June 6, 2018
June 6, 2018
Proposition: Both Left and Right are politicizations of the apolitical. They take features of life which would happen without the state and include the state to protect them.
There's a distinction between 'belieiving' you own yourself and actually doing so. That's why I've often contended that anarchism sounds nice in a vacuum, but everyone is accountable to someone else or has others accountable to them.
From time to time on this blog, you'll read criticisms of democracy. Sometimes, in the past, I've offered the apology that democracy would be okay in a voluntary society in which everyone agreed on the terms that democracy was how they wanted things to be run. But my position lately, however, has been that even in a voluntary society, why would anyone volunteer that the majority would standardize an effect on one's life that one wouldn't otherwise have a reason to change our standardize?
Anarchism means something different depending on who one asks. It literally means 'no rulers,' while many emphasize its antagonism to the idea of 'the state.' Some are too lazy when it comes to defining 'state' and others are probably too hard headed when it comes to defining 'rule.' Some anarchists think that power itself shouldn't belong to any one person and are therefore against all hierarchies and all forms of positional leadership. Others simply think that all manners of social organization are permissible insofar as they are not coercive. But then, many people can't seem to agree on just what constitutes coercion.
If the dissident Right has a blind spot right now, it's in their antinomian streak. They're like Satanists having fun scandalizing Christian Reaganites, all the while requiring a direct inversion of their language to do so.
Our politicians are not people we know. They're not from down the block, they don't go to your church or go to the same library. They don't know your mechanic. You will never be able to call them on the telephone unless you have a lot of money or are somehow initiated into that world.
In the wake of Brexit, there is talk of many other countries following suit. Even Trump said his presidency would be 'like Brexit times 100.' Since he won, many of the very liberals who called Brexitists 'racist' are wanting to secede from the union, which would fulfill his prophecy, though probably not in the way he intended.
I criticize democracy because it is being and has been globalized. No one method works for everyone for all time. Am I hopping onto an anti-globalist bandwagon? No, a lot of people have been saying this for years. Countries are finally coming around to it now that the stakes are so high.
Have you ever told anyone you aren't voting? If you have, you've probably been offered this tired cliché: 'Then you can't complain.'
In voter-mania mentality, those who win will be playing harps under their favored administration while on the outside, there'll be weeping and gnashing of teeth, but at least you're allowed to gnash, since you voted, right?
Withholding your vote is a complaint in itself.
As a matter of fact, I'd put this forward: If you vote, you can't complain. What can you say? That if only more people were like you, you wouldn't be in the minority? That's about all you can say, and it amounts to my favorite tautology: Things would be different if they weren't the way they are.
The choices offered by democracy are an illusion. Nobody 'wins.'
Often, when people talk about the importance of voting they like to throw around statistics to scare people. They like to remind people that Hitler won by a single vote. If that's even true, it's an argument against voting, not for it. One would hope that it would take more than that to put evil into office. And even if he lost by one vote, what in the world would lead us to believe that he would suddenly stop following in Mussolini's footsteps and not march in the streets of Germany anyway, as Mussolini did in Rome when he lost?
The reason Mussolini marched is the same reason elites are trying to rig the election. They know that in times of crisis, nothing works like brute force. Not only does voting on such large scale values divide people from within but when the stakes are high, fair voting is the first thing elites disregard as it suits them.
Assume it never gets rigged and it's always fair. Say one candidate wants to go to war with Russia and Iran and the other wants to go to war with China and North Korea. Don't let anyone tell you that your fellow citizens have the right to jeopardize your entire life by involving you in a war you don't want to be in. Is that an argument for voting for the least violent candidate? Hardly.
Say it's not just war, but any number of things. A candidate endourses pedophilia being manifested into some legal form. A candidate says rape doesn't exist and is no longer prosecutable under the law. Another says to abort all female fetuses. If these things were our only options, the people would (one would hope) rise up. The reason elites don't respect the democracy they are always espousing is on the very same grounds that you wouldn't tolerate despotism from them: they know that it doesn't work.
So what do I advocate? Direct democracy isn't an improvement on electoral democracy. With electoral democracy, you at least have the element of surprise against all odds, potentially. Consensus doesn't seem to offer much hope on a large scale.
The point is, there are any number of ways to go about getting things done if decisions are made voluntarily and through constant, invested negotiation.
If your daughter was dating a gang banger, would you gather your family and friends and some of his fellow gang bangers to represent the two of you? Probably not, because you would already distrust the outcome. You'd have to manipulate the numbers in order to have an upper hand, which would defeat the whole purpose.
Rather, you'd talk to your daughter, and most likely, you'd talk to the gang banger. You'd work something out that had a beneficial reciprocal outcome for the family. Or you'd just chase him off the lawn.
The point is, who is offering you a choice and what is it for? Why do they disregard them the moment they are able to?
Voting is a way to give you the illusion that the majority believes in the decisions the elites would make anyway if they were given the opportunity. This is not a conspiracy. It's ingrained so deeply into the psychology of voting that it hides in plain sight.
Imagine making decisions on your own. Imagine despots not having a shred of legal claim over you. This is a possibility. The world is shedding skin.
You can call it a dream, a fantasy, if you like, but isn't it one worth living for?
Bruce Lee on Jeet Kune Do.
'I have not invented a "new style," composite, modified or otherwise that is set within distinct form as apart from "this" method or "that" method. On the contrary, I hope to free my followers from clinging to styles, patterns, or molds. Remember that Jeet Kune Do is merely a name used, a mirror in which to see "ourselves". . . Jeet Kune Do is not an organized institution that one can be a member of. Either you understand or you don't, and that is that. There is no mystery about my style. My movements are simple, direct and non-classical. The extraordinary part of it lies in its simplicity. Every movement in Jeet Kune Do is being so of itself. There is nothing artificial about it. I always believe that the easy way is the right way. Jeet Kune Do is simply the direct expression of one's feelings with the minimum of movements and energy. The closer to the true way of Kung Fu, the less wastage of expression there is. Finally, a Jeet Kune Do man who says Jeet Kune Do is exclusively Jeet Kune Do is simply not with it. He is still hung up on his self-closing resistance, in this case anchored down to reactionary pattern, and naturally is still bound by another modified pattern and can move within its limits. He has not digested the simple fact that truth exists outside all molds; pattern and awareness is never exclusive. Again let me remind you Jeet Kune Do is just a name used, a boat to get one across, and once across it is to be discarded and not to be carried on one's back.'
What would Bruce Lee's method look like if applied to politics? One might say that it would be chaos, but the important thing to remember is that his method always keeps the strongest and easiest solution and gets rid of what doesn't or no longer works.
If I had to pick a fundamental principle to get it started, I would posit that a society with more voluntary collaboration would be best suited to experimentation.
The question would arise: Who is organizing and experimenting? Who's getting things done? Perhaps you'd need/want some kind of council. Keeping in mind that the council is voluntary, the people would be able to take their advise or accept their leadership as it suited them, sort of like joining a club or lodge. Perhaps each club, union or lodge would have its own rules, but no one's forcing you in; if you don't like the rules, don't join.
Problem solving would be key. One wouldn't stick to the same tired economic formula if the means of spending started to transcend the goods they represented (no fiat money).
Power would be reciprocal in nature, as it is anyway. Sure, the unions, communes and clubs could trade with one another, but someone is always going to worry about civil unrest.
Perhaps there's a federation that encourages widespread communication between unions. The more groups are overseen, the less actual power is had by the overseer, rather the overseers would make it their specialty to learn about the nature of each union, even the cultures therein.
If a council didn't work, or a federation, they can be adjusted and done away with, or put into some other form altogether. The key is cooperation.
Would problems go away? Of course not. But that's the whole point of such organicity. Problems can be dealt with in a near infinite variety of ways without the rigidity of paper law. By 'paper law' let me refer to those contracts one is expected to fulfill without one's consent, and in some cases, without one's being aware. As things stand now, people can be imprisoned for not providing the right paper in order to have other paper on hand. This isn't reciprocal.
When we focus more on things being reciprocal, with the best, easiest methods in place, problems may arise, but they aren't permanent. The laws we have now aren't even permanent, but the stakes are so high when laws change today. It can mean the difference between health and illness, life and death.
If we use only what is best, the stakes will be lowered to a radical degree.