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.

 

What do Anarchists really bring to the table? Not much, well, except destruction in my view.

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   
Mods, maybe this belongs in the Rant forum, but I thought it did have a place in the political madness forum as well. Please move if need be.

I have run across many people who espouse an Anarchists point of view, and if I got them into a room together, only one would emerge alive. Just like politics, they have many views on how the individual anarchist feels things should be implemented.

en.wikipedia.org...

www.merriam-webster.com...

In today’s day and age, these people are nothing more than entitled ruffians. They didn’t get their way and now they rebel. I have yet to meet an anarchist that doesn’t depend upon the system that they are supposedly rebelling against. And many have told me that. “Well, my professor said…” It is my opinion that these people cannot think for themselves.

The anarchists motto in my opinion is, “I want it all, I want it now, and I want it for FREE!”

As Stalin said, “Useful Idiots.”

I have had my truck trashed by these people in Seattle because it was..parked there. I have seen businesses trashed by these people for no other reason than they like to destroy things. Like rats, they spread disease and destruction.

Is there anyone who can reasonably tell me why they are allowed to roam our streets?

edit on 12-6-2011 by TDawgRex because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


They are in a sense, useful idiots.
Anarchy as a whole is not sustainable over an extended period of time, as people will always want some form of rules.


+19 more 
posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 03:36 PM
link   
Thanks for winning the most ignorant post of the month.

You can't really be serious, anarchists believe in total freedom, self reliance, hard work, and just about every other great quality that our founders believed in.

With one small difference, our founders felt that a small government was still necessary, whereas an anarchist believes it isn't.

Get a grip, anarchists don't want to destroy shops, flip cars, and rob. They want a world without government telling them how to live, eat, and raise their children.

Read more, watch less FOX.

Vandals aren't anarchists, they are vandals. Big difference guy.


edit on 12-6-2011 by Tephra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Tephra
 


I have personnal experiance with these vermin. Don't tell me that todays anarchists are all bunny rabbits and nice and fluffy and just want to give hugs. They are scum as far as I am concerned. Well, the ones in WA are. I smile everytime a cop thumps one.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


I think you're confusing anarchists with common thugs..

Anarchy means freedom.. Freedom from government, freedom from rules, to be able to live how they want without being told what to do..

Pick up a book, instead of lumping people together, or if your lazy, just read wikipedia



Most often, the term "anarchy" describes the simple absence of publicly recognized government or enforced political authority. When used in this sense, anarchy may or may not imply political disorder or lawlessness within a society. In another sense, anarchy may not refer to a complete lack of authority or political organization, but instead refer to a social state characterized by absolute direct democracy or libertarianism.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


in the anarchists world the person getting thumped by the cops thumps back with no reprecussions.

the democratic world such as we live in the cop beats the thumpee and gets defended and the thumpee goes to jail.

as the world turns.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 03:50 PM
link   
"Yeah, I'm an anarchist! No laws, no rules, down with The Man!!!" If these people are calling themselves anarchists, it's because they picked up that term, liked the idea of it, and ran with it. The problem is, they didn't bother to actually learn what anarchy really is. All they saw was the "no laws" part, completely ignoring the "consequences of their actions" part.

It's unlikely they're actual anarchists, but lawless punks that don't respect others' rights. Much less respect themselves.

/TOA
edit on 12-6-2011 by The Old American because: My blinding grammar mistake was blotting out the sun.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by squirelnutz
 


I linked Wiki. I read it. I am not seeing any of the subjects within the link that shows todays Anarchist standing in a good light. Google any of the "G" conferences. All you see is thugs who think they're anarchists. The movement has been subverted by vandals.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


You must mean the undercover cops dressed up and being violent, giving probable cause for the rest of the militants to crush the protests? Yeah, thought so.


edit on 12-6-2011 by Tephra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   
The practical flaws of an anarchic society are multitudinous.

It's a nice idea in principle, but it's totally unworkable in reality. People who genuinely believe in it as a plausible, efficient system to run a society, tend to be rather naive and seemingly oblivious to the world around them.

One of the things you'll notice when discussing anarchism, is the amount of occasions on which those who support it will argue their points in hypotheticals; ''ifs'', ''buts'' and ''this or that will happen''.

There are hardly ever any tangible arguments used to back up anarchism which would suggest that it's even a remotely plausible idea, and the basis of it is built upon willingly suspending disbelief and - to put it bluntly - a naive and fantastical vision of human nature that completely contradicts any objective analysis how the world really works.

I would say that one of the most glaring flaws with anarchy is this: why would people willingly settle for less, when they could easily have more ?! This defies any rational interpretation of how humans behave, with greed, avarice, power and control being amongst the ever-present traits in modern humanity.

Most people certainly wouldn't settle for driving a Skoda if they could get their hands on a Ferrari !



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


You asked what they bring to the table, and it is answered within the first paragraph of the Wiki page, you claimed to have read..

You're confusing thuggish punks with an ideology.. There are thuggish punks that represent republicans and democrats and every other type of label you could possibly put on someone..

Just because someone is doing something wrong under the guise of Anarchy, it doesn't mean the ideology is inheritly bad, do u understand?



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 04:00 PM
link   
A true savior wont do it for anyone else's reasons but their own and want to make the world better in their own way. They will be willing to sacrifice everything in the name of this vision. We all know the world wont change with just kind words and rallies it needs to be forced change even though this makes people angry and that's the point and they will focus their hate upon this person/group and work together towards a common enemy of this world and will blame everything on this person and wont hate each other only this person.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   
Please educate yourself on a topic before posting, or at least differentiate between "proclaimed anarchists" and actual anarchists. Just because someone wears punk/goth clothing, acts tough, has multiple addictions, and usually begs for change at stoplights, doesn't mean they are an anarchist. In New Orleans, we call them Gutter Punks and they are worthless trash. They claim to be "free" while they squat in abandoned buildings, beg for change from tourists and then threaten them when they don't give, and basically act as annoying and self righteous leeches on society. They usually come from upper middle class families and that is where they will eventually return and continue to be unproductive lumps, dependent on someone else.

There are certainly many different flavors of actual anarchism, which is kind of the point. Communities decide their own values rather than some oppressive force that enforces the values of the elite class (which is what we have in America. My apologies to idealists & optimists).

Read up on some Lysander Spooner or Benjamin Tucker before you go bashing a family of political philosophies you obviously don't understand. I'm more in tune with the more "right wing" anarchists just mentioned, but there is plenty of reading on the left side of the fence, as well ,that's worthwhile, be it Emma Goldman, Bakunin, Kropotkin, etc. Left anarchism is largely a European phenomenon.

Several Native American tribes had a largely anarchistic societal organization which worked quite well. With all the different ideas out there, the different "flavors" actually agree on alot, but the main difference would be between your "right" anarchists and your "left" anarchists. The former tends to believe that free citizens would more likely compete than cooperate while the latter believes vice versa. Both agree that the state causes more problems than it solves.


But back to the OP: The "anarchists" you are writing about aren't anarchists at all. They are self entitled punks, angry at the world for no good reason. Anarchy doesn't mean what the Mainstream media brainwashes you to think it means. It actually represents genuine freedom vs. a controlling authority telling you that you have freedom as it systematically takes said freedom away from you.


I would agree that at least 99% of humanity is not ready for true anarchy, because it requires a high degree of self reliance and personal responsibility. People need to be told what to do and how to do it and they need human sacrifices to appease them if something goes wrong. Way too unevolved for actual freedom.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   
One of my personal hero's;
U. Utah Phillips:
Folksinger
Poet
Storyteller
Korean War veteran
ANARCHIST


WIKI-U. Utah Phillips

As others have made clear, the term Anarchist is misunderstood by many.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 


So the idea of everyone carrying themselves, and being completely independent is akin to a POS car?



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 


Run an efficient society? Who is demanding this efficiency? The whole point of anarchist society is self governance, not external parameters.

Why should we settle for less, if we can have more?



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


Most Anarchist you see probably are not even really Anarchist. For instance anytime there is a riot or protest in Greece, Spain, France, Germany, Britain etc etc .. it's always "Anarchist began throwing stones at police.... breaking shop windows... etc"

The news, which shouldn't be trusted anyways, has no idea the political leanings of individuals in a crowd of thousands. They simply say Anarchist because most people automatically assume a negative connotation with the word.. so at first most people might cheer on the breaking of bank windows.. then the word Anarchist is used.. and most then turn against the idea.

It's simply the government playing with weak peoples minds.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 04:18 PM
link   
A total anarchy is doomed to fail in my opinion. I think that anarchists are avoiding the problem they will eventually have to deal with, which is implementing some form of government, which means they aren't anarchists anymore. It is a given fact that people will attempt to take advantage of any system, and without some type of governmental structure, you will have independent groups vying for power.

Some may not agree with my assessment, but it in all probability that is what will occur. In regard to your post, I am not familiar with the political ideologies of the vandals in WA, but it would not surprise me if they THOUGHT they were anarchists.
edit on 6/12/11 by JiggyPotamus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   
obvious shill

troll elsewhere

anarchist have a slogan?


is this not against a true anarchists beliefs

organized centralized and controlled



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by JiggyPotamus
 


Why do you think it's doomed to fail? Early farmers were a form of anarchy, the native Indians of America were anarchists..

You look after yourself, in other words: True Freedom.. No answering to anyone, no paying taxes..

The people looking for trouble would be shot, and everyone else would become self reliant..



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join