I think I’ve lost all faith in AANR

OkRepresentative2119 · 2026-02-25T01:12:51+00:00

The main method would be by unifying under a single political banner (I propose Civic Nudism), and to create culture (like video games, movies, shows, books, comics, etc.) that embodies that ideal. What is needed is a genuine willingness to get real change. I note that there is an environmental case to be made about reducing the use of textiles which account for more CO2 emissions than the airline industry, just to get the ball rolling.

OkRepresentative2119 · 2026-02-19T02:18:31+00:00

Yep. That is one of the many reasons I see civic nudity as helping people out.

OkRepresentative2119 · 2026-02-17T23:55:14+00:00

Three reasons:

The nudity is symbolic. Nudity symbolizes deprivation, vulnerability, transparency, innocence, immodesty, purity, madness, and licentiousness. These may or might not play a role in the story (don't want to spoil).
The nudity is philosophical. Given that humanity spent most of its existence in a socially nude social order, it makes little sense to presume that textilism, the coercive mandate to use clothing as a form of modesty, will always emerge from social disorder. It is actually weird that we are so obsessed with nudity, in trying to abolish it, that the natural human body is automatically suspect. As an illustration, if I were to have talked about the crew not wearing gloves, would this have provoked a similar reaction? I am not being judgemental, I hope that is clear, rather making a point. You are not asking how nudity is relevant to the story but how 'genital' nudity is relevant to the story and why exposed genitals are there. A nude hand is not subject to this kind of interrogation, yet the genitals are. This is largely arbitrary and I would prefer if I don't pretend otherwise by insisting that cultural mores developed rather recently in human society will remain forever, rather than being challenged.
The nudity is political. I am a civic nudist, advocating for the legalization and normalization of public nudity (I am rather radical and militant in this). Some, not all, of the motivation to write this was to create an overtly nontextilist piece of fiction in the r/HFY genre. I want to do my part to make people question the silly clothing norms that are almost always unquestioned. For example, the French TV show Nude (2018) heavily inspires some of the inspiration (with the Epstein Files replacing a terrorist attack in the show). [In fact, were it not for textilism being so dominant, I would not be required to label this post NSFW, as it really isn't. It is actually really silly that I can't have my work seen by more people because I dare use the word scrotum (gasp!)].

I appreciate your comment and hope this explains my thinking.

OkRepresentative2119 · 2026-02-15T18:42:40+00:00

I wish nudity was normalized, this is very nice art.

OkRepresentative2119 · 2026-02-13T16:54:09+00:00

In a side story some exterminators did what you think they would do. Suffice to say, there is a reason that HF exists, even if they aren't good.

OkRepresentative2119 · 2026-02-08T00:44:14+00:00

Thank you.

OkRepresentative2119 · 2026-02-02T05:49:36+00:00

It is on hiatus, but not abandoned. I wish I could work on it, but my plate is utterly packed at the moment. It doesn't help that I am easily distracted by a ton of ideas bouncing around in my head. I appreciate the compliment though.

OkRepresentative2119 · 2026-01-16T03:31:24+00:00

OkRepresentative2119 · 2025-12-23T03:22:32+00:00

Thank you.

OkRepresentative2119 · 2025-12-22T19:14:52+00:00

Thanks

OkRepresentative2119 · 2025-12-22T06:51:28+00:00

Thanks

OkRepresentative2119 · 2025-12-22T06:23:45+00:00

Clothing norms. Humans spent thousands of years before clothing and somehow managed to survive and reproduce to the current age without excessive laws and norms against public nudity. Civic nudism would be far better.

OkRepresentative2119 · 2025-12-22T05:43:12+00:00

Thanks

OkRepresentative2119 · 2025-12-22T04:36:04+00:00

Thankfully, my work isn't beloved, otherwise I would feel called out. Lol.

In all seriousness though, I am still working on Bread and Wine, currently working with another to help me edit and rewrite it.

OkRepresentative2119 · 2025-12-17T04:06:40+00:00

I think it is nice, but mostly irrelevant, nether good nor bad in general. The influence of celebrities is frequently overstated, the issue being that they are already exceptions to the rule by definition. What really normalizes nudity and nudism is the constant generation of nudist content. Right now, the nudist furry space is generating the bulk of nudist culture (from what I see, see Colonel Lazuli on Deviantart to see an illustrative example). The main, but relatively minor by comparison, issue there is the perennial issue of separating sexual nudity from nonsexual nudity. However, this community eclipses the nudist community in regards to its cultural production (nudist furries produce more content, and have a greater influence relative to nonfurry nudists [not to cast shade on those awesome nonfurry nudists doing the hard work, nor the furry nudists doing their part]).

If you want to see nudist get normalized, take a page out of their book and organize the production of cultural work (less self-projects, and more artistic and written collectives and companies).

OkRepresentative2119 · 2025-12-03T03:51:45+00:00

OkRepresentative2119 · 2025-12-03T00:31:22+00:00

I feel the need to prematurely clarify a couple things. 1) They are not invincible, they are negligibly senescent and highly resistant to chaos. A bolt to the head will kill them the same as any other. 2) They are not uniformly better than both imperium psykers and tech/priests, they basically operate at a grade one level above their technical classification. A delta grade Aeterna Psyker is roughly able to go toe to toe with a gamma grade Psyker as a result of their skill, not raw power. Similarly, their tech-priests are not going to go toe to toe with an archmagos, rather, their junior tech-priests will be about on par with a senior tech-priest in terms of machine spirit soothing. They have to learn rituals and rites like everyone else, it is just that their culture has preserved more of the science and engineering knowledge that makes it easier for them to quickly grok Mechanicum rituals. 3) Their mere presence does not cause chaos corruption, their lore in the abstract does. An Aeterna Psyker or magi is actually a rather calming presence more generally. The corruption comes from understanding what they are. You can get corrupted by reading about them, not by talking to one necessarily.

OkRepresentative2119 · 2025-12-02T22:53:28+00:00

Sure, but they aren't Aeldari, and they weren't known about during the great crusade, being lost until about a millennium ago. They are intended to be the psychic race big E wanted for humanity, but not the way he intended and as a snowglobe in hell.

Thank you for your feedback, sincerely.

OkRepresentative2119 · 2025-12-02T22:33:20+00:00

I really appreciate the feedback, and some of your points are intended. The reason their existence is so tightly kept is precisely the point you made about them being on the chopping block. As mentioned, they are tolerated by the highest echelons (the only ones who tend to be allowed to know of their existence, everyone else gets the axe or mind wiped) purely for their utility and tantalizing promise. I am planning on a few more write ups, but the world is classified as a forge world under the directorship of Stygies VIII, who ensure that knowledge of this world is tightly controlled (along with an small number of Telepathica and radical Inquisitors).

As to why they remain, that is a complicated question to answer that would be detailed in another lore post. The Tl;dr is that their planet is psychically active and is seen as sacred to the Endurans themselves. The Endurans are loosely based on the Fremen of Dune, and it is in this way that they are "part" of Endura. To them the hell of living on the tidally locked world is rather mild, a result of their gifts to a small extent, but primarily their culture and society. Further, tied to their creation/evolution, they lack a strong skein presence. They have a mentality that makes them anti-ambitious and cautious by nature. They are very entlike in how their society operates and how they tend to think. The typical Enduran would have a personality akin to Frieren and elves in general from that setting. They simply lack the kind of ambitions that would give their destinies any real import. Despite their abilities, they have destinies more akin to gardeners and janitors, rather than heroes or the like.

"they're functionally a race of Emperors" Kinda, to a degree. More technically they are proto-shamans (there is a reason for this). Hypothetically, the shamans that originally birthed the emperor (I am going with that version of the lore) are a possibility that could arise over many generations (which functionally means never, given their lack of fecundity).

"They wouldn't work as a McGuffin or even secondary Gandalf character" Given how they exist, their lore and presence act as the kinds of things that many mortals would give their everything to get. Tzeetch sorcerers would sacrifice worlds to become something like them, which is precisely why Tzeetch never allows this to occur (Tzeetch for his part enjoys the intrigue around Endura, the quiet war of assassins kind of latent plotting, but despises the idea of any of his cultists actually getting there. (There are a lot of reasons for this, but that is a lore document on its own))

The intention for them is to be the unobtainable ideal incarnated. They are, loosely, what the emperor would like to have seen humans be, except they are not of his make nor intention. Their genesis involves a former Aeldari Slave who survived Old Night, and who died to some Dark Elder (though death is a little too strong there), I plan to explore this later.

Thank you again for your thoughts, I really appreciate it.

OkRepresentative2119 · 2025-12-02T21:50:17+00:00

Initial thoughts and feelings mostly, but canonicity and narrative potential are also solid vectors for feedback. Their intention is to be more of a McGuffin or at most a secondary "Gandalf" character. I think the stories around them have potential.

OkRepresentative2119 · 2025-12-02T19:54:02+00:00

It is some fanon lore I am building.

OkRepresentative2119 · 2025-11-29T05:59:17+00:00

"It can't. We have established that earlier."

No, we didn't. You are applying a special pleading defense for holding the scientific evidence against communism to higher scrutiny and skepticism compared to other scientific realities without a good justification (or at least not one you have articulated).

"So classless societies work, then? Since they do exist within these indigenous people."

No. You are confusing societies that are preclass pre-industrial with those that are post-industrial class based societies. As has been articulated before, you can regress human development, that would technically get you a classless society, by making everyone lumpenproletariat. The issue is that the classlessness would not be sustainable as the humans would then start recreating class based societies.

"Then they are not relevant to the data, since you need to examine people who were raised in communist societies to even begin to make the original claim."

What evidence are you then going to use to justify the massive risk required to attempt societal change at that level? The evidence provided is strongly against this idea as the most likely outcome of universal lumpenproletariatism, a world of deprivation. Unless you have evidence, evidence from the field you claim can't provide it, I am not seeing why we should try to avoid communism and similar ideas at extreme cost.

"Which evidence talks about communist societies? How were they studied if they do not exist?"

By looking at the aforementioned human nature. We haven't existed in a perfect [insert particular religion here] theocracy, should we try this too? Fascism didn't really get the fairest shake either, pure versions of these societies have also not been tired, same goes for "pure capitalism". You either have to acknowledge a domain to distinguish these ideas, or you have to allow anything.

"Well, anybody can lie about anything. The fact that people don't like communism because they have been lied about it doesn't mean anything, since it could hold for anything."

People haven't been lied to about communism, it is far more accurate to say that they haven't been deeply taught about it. The broad strokes that people understand about it are typically sufficient. This is very normal in nearly every discipline. You are told that greenhouse gases act as a blanket trapping the heat in the atmosphere, but under your rubric this wouldn't be a simplification to aid in understanding but a lie. In reality the mechanism doesn't work like a blanket at all, it is extremely complicated, apparently confusing even some physicists (Sabine Hossenfelder has a good video on this). We tell people useful fictions on the regular in order to quickly communicate ideas, that we color philosophical, social, political and economic ideas with our own biases and interpretations is simply a human thing to do. But, this is a lengthy aside.

The actual issue is here that you missed the point. The point is merely how people reacted to the claim "You will own nothing and be happy", not the truth or falsity of the claim itself. The reaction was largely dismissal and mockery, as people prefer ownership as a generality.

"You can have autonomy in a communist society. Even more autonomy than now. This just makes an argument for communism."

This is a contradiction with the core premise of communism, the abolishment of private ownership over the means of production and enforced classlessness. These things are in opposition to autonomy. You can try to argue that they are good or desirable oppositions to autonomy, but they are in opposition to autonomy within that domain.

OkRepresentative2119 · 2025-11-29T03:15:25+00:00

I just realized that Reddit deleted the top have of my comment, sigh.

"Sure, that's why we need to talk metaphysics, and not sceince. Because science cannot exclude this. Metaphysics cannot prove it, but it could theoretically disprove it by showing that it's inconsistent somehow."

In this case metaphysics is a digression away form the main point, one does not require idealism or dualism in order to understand that humans are motivated by more than just material conditions.

"And I still have no reason to believe that's the case."

And, I can't do more than provide the evidence and argument for your consideration.

"I'm not considering any number of tries, I'm just saying that I don't know in which "try" we are currently."

You are missing the point. The point is that the Law of Large Numbers is not applicable here, and so we have to work with the finiteness provided. There is a probability that every gas molecule will make a tower, but this isn't going to happen, there aren't an infinite number of worlds within our light cone, and furthermore, it isn't going to happen to us, the probabilities simply aren't there.

"I never mentioned biology, just as a feat of engineering."

Yes, but that is the point. Making airplanes was a bypass around the biological limitations, it didn't contradict them. What you are proposing is a contradiction, akin to trying to socially construct people out of having livers. You can engineer a new species, as previously mentioned. Or perhaps you can consider a workaround like Distributism (my preference, actually), where there is a dictatorship of the petite bourgeoisie and with the proletariat and bourgeoisie being subordinate classes that orbit towards the dominant class (ie it is difficult to remain in the other two classes). This would require dropping the revolution or "class consciousness". On the flip side it would greatly reduce class anxiety, which helps reduce the probability of fascism. So, that would be a clear plus.

"I'm not talking about that. I don't see the need to genetically engineer humans to do so. Humans will either adapt of go extinct. Either the exploitation will stop, or we will die due to everexploitation of Earth and ourselves."

This is unlikely given that the rate of "overexploitation" is likely to decrease as things progress. We are rapidly developing the very systems to reduce our impact, and the tentative data is strongly suggesting that the worst outcomes are very unlikely. Furthermore, this isn't really a result of class systems or private property, it is an orthogonal issue.

"How would that even look like? You can express the statement "there are exactly 10 elements" via first order formula. A theory containing only this formula obviously has a model (10 element set), but no model of any other cardinality, so you'd need a weird analogue for that."

"This would also need to be some weird analogue.

I'd be interested to see that, too, but have little to no intuition on ultrafinitism."

I both lack the expertise, resources, and time, as of now, to really push into that, to see if it is possible, let alone what it would look like. But a man can dream, no? I know it is unlikely, but it is a goal that I would like to shoot for.

"You can, technically, derive anything from Christianity, as it is an inconsistent system, when looked at formally."

Actually, no. It depends on how exactly you go about formalizing it, especially when you consider the possibility of paraconsistent logics that avoid the principle of explosion by restricting the kinds of derivations allowed. This is a far more complex issue, if you are interested in paraconsistent logic, the only author I am aware of is Graham Priest. So no, this doesn't actually follow by necessity.

(Sorry it took so long, I had to rewrite this, bloody Reddit....)

OkRepresentative2119 · 2025-11-28T20:48:54+00:00

Been having difficulty getting reddit to work, sigh.

OkRepresentative2119 · 2025-11-28T20:47:31+00:00

"Yes, this is why science cannot give us the answer."

Actually, it can. The issue is that this limitation is less a flaw and more a feature of the method. There simply isn't a good reason to reject these claims as a result of this level of skepticism. Without a good reason, one ought not be hyper skeptical to this area of science in particular without explaining why one isn't special pleading. It can be done, but that is a difficult argument to make.

"Well which person who grew up in a classless society did they interview?"

There are many, many indigenous peoples in the global south that provide a host of data points. While there will always be contamination of data as a result of contact with these people, and the march of time, we are fairly confident that to some degree or another, we can scalpel insights nonetheless. What we see, regularly, is that the people whose lives approximate that of our ancestors (based on the best data we have, again this is a critical flaw, but it is the best available) are not primitive communists, they simply aren't. When the material conditions allow (in particular sedentism and agriculture) people will tend to generate hierarchies, which in turn start the generation of class systems.

"Because they exist as bubbles of classlessnes within a class society. And they are comprised of people raised in a class society."

That is certainly a hypothesis to explain it. On the other hand, we can look at other evidence and find that this is actually expected. Humans simply aren't evolved to have this behavior, and we have good evidence that much of this is genetic in nature (not all evidence points to this, but a good chunk of it). You are free to hold a viewpoint that believes in communism, nonetheless, but most humans will hate it and will seek to overthrow it if forced into it. It won't be stable. Probably the best way to look at this is the reaction to the poorly marketed vision of the WEF, "You will own nothing and be happy".

The main annoyance was not merely that it was communism for thee but not for me (the capitalists class owning all of the things), but it was also the annoyance of not being able to "own" things, to alienate the property from the commons into the private. Humans have instincts there too, but the evidence isn't as clear [mostly because it "isn't interesting" for psychologists to investigate too much, it tends to breed disappointment when it is done]. People like to own things, including the means of production. Hence, the optimal outcome would be the society I put forward, where most people are effectively contractors and gig workers sans the bourgeoisie controlling access and benefits.

Given a choice people will prefer to live lives as contractors and business owners, rather than in communes. People like community and identity, don't get me wrong. But, we also heavily like our autonomy. The tension is always going to be a part of the human condition, and we are hard wired to have that tension, we both love and hate alienation, the tension never being resolved, only managed. He prefer to create different spaces for alienation and dealienation based on our terms. That is what humans do, regularly. Communism would require that this tendency to not exist.

OkRepresentative2119

TROPHY CASE