Non Serviam – Anarchism as a Dialectical Subversion Tool

Lucifer, post-banishment.

Lucifer, post-banishment.

By: Jay Dyer

The appeal of anarchism is understandable, especially in our day of what seems to be spectacular corruption on the part of members of the establishment.  In the online-fueled furor of Ron Paul’s libertarian surge in 2008, those left hanging in the wake of Campaign for Liberty’s ability to change nothing were looking for more.  And, after the failure of the libertarian surge to obtain anything from Rand Paul, the Daily Paul types clicked and googled around to find names like Larken Rose or Adam Kokesh (and now Ken O’Keefe – and his veganism!), arguing the necessity of political logic dictated the “small state” position was not enough.

In fact, the problem was precisely the state itself – something to be obliterated to bring about the long sought freedom of the individual.  Seeing the absurdity of the left/right dialectic in American so-called politics, this line of reasoning has a semblance of wisdom about it, yet, in my view, still operates under the guise of a number of absurd presuppositions and flaws that leave anarcho-libertarian fellow travelers well-prepared for the next stage of carnival troupe honey pot duping to coming along.  Since the online trend of “anarchism” seems to be on the rise, and since many ask if I am an anarchist, I want to offer my analysis.  As we shall see (and as Chris Kendall of Hoax Buster’s has perceptively noted, these movements appear to be intended to steer followers in a certain direction – yes, even anarchism).

Anarchism cannot be separated from its historical milieu, which, depending on how far back one wants to go, can extend back to the origins of revolutionary movements in general (in the West), to the Franciscan spiritualist movement of Joachim of Fiore, whose bizarre metaphysical historicization of the Trinity predicted a coming “Age of the Holy Spirit,” characterized by an age of revival, piety and communal poverty, ushering in some version or preliminary stage of the eschaton.  From there, medieval gnostic movements (which I have analyzed here) carried on the revolutionary fervor, up to the Munzter Rebellion in Germany), into the radical vision of the Jacobins in France.  However, what all these movements shared in common was their communal, collectivist aspects.  The supposed revelation of the individual’s atomistic liberty was something yet to be seen (so the mythology goes).

Concurrent with these religious, political and social movements, was a tremendous revolution in the realm of thought – the Renaissance, Reformation, Enlightenment and Scientific Revolution, all of which were reflected in the revolutionary political and social zeitgeist.  The Declaration of Human-

Erroneous Latin Trinitarian image portraying the divine essence as the unifying "God," subordinating Persons to the generic modanic principle. This philosophy has been the source of western dialectical tensions.

Erroneous Latin Trinitarian image portraying the divine essence as the unifying “God,” subordinating Persons to the generic modanic principle. This philosophy has been the source of western dialectical tensions.   See  God, History, and Dialectic by: Dr. Joseph P. Farrell

Rights (a Masonic document) of the French Revolutionaries purported to offer a list of “natural rights” accorded to the individual, and from Rousseau’s notion of the “moral centrality of freedom” arose modern anarchism.  Simultaneous with these developments were also their dialectical opposite – radical collectivism, such as is found in Hobbes’ Leviathan or Hegel’s Elements of the Philosophy of the Right (where the state is the march of God on earth).  As I wrote previously on this matter – equally applicable here:

“Even the Hermetica and the Egyptian accounts from the Memphite narrative, for example, include the idea that creation was spoken into existence by virtue of a divine Logos, yet ultimately, even in the Egyptian narrative, the overall principle, the ultimate Absolute, is not personal,

but an immaterial force.  Thus, at the outset, we are presented with only two possible options for this question – is the Absolute ultimately (supra)rational and personal, or is the Absolute ultimately an impersonal, chaotic force?  There are only two possibilities here, and once we consider this basic philosophical question, we can extrapolate Darwinism as clearly a manifestation of the second.   Though most Darwinian adherents would be at pains to insist there is no ultimate guiding principle, the worldview still tends towards the notion of Forces of Nature determining.  This determination, however, is ultimately irrational and impersonal, aside from the appearance of order, telos and design. (Note that I am not making a classical teleological argument, but a transcendental version of a teleological argument.)

But there are many, many more problems for positing ultimate reality or the Absolute as an impersonal force.  If ultimate reality is impersonal and chaotic, then all localized events, phenomena and objects are also devoid of any ultimate meaning.  Language, mathematics, logic, etc., are thus also annihilated as merely mental fictions, or at best some cosmic force we do not yet understand (yet still impersonal!).  These servants of chaos and abyss are like a cartoon character, sawing off the limb he’s sitting on, to spite his opponent.  If ultimate reality is impersonal, then the thread that links all facts, ideas, objects, patterns, etc., is not real. It is a fiction of man’s chaotic, impersonal mental chemical reactions.  There is no order or pattern actually out there in external reality, and the so-called regularity of nature upon which science is built, induction, is merely a mental projection or interpretation.”

And, as I’ve argued at length many times, these are manifestations of the central problem of western philosophy – dialectical tension.  For the revolutionaries and anarchists, the salvation and redemption of man’s temporal welfare must come through the radical independence of the many, thus the much hyped “voluntarism” principle of not impeding or infringing the “liberty” of another.  Defined in political philosophy as negative liberty, the position offers no positive statements or understanding of what man is, what liberty is, or what these metaphysical claims imply (since it is based in the anti-metaphysics of the period), resolving itself to bare slogans and naïve atheism, generally.

British East India Company Flag.

British East India Company Flag.

Of course, as I’ve pointed out many times, the notion of “freedom” presupposes a lot of metaphysics that must be justified, given the generally atheistic and materialist stance of most “anarchists.”  Seeking the solutions for  man’s ills in external and environmental factors, it is precisely the inner man anarchism misses, given that slavery is not merely an external phenomenon.  Denying all notions of external authority, anarchism, like Gnosticism, socialism, communism, fascism, etc., the man’s problems are all relegated to some externally imposed order, be it the demiurge, king, slave owner or corporate kleptocrat.  Yet, having rejected all forms of authority (and generally God as the true authority), it follows that man’s ills can only be solved externally.  Since man is a temporal, higher animal of sorts, the best that can be afforded him is the most pleasurable physical state.  Here anarchism is intimately tied to the Laissez Faire “free market” scheme of Ricardo and Smith.  (Ironically, these Scottish “Enlightenment” philosophers so hailed by fans of the revolutions are precisely the causes of the ideology behind our globo-corporate-superstate that dominates in our day.)

For “freedom” to be sensible, “man” as a concept has to have meaning and there must be some ground for believing in his “dignity” and “rights.”  Who or what grants these “rights”? Nature?  But nature demonstrates predators and prey, often with the weaker prey becoming the means by which the “fitter” members of the animal kingdom survive.  Is that “natural” for human relations?  On what basis does an anarchist (since 99% of them are atheistic, agnostic or materialists) derive these “rights”?   Given that there is no God, why should any other being be bound by your anarchic voluntarism principle?  At this point, the debate always devolves into the utilitarian “happiness principle,” by which we are magically supposed to a priori divine this universal maxim to somehow be so.  Yet, what if the maximum quality pleasure I receive by enslaving another far exceeds the quantity of pleasure accrued by those who are not enslaved?   On what basis does utilitarian ethics (long debunked as philosophic nonsense) determine between these two options – quality or quantity of “pleasure”?  One need only look to the laughable attempts of the British utilitarians like Bentham to concoct a hedonic calculation to measure it!



In a Spenglerian sense, it is also ironic that these philosophies have already come and gone, much like Dawkins’ bad arguments against theism are rehashes of 17th century empiricist responses to equally bad “classical” apologetical arguments from Thomism, these philosophies have already come, exited the historical stage and morphed into their more logical consequences (in the case of revolutionary philosophies, they have mutated into post-modernism, deconstructionism, nihilism, etc.).  The naivety of these persons is evident in just this fact, given that political philosophies, like ancient civilizations and states, come and go, and will never come again.  One can no more raise the actual Roman Empire in its imperial prowess than resurrect any 17th century philosophy that has already died.  The reason this cannot be done is because the logic or spirit of such movements have already had their growth, in their day, into their logical consequences.  Ideologies, like worldviews of individuals, work themselves out to become more and more consistent with their foundational presuppositions.

Played like a fiddle.

Played like a fiddle.

In the case of anarchism, the non serviam principle has thus worked itself out in the world historical as a purely negative principle, in its most extreme sense.  Offering no positive philosophy or statement of anthropology or the human psyche and nous (and as the presuppositional ground of those, God Himself), human ethics and aesthetics (beyond empty phrases like “liberty”), anarchism is an empty philosophy.  Not only is it vacuous, it is also historically a weaponized philosophy, along with its revolutionary cousins, engineered for the weakening of some rival state by some a foreign power.  Lest anyone doubt that, note that anarchism in our day is now being tied to the intensely zealous fanaticism of veganism. Indeed, this example proves my point about what philosophy calls “epistemological self-consciousness,” that the principles of “liberty” and “voluntarism” are trying to work themselves out into being more consistent: If we should not violently impede the liberty and well-being of our fellow-man, we should not impede the liberty of our Darwinian ancestors, the dear animals.  Toefler, in his globalist texts concerning the coming third wave era of technocracy, even states the necessity of vegan propagandism for the success of the new world order.

Might there be an anarchist who believes that they don’t have to be consistent with their beliefs or that nothing else is implied in their maxim of “No state”? Sure. My point is rather a reductio argument that there is no reason beyond personal whim or ad hoc claim as to why we should not consider the family or any other grouping to also be a tyranny (especially when 99% of the time anarchism is based on the same atomism or materialism of a Hobbes or a Bakunin).  The point is dielectical – both Enlightenment offspring – collectivism or anarchism are just placing the one and the many in tension.  Ironically, the classical theorists of both collectivism and anarchism all discuss their metaphysic!  For an insight into the irony of the anti-metaphysical position’s obsession with metaphysics, consider the following:

“Bakunin’s philosophy, one that combines the logic of negative dialectics with an ontology of evolutionary naturalism. Like Murray Bookchin, the philosophy that Bakunin expressed in embryonic form can perhaps best be described as dialectical naturalism. This philosophy is not a crude form of mechanistic materialism; something that is completely lost on his theological detractors in “Freedom”.”

Illustrating the usage of these ideologies by bigger power blocs, students of The Great Game such as myself are well aware of the case of Joseph Conrad’s hints about MI6 and the use of anarchism in his famous novel, The Secret Agent.  Michelle Steinberg comments:

Conrad’s story, though a work of fiction, is rooted in a real incident, the bungled bombing of the Royal Observatory in Greenwich Park, London in 1894, according to Martin Seymour-Smith, who wrote an Introduction in 1984 to one Penguin edition of The Secret Agent. According to Seymour-Smith, the facts behind the real incident, known as the “Greenwich Bomb Outrage,” were these:

Revelation of the method.

Revelation of the method.

“A young man called Martial Bourdin was found in Greenwich Park, on a hill near the Royal Observatory `in a kneeling posture, terribly mutilated’ on the evening of 15 February 1894. There had been an explosion; Bourdin had set it off, and in so doing had killed himself. He had blown off one of his hands, and his guts were spilling from his body; he died in hospital very soon afterwards. . . . Bourdin had a brother-in-law called H.B. Samuels, who edited an anarchist paper. Samuels was in fact, like Verloc [the main character in Conrad’s book], a police agent and, again like Verloc, he accompanied his not very intelligent dupe to the park. Bourdin . . . in some way set off the explosive he was carrying, which was supplied by Samuels, acting as agent provocateur. . . . Anarchists were not responsible for the Greenwich Bomb incident; they were as frightened about it as they are in The Secret Agent.

Anarchism, and all members of the revolutionary philosophy family, are grounded on the notion of the metaphysical primacy of the many, over the one.  Whereas most statist philosophies like Plato’s Republic, for example, sees the mass as the body of a vast man embodied in the figure of the head as king, emperor or philosopher-ruler, so in dialectical opposition the anarchist principle sees some magical metaphysical primacy in the many.  Ironically, even number theory itself shows there is no qualitative primacy given to “one” over “many,” as 1 possesses just as much “numberness” as 2, 3, 4, etc.  In Orthodox Trinitarian philosophy, the one and the many have always been viewed as balanced, based on the equality of Persons in the Godhead.  Thus, in the Church, the bishop is as much a bishop as any other, with no super-God-bishop (the papacy) to trump the rest.  The point is this – good philosophy is based on good theology, where there is a balance of the principle of the one and the many.  This is reflected in both religious and political life. Anarchism, with no divine authority in revelation or the supernatural, can only offer competing human opinions, leading to never-ending fracturing and disintegration.

The Double-headed Eagle is an ancient Orthodox Christian Symbol, not a Masonic one. The two heads symbolize Church and State in unison, symphonia.

The Double-headed Eagle is an ancient Orthodox Christian Symbol of Byzantium and Russia, not a Masonic one. The two heads symbolize Church and State in unison, symphonia.

Likewise, in Orthodox Imperial praxis embodied in the symphonia, the State worked in harmonia with the Church, each in their proper sphere.  In this philosophy, the Emperor was divinely appointed and a real authority, fulfilling the Old Testament prophecies in Isaiah that kings and rulers would convert to serve the Messiah.  The Messianic Age does not, you’ll note, result in anarchism.   Anarchism is based on the presupposition of non serviam, and in praxis, non serviam results in the wiping out of all metaphysical categories and groupings, including tribe, family, race and gender.  Are these metaphysical impositions not also “tyrannies” of the demiurge that must be transcended, since they limit “freedom”?   Indeed, for the outworking of revolutionary philosophies, including anarchism, one need only look at the political ad social discourse of our day, where the need to become post-human (transhumanism) is manifestly the logical outcome of anarchism and her revolutionary cousins.  Naïve dupes, the online libertarian pacifist anarcho-Cheeto puff keyboard slappers’ desire for non serviam is ironic, given they are likely being played by think tanks and intelligence agents.


79 Comments on Non Serviam – Anarchism as a Dialectical Subversion Tool

  1. “Here anarchism is intimately tied to the Laissez Faire “free market” scheme of Ricardo and Smith. (Ironically, these Scottish “Enlightenment” philosophers so hailed by fans of the revolutions are precisely the causes of the ideology behind our globo-corporate-superstate that dominates in our day.)”

    Magic !!!

  2. The sad fact about total anarchism is that it isn’t actually possible for a living person to be a total anarchist. Non serviam, like the term “atheism,” means nothing without a specific object. You can say, “I will not serve the State,” but you can’t say, “I will not serve anything.” Maybe you serve the proletariat, corporate interests, your addictions, or even yourself. Point is, if you live, you serve. You always serve something. The only way to serve nothing is to die.

    Total anarchism thus serves as something of an opiate: it prevents the would-be anarchist from realizing what it is that he does in fact serve. Continuing with the schema from Plato’s Republic, maybe we can say that the City always has its Philosopher-King; sometimes, however, he likes to keep himself hidden.

    • Another version of Utopianism is all it is

      • Phillip Collins // March 7, 2016 at 3:57 am //

        And, another form of Gnosticism. Following Gnosticism’s deeply flawed moral epistemology, the anarchist projects evil outside of the will and on to an external entity, the namely the State. Thus, corruption is concretized and assigned an ontological status it did not initially possess. True evil does not exist in a substantial form, but as a tendency of the will. This is why the anarchist, like the socialist revolutionary, leads morally deficient crusades. Instead of addressing evil’s point of origin, specifically the intangible will, they externalize it and project it onto the tangible world. Evil is either the State or private property or some other external entity. We see this Gnostic moral epistemology at work in the degenerate minds of modern social justice warriors, who carry out an endless array of seek and destroy campaigns (e.g., the war on guns, the war on drugs, the war on poverty, etc.). These campaigns also fail because they ignore man’s will, which is afflicted with a proclivity towards darkness.

        Don’t know if you agree, but that’s my two cents.

  3. Picking on internet libertarian/anarchist celebrities is something I’m all for, but it seems your understanding of anarchism is mainly drawn from then, which is a shame because you are misrepresenting an idea that offers the most peace in the world. I would stick with the scholarly writing and critique that, as it’s easy to rip Adam Kokesh. Also, nothing in anarchist philosophy belittles serving, so long as it’s not forced…you are an anarchist most of the time throughout your life…are you holding a gun (or vice versa) for services, exchange of goods or community? Pick up a book and stop your ignorance, it’s not helping.

    • Yeah, I’m ignorant lol No knowledge of anything, and I never read

    • How many books are referenced in this post? Does this post only deal with Kokesh? Laughable dude

      • Sorry, your essay just seems highly ignorant of any meaningful discussion on the various philosophical, moral, ethical and practical reasoning for anarchism. Yes, you reference “books”, but books by any reputable anarchist? Also, are you implying that one needs to be a theist in order to have any moral codes? If so, that is laughable “dude”. Religion & statism have murdered and enslaved more people more than any seeking agnostics. Theology is primarily based on religious texts, which is highly primitive, please evolve. Lastly, maybe read Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism, Anarchy and the Law: The Political Economy of Choice & Markets Not Capitalism: Individualist Anarchism Against Bosses, Inequality, Corporate Power. Granted, you still might be a statist after reading these books, but your philosophical arguments for doing so will be much stronger than stretching for esoteric, occult & theological bullet points. At the end of the day, it’s the statist that has to admit that humans need religion & the State for force, coercion and violence, as that is the only way the statist can imagine humanity cooperating, which like theology, is caveman like.

  4. Anarchism like revolution is the opiate of the intellectuals or the over schooled pseudo educated know it all’s. Cultist masquerading as thinkers and searchers of wisdom and knowledge image worshipers-image breakers two sides of the same coin mirror images of each other giving power to idols what ever the do to them.

  5. Happy journey // March 7, 2016 at 1:50 am // Reply

    I wish this was a audio file so i could listen to this as a podcast.

  6. If you want to tear down an idea, you first have to understand it properly. Your “yawn” comment only hurts you, I hope you dig deeper that state & church bullshit.

  7. Anarchism is vital as a transitory state. I think that’s what Jay means. You can’t dismiss it completely, but it’s foolish to see it as an end-game strategy.

    • Transition to what?

      • Anarchy ceases to exists the moment it becomes a state. Anarchy is not a state of being. Whatever comes next must not be replicated or worse than the state before or it should be destroyed.

        Thus, an anarchist is simply someone moving from one state of being to another. Once you are in a state of being… You are no longer an anarchist of any sort. And that’s fine. That doesn’t negate the need for anarchy.

        Anarchy is exactly what you picture it. Nothing more. Anything beyond your immediate imagination of anarchy is a state of controlled being.

        I think that is what Jat is saying. But I’ve been wrong before.

  8. Kudos! yes, surveying the systemic corruption and brutality of the modern state, I understand why so many are attracted to anarchy but ideas don’t exist in a vacuum. When applied to real human conditions, they react and often explode. “Liberty, equality and fraternity resulted in the Great Terror and Napoleon. The destruction of the French monarchy led to moral excesses which resulted in widespread bloodshed and other debaucheries. Consider the horrors unleashed in the West by the Sexual Revolution – a social movement (engineered by the Foundations, Think Tanks, intelligence agencies) claiming the mantel of liberty. Has increased sexual license brought about more freedom and happiness to the world? As Aldous Huxley observed in his preface to Brave New World “as political and economic freedom diminishes, sexual freedom tends compensatingly to increase.” Thus liberty is used to impose tyranny.

    • Liberty my ass…read an Edward Bernay’s book. A lot of the shit you are mouthing off on has been socially engineered and forced upon by governments.

      • Phillip Collins // March 7, 2016 at 4:33 am //

        You speak of governments as though they are agents that possess wills of their own. Governments are impersonal forces whose trajectories are determined by the wills of men. Anarchism is no more desirable than an omnipotent State because it results in a Nietzschean struggle of autonomous wills. Unless you address evil’s point of origin, namely man’s will, you will always wage morally deficient crusades.

      • Everyone here has read those texts, you arrogant ass. @kborge

  9. If church and state are “bullshit,” then so is anarchism. Why should anyone choose the maximal freedom of the many over the one? The whole point of my article was to illustrate that in such a materialist scheme there is no reason to choose anything at all, beyond subjective whims. Thus, your attempt to prove or convert anyone to anarchy represents yet another contradictory imposition of your will to power over others, even if only ideologically. lol

    • Maximal freedom within the church and the State…ya…I can’t really have an intelligent conversation with you after that Jay. I’ve never heard or been accused by a statist that I want to “convert” or force anarchism on anyone…if I argue for force, then I would be a government. You do understand the anatomy of the State right Jay? Also, reverting to name calling shows your lack of depth in the matter.

    • Negentropic // March 9, 2016 at 7:29 am // Reply

      There are plenty of people for whom the hard discipline of “freedom” or the win-win dialectic is not a value, but their ability to force their will on others when they can, force the win-lose of the predator or the might-is-right of jungle so that they don’t have to compete on an even field and can relax and take-it-easy, IS a value.

      Anarchism is a theory, a model, just like Democracy, Libertarianism, Statism, Fascism or Communism. Anarchism is basically uncompromised LIbertarianism. It is no “rulers,” NOT no leaders or no “rules.” Anarchism is more-or-less just the full application of this principle, laid down by a man who never declared himself “an anarchist”:

      “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’, because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.” “No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him.” — Thomas Jefferson to Francis Gilmer, 1816

      The tyrant’s will becoming “law” equals “Statism” or a state of being ruled by INITIATED (not defensive and moral) force. There is a reason why force sounds like farce and farce sounds like force since in order to have total FARCE, you would need the maximum of FORCE or jungle-bred chimp-out.

      Nobody is arguing for “utopia” here, only for which model will provide MAXIMUM win-win dialectic and minimum win-lose or parasitical interactions among human beings. Any and all groups of human beings are comprised of individuals (unable to be divided any further) unequal in all things but their basic humanity (that which separates them from animals).

      In order to properly investigate the subject of political models and the values or codified systems of values called more-all-ity they are always based on, you have to ask a lot more questions that go way beyond dictionary definitions. You can’t follow the university philosophy department “limited hangout” narratives called “definitions” and just leave it at that. A lot of times, de-fine-itions are not even nearly fine enough or strong and inclusive of enough mapped essences to qualify as “first principles” or foundational premises for a properly built argument with a long shelf life.

      What is a human being? Can this class of living thing be classified in a special category?

      What but the human brain can even ask the above and the following questions? What but the human brain can even develop the symbols and metaphorical concepts and higher abstractions to ask these things called “quest-ions”? Surely you’re not just “questing for fire” anymore but some “fire” on the inside?

      Is it enough to simply have a human brain to be able to think properly and therefore increase the value of the primary hue-man weapon of survival itself from century to century? Or does the brain have to be developed in a certain way and obey certain modes of navigation related to conceptual maps drawn before that can never fully be the territory they represent?

      What is pleasure? Why should pleasure be a value? At what point does too much pleasure become a vice? Who draws the line where a vice clearly becomes a “vice”? Is the line the same for all individuals? Do you like being called a pervert by a prude or vice versa? What bees-nest is it of anybody’s what vices you have IF they don’t directly affect that person? Who the hell is he to judge you and your kind and your own particular level of “vice” as “vicious” and hurting cultural progress (however you define that) regardless of “voluntary” consent of parties to the actions or not, while he himself holds up some “book” that he claims was mapped by a “supernatural” know-it-all entity and demand that if you don’t live your life by HIS VICES and through his own degree of vice, then you’re a witch who should be burned at the stake or an adulterer or lesbian in sharia Islam who should be stoned to death, etc.

      What is the goal of human existence? What are the capacities of the human being? Should these be satisfied and IF YES, why and in what way?

      Why not in just any way that MIGHT or power dictates, just like an animal? Can the human animals with his ability to make such fine distinctions between different courses of action ever dispense with the law-of-the-jungle at the bottom of it all? Does the fact that he cannot ever fully dispense with might-is-right or will-to-power invalidate Nietzschean philosophy? Was Nietzsche even saying what he has been interpreted by so many self-proclaimed “geniuses” to have been saying?

      Why is “delayed gratification” a far more important value to human beings than to the instinct of animals who only wait in ambush for prey? Would they be even capable of conceiving of why “delayed gratification” such as agriculture might be a value if not for their most important weapon of survival, their brain? Why go through this far more circuitous route of “delayed gratification” and “planning” that provides FAR BETTER satisfaction and to far larger numbers of humans than any animals can ever provide for their herds?

      Why guide these “delayed gratifications” through a developed scale of values?

      Do all human beings want to simply go on living or do they want to go on living “well” and improving their standards of living? How do you measure “standard of living”? In relation to what and based on what values?

      Why are values valued? Why do you take a shower on a regular basis if you do not value not having too much body odor? Why would the same person who would never value a win-lose parasite in a criminal organization such as the Jew Mafia which runs the Italian “Godfather” mafia and the so-called “Russian” mafia, for starters, turn around and at the same time VALUE a politician or bureaucrat who proposes wins for this or that group of “majorities” at the expense and loss of any and all individuals who dis-agree and dissent. Since when should entire societies be run by the principle of not even the extended “Father Knows Best” of Fascism but “the largest mob or rabble knows best” of demon-ocracy?

      What is the reason to be “civilized” or to practice the win-win dialectic at all? Why trade with people in a division of labor economy, rather than bash them over the head and just take whatever their energy has produced? Why produce symbols energy in ticket form called “money”? Why does K-Mart and Target redeem your prizes when you show up with these silly-ass tickets? lol Which au-thor-ity, which mighty “Thor” slammed his hammer down and said: “You all shall accept this here Fiat Tickets or I shall crack your skulls with this here hammer”?

      Why have peace? Why not have piss or be perpetually pissed instead?

      Why not have war of all against all like animals in the jungle?

      Why is peace even a value if freedom of association and co-operation isn’t and why should some higher authority, some metaphorical map for navigating very limited areas of the psyche, devised by a bunch of old and pretentious dudes no better equipped than you or your buddies, serve as the guiding foundation of your journey through “life”? Why is lie part of the word lie-fe? What branches and what leafs do you have to be swimming in, away from all t-root, in order to have be-leaf? Be-leaf in leaf is lie-fe. As long as you stay away from root t-root and up in the leaves, you will have your lie and therefore your “life.”

      Where does “evil” (live backwards) originate?

      Can animals be “evil” when they have little or no “free will” and operate on instinct?

      Can humans be anything but “moral” animals when their brain allows them to form concepts from perceptions and to metaphorically expand this symbology into higher and higher abstractions such as entire codes of “ritual” or “rite” ways of doing things, which result in more degrees of “living” (win-win dialectics) and lesser-&-lesser degrees of “eviling,” (win-lose dialectics), or a code “more-all-ity”?

      When does a culture become see-will-eye-zed? When you can see, when you can will and when you can use your eyes.

      Real eyes realize real lies. In the human being, the “real eye” is not just you focused visual sense but the combination of the metaphorical maps of all the senses focused and integrated and tempered (not compromised) together which help your brain “see” far further than any isolated sense in itself (C is the first letter of concept, this is not a co-incidence and neither is the world C-Lever or another way of saying “conceptual leverage” an accidental construction: the clever person is the one who uses concepts with leverage to lift entire mountains of oppressive and fall-se narrative).

      The real problem is black-&-white, all-or-nothing or either/or thinking rather than thinking in degrees of more-or-less and shades of grey-scale which can be refined and fine-tuned forever but never be fully black or full white, never be “all” or “nothing” and ever be fully “either/or.” Any “rule” or higher-abstracted conceptual understanding and navigation-route of the landscape of a certain set of phenomena that does not include future possibilities of its own refinement, revision, breaking and replacement by an even more detailed metaphorical “map” of the territory it covers, is dogma that will sooner-rather-than-later be out-run by karma.

      Everybody’s “parents” don’t suck but almost everybody’s parental “guidance” manuals and sources of parental authority, including extended authorities of extorters called “government,” have to be revised and re-tested and re-affirmed with each new generation for there to be cultivated the joys of what can be labeled in the widest and healthiest sense, synergy (wholes greater than the sum of the parts) through a tempered-but-never-compromised balance between the spirit and matter, between the individual and his tribe, and therefore the joys of advanced romance rather than the sorrows of the damn-nuisance of a no-finance romance (no symbols of energy, not symbols of treachery and the ability to bamboozle others). lol

      “I have shown in my chief work (Volume II, chapter 47) that the STATE is essentially no more than an institution for the protection of the whole against attacks from without and the protection of its individual members from attacks by one another. It follows that the necessity for the state ultimately depends on the acknowledged INJUSTICE of the human race: without this no one would ever have thought of the state, since no one would have needed to fear any encroachment on his rights, and a mere union against the attacks of wild animals or the elements would bear only a very slight similarity to a state. From this point of view it is easy to see the ignorance and triviality of those philosophasters who, in pompous phrases, represent the state as the supreme goal and greatest achievement of mankind and thereby achieve an apotheosis of philistinism.” ~ Arthur Schopenhauer

      “The idiosyncrasy of an individual is not to be understood as any strangeness in his substance or in his components, but rather as a unique combination, or gradual differentiation, of functions and faculties which in themselves are universal. ” ~ Carl Jung (from The Relations Between the Ego and the Unconscious, p182)

      “With more foreboding than real knowledge most people feel afraid of the manacing power that lies fettered in each of us, only waiting for the magic word to release it from the spell. The magic word, which always ends in ‘ism,’ works most successfully with those who have the least access to their instinctual roots into the truly chaotic world of collective consciousness.” ~ Carl Jung (from On the nature of psyche, p96).

      “The nation has not disappeared. We used to believe that the concept was totally without substance. Instead we see the nation arise as a palpitating reality before us! … Class cannot destroy the nation. Class reveals itself as a collection of interests—but the nation is a history of sentiments, traditions, language, culture, and race. Class can become an integral part of the nation, but the one cannot eclipse the other. The class struggle is a vain formula, without effect and consequence wherever one finds a people that has not integrated itself into its proper linguistic and racial confines—where the national problem has not been definitely resolved. In such circumstances the class movement finds itself impaired by an inauspicious historic climate.” — Benito Mussolini

      “To be governed is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be governed is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished.

      It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest (that we are) drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored.

      That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality.” ~ Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809-1865), quoted from “What is Government ?”

      “All that is important is that each group or individual should construct the plane of immanence on which they lead their life and carry on their business. Without these conditions you obviously do lack something, but you lack precisely the conditions that make a desire possible. Organizations of forms – formations of subjects – incapacitate desire: they subject it to law and introduce lack into it. If you tie someone up and say to him, ‘express yourself, friend,’ the most that he will be able to say is that he doesn’t want to be tied up. The only spontaneity in desire is doubtless of that kind: to not want to be oppressed, exploited, enslaved, or subjugated. But no desire has ever been created with non-wishes.” ~ Gilles Deleuze – Dialogues II: 96.

      “It is not often possible to say of those acts that are called vices, that they really are vices, except in degree. That is, it is difficult to say of any actions, or courses of action, that are called vices, that they really would have been vices, if they had stopped short of a certain point. The question of virtue or vice, therefore, in all such cases, is a question of quantity and degree, and not of the intrinsic character of any single act, by itself. This fact adds to the difficulty, not to say the impossibility, of any one’s — except each individual for himself — drawing any accurate line, or anything like any accurate line, between virtue and vice — that is, of telling where virtue ends, and vice begins. And this is another reason why this whole question of virtue and vice should be left for each person to settle for himself.” —
      Lysander Spooner, “Vices Are Not Crimes, A Vindication Of Moral Liberty”

      “To know what actions are virtuous, and what vicious — in other words, to know what actions tend, on the whole, to happiness, and what to unhappiness — in the case of each and every man, in each and all the conditions in which they may severally be placed, is the profoundest and most complex study to which the greatest human mind ever has been, or ever can be, directed. It is, nevertheless, the constant study to which each and every man — the humblest in intellect as well as the greatest — is necessarily driven by the desires and necessities of his own existence. It is also the study in which each and every person, from his cradle to his grave, must necessarily form his own conclusions; because no one else knows or feels, or can know or feel, as he knows and feels, the desires and necessities, the hopes, and fears, and impulses of his own nature, or the pressure of his own circumstances.” ~ Lysander Spooner, “Vices Are Not Crimes, A Vindication Of Moral Liberty”

      “Thus, to comprise all my meaning in a single proposition, the dissimilarities and inequalities of men gave rise to the notion of honor; that notion is weakened in proportion as these differences are obliterated, and with them it would disappear.” ~ Alexis de Tocqueville – from Democracy in America – Chapter XVIII:
      “Of Honor in the United States and in Democratic Communities”

      “People talk a lot nowadays about the dignity of work and about the need for it. But it’s a fraud. There is dignity in work only when it is work freely accepted. Only idleness has a moral value because it can serve as a criterion by which to judge men. It is fatal only to the second rate. That is its lesson and its greatness. Work, on the other hand, crushes everyone down to the same level. It provides no basis for judging men. It brings into action a metaphysics of humiliation. Under the form of slavery which the society of right-thinking people now give it, the best men cannot survive its effects… “ — Albert Camus, Journals

      “It is a notorious fact that the morality of society as a whole is in inverse ratio to its size; for the greater the aggregation of individuals, the more the individual factors are blotted out, and with them morality, which rests entirely on the moral sense of the individual and the freedom necessary for this. Hence, every man is, in a certain sense, unconsciously a worse man when he is in society than when acting alone; for he is carried by society and to that extent relieved of his individual responsibility. . . . Any large company composed of wholly admirable persons has the morality and intelligence of an unwieldy, stupid, and violent animal. The bigger the organization, the more unavoidable is its immorality and blind stupidity. Society, by automatically stressing all the collective qualities in its individual representatives, puts a premium on mediocrity, on everything that settles down to vegetate in an easy, irresponsible way. Individuality will inevitable be driven to the wall. This process begins in school, continues at the university, and rules all departments in which the State has a hand. In a small social body, the individuality of its members is better safeguarded; and the greater is their relative freedom and the possibility of conscious responsibility. Without freedom there can be no morality.” ~ Carl Jung (from The Relations Between the Ego and the Unconscious, p.169)

      “The new media are not bridges between man and nature; they are nature.” — Marshall McLuhan (1969)

      “I have listened with great interest to discussions regarding decentralization and centralization and I have thought that the question of whether it is valid to decentralize or centralize is unanswerable because it deals with [i]one[/i] one-way sign in two-way traffic. It is a static question in a dynamic universe.

      Man was invented a mobile device and process. He has survived through his ability to advance or retreat as his mortal requirements have dictated. Of his two primary faculties, quickness is of great importance but intellect is first.

      He recognizes that vital quickness may be momentary reflex but that satisfactory continuities are proportional to his degree of comprehension of the consequence of his initiative. Degree of comprehension he measures in the terms of the complex integration of all individuals’ all-time experience, as processed by intellectual integrity. His quickness would be a spontaneous servant to that integrity.

      Despite intermittent submissiveness to runaway momentums of residual ignorance, man guards most dearly and secretly his freedom of thought and initiative. Therefrom emanates the social-industrial relay, from self starter to group starters.

      Out of this freedom alone understanding may be generated. Man recognizes understanding as an activated circuit of mutual comprehension by individual minds. Understanding must be plural. However, because individual experience is unique, understanding can be developed only in principle out of the compounding significance of plurality of experience. Thus, man knows that the voluntary interactions of understanding dealing in fundamental principles will always master involuntary mass actions, and that individual freedom ever anticipates and ultimately masters mutual emergency.”

      ~ from “Ideas and Integrities” by Richard Buckminster Fuller (1963)

      [audio src="" /]

      • Interestingly, Buckminster worked at Esalen, the CIA-globalist think tank cult.

      • @Negentropic

        I have a theory about those that posit anarchy as a system: you’re simply scared shitless of actual anarchy, in just about every way, so you, and your minions, morph its meaning into the definition of an objective with definitions and limitations, then spend the rest of your miserable subservient lives talking about that as though it’s some kind of worthy goal.

        When truly, you’re just a malcontent without balls.

        But at least you read a lot of books. 😉

  10. Vegetarian fearmongering From

    In Plato’s Republic the great Greek philosopher Socrates recommended a vegetarian diet because it would allow a country to make the most intelligent use of its agricultural resources. He warned that if people began eating animals, there would be need for more pasturing land. “And the country which was enough to support the original inhabitants will be too small now, and not enough?” He asked Glaucon, who replied that this was indeed true. “An so we shall go to war, Glaucon, shall we not?” To which Glaucon replied, “Most certainly.”

    It is interesting to note that meat-eating played a role in many of the wars during the age of European colonial expansion. The spice trade with India and other countries of the East was an object of great contention. Europeans subsisted on a diet of meat preserved with salt. In order to disguise and vary the monotonous and unpleasant taste of their food, they eagerly purchased vast quantities of spices. So huge were the fortunes to be made in the spice trade that governments and merchants did not hesitate to use arms to secure sources.

    In the present era there is still the possibility of mass conflict based on food. Back in August 1974, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) published a report warning that in the near future their may not be enough food for the world’s population “unless the affluent nations make a quick and drastic cut in their consumption of grain-fed animals.”

    Saving Money with a Vegetarian Diet

    But now let’s turn from the world geopolitical situation, and get right down to our own pocketbooks. Although not widely known, grains, beans, and milk products are an excellent source of high-quality protein.

    Pound for pound many vegetarian foods are better sources of this essential nutrient than meat. A 100-gram portion of meat contains only 20 grams of protein.(Another fact to consider: meat is more than 50% water by weight.) In comparison, a 100-gram portion of cheese or lentils yields 25 grams of protein, while 100 grams of soybeans yields 34 grams of protein. But although meat provides less protein, it costs much more. A spot check of supermarkets in Los Angeles in August 1983 showed sirloin steak costing $3.89 a pound, while staple ingredients for delicious vegetarian meals averaged less than 50 cents a pound. An eight-ounce container of cottage cheese costing 59 cents provides 60% of the minimum daily requirement of protein. Becoming a vegetarian could potentially save an individual shopper at least several hundred dollars each year, thousands of dollars over the course of a lifetime. The savings to America’s consumers as a whole would amount to billions of dollars annually. Considering all this, it’s hard to see how anyone could afford not to become a vegetarian.

  11. In his 1975 bestseller, The Eco-Spasm Report, futurist Alvin Toffler, author of Future Shock and The Third Wave, suggested a positive hope for the world’s food crisis. He anticipated “the sudden rise of a religious movement in the West that restricts the eating of beef and thereby saves billions of tons of grain and provides a nourishing diet for the world as a whole.”

  12. Appeals to “atomistic liberty” began with the Enlightenment and were actualized in the American War for Independence and the French Revolution. Since the end of the 18th century virtually every political or social movement have appealed to some form of liberty to gain adherents (or useful idiots). I detect here the black hand of Freemasonry. Agree?

  13. james grey // March 7, 2016 at 1:07 pm // Reply

    the buddhist system of inquiry is reductionist anarchism because it views materialism as a prison. The purpose of buddhist insight is to unbind from the external world and a massive reorganisation of personal evergy to create ‘ease’. The lucifarians want to escape materialism in order to master it from the outside. The buddhists just want to escape because being a god is unsatisfying. The buddhists (and the rosicrutians) believe an old soul has already experienced everything ad nausium including being a god which is ultimately unsatisfying – so time to look for something independent of materialism. Obviously a lot of people ‘get wrekt’ when they try unhooking from materialism

  14. Lastly, explain Jay how you find it morally acceptable for certain individuals to have privileges that you and I don’t…to murder and steal on a grand scale? I always enjoy listening to the statist response because it is here where the statist collapses and contradicts the moral code they have been indoctrinated with either the State or the church. So, answer the question without calling me a name.

    • To understand this you have to understand a completely different worldview with different Presuppositions. The name calling began with your dumb jabs about picking up a book.

    • Joe Nobody // March 7, 2016 at 5:25 pm // Reply

      The idea that Jay finds wrongdoing “morally acceptable” is a strawman. I’m only an occasional reader of this site, but I have never seen him take that position.

      Your appeal for civility is ironic considering you started your comments on this thread with “Pick up a book and stop your ignorance, it’s not helping.” and got worse. Maybe you should take your own advice and study communication skills or perhaps even examine a fraction of the material written here so you could have a rational discussion with people that you may disagree with.

      • I apologized for the comment and I only stated that because it appears through the “analysis” that no deep research has been done on the matter he is trying to tear to shreds. Also, other than that comment, I have made counter-arguments and the responses I get are “yawn”. So, I’ll throw the same question to you since Jay didn’t want to answer…how do you morally justify mass murder and stealing on a grand scale…it’s a legitimate question if you are proposing statism.

      • Because “justifying” something depends on ones worldview and obviously in the case of infractions of the law, it’s not “murder.” Killing is not always murder and law is divine in origin. The question really is, as an anti-theist of whatever flavor you are, on what basis is anything “wrong.” You have no basis for objective ethics.

  15. wendlinger // March 7, 2016 at 3:26 pm // Reply

    Thanks for the post Jay – much appreciated. I am very much influenced by Mark Passio, an anarchist who is NOT an atheist. In his viewpoint you can do what you want, except: murder/assault, rape, theft, tresspass & coersion.

    Hear Mark:

    You brought something to light, I was struggling with in this line of thinking – namely why should anyone engage in the “Do no harm to anyone else (except for reasons of self defense)-principle?” In fact without a firm ethical grounding – this could very well end in a dog eat dog scenario.

    I guess what I am trying to say is as stupid as: “if everyone would be nice, everything would be nice.” but how do we get there?

    Or in other words: can you imagine a kind of anarchism, that includes and is based on a metaphysical grounding?

    • I am very familiar with Mark and his works. I do not think a “natural rights” system works without some Theism that is grounded in Personalism. “Nature” is quite vicious considered in itself (without divine telos) and a lot pf predators prey on prey.

  16. Brother Jay, may our living and loving God give you patience, love and courage to face the blind and deaf.

  17. Sorry Jay I’m not familiar with your site, as I noticed you replied that there will be no debate. I saw this article posted on a website I normally check and I thought I would check your site out as well. I will respect your page, as it’s your rules. Normally I can converse with people about the subject, but when one says no debate, then I know there is no point in a discussion, which is unfortunate.

  18. Hello, I’m a first time visitor here and appreciate the discussion thus far. As there appears to be some “academic positioning” going on, I’ll take a decidedly non-academic approach with this observation.

    There seem to be (at least) two camps here, one more supportive of an authoritarian state than the other. An obviously gross oversimplification there for the sake of brevity as I see this story line played out again and again with different flavors and brands on the geopolitical stage of our time.

    In a time where globalism has shifted our collectivist tendencies more and more toward increasingly centralized holdings of power and wealth, I sort of view it like this by offering and asking the following: Like what you see? Do nothing. Don’t like the view? Then change it.

    No one can say that a voluntary society doesn’t work as no one alive has ever seen one, lived in one or read historically accurate accounts of one, at least one of any scale. Also, to even attempt to categorize libertarians and anarchists as this or that makes about as much sense as trade-marking air. I do understand however that to the bee, nothing outside of the social structure of the hive makes any sense……. nor does it have any purpose other than to serve the hive.

    Thank you and Good Day to all!

    • james grey // March 7, 2016 at 11:00 pm // Reply

      a voluntary society would degenerate into a corrupt hierarchy with voluntaryists engaging in Machiavellian activities like deflection of accountability, play-acting, casting shame and blame, and ‘throwing people under the bus’. The voluntary anti-capitalist market anarchists would also presumably not want educational voluntaryism because how else would they teach habits of obedience and indoctrination.

      • wendlinger // March 8, 2016 at 6:32 pm //

        I think it would be possible, I just don´t know exactly how. I just know that there would be more than enough for all of us – theoretically.

        I think it is profoundly sad when you compare the genius of man as an engineer and the stupidity of how we interact with each other (and I know you know this).

        I think it could change if we wanted and I think it should, or we as a species are doomed to repeat the same mistakes over and over again.

        It is a matter of our way of thinking; it is a matter of consciousness. Just because we don´t know how, it doesn´t mean it is not possible.

        If even good people don´t believe in this anymore, we are really doomed…

  19. Also, flaunt your education all you want Jay, but your understanding of anarchism is elementary. However, you probably would make for a great politician one day, given that your fine with force upon peaceful dissenters. Masters in what? You never answered my question though, what did you read…is it that hard? For example, I have an Masters as well, but in a completely different field than political philosophy. So if I said, ya I read a lot during my Masters…literally means nothing.

  20. I think you are afraid to answer hard questions. Hopefully you will come around and join the side of peace and prosperity and leave the camp of murder, enslavement and indoctrination. Peace man.

  21. But still… Not all anarchists/libertarians are atheists. One of them even emphasizes these points:

    Then the devil, taking Him up on a high mountain, showed Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. And the devil said to Him, “All this authority I will give You, and their glory; for this has been delivered to me, and I give it to whomever I wish.Therefore, if You will worship before me, all will be Yours.” And Jesus answered and said to him, “Get behind Me, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the LORD your God, and Him only you shall serve.’”

    And then he says:

    So it is with the state – and confirmation of this is to be found even more explicitly in 1 Samuel, Chapter 8. When after 450 years, God’s people of Israel did seek a government, it was specifically identified as turning away from God and toward another false god:

    “But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, ‘Give us a king to judge us.’ So Samuel prayed to the LORD. And the LORD said to Samuel, ‘Heed the voice of the people… for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me that I should not reign over them… they have forsaken Me and served other gods…’”

    The whole thing is here:

    Also not all of them are utilitarians and do not embrace the maximization of happiness principle, which by the way is to be found most often with lefty atheists (Sam Harris). Rothbard rejected utilitarianism, for instance. Consider please the following, as a sample of different reasoning, left by one of Rothbard’s disciples, a guy who believes in hierarchies and tradition (he was criticized for it, even by some fellow libertarians of the atheist variety):

    • Yeah, but what is the authoritative anarchist position? lol

      • james grey // March 8, 2016 at 10:23 pm //

        anti-statist voluntaryist anarchism is destroyed by political realism especially Machiavellian offensive realism which assumes people will seek to maximize their power and influence to achieve security through domination. Not all people are offensive realists but enough are to totally corrupt any voluntaryist society. If you look at existential anarchism this is different. The supreme value is psychological ‘freedom from rule’ meaning freedom from your own ‘repetition compulsions’ and from the irrational unconscious shadow aspects of the personality such as pathological naivete. As an example in Buddhism ontology this freedom is called ‘unbinding’ or nibbana. Buddhism is both theistic and non-theistic you have gods but no ruler demiurge. Being born as a god is actually bad karma because gods are subject to death and that gets psychologically very ugly. The individual who has managed to ‘unbind’ is not ruled by death or time. They are their own master, psychologically free and true existential anarchists lol

      • I linked to an article whose author is a God believing anarchist. To him and those of the old he writes about, the ultimate authority was God. The God of the Old Testament and the God of Christianity. He contends that in the beginning the people of God were ruled by judges, more akin to the “natural elites” some libertarians talk about, people whose authority is not forced upon the masses, but sought and welcome by them in a voluntary fashion. The whole chapter 8 in Samuel 1 shows it, when Samuel’s sons, his successors, were actually rejected by the people because of their wickedness. Then they ask Samuel to give them a king instead, like the other people around them had. God did not like this and saw in it a rejection of His authority.

        Then you have Jesus’ second temptation in the desert in which the father of lies brags about being the master of all political power. Thus, that happy marriage between church and state which became a reality and a tradition later (for those of Judeo-Christian extraction) is not at all obvious and normal. Before Constantine the Great, the state hunted down and killed Christians.

        You write: “Yet, having rejected all forms of authority (and generally God as the true authority), it follows that man’s ills can only be solved externally.”

        You see that some anarchists do not reject God’s authority, so your assertion is false. Your sentence above does not even apply to atheist anarchists. Because they may reject God’s authority, but some of them believe in the authority of private property for instance. That’s why I linked to the second article, which presents an anti-state argumentation based on private property concepts while advocating neither wealth nor happiness maximization. Now, how successful is this argumentation is itself a matter of debate.

      • You’re not getting the point of critiquing presuppositions and analyzing worldviews as a whole

  22. james grey // March 9, 2016 at 12:34 pm // Reply

    there are anarchists who accept God’s authority and some of them believe in the authority of private property. Yes… but many people claim identity with a political philosophy yet do not believe or adhere to its primary principles and teachings. This is called Machieavellianism. Saying you love a philosophy to show off what a virtuous person you are (virtue signalling) or as social cover. Picking and choosing the stuff you want and discarding the rest. These are cognitive strategies used to justify unethical behavior. This is mostly unconscious because people ‘just want to get on in life’ so they are only partly morally responsible maybe… So you have anarchists who believe in the authority of private property? It sounds like conservatives who watched too many episodes of Sons of Anarchy

  23. Todd Lewis // March 9, 2016 at 6:39 pm // Reply

    Jay what particular passages in Isaiah were you referring to at the end of your essay?

  24. Hi Jay,

    Interesting article which leads me to a few questions:

    1. Do you believe that support of government should be mandatory or voluntary? If the former, how do you propose enforcing support? 2. Do you have a source for the 99% figure you mention re anarchists being atheists? 3. Do you believe the timeline of the Roman empire as presented by mainstream education and media is true?

    Curious in San Diego, Vince

    ************************************************************************ “The form of government that is most suitable to the artist is no government at all. … One might point out how the Renaissance was great, because it sought to solve no social problem, and busied itself not about such things, but suffered the individual to develop freely, beautifully, and naturally, and so had great and individual artists, and great, individual men. One might point out how Louis XIV, by creating the modern state, destroyed the individualism of the artist …”

  25. Mike Bishop // March 29, 2016 at 11:46 pm // Reply

    Anarchism is an excellent vector for instituting another control system.

    It is a philosophical honey pot for roping in witless idealogues and other malcontents. Anyone seriously pushing it as a system of, I suppose, “non-governance” is either a mouth-breathing booger eater or a cunning manipulator.

    Methinks the “anarchy” thing is anything but a “grassroots” movement…

    • “Anarchism is an excellent tool for instituting…”

      When will anyone get rid of the “ISM”? Of course anarchism is retarded. Anarchy is not. Nor can it be defined by “ISTS” and “ISMS.”

      The lot of you are hung up on the systems and authority. Playground arguments.

      Love is real. That’s the first and most important natural and rightful authority. If I say it as “Love of life” it might be clearer. Love as a solo word is a little too abstract. This leads, very naturally, to a rightful and genuine reverence through love from and between parents and children (which explains the family outside of our artificial constructs). I wouldn’t call this authority, as I think that’s a weird Western word.

      But there’s rightful authority between men. He who displays wisdom and understanding, care and consideration of others assumes a rightful authority and reverence amongst men, regardless of love between them. Some men might not feel brotherly love for a guy, but recognise and revere his wisdom and authority, regardless.

      Making systems and tribes smaller is the answer I think the people who call themselves “anarchists” are really looking for?

      • Mike Bishop // April 5, 2016 at 11:22 am //

        In a vacuum, sure. The wise, and righteous would rule.

        But, here in reality, he who is the most corrupt wins.

        Anarchism is the stepping stone between the new-feudal casino-gulag, and full-blown feudalism.

        “Anarchy,” in some twisted, reactionary sense, is becoming the “answer” to statist, top-down control. As a system of governance, it is nothing more than an easy way to dice up disparate groups in to bite-sized morsels, for easy consumption by a larger entity.

        Divide et Impera now comes in fun-sized snack packs for the machine to scarf down.

        Anarchy is an ideological dead end at best; or as I stated earlier, an extremely efficient vector for an even more authoritarian regime.

  26. @ Mike Bishop,

    You are still still sticking yourself in the same box. You, indeed, nearly all people, cannot simply conceive Anarchy as simply a transitory state. Everything you state presupposes that as an end goal. Throw that in the trash. Throw anyone who thinks of anarchy as anything other than a brief transitory state from here to there in the trash.

    Our problem is (humans, as simply stated as possible) our ability to plan. And this is the greatest difference we have with all other life. It is both our strength and our weakness, creates both obligation and opportunities for restedness. Abused, it becomes dangerous to all life. Used well, it protects all life.

    And that’s the ultimate difference between good and evil, I believe. One is for life, the other is against it. And, as a great irony, or deliberate eventuality, evil is live backwards.

    The Jubilee idea of Deuteronomy is the ultimate planning. It says (basically) that humans will plan, scheme and negotiate themselves into plights and so, because we know this, we must have a reset mechanism to bring all mechanisms, systems and constructs to nothingness, every 50 years, and divide up whatever there is with everyone, and start over.

    In our times, without faith and knowledge of the Bible (as is the predominant norm), we can call this reset mechanism anarchy. Obviously anarchy is not going to be nearly as elegant because there’s no acknowledgement built into the idea of division of what IS. And there’s overtones of destruction in the descent into and out of anarchy. Please remember I don’t have any thoughts on anarchy being a permanent state. Those thoughts are trash, as Jay mentioned above. To my thinking it’s the vehicle that takes us from here to there, WHEREVER both of those destinations are.

    The problem lies in those too afraid to explore where THERE might be.

    After a brief period of anarchy we are reset, and new systems, plans and schemes will come to be. So long as we know we must reset again, we can enjoy or fight those systems, plans and schemes in the knowledge it will all reset. Unfortunately we’ve been living without the process of a reset, revolution or anarchic destruction for a very long time, so things have gotten completely out of hand on the planning and control side of the equation.

    The biggest means of control (in this current scheme) is property.

    That, is what I think the last Hoaxbusters call illuminated so clearly.

  27. Is it possible to arbitrarily give value to fellow man while one is under a non-theist philosophy? The Spanish Civil War had description of anarchist society where people provided mutual aid to each other. Such a revolution and non-hierarchical organization could only come through a high-trust, not low-trust dog-eat-dog, political climate which was created through affinity between fighting against other political factions constantly within a turbulent century.

    Was Anarchism a subversive tool for foreign influences wanting to conquer a society? For the Spaniards it was a tool by syndicates, for workers and by workers. No external influences, only in-fighting among different political factions. By itself Anarchism provides us only an abstract ideal or potential state of society. Concrete implementations of this abstract include Anarcho-Syndicalism, Communitarianism/Cooperatives, and Libertarian Municipalism. One method is platformism: a platformist can use the ballot box to evolve our societies using these concepts. No subversion required.

    Another note, why are you biasing the works of Anarcho-Capitalists/U.S. libertarians over Anarcho-Syndicalists which defines the term fully?

    I don’t understand why you are promoting arbitrary theism into the picture. You mandate people’s philosophy to have an arbitrary starting point, namely from theism, where all values and morals can be derived. But you can reduce a materialistic society to have arbitrary pro-social common values that morality can be derived from. Both societies have the arbitrary: that of imaginary people or of blind trust/preconceived goodness. With two choices that lead to a similar level of morality of men, I’d choose the empiricist society (bonus: no imaginary people or fables).

  28. You are great at deconstructing all of these ideologies whether they be libertarian, atheist, anarchist, etc. I’m trying to understand, are you saying ideologies are morally flawed overall or that there is a “correct” ideology? If the latter, what would that “correct” idea be?

    • I argue for orthodox theology and a Byzantine worldview.

      • That’s what I’m not understanding. Is there compelling evidence that the Byzantine empire was not subject to the same corruption and hypocrisy we have in the current secular empire? If this worldview in the hands of an autocrat could not fight the tide of greed and materialism then, why would it now?

      • The history of the Church is littered with vile emperors who sought to destroy the Faith, but also with Saintly ones. Look at Russia

      • Right, exactly. If a person’s (or leader’s) actions can be objectively considered moral or otherwise, does it matter their internal justification for that moral action? (i.e. whether the decision is voluntary or compelled by a belief in the metaphysical)

        The belief that a state can take moral actions, only if guided by the correct force, does seem like a huge exercise in faith to me. Very thought-provoking though, keep up the interesting articles!

      • Look at the Code of Justinian versus our “law code.” A few pages versus millions. A lot of good all that “freedom” has done.

      • “Voluntaryism” and the NAP are easily dismantled. I’ll try to find the old boiler room where i debate it

      • Not trying to argue for voluntarism, but I also don’t see evidence for a connection between correct moral choices and belief in a particular dogma.

        Of course a simpler law code would be more effective, but that seems like a separate topic entirely from belief in a specific dogma of metaphysics. Must the two necessarily be intertwined?

        A Buddhist, Hindu, or American Indian has a different belief system than an Orthodox Christian. But if the fruit of their belief produces the same “right action” (e.g. helping their community), they are no more or less “morally correct” than the Orthodox Christian who performs the same action.

      • I cover some of this in my transcendental argument talks and posts and my a-historical positions and tradition article

2 Trackbacks / Pingbacks

  1. The Oscars’ False Flag FocusHigh Quality News Blog | High Quality News Blog
  2. Spot the platonism canard | Doctissimus @ Port Urla

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: