Atheism Anarchism Survivalism

Atheism -
reject slavery to the jewgod.
you do things, blindly because the holy book tells you to.
The brain is barely working here.
Its opposite requires scientific, skeptic, critical thinking.

Anarchism - reject slavery to statism, socialism, egalitarianism
As religion appeals to mystical powers, so does statism.
Where it was originally god who made magically food appear, now government will magically fix the economy and create jobs ex nihilo.
Not to mention you're required to fund for do nothings, lowlifes, inferior beings, or blindly accept whatever the benevolent dictator tells you to be in your own interest, at the gunpoint and jailtime.

Survivalism - reject slavery to the concept of civilization as a moral duty rather seeing it for the joke it is.
Atheism requires scientific, skeptic, critical thinking
Anarchism does as well, but also requires knowledge of economics
Survivalism requires the aforementioned both, but also history and a host of other things: food, mechanics, electricity, weaponry, martial arts.
after all, just as doing away with religion requires moral introspection and taking up the yoke of personal responsibility and an ability to understand scientific and logical thinking, just as the endorsement of anarchism requires skepticism to various moral and economical mythology, so does ultimately anarchism lead to survivalism or a host of things, the ability to fend for oneself.
Beyond merely being able to work away for a slave boss, maybe you now have to understand a whole lot of things that a division of labour made you forget. what is food, how to defend yourself, how to build your own shelter on the spot form raw materials, how to create and preserve energy for some basic mechanics.
Basically, atheism requires you be able to think for yourself.
Anarchism and Survivalism likewise requires you be able not only to think for yourself on some moral issues, but also to be able to provide for yourself, not merely by a blind job but by actually understanding the world around you as a collection of materials to be used for various personal profits: from food and shelter to self defence and clothing.

This is why survivalism appears to be the logical component following anarchism, which itself is the logical follow up on atheism.

Those statist atheists, with their glutenfree late coffee and their nice overpriced socks and hipster beards trimmed in a nice barber shop, are "atheist" in a very narrow sense, because on various other areas they wouldn't last a day without civilization.

and nowadays it appears clear to me, civilization itself is the spook underlying all the other tragical mistakes we call religion and statism. it is this dream of a humanity freed from nature.

Yet we find where it leads us: an arabic islamic block and a slavic christian theocratic block, both eager to assume the role of civilizing force, but hellbent on destroying nature and mankind anyway, all for the imaginary canaanite god(s) they adopted out of fear and greed. fear for chaotic nature, and greed for their own salvation story, a room in yahweh's heavenly hotel.

and for us skeptics, after shackling the yoke of religion, and the yoke of statism, the yoke of a supposed civilization has to be rejected, seen for the illusion it entails.

I was getting depressed.
Hopeless.
I found no reason to live.
Trapped in my own mental cage, fears and insecurities

in a world of islamic vs democratic-christian theocracy, i prefer to choose neither side.
One must be optimistic, which is based on hopes and not facts- that the european cities are going to be anything else but  a nice battlefield, the altar upon which blood to the god of multiculturalism is to be sacrificed.
on coordinance with the crime it already entails, why opt for city life anyway?

So in the woods, in the lands, it is that we find our future.

But why live as a western sannyasin anyway?
glad as i was to find in dharmic faiths, a higher theology than anything developed in the post-abrahamic west, what 's the point of living as  a hermite considered crazy by everyone else anyhow?
would it not be better to end one's life?

I came acress, after googling "moral case for suicide", a mentioning of Socratic view on suicide, which epitomizes the Aryan attitude to suicide specifically and life in general, as described by this great mentor of ours, Socrates, (by the way everyone nowadays speaks of a supposed judeo christian civilization we must defend against the kebabs, why does the pagan heritage not matter? from hellas to thula, do the cultural contributions of those pre-christian ancestors of ours, not count for some reason?) he said suicide is foolish and weak, because the gods put us here.
not out of blind obedience to abrahamic rules, but out of consideration that if the gods put us here, it is our duty to remain masculine and proud in the face of adversary, not for the hope of a better afterlife, but for the sake of our heroism itself, for the perfection of man upon the world as a becoming of a diety himself, that is the aryan-gnostic view, as opposed to the jewish abrahamic view that man is an eternally shackled being, cursed by sin, hopeless without yahweh.

and so, even beyond the concept of a dharmic warrior monk, we find the western counterpart as one who engages in survivalism
and luckily for me, i don't even have to have any anxiety over the spooks of religion or statism. i outright reject both democracy and abrahamic theism as part of the problem itself.
it can never be good, so i don't have to obsess over a supposed "good guy", who will fix the mess, since the principle of statism and theism is itself judged to be bad.

we are finally reminded of the modern cuckservative insult
i have earlier appealed to cantwell who also reminded of it, before he became a trumpertarian cuck, that civilization itself is inherently cuckoldry. through the welfare state one already pays for the kids of another family.

and erik von kuehnelt leddihn mentions in his books too, as did evola, how democracy and the mass is inherently a feminine concept: engulfed by the passions, not by any stoic distance from it.

a mob is always hysterical, as is the feminine principle.

so the superior man is a sannyasin, a warrior monk; and in dharmic religions, under a theology far superior than any utopian blind obediental abrahamic creed; but for us, it goes even further, not only do we have to be able to fend for our very bodies, we also are perhaps those upon whose shoulders rests the task of saving and transmitting whatever good knowledge of the west for future generations, as did the ancient witches and alchemists, preserving an ancient pagan shamanic ritual in the ocean of abrahamic insanity engulfing them.

and we are in this situation again.

so democracy, as emanation of civilization, is inherently emasculating.
and shiva is a wild god of nature ecstacy, abrahamic creeds on the other hand, as danielou observed, like jainism, are religions of merchants, of city dwellers; fearing nature, praising obedience to puritanism. and look where it got us.

and before we get the communism insult, communism is a city dweller religion, has always found less sympathy among country dwelling people, and would be impossible without appealing to civilization and adopting or rather inheriting the zoroastrian linear time scheme that it inherited via abrahamic forebears.

communism, like judaism and its offshoots, represent city dweller religions.

shiva is the god of nature
like yamabushi monks we are the sannyasins of the west.

All these have to be incorporated to become a superior man.
-