Anarchy is nationalism for real communities.
Nationalism is nationalism for IMAGINED communities.
You desire nationalism to protect your culture. You desire nationalism because it brings power closer to you. You desire nationalism because it gives you belonging.
All of these things are delivered much better by anarchy, which puts power in the community as opposed to some distant capital and elite.
Other urls found in this thread:
Wtf? Even your "hot" bitches are ugly af.
Flight was achieved through imagining it, retarded kike.
anarchy is a transitional period between two political systems
Looks like a crackwhore
Anarchy is the end of politics by elites; the beginning of politics where everyone has their say. It's absurd to suggest we cannot live without a handful of elites governing over us.
*Chemically aided sex worker
This. All of the few anarchist regimes came to be during the chaos of war and ended when the power vacuum was filled by one of the vying political factions. E g: Paris Commune and Ukrainian Free Territory.
Outyou stupid kike.
SAGE
Strife thread.
Anarchy loving 'barbarians' have been the majority of history, not the governed-over citizens of empires.
It's true that anarchy failed to survive in the 20th century, a period where the right was brutal and nationalist and the left was heavily statist. Anarchists were fucked over at both sides. Nowadays things have changed. Anarchy is completely viable.
>Anarchy is completely viable.
How, user? All current advocates of anarchy are trannies, furries and college faggots more concerned with mean internet comments than with the working class; and Mises bitches who take themselves for anarchists for their scribbling circled A's on desks.
People support all of the ideals of anarchy without knowing it. Nationalists, for example.
Which ones?
Also, do you strictly follow the dogma of some branch of libertarianism, like Anarchosyndicalism, or have an idiosyncratic view?
>dude anarchy is gonna do like uhh x, y and z dude
no, it's not going to do shit but make you easy to conquer by outside centralized forces
retard
I would say almost everyone on this board. You want power back in your hands, rather than the elites, you want to control your own destiny or you wouldn't be nationalists.
>Also, do you strictly follow the dogma of some branch of libertarianism, like Anarchosyndicalism, or have an idiosyncratic view?
To me anarchy is people governing themselves rather than consenting to be governed. I don't have an economic view, except that capitalism would be unlikely to flourish if power was genuinely in the hands of the people.
Jesus Christ you fucking commies are retarded.
Places with dispersed power structures are almost impossible to conquer. Ireland, Afghanistan, Classical Germany, etc.
Which is why anarchists fight for the same causes as are cheered for in the boardrooms of every fortune 500 corporation, right?
you have got to be retarded
yes and...no
((()))
Taking the fact anarchy became a meme aside, it does have some interesting ideas.
The problem is that while a extremely descentralized country is posible, the idea of achieving a stateless society is just a delusion.
And the results of such descentralization would end up being very different from the communist utopia most anarchist idealize.
>immigration is 'every policy'
And that's even >implying all anarchists support immigration. I don't.
So Afghanistan was easy to conquer? Ireland was easy to conquer?
Make some arguments you fucking plebs.
both afghanistan and ireland have been conquered and held for centuries in the past
the only reason they were "hard to conquer" in very recent history is because the liberal west is too soft
the moment the western world devolves into anarchy and no longer slaps its dick around, you'll get centralized powers like the Chinese whipping their dick around the place and they don't give a flying fuck about human rights and rules of engagement, they're practically genociding the Uyghurs already and they most likely will start doing the same with the Tibetans
What does hard to conquer mean? What is your timeframe?
Afghanistan was occupied and controlled by various powers other than afghanis for literally millennia.
>>All of these things are delivered much better by anarchy, which puts power in the community as opposed to some distant capital and elite.
You act like fascists are in favor of rabbinic wealth-hoarding.
Fucking retarded nigger.
Also if we examine other similar cases in history your hypothesis tends to play out in reverse.
Like with Caesar in Gaul. The Gallic tribes were dispersed but numerous. Had they banded together they could’ve defeated the entirety of Roman society. Instead Caesar was able to play them against each other, or isolate and destroy them. In a matter of years one man conquered nearly the entirety of modern day France and England and pieces of Germany.
>both afghanistan and ireland have been conquered and held for centuries in the past
They held off for centuries against a much larger foe. I'm not saying anarchy makes it impossible to be conquered. Just that your idea it makes you a soft target is retarded.
The US's problem isn't human rights, it's the difficulty in fighting an enemy without a head. Classic problem of guerilla warfare.
Capital means capital city in that section.
>The US's problem isn't human rights, it's the difficulty in fighting an enemy without a head
not really, you can just round people up and put them in fucking camps, then colonize the area with your own people
How's it feel to be the footsoldiers of the Oligarchs?
>Why Nationalism, family, etc?
The point is to minimize the dysgenic penalties of communalism. Slowly expanding community keeping the dysgenic cost minimal at each step minimizes consumption. Expanding communalism in a fast but sloppy manner, introduces dysgenics. Dysgenics result in the people maintaining the community being darwinianly selected against within the community they maintain. (all communities are environments, and all environments define a darwinian fitness function). If this happens, atomization is restored, all progress is lost, and consumption (and thus competition among the people) increases, This is why the elite promote things like the welfare state + mass migration combo. This is a dysgenic form of community, which the elite know in advance will decay into atomization even without them actively trying to destroy it. It is also why they attempt to "deconstruct" the family. This is a highly non dysgenic form of community, so non dysgenic in fact, that even populations of idiots will eventually stumble upon it, although perhaps without understanding why it works. Anarchy can be inferred to be dysgenic by its abscence among naturally selected strategies, and by its decay whenever it is attempted artificially. People in anarchist communities who stray from "true anarchism" always rise above those who hold to their values, leading to collapse, which the elite can anticipate and prepare to exploit in advance, Even if more power is "in the community" in the here and now, the decay time is so short that anarchism has no appeal to anyone looking to create, be part of, plan for etc, something in the long term.
Pic related - Darwinian forces act to pull everything downhill to a flat point in a fitness landscape. Both left and centre are flat at the exact point, existence is possible at both, but left is unstable, and thus existence is only possible in the here-and-now. Any slip will cause it to fall down forever, while centre will self correct.
please define anarchy as you understand it
I agree with decentralization of both political and economic power.
There's more than the power structure involved on their resistance to conquest tho.
You can't disconsider geographical or logistic difficults when talking about afghanistan or german tribes for example.
All of society needs to have MAXIMUM POPULATION DENSITY restrictions so that people are forced to spread out in smaller communities.
Did she get her anarchy tee shirt at Target?
The Gallic tribes were fairly large though, hundreds of thousands. The kind of scale where you would actually get benefits from decentralisation is where there is no army you can defeat and expect a territory to capitulate.
Anarchy is gay and would never work just as stupid as communism. Stop being a faggot.
>anarchism
>community
LAWL
faggot
All communities are imagined, there is nothing that truly binds people to each other. Community is only real to the extent that it is a product of the will of that community's creator.
>puts power in the community
anarchy
noun
a state of society without government or law.
political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control
lack of obedience to an authority
confusion and disorder
fuck off, Jew
saged
People governing themselves as opposed to consenting to be governed
No doubt. But in so far as prolonged fighting is made more likely by decentralisation, that is actually part of the benefit. The invading force will run out of ammo, food, fuel, etc.
how do disputes get resolved without being able to appeal to a higher authority?
e.g. two drivers are in a car crash. each says the other is at fault and should pay for damages. what do?
A community is real if the people know each other. National communities aren't real things, you can't know millions of people.
You probably don't know everyone in your town either but it's still real, there's a good chance if you don't know them you know someone who knows them. That's a real community.
You go by the laws of the community, which you agreed to when you decided to live there / drive through there.
Other way around but you’re retarded so keep believing you can get more successful strangers to give you there stuff becaus eyoure too much of a loser to do things for yourself and we’ll all live our lives away from you
Indeed, decentralisation breeds opportunity for irregular warfare and that's a strategy that has defeated empires before.
Still, the lack of national identity makes cooperation among large scale groups very complicated, without cultural or racial ties uniting the various communities having a common goal like repelling a foreign invasion would be unlikely.
Completely retarded
Completely retarded. You are a moron. Have you ever noticed that the people who support your views are retarded and very ugly and have no social skills? There are no ceo anarchists because people with talent don’t believe in retarded theories that far leftwing professors with no knowledge of reality made up
you are completely retarded
In the immediate term people probably would feel common affinity with the other former-members of the same state. 'Scottish', 'American', etc would nt simply disappear.
The only real anarchism is that of power.
Community and nation need not be mutually exclusive or competing. Nations can be viewed as a higher order community, or "community of communities". Remember that communities (all organizations really) are subject to natural selection just like individuals are, and the environment in which communities exist dictates how they will mutate and evolve over time. Just like how the community acts as a beneficial social environment for the individuals within it (eg by not selecting for tyrants), the nation can act as a similarly beneficial higher order social environment for the communities within it. Individuals gain less benefit interfacing directly with the "broader and shallower" nation than they do with the "narrower and deeper" community, but they benefit from the fact that intercommunity entropy, (and hence competition) is reduced, thus reducing the consumption required by community members to secure their community from external threats and the chaos of incomplete information,
I love that place, but the bar there is too expensive.
There are plenty of CEOs and the like pushing leftism, and a lot of the Jack Dorsey types occasionally act and dress the part too, but they don't "internalize" it. Kind of like how Ben Shapiro types who push neolib/neocon for the goyim, but ethnonationalism for his own people (Shapiro is actually more honest in this regard, since he basically discloses his internalized ethnonationalism, even if he hides from addressing the hypocrisy).
that nose
Much as we would not have it so, the fact is they are competing. Nationalism sucks the power out of smaller entities and they gradually die, or become just names and accents.
We need some sort of community, but it should be as small as possible to allow us to still feel needed and valued within it.
The first thing the Communists do, when they take power... is kill all the anarchists.
You wont fare any better if we prevail.
AnCom is the AnCap/Libertarian of the Left
an unrealistic joke.
Anarchy is for children.
Nature is hierarchical
The Universe is ordered.
It only appears chaotic from our vantage,
this is the true nature of existence.
anarchy will lead to a power vacuum that will lead to feudalism
and the cycle begins again
God forbid anyone protect their culture.
The problem is that competition need not be "conscious". Bacteria are competing, and under constant natural selection, but they are not consciously competing, since they don't even have consciousness. The same thing will end up happening with communities, even it they aren't actually trying to. "Competition" is perhaps an unfortunate historic convention for the "darwinain equilibration" process, since it obscures this distinction. Minimizing effects of this unconsciousness competition (between individuals, communities, whatever) is possible, provided that the environment produces a fitness function which is approximately flat in the regions connecting the "competing "entities. For a nation of communities, the flatter this can be made, the slower and weaker the absorbing effect on the communities. If we had a way to infer in advance, the fitness landscape defined by a system, and where the participants lie within it, a system could be engineered where the time taken for it decay into homogeneous sludge is so long as to be practically irrelevant.
I think he's arguing for something along those lines. A return to having independent towns and city-states, kind of like Ancient Greece. Except instead of kings or whatever there would be some sort of democracy, like Athens I suppose.
If you dont think that would bring about Tribal conflict you are insane
That bitch's posture is fucking horrible.
it's interesting, right. I took a glance at the photo and I knew it was brazil (I thought it was SP), because you see porverty you think of fucking brazil (before seeing the sign)
also anarchy is a nigger shit
Why would it, dawg? Do states need one world governments to keep from killing each other?
It looks nice, wherever it is
eh. these buildings are horrendous. brazil's architecture is a fucking disgrace, generally
Anarchy is the static background that brought you to this point. Stop being an unrealistic faggot looking for utopia.
It's better than here, much more plants and more colorful buildings.
remove your memeflaggot
Country flags shouldn't exist. They only lead to ad-hominem insults, shit-posting, etc. as opposed to actual debate
Anarchy is based but anarchists are almost always beta junkies and skanks.
Too much communist influence.
Based, /we/ need more freedom.
Hierarchies are necessary to maintain any structure.
indicative of a problem with anarchy considering that since its inception anarchist and commies have been all buddy buddy until the commies INVARIABLY backstab you
Minarchists are at least rational enough to recognize the usefulness of hierarchy with regards to effective organization.
Anarchists activists are more accurately described as accelerationists ie disposable tools used to destabilize the status quo whatever it may be.
Savara, put your clothes back on.
Or someone will fuck the anarchy right out of you.
Why user?
Maybe with the resurgence in populist parties, we will see more interest in anarchism. A lot of the populist parties are anti-capitalist to some extent. The problem is people still look to the nation state as the only available alternative to the EU / global capitalism.
> destabilize the status quo whatever it may be.
77555 checked
>commies INVARIABLY backstab you
Rule: Only Trust Yourself.
>we will see more interest in anarchism
hopefully we won't I respect the voluntarist philosophy of anarchists. But it is not a tenable position in a world where the bell curve exists, too many are too milquetoast in their convictions and if they aren't their children will be. The truth is that only philosophies that survive on timescales measured in centuries and millennia are religions
If you want freedom to be the ultimate law of the land you must convince people that the lack of it poses the same threat to the average person as the idea of eternal suffering. And you have to do it with your hand tied behind your back if you plan to stay true to your principals.