User Tag List

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 29

Thread: What is your opinion about national anarchism?3284 days old

  1. #11
    Junior Member
    Last Online
    2010-08-01 @ 23:59
    Join Date
    2010-07-15
    Posts
    17
    Location
    United States
    Gender
    Age
    31
    Y-DNA
    I1d
    mtDNA
    W3
    Race
    Caucasian
    NATO United States

    Default

    I think it sounds like a fancy way of saying that you think we're facing an international breakdown of civilization, and will end up reverting to tribalism.

    I really hope that this isn't the future, because it seems like it would be a very bleak, depressing world to live in. A world of disconnection, being trapped within one's local group, and no hope for happiness if your own values/preferences differ from those of the group you're born into.

    I admit this may be a biased interpretation, given that my values often go in the opposite direction, but I have trouble seeing it as anything else.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to athenian200 For This Useful Post:

    Sheikh-Ubayd (2010-10-27)

  3. # ADS
    Advertisement bot
    Join Date
    2013-03-24
    Location
    ForumBiodiversity.com
    Age
    2010
    Posts
    All threads
       
     

  4. #12
    Banned
    Molecular Biologist
    Last Online
    2010-12-10 @ 18:12
    Join Date
    2010-06-29
    Posts
    1,104
    Location
    above all of you :P
    Gender
    Y-DNA
    N
    mtDNA
    H
    Race
    East Eurasian
    Metaethnos
    mostly Turanian
    Ethnicity
    mostly Turkic+Albanian
    Phenotype
    Turanid+smth else
    Politics
    Nationalist Left
    Religion
    Atheist
    Turkey Hungary Hunnish Albania Hungary Hunnish Kazakhstan

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EiCibaeño View Post
    I've browsed NA forums a few times in the last 3 years. Most people there are definitely reflective of certain segments of Stormfront.
    Well,if I'd say that I'm a Turk in Stormfront,they'd call me subhuman and ban me...But I've a lot of NA comrades in my Facebook friendlist and I'm a member of one NA forum,noone attacked me because I'm a Turk...Also in NA forum rules,it writes there isn't a racist forum,if you want racism go to Stormfront.

    ---------- Post added 2010-07-29 at 22:09 ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by athenian200 View Post
    I think it sounds like a fancy way of saying that you think we're facing an international breakdown of civilization, and will end up reverting to tribalism.

    I really hope that this isn't the future, because it seems like it would be a very bleak, depressing world to live in. A world of disconnection, being trapped within one's local group, and no hope for happiness if your own values/preferences differ from those of the group you're born into.

    I admit this may be a biased interpretation, given that my values often go in the opposite direction, but I have trouble seeing it as anything else.
    I like NA because of that!There are "regions" but not "borders" at all...

  5. #13
    Established Member
    Upper Management EiCibaeño's Avatar
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2010-01-20
    Posts
    3,645
    Location
    My cave
    Gender
    Age
    32
    Ethnicity
    American
    Phenotype
    Winner
    Politics
    Libertarian
    Religion
    Wealth & Family
    Spain traditional France fleur de lis United States United States Flanders lion Santiago de los Caballeros

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kipchak View Post
    Well,if I'd say that I'm a Turk in Stormfront,they'd call me subhuman and ban me...But I've a lot of NA comrades in my Facebook friendlist and I'm a member of one NA forum,noone attacked me because I'm a Turk...Also in NA forum rules,it writes there isn't a racist forum,if you want racism go to Stormfront.
    I understand the differences but many chapters I looked up had stormfront accounts, just saying.

    I often like the idea of primitive living and so try my hand at certain survival skills (plant identification, fire making, making cordage, etc) but I find nothing of value in National Anarchism. To each his own.
    I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.

  6. #14
    Regular Member
    Junior Member
    Last Online
    2011-06-29 @ 23:36
    Join Date
    2010-07-04
    Posts
    66
    Gender

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Unome View Post
    mWhat?? Nationalism is not Socialism?!? That is new to me. Mind explaining me your reasoning behind that? Nationalism requires a strong & pervasive central government.[
    Nation is often used in the classical sense to mean people or tribe. This is different from state, which means political organization. Again it's the sense of nation as in "Navajo nation," which presumably existed before the United states and could presumably exist after it.

    I was commenting because many individualist-libertarians argue that nationism, tribalism, or any so called collectivism is socialistic on the basis of not being individualistic. Which it isn't. It's just collectivistic.

    Again, I agree that so-called national anarchism isn't any more viable than communist anarchism. I just like to defend the principle of free association. If they want to embrace an ancestral tribalism instead of progressive universalism, or spiritual other-worldism, I see not reason for them not to.
    Last edited by Chuck11; 2010-07-29 at 20:40.

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Chuck11 For This Useful Post:

    Unome (2010-07-29)

  8. #15
    Established Member
    Theorist Unome's Avatar
    Last Online
    2015-03-30 @ 21:41
    Join Date
    2010-06-29
    Posts
    4,341
    Location
    Jupiter
    Gender
    Age
    36
    Y-DNA
    R1a
    mtDNA
    U4b
    Race
    Europid
    Metaethnos
    Prussian/Slavic
    Ethnicity
    New World White
    Phenotype
    KN, Atlantid
    Politics
    Philosophy
    Religion
    Lead by Example
    United States Poland Germany Sweden

    Default

    Now I see what you mean Chuck; that makes sense.


    As far as Anarchism and Socialism goes… the ideologies heavily contrast. Anarchy is the absolution of a state/society, fallen into chaos. In fact, Anarchy is also the beginning of a new state/nation/society/community/government/etc. Anarcho-Communism only is realistic in the sense that a Community has absolved itself from a State, Nation, Government, or Society. Anarcho-Communism presumes a Civil War displacing large or small groups of peoples… into Communities. Race, Culture, or Religion are all not presumed. A community can exist based-upon a mere ideology, becoming either multi-racial, or not, multi-cultural, or not.

    The proper conception of Anarchism presumes social chaos & disorder, no centralized government, and no existence of any type of "Social Contract". It is a kill-or-be-killed mode of existence, usually short-lived, because groups of people demand stability of some kind. If you had to focus all of your energy in life not being killed when you leave home (as is the case for people living in 3rd World Countries or below, 4th or 5th world) then this evidently would stop all "social progress", no art, no industry, no systematic wars, no innovating technologies, no sciences, no education, no argriculture, nothing. You only are focused on whether the people walking toward you are shoot-on-sight enemies or recognizable friends.

    Tribalism almost always is the immediate step after Anarchy. You trust your blood, kin, family, and clan. Your family is your tribe. Therefore Tribalism results in the aftermath of a failed state, the state of an Anarchy.

    Communism comes much later in State-development, and automatically presumes the advent of industrialization through industrialized societies. This is why a community of Native Amerikan Indians cannot be called 'Communists' because they are not an industrialized people. Furthermore, proper conceptions of 'Communism' also entail the downfall of a Capitalist society. So no "true communism" exists today; Communism arises after the completion and fall-into-anarchy of a Capitalist Society. A Capitalist Society such as Amerika, for example.


    Anarcho-Communism is possible today; the situation in the West is ripe for Anarcho-Communism. Capitalism is failing to maintain the Middle Class of Amerika for example, and, ideological conflicts trump socio-politickal agendas.

    A good example of Modern Day Anarchy was the Amerikan Civil War, when the system of government broke-apart between Confederate and Federate States, toward Statism (for Confederates) and Federalism (for Federalists). Modern Libertarianism is Post-Statist and Post-Confederate Ideology. Another Civil War becomes inevitable when people revolt against the U.S. Federal Government. Especially when a Republik becomes an Empire. Empires require more pervasive and extensive forms of (conservative) governments to maintain, such as Fascism, Authoritarianism, Oligarchy, Plutocracy, Corporatism, or Monarchy, etc.


    Politickal ideologies are based-upon where & when you live. Contemporarily speaking, in our Globalized World, artificial Nation-States are the norm, without respect to race, religion, creed, or culture. Earth is divided into Nations/States of people. However borders are becoming more & more meaningless with every passing-day. Anarchy becomes possible and probable based-upon the Ideology of a particular area.

    This is known as modern day "Terrorism", or, any Anarchical break-down of society is counter-intuitive to Empirical Globalism. Anarchists therein become labeled "terrorists" and again it does not matter your race, religion, creed, or culture. Racism is a primary example of this. Race is a tool of Global Ideologies, to split people into 'Races' for more advanced forms of social organization and mass-indoctrination.

    ---------- Post added 2010-07-29 at 13:22 ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Kipchak View Post
    What about Anarcho-Communism?
    Anarcho-Communism is the rise of the first "true form" of Communism from a Post-Capitalist Society. As predicted, a Capitalist Society implodes upon-itself (example: Modern-day Amerika). From the ensuing Anarchy and abolition of a Federal Government, from the remains of a Capitalist system, Communism becomes the inevitable result. A Communism becomes formed.


    Although you should keep-in-mind that my politickal views are very, very abstract. I do not see China as a Communism. I do not see the former Soviet Union as a Communism either. They are 'Communistic', but not Communisms. The reason is because of how Marx and Engels defined the conditions of a 'Communism'.

    Communism only can exist as the extension from a Post-Kapital society (Amerika).


    China and the former USSR were not Communisms because they did not have successful Free Market economic systems. Western European nations did. Amerika did, and does. Corporatism is the result.

    (International) Corporatism and Communism are the now-conflicting ideologies.

    (Chinese versus Amerikan economics for example…)

    Nationalist and Statist Governments no longer have politickal clout regarding World Affairs. Therefore much-more-conservative Governments are required to exist in order to compete with a Global Free Market and general notions of International Corporatism.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Unome For This Useful Post:

    kalebman5000 (2010-08-02)

  10. #16
    Established Member
    Quo vadis carlos's Avatar
    Last Online
    2011-08-11 @ 02:42
    Join Date
    2010-03-15
    Posts
    866
    Location
    Burgos
    Gender
    Race
    Europid
    Metaethnos
    Hispanic
    Ethnicity
    Spaniard
    Politics
    Right
    Religion
    Catholic
    Spain Croatia Cambodia South Africa Serbia

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck11 View Post
    Fascism is usually thought to be statist.
    That's why I said pseudo.

    ---------- Post added 2010-07-29 at 16:28 ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Kipchak View Post
    Nope,if you check NA forums,they aren't like Stormfront...NA are "proud" but not "haters"
    That's excactly what Stormfront says...

    ---------- Post added 2010-07-29 at 16:29 ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Unome View Post
    Anarchy and Socialism do not mix.
    Why? Many socialists are also anarachists....
    It's not that I hate you, but let's say that if I had two bullets and Hitler was next to you, I would rather shoot you...twice

  11. #17
    Banned
    Molecular Biologist
    Last Online
    2010-12-10 @ 18:12
    Join Date
    2010-06-29
    Posts
    1,104
    Location
    above all of you :P
    Gender
    Y-DNA
    N
    mtDNA
    H
    Race
    East Eurasian
    Metaethnos
    mostly Turanian
    Ethnicity
    mostly Turkic+Albanian
    Phenotype
    Turanid+smth else
    Politics
    Nationalist Left
    Religion
    Atheist
    Turkey Hungary Hunnish Albania Hungary Hunnish Kazakhstan

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by carlos View Post
    That's excactly what Stormfront says...
    No,if you log in in Stormfront as a Turk,they'll humiliate and ban you...But NA forums like arktoslondon is different,I'm a Turk and I'm in there for many months...

  12. #18
    Established Member
    Quo vadis carlos's Avatar
    Last Online
    2011-08-11 @ 02:42
    Join Date
    2010-03-15
    Posts
    866
    Location
    Burgos
    Gender
    Race
    Europid
    Metaethnos
    Hispanic
    Ethnicity
    Spaniard
    Politics
    Right
    Religion
    Catholic
    Spain Croatia Cambodia South Africa Serbia

    Default

    No, I mean Stormfront says they are "proud" but not "haters". At least in the American stormfront. European and Latin American stormfront is different.
    It's not that I hate you, but let's say that if I had two bullets and Hitler was next to you, I would rather shoot you...twice

  13. #19
    Established Member
    Theorist Unome's Avatar
    Last Online
    2015-03-30 @ 21:41
    Join Date
    2010-06-29
    Posts
    4,341
    Location
    Jupiter
    Gender
    Age
    36
    Y-DNA
    R1a
    mtDNA
    U4b
    Race
    Europid
    Metaethnos
    Prussian/Slavic
    Ethnicity
    New World White
    Phenotype
    KN, Atlantid
    Politics
    Philosophy
    Religion
    Lead by Example
    United States Poland Germany Sweden

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by carlos View Post
    Why? Many socialists are also anarachists....
    The one & only reason socialists promote anarchy is to destroy a current society, and replace it with their own. They are not 'Anarchists' in a definitive sense. They do not believe in "the absolution of government/society", but rather, the ratification of society.

    That is why Anarchists are not socialists per se.

    Socialists surely can use Anarchy to their advantage, but they also surely do not believe in Anarchy, at all. It merely is a means to an end.

    A strict Anarchist, by the definition of the word, CANNOT favor any type of society. How could he? His (anti)-politickal ideology is against all forms of policticks, packs, and agreements amongst men. He is an outlaw, criminal, and/or rebel.

    Do social laws apply to a madman like Ted Bundy or Charles Manson? No.

  14. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Unome For This Useful Post:

    EiCibaeño (2010-08-01), kalebman5000 (2010-08-02)

  15. #20
    Established Member
    Theorist Unome's Avatar
    Last Online
    2015-03-30 @ 21:41
    Join Date
    2010-06-29
    Posts
    4,341
    Location
    Jupiter
    Gender
    Age
    36
    Y-DNA
    R1a
    mtDNA
    U4b
    Race
    Europid
    Metaethnos
    Prussian/Slavic
    Ethnicity
    New World White
    Phenotype
    KN, Atlantid
    Politics
    Philosophy
    Religion
    Lead by Example
    United States Poland Germany Sweden

    Default

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_...han_.281651.29

    Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan (1651)

    The first modern philosopher to articulate a detailed contract theory was Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679). According to Hobbes, the lives of individuals in the state of nature were "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short", a state where self-interest and the absence of rights and contracts prevented the 'social', or society. Life was 'anarchic' (without leadership/ the concept of sovereignty). Individuals in the state of nature were apolitical and asocial. This state of nature is followed by the social contract.

    The social contract was an 'occurrence' during which individuals came together and ceded some of their individual rights so that others would cede theirs (e.g. person A gives up his/her right to kill person B if person B does the same). This resulted in the establishment of society, and by extension, the state, a sovereign entity (like the individuals, now under its rule, used to be) which was to protect these new rights which were now to regulate societal interactions. Society was thus no longer anarchic.

    But the state system, which grew out of the social contract, was anarchic (without leadership). Just as the individuals in the state of nature had been sovereigns and thus guided by self-interest and the absence of rights, so states now acted in their self-interest in competition with each other. Just like the state of nature, states were thus bound to be in conflict because there was no sovereign over and above the state (i.e. more powerful) capable of imposing social-contract laws. Indeed, Hobbes' work helped to serve as a basis for the realism theories of international relations, advanced by E.H. Carr and Hans Morgenthau.
    The bolded-section here basically is my own politickal view rolled-up into a nutshell, and why I label myself as "Apolitickal".

    Anarchy is the "natural state of man", or as Hobbes famously writes, "a war of All (men) against All (men)".


    This is what I call "Absolute Individualism" or -archy of Anarchy or Monarchy.

    It is the codification of all Politickal Power reassigned to the Individual level, and strictly Anti-Social.

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to Unome For This Useful Post:

    kalebman5000 (2010-08-02)

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Whats your opinion on Indians?
    By Ordeet in forum Race & Ethnicity in Society
    Replies: 168
    Last Post: 2019-06-01, 11:59
  2. In your opinion, what race is he from?
    By jeffa65 in forum Personal Taxonomy
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: 2012-08-05, 20:27
  3. Ida Neue (Ristow) Second Opinion
    By ngeurds in forum Classification Requests
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2010-07-07, 21:34
  4. Carleton S. Coon, your opinion?
    By Metal Gear in forum Physical Anthropology
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 2010-03-18, 21:23

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
<