Another excellent piece. Too Many are too afraid to contemplate a change. But if They don't want to be grist for the psychopaths' mill, They had better, I would say. Thank You!!!
It's always amazing, and a little disheartening, when a person sees the merits in your arguments but falls back on the "We just need to clean house in Washington and get back to the founding principles." I like to remind those people that the US federal government started out with no revenue whatsoever for at least two terms and had to extend its hand to the states for money - yet within just 200+ years it grew to a global debt and coercion machine with military bases in 150+ countries, ubiquitous surveillance, near total public narrative control, et al. Why do that again??
And there are so many new technologies that enable individual's to have direct control of their own lives and property - why look for a 250 year old twist on a 2,000 year old system??
Some great statements. Much of what I have stated and tried to convey for years. Thank you for the leaving of cognitive dissonance behind and viewing this world in reality. Keep up the good work.
Essh, I thought I went into detail about how the system was not meant for us, but dang Chris, nailed it outta park! Looks like I got a bunch of new people to follow.
I definitely learned something. I thought America was the land to escape British rule, but sounds like it was part of a bigger scheme?
But ultimately, I love the callout of the archons. That is ultimately the true enemy here. These parasitic archons are here on earth manifesting as rulers and governments that we don’t need. (Here’s a link to the excerpt from my book: https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/enjoying-your-enslavement)
But how do we stop this system? First step is awareness which is what you and I are doing. Stop voting - that just reinforces the belief in the system. Once we stop believing in it, then we can begin to examine — like you said, look for that third option.
I’ve written a plethora about voting and would love your input whenever. Either or, we appear on the same wavelength. Looking forward to supporting your work and changing the system we find ourselves in today 🙏🏾
Yep there's a lot of truth in what you're say'n. Some folks cheated some got cheated back then as is true today. Some were slaves then, a lot are today be don't know it. Maybe Indians got the short end of the stick, not that they hadn't been giving the short end of the stick to other Indians all along.
None the less they did defeat the Brits, they did free the slaves they did treat with the Indians and even sometime honored the treaties. No matter how you cut it things were far better for most of us in in 1961 and 1976 than those folks had it it 1776 and 1861. Much of such due to what they did then
Maybe we can't get the grand old Republic back, or on the other hand, no matter how unlikely maybe we can. I do see such as far more probable than establishment of Anarcho-capitalism but I will be delighted if proven wrong.
No matter what, Republic, Anarcho-capitalism, Queen Que Mala, ..., I think BlackRock, et al, will prevail. Again, I will be delighted if proven wrong.
What do you suggest? My stance has always been until we fully recognize and apply the Natural Law we will have what we have. The Declaration has always been treated contemporarily as a lowly step-child, even by the nonsense courts, who can't define anything worth anything. Please post if you have suggestions. Thank you. Just found you, btw.
This is part of a book, installments of which I am writing and releasing (almost) daily. As to what I suggest—I am just about to get to that part. Even that will be laid out in installments, but you will start getting answers by the end of this week. Sorry I cannot give it to you all at once, but it is a big case that has to be made in order. But a decent enough summary is coming soon. You can also glean a lot by reading back through the rest of the book.
What if we "went back to" (I see that eye roll) The Articles Of Confederation? Do you think that might be de-centralized enough on a national level. Each state obliteration it's individual govt? Or, anarchist that you are, I imagine you will probably frown upon that as well
Well, I am an anarchist, but I am no fool. I would certainly prefer the AoC if given a choice between that and what we have now.
Ultimately, though, the AoC suffers from the same underlying problem (it is fundamentally morally impermissible to impose authority without consent). And it too would also eventually grow and get continually worse, just as all the other forms have.
I hope and pray you will, in future articles, lay out how the anarchist position can be implemented particularly in national infrastructure as well as common defense and how to deal with crime. Some rules will need to be implemented. But you don't need to do all that here. I will just keep reading your articles
I wonder what you mean by "national infrastructure", are you talking roads/bridges/airports/etc, or something else?
The anarchist position is implemented simply by following Natural Law with the twin pillars of the Non-Aggression Principle and the Self Defense Principle.
Crime is dealt with by each and every one of us. Every capable adult is responsible for providing for their own safety and security, and for their dependents, whether they do it themselves or they voluntarily contract with a provider of that service, no different than food, clothing, shelter, or education. Look how many business people hire security services instead of depending on cops, and many people hire security services for their homes as well.
Roads, bridges, municipal water, sewage, trash, airports, electrical grid. Whatever else you can think of when ever anyone is talking about infrastructure.
First I want to state that I am not a preacher and don't want to be lumped in with some of those most criminal people that ever walked the face of the earth, But a couple of men that seemed to be quite wise made statements in the distant past that seem to still ring true today. One said,
"All this have I seen, and applied my heart unto every work that is done under the sun: there is a time wherein one man ruleth over another to his own hurt." Ecclesiastes 8:9
and He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle[c] and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.” 1 Samuel 8 11-18
—Why is this. As an ancap, I am hoping it is because God was saying, in essence, “You should have known better than to ask to be ruled.” But is that the explanation consistent with common interpretations of scripture?
People that have been brainwashed in churches for years to follow governments and to vote for evil when the same book states "hate what is evil". And to "make sure of all things and hold fast to what is fine". The statements from the Bible seem plenty straight forward, that it was warning from God , that if you acquire a king for yourselves, you will reap these results and God has always allowed men to act on their stupidity and see if the results aren't what he warned about in the first place.
Also, I have to keep in mind that the "common interpretation of the scriptures" has been how churches and their preachers have convince millions of young men and women to enter an early grave thinking that joining in on man's corrupt wars were blessed by God, which is something I find NO backing for in any scripture.
Brilliant work 🤝 I admire the “deep breath” and doing it all over again! It will take many more! I fully agree and so will others. My dad taught us young!
I've been fortunate to inherit my dad's critical thinking skills, which help me analyse situations and make informed decisions, I also inherited my mum’s empathetic nature, so I wonder how anyone who still believes in the system can be “saved”. If the world goes the globalist route, the “believers” will surely be blindsided and trapped before they know it. I DESPISE the current system, but for others sake, I hope it survives long enough to ensure globalist abhorrents give up! Whatever happens, I still want out, just feel saddened for some
All we can do, methinks, is to keep spreading the word to the best of our ability, recognize that not everyone is ever going to get it, and take appropriate action for ourselves and our loved ones as circumstances indicate.
I think you’re right! I work in an “industry” where empowering is top priority, we can only suggest, inform and encourage, the rest is in the hands of the individual (no matter how frustrating or heartbreaking)
That we need a strong constitution to thwart the ever present threat of government tyranny tells you all you need to know about government. If you desire to be free, it is a tenuous option. Make all the rules you want, the power hungry control freaks will always find a way around them. Witness the current state of affairs of the US and the world. All governments have basically been a disaster.
Well said. I do not for one moment believe that market anarchism will produce ‘utopia.’ But I do believe that it is the best solution to mitigate these issues.
Thanks for your education as an Australian descendant of convicts ( read people trying to feed their children in an unjust England whereas all the commons were taken by the Aristocracy to fence off as theirs thus shutting down sustenance farming and hunting, animal husbandry etc for those not obeying the Lords ) who made the right choices and got transported to Australia )
Yeah, the Enclosures seemed beyond unjustified. I believe in strong property titles, but if there are large tracts of unowned lands that human beings are using in common, others mustn’t just say “This is mine now” and arrogate it. Naturally, the state supported the “claim” of the powerful and the wealthy.
Granted, I do not know much at all about the Enclosures, but from what I do know, it sounds like a crime and a violation of the Lockean Proviso.
it's true that currency control and competition suppression existed in some form before 1910, that oversimplifies America's early financial history and overlooks big distinctions. From the nation's founding through the early 20th century, the U.S. largely operated under a decentralized banking system, with periods of competing state and private banknotes circulating, especially during the Free Banking Era (1837-1863). The federal government did intervene at times, such as through the National Banking Acts, but these measures still allowed significant regional and local autonomy in banking practices. The Jekyll Island reference overstates what happened there, they only recent years have gotten close to what they wanted at that meeting. And the Federal Reserve Act did centralized power in some ways but the Fed itself didn't start getting centralized until 1935 and the USA retained huge features of its decentralization in Banking and Finance, such as its interstate capital flow inhibitors and its state level usury laws, among other things, until they were mostly done away with between the latter 1970s and mid 1980s, in fact those things meant that we were still quite decentralized in Banking/Finance for almost the first 200 years of the country's existence.
Also, during the 1930s we remained a semi-populist, semi-politically decentralized, and semi-economically decentralized republic; FDR and his technocrats were overturned with so many veto proof majorities, some of which, including about big stuff, were to interject into the exec branch and change the technocrats behavior against their wills, that there were more veto proof majorities against the will pf the president in that decade than there were for many other combined.
We didn't really start centralizing until after the war, overall slowly at first, but we'd gone a long way in some key areas by the latter 1960s, and then we took huge leap between the latter 1970s and mid 1980s
Voting. No, it doesn't determine who runs the government. It doesn't make government of the people, by the people, for the people. Those wielding power behind the scenes reserve their right (by might) to veto the choices of voters.
But voting does serve a purpose that has effect within the system with the might to hold power. Voting is a poll of the people. Not legally binding, as most of us once believed. But a poll, nonetheless.
The might with power to impose their will through the current structure is influenced by that poll. They may choose to ease up, relent, make accommodations to meet a restive and angry populace with a open hand. Or they may choose to close their hand into a fist, clenching weapons they use to beat a restive and angry populace into submission. Both options are available to tyrants. Who gauge their tyranny by polls known as elections.
Today's tyrants seem to be choosing the clenched fist option. We will find out what voters are willing to do to meet that fist as it is swung in our general direction after the next "poll" tells them the restive and angry populace isn't getting with the program.
I feel you on all of that. But the problem runs even deeper…
Even if we take away the tyrants… even if voting were real… it would still involve some people imposing their will, and their way of life, on others. A majority gathers enough political strength to force the minority to do something it did not want to do.
Even in its purest, uncorrupted, idealized conception, voting produces nonconsensual results imposed on individual humans by force. That is evil.
Another excellent piece. Too Many are too afraid to contemplate a change. But if They don't want to be grist for the psychopaths' mill, They had better, I would say. Thank You!!!
🏆
It's always amazing, and a little disheartening, when a person sees the merits in your arguments but falls back on the "We just need to clean house in Washington and get back to the founding principles." I like to remind those people that the US federal government started out with no revenue whatsoever for at least two terms and had to extend its hand to the states for money - yet within just 200+ years it grew to a global debt and coercion machine with military bases in 150+ countries, ubiquitous surveillance, near total public narrative control, et al. Why do that again??
And there are so many new technologies that enable individual's to have direct control of their own lives and property - why look for a 250 year old twist on a 2,000 year old system??
“Why do that again?”
“Why look for a 250 year old twist on a 2,000 year old system?”
—Those are such good ways of putting it. You need to make them into memes!
🤣 Yup. I need memes for sure. 🤣
Tag me when you make ‘em!
Some great statements. Much of what I have stated and tried to convey for years. Thank you for the leaving of cognitive dissonance behind and viewing this world in reality. Keep up the good work.
Thank you, Randy—you too!
New ideas beginning at the end of this week!
Essh, I thought I went into detail about how the system was not meant for us, but dang Chris, nailed it outta park! Looks like I got a bunch of new people to follow.
I definitely learned something. I thought America was the land to escape British rule, but sounds like it was part of a bigger scheme?
But ultimately, I love the callout of the archons. That is ultimately the true enemy here. These parasitic archons are here on earth manifesting as rulers and governments that we don’t need. (Here’s a link to the excerpt from my book: https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/enjoying-your-enslavement)
But how do we stop this system? First step is awareness which is what you and I are doing. Stop voting - that just reinforces the belief in the system. Once we stop believing in it, then we can begin to examine — like you said, look for that third option.
I’ve written a plethora about voting and would love your input whenever. Either or, we appear on the same wavelength. Looking forward to supporting your work and changing the system we find ourselves in today 🙏🏾
Thank you, Franklin, and yes, we appear to be on the same page.
I am about to start laying out my ideas beginning this week and next. Everyone’s thoughts and input will be welcome!
Keep calling out the archons, hermano. There is a better future waiting. Waiting for us to build it.
Yep there's a lot of truth in what you're say'n. Some folks cheated some got cheated back then as is true today. Some were slaves then, a lot are today be don't know it. Maybe Indians got the short end of the stick, not that they hadn't been giving the short end of the stick to other Indians all along.
None the less they did defeat the Brits, they did free the slaves they did treat with the Indians and even sometime honored the treaties. No matter how you cut it things were far better for most of us in in 1961 and 1976 than those folks had it it 1776 and 1861. Much of such due to what they did then
Maybe we can't get the grand old Republic back, or on the other hand, no matter how unlikely maybe we can. I do see such as far more probable than establishment of Anarcho-capitalism but I will be delighted if proven wrong.
No matter what, Republic, Anarcho-capitalism, Queen Que Mala, ..., I think BlackRock, et al, will prevail. Again, I will be delighted if proven wrong.
Ah, my friend, but here are the conditions in which they DEFINITELY win:
If we…
1. despair and lose all hope
2. do nothing
3. continue to play the same game we have been playing—the game that has enriched and empowered them at our expense in the first place.
Beautiful Christopher! To me this is your Best Exposure and article to date! You perfectly connected the jigsaw puzzle!
Thank you!
Thanks!
What do you suggest? My stance has always been until we fully recognize and apply the Natural Law we will have what we have. The Declaration has always been treated contemporarily as a lowly step-child, even by the nonsense courts, who can't define anything worth anything. Please post if you have suggestions. Thank you. Just found you, btw.
Glad to meet you!
This is part of a book, installments of which I am writing and releasing (almost) daily. As to what I suggest—I am just about to get to that part. Even that will be laid out in installments, but you will start getting answers by the end of this week. Sorry I cannot give it to you all at once, but it is a big case that has to be made in order. But a decent enough summary is coming soon. You can also glean a lot by reading back through the rest of the book.
What if we "went back to" (I see that eye roll) The Articles Of Confederation? Do you think that might be de-centralized enough on a national level. Each state obliteration it's individual govt? Or, anarchist that you are, I imagine you will probably frown upon that as well
Well, I am an anarchist, but I am no fool. I would certainly prefer the AoC if given a choice between that and what we have now.
Ultimately, though, the AoC suffers from the same underlying problem (it is fundamentally morally impermissible to impose authority without consent). And it too would also eventually grow and get continually worse, just as all the other forms have.
Involuntary governance is the problem.
I hope and pray you will, in future articles, lay out how the anarchist position can be implemented particularly in national infrastructure as well as common defense and how to deal with crime. Some rules will need to be implemented. But you don't need to do all that here. I will just keep reading your articles
I will only be able to touch on it lightly in this book. I will do what I can.
You could read Chapter 12 here: https://ia801508.us.archive.org/14/items/911-material/Pdfs/Democracy%20The%20God%20That%20Failed.pdf
That is a good teaser at least…
Jackpot! I have downloaded this for continued study. Thanks
Nice! Let it inspire you to read the next and the next. It happened to me, and I was changed forever.
I wonder what you mean by "national infrastructure", are you talking roads/bridges/airports/etc, or something else?
The anarchist position is implemented simply by following Natural Law with the twin pillars of the Non-Aggression Principle and the Self Defense Principle.
Crime is dealt with by each and every one of us. Every capable adult is responsible for providing for their own safety and security, and for their dependents, whether they do it themselves or they voluntarily contract with a provider of that service, no different than food, clothing, shelter, or education. Look how many business people hire security services instead of depending on cops, and many people hire security services for their homes as well.
I fully understand everything else you just brought up
Roads, bridges, municipal water, sewage, trash, airports, electrical grid. Whatever else you can think of when ever anyone is talking about infrastructure.
First I want to state that I am not a preacher and don't want to be lumped in with some of those most criminal people that ever walked the face of the earth, But a couple of men that seemed to be quite wise made statements in the distant past that seem to still ring true today. One said,
"All this have I seen, and applied my heart unto every work that is done under the sun: there is a time wherein one man ruleth over another to his own hurt." Ecclesiastes 8:9
and He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle[c] and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.” 1 Samuel 8 11-18
“but the Lord will not answer you in that day.”
—Why is this. As an ancap, I am hoping it is because God was saying, in essence, “You should have known better than to ask to be ruled.” But is that the explanation consistent with common interpretations of scripture?
People that have been brainwashed in churches for years to follow governments and to vote for evil when the same book states "hate what is evil". And to "make sure of all things and hold fast to what is fine". The statements from the Bible seem plenty straight forward, that it was warning from God , that if you acquire a king for yourselves, you will reap these results and God has always allowed men to act on their stupidity and see if the results aren't what he warned about in the first place.
Like a good parent, He gives you excellent advice but leaves you the freedom to make your own mistakes.
Also, I have to keep in mind that the "common interpretation of the scriptures" has been how churches and their preachers have convince millions of young men and women to enter an early grave thinking that joining in on man's corrupt wars were blessed by God, which is something I find NO backing for in any scripture.
Agreed. I want to know what they say, though I will still keep my own counsel on whether to believe them or not.
Rom 13 has historically been completely misinterpreted
Brilliant work 🤝 I admire the “deep breath” and doing it all over again! It will take many more! I fully agree and so will others. My dad taught us young!
I've been fortunate to inherit my dad's critical thinking skills, which help me analyse situations and make informed decisions, I also inherited my mum’s empathetic nature, so I wonder how anyone who still believes in the system can be “saved”. If the world goes the globalist route, the “believers” will surely be blindsided and trapped before they know it. I DESPISE the current system, but for others sake, I hope it survives long enough to ensure globalist abhorrents give up! Whatever happens, I still want out, just feel saddened for some
All we can do, methinks, is to keep spreading the word to the best of our ability, recognize that not everyone is ever going to get it, and take appropriate action for ourselves and our loved ones as circumstances indicate.
And we must never give up hope!
I think you’re right! I work in an “industry” where empowering is top priority, we can only suggest, inform and encourage, the rest is in the hands of the individual (no matter how frustrating or heartbreaking)
Sounds like a microcosm of life!
That we need a strong constitution to thwart the ever present threat of government tyranny tells you all you need to know about government. If you desire to be free, it is a tenuous option. Make all the rules you want, the power hungry control freaks will always find a way around them. Witness the current state of affairs of the US and the world. All governments have basically been a disaster.
Well said. I do not for one moment believe that market anarchism will produce ‘utopia.’ But I do believe that it is the best solution to mitigate these issues.
Thanks for your education as an Australian descendant of convicts ( read people trying to feed their children in an unjust England whereas all the commons were taken by the Aristocracy to fence off as theirs thus shutting down sustenance farming and hunting, animal husbandry etc for those not obeying the Lords ) who made the right choices and got transported to Australia )
Yeah, the Enclosures seemed beyond unjustified. I believe in strong property titles, but if there are large tracts of unowned lands that human beings are using in common, others mustn’t just say “This is mine now” and arrogate it. Naturally, the state supported the “claim” of the powerful and the wealthy.
Granted, I do not know much at all about the Enclosures, but from what I do know, it sounds like a crime and a violation of the Lockean Proviso.
Wow! That was brilliant! Well done!
Thank you!
it's true that currency control and competition suppression existed in some form before 1910, that oversimplifies America's early financial history and overlooks big distinctions. From the nation's founding through the early 20th century, the U.S. largely operated under a decentralized banking system, with periods of competing state and private banknotes circulating, especially during the Free Banking Era (1837-1863). The federal government did intervene at times, such as through the National Banking Acts, but these measures still allowed significant regional and local autonomy in banking practices. The Jekyll Island reference overstates what happened there, they only recent years have gotten close to what they wanted at that meeting. And the Federal Reserve Act did centralized power in some ways but the Fed itself didn't start getting centralized until 1935 and the USA retained huge features of its decentralization in Banking and Finance, such as its interstate capital flow inhibitors and its state level usury laws, among other things, until they were mostly done away with between the latter 1970s and mid 1980s, in fact those things meant that we were still quite decentralized in Banking/Finance for almost the first 200 years of the country's existence.
Also, during the 1930s we remained a semi-populist, semi-politically decentralized, and semi-economically decentralized republic; FDR and his technocrats were overturned with so many veto proof majorities, some of which, including about big stuff, were to interject into the exec branch and change the technocrats behavior against their wills, that there were more veto proof majorities against the will pf the president in that decade than there were for many other combined.
We didn't really start centralizing until after the war, overall slowly at first, but we'd gone a long way in some key areas by the latter 1960s, and then we took huge leap between the latter 1970s and mid 1980s
Duplicate comment; see my reply to the other. Thanks!
Voting. No, it doesn't determine who runs the government. It doesn't make government of the people, by the people, for the people. Those wielding power behind the scenes reserve their right (by might) to veto the choices of voters.
But voting does serve a purpose that has effect within the system with the might to hold power. Voting is a poll of the people. Not legally binding, as most of us once believed. But a poll, nonetheless.
The might with power to impose their will through the current structure is influenced by that poll. They may choose to ease up, relent, make accommodations to meet a restive and angry populace with a open hand. Or they may choose to close their hand into a fist, clenching weapons they use to beat a restive and angry populace into submission. Both options are available to tyrants. Who gauge their tyranny by polls known as elections.
Today's tyrants seem to be choosing the clenched fist option. We will find out what voters are willing to do to meet that fist as it is swung in our general direction after the next "poll" tells them the restive and angry populace isn't getting with the program.
Are readers ready?
I feel you on all of that. But the problem runs even deeper…
Even if we take away the tyrants… even if voting were real… it would still involve some people imposing their will, and their way of life, on others. A majority gathers enough political strength to force the minority to do something it did not want to do.
Even in its purest, uncorrupted, idealized conception, voting produces nonconsensual results imposed on individual humans by force. That is evil.
I understand your macro, been following you long enough. Just highlighting this facet.
Right on, hombre.
Coercive civil authority is inherently, intrinsically evil. Yes, even if voting is involved.
Tell it! Teach!
I say it in my book and often in my Substack reports, like the most recent one (there's even a quote graphic near the bottom of the article :-) ) — https://goodneighborbadcitizen.substack.com/p/your-gps-is-wrong-turn-around
I’ve been saying this; it must go! Never has been good and will continue on in a downhill slide until the human zeal for life is extinguished.
We won’t let that happen, Marleen. Not to us and ours, anyway!
🙏🏼