If this is an accurate description of the belief system it sounds like it’s adherents are extremely anti-social individualists who are a danger to everyone around them. What are viewers supposed to take away from this?
This really sounds like the fascist belief that action for it’s own sake is better than thought, and that war is a goal unto itself. It just lacks the “revitalizing the nation” component, as it seems to stop at “I just like breaking stuff.”
Also the narrator walks right up to the “Blaming Jewish people for their own murder during the Holocaust” line, if not actually crossing it. Generally speaking, people who are anywhere near that line do not make good friends, allies, or comrades.
There’s also the anti-civ stuff. Anti-civ is bad because it means me and pretty much everyone I love would die in agony one way or another. I get that the speaker has apparently decided that’s already happened and any attempt to preserve your life or anticipate a desirable future is… bad? But that pretty irrevocably puts me at cross purposes with them.
I don’t find this ideology interesting at all and I don’t see any reason to consider it or investigate it, so I’m really asking if there’s any reason to tolerate the presence of anyone claiming this belief system, or if they should be turned away immediately?
eh i kinda agree with the video that labels are less useful than what people say or do and that dogmatism is not good. i didnt get that the video narrator subscribes to this form of anarchism (meaning nasty reactionary form) he criticizes “post left anarchy” as fascistic and anti-anarchist.
i did find the historical section informative as i didnt know about all that happening in turn of the century russia. turns out there was a whole russian nihilist and materialist movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_nihilist_movement. Nikolay Chernyshevsky being one of the main to name, who i didnt know existed.
and i did find the the post-left section informative as well as i never understood what the fuck “post left” is about. i havent read “Blessed is the Flame,” but it doesnt seem to be reactionary or anti-social as far as i could tell.
these are separate paragraphs from different sections towards the end of the book:
Though we are certainly not obliged to accept every nihilist position that comes out of the woodwork (many of which are overly simplistic and loaded with brawny machismo), some of them are just impossible to ignore. Others, such as the idea that we should turn our backs on the positivist projects that sustain us and give us joy, can be wrestled with and taken for what they’re worth — perhaps a willingness to be honest about the limits of such projects. In other words, this isn’t about becoming a nihilist. Nihilism does not demand our allegiance, because it is not a political ideology. I am more inclined to look at it as a tendency in the true sense of the word, and to embrace it as a fluid presence in our lives that constantly asks us to negate our own ideologies, certainties, and optimistic attachments. I find any form of nihilism that gets used as an excuse not to dream, not to act, and not to engage earnestly with other people to be dull — I am interested in a nihilism that ravenously digs below the surface of commonly accepted ideas, and that can help us to ground our resistance in something more meaningful than tired slogans and listless strategies. I am interested in a nihilism that helps us to reorient our lives away from cruel optimisms and towards jouissance.
In remembering these voices, we also have the opportunity to carry on past struggles and to turn the stories of those who came before us into fodder against our oppressors. As we all know, history is written by the victors, and so the narratives of Progress and Great Men offered to us by society generally serve only to reinforce power. Benjamin warned that “even the dead will not be safe from the enemy if he wins” and that “this enemy has not ceased to be victorious”.[249] The fact that the Nazi holocaust has been consistently wielded to justify the murder and oppression of the Palestinian people epitomizes how the dead can be reanimated to perpetuate cycles of domination. Similarly, looking at all the ways that historical revisionism has been used (occasionally by anarchists) to minimize the holocaust and perpetuate anti-semitism in the form of conspiracy theories reminds us that we simply don’t have the option of letting history rest in its grave. By engaging ourselves in this project called “history”, we can find ways to turn past struggles against current forms of domination and to “ensure that the memory of the dead continues to haunt the living.”[250] I see this happening all around me with People’s History posters and Silvia Federici reading groups, with land acknowledgments and Haymarket handbills. History does not need to be neutral, but rather can fly in the face of domination and help to sharpen and expand our conflicts against the powerful.[251] As our Chilean friends have declared: “Insurrectionary memory is our weapon!”[252] It is my hope that this text can contribute to this ever-expanding arsenal.
Anarcho-nihilism is a philosophical and political perspective that fuses the principles of anarchism and nihilism. At its core, it challenges the very foundations of conventional authority, hierarchical structures, and established moral values. Nihilism, within this context, underscores a belief in the inherent meaninglessness of life and the deliberate rejection of societal norms and values.
Anarcho-nihilists strive for a radical transformation of society by advocating the complete dismantling of oppressive systems and institutions. They envision a world without a centralized state, where hierarchical power structures are eradicated, and individual autonomy is emphasized. This ideology often calls for direct action, such as protest, civil disobedience, and even forms of violence, as a means to disrupt and undermine existing power dynamics.
It’s important to note that anarcho-nihilism is not a monolithic or universally defined ideology. Different proponents may interpret and apply its principles in various ways, making it a complex and sometimes controversial philosophy with a range of perspectives.
