It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.



page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 05:10 PM

Originally posted by ANOK
We are not about chaos and disorder. In fact we believe the society we live in now is chaos and disorder. Kept that way by the ruling elite to help keep us from organizing.
We ARE about organized communities and good non-governing leadership.
To lead and to govern are not the same.
You CAN have leadership and organization in a non-governmental society.
In fact leadership is essential for any society to thrive.

ANOK, we may not agree about much else, but I don't think I could have put the above any better.

I have no idea why it double posted, sorry.

[edit on 7-1-2005 by cavscout]

posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 11:47 PM
I am a "Corporate Anarchist delivering Digital Anarchy".

Check out my website for more - or

I have been since 1997, although in 2004 i rebranded as "the information generation led by chaotic inclination".

Corporate Anarchy is exactly what it sounds like, introducing the counter-culture into our Corporate World.

situationism plays a huge part in this, Guy Debord and I have lots in common.

Except he's dead and i'm not yet.

digital anarchy is when you spam people with Political Information and Opinion.

I started it years ago, if you'd actually like to join my mailing list, email me.

I took my stand after working in Corporations myself, I saw Freemasonry, Pyramid Compartments and Networking as the disease of Capitalism.

I've taken my stance. I get nothing but crap from losers about it.

Many smart people understand.

to become a Corporate Anarchist you should:

"Infiltrate, Learn, Understand, Exercise the right to Default"

Peace Love and Truth are the first steps to regaining equilibrium in the Corporations Vs Humanists war.

No one knows who started it, but start it someone did.

There is no solution without a problem.

posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 10:25 PM
picture crying women and children, dead bodies sewage & waste lining the streets, & never noing where or if ur gonna sleep @ nite. thats my idea of anarchy - yea, so its glamorized by lazy ppls who c it as smokin pot & sittin around all day, but wat happens when ur neighbor has a gun 2 ur head demanding all ur pot? or is burnin down ur house cuz he don't like u? there is no government 2 arrest them, or firestation 2 put out the fire. it would b survival of the fittest - like the animal kingdom or cave men! no1 would work, so all food & clothes & such would have 2 b made in the home, therefore the time of sitting on ur ass w/ nothin 2 do would b ruined by hours of work in the feilds or around the house. i think the closest thing we could ever logically get to anarchy would b liberalism - your drugs r legal & ur neighbor wont kill u 4 them cuz he could go 2 the store & pick up his own. u wouldnt have 2 grow crops or make clothes & ur hours of sitting around would b enjoyed in front of a tv.

posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 02:04 AM
Well you obviously have no faith in Humans banned member...
You think we would just sit down and let the world fall apart around us?
Of course not!!
If you think it's only government that keeps us from killing each other, then that's stupid.
Anarchism is about the workers (who are the majority BTW) having control of the means of production. Having control of their own lives.
Instead of an "owner" making all the money from workers labour the workers will equally benefit from their labour.
We will still have a fire service, hospitals we do now.
Is it the government that tells someone to be a firefighter? Of course not.
It's a choice a person makes and that person would make the same choice with or without government. Right now we are having fire station brown-outs and closures because of governments miss-spending of our money.
Anarchism is not about ppl laying around smoking pot, and if you think thats it then you need to do some research. Don't confuse real Anarchism with the punk rock version...Even though punk put the word into the mainstream it gave it a bad name. Because the spiky haired squad believed the systems interpretation of Anarchy which is chaos and do # all.
In an anarchist society ppl will have to be responsible for themselves and their neighbors. We know what we need for life to be good for everybody.
Right now governments cause the exact problems you talk about.
They keep 3rd world countries from developing. They steal recources that could be used to make life better for everyone.
And why would your neighbor need to take your pot when he could just get his own? It's only in capitalism that resources have such a high value.
There's enough pot, or food, or shelter for everyone but capitalism keeps these things artificially scarce to keep prices up.
Buildings boarded up because they don't sell etc...Wharehouses full of food thats left to go bad...All so the profits keep pouring in for the few to remain wealthy whilst the rest go hungry.
It's easy to ignore the suffering of others when you live in the land of plenty.

Read up on what happened in Spain after the 1936 revolution, before the fascist took control.
Heres a start;

Do these ppl look like pot smokers?

This is a great read;

[edit on 28/1/2005 by ANOK]

posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 02:19 AM
I've been looking over this form, and I think I have an idea of how to describe anarchism. Right now, we live within a statist system. The world is divided up into states. When we think of politics, we think about governments and states.

So, what exactly is a state? It is no simple to describe it fully, but generally states are recognized as institutions, which have a monopoly on the legitimate use force. By legitimate, we mean that people generally agree that the state has the right to use violence, regardless of whether they agree with how the state uses violence.

Fundamentally, anarchism is about the ending state system. We are so enmeshed within the state system paradigm, and it holds so much power, we often can't imagine a world in another way. Remember, there were people before there were states. Why can't people exist without states, again. If such is ture, you could argue two ways: states are always just oppresive institutions or states have outgrown their purpose and remain mostly as mostly useless parasites.

top topics
<< 1  2   >>

log in