#ToRandians #StirnerStompsObjectivists

Agorism is closest to Nick Land's philosophy and u/acc than any other anarchist philosophies. Unlike other anarchist branches—such as ancom & ancap—agorism does not treat the state as an explicit enemy. Instead, agorism just simply bypasses the state, opting to ignore it entirely; its strategy is not to confront the state directly, but to gradually drain it—effectively starving it to death. For precisely these reasons, agorism, among the various ideologies that hold differing stances toward the state, is the one that presents the most Cthulhu-esque perspective.

Marx's worst nightmare: MAX STIRNER

Don't buy weird coins. Buy Monero. monero:native

We need a lovecraftian anarchism. RIGHT NOW.

Average people who like post-structuralist philosophy but dislike Stirner:

We often remain silent regarding the punishment of those who act in anti-social ways or break taboos, while simultaneously expressing our revulsion toward them. Yet, every individual possesses a unique personality and set of characteristics; in a truly perfect society, no one should be subjected to oppression. Even if someone has committed an act so horrific that it defies description, there should be no place for punishment rooted in abstract concepts or the exercise of authority. The dichotomy between "normal" and "abnormal" serves as a foundation for oppression and injustice. Establishing a standard of "normality"—and subsequently attempting to reform the "abnormal" or forcibly assimilate them into a socially prescribed "correct" mold—is an inherently authoritarian endeavor. In reality, the concept of "normality" did not come first. It was the category of the "abnormal" that was initially constructed—by the weak—with "normality" then established as its direct antithesis. The weak habitually designate certain things as "filthy," "horrific," or "bizarre," labeling them "abnormal." They then contrast their own servile values ​​against this "abnormality," framing their own way of being as "good"—that is, as "normal." Consequently, a standard of "normality" constructed in this manner only retains its meaning so long as the "abnormal" remains truly "abnormal." However, the concept of "abnormal" can only exist if there is a corresponding concept of "normal." This reveals that the very standards of "normal" and "abnormal"—which underpin the foundations of our society—are entirely fictitious. Although society is merely an aggregate of individuals and possesses no independent existence, many aspects of contemporary society are permeated by concepts designed to justify the domination of the individual by society. Who gets to decide what is "normal" and what is "abnormal"? True objectivity is impossible, as every human being is inherently subjective. Yet, society sets a cunning trap: it labels the consensus of the majority as "objective," operating on the assumption that the minority has also implicitly consented to it. Social contract theory, too, was established through such sophisticated wordplay. A perfect society, however, does not exist. Society can only ever be maintained through coercion, and the "voluntary society" envisioned by left-wing anarchists (those dreamers) would, in practice, include only a select group of individuals. (Ultimately, this merely recreates the very distinction between the "normal" and the "abnormal.") For this reason, the concept of society itself must be dismantled—and it is precisely for this reason that I am an "Ankoinist" (a non-socialist). We must reclaim our wild nature—let us become human wolves! In conclusion, if you are an anarchist who opposes all forms of coercion, you must recognize the injustice inherent in these constructs—for the standards of "normal" and "abnormal" are themselves a form of coercion, as is the act of punishing those who fail to conform to them. Of course, whether or not you accept this argument of mine is your choice.

Who wants to see a debate btwn Slavoj Žižek and Hans-Hermann Hoppe? If this comes to fruition, I'll be fully looking forward to it. It will be literally A radical left that employs Marxism, Hegelian dialectics, and Lacanian psychoanalysis as its weapons vs A radical right who wields Austrian School economics, ancap, and Argumentation ethics as his weapons. Which one of the two do you think will win?