society.

 

ANTI-WORK

 

Work is forced or coerced labor. All civilizations have relied upon work. I am against work, and I love to do difficult, genuinely fulfilling things when it is my choice. Sometimes leftists call themselves anti-work, but leftism itself isn't conducive to that belief.

 

Leftists support civilization, and civilization necessitates forced or coerced labor, which is reason enough as to why leftism isn’t conducive to actually being anti-work, despite certain parts of leftist ideologies genuinely desiring to be anti-work (like those Marxists who really love Marx and say that the hell of capitalism is not the boss, but the firm)

 

ANTI-ORGANIZATION

 

Leftists will often say that they are not necessarily opposed to the anarchist method of organizing, of doing things horizontally as opposed to vertically. Leftists will even at times say that they aren't opposed to values that anarchists commonly hold dear, like mutual aid. However, just because leftist individuals say this, does not mean that leftism itself is kind to these values.

 

Leftists have always pretended to be against the tools of the status quo before getting into power, and once in power, they use those same tools to oppress people. The Bolsheviks are a prime example. Before they got into power, the Bolsheviks were vehemently opposed to censorship, but once they got into power, censorship was all too common. The same applies to the supposed Bolshevik opposition to the repression of ethnic minorities and the existence of secret police. Lenin also appropriated anti-authoritarian rhetoric in order to make his ideas seem more appealing:

 

“While the State exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no State.” -V.I. Lenin, State and Revolution

 

but we all know he was anything but anti-authoritarian. Leftism, however, is more than the Bolsheviks, so for more examples of leftists double-crossing and shitting on non-leftist revolutionaries and leftists of a more libertarian inclination:

 

-The Stalinist onslaught of anarchists in revolutionary Catalonia in 1938

 

- Castro and his followers silencing and repressing anarchists in Cuba

 

-The KKE (which is a Greek Communist party)  cooperating with against anarchists and welcoming fascist group, Golden Dawn into a steelworkers' strike on February 17^th 2022

 

-And, in contemporary times, although this isn’t particularly an attack on revolutionaries of any sort, leftists that previously said they were for academic freedom now have a stronghold in universities, and now are taking away academic freedom through political correctness.

 

Roughly 12 seconds ago, I mentioned leftists of a more libertarian inclination, so let’s talk about them. They will always lose when faced with the authoritarian leftist. Power-hungry, authoritarian leftists, are better at building a base of power and shutting down those who speak out against them due to their authoritarian methods.

 

 

SYSTEMS VS. GOALS

 

Communists say “the ends justify the means”. The anarchist says “the means are the ends”. The anarchist will continue to live out their philosophy even after “the revolution” has been reached. The communist stops once “the revolution” has come.

 

In his famous book, Atomic Habits, James Clear speaks about the difference between successful and unsuccessful people. The difference is not in their goals, but in the systems they use to achieve those goals. Both poor and rich people have the goal to be rich, but the new rich are rich because of the systems they put in place for accomplishing their goal. The poor person who aspires to be a wealthy business owner, but stays poor nonetheless, has the wrong system for accomplishing the goal.

 

To relate this back to communism, both anarchist and non-anarchist communists desire communism, meaning that they have the same goal. It’s their systems that are vastly different. Though, both of them fail, and for different reasons. Authoritarian communists want to use the state in order to get to a stateless society, because there has to be a transition period between where we are now and communism. Supposedly, the state will wither away once communists use the state to abolish class distinctions, because the state relies upon class distinctions in order to exist. This notion, of course, is a joke.

 

Governments cannot “wither away”, as is obvious from knowing the common sense that governments always want to maintain their power no matter which party is in government. This is also proven by historical example: The USSR or Maoist China made no slight inclination towards “withering away”, or towards lessening their government’s power over its citizens. Even if every country was like the USSR, their governments wouldn’t “wither away” to bring about a stateless society.

 

Anarchist communists, on the other hand, actually do want to practice communism in the here and now, by giving free food to people that they shoplifted themselves (mutual aide), or by creating the same neighborhood councils that would supposedly exist within a communist society. The strategy of the anarchist communists is to get communism by doing communism. Much more logical than the plan of the authoritarian communists, yes? But it’s still flawed.

 

Although the anarchist communists have a much more logical method of achieving their goals, there’s still a reason as to why anarchist communist experiments only work fine for a couple of years, and then dissipate out of existence in what feels like the blink of an eye. The reasons for this being that

 

1) It’s not possible to create a sustainable anarchy within civilization

2) Anarchists, historically speaking, tended to be poor people (and still kinda are haha), that don’t have all the fancy weapons and resources that the state has.

3) Sedentary societies are far more susceptible to attack

 

For the first reason: Civilization requires hierarchies of power to exist. You need government for civilization to exist, and urban areas too. Urban areas require an economy, so civilization requires forced submission to markets, bosses, and rulers.

 

Anarchy is, by definition, devoid of all such things, but anarchists themselves are surrounded by civilization. If we are surrounded by systems of centralized power, which always want to expand, we are going to be gobbled up. It’s not possible to have anarchy survive for any significant period time hen it’s surrounded by governments with powerful militaries and police forces who want anarchists taken out. Even if anarchists do a good job handing one such country, we can’t handle being surrounded by them. Anarchists eventually (and understandably) break.

 

Not only that, but because the base of civilization itself inherently consists of hierarchies of power with every aspect of its existence, like mass food production, so trying to build a societal anarchy within a city or any area like that is plain silly. It’s like trying to treat a deep wound by putting a wet paper towel on it. We can’t put an anarchic mask on an authoritarian structure and expect that to reasonably function.

 

For the second reason: Historically, anarchists have been poor immigrants, with some middle class people thrown into the mix, with an incredibly small minority of rich people in the movement as well. Nowadays, it’s a bit more balanced, with a higher number of middle class people. Nonetheless, the state has nukes. And massive tanks. And airflight carriers. It’s not possible, especially nowadays, for anarchists to have a full on traditional style war with the state the way that anarchists have done prior. Even if anarchists hypothetically did with a more covert, guerrilla style of warfare, bringing military in to fight against anarchists would merely make people hate anarchists even more for causing such chaos. While we don’t have to convince everybody to like us, it is difficult to have any kind of movement if the public around you wants to actively stop what you’re doing. Something like revolutionary Catalonia or the territory of the Black Army of Ukraine can never happen again. Especially considering that they were mass movements, and most people in said territories were at least sympathetic to anarchism.

 

For the third reason: It is not that difficult to catch someone staying still, but it becomes far more so if they are constantly moving around. There are still hunter gatherer societies, with no advanced technology whatsoever, that have survived for thousands of years. Contrast this to anti-authoritarian communist attempts that last for at most a couple years.

 

 

FOR BEING AMORAL

Morality is inferior to ethics, and there is a difference. Morality is rigid, and doesn’t give way to critical thinking. If somebody says to themselves “I’m never going to eat pork because it’s immoral”, that’s pretty silly because it’s circular logic. “I’m never going to eat pork because it’s immoral” “Why is it immoral?” “Because it is!” Or, as an alternative response, “it’s immoral because God said so”, okay, and why did God say so? “Because it’s immoral!” or “Because it’s a sin!”. Saying that it’s always “wrong” to do something, gives way to a dangerous leap in logic that ignores context.

 

For an example, schools are especially notorious for this. It doesn’t matter if somebody who was getting picked on sucker-punches the person who was making his life a living hell, the person who avenges themselves is the one who gets punished, not the brat, because according to schools “violence is wrong”. See how cucked morality is?

 

ANTI-POLITICS

When I think about this topic, all I conclude that I’m simply quite happy being an anarchist. I’m not right or left wing, I am just grilling. I don’t even watch or read the news and this is the happiest I’ve ever been. Fuck politics.

 

ANTI-PACIFISM

Leftists often try to portray themselves as nonviolent, because apparently, violence isn’t appealing to people. That may be true for the upper class, but it’s not true everybody else. Poor people love violence! They cheer and rally for it, like in the support of war and harmful political policies.

 

WHY I LOVE ANARCHY

Anarchy, literally translates to “no rulers” or “no rule”. It is defined in terms of negative freedoms, as in, freedom from something. This means that anarchy is quite diverse in the range of ideas compatible with it, because anarchy is not a strict ideology. That’s great for me, because I can call myself an anarchist while not being a leftist!

 

 

 

 

https://libcom.org/article/greek-stalinists-welcome-fascist-involvement-workers-dispute