Message to the Voting Cattle



I'm only halfway through, but this is damn good so far.

But that does concern me. If I'm receptive to this, I'd wager most "cattle" are not. I also question the confrontational tone. Will people be receptive to this or is it an anarchic circle jerk?

Just some thoughts. Thanks for sharing.
 
uVu3f.jpg
 
Loved the video, especially the last 1:30.

So...who here would like to post this on their Facebook page? Would love to hear the responses you get.
 
I think most people realize what's happening, and aren't as stupid as many claim they are. But what do you expect people to do? Run around, and start shooting cops? Maybe start throwing some molotovs around at politicians?

Guys like this aggravate me. Makes a video saying how stupid everyone is, and how brilliant he is, because he sees the truth that apparently the rest of us are blind to. Well, fuck you too then...
 
I'd love to read more things about Anarchist philosophy and theory because I'm sure there's a strong intellectual side to it somewhere and it's not all just a bunch of spoiled brats that don't understand that life will never be perfect and that life is more about choosing the lesser evil - a compromise. But unfortunately, I never feel i have the time for reading anymore.

But I'd love to read the intellectual solutions for the huge list of obvious and self-defeating problems that would pop up under anarchy. And I'm sure anarchists like Guerrilla are so sick of trying to convince others that they'd much rather throw out some hate than rattle off a list of solutions again.

But if anyone has a nice concise article or something on how anarchy could endure in an area given the incredibly obvious problems most people bring up then let me know. If you need a list of the problems.. I can list them.. but I'm sure you've heard them all before when talking to anyone refuting anarchism. Hell, i guess you can throw out a few book names at me too and i might get around to reading them eventually.

I'd really like to know things like how anarchy is even possible since if you're under someone's control/influence you are by definition not free and not in a state of anarchy. So even in an anarchist region we'd still be born with parents who control us infringing on our freedom. From there the possibilities of those infringing on our freedoms only increases by everyone we come in contact with directly and indirectly. There is no doubt that your 'freedom', in many anarchist society situations, could easily be less than it is now.. depending on who your neighbors are. Anyway, that's just one of a thousand serious questions on the subject.
 
When you lead with killing cops, it's going to be hard to keep your audience.
 
The IRS has put Larken Rose through some tough stuff, including a year in jail.

He's got an edge. But he's really a nice guy.
 
Is it going against the NAP to want to Force people to watch this?

Nothing too drastic, of course, perhaps locking people in thier churches or movie theatres while this is blaring loudly on repeat for hours... Would that kind of thing negate the message of non-aggression?
 
WickedJoe said:
I'd love to read more things about Anarchist philosophy and theory because I'm sure there's a strong intellectual side to it somewhere and it's not all just a bunch of spoiled brats that don't understand that life will never be perfect and that life is more about choosing the lesser evil - a compromise. But unfortunately, I never feel i have the time for reading anymore.

But I'd love to read the intellectual solutions for the huge list of obvious and self-defeating problems that would pop up under anarchy. And I'm sure anarchists like Guerrilla are so sick of trying to convince others that they'd much rather throw out some hate than rattle off a list of solutions again.

But if anyone has a nice concise article or something on how anarchy could endure in an area given the incredibly obvious problems most people bring up then let me know. If you need a list of the problems.. I can list them.. but I'm sure you've heard them all before when talking to anyone refuting anarchism. Hell, i guess you can throw out a few book names at me too and i might get around to reading them eventually.

I'd really like to know things like how anarchy is even possible since if you're under someone's control/influence you are by definition not free and not in a state of anarchy. So even in an anarchist region we'd still be born with parents who control us infringing on our freedom. From there the possibilities of those infringing on our freedoms only increases by everyone we come in contact with directly and indirectly. There is no doubt that your 'freedom', in many anarchist society situations, could easily be less than it is now.. depending on who your neighbors are. Anyway, that's just one of a thousand serious questions on the subject.
Click to expand...

Please make a list. Different people see different problems and so far there was an easy answer to all of them. So go ahead and list the problems that you see with anarchy.

For your last paragraph, yes you are under your parents control as long as you are dependent on them. If you have a better alternative (for example loving grandparents), why not run away?

Your neighbors can't take your freedom away rightfully in an anarchist society, but they can (and do all the time) in a democracy. Maybe bring an example if you are not convinced?
 
Ok, here's my question. The entire concept of anarchy relies on individuals being good hearted, open minded, and willing to play along with the ideals of anarchism. Due to this, you'll naturally only have minimal security.

However, what happens if a Genghis Khan is born within your area? Highly intelligent leader, who manages to summon the will of many within the society. Not only that, is also extremely savage, ruthless, greedy, and holds absolutely no mercy while he burns your anarchist society to the ground.

How would an anarchist society stop that from happening? Or more to the point, in order to achieve true anarchism you need to change fundamental human nature. How do you plan to do that?
 
Kiopa_Matt said:
Ok, here's my question. The entire concept of anarchy relies on individuals being good hearted, open minded, and willing to play along with the ideals of anarchism. Due to this, you'll naturally only have minimal security.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Anarchy does not rely on individuals to be saints. The idea is, that for a given population it will outperform all other "systems". In an anarchy those "bad" people don't have a way to rightfully control other people like they do now. People are actually allowed to defend themselves against such people.

But statism relies on exactly that. What if the leaders start pursuing their own agenda? Oh wait... That is already the case...

Anarchism is the natural state of things. It is not something new that we would have to create. All we have to do is get rid of the state which is nothing else than a criminal organization in the end. I never agreed to participate in a state and it won't leave me alone. If I had a chance to go somewhere without a state without losing my living standard (ib4 Somalia argument), then I would. And no, I did not get my living standard "because of the state", I got it despite the state.

Why would you have minimal security? Personally I would probably carry a weapon around and so would many people. Plus there would be private security organizations taking care of the rest (as they do now in a lot of places, in Switzerland we have quite a few companies doing that because the police is not giving sufficient service to everyone) .

Kiopa_Matt said:
However, what happens if a Genghis Khan is born within your area? Highly intelligent leader, who manages to summon the will of many within the society. Not only that, is also extremely savage, ruthless, greedy, and holds absolutely no mercy while he burns your anarchist society to the ground.

How would an anarchist society stop that from happening? Or more to the point, in order to achieve true anarchism you need to change fundamental human nature. How do you plan to do that?
Click to expand...

What happens if that person is born into a statist society? Look at history and you find some examples.

Why do you assume that a person like that would get the support of many? Would you support such a person? Personally, I would get a group of volunteers from the village/city together and get rid of scum like that (providing they committed the crimes you mentioned).

People will actually be able to defend themselves and many will be armed.

Now if he really somehow gets the majority of people behind him and avoids being assaulted, then in a worst case scenario we are where we would be in a statist society anyway.

For the last paragraph, I repeat again: No you don't have to change human nature. Many incentives that exist now for doing violent crime will disappear in anarchism. Risk/reward will make it a bad decision to be violent. People taking law in their own hands will take care of many of those violence related fictional problems.
 
hehejo said:
Anarchism is the natural state of things. It is not something new that we would have to create. All we have to do is get rid of the state which is nothing else than a criminal organization in the end.
Click to expand...

But this is where the whole argument of anarchism gets flawed. Us homosapiens are mammals, who are part of the animal kingdom. We might be highly intelligent mammals, but we're still just mammals. We have a pack mentality that's genetically programmed into us, same as virtually all other species of mammals. Herds / packs will form, and from them a leader will emerge, who is responsible for the overall welfare of the entire pack / herd.

This mentality is genetically programmed into us, and is not something you can change just because you want it to. Maybe evolution will change it within a few hundred thousand years, but for our lifetimes, we're stuck with it.

And I just remembered, arguing against anarchy on this board is an absolute & total waste of time, so I'm out. :)
 
Kiopa_Matt said:
But this is where the whole argument of anarchism gets flawed. Us homosapiens are mammals, who are part of the animal kingdom. We might be highly intelligent mammals, but we're still just mammals. We have a pack mentality that's genetically programmed into us, same as virtually all other species of mammals. Herds / packs will form, and from them a leader will emerge, who is responsible for the overall welfare of the entire pack / herd.

This mentality is genetically programmed into us, and is not something you can change just because you want it to. Maybe evolution will change it within a few hundred thousand years, but for our lifetimes, we're stuck with it.

And I just remembered, arguing against anarchy on this board is an absolute & total waste of time, so I'm out. :)
Click to expand...

There is nothing wrong with people forming groups/society's etc. Anarchists only have a problem with people forcing those groups on others under the threat of violence.

We have the ability to suppress our instincts and make rational decisions. People used to follow kings and emperors (some still do), but a lot of people disagree with that now. People used to think slavery is right, most people disagree with that now.

People think we need a government and as long as it is a democracy it is "legit", more and more people are disagreeing with this now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom