View Full Version : Destroying the community

04-01-2005, 06:13 AM
Peace be upon you,

Here is an excerpt from my new article,

".......Why did this happen? it all began with destroying the community, Satan literally dragged us to large jungle-cities to desensitize our sense of community, large buildings where the neighbors don't know each other, vast malls, big streets, where anything can happen, and anyone can sin freely with no regard for the missing-community!"

"All these systems feed into the original doctrine of Satan, a hierarchy of masters and slaves, where the people are not equal as God created them, but are ranked into masters and slaves, since Satan can not enslave anybody unless this individual accepts to play along (as an arrogant controlling master or an apathetic servile slave)."

"Few refuse to play along, refuse to conform with transgression, and because of that they get oppressed, oppression is Satan's weapon to enforce his hierarchy on the human beings and force them into submission to him instead of God, it ranges from bullying, intimidation to verbal and physical attacks."

Feel free to read the rest of the article here:


04-01-2005, 06:54 AM
Could'nt agree more Ahmed.

By dividing us between race, religion, sex and even family lines we stand naked before the State.

Even in big cities it is still possible to form community and even produce ones own food through permaculture techniques.

By relying on each other we cut our dependance on the State.

I say let the State wither and die. Turn our backs on it in a slow and deliberate long term plan to weed ourselves away.

Turn to each other. Forget about the polititions. Forget about voting. Drop out. Stop buying their worthless crap.

The danger? In 1973 the National Security Council released a paper on what were the threats faced by the U.S. No1- people would form communities and 'drop out' causing the system to collapse. I will try and find this paper. My only fear is that they will go after communities with this philosophy like they went after The Branch Davidians.

Oh well. I guess if we have to fight we have to fight. Maybe they should know this?

04-01-2005, 01:13 PM
Yeah, the Branch Davidians were wrongfuly demonized by the media to justify the governments atrocity. :-P

04-02-2005, 12:06 AM
Not just that but they will infiltrate such communities as well and try to destroy it from the inside, like they did and do with the militia movement.

04-02-2005, 02:33 AM
There is an extremely easy way to deal with that Drak. You lay down solid ground rules. You break them, you're out.

In my community i own and administer the land. People are guests at my leisure.

There are no politics. If people dont like it they leave.

Make your community amongst friends and family.

It'll either work or it wont.

God will always bring the right people to you.

04-02-2005, 03:37 AM
Yeah, I see your point.

But if you want to grow powerful and be totally independent from the State, then the State will sooner or later see you and your community as a threat to their livelihood and will want to destroy it and you.

There are enough info on the Branch Davidians acually being a clandestine CIA operation in the vein of <a href="http://www.paperlessarchives.com/sla.html">The Symbionese Liberation Army and the Patty Hearst kidnapping</a>.

More documents <a href="http://www.ravenvision.com/ciamilitarymindcontrol.pdf">HERE</a> and <a href="http://webpages.charter.net/geminiwalker/HellSLA.html">HERE</a>.

04-02-2005, 03:45 AM
I must be perfectly honest. If i could gaurantee my own independence away from the State and the ignorent masses i would not post here and simply leave.

Unfortunately, there is no rocket ship to another planet where freedom lovers can move.

Therefor, if i'm going to be free, everyone has to be free.

I agree Drak...the State will attempt to ruin ANY successful move to independence.

Still, if enough people turn their backs, maybe it wont come to that.

04-02-2005, 04:07 AM
I think Butler Shaffer is definately on to something. I recommend (as I've done before) <a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer-arch.html">ALL</a> his articles, but espaecially the one below.

<a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/shaffer1.html">Why I Do Not Vote by Butler Shaffer</a>

04-02-2005, 06:14 AM
Yes, i agree with him. Particularly in the American experience.

They're actually trying to bring electronic voting in here. Amazingly, considering the differing opinions, every one of the politions here from the left/right did'nt want a bar of it. From ALL political spectrums they ALL said "It was a dismal failure in the U.S".

It's a hard choice to make...whether to join in or drop out. Chomsky would say that dropping out amounts to suicide and that the political system is the only voice of the little people no matter how flawed...yes but how flawed does it have to get Noam and where were you on the electronic voting?

Whatever the individual choice...in my country your vote is still counted but i have only ever voted once. My heart just is'nt in it.

The closest I came to voting was the recent Federal election and only because the Labor leader (Democrat) was Mark Latham. A man who called Bush "the most inept President in living memory" and John Howard and the Liberals (Republicans) "a conga line of arse lickers".

Joe Vialls claims threats were made on his life. I believe it. He completely dissapeared overnight from political life.

He was blessed and cursed with a propensity to tell it like it is...and paid the price.

So why vote?

I'd prefer the option to opt out. Those that want to stay, good luck to you.

But will they leave us alone? My only worry.

04-02-2005, 07:15 AM
To all those people who consider opting out to be passive I say: in this world where black is white and up is down, the most ACTIVE thing Man can do is to NOT TAKE PART.

Take part? IN WHAT - this damn "democracy" charade? I think they've fooled us long enough, thank you very much.

I tell you what: long time ago Ozziecynic actually managed to ask me a brilliant but oh so important question, namely "what kind of society/civilization would you support/want to live in, if not the democratic one - what alternatives do we have?"

I promised to get back to him on that and never did - until now. (Shame he seemed to have disappeared.;-))

I start with a teaser - let's see if anyone gets it!

I claim that dictatorship is not oppressive by default. It depends on WHAT is being dictated and by WHOM and on WHAT AUTHORITY.

04-02-2005, 04:20 PM
I took a look at the Shaffer article about not voting, and he mentions how youthful idealists expressed how the system may be seriously imperfect, but it's better to "work within" the system to help change it. That sentiment has been sold to many young idealists largely in reference to corporate and political careers. That is, citizens are told that the elite has dominance but if you want to resist why not scout your own subversive campaign for the forces of good?

With this mindset it's not much further along to warp young minds into various elite and Gramscian/Communist game plans. How many people once thought they were fighting the system for good then ended up being part of the camouflage? I think many politicians fall into this trap.

Gramscian subversives have sold their technique to the very people they are trying to destroy.

04-02-2005, 06:17 PM
I whole-heartedly agree with you Draken, dictatorship is the only system that ultimately works.

Too often people associate the word dictatorship with evil and oppression in much the same way that we associate violence with the same meaning. Violence in itself is not evil, but violence can be used with evil intent, or to defend from evil. If someone assaulted my loved ones in order to steal their money and food the violence is tainted with evil intention. If I act against this violence in defence of my loved ones, I use violence in the name of righteousness.

The only just dictatorship is God’s.

WHAT = The commandments of God
WHOM = God the creator
WHAT AUTHORITY = God is the creator; therefore, the authority.

It’s really simple huh?

04-02-2005, 09:29 PM
Peace be upon you,

There is a good dictator and a bad one indeed. The good one doesn't make any decision except after "due consultation" with the leaders of the different communities, the bad one ignores their opinions.

But God taught us that the system has to start from the very base, from the family, every male leader of a family comes up with one unanimous opinion (vote)after due consultation with his crew (wife and mature children), then this male leader goes into a meeting with the leaders of the other families in the community to discuss and reach a "Unanimous" opinion.

The decision MUST be unanimous, since if one voice is ignored, it will result in mutiny and division not long after. So to ensure that the decisions are unanimous God commands the believers that they shall OBEY the people in charge and by doing that they are obeying Him.

The people in charge are elected unanimously by the community leaders (the husbands), after election the members put their trust in God and follow the leader when he makes a final decision.

The leader of a community can never make any decision except after taking all the opinions (votes + ideas) into account, afterall he knows that God is watching him and every action is recorded.

Why there must be a leader in the system of "Submission" ? just imagine if there was no "one" leader, the ship will surely sink, because of disputes, there must be one captain to make the final decision and all the members who trust him must obey.

The prolem with modern democracy i believe is the issue of "representatives", since every issue must be openly debated by the whole community, not just some few representatives.

[42:38] They respond to their Lord by observing the Contact Prayers (Salat). Their affairs are decided after due consultation among themselves, and from our provisions to them they give (to charity).

[4:59] O you who believe, you shall obey GOD, and you shall obey the messenger, and those in charge among you. If you dispute in any matter, you shall refer it to GOD and the messenger, if you do believe in GOD and the Last Day. This is better for you, and provides you with the best solution.

I have to say that such a system has no chance of success except if there are strong families, strong communities.

And there can be no strong communites without being God-centered.

Since belief in a superhuman entity unites the people, belief in the creatures divides them.

My message is simply that, uniting the believers around God alone in one united nation called the "united submitters nation", our law is found in one book (Quran) the final proven testament.

[61:4] GOD loves those who fight in His cause united in one column, like the bricks in one wall.

04-03-2005, 04:42 AM
Yeah DaddyLongLeg, it really is that simple! In principal. The huge task is to get people to turn back to God - that's the complex problem we face today.

Our "civilization" has ended up so far from its normal, natural state that people today can't imagine matters to be THAT different. The idea of "Progress" make people believe the illusion - lie, in fact - that ours is THE most "evolved", sophisticated civilization there ever was.

Darwinism claims that out of nothing evolved - BY PURE CHANCE - something that by "natural selection evolved" into the most perfect entity there ever was and that we eventually become GODS if we follow this "evolution" to its "natural" conclusion.

The Traditional outlook is the complete opposite: in the Beginning of Time we had The Golden Age. This age ended and a Silver Age took its place. After a Bronze Age we now live in the Iron Age or Dark Age of the Kali Yuga, according to Hindu Tradition. This doctrine is a Universal one. In every Tradition you can find the corresponding doctrine; for instance, in the Nordic/Hyperborean Tradition it's called Ragnarokkr/Ragnarök (Wagner's Götterdämmerung).

Since the nature of Order is decadence into Chaos this chain of events is unstoppable.

The process Ahmad describes is the only way I think Order can be reinstated. I also believe this to be impossible on the large scale it would need to be established. The kind of community Ahmad describes is the kind also truebeliever has been talking about and that kind of community would be the most enormous threat to status quo, that is to The State <a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer-arch.html
">Butler Shaffer</a> talks about. It would have to come to a serious stand off situation between the State and that kind of Community, where a lot of blood would have to be spilt and a lot of destruction take place. The State would wreak this havoc in its fight for survival, and not because the Community wants a bloody revolution.

I've ran out of steam for the moment but for anyone interested in the concept of the World of Tradition, the concept of the four Ages follow these links:

<a href="http://www.clubconspiracy.com/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=677&forum=3&PHPSESSID=a7bfc4a9f5bed702a28044cd7f8dea2c">SOLIPSISM - KALI-YUGA - RIGHT-WING ATTITUDE by Ferenc Buji</a>
<a href="http://www.clubconspiracy.com/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=590&forum=3&PHPSESSID=a7bfc4a9f5bed702a28044cd7f8dea2c">INTEGRAL TRADITION Revolt against the modern world CONSERVATIVE REVOLUTION</a>

04-03-2005, 06:03 AM
I agree.

04-03-2005, 06:03 AM
I agree.

04-03-2005, 07:56 PM
Actually, Darwin didn't create the religion of evolution. His students and followers did. If you read his book, "Origen of the Species", he doesn't say anything about man originating from priomordial sludge, in fact, he does recognize God in his book. His two main points in the book are "selection"-how females choose males with the best genes to continue the species and "adaptation"-how the species adapts to the environment to survive. "Survival of the fitest" was some globalist bullshit concept some students of his came up with to justify themselves as superior to the rest of humanity whereas the rest of us are seen as useless eaters in their eyes. :-P

04-04-2005, 04:34 AM
Yeah nohope you are right about that. When I went to university I noticed the exact same sentiment being preached by elitist academic types.

Both Wallace and Darwin expressed the view that there had to be some kind of outside intervention when it came to the origin of the species.

04-04-2005, 08:04 AM
Actually, wasn't it Wallace who came up with the missing link (pun definately intended) in the Evolution theory, which was the concept of the "Survival Of The Fittest"?

In a feverish psychotic fit as well, on his deathbed...

I think w102pdc has written something about that, check it out...

04-04-2005, 01:56 PM
Draken wrote:
Actually, wasn't it Wallace who came up with the missing link (pun definately intended) in the Evolution theory, which was the concept of the "Survival Of The Fittest"?

In a feverish psychotic fit as well, on his deathbed...

I think w102pdc has written something about that, check it out...Yeah, I remember reading his post, it was that cocksucker Wallace who started it and every science/reason lackey that followed after. :-P