It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Question to Anarchists

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 05:34 AM
link   
Well said 1wintermute1


Yes Anarchism is about being responsible for your own governance.
We all want freedom. A lot of the things we have today, fast food, flashy cars, are just a replacement for true freedom. A way of keeping the population thinking they are getting something out of life.
In a truly free society, based on need not greed, a lot of those things you mention will be unnecessary and not missed.
When we learn to look at our fellow man with love and compassion instead of as competition, it will full fill you more than any car, house or money could ever do. Because love, compassion and cooperation is our true nature.
But as long as the powers that be have us chasing the carrot, and as long as ppl fall for it, we will never be truly free.
We imprison ourselves by falling for the game. And the only ppl that really benefit from the game is the few at the top who make the rules.
The prize for winning the game is money, power and freedom, but very few ppl ever win. In fact the majority of ppl don't even get to play the game. Yet it's those same ppl who make it possible for the game to be played.
Without our (the majority/poor) consent and cooperation then the game cannot be played.

AP&F...




posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 06:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
But as long as the powers that be have us chasing the carrot, and as long as ppl fall for it, we will never be truly free.
We imprison ourselves by falling for the game. And the only ppl that really benefit from the game is the few at the top who make the rules.
The prize for winning the game is money, power and freedom, but very few ppl ever win. In fact the majority of ppl don't even get to play the game. Yet it's those same ppl who make it possible for the game to be played.
Without our (the majority/poor) consent and cooperation then the game cannot be played.


I totally agree with this, and in fact it reminds me of a quote I've seen many times, a communication from the Rothschild brothers of London, 1863 to associates in New York: -




“The few who understand the system, will either be so interested in its profits, or so dependent on its favours that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantages...will bear its burden without complaint, and perhaps without suspecting that the system is inimical to their best interests.”



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 09:04 PM
link   
That's a good quote Paul, staight from the horses mouth as they say...

AP&F...



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 10:53 PM
link   
To me, Anarchism and Socialism are so closesly tied they may aswell be the same... Communism is just the process towards Anarchism, because under socialism/communism the state is eventually meant to wither away...



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
Anarchists seem drown to the idea because you are "against the government". But in reality, with no law or government, there is nothing stopping someone from stabbing you for no reason.


Indeed, what Amuk said, what is stopping them now?

The idea is that you wouldn't risk the facing punishment of the community so you wouldn't stab someone.

An eye for an eye is exactly what happens now, well, almost. At the moment it's more like an eye for a small cut on your arm. Murder someone get 15-25 years.

True anrachy can never work anyway. There are natural leaders and natural follows, there would be those in the anarchist community more respected and more influencial than others.



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by shorty
True anrachy can never work anyway. There are natural leaders and natural follows, there would be those in the anarchist community more respected and more influencial than others.


I have to disagree, Anarchists do recognise that some people are natural leaders and some followers.

But Anarchists also recognise the fact that a leader doesn't have to be an "authority".

There is a big difference between "leaders" and "controllers".

What we have in this society is "controllers", not leaders.

The only leading the government does is us into war.

All people have a strength somewhere, some to lead and organise, some to work with their hands...whatever, they are all good tools for society and will be used for the advantage of all of us and not just a select few.

The concept of leadership does not have to mean coercion as we have from our "controllers" now.

Strong leaders are needed in any type of society, to deny that would be ridiculous. But that does not mean they have to have complete control over that society. Cooperation, not coercion

"In any grouping some people do naturally "give a lead", but this should not mean they are a class apart. What they always reject is responsibility for leadership. That means their supporters become blind followers and the leadership not one of example or originality but of unthinking acceptance."

[url]http://www.spunk.org/library/writers/meltzer/sp001500.html[/iurl]



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 08:10 AM
link   
But eventually, surely, it would evolve into a hierarchy of some form. We would be going back to a way of life probably similar to the way we lived at the birth of mankind but with greater technology.

We wouldn't have official leaders to start with but there are always those that are power hungry, even amongst anarchists.

An anarchistic society would just turn into another way of voting. Out of it someone would come out leader, or controller.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 09:16 AM
link   
Only if we allow those leaders to control...

Authority only has power if we choose to accept that power.

In society as it is now, those in power condition the population to accept authority and control as "leadership".

In an Anarchist society there would be no reason or benefit from conditioning people to be sheep.

When people realise they have the power and strength to govern their own lives they will be less likely to allow someone else to control them.

Like I said there's a big diff between community "leaders" and cold calculating power hungry politicians, who's only real interest is controlling us on behalf of the big businesses.

A lot of people assume things are Human nature that are actually conditioned behaviour. Competition being a big one.
In nature, if we competed like we do now we would wipe our selfs out.
To survive we need to cooperate.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Only if we allow those leaders to control...


We probably would, lots of people feel more secure with one governing body deciding what does on.



Like I said there's a big diff between community "leaders" and cold calculating power hungry politicians, who's only real interest is controlling us on behalf of the big businesses.


In an anarchistic society surely there would still be economy, Therefore, there would still be money to be gained from controlling the population.



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 04:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by shorty
We probably would, lots of people feel more secure with one governing body deciding what does on.


Are you sure about that? Or is it that we have just been conditioned into thinking we feel more secure with a government making all our decisions for us.
The government produces most of the situations that cause the population to feel insecure to help maintain their control. They're are not here to protect us, they are here to control us.
Governments create war, strife, poverty, oppression, not people...



In an anarchistic society surely there would still be economy, Therefore, there would still be money to be gained from controlling the population.


Why do we need an economy? So the few can control the resources, and create artificial scarcity to maintain their lavish lifestyles?
So we can work in their factories for a wage just enough to survive on?
So we can get sick from their poisons and destruction of our Earth?

No, money is the tool of the beast and through that you worship the beast.

Human society will never be free (spiritually or psychologically) as long as we cling to the concept of exploiting each other for our own selfish greed.
There are enough resources to feed and house everybody on the planet.

Money creates an imbalance that will eventually come crashing down around us. And guess who will suffer the most? The poor as usual.

We need to think outside their box...

666ismoney.com...

[edit on 21/8/2005 by ANOK]



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 07:58 AM
link   
The church is based on a heirachy, would you expect the church to reform?



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by shorty
The church is based on a heirachy, would you expect the church to reform?


Religion has been corrupted and used as a means of control before governments took over.

I'm not a big religious person myself, I just think the Bible warned us against doing what we are now doing. A society based on exploitation of the many to benefit the few will eventually destroy the Human Race.

When all our focus is on gaining more wealth and power for our selfs at the detriment of others we loose our spiritual side, thus we allow "satan" to gain more power. Money becomes more important than life.
But money brings only a short term "fix".

Because of money/capitalism we are still using fossil fuels, millions of people live in poverty, millions of people are starving. Thousands live in luxury and have wealth horded away that could be used to help people.

SO yes EVERYTHING needs to change, because it is all corrupted by money.

People not power...cooperation not corporation...

AP&F...You know it's right.



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 04:16 PM
link   
I can't say I disagree, money has caused a lot more wrongs than rights but it's probably going to plague humanity for a long time to come, maybe to the end and I really don't even see a conceivable way to end money's control over people.



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 09:16 PM
link   
Anarchy in its rawest form is still the A from Alpha superimposed over the O from Omega, or visa-versa or asrev-asiv.



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 04:56 AM
link   
Hmmmm are you talking about the circled A symbol?

It stands for "Anarchy is Order" acording to most Anarchists...

The real origin of the symbol is unknown, but it was first used, along with the red and black flag, during the Spanish Civil War by an Anarchist union that faught against General Franco.

If not, then just a little history



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Anarchy in its rawest form is still the A from Alpha superimposed over the O from Omega, or visa-versa or asrev-asiv.


That doesn't explain what it means.



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Hmmmm are you talking about the circled A symbol?

It stands for "Anarchy is Order" acording to most Anarchists...

The real origin of the symbol is unknown, but it was first used, along with the red and black flag, during the Spanish Civil War by an Anarchist union that faught against General Franco.

If not, then just a little history


There are no rules in ANARCHY, therefore: The symbol is what I say it is. You own no one elses accepted truths in anarchy. That's the beauty of anarchy. No proven history. No accepted facts. Ruleless.

Rulers make the rules. No rulers. NO RULES.

Anarchy.



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by shorty

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Anarchy in its rawest form is still the A from Alpha superimposed over the O from Omega, or visa-versa or asrev-asiv.


That doesn't explain what it means.



Anarchy is anarchy.

Explanation according to whom? The ruler of explanations? Webster?



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
There are no rules in ANARCHY, therefore: The symbol is what I say it is. You own no one elses accepted truths in anarchy. That's the beauty of anarchy. No proven history. No accepted facts. Ruleless.
Rulers make the rules. No rulers. NO RULES. Anarchy.


LOL What has the meaning of a symbol got to do with rules? The general use and peoples interpretation suggests its meaning not rules.

To take Anarchism so literally and take it to mean simply NO RULES is what gives the Anarchist movement a bad name.

Anarchism is not about NO RULES, it is about self governing.

Rules are fine as long as they are mutely accepted by the population and not forced upon them by an overlord. I think we can all agree some rules are necessary, no?

Forget your stateist dictionary meaning and do some reading.



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Explanation according to whom? The ruler of explanations? Webster?


But anarchy has a meaning, just saying "anarchy in it's rawest fotm is the A from Alpha super imposed over the O from Omega".



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join