What is Anarchism? Capital, Property Will and Law.

[luciferhorus]

“We are advocates of the abolition of war, we do not want war; but war can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun…………. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy”-- Mao Tse-tung
.
What is Anarchism? On Capital, Property Will and Law. What is to be done?

http://www.luciferia.tv/1ChildrenOftheSlaves/66666666.gif

Lucifer
http://www.luciferia.tv/animation/A.gif
Light of the World.

The 1000 Year Agricultural and Scientific Revolution; the Revolution of Light
The Final Revolutionary War of Economic Salvation.

For a world without money, government or nations.
For Apocalyptic Guerrilla War against Christendom (i.e., Capitalism).
No mercy on they who deserve none.

http://www.luciferia.tv/1ChildrenOftheSlaves/nkorea_missile.gif

Gr. Anarchos. "without archons (rulers) and without arche (government)"


Firstly to simplify, Anarchist Communism is merely 'moneyless stateless collectivism (kibbutzim)' and it is as simple as that. No further defintion is required for those who understand this; however as Anarchism as a political philosophy is generally misunderstood, I will unpack and explain this further.

Primitivism and Syndicalism.

There are the primitivists who emphasise agricultural revolution and the non miracle of the feeding of the 6 billion and then there are the syndicalists who seek technological revolution also. The Israeli Communists (kibbutzists) for example are syndicalists since some kibbutzes manufacture arms and others manufacture food. I share the view of primitivists that agricultural revolution is a priority, however tractors, labour saving machines, computers, medical technology and other products of scientific revolution represent progress and would form part of a future Communist paradise; they are not merely products of Capitalism but of a new scientific and technological humanity; this however would require syndicalism and the division of labour into ‘specialist’ non agricultural fields.

Other types of Anarchists:

Anarcho-Capitalists and 'Libertarians'.

Well obviously Anarcho-Capitalists are not Anti-monetarists (Capital - money) and thus not traditional Anarchists; simply put they are pure Capitalists (monetarists) who don't want any state interfering with private Capitalism; which is pretty close to a definition of neo-conservatism. There would be private police and armies to protect the rich etc. All members of organised crime syndicates (i.e. the mafia) are by default Anarcho-Capitalists whether they define themselves as such or not; after all they want to be free to enslave, bully and oppress others without government interference. Russia today is pretty close to Anarcho-Capitalist (i.e., ruled by the mafia). Anarcho-Capitalism is essentially 'organised crime,' where the criminals don't have to bribe the government or the police since there would be no government and the police would be their employees.

Libertarianism is slightly different, however the consequences would be similar.



Anarcho-capitalism, in my opinion, is a doctrinal system which, if ever
implemented, would lead to forms of tyranny and oppression that have few
counterparts in human history. There isn't the slightest possibility that
its (in my view, horrendous) ideas would be implemented, because they would
quickly destroy any society that made this colossal error. The idea of "free
contract" between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke,
perhaps worth some moments in an academic seminar exploring the consequences
of (in my view, absurd) ideas, but nowhere else.

I should add, however, that I find myself in substantial agreement with
people who consider themselves anarcho-capitalists on a whole range of
issues; and for some years, was able to write only in their journals. And I
also admire their commitment to rationality -- which is rare -- though I do
not think they see the consequences of the doctrines they espouse, or their
profound moral failings.
….Noam Chomsky

Punk rockers.

They are mostly just music fans who despise all authority and are not all political Anarchists, however since some punk rockers such as the Sex Pistols defined themselves as Anarchists, in the mind of many, Anarchism is thus associated with them, however few of them in practice advocate Communist collectivism.

Marxists.

Marx who was converted to Communism by the Anarchist Proudhon, held that the Capitalist state must be replaced with a worker's state which would 'wither away' eventually into Anarchist, stateless,moneyless collectivism. Marx was not a total anti-Capitalist (anti-monetarist) since he did suggest replacing money with labour vouchers as a form of temporary rationing, which is still a form of money, however most Marxists do not seem to favour this.

Trotskyists / Leninists

They do not seem to believe that 'state' must wither away eventually, since they are neo-Marxists rather than fundamentalist Marxists, but they are not anti-Capitalists (anti-monetarists) but state capitalists who believe in the nationalisation of banking, as it is Cuba and North Korea today where there is still a money system.

Chomskyism

Chomsky defines himself as an Anarchist, but but when asked what type of system will replace Capitalism he tends to give confusing or vague answers to the effect of 'well we shall have to wait and see,' so strictly speaking he does not openly propose Anarchist Communism (stateless collectivism) and indeed often criticises Communism. Chomskyism is thus a rather vague and confused form of Anarchism and not traditional Anarchism.

National Anarchists

See for example http://www.folkandfaith.com National Anarchists are political Anarchists and do not believe in nation states but they describe themselves as ‘racial separatists’ and are essentially white supremacists and racists. Fortunately they represent only a tiny minority among the Anarchist movement, since the vast majority of Anarchists are also anti-racists.

Anarchists who believe in Anarchist government.

This is a relatively new phenomenon and not really a political movement; indeed I don’t know of any serious writings by a non statist statist, but I have come across such individuals in Internet debates. These are of course non-Anarchists and indeed the most confused kind among all the above groups who claim to be some sort of Anarchist. They are much like the Christians who propagate Capitalism in the name of Jesus (an anti-monetarist, anti-propertyist, anti-religionist, proto-Anarchist Communist) or the Trotskyists who claim to be anti-monetarists (anti-Capitalists) when in fact they are monetarists albeit state monetarists. Since the term Anarchist is defined in the political sense as the absence of government and Archon (rulers / tyrants), one cannot have a non-government government anymore than one can have an anti-Communist Communist, but this argument seems to mean very little to ‘pro-statist anti-statists (????)’ whatever that means.

Anarchist Christians.

Anarchist Christians tend to view Jesus as an anti-propertyist and an anti-monetarist. Since they are essentially anti-Capitalists, they tend to be viewed by Capitalist Christians as heretics who reject the Capitalist interpretation of Christianity , and by many Anarchists as genuine political Anarchists, though some Anarchists consider ‘god’ to be an ultimate ‘Archon (tyrant). Christian Anarchists reject organised religion, but are theists. Anarchist Communism is a purely political solution and unlike Marxism has no rigid dogmatic metaphysics so it appeals to non-religious Pagans, New Age spiritualists, agnostics ‘and’ atheists alike, however ‘organised religion’ or the rule of the priesthood (who are Archons / authority figures) has no place whatsoever in an Anarchist world.

Governments ‘withering away’

States (tyrannies) do not wither away; they have to be brought down by armed violent revolution.

Thelemites.

Thelemites disregard all laws of state and religion and pursue their own sacrd and natural will, without interfering with the will of others (unless they militantly resist thelemic revoution and in this case Crowley held that cuh heretics should be rightfully executed). While this is certainly Anarchist with regards to the rejection of all written laws, not all are Anarcho-Communists (collectivists), in fact very ferw are; indeed Crowley who was an anti-Communist foresaw a future world ‘ruled’ by a group of ‘spiritual masters,’ which pretty much describes the current world with it’s numerous organised religions which generally defend Capitalism. Never the less almost all Anarchists apart from religious Anarchists are Thelemites whether they define themselves as such or not, since they reject all the laws of the police states and religions and believe that humanity should be free to follow their own natural and therfore sacred intuition.

Anarchist political parties and infiltration by the State Terrorists.

Such organisations are easily infiltrated by the state terrorists, as has been the case for example with the Anarchist ‘Class War’ in the UK. Anarchism is a political philosophy not a ‘political party.’ I know many Anarchists in London and on the Internet but I don’t know anyone personally who belongs to a political party. For example the UK Anarchist Federation is a political cult with 66 members in the UK on the last (and only) time I attended a meeting and yet there are probably 10’s of thousands of Anarchists in London alone. The fact that the Anarchist Federation considers state terrorist black operations such as 911 and 7/7 to be ‘conspiracy theories’ and seems to go along with the government propaganda is entirely suspect.

I speak from a European perspective, and most anti-Capitalists in Europe among the young generation (I am 50) appear to be Anarchists who have rejected Marxist statism and materialistic dogmatism. If you are in London for a week you will find numerous Anarchist events, squat parties etc, but among the Marxists, you will have to look very hard for them. Take a look at myspace for example, there are more Anarchist groups than there are Marxist groups and there are more groups who are anti-Capitalist in general than there are groups who propagate Capitalism.

The World Socialist Movement

In London if one hangs out at Speakers Corner or attends anti-Capitalist rallies it is hard not to bump into the World Socialist Movement http://www.worldsocialism.org/ whom I would describe as 'puritanical Marxists and anti-Leninist Communists' who consider themselves to be Anarchists and consider Marx to have been ultimately an Anarchist (anti-statist), however this all hangs on Marx's 'the state shall wither away' position. I have been excommunicated from their Internet debating forum years ago, so it clear that they don't agree with my politics, nor me with theirs, however since I understand the arguments made by Marxist puritans, let me say this.

Marxist Labour vouchers vs. Anarchist Communist 'rationing.'

Marx claimed 'ultimately (in the end)' that he was a non-monetarist, as are all Anarchist Communists. The WSM rightfully defines all forms of 'State Capitalism (where the state takes over the issue of money) as Leninism and as anti-Marxism. Marx's position was that in the early stages of revolution, the people would starve (and probably revolt against the new proletarian dictatorship) unless 'labour vouchers' were introduced to replace money.

For example if the dictators (the economic masters) work 40 hours they would receive 40 labour vouchers and ditto for factory workers (the economic slaves). However this was merely meant to be temporary and transitionary since Marx was ultimately a non-monetarist. Of course in the Soviet Union the alleged proletarian dictatorship simply took over banking, avoided the introduction of 'labour vouchers' became corrupt and tyrannical and eventually some had more money than others (including dollar shops in Moscow), and you had to bribe an 'official' if you wanted a flat or a telephone etc. I really don't see how 'labour vouchers' would stop corruption any more than state Capitalism, since labour vouchers are still a form of money. Obviously in the early stages of revolution, some form of rationing would be necessary, leading to possible corruption among the rationers and their possible transition into a new police state which would have to be resisted.

Rationing in Capitalism through the use of 'money.'

In Capitalism of course the private Usuryists (loan sharks) are the 'rationers,' and this has led to a situation where something like 0.01% or less of the population are the rationers and the majority of the world starves and suffers extreme poverty, so this is 'extreme' corruption. We in the First World are mostly the beneficiaries of this system so we suffer less economically.


Marxist Statism. 'The state will wither away'

The 'contradiction:' if on one hand the police states of the armed violent monetarists (Capital=money or property that has a Capitalist value) can 'only' be overthrown by armed violent anti-monetarists, why then is it that it will not be necessary to overthrow the dictatorship of armed violent so called anti-monetarists? Realistically can you imagine Kim Jong Il's police state just 'withering away' into independent collectives? The Soviet Union did not 'wither away' into independent collectives, but into hardcore Capitalism and the rule of the bankers, pims and the mafia; Gorbachev is now a multi-millionaire (he was bribed); the state withered away into an elite of corrupt billionaires leaving the male proletariat often destitute and unemployed, and the women often fleeing economic hardship into a life a sex slavery in the brothels of Western Europe.

No, the state will not wither away. States will have to be eradicated.

Statists (tyrants) will have to be fought by armed violent revolutionaries, however in the age of nuclear guerrilla weapons where there exists a universal knowledge of practical physics, the anti-Statists should in the end always have the upper hand. The problem is not merely monetarism but statism (tyranny). There have been after all, non-monetarist systems which were simply 'slave societies' with a monarch, and though Marx ultimately believed in total non-monetarism, he had an unrealistic faith in the power of ‘temporal’ tyranny.

Materialism and non-spiritualism.

Dialectical Materialism is a 19th century pre-Einsteinian, pre-quantum physics position. Materialism in the philosophical sense is also a position of faith. Mass can be converted to Energy and Light, and it is by no means a fact that the ‘stuff’of the universe is mass (matter). Marxists insist on atheism, apart from some Liberation Theologians (Christian Communists) who accept Marxist economics and reject his atheism.

Marx's essential Communist beliefs (armed violent revolution and 'eventually' anti-monetarism and 'eventually' anti-statism) which all Anarchist Communists may sympathise with, Marx plagiarised from the Anarchist Communists anyway. Away with Marx; most young anti-Capitalists in Europe are now anti-Marxist Anarchists anyway; it is growing trend.

Ultimately in the aftermath of the inevitable forthcoming nuclear war, the Marxists, the Anarchists and even the Muslims may form ‘ad hoc’ alliances against the police / military / statists but in the end they are destined to clash.

The Anarchist Communist Kropotkin's three categories of Laws.

1: Laws to protect the government.

The definition of an Anarchist region is one where there would be no statists, thus there would be no need for laws to protect the tyrants and their mercenaries (their police state, military, tax collectors and assorted bureaucracy / useless eaters etc.).

2: Laws to protect private property.

Similarly with propertyism, one cannot be a propertyist unless one is militant and have mercenaries (police) to protect one's property. Since the masses will always in their hearts seek to disempower those who enslave them for the purposes of exploiting their labour, leaving the labour slaves impoverished at the expense of a few, and since private propertyism is a militant ideology, the propertyists would have to be eliminated, thus there would be no need to have laws to protect them.

3: Laws to protect the individual from harm (Natural Law).

This is simply common sense. There is no need to create written laws to this extent. This is as it would have been in the mythical Garden of Eden. For example in a world without religious, private property and statist laws, a mother will still demand ‘do not harm my children, do not enslave them, do not starve them, etc., etc., these are of course not the written laws of a police state, but never the less most mothers, unindoctrinated by religion and police statism would probably agree with them.

What is Authority (tyranny)?

The Anarchist (against the Archons / authority figures) Kropotkin once stated that he would never challenge the ‘authority’ of an engineer, since was not an engineer; he did not have that type of expertise and would rather leave bridge building and construction to the trained experts; an engineer is an expert in a certain type of science, not an Archon (tyrant) who claims to be an expert in enslaving people and ruling over them or an expert in God or religious morality

4: Sexual Laws

In addition to Kropotkin’s 3 types of law, we also have to consider the eradication of the millions of religious laws (I will not elaborate), and especially sexual laws; these are simply laws which produce an effective and miserable slave




Sex is the most powerful instinct in man. The politician and the priest have understood from the very beginning that sex is the most driving energy in man. It has to be curtailed, it has to be cut. If man is allowed total Freedom in sex, then there will be no possibility to dominate him. To make a slave out of him will be impossible.

Have you not seen it being done? When you want a bull to be yoked to a cart, what do you do? You castrate him, you destroy his sex energy. And have you seen the difference between a bull and an ox? What a difference! An ox is a poor phenomenon, a slave. A bull is a beauty; a bull is a glorious pheonomenon, a great splendor. See a bull walking, how he walks like an emperor! And see an ox pulling a cart.

The same has been done to man. The sex instinct has been curtailed, cut, crippled. Man does not exist as the bull now, he exists like the ox, and each man is pulling a thousand and one carts. Look and you will find behind you a thousand and one carts, and you are yoked to them.

Why can’t you yoke a bull? The bull is too powerful. If he sees a cow passing by, he will throw both you and the cart, and he will move to the cow! He will not bother a bit about who you are, and he will not listen. It will be impossible to control the bull. Sex energy is life energy; it is uncontrollable. And the politician and the priest are not interested in you, they are interested in channeling your energy into other directions. So there is a certain Mechanism behind it--it has to be understood.

Sex repression, tabooing sex, is the very foundation of human slavery. Man cannot be free unless sex is free. Man cannot be really free unless his sex energy is allowed natural growth.

These are the five tricks through which man has been turned into a slave, into an ugly phenomenon, a cripple.

The first is:
Keep man as weak as possible if you want to dominate him. If the priest wants to dominate you or the politician wants to dominate you, you have to be kept as weak as possible. And the best way to keep a man weak is not to give love total freedom. Love is nourishment..."

"...Second:
Keep man as ignorant and deluded as possible so that he can easily be deceived..."

"...The third secret:
Keep man as frightened as possible. And the sure way is not to allow him love, because love destroys fear--’love casteth out fear.’ When you are not in love you become more interested in security, in safety. When you are in love you are more interested in adventure, in exploration...."

"...The Fourth:
Keep man as miserable as possible--because a miserable man is confused, a miserable man has no self-worth, a miserable man is self-condemnatory, a miserable man feels that he must have done something wrong. A miserable man has no grounding--you can push him from here and there, he can be turned into driftwood very easily. And a miserable man is always ready to be commanded, to be ordered, to be disciplined, because he knows ’On my own I am simply miserable. Maybe someody else can discipline my life.’ He is a ready victim."

"And the fifth:
Keep men as alienated from each other as possible, so that they cannot band together for some purpose of which the priest and the politician may not approve. Keep people separate from each other. Don’t allow them too much intimacy. When people are separate, lonely, alienated from each other, they cannot band together. And there are a thousand and one tricks to keep them apart.

For example, if you are holding the hand of a man--you are a man and you are holding the hand of a man and walking down the road, singing--you will feel guilty because people will start looking at you. Are you gay, homosexual or something? Two men are not allowed to be happy together. They are condemned as homosexuals. Fear arises. If your friend comes and takes your hand in his hand, you look around: ’Is somebody looking or not?’ And you are just in a hurry to drop the hand..." Osho


Lucifer
Fire plague and poisoned waters

www.myspace.com/luciferhorus



Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law."
—AL. I. 40.
"thou hast no right but to do thy will. Do that, and no
other shall say nay." —AL. I. 42–3.
"Every man and every woman is a star." —AL. I. 3.
There is no god but man.
..>..>
..> 1. Man has the right to live by his own law—to live in the way that he wills to do:to work as he will:to play as he will:to rest as he will:to die when and how he will.
2. Man has the right to eat what he will:to drink what he will:to dwell where he will:to move as he will on the face of the earth.
3. Man has the right to think what he will:to speak what he will:to write what he will:to draw, paint, carve, etch, mould, build as he will:to dress as he will.
4. Man has the right to love as he will:—"take your fill and will of love as ye will,when, where, and with whom ye will." —AL. I. 51.
5. Man has the right to kill those who would thwart these rights...>

"Love is the law, love under will." —AL. I. 57

____________________________



'The revolution will have to be (Anarchist) Communist or it will be drowned in blood and will have to begin all over again'


'Either the State forever, crushing individual and local life, taking over in all fields of human activity, bringing with it its wars and its domestic struggles for power, its palace revolutions which only replace one tyrant with another.....Or the destruction of all states and new life starting again in thousands of centres on the principle that the lively initiative of the individual and groups of that Free Arrangement The choice lies with you'.Kropotkin, 'Conquest of Bread'

On the Pan-German banner is written: Retention and strengthening of the State at any cost. On our banner, the social-revolutionary banner, on the contrary, are inscribed, in fiery and bloody letters: the destruction of all States, the annihilation of bourgeois civilization, free and spontaneous organization from below upward, by means of free associations, the organization of the unbridled rabble of toilers, of all emancipated humanity, and the creation of a new universally human world....Bakunin

ZEITGEIST 2:ADDENDUM The Money System

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=7065205277695921912&hl=en&fs=true


Addendum

Alternatives to Capitalism.


1: Labour Theory of Value.

There are fundamentalist Marxists who wish to see an allegedly temporary government introduce a form of rationing termed ’labour vouchers.’ Marx equated labour hours with value and went to great lengths calculating how much labour would go into a particular machine or a commodity; this became it’s calculatable ’value.’ Clearly, in ideal conditions you would not swap a kilo of marijuana for a kilo of potatoes (some people might if they were starving, but not in ideal conditions); neither would you swap a kilo of gold for a kilo of marijuana (well ’I’ certainly would if I had an abundance of gold, but not in ’ideal conditions).


2: Sharing and Bartering

Bartering certainly occurs on a primitive scale among farmers in the Somerset countryside where I live. Favours are exchanged and there is mutual co-operation.
I am not sure how many chickens you could get for a pig, or how many pigs for a horse, but it is quite an effective system on a primitive level. Two farmers might have two different machines that each wants to use occasionally, so they share.

This might work out quite well among agriculturalists sharing potatoes for carrots, but for other items, such a system would be much less straightforward.

Les us say you wish to buy a tractor or a combine harvester. You would have to pay the tractor dealer with something with which he could pay the manufacturer for the tractor, and this would have to be something with which the manufacturer would be able to pay his electricity bills, his workers in wages etc.

So at this point it all sounds very messy and quite unrealistic.

3: Anarcho-Capitalism.

So here we are again back to Anarcho-Capitalism.

Here there are no government regulations. No banking regulations. No banking licences. Anyone could theoretically start their own loan sharking institution and issue currency. It seems rather confusing.

In addition, there would still be private property, rich and poor, land owners and the landless and homeless. There would be those who would have to become labour slaves for food and those who would be labour masters and demand labour slavery in return for some form of Capital which could be exchanged for food.

But ultimately the question still has to be asked, how would a particular currency in a world of millions of currencies be considered valuable?

Capital as ’Promissary Notes’ for ’anything.’

A farmer in Texas who issues currency would have to state on the currency what the paper I.O.U. is exchangable for. His currency might state ’I promise to pay the bearer a ton of potatoes, ’ or a ’ton of beef’ or its equivalent in labour hours. This system is of course open to fraud, since he could simply write out more I.O.U’s that he is capable of producing. Further if a farmer in New York was offered this I.O.U, it would be a complex matter since he would have to ensure that the farmer in Texas was capable of making good his promissary notes. Further all persons and companies who supplied the farmer with electricity, phone, computers, tractors, labour would have to go through the same process and take the same risk of ending up with a ton of rotting potatoes dumped on their premises. It is a rather messy and impractical solution which I think most farmers and their suppliers would simply laugh at.

Capital as Precious metal promissary notes.

The current system we have is one where only a select few elite bankers can issue such promissary notes; originally they were backed by precious metals, but even this original system was subject to fraud and the creation of ’reserve banking, ’ where only a small percentage of the precious metals were held in reserve.

There are elite banks and non-elite banks. Today elite banks do not work on a reserve system, they simply issue currency at the touch of a computer mouse. Thus have the Capitalists taken over the world though ’confidence (a ’con’) in their paper and credit.

The Anarcho-Capitalist counterproposal to such a confidence trick by a few elite bankers would seem to lead to a world where there were millions of such confusing confidence tricks.

In summary, Anarcho-Communism is a rejection of forms of bartering, token-ism, Capitalism in any form or labour vouchers; it is quite simply about collectives sharing resources, much as it was in the early days of the Israeli kibbutz.

Love and Light

Lucifer
http://www.luciferia.tv/animation/A.gif

Fire, plague and poisoned waters.



___________

"Every man and every woman is a star." That is to say, every human being is intrinsically an independent individual with his own proper character and proper motion.

Every man and every woman has a course, depending partly on the self, and partly on the environment which is natural and necessary for each. Anyone who is forced from his own course, either through not understanding himself, or through external opposition, comes into conflict with the order of the Universe, and suffers accordingly. Illustration: A man may think it his duty to act in a certain way, through having made a fancy picture of himself, instead of investigating his actual nature. For example, a woman may make herself miserable for life by thinking that she prefers love to social consideration, or "vice versa". One woman may stay with an unsympathetic husband when she would really be happy in an attic with a lover, while another may fool herself into a romantic elopement when her only true pleasures are those of presiding at fashionable functions. …….
A Man whose conscious will is at odds with his True Will is wasting his strength. He cannot hope to influence his environment efficiently. Illustration: When Civil War rages in a nation, it is in no condition to undertake the invasion of other countries….A man who is doing this True Will has the inertia of the Universe to assist him. Illustration: The first principle of success in evolution is that the individual should be true to his own nature, and at the same time adapt himself to his environment….. Man is ignorant of the nature of his own being and powers. Even his idea of his limitations is based on experience of the past, and every step in his progress extends his empire. There is therefore no reason to assign theoretical limits to what he may be, or to what he may do…. The question of Magick is a question of discovering and employing hitherto unknown forces in nature. We know that they exist, and we cannot doubt the possibility of mental or physical instruments capable of bringing us into relation with them.

Aleister Crowley
Magick In Theory And Practice

________________

Nb., I should point out that Mao, Crowley and Osho (cited in the above essay) were not Anarchists: I merely cite points of agreement.

[luciferhorus]

I am just 'bumping' this thread since I am being accused here of being a Marxist, and this is entirely incorrect

Here is my evangelically anti-Marxist essay and my critism of Marx

LL

Lux

http://www.luciferia.tv/animation/A.gif

[lightgiver]

You quote Marx:confused:

check out post 138,

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=62534&page=14

maybe you like it all ways:)

I have never heard of anarchist Christians?is that a new religion?

You have heard that it was said, "Love your neighbour and hate your enemy."
But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you (Matthew 5:43-44).

Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness. Whoever loves his brother lives in the light, and there is nothing in him to make him stumble (1 John 2:9-10).

You do not do so bad out of the capitalist system,I see.:)

[luciferhorus]

You quote Marx:confused:

check out post 138,

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=62534&page=14

maybe you like it all ways:)


The Straw Man Argument

If you wish to engage a person in debate, you need to deal with the person's ideas, arguments and stated positions. A 'straw man argument' is where you make an argument against a figment of your imagination, not against a real person.

In the academic sense, if you were to write an essay which was a critical of a particular philosopher such as Marx, and your professor failed your essay and wrote 'straw man' on it, this would indicate that you have not dealt with the ideas of Marx and that you are criticising a 'straw man' of your own creation.

Sheep Mentality

Generally Marxists will take an uncritical view of Marx and state that they agree with his writings in their entirety; this is not my stated position and I do not suspend my critical thinking when considering any philosopher or writer.

With those who have 'sheep' or 'lemming' mentality they often seek some guru or philosopher to attach themselves to unciritically. I do not do this.

I often quote other writers and I place their quotations in quotation marks; if I quote Hitler, Lenin, Marx, Mao, Jesus, or whoever, this should not be taken to imply that I am in total or even partial agreement with them.

If I quote a passage from Marx, such as his analysis of religion, and I refer to his position, that merely means that I concur with the quoted statement and nothing more.


I have never heard of anarchist Christians?is that a new religion?

It is not an 'organised religion' and since Anarchist Christians consider Jesus to have been a proto-Anarchist it is certainly not new; Anarchist Christians come in various flavours, for example some are pacifists and some are not, though personally I consider pacifism to be anti-thetical to Anarchism.

Generally Anarchist Christians tend to consider all Anarchists to be Christians and all Capitalist Christians to be anti-Christians, however there is no fixed system of theology and belief other than considering the anti-Capitalist, anti-propertyist Jesus as a mentor.

From this perspective, a true Christian is one who is Christ-like and who like Jesus himself, dedicates their life to anti-Capitalist, anti-monetarist, anti-religious (as in organised relgion) revolution and opposes all forms of tyranny (i.e., the state).

More on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_anarchism

Contra Christianity


You have heard that it was said, "Love your neighbour and hate your enemy."
But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you (Matthew 5:43-44).

Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness. Whoever loves his brother lives in the light, and there is nothing in him to make him stumble (1 John 2:9-10).

I think I have made it quite clear that I am an evangelical anti-Christian and that I seek the eradication of this worthless form of mass hypnosis from the world.

Only those who are themselves evil love those who are evil; those who are sinless, like myself, are devoid of evil, despise evil and seek to eradicate evil from the world, and by the eradication of 'evil' I refer to the three pillars of the God of Capital, being religion, government and capital.

To simply 'love' a tyrant oppressor is innapropriate. A purpose of Communist propaganda is to create the conditions for revolution. Revolution will occur on a day and an hour in the aftermath of nuclear war, with the collapse of Capital and the emptying of the supermarket shelves of Capitalism; we are always within a few days of mass uprising, but a proletariat who 'loves' their slave masters cannot hope to eradicate them; anti-Capitalist revolution requires a militant response to militant Capitalists and hatred of the slavemasters is a precondition for this.

Cherry Picking and the Final Holocaust.

It is common for Christians to 'cherry pick' the New Testament, quoting only what they agree with, and commonly ignoring the anti-capitalism and militancy of Jesus; my essay on Jesus and Liberation theology on this forum deals with this; Jesus and his companions were clearly armed and militant; further if one is committed to the separation of the wheat (the anti-capitalists) from the chaff (the capitalists) and the casting of the Capitalists into the fire; this requires a genocidal militancy; further the depiction of the Final War of Armageddon in the Book of Revelation is hardly an encouragement for pacifism; on the contrary; only a militant and genocidal strategy could rid the world of the Capitalists in the way depicted; revolutionary war by the sword, fire, plague and poisoned waters; only in the aftermath of revolutionary war, beyond the Final Holocaust, the destruction of the kingdom of Capital and the total defeat of the armies of the god of Capital is peace predicted.


You do not do so bad out of the capitalist system,I see.:)

Again you are continually using this form of 'straw man' argument; I have not claimed otherwise, there are millions of Communists in Europe; we all live in the Capitalist system where food is sold for Capitalist coin; those who propose the numerous different types of political alternatives to the current system still live in the Capitalist system; I certainly do not do as well out of Capitalism as David Icke does, and I certainly wish him success; money is power, and the more money he has, the more he will be able to disseminate his criticisms of the current system, though I am not entirely in agreement with his state Capitalist counterproposal to the current system; this is of course also what the Neo-Marxists who are Trotskyist / Leninists seek, that the government takes over the role of the private bankers; this is just a shuffling of power from one group of dictators to another, much like a palace revolution.

Carpenter Jesus

In summary, if you wish to attack an Anarchist from an anti-Communist perspective, you need to deal with Anarchist philosophy rather than Marxism, Christianity or the fact that we all live in a Capitalist tyranny; I very much doubt if Jesus was a Carpenter, but if he was, and you cried 'hypocrisy' because he sold his labour and his craftwork for Capitalist coin, that is innapropriate; how he made an income in the Capitalist world is irrelevant to his anti-monetarist philosophy.


LL

Lux

I recognize no infallible authority, even in special questions; consequently, whatever respect I may have for the honesty and the sincerity of such or such an individual, I have no absolute faith in any person.

People go to church for the same reasons they go to a tavern: to stupefy themselves, to forget their misery, to imagine themselves, for a few minutes anyway, free and happy.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

The liberty of man consists solely in this, that he obeys the laws of nature because he has himself recognized them as such, and not because they have been imposed upon him externally by any foreign will whatsoever, human or divine, collective or individual. .....Bakunin.

Bakunin on Marx and Rothschild

“Himself a Jew, Marx has around him, in London and France, but especially in Germany, a multitude of more or less clever, intriguing, mobile, speculating Jews, such as Jews are every where: commercial or banking agents, writers, politicians, correspondents for newspapers of all shades, with one foot in the bank, the other in the socialist movement, and with their behinds sitting on the German daily press — they have taken possession of all the newspapers — and you can imagine what kind of sickening literature they produce. Now, this entire Jewish world, which forms a single profiteering sect, a people of blooksuckers, a single gluttonnous parasite, closely and intimately united not only across national borders but across all differences of political opinion — this Jewish world today stands for the most part at the disposal of Marx and at the same time at the disposal of Rothschild. I am certain that Rothschild for his part greatly values the merits of Marx, and that Marx for his part feels instinctive attraction and great respect for Rothschild.


This may seem strange. What can there be in common between Communism and the large banks? Oh! The Communism of Marx seeks enormous centralization in the state, and where such exists, there must inevitably be a central state bank, and where such a bank exists, the parasitic Jewish nation, which. speculates on the work of the people, will always find a way to prevail ....”

Source: Michael Bakunin, 1871, Personliche Beziehungen zu Marx. In: Gesammelte Werke. Band 3. Berlin 1924. P. 204-216.


Marx incidentally was related to the Rothschild loan sharking dynasty through marraige.

His mother was the grand-aunt of industrialists Gerard Philips and Anton Philips and a maternal descendant of the Barent-Cohen family through her parents Isaac Heijmans Presburg (Presburg, c. 1747 – Nijmegen, May 3, 1832) and wife Nanette Salomon Barent-Cohen (Amsterdam, c. 1764 – Nijmegen, April 7, 1833), the daughter of Salomon David Barent-Cohen (d. 1807) and wife Sara Brandes, in turn the uncle and aunt by marriage of Nathan Mayer Rothschild's

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx

[lightgiver]

The Straw Man Argument

If you wish to engage a person in debate, you need to deal with the person's ideas, arguments and stated positions. A 'straw man argument' is where you make an argument against a figment of your imagination, not against a real person.

With those who have 'sheep' or 'lemming' mentality they often seek some guru or philosopher to attach themselves to unciritically. I do not do this.
Generally Marxists will take an uncritical view of Marx and state that they agree with his writings in their entirety; this is no my state position and I do not suspend my critical thinking when considering any philosopher or writer.

I often quote other writers and I place their quotations in quotation marks; if I quote Hitler, Lenin, Marx, Mao, Jesus, or whoever, this should not be taken to imply that I am in total or even partial agreement with them.

If I quote a passage from Marx, such as his analysis of religion, and I refer to his position, that merely means that I concur with the quoted statement and nothing more.




It is not an 'organised religion' and since Anarchist Christians consider Jesus to have been a proto-Anarchist it is certainly not new; Anarchist Christians come in various flavours, for example some are pacifists and some are not, though personally I consider pacifism to be anti-thetical to Anarchism.

Generally Anarchist Christians tend to consider all Anarchists to be Christians and all Capitalist Christians to be anti-Christians, however there is no fixed system of theology and belief other than considering the anti-Capitalist, anti-propertyist Jesus as a mentor.

From this perspective, a true Christian is one who is Christ-like and who like Jesus himself, dedicates their life to anti-Capitalist, anti-monetarist, anti-religious (as in organised relgion) revolution and opposes all forms of tyranny (i.e., the state).

More on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_anarchism


I think I have made it quite clear that I am an evangelical anti-Christian and that I seek the eradication of this worthless form of mass hypnosis from the world.

Only those who are themselves evil love those who are evil; those who are sinless, like myself, are devoid of evil, despise evil and seek to eradicate evil from the world, and by the eradication of 'evil' I refer to the three pillars of the God of Capital, being religion, government and capital.

To simply 'love' a tyrant oppressor is innapropriate.



Again you are continually using this form of 'straw man' argument; I have not claimed otherwise, there are millions of Communists in Europe; we all live in the Capitalist system where food is sold for Capitalist coin; those who propose the numerous different types of political alternatives to the current system still live in the Capitalist system; I certainly do not do as well out of Capitalism as David Icke does, and I certainly wish him success; money is power, and the more money he has, the more he will be able to disseminate his criticisms of the current system, much as I am not entirely in agreement with his state Capitalist counterproposal to the current system.


LL

Lux

You live by the fruits of capitalism,if you were really passionate about your beliefs so much you would not live by the fruits of capitalism,you cannot have your cake and eat it.

You also condemn people who follow religion,you are no better than the elites,people are free to follow what path they want ,whether you like it or not.

You say you are devoid of evil,yet you want an armed revolution?

The elites may pretend they are following Christ and his teachings,but they aint,any fool can see that.

with Love comes wisdom.

Your path you go on about just sounds like another form of oppression in my book,what if people do not want to follow your Ideology,say the Christians,Hindus,Sikhs ,Buddhists ,Jains,Muslims, etc etc,?

Maybe capitalism is just another form of communism.

Its all Ism and schism.

If you are fighting the system,you are still in the system.

The pen is mightier than the sword,but I am all for self defence.

Nothing straw man about my words.:)

[aee02]

Hello:

Someone was asking about Anarchist Christianity. It is a title that some have used to define themselves. I was part of a group that considered themselves to be "Anarchist Christians". My personal experience was that it was more like "Anarchism lite".

The group I was formerly associated with used the scripture in Acts 4:32, "Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common."

We invited the homeless to live with us in "solidarity" (it was not true solidarity because I had a job and education and was predisposed to have more power in the group), and we shared our food and bartered for services. The city tried to shut us down because we were not zoned for a "house church". So, we met in public spaces like parks, and had "picnics" and invited anyone who passed by to eat with us. Also, we could not have a "food closet or clothes closet", so we had a "yard sale" in which everything was free.

It was a nice concept but much harder to live out. Eventually, we all burned out because the few ended up weilding power over others and those who just showed up to help became well, "the help"...

Shane Claiborne (book: "The Irresistible Revolution") has become the poster boy for this new type of religion. I'm not trying to be too hard on him because he has done some pretty radical things but he is also very close to the Sojourners/Jim Wallis politics which appears to be a puppet for the left.

A lot of these Anarchist Christians are into the "intentional communities" or "house churches". A popular and radical one in Atlanta is called, "The Open Door". There is also the "New Friar" movement. Popular reads among these groups includes, Dorthy Day, Mother Teresa (my favorite), Martin Luther King Jr. and Ghandi. There is a web site I've read a few times called, "Jesus Manifesto", but it appears to be more of a theological think-tank than actual happenings taking place.

From what I have learned, the movement stemmed from those wishing to move away from mainstream churches because they had become "dead" and worried more about paving their parking lots and filling the pews than helping their neighbors. At first these mainline chruches did reject these groups but in the last few years they have become "popular" and "hip" to associate and help out these "radical" groups. To me, it seemed these groups sold out. I am trying to be optimistic that perhaps they can learn from each other.

Since then, my theological views have changed and I no longer feel I have a place in this "new religion". I'm still trying to find my way, but I am glad I spent time there. I learned a lot and would not trade that experience.

Hope this helps anyone out who is curious...

[aee02]

luciferhorus:

Thank you for the post on Anarchy. I have read a few books and waded through some with my head spinning. Thank you for the short, yet very consise breakdown. It is greatly appreciated.

[luciferhorus]

You live by the fruits of capitalism,if you were really passionate about your beliefs so much you would not live by the fruits of capitalism,you cannot have your cake and eat it.



To resatate there are millions of Communists who are slaves of the Capitalist system and who sell their labour; those who do not do so would simply starve; your 'critic' is simply a childish one and I think it pointless to discuss this with you further. Since this is the David Icke forum, your ciriticism of him I suspect would similarly be that despite his opposition to the current economic system that he is a beneficiary; that would be similarly innapropriate; we live in a dictatorship of Capital and have no choice in the matter.


You also condemn people who follow religion,you are no better than the elites,people are free to follow what path they want ,whether you like it or not.

To pursue one's own sacred will is one thing but to hypnotise others and sell salvation for Capitalist coin is quite another; to say that people should be free to follow 'any' path they want implies also the 'freedom' to enslave and exploit othere; that is not part of the Anarchist agenda; on the contrary.


Nothing straw man about my words.:)

Yes I see that you do not have the honesty to concede points in argument when corrected and revert to contradiction; I thus consider debating with you to be a waste of time.

LL

Lux

[lightgiver]

To resatate there are millions of Communists who are slaves of the Capitalist system and who sell their labour; those who do not do so would simply starve; your 'critic' is simply a childish one and I think it pointless to discuss this with you further. Since this is the David Icke forum, your ciriticism of him I suspect would similarly be that despite his opposition to the current economic system that he is a beneficiary; that would be similarly innapropriate; we live in a dictatorship of Capital and have no choice in the matter.



To pursue one's own sacred will is one thing but to hypnotise others and sell salvation for Capitalist coin is quite another; to say that people should be free to follow 'any' path they want implies also the 'freedom' to enslave and exploit othere; that is not part of the Anarchist agenda; on the contrary.



Yes I see that you do not have the honesty to concede points in argument when corrected and revert to contradiction; I thus consider debating with you to be a waste of time.

LL

Lux


and debating with you also.

You just insult when it not going your way,not one insult will you find on my post against you,but you have insulted me constantly,what would you be like with people who did not tow your party line<I wonder.

Sums up you and your Ideology,it as been tried many times before and failed miserably,and it will never come around, sorry to say,only the Illumniati and Freemason version,basically not far of what you are preaching.

but it will be just like any other hierarchy structure,still have the ones at the top,and then the power will go to their heads,human nature I am afraid,you need to conquer your own delusions before you try and push them on someone else,

You live by the fruits of capitalism and there is no getting out of it no matter how fancy you try and dress it up.

why concede when there is nothing to concede,I just disagree with what you are saying.

LG.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkwNFPJBFLo

[luciferhorus]

and debating with you also.

You just insult when it not going your way,not one insult will you find on my post against you,but you have insulted me constantly,what would you be like with people who did not tow your party line<I wonder.



I generally do not practice abuse and refrain from engaging in exchanges of abuse; I have merely described your debating strategy as 'errant' and you have not accepted this.


but it will be just like any other hierarchy structure,still have the ones at the top,and then the power will go to their heads,human nature I am afraid,


That would certainly be an appropriate criticism of David Icke's state capitalist counterprosal to the current system, but again this is another 'straw man' argument with regards to Anarchism, since this concerns the absence of a state and hierarchy.

I might ask you what you consider to be your own counterproposal to the current system?


You live by the fruits of capitalism and there is no getting out of it no matter how fancy you try and dress it up.


I have already responded to you on this point and you keep just repeating it; I am not really interested in debating with a child. If one takes your perspective on this, it further follows that since you live in a Christian state terrorist nation, that you are a state terrorist yourself; this is simply a false argument, as it is with your position that all Communists who live in Capitalism must therefore believe in the Capitalist system since they benefit from it; this is simply not true; however since I understand your rather childish debating strategy, it would be entirely expected that you cannot accept this and will continue to simply practice contradiction. Really you waste not only your time with such nonsense but also that of they who seek to correct you, since you will not be corrected and insist upon arrogance.


why concede when there is nothing to concede,I just disagree with what you are saying.


Having passed through an academic system there are certain ground rules of establishing an argument which you fail to follow. Were your responses being marked by an academic, any academic would correct you on your constant contradition and the use of straw man arguments; however you appear not to respond to correction, and thus I must consider you to be a 'lost soul;' your arrogance is not astonishing, however, on the contrary it is rather commonplace; and by arrogance I mean this in the descriptive sense rather than as an abitrary insult; the arrogant soul will never admit errancy, even when shown to be wrong.

I certainly bear Theolonious no ideological alliance, but he too has raised such matters with you and you do not accept this from him either. If you are going to engage in debate, you need to follow certain groundrules of debate in respect of they way you form arguments, or you simply will not be taken seriously and you are defeated before you begin.

Frankly since you appear to share David Icke's views on Freemasonry, it is my view that you do him a great disservice by attempting to debate in the manner that you do; if you wish to engage the Masons and your ideological enemies in debate you need to be aware that among your enemies are those who are highly literate, educated and intelligent and who will merely dismiss your infantile debating methods as that of a child; it is your Achillies' heel so to speak, and if you cannot take correction in this matter, it is rather like the child who will not be corrected by the teacher, and thus the teacher simply 'gives up' on the child.

I am also a qualified school teacher and my responses to the 'form' of your attempts at debate would be no different it it were a child in a classroom. A good teacher 'corrects' a child not to abuse and demean them, but to assist them in the learning process, but if the child cannot accept correction and insists upon arrogance, the learing process stops. A little humility and intellectual honesty would be appropropriate.

When you say "I just disagree with what you are saying," that is like the contradiction room in the Monty Python argument sketch (see below); an argument would state 'why' you disagree;and offer argument and evidence as to why you disagree.

I should point out further that you are not alone in confusing ASC (see below) with argument, it is merely that you are responding me and so I am attempting to correct you; another guilty part here with regards to the is the Masonic 'Grand Secretary' who like yourself is not here to debate and confuses contradiction, abuse and general mockery with argument, however I have taken to ignoring his childishness, whereas with you I have attempted to correct you and it is entirely for your own good. The arrogant person rarely or never concedes points in argument and it is rather pointless to attempt to engage such an individual in debate.
LL

Lux


__________

B]The Socratic Dialectic (Gr. Argument) 101[/B]



or:





‘Abuse, sophisty and contradiction (ASC) : the last cries of the desparate.’





What is ‘argument?



By Lucifer

http://www.luciferia.tv/animation/A.gif



For Anarchist Communism.



______________________________________



There are numerous groups on the Internet where debate is confused with 'exchanges' of abuse.



I was did not always think as I do, and in the future I expect my positions to modify as a consequence of study, debate, life experience etc.



Debate and discussion is always a good thing.



Our political and metaphysical beliefs must go through a dialectical testing process.



When tested, if they fail or are destroyed by superior arguments; the person who is intellectually honest should concede and modify his position.



That is how adults 'develop' intellectually, morally (the discernment of good and evil), spiritually, whatever.



Children just slag each other off.



______________







Thesis (idea), anti-thesis (opposing idea) and synthesis (a combination of two ideas).



An argument in the English language can mean a fight between two football hooligans but this has nothing to do with the Greek meaning of ‘dialectic, ’ with regards to the teaching and debating method Socrates. In Internet debates over the years I have often made many ‘arguments’ against the ‘ideas’ of other people who misunderstand the meaning of the term ‘dialectic, ’ and to simplify I have written the following explanation which I often post in response to my essays.





_____________________________________________



Abuse and contradiction are common and can be had from imbecile, football hooligan or a drunk at a bus stop and do not constitute argument.

Responses should follow certain standards or they may be responded to with ‘abuse, ’ but probably I will just ignore you.

_________________________________

Argument (Gr. dialectic) according to Socrates and John Cleese.





3 universally accepted ground rules of debating



1: Abuse.



Abuse does not constitute an argument.



2: Contradiction.



Contradiction is not an argument. ’I don’t agree with you’ is not an

argument. An Argument would state ‘why’ you disagree.



3: Sophistry (sophist: ’sophisticated / educated).



A Sophist generally avoids the question and rambles on about something else, often avoiding the argument made by the opponent and often utilising straw man arguments (attacking arguments and positions which the opponent does not hold) and creates confusion with language.



The use of the combination of 1, 2 and 3 is generally defined as ’arrogance’ and ‘avoidance of debate, ’ and by default ‘conceding the point to the opponent’



For those who do not understand the meaning of the term ‘argument, ’ for further information watch the 3 min video on the ground rules of debate on:



http://www.youtube.com/v/kQFKtI6gn9Y&hl=en&fs=1



(Monty Python Argument Sketch)



Note that this only covers abuse and contradiction.



If you cannot understand this, I suggest the removal of your brain.



See



http://www.youtube.com/v/IIlKiRPSNGA&hl=en&fs=1



(Monty Python: ’My Brian Hurts)



’An argument is not contradiction (or abuse); it is a series of connected statements which establish a proposition; a debate is a dialectical intellectual process’



__________





The Socratic and Sophist method of education



Socrates: intellectual and spiritual development through a dialectical process.



Socrates would encourage his students to ‘argue’ with him, but to restate, since the term ‘argue’ has a number of meanings in the English, we are speaking of a Socratic ‘dialectical’ process, not a punch up, nor the showering of abuse; we are speaking of challenging an idea (thesis) with another idea (anti-thesis) and in this way the ideas and debating skills of both parties evolve and develop.



This process is intended to produce an intellectually evolved and intellectually honest person who can admit points to the opponent when the opponent’s position seems to be better and who can also stand up for their own ideas when challenged by an authority whom they disagree with. This is how we evolve intellectually and spiritually; whereas an ‘arrogant; person engages in an argument (debate) in the same way that a boxer fights (to win). The purpose of dialectical argument is not to win even if one is shown to be errant, but to test and evolve (develop) ones’ ideas. This sometimes can involve using the ‘Devil’s advocate’ form of argument where one attacks the arguments of those one essentially agrees with in order to test them.



The Sophists: Intellectual fascism (Gr. Sophist: a sophisticated, educated, arrogant pseudo-intellectual).



The Sophist method of educating students, which has been taken up by the Catholic Church throughout it’s history, was to lecture them for hours, and if challenged by a student, the student might be told that they are arrogant, told off or burned at the state, tortured by the Inquisition’ or simply ‘murdered ’ and branded a heretic who dared to challenge authority. The Sophist method defines the term ‘arrogance. An arrogant person thinks that they are always correct, and even when shown to be incorrect, they will still hold fast to their position, since their purpose is to ‘win’ an argument by all means necessary. The Sophists of course despised Socrates as much as he despised them (he considered them to be educated fools) and like so many others who challenge existing authority, Socrates was martyred.



Lucifer



http://www.luciferia.tv/animation/A.gif



Light of the World.

Aeon of Lucifer 2008





http://www.youtube.com/v/X3Hg-Y7MugU&hl=en&fs=1


Chritopher Hitchens. On argument.





"My predecessors have invariably said, 'My belief is right and yours is wrong; my customs are worthy, yours are ignoble; my dress is decent, yours is not; think as I think, talk as I talk, do as I do, or you will be wretched, poor, sick, disgraced and dammed; besides which, I shall cut your head off, burn you alive, starve you, imprison you, ostracize you and otherwise make you sorry you did not agree to be a good boy.' The essence of every missionary message has been to assimilate the taught to the teacher; and it has always been accompanied by bribes and threats. My message is exactly opposed to any of this. I say to each man and woman, 'You are unique and sovereign, the centre of an universe........... My mission is, in short, to bring everyone to the realization and enjoyment of his own kingship."



Aleister Crowley. Confessions.

[luciferhorus]

luciferhorus:

Thank you for the post on Anarchy. I have read a few books and waded through some with my head spinning. Thank you for the short, yet very consise breakdown. It is greatly appreciated.


I think that one of the common problems of political philosophy is that, as it was with Marx, he was an intellectual and an academic who was writing for other intellectuals and academics; wading through Das Capital is thus a chore for the barely literate proletariate whose reading skills are honed on tabloids and whose attention span is barely the length of a cornflakes advert. I say this not to dismiss the greatness of Das Capital, since it is certainly a 'Great Work' but it is not a work that is easily understood by the masses.

On the other hand I find Proudhon, Kropotkin, Bakunin, Goldman (all of whose writings are freely available on the Internet) and in fact many of the Anarchist writers, despite all being highly educated, to be able to express themselves very simply and straightforwardly without reverting to academia-babble; in other words they wrote for the proletariat, the common person, and that is who they wish to be understood by, whereas Marx who was converted to Communism by the French Anarchists invented a 'grand system;' expressed in the language of 19th century academia-babble; he is very much a Thomas Aquinas of Communism, and like Aquinas, one can be 'put to sleep' by his writings, however this is merely a matter of 'form (the way he writes) rather than content, whereas with Aquinas both form and content contitute the most incredible nonsense.

LL

Lux


http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bakunin/BakuninCW.html
Collected Works of Michael Bakunin


http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/KropotkinCW.html
Collected Works of Peter Kropotkin (The Prince)


http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/goldman/GoldmanCW.html
Collected Works of Emma Goldman


http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/proudhon/ProudhonCW.html

Collected Works of Joseph Proudhon

[kasalt]

Aristotle on collectivism:
"That all persons call the same thing mine in the sense in which each does so may be a fine thing, but it is impracticable; or if the words are taken in the other sense, such a unity in no way conduces to harmony. And there is another objection to the proposal. For that which is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it. Every one thinks chiefly of his own, hardly at all of the common interest; and only when he is himself concerned as an individual. For besides other considerations, everybody is more inclined to neglect the duty which he expects another to fulfill; as in families many attendants are often less useful than a few.

"Property should be in a certain sense common, but, as a general rule, private; for, when every one has a distinct interest, men will not complain of one another, and they will make more progress, because every one will be attending to his own business."
Aristotle did not favor communism. To him private ownership, through which an individual was assured the result of his labor, seemed more likely to elicit the best efforts and the most conscientious attention to obligations. He did advocate re­strictions on the accumulation of property, mainly through limi­tations on inheritance.

Writings of the early Christians give no clear picture of what the Church held as a policy on private property in land. Some favored the communal ownership of property, others upheld communal ownership as an ideal but recognize the inability of the members generally to follow such a practice. Aquinas, the spokesman for the religious viewpoint of the Middle Ages, pre­sented able arguments in favor of private property. It was ad­vantageous because of the greater care an individual owner would take, because of the greater industry that would be exer­cised, and because it reduced friction among members of the community. Individual owners should consider their property a trust from God and be ever willing to share with others in need.
Source: http://www.economictheories.org/2008/11/plato-and-aristotle-private-property.html

[luciferhorus]

Aristotle on collectivism:
"That all persons call the same thing mine in the sense in which each does so may be a fine thing, but it is impracticable; or if the words are taken in the other sense, such a unity in no way conduces to harmony. And there is another objection to the proposal. For that which is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it. Every one thinks chiefly of his own, hardly at all of the common interest; and only when he is himself concerned as an individual. For besides other considerations, everybody is more inclined to neglect the duty which he expects another to fulfill; as in families many attendants are often less useful than a few.

"Property should be in a certain sense common, but, as a general rule, private; for, when every one has a distinct interest, men will not complain of one another, and they will make more progress, because every one will be attending to his own business."
Aristotle did not favor communism. To him private ownership, through which an individual was assured the result of his labor, seemed more likely to elicit the best efforts and the most conscientious attention to obligations. He did advocate re­strictions on the accumulation of property, mainly through limi­tations on inheritance.

Writings of the early Christians give no clear picture of what the Church held as a policy on private property in land. Some favored the communal ownership of property, others upheld communal ownership as an ideal but recognize the inability of the members generally to follow such a practice. Aquinas, the spokesman for the religious viewpoint of the Middle Ages, pre­sented able arguments in favor of private property. It was ad­vantageous because of the greater care an individual owner would take, because of the greater industry that would be exer­cised, and because it reduced friction among members of the community. Individual owners should consider their property a trust from God and be ever willing to share with others in need.
Source: http://www.economictheories.org/2008/11/plato-and-aristotle-private-property.html

Aristotle has much more in common with Ayn Rand than with Marx; Rand and Aristotle were after all economic elites of their slave societies; those who justify economic slavery are always the beneficiaries of the slave trade and never the slaves. Marx may also have been an economic elite (he was the son of a wealthy Jewish lawyer) but, like Moses, Jesus, Emma Goldman, Trotsky, Chomsky and other Jewish prophets and saints, he sympathised with the slaves, rather than with the masters.

The abolition of 'private property' must not be confused with the 'abolition of property;' the Israeli Communists, for example, all had clothing and property; in the early days they would simply return their clothes to a common laundry and pick up clean clothes; thus they would share all property in common, but they were not propertyless; similarly today many kibbutzes (Israeli Communes, which are being slowly converted to Capitalist communes) are like 5 star hotels and the kibbutzists enjoy a similar quality of lifestyle with we who are, generally speaking, among the Capitalist elites of the 'First World (i.e., we are not starving and have access to food and technology);' the Israeli kibbutzists are also very active on the Internet, they just don't own a computer personally; they share them in common; it is a much more efficient lifestyle which uses less labour resources, since every individual and family does not need to own their own computer or washing machine, yet they have access to such technology; they can use it without having to 'own' it personally, but they do collectively 'own' such property; if you try to steal their computers to own one personally, they would be collectively outraged and consider you a Capitalist sinner.

Frankly Kasalt, I don't think you smoke enough of that skunk you have in your profile image.

It is only £160 an ounce because of Capitalism; in nature, although it is the most beautifully scented flower, it is often called 'weed,' because once you plant it in the ground, you cannot get rid of it, it grows up to the heavens like a giant weed, and when it scatters it's many seeds, it multiplies itself a thousandfold, and would be virtually worthless in Capitalist terms if it were allowed to take over the planet, since it would be everywhere. If you are a friend of the most holy sacrament (sacred mind) as I am, I must point out that Capital is the ultimate enemy of our sacred plant. Find me an Anarchist who would prohibit the growing of this sacrament? I have not come across such a person, but among the Capitalists I find such idiots in abundance. Clearly our common sacrament is of no use to the slaves and masters of Captialism, other than as a source of income, for it is not condusive to labour slavery; rather the soul under the effect of this, the mother of all holy sacraments, generally tends to want to socialise, make love, become artistically creative, play or listen to music, sleep, dream, and debate with idiots on Internet debating forums, in the hope of awakening them, and has little desire to be a slave of some Capitalist master, however I am quite happy to be a sex slave to my Communist mistress, just as long as she keeps me occasionally stoned.



Lux

[kasalt]

Aristotle has much more in common with Ayn Rand than with Marx; Rand and Aristotle were after all economic elites of their slave societies; those who justify economic slavery are always the beneficiaries of the slave trade and never the slaves.

The reason I posted the quote from Aristotle was that I think he identified what may be referred to as the "weakest link" in collectivism, namely, "that which is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it."

How do you respond?

Frankly Kasalt, I don't think you smoke enough of that skunk you have in your profile image.

Correct, the illegality of the plant and the fact that I am subject to random drug testing through my employment means that my experience with cannabis is limited. I'm doing whatever I can think of to change these fundamentally unfair, hypocritical and draconian laws. Here in the USA, some progress is being made in that regard, though we do have a long way to go.

[luciferhorus]

The reason I posted the quote from Aristotle was that I think he identified what may be referred to as the "weakest link" in collectivism, namely, "that which is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it."

How do you respond?.

I disagree; I lived in communes for about 10 years where this was not the case, and I further worked for the Israeli colelctivists for about 12 years where this also was not the case; if you and I were to commonly share a computer or a pair of jeans, we woud tend to look after them and criticise each other if we did not; if we shared a common lover, similarly we would similarly complain is we took advantage of his (or her) love.


.
Correct, the illegality of the plant and the fact that I am subject to random drug testing through my employment means that my experience with cannabis is limited. I'm doing whatever I can think of to change these fundamentally unfair, hypocritical and draconian laws. Here in the USA, some progress is being made in that regard, though we do have a long way to go.

I also lived in the USA for about 5 years, and I do not hate Americans; on the contrary, though you Yankees seem to be a minority on this forum, since the New-Age-ist Icke is generally a British phenomenon and Alex Jones an American Christian phonomenon; but it is so good to witness those two making up; re. their recent public debates (search David Icke /Alex Jones on video.google) and discussions.

I think I have previously suggested to you that the de-criminalisation of marijuana laws is ridiculous and unthinkable to the Capitalists, since the Anglo-American-Israeli narco terrorists finance their black budgets through narco-terrorism and many of the major banks would otherwise collapse without drug cash.

Lux

[kasalt]

I think I have previously suggested to you that the de-criminalisation of marijuana laws is ridiculous and unthinkable to the Capitalists, since the Anglo-American-Israeli narco terrorists finance their black budgets through narco-terrorism and many of the major banks would otherwise collapse without drug cash.

Have a look at this map; I feel that it gives me just cause for optimism:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map-of-US-state-cannabis-laws.png

And there is much more pro-cannabis legislation in the works as we speak...

http://www.mpp.org/campaigns/

EDIT: I would like to add to my above comments by saying that there are many of us who won't take no for an answer on marijuana legalization; we are now in the majority, our numbers are growing every day, and we exist on all "sides" of the political spectrum: May 6, 2009

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- A new Zogby poll commissioned by the conservative-leaning O'Leary Report has found 52 percent voter support for treating marijuana as a legal, taxed, regulated substance. The survey, published as a full-page ad in today's issue of the political newspaper The Hill, polled a sample of 3,937 voters weighted to match the 2008 presidential outcome -- 54 percent Obama voters and 46 percent McCain supporters.
"This new survey continues the recent trend of strong and growing support for taxing and regulating marijuana and ending the disastrously failed policy of prohibition," said Rob Kampia, executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project in Washington, D.C.
Source: http://www.mpp.org/news/press-releases/new-poll-52-say-marijuana.html

[luciferhorus]

Have a look at this map; I feel that it gives me just cause for optimism:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map-of-US-state-cannabis-laws.png

And there is much more pro-cannabis legislation in the works as we speak...

http://www.mpp.org/campaigns/

EDIT: I would like to add to my above comments by saying that there are many of us who won't take no for an answer on marijuana legalization; we are now in the majority, our numbers are growing every day, and we exist on all "sides" of the political spectrum: May 6, 2009

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- A new Zogby poll commissioned by the conservative-leaning O'Leary Report has found 52 percent voter support for treating marijuana as a legal, taxed, regulated substance. The survey, published as a full-page ad in today's issue of the political newspaper The Hill, polled a sample of 3,937 voters weighted to match the 2008 presidential outcome -- 54 percent Obama voters and 46 percent McCain supporters.
"This new survey continues the recent trend of strong and growing support for taxing and regulating marijuana and ending the disastrously failed policy of prohibition," said Rob Kampia, executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project in Washington, D.C.
Source: http://www.mpp.org/news/press-releases/new-poll-52-say-marijuana.html

Drug Money

Consider what is happening in Afghanistan; I was in Afghanistan about 30 years ago when it was the marijuana capital of the world and a 'hippy paradise; however after the defeat of the Soviets, the Taliban forcibly stopped most of the opium production; when the Anglo-American narco-terrorists invaded in 2002, they put the drug dealers back in power; today approximately 90% of the world's heroin comes from Afghanistian and President Hamid Karzai's brother is reportedly the world's biggest heroin dealer (see http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/05/world/asia/05afghan.html?pagewanted=all.

I have been researching the subject of Anglo-American narco-terrorism for years; I have a copy of Rodney Stich's 'Defrauding America' on my shelf which is over 700 pages of comprehensive evidence and testimony which leads to the inescapable conclusion that the American government is the world's biggest drugs dealer. The ex British military intelligence agent John Coleman's 'Committe of 300' which is widely circulated in the Internet makes the same claim about the British government.

Heroin which sells for $400 a kilo (or therabouts), or 40 cents a gram, sells for upwards of 30 pounds sterling a gram in London once it is cut with other substances; it is simply a licence to print money, and it is the billions of dollars of cash from this trade which is holding up the international banks.

The marijuana legalisation issue tends to focus on the benefits of marijuana and the futility of imprisoning people for it, but in fact the real reason behind the criminalisation of marijuana and narcotics is in order that the state terrorists and the Capitalist establishment can profit from this trade.

Frankly for such substances to be grown and distributed freely, we will have to wait for the end of Capitalism.

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/5/7/1241727789254/Spice-Gold-a-legal-herbal-002.jpg

In the meantime I have heard many good things about Spice Gold, though I have yet to try it; it has already been banned in several countries and the British are also considering banning it. Some reviews claim that it is even better than skunk.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/may/07/spice-gold-herbal-high-drugs

Lux



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CHG8ZGV96s

http://www.hermes-press.com/crack_cia.jpg

Tracking the covert history of CIA drug smuggling from Nicaragua to Arkansas and South Central Los Angeles, GNN sheds light on the darkest secret of the Agency's operational directorate. Crack The CIA features explosive footage of Mike Ruppert's historical televised confrontation with CIA Director John Deutch.

[luciferhorus]

http://www.freewebs.com/reaper-death-clan/Grim_Reaper.jpg

I am simply bumping this thread due to the incessant use of the 'straw man' argument on this forum.

To restate:

http://www.timboucher.com/journal/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/judgement-tarot-maj20.jpg

Anarchism

'All' educated proponents of the Anarchist Communist political philosophy (i.e., those who understand it philosophically) are without any exception that I have ever come accross, anti-Marxists, anti-Statists, anti-propertyists and anti-monetarists, whereas all Marxists are anti-Anarchists, statists, Capitalists (albeit state Capitalists) and propertyists (albeit the 'state' which owns property rather than the individual).

State Capitalism, Marx and David Icke


I should point out that David Icke, Alex Jones and numerous other 'reformers of Capitalism' are, in common with the Marxists, overtly declared 'State Capitalists;' i.e., they all oppose the existence of private banks who have the power to issue money and they all seek that only the state terrorists themselves (i.e., the tyrannies, governments) should have the power to issue money; this is entirely contrary to the Anarchist Communist agenda which is entirely anti-monetarist, anti-statist, anti-propertyist and collectivist.

Arguments 'against' the Marxist / Leninist / Stalinist / David Icke / Alex Jones' brands of State Capitalism should be made against those who concur with Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Icke and Jones that the military and police dictatorships (i.e., states / tyrannies) should be further empowered and private banks disempowered.

http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa101/Varuker75/davidIcke.jpg

Since there are no Marxists here on this forum to the best of my knowledge, arguments 'against' State Capitalism should therefore be taken up with the proponents of David Icke's State Capitalist counterproposal to the current system and not with myself and other Anarchists here.

http://grosenberg.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/rwthe_magician.jpg

Since I have no new political teachings and I do not detract from Anarchist Communist philosophy, I speak here on behalf of 'all' Anarchist Communists with regards to this matter; however with regards to other threads on the Kabbalah, metaphysics etc., I speak for myself and as a guardian and inheritor of an entirely metaphysical tradition which has nothing to do with Anarchism; Anarchism is entirely a political / economic philosophy and has no rigid metaphysics apart from a general opposition to organised religion and religious morality.

Love and Light

http://th05.deviantart.com/fs25/300W/f/2008/148/2/8/Sigil_of_Lucifer_by_Monation.jpg

Lucifer.


http://www.luciferia.tv/1ChildrenOftheSlaves/anarchism2sm.jpg


Physics is War. Revolutionary Propaganda is the first stage of War.

____________

http://www.piusxiipope.info/popeseal.gif

Nb. Since I speak in this statement of absolute political correctness, I have spoken here 'ex cathedra' (from the seat) and thus I speak infallibly against all other blasphemies, heresies and competing philosophies, 'World Saviours,' Grand Masters, Messiahs, Maitreyas, prophets, madhi's etc; accept no cheaper or higher priced substitutes.

Nb. Please refrain from executing any Christian priest or Masonic cultist until the conditions for revolution appear and the 'actual' separation of the wheat from the chaff (i.e., the execution judgement) begins; in the meantime, open hostility towards them, exposure of their cults and the dissemination of anti-Masonic, anti-Christian, anti-Capitalist, anti-statist propaganda (i.e., education) shall be considered mandatory throughout Eden, on penalty of death and the abandonment to eternal hell.

To everyone who hears my sacred dictates, if anyone adds to or subtracts from them, may they have added to them a multitude of plagues and lose their right the Tree of Life, and to the Holy City.

"I, have sent my angel to testify these things to you for the assemblies. I am the root and the offspring of David, the Bright and Morning Star."



_______________________________

Dictatus papae Lucis


http://th08.deviantart.com/fs7/300W/i/2005/230/b/5/grim_reaper_by_blackpoint.jpg

For those of you unfamiliar with my infallible 'ex officio' summa of all Revolutionary Law in Eden; the following 7 tenets sum up the Law and have been on the front page of my Internet Site for a number of years.

I must point out that violation of any of the 7 laws are Capital (executionable) offences.

_____________


The laws against the practice of the twin evils of Religion and Government.


The Seven Tenets of the Seventh and Final Revolution of Lucifer.


I: No Idolatry.

You shall not commit idolatry. You shall not worship any person, living or dead (i.e., the gods), nor shall you bow down in worship before any image; i.e. a photograph or any form of 'likeness' of a person or a 'beast' or a god or a demon or any inanimate object or any thing or person or symbol that 'represents' God or a god or an ancestor.

II: No Monarchs. No Archons.

You shall not bow your head to any monarch or archon; i.e., a nationalist head of state or 'president' or ‘governor’ or ‘leader;’ nor shall you suffer a monarch or the monarch's collaborators and mercenaries or ‘especially’ the monarch’s children to live; likewise with all political Archons, irrespective of title.

III: No Masters

You shall not refer to a person as 'worshipful' or 'master,' or 'father' or 'priest' or 'reverend' or 'revered' or 'teacher (rabbi)' or 'leader;' we are brothers and sisters.

IV: No Monetarism. No economic nor sexual slavery.

You shall not issue Capitalist coin, nor labour vouchers, nor any form of tokens or receipts of exchange; nor shall you barter nor trade nor 'exchange' but rather freely share of the products of your labour, nor shall you enslave another in servitude.

V: No Temples

You shall not construct a Temple, Church, Mosque, Synagogue, Pestle or any place of religious worship, nor shall you allow any previously built to remain standing.

VI: No Oath-Swearing. No Rituals. No Organised Religion.

You shall not swear oaths. You shall not perform any form of public religious ritual. You shall not pray in public, as the hypocrites and the Christian idolaters do; nor shall you even so much as suffer such vermin to live.

VII: Summa: No private property, no religion, no government

You shall not propagate any form of religion, private propertyism or governmentalism. You shall not suffer a propagator of private propertyism, governmentalism or religion to live, 'especially' a Christian cultist or a Masonic cultist or a Hindu cultist, for the idolaters are not to survive the Final Judgement


http://grimreaperpictures.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/1.jpg

http://www.luciferia.tv/animation/A.gif

Great King of Terror 2009

[zero1]

For Commandante Lucifer, whose magnificent work herein deserves to be viewed over and over.

[nihil]

this looong txt just leaves me http://www.davidicke.com/forum/images/editor/smilie.gif

no sorry :(

lucyhora start a political party!

[luciferhorus]

this looong txt just leaves me http://www.davidicke.com/forum/images/editor/smilie.gif

no sorry :(

lucyhora start a political party!


Sorry I have been on other parts of the Internet for a while. Anarchism is a political philosophy will millions of adherents worldwide; whereas the main Anarchist political party had 66 members the last time I attended one of their meetings; political parties are subject to infiltration and control and are anti-thetical to Anarchism.

LL

Lux

[lightgiver]

Sorry I have been on other parts of the Internet for a while. Anarchism is a political philosophy will millions of adherents worldwide; whereas the main Anarchist political party had 66 members the last time I attended one of their meetings; political parties are subject to infiltration and control and are anti-thetical to Anarchism.

LL

Lux

Good to see you back :)

[primordialman]

Thelemites.

Thelemites disregard all laws of state and religion and pursue their own sacrd and natural will, without interfering with the will of others (unless they militantly resist thelemic revoution and in this case Crowley held that cuh heretics should be rightfully executed). While this is certainly Anarchist with regards to the rejection of all written laws, not all are Anarcho-Communists (collectivists), in fact very ferw are; indeed Crowley who was an anti-Communist foresaw a future world ‘ruled’ by a group of ‘spiritual masters,’ which pretty much describes the current world with it’s numerous organised religions which generally defend Capitalism. Never the less almost all Anarchists apart from religious Anarchists are Thelemites whether they define themselves as such or not, since they reject all the laws of the police states and religions and believe that humanity should be free to follow their own natural and therfore sacred intuition.

In regards to this type i have knowledge there is a certain Aus state which have their law enforcement and governmnet depts stacked with such types.

Given this description about them being essentially anarchist in their attitudes towards laws & order etc.. how could they be so high up in the police forces and gov dept with such bad attitudes and lack of respect for authority &sick puppie thelemites wish to defend your position!. I also heard from one source this type claimed to be ultra conservative in AUS hardly the stuff of anarchists or anti statists.

[flyermay]

In regards to this type i have knowledge there is a certain Aus state which have their law enforcement and governmnet depts stacked with such types.

Given this description about them being essentially anarchist in their attitudes towards laws & order etc.. how could they be so high up in the police forces and gov dept with such bad attitudes and lack of respect for authority &sick puppie thelemites wish to defend your position!. I also heard from one source this type claimed to be ultra conservative in AUS hardly the stuff of anarchists or anti statists.

In the same way as the Vatican supposedly follows the teachings of Jesus, but is wealthy and powerful beyond believe.

Could they be confused, or are they simple hypocrites?

[primordialman]

flymayer: Take the point i would say is typical of Aus full of mediocrity and corruption and hypocrties!. Tertiary education system is second rate as is career oppertunites except for our various networking occult members ofcause.

[primordialman]

Sorry I have been on other parts of the Internet for a while. Anarchism is a political philosophy will millions of adherents worldwide
Anarchism might be philosophy however thats about it, its no Political Ideology that can be feasbily put into practice.
By the way when you stated millions of adherents world wide they would be divided into different strains of Anarchism which you have already pointed out in your categorical system at the begining of the thread e.g they wouldnt all be anti capo anarchists or anti marxist get my drift!. As younger man i was briefly involved in of these activist groupings so i believe i have some practical knowledge & experience on the subject.

[flyermay]

flymayer: Take the point i would say is typical of Aus full of mediocrity and corruption and hypocrties!. Tertiary education system is second rate as is career oppertunites except for our various networking occult members ofcause.

I guess that Australia is just like everywhere else in our globalised world. It's quite likely that the type of hypocrisy you talk about came with the first European settlers.

Anarchism might be philosophy however thats about it, its no Political Ideology that can be feasbily put into practice.
By the way when you stated millions of adherents world wide they would be divided into different strains of Anarchism which you have already pointed out in your categorical system at the begining of the thread e.g they wouldnt all be anti capo anarchists or anti marxist get my drift!. As younger man i was briefly involved in of these activist groupings so i believe i have some practical knowledge & experience on the subject.

I have to disagree!

These are just a few examples of successful anarchist communities in modern times -none of them collapsed because of internal differences, but because of external forces-:

Whiteway Colony (1898 to present)
Tolstoyan Agricultural Communes (1921-1937)
Autonomous Shinmin region (1929-1932)
Spanish Revolution (1936 to 1938)

Anarchist Catalonia (1936 to 1939)
Anarchist Aragon (1936 to 1937)

Israeli Kibbutz Movement
Freetown Christiania (1971–)
Fatsa, Turkey (1979 to 1980)

[primordialman]

I have to disagree!

This are just a few examples of successful anarchist communities in modern times -none of them collapsed because of internal differences, but because of external forces-:
Hippies have always had communes however they dont usually call themselves anarchists.
Secondly most i use to know of simply grew out out if like any other fad in their teens/early twenties it was never a lifestyle choice they never lived in communes, they lived in inner cities terraces actually, very cosmo and they were protest storm the barricades types!.

[flyermay]

Hippies have always had communes however they dont usually call themselves anarchists.
Secondly most i use to know of simply grew out out if like any other fad in their teens/early twenties it was never a lifestyle choice they never lived in communes, they lived in inner cities terraces actually, very cosmo and they were protest storm the barricades types!.

Do you realise that hippies did not even exist at the time of most of those examples?

Those are not communities of hippies (of which you can find 100s of examples), they are exclusively fairly large communities following anarchist, anarcho-communist or anarcho-syndicalist principles and political ideologies.

[stevepenny]

Whiteway Colony (1898 to present)

Quick question: How could the occupants of Whiteway Colony argue their case on land ownership in a court of law? After all a court is a judicial entity and part of the organised state they they despised.

Is this not the downfall of all 'anarchists', in that they exist and flourish within the very organisation that sustains them.

It was interesting to note that a number of 'anarchists' that protested at the last G8 Summit, had their State Benefits stopped as they were not available for work if they were protesting.

How can 'anarchists' take money from a state or Government that they seek to overthrow?

Yes I know it is more than one question......but I was on a roll :D

[flyermay]

Quick question: How could the occupants of Whiteway Colony argue their case on land ownership in a court of law? After all a court is a judicial entity and part of the organised state they they despised.

Is this not the downfall of all 'anarchists', in that they exist and flourish within the very organisation that sustains them.

It was interesting to note that a number of 'anarchists' that protested at the last G8 Summit, had their State Benefits stopped as they were not available for work if they were protesting.

How can 'anarchists' take money from a state or Government that they seek to overthrow?

Yes I know it is more than one question......but I was on a roll :D

Unfortunately, in most of those examples anarchist communities existed inside a capitalist system (main reason why many disappeared); subjected to their rules, laws and regulation (I think that only the Spanish examples were completely free from the tyranny of a government as such -as they flourished during the civil war-). This is what Orwell had to say about an anarchist community in Aragon:

"I had dropped more or less by chance into the only community of any size in Western Europe where political consciousness and disbelief in capitalism were more normal than their opposites. Up here in Aragon one was among tens of thousands of people, mainly though not entirely of working-class origin, all living at the same level and mingling on terms of equality. In theory it was perfect equality, and even in practice it was not far from it. There is a sense in which it would be true to say that one was experiencing a foretaste of Socialism, by which I mean that the prevailing mental atmosphere was that of Socialism. Many of the normal motives of civilized life – snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc. – had simply ceased to exist. The ordinary class-division of society had disappeared to an extent that is almost unthinkable in the money-tainted air of England; there was no one there except the peasants and ourselves, and no one owned anyone else as his master." ("Homage to Catalonia", Orwell G., 1938)

Since anarchism has no other choice but to exist inside a capitalist system -as no government is willing to allow them total independence-, it is fair that anarchists use any means to survive inside the system they despise -even if it means taking advantage from the government that they are subjected to by force-.

[stevepenny]

Since anarchism has no other choice but to exist inside a capitalist system -as no government is willing to allow them total independence-, it is fair that anarchists use any means to survive -even if it means taking advange from the government that they are subjected to by force-.

Surely Anarchism would fail if it did not exist within a form of organised Government; that is the anarchistic dichotomy.

Who pays for healthcare, social security, road repairs, street lighting etc etc. Under an anarchic system everyone has the right to 'opt out' if they do not wish to contribute.

Who enforces the rule of law...or do laws simply not exist. And if they do, what is there to prevent somebody from opting out.

I fail to see how any anarchic body could exist outwith an organised system, otherwise they would find themselves back in the stone age very quickly.

I do not agree that a Government forces anyone to comply; we all have a choice. If an anarchist doesn't like the flavour of the Government and is true to his beliefs then he or she would either move to another country, start their own 'commune' or live a life outwith the state.

Taking money from the Government and then rebelling against it is the lowest form of human behaviour. It's a bit like the yobs on the streets today that will happily mug an old lady for her pension; and yet scream 'assault' when the police are over zealous in arresting them.

As an ideal anarchism might seem like a nice life; but society relies on a collective ideal. In isolation anarchic colonies might work well; and indeed do if you consider the Kibbutz system; but if granted autonomy they surely would collapse.

[flyermay]

Surely Anarchism would fail if it did not exist within a form of organised Government; that is the anarchistic dichotomy.

Well... Orwell and I don't think that's the case. Actually, it looks to me like Orwell is talking about some sort of paradise on earth.

Who pays for healthcare, social security, road repairs, street lighting etc etc. Under an anarchic system everyone has the right to 'opt out' if they do not wish to contribute.

There are no payments, since there is no money. For example: a doctor in an anarchist community would help its fellow neighbours out of pure altruism (as it should be). Could you really put a price to a human life?... can you see now why healthcare systems in capitalism are so flawed (unless you are wealthy, of course)?

I know it's difficult to understand it from a capitalist perspective. But in anarchism/communism everyone seeks common welfare; as, what benefits the community, benefits each and every one of them individually.

Who enforces the rule of law...or do laws simply not exist. And if they do, what is there to prevent somebody from opting out.

Every human being knows the difference between good and evil; we are all born with that knowledge. There is no need for the law as we know it, as all the members of a community have the right to participate and decide in every single matter related to the community. Most crimes in our society would not even exist, since they are the direct product of our flawed system.

The law only benefits those who make it (tyrants and oligarchs).

I fail to see how any anarchic body could exist outwith an organised system, otherwise they would find themselves back in the stone age very quickly.

Anarchism does not mean that you can go on a crime spree or rapping your neighbour’s wife if you like to. All decisions that affect the community, or its members, are taken by the whole of the community; besides that, you are free to do as you please.

I do not agree that a Government forces anyone to comply; we all have a choice. If an anarchist doesn't like the flavour of the Government and is true to his beliefs then he or she would either move to another country, start their own 'commune' or live a life outwith the state.

So... which would be that country that would allow an anarchist community to be totally independent from its government?

Taking money from the Government and then rebelling against it is the lowest form of human behaviour. It's a bit like the yobs on the streets today that will happily mug an old lady for her pension; and yet scream 'assault' when the police are over zealous in arresting them.

I completely disagree; it's perfectly moral to attack the system you despise, and subjected to by force, where it most hurts: its pocket.

Actually, I prefer every single anarchist, hippy, punk and beggar (even if they doesn't want to work) to get a percentage of my taxes, than having those bastards from the government using it to bomb innocent civilians in the Middle East, creating a police state, or further their tyrannical plans.

Just think about how many innocent men, women and children were saved in Iraq and Afghanistan with all the money spent on welfare. :)

As an ideal anarchism might seem like a nice life; but society relies on a collective ideal. In isolation anarchic colonies might work well; and indeed do if you consider the Kibbutz system; but if granted autonomy they surely would collapse.

At the contrary, the reason for collapse is always due to external influences or coercion. Also, anarchism, socialism and communism (or a mixture of them) are the only systems that are based in a true collective ideals; which does not happen in capitalism, as it foments and rewards individual greed and selfishness.

[stewart edwards]

This topic is actually close to my heart at the moment in the following way. Let me use an example from today to make my point. By way of background I help the homeless as part of my community work.

Anyhow on wandering through a city earlier I passed a homeless man who had lots of clothes protecting him from the cold. He was a Big issue seller. As normal I had decided that I would buy a copy and lunch for a homless person but today I noticed that this man was using a black bin liner to try to keep the cold from the pavement from his body. I also noticed that he had no gloves. Anyhow a bit later I decided to buy him a camping rollmat and some gloves.

Fortunately when I returned he was still there. When I stopped to buy a Big issue he seemed suprised and was mid way through rolling up a cigarette, and he said "oh customers" and quickly put his tobacco tin down to serve me. I am amazed that the tobacco did not blow away in the wind so I got him to close his tin up before serving me, and I bought the magazine. I then gave him the rollmat, sandwich, drink and gloves, and the poor bloke was welling up and trying to hide his tears from me as he eagerly opened up the rollmat.

Now what are the points of me telling this story:-

1. This homless man, through whatever he has been through, was still one of the nicest politest people you could ever meet. More than you can say for some of societies leaders/managers.

2. He actually risked loosing a prized possession to the wind just to serve me. Made me almost cry.

3. Sticking your hand in your pocket is important, for charities do need money. And I myself have benefited enormously from charities helping me over the years. But what is just as important is the personal touch, the contact, the understanding, the letting people know that there are some do do care in a very real way. This is the difficult bit though, it is far easier simply to put your hand in your pocket. The next time you see a homeless man think about buying him some lunch. You may be suprised to find that they can be better people than some who lead.

I spent under £7 on him today, though it did take me a while to shop for the bits at that price. One day he could be contributing so so much to society. I mean if you can put others first when you have nothing risking loosing what little you have to treasure to the wind, that to me is true character. I was humbled to stand before this man. One day I would like to see him lead.

[stevepenny]

Well... Orwell and I don't think that's the case. Actually, it looks to me like Orwell is talking about some sort of paradise on earth.

I agree that Orwell is referring to a paradise on earth, such as it can be.

There are no payments, since there is no money. For example: a doctor in an anarchist community would help its fellow neighbours out of pure altruism (as it should be). Could you really put a price to a human life?... can you see now why healthcare systems in capitalism are so flawed (unless you are wealthy, of course)?

I know it's difficult to understand it from a capitalist perspective. But in anarchism/communism everyone seeks common welfare; as, what benefits the community, benefits each and every one of them individually.

It's not difficult to understand at all; and I suppose the vast majority would be more than happy to live and work within such a system; but it fails to take into consideration the human condition.

How do you cope with greed for example? Self-preservation is an inbuilt mechanism and akin to the Darwinian concept of the survival of the fittest. I suppose it would work until somebody decided to implement his or her own form of anarchy and specifically against the anarchic system.

If you are born into such a society then being exposed to these ideals from an early age would probably work; but how do you engender such a concept in a world that is driven largely by personal greed and one-upmanship.

Every human being knows the difference between good and evil; we are all born with that knowledge. There is no need for the law as we know it, as all the members of a community have the right to participate and decide in every single matter related to the community. Most crimes in our society would not even exist, since they are the direct product of our flawed system.

That is a very utopian ideal. George Orwell's 'Animal Farm', although only a story, shows how easily it is for some to rebel against the system as they strive for some personal advantage. Communism in it's purest form is also a good idea in principle but lacks a certain credence when put into practice; Russia, Cuba etc.

The law only benefits those who make it (tyrants and oligarchs).

It's probably wrong to talk specifics in the context of this thread but what do you do when one person strikes another. The individual may have lashed out in frustration or anger; and although they accept they were in the wong; it is a very human reaction to provocation. Do you punish the transgressor, and if so how? What happens to the individual who was assaulted? Does he have any form of redress?

Anarchism does not mean that you are can go on a crime spree or rapping your neighbour’s wife if you like to. All decisions that affect the community, or its members, are taken by the whole of the community; besides that, you are free to do as you please.

What about minor offenses; 'borrowing' something which is not yours etc. And at what point do you decide enough is enough; who is the final arbiter? And if collectively you cannot decide then what happens?

So... which would be that country that would allow an anarchist community to be totally independent from its government?

I suppose it would depend on what constitutes independence. What would you do if you were given 'Milton Keynes' for example? No independant electricity, no independant water source etc. If the 'State' refused to have any contact with you or support you, how would you trade with the outside world, how would you re-stock your hospital; how would you trian your doctor's?

You might not want Milton Keynes (and let's face it, who would :D) but i'm sure you get the idea. This type of society only works if it can integrate into an organised system.

I completely disagree; it's perfectly moral to attack the system you despise where it most hurts: its pocket.

I am not disputing the right to attack a despised system; but to then take money from it, or to use the benefits and rights embued by its legislature is in my humble opinion, wholly wrong.

[flyermay]

I agree that Orwell is referring to a paradise on earth, such as it can be.

Well, what Orwell described was a anarcho-syndicalist community in Aragon during the 1930s; completely independent from any government.

It's not difficult to understand at all; and I suppose the vast majority would be more than happy to live and work within such a system; but it fails to take into consideration the human condition.

IMHO, the human condition that you are talking about is imposed by the system (whatever the system is). Obviously, you will have a hard time converting anyone from capitalism to anarchism or communism, many wouldn't accept that they are conditioned in the first place. But those born under anarchism/communism and those who were never conditioned would see it natural.

But, there we have Orwell's example again, as he clearly says that not only working classes accepted anarcho-syndicalism in Cataluña and Aragón, but every class accepted it.

How do you cope with greed for example? Self-preservation is an inbuilt mechanism and akin to the Darwinian concept of the survival of the fittest. I suppose it would work until somebody decided to implement his or her own form of anarchy and specifically against the anarchic system.

I don't agree with using Darwinism as an excuse to justify selfishness and greed (with is over-exploited by capitalists). Human beings are social animals, and their strength and advantage over other species and the environment relies on the collective. Greedy and selfish people are only successful because most humans acknowledge them as such, in the same way that turkeys like big tail feathers; but it really is no advantage for the species as a whole (which is what Darwin referred to as survival of the fittest), at the contrary: it makes the whole species more vulnerable.

If you are born into such a society then being exposed to these ideals from an early age would probably work; but how do you engender such a concept in a world that is driven largely by personal greed and one-upmanship.

Then... we can agree that the main problem is our current system. :)

That is a very utopian ideal. George Orwell's 'Animal Farm', although only a story, shows how easily it is for some to rebel against the system as they strive for some personal advantage. Communism in it's purest form is also a good idea in principle but lacks a certain credence when put into practice; Russia, Cuba etc.

I doubt very much that Orwell was refering to communism with his animal farm; he fought with the communists (the POUM party, which was also anti-Stalinist) in Spain during the civil war. It is worth noting that Russia turned into Stalinism from 1924 and that China, N. Korea, Cambodia, etc. were always Neo-Stalinists.

IMO, Orwell was referring to Stalinism (a tyrannical system), and not to communism, anarcho-communism or anarcho-syndicalism.

It's probably wrong to talk specifics in the context of this thread but what do you do when one person strikes another. The individual may have lashed out in frustration or anger; and although they accept they were in the wong; it is a very human reaction to provocation. Do you punish the transgressor, and if so how? What happens to the individual who was assaulted? Does he have any form of redress?

I'm of the opinion that punishment and revenge don't actually solve anything, at the contrary. There is no point on creating the conditions for crime to emerge and then punish all of those who fall.

Anarchism is based on education (which does not mean preparing yourself for a good job), and provision of all needs for the community. If you have everything you need, you are educated to certain level, and you live in a collective that loves and cares for you, would you really end up killing anyone?

What about minor offenses; 'borrowing' something which is not yours etc. And at what point do you decide enough is enough; who is the final arbiter? And if collectively you cannot decide then what happens?

If any kinds of problems emerge they would be dealt with by the community. You can look at it as a big family, or even look at many African and S. American tribal cultures as an example. It's amazing how low crime rates are there; actually, many of our crimes were never heard of in many of them, like rape.

I suppose it would depend on what constitutes independence. What would you do if you were given 'Milton Keynes' for example? No independant electricity, no independant water source etc. If the 'State' refused to have any contact with you or support you, how would you trade with the outside world, how would you re-stock your hospital; how would you trian your doctor's?

With independence I mean self-determination; completely independent from any other authority or government.

But your example couldn't be much of a success without even the most elemental means for survival: water. But let me as you a question: how did Milton Keynes survived up to the 20th century without electricity or medical supplies?

Those who have skills or technical knowledge would train enough members of the community so that all the basic needs are provided.

You might not want Milton Keynes (and let's face it, who would :D) but i'm sure you get the idea. This type of society only works if it can integrate into an organised system.

I've never been in Milton Keynes, but I'm sure it's far better than London; where I am now. ;)

I am not disputing the right to attack a despised system; but to then take money from it, or to use the benefits and rights embued by its legislature is in my humble opinion, wholly wrong.

Well... I actually think it's disproportionate; since our government can take our liberty and freedoms, all of our possession, our health and even our lives if we defend our rights as human beings and our ideologies.

But yes, I would agree with you that the ones ultimately paying for welfare are not the governments, but the working classes.

[stevepenny]

Just a quick post:

This is a very interesting conversation; one of the best i've experienced on this forum. Unfortunately time is against me this evening but i'll respond tomorrow morning.

Steve

[primordialman]

Those are not communities of hippies (of which you can find 100s of examples), they are exclusively fairly large communities following anarchist, anarcho-communist or anarcho-syndicalist principles and political ideologies

Ok since none of your exmaples above interms of western nations fall under 80 odd years ago I am ofcause in search of more post modern examples the truth is there isnt any because consumerism and globalism is too strong to resist very few could leave its control and discipline themselves to live without its mod cons. I met your type before your a good armchair activist thats big on talk so is LH,
Although both you & LH have good points you have bucklies of putting them into action successfully in western nations, i could be wrong, you would have to prove me wrong with action, however i could be waiting along time!.
Also what your proposing isnt the same as zeitgeists, venus project is it, if it is forget it thats pure tyranny.:rolleyes:

[stevepenny]

Well, what Orwell described was a anarcho-syndicalist community in Aragon during the 1930s; completely independent from any government.

Aragon may well represent the utopian picture of an autonomous collective; but even Aragon has an elected regional Government.

IMHO, the human condition that you are talking about is imposed by the system (whatever the system is). Obviously, you will have a hard time converting anyone from capitalism to anarchism or communism, many wouldn't accept that they are conditioned in the first place. But those born under anarchism/communism and those who were never conditioned would see it natural.

I alluded to this in my post yesterday, and concur that those born within the system will fare better under that system. However it does not take into account human traits such as 'covetness'. Thousands of people escaped from Eastern Europe prior to the collapse of the Berlin wall. In many cases it was not because they were unhappy with what they had; just that they could see what was just over the wall; and this was what they wanted.

I don't agree with using Darwinism as an excuse to justify selfishness and greed (with is over-exploited by capitalists). Human beings are social animals, and their strength and advantage over other species and the environment relies on the collective. Greedy and selfish people are only successful because most humans acknowledge them as such, in the same way that turkeys like big tail feathers; but it really is no advantage for the species as a whole (which is what Darwin referred to as survival of the fittest), at the contrary: it makes the whole species more vulnerable.

Human beings within a group will tend to establish a hierarchy without any outside influence. It needn't be a spoken hierarchy and may only exist when the need arises; but exist it will. Humans in groups do not function well without a structure and a leader. He doesn't need to be named as leader but he may assume the position naturally perhaps by age, size, strength etc. Some will defer to him or her and some will rebel. Eventually an equilibrium will occur.

Put 100 women together in a group and within a short period of time they will all begin to ovulate at the same time. They don't make a conscience decision to do this; it's part of our nature.

Human babies are born with two fears; loud noises and falling. We used to believe that therefore it follows that a fear of spiders must be taught and cannot therefore be inherent. Recent research has shown this and other human traits to be embedded within our genetic makeup. So I agree that greedy and selfish people are thus because they are acknowledged to be so; but greedy and selfish they remain.

Then... we can agree that the main problem is our current system. :)

All systems are a problem :D

I doubt very much that Orwell was refering to communism with his animal farm; he fought with the communists (the POUM party, which was also anti-Stalinist) in Spain during the civil war. It is worth noting that Russia turned into Stalinism from 1924 and that China, N. Korea, Cambodia, etc. were always Neo-Stalinists.

You could well be right. There seem to be mixed views on the subject. But did Communism not ultimately give way to Stalinism?

I'm of the opinion that punishment and revenge don't actually solve anything, at the contrary. There is no point on creating the conditions for crime to emerge and then punish all of those who fall.

Anarchism is based on education (which does not mean preparing yourself for a good job), and provision of all needs for the community. If you have everything you need, you are educated to certain level, and you live in a collective that loves and cares for you, would you really end up killing anyone?

I'm sure every member of the judiciary would agree with your first point; but even in a utopian existence there has to be a final sanction that can be applied if required.

With independence I mean self-determination; completely independent from any other authority or government.

Does self-determination not impose its own form of Government. If you have a community of say 100 individuals; do you ask them all to vote on certain issues or do you elect a representative body of say 10 individuals to carry out the basic decision making function. If so then you have a Government or sorts.

What is the basis for collective decision making? if our 100 individuals vote and 51 agree with a decision; what do you do if the other 49 refuse to go along with it because they voted for the other option? Remember, under your system everybody has the right to opt out of every decision.

But your example couldn't be much of a success without even the most elemental means for survival: water. But let me as you a question: how did Milton Keynes survived up to the 20th century without electricity or medical supplies?

Technically it didn't exist until 1967; but to answer the question, it was part of a larger state that provided its needs.

Well... I actually think it's disproportionate; since our government can take our liberty and freedoms, all of our possession, our health and even our lives if we defend our rights as human beings and our ideologies.

Governments cannot take away our basic liberties and freedoms on a permanent basis, nor our possesions or our health; unless we as individuals transgress the law.

These claims are generally made by people who want everything and are prepared to give nothing in return. But I would be interested to hear about how or why the Goverment might want to remove liberties and freedoms.

Thanks

[stevepenny]

For reasons which I cannot go into I cannot post further to this forum and have asked the Mods to delete my account.

Thank you for all your posts during the short time I have been here.

Steve

[flyermay]

Ok since none of your exmaples above interms of western nations fall under 80 odd years ago I am ofcause in search of more post modern examples the truth is there isnt any because consumerism and globalism is too strong to resist very few could leave its control and discipline themselves to live without its mod cons. I met your type before your a good armchair activist thats big on talk so is LH,
Although both you & LH have good points you have bucklies of putting them into action successfully in western nations, i could be wrong, you would have to prove me wrong with action, however i could be waiting along time!.
Also what your proposing isnt the same as zeitgeists, venus project is it, if it is forget it thats pure tyranny.:rolleyes:

The examples above only include large communities; they also include dates. As you can see, there are some fairly recent, and some are in Europe.

It's up to you to reseach those examples and make an informed opinion before you tag them as: hippy colonies, non-Western or outdated.

[flyermay]

For reasons which I cannot go into I cannot post further to this forum and have asked the Mods to delete my account.

Thank you for all your posts during the short time I have been here.

Steve

Oh, come on... now that this was getting interesting!!! :(

Well... I suppose you have your reasons to leave us. Thanks for the discussion, and hope you can be back soon.

[luciferhorus]

Quick question: How could the occupants of Whiteway Colony argue their case on land ownership in a court of law? After all a court is a judicial entity and part of the organised state they they despised.

Is this not the downfall of all 'anarchists', in that they exist and flourish within the very organisation that sustains them.

It was interesting to note that a number of 'anarchists' that protested at the last G8 Summit, had their State Benefits stopped as they were not available for work if they were protesting.

How can 'anarchists' take money from a state or Government that they seek to overthrow?

Yes I know it is more than one question......but I was on a roll :D

The issue of which particular "political philosophy" a person adheres to is irrelevant to the economic situation in which they find themselves in; many Communists in fact work as employees of Capitalist corporations and are little more than "economic slaves;" similarly many of those here who are state terrorist collaborators do not actually fight in Iraq or Afghanistan; they simply have an ideological committment to state terrorism / narco-terrorism, Capitalist imperialism; this is not to suggest that such people on this forum who defend this system are involved directly in the importation of heroin, the torture, sexual abuse, genocide and incarceration of militant and civillian Muslims, etc,. it is simply that they express an ideological alliance; similarly with European Communists and Anarchists.


In the UK which is one of the world's richest nations, one in three homes is dependent on state benefits; however greater employment is not a solution to this since Britain is the world's number two manufacturer of arms; increased employment by the police would further only likely increase the power of the state; for the benefit of humanity the destruction of the British economy is essential; particularly the eradication of one of the global centre of loan sharking (The City of London).

In a Capitalist society, production ceases only when there is a lack of Capital to buy products; it has little to do with demand; for example there are a billion people who are always hungry and 200 million close to starvation; there is a demand for food, but they simply don't have the capital to buy it so argicultural products are sent from the poorest countries in the world (with the highest percentage of hungry people) to the richest countries in the world (with the highest percentage of obese people) where people do have the Capital; there is a constant demand for food, shelter, tractors, etc, but in Capitalism tractor manufacturers go out of business because of a lack of Capital to buy their products, not because of a lack of demand; this situation with mass unemployment in both welathy developed nations and poor nations is caused by Capitalism, however in addition to the unemploymet situation there is also the issue of "useless professions and malevelent professions" such as loan sharking, insurance and the entire beurocracy of Capitalism with it's armies of lawyers, arm's manufacturers, mercenaries, etc.

LL

Lux

[luciferhorus]

I am bumping this due to the disucssion on "Selling one's soul to the Devil."

Lux

[zero1]

I am bumping this due to the discussion on "Selling one's soul to the Devil."

Lux

The obvious and undeniable problem with modern Capitalism is that society is Law-driven; yet the ardent and committed capitalist seeks always to exploit those rules, bends the rules and often outright breaks the rules for the ultimate impersonal (non-human) motive of profit. The current Banker-caused Financial crisis amply demonstrates the reality of this. Capitalists maintain that a free and unfettered laissez-faire Market Capitalist system without State interference is the best, yet they do not acknowledge their ideal aspiration as unrealistic and impossible in a law-driven society. If the State is debarred from interfering in any way with the operations of Capitalism, there will simply be anarchic, feudal, mafioso-style gang-rule over a mass of economic slaves with Masters in the form of Corporations who would effectively take over the governance of peoples and the application of Law from the State (via private security and Police forces loyal to their paymasters only, not the public). Even a half-wit can see that in the interests of true freedom, justice and liberty, this is an undesirable situation, surely?

If Corporations are entities, and treated as they are as Persons, with rights, duties etc as persons have, then they have to be subject to State-enforced Laws. Right? Otherwise, they make up the rules and break the rules themselves, without the masses they have ultimate control over having any recourse. This is simply tyranny; the tyranny of Corporate interests and CEO's.

[luciferhorus]

The obvious and undeniable problem with modern Capitalism is that society is Law-driven; yet the ardent and committed capitalist seeks always to exploit those rules, bends the rules and often outright breaks the rules for the ultimate impersonal (non-human) motive of profit. The current Banker-caused Financial crisis amply demonstrates the reality of this. Capitalists maintain that a free and unfettered laissez-faire Market Capitalist system without State interference is the best, yet they do not acknowledge their ideal aspiration as unrealistic and impossible in a law-driven society. If the State is debarred from interfering in any way with the operations of Capitalism, there will simply be anarchic, feudal, mafioso-style gang-rule over a mass of economic slaves with Masters in the form of Corporations who would effectively take over the governance of peoples and the application of Law from the State (via private security and Police forces loyal to their paymasters only, not the public). Even a half-wit can see that in the interests of true freedom, justice and liberty, this is an undesirable situation, surely?

If Corporations are entities, and treated as they are as Persons, with rights, duties etc as persons have, then they have to be subject to State-enforced Laws. Right? Otherwise, they make up the rules and break the rules themselves, without the masses they have ultimate control over having any recourse. This is simply tyranny; the tyranny of Corporate interests and CEO's.

What is Capitalism?

Derivatives and War.

I think that one of the main aspects of Capitalism which is often overlooked and not widely understood, and though it can be understood very simply by anyone who has ever placed a bet in a casino or on a horse, it is often shrouded in confusion, and this is the "Derivatives Market."

This has nothing to do with "buying" or "selling" any tangible product, and yet the derivatives market was worth around 1.14 quadrillion dollars (a quadrillion is a thousand trillion, and a trillion is a thousand billion) http://jutiagroup.com/2008/07/24/global-derivatives-market-now-valued-at-114-quadrillion/
back in 2008 and this represents $190,000 per person on planet earthhttp://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/mt/archives/2008/10/the_size_of_der.php.

Derivatives as gambling.

"Derivatives, ...are essentially unregulated, high-risk credit bets. Unlike the earnest farmer who might employ a futures contract to hedge the price of the beans he worked so hard to grow, many of today's institutions use futures, forwards, options, swaps, swaptions, caps, collars and floors any kind of leverage device they can cook up to bet the hell out of virtually anything." http://jutiagroup.com/2008/07/24/global-derivatives-market-now-valued-at-114-quadrillion/


Since you come from a banking background you may personally already understand this form of gambling, but I also want to relate this to the issue of "false flag operations," war in general, and since this is the "secret societies" forum, to the "insurance market" since "insurance" is a favoured profession of the City of London where there are several hundred Masonic lodges, often attached to a particular financial institution.

Gambling.

We live in a Capitalist world where there is a general tendency by Capitalists to consider certain forms of employment such as banking and the various City of London professions as rather "respectable;" but frankly underpinning the global Capitalist economy is a "gambling profession" where no goods or services ever change hands, and despite 200 million people close to starvation, and billions of people living in poverty, this gambling market has a value of almost $200,000 per person on planet earth.

The "trillions" of dollars at stake in this market and the "trillions" estimated to have been made on Sept 9/11 highlight underlying motives for war and false flag operations. By typing in "911 derivatives market" in Google I notice that out of 96,000 results, the number one result at the top page of Google is http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=67838

While much of the population of the planet is impoverished, banks, institutions, individuals and even governments are gambling with trillions of dollars on just about everything imaginable. Referring to this market as "derivatives" or "insurance" tends to give it an air of respectibility, but gambling is gambling and it is rather simple to understand.

Of course, not only can massive profits be made in this form of gambling, but also massive losses which can have the effect of crippling not only the gamblers themselves but on entire economies.

It is has been admitted that the Israelis had advance warning of the London July 7th bombings; and frankly anyone with such advance knowledge would be in the equivalent position of a person who knows which boxer is going to "lose" a match and in what round, and anyone familiar with the derivatives market would understand why. One trader for example, when 911 occurred stated that his first thought was on the price of gold; had he known in advance about 911, he would probably have sold his house and bought gold futures.

Just to highlight a few parts of the above hyperlinked essay.

The government, who controls the economic reports, media coverage, and wealth is in a position to manipulate the above and create an environment to secure substantial revenue while everyone else is lying on the shoulder of the road bleeding to death. For three months prior and going into 911 the government investment funds had increased their short positions to the largest diversified short positions ever held by them.

and

If you look at "WHO" was holding the majority of "SHORT" derivative positions on the domestic and international stock index markets prior to 911, and then reaped over a trillion dollars in profits within weeks from the ensuing collapse of those physical markets, you will find in that group who was responsible for 911. There is one problem in finding this out. That being, government controls the release of that information by and through the Federal agencies of the SEC (Securities Exchange Commission) and CFTC (Commodities Futures Trading Commission).


and

The showing of derivative transactions both on the domestic and international fronts would burn the government's facade alive. Based on the fund trackers, government fund accounts were holding their largest short positions "ever" going into 911.


and

A jump in UAL (United Airlines) put options 90 times (not 90 percent) above normal between September 6 and September 10, and 285 times higher than average on the Thursday before the attack.
-- CBS News, September 26
A jump in American Airlines put options 60 times (not 60 percent) above normal on the day before the attacks.
-- CBS News, September 26
No similar trading occurred on any other airlines

As long as there is Capitalism, this kind of gambling will continue; people will continue to starve and wars and black military operations will continue to reap rewards not merely in billions but in trillions. This is laissez-faire (anything goes) at it's most vile.

Thus I think that limited scale false flag nuclear attacks by the military and economic elites are almost inevitable, as is the continuation of war inevitable, and it's profits cannot merely be calculated in the long term in Iraqi oil and military contracts or in Afghan heroin; the profits of war can be acheived almost instantly in the world of gambling to anyone with the foreknowledge of invasions, bombings and state terrorism.

Insurance

Another term for those who operate in this murky world of derivates is "insurance brokers." The American Insurance company American International Group (AIG), which was given a $180 billion bailout by the US government, sounds like a respectable insurance company but they were a major player in the gambling (derivatives) market and really just a "high rollers" version of a bookmaker; it is as if the government were to "bail out" a gambler who lost his fortune at the race track.

"Insurance" to most of us is what we take out to avoid real financial disaster, however, if we took out life insurance on someone and then caused their death, this is an entirely different matter. The American bank Goldman Sachs who bet on their customers defaulting on high risk mortgages was recently compared to compared to a car salesman who hawks autos with “faulty brakes, and then [buys] an insurance policy on the buyer of those cars.”

Sub prime mortgage derivatives

This term is just bankers "babble" for bets placed on high risk mortgages where defaults were virtually guaranteed by the terms of the mortgages. American banks were lending out mortages at low initial rates of interest, to persons who could initially afford the low interest rates, but who were clearly going to default when their initial "carrot on a stick" period of low interest ended, often doubling or tripling their monthly payments, and then placing "bets" that these people would default on their mortgages, and when they did default, en masse, other banks and insurance companies holding such "bets" could not pay these winning bets.

The idea promoted by the Utopian philosophers of Capitalism such Adam Smith and Ayn Rand that "greed is good" and that it is in the interest of the all Capitalists to have a booming economy is entirely false, since it can be just as profitable to bet on the collapse of an economy as on it's success; further the Adam Smith economic model was based primarily on the buying and selling of goods and services, not on a "gambling" economcy which describes the current state of Capitalism where "gambling" is vastly in excess of the entire world economy in terms of the sale of goods and services.

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/images/2009/Nov/derivatives-17-1.gif

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article15105.html

The recent banking crisis as "gambling losses."

What we see in the above chart, simply put is this, Goldman Sachs for example has 119 billion in actual assets but $40,772 billion in what is simply no different to a bookmaker's betting slips; some of these bets they will inevitably win and others they will inevitably lose, and this is the same scenario for many other major banks. It is as if a bookmaker is worth a million dollars but is taking bets and placing bets to the tune of 34 million dollars; some bets he is guaranteed to win and some bets he is guaranteed to lose; however there is certainly no guarantee that he can pay if he loses heavily or that his debtors can pay him if he wins heavily; this is the fragility of Capitalism and why if one link in the chain of gamblers defaults on his bets, it can affect all the other links in the chain and this is at the root of what the media respectfully calls the "banking" collapse, but it really should be called "gambling losses."

http://blog.twowolves.co.uk/images/LondonG20Protest.jpg

I should point out that the London protester above calling for a "ban" on "gambling" is being entirely unrealistic; we live in a global economy and derivative trading is based upon electronic transactions; if one nation banned gambling, the gamblers would simply continue gambling under the laws of a different nation. Derivative trading "is" in fact impossible in some nations (such as North Korea or Cuba) but the gamblers don't have their bases in such nations and our police states in Capitalism appear more concerned with banning Islamic headscarfs, public demonstrations and censoring Internet access.

The recent multi-trillion dollar bail outs by governments of leading banks, are thus not merely bailouts of money-lenders but of compulsive gamblers, who when they lose their bets, go cap in hand to the government and ask for money; the government then borrows this money (at interest) from elite bankers (who have the power to create it out of thin air) and then promised to later repay this money through taxation and revenue from it's citizens, many of whom would refuse to pay their neighbour's gambling debts if requested and simply blame them for their own greed, but the citizens who pay for these gambling debts have been given no choice in the matter.

The morality of Capitalism is defended by the propagandists of Capitalism who will use the example of an honest hard working worker who sells his labour or a factory owner or farmer who produces some item necessary for existence, but since the derivatives (gambling) market is now worth many times more than the entire GDP of the world, it is now "gambling" which supports the Capitalist system, not the buying and selling of actual commodities or assets; the share of the profits of such gambling are of course limited to an elite few, but the losses are not, since they can be paid off from government funds when gamblers lose their bets, and when currencies and national economies collapse, those who forsaw that or even created that situation can reap vast rewards.

Greece

The nature of the derivatives market exposes the true meaning of "laissez-faire" Capitalism in the modern world where billionaire banks (such as Goldman Sachs) can be financial advisors to a client (such as the Greek government), advise them to "hide" the true nature of their government's indebtedness and then place bets on them failing to pay their debts (as they have; see (http://www.americanpendulum.com/2010/02/sachs-helped-greece-hide-debt-now-bets-greek-collapse/)) when the true nature of their indebtedness is revealed; in fact it has been widely suggested that the collapse of the Greek economy is not unrelated to huge amount of bets which have been placed on it's collapse; indeed if it does "not" collapse many banks will lose their bets. Austerity measures currently include a 25% pay reduction for government employees while banks are expecting to make billions on their collapse; this is why the Greeks are rioting and the Greek Communists are burning banks.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_NUZ_fM-TQKQ/SYUohTLaevI/AAAAAAAAMLY/VZxzCXhC9HQ/s400/Banksters.jpg

Hedging Bets

While the politicians of Capitalism constantly harp on about "improving" their economies, "shorts" on the Euro are at a record high, and it appears that the world's banking community (an elite group of gamblers) are now betting heavily on quite the opposite of an economic upturn. Of course this leads to an endless round of "hedging (hedging their bets)." Bank A takes out a bet with bank B that the Euro will collapse. Bank B now thinks that they are over exposed and if the Euro does collapse that they will have pay out a huge amount to bank A, so they also take out bets with bank C that the Euro will collapse to "hedge" their bets; now bank C feels overexposed and faces huge losses if the Euro collapses, so they hedge their bets by betting with Bank D; Bank D now feels overexposed so.......etc., etc. Of course it only takes one link in the chain to collapse for this house of cards to come tumbling down, as occurred with AIG who had be paid $180 billion by the US government in order to pay off other banks who had placed winning bets with them and in order that those banks would not collapse, including of course Goldman Sachs who had bet that their own customers would default on loans which they knew they would default on. In light of all this the political mantra of the politicians of Capitalism who make promises to ensure "economic stability" must be seen as either expressions of extreme ignorance or simply barefaced lies, since they simply do not have control over the world's derivatives market; it is entirely in the hands of an elite few bankers who contribute absolutely "nothing" whatsoever to the real world economy of the exchange of goods and services and for whom "economic growth" means nothing more than one gambler winning a bet and another gambler losing.

http://www.europe2020.org/IMG/jpg/derivatives_pyramid-3.jpg
Above: source: Bank of International Settlements, 2008.

Liquidity.

A bookmaker may have 30 million dollars of "betting slips" including bets he can lose and bets he has placed to "hedge" his possible losses, but in fact he may really only have "liquid assets" of a million dollars (in cash or property which can be transferred into cash). The graph above is slighty out of date but it does show that 75% of global liquid assets (i.e., cash and property which can be converted to cash) which represent the 75% of the entire "financial worth" of humanity are being used as security and cash flow for the derivatives market; in other words, by bookmakers as the basis of their gambling business; this is Capitalism in all its sickening glory in a world where millions die for want of a bowl of rice; maintaining this use of the world as a gambling den this is what politicians refer to when they speak of "economic stability."



The City of London.

With one percent of world population, it is the Britain and in particular the City of London which is exposed to around 40% of the global derivatives market, otherwise known as "insurance." Thus when these Masons gather in their over 200 lodges of the city of London and refer to themselves as "men of moral" worth, the true nature of the global scam which is Capitalism needs to be taken into account. It is this "gambling" which is often the source of multi-million dollar bonuses paid to "bankers."

Capitalism as "essentially" gambling, not the exchange of goods and services. Gambling on derivatives now has a value which is almost 15 times the amount of all goods and services produced in the world.

In 2009, the world's the gross domestic product for the entire 6 billion population of this planet was around $70 trillion; thus with the derivatives market at $1.14 thousand trillion, this gambling market is worth almost 15 times times the market of all actual goods and services and persons (slaves), drugs, agriculture and arms etc., traded in the world; thus "Capitalism" is now "essentially" gambling and any defence or critique of Capitalism needs to take this into account. The "Free Market" is now essentially the freedom for gamblers to gamble with vast sums of money which frankly do not even exist and could not exist.

Such are the temptations of the Devils who are the devotees of the god of Capitalism who gamble with trillions of dollars in a world of poverty and war.

Lux
No mercy on they who deserve none.
Fire, plague and poisoned waters.
Great and Terrible and Dreadful and Wrathful shall be the day of Judgement.

_____________________________

Derivatives Explained
Suppose your neighbor’s house is worth $500K, and he has a $400K mortgage held by a bank. He doesn’t owe you any money, and you are no more than nodding acquaintances. I sell you a piece of paper for $5000 that says I will pay you the value of your next door neighbor’s house if he defaults on his mortgage. Congratulations, you just bought a derivative.

Why do you care if he defaults? You don’t.
What do you lose if he defaults? Nothing.
What do you gain by him not defaulting? Nothing.
So who gains by this silly ass derivative? Aha, we both do.

I gain $5000 by selling it to you, and all it cost me was a few dollars to have a lawyer draw it up and create some legalese. You gain because you now have a “secured debt obligation.” It is “secured” because it is tied to the value of your neighbor’s house, which you do not own and upon which you do not now and will never have any real financial claim.

The face value of your “secured debt obligation” is $500K, so you can show it to a banker and borrow cash using this piece of paper as collateral. The bank now has what it considers to be a “secured loan” for however much it loaned to you.

So we now have the $400K mortgage, the $500K derivative, and a bank loan all secured by this one $500K house. Something more than two times the value of the house is riding on the homeowner paying the mortgage.

And I’ve only sold one derivative against it. There is no limit on the number of derivatives I can sell against that house. That’s why the derivatives market is estimated to be in excess of fifty trillion dollars. And all of it is play money.

Derivatives are financial instruments created for the sole purpose of making money selling the instruments to people who are stupid enough or crooked enough to buy them.

So your neighbor defaulting on his mortgage is not the real problem in today’s crisis. Forget all this talk about how the government can pay off his mortgage and everything will be fine, because his mortgage is not the problem. The problem is your derivative and the loan that you obtained based on it. I have to pay you that $500K (along with all the others I sold), and I can’t do it. Since the derivative is now worthless, your loan has become an “unsecured loan” and your bank is freaking out about that. It can’t afford to have all this “unsecured debt” on its books and, as a result of that imbalance, the bank must obey bank laws and stop lending.

Your neighbor triggered the problem, but your derivative and your bank loan actually caused the problem. Nobody looked at your finances until your neighbor defaulted; that was the trigger. Then they looked at your books and mine (in this little blog drama) as a result of his default and saw that those finances were rotten and corrupt to the core, and the grits hit the fanhttp://billsandiego.blogspot.com/2008/10/derivatives-explained.html

[zero1]

What is Capitalism?

Derivatives and War.

I think that one of the main aspects of Capitalism which is often overlooked and not widely understood, and though it can be understood very simply by anyone who has ever placed a bet in a casino or on a horse, it is often shrouded in confusion, and this is the "Derivatives Market."

This has nothing to do with "buying" or "selling" any tangible product, and yet the derivatives market was worth around 1.14 quadrillion dollars (a quadrillion is a thousand trillion, and a trillion is a thousand billion) http://jutiagroup.com/2008/07/24/global-derivatives-market-now-valued-at-114-quadrillion/
back in 2008 and this represents $190,000 per person on planet earthhttp://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/mt/archives/2008/10/the_size_of_der.php.

Derivatives as gambling.

"Derivatives, ...are essentially unregulated, high-risk credit bets. Unlike the earnest farmer who might employ a futures contract to hedge the price of the beans he worked so hard to grow, many of today's institutions use futures, forwards, options, swaps, swaptions, caps, collars and floors any kind of leverage device they can cook up to bet the hell out of virtually anything." http://jutiagroup.com/2008/07/24/global-derivatives-market-now-valued-at-114-quadrillion/


Since you come from a banking background you may personally already understand this form of gambling, but I also want to relate this to the issue of "false flag operations," war in general, and since this is the "secret societies" forum, to the "insurance market" since "insurance" is a favoured profession of the City of London where there are several hundred Masonic lodges, often attached to a particular financial institution.

Gambling.

We live in a Capitalist world where there is a general tendency by Capitalists to consider certain forms of employment such as banking and the various City of London professions as rather "respectable;" but frankly underpinning the global Capitalist economy is a "gambling profession" where no goods or services ever change hands, and despite 200 million people close to starvation, and billions of people living in poverty, this gambling market has a value of almost $200,000 per person on planet earth.

The "trillions" of dollars at stake in this market and the "trillions" estimated to have been made on Sept 9/11 highlight underlying motives for war and false flag operations. By typing in "911 derivatives market" in Google I notice that out of 96,000 results, the number one result at the top page of Google is http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=67838

While much of the population of the planet is impoverished, banks, institutions, individuals and even governments are gambling with trillions of dollars on just about everything imaginable. Referring to this market as "derivatives" or "insurance" tends to give it an air of respectibility, but gambling is gambling and it is rather simple to understand.

Of course, not only can massive profits be made in this form of gambling, but also massive losses which can have the effect of crippling not only the gamblers themselves but on entire economies.

It is has been admitted that the Israelis had advance warning of the London July 7th bombings; and frankly anyone with such advance knowledge would be in the equivalent position of a person who knows which boxer is going to "lose" a match and in what round, and anyone familiar with the derivatives market would understand why. One trader for example, when 911 occurred stated that his first thought was on the price of gold; had he known in advance about 911, he would probably have sold his house and bought gold futures.

Just to highlight a few parts of the above hyperlinked essay.

The government, who controls the economic reports, media coverage, and wealth is in a position to manipulate the above and create an environment to secure substantial revenue while everyone else is lying on the shoulder of the road bleeding to death. For three months prior and going into 911 the government investment funds had increased their short positions to the largest diversified short positions ever held by them.

and

If you look at "WHO" was holding the majority of "SHORT" derivative positions on the domestic and international stock index markets prior to 911, and then reaped over a trillion dollars in profits within weeks from the ensuing collapse of those physical markets, you will find in that group who was responsible for 911. There is one problem in finding this out. That being, government controls the release of that information by and through the Federal agencies of the SEC (Securities Exchange Commission) and CFTC (Commodities Futures Trading Commission).


and

The showing of derivative transactions both on the domestic and international fronts would burn the government's facade alive. Based on the fund trackers, government fund accounts were holding their largest short positions "ever" going into 911.


and

A jump in UAL (United Airlines) put options 90 times (not 90 percent) above normal between September 6 and September 10, and 285 times higher than average on the Thursday before the attack.
-- CBS News, September 26
A jump in American Airlines put options 60 times (not 60 percent) above normal on the day before the attacks.
-- CBS News, September 26
No similar trading occurred on any other airlines

As long as there is Capitalism, this kind of gambling will continue; people will continue to starve and wars and black military operations will continue to reap rewards not merely in billions but in trillions. This is laissez-faire (anything goes) at it's most vile.

Thus I think that limited scale false flag nuclear attacks by the military and economic elites are almost inevitable, as is the continuation of war inevitable, and it's profits cannot merely be calculated in the long term in Iraqi oil and military contracts or in Afghan heroin; the profits of war can be acheived almost instantly in the world of gambling to anyone with the foreknowledge of invasions, bombings and state terrorism.

Insurance

Another term for those who operate in this murky world of derivates is "insurance brokers." The American Insurance company American International Group (AIG), which was given a $180 billion bailout by the US government, sounds like a respectable insurance company but they were a major player in the gambling (derivatives) market and really just a "high rollers" version of a bookmaker; it is as if the government were to "bail out" a gambler who lost his fortune at the race track.

"Insurance" to most of us is what we take out to avoid real financial disaster, however, if we took out life insurance on someone and then caused their death, this is an entirely different matter. The American bank Goldman Sachs who bet on their customers defaulting on high risk mortgages was recently compared to compared to a car salesman who hawks autos with “faulty brakes, and then [buys] an insurance policy on the buyer of those cars.”

Sub prime mortgage derivatives

This term is just bankers "babble" for bets placed on high risk mortgages where defaults were virtually guaranteed by the terms of the mortgages. American banks were lending out mortages at low initial rates of interest, to persons who could initially afford the low interest rates, but who were clearly going to default when their initial "carrot on a stick" period of low interest ended, often doubling or tripling their monthly payments, and then placing "bets" that these people would default on their mortgages, and when they did default, en masse, other banks and insurance companies holding such "bets" could not pay these winning bets.

The idea promoted by the Utopian philosophers of Capitalism such Adam Smith and Ayn Rand that "greed is good" and that it is in the interest of the all Capitalists to have a booming economy is entirely false, since it can be just as profitable to bet on the collapse of an economy as on it's success; further the Adam Smith economic model was based primarily on the buying and selling of goods and services, not on a "gambling" economcy which describes the current state of Capitalism where "gambling" is vastly in excess of the entire world economy in terms of the sale of goods and services.

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/images/2009/Nov/derivatives-17-1.gif

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article15105.html

The recent banking crisis as "gambling losses."

What we see in the above chart, simply put is this, Goldman Sachs for example has 119 billion in actual assets but $40,772 billion in what is simply no different to a bookmaker's betting slips; some of these bets they will inevitably win and others they will inevitably lose, and this is the same scenario for many other major banks. It is as if a bookmaker is worth a million dollars but is taking bets and placing bets to the tune of 34 million dollars; some bets he is guaranteed to win and some bets he is guaranteed to lose; however there is certainly no guarantee that he can pay if he loses heavily or that his debtors can pay him if he wins heavily; this is the fragility of Capitalism and why if one link in the chain of gamblers defaults on his bets, it can affect all the other links in the chain and this is at the root of what the media respectfully calls the "banking" collapse, but it really should be called "gambling losses."

http://blog.twowolves.co.uk/images/LondonG20Protest.jpg

I should point out that the London protester above calling for a "ban" on "gambling" is being entirely unrealistic; we live in a global economy and derivative trading is based upon electronic transactions; if one nation banned gambling, the gamblers would simply continue gambling under the laws of a different nation. Derivative trading "is" in fact impossible in some nations (such as North Korea or Cuba) but the gamblers don't have their bases in such nations and our police states in Capitalism appear more concerned with banning Islamic headscarfs, public demonstrations and censoring Internet access.

The recent multi-trillion dollar bail outs by governments of leading banks, are thus not merely bailouts of money-lenders but of compulsive gamblers, who when they lose their bets, go cap in hand to the government and ask for money; the government then borrows this money (at interest) from elite bankers (who have the power to create it out of thin air) and then promised to later repay this money through taxation and revenue from it's citizens, many of whom would refuse to pay their neighbour's gambling debts if requested and simply blame them for their own greed, but the citizens who pay for these gambling debts have been given no choice in the matter.

The morality of Capitalism is defended by the propagandists of Capitalism who will use the example of an honest hard working worker who sells his labour or a factory owner or farmer who produces some item necessary for existence, but since the derivatives (gambling) market is now worth many times more than the entire GDP of the world, it is now "gambling" which supports the Capitalist system, not the buying and selling of actual commodities or assets; the share of the profits of such gambling are of course limited to an elite few, but the losses are not, since they can be paid off from government funds when gamblers lose their bets, and when currencies and national economies collapse, those who forsaw that or even created that situation can reap vast rewards.

Greece

The nature of the derivatives market exposes the true meaning of "laissez-faire" Capitalism in the modern world where billionaire banks (such as Goldman Sachs) can be financial advisors to a client (such as the Greek government), advise them to "hide" the true nature of their government's indebtedness and then place bets on them failing to pay their debts (as they have; see (http://www.americanpendulum.com/2010/02/sachs-helped-greece-hide-debt-now-bets-greek-collapse/)) when the true nature of their indebtedness is revealed; in fact it has been widely suggested that the collapse of the Greek economy is not unrelated to huge amount of bets which have been placed on it's collapse; indeed if it does "not" collapse many banks will lose their bets. Austerity measures currently include a 25% pay reduction for government employees while banks are expecting to make billions on their collapse; this is why the Greeks are rioting and the Greek Communists are burning banks.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_NUZ_fM-TQKQ/SYUohTLaevI/AAAAAAAAMLY/VZxzCXhC9HQ/s400/Banksters.jpg

Hedging Bets

While the politicians of Capitalism constantly harp on about "improving" their economies, "shorts" on the Euro are at a record high, and it appears that the world's banking community (an elite group of gamblers) are now betting heavily on quite the opposite of an economic upturn. Of course this leads to an endless round of "hedging (hedging their bets)." Bank A takes out a bet with bank B that the Euro will collapse. Bank B now thinks that they are over exposed and if the Euro does collapse that they will have pay out a huge amount to bank A, so they also take out bets with bank C that the Euro will collapse to "hedge" their bets; now bank C feels overexposed and faces huge losses if the Euro collapses, so they hedge their bets by betting with Bank D; Bank D now feels overexposed so.......etc., etc. Of course it only takes one link in the chain to collapse for this house of cards to come tumbling down, as occurred with AIG who had be paid $180 billion by the US government in order to pay off other banks who had placed winning bets with them and in order that those banks would not collapse, including of course Goldman Sachs who had bet that their own customers would default on loans which they knew they would default on. In light of all this the political mantra of the politicians of Capitalism who make promises to ensure "economic stability" must be seen as either expressions of extreme ignorance or simply barefaced lies, since they simply do not have control over the world's derivatives market; it is entirely in the hands of an elite few bankers who contribute absolutely "nothing" whatsoever to the real world economy of the exchange of goods and services and for whom "economic growth" means nothing more than one gambler winning a bet and another gambler losing.

http://www.europe2020.org/IMG/jpg/derivatives_pyramid-3.jpg
Above: source: Bank of International Settlements, 2008.

Liquidity.

A bookmaker may have 30 million dollars of "betting slips" including bets he can lose and bets he has placed to "hedge" his possible losses, but in fact he may really only have "liquid assets" of a million dollars (in cash or property which can be transferred into cash). The graph above is slighty out of date but it does show that 75% of global liquid assets (i.e., cash and property which can be converted to cash) which represent the 75% of the entire "financial worth" of humanity are being used as security and cash flow for the derivatives market; in other words, by bookmakers as the basis of their gambling business; this is Capitalism in all its sickening glory in a world where millions die for want of a bowl of rice; maintaining this use of the world as a gambling den this is what politicians refer to when they speak of "economic stability."



The City of London.

With one percent of world population, it is the Britain and in particular the City of London which is exposed to around 40% of the global derivatives market, otherwise known as "insurance." Thus when these Masons gather in their over 200 lodges of the city of London and refer to themselves as "men of moral" worth, the true nature of the global scam which is Capitalism needs to be taken into account. It is this "gambling" which is often the source of multi-million dollar bonuses paid to "bankers."

Capitalism as "essentially" gambling, not the exchange of goods and services. Gambling on derivatives now has a value which is almost 15 times the amount of all goods and services produced in the world.

In 2009, the world's the gross domestic product for the entire 6 billion population of this planet was around $70 trillion; thus with the derivatives market at $1.14 thousand trillion, this gambling market is worth almost 15 times times the market of all actual goods and services and persons (slaves), drugs, agriculture and arms etc., traded in the world; thus "Capitalism" is now "essentially" gambling and any defence or critique of Capitalism needs to take this into account. The "Free Market" is now essentially the freedom for gamblers to gamble with vast sums of money which frankly do not even exist and could not exist.

Such are the temptations of the Devils who are the devotees of the god of Capitalism who gamble with trillions of dollars in a world of poverty and war.

Lux
No mercy on they who deserve none.
Fire, plague and poisoned waters.
Great and Terrible and Dreadful and Wrathful shall be the day of Judgement.

_____________________________

Derivatives Explained
Suppose your neighbor’s house is worth $500K, and he has a $400K mortgage held by a bank. He doesn’t owe you any money, and you are no more than nodding acquaintances. I sell you a piece of paper for $5000 that says I will pay you the value of your next door neighbor’s house if he defaults on his mortgage. Congratulations, you just bought a derivative.

Why do you care if he defaults? You don’t.
What do you lose if he defaults? Nothing.
What do you gain by him not defaulting? Nothing.
So who gains by this silly ass derivative? Aha, we both do.

I gain $5000 by selling it to you, and all it cost me was a few dollars to have a lawyer draw it up and create some legalese. You gain because you now have a “secured debt obligation.” It is “secured” because it is tied to the value of your neighbor’s house, which you do not own and upon which you do not now and will never have any real financial claim.

The face value of your “secured debt obligation” is $500K, so you can show it to a banker and borrow cash using this piece of paper as collateral. The bank now has what it considers to be a “secured loan” for however much it loaned to you.

So we now have the $400K mortgage, the $500K derivative, and a bank loan all secured by this one $500K house. Something more than two times the value of the house is riding on the homeowner paying the mortgage.

And I’ve only sold one derivative against it. There is no limit on the number of derivatives I can sell against that house. That’s why the derivatives market is estimated to be in excess of fifty trillion dollars. And all of it is play money.

Derivatives are financial instruments created for the sole purpose of making money selling the instruments to people who are stupid enough or crooked enough to buy them.

So your neighbor defaulting on his mortgage is not the real problem in today’s crisis. Forget all this talk about how the government can pay off his mortgage and everything will be fine, because his mortgage is not the problem. The problem is your derivative and the loan that you obtained based on it. I have to pay you that $500K (along with all the others I sold), and I can’t do it. Since the derivative is now worthless, your loan has become an “unsecured loan” and your bank is freaking out about that. It can’t afford to have all this “unsecured debt” on its books and, as a result of that imbalance, the bank must obey bank laws and stop lending.

Your neighbor triggered the problem, but your derivative and your bank loan actually caused the problem. Nobody looked at your finances until your neighbor defaulted; that was the trigger. Then they looked at your books and mine (in this little blog drama) as a result of his default and saw that those finances were rotten and corrupt to the core, and the grits hit the fan

http://billsandiego.blogspot.com/2008/10/derivatives-explained.html

Yes, I worked for the first two years of my tenure at Citigroup in Income and Stock Reconciliations divisions; I'm familiar with most securities products, not least Derivatives.

Of course, it never crosses one's mind whence working 'on the inside', so to speak, that it is all a hokey gambling scam.

But a hokey gambling scam it is indeed.

[luciferhorus]

Yes, I worked for the first two years of my tenure at Citigroup in Income and Stock Reconciliations divisions; I'm familiar with most securities products, not least Derivatives.

Of course, it never crosses one's mind whence working 'on the inside', so to speak, that it is all a hokey gambling scam.

But a hokey gambling scam it is indeed.

http://dennisthepeasant.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c5cc953ef0120a4df5ce8970b-320wi

I thought it was important to raise this issue because on this forum the "majority" of the debaters here are anti-Communists and proponents of various forms of Capitalism and tyranny, and the Capitalism vs. anti-Capitalism arguments keep coming up again and again; however it is very common for the defender of Capitalism to use Adam Smith type arguments based on for example how "good" it is for a person to be able to make something useful and then sell it in a market place; however if the updated figure of 1.6 qaudrillion for the world derivatives market is correct and global GDP is only around $70 trillion, this means that the part of the Capitalist market place which involves the buying and selling of goods, services and persons (i.e., slaves) only accounts for 5% of the global Capitalist economy and that 95% of this is the derivatives market (i.e., gambling); thus I think that 95% of the Capitalism vs. anti-Capitalism debate should focus on this type of gambling, since that is essentially now what Capitalism has become and only a small proportion of Capitalism involves trading and selling etc.

http://www.marxist.com/images/stories/capitalist-greed.jpg

In light of this even the traditional Marxist view of society where Capitalism is seen as being run by Capitalists who exploit their workers and live off their productivity is now totally outdated since this only accounts for 5% of global GDP; Capitalism is now essentially gambling.

It is unfortunate that these facts are not well known; if the extent of this scam was well known and it was understood that the $800 billion bailout by Gordon Brown of the banks was essentially to cover gambling losses, I tend to think that there would be a great deal more outrage, particularly since the world is so impoverished.

http://www.worldwatch.org/brain/images/press/news/wwp0155_money.jpg

There are various different estimates for Third World debt in 2010 and various ways of calculating it, however it was estimated that the 47 poorest indebted nations owe a combined debt which is something in the region of $422 million; which represents half of what Brown spent on his bailout of some of the world's wealthiest gamblers; but bailing out the gambling debts of the economic elites was after all the Christian thing to do.

Lux


All that we had borrowed up to 1985 or 1986 was around $5 billion and we have paid about $16 billion yet we are still being told that we owe about $28 billion. That $28 billion came about because of the injustice in the foreign creditors' interest rates.

If you ask me what is the worst thing in the world, I will say it is compound interest. President Obasanjo of Nigeria




The size of the debt trap can be controlled to claim all surplus production of a society, but if allowed to continue to grow the magic of compound interest dictates it is unsustainable. One trillion dollars compounded at 10 percent per year become $117 trillion in fifty years and $13.78 quadrillion in one hundred years, about $3.5 million for every man, woman and child in the Third World. Their debt is 50 percent greater than this and has been compounding at twice that rate — over 20 percent per year between 1973 and 1993, from $100 billion to $1.5 trillion [only $400 billion of the $1.5 trillion was actually borrowed money. The rest was runaway compound interest]. If Third World debt continues to compound at 20 percent per year, the $117 trillion debt will be reached in eighteen years and the $13.78 quadrillion debt in thirty-four years.

Argentina owed $128 billion in debt [in mid 2001]. Normal interest plus the premium amounted to $27 billion a year. In other words, Argentina’s people didn’t net one penny from the $20 billion in “bailout” loans. The debt grew, but none of the money escaped New York, where it lingered to pay interest to U.S. creditors holding the bonds.


In 1999, developing country debt (not counting the former Eastern Bloc) was placed by the World Bank at $2,060 billion, less than 6 percent of total world debt ($37,000 billion). The debt of former Eastern bloc countries was calculated at another $465 billion. The public debt of Belgium is approximately $ 250 billion, the public debt of France is $750 billion, the national debt of the United States is $5,000 billion, U.S. household debt is $6,000 billion, and the national debt of Japan at $2,000 billion. In contrast, the total debt of the 41 HIPC countries is approximately $200 billion (less than one percent of world debt). It is difficult to imagine how canceling the $200 billion owed by the HIPC would seriously affect the market that Mr. Wolfensohn [head of the World Bank until mid-2005] is so worried about.

[zero1]

http://dennisthepeasant.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c5cc953ef0120a4df5ce8970b-320wi

I thought it was important to raise this issue because on this forum the "majority" of the debaters here are anti-Communists and proponents of various forms of Capitalism and tyranny, and the Capitalism vs. anti-Capitalism arguments keep coming up again and again; however it is very common for the defender of Capitalism to use Adam Smith type arguments based on for example how "good" it is for a person to be able to make something useful and then sell it in a market place; however if the updated figure of 1.6 quadrillion for the world derivatives market is correct and global GDP is only around $70 trillion, this means that the part of the Capitalist market place which involves the buying and selling of goods, services and persons (i.e., slaves) only accounts for 5% of the global Capitalist economy and that 95% of this is the derivatives market (i.e., gambling); thus I think that 95% of the Capitalism vs. anti-Capitalism debate should focus on this type of gambling, since that is essentially now what Capitalism has become and only a small proportion of Capitalism involves trading and selling etc.

http://www.marxist.com/images/stories/capitalist-greed.jpg

In light of this even the traditional Marxist view of society where Capitalism is seen as being run by Capitalists who exploit their workers and live off their productivity is now totally outdated since this only accounts for 5% of global GDP; Capitalism is now essentially gambling.

It is unfortunate that these facts are not well known; if the extent of this scam was well known and it was understood that the $800 billion bailout by Gordon Brown of the banks was essentially to cover gambling losses, I tend to think that there would be a great deal more outrage, particularly since the world is so impoverished.

http://www.worldwatch.org/brain/images/press/news/wwp0155_money.jpg

There are various different estimates for Third World debt in 2010 and various ways of calculating it, however it was estimated that the 47 poorest indebted nations owe a combined debt which is something in the region of $422 million; which represents half of what Brown spent on his bailout of some of the world's wealthiest gamblers; but bailing out the gambling debts of the economic elites was after all the Christian thing to do.

Lux


All that we had borrowed up to 1985 or 1986 was around $5 billion and we have paid about $16 billion yet we are still being told that we owe about $28 billion. That $28 billion came about because of the injustice in the foreign creditors' interest rates.

If you ask me what is the worst thing in the world, I will say it is compound interest. President Obasanjo of Nigeria




The size of the debt trap can be controlled to claim all surplus production of a society, but if allowed to continue to grow the magic of compound interest dictates it is unsustainable. One trillion dollars compounded at 10 percent per year become $117 trillion in fifty years and $13.78 quadrillion in one hundred years, about $3.5 million for every man, woman and child in the Third World. Their debt is 50 percent greater than this and has been compounding at twice that rate — over 20 percent per year between 1973 and 1993, from $100 billion to $1.5 trillion [only $400 billion of the $1.5 trillion was actually borrowed money. The rest was runaway compound interest]. If Third World debt continues to compound at 20 percent per year, the $117 trillion debt will be reached in eighteen years and the $13.78 quadrillion debt in thirty-four years.

Argentina owed $128 billion in debt [in mid 2001]. Normal interest plus the premium amounted to $27 billion a year. In other words, Argentina’s people didn’t net one penny from the $20 billion in “bailout” loans. The debt grew, but none of the money escaped New York, where it lingered to pay interest to U.S. creditors holding the bonds.


In 1999, developing country debt (not counting the former Eastern Bloc) was placed by the World Bank at $2,060 billion, less than 6 percent of total world debt ($37,000 billion). The debt of former Eastern bloc countries was calculated at another $465 billion. The public debt of Belgium is approximately $ 250 billion, the public debt of France is $750 billion, the national debt of the United States is $5,000 billion, U.S. household debt is $6,000 billion, and the national debt of Japan at $2,000 billion. In contrast, the total debt of the 41 HIPC countries is approximately $200 billion (less than one percent of world debt). It is difficult to imagine how canceling the $200 billion owed by the HIPC would seriously affect the market that Mr. Wolfensohn [head of the World Bank until mid-2005] is so worried about.

A couple of years ago some insiders talked about the "Derivatives Death Star" that was going to blow up the world economy. It may still be out there.

Now there's talk of the "Recession" ending with Capitalism continuing on, and maybe just a few "new rules" to assuage public fears and generate consumer confidence. I personally think the Capitalist system is too big and unwieldy now for mere checks and balances.

As you were, so...

[luciferhorus]

A couple of years ago some insiders talked about the "Derivatives Death Star" that was going to blow up the world economy. It may still be out there.

Now there's talk of the "Recession" ending with Capitalism continuing on, and maybe just a few "new rules" to assuage public fears and generate consumer confidence. I personally think the Capitalist system is too big and unwieldy now for mere checks and balances.

As you were, so...


The Derivatives Death Star.

The derivatives market has grown something like 10 times in the last 10 ten years; this is "not" of course because there is more money in the system; in fact there is simply not enough money in the world to explain it. In reality this market has grown and grown because of hedging bets; thus much of the 1.6 thousand trillion dollars simply does not exist in cash or liquid assets; it is simply like the IOU's which can be exchanged between gamblers.

A gambler who only has a million dollars might accept a bet which if he loses means that he has to pay out 100 million dollars, so he places a bet with gambler B for close to 100 million dollars and gambler B places a similar bet with gambler D and so forth and so forth and in the end these gamblers end up exchanging IOU's and the profit margin at the end of it can be very small; unless of course one of the gamblers has some kind of "inside" information and can accurately predict the outcome, and since this is sometimes the case, it is a very risky business which is open to fraud.

Frankly this kind of hedging bets is aparrently also what occurs in the world of "bookmaker" gambling on sporting events; one analyst I was reading commented that part of the reason why a person might end up at the bottom of a river if they fail to pay major gambling debts is because generally almost all bookmakers hedge their bets with other bookmakers to an extent, and if one person fails to pay, it can have a serious ripple affect on many other bookmakers, however with bookmakers who take bets on sporting events, they are generally not playing with trillions of dollars which do not exist.

The problems with this house of cards are vast since the stakes are getting higher and higher. Of course these gamblers have rather sophisticated software programs which tell them how much risk they are exposed to and thus although they may be exposed to a multi-billion dollar risk, they are generally hedging their bets with other gamblerss, however the margin for error is rather small. In the case of Goldman Sachs who have almost 41 trillion (thousand billion) in derivative contracts and only 119 billion in assets, it would only take a relatively only a tiny loss in percentage terms to wipe out their assets. As the amount of money which is being bet gets higher and higher the risks become greater and greater.

Common sense would tell you that if you are a gambler with a million dollars in assets, that you should not place or accept a bet where you would have to pay out $10 million if you lose; the derivatives market is at the point where if even one link in the chain of banks hedging their bets on each other fails that it could topple all the other links in the chain. As the value of derivatives increases the risk of a "house of cards" collapse increases also. I think it is an absolute inevitability that we we see another major "banking crisis" however as long as it is called a "banking crisis" the mass of humanity will probably fail to understand that it is actually a "gambling" crisis.


Elite banks and non elite banks.

By "Elite Banks" I mean banks like the Fed or the European Central Banks who can simply create money from nothing and lend it as debt. Frankly, since such banks do not borrow in order to lend, I cannot see how such banks could collapse due to a collapse of banks who are players in the derivatives market; a common belief among the anti-New World Order crowd is that we are heading for a global currency and a global bank which would probably just initially be a cartel of the owners of the world's central banks; thus it is likely to be the case that the elite bankers do not actually care that much if the collapse of the derivatives market wipes out many private financial institutions, as long as their central banking and money creation institutions remain; indeed I think it could be argued that the collapse of many private financial institutions could well be to their advantage.

There are many banks who actually borrow off the central banks at preferential rates and then lend money for "real" items such as mortgages and to the actual business community at a higher rate of interest; this is really the market which the central banks thrive in, and the central banks profit from such smaller banks, whereas in the derivatives market financial institutions are playing with money which simply does not exist. All it takes is for one large financial instution to make a huge profit on a derivatives trade and the losing side would quite simply be unable to pay; the derivatives market depends on nobody making "too much" profit on trades as it could quite simply wipe everyone out since the sums involved are simply impossible for anyone to pay, the constant hedging of bets ensure that potential losses are minimised, but so too are profits in precentage terms. Frankly it is simply not possible for all companies doing these type of trades to consistently win; just like in any gambling situation there are winners and losers and there is an element of unpredictability, thus the collapse of banks is as inevitable as the bankruptcy of some compulsive gamblers.

The collapse of the global derivatives market would simply be a failure to pay IOU's on money which does not and never has existed and I think that the case could be made that it's collapse could actually benefit the elite bankers. Out of the trillions of dollars of derivative contracts, only a tiny percentage ever really trickles down into the pockets of employees and into the economy anyway.

Lux

_________________________

Exclusive: Derivatives for Dummies by The Other Katherine Harris
Posted on February 18, 2009 by dandelionsalad
http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2009/02/18/exclusive-derivatives-for-dummies-by-the-other-katherine-harris/



by The Other Katherine Harris
Featured Writer
Dandelion Salad
Feb. 18, 2009

Recent attempts by corporate media to explain the nature of our economic meltdown have left me ready to bite the ears off mice. They’ve been superficial, profoundly misleading and, above all, apologias for the likes of

Paulson, Bernanke and Geithner. So, having spent every spare moment over the past three years studying the debacle that many saw brewing, here’s the simplest explanation I’ve come up with:

Imagine being able to insure a car that you don’t own or use. Imagine it’s the car your neighbors will let their teenage son drive, when he gets his license in a few weeks — and you know the kid is a reckless brat.

Now imagine that, by using financial derivatives called swaps, you can purchase as many insurance policies on this car as you can afford to pay premiums on.

When that car is eventually trashed and scrapped, you — and any friends you clued in on the deal – might collect millions, even billions, of dollars. By contrast, your neighbors, who bought real insurance on a real vehicle, get only its Blue Book value (and, one hopes, a chastened child).

This explains the primary problem with swaps. Anybody can bet on anything, so the nominal value of the bets far exceeds the actual worth of any property involved.

Still worse, no tangible or financial asset has to be in the picture. Wagers of any amount can be made, based only on opinions. You can bet on next Wednesday’s weather, if a counterparty wants to take the other side.

Only a fraction of swap action stems from logical situations in which, say, Party A owns a certain debt-based bond and Party B feels good enough about its prospects to accept premiums against possible default. Those are the Credit Default Swaps we hear so much about, which are a small part of the picture.

Similarly, Collateralized Debt Obligations comprise a much larger category than merely those bonds into which home mortgages have been sliced, diced, tranched and peddled to the unwary. Every type of debt is subject to the same treatment, called securitization or financialization. Commercial mortgages, student loans, home equity loans, credit card balances and auto notes spring immediately to mind, but it doesn’t stop there by any means. Among the latest wrinkles are buying up and bundling seniors’ life insurance policies and selling solar equipment with financing and service contracts attached, so that those obligations can be packaged and resold. Carbon credits, if cap-and-trade is approved in the US, instead of a sensible carbon tax, will be another new toy for the boyz.

Beyond swaps and CDOs, there are many other types of derivatives. Some serve no purpose except adding layers of expense to the delivery of commodities. Think of the possibilities as endless and you’ll be right.

This is how speculators in derivatives have created a “shadow economy” so vast it looms over the actual economy like a death-star over a bumblebee.

Much of their vast construct is not merely shadowy but wholly obscured. Among derivative securities, relatively few are traded on any exchange. So there’s no public record of the rest, which are based on private agreements. A host of swaps have arisen from so-called “dark pools of liquidity” — in which those who play may not even clearly identify themselves to one another. Yet more of these monsters from the deep arise daily. There’s still no rule against them, nor a wisp of regulation. At times the contracts are doubly hidden, recorded off the holder’s main books in so-called Structured Investment Vehicles.

All of that makes it impossible to be certain, but the Bank for International Settlements is a pretty good guesser and they last pegged the total face value of derivatives in existence at $1.4 QUADRILLION — more money than there is in all the world (at least until Ben Bernanke turned on the printing press lately). This figure may have since declined, but I wouldn’t bank on it. A lot of derivatives are long-term deals operant for many years.

Returning to our original example,you don’t even have to await the neighbor kid’s big smashup to start making money on your swaps. Say he gets a speeding ticket or has a fender-bender. Those are documented events that raise the price of coverage — for all who want it, not just the boy’s unfortunate parents. Now you can, by presenting him as a known risk, profit by selling some of your contracts to others for much more than you paid.

In this case, you wouldn’t want to sell unless you need funds badly, but imagine that your payoff depends on the failure of a company, a currency or a country. The weaker your target is perceived to be, as reflected by the cost of default insurance on its debt, the closer you move toward your ultimate goal. So you and your friends will do all you can to drive that cost up and make the world fully aware of it, including buying and selling CDS contracts openly. This makes the rising cost apparent and you can count on the rating agencies to take notice swiftly. Their downgrade will become the death-knell.

Therein lies another great problem with Credit Default Swaps. They work exactly like short-selling and rumor-mongering (which CDS owners may well be doing, too) to create self-fulfilling prophecies.

They also create the derivative world’s equivalent of margin calls, which mean trouble for luckless parties on what increasingly seem the wrong side of particular bets. Staying in the game takes cash, more and more of it.

Such circumstances also invite side-bets — on when the shaky whatsit will fall, for instance. Thus, the money monster grows bigger and bigger. Until it finally pops.

Which brings us to the enormous problem of extracting payment from those on the losing side of each bet, who of course didn’t expect to lose. Gamblers never do, until it’s far too late.

So welcome to the Casino at the End of the World. Where you’re now backing every remaining wager and paying off the winners. In bailout bucks.

Why, instead of doling out trillions of taxpayer dollars through the Fed and Treasury Department, didn’t our government simply nullify these crazy bets that never should have been made — thereby averting the present crisis? It can’t be that contracts are really all that sacrosanct. Credit card companies change terms on us all the time

[luciferhorus]

I am just bumping this thread due to the same old Capitalist - Communist discussions.

Lux

[teosty]

I am just bumping this thread due to the same old Capitalist - Communist discussions.

Lux

gimme a straight answer i just viewed your myspace..... are you or are you not a luciferian buddy... your username says it all and your myspace page, wtf buddy, this msg board is full of shills i can tell