>>53798398>a successful anarchist would surely be a brute, no? Again why do you presume this? What makes an anarchist "successful" or "unsuccessful"? An anarchist is just a person who lives/wants to live in an anarchistic society, in which there is no centralized so-called "authority" enforcing its will on people. That says nothing about the values and morality of such a society, such a thing would rely, as our current system does as well, on the ethics of its individual adherents. If you picture anarchism as mad max, that's on you. I picture anarchism as looking pretty similar to the average suburban/rural town but without the oppressive regime of the state, in other words perfectly civilized except for the odd crime, which is exactly what we have now anyway, except with an ever-increasing Godstate trying to control our lives, tell us what to do, how to do it, and why.
>You wouldn't be advocating against estrogen if you didn't value strength and muscle.I agree "might makes right" is retarded, I think the appropriate phrase would be, if anything, right makes might. Strength doesn't have to come in the form of bodybuilding, although it doesn't hurt to be physically fit. Strength means having the courage to do what's right, even if you're afraid or physically weak.
>a world without skilled doctors would mean death by ~30 because nobody could take out an appendix.why do you presume there will be no doctors? this is out of nowhere.
>Besides, say we throw out the Western society our ancestors worked so hard to create, Do you think the Jews would do the same? NO. Theyd keep developing. There's a lot to unpack here so I'll leave it for my next post
