An Anarchist's brief perspective on the New Orleans situation

My but don't we have a high-and-mighty opinion of ourselves.

That is the definition as most sentient beings see it. Disregarding that fact puts you in the foolish and inaccurate seat.

 

Changing TImes, I tried to approach this nicely, but rampant hatred towards ALL 300 million of the Americans in the world has obviously made this impossible. People like you and Greva or whatever his name is can't see beyond their own overblown self delusions and their own HUGE sterotypes, prejudices and fantasies.

Yes. I know history. I also know that changing the definition of a word, to suit some silly Utopian ideal is ridiculous. I'm not too intelligent? Well at least I live in the real world and I don't judge people by simply what country they live in.

If your fantasy definition of "Anarchy" actually was usable, there would be countries with that form of Government, and there aren't. WHY, because it doesn't exist.

 

Not that I'm surprised, but you highly exaggerate what I said. Typical. I wasn't referring to every single American in the country, OBVIOUSLY. Have you ever heard of hyperbole? Many people do it out of passion. It doesn't mean that they mean it in the literal sense. From now on when I talk to you, I'll use basic terminology without any figures of speech. Every word will be straight-laced and to the point. That way we'll be able to communicate. I apologize for making the exaggeration.

Curious, I could point that same accusation at yourself and it would make much more sense. Thanks for the generality, though. I think that would also make you a hypocrit in this particular instance. Of course you'll deny that as well, won't you...
I can't even respond to it because I don't know what you're referring to.

I can see that your level of thinking is somewhat basic, so I'll try to ease up on you when I reply, as aggrivated as your responses make me.

Ok, first off, I don't judge people "simply" by what country they inhabit. What I judge is the culture...which in our case, is GENERALLY extremely ignorant and materialistic...and of course, greedy. As a "liberal", you should understand that without further explanation.

Second, I didn't change the definition of the word. Websters and the other propaganda tools did. I've researched and studied people who considered themselves anarchists, such as Emma Goldman (I bet you never heard of her) as well as others. I know that anarchism is a very nuanced ideology (and social system) that requires diligent study and understanding. What you heard from your 5th grade teacher means NOTHING. What you heard on MSNBC means NOTHING when it comes to proper definitions. If you understood the nature of the corporate (mainstream) media, you'd realize that there is so much more than meets our collective eye.

Third, how fucking dare you call it a "silly Utopian ideal" as if you knew anything about it. You believe EVERYTHING you hear from people in positions of power. People like yourself are an abomination to the American Dream. So, if anything, it's people like YOU who defy what it means to be American. You are WEAK. You sit around and do NOTHING but yap your silly mouth simply to hear yourself speak as though you're an expert on anything other than Soccer.

Oh my, what an intellect I'm dealing with here. Your level of thinking is so elementary that I literally have to start from scratch with my replies to you. "My" "fantasy" definition of ANARCHISM is recorded in history books. As for countries with that form of non-central government...it's happened before. Many American Indian tribes' way of life was very close to that and they thrived for a very long period of time until the people you admire every Columbus Day showed up and slaughtered their women, children, elders, culture, and spirit.

Maggie, don't take it from me, but...you are CERTAINLY no one to speak. Go research something please.

It would be nice if you would return to the Parent forum where you came from until you've reached an acceptable degree of analytical thought. Until then...soccer and icecream.

 

Anarchism is from the Greek word anarchia that means without a ruler, the reason Anarchist use the term "without a ruler" is from the idea that there is no such thing as being a bit free, you either are free or your not free thus the only way to be free is the people to be self-governed with democracy instead of leaders.

 

That's what anarchism is in a nutshell, but there's a huge body of info that can explain its history, it's TRUE definition and goals, and how it has regained legitimacy in the last decade.

www.infoshop.org

 

dont expect anyone here to be able to see the difference between a libertarian paradigm and an athoritarian one ....ive lived in the usa for over 40 years and i can assure you that despite their useless words ...americans , 99% at least , are greedy pigs without the capacity to even care a smidge beyond their own hatefull selfish zenophobic sadistic concerns .

 

In the overall picture of the disaster, looting seems inconsequential compared to the death of civilians ans destruction of the City.

Too much focus on looting obscures the need for relief and housing for the displaced. All of that looted merchandise is just a write-off.
.
I'm sure that nobody is proud to loot.

 

Wasnt New Orleans Itself Looted From The Indians And Then From The French !!

 

CT, I tried to approach you from a nonaggresive place, but your ad hominem attacks make it impossible for me to continue this conversation.

If you can show a real anarchist society which lasted more than a few years, I'd like to see it. If it was possible, it would be happening.

But, I'm done here. All you do is insult people's intelligence. It must be SO HARD being so right all the time. What a responsibility. I don't envy your position of absolute moral and intellectual superiority.

Again, stereotyping. I don't know a fucking thing about soccer, nor do I care. But, you have your PREJUDICES so ingrained that NOTHING anyone says who even slightly disagrees with you is listened to.

 

'if it were possible it would be happening' ...shit yea , lets just keep extreme poverty , war , prisons , and degrading dangerous slavish jobs ....cause theres no alternative !! and under equity ...some of us may be taken down a knotch ...

 

If we're talking about food and water...then it is NOT looting as the corporate media coverage would have the gullible believe. TVs and the like, of course, are something altogether different. There's no excuse for that. But the vast majority of the items stolen are items for sheer survival. Nobody can argue that although they will try...and try, and try some more.

 

You seem to be the one who wants to keep this conversation going, don't you. I would imagine because you are a 'moderator' that gives you the air or authority, and it feels good, doesn't it.

And well...it is! If you've never heard of the worldwide "anti-globalization" movement (aka Global Justice movement) that's been developing over the past several years, then that might explain why you are in the dark regarding the growing anarchist (or anti-capitalist) movement. In fact, the FBI has been collecting files on groups such as "Reclaim the Streets" and other "direct action" groups who have a practice of using what they term "non-violent civil disobedience", and well, non-violent is exactly what it's consistently been (before you try and throw the "violent anarchist" curveball at me). Again, I BEG OF YOU, do a google search of "modern anarchism" and I swear to you, it will show you what I've been attempting to explain to you to no avail.

I don't want you to envy anything, I just want you to open your mind. In all seriousness, when I walk away from an argument I start to think about it in perspective, and I do feel bad for the insults I threw at you, however, all you would do in your replys is talk about how "wildly idealistic" it is, giving no credence or respect to a time-honored philosophy based on a stereotype. You insulted me ALSO and I responded...harshly I admit, but I do apologize for that.

Well, you'd have to know me a pretty long time to make that determination. And I assure you, it's not the truth. It's only an initial reaction that dissipates in a short period of time, then I listen. I'm not that hard a nut to crack (in certain respects, that is). But I have every intention of taking what you say seriously as long as you don't insult or disrespect my philosophy of choice again. You can criticize and dissect, but it wont' fly with me unless you do it with an open mind (not to mention heart). Then and only then can I take anyone seriously.

 

But your assuming I was not only a soccer mom, but a conservative was made in an instant. Do different rules apply to you?

Here's the REALLY sad thing about your ad hominem attacks on me today, this is from my FIRST post on this thread:

But you obviously didn't want to see that. I really thought you could see what I said.

 

CT, I often agree with you, but not about anarchy

"But you obviously didn't want to see that. I really thought you could see what I said."

No, I did see that. I should have acknowledged it, but I got very angry that you were blinding yourself to my attempts at explaining to you what anarchISM is about, but you wouldn't even hear me out without stereotyping it.

The bottom line is, if you actually knew what anarchism was about...and I've been trying to explain...even provided a website, you would come to realize that you probably DO agree with a lot of what it's about. In fact, you already said you agreed with me on certain points. Well, as an anarchist myself, you happen to agree with one!

Oh, and the soccer thing...sorry

 

once apon a time in ill in oies ....they faked a conspiricy and hung four boys ..the fifth one went out with a bang quite big . and that was blasting cap louis ligg .....he wrote in his own blood for all to see .....hoc die anarkie . they brought the 8 hour day for u n me ....hung and then pardoned posthumusly . there burried in waldhiem wit all their bros ......1886 rapping thats how the struggle goes

 

CT, I've read the anarchist websites, I've read books. I have a BS and an MS in Psychology and Child Development, and despite the lovely ideas, I just don't have that much faith in humans, to live without trying to steal and get ahead and hurt anyone who is weaker than themselves. I'm old and jaded. Seen too much evil and human aggresiveness and war and hatred. I have read about Modern Anarchy, and I just can't see it working. I have a right to that. My educated opinion about this.

Socialst Democracy is the best humans can acheive. Unless you get to choose who gets to live in your country, you are gonna have shitheads who will fuck up the entire system. I can't see people with evil in their minds and hearts being able to live in a social Anarchy. I HAVE read about it.

*sigh*

 

From the movie Thin Red Line

"This great evil, where does it come from? How did it steal into the world? What root did it grow from? Who's doing this? Who killing us? Robbing us of life and light? Mocking us with the sight of what we might have known?"

Answer property, humans are not evil the system is.

 

I understand your being jaded. Sometimes I am too. But the thing is, I dont' agree that humans are born evil. I think there still is hope for us and that the reason people act the way they do now (violently, aggressively...etc) is because of the social environment they were brought up in. As an anarchist myself, I believe that the system of corporate capitalism is the primary player in the social malfunction of our society. I believe that people learn bad behavior, and that if a child was born and brought up in an anarchist world, he/she would have a very healthy psychological makeup watching people interacting cooperatively, seeing that people CAN and DO get along when the right social fabric is at work. I understand when you say that you can't see it happening...but that's only because you've never seen it in action. I have...not to sound like I'm tooting my horn, but I've been a part of this growing movement...I've personally witnessed people passing out blankets and food and water to masses of protesters at demonstrations and other "radical" events. Even Food Not Bombs (which professes to be an anarchist network) have been sending buses loaded with food and other essential items to the victims in and around New Orleans.

You just have to reach out to these people to see the energy and compassion they have. I've seen it in their eyes. It's the type of energy that makes you cry from being overwhelmed with joy. I've seen it first hand. I KNOW that it's possible. A popular slogan in the movement is "Another World Is Possible!"

Well...here's to trying!

 

personaly i dont care about a lot ....if millions had to die for freedon to fly im down with it .....and the anarchists who are collectivists and commies disown the indivdualists like spooner tucker green ect .....they think that people are basicly good and athority fucked them up ... people and other simions are basicaly mean and government comes from that .....fuck a kinder totaly equal world ....im into freedom for its own sake ...and over everyons sufferin and dyin bodys if nesecary .....kropotkins mutual aid had valid points but he supported the 1st w w.

 

Why is it that so many anarchists are snide, contemptful assholes yet believe human nature is so beautiful that with no government everyone would be suddenly be giving each other group hugs on the collective farm?

Infoshop IS propaganda, designed to discourage true thought and analysis. It obviously worked on you. Everybody gets to pick their propaganda and you've obviously picked yours, but its no reason to insult anyone else.

Nobody fucking cares if simple hunter gatherer societies hundred of years ago "worked" under what you claim was anarchy. It is a testament to emptiness of the ideology that such an example is put forward when talking about government in countries such as the United States. Let me turn the question around - can you think of a more irrelevant, and useless example to prove anarchy would work in the US? Because I can't.

Modern anarchy is a teen rebel ideology, it is not a "growing global movement". The two biggest poor countries, China and India, together nearly two billion people, are rapidly developing liberal capitalist economies. They are also, not coincidentally, rapidly prospering. Meanwhile hooded middle class American teen rebels smash Starbucks windows and compare anarchist fashion tips. Which movement matters? Not yours.

This is exacly what I'm talking about. Are we supposed to be shocked by this? Somehow awed by the power of a radical movement which is able to - without capitalism (except the capitalism which raised, fed, educated, and otherwise provided for them) - hand out food and water!