WHY ANARCHY WON'T WORK
Carlos May
Rev. Steve Slack (obno...@erols.com) wrote:
: Anarchy is a useful concept for artists and musicians. ONLY.
Ergot, to live in freedom and harmony, we must exterminate everyone who
is neither an artist nor musician.
Hm.
"It's not the law, it's just a good idea..."
-- Frater Frogalogus
NENSLO
Rev. Steve Slack (obno...@erols.com) wrote:
: Anarchy is a useful concept for artists and musicians. ONLY.
: The realization of anarchy in actual practice is:
: Having a round of buckshot pumped up your butt by six bubbas
: while you watch your girlfriend get gangraped.
RIGHTO! We're off anarchy then!
Got THAT all wrapped up.
n
--
cam
fro...@praline.no.NeoSoft.com (Carlos May) wrote:
>Rev. Steve Slack (obno...@erols.com) wrote:
>: Anarchy is a useful concept for artists and musicians. ONLY.
>
>is neither an artist nor musician.
>
>Hm.
>
>"It's not the law, it's just a good idea..."
>
> -- Frater Frogalogus
>
cam
Richard Stuart
In article <4nc6nt$a...@news6.erols.com>
obno...@erols.com "Rev. Steve Slack" writes:
> Anarchy is a useful concept for artists and musicians. ONLY.
I agree. People who scream "anarchy" don't realise the ramifications
of what they are saying.
> The realization of anarchy in actual practice is:
> Having a round of buckshot pumped up your butt by six bubbas
> while you watch your girlfriend get gangraped.
Excuse my ignorance, but what is a "bubba?" I assume this is an
American term, and since I am an English gentleman I am unfamiliar
with it. Is it the same as "gangsta?"
-Ricks
_________________________________________________________________
NO FUN... NO CORE... NO MOSH... NO TRENDS
"The urge... so strong, to do the devil's work..." -Darkthrone
_________________________________________________________________
Ernie Dunbar
: The realization of anarchy in actual practice is:
: Having a round of buckshot pumped up your butt by six bubbas
: while you watch your girlfriend get gangraped.
And why the fuck would anybody in alt.satanism give a flying fuck?
Please note that alt.satanism is no longer in the newsgroups line.
--
"Do I look like someone who cares what God thinks?"
- Out of Hellraiser Bloodlines.
Crazy Bob
In article <4ne9h8$2...@uuneo.neosoft.com>, fro...@praline.no.NeoSoft.com (Carlos May) says:
>
>Rev. Steve Slack (obno...@erols.com) wrote:
>: Anarchy is a useful concept for artists and musicians. ONLY.
>
>is neither an artist nor musician.
Ergot, isn't that toxic fungus? I think musicians and artists have safer
ways of altering their consciousness.
"Psychedelic fungus infestation of European grain, not divine inspiration,
was responsible for many of the "visions" so lovingly portrayed in the
Christian paintimgs of antiquity. How many people were pressed under
stones or drowned or burned for satanism while those of faith were quietly
tripping their brains out on BAD BREAD?"
-Liner notes to Big Black's "Songs
About Fucking"
CB
Peter Hipwell
In article <4nc6nt$a...@news6.erols.com> "Rev. Steve Slack" <obno...@erols.com> writes:
>Anarchy is a useful concept for artists and musicians. ONLY.
>
>Having a round of buckshot pumped up your butt by six bubbas
>while you watch your girlfriend get gangraped.
>
You've see the actualized realization of this?
I'll be scratching that holiday to NIHILON, then.
--
remememedismemberationalessencephalotherroarrogleamitrouselephagentryagain
**** WEB SITE PLUG: http://www.cogsci.ed.ac.uk/~petehip/ZPKIntro.html ****
remementalistonkalligatrememeiostretchinderogathermalicentichoruptamessinge
lurch
>Richard Stuart <Ri...@tpstuart.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>In article <4nc6nt$a...@news6.erols.com>
>> obno...@erols.com "Rev. Steve Slack" writes:
>>> Anarchy is a useful concept for artists and musicians. ONLY.
>>I agree. People who scream "anarchy" don't realise the ramifications
>>of what they are saying.
>>> The realization of anarchy in actual practice is:
>>> Having a round of buckshot pumped up your butt by six bubbas
>>> while you watch your girlfriend get gangraped.
>>Excuse my ignorance, but what is a "bubba?" I assume this is an
>>American term, and since I am an English gentleman I am unfamiliar
>>with it. Is it the same as "gangsta?"
>>-Ricks
I'll give it a shot. The term Bubba sort of defines a small segment of
a larger group often referrred to as po-buckers or Rednecks (hicks,
hillbillies). They are white, as opposed to "Gangstas," who generally
are not. Bubbas are generally violent types that like to hunt deer,
drink beer, beat up queers and fuck steers. They are the guys wearing
camo pants and hunting caps that hoot at and goose your girlfriend at
the jukebox at some truckstop in Alabama where you stopped because you
actually got hungry enough to eat that sort of slop. They are the sort
of fellows you hire for $50 bucks to beat up your ex-boss, ex-wife,
whatever. Mostly they are almost toothless, undereducated, drunk, wife
beating slobbolas that work at chicken processing plants, live in
trailers and drive pickups with gun racks and a little sticker on the
back window showing some little guy pissing on the logo of a competing
truck manufacturer.
If you are interested in becoming one, the same course I took is
accepting applicants now. I'd hurry though, as the classes in "Hanging
around gas stations spittin,' grinnin,' pickin' yer nose and chewing
on wooden matchsticks;" "Ass-kickin' and non-lethal wife abuse;" "Fun
things to do with livestock guts;" and "Enough readin' and writin' to
learn you to scrawl racial slurs on driveways;" are filling up fast.
lurch
jasher
: Rev. Steve Slack (obno...@erols.com) wrote:
: : Anarchy is a useful concept for artists and musicians. ONLY.
: : The realization of anarchy in actual practice is:
: : Having a round of buckshot pumped up your butt by six bubbas
: : while you watch your girlfriend get gangraped.
Watch it with your little teases or the AOLers will start another "Me,
too!" thread...
--
J. Asher ********* Friends don't let friends use AT&T *********
Charlotte, NC (Save a tree - use a REAL Internet provider!)
gg gordon
In article <832276...@tpstuart.demon.co.uk>, Richard Stuart <Ri...@tpstuart.demon.co.uk> says:
>
>In article <4nc6nt$a...@news6.erols.com>
> obno...@erols.com "Rev. Steve Slack" writes:
>
>
>of what they are saying.
>
>> Having a round of buckshot pumped up your butt by six bubbas
>> while you watch your girlfriend get gangraped.
>
>American term, and since I am an English gentleman I am unfamiliar
>with it. Is it the same as "gangsta?"
>
Bubba is the archetypical redneck, po'bucker white trash who was
somebody's brother and earned the nickname 'bubba' because nodody
could pronounce 'brother'. One of the guys who got
Ned Beatty in "Deliverance" was probably called Bubbs.
Here in central Texas a lot of the shitkickers refer to one
another as Bubba...they even use the term in advertising as in
"The Lone Star Cafe---Bubba likes it!"
ggg
Pat Rahikainen
>Excuse my ignorance, but what is a "bubba?" I assume this is an
>American term, and since I am an English gentleman I am unfamiliar
>with it. Is it the same as "gangsta?"
>-Ricks
> _________________________________________________________________
> NO FUN... NO CORE... NO MOSH... NO TRENDS
> "The urge... so strong, to do the devil's work..." -Darkthrone
> _________________________________________________________________
a *Bubba* as near as I can figure is a person from the rural south,
of low intelligence who solves all problems by use of a gun. This is
their way of equating all anarchists with the LUNATIC FRINGE who claim
to be anarchist but who we know to be terrorists or facists in
disguise.
John Laviolette
Richard Stuart (Ri...@tpstuart.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <4nc6nt$a...@news6.erols.com>
: obno...@erols.com "Rev. Steve Slack" writes:
: > Anarchy is a useful concept for artists and musicians. ONLY.
: I agree. People who scream "anarchy" don't realise the ramifications
: of what they are saying.
well, maybe not the common man... but are you saying that people who read
Kropotkin or Proudhon don't know what anarchism is?
are you saying that government exists objectively and has existed since
before the arrival of humankind? are you saying it's not just a
fiction? are you saying that if we carried out group activities through
voluntary associations instead of through authoritarian force, we would
be unable to continue existing?
government depends on the belief that humans are basically evil, so we
need a government to restrain their evil. but if that is the case, then
humans are not fit to govern, and government is just another name for
"bubbas with guns".
: > The realization of anarchy in actual practice is:
: > Having a round of buckshot pumped up your butt by six bubbas
: > while you watch your girlfriend get gangraped.
: Excuse my ignorance, but what is a "bubba?" I assume this is an
: American term, and since I am an English gentleman I am unfamiliar
: with it. Is it the same as "gangsta?"
no.
"Bubba" in Southern speech means "brother". it is thus also a common
Southern nickname (and occassionally even a name.) So, to
non-Southerners, it's become the stereotypical name for the illiterate
southern cracker. Guys with overalls and no shirt underneath, whose
parents were related by blood...
--
-------His Most Feathered Eminence, The UrBeatle--------------------|
taly...@psyber.com | The Revolution is NOT being |
Sacramento CA USA | televised. |
FINGER ME FOR FREE PORNOGRAPHY!
Jeffrey S Stein
Funny, but I always thought this defined "good government", the
only difference in definitions being that the "bubbas" are either cops or
soldiers.
Jeff Stein
email: j-st...@uiuc.edu
On 15 May 1996, Rev. Steve Slack wrote:
> Anarchy is a useful concept for artists and musicians. ONLY.
>
> The realization of anarchy in actual practice is:
> Having a round of buckshot pumped up your butt by six bubbas
> while you watch your girlfriend get gangraped.
>
> -- SKAK
>
>
>
>
John Nowakowski
What do you mean by a government "working". . . depending on one's
subjective goals, anarchy could work just fine.
cuthulu
On 22 May 1996 09:01:02 GMT, woz...@nevada.edu (John Nowakowski) wrote:
>
>What do you mean by a government "working". . . depending on one's
>subjective goals, anarchy could work just fine.
Like opera then, do you?
--------------------------------
"Quarks, Kooks, Heretics,
Lunatics, Defilers of God,
Set off in leaky vessels
Towards holes in the horizon"
philip glass, the voyage
visit http://www.rlabs.com
--------------------------------
Brooks Rownd
: On 22 May 1996 09:01:02 GMT, woz...@nevada.edu (John Nowakowski) wrote:
: >
: >What do you mean by a government "working". . . depending on one's
: >subjective goals, anarchy could work just fine.
Who cares? Shut the fuck up and quit crossposting. Dumbass!
Dr. Jim Stevenson
Your followup crossposted to alt.mindcontrol, hopefully by mistake.
This group is for mindcontrol victims and those who want to help them
and understand mindcontrol.
Mindcontrol means brainwashing, torture, forced drugs, etc.
This group is getting over 90% of these off topic crosposts and is all most
useless until we get the number way down.
You probably replied to another post using a follow up command and
neglected to edit the first line which selects the newsgroups for reply
When you reply to a crossposted message, you assume the responsibility to edit
the off topic newsgroups from the Newsgroups: and Followup: lines.
The originator of the thread can not take the responsibility to stop
your off topic followup.
If you get this message more than once, it is my error, and I apologize.
Sorry. I have not found a way to keep track if I sent you this message
before, in response to another crosspost.
I am a few days behind reading news, so you may not have crossposted
resently.
Next time please reply by private email.
Please understand that this message is attempting to be polite.
I am not angry, just trying to make this newsgroup more usable.
When you answer my messages, please save bandwidth, and don't email my
text back to me, so I don't have to listen to it again.
If you believe that I ask too much effort by asking you to trim the Newsgroups:
line, you should try turning off your monitor, and sorting out the
relevant posts with speech, as I must.
Thanks.
Mike Nichols
he's not cross posting asshole, and i dont think you were invited into
this conversation, now were you???
Conehead the Barbarian
woz...@nevada.edu (John Nowakowski) wrote:
>
>What do you mean by a government "working". . . depending on one's
>subjective goals, anarchy could work just fine.
>
I have no doubt that anarchy can be made to work as well or better
than any other form of government -as long as one remembers that *all*
govermental philosophies only work as well as their leaders are willing
to compromise their ideologies with reality.
Basically, what this mean is that a functional anarchy would recognize
governmental authority as a neccessary evil and question the use of
authority vigorously. Some overseeing authoritarian stucture is needed
to moderate disputes between individuals or there would be no individual
freedoms or rights or resposabilities and you anarchy would rapidly
devole into warlordism. To have freedom, one must have rights, with
rights come responsabilities (such as not useing your property rights in
a way that would contaminate your neighbor's water supply.), to garantee
such rights you need a moderator (i.e. judicial system) to determine
whos' rights are being violated. To see that such rights are protected
from those who would deny them, you need enforcers (i.e. police)!
Anarchy is the highest of ideals in governmental philosophies.
Converting the ideal to the real is hard work, involves much compromise,
and is basically a long hard road to travel, the higher your ideal, the
more difficult the road traveled. The basic ideology of anarchy, in its
most idealistic sense, is that goverment is a necessary evil, so where it
is not necessary it is just plain evil (or is this law *REALLY* neseccary
to a free society?)!
QUESTION AUTHORITY!
Lou Duchez
In article <4ob4b7$n...@nntp.onramp.net>,
Conehead the Barbarian <bobby...@ringworld.com> wrote:
> woz...@nevada.edu (John Nowakowski) wrote:
> >
> >What do you mean by a government "working". . . depending on one's
> >subjective goals, anarchy could work just fine.
> I have no doubt that anarchy can be made to work as well or better
> than any other form of government -as long as one remembers that *all*
> govermental philosophies only work as well as their leaders are willing
> to compromise their ideologies with reality.
>
> Basically, what this mean is that a functional anarchy would recognize
> governmental authority as a neccessary evil and question the use of
> authority vigorously.
But then it's not anarchy, is it? Just trying to apply the correct
terminology, Herr Schmidt.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lou Duchez - ljdu...@en.com - http://www.en.com/users/ljduchez
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Curt Prasky
Conehead the Barbarian <bobby...@ringworld.com> wrote:
> I have no doubt that anarchy can be made to work as well or better
>than any other form of government -as long as one remembers that *all*
>govermental philosophies only work as well as their leaders are willing
>to compromise their ideologies with reality.
Any "other" form of government? But anarchy is not government. By
definition, an anarchy is a society without a government. Also, I must
point out that some of the "freest" governments have stopped working (as
far as providing their citizens with liberty is concerned), not because
their leaders did not compromise their ideologies with "reality", but
because their leaders did compromise their stated ideologies. Liberty
compromised is liberty killed.
> Basically, what this mean is that a functional anarchy would recognize
>governmental authority as a neccessary evil and question the use of
>authority vigorously.
An anarchy would recognize that governmental authority means you no
longer have an anarchy. The problem with governmental authority is that
governments seem to have authorization to carry out actions, which if
carried out by any other group, or an individual, would be recognized as
immoral. I hold that if an action is immoral for an individual, it is
also immoral for a group. And if immoral for one group, it is immoral
for all groups. For example, if you and I got together with some friends
and began demanding and collecting money from others by threatening them
with confiscation of property or deprivation of liberty, we would be
labelled "gangsters" and tracked down and imprisoned or shot. Yet this
is exactly how government gets it's money. Aside from the fact that
government calls itself "government" rather "the mob" or "the Mafia",
what is the real distinction between government and any other group of
gangsters?
>Some overseeing authoritarian stucture is needed
>to moderate disputes between individuals or there would be no individual
>freedoms or rights or resposabilities and you anarchy would rapidly
>devole into warlordism.
Actually, what is needed is some way of settling disputes. That is
all. And what might that be? Who can say? What works well for my
neighborhood might not work so well for yours. Therefore, I have no
right to demand that you adopt the system that we use in my neck of the
woods, or vice versa. Too many folks seem to think an anarchy would be
uniform. It would not be so. There is no one model will work for all.
And that is the fallacy which leads to disputes between nations or
governments. There is no "one size fits all" system of having people
deal with one another.
> To have freedom, one must have rights, with
>rights come responsabilities (such as not useing your property rights in
>a way that would contaminate your neighbor's water supply.), to garantee
>such rights you need a moderator (i.e. judicial system) to determine
>whos' rights are being violated. To see that such rights are protected
>from those who would deny them, you need enforcers (i.e. police)!
Who has ever succeeded in "guaranteeing" any rights at all? The US
Constitution supposedly "guarantees" religious freedom, yet a few years
back Congress was actually considering banning Native Americans peyote
ritual, a measure vigorously fought by a coalition of Jews and Roman
Catholics. (BTW, I never heard how this turned out. Has the peyote
ritual been banned, or do Native Americans still have their "guarantee"
of religious freedom?) Freedom of speech is also supposedly
"guaranteed", yet we have such atrocities as the Exon bill with us today.
I'm sure you can come up with other such "guarantees" which no longer
exist or are conveniently ignored, part of the willingness of government
officials to "compromise" with reality....
>
> Anarchy is the highest of ideals in governmental philosophies.
>Converting the ideal to the real is hard work, involves much compromise,
Actually, as I understand it, governments view anarchy as an evil to
be fought at every turn. Compromise is a tool used by governments to
subvert liberty to tyranny.
Curt Prasky
--
====As long as we keep demanding, accepting and *obeying* stupid laws,
government will keep giving them to us.=====
dannie hawkins
On 27 May 1996 02:34:15 GMT, Conehead the Barbarian
<bobby...@ringworld.com> wrote:
>To see that such rights are protected from those who would deny them,
>you need enforcers (i.e. police)!
Men should become men... *again*. "Unibomber" best described what to do
in situations of a person taking advantage of another person... Kill him.
A "need" for "enforcers" (i.e. cops) would then not exist.
--
WAR. POB 65. FALLBROOK,CA USA 92088 [met...@cts.com]
WAR Journel 3$EA.30YR U.S. 40CA 50foreign [FAX619-728-9817]
News/Comments + Q&A 619-723-8996 [apprx 15min. updated Sun 5pm PT]
DIAL-A-RACIST.900-336-2020 ext.573 (4min@2$min)
http://www.free.cts.com/crash/m/metzger [WAR articles etc]
RRocker
> [...] The basic ideology of anarchy, in its
> most idealistic sense, is that goverment is a necessary evil, so where
it
> is not necessary it is just plain evil (or is this law *REALLY*
neseccary
> to a free society?)!
I disagree. The basic assumption of anarchism is that government is not
necessary. Considering goverment being a necessary evil is more a liberal
standpoint.
The basic idea of anarchism is that a system of central control (state,
government)
are in fact a threat for freedom and human rights.
Howard Olson
-> > [...] The basic ideology of anarchy, in its
-> > most idealistic sense, is that goverment is a necessary evil, so where
-> it
-> > is not necessary it is just plain evil (or is this law *REALLY*
-> neseccary
-> > to a free society?)!
-> I disagree. The basic assumption of anarchism is that government is not
-> necessary. Considering goverment being a necessary evil is more a liberal
-> standpoint.
-> The basic idea of anarchism is that a system of central control (state,
-> government)
-> are in fact a threat for freedom and human rights.
Anarchism rejects any monopoly of force over a geographic area (a
state). The centralized control that results from such a monopoly of
force clearly does violate freedom and human rights as you say.