Anarchism

Winged, if you dont know him check out:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Abbey
great writer, totally contradictory character, one of my heroes, 'Monkey Wrench gang' brilliantly entertaining.Problem with discussing anarchism, turns into ism -schism talk.

They predicted the flood that is the basis of the inundation myths around the globe, that later were interpreted as the 'Epics of Gilgamesh' which in turn became 'Noah'.

There is presently more and more evidence surfacing to suggest that these 'myths' were true . . . .

Can you point me towards this evidence that supports the flood myth ?

Also can you show me where to find the original flood predication ?

Once I was speaking to my father and one of his friends and for one reason or another the subject of Anarchy/Anarchists came up ... my father's friend who was a marine when he was a lot younger said ...

"Many of the Anarchists I have ever met couldn't survive more than 60 seconds with anarchy"... Or something to that effect.

Aha...thank you...

The deal is this, We are facing a major systems failure, and it isn;t just the bees...it's fucking everything, and basically it will all start 'coming' to a head within in the next ten years.
We are seriously depleting fish stocks, we are running out of fresh water (see the coke scandal-Natural aquifers within the kerala region have be literally raped-the water table has sunk by 125 ft within the last **5 **years-wherever there is a coke factory there is a similar story, it takes 3 litres of water to produce 1 litre of coke)...

Thats all very compelling, But Coke tastes pretty good.

my father's friend who was a marine when he was a lot younger said ...

"Many of the Anarchists I have ever met couldn't survive more than 60 seconds with anarchy"... Or something to that effect.

pretty much it.

All this blathering and despair could all be avoided if they just grew a spine and learnt to crack on with things.

they were all wrong, and none of them credited the Mayan and Hindu models that rather then being based on inflated egos..ie all the ones you listed, thses are attributable to precessional drift, a naturally occuring 26,000 year cycle that has happenend like clockwork for the last 420,000 years (thats how far back the Vedas list) these were not 'dumb' people the 'counting' system has units of measurement from 1/640000 of a second to 420,000 years.
They predicted the flood that is the basis of the inundation myths around the globe, that later were interpreted as the 'Epics of Gilgamesh' which in turn became 'Noah'.
There is presently more and more evidence surfacing to suggest that these 'myths' were true, and that 'History' as we know it is hugely flawed, ie the Vedas talk of dynasties that are tens of thousands of years in length, and also detail Vimarnas, (and I think Vrishni's and Vrimils....silver metallic flying craft with weapons as powerful as 10,000 suns...)

If these scribes were not on acid....just what were they writing about?

though hey...

lets continue with anarchy...it's easier to put a finger on it.

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot#cite_note-0"][/URL]

i am baffled. you are comparing "mayan and hindu models" despite the fact that hinduism is an ancient religion, and the maya religion is a relatively (3rd century) new religion?

if there are ancient civilisations and weapons that have been lost, where is the e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e.

i am baffled. you are comparing "mayan and hindu models" despite the fact that hinduism is an ancient religion, and the maya religion is a relatively (3rd century) new religion?

if there are ancient civilisations and weapons that have been lost, where is the e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e.

Evidence is everywhere you just have to look.

as for the first part, You are wrong, back to you.

Its a common misconception that an anarchist society would be one in which there are no rules authority or order. Anacrchism passionately believes in order. What it objects to is illegitimate authority and that no authority should exist without good reason.

In this simple form, it is why I find it a compelling argument. Markets, States, cultures should not dominate, unless there is a clear reason. Often the example used is coercing your child before they run in front of a car;there is no time for discussion, you just grab them. But other than in these circumstances, everything should be challenged and justified.

The utopia would be where everything is done mutually, and it is wrong to say 'it'll never happen, since as Chomsky says,' do you thinki during the darkest days of slavery slaves thought they would ever be set free?' Or do you think a 13th century peasant could have forseen Democracy 700 years later? Social chance on this scale takes time.

You missed this bit...

And you the following:

"Many but not all of these plants can be (and often are) pollinated by other insects in small holdings in the U.S., including other kinds of bees, but typically not on a commercial scale. While some farmers of a few kinds of native crops do bring in honey bees to help pollinate, none specifically need them, and when honey bees are absent from a region, there is a presumption that native pollinators may reclaim the niche, typically being better adapted to serve those plants (assuming that the plants normally occur in that specific area)."

So, the mass death of bees has been going on since 2006. How long it'll take for us to see the consequences of that, for the prices of cantaloupe and soybeans and cherries to rise to hights unattainable? Or has the government been pumping money into agriculture to keep up the illusion of everything being just fine?

Its a common misconception that an anarchist society would be one in which there are no rules authority or order. Anacrchism passionately believes in order. What it objects to is illegitimate authority and that no authority should exist without good reason.

Where does it say that: "Anacrchism passionately believes in order"? With my limited knowledge of anarchism that does sound pretty contradictory as keeping order has usually meant there has to be a ruling body of at least some sort.

But I guess we can continue this till the end of our days (which, according to our Angel -- and thankfully! -- are due in just a few years).

I, again, refer to Wikipedia:
*Anarchists may widely disagree on what additional criteria are required in anarchism. The Oxford Companion to Philosophy says, "there is no single defining position that all anarchists hold, and those considered anarchists at best share a certain family resemblance."
*
To you anarchy means one thing and to me it is something not completely, but to a great deal, different thing.

They predicted the flood that is the basis of the inundation myths around the globe, that later were interpreted as the 'Epics of Gilgamesh' which in turn became 'Noah'.

What the motherfuck?!

You really believe there was a flood? The Great Flood?

So did that spell the end of Lemuria, Mu and Atlantis, too? Poor king Kull.

We have now officially left Earth and entered Erich von Däniken country!

Where does it say that: "Anacrchism passionately believes in order"? With my limited knowledge of anarchism that does sound pretty contradictory as keeping order has usually meant there has to be a ruling body of at least some sort.

But I guess we can continue this till the end of our days (which, according to our Angel -- and thankfully! -- are due in just a few years).

I, again, refer to Wikipedia:
*Anarchists may widely disagree on what additional criteria are required in anarchism. The Oxford Companion to Philosophy says, "there is no single defining position that all anarchists hold, and those considered anarchists at best share a certain family resemblance."
*
To you anarchy means one thing and to me it is something not completely, but to a great deal, different thing.

That's a bit like saying "To you quantum physics means one thing and to me it is something not completely, but to a great deal, different thing"

i.e. if you want to be able to understand a subject at a greater depth than the (often inaccurate) broad-brush that is Wikipedia, you simply have to go and read about it. Until then it is rather stating the obvious that it means something different to you than it does to others.

Evidence is everywhere you just have to look.

as for the first part, You are wrong, back to you.

the onus or evidence, as in all cases of claims is on the person claiming to provide. there is "evidence" of atoms all around you too. there is "evidence" of radiation. there is "evidence" of everything everywhere, but that is not in any way an acceptable explanation.

for example, i got my dates for mayan religion from here and here so the earliest date suggested is 200BC. hardly ancient.

i am not going to respond to your posts any more. i feel that anything resembling a debate with you has proved impossible as you a) provide no evidence, b) introduce strawman arguments, c) constantly change the subject and d) rarely show an adequate understanding of what you are asserting. i find your posts to be permeated by anti-intellectualism, and do not see your affectations to be conducive to constructive discussion. any replies made it future will be damage-limitation.

That's a bit like saying "To you quantum physics means one thing and to me it is something not completely, but to a great deal, different thing"

i.e. if you want to be able to understand a subject at a greater depth than the (often inaccurate) broad-brush that is Wikipedia, you simply have to go and read about it. Until then it is rather stating the obvious that it means something different to you than it does to others.

True.

Thing is, Wingledangle, even if it is the end of the world, or whatever, in 2 years or 10 years, whats the point in spending the rest of your short life freaking out about it. Id try and enjoy it if I were you.

They predicted the flood that is the basis of the inundation myths around the globe, that later were interpreted as the 'Epics of Gilgamesh' which in turn became 'Noah'.

There is presently more and more evidence surfacing to suggest that these 'myths' were true . . . .

Can you point me towards this evidence that supports the flood myth ?

Also can you show me where to find the original flood predication ?

Can you point me towards this evidence that supports the flood myth ?

Also can you show me where to find the original flood predication ?

It's there, you just have to look for it yourself. (Just guessing how we will proceed.)

I <3 anarchy! Totally into it. I three 2 bottles at the FILTH when all the riots were happening last year about the war or banks or something.

One of those being the fight between Thomas jefferson and the banking elite of europe...
He said this...''I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.''
Just another version of the truth, however which one did you read in the papers, and which one did you have to search for?

Sorry if I've missed something, but it would appear that he is specifically referring to the banks' power to issue currency, rather than the banks wholesale? Are there any countries around the world where private banks issue currency?

(I quite agree that the banking system is much abused, by the way, and not a beneficial influence overall. This could be very different if the power of banking was used responsibly.)

for example, i got my dates for mayan religion from here and here so the earliest date suggested is 200BC. hardly ancient.

2,200 years ago will do nicely for me to qualify as 'ancient'. :)

wowzers, what's all this then? c'mon people...

Much like i said in the thread on Critical Mass, anarchism is nothing to do with chaos, nothing to do with being an aggressive cunt for the sake of it, and nothing to do with wacko tinfoil hat conspiracy theories. It is about non-hierarchical human organisation, equality of opportunity, mutual aid and solidarity - all things that already exist and thrive in the world right now (e.g. open-source software, Mondragon co-ops, the zapatistas, workers' co-ops, etc etc etc).

Read: www.anarchistfaq.org.uk - this is a good example of sensible, reasoned anarchist thought and action.

As Bob Black (an anarchist writer) once said, "anarchy is too important to be left to the anarchists", and sadly many self-proffessed anarchists don't understand their own politics :-S

Read: www.anarchistfaq.org.uk - this is a good example of sensible, reasoned anarchist thought and action.

I thank you for the link. It's been a good read, although I still fail to see how anarchy would work in practice (kinda like communism, I guess).

The following, for example:
*"And, just to state the obvious, anarchy does not mean chaos nor do anarchists seek to create chaos or disorder. Instead, we wish to create a society based upon individual freedom and voluntary co-operation. In other words, order from the bottom up, not disorder imposed from the top down by authorities. Such a society would be a true anarchy, a society without rulers."

• 
  When co-operating you are creating an entity which will lead by its numbers and/or presence. Okay, so it again lacks an official title, but it will be the one that leads. It'd be a democratic mini society. Others might not follow it. They'd make up their own click. Then you'd have, in essence, two warring factions (no blood needs to be shed, but there'd still be at least those two groups).
  
  

So, what am I not getting? I really believe anarchy will not be a permanent state. It might be the state of things for a while, but it won't last -- it'd, well, evolve.

I am not trying to diss you or others that believe anarchy (in the form described in the FAQ) would be good for us. It's just that I really can't get my head around the concept of permanent anarchy.

Yo Winged Angel, so kewl to have some1 speaking the trutha round here. Stick it to that tynan. He has no ideas.

2,200 years ago will do nicely for me to qualify as 'ancient'. :)

i meant compared to the ~4000 of hinduism.

wowzers, what's all this then? c'mon people...

Much like i said in the thread on Critical Mass, anarchism is nothing to do with chaos, nothing to do with being an aggressive cunt for the sake of it, and nothing to do with wacko tinfoil hat conspiracy theories. It is about non-hierarchical human organisation, equality of opportunity, mutual aid and solidarity - all things that already exist and thrive in the world right now (e.g. open-source software, Mondragon co-ops, the zapatistas, workers' co-ops, etc etc etc).

Read: www.anarchistfaq.org.uk - this is a good example of sensible, reasoned anarchist thought and action.

As Bob Black (an anarchist writer) once said, "anarchy is too important to be left to the anarchists", and sadly many self-proffessed anarchists don't understand their own politics :-S

This is the best thought out post on this thread so far. I salute you.

Yo Winged Angel, so kewl to have some1 speaking the trutha round here. Stick it to that tynan. He has no ideas.

I'm sure tynan is a wonderful person, and please drop with the text speak...you haven't used it before in the forum so why patronise me now?

However , things have become a little heated and I have apologised to him.

Secondly, Some of you that have trouble believing that we may not have the correct version of history at our fingertips...
Why is it such a stretch of Imagination?
The last 1000 years has been recorded from a typically male point of view and most of the last 500 years completely disregarded any female input whatsoever...Women have only had the vote for the last century, heaven forbid get an education....

Skunk...There is a huge swathe of information that totally supercedes Von Daniken, I have not read his work as it is mainly (50% at least) his own interpretation of everything...regardless of any facts that may stand in the way.

On the other hand, inundation research that has been very throuroughly done, (and if you read it, it is no less believeable, possibly makes more sense than the current model of our history...)

Please do not forget, 140 years ago...when the victorians added up all the dates in the bible and gave us the mean date of 6,600 years ...for all civilisation ...which they correlated with the 'good book' was then set in stone....Rest on sunday...Adam and Eve... Queen Vic...6,600 years...simple.
this has sort of precluded everyone having a rather warped perception of our history...
The egyptian dynastic register goes back 36,000 years...
The Vedas have an even wilder figure...around 200,000(?) years.

You really think we were knuckle dragging 50,000 years ago? Obviously some of you still are, as the meerest suggestion that the cotton wool you have been wrapped in may be getting soggy and old and might need a change ...has you all pissing in your knickers...ladies...sorry...gentle men...pick your fucking dollies up.

what makes you think...in all our* unbiased* recording of history that we may have got it right?