Monday, January 26, 2015


I have crossed paths with several anarchists in my time, but they all seem to exemplify the same traits: superficial theory secured by authentic devotion. I know the anarchist to be a man or woman of conviction, but this does not exempt them from ignorance or shallow politics. I am as the hammer to the anarchist mirror.

"The anarchist has no belief in authority." This seems to be the Anarchist contradiction; the great Anarchist lie. Poor ignorant fellow, someone told you you could bypass the means of authority. Confusion! You simply want to replace collective authority with private authority. In all truth, your system is a system of tyranny!

Where does the individuality of Anarchism lead as one seeks to multiply the variables of a group so as to become a society? Anarcho-Capitalism cannot scale up; it is a violent formula to scale down!

Suppose a man wants to take your goods by force; who should stop him? Suppose a man rejects your capitalist theology/ will you force him to abide by Capitalist rules?

I suspect you will think I'm confused, but the reality is that the Archocapitalist has been duped (indoctrinated) into a shallow system of theology.

[Citing an instance of governmental abuse is not an argument for the abnegation of government.]


"Anarcho-capitalism, in my opinion, is a doctrinal system which, if ever implemented, would lead to forms of tyranny and oppression that have few counterparts in human history. There isn't the slightest possibility that its (in my view, horrendous) ideas would be implemented, because they would quickly destroy any society that made this colossal error."-Noam Chomsky

Rational Wiki: "Anarcho" -capitalism is a fringe political philosophy that mainly exists online and at reactionary think tanks. It has never constituted a social movement or organized power. It's one of the youngest philosophies to place itself under the umbrella of "anarchism", having only existed as a discrete philosophy for a few decades...

"Anarcho-capitalism faces criticism from capitalists who support the existence of the state. On the other hand, anarcho-capitalists have accused them of not being true capitalists. Critics claim private defense agencies could create defense monopolies. Some critics claim they will be like mafia groups, and a "gang war" will arise among them. Anarcho-capitalists have dismissed this criticism by claiming that free market competition will prevent monopolies. Additionally, the other anarchist schools of thought stand united in critiquing anarcho-capitalism as not anarchism, since the rest view capitalism as inherently oppressive and hierarchical. Some have labeled anarcho-capitalism to be merely "private state capitalism." Minarchist (minimal government) libertarians may support most of the same things as anarcho-capitalists - private roads, private certification associations replacing occupational licensing - but view complete anarchism as unworkable and recognize a need for a small government remaining in place to prevent the emergence of tyranny out of a power vacuum." [Rational Wiki] 


"The philosophy of "anarcho-capitalism" dreamed up by the "libertarian" New Right, has nothing to do with Anarchism as known by the Anarchist movement proper." Meltzer, Albert. Anarchism: Arguments For and Against AK Press, (2000) p. 50

"In fact, few anarchists would accept the 'anarcho-capitalists' into the anarchist camp since they do not share a concern for economic equality and social justice. Their self-interested, calculating market men would be incapable of practising voluntary co-operation and mutual aid. Anarcho-capitalists, even if they do reject the State, might therefore best be called right-wing libertarians rather than anarchists." Peter Marshall. Demanding the impossible: A history of anarchism. Harper Perennial. London. 2008. Pg. 565

"It is important to distinguish between anarchism and certain strands of right-wing libertarianism which at times go by the same name (for example, Murray Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism)."Saul Newman, The Politics of Postanarchism, Edinburgh University Press, 2010, pg. 43

"'Libertarian' and 'libertarianism' are frequently employed by anarchists as synonyms for 'anarchist' and 'anarchism', largely as an attempt to distance themselves from the negative connotations of 'anarchy' and its derivatives. The situation has been vastly complicated in recent decades with the rise of anarcho-capitalism, 'minimal statism' and an extreme right-wing laissez-faire philosophy advocated by such theorists as Murray Rothbard and Robert Nozick and their adoption of the words 'libertarian' and 'libertarianism'. It has therefore now become necessary to distinguish between their right libertarianism and the left libertarianism of the anarchist tradition." Anarchist seeds beneath the snow: left libertarian thought and British writers from William Morris to Colin Ward by David Goodway. Liverpool University Press. Liverpool. 2006

Anacho-Capitalists represent the fundamental branch of the Libertarian line.

Archocapitalists are not Anarchists.

Capitalism does not equal freedom. Capitalism does not lead to social justice, by its very nature it is a system of inequality (ruthless and violent competition); it is the very antithesis of cooperation!

It is always telling to ask an Ultra Conservative (Libertarian) what it would take to falsify the system of capital. Indeed, for the true capital-fascist the real problem is that capitalism has not been capitalistic enough!

It stands to reason that people in general are superficial, just the term, anarcho-capital, is enough to make some people converts (as they fancy the anarcho part).

The very nature of this term stands against all that capitalism is. Capitalism is a system of arbitrary authority, that is to say, power based on wealth which has been accumulated by the exploitation of people.

And one day you will be a vagrant in the Rich Man's streets, and He will throw you into prison by the power of purchasing law, and you will work for the rest of your days, and He will own you, and He will exact the profits of your labor.

Where is the criticism of capital? Poor thinkers have no knowledge of the internal tension between their ideas... they cannot see where their propositions contradict. If you are an anarcho-capitalist then you have need of greater consciousness... you have need of greater comprehension when it comes to the topic of capitalism and all that capitalism entails.

By "free market" the Archocapitalist simply means "unregulated market," but the worse part is that the Archocapitalist attempts to conclude a Utopia from this!


"...a society without an organized government would be at the mercy of the first criminal who came along and who would precipitate it into the chaos of gang warfare... it is the need of... an arbiter for honest disagreements among men that necessitates the establishment of a government." Ayn Rand,"The Nature of Government,” The Virtue of Selfishness, pg. 112

The Archocapitalist (as in Archocapitalism) must protect the principle of (C). That is to say, in order to have Archocapitalism one must deal with those who dissent; those who would thwart the methods of capital. And in order to do this it will be absolutely necessary to "enforce" the claim of capital (those who claim the exclusive right of accumulation). Should one protest the claim of capital, the Archocapitalist must have a way to "protect" this so-called "freedom" or else surrender his model of capital.

The point is that there is no way around it; the violence the Archocapitalist would seek to protest is the same kind of violence his capitalism creates!

(C) is not a universal principle, but must be "enforced" if a society would be capitalistic. [Enter here the existence of the State.]

(S) is necessary to secure the existence of (C). And because the emphasis of (A) is that of (C), just so long as (S) is necessary to (C), then the existence of (A) will automatically entail the existence of (S). The damning conclusion is that (S) is necessary to the system of (A)!

This means the complaint against (S) (as so generated by the Archocapitalist) is contradictory. The point is that Archocapitalism is not a form of Anarchism, but merely another version of Statism!

In order to refute this the Archocapitalist must show that (S) is not necessary to the existence of (C). But how can he do this when the very essence of capitalism is that of private property?

Archocapitalism is the rhetorical invention of Libertarians. 


Tuesday, January 20, 2015


In this time frame; in the specific year of my life X___ there is disintegration. I can feel my powers weaken, and who else can know these powers better than I (and if I do not know them then who can know them)? Perhaps they are known to no one? Perhaps there is nothing to be lost?

But life takes place on a fine edge; the world itself is suspended by a string. Quality is severed with a knife, like a razor to cut the string. We can only say that Socrates falls into an Abyss (or perhaps he has become the Abyss)? AM I THE ABYSS OF MYSELF, as both the shadow and the form that casts the shadow? 

At moments there is weeping like a child; like a scream that penetrates to the heart of the earth and yet goes nowhere; it does not escape the center from which it came. 

I am no Eagle; not a Falcon that takes flight... through the slime I must crawl, and one is ever pressed deeper by the nonsense of that which placates itself as meaning. 

Where is the Reformer? Ours is not an age of Heroes but a time of pretenders. One prays that we will grow tired of pretending!

And then there are the Holy Men who come before us speaking lies; claiming with all authority that they alone speak the Truth. But are these really Truth speakers? 

One who knows best knows that these men have delivered themselves from sorrow only by the act of delusion---- would that we could partake in their delusion! But alas, there is too much of reason to swallow the poison of their lies (real philosophers are painfully honest). And so they tell us their lies are sweet (they lie about the nature of their lies). 

We dig deep into the earth in search of Meaning. We scour the surface of the sun... but eventually the seeker goes blind.

Even now I can see the preacher standing on his hill in the distance. How quickly he becomes a viper; how fiercely he is able to lunge. And even thus, there is no chewing, for these men swallow their prey whole. 

O man of the earth, you are not allowed to mourn your captivity! You are not allowed to shake your first at the sun (as once the poet spit in the face of time). 

Every protest shall be turned against you until you are consumed by the sorrow of your flame.

Let the Nightingale sing as the laughter of fools pierces what is left of your heart. One hears the sound of glass breaking on the street somewhere in the distance (as a metaphor for the breaking of the mind).

He that walks in dry deserts will be scorched by the sun.

All the powers that make you will one day fail you... and then, what will you make of this petty man? For the simpleton runs to God, he is the worst idiot and fool, he is the Lion prowling through the tall grass of the field. Does he but smell your despair he will smother you like he smothers all his prey. There is no mercy; he will crush your neck by the power of his jaw!

The path has been set; you must walk the line or become the enemy of yourself. Such a man pokes a hole in his belly only to fill it with dirt; O mighty guilt!

But there are great men who thwart these beasts. How many have raised their fists against the sun? He that wields the spear is as he that bears the sword.  

I have seen men that stand like statues even though they have no statues of their own. We can only admire the strength of such men.

How deep is the drive that resists the authoritarian tongue? I say all fighters begin this way.  But those who finish are the greatest fighters of all.

But even strength is not enough; for one could descend into madness. "Look here, he is a mumbling fool." Though Aristotle may have been wise this did not save him from the disintegration of himself.

He that once held the pen steady must now be held himself. As the shaking of fists so is the shaking of his heart. For the mind to break is the most terrible tragedy that can befall a thinker. This exhortation is to the young. 

X___ will eventually decline.
"Nature will strike you worse than any viper," weeps the old man. 

But still men light the torch; they go forth into dark caves, led on by the power of courage, but courage is not enough. He that wanders the Labyrinth will eventually get lost; for here the darkness is infinite; for here the caverns are endless. Every now and then a cautious traveler stumbles upon one that is lost; his light reveals the madness of forgetfulness... there, crouched in a dark corner, spinning lies to himself (or perhaps what is worse) the prisoner of his own confusion. O irreparable disintegration! And as your lamp penetrates the darkness to reveal his face...



Saturday, January 17, 2015

THOUGHTS ON MONARCHY or The Triumph of the King

How shall a man increase? [this is the wrong question] 
How shall a society increase? 

Perhaps the tension at the center of Democracy is too great, which is to say, civilization is thwarted by plurality. <---- (One can also reverse this case). 

If the collective is bound to destroy itself, then the world has need of Kings. 

The question before us is the question of movement, even as this is the most practical question. 

"Only a King can cause movement!"

(I simply speak of this as of a tragic fate). 
(One must not deny that it is a real possibility).

Inasmuch as we are increased by each other, we are also thwarted by diversity. This kind of thinking takes courage, but courage is not enough, one must have the power to see through the fog of civilization. 

It is not the fact of an Absolute Goal... it is not that we are "moving" in the Right direction, but the contrast is between movement and that which is stagnant. This means that diversity cannot compete with movement. In nearly every instance it is the model of movement which will gain the higher ground. Behold the triumph of the King! 

Does diversity produce stagnation? If this is the case then this explains the triumph of the King (which is really no triumph at all). 

A monarchy, ruled by a truly just King, is not a bad option, it is simply an impossibility. Thus the dialectic turns...

There is a contrast beyond that of movement; for the King must let the hammer fall... but here we do not speak of a specific person we speak of the King as a model of government. 

What then is the contrast between movement and stagnation? The answer is tyranny! 

Could we guarantee a just King then our monarchy would be complete; it would be the perfect form of government. But justice is that which moves, it is ever changing in relation to consciousness.

But this is not to say that Democracy is void of tyranny; for Democracy has its own tyranny!

Our social lot is that of imperfection... we have no choice but to select the lesser of many evils. 

To defend the freedom of the individual, at the same time we protect the quality of the whole, can only be the challenge of great thinkers.

Make no mistake, the science of the people, is the hardest science of all.


Wednesday, January 7, 2015

THE POWER OF LOVE- by Jersey Flight

How to change the world (which is a question that only comes after one has changed themselves)? 

The most important dialectic, or if not, the most important thing I have ever written:

Since the "world" consists of people, the answer is LEARN TO CARE ABOUT PEOPLE!!! Logic can assist; it certainly plays a role, but nothing is so powerful as our concern and compassion for people. My dear friends, this is the vital element that connects; this is the substance that can change the world!

My life should have but one concern: how can I love without being sidetracked by pettiness or dogma, without being overcome by sorrow or hate; to keep a view of the world that goes beyond anger? For even my brother, that is lost in violence, is still my brother. If I could cultivate but one guarantor, in the attributes of my character, it would be the beauty of love.

I must train myself to see the plight of the other as though it were my own; as though his wound were my wound; as though his misfortunes happened to me. Only this, and not some magic ideology, contains enough power to transcendent the failures of men. Only this, coupled with the power of education.

Can we name anything more important; aside from this, what really matters?

How do we maximize our output of love; how do we maximize our effectiveness in promoting and spreading love throughout the world?

It would seem that every answer must begin with the transformation and solidification of the qualitative self. To cultivate a life of love that this life might overflow and affect the lives of others.  


Tuesday, January 6, 2015


In the clash of dialectics, between the supernaturalist, and he that would contend for the real world (as though the real world is something for which we must contend/ as though it were not the existential presupposition)... this dialectic, not of opposites, but that which would assault existence, is carried out by means of posture. 

It is the aim of the supernaturalist to inculturate his supernaturalism (this means he wants to bully and proceed by means of authority). Religion is not integrated by means of reason or evidence, but by means of authority [psychologically!]. Internally the supernaturalist knows this; he aims to manifest his conviction, knowing full-well that his confidence will have the effect of propaganda, which is to say, function as a persuasion edifice on the listener. This is because the term G-O-D is not about Existence... God is about Regulation; the point of God is to introduce a Proscription... in this sense God is Guilt, but guilt is not destructive in and of itself, there are different kinds of guilt, but that which proceeds from God is poison! 

The child is told what to do; when to eat; when to sleep and when to have fun. God is a continuation of this authority; an ideology set-up to retain the infrastructure of this authority. The infrastructure is already in place; all the dogmatist needs to do is use it to establish his idea of God. God is a way of adding to the infrastructure (of solidifying the control); for thereby does the theologian obtain his power. It is to the advantage of the man who tells us about God that he will always know more about God [and here God is Moral] thus the theologian would advance a Proscription, for it is the act of moral proclamation which accounts for the substance of theology: all supernaturalism is moralism!

The answer as to how to thwart the authority of an Authoritarian is the answer of how to deal with supernaturalism.... that is to say, if we desire to be effective. 

We are not contending with evidence, we are contending with the assertions of Authoritarians. But the real question is what gives their assertions authority (aside from that of the appearance of their confidence). Strike the assumptions behind the authoritarian claim and the supernaturalist will fall. But this is no paradox: the falling of the supernatural means the raising of the sane. There are those who stand before us ever seeking to cloud our vision, but their confusion is unnecessary... nevertheless this is what the theologian does: he clouds the vision of life; he takes the natural and makes it obscure, he twists and turns our vision with his words. Resist his madness! 

The man who tries to add to that which does not require addition is afraid of discovering life.