Remarkable essay. Thank you. (going to check the Netflix show) I will have to read this book soon, it appears as though I would really enjoy at least the first half. To directly answer your final question, I would state that I suspect the author is a form of intellectual Heyoka, an agent of misdirection. While certainly this is speculation, it fits the M.O. that I wrote about in my Discourse 6.3 about the author of "The End of History and The last man" Francis Fukuyama. Essentially he goes on about the same thing, this liberal democracy thing we currently have is an evolutionary product of the perfecting of the liberal system, all while using the rhetoric of its original values. (freedom, liberty et cetera) Fukuyama is very intelligent and he knows better than most that we are far removed from certain revolutionary (or magna carta) liberal ideals (classical). He is someone who worked for Rand Corporation and has spent time on the Council of Foreign Relations, and is now a board member for Bellingcat (among other things), so he clearly is aware of the fact that western democracies are national security states. His work mentions nothing about the reality he certainly is aware of, instead he champions democracy as the pinnacle of human political development. I have come to understand the system has its trappings on every level of discourse. It seems to me that Hannan is certainly intelligent, and clearly connected. While I will have to read the book, I suspect he is fully aware that every government fails that test, even our liberal "democracies". I suspect he is not an anarchist because in reality he is a globalist technocrat. Some of the worlds biggest have called themselves libertarians..
Side note: (sorta) The subject of natural law fascinates me. I wrote something on this a long time ago, but the very short of it... I made a postulation that natural law being what it is, a universal phenomenon, is really a form or category of biological instinct, psychological scaffolding if you will. While it took time and a particular level of civilizational development for it to be recognized intellectually, its roots can be found in the cultures and customs of unrelated and unconnected peoples all over the world dating deep into pre-history. Even things like property rights manifest to a degree in primates... it has something to do with our neural architecture. The more advanced the species the more it is designed for cooperation and boundaries. Undoubtedly Neanderthals had similar dispositions. With all of that being said, I have long suspected that about the time these ideas of natural law began to become formalized by recognizing this truth in human laws, power realized it needed a way to subvert such liberations so that it may preserve itself... so it found ways to either obfuscate our perception of the reality that we do not in fact have these liberties in our current form of government and/or it sought to make us willing to trade them away for convenience or safety. Now, with the help of intellectual influencers (and time) we use many of the same signifiers of classical liberalism, but what is signified has become inverted. The whole war is peace, ignorance is strength... and a world full of Russell conjugation games.
Great quote: You are beneath the laws. Government is above them. Full stop.
Wonderful Exposure Christopher!
Keep in mind the UK is a Constitutional Monarchy-which is ridiculous to me. Anunnaki Divine Right of Kings and all that stupidity. Consider today the 3 top spots in the UK have unelected leaders which is even worse than Demoncracy:
King
PM
Secretary of State
King John of the Magna Carta was the villain in the Robin Hood Saga and in real life was no freedom fighter.
“You may not choose a different provider of security and justice. You may not secede and become your own provider of security and justice. You have only one choice: to submit to the protection racket ‘offered’ by government.”
Each individual needs to seriously question this assertion. I think we’ve been led to believe this is true, so we act like it is.
Fundamentally, it is false. And as soon as you stop believing it, you are free.
They maintain their racket purely by the power of your belief. Without it, they are nothing.
Thanks for this. I have to get and study _Inventing Freedom_ to see to what degree events in my novel, _Venison_, set in the days before Saxon rule over Britain was sure, correlate implicitly with Hannan's version of the law of the land, or whether I should be more consciously explicit. It sounds like I need to think through Hannan's ideas at the very least.
Remarkable essay. Thank you. (going to check the Netflix show) I will have to read this book soon, it appears as though I would really enjoy at least the first half. To directly answer your final question, I would state that I suspect the author is a form of intellectual Heyoka, an agent of misdirection. While certainly this is speculation, it fits the M.O. that I wrote about in my Discourse 6.3 about the author of "The End of History and The last man" Francis Fukuyama. Essentially he goes on about the same thing, this liberal democracy thing we currently have is an evolutionary product of the perfecting of the liberal system, all while using the rhetoric of its original values. (freedom, liberty et cetera) Fukuyama is very intelligent and he knows better than most that we are far removed from certain revolutionary (or magna carta) liberal ideals (classical). He is someone who worked for Rand Corporation and has spent time on the Council of Foreign Relations, and is now a board member for Bellingcat (among other things), so he clearly is aware of the fact that western democracies are national security states. His work mentions nothing about the reality he certainly is aware of, instead he champions democracy as the pinnacle of human political development. I have come to understand the system has its trappings on every level of discourse. It seems to me that Hannan is certainly intelligent, and clearly connected. While I will have to read the book, I suspect he is fully aware that every government fails that test, even our liberal "democracies". I suspect he is not an anarchist because in reality he is a globalist technocrat. Some of the worlds biggest have called themselves libertarians..
Side note: (sorta) The subject of natural law fascinates me. I wrote something on this a long time ago, but the very short of it... I made a postulation that natural law being what it is, a universal phenomenon, is really a form or category of biological instinct, psychological scaffolding if you will. While it took time and a particular level of civilizational development for it to be recognized intellectually, its roots can be found in the cultures and customs of unrelated and unconnected peoples all over the world dating deep into pre-history. Even things like property rights manifest to a degree in primates... it has something to do with our neural architecture. The more advanced the species the more it is designed for cooperation and boundaries. Undoubtedly Neanderthals had similar dispositions. With all of that being said, I have long suspected that about the time these ideas of natural law began to become formalized by recognizing this truth in human laws, power realized it needed a way to subvert such liberations so that it may preserve itself... so it found ways to either obfuscate our perception of the reality that we do not in fact have these liberties in our current form of government and/or it sought to make us willing to trade them away for convenience or safety. Now, with the help of intellectual influencers (and time) we use many of the same signifiers of classical liberalism, but what is signified has become inverted. The whole war is peace, ignorance is strength... and a world full of Russell conjugation games.
Great quote: You are beneath the laws. Government is above them. Full stop.
Wonderful Exposure Christopher!
Keep in mind the UK is a Constitutional Monarchy-which is ridiculous to me. Anunnaki Divine Right of Kings and all that stupidity. Consider today the 3 top spots in the UK have unelected leaders which is even worse than Demoncracy:
King
PM
Secretary of State
King John of the Magna Carta was the villain in the Robin Hood Saga and in real life was no freedom fighter.
“You may not choose a different provider of security and justice. You may not secede and become your own provider of security and justice. You have only one choice: to submit to the protection racket ‘offered’ by government.”
Each individual needs to seriously question this assertion. I think we’ve been led to believe this is true, so we act like it is.
Fundamentally, it is false. And as soon as you stop believing it, you are free.
They maintain their racket purely by the power of your belief. Without it, they are nothing.
Thanks for this. I have to get and study _Inventing Freedom_ to see to what degree events in my novel, _Venison_, set in the days before Saxon rule over Britain was sure, correlate implicitly with Hannan's version of the law of the land, or whether I should be more consciously explicit. It sounds like I need to think through Hannan's ideas at the very least.
Yes!