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.

 

Those Pesky Anarchists

page: 5
9
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


If you want to read my responses on Anarchist/Black-bloc tactics then please see this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...




posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 01:27 AM
link   
Ok, fine, whatever. It's my belief that Anarchy is a stupid pathetic system that will never ever work in society, by virtue of the fact that anarchy is anti society.

But believe whatever you want, when these right wing idiots that want to start a violent revolution finally snap and do something, don't come crying to me when you are in their gun sights too.

Don't come crying to me if society completely collapses into anarchy and it's not all fun, games and rainbows like you think it will be.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by joechip
reply to post by whatukno
 


Looks like you buy the lie. Have you never heard of government agent provocateurs? Here's a little info on what really went down.

www.globalresearch.ca...

Open your mind a little.


I'm gonna have to disagree with you on that, man.

There is no proof that agent provocateurs were involved in the recent G20 events... in fact most Anarchists resent propaganda that labels black bloc actions as simply police infiltration.

For my responses on the matter, please see here (pg 3-4)...

www.abovetopsecret.com...


And here (pg 10-12)...

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
Ok, fine, whatever. It's my belief that Anarchy is a stupid pathetic system



When you've been thoroughly trounced in a political debate, the gracious and adult response would be to acknowledge your opponent's valid points and bow out with dignity. You have instead tried to degrade the argument into juvenile insults. The above quote says it all. I think I for one, am done with this. It's like debating a teenager.

edit to add: no offense intended any intelligent, and intellectually honest teenagers out there.

[edit on 27-8-2010 by joechip]



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
Ok, fine, whatever. It's my belief that Anarchy is a stupid pathetic system that will never ever work in society, by virtue of the fact that anarchy is anti society.

But believe whatever you want, when these right wing idiots that want to start a violent revolution finally snap and do something, don't come crying to me when you are in their gun sights too.

Don't come crying to me if society completely collapses into anarchy and it's not all fun, games and rainbows like you think it will be.



Dont you think I AM concerned that those batsh*t right-wingers will start a revolution? I AM! I will be exceedingly p*ssed off if those paranoid, mindless tea-baggers start some kind of revolution based on lies and propaganda. But their revolution is not the one I support... I support the revolution that precedes and exceeds theirs in every single way- an intelligent, ultimately peaceful, and transparent/truthful left-wing one. I'm not saying that right-wingers don't have a place in fighting tyranny... but I see the recent phony populist, conspiracy-theory driven fervor as potentially bringing about the OPPOSITE of freedom and instead a quasi-fascist state, which I would absolutely resist as severely as possible.

Also... don't confuse my support for Anarchism with support for ANY/ALL alternatives to the current system nor for support for a more destructive/brutal world. If Anarchism is implemented (if intentional) it MUST be implemented relatively gradually, peacefully, tactically, sustainably and consensually. Of course... certain circumstances require different reactions due to their severity or lack thereof, but I'm well aware that rampant chaos/tyranny (even without government) would NOT be preferable/desirable and therefore must be avoided intelligently.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 02:32 AM
link   
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 


I read your previous posts on the subject and it seems you do know of what you speak, however, the video in my link does contain a news report where the Quebec Provincial Police ADMIT such provocation...at least admit that three men, clearly provoking violence were indeed policemen. This was Montebello 2007, and not the recent events...the evidence there was more circumstantial and based mostly on similar footwear.

Nonetheless, my earlier response did imply that such tactics were largely a media fiction based on provocateurs and the television footage of such. I stand corrected. I think that does happen and it makes sense that the government and media would use such tactics, but I'm not informed enough to make such a sweeping assertion. A rare treat, I've learned something this evening. Thanks.

edit to add: A question for you; do you believe the appearance (and occasional admission) of police provocateurs is disinfo to declaw, so to speak, the actual tactics of black bloc anarchists...seems a little weak on the face of it--I haven't actually read that you believe that, mind you, I'm just asking your opinion.

[edit on 27-8-2010 by joechip]



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 04:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by joechip
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 


I read your previous posts on the subject and it seems you do know of what you speak, however, the video in my link does contain a news report where the Quebec Provincial Police ADMIT such provocation...at least admit that three men, clearly provoking violence were indeed policemen. This was Montebello 2007, and not the recent events...the evidence there was more circumstantial and based mostly on similar footwear.

Nonetheless, my earlier response did imply that such tactics were largely a media fiction based on provocateurs and the television footage of such. I stand corrected. I think that does happen and it makes sense that the government and media would use such tactics, but I'm not informed enough to make such a sweeping assertion. A rare treat, I've learned something this evening. Thanks.

edit to add: A question for you; do you believe the appearance (and occasional admission) of police provocateurs is disinfo to declaw, so to speak, the actual tactics of black bloc anarchists...seems a little weak on the face of it--I haven't actually read that you believe that, mind you, I'm just asking your opinion.

[edit on 27-8-2010 by joechip]


Oh yeah, I absolutely don't dispute the Montebello provocateurs. I remember when that first happened, it was fairly obvious they were cops disguised and it was both funny and rewarding seeing them get identified and booted out by activists.

Ya know... I have thought of that. Just the NOTION of provocateurs can cause infighting, if not between Anarchists (who are used to this sort of thing), then between/amongst left-wing protesters overall. What we saw after the G20 events was a SLEW of left-wing activists denouncing the black-bloc actions as police infiltration/provocateurs. Anarchists were actually offended by this and denounced it right away. There is yet no evidence of police provocateurs at G20 (though it's very possible they were there in some capacity). HOWEVER, I think any provocateur actions will backfire simply because Anarchists are quite open in debate about their tactics with nothing to hide (except perhaps their faces from surveillance). So, the police aren't exposing anything, they're just creating a phantom paranoia used to briefly marginalize the actions of the black-bloc... the truth has been shown though and their efforts have garnered them minimal results. While there was faked outrage over the burning of a cop car... does/should anybody really give a crap when that happens? I'd say no.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 04:31 AM
link   
reply to post by joechip
 


But the reason why we lived like that for so long is not very encouraging. It was because we had no choice, we had to work full time just to get food. We were literally physically enslaved to labor like a bunch of animals. And the consequences of it were severe. No education, no health care, no freedom of speech etc etc. I am not sure if people have that in mind when they talk about anarchy.

The "natural" state of humans involves a lot of suffering. You say modern society is stressful, but I think it is more stressful to not know if there is enough food to get through the winter. Or that the neighboring tribe will attack. Or you will die of a cold.

In a modern society we have a choice. We can live with as little stress as we like, which seems the most unnatural state there is to me. We can also work ourselves to death which seems more natural. I am happy we outgrew this natural state and are now capable of so much more. Or I just miss the point of what you mean with "natural state".

As for the technology, I do not believe in these kind of conspiracies. Sure there have been attempts to hold back technologies, but that can't be done for a very long time, at most a couple of decennia. There are too many parties involved all with different interests. Modern society (with capitalism) has given us much more technology than any society ever in the history of man kind. Besides that, I strongly do not believe technology will be the key anyhow. If you want to have a more responsible population that can live without authority, this will have to come either from education or genetic manipulation, probably both.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by joechip
 


But the reason why we lived like that for so long is not very encouraging. It was because we had no choice, we had to work full time just to get food. We were literally physically enslaved to labor like a bunch of animals. And the consequences of it were severe. No education, no health care, no freedom of speech etc etc. I am not sure if people have that in mind when they talk about anarchy.

The "natural" state of humans involves a lot of suffering. You say modern society is stressful, but I think it is more stressful to not know if there is enough food to get through the winter. Or that the neighboring tribe will attack. Or you will die of a cold..


Actually, hunter-gatherer societies work less, war less, there is "healthcare", and I don't know where you get the idea that their is no "freedom of speech" --that concept doesn't even make sense in a hunter-gatherer context.
Check out the article here:
www.raw-food-health.net...
or if that seems too biased simply google the topic, there are many articles out there dispelling your misconceptions.

But I think your statement that it's more "natural" to you to work one's self to death than to enjoy one's life shows me that we're probably not going to come to any sort of consensus on the basic point. Enjoy the modern world, I guess.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by joechip
 


Sure there are some hunter gatherer tribes that created a "successful" community. Exceptions prove the rule. Do you seriously think this will work for the majority of humans on earth?

Maybe it is also just a matter of taste. I absolutely do not prefer to live in such a society. I enjoy the benefits modern society gives us. I am happy. Of course the will be people who call my happiness "fake", but it is real to me, so whatever. Not my problem.

But still, northing stops anyone from starting their anarchist society. There are still areas on earth pretty much unclaimed. There is even an example of it in the UK. So why not just do it? What is holding you back? Think about it.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 12:33 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Wow. Is no one on these forums capable of admitting when they are wrong about an issue?

And I'm not talking about your opinions, likes and dislikes, etc. I'm talking about the actual discourse, where you make an incorrect, uninformed claim about hunter-gatherer society, I refute it with evidence, and you respond with "the exception proves the rule," huh? What exception? We're talking about the way ALL humans lived for the vast majority of our time on the planet. Not starving, not working as much as modern man does, living as long or longer, and not having or needing the hierarchical control mechanisms that define the modern world.

edit to remove nonessentials....


[edit on 28-8-2010 by joechip]



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 05:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by joechip
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Wow. Is no one on these forums capable of admitting when they are wrong about an issue?

And I'm not talking about your opinions, likes and dislikes, etc. I'm talking about the actual discourse, where you make an incorrect, uninformed claim about hunter-gatherer society, I refute it with evidence, and you respond with "the exception proves the rule," huh? What exception? We're talking about the way ALL humans lived for the vast majority of our time on the planet. Not starving, not working as much as modern man does, living as long or longer, and not having or needing the hierarchical control mechanisms that define the modern world.

edit to remove nonessentials....


[edit on 28-8-2010 by joechip]


Indeed.

Though it is a myth that tribal peoples lived in some perfect utopia (i.e. the "noble savage") it is ALSO a myth that their lives were nasty, brutish, and short.

It has been found that, indeed, tribal peoples worked less hours to get what they needed than modern workers do. The rest of their time was spent in leisure- socializing, telling stories, learning skills, laying around relaxing, eating, and so on and so forth. Most tribal warfare was not very dangerous and produced little casualties; it served more as a symbolic/ritual pressure release within and amongst tribes than as a function of genocide, conquest, or destruction. To put it simply... tribal/band societies stood the cultural test of time, evolving as an extremely successful/sustainable basis for human society much as packs for wolves, pods for whales, flocks for birds, schools for fish, and so on. We as a species are currently living like a combination of bee hive, ant colony, machine and virus... and this is NOT an acceptable way for us to function, no matter how many marvelous/beautiful creations we have produced.

Of course there were exceptions to THIS rule... but overall, tribal peoples lived a respectably good life where children were born into an ancient culture that offered a massive wealth of knowledge on how to survive and thrive in the wilderness. They did not have to go to some rigid, compulsory institution to learn these things, they didn't need to pay any money, the knowledge was inherited at birth and passed on. These were humans who were every bit as smart/capable as we are. In fact... they may have been better off knowing how to turn this planet's raw materials into tools of survival than we are- seeing as most of us (within "civilization") know neither how to survive in the wilderness nor how to build/produce the majority of components of our very own society.

Of course... 7 billion people very likely couldn't return to a hunter-gatherer way of life. HOWEVER, such a suggestion is merely a straw-man used against Anarchists (which I'm sure you know) without consideration for our actual points (which are quite valid).



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 05:21 AM
link   
reply to post by joechip
 


Maybe I was wrong about the amount of labor, but I think my general point still stands. Compared to our standards that kind of life it is not preferable at all. In many areas it was harsh for those people. I think the fact that nobody chooses for that kind of life proves that point. Besides, it only works with very small populations. An interesting question is how they achieved population control. All in all I just don't think that this is what what most anarchists have in mind. If it is then the question remains, whats stopping you.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by joechip
 


Maybe I was wrong about the amount of labor, but I think my general point still stands. Compared to our standards that kind of life it is not preferable at all. In many areas it was harsh for those people. I think the fact that nobody chooses for that kind of life proves that point. Besides, it only works with very small populations. An interesting question is how they achieved population control. All in all I just don't think that this is what what most anarchists have in mind. If it is then the question remains, whats stopping you.


In certain ways, our way of life is certainly preferable... though, there are plenty of people in dire poverty who would probably do BETTER in a tribal society than they are now. A considerable portion of humanity is in dire poverty. In certain other ways, though, I'm sure that tribal life in general would probably provide a BETTER life than even the ones we are living now within modern mainstream American society. Just because we have a bunch of marvelous tech-gadgets and more stupid food than we can store, doesn't necessarily mean we're set to thrive as human beings, nor does it mean that we're not lacking other things we need as humans. In fact... I think humans need strong social bonds/support more than they need consumer goods.

The thing is... most of the good/fertile/safe/abundant land was stolen by civilization as it rampaged across the planet, destroying and gobbling up all the tribes. Those tribals who escaped annihilation or assimilation were put onto reserves, which were/are on some of the sh*ttiest land on the planet. The fact that nobody CHOOSES that way of life is due to a whole host of factors and people are never really given a choice either. Most people don't know/understand that way of life, most of our knowledge/heritage has been wiped out, most tribal peoples have been wiped out and/or their cultures destroyed by civilization, and yes modern tribals tend to live on the most inhospitable land (because it's more difficult for civilization to develop it).

As for population levels... there have been studies done and while it's foggy exactly how many people can be supported in an egalitarian society, the most common figure is around 150. So... roughly 150 people or less can function well together in a tribal and/or egalitarian society without need for authority/hierarchy.

It would be stupid for most people, even Anarchists, to start living off the land without a lot of knowledge, skills, and land to do it on. Plenty of people do it to varying degrees even nowadays, and personally I've already worked to gain survival/wilderness skills/knowledge as well as a larger aim of living sustainably/self-sufficiently off the grid.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 


You are right that in many parts in the world people would be better of if they lived in such tribes, but I won't go as far as to say that even people in a western society would be better off. Some people will prefer it, but I think most wont. I understand there are difficulties to start living like that, but those difficulties are not primarily caused by our current society not allowing it. It seems to me the main reason is that such a life just isn't easy, and you will have to give up a lot of benefits that we take for granted nowadays. You will also have a hard time finding enough people who agree to live with you like that. Still, its not impossible.

As for the population control, I must say I haven't studied it that well yet, but some articles I read so far say that the population remained small in size because of the huge amount of child deaths. I think for a modern tribe population control would also be a huge problem.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 


You are right that in many parts in the world people would be better of if they lived in such tribes, but I won't go as far as to say that even people in a western society would be better off. Some people will prefer it, but I think most wont. I understand there are difficulties to start living like that, but those difficulties are not primarily caused by our current society not allowing it. It seems to me the main reason is that such a life just isn't easy, and you will have to give up a lot of benefits that we take for granted nowadays. You will also have a hard time finding enough people who agree to live with you like that. Still, its not impossible.

As for the population control, I must say I haven't studied it that well yet, but some articles I read so far say that the population remained small in size because of the huge amount of child deaths. I think for a modern tribe population control would also be a huge problem.


I agree that most people wouldn't choose to live a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. However, my point was that tribal societies ALSO had many things (that fulfilled peoples lives) that we in the industrialized world have lost. The ability to breathe clean air, drink clean water, hunt/forage our own healthy foods, being intimately close to the wilderness/other life forms, being intimately close to our fellow humans in tightly-knit tribes, not having to re-invent the wheel for every child trying to become an adult, being generally free/un-oppressed by authority figures, the list can go on. People today CRAVE a strong sense of belonging, kinship, brotherhood, family, common interests/activities, common strengths and even defenses... this is why modern people join all sorts of things (both productive and not so much) like gangs, cults, sports, sports fans, religions, clubs, subcultures, trends/styles, etc. etc. This is not a bad thing that we desire/need such strong belonging to a like-minded group... but it is something we've largely lost in favor of a more individualistic/atomized society where even these groups don't last long. Tribal peoples had a group that would support them from life to death, it was a GREAT source of security and love for humans. Nowadays people (not to sound contrived) aren't feeling the love or belonging and thus we suffer. Of course... there are all sorts of different people living different lives, and for the most part we get by and have our fun. However, I think we also have many problems we're scratching our heads over that can be traced back to preferred lifestyles during our evolution. Essentially... humans have evolved to live in tribes in the wilderness (more so than any other lifestyle)... and now, even though we have many toys, modern medicine, and great physical security (well... some of us, especially those who can afford it) we still feel like something's missing, no?

Also... there are many modern people (especially in 1st world countries) who are turning to such alternative lifestyles. Perhaps not hunter-gatherer in the traditional sense, but certainly a more tribal, down to Earth, sustainable, and egalitarian lifestyle. Definitely check out what are called 'intentional communities':

en.wikipedia.org...

Population control is a very tricky, controversial, and messy issue. It's not that easy for ANYONE to sort out... but regardless of the difficulties associated, it still remains a HUGE problem for us. We are literally converting the bio-mass of the planet into more humans and at a rate that (even if indirectly) is causing the Earth's 6th Great Extinction. Now many people believe the "MORE PEOPLE IS BETTER!" equation... but that's dangerous and even greedy. It is absolutely possible to be greedy with accumulating new human lives on the planet... we could fill the entire planet with people and have hundreds of billions! But would that be so great?? I'd think absolutely not, because as the world's population increases on a finite planet, the suffering of other humans also increases to the point where life isn't so great... in fact a huge number of people are already feeling such an effect all over the world. I can't say I know the solution... like I said it's messy, but there is one major function of population (and thus overpopulation) that is very KEY to its level- and that is FOOD SUPPLY. The whole reason we have been reproducing like bacteria is because we began to practice totalitarian agriculture 10,000 years ago and produced GREAT surpluses of starchy foods. From that we exploded in populations like mice in a grain silo... to the point where now we are doubling the population (not just from millions to millions but from BILLIONS to BILLIONS) every 35 years! Thus... ultimately the solution to population must be a reduction in food supply. Now this doesn't mean that we can't still redistribute food to the poor/impoverished, but it does mean we'll have to limit production in order to stabilize population. That is the most scientific/sensible solution I've heard. More info can be found here...

World Food and Human Population Growth

Another major problem is our LIFESTYLE in conjunction with large populations. Here's a quote that illustrates this well, IMO:

"Diversity, not uniformity, is what works. Our problem is not that people are living a bad way but rather that they're all living the same way. The earth can accomodate many people lving in a voraciously wasteful and pollutive way, it just can't accomodate all of us living that way.
-Daniel Quinn, Beyond Civilisation, page 97

[edit on 28-8-2010 by NoHierarchy]



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 06:56 AM
link   
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 


I think we agree on most parts. One side note is that modern tribal live can never be a replacement for what we have now, unless the population gets decimated. An interesting thing about population control is that wealthy countries show a stabilization in population. Mainly poor countries still show growth. Although lowering food supply will decrease populations, it is a sort of genocide. I rather see a more proactive solution. For example, give people who had 1 or 2 children a benefit when they let themselves sterilize.




top topics



 
9
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join