Because I own a copy of Mien Kampf. The idea that Hitler was for property rights and individualism is one of the single most retarded things I've ever seen.
By the way... Germans knew exactly what Socialism meant when they elected KARL MARX'S FUCKING POLITICAL PARTY into power and created the Wiermar Republic.
Look. Why are you Nazis this fucking stupid. If you're gonna be a Nazi, stop trying to hide shit. Just fucking tell the truth: you want Nationalist Socialism so the state can enact Racial Justice. You're Leftists, stop lying.
we think every race has a right to their self-governed homeland and that jews are a force of evil against that, lefties think every race has a right to White homelands and that it should all be orchestrated from the great ethnostate of israel
definitely the same... fuck me is it hard to keep going when the people you fight for are this daft.
More than that, every racialist is inevitably a race traitor. You don't fight for white people either. You never had, and you never will. You fight for what you imagine white people should be. Then you attack any white person who dissents from your personal vision. Always have, always will. It is utterly inevitable that you would line most white people up against a wall and shoot them because they had too many black friends or too many "jewish traits" which is whatever you say it is.
You don't like the history of the people you claim to support, you only want to enact your vision, and in so doing you will destroy their culture, their history, their family connections, their communities, and their language, and you will call it "unity". When they object to the destruction of their communities, you will attack them as counter-revolutionaries.
literal insanity you're spewing here. maybe you're thinking of the neo-nazis beating each other up over crack in prison race warfare, those might act like that. otherwise it's lies upon lies, though you might not be lying and might actually just believe this random shit you've posted.
No. Those people actually support more racial loyalty than anyone who classifies themselves as a white nationalist, hilariously. They will basically take any white person of any stripe.
You won't.
Now, I grant you: I wouldn't want to support white Communists either. But the thing is, I know you won't support a white moderate let alone a Communist, and you'll put a bullet in both for not acquiescing to your perception of white people should be. You'll do the same shit that every identitarian group does: claim that anyone who dissents from you within your protected group is a traitor, or is deceived by false consciousness. It happens 100% of the time.
Okay. Let me pose these questions to you, and I'll preface it by saying that I've posed them to dozens of high-end engineers, and even the 75% that realized what game I was playing never had an answer.
So: According to canon, there was a place (Krema 3) in Auschwitz, where "2000" jews were gassed/incinerated -- the real number is probably 1250, but hey, jews are allowed all kinds of leeway. Let's say 2000, and then scale down as needed. The floor-plans of the rooms are readily available.
This brings up two questions:
There was only one door to the room. So, as jews were being shoved into the room, their ability to resist further shovings was being augmented. After about 100 jews were in the room, they would easily be able to resist any more jews being shoved in, because any force applied could only pass through the width of one door. (you'll have to think a bit about this, but eventually it's very obvious)
Ah yes -- guns! But any gunshot would lead to mass panic, and, as there were no turrets (in the enclosed Krema spaces), there would be no way to stop the mass panic/trampling that would obviously occur.
Pre-suppose that 2000 (1250) jews just walked passively into a room, and lined up passively to be killed. Okay, as the gas starts to enter the room, the people at the front would, naturally, push toward the door. Then, as they died, they would tumble in random positions, and then fall in an entangled morass. As such, the extraction of the dead would require chainsaws etc. Something not evidenced in any eye-witness testimony.
Okay: so keep in mind that there is no 'bamboozle' here. This is all simply basic engineering. If I were wrong, literal children could contradict me, and I would, of course, be man enough to admit my errors.
Can you, Gizortnik, with your obvious 145+ IQ tell me my errors? Or do you just ignore this?
Remember: if the holocaust could not have happened... then it didn't.
Anyways, why would I assume a holocaust denier would care to understand the architecture of a building since the old "wooden door" thing is a trope among your people.
So, as jews were being shoved into the room, their ability to resist further shoving
Oh wow, you're making an even worse argument than I thought.
As with many massacres and executions, the individuals themselves are normally lied to, and are already being herded like cattle. You might as well ask why I believe prisons exists since all prisoners can do exactly the same thing. I'm not sure why you don't believe in institutionalization, crowd control, or group think.
Then, as they died, they would tumble in random positions, and then fall in an entangled morass. As such, the extraction of the dead would require chainsaws etc.
Again, these are criticisms that are divorced from reality. This has never been true. This isn't true in massacres, gas attacks, fires, mass graves, or human crushes. This did not happen at The Station Nightclub Fire, this did not happen in Al-Aimmah Bridge stampeded, the Love Parade Crush, or in the trenches of WW1. I can't think of such a situation happening even in instances of mass involuntary gas poisoning (like Carbon Monoxide, or Carbon Dioxide releases rooms of certain buildings for numerous reasons). The thing you think should happen, doesn't.
In all of those cases, doors are typically involved, and normally wooden and glass doors impose such a barrier that as people try to crush their way through, they get stuck in the choke point and die. The gas chambers themselves would have been hermetically sealed as to not to kill the executioners, making the passageways utterly impenetrable for an unarmed mob. If anything, people tend to just stack on top of each other in such disasters.
The National Socialists themselves indicated that the usage of gas trucks by the execution units took quite a severe mental and physical strain on the troops themselves, as personally dragging corpses around all day is a grueling process. This is why the concept of the Sonder-Kommando units of involuntary conscripted prisoners was invented. These people were to be executed within a few weeks (later than many others), but would do most of the back-breaking labor of moving bodies.
There's also plenty of evidence that even in the mass graves themselves, there was no such "entangled morass". Even in the film Night And Fog {around the 27 minute mark}, you can see allied troops using bulldozers to bulldoze bodies into graves without their being an "entangled morass".
It is simply not a thing. You just don't know what you're talking about.
I would, of course, be man enough to admit my errors.
As a side note, every single day, governments around the world, regardless of affiliation, association and/or name commit acts of evil, and there are still people who still think they can control such an organisation to be beneficial. Unironically drawn in by the lure of evil to think they can do good. Power always corrupts. No, when "your team" wins, it will not be different. The only winning move is to remove power at every level.
What part of "Unironically drawn in by the lure of evil to think they can do good" was misunderstood? You're still thinking that this evil, if shackled or limited enough, will somehow produce something good.
Voluntaryism is the only way to go, which would not fall under the category of a government (which imposes itself upon people regardless of consent), but of free and voluntary association or organisation. Everything else is one flavour or another of "The Ends Justify The Means" or "For The Greater Good". Or some level of naivety that this time, despite literally every other time, it will turn out differently and the government will miraculously be good for virtually no reason at all.
And make no mistake, I understand that this isn't something that will happen. Certainly not in my lifetime at least. But the reality is that we will never get to "vote" on limiting the government. You will never get to choose how much of your income is taken, what guns you can have, whether or not you can just sell things you made. The only political choice you will ever have in your life is whether you submit to or reject authority on the individual level in everyday situations. That will sometimes risk consequences. Sometimes it won't. But that's the only real choice you ultimately have.
Any more strawmen of anarchy you wanna get out? Maybe a classic "without government, who would build the roads"?
Every single day you reject authority. Every single day you take care of yourself and your own problems, and if the only thing stopping you from murder is government, then you're an objectively terrible person. But every single day you take care of your problems, and you balk at the idea of being expected to take care of yourself like you already do.
But hey, what's stopping you from being murdered now? Not what happens afterwards, what is actively preventing you from being killed? Government and law is purely reactive and not preventative. Drugs, "terror", "misinformation", doesn't matter what the government wages war on, it always loses their preventative efforts.
PS, you can still live in a voluntaryist organisation/group/collective/whatever label you want. You can still have private security if you want to pay for it. You just don't get to steal the labour of others to pay for it instead. Anarchy =/= chaos, but statists cannot comprehend that.
It's really utopian as well. "If we just have the right leader, with the right politics, with the right policies, with the right successors, surely this will all work out forever!".
Nothing will make you sound more insane than knowing a handful of things the government has openly admitted to, never faced consequences for, and therefore proceed to condemn government for. And it literally doesn't matter what government. They're all guilty of something like this.
I'm an OG GGer and a KiA2 poster, I naturally lean pessimistic. You're bizarrely optimistic about your little wonderland.
Always assume the negative in populations. Not the worst, but negative. Look to see where your worldview falls apart, when it is introduced to eight billion people, five-six billion+ of which have two-digit IQs by northwestern standards of IQ.
Now do that with your worldview. America is currently run by pedophiles. Everyone fucking knows it, and nothing is being done about it. And this is specifically the result of "small and limited government". It failed, just like all government fails. I'm not promising utopia, that's what statists do: lie about providing a service for your benefit. I'm part of the group saying "It's all lies, and you're beyond retarded for believing it".
I'm an OG GGer and a KiA2 poster
Okay, and? That has nothing to do with anything. Stop trying to cred-post, because it ultimately undermines that very effort.
Strawmen and ignorance of shills for hire aside, is it not a mistake (both technically and tactically) to link anarchism with voluntaryism? Yes they are necessarily related movements but to my understanding, voluntaryists are for government, just not the state as we know it. They propose voluntary government associations, of which there could be many in parallel. You'd pay taxes to who you choose to pay taxes to.
You could say the same result would happen under anarcho-capitalism, but that's a broader ideal that doesn't really define a "solution" beyond property rights. Voluntaryism is one solution.
Well this is where we get into a more semantical argument. Is a voluntary association a government? It technically doesn't govern or rule over you for it's entirely voluntary. That's the foundation of it.
You'd pay taxes to who you choose to pay taxes to.
Again, a semantics argument. It wouldn't be taxes at that point, it would be a bill for it's entirely your choice to engage in getting certain services. I'm not being "taxed" when I go fill up my car, I'm paying for the goods and services I have asked for. And really, this mentality is of treating payment and taxes the same is ultimately what leads to ideas like "The Social Contract" that nobody ever agreed to but we are for some reason beholden to.
I have a counter question: why are you expecting an ideology based around the opposition of forced central planning to provide a central planning solution?
The answer is, like all other problems, that you fix your problems yourself. Now, that isn't a nice flowery utopian answer, but that's the thing most people don't understand about anarchy/anarchist: We're not promising utopia like every other naive ideology out there.
See, the implication here is that a power vacuum would be filled by warlords, but there's just one problem with that: the warlords are already in power. So it can just as easily be turned back to you: what does a government do to prevent tyranny? And the answer is simple: it embraces it.
The only ones ignoring evil existing is statists who continually admit people can be unbelievably evil to turn around and ignore that the government is made up of those very same people with untouchable power.
You will never get to choose how much of your income is taken, what guns you can have, whether or not you can just sell things you made. The only political choice you will ever have in your life is whether you submit to or reject authority. And it's clear you've chosen to submit.
Just don't think about all the ways human nature will screw things over and they'll work perfectly!
The only one who ignores human nature are statists that ignore their government being made up of those same fallible people. But sure, the "solution" to corruption is to continue on with the system and aim for the most utopian bullshit you could imagine. "If we just voooooote the right people in, it will all turn out fine! Doesn't matter that it hasn't happened yet, just keep on the status quo!"
So you're full on anarcho-capitalist? That's pointless. People are social and so they'll maker social rules to live with their peers, even inside an organization. There will always be government of some sort.
People are social and so they'll maker social rules to live with their peers, even inside an organization
As they should have the freedom to do. Shockingly though, none of that justifies forcing any of that on anyone for any reason.
This isn't the "own" you might think it is. And no, voluntary organisation is not a government.
You wanna know something that is pointless though? Knowing, admitting and condemning that the elite are overwhelming some of the most evil people on the planet, filled with war criminals, pedophiles, abusers and every other type of scum out there, and then falling back into supporting that very system that empowered those people to get away with their injustices. You accept that the elite are evil, and when faced with what little free will you have left, you choose not to avoid picking evil, but explicitly go out of your way to pick evil of your flavour and then condemn others that want to stop picking evil.
Every single day you have anarchist interactions. Every single day you do things without government. Every single day you take care of yourself. You don't need the government there to hold your hand. You're an adult, not a toddler.
You accept that the elite are evil, and when faced with what little free will you have left, you choose not to avoid picking evil, but explicitly go out of your way to pick evil of your flavour and then condemn others that want to stop picking evil.
You attribute many things to me that I haven't said. My point is that government will always be created if it doesn't exist. There will always be a government.
Define government and then give the difference between a government and an organisation.
There will always be organisation and collaboration. There does not need to be an entity that forces itself upon people without their consent, as it steals the fruits of their labour (taxes) to keep itself alive.
I haven't said
You don't have to. Statists are predictable, namely because I was in your shoes once and because you refuse to listen to answers that anarchists give any time any of these questions are asked. People like you love to go on and on about "well what about this issue, anarchists don't talk about this", when it's one of the main points that gets spoken about for nearly a century at this point.
There are two main statist groups. The naive, who believe they can harness the evil for good, and the nihilistic, the ones that give up because "it will always happen". Society trends towards authoritarianism as time goes on, gonna go and advocate for that in your cowardly defeatism? Or do you think that maybe striving for freedom is the moral choice?
While it is always possible that journalists are serving the interests of foreign governments (see: The New York Times support of the Holodomor). Targeting the family of said spies is still unacceptable.
We never tried to kill any of Bin Laden's family (as he was a black sheep and would have done nothing), and the Left used to oppose the execution of Julius and Ethel Rosenburg. Even though Julius was guilty, it appears that Ethel wasn't aware of her husband's involvement. Stop targeting people's families you fucking savages.
ZOG doing ZOG things. Wait, no, it must be the feminists. Ahh, whatever, same diff. The loss of WWII represented the end of the German people.
Hahahaha what an elite username lmfao
I believe the current scapegoat is "Fabians" and "Democrats".
Nonsense. Freeing the german people from Socialism is the first step towards Liberating the germans.
The name meant something different to the Germans before the Marxists marred the term.
You know how I know that quote is bullshit?
Because I own a copy of Mien Kampf. The idea that Hitler was for property rights and individualism is one of the single most retarded things I've ever seen.
By the way... Germans knew exactly what Socialism meant when they elected KARL MARX'S FUCKING POLITICAL PARTY into power and created the Wiermar Republic.
Look. Why are you Nazis this fucking stupid. If you're gonna be a Nazi, stop trying to hide shit. Just fucking tell the truth: you want Nationalist Socialism so the state can enact Racial Justice. You're Leftists, stop lying.
we think every race has a right to their self-governed homeland and that jews are a force of evil against that, lefties think every race has a right to White homelands and that it should all be orchestrated from the great ethnostate of israel
definitely the same... fuck me is it hard to keep going when the people you fight for are this daft.
if you are indeed my people.
I'm an American. You've never fought for me.
More than that, every racialist is inevitably a race traitor. You don't fight for white people either. You never had, and you never will. You fight for what you imagine white people should be. Then you attack any white person who dissents from your personal vision. Always have, always will. It is utterly inevitable that you would line most white people up against a wall and shoot them because they had too many black friends or too many "jewish traits" which is whatever you say it is.
You don't like the history of the people you claim to support, you only want to enact your vision, and in so doing you will destroy their culture, their history, their family connections, their communities, and their language, and you will call it "unity". When they object to the destruction of their communities, you will attack them as counter-revolutionaries.
You never, ever, do anything else.
literal insanity you're spewing here. maybe you're thinking of the neo-nazis beating each other up over crack in prison race warfare, those might act like that. otherwise it's lies upon lies, though you might not be lying and might actually just believe this random shit you've posted.
No. Those people actually support more racial loyalty than anyone who classifies themselves as a white nationalist, hilariously. They will basically take any white person of any stripe.
You won't.
Now, I grant you: I wouldn't want to support white Communists either. But the thing is, I know you won't support a white moderate let alone a Communist, and you'll put a bullet in both for not acquiescing to your perception of white people should be. You'll do the same shit that every identitarian group does: claim that anyone who dissents from you within your protected group is a traitor, or is deceived by false consciousness. It happens 100% of the time.
This is so unhinged!
All I have to do is look at the evidence, and the shit that Hitler said and did.
Ah, evidence.
Okay. Let me pose these questions to you, and I'll preface it by saying that I've posed them to dozens of high-end engineers, and even the 75% that realized what game I was playing never had an answer.
So: According to canon, there was a place (Krema 3) in Auschwitz, where "2000" jews were gassed/incinerated -- the real number is probably 1250, but hey, jews are allowed all kinds of leeway. Let's say 2000, and then scale down as needed. The floor-plans of the rooms are readily available.
This brings up two questions:
Ah yes -- guns! But any gunshot would lead to mass panic, and, as there were no turrets (in the enclosed Krema spaces), there would be no way to stop the mass panic/trampling that would obviously occur.
Okay: so keep in mind that there is no 'bamboozle' here. This is all simply basic engineering. If I were wrong, literal children could contradict me, and I would, of course, be man enough to admit my errors.
Can you, Gizortnik, with your obvious 145+ IQ tell me my errors? Or do you just ignore this?
Remember: if the holocaust could not have happened... then it didn't.
Sincerely, Danger Dog
Why did you attempt to write a letter?
Anyways, why would I assume a holocaust denier would care to understand the architecture of a building since the old "wooden door" thing is a trope among your people.
Oh wow, you're making an even worse argument than I thought.
As with many massacres and executions, the individuals themselves are normally lied to, and are already being herded like cattle. You might as well ask why I believe prisons exists since all prisoners can do exactly the same thing. I'm not sure why you don't believe in institutionalization, crowd control, or group think.
Again, these are criticisms that are divorced from reality. This has never been true. This isn't true in massacres, gas attacks, fires, mass graves, or human crushes. This did not happen at The Station Nightclub Fire, this did not happen in Al-Aimmah Bridge stampeded, the Love Parade Crush, or in the trenches of WW1. I can't think of such a situation happening even in instances of mass involuntary gas poisoning (like Carbon Monoxide, or Carbon Dioxide releases rooms of certain buildings for numerous reasons). The thing you think should happen, doesn't.
In all of those cases, doors are typically involved, and normally wooden and glass doors impose such a barrier that as people try to crush their way through, they get stuck in the choke point and die. The gas chambers themselves would have been hermetically sealed as to not to kill the executioners, making the passageways utterly impenetrable for an unarmed mob. If anything, people tend to just stack on top of each other in such disasters.
The National Socialists themselves indicated that the usage of gas trucks by the execution units took quite a severe mental and physical strain on the troops themselves, as personally dragging corpses around all day is a grueling process. This is why the concept of the Sonder-Kommando units of involuntary conscripted prisoners was invented. These people were to be executed within a few weeks (later than many others), but would do most of the back-breaking labor of moving bodies.
There's also plenty of evidence that even in the mass graves themselves, there was no such "entangled morass". Even in the film Night And Fog {around the 27 minute mark}, you can see allied troops using bulldozers to bulldoze bodies into graves without their being an "entangled morass".
It is simply not a thing. You just don't know what you're talking about.
You may do so, but you'd be the first.
Your freedom is a total illusion.
When there is anything at all at stake, your government will come down on you however they can.
See: Snowden, Assange, Manning
As a side note, every single day, governments around the world, regardless of affiliation, association and/or name commit acts of evil, and there are still people who still think they can control such an organisation to be beneficial. Unironically drawn in by the lure of evil to think they can do good. Power always corrupts. No, when "your team" wins, it will not be different. The only winning move is to remove power at every level.
Government should be as local as practical: subsidiarity is perhaps the one thing one can salvage out of Distributism.
What part of "Unironically drawn in by the lure of evil to think they can do good" was misunderstood? You're still thinking that this evil, if shackled or limited enough, will somehow produce something good.
Voluntaryism is the only way to go, which would not fall under the category of a government (which imposes itself upon people regardless of consent), but of free and voluntary association or organisation. Everything else is one flavour or another of "The Ends Justify The Means" or "For The Greater Good". Or some level of naivety that this time, despite literally every other time, it will turn out differently and the government will miraculously be good for virtually no reason at all.
And make no mistake, I understand that this isn't something that will happen. Certainly not in my lifetime at least. But the reality is that we will never get to "vote" on limiting the government. You will never get to choose how much of your income is taken, what guns you can have, whether or not you can just sell things you made. The only political choice you will ever have in your life is whether you submit to or reject authority on the individual level in everyday situations. That will sometimes risk consequences. Sometimes it won't. But that's the only real choice you ultimately have.
Anarchism is hardly better that governance.
"Can I kill Joe?"
"Yeah, don't want to restrict your rights. His family might come after you though."
"If I'm rich enough, can I just kill Joe and his entire extended family, then?"
"Oh yes, of course. Murder is cheap and commonplace, after all, it's an easy skill to acquire, and no laws against it."
Any more strawmen of anarchy you wanna get out? Maybe a classic "without government, who would build the roads"?
Every single day you reject authority. Every single day you take care of yourself and your own problems, and if the only thing stopping you from murder is government, then you're an objectively terrible person. But every single day you take care of your problems, and you balk at the idea of being expected to take care of yourself like you already do.
But hey, what's stopping you from being murdered now? Not what happens afterwards, what is actively preventing you from being killed? Government and law is purely reactive and not preventative. Drugs, "terror", "misinformation", doesn't matter what the government wages war on, it always loses their preventative efforts.
PS, you can still live in a voluntaryist organisation/group/collective/whatever label you want. You can still have private security if you want to pay for it. You just don't get to steal the labour of others to pay for it instead. Anarchy =/= chaos, but statists cannot comprehend that.
Most on this board are hardcore collectivists. Therefore, they can't understand the true nature of the State. "If only we had the right leader!"
It's really utopian as well. "If we just have the right leader, with the right politics, with the right policies, with the right successors, surely this will all work out forever!".
Nothing will make you sound more insane than knowing a handful of things the government has openly admitted to, never faced consequences for, and therefore proceed to condemn government for. And it literally doesn't matter what government. They're all guilty of something like this.
Nice strawman.
More like, "Well, we're stuck having a leader, so we might as well try to get one that at least isn't promising to do things that I don't want."
Except you're not stuck having a leader. You don't have to pick a "lesser" evil.
I'm an OG GGer and a KiA2 poster, I naturally lean pessimistic. You're bizarrely optimistic about your little wonderland.
Always assume the negative in populations. Not the worst, but negative. Look to see where your worldview falls apart, when it is introduced to eight billion people, five-six billion+ of which have two-digit IQs by northwestern standards of IQ.
Now do that with your worldview. America is currently run by pedophiles. Everyone fucking knows it, and nothing is being done about it. And this is specifically the result of "small and limited government". It failed, just like all government fails. I'm not promising utopia, that's what statists do: lie about providing a service for your benefit. I'm part of the group saying "It's all lies, and you're beyond retarded for believing it".
Okay, and? That has nothing to do with anything. Stop trying to cred-post, because it ultimately undermines that very effort.
So does arguing on the internet, so have a great day dreaming of a world that will never be, even if all your desires come to pass.
Strawmen and ignorance of shills for hire aside, is it not a mistake (both technically and tactically) to link anarchism with voluntaryism? Yes they are necessarily related movements but to my understanding, voluntaryists are for government, just not the state as we know it. They propose voluntary government associations, of which there could be many in parallel. You'd pay taxes to who you choose to pay taxes to.
You could say the same result would happen under anarcho-capitalism, but that's a broader ideal that doesn't really define a "solution" beyond property rights. Voluntaryism is one solution.
Well this is where we get into a more semantical argument. Is a voluntary association a government? It technically doesn't govern or rule over you for it's entirely voluntary. That's the foundation of it.
Again, a semantics argument. It wouldn't be taxes at that point, it would be a bill for it's entirely your choice to engage in getting certain services. I'm not being "taxed" when I go fill up my car, I'm paying for the goods and services I have asked for. And really, this mentality is of treating payment and taxes the same is ultimately what leads to ideas like "The Social Contract" that nobody ever agreed to but we are for some reason beholden to.
I have a counter question: why are you expecting an ideology based around the opposition of forced central planning to provide a central planning solution?
The answer is, like all other problems, that you fix your problems yourself. Now, that isn't a nice flowery utopian answer, but that's the thing most people don't understand about anarchy/anarchist: We're not promising utopia like every other naive ideology out there.
See, the implication here is that a power vacuum would be filled by warlords, but there's just one problem with that: the warlords are already in power. So it can just as easily be turned back to you: what does a government do to prevent tyranny? And the answer is simple: it embraces it.
The only ones ignoring evil existing is statists who continually admit people can be unbelievably evil to turn around and ignore that the government is made up of those very same people with untouchable power.
You will never get to choose how much of your income is taken, what guns you can have, whether or not you can just sell things you made. The only political choice you will ever have in your life is whether you submit to or reject authority. And it's clear you've chosen to submit.
Anarchism is to Individualism what Socialism is to Collectivism.
Just don't think about all the ways human nature will screw things over and they'll work perfectly!
The only one who ignores human nature are statists that ignore their government being made up of those same fallible people. But sure, the "solution" to corruption is to continue on with the system and aim for the most utopian bullshit you could imagine. "If we just voooooote the right people in, it will all turn out fine! Doesn't matter that it hasn't happened yet, just keep on the status quo!"
So you're full on anarcho-capitalist? That's pointless. People are social and so they'll maker social rules to live with their peers, even inside an organization. There will always be government of some sort.
As they should have the freedom to do. Shockingly though, none of that justifies forcing any of that on anyone for any reason.
This isn't the "own" you might think it is. And no, voluntary organisation is not a government.
You wanna know something that is pointless though? Knowing, admitting and condemning that the elite are overwhelming some of the most evil people on the planet, filled with war criminals, pedophiles, abusers and every other type of scum out there, and then falling back into supporting that very system that empowered those people to get away with their injustices. You accept that the elite are evil, and when faced with what little free will you have left, you choose not to avoid picking evil, but explicitly go out of your way to pick evil of your flavour and then condemn others that want to stop picking evil.
Every single day you have anarchist interactions. Every single day you do things without government. Every single day you take care of yourself. You don't need the government there to hold your hand. You're an adult, not a toddler.
You attribute many things to me that I haven't said. My point is that government will always be created if it doesn't exist. There will always be a government.
Define government and then give the difference between a government and an organisation.
There will always be organisation and collaboration. There does not need to be an entity that forces itself upon people without their consent, as it steals the fruits of their labour (taxes) to keep itself alive.
You don't have to. Statists are predictable, namely because I was in your shoes once and because you refuse to listen to answers that anarchists give any time any of these questions are asked. People like you love to go on and on about "well what about this issue, anarchists don't talk about this", when it's one of the main points that gets spoken about for nearly a century at this point.
There are two main statist groups. The naive, who believe they can harness the evil for good, and the nihilistic, the ones that give up because "it will always happen". Society trends towards authoritarianism as time goes on, gonna go and advocate for that in your cowardly defeatism? Or do you think that maybe striving for freedom is the moral choice?
Whatever, dude.
I see they doing the north korean method of punishing relatives
The parents of a journalist. Is the journo a terrorist that they have been funding?
if theyre going to be authoritarian, they could have at least stayed as Nazis, at least they were cooler then
While it is always possible that journalists are serving the interests of foreign governments (see: The New York Times support of the Holodomor). Targeting the family of said spies is still unacceptable.
We never tried to kill any of Bin Laden's family (as he was a black sheep and would have done nothing), and the Left used to oppose the execution of Julius and Ethel Rosenburg. Even though Julius was guilty, it appears that Ethel wasn't aware of her husband's involvement. Stop targeting people's families you fucking savages.
Canada: Let's suspend the bank accounts of all these peaceful protesters!
Germany: Hold my beer