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.

 

Anarchists Are Bad People?

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Constantlysilenced
 


I did not cover my tracks. My original message is still very much intact. I added to my post, I did not detract. In fact, I added discussion to the topic of this thread because the discussion needs to get back on topic.




posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by bozzchem
 


The way U.S. society is setup is quite strange to me. You ask why do we need "rulers"?

I believe that when people live in groups, leaders will naturally arise because of their genuine ability to benefit their society. However, this natural ascension of leaders works in a way much opposed to the democratic process. In theory, people may or may not be voted in to office based on their ability to lead, their ambition to better their constituents or any number of other benevolent factors.

In reality, when it comes to high level politics, it seems the wealthy are able to finance a better emotionally driven campaign than the rest.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 04:36 PM
link   
Someone is ignoring me, civil HA!


It's called freedom of speech and expression, I know it is counter to your left wing marxist mindset but I'm sure you'll get used to it.

HA! No freedom of speech on a public forum, but that is moot.

Freedom of speech does not cover lies. And that is what you are doing, lying! Ever hear of libel? Slander? Guess what, that is what you did in this one sentence. I am neither "left wing" nor "Marxist" and you calling me such without proof is libel and slander. And if you continue, I will report your vile hatred to the mods.


The sheer irony is, whilst I have remained civil...

REALLY? This is civil:


it is counter to your left wing marxist mindset

And

you have been the one with a bad attitude and rudeness

And

Anarchy is violent communism and should be brutally repressed by governments.

And, last but not least

is, always has been, and always will be a cancer on this earth. And Anarchists are always middle classed, privilaged little mummies boys who like to throw big tantrums and wreck property when they don't get their own way.


Could you please point out how those are being civil? Then point out where I have done the same thing, or worse?

As anyone can plainly see, I (The anarchist) is not being uncivil, or violent. In fact, the only violence I have seen is that from the "Democratic Republic" folks. Oh, and you can ignore me again. I know you can not "get under my skin" which I think is what you are planning. Because, like you said:


who like to throw big tantrums and wreck property when they don't get their own way.


Seems that the pot is calling the kettle black.
edit on 1/1/2011 by adigregorio because: Shooting a BB



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by bozzchem
 


Anarchy in principal is much different than Anarchy in practice. Anarchy in principal like a lot of political systems seems ok, but when put into practice, well, doesn't quite work out very well.

The truth is, humanity decided to civilize itself. Upon doing that, they decided on a code of laws that everyone agreed to abide by.

Anarchists on the other hand tend to give a big middle finger to the rules that society has chosen to abide by and instead want to throw bricks through windows and set dumpsters on fire.

Most anarchists that I have met are kids with parental and or authority issues, basically what they appear to be are white middle class suburban brats who want to rage against the machine and attend burning man while at the same time use copious amounts of narcotics.

Anarchists seem to have the following plan:

Step 1: Rage against the machine, do drugs, throw bricks through windows, light dumpsters on fire.

Step 2: ???

Step 3: Anarchy!

I would recommend that anyone who is really interested in anarchy as a political form go over to Somalia and live for a while, get to know what Anarchy really is like.



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Those people you choose to represent anarchy do not represent anarchy. They represent ignorance.

An anarchist society would not be structureless. Somalia is not a terrible place because it is lacking a goverment.

edit: I thought the wordfilter would take care of that..
edit on 2-1-2011 by JohnnyTHSeed because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-1-2011 by JohnnyTHSeed because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyTHSeed
 


Exactly, correlation does not equal causation!

The reason these governments, or lack of, do not work is because people don't give themselves enough credit. (Myself, again, included.)

Saftey nets are called such for a reason, nothing wrong with them. I just don't think I need one. (Key words, "I" and "think" (IE my opinion
))
edit on 1/2/2011 by adigregorio because: To add: "or lack of"



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyTHSeed
 


I am afraid I am not the one that chose those people to represent anarchy, they are the ones that chose themselves to represent anarchy. Entire message boards are up where these folks detail their plans for G-20 meetings where lists of businesses are made that they want to target.


This is the face of Anarchy.


This is the face of Anarchy


This is the face of Anarchy.

If you don't want these people to be the face of Anarchy, then they must be marginalized and spoken out against publicly. Anarchy as a political movement will always be seen as the above unless those that see themselves as real anarchists speak out publicly against the actions of these kinds of people. Otherwise, every Tom, Dick, and Harry, will think of the above as Anarchists when you talk about Anarchy.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


The face of anarchy:


The face of anarchy:


The face of anarchy;


etc.. etc.. etc..

Boy, they sure do look like some rock throwing anarchists, hell bent on destroying society.

The black block anarchists that riot in the streets are not advocating for anarchy, they are advocating for total State control over everything.

The idea that no one owns anything means everyone must own everything, hence, society must necessarily own everything - and if that is the case, then the State must own everything.

Leftist anarchists are the ultimate statists. It should come as no surprise that leftist anarchists are also the most violent political group.

edit on 4-1-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 05:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Constantlysilenced
 


freedom of speach is in no way chalanged by left wing,marxist or anarchist veiws. what I belive you have done (although I may be wrong) is confuse the authoritarian dictatorship the ussr became with a genuinely expression of the ideology they hid behind. communism describes an economic model (or lack thereof) not the means of governance; democracy dictatorship or anarchy are all aplicable but some of cource are preferable to others. personly I advocate governance by direct democracy leting people make there own desisions and removing the middleman of "the goverment" something that requires as a necesity to function freedom of speach.

sorry for spelling errors
edit on 5-1-2011 by AnonymousJ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by hadriana
It's interesting you posted this - I'm a bit paranoid about words that I start seeing repeated ad nauseum in the news - and lately, it's been anarchist. Those horrid anarchists.

Doesn't everyone that ever protested ...ever...in the history of the world...belong to some black clothes wearing anarchist group?

Don't anarchist groups want the world to erupt in violence and savagery - aren't they like...satanists? Don't they just want to torch my car and turn it over?

Aren't they just everywhere? I mean, if they weren't just everywhere, there wouldn't be all these protests now, would there?

I mean - I don't think those things, lol, at all, but I think the news wants me to. KWIM? It's like the corral that they want to lead the fearful sheep into. Don't protest anything! There might be anarchists there that will hit you in the . with a bottle full of gas on fire!

And I've noticed...it seems like the use of the word 'anarchist' is...anyone that doesn't like any government anywhere. lol


edit on 30-12-2010 by hadriana because: typos galore and probably still didn't get them all.


Guilty until proven more Guilty.

Yeah we all know Anarchists are violent terrorists that are bend on eating chocolate chip cookie dough straight out of the package. Those evil vicious Anarchists and thier P3n0r powers!!11

Right?...wrong.

We do NOT hate government. We just see that the institution is fundementally flawed. Why hate a institution? Why have people you don't even know? Makes no sense at all.
Does that solve anything? Nope.


We are PEACEFUL libertarian(not authoritarian) activists that hate violence(because its unproductive) and want our own "self" governed colonies were we are free from authoritarian influence. Keep your banker hijacked/trojan horse management firm/government just let us have our lives free of thier influence.

We do NOT advocate acts of violence or terrorism on any level. Fear is a authoritarian societal tool of control. We don't scare people into ramming our philosophy down thier throughs.

We are NON-VIOLENT and don't push our beliefs of "self-government over proxy government" on anyone.

We are NOT terrorists. We don't like prison or life sentences for acts of violence,vandalism,etc. It won't even do anything anyway.

We DO like George Carlin,Richard Pryor and Monty Python.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join