Anarchy

[AnarchyUK]

I am starting a new thread on anarchy itself and am wondering ur thoughts on it, wat u think it is and if u support it or not so reply when u can

[JoeyxViolence]

First of all Anarchy is NOT CHAOS, second of all iin a nut shell its to make our own government run by the people for the people.

[AnarchyUK]

I agree but most people believe that it is chaos and that its horrible, all it is is moving a forms of hierarchy away and creating direct democracy not representative democracy theres a difference between government and organisation

[now i know]

fuck, finally. i am with you guys. there are so many people out there who have the wrong fucking idea of anarchy.

[AnarchyUK]

Anarchy is cool look up anarchy on youtube and click anarchy in LA and brainwashed 2 what is anarchy its so informing...

[Demonized]

It makes me all tingly inside when I see that no one has been a jack ass, and said that anarchy is chaos, except for that one guy who said it was both, it puts the reality back into me. Anarchy will never work, too many assholes will take advantage of the situation, and rape the system.

:(

[flabbio]

we do not talk about Project Mayhem

but wher behind u all the way

[flabbio]

chaos is an expression of freedom

[A Deo et Rege]

Anarchy is chaos, by definition anarchy is the absence of government or any political order, thus chaos, but what's wrong with chaos, I like chaos. Order is dull, chaos is exciting, and like the flabbio said," chaos is an expression of freedom," because without order, or rules, there's chaos and with no rules there's freedom, so freedom=chaos.

[eviloldskool]

anarchy is a good idea but it would never work, human nature would interupt, there are leaders and there are followers, someone will always look up to someone else for direction, causing order and creating (however small it may be) a system, and as i'm sure we all know that in it's own little form is a government, negating the anarchist state. anarchy is like communism, on paper it looks great but once you add the human element it all goes to hell.

[now i know]

that’s why we must rid ourselves of human nature. i know of ways to do it, so don’t think that it is impossible.

life would be so much better. god damnit we were all ment to live and be free.

[itismesaj]

How do you get rid of human nature?

[A Deo et Rege]

The problem with anarchy is that when everyone is allowed to have unbridled freedom sooner or later chaos is going to show is ugly face and civilization will collapse; I'm all for freedom but if it means that when someone disagrees with what I think or believe, that they can do whatever they wish to me and my family, then I can deal with having a little less freedom, as long as they don't take my guns or ammunitions away. Human nature is evil and when you give evil absolute freedom chaos ensues.

[eviloldskool]

couldn't agree more

[rebelmarine08]

Anarchy doesn't and can't exist. Anarchy is the absense of all central governing bodies. For the people by the people is Democracy, pal. Since your conscience would be your very own governing body, it's not possible to live without conscience. Besides, get rid of the government, and let everyone hack it for themselves. Eventually you'll have small bands that grow and wage war and function as a whole and once again you have a governing body and you're back to square one. I want all of you "Anarchists" to try this whole anarchy idealogy, and when some thugs come crawling out from an alley with a couple SKS's I'll want to see the bullets fly. I'll stick with my Democratic ideals, and the Corps, and stay safe.

ANARCHY IS NONE EXISTANT.

[now i know]

no, its possible, everything is, even contradicting ideas

nothing is true; everything is permitted

that’s the secret to everything

you don’t even need to destroy human nature, just the parts that get in the way of anarchy, like greed, anger, the need to lead, and the need to be led ect......

look at the Buddhists monks for example, sure, they fallow a system, but just think if they didn’t.

they don’t have any negative emotions, or the need to lead, all that they have that gets in the way of anarchy is the need to be led by a system. if they can get to that state of higher conscience, then why cant we. if you ask me the rest of you just don’t care enough. if you can brake rules formed bye yourself or others, then you can brake any rules, no, that wont work cause there is no rules to life or nature, or anything for that matter. i fallow, no, practice something called chaos magic that just about lets you do anything.

google it.

damn it. im sure i was going to write something else but i forgot, i wrote this half way then left for like a couple of hours and came back.

any ways, write your little skeptic arguments to this so that it might spark my memory.

[A Deo et Rege]

Anarchy isn't impossible, just improbable.

[itismesaj]

It's happened before, long ago, before the status quo was established along with society. But to destroy the status quo would mean reverse evolution/equivalent.

Like I said in the other thread, Buddhist monks live in solitude and don't have the need for certain emotions, since there would be no gain.

You're talking about doublethink. Anyone can know what doublethink is, but it takes a stupid person to actually believe two contradicting ideas whole-heartedly.

[itismesaj]

Also, the thought that everyone lives in their own reality is what I believe (created by Des Cartes), but to say that everything is false is not. Everything is true.

[AnarchyUK]

Now this may seem weird butdid u know that anrchists have helped home and protect more katrina victims than any charitble organisation... if some1 asks u 2 do sumthing u dont want 2 do u can in anarchy no one is forcing 2 do anything no rallys no anything its open minded ppl trying 2 live peaceful and tranquil lives without war or murder or anything now i may seem naive but i strive 4 a new future for all people form alaska 2 zimbabwe

[itismesaj]

But you still didn't answer my question, now i know. How do you destroy human nature?

[exial]

to live in anarchy wud definatley be kool..
so we depend on law inforcement to make anarchy more risky more daring an definatley dangerous.

but we all knoe that if we truly lived in a world where anarchy was replaced by order..that it wud NOT be kool
no anarchist wants to admit this but just think about a whole world gone corrupt
replaced by anarchy
then the quest for survival really begins
in otha words survival of the fittest.
ANARCHY survives becuz of law inforcement
becuz otherwise anarchy wud just be a way of life
this cud be summed up in a few words but im not taking the time..think about it..blood everywhere

[now i know]

--- verse 19, tao te ching * --- throw away holiness and wisdom and people will be a hundred times happier throw away morality and justice and people will do the right thing throw away industry and profit and there won't be any thieves if these three aren't enough just stay at the center of the circle and let all things take their course “In our time human life has become too complex. There are too many laws and moral codes telling us how to think and act. These laws and codes appear to foster unity – yet in truth they create division. They appear to help human beings fulfill themselves – yet in truth they thwart human progress. They appear to elevate virtue – yet in truth they oppress the human spirit. They appear to be based on wisdom but they merely fool fools.�

[AnarchyUK]

Thats deep... but believe mewhen i say anarchy does work its workd in the factories in argentina and in many otherplaces throughout the world just look up anarchy on youtube and click anarchy in LA and brainwashed 2 wat is anarchy

[now i know]

i know it can work.
but getting it to work on a national level were as all of America is in anarchy, would be a little hard, no, screw America, i actually want it world wide.
i want the utopian society anarchy promises were everyone lives free, there is peace, and were the human race can still be socially active without any contradictions. but you still need to be able to find away to get massive amounts of people to change the parts of there human nature that do contradict anarchy.


that’s why before anything we have to enlighten the people about this vision of freedom if you will.

[rebelmarine08]

I've decided all that is left of my wonderful site is ruined. Some bastard replies to me in euphemisms, another proposes that humans can rid themselves of unwanted emotions (that are in fact triggered by chemicals released in your body, not your own will power), and then to think that not a single person out of billions in the world would want to create a civil society after having it for thousands of years.


You're all retarded.

[now i know]

o?
is that so?

so school me. what triggers the release of said chemicals into the body

[Adolf Hitler]

Fuck Anarchy. National Socialism Is Theway To Go.

[A Deo et Rege]

:confused: so you don't like progress?

[Adolf Hitler]

there is no progress in anarchy.

[A Deo et Rege]

yea there is because you have the freedom to do what you please, and most people that want anarchy, well at least the intelligent ones, want to help the populous by creating a more free and open minded world.

Why do you think the soviet union collapsed, they made absolutely no progress so their society collapsed.

[Adolf Hitler]

thats because they were commies. I am in no way talking about communism. National Socialism is basicly the uniting of the white race.

[A Deo et Rege]

http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc217/adeoetrege/swastika3swastika.jpg

[Adolf Hitler]

wow, im suprised someone here besides me knew that. so think that hitler took the swazi from asians and turned it backwards. they are wrong. the runes are from "elder futhark" the oldest rune system. the runes are concidered to be one of the first forms of writing, dating back thousands of years.

[SuperSkunk]

Exept the aliens ancient hieroglyphs older than the planet earth its self. They are our mother race.

-baked

p.s hitler dude hilarious

[A Deo et Rege]

Socialism sucks, that's why i'm antisocial.:D

[SuperSkunk]

anti-social makes you the butt plug of society lol I don't know what that means and its not meant to be insulting I just think its funny at the time.

p.s hitler more funny please.

[A Deo et Rege]

antisocial means i'm against total socialism, which would suck.

[SuperSkunk]

So your like a butt plug to the socialist trying to get in a socialist asshole in metaphorical meanings right??? (not saying you like dark stinky holes just speaking in metaphors so people in lower intelligence (hitler) doesn't understand)

[Adolf Hitler]

Im only for uniting my race. there is a race war coming, which side will you be on

you want see funny, all these anarchist should kill their parents, creamate them, put them in an urn, then lube it up, and shove it up thier ass or cunt depending on sex.so they can say their parent are deep inside of them. and they are a pain in the ass. go pull a richard gear, put a shaved hamster up your ass. go get aids from magic jonhsons big black cock blowing a load in your bunghole. Go kobain and put a shoot gun in your mouth and pull the trigger. I'v seen the pics, very pretty.

[SuperSkunk]

You went out of your way for that one.

LOL

Ill only join the white people if their really is a race war. Ill bring one asian chick though cuz they are pretty hot you have to admit that lol.

[Adolf Hitler]

thats gross if you bring an asian, i kill you.

[SuperSkunk]

No no you dont understand. We can make little asain mongoloid babies that can spy on the asians for us. LOLlololol

[Adolf Hitler]

im not doing that, but what ever floats your boat. asians actually have alot of racial pride i can respect them, but not fuck them. they all look 12. even at 50

[SuperSkunk]

not those really slutty looking ones on the front of car magazines they look at least 18.

[Adolf Hitler]

im not touching that one.

[SuperSkunk]

Yeah dudeguy. LOLOL

[Adolf Hitler]

so why do you like yellow ass

[SuperSkunk]

its nice tight warm and wet.

[Adolf Hitler]

thats almost all pussy though, think of the future.

[SuperSkunk]

Oh I ment to say tight 3 times lol.

[Adolf Hitler]

you are sick most of them carry STDs

[SuperSkunk]

Really dude thats gross I gutta get my self checked.

[Adolf Hitler]

you can go blind

[SuperSkunk]

Dude now I think you full of shit what disease is that?

[Adolf Hitler]

siphilis.!!

[Adolf Hitler]

it eats away at your optic nerve in your brain

[SuperSkunk]

Dude thats fucking gross. I have to get checked. Last time I had to get checked is when I got crabs that shit was nasty I had to get this prescription shampoo and shit. Then I went to the chicks house knocked on her door and her parents came out I handed the shampoo to her dad and said "give this to your daughter she needs it" and I drove off. fucking whore

[Adolf Hitler]

very nice, maybe try to not fuck sluts.

[SuperSkunk]

Theres a reason why to fuck sluts. You get them high and they are yours for the taking. Nice and easy how I like them. Im not into relationships lol.

[Adolf Hitler]

I have to go now Ill email that info later. 1488 SIEG HEIL

[SuperSkunk]

yeah sieg heil thats probably german right?

[R.A.(Grim)]

hahaha superskunk.
anarchy is only as good as the people in the place where anarchy is present. think about it.u probably see this utopian society were everyonegoes about it a smooth fasion with whatewever u think happens then the people who just like the general idea and go ya freedom ya. well tehre fucked fro mthe start. its a good idea but impossible to work. there will always be someody to fuck it up. people generally want more. soon your sense of freedom will turn to fear as the wicked run loose and fear. ya maybe u and fellow anarchists will find awayto eliminate this problembut what will stop it from rising again. the want for power and wealth is too contagious to be stopped by any amount of resolve. there is no way the people can make a successful anarchist society for it will soon become a dictatorship for ur lives will be dictated by fear

[Mr.X]

I agree with Grim. Anarchy will never work because the majority of people in the human race are too fucking retarded. Theres always gonna be dip shits trying to fuck everything up and take control. The majority of us will be like ordinary people were at the beginning of time; slaves for some fucking king and his army. Think about it, at the beginning it was anarchy...look how that turned out.

[rebelmarine08]

http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc217/adeoetrege/swastika3swastika.jpg

Ever heard of Schultz Staffel? Besides, Hitler didn't invent the Swastika...

[A Deo et Rege]

I know Hitler didn't invent the swastika it was first used in Neolithic Eurasia, thousands of years before Hitler was even born. The swastika is a symbol for well being, which is ironic seeing what it now stands for.

[A Deo et Rege]

I was just seeing how much of an idiot AdolfHitler the asshole member, that is now banned, was; he showed that he knew very little of the history of the man which he obviously idolized.

[Rasta_Man]

Yup, he was an idiot.

[x_hellcat_x]

well i think that anarchy is an awesome thing even though it means chaos but a lil chaos every now and then wont hurt nobody

[itismesaj]

I hope you're kidding. In the Harlem Race Riots {chaos}, around 500 were injured, and five were killed.

Chaos = "hurt"

[metal_head81]

nicely put eviloldskool

[_BDR_]

I believe that everyone is willing to contribute to the cause, then anarchy could work. It would be a huge challenge, but it probably could be done. Human nature, won't kick in because their is nothing for it to effect. In other words, a greedy man, wont have anything to be greedy for. I think the emphasis is "freedom". Chaos is most indeed a form of freedom, which is what anarchy is all about.

[Rasta_Man]

Maybe Freedom for certian people. Anarchy wouldnt work because there are people who would extort the weak and poor, with no consequence. Not to say thats not happening today.

[AnarchyUK]

Seriously ur forgetting the whole pointof this damn thread "Asian chicks are hot but they carry STDs blah blah blah:" get outta here... douche bags.
PS Hitler is dead, he shot himself hes a fucking coward now LEAVE (im just talking 2 that Hitler Guy)

[now i know]

Nothing is impossible.

Maybe anarchy would be to improbable, or hard to work out world wide, or nationally to be worth it,

But a good sized anarchist community ß(for serious lack of better words) would have no problems what so ever.

And who ever said that the sense of freedom would have to turn into fear? It would only turn into fear if we saw it as something to be afraid of, and it is up to us if we see it that way. If there was any problem to brake out it would be easily gotten rid of.

[rebelmarine08]

Anarchist community.... ha ha ha ha.

Your grammar and thought process sucks.

[itismesaj]

Whose grammar/thought process sucks? Because you are being a hypocrite, rebelmarine08.

[rebelmarine08]

Hypocrite? Explain. I was talking about 'now I know'.

[itismesaj]

Sorry, I thought you were talking to all the people in this thread.

[rebelmarine08]

No.. Only him and the other 'anarchists'. I like Democracy.

[itismesaj]

I personally prefer Council Communism, but to each his own.

[rebelmarine08]

I'm not familiar with it....

If you were to write communism as an essay for English or Gov't, you'd get an A+. But it doesn't seem to work well. They like Socialism far too much.

[itismesaj]

In my mind I picture Council Communism as the economic system of Communism, but it is a Democratic government. The only hitch is the government only controls a small society, and not entire nations. There are councils, and there is a council that controls those councils, and a council that controls that council (among others) and so on. Picture it like the US Judicial System. At the top there is a Supreme Council.

[rebelmarine08]

That makes a lot of sense. You should go to The Congo, or Somalia and test it out on them. They're up to anything. Even sex with monkeys.

[A Deo et Rege]

A pyramid form of government were the power springs form a central supreme council and flows down to the populous.

[itismesaj]

Yeah, and I'll opt for the kevlar vest and helmet :P.

Basically, A Deo.

[rebelmarine08]

I have both! Iraqi's can't shoot for shit, So I guess you can have them.

[itismesaj]

Schuuweeet.

[midnight_curse]

anarchy is freedom. absloute and total. the only way to achive it is for there to be chaos. even if there was a goverment to govern the chaos then a group of people would get together to talk about how that goverment is too restrictive. anarchy and goverment go hand in hand. like light and dark, day and night, where there is one, you will find the other.

[Anonimus]

Anarchy is a form of government, not a lack of government. In a Democracy, leaders are elected by the people to represent them. In an Anarchy, the people themselves make decisions. Anarchy can exist WITH laws.

[itismesaj]

Sorry, you're wrong. Democracy is when people themselves make the decisions, and Anarchy is when there are no decisions at all.

We live in a Representative Republic, where we elect our leaders to make decisions for us.

[Anonimus]

LOL no.

We live in a Representative "Democratic" Republic. Representative Democracy is a form of Democracy.

Of course, that's only technically speaking because our government isn't what it claims to be.

[oxyG]

even though anonimus is a retard im gonna go with him on this one

[itismesaj]

I guess I'll have to prove it to you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_republic
Tell me that isn't the U.S.

[Dak]

another thread eh? alright

I consider myself an anarchist

My definition of anarchy is virtually being a hermit. I dont care to explain

there ya go

[CHEETZzz]

another thread eh? alright

I consider myself an anarchist

My definition of anarchy is virtually being a hermit. I dont care to explain

there ya go

STFU YOU FUCK AND QUIT NECRO POSTING
fucking dumbfucks, fuck



EDIT: lol i just noticed that was a slight necro post for me, 5 days late... but come on, read his post, he's retarded.

[Spyre]

Well now that this thread has already been re-necroed, i might as well put in my thought.

True anarchy would suck hairy balls. I can torture your family while you watch tied up and then I run and who is gonna catch me? no one, because no one is being told to catch me. Anarchists say that people would eventually respect eachother and help eachother out and everything would be perfect and there would be no need for goverment. Bullshit.

If cops werent payed, you think we would have just as many of them? If soldiers didnt get free college, do you think we would have as many of them? Fuck if it wasnt the law that I had to go to school, do u really think I would?

I think that without chaos, the world wouldn't run. We would be no different than the computer that ure on, we would simply not be truly alive (im kinda talking about brave new world by aldous huxley, really good book) Anarchy is living your life by chaos, which is exactly like what I was saying before. I think we need anarchy for a little bit just to refresh our ideas and establish a new government. Just for a few months to a year, just tear down our entire system and live in chaos for a while. It would be bad, but eventually people would come together, get guns, force everyone to come together, and establish order, which means a government. When people work together it isnt anarchy anymore. Anarchists probably think just like me, tear down our government and have people work together eventually, but when people work together its a government, which is the opposite of anarchy. Pwned.

[Shanx]

I think everyone should just sit back, relax, and hit up a bong.

[Buddha]

Anarchy is like world peace, hopeless but you gotta believe it can happen.

[Anarci]

Yer oldskool has a point whislt anarchy is about being equal there is always human nature, but who actaully says their cant be leaders, leaders are neccessary to bring people together, for some reason we anarchist look down upon this aspect, thinking leaders will bring about the old regime they will have just removed. I dont belivee this is the case, we need leaders to bring about a revelution and the whilst there we will need them to help soldify our nature they do not have to dictate merely help, obviously some people will abuse this right but that is then up to the community to exile abusers of power or deal with them how they will. Anarcy is not a lost cause... I just needs a little tweaking because right now the world cannot be any better at playing towards our cause! tHE CAPITALIST SYSTEM IS FALLIN, THE RISE OF THE ANARCIST IS IMMINENT!

[theZoDiAc]

i believe anarchy is an over used term by any two bit pissed off whiny emo kid who thinks its cool to hate the government i rather prefer the term anti-authoritarian i believe that anarchy should not be total chaos but well organized equal rights for every one no class war no economic crisis no ones richer than the other class completely dissolves to the point where every one is equal only then can we ever live in a fair society but because of our human nature this is hard to achieve problems such as racism lead to conflict which eliminates the equal policy and makes every thing harder because of our human nature total anarchy is not possible its hard for humans to live without some form of governing something telling them what to do here in lies the delima of anarchy

[a2thae]

i believe anarchy is an over used term by any two bit pissed off whiny emo kid who thinks its cool to hate the government i rather prefer the term anti-authoritarian i believe that anarchy should not be total chaos but well organized equal rights for every one no class war no economic crisis no ones richer than the other class completely dissolves to the point where every one is equal only then can we ever live in a fair society but because of our human nature this is hard to achieve problems such as racism lead to conflict which eliminates the equal policy and makes every thing harder because of our human nature total anarchy is not possible its hard for humans to live without some form of governing something telling them what to do here in lies the delima of anarchy

Well organized by who? the people? ...you seem to be an advocate of socialism..

::EDIT:: this was at the top of the forum when i posted it...bleh

[Zamato Elite]

i believe anarchy is an over used term by any two bit pissed off whiny emo kid who thinks its cool to hate the government i rather prefer the term anti-authoritarian i believe that anarchy should not be total chaos but well organized equal rights for every one no class war no economic crisis no ones richer than the other class completely dissolves to the point where every one is equal only then can we ever live in a fair society but because of our human nature this is hard to achieve problems such as racism lead to conflict which eliminates the equal policy and makes every thing harder because of our human nature total anarchy is not possible its hard for humans to live without some form of governing something telling them what to do here in lies the delima of anarchy

I take it you don't know what Anarchism is, or how it is carried out. All I hear from you is typical mainstream propaganda that holds no grounds. It's not a simple ideology as is commonly believed. It's complex and takes many forms.

[Cannon D]

hey has anyone heard of the hacker group called anonymous?

[itismesaj]

I take it you don't know what Anarchism is, or how it is carried out. All I hear from you is typical mainstream propaganda that holds no grounds. It's not a simple ideology as is commonly believed. It's complex and takes many forms.
Anarchy, from the greek words meaning "without ruler." How is that complex?

Cannon D, they aren't hackers. They are bored twelve-year-olds. I know. I used to be one of them.

[a2thae]

Anarchy, from the greek words meaning "without ruler." How is that complex?

Cannon D, they aren't hackers. They are bored twelve-year-olds. I know. I used to be one of them.

He wasn't speaking of greek, or the literal translation...

[itismesaj]

So if not literal, then metaphorical? "Anarchy is a sea of rainbows swirling through my imagination." Yeahno.

[a2thae]

No you fucking idiot, a theory that regards the absence of all coercive or direct government as a political ideal and proposes the cooperative yet voluntary association of individual people and groups as the principal mode of society.

[itismesaj]

CopyPaste ftw.

But, that aside, I'm curious... How is that not "without ruler" in any sense? It's a marvelously simple ideal if you cut away all the bullshit you just said.

[a2thae]

Wrong..this is a copy and paste(of my post).

... anarchy originally was a theory that regards the absence of all coercive, or direct government as a political ideal and that proposes the notion of cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society. With no oppression. You aren't forced to do anything by anyone except yourself. Ideally. Everyone knows that it can't work because of human imperfections...

Its more complex than without ruler, you aren't familiar with the original theory are you?

[itismesaj]

Right, you copied and pasted it. Which means you obviously don't have ideas of your own and simply pick a side that seems to be winning the argument.

I'm familiar with about as original as you can get. The literal etymological structure of the word MEANS "without ruler." And, believe you me, that's a pretty simple ideal. It's deceivingly simple, actually. That's why you feel the need to throw all that bullshit in there.

So, therefore, you aren't familar with the orginal theory.

[a2thae]

Right, you copied and pasted it. Which means you obviously don't have ideas of your own and simply pick a side that seems to be winning the argument.

I'm familiar with about as original as you can get. The literal etymological structure of the word MEANS "without ruler." And, believe you me, that's a pretty simple ideal. It's deceivingly simple, actually. That's why you feel the need to throw all that bullshit in there.

So, therefore, you aren't familar with the orginal theory.

I just copied and pasted a quote that I wrote...what I write isn't my ideas?

No the literal etymological structure of the word simply defines it...it doesn't interpret it...

The original theory is not from the fucking greek words...

So, therefore, you are an idiot who isn't familiar with the original theory...only the derivative of anarchy.

[itismesaj]

Ah. I can see that it is pointless to debate you. You refuse to see reason. You use things such as weasel words to constantly appear as if you are in control, when in fact you are simply skirting around your own stances, picking and choosing which one would best attack mine, which are unfaultering.

Allow me to elaborate. You say that defining something isn't interpreting something, when in fact they are synonyms. You say that the orginal theory is not from Greek, when in fact the idea of anarchy started with Greek philosophers. You say that I am only familiar with the derivative of anarchy, however the word derivitave is, again, a synomym of the word origin.

So good day to you, sir. You are a God among men.

[a2thae]

You use things such as weasel words to constantly appear as if you are in control, when in fact you are simply skirting around your own stances...

When the fuck did I do this? You're just backing out because you assumed that the derivation of the word anarchy is what anarchy truly is..."without ruler"

I didn't dispute that. I just said it is more than that.

Go die Itismesaj, you are a "god" among dipshits.

[itismesaj]

You make me blush. I could never be a God.

[a2thae]

Ok, you're right, but you are one of the biggest dipshits of them all.

[Kasnia]

If you two don't cut the shit and start having a serious discussion without acting like children, then I'm deleting either all of your posts or this entire thread and any anarchy-related thread that can be related to this one, seeing as how there are enough as is.


Also, a2thae. Check it:

Anarchy (from Greek: αναρχία anarchía, "without ruler") may refer to any of the following:

* "No rulership or enforced authority." [1]
* "Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder."[2]
* "A social state in which there is no governing person or body of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder)."[3]
* "Absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any given sphere."[4]
* A society free from coercive authority of any kind is the goal of proponents of the political philosophy of anarchism (anarchists).
* Independent from rule or authority.

[Cuddles]

No you fucking idiot, a theory that regards the absence of all coercive or direct government as a political ideal and proposes the cooperative yet voluntary association of individual people and groups as the principal mode of society.

cooperation implies voluntary association, you neednt put the word yet, you could put or, but yet is inappropriate.

also, ill say this, as ive said before: what you're talking about is a form of rulerless socialism, or communalism (the al is only there to differentiate it from communism--that isnt a real word, but the meaning of communism without regard to the actual theory of marxism, is a society in which everyone voluntarily helps eachother)....you may even be referring to a dystopia, depending upon the means in which it comes into existence.

dystopias are still governments, socialism without ruler is still government. anarchy is to be without government. what you're speaking of is not anarchy, and if you cannot name it properly, please do not pretend to understand what it means to be a part of it.

dystpias in general, can only exist for short periods of time, which transition into a form of government, inevitably, throughout history, even tribal laws count as government, and you can see how difficult it is to find any group of people living together which dont at least have tribal laws. anarchy requires the voluntary dissociation of individuals from eachother. any cooperation besides familial (and, that means immediate familial, not extended--as soon as you find a mate, you're no longer considered part of the family) would be capable of being considered a government form, and thus, no longer anarchy.

i do not mean to debate the theory that you present, only that you are naming it inappropriately, and i believe you should learn its true name before beginning to attempt to debate it.

[fuckthesystem]

anarchy is a good idea but it would never work, human nature would interupt, there are leaders and there are followers, someone will always look up to someone else for direction, causing order and creating (however small it may be) a system, and as i'm sure we all know that in it's own little form is a government, negating the anarchist state. anarchy is like communism, on paper it looks great but once you add the human element it all goes to hell.
Finally, Someone I can agree with. Anarchy is a amazing idea but only in theory. Like so many other ideals when you add the human element it becomes FUCKED UP! Through out history people have always formed groups and let the strong lead the way. Then the strong will continue to take power until they control everything. Just like what has happened in America.

[itismesaj]

If you two don't cut the shit and start having a serious discussion without acting like children, then I'm deleting either all of your posts or this entire thread and any anarchy-related thread that can be related to this one, seeing as how there are enough as is.


Also, a2thae. Check it:
Yes ma'am.

For the record, I tried to debate correctly, but Mr. a2thae thought differently.

Oh, and... a2thae... HAH!

[RuthlessMan]

I'd like to point out a few things.


also, ill say this, as ive said before: what you're talking about is a form of rulerless socialism, or communalism (the al is only there to differentiate it from communism--that isnt a real word, but the meaning of communism without regard to the actual theory of marxism, is a society in which everyone voluntarily helps eachother)....you may even be referring to a dystopia, depending upon the means in which it comes into existence.

dystopias are still governments, socialism without ruler is still government. anarchy is to be without government. what you're speaking of is not anarchy...

Is that an oxymoron? "Rulerless Socialism=a form of government"? The greek derivation says without ruler. Just wanted to say that :D

dystopias in general, can only exist for short periods of time, which transition into a form of government, inevitably, throughout history, even tribal laws count as government, and you can see how difficult it is to find any group of people living together which dont at least have tribal laws. anarchy requires the voluntary dissociation of individuals from eachother. any cooperation besides familial (and, that means immediate familial, not extended--as soon as you find a mate, you're no longer considered part of the family) would be capable of being considered a government form, and thus, no longer anarchy.



I don't think that cooperation means that there is some type of government present which is what I think you're implying. You are also using anarchy in an extreme specific sense; a sense which I don't believe we are discussing; nor is it commonly used in that sense.

I'm interested in knowing how you interpret cooperation of any two non familial individuals a form of government.

edit-Go die Itismesaj, you are a "god" among dipshits.

You're an angry person aren't you?

[MissTruant]

You know, I read most of the posts and replies... some very, very valid points and debates. On the other hand, some of this is complete bullshit. Freedom from anarchy? I belive it's both.

Is that an oxymoron? "Rulerless Socialism=a form of government"?

That was hilarious by the way. =)

[superflysuperwhite]

leaderless socialisim is quite possible... you dont need a "leader' to hold together a country. a colaberation of people can run a country, no person has more power then the other and each person can not work without the other. These people control the country.

[ShAkEr]

ANARCHY


* "No rulership or enforced authority.
* "Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder.
* "A social state in which there is no governing person or group of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder).
* "Absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any given sphere.
* A society free from coercive authority of any kind is the goal of proponents of the political philosophy of anarchism (anarchists).
* Independent from rule or authority.

anarchy is total chaos you are your own person and you look out for your own well being no one elses

[Dr_gonzo33]

how does these threads keep starting isnt this like the 3rd one

[Kasnia]

Yeah, pretty much. That's why I don't close this one when people necro. If I did, they'd open an even older one or create a whole new one.

[Dr_gonzo33]

what???????

[katt]

I think she's saying that, because the site is called the anarchist cookbook, some people think it's actually a site for talking about anarchy, and will most likely continue to. Or, anarchy just a more popular subject than i thought.

[Dr_gonzo33]

idk its stupid i'v like schooled people about anarchy like twice now and i really dont feel like doing it a third time so peace

[Kasnia]

I think she's saying that, because the site is called the anarchist cookbook, some people think it's actually a site for talking about anarchy, and will most likely continue to. Or, anarchy just a more popular subject than i thought.

Yeah, pretty much. I'm also saying that I don't care when people revive this thread because this (from what I've seen) is the most popular Anarchy thread and the one that keeps getting revived the most. If I closed this thread, then people would necro-post in other anarchy threads, reviving ones that are even older than this one, and once I closed all of those, they'd make a million new ones. So everyone can bitch about necro-ing this thread, but I'm not closing it.

[superflysuperwhite]

just sticky it

[anarchistpunk465]

First of all Anarchy is NOT CHAOS, second of all iin a nut shell its to make our own government run by the people for the people.

i agree it is not just all about chaos and going out and blowing shit up you need to establish a system of government theres a difference between killing and fighting anarchy and having a government in the name of anarchy this is the exact definition of anarchy absence of government a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power or political disorder, and for the people who dont believe in anarchy, how does Hittler inspire a whole nation to believe every word that comes out of his mouth and to hate a whole race of people and worship him like hes a god , but a anarchist government is not possible tell me that?

[anarchistpunk465]

Anarchy is cool look up anarchy on youtube and click anarchy in LA and brainwashed 2 what is anarchy its so informing...

anarchy in the uk?! please fuck the sex pistols, there as punk as panic at the disco, are you even from the uk?! get your facts straight about anarchy!

[Dr_gonzo33]

okay here i go again anarchy is impossible unless every human being is isolated from one another no human can have any influence on another human. in that scenario you will have a true anarchy which is FREEDOM. and we all know that in this day and age that is impossible.........

[superflysuperwhite]

i agree it is not just all about chaos and going out and blowing shit up you need to establish a system of government theres a difference between killing and fighting anarchy and having a government in the name of anarchy this is the exact definition of anarchy absence of government a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power or political disorder, and for the people who dont believe in anarchy, how does Hittler inspire a whole nation to believe every word that comes out of his mouth and to hate a whole race of people and worship him like hes a god , but a anarchist government is not possible tell me that?

because when your country was unjustifibly raped after one of the largest wars, and you're economy is in the shitter, and life over all sucks.. people will listen to anyone who has an answer.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

how does Hittler inspire a whole nation to believe every word that comes out of his mouth and to hate a whole race of people and worship him like hes a god , but a anarchist government is not possible tell me that?

because of this:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy

could you please do one of two things:

1) define "anarchist government" for us unenlightened.

2) go die in a hole, cold, insane, and hounded by the ravening spectral wolf of your past transgressions.

[Dr_gonzo33]

i agree it is not just all about chaos and going out and blowing shit up you need to establish a system of government theres a difference between killing and fighting anarchy and having a government in the name of anarchy this is the exact definition of anarchy absence of government a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power or political disorder, and for the people who dont believe in anarchy, how does Hittler inspire a whole nation to believe every word that comes out of his mouth and to hate a whole race of people and worship him like hes a god , but a anarchist government is not possible tell me that?

oxy moron alert anarchist government? its impossible even if you had a small village with a hand ful of people thats not an anarchy because i garentee you they work together and in a small village like that the biggest person would have more power over the others, the only way an anarchy is possible is if a human has no contact with anyother human

[itismesaj]

oxy moron alert anarchist government? its impossible even if you had a small village with a hand ful of people thats not an anarchy because i garentee you they work together and in a small village like that the biggest person would have more power over the others, the only way an anarchy is possible is if a human has no contact with anyother human

Well then, per John Locke and Aristotle, we wouldn't be people. We would be animals. And allow me to correct you a little bit. I think what you are trying to say is that anarchy would only be possible if a human never related to another human. They could see another person, but only if they didn't realize that the other was like themself.

But. That's impossible. We are simply too smart and too advanced. So anarchy is impossible. As I've said again and again.

[Dr_gonzo33]

okay but our minds arent that underdeveloped so i dont know why you are correcting me, thas like saying well if we were penguins............. and thats not waht im trying to say. if a human made no contact with another human their entire life thats an anarchy. because once they meet. chances are that one of them is gonna take charge

[PsYcHoSiS]

Anarchy is chaos, by definition anarchy is the absence of government or any political order, thus chaos, but what's wrong with chaos, I like chaos. Order is dull, chaos is exciting, and like the flabbio said," chaos is an expression of freedom," because without order, or rules, there's chaos and with no rules there's freedom, so freedom=chaos.

I concur.

+ Bump

[Kasnia]

I concur.

+ Bump

...You don't have to bump something that's stickied.

[rsdbaby]

lol. I love it when people completely ignore every post except the one that supports their ideas. Its great that you love chaos but what about the claim that chaos cannot exist for a prolonged period of time?

[RuthlessMan]

How can chaos not exist for a prolonged period of time?

Also when is the cut off point of chaos?

to Deo...

I do agree that chaos is somewhat an expression of freedom...but generally when you hear chaos, one thinks of havoc. Is freedom also havoc?

[rsdbaby]

Could you name any time in history, even back 1.8 million years ago when homo erectus ruled the earth, that chaos lasted for a prolonged time? Even chimpanzees group up into clans, individuals benefit far too much from grouping up to all of a sudden abandon this method of survival.

[rsdbaby]

Even the simplest single-cell creatures have worked out that shit gets easier to do in groups....

That combined with the natural desire for wealth and power is the main reason "chaos" and "anarchy" cannot last for a prolonged period. That same desire for power is the fuel behind capitalism and the main reason communism doesnt work.

[Camper]

Why do you think Anarchy causes freedom? I don't get it.

[BurnDown]

Anarchy is chaos, by definition anarchy is the absence of government or any political order, thus chaos, but what's wrong with chaos, I like chaos. Order is dull, chaos is exciting, and like the flabbio said," chaos is an expression of freedom," because without order, or rules, there's chaos and with no rules there's freedom, so freedom=chaos.

I'm with Deo on this. And, this is what I think this is how things should be run. The people should be able to do what they want.

[JoshIryshe]

This may sound weird but like someone said early a direct democracy in a small community(like a city-state) would be a good strategy because pure unadultered anarchy(however sweet and cool it would be) is subject to the quirks of fucked humans, IE-crazies like Jeff Dahmer and thoese types so some form of directly democratic minarchy would be the best option, as for what the ruling laws of this city-state would be , they would have basic things like, you kill someone=you die the same way, you rape someone=you get raped, very simple and as for economics currency wouldnt be used as it would develop into todays money which is watched and tracked by the fed, and simple barter-style capitalism would work(collectivist mentality is nice but infringes too much on the right of the individual, all this shit i wrote is hypothetical in a sort of apocalyptic situation, like 2012, all im try to verbalize is that the basic concept of individual freedom, to do whatever you want should be maintained and some minute-level of organization may be necessary(microscopic)

[Cashis Clay]

blah blah blah and some more blah.

[jonny_lawless]

I agree with dio, aslong as there are rules and government, non of us are truely free...

[buddy666]

anarchy = freedom
chaos = what the world would be like if we had no government because all the assholes of the world can't handle it.
anarchy is NOT chaos

[Cashis Clay]

You don't think complete freedom would create chaos?

[JoshIryshe]

Chaos theory-
out of chaos comes order and visa-versa, humans gravitate to do shit in groups, but they also gravitate toward freedom and independence it's a mix

[Warpurlgis]

anarchy = freedom
chaos = what the world would be like if we had no government because all the assholes of the world can't handle it.
anarchy is NOT chaos

Anarchism is no government, no rules, only a small number of basic codes that you would live by. Of course this is all in theory. See what would happen is some egotistical nutcase would get followers and make the world into some socialist bullshit government or everyone would go ape shit crazy with the sudden new freedom. So the process of an anarchist world or even country would take hundreds of years and would need to start with a communist government and over time the leaders would need to make slow progression to absolute freedom so the people wouldn't feel sudden freedom and go ape shit crazy. Of course during the long period of transition there would be much risk in having a nutcase leader or even rebellion and even if achieved the people could be again swayed by greed and lust to turn into what is today's governments.

So in theory Anarchism seems like a strait forward easy process, but in reality it would be a slow fragile process requiring the government leaders during the process to keep secrecy and their heads.

[guitarnewt]

Anarchy means no government--if people have no rules, no regulations, and no mother f**kers in the White House to scare the majority of us into submission, then it'd be a free for all. People now days are corrupt; sure, there's good people, but most are pretty damn stupid. So when you give corrupt people absolute freedom, it'll be a new-age civil war.
Of course, you can take the approach that humans are the most evolutionized and sophisticated and therefore know how to sort through issues without violence. We could go on living normal lives, only being allowed to take part in some form of justice or another. Really it all depends on your view of humans.
What's ironic is that the majority of people think that humans are civilized and can live peacefully, and yet are against anarchy because we'd be thrown into chaos, and THEN they go and talk smack about the government. People never stop being hypocrites.

[hellknight]

i believe that anarchy isn't not to have goverment.it's to fight the corrupted government fight for freedom and give the government to people..if united we will know what's good for us and start a new world =) where everone no matter color or religion or language will be acceptable

[hellknight]

Fuck Anarchy. National Socialism Is Theway To Go.

you came to website for anarchists and post about national socialism with a name "Adolf Hitler"??!?!!?what the fuck is wrong with you?

[crazyassmetalhead]

this isn't a website for anarchists.....just the severely retarded

what's the point of this thread anyways? it's pretty well established what anarchy is, why do the subretarded opinions of what you all think it means matter to begin with?

[Warpurlgis]

Anarchy means no government--if people have no rules, no regulations, and no mother f**kers in the White House to scare the majority of us into submission, then it'd be a free for all.
I agree with some of what you said. Not the above though

i believe that anarchy isn't not to have goverment.it's to fight the corrupted government fight for freedom and give the government to people..if united we will know what's good for us and start a new world =) where everone no matter color or religion or language will be acceptable
If there is no Government who's to say you won't get shot in the face??? Or even raped

you came to website for anarchists and post about national socialism with a name "Adolf Hitler"??!?!!?what the fuck is wrong with you?
This isn't a serious Anarchist site. The things on here would all fall under the category so the @DM1n named it The Anarchist Cook Book cause it would be a very commonly searched thing. Second I think his name was to get attention or a joke.

[Buddha]

Human nature will always lead to unhappiness no matter what the political system.

[Supertastypancakes]

Anarchy is naturally freedom.....it gives us the ability to do as we wish at our own lesiure, it lets us be who we want to be without caring what anyone else thinks therefore like i said before anarchy is freedom.

[Lanimal]

Anarchy will remove barrier between bad people and bad deals they do. The solution is to remove bad people.

[hellknight]

If there is no Government who's to say you won't get shot in the face??? Or even raped.

but think about it.now 'cause we have a so-called government we believe that it takes care of everything and we only care about ourselves.but if there is no government and the world is run by anarchy suddenly we are all going to be united if we know what's best for us.or the leadership could fall into the hands of a "real"anarchists unlike the most punks my country has that they break cars and shops but when it comes to the police they shit themselves.

[rimmellondon27]

ok i am an anarchist and it does man choas but also the freedom to do it not necessarly choas to destruct but our government is choatic so whatever

[SonOfFreedom]

i believe anarchy is an over used term by any two bit pissed off whiny emo kid who thinks its cool to hate the government i rather prefer the term anti-authoritarian i believe that anarchy should not be total chaos but well organized equal rights for every one no class war no economic crisis no ones richer than the other class completely dissolves to the point where every one is equal only then can we ever live in a fair society but because of our human nature this is hard to achieve problems such as racism lead to conflict which eliminates the equal policy and makes every thing harder because of our human nature total anarchy is not possible its hard for humans to live without some form of governing something telling them what to do here in lies the delima of anarchy

You are speaking of the Communist Manifesto. Read it.

[SonOfFreedom]

Anarchy is freedom with responsibility. You have the responsibility to ensure the life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of yourself as long as it does not inhibit the life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of others. Whether you choose to do stupid, violent, or destructive shit is up to you. If you do those things then you will be rooted out of the society in which you currently live. Not necesarily by death. Anarchy is in itself a selfless love of all life. As long as you do not inhibit those three basic rights of others you can do whatever the fuck you please. If you do inhibit those things then the people of the area have all thr right in the world to do something to ensure that you will not/can not do those things again.

[Warpurlgis]

but think about it.now 'cause we have a so-called government we believe that it takes care of everything and we only care about ourselves.but if there is no government and the world is run by anarchy suddenly we are all going to be united if we know what's best for us.or the leadership could fall into the hands of a "real"anarchists unlike the most punks my country has that they break cars and shops but when it comes to the police they shit themselves.

Honestly what would unite us together. Peoples greed with possession and power is why it wouldn't work and is why people would be getting shot. In theory it sounds cool. In reality it wouldn't work

[Warpurlgis]

Anarchy will remove barrier between bad people and bad deals they do. The solution is to remove bad people.

Ok with the lack of a Government who's to say one of these "bad people" won't rise up

[Warpurlgis]

ok i am an anarchist and it does man choas but also the freedom to do it not necessarly choas to destruct but our government is choatic so whatever

Wanting a non-chaotic Anarchist society is like an oxymoron.

[Warpurlgis]

You are speaking of the Communist Manifesto. Read it.

Anarchy is freedom with responsibility. You have the responsibility to ensure the life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of yourself as long as it does not inhibit the life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of others. Whether you choose to do stupid, violent, or destructive shit is up to you. If you do those things then you will be rooted out of the society in which you currently live. Not necesarily by death. Anarchy is in itself a selfless love of all life. As long as you do not inhibit those three basic rights of others you can do whatever the fuck you please. If you do inhibit those things then the people of the area have all thr right in the world to do something to ensure that you will not/can not do those things again.

Anarchy and Communism are trying to achieve the same basic thing, equality and freedom for all. Communism tries to do this by a safe approach and Anarchism tries to inn act it instantaneously.

[Warpurlgis]

You people can't just want some government type cause it sounds cool or like it will be good. You have to base it working around human natures of greed, grudges, spite, and fighting. There is also is two sides to an argument, which is why Democracy doesn't work as intended because it only accommodates for only majority. Then again you can't always get what you want.

Anarchy is just a horrible thought and Communism is just an unachievable dream.

[hellknight]

Honestly what would unite us together. Peoples greed with possession and power is why it wouldn't work and is why people would be getting shot. In theory it sounds cool. In reality it wouldn't work

it's the human instinct of survival.i didn't say we are going to be united coz we have a good heart,give peace a chance,flower power blah blah blah but we WANT AND NEED to survive.if an asshole rises to power with anarchy then the humans will lynch him.we ain't good hearted we just want to exist

[Viva la Guevara]

i happen to enjoy my life in the united states.
democracy is not a bad thing.
you really think it could get any better then it is here?
sure the national debt and the oil and the war but thats just reality
man will always be a bunch of bloodthirsty greedy bastards
so having no government to controll all those bastards is absolute
bullshit

and if your one of those people who is like anti establishment and think the american goverment is lying to us and shit. Maybe they are. but you really think any goverment is tellling 100% the truth?
i dont think so

[cardwatch]

Anarchy is not the absence of order, it is the absence of government. anarchy is the land of do as you please

[Akhyll]

In France, we're waiting for "Le Grand Soir" (The Big Evening), which is more an urban myth : one evening, all the workers on the world, while coming back home, will unterstand that life is more than that and will stop work at the same time. Anarchy will come naturelly...
Anarchy is chaos, if you want everybody to be an anarchist, you're not one, you're a fascist (imposing your point of view by any kind of way).
Read A. E. van Vogt book "The Anarchistic Colossus", an old but pretty good one.
Be a burning son of the people who know neirther gods nor masters is an everyday's figth. And beware not to be one of the last men, like discribe by Nietzsche.

[Warpurlgis]

There is no such thing as Anarchy. Its just a retarded theory. You wasting time believing it will come.

[Warpurlgis]

Anarchy is not the absence of order, it is the absence of government. anarchy is the land of do as you please

Anarchy do as I please? Really? Cause somebody just ass raped you and then sprayed buck shot in your face. Is that what you want?

Like I said no one to stop this from happening it'll happen because of human nature. Most likely if you think your Anarchist you would one of the first killed.

[Viva la Guevara]

anarchy looks goood on paper
but in practice it just doesnt work
and as long as people bring there kids up with reason
anarchy wont come naturally
bc its again, retarded

[Akhyll]

Sure, communism is an epic success and capitalism is bringing the world to a better place...
The problem is that anarchism this the only one without domination.

[Viva la Guevara]

wait sarcasm? loll
im very confused

[sellrobert]

In my humble view, anarchy is one of many ways to change the political landscape to what a certain group wants. Anarchy is change. It is a permanent state , it is in everything. If I could have, I would have chosen both and neither on the poll. From the outside, anarchy seems chaotic and uncontrolled, but thats from the perspective of the people being targeted by it. From the people doing it, there is a method to the madness. Really, when you look at it, nature and life itself is in a permanent state of anarchy. Change is constant and more often than not, absolutely unpredictable. Just look around my friends and you will see anarchy in everything. Everyone who says that they despise anarchy, that they need absolute order to their lives, are fighting a losing battle. It is only through living with the anarchy around us and embracing it that we can truly live our life happily. Embrace the change: embrace the anarchy.

[emberXlynn]

i agree, if uv ever watched SLC Punk.. anarchy is chaos. not a system. why does everyone disagree w. this?:?

[Anthony477]

In my humble view, anarchy is one of many ways to change the political landscape to what a certain group wants. Anarchy is change. It is a permanent state , it is in everything. If I could have, I would have chosen both and neither on the poll. From the outside, anarchy seems chaotic and uncontrolled, but thats from the perspective of the people being targeted by it. From the people doing it, there is a method to the madness. Really, when you look at it, nature and life itself is in a permanent state of anarchy. Change is constant and more often than not, absolutely unpredictable. Just look around my friends and you will see anarchy in everything. Everyone who says that they despise anarchy, that they need absolute order to their lives, are fighting a losing battle. It is only through living with the anarchy around us and embracing it that we can truly live our life happily. Embrace the change: embrace the anarchy.

Wow...I agree %100. Very true post.

[rubyred]

Anarchy means the absence of the government, no ruler ship, or a state of lawlessness. A system without order is chaos because it is a free system to do as it pleases without rules or regulations, Therefore anarchy is Chaotic Freedom.......................... WOOOOOOOOOOOTT!!! CHaotiC FreEdom! :p

[EmbrExcell]

Anarchy is purely the means to return said affected area completely natural, and to kill of all lifeforms that do not provide for themselves sufficiently enough to survive.

All consumers that cannot get their own food die.
All douchbags who go looking for a fight end up dying.
In the end only those who can keep themselves safe and well fed survive.
All survivors create the beginning of a new community.
Close to perfectly efficient society.

[Dr_gonzo33]

Anarchy is purely the means to return said affected area completely natural, and to kill of all lifeforms that do not provide for themselves sufficiently enough to survive.

All consumers that cannot get their own food die.
All douchbags who go looking for a fight end up dying.
In the end only those who can keep themselves safe and well fed survive.
All survivors create the beginning of a new community.
Close to perfectly efficient society.

uh fighting is a natural thing buddy animals fight all the time not for survival either

[sellrobert]

Anarchy is purely the means to return said affected area completely natural, and to kill of all lifeforms that do not provide for themselves sufficiently enough to survive.

All consumers that cannot get their own food die.
All douchbags who go looking for a fight end up dying.
In the end only those who can keep themselves safe and well fed survive.
All survivors create the beginning of a new community.
Close to perfectly efficient society.

Sounds more like social Darwinism than anarchy. In fact, that is. So are you saying anarchy is a means to bring social Darwinism on the world? If so, I dont really agree.

[EmbrExcell]

@Gonzo:
Animals only fight for survival.
Give me one example of animals attacking each other that isnt based on the primal instinct of preservation.
Humans are the only race on this planet that kill for their own personal gain, or satisfaction.
Call me a misanthropist, and I'll agree, as I am one.
Call me an idiot however...

If you go looking for a fight, and you get injured, that leaves you at a high risk. The risk that somebody with the exact same idea as you, will come along and see easy pickings.

Unless you can easily succeed through I]every[/I] dangerous encounter without so much as a scratch, sooner later you will be picked off.

@Robert:
I suppose in a way that's just how I view anarchy
I mean, if there weren't any medical trained staff in the area (Or none willing to help), and at any time somebody could attack you, would you still be alive?
I know I've broken several bones, and if I was pushed into a world, where law didn't apply, I would more than likely be killed on a whim.

There are some scary people out there...
People who could, and would embrace anarchy in the fullest.

Companies and organizations would crumble, and the heads of said companies would most likely die, as their survival depends on those they delegate their work to.
They create nothing themselves, and profit from others work.
When this stops happening, they either die, or adapt to a new situation where everyone is the same moral level..

[sellrobert]

Actually, Embr, there is a breed of monkey that does the same as humans. They will kill and use sex as a means of entertainment and gaining position, even when their base survival is not in jeopardy. But that is off topic.

I can see where you are coming from and in a way I can agree. Anarchy really is a useless ideal and anyone who really thinks absolute anarchy can work is not on the right page and most likely to be killed first should all power go bunk. But as my original post said I do see that life itself is in a state of anarchy, ie a state of change not governed by any other thing except the change itself. Thats simply how I view it. Humans have this funny survival mechanism. We have to fight nature and order everything specifically. So of course, if true anarchy were to be brought on the human race, it would last for a mere few days then the top of the gang would rule again, so I can see where you are coming from. My view however branches out further than simply humans. Its really the whole of nature.

[EmbrExcell]

I can agree with you there.
And sorry, I wasn't aware of said monkeys XD

Anarchy might as well paradox itself, for not matter what, poeople will start to group together as moral law dictates.

violence is wrong.
Be kind to people.


This is extre***y simplified obviously, but if those two rules did not exist, then humans would be capable of creating real anarchy.

This is moral law, and it is the one true thing that stops anarchy from happening.
If every human on earth we're to act without moral law, even for a split second, it would be complete anarchy, as everybody would be doing exactly what they wanted, without considering feelings, morals, consequences, emotion, or perception.

[nightangel]

Anarchy IS Freedom, whether that freedom then leads to chaos is another question. It's a great ideal but when you add the human element it all breaks down:mad:, same as communism.

[EmbrExcell]

Agreed. But lets not let this get too misanthropic here, ne?

[emberXlynn]

How would anarchy be neither freedom nor chaos. At least one of them, in my opinion both, are in the defention.

[obnoxiousnickname]

anarchy is only a temporary solution, the equivalent of pressing the reset button on government. It would be alright for a while if your ready to defend yourself but soon people would begin to build their own infastructures that other people would need. Growth would happen and Wage-slavery would begin again or we can go the other way and communism would grow. Either way we are headed into a less and less tolerant future where growth builds oppression and deconstruction is a temporary solution. As far as government goes I think that we are essentially screwed and the only way to win is the find the government with the least collaterall damage. I see potential is a Socialist Democracy or a world run by Labor Unions but otherwise we are FUCKING SCREWED!

[CrazyCory564]

Fuck wages. Let's go back to the barter system :)

[saskwche]

Fuck wages. Let's go back to the barter system :)

i say we use both :D

[hdeuce]

Give me anarchy we will have chaos and freedom a beautiful thing. Obnoxious nickname has the right idea though, someone will try to hoard all of a useful resource that everyone needs, in order to profit. That person will need to be killed and another after him. In order for anarchy to work it cant just be political, it has to be social also. With anarchy there can be no religion, or those who participate in that religion would be at a distinct disadvantage because they would have to abide by their own laws. In the end anarchy couldn't work because humans aren't built to live without structure.

[EmbrExcell]

BUT WE CAN BE RE-MADE. WE HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY. WE HAVE THE NOT-MONEY.
"The half a dollar anarchist"

No seriously. Feral children act with anarchy :D

[TheMadHatter]

Give me anarchy we will have chaos and freedom a beautiful thing. Obnoxious nickname has the right idea though, someone will try to hoard all of a useful resource that everyone needs, in order to profit. That person will need to be killed and another after him. In order for anarchy to work it cant just be political, it has to be social also. With anarchy there can be no religion, or those who participate in that religion would be at a distinct disadvantage because they would have to abide by their own laws. In the end anarchy couldn't work because humans aren't built to live without structure.


There are only two ways to have real Anarchy, One is the peacful way where everone live without law and order and be run only by common sense and quality. I doubt that will ever happen people are far to hateful, greedy, and unequal for that to happen any time soon.

The second is much liklier of happening, war, chaos, killing, and blood endless spillingof blood. once the world has been at war with itself long enough only the smartest of the strongest and strongest of the smartest will be left, creating a kind of queality that at current has exsisted for thousands of years.

[EmbrExcell]

FERAL CHILDREN.

Our generation blew it.
Theirs wont.

[Knight of Liberty]

Anarchy would be chaos for most and freedom for few. I doubt many of you would really be happy if there was anarchy. People would be starving, murdered, and enslaved. Freedom for the strongest people who survive and get followers whitch then would just be a unstable government.

[TheMadHatter]

But, eventually all the goons and slaves would die leaving the phisically higher class of people, which would be so few and spread that they wouldn't bother each other or close enough and few enough that no goverment would be needed.

[EmbrExcell]

Or like normal people they would get together and make a small community which depended on each other for survival, each person fulfilling their own niche. Much like communism.

I've said it once, I've said it twice, and I'll say it one more fucking time.
With moral law, Anarchy is impossible.
Unless everybody on earth agrees to kill everybody who fancies themselves a world leader, you cannot get anarchy. And even then, if we all agreed on one thing we'd work out some kind of government.

[nacster08]

" WHy is this website full of non-anarchist POSER FUCKS"

[Buddha]

You've got it all wrong son, if we said we were anarchists then we'd be posers.

[EmbrExcell]

" WHy is this website full of non-anarchist POSER FUCKS"

Why is this website full of douchebags?

[EmbrExcell]

Albiet, ones who don't understand the actual meaning behind the name of this website.
The Anarchist Cookbook was an actual book released in the 70's as a recipe for social change, via instructions on how to do various things such as make bombs out of common materials and pick locks. This book was on textfile and was one of the first distributed files of it's time. The problem is fagots like you think you're hilarious by following some encyclopedia dramatica page here because you actually have nothing better to do with your life, and have absolutely no fucking respect for where you came from.

Grow the fuck up kid, because the name actually means something to most.

[nacster08]

dude, calm the fuck down
i know exactly what the book is, my grand-pa owns one
and like, exctly what i meant is that alot of lil 12-13 year olds talk on here, like you to make a name for them selfs, and dont know shit
so dont get mad at me bc i dont like people that lie about being a true fucking anarchist
so calm the fuck down man, shit

[EmbrExcell]

You just don't get it, do you?
You post, we respond. Maybe you wont like what we respond with, but that's just it. Nobody else gives a fuck. Take a look around, look at all your friends who want to help. The problem with that is that I don't give a fuck, because it doesn't matter. Nothing here matters enough for me to actually get angry. You think that I'm actually taking time out of my busy day to deal with your ten year old bullshit? No, I'm doing this because I'm bored, and there's nothing else to do. You are worthless, and now your opinion matters even less to me. Because the difference between your life, your friends, and your opinion, versus in everything here? In here were god, and there's nothing you can do about it.

And posting absolutely nothing but insults is a great way for you to get yourself banned.

[katt]

" WHy is this website full of non-anarchist POSER FUCKS"

What are the quotes for?

[jhustla88]

Anarchy is the way that society was supposed to be. until civilization happened and the founding fathers started making rules and controlling ppl like me and you. All men are created equal/land of the free... is total bullshit we can never be equal and free until we are free of government/power,government/rules,government/control

[EmbrExcell]

In short, we fucked ourselves over, by trying to constantly improve the quality of life.
Which was good, right? Right?

[Warpurlgis]

Anarchy is the way that society was supposed to be. until civilization happened and the founding fathers started making rules and controlling ppl like me and you. All men are created equal/land of the free... is total bullshit we can never be equal and free until we are free of government/power,government/rules,government/control

Society is supposed to be the way it is because humans are the way they are, so society is developed of how humans act. Anarchy is the way you would like society to be, but not they way it is supposed to be. Its called survival of the fittest, if you can't provide for yourself or whomever your trying to provide for then you will die, thats out nature and thats why things are they way they are.

[Lord Midol]

Anarchy will never, and can never work. The number of members on this forum and their social ineptness proves this.

I'm a socialist, so Social Anarchism could possibly work in my opinion, but most members on this forum seem to be individualists, and society can not exist without people acting in a way that benefits society rather than themselves (though one can argue that working for society is benefiting themselves).

[harshmaster]

hmm interesting, how bout everyone joins into bands or groups and fends for each other

[h i extremis]

society isnt SUPPOSED to be anything. its an accident. All life is an accident, it masy seam irrelevent, but its importan that you understand that before throwing in with one system or another.

Okay to the point. socialism, capitalism, and communism just plain don't work out. considering that anything is possible with human nature, government cant really control it, and should'nt have to control it. Those poor bastards in the government that we elect, forced to make there opinions of right and wrong coincide with there view of the "masses" opinions of right and wrong.

the thing about right and wrong is, you are tought to conform to other peoples ideas of them from birth, even more so than an amish person is tought to accept other people views of god from cradle to grave. there goes half your individuality. right and wrong is as much a religion as anything, when you follow others ideas.

then you expect government to carry it out for you? so do 6 billion or so others. arent you special. not gonna happen. because they don't all have the EXACT same ideas. and they shouldnt.

which is where i insert a valid argument on the behalf of shredded wheatism. People just can't accept total anarchy, but they should have a choice. there should be defined areas with different rules, some communist, some capitalist, some where drugs are legal, some with strict dress and etiquette codes, the polar opposites of all these, and so on. and of course a fiew areas that are just plain without government.

and people should have a damn choice!

and if people have a choice, and can freely move about betwene these places, theres no reason to fight.

some people like to fight anyway, they can go ahead and fight, its inevitable, but they shouldnt drag a ton of other people in and force them to be loyal to a nation just because they were born there. or even pick sides. fights and grudges are for individuals, not nations.

I called it shredded wheatism because i came up with it and because i can. And i don't like your pre determined labels for everyone that defy them of individuality, nebuchazzednesadezzar.

[h i extremis]

Anarchy will never, and can never work. The number of members on this forum and their social ineptness proves this.

I'm a socialist, so Social Anarchism could possibly work in my opinion, but most members on this forum seem to be individualists, and society can not exist without people acting in a way that benefits society rather than themselves (though one can argue that working for society is benefiting themselves).

I hate your ideas more than any i have ever encountered before. I'm very much for individuality, and could give a fuck if it works or not.

[ravenscar]

hey dont double post, and both your views have points,and anarchy will only work if selfless people fight for it.

[h i extremis]

the thing is though, why fight for it? just... live it and don't care if theres a government that tells you to or not... thats what anarchy should be, i think. if you want freedom, dont bitch about your government, just have it.

[katt]

And then go to your government's jail.

[ravenscar]

and get anally graped

[pntballer5634]

there can never be total freedom, unless there is chaos. anarchy just lacks a central govenment, so some rich white guy from texas doesn't call the shots

[ravenscar]

im a semi-rich nearly white guy from texas,

[Nebuchadnezzar]

The people of this country should get what they want. And, as a matter of fact, they do. The VAST majority of the population wants security, stability and comfort. Therefore, who are you anarchists to dictate that they should live otherwise? Take it to a third-world country with a weak government and lots of juicy sectarian violence.

I don't see how any of you would object to this. It's really moronic to suppose that this powerful first-world country should become a chaotic non-state while much of the world is teetering on the brink already.

[h i extremis]

rediculously valid point, in all honesty. allow me state mine like a fanatic cause I somehow feal that it might reach some people better.

Ok... DID I FUCKING ASK TO BE BORN HERE? Its not about what the people want, its about what EVERY INDIVIDUAL CHOOSES!! hey guess what? I'm not legally allowed to even make a decision of my own, because I am not responsible for myself. Because I am not 18. So whats to stop me from burning, raping, and pillaging? not a damn thing. It wasn't my decision.

I just want people to be given a choice, to know that they have a choice, not to just be content with what they have like so many people are trained to do. Hence my advocation of shredded wheatism, as you may have read about in previous posts.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

(in)valid? I assume you didn't mean to commend my accuracy.

You didn't ask to be born here, but most other individuals in this country choose to not let you do what you want. Therefore, it's hardly out of the question to suggest that you should, in the pursuit of individual freedom, go somewhere else. If you actually care, it won't be a big deal at all. One international visa, one plane ticket. All you need for a (short) life of freedom in the wild and idyllic meritocracy of Somalia's hellish apocalyptic warzones.

It's the same for everyone else in this country. Those who truly care about individual freedom have the capacity and ability to leave and fight as a soldier of fortune somewhere until they get raped to death in the bilge of a korean swordfishing boat.

What's shredded wheatism again? Is it something to do with allowing total chaos to inundate first-world nations if it's the will of the individual?

[h i extremis]

no no no, shredded wheatism is established areas with established sets of laws, that are all part of a global anarchy (I know that phrase was an oxymoron, bear with me). The people are all well informed that they can go to whatever place they want at any time, and of course there are some areas where peasceful anarchy lives, and some places where you can go and just fight out your problems. but since theres no actual nations and people can move and trade freely among all regions, theres no reason for war, and no need for a global government. Many people want a strong, established, centralized government that has laws against violence, noise violations, homosexuality, drugs, etc, and some people want a place where you can do whatever you want as long as you don't hurt anybody, so on and so forth. Our countries that we are born into can only, will only, have always, and always will hold us back. Establishing shredded wheatism in a well though-out manner would basically solve all political problems. Personal ones could be solved according to local law. And keep in mind this isn't complete anarchy with a few stand-alone villages we're talking about, its probably 95%+ established areas that are decided on the size of the population of the people that would initially inhabit it.

I want world peace, but i also want freedom, and some people want safety. Shredded wheatism is the only practical solution I could think of that meets all of these needs. I named it shredded wheatism because I could, because it means nothing, and is therefore my own idea.

[h i extremis]

(in)valid? I assume you didn't mean to commend my accuracy.
I did in fact mean to commend your accuracy. I like to think i have a pretty good grasp of the english language, illusionary though it is, and for the most part I can get my point through using it.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

Shredded wheatism doesn't allow humanity to advance, and I'll tell you why:

Stand-alone villages wouldn't be able to communicate without reliable telephone lines, internet servers, cell towers or satellites. These things won't be practical in a world that's primarily chaotic, because anything outside the towns themselves is liable to get destroyed. Also, none of these villages would be able to access resources outside their geographical region, and travel between them would also be all but impossible, because most of the "international" highways/shipping lanes/airways would be through brutal fiery war zones. Therefore, anyone who wants to protect customers and revenue will probably steer clear of the business entirely.

Also, the idea itself is flawed in many ways, some of which are detailed here:

There would be nothing to stop warlords from the no-mans-land attacking towns by the hundreds. Assuming complete cooperation from all of humanity is more than optimism, it's simply ludicrous.

If the towns form into strong, independent governments, (the end game of a sustainable society) they will eventually start taking chunks of the no-mans-land and fighting each other. This is what governments do, it's happened in the past, it's human nature.

If the towns don't form strong governments, they will die out. Either a society prospers and grows powerful, or it fails and disappears. To expect a middle ground with human civilization what it is is patently ridiculous.


In conclusion, shredded wheatism puts altogether too much faith in the cooperation of all humanity, and is therefore totally impractical.

[h i extremis]

I guess I didn't clarify that these aren't stand alone villages, its all one thing basically broken into large areas with various rules. the free market can still be here, obviously a society that is mostly free couldn't peddle drugs to an uptight one and stuff, but yeah. It would actually advance quite quicly. besides, a worldwide goal of forcing society to advance? come on now nebuchednezzadenher....
Ok. you say everything outside these towns is liable to get destroyed. I mentioned these "towns" would be upwards of 95% of society? I'm being very practical, only a very small handfull of people would want true anarchy.

there would be no use for war, all the regions would be at peace, remade from the start, people put where they want to be, not where they are born, therefor prejudice and historical grudges would be ineffectual. There would be no fiery warzones. Put this scenario out there then... the people of region 1 have almost no laws. They like it, but many of them think people from region 2 are stuck up little pricks. people of region 2 have a dressing code, enough said. people of region 2 think region 1 is full of lawless scumbags.

So what do they do? everywhere except total anarchy areas (very rare) has laws against mass violence, and what motivation would there be to get enough people from one side to attack another, when there are no real sides? the people can freely move from one side to the other. region 1 has no politics in general. I suppose region 2's politics could convince the stuck up pricks to band together and fight region one, but they couldn't really do anything.
People could probably figure out that theres no point in meddling with foreign affairs when obviously everyon is happy where they are.

(Im goin through your post sentance by sentance as I write this) Moving on.... there is no no-mans-land worth taking.... hmmm...

Middle ground, advancement, or dieing out.... its a flawed way of thinking of a society as a person. society is made up of individuals, most of which fail, succeed, or reach a middle ground, and all of which die out. Societty is the opposite, you see, as it is immortal, inexplicable, and always advances, fails, and dies out at the same time. and branches out in all directions. Shredded wheatism, I believe, would be a great medium (and relief from ego-politics which tend to rip society to shreds for no particular reason) for society to reach its full potential and fail, suceed, and continue on its winning of the 2 billion year lottery streak.

(on your last sentance)
You misunderstand. Shredded wheatism is based solely on the knowledge that it is beyond all possibility for all members of any society to agree on anything, much less everything. Hence the choice of where you want to live. It is the most practical solution to the problem our luck has presented us with that I can think of. If theres a better one out there, I'm all for it. But as long as I get my choice,I'm happy.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

theres no actual nations and people can move and trade freely among all regions

You've said that only 5% of the population would wish to live in an anarchy (it's an unrealistically high number, in fact, but more on that later). This is, I think you'll agree, a rather small percentage. Therefore, your suggestion that all nations should be abolished in favor of freely interchangeable regions is siding with an extre***y small special-interest group. If you want anarchy, I suggest you go to a chaotic part of the world. IS THAT SO HARD? You, and all the other anarchists you can muster can leave and go to a barely-inhabited, marginally governed and mostly empty stretch of land somewhere in the middle east. That's my solution, what's wrong with that?

If people living in an anarchy are at peace with each other and the surrounding nations, you'll have no trouble starting a completely free and just society. Correct? The rest of the world is puttering along just fine, and the problems it has aren't to be solved by dissolving all major governments. HOWEVER: If you think this experiment is viable, I'm sure some impoverished nation will be happy to fork over a 20000 square miles or so for the pooled resources of your support base. Maybe if anarchy brings about an egalitarian meritocracy of freedom and happiness, the rest of the world will look a it again. Until then, your "shredded wheatism" is merely a hilariously unrealistic imagining in unbelievable optimism. More later, got to run.

[Restless soul]

Nebuchadnezzar, you are clearly showing why there is no anarchistic society that is advanced and rich. But there was one guy called Erich Fromm, he was a german psichologist. He made a theory about advanced societies. He stated that the root of the problem about living in world today is agression that grows inside human beings, and has many interpretations from FPS games to putting a bomb in a mailbox. Now, he wanted to know what is the source of that agression. He started with animals, studied gorrilas in wilderness and in zoos. Gorrilas in zoos are for about 15 times more agressive than the wild ones. After that experiment he had an idea that people aren't as nearly as free in modern societies as they should be. Then he wanted to find human societies that are free, and he found them in amazonian jungles. They lived like people in stone age, but they were happy. Then he did an amazing thing: he created a possible model of society with total freedom and with no violence, but being advanced besides that. He defined every aspect of such society, with NO leaders and it maybe could work, but people nowadays are scared of the words revolution, freedom and anarchy so i doubt in its realisation. It took 2000 years for society to allow sex before marriage, allowing people to live free will take longer.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

Did Fromm ever implement his societal model? Did he subject it to environmental pressures such as natural disasters, (droughts, floods etc) game shortage or the violence of the unenlightened, and did he do it for any significant period of time? No? If he did, I'd like to hear more about it, and if he didn't, your argument is pointless. Anarchy in theory is functional or nonfunctional dependent on the individual views of the theorist. I, for example, have little faith that any great number of warlike, proud, tenacious and ardent humans can be convinced to live in peace and without interfering with anyone.

I'd like you to realize this as well: Such an effort of logistics and politics will require the cooperation of every population on the fucking planet. That is definitely not going to happen, and I'd like H I to accept that, as you already have.

[h i extremis]

I know people don't get allong. Shredded wheatism is an organized freedom, and I know5% was too high lol i just felt it would get my point across. It was actually my plan to start off somewhere by liberating, through peaceful means, some land, and implementing small scale shredded wheatism, and leaving the rest of the world to decide to follow my example or do their own thing. I know all of society can't possibly get allong, the first thing I learned here was that no matter what your opinion, theres someone with the opposite opinion, and to an open-minded person, all opinions are arguably valid. My system was thought up with this in mind.

But you see, it doesn't matter at all what happens anyway, chances are society will continue to go one way or another. Its just a matter of how quickly we advance, and maybe how quickly we decline. Life is an accident, our being here is luck, we have no greater purpose, but theres nothing stopping us from making our own purpose and trying like hell to fulfill it. Again, however, no matter what your purpose is, there are people who will be totally against it. Except maybe survival. Thats really the only thing all humans have in common. (not that it can't be overridden, in the case of suicide, but its still there)

[Nebuchadnezzar]

liberating, through peaceful means, some land, and implementing small scale shredded wheatism, and leaving the rest of the world to decide to follow my example or do their own thing.

If you think this experiment is viable, I'm sure some impoverished nation will be happy to fork over a 20000 square miles or so for the pooled resources of your support base. Maybe if anarchy brings about an egalitarian meritocracy of freedom and happiness, the rest of the world will look a it again. Until then, your "shredded wheatism" is merely a hilariously unrealistic imagining in unbelievable optimism.

Indeed.


But you see, it doesn't matter at all what happens anyway, chances are society will continue to go one way or another. Its just a matter of how quickly we advance, and maybe how quickly we decline. Life is an accident, our being here is luck, we have no greater purpose, but theres nothing stopping us from making our own purpose and trying like hell to fulfill it. Again, however, no matter what your purpose is, there are people who will be totally against it. Except maybe survival. Thats really the only thing all humans have in common. (not that it can't be overridden, in the case of suicide, but its still there)

That's my point, what's yours?

[the art of revenge]

it is when needed and where needed...damn it rocks!

[Restless soul]

I know people don't get allong. Shredded wheatism is an organized freedom, and I know5% was too high lol i just felt it would get my point across. It was actually my plan to start off somewhere by liberating, through peaceful means, some land, and implementing small scale shredded wheatism, and leaving the rest of the world to decide to follow my example or do their own thing. I know all of society can't possibly get allong, the first thing I learned here was that no matter what your opinion, theres someone with the opposite opinion, and to an open-minded person, all opinions are arguably valid. My system was thought up with this in mind.

I guess nuclear armaggedon is the way to go then ^^. Anarchy will spread across the world before you say "A-BOMB" and shredded wheatism will raise as a natural thing. Unfortunately, I don't think it would last forever, but based on history, we will have about 6000 years of peace.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

No, we will have until the resurgence of sedentary agricultural society. The Neolithic Revolution pretty much ended human cooperation, and it's not like we'd forget how to grow shit.

[whiteDreads]

no but if we have a complete nuclear armageddon then most of the land will be fucked and most of the seeds of plants will be dead except for in places like the amazon. also all major government will be bombed so there will be no organization what so ever. then the few survivors will try to carve out a living for them selves and eventually so much time will pass and the lack of food will force people to become cannibals so eventually there will be some form of anarchy but it ist the kind we want

[Nebuchadnezzar]

The Svalbard Global Seed Bank will protect plant specimens in the event of a tactical nuclear exchange, and anyone who presumes to predict the exact, specific consequences of such combat has some serious delusions of absolution. However, there are certain facts that can be logically examined to imply certain general consequences, such as the following: Highly placed government officials are the best-protected from nuclear fallout and blasts, and even if they were all deliberately wiped out, local governments cannot be truly wiped out without a carpet of nuclear destruction beyond the capacity of any one nation. Cannibalism? Anarchy? Speculation only, and we can only hope that they will remain so.

[whiteDreads]

well the Svalbard Global Seed Bank may well hold seeds in Norway but that doesnt help us in America or anywhere else besides Europe due to the fact that transportation of any sort is non-existent. also what would lets say our lovely president Obama and all the other government officials hiding in a nuclear fallout shelter to prevent a mass of people who all belive their government failed them from doing what they want

[h i extremis]

Hmmm.... Nebuchadnezzar is pretty much right on all accounts. I don't know.... I dont think humanity as a whole is stupid enough to go into a nuclear holocaust. I wouldn't mind starting a self-contained society, like biosphere 2 only much, much larger, in some desert or antartica, and live off solar power and have a bunker under us and everything. And air conditioning.

[Low Key]

Should we sacrifice technology for a more simpler version of life in order to promote anarchy? The more we rely on technology, the more we rely on systems. The phone company regulates your call, the government regulates the phone company, and those who don't need power regulate the government. If we all spear hunted and used smoke signals could we have a more realistic anarchy?

I doubt it. Why revert to the stone age for freedom? If things were simpler, we wouldn't have to think much about how to regulate or employ or what have you. People don't like thinking in this modern age. We like computers and porn and beer. We grow fat on our ideals and rich suburban parents while others starve and dream of food, while we "anarchists" yearn to fuck and blow shit up.

So I ask you, which is more important:

Advancing one's own [lack] of government for "freedom"
or
Advancing the general welfare of humanity?

What if a suppressive government fed everyone?

[EmbrExcell]

Well I think the main reason behind each persons opinion on anarchy is their particular morals. Personally I'm a misanthropist and I see anarchy as a means to an end, decreasing the population, and generally using survival of the fittest to return humanity back to a more natural state. If we could preform a real anarchy for a sustained period of time, in a way, the world would return back to a more natural state. In a blatant sense, society is the only thing stopping anarchy. Food, shelter, and clothing are the only things holding society and a paper currency system together.

We should go Fight Club and destroy all the credit card companies.

In a technical sense, the whole paper currency is only held together because of the fact that paper is easily attainable, and therefore puts the government in control. If we used things like, say, bottle caps government would frantically attempt to buy as many old cola bottles as possible, right? By accepting, and using currency that is made, issued, and kept track of by greedy people in power we only fuel our government's power.

Just think, you're standing on the street when a random man in a suit gets out of his limousine and attempts to trade you 50 blades of grass for driving him around for a couple hours. He explains that many people will accept it as payment, and you should invest on it because it will catch on soon. Do you do it? Sounds a bit funny doesn't it?

Of course, these are all extreme opinions, and are meant to be taken lightly with a tablespoon of sugar.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

You mention Fight Club, and apart from the rest of your post I'd like to focus on that for a moment. Fight Club was a movie. A movie is something that shows extraordinary events. A fictional movie, such as this one, describes events that haven't happened. Do you know why such events have yet to take place? More than anything else, it's because humans just don't cooperate like that. Sure, many people are angry at consumer culture, but the Fight Club was a massive, seamless, illegal organization with NO internal instability, NO question of loyalty, NO ideological ambiguity, and NO leaks. In effect, the Fight club was an organization virtually incapable of existing.
That's why no one blows up credit card companies.
That's why no one forms Fight Club.
That's why all the anarchistic revolutionaries are retarded.

That's what they all need to understand.

[h i extremis]

You know, theres a possibilty something like that exists. Because if it was massive, seamless, leakles, and perfectly loyal.... we wouldn't know. just putting it out there. and he wasn't even using it as an example, I believe the actual statement was a little sarcastic. One would have a tough time starting an organization and blowing up important shit on these forums, especially with that kind of enthusiasm. so let the joke slide.

come to think of it, our existance is kind of a joke on us.

[Restless soul]

But that doesn't stop us from dreaming? :D

[Nebuchadnezzar]

You know, theres a possibilty something like that exists. Because if it was massive, seamless, leakles, and perfectly loyal.... we wouldn't know. just putting it out there. and he wasn't even using it as an example, I believe the actual statement was a little sarcastic. One would have a tough time starting an organization and blowing up important shit on these forums, especially with that kind of enthusiasm. so let the joke slide.

come to think of it, our existance is kind of a joke on us.

I understand that his post may not have been entirely serious, but I thought I'd use that reference to prove a general point that holds true for most of the "revolutionaries" that come on here.

I doubt something like Fight Club exists, for two reasons: One: The whole point of their later campaign of vandalism and destruction was to GET their cause noticed. Two: As I said before, an organization on this scale requires one of two things: A powerful, authoritarian, uncompromising spiritual base or a level of human perfection unseen in the world ever before.

[EmbrExcell]

Of course, these are all extreme opinions, and are meant to be taken lightly with a tablespoon of sugar.

Learn to literature.

Oh, and Fight Club was a book. Not a movie. Again.
Learn.

Wait, have you ever even seen the movie, or read the book?
If so, I don't think you understood it that well. Before the violence started Durden introduced the new program Project Mayhem. This was about vandilization. Two completely different things, which when I said Fight Club, I was referring to the actual movie, not even the concept of starting an organization. I didn't say that I thought we should all take our shirts off and wrestle. I said that we could destroy the bank companies records "Bringing everybody back to zero".

Oh, and as further proof I would like you to start off your next post with the word water***on, so as we know that you're even reading our post all the way through and not just being a douche bag.

And again, I would like to point out that I'm not really completely serious about any of this anyways, making a serious argument null and void, regardless of the fact that you need to read more good literature.

No seriously, you do.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

Why?


What would I gain?

And who are you to dictate my education?

I can say "learn to do double anal" but that doesn't make it meaningful.