Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I hope that was satire and not a serious post.

It seems to me that people are afraid of what they can’t have complete control over. Instead of admitting to the fear they reject it so they don’t have to deal with it. Anarchy is a way of life that doesn’t try to influence one’s individuality. It encourages us to work together for the betterment of mankind while seeing direct benefits.

Nice to see the DAG coming back....Hey Dred

At 9/20/03 08:57 PM, punk_disease wrote: In an anarchistic society, countries don't exist so therefore there are no wars over borders and since countries don't exist, the race attributed to that country (i.e. French, German, American, etc.) doesn't exist either so people don't hate each other because they're fome a different country than their own.

but wait, wouldn't that EXACT SAME SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES result from a world dominating regime that fades from existence after a hundred years of rule? That's the main reason I'm a facist. ALL barriers must be destroyed by a UNIFYING and INDOCTRINATING force before utopic anarchy can begin.

*wipes brow*

Finally, I found a way to justify my anti-government views with my fascist views.... Thank god for "Total Plan" politics.....

I myself am an Anarchist, not because rancid and the sex pistols are suddenly cool again; but because I generally believe in my soul that people in their natural state are good people. Some may challenge that with their historical references or biblical accounts but in all honestly I don't think there is any way I could view people differently. I really believe that for the most part all people are after the same general thing; I think we are all tiring to fill in that gap in our lives that no one can deny having. So many try to fill that gap with religion, wealth, love, and power. That’s where I think the state emerges. People want to fill that empty space in their hearts and take power and control over others to fill this gap they have. The problem in my eyes is that this power, in fact all of life’s fillers simply do not close the spiritual gap we all feel, and so people with this power will do anything to get just a little more; and in the process use almost any means necessary to achieve it; war, blackmail, theft, ect. The problem here is that no amount of power can fill that emptiness we all feel. Ask any CEO or billionaire how much is enough money and there response, 9 times out of 10 will be never enough. I use that just as an example, I know myself personally there are 2 things that I try to fill my own personal voids with; knowledge and music, are my fillers any more justifiable then that of a Stalin or a Hitler, that’s for me to decide. We all in our own lives, I believe, must discover our fillers and ask ourselves, if it never completely fills me like one too many hits of acid, is what I’m doing right? Is it just? Or do I take advantage of others for my own personal satisfaction? This, I believe goes beyond politics, it's something we must all as humans, not as liberals, conservatives, NDP (Canadian political party) a fascist or a Marxist or a anarchist must strive to understand. Maybe, just maybe (I'm still allowed to dream after all) some of our petty bickering would vanish if we all just looked at ourselves and questioned why we do, what we do.

At 9/22/03 10:18 PM, don_sublime wrote: I myself am an Anarchist, not because rancid and the sex pistols are suddenly cool again; but because I generally believe in my soul that people in their natural state are good people. Some may challenge that with their historical references or biblical accounts but in all honestly I don't think there is any way I could view people differently. I really believe that for the most part all people are after the same general thing; I think we are all tiring to fill in that gap in our lives that no one can deny having. So many try to fill that gap with religion, wealth, love, and power. That’s where I think the state emerges. People want to fill that empty space in their hearts and take power and control over others to fill this gap they have. The problem in my eyes is that this power, in fact all of life’s fillers simply do not close the spiritual gap we all feel, and so people with this power will do anything to get just a little more; and in the process use almost any means necessary to achieve it; war, blackmail, theft, ect. The problem here is that no amount of power can fill that emptiness we all feel. Ask any CEO or billionaire how much is enough money and there response, 9 times out of 10 will be never enough. I use that just as an example, I know myself personally there are 2 things that I try to fill my own personal voids with; knowledge and music, are my fillers any more justifiable then that of a Stalin or a Hitler, that’s for me to decide. We all in our own lives, I believe, must discover our fillers and ask ourselves, if it never completely fills me like one too many hits of acid, is what I’m doing right? Is it just? Or do I take advantage of others for my own personal satisfaction? This, I believe goes beyond politics, it's something we must all as humans, not as liberals, conservatives, NDP (Canadian political party) a fascist or a Marxist or a anarchist must strive to understand. Maybe, just maybe (I'm still allowed to dream after all) some of our petty bickering would vanish if we all just looked at ourselves and questioned why we do, what we do.

You are right about the government taking advantage of our spiritual void but it goes far beyond that. The government sees us a baby that they teach and discipline. They care for us but never let us see the truth for if we did we’d try our hardest to overthrow them.

The government and church are anything but separate and at times they may seem like two separate entities but that is only because the government will do what they have to in order to “excel” in power. Religion, especially Catholicism, is used as a tool. It keeps the masses tamed. The true writings indicate that a church isn’t need because we find God/Jesus in ourselves. They don’t want that getting out so they let it surface as a rumor because they know “true” followers won’t pay any mind to that. “True” followers believe in what the priests say….the priest wouldn’t lie.

Anyway what I am trying to say is that leaders rule over the weak and in an anarchist society we would be more focused on helping each other all become leaders. The void would be filled because everything you do in life would directly affect you. You would have control so you won’t be able to blame anyone but yourself for any unhappiness you are faced with.

At 9/10/03 10:42 AM, Horatio_Fellatio wrote: I wouldn't mind anarchy if the world didn't run on money and order.

I don't want to become a victim of stronger people. You have to know when there is anarchy, the strong rule the weak.

So even in an anarchist state, there is still law and order, you will be a slave to the will of the strong. At least in this society everyone has a say. I wouldn't mind being reduced to an anarchist state, strong willed people such as myself would have room for advancement and a chance for power.

In this soceity, the weak (majority) control the strong and the strong (minority) occassionaly victimize the weak.

I'm rambling. With a strong leader, there would be balance in the world.

your right herr felatio... unfortunately the world will always run on greed because it is hard wired into us by our drive for self preservation. im not going to lie, i dont believe that true equality is ever possible. i also dont think that people can ever live and prosper without some semblence of order. chaos is a terrible, terrible thing. change, however, is good and necessary for a successful society.

big difference between change and progress and utter chaos and anarchy.. people seem to forget that sometimes.

don_sublime i must commend you for having one of the best arguments for anarchism that i have seen in a long long while.

I myself am an Anarchist, not because rancid and the sex pistols are suddenly cool again; but because I generally believe in my soul that people in their natural state are good people.

And that in the State of Nature there would be no need for a state? Where did the state first come from then?

Also, the obviousness of what a sudden lack of state would mean is apparent to everyone. So how would you get rid of the state?

At 9/23/03 02:56 PM, Slizor wrote:

I myself am an Anarchist, not because rancid and the sex pistols are suddenly cool again; but because I generally believe in my soul that people in their natural state are good people.

And that in the State of Nature there would be no need for a state? Where did the state first come from then?

Also, the obviousness of what a sudden lack of state would mean is apparent to everyone. So how would you get rid of the state?

I think there would have to be a long battle b/t the government and the people. Anarchy wouldn't happen unless the majority wanted it.

the only problem with having a majority for anarchy is that the majority of ppl dont even understand anarchy (as a peaceful utopia) and that even if the majority did support it some fuck head would get an army together and kill the anarchist (i.e. what white people did to the indians)

I think what everyone has to realize is that everyone is a person, now actually think about that, a person includes everyone from myself to you reading this, to Noam Chompsky and even Dick Cheney. And the one thing about all people is that we all feel, we all hurt and we are all passionate about something. To declare that we have the right to harm people like Cheney or Blair or Ultra-nationalists but that they are not allowed to harm us, is in fact the one of the greatest hypocrisy I've ever heard. So to sum that up, any sort of anarchist movement cannot use violence. By doing so you become those who use violence against you. Some would then ask, "How can we possible make any kind of significant change without the use of violence?” it's actually quite simple, do what we're doing right now. Keep an open dialogue; keep working to break down the myths surrounding Anarchism. If you’re really devoted and have some spare time, begin working on underground organizations, designed to support interested people and prepare people should a day when states fall occurs. But most importantly theories, ideas, sciences and philosophies must continue to evolve as to not become dated and pointless. I fear that perhaps philosophies like Marxism has very much become dated and obsolete. I must admit that I probably do not know enough about Marxism though, so if anyone could prove me wrong I would love to hear any comments or objections. Anyways back to my point, I guess it would be that, maybe we won't see anarchism in our lifetimes but if we work hard at it and create the kind of infrastructure needed to support an anarchic society our children could experience that kind of world. It has been done before and I believe it can be done again.

At 9/23/03 01:35 PM, Lyddiechu wrote: don_sublime i must commend you for having one of the best arguments for anarchism that i have seen in a long long while.

thanks, that means alot to me, I figure have even one person stop and think, (they don't even have to agree with me) and view the world alittle differently then it's all worth it in my eyes

At 9/23/03 05:18 PM, don_sublime wrote: thanks, that means alot to me, I figure have even one person stop and think, (they don't even have to agree with me) and view the world alittle differently then it's all worth it in my eyes

Not a bad start for your 3rd post.... Why don't you drop by the DAG forums (click my sig pic for a link)? I think you would like it there. We have a whole club devoted to pro-anarchy links.

At 9/20/03 08:57 PM, punk_disease wrote: In an anarchistic society, countries don't exist so therefore there are no wars over borders and since countries don't exist, the race attributed to that country (i.e. French, German, American, etc.) doesn't exist either so people don't hate each other because they're fome a different country than their own.

Competition for food, resources (including land and water), and women(primative, happens more in animals). Ring a bell? The reason there are conflict over borders half of the time is due to these reasons. Not because it is the patriotic thing to do or because of religion (even though most of the time this gets tied in).

Anyways, drop country border disputes. What do you have now? A bunch of people disputing whose land is who (think small sub-urban towns). Sure if most of people aren't jackasses, then it will go along fine. The fact is that so many people are jackasses and will fight over a piece of land. That is the world today.

The only way to start an anarchy is by removing all of the elderly people since their opinions are too strong and cannot be swayed. Children on the other hand, can be easily swayed from way one way to another.

Also the people that say they are practicing Anarchy right now I will have to question how. In order for something to be an anarchy, you can't have a government to tell you what to do by stating predisposed laws. Instead society has to be the one that tells you if it is right or wrong and society is the one that punishes. Also, under anarchy, no one should in theory(at least in my head) own land(quite the contrary to today). It should instead be the society which determines who should get what land and how.

Yes I do like sidenotes in my paragraph.

I just read that Jacques Chirac, the French president, said this "In an open world, no one can live in isolation, no one can act alone in the name of all, and no one can accept the anarchy of a society without rules. There is no alternative to the United Nations."

Isn't anarchy a rule based on society, and society automatically forms the rules people follow? Is this a bad translation?

Uhm, just so everyone knows, I was an anarchist way before listening to anarchist punk.

true anarchy punk died with punk in the 80s... punk was a movement that lasted for a few years... get over it, the shit you listen to now is mainstream crap that has no soul or meaning... There are a few anarchists out there yet...Yet they are still just waterdowned versions of the people who gave their lives for a cause in the 70s... Go to a WTO protest and you'll see anarchists... At the last one in mexico a man climbed on top of a fence and stabbed himself in the heart to prove a point, now that's not anarchy but it's a man I respect, willing to do anything for what he believed in... The anarchists today are like everyone else apathetic programmed robots watching their own asses... if you want to bring down the government then be willing to walk the walk when you talk the talk...

punk_disease, if you truly think a band like anti-flag is an anarchist band, then you should really actually listen to their message... that anarchy symbol shouldn't be anywhere near that anti-flag quote

At 9/24/03 01:03 AM, ghoest wrote: true anarchy punk died with punk in the 80s... punk was a movement that lasted for a few years... get over it, the shit you listen to now is mainstream crap that has no soul or meaning... There are a few anarchists out there yet...Yet they are still just waterdowned versions of the people who gave their lives for a cause in the 70s... Go to a WTO protest and you'll see anarchists... At the last one in mexico a man climbed on top of a fence and stabbed himself in the heart to prove a point, now that's not anarchy but it's a man I respect, willing to do anything for what he believed in... The anarchists today are like everyone else apathetic programmed robots watching their own asses... if you want to bring down the government then be willing to walk the walk when you talk the talk...

You know your alittle vaugue about what you would have done, do you support violence? Can you say what exactly the walk is? I'm not pissed at you or nothing rather I want to know what you want to happen, infact all anarchists should in my eyes ask what do they truly want?

my beliefs...? I don't claim to be an anarchist... I'm a believer in civilized society in it's most basic forms without big buisness and without big government... I believe that today's society is weeding out emotion and replacing it with a general sense of apathy and narcosism and that's what I'm against... No one is taught how to deal with emotion in school, in fact nothing real is taught in school that can practically be applied to life until you get to college and pay for it to be taught to you... Each day I see boys that are dumped into a orphanage type enviroment get jobs at a restraunt I used to work at and frequent... These boys are dumped in this home b/c their parents can't handle them or don't want to handle them... If that isn't a good example of what passes as a degeneration of caring, then lets zoom out a bit and look at how the government is treating Iraq and Afghanistan... You here nothing about Afghanistan in the news because we left them there to die in a quesdo-democratic society.. This is what I'm aginst... I believe in what I feel is right and that is all that should truly matter in the world...

I'm not saying die for your beliefs I'm just saying go all the way... At the WTO meating in mexico the anarchs started a riot and then backed away when the numbers where agianst them... That is nto making a statement that is bullshit

At 9/24/03 01:06 AM, ghoest wrote: punk_disease, if you truly think a band like anti-flag is an anarchist band, then you should really actually listen to their message...

I know that Anti-Flag aren't anarchist.

that anarchy symbol shouldn't be anywhere near that anti-flag quote

I change quotes every 2 week. Besides, anarchy isn't about obeying punk trends when quoting a band or something.

At 9/9/03 11:50 PM, BootlegJones wrote: Listen to The Sex Pistols.

I hope you took my advice. I just got the Sex Pistols CD "Never Mind The Bollocks, Here's The Sex Pistols". I'm not an Anarchist, but Sid is, may he rest in peace (yeah right, peace. He's in hell right now but that's what's so cool about it).

Ya but you see thats violence and well being the pacifist that I am I can't indorce that.

"I myself am an Anarchist, not because rancid and the sex pistols are suddenly cool again; but because I generally believe in my soul that people in their natural state are good people."

THERE is the main flaw in your argument, although were that true i would be an anarchist myself. in theory anarchism works. in practice it doesn't. there would be 'justice of the people' (which basicly means mass lynch mobs for people you don't like). from that, a market of bounty hunters would flourish. and everyone knows that there's nothing better than a flourishing market of bounty hunters. anarchism would throw the world into chaos, because we will NEVER be ready for anarchism EVER. it would simply cause war and murder and chaos and throw us faaar back in time. ther would be no advancement in technology, because there would be little to no incentive to attempt to invent something (unless of course you mean that they'd do it out of 'the goodness of their hearts'). look, many people are good people. many are not. the people that are not are held in check by the government.

At 9/25/03 05:20 PM, gerbilfromhellll wrote: anarchism would throw the world into chaos, because we will NEVER be ready for anarchism EVER.

Uh, not with that attitude we're not.

Whatever happened to believing in the human race?, I'd like to think we're more then a buntch of primitive fuck heads!, or even if we are, gorillas can co-exist with one another we cant we?, something got really srewded up along the way to bring us where we are now in civilization.

whatever happened to beleiving in the human race?, I'd like to think were not a buntch of primitive fuckheads. Or if we are, I've seen Gorillias co-exist with one another, why can't we, Where did our fading civilization go wrong to give us the things we have today, war, genicide, racism, est, surly the state is responsible for some of this?

Anarchy Today.
http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/propagandhi/albertanarchism.shtml

At 9/25/03 08:51 PM, don_sublime wrote: Whatever happened to believing in the human race?,

The holocaust. The crusades. The spanish inquisition. The salem witch trials. AFRICA. Child molesters......

I think you get my point. Peace does not equal sapience. Intelligence, yes, sapience, no.