PDA

View Full Version : ANarchy



D0Kl3_th3_PUNK
12-19-2008, 08:51 PM
Tell me what a true anrchist is about

Endymion
12-19-2008, 08:56 PM
true anarchy is about living in colorado and using screen names with random arabic numerals substituting for latin characters.

D0Kl3_th3_PUNK
12-19-2008, 08:57 PM
true anarchy is about living in colorado and using screen names with random arabic numerals substituting for latin characters.

I am sorry but what the fuck is that supposed to mean?

adombomb222
12-20-2008, 12:19 AM
I was gonna say, I though he was talkin' about me. And I though, how shitty is that? The first night I come on here I'm made fun of with out even posting. Then I though, we'll I'm not an anarchist, why would he say that? Then I saw that you were from Englewood. It makes me sad, because I can be associated with you because of your proximity to my city...

wheelchairman
12-20-2008, 12:27 AM
You're not a true anarchist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

For one thing you use the term 'true anarchist', implying that there are 'fake anarchists' out there but that you are one of the real ones. (I'm getting this from your profile).

Since no one here has bothered to call your 'anarchy status' into question it makes me wonder why you felt like mentioning that at all?

Anyways you're probably a young guy, you've had the creativity to realize that just because things are a certain way now, doesn't mean they are permanent (and most people don't usually realize that). People here, including myself, just have a bad attitude towards anarchists.

adombomb222
12-20-2008, 12:30 AM
^ He speaks, the truth.

metalmania
12-20-2008, 02:38 AM
Anarchos(a grek word): an-archos:without chief(without government,without army)anarchism is not a simple idea.it has a long history with giritian zeno(i can say that he was first anarchist philosopher and his theories against platon's state idea)
anyway anarchism has 2 different view inside it:1. individualistic anarchism(you can see it in usa anarchists) 2.socialist or communist anarchism(in europe,in asia) the root is anarchism is workers and crushing classese like proleteria.bakunin,proudhon,kropotkin,errico malatesta,emma goldman(red amma)....they re really telling this idea.this idea against the capitalism ,emperialism and governments.no governments!no bourgeois.cause government is the power of authority.and its against special property.

somebody says"hey anarchism is chaos" its a big lie.cause its nor true. this idea a perfect utopia cause anarchism says:freedom,brotherhood,solidarity!!!the centre of anarchism is individual but individual's freedom just can live with society's freedom so first person's freedom and after in this system society's freedom
many anarchist writers say that"anarchism is the ungovernment socialism"hehe yep anarchism can resemble to socialism or communism(communism means scientific socialist view) but some sides re different like individualism ....

i said that anarchism shelters different views inside:you can see the christian anarchists or agorist anarchism or primitivist anarchism:but they re all individualist anarko derivatives!and dont forget anarchism is against the relegion blocks like god's kingdom,jesus kingdom or other relegion kingdoms cause these methods take your free views and humanity becomes sheep gangs like in our times

i said that its an idea of freedom,its not an idea of chAos.maybe sometimes chaos can live but it cant live 4eva!our world is living in killer,butcher governments's hands and humanity is seeing these wars these crimes with empty eyes!just minds,just smashing people can save this world.first nations's folks unite after,these people lifts the limits and nations unite in unlimited world.it seems so hard but people can try it(1848,1870,1905,1915....)and they did it.
just freedom,brotherhood,solidarity!just these can save us!so viva anarko communist philosophy !

pyrimid
12-20-2008, 03:47 AM
Anarchos(a grek word): an-archos:without chief(without government,without army)anarchism is not a simple idea.it has a long history with giritian zeno(i can say that he was first anarchist philosopher and his theories against platon's state idea)
anyway anarchism has 2 different view inside it:1. individualistic anarchism(you can see it in usa anarchists) 2.socialist or communist anarchism(in europe,in asia) the root is anarchism is workers and crushing classese like proleteria.bakunin,proudhon,kropotkin,errico malatesta,emma goldman(red amma)....they re really telling this idea.this idea against the capitalism ,emperialism and governments.no governments!no bourgeois.cause government is the power of authority.and its against special property.

somebody says"hey anarchism is chaos" its a big lie.cause its nor true. this idea a perfect utopia cause anarchism says:freedom,brotherhood,solidarity!!!the centre of anarchism is individual but individual's freedom just can live with society's freedom so first person's freedom and after in this system society's freedom
many anarchist writers say that"anarchism is the ungovernment socialism"hehe yep anarchism can resemble to socialism or communism(communism means scientific socialist view) but some sides re different like individualism ....

i said that anarchism shelters different views inside:you can see the christian anarchists or agorist anarchism or primitivist anarchism:but they re all individualist anarko derivatives!and dont forget anarchism is against the relegion blocks like god's kingdom,jesus kingdom or other relegion kingdoms cause these methods take your free views and humanity becomes sheep gangs like in our times

i said that its an idea of freedom,its not an idea of chAos.maybe sometimes chaos can live but it cant live 4eva!our world is living in killer,butcher governments's hands and humanity is seeing these wars these crimes with empty eyes!just minds,just smashing people can save this world.first nations's folks unite after,these people lifts the limits and nations unite in unlimited world.it seems so hard but people can try it(1848,1870,1905,1915....)and they did it.
just freedom,brotherhood,solidarity!just these can save us!so viva anarko communist philosophy !

These uprisings you speak of were not of anarchy. They were of rebellion against a unjust government structure.

I do believe in anarchy.

Anarchy is not socialism or communism like you have tried to explain.

Anarchy is the social experiment of trying new forms of government or rule through the tearing down of the social and ruling structure that exists. No anarchist wants to live in chaos for any period of time. Hence anarchy is fleeting and only will exist in small bursts during the times of transition of rule or government. Anarchy cannot last, as humans we tend to want and need for structure and law, so even when anarchy comes it is soon replaced with some form of rule or government. Even the best of anarchist eventually give in to the oldest form of government, mob rule.

metalmania
12-20-2008, 11:12 AM
These uprisings you speak of were not of anarchy. They were of rebellion against a unjust government structure.

I do believe in anarchy.

Anarchy is not socialism or communism like you have tried to explain.

Anarchy is the social experiment of trying new forms of government or rule through the tearing down of the social and ruling structure that exists. No anarchist wants to live in chaos for any period of time. Hence anarchy is fleeting and only will exist in small bursts during the times of transition of rule or government. Anarchy cannot last, as humans we tend to want and need for structure and law, so even when anarchy comes it is soon replaced with some form of rule or government. Even the best of anarchist eventually give in to the oldest form of government, mob rule.

hehe hey dude ,try to read my ideas please! anarchy is a revolution and this idea's basic is continual revolution!and its different from communism or socialism cause anarchy doesnt beleive to leaders like other views(lenin,marx) but anarchy or socialism or communism got common ideas and differnet ideas;anarchy's basic is individualism.ok?is it not true? so proudhon and marx's ideas were different about this subject! i told about historical development of anarchism and i told about derivative of anarchism.and one of derivative of anarchism is comun anarko ;) its just a derivative ;) and i didnt try to explain it ,i didnt try to unite to anarchy with socialism ;) its just anarchy's ideas and derivatives maybe you cant know.and i say again;anarchism is a hard and perfect idea and we dont break into pieces this idea.a person's freedom brings people's freedom.is it bad?;)
anyway thanx for your ideas

Cock Joke
12-20-2008, 02:07 PM
You called?

metalmania
12-20-2008, 04:36 PM
so if we fight about anarchist concepts;we cant arrive nothing.we have a synthesis!

iPunk247
12-20-2008, 08:29 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism


Thanks for the Info. an Intelligent person like yourself shall teach a slow student like myself a lesson to be learned. Thus far as the Universe is concerned. :) :D :cool:

Al Coholic
12-21-2008, 01:36 PM
If there was an anarchist party, what animal do you think they'd use?

metalmania
12-21-2008, 01:44 PM
poff couldnt you find a better question? :D:p:cool:

Al Coholic
12-21-2008, 06:05 PM
Not really. Most people that describe themselves as Anarchists are actually just idealist socialists. Pyrimid makes a legit argument but its neither here nor there. If thats your definition of an anarchist, then you believe in revolution. Which is fine, many great things have come from revolution and I think to an extent we all believe in revolting when necessary. But how does that really make you an anarchist?

But think about it, if there was an american anarchy party, what animal would they choose? Reps are elephants, dems are donkeys...maybe the anarchist anteater? or would they be super hardcore and be all like, we believe in no government, so no animal.

HornyPope
12-21-2008, 10:08 PM
Not really. Most people that describe themselves as Anarchists are actually just idealist socialists. Pyrimid makes a legit argument but its neither here nor there. If thats your definition of an anarchist, then you believe in revolution. Which is fine, many great things have come from revolution and I think to an extent we all believe in revolting when necessary. But how does that really make you an anarchist?

But think about it, if there was an american anarchy party, what animal would they choose? Reps are elephants, dems are donkeys...maybe the anarchist anteater? or would they be super hardcore and be all like, we believe in no government, so no animal.

Well, you wouldn't be an anarchist if you didn't believe in revolution. So at least this satisfies the 'second order' condition.

Also, having animals as your party mascot is just a populist and a marketing tactic to identify or to brand oneself. It's not like it was here since the first age of Governments... So no, of course anarchists wouldn't want of that shit.

metalmania
12-22-2008, 07:01 AM
hehe hey dudes,i guess everybody thinks like that"hey man a perfect anarchist is me" and other man"no dude,im the super anarchist" blablabla.hey leave this comic argument and tell me how can we contribute to anarchism philosophy with our ideas.ok? talk about workers,talk about smashing people talk about governments and bourgeous's immoral power,talk about capitalism and iemperialism's slaves!or dont talk with comic accusations.if you all do it ,nothing is change!tell me is the private property not theft??? tell me ; arent your governments making new slaves????government or a chief or a guider makes you slave and it kills your free soul so we cant accept it.your master is you.only you but dont forget if you can be free,you try to work to freedom of other people!ok?now these speechs re only in communism or socialism...i dont mean these views(soc. or comm.) re bad but these views cant see the holiness of individualism.so anarchism's centre is individual!even anarchist philosophers re still debatin' on this subject!...... so we can still debate!and im concerning now:will you still continue to accuse to yourselves?

metalmania
12-22-2008, 10:40 AM
"anarquismo sin adjetives"
maybe you join this view but i guess im not.anyway i advise to you read the manifest of bakunin in Germany(1868)

pyrimid
12-22-2008, 11:34 PM
"anarquismo sin adjetives"
maybe you join this view but i guess im not.anyway i advise to you read the manifest of bakunin in Germany(1868)

Not a bad book if you ignore the blatant racism. Another book that blames everyone’s problems on another race.

pyrimid
12-22-2008, 11:35 PM
If there was an anarchist party, what animal do you think they'd use?

Roadkill!.....

metalmania
12-23-2008, 07:17 AM
Not a bad book if you ignore the blatant racism. Another book that blames everyone’s problems on another race.
thanx dude,im gonna try it and i'd read the life of peter kropotkin,i guess his ideas re better than bakunin and proudhon,absolutelly they were serving to same goal but they had different views in practice anyway c ya later!freedom 4eva!

D0Kl3_th3_PUNK
12-24-2008, 09:23 PM
Well, I believe in anarchy and i kinda believe that this is kinda bullshit because i am participating to comfomity. I believe personaly Anarchy is where you govern your self. you dont care what people think about you or anything like that. I guess di double cross myself there:eek:

IamSam
12-25-2008, 04:33 PM
You want anarchy? Move to Somalia.

Satanic_Surfer
12-26-2008, 12:08 AM
Somalia is plagued by profit interests. It doesnt get more capitalism than that.

The idea of anarchy is that it's the most democratic form of society, and that in a democratic society where the people has more of a say, problems are more likely to be solved with a peaceful outcome aswell. 2 democratic countries has for instance never gone to war against each other.

More power to the people, not more people to the power.

IamSam
12-26-2008, 12:17 AM
Somalia has no established government. You anarchist type people should be happy with that. Now stop making excuses and go...do...whatever you do to be an anarchist.

Satanic_Surfer
12-26-2008, 01:49 AM
Yeah, Somalia has no established government, but if that is your definition of anarchy then i guess you, who want democracy, should go the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea? (North Korea). :p

And dont make any excuses now!

Paint_It_Black
12-26-2008, 08:27 AM
Anarchy means no government, so yeah it would apply pretty well to Somalia.

I've had some experience with "smart" anarchists, but I'll never understand why they insist on using the word "anarchy".

It would be like if people who like children voluntarily call themselves pedophiles. And then have to spend all their time explaining how they don't mean they like children sexually. And being annoyed that they have to keep explaining it to everyone. What the fuck, use a different word then. Jesus.



The idea of anarchy is that it's the most democratic form of society

That's fucking retarded. Unless your idea of democracy is everyone doing whatever the fuck they want to do, whenever the fuck they want to do it. Including rape, murder etc. Democracy is simply about having a say in who governs you. Not no government at all.

IamSam
12-26-2008, 10:11 AM
Yeah, Somalia has no established government, but if that is your definition of anarchy then i guess you, who want democracy, should go the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea? (North Korea). :p

And dont make any excuses now!

Don't assume that I want democracy. Besides of which, anarchy needs a lack of government in order to operate. You know...the whole anti-establishment thing.

Al Coholic
12-26-2008, 11:01 AM
It seems each "anarchist" here has their own definition of anarchy. Some believe in a democracy where 'everyone' has a say...although they neglect that there is no system to enforce that say making it pointless...others have the most naive ideals about human nature. Some of you are describing semi-utopian societies that DO have governments, and a few of you have made a valid point or two but as PIB said, you don't really seem to be anarchists.

If we all woke up this morning and there was worldwide anarchy it would lead to complete chaos and ruin. If you find yourself stranded on and island with like, 8 other people than maybe you'll do fine without a governing body.

If it wasn't for punk rock music, teenage rebelliousness, and that stupid fucking symbol I doubt anyone here would make the point that society would be better off without government.

metalmania
12-26-2008, 01:38 PM
democracy??? hehe so what does it mean?who can explain of this term?please tell it ;) and someone says "hey if you want the anarchy so look at somalia"hehe this explanation is so easy and scattering cause anarchism is not chaos!but tvs,news,newspapers did teach to you that anarchy is chaos!and i cant accuse you cause its was a concious propaganda about anarchism and you beleive it but its not true.the reality is anarchism advocates the freedom,no government(no political authority),solidarity,equality.these re bad!anarchism hates the capitalism and emperialism.is it bad?anarchism thinks workers,smashing individuals,societies and i said em all before 1-2 pages.anyway so please dont tell the somalia example cause its so comic.if you want to debate about anarchism;you have to read bakunin's,kropotkin's,emma goldman's,giritian zeno's views!if you want to debate this philosophy that you have to know the history of this philosophy,derivatives of anarchism ....you have to know these ;) if not you can just say empty words.i guess when we talk about anarchism you just understand chaos, to destroy,terror......haha these re just empty and foolish terms;) so tell me democracy!!!democracy is everywhere in world so world is a warground now!!!how can it be???so tell ;)

jacknife737
12-26-2008, 01:41 PM
2 democratic countries has for instance never gone to war against each other.

That's not true. Here are a few examples, and there are a lot more, believe me.

The American Civil War - Both the North and the South had democratically elected governments

War of 1812 - US and UK = democracies

World War I - Germany, although arguably not a "proper" democracy by todays standards, it still had a democratically elected parliament (or whatever they call it there) vs Britain, France both of which are democracies

World War II - Germany (Hitler was elected to power) vs Western Liberal Democracies

Kosovo 1999 - NATO (a collection of democratic countries) vs Federal Republic of Yugoslavia a democracy.

2008, Georgia vs Russia

Although it may have some merits, the democratic peace theory is full of shit.

metalmania
12-26-2008, 01:43 PM
Although it may have some merits, the democratic peace theory is full of shit.[/QUOTE]
you re right and humanity's beleiving this biggest lie ;)

IamSam
12-26-2008, 01:49 PM
democracy??? hehe so what does it mean?who can explain of this term?please tell it ;) and someone says "hey if you want the anarchy so look at somalia"hehe this explanation is so easy and scattering cause anarchism is not chaos!but tvs,news,newspapers did teach to you that anarchy is chaos!and i cant accuse you cause its was a concious propaganda about anarchism and you beleive it but its not true.the reality is anarchism advocates the freedom,no government(no political authority),solidarity,equality.these re bad!anarchism hates the capitalism and emperialism.is it bad?anarchism thinks workers,smashing individuals,societies and i said em all before 1-2 pages.anyway so please dont tell the somalia example cause its so comic.if you want to debate about anarchism;you have to read bakunin's,kropotkin's,emma goldman's,giritian zeno's views!if you want to debate this philosophy that you have to know the history of this philosophy,derivatives of anarchism ....you have to know these ;) if not you can just say empty words.i guess when we talk about anarchism you just understand chaos, to destroy,terror......haha these re just empty and foolish terms;) so tell me democracy!!!democracy is everywhere in world so world is a warground now!!!how can it be???so tell ;)


Anarchy: 1 a: absence of government b: a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c: a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

Somalia works because:
A: It has an absence of government
B: It is in a state of lawlessness and political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority

and

C: Somalia is a utopia for individuals in charge (warlords) enjoying their freedom without the government.

Somalia is in anarchy. Period. End of argument.

I'm not going to argue about democracy with you.

metalmania
12-26-2008, 02:00 PM
IamSam; we cant debate about this philosophy with you ,you re right !cause we re talkin on different poinst and you re always talking about somalia ;) and you re right again cause warlords's games re in somalia and there is chaos there ,not anarchy(an-archos) ok who did bring the chaos to somalia? which democratic countires? these waepon inc. re serving to capitalism only?who re the biggest capitalist countries? anyway thanx!

IamSam
12-26-2008, 02:13 PM
It wasn't any capitalist countries. It was a leader that started tribes infighting and destabilized the country during the '70s and '80s. The United Nations failed miserably in the 90's to stabilize the country, but didn't understand the correct ways to do it. They misused troops, supplies, and the governmental creation sessions were FUBAR. Don't mess with me on Somalia. I did a lot of research for a project this last semester.

And you are mis-translating your Greek. "an" means without and "archos" means ruler.

If you're going to argue something you must understand it first. Understanding is something you are failing miserably at.

metalmania
12-26-2008, 02:21 PM
i forgot that:italy did exploit somalia and united kingdom did exploit somalialand until 1960!and these countries left them with a terrible horror.they'd regain to freedom 1960.somalia lives in a big horror still, now chaos is there now but reason of this event is colonist mentality.why did exploit there for years? for freedom?for civilization?hehe italy and u.k! they say "we re democratic countries" ;)

metalmania
12-26-2008, 02:26 PM
yeah i said that an-archos:ungovernment ;) dont worry ;i know this idea's philosophy,foundations,principles,thinkers....mayb e sometimes my english is not enough for explain them ,so you have to be tolerant :)

metalmania
12-26-2008, 02:38 PM
and im curious about ideas relevant iraq.remember!usa'd go there for to bring the freedom and civilization.and one million people's living in another world now under the earth ;) now chaos is there again!why?where is freedom?usa is still there with perfect weapons.so why chaos is always in east countries and why biggest countries want to bring the freedom to these countries? just for freedom? what do you think about caucaus(kafkasia) and north caucaus!

IamSam
12-26-2008, 03:54 PM
I don't get this angry very often. If this was your goal, then congrats. All you do on here is grasp at straws and when proved wrong you turn to American failures in Iraq. It's a predictable and illogical argument that you always turn to. Stop it.

The colonization of Somaliland by the English and Italians had nothing to do with Somalia's collapse in the 1980's. Nothing. Zip. Nadda. Nothing. Or in your language, so you understand: Nyet.

Siad Barre on the other hand is the reason why the country collapsed. If you want, I'll post my entire project online for your reading pleasure...that is if you can understand any of it. (Or even choose to comprehend the fact that you're dealing with an individual that has studied the Somali problem for a while now.)

Satanic_Surfer
12-26-2008, 11:18 PM
Anarchism was there way before punk. And it was probably as rebellious by then. At least considering anarchist history. Anarchy is as much the lack of government as it is the lack of the monetary system wich in turn makes capitalism impossible.

All the talk about rape and murder is just silly. Nothing says there are no rules in an anarchist society. Thing is that the they're not upheld by a state and rather than a representative democracy, the anarchist society would use a form of direct democracy. Anarchy is a form of democracy, one where the participation of the people is broader than today. But Somalia is as much anarchist as the Peoples Democratic Republic of Korea is democratic.

If there is anything that shows that anarchist societies would've been plagued by rape and murder to any higher degree than any other society, i'd gladly take a look at that information. I dont see why a society would accept such.

Satanic_Surfer
12-26-2008, 11:20 PM
Although it may have some merits, the democratic peace theory is full of shit.

Well yeah, the theory isnt waterproof. Although the theory that Nazi Germany would be a democracy isnt either.

Al Coholic
12-27-2008, 12:28 AM
Anarchism was there way before punk. And it was probably as rebellious by then. At least considering anarchist history. Anarchy is as much the lack of government as it is the lack of the monetary system wich in turn makes capitalism impossible.

All the talk about rape and murder is just silly. Nothing says there are no rules in an anarchist society. Thing is that the they're not upheld by a state and rather than a representative democracy, the anarchist society would use a form of direct democracy. Anarchy is a form of democracy, one where the participation of the people is broader than today. But Somalia is as much anarchist as the Peoples Democratic Republic of Korea is democratic.

If there is anything that shows that anarchist societies would've been plagued by rape and murder to any higher degree than any other society, i'd gladly take a look at that information. I dont see why a society would accept such.

Ok... you do realize that what your describing isn't anarchy. It is, as I've said earlier, a utoian democracy with no authority to enforce itself. Lets say, for the sake of argument, that a system was created where we all participate and debate in some kind of ancient greek athenian style democracy adapted for the 21st century. And lets pretend that even though there is a system in place... this is somehow still anarchy because nobody, in theory, has more power than the next person. We all get together and vote on whats best for us. What exactly makes this system work? the collective good of people? No, human nature is not so that millions will go along with whatever is asked for the greater good. And once you create any authority to enforce anything at all, well fuck, thats a governing body right there.


YOU PEOPLE ARE NOT ANARCHISTS. You describe various utopias. Some are socialistic. Some are very democratic. Some are skeletal governments. Some are just plain retarded. But they are all a form of government none the less. Anarchy is:

–noun 1. a state of society without government or law.
2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.
3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.
4. confusion; chaos; disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith.


Notice number three. It is a THEORY that proposes Cooperative and VOLUNTARY association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.... the idea that society as a whole would voluntarily do anything is insanely naive. This country couldn't even get people to pay the basic income tax untill we had invested in systems to enfore taxes. You think me or anyone else is gonna get up in the morning and bust my ass for the greater good? Fuck no. It is a shitty theory that DOESNT WORK on a large scale.

Any one government or leader can be as imperfect as anybody else. But I'd rather take that over the collective imperfections of every individual combined. Governments will always be imperfect and have their flaws. But the better ones provide stability. It is within that stability that we have the oppertunity to grow as a society, and as individuals to better society within the system, or better the system itself. In anarchy, we are left to fend for ourselves. you don't have to be an expert on human nature to know thats exactly what people will do. When the violent and criminal are left unchecked, even the best of people will ultimately do whatevers necessary to protect themselves and their families. Thats not a formula for prosperity.


One last time. You people aren't anarchists. An anarchist is:

1. a person who seeks to overturn by violence all constituted forms and institutions of society and government, with no purpose of establishing any other system of order in the place of that destroyed.
2. a person who promotes disorder or excites revolt against any established rule, law, or custom.

We all have our idea of what an ideal society would look like. As soon as you start describing it though, your not advocating anarchy, but rather some naive untopia. Would you all just stop already?

pyrimid
12-27-2008, 01:27 AM
Somalia works because:
A: It has an absence of government
B: It is in a state of lawlessness and political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority

and

C: Somalia is a utopia for individuals in charge (warlords) enjoying their freedom without the government.

Somalia is in anarchy. Period. End of argument.

I am going to have to disagree with you on this matter.

I was there in 1988 and what you had was not anarchy. You had warring factions who each had their own form of government. Mostly dictatorships, each faction had its own form of law what they thought they believed was the right thing to do or were told by their leader or warlord. Yes there were small pockets of anarchy but that is present in any war environment. But we had several times when we visited a village and the rules were no guns then the next week everyone was armed, and their was a new warlord in charge. I remember one village we visited where they killed everyone in the village because they were flying the wrong flag. The local warlord had died the week before and the new warlord who had moved in wanted to make them an example to any others who did not follow his rules.

So each of these warlords had formed their own governments, in their own region. So by what you are saying is that the dictators are the anarchists? This makes no sense, each of the warlords make their own rules hence they are the government for their region.

pyrimid
12-27-2008, 01:47 AM
That's not true. Here are a few examples, and there are a lot more, believe me.

The American Civil War - Both the North and the South had democratically elected governments

War of 1812 - US and UK = democracies

World War I - Germany, although arguably not a "proper" democracy by todays standards, it still had a democratically elected parliament (or whatever they call it there) vs Britain, France both of which are democracies

World War II - Germany (Hitler was elected to power) vs Western Liberal Democracies

Kosovo 1999 - NATO (a collection of democratic countries) vs Federal Republic of Yugoslavia a democracy.

2008, Georgia vs Russia

Although it may have some merits, the democratic peace theory is full of shit.


The American Civil War - Both the North and the South had democratically elected governments

True Mostly

War of 1812 - US and UK = democracies

False – UK - Constitutional Monarchy

World War I - Germany, although arguably not a "proper" democracy by todays standards, it still had a democratically elected parliament (or whatever they call it there) vs Britain, France both of which are democracies

False – UK - Constitutional Monarchy
France - Republic

World War II - Germany (Hitler was elected to power) vs Western Liberal Democracies

False – by the start of WW II Germany was a dictatorship (Hitler had outlawed all other political parties)

Kosovo 1999 - NATO (a collection of democratic countries) vs Federal Republic of Yugoslavia a democracy.

False - Kosovo – Republic
Nato – a bit of everything

2008, Georgia vs Russia

False - Russia is a Federation
Georgia - Democratic Republic

IamSam
12-27-2008, 02:19 AM
I am going to have to disagree with you on this matter.

I was there in 1988 and what you had was not anarchy. You had warring factions who each had their own form of government. Mostly dictatorships, each faction had its own form of law what they thought they believed was the right thing to do or were told by their leader or warlord. Yes there were small pockets of anarchy but that is present in any war environment. But we had several times when we visited a village and the rules were no guns then the next week everyone was armed, and their was a new warlord in charge. I remember one village we visited where they killed everyone in the village because they were flying the wrong flag. The local warlord had died the week before and the new warlord who had moved in wanted to make them an example to any others who did not follow his rules.

So each of these warlords had formed their own governments, in their own region. So by what you are saying is that the dictators are the anarchists? This makes no sense, each of the warlords make their own rules hence they are the government for their region.

Metalmania: This is how you do it! Learn from him young grasshopper!

Pyramid: I'll get back to you on this. You have me intrigued as you've been there. I'll get back to you tomorrow. Right now I'm too tired and a little too tipsy to deal with this!

Satanic_Surfer
12-27-2008, 03:00 AM
We all have our idea of what an ideal society would look like. As soon as you start describing it though, your not advocating anarchy, but rather some naive untopia. Would you all just stop already?
What is your source for your meaning behind the word "anarchist"?

Truth is your definition of the word "anarchist" is simply wrong. Anarchy and order are the two basics of anarchism, wich is why you may have noticed the A for Anarchy circled in an O for Order. There is nothing chaotic about it.

There is a reason for that. And there is a reason that anarchy and disorder are two seperate words, because they do not have the same meaning and are in fact unrelated. If you want to make disorder an "ism", be my guest. But dont tell me who i am.

adombomb222
12-27-2008, 07:44 AM
Any argument for anarchy is retarded, bottom line - period.

I do, however, advocate anarchy as a bridge toward a better democracy, in America. Propaganda by the deed is, in my opinion, a reasonable means to get ride of a leader who is unfavorable and weak for the nation.

metalmania
12-27-2008, 09:17 AM
Anarchos(a grek word): an-archos:without chief(without government,without army)anarchism is not a simple idea.it has a long history with giritian zeno(i can say that he was first anarchist philosopher and his theories against platon's state idea)
anyway anarchism has 2 different view inside it:1. individualistic anarchism(you can see it in usa anarchists) 2.socialist or communist anarchism(in europe,in asia) the root is anarchism is workers and crushing classese like proleteria.bakunin,proudhon,kropotkin,errico malatesta,emma goldman(red amma)....they re really telling this idea.this idea against the capitalism ,emperialism and governments.no governments!no bourgeois.cause government is the power of authority.and its against special property.

somebody says"hey anarchism is chaos" its a big lie.cause its nor true. this idea a perfect utopia cause anarchism says:freedom,brotherhood,solidarity!!!the centre of anarchism is individual but individual's freedom just can live with society's freedom so first person's freedom and after in this system society's freedom
many anarchist writers say that"anarchism is the ungovernment socialism"hehe yep anarchism can resemble to socialism or communism(communism means scientific socialist view) but some sides re different like individualism ....

i said that anarchism shelters different views inside:you can see the christian anarchists or agorist anarchism or primitivist anarchism:but they re all individualist anarko derivatives!and dont forget anarchism is against the relegion blocks like god's kingdom,jesus kingdom or other relegion kingdoms cause these methods take your free views and humanity becomes sheep gangs like in our times

i said that its an idea of freedom,its not an idea of chAos.maybe sometimes chaos can live but it cant live 4eva!our world is living in killer,butcher governments's hands and humanity is seeing these wars these crimes with empty eyes!just minds,just smashing people can save this world.first nations's folks unite after,these people lifts the limits and nations unite in unlimited world.it seems so hard but people can try it(1848,1870,1905,1915....)and they did it.
just freedom,brotherhood,solidarity!
i said these speechs on 1.page but i must repeat again.i told history of anarchism and i told the derivatives of anarchism and i claim the black-red flag of anarchism.yes our world saw that democracy is a big lie and the biggest capitalist countries re using this term and they crush poor countries with this lie.they use the democracy word for just to exploit and they exploit their folks too!cause people's hungry,people has not money,people's unemployed and people cant think about these subject but reason of these all problem is capitalism and emperialism.cant you see it??so lets leave people free!these governments re just a puppet of oil-gas-weapon incs.you can say that anarchism and other liberastic(mean freedom) views re just utopia so i say that yeah i love this idea,i claim this idea until i die and this idea cant kill people,this idea does not even exploit a person!!!!bur your realistic order????yeah allworld is watching it;)
"folks re our brother;governments re our enemy!!!! so viva free idea!

Al Coholic
12-27-2008, 09:19 AM
What is your source for your meaning behind the word "anarchist"?

Truth is your definition of the word "anarchist" is simply wrong. Anarchy and order are the two basics of anarchism, wich is why you may have noticed the A for Anarchy circled in an O for Order. There is nothing chaotic about it.

There is a reason for that. And there is a reason that anarchy and disorder are two seperate words, because they do not have the same meaning and are in fact unrelated. If you want to make disorder an "ism", be my guest. But dont tell me who i am.

You're frustrating me with how many times we go in circles. After everything I said you're going to ignore it all and contuinue to describe some kind of naive, make believe utopia. You describe the end but not the means in any way. How does that make sense? What you're saying is, everyones just going to do the right thing because there is no government. You do realize that doesn't make any sense whatsoever? So to clear some things up:

Define for me, a functional, productive, prosperous anarchy. Don't just paint up some fictional utopia where everyone does the right thing, give me a working model that actual makes sense, HOW you would achieve it, HOW you would overcome human nature, and HOW you can do all this WITHOUT creating a system of governance that enforces itself.

jacknife737
12-27-2008, 12:07 PM
@ pyrimid

Constitutional monarchies, federations, republics ect, all involve forms of democratically elected governments. Obviously, today, very few countries are straight up “democracies”, but as far as the democratic peace theory is concerned, that is irrelevant. My point remains, is that given certain conditions, nations with democratically elected governments are more than willing to go to war against one another.

As well, we're just splitting hairs if you want to argue whether or not the countries i mentioned are "democracies"' ie the UK may indeed be a constitutional monarchy, but it is also a parliamentary democracy, ect. This division is again, irrelevant to my point.

metalmania
12-27-2008, 02:37 PM
marx(he was communist but his some views were perfect),,bakunin,kropotkin,chomsky re told this views but why dont you read them?;)

Al Coholic
12-27-2008, 03:28 PM
metalmania - I understand that yes, modern democracies are not perfect. They have their fair share of corruption. But seriously, saying that living in anarchy, and having no means with which to check the corruption of others is better, is dumb. Its like saying that traffic lights are imperfect because they sometimes malfunction. so we should take them all down. People will naturally drive safe anyway.

metalmania
12-27-2008, 03:30 PM
al coholic!i hope that you understand me ;)

Not Ozymandias
12-27-2008, 06:08 PM
*runs in, huffing and puffing* Sorry I'm late, folks.



Tell me what a true anrchist is about
A true anarchist is about the biggest dipshit in the fucking galaxy.

Al Coholic
12-27-2008, 06:47 PM
^Agreed. Fuck it, I'm out.

pyrimid
12-27-2008, 10:08 PM
@ pyrimid

Constitutional monarchies, federations, republics ect, all involve forms of democratically elected governments. Obviously, today, very few countries are straight up “democracies”, but as far as the democratic peace theory is concerned, that is irrelevant. My point remains, is that given certain conditions, nations with democratically elected governments are more than willing to go to war against one another.

As well, we're just splitting hairs if you want to argue whether or not the countries i mentioned are "democracies"' ie the UK may indeed be a constitutional monarchy, but it is also a parliamentary democracy, ect. This division is again, irrelevant to my point.

I agree, but you did say these were democracies and I just wanted to be a dick..

metalmania
12-28-2008, 11:35 AM
hey sam i guess you suppose that im from russia :D im not from there;) and i dont care where's people from? but i can say it im from beetween europe-asia-middleast ;) so i know this geography very good ;)

D0Kl3_th3_PUNK
12-28-2008, 02:06 PM
fuck yuah bro. I love communism. one of the smartist idead ever:p

pyrimid
12-30-2008, 02:58 AM
fuck yuah bro. I love communism. one of the smartist idead ever:p

Are you serious?

Do you have any idea that you could not be saying the things you are saying under communism? Places like this would be one of the first things to go, free speech is never acceptable under communism. This is the norm, remove freedoms, rights, then the individual, everyone the same, everyone good little comrades.

Bipolar Bear
12-30-2008, 07:37 AM
They keep you in fear and make you believe anarchy would be chaotic in
order for you to keep obeying your government and be a nice calm little
robot. Rebel yourselves, people! -Torches a random car-

wheelchairman
12-30-2008, 08:00 AM
Are you serious?

Do you have any idea that you could not be saying the things you are saying under communism? Places like this would be one of the first things to go, free speech is never acceptable under communism. This is the norm, remove freedoms, rights, then the individual, everyone the same, everyone good little comrades.

This is true under most dictatorships, not just 'communist'* ones. I would point towards Venezuela and Bolivia, states whose leaders openly state that they are taking their countries on the socialist path. They still retain in large part, their freedom of speech, rights, individuality (I wasn't aware that the Soviet Union eliminated that), etc.

And you are completely wrong about 'everyone the same,' that was never a goal of 'communism'.*

* When I say communist, I am specifically referring to the socialist states of Eastern Europe, and to China, Vietnam, North Korea, Cuba. I am using the term 'socialist' and 'communist' as synonyms, yet I am aware that Marxists have a different use, and that other people might have their own definitions for those words, in the instance of this post they are the same.

metalmania
12-30-2008, 08:08 AM
soviet government was not socialist/communist(except lenin period) and stain's terrible policies cant explain the meaning of socialism.and "communism is scientific socialist world view" so governments cant be communist cause there is no idea of country in communism but governments can be socialist ;) and many anarchist philosophers say:anarchism is the "socialism without government" ;)

metalmania
12-31-2008, 11:05 AM
now new i celebrate your new year's day(3 hours later) anyway i begun to drink .hell yeah the best drink is rakı so rakı rulzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.so go hell emperialism and capitalism and fascism!

D0Kl3_th3_PUNK
01-01-2009, 03:56 PM
If there was an anarchist party, what animal do you think they'd use?

they wouldn't use one because anarchy is about having no sistimatical government

Al Coholic
01-02-2009, 12:13 AM
they wouldn't use one because anarchy is about having no sistimatical government

I'm not talking about a systematical government. I'm talking about a political party organized as an effective way to spread your 'theory' that the world would be more prosperous if there was widespread anarchy. I'm thinking a monkey. Because they're kinda like us but they have no government between other monkeys.

T-6005
01-02-2009, 03:02 AM
I've found my nomination for "archetype of the worst threads EVER."

wheelchairman
01-02-2009, 06:42 AM
I've found my nomination for "archetype of the worst threads EVER."

People who are bad at English defending anarchy?

metalmania
01-02-2009, 02:16 PM
ok all!anarchism bless you all :D

adombomb222
01-03-2009, 10:16 AM
Bottom line is: Anarchy is gay.

D0Kl3_th3_PUNK
01-03-2009, 08:08 PM
i'm not talking about a systematical government. I'm talking about a political party organized as an effective way to spread your 'theory' that the world would be more prosperous if there was widespread anarchy. I'm thinking a monkey. Because they're kinda like us but they have no government between other monkeys.

yah i understand then, but monkeys wouldn't be the symbol maybe somethign dead

Al Coholic
01-04-2009, 05:47 PM
yah i understand then, but monkeys wouldn't be the symbol maybe somethign dead

Because...anarchy will never get off the ground?

Thomas
01-05-2009, 08:27 AM
I believe in Ancrchy.

metalmania
01-05-2009, 09:27 AM
anarchsim and monkeys and humans ! :cool: i guess you re the member of "primitive anarchism view" and its the deritive of anarchism :rolleyes:

Al Coholic
01-05-2009, 09:52 AM
Actually, I'd love to debate the issue if there were one. But so far, everyone here just points to a theory with no basis to support itself.

Take fucktopia for example. Fucktopia is a type of government I just pulled out of my asshole. In a working fucktopia, we have no need for a military because we do not believe in war. We dont have taxes, because people spend most of their free time either in civil service of helping one another. Our symbol is a penis with an O around it, and the O, just like the one in the Anarchy symbol, stands for order. So naturally there's very little crime in a fucktopian society. We're very democratic, so we don't have elected officials. Everybody votes on what we should do as a collective society, and then we all carry out whatever demands we make of ourselves. Ofcourse, all of our citizens are well educated so we naturally make the best decisions. And naturally, most of our teachers just do it for the simple joy of teaching, and not money. You see we have no need for money, and all the greed that omes with capitalism. The simple guilt of not doing your part gets everyone out of bed in the morning and out doing their jobs. Which is why we have the best doctors, teachers, everything. Yes, everything runs smoothly in fucktopias, because the theory of fucktopias is that everything will run smoothly, because it is a fucktopia. And as we all know, in a fucktopia, everything runs smoothly........

Now, I know what your going to say. You're gonna say, Al, that makes no sense. People don't just do things for the greater good. They either are motivated by pay or forced by government. But I have a perfect, bulletproof rebuttle: That doesn't fit fucktopian theory. As you've stated with anarchy, if someone finds a fault in your theory, they actually didn't. Because if it doesn't fit your "theory" of a utopian anarchist society, then its not really anarchy.

So it is with fucktopias. I know you're gonna say it defies human nature, but actually, human nature doesn't fit in my theory, so thats not a valid point. Go ahead and try to disprove my perfect theory of fucktopian societies. I promise we won't just go in circles that will make you want to lube up and fuck your computer out of frustration.

metalmania
01-05-2009, 10:01 AM
hehe hey dude,i didnt say "hey its nonsense";) so i heard these ideas before you say,yeah this idea is very good and i say again:its just a derivative of anarchist and you re right about armies and laws .and there is no capitalism in this idea and money will be not there cause "exchange system" or cooperative system will be there.hey its good.anarchist philosopher'd explain it one hundred year ago ;) its a not new idea but its a perfect idea.laws will go cause human's ideas and human's honour better tyhan law ;)

metalmania
01-05-2009, 10:08 AM
but your penis symbol is a revolution in anarchisr flags :D so i think dont mixt it to flags and nevermind , have fun with it ;):D

Al Coholic
01-05-2009, 10:10 AM
I can't even tell with those winks. Are you, through sarcasm, admitting anarchist theory is incredibly flawed? That its sounds nice and dandy in theory, but it couldn't work? Or do you just like winky faces for no reason?

EDIT: Because it seems like I'm pointing out blatant problems with your "theory", and you just keep explaining what that theory is. I understand anarchist theory fully. It works in hippie communes where you have a small community of 10-40 subsistence farmers, but thats the realistic extent of it. And those societies are completely dependant on capitalism and the stability and peace provided by government. Just because I can list fucktons of problems with your theory, doesn't mean I don't understand it. It just means its stupid.

metalmania
01-05-2009, 10:17 AM
hey dude i really like these ideas except symbol .i did read and hear many ideas about anarchism but i like bakunin's ideas more.i used these winks for to say "yeah i like these ideas!!!!"ok? anyway i have to go now,books re waiting for me now.about constitution and empires.c ya later

D0Kl3_th3_PUNK
01-08-2009, 02:43 PM
what a topic huh?

Al Coholic
01-08-2009, 03:43 PM
what a topic huh?

Quite a contribution eh?

iPunk247
01-08-2009, 09:02 PM
interestingly priceless.

metalmania
01-09-2009, 06:47 AM
if we will talk about it;we have to read more ;) and more practice if not those will be just a slogan.

metalmania
01-10-2009, 04:19 PM
world will reah to this idea absolutely maybe we cant see it maybe our kids cant it but it will be 1 day!governments's and countries's slaves can say another thing.dont lose your hope and die with your hope ;) they can talk about realities or other money conditions.... but they re nothing like keynes or smith.world saw it ;) so protect your hope!

iPunk247
01-11-2009, 12:12 AM
metalmania: hope for change. i am a soul of hope of positive change.
i protect my hope. my heart never ever lies. my hopes of war peace & love.:)

metalmania
01-13-2009, 02:44 PM
metalmania: hope for change. i am a soul of hope of positive change.
i protect my hope. my heart never ever lies. my hopes of war peace & love.:)
so keep your utopia;)

RageAndLov
01-24-2009, 05:25 PM
Anarchism have some of the same values as communism and socialism, because they all want equality for everyone, no ranks, authority or hierarchy. But with no authority, for example police force, there would be absolutely chaos because not every person is honest, and people would steal, murder and rape as they wanted. A society would not last very long with anarchy.

And people who says that anarchism is fair because everyone is their own law. This means that if a very strong and big person rapes your partner and murders your children he has the right to do that only because he is the strongest and theres nothing you could do. So anarchism is more like survival of the fittest than equal justice for everyone.

No one would be able to trust anyone. Why would someone buy something from a shop when you could just kill the shop keeper and take everything for free?

Anarchism would be like going back to stone age, and live like animals. Everyone would be farmers to find food and survive, and people who worked with making things in factories and so on would not do that anymore. Electricy, internett, satelite, everything would be gone!

So anarchism is bad and leads to nowhere.




Anarchy is the social experiment of trying new forms of government or rule through the tearing down of the social and ruling structure that exists.

An=no, archy=rule, therefore does anarchy mean no rule or no government
That means absolutely no forms of gvoernment, not even new forms.

Al Coholic
01-24-2009, 05:51 PM
That's retarded. You see, the O in the anarchy symbol stands for order. So you're wrong.

RageAndLov
01-24-2009, 06:37 PM
That's retarded. You see, the O in the anarchy symbol stands for order. So you're wrong.

http://www.freewebs.com/zeldasign/o%20rly.bmp

Bipolar Bear
01-24-2009, 11:41 PM
Anarchism have some of the same values as communism and socialism, because they all want equality for everyone, no ranks, authority or hierarchy. But with no authority, for example police force, there would be absolutely chaos because not every person is honest, and people would steal, murder and rape as they wanted. A society would not last very long with anarchy.

And people who says that anarchism is fair because everyone is their own law. This means that if a very strong and big person rapes your partner and murders your children he has the right to do that only because he is the strongest and theres nothing you could do. So anarchism is more like survival of the fittest than equal justice for everyone.

No one would be able to trust anyone. Why would someone buy something from a shop when you could just kill the shop keeper and take everything for free?

Anarchism would be like going back to stone age, and live like animals. Everyone would be farmers to find food and survive, and people who worked with making things in factories and so on would not do that anymore. Electricy, internett, satelite, everything would be gone!

So anarchism is bad and leads to nowhere.

An=no, archy=rule, therefore does anarchy mean no rule or no government
That means absolutely no forms of gvoernment, not even new forms.

Come on..you make it sound as if most people would rather kill than pay a shop owner. As much as I think that a lot of people are dumbasses, I do have enough faith in people to not think that they'll kill each other as soon as laws are taken away. Most people are good [or at least, not that bad]

wheelchairman
01-25-2009, 04:22 AM
I think people should only argue for or against anarchism when they know something about anarchism.

It's a little bit more complicated than NO GOVERNMENT!!!

In fact there may even be forms of government under anarchy, not just as central or in the form that we traditionally think of government.

Paint_It_Black
01-25-2009, 05:10 AM
In fact there may even be forms of government under anarchy, not just as central or in the form that we traditionally think of government.

Proponents of those systems should really choose a different name for themselves, because the term "anarchy" is too embedded with the notion of no government at all.

I've had this argument repeatedly with my wife ever since she developed an interest in anarchy. Because of her interest I can no longer simply dismiss the subject with a comment of "lolz anarchy is ghey". I've had to seriously state why it won't work, or at least state why it would not be a pleasant way to exist.

My wife has read a lot on the subject and admittedly some schools of thought are more reasonable than others. I just really don't understand why the more reasonable ones choose to place themselves under the anarchism umbrella. The name will immediately make most rational people dismiss all you have to say.

I'm not looking to discuss the subject in depth because I already do that more than I like, I just want to know why they won't use a different name. I'm all wtf about it.

wheelchairman
01-25-2009, 05:51 AM
I've never met a compromising anarchist. :p

That'd be like meeting a compromising Maoist.

I'm sure your wife is pleasant though.

Were I a communist I would question the possibility of achieving anarchy without the transition stage (socialism) (in fact I still question how you would get to anarchy without a transitional stage).

And that's just a theoretical matter, there are other issues like, why would people want anarchy since it would likely mean losing more than they would potentially gain, how would anarchist communes provide for themselves without the resources of other places that are at a greater distance, how would you coordinate this redistribution of resources without creating a government or bureaucracy. but really, why would it be better? I mean for me. I don't of course like that rich CEO's can break the laws of our land and ruin the lives of people and get only a slap on the wrist, but generally I don't feel that society abuses me. Especially since the Danish welfare state more or less pampers everyone.

RageAndLov
01-25-2009, 06:25 AM
Come on..you make it sound as if most people would rather kill than pay a shop owner. As much as I think that a lot of people are dumbasses, I do have enough faith in people to not think that they'll kill each other as soon as laws are taken away. Most people are good [or at least, not that bad]

I know everyone won't go around and kill every man he sees, but some would. Humans do the most unspeakable of acts when they are completely desperate.

The film The Dark Knight has a very interesting example of anarchism btw.

RageAndLov
01-25-2009, 06:27 AM
As Paint It Black said they should call the "no rulers" (anarchist) for something else when the "no rulers" believe in some form of rulership.

Paint_It_Black
01-25-2009, 07:09 AM
And that's just a theoretical matter, there are other issues like, why would people want anarchy since it would likely mean losing more than they would potentially gain, how would anarchist communes provide for themselves without the resources of other places that are at a greater distance, how would you coordinate this redistribution of resources without creating a government or bureaucracy. but really, why would it be better?

Yeah, all that stuff. My throat now gets sore just LOOKING at that. I've said it all so many times.



Were I a communist I would question the possibility of achieving anarchy without the transition stage (socialism) (in fact I still question how you would get to anarchy without a transitional stage).

By killing the president of course! In a world without leaders, who'd start all the wars?

Seriously though, you don't need to be a communist in any way to get stuck on that question. Another question would be, if you've achieved socialism as a transition stage, what would you gain from actually making the transition?

I've been forced to accept that not all anarchists are retards. This has led me inevitably to wonder how an intelligent person can believe in something that I find so implausible as to be essentially impossible. And I've realized that many of them don't care if it's possible really. They don't care whether the system could really work. They only care about their ideals. Man, idealists suck.



I'm sure your wife is pleasant though.


No, she's a bitch :(

I had to put that in there just in case she reads this.

metalmania
01-26-2009, 02:29 AM
hehe im happy here now cause anarchist philosophers re here and they re talking perfect about anarchos,world,politic and philosophy:rolleyes: hehe so its good people!i think you all will be tophuman soon !

NGNM85
02-04-2009, 03:56 PM
Proponents of those systems should really choose a different name for themselves, because the term "anarchy" is too embedded with the notion of no government at all.

The fault is not on the Anarchists', it is the misconceptions about Anarchism that people have. Of course, Anarchists, like myself, are kind of obligated to clear up these misunderstandings and clarify what we actually stand for, in which case I they usually find that we have more commonalities than differences, of course there are also plenty of idiots who self-apply the term "Anarchist" giving it a bad name, but I think mostly it's due to fear-mongering and misunderstanding.


I've had this argument repeatedly with my wife ever since she developed an interest in anarchy. Because of her interest I can no longer simply dismiss the subject with a comment of "lolz anarchy is ghey".

Personally, I find using the word "gay" in that fashion to be low-class and pretty bigoted, I mean, if you wouldn't call someone a "nigger", theres' really no reason why it should be used that way.


I've had to seriously state why it won't work, or at least state why it would not be a pleasant way to exist.

First you'd have to be clear on what Anarchism actually is, which I'm not convinced of. second, there are multiple interpretations of Anarchism in the roughly 200 years of it's existence.To resort to simplest terms the concept of anarchism is that humans flourish best under the conditions of freedom, and that f coercive, authoritarian institutions should always have to prove they're legitimacy(Libertarianism), that society should be structured in terms of mutual aid, that we all have responsibilities to society and to eachother. (Socialism/Humanism) I think that would sound pretty good to most people.



My wife has read a lot on the subject and admittedly some schools of thought are more reasonable than others. I just really don't understand why the more reasonable ones choose to place themselves under the anarchism umbrella. The name will immediately make most rational people dismiss all you have to say.

Only if they are completely closeminded. Any rational, clear-minded person will let the ideas speak for themselves, but it is the burden of Anarchists' to have to confront and clear up misconceptions.

wheelchairman
02-04-2009, 04:31 PM
Personally, I find using the word "gay" in that fashion to be low-class and pretty bigoted, I mean, if you wouldn't call someone a "nigger", theres' really no reason why it should be used that way.




Anarchists hate the lower classes?

NGNM85
02-04-2009, 04:40 PM
Anarchism have some of the same values as communism and socialism, because they all want equality for everyone, no ranks, authority or hierarchy.

Not quite, Communists want a greatly expanded and very powerful government, although supposedly at the end the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is supposed to melt away somehow. There are very significant differences.



But with no authority, for example police force, there would be absolutely chaos because not every person is honest, and people would steal, murder and rape as they wanted. A society would not last very long with anarchy.

You state you're opinions as though they were facts. First of all you're obviously operating under a couple of serious misconceptions, especially about Anarchism. First, that Anarchists are anti-organization and structure, which is not true. Anarchists just want organizations and structures to be participatory, democratic, and as non-binding as possible to maximize individual liberty and meet the requirements of the people. Second, that Anarchist want an immediate dissolution of all existing structures, which is also false. There is some disagreement, but very few anarchists would endorse this. They would propose a gradual, collective movement over an extended period of time, perhaps several lifetimes, maybe longer.


And people who says that anarchism is fair because everyone is their own law. This means that if a very strong and big person rapes your partner and murders your children he has the right to do that only because he is the strongest and theres nothing you could do. So anarchism is more like survival of the fittest than equal justice for everyone.

No, this is an extreme form of social Darwinism which most Anarchists would find anhorrent. First of all, because one of the essential philosophical elements of Anarchism is it's Humanism.


No one would be able to trust anyone. Why would someone buy something from a shop when you could just kill the shop keeper and take everything for free?

Now we're off Anarchism and onto human nature. This is the authorized, establishment view of human nature, because it justifies the existence of massive authoritarian institutions, so of course thats' what they want us to believe. This should not be accepted at face value. If you look at it critically it falls apart. First of all it's inherently fallacious, the premise is all people are too irresponsible and atavistic to be responsible for they're own lives, so we need a very small group of people to assume responsibility for everybody's life. Now human nature is not like the topography of a mountain range, but if one applies scientific principles, we can develop an understanding. First of all, it's very unlikely that human beings are fundamentally atavistic like you describe. Just look at other animal species, it's very unlikely that humans would have evolved such a self-destructive mechanism. Moreover, moral behavior is essentially logical, we can accomplish more and meet more of our needs through cooperation. I get similar nonsense from religious fanatics when I mention I'm an atheist, "Well, if you don't believe in god why don't you steal, kill, etc?" Thats' asinine. If the only reason you don't kill people is because you can't get away with it thats' you're own deficiency and you're in the minority, thankfully. The majority of crimes, and human suffering, are sactually the result of monolithic power structures. For example a fairly recent study of the New York prison sytstem found something like 75% of inmates came from the same seven neighborhoods, which, incidentally, all resembled demilitarized zones. This really shouldn't be surprising to anyone with an ounce of common sense.


Anarchism would be like going back to stone age, and live like animals. Everyone would be farmers to find food and survive, and people who worked with making things in factories and so on would not do that anymore. Electricy, internett, satelite, everything would be gone!

Thats' called Primativism, and it's insane. I can't speak for all anarchists, but most embrace technology. The internet is a fantastic tool for anyone interested in reaching out, spreading awareness, organizing, forming communities, etc. But you're still operating under a bogus premise. IE: that people only do things if they have to. Thats' ridiculous. Theres' plenty of examples of people engaged in all sorts of self-directed activity, from activist groups to clubs and community organizations. Most people want to be productive and accomplish things.


So anarchism is bad and leads to nowhere.

You'd have to understand Anarchism to be able to make that statement authoritatively.


An=no, archy=rule, therefore does anarchy mean no rule or no government
That means absolutely no forms of gvoernment, not even new forms.

Only if you interpret it in an extremist, literal way. Anarchism should be thought of as SELF government rather then no government.

NGNM85
02-04-2009, 04:46 PM
Anarchists hate the lower classes?

I figured it was fairly obvious I meant it in terms of lacking refinement. Perhaps I should've said it's "tacky", or perhaps "ignorant", or "crude."

wheelchairman
02-04-2009, 05:04 PM
All things associated with the lower class. You really must hate the lower class!

NGNM85
02-04-2009, 05:21 PM
All things associated with the lower class. You really must hate the lower class!

Don't be ridiculous.

wheelchairman
02-04-2009, 10:23 PM
Quit hating poor people you fag!

RageAndLov
02-05-2009, 12:09 AM
You state you're opinions as though they were facts.


Of course all my opinions are opinions. Instead of ending every sentence with "IMO" I just say things straight out. Most people understand that it's just my opinion.




No, this is an extreme form of social Darwinism which most Anarchists would find anhorrent. First of all, because one of the essential philosophical elements of Anarchism is it's Humanism.


Yes I know it's a bit extreme. But my point is how do you prevent crime and punish acts of crime?





Now we're off Anarchism and onto human nature. This is the authorized, establishment view of human nature, because it justifies the existence of massive authoritarian institutions, so of course thats' what they want us to believe. This should not be accepted at face value. If you look at it critically it falls apart. First of all it's inherently fallacious, the premise is all people are too irresponsible and atavistic to be responsible for they're own lives, so we need a very small group of people to assume responsibility for everybody's life. Now human nature is not like the topography of a mountain range, but if one applies scientific principles, we can develop an understanding. First of all, it's very unlikely that human beings are fundamentally atavistic like you describe. Just look at other animal species, it's very unlikely that humans would have evolved such a self-destructive mechanism. Moreover, moral behavior is essentially logical, we can accomplish more and meet more of our needs through cooperation. I get similar nonsense from religious fanatics when I mention I'm an atheist, "Well, if you don't believe in god why don't you steal, kill, etc?" Thats' asinine. If the only reason you don't kill people is because you can't get away with it thats' you're own deficiency and you're in the minority, thankfully. The majority of crimes, and human suffering, are sactually the result of monolithic power structures. For example a fairly recent study of the New York prison sytstem found something like 75% of inmates came from the same seven neighborhoods, which, incidentally, all resembled demilitarized zones. This really shouldn't be surprising to anyone with an ounce of common sense.


Again, just an extreme example to show what it could be like with no laws or authority to prevent crimes and punish criminals.






You'd have to understand Anarchism to be able to make that statement authoritatively.


I never said it was an authoritatively statement, it's just my opinion.



Only if you interpret it in an extremist, literal way. Anarchism should be thought of as SELF government rather then no government.

What you are talking about is Autonomy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomy) or Autoarchy, not Anarchy

Hypno Toad
02-05-2009, 02:15 AM
Anarchism is a very broad term. Too mnay 13 year old guys going

"anarchy is teh awesome :3." You would die from dysentery withing 2 years of it happening.


There are anarcha-communism, anarcha-socialsm, anarcha-feminism, and there is all out breakdown of society-kind-of-anarchy. It all depends on how long you plan on living. Society would have to function on a highly moral, almost religious form of nihlistic anarchy to function in a total anarchy state, otherwise it would just be a cest pool of a life. Anarchy can be partially described as you having enough faith in the goodness of humans that they can function without extreme violence in a total anarchy state. I don't have that faith. There is always somebody around to exploit a normally perfect situation at the expense of everybody else. Anarchism wouldn't work, if you are looking for a decent life.

Cock Joke
02-05-2009, 11:20 AM
If there was an anarchist party, what animal do you think they'd use?

Godzilla!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

metalmania
02-05-2009, 11:43 AM
hehe party lovers re using the anarchism so you all have to say it:we use the anarchy for parties ;):p

Paint_It_Black
02-06-2009, 05:40 AM
The fault is not on the Anarchists', it is the misconceptions about Anarchism that people have.

Oh, I see. The definition that 99.999% of the population uses should be discarded and replaced with the definition you use. Makes perfect sense.

Or, you know, you could pick a different word. There's lots of them. Really. Pick one.



Personally, I find using the word "gay" in that fashion to be low-class and pretty bigoted, I mean, if you wouldn't call someone a "nigger", theres' really no reason why it should be used that way.

Learn to read, faggot. I said "ghey", not "gay". And of course I wouldn't call someone a nigger. I'd just secretly think it, like you and all the other high-class homos.

Calm down, I have gay friends. And I like Obama. We cool, dawg. We cool.



First you'd have to be clear on what Anarchism actually is, which I'm not convinced of. second, there are multiple interpretations of Anarchism in the roughly 200 years of it's existence.

Yeah, just like there's more than one interpretation of the word "gay". Funny how you seem willing to go with the contemporary and popular definition of that one.

I know what Anarchism is. And you still need to pick a new word. Deal with it.


it is the burden of Anarchists' to have to confront and clear up misconceptions.

A burden that you willfully impose upon yourself and then cry about. My gay friends said to tell you that's pretty gay.

Pick a new word and stop crying.

PS - Does your school have coat hooks?

wheelchairman
02-06-2009, 05:51 AM
Maybe anarchists should just change their ideology to homosexuality.

Paint_It_Black
02-06-2009, 06:00 AM
Nah, one day the misconceptions and prejudice regarding homosexuality will be broken down and discarded.

No persecution = no fun.

NGNM85
02-06-2009, 02:42 PM
"Oh, I see. The definition that 99.999% of the population uses should be discarded and replaced with the definition you use. Makes perfect sense.

Or, you know, you could pick a different word. There's lots of them. Really. Pick one.

I know what Anarchism is. And you still need to pick a new word. Deal with it."

The problem is not the word, the problem is peoples' prejudices, misconceptions, and ignorance. The American Heritage Dictionary is pretty clear, albiet simplistic: Anarchism (ăńər-kĭźəm) - 3 definitions - The American Heritage® Dictionary

anarchism (n.) The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished.
anarchism (n.) Active resistance and terrorism against the state, as used by some anarchists.
anarchism (n.) Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority:“He was inclined to anarchism; he hated system and organization and uniformity” (Bertrand Russell)

It's also pretty clear from even some of the most basic pamphlets that Anarchists are not opposed to social structure, merely structures that are coercive and built on subjugation of individuals'. Simply put, as i said, that no power structure should ever be seen as inherently legitimate, that they should have to meet the burden of proof of they're necessity, which is usually lacking. Nothing wrong with the word, just the audience. I mean, just ask an Anarchist what they actually believe in, or read the literature, it's very accessible.



"Learn to read, faggot. I said "ghey", not "gay". And of course I wouldn't call someone a nigger. I'd just secretly think it, like you and all the other high-class homos.


You used a modified spelling which I'm sure youy think is cute or something, but the word is the same. Of course the issue is not the word, but it's context. Second, theres' no distinction between "faggot", "nigger", "gook", "spic", etc. If you say one, you might as well be consistent. Economically speaking, I'm poor/working class, but I have more "class" than to use such language in that way.


"Calm down, I have gay friends. And I like Obama. We cool, dawg. We cool.

No, we're not, "dawg."


"Yeah, just like there's more than one interpretation of the word "gay". Funny how you seem willing to go with the contemporary and popular definition of that one.

Well, theres' really only two that are applicable, either "gay" as in happy and lighthearted, or "gay" as a negative, which is offensive and tacky. It's like telling someone not to be such a "heeb" or a "kike", or "niggardly.' These words are not inherently bad, but the context makes them bad.


"I know what Anarchism is.

Clearly, you don't.


"A burden that you willfully impose upon yourself and then cry about. My gay friends said to tell you that's pretty gay.

Anybody should have be prepared to defend they're positions, peticularly if they're going so radically against the status quo. If you want to go against the status quo you obligate yourself to be able to make a case for it. I'll generally accept that, the bigger problem is idiots calling themselves Anarchists who have no idea what they're talking about, I won't name names, and people like yourself who aren't interested in confronting the ideas just brushing it off and spreading bogus misconceptions.

Al Coholic
02-06-2009, 03:12 PM
^ Well, if you "admit that's the biggest problem" then why not, for the good of your 'cause' change the name of what you call yourself. Nothing would change but the name. Pick your battles.

Paint_It_Black
02-07-2009, 06:40 PM
Well, if NGNM85 is any indication they should just start calling themselves fish. It's been a long time since I've seen bait be devoured so completely. I don't think he missed a single tasty bite.

0r4ng3
02-07-2009, 07:08 PM
Well, if NGNM85 is any indication they should just start calling themselves fish.
Excuse me, I think you mean sea kittens.

metalmania
02-08-2009, 09:06 AM
hehe so please read the "to ANARCHISM FROM ANARCHY" BY ROBERT GRAHAM;) you all can see somethings better about AnarchisM

Al Coholic
02-08-2009, 11:35 AM
hehe no thanks ;)

NGNM85
02-09-2009, 03:31 PM
^ Well, if you "admit that's the biggest problem" then why not, for the good of your 'cause' change the name of what you call yourself. Nothing would change but the name. Pick your battles.

I never said it was the "biggest" problem. It's just a problem. Also the problem is not the word, it's the people. Either they've been misinformed as to what anarchism actually stands for, or they don't understand it.

Al Coholic
02-09-2009, 04:38 PM
What it "actually" means? At best you can argue there's multiple definitions. The problem being that 99% define it one way, and a few the other. The problem isn't 99% of the population, quit being such a stickler

NGNM85
02-09-2009, 09:36 PM
What it "actually" means? At best you can argue there's multiple definitions. The problem being that 99% define it one way, and a few the other. The problem isn't 99% of the population, quit being such a stickler

You don't have to argue, there ARE multiple definitions, open up a dictionary or a textbook, I believe I quoted the American Heritage dictionary. Yes, a word with multiple meanings, like "liberal", like "bow", like "bass", or "mean'. (The technical term for this is a heteronym.) If people can grasp these words and they're multiple meanings, theres' no reason why the fact that "Anarchy" has multiple meanings should be an impasse. Again, the problem is people who have no idea what they're talking about, and thus, are incapable of any substantial input, or people who have been sadly misinformed, which I think is the case most of the time. I also covered this in the other anarchism thread, for further examination.

metalmania
02-10-2009, 09:04 AM
wow its so cool cause i see thos people re really begun to hate from this fool system and remember somepeople said me :hey man its a childish view and more hmmm but you left this idea now(childish word) so im really happy.this discussion is very useful about anarchism cause many people were supposing to anarchism like terror,chaos..... i say again:capitalist media did teach these concept:anarchism:terror-chaos but everyintelligent people know its a big lie.cause media is a big power of this monopolist system.this system did train too many blindmind with this power(when they dont use the weapon) anyway its a different subject.im sorry but i have to remind somethings you again down
Anarchos(a grek word): an-archos:without chief(without government,without army)anarchism is not a simple idea.it has a long history with giritian zeno(i can say that he was first anarchist philosopher and his theories against platon's state idea)
anyway anarchism has 2 different view inside it:1. individualistic anarchism(you can see it in usa anarchists) 2.socialist or communist anarchism(in europe,in asia) the root is anarchism is workers and crushing classese like proleteria.bakunin,proudhon,kropotkin,errico malatesta,emma goldman(red amma)....they re really telling this idea.this idea against the capitalism ,emperialism and governments.no governments!no bourgeois.cause government is the power of authority.and its against special property.somebody says"hey anarchism is chaos" its a big lie.cause its not true. this idea a perfect utopia cause anarchism says:freedom,brotherhood,solidarity!!!the centre of anarchism is individual but individual's freedom just can live with society's freedom so first person's freedom and after in this system society's freedom
many anarchist writers say that"anarchism is the ungovernment socialism"hehe yep anarchism can resemble to socialism or communism(communism means scientific socialist view) but some sides re different like individualism.i said that anarchism shelters different views inside:you can see the christian anarchists or agorist anarchism or primitivist anarchism:but they re all individualist anarko derivatives!and dont forget anarchism is against the relegion blocks like god's kingdom,jesus kingdom or other relegion kingdoms cause these methods take your free views and humanity becomes sheep gangs like in our times.
i said that its an idea of freedom,its not an idea of chAos.maybe sometimes chaos can live but it cant live foreva!our world is living in killer,butcher governments's hands and humanity is seeing these wars these crimes with empty eyes!just minds,just smashing people can save this world.first nations's folks unite after,these people lifts the limits and nations unite in unlimited world.it seems so hard but people can try it(1848,1870,1905,1915....)and they did it.
just freedom,brotherhood,solidarity!just these can save us!so viva anarko communist philosophy ! so im sorry for my poor english;)

metalmania
02-28-2009, 03:16 PM
its a good thread!so it must be first, always.thanx th3_punk!

Bipolar Bear
03-02-2009, 08:44 PM
wow its so cool cause i see thos people re really begun to hate from this fool system and remember somepeople said me :hey man its a childish view and more hmmm but you left this idea now(childish word) so im really happy.this discussion is very useful about anarchism cause many people were supposing to anarchism like terror,chaos..... i say again:capitalist media did teach these concept:anarchism:terror-chaos but everyintelligent people know its a big lie.cause media is a big power of this monopolist system.this system did train too many blindmind with this power(when they dont use the weapon) anyway its a different subject.im sorry but i have to remind somethings you again down
Anarchos(a grek word): an-archos:without chief(without government,without army)anarchism is not a simple idea.it has a long history with giritian zeno(i can say that he was first anarchist philosopher and his theories against platon's state idea)
anyway anarchism has 2 different view inside it:1. individualistic anarchism(you can see it in usa anarchists) 2.socialist or communist anarchism(in europe,in asia) the root is anarchism is workers and crushing classese like proleteria.bakunin,proudhon,kropotkin,errico malatesta,emma goldman(red amma)....they re really telling this idea.this idea against the capitalism ,emperialism and governments.no governments!no bourgeois.cause government is the power of authority.and its against special property.somebody says"hey anarchism is chaos" its a big lie.cause its not true. this idea a perfect utopia cause anarchism says:freedom,brotherhood,solidarity!!!the centre of anarchism is individual but individual's freedom just can live with society's freedom so first person's freedom and after in this system society's freedom
many anarchist writers say that"anarchism is the ungovernment socialism"hehe yep anarchism can resemble to socialism or communism(communism means scientific socialist view) but some sides re different like individualism.i said that anarchism shelters different views inside:you can see the christian anarchists or agorist anarchism or primitivist anarchism:but they re all individualist anarko derivatives!and dont forget anarchism is against the relegion blocks like god's kingdom,jesus kingdom or other relegion kingdoms cause these methods take your free views and humanity becomes sheep gangs like in our times.
i said that its an idea of freedom,its not an idea of chAos.maybe sometimes chaos can live but it cant live foreva!our world is living in killer,butcher governments's hands and humanity is seeing these wars these crimes with empty eyes!just minds,just smashing people can save this world.first nations's folks unite after,these people lifts the limits and nations unite in unlimited world.it seems so hard but people can try it(1848,1870,1905,1915....)and they did it.
just freedom,brotherhood,solidarity!just these can save us!so viva anarko communist philosophy ! so im sorry for my poor english;)

I presume you want people to read what you say. Could you please use paragraphs or some sort of organization? Also, after punctuation, it'd be nice if you added a space then a capital letter. I'm just saying this because I'm not sure people will read your posts if you write like that.

You seem to have revived this thread partly because no one replied to you and the conversation ended. I'm not even sure someone even read that due to its length and lack of organization.

pyrimid
03-03-2009, 01:15 AM
"people can save this world.first nations's folks unite after,these people lifts the limits and nations unite in unlimited world.it seems so hard but people can try it(1848,1870,1905,1915....)and they did it."

The only way you can truely have this is to be alone, as soon as you have two people one will attempt to have comtrol to some degree over the other and then you have lost you presious anarchism.

Anarchism is a good idea just not when you add the human element in to the mix.

metalmania
03-03-2009, 06:04 AM
"people can save this world.first nations's folks unite after,these people lifts the limits and nations unite in unlimited world.it seems so hard but people can try it(1848,1870,1905,1915....)and they did it."

The only way you can truely have this is to be alone, as soon as you have two people one will attempt to have comtrol to some degree over the other and then you have lost you presious anarchism.

Anarchism is a good idea just not when you add the human element in to the mix.
hm.anyway i coludnt understand you but thanx again.i just told about derivatives of anarchism.and these dates were revolution dates.some anarchist were there!

IamSam
03-04-2009, 04:11 PM
hm.anyway i coludnt understand you but thanx again.

Oh the irony.

metalmania
03-05-2009, 08:34 AM
Oh the irony.
WOW My fan is here again

metalmania
03-06-2009, 02:23 PM
I presume you want people to read what you say. Could you please use paragraphs or some sort of organization? Also, after punctuation, it'd be nice if you added a space then a capital letter. I'm just saying this because I'm not sure people will read your posts if you write like that.

You seem to have revived this thread partly because no one replied to you and the conversation ended. I'm not even sure someone even read that due to its length and lack of organization.
hehe you re right cause their capacity of brain is not enough for to read these.i repeat these 'cause they re talking about it like ignorant.(except somebodies)so they must read views,books more ;but if they will not do it;their views will go to trash!

IamSam
03-07-2009, 12:09 AM
Just had a full blown anarchist admit to me that anarchy will never work due to human nature. Yahtzee!

Bipolar Bear
03-07-2009, 12:39 AM
hehe you re right cause their capacity of brain is not enough for to read these.i repeat these 'cause they re talking about it like ignorant.(except somebodies)so they must read views,books more ;but if they will not do it;their views will go to trash!

The fact that people don't want to read your post has little to do with brain capacity (unless we're talking about yours); it's more about patience.

metalmania
03-13-2009, 03:31 PM
you re only right for you but i dont care 'cause i saw your capaties

chicapowerpunk
03-13-2009, 03:46 PM
you re only right for you but i dont care 'cause i saw your capaties

You're an anarchist:cool:

metalmania
03-13-2009, 03:53 PM
MetalmaniA is nothing like everything

chicapowerpunk
03-13-2009, 04:03 PM
Why? eres raro:cool:

Mellow Chaos
03-29-2009, 10:09 PM
retardo piquette is the kind of genetic flop I don't want interbreeding with my species. I think it's safe to say that anarchy would take care of that.

citations (http://www.offspring.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1285166&posted=1#post1285166)

RickyCrack
03-30-2009, 05:50 AM
i think i like you. plz stay

renato piquette
04-01-2009, 04:48 PM
RENATO piquette is the kind of genetic flop I don't want interbreeding with my species. I think it's safe to say that anarchy would take care of that.

citations (http://www.offspring.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1285166&posted=1#post1285166)

don´t worry,i wuld never my cum to someone like you

Mellow Chaos
04-02-2009, 12:18 AM
Claramente, todavia no me entiende el pobrecito desgraciado.

Menos mal que se mas que un solo idioma.

renato piquette
04-02-2009, 03:36 PM
Claramente, todavia no me entiende el pobrecito desgraciado.

Menos mal que se mas que un solo idioma.

entiende esto,porque al parecer no entiendes lo que he puesto en inglés,pobre pendejo mama-vergas,estas iwal q aquelpendejo de metalmania,han de ser el mismo cara de chosto

Llamas
04-02-2009, 08:22 PM
I can't believe I just read this entire thread (minus metalmania's posts due to inability to understand his English, and posts by people on ignore)... what a waste of time. Way to much retardation in here.

metalmania
04-03-2009, 02:00 PM
I can't believe I just read this entire thread (minus metalmania's posts due to inability to understand his English, and posts by people on ignore)... what a waste of time. Way to much retardation in here.
dont waste your time dude,your lamas save you