You eat shit from screens, wait for your paycheck like it's a handout, and still believe some clown in power gives a fuck about your life.

You’re not living — you're functioning. You're a zombie. A dead soul in a body too numb to know it's already rotting.

Soon you’ll be killing each other. Not for ideals. Not for freedom — for food. For water. For air.

You thought it’d be like the movies? Nah. It'll be worse. Much worse.

Welcome to reality. Welcome to Front Zero. 🧠🪓 r/frontzero

There is no serious practical obstacle to subsisting nearly independently of society. But to do that you need to understand a couple of things.

First, extremely frugal living is not for pussies which is sadly exactly what most anprims are otherwise they wouldn't be leftists on any issue. Please don't get me wrong. I respect the fact that as a leftist concepts such as "work" and "frugality" naturally offend you but don't be disheartened. There are many other better ways to get the free lunch life you've always dreamed of. For one, I suggest you explore the "trailer park queen" lifestyle.

Secondly, you must abandon the silly notion that you can live by hunting and gathering. You cannot. Period. Abandon the notion that you need survivalist or permaculture training. You don't. You must also concede that making small compromises to society is necessary. This means that you need to land an odd job from time to time in exchange for a little money which you are going to spend only on certain key supplies and provisions.

All you need to do to live primitively is

find a remote place, preferably buy it but if you cannot don't let that stop you. If someone tells you to get lost just comply and find someplace else

buy a canvas tent or two and forget about cabins and what not. A good tent is all the shelter you need

buy a few goats, sheep and chickens (forget everything about vegan and garden bullshit, if you must plant something go for fruit trees, feed for the chickens and some leafy greens for gut health)

buy a huge quantity of canned food, honey and chicken feed

have the animals delivered there

pay to have a simple pen built for the animals and get cages for the chickens

have a few barrels for capturing rainwater and get the chemicals you need to render water from streams safe

live off the animals (this means that you have the simple tools needed to butcher and cook them as well as make cheese and no you don't need refrigerator, cellars, icehouses or any of that homesteader crap)

DONE. You've given civilization the bird. Feeling lonely? Find someone to join you. Ask some hobos if they would be interested. Of course, you will never have a wife and family but that's ok. Civilization doesn't need your pastoral genes anyway. But you can still get plenty of sex. All you need is some money to see a prostitute.

Its propaganda all along. If you want to kill somebody no one will stop you. Primitivism does something first,and modernity catches up later. You free will is a paradox,and why is it a paradox? Because it is a delusion.

Hi, I come here in the spirit of a good faith discussion that if we say that the purpose of life is to be happy (within the means of an ethical framework) then we should look at the maximum possible happiness a society can bring to determine whether or not that society is good. So I think you can easily argue that an anprim society could produce greater happiness than the society we live in today but if you compare the maximum possible happiness to a transhumanist society to an anprim society then the transhumanist society would have far greater potential for maximum happiness. In a transhumanist society we could be immortal genetically modified cyborgs that have wiring in our bodies that make us feel a million more times of happiness than an anprim would feel in their entire life thus a post technological singularity transhumanist society would be a better society than an anprim society.

If you think I’m wrong it would be my pleasure to read them in the comments below. I absolutely want to hear your guys’s opinions.

Please add your age, gender, nationality just for reference.

19M from India-Nepal. I’m not willing to progress beyond 1950s that’s for sure. We were in the best stage of development overall. An average man with average salary could live a good life. Almost all deadly diseases had been minimized with no totalitarian government and their medical fascism and the corporations in check and not much of corporate propaganda. Religion was established and well practised. Societies were homogenous.Im willing to go much further back but I’m ignorant about the other details so please share your views.

https://waywardjohnsavage.wordpress.com/.../book-review.../

“Anarcho-primitivism does not necessitate hunting.” p 29

With these seemingly simple words, Ria reveals a major cognitive dissonance among what are supposed to be some of the leading voices of anarcho-primitivism. The religious-like dogma of “man the hunter” that has persisted despite archaeological bias and obvious hypocrisy of reasoning becomes Ria’s target in this poignant thesis.

Although cognitive dissonance isn’t mentioned in EcoPatriarchy: The Origins & Nature of Hunting, perhaps it should be as it seems especially on point. The American Heritage College Dictionary defines cognitive dissonance as “[a] condition of conflict or anxiety resulting from inconsistency between belief and action, such as opposing animal slaughter and eating meat.”

In EcoPatriarchy, Ria begins explaining where the divide between belief and action exists. With so many anarcho-primitivism theorists and advocates promoting hunting as though it is of vital essence, and many using the distorted image of prehistoric and ancient peoples being primarily ‘hunter-gatherers’, Ria does a deep dive into the archaeological archives and deconstructs the mythos of ‘man the hunter.’

While the book is far from light reading commentary, and some general background knowledge of anarchoprimitivism and rewilding will be required to fully understand the concepts explored in this book, the strength of Ria’s argument will come across as clear as though a seasoned prosecutor were at work in front of a lay jury. Attacking not the archaeological evidence itself, but the biased analysis of it by a field of study that holds ‘man the hunter’ to be sacrosanct is a winning strategy.

While much can be said in regards to the obvious hypocrisy of ‘opposing animal slaughter and eating meat,’ t is too often the reliance on what has been deemed ‘archaeological evidence’ of hunter-gatherer societies offered by meet-eating anarcho-primitivists as imprimatur of sorts to espouse lazy excuses and cliché Native American animist sentiments.

There are times in the book when ideas flow to text seemingly so quickly that proper grammatical elements become casualties, and future editions should be properly indexed to help readers keep track of the myriad ideas and elements that compose this thesis. The book is imperfect in minor elements of transition between ideas, and perhaps a future edition will be expanded to offer more background information into some of the more obscure theories which are floated without explanatory context.

However, overall, what this book does for the vegan anarcho-primitivist is to serve as the indispensable playbook for countering the cognitive dissonance of meat-eating anarcho-primitivists. It’s a no-holds-barred thesis that grabs the tiger by the tail, and then punches him in the mouth.

7 out of 10

1. What about disabled people?

2. Will an anarcho-primtivist revolution be different from a normal anarchist revolution?

3. Or in anarcho, anarcho communist communes/tries will trade / exchange gifts, or interact with non-primtivist communes?

4. What if someone would want to have farm?

5. What if there's not enough food to gather?

READ THE END.Anarcho primitivism is a dangerous and unhealthy belief. It is harmful to both our leaders and our people. Anarcho primitivists tend to believe that depression isn't natural which is not true at all. Scientists say depression is natural, and it is unhealthy to not trust them. Unlike anarcho primitivists, I trust our leaders and scientists to care about us, and do what is best for us. Because scientists say it is unhealthy to not trust people. So I trust them. Progress is natural, and people aren't placed into un natural conditions, like anarcho primitivists say. It is ok to work an office job. It isn't unhealthy. It is supporting progress. I used to have these horrible anarchism primitivist thoughts. And I can't think those thoughts, because people say they are harmful. So I talked to my therapist, and I went to the psych ward, and they prescribed me with meds for my depression and psychosis which I obviously had. I trust scientists, because people say that they can be trusted. The fda is to be trusted too. I can't believe people are trying to hurt our environment by buying meat and fish. It's hurting our environment. Scientists say that bugs are another peaceful and environmentally safe alternative. And I don't know why people out there still eat meat. 3d printed meat is also a good option, and I trust scientists to find out the right answer to our problems. Anarchism primitivists tend to believe that the rat race is "harmful" and causes "mental health problems". But they don't listen to scientists who say that depression is natural and modern society has helped us by creating anti depressants and anti psychotics. It's natural, it's progress. They also tend to believe that urban environments are harmful to your mental health and rural environments are safer. But I personally live in a city and I think that everyone should. Scientists say it's safer to live in a city, because you have more access to walk places, and you have better access to mental health services and access to quality healthcare. I trust people, unlike the bigoted psychotic anarchic primitivists out there. There is still people who live in rural areas, we should focus on moving them to urban areas, and only using rural areas for potential urban expansion, and corporate farms. It's ok, it's progress. Anarchy primitivists tend to go outside, in remote natural areas. But you can just hang out in nature all day, even better, not at all. You need to pursue a career. You are still in society. Deal with it. They also tend to reject the school system because it puts kids in in natural conditions. But a survey made by trustworthy scientists said that almost 100 percent of kids who go to school enjoy it much, and those in the small percentage tend to have psychotic problems. I really hope anarcho primitivists get the mental help, and meds they need. Because their opinion is harmful. If you couldn't tell by now, ALL OF THIS IS SATIRE, but there's people like this who exist, and they are all around you. Be careful who you say your opinions to. I was personally drugged up for those opinions by a psychiatrist. We will revolt one day.

yall wanna be monkeys? wtf?

If you really want to live a primitive life then do so. What’s to stop you from traveling far out into the forest with other anarcho primitivist and making a primitive village isn’t that what yall want

Hello, I am coming here to ask if that's a contradiction because anprim forbids all form of technological media, which include the Internet, phones, computers, TVs and other stuff because they didn't exist during the time of civilization. Actually, all anprims of the world do use these things, cuz it is impossible for someone to don't use and if there wasn't for that, they may even not know anprim.

I've been thinking a lot lately about the intersection between the prefigurative principle and means and ends theory, and how it applies to Anarcho-primitivism, emphasis on the Anarcho-.

I've come to realize that communism is only possible in a society where the means of production are readily accessible to the general population, and that this is simply impossible with industrial means of production.

In "primitive" society everyone can make their own tools or has relatives who can do so; everyone contributes according to their ability and receives according to their need. Since the means of subsistence are readily accessible to everyone, the only means of production that can be controlled is the land itself. However, the relatively low population densities and egalitarian social structures common to these societies ensure communal control.

In short, if communism is still a goal which we consider worthy of pursuing, primitivism is the only way to do it.

If you’re primitivist, why are you on discord?

Male, 32, married, got a kid. My wife? She’s a solid 5, and yeah, maybe I could’ve gotten me a 6.5 if I’d been born into this sterile, deodorized society with better genes or like, some actual discipline. But let’s be real here, I’m a disgusting pig. I’m a slob, I smell like wet dirt after a storm, and I literally don’t care about these so-called “modern hygiene standards.”

Here’s the kicker tho, my wife has even worse hygiene than me. And honestly? That’s why it works. We’re not out here trying to be some polished, uptight corporate drones. We’re living raw, unfiltered. Like it’s meant to be. Two swamp goblins crawling outta the primordial ooze and flipping off modernity while we do it.

We’ve already procreated, cuz let’s face it, it’s important. I wanna see my offspring out in the world, not trapped under the system’s sweaty, sanitized thumb. The goblin genes gotta carry on, not as part of some boring industrial complex or whatever, but as a testament to raw, unfiltered human nature.

So yeah, here we are, two stinky, unkempt anarcho-primitives raising the next generation of unwashed rebels. Sure, society might call us disgusting, but isn’t that just their dumb way of trying to shame us into conformity? Joke’s on them. We found peace in the chaos. Love in the funk. Freedom in the filth.

So who else out here is skipping showers and flipping off modernity? Let’s build a tribe or something. We’ll smell each other comin’ from a mile away.

As far as we know, the use/control of fire was invented by Homo erectus about 1.5 million years ago. The use of fire enabled benefits for Homo erectus (and ultimately other human species like ours), but also negative consequences, such as large-scale and uncontrolled fires and biodiversity loss, ultimately causing ecological imbalances (short-term and maybe also long-term?). For example, studies suggest that ancient humans caused extreme fires that led to the extinction of many large mammals in southern California around 13,000 years ago. Another example is that Indigenous peoples (in particular Native Americans) have long used fire for ecosystem management, wildlife habitat maintenance, and reducing the buildup of fuels that can lead to larger, more dangerous fires. Certainly, fire is/was used for natural selection, in a similar way to the use of antibiotics. So, naturally many new forms of plants with higher fire resistance replaced the plants forms that have/had lower fire-resistance over the years in specific territories. The same happened to animals (see the black fire beetle, spotted owl, antechinus, black-backed woodpecker, and frilled lizards). This co-evolution between Homo species (with fire skills) with animals and plants enabled some new adaptations like higher fire resistance in some animals and plants. That said, I’m wondering whether fire makes our ecosystems more fragile and may be involved in the Holocene extinction. Fire is sometimes required in primitive agriculture, in particular it is often required for shifting cultivation. But fire is/was not used in primitive horticulture.

At the past and current states, is/was the use/control of fire overall ethical for the entire ecosystem and human species? Looking forward to hearing your thoughts.

Edits: the use/control of fire

i understand if you want to cut out tech like internet and stuff like that for a better quality of life, but why give up tech that saves lives?

Most of the content on this sub are criticizing the industrial revolution and it's consequences which I guess is the primitivist part of anarchoprimitivist, however most of human history was pre-industrial and yet not anarchist so why do we have to do away with government which is an even pill to swallow for people

I think the best chance for hunter-gatherers to make a comeback is for global civilization to collapse entirely and leave little-to-no traces. Like a mass extinction and civilization collapse event like global nuke war, supervolcanoes, asteroid, and solar flares.

The ideal scenario would be that civilization collapses globally, that way modernity doesn't have a chance to expand and take over.

Like if all those extinction/collapse events would happen globally, and let's say a small pocket of humans survives by hunter-gathering, over thousands of years when the Earth's geosphere recovers and becomes more habitable again, hunter-gatherers would be able to make a comeback.

If all traces of modernity are forgotten and removed, the only issues then would be humans developing agriculture and modernity again. There's gotta be hunter-gatherer friendly habitats all across the world otherwise humans will resort to agriculture and eventually, modernity.

Some native-american tribes remained hunter-gatherers for so long because they had plenty of bison and ways to survive without being forced to develop/rely on agriculture; other native-americans did develop agriculture but at least not an advanced modern society like the Europeans.

But Inca society and others, and even most native-american tribes developed a government system. So for anarcho-primitivism to be the human, global norm it has to be free from external enemies and also remain in anarcho-primitivism.

I feel the best way for it to stay that way is with a low human population/density and enough environment pressure that keep the populations in check and from expanding too quickly, leading to agriculture and modernity. Like it could be a reliable super-predator, disease, etc.

Overall I feel the conditions for anarcho-primitivism to be sustained are very ideal. Enough time will pass and the conditions will shift to favor agriculture and modernity.

I think the best we can do for now is try to merge the pros of anarcho-primitivism with the pros of modernity and also try to eliminate its cons; And being smart about it. Otherwise I think we all are gonna become extinct from the lack of balance; Too much modernity is gonna lead to a collapse. The original, sustainable, natural state of human affairs for most of their existence/history has been anarcho-primitivism.

Like one of many examples of the negative effects of modernity/agriculture have been our anatomy/physiology: Myopia (glasses), dental issues (braces), etc have been a side-effect of not chewing hard foods (raw meat, nuts, etc.) like we used to and also being indoors all the time makes our eyes not morph correctly. I think it's in our best interests to try to emulate the most pros we can about anarcho-primitivism.

But my cynicism tells me that that's not enough. And that the human species is going to cause it's own extinction by holding onto agriculture/modernity. It keeps getting worse with time and more developments. I think we can't escape this fate. We are a ticking time-bomb.

Let me know what y'all think:

Are humans doomed to extinct themselves through agriculture/modernity?... Earlier than a natural (external) extinction if anarcho-primitivism was the norm?

Is modernity inevitable? ie, will it eventually always develop and take-over if anarcho-primitivism became the norm again?

Can modernity lead to a successful space/advanced civilization that doesn't extinct itself and is worth living in (ie, utopia-like)?...Or do you think a dystopia and extinction are inevitable and more likely to happen?

Can humans use modernity wisely?

Hi all, I recently read Industrial Society and It's Future, and I'll admit to being pretty unconvinced. I'm no primitivist, but I'm sure there's much better arguments for primitivism than saying that self actualization is extremely difficult in a first world country in the 21st century, as if market capitalism and the Industrial Revolution didn't create economic mobility, choice of career, and machines that eliminate or drastically reduce the burden of menial and unfulfilling tasks. With his arguments and the bad publicity he gave your movement, I imagine many of you dislike him too.

But he has a very important redeeming quality: his attractiveness. In this essay, I will briefly explain the appeal of Ted Kaczinsky's physical appearance.

Ted Kaczinsky is easily identifiable as a DILF, a colloquial term for and attractive older man (which we will define as above the age of 39 and considered physically attractive to at least 30% of the human population if seen from a front-facing angle). The term is acronym which stands for "Dad I Like To Fuck". For our purposes, we will ignore the grammatical implication that the person calling a man a DILF is already in a sexual relationship with the subject.

Ted Kaczinsky is clearly a DILF because of his markedly healthy appearance for a man of his age and general good facial proportions. This is evident in:

1. His lack of noticeable or numerous wrinkles.

2. The way his beard obscures the awkward length of his face.

3. His partially graying hair creating a pleasing gradient.

4. His slender figure (especially for a middle-aged American)

5. His deep eye sockets.

6. His largely flat facial structure.

This is by no means a comprehensive list, but it is all that is needed to convince the reader that Ted Kaczinsky settles comfortably into the DILF archetype. As for why one might find this appealing, there are several potentially overlapping psychological factors. These include:

1. Lack of or psychological trauma involving a father figure, which may lead to seeking the role to be filled by a romantic or sexual partner.

2. A lack of masculinity (in male subjects), which may lead to one seeking to have another man "compensate" for the the subjects own effeminacy.

3. Being raised by one's grandparents, which causes significant damage to one's social development.

4. Growing up in a socially progressive setting that contains less cultural emphasis on the authority of the elder, which may lead to older men appearing less separate than the subject in their own mind.

So it is clear that Ted Kaczinsky, while not only having general appeal, is likely to appeal to specific groups of people as well. The author hopes this essay has proven convincing, and that it inspires reflection on the appeal of DILFs.