Anarchism doesn't necessarily mean chaos: Non-coersive union and secession on all levels.

[richardgarcia4497]

nice flag

[ILUM69]

Nice video, but what's with the racism in the background?

[godkingofthepunks]

Anarchy ; society without being ruled

If you think you have Liberty under rule you are a dick

If you think that Liberty is chaos you are too much of a dick for words to begin to describe

[SlyFox70100]

ANARCHY REIGNS

[AlbertFisher119]

Anacrhism means with out rulers or authoritatian figure,there is no anarchist ideology that supports chaos you said it doesn't have to mean chaos it doesn't at all and also not having to work for a boss or some one else who would make money without actually working (capatilism)

[doncabron23]

if you dont work you dont eat :D

[AmericanVoluntarist]

Perpetual simply meant that the ending of it was undefined. It was specifically described this way so that it would neither be seen as temporary nor eternal.

It is good to finally view comments from those who believe that anarchy does not mean that only solitaries exist. Hope you do not mind an video response; I will try to make one tomorrow. Take care, brother.

[anangryorc]

By all means- please do what our martyred and much mourned comrade Albert Parsons was wise enough to do well over a century ago and drop that filthy slaver rag.

[DissidentDescendant]

To circlecityrabbit2004, I apologize if I'm cluttering your page with my comments, man. I'd just hate to see hateful posts like his go unabated. Peace.

[MrWolf666]

dat dixe flag is fo sure gonna bring anarchy. cuz ah gonna burn the flag and kill all the men that wave that shit rag. so fo sure u got a war and chaos comen. once it starts it will not end till the whites or darks kill the others off. i hope i can see it on u-tube. death to dixe fags. - black flag bitch!

[DissidentDescendant]

@Mrwolf666 Well that was an overwhelmingly, almost humorously hateful, ignorant, and totalitarian (repressing symbols) comment. Way to go!

[MrWolf666]

i agree, u are amongst the clever ones and ur brillance shows. but unfortunatly the vast majority of dixie dongs don't think like u do.

u create a wonderfull romace around ur symbol, but it won't help the rest of the dixiz.

good luck with ur strange campaign. u a good man.

but the race war will happen.

[DissidentDescendant]

@Mrwolf666 You're generalizing an entire people, which stretches many Southern subcultures and also many races, since whites, blacks, Jews, American Indians, and several more fought for the South.

[DissidentDescendant]

@Mrwolf666 Something as idiotic and wasteful as a "race war" would only happen for those that want it, and even then, only if they choose to remain ignorant about their own history and cultural ties. We're all in this together. We need to stop making arbitrary divisions. Fighting over skin color is as stupid as fighting over hat size, hair color, and eye color.

[MrWolf666]

1. they want a race war

2. yes, they will want a race war, its their concept

3. most dixiz choose to remain ignorant

4. culture won't cut it for crazy dic-sez

5. divisons are already drawn

6. u are under a utopik illusion, ha hahaha

at least u teach a nobler cause, so long dixi.

[DissidentDescendant]

1. Who is this imaginary "they"?

2. No seriously, who is this "they"? Rascals!

3. What's a dixiz?

4. No seriously, what? lol

5. You draw said divisions.

6. The word is "utopic", and I hardly believe in a utopia, at least not until the second coming. There is a foe, but it isn't your fellow man. It's those in power who wish for the rest of us to be divided. Such divisions keep them in power.

[MrWolf666]

1. u imagine white power dick-ezz don't exist (stupid)

2. serously.... they are everywhere (u are stupid)

3. a dixiz are idiots who love a shit flag that breeds war

4. yes serouly... it will create more war (u idiot)

5. the divisions were already drawn (u 2 dum 2 know it)

6. thanks 4 da spellen lesson... u delusional dick-ze

i like ur concept, but ur brain lacks reality. let the race war start and da fun begin, ha ha luv u man.

[DissidentDescendant]

"They call everybody racists. There are, no doubt, racists in the League of the South, and there are, no doubt, racists everywhere." - Kirkpatrick Sale

That pretty much sums it up. You're generalizing millions of people into a very small group, despised by all. It sounds like instead of supporting your arguments you're rewording your statements in every post, but I guess I'm "2 dum 2 know". lol

No problem for the spelling lesson though, bro, but I'm afraid it's a lost cause.

[DissidentDescendant]

@MrWolf666 If you think I'm trying to lay down the case that everything is alright and violence won't occur, you're misunderstanding me. If wouldn't surprise me if racists of all backgrounds clashed, since they've been doing that for God knows how long. But if you're jumping on that bandwagon, that's sad and destructive. That gets us nowhere.

Down here in the South I see Southern men and women of all races(and those mixed like myself )under the boot of the Federal government. Face the real foe.

[MrWolf666]

da real fo is the monetary system and all the collection instruments attached to it and all the losers chained by the instruments. that has nothong to do with the race wars that are comen. i an also mixed race an i can tell ur a dreamer, ha ha

wrap yo self in dat dickzee rag and see how long u stand, u are under illusions of historic bullshit. why not the nazi flag?

its got more history. my dad is german... is nazi flag ok? ur are a suckah an a shump. and very very D U M B, sorry but it tru

[DissidentDescendant]

"da real fo"

"ur are... very D U M B"

Oh the irony. :P

The Nazi swastika is the symbol of a political party that exploited the needs of the German people and committed imperialist atrocities. The "Confederate flag" is one of many military symbols used by a collective of diverse people who were nearly identical to their colonial ancestors back in the Revolutionary War. To compare the Nazi flag and the battle flag is a fallacy and a broken argument.

Care to point out historic BS there?

[DissidentDescendant]

@MrWolf666 I wrap myself in no flag, I'm an anarchist. I love the South and all its culture, because I'm a Southerner. I'll defend my culture, but I'm not a Southern nationalist, though I do support them.

Are you going to continue to throw misnomers and constantly say "ur dum", or are you going to back up your claims and support your arguments against the symbol and what it truly stands for?

[SlyFox70100]

@DissidentDescendant agreed all the way. I fly the black flag over my house, the flag of Anarchy

[IslandersMets10]

Dissedentdesent, You just said anarchist doesn't necesarly mean you're against government, but yet the definitition of anarchy is just that, "No Government". You can't have it both ways. Words have meaning.

[DissidentDescendant]

@IslandersMets10 "Anarchy" actually translates to "no kings" or "no rulers", not "no government" or "chaos."

"Look at south florida" I try not to. :P

But more seriously, who said there would be no consequences for actions without the state? If nothing is stopping people from doing evil, what's stopping other people from protecting and policing their own neighborhoods, without government intervention? What's stopping them from punishing bad people?

Take care.

[IslandersMets10]

Sorry, that's just simply not true. The only way anarchy could mean freedom is if you a handlful of holy christians on a small island. In the U.S.A, or any individual state, it would mean chaos. Just look at south florida in General, every day there's a murder, rape, burgerlary. All this, knowing that they could be sentanced to a long time in jail if not death. Just imagine how it would be if there were no consequences.

[IslandersMets10]

Delt with in what manor? With a volunter miltia? What about areas that are decolet? With live in a country that has laws against murder, yet people do it all the time. Anarchism is the opposit of liberty. Liberty requires the government to protect life, property, and peoples liberty. Anarcy does not offer those protections.

[DissidentDescendant]

@IslandersMets10 Many anarchists aren't opposed to government. It's the forced, authoritative government the beef is with.

You don't honestly think people are so helpless and incompetent that they can't solve problems on their own, do you? That they have to look to incompetent centralized states to guide them? You only think we need them because we were raised to believe such things.

True order is emergent, not forced. Conflicts will arise in any system, or in anarchy. But they're solvable.

[DissidentDescendant]

@IslandersMets10 This being said, the boundary between minarchists and anarchists seems awfully transparent, even arbitrary. We're both seekers of freedom and are on the same side, in my humble opinion.

[IslandersMets10]

Of course Anarcy is Chaos, but yet only Anarchist don't see that. Because i'm sure must are peaceful, but in the real world a lot of people aren't. Under anarchy there would be no laws. People would steel, and feel no threat of reprocussions.

However, the smallest, limted, local government is the Answers in regards to real liberty and freedom

[Aeon135]

@IslandersMets10

i realize you may think this is an original logical argument against anarchism because without government, who will enforce law right?

this has never been an argument against anarchism in serious political debate, no one thinks anarchists would actually be against enforcing rules and protecting people, what happens if you steal bread? first of all, you wouldn't need to, in the HIGHLY unlikely event you did, you would be dealt with

[ThePintsizeslasher]

Anarchist here: Non-coercive govt is exactly what I'm for. Unlimited individual secession will produce voluntary social contracts/for-profit firms that will be inherently less violent than the state, and connected to directly to the people's needs through the gauges of prices, profits and losses through competition for constituents/customers. Voluntary businesses/voluntary collectives can meet all social needs in a more efficient manner than coercive states ever can.

Deo Vindice.

[circlecityrabbit2004]

Very well said, my sentiments exactely.

I used to be someone that thought anarchy simply meant chaos due to the lack of government, but it can also mean a government that doesn't force itself upon the people. I think it would definitely work better than the mandatory involvement in the state that we have now.

[shitbagsbaggin]

@ThePintsizeslasher anarchys great it works for somalia hell yeah ive got about 2000 rounds of 7.62 and a nice sks and i attended that good old government infantry school lets do this shit

[MoroccoPatriot]

only fortunatly this were i disagree with you

[circlecityrabbit2004]

Lol hey disagreeing is a big part of democracy right

[verstwo2]

any states that want's to succeed it must give up any right to constitutional protections, and federal government funding, any national programs, protection from the army, etc. How much do you want to bet your state receives more from the federal government then it gives in taxes.

[rayme4raw]

You can look that up, most states give more money than they receive. Besides most european countries are not as large as many of our states and they have everything that they need without a central government. I think that any state that does succeed will be better off. Don't forget that once a state secedes than all federal laws and agencies no longer have any authority to oppress the people or local business.

[circlecityrabbit2004]

My sentiments exactely man, I think any of our states could do very well on their own, and even if they couldn't, it's better to be less rich and free then rich and oppressed.

[rayme4raw]

Even Delaware has an economy that is larger than most European countries, I don't think that we have any poor states. Most of them will find out real fast that without the Federal Government they will financially better off and more free.

[SocialAnarchism]

Anarchism from a political or social ideological perspective has absolutely nothing to do with chaos, disorder, or violence. Just wanted to point that out. You're on the right track though.

[verstwo2]

Anarchism may not advocate chaos, disorder, or violence, but it doesn't condemn them either. Anarchism states that government is always evil and the individual is always good. If a person is chaotic, or violent, anarchists philosophy has no problem with it as long as the government has nothing to do with it.  Anarchism doesn't give a fuck about anything as long as it isn't the state.

[SocialAnarchism]

Actually that is incorrect. Anarchists have always been, by founding principals, to be proponents of nonviolence. However, the confusion may be that we have a slightly different view on what constitutes violence.

We'll hurt another person in self defense or trash a state building. Most of us don't consider civil disobedience as violence.

[TheVikingNinja]

oh please, speak for yourself

[verstwo2]

"We'll hurt another person in self defense or trash a state building. Most of us don't consider civil disobedience as violence. "

-so you believe in private property but not public property then? what constitutes self defense is not always agreed upon and does not include the defense of others. Also self defense is somewhat in conflict with the non-aggression principle. The concept that prohibition is prohibited is a bit contradictory if you ask me.

[SocialAnarchism]

Nope. I view private property as illegitimate. I believe in possessive property and public property.

You're right, self-defense is not always agreed upon. However, if someone is attacking you or you community, then you or your community are justified to defend yourself through violence.

I never said that I agreed with or believed in the non aggression principal. Also, I don't believe in prohibition.

[verstwo2]

"I believe in possessive property and public property."

- Then how to administrate public property without some type of state? Maybe i'm confusing you with an anrcho-capitalist. Are social-anarchist also anti-state?

"if someone is attacking you or you community, then you or your community are justified to defend yourself through violence. "

- and who is to decide this you and/or your community or an independent 3rd party?

[SocialAnarchism]

I'm a libertarian socialist. If you're being attacked, then I don't see when you would have for 3rd party arbitration.

Check out my video called Property is Robbery it gives you a summation of my beliefs on property.

[circlecityrabbit2004]

There's no reason to destroy someone elses property, not to mention those acts you mention could harm innocent people, which can never be allowed to happen. I consider myself a Anarcho-Confederate, but violence should always be a last resort and should only be used to defend yourself.

[SocialAnarchism]

I agree that property (possessive property) should not be destroyed. However, we probably have two different opinions on what constitutes property. Also, for Anarchists who take this to the extreme, equal measures should be taken to make sure no one is harmed in the process. I take my hat off to the Anarchists in Mexico who are successfully fucking shit up right now without any causalities. I'm not saying I agree with their actions, but I do respect the amount of planning involved to....

[SocialAnarchism]

.... make sure no one is harmed. Something like 7 weeks in a row with no casualties. I agree, "Violence" should always be a last resort and only for self-defense, but again we may have different opinions of what constitutes violence.

[circlecityrabbit2004]

Well I think we can agree that resisting without hurting anyone is certainly admirable.

As for our differences as to what exactely constitutes property, I would consider rightful property anything that anyone has worked hard to to buy or achieve. And violence, well I think there's a pretty universal understanding as to what's right and wrong when it comes to violence ya know what I mean man.

[johnydudee]

@SocialAnarchism ''nothing to do withe chaos'' anarchy hase EVERYTHING to do withe ''the ends justify the means'' even if its withe chaos. thats what separates it from the hippy ideolegy

[chicksinbras]

YOU NAZI FUCK!!!!!

[rayme4raw]

Sorry, you're talking about Obama of course. LOL

[RealisticSigma]

the NAU will end oru freedom completely. now they are jsut in the process of disarmin us rihgt now. watch the vids of the pittsgurge riots and tell me after that that we are "free". we are in a box. with the end comin form boht sides. only an anarchist like european law set that allows guns and minimal government intervention will work for any length of time. unless u go with a kingship. they want the world and they are getting it one lil bit at a time.

[circlecityrabbit2004]

Yeah I really hate to even hear about the NAU, that's all we need here is an American version of the God awful E.U. Like you said, Only a moderate Anarchist society is going to work, something very similar to what the founding fathers wanted, but even more Freedom than that. Otherwise we're going to repeat this over and over again.

[rayme4raw]

The banking cartel is really working on that one world govt crap. At the same time, we are running into a global currency crisis. Fiat currencies always fail. Is it just me or does anyone else feel like they are trying to build a house while the wood is on fire?

[circlecityrabbit2004]

Trying to build a house while the wood is on fire, well said man lol

[hivelocity100]

The only role of government should be protecting citizens from international threats, and protecting individuals from violating another individual's rights.

[circlecityrabbit2004]

Exactely, nowdays the gov. is so large that they interfere in our everyday lives in the name of "protecting" us. They use the cover of "protecting" us to bend the people to their will simply to further their own agenda's, whatever those may be.

[RealisticSigma]

watever those may be? how about the total control of the entire world? not by violence but by playin boht sides against the middle. left aand right are boht the same. u cant convince everyone of one issue so u create 2 camps. the left for the soft hearted unrealistic children and the right for the destructive, close minded folk. the ones like me are stuck int he middel. after alot of research and analysis u see that they are both workin an takin waway rights. we are already signed the NAU

[rayme4raw]

The role of government is to protect it's citizens from fraud and force. Government is an entity that has a monopoly on force in a specific geographic ares. The goal of government is always to grow. Of course the USG is now perpetuating fraud and force on the American citizens, it's got to go.

[darkus13]

well, communism is based on anarchy, socialist anarchy. Communism isn't bad, it's just that the Stalin and some other communist leaders didn't want the true communism, they just wanted to have power. The ideea of communism isn't bad, it's just that communism never truly existed, maybe in Cuba, but i dunno...

[circlecityrabbit2004]

Well the idea of communism as I understand it involves a large state in the name of "the people", then they think at some time that state will voluntarily disband itself so they can become an anarchist society, but we all know a state would never disband itself.

ut yeah you're exactely right, Stalin only used communism so that he could gain power and wealth. Either way anything that involves a large state is a bad idea in my opinion.

[AmericanVoluntarist]

@darkus13 @darkus13 If you are speaking of kind communism, then no. I have an couple of friends who are from Cuba or have friends &/or family from Cuba. Each despises it & talk about how totalitarian Cuba is. Although, I think one may find anarcho-communism in small communities in North America.

[gorozon]

Anarchism is very different by Marxism--try to read Bakunin ,,Anselme Bellegarrigue or Carlo Cafiero Works

They are had totally different position by Marx

[circlecityrabbit2004]

Well from what I can see it's just like you said, ALOT different. The supporters of Marxism think that they can institute a huge government and then at one point in time that state will voluntarily disband and then we can live peacefully without laws and government, that's a really naive attitude.

[dixieunited]

fuck black nationalism!!!

the war never ended!!!!

[circlecityrabbit2004]

Lol yeah I really dont like any kind of racial nationalism, that's one reason why I dont support the BNP, I get alot of invites from them lol

[circlecityrabbit2004]

Yeah that's about it man, my idea of it anyway. I think there's alot of people who would agree with it if they understood it.

Yeah that's a good point, another example is if the state needs to build a highway and your property is in the way, they offer you a shitty amount of money, and you either except it or they'll take your property from you anyway. Basically you're always at the will of the state.

[Luigi84289]

They can get away with that because the state owns all the land. Private property is basically nonexistent now. On most peoples deeds they are listed as tenants not owners.

[CrosslegLuke]

CCR

Heres a tip(Not trying to sound smart just trying to help here lol)

write down what your going to say and practice it, and try not to act so nervous, that way some of the stuttering could be removed.

other then that your doing fine

[circlecityrabbit2004]

Lol yeah I usually dont plan things, they're kind of a spur of the moment deal usually lol, I should plan it out and then hang a list behind my camera, that way I stay on topic lol

[Luigi84289]

We pretty much had an anarchistic society under the articles of confederation. Each state was totally sovereign, no taxation, no president. Almost nonexistent executive branch in general. The constitution messed up our union when it started involuntary taxation and made a stronger executive branch, giving one man control of the whole army. With only state militias and no taxation whenever Congress passed legislation that we didn't like we could leave.

[Luigi84289]

the communal system of living is here to stay. People think Anarchism as if people are going to become completely selfish, this just isn't true. The way someone feels for their city, state etc isn't going to change. Voluntary police force and firemen will always be here. Volunteers make up a large percentage of the police and firemen right now.

[circlecityrabbit2004]

Yeah that's a good point, the articles of the Confederation would work on a national level, but I would take it even a step further and implement that same right of secession and soveriegnty on the local level, with counties and individual towns.Dont get me wrong, I do like the constitution, very much so, I just dont know if what we face in the future can be solved by the exact same idea's from 250 years ago.

[Luigi84289]

Well I think they're a good outline for what we need. Thomas Paine was a genius and way ahead of his time. I agree secession should be acceptable on all levels. Any people that want to take on the responsibility and become completely free and independent should be allowed to.

[statesrights01]

hmm, sounds too me like your talking like our Founding Fathers, a gov. that isn't so big that it bullies, and yet big enough too work FOR the people.

[circlecityrabbit2004]

Yeah pretty much, that and only governing with the consent of the governed, of course the politicians we have today dont know what that statement means anymore.

[Luigi84289]

That's because they are basically a nobility and exempt from the law. I think if their terms were limited and they didn't receive their salaries for life and all the law applied to them too they would be more inclined to serve us not themselves.

[AllahConsciousness]

The interesting thing about anarchy is that it has several different forms. Anarchy can be a revolutionary state of chaos, or it can be a state of order maintained by the dominant consciousness a people choose to possess. You see, by the time we can govern ourself based upon each individual's consciousness that is alligned with order and peace, we will most likely cease to be human beings. The change in awareness would be so vast that our DNA wouldn't even be compatible with it...LoL!

[circlecityrabbit2004]

Yeah that's a valid point, send me a priavet message about this, i'm interested in your opinions on this and these comment boxes are just way too small to write anything too long lol

[AllahConsciousness]

So ultimately, anarchy is just the theorhetical byproduct of communism. Anrachy can never be the byproduct of a constitutional republic, because the constitutional republic naturally opposses the aims of anarchy to do away with set social ideas and modalities of control in all it's forms. This is an impossible goal because the abolition of property or government would never dissolve man's natural "death drive" for destruction and control over other men and their respective destinies.

[AllahConsciousness]

The reason why anarchists and communists often identify with each other is because "culturally perpetuated ordered anarchy" is actually the last phase of the Marxist revolution. According to communist theory, the state is merely a temporary apparatus to facilitate the needed production surge to do away with private property, not by killing ownership, but by doing away with scarcity and excess population (child birthing laws and soft kill genocide would likely be used).

[circlecityrabbit2004]

Ya know that's a really good point, ive read parts of Marx's "Communist manifesto", (I feel it's good to understand the views I oppose) so I should have gotten that. Their logic is a little, well retarded in my opinion lol, but yeah that seems to make sense as to why they would get along.

[yamagoof]

Great video! Also, great intro song choice! I love Seminole Wind. :)

[circlecityrabbit2004]

Hey thanks! And yeah Seminole Wind is a great song, gotta love John Anderson lol

[MockStoneLLC]

good video. i hope you werent replying to me... you a Glenn Beck fan? a governmt should only really protect our physical belonings. land, objects, money, and our lives. but we also need armned forces, i think a milita could do it, but they need a leader. and your desciption of anarchy is actually minarchy as anarchy is absolutly NONE. whered your florida sessecion flag go and whered u get your flags? love your videos nonetheless  Deo Vindice!

[circlecityrabbit2004]

Lol nah I was just posting this video as a response to some of GB's comments. I actually agree with most of what Beck says but not everything. For the most part though he's a good guy I think.

Well my idea in this video is a little different than Minarchism because Minarchism is usually tied to ones land, you're under the jurisdiction of a certain government according to where you live. In my idea a government only has jurisdiction where the people agree to it, regardless of land location.

[circlecityrabbit2004]

It's a small difference lol but it's important I think. And unlike the union we have now, it should be non-perpetual. Secession for anyone should be allowed at all times.

[circlecityrabbit2004]

Oh and yeah I kind of rotate my flags, and actually most of my flags are homemade lol simply because I cant find anybody that makes flags, like the Florida secession flag for instance.

And thanks for the support man!

[blackacidlizzard]

Something to think about: government as we know it is the first group to threaten your life, property and freedom. Even in lands where they allow you to disagree, to act on that disagreement is forbidden - and the method they use to persuade you to cooperate is the threat of lethal violence.

[circlecityrabbit2004]

Exactely, but, those are normal minarchist governments. If the idea that at any time the people could secede from the jurisdiction of their government was engrained into the population conscience like it should be, then any government, even a very small one, would be so afraid that the people would secede or revolt against them, that they would never go against the people.

This is different than a normal Minarchist gov. because secession is always allowed, jurisdiction is not a given.

[circlecityrabbit2004]

Know what I mean man?

[blackacidlizzard]

Oh yeah, I fully understand the idea of unlimited secession, and if one wants to call an organization which allows that a "government," well, that's as good a name as any, I suppose.

That was just directed at MockStone, to point out that staring-us-right-in-the-face contradiction to the fable so many of us believed for so long.

Here's hoping that mankind will discard the illusion before it plunges us into a hell on earth.

[circlecityrabbit2004]

Yeah you've got a good point, I guess it wouldn't exactely be a gov. by the definition that we know today, but maybe in the future non-coersive things like that will become the norm. Atleast I hope there's something better in the future like that.

Yeah I believed that fable for a long time too, it's crazy how the light just sort of comes on suddenly. Lets hope all people see that light soon.

Thanks for watching man! -Deo Vindice