Author Topic: Μέτωπο Αναρχοκαπιταλιστικού Πολέμου  (Read 535 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Libertarian

  • Guest
Εδώ ποστάρουμε αναρχοκαπιταλιστική προπαγάνδα.

RIGHT AND LEFT IN STATE, SOCIETY, CHURCH, ECONOMY AND DAILY LIFE
ABBREVIATIONS: D = “Democracy” (National Democracy, Radical Democracy, Jacobinsim)
NS = National Socialism (Fascism)
SC = Socialism, Communism

Left (perspective)

LIFE

a) Slavery and Coercion
Equality is achieved by slavery and coercion (SC). Equality is only possible if we remove the mountain tops and fill the valleys. Full mobilization of envy to foster equality by taxation (D) or confiscation (SC) or “naturalization” (SC,NS).
b) Identity (Sameness)
Political equality of the uneducated and unexperienced (D), sameness of language, custom, way of life (D,NS), sameness of race (NS), sameness of class (SC—Theory).
c) Quantitativism
Moral conclusions are drawn from the moral or intellectual propensities of the many (D) at elections, plebiscites, polls, sex-investigations.

MAN

The individual is subject to the will of the majority (volonté générale). He is a mere number in the “democratic process” (D), who can be added or subtracted. He is embodied and personified by a “leader” (Führer, Duce, Vozhd) (NS) or by a delegate (D). The individual is nothing—the “People” everything (D,NS,SC). The individual is a mere fragment of the “collective masses” (SC). “Nobody is indispensable” (D). Man is a creature of the stomach and wallet (SC), the reproductive organs (NS) or of the larynx (D).
LIFE

a) Slavery and Coercion
Equality is achieved by slavery and coercion (SC). Equality is only possible if we remove the mountain tops and fill the valleys. Full mobilization of envy to foster equality by taxation (D) or confiscation (SC) or “naturalization” (SC,NS).
b) Identity (Sameness)
Political equality of the uneducated and unexperienced (D), sameness of language, custom, way of life (D,NS), sameness of race (NS), sameness of class (SC—Theory).
c) Quantitativism
Moral conclusions are drawn from the moral or intellectual propensities of the many (D) at elections, plebiscites, polls, sex-investigations.
STATE

The State as ultima ratio and end in itself:
Monolithic structure (centralized, unitary state), absolutism of monarchs, leaders, dictators but also of parliamentary majorities (D,NS,SC). “Politics.” The citizen is the subject (serf, slave) of the State (NS,SC).
The “interest of the State” takes the place of the common weal. Centralization, statism, geometrism and identitarianism in the administration (D,NS,SC). Opposition to all private spheres, to all “privileges.”
To be different as such becomes a crime (D,NS,SC).
SOCIETY

Structure: No estates, but “classes.” Tendency towards the amorphous, towards the static, the egalitarian or identitarian mania, or towards a new caste system. Mass movements: Dominion of the instincts and the passions. Bureaucratic reactions against tendencies leading to chaos and anarchy.
NATION

Nationalism of an ethnic order (D,NS) or racism (NS): Complete unity within the framework of the State. Antinomian reactions: Internationalism, grey worldwide uniformity (D,SC).
CHURCH & FAITH

Either complete hostile annexation of the Church (“Josephinistic” establishments under State control) or persecution of the Church by separation. Religion then is first removed from the marketplace and the school, later from other domains of public life. The State will not tolerate any gods besides itself (D,NS,SC).
POLITICAL STRUCTURE

All problems, all matters of individuals and of groups are always left to the discretion of the central government, which cannot tolerate any autonomous developments. The end of all private and local enterprise, or at least of the spirit sustaining them. Repression of all “minorities,” of all dissenting groups (D,NS,SC).
IDEALS

Utopianism. The nihilistic tendency to recreate and refashion all forms of human existence after a tabula rasa of total revolution (D,NS,SC). Total planning and “social engineering,” methodical uprooting. Geometrism and symetrism instead of organic growth. Life as a “mathematical formula.” The expectation of a social and technological paradise on earth either after a series of revolutionary hells (NS,SC), with appeals to accept sacrifices for coming generations, or along the lines of an endless, evolutionary, humanitarian “progress” (D).
WELFARE

The material security of the individual is entirely in the hands of a provider state, which controls the material weal of the citizenry through a centralized agency. “Welfare” as opium of the people and as tool of the cold or hot totalitarianism. The controls are directed at the “weak points” of the defenseless individual: old age, unemployment, illness. Practical affinity between the provider state and socialism (D,NS,SC).
LAWS

Legal Positivism. The “law” in the service of a triumphant ideology. Laws are “made.” Justice is prescribed and fabricated, not “looked for” and found (D,NS,SC).
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Efforts to refashion all other nations after one’s own image. Eternal crusades motivated by the spirit of a (usually only subconscious) imperialism of structural forms (D,SC). Local crusades for the liberation of “underdogs” and other “enslaved minorities,” “democracy” (Wilson, Lloyd George, Roosevelt), national socialism and communism as modern “Islamic movements” engaged in Djihads, “holy wars.”
INSTRUCTION & EDUCATION

Uniform education according to a uniform scheme “for all,” thus coddling the worst and stultifying the most talented. State monopoly in education which tries to be education and not mere instruction, thus increasingly arrogating the rights of parents. Cutting or totally eliminating religious instruction (D,NS,SC).
ECONOMICS

Either paleo-liberalism, which leads to the concentration of wealth in very few, if not “one,” hand (monopolies), which then can be expropriated or controlled by totalitarian states and only theoretically continue to figure as “private property” (D,NS) or State capitalism (socialism), where the State owns everything. Currency completely controlled by (SC) the State (occasionally laws against private ownership of precious metals and coins). Robbing of the money-saving citizen by inflation and sly expropriation through excessive taxes (D,NS,C).
THE SEXES

a) Sexes: equal.
b) Family: relative and horizontal (therefore “generation gaps”).

Relativism due to the “sand heap” concept of society as simultaneously individualistic and collectivist: many grains, one heap.
HUMAN COHESION

Power. (Naked power, terror).
Fear and resentment.

Right

MAN

A person with an intransferable destiny, unique, created in the image of God, responsible to God, endowed with an immortal soul. A creature with “heart” and “reason” (ratio directed towards wisdom and knowledge). Enfeebled by original sin, but not just a “product of environment.”
LIFE

a) Freedom
“Equality” is merely accepted as an “administrative simplification” and as a fraternal attitude towards others, because we do not know exactly who is superior to whom, who stands nearer to God who alone knows the full truth.
b) Diversity
Joy in the diversity and in the richness of all forms of creation.
c) Efforts towards perfection and excellence
Realization of the “royal priesthood of all believers.”
Timocracy.
STATE

Guardian of the freedom and dignity of man:
“Mixed government” with an interior balance. Tendency towards a “patriarchal” (even hereditary) monarchical head. “Statesmanship.” The people always asked for their desires and these are seriously taken into consideration without being accepted as ultima ratio. They are not placed above knowledge, reason and experience. Primacy of quality over quantity. Administration of an elitarian, nonpolitical character. Church and State, State and society as separate entities—although cooperating. The State is the servant of the common weal, the servant of the people’s true interests. The federal principle and personal freedom are the guiding stars of its structure and function.
SOCIETY

Estates, not “classes.” An “open society.” The estates are functional. They are not hierarchic units, not castes. Demophily. Leadership of changing, but tradition-connected (not tradition-determined) elites.
NATION

Patriotism and Supranationalism. Unity in diversity.
CHURCH & FAITH

Church and State are separate, but cooperate as equals within society in all domains where their collaboration and mutual understanding are indispensable (school, legislation, spiritual care of the army, the prisoners, hospital inmates, care of certain art treasures). Such cooperation with several churches (or non-Christian denominations) is (by experience) as feasible as with a single one.
POLITICAL STRUCTURE

Principle of Subsidiarity. In state and society the larger (higher) unit only then becomes active and effective when the smaller (lower, more immediate) is incapable of coping with the problems: Where the person fails, the family takes action; where the family fails, society steps in; where society is powerless, small and then progressively larger political units come into play. The necessity of creating small “kingdoms” in which the person can be sovereign.
IDEALS

Development in the light of tradition. (Without tradition there is no progress, but endless fresh starts from zero.) Respect for the achievements of the past and institutions organically grown. Progress through additions, corrections, adaptations. Full comprehensions for the glories, but also for the limitations of man. “Sovereign,” which means objective and thoughtful, attitude towards the world “organic concept” of life.
WELFARE

“Social security’’ through general prosperity and respect for the independence of the person. Ideal climate for acquiring and retaining property which, except for the “saint,” is indispensable for his liberty. In the financial-material crisis of the person his primary sources of aid are the family, cooperatives, professional associations, charities. The State intervenes only where all other agents fail. Fostering of the natural virtues: saving, providence, planning.
LAWS

Legislation, the law, jurisdiction are based on the natural law, on revelation, on tradition, on intelligent differentiation. Motto: suum cuique.
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Acceptance of the fact that the nations are different, ofter radically different from each other; that they have, therefore, different traditions, institutions and dreams. Nevertheless: distinction between the political genius of the various nations and political-ideological aberrations which might menace the well-being of the world.
INSTRUCTION & EDUCATION

The principle of the natural aristoi. Intellectual-moral selectiveness coupled with the effort to ensure the social rise of the more gifted and more laborious. Instruction and education for a full and noble life. Respect for the rights of the parents. Importance of religious instruction. Public, private and/or corporate education.
ECONOMICS

Free market economy with free competition but also protection for the free choice of the consumer. A sensible (not petty) intervention of the State to keep competition alive. Emotional attachment of the workers to their enterprises—affection for and pride in them. Facilities for acquiring capital. Absolute stability of the currencies.
THE SEXES

a) Sexes: Here too the principle, “to everybody his due.”
b) Family: Vertical, hence dynastic feelings tying together the generations. Absolute. The family as cell of society and State. It is also the frame for the development of the personality. Families are as different as personalities are.
HUMAN COHESION

Authority. (Direction through inner ties, not outside pressure.) Love and respect.

Libertarian

  • Guest
Ένα για τον Fringe


GOOD FORMS:                                                                                                                                                   BAD FORMS:
Monarchy, the rule of one man in the interest of the common good.                                                            Tyranny, the rule of one man to his own advantage.
Aristocracy, the rule of a group in the interest of the common good.                                                            Oligarchy, the rule of a group for their own benefit.
Republic or Polity, the rule of the better part of the people in the interest of the common good.                    Democracy, the rule of the worse part of the people for their own benefit.

Libertarian

  • Guest
ΕΒΡΑΪΚΗ ΑΝΑΡΧΟΚΑΠΙΤΑΛΙΣΤΙΚΗ ΠΕΡΙΤΜΗΜΕΝΗ ΨΩΛΗ:

In Biblical language the just on the Day of Judgment are to be on the right2 and the damned on the left. Christ sits ad dexteram Patris (on the right hand of the Father)

Libertarian

  • Guest
The misplacing of the Nazis in the Reichstag has thus hardened a confusion in semantics and logical thinking that had started some time earlier. The Communists, the Socialists, and the Anarchists were identified with the left, and the Fascists and the National Socialists with the right. At the same time one discovered a number of similarities between the Nazis on the one side and the Communists on the other. Thus the famous and perfectly idiotic formula arose: “We are opposed to all extremism, be it from the left or the right. And, anyhow, Red and Brown are practically the same: extremes always meet.”

All this is the result of very sloppy thinking, because extremes never meet. Extreme cold and extreme heat, extreme distance and extreme nearness, extreme strength and extreme weakness, extreme speed and extreme slowness, none of them ever “meet.” They do not become identical or even alike. The moment one counterattacks and inquires from the good man who just pontificated about the meeting of extremes what precisely he understands by right and left, he proves unable to give any coherent analysis of these terms. Lamely he will hint that on the extreme are the reactionaries—the Fascists, for instance. Asked whether Mussolini’s Repubblica Sociale Italiana was a reactionary or a leftist establishment, he will again mumble something about those paradoxical extremes. Certainly the left is collectivist and progressive; the Communists are “extreme progressivists.” If he sticks to this piece of nonsense, one should point out to him that certain primitive African societies with a tribal collectivism are not really so “extremely progressive.” This is usually the moment when the conversation expires.

Libertarian

  • Guest
The right has to be identified with personal freedom, with the absence of utopian visions whose realization—even if it were possible—would need tremendous collective efforts; it stands for free, organically grown forms of life. And this in turn implies a respect for tradition. The right is truly progressive, whereas there is no real advance in utopianism which almost always demands—as in the Internationale—to “make a clean sweep” of the past, du passé faisons table rase: dyelayem gladkuyu dosku iz proshlago! If we return to point zero, we are again at the bottom of the ladder, we have to start from scratch again.4 Bernard of Chartres said that generations were “like dwarfs seated on the shoulders of giants, thereby capable of seeing more things than their forebears and in a greater distance.”5 As a matter of fact, almost all utopias, though “futuristic” in temperament, have always preached a return to an assumed Golden Age, glowing in the most attractive colors of a falsely romanticized version. The true rightist is not a man who wants to go back to this or that institution for the sake of a return; he wants first to find out what is eternally true, eternally valid, and then either to restore or reinstall it, regardless of whether it seems obsolete, whether it is ancient, contemporary, or even without precedent, brand new, “ultramodern.” Old truths can be rediscovered, entirely new ones found. The Man of the Right does not have a time-bound, but a sovereign mind. In case he is a Christian he is, in the words of the Apostle Peter, the steward of a Basileion Hierateuma, a Royal Priesthood.6

The right stands for liberty, a free, unprejudiced form of thinking, a readiness to preserve traditional values (provided they are true values), a balanced view of the nature of man, seeing in him neither beast nor angel, insisting also on the uniqueness of human beings who cannot be transformed into or treated as mere numbers or ciphers; but the left is the advocate of the opposite principles. It is the enemy of diversity and the fanatical promoter of identity. Uniformity is stressed in all leftist utopias, a paradise in which everybody should be the “same,” where envy is dead, where the “enemy” either no longer exists, lives outside the gates, or is utterly humiliated. Leftism loathes differences, deviation, stratifications. Any hierarchy it accepts is only “functional.” The term “one” is the keynote: There should be only one language, one race, one class, one ideology, one religion, one type of school, one law for everybody, one flag, one coat of arms and one centralized world state.

Libertarian

  • Guest
Ο ΚΑΡΛΙΣΜΟΣ, ΔΗΛΑΔΗ Ο ΑΚΡΑΙΟΣ ΙΣΠΑΝΙΚΟΣ ΣΥΝΤΗΡΗΤΙΣΜΟΣ ΕΙΝΑΙ ΔΕΙΓΜΑ ΦΕΝΤΕΡΑΛΙΣΜΟΥ KAI ΑΠΟΚΕΝΤΡΩΣΗΣ!

Nationalism (in the European sense) is leftism; and Catalonian, Basque, and Gallegan (Galician) nationalism naturally assumed a radically leftist character opposing “Castilian” centralization. Hence, in Madrid, almost all movements promoting local rights and privileges, be they political or ethnic, are suspect as leftist, as automatically opposed to the present regime as well as to the unity of Spain. (Spain is “Una, Grande, Libre”!) Oddly enough—but understandable to anybody with a real knowledge of Spanish history—the extreme right in Spain, represented, naturally, by the Carlists and not at all by the Falangists, is federalistic (“localistic,” anticentralistic) in the European sense.

The Carlists are opposed to the centralizing tendencies of Madrid and when late in 1964 the central government made an effort to cancel the privileges of Navarra, the fueros, the Carlists of Navarra, nearly issued a call to rebellion—at which point the government quickly declared its own preparatory steps as a “mistake” and backed down.

All conservative movements in Europe are federalistic and opposed to centralization.

Thus we encounter in Catalonia, for instance, a desire for autonomy and the cultivation of the Catalan language among the supporters of the extreme right as well as the left. The notorious Catalonian Anarchists always have been supporters of autonomy, but formal anarchism has always been a curious mixtum compositum. Its ultimate vistas were leftist, socialistic in essence, but its temper was rightist. Much of present-day “communism” in Italy and Spain is merely “popularly misunderstood anarchism.” But, on the other hand, it is also significant that in 1937 open war broke out in Barcelona between the Communists and the Anarchists. And it was the Anarchists who resisted the Communists in Russia longer than any other group, until in 1924 they were literally exterminated in all Soviet jails and camps. Hope of “taming” them had been abandoned.

Fringe_Elements

  • Guest
Ιοκάστη Μαρκάκη 22 hours ago (edited)
 
Awful trolling. If the wage was 15$ per hour in Greece almost no one would be able to work. The reason that the wage is higher there, is that american eaters of hamburgers have greater wealth in order to give to back the wage of the producers of hamburgers. So the wage, on average, is based only on the wealth that is circulating in society. If no one had wealth the price of the hamburger would be something like a kiss, or a blowjob.

So if the robot raplaces the man and man gets laid off in order to work somewhere else and produces something else, society will have greater wealth than if we had banned the robot in order to protect the man.

It is true that if we had much more robots, wages would be much higher, on average. But if the state intervenes and forces men to make robots, what would be the cost? It is the opportunity cost of the men working somewhere else and producing something else. But if producing robots is paying more than everything else, the companies would hire the men to produce robots and the state would not have to intervene. If, on the other hand, the state sees that companies doesn't hire men to produce robots it means that any internvention is not profitable for the consumers. So when govt intervenes wealth is being destroyed, or the opportunity of producing greater wealth is being forfeited for the production of what the propagandists of the state happen to want and promulgate as "beneficial", "good" etc.

And also why do you want to protect the jobs of the inferior people? Aint no jew working as a hamburger maker. White people don't like making junk food for the slaves. People with low IQs tend to work in low pay positions. Why protecting them? It is against Evolution! 




Augusto Pinochet • 2 days ago −
Εγώ να επισημάνω ότι η λέξη προοδευτικός είναι ένα βαυκαλιστικό μπουρδολόγημα το οποίο έχουν εφεύρει οι κομμουνιστές για τους εαυτούς τους, δηλαδή σημαίνει κομμουνιστής. Ο Albert είναι κομμουνιστής για αυτό υπερασπίζεται τον όρο προσπαθώντας να τον συγχέσει με την "οικονομία αφθονίας", την "πνευματική καλλιέργεια" κτλ. Η Ρεπούση, την οποία σωστά χαρακτηρίζει ο Λιναρδάτος ως προοδευτικάντζα, δηλαδή κομμουνίστρια, γιατί είναι κομμουνίστρια, δεν είναι πνευματικώς καλλιεργημένη. Κάτι γαλλικές φιλολογίες έχει σπουδάσει και η ενασχόλησή της με τα ιστορικά θέματα είναι trollαρισματικού τύπου με κακεντρεχή σκοπό να υπονομεύσει την Ελληνική Ιστορία και να δημιουργήσει έναν Λαό εύκολα υποτάξιμο στους φόρους. Συνεπώς επειδή είναι η κύρια ιστορικός του καθεστώτος δεν σημαίνει ότι είναι καλλιεργημένη ή μορφωμένη. Είναι αμόρφωτη. Επίσης αυτά τα παλιά κτήρια δεν συνδέονται με τη φτώχεια. Εκείνη την εποχή ΟΛΟΙ οι κάτοικοι είχανε να φάνε, ενώ τώρα, που χτίστηκαν καινούργια σπίτια, ο κόσμος τρέχει στα συσσίτια ενός και μόνο ενός κόμματος: της Χρυσής Αυγής γιατί όλα τα άλλα δημοκρατικά-προοδευτικά κόμματα μόνο να τον κλέβουν ξέρουν.

Φυσικά δεν υπονοώ ότι η ρυμοτομία έκανε τον κόσμο φτωχό. Το καθεστώς το οποίο συνέδεσε τον εαυτό του με τη μοντέρνα ρυμοτομία ήταν ένα καθεστώς σοσιαλιστικό που στηρίχθηκε στα δανεικά. Αυτό έφερε τη φτώχεια: ο σοσιαλισμός.

Από εκεί και πέρα η Χρυσή Αυγή, και χθες το λέγανε στην εκπομπή, σαφώς και θα προστατέψει την παλιά ρυμοτομία. Είναι μια θέση αντιφιλελεύθερη να προστατεύει το κράτος κτήρια, αλλά από το να γίνει όλη η Αθήνα σοβιετική κολλεκτίβα ας διατηρηθεί τουλάχιστον καθαρή.

Η δικιά μου άποψη είναι πως η ρυμοτομία της Ελλάδας ολόκληρης αστικοποιείται όσο εκδημοκρατίζεται το καθεστώς, δηλαδή όσο περισσότερο κυβερνάνε οι όχλοι, διότι αυτοί μόνο θάλλουν στα αστικά μαντριά. Μεγάλο μέρος του εισοδήματος των 3 μεγάλων πόλεων στην Ελλάδα είναι φουσκωμένο λόγω κρατικού παρεμβατισμού. Όταν ξεφουσκώσει, φιλελεύθερα, θα ξαναπάει στην επαρχία ο κόσμος, και υπάρχουν και άλλοι λόγοι σε μια παραγωγική και όχι παρασιτική οικονομία για τους οποίους θα αραιώσουν τα κτήρια.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2014, 05:53:47 pm by Fringe_Elements »

Libertarian

  • Guest
The hostility of Plato toward democracy (more apparent in the Politeia than in the Nomoi) was similar to that of Aristotle, who finally fled the democratic rule of Athens and went to Chalcis on Euboea admittedly in order to avoid the fate of Socrates. Plato’s antidemocratic bias was not only the automatic reaction of the intellectual against a form of government which puts no premium on reason or knowledge; it was also the result of the deeply felt experience of his master’s death. The average educated American or European, though aware that Socrates had been put to death on account of his “impiety” in introducing strange gods and for “corrupting” the young, rarely knows the full story. The last charge (far from having anything to do with sex) was subdivided (according to Xenophon) into several accusations: (1) that he taught his disciples to treat the institutions of the state with contempt; (2) that he had associated with Critias and Alcibiades; (3) that he had taught the young to disobey their parents; and (4) that he constantly quoted Homer and Hesiod against morality and democracy (especially Iliad, II, 198-206). Not only the democratic government, but the “dear people” were opposed to Socrates and he can, without exaggeration, be called a victim of democracy, of the vox populi.1

Libertarian

  • Guest
Ο Χριστιανισμός έχει ΠΡΑΓΜΑΤΙ ατομιστικές προεκτάσεις!

"Salvador de Madariaga has said that Western civilization rests on two deaths—the death of Socrates and the death of Christ. And indeed the Crucifixion was also a democratic event. When our Lord was brought before Pilate and told him that He had come as a witness to the Truth, the governor, as a true agnostic, asked Him, “What is Truth?” And without waiting for an answer, he passed Him by and consulted “the people.” The vox populi condemned our Lord to death as it had Socrates more than three centuries earlier."

Δηλαδή ο Εβραίος Ιησούς (Τζόσουα) Χριστός μπορεί να θεωρηθεί Αναρχικός-Αναρχοκαπιταλιστής!

Fringe_Elements

  • Guest
Ωραίο βιβλίο διαβάζεις, να μπεις και σε αυτό το site όπου αναλύει το ζήτημα της αναρχοκαπιταλιστικής αναρχομοναρχίας σε βάθος με πολλές αναρτήσεις και ενταγμένο πάντα μέσα στο ευρύτερο σύγχρονο νεοαντιδραστικό ιδεολογικό κίνημα.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2014, 06:27:30 pm by Fringe_Elements »

Libertarian

  • Guest
Whereas greed, pride and arrogance are at the base of unjust discrimination, the driving motor of the egalitarian and identitarian trends is envy, jealousy2 and fear. “Nature” (i.e., the absence of human intervention) is anything but egalitarian; if we want to establish a complete plain we have to blast the mountains away and fill the valleys; equality thus presupposes the continuous intervention of force which, as a principle, is opposed to freedom. Liberty and equality are in essence contradictory.

Of all political labels none have been more frequently misused than the terms “liberal” and “democratic.” A liberal is a man or a woman who is interested in having people enjoy the greatest reasonable amount of liberty—and this regardless of the juridical type of government they are living under. It is true that the affinities between liberty and the various political forms are not identical; it is also true that while some political establishments show marked liberal trends they harbour nevertheless (through their dialectics) the danger of far-reaching enslavement. The fact remains that the true liberal is not pledged to any specific constitution, but would subordinate his choice to the desire to see himself and his fellow-citizens enjoying a maximum of liberty. If he thinks that a monarchy would grant greater liberty than a republic, he would choose the former; under certain circumstances he might even prefer the actual restrictions of a military dictatorship to the potential evolutions of a democracy. Thus any liberal accepting Plato’s evaluation of democracy (Republic, Book viii) would reject this form of government because, according to this philosopher, it is fatally doomed to develop into tyranny. In this whole discussion of liberty it should never be forgotten that the highest liberty—which is at one and the same time inalienable—is ascetic liberty.

Libertarian

  • Guest
As anybody with a real knowledge of Europe might expect, the term “liberal” in its political sense is of Spanish origin. It appears for the first time after 1812 in the Iberian peninsula, and was soon adopted by the French. Southey (in the Quarterly Review) wrote in 1816 for the first time about “British Liberales,” and ten years later we see Scott using the expression “Liberaux.”4 This term was used for the radical wing of the Whigs—which is not quite identical with the connotation we attribute to this label. In the United States “a liberal” has come to mean a person who welcomes change, and thus would not be averse to embracing or fostering a totalitarian ideology.

Libertarian

  • Guest
The philosophical and psychological motives for the liberal position show a great variety. The driving force in a Christian liberalism will always be affection and generosity. Yet we also know of a liberalism derived from a basic philosophic nihilism, which declares that truth is either a mere prejudice, a piece of intellectual arrogance, a sensory fraud, or that it is humanly unattainable, outside the reach of the faculty of reason. It is obvious that such a philosophy of despair—which we reject—does not necessarily result in a liberal attitude; it may wind up in its opposite, and the type of its evolution thus depends merely on personal preference or temperament.

Libertarian

  • Guest
Not only from a variety of political processes, but from the ever-growing state itself, did many nineteenth-century thinkers fear a distinctive menace to person and personality. The lie of the identification of “state” and “people,” of “state” and “nation” moved Nietzsche to write these famous lines:
Thus spake Zarathustra:
State, what is that? Well then, now open your ears; now I will tell you my tale about the death of nations.
State is the name of the coldest of all cold monsters. It lies coldly and this lie crawls out from its mouth: “I, the State, I am the People!”
Where there is still a real people it does not understand the State and hates it as the evil eye, as sin against morals and rights . . .

Libertarian

  • Guest
In order to crush all opposing forces and to facilitate the perfecting of the totalitarian machinery, it became necessary to step up the process of centralization. This alone is able to foster uniformity and egalitarianism, and to ensure swift execution of governmental orders. Yet centralism is opposed to the whole Christian tradition, with its libertarian and personalistic outlook.
Constantin Frantz, the anti-Prussian ideologist of German federalism (federalism in its European sense, implying emphasis on “states’ rights”—the opposite of centralism), declared in the past century: “Federalism is nothing else but the secular aspect of the development of Christianity.”167 Frantz, to whom even the concept of a German capital remained distasteful,168 was disappointed in his hopes for a loose German federalism—which would have been in a much better position to preserve Germany’s universalistic, Christian and European character than the centralistic Second Reich.169

callan

  • Μπράβος
  • Major
  • *****
  • Posts: 711
  • Φήμη 0
    • View Profile
Όσο και να postάρεις κανείς δεν πρόκειται να κάτσει να τα διαβάσει.

mistermax

  • Marshal of the Soviet Union
  • ***********
  • Posts: 3917
  • Φήμη -17
    • View Profile
Όσο και να postάρεις copy-pasteαρεις κανείς δεν πρόκειται να κάτσει να τα διαβάσει.

fixed
α, και δεν γινεσαι μαγκας με το να αντιγραφεις αλλά με το να γραφεις δικα σου κειμενα.
Εμεις ξερουμε πως δεν ειναι ολοι Αναρχικοι. Μονο αυτοι ειναι οι σωστοι, οι προκαθορισμενοι για την Ουτοπια. Τι σημασια εχουν οι υπολοιποι; Οι υπολοιποι ειναι απλως η ανθρωποτητα. Πρεπει να υπερεχει κανεις της ανθρωποτητας μεσω της ρωμης, μεσω του υψους της ψυχης, μεσω της περιφρονησης.

Libertarian

  • Guest
Επίσης δε θα ήμουν αναρχικός αν σε έπαιρνα στα σοβαρά όταν ορίζεις τι εστί "μάγκας". Τον ορισμό σου τον κατουράω στα μούτρα, στην προκειμένη περίπτωση. Δε συμβιβαζόμαστε, δεν κονφορμιζόμαστε...

Somalian Pirate

  • Kapitan
  • ***
  • Posts: 485
  • Φήμη -2
  • Gender: Male
  • 卐νικωλάκης卐
  • Location: ₪Hagii Anargiri₪
    • View Profile
    • Πρεζα Τιβί
Επιστρέφω στο εν λόγω θρεντ για να μοιράσω πόνο στα αντικαπιταλιστικά κατσιβελάκια που μαστίζουν την κοινωνία μας. Είμαι ο Νίκος Ρούσσος, καλημέρα σας.
το κοινωνικο-πολιτικο προτσες που χαρακτηρίζει το βαθύτερο διαλεκτικό προτσες ωθεί τις μάζες σε παγκόσμια επανάστασι. Τα λόγια δεν έχουν καμία αξία. Η ηθική, η ιδιοκτησία, και η αίσθηση του εγώ είναι αστικά κατασκευάσματα. Αν σε σταματά κάποιος από το να του πάρεις κάτι, σκότωσέ τον: Είναι εγκληματική η ύπαρξη ατομικής συνειδήσεως, κατασκευάσματος της μπουρζουαζίας, σε μία επαναστατημένη κοινωνία. Είναι κύτταρο ενός μεγάλου οργανισμού. Δεν πρέπει να σκέφτεσαι, αλλά να ΔΡΑΣ. Ζητούμε να καταργηθεί κάθε φιλοσοφική προσέγγιση από τον επαναστατικό αγώνα και η πάλη να γίνει αδίστακτη, ανελέητη και καταστροφική για κάθε ατομιστή αστό. Ζήτω η ολοκληρωτική νίκη.

Somalian Pirate

  • Kapitan
  • ***
  • Posts: 485
  • Φήμη -2
  • Gender: Male
  • 卐νικωλάκης卐
  • Location: ₪Hagii Anargiri₪
    • View Profile
    • Πρεζα Τιβί
Απευθύνω το λόγο στον συναγωνιστή Μαξ.

Διαβάζω το βιβλίο του Στίρνερ και, παρόλο που χρησιμοποιεί περίπλοκη γλώσσα, αντιλαμβάνομαι την ουσία των λόγων του. Δε θα σου πω ότι δε θα μπορούσε να ερμηνευθεί αναρχοκαπιταλιστικά, αλλά σίγουρα θα σου πω ότι ο Στίρνερ είναι πολύ λογικός σε αυτά που λέει. Πιστεύω ότι μετατρέπει τη φιλοσοφία του Μηδενισμού σε Πολιτικό κίνημα, αν και στην ουσία η Αναρχία ΔΕΝ είναι πολιτική.

Τι είναι, όμως, ο Μηδενισμός; Ο Μηδενισμός, για μένα, είναι η νοητική κατάσταση στην οποία φτάνει το άτομο με την έλευση του μετα-καταθλιπτικού σταδίου, δηλαδή αφού υπερνίκησε τους δαίμονες που ήλθαν όταν άρχισε να αμφισβητεί και να βλέπει αυτά που βλέπει, με βάση την δική του εμπειρία πρώτου προσώπου.

Ο Μηδενισμός δεν είναι η φιλοσοφία της Κατάθλιψης, αλλά η φιλοσοφία του Υπερανθρώπου! Είναι η φιλοσοφία εκείνου που πέρασε τις φλόγες της Κολάσεως και βγήκε αδιαφιλονίκητος νικητής! Είναι η ιδέα της αμφισβήτησης σε ολοκληρωτικό βαθμό.

Η Εγωιστική Αναρχία του Στίρνερ, όπως μπορώ να την ερμηνεύσω, είναι η έκφανση μερικών ιδεών του Νίτσε, αλλά και ίσως μία από τις σπανιότερες και πιο ακριβείς εκτιμήσεις για την αληθινή φύση του Κράτους.

Και αντιλαμβάνομαι τι λες όταν λες ότι είσαι κατά του Καπιταλισμού: Δηλώνεις ενάντια στα "ιερά", δηλαδή στην ιδιοκτησία. Όμως, αν σε κατανοώ σωστά, πρέπει να είσαι και ενάντια στις ιδέες των κομμουνιστών περί συλλογικής ιδιοκτησίας κλπ.

Αν το κράτος ορίζει τη μοίρα μας, τότε είμαστε άξιοι αυτής της μοίρας. Στην πράξη ο Στίρνερ εξέφρασε μία επαναστατική αντίληψη, χωρίς να πέσει στην παγίδα της νοοτροπίας του θύματος.

Πολύ ενδιαφέρουσες απόψεις...

Υ.Γ: Πιστεύω ότι πρέπει να υπάρξει μία εγωιστική οργάνωση, μία συνομοσπονδία, μία συνεννόηση για να πέσει το κράτος και μετά να αυτοδιαλυθεί και η ίδια. Μάλλον έχει ήδη προταθεί αυτό, αλλά θέλω να δω τι πλάνο δράσης έχουν οι εγωιστές αναρχικοί για την πτώση του κράτους.
το κοινωνικο-πολιτικο προτσες που χαρακτηρίζει το βαθύτερο διαλεκτικό προτσες ωθεί τις μάζες σε παγκόσμια επανάστασι. Τα λόγια δεν έχουν καμία αξία. Η ηθική, η ιδιοκτησία, και η αίσθηση του εγώ είναι αστικά κατασκευάσματα. Αν σε σταματά κάποιος από το να του πάρεις κάτι, σκότωσέ τον: Είναι εγκληματική η ύπαρξη ατομικής συνειδήσεως, κατασκευάσματος της μπουρζουαζίας, σε μία επαναστατημένη κοινωνία. Είναι κύτταρο ενός μεγάλου οργανισμού. Δεν πρέπει να σκέφτεσαι, αλλά να ΔΡΑΣ. Ζητούμε να καταργηθεί κάθε φιλοσοφική προσέγγιση από τον επαναστατικό αγώνα και η πάλη να γίνει αδίστακτη, ανελέητη και καταστροφική για κάθε ατομιστή αστό. Ζήτω η ολοκληρωτική νίκη.

mistermax

  • Marshal of the Soviet Union
  • ***********
  • Posts: 3917
  • Φήμη -17
    • View Profile
Απευθύνω το λόγο στον συναγωνιστή Μαξ.

Διαβάζω το βιβλίο του Στίρνερ και, παρόλο που χρησιμοποιεί περίπλοκη γλώσσα, αντιλαμβάνομαι την ουσία των λόγων του. Δε θα σου πω ότι δε θα μπορούσε να ερμηνευθεί αναρχοκαπιταλιστικά, αλλά σίγουρα θα σου πω ότι ο Στίρνερ είναι πολύ λογικός σε αυτά που λέει. Πιστεύω ότι μετατρέπει τη φιλοσοφία του Μηδενισμού σε Πολιτικό κίνημα, αν και στην ουσία η Αναρχία ΔΕΝ είναι πολιτική.

Ετσι ειναι. Ο στιρνερ μπορει να γραφει λιγο δυστροπα, ομως με λιγη προσπαθει ειναι απολυτα κατανοητα, γιατι εχουν λογικη συνοχη τα λεγόμενα του.

Quote
Ο Μηδενισμός δεν είναι η φιλοσοφία της Κατάθλιψης, αλλά η φιλοσοφία του Υπερανθρώπου! Είναι η φιλοσοφία εκείνου που πέρασε τις φλόγες της Κολάσεως και βγήκε αδιαφιλονίκητος νικητής! Είναι η ιδέα της αμφισβήτησης σε ολοκληρωτικό βαθμό.

Περίπου, ο αναρχισμός ειναι η φιλοσοφια και η πολιτικη επιλογή του Υπερανθρωπου. Αυτο λεω στο γουεμπγορ (και ελεγα και στο φλορουμ) τοσο καιρο.

Quote
Η Εγωιστική Αναρχία του Στίρνερ, όπως μπορώ να την ερμηνεύσω, είναι η έκφανση μερικών ιδεών του Νίτσε, αλλά και ίσως μία από τις σπανιότερες και πιο ακριβείς εκτιμήσεις για την αληθινή φύση του Κράτους.

Αφου και ο Νιτσε Αναρχικος ητανε, παρόλο που εκανε κριτικη στις πολιτικες επιλογες των αναρχικων του παρισσιου κυριως, της τοτε εποχης.  ;)


Quote
Και αντιλαμβάνομαι τι λες όταν λες ότι είσαι κατά του Καπιταλισμού: Δηλώνεις ενάντια στα "ιερά", δηλαδή στην ιδιοκτησία. Όμως, αν σε κατανοώ σωστά, πρέπει να είσαι και ενάντια στις ιδέες των κομμουνιστών περί συλλογικής ιδιοκτησίας κλπ.

Ειμαι εναντια σε ο,τι δημιουργει ιεραρχικες σχεσεις αναμεσα στους ανθρωπους, αφου αυτο τους εμποδίζει να γινουν οι Υπερανθρωποι που μπορουν να γινουν.

Η δευτερη σου προταση ειναι ασαφης και ανοιγει μπολικη συζητηση. Φυσικα και διαφωνω με τους "κομμουνιστες"  του υπαρκτου (μαρξ, λενιν, σταλιν, παπαραρηγα) που πιστευουν στην ιδιοκτησια του κρατους κτλ, ομως υπαρχουν κομμουνιστες που δεν αποδεχονται την συλλογική ιδιοκτησια (θεωριτικα υπαρχουν).

Quote
Υ.Γ: Πιστεύω ότι πρέπει να υπάρξει μία εγωιστική οργάνωση, μία συνομοσπονδία, μία συνεννόηση για να πέσει το κράτος και μετά να αυτοδιαλυθεί και η ίδια. Μάλλον έχει ήδη προταθεί αυτό, αλλά θέλω να δω τι πλάνο δράσης έχουν οι εγωιστές αναρχικοί για την πτώση του κράτους.

εχουν υπαρξει τετοια επιχειρηματα χωρις μεγαλη επιτυχια στο ελλαδισταν. Τωρα οι ΣΠΦ λενε πως ειναι μηδενιστές, αλλα οχι με την καθαρή εννοια του ορου. Εγω παντως τους εκτιμώ για αυτό.

υγ-Το μαξ, ειναι απο τον Μαξ Στιρνερ που το εκλεψα.  ;)
Εμεις ξερουμε πως δεν ειναι ολοι Αναρχικοι. Μονο αυτοι ειναι οι σωστοι, οι προκαθορισμενοι για την Ουτοπια. Τι σημασια εχουν οι υπολοιποι; Οι υπολοιποι ειναι απλως η ανθρωποτητα. Πρεπει να υπερεχει κανεις της ανθρωποτητας μεσω της ρωμης, μεσω του υψους της ψυχης, μεσω της περιφρονησης.

καριολας

  • Guest
θελω να χεσω στο στομα του μιστερ μαξ
ειναι ανωμαλια? δε νομιζω γιατι ειμαι φυσιολογικος και ειναι φυσικο να χεζεις στο στομα ενος διεστραμενου αναρχοκομουνιστη εχθρου του ανθρωπου

free greek constatinupolis!!!!!!!!!

Εμεις ξερουμε πως ειναι ολοι πουστηδες Αναρχικοι. Μονο αυτοι ειναι οι ξεκολιαρηδες, οι πουστοξεκολιασμενοι για την πουστοπια. Τι σημασια εχουν οι υπολοιποι; Οι υπολοιποι ειναι απλως οι ανθρωποι. Πρεπει να υπερεχει κανεις της πουστικοτητας μεσω της πιπας, μεσω του κωλου, της κλανιας, μεσω της κομμενης κεφαλας της εαμοβουλγαρας σαδομαζοχιστριας αρουλας βελουχιωταινας η καπεταν σουλτανας η κλαριτας

θελω να χυσω στη κωλαρα του μπελογιαννη!
του κτηνους με το γαρουφαλο στο κωλο!

παλουκωστε τον μιστερ μαξ!

antiantifa

  • Guest
Περίπου, ο αναρχισμός ειναι η φιλοσοφια και η πολιτικη επιλογή του Υπερανθρωπου. Αυτο λεω στο γουεμπγορ (και ελεγα και στο φλορουμ) τοσο καιρο.
Αφου και ο Νιτσε Αναρχικος ητανε, παρόλο που εκανε κριτικη στις πολιτικες επιλογες των αναρχικων του παρισσιου κυριως, της τοτε εποχης.  ;)
υγ-Το μαξ, ειναι απο τον Μαξ Στιρνερ που το εκλεψα.  ;)

tis idies malakies elege kai i psarialena gia stirner kai nitse

Somalian Pirate

  • Kapitan
  • ***
  • Posts: 485
  • Φήμη -2
  • Gender: Male
  • 卐νικωλάκης卐
  • Location: ₪Hagii Anargiri₪
    • View Profile
    • Πρεζα Τιβί
το κοινωνικο-πολιτικο προτσες που χαρακτηρίζει το βαθύτερο διαλεκτικό προτσες ωθεί τις μάζες σε παγκόσμια επανάστασι. Τα λόγια δεν έχουν καμία αξία. Η ηθική, η ιδιοκτησία, και η αίσθηση του εγώ είναι αστικά κατασκευάσματα. Αν σε σταματά κάποιος από το να του πάρεις κάτι, σκότωσέ τον: Είναι εγκληματική η ύπαρξη ατομικής συνειδήσεως, κατασκευάσματος της μπουρζουαζίας, σε μία επαναστατημένη κοινωνία. Είναι κύτταρο ενός μεγάλου οργανισμού. Δεν πρέπει να σκέφτεσαι, αλλά να ΔΡΑΣ. Ζητούμε να καταργηθεί κάθε φιλοσοφική προσέγγιση από τον επαναστατικό αγώνα και η πάλη να γίνει αδίστακτη, ανελέητη και καταστροφική για κάθε ατομιστή αστό. Ζήτω η ολοκληρωτική νίκη.