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: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 19 2005 @ 01:54 PM
link   
This thread should be moved to the Debate forum now!




posted on May, 20 2005 @ 01:34 AM
link   
Anarchists Demand Government Protection!


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.

While I am a major fan of the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights in particular (which makes me a "statist", I suppose), I still find it absolutely hilarious and stunningly hypocritical that anyone going by the moniker of "anarchist" would insist on government protection.

Perhaps we should arrange for government financing of "anarchy" as well?

Perhaps a pension plan and health coverage for all those poor anarchists out there who can't seem to get by without the shelter of oppressive government?

This is un-freakin'-believable. You have to be pulling my leg!

"Anarchists" who demand government protection are NOT anarchists, just spectacular hypocrites -- as well as insufferable wussies.

CLUE: The only rights you have are the rights you can defend.

If you can't make it on your own, you're not an anarchist, just a tool.

All my humble opinions, of course, as protected by my beloved "statist" Constitution.

ADDITIONAL CLUE: Anarchy= No government = No Constitution = No Constitutional Protection.

That IS what you want, right? Or are you demanding "constitutional anarchy"?

Sorry, I just can't stop laughing. This is incredibly funny, and I say that with all due respect.



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 04:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
Anarchists Demand Government Protection!

That IS what you want, right? Or are you demanding "constitutional anarchy"?

Sorry, I just can't stop laughing. This is incredibly funny, and I say that with all due respect.


I love that your idea of what an Anarchist can or can not do ammuses you so much. Maybe if you read some books you'd find it less funny.
You're too hung up on the dictionary term. The dictionary doesn't explain Anarchism thought, only what the base word means.

You know anyone can call themselves an Anarchists, but can you really live as an Anarchist when there is government? The answer is not really, so we're only Anarchists in theory. We have to work with what we've got, within the unfortunate confines of government. So yes, we can demand "rights" such as free speech.
It's not asking for protection. The government doesn't protect free speech, it either allows it or doesn't allow it. And just like any free loving person should, we demand it.
Your constitution is not the be all and end all of what we should demand as our rights. And if you haven't noticed, your constitution ain't really worth much any more. Come back in ten years and see if you still have your constitution, or any of your rights left.
If your government can bend and change the constitution to fit it's agenda then it's not worth the paper it's written on.

AP&F...Comrade.



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
I still find it absolutely hilarious and stunningly hypocritical that anyone going by the moniker of "anarchist" would insist on government protection.


The argument is merely for the government to leave them alone, not to protect them per se.


Originally posted by Majic
CLUE: The only rights you have are the rights you can defend.


That's true. Is it your contention that persuasion is an invalid means of defending one's rights? If you work the system against itself to defend your rights, you still have defended them.



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 08:35 PM
link   
A Laugh A Minute


Originally posted by ANOK
I love that your idea of what an Anarchist can or can not do ammuses you so much. Maybe if you read some books you'd find it less funny.

No, it's still quite funny. The real anarchists I've read about don't expect a free ride like posers do.

I've already pointed out the fallacy of making assumptions about what I do or do not know -- or in this case, what I have or have not read.

My awareness of “Anarchists” and the long, convoluted history of that movement and its various sects extends well beyond the covers of my cherished copy of the Anarchist Cookbook.

Highlighting your own expressed ignorance of what I know will not convince me or anyone else that you're right, so again, I recommend abandoning that pointless form of argument.

Terms Of Estrangement


Originally posted by ANOK
You're too hung up on the dictionary term. The dictionary doesn't explain Anarchism thought, only what the base word means.

I think I've made a very reasonable point about not accepting your false definitions as a basis for discussion.

You're expecting me to engage in intellectual dishonesty, and I'm really trying to get out of that nasty habit.

Walking The Walk


Originally posted by ANOK
You know anyone can call themselves an Anarchists, but can you really live as an Anarchist when there is government?

Yes, you can. People have been doing it since before there was even a concept of government.

True anarchists live as they please, government be damned.

Whining about government while sitting on your butt is not true anarchism, which is the point I've been trying (fruitlessly, it seems) to make.

If you really want to be an anarchist, no one can stop you.

Making such a choice means you may die an anarchist, but at least you were a real one, rather than a wannabe.

What I see here is people who not only don't walk the walk, but don't even talk the talk.

Where We Agree


Originally posted by ANOK
The answer is not really, so we're only Anarchists in theory.

Then, by your own definition, you are not a real anarchist.

You said it yourself. I'm just trying to help you realize it.

As a healthy adult male who finds women sexually attractive, I could claim to be a lesbian “in theory”, but that doesn't make me one.

So it is with being an “anarchist”.

Want to be one? Then be one.

Solitary Confinement


Originally posted by ANOK
We have to work with what we've got, within the unfortunate confines of government. So yes, we can demand "rights" such as free speech.

Egads! You have to work within the confines of government? Heresy!

Verily, verily I say unto thee: ye do not!

Even I, who has been unfairly and inaccurately labeled a “statist”, don't believe such nonsense.

You are enslaving yourself to government with such assertions.

That is something I will never do, even as a person who is sworn to uphold the Constitution,* so why are you, a self-styled “Anarchist”, prostrating yourself before the altar of government?

This whole business of expecting permission from government to be anarchists is what I find so ludicrous.

If you are a true Anarchist, then renounce government.

And accept the consequences with dignity.

Wrong Rights


Originally posted by ANOK
It's not asking for protection. The government doesn't protect free speech, it either allows it or doesn't allow it. And just like any free loving person should, we demand it.

You have free speech only as long as you protect it.

The truth is that no one has any rights they cannot defend.

Millions of people have died in genocides bitterly demanding their rights. They're dead. They were, de facto, fatally mistaken about their rights.

They are dead because they didn't protect their own right to live. Thus was it forfeited.

A true anarchist would know this.

Ten Years Gone


Originally posted by ANOK
Your constitution is not the be all and end all of what we should demand as our rights. And if you haven't noticed, your constitution ain't really worth much any more. Come back in ten years and see if you still have your constitution, or any of your rights left.

While I can't see the future, I intend to stay right here, and need not “come back” to know my rights, as I hope I have already explained clearly enough.

I have never, ever in all my years on this planet claimed that the Constitution is the “be all and end all of what we should demand as our rights”, so let's just throw that ugly little straw man out the door.

The Constitution thoughtfully enumerates a list of rights it guarantees. It also, courtesy of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, specifically points out that it doesn't list them all. Ignorance of that fact doesn't change it.

The rights guaranteed by the Constitution are meaningless unless people uphold and defend it. That goes for you and anyone else who wishes to claim its protection.

The U.S. Constitution is worth far more than a bunch of cheap talk because people like me back it up with action, just as we've sworn to.

Governments can walk all over self-styled “anarchists” because “anarchists” are impotent by their own choice and are, ultimately, the sole authors of their own tragic downfalls.

Beware the enemy in the mirror.

Paper Mills


Originally posted by ANOK
If your government can bend and change the constitution to fit it's agenda then it's not worth the paper it's written on.

Paper is almost as cheap as talk.

It would be a gross understatement to claim that I am satisfied with the current state of affairs with respect to the U.S. government. My list of grievances is probably much longer than yours.

However, I think it's worth fixing, and we seem to disagree on that.

I am always willing to consider a better alternative, but so far, no one has presented one.

In fact, no one has presented one which even looks better on paper -- speaking of worthless paper.

Don't Get Me Wrong

I know my arguments sound harsh, but I really do find your point of view absurd, and don't want to lie to you about that.

I'm trying my level best not to be insulting, but I can't keep people from insulting themselves. That is outside my ability.

There's no nice way to be honest about this.

Perhaps the greatest irony here is that I am probably more of an anarchist than you are.

I want limited government, not its abolition, nor the tyranny of a commune nor “revolutionary icon” like Castro who is nothing more than an egotistical, self-serving despot.

Offering me these things as an alternative to constitutional government is a waste of time.

If You Really Want To Know What I Think About My Government, Here It Is

Government is currently slipping out of control in the United States, and power is becoming increasingly concentrated in the pernicious doctrine of federal absolutism.

This has been going on for a long time. It's a gradual but definite erosion of the balance of power described by the Constitution.

The original constitutional model of balancing state powers against federal powers was nullified by such travesties as the Seventeenth Amendment, which in a single stroke summarily abolished federal representation of state governments and disenfranchised all sovereign states from the union.

This, among other things, has turned us away from a carefully balanced government toward a cancerous form of oligarchical despotism.

But we did it to ourselves. If we want that to change, we're going to have to get off our butts and do something about it.

At present, the best means for doing so, in my opinion, is via the political process.

My Point Again

My point is that bitching about it on the Internet and calling for a “grass roots” Marxist revolution isn't going to solve anything, and does nothing other than make you look silly.

Ignore me if you like, these are my honest opinions, and I am not at all ashamed to share them in the most direct and unequivocal way I can.

I'm pretty sure I understand your position, and I'm saying I think you're wrong -- tragically so, in fact.

If you can't understand my position, it's not for lack of trying on my part.

And you don't have to throw away your dictionary to do so.

Topical Toppings

Finally, as for the original topic of this thread, why don't we consider me one of those who is attacking “Anarchist” websites, and add “Anarchists” themselves while we're at it.

I am, it would seem, your sworn enemy, and am not at all shy about that.

But I don't think forcefully shutting down websites with abusive police actions is at all necessary or justified. I don't agree with such tactics, if they are, in fact what's really taking place.

In my opinion, a much more effective way to deal with “Anarchist” websites is to visit them and subsequently spread awareness of the intrinsic fallacies of “Anarchist” dogma.

Ultimately, all it will take is a logical examination of their absurd and hypocritical doctrines to take them down.

As far as I'm concerned, the FBI is the least of their problems.





* Even a sworn constitutionalist like me recognizes that we do not need to work within the confines of government. It is a choice we may make or not make, as we see fit. Never surrender that choice!


P.S. For what it's worth, if I didn't care, I would have ignored this thread a long time ago. In fact, I would have probably never posted to it at all.

However, I honestly, truly believe that although you're wrong, you're not stupid.

It is not my hope nor intention that you will take what I say at face value, but rather that it may inspire you to question your own assumptions, which I consider patently erroneous in places, and perhaps encourage you to chose a more rewarding path as a result.

The reason you're complaining is because you're not happy. My message is that you have the power to change that. My sharp words are intended to drive that point home.

The means I am using to do this can seem harsh and disrespectful, but no lesson worth learning comes without some effort or pain. Take it or leave it, I offer it to you nonetheless.

Wherever your path may lead you, I pray that you will find it fulfilling.

Very, very sincerely,

Majic



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 03:04 AM
link   
Okay. Hopefully this will be my last post in this thread.




I still find it absolutely hilarious and stunningly hypocritical that anyone going by the moniker of "anarchist" would insist on government protection.

I'm sorry for your loss.
Anarchists do not INSIST on government protection. They meerly demand the rights that EVERYONE else is granted (and everyone else is granted those rights without question).
So why stop there? Why not take away the rights of Blacks, and turn them into slaves? Why not take away these rights from Communist sympathisers, and imprison them? Why not take the rights away from citizens whom were born in hostile countries, and imprison them?
OH! SHOCK! I JUST REMEMBERED! America DID do the above. And now the government has apologised and this no longer happens.
What makes Anarchism any different?
Don't know the answer? That’s because there is no answer. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE.

And in anycase, READ what I said and decide:


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

I am not only defending the rights of both anarchists, AND citizens alike (like yourself). Read it carefully.
Let me give you an example.
The country XX has a dictatorship government. Mr Dictator cannot resolve an issue. He decides to get his citizens to vote on the matter.
BAM! The country is no longer a dictatorship.

Now the following is what is happening in America.
America is founded and based on the concept of a right to free speech for everyone. One day someone decides to take the rights away from a small minority group.
BAM! The country is no longer one of free speech to all.






Perhaps we should arrange for government financing of "anarchy" as well?

Perhaps a pension plan and health coverage for all those poor anarchists out there who can't seem to get by without the shelter of oppressive government?

I hope your pulling MY leg.
All we ask is for a RIGHT that is free to everyone.




"Anarchists" who demand government protection are NOT anarchists, just spectacular hypocrites -- as well as insufferable wussies.

Once again I must point out that we ask for a RIGHT that EVERYONE have. Not protection.
Why are they hypocrites? Because they cannot exist in a society such as yours without doing-so?
Come on Majic, do me a favour. Go to an Authority and DEMAND that he remove your GOD-GIVEN rights. I guarantee that they will do nothing more than laugh.
-And that is EXACTLY what you’re doing right now.



If you can't make it on your own, you're not an anarchist, just a tool.

Oh really? You took everything away from Native Americans.
AND GUESS WHAT? They COULDN'T make it on their own. YOU had to step in, and give them extra rights.




All my humble opinions, of course, as protected by my beloved "statist" Constitution.

What, the constitution ONLY applies to you and those like you?
NO. It applies to ALL its citizens.




ADDITIONAL CLUE: Anarchy= No government = No Constitution = No Constitutional Protection.

Let me revise this.
Anarchy = No government = No Constitution = No Problem.
Unfortunately we DO live in a governed society, with no options NOT to.
Whilst we live in one, all we ask is to have the same rights as everyone else.
Once again I must point to the communist sympathisers 50 odd years ago.
Communists still exist. Your next door neighbour may believe in communism.
But as you may know, he/she is not under house arrest because of this.




The real anarchists I've read about don't expect a free ride like posers do

THANK YOU! You prove my point with one line.
Christians believe in an after-life- IF they follow Jesus' scripts. So do they have the right to live? Ofcourse.
But what is important is this: Should all atheists and non Christians deserve to die because they are getting a FREE RIDE out of life because they don't follow Jesus' Scripture? OFCOURSE NOT!

Anarchist's (non-Christians) have the same RIGHT to constitutional rights (Life).

My point has been proven, but I will continue.




You know anyone can call themselves an Anarchists, but can you really live as an Anarchist when there is government?


Yes, you can. People have been doing it since before there was even a concept of government.


Yup. And that is EXACTLY what Anarchy is.
If there is no concept of government (or before a concept, as you stated), then what is it? It is quite clearly Anarchy.




True anarchists live as they please, government be damned.

That entire line is both incorrect and once again, stereotyped.

Do you know what the most effective government system is?
I'll give you a clue: ANTS.
Ants live in an Anarchist society. YES they have a Queen, but the word queen is just that. A word.
Every individual ant knows exactly what it must do, and does it without being told to. Anarchy.
The perfect working society.




Whining about government while sitting on your butt is not true anarchism, which is the point I've been trying (fruitlessly, it seems) to make.
If you really want to be an anarchist, no one can stop you.

Thankyou. You have proven my point AGAIN.
What is the original point of this discussion?
It's about the American Government STOPPING Anarchists who AREN'T sitting on their butt.




You have free speech only as long as you protect it.

How can we possibly protect the RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH it when the government doesn't give a chance.

Tell us RIGHT NOW how we can stop the government from closing those websites?




They are dead because they didn't protect their own right to live. Thus was it forfeited.

So let me get this straight. Everyone who died in the Salem witch-hunts DESERVED it, because they did not protect their right to live?
Give me a break.
Why not tell me that everyone who died on September 11 (or EVER) deserved it because they didn't protect their right to live.

OH! SORRY. I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU MENT NOW!
If I came to your house and blasted a whole in your head, I'm doing the right thing, because you didn't protect your right to live. Okay! Gotchya.





But I don't think forcefully shutting down websites with abusive police actions is at all necessary or justified. I don't agree with such tactics, if they are, in fact what's really taking place.

I just posted that quote to point out that I acknowledge what your saying.
(along with all else you stated after it.)



In my opinion, a much more effective way to deal with “Anarchist” websites is to visit them and subsequently spread awareness of the intrinsic fallacies of “Anarchist” dogma.

Agreed... but I wouldn't word it like that.

But then again (not for the sake of argument) How would you like it if a government official came to ATS and continually posted how UFO's, Paranormal activities, Crypts etc where all nonsense.



Peace out.
~Gear.


EDIT: Bad quote location.

[edit on 25-01-2004 by Gear]



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 04:27 AM
link   
Here is an interesting article on Anarchist organisation, for those that still think Anarchists organisation is an oxymoron...


I should remark that contrary to some misconceptions anarchists on the whole favour organisation. As Chomsky pointed out, gathering together people of like minds for a common purpose, which what essentially organisation is, breaks down feelings of isolation which are common in this society.


www.anarkismo.net...

So many misconceptions...

AP&F



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 05:56 AM
link   
Let's Cut To The Chase

So what the bloody hell is my problem?

I suppose we could summarize it this way:

1. I salute everyone who loves freedom and is willing to take a stand for it, no matter the cost.

2. I give the raspberry to those who claim to but don't.

Not all “anarchists” are disaffected youth, but most are.

You're saying you don't like the inheritance us older folks have left you.

To that I say: GOOD FOR YOU!

We've left a hell of a mess for you to clean up, and guess what? We got the same raw deal.

Why am I so ruthless in my criticism of you?

The answer is actually quite simple: because I know you can do better.

An Open Message To The Disaffected Youth Of The World (In Other Words, All Youth)

I am not lying to you when I say that I know for a fact you are the greatest generation in human history: the next generation.

It has been that way for as long as there have been people, it hasn't changed, and it is never going to change.

So give yourself some credit, because I do.

I am challenging you to realize your true potential.

And your true potential will not be realized in what you say, but what you do.

I am dead serious about this, so shut up and listen carefully.

My Message For The Greatest Generation

Note: This is stolen in part from the afterword of a story I'm writing aimed at young teens, but this may apply to you. If it doesn't, then read it anyway.

You are the conquerors of stars and dreams.

You are the inheritors of all that humankind possesses to bestow upon you.

With you all our hope rests. We pray that you will not fail us.

As you go forth to live the life ahead of you, know beyond all doubt that my confidence, my blessings and my heart go with you.

For you, nothing is impossible, because I bequeath to you the power of unlimited possibilities.

Use this power wisely, because you only get to use it once, and your life is your chance to do so.

Now get busy.

The universe awaits your command.



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
1. I salute everyone who loves freedom and is willing to take a stand for it, no matter the cost.


I'm curious what you think freedom is. Anarchy is classical liberalism, aka freedom, taken to it's natural extreme. Many of the founders, such as Jefferson, were minarchists only because they didn't think anarchy was sustainable, not because they thought it was philosophically incorrect.



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
Let's Cut To The Chase

You're saying you don't like the inheritance us older folks have left you.


If your last post was in reply to me, then you've got a bad case of foot in mouth disease. I left my youth behind a long time ago.


You're too hung up on the idea that Anarchists are teenage bomb carrying rebel wannabees, who will become conservative when they "grow up".

So many misconceptions...

AP&F



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

You're too hung up on the idea that Anarchists are teenage bomb carrying rebel wannabees, who will become conservative when they "grow up".



I probably let him off the hook too easily for that one. I left my youth behind long ago as well. Most people who have not actually read what anarchists have to say just assume they are angry youth rather than philosophers.

Anyone heard of Murray Rothbard? Ludwig von Mises? These were hardly disgruntled youth.

Just as a Republic proved itself capable of replacing a monarchy, anarchy may yet prove itself capable of replacing the entire concept of land mass based monopolies we call states.

I think the biggest mistake people who have never read anything about anarchy make is to assume to confuse it with chaos.



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 12:05 AM
link   
The Fine Print


Originally posted by Majic

Note: This is stolen in part from the afterword of a story I'm writing aimed at young teens, but this may apply to you. If it doesn't, then read it anyway.

You are free to limit yourselves however you like, and there is certainly nothing I can do to change that.

We can ridicule one another to our mutual disgrace, and accomplish nothing.

I have expounded in detail on what a true anarchist is.

I could call myself a "Communist" and rabidly promote free-market Capitalism. All that would do is highlight my own confusion about who I truly am.

I can offer you my crticism and perspectives, and you can challenge or ignore them. Such is the way of the world.

If my words fail to inspire you to examine your assumptions, then that is my failure.

But ultimately, the loss is yours, not mine.

Take it for what it's worth, or leave it.

Your choice.



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
You are free to limit yourselves however you like, and there is certainly nothing I can do to change that.


What the hell are you talking about? Who's limiting who? I don't know where you're getting your assumptions form, it's certainly not me.
Are you saying being against violence is limiting our selfs, and it's wrong for an Anarchist to be anti-violence?

You haven't said anything about what a true Anarchist is. You are just making assumptions based on a weak definition of the word Anarchy.

None of your precious words have inspired me to do anything other than laugh at your absurd assumptions.
And why do you feel the need to apologise for everything you say?

AP&F...



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 01:51 AM
link   
Good. Hope they close them down.
Too many of them hide behind the 'freedom of speech' slogan.



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ghaele
Good. Hope they close them down.
Too many of them hide behind the 'freedom of speech' slogan.


So you're saying you support the silencing of anybody you don't agree with?
Isn't that a little narrow minded?
Freedom of speech isn't a slogan, it's a right (or should be).

What would you say if they decided to silence you?

I'm sure you've heard this before, but just in case you haven't...



First They Came for the Jews

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemöller


Think about it.

AP&F...



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ghaele
Good. Hope they close them down.
Too many of them hide behind the 'freedom of speech' slogan.


They can't close them down. They'll just move the sites offshore like everything else. The act of trying to close them down will add fuel to the fire.



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
... The act of trying to close them down will add fuel to the fire.


Good! One need more 'fire'. And then arrests, and then more people going up in flames, and all this will give the rest of us something to talk about over a cup of tea. THAT is the most important thing. So I'm all for forbidding everything so that as many people as possible gets arrested wich ultimatley leads to revolutions...



Originally posted by ANOK
So you're saying you support the silencing of anybody you don't agree with?
Isn't that a little narrow minded?
What would you say if they decided to silence you?


Sure! Only then can I be heard!
Being narrowminded isn't so bad as the rumors make it!
Arrest 'em.
Me, I'm just in a disagreeable mood



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghaele
So I'm all for forbidding everything so that as many people as possible gets arrested wich ultimatley leads to revolutions...


They're smarter than that. They'll arrest just enough, including you.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join