Islam as an anarchic community and not a religion presented

[Makaveli]

Hacking is not possible with the structure of the platform, and viruses would only effect the users windows, mac ubuntu platforms not the anarchic platform as its a closed model.

And who is going to manufacture and distribute hardware for the software to work? You do realize that a mobile phone and computer did not come out of blue light from heavens and that these were only possible due to controlled efforts of various industires? In case the world is split by anarchic communitites, they won't be able to cooperatively create something and economy would deteriorate, we would basically go down to the middle ages. But it is actually good, but not many people would agree with that. Anyways, since your model clearly lacks development and organized manufacture, which sadly requires hierarchy and coordination or control, then how will people use this secret software platform in case there won't be anyone running mobile and computer networks?

Another question is, if what you say that these anarchic models existed in the past (which they did not) before they were "destroyed by Vatican", what software did people use back then, and why is your model [supposedly] based on a software platform and not social communication?

[Abdun Nur]

You do not need monopolies, corporations, or governments to manufacture goods makaveli, people can do that, and the platform empowers them to do so, the system is based around hubs and satellites, so for example you could have a technological development hub, and the satellites could be fed from that hub, universally all satellites could be fed from that hub, it is an open model.

The controlling of industries you talk about restricts innovation, maintain monopolies and suppress advances that threaten their existing monopolies.

The anarchic software platform simply gives a structure to the anarchic models, allowing users to interact in many varied ways to form bonds, trades, and interactions.

I do not know why you say they did not exist in the past, what evidence makes you say this, as I know for a certainty they did exist as I have read in detail about them.

What makes you deny the anarchic models repeatedly without any investigation or support?

How would you know my model lacks anything when you have not the faintest clue what my model has?

[Makaveli]

I do not know why you say they did not exist in the past, what evidence makes you say this, as I know for a certainty they did exist as I have read in detail about them.

What makes you deny the anarchic models repeatedly without any investigation or support?

How would you know my model lacks anything when you have not the faintest clue what my model has?

Because there is not a single evidence that these ever existed let alone worked as a standalone socio-economic models. If you have read about them, present your findings, I will gladly read them in case they were written earlier than the 20th century.

[Abdun Nur]

This is what we are doing?

[Makaveli]

This is what we are doing?

We are talking, but I have yet to read about whatever you have to present. I suggest you present your theory in a clear manner rather than post ambiguous threads which invite people to dialogue but do not reveal any concepts.

Obviously any sane and developed individual is against hierarchy. Is someone does support it he is not developed enough. But few sane developed individuals won't change the world.

[Abdun Nur]

Look, I am running out of patience, you want something that you have no capacity to absorb, you have to read the material which is extensive, I am trying to explain it but you are not being constructive you are in fact being argumentative?

This is not conducive to learning it is hostile. 

[Makaveli]

Look, I am running out of patience, you want something that you have no capacity to absorb, you have to read the material which is extensive, I am trying to explain it but you are not being constructive you are in fact being argumentative?

This is not conducive to learning it is hostile.

I am not being constructive? At what point? I only see you talk utopian ideas, I am merely trying to get detailed response, which you are not providing for days, yet you keep mentioning your miraculous models. Logically I conclude they do not exist and the point of this is merely a discussion.

Saying I cannot absorb something is dull, how can you measure one's capacity to absorb information? It is true that I won't read utopian ideas or conspiracy theories too extensively, because they are pointless, but surely I can check whatever you propose.

As for now I only had to use leading questions so far, none of which you did answer, except for saying that I don't understand anarchy or we do not need monopolies etc.