Anarchism or Extinction

in #anarchy4 years ago (edited)

Every time I argue an anarchist point with most people, I am met with this silly bromide: "this is the reality you live in, and what you want is a fantasy."

First, no joke. I know this is the reality we live in. That is precisely why I am working to alter your belief that this reality is acceptable and moral. The fact that you praise and worship this reality is a sign that you need to work on adjusting your thinking to a less violent and more mutual philosophy. That way we can both work together to create a world that is safer and more nurturing for our children.

Right now, this reality that you accept is based in child abuse and rampant violence against everyone. No wonder the younger, intelligent generations are so hesitant to breed. All of our posterity helped build a community cold hammered out of hatred and ape-like force against everyone, which is a world not compatible with the rearing of the young.

Second, what I want is only a fantasy in your mind because you've become so dependent on and comfortable with what you see as truth, that change has become too terrible and scary to contemplate. Try to look at the core of this reality, this anti-human culture that surrounds you, and let the brutality of it wash over you. If you can observe it objectively for even a moment it will help you to understand the anarchist position. It will help you see why anarchists want a freer world, and why it makes more sense to change.

And you know what, it's inevitable that this change will occur, because so many people are sick and tired of all the nonsense. Just accept this, and start looking at more peaceful solutions to problems, because one day it will be upon us all.

It will be anarchism or extinction.

Sterlin Luxan is a visionary thinker, cryptocurrency junkie, connoisseur of psychology, an MDMA high priest, and the Mr. Rogers of Anarchism. He is the Communications Ambassador for bitcoin.com, runs a consultancy business in the crypto space, and public speaker. He created the doctrine of relational anarchism and contributes to many causes in the thriving liberty ecosystem.

Sort:  

"First, no joke. I know this is the reality we live in. That is precisely why I am working to alter your belief that this reality is acceptable and moral. The fact that you praise and worship this reality is a sign that you need to work on adjusting your thinking to a less violent and more mutual philosophy. That way we can both work together to create a world that is safer and more nurturing for our children."

Exactly!

"this is how it is" ... right, I think we should want to change that, that's the point

It's like, what, do they think what we're talking about is a quiz about how the world is presently arranged?

It probably is subconsciously an obedience ('might makes right' sort of thing) on their part. They don't even realize they're conflating "what's currently going on" with "how things ought to be".

Like it's foreign to even think in terms of 'ought' or entertain the idea of changing.

And you know what, it's inevitable that this change will occur, because so many people are sick and tired of all the nonsense. Just accept this, and start looking at more peaceful solutions to problems, because one day it will be upon us all.

boom! Yup. There is 0 reason to believe we won't evolve past this. These ideas that they lean on now will be gone at some point; if it's too comforting to let go of it probably means you'll be kind of lost and always needing post-facto rationalizations, as time goes on.

I feel like a lot of people are in the middle and not really committed to statism, even if they haven't thought much about alternatives. And then there are those special few who ie believe in Keynesian ideas and more actively believe in statism. The first category of people seem like they can transition fine, but the latter will probably kick and scream more, they're the ones who are intellectually threatened by the changes.

Problem is, there will be a war. A war between the current system (will not die out on itself, mind you) and those against it, namely us (will not necessary rise up, human masses are proven to be fearful and gullible). A peaseful solution - is it possible? I don't think so.

If you're commenting here, we're on the same side. So this is not nit-picking and I wish you the best in your endeavors:

There is a peaceful solution. An elevation of consciousness where enough people see the light, live the nNAP and are capable of governing themselves will render government completely obsolete, and allow it to wither away. The "fight" is not against the elites, but against the zombies around us. As Mark Passio beautifully put it in his Natural Law presentation:

259.jpg

260.jpg

A peaceful solution? No. It will be bloody, yet this fight can not be stopped.

We need to majorly reduce government but I support laws against murder and other violent crimes.

Hey buddy, this concept will take more than a short Steemit comment to explain:

First, well done saying we need to majorly reduce government. We're on the same page there. But I think we need to go further:

Everyone (except brain-damaged individuals) is against murder and other violent crimes. Those crimes are against Natural Law. They have a victim. But we don't need man's law against them any more than we need a law to state "ALL OBJECTS MUST FALL TO EARTH AT 9.8 METERS/SECOND!!!" When I say Natural Law, I mean the laws of morality in the universe, karma, the golden rule et al.

Giving a small group of individuals the power to make the law has set up just about all the chaos we've seen as a species. These people think they're god on earth, and everyone else believes them. that is not the answer. We don't need to majorly reduce cancer, we need to eradicate cancer and prevent its recurrence.

It requires imagination, courage, and tenacity, but a better future without the group of people who can (not always, but still can and often do) run roughshod over everyone i.e. a government.

All the best to you
-Michael

I think you are inferring that we shouldn't need the government to enforce natural law. Unfortunately people do not follow natural law so I think we do.
I don't think a sheeple that don't vote and if they do vote vote for more government are ready for anarchy. We do need to help educate them on the advantages of smaller government. Also people like you should consider opposing bigger government by voting and giving people a choice by running for office.

I agree with you that most don't follow natural law. That's the cause, the government or external control is an EFFECT. Before I would rage against the government, but you're right, most people don't give a rip about right and wrong: that's the true great work, to educate them and encourage them to live better.

The government cannot enforce natural law because they BREAK natural law, through theft relabelled as taxation, through initiating violence against anyone who disagrees with its 80,000+ pages of laws.

We don't need a group of rapists to protect women against rapists. Do you see my point?

Finally, thanks for your compliment by saying I should run for office. However, that won't do anything. That's like joining the Mafia and trying to turn it into a charity from the inside. Won't happen. Also, by running for office I would be giving my implicit thumbs up to that institution, which I can't do.

The point I'm hoping to convey to you is this though:

196.jpg

Photo credit to Mark Passio and his presentation on Natural Law.

Do you know why people form governments?

This fear of change, I've wondered for a while if it's based on the prevailing psychological treatments of the last century. What we see now as political correctness and a refusal to call government institutions out on what they're doing may have gotten its start in the refusal of psychologists to judge morality in the world of their patients. If someone, say, were abused by a family member, the job of the psychologist has often been to help them stop labeling it as wrong. Instead, they taught patients radical acceptance and that passive reaction now seems to define the public's response to government abuse, too.

Good call, and it's no accident that psychologists largely preach "self acceptance". Not all however, but as you said, many.

Psychiatry is an arm of the state as Thomas Szasz said, and modern psychiatry has its roots in the mind-controlling elite through the Tavistock Institute, who called their psychiatrists "the shock troops to change society". Look in Mind Control by Jim Keith for more info, chapter 4 or 5.

The reality is more like we LIVE in a fantasy illusion created by narcissistic psychopaths in order to keep us in a state of fear so that they can better control us. Whereas if we awaken, what we want is to move away from this illusion. A fantasy is not unrealistic, a fantasy is a dream, and many are achieved, have been achieved and CAN be achieved. It's because your reality dissolves the illusion in which everyone else lives, which they cannot fathom, and therefore you are met with resistance because it means accepting that their reality is an illusion and it shatters their reality. The thing is, they THINK they have control in this illusive reality, but once you awaken, that's when you truly take back control over your reality and your life. But no one likes to be woken up abruptly, it's gotta be done gradually, and even then, they'll be grumpy and groggy until they are more awake.

Besides, anarchy simply means no rulers, and hence no slaves. People believe they are not slaves so they don't want to be free. However, when they wake up, they will realise they're slaves and will want their freedom. Some people will always be asleep though and there's nothing we can do about that. We can't force them, it goes against the very thing we stand for, freedom. Everyone wakes up in their own time. But it is frustrating to be met with such opposition when simply freely voicing your thoughts and desires and aspirations.

The US government has seen it's approval ratings drop from over 66% in the 1960's to under 20% today. Government is doomed, it's just a matter of time.

The trend is going in the right direction, but we need to keep pushing and we need to educate people for what comes after. Here's an example of what I mean:

I'm not sure exact numbers, but in the 1920s, the popularity of the Weimar government slipped from the 60s to under 20%. After them came Hitler...

Definitely. Liberty is relevant and progressive. Slavery is irrelevant and repressive. In the free market place of ideas, irrelevance can no survive. Develop the market, develop liberty.

"Develop the market, develop liberty." Yes.

This is so key. With the progressively more efficient free market in place, the liberty must abound in tandem.

I've been saying something similar... that "terrorism is a byproduct of authority and that we will either decentralize or go extinct" since last year on my blog. The mathematics of nature is the only thing that can save us at this point.

If you say that ta is absolutely right, I agree with you that let me know what the world is doing in a very terrible environment

In my opinion this is your best work to date.

There will always be problems in epistemology when discussing truth between anarchists and statists/authoritarians.

To listen to the audio version of this article click on the play image.

Brought to you by @tts. If you find it useful please consider upvote this reply.

The biology has been so clear all this billion of years: if you don't evolucionante, you will not survive and that fact include your mind, your customs and ideas. I think that no many people wants to accept that maybe your tradition and culture are wrong, but can we really call society to a group of people just repeating mistakes?

Sterling, I really enjoyed your speech at Anarchapulco. I was the one who asked the question about how you would respond to newbies in crypto only being there "for the investment" and how to educate them on the bigger picture of freedom.

Secondly, I really like how you tied in that our current condition is tied into child abuse.

This needs to be spoken loud and clear.

It's true. If children were raised without violence, then violence would by and large disappear. It's logical and also an extension of the Hermetic principle "As above, so below."

It's what I've been focusing on here in the Far East (as well as against government too). I've gotten good results.

It's more "socially acceptable" to be against hitting kids and garners much more support than higher-level abstractions of a world without government (though I'm 100% with you) and it's hard for someone to pretend to be virtuous and hit kids.

As @dbroze said in his speech, most of us are broken and when we're talking to statists we're really communicating with the broken abused little boys and girls who haven't yet faced their trauma, grown up, and become free.

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.71
TRX 0.10
JST 0.074
BTC 54921.43
ETH 4139.94
BNB 618.65
SBD 7.11