Debate on Capital Punishment by Darkmoon Commenters

Edited by Lasha Darkmoon

In which it is argued that ALL punishment—including capital punishment—has to be wrong in a dystopian society. When there is no confidence in the government’s fairness or in the integrity of the police, all punishments become acts of petty vengeance.  



NEW SONG :  We are living in anarchy; no Justice; no Law; no Order; Order replaced by slavery.

HARBINGER : New Song, why do you believe that we are living in an anarchy? We are living within the pages of Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four and Huxley’s Brave New World Revisited. This cryptocracy we live in is the polar opposite of an anarchy! Anarchy in its most basic form is translated as “without rule or rulers”. A country without any proper government: that’s an anarchy.

The state is authoritarian. Here in Scotland they are arresting anyone who speaks out against immigrants. In an anarchy there would be no police to arrest anyone, nor would there be judiciaries to steal from the people and imprison them. We are living under a new feudal system.  Here the bankers and the wealthy landowners are the “kings”. They are ABOVE any law they make for the rest of us.

In a true anarchy, this would not be the case, for no central authority would exist to lay down the law.

I wish people would stop throwing out the word “anarchy” to describe the socialist dystopia we live in today. It’s really quite pathetic, to say the least.

POUPON MARX : Ms. Darkmoon, what is your position on flogging and the guillotine, publicly administered, for these offenses contra children?

LD :  I could go on about this subject forever, but I must resist that temptation!

Broadly speaking, I am all for the reintroduction of corporal and capital punishment under strictly regulated conditions. By which I mean, great care must be taken to ensure that only the guilty, not the innocent, are punished in this way. The punishment must not only be proportionate to the crime but administered without cruelty. Finally, the punishment must work by acting as an effective deterrent.

Take corporal punishment. My own ancestors, that is the male ones, were soundly thrashed at school. It did them no harm whatsoever. It did not make them grow up with a perverted love for caning. “Spare the rod and spoil the child” is a Biblical injunction with which I have no problem. I am all for robust physical punishment for antisocial thugs, provided of course the person who wields the whip is not corrupted by developing a taste for sadism.

As for capital punishment, this is far harder to legislate over. Why? Because many people suffering from depression and terminal diseases who long for euthanasia might then be tempted to commit murder in the knowledge that the State would then dispose of them painlessly. The existence of capital punishment, in other words, might become an incentive for murder.

There are many serial killers in prison right now who would give their souls if they could be euthanized, e.g., the Moors Murderer Ian Brady who is on prolonged hunger strike and is forcibly fed by a tube thrust up his nose and down his throat. All he wants is to die, but the State won’t let him die peacefully. Keeping him alive is their act of vengeance. Bear this in mind.

Capital punishment can be abused by the State. After the Nuremberg trials, the Germans who were pronounced guilty were hanged by the American and Brits in a very cruel manner. The hangman was given instructions to bungle each hanging, making sure that each German on the scaffold suffered excruciating torture while suffocating to death slowly.

I am all for humane punishment provided those who administer it know what they are doing.

HARBINGER : Lasha, these are your words:

“Broadly speaking, I am all for the reintroduction of corporal and capital punishment under strictly regulated conditions. By which I mean, great care must be taken to ensure that only the guilty, not the innocent, are punished in this way.”

And what of the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four? What happens when they introduce the death penalty for denying the Holocaust and/or speaking out against Zionism, as they did in Russia?

The minute you introduce the death penalty into society, you walk a very slippery slope. And worse, in our present system, where other than whacking whistle blowers and people who know too much (classic case of eyewitnesses on 9/11, many of who are now dead), it’s just a case of planting DNA evidence at a scene of a crime and voila, court case followed by black hat and a rope to hang on. Our elites would want nothing more than to bring back execution. They’d get rid of all the political dissenters and conspiracy theorists, on trumped up charges of paedophilia and murder.

I am utterly opposed to the death sentence given out by any state, because it just turns into a means of control. And worse, a tool of fear. To whack those who attack the state.

As for corporal punishment, again I disagree. Both corporal and capital punishment are no good in my opinion. It’s physical assault!

POUPON MARX : LD, thank you for your quick response. It is refreshing to receive opinions of a person with higher mental abilities who still manages to keep connected to the concrete and empirical world of Nature, which is God’s Infinite Machine that obeys rules and laws.

I ignore the comments following yours as incomplete, emotional, virtue signaling, and trite, quite honestly.

I have had the good fortune (it was my fate) to have traveled the world several times over and have spent considerable time in Asian countries. They are presently superior to the West, and have probably always have been, for a much longer time as civilized, refined societies, and have the kernel of regeneration that we occidentals seem to not possess. Or if so, in ever decreasing quantities. Frankly, I stand in awe of the high IQ Eastern Asian countries and its people. And how’s this: I prefer their company in most personal and impersonal interactions.

My point in the preceding is that such advanced societies with cohesive values-like strong glue!- have a definite set of ideas regarding criminal justice and retribution. You see, Asians do not deny, nor deflect either their desire or the value of retribution and revenge. To do so, is unnatural and in fact degrades and denigrates the value of those lost or mortally injured. It’s the scales, the equation, the balance that restores harmony to life and those wronged. Harmony and Wa.

Hence, with the exception of Japan (unnaturally so due to the long American occupation) all Asian countries prescribe the death penalty for possessing relatively small amounts of drugs, selling, murder, and in some cases attempted murder. I raise my glass in toast with bonhomie.

Singapore canes miscreants. Flogging needs a reference for those who reflexively get the vapors:

Caning is immediate stimuli, breaks down internal mental and cognitive compartmentalization, and releases the brain chemicals that expedite empathy and sympathy in the perpetrator for his victim. “See how it feels?”

Take the run of the mill bar fighter, speeder, drunk drive, wife beater, petty criminals, etc. Do you not feel that there would be less recidivism given a good trashing rather than a confinement shooting hoops, pumping iron, and burning through hard earned tax payer money? Wouldn’t you really in your most unguarded, non-collectivized rational mind think that the third major felony deserves the send off to the Next World? Hold! Stop that reflex! Be honest with yourself!

I don’t follow long winding gerbil bore holes of internal logic, convoluted circular logic, stacked logical fallacies and silly pollyanna hope for reciprocity from psychopaths, malignant narcissists, and just bad people with bad brain wiring. No. I am an engineer, whose acid test and pass criteria is simple: Does it work? If not, start again, revise it, or scrap it!

HARBINGER : (to Poupon Marx) : You say, “I ignore the comments following yours as incomplete, emotional, virtue signaling, and trite, quite honestly.”

So that’ll be myself and lobro then?

Would you care to elaborate, on say, the moral aspects of murdering another human? Is this not a ‘Christian’ website? Is one of the ten commandments not ‘Thou Shalt Not Kill’? And the innocents, those set up by corrupt politicians, who are then murdered by the state and painted into demons by the msm; what of them? Didn’t Christ tell his companions to desist from physical violence when they came for him in the garden of Gethsemane? Shouldn’t people lead by his example?

There is NO argument for the killing of ANY human being on this planet — killing by the state!

If you truly do believe that there is, then I hate to say it bub, you’ve just lost all moral high ground! You’ve become no different to those whom you wish to murder!

An emotional argument? There is no emotion in this argument whatsoever. Quite the contrary! The killing of another by the state is an emotional act of revenge, is it not?

And just to finish off, when it comes to physical abuse over another, no different to corporal punishment; a young friend of mine was abused by his father all of his life, not sexually, just beaten about. His sister saw the abuse her father gave to her mother as well as herself. Both are now aggressive individuals, both have been in and out of prison and don’t think twice about lashing out at others. In a word, they are ‘screwed’ in the head, because of physical (corporal) abuse over them.

I’m shocked that anyone would be an advocate for capital and corporal punishment. And I laugh out loud when they say idiotic things like “We just have to make sure that innocent people are not killed”.

It’s the innocents who always suffer in societies with capital punishment.

PAT (to Lasha and Harbinger) :  There have been way too many people on ‘death row’ for decades, found to have been wrongly convicted…. even set-up by the police and judges and authorities, but set free as new evidence and DNA proved they were not guilty at all.

(See how Edgar Steele was railroaded by the system. He actually got a death sentence by torture in prison, just for speaking out.)

When one innocent person is wrongly put to death, the system is flawed and should be rejected.

Capital punishment is flawed. It should not have any place in a society ruled by arrogant lying men and women…. by “politicians”.

Prosecutors and judges are politicians. Politicians are incapable of unbiased thoughts, words or deeds. They thrive on corruption. They are basically corrupt.

LD : I absolutely agree that capital punishment is wrong when is is misapplied. Innocent people must on no account be put to death by corrupt politicians. But when the DNA evidence is beyond criticism, and the culprit actually admits his guilt, and when a sworn jury unanimously decides that the criminal deserves death, surely capital punishment in circumstances like these ought not to be ruled out. Each sovereign country must decide for itself how to treat its criminals without instructions from America on how to behave. America, with its dreadful record of torture and violent warmongering, is in no position to give the world lectures on morality.


Firstly, thanks for ignoring me on this thread.

Secondly, shocked, beyond all belief that one who purports to be a Christian, should wish to break one of the commandments!

And as for this comment of yours: “But when the DNA evidence is beyond criticism…”

And DNA evidence can’t be planted at the scene of the crime? Sperm can’t be taken from a suspect and implanted into a woman, by corrupt police? Fingerprints can’t easily be put on certain objects in a murder scene?

“…and when a sworn jury unanimously decides that the criminal deserves death”

And Juries can’t be bought?

There is NO argument for capital punishment in ANY civilized society!

(later, to Toby)  I am frankly amazed that you can state “BEYOND CRITICISM” when it comes to DNA evidence. As I stated above, it’s simple to insert sperm from the accused into a dead woman’s body, along with pubic hair, to place the guilt on an innocent man. It’s incredibly easy to drop a few strands of hair in an apartment, skin under fingernails, fingerprints on objects, to falsify evidence.

What of the 9/11 hijackers, who weren’t even there? What of the 7/7 terrorist suspects, murdered by the police, so as not to give their side of the story?

Everything that I have stated is to prove that DNA evidence can easily be planted, witnesses fabricated, juries and judges bought and of course suspects tortured and, even worse, murdered, to paint whatever picture the status quo wants to IN A COURT OF LAW.

(later, to Toby, after his resignation) : Toby,

Regardless of our disagreement on this thread, you’ve been a good and fair moderator, as well as commenter and I’m sure many will miss you.

PAT : Ditto here. One last smiley for Toby.. ?

TOBY : Harbinger,

Thanks you for these kind words. They mean a lot to me. Both Lasha and I would like to see you go on posting on this site. This is because it is one of the few places where you will be able to speak your mind freely without too much censorship. I spoke to Lasha yesterday about your recent posts which I thought could have been more moderately expressed and asked her if she had been offended by their tone. He answer surprised me. “Not in the least,” she smiled. “Under his rough exterior, Harbie is a gentleman! I’ve exchanged quite a few emails with him and we get on just fine! Never a cross word!”

She went on to surprise me even further by doing what seemed to me to be a complete U-turn on capital punishment, saying that the viewpoint you and Pat had expressed on this subject was “undoubtedly the correct one in the dystopian world in which we live.” I didn’t understand at first how she could reconcile this with her own previously expressed views in support of capital punishment. She explained.

These are not her exact words, but they went something like this:

“Listen, let’s begin with voting. I don’t vote on principle, nor does Pat. Why? Because we live in a pseudo-democracy where votes can be rigged and where the choice of candidates is a complete farce. We don’t vote because we don’t want to participate in the dismal process and legitimize the undesirable candidate who is going to win — either Trump or Hillary, in the case of America.”

“So?” I asked. “what has this got to do with capital punishment?”

“A lot,” she said. “If you despise a nation’s government so much that you refuse to even vote, why should you accept that its legal system is fair, that its judges are fair, that the sentences they dish out in their courts are fair? As Harbie has correctly pointed out, the police can fake DNA evidence, they can plant evidence, they can bribe witnesses. Added to which, why trust the jury system? If you’re a guy like Lobro, on trial for Holocaust denial, how would Lobro feel if he were to find himself facing a jury in which there were three Jews who hated everything he stood for? With the rest of the jury consisting of morons who actually believed that Jews had been turned into lampshades during WWII?”

“Good point,” I said. “So the legal system sucks. And you don’t trust the judges, the jury, the courts, the witnesses, and above all, you don’t trust the police to come up with untainted evidence.”

“Precisely. It follows logically from this that capital punishment is totally unfair when it’s dished out by people you don’t trust one inch. To be fair, capital punishment must be dispensed by people in whom you have complete confidence.”

She went on to explain that her previous defense of capital punishment had been based on the flawed premise that we lived in a utopian world in which the authorities could be trusted, in which all judges were as wise as Solomon, and in which the police were all squeaky-clean paragons of virtue. 🙂

In other words, Harbinger, you have done us all a big favour by saying what you said in the forceful way you did. Because ultimately you are correct. In a world where the government sucks, no punishment handed out by the authorities can be seen as fair. This applies even to prison sentences. In America, Lasha tells me, they put people in prison because the prisons have been privatised and it’s profitable to cram in as many prisoners as they can round up. Prison is big business.

Conclusion: Lasha would like you to continue commenting on our site because at least you have the guts to say what you believe in and not mince your words. Sincerity and passion are not to be despised!




LD :  We have built a dystopian world. There’s no doubt about it. As Yeats said prophetically, “Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold.” In a dystopian police state, where the government has acquired all the traits of a superbully, the government has lost the confidence of its citizens and forfeited the right to dispense punishments of any kind — including capital punishment. When a state is widely perceived as an Orwellian tyranny of this kind, it no longer become possible to respect its diktats on anything.

Like this? Share it now.
Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on RedditShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someonePrint this page

162 thoughts on “Debate on Capital Punishment by Darkmoon Commenters

  1. In today’s society and scene, one must be very resourceful to exact justice and remain unprosecuted by the unjust establishment. I despise hearing the bleating mantra about how “wrong” it is to take a “human” life! Let’s face it: There are, quite simply, some assholes who need killing! 🙂

  2. I think that an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is the only justice there is.

    Arresting people for opposing their own demise is hardly an eye for an eye. No, it is the opposite, it is pure evil.

    Everything – E_V_E_R_Y_T_H_I_N_G – stands or falls with the rulers’ intentions.

    Harbinger, you stated “A country without any proper government: that’s an anarchy.”

    Well, I agree that is indeed the definition of anarchy. But then you actually concur with New Song, because to me it is perfectly clear that your country as well as mine and many many more, don’t have proper governments. Unless you would call the local caretakers in servitude of the global olichargy a government.

    Only the brainwashed and unconscious sheeple still believe the illusion we have actual governments.

    Furthermore, we will probably never agree on this but i shall nevertheless repeat that there can be no such thing as anarchy, or a community without rule. Impossible. You WILL be ruled. Unless you wish to administer the whole world population a sort of a double plus lobotomy there will be rule. What matters is; who is ruling the community/nation. A healthy community/nation rules itself. A community ruled by evil parasitic strangers is unhealthy and will die. Nothing more to it.

    1. Well said, 1138. I agree with you. I agree, too, with those who promote the idea of a “good thrashing” in the public square. Often, a good thrashing would have soundly interrupted the progression of the easily-influenced youth to aspire to more evil ways. I say “public” because it enables the yet-unindicted to witness the pain and humiliation of the consequences of poor and rude behavior, thereby suspending their own proclivities to such.

      I was compelled to administer a “sound thrashing” to a drunken and rude individual, yesterday, who cussed me about one of my cows having gotten out on the road. Today, I might have to face the consequences of a sheriff’s deputy paying me a visit because of a complaint filed by a magistrate. Such are the chances we take when we administer “justice” in this fucked-up society! (But a man has to do what he has to do.)

    2. 1138,

      The quote that was given in the above ‘debate’ on Lasha’s previous article on Paedophilia was:

      “New Song, why do you believe that we are living in an anarchy? We are living within the pages of Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four and Huxley’s Brave New World Revisited. This cryptocracy we live in is the polar opposite of an anarchy! Anarchy in its most basic form is translated as “without rule or rulers”. A country without any proper government: that’s an anarchy.”

      The quotation that you give

      “New Song, why do you believe that we are living in an anarchy? We are living, if anything within the pages of Orwell’s 1984 and Huxley’s Brave New World Revisited. This cryptocracy we live in is the polar opposite of an anarchy!
      Really and I do mean really. Anarchy in its most basic form is translated as ‘without rule/leaders’. Are you really under the impression that today it’s a case of every man for himself in a dog eat dog world with no rules and people to impose them?

      As you can see, I never mentioned “A country without any proper government: that’s an anarchy” because even if we had a good government it would still not be an anarchy. A utopian society yes, but a society without rule and/or rulers – no.

      “Furthermore, we will probably never agree on this but i shall nevertheless repeat that there can be no such thing as anarchy, or a community without rule. Impossible. You WILL be ruled.”

      Again, you are correct, that we will never agree on this. Look at things this way:

      Scenario 1: We can go into the past or into the future, it’s up to you but if there is no government, no aristocracy, no judiciary, no police….. and I decide to go and live in the country side, build a house, farm the land and raise a family then the only one who rules over me, is me. Ok, a gang of thugs come along trying to impose their way of life upon me and I refuse, then inevitably there will be conflict. I fight back and I win. There is no police to come and arrest me as is there no judiciary to try and sentence me into a prison. I pay no taxes to anyone and I have no authority over anyone other than bringing up my family. This is, in the most basic form, anarchy.

      Scenario 2: Now let’s look at society today? I decide to leave the city and move into the country to build a house to raise a family and crops. Firstly I have to buy the land. In order for land to be sold, it has to be bought, yet who sold the land to the very first buyer in the first place? No one, it was simply ‘taken’. In other words, no one owns any land in this world as it belongs to everyone and there’s plenty to go around. Secondly, I have to attain planning permission, even though I’m in the middle of nowhere, far away from people. Thirdly, I have to pay council taxes so that I can have my house, even though, in the country, I do not benefit for any council. Fourthly, I have to send my children to schools as today it’s becoming harder and harder to home school, as authorities like to poke their noses into every aspect of people’s lives. Now let’s look at what would happen if a gang of thugs came along to take what is not theirs? I fight back, I win. Along come the police. I’m arrested. I’m put in a jail. I defended myself. I killed four people and thus I’m sentenced to 20 years in prison for defending myself and yes, they do imprison you, here in the UK for self defense.

      What scenario would you like to live in? I know which one I’d rather be a part of and I’m sure many on this site would agree too.

      1. 1138,


        Let’s expand Scenario 1.
        More people move into my area to do the same. We set up a community where everyone within respects each other. One is a baker, one is a butcher, one is a tanner, another is a carpenter, another is plumber…… we have everything that we need to have a little hamlet. It is up to each of the fathers and mothers to educate and discipline their children and what’s more, there would be no msm, whether print, radio or TV there to brainwash and indoctrinate. It would be no different to how life was for thousands of years – children respected their parents and followed in their footsteps. Is there any town leader? Do we need one? Do we need money to buy and sell or can we not just simply barter and help one another out? There are no Jews there to impose usury, as there is no money to charge usury on.

        This is anarchy within a community. In fact, one could call it a utopia. And moreso, the more within that community, the greater the defense from outsiders who wish to come in and take. We could even build a wall around as well couldn’t we? Wait a minute, have we not been here before?

      2. Harbinger,

        I’m sorry for using a quote that wasn’t yours after all. That was very sloppy.

        But this is yours “… because even if we had a good government it would still not be an anarchy.”

        And of course I agree.

        But I say, there is government, consisting of members of the community/nation governing the community/nation, which can do a good job or make a shambles of it if they are incompetent, in which case they will not govern for long since in that situation the community is not being oppressed.

        There can also exist extortion, disguising as a government, which can fool many people for a long time, for instance with a democracy, even though they are being ripped off and genocided.

        The latter has been made possible the second real government seased to be. And that was the moment the real governers decided to betray their subjects for their own personal benefit. That was the kernel from which the current situation has arisen.

        Your example of living in the country to mind your own business is not a practical one. First of all, not every one wants to live in the country, not even every one can live in the country, but most of all, there is a reason people are living in groups/communities. And that is security. If you are alone in the middle of nowhere you wouldn’t stand a chance against real thugs who are after something you have, The most likely scenario is that they kill you, take whatever they can get, or keep you or sell you as a slave. And without law and order they can keep on doing that. So people will live in groups, that will grow into nations based on ethnicy, culture and language. If a nation is prosperous, even without being aware of that, like for instance the Mexican nation(s) were when Cortez and his fellow thugs landed on their shore, they will be robbed and enslaved by those who can and have bad intentions.

        I would love to pay taxes. Taxes are the price for civilisation. This is of course totally different than paying taxes to pay interest on debt of course. Taxes should be utilised beneficially to the nation.

        I would like to live in a National Socialist country where me and my famliy and fellow nationals are safe and where we can trust the government to work in my and my fellow nationals’ interest. in other words, utopia made a reality. Why do I want this? Because it has been proven this is good and can be very easily be achieved. Anarchy will never work because it is simply impossible. I know precisely what your ideal is but I tell you it cannot be. It is against human nature. Hence, there are no historic examples of succesful anarchies.

        Polar bears perhaps, or leopards, they live in anarchy, because they live solitary all of their lives. But polar bears regularly starve and sometimes leopards are being killed or chased away by a group of baboons.

      3. Harbinger,

        “Is there any town leader?”

        Yes, there will be one. Even Amazone indians have a ‘town’ leader. Even they have traditions which include a justice system. They live without jews though. And so did our forefathers for thousands of years. But never without some kind of leadership, guaranteed. But so can we.

        Not to divert this thread into off-topica, but if our genes were more ruthless in the past, we would still be living without jews. And in this world sometimes you are forced to be ruthless in order to survive as a species. But we weren’t ruthless. Why do you think we weren’t? Because we chose to display an unjustified high moral to those who didn’t deserve it. I have a strong suspicion what caused that. In fact, I can’t think of any other plausible explanation.

      4. Harbinger,

        One for the road 🙂

        “In other words, no one owns any land in this world as it belongs to everyone and there’s plenty to go around.”

        Yes, but only if there are limited numbers of people. Also, not all pieces of land are equally valuable to humans. And the most valuable pieces will be a source of conflict, guaranteed. Absolutely guaranteed. This is the oldest source of conflict on planet earth, and it’s not even limited to humans.

        And what if some idiot builds a factory on a piece of land owned by no one and starts polluting the place which affects every one else? What law is there to prevent that?

        On what or who’s road will you travel? Is it allowed for anyone to even build a road, since there is no possession of land? What if other communities want to create connective infrastructure that crosses a community that doesn’t agree with that? What if ………… ? etc etc etc.

        Anarchy is chaos. Man is inquisitive and has always aspired to create order in his habitat by developing and cooperating. It’s human nature. And this is most effective if well coordinated by competent men. It’s what people want. Not every one is cut out for this task, some are. And that is why people will support competent individuals that have good ideas about how to manage their community, in the interest of their community, and therefore, in their own interest. Don’t confuse our current prediciment with the only possible form of rule, because it isn’t. And history proves that.

      5. 1138,

        To easily define those who want anarchy from those who do not wish anarchy is simply those who wish to be free and those who wish to be slaves. And that’s really it when it comes to it.

        The minute you create any body/authority/organisation/government you instantly create the situation of control over another. You also instantly create the situation of infiltration and those within with the most money/power abuse their power.

        You are a national socialist and I’ve always known this in your views. You never needed to point that one out 🙂
        I was governed as a child by my parents. I grew up. I no longer needed to be governed. I lived by individual responsibility of my life and suffered the consequences of bad decisions. Everything I have done in life has been my own choice (other than being arrested and thrown in police cells for defending myself against corruption).

        You, on the other hand wish to be governed. You want others to take responsibility for those things in life you are not prepared to do.
        You want to pay taxes, when in all reality, taxation, like charity, should be a completely voluntary option. The first taxes, here in the UK was a war tax from the King so that he could go warring in other lands for resources and profits. Nothing has really changed.

        “But what about taxes to pay street cleaners”? – If you put your rubbish in the bin that job title is not needed. Clean up after you. It’s common sense.

        “But what about paying for a police service”? – learn a martial art and buy a weapon. The police do not defend you. They merely arrest the culprit.

        “But what about paying for the national health service” – I’m with the USA on this one. You pay for what you use and this business, like a carpenter, o plumber should be paid for its different services. For the incredibly expensive health issues, that Americans charge a fortune for, I simply wouldn’t pay them. I would never have a heart bypass, a heart replacement or any other such thing. When it’s time to go, it’s time to go.

        Sadly, a large portion of people’s taxes go towards funding corruption anyway. Wars, bribes, blackmail, politician expenses…..the list goes on and on.

        You think anarchy is impossible because you are not prepared to take control of your own actions. A small community does not need any leader. All it needs is respect for fellow man. In fact, if it follows the commandments, then there wouldn’t be any problems within. If, within a community, children start playing up, then it’s up to the parents to discipline them. Their bad behaviour is a reflection of poor parenting.

        I do not give authority to anyone over me. This is why I do not vote, nor am I on any electoral register, for which they hound me for not doing so. I do not wish to govern either. I let people get on with their lives, regardless whether I agree with their views on life. Their life, their mistakes. I disagree on many of people’s choices, but again their life, their choice, their mistakes and thus their consequences.

        The simple reason why government never works is becuase as stated, they are always infiltrated and thus controlled. Had Hitler won, it would only have been a matter of time before his national socialist government was infiltrated and its goals changed, just as governments all over the world have.

      6. Harbinger,

        I don’t particularly wish to be ruled. Not at all. What makes you think that? It’s not a matter of wishing to be ruled. I could be a great ruler myself. I simply acknowledge the fact that there is no such thing as ‘no rule’. Only if you live alone on an island, then you have no ( at least no human ) ruler above you. There is only ONE way for you to have no one above you and that is to be on top. Other than that, forget it.

        And i also acknowledge that there are different kinds of rule possible. So I am aiming at the best possible way of rule, which happens to have a proven record. And I can name more examples of very succcesful forms of rule. You show me one case of a succesful anarchy, just one. You can’t, because anarchy can’t exist. Show me one example of an area, anywhere on earth, where there is/was no rule.

        I get the impression that you are convinced that under no any form of rule you are able to pursue your own life and just cannot live a happy and worthwhile life. Now that I find strange.

        We are where we are because at present, and already for a long long time, we fail(ed) to see the Nr 1 priority we have, our genes’/ethnic interest. In fact, we are doing everything opposite to our ethnic interest. The jews, however, are doing everything right in that respect. Which explains there huge succes, despite being an obscure little people who couldn’t even squash a fly would we act according how evolution has programmed us. Well, I have already expressed my thoughts regarding the reason why we are totally and utterly failing our duty as a species. That it has a lot to do with centuries of Christianity.

        But anyway, in my view anarchy is a delusional concept, most likely conjured up by jew. Libertarism, which is basically anarchy, is for sure.

      7. 1138,

        “I don’t particularly wish to be ruled.”

        You are a national socialist – correct?
        Therefore you would vote for a national socialist government – correct?
        Therefore you wish to be governed by the state – correct?
        To be governed in the dictionary: to rule over by right of authority: to govern a nation.

        Having just read Arch’s reply at the foot of the page I quote the following riddle:

        “If you do not want to be led, then why do you demand leaders? If you want to be led, then why do you expect leaders to follow your demands?”

        “But anyway, in my view anarchy is a delusional concept, most likely conjured up by jew. Libertarism, which is basically anarchy, is for sure. “

        Why would it be conjured up by the Jew, when anarchy would instantly remove the Jew from its thrown of power and control over millions? And why would the pursuit of a libertarian lifestyle be that of the Jew as well?
        The very socialist, dystopian society we are moving into is one, straight out of the pages of the Babylonian Talmud. In order for us to get there, democracy was created, which is merely the road to a socialist state.
        The Jew only has what he has because of monetary control over the planet. And he is protected within that control mechanism by creating the world’s biggest gang – the police. In an anarchy there are no police to protect the Jew. An anarchy is anathema by the Jew and Jewish control and thus, most certainly not the creation of it.

      8. Harbinger,

        My desire for good government has n-o-t-h-i-n-g to do with what I wish. Wishes are for children. I accept and respect nature and millions of years of evolution which formed our nature and behavior. You object to being a human?

        There is absolutely no need for summing up everything that is wrong with our current form of rule. I am aware of all that, which is precisely why I advocate what I advocate. The difference is that I offer a working – proven – alternative, one that actually inspired people to be better i.e. an übermensch and made them happy and confident. You don’t. You just wish human nature was something other than it is. Or do you believe that without any form of authority individuals or even groups of people could not be corrupted to do evil? That there would be no organised parasites or that they would stay away leaving you in peace?
        If so I’m afraid you’re dreaming.

        Contrary to you I do accept that not everybody thinks like me. That’s why I want to have the best possible guarantee for the reproduction and survival of my genes. And trust me, vulnerable little communities are not it. Nor is letting your mortal enemy thrive in peace and prepare its evil business. Not in this world, as is proven by now I should think.

      9. Harbinger,

        “In an anarchy there are no police to protect the Jew. An anarchy is anathema by the Jew and Jewish control and thus, most certainly not the creation of it”

        In socialism the workers will not be exploited by the capitalists. In capitalism/libertarism you are free to associate and do business with anyone you want. In anarchy you will be free without rule.

        Recognise a common quality in these propositions? I do, they’re all illusions that won’t work but alas attract many susceptibles.


      10. 1138,

        With all due respect you have no argument. You are unable to refute my argument. You say you have no desire to be governed yet you are a self confessed national socialist, who votes for government.
        You don’t offer any “working-proven-alternative” in the slightest. All you offer is the same of the same, a system created to control people while those in control benefit off of their suffering.

        Government, like all organizations are infiltrated. Once you establish a system of ‘rule’ that system eventually rules over every aspect of your life as we see today – “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”

        We all have two choices in life – freedom or slavery.
        You choose the latter and I the former and PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE stop stating that you don’t because you do. Anyone, who votes for a government, thus, wishes/wants/desires/asks to be governed and wants to be a subservient to a system of authority OVER THEM. You are only, continuing to contradict yourself by saying that you don’t want to be governed.

        I’m sorry but there is nothing else to say on this matter between your wishes for a National Socialist government and I an anarchy. I’m getting dizzy going around the mulberry bush with you 1138.

      11. Harbinger,

        “With all due respect you have no argument. You are unable to refute my argument.”

        With the same respect; Not only have I refuted all your arguments, I’ve destroyed them. You just can’t stand that. It’s understandable.

        ” You say you have no desire to be governed yet you are a self confessed national socialist, who votes for government.”

        National Socialism is no democracy.

        “You don’t offer any “working-proven-alternative” in the slightest. All you offer is the same of the same, a system created to control people while those in control benefit off of their suffering.”

        Yes, I’m sure the German people suffered a lot under Hitler’s regime. So much so that their country became the wealthiest nation in Europe with happy and confident citizens in record time. And of course, as you say, NS Germany was exactly what we have now, right? Absolutely no difference. And no doubt that the people in Singapore are suffering as well with a poor economy and living conditions, not to mention the rampant (drug related) crime over there. I’ll bet they are secretly dreaming of anarchy, just as the Germans did under Hitler after he ended chaos (anarchy) under the jews.

        ” Government, like all organizations are infiltrated. Once you establish a system of ‘rule’ that system eventually rules over every aspect of your life as we see today – “the road to hell is paved with good intentions” ”

        Of course communities cannot be infiltrated or corrupted or be overpowered by evil? No, evil simply seases to exist if only we abolish government. O, how brilliant a solution. That’s why the jews fear nothing more than anarchy. Contrair to that they just love a souverein self governed strong nation. Because of course only in such a nation they are free to apply their practises, right? Small little anarchist communities is what they fear the most. That’s why they preach individualism as the highest virtue 24/7, right?

        “We all have two choices in life – freedom or slavery.”

        You need more than freedom to survive in this world.

        “You choose the latter and I the former and PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE stop stating that you don’t because you do. Anyone, who votes for a government, thus, wishes/wants/desires/asks to be governed and wants to be a subservient to a system of authority OVER THEM. You are only, continuing to contradict yourself by saying that you don’t want to be governed.”

        Have you taken your pills today? Where do I state that I vote, or am for a democracy? You think that ancient or medieval kings were voted into power?

        “I’m sorry but there is nothing else to say on this matter between your wishes for a National Socialist government and I an anarchy. I’m getting dizzy going around the mulberry bush with you 1138.”

        Well, indeed, there is no point in that. We won’t agree for sure. I call that game, set and match, Harbinger. Not once have you even tried to refute any of my points. Of course that would be an impossible task,

        I will end with repeating that what you are dreaming of has a total lack of empirical evidence of succes, while what I prefer has a proven record, and is still being proven today as we speak in several countries. Don’t bother to even try to refute that 🙂

      12. 1138,

        “Have you taken your pills today? Where do I state that I vote, or am for a democracy? You think that ancient or medieval kings were voted into power? “

        Is there any need to ad hominem here, really?
        Where have I stated that you are for a democracy?
        So you want a benevolent dictator under a feudal society with Lords, Barons and serfs?
        But more importantly, Hitler’s national socialist party was elected into power in 1933. Therefore there was a democracy in place in order for the people of Germany to vote. Capiche?
        So let’s try and understand what I’ve been stating all along to you shall we?

        1. You are a national socialist (as you have implied).
        2. You want a national socialist government because you won’t get that with a liberal/conservative socialist, conservative or libertarian government in power or an anarchy.
        3. Therefore by choosing to be a national socialist, you choose to have a government and thus a state to govern you.
        4. I do not vote and I do not wish/want/desire/require any from of government and thus I do not want to be governed by anyone, regardless. I choose to have authority over myself and no one else. I also choose, by not voting, to not have anyone impose authority over me. I have thus not signed any contract with anyone in order for this to be so (voting for government).

        Now 1138, I think you (and everyone else for that matter) will clearly see that our debate has been about anarchy and government. You continue to somehow imply that you do not wish to be governed, but want a national socialist society, which would only work with a government and state enforcement of its manifesto over the people.
        How on earth am I to have a debate with someone who doesn’t even know what he’s debating about?

      13. Harbinger,

        “You continue to somehow imply that you do not wish to be governed”

        As I explained, but again, wish has nothing to do with it. I don’t wish for leaves to grow on trees either, they just do. And I know there will be some form of rule (please please please show me otherwise. I’m not asking for much, only ONE example) and therefore I choose the best possible one which will offer the highest achievable advantages for the nation, which is proven FACT. Because even if you are only a tiny community, you still belong to a nation. Now, that is something entirely different than begging to be ruled just for the sake of being ruled.

        “.eit but want a national socialist society, which would only work with a government and state enforcement of its manifesto over the people.”

        I repeat, I don’t think the German people during the NS years would have welcomed anarchy to replace Hitler’s governing. And neither will the citizens of Singapore – also an autocratic state – for example. Do you? I rest my case.

        “How on earth am I to have a debate with someone who doesn’t even know what he’s debating about?”

        Au contrair, Harbinger. Die hard anarchist just can’t cope with reality. This is how I see it.

        Besides, I read in this thread that you, as Lobro does, consider TNT as Jesus’ Mein Kampf. Well then, NS can’t be that bad then, can it, because I suppose in a way Mein Kampf is Hitler’s TNT then 🙂

  3. Hi,

    I’m the new monitor. And I plan to play fair and square and let people say pretty much what they want. I believe in free speech, within limits.

    BTW, I’m surprised to see that Lasha has done a complete U-turn on capital punishment. How strange! A few days ago she was all for it. Now she’s against it.

    Such inconsistency is truly deplorable! Good heavens Lasha, make up your mind!!!

    1. Dear Sister,

      I haven’t really “changed my mind”. I’ve just modified my opinion. It’s now more nuanced.

      Basically, capital punishment is unacceptable in dystopian societies. After all, how can a mafia state presume to dispense justice?

      In Plato’s Republic however, which is an ideal Utopian society where the “Guardians” are in charge, the death penalty would have been universally accepted as the correct way to deal with society’s most evil and cruel criminals. This is because the Guardians of the Platonic state were all supposed to be “good fellows” of unimpeachable integrity.

      In a well-regulated country, the judiciary would be well respected and all courts would bend over backwards to be scrupulously “fair”. Yes, they could make a mistake sometimes and put an innocent person to death. That’s deeply regrettable. But isn’t it just as bad to cage an innocent man in a small prison cell? Believe me, many people would prefer a swift and painless death to solitary confinement in a dark dungeon! And execution need not be painful.

      However, we are not living in Plato’s Republic. This is a dystopian society. No punishments can be accepted as fair in a dystopian society because the punishers themselves are seen as little better than knaves or fools.

      1. In deciding upon the implementation of the Death Penalty (I prefer this term over the euphemistic “Capital Punishment”), we need to see it NOT philosophically but practically. Philosophy is an amplifier; it is not the sound waves. It’s rather like a spice and herb, not the meat. Philosophy is speculation. Retreating to the abstract will not be satisfying because Reality is too multifaceted. Reality is a synonym for Nature, which is the manifestation of God. What better way to know God than to understand Nature, the Natural World? God of course-who else-created Nature out of nothing. So we need to look at this issue with thoughts that are tethered, not flighty, not unsecured, not ambiguous. Abstractions are not useful unless they have a concomitant Real reference. Reference mathematical symbols, engineering symbols and markings on a blueprint, drawings of power plants. These are all symbolic and are without meaning UNLESS they reference the Real World, which is the World we perceive with our senses, through observation, categorization, ranking, testing, etc, etc, etc. We are part of the Animal Kingdom.

        All the human disasters outside of pathogenic and geological type disruptions have been created and applied by abstract ideas, by people who were of high intelligence, usually well learned, socio/psychopathic, narcissistic, and greedy. They all had one thing in common, and that is that what Nikos Kazantzakis-the former disillusioned communist-called “Pure Ideas”. Their PI they thought were above and apart from Natural Law. Nothing is outside of Natural Law. Malignant Altruism is outside of Natural Law (and we should always listen for that voice in our head, now and then that says, “That’s not they way things work”). Misapplied, misinterpreted, misconstrued, misapplied Christian Doctrine and Practice is outside of Natural Law. WESTERN Christianity is corrupt, polluted, afflicted, its DNA and RNA-never robust or highly defensible, has been mutated by the viral strains of the secular world, and primarily by the Jews, who have created, refined, and inundated the entire West with viral strains designed not just to weaken but to mutate and then produce self destructive reconstructed reproductive code. That’s why so many surrogate Jews-Goyim, Gentiles, Christians, etc-do the work against their own people, their own civilization, its legacy, glory, and heritage. They are mutated products. The ONLY major Christian Church untouched by this disease is the Eastern Orthodox Church, which (gee whiz) is orthodox, meaning it doesn’t change with fashion, wimpy whimsy, current trends (folk masses anyone, gay and or lesbian priests, Father Conklins?). Why would a Church “go with the flow”, that was witness to the life and teachings of Christ? Why is the Catholic Church reduced to a trendy pop sociology, Marxist Economics, college freshmen set of sloppy and incomplete thoughts and bromides for the Human Condition? It is reduced to a department of the Money Men, the Illuminati, the Luciferian Jews. It is weak, lobotomized, unsound, self-blasphemizing, impure, with a stench and toxicity oozes out of its corpus. It is a grotesque object and force of evil, in balance. It’s spirituality is null. It is entirely of this World, not the Next. Granted there are holdouts, but there is no denying that all Catholics are knee deep in toxic muck. The Catholic Church, as an edifice simile, has had since the Great Schism a level of muck and dreck that covers the entire firmament. The good Catholics-the Saints, saintly-are apart from a corrupt, Worldly and tempted institution. From the moment of the Schism, the Catholic Church’s SPIRITUALITY has undergone a constant, uninterrupted decay very similar to radioactive material. It is an inherent process, immutable, unstoppable, and cannot be altered. It will soon become a Dark Star, devoid of energy, spent, lifeless, and an inert and lifeless clump of a substance to be avoided. Christ has left the building; and took all his belongings and will not be returning. Sorry.

        Like the early pilgrims and colonials of America, it is time to forsake the salted spiritual terra for another that is deep, rich, robust, reliable, and functioning. First and last, it is SPIRITUAL. That is its essence. Clean your shoes, wash your stockings and behold:



        The Church of the West has always been the corrupt sibling, less comprehensible, worldly and tempted, and a “Jambalaya and a crawfish pie and fillet gumbo”-

        It has been/is an entity made out of convenient, chip-in hobo stew, and backwards, retrogressive canons and theology. Got to justify Popes picking rulers and having a passle of bastards running around. Let’s canonize “La Dolce Vita” into the Catechism.

        This is the first leg of my thesis that the death penalty should not know any inherent, automatic, universal prohibition and exclusion from the Catholic Church. I have endeavored to demonstrate that nowhere and nohow can the Catholic Church enjoin or attempt-by authority. It simply has no standing or moral perch from which to preach. Google “catholic church old whore” (4,860,000 hits). Google “homo marxist control of catholic church” (5,300,00 hits).

        The practical, secular, Natural, and connectivity of Life and Death existent in the World will by the focus of my next submission. Death is Natural, not synthetic. Killing is not a universal prohibition.

      2. Innocents will always be wrongfully convicted — a perfect system of justice is impossible to achieve. For example, all the evidence might point to a guilty party (a confession, DNA found at the scene etc) and then we find out that the condemned was protecting someone else.

        False flags are the most obvious example of framing innocent people.

        If you support Capital Punishment then you support the killing of innocents. There is no way around this fact.

    2. Mispocheh sista monica jewinsky :

      If you’re so ALL about Free Speech and ALL about being “fair and square” , then why EXACTLY are you CENSORING the posts I send in to your “Catholic” albeit nominal “Catholic” TRUTH LOVING Darkmoon commentary board? And if my posts are “beyond” the limits, then please give us your rules for commenting, give us the paradigm, draw the lines so we will know if we’re walking over the lines or not, it would save us commentators alot of time and energy, we’ll know then what we “can” say and what we “can NOT” say, if you don’t mind, Oh Most Considerate One, Our Lady of The First Amendment. Or, is it Our Lady of the “Fist” Amendment?

    3. Hello Sister Monica,

      You best keep the cane standing by for any site offenders.

      On second thought, forget about it, ’cause that might be an outright invitation for some to disrespect the site policy 🙂

      1. Hello Sister Monica,

        I’d especially keep my eye on 1138. He’s been known to be a ‘disturber of the peace’. 🙂

  4. It’s really quite simple-either you trust the government and its “justice” system, or you don’t. If you don’t, there is no way you can justify being for capital punishment. If you don’t trust them(and why should you?), why give them that kind of power? No logic.

  5. Harbinger admits: “A country without any proper government: that’s an anarchy.” Then proceeds to comment how MY statement was incorrect. Neither one of us is wrong. It is that our point of view is not the same; nor is it merely ‘semantics’. To use my statement as a diving board to swim with only your point of view is biased. We are living in anarchy. The current system is unfit for judgment. I never said otherwise.

  6. Here in Sarajevo, the daily newspaper (Daily Avaz) has couple of times interviewed a man whose name escapes me now.
    His opinion on the subject pretty much tracks Lasha’s.

    he is one of the richest people in Bosnia+Herzegovina, a hugely popular philanthropist and maybe 4 months ago sentenced himself to death and shot himself in the head to that end.
    He didn’t quite succeed and the local surgeons spent almost a day trying to reanimate him, despite terrible injury to the brain.
    I remember seeing daily reports on his status because he was so well known and liked.

    Just recently he was profiled again, wherein he said how immeasurably happy he is that he survived and he has no clue how he could have been so stupid.
    He is still far from 100%, if he’ll ever be but greatly enjoying normal life, company of friends and learning how to play accordion, the most popular instrument in the Balkans, which he does at various parties and weddings he attends.
    Whatever the benefits of grave, playing accordion is not among them.

    1. On a similar note, Lobro – –

      In July, 2015, former NFL Quarterback Erik Kramer, of Detroit Lions and Chicago Bears records fame, shot himself in the head and miraculously lived to tell the story of his attempted suicide.

      He has NO depression now. The gunshot through his throat, tongue, sinuses and frontal lobes ‘cured’ him.

      Actually… a self-inflicted lobotomy.

      See him tell his story: (6 min vid)

      Self-inflicted lobotomy…… hmmmm…???

      This might help criminals. Last chance before gallows. 🙂

  7. Doesn’t it just come down to who wields the cane or trips the lever? I mean, we’re right aren’t we?
    Like the serendipitly named Lasha, I find myself in favor of a dispassionately dispensed punishment, which may be an an act of mercy in that it provides a timely atonement which makes unnecessary a subsequent and more distressing karmic one. “Spoil the child” and all that.

  8. Matthew 7:1-3

    7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

    2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

    3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”

    John 8:1-11

    8:1 Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.

    2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.

    3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,

    4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

    5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

    6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

    7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

    8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

    9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

    10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

    11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

    If people are to walk in the shoes of Christ then the above must not be forgotten. No man/woman has done no wrong in their life and yet there are many self righteous hypocrites who like to judge others. This stated, there should be no judge, nor jury in life. If we are to be judged then we shall be so when we die.

    It is why I am and always will be an anarchist as hypocrisy lives within everyone and no one has any authority over another, without their given consent.

    1. there are many self righteous hypocrites who like to judge others

      part of the job description, Harb, which is why most judges in the US, Canada and probably EU are Pharisees, hypocrites.
      VAE VOBIS!

      Luke 😉 here, Harb, this one for you, it is a beauty and the truth:
      Luke 11:52

      Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.

      (good men like Felix, who fight the good fight, notwithstanding)
      Latin Vulgata (it just sounds so much better, hear the ancient thunder afresh)

      Væ vobis, legisperitis, quia tulistis clavem scientiæ: ipsi non introistis, et eos qui introibant, prohibuistis

      More great stuff saith Luke (11:43)

      Woe to you Pharisees! You love the best seats in the synagogues and elaborate greetings in the marketplaces!
      Væ vobis, pharisæis, quia diligitis primas cathedras in synagogis, et salutationes in foro.

      Mat 23:13-15

      vae autem vobis scribæ et pharisæi hypocritæ, quia clauditis regnum caelorum ante homines vos enim non intratis nec introeuntes sinitis intrare.
      (But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.)

      Væ vobis scribæ et pharisæi hypocritæ, quia comeditis domos viduarum, orationes longas orantes! propter hoc amplius accipietis judicium.
      (Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.)

      vae vobis scribæ et pharisæi hypocritæ, quia circuitis mare et aridam ut faciatis unum proselytum et cum fuerit factus facitis eum filium gehennae duplo quam vos
      (Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you travel on sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, you make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.)

      So tell me how Jesus didn’t draw the bead on them, he understood Jews even better than Hitler did.
      Reading New Testament shows that Jews 2,000 years ago were exactly the same as they are now – PHARISEES, HYPOCRITES. Woe is them indeed.
      New Testament is Jesus’s Mein Kampf, basically.

      It explains clearly the Jew’s undying hatred for Jesus, born afresh each morning, burning day and night.

      Who today can match these words?

      1. I wondered about this:
        you travel on sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, you make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves,
        until it struck me that Christ was speaking of shabbo goyim, the likes of Clinton, Biden, Cheney, Harper, Blair and so many more, the twofold more children of hell than themselves, who neither go in [kingdom of heaven] themselves, neither suffer them that are entering to go in.


      2. Yes Lobro and good quotes. It seems that certain jobs attract certain types of people for sure.
        And yes also that the NT is Jesus’ Mein Kampf. With that I’ll completely agree. The Jews hate Jesus because he called them out for what they are. He showed them a mirror with which to view their souls. And the shabbos are, without a doubt, the worst, for they have sold out their people and culture, for material worth.

    2. Those Biblical passages were in reference to our personal relationships to others. We do not judge others, however, judgment is reserved by government to ensure orderliness in society.

      For rulers are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. Do you desire to have no fear of the authority? Do that which is good, and you will have praise from the same, for he is a servant of God to you for good. But if you do that which is evil, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is a servant of God, an avenger for wrath to him who does evil. Romans 13:3-4 NHEB

      Last time I checked, Singapore had the 2nd lowest crime rate, Japan being number 1. (On the other hand, Japan is slowly slipping as they are adopting western views on easing punishments.) For example for the drug problem, their system is fair. If caught with paraphanalia on hand, they send it to a laboratory, and base results on purified quantities. If contains but below a certain amount, one is judged a user and spends about 10 years in jail. If above the threshold, after first guilty verdict, one goes to court again on appeal. If appeal fails, they are hanged.

      Here in US, there are many repeat offenders. For example, hard drug usage causes many ills to our society. Even celebrities boldly boast of hard drug use with little recourse. There is no wonder as to why as to how the lack of proper justice causes an epidemic proliferation of criminal activity.

      Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil. Ecclesiastes 8:11 NHEB

      1. George,

        Regardless, Mathew 7:1-3 should be for all. I am an anarchist and do not believe in government. I do not give my consent to having anyone have authority over me and none should impose their authority upon those who do not wish it so. That is tyranny.
        The whole attack on drug users is completely there for profit.
        Alcohol is legal in the UK but other drugs are not? I can say right now that having worked as a doorman for a long time, alcohol destroys far more many lives than all other drugs combines. A barman/manager is no different to any drug dealer and an owner/brewer, no different to any drug baron.
        If you take drugs and you can’t work then you get sent home. It’s the same with alcohol.
        If you steal to fund your drug habit, then you are charged with theft and summarily punished. Best scenario here – out drug addicts in a cell and let them go ‘cold turkey’.

      2. Harbinger on August 15, 2016 at 5:14 pm wrote:

        George, Regardless, Mathew 7:1-3 should be for all. I am an anarchist and do not believe in government. I do not give my consent to having anyone have authority over me and none should impose their authority upon those who do not wish it so. That is tyranny.

        I gather then, rather than anarchy that you are referring to limited governance, no?

        This is essentially what our US nation was originally founded upon, where governance was of the people, for the people, by the people. Governance was carried down to the local level, where people had a say into matters. National governance was kept to a minimum.

        What I’ve seen over time is that governance has been lost to a centralized government, something the forefathers attempted to prevent through the Constitution and Bill of Rights, which are now being trampled upon by an increasing police state mentality. Local troopers are being deputized into federal government actions. State laws are being overridden by federal laws.

        We are seeing more shocking evidence of a police state mentality with people that used to be considered most patriotic, our military veterans, for example:

        Rutherford: The War on America’s Military Veterans Waged with Swat Teams, Surveillance and Neglect

        Although no toy guns were involved in Brandon Raub’s case, his fact scenario is even more chilling, given that he was targeted for exercising his First Amendment rights on Facebook. The 26-year-old decorated Marine actually found himself interrogated by government agents about his views on government corruption, arrested with no warning, labeled mentally ill for subscribing to so-called “conspiratorial” views about the government, detained against his will in a psych ward for standing by his views, and isolated from his family, friends and attorneys.

        Law abiding citizens are now being subjected to lack of due process in asset forfeiture (government theft), surveillance without justification, law enforcement corruption, and etc. US government actions now mimic cold war communist regimes.

  9. Harbinger

    Whoever would give their consent to be the authority OVER them is deserving of whatever that authority deems to be its governing aegis; under its auspices. But when those auspices creep into the realms of arbitrariness, then Houston, “we have a problem”.

    The only proper authoritarian position of a governing body external to your immediate personhood is as an extension to your person in the name of self-protection. This constitutes the only legitimate representation of “government”.

    Your use of the word “anarchy” is reactionary to the aforementioned “arbitrariness” in the dystopian manifestations we are seeing now, which is obviously understandable. But the proper understanding of anarchy conveys a reality of societal disorder, which paves the way for the very arbitrariness that interferes with a rightful functioning of society.

    Insofar as capital punishment is concerned, again, it’s about self-protection, which doesn’t require that a State of whom this constitutes its only legitimacy in existing is justified in killing. A proper functioning of an external governmental auspice would successfully lock away any deserving miscreants, and throw away the key.

    This honors the commandment of “thou shalt not kill”. When the State kills a person who’s ALREADY helpless in its captivity, this has nothing to do with protection.

    For all intents and purposes, killing in a legitimate situation of self-defense cannot be considered KILLING in the strictest sense of the word. At that point, it BECOMES just the common sense instinct of SURVIVING.

    1. Brownhawk,

      “Your use of the word “anarchy” is reactionary to the aforementioned “arbitrariness” in the dystopian manifestations we are seeing now, which is obviously understandable. But the proper understanding of anarchy conveys a reality of societal disorder, which paves the way for the very arbitrariness that interferes with a rightful functioning of society.

      I disagree. The proper understanding of anarchy is simply the freedom to live one’s own life and make their own choices, without being told how they should and shouldn’t live their own lives. And within this you will anarchists who are good and bad. The most important part here is that it gives people the choice to live their own lives – freewill. Now certainly within any anarchy there will be disorder, but the only society where there isn’t disorder would be a complete police state, where people live in fear of everyone and everything, with secret police units, arresting them in the early morning, as we see in dystopian societies, books and films (East Germany, Orwell’s 1984, Terry Gilliam’s Brazil). And you know that dystopian societies are always totalitarian states. The true direction of man would be enlightenment. It would essentially move from a conservative mindset, to a liberty loving mindset into eventual anarchy and understanding.

      “Insofar as capital punishment is concerned, again, it’s about self-protection, which doesn’t require that a State of whom this constitutes its only legitimacy in existing is justified in killing. A proper functioning of an external governmental auspice would successfully lock away any deserving miscreants, and throw away the key.”

      Again Brownhawk, this is yet more control over an individual who does not give their consent to be controlled. What right do they have of authority over this individual is he does not give it? If this man is a criminal, is the problem created not between he/she and their victim? What right does the victim have to introduce a third party, unless both consent too?

      As stated in the previous article on Paedophilia; I am in the favour of mind of putting those who wish to molest children, rape and kill on a land to do just that to one another. Guaranteed, there would be a far higher chance of being rehabilitated there than in a prison, especially when they know they’re going to be murdered by the state.

      The best solution, I think, in any country is to give those who wish not to live under authority part of that nation to live, with borders and those who do, the same. If you want to be a slave to a system that is there to steal and control you, then it should be your choice to do so, but there are many in this world, who do not vote and do not wish to be governed. It is those who vote for government who are the first to complain when they send people off to murder others in foreign lands and steal their resources, yet fail to see that in their consent to being governed, they lose all freedoms they have of conscious decisions of where their country is headed. I as an anarchist, sleep well at night knowing that I have no blood on my hands, for the choices of government.

      “This honors the commandment of “thou shalt not kill”. When the State kills a person who’s ALREADY helpless in its captivity, this has nothing to do with protection.

      For all intents and purposes, killing in a legitimate situation of self-defense cannot be considered KILLING in the strictest sense of the word. At that point, it BECOMES just the common sense instinct of SURVIVING.”

      There is a huge difference to killing another who is killing you, than giving the job to another at a later date. If you learn a martial art, as I have, you are capable of not only beating your attacker, but subduing them from further harm to you, without their death. I have also seen police marksman shoot guns out of perpetrators’ hands as well, stopping harm to them and the police.
      I will leave you with a quote from Peter Jackson’s ‘The Hobbit: The Fellowship of the Ring”: “True courage is about knowing not when to take a life, but when to spare one.”

      1. I don’t see where our disagreement lies, except I suppose with regards to the word “anarchy”.

        My simple point would have to do with filling a vacuum that MY definition of anarchy would require


    Excuse me for the off-topic, but I have found something I’d like to share. This is the English translation of the so-called “Catechism of the Jew in the USSR”. It’s a little crude and perhaps needs some editing and polishing, but it’s readable. This is the first time I see it translated in English. Here are a few quotations and the link.

    Catechism of the Jew in the USSR

    “Always act as arbitrators, adopt the posture of being peacemakers, defend the “unhappy people” against whom the crowd is up in arms, but only inasmuch as to gain a reputation as a generous, objective person.”

    “Speak and act in a way which their morality and their concepts do not permit. Do things which seem to them to be impossible and incredible. They will not believe that you are capable of words and actions of which they are not capable.”

    “A nation without a history is like a child without parents. Such a nation can be moulded into whatever is required. One can impose upon such a nation one’s own philosophy and one’s own way of thinking.”

    1. Thanks, Rousso –

      This one covers it all…. even… CAPITAL PUNISHMENT….Noachide Law version.
      No kol nidre needed while writing this one.

      “HE WHO IS IN POWER IS IN THE RIGHT. We must pass on to our children more than we received from our fathers, and our children, after preserving what they have received and adding to it, will in turn pass it on to their offspring. Continuity from generation to generation is our strength, our stability and our immortality.”

    2. Sounds like further refinement on the Protocols and the Talmud.
      Shows deep understanding of psychology of morals:

      They will not believe that you are capable of words and actions of which they are not capable.

      They encourage unspeakable evil because ordinary people cannot conceive of such galactic crime being within human provenance.
      Holocaust Lie is one such example, I don’t remember how many times I heard, “lie of such magnitude is impossible, you are crazy! everybody KNOWS it is true” (knowledge precedes investigation and therefore can prevent it from happening).

      1. “Sounds like further refinement on the Protocols and the Talmud.”


        This translation/version is for the benefit of CORE educated ‘text generation’ with strong thumbs and weak minds.. 🙂

      2. The origin is unknown, but one Russian-speaking Israeli journalist, who is also a religious Jew and a blogger wrote in his blog some time ago, that he received a copy of this document from his brother in the 1980’s in Moscow.

  11. 1st degree murderers, child and cop killers should be executed, for maximum effect, on prime-time TV…….

    “…..and now just before the 6 O’clock news, over to San Quentin for a quick hanging”

  12. The real problem in the world today is centralized government. Massive, unrestricted, government usurped by a tiny group of elites and redirected for their own personal pleasure. The only possible way to assure this situation cannot be maintained or ever happen again is to abolish all forms of centralized, authoritarian regimes and organizations.

    What is Anarchism?

    “Modern civilisation faces three potentially catastrophic crises: (1) social breakdown, a shorthand term for rising rates of poverty, homelessness, crime, violence, alienation, drug and alcohol abuse, social isolation, political apathy, dehumanisation, the deterioration of community structures of self-help and mutual aid, etc.; (2) destruction of the planet’s delicate ecosystems on which all complex forms of life depend; and (3) the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons.

    “Orthodox opinion, including that of Establishment “experts,” mainstream media, and politicians, generally regards these crises as separable, each having its own causes and therefore capable of being dealt with on a piecemeal basis, in isolation from the other two. Obviously, however, this “orthodox” approach isn’t working, since the problems in question are getting worse. Unless some better approach is taken soon, we are clearly headed for disaster, either from catastrophic war, ecological Armageddon, or a descent into urban savagery — or all of the above.

    “Anarchism offers a unified and coherent way of making sense of these crises, by tracing them to a common source. This source is the principle of hierarchical authority, which underlies the major institutions of all “civilised” societies, whether capitalist or “communist.” Anarchist analysis therefore starts from the fact that all of our major institutions are in the form of hierarchies, i.e. organisations that concentrate power at the top of a pyramidal structure, such as corporations, government bureaucracies, armies, political parties, religious organisations, universities, etc. It then goes on to show how the authoritarian relations inherent in such hierarchies negatively affect individuals, their society, and culture. In the first part of this FAQ (sections A to E) we will present the anarchist analysis of hierarchical authority and its negative effects in greater detail.

    “It should not be thought, however, that anarchism is just a critique of modern civilisation, just “negative” or “destructive.” Because it is much more than that. For one thing, it is also a proposal for a free society. Emma Goldman expressed what might be called the “anarchist question” as follows: “The problem that confronts us today. . . is how to be one’s self and yet in oneness with others, to feel deeply with all human beings and still retain one’s own characteristic qualities.” [Red Emma Speaks, pp. 158-159] In other words, how can we create a society in which the potential for each individual is realised but not at the expense of others? In order to achieve this, anarchists envision a society in which, instead of being controlled “from the top down” through hierarchical structures of centralised power, the affairs of humanity will, to quote Benjamin Tucker, “be managed by individuals or voluntary associations.” [Anarchist Reader, p. 149] While later sections of the FAQ (sections I and J) will describe anarchism’s positive proposals for organising society in this way, “from the bottom up,” some of the constructive core of anarchism will be seen even in the earlier sections. The positive core of anarchism can even be seen in the anarchist critique of such flawed solutions to the social question as Marxism and right-wing “libertarianism” (sections F and H, respectively).

    “As Clifford Harper elegantly puts it, “[l]ike all great ideas, anarchism is pretty simple when you get down to it — human beings are at their best when they are living free of authority, deciding things among themselves rather than being ordered about.” [Anarchy: A Graphic Guide, p. vii] Due to their desire to maximise individual and therefore social freedom, anarchists wish to dismantle all institutions that repress people:

    ” “Common to all Anarchists is the desire to free society of all political and social coercive institutions which stand in the way of the development of a free humanity.” [Rudolf Rocker, Anarcho-Syndicalism, p. 9]

    “As we’ll see, all such institutions are hierarchies, and their repressive nature stems directly from their hierarchical form.

    “Anarchism is a socio-economic and political theory, but not an ideology. The difference is very important. Basically, theory means you have ideas; an ideology means ideas have you. Anarchism is a body of ideas, but they are flexible, in a constant state of evolution and flux, and open to modification in light of new data. As society changes and develops, so does anarchism. An ideology, in contrast, is a set of “fixed” ideas which people believe dogmatically, usually ignoring reality or “changing” it so as to fit with the ideology, which is (by definition) correct. All such “fixed” ideas are the source of tyranny and contradiction, leading to attempts to make everyone fit onto a Procrustean Bed. This will be true regardless of the ideology in question — Leninism, Objectivism, “Libertarianism,” or whatever — all will all have the same effect: the destruction of real individuals in the name of a doctrine, a doctrine that usually serves the interest of some ruling elite. Or, as Michael Bakunin puts it:

    ” “Until now all human history has been only a perpetual and bloody immolation of millions of poor human beings in honour of some pitiless abstraction — God, country, power of state, national honour, historical rights, judicial rights, political liberty, public welfare.” [God and the State, p. 59]

    “Dogmas are static and deathlike in their rigidity, often the work of some dead “prophet,” religious or secular, whose followers erect his or her ideas into an idol, immutable as stone. Anarchists want the living to bury the dead so that the living can get on with their lives. The living should rule the dead, not vice versa. Ideologies are the nemesis of critical thinking and consequently of freedom, providing a book of rules and “answers” which relieve us of the “burden” of thinking for ourselves.

    “In producing this FAQ on anarchism it is not our intention to give you the “correct” answers or a new rule book. We will explain a bit about what anarchism has been in the past, but we will focus more on its modern forms and why we are anarchists today. The FAQ is an attempt to provoke thought and analysis on your part. If you are looking for a new ideology, then sorry, anarchism is not for you.

    “While anarchists try to be realistic and practical, we are not “reasonable” people. “Reasonable” people uncritically accept what the “experts” and “authorities” tell them is true, and so they will always remain slaves! Anarchists know that, as Bakunin wrote:

    ” “[a] person is strong only when he stands upon his own truth, when he speaks and acts from his deepest convictions. Then, whatever the situation he may be in, he always knows what he must say and do. He may fall, but he cannot bring shame upon himself or his causes.” [quoted in Albert Meltzer, I couldn’t Paint Golden Angels, p. 2]

    “What Bakunin describes is the power of independent thought, which is the power of freedom. We encourage you not to be “reasonable,” not to accept what others tell you, but to think and act for yourself!

    “One last point: to state the obvious, this is not the final word on anarchism. Many anarchists will disagree with much that is written here, but this is to be expected when people think for themselves. All we wish to do is indicate the basic ideas of anarchism and give our analysis of certain topics based on how we understand and apply these ideas. We are sure, however, that all anarchists will agree with the core ideas we present, even if they may disagree with our application of them here and there.”


    It was an odd incident that stands out now only because of its oddness. It happened during a business trip to a distant city. I had become lost that early Sunday morning and was now late for my flight. In my anxious search for the airport, I felt a growing frustration at being lost. I could only wonder how I had come to the point where I was desperately driving the empty back streets of some nameless industrial area deep within the urban confines of this major metropolis.

    The morning was rainy and blustery; the buildings were low, flat, box structures all of drably uniform, cement-gray, color. Each block-long building partition contained several small doors sunk into a windowless, cement wall. The sameness of the scene was mind numbing and gave the impression of my being a rat lost in a maze.

    As I turned another corner and came upon another empty street, I noticed a faint patch of color. Actually, it wasn’t so much a difference in color as it was a different shade of drab; a patch of washed out brown in an otherwise gray universe. Drawing abreast of the drab, brown, color, I could see that it was a human figure hunched over a steaming grate, with its head bowed between its knees.

    The brown turned out to be a patched, military, great coat and the figure’s head was covered with a well-worn fedora. In desperation, I stopped the car and took the three steps required to reach the apparently sleeping figure. It was then I noticed a tin cup and a soiled, dog-eared sign, cast carelessly on the ground that read: RIDDLES – $1.00.

    I didn’t need any more riddles that day, but I prayed my dollar might obtain information directing me out of my present inner-city riddle to the airport and my departing flight. As I reached for my wallet to extract a dollar, the figure stirred and looked up. The face under the old, worn fedora stopped me cold – it was hideous.

    Once it had been the face of a man, but now one side of the face was melted plasticine that had oozed down the rigid structure of a skull. Most noticeable within that misshapened mass of scarred flesh, was a dead, yellowed, sightless, eye staring past me into the gray void of that cold, windy, morning. The other side of the face, although normal, was old and lined from endless years of wear and toil, the good eye drawn to a slit from the relentless wind.

    I opened my mouth, but before I could speak, the horrific apparition addressed me in a low, gravelly, voice that issued from the intact side of the face. Standing there, open mouthed with dollar in hand, I listened as the bizarre looking street beggar gave me clear, concise directions to the airport. Then, without hesitation, he closed his good eye and stared at me with that baleful, yellowed, sightless eye.

    As my focus became riveted on the dead, sightless eye, a detached voice said: “Here is your riddle, If you do not want to be led, then why do you demand leaders? If you want to be led, then why do you expect leaders to follow your demands?” With that, the figure bowed his head and again became an inanimate patch of brown in a gray world. I was late, very late. Still speechless I bent over and stuffed a bill into the tin cup. A moment later, I was back in my rented car, speeding to the airport.

    As I ran up to the loading gate, trench coat and briefcase in hand, I could see my flight being pushed back from the Jetway. Thoroughly exasperated, I dumped myself into a nearby seat. All my thoughts were on the impossibility of making my flight out in time. I tried to focus in order to overcome a fast approaching blue funk, but my racing thoughts would not allow such diversion. It was obvious that I would now miss the election returns. The voting registration and balloting results I had gathered would now be useless information, yesterday’s news.

    At last, I exhaled a deep, long breath in the acceptance that my efforts had been wasted. I threw my head back to find a news broadcast flashing on an overhead monitor. Although unable to hear over the din of surrounding noise, it was clear the election was over. It had been terminated early when the incumbent threw in the towel and conceded defeat. The victors cheered ecstatically, congratulating each other as the newly elected president tried hard not to gloat over his victory. Somewhere in the background, a talking head discussed election details with some know-nothing, TV personality.

    In retrospect, the incident now seems surreal, perhaps more like a scene from a Fellini movie than real life. But I can still see the all too real, baleful gaze, of that dead, yellowed, sightless, eye and I still ponder that riddle that issued from a twisted, melted, mouth with wonder at their meaning: “If you do not want to be led, then why do you demand leaders? If you want to be led, then why do you expect leaders to follow your demands?”

    That as the last time I worked in the election process, in fact that was the last time I voted. I realized those leaders whom I had worked so hard to elect in truth had no more right to run my life than I did theirs. If I really wanted a voice in government, I needed to vote on issues, not promises made by leaders. Moreover, I needed a vote that could not be countermanded or rescinded by any leader. I discovered what I had sought all along was a system whereby people lead, not elected leaders. What I really wanted was true democracy.

    It is strange that Americans think they live under a democratic system; that democracy means a chance to vote on a representative. This in fact is not democracy, but a Republic. By nature, Republics are a form of oligarchy, a point made unstintingly clear in Plato’s work “The Republic”. By contrast, democracy has no leadership roles. The people decide directly over matters affecting their lives. In the end, I realized that my vote had been nothing more than a validation of the Republican system of representational leadership.

    Thus, my vote was an open concession to leadership by an elected representative. In my accepted role as follower, I had conceded any further role in the decision making process. It would now be left up to the leadership to make decisions for me. Whatever their decision, I now had no choice but to accept, as my vote had blindly put all my trust in their decisions. Democrat, Republican, third party – makes no difference, when we demand leadership, we cannot expect any leader to follow our demands and what does it matter to followers whom is chosen to lead, when their accepted role is simply to follow the leader?

    True democracy is another form of realized anarchy.

    1. That’s a beautiful reply Arch.
      I’ve read much Bakunin, along with Tolstoy, Kropotkin and Lysander Spooner, among others. I loved the riddle about wanting to be led.
      We do not need others to tell us how to live. We received all of that from our parents. I just think that it’s all really about individual responsibility and some people aren’t prepared to do so.

      1. Poupon Marx,

        If you have been brought up well by your parents and have understood good and bad behaviour as well as right and wrong, then you need never “be told you are wrong or have erred in thinking and reasoning”.

  13. Addendum and amendment to my Comment above. By “nothing being outside of Natural Law, I meant that its supremacy and finality in judgement of all things Real. Then further, “outside of Natural Law means in violation of same. Some argue that truth is found in art. That is a prima facie false statement. “Art” is the root word of “artifice” and artificial. It is imagined and abstract. It is created as a representation. “Kunst” is the world for “art” in German. Hence “kunstler”, “kunststoff”.

    Natural Law is what IS. All moral principles, theological imperatives, moral codes, mores, norms, etc, etc, etc must be in symbiosis and agreement with NL. If not find the error in human pronouncements and so-called “Words of God”. The latter I deem fraudulent if intrinsic and non relational, but actual if in consonance and agreement with the Real World.

    And of course, God is able to suspend Natural Law at any time, but the invocation and declaration of this is VERY hard to provide evidence of, and should be almost never mentioned except in very special circumstances.

    1. A sort of Executive Summary of the Eastern Orthodox Church (and why you should bail and evacuate The Church of Roam, I mean Rome):


      The revealed truths of the Church on faith and morals have not been formulated as a whole. The whole body of revealed truths is to be found in the Scriptures and Tradition, which have been interpreted and used as such by teachers and thinkers of the Orthodox Church. Only the truths of the Church which have been disputed by misinterpretations are formulated by an Ecumenical Synod, the authoritative body of the Orthodox Church in such matters. In this Church, there is no authorized listing of all the truths on faith and morals in a formulated system, nor an official catechism which encompasses all the truths. The Church leaves teachers and thinkers of theology free to constantly study and present the existing truths of the revealed Word to cope with human needs and circumstances. Orthodox theologians are free to further study various subjects in greater depths, achieving a greater perspective from which to interpret the truths of the Church for the steadfastness of the faithful. These findings of the theologians are not new truths, but the same truths interpreted with greater simplicity and clarity. The gradual unfolding of a revealed truth is the result of devoted research and profound clarity in faith and practice which should not be isolated from the entire body of revealed truths. This freedom of inquiry in the Orthodox Church characterizes its nature of “authority with freedom.” It also provides a sacred opportunity to the Fathers and theologians to further explore these revealed truths.


      The Orthodox Church maintains undefiled the dogmas of teaching and the rules of administration formulated and taught by the Synods of the One Undivided Ecumenical Church of the first millennium of the Christian era. The Orthodox Church continuously and without interruption is the true keeper of the truths of the Undivided Church, without omissions or additions. This Church has never created or added officially any new teaching after the Great Schism of the One Undivided Church. The teachings of this Church are ecumenical in character and in fact. It has introduced no innovations. It does not believe in the primacy of any one leader of the Church, nor in the infallibility of any Church leader. It does not believe in the filioque (“and of the Son”) phrase inserted in the Nicene Creed by the Church in the West, nor in communion by only one element of the Holy Eucharist for the layman. It does not believe in compulsory celibacy of clergymen, purgatory, the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary, nor in other innovations proclaimed in the West after the separation of the Church. The Orthodox Church continues on the original road, keeping undefiled both the teaching and the type of administration of the venerable, Undivided, and Ecumenical Church.”

      1. Poupon –

        “The Church leaves teachers and thinkers of theology free to constantly study and present the existing truths of the revealed Word to cope with human needs and circumstances. Orthodox theologians are free to further study various subjects in greater depths, achieving a greater perspective from which to interpret the truths of the Church for the steadfastness of the faithful.Z”

        How are these women paid?? How are these men paid??

        I ask those questions in that order…. because…
        I believe that women understand human needs and nurturing more than men do. They make better mothers and nurses.

  14. We are stuck with people as administrators of ALL laws.

    A basic flaw of a jury ‘of peers’ and a court rendering any sentence is that no one has any real peers.

    No two people are alike, not even twins….. much less the six, nine or twelve in a jury.

    In certain instances I would rather have only a knowledgeable judge trial, rather than a jury of TV watchers.

    And, then, in the case of appeals…. at some level the cases are reviewed by more than one judge, but might not be unanimous… meaning some knowledgeable judges saw differences.

  15. In a closely related issue…

    The Supreme Court ruling in Utah v Strieff awarded the police total freedom to stop any citizen, at any time, to do whatever they desire.

    The Supreme Court determined that the “poisonous fruit” of a police officer’s stop of a citizen can be used against them at trial. This has wiped out, in reality, any constitutional protection you thought you had. This is a sad day for the United States, for the Supreme Court has officially created a full-blown police state and clearly has no intention of honoring why this nation began the entire American Revolution —  to prevent illegal searches that allowed the king to look for anything he could use to prosecute citizens.

    By legitimizing the conduct that produces this double consciousness, this case tells everyone, white and black, guilty and innocent, that an officer can verify your legal status at any time. It says that your body is subject to invasion while courts excuse the violation of your rights. It implies that you are not a citizen of a democracy but the subject of a carceral state, just waiting to be cataloged.

  16. I have established and demonstrated that the Catholic Church has no moral standing or warrant to sanction or forbid the death penalty. This article will firm this position:

    One priest and college president thinks not – and he is likely not alone.”


    Last Wednesday, I had a lively discussion with Msgr. Stuart Swetland, president of Donnelly College in Kansas City, Kansas, on Relevant Radio’s Drew Mariani Show, on whether or not Islam was a religion of violence. Msgr. Swetland argued not only that Islam was a religion of peace, but that to believe otherwise was to place oneself in opposition to the teaching of the Catholic Church.

    Now, I’m a Catholic. But if Msgr. Swetland is correct, I may not be one for long.

    Msgr. Swetland has now helpfully supplied me with remarks clarifying his position and supporting it with statements of various Popes and the Second Vatican Council. Msgr. Swetland contends that statements of recent Popes to the effect that Islam is a religion of peace fall into the category of teachings to which Catholics must give “religious assent,” as per the Second Vatican Council document Lumen Gentium, which states: “In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent.”

    If Msgr. Swetland is correct that this “religious assent” must be given to Pope Francis’ claim that Islam is peaceful and rejects violence, then I am, as he puts it, “a dissenter from the papal magisterium.” So also, then, would be millions of other Catholics, including those from the Middle East who have borne the brunt of Muslim persecution of Christians and know what Islam teaches, such as a gentleman from Lebanon who phoned in to the Mariani Show during my discussion with Msgr. Swetland.

    If Msgr. Swetland is correct, then Catholics must affirm that Islam is a religion of peace as part and parcel of being Catholic, and the Catholic Church will be requiring that its faithful affirm the truth of what is an obvious and egregious falsehood, as I demonstrated here and in many other places.

    If Msgr. Swetland is correct, and it is Church teaching that all Catholics must accept that Islam is a religion of peace, then the Catholic hierarchy will have demonstrated that it does not have the authority or reliability in discerning and transmitting the truth that it claims to have; Papal claims to speak in the name of Christ will be eviscerated; and the Catholic Church as a whole exposed as a fraud.


    So the Catholic……uh…..Church? (building, edifice?) has no say, having been disqualified in the year of the Great Schism. It could be called a “Club” or “Opinion Center” with more veracity. Moving on……..

    Another line of argument against the death penalty concerns and is derived from “authority” to issue. To summarize, the line of argument this takes is straightforward, non-theological (thankfully), and is based on a premise. That premise is that an immoral entity (group, leadership, government, or other statutory agency) cannot issue negative consequences on its citizens, subjects, or governed because they can’t be trusted, they lie a lot, they sin a lot, they murder themselves (by proxy in most cases). You get the picture. This sounds reasonable, after all, would you like to be admonished for fibbing by a systematic fibber, or reprimanded for cheating by a mega-cheater? Of course not.

    But this approach fails because it is an opinion that cannot ipso facto rise to a dictum, law, or standing principle. To start as an example use murder. Natural Law has been violated, the equation is unbalanced. A life has been taken from this World. The taker of that life is still alive. Harmony and Wa are disturbed, Ying has overpowered Yang and there is constant tension, inequity, and loss. Night has covered day for the relatives of the dead or morbidly injured personage. And day cannot displace night. This is Unnatural and balance needs to be restored. We assume in this case that there is not any doubt that they taker-violator is guilty.

    I have expounded on Natural Law, discussed aspects of same above. “The Law”, as used and reflexively referred to in common conversation is the codified proscriptions of forbidden actions and counter actions. You are not allowed to kill someone or to directly kill or bodily injure-or even insult, in many societies-one who may have killed one of you kin or even a friend. And that is because you have agreed to the Social Contract, which says that the State or some such similar agency will take retribution and retaliation for you. That is the theoretical notion that group harmony and cohesion is enhanced by delegating the punishment to the elders of the tribe, leaders of the pack, chief of the nomads, or an officer of the State. The Social Contract keeps-theoretically- individuals from colliding in mortal and morbid ways with each other.

    These Man Made, synthetic laws are drawn from, extracted from-not inspired or some other formless method-Natural Law. Of course, harmony and the equation must be balanced, justice is in suspension, the world is in tension. Even an imperfect, corrupt, immoral, and stupid government is capable of dispensing justice. It happens all the time. In fact there are no perfect governments and the degree of perfection and level of morality is value based, differing among individuals. Asian societies, some corrupt, dictatorial, cruel etc, etc, etc still execute drug dealers and abusers (Huzzah!), murderers, thieves, et al. Man made laws intrinsically are NOTHING. They are holograms, projections on a screen, emissaries of Natural Law. The same with theological law. Theological Law MUST “fit” and be consistent with Natural Law, be concentric and compatible or be considered to be apostasy and heresy. This means “Divine Law” that is simply a product of an imagination, a delusion, or fabrication of Man.

    So, we attempt to bring resolution to this situation through the Social Contract Agent. Let us say, that justice and retribution were not applied and did not happen. Man Made Synthetic Law failed to be concentric and harmonize with Natural Law. This creates another channel.

    When the Social Contract is broken, it is a contract between two parties-you and the State. The State has not met its obligations, it has breached the Contract. The Contract is no longer in force. You are no longer bound by it. You are morally, ethically, theologically, Naturally free and empowered to take your own DIRECT action, since that is how Nature is structured: direct action. Kill that person anyway you want, directly or indirectly. You are absolved of all Divine disapproval or sanction, from here to evermore. You OWE Nature, God’s manifestation, a restoration of balance, return to harmony and Wa.

    Now, the reader might be a bit put off by my viewpoint and valence in this example, generalized out to other disturbances of the Natural World. But that is only because of your social engineering, your programming and indoctrination from the State. You have always told that direct action is not yours to do. This is false, because it is given as an absolute. It is a contingency, based solely on the State performing its end of the deal.

    You see, I have something for everybody. Theological clarity, refutation of the unwarranted and undeserved power of the State, and a personal empowerment and restitution of YOUR rights and obligations as a creature of the Divine. Anarchists, take note.

    “Over the centuries, mankind has tried many ways of combating the forces of evil … prayer, fasting, good works and so on. Up until Doom, no one seemed to have thought about the double-barrel shotgun. Eat leaden death, demon.” – Terry Pratchett

    “Each of us has a natural right, from God, to defend his person, his liberty, and his property.”
    ― Frédéric Bastiat

    State is the name of the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly it lies; and this lie slips from its mouth: “I, the State, am the people.”
    -Fredrich Nietzche

    1. Thank you Poupon Marx, you reminded me that today, The 15th of August, is the Roman Catholic Holy Day of The Assumption of Mary Into Heaven. I believe , as far as I know, your Russian Orthodox Church also honors The Assumption of Mary Into Heaven. The Assumption of Mary Into Heaven is a Holy Day in your Russian Orthodox church also, right? What else can you tell us about your Russian Christian Orthodox THEOTOKARIAN , your Russian Christian Orthodox Book of Hymns To The Mother Of God, Poupon? “Theotokos” means “Bearer of God”, right?

      Why do you give yourself the name “Marx” in your handle? Is that absolutely necessary to include “Marx” in your handle? Is that a Communist clue of some sort? Or what? Considering the jew Commies in the Soviet Union killed tens of millions of your fellow Russian Christian Orthodox, and you claim to be Russian Orthodox Christian, why would you want to mock and figuratively spit-on the the Holy Martyrs of your Russian Orthodox Church by including the name of the jew COMMUNIST Marx in your handle?

      Solis, O Virgo,

      1. This may help, Joe…. Do not resist….

        The Legal Ownership of All Souls by the Vatican… since 1306:

        History of Trusts

        The 1st Trust of the world
        Unam Sanctam is one of the most frightening documents of history and the one most quoted as the primary document of the popes claiming their global power. It is an express trust deed. The last line reads:  “Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

        It is not only the first trust deed in history but also the largest trust ever conceived, as it claims the whole planet and everything on it, conveyed in trust.

      2. @therealorginaljoe: Poup on Marx. Get it? I am not RUSSIAN orthodox, but another nationality of Eastern Orthodox. I would have hoped for rather broader and deeper discussion on the entwining of religion, religiosity, Nature Law, etc, etc.

        One thing you may be sure: I am in all certainty waaaaaay to the right of anyone posting here, describing myself somewhere between Barry Goldwater, Enoch Powell, George Patton, and Genghis Khan. Moving toward the latter as events unfold. America and the West will NOT be saved by courtroom lawyers, speculative theologians, and the body polity.

        Just take this away from this exchange: in order to have a religion, you must have a people. To have Christianity, you must have Christians.

        Please to read my comments. Some of your questions and curiosities are found there.

      3. Poupon Marx,

        “One thing you may be sure: I am in all certainty waaaaaay to the right of anyone posting here…..”

        You have just arrived here (or are you Circassian in disguise as you certainly have his manner?) and presume to assume far too much for a newcomer.
        I am, extreme right, in that I am an anarcho-nationalist. I think you’ll find that’s just a tad more to the right than your current stance as I am nowhere between any of those whom you have mentioned, as all of them were conservatives, barring Genghis Khan, who was clearly a Military Dictator and mass murderer.

        P.S. If you wanted to defecate on Karl Marx then you should have used the moniker of ‘Poopon Marx’. There isn’t such a word as ‘poup’.

      4. Poupon –

        I never use Goldwasser – aka Goldwater – to describe MY position.

        Here is why…. He was controlled opposition:

        Goldwater’s paternal grandfather, Michel Goldwasser, a Polish Jew, was born in 1821 in Poland, whence he emigrated to London following the Revolutions of 1848. Soon after arriving in London, he anglicized his name from “Goldwasser” to “Goldwater”. Michel married Sarah Nathan, a member of a Jewish English family, in the Great Synagogue of London.

      5. Thanks MB – – Good work.

        At least we know he is not the ‘Circ’ liar.. 🙂

        Dr Rich Swier:

        Dr. Rich is a “conservative with a conscience.” He believes that “extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice and moderation in the pursuit of justice is not virtue.” His idol is former Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater. Goldwater was a true conservative who wrote this in his book “The Conscience of a Conservative.“
        (good pic):


        About Poupon Marx

        Mr. Marx has 5 years as a professional university student and 3+ years in Engineering School. He spent over 30 years in the U.S. Merchant Marine as an Engineer Officer. Mr. Marx is an independent Consultant, Marine Surveyor, Energy Consultant and Brokering Agent. Mr. Marx is politically and socially between Barry Goldwater and Genghis Khan.


        I have Merchant Marine Document – Electrtician.

  17. Ms. LD. I have posted a disagreement with your latest comment regarding the application of the death penalty and corporal punishment. I also expanded and contextualized your position, and look forward to your response.

    1. @ Poupon Marx

      Lasha is not available for commenting right now after falling from her horse. Please understand that she has been advised to rest the index finger of her right hand, the only finger she makes use of while typing.

  18. You must remember this, if Holier than thou Rome was still in control, the earth would still be (officially) flat and those who disagreed would be burned at the stake as witches.

  19. I used to be an advocate for the death penalty until is dawned on me that state enforced death is the same as getting someone else to do the dirty work. Law enforcement, the judges, the jurors, the prosecuting lawyers, and prosecution witnesses become accessories to murder since the execution is not in defense of someone’s life.

    If everyone would arm themselves with a weapon as instructed by Jesus, there would be almost no murders since murderers strongly prefer that their victims not be armed. Killing someone in defense of yourself or your fellowman does not violate any of the teachings of Jesus and is completely compatible with what Jesus taught. If a person does not love themselves or their fellowman enough to defend themselves effectively, they are in violation of the Second Commandment, “Love thy neighbor as thy self.”

    Attempting to compare personal self defense to what happened to Jesus is not realistic. Jesus died and rose from the dead to prove the validity of his teachings especially the teachings about life after death.

    If for whatever reason a murdering perp has been successful at killing someone, carry on with a “legal” trial and a sentence of death, but when it comes to the actual execution, make it personal. The closest relatives to the one murdered get to either execute the perp with the weapon(s) of their choice or forgive the perp. If the perp survives the relatives or if there are no relatives, the perp is confined forever to an island surrounded by shark infested waters that is strictly designated for murderers to survive the best that they can. Maybe in the process of surviving, the perp might save their soul.

    Of course, what I have described would be a sane society, not the ones we have that are ruled by the insane jews with their myriad of jewish laws where arming and defending oneself is many times illegal. Consequently, given the existing conditions, I have to remain opposed to government death penalty.

    1. He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?
      – Micah 6:8

      Always temper punishment with mercy, Ungenius.

      1. @ Gilbert Huntly

        What I described is quite merciful, nothing cruel and unusual unless the closest relatives are sadists which the perp should have considered when picking the target for murdering. What I have described is really merciful to the persons that the murderer might kill if left without proper punishment. When it comes to murder, repeat offenders should not be tolerated unless, of course, you are willing to take them in at your place for rehab. 🙂

    2. Ungenius,

      “The closest relatives to the one murdered get to either execute the perp with the weapon(s) of their choice or forgive the perp”

      Yes, that makes sense, and as close as possible to ‘an eye for an eye’, which is most preferable.

      “If the perp survives the relatives or if there are no relatives, the perp is confined forever to an island surrounded by shark infested waters that is strictly designated for murderers ”

      But what if you don’t have an island surrounded by sharks in your immediate surrounding? And it has to be an uninhabited island. Anyway, that’s way more than such a person deserves. You might as well create an artificial island yourself, aka a prison from which escape is impossible. Simpler, and more important, no real existing island has to be sacrificed to house scum.

  20. In my younger days, I was a very staunch advocate of the death penalty. However being an ex-cop I’m well aware of how easy it is to frame people. Remember, the average detective bears no malice towards a miscreant, except towards cop killers, thus he is only interested in clearing his case load i.e. a body to take the rap. This is particularly so in the UK. Some old Lag is arrested, so in order to have a recommendation for leniency from the “Old Bill” he will ask to have crimes he may not have committed to be TIC (Taken into Consideration) thus the detective clears many of his backlog of cases. So, yes, if a detective is under pressure to make an arrest or clear a case, then of course some innocent bastard will be fitted up e.g. The Guildford Four, the Maguire Seven and the Birmingham Six. The aforementioned are well known cases, but take it from me, it happens all over the world.
    Also, from my personal view as a Buddhist, I think I’d prefer to be topped than spend 20 to 30 years behind bars. So I don’t really regard the death penalty as a serious punishment. It’s only bringing forward one’s death by a few years.
    Corporal Punishment is another matter entirely. I was regularly thrashed in school and in Australia in those days it was regarded as a badge of honour. Perhaps, because of the Irish and criminal antecedents of the Australian race, according to Churchill. There was a haemophiliac in our class who was always given lines and he hated it, he’d have preferred to have been thrashed. We all felt sorry for him.
    The Singapore model works very well. Not much vandalism or hooliganism there.
    One last point. How would people like to punish, the Rothschilds, the Soros clique, the neocons or the Netanyahus of this world and their ilk? I know, in my heart of hearts, it’s wrong and unBuddhist, but I’d love to take a stainless steel pipe and begin at the feet and slowly work my way up, bone by bone, joint by joint to the jaw and teeth!

    1. Felix,

      “The Singapore model works very well. Not much vandalism or hooliganism there.”

      Absolutely. And totally without being a stereotypical police state. They are doing everything right, and it shows. Also, they don’t really have politics, just pragmatism. If, for example, a certain approach doesn’t work, for smoothening traffic congestion or some other overcrowded related issue, they just abandon it, regardless of how much money and effort they have put into it so far. If they conclude it doesn’t work it’s clearly wrong and should be terminated at once, which is what they do. Now, if there is anything 180 degrees opposing how western democracies work it is this kind of pragmnatism. In western countries it’s not the feasablilty of some project , which is often some dreamt up PC bullshit fantasy project concerning immigrants or crime or infrastructiure or education or health care, you name it, doomed to fail for the get go, that counts but the political prestige and money flows between corrupted government officials and contractors. The difference, of course, is surpringly simple, Singapore has an actual government while we have puppets acting as governments. It’s a no-brainer.

      1. 1138
        Yes, the Singaporeans are very pragmatic. It’s the fifth least corrupt country in the world. It’s also got the lowest infant mortality rate. Many years ago I was staying with a friend at his house with a beautiful garden near Orchard Road. I’d arrived at night and when I got to his house I noticed he had all his windows open but no screens! I thought I was going to be chewed to death by mosquitoes, but no, mozzies are forbidden in Singapore. If there is an outbreak of a disease, such as dengue, the medical department will conduct a search within a 1.5 km radius of the outbreak to check for breeding areas. They will search the surroundings of every home. On the first occasion if they find mosquito larvae, they will show the home owner how to eradicate it and issue a warning. If on any subsequent visit they find larvae, the home owner will be taken to court and could be given a six month prison sentence. You may think this is overly harsh, but I’ve had dengue and it’s on a par with malaria, which I had twice, when I was in Africa, and believe me mossie borne diseases are the absolute abyss of misery.
        On the subject of the death penalty. When I was in the South African Police College in 1969, one of our instructors, Sergeant Barnard, was the official hangman. When I knew him he’d hanged over 5,000 in a 40 year career. Back in those days SA would hang about 160 to 170 per annum. In Pretoria Central Prison they could hang 8 at a time. It was quite a ritual, the judge with the black cap, the court orderly ringing the bell three times announcing “hear ye, hear ye, hear ye,”! They even had a special table, used only for that purpose, in the Union Buildings in Pretoria, where the State President would sign the death warrants.

      2. Felix,

        Yes, I remember the mosquito preventing measures as well. When I was visiting my sister there the first time they just recently had sort of an outbreak of dengue in Singapore. We had a discussion about it and my sister told me pretty much what you explained just now. You know, they actually checked gardens for open water containing vessels like flowerpots and bowls etc.. When found any standing NOT upside down, you’ll be fined. And that’s how you deal with a problem like that. Leaving these matters up to individuals’ discretion without enforcement is a guarantee that the whole place will be permanently swamped with disease spreading mosquitos.

        On death penalty. There is a surprisingly simple way to prevent a rope around your neck or getting shot for carrying drugs into Singapore, Thailand or Indonesia etc. Don’t carry drugs into Singapore, Thailand or Indonesia etc 🙂

        Felix, the way it looks now I’m not traveling to Thailand this year after all. What part of the country do you live?

      3. 1138
        I live between Thonburi, west bank of the Chaopraya River in Bangkok and Nakhon Chaisi. I have 2 residences.

    2. couple of examples of offenders million times less guilty:
      Robert Damiens, and Peter Stumpp.

      To be on record, I am totally opposed to such sadism, consider it cowardly and unworthy of a man.
      Shia courts in Iran do it right: they approve a penalty of capital punishment but leave it up to the victim’s family to weigh its finality against their personal conscience.

      1. Good points, Lobro.
        But one of the few things where I am at odds with Islam is their death sentence for apostasy. However, this so called fundamentalist Islam has one source and one source only, the Wahabi money from Saudi Arabia doing the filthy work of (((them))). When I first came to Asia in 1973 it was extremely rare to see a woman in a headscarf. Now it’s quite common. Not that the Thais mind. They are extremely tolerant and Muslims in the Thai Civil Service are granted 3 months paid leave to go on the Haj. In fact, the leader of the military coup in 2006 which overthrew Thaksin, that puppet of corporate America, was a muslim. He was the Army Commander in Chief at the time.

      2. Well, isn’t our kewl cat Felix just simply the cat’s pajamas, he has two residences, and in a foreign country no less, how adventurous, how successfully adventurous, how pioneering, how Felix tested his mettle to the limit and learned his kewl self has what IT TAKES!

      3. Felix,

        Yes, and wasn’t it him, the muslim Army commander that proposed to make Buddhism the state religion in 2010? I remember something like that because I was there at the time of the red/yellow riots and the burning of Central World.

        I also remember when in a taxi that the driver turned on the radio and we heard about a certain lawyer Robert Amsterdam ( naturally a JEW ) representing Thaksin abroad.

        Felix, I’ve got to hand it to you. You’ve got it made my friend. Living large in Bangers 🙂

      4. 1138,
        You might find this site to be of interest.
        It exposes (((those behind the colour revolutions.)))
        Sorry to disappoint, but I’ve lived two thirds of my life in Asia so I no longer regard it as foreign. However, I do get culture shock when I travel to “alien” western countries. A couple of little things. I cringe when I see westerners entering a home without taking off their shoes, like the Japanese or Thais. One has been walking the filthy streets with dog faeces etc and one traipses all over the clean floors of someone’s house.
        Another minor point is that most Thai or Japanese toilets have “bum guns” to wash one’s anus after a defecation. It saves a fortune in toilet paper and is far more hygienic.

      5. Felix,

        Yes, I recently came across that site and was blown away initially. So it went straight into my favorites. However, it is not there anymore. Because unfortunately it didn’t pass the litmus test in the end after all. There are just too many articles by one Tony Cartalucci I cannot stomach. Just enter a search on Hitler on LD and you will soon know what I mean. Shame really, because at the same time there is a lot of insightful info to read. Alas.

    3. @ Felix

      “How would people like to punish, the Rothschilds, the Soros clique, the neocons or the Netanyahus of this world and their ilk?”

      The first ones to them when the time comes will probably make that decision, maybe on the spot or maybe waiting for an audience. The odds of it being you personally is rather slim, but you never know, so keep your pipe handy. 🙂

      Most probably, their end will be without drama and fanfare as lots of people just poop down the air intake to their bunkers until the resulting diseases kills them all. Crap on crap would be justice.

      1. Ungenius
        “Most probably, their end will be without drama and fanfare…..”
        I agree, most of them will likely die in their beds, but then will come the reckoning. Therein lies the idiocy of the materialists, their complete and utter failure to prepare for the biggest and most important event of one’s life, death!
        OFF TOPIC
        Judging from your posting times, I gather you are on the West Coast of the US, or perhaps Hawaii or Alaska, perhaps? I’m GMT + 7

      2. @ Felix

        “Therein lies the idiocy of the materialists, their complete and utter failure to prepare for the biggest and most important event of one’s life, death!”

        In my experience, there is even more to it than that. Materialists struggle in an illusion while overlooking the simple, abundant, real power of the spiritual world available to them on the tip of their tongue.

        My posting times are dictated by when I complete my necessary duties and have access to the computer.

        You could not pay me to live on the West Coast of the USA. There is something about the earth moving while being surrounded by wall to wall, self centered idiots that is not appealing, GMT -5 is okay with me.

  21. @ Harbinger (again)

    I am re-posting the following comment (because it applies here) that I made following the previous article because you either did not see it or you did see it and chose not to respond to it directly. It explains what I mean by: “We are living in an anarchy”. The current leadership is Lawless (Understood, you do not get what I mean). God’s Law includes the death penalty and it should be enforced. I’ve included how in another comment (the one that was deleted, then re-posted).

    Here is the comment I wrote yesterday:

    @ Harbinger

    Anarchy –

    a situation of confusion and wild behavior in which the people in a country, group, organization, etc., are not controlled by rules or laws [God’s Law/The Torah Law].

    [ ] above added by me. Merriam-Webster left out the only Rule/Law there is: God’s.

    God’s Laws are the only Laws. Why? Because He is God; and man is not. Man was never granted the right to make rules and laws. We ARE living without rule / leaders. Legislation in the true sense is not Law (though they want us to believe it is). Pardon me, I must call legislation what it is: horseshit and so-called leaders are slave masters. There you have it: no rule (in the true sense) and no leadership in the true sense either. What we have is man-made horseshit disguised as rule/law enforced by slave-masters masquerading as leadership. They are leading people, indeed: straight into eternal hell. In that sense, we do have true anarchy; chaos, disorder and the abandonment of LAW.


    Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not ADD unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the Commandments of the “I AM” your God which I COMMAND you.

    I would like to add, that man was made to be led. If he is not going to be led by God (as intended) then someone else will step in. You can be sure of that. And someone else has: Lucifer. He created all organized religions to keep people away from the True Religion.

    1. New Song,

      “I would like to add, that man was made to be led. If he is not going to be led by God (as intended) then someone else will step in. You can be sure of that. And someone else has: Lucifer. He created all organized religions to keep people away from the True Religion.”

      A truly excellent comment. I love you.

    2. Harbinger

      New Song “stole my thunder”, so to speak, but I’ll reiterate what she’s basically saying

      The World is ALREADY moving towards a general state of “anarchy”, or call it “chaos” if that works better. All by design of the totalitarian menace breathing down our necks for the purpose of filling the inevitable vacuum this is causing.

      The lines are being drawn. On one side will be the masses who will FREEWILLINGLY succumb to the liars that provide them with their wolf in sheep’s clothing brand of “social utopia” that will stop the “lawlessness” (order out of chaos). On the other side will be those of us who respond to this “anarchistic ploy” by RESISTING its deception. They will be what I’m referring to as the “enduring meek” – the ones who will successfully ride out the storm and deliver themselves to an aftermath where THEY (we) create a “state” of enlightenment where Creator’s Will reigns and Man MATCHES that will.

      So instead of saying you’re an anarchist, having a realistic perspective would suggest referring to yourself as an opportunist within the purview of a CONTRIVED anarchy.

      1. Brownhawk,

        “So instead of saying you’re an anarchist, having a realistic perspective would suggest referring to yourself as an opportunist within the purview of a CONTRIVED anarchy.”

        I will say this again (and for the last time) – I AM AN ANARCHIST.
        I do not believe in any rule by a man, a woman, or a group over another, without that is, their given consent. Those people who impose authority over others without their consent do so forcefully and are thus tyrants.
        Now there are many here who want to be governed. 1138 is one, who wants a national socialist society. He doesn’t want a situation where people vote for national socialism, he just wants a dictator to arise and impose nation socialism upon the world.

        I’m sick and tired of people confusing my words and I just wish that people would accept the wishes of others who want to live outwith a society and the laws imposed upon them by the state. People are clearly forgetting this and it quite frankly, really pisses me off.
        NO ONE HAS ANY AUTHORITY OVER ANOTHER UNLESS THAT INDIVIDUAL ALLOWS THEM. This is the basic premise of liberty and should be respected. It is because those who wish to control over all, cannot do so if everyone tells them they don’t want to be controlled. So….they create political ideologies, put in their puppets who follow their orders, which ultimately brings about an authoritarian police state.

        The ideal state for mankind is the anarchist state, where man rules himself. Within that state there would be people who do good and those who do bad. If you steal you will likely be attacked by those you steal from. If you sleep around you will likely be attacked by those whose women/men you’ve slept with. If you murder….. and so on.
        “Do unto others as you would expect to be done unto you”. It’s that simple. You have been indoctrinated far too much by tales of horror in anarchies, courtesy of Jewwood films. And you are all terrified so much, that you all hold onto the corruption within politics.

        You say there will be anarchy? No there won’t. What there will be is continuing orchestrated violence, courtesy of mixing immigrants with the indigenous, which will bring about more legislation, by the judiciary resulting in society moving ever more into an authoritarian police state, to bring further control.

        If there ever was an anarchy, EVERY JEW, EVERY SOROS, ROTHSCHILD, WARBURG, GOLDSTEIN, KISSINGER etc all would be swinging from trees, with their innards spilling from their open bellies.
        Jews control society through the thug police and their puppet politicians. If they are not there, the Jew is like a hermit crab, without its shell. The Jew is TERRIFIED of anarchy, because it knows how hated it is. Anarchy would bring about the end of Jewry and their plans for a Zion and control over all humanity.

        Do not confuse this orchestrated violence with anarchy. It is far from it.

      2. “Harbinger”, how do you binge on Har? What is a Har, is it an alcoholic beverage, or a psychotropic drug? Anyway, this Anarchist schtick you seem stuck on seems to be, for you, some sort of “secret sauce”, magic elixir that can cure al of societies ills. Filtering this ideal abstraction through the sieve and filters of Natural Law, I see where it can work. That is with the solitary predator, the Snow Leopard, the tiger, and sometimes wild domestic cats. On the humanoid side, here in Amurika, we had the homesteaders, 160 acres and a mule, families living in mud hut lean tos, with the woman planting the crops and the man out hunting wild game. Solitary, precarious, and hardscrabble. Rather lonely, too, I would imagine.

        But then when the population grew, and families aggregated, the inevitable hierarchies appear. This is due to individual differences, abilities, initiative, and what is called rationalization of labor, or specialization and division, if you prefer. Now some are better with the gun, and some are better with the pen.

        Anarchism, to me, is the blow-up mail order doll for certain types that replicate the transcendental male-female transactions. It, far all of its practicality and utility could have been written on a napkin’s margin after being used for a spaghetti dinner. Sacco and Venzetti?? prima facieIpso facto nutso.

        Anarchism chasm, if a video was made of this set of ideals, would feature a corpse from the funeral home, surrounded by academic types with granny glasses and fuzzy hair, with a cath cart, defibrillator, multiple IVs of epinephrine, and pounding the chest to get a pulse. I haven’t forgotten the ventilator.

        Anarchism is anti-Christian and anti-religious, and an affront to the Divine. Do you realize this? It is incompatible. Heaven, The Heavens, Himmel, Paradiso, is set up as a hierarchy. Jesus was the leader, the rest were followers. Every animal group, including humans organizes-most of the time-in a hierarchy, you know, whether Alpha Dog, Apha Tigress, Elder Buffalo, House Cats, etc, etc, etc. Rules are not forcibly made, Bringer of the Har, they evolve from necessity. Humans, so many of them, need restraints, incentives, guidelines, restrictions, all in order just to FUNCTION. The most complete person, a mature person, will recognize his or her TRUE PLACE in the pantheon and hierarchy.

        The Natural Law is this: EVERYBODY IS UNDER AUTHORITY of some sort. Don’t the Ten Commandments command? Who will enforce them if some transgress? Who will decide the guilty? Do you consider yourself to have the same moral authority and depth of spiritual knowledge as a churchman or priest of your religion?

        Sorry to break it you like this, but you know what the Pasha said in “Baron Munchausen”: “It’s cruel to be kind”.

      3. Harbinger,


        Go tell that to all the shopkeepers who are being extorted by organised crime. If only they would have thought of that themselves 🙂

        “The ideal state for mankind is the anarchist state, where man rules himself.”

        For some perhaps, but it depends entirely on what you want as a society. Besides, if a society is truly being represented by the wise man/men that lead the community so that society thrives well and thus will fully support him/them then man IS ruling himself, or at the VERY LEAST is not being oppressed.

        “And you are all terrified so much, that you all hold onto the corruption within politics.”

        I could be mistaken, but I’ve got the impression that most here, if not all, are sick of our current phoney make believe governments’ oppression and are very clear about how much they want to get rid of it, not hold onto it. It is not me that has been led to believe that there is absolutely nothing else possible than either total oppression or total anarchy. I will repeat what I have been telling you several times already that YOUR belief of that is delusional. And contrary to you I have pretty strong evidencde to back me up when I say that there IS something else possible. And you cannot refute that. Because history proves me right, and current era countries prove me right. You cannot refute that. Now, all of those succesful societies from the present and past happened to be and are the opposite of anarchy. And you cannot refute that either.

        So, one could think that there might be a strong correlation.

      4. @ Poupon Marx

        “Anarchism is anti-Christian and anti-religious, and an affront to the Divine.”

        Based on the Gospels, everyone has a direct line to the Heavenly Father through prayer and a direct line to Jesus through command. No intermediaries are mentioned or recommended by Jesus. To get something beside a completely equal and flat playing field in man’s relationship with the Heavenly Father, “Paul the jew’s” writings have to be considered, not the teachings of Jesus.

        You are correct that anarchism is anti-Christian because organized Christianity does not follow the teachings of Jesus. Most of them either follow the teachings of Paul, or a combination of Paul and the Old Testament jewish myth.

        You are correct that anarchism is anti-religious because religion is normally organized, thus, falling into the same situation as organized Christianity.

        You are not correct that anarchism is an affront to the Divine. The teachings of Jesus pertain to the relationship between man, and the Heavenly Father and Jesus, see the first paragraph above, not the organization of heaven.

        Anarchism is completely compatible with the teachings of Jesus since the freewill of each human determines their relationship with the Heavenly Father. Being a follower of the teachings of Jesus, I have no choice but to be an anarchist.

      5. Harbinger

        You are not seeing through my wording and getting to the gist of what I’m really saying!! Have you forgotten how to READ?!

        FORGET the damn word “anarchy”. Your fixation on it blinds you to what I’m trying to convey. You are totally misreading me with your preconceived notions!

        You need to dig a little and understand how words can have this buzz that makes understanding difficult to the point of where you’ve assigned to me erroneous conclusions THAT I NEVER MADE!

      6. Browhawk,

        I understand PERFECTLY everything you are trying to convey, however, just for you, I’ll get rid of the word anarchy and change it with:

        You, no one else, no group, no organization has any authority over me, or any other, who does not consent to them having authority over them.

        Now does this make you feel better?
        If I steal from another, my problem is with them and NOT a third party (state, government, police, judiciary etc).
        If I assault another, my problem is with him and NOT a third party (state, government, police, judiciary etc).
        If I murder another, my problem is with them and their family and NOT a third party (state, government, police, judiciary etc).

        Everyone is just so happily brainwashed in society to NOT realise that they are actually free individuals, with freewill. That is, of course, if they don’t go into a CONTRACT with a government to be governed and/or make any CONTRACT with another for whatever service wanted.

      7. Harbinger

        Words are funny things in how they can make us spin off in all kinds of directions, and disrupt what is essentially common ground between us

        You are an “anarchist” I am a “resistance fighter” Can you honestly say there is a fundamental difference?

      8. Brownhawk,

        “You are an “anarchist” I am a “resistance fighter” Can you honestly say there is a fundamental difference?”

        Of course there is!
        An anarchist does not agree with being ruled over, or a state/ruler to enforce that rule.
        A resistance fighter may either be resisting those who wish to create an authoritarian state or maybe one fighting against those who do not wish the authoritarian state. One is resisting the will of the other.

      9. hahaha, hey Harb, nice concession from a hardheaded Scotsman (and I have plenty of it from my father’s side!)

        Just read your post AFTER my own follow-up. And it’s funny that I thought of saying what you DID say – “does this makes you feel better?” :>}

      10. Harb

        You’re very strict with the wordsmithing, so Ill say instead, “I am the KIND of resistance fighter IN KEEPING with Harbinger’s take on “anarchist”

        Now does that make YOU feel better?

    3. You, and the rest here, should read my comments to the full. I cover these points in depth, from an academic (theoretical) point of view as well practical and from experience, that which is rarity in today’s World of video games, virtual reality, pussified males, and snowflake, helicoptered children. My generation -post WWII baby boom, wanted to sail to Tahiti and, test their mettle in the Natural World, i.e., The Real World.

    4. You and I are in the same choir. Jefferson and the Founding Fathers foresaw the oppression and usurpation of God-given rights that we now live under, an oligarchy similar to the Landed Gentry and Royalty before the French Revolution. And their-especially Jefferson’s-remedy was simple and direct. If any here think that the Jew and the virtual Jew Gentiles are going to step aside based on anything except fear of death or actual death, you are deluding yourselves.

      In the movie, which is a true event, American Sniper Chris Kyle’s father said, “There are 3 kinds of people, sheep, wolves, and sheep dogs.” All overthrows, relief from oppression has come about through “blood and steel”.

      1. Poupon –

        I have this book at my fingertips.

        If you have this edition of Webster’s or another early edition … look it up.

        Noah Webster on Law Terms in the United States in the early 19th century, as taken from page lxxvii (77) of the Introduction of his 1850 edition:

        “Law terms, which are no part of the proper language of the United States, and never can be, as the things they express do not exist in this country, are, however, retained, as it is necessary that the gentlemen of the bar should understand them; and it will be time to dismiss them from books when they are obsolete in practice.”

        Worth repeating:
        “….as the things they express do not exist in this country…”

    5. “Anarchy – a situation of confusion and wild behavior in which the people in a country, group, organization, etc., are not controlled by rules or laws [God’s Law/The Torah Law. above added by me. Merriam-Webster left out the only Rule/Law there is: God’s.”

      Who wrote this definition and how did they come by this concept? Confusion? How so? Why is the lack of a centralized government considered confusing? Was it “wild behavior” that provided the impetus for Spanish anarchists to run the factories and make the trams run on time? Anarchy is not the absence of law, but the absence of a centralized, authoritarian government. Therefore why should such definitions be considered acceptable?

      “God’s Laws are the only Laws. Why? Because He is God; and man is not. Man was never granted the right to make rules and laws.”

      God? Which god? Jesus, Vodu, YHVH, Krishna, Allah? There are thousands of gods and many people do not believe in the Judaic 2.0 version. So whose “god” provides the law man is to live by?

      Let’s weigh this against what is observable. What laws do all other living organisms abide by? Might one surmise that the laws other animals live by are god’s laws as well? So how many of these laws are written down in the animal kingdom? Why not? Why is it man alone must have these laws, written on stone, to live by?

      “Your religion was written upon tablets of stone by the iron finger of your God so that you could not forget. The Red Man could never comprehend or remember it. Our religion is the traditions of our ancestors — the dreams of our old men, given them in solemn hours of the night by the Great Spirit; and the visions of our sachems, and is written in the hearts of our people.” – Chief Sealth

      Despite the myth that god personally wrote his laws on stone tablets, is it not eminently reasonable to observe that since man is the only organism on the planet that is able to write, all written laws are man’s laws? So these are man’s law that are cast as god’s laws.

      There is only one law. It has been termed “natural” law. This is the law that governs the universe. It is the law that requires planets to make their orbits, the law that forms the stars and the incomprehensibly, massive galactic systems they inhabit. It is the law that make the lemming run to the sea and viruses infect the body. It is the law that holds the design of the atom as well as all the structures they comprise. It is THE law. Where this law emanates from and what is responsible for it is not worth any time spent trying to decipher, as whatever it is, is as incomprehensible as the universe it governs.

      When an apple is thrown into the air its actions are predictable. No matter how many of “god’s laws” man interprets, the result will remain uniformly the same. As I wrote earlier, when one examines the universe it becomes plainly evident that god has better things to do than micromanage a tiny group of specially chosen psychopaths.

      1. Your last paragraph is an anthropomorphic representation of God. An omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient God doesn’t wake up and make decisions based on projected limitations of Man. God controls every movement of every sub-atomic particle in the Physical Universe, including and infinite number of Universes that we may never know.

        Deism, the concept of God the Watchmaker, taking a seat and watching the World mess itself up is so preposterous and reductio ad absurdum. I have expanded on the “Face and Hands” of God in my other posts. Someone mentioned Shinto religion of Japan, will perhaps not realizing that my exposition of Natural Law is directly parallel.

        What is missing in Christianity is the pagan heart of the Deities of the Natural World. Christianity contains inherent defects and deficiencies.

      2. Poupon Max

        God’s omnipotence has been usurped, its omnipresence has been interfered with, the symptoms of which are in evidence by the life we are experiencing at this time on this planet.

        To throw a blanket over everything by saying “God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient” does not consider the REALITY of our situation. Whether you realize it or not, throwing that blanket simply lends credibility to the false gods, they of the OT and elsewhere

  22. Oh, my! There is a serious misunderstanding going on based on the comments I’ve read. When Jesus said (says) Judge Not, he is not saying do not Judge at all. How can one live with no Judgment? That is what we have now and because of that not living as intended. Surely, we have false judgment and lots of it, but that is because we live in Lawlessness. Jesus says to Judge by the only Judgments there are (His Father’s). What man is actually qualified to Judge? Christ Jesus, as I’ve stated, and anyone who HE appoints as a judge. That is a Law, as well, and one that contains criteria by which a Judge must live his life.

    Deut. 16:18-20

    16:18 Judges and officers shalt thou make thee in all thy gates, which the “I AM” thy God giveth thee, throughout thy tribes: and they shall judge the people with just Judgment.

    16:19 Thou shalt not pervert Judgment; thou shalt not respect persons, neither take a gift: for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the righteous.

    16:20 That which is totally just shalt thou follow, that thou mayest live, and inherit the land which the “I AM” thy God giveth thee.

      1. One might say an abomination that led to a worse abomination called the Talmud. The Talmud is the Torah on steroids. It is truly amazing that anyone outside the Jews paid any attention to these ravings of a tiny group of crazed psychopaths who believe the world was put here by their personal god merely for their personal consumption.

        The story of Jesus is one of internecine rivalry between two oppositional Jewish groups, the Essene and the kohanim along with their subordinates, soferim, p’rushim etc. Christianity is as bizarre and amazing were one to discover an East Indian sect who base their faith on the story of the feud between the Hatfields and McCoys.

        To be fair, the Essene strove for truth while the kohanim lived on lies. This is why Jesus’ words ring so resoundingly in the ear. These are the words of an Essene mystic who based his existence on the spiritual path in contrast to the materialistic Mikdash kohanim.

        There are many throughout history who have spoken even greater words never recognized by the vast majority of humanity. Buddha for instance had comparable world views to Jesus, yet how many have heard of the rare and incomparable Rabi’a al-‘Adawiyya who was first to speak about God’s love among the Sufis?

        “Rabi’a was known for her complete devotion in the form of “pure love of God.” Rabi’a first set forth the doctrine of Divine Love known as Ishq-e-Haqeeqi and is widely considered to be the most important of the early Sufi poets. Much of the poetry attributed to her is of unknown origin. After a life of hardship, she spontaneously achieved a state of self-realization. When asked by Shaikh Hasan al-Basri how she discovered the secret, she responded by stating: “You know of the how, but I know of the how-less.”

        “As an exemplar among others devoted to God, she provided a model of mutual love between God and His creation; her example is one in which the loving devotee on earth becomes one with the Beloved. She contributed a successful life of pure, selfless love as a supplement to the sometimes strict ascetic practices of her predecessors. This perfect love she sought to promote shifted the existence of the ascetic for her own person, now living for the Beloved in complete reverence to God.

        “She did not possess much other than a broken jug, a rush mat and a brick, which she used as a pillow. She spent all night in prayer and contemplation.”

        Rabi’a differed from the traditional fakir in that she did not pursue self mortification in the traditional effort to control one’s physical state as a path towards spiritual development, but simply needed only that which enabled her to continue her devotion. This encapsulates the idea that when one truly has God, nothing else is required; a concept religious leaders fear most and why they strive to keep man separate from god.

        “I have made You the Companion of my heart.
        But my body is available to those who desire its company,
        And my body is friendly toward its guest,
        But the Beloved of my heart is the guest of my soul.”

        There is but one truth and those speaking it will sound the same, no matter what tongue they use.

      2. To be honest, I can’t agree with even one of these statements. There is a misconception in each.

  23. Japan and Singapore have low crime rates…… and acceptable effective punishments for crimes because they are NOT culturally or racially diverse. They are culturally and racially homogeneous societies.

    Japanese 98.5%, Koreans 0.5%, Chinese 0.4%, other 0.6%

    Chinese 74.2%, Malay 13.3%, Indian 9.2%, other 3.3%

    That demonstrates the huge dangers in mass immigration of refugees from ANY area, inevitably leading to chaos.

      1. Rousso –

        Yes…. And Shintoism in Japan. Religion is part of the culture.

        They are culturally and racially homogeneous societies.

    1. No and Yes, Rousso and Pat. Japan is extremely homogeneous, but Singapore is and is not. Singapore is 74% Chinese, 14% Malay (Muslim), and about 9% Indian. Politically, Singapore is a Chinese run nation state. The Chinese Confucian values mixed with a highly selective smattering of English influence, constitute the identity of Singapore. The Chinese will always maintain their dominance, even if their birthrate falls, they import Chinese from Mainland China. Buddhism is the dominant religion.

      During an extensive stay at the Intercontinental Hotel in Singapore, I had a conversation with one of the Hotel’s executive, concerning upgrading my room. Even though it was not exact Hotel policy, the executive upgraded us (our employer was a repeat customer) right off. I remarked how smoothly and confidently so many transactions happen in Singapore. The Chinese executive smiled and said those words, “Chinese people very practical”. Very profound. Worth a volume. They are results driven, anti-bureaucratic, PRACTICAL, and follow Natural Law closer than most.
      On the other hand, torn and tattered, fading to decrepitude and pastel bleaching in the Occident, this quote sums us up:

      “You will never understand bureaucracies until you understand that for bureaucrats, procedure is everything and outcomes are nothing.”
- Thomas Sowell.

      ALL Asian countries have great similarity. It is Asian culture, tradition, religion that creates in them the societies that have a very high “Survivability Quotient”. They understand Natural Law. And because of that, just as used to be the case in the Weasel Wastrel West, the death penalty and flogging are applied with the overwhelming assent of the people. Asia comes in two tiers: the high IQ East Asian societies and the other less endowed, e.g. Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Burma, etc.

      I’m not very impressed with what passes for higher thought in the West. I leave your with Fred Reed’s take from a bar. Believe me, his observations can be extended outward to the demographic differences between Asians and Occidentals. Asians, with their inherent good manners are gracious enough not to publicly declare their accurate impressions of White Caucasians: “They are lazy and stupid”.

      1. Fred still gots what it takes.

        “Could little Hillary Dillary Pumpkin Pie force NATO into a general war with Russia, or would the Neocons try to go it alone–with other people’s lives?”

        And sooprise, sooprise Sgt. Carter, Fred finally begins alluding to the real problem.

        “This is particularly true when the war is a manhood ritual for masculine inadequates–think Kristol, Podhoretz, Sanders, the whole Neocon milk bar, and that mendacious wreck, Hillary, who has the military grasp of a Shetland pony.”

        “For example, the invasion of Iraq, a disaster, was pushed by the petroleum lobbies to get the oil, the arms lobbies to get contracts, the Jewish lobbies to get bombs dropped on Israel’s enemies, the imperialists for empire, and the congenitally combative because that is how they think.”

        While Fred casts Jews as just one of a multitude of reasons, the fact is Jews in pursuit of a perceived threat to Israel were THE reason for the September 11th attack and ensuing war with Iraq. The other ancillary benefits were merely icing on the knishes.

        It began with Gerald Bull’s “super gun”

        “In March 1990 he (Bull) was assassinated, allegedly by Iranian or Israeli intelligence services. One account states he was shot five times in the head and back at point blank range while approaching the door of his apartment in Brussels. Another account states he was shot by a three-man team on March 20, 1990, when he answered the doorbell.

        “According to investigative journalist Gordon Thomas, the assassination of Bull had been sanctioned by Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir. Nahum Admoni sent the three-man team to Brussels, where the Mossad agents shot Bull at his door-step. Within hours after the killing, according to Thomas, Mossad was engaged in distributing false stories to the European media, alleging that Bull had been shot by agents from Iraq.”

        “The co-operation between Bull and Saddam Hussein was an immediate threat as Israel had previous military engagements with Iraq during the Arab–Israeli war. Watching development of the gun, Israel feared it could be used to launch nuclear weapons.”

        Of course that was just the beginning. Once Jews have targeted a threat, it is only a matter of time before they follow thought with the complete annihilation of their enemy. Like the Fabian turtle, Jews move slowly, but steadfastly, towards their goal.

    2. Pat, Rousso,

      It is predominantly a racial thing. Indonesia is the largest moslim country in the world, measured in population, and although I wouldn’t say it’s crime free up to Singapore or Japan’s standards, it is a very safe country compared to most western countries with many (north) African and middle eastern immigrants.

      1. Saudi Arabia has low crime rates, too. But that is not the same situation as in Tibet or Japan. There are factors, like absence of poor and desperate people, social programs, punishment and fear of punishment on one side, and culture of non-violence and respect on the other side. Think about monasteries and prisons. Same kind of place and conditions, some prisons might be safe, but that’s because of fear, not benevolence of the prisoners. Some places in Russia that are of the highest crime rate are homogeneous from the same point of view, but in those places there is nothing to do, there is no entertainment, a lot of alcohol and no fear of punishment because the police is ineffective. But the same kind of places in Nepal? No problems.

        It’s the mindset, and culture. Pat is right here. It takes generations and generations to develop a culture like Japanese.

  24. Yes, it takes generations and generations of japs to produce a Butterfly, but it only takes a couple of martinis mixed with a few prozac pills doctor-prescribed to undo the work of generations and generations of japs.

    1. Because they don’t want to be bothered with you hassling them, Poupon, that’s why they don’t have a “reply” button, they don’t want to hear your replies, can you honestly blame them? I don’t, 🙂 .

    2. nothing to do with commenters but with nesting depth of replies-to-replies-to-replies.

      observe how each successive reply gets narrower and longer, if allowed to go on, the final result would have one character per line and even a short, 10-word reply would run to about 100 lines.

      neither pretty nor useful.

      1. The ‘Reply’ button is an annoying redundancy. You can just as easily reply to someone without using the ‘Reply’ button at all. He’ll know you are responding to him if you address him by name and quote a line or two of his comment before you start addressing him.

    3. @ Poupon Marx

      What Lobro points out can be seen on the Zero Hedge site, so sometimes the option for a reply button for a post is properly not offered.

      Up until a couple of weeks ago, if someone hit the reply button on one of my comments, I would receive an email with their comment. Since that nice feature stopped working, I have to scan all the comments to see any replies to my comments. I’m not sure I see them all, not that I would necessarily reply to them anyway.

      Post as you want and catch replies as you can.

    4. Nested replies to a comment are only allowed 2 deep (comment, 1st reply to comment, then 2nd reply to that 1st reply). I don’t know if the systems administrator has ready access to easily change that, but you could suggest it. An alternative is to simply provide a brief quote from the person and whom it is from, and reply to it.

  25. @ The “Reverend” “Mother” “Superior” Sista Monica of The Daughters of joo Cabala Lilith of The Dark Side of The Moon :

    I thought my “Poupon” post with video I sent you this morning was a cute “Poupon” post, I didn’t think it was in any way offensive and I thought for sure it would pass your Moderating Approval, Sister. Can it be even a cute Poupon post is beyond the pale of dark side of the moon Light Being Workers from UR-ANUS ?

  26. Though bored with capital punishment debate because in a punishment-happy society like the USofA, the rate of executions to murders is around 1:1,000, therefore a very tiny, trivial drop in the bucket of woe, i will say this much and then go back to my afternoon nap:

    I am against capital punishment for goyim.

  27. Let the man speak! on the subject of killing people and a few others as his 90 year old brain allows.
    I recall how more than 30-years ago, various highly qualified medical experts, State Department wonks, CIA analysts and their kin, in unison proclaimed that he was suffering from an incurable cancer (stomach?) and had months to live.

    ¡Ojala! que El Comandante vive más tiempo

    (Conflict of interest disclosure: this qualifies me for 25 of the diplomatic quality puros (siglo vi) and one Santiago de Cuba extra añejo on my next trip to havana)

  28. Then, comes MORE violence in Sweden and Europe:
    Report “Conclusions Are Frightening” Amid Summer Inferno Of Sexual Assaults

    Almost all the perpetrators of sexual assaults who attacked in groups and who have been apprehended, are citizens of Afghanistan, Eritrea and Somalia — three of the four largest immigrant groups in Sweden who fall into the category of “unaccompanied refugee children.”

    A few days later, it turned out that many of the perpetrators who sexually assaulted women at the “Putte i parken” music festival in Karlstad wore the “Don’t grope” bracelet.

    Many people were therefore aghast to learn that the organizers of the Trästocksfestivalen music festival in Skellefteå had decided to arrange free bus rides to the festival for the local “unaccompanied refugee children.” They claimed they were “proud to be the first music festival in Sweden that encourages a significant increase of newly arrived migrants in the audience.” By the time the Trästocksfestivalen ended, the police counted twelve reported sexual assaults.

    Apparently, Swedish girls and women should learn to live with being groped and raped — or leave the public space altogether. The latter seems quite in line with what Islamic sharia law prescribes.

  29. I’m all for natural law. So is God (there is only One). God’s Law/The Torah protects natural law. Everyone could learn a lot about organic gardening by reading Leviticus; organic in the sense of not stripping the natural qualities; maintaining earth’s balance.

    Leviticus 25 is in one of the five Books of Moses containing The Law of God/The Torah. Understood some of you reject The Bible but, I assure you it truly is God Who Speaks.

    The thing about natural law is that what is natural on Planet Earth may not be natural on Venus. Gravity may exist only on Earth. For all we know, ‘natural’ on Venus is different. Therefore, we as a people need a specific law specifically for us and for why we are here. Only the God of the Universe would know The Law that is specific to earth’s inhabitants. Planet Earth is the lunatic asylum planet for the criminally insane, if you haven’t noticed. We need (we have) a Law to protect us from one another; and particularly from Satanists. Whether you believe it or not, Lucifer was cast down to Planet Earth (the one we live on).

    The Way home or face The Fire –

    1. @New Song: Please my comments regarding Natural Law as a manifestation of Divine Creation. There is more to it then just admiration and rapture. Understanding how “Nature Works” leads to greater understanding of how “God is”. Deductive sources, e.g., Holy Write, Scripture, etc, etc, provide a framework and elucidation. Knowing and apprehending Natural Law is the Double Check, verification, Second Opinion, if you will, and clarifier/crystalizer.

      1. Poupon Marx,

        You can’t keep changing your name on this site. One user name only is allowed. Your future comments will be held up for long periods or disappear into spam if you keep doing this.

  30. Poupon Marx, (in reply to your reply to me: August 16, 2016 at 4:39 pm)

    The sad reality is that in your time on this earth, from your many positions in society, whether it be from Engineer to Merchant Marine, Consultant to Brokering Agent, you have always follow a line of authority. This is clearly deeply ingrained within you so much that you are incapable of understand (or accepting) any form of non authoritarianism within your life, whether receiving or giving.

    If you were walking down the street one day and an ordinary member of the public came up to you demanding you “do this, do that” you would rightly, tell him to get lost. Further down that street you meet a group of people who come up to you and tell you to do exactly the same. You also tell them to get lost, thinking of the gall of these people whom you’ve just encountered.

    That stated however, you perfectly accept other people telling you what to do if they are in government, wearing a uniform on the street, or in a courthouse.

    Now, where is the difference here? Both individuals and groups are ordering you about, are they not? Why is it you listen to one and not the other?

    “Because they have been elected into government, enforce the law and uphold it”.

    And who elected them into power? All of the people or some of the people? Last I looked, here in the UK, only about 30% of the people voted. So it means that people are imposing authority over the majority who do not wish it. What, therefore is the difference, therefore, between obeying elected officials but not the non elected ones?

    Who is a policeman to come up to me to tell me what I can or cannot do in my life, when I do not consent to him having any authority?
    Who is a courtroom judge to impose his authority upon me when I do not consent?
    Who are politicians to tell me what I can or cannot do when I do not vote for them being in power and thus I do not concede to being governed and under control of their system?

    In the animal kingdom, those who choose to remain within a group, do so in order for protection. There is, however, no one in that group to tell them they must stay. Should they wish to go off and live a solitary existence that’s fine. Should they decide to live on another patch of land, that’s fine too.

    However, in our existence, as humans, there is nowhere for those who do not want to remain ‘within the pack’. We can’t go into the woods and build a home, because that land is ‘owned’ by those who bought it from someone, who bought it from someone and so on until right down the line, no one bought any land. It was just taken.

    So again, Poupon Marx, what authority does an individual or a group have over another, if that ‘another’ does not consent? The simple answer is they have none and by imposing that authority, they are oppressing that individual and acting under rule of tyranny.

    And now you try to bring in religion and God and blah blah. However, you fail to understand one, simple thing – God gave man freewill. Therefore, who are others to take away freewill?

    If anything, Christ was very much an anarchist. He rebelled against the Pharisees, the ruling people in his land at the time. He turned over the tables of the money lenders. He fought against the Priests, arguing that all should be allowed to pray in the temple. He was 100% against the system in place.

    Religion was created to control, just as money was too.
    A man can find Jesus Christ and God wherever he may be in this world, whether in a house, in a city, a cave in the forest, or sitting by a stream in the open countryside.

    It is people like you, who continue to impose authority and control over others, because you are simply incapable of living in a society that doesn’t have a police force to protect you and to go out and enforce your wishes on those you are unable to do so yourself.
    I am able to protect myself. I’ve been a martial artist, most of my life. I do not seek the police to do what I can do myself, but more importantly I DO NOT WISH TO IMPOSE AUTHORITY OVER ANY MAN OR WOMAN in this world. I respect their existence. I respect their desire to be left alone in peace. I respect their wishes not to be harmed or oppressed. I respect their choice to make their own decisions in life and not be controlled by other individuals and groups, telling them what they must do and how they must live.
    This is why I am an anarchist, because and I’ll say it again: no man, woman, group has any authority over another/s, without their given consent and in stating this I will also continue that: no man, woman, group has any authority over another/s, regardless if they have been told by another individual or group that they have.

    If a man came up and ordered you around, you would most likely refuse. If a group came up to you and ordered you around you would do the same. If another group came up to you and ordered you around, telling you they were doing so because the group over there told them to, you would refuse. I have demonstrated the situation of policing, a government and an armed force. And yet you accept this along with many within society?

    People like you are incapable of grasping this simple, basic, premise of life. As I said, it’s becuase you are part of a system and do not wish to break free from the benefits that it gives you. The only problem is, if you consent to being under the authority of this system, you really have no right to complain when it imposes actions upon you and others, that you disagree with. Once you consent, you must accept that you have given your freedom into the hands of another to have complete authority over you. Therefore, when I read the continuing ramblings of people such as yourself, attacking the Jews and government, I laugh at your hypocrisy and inability to grasp that you wanted this.

    Poupon Marx, you may be my elder and when I was younger I was taught to respect them, but as I’ve gotten older, I’ve realised more and more that one’s life is solely their own to live and not to be a slave to those who think they know better. They come into this world alone and they will leave alone also. It is their right and theirs only, to walk whatever path they choose. They can do right and they can do wrong, but every choice has its consequence.
    No one has any right to impose authority over those who do not wish it so. Just because you may vote for a group of people to do what you want them to do, doesn’t mean that others should go along.

    The more I talk to people who are anti anarchy, the more I realise that they are, because they are weak and unable to stand on their own two feet in life. It is the trials and tribulations of life that make us who we are and people like you, never experience them, because you wrap yourself in cotton wool, unprepared to take any bumps. You have every right to live within a group and impose your authority over one another. That’s completely understandable, however, just because you do it to them, you have no right to do so to those ‘outside’ the group who wish to be no part of it.
    This is why the whole concept of government, of a police force and a judiciary is inherently wrong, because it imposes its will, forcefully, upon those who do not wish it and more so, never wanted to be under its authority from day one.

    1. @Harbinger: That was a terrific, automated script of the same points you make over and over again, signaling your virtue of rugged individualism, personal autonomy, and a world of one, where magic keeps all the atoms and molecules in a finite space from colliding. Yours is a Never, Ever, Nowhere Land that has never existed and never will. Except on paper. Do you own a gun?

      You are machine like in your closed loop logic, internally consistent, and externally defenseless. My approach here has been to attempt to divine and to gain knowledge of how the Real World works, how Natural Law expresses itself-as the Revelation of the Creator. I have been IN the World and Of the World. I did not shy away from exploration and investigation. I was not content to occupy an academic position and impose Pure Ideas onto the Real World, as wholly abstract ideas, academic theories, etc, etc, etc are done by the dishonest, dishonorable, and devious sociopaths and narcissists, primarily promulgated by Jews.

      You set of ideals and self characterization, regarding validity and proof, hold no more sway, weight, and valence than, say, Critical Theory.
      Talk to me when you can demonstrate or build that machine that works, the one you call “Anarchy”. Let’s put it to the test and run through some parameters to see how it performs.

      Just trying to keep it real. Reality. WOW. What a concept!!!!!!

      1. “Just trying to keep it real. Reality. WOW. What a concept!!!!!!”

        I hate to say it, but I don’t think you would know ‘real’ if it pulled down your pants and sodomized you. I admit I have repeated myself, simply in order for ignoramuses (on this topic), such as yourself, clearly unable to understand the concept of consent, to try and grasp this ‘reality’ being debated.
        You cannot grasp, for one second, what is being implied because you are a cog within a system, not unable to break free from it, but so used to being a serf within it, you are terrified at the contemplation of breaking free and going at it on your own. In other words, you haven’t the balls to live, outwith a system, that has been nothing more than a continuation of sucking on your mother’s tit.

      2. Harbinger,

        Yes, that’s all very well, but you still haven’t explained how you would deal with practical situations.

        It’s all about consent, you say? Well all right then. If I and others would give my/our consent to a government, or I/we would receive consent from others to be (in) one then what exactly is the problem? Yes, ok, I get it, you wouldn’t be happy, even if we had a healthy, prosperous society in which we are able to thrive, of which I can name of few. But that would be your definition of living in tyranny?

        But ok, fair enough, if that isn’t good enough for you, feel free to find some piece of land to live in total freedom away from society. I wouldn’t stop you. But what will you do when you see somebody abusing his child, sexually or otherwise, on a regular basis? You would say “hey, none of my business, he doesn’t need my consent to do that, he can do whatever he wants”. And what law is there that says he couldn’t abuse his children? Besides, all children grow up in tyranny anyway since they live under their parents authority. Same thing for a common criminal, as long as he doesn’t bother you physically you’re pretty much ok with whatever he does to others? He doesn’t need your consent and you certainly are not entitled to criticise let alone prevent him from excercising his free will. There is no law that says he can’t do that. That’s only between him and his victims, right? Correct me if I’m wrong. What if some anti social trash people start to litter the area you live in or someone starts polluting the earth where you live? There is no law that says they can’t do that. What are you gong to do then? They don’t need your consent to do so. That’s between that area or the earth and those people, it’s none of your business. Please elaborate on how you would react to that.

        I assume I am not correct in thinking that you and your fellow anarchists would indeed do absolutely nothing to stop anyone as long as no one is attacking one of you personally. But If I am correct on how you would react to these things, by NOT reacting at all as long as no one is attacking you personally then I would characterise that as anti social.

        I know we are not to agree on this and that it is pointless to keep on going on about it but when one does ride a particular high horse telling every one how foolish they are then please explain in all you wisdom WHERE I am wrong.

        AND, …… if you can’t even explain how this could work then how in the world are you ever going to convince anyone that if only people would embrace anarchy the world would be so much better?

    2. Harbinger,

      “It is people like you, who continue to impose authority and control over others, because you are simply incapable of living in a society that doesn’t have a police force to protect you and to go out and enforce your wishes on those you are unable to do so yourself.”

      And what would you and your fellow anarchists do if a criminal murders a family member of one of you? Without a law that prohibits murder the criminal hasn’t done anything wrong. In fact, he’s not even a criminal. How can you be a criminal in a lawless society?

      You will probably answer that you and your fellow ‘decent’ anarchists will kill him, and rightly so, of course. That means you are the law and you are enforcing that law. Hence, there is rule, because apparantly it is against THE RULES to murder another and others are placing themselves above the murderer to enforce that rule. This is also true, of course, even when you do not kill him but just imprison him or ban him or whatever.

      This is a very straight forward example, but similar reactions, although less severe, will arise within the little group of anarchists when someone steals, or cheats, or damages someone’s property, or pollutes the environment, or whatever one does against the wishes of the, well, … what (?), the ‘decent’ folks among you? And if the person is wealthy or infuential or has many friends in the group, or has a strong family that will not let the others hurt him? Yes, I can see this will work 🙂 And this is just you and how many more anarchists? 10, 100, 1000?

      And you even think this will work with 7,000,000,000 people, or even 700,000,000? All competing for the limited resources on our planet? I think it cannot be. This has absolutely nothing to do with being indoctrinated into believing there just has to be rule. Rule wil establish itself. To believe otherwise is totally delusional. The only thing that has programmed us, no actually designed us this way, is nature, through millions of years of evolution, not anyone’s ideology.

      In order to determine one’s own life as much as possible the VERY first thing you have to acquire is sovereignty. To be sovereign in this world you have to be VERY strong. The bigger your family, group, community, society, nation is, and the more advanced it is, the higher the chances are you will attain sovereignty. The smaller your family, group, community, nation is, and the less advanced it is, the lesser the chances you will be sovereign and be able to make your own choices and the higher the chances you will be subdued by others who don’t share your noble ideas about how to view this life and do think in collective terms, as is our nature anyway. Living in a small group minding your own business like some obscure people are still doing in the wild in the Amazone, for instance, the closest thing
      to your ideal, are totally and completely at the mercy of larger groups, communities, societies, nations, until there are none left, of course, and that will be the end of them.

      1. 1138,

        I will quote from my post you’ve replied to:

        “This is why I am an anarchist, because and I’ll say it again: no man, woman, group has any authority over another/s, without their given consent and in stating this I will also continue that: no man, woman, group has any authority over another/s, regardless if they have been told by another individual or group that they have.”

        Now you can argue this point, for a month of Sundays, or until the sun explodes and destroys all life on earth, but regardless, it is a point that cannot be refuted, for those who continue trying to do so are nothing more than authoritarians who have no respect for the will of the individual to not be controlled and to live, as God meant, a free human, with freewill. You find nothing wrong, whatsoever with tyranny and I really hate to say it, but those people are no different to the Jews, whom they oppose, doing exactly what they want to do, in their creation of a socialist, dystopian, new world order and have authority and control over all who do not wish it.

        You are a likeable chap 1138, but you are just simply ignorant on this topic. You, Lasha, Lobro, Pat, Felix, Brownhawk, Ungenius, Franklyn, HP, New Song, Arch…..and everyone on this forum have no authority over my life whatsoever. And with that, no man, because he wears a uniform, along with another in a courtroom, or in a Parliament, also has no authority over me, unless I give it to them. If you can’t understand the concept of consent by now 1138, you never will.

      2. Harb –

        That’s why I use the term ‘no trespassing’ which is a common law term and sums it up.

        Permission required. No trespasses are allowed against me.

        Trespass is a wrong or improper act.

      3. True Pat,

        But sadly, here in the UK, the common law of trespass no longer exists (well not unless you’re a member of the aristocracy that is). Anyone can trespass into another’s home, however, should they assault them, they’ll go to jail. The old adage ‘An Englishman’s home is his castle’ no longer implies.

      4. Harbinger,

        Au contraire, Harbinger,

        I know precisely what you mean. I am just explaining that as much as you want this, anarchy is a state of being – for a group of people – that will never last long.

        In an earlier post you said I didn’t refute your arguments, but up until now you haven’t even addressed any of my points. I’m not claiming to have addressed all of yours, but at least some I did. And those were enough.

        Only if you live alone or in a very limited group of individuals this could last a considerable time, PROVIDED all members of the group are exactly the same in almost every way. The larger the group becomes the more difficult it will become. As I said, when one or more individual(s) do something, anything, against the/some others’ wishes it starts. How are you going to prevent them from doing that? You haven’t answered that.

        Again, I know exactly what you have in mind, but you might as well wish you could fly, or have babies.

        However, it is you who doesn’t know what I want. You insist I find nothing wrong with tyranny. Please, you may quote me, show me anything i have said that demonstrates i want to live in tyranny. Don’t tell me NS is tyranny, because you have showed enough admiration for Hitler and NS Germany to render such a claim insincere. You might as well say I am most satisfied with the current establishment, since ALL RULE is the same anyway, according to you.

        You just can’t accept that people are perfectly happy giving their consent to a government that concerns itself with governing the society, provided they do a grand job. If you wouldn’t even be prepared to do that, whether you are giving consent to a competent government or are receiving consent from others to be one yourself than you have a problem in this world.

        You also keep insisting that apart from you not wanting having anything to do with any form of organised society there simply ARE no well governed societies and there never have been while I repeatedly named examples that prove otherwise.

        You also seem to think that I want to stop you from living outside organised society and force you to live in it against your will. Again , feel free to quote me but I never suggested that. As a matter of fact, the way things are now, I myself would want to live outside our current society, for obvious reasons. But should I do that I better find a place where they cannot find me or else they still would tax me or force me to do things I do not want to do. And being alone or with only a handful of people we couldn’t stop them, could we?

        Bottom line is, if you don’t want to live in tyranny you better kill tyranny and keep it away. In order to live in some sort of paradise where everyone, without exception, is nice to each other you need a world population exclusively consisting of individuals who think like that. Does the world population exclusively consists of individuals who think like that? No, so your best chance for being sovereign is being strong enough to withstand anyone or any evil that threatens your way of life.

        But anyway, I will never stop you from living outside society. But there were and are societies – not the one we are living in – which would benefit you more than not be a part of it, that’s for sure. And my choice – if I HAD that choice, that is – for the best possible option for the welfare of me and my family and fellow nationals – which is something entirely different than the current tyranny – does’t mean I actually want to prevent you from doing what you want. In fact, you would thrive in it as well, and wouldn’t have any reason to reject that.

      5. 1138,

        The fundamental difference between you and I is you choose/want/wish/desire/asked/made a contract to be a slave under the state/system. I haven’t, nor ever will, You may argue that you don’t believe in democracy, or you do, but you fundamentally are a national socialist and for a national socialist society to be, it needs a state/government/system to run it. This will either be attained through democratic measures or through the rise of a dictator, going back to feudalism.

        Either way 1138. You choose to be a slave through your choices of political ideology rule over you. I don’t.

        There’s nothing more to be said between us on this, as all you’re doing is repeating yourself and trying to change my position that never will, as you yours.

      6. Pat,

        “No trespasses are allowed against me.”

        Tell that to all those shopkeepers who are being extorted by the mob. If only they had a sign saying that hanging on their frontdoors 🙂

        Seriously, what are your best chances of actually preventing any tresspassing against you? By yourself, or with many like minded?

        Didn’t the pioneers who eventually formed small towns appoint lynch groups which in case of criminal ‘tresspassing’ did what had to be done? Rule, mob rule. But nontheless, rule that says “don’t tresspass here or else”

  31. I have always found Harbinger to be a contradiction. He recognizes consent or lack thereof as real. Agreed. But what is thou consenting to or not, Harbinger? Consent requires a Law; either one that is real (God-given) or made-up; either way: a LAW. I’ve defined legislation, so, no need to repeat myself and Poupon has touched upon Divine Creation or Natural Law; honestly that may be beyond even the thoughts of the most sublime contemplative amongst us. 1138 recognizes the innate law within all things; for without that, how can “things” continue without colliding as in chaos. So, dear Harbinger, it all goes back to consent; and to consent (or not) requires rule. In theory, in a vacuum, where there exists no rule, then no consent would be needed. Everyone would have to be the same; in agreement; automatons lacking uniqueness. Before there was something there was no-thing. And, even no-thing was something! The Eternal. Jesus was a revolutionary but, an anarchist? Not the Jesus I knew/know. You are so against being ruled. I think you are not against it as long as it’s you ruling. You exhibit the characteristics of a tyrant who must always come out on top (or else). Personally, I was afraid to even talk to you because you come off like a ranting bully storming off in a tantrum and blaming someone else for it. Must you always be right?

    1. “You exhibit the characteristics of a tyrant “

      Coming from someone who believes that consent requires a law. Coming from someone who believe that authority is natural over another, regardless whether that other does not agree to the authority over them. Here’s the definition of tyrant:

      ” 1.
      a sovereign or other ruler who uses power oppressively or unjustly.
      any person in a position of authority who exercises power oppressively or despotically.
      a tyrannical or compulsory influence.
      an absolute ruler, especially one in ancient Greece or Sicily.

      Let’s look at this shall we New Song?
      I disagree with your views on authority. I believe that men and women should be free to make their own choices in life and not to be under any authority, should they not wish it. I do not believe that any individual has the right to impose authority upon any other, unless they allow them that authority. I do not believe any group of people has the right to impose authority upon any other, unless they allow them that authority. I do not believe that another or a group has the right of authority over another because another individual and/or group told them they had the authority over them, unless they allow them that authority.
      And regardless, after stating this, you say I behave like a tyrant?

      “Personally, I was afraid to even talk to you because you come off like a ranting bully storming off in a tantrum and blaming someone else for it.”

      I have never bullied anyone on this forum. The only people who I have altercations with are those who have attacked me, of which I have defended myself against. I state my case and that’s it. No one has given me any reason, whatsoever to change my stance on consent and authority.

      I will state the same to you as I have 1138.
      Both of you are prepared to live under a state, that imposes its authority over you. You both wish to be governed, that is you both wish to be slaves to that state, regardless whether it follows Biblical Laws (man made laws written in the Bible/ common law) or Law of Admiralty (man made law of profit, created for trade between corporations and ships at port/sea).
      I don’t.
      We will continue to disagree on this subject. I have nothing else to state on this matter. Consent is the choice to accept or not to accept. This is simple to understand.

  32. @ Harbinger

    Understood you believe The Laws written in The Bible are man-made. Pat assumes the same to be true. There are many beside you. Freewill allows you that. I’m in a minority of believers. I know that. I’ll pray for your speedy recovery from delusions of grandeur.

    You said you are a Scot. Likely then, like myself, are possibly a Judahite; you of Zarah.

    Here is an article that includes information about Scots: –

    1. @New Song and Har(a type of pie made from sheep entrails) binger: Are you both college freshmen, struggling epically and mightily with the BIG issues as expressed in you freshmen junior college survey course of, say, “Authority and Pusillanimity in Indo-European Peoples”? You both seem to need Real World Experience. Do some blue collar work for a couple of years, to burn off the baby fat.

    2. New Song

      “I’ll pray for your speedy recovery from delusions of grandeur.”

      And you call me a bully?
      And the Scots are merely a part of a much wider group of peoples, the Celts, who occupied the majority of Europe in the past. We are, the true Irish, the descendants of the Fir Bolg who lost to the invading Tuatha de Danann.

      The Bible was hand written by man. We are told that God gave Moses the ten commandments. The important word here is ‘told’. We have no proof whatsoever of this to be true.
      Do I believe in a creator? Of course. And I believe that creator created the universe. Do I believe in a heaven and hell. I remain impartial on that for I have no died yet and if I already have and there is a soul, then my previous existences have been wiped from all memory.

      You promote that man should rule over man. I promote that man should only rule over those who consent to be ruled over. You do not see your stance as authoritarian and tyrannical, when those whom they rule over do not wish to be ruled. This is what amazes me about you New Song, for you have never come across, on this forum as the ‘authoritarian accepting’ type.

      Here in the UK, the government decided to put a blanket ban on smoking in public places. Adding to the continuing lowering of alcohol allowance, it has resulted in the decimation of the pub. Many believe this to be a conspiracy in itself, in that the destruction of the pub means another public place destroyed where people meet and discuss life. This is an authoritarian act, by the government. It could easily have been resolved simply by having smoking and non smoking pubs. Why did they never allow this choice do you think?

      And on that, it leads me to anarchy. A land should be divided to those who wish to be governed to those who do not wish it so. If people outwith society, come into a city/village, where the people have consented to be governed, they instantly fall under the will of those people and have to obey by the laws they live by. If the people from those villages visit the villages under anarchy, they live by the same standards and do not impose rule on others.
      This is what I would class as freewill and liberty. This is accepting the right for another to live how they so choose to. It is a fair way to solve the problem.
      However, why would any government not allow this? They would not allow this, because like the smoking ban, they would lose control. With the smoking ban you would see smoking bars being mobbed and no smoking bars empty, having to close down. There’s simply more life and character in the smoking pubs and they’ve killed this. If they sectioned part of the land to anarchy, they would find that their already dwindling support base, that is those who vote these sycophants into power, disappear, meaning they would lose all support and thus cease to exist, having no right to govern or rule over anyone. With this happening, bankers would have no puppets to control and thus no foreign wars would be waged.

      There is a HUGE difference between being governed by ‘laws of common sense’ (which you call God’s Laws – the Commandments) and being governed by governments – man. And should one break those ‘laws’ then the problem arises between the perpetrator, the victim, the victim’s family, loved ones and friends. No state imposed thug brigade, third party has any jurisdiction here.

  33. @ Harbinger

    No bullying about me praying for your speedy recovery from delusions of grandeur. It is true and on-going because you seek freedom so much and have the fight in you.

    I’ve an interest in the history of Ireland. So, we do have something in common, then. My website is named after the Israelite queen of Ireland. Teia Tephi. A Torah queen.

    This is not my website, but it is a link to information about Teia Tephi –

    1. New Song,

      I do not bully. I was incredibly frustrated with you, because you do not accept that man is the controller of his own destiny. You think it perfectly acceptable that he be ruled over by another, when he does not accept this. This is tyranny New Song and for someone with your love of life and what I presume freedom, I am completely baffled by your stance. Your love for God is respectable, but really, all humanity has done, for thousands of years is speculate on what and who is God. We have no concrete proof other than stories passed down through the years. Now this stated, I certainly am not saying that there is no God, in fact I do very much believe that we were created, but in the whole rigmarole of reality, I am far more inclined to look at many of the ‘religious’ texts out there as creation of those who wish to control others, not ‘words’ from God. Again, it’s all speculation and nothing more. One big ‘Chinese whisper’ that’s grown multiple arms and legs throughout time.

      We all do good and we all do bad in our lives, but more importantly we learn from our actions. If a man chooses to live how he chooses, that is his prerogative and no one else’s to deny. If he does wrong then he has to suffer the consequences of his actions to those he has wronged. My simple point is, no third party need be involved in any situation between two people, unless of course they are murdered, in which case the family of the deceased becomes involved. I do not believe in a state and I most certainly do not believe in a group, oppressing another, because another said they could.

  34. @ Harbinger

    What I love about humanity, is not the human part, but the spirit-being (the real person) and how special and unique everyone is (or can be ) when not being influenced by evil thoughts, programming, all those traits that divide and cause people to hate one another.

    That which is written from God is different than first-hand, direct experience from Him. His Word is His Word, but when His Word is given directly (to you) it is an experience. Usually a mediator is required because the direct experiences are unquestionably out of this world. By mediator, I mean spiritually. Christ Jesus is the only mediator I am aware of. I pray Father in Heaven speaks to you directly; so you will recognize Him/ His Word. Without that Spiritual edge, I can certainly understand how it all seems so man-made up.

  35. LD : We have built a dystopian world. There’s no doubt about it. As Yeats said prophetically, “Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold.” In a dystopian police state, where the government has acquired all the traits of a superbully, the government has lost the confidence of its citizens and forfeited the right to dispense punishments of any kind — including capital punishment. When a state is widely perceived as an Orwellian tyranny of this kind, it no longer become possible to respect its diktats on anything.

    That basically describes the current status of the United States. It has become a police state, where police have taken the on being judge, jury and executioner. Unarmed innocent civilians have been terminated without justification, for example:

    A 61-year-old man was shot to death by police while his wife was handcuffed in another room during a drug raid on the wrong house. Police admitted their mistake, saying faulty information from a drug informant contributed to the death of John Adams Wednesday night. They intended to raid the home next door.

    Another example:


    Last example, the law officer was charged with murder. However, more likely than not, there have been too many incidences where that use of deadly force was not warranted. There was no punitive action for incompetence for willful intent. In addition, there is no need for military equipment to handle except for very extreme cases. And, it is no wonder, after one examines who are the mentors:

    For a soldier, especially a female soldier, to execute a child and his mother in the streets of Palestine or in the family’s home requires that soldier to have been desensitized to human life that is not Israeli. This requires Palestinians to have been dehumanized, as the native inhabitants of what is today the United States and Australia were dehumanized by the European immigrants who stole their land.

    On the basis of this information, we can infer that the Israeli training of US police teaches the police to see only police lives as valuable and the lives of the public as potential threats to police lives. This is why American police often murder a wrongly suspected person and almost always an unarmed one. The examples are numerous. You can spend much of your life just watching on youtube the existing videos of wanton murders of US citizens by police.

    The American police are being taught at public expense that only their lives are valuable, not our lives. Therefore, in any encounter with a citizen, the automatic assumption is that the citizen intends harm to the police and must be immediately forcefully subdued and handcuffed or, alternatively, shot dead. The police are trained that the safest thing for the police to do is to terminate the suspect even if it is a soccer mom who forgot to signal a turn while driving her kids to a practice.

    In other words, the American police have no more obligation to respect the lives and rights of US citizens than the Israeli occupying forces have to respect the lives and rights of Palestinians.

    Some, the loss of respect for human life under the guise, “I feared for my life” has replaced “in the line duty and reserving judgment for the court system. Citizens are no longer viewed as law abiding, but potential suspects and drug pushers,

    1. @ György

      Remember that your comments will be held up for automatic monitoring if you use more than 3 links.

      1. Thank you, Admin for explaining the limits. I sensed no malice, rather, I perceived that possibility you mentioned after I noticed the “waiting for approval” message. The lack of spammers and minimal trolling demonstrate that this website is properly moderated. This is why your website has healthy and meaningful discussions with camaraderie among posters. 😉

  36. “There is no emotion in this argument whatsoever.”

    So what. There is nothing wrong with any emotion or how one uses it to influence others. Emotion and reality are not enemies.

    Information can lead a man to water.
    Only emotion can make him drink.

    Do not be fooled, anyone, that your views on capital punishment (one way or another) are not heavily influenced by your emotions. You just don’t have the courage to own up to them is the way it looks to me.

Comments are closed.