Politically, what do you consider yourself as?

Well then whats the point of political discussion? The most cherished thoughts in history didnt come out of pure contemplation, but out of confrontation and compromise.
I don't see a problem with censoring you're private property (i.e. the website) because I am not a collectivist, but on a website called ANARCHO-punk.net, on the Political discussion/debate forum it's just ignorant.
Are we just giving lip service to the idea of freedom and new ideas? Or are we actually trying to promote the idea of liberty? If we're going with the latter then we're doing an awful job.
Yes there are tons of websites for nazis to talk on, but just like this one they are exclusive and wont put up with our political beliefs. We're doing the same damn thing. Shutting our doors and only letting in one specific breed of anarchist. How will this help anyone grow? And more importantly, what's even the point of the board we're on?

I have a muslim friend, a few christian friends, a jewish friend, a few femenist friends, a couple sexists, two gays, a homophobe, a black nationalist, and a white pride type fellow. Though I dont agree with many of their views I like them as people and have gained much knowledge from my heated drunken debates with them.

This anarchism exclusion thing is bunk as fuck.

 

so u are saying we should allow racism to be expressed in these forums? Or that we should work with fascists to form an Anarcho society?

I like to think liberty is a goal, but I do not see how our goals of freedom apply to fascists and racists? Please explain, because In my experience, I have never met a nazi who was willing to work with anyone who wasn't white, unless it served some self interest, no matter what the goal.

-The Anxietist

 

We all serve our self interest. People who say they want freedom for the world very rarely want it simply to improve the world. Greed and competition are engraved in our DNA. They're a major factor in human beings going as far as they have. The nazi has first himself, then the white race in mind. The anarchist has himself and then other anarchists, and then the rest of the world in mind. Selfishness is not bad unless it's excessive.

 

maybe i am dreaming, but i am thinking more of the world''s future then my own freedom. I want to create a better tomorrow for those who will exist beyond me,I am willing to suffer to get there, all i care about for myself is making an impact to help the future. If that is selfish, then color me so.

Maybe because i'd rather destroy fascists then work with them makes me a hypocrite or whatever, but i don't think that conversation and debate is going to be enough to reach the ultimate goal. If they wanted to co exist somewhere else, do their own thing and leave me alone, then ok, but I think the whole point of fascism to to oppress others. I find it hard to believe that a groups of fascists would be content oppressing only themselves.

Unfortunately there will come a time when words aren't enough.

-the anxietist

 

Organisation:

1. Don't 'argue' with racists or religion genarally if u wish to stay sane/do you like smacking your'e head against walls/thats your choice but don't muddle the issue.

2. You've stated your political compus ala title, moving on or else your're shouting in this thread and overriding others place

3. Start another thread

4. Unless It's your aim and your aim only then most anarchists don't have time to argue with brick walls, as doing more noble things, a lesson learnt.

5. I believe in the individual but I am not an individulaist(my stance), Take it or leave it each time or be questioned perhaps harshly ala laws for 'society' by your community, manners and respect as u were.

6. Go get Really Drunk

7. Break the ideas of racism and religion wisely.

8. Love and Hate

9......

10....Too Many Rules

 

ADLIB:

This thread is really cool.

I don't have much to say but I love reading the exchange of ideas. It's very interesting at times specially if you have 2 opposing ideas and no one would ever like to back down on their point (naturally!).

It's very informative!

Thanks guys!

Keep it up!!!

 

Well Deddhedd, we may not be exchanging ideas for very much longer. Because an unhealthy amount of the so-called anarchists here believe it better to kill off their competition than actually create a society where we can be free.
The only freedom most anarchists want is the freedom to do exactly what THEY want. Anxiethist above says that he/she is thinking about the future of the world, and therefore he isnt selfish. But if his/her politics were about anarchism then he/she wouldnt be trying to "ethnically cleanse" the world of all who oppose him/her.
This is the exact reason I switched from left anarchism to more of a moderate individualist stance. Anarcho-socialists just want to create a collective utopia through violence and force. Their goal is not liberty, but the liberty to run the world the way they want. It's ever bit as dogmatic as what we have now, with a slightly different socio-economic system.

I take the word anarchism very seriously. It means "none above" or "without archons" yet it seems that the majority of anarchists just want to BECOME the archons, not actually remove the idea of them.

Let me ask this one more time: What about people who dont want no government? What about the people who are happy being fascists? What about people that dont like other races? We cant just kill these people off like you say. Not only is it hypocritical and immoral, but it's highly improbably.

There will always be people you dont agree with but acting like theyre a brick wall is a very dangerous idea. It seems like all you want to do is just have a violent overthrow of the government, then kill off or intimidate your opposition. This isnt anarchism THIS IS MARXISM. If all you want is a communist society I advise you firstly stop calling yourself an anarchist, and secondly try moving to Cuba or somewhere that has communist roots and less landspace to violently overthrow.

If you guys just want to close yourself off to ideas and the exchange of ideas then you'll stay exactly where anarchists have been the last 200 years - NOWHERE.

If you want freedom there needs to be compromise. For instance neither of us agree with the person who was kicked off, yet you think its okay shes banned, and I dont. Then you are more leftist and Im more moderate. These are the realities of society. People rarely fully agree on anything. You need to learn how to deal with it in a positive manner now, rather than later.

 

You could also laugh and start another thread

oh woops yes it under political 'debates' but the question is all wrong haha, in fact its rather divisve and asking for an argument not a debate

the word 'reactionary' comes to mnd too, which can mean bad and good in the same circles depending on context as always

a reactionary statement outta context: i cud also move to the u.s. with fox news where the people know nuthing like dawn of the dead(ie: not true,) but a facetious(not helpful) reflex reaction too show how silly it is.

 

I don't really care that Resistanz got banned.

Her stance in Anarchism is weak.

She's confused in semantics.

Her subjectivity in homosexuality is primarily about anal sex.

Her rebuttal is lame.

She would dig herself in a deeper hole if she stayed here much longer.

Getting here outta here maybe best for all.

 

I am confused... what is it exactly that you want thoruea me a bone? What is your ultimate goal? I'm not asking to be a jerk, I am seriously lost.

thanks
-the anxietist

 

The whole thing is I'm not sure how much experience thoreau me a bone really has.

First of he is assuming that somebody wants to "ethnically cleanse" the world of people who oppose anarchism. I for one am not big fan of the cleansing expression, and feel it is highly inappropriate in this debate. Why should an anarchist society not include people that really don't like the idea? Why shouldn't the racists live in racially isolated communities, and those that want elect themselves a king? The main argument in an anarchist society you can do what you want and if that is separation than that it is your choice, you will not be forced by some institution to do this or that, you could chose the society you like as long as this does not mean imposing your will on to those that don't agree.

Second, the old movement being closed to outsiders and/or not willing to debate those that have a different opinion argument. Well there are people with which you can't really have a debate. Let me ask you something, have you ever been attacked by a group of nazis? Have you ever been down on the ground while several people try to stomp you? Believe me it's not exactly a nice experience, and tends to change your perspective of things... Had rez is tanz offered a reasonable explanations, she would still be on this forum. Some things you have to learn for yourself and no amount of propaganda will really make you understand. There is a reason why I consider starting a band or releasing a book better than other kinds of "activism". I for one don't want to work with people who oppose me, I want to create a community with people I can cooperate. And feel that making a strong network is much more worthwhile than trying to animate as many people as possible.

There are reasons why I find it hard to really declare my self an anarchist. But, what thoreau me a bone wrote really doen't go in depth into those reasons. At the moment I have more pressing matters to attend to but I might write a bit later...

 

Would it not be possible to have an 'Opposing views' forum, where idiots could spout their rubbish, and we could then reply?

 

What Throwa and Bananaman said are both bang on the money.

In the real world, there will always ave to be a place for those with opposin views. An anarchist society cannot be run too strongly on one set of values and standards, especially when one of those is intolerance of certain beliefs (eg, fascism, islamism). A suppression of these beliefs is not anarchism, you are establishing your beliefs as an authority and governing what is and is not appropriate. Whilst you ave a right to do this with like-minded individuals within your community, to define and set standards for your lives together, to extend this sort of behaviour to the rest of society beyond you is no more than fascism itself.

In short, if you believe in anarchism, in freedom of thought and expression, in the right to live your life how you see fit, you must let go of your own personal convictions and extend this to others whom you do not agree with. There can be no exception, no group of people you wish to suppress or condemn, beyond defendin the liberty of yourself and those around you.

We all ave prejudice against certain groups because we strongly dislike facets about them but you've got to bear in mind, they're not just nazis or muslims or lefties, they're people and ave every right to believe and express and live how they choose, just as much as you do. That's what we're here to achieve, right?

If you find this this difficult to swallow, try lookin at the groups of people you dislike and put yourselves in their shoes. How do they feel, is it similar to you? How would they react to being suppressed and is there a way, a comprimise, by which we might ave the ultimate freedom we're all lookin for? Give it some thought, questioning your beliefs can strengthen your convictions and leave you in a much stronger position.

 

Do we gen agree that there should be another place for completely 'opposite' views, time and place all that kinda thing not too mess things up, as they do if you've had any experiance with 'meetings', not being rightious neives, jst askin and i don't 'expect' it too happen unless agreed upon by mods etc

i like all sentiments in the last few threads, it does argue for the point of the community over the individual without imposing upon anyone.

not letting others have a say when others are not debating but arguing over and above the topic at hand, is also not anarchist in practice but decisons can be made impartially if it is wise in the context it is in, nobody signed any papers here haha.

woteva is decided, i basically have no mandate but am offering my two cents, cheers

 

this has moved too far off topic.

i suggest any further discussion on the tangent be moved, via a new thread topic, to the "popular assembly" section of the board.

 

Anarchism is opposed to racism as it is entrenched in no reason, that others are lesser beings so will not treat others freely, Anarchism is opposed to empire as it is based in the individual only(anti society) which philosiphy is total greed who's aim is for war and never peace unles it means denying freedom, which is whay Anarchism must learn its own lessons, be wise, listen, don't be nieve, do care, focus but don't burn out, take what they see and experiance around them for however long they have been on this earth without bias, start small with the bigger aim, know where they stand and move forward together with 'the people' ie: b wise recognise, its been usurped almost by univesity philosiphy and popularism(which has also brought it back to the fore, thats reality) but it should never be the basis, fuck personlaties, ya think the others like each other all the time ha but don't be a dick if ya can help it haha, if u know where u stand u can know where your going, don't take ya eye off the road as it were and when they pull ya over, tell a bubu if ya have too, be maleable, stay staunch, get some real life experinece if ya have none, its the best class

Too many people focus too much on what they hate instead of what they can create, anyway possible, capitalism and selfish pricks pulled a fast one, i questioned it, didn't get an answer, move aside but ya gonna haveta take peepz with ya somehowwww, hearts and minds is only part of the picture capiche, work together and smile, have a good day thinking up what to do next

 

Ok there's been about 10 posts since I was last here so let me try and answer/reply to as much as I can:

Anxiety69: What I want from you and everyone here is to stop acting high and mighty about your beliefs, and stop acting like "when we have anarchy there will be no morons". Realize that there will always be assholes and it's better to know your enemy than to ignore him. How can we get to know them if we ban them for having opposing views?

*Note: I found this website through the ALF forum. They have an entire forum dedicated to challenging Animal rights ideology. I agree with the people above that there should most definetely be a section for naysayers here.

And to..I think bananaman?: I dont know what you mean by experience. I haven't been through the Spanish revolution or anything, but as far as politics/anti politics go I'm fairly well rounded. If you mean in life, then I guess you'd be correct since I'm only 23. But I can tell you I have gotten jumped by not only nazi peckerwoods, but black gang bangers, mexican cholos, and Korean bangers (amongst others). I live in Castaic California...so between this redneck truckstop town, the white washed suburb (valencia) next door, the SF valley, and the Antelope valley we've got plenty of idiots here.

But I don't let these things change my perspective. Its like if you got your ass kicked by a communist, it doesnt mean you have to be anti communism.

And as far as my "cleansing" term, I think its absolutely appropriate. A sickening number of anarchists believe that violent upheaval of the government and opposing forces is a realistic or moral way to acheive what they want. Can't you realize that any movement established by force will quickly become what it set out to destroy? Look at shit like the "battle in seattle" or any g20 summit protest. It's a bunch of idiots in black bandanas smashing windows and setting fires, trying to pretend like theres some purpose to their violence.
I wont deny that violence can be a useful tactic in revolution (i.e. the American Revolution), but it should only be used as defense.

The ideas expressed by anxiety seemed to say that he would not tolerate people such as nazis or homophobes, which leads me to ask "so what would you do with them?". Whether or not his answer is "kill them", a large number of anarchists do believe that. I believe in the autonomy of anarchism, not the idea that "anarchy should rule". I dont expect the world would ever completely transist into anarchy (voluntarily)...and I actually wouldnt want it to.

My absolute bottom line is this:
*Firstly the free exchange of ideas should be encouraged, not snuffed out.
*We need to realize that we'll always have idiots in the world, and should try to learn as much about them as we can.
*There should be a new forum for opposing views
*We should make a decision on who gets banned, not just on what the rules are. The way its set up now is like having law, judge, and executioner without a jury.

 

Ok, at the request of the moderators, I have started a thread called CONTINUATION OF DEBATE, so please join me there to continue this beate, and get this thread back to being WHAT DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF POLITICALLY?

-the anxietist

 

Doesn't it say that we will always fight bias and inequality as it calls us too and don't go join the un, ta, i'm starting to think there will always be leaders of sorts but its how it is run and continued to run as even corps have found out that anarchism is the easiest maleable freeist way to run things and they also run the world through the mandate of draconian rule finnally, cause all we often seem to do is argue in the end

what do we say about bakunin, kropotkin and proudhon etc, the book isn't titled the collective musings on knitwearing aha, the 8 hour working day was fought by unions, am i fond of them, personally no but they do great work and should always be free and it is also a means to success(is that a dirty word), what do we say about chomsky who has only sympathised with the ideas, isn't that all you really need, sympathisers and we are lucky to have an eminent one as it were, most people treat stuff like this like football, politics doesn't interest them, feedin their kids does, REALITY, does it mean all we do is hand out food if at all, NO

did people say yay when planes hit ny, then think about the impilcations, of the organisation who purported to carry out the attacks.

i've met tards who've attacked my persons for simple images and words(maybe i just wasn't even aware at the time) then turn a blind eye to friends, i forgivez them but wat if i didn't, thats individualism which capitalism wanted you to do the whole time anyway, divide and conquer, know ya battles, geez, movin on

I'm also not a communist perse and believe in small steps turn to big steps in social activism other than particular group anarchism, most people seem to be unfocussed and have turned it into something it is not as they impose their individuality on you and shall and should never be, sure its positive in part but what do you really want, freedom is the aim for all as many as can be

surely theres gotta be a new mandate that states the best of wat we consider freedom now(learning) and a better world where rulers don't rule completely(economic, 'leader' religious myth making dictatorship), at least it'd be a start in a new millennium and make caviats for human behaviour and failsafes, keep it simple!

how are we to break down 3 things if we r only focussed on one or spread too thin and don't talk, like really and succintly, ideas donn't have to be wat u had for tea, thats your time even though i'm sure it was really nice and i won't scold u like a 'teacher' just get back on track, time is muny

 

Thoreu, you shouldn't be here because this is an Anarchist forum, and you aren't one. In fact, right on the front page it talks about anti-capitalism, so unless you're ready to buckle down and become an Anarchist...sorry bud.