What Anarchism Is And Isn't.

Anarchy means existence without centralization.

When communists took over anarchism in the 18th century under Marx they transformed it to without hierarchy.

Government propagandists poor understanding of anarchism do this also because for them a decentralized world is without hierarchy which is furthest from reality when an existence of anarchism arises. Government propagandists can’t fathom what a real decentralized world would look like.

Hierarchy would still exist in anarchism albeit just a different kind from a centralized one that everybody is accustomed with.

When government propagandists say anarchy is without hierarchy what they’re really implying in their poor understanding of what anarchism is really is the absence of their enforced hierarchy.

That’s not what all the anarchist I’ve ever known (and I’ve known a lot, more than any other school) say.

They say it is without hierarchy, and I don’t think a single one of them would ever point to a decentralized state and say “anarchy”. Decentralized states can function splindly.

I ask you: How is it that non-hierarchial jihadis randomly forming autonomous units from all over the world, are able to come together to form broad fighting fronts, denounce leadership, saying “we only believe in Shari’a, anyone can lead so long as it us by Shari’a, it won’t be us” and still magically manage to pull a hierarchical caliphate out of their ass in no time?

There isn’t no fucking such thing in reality to anarchism. Replace Shari’a with Utopian Utilitarian Anarchism, and you got the same fucking system. It’s all axiomatic principled expectations that govern and motivate our conduct for rewards and to avoid pain. We have had a bunch of these silly systems across history with selfless servants who always manage to self sacrifice their way to wealth.

That’s why we should just recognize that Marxism and it’s precedent, anarchism, is wrong, and throw guts Luke Zizek off that rooftop swimming pool in Dubai into the streets far, far below, screaming as he goes… They always manage to get fantastically rich off others sacrifices to the ideas of a greater future good.

Didn’t you go to school or something?

No.

If your referring to my double negative, it’s fucking staying put, and will be used more often.

Decentralized decision-making means no hierarchy. There may be hierarchy on local level in the sense that families, tribes and other relatively small voluntary organizations that comprise the state may be hierarchical, which means centralized, but there is no general organization of, hence no established hierarchy between, these groups.

According to the rule that like conditions seek like conditions, one would expect that an organism that is self-organised will strive to extend its organization to apply to small social units such as family and eventually to larger social units such as nation.

It makes no sense that an organism seeking a local organization (organized self, family, tribe, etc) will not seek a general organization (organized nation.)

Thus, one has to ask, why would someone arguing for local centralization not argue for general centralization?

There are two possible answers.

One is that they are lying. They really want a centralized form of government but they have to lie that they do not do so in order to trick others into thinking that centralization is undesirable such that they lose the desire to enforce their own organization onto others and in this way enslave other people. The argument is that such a lie is a useful protection against slavery.

The other, much more probable scenario, is that they aare disorganized people seeking disorganized conditions. Rather than being clever liars, they are simply people seeking conditions that would offer them protection from their very own mind (unpleasant emotions, thoughts, instincts, etc.) Basically, hedonists seeking pleasure/peace or freedom from self/nature.

Clever liars have a plan. These people have no plan. They are merely doing whatever is necessary in order to calm their emotions.

In ancient Greece a barbarian was anybody not Greek and this derogatory word has stayed with us since time of classical antiquity. Likewise the Greek word anarchy has also. We need to understand that the word anarchy also was meant to be derogatory in description. Where the word means without hierarchy for an aristocratic ancient Greek would mean anybody (any barbarian) that exists out of the stratosphere of Greek hierarchical social control. For some reason over the ages beyond ancient Greece into the future this underpinning of a word still convinces people that anarchy (self rule) is one without hierarchy even though there is no evidence or plausibility in suggesting that an anarchist existence would have no hierarchy at all.

For the average Greek of ancient Greece anybody that existed outside of the sphere of the Greek state (hierarchy) of control didn’t have any hierarchy at all but this wasn’t true at all as history suggests. For them it was simple if you weren’t a civilized Greek you were a barbarian without a civilised centralized civilization. We now reach full circle behind the propagandist word, title, and meaning of anarchy linguistically by historical approach.

Many different anarchist groups of the socialist utopian variety have embraced the meaning of this derogatory ancient Greek propagandist word accepting it as reality trying to create a social organization or society without hierarchy where all have historically failed miserably. Maybe, just maybe the word symbolizing no hierarchy is no real reflection of self rule at all. Maybe, just maybe a decentralized existence of self rule (anarchy) is one where hierarchy exists but much differently compared to the one living under a centralized state.

Anarchism is exactly what anarchists say it is - as long as it is workable - it is not.

Because… the trouble with it is that to achieve it you have to organise to overthrown that which is seeks to replace and then you have to keep power to stop the centralising reforming. The only way you can do that is with a central authority, and so anarchism is doomed to fail.

All barbarians were organised around centralising authorities. Their seats of power were the oppida, and when Rome attacked they chose a grand leader to combat the legions; Vercingetorix - a dictator.

Anarchy and self-rule (autonomy) are two different things. Anarchists have no autonomy. They have no internal locus of control. Their body has no centralized government (reason) but decentralized (instinct) which is why they are attracted to anarchy (decentralized social order.)

Maggie, just do one of your really long posts where you say everyone is undisciplined and that no one is noble. That’ll teach em.

There is always some sort of anarchy at some level. In the absence of globalism, or some world-dominating empire, there is external anarchy, between nations, since they are not organized. When there is no external anarchy, as in the case of globalism, there is internal anarchy, between constituent groups or people. For example, most families nowadays are anarchistic. Most people, in general, are anarchists in their minds and bodies.

Anarchies are uncontrolled, so whoever wants to live in a true anarchy can’t do anything but wait for the established order to collapse. I assume through some sort of civil war. Then, they will have to hope that their anarchy will last as long as possible before new order is established.

That strikes me as a very passive form of existence.

The more active anarchists will say “screw you real anarchy” and instead go for something like minimal government. How minimal, I don’t know, but the less minimal, the more stable their anarchy will be, though at the same time the less of an anarchy it will be.

The smartest thing would be to give up on anarchy altogether.

Hahaha is a true native american. Native americans didnt have government. But even they had rules.

All it is a gang a tribe. America is a large gang. its that simple.

Anarchy will not exist until the human mind evolves. All humans do is war, that’s all they do. Indians were taken over by the stuffy Brits. All humans are is a bunch of gangs and the biggest gang wins.

Like I said its either corporation or government. Noones gonna create a factory/road infrastructure unless there is a corpration or gvernment doing so.
Lets say you have anarchy, well you have to vote on where the roads should be built and how much everyone should donate to the road builders. And some guy or girl has to supervise the process. That’s government. That’s the type of government I advocate. Any more than that is excess, tyranny. When the law books are so bloated and the amount of laws exceed even the amount of laws of the bible, that is when i call it deliberate tyranny.

You see your own genitals as being tyrannical so . . .

Stop focusing on my genitals. Focus on the big picture. Female=love and beauty. I want more love and beauty in my life.

A doctor has to focus ob your problem even if that’s your genitals. That doesn’t make him gay. You are self-hating t(y)ranny. You consider tour own self, your genitals, to be tyrannical, so when you speak of what is tyranny in general you tend to be wrong.

There are many anarchist ideologies out there where each definition is different from one another. My understanding anarchism and individual (self) autonomy are identical.

It does not matter what you think it is but what it is.

A self-ruled(= regulated = controlled) man cannot be into decentralized social order. He can only lie he is into it.

Thought my genitals were tyrannical when I was younger, when I was a youngin I was taught feminist ideals and that men were evil, porn was evil, etc. Wanted to cut off my genitals to be free of the tyranny. I viewed the gun as good, the penis was evil.

Now, I view the gun as good, but the penis is not evil. I still have a deep desire to have a vag and be penetrated, but I want to be a futa and keep my penis. Removing my penis would be submitting to tyranny, submitting to feminism, submitting to the cuck agenda, something I cannot do.

I believe all men need a little homosexuality in their life, without it, men would hate each other too much. By homosexuality, I don’t mean anything dirty, just a slightly romantic admiration for other men. Without it, men would not ever feel kind towards other men.

If a man is too disgusted by penis he will chop it off.