Alexander the Great once climbed to the top of a mountain to survey his kingdom. Standing on the peak of the mountain, he realized that his kingdom extended in every direction, as far as the eye could see. When he realized this, he broke down in tears.
“He wept with sorrow,” Plutarch said, “Because there were no more worlds to conquer.”
We are a generation without warriors.
Until the second half of the twentieth century, life for the majority of people – even in the Western world – was a battle. It was a war fought daily against the very real threat of poverty, starvation, disease, famine, plague, and war. It was a matter of survival.
Personally? I think we should have small independent groups, similar to tribes. Each would be a Anarcho-syndicate. One large "governed" area, which would produce armament and equipment. We should KILL each other, no rules but "No Nukes"
My political beliefs put me within the realm of agorism and anarchism without adjectives. I think any kind of economic organization could work under the right circumstances, and that the most important thing is an opposition to the state. However, I feel that the term "anarchism" is misleading to a lot of people and has negative connotations that inhibit clarity. I prefer the terms "emergentist" adn "anti-statist" and "polycentrist". What do you guys think?
For a better understanding of my thoughts, see fringeelements.ning.com.
