'Frakkin FBI Pig' anarchist Branden Darby tried to bomb 9/11 Truth bookstore by piratenews

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

How similar is this to Dr Hasan at Ft Hood?

And Operation Northwoods?

And FBI paying Emad Salem $1-million, giving him the bomb to bomb WTC in 93, then giving him immunity for 6 murders as the prosecution's "star witness"...

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 16, 2009 4:13 PM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

And he's not the only one in Austin. But I can't say more; it would be telling.

It's all about the shoes. For some damn reason, the feds ALWAYS forget about the shoes.

And too many of them, it seems, hang around MonkeyWrench Books here in Austin, like Brandon Darby.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 16, 2009 11:36 PM

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

We don't have any local hangouts, though I wonder how local coffee houses survive and thrive without divine police intervention. Our local coffee importers have a history of cocaine convictions, sheriff convictions, and judicial re-elections.

Every crook in town tries to get immunity as a police informant. CIA alone has 60,000 operatives in USA, especially on college campus. One guy followed me from job to job, after I was an FBI/local informant against a DEA/CIA hitman, that got a bullet hole in my car after I was on TV discussing the murder trial. My "friend" graduated from American University in DC, a notorious CIA front. Said his parents ran a 40-acre pot farm (only crop was pot), and his best friend was son of the local crack kingpin (a conservative state legislator convicted of fatal hit-and-run). Last time I spoke with him was the night my penthouse was nearly torched by towering inferno "accidentally" set by a govt contractor, while I was known to be out of town watching home videos dodging tracers in Nam at a fighter pilot colonel's house. Surreal driving home hearing the police scanner say my house was on fire, then seeing the 40-foot flames and running in the building, like Apocalypse Now.

The Darby case is one more reason I dont trust anybody, especially when a stranger phones wanting to talk for hours about "legal matters". I tell em to get a lawyer, or buy law books (which they never seem to do). Then they get arrested and want me to drive their car, when I have no idea what's in it.

Last time I was in court the judge ordered the prosecutor to "investigate" me for potential arrest, pending for the next 10 months, or years. Id call that a red flag.

Our local "patriot" meetings seem to have a high number of confessed "cops", some actually wearing a badge (with an office literally 3-feet from the US prosecutor's office door, last person he "helped" was gunned down by cops in home invasion, another was on NBC TV's "Captured"). Another cop was a speaker at a meeting, who demanded a "petition" sheet for the Constitution Party, then ADL/SPLC wrote a report calling all CP voters "domestic terrorists". My name was on that petition. Another "Ron Paul" speaker quit his radio career and went into hiding, after being IDed as having 35 Nazi generals in his family tree, and after testifying in the IRS trial that convicted Ed and Dr Brown as "domestic terrorists", who were arrested by undercover "militia".

So I'm an army of one. Sucker for none.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 17, 2009 12:12 PM

OUT2THEBLACK

Quote:
Originally posted by piratenews:
'...Last time I was in court the judge ordered the prosecutor to "investigate" me for potential arrest, pending for the next 10 months, or years. Id call that a red flag.

Our local "patriot" meetings seem to have a high number of confessed "cops", some actually wearing a badge (with an office literally 3-feet from the US prosecutor's office door, last person he "helped" was gunned down by cops in home invasion, another was on NBC TV's "Captured"). Another cop was a speaker at a meeting, who demanded a "petition" sheet for the Constitution Party, then ADL/SPLC wrote a report calling all CP voters "domestic terrorists". My name was on that petition. Another "Ron Paul" speaker quit his radio career and went into hiding, after being IDed as having 35 Nazi generals in his family tree, and after testifying in the IRS trial that convicted Ed and Dr Brown as "domestic terrorists", who were arrested by undercover "militia".

So I'm an army of one. Sucker for none.'

Picked this up , figured it encompasses your outlook , just collatin' data , as they say :

'...In the hope that, somehow, America can still produce the brave sons and
daughters necessary to fight off ever increasing persecution and oppression,
this essay is offered. Frankly, it is too close to call at this point. Those
who love liberty, and believe in freedom enough to fight for it are rare
today, but within the bosom of every once great nation, there remains
secreted, the pearls of former greatness. They are there. I have looked into
their sparking eyes; sharing a brief moment in time with them as I passed
through this life. Relished their friendship, endured their pain, and they
mine. We are a band of brothers, native to the soil gaining strength one
from another as we have rushed head long into a battle that all the weaker,
timid men, say we can not win. Perhaps...but then again, perhaps we can.
It's not over till the last freedom fighter is buried or imprisoned, or the
same happens to those who would destroy their freedom.

Barring any cataclysmic events, the struggle will yet go on for years. The
passage of time will make it clear to even the more slow among us that the
government is the foremost threat to the life, and liberty of the folk. The
government will no doubt make today's oppressiveness look like grade school
work compared to what they have planned in the future. Meanwhile, there are
those of us who continue to hope that somehow the few can do what the many
have not. We are cognizant that before things get better they will certainly
get worse as government shows a willingness to use ever more severe police
state measures against dissidents. This changing situation makes it clear
that those who oppose state repression must be prepared to alter, adapt, and
modify their behavior, strategy, and tactics as circumstances warrant.
Failure to consider new methods and implement them as necessary will make
the government's efforts at suppression uncomplicated. It is the duty of
every patriot to make the tyrant's life miserable. When one fails to do so
he not only fails himself, but his people.

As honest men who have banded together into groups or associations of a
political or religious nature are falsely labeled "domestic terrorists" or
"cultists" and suppressed, it will become necessary to consider other
methods of organization- -or as the case may very well call for:
non-organization. One should keep in mind that it is not in the government's
interest to eliminate all groups. Some few must remain in order to
perpetuate the smoke and mirrors vision for the masses that America is a
"free democratic country" where dissent is allowed. Most organizations,
however, that possess the potential for effective resistance will not be
allowed to continue. Anyone who is so naive as to believe the most powerful
government on earth will not crush any who pose a real threat to that power,
should not be active, but rather, at home studying political history.

The question as to who is to be left alone and who is not, will be answered
by how groups and individuals deal with several factors such as: avoidance
of conspiracy plots, rejection of feeble minded malcontents, insistence upon
quality of the participants, avoidance of all contact with the front men for
the federals--the news media--and, finally, camouflage (which can be defined
as the ability to blend in the public's eye the more committed groups of
resistance with mainstream "kosher" associations that are generally seen as
harmless.) Primarily though, whether any organization is allowed to continue
in the future will be a matter of how big a threat a group represents. Not a
threat in terms of armed might or political ability, for there is none of
either for the present, but rather, threat in terms of potentiality. It is
potential the federals fear most. Whether that potential exists in an
individual or group is incidental. The federals measure potential threat in
terms of what might happen given a situation conducive to action on the part
of a restive organization or individual. Accurate intelligence gathering
allows them to assess the potential. Showing one's hand before the bets are
made, is a sure way to lose.

The movement for freedom is rapidly approaching the point where for many
people, the option of belonging to a group will be nonexistent. For others,
group membership will be a viable option for only the immediate future.
Eventually, and perhaps much sooner than most believe possible, the price
paid for membership will exceed any perceived benefit. But for now, some of
the groups that do exist often serve a useful purpose either for the
newcomer who can be indoctrinated into the ideology of the struggle, or for
generating positive propaganda to reach potential freedom fighters. It is
sure that, for the most part, this struggle is rapidly becoming a matter of
individual action, each of its participants making a private decision in the
quietness of his heart to resist: to resist by any means necessary. It is
hard to know what others will do, for no man truly knows another man's
heart. It is enough to know what one himself will do. A great teacher once
said "know thyself." Few men really do, but let each of us, promise
ourselves, not to go quietly to the fate our would-be masters have planned.

The concept of Leaderless Resistance is nothing less than a fundamental
departure in theories of organization. The orthodox scheme of organization
is diagrammatically represented by the pyramid, with the mass at the bottom
and the leader at the top. This fundamental of organization is to be seen
not only in armies, which are of course, the best illustration of the
pyramid structure, with the mass of soldiery, the privates, at the bottom
responsible to corporals who are in turn responsible to sergeants, and so on
up the entire chain of command to the generals at the top. But the same
structure is seen in corporations, ladies' garden clubs and in our political
system itself. This orthodox "pyramid" scheme of organization is to be seen
basically in all existing political, social and religious structures in the
world today from the Federal government to the Roman Catholic Church. The
Constitution of the United States, in the wisdom of the Founders, tried to
sublimate the essential dictatorial nature of pyramidal organization by
dividing authority into three: executive, legislative and judicial. But the
pyramid remains essentially untouched.

This scheme of organization, the pyramid, is however, not only useless, but
extremely dangerous for the participants when it is utilized in a resistance
movement against state tyranny. Especially is this so in technologically
advanced societies where electronic surveillance can often penetrate the
structure revealing its chain of command. Experience has revealed over and
over again that anti-state, political organizations utilizing this method of
command and control are easy prey for government infiltration, entrapment,
and destruction of the personnel involved. This has been seen repeatedly in
the United States where pro-government infiltrators or agent provocateurs
weasel their way into patriotic groups and destroy them from within.

In the pyramid type of organization, an infiltrator can destroy anything
which is beneath his level of infiltration and often those above him as
well. If the traitor has infiltrated at the top, then the entire
organization from the top down is compromised and may be traduced at will.

An alternative to the pyramid type of organization is the cell system. In
the past, many political groups (both right and left) have used the cell
system to further their objectives. Two examples will suffice. During the
American Revolution "committees of correspondence" were formed throughout
the Thirteen colonies.

Their purpose was to subvert the government and thereby aid the cause of
independence. The "Sons of Liberty", who made a name for themselves dumping
government taxed tea into the harbor at Boston, were the action arm of the
committees of correspondence. Each committee was a secret cell that operated
totally independently of the other cells. Information on the government was
passed from committee to committee, from colony to colony, and then acted
upon on a local basis. Yet even in these bygone days of poor communication,
of weeks to months for a letter to be delivered, the committees without any
central direction whatsoever, were remarkable similar in tactics employed to
resist government tyranny. It was, as the first American patriots knew,
totally unnecessary for anyone to give an order for anything. Information
was made available to each committee, and each committee acted as it saw
fit. A recent example of the cell system taken from the left wing of
politics are the Communists. The Communist, in order to get around the
obvious problems involved in pyramidal organization, developed to an art the
cell system. They had numerous independent cells which operated completely
isolated from one another and particularly with no knowledge of each other,
but were orchestrated together by a central headquarters. For instance,
during World War II, in Washington, it is known that there were at least six
secret Communist cells operating at high levels in the United States
government (plus all the open Communists who were protected and promoted by
President Roosevelt), however, only one of the cells was rooted out and
destroyed. How many more actually were operating no one can say for sure.

The Communist cells which operated in the U.S until late 1991 under Soviet
control could have at their command a leader, who held a social position
which appeared to be very lowly. He could be, for example, a busboy in a
restaurant, but in reality a colonel or a general in the Soviet Secret
Service, the KGB. Under him could be a number of cells and a person active
in one cell would almost never have knowledge of individuals who are active
in another cell. The value of this is that while any one cell can be
infiltrated, exposed or destroyed, such action will have no effect on the
other cells; in fact, the members of the other cells will be supporting that
cell which is under attack and ordinarily would lend very strong support to
it in many ways. This is at least part of the reason, no doubt, that
whenever in the past Communists were attacked in this country, support for
them sprang up in many unexpected places.

The efficient and effective operation of a cell system after the Communist
model, is of course, dependent upon central direction, which means
impressive organization, funding from the top, and outside support, all of
which the Communists had. Obviously, American patriots have none of these
things at the top or anywhere else, and so an effective cell organization
based upon the Soviet system of operation is impossible.

Two things become clear from the above discussion. First, that the pyramid
type of organization can be penetrated quite easily and it thus is not a
sound method of organization in situations where the government has the
resources and desire to penetrate the structure; which is the situation in
this country. Secondly, that the normal qualifications for the cell
structure based upon the Red model does not exist in the U.S. for patriots.
This understood, the question arises "What method is left for those
resisting state tyranny?" The answer comes from Col. Amoss who proposed the
"Phantom Cell" mode of organization. Which he described as Leaderless
Resistance. A system of organization that is based upon the cell
organization, but does not have any central control or direction, that is in
fact almost identical to the methods used by the Committees of
Correspondence during the American Revolution. Utilizing the Leaderless
Resistance concept, all individuals and groups operate independently of each
other, and never report to a central headquarters or single leader for
direction or instruction, as would those who belong to a typical pyramid
organization.

At first glance, such a type of organization seems unrealistic, primarily
because there appears to be no organization. The natural question thus
arises as to how are the "Phantom cells" and individuals to cooperate with
each other when there is no intercommunication or central direction? The
answer to this question is that participants in a program of Leaderless
Resistance through phantom cell or individual action must know exactly what
they are doing, and how to do it. It becomes the responsibility of the
individual to acquire the necessary skills and information as to what is to
be done. This is by no means as impractical as it appears, because it is
certainly true that in any movement, all persons involved have the same
general outlook, are acquainted with the same philosophy, and generally
react to given situations in similar ways. The pervious history of the
committees of correspondence during the American Revolution show this to be
true.

Since the entire purpose of Leaderless Resistance is to defeat state tyranny
(at least insofar as this essay is concerned), all members of phantom cells
or individuals will tend to react to objective events in the same way
through usual tactics of resistance. Organs of information distribution such
as newspapers, leaflets, computers, etc., which are widely available to all,
keep each person informed of events, allowing for a planned response that
will take many variations. No one need issue an order to anyone. Those
idealist truly committed to the cause of freedom will act when they feel the
time is ripe, or will take their cue from others who precede them. While it
is true that much could be said against this type of structure as a method
of resistance, it must be kept in mind that Leaderless Resistance is a child
of necessity. The alternatives to it have been show to be unworkable or
impractical. Leaderless Resistance has worked before in the American
Revolution, and if the truly committed put it to use for themselves, it will
work now.

It goes almost without saying that Leaderless Resistance leads to very small
or even one man cells of resistance. Those who join organizations to play
"let's pretend" or who are "groupies" will quickly be weeded out. While for
those who are serious about their opposition to federal despotism, this is
exactly what is desired.

From the point of view of tyrants and would be potentates in the federal
bureaucracy and police agencies, nothing is more desirable than that those
who oppose them be UNIFIED in their command structure, and that every person
who opposes them belong to a pyramid type group. Such groups and
organizations are an easy kill. Especially in light of the fact that the
Justice (sic) Department promised in 1987 that there would never be another
group that opposed them that they did not have at least one informer in.
These federal "friends of government" are intelligence agents. They gather
information that can be used at the whim of a federal D.A. to prosecute. The
line of battle has been drawn. Patriots are required therefore, to make a
conscious decision to either aid the government in its illegal spying, by
continuing with old methods of organization and resistance, or to make the
enemies job more difficult by implementing effective countermeasures.

Now there will, no doubt, be mentally handicapped people out there who,
while standing at a podium with an American flag draped in the background,
and a lone eagle soaring in the sky above, will state emphatically in their
best sounding red, white, and blue voice, "So what if the government is
spying? We are not violating any laws." Such crippled thinking by any
serious person is the best example that there is a need for special
education classes. The person making such a statement is totally out of
contact with political reality in this country, and unfit for leadership of
any thing more than a dog sleigh in the Alaskan wilderness. The old "Born on
the fourth of July" mentality that has influenced so much of the American
patriot's thinking in the past will not save him from the government in the
future. "Reeducation" for non-thinkers of this type will take place in the
federal prison system where there are no flags or eagles, but abundance of
men who were "not violating any law."

Most groups who "unify" their disparate associates into a single structure
have short political lives. Therefore, those movement leaders constantly
calling for unity of organization rather than the desirable unity of
purpose, usually fall into one of three categories.

They may not be sound political tacticians, but rather, just committed men
who feel unity would help their cause, while not realizing that the
government would greatly benefit from such efforts. The Federal objective,
to imprison or destroy all who oppose them, is made easier in pyramid
organizations. Or perhaps, they do not fully understand the struggle they
are involved in and that the government they oppose has declared a state of
war against those fighting for faith, folk, freedom and constitutional
liberty. Those in power will use any means to rid themselves of opposition.
The third class calling for unity and let us hope this is the minority of
the three, are men more desirous of the supposed power that a large
organization would bestow, than of actually achieving their stated purpose.

Conversely, the last thing Federal snoops would have, if they had any choice
in the matter, is a thousand different small phantom cells opposing them. It
is easy to see why. Such a situation is an intelligence nightmare for a
government intent upon knowing everything they possibly can about those who
oppose them. The Federals, able to amass overwhelming strength of numbers,
manpower, resources, intelligence gathering, and capability at any given
time, need only a focal point to direct their anger. A single penetration of
a pyramid type of organization can lead to the destruction of the whole.
Whereas, Leaderless Resistance presents no single opportunity for the
Federals to destroy a significant portion of the Resistance.

With the announcement by the Department of Justice (sic) that 300 FBI agents
formerly assigned to watching Soviet spies in the US (domestic counter
intelligence) are now to be used to "combat crime", the federal government
is preparing the way for a major assault upon those persons opposed to their
policies. Many anti-government groups dedicated to the preservation of the
America of our forefathers can expect shortly to feel the brunt of a new
federal assault upon liberty.

It is clear, therefore, that it is time to rethink traditional strategy and
tactics when it comes to opposing a modern police state. America is quickly
moving into a long dark night of police state tyranny, where the rights now
accepted by most as being inalienable will disappear. Let the coming night
be filled with a thousand points of resistance. Like the fog which forms
when conditions are right and disappears when they are not, so must the
resistance to tyranny be.'

"If every person has the right to defend--even by force--his person, his
liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the
right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights
constantly." ---The Law.
Frederick Bastiat
Paris, 1850.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 8, 2009 6:59 AM

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Branden Darby: FBI informant who stung RNC 2008 anarchists connected to ‘firebomb plot’ on Brave New Books and “suicided” Palestinian activist Riad Hamad
www.prisonplanet.com/fbi-informant-who-stung-rnc-2008-anarchists-conne
cted-to-%E2%80%98firebomb-plot%E2%80%99-on-brave-new-books-and-%E2%80%9Csuicided%E2%80%9D-palestinian-activist-riad-hamad.html

Quote:
AUSTIN, TEXAS — Remember Riad Hamad, the Palestinian man who’s “suicide” left him at the bottom of Lady Bird Lake in Austin with his mouth gagged and arms duct-taped behind his back? (Kurt Nimmo, Did Palestinian Activist Riad Hamad Commit Suicide? )

According to reports, he was observed at meetings with now-outed FBI informant/provocateur Brandon Darby, who admittedly set up two anarchist/leftists from Austin with “molotov cocktails” who were subsequently arrested for alleged plans to attack police cars outside the RNC 2008 in Minnesota in connection with the “RNC Welcoming Committee.”

Scott Crow claims that in 2006, after Brandon Darby was admittedly an FBI informant, Darby attempted to recruit Crow on a plot to “firebomb” Brave New Books of Austin, Texas. Crow writes:

Quote:
In Darby’s ‘revolutionary rhetoric’ over the years he tried to get numerous people, including myself, to do the things the two men were eventually taken down for. I believe now he tried to set me up in 2006 (after he, according to FBI documents began informing and provoking) to firebomb a bookstore called Brave New Books in Austin. I was NOT interested at all and thought it was stupid. I tried to talk him out of it. The event never happened. He was allowed to change his mind and move on. What if the Feds had raided him at the time?

www.bravenewbookstore.com

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 8, 2009 7:11 AM

...Why is a bookstore called "Brave New Books" a "patriot" bookstore? I'm not arguing that it doesn't exist, I'm just saying that doesn't make any kind of sense. Brave New World was about as anti-capitalism and anti-American as it gets, why would a "patriotic" bookstore name themselves after it? o_0

EDIT: Wha...? Noticed masonic pyramid with eye. Even less sense. What the hell?

POST SHAKESPEARE THE PHRASE IS IRONIC! Good gravy, does NO ONE understand literature anymore? Nineteen Eighty-four and Brave New World are not a fucking TO DO LIST!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 8, 2009 7:36 AM

Byte: I think you misunderstand the bookstore. They're a "patriot" bookstore in the sense that they actually believe in upholding the U.S. Constitution. That alone is enough, apparently, to get them on an "enemies of the USA" list these days...

By the way, your postscript reminds me of one of my old signature lines:

"My fear is that today's leaders read 1984 and interpret it not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual."

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 8, 2009 7:42 AM

By the way, it seems there's a sudden rash of Muslims committing "suicide" after tying their hands and feet first. On just one night recently in Gitmo, THREE alleged "enemy combatants" committed "suicide" on the same night, all in identical fashion, despite having no contact with each other, and despite the fact that one of them was due to be released less than three weeks from the date of his "suicide". Remarkably, all three had managed to stuff rags down their throats past the point at which their gag reflex should have kicked in, and all three also managed to bind hands and feet, THEN climb up on sinks and hang themselves. All on the same night.

http://rawstory.com/2009/12/gitmo-suicides-night-suspicious-report/

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 8, 2009 7:49 AM

Maybe they are using the name ironically then, but still, use of that name doesn't suggest upholding the constitution to me, it suggests all the flaws and faults in the constitution.

I dunno. It's just odd.

It's scary how so many of the proposals some world leaders are making sound like they read them right out of Brave New World, though.

From the wikipedia article:

Quote:
The vast majority of the population is unified under The World State, an eternally peaceful, stable global society in which goods and resources are plentiful (because the population is permanently limited to no more than two billion people) and everyone is happy. Natural reproduction has been done away with and children are decanted and raised in Hatcheries and Conditioning Centres. Society is divided into five castes, created in these centres. The highest caste is allowed to develop naturally while it matures in its "decanting bottle". The lower castes are treated to chemical interference to cause arrested development in intelligence or physical growth.

All members of society are conditioned in childhood to hold the values that the World State idealizes, which improves societal stability and quality of life. Constant consumption is the bedrock of stability for the World State.

According to The World State, sex is a social activity, rather than a means of reproduction, and sexual activity is encouraged from early childhood. The few women who can reproduce are conditioned to take birth control. The maxim "everyone belongs to everyone else" is repeated often, and the idea of a "family" is considered pornographic; sexual competition and emotional, romantic relationships are rendered obsolete because they are no longer needed. Marriage, natural birth, parenthood, and pregnancy are considered too obscene to be mentioned in casual conversation.

Spending time alone is considered an outrageous waste of time and money. Admitting to wanting to be an individual is shocking, horrifying, and embarrassing.

The conditioning system eliminates the need for professional competitiveness; people are literally bred to do their jobs and cannot desire another. There is no competition within castes; each caste member receives the same food, housing, and soma rationing as every other member of that caste. There is no desire to change one's caste.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 8, 2009 9:20 AM

Well, it's like I say...

Strip all the bullshit off, and it's STILL, even now, the same goddamned feudal dynamic that's been our curse since the dawn of civilization.

And until we cast aside the notion that humans are inherently evil and need to be leashed "for our own good", it's gonna stay that way.

Note that this myth is always perpetuated by those holding the leash out to us like it's some act of benevolence...

Me, now, my first reaction is point and laugh at their hubris - and in extremis, ram it down their throat and hope they choke.

Problem is, folk like me are outnumbered by fools who go crawling and slavering, begging for the leash cause they've been brought up from the very cradle by a society that teaches them to want it, think they need it, at every turn and corner, the perfect trap, as it were.

But there are those who will not bend, who will not break, and though they may *be* broken, instill their resilience in all they touch.

Villains we may be, often enough, but truly I ask you, what is the greater evil ?

-Frem

There always has to be a price.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 8, 2009 9:29 AM

Quote:
Strip all the bullshit off, and it's STILL, even now, the same goddamned feudal dynamic that's been our curse since the dawn of civilization.

Yep, I agree with that.

That's why when people start talking about population control, it's so disturbing, because I then hear other big shot proponents of population control start talking about how some genetic lines should be discontinued... And when I hear them talk about that, I don't see them as trying to limit genetic disease, but rather trying to engineer a caste system like in Brave New World, only without the decanters and the chemical interference in embryonic development. They can do it all by controlling who is breeding with who and how.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 8, 2009 10:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Well, it's like I say...

Strip all the bullshit off, and it's STILL, even now, the same goddamned feudal dynamic that's been our curse since the dawn of civilization.

And until we cast aside the notion that humans are inherently evil and need to be leashed "for our own good", it's gonna stay that way.

Note that this myth is always perpetuated by those holding the leash out to us like it's some act of benevolence...

Me, now, my first reaction is point and laugh at their hubris - and in extremis, ram it down their throat and hope they choke.

Problem is, folk like me are outnumbered by fools who go crawling and slavering, begging for the leash cause they've been brought up from the very cradle by a society that teaches them to want it, think they need it, at every turn and corner, the perfect trap, as it were.

But there are those who will not bend, who will not break, and though they may *be* broken, instill their resilience in all they touch.

Villains we may be, often enough, but truly I ask you, what is the greater evil ?

-Frem

There always has to be a price.

Which is why, coupled with your recent post on ridicule, I fully intend to die laughing my ass off. I will ridicule TPTB with my very last breath. It's as much respect as they deserve.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 8, 2009 11:30 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

And until we cast aside the notion that humans are inherently evil and need to be leashed "for our own good", it's gonna stay that way.

I don't think people are inherently evil - but they are inherently selfish. And some ARE evil. I do not believe for a second that Anarchy would lead to anything but chaos and bloodshed.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 8, 2009 12:05 PM

You're conflating the system known as "anarchy" with chaos.

While the common use of the term anarchy implies chaos, any proposed anarchic socio-economic system DOES have structure. They tend to be natural fluid structures, without any inclination towards specific permanent leaders or power groups, but rather formed from dynamic people inter-relationships and cooperation.

Historically, the only bloodshed to be found in an anarchic system comes from outside, when would-be conquerors come in and find their would-be subjects far more resistant than anticipated.

We aren't STUPID, we're not telling people to go out and kill and steal. We just don't agree that you have to have someone telling you what to do at all given times.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 8, 2009 12:30 PM

STORYMARK

I know the difference. Doesn't change my view. I don't think we as a species are capable of making Anarchy work on a broad scale.... thus it would lead to chaos. I didn't say they're one and the same, I just feel that one will lead to the other.

You last statement doesn't make sense to me. Im not saying anarchists are encouraging such behavior - but without some system of law set up, there will be plenty who CHOOSE to do so.

Maybe most conflict would come from outside sources - but there's always gonna be an outside source willing to offer up some conflict.

I think the notion that a land without law will be all cooperative and nice is a really great idea, but ridiculously unlikely to be even remotely possible.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 8, 2009 12:52 PM

There are psychopaths and sociopaths, yes, but I think you'd be surprised what a low percentage of the population that represents. And honestly, I don't view those people so much as they are problems, but rather that they need help. Help that we don't really give them today, because there's such a stigma associated with mental illness.

There are also crimes of passion, but part of the argument for a small locally focused community is that when people are more hooked into decisions affecting their lives and are close with members of their community, then crime rate will drop.

The simplest representation of this that you might be familiar with is imagine the relational dynamics one single village in a tribe. "A tribe, viewed historically or developmentally, consists of a social group existing before the development of, or outside of, states. (wikipedia)"

Many of the tribes you might think of have a stratified society led by chieftains, though this isn't always the case. Still, even a tribe with a chieftain or council of elders represents a drastically reduced system of government compared modern systems. Because the community of a tribe is based on relationship and group success/survival, they are very stable, crime is greatly reduced, and any position that could be considered leader-like tends to be more interested in the welfare of those they identify as their people and less corrupt in regards to administering their people. Chieftains who are not, or who are abusive to their people are also more easily deposed.

I'm not precisely advocating tribes and all the closed-off and intolerant connotations that a tribe would suggest as a system of government, but I'm using them as an example of the societal relationship-based phenomena that a socio-economic anarchic system would thrive on.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 8, 2009 12:59 PM

STORYMARK

In regards to the psychos and sociopaths - how many does it really take to muck things up.

As for the tribal cultures - sure, they did work to degrees. But many of them ended up warring with each other. Regardless, I consider it moot. Those cultures developed into that, so everyone was on the same page, so to speak. Impossible to do today, the genie is out of the bottle. And human culture hs changed massively since then. I do not think it's even theoretically possible for our society to take on a structure like that anymore.

I mean - I have faith in humanity and all.... but not THAT much.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 8, 2009 1:03 PM

How do you feel about your friends and family? Are you more willing to compromise and cooperate with them, do you have genuine interest in the well being of members of your identified kin-group?

Then you are part of a modern tribe. Not so impossible to establish after all.

The trick is expanding human inter-relationships and empathic response to pre-corporatism levels.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 8, 2009 4:24 PM

Amen Mikey - without fools to listen to em, without dumbasses willing to pull triggers for em, they got NOTHING.

As for the rest, you *do* realize our current system is not only loaded with the same psychos and sociopaths you're describing, and is not only set up to produce them en masse, it also has this tendency to put them in charge right ?

And for the record, the Catalonians DID make it work, quite well actually, problem inherent to it was having to fight the entire rest of the planet, more or less, as every government shit a brick at the thought of them no longer being necessary and became determined to stomp that out before it caught on, which resulted in them getting mowed under - and the betrayal of the socialists and communists was what destroyed the four pole alliance that was present in the 1920's, with labor/unions breaking off, save for the IWW, during the tenure of that ratbastard Sam Gompers and the rise of corp-friendly unions to "manage" dissent while further exploiting the peons.

Anyhows, that's a very important historical lesson, I do believe, looking at the communists, socialists and fascists ganging up side by side against something they hated more than each other, and reveals the ill intentions of all three systems as being not all that bloody different from each other in execution.

Everyone else just wants to change which hand holds the leash - something I pointed out back in 2006 about the Democrats and Obama, mind you - the Anarchists are the only ones who want to cast it aside...

And the very notion of that scares the absolute crap out of the folks holding it, which oughta tell you something if you just listen.

The answer to sociopaths and pyschos sure as hell isn't creating as many as possible and sticking them in charge, which is what your systems do - so I kinda take issue with holding that one against a system that would not produce so many due to being in general saner and more cooperative.

Unfortunately, the current system, at least here in the states, is DESIGNED to prevent such a thing by mentally and emotionally manipulating children before they're even old enough to realize what's happening to them, often enough wrecking their pysche quite badly in the process.

I stand against that, I always will.

But in order to have a saner society, we need saner PEOPLE, and this system is designed to weed those "undesireables" out as fast and hard as possible, precisely *because* the sociopaths and psychos are in charge of the system.

So pardon me if I take such admonishments from thee in much the same fashion I would take a lecture on the evils of drug addiction from a crack addict.

-Frem

There always has to be a price.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 8, 2009 4:46 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Sigh ... same stuff over and over through the years. No one listens, and no one learns. Everyone has 'THE' answer to the question no one asks.

This is a waste of time.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 8, 2009 5:03 PM

Then perhaps we shouldn't defend or attack ideology here, but rather the end product and policy of ideology in the real world.

When you roll your eyes at anarchist arguments and say "not again," that's fine, you have every right to be bored of them. But if someone comes after what I believe, then I'm going to post a few messages defending it. I don't think we can ask anyone here otherwise. Certainly, if conservatives were to attack liberal ideology, then we would indulge liberals the chance to defend their own position, and a number of us anarchists, depending on the type of conservative, might even jump in.

So, anyway. Back on topic?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 8, 2009 5:50 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

To recap:

There never was an anarchist society. No one can point to even minimal evidence of a single one. And there never can never be. It's an oxymoron. Even the MOST primitive society has rules, culture, expectations of behavior - and language, technologies (tools), and the means of making your living (herding, gathering, agriculture etc). All these shape your behavior, your ways of relating to the world, more importantly, your thoughts. Whether these are inculcated gently or brutally they ARE inculcated. No one just gets to be left totally alone. For one thing, you'd end up a stunted imbecile, like those neglected Romanian orphans.

SignyM made the argument MANY times that in a society where 'wealth' (goods, property) is accumulated, there will arise significant differences over time - differences that allow the wealthier to exert the power of the purse.

I'm done here.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 8, 2009 6:02 PM

I think the problem here is different definitions. None of us have argued that societies we call anarchist have no rules. Anarchist is just the only word we have for a society with minimal government, or at least, the word we prefer. Nor are we arguing for people "cutting themselves off," exactly the opposite, actually. A community doing good for each other, in the same manner as a government and a body of laws. But in our consideration, in a less dangerous, corruption prone manner.

Are you sure that this is the final straw for you? You're still welcome here.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 8, 2009 6:53 PM

Again, severing the legal bonds between people does not and never will mean severing the social ones, but of course, this doesn't gibe with your complete dismissal of the concept, and this is what, the fifteenth time I've said this, only for it to be conveniently ignored when it destroys your arguments ?

And yes, I AM calling you a liar, and we both know it was an intentional lie because we discussed this several times before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_Catalonia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freetown_Christiania
And besides
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities

Never, huh ?

Mutual consent is the basis for any society, rule of the gun and use of force is the basis for a government.

Not to say they are mutually exclusive, but if you have less of one, you'll have more of the other.

I don't mind discussin it, and can and do acknowledge that we're not "there" yet socially and facing certain roadblocks that prevent development in that direction, as I have pointed out many a time - but I DO mind when someone knowingly and intentionally misrepresents arguments, claims they were not addressed, or in this case resorts to direct falsehood.

That's not debate, that's rhetoric, and it's a type of rhetoric usually associated with folks like PN or hard right crazies - I thought we were mostly above that around here.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 8, 2009 7:25 PM

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:

...Why is a bookstore called "Brave New Books" a "patriot" bookstore? I'm not arguing that it doesn't exist, I'm just saying that doesn't make any kind of sense. Brave New World was about as anti-capitalism and anti-American as it gets, why would a "patriotic" bookstore name themselves after it?

EDIT: Wha...? Noticed masonic pyramid with eye. Even less sense. What the hell?

Brave New World was a British whistleblower book about the British fascist New World Order. This is a whistleblower store about the current fascist New World Order. Aldous Huxley's brother ran UNESCO for Nazi United Nations. 1984 was also by a British whistleblower at MI6, warning about the fascist British Empire dictatorship taking over the planet.

Illuminati (USA) pyramid logo with Eye of Lucifer capstone is upside down, signifyin defeat of the New World Odor.

BRAVE = brave to fight the NWO
NEW = uncensored books
BOOKS = books

That's why FBI wanted its informant/provocateur to terrorize that establishment.

Real World Scientific Dictatorship: Aldous Huxley at Berkley University March 20, 1962
www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com/articles/Aldous_Huxley--The_Ultimate_R
evolution--Berkeley_Part1.mp3
www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com/articles/Aldous_Huxley--The_Ultimate_R
evolution--Berkeley_Part2.mp3
http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/VideoTest/hux1.ram
http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/VideoTest/hux2.ram
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldous_Huxley

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 8, 2009 7:46 PM

Hmm. Maybe Rue was more provoked here about my comments about population control, which we don't see eye-to-eye on.

Perhaps my arguments about my fears for population control are falsely attributing beliefs, methods, and purposes to proponents of population control that they don't agree with. And perhaps Rue's counter argument was showing that the same thing could be done with Anarchy.

I didn't intend to accuse anyone of anything.

Both my fears about population control, and Rue's fears about the potential unsustainability and uncontrollability of anarchism are at least genuine, heart-felt concerns.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 8, 2009 9:02 PM

Point taken - but really, don't y'all have like, better things to DO with your holidays than arguing with some stubborn old jackass on an internet message board ?

I'm only here right now as something to do in between walkin rounds in the freezing, wind driven slush, it's nasty out there, and the only family I got is eight hundred miles away and got enough on their own plate that I dun wanna inflict my presence on em, long story, I ain't relatin it.

Anyhows, seriously, see to your families and friends, do something HAPPY, willya ?

Just remember two things.

What is true for one is never truth for all, and you cannot shake hands with a balled fist.

Go in peace.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 9, 2009 6:08 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Anarchist is just the only word we have for a society with minimal government, or at least, the word we prefer"

Again, the argument has been made many MANY MANY times already

that government is not the ONLY exercise of power by one group over another. Any notion that if your reduce government you take care is the problem is naive, at best. (I will not post what I really think it is, but it is something you would take serious offense to.)

NO ONE had offered a cogent argument as to HOW people or groups who accumulate wealth, goods and resources far above the norm can be prevented from exercising their power - the POWER of life and death - over others. NO ONE. I have yet to read it.

The ONLY way that can be done is by combined social effort - called - guess what - government.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 9, 2009 6:14 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Frem

Do you even READ your own cites ? They ALL have laws, they ALL have government. Oh, and they ALL prevent the accumulation of individual wealth. Jeeeeeeze.

So dooood - WHO is the liar ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 9, 2009 6:25 AM

Quote:
NO ONE had offered a cogent argument as to HOW people or groups who accumulate wealth, goods and resources far above the norm can be prevented from exercising their power - the POWER of life and death - over others. NO ONE. I have yet to read it.

The ONLY way that can be done is by combined social effort - called - guess what - government.

Generally speaking, if people maintain private possessions, but have communal resources, as in a tribe, it becomes more difficult to accumulate those resources because they're already tied up. They have to then be taken by force. Taking sustenance from another tribe member by force is generally discouraged by the tribal system, because in this sense you are taking food selfishly from your own kin-group. Even corporate bastards don't steal food from their children.

Now, you're right, it could still happen. The best historical examples I can think of are the tribes of West coast Africa, who sold each other into slavery and had so much gold they painted themselves with the dust. The chiefs of the tribe would sometimes lord over the other tribe members, and take multiple wives, and leave the tribe deprived.

And so in this case, as in any OTHER case, even with a government, is to strip the chief/corrupt corporate executive of their power. Unfortunately, in our system when corrupt executives are brought to justice or when they are exposed and step down from their positions, assuming their accounts aren't frozen or they haven't gone bankrupt by their own misdeeds, these people tend to retain their money, and if not money, then the connections to build themselves back up. Look at the con artist father-in-law of Chelsea Clinton.

In a tribal system, well, people who want their resources back are no longer hamstringed by laws that protect the corrupt chief/corporate executive. *evil grin* They get their resources back.

But, the less violent method, is, of course, to go somewhere else and start a new tribal group, which is much easier if local governments are small instead of national.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 9, 2009 6:37 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

The point is we the people could actually take control of our government and make it work FOR US - IF WE WANTED TO. It wouldn't happen on the first election cycle, and maybe not even on the 5th, but it would inevitably happen.

If you do not accept that society has the power to create itself AND MAINTAIN ITSELF in its preferred image, simply by the inevitable accumulation of differences in power and the lack of social tools to deal with it, you are doomed to see your 'anarchist' society transform into something you will not like. Just like those Afircan tribes where differences in wealth led to death for the powerless.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 9, 2009 6:50 AM

Ehm... Well, true, theoretically anyone could make ANY system work for the public, for a while, until corruption inevitably happens (and it happens in anarchy too, see above!).

But this current system seems built towards helping those same people accumulate differences in power, resources, and tools. The system itself, as I see it, is a tool being used against us, because we have to vote for representatives. And these representatives seem by and large corrupt, and the system around them seems to force even ones who start honest to use corrupt means to maintain their power and get what they want.

Reform couldn't therefore be instigated by the people, because the representatives are insulated from the people by the parties and their own wealth. In order to create reform, you'd have to clear out ALL of the old and replace them with the new at the exact same time (so that more experienced, more corrupt members can't start to influence the new members), and the two year cycles prevents that. Or, the reform would have to happen from within, which would obviously be crushed.

Or we wait for the inevitable collapse, delaying it as long as possible in the hopes of hurting the fewest amounts of people when it happens.

Why make it hard on ourselves, and rebuild the same flawed system, the same government controls that can and most likely will be used against us? Why not establish a system with limited government, so that public control can be more easily asserted over it if it goes astray and becomes selfish and aristocratic?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 9, 2009 10:40 AM