What Cult Is Operating Here on ConCen?

[hilly7]

Like the monkeys there pizaman777. It may well be needed at times.

[SerialExpLain]

Anarchy is dangerous Nicholas688. It is totally what Synarchy would be grooming an army of anarchists for. How else could they scale down the world to their PLANNED "minimal regret population".

Now rethink everthing from that context. I'm sayin read everything I've posted for the last 3-6 months.

That is why I focus on these two links because it is in keeping with everything else.

[Nyte]

synarchy isnt anarchism

ANARCHIST ARMY? BAHAHA


You clearly dont know what anarchism is.

The only "army" type stuff is the black bloc and that just protesting...if needed rioting

There not part of some freemason satanist depopulation program.You have no proof

The state brings the plans,not people who want to smash the state

Quote:Anarchy is dangerous Nicholas688. It is totally what Synarchy would be grooming an army of anarchists for. How else could they scale down the world to their PLANNED "minimal regret population".

Liberation of all living things is not dangerous,capitalism and profiting off destroying the earth is

Well lets think...Maybe a virus? Nukes? why the hell would they use an anarchist army lol

[SerialExpLain]

Excuse me Nyte....

How can anybody read "global" news and researching the horrific man-made blatant sabotage-style occurences of late not realize what ANARCHISM IS. Do you not even realize what is going on world-wide?

If you did you would SO STFU!!


Oh Nyte, the stated WOGSS #11 stated GRADUAL depopulation... or do you have a problem reading the links that launched the thread. Worry less about me and THINK MORE!!

The link is specific as to who they are: Anarcho-Gnostic is the first descriptor at the WOGSS link.

* * *

Oh, here is a beautiful piece of CULTY AD NAUSEUM.

Notice how they love to focus on the earth's core. Now, we've seen that act before think Mr. Essene Braydon...

See, the culty mofos are all excited about Antarctic earthquakes and the core stopping ROTATION -- THEY'RE SO F*UP!!!!!!!!!

SOLID CULTY CRAP HERE...

http://thebeloveddisciple.org/motherearth.html

[SerialExpLain]

CULTS "DO" ANTARCTICA::barf: :barf::barf::barf:

http://thebeloveddisciple.org/weddellsea.html

[triplesix]

I apologize to anyone seriously fascinated in the crazy Jesus vs. Anarchy debate going on but allow the opportunity for rebuttal.

Quote:Clearly you don't understand the root meaning of the word Anarchy, so here is a quick lesson.

Lets start with the dictionary.


an·ar·chy /ˈænərki/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[an-er-kee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a state of society without government or law.
2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.
3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.
4. confusion; chaos; disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith.

[Origin: 1530–40; (< MF anarchie or ML anarchia) < Gk, anarchía lawlessness, lit., lack of a leader, equiv. to ánarch(os) leaderless (an- an-1 + arch(ós) leader + -os adj. suffix) + -ia -y3]

I always love a lesson in semantics. Very well. Since I was describing anarchy from its primary definition, rather than a political theory as in it's 3rd definition, I'll have to adjust my criticism.

Quote:

Quote:As long as some semblance of organization exists anarchy dissolves.

This comment is so fucking wrong you deserve a smack for it. :smile:

Okay, this comment is more applicable to the first definition. Nevertheless, I don't find the fallacy in this statement. A struggle for dominance between varying warlords is not a "cooperative and voluntary association" and therefore as soon as some organization exists with the intention of usurping power from the collective, anarchy as a cooperative "government" would be replaced with war and chaos.

Quote:Clearly you only think of the word anarchy in the worst possible terms already, leaving it unseparated from violence and terror and destruction.

I would have to say I do not have a romanticized vision of anarchy. No doubt that humanity is capable of coexisting in relative peace. This is seen in communities throughout the world that have little if any crime as well as virtually nonexistent law enforcement. Personally I'd call this theory of cooperation utopian rather than anarchistic, but again, I don't get to choose these things.

The idea of a society existing for any extended amount of time without an established orthodoxy for law and punishment is a childish one. Antipathetic members of society exist, as well as those determined to accumulate wealth, prestige and influence. As long as these mentalities exist a society cannot survive on its own, rather, of its own accord, without some form of government.

You may think I have only the worst ideas of anarchy, but I think it is you who has the worst ideas of law and government. I believe the answer is government, in fact I believe the answer is very close to the American model of government. That is the separation of powers. I believe if this were done "horizontally" (judicial/executive/legislative) as well as "vertically" (local/state/federal) as was originally intended then society would be just fine. The difference is where the final say is derived from. I think the local jurisdiction should be the most powerful, allowing communities to define themselves as they see fit. State laws would be limited to those local jurisdictions agree unanimously about, and federal laws finally would be only those unanimously condemned by all states. This would leave murder/rape/robbery etc to the federal jurisdiction and rendering all other misdemeanors to their respective local jurisdictions. I think this is the most rational form of government with power divided many thousand times over.

Quote:Do you think its an accident that a word for the which the root is "With out a Leader" has been equated to also mean the total lack of organized society and general human kindness in exchange for wanton oppression and brutality?

Again I think this is seeing conspiracy where there is none. I believe the term anarchy was most often associated with the modern idea of a failed state for far longer than it has been esteemed as a viable theory of political organization. Not that anarchists and their proponents haven't existed for hundreds if not thousands of years. Nevertheless, most associate anarchy with the idea that there is no one watching to condemn immorality. Riots, toppled governments, disasters, frontier land etc. are associated with anarchy. This is where the connotation is derived from.

Quote:Now lets look at the nation and city states led by leaders over history to observe what they have done shall we?

Hmmmmmmmm :laugh:

Seriously now.

Fair enough. On that note, direct me to a successful anarchy?

Quote:The truth is that anarchy always exists at all times.

At any time, a person can decide to break one of the silly little laws made up by humans, rendering it totally ineffectual until such as time as a representative of "the leader" in our case the uniformed officer of the all powerful state, to arrive and subdue or remove the offender by force.

The "law" does nothing to protect the victim in that moment. Everyone breaks the law all the time whenever they feel like it as long as no one who can enforce it is looking.

Ever drive on a highway? Around here you have to speed just to keep up with the flow of traffic... :laugh: unless there is a cop on the road.

Its a joke. The belief in laws and the security offered by the state are for the most part completely illusionary, and

Let me break up these ideas here. This has to do with frame of reference. Of course everyone is able to break laws at their own discretion. This does not mean that in a broader frame of reference these laws are not operating and have a general effect on the way society operates.

Take a straight highway for example. If there was no posted speed limit on the highway (and no implied speed limit for that area) people would drive whatever speed they felt comfortable with on that stretch. Often times probably very fast and perhaps in excess of 120-150 MPH or more depending on the vehicle.

Now take that same highway and apply a speed limit of 80 MPH. Chances are traffic will drive somewhere in the 75-100 MPH range. Drop it to 60 and you'll see speeds of 55-80. While the individual may like to believe they are experiencing anarchy when they violate the posting, the overall effect is demonstrable on society.

In this way anarchy doesn't just manifest itself with law breaking. I suppose it can in a figurative sense, but in a broader frame of reference the illusion isn't sustainable. There is a high likelihood of transgressions against a law like speeding because there is not much moral weight hinging on the decision.

Now consider murder. Imagine the murder rate if murder were no longer outlawed. Or if the penalty for murder was three months in jail instead of thirty years. I am sure there would be a significant spike in jealousy and revenge-based killings where the law, and not morality, is the major deterrent.

Quote:the idea that people would not look out for and help each other without an all powerful state to make sure that we do, is not only absurd, its insulting, and it flies in the face of all my real world experiences.

Of course people will look out for and care for one another. Just not in 100% of the cases. How a society with nothing to provide credibility to those attempting to right wrongs and provide justice, nor a standardized method for determining justice from violence, could possibly exist is beyond me.

I'm fascinated in how anarchists rationalize the practical application of lawlessness where society is still provided with an adequate distribution of equality, justice and safety.

[nataraja]

ok

i think some of you are either:

1) full of shit
2) completely delusional

its one way or the other, thats how simple it is.

if anything its mindly amusing, thanks

interesting... not realy... borderline pathetic... ya...

[horseonwheels]

Quote:The idea of a society existing for any extended amount of time without an established orthodoxy for law and punishment is a childish one. Antipathetic members of society exist, as well as those determined to accumulate wealth, prestige and influence. As long as these mentalities exist a society cannot survive on its own, rather, of its own accord, without some form of government.

this argument would make sense if it wasnt for the fact that it is people who are ignited by consumerism and determened to gain presitige, influence and power who opt for a place in a government and make laws to their beneifit in the first place. If it was sure that these mentalities that the broader mass as, you correctly state, needs protection from did not get a chance of governing, yes i agree with you. However, the oposire are the case and the mass who need protection are now in the hands of those they needed to be protected against.

makes even less sense than anarchy to me, to be honest.

We have in effect the worst of 2 worlds. tyrranical governments and this is getting worse, AND we have chaos and disorder in the streets. I think i will rather just take my chances on my own then, and not have to pay for my own suppression by people who are without ethics, and whom i absolutely loathe.

Politics always has, still is, and always will be about getting your greasy fingers as close to, or preferbly IN the statefinances. Thats it. Reboot the system over, and make it the 'aemircan model' you talk about, and the instant that people trusted with positions of influence realise that they now have direct access to the honey pot. From that point on, thats is what all politics will be about, and the single motivation of anyone near it. Fuck that to be honest!

Quote:You may think I have only the worst ideas of anarchy, but I think it is you who has the worst ideas of law and government. I believe the answer is government, in fact I believe the answer is very close to the American model of government. That is the separation of powers. I believe if this were done "horizontally" (judicial/executive/legislative) as well as "vertically" (local/state/federal) as was originally intended then society would be just fine.

right, so by the desciption of this, now you live in Denmark. Welcome mate, and things are NOT fine, and they are getting worse as we speak. It is called a social democracy and of all democratic models it is said to be the better. Dont you belive it.

[horseonwheels]

oh and btw... http://www.christiania.dk has been working as a CONSENSUS democracy for 36 years. The biggest problem they have is with the democracy outside their walls, not internally. Consensus democracy is closely alligned with what people refer to as anarchy. There are no decisions being made unless there is a consensus, noone has the right to just 'run with the ball' nomatter how wonderfull the idea might be, if the consensus is not present. 75% in favour of ,is not consensus. 100% is a consensus, so things take more time, but that has if anything often saved them from being destroyed by hasty or hotheaded here and now solutions.

[standvast]

Found this [external] torrent containing loads of Anarchy related files including ;

Quote:Size 81.76 MB
Category Ebooks / Politics
Date added 2006-11-14
Description "I am a passionate seeker after truth (and no less embittered enemy of evil doing fictions) which the party of order, this official, privileged and interested representative of all the past and present religions, metaphysical, political, juridical and "social" atrociousness claim to employ even today only to make the world stupid and enslave it, I am a fanatical lover of truth and freedom which I consider the only surroundings in which intelligence, consciousness and happiness develop and increase " - Mikhail Bakunin (1814-1876), "Where i stand"


A collection of many anarchist writer:

# Aldous Huxley
# Emma Goldman
# Errico Malatesta
# George Orwell
# Max Stirner
# Mikhail Bakunin
# Murray Bookchin
# Noam Chomsky
# Peter Kropotkin
# Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
# Silvio Gesell
# William Godwin
# Karl Diehl

"We be many and they be few They need us more than we need them ” - Arundhati Roy

Also contains ;



you can find the torrent here ;

http://www.torrentvalley.com/download_to...81403.html

[Shinobi]

make a poll:

::Should Admins & Mods Be Banned Too ?::

p.s some of them are really rude & mouthy.

lol

[nataraja]

Quote:I accept your apology you pm'd to me about the "joke" about "black jews". I didnt need an apology - was just highlighting something really dumb you thought were funny.

this 1) 2) thing - that's how simple it is - man, that's crap. I think you trolling this thread is borderline pathetic if anything is. People are free to debate whatever the hell they want without fuckwad pretentious comments about whether you find it mildly amusing or not.

If you looked you'd find that large parts of the zulu nation in your homeland during apartheid were consciously adopting anarcho principles for community organisation in the townships. so basically,no offence young man, but get to fuck...ya read more books or something..ya

peace

you just had to tell everyone that i said sorry for making a black joke didnt you ?

well i can see that there is a strict policy against humour here, enforced by nikolaas688

ok im sorry again for attemping to make a humouress post on such a serious topic as this...

it wont happen again sir...

hahaha

insult my intelligence and say i must read more books and told me too fuck off, i can accept that.

but im no troll.

[resonate]

It seems like people are getting destruction mixed up with Anarchy. Anarchy is an individual empathetic response that comes out of disaster (but not exclusive to). Let's take Katrina for eg... I'm sure alot of anarchist acts came out of that. For instance, I'm sure there were multitudes of situations where people joined together to help each other get through, where everyone benefited from it.

Did they need authority to do that? No.
Did there need to be a law made before people could help each other? No.
Did they need the armed guards there before someone could help another? Nope.

Now, all the bad stuff that happened there... the people that commited those bad acts are the ones that are the most devoted to the system because they did what comes out of fear, which is what the system creates when we give it our liberty. Our system teaches reaction, not empathy. That's another reason why I think anarchism is a spiritual liberation... it's those people that did the good deeds that banded together to help, that were able to see themselves in others, or connection.... those are the true anarchists.


Se, I'm not sure who you think is in a cult here, but I am getting the impression that you are including me in your drama. Just so you know, I live in a trailer in the middle of the mountains with my partner and our two cats... I'm not an "agent" (whatever that means to you). We work very seldom for wages, because we don't need too... not because I'm in a cult. We do some gardening, all kinds of arts and crafts, not because I'm a Worg, just because I think life is all about expression, and freedom to do what you want to do, while having fun doing it. I respect others... at no time did I ever call you a name, or label you as something, nor have I done that to anyone else on this site. I just love nature and see truth in it. I just want to share that with people because I think it is the answer... self-sufficiency comes out of that.

I'm sure if we just kept it real, which I'm going to try and do from now on.. we would soon find out that all of us on this site want the same things.

So, be careful that your not accusing people of something, when you've never even met them.

[triplesix]

Quote:first off, it ain't jesus v's anarchy..it wa anarchists are satanic cultists.

When I say Jesus I mean SerialExpLain.

Quote:but gee no offence like but man, sounds like you've got some cops or lawyers or something in your family considering the tired horse of government neccessity your leading around. Can you show me where these adequate distributions of equality, justice and safety you speak of exist please. Any place you care to mention will undoubtedly be securing them at the expense of others. not mutual aid.

This is a really irritating argument that pops up during any discussion on government. Try to talk the virtues of any political idea, communism, socialism, etc. and your debaters will demand to see a real world example that proves your assertion. I was talking about anarchy, now you're trying to talk about my ideas for government. You're turning this argument around against me.

I have "the tired horse" of government necessity because I don't have a romanticized idea of a world without government. No society has ever existed without the consistent human vices: drug abuse, gambling, prostitution, rape, anger, violence, etc. These issues have been consistent with society from the beginning. Pretending these fundamental human problems would be alleviated by the way the society is organized is a pipe dream. Over time these issues will manifest themselves and if the society has no method in place for dealing with these issues, the problems will only multiply. As these issues continue, victims will begin to ask for justice, perpetrators will begin to ask for equality, and if none of these needs are met by the society, they will begin to solve these issues for themselves.

I do not see how these fundamental human properties can be ignored. Because they exist, anarchy cannot exist. Mob rule, warring warlords, kingpins, etc., democracy, or some other defined concept of government will manifest itself to deal with these issues.

Quote:And for the nth time - anarchic assembly does not mean lawlessness it means mutual aid. in case you missed it - mutual aid.All your arguments are the obvious rhetoric.

I'm sorry but I believe mutual aid is called communism. How is anarchy different from communism if lawlessness is not a requisite?

Quote:If you want plain clear and simple answers to all your points then try reading "at the cafe" by errico malatesta..it's a bit dated as it was in the 20's and he were talking about the dangers of coming fascism and total communism - not many other people were then ..it was written for you and your perspective of what anarchy is.

much peace

edit} I am not an anarchist but it's obvious there's a gap in knowledge about it that should be addressed. fuck the kibbutz' tho cos thats just free labour disguised as anarchy

I don't mean to be arrogant, but I have a lot of books on my "to be read" list, and I don't have enough of a fascination with the concept to pursue classical texts on the subject. At least at the present. If someone could present to me a concise and pithy argument for anarchy, I might be interested in learning more about it. I'll admit my "knowledge" is lacking in the realm of anarchy, but it is a cause of my experience with anarchists as mostly intellectually young, noncritical, anti-establishment punks.

I, personally, see government as an intensely complicated subject. There will be no utopia, peace on earth, equitable distribution of goods, without a serious and thoughtfully executed declaration of rights and fair, transparent, limited policing of the population. History has proven this; it cannot be denied. But I'm still interested in anything you have to say. So long as it isn't dismissive or passive aggressive, but a serious exchange of ideas between equals who respect one another for their opinions and differences.

Peace.

Edit: Don't think I have some obsession with control, law and order. I hate da po-lice, but that's only in their modern incarnation. I see the necessity in their role.

[Shinobi]

I find its always a select million or so people in the world that want to always demonize something ..

you cant demonize anarchy it will backfire in your face lol
and I tell you why.. because many people are from that select million
trying to demonize it here...
why? because they dont understand what it really means
or what it is truley about ...

thanks btw deathstickboy.. I should have quoted your post back there
finely put down bro.

Humans way of dealing with something they dont understand or like eh ..
same ol same ol... lets just demonize it.