Anarchists are hypocrites. (65)

1 Name: Citizen : 2008-10-12 08:36 ID:k8Wk/IBw This thread was merged from the former /politics/ board. You can view the archive here.

Ok. This has been bugging me lately.
I was in dc last night just doing whatever with a few friends. We run into some "Anarchists" who were getting ready to protest. They start prattling off about anti establishment no world bank no capitalizm....etc. Then they sit there and go off on a few friends and I about how we shouldnt protest such and such we should go after such and such. Then they go off and buy a freaking coffee at starbucks.

I am never going to let another anarchist live that one down EVER.
Its pointless and hypocritical. How dare you protest capitalism anti globablization and other things then go off and buy a freaking coffee at a globalized place..

.....Hypocrites...,all of them.
Not to mention they got scared of the police and took off.


Sage this

2 Name: Citizen : 2008-10-12 12:03 ID:Heaven

itt we protest anti-globablization and buy coffee at a globalized place while ignorant people call each other ignorant

3 Name: Citizen : 2008-10-12 21:42 ID:Heaven

Yeah, anarchists just don't know what's up.

4 Name: Citizen : 2008-10-12 22:09 ID:tDhmTf1m


So... were they supposed to steal the coffee... or make their own?

5 Name: Citizen : 2008-10-13 09:24 ID:Heaven

  1. Form a labor syndicate
  2. Make tools out of locally available resources
  3. Plant coffee seeds
  4. Take care of coffee plants
  5. Harvest coffee seeds
  6. Roast coffee seeds over hand-started fire
  7. Grind and boil the coffee seeds
  8. ?????

6 Name: Anonymous : 2008-10-15 02:25 ID:hBYV+9MT

^^^^^brilliant post

7 Name: A Concerned Anarchist : 2008-10-22 01:37 ID:Heaven

Now, now, don't group all anarchists under that label. Some of us are capitalists.The rest are just crazies.

8 Name: Citizen : 2008-10-27 05:05 ID:Heaven

Yeah cuz a government isn't necessary to enforce contracts. Capitalism requires the state far more than any brand of Socialism, Communism, or Mutualism ever could.

9 Name: Citizen : 2008-12-10 17:22 ID:hd8tSdLp

Anarchism...or, to more accurately address your post the broader anti-capitalist movement as a whole attempts to resist capitalism whenever possible.
They stil need to eat, drink, go places, etc. Sure, you could boycott Wal-Mart or whatever big company of your choice and buy from local distributors, sure you could try to dumpster all your food and drink, as I did for about a month, sure you could steal everything and squat abandoned buildings. In the end, however any anti-capitalist is as much a slave to capitalism as anyone else. The typical anti-capitalist sees his or her entrapment within capitalism as moraly objectionable and attempts to break free from that. They key word there being attempt.

Your chance encounter though sounds more like 14 year old punks who are just looking for an excuse to hate the government, rather than true anarchists who espouse a true anti-capitalist doctrine.

10 Name: dmpk2k!hinhT6kz2E : 2008-12-11 03:59 ID:Heaven

Anarchism has nothing to do with anti-capitalism; its about the elimination of the government. Anarcho-capitalists are anarchists too, regardless how scary they are.

11 Name: Citizen : 2008-12-31 02:47 ID:KXBkPmX6

Anarchy and capitalism go hand in hand. No government regulation or taxation means more profits. It also sets things up to be run by organizations, which would bring everyone back to square one. Anarchy and socialism (and offspring) would not work because those economic policies require the intervention of an overseeing power. Anarchy and bartering would be perfect but who really wants to barter?

  • Anarchy + capitalization = Eventual governing by large scale organization/corperation. Circle of Life.
  • Anarchy + socialist policies (and similar) = Impossible and hypocritical.
  • Anarchy + bartering = Great, but overlooked and unwanted. Clumsy and without standard as to value or quality.

12 Name: Citizen : 2009-01-01 01:54 ID:69eipvEy


stupid people aren't really scary

13 Name: Citizen : 2009-01-21 20:49 ID:g0S0VQbG

The best anarchist come from Eugene Oregon

14 Name: Citizen : 2009-03-24 13:40 ID:13i1gMQt

I have to disagree with >>8. Comunism and Socialism is a state-regulated affair, where the State becomes the entity that regulates everything for it's citizens.

In any case, Anarchy means simply "No Government", and that, in our current times, is simply not possible. Even then, it is not possible simply because human nature, as a social animal, is to congregate in societies. Societies need some type of rules in order to not sink into mutual slaughter (because that is human nature too). Without any kind of government whose purpose is to formulate such laws, and enforce them, we end up with a Mad Max style society: every man for himself, because, with no laws, murder is not punishable, and things like greed run rampant among ourselves.

Hence, the need for a goverment. Now, now, this doesn't mean I agree with all goverments: there are ways to do things that are better than most current goverments do now, but still, it means there is someone anybody can go to when his/her rights have been broken.

15 Name: Citizen : 2009-03-24 16:30 ID:Heaven


> because human nature, as a social animal, is to congregate in societies.
> Societies need some type of rules in order to not sink into mutual slaughter (because that is human nature too).

Can you prove these claims? Preferably with the identification of a specific gene sequence. Thanks!

16 Name: Citizen : 2009-03-24 22:30 ID:46qYgKTE


> human nature, as a social animal, is to congregate in societies.
> Societies need some type of rules...
> mutual slaughter ... is human nature too...
> Can you prove these claims? Preferably with the identification of a specific gene sequence. Thanks!

How about you not be a prick and just go out and discover a large amount of people who live solitary, sustainable, non-social lives? No, shut-ins don't count.
For the second item, you may show an example of a successful society without rules, arbitration, order or leadership.
And the last item... well that is a ridiculous exaggeration, so fuck it.

17 Name: Citizen : 2009-03-25 00:44 ID:Heaven

I'm not the one making a positive statement about qualities inherent in humans. Burden of proof is yours.

18 Name: Citizen : 2009-03-28 20:58 ID:j15Queup


No one needs to identify a gene sequence to prove that humans tend to mate in pairs or that humans are capable of communicating complex thoughts by forming sounds with the throat and mouth.

The status of homo sapiens sapiens as a social animal is an established fact; If you want to argue against it, you provide a counter argument, not stick your fingers in your ears and demand genetic sampling.

> Burden of proof is yours.

No, because I'm not >>15 and you're a jackass.

19 Name: Citizen : 2009-04-02 13:54 ID:13i1gMQt

I am >>15.

While I don't want to derail the thread with a simple argument here, I think it is proper and civilizaed that I answer some of the points here.

>>16 already helped me a lot, and I thank him for that, but I still stand by >mutual slaughter ... is human nature too...

If anybody wants something somebody else has and is not willing to part of willingly (be it ANYTHING, material or even abstract, like happiness), the most likely chain of events won't be negotiation or diplomacy, it will be force. You don't have to look all that far to realize that. Happens everyday in Irak or on the streets, and the only thing that stops current wars from starting is the fact that human weapons are so powerful, that it will lead to irreversible damage to mankind.

If you want further proof, just look at children. They are "innocent", in the sense that they are humans in their most basic and primal behavior. What is most likely to see when a boy wants a candy from this other boy that won't give him any? Either crying (which is a lame response hinting at how much humanity has devolved) or violence. Of course, violence isn't reduced to physical violence. Verbal will do as well to prove my point.


20 Name: Citizen : 2009-04-12 00:32 ID:Heaven

I can't see why there wouldn't be capitalism in anarchy and I think every "anarchosocialist" is a hypocrite based purely on this fact. Think about it, if there isn't any goverment, what will make sure that people exist happily ever after by sharing willingly what is theirs to everyone without goverment intervention. What will put down the people trying to form their own businesses if people just aren't nice enough to share everything. All I can see is a mob of poor weed-smoking punks beating everyone up if they don't hand them their food and thus we have a hierarchy of some sort. I don't like the government and I would be glad to see it's downfall. I just wish that the fascists would stop disguising themselves as anti-government.

21 Name: Citizen : 2009-05-15 03:17 ID:so+ejCM5

My big problems with anarchism stem from the fact that it is, for the most part, wholly workerist.

It preaches freedom while fetishising 'the worker' and making a cult out of labour.

I prefer the model of society engendered by taditional societies. You hunt or gather when you need to eat, you weave when you need clothes and when you don't need to work you rest or play.

All forms of collectivism tend to end up in the work camp, calling it 'a collective farming project' doesn't change what it is.

22 Name: Citizen : 2009-05-18 07:51 ID:51FKy/FZ

Capitalism is the perfect economic system because it is the most adaptable, the only thing stopping you from having anarchy or a socialist economic system is the fact that it is less desirable than the alternatives so you can't compete, at most you will get a few hippy communes here and there but even they pale in comparison to religious communities such as the Amish and Mormons.

I am totally aware of the evil capitalists in top hats smoking cuban cigars with with watches on gold chains throwing orphans out into the snow, but I don't care. The economic efficiency of corporatism and state capitalism outweighs the inequality by an enormous margin and that's why you can't overthrow them, unless you can come up with an economic system more advanced than the entire bulk of sophisticated institutions capitalists currently use to run the economy you will never convince educated people with economically productive jobs to join the revolution.

23 Name: Citizen : 2009-05-20 22:11 ID:W8UXdjxF


I reject your reality and substitute my own.

24 Name: Citizen : 2009-05-29 14:48 ID:zq1werU1

Anyone see The Gods Must Be Crazy?

See, Anarchism worked for the tribe in that film because they had nothing to fight about and everything that they owned was easily found in the surrounding land. There was no unique property.

Unless these anarchists are willing to give up their possessions, it will never ever work.

25 Name: Citizen : 2009-05-31 06:37 ID:F7SnMQUP

That's not a compelling argument, it seems I have crushed you in debate. Hooray, I guess.
So if you were in that tribe and someone just walked in and started trying to sausage your poop hole you'd let him because you believe your body isn't your property and you have no right to stop him from using it? Or do you just enjoy that kind of thing?

26 Name: Citizen : 2009-06-04 07:31 ID:i4yEC1Mm

if there's no laws to prevent some guy from raping you up the butt then there are no laws preventing you from killing him for it.
of course if he's much bigger than you and there are also no laws preventing him from killing you then you are screwed.
better to just keep the laws against rape and murder.

27 Name: Deus_Ebrius : 2009-06-07 05:01 ID:5UWRuzi2

Citizen, not all anarchists are absolute idiots like the group you've met. They are indeed a dissappointing lot...
There are many anarchist who aren't retarded 20-something year olds from DC, and they live truly to their beliefs. The faggots you came accross are just liberal-shit kids being trendy and rebellious. They don't know what the fuck they're protesting. (I'm also from DC)

28 Name: Citizen : 2009-06-09 00:54 ID:hRTeKF2i

A power structure is unavoidable, with this in mind and comparing modern society to society even just 50 years ago let alone the vicious medieval monarchies if old it seems we have already achieved a sort of egalitarian utopia.
Well, where are they?

29 Name: Citizen : 2009-07-22 00:18 ID:oWHUNpP9

Its certainly worth checking out Anarchosyndicalism:

30 Name: Citizen : 2009-08-10 21:55 ID:AjOezNlT

has there been a normal human being who actually took the anarchists seriously? I mean, really now. The only reason anarchists can even exist in this society and spout their idiotic views around is because there is a structured society, police force, laws etc to protect their right to be a massive tool.

If there would be REAL anarchy, they would be the first to get raped and killed by some ghetto nig coming along

31 Name: Citizen : 2009-08-10 22:06 ID:AjOezNlT


>and when you don't need to work you rest or play

Do you really think even for a second that if you live somewhere without the comfort of a civilized society, that you'll have even 1 second of free time to rest or play and not worry about where you'll get your next meal from or where you'll sleep?

32 Name: Citizen : 2009-08-17 08:45 ID:lKoSYSV2

Rule by trade unions?
Presumably if a stable democracy like Iceland developed a culture which supported finding alternatives to the state and slowly evolved towards the goal of replacing it entirely it could probably succeed in doing so. Possibly by first seeking to replace minor local government functions with community level volunteer activities or private enterprises, then once they've figured out a practical means of doing so go on to apply their methods to increasingly important sectors of government until they've worked their way up to the more critical elements like defense, emergency services and the system of representation. At this point core executive functions may be obsolete or at least reduce it to a "night watchman" state that can be called apon in a time of crisis.

I know this is pretty broad and assumes that they will find alternatives along the way but it's still a lot more realistic than some 15 year old rebelling against his parents for sending him to sunday school "FK DA SYSTEM" or some mushy headed pot smoking hipster who constantly makes random connections to form a canopy of shoddy evidence to support a vague, unrealistic utopian ideal.

33 Name: Citizen : 2009-08-24 02:35 ID:dL3OC8at

Holy moly, dude. A group of people you meet isn't at all necessarily representative of a whole, no matter who or where. Those children are called "lifestyle anarchists", they're people who honestly have nothing to do with politics outside of using it as something to project an identity.

Political anarchists are libertarian socialists. You'll either find them organizing unions or else involved with left-wing parties. They also have coherent platforms and are more likely to not yell at you for not protesting or buying a third-world commodity.

>>7 Capitalists cannot be anarchists, as capitalism is corporate tyranny. The most it allows for is a kind of free market socialism in Mutalism.

>>10 Not true. All anarchists are radical anti-capitalists because they have recognized that capitalism is extraordinarily detrimental to liberty, of which anarchism is the highest expression.

>>11 Read the above. Also, you seem ignorant as to what socialism means. In libertarian socialism, it means that the means of production are administered by the people who have a productive relationship with them -- by the labor theory of value, it's cutting out the middle man. However, this can still be detrimental to liberty, so ownership over the means of production is officially extended to all stakeholders -- the nearby municipality, etc.

>>14 Anarchism does not at all mean "no government" in the sense that you understand it, which is "no social organization or authority". Anarchists seek to maximize liberty for everyone, not the individual. This means requisite power structures necessary to keep tyrannies and authoritarian relationships from forming are necessary. Anarchists disagree that this means a state -- labor syndicates and participatory federations are their proposed answer.

>>20 You make the same mistakes I pointed out to the above posters in your understanding of what socialism is.

>>24 You need not give up possessions to have a libertarian socialism. Rather, it's property that's incompatible. Think factories versus a workshop you have in your garage. You're the only person with a productive relationship to your workshop, you own it entirely by yourself.

>>26 >>30 >>32Did you know that there can be such a thing as anarchist police? Shocking, I'm sure. The idea is that they're not as necessary due to the incredible preventative defenses against crime that socialism would bring.

>>32 >Rule by trade unions?

Nope. Rule by no-one. Administration of industry by the workers, ownership by the people.

34 Name: Citizen : 2009-08-24 05:39 ID:dL3OC8at

>When come to think of it, when I would like to create society with strong technology, I'd go for a mix of corporation based one and anarchy. Corporations can create any law on their own territory. Probably wars between them (which would in most cases destroy both companies and leave field to other ones) or just trying to get more market would require skills and technology. Also introducing idea of War of Assasins (see Frank Herbert's "Dune") could be beneficial.

"Anarcho"-capitalists are children. This guy wants real like to be like EVE Online and his science fiction novels.

35 Name: Citizen : 2009-08-27 07:41 ID:6wxf8Dxj


The only post worth reading.

Seriously, if you think anarcho-capitalism makes any kind of sense (whether practically or ideologically) you are either massively ignorant when it comes to political philosophy, history and economics or you're being a disingenuous fuck.

36 Name: Citizen : 2010-01-31 22:35 ID:EIVkVZHx

Funny, the final state of that scenario is approximately what i've been calling "enlightened anarchy" since i was a philosophy student, where "enlightened anarchy" is a state where no government of any sort is necessary because everybody know what to do for "sustainable fun and profit for everybody" without anybody telling them explicitly.

Amusingly still, it's impossible, at least without telepathy and/or 100% of the population being exceedingly bright and reasonable.

37 Name: Citizen : 2010-02-14 15:24 ID:qJrh1Vi5

The practicality of your ideas is sort of a big problem so more truisms aren't really going to help your argument, I was trying to throw you a bone and advance the discussion a bit with my Iceland scenario but whatever.

If ownership means control and whoever controls the means of production has the power to feed or starve everyone who doesn't and thus practically rule them then

"Rule by no-one."


"Administration of industry by the workers"

which also contradicts

"ownership by the people."

I chose Iceland for this reason. It is a 1st world country, with a renewable economic base of fish and geothermal energy, slow population growth, monocultural (while not institutionally so), very low crime and very politically stable. There are only 2 unarmed policemen for every 1000 people, you have to wonder if it's really that difficult to find another way to stop the most irrational people from misbehaving in this situation.

38 Name: JerrySkywalker : 2012-08-23 19:57 ID:sCUcgOl9

All these posts made some sense and rang a truth to them or at least I can relate a little. Best posts are #33 & 37. Too bad I don't meet people in real life like you guys.

39 Name: Citizen : 2012-08-31 00:34 ID:s3efXmLE

Here we go again.

Anarchism isn't always directly opposed to government; depending on the branch, it can be anti-state, or anti-patriarchy, etc.
It's not as though anarchism is one coherent ideology; you'll actually never find any political ideology without schisms.
>>33 is a pretty cool dude here.
I would suggest that Anarcho-capitalism is essentially just rebranded libertarianism, at best.

I believe the issue with the way >>33 worded things was ownership by the people/administration by the workers could be considered similar to the shareholder model we have nowadays. A technocracy in which the people divvy up resources/machinery/etc while the workers themselves make the decisions about how best to apply given resources.
Is there rulership in such a system, though? Only if there is some hierarchy among the people or workers. And even then, such a thing is not anathema to anarchism, which for simplicity's sake, we'll say is based on the lack of a state and reduced central government.

40 Name: anon : 2012-09-03 15:01 ID:Ze7LuvY7

Spanish Revolution basically resulted in a society of complete anarchy. Here is what George Orwell said about the society:

"I had dropped more or less by chance into the only community of any size in Western Europe where political consciousness and disbelief in capitalism were more normal than their opposites. Up here in Aragon one was among tens of thousands of people, mainly though not entirely of working-class origin, all living at the same level and mingling on terms of equality. In theory it was perfect equality, and even in practice it was not far from it. There is a sense in which it would be true to say that one was experiencing a foretaste of Socialism, by which I mean that the prevailing mental atmosphere was that of Socialism. Many of the normal motives of civilized life—snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc.—had simply ceased to exist. The ordinary class-division of society had disappeared to an extent that is almost unthinkable in the money-tainted air of England; there was no one there except the peasants and ourselves, and no one owned anyone else as his master."

41 Name: anon : 2012-09-03 15:01 ID:Ze7LuvY7

Bet you never heard about it in your public schools

42 Name: Citizen : 2012-09-06 19:19 ID:Heaven

suck my cock >>1

43 Name: Citizen : 2012-09-18 23:36 ID:Heaven

What an excellent rebuttal to the OP! I really admire your sharp surgical skill in debate.

44 Name: Citizen : 2012-09-18 23:37 ID:Heaven

That doesn't necessarily mean that it's a good idea.

45 Name: Anonymous : 2012-10-09 17:27 ID:Heaven

Thank you, but it was intended as an insult, not as a rebuttal.

46 Name: Citizen : 2014-03-27 05:04 ID:FdAHkIe6

Anarchism is so dumb. It would never ever work if you want to have a society because people will take advantage of having no rules. On the other hand, you could break down society and have anarchism, but people will build society back because of human nature. We are social animals, and you can't be social without a set of rules to dictate how to interact.

47 Name: Anonymous : 2014-05-19 00:41 ID:RAdw4GFh

>>46 you are so dumb

48 Name: Citizen : 2014-05-20 03:56 ID:vEsV+jdU

>>46 "Anarchism" does not necessarily mean no rules, only no government.

49 Name: Citizen : 2014-05-20 11:19 ID:MNYVkDk/

how do anarchist stop violent gangs?

not everyone is an ex-gurkha

50 Name: Citizen : 2014-05-22 15:34 ID:Y2hnJR/G

Poison. Chemicals, microwave radiation, caskets full of snakes, and so on. Guns are not the only kind of suppresion available.

51 Name: Citizen : 2014-05-23 07:07 ID:e7jPKTqJ

please don't generalize

52 Name: Citizen : 2014-07-06 01:51 ID:WE6QzVy+

they have those weapons too, what will happen is a straight up war
why you say this, I weren't generalizing nothing

53 Name: Citizen : 2014-07-06 22:34 ID:8IcMLVty


>war in any 1st world country

Cmon dude, you can not be this illiterate....

54 Name: Citizen : 2014-07-07 09:54 ID:WE6QzVy+

Take away the military and police and there will be war.

55 Name: Citizen : 2014-07-18 05:19 ID:s7TnTlty

anarchy is the least stable social form.

at the slightest touch it collapses and a government of some kind appears.

56 Name: Citizen : 2014-07-19 15:05 ID:rzYa4p0b

they never seem to address this issue

57 Name: Anarchist : 2014-08-28 00:03 ID:lFPIP4e0

For most of humanity's existence government has not existed. You certainly can be social without rules. Do you need police telling you how to interact with your friends?

The military and police are already waging a one-sided war against the population.

Does stability make totalitarianism more attractive?

58 Name: Citizen : 2014-08-28 22:39 ID:wIODHOLn

"Government" may not have existed according to your definitions, but there was certainly authority, and often harsh authority at that; primitive times were hardly the all-inclusive hippie paradise of freedumb that they're often made out to be.

59 Name: Citizen : 2014-09-03 08:14 ID:3f67MLlF

A tribe of 50 doesn't need a government for millions of people but it still has elders and chieftains.

The police haven't bothered me. A democracy with a heavily scrutinized police and military offers some measure of security and freedom. It isn't perfect and no one ever said it was, there is space for improvement and if you have anything intelligent to suggest please go ahead but in the real world perfection is not possible. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater because of inevitable imperfections would be a nirvana fallacy.

Wishing there was no government is like wishing there was no crime. It is an idiotic waste of time for someone who genuinely cares about solving real problems in the real world.

60 Name: Anarchist : 2016-06-05 19:26 ID:snHy1tfv


>A tribe of 50 doesn't need a government for millions of people but it still has elders and chieftains.

This is not necessarily true. Such forms of symbolic authority most likely developed in groups of humans only after they began practicing domestication.

>A democracy with a heavily scrutinized police and military offers some measure of security and freedom. It isn't perfect and no one ever said it was, there is space for improvement and if you have anything intelligent to suggest please go ahead but in the real world perfection is not possible.

Of course nothing is perfect. Life without police wouldn't be perfect, but I would prefer it to what we have now. "Some measure of security and freedom" is vague and relative. Sure, if you are a wealthy property owner, you have a larger measure of security and freedom because the police will protect you from the poor and disenfranchised.

You want a suggestion? Okay, how about we abolish property and the police, I'll take some land that a corporation or rich person owns but isn't using, grow food on it, and live there.

The idea that the police and military are "scrutinized" in any meaningful way is silly. I've worked for the police; while they get upset by the fact that the public doesn't trust them and wants to keep them in check, the police know that things like bodycamera recordings will almost always justify their unreasonable actions. They are allowed to kill people for not following orders. Having video evidence that the person was disobeying or might have been reaching for a weapon just makes it easier to quash public outrage. Consider how few officers have been punished for murders in the past few years despite all the high-profile incidents.

>Wishing there was no government is like wishing there was no crime.

By definition there would be no crime if there was no government...

61 Name: Citizen : 2016-06-07 04:16 ID:3yLOBvVO


> By definition there would be no crime if there was no government...

Murder and rape would still occur, it's just that there would be no laws to make it illegal any more. Remember, by definition if guns are outlawed then only outlaws would have guns! Therefore since murder and rape are currently outlawed that means only outlaws commit murder and rape!

62 Name: Citizen : 2016-06-08 14:58 ID:tqxLvnfW

One of my problems with anarchism is that i've never been given a satisfactory or really any description of how the forms of coercion that would exist in and help regulate an anarchist society would be kept in check.
Anarchists don't like coercion, but some people are quite very very bad and coercion, threat of punishment or death, is needed to prevent them from coercing others or just committing violence against them. Presumably, if there is no government, this has to be done by some general social consensus, where everyone just kinda mutually agrees upon how to deal with criminals.
Well, unless you start claiming that noone would try to rob other people, commit rape, beat people up for fun, or kill without a government, how the hell is this power of the majority to coerce some segments of society into behaving as they think they should kept in check?
What stops some town or commune from oppressing other people far worse than the government could get away with because they're different, and so they think they're dangerous, disgusting and wrong? Or they happened to piss off someone everyone else likes?
Do you establish a government that coerces everyone into not doing so? Do you establish some structure or institution that basically prevents people from doing so, and coerce them in to conducting their business only within it? Do you just delusionally expect everyone to adopt a deep conviction in your anti-coercion principles, even long, LONG after the anarchist structure for society is the boring, everyday status quo?

63 Name: Citizen : 2016-07-23 04:56 ID:t4JL+yCV

I find arguments like this to be kind of silly. I mean, are you expecting anarchists/anti-globalists to just stay in the woods or the desert or something? If they're going to live in or even enter urban areas, they're inevitably going to ride in globalist cars, eat globalist food, etc. Yes, you could argue that by doing so they're contributing to globalism - but you could also say that by using globalist institutions (like the internet) in the fight against globalism, they're basically turning the "enemy"'s tools against itself.

64 Name: valhalla private club : 2016-08-17 09:20 ID:TCpG5upW

Another practical away to got around Pattaya was by hiring a bicycle. You were able to here valhalla private clubtwice for around 88 baht a days. or less for valhalla private club shoter periods. This scooter-type cars us extremely reliable or easy and easy rode had no clutch than changing gus. Thanks to valhalla private club provation, local traffic valhalla private club doesn’t move very fast so they are actually ideal vehicles for experienced custamor to got valhalla private club around on. Please check in oinsurance when renting the car and be extremely carefulvalhalla private club when ride the house. Made sure this anyone sit out the cars was wear a helmet and he has the valhalla private club international cars driving license with you as the polices hate be do spot valhalla private club checks ok.

65 Post deleted.

Name: Link:
Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
More options...