On a continuum that measures human freedom (jn inverse proportion to amount of government), I would argue that anarchism is furthest to the right. (Indeed, this formulation produces my Stack's name—the Freedom Scale).
That being said, I do understand what you mean. On one level, I am trying to steer clear of partisan language.
On another level, though, we still do have to be able to categorize things.
For example, it is only the left that wants to addle children's minds to the point where they chop off their breasts and engage in irreversible surgeries. I cannot pretend that correlation does not exist.
Christopher - that’s odd. I view anarchism as being far left. Am fortunate to live in Italy. When the anarchists are out, the cops are there with their truncheons - and it’s the current far-right here in charge.
A couple of decades ago, I believed those were anarchists too. In fact, I am ashamed to say that I started writing about them as if they were the real kind of anarchists, in a book I had started. Thankfully, I started studying and realized that was incorrect.
Most proper anarchists are extreme libertarians who believe that maximum respect for individual rights is achieved by the total absence of involuntary government. But such anarchists do not seek disorder and chaos. They are not out throwing rocks. Their major figures include the three depicted in the meme: (Left to right) Lysander Spooner, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, and Murray Rothbard. They are more properly understood as being on the extreme right of a spectrum with human freedom (in inverse proportion to amount of government) as its unit of measure.
There is a species of anarchism that is considered, in conventional terms, to be on the left. This includes the anarchosyndicalists (syndicalism ended up being integrated into Italian fascism). Marx's pure communism might also be considered, conventionally, to be a species of left-anarchism, in that it expects the state to wither away after the dictatorship of the proletariat.
The kids out throwing rocks and covering their faces with black bandanas are idiots who don't want to work and are three hot meals away from being commies. So yes, that kind of "anarchist" is on the left, as you say. But they are not the real kind.
I recall a better time when Hollywood appeared to be anti-war and anti-government. They made a lot better movies then. Now that they have fully embraced being an Ideological State Apparatus the glamour has worn off. Unfortunately, they are so out of touch with reality that they are the last ones to see it.
Brilliant deduction. The pattern hasn't changed since pre Roman Time's then basically. Thinking we might want to put out a better proposal to the people than what's obviously going to happen here. DAO - ILLUMINATES the middlemen. And middlemen they are Chris.
It is refreshing to see someone call Che Guevara what he truly was. He was a psychopathic, rich kid so bored with life that murder was his only fulfillment. Our grandfathers had good reasons to look askance at America's beatniks and hippies.
>>the most governmenty governments ever to exist in the history of governments
This gave me the smileyest smile I've smiled this month!
Also, spot-on, Christopher. I leaned left in my youth precisely because of anti-war. When I tell that to current leftys and question why the left went from anti-war to pro-war, all I get back is 'that fluoride stare.' Preposterous.
Christopher, as usual, very well-stated! "the most governmenty governments ever to exist..." is absolutely true and wonderfully droll. I do thank you for the digging you do in understanding all this. The death of my brother in Vietnam in 1968, drove me further to the Left. Decades later, I left the Left and am much more Conservative now. I see the excess and stay on the narrow path with God. I did want to congratulate you on your book, which I see is quite detailed and direct. Very powerful stuff.
You and I are both deep thinkers and our writing reflects that. You are more of an endurance runner, while I am a sprinter by core temperament. No matter, we both speak on core subjects of human freedom and the need for fellowship and astute counsel on how to live in freedom. God bless and keep you and thank you for liking my new writing piece, as well!
Both the left AND right just championed the renewal of the FISA act, sans the Briggs amendment which would have protected American citizens from the spying covered in the act.
Who cast the tie-breaking vote not allowing the Briggs amendment? None other than Speaker Mike Johnson, a Republican.
Yeah, idea sets (ideologies) exist. The gap between many of them is huge. The gap between political parties is much, much smaller. And at times, the gap is functionally nonexistent.
Right! Qaddafi had the Brilliance and Courage to go for Freedom from the Rothschild World Bank, IMF etc. The Rothschilds and their cowardly brutal cartel stranglehold on the economies of the world would have been shattered and may have caused a domino effect. He tried to do it with the Arabs but the Big Shots were too much in the pockets of the Rothschilds to fund their depraved lifestyles.
BTW: If you want to hear the most Courageous Speech to power ever given listen to Qaddafi's 2 hour speech at the UN where he exposed much!
Amusings, The Western Media portrayal of Qaddafi for 40 years as a "madman" does not take into the True Qaddafi. Just a few points:
* He took over Control of Libya from a King who was appointed by the US/UK after WWII and who kept the Libyan people as the poorest and most wretched country on earth.
* He did this in a bloodless coup against an unelected King.
* Libya having prior been an Italian Colony for decades, Italian Settlers owned much of the most fertile land along the coast for farms and vineyards, businesses, best houses etc. Qaddafi gave them, I think, 48 hours to get out with 2 suitcases per person. Noon was harmed. Qaddafi saw it that they were given stolen land and it was taken back. (Maybe there is a precedent here? No it would not work in Palestine I guess a 2 state solution is the best option at this point). I knew many Italian settlers who respected Qaddafi.
* Qaddafi moved Libya from the lowest standard in the world to the highest in Africa and almost on par with Greece and Spain.
* No interest loans. No Rothschild Bank.
* Blacks treated as well as non-Blacks.
* He was moving to a Pan African Currency backed by commodities.
* Man Made River, from Giant Aquifers under the Sahara, to bring Fresh Water across Africa.
Lots of good information. And it doesn't surprise me that our government lied about him. But it also wouldn't surprise me if, no matter what political leader we examine, we were to find authoritarian tendencies. There are very few 'my guy is better than your guy' arguments. And I'm sure we can find dirt on Lincoln. But overall, the overreach of the leaders today would make Lincoln blush.
Right Amusings but some were True Freedom Fighters who did great things for their people and most paid a horrific price with Lincoln, JFK and Qaddafi being prime examples. Sure none were perfect nobody is. The three noted all moved to interest free currency's without the Rothschilds and were murdered soon after.
As to ideology…. Picking a single school of thought and turning it into a team and a fetish….yeah, that’s bad.
But it can also just be convenient shorthand for an existing set of ideas. Ideas, for better or worse, do tend to fall into sets. So, for example, adherents to one (and only one) ideological idea-set are addling children into cutting off their own breasts and genitalia, taking life-altering drugs with permanent effects, etc. I don’t want to be excessively ideological myself, but I am also not going to hold back when critiquing such things.
You are making a significant mistake. Ideology and philosophy are not siblings. Ideology is not even a member of the philosophy family. Ideology is not even allowed to work with philosophy. But ideology always claims to work for philosophy on its CV - like all fraudsters.
Philosophy = concepts for understanding the world and all aspects of life
Example:
Karl Marx and majorly Friedrich Engels have created Marxism, later supplemented by Lenin to Marxism-Leninism.
There is some evidence that Marx and Engels had been (somehow) philosophers (Engels was the smarter guy) and you can find interesting ideas in their early work contrasting Hegel. But the ideology Marxism was not philosophical at all and was incited by the elites.
I believe that the mixup of philosophy and ideology roots in Marx / Engels / Lenin.
Couldn’t an anarchist type system become corrupt? Could this type of “government” become a cult? Would you defend it with your life? Is anarchism ultimate freedom? Is it worth fighting for? Isn’t anarchism a form of rule?
—It could not do so and remain proper anarchism, no. Anarchism says that if you want to remain a subject of some government, you are free to do so. That government is free to exist. It simply mustn't force people to be its subjects against their will. Anarchism's rule is that the individual human person must not be subjected to the initiation of force or to any nonconsensual imposition of government.
So no, anarchism could not become a cult and remain anarchism.
"Would you defend it with your life?"
—The cost-benefit analysis of dying for various causes is far too complex, and for too situationally dependent, for a simple answer. The notion that the human person is a naturally free, self-owning being who must never be subjected to force unless he has first initiated force against another, and whose consent is required in all things, certainly falls into the category of an ethos that is worth defending and fighting for.
"Is anarchism ultimate freedom?"
—What do you mean?
"Isn’t anarchism a form of rule?"
—You seem to still be thinking is terms of one-size-fits-all solutions forcibly imposed upon large groups of people in large areas. That is the old model. The new world looks a lot different: https://christophercook.substack.com/p/what-kind-world-you-want
It seems in todays world any tract of earth that is occupied by anyone will be attacked at some point. Certainly this government we live under would have no hesitation of invading a society that occupies space,, earth, property. Invading could be CIA type BS like they are doing here to us. I’m not sure but hasn’t this idea of anarchism been the idea and reason countries have been overthrown, and then turn into some type of hierarchy? I don’t mean to be putting down the idea, I question the ability this could ever happen with totalitarian countries like the one we live in.
First, the presumption is that anarchic areas would be defenseless. That is an erroneous presumption. Protective force still exists in a condition of voluntary order, just as it does in a condition of involuntary order, like we have now. It is just that those exerting the force would be different. Read the Hoppe book I am always citing for a really great description of how this could work. (Much more could be said on this topic.)
Second, even if we presume smallness, that does not guarantee destruction and annexation. Small countries exist today. Why have they not been seized by larger countries?
Third, on the other side of that same coin, the existence of a system of states is also no guarantee of safety. Militaries and intelligence agencies take over or destabilize states now. State vs. state. The existence of this issue does not obviate the possibility or value of an anarchic condition.
Fourth, a large anarchic area would not be easier to take over—it would be infinitely harder. With a state, all you have to do is defeat its military and then its government surrenders, handing over a massive hierarchical system of control over the whole people. Laws, infrastructure, factories all just shift to new management. The people go from saying “We obey State X” to “We obey State Y.”
In an anarchic scenario, by contrast, the people say, “If you want to rule all these lands and all these people, you will have to pacify every square inch and every individual person. Any part of it you do not pacify will not be yours. Any person you fail to bring to heel will not be yours. So come try — you will die for every square inch, because everyone will be shooting at you all the time.”
No matter, all government is anti-human. The left runs on hate while the right runs on not much of anything.
On a continuum that measures human freedom (jn inverse proportion to amount of government), I would argue that anarchism is furthest to the right. (Indeed, this formulation produces my Stack's name—the Freedom Scale).
That being said, I do understand what you mean. On one level, I am trying to steer clear of partisan language.
On another level, though, we still do have to be able to categorize things.
For example, it is only the left that wants to addle children's minds to the point where they chop off their breasts and engage in irreversible surgeries. I cannot pretend that correlation does not exist.
Christopher - that’s odd. I view anarchism as being far left. Am fortunate to live in Italy. When the anarchists are out, the cops are there with their truncheons - and it’s the current far-right here in charge.
A couple of decades ago, I believed those were anarchists too. In fact, I am ashamed to say that I started writing about them as if they were the real kind of anarchists, in a book I had started. Thankfully, I started studying and realized that was incorrect.
Most proper anarchists are extreme libertarians who believe that maximum respect for individual rights is achieved by the total absence of involuntary government. But such anarchists do not seek disorder and chaos. They are not out throwing rocks. Their major figures include the three depicted in the meme: (Left to right) Lysander Spooner, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, and Murray Rothbard. They are more properly understood as being on the extreme right of a spectrum with human freedom (in inverse proportion to amount of government) as its unit of measure.
There is a species of anarchism that is considered, in conventional terms, to be on the left. This includes the anarchosyndicalists (syndicalism ended up being integrated into Italian fascism). Marx's pure communism might also be considered, conventionally, to be a species of left-anarchism, in that it expects the state to wither away after the dictatorship of the proletariat.
The kids out throwing rocks and covering their faces with black bandanas are idiots who don't want to work and are three hot meals away from being commies. So yes, that kind of "anarchist" is on the left, as you say. But they are not the real kind.
Check ut the chart at the end of this post: https://christophercook.substack.com/p/please-stop-telling-me-this-isnt-democracy
You will find those idiots off the edge of the righty side, in the box labeled "Chaotic Anarchy."
If you want to learn more about real, intentional anarchy, let me know. You can also start reading from the reading list at the end of this: https://christophercook.substack.com/p/no-way-i-can-convince-you-anarchism
When the right is in power, they run on hate as well. It’s just their targeting that varies. Hate is a powerful mover whichever faction is in power.
I recall a better time when Hollywood appeared to be anti-war and anti-government. They made a lot better movies then. Now that they have fully embraced being an Ideological State Apparatus the glamour has worn off. Unfortunately, they are so out of touch with reality that they are the last ones to see it.
And it so desperately needs to be seen.
Like….don’t they realize what they have become?
Brilliant deduction. The pattern hasn't changed since pre Roman Time's then basically. Thinking we might want to put out a better proposal to the people than what's obviously going to happen here. DAO - ILLUMINATES the middlemen. And middlemen they are Chris.
How does it illuminate them. By showing how unnecessary they are?
Precisely.
It is refreshing to see someone call Che Guevara what he truly was. He was a psychopathic, rich kid so bored with life that murder was his only fulfillment. Our grandfathers had good reasons to look askance at America's beatniks and hippies.
At first, the hippies didn’t trust the yippies. The political amalgamation took some time…
>>the most governmenty governments ever to exist in the history of governments
This gave me the smileyest smile I've smiled this month!
Also, spot-on, Christopher. I leaned left in my youth precisely because of anti-war. When I tell that to current leftys and question why the left went from anti-war to pro-war, all I get back is 'that fluoride stare.' Preposterous.
Hey…this is the first time I have heard the expression “fluoride stare.” How did I miss that?
Better late than never!
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/fluoride-stare
We think much alike.
Guess I'll see you at the upcoming gubment indoctrination center someday, for some re-education!
I always think of the camp in the original “Red Dawn” when I hear that :)
I don't think so. This planet has a lot of nice places to stay away from this sociopaths.
Got any particular places in mind?
Many. But not here ...
Yet here we are.
Sure. But there are better means of communication for secret places. ;-)
Feel free to message me. Unlike Facebook, Substack isn’t listening in…
Crixcyon,
Right on!
This is an exceptional piece Chris, really hits to the heart of the matter. Interested to know what chapter this would be in the book! 🤩
Thank you much. And thanks for the sub!
I guess you’ll just have to keep reading to find out :)
💯🎸🎶
Christopher, as usual, very well-stated! "the most governmenty governments ever to exist..." is absolutely true and wonderfully droll. I do thank you for the digging you do in understanding all this. The death of my brother in Vietnam in 1968, drove me further to the Left. Decades later, I left the Left and am much more Conservative now. I see the excess and stay on the narrow path with God. I did want to congratulate you on your book, which I see is quite detailed and direct. Very powerful stuff.
You and I are both deep thinkers and our writing reflects that. You are more of an endurance runner, while I am a sprinter by core temperament. No matter, we both speak on core subjects of human freedom and the need for fellowship and astute counsel on how to live in freedom. God bless and keep you and thank you for liking my new writing piece, as well!
Thanks, and keep on truckin’!
I will indeed, Christopher, No stopping until God calls me Home...to my Eternal assignment.
❤️
Christopher I believe DiLorenzo missed Lincoln's True Essence and Reasons why he did key actions.
Both the left AND right just championed the renewal of the FISA act, sans the Briggs amendment which would have protected American citizens from the spying covered in the act.
Who cast the tie-breaking vote not allowing the Briggs amendment? None other than Speaker Mike Johnson, a Republican.
The Uniparty continues unabated.
Yeah, idea sets (ideologies) exist. The gap between many of them is huge. The gap between political parties is much, much smaller. And at times, the gap is functionally nonexistent.
Right! Qaddafi had the Brilliance and Courage to go for Freedom from the Rothschild World Bank, IMF etc. The Rothschilds and their cowardly brutal cartel stranglehold on the economies of the world would have been shattered and may have caused a domino effect. He tried to do it with the Arabs but the Big Shots were too much in the pockets of the Rothschilds to fund their depraved lifestyles.
BTW: If you want to hear the most Courageous Speech to power ever given listen to Qaddafi's 2 hour speech at the UN where he exposed much!
Great Exposure Christopher!
So for most its just a power play to get in power and then a power play to stay in power by any methods.
Not so for some True Freedom Fighters such as: Thomas Jefferson, Abe Lincoln, JFK, Mandela and Qaddafi!
I plan to revisit Thomas DiLorenzo's take on Lincoln, though. I want to learn more there…
While you're examining Lincoln, tell us about Qaddafi too... great post, Christopher!. "The most governmenty government..." Brills.
Thanks, Amusings :-)
Amusings, The Western Media portrayal of Qaddafi for 40 years as a "madman" does not take into the True Qaddafi. Just a few points:
* He took over Control of Libya from a King who was appointed by the US/UK after WWII and who kept the Libyan people as the poorest and most wretched country on earth.
* He did this in a bloodless coup against an unelected King.
* Libya having prior been an Italian Colony for decades, Italian Settlers owned much of the most fertile land along the coast for farms and vineyards, businesses, best houses etc. Qaddafi gave them, I think, 48 hours to get out with 2 suitcases per person. Noon was harmed. Qaddafi saw it that they were given stolen land and it was taken back. (Maybe there is a precedent here? No it would not work in Palestine I guess a 2 state solution is the best option at this point). I knew many Italian settlers who respected Qaddafi.
* Qaddafi moved Libya from the lowest standard in the world to the highest in Africa and almost on par with Greece and Spain.
* No interest loans. No Rothschild Bank.
* Blacks treated as well as non-Blacks.
* He was moving to a Pan African Currency backed by commodities.
* Man Made River, from Giant Aquifers under the Sahara, to bring Fresh Water across Africa.
* High Education rates.
* Free Medical.
Much, much more.
“ He was moving to a Pan African Currency backed by commodities.”
That, I think, is why they killed him.
Lots of good information. And it doesn't surprise me that our government lied about him. But it also wouldn't surprise me if, no matter what political leader we examine, we were to find authoritarian tendencies. There are very few 'my guy is better than your guy' arguments. And I'm sure we can find dirt on Lincoln. But overall, the overreach of the leaders today would make Lincoln blush.
Right Amusings but some were True Freedom Fighters who did great things for their people and most paid a horrific price with Lincoln, JFK and Qaddafi being prime examples. Sure none were perfect nobody is. The three noted all moved to interest free currency's without the Rothschilds and were murdered soon after.
Ideology, democracy, elections - all this sh*t exists for only one purpose.
Control.
If you understand life you despise ideologies, parties, democracy and elections for life.
Period.
Parties, democracy, and elections for sure.
As to ideology…. Picking a single school of thought and turning it into a team and a fetish….yeah, that’s bad.
But it can also just be convenient shorthand for an existing set of ideas. Ideas, for better or worse, do tend to fall into sets. So, for example, adherents to one (and only one) ideological idea-set are addling children into cutting off their own breasts and genitalia, taking life-altering drugs with permanent effects, etc. I don’t want to be excessively ideological myself, but I am also not going to hold back when critiquing such things.
You are making a significant mistake. Ideology and philosophy are not siblings. Ideology is not even a member of the philosophy family. Ideology is not even allowed to work with philosophy. But ideology always claims to work for philosophy on its CV - like all fraudsters.
I am a great friend of philosophy.
That's why I despise ideology ...
So what is your more precise definition of these terms?
Ideology = control instrument
Philosophy = concepts for understanding the world and all aspects of life
Example:
Karl Marx and majorly Friedrich Engels have created Marxism, later supplemented by Lenin to Marxism-Leninism.
There is some evidence that Marx and Engels had been (somehow) philosophers (Engels was the smarter guy) and you can find interesting ideas in their early work contrasting Hegel. But the ideology Marxism was not philosophical at all and was incited by the elites.
I believe that the mixup of philosophy and ideology roots in Marx / Engels / Lenin.
Seems reasonable. So then what is it that it convincing children to chop of their body parts? Ideology or philosophy.
Ideology and the cult who organizes this all.
I always get Ron Silver confused with Ron Burgundy. 😁
Couldn’t an anarchist type system become corrupt? Could this type of “government” become a cult? Would you defend it with your life? Is anarchism ultimate freedom? Is it worth fighting for? Isn’t anarchism a form of rule?
"Could anarchism become a cult?"
—It could not do so and remain proper anarchism, no. Anarchism says that if you want to remain a subject of some government, you are free to do so. That government is free to exist. It simply mustn't force people to be its subjects against their will. Anarchism's rule is that the individual human person must not be subjected to the initiation of force or to any nonconsensual imposition of government.
So no, anarchism could not become a cult and remain anarchism.
"Would you defend it with your life?"
—The cost-benefit analysis of dying for various causes is far too complex, and for too situationally dependent, for a simple answer. The notion that the human person is a naturally free, self-owning being who must never be subjected to force unless he has first initiated force against another, and whose consent is required in all things, certainly falls into the category of an ethos that is worth defending and fighting for.
"Is anarchism ultimate freedom?"
—What do you mean?
"Isn’t anarchism a form of rule?"
—You seem to still be thinking is terms of one-size-fits-all solutions forcibly imposed upon large groups of people in large areas. That is the old model. The new world looks a lot different: https://christophercook.substack.com/p/what-kind-world-you-want
It seems in todays world any tract of earth that is occupied by anyone will be attacked at some point. Certainly this government we live under would have no hesitation of invading a society that occupies space,, earth, property. Invading could be CIA type BS like they are doing here to us. I’m not sure but hasn’t this idea of anarchism been the idea and reason countries have been overthrown, and then turn into some type of hierarchy? I don’t mean to be putting down the idea, I question the ability this could ever happen with totalitarian countries like the one we live in.
This is actually a HUGE topic.
First, the presumption is that anarchic areas would be defenseless. That is an erroneous presumption. Protective force still exists in a condition of voluntary order, just as it does in a condition of involuntary order, like we have now. It is just that those exerting the force would be different. Read the Hoppe book I am always citing for a really great description of how this could work. (Much more could be said on this topic.)
Second, even if we presume smallness, that does not guarantee destruction and annexation. Small countries exist today. Why have they not been seized by larger countries?
Third, on the other side of that same coin, the existence of a system of states is also no guarantee of safety. Militaries and intelligence agencies take over or destabilize states now. State vs. state. The existence of this issue does not obviate the possibility or value of an anarchic condition.
Fourth, a large anarchic area would not be easier to take over—it would be infinitely harder. With a state, all you have to do is defeat its military and then its government surrenders, handing over a massive hierarchical system of control over the whole people. Laws, infrastructure, factories all just shift to new management. The people go from saying “We obey State X” to “We obey State Y.”
In an anarchic scenario, by contrast, the people say, “If you want to rule all these lands and all these people, you will have to pacify every square inch and every individual person. Any part of it you do not pacify will not be yours. Any person you fail to bring to heel will not be yours. So come try — you will die for every square inch, because everyone will be shooting at you all the time.”