u/Homicidal_hottie666

There has been some debate about this in the discord server to say the least, which inspired me to write my take on nihilism. Upon looking into the debate i have unfortunately noticed how nihilism and defeatism were seen as synonymous with one another. Defeatism is just one response to nihilism, often taken up by either A: those with extreme depression or something similar, or B: those who have a fundamental misunderstanding of what nihilism is trying to get at. I used to dabble in anarcho-nihilism, and while i still respect it overall i moved away from it, feeling as though it was missing something. A lot of it kinda boiled down to "we're fucked either way, let's revolt regardless", which i can get behind but still feels rather defeatist. People talk about the praxis of it all, honestly i'm more of a "by any means necessary" type of mentality when it comes to putting ideas into practice, for the most part i tend to be open to anything so long as it doesn't cross my core values too much. But i'm getting ahead of myself, first we ought to define nihilism, because there's more than one kind and i feel like it just gets muddied from time to time into just "the doomer philosophy"

There is existential nihilism, which is that life has no inherent meaning or purpose. This is the most common definition as well as the one i will be referring most to, and at first glance it's not to see how it can be defeatist, however this is simply not the case. It's more so a critique of various established "truths" such as religion or authoritarianism and the likes to deconstruct the dogma associated with it, and to instead create your OWN meaning. Simply stopping at "life means nothing, fuck you" is stupid. Anyone can do that, i've DONE it. It's not about succumbing to the evils of the world around you, quite the opposite. It's about freeing yourself from the pre-established rules, logic, and societal dogma to live a more fulfilling life. Then there are the other types of nihilism, such as moral nihilism (no actions are inherently good or evil, it's merely a construct), cosmic nihilism (the universe is uncaring and hostile to humans), and epistemological nihilism (the belief that objectivity simply cannot be proven, some people thinking that everything we know COULD in fact be false). I have zero issues with any form of nihilism listed here, in fact i'd say they're so baked into my personal ideals that i hardly even notice them anymore. Now it's no secret the ideas of nihilism have kinda lost its meaning in modern contexts half the time, taking the bare bones definition of what these things are and then not doing anything else with it. This is exactly what pisses me off about people sometimes, they just can't interpret text for the life of them, they don't even try to. People kind of expect the things they consume to give them all the answers by holding their hand the whole step of the way and telling them "this is how it is". False. Much of it is meant to be analyzed and interpreted. It's like how people always go "we want more complex characters" but when you get a complex character all of a sudden they're just evil lmao. It's a similar way with philosophy, which is something you get by, idk, actually reading it

Now, back to the defeatism aspect. This person who i will not name, who claims to be into anarcho nihilism, which i am not inherently against mind you, that they want a better system but have accepted that it is "impossible". Bitch how is that nihilist? This is just giving into the system, even if the outcome is being critical of it. They are also anti civ, which is just anprim nonsense (i think postciv is a much better way of looking at it, not "return to monke"). The praxis that they like is stuff like blowing shit up, which ig you CAN do but it's not really going to be effective. Just feels a bit performative and frankly rather primitive. Again, you can use these tactics, that's whatever, but don't have it be your main method, you have to expand on it. And yes, this does fit into the ethos of nihilism to an extent, i can see that, but nihilism is NOT mindless destruction. We don't want to just stop at burning it down, we ought to create something new. Use nihilism to actively get rid of old values, old systems, old ways of thinking, old governments, etc, and then create new ones, rather than just be like "oh, it's impossible to do so". In the end i don't really care what you do, but for the love of god if you're gonna do it, do it correctly rather than just fall into the rick and morty doomer mindset lmao

Trans people choosing their own name, the names of indigenous people (or any racial minority for that matter), even our online personas all make a statement whether we are conscious of it or not. Whatever name we have is basically how people perceive us, the first thing people learn about us, and what their first perception of us is. When we choose our name, we are taking away what another person's perception of us is. Malcom X and others in the civil rights movements taking away their last names that were given to them by their former slave owners in favor of new ones, Malcom X just having it be an X, or trans people picking new names to better fit their gender. Those are the most notable examples of this. Ofc, the people who reclaim their identities aren't the only ones who see this, and the people that they are rebelling against, be it systemic discrimination, their parents, their community, etc, will try to reassert the identity that fits within their worldview. This is why people and figures would deadname you, to try to force you back into that box. When native americans got sent to boarding schools to try to get them to assimilate into white culture, or when africans first got captured by slavers, the first thing that they did was take away their names. Stripping them of their identity to create a new perception of that person and effectively force them into servitude. On the internet, we have usernames and various aliases. The idea is so that we can keep our identity intact, so that way there is no conceivable way to strip you of your sense of self. By naming yourself, you are basically asserting that others do not have power over you

This is a concept explored by Nyx that i will summarize and give my own takes on here and there. Essentially, it is an attempt at breaking the boundaries found in political theory. In academic spaces, once you reach that point, you'd find that most of the political theory you'd be writing is for other academics who really only like specific viewpoints and a specific method. It's essentially an intellectual circle jerk in the end, at best being marxist ideologically and at worst being liberals. In other words the viewpoint is rather narrow and doesn't value much experimentation, which is precisely why the ccru fled academic spaces. These spaces reject anything truly radical. Not to mention how the theory is presented. There's a reason why post leftist or even just regular leftist politics don't reach as many people and it's how damn academic many of the works are. It just alienates outsiders rather than trying to entice them. Theorypunk aims to sort of decentralize political theory and generate new ideas

For starters, we can utilize new things like youtube, blogs, posts, podcasts, even memes as the new form of communicating ideas, which so far has worked pretty well. It's not much different than the use of zines in terms of the purpose, that anyone can do it and it isn't put through a string of editors deciding what does and what doesn't get put out there, creating vast potential. Plus they'd be free to essentially everyone out there rather than gatekept to a few people. It's supposed to allow amateur theorists and propagandists to shine and generate new ideas at a faster and more accessible scale than before. The fact is as of now the left just worships academia and much of them, even anarchists, tend to be stuck in the 19th and 20th century. It's no wonder why the alt right has spread so quickly, they've adapted before we did, and now it is time for the left to adapt once more

Theory should be treated more as an art form than anything. It should transcend the original author and become an egregore that others can continue to build upon. It should inspire others to be active participants, and like theory shouldn't be subject to ownership from a singular person. It isn't a singular person or group of people going "i alone have found the truth", that is, for lack of a better word, fascistic in nature. It's the death of the author essentially. Essentially it's a lot like making a remix of a pre-existing song or having parts of it sampled until it becomes a completely different song. Ownership of an idea is a ridiculous concept, you can't own an idea. Shit, nobody really truly "owns" anything, tf you think this is? Lmao

In conclusion, the decentralization and evolution of how we both consume and create (emphasis on the latter) theory is a key aspect to unlocking these ideas to the masses, in an unfiltered deluge of unique thought and propaganda in unique aesthetics, media, etc. I'm sure you remember that brief moment where i was more influenced by maoism than i was before due to me looking more into the truth about what china is like and seeing that it's way different from western narratives. While i respect what it has accomplished and might even go there in the future, i now maintain a more critical stance of it and don't glaze it like i once did, much to many of you guy's relief. If you don't remember this, idk what to tell you, lurk moar ig. But anyway, the reason i bring this up is a half confession: while my beliefs genuinely did evolve to an extent at the time, my discussing it in the sub was an experiment. I wanted to see if a single person can change the trajectory of a philosophical movement, space, or thought. And what i found was it has not, if anything it only strengthened the amount of anarchist thought that was in the sub originally. This proves one thing: once a movement begins to evolve there is no going back, and the original creator of whatever space that may be has very little say in the direction it goes in the end. This is good. A theory and philosophy must be routinely updated and continued to be built upon until it becomes a lovecraftian force operating beyond the understanding or comprehension of any who was originally there to witness it. This is why marxists, or any traditional leftist for that matter, tend to get on my nerves slightly, they might call any deviation from the original thought "revisionism", which is essentially leftist for "heresy". As i said before, atheists are just as dogmatic as evangelicals often times. You can't just fall back on old ideas or old movements, that's just stupid. It's reactionary by nature, no other way of looking at it, and idolizing the past leads to stagnation. Obviously you can appreciate the past and even be inspired by it, but it is not our goal. You have to look towards what the future will be. Ironically, all you have to do is look at modern trends and the history of youth culture, the arts (music, tv, film, fashion, aesthetics, etc), politics, generational trends, philosophy, etc. This will give you a pretty solid approximation of the future. You have to take in all the information you can find and interpret it, not parrot it. Stealing water from the cathedral

Thank you for coming to my ted talk lol. Stay noided

So going into the making of this subreddit my views on these religions were fairly tolerant. Early on it was heavily influenced by the occult and while those influences are still there and i consider myself gnostic for the most part (with influence from other things) personally, it's not really the focus of it anymore by any means. My approach to spirituality is a very chaos magick kind of approach, in the sense that you can kind of play with beliefs in order to get a specific outcome, and what that might be entirely depends on what you believe your life should be dedicated to. That logic still applies to this day for the most part, though i am considering evolving it even further. Thus, i never stuck to a single spiritual belief, because i reject the dogma behind all that. Because people have talked shit about my beliefs in the past i didn't want the same for others so i made it a rule not to invalidate other people's spiritual beliefs, christians and the like included. I figured the main issue was the centralization of it and how it was only an issue once people in power got ahold of it, and that there were many individuals who weren't far right lobotomites so i figured it wouldn't be fair to single out a whole religion

Well a few nights ago i was watching some videos when some of what mormons believed came up. Beyond the south park episode and some mormon peers of mine i didn't really know much about their beliefs beyond the fact that it was extremely strict, and i know a mormon or two who can attest to that and have given me some weird stories about it. But i never went in depth. I saw about three videos about mormon beliefs thinking "lol this is pretty weird, culty as shit honestly", which was a vibe i already got but never really looked much into for myself. Then i saw videos that were talking about christianity as a whole. Now, i knew about the history of colonialism and how religion was used as a weapon, i know how it is used these days, but my thought was that it was just authority figures like the state or the actual institution of the religion corrupting its scripture, until i realized that everything we have seen thus far? Fundamentally baked into it. Subtly of course, it's easy to miss it, but very much written in there nonetheless. I read stirner, i read the ccru, i read goldman, i read blessed is the flame, i consumed many philosophers and even media denouncing the concept of religion as nothing more than a tool for control, and while i didn't disagree i was hesitant to fully embrace that concept until i saw it for myself. History has shown that abrahamic religions were nothing but vehicles for europe to oppress powers they deem lesser, and how we can see it subtly baked into every form of colonialism or rhetoric justifying hierarchy within the western world. Yes, a lot of people point to how the bible talks about loving each other and such, and it's good how lately there's been more looking at the bible as a means to deconstruct conservative rhetoric, but all that is undermined because of the actual text contradicting that consistently. When you look at abrahamic messaging, you can see how conservative arguments get crafted so easily, because they shaped a lot of it today. You know that classic western liberal individualist outlook of "you're poor because you're lazy/it's your own fault you ended in this position", which is a very fucked up view to have it btw, abrahamic religion encouraged and basically laid the blueprint for that. Look at videos of those tpusa cucks and tell me i'm wrong, they view homeless people as demonic or possessed, taking the root of the issue and turning it into a religious thing. It exists to uphold the status quo

The reason for my initial stance of the occult being inherently revolutionary was a reaction to the historical oppression inflicted upon non-abrahamic religions and spiritual outlooks. By occult i don't just mean witchcraft, tho that too was stigmatized heavily, but really it could be anything contrary to abrahamic religion. Yes, i know that is a BIG oversimplification, so to make it more specific i mean more shamanistic religions, paganism, just different interpretations of the abrahamic god like with gnosticism where it becomes something entirely new, eastern religions like taoism and buddhism, etc. Yes, these also have their issues in some respects, as do most things, but it never led to the sheer scale and destruction of culture that the european christian dogma did. I don't advocate just going "just bring all those back as the mainstream thing" as cool as that might sound on paper, because that will still need to some variant of social control. Nowhere NEAR as bad as abrahamic religions, as the majority of these aren't concerned with sin or policing morals, but still. Instead i want to bring back the general energy behind them and make it more personalized. See a lot of these are about spiritual enlightenment, which is a very personal journey, and i want to build on that further for a modern context. What that would mean can vary person to person but generally follows the idea of trying to find peace within yourself and understand the world around you and your place in it better, through knowledge, creation, and deconstruction. This can kind of manifest as egoism in a way, which isn't really concerned with individualism in the enlightenment sense, but rather in a way that deconstructs the world around you to try and have an experience more authentic to you, and ofc to make this work you need a community where you can thrive. I will also mention the ccru's take on religion. Essentially they view reality as merely a collection of fiction that has culturally made itself real, and religion is a good example of this. It's the basic concept of hyperstition, and there is no difference between a religion, a universe, or a hoax, as it is all the engineering of manifestation

I see sometimes arguments of athiests reacting with hostility towards abrahamic religions, as i mentioned earlier, and understandably so, but have been very misguided with this approach. Sometimes they attack the individual more than the actual system of religion. I'm talking about my dislike of the religions themselves, and this isn't even a matter of faith for me, it's purely general principle. Most of the abrahamic religions have at least implications of justifying oppression against non-believers. Islam (and i WILL get more on islam here in a second), judiasm, and christianity ESPECIALLY all have notes of this. But their solutions would sometimes include just advocating rebranded colonialism especially in the case of islam. Lemme tell you about orientalism. It is the belief that western nations have developed over hundreds of years about the east, specifically the middle east, north africa, and asia. The idea that the culture of these nations were inherently backwards and oppressive, unruly, is very mysterious/exotic/untamed, stuck in the past, etc. They didn't really view them as distinct cultures with their own unique identities and history, but as one giant monolith interchangeable from one another. This was to frame the west as inherently more civilized and rational to justify colonialism and exploitation of those regions, and that the only solution for them is to forcefully impose western ideals and way of life onto the people of that region, erasing centuries of culture and leaving these nations in a state of ruin. "Oh, but that's just 1800s european thinking", no. It never went away, in fact the US gladly engages in this sentiment as well. The reason why countries in the middle east are so bad rn with all these terrorist groups and all the wars and such is directly because of the west throughout history. Obviously a good idea would be to help them, and the religion of Islam and how it is imposed upon the people is a MAJOR problem, with the restriction of women and gay rights in several islam dominated nations. But surely, dear athiests who hold the sentiment i mentioned, there is a better way than advocating going to war with these already suffering nations and trying to strip them of their cultures to make them more "western", and this isn't me pulling arguments out of my ass either, you have prominent athiests like richard dawkins who think this, even saying he's a "cultural christian". I think that says it all, and what stirner talks about yet again, is how it is so ingrained in people that even athiests can't help but think in the same way as a christian fundamentalist would when it comes down to it. Falling into the same sort of dogma and colonialist mindset they claim to have rebelled from, and that is just how ingrained this tradition of one dogma going to another place and forcing it onto others. I disagree with any kind of theocracy and i don't think religion should have any say over culture whatsoever. We saw the puritanism of the medieval times or the christo-fascists of today for christians. We see the brutality taliban and isis for islam. We see the genocidal and abhorrent atrocities committed by the zionism of israel. It's not something that is abused by the powerful, it IS the powerful

Now, the idea for a solution would be this: religion should be a personal experience and choice, and nothing more. Kind of a don't force it on me and i won't force it on you type of deal. As for society itself, it should be as neutral possible in both government and culture. The us is officially secular, legally speaking, but look at america for two seconds and tell me it ISN'T a christian nation in every other aspect lmao. The first europeans who started coming over here were there for religious reasons, and we've had so many religious movements and so many revivals with any major cultural change that it's very much baked into the culture and so it naturally came over into the government especially during the cold war, to distinguish themselves from their more socialist enemies. So the chuds are correct that the us is a christian nation, and that is exactly what i am against. To say it's not a christian nation just because the constitution says it would be an insult to the countless indigenous people who died because of it, and have had their world reshaped in a way that still affects the community to this day, be it columbus, manifest destiny, or the boarding schools. Tell that to black people, who's ancestors were slaves who were taught USING THE BIBLE that they were inferior and deserved to be in chains. Tell that to the people of the middle east who have been bombed relentlessly by US troops for economic benefit, often with religion as a factor into it especially once israel gets involved in all this. Tell that to Polynesian islanders or people in asia who, due to the same orientalist logic supplemented by europe, were subject to colonialism to try and "save" these nations. I DARE you to tell those people that the US isn't a christian nation. Now, it is important to note that i'm not trying to single out anyone who is muslim or jewish or even christian, quite the opposite. Imposing your idea of spirituality onto others is the opposite of what i'm trying to do here. Instead, i urge people to look at what they were given, look at other people's ideas, and build on all of it until it becomes your own, and that's only if you'd like. You don't need a religion to function, you can live perfectly fine without it. Do rabbits pray every night before they go to bed? I don't think so, and they're doing just fine. All i want is for people to have a nuanced view of it and reject any sort of dogmatic thinking attached to it. Be spiritual, don't be spiritual, but the second you impose outdated morals onto others or in any way make them feel that they are lesser or inherently evil, then there's an issue, and thus i have an issue with the majority of abrahamic religions having influence over any idea, society, government, philosophy, etc. The quakers are kinda cool tho

Tbh i don't really care that much. It was an old controversy, Micheal already apologized and admitted it was shitty, and i can see how people might take offense to a joke like that. As a person of color myself, yeah it was shitty but i don't think he was malicious in the slightest, it's kind of just a take the L and move on, be a better person type of deal for me

People have been blowing this thing WAY out of proportion tho, imo. It's good to criticize this kind of thing but it's getting excessive, some people have been acting like it was way worse than it was and calling for boycotts and shit. There are way more productive things to be worried about in the world rather than 7 year old drama, and i think they should leave twitter and go find some hobbies