Considering that governments all over the world are controlled by the WEF and also by a powerful pedophile cult that own everything, as well as working with major corporations to profit from the suffering of people, either from the shrinkage of the middle class in the western world via inflation or BlackRock owning every asset, or bringing destruction in third world countries, exploiting, killing and bringing them to first world countries as cheap labour and changing the demographics, while also destroying the planet with pollution and destruction of the environment, etc;
Is it fair to say that anarchy doesn't seem like a far fetched idea, especially being implemented in homogenous communities with high trust? Or is it a system that's bound to fail?
Anarchy: A vialable solution?
>a powerful pedophile cult that own everything,
...you mean the jews, glowie?
>Or is it a system that's bound to fail?
governments are also bound to fail. It'll get filled with jews and their goodgoys eventually
Anarchy is supposed to be developed naturally through trust, autonomy and cooperation. People are to know their duties and enforce them faithfully, but real humans don't give a shit about the complex AUTOcracy that an anarchist society would require. There is no love or discipline, the workers would rather go home and fuck their wives, the communes never work
some of them are jews, some of them are moloch worshippers, some of them are adrenochrome junkies; they're all the same
Yeah, all of them are jews, retard. Jews worship moloch and harvest adrenochrome. It's jews.
Anarchy as a term is tainted.
Your "peace" icon is the circle of death.
A better term: self-determination.
Anarchy isn't a solution. Anarchists never provide implementation details, they just describe their desired outcome. It's like the difference between describing what you want a piece of software to do and actually writing the code and demonstrating that it works.
The social order necessary for the elite to survive changes as technology etc changes, and anarchy is typically only useful for tearing down an old order once it is no longer useful to the elite. System's neatest trick etc. In time of technological progress, social conservatism harms the elite, because if the elite cannot create new social conditions that entrench their rule in the new technological environment, technological developments will make their rule insecure.
In the past all the astroturfed activist movements pushed for free speech, since it protected centralized corporate media. At that tech level, free speech favoured centralized media over decentralized media, because the centralized media was instant and worldwide, while decentralized media was still limited to face-to-face, which suppressed the advantage in network effects inherent to decentralized communication .
Now that we have the internet, all the astroturfed activist movements are pushing to abolish free speech. At this tech level, free speech favours decentralized media over centralized media, since all the advantages centralized corporate media once had (instant and worldwide) are now available to everyone, but the superior network effects are not available to centralized corporate media.
Mark Passio-Natural Law
Anarchy means No Rulers.
It does not mean there are no Rules.
Rules of Morality exist in nature just like the rules of Physics do
Did humanity not start off as Anarchy and the nature of human made the elite pedo cult come out on the Top?
anarchy is only a solution for sovereign entities, countries and individuals. There is no we in anarchism
>5
>a hea;thy distrust
there will always be some kind of goverments.
may it be gangs, local warlords, communities or cities that 'team up' to increase security against exactly the same kind of other goverments, like gangs, local warlords, communities or cities
real anarchism doesn't work and will, as said, automatically evolve into 'goverments'
just for example, watch The Walking Dead.
but i do agree, that there propably never was a more need for something else - but one thing's for sure, no matter what comes next, it will be just as bad or likely even worse than now.
Anarchy is non sustainable as a ruling ideology. There is natural order in nature, hierarchies, predator and prey.
I see it more as a personal belief thing, a libertarian will fight for permission, while an anarchist will do what he wants
Sort of, the main problem are people with that gay and african neurological malformation I always mention here.
> There is natural order in nature, hierarchies, predator and prey.
OOOOHH OOOHH AAAAAAAHHHH AAAAAHHHHH
Anarchy (true, philosophical anarchy, which is associated with no flag) is the highest political ideal achievable by man. That's easy to say, but nearly impossible to achieve, because an anarchistic system would manifest only through the mass voluntary renunciation of implementing coercion to control the actions of others. Recognize that even true anarchists distinguish between actions and behaviors between what people -should- do versus what they -must- do. Anarchist only use the second term with an absolute, and it's an absolute negative: there is only what one -should- do and what one must NOT do. In this way, anarchism provides the maximum liberty to all of it's philosophical adherents while permitting a huge space for individual preferences in behavior, beliefs and economic activities.
This form of anarchy, true anarchy, is diametrically opposed to the global managerial state that large supra-national collectives and NGOs (BlackRock, WEF, USA, EU, NATO, etc.) have been trying to inflict on mankind for over one hundred years. There is a concern among some people that the elevation of mankind into a state of stable anarchy is concomitant with a diminishment in technological progress, and that may be a warranted concern, but is reduceable in intensity when one considers that humans have lived in conditions of relative peace and fulfillment without reliance on the comfort that modern technology provides.
Consider works by Michael Huemer, Bakunin (God and the State, especially his section on the dangers of the "savant" class), The Managerial Revolution (solid foundation for what the future likely holds if we lose), definitions of Akratism by Brian Patrick Mitchell, Tolstoy's The Kingdom of God is Within You, and Proudhon's later works on Mutualism as well as David D. Friedman's "Machinery of Freedom" for a broad overview of how the many approaches to stable anarchy adhere to a residual perennial characteristic: freedom from coercion.
there has never been and never will be a good government
Anarchy isn't a system that you implement.
no, that's you shirking your own responsibility and blame, cope redneck
>Anarchists never provide implementation details
I see you've never met an ancap, they're overly autistic on the details
These cluster B disorders and neurological malformation stems from childhood trauma and bad negletful parenting. my grandparents were traumatized as children in ww2 by seeing their parents being killed etc. which made them detached from their feelings, learning tricks how to survive under hard circumstances etc. which made them cold parents who beat their children which made my parents narcissists who continue the cycle which made me a covert narcissist.
i would love anarchy because it takes goverment based protection mindset away from this snob society and i would have freedom and a purpose to thrive for and could easily fuck over people without going to jail. shit would be wild.