Post reply

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:
Verification:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: Today at 02:33:29 am »

Quote
The core-family literally is/was a replication of an absolute states force onto children and women by the dominant male.

No, the absolute state is what is required to prevent the dominant male from exerting force onto children and women (and women from exerting force onto children also).

Quote
most people will have to relearn how to live together WITHOUT enforcing power structures.

They will not. (If they did learn, they would start by voluntarily refraining from reproducing.) Which is why the state is needed.
Posted by: rp
« on: Today at 01:29:28 am »

https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchy101/comments/g1apf4/hierarchies_in_families/

https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchy101/comments/g1apf4/comment/fnefxat/
Quote
The word family literally is rooted in the latin word "famulus", which translates to slave.

The core-family literally is/was a replication of an absolute states force onto children and women by the dominant male.

A love couple is fine as long as there is no power (physical and psychiological) is involved. That said, most people will have to relearn how to live together WITHOUT enforcing power structures.

Edit: spelling
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: February 23, 2026, 08:16:32 pm »

So you are saying a non-machinist Westerner would find children sharing rooms unproblematic, but a machinist Westerner would find it problematic? If so, why?
Posted by: rp
« on: February 22, 2026, 11:08:13 pm »

"Please elaborate"
For example, children sharing rooms is considered to be  a failure of parents' responsibility in Western countries today, even if children do not object to the set up.
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: February 22, 2026, 05:11:16 pm »

"machinists would probably classify consensual activities among non machinists as "tyranny"."

Please elaborate.
Posted by: rp
« on: February 22, 2026, 09:48:50 am »

"Unless you mean a machinist would find parental tyranny by non-machinist parents intolerable, but parental tyranny by machinist parents tolerable?"
This. Also the fact that machinists would probably classify consensual activities among non machinists as "tyranny".
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: February 21, 2026, 08:46:34 pm »

I started by assuming you meant non-machinist tyrannical parents would be stopped by other non-machinists. Nevertheless, you said:

Quote
Eventually this would lead to a scenario where capitalists/machinists (mostly "Whites" btw) end up getting away with parental tyranny while the poor/non-machinists (mostly "non Whites") do not.

The part in bold suggests that a machinist who is also a tyrannical parent would use a machine to prevent their own door from being penetrated. But another machinist could penetrate their door.

So if non-machinist tyrannical parents can be stopped by machinists and non-machinists, whereas machinist tyrannical parents can be stopped by machinists, machinist tyrannical parents can still be stopped provided anti-parental-tyranny people include some machinists. For the part in bold to be true would require no machinists to be among anti-parental-tyranny people. But if so, from where comes the machinist stopping the non-machinist tyrannical parents (whom you have just clarified exists)?

Unless you mean a machinist would find parental tyranny by non-machinist parents intolerable, but parental tyranny by machinist parents tolerable?
Posted by: rp
« on: February 21, 2026, 07:29:44 pm »

"In theory it is surely possible for a machinist to be against the tyranny of a non-machinist parent and use a machine to get through the door?"
Yes. This is what I tried to get at with my post. Did it suggest otherwise?
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: February 21, 2026, 04:59:22 pm »

"Eventually this would lead to a scenario where capitalists/machinists (mostly "Whites" btw) end up getting away with parental tyranny while the poor/non-machinists (mostly "non Whites") do not."

In theory it is surely possible for a machinist to be against the tyranny of a non-machinist parent and use a machine to get through the door?

"What about in the future where have an Aryan imperium, when the entire world is under Aryanist control."

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/re-true-left-breakthrough-anti-whiteness-3248/msg31037/#msg31037

"I assume euthanasia would be legal?"

Yes, except for those in the middle of a task which they have promised to complete first, whereupon euthanasia would be desertion.
Posted by: rp
« on: February 21, 2026, 03:26:20 pm »

"What about those who do not want to live under such a state? They can choose to leave whenever they want, provided their reproductive potential is surgically removed first. Anyone concerned about parental tyranny, even those themselves not intending to reproduce anyway, should agree to this, since they would be aware that without this others would leave and then reproduce and then practice parental tyranny."
What about in the future where have an Aryan imperium, when the entire world is under Aryanist control. I assume euthanasia would be legal?
Posted by: rp
« on: February 21, 2026, 03:17:11 pm »

"Everyone would then start reinforcing their doors to withstand battering rams. And then everyone would have to keep explosives to overcome the reinforced doors. And so on."
Eventually this would lead to a scenario where capitalists/machinists (mostly "Whites" btw) end up getting away with parental tyranny while the poor/non-machinists (mostly "non Whites") do not. Which is why "Whites" (including Jews, such as Chomsky as the OP mentioned) support anarchism.
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: February 21, 2026, 02:25:42 pm »

The critical commenters are trying* to become consistent anarchists. But even if they themselves do so, how do they deal with those who do not?

(* A genuinely consistent anarchist would not reproduce in the first place, of course.)

Quote
Should I be able to tell you what time to go to bed?

You should not. So if you have a child and do not tell the child when to go to bed, so far so good. But then you hear your neighbour telling their child when to go to bed. Now what? In a stateless society (which is what anarchists want), you would have to intervene personally. But what if your neighbour does not answer the door? Do you keep a battering ram ready for such scenarios? But if everyone has a battering ram, it would also become possible for anyone to enter neighbours' homes for unjustified reasons. No one would feel safe despite having a door. Everyone would then start reinforcing their doors to withstand battering rams. And then everyone would have to keep explosives to overcome the reinforced doors. And so on. Would it therefore not be less absurd to have a state, so you can just call the police instead (or better yet, the state provides alternative food/lodging/etc. for children in the first place)? This is why we are not anarchists. Preventing parental tyranny is most efficiently achieved by the state.

What about those who do not want to live under such a state? They can choose to leave whenever they want, provided their reproductive potential is surgically removed first. Anyone concerned about parental tyranny, even those themselves not intending to reproduce anyway, should agree to this, since they would be aware that without this others would leave and then reproduce and then practice parental tyranny.

Welcome to National Socialism.
Posted by: rp
« on: February 21, 2026, 09:23:56 am »

I saw this anarchist post on reddit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchy101/comments/11azwcl/anarchocommunism_and_authority_parent_to_child/

Commenters calling the OP out:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchy101/comments/11azwcl/comment/j9wrgj9/
Quote
1.) Everyone, including those who are not anarchists, think that the authorities they support are justified. This is a terrible definition of anarchism.

2.) It's not absurd to suggest that child is entitled to autonomy any more than it would be absurd to suggest that adults are. Why should someone be able to "assign" duties to a child any more than I could "assign" you duties? Should I be able to tell you what time to go to bed? when and if to go to school? you give these examples as if it's just plainly obvious that children are the exception.

"it seems obvious" doesn't seem to be "justification" which is what you said you would require to have authority. You wouldn't allow someone to have arbitrary authority over you with simply "it seems obvious I should" would you? so why do you accept this in the case of children?
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: January 31, 2026, 06:01:43 pm »

The inferiority of Western scientists (compared to the prestige they receive from Western society) never ceases to amaze me. Why not simply think back to when you were a baby? Were you afraid of snakes? That is all you need to arrive at the same conclusion!

Instead, I am worried about what violence was initiated by the Western scientists against the snakes in the experiment (were their teeth removed?) prior to them being placed in proximity to the babies.

And why snakes in particular? (Not that I am requesting similar experiments involving other animals!!) The whole thing is just Western scientists projecting their own biases.
Posted by: rp
« on: January 31, 2026, 10:19:40 am »

https://x.com/i/status/2017196541241352359 (video at link)
Quote
Scientists proved that human babies aren’t born afraid of snakes.