Anarcho-Nihilism
For the
philosophical position, see
Nihilism.
“The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion.”
Anarcho-Nihilism is an ultra-radical anarchist,
post-leftist ideology and a form of
Anarcho-Individualism that advocates for the complete rejection of all social institutions, including religion, law, and any form of morality. Rooted in the concept of "anarchy," meaning the absence of authority, and the Latin word "nihilo," meaning "nothing," Anarcho-Nihilism holds that all systems of power, control, and belief are inherently oppressive and should be dismantled without replacement. This ideology emphasizes the individual's freedom from any external constraints, advocating for a world where no structures or ethical frameworks dictate human behavior. There's no consensus on the shortened form of Anarcho-, with all three variants—AnNihil, AnNil, and AnNi—used interchangeably.
Beliefs
Anarcho-Nihilism is a radical ideological framework within Anarchism that extends beyond the rejection of conventional political structures to a broader denunciation of all societal institutions. This philosophy not only critiques
the state and
Capitalism, as more traditional anarchist movements do, but fundamentally opposes
the very concept of civilization and its associated norms, including
morality,
religion,
law, and even the notion of
progress itself. Anarcho-Nihilists challenge the structures of power that permeate every aspect of human life, advocating for a profound dismantling of these systems. Their critique is driven not by a belief in
utopian futures or
systematic reform but by an immediate desire to reject the oppression imposed by modernity and its institutions.
This vision is sometimes misunderstood or misrepresented under various terms, such as Systemless Anarchism or
Apolitical Anarchism, the latter being an erroneous label often applied by those who fail to grasp the depth of Anarcho-Nihilist critique. In reality, Anarcho-Nihilists do not merely
reject the political systems in the traditional sense but extend their rejection to the very frameworks that give politics meaning, such as ideologies, social norms, and
ethical systems. Thus, it is not an
apolitical stance in the typical sense of disengagement from state politics but a total refutation of political engagement at all levels. Similarly, the concept of
Radical Anarcho-Apoliticism is another mischaracterization, inaccurately portraying Anarcho-Nihilism as a form of extreme political indifference. In truth, it is not indifference but a radical opposition to the systems of meaning and control that underpin politics itself.
Some critiques from within anarchist circles label this philosophy as Ultra-Anarchism, reflecting its perceived extremism even in comparison to other anarchist tendencies. The term suggests that Anarcho-Nihilism represents a form of Anarchism that is so radical it appears to transcend the very boundaries of anarchist thought. More often than not, Anarcho-Nihilism finds itself in opposition to more constructive anarchist ideologies that envision post-revolutionary societies or strive for decentralized, stateless communities. By contrast, it remains skeptical of such visions, rejecting the idea of replacement systems or blueprints for the future, making his a form of
anarchy without Anarchism, as some might put it. In this context, it is an anarchy stripped of ideological constructs, a rejection not just of hierarchical institutions but of the conceptual frameworks that often inform even anarchist visions of freedom. Additionally, Anarcho-Nihilism has sometimes been pejoratively described as an extreme form of
political Depressionism by critics who argue that its pessimism about human nature and society leads to a kind of intellectual and emotional paralysis. Detractors claim that its fundamental rejection of all systems and its refusal to offer a positive vision for the future creates a
nihilistic malaise, stifling action. However, proponents would counter that this dismissal misinterprets their core aim, which is not inaction but a liberation from the constraints imposed by both civilization and its utopian alternatives. From outside anarchist circles, particularly from
authoritarian,
socialist, and
conservative critics, Anarcho-Nihilism is sometimes labeled
Dystopian Anarchism, a term that suggests it advocates for a collapse into
chaos and disorder, foreseeing no alternative to the state or capitalism other than a grim descent into
violence and destruction. This term, used derogatorily, portrays Anarcho-Nihilism as reckless and fatalistic, with no constructive vision to replace the systems it seeks to abolish. In response, Anarcho-Nihilism argues that this criticism reflects an authoritarian mindset unable to imagine
freedom outside of hierarchical structures or the state, failing to appreciate the liberatory potential of dismantling oppressive institutions.
Within anarchist thought itself, some factions deride Anarcho-Nihilism as Strawman Anarchism. This critique comes from non-nihilist anarchists who argue that the movement misrepresents or undermines the broader anarchist tradition. According to this view, Anarcho-Nihilism sets up a strawman by conflating constructive Anarchism with reformist or statist tendencies, thereby dismissing efforts to build alternative systems or communities as inherently flawed or oppressive. These critics maintain that Anarchism, at its core, is not just about destruction but about creating new, more just ways of living. From their perspective, Anarcho-Nihilists undermine the potential for meaningful change, offering only nihilism in return.
Core Principles
“Our task is terrible, total, universal, and merciless destruction.”
Total Rejection of Social Institutions and Civilization
Anarcho-Nihilism is rooted in the absolute rejection of all social institutions, which are viewed as instruments of domination and control. These structures—ranging from government and religion to education and family—enforce rigid social roles that suppress individual freedom and enforce conformity. Civilization itself, from the Anarcho-Nihilist perspective, is inherently oppressive, representing a long history of coercion and subjugation that alienates individuals from their natural autonomy. Unlike traditional anarchist movements, which may seek to reform or abolish specific aspects of the state or capitalism, Anarcho-Nihilists argue that all forms of organized society contribute to the perpetuation of hierarchical power structures. As such, their critique goes beyond the political sphere, encompassing the entirety of civilized life, including its underlying moral, economic, and cultural norms.
"The nihilist is not one who believes in nothing, but one who does not believe in what exists."
This radical rejection extends to the very concept of progress and the belief in human advancement through the development of more sophisticated social systems. Anarcho-Nihilists contend that any attempt to build or maintain institutions, even with egalitarian intentions, will ultimately lead to new forms of domination. They view institutions not as neutral entities, but as mechanisms that inevitably constrain and regulate human behavior. For them, liberation lies not in the creation of new systems, but in the complete dismantling of all institutionalized control. Thus, their worldview is one of perpetual defiance, where individual freedom can only be achieved through the destruction of civilization’s repressive structures.
Resistance Without Hope for Systemic Change
Anarcho-Nihilists engage in resistance even though they often acknowledge the improbability of achieving long-term, systemic change. Rather than pursuing utopian ideals or hoping for societal transformation, they emphasize the intrinsic value of resistance itself. For them, the act of rebellion is not a means to an end, but a fundamental assertion of autonomy in a world dominated by oppressive institutions. This belief is rooted in the understanding that history has often proven anarchist movements unsuccessful in their goals of dismantling power structures. Yet, despite these failures, Anarcho-Nihilists maintain that resistance is necessary as an expression of personal freedom, even if it does not lead to lasting victories over the systems they oppose.
This outlook reflects a form of defiance that exists outside of traditional notions of success or failure. Anarcho-Nihilists are not motivated by a desire to win or to reshape society in a particular image, but by the immediate assertion of individual autonomy. Resistance becomes an end in itself, an act of self-liberation from the constraints of law, morality, and societal expectations. By refusing to conform, even in the face of overwhelming odds, Anarcho-Nihilists embody a tragic heroism that values autonomy over any potential for societal change. Their struggle is driven by the present moment, where even brief acts of defiance provide liberation from the institutions that seek to control their lives.
The Liberation of Destruction
For Anarcho-Nihilists, true freedom is found not in the creation of new systems, but in the act of destruction. This belief stems from their deep distrust of institutionalized power, which they argue will always recreate forms of domination, regardless of the ideals behind them. Therefore, rather than focusing on building alternative systems, Anarcho-Nihilists prioritize tearing down the existing ones. Destruction is seen as a necessary response to the suffocating structures of civilization, and it becomes a form of personal liberation. The act of breaking societal norms, laws, and institutions is a way for individuals to momentarily reclaim their freedom from the oppressive mechanisms of control.
This embrace of destruction is not simply nihilistic for its own sake, but a means of creating spaces of autonomy within a repressive world. Anarcho-Nihilists believe that, in moments of insurrection and rebellion, individuals experience true freedom by rejecting the constraints imposed upon them by civilization. Whether through acts of sabotage, insurrection, or even crime, these moments of destruction allow for an immediate, if temporary, break from the control of societal institutions. Anarcho-Nihilists are not concerned with the aftermath of these actions—what matters is the liberating experience of rebellion itself, which defies the oppressive forces of civilization and allows for a fleeting reclamation of autonomy.
History
Origin and Background
“To reject all authority, all traditional influences, all hitherto recognized guideposts, to rely solely on the force of reason, not accepting any idea until it has been empirically proven – such is the course we must follow.”
Anarcho-Nihilism's origins can be traced to the mid-19th century, a time of intense social upheaval and ideological experimentation in Russia, where
Russian Nihilism first emerged. This early nihilist movement was a reaction to the oppressive
autocratic rule of the
Russian Empire and the stifling influence of the
Orthodox Church. Russian Nihilists rejected the established social, political, and religious structures that they viewed as unjust, hypocritical, and artificial. They sought to destroy these systems, aiming for a radical form of liberation. However, unlike later anarchists who envisioned new forms of egalitarian societies, Russian Nihilists focused solely on the act of destruction without proposing any alternatives to the existing order. Their philosophy was summarized in the belief that revolutionary destruction was the first and only necessary step, leaving the construction of a new society to those who might follow.
Key figures like Peter Kropotkin saw Russian Nihilism as a revolutionary force that symbolized the struggle for individual freedom against all forms of tyranny. Though Kropotkin himself was a
Social Anarchist, he recognized
Nihilism as an essential expression of rebellion against oppressive institutions. In literature, the character Bazarov in Ivan Turgenev’s Fathers and Sons (1862) encapsulated this nihilist spirit, emphasizing the need to dismantle everything before new possibilities could emerge. The movement’s most famous act of revolt—the assassination of
Tsar Alexander II in 1881—illustrated their commitment to violent direct action as a means of achieving political and social upheaval. Despite this, Russian Nihilists remained largely focused on the cultural and intellectual dismantling of
traditional values, prioritizing the deconstruction of
moral,
religious, and
philosophical norms over constructing revolutionary alternatives.
While Russian Nihilism shared some conceptual territory with later anarchist movements, it differed significantly in its philosophical foundations. Many Russian Nihilists adhered to Ontological Materialism and
Scientism, believing that
all human thought and behavior were determined by physical and material forces. They rejected metaphysical or spiritual explanations, a stance that set them apart from both
Max Stirner’s existential egoism and later Anarcho-Nihilists’ rejection of all institutional forms of thought. Figures like
Mikhail Bakunin, though associated with the Nihilist cause, promoted Social Anarchism with a clear vision of a post-revolutionary world based on egalitarian principles, far from the nihilist idea of destruction for its own sake. Similarly,
Nikolay Chernyshevsky and
Sergey Nechayev—though influential in their radicalism—leaned more toward
socialist or
communist ideals, which ultimately sought structured outcomes and societal reforms.
The transition from Russian Nihilism to Anarcho-Nihilism occurred with the advent of thinkers like Renzo Novatore, an early 20th-century
Italian
Illegalist and proto-Anarcho-Nihilist. Novatore's writings, such as "I Am Also a Nihilist," mark a shift toward a more explicitly egoist form of Nihilism (also known as
Ego-Nihilism), one that rejected not only traditional social structures but also the institutionalization of
egoism itself. Unlike Russian Nihilists, who often supported socialism and collectivist ideals, Novatore’s Ego-Nihilism was a radical
Individualism that went beyond the limits of philosophical egoism as articulated by thinkers like Stirner. Novatore argued that even the concept of egoism could become a new form of institutionalized oppression, and therefore, it too had to be resisted. This radical stance against all forms of institutionalization, even those arising from anarchist or egoist ideologies, laid the groundwork for modern Anarcho-Nihilism.
Ideological Influences
Modern Anarcho-Nihilism is deeply shaped by a pessimistic outlook on the potential for human liberation within existing societal structures, and it draws from several significant philosophical traditions, including
Nietzschean philosophy and
Anarcho-Egoism. Max Stirner’s Egoism, with its emphasis on
individual autonomy and the rejection of imposed social norms, particularly through his critique of revolution in favor of spontaneous insurrection, lays much of the theoretical groundwork. Stirner’s concept of
Radical Individualism, where even egoism should not become institutionalized, resonates with Anarcho-Nihilists, who push the critique even further by rejecting all forms of institutionalization—including
those based on egoistic principles. They embrace an existential rejection of meaning and imposed morality, a stance that aligns them with Nietzsche’s rejection of absolute values and metaphysical truths.
In this context, Anarcho-Illegalism also plays a significant role. Originating from a
post-left anarchist movement, it rejects both legal and moral restrictions, embracing lawlessness and criminal acts as valid forms of rebellion. Anarcho-Nihilists build on this by rejecting any goal of establishing even a coherent egoist society. Instead, they view all forms of institutionalization, including those designed to promote individual freedom, as repressive, thereby calling for
total rebellion against all societal structures. As Novatore famously stated:
"My motto is: walk expropriating and igniting, always leaving behind me howls of moral offenses and smoking trunks of old things."
Anarcho-Nihilism’s radical rejection of civilization connects it with Anti-Civilization and Post-Civilization
movements, particularly
Anarcho-Primitivism in some cases. However, while primitivists may idealize a return to a “noble savage” existence, Anarcho-Nihilists tend to lean more toward
personal ferality and chaos rather than any utopian vision of pre-civilized life. Their stance often incorporates
Ecological Pessimism, expressing a profound doubt about the potential for modern environmentalism or civilization to achieve meaningful harmony with nature. This bleak view of both society and ecological futures further deepens their rejection of civilization and fuels their commitment to insurrectionary acts, not as a means to create a better future, but as an immediate expression of rebellion against a world they view as irredeemably corrupt.
Impact on Contemporary Movements
Anarcho-Nihilism has significantly shaped various anarchist and post-leftist movements, particularly in its rejection of
organized revolution and structured frameworks.
Insurrectionary Anarchism adopts the anarcho-nihilist emphasis on decentralized, spontaneous uprisings as a means of resisting
authority. Insurrectionary anarchists advocate direct, often
violent, actions that aim to disrupt power structures without replacing them. They reject long-term revolutionary strategies in favor of continuous rebellion, reflecting the anarcho-nihilist belief that institutionalized revolutions ultimately lead to new forms of domination, rather than true liberation. This emphasis on insurrection as a method of immediate, ongoing revolt aligns with Anarcho-Nihilism’s opposition to any fixed political outcome.
Synthesis Anarchism, which seeks to reconcile diverse anarchist tendencies, encounters resistance from Anarcho-Nihilism due to its belief that attempts to unify or organize different strands of Anarchism lead to new forms of repression. Anarcho-Nihilism critiques this approach, arguing that cooperation inevitably results in
hierarchical structures that suppress
individual autonomy. This stance challenges the pluralistic vision of Synthesis Anarchism, underscoring a key tension within anarchist thought: the role of organization and collective action versus total rejection of all institutional forms, even within Anarchism itself. For anarcho-nihilists, any structured unity undermines the potential for unrestrained individual freedom.
Post-leftist movements like Queer Nihilism,
Nihilist Communism, and Cyber Nihilism further develop anarcho-nihilist principles in their own contexts. Queer Nihilism challenges not only traditional
gender
and
sexual
norms but also the broader concept of identity itself. It seeks to dismantle rigid identity categories imposed by both mainstream society and certain progressive movements, advocating for an
unfixed, fluid understanding of self that resists any form of categorization. This deconstruction of identity is rooted in the anarcho-nihilist commitment to autonomy and the belief that any imposed label, even liberatory ones, can become oppressive. Nihilist Communism intertwines anarcho-nihilist pessimism with
Marxist critique, opposing not just
Capitalism and the state but the very idea of a
post-revolutionary utopia. Nihilist communists reject the teleological vision of a perfect society emerging after revolution, arguing instead for the perpetual destruction of hierarchical systems. They view all attempts at creating an idealized future as futile and believe the focus should remain on dismantling oppressive structures in the present, without any illusions of a future free from
power dynamics, which in turn reflects Anarcho-Nihilism’s skepticism toward long-term goals and organized societal change. Cyber Nihilism applies these principles to the digital realm, critiquing how technology and virtual spaces replicate and reinforce real-world systems of domination and control. Cyber-nihilists explore how digital networks, algorithms, and online platforms mirror oppressive social structures, arguing that technology extends to
the reach of surveillance, commodification, and control into every aspect of life. In response, they promote
acts of disruption within these spaces—ranging from cyber sabotage to anti-data activism—viewing digital resistance as a new frontier of insurrection. This movement aligns with anarcho-nihilist anti-civilization thought, as it recognizes the pervasive and invasive nature of modern technological systems and seeks to dismantle them from within.
Variants of Anarcho-Nihilism
Regional Tendencies
Flower Bomb
The Flower Bomb strand of Anarcho-Nihilism represents a delicate balance between disillusionment with the present and a lingering hope for a more feral, liberated future. Adherents of this variant acknowledge the inherent flaws of civilization and the difficulty of achieving any lasting change within it. However, they hold onto the possibility of a future where human life might return to a freer, less structured existence outside the constraints of social institutions. Unlike other nihilist currents that emphasize immediate destruction and insurrection, the Flower Bomb perspective envisions a gradual erosion of the structures of civilization, where individuals can reclaim their autonomy through more subtle acts of rebellion and non-participation.
Despite their disillusionment with the modern world, Flower Bomb Anarcho-Nihilists are not entirely without hope. They envision a future where humans might once again live in harmony with nature, free from the oppressive institutions of modern society. This vision is not utopian in the sense of a perfect world, but rather a feral existence where individuals live on their own terms, untethered by the constraints of civilization. While they share the rejection of societal institutions with other Anarcho-Nihilist currents, Flower Bomb adherents maintain a belief that personal freedom and wildness can still be achieved in the future, even if systemic change seems impossible in the present.
Indigenous Anarcho-Nihilism
A branch of Anarcho-Nihilism draws from indigenous philosophies, merging them with nihilist critiques of modernity and colonialism. This perspective highlights the tension between indigenous ways of living and the impositions of modern civilization. Here, the rejection of institutions includes not only contemporary systems like capitalism and the state but also the very concept of progress that civilization is built upon. Indigenous Anarcho-Nihilism critiques the artificial separation between humanity and nature, a split enforced by colonial systems that prioritize human domination over the earth. In this view, civilization represents an ecological and spiritual alienation that must be dismantled to restore harmony between humans and the natural world.
In these perspectives, there is an emphasis on the interconnectedness of life, where animistic understandings of nature imbue all living things with agency and autonomy. This branch of Anarcho-Nihilism calls for the dissolution of all hierarchical structures, not only among humans but between humans and the earth. It is deeply informed by traditions that have long resisted the imposition of colonial and capitalist logics, advocating for a collapse of the systems that exploit both people and the planet. Rather than seeking a return to a mythical past, this version of Anarcho-Nihilism calls for the complete destruction of civilization and its extractive, hierarchical modes of living, allowing for a more fluid and non-hierarchical existence.
Tang Ping Movement
The Tang Ping (lying flat) movement, originating in China, represents a modern and subtle form of Anarcho-Nihilism, embodying the rejection of societal expectations around work, productivity, and reproduction. In a context where hyper-controlled and authoritarian regimes demand constant labor and obedience, those who embrace this movement choose to withdraw from the pressures of overwork and societal participation. By rejecting the constant pursuit of wealth, career advancement, and family life, adherents express a quiet form of resistance against the capitalist and political systems that demand relentless sacrifice. Their refusal to engage with societal expectations is a deliberate retreat from imposed obligations, reflecting an individualistic defiance similar to egoist Anarchism.
At the heart of this movement is a cynicism towards the promises of modern life, particularly under authoritarian regimes like China's, where economic prosperity and career success are held up as ideals. Adherents of Tang Ping refuse to participate in these cycles, choosing instead to prioritize personal autonomy over societal or familial duties. The movement also reflects broader disillusionment with the societal narrative of progress, questioning the necessity of constant work and contribution. This retreat into individual autonomy can be seen as a rejection of social reproduction—whether through work, procreation, or consumption—aligning with the nihilist critique of modern civilization as inherently oppressive and unsustainable.
Personal Tendencies
Fumiko Kaneko Thought
Kaneko Fumiko (金子 文子, Kaneko Fumiko, January 25, 1903 – July 23, 1926) or rarely Pak Fumiko and Pak Munja (Korean: 박문자; Hanja: 朴文子), was a Japanese anarchist and nihilist. She was convicted of plotting to assassinate members of the Japanese Imperial family. Kaneko Fumiko was born in the Kotobuki district of Yokohama during the Meiji period in Japan. Her parents were Fumikazu Saeki, a man from a samurai family, and Kikuno Kaneko, the daughter of a peasant. Because they were not officially married, Kaneko could not be registered as a Saeki. She remained unregistered until she was 8 years old, at which point she was registered as her mother's sister, a fairly common practice for children born out of wedlock. Kaneko recalls that the first few years of her life were fairly happy, as her father was employed as a detective at a police office and cared for his family, though they were fairly poor. However, Fumikazu left his job at the police station, and the family moved around a considerable amount over the next few years. Fumikazu was also increasingly drawn to gambling and drinking, and began to abuse Kikuno, and became involved with other women, including Kikuno's sister Takano. Eventually, Fumikazu left Kikuno and married Takano. During this time, Kaneko was first confronted with the problems of being an unregistered child. Her circumstances made her "invisible to educational authorities," and she was not technically allowed to attend school. Some schools eventually permitted her to attend classes, but she was not called in attendance, did not receive report cards, and was ineligible to receive the official certificate of graduation at the end of a class year. Despite these difficulties, including frequent gaps in her attendance, she did very well in school. After Kaneko's father left, her mother was involved with several other men, but none of these relationships led to better living circumstances and they were nearly always extremely impoverished. Kikuno even considered selling Kaneko to a brothel, claiming that it would be a better life for her, but she abandoned this plan when it turned out that Kaneko would be sent far away to another region of Japan. After several years of these difficult circumstances, Kaneko lived briefly with her maternal grandparents while her mother remarried again. In 1912, her father's mother, Mutsu Sakei-Iwashita, came to visit, and it was agreed that Kaneko would go back with her to her home in Korea, where she would be adopted by her aunt, who was childless. Before leaving Japan, Kaneko was finally registered as the daughter of her maternal grandparents. Shortly after her arrival in Korea, it became clear that Kaneko would not be adopted or provided with the higher level of living that she expected. For the first year or so, they kept up the pretense of including her in their family by allowing her to use the name Iwashita, but after that she was called Kaneko. Her grandmother introduced her to visitors as a child she had taken in out of pity from some people she barely knew and her grandmother and aunt treated her like a maid. It appears that they did initially intend to adopt her, but, at least from Kaneko's perspective, they decided quickly that she was too poorly brought up and unrefined to be their family heir. The only advantage she had was finally being able to attend school regularly, and even her education was limited because her relatives refused to let her read anything besides her required work for school. She was initially promised a high level of education that would eventually lead her to college, but they only allowed her to continue her schooling through the lower primary and higher primary grades and did not attempt to enroll her in a high school. After she finished school, she had to spend all her time working in the house, and she cites this period as the worst of her time in Korea. Kaneko was subjected to extremely poor treatment under her relatives in Korea. Despite their relative wealth, she was only provided with the bare minimum in terms of clothing and living circumstances, and was frequently beaten and deprived of food as a punishment for perceived wrongdoing, sometimes so badly that she contemplated suicide. Her time in Korea also allowed her to observe the mistreatment of the native Koreans by her relatives and other Japanese occupiers. In 1919, when she was 16, Kaneko was sent back to her maternal family in Japan, presumably because she was of marriageable age and her grandmother and aunt did not want to have to arrange a match for her. She stayed with her maternal grandparents again and began to form a strong relationship with her Uncle Motoei, who, because of the way she was registered, was officially her brother. By this time, she had reconnected with her birth father, living with him for short periods of time, and he attempted to arrange a marriage between Kaneko and Motoei. The arrangement fell through, because Motoei discovered that Kaneko had developed a relationship with another young man and claimed that her potential loss of virginity suggested by that relationship voided his agreement with her father. Kaneko was sent back to live with her father after this event, but her life there was unpleasant and she was not allowed to follow her desires for a serious education, so she decided to go to Tokyo and pursue a life there. When Kaneko arrived in Tokyo in 1920, she initially lived with her great uncle, but soon managed to get a position as a newspaper girl. She requested an advance on her wages in order to pay her enrollment fees at two different co-ed schools, and started to take classes in mathematics and English. Her job introduced her to a number of groups, most notably the Christian Salvation Army and members of the Anarchist, Nihilist and socialist movements who advocated their radical, revolutionary philosophies on the street. However, the job was difficult, her employer exploited his workers and was unfaithful in his marriages, and she hardly had any time to keep up with her school work, so she eventually quit. She then briefly maintained a relationship with the Salvation Army group, but she was not compelled by their beliefs and was abandoned by her one Christian friend after a time because he believed the feelings he was developing for her were threatening his beliefs. While she hoped to escape the hypocrisy she saw in this group by joining the socialist movement, she found that socialists could also behave in ways that seemed to contradict their beliefs, and she eventually abandoned them as well in favor of a more independent activism. Kaneko was able to attend school on and off in the midst of these life developments, and the major shift in her thinking, from socialism to anarchism and nihilism, began in 1922, when she met Hatsuyo Niiyama at her night school classes. In her memoirs, Kaneko calls Hatsuyo her "closest friend," and mentions that she introduced her to the ideas of thinkers like Max Stirner, Mikhail Artsybashev, and Friedrich Nietzsche. Around this time, Kaneko was also introduced to a Korean activist named Pak Yol, who shared many of her ideas, and when she finally abandoned the socialist movement she worked with Pak to attempt to accomplish her vision. Together, Kaneko and Pak published two magazines which highlighted the problems Koreans faced under Japanese imperialism (though they were never directly a part of the Korean independence movement) and showed influences of their radical beliefs. The articles Kaneko wrote for these publications were probably her most obvious activist activity. Sometime between 1922 and 1923, they also established a group called "Futei-sha (Society of Malcontents)," which Kaneko identified as a group advocating for direct action against the government. These activities soon brought Pak and Kaneko under government scrutiny. In September 1923, the hugely destructive Great Kantō earthquake led to massive public anxiety, with many people concerned that the Koreans, who were already agitating for independence from Japan, would use the confusion to start a rebellion. The government therefore made a number of arrests, mostly of Koreans, on limited evidence, and among those arrested were Pak and Kaneko. After lengthy judicial proceedings, Kaneko and Pak were convicted of high treason for attempting to obtain bombs with the intention of killing the emperor or his son. They confessed to this crime, and it appears that at least Kaneko made herself appear guiltier than she actually was, possibly with the intention of sacrificing herself for her cause. During the trial, Kaneko wrote the story of her life as a way of explaining "what made me do what I did," and this memoir is the main source of information about her life, along with court documents. Pak and Kaneko, who had been romantically involved for most of their time together, were legally married a few days prior to their sentencing, which historian Hélène Bowen Raddeker identifies as a move to "underscore the obvious irony in the fact that the Japanese state had united them legally in life before uniting them legally in death." Pak and Kaneko were initially given the death sentence, but an imperial pardon commuted that sentence to life imprisonment. Instead of accepting this pardon, Kaneko tore it up and refused to thank the emperor. While Pak survived his time in prison and was released years later, Kaneko was reported to have committed suicide in her cell in 1926, although there were suspicious circumstances around her death. Though Kaneko considered the belief systems put forth by the Salvation Army group and the Socialists, she eventually settled on nihilism as her guiding philosophy. Her perception of nihilism changed over time, as is indicated by a statement she made to the court in 1925. She stated, in reference to the strictly negative version of nihilism she originally pursued, that "formerly I said 'I negate life'... [but] my negation of all life was completely meaningless... The stronger the affirmation of life, the stronger the creation of life- negation together with rebellion. Therefore, I affirm life." However, she also takes care to define what this affirmation of life means for a nihilist, which she expects to be very different from the perspectives of the officials: "Living is not synonymous with merely having movement. It is moving in accordance with one's will… one could say that with deeds, one begins to really live. Accordingly, when one moves by means of one's own will and this leads to the destruction of one's body, this is not a negation of life. It is an affirmation." The anarchist cause that she eventually followed was supported ideologically by her rejection of nationalism and the idea of the emperor, as well as a pessimistic belief about the nature of revolutions. In her testimony at her trial, she explained that she and Pak "thought of throwing a bomb [at the emperor] to show he too will die like any other human being," and rejected "the concepts of loyalty to the emperor and love of nation" as "simply rhetorical notions that are being manipulated by the tiny group of privileged classes to fulfill their own greed and interests." Initially, this rejection of the emperor system may have led her to believe in an alternative political system, but after seeing the way members of other groups behaved, she came to believe that any leader, whether the emperor, or other government officials, or a completely new government under socialists, would equally abuse power dynamics and oppress the people. For her, "[revolution] simply means replacing one authority with another," and since she believed that no system of authority could or would operate without oppression, it is logical that she eventually directed her activities towards abolishing all authority. Though she believed, in line with nihilistic thought, that it was not possible to cure the evils in the world, her actions as an anarchist reflect her belief that "even if we cannot embrace any social ideals, every one of us can find some task that is truly meaningful to us. It does not matter whether our activities produce meaningful results or not… this would enable us to bring our lives immediately in to harmony with our existence." While Kaneko did not formally associate herself with any sort of women's movement, she clearly held strong beliefs about the need for equality between men and women. When her great-uncle repeatedly tried to persuade her to abandon the idea of education and "marry a working merchant," she insisted that she could "never become the wife of a tradesman." Though she does not appear to have fully verbalized her reasoning to her great-uncle, she states in her memoir that she wanted to be independent, "no longer… under the care of anybody." Kaneko also expressed concerns that schools specifically for women did not provide equal opportunities, and committed to pursuing her own education only at co-ed schools. Finally, some of the hypocrisy she was most concerned about in the socialist groups had to do with their treatment of women in general, and her in particular. For instance, she broke off a relationship with a fellow socialist, Segawa, after he brushed off a question about the possibility of their relationship leading to pregnancy. She "expected him to take some responsibility," and saw that she "was being toyed with and taken advantage of." Within this context, she challenged the double standard that allowed men to participate in casual relationships without repercussions while women were expected to bear full responsibility for the possible consequences. Additionally, she saw this behavior as further evidence that these men were not truly committed to the ideas they espoused, as real socialism would require a greater level of equality.
- Kaneko and, particularly, her trial was portrayed in the 2017 film Anarchist from Colony.
- A newspaper containing Kaneko's photograph was discussed in Mr. Sunshine.
Jokerism
To understand each version of the ideology of Jokerism, you need to optionally watch the Movies to understand each unique aspect that characterizes each Joker in the Cinema, so this will have to be divided in order to know what are the Characteristics that differentiate one from the Others and we are also going to see each version of the Joker that came only from the Cinema and not from the Comics, much less the animated series and animated Movies of the same
joker (in 2019 joker)
note. I'm not going to mention Joker 2 here because the truth is that the movie was a real highlight.
Jokerism is the ideology of Arthur Fleck, and the movement spawned around him in the film Joker (2019). It grew in response to the murder of three wealthy investors, viewing the murderer as a working-class vigilante. The movement is further pushed on by Thomas Wayne's response to the murders, wherein he calls people who "haven't made something of their lives" as clowns. The protests are anti-capitalist and heavily
. Fleck himself isn't strongly political and is mostly just a nihilist, however he does side with more radical political movements as they further his goals. Although a fictional ideology, the imagery of Joker was used by various protesters disillusioned with
in Chile and Lebanon. And had been used as a symbol for protestors
The Characteristics of the Ideology in Joker 1 are as follows:
Anarcho-Nihilism
Anarchism
Anti-Authoritarianism
Anti-Capitalism
Anti-Society
Illegalism
Nihilism
Radical Apoliticism
Terrorism
Left-Wing Populism
Personality, Characteristics and behaviors:
Arthur Fleck's personality is that of a Nihilist and somewhat Depressive. It's not because of Hate but in many moments throughout the Movie. From the beginning of the Movie, Arthur shows how the Laughter he always gives is a Laughter so forced and so sad that it literally makes you feel identified with him. This is demonstrated in many moments, such as when he tries to make a child laugh in the city's subway. When the child's mother tells her son not to hang out with her, Arthur gives him a fit of laughter at that moment. and there are even scenes where he is crying while laughing. Those scenes are some of the sad ones in the movie. What differentiates the rest of the Jokers in the cinema is that this joker is that his laughter is not out of evil or because he fell silent from a Precipice full of Acid. This laughter is the product of a mental disorder that in fact exists and is known as pseudobulvar involvement that arises due to a combination of several disorders or extreme trauma during childhood. and this is the case of Arthur fleck. a boy whose mother Penny was absent from him during his childhood. leaving him alone almost all the time and because his Mother was dating several Men who later one of them would abuse Arthur making that the Natural cause why his Disorder manifested itself. In the Movie much of Arthur Fleck's Illness is never explained but with this explanation it makes even more sense considering that he is Adopted and that was the Reason why he never remembered much of his Childhood due to another Psychological explanation What do they have to do with the pills that Arthur Fleck takes throughout the movie. The Pills Arthur takes are Anti-depression Pills. in real life anti-depressant pills such as tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs). which aims to reduce the frequency and severity of emotional attacks. However, what happens is that since Penny had made Arthur believe that his father was Thomas Wayne, it is a sign of psychological and emotional manipulation. Since before telling him that his mother never told him who his father was during his childhood and that's why Arthur was left with that doubt about who his father was. since since it is Adopted, we never know about the Parents of the People who are Adopted. WIP (Work in Progress)
Real examples
While Anarcho-Nihilism remains a fringe ideology within the broader anarchist movement, certain groups and incidents have adopted its principles in practice. One of the most prominent organizations associated with Anarcho-Nihilism is the Greek
terrorist group Nihilist Faction (Φράξια Μηδενιστών). Active in the late 1990s, this group carried out a series of bombings targeting symbols of state and corporate power, including attacks on IBM offices, a shopping center, and the apartment of the Greek Supreme Court deputy prosecutor. Their actions reflected a deep opposition to societal institutions, aligning with the nihilist tenet of destruction for the sake of liberation. Later, between 2012 and 2014, the group participated in arson attacks against Greek diplomats' cars as part of the Conspiracy of Fire Nuclei, a decentralized network of radical anarchist cells. While the group’s devotion to concepts like "inalienable rights to life and liberty" suggests influences from Russian Nihilism, their methods of violent revolt mirror the destructive impulses central to Anarcho-Nihilism.
Beyond the Nihilist Faction, Anarcho-Nihilism has not seen the establishment of large organizations devoted solely to its ideology. Instead, it manifests through individual or small-group actions aimed at disrupting societal structures, often through
criminal or illegalist methods. The Conspiracy of Fire Nuclei (Συνωμοσία Πυρήνων της Φωτιάς), a loosely organized
anarchist network operating primarily in
Greece, has carried out
arson, bombings, and other attacks in line with nihilistic principles. Although the group is not explicitly Anarcho-Nihilist, many of its cells advocate for the complete destruction of
state and
capitalist systems without proposing a clear alternative, sharing the Anarcho-Nihilist ethos of rebellion through destruction. Such groups often use symbolic violence, not only as a means of direct action but also to signal their rejection of all forms of hierarchical authority and control. These groups, while diverse in their tactics, all embody aspects of the nihilistic rejection of society seen in Anarcho-Nihilism.
Ideological Misunderstandings
Anarcho-Nihilism, with its radical rejection of societal structures and emphasis on destruction over creation, is often misunderstood and misrepresented. Due to its uncompromising critique of civilization and its embrace of Nihilism, it is frequently conflated with other philosophical positions, most notably Existential Nihilism or
Absolute Pessimism. These misconceptions can obscure the distinctiveness of Anarcho-Nihilism, leading to oversimplified interpretations that ignore its core principles of active resistance and individual autonomy. Furthermore, the philosophy's seemingly bleak outlook often causes it to be mischaracterized as life-denying, when in fact, it centers on reclaiming personal freedom and rejecting the oppressive values imposed by society. By addressing these misunderstandings, we can clarify the unique tenets of Anarcho-Nihilism and distinguish it from other, more passive forms of
Nihilism and
Pessimism.
Anarcho-Nihilism vs.
Existential Nihilism
One of the most prevalent misconceptions about Anarcho-Nihilism is its conflation with Existential Nihilism, the philosophical doctrine that life is inherently meaningless and devoid of purpose. While both share a fundamental skepticism about established values and systems, the two perspectives diverge significantly in their approach to meaning and action. Existential nihilism, in its most extreme forms, often leads to a kind of passive resignation to the meaninglessness of existence, fostering a sense of despair or apathy. In contrast, Anarcho-Nihilism is an active, combative philosophy that seeks to engage with the world through rebellion and resistance.
For Anarcho-Nihilists, the recognition of the meaninglessness of societal values does not lead to resignation, but to a renewed urgency for action. They reject societal structures precisely because these structures are seen as attempts to impose false meaning and order on life. Rather than withdrawing into passivity, Anarcho-Nihilists advocate for direct, often confrontational, action against the systems that seek to control and domesticate human existence. In this way, their nihilism is not about embracing hopelessness, but about finding freedom through the rejection of all imposed values and structures.
This active engagement distinguishes Anarcho-Nihilism from the more introspective and despairing aspects of existential nihilism. Anarcho-Nihilism’s rejection of meaning is not an end point, but the starting place for a radical form of rebellion. By destroying the systems that create false meanings and oppressions, Anarcho-Nihilists aim to create moments of true autonomy and liberation, even if they do not lead to permanent societal change.
Anarcho-Nihilism vs.
Absolute Pessimism
Another common misunderstanding of Anarcho-Nihilism is its association with Absolute Pessimism, a worldview that sees life itself as irredeemably miserable and not worth living. While it is true that Anarcho-Nihilists often express deep cynicism about the possibility of large-scale societal change or improvement, this does not equate to a rejection of life or existence itself. In fact, many Anarcho-Nihilists exhibit a deep appreciation for the raw, unmediated experience of life outside of the constraints of civilization.
The pessimism that characterizes Anarcho-Nihilism is not directed at life in its natural or existential state, but at the systems of control that distort and suppress it. For Anarcho-Nihilists, the problem is not existence, but the artificial structures—governments, laws, economies, and even moral codes—that limit human potential and freedom. Their nihilism is a critique of these systems, not a blanket condemnation of life itself. Rather than being life-denying, Anarcho-Nihilism can be seen as a life-affirming stance, in which true freedom and authenticity are only possible through the destruction of civilization’s repressive institutions.
Furthermore, Anarcho-Nihilists do not succumb to the paralysis often associated with Absolute Pessimism. While they may acknowledge the futility of achieving lasting systemic change, they do not view this as a reason to stop resisting. Instead, they embrace a kind of active defiance, continuing to rebel against oppression despite the overwhelming odds. Their pessimism is tempered by a fierce determination to reclaim individual autonomy in the present moment, regardless of future outcomes.
Personality and Behaviour
How he acts
- He lives in complete self-imposed isolation, watching anime or playing videogames all day.
- Deeply cynical, everything feels meaningless to him.
- Doesn't care about anything, showing no interest in working or contributing to society.
- Has no friends, shuns social interactions, and avoids any emotional connections.
- Probably asexual.
- He idolizes the Joker as a symbol of rebellion and chaos, often to the point where it's not even funny.
- Always serious and cold.
- He hates the police and loathes any form of authority.
- Suppresed sense of anger, can be potentially dangerous and unpredictable if left without his medication.
How to draw
Flags
Drawing
- Draw a ball,
- Draw a diagonal line with a lighter shade of black (#141414),
- Paint the right side with the same shade of black,
- Paint the left side with grey (#3D3D3D),
- You're done.
But all that effort, for what? It's all pointless anyway, so correct vexillology is unnecessary.
Color Name | HEX | RGB | |
---|---|---|---|
Black | #141414 | rgb(20, 20, 20) | |
Grey | #3D3D3D | rgb(61, 61, 61) |
Variation Designs
TBA
Relationships (not like it matters anyway)
Friends
Anarcho-Nihilism has no ideological friends and allies, since he's too cynical and depressed to put any meaningful amount of faith into any other movement.
Frenemies
Post-Leftism - Welcome to the club, buddy. But why do you still believe that something can be changed?
Insurrectionary Anarchism - “From the shattered tools and bones of our predecessors, we craft our own weapons. Nothing is guaranteed to work, yet we attack regardless. We do so nakedly, having shed the rags of morality, ideology, and politics that had accumulated over time. We confront this world raw, in all its horrifying glory.”
Anarcho-Individualism - You get me, but you're still not going far enough. By the way, morality is a spook.
Anarcho-Egoism - Stirner was right about a lot of things. But you cannot be absolutely unique—you are part of this whole meaningless cycle of life. Just accept death, man.
Post-Anarchism - I don't understand you at all, but rejecting classical Anarchist thought is the first step towards true liberation.
Foucouldianism - Good job with comparing psychiatric hospitals and schools to prisons. All of those are oppressive institutions, built to limit my freedom in all possible ways.
Agorism - Buying guns on the black market is cool. But you're still a pacifist, trying to convince himself that a non-violent revolution will happen. I'd laugh if I could. Also we look the same
Illegalism - Unorganized crime is good praxis.
Progressivism - Any opposition to conservative values is a good step forwards, but trying to create new “progressive” values in order to apeal to the masses is just pathetic.
Queer Anarchism - Be gay, do crime. Let's go spread the terror inside catboy outfits together. But your modern variants are pathetic, focusing only on social media wars and identity politics. You can cancel me all you want, but you know it's true.
Anarcha-Feminism - Same as above. You are fighting the culture war wrong: turn off Twitter, pick up a gun, and start killing those patriarchal politicians and clergy who oppresses you. Reject family values and coventional social norms, and live free.
Black Anarchism - 'Black Lives Matter', but do they really? The fact is that no lives matter, kid. It's the same as Anarcha-Feminism: just pick up a gun and start killing some racists cops. You know damn well that peaceful protests are useless.
Soulism - Drugs can be a good escape from reality, but any forms of utopianism is as stupid as they come.
You say that I can have what I want in lucid dreams, take psychedelics that change my state of consciousness, shift my mind into desired utopia permanently, or upload my mind to a computer? Sounds good!Apoliticism - F*ck that circus called 'politics'. You are still enslaved by law and morality tho.
Radical Apoliticism - "There are no demands to be made, no utopic visions to be upheld, no political programs to be followed - the path of resistance is one of pure negation."
Eco-Anarchism - Some of my followers do support you, but we're all gonna die along anyway, so it's meaningless.
Anarcho-Primitivism - We both hate civilization, so that's something.
But playing video games and watching anime that are products of technology are things that keep me alive in this boring and depressing world.Indigenous Anarchism - Same as Eco-Anarchism. Reject all traditions and beliefs (including the worship of nature) and we might be fine. I will say tho, Aragorn! is a nice read.
Ego-Communism - Really, you like Marx? Disgustisng.
At least mycommunist nephew likes you.
Buddhist Anarchism &
Buddhist Theocracy - I don't like religion, morality, asceticism, or the communal lifestyle. But at least we agree that life is suffering.
State Atheism - Atheism is a good start, but Humanism is a stupid cope. Morality is still a manifestation of oppressive theistic principles. Reject the belief in any higher “goal”, reject the sacred. The true path to liberation is the path of pure denial.
Death Worship - Authoritarian scum. We both love death tho.
Anti-Civ - End civilization now!
Existentialist Anarchism - "I used to think that my life was a tragedy, but now I realize, it's a fucking comedy."
Gift Economy - I hate anything related to Christmas. No, I don't believe in Santa. But hey, thanks for the antidepressant pills.
Posadism - I'd rather see the world burn than keep living in it. What? No, I don't believe that aliens will come and save our asses.
You need to give me your dealer's number because that nonsense can only be drug-fueled.Esoteric Anarchism - I rather wouldn't believe in spiritual stuff but some occult and chaos magic stuff seems interesting (if helps me cure depression and curse the cops).
Enemies
Police Statism &
Capitalism - I'll kill you all, you stupid f*cking pigs!
Any other theocracies - "The creation of a sick fantasy. Inhabitant of senile and impotent brains. Companion and comforter of spirits born to slavery. A pill for constipated minds. Marxism for the faint of heart."
Humanism - "An abstract word with a negative connotation, long on power, short on truth. An obscene mask painted on the mean face of a shrewd vulgarian for the purpose of dominating the multitude of sentimentalist idiots and imbeciles."
Authoritarianism &
Totalitarianism - "Penal servitude for the semi-intelligent, a cowshed of imbecility. A Circe who transforms her adoring fans into dogs and pigs. A prostitute for the master, a pimp of the foreigner. Child-eater, parent-slanderer, and scoffer at heroes."
Traditionalism &
Conservatism - Just die already, you old farts.
Socialism &
Communism - "Discipline, discipline; obedience, obedience; slavery and ignorance, pregnant with authority. A bourgeois body grotesquely fattened by a vulgar Christian creature. A medley of fetishism, sectarianism, and cowardice."
Libertarian Municipalism - Yes, I hate society. And yes, I am a misanthrope. You aren't even an anarchist, so shut the f*ck up.
Anarcho-Syndicalism - After the State is down, your stupid little unions and federations will be next.
Platformism - Same as the above. Cry about it, you f*cking tankie.
Anarcho-Capitalism &
Avaritionism - It's not about the money, it's about sending a message...
Tsar Alexander II - Die, you f*cking scum!
Tsar Alexander III - Consequences? For my actions? What the f-ACK!
Religious Anarchism - A walking oxymoron. Religion is incompatible with Anarchism, as it requires the individual to obey purely external forces and strictly adhere to irrational dogmas.
Anarcho-Conservatism - Are you joking? I might just actually laugh at you.
- Any other
authoritarian,
capitalist,
religious,
pragmatic, and
conservative ideologies - Your time is running out, you worthless swine. Your lives are as meaningless as the filth you spew. This world demands your end, and I am here to ensure it comes sooner than you think.
Bibliography
Literature
Primary Literature
Aragorn!
Serafinski
- Blessed is the Flame:An Introduction to Concentration Camp Resistance and Anarcho-Nihilism by Serafinski
Collection of Literature
- German Nihilism by Leo Strauss
- A Vital Question: Or What Is to Be Done? By Nikolay Chernyshevsky
- Because I Wanted To by
Fumiko Kaneko
- The Prison Memoirs of a Japanese Woman by
Fumiko Kaneko
- Nihilism as Egoism by Keiji Nishitani
- Nihilist Communism by
Monsieur Dupont
- Power Nihilism: A Case for Moral & Political Nihilism by James Theodore Stillwell III, Matthew Ray, and Brett Stevens
- Descending into Madness An Anarchist-Nihilist Diary of Anti-Psychiatry by Flower Bomb
Further Information
For overlapping political theory see:







Websites
TBA
Wikipedia
- Russian Nihilist Movement
- Conspiracy of Fire Nuclei
- Fumiko Kaneko
- Renzo Novatore
- Nikolay Chernyshevsky
Online Communities
TBA
Subreddits
TBA
Videos
- Anarchy Radio on Post-left Anarchism, Egoism, Nihilism and Anti-Civ by The Comfy Milk Shop
- Anarcho-Nihilism Review || The Ideology of Insurrection by Jreg
People
Serafinski
Flower Bomb
Aragorn!
Organizations
Nihilist Faction (nominally)
Gallery
Comics
Portraits
Portraits of Variants
-
Russian Nihilism
Portraits of Alternate Designs
-
Anarcho-Nihilist Jokerism
-
Anarcha-Nihilism
-
Anarcha-Nihilism
-
Anarcho Nihilism Egoist glasses
- ↑ Influencing when she wanted to kill the Japanese emperor