Monday, 7 March 2016

Non Serviam – Anarchism as a Dialectical Subversion Tool

Lets Break Some Windows!!
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 furore 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 vegan-ism!), 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.


  1. 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 the 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 higher-abstracted conceptual model or complex map of a certain territory of intellectual inquiry, the elegant solutions found to the many riddles encountered during these sometimes centuries-long inquiries and searches a re-searches.

    Is is a model to base certain possible courses of action on for domesticating wild urges and instincts to the benefit of the largest number of practitioners who model themselves after "the model," involved, for groups and the individuals who comprise any and all groups to seek and achieve a relatively-longer-lasting but always-subject-to-change-and-revision win-win point of synergy (wholes greater than the sum of individual parts, a scientifically proven phenomenon of nature) and balance. For better or worse, it is simply a model, just like Democracy, Republicanism, Libertarianism, Statism, Fascism, Communism, feminism, freedom or slavery.

    Anarchism is basically uncompromised LIbertarianism.

    Anarchism 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 initiated 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 the likely minimum of parasitic and exploitative and therefore harmful and debt-&-death-bringing interactions among human beings. Hence why we seek free-doom or being free from doom and despair. A human being who can "freeze": the correct model in his brain also "frees" that brain for navigation of lands others have not been able to map with that particular blueprint yet. To be "free" is to have mapped an area of reality in sufficient detail to be able to "freely," and without the smacks-in-the-head and kicks-in-the-ass of previously-struggling ages, navigate it. Once the first plane can fly as free-as-a-bird, the ten-thousand previous failures are written out of the new and far-more-correctly detailed map of how-to-build-&-fly-a-plane.

    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 to the core of why people even have "values" in the first place.

    ~ Negentropic MK I

  2. (continued . . . )

    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, high-risen and with a long and strong shelf life.

    What is a human being? Can this type 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, some inner-god or inner-G to give you energy?

    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, but can always be improved in detail and accuracy?

    What is pleasure? Why should pleasure be a value? At what point does pain become a value? At what point does too much pleasure become a vice? Who draws the line where a vice clearly becomes a "vice"? Can this line ever be the same for all individuals? Do you like being called a pervert by a prude or vice versa? What values have determined the concepts and labels you use to judge each other as "a prude" or "a pervert"? What bees-nest is it of anybody's hive 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 demands that if you don't live your life by HIS VICES and through his own degree of humility, 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 this 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 hue-mans 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 "ex-perts" 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 the discipline of agriculture might be a value if not for their most important weapon of survival, their brain?

    ~ Negentropic MK II

  3. (continued . . .)

    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 develop and acquire new "tastes" worth having and improving their standards of living, what they measure and standardize and stretch the "rite" way with RULES and leaders rather than RULERS, to be "standards" worth having?

    How do you measure "standard of living"? In relation to what and based on what values?

    Why are values valued? What valor do they provide you, the individual, to have become val-you-able. Why do you take a shower on a regular basis if you do not value not having clean pores that can breathe and 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 controlled by a tiny cadre of media owners and manipulators?

    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"? Does Thor have a hooked nose and rub his shekels into shackles every chance he gets? lol

    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 collection of allegorical fairy tales, some metaphorical map for navigating very limited areas of the psyche assumed to be "the final word," 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"?

    ~ Negentropic MK III

  4. (continued . . .)

    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 are up in the leaves, you will have your lie and therefore your "life," which requires the time-span leading to debt or death to conceive of itself as a concept.

    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 pleasurable "living" (win-win dialectics) and lesser-&-lesser degrees of "eviling," (win-lose dialectics and anti-live actions), 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. But not if they cannot be focused "freely" by the possessor of vision.

    In the human being, the "real eye" is not just your 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 by and 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 narratives).

    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, tempered forever without compromise, but never be fully black or fully white, never be "all" or "nothing," never 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 further refinement, revision, even full 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

    ~ Negentropic MK IV

  5. Correction as addition: use your eyes or "I's." Without your eyes and the ability to see, you do not have your "I" or your ego and sense of self.

    ~ Negentropic MK V

    1. "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 ?"

      ~ Negentropic MK VI

    2. “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

      ~ Negentropic MK VII

    3. “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)

      ~ Negentropic MK VIII


Intelligent comments welcome.Trolling will be SpamBoxed.