I can relate to Chuck Palahniuks 'Fight Club'. It says alot about how the modern world makes us impotent. Makes us feel imasculated. The modern world makes us paralysed. The themes seem to blame consumerism materialism and commercialism. It is saying that by placing such importance on material gain we are missing out on things that are real. We are missing what is good. It is saying that societies values are all out of whack and it is difficult for those that are aware.

I agree with all that. But I think the book is wrong by suggesting that we need to compromise. Why cant we all be Tyler Durden? I like that Durden does not care what comes after the rebellion. He does not fear it. He does not even plan for it. All he cares about is burning it to the ground. Smashing it up.I think there is something awesome about that. Why should we be scared? Why should we pull back?. When do we break the cocoon?.

The most common defense of capitalism is that nothing else works. Well guess what? Capitalism isnt working. Upward mobility was a scam and all the major players are basically bankrupt. Its time to roll the dice. The world is broken. Its not worth fixing the way it is. We must burn it down so that we can rise from the ashes like the pheonix.

And is anarchy really so scary? I think the nanny/police state that most of us live in makes us even more emasculated. More impotent.More paralysed.More locked up.Wouldnt it be kinda cool if you could challenge a guy to a duel and not have to worry about going to jail? In todays world we are forced to allow others to dishonour us. To insult us. To disrespect us. Someone can be a jerk to you and you cant punch them in the face.And they know it. It creates perfect conditions for jerks to breed. If jerks knew that they could get slapped with a duelling glove at any time there would be alot less jerks.

We used to be hunters. We are missing something. Anarchy would give it back. We dont know pain. We are non participants,non combatants. We get a DNP.. We are not in the game. I would welcome anarchy and something real. Cavemen had something that we are missing if you ask me.

Anarchy could be good.

And it would be good if we were all like Tyler Durden. (not that we should join Project Mayhem,but we should all embrace our inner ubermensch )

totally agreed. I have felt this way for a long time. can you tell me what mencsh means? I think i know what uber means....

Anarchy would NOT be good for most people. Know why? I'll give you two big reasons ...

1 - Those who are ill or chronically ill. Anarchy means no medicines. No antibiotics. No insulin. No heart medications. No bloodpressure medications. No way to have operations. Women would die in childbirth. Chronically ill people (like me) would suffer insane pain. A simple tooth infection, that can be taken care of now by a root canal and antibiotics, would kill you if anarchy was going on.

2 - Financial collapse means most people in the USA would be beyond poor. Food production and delivery would stop. Nearly everyone would starve to death. Poor countries that depend on us for food and medicine - like in Africa - would be wiped clean of people. All dead.

Anarchy means MASSIVE numbers of dead.
There are 7 billion people on this planet now.
Almost all would die .. either of starvation, infection, freezing to death, or for lack of medical help.

Originally posted by Cesar85
totally agreed. I have felt this way for a long time. can you tell me what mencsh means? I think i know what uber means....

Yeah its just german for 'man' . Its from Frederick Nietzsches philosophies. He was a cool guy. The ubermensch as kinda like his goal for humanity. What we would be if we evolved into supermen.

I would recomend reading about master/slave morality. It goes in with the theme of the thread.

And I am glad someone agree's.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Anarchy would NOT be good for most people. Know why? I'll give you two big reasons ...

1 - Those who are ill or chronically ill. Anarchy means no medicines. No antibiotics. No insulin. No heart medications. No bloodpressure medications. No way to have operations. Women would die in childbirth. Chronically ill people (like me) would suffer insane pain. A simple tooth infection, that can be taken care of now by a root canal and antibiotics, would kill you if anarchy was going on.

2 - Financial collapse means most people in the USA would be beyond poor. Food production and delivery would stop. Nearly everyone would starve to death. Poor countries that depend on us for food and medicine - like in Africa - would be wiped clean of people. All dead.

Anarchy means MASSIVE numbers of dead.
There are 7 billion people on this planet now.
Almost all would die .. either of starvation, infection, freezing to death, or for lack of medical help.

I agree. But anarchy would be survival of the fittest. Dont you think we get devolution the way things are?

We live in pure chaos and anarchy right now, just think about it.

The thing is, most people are so brainwashed and indoctrinated they don't even realize it.

People believe in fantasies like government, society, culture, traditions, etc. But none of these things actually exist, it's all made up in our heads. People act according to their belief systems, and that is why it has an illusion of "order" right now.

Anarchy and chaos are just the natural order of the Universe. "Civilization" is essentially the endless list of delusions and illusions we humans created in order to pretend that things are predictable and reasonable, when they actually are not.

Summed up in the broadest sense, History can simply be described as the story of how governments have squandered the blood and treasure of the human race. Obedience and subjection to authority is intrinsically at odds with the way human beings come to live satisfying lives. Everything that is really great and inspiring is created by the individual who can live in freedom.

That being said, there are legitimate uses for human institutions BUT continuation of faceless bureaucracy's interested only in centralized planning, theft, socialism, dependence, pauperization, inefficiency, greed waste, while at the same time converting the world into a nursery of "for your own good-ers" and "self-serving busybodies" does not parallel with human happiness.

I'm confident that if we simply followed the constitution, and men respected the individual sovereign rights of others, we wouldn't have many of the problems we have today. However, I should add that a lot of "anarchists" are on the right track. The highest goal of all humanity could be realized through the emancipation of all mankind from the arbitrary rule of others.

Text The agricultural part of these villages was composed of peasants, someone understood at the same time peasants and workers. They were founded first of all on equality and solidarity of his members. All, men and women, worked together with a perfect conscience that they should work on fields or that they should be used in housework... Working program was established in meetings where all participated. They knew then exactly what they had to make. —Makhno, Russian Revolution in Ukraine

This Makhno seems to be the poster child of anarchy. It sounds like he was a smart guy..

I love the battle cry, "Anarchists Unite!" The irony....

Originally posted by METACOMET
Summed up in the broadest sense, History can simply be described as the story of how governments have squandered the blood and treasure of the human race. Obedience and subjection to authority is intrinsically at odds with the way human beings come to live satisfying lives. Everything that is really great and inspiring is created by the individual who can live in freedom.

That being said, there are legitimate uses for human institutions BUT continuation of faceless bureaucracy's interested only in centralized planning, theft, socialism, dependence, pauperization, inefficiency, greed waste, while at the same time converting the world into a nursery of "for your own good-ers" and "self-serving busybodies" does not parallel with human happiness.

I'm confident that if we simply followed the constitution, and men respected the individual sovereign rights of others, we wouldn't have many of the problems we have today. However, I should add that a lot of "anarchists" are on the right track. The highest goal of all humanity could be realized through the emancipate all of mankind from the arbitrary rule of others.

Actually that whole post is pretty awesome. Thanks for giving your opinion. I think you are right. Total anarchy cant work.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
We live in pure chaos and anarchy right now, just think about it.

The thing is, most people are so brainwashed and indoctrinated they don't even realize it.

People believe in fantasies like government, society, culture, traditions, etc. But none of these things actually exist, it's all made up in our heads. People act according to their belief systems, and that is why it has an illusion of "order" right now.

Anarchy and chaos are just the natural order of the Universe. "Civilization" is essentially the endless list of delusions and illusions we humans created in order to pretend that things are predictable and reasonable, when they actually are not.

I think thats a good point. We get smoke and mirrors.

brilliant movie. meatloaf with boobs

Originally posted by theovermensch

Ever read Thoreau? He was the champion of this line of thinking.

The authority of government, even such as I am willing to submit to, must have the sanction and consent of the governed. It can have no pure right over my person and property but what I concede to it.

There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly.

Is this institution, such as we know it, the last improvement possible in government? Is it not possible to take a step further towards recognizing and organizing the rights of man?

I please myself with imagining a State at least which can afford to be just to all men, and to treat the individual with respect as a neighbor; which even would not think it inconsistent with its own repose if a few were to live aloof from it, not meddling with it, nor embraced by it, who fulfilled all the duties of neighbors and fellow-men. A State which bore this kind of fruit, and suffered it to drop off as fast as it ripened, would prepare the way for a still more perfect and glorious State, which also I have imagined, but not yet anywhere seen.

I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which I also believe--"that government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that is the kind of government which they will have.

edit on 14-12-2011 by METACOMET because: bld