Are you stupid? I addressed that here:

You are presupposing an already developed rule-based society and that's understandable because one can't even imagine what the opposite would be like apart from devolving into murderous savagery.

Sun Tzu and Nietzsche didn't live in lawless anarchical societies but in highly organized hierarchical societies. Sun Tzu, Machiavelli and modern day intelligence services find ways to game the system and outsmart their opponents. You can't be a great chess player without following the rules of chess.

Wtf geopolitics has to do with anarchy? Warfare is an abstraction. We have warfare because we have societies, that are organized hierarchically the same way an individual is (you have a head, arms, body, etc). In order to get to that level of abstracted aggression we must first observe how aggression is dealt with within society on individual level. Can you defeat a stronger opponent using your cunning? Yes, you can (like King David did for example). But that means in an anarchy you'll always have to be on your guard and ready to defend yourself (or attack) because it's free for all and there's no authority that will prevent or curb aggression.

Lol, I know more about the history of revolutions than you will in your lifetime and you're coming at me with some normie slogans which is supposed to counter what I said? There were rebellions throughout history, but the revolutionary ethos, the overthrowing of monarchies, the social contract, the concept of civil rights, individualism and anarchy itself as a reactionary offshoot from the French commune are all strictly European enlightenment ideas.

Do yourself a favor and read Fire in the minds of man

It's the smart that are able to win in a rule-based society because they can outsmart the rules. In your pipe dream that's not the case and you will get shafted by the stronger guy regardless of how smart you are. You are presupposing an already developed rule-based society and that's understandable because one can't even imagine what the opposite would be like apart from devolving into murderous savagery.

That's just preposterous. As if the modern use of the word distorts it. The etymology of consent. Recorded in Middle English since circa 1225, borrowed from Old French consentir, from Latin cōnsentīre, present active infinitive of cōnsentiō (“to agree; to assent, consent”), itself from com- (“with”) + sentiō (“to feel”)

As if people in the Middle ages consented to being governed. Come on, man (in JB's voice). It's a relatively new concept in the context we're talking about - since about the time the US were established. And yes, I believe secular humanism and classical liberalism are faulty to begin with and logically lead to the cucked corporate pseudo-democracy we live in today.

I think that's a personal problem believing words have feelings to them instead of explicit meanings. If you want to know where those feelings are coming from you only need to look in the mirror. I suppose someone whose relied upon the illusory safety the government provides would have trouble seeing the benefits of being in control of your own life. We are looking at it from vastly different perspectives. I'm looking at it as a soldier and you are looking at it as a threat to the comfortable bubble you've resided in your entire life.

I don't believe words have feelings to them, you're strawmaning me. I was rather concrete in pointing the meaning of the word used in political discourse. You also falsely assume that because I'm tearing down your pipe dream of anarchist society (outside of being reactionary in another form of society), I'm somehow in favor of democracy when both come from the same revolutionary enlightenment ethos. It's a false dialectic - what I'm trying to get across to you is by embracing anarchism you're no better than the normie libtards and lolberts. I'm sorry your system doesn't work in practice. At least some semblance of democracy is being enacted all over the world regardless of how corrupted and demented the system is.

All your sophistry aside, the problem still stands - you can't appeal to "muh consent" in a society of ubermensch where everyone does what they want because someone stronger will come to you and he will beat you up, steal your stuff and rape you without asking for your consent, just because he can (who's gonna stop him?) and he feels like it.