>What is green Anarchy? Green anarchy is the rejection of the Industrial Revolution and the technologies resulting from it
>Reject technology? Look at all the progress we've made! Progress at the cost of dignity and freedom.
>How? Worldwide revolution against the system.
>What is the system? Socialized technology, as in technology that needs a greater system made up of less advanced technologies and resources to maintain it. As well as the human extension.
>How will this revolution be carried out?
1. Organize 2. Become known 3. Increase numbers 4. Smash the system
>Why we reject communism Communism thinks there's a light at the end of the tunnel when there really isn't. When automation becomes a reality humans will not be free, they will be useless, and the psychological effect of this will be the end of humanity.
>Why we reject fascism Racial unity can be easily achieved if the system didn't exist. Fascists reject national stagnation, but they do this by simply giving the nation more land, not acknowledging that stagnation must happen at some point. Eugenics is natural thing, weaker people simply die before the age of five.
You do realize anarcho-primitivism would have to happen everywhere all at once like communism for two reasons right? Much like communism it would fall apart quickly because no one wants to live in an anarcho-primitivist society. Secondly if there's another more advanced nation near you they're going to push you around and possibly conquer you.
I'm sorry we can't go back but we can't go back. I'm sure you worked hard on the OP but it's just not feasible.
Ryan Kelly
Nobody can force you to be hunter gatherers. Of course it would have to be a worldwide revolution. As long as information is free people will be looking for an alternative to the modern world. If step two happens that alternative will be there.
Brayden Ortiz
Well great. Start a Luddite society or something. Just don't expect the majority of people to join. That way you still have an insular layer of defense technology.
You're missing out on the post scarcity socialist utopia though. The robots will create more wealth than humankind can now imagine. Very few people will eventually work an taxes on the robot labor will provide some form of UBI. That's the future I see. Some people may become Luddites because they enjoy work but most will live off the government.
Luke Ward
If this is some might makes right shit then I'm down. None of that muh feels.
Angel Richardson
I'm an eco-Fascist can we post here?
Jonathan Stewart
Much of human psychology rests on the question of power. In this society you dream of it will be impossible to gain power. Have you ever felt the happiness that comes with self dependency? This will be impossible with an overarching mommy state that tends your every need as you need it. Your dream state might work if your populace was drugged up at all times of the day.
Bentley Evans
Green anarchy is better for optics but they're pretty much the same thing.
The power process is an essential to understanding Green Anarchy. You'll fit right in.
Jayden Hill
They probably will be but of their own accord. I forgot when you're unemployable men tend to form criminal hierarchies. So essentially there would be a huge crime problem. I had a discussion the other day with someone over what will happen in a post scarcity society. We may bring back dueling or blood sports out of boredom. We could even eventually develop into something like those aliens from the predator movies with a hunter hierarchy. It could develop into something even more interesting I haven't thought of.
Luke Murphy
Automation implies total automation. If your local technocrat is a "moral" liberal like the system promotes then your blood sports will be impossible. The crime problem you predict will be impossible with the surveillance required to run the society pre-post scarcity. Even if it was possible, hurting others wouldn't be enough for some and they might be tempted to damage one of the cogs of the machine for kicks. The system would have to react then, violently or other, to keep itself running.
Jaxson Hill
We'll see anyway. A post scarcity society is inevitable though. Human desires are moving in that direction at a fast pace.
Nathan Evans
Who here /agrarian/? Primitivism seems stupid and dangerous. A subsistence farm community with no technology besides basic tools is all we need to rid ourselves of degeneracy.
This is Green Anarchy. Anarcho Primitivists are the ones who want to live in hunter-gatherer tribes. After the revolution both options will be available.
I agree it is inevitable if the anti tech revolution doesn't happen but there is no way you can claim that it is the will of the majority of people.
Grayson Barnes
Greened and tedpilled thread
Brody Collins
If you reject technology then why are you posting this on the internet and using a computer, seems a little bit hypocritical doesn't it?
Gavin Davis
You know why you're wrong.
Jonathan Baker
Kacynzski was right about the effects of modern society on people but his solution was shit Primitivism is shit Species may as well go extinct if you choose it
Cameron Powell
>implying we aren't just telling other non anprim folks what to post on our behalves via smoke signals check mate transhumanist
There would be no possibility of degeneracy with pure primitivism. After all, if the world reverted to wide scale agrarianism in the next century, this ideal world would eventually become what it is today. Agriculture was what made civilization in the first place, and if History tells us anything, people will generally try to make their farms more effective and productive so that they can more easily subsist and thus survive. There is no doubt that in any agrarian society inhabited by Homo Sapiens that this will happen, as we are the most intelligent creature on earth and our ability to farm in the first place is why we are all living in relatively cushy houses with expensive computers browsing Jow Forums right now. The problem with this is that by doing so, this brave new line of men will only create the foundation for the same society with the same problems we have today, even if it takes another 5000-6000 years to get to the sorry state we are in now like the "First" human civilization has. This is not to mention the desire for power in human beings. Individuals and groups will desire to rule over these farms at some point, assuming they are began in geographic areas traditionally best suited for agriculture like the Mississippi basin and the Northern European plane. This will give rise to states, this will lead to the exact problems anyone in this thread resents. Primitivism on the other hand will see that humans live as they were naturally intended to, and if this transition were to occur, many billions would die, mostly due to reasons relating to the fact that most people are so pampered now that they can not comprehend the idea of wiping their ass with a leaf after taking a shit, for two, do not know which leaves to do so with, and three, probably would not survive long enough after the grand collapse to ask themselves such pressing questions previously mentioned. With much regret, I must say I am one of those people.
TLDR, Agrarianism is what got us in this grand mess in the first place, pure primitivism is the most natural way to live in relation to nature as we are all animals after all
>Don't fight the enemy with their own weapons! We're only using these temporary tools to spread the message. The point at which we would stop using technology would be at step four.
Jace Taylor
I agree that primitivism is the ideal, I'm just saying I don't want it. I want a stable food source. The only place on earth that could forage relatively easily and healthily year round is *some* of the tropics. Farming helps overcome this in other regions of the world. Like you pointed out agrarianism requires some tools and systems which could eventually bring us back to where we are today. The Amish do a fairly well job of choosing to stay agrarian (al be it with some bits of technology).
Wyatt Collins
Anarcho Primitivism is the ideal but it cannot be enforced. How are you stopping those billions that are gonna starve from planting some seeds? You can't. What we need is a literary tradition that teaches the generations the dangers of technology. Before atheism people followed the bible to a tee, it would be like that.
Nathaniel Turner
But if technology is so fucking evil then why buy a computer and use the internet, even just temporarily that ends up supporting this boogeyman you pointlessly try to fight against
Hudson Nelson
Ideally, the animals that the Native Americans and Native Europeans hunted to survive off of would be much more abundant without several million fudds making sure their local deer population stay at dangerously low levels. We disagree on agrarianism, I want it gone because it evolves into the nightmare we are in and will be in, you want it so that you can survive easier, which is understandable. The Amish are a good example but even they are adopting many of the new technologies of today's age. A few years ago I saw an Amish dad and his son and daughter in the phone store, the dad was buying a new iPhone. This does not go for everyone of course as it is just an anecdote but I hope you get what I mean that the Amish aren't always going to be as they are today.
Anprim is no ideal 'society', there would be no societies or civilizations in the first place with Anprim. Anprim is the bare-bones structure of the human species. We are pack-hunting predators at true heart, there would be no need to "Enforce" these ideals with Caveman NKVD Divisions, as mother nature herself would do so through survival of the fittest and natural selection, and there is little reason at all for a government to fill this role either as it would have absolutely no reason to exist in the first place since it would have absolutely zero ability to do anything. On stopping the billions from planting seeds themselves, why have the billions of poor third world dwellers not done this already, especially in places like Africa? Most places on earth can not support large agriculture, think of how we use the term "bread basket". Most people living in American suburbs today would starve to death if our agriculture industry stopped selling their crops and if all imports were stopped.
Your last point would call for a full length post to write and frankly I'm already being interrupted during my fap session to respond to these post. Just want you to know that it is a good proposition
Ryan Wilson
You're a brainlet. I'm not supporting shit by way of just using a computer. It's the most efficient way to win people to your way of thinking. Fulfilling steps 1 through 3 requires efficient communications. You're on pol right now, do you know what the state of the American Nazi Party was before the internet? Nothing, yet here you are, won over by the words of Jow Forums. Every thread we have this conversation. Read ISAIF
Jonathan Brown
Have they taught you Ad-hominem in middle school yet? You have not challenged any of his ideas with even an atom of intellectual reasoning, and have instead attacked the way he spreads them. More people will see the ideas of Anprim, and any other ideology or philosophy for that matter via the internet, and will then be left to themselves to heed the teachings of such. Ted Kaczynski himself encouraged anyone reading to spread his message and his 'revolution' with modern tech, insofar as they are only used when absolutely necessary. (In reality, im sure that if a nationwide anprim revolt were to happen, then the revolutionaries would just seize power and live the high life for a century and forget about the whole ideological/philosophical movement they base themselves off of, as most revolutionaries tend to do.)
Owen Hughes
>hurr durr technology is bad >ooh I know I'm going to go on the internet, a place filled with people who probably don't irrationally hate technology, to get people to join my anti-technology crusade
You're the brainlet
Colton Murphy
You still didn't explain how you would stop people from planting seeds. Ted's answer to the agrarian-primitivism question was "who cares?"
>In reality, im sure that if a nationwide anprim revolt were to happen, then the revolutionaries would just seize power and live the high life for a century (see pic)
I've found the more I researched the Amish the more I've come across them adopting technology in some form (unless it's the old order amish, but even they sometimes bend the rules). I think something drastic would have to happen such as solar flare resulting in an emp around the world or the use of nukes on a massive scale to forcibly return to a prior more primitive state.
Lenzes have existed for far longer than modern technology
Grayson Gutierrez
traditional primitivism > anarcho primitivism
Ted had great points and laid the foundation, but anarchy boils down to edgy libertarianism. It's not feasible or functional, it's just sustained chaos. I prefer a walled, primitive agricultural ethnostate over shitting in a ditch in Mad Max world.
Nathan Gutierrez
I obviously could not stop them myself. But, most modern people, especially in the west, do not even know how to plant a single ear of corn. Most people will not survive in the wilderness without agriculture, and if some hypothetical SHTF moment occurs where farmers stop farming aside to support themselves only, most people would not know what to do besides fight over scraps until the scraps run out. Most farms are family farms, and I would assume if the current globalized economy collapses, and hyperinflation occurs as it usually does, these farmers would have to fend for themselves, and thus, many billions of people would die since there's no cheap GMO-packed junk lining the shelves of Walmart anymore. Nothing is stopping the average Joe from making his own farm but his own ignorance, and this ignorance spawns from the fact that knowing how to survive in the REAL real world is not needed to live until retirement. Also, I never explicitly gave a road map of how to create this perfect Ted-inspired society, I just stated that it was superior to modern society and agrarianism as well due to the fact it avoids all issues pre and post industrial societies will inevitably suffer through. For your second point, do you really think a ideological-based revolutionary movement would seriously abandon all that gives them the ability to be unopposed tyrants over the land in the first place? I want to agree with you but I do not think Ted's idea of a revolution for this goal would work. Most probably, this revolution will never happen in the first place as it requires Billy Joe and Bobby Jim to give up their Cake and Circus instead for a daily fight for survival and physical activity. Let's hope I am wrong.
Justin Campbell
Enjoy being conquered by the hyperadvanced technocracy that you border because you ideologically opposed them not existing
Brayden Young
>technocracy i firmly believe that humanity will ritualistically reset itself everytime we even get close to a technocracy-esque civilization. the end of the first cycle is nearing.
Jace Gonzalez
The only way the revolutionaries could live like that would be as small time kings of what remained of D.C. There simply wouldn't be the infrastructure to take power or even live the high life. Cut the power, bomb the railroads/bridges, and nuke a couple cities. That wouldn't be it of course but most everything sorts itself out after that.
If you are one to believe conspiracy theories, this isn't the first time.
