disinfo

[dementiastar]

i really didn't know where else to post this link: http://www.disinfo.com
it's a web site fro a book series i found that basically leaves all of corporate/government america naked, stripping them of lies and cover up's.
I don't know how many of you would be interested in this, but I myself am as an anti-establishmentarian and seeing that the only system of governemnet that makes any sense at all is anarchy. (and i can re-define anarchy for anyone who is confused and thinks it's nothing but disorganized massive chaos. )
Not trynna start a political debate,just trynna let people see what it is that I'm really about and something that's important to me.

[MaudDib125]

SYLLABICATION: an·ar·chy
PRONUNCIATION: AUDIO: nr-k KEY
NOUN: Inflected forms: pl. an·ar·chies
1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.
ETYMOLOGY: New Latin anarchia, from Greek anarkhi, from anarkhos, without a ruler : an-, without; see a–1 + arkhos, ruler; see –arch.

How would you propose to make things work without a central government?

[Buzzman25]

Everything has to have some type of hierarchy in today’s times. There are too many people that would cross too many people that if we did not have some type of governing force the world would be ruled by the most ruthless person in the world. Even then, the true definition of anarchy would fail since anarchy is absolutely no governing body.

In the end, in some way shape or form there forms a natural hierarchy. It can be seen in almost everything in the world. Just look at some examples in science, everything follows some type of order.

I think what dementiastar means is she would like to government to get less involved in her business. :p

[Flamebo]

<--one of the people that would screw up anarchy for everyone else!@#

/bow

[BigGunna]

Anarchy=Iraq 2003

[dementiastar]

Most people have major misconceptions of what anarchy is. Many think it is chaos, a world where a person must kill or be killed. Others claim that a faction or dictator would quickly form a rule over the people, with nobody to stop them. Others say that anarchy is a good idea but human nature prevents it from ever being able to work successfully.
I will refute the first statement: that anarchy is chaos. How do these people know that anarchy necessarily results in chaos? My definition of anarchy is the lack of any form of government or authority. That is all, it does not cover what would result, because that would be known only when it were actually in practice. The Oxford American Dictionary defines anarchy as "1. the absence of government or control, resulting in lawlessness." Lawlessness means the lack of laws, that is all. I consider the current system chaos, with a small minority having much more wealth than they need while millions are living in the streets, starving and freezing.

In order to survive in a state of anarchy, the people would organize to create a system where they would work together to ensure that everyone gets the things they need, such as food and clothing. They would form co-ops to distribute items, and any form of work that doesn't have meaning would be abolished. People would work, but instead of the products being sold, they would keep what they made or choose to give it away. The economy would by default be a free market, but there would not necessarily be any currency, and definitely not any official one. If some people wanted to mint currency and use it, they could, and it would also be up to the individual as to whether they would accept it. Giving things away or bartering would also be an option. What? You say any form of order is not anarchy? Without order, everyone would either starve or freeze to death or be killed. The people can organize in whatever way they wish, so long as it is not enforced by any law or any central body. Individuals will make their own rules, but there is no government to bring the gun to enforce those rules, and other individuals are free to choose to obey or not to obey. Any wrongdoing would be disputed and taken care of through direct action of the parties involved, without any unnecessary involvement of any leaders or laws.

Which means if any dictator or dictator group tried to take power, the people would push them out on their own.

How about crime????? There would be much less of it, because people would be free to carry any type of weapon they choose and use it to defend themselves. People would also have the option not to carry a weapon. If a person knows that their potential victim could defend himself and possibly hurt the perpetrator, the person would be much less likely to commit a crime. People could hire private defense companies to protect them, or they could defend themselves. If a crime were committed against a person, he could retaliate as he sees fit. Victimless crimes such as drug use would be abolished because the only person the user could hurt is himself, and it's the user's choice.

These ideas are by no means set in stone, because one of anarchy's main principles is freedom of choice. The type of system that would be set in place is the choice of the community, the group, and even the individual.

Is it human nature to want to take everything for oneself and leave nothing for anyone else? Humans may have a tendency to be selfish, but a capitalist economy and government encourages and fosters this tendency. People want stability - to be safe, and to have support from other people. Anarchism requires self-responsibility, which is difficult for many people to learn but definitely worth it.

Could anarchy work out successfully? It has in some small communities and could, and it eventually could all over the world. It might be dangerous at first, but it wouldn't take very long for people to realize that their actions do have consequences and that they carry total responsibility for their actions.

[BigGunna]

<<< Likes being a capitalist pig.
To qoute the movie Boiler room "Whoever says money is the root of all evil doesn't *explative* have any."

Not like I'm in love with our current system of government, but the only way for Anarchy to rise is through utter chaos. I don't know 50 cruise missles a day for a couple of weeks might do the trick. Who will loot and pillage with me?

[MaudDib125]

You know your idea of anarchy is really close to how pure communism is set up. I'll respond to the rest later when I have time... probly tommorrow...

[dementiastar]

Anatomy of your enemy:
how to create an enemy and start a war in 10 easy steps
listen closely b/c we will all see this weapon used in our lives.
it can be used on a society of the most ignorant to the most highly educated. we need to see these tactics as a weapon against humanity and not as a truth.
First step: create the enemy. sometimes this will be done for you.
Second step: be sure the enemy you have chosen is nothing like you. find obvious differeances such as race, language, religion, dietary habits, fashion. Emphasis that their soldiers are not doing a job, they are heartless murderers who enjoy killing!
Third Step: once these differences are established, continue to reinforce them with all disseminated information.
Fourth step: have the media broadcast only the ruling party's information. This can be done through state-run media. Remeber: in times of conflict all for-profit media becomes state-run.
Fifth Step: Show this enemy in actions that seem strange, militant, or different. Always portray the enemy as non-human, evil, a killing machine.
Sixth Step: Eliminate opposition to the ruling party. Create an "us versus them" mentality Leave no room for opinions in between. One that does not support all actions of the ruling party should be considered a traitor.
Seventh Step: use nationalistic, and/or religious symbols and rhetoric to degfine all actions. This can be achieved by creating such slogans as "Freedom loving people versus Those Who Hate Freedom." This can also be achived by the use of flags.
Eighth Step: Align all actions with the dominant deity. It is very effective to use terms like, "It is God's will," or "God Bless our Nation."
Ninth Step: Design propoganda to show that your soldiers have feelings, hopes, families, and loved ones. Make it clear that your soldiers are doing a duty; they do not want or like to kill.
Tenth Step: Create an atmosphere of fear and instability and then offer the ruling party as the only solution to comfort the public's fears. remembering the fear of the unknown is always the strongest fear.


Anatomy of your enemy--Anti-Flag

[Buzzman25]

Sounds like you have some major issues with any and all governments dementia. What you have said does sound familiar and a good plan, however you must realize that this is happening on both sides.

There is no good side, and no evil side. That judgment can only be made by people that are what everyone considers normal and has all the facts.

If you want to get into the entire honesty of it, both sides are scum sucking pigs, and at the same time hero's in their own right.

Not trying to be a jerk, but if your idea of total Anarchy was placed into effect, no one would be safe at anytime unless they were able to fend for themselves. Basically you follow the rules of survival of the fittest, the weak should be pruned from the gene pool. In your society of totally independent people it works and is a neat dream, but what happens when someone decides that they want to encroach on your land because they need more? You both will battle and one will perish.

Today's society is into material things and getting their morning fix at starbucks and though they might not like the government, there has not been anything better to come along to take it's place.

I can pretty much guarantee that the only way that Anarchy will be placed into effect is once the world goes to hell from some type of major attacks. Even then, Anarchy would only reign for a short time because people would form alliances, governments, townships, whatever, so that they have a group of bodies that is bigger then only one body.

For example, in the Anarchy version, one person goes out and protests in front of the White House. You will never be heard. You can scream and scream, chant and howl, but only one voice against many is insignificant.

Now, take that same scenario and bring an organization with you and have over 5,000 people screaming and screaming, chanting and howling, and you'll be noticed for sure.

The basic concept is that any one person being able to exist independently without having to depend on the use of others unless they wish to instigate contact, is impossible on Earth until almost all of the human civilization is destroyed.

When your next closest neighbor is 300 miles away, they won't encroach your territory, however in today's reality there are so many people that we don't have the resources to be able to house and feed everyone.

I know you might say that we do have the resources because mathematically we do, but it's not feasible to be able to share some of these items due to expense, and decay of perishable goods.

Any who, that's my little opinion on the matter. :p

[BigGunna]

<<< Was edited by the sytem :blazing:

Proof Anarchy won't work because someone always wants to be "In charge"

Buzzman25 EDIT: Changed nothing, but had to say... "What is the Matrix?"

[dementiastar]

as i said in the first really long post, nothing is set on stone. things may be altered for survival purposes. but that serves as a layout and a basic plan for what an anti-establishment "system" would operate off of.

[Buzzman25]

So I'm sort of confused.

Does this mean that you basically want the current government to buggar off and you want to start over brand new and fresh?

And you've got an oxi-moron going there. You said Anti-establishment system, but all in all isn't a system an establishment of some types of rules? :p

From http://www.Dictionary.com

es·tab·lish·ment ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-stblsh-mnt)
n.

The act of establishing.
The condition or fact of being established.
Something established, as:
An arranged order or system, especially a legal code.
A permanent civil, political, or military organization.
An established church.
A place of residence or business with its possessions and staff.
A public or private institution, such as a hospital or school.
often Establishment An established social order, as:
A group of people holding most of the power and influence in a government or society. Often used with the.
A controlling group in a given field of activity. Often used with the.

sys·tem ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sstm)
n.
A group of interacting, interrelated, or interdependent elements forming a complex whole.
A functionally related group of elements, especially:
The human body regarded as a functional physiological unit.
An organism as a whole, especially with regard to its vital processes or functions.
A group of physiologically or anatomically complementary organs or parts: the nervous system; the skeletal system.
A group of interacting mechanical or electrical components.
A network of structures and channels, as for communication, travel, or distribution.
A network of related computer software, hardware, and data transmission devices.
An organized set of interrelated ideas or principles.
A social, economic, or political organizational form.
A naturally occurring group of objects or phenomena: the solar system.
A set of objects or phenomena grouped together for classification or analysis.
A condition of harmonious, orderly interaction.
An organized and coordinated method; a procedure. See Synonyms at method.
The prevailing social order; the establishment. Used with the: You can't beat the system.

[dementiastar]

yes, i know i said "system", hence the " " (quote marks) what other word should be used? anti establishment...scenario?
lifestyle prolly wouldda been more appropriate, but in all my drugged up-ness (kidney stones) i wasn't thining too sharply, thus the short, non argumentive reply. gimme a couple days. I'll retart with something profound and deep as soon as my right side stops feeling like there's been a nail jammed through it and my bladder.
(love those details!)

[Buzzman25]

Heh heh, I'm not trying to ram it to ya dementia, just trying to make some points so that you think about what you're talking about completely through.

Thinking about an idea in your head is one thing, but when you take in to account, or at least try to, the factor of other human beings into the equation by hearing other people's input, it sharpens your thought to a more refined plan.