Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:
what anarchists are organisizing this? is there an organization, or some kid of emailing list?

---

An organization of anarchists? Wouldn't that be counter to the whole idea of anarchism?

Quote:

---

its just so sadly ironic. have anarchists missed the theme of the 'tea-parties?'.. its LESS GOVERNMENT! i mean, HELLO.

---

They realize - and apparently you don't - that the "theme" of the tea baggers isn't LESS government; it's THEM taking over the government. Show me one single group that ever got into power and started making their government SMALLER.

Quote:

---

go ahead, ally yourselves with the big government statists who are opposing the 'tea-partiers'.. see how that benefits your agenda

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

An organization of anarchists? Wouldn't that be counter to the whole idea of anarchism?

---

Quote:

---

They realize - and apparently you don't - that the "theme" of the tea baggers isn't LESS government; it's THEM taking over the government. Show me one single group that ever got into power and started making their government SMALLER.

---

Quote:

---

It will have exactly the same effect as allying yourself with the tea-bagging, allegedly "small gubmint" group of racist assholes, which is to say none at all.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

An organization of anarchists? Wouldn't that be counter to the whole idea of anarchism?

---

i was being facetious

---

I'm actually rather surprised you can even spell the word...

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

They realize - and apparently you don't - that the "theme" of the tea baggers isn't LESS government; it's THEM taking over the government. Show me one single group that ever got into power and started making their government SMALLER.

---

well, it certainly wasnt the democratic majority that took over congress 4 years ago. not the president either. i would think youd be glad that there is a movement to minimize government, flawed as it is? guess ya dont

---

---

I don't hold out hope of the Easter Bunny showing up this weekend, either, or of Santa Claus coming down the chimney Christmas Eve. You can be glad in one hand and shit in the other, and we'll see which hand fills up first, 'kay? They can *want* smaller government 'til the day they die, but it hasn't happened yet, and really isn't going to. If you're happy wasting your time, feel free.

Quote:

---

maybe you guys on the left should consider how vile and perverse you sound, using derogatory slang
like that. not that it suprises me- its always been trendy for libs to use repulsive gutter language like this. i havent quite figured out how it helps the cause of cradle-to-grave tyranny, to stoke this kind of vitriol and hatred among liberals against other AMericans( must be missing something). and this coming from the same people constanly whining about 'hate speech' 24-7

---

Maybe you guys on the right should look into your own history. Not that it surprises me at all that you don't know this (or won't admit it, or are embarrassed and trying to cover it up by feigning ignorance), but it was the Tea Partiers themselves who first started talking about "tea-bagging" when they started the whole movement. The fact that they honestly had no idea that there were other slang meanings for that term tickles me to no end. That it rankles you is just a bonus for me, it would seem.

Quote:

---

now that i think about it, i cant remember the last time i saw a leftist protest that didnt result in riot poilice dispersing a crowd of deviants and malcontents destroying property and lighting things on fire. instigate and provoke and threaten all you want, we dont see a pattern among the 'tea-partiers' of creating anarchy yet-just to make a political point

---

And now that I think about it, I can't remember the last time I saw a bunch of right-wing fascists like yourself protesting where it didn't turn into a de facto Klan meeting bent on ridding the world of all the blacks and Jews. Instigate and provoke and threaten all you want, but we don't see a pattern among the left of creating hate-filled racist mobs bent on white supremacy just to make a political point. :)

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

It will have exactly the same effect as allying yourself with the tea-bagging, allegedly "small gubmint" group of racist assholes, which is to say none at all.

---

so you hated Bush because he was white? or because he ran up the deficit? you know, it is possible to disagree with Obama on policy.. not sure if thats occurred to you yet or not. yeah. but i see where your coming from.. wouldnt you just love to round up these 'racists' and put them in camps- keep them from harming anybody.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:


As I recall, that's what the british elite, and especially the nobility, called our founding fathers.

So if that's "anarchy" - it's the best damn thing which could ever happen to us.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:


I don't hold out hope of the Easter Bunny showing up this weekend, either, or of Santa Claus coming down the chimney Christmas Eve.

---

Quote:

---

You can be glad in one hand and shit in the other, and we'll see which hand fills up first, 'kay? They can *want* smaller government 'til the day they die, but it hasn't happened yet, and really isn't going to. If you're happy wasting your time, feel free.

---

Quote:

---

Maybe you guys on the right should look into your own history. Not that it surprises me at all that you don't know this (or won't admit it, or are embarrassed and trying to cover it up by feigning ignorance), but it was the Tea Partiers themselves who first started talking about "tea-bagging" when they started the whole movement. The fact that they honestly had no idea that there were other slang meanings for that term tickles me to no end. That it rankles you is just a bonus for me, it would seem.

---

Quote:

---

And now that I think about it, I can't remember the last time I saw a bunch of right-wing fascists like yourself protesting where it didn't turn into a de facto Klan meeting bent on ridding the world of all the blacks and Jews.

---

Quote:

---

Instigate and provoke and threaten all you want, but we don't see a pattern among the left of creating hate-filled racist mobs bent on white supremacy just to make a political point. :)

---

Quote:

---

I hated Bush for a multitude of reasons. Still do. He made me deeply embarrassed for and ashamed of my country. The tea-baggers are hell bent on carrying on his work.

---

Quote:

---

But would I round them up and put 'em in camps? Nah. That's more the right's answer to things these days. I'd prefer to just point them out and ridicule them, mocking them incessantly. Haven't you noticed that?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

These days, you got tea baggers who all the while holding up the Bill of Rights as a pretense, would once again start using it for toilet paper the instant they got their hooks into any real power.

---

Quote:

---

You got the so called libertarians who wanna water it down into something that's no threat to them once they get any power, as if that's likely to happen when they're bleeding support like a hemophiliac in a glass factory thanks to their blatant and raging hypocrisy and kowtowing to a neocon agenda.

---

Quote:

---

And you got the folks who really fucking believe in the Bill of Rights, who will stand and deliver and defend it, unlike the above, not just for themselves, not just one right, but for all, for any, for even their worst enemy, because they really, truly believe those rights are universal, and that all of them are of equal importance.

---

Quote:

---

Hell of a thing, that is, when the folks who wanna shred the bars that contain the monster called Government are the "law and order" crowd, and the folks who want to reinforce the cage to prevent it from coming to might-makes-right are the "anarchists".

---

Quote:

---

As I recall, that's what the british elite, and especially the nobility, called our founding fathers.

So if that's "anarchy" - it's the best damn thing which could ever happen to us.

---

Quote:

---

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
The essence of Anarchy is mutual cooperation, I repeat, MUTUAL cooperation - therefore you cannot FORCE Anarchy on folk by deliberately crashing a government they vocally rail at, but in their hearts DO support, albeit in more limited form than it is - that is anethma to all that Anarchism *IS*.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

You're talkin about what we call the Monkeysphere.
Also known as Dunbar's number.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
But folks misperceive the difference between "No Leaders" and "No Rules" much of the time when it comes to Anarchism - social and cultural "rules" are not only stronger and more adaptable than legal ones, they're more effective.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Because what they SAY, and what they DO, are so radically different things I cannot support em.

Yes, there's a buncha pissed off folk involved, and SOME of em are rational, but most of em are not.

---

Quote:

---

As for Anarchy, well - again you show the hypocrisy that is the reason any meeting between me and other Anarchists winds up in a knives drawn confrontation.

The essence of Anarchy is mutual cooperation, I repeat, MUTUAL cooperation - therefore you cannot FORCE Anarchy on folk by deliberately crashing a government they vocally rail at, but in their hearts DO support, albeit in more limited form than it is - that is anethma to all that Anarchism *IS*.

---

Quote:

---

When you pull the foundation out from under a government that people are not prepared to let go of, who has disarmed and emasculated the people, you get Somalia, chaos and disorder and that is not Anarchy, that's chaos and disorder, and what'll rise up on top of that is petty warlords of former government enforcers who eventually become the new government and continue the cycle, till they run outta resources and collapse again.

---

Quote:

---

Somalia isn't the end result of Anarchy, it is the end result of Government.

Anarchy occurs when the people as a whole mutually decide to ignore and not support government, kinda like what happened over prohibition

---

Quote:

---

- and the Tea Party doesn't wanna do that, oh no, for all their talk, like any other political faction, instead of desiring to ignore it and starve it of support, they wanna co-opt it and use it as a fucking bludgeon against anyone THEY disagree with politically.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

So no, I don't support em, and even though I don't get on with other Anarchists either, those other Anarchists aren't going to support a movement that in the end, like every other blasted one, doesn't REALLY wanna cut the leash so much as they wanna change which hand is holding it.

---

Quote:

---

So no offense, but... screw you.

---

Quote:

---

You *REALLY* wanted an end to this bullshit, protests, mudslinging and press whoring won't do it, voting won't do it, nor will engaging in the stupidity of taking on the folk with the most guns and troops toe to toe.

The solution is simple, stop takin their orders, stop supporting them, stop payin them any mind at all -

---

Quote:

---

Hell, even *protesting* them supports em, cause it gives them SOME control by knowing how to provoke dumbass people who don't support em into standing up in clear view so they can be hammered down as examples by the badge bearing mafia, who meekly ask "permission" to protest and play all nicey nicey even while they're getting mocked, humiliated and crushed, demeaning and hurting their own cause by just that much.

---

Quote:

---

So don't go and lecture me about the things I believe in, and have long enough to have thought all the way through, end to end, when all you have to offer me is buzzwords skimmed off the top of political movements you only pretend to understand in order to make your arguments.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Citizen, problem with that is you're dealing with a corrupted sample

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
It's not *JUST* the Dunbar factor, there's a whole crapload of other elements which make it unfeasible, not the least of which is the fact that as soon as they *did* establish a community and it began to grow - EVERY OTHER POLITICAL IDEOLOGY ON THE PLANET would see them as a threat and respond with their typical problem solving method, violence.

---

Quote:

---

so are you against any kind of protest, or peacefull assembly? why not help encourage society to make the transition away from the massive government we currently have? we have an oppertunity to peacefully deconstruct government, and at this stage in the game it requires some participation in the democratic process. what harm are the tea-partiers doing, they have done more to pressure the two partys then anything since the civil rights movement. i see it as a good chance to influence and present new ideas to people.

---

Quote:

---

i also believe human nature is inherently fallen and sinful

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Three things, first is Byte pointing out that the folks bankrolling the Tea Party are the same ones who bankrolled Republican Congressfolk and Presidents who made the same promises, and look how that turned out ?

I look at them people and all I can think of is Lucy holding the football out for Charlie Brown.

Seriously, how MANY times are you gonna fall for that shit ?

---

Quote:

---

And finally, most importantly, this.

Quote:

---

i also believe human nature is inherently fallen and sinful

---

That, fellowman, is where we don't agree, will NEVER agree, because I consider that very belief to be not only the root of the problem, but essentially and inherently... Evil.

As in capital "E" kinda Evil, the lame excuse behind a tremendous legacy of bloodshed and sorrow in the name of "saving" us from our own decency.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
We've been over that, time and time again, me and HKCav have pointed out that a big part of why it isn't the case is that by any external viewpoint, most societies on the planet are, for lack of a better description - ruttin crazy.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Not really. People are going to splinter away naturally after a certain point, right? Damage is done in an outside force DETERMINING who gets along, who stays, who goes. That should be a choice.

If a community grown beyond the Dunbar number begins to fracture, then it's in everyone's best interests if the fractures just split and continue doing their own thing, before fracturing causes anger and things get too serious such that you get actual enmity between two communities. That's how gang warfare starts.

People have to just let go if others go their own way. Assuming you've already developed a culture of tolerance, this practice would have no lasting consequences.

Under the proposed idea, where a community is largely defined by the connections between members, you wouldn't even necessarily have to have a migration, or people giving up their home.

Say a family decides to leave a community, they might be on their own for a while before they join another community, or they might stay on their own. Before the family declares they're leaving, they might try to learn how to grow their own food, if they don't already know, such that they could take care of themselves. If they haven't succeeded in alienating everyone already, then someone might be willing to show them how.

Of course, if an entire group leaves, you might have food people, water managers, teachers and etc. already in the population mix, or at least people who know enough to have the potential to learn on the job. Similarly, before they leave, if there's no one left to fill a specific role, someone might volunteer to learn from the people before they go their own way.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Riverlove:
Anarchists Plan War On April 15th Tea Parties
Wednesday, March 31, 2010, 5:38 PM
Jim Hoft
GATEWAY PUNDIT

WARNING: Be on the lookout–
Bring your cameras.

Violent anarchists are planning on infilitrating and sabotaging the Tea Party Protests on April 15th.

The Jawa Report posted this call to arms from the violent anarchists at Infowars today:

Crash the tea parties!

On April 15th thousands of right-wingers will attend rallies in cities and towns across the United States. The organizers of this nationwide day of protest call it a tea party. This tea party movement that emerged only a year ago is a coalition of conservatives, anti-Semites, fascists, libertarians, racists, constitutionalists, militia men, gun freaks, homophobes, Ron Paul supporters, Alex Jones conspiracy types and American flag wavers. If the tea party movement continues to grow in size and strength there is a big chance they will dominate this country in the near future. If the tea party movement takes over this country they will really hurt poor people by getting rid of social programs like food stamps, unemployment benefits, disability benefits, student aid, free health care, etc. The tea party movement will say these programs must be gotten rid of because hard-working taxpayers cannot afford to pay for these things especially when the economy is in a depression. There are three options we have with the tea party movement:

1. Organize counter-protests against the tea party demonstrations, same time, same place. This is probably the best option. We need to get in the streets on April 15th and show the tea party movement that there are lots of people out there who oppose their agenda.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
I'm not talking about anything fixed, it's not like, "Okay, you're now part of community #71654! You're number 57. Oops! This family just had a baby, #151! Well, the baby is out now. RIGHT OUT."
...
What would you do, create a government to say "you people live over here, you people live over there" when all other efforts at problem solving fail? Yeah. That just ends up with people being pissed off about being forced to move. Oddly, they continue to blame the OTHER people for the "punishment" (which needn't have been inflicted) rather than the authority that gave the sentence.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
I'm talking about fluid social dynamics, which might already be happening in day to day life that govern how a person moves "between" groups, roles, and identities.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
The only thing I'm suggesting be strengthened is the idea of a community and the connections and willingness to participate that derives from that, which I think can be done through socialization by choice, and being given opportunities to interact and socialize.

At the same time, I don't really understand why people would stay and fight to stay when it's just easier to leave at a certain point, especially considering since the way we're talking about "leaving" is not a physical relocation, but merely metaphorically "walking away" from interacting with the group in question.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
This works in a city, where a "community" of this nature is going to be largely arbitrary and by choice anyway, and also if members of a community are more isolated, because distance helps cut down harassment.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Mature, responsible individuals can determine it might be best to leave a group on their own, and they can often determine to do this so as to decide how to best leave so as to not have themselves or the group at a disadvantage.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
How do you think people leave one job for another?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Does it require calling the police? The state legislature? You might have bosses to redistribute the work that the person had, but you don't think people could do that on their own, or that no one ever picks up the slack on their own?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Actually, Cit - the model Byte is talkin about has been effectively and functionally in practice for many years by the Hutterites.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutterite

---

Quote:

---

Each colony may consist of about 10 to 20 families, with a population of around 60 to 250. When the colony's population grows near the upper figure and its leadership determines that branching off is economically and spiritually necessary, they locate, purchase land for, and build a "daughter" colony. When an intercolony marriage occurs, the bride goes to live in the groom's colony, where she will be treated to a wedding celebration.
...
There is a process allowed that gives colony members a chance to voice concerns about which group of two a family is assigned to, but at some point, a final decision is made as to which families belong in each of the two groups. This process has democratic aspects, but the net result is not negotiable, the colony is on course to be split. As might be imagined, this process can be very difficult and stressful for a colony as many political and family dynamics become matters that are discussed. Not everyone will be happy about the process or its results.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Anyhows, you wanted your example, there it is.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
I'd actually argue that while the Amish DO look at their church as their body of law, the actual day-to-day organization of the people and projects and community works is chosen by the people.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Given a community that operates in that fashion, where people care about each other, you reduce the need for law and punishment.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
I did talk about isolation, I meant it in two senses. In the first sense, I meant it in the distance between households where a community like this might work. And in the sense of the city, I talk about isolation as part of a fractioning process, of people "moving away" from each other metaphorically.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Yet even as people move away from each other, get angry and frustrated and have tensions, there can still be a sense of community, up until such point as a person decides to cut their ties with a community, which DOES happen, and sometimes without drama.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
In the cases where there is drama, should there be a group OVER the community, to determine who's right, who's wrong, who gets to stay in, and who's going to go? No, you don't necessarily need that, because people can and do determine that for themselves.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Have you seen DT around recently? Probably not, and you won't.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Cutting ties with a community IRL, so long as the break is clean, does not result in animosity from either side of the dispute. And, if the person is not required to physically relocate, or give up their possessions, then it tends to stay that way.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
And also, just because there has been a dispute, and someone has chosen to break off ties with a community, does not mean that the person didn't have a sense of community BEFORE their decision to leave.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
I'm not seeing how this is a problem. If fractionation exceeded growth of communities, then you might theoretically end up with a scenario where every person is out for themselves and all sense of community is dissolved. But we've been talking about how communities grow and get along until reaching an upper limit of 150 people, then splinter. I don't see how, based on this principle we've agreed upon, that this worst case scenario would happen.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
And I still think you might be able to get around IRL population limitations through internet communication.

---