The kingpin of all bullshit philosophies....Anarchy

[OXO]

I'm saying this once, and only once...anarchy and Satanism do not mix.

I have had the displeasure of encountering so called "satanic anarchists." A notion which I whole heartedly shit on.

Although no government is perfect, lets face it. If all aspects of government were to collapse, we'd all be fucked, and I mean fucked hard...up the ass, and without lubrication. But if all you thick skulled anarchists can't get this through your cranium, let me put it this way....

Who would make your skateboards?

When it comes to government I say: Fix it, don't suspend it.

I don't want to say too much here....I want to read everyone else's point of view

[OXO]

Well I don't think that there would be much getting along in an anarchist society, but I see your point and I agree.

[OXO]

What you say about making yourself into a god and manipulation are true...to a point.

However you must realize that if suddenly all forms of government were to collapse only the strong would survive (and yes as Satanits, many who take the name are strong individuals) but this does not only pertain to physical, mental and emotional strength, but resorces.

By the way: anarchy is impossible. I mean it is technically possible that all government could fall, but after the burning time, individuals would begin to pool back into herds for no other reason then saftey. Who would lead these herds you may ask? Who ever has the most resorces under their control, which means oil tycoons, ect. It is then inevitable that these leaders would employ some sort of government (although primitive) and there goes anarchy (like Sugz said).

Bottom line...anarchy is bad for everyone, except for the individuals in control of resources (not currency). Or in other words, The rich would once agin rule.

[OXO]

So if I'm getting this straight, you are simply using the term "anarchy" to discrbe one's personal ability of self reliance, instead of reliance on your government?

[Mister_Six]

Unfortunately there are too many stupid people, even more stupid people that think the main premise of satanism is mindless hedonism. Truly revolting if you ask me because satanism was founded on reason, logic, and intelligence. In no way shape or form does satanism advocate you acting like a retard just to get your rocks off. I suggest you re-read TSB by Anton LaVey, and if you have weird trendy misconceptions on what that shit means, please ask someone that knows instead of reading one thing and throwing out the rest of the book. Seriously Douche? I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I'm having a hard time right now.

So with so many stupid people claiming so many different world religions with so many laws and ethics, I don't think Anarchy is much more than a pipe dream. Looks good on paper till you really study human corruption and the decay of decency right in front of your very eyes. Stupid people NEED government! Smart, ethical minds do not and I would venture to say that people like that are drastically out numbered. Anarchy is IMPOSSIBLE with so many mindless, compulsive, corruptible idiots running around. Some even call themselves satanists. Pop, trendy satanism. LOL!

[Aye Maung]

I am on Socrates's side...Oligarchy of enlightened individuals but that's also an ideal. That's what US pretty much have right now, even though it is a representative democracy. It just sucks that Congress is really.

[OXO]

Are you saying that America is masking internal anarchy with a face of democracy, or that America is simply trying to keep it's ideals from slipping?

[Aye Maung]

No, I am saying that America is now ruled by the few, not the many. Sorry, my post got cut off for some reason. It's like the Roman Republic, the senators did not necessarily represent the people.

[OXO]

Godda say I'm a little confused by your response...especially the douche statement. Not sure if it was directed at me or Frosty....

I'm confused because from the nature of your response (barring the douche statment that is) it seems that you are agreeing with my standpoint, which would also mean that you dissagree with the notion that Satanism and anarchy are compadable.

Mind clearing that up six?

[Mister_Six]

That was in response to Douche Bigalow, not you. You and I seem to be on the same page for the most part OXO. I 100% agree with you OXO! I couldn't stress that much more than you did.

On a separate note I would like to say that the most successful form of government would be an amalgamation of all governments, not just one specific one but taking the functional aspects of all of them and incorporating them into one thing. Minus the anarchy, I wouldn't go for it.

[OXO]

Holly shit...I'm retarded...lol. Totally forot about sugz going under "Douche Bigalow." Brain's not firing on all cylenders tonight.

[OXO]

lol...and we both got to keep our respecitve bathrooms and you didn't come into my place a throw away a bunch of "tacky" shit....Good arrangement...lol

[Ana, Daughter of Lilith]

Hi, OXO, how are you? :-)

Right I’m going to speak up for anarchism, not ‘Satanic Anarchism’, because I have no idea what that is; just ordinary, everyday anarchism, as I understand it!

First of all a small point of historical interpretation. You conceive of anarchism in one form, but it actually comes in many. Thinking about it as a movement, rather than a philosophy, it actually sprung up in places like Spain and Italy in the nineteenth century as a defence against government, not a movement advocating its abolition. You see, these were places where the operation of government, central government, was entirely negative; it existed, basically, only to collect taxes and force peasants into the army. It offered nothing in return, no defence, no health care, no roads, nothing. So anarchists were those who fought off the tax collectors and government officials while attempting to build their own communities. I feel sure you will see where this is going.

It was on this basis that intellectual anarchism took shape, but that, too comes in so many forms, ranging from forms of libertarianism to communism, with lots of degrees and stages in between. Yes, intellectually I, too, am an anarchist, just as I am a libertarian because I believe in freedom, my freedom, liberated from the importunities of the state, government, religion, morality or whatever you care to name. I’ve blogged here on Max Stirner, my favourite anarchist thinker, not a million miles from Nietzsche, my other favourite anarchist thinker! To save you leafing through the backlog here it is below:

The Divine Ego

Do you know Der Einzige und sein Eigentum-The Ego and its Own-by Max Stirner, a nineteenth century German philosopher? I rather suspect that most people, not familiar with the subject, have never heard of Stirner, or, if they have, only through the bad-tempered response to his work by Marx and Engels in The Holy Family and The German Ideology.

But Stirner was an exciting and original thinker, who has contributed to some of the most innovative traditions in thought, including existentialism, nihilism and anarchism. So it might be worth recording a few impressions of his principle text, and why I believe it to be relevant to paganism, to the impulses behind paganism, to my particular form of paganism.

Stirner’s basic argument is that the institutions, concepts and structures one takes for granted, as ‘fixtures’ in one’s life, so to speak, in all of our lives, are simply illusions; things like the state, ideology, organised religion, even society itself are all ghosts, to use his term, intended to circumscribe each individual’s freedom and understanding of freedom.

What he calls for, in essence, is the deconstruction of all artificiality, in a move towards the full understanding that we, as individuals, are the only reality. Once understood the only possible basis for action is egoism, the defence and advancement of one’s own interests at all hazards. It is in this new amorality that true freedom is to be found. In the end Stirner says that his book is a ladder that, once climbed, should be thrown away. The blindfold has been removed from your mind; you are free.

Do I write out of love to men? No, I write because I want to procure for my thoughts an existence in the world; and, even if I foresaw that these thoughts would deprive you of your rest and your peace, even if I saw the bloodiest wars and the fall of many generations springing up from this seed of thought — I would nevertheless scatter it. Do with it what you will and can, that is your affair and does not trouble me. You will perhaps have only trouble, combat, and death from it, very few will draw joy from it.
If your weal lay at my heart, I should act as the church did in withholding the Bible from the laity, or Christian governments, which make it a sacred duty for themselves to 'protect the common people from bad books'. But not only not for your sake, not even for truth's sake either do I speak out what I think. No —
I sing as the bird sings
That on the bough alights;
The song that from me springs
Is pay that well requites
I sing because — I am a singer. But I use you for it because I — need ears

Yes, it is a form of intellectual anarchism, nihilism, if you prefer; but that is the true path to self-liberation and self-fulfilment. It is also, in my reading, the path to self-empowerment. :-)