Christopher, I am enjoying reading your posts and I also observe what is happening where I am in El Salvador. To me, adopting bitcoin is a bold move as it does, allow more sovereignty for individuals. It feels like a step in the right direction. What has struck me this past week is my observation of how relaxed and happy the people are here. Bukele has restored a sense of safety to this country and that allows a lot to happen. I think of children and how useful a safe container is, where they feel supported and relaxed. I was in the city the night before the election, which he won yesterday at 85% (or higher but that number is close). There is no alcohol sold here for a number of days around the election time. I contrast this to the US where divisiveness runs so high, no matter who wins, almost half the country will be infuriated and in a state of battle. And there will be alcohol I am sure. Lots of it. This country is sold in mainstream media as a dictatorship. To me, I look around and think: oh my gosh, look what happens when people feel safe and hopeful. I have never experienced such friendliness and human eye contact anywhere else in the world. This is interesting to me. It doesn’t feel to me that it goes against your vision. It feels like it is a step towards something better. I have no idea if this makes sense…and I have no idea how things will go here. Just that there is very positive momentum happening in my opinion right now.
I don’t know much about the situation there—indeed, most of what I know comes from you.
Obviously I talk about freedom a lot, and it is very important to me. But people need and crave order, and they will even choose an oppressive order over chaos. I am not saying that El Salvador is oppressive—it sounds, rather, like Bukele has simply gone after the people who are actually committing violent acts against others and he is using the necessary amount of force against them to protect all the peaceful people. If so, that sounds at least like a step in the right direction.
Another good post, Chris! You're way ahead of me, as usual. But offhand, if I were to join this debate/discussion, I'd be favoring a *minarchist* point of view.
If the world were filled with Chris Cooks and other like-minded people of good faith, I'd be more optimistic about the anarchist approach. But the world is also full of people of bad faith.
While an anarchist society might start well, there is something in the "course of human events" that is akin to entropy in physical systems. Corruption and disorder of different kinds always creep in, and there needs to be a force, akin to negative feedback in physical systems, that keeps correcting societal behaviors and keeps society stable.
Q: What's the difference between a minarchist and an anarchist?
A: About six months.
If you were behind me, it was only by a little distance, which means that if you've made it all the way to minarchist, you'll be an anarchist in just about six months too! So that makes me very happy.
Seriously—it is the logical conclusion of the principles we share. And the more one is exposed to anarchist arguments, the more inescapable their logic becomes.
For example, you state that "If the world were filled with Chris Cooks and other like-minded people of good faith, I'd be more optimistic about the anarchist approach." IOW, we need government because people are so dangerous.
But that actually proves the reverse. The fact that people are bad is exactly what makes government even more dangerous than the private institutions that would exist in its absence. Bad people are attracted to government, and government amplifies their power to do bad things 1,000-fold. Only government can command the resources to kill 400 million people in a single century. Only government can build and maintain a massive arsenal of world-destroying weapons. In the absence of the state, we would still have bad people, but the damage they could do would be nothing in comparison.
On the home front, we are subjected to 15,000 murders and millions of other assaults and property crimes each year. The police have zero incentive to actually protect us from this. This situation wouldn't be worse if we instead had private providers of justice and security, driven by market competition instead of the perverse incentives of government.
Yes, protective force is needed to protect rights. The only question is who—will wield the force? The more I learn anarchist arguments, the more convinced I become that government is the last one you want.
Do you ever listen to Michael Malice? He makes anarchism fun :-)
'So imagine living where you are, and connecting with people around the world who share this vision. Imagine a distributed nation whose shared goal is to set you free.' which ties in perfectly with the work we are doing over here and with my late Dad's 'Cultural Transformation' which I am bringing to the fore. It will all come together as meant and I am so glad to be a part of that. Terrific post, thank you, Chris.
While human governance 2.0 is a disaster for humanity, I am not so convinced I want to be a part of 3.0. I do not want to be psychologically attached to any dogma, leaders or other mental constructs created by any society. This is how it all goes wrong.
I strongly desire to live in the world but not be a part of it. Most humans cannot help their degree of arrogance and that leads to a few wanting to control the many. The state of being free is more desirable than living free which is often dictated by some master or presumed power.
After 10,000 years or wars, fighting and hostilities, humans still seem to love the heck out of violence and death. When or if we ever outgrow the need to fight each other, then a new start can begin.
Protective force will still exist; it will simply be deployed by private agencies operating and competing in a free market rather than by entities claiming a monopoly to be the sole authority in a given territory (involuntary governments). There will also be enclaves with their own way of doing things (the Amish now are a partial example of that).
Now, if you are completely unfamiliar with this school of thought, that quick description will not be sufficiently convincing. This really does take some study. If you stick around here, you will get a slow, steady diet. If you want a reading list, I am going to be putting one together later today, for publication tomorrow.
Organized crime exists _now_. In fact, organized crime exists in large measure because of the state—because prohibitions on certain things make it more profitable to sell them illicitly.
And then there's the 20,000 murders, 140,000 rapes, 900,000 assaults, and 200,000 property crimes.
And then we add the 262 million people slaughtered and starved in the 20th century alone, not only by the state, but in the name of statism. And that does not count another 150 million dead in total wars waged by the only entities that can wage total wars—states.
Your argument is common enough, but it is based on an unproved claim—that the absence of the state would be worse than its presence. Worse than all that? Worse than half a billion people killed in a single century?
"...because prohibitions on certain things make it more profitable to sell them illicitly."
The profit is in controlling the market, however it's done and whether the goods are legal or illegal.
So...in the sovereign future, with no state to outlaw trafficking, we can expect the demand for slaves to lessen, because there won't be so much profit in slavery, because slavery will be legal?
It's too easy to pin all violence and crime committed within the boundaries of a state (I.e. ALL violence and crime) ON "statism" as the single factor.
But it is people driving statism, and people would drive whatever systems arise in its absence... whether based ostensibly on dreams of individual sovereignty or not.
I agree that people are a problem, and always will be. The question is, what is the best mechanism for restraining that problem. In philosophical terms—what is the best vector for deploying protective force in response to, and to defend against, coercive force?
My argument—and the argument made by all the thinkers in this field—is that the private mechanisms that would arise in the absence of involuntary government would be more effective. Indeed, the purpose of this post is to call attention to the wide swath of literature on that subject.
Furthermore…
People will be bad with or without involuntary governance.
Involuntary governance attracts a certain type of bad personality, and gives them power. Indeed, it exponentially multiplies their power to do bad things.
So, in a condition of involuntary governance, you have people doing bad things outside of government (criminals) and bad people doing bad things inside government, using the unbelievably powerful tools government gives them (unlimited taxation and money printing, world-destroying weapons, and the legal power to compel without recourse).
In the absence of involuntary governance, you only have one of those two things. Yes, private protection agencies might go wrong, but they do not have 1/1000th the ability to do harm as their counterparts in government.
We have tried the involuntary government nation-state, and the result is endless war and rivers of blood. Meanwhile, all statists have for their argument is the pure conjecture that it would be _even worse_ without the state.
I used to argue the latter, but the weight of logic eventually became too much for me to ignore.
"my talk was on moving on to the next phase in human social and political organization, which (also unsurprisingly) I believe ought to involve the end of involuntary governance and a move to decentralized, consensual arrangements and polities"
how? that's the goal, of course! how? do you convince those 'in power" to release their notions of a {divine} right to rule or do you start from the bottom and convince people to abandon those that have such notions? and how does it not turn into a bloodbath that merely transfers the power. Whether it is a "from the bottom"--russian revolution, cuban, maoist, or further back the horea revolt of from the top the the years of anarchy in england, etc. or perhaps worst of all, the most meaningless and ridiculous "revolution" of all time where all the revolters in power merely slaughtered each other until Napoleon emerged?
So how? I agree with your concepts--I just don't know how to accomplish the goal?
You are suggesting "self selection" or more crudely put, "get in where you fit in". I have suggested for a long time that people move to areas in the country where the government and residents share your values. For most Americans, this is entirely possible. The problem with this lies in the fact that many who do make this move is that it is a matter of affordability. They move to lower-tax and higher affordability areas still maintain their very liberal world view and demand their new local and and state government offer the same services and policies.
Like locusts—they destroy the areas in which they live, realize they've become unlivable, have no clue how they got that way, and then bring the same destructive views to a new location.
For me, the problem with moving is only secondarily about affordability. It's mostly about where family are located. That keeps us here in insane neo-fascist NY state.
Gee wizz, yea you hit on a strand I think the wef have over looked, and that is we have the Internet and we are all thinking more than ever, joint with a spiritual openness like never before. The new world order will be in many ways unimaginable to us now in exact detail, so yes lets think, feel, and act in sink with this changing order of earth! and send as much posativity and uplift as we transition. thats the one thing we are not argueing over, is that the future of our order will be like never before. Exciting times
Indeed. But feel the lightness—because things are about to change. And part of them changing is knowing they're going to change—believing it, and joining with others who do too, and who are working towards it.
Maybe co-opting and taking it off the map are their plan A and B? Would achieve similar results. Anyway I don’t put any trust in orgs or anonymous posters, just individuals with tangible authenticity.
Christopher, such a good piece. Politics is out of my wheelhouse, but I follow of few independent journalists, and my FB friend Michael Rectenwald commented that I put artist "William Blake to shame." I have had also some personal run ins with the deepstate (CIA) invading cultural think tanks. I am noticing a pattern of billionaire globalists, like Peter Thiel (hypocritically he received a couple of years ago a life-time achievement award from the Atlas Society, an Ayn Rand think tank)! And chairman of Cato and TAS, Jay Lapeyre, are siding with libertarian anarchists ... my guess is as controlled opposition to ultimately pave the way for globalists without any obstacles like the pesky Constitution of the United States.
We live in a weird world, and even if we did not, I have very little normalcy bias: I would not be surprised to see bigfoot ride a unicorn out of the woods behind my house tomorrow, nor would I be surprised if what you just described turned out to be true.
But if it were true—and I am not saying I think it is, just that nothing surprises me these days—then I think it would only apply to a very small number of anarchists. And I don't think the rest of us are especially impressed with anything Cato says or does.
All of that said, I do not favor your theory. It would be far more effective for a global power to co-opt the U.S. than to try to "take it off the map," so to speak. And I think they have done an impressive job of co-opting it already.
There were transitions between "strawbosses" and hereditary leaders. For example, the Ostrogothic Kingdom of Italy elected their kings. The electors consisted of those Goths who were landowners that paid taxes and provided soldiers, so a small electorate. A candidate for the kingship had to be an elector who was a member of the Amaling family by blood, marriage, or adoption; so a wider field than most modern people would have expected for the 6th century. The adoption of primogeniture was an attempt to avoid succession wars, not entirely successfully as witness the War of the Roses in 15th century England or the War of the Three Henries in 16th century France.
Yup, and there were other examples too. Ireland under the Brehon system, IIUC, elected kings who were primarily figureheads except in time of war. And sometimes, democracy preceded monarchy, as in Rome. In talks of that kind, oversimplification is the order of the day. 🤣
I know that Tacitus talked about Germanic kingship being based on auctoritas (merit) rather than potestas (power)—that they were chosen rather than imposed. And that was in the 1st century. And I know that Germanic kingship played a role in the development of English liberty, via the Saxons/et al. But I did not know the specifics of the 6th century example you cite. Very interesting!
So since you know history, or at least aspects of it, fairly well, how much do you know about the Hanseatic League? I am realizing I need to learn a lot more about it in a hurry!
I'm no expert on medieval history, I just tend to remember intriguing historical events and situations. By the way, Rome was a kingdom before it became a republic; a republic that was a mixture of aristocracy and democracy. The plebeians in the early Republic had an interesting method of obtaining concessions from the patricians: they would threaten to withdraw from Rome and found their own city, an effective threat because at that time the free common Roman citizens provided most of the labor and military force and also because there were still unsettled lands in central Italy. Such lands may have been claimed by various tribes and cities, but were not controlled by them. So the plebeians could have founded their own community the same way the Mormons were able to settle in Utah, unmolested by the Mexican government that claimed sovereignty but did not control that area. It's too bad that would not be so easy today.
That is the understatement of the week. I actually have to stop myself, fairly regularly, from fantasizing about unexplored/unclaimed land and uninhabited planets.
As I said, it takes planning, it’s doable but many brains have to work together. Gates is buying a lot of land, make natural resources scarce and have control on them, not share them, as it’s happening in Australia with the Chinese. Buying land is a must!! And then plan compounds or housing and then you face many problems as the state doesn’t let you to own your own well as in Florida for instance. So to choose the right State and but so much land that nobody can bother you. The cheaper states are the more weather awful but maybe you can build a way of generate energy and keep the compounds warm or the town warm, I don’t know, it takes research. Thanks to the internet we have all these info available but who owns the internet?? So if they want to “ privatize “ the internet we have to create our own technology and that takes decades , etc
Yes but maybe it’s too late for that for some of us because our age, I don’t know. I agree that building up communities that are self sufficient it would be ideal. But unplugging totally it would take to create things to replace what we are use to and the commitment has to be great and have a good plan. Many preppers do their own thing in an isolated way but to me it has to be done in community, we have examples from the hippies communities of the 70 and some have survived but because they have evolved in something more organized. We can learn from others. Now they didn’t have all the stuff we have now specially the internet and dependency we have with our phones. We must create a way to communicate and never it would be fast. I’m being in Morocco and ones of the things that surprised the most was how they communicate with children and young’s who carry the messages , mouth to mouth. Maybe doves?? Are we willing to do that? As I said a big commitment!
It will vary from place to place, person to person, and age to age. But if we all do our best with what we have, we win. The question of how it ALL gets fixed is paralyzing, but we can definitely do all we can locally.
Whitney Webb is talking about the same thing but she did research for her book American under blackmail. Now she is talking about how the “ powers “ that we see as government but in reality is more complex than that are implementing the INTERNET ID and that will be the final stroke of our independence. They want two classes, but because they are a minority they have to convince us in some way “ having nothing and be happy” mantra, they cannot do that here in the States because we love our lifestyles so with internet control and make us totally dependent on internet for everything, that’s it! They control the peasants of not having a revolution or awaking and they continue doing what they always do.
There’s a possibility that the world ends soon or some catastrophic event will put us to ground zero, or maybe not. As you said, interesting times to live in. I less worried about these things and more worried about humans as individuals and their mental health and manipulation. And mainly I’m worried about on “ the war on children “ a movie that came recently. What we are doing to the children who are the future, without children there is not future, no society will survive and we will not have anyone to pass it on, all the knowledge we can gather collectibility is worthless if we don’t have descendants and very important mentally healthy individuals. Tick Tock generation is showing not much prospects.
Christopher, I am enjoying reading your posts and I also observe what is happening where I am in El Salvador. To me, adopting bitcoin is a bold move as it does, allow more sovereignty for individuals. It feels like a step in the right direction. What has struck me this past week is my observation of how relaxed and happy the people are here. Bukele has restored a sense of safety to this country and that allows a lot to happen. I think of children and how useful a safe container is, where they feel supported and relaxed. I was in the city the night before the election, which he won yesterday at 85% (or higher but that number is close). There is no alcohol sold here for a number of days around the election time. I contrast this to the US where divisiveness runs so high, no matter who wins, almost half the country will be infuriated and in a state of battle. And there will be alcohol I am sure. Lots of it. This country is sold in mainstream media as a dictatorship. To me, I look around and think: oh my gosh, look what happens when people feel safe and hopeful. I have never experienced such friendliness and human eye contact anywhere else in the world. This is interesting to me. It doesn’t feel to me that it goes against your vision. It feels like it is a step towards something better. I have no idea if this makes sense…and I have no idea how things will go here. Just that there is very positive momentum happening in my opinion right now.
I don’t know much about the situation there—indeed, most of what I know comes from you.
Obviously I talk about freedom a lot, and it is very important to me. But people need and crave order, and they will even choose an oppressive order over chaos. I am not saying that El Salvador is oppressive—it sounds, rather, like Bukele has simply gone after the people who are actually committing violent acts against others and he is using the necessary amount of force against them to protect all the peaceful people. If so, that sounds at least like a step in the right direction.
Another good post, Chris! You're way ahead of me, as usual. But offhand, if I were to join this debate/discussion, I'd be favoring a *minarchist* point of view.
If the world were filled with Chris Cooks and other like-minded people of good faith, I'd be more optimistic about the anarchist approach. But the world is also full of people of bad faith.
While an anarchist society might start well, there is something in the "course of human events" that is akin to entropy in physical systems. Corruption and disorder of different kinds always creep in, and there needs to be a force, akin to negative feedback in physical systems, that keeps correcting societal behaviors and keeps society stable.
Just some initial thoughts --
Ah, DL—you're a good man.
Ever heard this libertarian joke?
Q: What's the difference between a minarchist and an anarchist?
A: About six months.
If you were behind me, it was only by a little distance, which means that if you've made it all the way to minarchist, you'll be an anarchist in just about six months too! So that makes me very happy.
Seriously—it is the logical conclusion of the principles we share. And the more one is exposed to anarchist arguments, the more inescapable their logic becomes.
For example, you state that "If the world were filled with Chris Cooks and other like-minded people of good faith, I'd be more optimistic about the anarchist approach." IOW, we need government because people are so dangerous.
But that actually proves the reverse. The fact that people are bad is exactly what makes government even more dangerous than the private institutions that would exist in its absence. Bad people are attracted to government, and government amplifies their power to do bad things 1,000-fold. Only government can command the resources to kill 400 million people in a single century. Only government can build and maintain a massive arsenal of world-destroying weapons. In the absence of the state, we would still have bad people, but the damage they could do would be nothing in comparison.
On the home front, we are subjected to 15,000 murders and millions of other assaults and property crimes each year. The police have zero incentive to actually protect us from this. This situation wouldn't be worse if we instead had private providers of justice and security, driven by market competition instead of the perverse incentives of government.
(I highly commend this to you on this subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RILDjo4EXV8)
Yes, protective force is needed to protect rights. The only question is who—will wield the force? The more I learn anarchist arguments, the more convinced I become that government is the last one you want.
Do you ever listen to Michael Malice? He makes anarchism fun :-)
Malice is the ultimate troll. ;)
and yet simultaneously one of the most erudite public intellectuals.
I think that’s what makes him such a great troll. And that he enjoys it so much!
I think that’s what makes him such a great troll. And that he enjoys it so much!
'So imagine living where you are, and connecting with people around the world who share this vision. Imagine a distributed nation whose shared goal is to set you free.' which ties in perfectly with the work we are doing over here and with my late Dad's 'Cultural Transformation' which I am bringing to the fore. It will all come together as meant and I am so glad to be a part of that. Terrific post, thank you, Chris.
It's happening!
It is and it's wonderful. I am building the Unisey website, the time is now.
❤️🔥
While human governance 2.0 is a disaster for humanity, I am not so convinced I want to be a part of 3.0. I do not want to be psychologically attached to any dogma, leaders or other mental constructs created by any society. This is how it all goes wrong.
I strongly desire to live in the world but not be a part of it. Most humans cannot help their degree of arrogance and that leads to a few wanting to control the many. The state of being free is more desirable than living free which is often dictated by some master or presumed power.
After 10,000 years or wars, fighting and hostilities, humans still seem to love the heck out of violence and death. When or if we ever outgrow the need to fight each other, then a new start can begin.
Human beings are indeed the biggest challenge faced by human beings. No doubt.
On 3.0, though, the whole point is that you would not be compelled to live any particular way. You'd have choices.
Did you check out this post when it came out?
https://christophercook.substack.com/p/what-kind-world-you-want
Adherence to principles OK but who is going to judge who is or or is not, then what?
Protective force will still exist; it will simply be deployed by private agencies operating and competing in a free market rather than by entities claiming a monopoly to be the sole authority in a given territory (involuntary governments). There will also be enclaves with their own way of doing things (the Amish now are a partial example of that).
Now, if you are completely unfamiliar with this school of thought, that quick description will not be sufficiently convincing. This really does take some study. If you stick around here, you will get a slow, steady diet. If you want a reading list, I am going to be putting one together later today, for publication tomorrow.
Like in the DRC!
So exciting to think about enclaves such as Amish or the Shining Path.
Glorious future awaits...but only as part of a vision, a school of thought, an idea.
Organized criminals and militias of the present thank you for making way for an even brighter future for the privatization of security.
As long as we can call ourselves sovereign...
The Shining Path exists _now_.
Organized crime exists _now_. In fact, organized crime exists in large measure because of the state—because prohibitions on certain things make it more profitable to sell them illicitly.
And then there's the 20,000 murders, 140,000 rapes, 900,000 assaults, and 200,000 property crimes.
And then we add the 262 million people slaughtered and starved in the 20th century alone, not only by the state, but in the name of statism. And that does not count another 150 million dead in total wars waged by the only entities that can wage total wars—states.
Your argument is common enough, but it is based on an unproved claim—that the absence of the state would be worse than its presence. Worse than all that? Worse than half a billion people killed in a single century?
"...because prohibitions on certain things make it more profitable to sell them illicitly."
The profit is in controlling the market, however it's done and whether the goods are legal or illegal.
So...in the sovereign future, with no state to outlaw trafficking, we can expect the demand for slaves to lessen, because there won't be so much profit in slavery, because slavery will be legal?
It's too easy to pin all violence and crime committed within the boundaries of a state (I.e. ALL violence and crime) ON "statism" as the single factor.
But it is people driving statism, and people would drive whatever systems arise in its absence... whether based ostensibly on dreams of individual sovereignty or not.
I agree that people are a problem, and always will be. The question is, what is the best mechanism for restraining that problem. In philosophical terms—what is the best vector for deploying protective force in response to, and to defend against, coercive force?
My argument—and the argument made by all the thinkers in this field—is that the private mechanisms that would arise in the absence of involuntary government would be more effective. Indeed, the purpose of this post is to call attention to the wide swath of literature on that subject.
Furthermore…
People will be bad with or without involuntary governance.
Involuntary governance attracts a certain type of bad personality, and gives them power. Indeed, it exponentially multiplies their power to do bad things.
So, in a condition of involuntary governance, you have people doing bad things outside of government (criminals) and bad people doing bad things inside government, using the unbelievably powerful tools government gives them (unlimited taxation and money printing, world-destroying weapons, and the legal power to compel without recourse).
In the absence of involuntary governance, you only have one of those two things. Yes, private protection agencies might go wrong, but they do not have 1/1000th the ability to do harm as their counterparts in government.
We have tried the involuntary government nation-state, and the result is endless war and rivers of blood. Meanwhile, all statists have for their argument is the pure conjecture that it would be _even worse_ without the state.
I used to argue the latter, but the weight of logic eventually became too much for me to ignore.
Very inspiring. I'm on board for Human Governance 3.0.
Let's make it happen!
"my talk was on moving on to the next phase in human social and political organization, which (also unsurprisingly) I believe ought to involve the end of involuntary governance and a move to decentralized, consensual arrangements and polities"
how? that's the goal, of course! how? do you convince those 'in power" to release their notions of a {divine} right to rule or do you start from the bottom and convince people to abandon those that have such notions? and how does it not turn into a bloodbath that merely transfers the power. Whether it is a "from the bottom"--russian revolution, cuban, maoist, or further back the horea revolt of from the top the the years of anarchy in england, etc. or perhaps worst of all, the most meaningless and ridiculous "revolution" of all time where all the revolters in power merely slaughtered each other until Napoleon emerged?
So how? I agree with your concepts--I just don't know how to accomplish the goal?
Ah, the quadrillion dollar question.
I agree that revolutions are extremely problematic. And I also agree that governments are not just going to let us go. The barriers are steep.
I would say our three main hopes are
1. Yes, bottom-up. Not revolution-style, but opt-out style. (Underthrow, as Max Borders calls it: https://underthrow.substack.com/)
2. A commitment to a generational project. "We did not light the torch; we will not get to see the bonfire."
3. Sudden collapse of nation states, leaving us with a vacuum to fill.
Before we continue, though have you read this one? It has helpful baseline info on this subject…
https://christophercook.substack.com/p/what-kind-world-you-want
You are suggesting "self selection" or more crudely put, "get in where you fit in". I have suggested for a long time that people move to areas in the country where the government and residents share your values. For most Americans, this is entirely possible. The problem with this lies in the fact that many who do make this move is that it is a matter of affordability. They move to lower-tax and higher affordability areas still maintain their very liberal world view and demand their new local and and state government offer the same services and policies.
Like locusts—they destroy the areas in which they live, realize they've become unlivable, have no clue how they got that way, and then bring the same destructive views to a new location.
For me, the problem with moving is only secondarily about affordability. It's mostly about where family are located. That keeps us here in insane neo-fascist NY state.
I just read 2 articles this morning that are related. The 1st link is on anarchist David Graeber, 2nd is on Natural Law from Mark Passio.
https://nevermoremedia.substack.com/p/doe2-did-the-jesuits-unintentionally
And
https://suecartwright.substack.com/p/the-nature-of-natural-law
I think I read the latter when it came out. I love that people get this stuff. Ourt numbers are growing. Thanks!
Gee wizz, yea you hit on a strand I think the wef have over looked, and that is we have the Internet and we are all thinking more than ever, joint with a spiritual openness like never before. The new world order will be in many ways unimaginable to us now in exact detail, so yes lets think, feel, and act in sink with this changing order of earth! and send as much posativity and uplift as we transition. thats the one thing we are not argueing over, is that the future of our order will be like never before. Exciting times
Exciting times indeed. The center of gravity is shifting…
gravity seems kinda heavy lately?
Indeed. But feel the lightness—because things are about to change. And part of them changing is knowing they're going to change—believing it, and joining with others who do too, and who are working towards it.
Maybe co-opting and taking it off the map are their plan A and B? Would achieve similar results. Anyway I don’t put any trust in orgs or anonymous posters, just individuals with tangible authenticity.
"Anyway I don’t put any trust in orgs or anonymous posters, just individuals with tangible authenticity."
Same.
Do I have tangible authenticity? 🤣
Christopher, such a good piece. Politics is out of my wheelhouse, but I follow of few independent journalists, and my FB friend Michael Rectenwald commented that I put artist "William Blake to shame." I have had also some personal run ins with the deepstate (CIA) invading cultural think tanks. I am noticing a pattern of billionaire globalists, like Peter Thiel (hypocritically he received a couple of years ago a life-time achievement award from the Atlas Society, an Ayn Rand think tank)! And chairman of Cato and TAS, Jay Lapeyre, are siding with libertarian anarchists ... my guess is as controlled opposition to ultimately pave the way for globalists without any obstacles like the pesky Constitution of the United States.
Thank you!
We live in a weird world, and even if we did not, I have very little normalcy bias: I would not be surprised to see bigfoot ride a unicorn out of the woods behind my house tomorrow, nor would I be surprised if what you just described turned out to be true.
But if it were true—and I am not saying I think it is, just that nothing surprises me these days—then I think it would only apply to a very small number of anarchists. And I don't think the rest of us are especially impressed with anything Cato says or does.
All of that said, I do not favor your theory. It would be far more effective for a global power to co-opt the U.S. than to try to "take it off the map," so to speak. And I think they have done an impressive job of co-opting it already.
There were transitions between "strawbosses" and hereditary leaders. For example, the Ostrogothic Kingdom of Italy elected their kings. The electors consisted of those Goths who were landowners that paid taxes and provided soldiers, so a small electorate. A candidate for the kingship had to be an elector who was a member of the Amaling family by blood, marriage, or adoption; so a wider field than most modern people would have expected for the 6th century. The adoption of primogeniture was an attempt to avoid succession wars, not entirely successfully as witness the War of the Roses in 15th century England or the War of the Three Henries in 16th century France.
Yup, and there were other examples too. Ireland under the Brehon system, IIUC, elected kings who were primarily figureheads except in time of war. And sometimes, democracy preceded monarchy, as in Rome. In talks of that kind, oversimplification is the order of the day. 🤣
I know that Tacitus talked about Germanic kingship being based on auctoritas (merit) rather than potestas (power)—that they were chosen rather than imposed. And that was in the 1st century. And I know that Germanic kingship played a role in the development of English liberty, via the Saxons/et al. But I did not know the specifics of the 6th century example you cite. Very interesting!
So since you know history, or at least aspects of it, fairly well, how much do you know about the Hanseatic League? I am realizing I need to learn a lot more about it in a hurry!
I'm no expert on medieval history, I just tend to remember intriguing historical events and situations. By the way, Rome was a kingdom before it became a republic; a republic that was a mixture of aristocracy and democracy. The plebeians in the early Republic had an interesting method of obtaining concessions from the patricians: they would threaten to withdraw from Rome and found their own city, an effective threat because at that time the free common Roman citizens provided most of the labor and military force and also because there were still unsettled lands in central Italy. Such lands may have been claimed by various tribes and cities, but were not controlled by them. So the plebeians could have founded their own community the same way the Mormons were able to settle in Utah, unmolested by the Mexican government that claimed sovereignty but did not control that area. It's too bad that would not be so easy today.
"It's too bad that would not be so easy today."
That is the understatement of the week. I actually have to stop myself, fairly regularly, from fantasizing about unexplored/unclaimed land and uninhabited planets.
As I said, it takes planning, it’s doable but many brains have to work together. Gates is buying a lot of land, make natural resources scarce and have control on them, not share them, as it’s happening in Australia with the Chinese. Buying land is a must!! And then plan compounds or housing and then you face many problems as the state doesn’t let you to own your own well as in Florida for instance. So to choose the right State and but so much land that nobody can bother you. The cheaper states are the more weather awful but maybe you can build a way of generate energy and keep the compounds warm or the town warm, I don’t know, it takes research. Thanks to the internet we have all these info available but who owns the internet?? So if they want to “ privatize “ the internet we have to create our own technology and that takes decades , etc
Indeed. What is the deal with wells in Florida?
Yes but maybe it’s too late for that for some of us because our age, I don’t know. I agree that building up communities that are self sufficient it would be ideal. But unplugging totally it would take to create things to replace what we are use to and the commitment has to be great and have a good plan. Many preppers do their own thing in an isolated way but to me it has to be done in community, we have examples from the hippies communities of the 70 and some have survived but because they have evolved in something more organized. We can learn from others. Now they didn’t have all the stuff we have now specially the internet and dependency we have with our phones. We must create a way to communicate and never it would be fast. I’m being in Morocco and ones of the things that surprised the most was how they communicate with children and young’s who carry the messages , mouth to mouth. Maybe doves?? Are we willing to do that? As I said a big commitment!
It will vary from place to place, person to person, and age to age. But if we all do our best with what we have, we win. The question of how it ALL gets fixed is paralyzing, but we can definitely do all we can locally.
Whitney Webb is talking about the same thing but she did research for her book American under blackmail. Now she is talking about how the “ powers “ that we see as government but in reality is more complex than that are implementing the INTERNET ID and that will be the final stroke of our independence. They want two classes, but because they are a minority they have to convince us in some way “ having nothing and be happy” mantra, they cannot do that here in the States because we love our lifestyles so with internet control and make us totally dependent on internet for everything, that’s it! They control the peasants of not having a revolution or awaking and they continue doing what they always do.
There’s a possibility that the world ends soon or some catastrophic event will put us to ground zero, or maybe not. As you said, interesting times to live in. I less worried about these things and more worried about humans as individuals and their mental health and manipulation. And mainly I’m worried about on “ the war on children “ a movie that came recently. What we are doing to the children who are the future, without children there is not future, no society will survive and we will not have anyone to pass it on, all the knowledge we can gather collectibility is worthless if we don’t have descendants and very important mentally healthy individuals. Tick Tock generation is showing not much prospects.
Might unplugging from the internet and becoming more simple (albeit more primitive) be at least a partial solution?