Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/public/Sources/Load.php(225) : runtime-created function on line 3
The Anarchist States of America
I Read This
November 21, 2018, 13:10:49 EST *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: New here? Read our voting instructions and rules
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
Author Topic: The Anarchist States of America  (Read 7998 times)
senatorpatriot
Political Commentator
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 15


« on: April 14, 2009, 17:32:02 EDT »

“The Anarchist States of America”

anarchy
–noun
1.   a state of society without government or law.

The major problem with Anarchy in America before the mid-2010s was that there were no real charismatic leaders around to send the message to the public.  Despite the hard work of anarchist activists, the citizens of America wouldn’t listen.  No matter how many public Anarchist gatherings they had, no matter how many anarchist groups were founded and brought to the forefront, nobody took it seriously.  The reason for this is unknown.

The movement to create what is now the Anarchist States of America began in 2016, when Benjamin Simon, founder of the organization American Anarchy, began a movement that would change the world.  According to him, he was walking through New York when he stumbled upon the Libertarian National Convention.  Now, the resemblance between Anarchy and Libertarianism had been noticed before (particularly by noted political philosopher Walter Viki Kent, who said “Libertarians are just anarchists in suits and ties, who aren’t laughed at when they gather together”), but Bylund himself had never really known much about the party.  He mentioned it later in his book, Anarchy in the U.S.A.:

     I cannot believe how naïve I was about politics before I met the Libertarians.  They had so many wonderful ideas.  Abolish taxes and bankrupt the government!  Let the free market decide what is and is not against the law!  Let corporations do whatever they want to with their by-products, because obviously they know best!  These ideas were so radical, and so completely against what most human beings believed that they had to be right!

With Simon and his support from the Libertarian party, American Anarchy finally had a face that could be shown across the country and world.  With his powerful speaking style and “everyman” persona, he captivated crowds across the country.  His major breakthrough, though, was an interview he had on Fox News’ “The O’Reilly Factor”:
   
Bill O’Reilly:  So, you are an anarchist.
Benjamin Simon:  Yes.
B.O.:  Don’t you realize that that is considered bad my many people?
B.S.:  I do know that, but the problem is that anarchy has always been misrepresented in the public square.
B.O.:  Please explain.
B.S.:  Anarchy has nothing to do with violence, chaos, paganism or anything like that.  It is all about living in peace, love, and harmony with you fellow man and being able to do whatever you want with no interference from authority.
B.O.:  Sounds great.  How do we do it?
B.S.:  Well, first we’ve got to overthrow this evil, fascist, government regime we’re currently living under.

As you might have guessed, the audience loved it.  Anarchist and Libertarian candidates sprung up from all around the country and started capturing the attention and imagination of Americans.  This culminated in a million-anarchist march in Washington, D.C., led by Benjamin Simon.  A bystander later described the scene to the Washington Post:
   
    Before that day, I had never considered Anarchism to be a valid or intelligent philosophy, but sitting there outside my office, watching the neatly organized rows of anarchists walking down the highway, following every lead of that amazing man (Simon), I just couldn’t help myself.  I joined their party in D.C. the next day.

The elections that november were remarkable.  The Libertarian-Anarchist party (as it was them renamed) won by a landslide, taking every state except California, New York, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Washington, D.C..  In his first act as President, Ben Simon used the newly elected Anarchist Congress to pass the Law Abolition Act, which rendered all laws previously passed null and void.  This, along with the Sherwood Forest Act (which allowed all americans to loot freely from the treasury) and Government Power Removal Act (which abolished government altogether), were the beginnings of our current nation.  After several months of instability, Benjamin Simon passed what would later become famous as the last two laws in American history.  First, he renamed the country the Anarchist States of America.  Next, he established the “Anarchy Police”, an elite group of special agents trained by the former military whose job was, as described by Simon,  “to prevent tyranny by doing away with all those who attempt to create a government”.  The sight of the Anarchy Police, dressed in their cloaks, hats, and Guy Fawkes masks, was a stern reminder for the people not to gather in groups, as being caught in an attempt would only result in detainment or death, and should a gathering be successful, it would lead only to another tyrannical totalitarian regime, and as Benjamin Simon put it so eloquently, “You don’t want that, do you?”
   
Since the founding of the Anarchist States of America forty years ago, nothing has changed.  Benjamin Simon still lives in the White House in Washington, D.C.—As a figurehead, of course.  He has no real power—and still leads the Anarchist Police, making sure to detain and execute anybody who follows any orders or threatens to disrupt the Anarchist way of life.  People are still free to do whatever they want, to whatever and whomever they want.  Nothing is illegal, as there are no longer any laws.  Laws lead directly to tyranny, so the only way to truly live freely is to simply do whatever you want, and accept it when Benjamin Simon and the Anarchy Police want to kill you for disturbing the perfect country they have spent so much energy setting up.  It is the price of freedom.  Now, if you somehow begin to doubt the truth of Anarchy, and want to encourage people to set up and maintain a government like the one that tyrannized Americans for 300-odd years, remember the official motto of the Anarchist States of America:  “At least no one’s telling me what to do”.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2009, 17:36:56 EDT by senatorpatriot » Logged
Heq
Trouble
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1391



« Reply #1 on: April 14, 2009, 23:51:43 EDT »

Many of my friends are ex-Trotskists and anarchists and many are still active in the movement.

The problem has always been the same, and most anarchists deep down know it.  People are cowards who want to be told what to do, and there are always those who are willing to tell them what to do.  Of course, there are a lot of other issues, but the main ones are that there are a lot of micro-fascists in any system (especially ours), it's a little idealistic to believe that an election could change it.

Really, if you wanted to make it work you'd have to kill off a whole slew of people, and figure out some way to program out the natural pack insticts of humans.  Given that the first is beyond the pale for most anarchists (though during my anarchist days I was most certainly open to wholesale slaughter of the obedient and weak), the second is problematic both ethically and scientifically.

I'm most certainly in favour of libertarianism taking down the government, but many people will die to protect the status quo.  Right down to my bones I still can't shake my feeling that these people are less then "real" (I have contempt for people who bow and scrape to heroes or gods) but I'm aware this is probably an outgrowth of the fact that I have been very fortunate in many ways.
Logged

"No common man could believe such a thing, you'd have to be an intellectual to fall for anything as stupid as that."-Orwell
Medivh
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3466


Power-mad elf


« Reply #2 on: April 15, 2009, 06:07:52 EDT »

Fun to become aware that yet another person doesn't think I'm real. At least it's for a different reason than usual...

While I wouldn't fight to protect the status quo over everything, complete lack of government is something I'd fight against. Even in the false-dichotomy-world of status quo vs. anarchy.
Logged

And if i catch you comin' back my way
I'm gonna serve it to you
And that ain't what you want to hear
But that's what I'll do
-- "Seven Nation Army", The White Stripes

So what you're telling me is that LTV's fudge factor means more than it's independent variable?
Yes...
Heq
Trouble
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1391



« Reply #3 on: April 15, 2009, 16:34:23 EDT »

The question for me is the reason one obeys rules.  If rules are obeyed because they are rules then that person was "built" to be a slave, and should be treated as such.

My position has softened over the years, but that's the early core of it.
Logged

"No common man could believe such a thing, you'd have to be an intellectual to fall for anything as stupid as that."-Orwell
Medivh
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3466


Power-mad elf


« Reply #4 on: April 16, 2009, 05:45:20 EDT »

Ah. Well, I pirate, so that answers that...
Logged

And if i catch you comin' back my way
I'm gonna serve it to you
And that ain't what you want to hear
But that's what I'll do
-- "Seven Nation Army", The White Stripes

So what you're telling me is that LTV's fudge factor means more than it's independent variable?
Yes...
Ihlosi
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 232


« Reply #5 on: April 16, 2009, 06:33:01 EDT »

The question for me is the reason one obeys rules.

Your premise is that everyone is capable of understanding the reason behind each and every rule?
Logged
Heq
Trouble
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1391



« Reply #6 on: April 16, 2009, 12:01:03 EDT »

It was an opinion formed in youth, but a lingering one, so it's less rational then many.

No, I don't believe that, as many people lack whatever is needed to deal with such reasoning (most often it's courage rather then intellect that is missing).  I just find such people contemptable, which would be unfair if the world was purely deterministic, but if the world is purely seterministic no-one is guilty of anything.

Logged

"No common man could believe such a thing, you'd have to be an intellectual to fall for anything as stupid as that."-Orwell
Current
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3141


« Reply #7 on: April 16, 2009, 13:11:45 EDT »

Heq.  I think you may have to treat yourself as a slave if you apply your dictum universally.
Logged
Heq
Trouble
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1391



« Reply #8 on: April 16, 2009, 16:19:34 EDT »

Yea, it's not logically consistant.

Though I do break more rules then most, I am incredibly rule-bound in my own way.  Like many people who evolved out of the anarchist camps I held a lot of really, really, insane views and had a lot of Trots and general Anarchists as friends who spit back the same claptrap until it became ingrained.  Brainwashing occurs in all political groups to a certain extent, so it's not a specific charge against that movement, but with age and, uh, well, okay not so much age as exposure gets rid of the views.

However, there are  alot of inconsistent views one continues to hold for illogical reasons late in life, simply because they were so ingrained early in life, and I suspect contempt for law-abiders is one of mine.

I suspect this is why I have such sympathy for the supporters of Obama despite the fact that he's rapidly starting to turn into the standard viscious little shit who peddles around Washington making justifcations for horrific acts.  You spend enough time saying anything to your friends and having it spat back and it become real, regardless of how rooted it is in truth (in the democrats case it's the idea that they are a moral party not inclined to trample of civil liberties for convience).
Logged

"No common man could believe such a thing, you'd have to be an intellectual to fall for anything as stupid as that."-Orwell
Blue Boy from Red Country
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 125


« Reply #9 on: April 16, 2009, 18:51:55 EDT »

Yea, it's not logically consistant.

Though I do break more rules then most, I am incredibly rule-bound in my own way.  Like many people who evolved out of the anarchist camps I held a lot of really, really, insane views and had a lot of Trots and general Anarchists as friends who spit back the same claptrap until it became ingrained.  Brainwashing occurs in all political groups to a certain extent, so it's not a specific charge against that movement, but with age and, uh, well, okay not so much age as exposure gets rid of the views.

However, there are  alot of inconsistent views one continues to hold for illogical reasons late in life, simply because they were so ingrained early in life, and I suspect contempt for law-abiders is one of mine.

Indeed. A major part of maturing is admitting that you're views aren't perfect and that you don't always have a good reason for why you do certain things.

Quote
I suspect this is why I have such sympathy for the supporters of Obama despite the fact that he's rapidly starting to turn into the standard viscious little shit who peddles around Washington making justifcations for horrific acts.  You spend enough time saying anything to your friends and having it spat back and it become real, regardless of how rooted it is in truth (in the democrats case it's the idea that they are a moral party not inclined to trample of civil liberties for convience).

Its been quite clear for some time that you have no respect for Obama, but recently I've notice you painting a rather dark portrait of him as a shallow totalitarian only seeking power. I don't hold the man on a pedestal, but I do agree mostly with his actions... I find it mind-boggling that you would characterize him so, especially since he typically tries to share power, be transparent, and be inclusive.


As for the original topic, anarchists have always struck me as individuals discontent with the current system but unable or unwilling to provide an alternative. In all fairness, at least Libertarians offer an alternative (a minimalistic government) - even if it may be ill-suited for our current society and culture.
Logged
senatorpatriot
Political Commentator
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 15


« Reply #10 on: April 16, 2009, 20:04:05 EDT »

THANK YOU!!!!

I've been waiting a long time for somebody to actually mention my original post.  It's nice to know some people are paying attention. Did you get the satire, because I'm turning this in for a college writing class tomorrow.
Logged
Medivh
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3466


Power-mad elf


« Reply #11 on: April 16, 2009, 22:03:52 EDT »

Satire, what? Tongue
Logged

And if i catch you comin' back my way
I'm gonna serve it to you
And that ain't what you want to hear
But that's what I'll do
-- "Seven Nation Army", The White Stripes

So what you're telling me is that LTV's fudge factor means more than it's independent variable?
Yes...
Heq
Trouble
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1391



« Reply #12 on: April 17, 2009, 00:28:58 EDT »

Blue Boy, comes from my background within the movement.

It's not just Obama, I tend to think the very worst people are the ones who desire power the most.  I have a friend who works the same campaign circuit as me who says that a cynic is just an idealist who has been let down one too many times, to this I add that a nihilist is a cynic who has been proven right far too many times.

I am pleasently delighted when people turn out better then I thought, but I tend to employ Occam's Razor quite often in politics.

Why does so-and-so pursue power?  Easiest answer is that they desire power.

I'm aware it's a tautology, once you believe humans are terrible little monsters you can explain most anything through self-interest and the pursuit of power of others.  I would guess I'm jaded from the sheer volume of politics I consume and the rawness of it in the small circles of the maritimes.  Of course some would say that people like me tend to surround themselves with similar sorts of people, and that the watchword of my political party (the liberals) could be "Whatever it takes to win."

Patriot, I'm not so sure it -is- satire, as just the actual position of a big chunk of america.  Their positions may be naive and mockable, but satire is a parody not a cut/paste.
Logged

"No common man could believe such a thing, you'd have to be an intellectual to fall for anything as stupid as that."-Orwell
Current
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3141


« Reply #13 on: April 17, 2009, 09:48:53 EDT »

Quote from: Heq
Why does so-and-so pursue power?  Easiest answer is that they desire power.

I'm aware it's a tautology, once you believe humans are terrible little monsters you can explain most anything through self-interest and the pursuit of power of others.  I would guess I'm jaded from the sheer volume of politics I consume and the rawness of it in the small circles of the maritimes.  Of course some would say that people like me tend to surround themselves with similar sorts of people, and that the watchword of my political party (the liberals) could be "Whatever it takes to win."
If anyone is actually interested in this sort of stuff then reading Jeffrey Friedman can be interesting.

Heq, you should read him, read him or remain rationally ignorant.
Logged
Heq
Trouble
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1391



« Reply #14 on: April 17, 2009, 12:54:28 EDT »

I'm actually familiar with his works.

I'm just rereading his fukuyama work, and I still disagree.

Of course, it doesn't help that he quote people like Locke, whom I consider to be a weak thinker at the best of times (social contract and educational theory are just plain terrible, most important to this the social contract theory, as it has as it's underpinnings the idea of opting in, and I'm not sure that's a thing which does or can occur).

Of course, I'm still a decendent of the Greek/Italian schools so I don't see an argument for why equality is "good", but this is an often existentialist critique in that equality robs existance of passion and meaningfulness.  Further, Hegel is just plain useless.  Though anyone familiar with the German/Greek feud should anticipate my position on this and I'm pretty lockstep.  Hegel is a castle of glass, much like Kant or Wictenstein (which is sad, because W.'s brother was a great pianist who lost his arm in war, if only the fates could have been reverse we would have some amazing music and intellectuals could have finally finished off the germanic schools).

Though I probably should read more Freidman then I do (my exposure was brief during my philosophical training), I'm not sure I buy his analysis of how society and humanity works (I tend to think we are not as self-interested as common philosophy proposes, the Death Drive in it's various forms being a huge confounding problem for most state structures).
Logged

"No common man could believe such a thing, you'd have to be an intellectual to fall for anything as stupid as that."-Orwell
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!