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.

 

Anarchist Websites And Forums Under Attack

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 18 2005 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
Organized Anarchy And Other Absurd Oxymorons

It's both interesting and instructive to watch the debate unfold in this thread.

The clueless hypocrisy alone is worth the reading.


Of course Anarchists organise. They have been doing it for years. As long as the people involved organise freely of their own choice it's still Anarchism. Anarchist can even have rules as long as all involved agree and there's no coercion. Anarchist believe that it's human nature to organise and cooperate, we are social creatures. We won't survive if we don't cooperate.


1 The role of the Anarchist organisation is to popularise and fight for the creation of a society based on the principles of anarchism, i.e. individual freedom, collective management of society by its workers, participatory democracy .


struggle.ws...

Also who's surprise here? I've been arguing with statists for many years now. You hear the same predictable statist argument. I'm Just trying to set people straight on the use of violence thing. You know, that tool of the state. Anarchists appose violence, that's a fact.

And I am talking in a general way here, I'm sure there's people out there who claim to be Anarchists and would not agree with what I've said. But they're few.
They are free to make their own choices, as they should be. But Anarchism isn't just about doing what you want do. It's stupid to think a society would last without organisation. We just want organisation without capitalism and the state. Workers owning the means of production. All profiting equally from their labours blah blah blah. Every Anarchist you talk to will have a different idea of how there life should be. But one thing we all agree on is violence is wrong.

And no it didn't bother me...You are free to have your opinion, right or wrong.
And I'm free to talk on behalf of who I want. As long as I don't misrepresent.




posted on May, 18 2005 @ 04:18 AM
link   
And To Think I Thought "Anarchy" Was Different From "Communism"


Originally posted by ANOK

1 The role of the Anarchist organisation is to popularise and fight for the creation of a society based on the principles of anarchism, i.e. individual freedom, collective management of society by its workers, participatory democracy .

Ah yes. In other words: "Workers of the world, unite!"

Gee. Where have I heard that before?

I hope you can understand my confusion, because I thought "anarchy" meant no "archy".

Along these lines:

an·ar·chy
n. pl. an·ar·chies

1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

We can reasonably disagree on what genuine "anarchy" is.

I am quite certain, however, that it is not "Communism in drag".

Although some folks, apparently including yourself and the source you cite, seem to think it is.

It's still hypocrisy in my opinion, and apparently nothing more than a quaint way to sell Marxism's "dictatorship of the proletariat" to those who don't know any better.

A valuable hint that these falsely self-styled "anarchists" are nothing more than unusually dishonest leftists (which takes a heroic effort, considering) can be found at the same website you referred to:

Organising against Capitalism

That pretty much says it all, doesn't it?

The document is basically a critique of the failure of the Communist Revolution, and, ultimately, does nothing more than advocate continuing the "class struggle", ala Marx and his minions, through the formation of what boils down to more "permissive" Leninist organizations.

What it does not advocate is true anarchy.

Not even close. Just another insidious lie foisted by self-styled "revolutionaries" on restless youth.

Same song, different tune -- and not all that different, frankly.



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 05:34 AM
link   
Whatever your opinion on what Anarchy is is not the really the point of this thread. But anyway...

You obviously only know the states interpretation of what Anarchism is and not what actual Anarchists believe in. That's not surprising and I'm not trying to be rude. I mean I wouldn't try to define what Muslims believe in, cause I only know what's in the popular press and I'm sure it's not the full picture. So why do people insist on pretending they know what something is when they obviously don't? Of course the states interpretation is gonna be slanted, you said so yourself.

Who should you believe?

We are talking about Anarchism here, not the dictionary definition but the Anarchists definition. If I wanted to know what Muslims believe I'd ask a Muslim. You know what I mean?

We are talking about Anarchism here, not the dictionary definition but the Anarchists definition.

And just for the record I'm not a communist, as you seem to think. Why do people think anything that's not pro-state is communism?


You do realise the workers make up the majority of the worlds population right? Some of us know where we came from, proud working class. You can keep your bourgeois ways. Benefit the majority, not the minority!

AP&F...Comrade



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by namehere

Originally posted by spamandham

Horse hockey. As long as it is arrived at via Constitutional means, it is not unconstitutional. The Constitution provides the means for its own nullification.


thats a lie

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.


What part of the Amendment provisions prohibit the entire Constitution from being nullified? There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits itself from being nullified via the prescribed Amendment mechanism.

Suppose the following Amendment were passed by 3/4 of the state legislatures at a Constitutional Convention;

"This Constitution is hereby repealed and the Federal government dissolved. Each state is henceforth a soveriegn nation."

What is illegal about that?



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Are you guys talking about the Anarchist websites that teach you bomb recipes? If so, well then your a fool for thinking that the govt. is not watching those. From what I have know, those particualar sites have been on watch for years now. But you have to admit, some of that sh1t makes for some fun 4th of July's.



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 03:31 PM
link   
This has more to do with the philosophy of anarchism which is widely understood and not as one-minded and organize as many, even their own members believe. I tend to agree with a lot of the anarchist arguments against organize religion and share a few of the points they bring about to other aspects of human life and control. The one basic thing which seems to cross over amongst most anarchist is the belief that the freedom of the individual supercedes any religions, government or state and that other people views and beliefs SHOULDN’T BE IMPOSED ON OTHERS. That last statement which I’ve emphasized has led a lot of the enlighten and philosophical among Anarchist renounce gaining their freedom through violence because they would just be guilty of the same evils they are fighting against.



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 03:37 PM
link   
oh forgot to say there are all kind of different anarchist classification, political, social, religious, moral even sexual anarchist to some extent which object to various faucets of entrenchment upon individuals and their freedoms and rights to self guidance and rule. And they all don’t necessarily agree with each other and especially on the means of achieving such liberations.



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 05:16 PM
link   
Anarchy Prevails


Originally posted by ANOK
Whatever your opinion on what Anarchy is is not the really the point of this thread. But anyway...

Granted. I noted the absurdity I saw taking over the thread with respect to what “Anarchy” is, and commented accordingly.

My opinions are, in other words, no less relevant to the discussion than yours.

Dueling Definitions


Originally posted by ANOK
You obviously only know the states interpretation of what Anarchism is and not what actual Anarchists believe in. That's not surprising and I'm not trying to be rude.

Making claims about what I know or don't know is a demonstrably quick way to dig yourself into a very deep hole, unless you can read my mind with unprecedented accuracy, but I'll let that slide for now.

I can concede that “statists” may not define “anarchists” the same way “anarchists” do.

What I don't understand is the notion that “anarchists” define themselves as something that is patently not anarchistic.

I don't think my confusion is unjustified, and so far, the discussion bears me out on this.

Nobody Understands Us


Originally posted by ANOK
I mean I wouldn't try to define what Muslims believe in, cause I only know what's in the popular press and I'm sure it's not the full picture. So why do people insist on pretending they know what something is when they obviously don't? Of course the states interpretation is gonna be slanted, you said so yourself.

If a Muslim told me he believed Jesus was the Son of God, sent here to die for our sins, and that only by accepting him as my personal lord and savior can I avoid an eternity in a lake of fire, suffice it to say that I would be skeptical about the claim of being a Muslim.

So far, everything you have been telling me, as well as what I find on that website of yours, is nothing more than Communist theory proffered under a different -- and misleading -- name.

The only apparent difference has nothing to do with the goal, which is Communism in every sense of the classic definition given by Communists themselves.

Rather, these “Anarchists” differ with respect to how to achieve Communism. “Grass roots” versus “state revolution”, if I read the screeds aright.

If there is any meaningful difference between the “worker's paradise” goal of “Anarchy” and Communism as defined by Marx and Engels, I would be interested in seeing it described cogently.

So far, I'm not seeing it, neither from yourself nor from the source you provided to me.

The Question Of Faith


Originally posted by ANOK
Who should you believe?

Currently, I determine my own beliefs based on my own perceptions and experiences, and am very skeptical of “package deals” in that department. So far, this has proven to be the most satisfying approach I have tried.

The problem here is not that I don't believe you, but the opposite.

You are telling me, in about as many words, that you are a Communist in everything but name, who calls yourself an “Anarchist”.

I'm saying that is absurd and patently self-contradictory, and well, here we are.

First, Let's Burn All The Dictionaries


Originally posted by ANOK
We are talking about Anarchism here, not the dictionary definition but the Anarchists definition. If I wanted to know what Muslims believe I'd ask a Muslim. You know what I mean?

I suppose decrying the “tyranny of a common language” is somewhat authentic in terms of classic anarchism, but without it, a medium of communication which depends entirely on a common language becomes useless.

You are, of course, free to define what you like -- there's a refreshing intellectual assertiveness in that.

But such things are not without consequences. When you reduce an argument to semantics, it tends to rapidly break down into pointless tail-chasing.

For example, if I insisted that from here on out the word “people” refers exclusively to the inhabitants of Zeta 4 Reticuli and no one else, then became indignant whenever anyone used the term in a different manner, I would, in essence, be excusing myself from being a credible party to the discussion.

My use of the dictionary to determine the meaning of “anarchy” is not something I am willing to yield on, and no, it's not a minor point.

Once I accept the idea that “Anarchists” don't actually promote anarchy, I have surrendered a degree of intellectual integrity I refuse to part with.

Call yourself what you like. I don't consider you to be a true anarchist, and that is very unlikely to change at this rate.

Ironically, what we're arguing over is whether you are correct in calling yourself an “Anarchist”.

My objection is that only true anarchists -- that is to say, those who oppose all forms of presumptive authority or structures of control and coercion over others -- actually have any business labeling themselves as such.

The rest are just posers.

I'm A Progressive Activist Revolutionary Pro-Worker Anti-Bourgeois Democratic Agrarian Land-Reformer Demanding Social Justice, For Short


Originally posted by ANOK
And just for the record I'm not a communist, as you seem to think. Why do people think anything that's not pro-state is communism?

If you're not a Communist, then why are you espousing the ideals of Communism, and pointing me to a website that does likewise?

You are free to call yourself whatever you like, and to try to make up your own definition for anarchy that differs substantially from what I, every dictionary I've checked and the overwhelming majority of people familiar with the language define it to be.

But, as illustrated above, if you're going to do that, it's rather silly to act indignant when people such as myself have a hard time following your thinking.

I Meant Groucho, Not Karl


Originally posted by ANOK
You do realise the workers make up the majority of the worlds population right? Some of us know where we came from, proud working class. You can keep your bourgeois ways. Benefit the majority, not the minority!

Channeling Karl Marx is not the most effective way to convince me you're not a Marxist.

Marx made many apt observations. He also espoused several revolutionary ideas for correcting the “social injustice” of the fading remnants of European feudal systems.

Up to that point, I'm on board. Marx, Engels, et al. were brilliant social commentators, and really did revolutionize social science. Indeed, they could almost be fairly credited with founding it -- as it exists today -- in a literal sense.

Also, much of what we take for granted in modern society came as a direct result of Marxist ideals. Without them, life might very well be much as it was in the Eighteenth Century, which I don't consider to be a desirable condition whatsoever.

Where I get off the bus is where people start worshiping Marx as some sort of prophet -- sneering at other religions while promoting their own -- and making wild claims that don't stand up to even casual scrutiny.

For being such a “heretic”, I will be demonized by zealous Marxists for failing to make the “leap of faith” such thinking requires.

How ironic.

My Point

I know you are doing your best to keep the discussion civil, as am I. Sometimes I am far too snippy, and the guilt and shame for such transgressions will always be mine, and will always be to my discredit.

It is my hope that I'm not coming across as “snippy” or insulting here. However, if I were to be anything other than honest about my opinions in this case, that would also be to my discredit.

I am criticizing what I consider to be an inherent fallacy in your professed doctrine. Please don't confuse that with a slam at you as a person. We are all human.

I don't consider myself stupid, but likewise, I can sure paint my way into some very silly intellectual corners now and then. You seem like a rational and intelligent person to me, and any impression I give otherwise is done in error.

What we disagree on is a pretty major issue, but I still don't see that as speaking to us as people, whether right, wrong or -- most likely -- a mixture of these two extremes.

The bottom line for me at this point is this:

All I see in this falsely-labeled “Anarchy” movement are people pushing Communism but too dishonest -- and perhaps too embarrassed or confused over the meaning of their own self-contradictory dogma -- to admit it.

A rose by any other name is still a rose.



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 05:56 PM
link   
"Clueless hypocrisy" juxtaposed with "worth reading".

Why is it so?



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 06:32 PM
link   
That "InfoShop.org" site is garbage.

What kind of quote is this?

"After a war, a hero is just a man with one leg."

That is the most ignorant and idiotic thing I've heard in a while. I do not know even how to respond to it. I was lost for words when I read this.

"We will support our troops when they shoot their officers."

Wow - that makes A WHOLE lot of sense. Jeez, are these people that dumb? The officers do not have a choice in the matter of going to war, what orders they give, etc. They are commanded by THEIR OFFICERS (ie the military heirarchy system.)

People are really getting stupid these days. These people obviously don't understand how the military functions, do they? The officers give orders that they are given, so on and so forth down the chain of command.

I guess intelligence is sparse nowadays.


-wD



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
So far, everything you have been telling me, as well as what I find on that website of yours, is nothing more than Communist theory proffered under a different -- and misleading -- name.


Not sure what you mean by that web site of mine??

The only reason I linked to ANY website was to point out the NON-VIOLENT aspect of Anarchists. That was the ONLY thing I was arguing about with Ngyan. Not communism, or whatever you think it sounds like.
I in no way whatsoever claim for myself anything on any web site I linked to. We were talking about Anarchism and violence and I was pointing out that that in itself is an oxymoron with quotes and links from Anarchists.
I'm not going to argue the merits of someone else's web site, that would have to be another thread.

I admit there are some similarities with Marxism but the main difference is Marx believed society needed to go through a period of capitalist rule by the state before we could have socialism. Anarchists reject the state as totally unnecessary. Marx’s idea of a temporary dictatorship is naïve, it only leads to more oppression. Anarchism is closer to libertarian socialism than communism.
All we want is a society based on the cooperation of the workers, who are the majority and the main wealth creators, instead of one controlled by a ruling elite with their tool of government. Which basically does nothing but control the workers and collect the profits for the few.

Anarchism covers many different theories and movements but almost all agree VIOLENCE is not the answer. The whole point of my original post.

And it is pretty easy to tell what someone knows about something like Anarchism when they just spew out the predictable statist BS. Don't have to be a mind reader, sorry.



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by WeBDeviL

What kind of quote is this?

"After a war, a hero is just a man with one leg."

"We will support our troops when they shoot their officers."

-wD


As a war vet myself I would agree with that first statement, see my thread here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...'

I don't think the second statement is supposed to be taken literaly.

[edit on 18/5/2005 by ANOK]



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
So far, everything you have been telling me, as well as what I find on that website of yours, is nothing more than Communist theory proffered under a different -- and misleading -- name.


Not sure what you mean by that web site of mine??

The only reason I linked to ANY website was to point out the NON-VIOLENT aspect of Anarchists. That was the ONLY thing I was arguing about with Nygdan. Not communism, or whatever you think it sounds like.
I in no way whatsoever claim for myself anything on any web site I linked to. We were talking about Anarchism and violence and I was pointing out that that in itself is an oxymoron with quotes and links from Anarchists.
I'm not going to argue the merits of someone else's web site, that would have to be another thread.

I admit there are some similarities with Marxism but the main difference is Marx believed society needed to go through a period of capitalist rule by the state before we could have socialism. Anarchists reject the state as totally unnecessary. Marx’s idea of a temporary dictatorship is naïve, it only leads to more oppression. Anarchism is closer to libertarian socialism than communism.
All we want is a society based on the cooperation of the workers, who are the majority and the main wealth creators, instead of one controlled by a ruling elite with their tool of government. Which basically does nothing but control the workers and collect the profits for the few.

Anarchism covers many different theories and movements but almost all agree VIOLENCE is not the answer. The whole point of my original post.

And it is pretty easy to tell what someone knows about something like Anarchism when they just spew out the predictable statist BS. Don't have to be a mind reader, sorry.

Don't worry you won't offend me, I've seen it all before many many times.
Anarchism isn't something that can be understood in a few short paragraphs on a web site.



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 01:22 AM
link   
The Irresistible Force


Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
"Clueless hypocrisy" juxtaposed with "worth reading".

Why is it so?

This question no doubt haunts us as we keep coming back for more, again and again and again.

To paraphrase the sages of discord: "After a war, a hero is just an ATSer with one brain cell."

Or so it seems to my old, jaundiced eyes.



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by shadow watcher
echtelian is correct.
our rights are our rights
privacy is protected....let the feds use other ways to catch the bad guys.


Where does it say in the Constitution that privacy on the internet exists? FOr that matter, there is no expectation of privacy in the open. The internet is open for viewing. IF anyone can get on it, then its not private. Same arguement for red light cameras and such. In the public domain, there is no expectation of privacy.



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 01:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Echtelion


The constitution is just a piece of paper, fundamentally, and it's up to privacy rights watchdogs, activists, lawyers and the people as a whole, to watch over the legitimity of the actions of their administration... the constitution won't do it for them!


The Constitution is a piece of paper to those who are not Americans. Comming from a Canadian, It doesnt matter what you say. The Constitution is the very basis of the United States.



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 04:54 AM
link   
OPTION 1

Anyone who is same gender, but different sexual orientation than I should be banned from society because they threaten my sexuality.

Anyone who is of a lower socio-economic background than I should be banned from society because they can take my job, working for smaller wages.

Anyone who is not the same religion as mine should be banned from society because they are a threat to my religious beliefs.

Anyone who is the least bit scientific should be banned from society because they are a threat to my religious beliefs.

Anyone who is not of the same race as I should be banned from society because they are a threat to my stock-race.

Anyone who has radical Ideas should be banned from society because they are a threat to my own.

Anyone who Is better than me should be banned from society because they are a threat to my ego.

OPTION 2

Anyone who is Asian IS smarter than me.

Anyone who is Japanese is in an evil cult.

Anyone who is French STINKS.

Anyone who is a Lesbian IS fat and ugly.

Anyone who is a Jew WILL take my money.

Anyone who is a Biker WILL get into a bar Brawl with me.

Anyone who is Irish WILL be a drunken Alcoholic.

Anyone who is gay WILL rape me anally.

Anyone who is black WILL shoot me.

Anyone who is poor WILL rob me.

Anyone who is Muslim WILL attack me.

Anyone who is Communist WILL change my political system.


IN CONCLUSION


What? Did I offend anyone? That's too bad. Because it MUST be true.
ALL stereotypes are true. Just as ALL Anarchists WILL be violent.

By the way, in case you didn't pick it up, I was being sarcastic.






Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.



I have the right to say what I said above. (Whether I meant it seriously or not.)

Also, taking away the rights of the Anarchist websites, (freedom of speech)
The American Government WILL destroy itself, and everything it stands for.



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 05:45 AM
link   
Finally, someone who get's it....


AP&F...Comrade!



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gear
Also, taking away the rights of the Anarchist websites, (freedom of speech)
The American Government WILL destroy itself, and everything it stands for.


Excellent summary.


Even if it were true that all anarchists = promote violence, such speech is still protected. It only becomes unprotected when it incites violence (as opposed to generally supporting it).

Of course, the premise that anarchists = promote violence is generally false anyway so the point is moot.



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 12:43 PM
link   
A lot of posts regarding this topic seem to suggest, or imply, that the FBI, the US constitution and the freedom of speech (whatever that is) are relevant to this debate. As far as i understand, ATS is a website hosted and controlled from within the The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? The last time I looked, i couldn't see the acronym 'FBI' or 'USA' mentioned anywhere within the literature published by the current elected government of our 'state'. I am also led to believe that the 'internet' is not, and never has been, a wholly owned subsidiary of the United States of America and therefore jurisdictional responsibility is solely down to a more localised country level. Is the US the NWO? do they indeed own and control everything on earth now? If so, why can’t I get hold of a ‘twinky’ when I buy my fish and chips with a jug of warm ale, I do apologise for to my American cousins, of course I meant cold ‘beer’?






new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join