Christopher, Christopher. You ask of me a weeks-long project, just to know my own thoughts on the subject.
There must be, at bedrock, an understanding of society that both frees and obligates each member. This tension must express itself in ways that reinforce our commitments to each other while coercing no one. If wealth means power over others, we are without hope. Men, male and female, seek security. Some, notably parents and the agéd, will sell their liberty for it. To avoid incentivizing this, a just society sets a minimum barrier against want, while penalizing wrongful coercion. None will freely give service to a community without expectation of reciprocity. If I am killed while quarrying stone for the group, will my wife starve, my children beg in rags? That is the current situation, nearly, for certain poorly regarded rural groups.
But how do we craft such guarantees without creating coercion? Not with words, is my immediate felt response.
Not long ago, the banker and the drunk tipped hats when they met, and stood together in litany and song on certain mornings of the week. It will be many years before we can afford the luxury of a drunk, but there will, in every comity of ten, be one whose habits tend less to industry than want. What keeps us whole?
I offer more questions than answers because such is the state of my mind. I am very interested in your thoughts, though I appreciate your call for input and your unreadiness to dominate the conversation.
As you say, these things we must achieve without force. How? I'm just gonna think out loud.
A sense of community is stronger in smaller communities. So perhaps that is the first place to start.
But communities must cohere around something. Shared geography clearly isn't enough—if it were, I would know the names of more than ten people in this development in which I live. Something about modern life is causing increased atomization.
The lack of widespread church attendance is likely a part of it. That was a cohering factor. Same with Elks, Lions, Eagles, etc. The people who still do those are fewer in number, but those who do have more community spirit. Social institutions are important.
But you cannot make people go back to church or do the Lions Club or whatever. So what is the answer there?
I guess starting from the ground up. Build a community in your own house, then with a few neighbors (or at a distance, in virtual communities). Plant a seed of community and let it grow in this atomized soil. At least that is a controllable, as opposed to just lamenting the loss of something in the wonder community.
And yeah, some small percentage of people aren't going to work, they're going to be lazy, etc. When those numbers are small, they are manageable. When it's one in ten, you can tip your hat and sing together. But when it's four in ten, or one out of two, you can no longer accept it, offer help, etc. When it's an epidemic, it's a threat, and community is much harder in a low-trust/extraction-based society.
That is the fault of monetary policy, welfare, going off the gold standard, central banking, etc. Those are going to be tough to fix.
Here too, it seems like building small communities of like-minded people, from the ground up, has to be the starting point. It's controllable and doable, unlike trying to fix the whole shebang from the top down.
Yes, hell yes, to all. But I’m still stuck for how to start. My neighbors are all kindly folks, but each seems already to have found their karass. Last person they want to know is the guy next door.
Thanks, I will give it a look. No actionable ideas, yet, that are not singleton demonstrations of the sort I've been pursuing since 1978.
I am probably a poor choice of person to be thinking much on this, as I regularly retreat even from the company of the woman I have loved since 1975. With one I am capable of speaking all night, with two I only listen, if three, I walk away. In a crowded air terminal, I relax in blissful anonymity.
The driving force, the ring-zero rule in all of Consciousness, from the smallest particle to the largest complex organization, is to seek what is best for itself, and AT THE SAME TIME, is best for all others.
This is the guiding principle - simple to understand, difficult to accomplish.
But a worthy endeavor.
If you look at Nature, our bodies, the Cosmos, it is done effortlessly on our behalf.
To me, THIS is evidence of the God, or Supreme Being.
Do you speak of this at more length elsewhere? I am the proverbial burnt child when it comes to metaphysics generally, but you touch something close to my experience here.
How to build a moral meet where non-interference becomes a systemic urge? Or are we truly made so in the germ, and have only to unlearn all the falsity of trying to bend nature, ours and others, into the present amorality?
Paraphrasing a past President or his speechwriter: Ask not what your country can do for you, ask instead what you can do for yourself, your family, your friends.
That's a choice, though. I can't speak too much for pop culture, as I mostly observe it and rarely participate, but there have to be things that people are actually pursuing out there, right?
My own little corner of the world and the internet has enough positive morality (things to do) to balance the things to avoid.
When I address statelessness, I always try to frame it as a vision for a bright, peaceful, prosperous, and meaningful future. We should always emphasize this. It's not just "cut out the cancer", it's "supercharge everything good about society and community".
For the nation I am looking to shepherd into existence, however, I want something that's even more epic. A goal that can span the generations—something that people will be willing to have as a goal, even knowing that they will have to pass the torch on because the goal won't be complete in their lifetime.
I agree. Words and ideas matter, but I think we have to build our institutions right now. Demonstrate the effectiveness of our ideas (at least in embryonic form) before the state is gone. It's already started in various areas and fields. CrowdHealth is a prime example in the health "insurance" field. We need more - and quick - before this colossus implodes.
Yes—exactly. We don't want chaos, because that will just lead to more authoritarianism. So we need the institutions in place before any collapse happens.
Excellent! I comment as I wish to support you in your worthy process - so take it as energy more than substance.
I think your ideas are great - that they don't have to be improved on at all (or honed, dumbed-down, or spiced up), to inspire or be used as a blueprint for building. I also don't think you need 'other ideas' (personally I was raised on Rudolf Steiner's theories of 'social three-folding' but I think if you took that up as a study it might just hold up action which is much more important than theory at this point.
One thought about how you address the Left-Right culture. The way our society is designed, those on the culture of the Right (the "Cains") occupy the lowest rungs of the 'warrior-builder-artists' hierarchy - soldiers/security - working class, and starving artists and the highest - military and security Intelligence, (Deepstate) Statesmen, and 'artists in high-tech fields and finance). The Left occupies the middle (artificially giving civil servants/white collar workers more economic power than jobs involving 'real work'). The Left are the 'teachers, shepherd, and priests (bankers) of society - or the "Abels."
I'd argue there is a great deal of debate, discussion and education about 'what we're for' among the 'elite Right' as there certainly is in the lowest end (a friend of mine - a fellow builder was told in 2015, or so, if he was planning on voting for "Bernie" he'd be chopped up and thrown in a dumpster). In a nutshell this is Freemasonry (or just "masonry" if we're only talking about the lowest rung). Masons are laconic at best, Freemasons are secretive.
That said - what you are doing (the general nature of your substack posts) is a "leftist" type activity supporting rightoid values. It is trained into us to ignore or attack this. As soon as the construction worker starts to hear the exhortations of the teacher to 'better themselves' - to 'do this or that' he becomes agitated and rebellious. He is trained to hate the arrogance of the intellectual who wishes to harness the power of the brute for his own ends. Moreover, he knows the teacher is teaching an anonymous master's content. The division of the classes and values ensures that whoever is doing the instructing is the least capable in carrying it out in practice (Dilbert).
I know in your case you have been living your values and share your 'instructions' as a narrative of your personal experience - that is exactly what is needed - it's just foreign - it's new. Nonetheless - this has a future - it is THE FUTURE. It just must take form before all your plans are exposed and new laws are passed to prohibit the creation of the new communities that are destined to be established.
Wow—a lot to think about there. I like how unpredictable your thoughts are here. Make me stretch my mind!
"I think your ideas are great - that they don't have to be improved on at all (or honed, dumbed-down, or spiced up), to inspire or be used as a blueprint for building. I also don't think you need 'other ideas'"
—I appreciate hearing this.
I have encountered a fair amount of thought leaders who are unbelievably arrogant. Who dominate every conversation—basically holding court—and are not particularly interested in the input of others. It is not in my personality to be that way. I want to take advantage of swarm intelligence. I want to involve people and hear their ideas. I want people invested. I think humans play too much follow-the-leader. BUT, your reminder is very important. I have to remember that the ideas I have developed are good, and that people are, to some degree at least, looking for someone to light a fire by which we can all warm our hands. So thank you for the reminder and confidence boost.
"Rudolf Steiner's theories of 'social three-folding'"
I will have to look deeper into this.
"is a "leftist" type activity supporting rightoid values."
—You mean leftist because it is new, creative, breaks boundaries, etc.?
" Nonetheless - this has a future - it is THE FUTURE."
—Right on.
"It just must take form before all your plans are exposed and new laws are passed to prohibit the creation of the new communities that are destined to be established."
—If we start in the mind, and then begin by building communities the state has no reason to fear or legal pretext to attack, we can put down roots that will get so deep they can never be uprooted!
And thank you - I really enjoy reading your posts and watching your work unfold. And in this context, I can also sympathize with the attacks you receive - especially from the Left.
As regards Steiner - while his writing was my education and almost exclusively informs my world view, I urge you to consider (again - sorry to repeat) that you already have all the abstract knowledge, the mindset, and attitudes of feeling needed to 'do the work' - he can be paralyzing to the will if you developing the feeling "I need to understand all of this before I do anything."
And speaking of the man - here is where all of my understanding comes from of the culture of the Left and Right. Steiner explains that the fundamental duality of humankind comes from the division of human spirits into those that take after the Biblical "Cain" and those that take after "Abel." The spirits that take after Cain are the "Warrior, Builders, and Artists" among humankind and the spirits that take after Abel are the "Priests, Shepherds and Teachers."
If nothing else, this is surely the knowledge that various elite groups use to organize and manipulate the populations under their control.
Of course, it is not necessary to understand if one is a "Cain" or "Abel" to make them behave as one - as Mark Twain tells us - it is above all 'how we earn a living' that informs our opinions, culture, and political leanings.
And this is what you find yourself up against where the Left is concerned. The culture of the Left is modeled after Abel - they are the Priests, Shepherds, and Teachers. They occupy a similar role today as the Pharisees did during the Roman Empire.' "Those who can - do, those who can't - teach." The 'white collar work' of the Shepherds, the centralized banking of the Priests, the professional/industrial compulsory educational system of the teachers - are all completely unnatural and anti-American institutions. When you attack them (and you surely are when you propose your solutions to societal ills) you are attacking their whole economic base and therefore their whole life and culture. Naturally they will do everything in their power to thwart you.
These days, even 'anti-Christians' love the scene where Jesus goes into the temple, throws over the money tables and drives out the bankers with a whip. This is what is needed - but this is impossible to physically accomplish via the disembodied conversation that is the internet. On the internet, you cannot throw over the tables or drive out the money-changers. Here you can only argue with the Pharisees and try convince them by words of the error of their ways. But they are a 'generation of vipers and hypocrites' and largely must be ignored. You will never get their buy-in - they hate working with their hands above all.
Lastly, I agree with your sentiment about 'letting ideas' lead the work, having it done above board, and in the true spirit of America, if not all of the West. I believe in this sense you'll find you actually have a greater ally in the elites than among the middle sector of the pyramid, which is largely occupied by the Left.
"I urge you to consider (again - sorry to repeat) that you already have all the abstract knowledge, the mindset, and attitudes of feeling needed to 'do the work'"
—I appreciate this very much. It is even fine to repeat it, as I probably need to hear it more than once!
"the feeling 'I need to understand all of this before I do anything.'"
—I used to have more of that. But I am pretty much over that now. Now it's just about finding the time to do the work!
Well, You know My assessment. No widespread victimhood could be affected without the tool called "money." In any form. When One has the power over anOther by withholding what that Other need to survive, it is very easy to get Them to do One's bidding.
I offer My view of how We can let things run organically in this short story:
Re: “It is a repugnant message rooted in envy, greed, violence, and morally impermissible theft. But it has the advantage of promising something: We are going to get you stuff.
(Sometimes, that stuff is just the opportunity to feel moral superiority by being generous with other people’s money.)”
There is a Biblical verse that says God “hates robbery for offerings to Himself”, which completely agrees with your view here.
I oppose both authoritarianism and collectivism, which tend to go together. To my knowledge, the most extreme actual version of authoritarian collectivism is totalitarian communism, examples of which are the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin, Maoist China, North Korea under the Kim dynasty, and Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. What I tend to favor is the exact opposite: anarcho-capitalism. All other political ideologies lie somewhere between those two extremes.
The problem with a political spectrum is that it's traditionally represented as a straight line from left to right, which is inadequate to capture all political ideologies. Multi-dimensional axes better reflect the diversity of ideological positions. I prefer a square with an x-axis running across its middle from left to right and a y-axis running down the middle from top to bottom. A circle in the center divides the square into five equal parts. The upper half of the square represents various degrees of authoritarianism, and the bottom half represents degrees of libertarianism. The left and right sides represent degrees of collectivism and individualism, respectively. The circle represents centrism. This political typology chart is similar to versions of the Political Compass I've seen. Totalitarian communism appears at the top left corner and anarcho-capitalism appears at the bottom right corner. All other political ideologies are between those two extremes in the sense that each is further from the top left corner and the bottom right corner than either of those extremes. My 82-year-old memory is fallible, but I seem to recall that I sent you a description of my typology chart in the past, and I think you had a similar chart differing from mine mainly by substituting left and right for collectivism and individualism, respectively. I assume that if your freedom scale is a straight line, it runs from the top left corner to the bottom right corner of my typology chart.
" My 82-year-old memory is fallible, but I seem to recall that I sent you a description of my typology chart in the past, and I think you had a similar chart differing from mine mainly by substituting left and right for collectivism and individualism"
—I personally would not have touted a Cartesian chart with left-right as one of the axes. Must've been someone else. Min Freedom to Max freedom, yes. But left-right is vague unless defined.
My memory has gotten much worse as I've aged. When I was young, I could describe to a friend a movie I'd seen and leave out no important detail. More recently, I've seen movies on TV and not realized until near the end that I'd seen the movie only a couple of years before.
I agree about the political terms “left” and “right.” Hyrum and Verlan Lewis point out in “The Myth of Left and Right” that those terms have changed meaning with time and place. Consequently, during the French revolutionary period, Frederic Bastiat and other French classical liberals of his day were leftists despite their strong opposition to socialism; during the Russian revolutionary period, the Mensheviks were the right-wing faction of the communist movement; and Nazis and fascists, said to be to be on the far right (as compared to communists), were just more extreme authoritarian collectivists than American progressives, who due to ignorance or dishonesty, call conservatives Nazis and fascists because they're said to be fellow right-wingers.
Incidentally, my typology chart is based on what I take to be the four pure theories of justice. Moral nihilism, which leads to political nihilism, uniquely denies that there is any such thing as justice. For that reason, political nihilism doesn't fit my chart.
"For that reason, political nihilism doesn't fit my chart."
—This is a very interesting question. Where should political nihilism appear on a political spectrum? Should it appear at all? Hmm, I will think about this.
On mine, which, as you know, measures freedom (in inverse proportion to government force), there is an area off the ends, beyond the government section.
So, if you go all the way to the left, to 100% government, you get implosive collapse (total control of everything is unsustainable). If you go all the way to the right, to zero percent government, you get either entropic dissolution or some sort of anarcho-something.
Implosive collapse and entropic dissolution can both lead to chaos. Which means that in a sense, this straight-line spectrum is secretly a circle—falling off the left or right edge can lead to a similar condition. TOTAL GOVERNMENT--implosive collapse --> CHAOS <--entropic decay--ZERO GOVERNMENT.
Perhaps political nihilism is right there in the middle of that connecting point?
I guess that's not very satisfying, but it was the best I could come up with on short notice! I will keep thinking.
The last paragraph of my comment to which you replied explains why political nihilism is off my typology chart. I regard political nihilism as the only form of anarchy that is not libertarian for the following reasons. Anarchy has at least two different meanings: (1) a society characterized by chaos and disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of any moral or legal authority; (2) a society organized on the basis of voluntary cooperation without hierarchical government or political institutions. Definition (1) applies to political nihilism, whereas definition (2) applies to libertarian anarchism. Libertarianism is the advocacy of liberty. Liberty is the foundation of rights. For example, liberty of speech implies the right to speak one's mind unimpeded. A right is a just claim. Thus, liberty implies justice. That is, if liberty exists, then justice exists. But according to political nihilism, justice does not exist. Therefore, according to political nihilism, liberty does not exist. But if libertarianism exists, then liberty exists. Hence, according to political nihilism, libertarianism does not exist. That makes political nihilism inconsistent with libertarianism. Elementary, my dear Watson.
Your Cartestian chart is certainly far better than the Nolan version. But let me ask you: what occupies the other two corners? What is collectivist libertarianism? What is authoritarian individualism?
The four corners are: upper left: authoritarian collectivism (best example: totalitarian communism), lower left: libertarian collectivism (best example: anarcho-communism, assuming it's consensual), lower right: libertarian individualism (best example: anarcho-capitalism), upper right: authoritarian individualism (closest example: Chile under dictator Augusto Pinochet who implemented free market economic policies characterized by privatization, deregulation, and trade liberalization enforced within an authoritarian political framework). On my square chart, anarcho-communism is as close to totalitarian communism as it is to anarcho-capitalism, so if an anarcho-communist had to choose between libertarian individualism and authoritarian collectivism, his choice would probably depend on whether he preferred libertarianism to collectivism or vice versa. And if an anarcho-capitalist had to choose between libertarian collectivism and authoritarian individualism, his choice would likely depend on whether he preferred libertarianism to individualism or vice versa. Incidentally, so far as I know, there's only one political ideology that doesn't fit my chart: political nihilism.
Pinochet and anarcocommunism are exactly what I would put there too, and indeed what I did put in my book.
But Pinochet was definitely not all the way up in the individualist corner. If you had, for example, used his free market policies to make and sell anti-government/anti-Pinochet t-shirts, you would have been thrown out of a helicopter.
Similarly, I know that anarcho-communism and anarchosyndicalism exist in theory. But how about in practice? What if someone living in a totally collectivist society starts showing individualist tendencies? Or what if someone wants to start their own factory? Do the syndicalists let them?
I think that whatever might actually exist in this corner would only be able to exist on the smallest scale.
I didn't say that Chile under Pinochet is a perfect example of authoritarian individualism, only that it's my closest example. Pinochet's free-market economic reforms, influenced by the Chicago Boys, included privatization of state-owned enterprises and the social security system, deregulation of the labor market, elimination of price controls, reduction of tariffs, and cuts in government spending and subsidies, all of which resulted in an economic boom. However, collectivists criticized the resulting income inequality and reductions in the social safety net. Also, Pinochet had a poor record on what are traditionally called civil liberties.
I doubt that you can find any real-world example of a collectivist society in which no private ownership is recognized of even a morsel of food, an item of clothing, or any other personal item. The difference between individualist and collectivist societies seems to be relative, not absolute.
Since I'm no kind of collectivist, I can't definitively answer your questions about what anarcho-collectivists would allow. You might consider asking one. However, my understanding is that they wouldn't allow individuals to own businesses or engage in self-employment within their own society. But it's doubtful that they'd interfere in outside societies. It's also doubtful that if they tried to interfere, their attempt would be successful. Members of a capitalist society would probably have more resources to defend themselves than members of a collectivist society would have to use in an attack.
Individualist societies are characterized by individual rights, personal autonomy, relative independence, the ability to choose and seek what one values, and the ability to keep the values one has produced. Collectivist societies are characterized by social obligations, heteronomy, relative dependence, acting according to group consensus to achieve social goals, and sharing what one has produced with the other members of one's society.
In my opinion, a collectivist society is libertarian if all its members give their informed consent to it. A family is my best example of what can be construed as a small collectivist society. Family members typically recognize obligations to each other, are interdependent, act to achieve goals found mutually acceptable, and share what the breadwinners produce. It's difficult to imagine a better relationship involving family members. This sort of collectivist society typically works well because all its members feel affection for each other, and those who contribute to family income can readily see its benefits for the family. Perhaps some people are attracted to political collectivism because they desire something like a family relationship.
However, collectivism doesn't scale up very well, perhaps for two reasons. First, in a large society, most individuals are strangers to each other and therefore can't experience mutual affection. Second, no individual's contribution to societal income is discernible. One could reduce or end employment hours and enjoy more leisure time without having any noticeable effect on the economy or losing any economic benefits that are equally shared.
Life is too rich to summarize everything we want to have happen, especially since some of it will be a surprise. The best I can come up with is, fulfill your own destiny while cooperating with others. Not very inspirational.
We definitely need something more epic. An objective that can span the generations—something that people will be willing to have as a goal, even knowing that they will have to pass the torch on because the goal won't be complete in their lifetime.
This Tweet sent to the Pope and other Architects of Power last night, is related to the themes of this article, Christopher.
Ray Joseph Cormier @RayJC_Com18h @Pontifex @realDonaldTrump @netanyahu @_FriedrichMerz @MarkJCarney @CBCNews
A lesson in cause and effect, for those who believe they are above the law:
When a nation's power operates as piracy with a flag—seizing tankers in international waters, enforcing its unilateral will as global law—it does not merely break treaties. It breaks the civic covenant at home.
It teaches its own people, in a language clearer than any sermon, that law is not principle, but the will of the strongest. That rules are for the weak. That sovereignty is a fiction to be ignored when inconvenient.
Now add the accelerant of a contracting economy: stagnant wages, impossible debt, a generation with no stake in the future. The lesson learned abroad becomes the survival logic at home.
The result is the volatile cocktail of our generation: the vigilante, the politician defying courts, the citizen who no longer believes the system is legitimate—only that it is rigged.
You cannot break international law abroad and expect domestic law to be revered at home. The seed of lawlessness, sown by imperial edict, is now sprouting in your own streets.
This is not a political forecast. It is a spiritual law, as old as the prophets: "They sow the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind." (Hosea 8:7).
The aircraft carrier that seized the tanker is the same power that arms the siege of Gaza. The domestic unraveling is the inevitable reflux of that exported violence.
You are building a world on the principle that might makes right.
Your own people are now learning the lesson.
What will you build when they have learned it completely?
This morning my X Home page was occupied by Zionists, one after another, crowding everybody else out, so I reviewed the Tweet of last night and added this to the Pope and the others, standing alone in bold italics:
And the word of the Lord shall be for them a precept for a precept, a precept for a precept, a line for a line, a line for a line, a little there, a little there, in order that they go and stumble backwards and be broken, and be trapped and caught. Therefore, listen to the word of the Lord, men of scorn, allegorists of this people who are in Jerusalem.
For you said, "We have made a treaty with death, and with the grave we have set a limit; when an overflowing scourge passes, it shall not come upon us, for we have made lies our shelter and in falsehood have we hidden ourselves.
The good thing about X is, even if the recipients ignore it, the Public can see it and make up their own minds!.
If you are suggesting that biblical wisdom should form a moral foundation for the proposed society, I would be interested in seeing that expanded upon in a manner more nearly on topic, my friend. We are much in agreement on the subjects of the USA and the state of Israel salting their own earths.
Maybe this Historical Newspaper record The Kansas City Times published September 13, 1976 as Americans were celebrating Revolution, might give you a bigger picture? I was 32 then, now living my 82nd year
Christopher, Christopher. You ask of me a weeks-long project, just to know my own thoughts on the subject.
There must be, at bedrock, an understanding of society that both frees and obligates each member. This tension must express itself in ways that reinforce our commitments to each other while coercing no one. If wealth means power over others, we are without hope. Men, male and female, seek security. Some, notably parents and the agéd, will sell their liberty for it. To avoid incentivizing this, a just society sets a minimum barrier against want, while penalizing wrongful coercion. None will freely give service to a community without expectation of reciprocity. If I am killed while quarrying stone for the group, will my wife starve, my children beg in rags? That is the current situation, nearly, for certain poorly regarded rural groups.
But how do we craft such guarantees without creating coercion? Not with words, is my immediate felt response.
Not long ago, the banker and the drunk tipped hats when they met, and stood together in litany and song on certain mornings of the week. It will be many years before we can afford the luxury of a drunk, but there will, in every comity of ten, be one whose habits tend less to industry than want. What keeps us whole?
I offer more questions than answers because such is the state of my mind. I am very interested in your thoughts, though I appreciate your call for input and your unreadiness to dominate the conversation.
As you say, these things we must achieve without force. How? I'm just gonna think out loud.
A sense of community is stronger in smaller communities. So perhaps that is the first place to start.
But communities must cohere around something. Shared geography clearly isn't enough—if it were, I would know the names of more than ten people in this development in which I live. Something about modern life is causing increased atomization.
The lack of widespread church attendance is likely a part of it. That was a cohering factor. Same with Elks, Lions, Eagles, etc. The people who still do those are fewer in number, but those who do have more community spirit. Social institutions are important.
But you cannot make people go back to church or do the Lions Club or whatever. So what is the answer there?
I guess starting from the ground up. Build a community in your own house, then with a few neighbors (or at a distance, in virtual communities). Plant a seed of community and let it grow in this atomized soil. At least that is a controllable, as opposed to just lamenting the loss of something in the wonder community.
And yeah, some small percentage of people aren't going to work, they're going to be lazy, etc. When those numbers are small, they are manageable. When it's one in ten, you can tip your hat and sing together. But when it's four in ten, or one out of two, you can no longer accept it, offer help, etc. When it's an epidemic, it's a threat, and community is much harder in a low-trust/extraction-based society.
That is the fault of monetary policy, welfare, going off the gold standard, central banking, etc. Those are going to be tough to fix.
Here too, it seems like building small communities of like-minded people, from the ground up, has to be the starting point. It's controllable and doable, unlike trying to fix the whole shebang from the top down.
Thougts?
Yes, hell yes, to all. But I’m still stuck for how to start. My neighbors are all kindly folks, but each seems already to have found their karass. Last person they want to know is the guy next door.
We have to figure out how to solve this! I encounter it frequently. Any ideas?
FreedomCells.org tried, but it doesn't get much use. (Though if you have not yet tried there, it's worth at least a look.)
Thanks, I will give it a look. No actionable ideas, yet, that are not singleton demonstrations of the sort I've been pursuing since 1978.
I am probably a poor choice of person to be thinking much on this, as I regularly retreat even from the company of the woman I have loved since 1975. With one I am capable of speaking all night, with two I only listen, if three, I walk away. In a crowded air terminal, I relax in blissful anonymity.
I understand!
The driving force, the ring-zero rule in all of Consciousness, from the smallest particle to the largest complex organization, is to seek what is best for itself, and AT THE SAME TIME, is best for all others.
This is the guiding principle - simple to understand, difficult to accomplish.
But a worthy endeavor.
If you look at Nature, our bodies, the Cosmos, it is done effortlessly on our behalf.
To me, THIS is evidence of the God, or Supreme Being.
Everything ALWAYS leans in our favor.
Were we just to not get in the way.
Do you speak of this at more length elsewhere? I am the proverbial burnt child when it comes to metaphysics generally, but you touch something close to my experience here.
How to build a moral meet where non-interference becomes a systemic urge? Or are we truly made so in the germ, and have only to unlearn all the falsity of trying to bend nature, ours and others, into the present amorality?
I do believe it is a matter of unlearning all that we have been taught.
Paraphrasing a past President or his speechwriter: Ask not what your country can do for you, ask instead what you can do for yourself, your family, your friends.
Right on, brother.
A life dominated by avoidance seems lacking in something essential, doesn't it?
Yes, exactly!
But so much of our focus is on the negative.
That's a choice, though. I can't speak too much for pop culture, as I mostly observe it and rarely participate, but there have to be things that people are actually pursuing out there, right?
My own little corner of the world and the internet has enough positive morality (things to do) to balance the things to avoid.
It is good to build one's own little corner of things. Set an example, rather than trying to change everyone and everything.
When I address statelessness, I always try to frame it as a vision for a bright, peaceful, prosperous, and meaningful future. We should always emphasize this. It's not just "cut out the cancer", it's "supercharge everything good about society and community".
Yeah, that's good.
For the nation I am looking to shepherd into existence, however, I want something that's even more epic. A goal that can span the generations—something that people will be willing to have as a goal, even knowing that they will have to pass the torch on because the goal won't be complete in their lifetime.
It takes more than words. How do we go about proving that our ideas can supercharge the good?
Perhaps we can divide it into categories.
How it has worked in some form in the past.
How it is working in limited ways now.
How it can work in theory in the future.
How we are putting it into practice.
I agree. Words and ideas matter, but I think we have to build our institutions right now. Demonstrate the effectiveness of our ideas (at least in embryonic form) before the state is gone. It's already started in various areas and fields. CrowdHealth is a prime example in the health "insurance" field. We need more - and quick - before this colossus implodes.
Yes—exactly. We don't want chaos, because that will just lead to more authoritarianism. So we need the institutions in place before any collapse happens.
Excellent! I comment as I wish to support you in your worthy process - so take it as energy more than substance.
I think your ideas are great - that they don't have to be improved on at all (or honed, dumbed-down, or spiced up), to inspire or be used as a blueprint for building. I also don't think you need 'other ideas' (personally I was raised on Rudolf Steiner's theories of 'social three-folding' but I think if you took that up as a study it might just hold up action which is much more important than theory at this point.
One thought about how you address the Left-Right culture. The way our society is designed, those on the culture of the Right (the "Cains") occupy the lowest rungs of the 'warrior-builder-artists' hierarchy - soldiers/security - working class, and starving artists and the highest - military and security Intelligence, (Deepstate) Statesmen, and 'artists in high-tech fields and finance). The Left occupies the middle (artificially giving civil servants/white collar workers more economic power than jobs involving 'real work'). The Left are the 'teachers, shepherd, and priests (bankers) of society - or the "Abels."
I'd argue there is a great deal of debate, discussion and education about 'what we're for' among the 'elite Right' as there certainly is in the lowest end (a friend of mine - a fellow builder was told in 2015, or so, if he was planning on voting for "Bernie" he'd be chopped up and thrown in a dumpster). In a nutshell this is Freemasonry (or just "masonry" if we're only talking about the lowest rung). Masons are laconic at best, Freemasons are secretive.
That said - what you are doing (the general nature of your substack posts) is a "leftist" type activity supporting rightoid values. It is trained into us to ignore or attack this. As soon as the construction worker starts to hear the exhortations of the teacher to 'better themselves' - to 'do this or that' he becomes agitated and rebellious. He is trained to hate the arrogance of the intellectual who wishes to harness the power of the brute for his own ends. Moreover, he knows the teacher is teaching an anonymous master's content. The division of the classes and values ensures that whoever is doing the instructing is the least capable in carrying it out in practice (Dilbert).
I know in your case you have been living your values and share your 'instructions' as a narrative of your personal experience - that is exactly what is needed - it's just foreign - it's new. Nonetheless - this has a future - it is THE FUTURE. It just must take form before all your plans are exposed and new laws are passed to prohibit the creation of the new communities that are destined to be established.
Wow—a lot to think about there. I like how unpredictable your thoughts are here. Make me stretch my mind!
"I think your ideas are great - that they don't have to be improved on at all (or honed, dumbed-down, or spiced up), to inspire or be used as a blueprint for building. I also don't think you need 'other ideas'"
—I appreciate hearing this.
I have encountered a fair amount of thought leaders who are unbelievably arrogant. Who dominate every conversation—basically holding court—and are not particularly interested in the input of others. It is not in my personality to be that way. I want to take advantage of swarm intelligence. I want to involve people and hear their ideas. I want people invested. I think humans play too much follow-the-leader. BUT, your reminder is very important. I have to remember that the ideas I have developed are good, and that people are, to some degree at least, looking for someone to light a fire by which we can all warm our hands. So thank you for the reminder and confidence boost.
"Rudolf Steiner's theories of 'social three-folding'"
I will have to look deeper into this.
"is a "leftist" type activity supporting rightoid values."
—You mean leftist because it is new, creative, breaks boundaries, etc.?
" Nonetheless - this has a future - it is THE FUTURE."
—Right on.
"It just must take form before all your plans are exposed and new laws are passed to prohibit the creation of the new communities that are destined to be established."
—If we start in the mind, and then begin by building communities the state has no reason to fear or legal pretext to attack, we can put down roots that will get so deep they can never be uprooted!
And thank you - I really enjoy reading your posts and watching your work unfold. And in this context, I can also sympathize with the attacks you receive - especially from the Left.
As regards Steiner - while his writing was my education and almost exclusively informs my world view, I urge you to consider (again - sorry to repeat) that you already have all the abstract knowledge, the mindset, and attitudes of feeling needed to 'do the work' - he can be paralyzing to the will if you developing the feeling "I need to understand all of this before I do anything."
And speaking of the man - here is where all of my understanding comes from of the culture of the Left and Right. Steiner explains that the fundamental duality of humankind comes from the division of human spirits into those that take after the Biblical "Cain" and those that take after "Abel." The spirits that take after Cain are the "Warrior, Builders, and Artists" among humankind and the spirits that take after Abel are the "Priests, Shepherds and Teachers."
If nothing else, this is surely the knowledge that various elite groups use to organize and manipulate the populations under their control.
Of course, it is not necessary to understand if one is a "Cain" or "Abel" to make them behave as one - as Mark Twain tells us - it is above all 'how we earn a living' that informs our opinions, culture, and political leanings.
And this is what you find yourself up against where the Left is concerned. The culture of the Left is modeled after Abel - they are the Priests, Shepherds, and Teachers. They occupy a similar role today as the Pharisees did during the Roman Empire.' "Those who can - do, those who can't - teach." The 'white collar work' of the Shepherds, the centralized banking of the Priests, the professional/industrial compulsory educational system of the teachers - are all completely unnatural and anti-American institutions. When you attack them (and you surely are when you propose your solutions to societal ills) you are attacking their whole economic base and therefore their whole life and culture. Naturally they will do everything in their power to thwart you.
These days, even 'anti-Christians' love the scene where Jesus goes into the temple, throws over the money tables and drives out the bankers with a whip. This is what is needed - but this is impossible to physically accomplish via the disembodied conversation that is the internet. On the internet, you cannot throw over the tables or drive out the money-changers. Here you can only argue with the Pharisees and try convince them by words of the error of their ways. But they are a 'generation of vipers and hypocrites' and largely must be ignored. You will never get their buy-in - they hate working with their hands above all.
Lastly, I agree with your sentiment about 'letting ideas' lead the work, having it done above board, and in the true spirit of America, if not all of the West. I believe in this sense you'll find you actually have a greater ally in the elites than among the middle sector of the pyramid, which is largely occupied by the Left.
Fascinating thoughts.
"I urge you to consider (again - sorry to repeat) that you already have all the abstract knowledge, the mindset, and attitudes of feeling needed to 'do the work'"
—I appreciate this very much. It is even fine to repeat it, as I probably need to hear it more than once!
"the feeling 'I need to understand all of this before I do anything.'"
—I used to have more of that. But I am pretty much over that now. Now it's just about finding the time to do the work!
Well, You know My assessment. No widespread victimhood could be affected without the tool called "money." In any form. When One has the power over anOther by withholding what that Other need to survive, it is very easy to get Them to do One's bidding.
I offer My view of how We can let things run organically in this short story:
Technological Nature (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/technological-nature
This post is quite good !
Re: “It is a repugnant message rooted in envy, greed, violence, and morally impermissible theft. But it has the advantage of promising something: We are going to get you stuff.
(Sometimes, that stuff is just the opportunity to feel moral superiority by being generous with other people’s money.)”
There is a Biblical verse that says God “hates robbery for offerings to Himself”, which completely agrees with your view here.
Thank you, Rachel.
I don't recall having heard of that Bible verse before. That is powerful and good.
Turn to God.
I oppose both authoritarianism and collectivism, which tend to go together. To my knowledge, the most extreme actual version of authoritarian collectivism is totalitarian communism, examples of which are the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin, Maoist China, North Korea under the Kim dynasty, and Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. What I tend to favor is the exact opposite: anarcho-capitalism. All other political ideologies lie somewhere between those two extremes.
This is an accurate depiction of the real political spectrum. Or as I like to call it—the freedom scale :-)
The problem with a political spectrum is that it's traditionally represented as a straight line from left to right, which is inadequate to capture all political ideologies. Multi-dimensional axes better reflect the diversity of ideological positions. I prefer a square with an x-axis running across its middle from left to right and a y-axis running down the middle from top to bottom. A circle in the center divides the square into five equal parts. The upper half of the square represents various degrees of authoritarianism, and the bottom half represents degrees of libertarianism. The left and right sides represent degrees of collectivism and individualism, respectively. The circle represents centrism. This political typology chart is similar to versions of the Political Compass I've seen. Totalitarian communism appears at the top left corner and anarcho-capitalism appears at the bottom right corner. All other political ideologies are between those two extremes in the sense that each is further from the top left corner and the bottom right corner than either of those extremes. My 82-year-old memory is fallible, but I seem to recall that I sent you a description of my typology chart in the past, and I think you had a similar chart differing from mine mainly by substituting left and right for collectivism and individualism, respectively. I assume that if your freedom scale is a straight line, it runs from the top left corner to the bottom right corner of my typology chart.
" My 82-year-old memory is fallible, but I seem to recall that I sent you a description of my typology chart in the past, and I think you had a similar chart differing from mine mainly by substituting left and right for collectivism and individualism"
—I personally would not have touted a Cartesian chart with left-right as one of the axes. Must've been someone else. Min Freedom to Max freedom, yes. But left-right is vague unless defined.
My memory has gotten much worse as I've aged. When I was young, I could describe to a friend a movie I'd seen and leave out no important detail. More recently, I've seen movies on TV and not realized until near the end that I'd seen the movie only a couple of years before.
I agree about the political terms “left” and “right.” Hyrum and Verlan Lewis point out in “The Myth of Left and Right” that those terms have changed meaning with time and place. Consequently, during the French revolutionary period, Frederic Bastiat and other French classical liberals of his day were leftists despite their strong opposition to socialism; during the Russian revolutionary period, the Mensheviks were the right-wing faction of the communist movement; and Nazis and fascists, said to be to be on the far right (as compared to communists), were just more extreme authoritarian collectivists than American progressives, who due to ignorance or dishonesty, call conservatives Nazis and fascists because they're said to be fellow right-wingers.
Incidentally, my typology chart is based on what I take to be the four pure theories of justice. Moral nihilism, which leads to political nihilism, uniquely denies that there is any such thing as justice. For that reason, political nihilism doesn't fit my chart.
"For that reason, political nihilism doesn't fit my chart."
—This is a very interesting question. Where should political nihilism appear on a political spectrum? Should it appear at all? Hmm, I will think about this.
On mine, which, as you know, measures freedom (in inverse proportion to government force), there is an area off the ends, beyond the government section.
So, if you go all the way to the left, to 100% government, you get implosive collapse (total control of everything is unsustainable). If you go all the way to the right, to zero percent government, you get either entropic dissolution or some sort of anarcho-something.
Implosive collapse and entropic dissolution can both lead to chaos. Which means that in a sense, this straight-line spectrum is secretly a circle—falling off the left or right edge can lead to a similar condition. TOTAL GOVERNMENT--implosive collapse --> CHAOS <--entropic decay--ZERO GOVERNMENT.
Perhaps political nihilism is right there in the middle of that connecting point?
I guess that's not very satisfying, but it was the best I could come up with on short notice! I will keep thinking.
The last paragraph of my comment to which you replied explains why political nihilism is off my typology chart. I regard political nihilism as the only form of anarchy that is not libertarian for the following reasons. Anarchy has at least two different meanings: (1) a society characterized by chaos and disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of any moral or legal authority; (2) a society organized on the basis of voluntary cooperation without hierarchical government or political institutions. Definition (1) applies to political nihilism, whereas definition (2) applies to libertarian anarchism. Libertarianism is the advocacy of liberty. Liberty is the foundation of rights. For example, liberty of speech implies the right to speak one's mind unimpeded. A right is a just claim. Thus, liberty implies justice. That is, if liberty exists, then justice exists. But according to political nihilism, justice does not exist. Therefore, according to political nihilism, liberty does not exist. But if libertarianism exists, then liberty exists. Hence, according to political nihilism, libertarianism does not exist. That makes political nihilism inconsistent with libertarianism. Elementary, my dear Watson.
Your Cartestian chart is certainly far better than the Nolan version. But let me ask you: what occupies the other two corners? What is collectivist libertarianism? What is authoritarian individualism?
The four corners are: upper left: authoritarian collectivism (best example: totalitarian communism), lower left: libertarian collectivism (best example: anarcho-communism, assuming it's consensual), lower right: libertarian individualism (best example: anarcho-capitalism), upper right: authoritarian individualism (closest example: Chile under dictator Augusto Pinochet who implemented free market economic policies characterized by privatization, deregulation, and trade liberalization enforced within an authoritarian political framework). On my square chart, anarcho-communism is as close to totalitarian communism as it is to anarcho-capitalism, so if an anarcho-communist had to choose between libertarian individualism and authoritarian collectivism, his choice would probably depend on whether he preferred libertarianism to collectivism or vice versa. And if an anarcho-capitalist had to choose between libertarian collectivism and authoritarian individualism, his choice would likely depend on whether he preferred libertarianism to individualism or vice versa. Incidentally, so far as I know, there's only one political ideology that doesn't fit my chart: political nihilism.
Pinochet and anarcocommunism are exactly what I would put there too, and indeed what I did put in my book.
But Pinochet was definitely not all the way up in the individualist corner. If you had, for example, used his free market policies to make and sell anti-government/anti-Pinochet t-shirts, you would have been thrown out of a helicopter.
Similarly, I know that anarcho-communism and anarchosyndicalism exist in theory. But how about in practice? What if someone living in a totally collectivist society starts showing individualist tendencies? Or what if someone wants to start their own factory? Do the syndicalists let them?
I think that whatever might actually exist in this corner would only be able to exist on the smallest scale.
I didn't say that Chile under Pinochet is a perfect example of authoritarian individualism, only that it's my closest example. Pinochet's free-market economic reforms, influenced by the Chicago Boys, included privatization of state-owned enterprises and the social security system, deregulation of the labor market, elimination of price controls, reduction of tariffs, and cuts in government spending and subsidies, all of which resulted in an economic boom. However, collectivists criticized the resulting income inequality and reductions in the social safety net. Also, Pinochet had a poor record on what are traditionally called civil liberties.
I doubt that you can find any real-world example of a collectivist society in which no private ownership is recognized of even a morsel of food, an item of clothing, or any other personal item. The difference between individualist and collectivist societies seems to be relative, not absolute.
Since I'm no kind of collectivist, I can't definitively answer your questions about what anarcho-collectivists would allow. You might consider asking one. However, my understanding is that they wouldn't allow individuals to own businesses or engage in self-employment within their own society. But it's doubtful that they'd interfere in outside societies. It's also doubtful that if they tried to interfere, their attempt would be successful. Members of a capitalist society would probably have more resources to defend themselves than members of a collectivist society would have to use in an attack.
Individualist societies are characterized by individual rights, personal autonomy, relative independence, the ability to choose and seek what one values, and the ability to keep the values one has produced. Collectivist societies are characterized by social obligations, heteronomy, relative dependence, acting according to group consensus to achieve social goals, and sharing what one has produced with the other members of one's society.
In my opinion, a collectivist society is libertarian if all its members give their informed consent to it. A family is my best example of what can be construed as a small collectivist society. Family members typically recognize obligations to each other, are interdependent, act to achieve goals found mutually acceptable, and share what the breadwinners produce. It's difficult to imagine a better relationship involving family members. This sort of collectivist society typically works well because all its members feel affection for each other, and those who contribute to family income can readily see its benefits for the family. Perhaps some people are attracted to political collectivism because they desire something like a family relationship.
However, collectivism doesn't scale up very well, perhaps for two reasons. First, in a large society, most individuals are strangers to each other and therefore can't experience mutual affection. Second, no individual's contribution to societal income is discernible. One could reduce or end employment hours and enjoy more leisure time without having any noticeable effect on the economy or losing any economic benefits that are equally shared.
Life is too rich to summarize everything we want to have happen, especially since some of it will be a surprise. The best I can come up with is, fulfill your own destiny while cooperating with others. Not very inspirational.
I hear you.
We definitely need something more epic. An objective that can span the generations—something that people will be willing to have as a goal, even knowing that they will have to pass the torch on because the goal won't be complete in their lifetime.
This Tweet sent to the Pope and other Architects of Power last night, is related to the themes of this article, Christopher.
Ray Joseph Cormier @RayJC_Com18h @Pontifex @realDonaldTrump @netanyahu @_FriedrichMerz @MarkJCarney @CBCNews
A lesson in cause and effect, for those who believe they are above the law:
When a nation's power operates as piracy with a flag—seizing tankers in international waters, enforcing its unilateral will as global law—it does not merely break treaties. It breaks the civic covenant at home.
It teaches its own people, in a language clearer than any sermon, that law is not principle, but the will of the strongest. That rules are for the weak. That sovereignty is a fiction to be ignored when inconvenient.
Now add the accelerant of a contracting economy: stagnant wages, impossible debt, a generation with no stake in the future. The lesson learned abroad becomes the survival logic at home.
The result is the volatile cocktail of our generation: the vigilante, the politician defying courts, the citizen who no longer believes the system is legitimate—only that it is rigged.
You cannot break international law abroad and expect domestic law to be revered at home. The seed of lawlessness, sown by imperial edict, is now sprouting in your own streets.
This is not a political forecast. It is a spiritual law, as old as the prophets: "They sow the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind." (Hosea 8:7).
The aircraft carrier that seized the tanker is the same power that arms the siege of Gaza. The domestic unraveling is the inevitable reflux of that exported violence.
You are building a world on the principle that might makes right.
Your own people are now learning the lesson.
What will you build when they have learned it completely?
This morning my X Home page was occupied by Zionists, one after another, crowding everybody else out, so I reviewed the Tweet of last night and added this to the Pope and the others, standing alone in bold italics:
And the word of the Lord shall be for them a precept for a precept, a precept for a precept, a line for a line, a line for a line, a little there, a little there, in order that they go and stumble backwards and be broken, and be trapped and caught. Therefore, listen to the word of the Lord, men of scorn, allegorists of this people who are in Jerusalem.
For you said, "We have made a treaty with death, and with the grave we have set a limit; when an overflowing scourge passes, it shall not come upon us, for we have made lies our shelter and in falsehood have we hidden ourselves.
The good thing about X is, even if the recipients ignore it, the Public can see it and make up their own minds!.
If you are suggesting that biblical wisdom should form a moral foundation for the proposed society, I would be interested in seeing that expanded upon in a manner more nearly on topic, my friend. We are much in agreement on the subjects of the USA and the state of Israel salting their own earths.
Maybe this Historical Newspaper record The Kansas City Times published September 13, 1976 as Americans were celebrating Revolution, might give you a bigger picture? I was 32 then, now living my 82nd year
https://rayjc.com/2013/09/01/signs-of-the-times/
I was but a callow youth of 19! I will read it with care as soon as I may, thank you.