Toward Reclaiming Our Birthright, Anarchists Unite!

Okay then, how do we go about reclaiming our birthright? Our birthright is our lives on the planet, free in every sense of the word. Ideas I'm having include:

1. teaching our children a sense of perspective with regard to civilization (ie. we lived as modern humans 95%+ of our time on the planet without it entirely)

2. recognizing for ourselves the tremendous alienating effects of modern life. Take this one seriously, because the major roadblock to anarchy, or freedom, if you will, is the mistaken notion that man himself is "evil" rather than alienated from his world.

3. undoing the authority myth. (both for ourselves and our children, start with oneself, be honest about the relative competence in any field of endeavor or yourself or anyone you know. Embrace the truth in the notion that the entire concept of authority demands both competence and responsibility, both of which not only do not exist, but cannot exist, relative to the "authority" myth's current power in the belief systems of the average person.)

4. undoing the myth of lack. (this will take some doing; strong propaganda supports the notion that there isn't enough to "go around", there is more than enough.) With more than enough, it begins to dawn on one that money is archaic and needless.

5. Turn it all around to work for us, mentally at first...take social organization, for example, not a bad idea in and of itself in a world that needs goods and services, is already organized without much family structure, and has over 7 billion people and an internet, but must it remain a structure based upon the past, a "political" structure? Of course not. It must not remain a "defining" social structure at all, but merely a tool, or way to organize a complex system, and need not define anything at all.

6. The perspective of the "middle-aged" person should be encouraged to deny cynical comfort, or grasping for a lost youth, and instead shout from the rooftops how short life truly is, and how much is wasted "working."

uniting goes against being an anarchist ... true anarchists have no need nor use for leaders.. nations... governments...

I stand on my own ... Ive neither need nor use for any leaders... nations... governments... I am a human being living my life on my terms...

I believe you misunderstand my use of the word "unite"...I mean come together, hopefully on this thread, in order to discuss ways to reclaim our freedom. Practical, simple ways hopefully, but I am in no way seeking "leadership" in this, I merely started the thread in order to discuss!

" I am a human being living my life on my terms..."

Well, I certainly can imagine terms more suited to my basic human nature than the nightmare hell-world I was born into, I also think it my responsibility to attempt at least to leave a more natural, free, and sensible world to my children.

'true anarchists have no need nor use for leaders.. nations... governments..."

And true anarchists don't stick their heads in the sand a pretend they don't exist either.

2. recognizing for ourselves the tremendous alienating effects of modern life. Take this one seriously, because the major roadblock to anarchy, or freedom, if you will, is the mistaken notion that man himself is "evil" rather than alienated from his world.

reply to post by joechip

This really rang true for me. I have seen children who are afraid to go outside and get dirty. What a travesty!

When the "man is inherently evil" myth is perpetuated, then the idea that we have to have police and a governmental structure is foist upon us, and we see the ugly results of that in the news every day.

Native Americans had no police, no government, and lived well for thousands of years. Yes, there were repercussions of bad behavior, which was decided upon by the whole tribe. I really think they had it right in the way they lived.

Good thread, excellent advice, and I enjoyed reading it.

reply to post by FissionSurplus


Thank you. I hope we can get this going and get more ideas in the pot, even ways to propagate them...I am quite serious and not cynical at all about any of this.

Your contributions and ideas will be greatly appreciated.

reply to post by Expat888


It actually seems that you are more of what I would call an "individualist" than an anarchist per se...Anarchists in my experience ALWAYS want to tear this archaic, inept, corrupt, and needless farce of a system down.

You just want to stand aside...feel free..but don't try to tell me what an anarchist is, I've been one for 30 years.

Other thoughts I'm having involve the idea of STOPPING. Get that notion into the heads of people, stopping and rethinking where we are, came from, and wish to go...I believe the horror of the modern world is largely a matter of entropy, blind and headlong, one thing from the next, etc.

If a campaign of ideas could be launched, and it could, thanks to the internet, that would in my view be a central facet. STOP. re-think it. Could we do things differently, of course we could, but not unless we stop, at least for a moment and consider the possibility.

Alienation v. Evil...

Man has always faced dangers, but for the overwhelming majority of his time on the planet NO ALIENATION whatsoever, or at least, no constant alienating factors...A tiger is dangerous, but not alienating, compare that to a predator drone, or psych ward....or even a mindless 9 to 5 job

TRUE Anarchy, as a philosophy, begins with the postulate, or rather the understanding, that man is essentially good, and can and will live with his fellow man in peace and shared freedom as he did for nearly 200,000 years. Not being a Luddite myself, nor finding that approach remotely appealing or even possible, I can envision a bottom-up type of social organization, complete with technology, but free from governance of any kind, authority or any kind, needless want of any kind, and I know there must be others who can envision a similar world. Let's make it happen!


.

Originally posted by FissionSurplus

2. recognizing for ourselves the tremendous alienating effects of modern life. Take this one seriously, because the major roadblock to anarchy, or freedom, if you will, is the mistaken notion that man himself is "evil" rather than alienated from his world.

reply to post by joechip

 

This really rang true for me. I have seen children who are afraid to go outside and get dirty. What a travesty!

When the "man is inherently evil" myth is perpetuated, then the idea that we have to have police and a governmental structure is foist upon us, and we see the ugly results of that in the news every day.

Native Americans had no police, no government, and lived well for thousands of years. Yes, there were repercussions of bad behavior, which was decided upon by the whole tribe. I really think they had it right in the way they lived.

Good thread, excellent advice, and I enjoyed reading it.

Have you ever read Russell Means' matriarchy vs. patriarchy essay explaining why the American Indian culture was more peaceful than the dominent culture today?

Patriarchy is a fear based society where man rules alone. Therefore it is unbalanced. Patriarchy reared its ugly head over 6000 years ago at the same time as the marketplace became his tool. Patriarchy and the marketplace cannot exist without one another.The marketplace engenders greed which engenders empire. When one takes a close look at the histories of all Patriarchal empires, you will find that they make the same mistakes over and over and over and over again.

www.russellmeans.blogspot.com...

Its a good read and its true that patriarchal religions and societies believe women are evil and that they're the reason men behave badly.

reply to post by frazzle


I haven't read it, won't dismiss it (that would be dumb) but frankly, I prefer the idea of egalitarian society, like hunter-gatherer societies generally are and wouldn't find a matriarchy much more appealing than a patriarchy (though I don't doubt the validity of the thesis you present) I'm an anarchist..egalitarian and free, that's for me!

A star from me nonetheless...you present information that is useful and regardless of my individual beliefs, I appreciate it!

Originally posted by joechip
reply to post by frazzle

 

I haven't read it, won't dismiss it (that would be dumb) but frankly, I prefer the idea of egalitarian society, like hunter-gatherer societies generally are and wouldn't find a matriarchy much more appealing than a patriarchy (though I don't doubt the validity of the thesis you present) I'm an anarchist..egalitarian and free, that's for me!

Native cultures were egalitarian. One of the problems the original Europeans had in dealing with the tribes was finding ways to shut the women out of negotiations because they didn't believe females should hold such high positions in society.

reply to post by frazzle


It is my understanding that they varied. For example, the Incas and Aztecs were nothing at all like the Iroquois Confederation. I am no expert, however, and I will (eventually) read the link.


Many thanks.

Originally posted by joechip
reply to post by frazzle

 

It is my understanding that they varied. For example, the Incas and Aztecs were nothing at all like the Iroquois Confederation. I am no expert, however, and I will (eventually) read the link.


Many thanks.

edit on 2-8-2012 by joechip because: spelling

Well yes, there were many variations, but matriarchy was a dominent theme among the tribes. Besides, how much do we really know of the Inca and Aztec since so much of their culture was destroyed and bastardized by the invaders. History is written by the victors who demonize the conquered to justify the destruction.

There's a difference between leadership and rule. A leader is simply one who takes initiative and says "let's do this" and inspires others, whereas a ruler uses fear and threats to impose their will on people.

I think mankind needs a new religion that rejects fear completely, teaches mankind to be proactive and not reactive, and makes threat-based rule become a thing of the past. The politics of "or else" will be eradicated when fear is universally rejected by those on whom it's used.

1)"uniting" anarchists is an oxymoron.
2) anarchy is an evil thing, in every way. It should not be strived for.

Originally posted by SilentKoala
There's a difference between leadership and rule. A leader is simply one who takes initiative and says "let's do this" and inspires others, whereas a ruler uses fear and threats to impose their will on people.

I think mankind needs a new religion that rejects fear completely, teaches mankind to be proactive and not reactive, and makes threat-based rule become a thing of the past. The politics of "or else" will be eradicated when fear is universally rejected by those on whom it's used.

Calling it a religion might nip it in the bud before the idea got off the ground. Otherwise I completely agree with your assessment.

F alse
E vidence
A ppearing
R eal

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
1)"uniting" anarchists is an oxymoron.
2) anarchy is an evil thing, in every way. It should not be strived for.

2) In that case, I've decided I'm going to now be your ruler. Everything I tell you to do, you must obey and do. Oh, what's that? You have the right to be free of such nonsense, you say? But that's evil! You said so yourself!

Originally posted by SilentKoala

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
1)"uniting" anarchists is an oxymoron.
2) anarchy is an evil thing, in every way. It should not be strived for.

2) In that case, I've decided I'm going to now be your ruler. Everything I tell you to do, you must obey and do. Oh, what's that? You have the right to be free of such nonsense, you say? But that's evil! You said so yourself!

So what you are saying is that you don't know what anarchy is. Fair enough.

Originally posted by Expat888
uniting goes against being an anarchist ... true anarchists have no need nor use for leaders.. nations... governments...

Anarchists also must be incredibly literate and well read. Knowledge is the backbone and a mutual understanding of all counterparts to the ORGANIZED group.

Now... on that note... where have you read that "uniting goes against being an anarchist"? Anarchism is in the direct action against authoritarianism. If there is an invader of your freedom in your backyard and you do not stand up against and/or oppose this threat in some form or fashion, you sir, are NOT anarchist. If anything you are the direct opposite.

Alexander Berkman, Peter Kropotkin, Voltairine de Cleyre, Emma Goldman, Bakunin... these figures of anarchism had factions they were apart of and organized for media purposes and fighting for "the cause". And their influences during the early 1900's played a huge role in shaping not only the United States but the world's view towards the word "freedom". Which couldn't be done without a mutual understanding among an organization or faction.

The mindset is this... you will not demand my obedience... I respectfully will give it to the person who deserves it... willingly. Get it? It's a mutual understanding that I must give towards "the cause" but no one will demand it.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
1)"uniting" anarchists is an oxymoron.
2) anarchy is an evil thing, in every way. It should not be strived for.

So the anarchists who fought for women's and black's rights during the early 1900's, when giving women and blacks equal rights was unfathomable, were .... not really there? And the direct action towards the red army pre-ww2.... evil?

I'm sorry but maybe you've been fed propaganda so much throughout your lifetime that now you're a walking billboard for the true evil.

I understand a lot of the true literature that shows you the true meaning of "the cause" is oppressed and diluted....
to help you get a better grasp of what you're attempting to portray in your post....

do some research, I recommend.... Our Daily Bleed

Originally posted by MikhailBakunin

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
1)"uniting" anarchists is an oxymoron.
2) anarchy is an evil thing, in every way. It should not be strived for.

So the anarchists who fought for women's and black's rights during the early 1900's, when giving women and blacks equal rights was unfathomable, were .... not really there? And the direct action towards the red army pre-ww2.... evil?

I'm sorry but maybe you've been fed propaganda so much throughout your lifetime that now you're a walking billboard for the true evil.

I understand a lot of the true literature that shows you the true meaning of "the cause" is oppressed and diluted....
to help you get a better grasp of what you're attempting to portray in your post....

do some research, I recommend.... Our Daily

Bleed

edit on 3-8-2012 by MikhailBakunin because: add something

1)those were not anachists. Once again, you all are proving you don't know what anarchy is.
2)saying " do some research" is weak. I know all about anarchy. I've lived it. And the majority who advocate it have NEVER experienced anything even close. If they had, they would not advocate it.