Most likely yes. The current systems are just a preparation to those times when humans are educated well enough and have technologies and resources to more and more live in anarchic systems.
Currently, we can see small outbursts of anarchy every then and when, but usually we are still in preparation. Capitalism, Communism, Religions, all work towards a straightforward goal: A perfect life and or even afterlife.
Anarchy seen in its right idea is a perfect life. No one is bad; no one takes advantage, everyone is friendly and minds his business successfully.
Most likely we will fade into anarchy without recognizing it, soon after total globalization of earth’s nations is accomplished. Such a state cannot withhold evolution, not even remotely drive it, contrary it will provide the means to accelerate anarchy exponentially. Open frontiers mean information and goods will be transferred at almost no cost in practically no time, cutting out middleman taxes, news manipulation and resale, making it possible to an individuum from the other side of the world voting and having a voice in what happens on the entire globe.
One can call that whatever wanted, but in fact, that is way closer to anarchy, than it is to democracy communism, capitalism, nationalism, the three main solutions currently presented to us. Such a system will not be able to survive with nationalism’s armies, capitalism’s wealth, communist social wealth, or less of all, based on classic democratic law and order.
No police force can patrol the globe; no camera can secure it. Anarchy as compared before to what happens in a metro station, or on a family table, is what will ensure the single cogs in that massive system role as they should.
I speculate, we should enrich our idea of society with the idea of nomadism.
Living in cities is one of the biggest and brightest problems in the world nowadays.
A nomadic humanity is incapable of destroying the world as we “city people” do right now
Nomadism solves the problem of overpopulation (if there is any problem with that).
No, this is not a NeoNazi Blog where we preach population issues.
Overpopulation here means, masses of humans, in one place, totally incapable of keeping themselves alive in the place and with the place they live in.
Nomadism removes war, constant-growth and garbage-producing societies by itself, because a nomadic society is unable to build the structures allowing people to live longer than naturally possible. Nomads are unable to build the systems and infrastructure needed to run a War at large distance and time.
The “Use and Throw” (garbage) culture is a classic effect of modern consumerism (due to falsely assume abundance) and capitalistic oriented (and static) individuals, not nomads.
Often, nomadism is seen as a return to the StoneAge, all shepherds and savanna right?
As we know, humans have lived for a long time in their history as nomads, in small (anarchistic) “tribes”.
Nomads cannot store a lot of things in safe city walls, they need to travel light 🙂
Nomads carry what they own, and own what they can carry. They go where the food goes, they don’t make the food come to where they are.
Excessive cultivation of the soil by capitalistic and globalistic oriented agriculture, and the abundance of hoarded food, allows the sedentary to survive over inhospitable times and locations. However, it destroys the environment, it sucks it’s energy out until it’s gone. Nomadism instead leaves the system to re-build and does not over-use it at once.
The lack of stable, save long-term food supplies in a nomadic world diminishes the ability to run wars.
War is as a pro-profit action requiring a “base and supply” of food and killing tools. Nomads cannot have that, it requires settlements.
Even the most basic “interest” in a “war for profit” dissolves by itself in a nomadic society – because there is no value to be hollowed out by the opponent, except people.
A nomad does not have a richness to be stolen, no land to be taken.
Enslaving those people is no option either:
A nomad would not have the stocks to feed those slaves.
The nomad is better off if he does not steal and enslave. By nature, by intuition, there is no written rule required – it’s natural and rational.
The order of a society in Nomadism is strongly tied to the laws that govern life on earth, not human laws.
If there where no Government, no Police, no Taxes, we would have Anarchy! You’d see murders and atrocious acts like back in Stone(d)Age!
Some Random Idiot, You’ve all heard them…
Anarchy, in what in German we call the “Urgedanke” (original thought), has nothing to do with chaos and destruction, murders and atrocious acts, it is, on the contrary, a well-organised society, where each individual has his own responsibility and authority.
Unluckily, and maybe not undeservedly, in recent centuries, anarchism has been the scene of terrorist bombings, and in the last decades, bored young people, mostly from the wealthy upper classes and some other stoned idiots, have taken advantage of “anarchy” as a means for a “Saturday night party”, just to let off some steam on a manifestation.
Anarchism, in truth, is an ancient political and social idea, putting the individual being in control – and as such, should be brought closer to the society and demystified, or, should I say “decriminalised”.
It is (not by accident) the probably oldest social form of human society, and has been more and more demonised by the emerging ruling classes of humans, but has in fact brought ourselves, and the entire nature with us (it’s the other way around) thru millennia of struggle.
Anarchy is what happens when catastrophes hit a country, and the Governments are out of capacity. Then, neighbouring is suddenly a thing. This is anarchy.
Anarchy is what makes the people in an overfilled metro station at high noon not kill each other like a bunch of carnivores would. Everyone minds his own business, and usually complies with things like “common sense”.
This is anarchy.
Anarchy is what happens in a family, where everyone has a role, well defined, and still, no one has total power over anyone else.
This is anarchy.
Anarchy means the absence of domination, not the lack of social order, for there is another adequate expression already:
Anomie.
An “absence of domination” (Anarchy) does not mean that there is “no order” (Anomie). It just means, no one can permanently misuse power to produce obedience to commands from others and justify this thru a socially accepted rule.
Of course, anarchy is also what happens when we want the same piece of meat, and either choose to share or not.
Yes, anarchy can mean brutal, the natural struggle where the stronger may – in some cases – eradicate or weaken the weaker.
Let me remind you that no rule ever made by humans, ever successfully stopped strong from killing weak.
Our modern human rules may be successful in punishing after any prohibited act is done – it, however, cannot avoid the act itself to happen.
The absence of such written rule hence would have no impact at all, it merely avoids more death thru persecution.
In an anarchistic system, laws that can not be broken by anything or anyone, because they are given by nature, are taken into consideration instead of rules made by humans.
These laws, do not need a “ruling class” to enforce them – because they are self-appealing and performing by their nature.
When laws are considered by society instead of human rules, many things we do nowadays which empower us to even think evil, become almost impossible. Since there is no ruling class, there is as well no class struggle and hence, no conflict of interest and possibility to gain positions in a vertical power ladder with a whole society’s support, but only with your own abilities.
In anarchy, Hitler would have had to explain himself to every fucking German, as they would not have received orders thru a chain of people.
Any “law” requiring a guardian is not a law. A law does not need any of this. Only rules do since they can be broken.
That’s right. Anarchy does not need a law book to avoid mass murder.
Law books never prevented mass murder, circumstances do.
Most of us human beings want to be free.
We try to preserve our freedom, get frightened someone may threaten it.
Almost any act will be justified if done in the name of freedom.
Numerous measures have been taken throughout history in the name of freedom already, many will be made in future.
Different, defined systems and beliefs of liberty have developed over time, mostly having two things in common:
– the own freedom of each individual within the particular system is clearly defined.
– it is assumed that a threat from outside or inside the system could/will break that definition.
Generally, several “rules” (definitions) that describe the limits of individual freedom within a system are set up, usually by volunteers.
Institutions are built and populated with random (and volunteer) members of the system. Those are then encharged with either re-define and implement or preserve the definitions of freedom made.
We expect that those in charge search and ward off the assumed threats to our Freedom so each member can practice individual freedom at all time.
Usually, this is done by gaining security, through the control of members (and their freedom) of such a system.
Control, in this case, is only possible if it is clearly defined what exactly the goal or the definition and limit of freedom are, which somehow leads to the question, “Was control made to grant Freedom, or Freedom to justify Control?”
Paradoxically the rules imply restrictions on precisely that liberty, which in turn entail more rules.
When members of a system rely on granted freedom, they have at the same time taken on some restrictions on their liberty.
To cope with that, we generally demand to decide for ourselves who and what later will define and implement our freedom, and control (us) to preserve it, as well as defend from attacks.
However, we finally give away our freedom to other people, to be controlled and receive a limited definition of granted freedom in exchange.
If that is not irrational, it is undoubtedly procrastinative.
We believe to be free, by setting up a set of rules, mostly defined and kept in charge by single individuals, who again and again lead in the same fields of chaos, war and economic crisis.
We can look at this as a “Free sheep in a fence, designed and guarded by a Shephard.”
To reach real freedom, such sheep would have to jump the fence or tear it down and evolve from its dependency towards the shepherd.
In other words, we need to realise we are not free and remove the rules restricting this freedom.
Over time the mechanics in charge to define and grant freedom became habit and norms, profiting a limited amount of the society’s members. The control systems we put in place to secure our liberties are now an almost independent entity not anymore in our control nor in our favour.
What was created for Freedom ended up restricting Freedom!
We forgot what Freedom looks and smells like with our devil-may-care apathetic attitude, and find ourselves fenced and controlled by people we asked to do so.
To be free, we cannot set up rules and boundaries. Freedom should tear those down.
Die Grundsätze, oder Kodex der Bewegung sollen die formung bzw. entstehung einer anderen Weltanschauung fördern.
Die Bewegung führt kein Symbol, da ihr Kampf nicht Symbolisch ist. Sie führt keinen klaren Namen oder Kürzel, da sie parteilos ist. Die Bewegung versteht sich als teil der gesamten Welt, und hindert die Menschlichen Rassen auf Ihrem Weg zur Weltmacht.
Soldaten hat man damit nicht jeder einer Meinung überzeugt werden muss, um dann als “Aktivist” tätig zu sein. Soldaten befolgen generell befehle, gegen einen Sold. Salopp gesagt, Soldaten sind “gekaufte Aktivisten”.
Das ist natürlich eine sehr zeiteffiziente art ein Rad zu erhalten, ein Rad funktioniert aber nur wen alle Bestandteile dessen und dessen Existenzsicherung vorhanden und vor allem funktional sind.
Deshalb sollte die Bewegung an und für sich nicht in expansive Richtung entwickeln (also zum Beispiel Soldaten bezahlen um schnell erfolge zu haben), sondern ständig neue Aktionen und Aktivisten erschaffen welche aus Überzeugung und nicht des “Soldes willen” Aktionen durchführen.
Ein System lernt aus Sachen die geschehen – hindert man das System aber daran sich mit der nötigen Energie zu versorgen, so wird es seine Lebensfähigkeit einbüssen.
Eine Aktion muss von von Anfang an die Existenzmöglichkeit des “betroffenen” verhindern. Sie müssen ihren grösstmöglichen Einfluss ausüben und bewirken.
Die Aktionen sollten Zivilrechtlich und Strafrechtlich abgesichert sein.
Die Bewegung sollte über mehrere Bankkonti verfügen welche zum Beispiel zur allgemeinen Hinterlegung der Steuergelder, Bussen, KrankenKassenPrämien etc der Aktivisten verwendet werden können.
Zum Beispiel wird bei einer Krankenkassen Prämienerhöhung die vorige gebühr weiter einbezahlt, aber die Aufwertung (Erhöhung) wird auf genannte Bankkonten hinterlegt, um dem System sukzessive die “Energie” wegzunehmen.
Ähnlich kann ein “Kaufstopp” die Energie dem system entziehen, indem man die gewöhnliche Nahrung auf anderen wegen der bewölkerung zukommen lässt, also nicht durch Großeinkaufszentren sondern, um genau diese auszubluten, durch Kleinlieferungen der Bauern an die Bevölkerung.
Nahrung sollte generell lang haltbar, nicht stopfend aber eben nahrhaft und so günstig wie möglich der Bevölkerung zugekommen lassen werden.