Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

triplesix · 11-08-2007, 02:53 AM

Forgive me if my skepticism comes across as "demonizing." That's not my intent. I just don't see the tangible and practical application of anarchy. Why don't you help me to see your point of view instead of just pooh-poohing mine?

mothandrust · 11-08-2007, 03:47 AM

Quote:It seems like people are getting destruction mixed up with Anarchy. Anarchy is an individual empathetic response that comes out of disaster (but not exclusive to). Let's take Katrina for eg... I'm sure alot of anarchist acts came out of that. For instance, I'm sure there were multitudes of situations where people joined together to help each other get through, where everyone benefited from it.

Did they need authority to do that? No.
Did there need to be a law made before people could help each other? No.
Did they need the armed guards there before someone could help another? Nope.

Now, all the bad stuff that happened there... the people that commited those bad acts are the ones that are the most devoted to the system because they did what comes out of fear, which is what the system creates when we give it our liberty. Our system teaches reaction, not empathy. That's another reason why I think anarchism is a spiritual liberation... it's those people that did the good deeds that banded together to help, that were able to see themselves in others, or connection.... those are the true anarchists.

Se, I'm not sure who you think is in a cult here, but I am getting the impression that you are including me in your drama. Just so you know, I live in a trailer in the middle of the mountains with my partner and our two cats... I'm not an "agent" (whatever that means to you). We work very seldom for wages, because we don't need too... not because I'm in a cult. We do some gardening, all kinds of arts and crafts, not because I'm a Worg, just because I think life is all about expression, and freedom to do what you want to do, while having fun doing it. I respect others... at no time did I ever call you a name, or label you as something, nor have I done that to anyone else on this site. I just love nature and see truth in it. I just want to share that with people because I think it is the answer... self-sufficiency comes out of that.

I'm sure if we just kept it real, which I'm going to try and do from now on.. we would soon find out that all of us on this site want the same things.

So, be careful that your not accusing people of something, when you've never even met them.

really great post A, thank you.

i feel that if the world was in your hands (and those who share your vision), it would be a kinder, more tranquil place. however, i suspect (like me) you have very little wish for power over others. personally i want control over my own life, not that of others. in actual fact... i'm thinking this as i type so it maybe incoherent, go off at a tangent or contain arguments i've not considered or thought through or... so think of it as musing out loud and please pick it apart if you think i've missed something basic or am off down the wrong track.

this is a complex problem, summed up by Douglas Adams when he says, "anyone who wants power should no no account be allowed nowhere near it" (paraphrased (can't be arsed to look up the exact quote)). i've recently spent 3 years at uni, studying international politics (it was the time of my life) and regardless of all the old bollocks we were taught about Hobbes and his modern day equivalents, and how without the state, nature was war of each against all, the greatest impression imprinted on my mind was how fantastically well all the students got on. students from every continent and (almost) every religion. we got on famously and i now have friends distributed across Africa, Asia and the Americas, all with incredibly diverse political and religious views! and in all my time there i saw not one fight - sure the occasional disagreement, solved through debate or agreeing to differ, or perhaps even not speaking for a few days - but that was it! no knives, bottles, guns, armies, just (by and large) decent ordinary people, who behaved with respect towards others.

there were however a small number (almost all British i'm afraid) who tied themselves to power structures and saw themselves progressing up those power structures. generally they did not mix (except perhaps a little on the sports side (but then that's a power/status thing also)), but it was generally them with their smiley faces on posters, looking to be elected for some position or other. personally i wouldn't vote for any of them - in fact of the people i knew, generally they would be the last people i would vote for. because most(?) normal people do not want power over others. however we cannot deny that these people exist and that in a system without hierarchical control they will attempt to manipulate the will of others to create personal power bases - with the most successful - the prettiest, brightest, the most cunning being the most dangerous. this is our problem, how do we stop people falling for their smiles and lies?

i do not know. in my mind the answer lies in personal empowerment to and of all, but realistically this is not achievable (at least not within conventional timeframes). it seems to me there are three, maybe four types of people in the world. firstly there are those who want control over their own lives and to take responsibility for their own decisions and actions. then there are those who want to be told what to do, they are frightened, ignorant, confused, cowardly and they find comfort in someone or something telling them do this or do that and everything will be OK. a third type, may perhaps be an extension of the second type, but given a little power by their figure of authority, which they likely wield on his behalf, yet while necessarily maintaining their ignorance - gulag guards, car park attendants... one finds them as figures of petty authority wherever one goes. lastly we have the power hungry, the ruthless whose sole responsibility lies in pursuit of said power.

i think the answer must lie in getting the ignorant and frightened to stand up for themselves. but how to do it?

(am going to post this in the 'Anarchy in America' thread also)

:love:

~~SerialExpLain~~ · (This post was last modified: 11-08-2007 05:51 AM by SerialExpLain.)

What is shocking beyond belief is that noone had the slightest problem with the agendas stated in the WOGSS document. The term was Anarcho-Gnostic.

More concerned with upholding the good name of anarchy.

Thoroughly sickening. THOSE ARE THE ANARCHISTS and are seeking gradual depopulation AND HAD NO PROBLEM STATING IT! (See: WOGSS document at beginning of thread)

But, that didn't bother a single one of you on this thread, except me.

So you mind as well just expound on how depopulation is okay then and stop claiming to be against the NWO.

* * *

Quote:demonize anarchy

Ugh...

What else would you call it? Some people have a idealized version of it in their head, perhaps thanks to Clockwork Orange-style mind-control in romaticizing it. The actuality of it is quite demonic.

Or it would blow up in my face? Sup with that???

Well, if it is that rife....THAT IS WHAT THIS DAMN THREAD IS ABOUT. Or did you really expect people to take the concepts of the DIA and Georgia Guidestones all cute-like? Get a clue!!!

I don't care what some idealized version of anarchy holds dear to some. THE REALITY IS CONTAINED IN THE FIRST TWO LINKS ON THE THREAD.

So, don't bother coming back to this thread if you haven't considered those concepts.

***Shinobi*** · 11-08-2007, 06:37 AM

whut im madizms .. kiss me

~~SerialExpLain~~ · 11-08-2007, 06:42 AM

LOL...:love:

I don't want the world to die.....crying.

I just don't want the world to die.

Nyte · 11-08-2007, 06:58 AM

Anarcho-Gnostic is a made up term.

Thats like saying anarcho-fascism

***Shinobi*** · 11-08-2007, 07:31 AM

cult is culture .. does anyone realize that ?
cultures - cults ..

Okay thats enough school lessons for now ..

least I got some thinking

11-08-2007, 08:12 AM

collectivized anarchism would degenerate into military despotism.

society would never become truly anarchic. the vacuum would be filled by those who had power.

often times anarchists movements have been co-opted by communists and labor syndicate leftists, bankrolled by organizations that would use anarchists to socially disrupt nations and create chaos that would polarize a society into a communist or fascist dialectic, see spanish civil war for example.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAaWvVFERVA

***Shinobi*** · 11-08-2007, 08:21 AM

we are already in anarchy .. *snooze* *zzz* *sleep*
ding dong...

Once again about cults ..

'cult is culture .. does anyone realize that ?
cultures - cults ..

Okay thats enough school lessons for now ..

least I got some thinking'

Lets all learn our abc ....

I already know and realize that many peoples perceptions of anarchy are totally screwed up and gay ..
Well god bless you and your happy thoughts
I can twist this in so many ways that the politically correct minions will have to suck my middle finger....

***Shinobi*** · 11-08-2007, 09:38 AM

Quote:Forgive me if my skepticism comes across as "demonizing." That's not my intent. I just don't see the tangible and practical application of anarchy. Why don't you help me to see your point of view instead of just pooh-poohing mine?

Do you really feel so guilty ? :biggrin:

standvast · 11-08-2007, 10:10 AM

Quote:What is shocking beyond belief is that noone had the slightest problem with the agendas stated in the WOGSS document. The term was Anarcho-Gnostic.

The term is a silly mash up ,i think
Anarcho-Gnostic has very little to do with te essence of Anarchism.

Quote:Thoroughly sickening. THOSE ARE THE ANARCHISTS and are seeking gradual depopulation AND HAD NO PROBLEM STATING IT! (See: WOGSS document at beginning of thread)

Why do you allow yourself to be bothered or scared by some
clique of "occultists" in the first place ? the woggs thing looks to me like some people
with time on thier hands and excess imagination decided to type out their pseudo Crowlianite "beliefs",
and likely keeping in the back of their mind how it would get a rise out of Christians as yourself, SE.

Quote:But, that didn't bother a single one of you on this thread, except me.

They didn't write it to convincing, i don't believe they even believe in it.
You know what they mean by "Operation Mindfuck" ?
They succeed with you everytime, as you take it as way way to serious.

Quote::dead:
So you mind as well just expound on how depopulation is okay then and stop claiming to be against the NWO.

Depopulation is okay with me, i just dont see why it has to be forced on people,
just talk them into understanding how they don't all need children of their own.:crazy:
now point your finger and say ahaa, because here standvast just admitted he's a cultist who
would like to see 80% of all people killed.
oh no wait, all he did was imply he wouldn't mind if people stopped breeding like there is no tomorrow without them.

Quote:What else would you call it? Some people have a idealized version of it in their head, perhaps thanks to Clockwork Orange-style mind-control in romaticizing it. The actuality of it is quite demonic.

So , self-governing people are demonic, but people governed by other people or a presumed god-in-book are not?

Quote:Well, if it is that rife....THAT IS WHAT THIS DAMN THREAD IS ABOUT. Or did you really expect people to take the concepts of the DIA and Georgia Guidestones all cute-like? Get a clue!!!

I don't care what some idealized version of anarchy holds dear to some. THE REALITY IS CONTAINED IN THE FIRST TWO LINKS ON THE THREAD.

It doesn't take Anarchy for the Woggs to do their thing and make a website....:geek:

Quote:So, don't bother coming back to this thread if you haven't considered those concepts.

ok, i'm done considering them,
besides you finding the word "Anarcho"- something something,
the woggs link has 0 relevance to anarchy as a concept.

So , "what this thread is all about " - would be you ,
projecting your fear of "cultism" on your close surroundings [CC]
Also , it is about you calling anarchy as a term "Demonic" just because
someone used the word anarcho-gnostic on the woggs site.

Explain , please Explain why i should take the Woggs serious ?

or explain why i should see anarchism as evil,
when i believe it's about self-sufficiency, self-determination,... be it mental or spiritual.

peace'

horseonwheels · (This post was last modified: 11-08-2007 10:21 AM by horseonwheels.)

Quote:I, personally, see government as an intensely complicated subject. There will be no utopia, peace on earth, equitable distribution of goods, without a serious and thoughtfully executed declaration of rights and fair, transparent, limited policing of the population. History has proven this; it cannot be denied

I take it that the reason you did not reply to my last post adressed directly at you, is because you did not see it. I will sum up my oppinion here again. This is not true. What history shows is that there have been no alternative to what you suggest. How can you know that anarchy or rather a consensus reality would not work, when i know of several places in EUrope where it defacto works and hos worked for more than 30 years? So yes, it can be denied, not only is is a wrong assumption on your part, there is evidence to the contrary, clear cut evidence.

one of the places, in fact the area where i wor,k consists of both big large brutal criminal types a whole bunch of hippies and some of the punks you talk about, and then all through the day 'normal' people come from outside in the society you insist is the solution, to breeth out. In other words, the 'citizens' of Denmark by large recognize that in the 'anarchy zone', you can breathe out and just be who you are, without anyone commenting or looking down on you so they use the area for recreation. that says a lot right there.

the only problems they have is with the government who diesnt like to have a reminder to the people in the middle of Copenhagen that the government is in fact, unncecery if we establish out country on a 'kebutz' model, meaning small sovereign comminities and no giverning state apperatus. No, the state surely dont like that reminder so they fight it fiercely and that spark of occational trouble, but had the state just stayed out, there woule never be any problems. Lets look at the raw facts before the state took special interrest in the area after 30 years of existance.

crimerate = ZERO unless you count selling weed a crime, theres a lot of weed selling but sell drugs in the area and they will rough you up real bad, so you never get that idea again. Drugs are BANNED from the area completely.
homless/not taken care of = ZERO, and a few completely unwilling but atleast they are beind fed
and it just goes on.
Every christmas as most of them are atheists, they spend xmas eve in a big hall in the area where they make a christmas evening for the homeless in copenhagen. Give them great food, a tree to sing and dance around, and a few presents for each and then a warm place to spend the night.

The social mindset of the area is incredible. BUt it has been contaminated by the government so atm. there is a healing process going on. My point is, you are flat out wrong. Nothing will work in the end but anarchy/consensus demiocratic societies, because it is the only system that places full responsability for everybody with the individual. And if you want to be part of such a group, you have to deliver. It is a lot easyer to hide in a beucracy, where few knows your name, and noone knows the rules. And this is excactly what happens in normal democratic models. A politician fucks up or is exposed as the lying theafing shitface that he is and poof...he is gone in paper, and it is pratically impossible to deal with him on his actions.

Government does not, have never, and will never protect is subjects. Because they are its subjects. But free well informed sovereigns are impossible to control. No really. The few fights that has erupted between the area and the cops it is obvious that the cop will be walked right over should anything serious break out. Not only do the area enjoy a lot of support in the country as a whole, for being a breathing space, a place where you can let your dogs and children run freely and safely as there is constant eyes on both categories no matter whos they are but the christianites themself are as hard as nails aswell.

horseonwheels · 11-08-2007, 10:46 AM

on social awareness and responsbility

at a point 20 years ago heroine becme a large problem in the area im talking about, and obviously it spawned a load of other problems. How did the area handle it? They got hold of addicts and forced them clean. They could stay but they had to accept getting help to become clean of their addiction so the area felt it could trust them again. In other words, the area realised it was dealing with a drug, not a human problem. and they did not trust the drug at all, so they sorted it out. No violence or use of force, the addicts where happy that someone cared and several of them still ive in the area today....clean, and in their own houses.

at another point bullshit (now bandidos) was trying to take over the weed marked (wchich is fairly liberal) and the result was a gang castle in the middle of the area. The area reacted fiercely, and even though bandidos had guns, 800 angry people came to the fron of the house and told them to pack up and leave or they would be removed with whatever means it would take. So they left, and since then there has been a gun ban in the area, that due to the governments newfound interrest in anarchism, has now been withdrawn. Fuck the government to be honest.

As you can see, the area manages again and again to work out their problems or ride them out. Is this not contrary to what you state?

the rules of the area are as follows.

1.NO drugs
2.no weapons
3.no gangs

remember those rules and you are welcomed as a freind. There is not even defined rules things like stealing because it goes unsaid that it is not ok, and it will properbly earn you a good beating if youre cought. So a lot of laws the system have and waste enormous resources on, this area doesnt have because each indivdual deal with crime and unfairness as he sees it. I saw a guy steal whatever and run off about a year ago, poor guy didnt know where he was i take it, because he was met by a wall of people before he got anywhere near the exit. So he gave it back and was told not to come again, as the freindship had been broken.

It is incredible to look at the area people sitting about drinking cofee, painting, singing, and the instant something happens, all of a sudden the same palce is now packed with people in minutes. Children of the corn like....'where the hell did all t hose mof.... come from?"

***Shinobi*** · 11-08-2007, 11:26 AM

standvast why you stop be an admin bro ? seriously
dont have to explain here you kno
but still..
your performance is class A .. and I dont mean da drugs
big up.

triplesix · (This post was last modified: 11-08-2007 12:19 PM by triplesix.)

I don't deny that a small community like that can operate within, and largely protected by, a larger government.

However, any political system can work if it contains only willing participants ready to make the sacrifices and do the work necessary to keep it running.

Imagine a community which has banned guns, has no standing military, has no established leadership, has no currency, has no prisons, has no schools, has no hospitals, has no power plants. How is this society supposed to operate? How is science going to advance? How is this community going to handle natural disasters? How is this community going to handle foreign invasion? How is this community going to handle mutiny? How is this community going to handle organized crime?

How is this society going to train and compensate technical professionals? How is this society going to acquire valuable and rare natural resources needed to continue the cutting edge research of modern science? This society would stagnant mankind when we are growing at the fastest rate. That is not to say there is not a lot wrong with our society, and a lot of research is in the wrong areas, but I find tremendous value in science and am skeptical of anyone who would throw it to the wayside completely in pursuit of a wholly agrarian society. These are the ideas of Mao and Pol Pot. I don't see how an anarchist society based on communal assistance can sustain advanced technical research and development, nor acquire the necessary hardware and materials to maintain these industries. Particularly health care. How quick we are to disregard the need for these services, but hardly as quick as we would wish them back were they wiped out completely.

On a small scale this issues aren't relevant. People can obviously sort their own shit out on a smaller scale. Imagine this community housing many thousands of members. 800 people can walk up to anyone's house, but assuming that person has 50 or so men of his own and some firepower, a communal talking to ain't gonna do shit.

This system is a dream. With any significant population the bad apples can become too organized for the good people to stay unorganized. Efficiency beats inefficiency. That is the reason the capital/federalist governments are the most powerful. They have highly trained, effectively organized military equipped with the most advanced and effective weaponry. This has always been what has defined mankind and it will continue to define mankind for generations to come.

You yourself have said that a "beating" is the method of maintaining order within the kibbutz you describe. If you increase the scale of the situation you have mob rule, or as I said before, warring warlords.

Also you mention the three rules. Do you not see that the kibbutz is experiencing its own social evolution? Those three rules didn't exist in the beginning of this social experiment I bet. Well give it time and I will assure you that list will grow. The rules will expand and the punishments for those rules will become established. The groundwork for "government" will be laid.

I don't see "anarchy" when a community like this is described to me. Perhaps in the smallest scale. I see an informal democracy with communist undertones. This isn't leaderless living. It isn't lawlessness. And it most definitely isn't abject freedom. I seek even more freedom than what you described. There is still a restriction on the freedom of choice for the individual and this restriction is enforced by some body of authority. Pretending it is anarchy is a lie. Of course people love to visit places like these. I love to visit Wreck Beach in Vancouver, get my shroom on, and hang out with the hippies. But do I want to be nothing but naked and tripping all the time? Hell no. The desires of the human race are diverse, and a society like you describe cannot satisfy them all.

The answer lies in finding those things that all humans agree should be outlawed and outlaw them, and then separating the opposing ideologies from one another, then finding a way to equitably share required resources. This is where peace will be found. And it will require a rigid system or rules laying out equality and authority. It must be disinterested and generic. I could elaborate on my theory but again, that's not he point, and it only creates a red herring discussion distracting from the topic at hand.

Nonetheless peace will not be found in a society that refuses to speak clearly to the universe that which it will accept and that which it will not accept. I don't see anarchy once this has been performed, and already in some way, it has started in your communal example.

If I am wrong, and this is merely my unwillingness to accept this definition of anarchy, than I'll just shut up and leave it at that. That being said, I'm still unconvinced of its feasibility on any significant scale. I believe most people prefer the term anarchist over utopian. It sounds more aggressive and edgy than the pussy-sounding pacifist utopia crowd. But that's what it sounds like to me. Anarchy as a utopia, fine. Believing it to be a sound and feasible structure for the many millions and billions of mankind.... no way man. No way in hell.