u/Drakosor

Slowly the authorities are reducing and taking away our rights. It is like boiling a frog. If you put a frog in boiling water, it will jump out. But if you put a frog in lukewarm water, and slowly raise the temperature to boiling, it will get boiled alive. I don't know if this is true or myth. But it reveals two things. People will allow things to slowly deteriorate, without taking defensive action. And humans are cruel enough to experiment on frogs by boiling them.

You only have those rights that you defend. If you do nothing, while they take away your privacy and freedom, they will continue to take them away, until we are living in a totalitarian surveillance state. So exercise your freedom, your freedom to express your opinion, your freedom to protest. As many of you as possible, they can't put all of you in prison.

Never have I been this alone and empty my entire life. It feels as if Im hollow inside. I dont know who I am. I dont know what I should do. My life has no purpose. I feel like an external observer, not bound to reality. Im completely detached from all things. I have almost no friends.

I even noticed that I am finding comfort on collapse or the end of everything, not just myself. I just wanted all of this to come to an end, once and for all. I want to stop this story and exit. My inexistence is not enough, this reality needs an end.

Life is anything but fulfillment and plenitude. Every moment I exist is a gamble to how much this russian roulette will turn.

There's no rest. There's no end.

I feel I can't do anything. Life is crushing me. What have I done and what could I do? Why all of this harshness? Where and when Im gonna finally rest? When will I find peace? When can I say it's over? When will it be the time to rest? Whos guilty or responsible? What end does this have?

Is it really that Im gonna have to endure an eternity in hellfire? Why me? Why even care? What should the point even be? Where is the comfort I once had? Where are the good moments I have in life? Where can I stop? When is this ride over?

I am 100% an anarchist, and a proud anarchist of color. Anti-hierarchy, anti-state, anti-capitalist, none of my commitments to these values are being questioned. My problem, as someone who makes zines on anarchist theory and used to make videos on anarchism on TikTok before being fed up with MLs, is that nearly all other leftist ideologies talk about liberation. Whether it is people talking about Marxism, Marxist-Leninism, Maoism, POC variations of Marxism, etc.

I fundamentally do not understand how these ideologies can remotely think or envision any, and I mean ANY, of liberation while intentionally upholding the state and not wanting it gone immediately. People then ask me how would the state be immediately gone? My response is always "the state won't be gone tomorrow, but we HAVE to create alternative structures OUTSIDE of the state to be dependent on." I understand that approach is slightly more "defensive" than "offensive" since we're not immediately disrupting the state other than excluding our presence in it. But either way, the brain's base is "I do not want a state" and the result is "I will build dual power" or "I will attack the state," both types of anarchists are invited to my cookout.

My problem lies with every single statist ideology. Do these people completely reject the existence of state violence and state domination? It makes incredible and inherent sense that anarchism, an ideology completely rid of the state, situates itself as a libertarian ideology since it treats individual liberty and personal sovereignty as the highest values. Few days ago I posted this

>Marxist-Leninism is only successful if you view success as something being able to grab power. Change your measuring stick to measure actual freedom, actual liberation, sovereignty, and autonomy, and it’s an incredibly failed ideology.

>“if the objectives of those who used the DC [democratic centralist] methods were simply to seize power, then their record during the 20th century was impressive. It has proved itself as brutally efficient and capable of outdoing anything the bourgeois forces are capable of.” - Russell “Maroon” Shoatz, “The Dragon and the Hydra.”

and someone retweeted it saying:

>lemme just tally up my Freedom Points

To which i quickly responded:

>Just say you don’t care about actual freedom, no need to talk all smug about it. this is how i know people who don’t care about that actually aren’t liberationists nor are they interested in genuine liberation for people. they just want some abstract ass revolution with zero actual progress to humanity.

Lately I've been getting more and more frustrated with leftists north of the X-axis in the authoritarian realm. I don't understand how they can have such detailed and complex analyses on damn near everything, and then turn around say they want to seize the state. From my perspective, anyone who wants to seize the state is not anti-state because they need it intact for it to be under their control. State-centered visions of liberation are completely meaningless to me, useless, and completely counter-revolutionary to me no matter how you spin it. How did going after the state become seen as something revolutionary if the state is a bourgeois creation strictly to oppress the many by decisions made by a few?

In my understanding, state socialism advocates for state ownership of the means of production. Industries and natural resources are state-owned, and like all types of anti-state socialists at the time thought it was the most effective form of socialism (which is a weird blanket statement to make on behalf of all socialists, but anyways). Economic systems of ML states were not socialist due to the continued use of commodity production and wages as remuneration. Even if Marxist-Leninists are anti-state because *eventually* they want it to wither away, why do they advocate for state socialism? How have they single-handedly convinced people that liberation will come and the state will disappear after a revolution that puts them in charge? It's completely unfathomable and illogical.

As someone studying Black and African anarchisms, I can say with my chest that there were severe problems with countries in the African post-colonial period that embraced state socialism, this is both my opinion and the opinion of African sociologists. It was attempted by 21 countries within the continent and I think less than 10 times in Europe. I do not understand why Marxist-Leninists or any other authoritarian leftist ideology do not look to the failures of state socialism and say that it was not a socialism problem but a state problem like African anarchists have diagnosed.

In Tanzania, Nyerere wanted to mix traditional precolonial communal values with the then-current ideas of socioeconomic development. His view of socialism did not focus directly on class struggle but rather on the family unit. From 1968-1975 he led Tanzania through a period called villagization which was the consolidation of rural Tanzania into village-style agricultural communities where resources would be collectively shared. His logic makes sense to me, even the part where he said village production would remove the culture of capitalist value and power. But nearly all of the state of Tanzania's agricultural production was done by independent owned farms that were not absorbed into the new state. In the article "Deconstructing Ujamaa: The Legacy of Julius Nyerere in the Quest for Social and Economic Development in Africa," they say that the cultural and lifestyle changes they were expected to embrace by forced collectivization didn't make sense. Even though 96% of children went to school (50% of which were girls), female life expectancy went up, and maternal mortality rates went down, overtime "the state assumed a degree of control over village management and production that some historians have labeled coercive and autocratic, claiming this contradicted the democratic values Ujamaa espoused." What is the trade-off here? How do we as libertarian socialists/anarchists view the strong state oversight of villages against clearly good rates and %'s that were in the green?

In Ghana, Nkrumah adopted a strategy of increasing state-controlled services while putting restrictions on privately owned ones. 60% of bank deposits were at state-run banks, 17% of sea cargo was handled by state-run firms, 27% of industrial production was ran by the state, and the state controlled 35% of total imports. Completely centralized planning, economic mismanagement, and an authoritarian regime is what described Ghana at this point. There was a suppression of political opposition, no free and fair elections, and Ghana became a one-party state. Yet today he is heralded as a Pan-African hero and anticolonial Socialist revolutionary. How do we consistently, CONSISTENTLY, use a measuring stick that that almost NEVER measures actual freedom of the people or sovereignty of the Ghanaian or Tanzania villages? Why is the pure and raw ingenuity of the African peoples (NOT leaders) almost never depended on?

Even in the case of Tanzania. Why did the state pass something the villages were clearly not ready for? Now they are in the drivers' seat of the state's entire production? I don't remotely see that as a problem of socialism because obviously there would be some variant of this European ideology that would value that non-state version of decentralized organizing. So once again I see it 100% as a state problem. Even if the %'s of literacy rates went up and the %'s of mortality went down, HOW did it go down? Could those rates have not changed had there been no state? Obviously those decisions about healthcare and education still need to be made, but shit how were they made BEFORE the state and BEFORE colonization? Sometimes people wag in my face that state socialism (or i guess, state capitalism technically) lifted 900M people out of poverty in China. First off, what is described as poverty? As of 2022, 21% of Chinese people are living in poverty under $5.50. So what if you make $6, is that not poverty anymore? That's still pretty shit. Even in India, 34% lives under a dollar a day? That's ridiculous to me, the arbitrary line of poverty makes no sense because people who earn $2 a day in India or $6 a day in China are still living IN POVERTY if not extreme poverty. Why is China seen as a successful socialist state by MLs and Maoists? People both in capitalist and state socialist societies are suffering. I don't care if they got a bullet train, they're not free! Even dictators and capitalists can build roads, that doesn't justify dictatorships or capitalists.

I know this has turned into a weird rant talking about state socialism and stuff, but my point hopefully is weaved throughout and I just don't understand it. Since authority and the state is clearly a problem in their own right along with being a core part of capitalism, why are these other ideologies such as Marxist-Leninism absolutely winning the propaganda war against anarchism? I'm done ranting, someone help me understand this.

If life or anything has no point, holding a belief in meaninglessness won't be any more meaningful

The question as to whether or not anarchy will ever happen is a result of either ignorance or insistence or stubborn thinking.

The issue is not properly to identify when there will be unconstrained forms of organization, but, rather, reveal what makes it such a thing, in the first place.

One is free when he realizes the only true barrier to his might is his power to achieve things.

One is free when he notices the only obstacle obstructing his volition is his own will.

In other words, one is truly free when they are willing or conscious egoists.

One is free when he takes might and no longs for freedom because he already has it at hands.

If you took might, freedom would come of itself.

Freedom is here and ONLY here. No one but oneself is responsible for making oneself free.

And, so, it boils down to: "Why are we not inserted in anarchy yet? Where is her?"

The problem is that of misunderstanding than of anything else: If anarchy is meant by the abolition of coercion by men over men, then there's a slight difference between anarchy and the awareness or enlightment that is the willing or conscious egoist: Anarchy is when everyone, without exception, takes might or turns into a willing or conscious egoist, being now able to discern and break away from what he has falsely been fulfilling as his cause, which is not himself.

Anarchy is when everyone makes themselves free and, worthy of it, by means of acknowledging and accepting one's desires or egoism.

For to ignore one's responsibility in his own desires or cause, thereof shall he suffer, have to endure pain or not find stability.

We achieve ataraxia or tranquility/peace when we accept we are always only fulfilling our own cause.

For every cause but our own be yearned, thereof no cause but our own is passive of being accomplished.

I think Murray Rothbard put it well when he said that once upon a time, wars between rulers were seen for what they are: wars between rulers. But the rise of nationalism, particularly after the 1800s, helped obfuscate the nature of political conflict and make people believe that wars were between nations; essentially, my tribe vs. yours. It tapped into a very primitive and hard-to-quell aspect of human nature, and the result is that now, people view criticisms of the state as criticisms of their nation, their family, which needless to say is not easy for many to handle.

Mythology is also a powerful tool in the maintenance of state rule over their cattle. Myths are frequently told in order to add a touch of magic to otherwise ordinary phenomenon which would not be tolerated if people viewed them literally, such as in the case of state extortion. You'll hear all sorts of myths depending on where you are about how the nation was born, how the state was born out of a unanimous agreement between the government and the governed, etc. What's sad is that even among libertarians, who are often minarchists, people will tell stories about how the birth of a state allowed for law and order which allows people to have wealth and political freedoms that otherwise would not have come about, implying that if you enjoy the life you have now, you owe your gratitude to the state.

I think the difficult task here, for voluntarists that is, is getting people to disconnect their emotional ties to their nations from the idea that you need a state in order to have it. You can have cultures, civility and economic luxuries without a violent ruling class imposing their demands on everybody. It's a difficult task, but one that's imperative in the effort to create a free world.

I don't really think that much about what I can do in life anymore. I actually find comfort on the end of times or humanity, maybe this time could bring a moment of relief and realization that everything will end.

I feel like there's no point. I say feel because, intellectually or rationally, I know there's a point, an inherent meaning. I don't wanna stress that much how I view things, but, simply put, if there was no point, there would no point in not having a point, so there must be a point.

Now, existential emptiness is distinct from our emotional or sentimental responses. There's still apathy, indifference, avolition, tiredness, etc., things associated with a reduction in goal-directed behaviour.

I know there's a point, but, what actually is it? I understand I contradict myself in asking that, as me not knowing the point would leave me to not even be able put that question up.

So, if I feel detached, distant, or unwilling, life seems like a fog. You can't do much in a fog except be aware of your immediate surrounding. Life seems mechanical, and somewhat not me or what I actually believe in.

If someone were to ask me: "How are you?" or similar things, my response wouldn't be that of sincerity but of circumstance, of net gain. Saying you had a bad day could only lead to a longer, small talk that would end in nowhere.

I have difficulties in doing things like walking, talking, socializing or interacting, writing, getting up from bed, etc. I feel I am having to put a lot conscious effort in order for me to stay alive

People are there, living, going on with the flow of the superorganism that is humanity and the universe. I am actually being quite arrogant in assuming this position of external observer, pretending that I don't take part in this huge reality.

If it were that it had a point, it makes sense to think of reality, the universe, the world and humanity, as perfectly ordained, orderly or well-defined.

However, it's paradoxical for a clockwork to be aware of itself, as thinking requires some degree of freedom, as thinking without respect to a will that effectively wants to reach truth is bound only to failure or death. Typist monkeys won't be able to know anything, they are just lucky to have written down a masterpiece. To know, is to go from a state of not knowing or unknown to known, and, to do that, we need to measure or compare choices or possibilites, and that only makes sense insofar as we accept that there's this moment of apperception, of interpreting given data and not directly experiencing, that gives us meaning and structure. Otherwise, pure, raw, sense data would be able to give us a full insight of reality, when, in reality, that's not the case.

As thinking is a fundamental part of reality, and that denying it would only result in self-scrutiny, we can take the next step: What should we think about? What should our beliefs be? What should our reasons be? What should our intentions or motives be?

And when the awareness hits, everything enters in a state of anguish, of nervousness.

When everything seemed to be well ordained, awareness reveals to us that this structure and orderliness cannot be the source our happinness.

Awareness is, and always will be, the most sublime of our experience, as being aware entails some kins of separation or "distinction" of this one thing that is aware, and the rest of reality or all that exists.

Because we are free and unbound to all of this, we are constantly seeking the reason behind we are so different and, thus, a very special and convincing reason or explanation to why that is.

As we cannot ever find peace in a place that wasn't made for us, we cannot relate, we feel apart, alone, isolated, etc.

As one can only feel particularly or singularly, one will always be strange to everything else, as he cannot share these same subjective processes with anything or anyone.

And as we are fundamentally alone and isolated, where shall we find safety?

If I were to become my friend, would the suffering or pain go away? Will I need to make things up for my own sake?

What if I wanted to there be more to it than just me? I notice this perpetual hole, I can't ever quite fulfill. What should I fill it with?

I needed something so great and unconstrained to fill such a hole! Can God then fill it? Maybe, but I don't know if that will quite work out, because I am so reluctant to anything, I could never claim to be subject to it.

May freedom tell us what this is all about

I know this is a retarded question and I'm not an antinatalist. But could anti-natalism serve as a strategy against the state? It seems that the state is concerned with falling birthrates, ageing, reduction of the size of the workforce, pension rates, etc.

I know antinatalism not only affects the state, but society as a whole. HOWEVER (and this is important), I deem that, us, as libertarians, should see the fact of falling birthrates with indifference. We shouldn't give a fuck to whether or not others want to have kids. It's their life, and they do anything as they see fit as long there's no coercion involved. Self-ownership is the tenet.

Falling birth rates, and the consequences that arise from it, like an ageing populance, is of only concern to the state, as it is the very people being taxed that fund this parasite.

Not only am I considering antinatalism, but also other things like abortion (which has its very own discussion) and contraceptives.

But, obviously, if a libertarian were to encourage these things, they would have to do it in a non-coercitive manner, like convincing (telling reduction in the population is actually a problem only to the state), and not literally threatening with fucking violence or murder.

The state will obviously have responses to this, like creating incentives for having children, boosting immigration (which we should not be against; Im only concerned if there's someone in a piece of area where he shouldn't be, in other words, he wasn't given the consent from another), etc.

It's been like this for a long time. I have been dealing with attention issues since atleast early last year, 2025.

I had my first appointment done in october that year, and the psychiatrist prescribed me an antidepressant (paroxetine) and, after that, risperidone, which I only would be taking for a month or 2, I don't remember.

I continued the treatment with paroxetine until february this year when I realized I wasn't satisfied with the treatment, and scheduled another appointment (this time with a different psychiatrist).

For a short period, I was prescribed paroxetine and atomoxetine. But the symptoms did not disappear, and a different approach was adopted by her on my next appointment.

Since then, my treatment has revolved around two medications: sertraline, which had its dosage increased over the months, and ritalin.

However, I'm still having the same problems. It feels as if the treatment hasn't been that satisfactory, if there were any betterment of my symptoms whatsoever.

I should have shown what kinds of struggles I am having to deal with earlier. Also, I'm really aware that medical or health advice ought not be found or asked in here. This start was just to point down what kinds of intervention have been laid so far, but that haven't been able to be satisfactory and, thus, explain why I'm still looking for help.

But, basically, the list of symptoms or problems I am having to deal with are:

• Attention issues and difficulty thinking
• Motivational issues, or avolition, to a certain extent
• Fatigue; I'm always exhausted; I'm having trouble to do anything, ranging from getting up from bed, moving my arms, walking, writing, speaking or talking, etc. I have to put enormous conscious effort for me to basic stuff like drinking water and talking.
• Cognitive restlessness; I think so much I literally get headaches
• Restlessness; I fidget a lot and almost everywhere and when I go; I can't feel rested, no amount of rest or sleep can make feel better or energized
• Poor to a total lack of appetite
• Boredom; Profound boredom that doesn't really go away, I'm always bored. And this boredom, unlike that mild emotion of uninterest in one's surrounding, feels unbearable and literally painful, either psychologically or physically.
• Mind wandering, daydreaming and rumination
• Headaches
• Social anxiety and loneliness

Among other things that I might have missed, but that I don't deem it will not undo the general picture I have exhibited.

With this, I am looking forward to any resource that could be of my interest. I'll be starting psychotherapy in a while.

And, finally, I just wanted to know if there is anyone that could, atleast somewhat, relate to what I'm currently experiencing.

Having no one to share these feelings is very isolating. In fact, I'm such a loner. Loneliness cannot not be taken into account when I'm describing these.

Should a libertarian/anarchocapitalist vote? Is voting binding? Or is voting anti-anarchist, in that it, for instance, could be served to legitimize the state apparatus?

I'm genuinely interested in knowing the correct stance.

Right now I believe voting to be a thing a libertarian should avoid or not do, as it justifies state oppression by providing a source of why there are governors or rulers

It's as if I am giving up in trying to find happiness

No amount of rest can make me feel better

Everything seems pointless, there's no purpose

There isn't any time I am not profoundly bored

I no longer want to socialize or interact

Thinking and concentrating is impossible

I have no hobbies, interests or anything to spend my energy or mind into, I have no passions

I have no friends

I have no intimacy

I have no appetite

I have no energy

I have headaches

There's no rest, it's only suffering

The mutual aid group that I am with has been developing and testing an app for collective organizing and routing requests for aid. We hope to develop this into a fully open-source, self-hosted, end-to-end encrypted, and federated node based program. It would allow collectives to communicate, offer services, form coalitions with other collectives, and develop projects that can operate across a number of different collectives.

Everything is consent based, and decisions can be unmade. Collective decisions are made by petition, and the thresholds required to approve those petitions are determined by aggregated governance preferences between all of the members of that collective. There are no super-users or admin.

Anyways, I won’t get too deep into the weeds, but we are looking for other folks to help test the program, and offer feedback on the GitHub repository. We have started an open alpha test server, and will share the link to that below.

There are warnings on the app, but the security features are not yet complete, so obviously do not use any personal identifying information. I feel like I shouldn’t have to say that, but just in case. Please don’t.

Lastly, there is a feedback form linked at the top of every page, so if you decide to try it out, please use the feedback function! Bugs, feature recommendations, security concerns, whatever, we want it all.

GitHub repository: https://github.com/anarchos501/commons.git

Commons test server: https://commons.chat

Thanks!

Assuming epistomological solipsism to be true, how come knowledge of epistemological solipsism exist?

​

If we define epistemological solipsism as the stance that posits that "knowledge of one's existence being the solely certain or infallible", then my rundown would look like this:

​

1: Only knowledge of one's existence is considered sure

2: However, knowledge that "knowledge of one's existence being sure" would not be certain or sure

3: It's impossible to know or have knowledge of epistemological solipsism

​

Because epistemological solipsism limits sure knowledge only to one's existence, then knowledge or knowing that knowledge of anything except one's existence is uncertain is itself uncertain or unsure

​

Hence, my question would be: how would epistemological solipsism atleast not be caught in epistemic inertia?

​

What I mean by epistemic inertia here is the difficulty or impossibility for a specific knowledge to be known or in having someone effectively with it in hands.

​

To illustrate, imagine the case that nothing existed. Assuming that nothing exists or could exist, then knowledge or the possibilty of (anyone) knowing that nothing exists cannot exist. Given that knowledge or knowing that nothing exists cannot possibly exist, as we have already established that the generalized inexistence would also encompass all knowledge, no one can know, have their minds changed or be convinced that nothing existed, making the case that everything did not exist, by definition, unknown or unknowable. If it were true that there weren't things that existed, knowledge of the same would not exist, it would be unknown. If it were false that nothing existed, it could not be knowledge in the first place, as all false knowledge is anything but genuine knowledge.

​

Similarly, if it were that only the knowledge one's existence was sure, knowledge of the very condition of the knowledge of one's existence as the sole certain or genuinely infallible knowledge cannot exist. Hence, one cannot know or be sure of epistemological solipsism, as any attempt to know anything except one's existence would be considered fallible and, therefore, possibly false.

​

I'll highlight that, I did not find epistemological solipsism, in particular, self-refuting or incosistent but, rather, atleast unknowable, if it were the case that it was true. If epistemological solipsism was not true, or false, it would not fall under the category of knowledge, as there can't knowledge that is false (it would only be valid knowledge if we stated that it was true that it was false, but knowing that it's true that it is false is not the same as simply or purely knowing it; "X is true" is equivalent to "X")

I held the existence of the self as something obvious. If it were that nothing existed, how would I believe that when I myself had to exist first? I had to exist. To challenge this would be to not be in accordance with reason.

However, recently, I changed some of my positions. I do have an approach to indeed recognize the indubitable aspects, such as the existence of reason, time, space, truth and even existence itself, among many others. To not hold the necessary existence of any of these would lead to the impossibility of rationality, which would, in the end, undermine this very skepticism or negation towards the possibility of rationality.

I could go on to elaborate on why I deem these instances to have their existence unshaken and foundational:

Without reason, rational statements would not exist. Without time, no statement would be rational or true in any given time, making the inexistence of time, thus, not genuinely rational or true. A similar case occurs with space, in that if it were there was no space or where, no statement could be considered true or rational anywhere, as being rational atleast somewhere is a preresquite for being, by all means, rational. And the case for existence seems so intuitive after all of this, as the inexistence of the possibility of existence would make the existence of any statement as a true statement an impossibility.

However, the existence of the self does not appear that absolutely necessary in my view. The necessary inexistence of the self does not undermine itself, it would just be the case that there couldnt be self that would believe in its own inexistence, as there would not be self out there in the first place, but no self holding its own inexistence does not make the inexistence of the self untrue or mean that the inexistence of the self as not true per se.

I am genuinely interested in telling the status of the existence of the self. I appreciate the delivery of nuance or other things that I might have missed.