"Anarchy" = NWO infiltration
Submitted by wormwoodtwentytwelve on Thu, 07/09/2009 - 18:51
"Anarchy" seems to be the latest wedge that the NWO are using in an attempt to divide/conquer our movement, and it makes perfect sense, considering that they are the ones who made up this "ideal" in the first place.
The modern idea of a "New World Order" comes from Adam Weishaupt, the creator of the "Bavarian Illuminati".
Professor Weishaupt also preached that there would be "no organized government" (Anarchy) in his proto-Marxist utopia.
The Bavarian Illuminati was simply a tool of the same dark-ages forces of evil as always, and it was only ever created in order to infiltrate the era of enlightenment that had started with the Protestant Reformation, and led to the American Revolution.
Socialist-Anarchism vs Individualist-Anarchism
Under Socialist-Anarchism
---Anarcho-Communism
---Anarcho-Syndicalism
---Collectivist-Anarchism
American Individualist-Anarchism
---Anarcho-Capitalism
---Agorism
---Boston-Anarchists
European Individual-Anarchism
---Mutualism
---The French School ("free love" - "naturism" - etc)
All the I-A are very close philosophically, they differ only in "how" you get into a free-society and what to allow. In my view the most "open" is Anarcho-Capitalism because they "allow" for voluntary contracts to develop and for the basic right to develop property -- they also allow "unions" to form as long as they are non-aggressive and temporary.
"individual conscience and the pursuit of self-interest should not be constrained by any collective body or public authority and that the imposition of the system of democracy, of majority decision over the decision of the individual is held null and void." -- Benjamin R. Tucker
Octobox
Mises on Profit/Loss
Pray tell how
Pray tell how "Anarcho-Capitalism" would discourage an aggressive, non-temporary union?
Pray tell how it would not actually invite such a thing and make it comfortable!
Wormy: You're a funny-bunny (as my Mom would say)
......right before she'd lay waste to my faulty reasoning. Lucky for you I use it for oddness sake, hahaha.
First of all -- You can't have Anarcho-Capitalism without first transitioning through somekind of Minarchism (with a tinge of counter-economics to boot).
You need to meditate on such a transition and the effects it would have on people. I would argue RP's Minarchism needs to last for 20 - 40 years before we'd be able to move into a full Rothbardian Society or some other Free-Market-Anarchy.
Can you "imagine" what it'd be like to live in RP's Minarchism with only 7-12% taxation and ZERO Percent "hidden" taxes? I've spent hours and hours (100's of hours really) meditating on such a society -- building businesses watching them fail and starting all over. As an investor, owner, sub-contractor, and consumer.
Second of all -- You need to meditate on the effect such a Minarchism would have on the world. In RP's Minarchism all troops are brought home -- to defend our waters and our borders. This increases security by 1000% or more -- maybe even by as much as 10,000% (depending on how you guesstimate it).
Without Gov't Interventionism (under RP) countries would have to compete in U.S markets.
We'd pay off all our debts in record time -- so, countries would be happy on that front; from which they'd vamp up innovation since protectionism could no longer rule the day.
How would RP's Minarchism effect the educational system: toward liberty and individualism or toward dependency and corporatism? Obviously the former -- well if it took 20 - 40 years to transition toward Rothbardianism then that would be 1 or 2 generations of advanced entrepreneurial studies combined with high skilled labor certificaitons (as an educational base K-12).
As people are trained towards individualism they stop thinking in war-mongering collectivist fits as you seem to think they would; because, you have not fully meditated on the "effect" of RP's transitionary gov't. So, of course you will not understand how Anarcho-Capitalism will or would work.
Octobox
Mises on Profit/Loss
Troll is trolling...
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=199174
Oh yeah? I think that you're
Oh yeah?
I think that you're a POO-POO HEAD!
http://img16.imageshack.u...
http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/6523/anarchistflame.jpg
Gee, I guess that need to
Gee, I guess that you need to convene a private court/jury and try me on one count of "First Degree Flaming"...
You guys are totally polluting this movement, and I am simply doing what needs to be done to flush you out.
A socialist forces SACRIFICE
A socialist forces SACRIFICE ..A capitalist asks CONTRIBUTION.
*They have to do it LEGALLY
Good people make the difference, you-no
Thou shalt not steal, gov't hates the competition
There almost certainly is some infiltration by the NWO
of the anarachist movement, because there is NWO infiltration of everything.
I don't think we'll ever sort out whether the anarchist movement was a NWO plot from the start. I doubt it. Like all new movements, anarchism was a ferment of new ideas and strategies, some good, some bad.
I have sympathy for the goals of the anarchists, but anarchy is a utopian dream that can never be realized. Human nature will not allow it to happen.
The best we can ever hope for in the real world of real human beings is minarchy, and that is almost impossible to achieve and impossible to make permanent.
Original Anarchy....
Was a communist system, so how could they infiltrate it?
The system was run under communist thought.
Anarcho Capitalism has nothing to do with the communists besides borrowing a few ideas since they're the difference between night and day.
A "Minarchy" is far, far advisable to so called communist anarchy he talks about you see.
Wow -- This thread lacks fiber
Try to follow this one.
There are two major ideologies (one false and one truth) in the anarchist tradition which goes back to ancient Greece.
Individual Anarchism (google it)
Socialist Anarchism (google that too)
By definition from the greek root words Anarchism means (No Authority) -- since groupism is "force" or "authority" over other groups or individuals then Anarchism cannot be "socialist" -- it can only be an Individualist philosophy.
However, as long as a union or group formed voluntarily and did not seek legislative advantage over any individual or group then that form of collectivism can exist. In-the-short-run. Those are Ron Paul's words.
By Definition -- The NWO is Corporatism.
Slavery is 100% Taxation (direct and indirect)
Corporatism is 80-90% Taxation
RP's Minarchism is 7-12% Taxation
Anarchism is 0% Taxation
Taxation is non-voluntary (it is force)
RP's Minarchism asks for the elimination of IRS - FBI - CIA (all three letter departments) -- With no Federal Police; how do you "collect" taxes? Without threat of asset seizure or prison how do you do it?
RP's Minarchism is thus "voluntary" -- isn't it? How long would it take before it is just all privatized?
This thread shows a lack of understanding in regard to Ron Paul's strong affiliation with Lew Rockwell and the Mises Institute -- Who are Anarchist-Capitalists or "Anarcho-Capitalist" (for the most part).
It also shows a lack of reading/study in regard to Ron Paul's position papers, books, and videos.
Anarchism (is not) Chaos -- I will agree that if we went from Corporatism to Anarchism in one day there would be Chaos. That's why I support Ron Paul's Minarchist Transition.
RP's Minarchism is (in absolute terms) a "true" Constitutional Republic -- based on non-violence and non-theft and voluntarism.
Octobox
Mises on Profit/Loss
Besides the fact that
Besides the fact that "Anarchy" comes from Greek for "without-government", I am not finding any information about an ancient Greek school of thought which embraces this concept.
Perhaps you can point me to some source?
Also, you really do not seem to understand what I am saying about "Anarchism".
I am saying that the people who invented the ideal as far as I know (Weishaupt and his masters) were not sincerely interested in "0% taxation", and "freedom for all men".
I'm saying that the ideal of "Anarchy" is completely unrealistic, and that Weishaupt and his masters would have been quite aware of that.
My accusation is that Weishaupt and his masters were just injecting their own nonsense into the era of enlightenment which led to the American Revolution, so that Minarchy could be destroyed.
This is how the Illuminati infiltrated Freemasonry, and people like Thomas Jefferson.
They backed socialist anarchy...
We're talking the opposite.
Minarchy to lead straight to anarcho-capitalism again which is good.
There is where you got the two confused again.
My argument is that
My argument is that "Anarchist-Communism" and "Anarchist-Capitalism" are essentially the same shit, because they are both "Anarchist".
Anarchist-Capitalism would entail everyone assuming their own private property, which everyone is supposed to mutually respect, while Anarcho-Communism would entail everyone assuming that all property is public, with everyone mutually respecting that as well.
Both ideas make zero sense, because both ideas are "Anarchist".
The people in charge of the Bavarian Illuminati were completely aware of what nonsense this was when they made it up, and that is why they are still using it today.
Illuminati = Jesuits + Zionists + Knights of Malta
www.exposetheilluminati.com
Again...
You assume their version of communism is anarchy.
You're getting two definitions completely mixed up, that's why you're off.
They backed pure anarchy because they were nuts.
Those like Rockwell and Mises back "Capitalist Anarchy" which is a Minarchy that is moving backwards towards anarchy.
They aren't the same thing, one has established rules and precedents. The other doesn't have any. One is the venture of communists, the other is the venture of those like John Adams who knew the difference.
You don't know the difference.
Well Said SimpleSam -- Hear Hear
Octobox
Mises on Profit/Loss
If John Adams was really
If John Adams was really trying to create "Minarchy that is moving towards Anarchy", then I would guess that he was probably influenced by Adam Weishaupts nonsense as well.
Thomas Jefferson surely seems to have been.
In any event, let's not repeat the mistakes of some of the founding fathers.
I wonder
If the founders thought the Federalists where the NWO. I wonder if they called each other names, back bited and refused to work with one another.
Hamilton was NWO....
Hamilton was one of the first Globalist bankers in the world and he was since the beginning, part of the NWO.....He wanted central banking everywhere, that perfidious hoax.
I really despise what Hamilton stood for and certainly he and Rothschild were Jewish but there was also some terrible Globalist Dutch bankers and heirs to the throne which would later bring us Prince William. Prince William is a arrogant sickening globalist scum....
Well, from what I have read,
Well, from what I have read, the first Treasurer of the USA/proponent of central banking/father of the Federalist movement, Alexander Hamilton, had married into the ROTHSCHILD dynasty, so if that is true, then of course he was at least an agent of one of the most powerful Illuminati/NWO families on the whole planet.
While I do think that
While I do think that anarchism is divisive and damaging to the movement, and also question some of the motives(personal, not conspiratorial) of some of the anarchist missionaries here, I don't think the nwo has anything to do with it really. Anarchism is an old ideology, and im not surprised to hear that Weishaupt believed in it to a certain extent. The actions of the powers that be i.e. the nwo dont lead me to believe that they are taking much of his worldview to heart.
Ventura 2012
Dear Ignoramus,
It's a challenging subject and i'm glad that you take such great interest in it, but if you don't even know that there are different schools of thought or think that voluntaryism has anything to do with communism, then please don't voice your ignorant opinion in such a loud and obnoxious manner. Educate yourself first, before you try to lecture others.
Sure, there are different
Sure, there are different schools of thought, but the basic idea of "Anarchy" can be traced right back to Adam Weishaupt, as well as the Marxist variants of it.
Do you even understand what it is you are professing....
The Bavarians were dissolved decades ago.
The "Cult" as it's called today is a mafia known as Elder's Syndicate which employs all the various Globalist Bankers as member heads and corporate overlords.
The very idea of Weishaupt has basically died.
The Jesuits, Knights of Malta & Protestants have nothing to do with this for the most part and want no part of it.
There were certain jesuits, knights of malta, church leaders & protestants who follow the objective of one world government as well as jews.
They are virtually all part of the Elder's mob and they are virtually all of them Globalists. (And also Zionists to be quite honest...)
Their version of a "UTOPIA" is Stalin's communism unfurled everywhere mostly thanks to the influence of Israelis, satanists & doctors.
They are stark-raving MAD and have never been proponents of anarchy except total communist anarchy.
The type of minimized anarchy professed by Mises & others, is basically the states given back their powers, an orderly system of capitalism, under a clearly constitutional republic as John Adams declared.
They want NO PART of open anarchy in their "ideal" system, and in fact most of us have always fought against it. You assume too much, too fast.
Are you controlled by Adam Weishaupt?
When you kiss your loved one, do you actually mourn the absence of a compulsory government kissing system that tells you who, when, where and how to kiss?
Do you miss the bureaucrat who tells you when to purse your lips, and when to close your eyes? Or are Adam Weishaupt and Karl Marx controlling your lips, insisting that you plant a wet one on your loved one?
I'm a proponent of Minarchy,
I'm a proponent of Minarchy, not some insane totalitarian system that tells you when to kiss, and not some childish fantasy that says that you can cut someones throat, as long as its done within the jurisdiction of your own private court, or that of your friends.
The only time that I ever personally experienced anything even remotely like that in my life, was when I was taught to kiss a wooden statue of Jesus, as a young Catholic.
Is it any coincidence that root of the whole Illuminati/NWO goes right back to that Jesuit puppet Adam Weishaupt?
Illuminati = Jesuits + Zionists + Knights of Malta
www.exposetheilluminati.com
You're actually a proponent of doublethink
On the one hand you argue that the principle of self-determination is good when it comes to kissing, but a horrible detestable conspiracy when it comes to building roads, minting coins, or self-defense.
Watch it pal
No need to insult someone. Just because its hard for you to understand what he is discussing doesn't mean you should lash out in a fit of rage. Try using points to sway his opinion. Not insult what you do not understand.
I stand by you
Just as I did during the Zeitgeist wars. Anarchy=NWO infiltration. I can tell you speak the truth not by your actions but the actions of the NWO defenders on this thread. Welcome back and may we stop the NWO in their tracks. I can take great pride in calling you a fellow patriot. Let us defeat these NWO lovers in the same fashion as the Zeitgeist lovers.
I can't wait to see what they come up with next?
Hello. We did pretty much
Hello.
We did pretty much destroy the Zeitgeist infiltration, didn't we?
Let's see if we can do it again with "Anarchy".
I wonder what kind of punishment the paid trolls get when they fail?
I never thought about
What happens to a troll who fails.
I'm thinking pine cones and sandpaper. I don't know why?
Well, sometimes when they
Well, sometimes when they start to lose, they seem to get really really desperate, so I tend to wonder what their consequences will be.
It's interesting, I just wish I could know all the secrets of these people.
Thanks for the laugh. It is
Thanks for the laugh. It is a amusing to see even those claiming to be in favor of liberty unable to overcome thier media programing fully.
There is only one law: “we must not infringe upon the rights to life, liberty, or property of another .” If we do, whomever we have injured can file a witnessed, sworn complaint convene an assembly or grand jury of fellow sovereigns who will decide whether that claim against us is legitimate and deal with us accordingly.
-----
End The Fat
59 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!
Get Prepared!
-----
End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!
Get Prepared!
Five weeks?
That says it all.
I've been here since 09/07,
I've been here since 09/07, as "Social Engineer", but I was kicked off for being too rude to the Zeitgeist Addendum trolls.
And even if I was 5 weeks new here, how would that make anything that I am saying any less true?
2bfree seems to forget that
2bfree seems to forget that all of us were new to the DP at one time in our history here on the site. Now, that being said, there are those who are new who target one specific topic and a couple of my threads have been targeted and the new person only commented on those threads without ever commenting on any other on the DP, that is a sign of a direct attempt to disrupt inquiry into a subject. Usually however, it quickly becomes apparent that such people are here for one thing and one thing only.
http://www.1776solution.blogspot.com
“There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.”-Adams
http://www.1776solution.blogspot.com
“MEN DO NOT WILLINGLY READ UNPALATABLE TRUTHS OF THEMSELVES. THE PEOPLE LIKE THOSE BEST WHO FOOL THEM MOST BY PANDERING TO THEIR VICES AND FLATTERING THEIR FOIBLES”—ADMIRAL RAPHAEL SEMMES.
Weishaupt...
Weishaupt and Hamilton were the original Zionist morons who proclaimed the idea of a "big government monopoly" being more important, than a small government's republic.
Which the republic still stands the test of time, our constitutional republic never went away. They just tried to ignore it, and these fools as well as the Israelis, have really no place to speak of what a republic is and isn't anyway.
I'll tell you what it isn't...
A republic ISN'T a corporation, and it's NOT a democracy!
A republic is NOT the center of Banking & Commerce, we did not create a country based on Central Banking & Government as everyone was well aware that model of stupidity would lead to crime & chaos....
A Republic is a sovereign nation of states.
As I see it
the argument against "anarchy" is not necessarily with the theory, as much as it is with the practice.
Because if you do as they say, and let the market decide the political structure, the market will select a state.
That is what the people want. Maybe some anarchists don't want that, and maybe I don't even want that. But that is what the majority of the people in this world want.
And since the market will dictate, a state is what will result.
Abolish the state, and another state will take its place.
And if the "anarchists" oppose, then they are opposing the action of the free market to choose what the market wants.
So of course you end up with
So of course you end up with "the tyranny of the masses"...which of course is what is most easily guided by the will of the elite...which, in a roundabout way, is why the elite invented the whole idea to begin with...
Wrong.
The majority of people in my town and district didn't vote. The majority didn't want any rulers. Not that it matters anyway, because no majority has the 'right' to steal from even a single person.
Keep trying though.
Unfortunately,
your town has nothing to do with the discussion. When your town secedes, and can successfully defend, then that's another matter.
And the majority has the "right" to do anything it can back up. Except of course, under a Constitutional Republic which has rule of law to protect the minority from mob rule.
Just because you make up what a "right" is, which has no validity other than in your own mind, doesn't mean a hill of beans in the real world.
The only thing safeguarding your "rights" is whether you can defend them.
Very appropriate comment for
Very appropriate comment for a World where tyrannical Gov'ts rule..
*They have to do it LEGALLY
Good people make the difference, you-no
Thou shalt not steal, gov't hates the competition
I'm done with you for tonight
Reread what you posted, would you? Which way is it? Does the majority rule? No? Then does the minority rule? No? So exactly who rules then?
The system we're living under was never designed to give you a voice, only the illusion of one.
That would be your twisted view.
One which I laugh at.
It's not my problem if you don't even understand basic political systems and what the Rule of Law in a Constitutional Republic is.
Perhaps that's also why you have no clue what anarchy is either, or much of a clue about anything else, as far as I can read in your silly postings..
LOL
Understand basic political systems? Do you understand that you are a slave? Do you understand that you have priviliges, not rights? Do you understand that if a system can steal your labor by force, every other right you think you have is simply an illusion.
Troll.
Yes, I understand
that corruption has taken place and things have been changed from the original intents, which specifically outlawed direct taxation on incomes.
That's why I would fight to return to the original Constitutional system.
I wouldn't lift a finger for anarchy.
LOL
If you fight for a constitutional form of blubberment, you will always be a slave with a master and the best part.... you're fighting for your own enslavement.
You claim to know so much about the system, then show me where it defined taxation in the constitution. They left it undefined for a reason, not only did they leave it undefined... Original intent? Taxation was the first thing they laid out.
Yeah, your living in freedom alright.
You don't have to lift a finger, because you live in anarchy now:)
I mean come on, take a look at the news. Corrupt politicians, rogue police... who stops these people? Nobody. The only difference is it's 50% doing what ever the h@ll they want, and the rest of us are under they're control.
Right, and what do you
Right, and what do you suppose you will have under anarchy? Are you so naïve as to actually believe that anarchy will prevent the strong from preying on the weak, that there will not arise "masters" and "slaves" under anarchy? Take a look at what happened when any type of social order or even political order is destroyed.
As far as the Constitution giving a definition of taxation and the manner of taxation you are incorrect, it does give a very precise definition, if you would take the time to read it. The fact is that the Constitution states that No Capitation or other direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census enumeration, in other words it must be apportioned. All indirect taxes were to be government by the uniformity clause, thus imposts, duties and excises. In the Constitutional Convention there was much debate on direct taxation and the strict limitation of such taxation in very limited circumstances, it was for that reason that the Founders placed far more stringent rules on direct taxation then they did on indirect taxation. It is also very evident in The Federalist Papers exactly what was meant in the Constitution, so I am not sure why you cannot find the definition of taxation in the Constitution because it is there. Of course, supposedly the 16th Amendment changed all that, but there are definite legal questions regarding the exact meaning of that amendment and even the Courts have taken the interpretation of that amendment to task on several occasions in decisions regarding income tax, at least in the past.
http://www.1776solution.blogspot.com
“There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.”-Adams
http://www.1776solution.blogspot.com
“MEN DO NOT WILLINGLY READ UNPALATABLE TRUTHS OF THEMSELVES. THE PEOPLE LIKE THOSE BEST WHO FOOL THEM MOST BY PANDERING TO THEIR VICES AND FLATTERING THEIR FOIBLES”—ADMIRAL RAPHAEL SEMMES.
History is very confusing
History is very confusing for Rohtbardian Anarchists. After all, everything can be deduced a priori and doesnt require any evidence whatsoever.
Ventura 2012
Alas,
We are not living under the federalist papers are we?
Article 1 Section 9, states...No Caption or other direct, Tax shall be laid, "unless" in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
What are you not getting here? They are simply saying, you have to divy up the taxation! It has to be equal! They need a head count, so they get every last nickel from the slaves.
What do you mean the founders placed more stringent rules on direct taxation than they did on indirect taxation! Are you hearing yourself?
TAXATION IS A FORCE!!! IT'S THE FACT THAT THEY PUT IT IN THERE!! IN A FREE SYSTEM YOU HAVE A CHOICE.
It doesn't matter what admendments they put in there! They're intent was to tax you. Taxation is a FORCE.
They didn't give you a choice!
At least in anarchy, I could shoot the bastards who tried to steal from me.
Because it wouldn't be brainwashed to the masses that thievery is socially acceptable.
What makes you think we don't live in anarchy now? Look at the news. Look at the rogue police, corrupt politicians, ect.. We have it now, the only difference is they are free and we are not, because we are taught to abide by they're laws, they create to control us. Do you really think they abide by the laws? Get real.
What choice do we have now? accept in your face communism, or fight an army? Swat teams, police with tanks?
And your worried about anarchy?