Would him and Bookchin get along?

Would him and Bookchin get along?

Other urls found in this thread:


varg needs to take the bordiga pill

Here's a real fucking short answer for you, no.


No, at least Varg has the balls to oppose imperialism.

No, he'd get along well with Ted though.

Does Varg live off from his albums sales and concerts or something?

Friendly reminder varg killed his bandmate and was going to blow up a housing coop in Oslo.

We love you father ted

he doesn't do live shows, he's just one guy and wouldn't get session musicians to save his own life. he has land, no idea how he bought it, and lives there with the family pretending he's off the grid.

he said land in france is cheap

Pretty much any revenue he gets from his albums and merchandise goes straight to the Norwegian government anyway. Burning down 800 old staff churches is expensive.

So basically when you buy a Burzum article you are funding the Norwegian state.

800 years

That was to raise awareness and spread the word. People wouldn't listen if he had sent his manifesto to a publisher. The publisher might have just rejected it anyway.

He lives off welfare

probably, since bookchin was scum with fascist tendencies.


Odalism is a form of blood and soil fascism, and Bookchin developed communalism pretty much consciously in opposition of ecofascism, both how it existed in the past and how Bookchin predicted it may exist in the future.

So no.

but fascism was invented in the 30s and Odalism is far older. Also Varg has made videos against Civic nationalism, racial nationalism and the far right parties of europe.

If you go to Varg's website which discusses odalism (I don't remember its name), they explicitly detail that odalism is based on the relationship between blood and soil. This idea has its origins in the ideas of Richard Walther Darre, nazi agricultural minister.

In his most recent video he makes it clear that his concerns are not for the "white race" as a whole, Europeans, or even nordics.
The blood and soil he talks about refers to his family only.
But yes Odalism can be very pro family. What is not pro family about Communalism?


There's nothing wrong with the family, per se, however to suggest that it should be the primary unit of society is irrational and regressive, wanting to turn back the clock to before the rise of civilization. To quote Bookchin:

"Communalism seeks to recapture the meaning of politics in its broadest, most emancipatory sense, indeed, to fulfill the historic potential of the municipality as the developmental arena of mind and discourse. It conceptualizes the municipality, potentially at least, as a transformative development beyond organic evolution into the domain of social evolution. The city is the domain where the archaic blood-tie that was once limited to the unification of families and tribes, to the exclusion of outsiders, was – juridically, at least – dissolved. It became the domain where hierarchies based on parochial and sociobiological attributes of kinship, gender, and age could be eliminated and replaced by a free society based on a shared common humanity. Potentially, it remains the domain where the once-feared stranger can be fully absorbed into the community – initially as a protected resident of a common territory and eventually as a citizen, engaged in making policy decisions in the public arena. It is above all the domain where institutions and values have their roots not in zoology but in civil human activity…

… Classical Athenian democracy of the fifth century B.C.E., the source of the Western democratic tradition, was based on face-to-face decision-making in communal assemblies of the people and confederations of those municipal assemblies. For more than two millennia, the political writings of Aristotle recurrently served to heighten our awareness of the city as the arena for the fulfillment of human potentialities for reason, self-consciousness, and the good life. Appropriately, Aristotle traced the emergence of the polis from the family or oikos – i.e., the realm of necessity, where human beings satisfied their basically animalistic needs, and where authority rested with the eldest male. But the association of several families, he observed, “aim[ed] at something more than the supply of daily needs” (15); this aim initiated the earliest political formation, the village. Aristotle famously described man (by which he meant the adult Greek male (16)) as a “political animal” (politikon zoon) who presided over family members not only to meet their material needs but as the material precondition for his participation in political life, in which discourse and reason replaced mindless deeds, custom, and violence. Thus, “[w]hen several villages are united in a single complete community (koinonan), large enough to be nearly or quite self-sufficing,” he continued, “the polis comes into existence,originating in the bare needs of life, and continuing in existence for the sake of a good life.”(17)" - new-compass.net/articles/communalist-project

Bookchin/Varg slash fiction should be a thing

How is it irrational?

I can understand Bookchin's ideas of ecological devastation being able to be done with simple tools as a reason to not just "go back in time" but progress for the sake of progress is just irrational.

It is irrational with regards to dialectical reason (i.e. dialectical progression). The family was the primary unit of society prior to the rise of civilization, which transcended the blood tie of kinship. To go back from civilization to the family, would be going backwards (irrational) rather than forward (rational) in the dialectical sense.

with this backwards/forward mentality you are setting up prejudges for things to be good or bad without looking at them rationally