Wednesday, May 27, 2009

the lie

coming soon to a city near you, mike gaddy.
The state has one powerful tool at its disposal to control the masses: fear. A minority can control and enslave a majority only as long as the majority fears the minority. The state will do whatever it takes to maintain that control. The state lied about the circumstances of the attack on Pearl Harbor; they lied about the Gulf of Tonkin incident; they lied about the Oklahoma City bombing; they lied about TWA 800; they lied about Ruby Ridge; they lied about Waco and they lied about 9/11. The very essence of government is fear and the lie.

another one for conservatives who see a difference between waco and a world war.

Monday, May 18, 2009


the war against life, wizards of ozymandias, butler shaffer.
We must understand all of politics – no matter in what nation it is practiced – as a system that wars against the very nature of life. Politics cannot be eliminated by force – for to do so would only imply an even mightier amassing of power than what is in place. Neither can it be reformed, the effort to do so being as absurd as trying to practice a peaceful form of warfare, or a humane system of tyranny. It can only be transcended, a process that can only begin by each of us ending the divisions and fears that our political masters have carefully conditioned us to accept. When we discover peace and order within ourselves, we shall then withdraw our energies from the sanctified hostilities and confusion that are destroying life.


the libertarian curse, jonah goldberg.
The point, I guess, is that to be involved in public life in any way means compromising with what reality will allow. And reality, whether you are a socialist or a libertarian, almost never gives you total victory. We are on a giant ship and you pull the steering wheel in as far as you can in your preferred direction when and where you can. But you can never, ever, get sole control of the wheel, at least not for very long.

whatever you think you had on hayek, you've just disproved by talking about it. and it shows. the conservative is he who unleashes upon society eve's apple: military socialism. it has always been this way. abandon it or lose to the marxists. hey, it's not me that isn't giving you any other choice, it's just reality.

go ahead. ignore it.

"giant ship" -- fascist metaphor of the day. there is no "we."

society, the free market and free minds, is not a political entity. it has no steering wheel. to "control the wheel" is to pretend to wield an illusory power, which is synonymous with both the destruction of liberty and the backwardation of society. ridiculous.

the metaphysical and the man-made, billy beck.
This fight is not about "reality" as Goldberg brings the connotation. This is about thinking, and what he wrote will not do.

score. it is typical of collectivism to claim the mantle of "reality" -- i have run into it many times. haven't figured out what it is just yet, but it is there. i have a sneaking suspicion that they're not all that wrong, really, just unable to correctly name it. like the sin of the flesh, don't you know. the kingdom of man, and the worship thereof. "existence exists." all that crap. weren't there christian gnostics who used to subscribe to this stuff?

They can be as completely insane as they want to be in their private affairs, but they should all choke on their own tongues before they trot this rubbish out in public.

what public, friend? gotcha.

Saturday, May 16, 2009

"anarchism says"

i thought i would share here a comment i left for WRSA and its readers on an article suggested by one of the other readers: anarchism and american traditions by voltairine de cleyre.

Anarchism says, Make no laws whatever concerning speech, and speech will be free; so soon as you make a declaration on paper that speech shall be free, you will have a hundred lawyers proving that “freedom does not mean abuse, nor liberty license”; and they will define and define freedom out of existence.

sure, "anarchism," to the extent you can turn the voluntary process of life into an -ism, would probably be the "prescription for no prescriptions," essentially refuting itself. but it is not a prescription of how to live, aware of anarchy, and to engage in a voluntary society. the words to describe these actions (praxeology hopes to be the study of actions) have come after they are done; explaining it entails a descriptive nature, which means you need only set an example, and not talk about it so much (i am only so good at this).

yet one needs no paper, as stated in the quote, to demonstrate that rules will fail, because they are either incomplete or inconsistent: the quote itself manages to do it all on its own, and i have just explained how.

but anarchy is not impossible. in fact it's the exact opposite.

anarchy is at all levels inescapable, for no matter where you begin, no prescription can get you to it, much less some sort of utopia. it simply is reality itself. we are responsible and self-governing, even when we pretend otherwise, and we will answer to god on judgement day for all our support of coercion, force, murder, on behalf of the state or behalf of a common gang.

they're no different.

many of us are waiting to wake up to this anarchist nature of reality for the first time, but those of us who have even once must in fact fight to stay awake. realizing it makes it even harder. we'd rather go back to sleep and just please ourselves than get to work and serve humanity.

but there's no "anarchism" map (prescription) for how to reach the promised territory (because there isn't one; it's not utopian).

and the plain fact is that we're already there.

statists often avail to the argument that libertarianism (not even anarchy) can never work in the "real world." this is how i am sure that they are a mere tool of the devil: a complete and utter corruption of the word "real," if ever there was one.

but, at any moment, anyone can just... wake up.

thus ends the commentary, and begins the afterthought. mind you that i find the word "anarchism" itself to be anathema to the concept of voluntary, stateless society.

in the end, i think, those who reject the concept of god will eventually align themselves with the state, even when there is no visible government, because the "anarcho-communists" seem to be keen on stating that involuntary associations are forbidden. set aside for a moment that this is obviously a definition of a state of reality which they are liable to use force to return to, if perturbed.

without the concept of god, there is no symbolic, moral equivalent of the free market, having a nature of inescapable judgement. the free market is the crux, or the god, or the way, or the tao, of mass biosurvival of humankind.

so, too, must there be an inescapable moral absolute, and like the tao, it cannot be written down, it cannot be told. the evidence for this is right before us: the ten commandments have fared no better than the constitution. yet the economic order, the social order, the moral order: each of these are simultaneously true and ineffable. what man has written down has corrupted the [holy] spirit of their execution.

we have found a strange foot-print on the shores of the unknown. we have devised profound theories, one after another, to account for its origin. at last, we have succeeded in reconstructing the creature that made the foot-print. and, lo! it is our own.

-- arthur stanley eddington

Friday, May 8, 2009

an anarchist's zen

an anarchist's declaration, -- a website i am partial to (surprise). note the wise avoidance of the plural form.

a further endorsement from wilton alston, a thinker i am also partial to.

first let me say that i find these agreeable sentiments, and, for the most part, also live by them, making us praxeologically compatible citizens to each other (despite any government or belief of a government in a society, including self-government, our relationships would in theory be fully anarchist).

how do you fellows handle the problem of children?

is there no power relationship between parent and child at any point in time? or is it a permanent power relationship? or can it be moved in and out of, through time? if it does exist, can it be justified by the resistance clause? is emancipation of the child the ultimate purpose of all family interaction? and so on.

what plagues me is not this problem in and of itself: what plagues me is that it arises phenomenally from putting this sentiment into words.

nothing further.