“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.“—Lysander Spooner, 150 years ago
The UN is on the verge of passing their Pact of the Future treaty that will force the entire world to become digital slaves. And WHO is right behind them and behind both is gates and his blood soaked money. Apparently no government is fighting this and no democracy will matter. This is all being done with no input from any citizen anywhere and behind the curtain.
Forget about government and all its various levels of slavery. Our very lives are on the line as we consider what government is or isn't. A digital world = death. Fighting this has become priority numero uno for me although trying to do so is like trying to kill the invisible man. Congress is completely complacent and asleep and pretty much worthless.
One way you can tell is the way, for example, Ireland, England, the UK, and Sweden all have the exact same immigration problem, and their public officials all deal with it in roughly the same way. It's centrally orchestrated.
As if that’s even possible. I’m reminded of the great Harvey Danger song: “I’ve been around the world and seen that only stupid people are breeding. The cretins cloning and feeding and I don’t even own a TV”
I can appreciate all of these critiques but the reality is that it reads like you advocate no other alternative except perhaps hereditary monarchy ? Would like to read a part two if there’s a theory grounded in a Pro-this and not just Anti-that stance. Myself I am a fan of anarchism and kind of every man truly for themselves but willing to make alliances according to their preferences/needs/skills/intellect. Also, though, just because democracy seems to function where a majority can unduly influence the control mechanisms, and the smallest minority is the individual doesn’t mean we should toss the baby out with the bath water in my opinion because there are other minorities - such as those that would run for state office but cannot afford to because of its measley pay and big time commitment, those that are in the government and do not identify with the majority whatever it may be (and you haven’t really defined it). If one critiques democracy too much without pointing out its many beauties and opportunities, that leaves a window open for socialists and communists who seem to be on the same side as democracy by your argument but who are very much not in real and practical terms. Direct democracy has been discussed. Maybe not an oligarchy and gerontocracy disguised as democracy which is what we live in - to say we are ruled by a majority or a minority isn’t entirely accurate because what we are rules by is money and corporations that allow some people two votes (one through the system as-is and another through a vehicle like Citizen’s United and private interest lobbying and campaign support). This is not democracy
The problem with writing a book on the fly is that it does not give people the opportunity to look ahead to see if the questions raised in chapter X are answered in a later chapter.
I promise we will get to solutions. And I recognize that this is currently the "anti-that" phase. I did, in the preface and introduction, note that we would have to go through that phase before we could get to "pro-this." But we will. In fact, I will be providing more of a concrete solution than most. (Whether one likes it or not will be a separate question, but it will definitely be concrete and positive. And I am trying to get there as fast as I can, while still covering all the bases between here and there.
I definitely do not want to leave any doors open for socialists and communists. I assume that that is understand by the fact that everything that I say and believe would be anathema to them. Though I agree that the notion of ending what we currently have does also comport with their plans.
And finally, I get that this is actually an oligarchy of elite families, creepy weirdo billionaires, psychotic ideologues, central banks, corporations, etc. But people still believe that it is supposed to be a democracy. If I critique the oligarchy, some people will think that THAT is the problem, and that uncorrupted democracy is the solution. My job is to see to it that they do not retreat into that comfortable but false delusion.
I am looking forward to reading more do that last piece of your argument specifically - as I do believe that uncorrupted democracy could very well be the solution. Many people as you say think we live in a democracy and we don’t and yet they profess idealism and praise and loyalty to an idea of democracy. Equipped with more information , and with an overturning of Citizen’s United (if it can be done w Roe v aware it certainly can a decision made much more recently) , democracy in the US could make a swift course correction
I understand :-) This book is free for those who cannot afford to offer their support. (It's my other book that is behind the paywall.)
The reason I ask is because in the front matter, and throughout this first chapter, I establish that the system we have is fundamentally morally impermissible—even if it is reformed in the ways that you and Sharon suggest.
Yes, they violate our rights in every single way. What used to be a small pitching in is taking up 80% of our paychecks when you put all the taxes and fees together. And what we get back is them trying to kill us.
Yep! People got overturning Roe versus Wade would be impossible. Just like some people think that taking out unuseful amendments such as the 19th would be impossible. It’s not These things are gaining momentum and 30% of sheep are just waiting to see the way the wind blows before jumping on board.
But even if we were to fix these things, the system would still be a violation of individual rights. Even the best version of what we have violates rights when it is functioning normally.
Yes, a whole different system would be better. It’s not going to be exactly like the old days. But, we can go back to a more normal, useful way of men and women doing what they do best. Instead of having 120 pound woman trying to be a fireman or a muscular guy within intelligence sitting home and making a cake while his wife works outside the home all day. Or even worse, giving men, horrible chemicals and having them “breast-feed“ little babies.. It’s all a disgusting mess.
And the influence of the political left has been very damaging. That is a somewhat separate, though obviously interrelated, issue. And it too is standing in the way of any sort of normality.
I have been reading on Substack and a lot of people want to do away with the 19th amendment.
In all studies, women believe things much easier than men do. They get fooled easily and go with any trend. This is obviously very dangerous to the country. This has to stop.
The problem with anarchy is that alliances build quickly based on power (number of weapons, amount of wealth), those with power tend to like to accumulate more power, and they impose on others (violate other's rights) and the whole thing will quickly devolve to some even worse system. I've never read any good explanations how it can possibly be stable. Hence direct democracy with guardrails to enshrine individualism and personal rights (not what we have) would be better.
That’s not true anarchism, that’s anarchy. Anarchism is a different beast and alliances based on access to things would not in the long-term be beneficial because even those without would find ways to sabotaging the hoarders. True anarchism is collective liberation via understanding. To each according to his need. Hegemony and autocracy doesn’t have a place in true anarchism
"The said truth, however, is that the system is what degraded our morality in the first place." I agree that our system has enabled this, but I don't blame democracy. It has been unelected globalists, people running corporations and other large businesses and members of secret societies and degenerate fringe cults/religions who have degraded society's morality in the first place. It was seemingly a carefully thought out plan running for more than a hundred years now. It has involved gradual nudging of society's accepted moral boundaries through pop culture and mass media little by little each generation and pitting one generation against the next to encourage the progression of the moral decline. The grand purpose of which seems to be in fact to push us away from democracy and individualism and back to a kind of globalist techo fascistic fuedalism.
Besides, the majority of the world (including the West) hasn't ever really had a reasonable approximation of democracy ever anyway so we can hardly blame 'democracy'. The closest country is probably Switzerland where they can directly vote on changes to laws and propose them, although even their system could be improved to better represent all people.
And of course, what better alternative would you propose? Personally I would propose even more democracy. More direct, more representative, end the entrenched buracratic class, dilute the power of special interest groups (i.e. two party politics), let all voices be heard.
You are correct that democracy works best when the populace are a moral and intelligent people though.
You are of course correct about the things you say in your first paragraph. There are many forces at work whose goal is to a) degrade us and b) (further) enslave us. (I have edited to the piece to avoid giving the impression that I am saying that democracy is the >only< force that has degraded our character; thank you.)
I think you are correct about the 100-year timeline at least. That puts it right around Gramsci/the Western Marxists. Though it is possible, as some contend, that the plan goes back much further.
I would also agree that some forms of democracy are better/worse. But my point is different from that. I am saying that even the best variant is still morally impermissible because it violates the content of the individual. If you look back through this chapter, you will see a lot on that topic.
We can expand your criticisms of Democracy to include the dysfunction that occurs when a highly coordinated ideologically captured media brainwashes the voters. The perpetrators of the brainwashing promote war, debt, and dependencies hostile to individuals.
+25 points for 'ineluctable', a word underused in today's parlance. Excellent writing and arguments, including the admission that the answer lies just beyond our grasp but is an idea whose time has come.
Gandhi was an anarchist. He was heavily influenced by “The Kingdom of God is Within You” by Tolstoy. I often wonder in this day and age if it would be possible to do what he did on a global scale.
Just learning about it myself, but I’ve read that Gandhi had conversations with Tolstoy regarding Christian anarchist ideologies and how to implement them (such as non-violent resistance). So maybe labelling him an anarchist is not completely accurate considering there is much more I need to learn about him.
“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.“—Lysander Spooner, 150 years ago
💯 The logic is inescapable.
The UN is on the verge of passing their Pact of the Future treaty that will force the entire world to become digital slaves. And WHO is right behind them and behind both is gates and his blood soaked money. Apparently no government is fighting this and no democracy will matter. This is all being done with no input from any citizen anywhere and behind the curtain.
Forget about government and all its various levels of slavery. Our very lives are on the line as we consider what government is or isn't. A digital world = death. Fighting this has become priority numero uno for me although trying to do so is like trying to kill the invisible man. Congress is completely complacent and asleep and pretty much worthless.
One way you can tell is the way, for example, Ireland, England, the UK, and Sweden all have the exact same immigration problem, and their public officials all deal with it in roughly the same way. It's centrally orchestrated.
Which suggests democracy is not at fault. Rather it suggests that democracy is an theatrical illusion.
“The majoritarianism of democracy elevates the lowest common denominator to a cultural fetish, and wields it as a political weapon.”
Exacerbated when the majority of people are stupid.
Yep. Part of Hoppe's point is that democracy actually makes the stupidity problem even worse than it already is!
That's exactly what I was thinking.
As if that’s even possible. I’m reminded of the great Harvey Danger song: “I’ve been around the world and seen that only stupid people are breeding. The cretins cloning and feeding and I don’t even own a TV”
Yeah, when we learn that the average IQ is 100, and then think that that means that half the people are below that–it's truly chilling.
"Democracy causes inhumanity. No normal, decent person would ever walk up to another, stick a gun to his ribs and demand money."
But poverty does... Desperation to survive does. And money systems will create poverty for most, and many desperate People...
And money IS an archaic tool...
Money vs. Currency (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/money-vs-currency
I can appreciate all of these critiques but the reality is that it reads like you advocate no other alternative except perhaps hereditary monarchy ? Would like to read a part two if there’s a theory grounded in a Pro-this and not just Anti-that stance. Myself I am a fan of anarchism and kind of every man truly for themselves but willing to make alliances according to their preferences/needs/skills/intellect. Also, though, just because democracy seems to function where a majority can unduly influence the control mechanisms, and the smallest minority is the individual doesn’t mean we should toss the baby out with the bath water in my opinion because there are other minorities - such as those that would run for state office but cannot afford to because of its measley pay and big time commitment, those that are in the government and do not identify with the majority whatever it may be (and you haven’t really defined it). If one critiques democracy too much without pointing out its many beauties and opportunities, that leaves a window open for socialists and communists who seem to be on the same side as democracy by your argument but who are very much not in real and practical terms. Direct democracy has been discussed. Maybe not an oligarchy and gerontocracy disguised as democracy which is what we live in - to say we are ruled by a majority or a minority isn’t entirely accurate because what we are rules by is money and corporations that allow some people two votes (one through the system as-is and another through a vehicle like Citizen’s United and private interest lobbying and campaign support). This is not democracy
All good points.
The problem with writing a book on the fly is that it does not give people the opportunity to look ahead to see if the questions raised in chapter X are answered in a later chapter.
I promise we will get to solutions. And I recognize that this is currently the "anti-that" phase. I did, in the preface and introduction, note that we would have to go through that phase before we could get to "pro-this." But we will. In fact, I will be providing more of a concrete solution than most. (Whether one likes it or not will be a separate question, but it will definitely be concrete and positive. And I am trying to get there as fast as I can, while still covering all the bases between here and there.
I definitely do not want to leave any doors open for socialists and communists. I assume that that is understand by the fact that everything that I say and believe would be anathema to them. Though I agree that the notion of ending what we currently have does also comport with their plans.
And finally, I get that this is actually an oligarchy of elite families, creepy weirdo billionaires, psychotic ideologues, central banks, corporations, etc. But people still believe that it is supposed to be a democracy. If I critique the oligarchy, some people will think that THAT is the problem, and that uncorrupted democracy is the solution. My job is to see to it that they do not retreat into that comfortable but false delusion.
I am looking forward to reading more do that last piece of your argument specifically - as I do believe that uncorrupted democracy could very well be the solution. Many people as you say think we live in a democracy and we don’t and yet they profess idealism and praise and loyalty to an idea of democracy. Equipped with more information , and with an overturning of Citizen’s United (if it can be done w Roe v aware it certainly can a decision made much more recently) , democracy in the US could make a swift course correction
Have you read the rest of this fledgling book?
I have not I am short on funds but I’d be open to reading (even if only to disagree and write a counter argument lol) it for sure
I understand :-) This book is free for those who cannot afford to offer their support. (It's my other book that is behind the paywall.)
The reason I ask is because in the front matter, and throughout this first chapter, I establish that the system we have is fundamentally morally impermissible—even if it is reformed in the ways that you and Sharon suggest.
Yes, they violate our rights in every single way. What used to be a small pitching in is taking up 80% of our paychecks when you put all the taxes and fees together. And what we get back is them trying to kill us.
Yep! People got overturning Roe versus Wade would be impossible. Just like some people think that taking out unuseful amendments such as the 19th would be impossible. It’s not These things are gaining momentum and 30% of sheep are just waiting to see the way the wind blows before jumping on board.
But even if we were to fix these things, the system would still be a violation of individual rights. Even the best version of what we have violates rights when it is functioning normally.
Yes, a whole different system would be better. It’s not going to be exactly like the old days. But, we can go back to a more normal, useful way of men and women doing what they do best. Instead of having 120 pound woman trying to be a fireman or a muscular guy within intelligence sitting home and making a cake while his wife works outside the home all day. Or even worse, giving men, horrible chemicals and having them “breast-feed“ little babies.. It’s all a disgusting mess.
It is all a disgusting mess.
And the influence of the political left has been very damaging. That is a somewhat separate, though obviously interrelated, issue. And it too is standing in the way of any sort of normality.
Do you think the 19th is un-useful or are you more like saying as a warning / point that the unlikely is sometimes suddenly very possible/possible ?
I have been reading on Substack and a lot of people want to do away with the 19th amendment.
In all studies, women believe things much easier than men do. They get fooled easily and go with any trend. This is obviously very dangerous to the country. This has to stop.
So you support a woman that doesn’t follow that majority trend not being allowed to vote or run for office? I’m so confused
Apologies for the typos
Well, OK I could edit it, but I am a rusher
I do voice to text so it’s impossible to be without mistakes
The problem with anarchy is that alliances build quickly based on power (number of weapons, amount of wealth), those with power tend to like to accumulate more power, and they impose on others (violate other's rights) and the whole thing will quickly devolve to some even worse system. I've never read any good explanations how it can possibly be stable. Hence direct democracy with guardrails to enshrine individualism and personal rights (not what we have) would be better.
One of the better explanations is in chapter 12 here: https://ia801508.us.archive.org/14/items/911-material/Pdfs/Democracy%20The%20God%20That%20Failed.pdf
That is not the whole case, of course, but I am not going to start out by suggesting that you read two or three whole books. That was just be rude! 🤣
That’s not true anarchism, that’s anarchy. Anarchism is a different beast and alliances based on access to things would not in the long-term be beneficial because even those without would find ways to sabotaging the hoarders. True anarchism is collective liberation via understanding. To each according to his need. Hegemony and autocracy doesn’t have a place in true anarchism
Intro to an old TV series
"Democracy is a very bad form of government . . . . "
I had to look it up. That’s going way back!
Glad you threw on the P.S.
I write these fast. Sometimes I do not word things perfectly the first time around!
So do lack of curiosity, intractability, and lack of mental stability.
Sure. And other things.
Right.
Explosive and Brilliant Christopher!
💥 Thanks, Albert.
"The said truth, however, is that the system is what degraded our morality in the first place." I agree that our system has enabled this, but I don't blame democracy. It has been unelected globalists, people running corporations and other large businesses and members of secret societies and degenerate fringe cults/religions who have degraded society's morality in the first place. It was seemingly a carefully thought out plan running for more than a hundred years now. It has involved gradual nudging of society's accepted moral boundaries through pop culture and mass media little by little each generation and pitting one generation against the next to encourage the progression of the moral decline. The grand purpose of which seems to be in fact to push us away from democracy and individualism and back to a kind of globalist techo fascistic fuedalism.
Besides, the majority of the world (including the West) hasn't ever really had a reasonable approximation of democracy ever anyway so we can hardly blame 'democracy'. The closest country is probably Switzerland where they can directly vote on changes to laws and propose them, although even their system could be improved to better represent all people.
And of course, what better alternative would you propose? Personally I would propose even more democracy. More direct, more representative, end the entrenched buracratic class, dilute the power of special interest groups (i.e. two party politics), let all voices be heard.
You are correct that democracy works best when the populace are a moral and intelligent people though.
You are of course correct about the things you say in your first paragraph. There are many forces at work whose goal is to a) degrade us and b) (further) enslave us. (I have edited to the piece to avoid giving the impression that I am saying that democracy is the >only< force that has degraded our character; thank you.)
I think you are correct about the 100-year timeline at least. That puts it right around Gramsci/the Western Marxists. Though it is possible, as some contend, that the plan goes back much further.
I would also agree that some forms of democracy are better/worse. But my point is different from that. I am saying that even the best variant is still morally impermissible because it violates the content of the individual. If you look back through this chapter, you will see a lot on that topic.
As far as the solution—that is coming in Part II, which I am scrambling to get to as quickly as I can. In general, though, I am a market anarchist: https://christophercook.substack.com/p/four-definitions-word-anarchy
We can expand your criticisms of Democracy to include the dysfunction that occurs when a highly coordinated ideologically captured media brainwashes the voters. The perpetrators of the brainwashing promote war, debt, and dependencies hostile to individuals.
💯 They are part of the larger ecosystem of the state.
Really enjoying this great read Christopher. Parents ought to make this required reading for their young adult children with appropriate incentives.
"I will give you candy and let you stay up until 10:30 if you read this article by this crazy anarchist."
That is one cool parent!
Nice job of stringing all those bait fish out to dry.
Thanks, Christopher.
Nice metaphor!
Do a lot of fishing?
Thanks, but you did all the work
I've fished enough to avoid the Bering in winter and search for a homestead with a pond.
The pond is more pleasant than the Bering.
👍
+25 points for 'ineluctable', a word underused in today's parlance. Excellent writing and arguments, including the admission that the answer lies just beyond our grasp but is an idea whose time has come.
Yay, I now have 25 points for the day!
The answer is elusive, but I will be working toward a possible one in Part II…
Gandhi was an anarchist. He was heavily influenced by “The Kingdom of God is Within You” by Tolstoy. I often wonder in this day and age if it would be possible to do what he did on a global scale.
I do not know much about this at all! I am very curious…
“Christian anarchism”
Oh yeah, I need to read Tolstoi.
But what about Gandhi?—his anarchism is not known to me!
(Not that it's your job to educate my ignorance!)
Just learning about it myself, but I’ve read that Gandhi had conversations with Tolstoy regarding Christian anarchist ideologies and how to implement them (such as non-violent resistance). So maybe labelling him an anarchist is not completely accurate considering there is much more I need to learn about him.
Well, since I'm probably not gonna get to it for a while, please LMK if you learn more (and have the time).
Cool thanks! I’ll check it out.
I have studied Gandhi and would not call him an anarchist. Perhaps the biggest proof of his statist approach was his desire to keep a united India and not allow Muslims to take the territory of Pakistan. If you would like more insights into the man, I republished an article from one who spent several days with him. https://open.substack.com/pub/edsharrow/p/three-days-with-mahatma-gandhi?r=xmzgz&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Great article, I thoroughly enjoyed it. Thanks for the link!
This is the best piece you've written for my understanding yet. Keep up the great work!
Thank you—it took quite a few hours :-)