This is from NothingResonates:
Humanism is a pitiful scheme and a program of pity which seeks to protect people from themselves. The politics trains its vision on our singular and collective humiliations and weaknesses without any desire to destroy the situation that gives rise to them. It prefers refugee camps to fighting enemies and values charity over acting on our rage. An anarchy worthy of the name strives for strength, values our capacity to fight and be cruel, does not bow to the notion that "we", like a chain, are only as strong as our weakest link.Humanism simply does not exist. There is no innocent and benevolent politics or political actor. It is a contradiction so insurmountable that one can only buy into a humanist project when they subscribe to the moral architecture that undergirds such politics or when they fail to see that political representation is definitionally anathema to anarchy - a state that is sadly far too common. There is no "we". There is no imagined community to protect. There are obstacles to the life we pursue. We wish to destroy them, not to make them more palatable. Humanism is just such an obstacle in need of annihilation.
"a program of pity which seeks to protect people from themselves"
Have y'all city-slickers prepared?!?! (sorry)
"there is no 'we'. There is no imagined community to protect."
So.... could I rephrase this as "there is no 'group of anarchists.' There is no 'anarchyland' to 'worry about.'
(I feel like this is becoming a strange conflation - that this is a poor method of critiquing my question. But I'm gonna keep going).
"There are obstacles to the life we pursue. We wish to destroy them, not to make them more palatable. Humanism is just such an obstacle in need of annihilation."
Rephrase as: "There are 'traffic jams' to the life 'individual anarchists' pursue. 'Individual anarchists' wish to destroy 'traffic jams,' not to make them 'avoidable.' Humanism is just such an obstacle in need of annihilation."
hmmm. I'll chew on this. I want "traffic jams" to be destroyed, but that sounds like a lot of work.
But, one conclusion, I did recognize some of my incongruent thinking while reading through that Humanist post. So I'm glad you shared that, dot. Thank you.
Isn't climate change just a scam to rob us, tax us, stir up fear and keep us in control?
I don't believe that climate change is a scam, an invention. Is it now and/or will it be used to do those other things? My guess is yes. Like, what is not?
Some of our ways don't help, but are minimal in comparison with natural fires or volcanoes for instance.
You wrote "our ways don't help." I'm reading this as anarchists contribute a relatively small amount of matter into the air (relative to volcanos and wild fires), that it is not worth the effort to change polluting behaviors.
There hasn't been any talk about managing air-pollution. The question is if "prepping" for climate-change (preparing for a consequence of climate change) is in a larger anarchist discourse / is it a thing.
Will "prepper" be the new "spook?" Pull up your five-gallon bucket of rice and stay tuned for the next episode of Anarchy Landspeculation!
Plus what's the point in surviving if the sun won't shine?
"may end up in you shooting someone for no reason than just protecting yourself."
sounds like a helluva good reason for shooting someone, to me. do you think otherwise?