Advertisement
This is to clarify and help those of you who are still confused about Anarchy, here are the basics:
"Ever reviled, accursed, ne'er understood, Thou art the grisly terror of our age. "Wreck of all order," cry the multitude, "Art thou, & war & murder's endless rage." 0, let them cry. To them that ne'er have striven The 'truth that lies behind a word to find, To them the word's right meaning was not given. They shall continue blind among the blind. But thou, O word, so clear, so strong, so true, Thou sayest all which I for goal have taken. I give thee to the future! Thine secure When each at least unto himself shall waken. Comes it in sunshine? In the tempest's thrill? I cannot tell - but it the earth shall see! I am an Anarchist! Wherefore I will Not rule, & also ruled I will not be! "
~John Henry Mackay~
Anarchism
An Anarchist FAQ Webpage: www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html
Anarchism is an ideology that regards abolition of government as the necessary precondition for a free and just society. The term itself comes from the Greek words meaning "without a ruler." Anarchism rejects all forms of hierarchical authority, social and economic as well as political. What distinguishes it from other ideologies, however, is the central importance it attaches to the state. To anarchists, the state is a wholly artificial and illegitimate institution, the bastion of privilege and exploitation in the modern world.
A common misconception about anarchism, is that it is a state of disorder and chaos. An advanced, streamlined, anarchy-based system would entertain many forms of public organization for society's issues. All of which can easily be handled with less fear, and more common sense, and without a hierarchal government - where the power is severely unequal. Individuals can recognize collective needs and act on them without being forced. An Individual in archaic terms: the quality or state of being indivisible; in other words a Unique and undivideable Humanity.
Anarchism is a revolutionary movement that seeks to create societies organized through voluntary organizations that are run by consensus, and (of course) the independent action/choices of individuals.
This could take the form of workers' councils, neighborhood assemblies, networks of communes, agricultural cooperatives, affinity groups and various other arrangements that allow people to coordinate the economy and social life directly, and that place the responsibility and power over one's life in one's hands.
A society without authorities to answer to or people to give orders to.
No police, military, capitalists, prisons, or bosses of any kind.
A culture where the individual is valued - where racism, sexism and homophobia are not tolerated culturally and not encouraged by the very structure of society, as it is now in capitalist & state-controlled societies such as the USA.
A society where the collective is valued, & there are no rich or poor, no one starving while literally tons of food rot on the shelves or get thrown away everyday.
Common Myths About Anarchism:
Anarchists advocate complete chaos This is a complete myth with no basis in reality. Anarchists do not advocate chaos and anarchy does not mean chaos. Similar slander used to be said about the ideas of democracy and republics. In places where a Monarchy was thought necessary the idea of elected governments was often equated with complete chaos. This association is the result of slander by the powerful (the state, corporations, etc.) that control the media and is, unfortunately, not a surprise. Since anarchists seek to overthrow them it is not surprising that they would slander anarchism with all sorts of absurd nonsense.
Anarchists believe in mindless violence Another common stereotype is that of the mad bomb-throwing anarchist who advocates carnage and destruction for the sake of it. This too is a myth. Anarchists do not normally go around throwing bombs at everyone nor do we consider beating up old ladies a virtue. It is true that there have been anarchists who have used violence to advance their cause but this is true of every political philosophy. Republicans and democrats have used much more violence throughout history then anarchists, yet they are never demonized as crazed bomb throwers. Indeed, the state is not only inherently violent but the most violent organization in human history. It uses violence on a systemic level (in the form of police & militaries) and is responsible for numerous genocides. The state is vastly more violent than the most violent of anarchists.
Anarchists, by definition, are opposed to organization The vast majority of anarchists are not opposed to organization. What anarchists are opposed to is hierarchical organization - organizations in which one group of people tells the other members what to do. Instead anarchists advocate organization without authority, where all members have an equal say in group decisions.
What Anarchism Really Stands For:
Anarchy comes from the Greek and literally means "no rulers." Anarchists are anti-authoritarians who seek to abolish domination. It is important to differentiate between different two types of authority: legitimate (or rational) authority and illegitimate (or irrational) authority. In other words, there’s a difference between being an authority and having authority. Being an authority means that a person is recognized as competent for any particular task based on her or his knowledge and individual skills. It is socially acknowledged expertise. Legitimate authorities are experts who are particularly knowledgeable, skillful or wise in any particular area. It may be in our best interests to follow their recommendations, but they have no power to force us to do so, nor should they. Legitimate authority is this kind of authority, the authority of an expert.
Having authority is a social relationship based on status and power derived from a hierarchical position within a group. It means dividing society/the group into the order givers and the order takers. The order givers, the authorities, tell the order takers what to do and they must obey. This is illegitimate authority. A boss, for example, is an illegitimate authority because employees must obey his orders. When something is described as "authoritarian" it usually means that it uses illegitimate authority.
Hierarchy is essentially institutionalized authority. It is a pyramidally structured organization consisting of a series of grades, ranks or offices of increasing power, prestige, and/or remuneration. Those with lower ranks must obey those with higher ranks. Hierarchies maintain control by coercion - the threat of negative sanctions (physical, economic, social, etc.) against those who don’t obey. Hierarchical organizations are, by definition, organizations that are run by elites. Those on the top, the elite, have more power then those on the bottom. Hierarchical authority is the authority that is inherent in any hierarchy. This is the same thing as illegitimate (or irrational) authority - that is, relations of command and obedience. Another name for this is domination.
Anarchism is extreme skepticism of authority. The basic idea is to abolish domination in favor of a society based on voluntary cooperation. As the anarchist Noam Chomsky said:
"I think it only makes sense to seek out and identify structures of authority, hierarchy, and domination in every aspect of life, and to challenge them; unless a justification for them can be given, they are illegitimate, and should be dismantled, to increase the scope of human freedom. That includes political power, ownership and management, relations among men and women, parents and children, our control over the fate of future generations (the basic moral imperative behind the environmental movement, in my view), and much else. Naturally this means a challenge to the huge institutions of coercion and control: the state, the unaccountable private tyrannies that control most of the domestic and international economy, and so on. But not only these. That is what I have always understood to be the essence of anarchism: the conviction that the burden of proof has to be placed on authority, and that it should be dismantled if that burden cannot be met. Sometimes the burden can be met. If I'm taking a walk with my grandchildren and they dart out into a busy street, I will use not only authority but also physical coercion to stop them. The act should be challenged, but I think it can readily meet the challenge. And there are other cases; life is a complex affair, we understand very little about humans and society, and grand pronouncements are generally more a source of harm than of benefit. But the perspective is a valid one, I think, and can lead us quite a long way." [1]
Following Chomsky's logic, anarchists argue that hierarchy, bodies of people having authority over others, is unjustified and should be abolished. Some anarchists take this a step further and oppose other forms of authority; a few argue that "legitimate authority" (expertise) is also unjustified, but most do not. Unless a good justification can be given for any form of authority it should be abolished. In the case of hierarchical authority anarchist believe there is no valid justification for it; all major hierarchical institutions should be abolished. Instead of dividing society into a hierarchy of order givers and order takers everyone should have control over their own life and an equal say in group decisions.
Remaining document is at: question-everything.mahost.org/So...tml
What is Anarchism leaflet: struggle.ws/pdfs/whatis.pdf
How the could this kind of society be achieved and maintained? Has it or anything similar ever been done? How can we apply this in our everyday lives to better our struggles & communities NOW? How could we achieve a long-term social revolution?
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT ANARCHISM:
www.anarchistfaq.org
OR www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/
LINKS:
www.infoshop.org
www.akpress.org
www.libcom.org
www.indymedia.org
illvox.org/about/
www.zabalaza.net/
www.ainfos.ca/
www.audioanarchy.org
www.awalls.org/
You can always check out the local infoshop (anarchist/radical library & bookstore), Anarchist Black Cross, Food Not Bombs, Indymedia, Anti-Racist Action, Earth First! or other collectives/organizations in your area - and if there aren't any, start a group that works on something you're passionate about.
"Ever reviled, accursed, ne'er understood, Thou art the grisly terror of our age. "Wreck of all order," cry the multitude, "Art thou, & war & murder's endless rage." 0, let them cry. To them that ne'er have striven The 'truth that lies behind a word to find, To them the word's right meaning was not given. They shall continue blind among the blind. But thou, O word, so clear, so strong, so true, Thou sayest all which I for goal have taken. I give thee to the future! Thine secure When each at least unto himself shall waken. Comes it in sunshine? In the tempest's thrill? I cannot tell - but it the earth shall see! I am an Anarchist! Wherefore I will Not rule, & also ruled I will not be! "
~John Henry Mackay~
Anarchism
An Anarchist FAQ Webpage: www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html
Anarchism is an ideology that regards abolition of government as the necessary precondition for a free and just society. The term itself comes from the Greek words meaning "without a ruler." Anarchism rejects all forms of hierarchical authority, social and economic as well as political. What distinguishes it from other ideologies, however, is the central importance it attaches to the state. To anarchists, the state is a wholly artificial and illegitimate institution, the bastion of privilege and exploitation in the modern world.
A common misconception about anarchism, is that it is a state of disorder and chaos. An advanced, streamlined, anarchy-based system would entertain many forms of public organization for society's issues. All of which can easily be handled with less fear, and more common sense, and without a hierarchal government - where the power is severely unequal. Individuals can recognize collective needs and act on them without being forced. An Individual in archaic terms: the quality or state of being indivisible; in other words a Unique and undivideable Humanity.
Anarchism is a revolutionary movement that seeks to create societies organized through voluntary organizations that are run by consensus, and (of course) the independent action/choices of individuals.
This could take the form of workers' councils, neighborhood assemblies, networks of communes, agricultural cooperatives, affinity groups and various other arrangements that allow people to coordinate the economy and social life directly, and that place the responsibility and power over one's life in one's hands.
A society without authorities to answer to or people to give orders to.
No police, military, capitalists, prisons, or bosses of any kind.
A culture where the individual is valued - where racism, sexism and homophobia are not tolerated culturally and not encouraged by the very structure of society, as it is now in capitalist & state-controlled societies such as the USA.
A society where the collective is valued, & there are no rich or poor, no one starving while literally tons of food rot on the shelves or get thrown away everyday.
Common Myths About Anarchism:
Anarchists advocate complete chaos This is a complete myth with no basis in reality. Anarchists do not advocate chaos and anarchy does not mean chaos. Similar slander used to be said about the ideas of democracy and republics. In places where a Monarchy was thought necessary the idea of elected governments was often equated with complete chaos. This association is the result of slander by the powerful (the state, corporations, etc.) that control the media and is, unfortunately, not a surprise. Since anarchists seek to overthrow them it is not surprising that they would slander anarchism with all sorts of absurd nonsense.
Anarchists believe in mindless violence Another common stereotype is that of the mad bomb-throwing anarchist who advocates carnage and destruction for the sake of it. This too is a myth. Anarchists do not normally go around throwing bombs at everyone nor do we consider beating up old ladies a virtue. It is true that there have been anarchists who have used violence to advance their cause but this is true of every political philosophy. Republicans and democrats have used much more violence throughout history then anarchists, yet they are never demonized as crazed bomb throwers. Indeed, the state is not only inherently violent but the most violent organization in human history. It uses violence on a systemic level (in the form of police & militaries) and is responsible for numerous genocides. The state is vastly more violent than the most violent of anarchists.
Anarchists, by definition, are opposed to organization The vast majority of anarchists are not opposed to organization. What anarchists are opposed to is hierarchical organization - organizations in which one group of people tells the other members what to do. Instead anarchists advocate organization without authority, where all members have an equal say in group decisions.
What Anarchism Really Stands For:
Anarchy comes from the Greek and literally means "no rulers." Anarchists are anti-authoritarians who seek to abolish domination. It is important to differentiate between different two types of authority: legitimate (or rational) authority and illegitimate (or irrational) authority. In other words, there’s a difference between being an authority and having authority. Being an authority means that a person is recognized as competent for any particular task based on her or his knowledge and individual skills. It is socially acknowledged expertise. Legitimate authorities are experts who are particularly knowledgeable, skillful or wise in any particular area. It may be in our best interests to follow their recommendations, but they have no power to force us to do so, nor should they. Legitimate authority is this kind of authority, the authority of an expert.
Having authority is a social relationship based on status and power derived from a hierarchical position within a group. It means dividing society/the group into the order givers and the order takers. The order givers, the authorities, tell the order takers what to do and they must obey. This is illegitimate authority. A boss, for example, is an illegitimate authority because employees must obey his orders. When something is described as "authoritarian" it usually means that it uses illegitimate authority.
Hierarchy is essentially institutionalized authority. It is a pyramidally structured organization consisting of a series of grades, ranks or offices of increasing power, prestige, and/or remuneration. Those with lower ranks must obey those with higher ranks. Hierarchies maintain control by coercion - the threat of negative sanctions (physical, economic, social, etc.) against those who don’t obey. Hierarchical organizations are, by definition, organizations that are run by elites. Those on the top, the elite, have more power then those on the bottom. Hierarchical authority is the authority that is inherent in any hierarchy. This is the same thing as illegitimate (or irrational) authority - that is, relations of command and obedience. Another name for this is domination.
Anarchism is extreme skepticism of authority. The basic idea is to abolish domination in favor of a society based on voluntary cooperation. As the anarchist Noam Chomsky said:
"I think it only makes sense to seek out and identify structures of authority, hierarchy, and domination in every aspect of life, and to challenge them; unless a justification for them can be given, they are illegitimate, and should be dismantled, to increase the scope of human freedom. That includes political power, ownership and management, relations among men and women, parents and children, our control over the fate of future generations (the basic moral imperative behind the environmental movement, in my view), and much else. Naturally this means a challenge to the huge institutions of coercion and control: the state, the unaccountable private tyrannies that control most of the domestic and international economy, and so on. But not only these. That is what I have always understood to be the essence of anarchism: the conviction that the burden of proof has to be placed on authority, and that it should be dismantled if that burden cannot be met. Sometimes the burden can be met. If I'm taking a walk with my grandchildren and they dart out into a busy street, I will use not only authority but also physical coercion to stop them. The act should be challenged, but I think it can readily meet the challenge. And there are other cases; life is a complex affair, we understand very little about humans and society, and grand pronouncements are generally more a source of harm than of benefit. But the perspective is a valid one, I think, and can lead us quite a long way." [1]
Following Chomsky's logic, anarchists argue that hierarchy, bodies of people having authority over others, is unjustified and should be abolished. Some anarchists take this a step further and oppose other forms of authority; a few argue that "legitimate authority" (expertise) is also unjustified, but most do not. Unless a good justification can be given for any form of authority it should be abolished. In the case of hierarchical authority anarchist believe there is no valid justification for it; all major hierarchical institutions should be abolished. Instead of dividing society into a hierarchy of order givers and order takers everyone should have control over their own life and an equal say in group decisions.
Remaining document is at: question-everything.mahost.org/So...tml
What is Anarchism leaflet: struggle.ws/pdfs/whatis.pdf
How the could this kind of society be achieved and maintained? Has it or anything similar ever been done? How can we apply this in our everyday lives to better our struggles & communities NOW? How could we achieve a long-term social revolution?
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT ANARCHISM:
www.anarchistfaq.org
OR www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/
LINKS:
www.infoshop.org
www.akpress.org
www.libcom.org
www.indymedia.org
illvox.org/about/
www.zabalaza.net/
www.ainfos.ca/
www.audioanarchy.org
www.awalls.org/
You can always check out the local infoshop (anarchist/radical library & bookstore), Anarchist Black Cross, Food Not Bombs, Indymedia, Anti-Racist Action, Earth First! or other collectives/organizations in your area - and if there aren't any, start a group that works on something you're passionate about.
posted by:
|
Unsubscribed |
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: Anarchism
Sun, August 10, 2008 - 6:47 AM
"To live outside the law, you must be honest."
-- Bob Dylan
-
Re: Anarchism
Sun, August 10, 2008 - 12:28 PMIt seems to me that if we are to advance as a society and reclaim freedom for the individual, anarchy is the only logical direction we can go.
Its a shame that it has such a negative stigma associated with it, but i'm sure its because thats the image portrayed by the ones in power, mostly due to the fact that they fear the concept so much. Adoption of anarchictic philosophy would make authoritarian rule obsolute.
Folks would be wise to take this more seriously, but i know the conditioning runs deep.
-
Re: Anarchism
Sun, August 10, 2008 - 1:27 PMGreat collection of links and info Randy.
Infoshop has the best FAQ work on the subject possible, but it's draw back is that you can't get a good ideal of anarchism from it quickly. Infoshop FAQ is geared for the new anarchist that wants to sit down and really study in length, where as the Question Everything page and the anarchist leaflet is for those that have no introduction to anarchism at all. The Question Everything page is serves a good purpose other than an introduction too - it clarifies the most basic questions that people need answered before they can relax enough to study the Infoshop FAQ. Who can concentrate on hundreds of pages about hard core political change and human rights if they are still thinking this is JUST about "not wanting to follow the rules and co-operate within a society" as portrayed by the current system (and the social anarchist's)?
Also whenever speaking about anarchism you ALWAYS run up against one basic confusion, the massive difference between politcal anarchism and social anarchism (which is roughly nihilism). Nothing has caused more confusion about political anarchism (libertarian-socialism) than social anarchism. They are both lumped under one heading, but are radically different. Probably the easiest way to understand social anarchism is to picture the Sex Pistols and that attitude of *uck everyone - others DON'T matter etc. On the other hand you have The Clash that were political (at least Joe Strummer)..... But I digress. Political anarchism is not about a loss of order and chaos etc - it is more complicated than all those generalities. It seeks to break down external conventions of power that prevent the individual from self representation WITHIN society. It also very much focus's on co-operation and direct democracy within society in order to see that everyone is helped, listened to and respected. None of this s*it like with our present day external mobsters and corporate investors running the show without the people. The people have the "power" with political anarchism - no pyramid structures of oppression are protected. It's also important to mention that a lack of oppression structures is not the same as giving violence towards children and others free reign. Within a co-operative society personal rights do NOT extend to violation of another. So the term oppression is something that needs careful understanding in order to understand anarchism.. Social anarchist's define oppression as anything that prevents them from acting like ass's. Political anarchist's are careful to define oppression and likewise can easily spot when authentic oppression is occurring..
Anyway, that does not provide any condensed information about the differences between the two camps, I just wanted to say that the two camps are distinctly different. However I will add this - Obviously social anarchism can not be applied in a society in any real way without it setting up extreme violent and failed structures. This is NOT what the political anarchist's want at all, and they certainly don't believe in chaos. The ONLY thing that might be remotely attributed to the political's "wanting chaos" is that they ARE more than willing to fight a CLASS WAR in order to bring down the structures of oppression. But their views on society are all about community, mutual aid and co-operation, direct and consensus democracy (much like the religious Quakers even). Along a different note, "hippie passivity" is also all good and well except they that also stand by and allow madmen to rule the world. 30,000 children die every day because people have not learned to stand up and protect them! In the meantime there is a war already in progress. -
-
Re: Anarchism
Tue, December 2, 2008 - 5:55 PMpp: Also whenever speaking about anarchism you ALWAYS run up against one basic confusion, the massive difference between politcal anarchism and social anarchism (which is roughly nihilism). Nothing has caused more confusion about political anarchism (libertarian-socialism) than social anarchism. They are both lumped under one heading, but are radically different.
Sun, August 10, 2008 - 1:27 PM
this one sharp gal; never saw her before.
now she makes sense -
-
Re: Anarchism
Tue, December 2, 2008 - 6:57 PMi am really impressed with the way this gal explains anarchism
and its misconceptions -
-
-
Unsu...
Re: Anarchism
Tue, December 2, 2008 - 7:43 PMMaybe those of us that hold Anarchist leaning would do better refering to ourselves as Libertarian Socailist...
-
-
-
-
Re: Anarchism
Tue, December 2, 2008 - 8:40 PMI'm impressed. I will not try and throw my hand in with unfounded rhetorical babble. Nice touch using Chomsky. On the difference of political and social anarchy, I'm assuming you are speaking (mostly) about political anarchy, please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
What gets me about the "state of things" is the way the vast majority of people allow themselves to be manipulated into "believing" what they are told to believe. I know this subject has been touched on in this group and probably 1000's of other groups in various other social/community groups across the planet (where limited free speech is allowed). What makes people abandon individuality and give over to the illusion of elite-ism & power driven dreams? The power to compel, or The power of eminent domain as used by the state, by huge public utilities and mammoth private corporations are the benefactors of these and legions of other tactics which are used by them to "get their way"...it's actually chilling to understand what that actually means. Not that I do not desire being in society, but to me anarchy seems to state that things should be fair, but of course those that oppose you would as you say create lies and misdirection. The truth as I see it is even if we could bring about some measure of anarchy it would be a concerted effort, while the perfect system advocates no prisons, it would take a while for that to happen because of the greed factor that would linger, you would also have to battle envy, jealously and indifference. I am not trying to be negative, but if big brother could somehow gravitate towards anarchy there will always be those that would seek to cheat the anarchy system also, it's human nature. Not all people are evil or deviant, but there would be some. The state uses those minority occurrences to spread fear, panic and mistrust.
In Malcolm Gladwell's "The Tipping Point", he touches on various occurrences that lead to fads and movements throughout history. His book is full of them as is the pocket book "The Crowd A study of the Popular Mind" by Gustave Le Bon.
We allow big corporations and State agencies to dictate to us (ok, I know it would be difficult if not impossible to get them to dismantle themselves, let alone treat the common person with respect) but what I'm saying is where we have freedom a lot of us simply abandon it for being told what to do and believe, myself included. There are times when I get tired of fighting the system and just give in and there are times when I say damn that, this goes my way or it ain't happening. Your explanation and the comments of others on this thread was quite nice reading, but how many people did you reach. How many read and actually gave a damn? The ones that read it enjoyed it but left no comment and moved on with their lives, no biggie. The ones that read it made no comment because they didn't agree with you and will make sure that this does not reach others is what people should be concerned about (you have no way of knowing who any of those persons are either way for or against).
Fighting to survive which is where fatigue comes in, in my somewhat limited intelligence is one of the reasons that society is the way it is, it's hard work going against the grain...you should know (I am at times surprised at how you keep going even though you get battered in this group). But you keep going ( I tip my-transgender- hat to you), but others may not be as determined as you and then again others are trying to fit in hoping to get that illusive pot-o-gold at the end of the illusive proverbial rainbow. Ok, I know I said I would not babble but I did.
Nice Job:)
I still think you need to give Obama a break. And for the Record I didn't vote for him, but I would like to see what he can do (better yet claims he will do). -
-
Unsu...
Re: Anarchism
Tue, December 2, 2008 - 9:55 PM"What makes people abandon individuality and give over to the illusion of elite-ism & power driven dreams?"
well, there are many variables to this. HAARP technology being one of them, which is frequency tech that manipulates frequencies, scalar wave tech. given that the brain functions on frequencies, even thoughts are frequencies, so it wouldnt be too far-fetched to assume that if someone like me can figure that out, then im sure they already know about it and can use thier HAARP facilities to manipulate the mass mind. stil, add all of that with the frequent propaganda that the populations are beat and clubbed on the head with daily, and religion, then the cointel pro and mass campaign of dis-info and mis-info to further confuse everyone, designed to ensnare any who dare seek the truth and truths of the matters, or who seek to advance themselves to thier full potentials. then there are external government politics, charade games everywhere you look, so many distractions. it is a Bullshit three ring circus sideshow. and of course you've got the inter-dimensional agendas at the very top at the same time, and i doubt it stops there. after you start to see these things, you begin to see a picture painting itself, and so far, i dont like what i see.
"I am not trying to be negative, but if big brother could somehow gravitate towards anarchy there will always be those that would seek to cheat the anarchy system also, it's human nature."
that is why "big brother" cannot be allowed to infiltrate it. of course there will always be those who seek to enslave or dominate, or do something for thier own purposes and agendas, a strictly service to self beings. it is not human nature, it is behaviour learned, learned through social conditioning and social engineering, thus becoming a self-perpetuating vicious circle passed down from parents to children, locked in a never ending circle. and it has been discovered that DNA cna be influenced to be changed by words, thoughts and energy. that is why to them it is important to keep the status quo mind-set in place,for if the stattus quo were to be shattered, this would give humanity a chance to really sink into thier true anf full potentials, whcih would allow them to step into the realms that were once invisible, allwoing them to see the manipulators, thus leveling the playing field. here is a bit from Bruce Lipton:
www.infiniteunknown.net/2008/0...r-meet/
www.brucelipton.com/article/...w-biology
yeah i know, we all get tired of the never ending enslavement. but one must never give up the fight for true freedom, at all costs one must never surrender, no matter how great the odds, no matter of the world stands against you, fight back, never give up, never surrender.
"Your explanation and the comments of others on this thread was quite nice reading, but how many people did you reach. How many read and actually gave a damn? The ones that read it enjoyed it but left no comment and moved on with their lives, no biggie. The ones that read it made no comment because they didn't agree with you and will make sure that this does not reach others is what people should be concerned about (you have no way of knowing who any of those persons are either way for or against). "
thank you, i am glad that you enjoyed them, it is nice to hear that ppl do read what i post and that some actually listen. unfortuanatley, not many actually even care about true freedom, they'd rather stay within the comforts of thier little bubble worlds than risk it all and embrace the unknown, the abyss. yes and i know, there are some that will agree, but then forget about it all the next day and fall back into the circle.
"To put and end to this sorrow, to hunger, to war, there must be psychological revolution and few of us are willing to face that. We will discuss peace, plan legislation, create new leagues, the United Nations and so on; but we will not win peace because we will not give up our position, our authority, our money, our properties, our lives. To rely on others is utterly futile; others cannot bring us peace. No leader is going to gives us peace, no government, no army, no country. What will bring peace is inward transformation, which will lead to outward action. Inward transformation is not isolation, is not withdrawal from outward action. On the contrary, there can be right action only when there is right thinking and there is no right thinking when there is no self-knowledge. Without knowing yourself, there is no peace."
~Krishnamurti~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Some of you will nod your heads and say, "I agree", and go outside and do exactly the same as you have been doing for the last ten or twenty years. Your agreement is merely verbal and has no significance, for the world's miseries and wars are not going to be stopped by your casual assent. They will be only stopped when you realize the danger, when you realize your responsibility, when you do not leave it to somebody else. If you realize the suffering, if you see the urgency of immediate action and do not postpone, then you will transform yourself and the world."
~Krishnamurti, The Last and First Freedom~
."..you should know (I am at times surprised at how you keep going even though you get battered in this group). But you keep going ( I tip my-transgender- hat to you)"
thank you again, i do my best. and actually, all of these attacks both on the net and in the real world have allowed me to enhance my ability to keep my cool, i have also gained much patience through these pressures and mud slinging, throught fires i am purged and made anew, stronger, firm, and sharper than ever.
and about oboma, i can only advise that you keep an open-mind(and no i dont mean being gullable) and use both the rational and the "intelligence of the heart", and dont give in to the zombification that has become an epidemic in the world.
do not listen to the words, pay attention to the actions, for actions always speak louder than words.
-
-
Hypothetically:
Wed, December 3, 2008 - 7:59 AMHow does an Anarchist society prevent a group of dedicated radicals from cultivating biological weapons and then infecting the world? -
-
Re: Hypothetically:
Wed, December 3, 2008 - 2:09 PMpp: for actions always speak louder than words.
well said -
-
Re: Hypothetically:
Wed, December 3, 2008 - 2:34 PMactually it fairly easy to see how a society of anarchy would prevent such things...
unforetunately many ppl beleive the absent of Rules makes for Chaos....
when I believe its quite the opposite...
Why would anarchist want to destory anything?
And how much of our opinoins on things llike anarchy are cloudy by false assumption...example: they fight like cats and dogs. But in really cats and dogs dont necessarily fight. if you put two ppl as opposite as they can be on an island...its very unlikely that the fight to the end for the island...its more likely that they work together for survival. and what would be missing from the island and the two men? civilization.
''Rules are for people who cannot govern themselves."
-
-
Unsu...
Re: Hypothetically:
Wed, December 3, 2008 - 4:00 PM"''Rules are for people who cannot govern themselves.""
perfect, exactly. this quote seems to fit you pretty well, steven. -
-
Re: Hypothetically:
Thu, December 4, 2008 - 9:23 PMLol. Well technically you are correct. As an archetype of the hierophant sort I kinda do craft rules for other people to live by. But only if they are smart enough to ask -- unrequested advice is never well-received.
-
-
-
-
Unsu...
Re: Hypothetically:
Wed, December 3, 2008 - 2:24 PMpp:" ...How does an Anarchist society prevent a group of dedicated radicals
from cultivating biological weapons and then infecting the world? ..."
How are we dealing with that now?
People always act as if the world 'works' the way it is organized now,
but look around you? Mumbai?
This isn't working, at least not for 90% of life on earth.
There are millions of hypothetical questions we can come up with that NO social system
can easily address, but anarchism eradicates so many problems that stem from the
property/profit system we live in that it will probably have much more success in dealing
with the toughest of problems than our current system of does.
Today, most problems are escalating, but those in control also have the money & the gated mansions,
so why should they care? Easier to just air some prime time entertainment, sweep the problems under the carpet,
and have the masses deal with it when the carpet gets too small.
-
-
Unsu...
Re: Hypothetically:
Wed, December 3, 2008 - 5:40 PM"but look around you? Mumbai? "
yup, another false flag atack to justify an attack on pakistan. the obomba is spewing propaganda now inorder to get the way of his masters, now he is saying that he will attack pakistan. change? i think not.
-
Re: Hypothetically:
Thu, December 4, 2008 - 9:31 PMMumbai is a GREAT example of the Big Problem I'm bringing up! If the NYPD was in Mumbai those rampaging killers would have been plinked between the eyes by snipers within 45 minutes. But since an incompetent fool of an Indian lead the counter-terrorism forces, they failed utterly. That is a symptom of a *weak* government, not a strong one.
"Speaking as an observer who has many friends with libertarian instincts, I would point out that terrorism is a much more formidable opponent of political liberty than government. Government acts almost as a recruiting station for libertarians. Anyone who pays taxes or has to fill out government paperwork develops libertarian impulses almost as a knee-jerk reaction. But terrorism acts as a recruiting station for statists. So it looks to me as though we are headed for a triangular system in which libertarians and statists and terrorists interact with each other in a way that I'm afraid might turn out to be quite stable.
It's clear that the body politic is subject to power disorders. By this I mean events where some person or group suddenly concentrates a lot of power and abuses it. Power disorders frequently come as a surprise, and cause a lot of damage. This has been true since the beginning of human history. Exactly how and why power disorders occur is poorly understood.
We are in a position akin to that of early physicians who could see that people were getting sick but couldn't do anything about it, because they didn't understand the underlying causes. They knew of a few tricks that seemed to work. For example, nailing up plague houses tended to limit the spread of plague. But even the smart doctors tended to fall under the sway of pet theories that were wrong, such as the idea that diseases were caused by imbalanced humors or bad air. Once that happened, they ignored evidence that contradicted their theory. They became so invested in that theory that they treated any new ideas as threats. But from time to time you'd see someone like John Snow, who would point out, "Look, everyone who draws water from Well X is getting cholera." Then he went and removed the pump handle from Well X and people stopped getting cholera. They still didn't understand germ theory, but they were getting closer.
We can make a loose analogy to the way that people have addressed the problem of power disorders. We don't really understand them. We know that there are a couple of tricks that seem to help, such as the rule of law and separation of powers. Beyond that, people tend to fall under the sway of this or that pet theory. And so you'll get perfectly intelligent people saying, "All of our problems would be solved if only the workers controlled the means of production," or what have you. Once they've settled on a totalizing political theory, they see everything through that lens and are hostile to other notions."
excerpted from an interview with Neal Stephenson by Reason magazine:
www.reason.com/news/show/36481.html -
-
Re: Hypothetically:
Thu, December 4, 2008 - 9:46 PMpp: unrequested advice is never well-received.
i do not even have to like somebody to post theirs; i look past the little, and try to see the big...
the real count killed: over 1,000 -
-
Re: Hypothetically:
Thu, December 4, 2008 - 9:50 PMsorry, i have been defamed an despised before by others taking things out of context
and also for my weak writing skills
let me rephrase:
i look past the little problems... -
-
Re: Hypothetically:
Thu, December 4, 2008 - 10:04 PM>i look past the little problems...<
sometimes?
or
most times?
or
always? -
-
Re: Hypothetically:
Fri, December 5, 2008 - 8:41 PMpp: Thu, December 4, 2008 - 10:04 PM
mal
looks like i am being baited; i'll bite
what's your point?
-
-
-
-
Unsu...
Re: Hypothetically:
Fri, December 5, 2008 - 6:15 AM"Once they've settled on a totalizing political theory, they see everything through that lens and are hostile to other notions." "
funny, my mind has never been like that, nor will it ever be. -
-
Re: Hypothetically:
Fri, December 5, 2008 - 8:31 PMHmm, interesting display of defensiveness on that point. You are the same Randy that declared all forms of politics other than individual determination to be abhorrent, aren't you? :) Maybe your shadow is trying to tell you something.
-
-
Unsu...
Re: Hypothetically:
Sun, December 7, 2008 - 3:25 PM"Mumbai is a GREAT example of the Big Problem I'm bringing up! If the NYPD was in Mumbai those rampaging killers would have been plinked between the eyes by snipers within 45 minutes. But since an incompetent fool of an Indian lead the counter-terrorism forces, they failed utterly. That is a symptom of a *weak* government, not a strong one."
if you really want to find the real terrorists, you need only look at your own external governments and politick, involved with these external governments. which the very word politics give it away, Poli-tics, to Police. -
-
Re: Hypothetically:
Tue, December 9, 2008 - 3:56 PMYour definition is incorrect. -
-
Unsu...
Re: Hypothetically:
Wed, December 10, 2008 - 6:36 AMi am speaking of the way the external governments use politics, the very governments you have faith in.
-
-
-
-
-
Unsu...
Re: Hypothetically:
Wed, December 3, 2008 - 4:11 PM"How does an Anarchist society prevent a group of dedicated radicals from cultivating biological weapons and then infecting the world?"
by taking out the radicals, who desire to disturb the peace, but first before doing so, sekk to understand why they wish to do so, and if thier reasons are wrong and merely for the desire and lust of control and dominttion, then fight. a society such as this would be full of peaceful and virtuous warriors, and when there comes a time to fight, they shall fight, they wouldnt be prone to violence as is your typical mis-coneptions, when the need arises then they shall. who says one cannot be someone who enjoys the peace, while at the same time ready to fight off those who wish to take control, and dominate just for the sake of domination,(STS) purely service to self? -
-
Re: Hypothetically:
Wed, December 3, 2008 - 5:46 PM> by taking out the radicals, who desire to disturb the peace
is not that what a moderator is supposed to do, someone has to decide who is to be taken out and why, no ? -
-
-
Re: Hypothetically:
Wed, December 3, 2008 - 5:58 PMRandy ... lets be real ... is is possible that we can all agree in anything else that sex happens ? -
-
Re: Hypothetically:
Wed, December 3, 2008 - 6:00 PM> in anything else that sex happens ?
let me put this a different way ... maybe in the obvious we all can decide, but will the radical (or "offender") would want to be banned ? someone will have to impose the rule by some kind of force at sometime
-
-
Unsu...
Re: Hypothetically:
Wed, December 3, 2008 - 6:12 PMwell maybe a guide line of some sort, such as things to be expected if one person impedes upon anothers soveriegnity, that person will be subject to punishment, not by law, but by the individual himself, basicaly a taking of responsiblity for ones own actions. if one kills another without right and just cause, then death will be fitting for the one who commited the crime. but extreme actions wil not be necessary as long as the crime or action done by the antagonist is not extreme itself. if one steals, then that person will face punishment by the one who the person took it from. it is pretty simple, if you dont want to get hurt or bothered, then dont do it to another, that basically ones own actions will have consequences, and one will have to take responibility for the actions taken, this is what it is to be free, to be responible for your own actions and your own life, and which direction you will take. -
-
Re: Hypothetically:
Wed, December 3, 2008 - 6:19 PM> well maybe a guide line of some sort, such as things to be expected if one person impedes upon anothers soveriegnity,
now we are getting somewhere, i think ... to have real freedom (liberty, anarchism) we need to agree in some basic principles, that is seems to be the theory ... in reality ... this is why there are jails and/or people extradited far away ... that second part did not always worked, some people back with their revenge .... and in the end people was forced to kill others, to make sure they did not come back ... just because of disagreements of who is to make the rules of who has what and who has the last word -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.Unsu...
Re: Hypothetically:
Wed, December 3, 2008 - 7:01 PMthat is why there are other options, basnishment in humiliation, to regret thier action(s) for the rest of thier lives. much like the spartans did, when one commited such an atroctious crime or wrong, or if thye betryayed the spartans they would banish them for life, tell ng them "may you live forever" before sending them away. but like you said, if that person did not learn thier lesson, and come back to take revenge, then action must be taken to take out the disturber of the peace.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Hypothetically:
Thu, December 4, 2008 - 10:01 PMSome pre-historic societies matched your ideal vision.
Then the Bronze Age happened. The Age is named after a metal because of the weapons technology pioneered in that time, which allowed violence-prone societies to conquer their (perhaps) more virtuous neighbors. Witness how Sumeria, inventor of writing and the wheel, fell to Babylon.
If we come up with a way to prevent charismatic warriors from mobilizing a population to attack its neighbors, great! We can transition to Anarchism immediately. But without at least a reasonable theory of preventing such imbalances of power, it is just another Utopia that will never come to exist.
This is said as someone who would much rather live in an anarcho-syndicate than be citizen of a World Empire, BTW. So I'm not opposed to the spirit of Anarchism, I just find it un-pragmatic. -
-
Unsu...
Re: Hypothetically:
Fri, December 5, 2008 - 6:12 AM""So I'm not opposed to the spirit of Anarchism, I just find it un-pragmatic. ""
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
~Margaret Mead~ -
-
Re: Hypothetically:
Fri, December 5, 2008 - 8:37 PM
-
-
Unsu...
Re: Hypothetically:
Sun, December 7, 2008 - 3:26 PM"Some pre-historic societies matched your ideal vision. "
not even close. -
-
Re: Hypothetically:
Sun, December 7, 2008 - 9:38 PMOn what data do you base your assertion? -
-
Unsu...
Re: Hypothetically:
Mon, December 8, 2008 - 6:27 AM"On what data do you base your assertion?"
data? do you beleive that data cannot be corrupted or twisted? do you honestly beleive that there will be any data accessible to the public(you) that threatens the control of the governments and those who are in "power", the there is a reason why you will neevr see the info they have, you think that they will just handover the info they forbid the public to know?
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Anarchism
Thu, December 4, 2008 - 11:32 PMEventually, a shift takes place. Where the things that make you fear to act, become the reason that you act. If I were to ask you what your biggest fear about political unrest in the United States is, you would say your kids, spouse, family... but eventually the things you love become the reason you act.
In WWII, Hitler put the hammer down on Yugoslavia. People were scared, they didn't want to do anything, they didn't want to organize. And then eventually, he got really brutal, and he said that for every Nazi that dies, he would kill 100 Yugoslavs (weren't "Yugoslavs" at the time, but you get it). And they said, well, f***, I could die tomorrow. I could be walking down the street and die tomorrow, whats the point? I might as well fight back.
What will it take to push you over the edge? Your home taken? Your children in jail?
We must revolt, because the alternative is unthinkable; perfect eternal slavery.
The absolute worst thing that could happen to mankind is to have a stable world government, bar none. If we ever achieve a stable empire that doesn't topple with time, we are screwed.
The time is now. If it isn't now, then WHEN? When will you reach your breaking point? Its not about rabble-rousing and itching for violence, its not about killing anybody, but nobody wants to be a slave either, and we are all going to be slaves pretty soon.
I've found that anarchism is less of a "clean cut, organized solution", but rather an acknowledgment that the current emperor wears no clothes, which is MUCH, MUCH needed despite the promises of a new "administration". We really need to pull the house down on top of us right now, than hold off and build it taller; it only results in more rubble on our heads. We need a revolution. Again, its not about attacking people or certain strategic points, its not about organizing cities... Organizing cities is not a revolution, that is a civil war.
Everything must burn to the ground, starting with federal prisons. The United States has so many prisoners, and the reason is to stave off political unrest. This government HIDES the dissenters. What percentage of people in jail are murderes? Rapists? Most of them are poor, minority, or drug users. This nation sweeps them away, so they lose the right to vote, so they can't protest out in the streets, and so we can hide them from the rest of the world and say "look how well capitalism works, look how clean our streets are." Its a farce. -
-
Unsu...
Re: Anarchism
Fri, December 5, 2008 - 2:02 AM -
-
Unsu...
Re: Anarchism
Fri, December 5, 2008 - 2:13 AMso about this whole "anarchical revolution".. obviously a leader is out of the question for 'anarchists'.. so everybody just does their part to bring the system down?
it sounds similar to what terroist organsations are doing of late.. they may not be ideologically aligned but they have roughly a common enemy.
i'm not well versed in system organisation or social psychology or campaign management so i just can't make head or tail of it all.
i'm sure when something right happens, everything else will follow. people learn well by example and precedents set the ball rolling. -
-
-
Re: Anarchism
Fri, December 5, 2008 - 4:58 PMpp: i suggest everyone just save their energy.
Fri, December 5, 2008 - 2:24 AM
and start to build
ENDURANCE
-
-
Re: Anarchism
Fri, December 5, 2008 - 8:39 PMThis is the most important bit in the essay I posted:
Terrorism is a much more formidable opponent of political liberty than government. Government acts almost as a recruiting station for libertarians. Anyone who pays taxes or has to fill out government paperwork develops libertarian impulses almost as a knee-jerk reaction. But terrorism acts as a recruiting station for statists. So it looks to me as though we are headed for a triangular system in which libertarians and statists and terrorists interact with each other in a way that I'm afraid might turn out to be quite stable."
-
Unsu...
Re: Anarchism
Sun, December 7, 2008 - 3:33 PM"so about this whole "anarchical revolution".. obviously a leader is out of the question for 'anarchists'.. so everybody just does their part to bring the system down?"
becuase all of the people will be leaders, every voice will be heard, every idea will be considered, none will be left out or behind. but to be ones own leader in no way means that we cannot organize, on the contrary Anarchism, political anarchism, in which everyone is a part of, encourages organization. these politics have nothing to do with the external governments that only police the people and hinder thier natural flow of energy. -
-
Unsu...
Re: Anarchism
Sun, December 7, 2008 - 8:53 PMhow could one be left behind when the self is the guide?
it's a utopian vision, but put into effect it's not goin to be pretty. do you wonder just what principles will be determining the survivors?
i at least hope an equilibrium of archetypes remains. -
-
-
Re: Anarchism
Sun, December 7, 2008 - 9:04 PMrando
what you state now is so far out of any realm of existance
dreams are one thing?
MAYBE reality is another
but what is real NOW and your gibberish could not hope to change...
the nightmare
-
-
Re: Anarchism
Sun, December 7, 2008 - 9:31 PM"i at least hope an equilibrium of archetypes remains." - Omfgwtf
The idea is to add, not subtract.
Be Creative and Enjoy.
www.herowithin.com/arch101.html
Archetypes101
Archetypes provide the deep structure for human motivation and meaning. When we encounter them in art, literature, sacred texts, advertising—or in individuals or groups—they evoke deep feeling within us. These imprints, which are hardwired in our psyches, were projected outward by the ancients onto images of gods and goddesses. Plato disconnected these from religion, seeing them in philosophical terms as "elemental forms." Twentieth-century psychiatrist C.G. Jung called them "archetypes."
Preparation: Archetypes of the Family
The archetypes of preparation can be seen as connecting with the inner child (Innocent and Orphan) and the inner parent (Caregiver as nurturing parent; Warrior as protecting parent). These four archetypes tend to be active in young people and/or organizations that are new or that employ or serve people who are at the preparation level of development. Together, these archetypes provide an inner "family" that makes the individual less dependent upon the health of the family of origin. When all four are awakened in an individual or organization, he/she/it generally is able to move on to The Journey.
THE INNOCENT
Every era has myths of a golden age or of a promised land where life has been or will be perfect. The promise of the Innocent is that life need not be hard. Within each of us, the Innocent is the spontaneous, trusting child that, while a bit dependent, has the optimism to take the journey.
THE REGULAR GUY/GAL - THE ORPHAN
The Regular Guy/Gal/Orphan understands that everyone matters, just as they are. Down-home and unpretentious, it reveals a deep structure influenced by the wounded or orphaned child that expects very little from life, but that teaches us with empathy, realism, and street smarts.
THE WARRIOR/HERO
When everything seems lost, the Warrior/Hero rides over the hill and saves the day. Tough and courageous, this archetype helps us set and achieve goals, overcome obstacles, and persist in difficult times, although it also tends to see others as enemies and to think in either/or terms.
THE CAREGIVER/ALTRUIST
The Caregiver is an altruist, moved by compassion, generosity, and selflessness to help others. Although prone to martyrdom and enabling behaviors, the inner Caregiver/Altruist helps us raise our children, aid those in need, and build structures to sustain life and health.
The Journey: Archetypes of Transformation and Change
These archetypes of metamorphosis personify the process of seeking out new options; tearing down what no longer serves; committing to people, values, and activities; and creating new forms. They are expressed most often in individuals (adolescence, midlife, retirement, etc.) and organizations in times of transition, and all of them want to maximize personal freedom and fulfillment. When all four are awakened within individuals or organizations, they become ready for The Return.
THE EXPLORER/SEEKER/WANDERER
The Explorer/Seeker/Wanderer leaves the known to discover and explore the unknown. This inner rugged individual braves loneliness and isolation to seek out new paths. Often oppositional, this iconoclastic archetype helps us discover our uniqueness, our perspectives, and our callings.
THE OUTLAW/DESTROYER
The Outlaw/Destroyer embodies repressed rage about structures that no longer serve life even when these structures still are supported by society or by our conscious choices. Although this archetype can be ruthless, it weeds the garden in ways that allow for new growth.
THE LOVER
The Lover archetype governs all kinds of love—from parental love, to friendship, to spiritual love—but we know it best in romance. Although it can bring all sorts of heartache and drama, it helps us experience pleasure, achieve intimacy, make commitments, and follow our bliss.
THE CREATOR
The Creator archetype fosters all imaginative endeavors, from the highest art to the smallest innovation in lifestyle or work. Adverse to stasis, it can cause us to overload our lives with constant new projects; yet, properly channeled, it helps us express ourselves in beautiful ways.
The Return: Archetypes of the Royal Court
When the archetypes of the return are activated, people and organizations know who they are at a deeper level than they once did. Now they are motivated to seek out ways to use their gifts and perspectives to make a difference in the world. They no longer yearn to be taken care of, and they do not blame others or find excuses. Rather, they live and work in ways that express their values, commitments, and talents in a socially responsible manner. These archetypes generally are awakened and in balance within psychologically mature individuals and organizations able not only to benefit from the rights of living in a free society, but also to undertake the responsibilities of active, engaged citizenship.
THE RULER
The Ruler archetype inspires us to take responsibility for our own lives, in our fields of endeavor, and in the society at large. If he/she overcomes the temptation to dominate others, the developed Ruler creates environments that invite in the gifts and perspectives of all concerned.
THE MAGICIAN
The Magician archetype searches out the fundamental laws of science and/or metaphysics to understand how to transform situations, influence people, and make visions into realities. If the Magician can overcome the temptation to use power manipulatively, it galvanizes energies for good.
THE SAGE
The Sage archetype seeks the truths that will set us free. Especially if the Sage overcomes the temptation of dogma, it can help us become wise, to see the world and ourselves objectively, and to course-correct based on objective analyses of the results of our actions and choices.
THE JESTER
The Jester archetype urges us to enjoy the process of our lives. Although the Jester can be prone to laziness and dissipation, the positive Jester invites us all out to play--showing us how to turn our work, our interactions with others, and even the most mundane tasks into FUN. -
-
Unsu...
Re: Anarchism
Mon, December 8, 2008 - 6:28 AMgood post, glen.
did i ever say the word utopia, steven? lol. -
-
Re: Anarchism
Mon, December 8, 2008 - 5:28 PMSilly Randy. if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck..... its a duck. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.Unsu...
Re: Anarchism
Mon, December 8, 2008 - 7:11 PM"Silly Randy. if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck..... its a duck. "
silly steven, things are not always as they seem, looks can be very decieving. especially when one has been conditioned to beleive in such a way as to see anything that might free them in a very wrong and twisted way. -
-
Re: Anarchism
Tue, December 9, 2008 - 3:59 PMIf it ACTS like a duck, QUACKS like a duck, SWIMS like a duck, but looks like a chicken.....its a duck in costume.
My observation still stands. -
-
Unsu...
Re: Anarchism
Tue, December 9, 2008 - 4:03 PMobservation? lol, based on what, something you imagined?
it could be a totally different species, who knows, why do you dwell on absolutes so much, are you that afraid of not knowing, afraid of the unknown? -
-
Re: Anarchism
Wed, December 10, 2008 - 1:52 AMI observed that your vision for society is utopian even though you didn't use the world "utopia." Many posters agreed, as I'm sure you observed.
You choose to play PsyOps lines about my awareness of reality like some cheesy 80's chaos mage trying to get in a new age girl's pants -- when you could have been coherently explaining how your vision accounts for the millions (billions?) of human beings who would fail your presumed tests of citizenship.
Why not focus on that instead? Take your time if you wish.
-
-
Unsu...
Re: Anarchism
Wed, December 10, 2008 - 6:27 AMi dont beleive any kind of utopia is possible without infringing on and it being an impediment to free-will and the individuals freedom. now, a place where things are as i and many others see it, can only occur in this reality if every individual themselves desired such freedom, if they desired to be more, and to evolve themselves out of this primitive and stagnant state.
and no, there is no test of "citizenship". where are you getting such ridiculous ideas and assumptions? lol. i suppose you dont beleive that such things are possible in you state of mind, what you dont realize is that anything is possible with the right will of mind. many things seemingly impossible to those like you in many other ages have been done, to the disbelif of those who gave away thier own power they could only stand in awe of what those who truly used thier true human potential to make the impossible happen in the midst of those who thought such things were impossible, it is because they thought and still think the impossible is not possible, they didnt know, and still do not know, they just think but do not know. -
-
Unsu...
Re: Anarchism
Wed, December 10, 2008 - 6:32 AMand i am sure you will demand proof for what i have spoken of, but truth is, i can't prove it to you in this place, on the internet. any proof that may have been out there doesnt exist on the net, since this is a tool controlled by government, i really doubt they would let such things get on the net without first dis-crediting, rediculing them, and putting some dis-info to confuse and mislead others.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Anarchism
Sun, December 7, 2008 - 9:35 PMand "utopia" means "no such place."
-
-
-
