Thanks for the comment. I suspect we may agree on more than we disagree on (maybe). The situation you describe, of communities pulling themselves together to achieve collective ends, I would describe as ‘natural,’ but not what Hobbes means by ‘state of nature.’ Hobbes means unassocisted individuals who then form a modern state. I think Aristotle, whom I mention and who Hobbes has in his sights, was more accurate. For him, we are naturally ‘political animals’ and naturally form increasingly complex associations from the family to villages to polises (smallish self-governing societies). Each level is aimed at allowing us to obtain a higher aim. Thus far I think we mostly agree. Most people extend that to the modern state. Following Hobbes though, I agree the modern state is not a natural association. Something like a republic might fit. Something like a federation of communities might fit. The modern state as described by Hobbes, for me, is problematic and not in line with our nature.
I would encourage you to read my series (part 1 is out, others to follow pretty much weekly) on egalitarian anti-modernism. I hope to see comments from you on that. Will be fun and probably helpful.
Universality can be deducted through pure reason. The state of nature did exist; and in the state of nature people are forced to create borders, to secure communities, and to protect themselves from rogue degenerates who think it's just good fun to go pillage and rape. In other words, to protect universality you need an organized actor. You need multiple communities, with common interest, collaborating to protect themselves. These communities will negotiate, will compromise, and will work together to ensure their survival and security. A nation state is only an extrapolation of these small communities into a larger actor, necessary to secure a way of life.
The monguls, for example, led by Ghengis Khan, were a massive entity hell-bent on destruction because, and this is in his own words:
“The greatest happiness is to vanquish your enemies, to chase them before you, to rob them of their wealth, to see those dear to them bathed in tears, to clasp to your bosom their wives and daughters.”
That's pretty scary. When a guy talks like that and he has an army at his back, anarchy isn't going to help you.
The coercion and force that we see today seems to be directly related to two fundamental factors:
1) The introduction of the federal income tax;
2) the introduction of the Federal Reserve. When you allow banking to legally form a cartel capable of placing a noose around the economy (through coercion), and you force individuals to pay taxes to a centralized actor, in this case the Federal government, then you will inevitably increase the power of that centralized actor to the extent that it imposes its will upon the citizens.
But that is not a failure intrinsic to a republic; it's just bad public policy. Anarchy is not superior to a republic. Humanity has already tried anarchy. It doesn't work. Unless you have god-like powers you cannot secure the inalienable and at the same time be an island unto yourself.
I first read this essay of yours in July last year, and I filed it.
And this morning I came back to it and read it again.
During the period between readings my own thoughts on the Evil ruling humanity, which I believe is the ancient philosophy of totalitarianism which seeks monopoly of all things and the slavery of the majority, I had come across Hobbes Leviathan, which to me is a work of pure Evil, and the fact that he was lauded as a great philosopher and this was a 'masterpiece' - Wikipedia sings his praises, shows our western establishment's ruling elite embrace and laud this evil.
And why would it be any other way - since Babylon crowned Saragon as a man-god-king, and developed (or borrowed from past empires) the doctrine of King of Kings mankind has been ruled by totalitarianism of the monarchy structure - the pyramid of power, which is best represented by the pyramid on the US dollar note, with the capstone floating above and the eye of Horus watching humanity to guard the elites power.
When I reread your essay this morning my thinking on totalitarianism had advanced to a point where I understood this essay all the better than I did when I first read it. And I was grateful for your depth of thinking and efforts in tracking it and developing an understanding of the totalitarianism of the western elites.
So I have 2 points to share with you -
First - when you stated that "The first is the 17th century theorist of the State Thomas Hobbes, who most accurately described what a modern state was before any of them actually existed" -
I find myself in strong disagreement of the last part of your sentence 'before any of them actually existed."
All of our ruling paradigms going back thousands of years have had this same totalitarian structure - monarchies, pharaohs, emperors, the Roman Empire, the Roman Catholic Church - the 'State' as Hobbes expressed it is simply a statement of the existing philosophy and repackaging it up to apply it to 'nation states.' That's my take on it. What do you think?
Second - Hobbes, and all the other useful idiots throughout history who lived, worked, and were paid by the ruling elites and the philosophy of totalitarianism, be is soft or hard, all of these thinkers were put to the purpose of justifying the State's supreme monopoly over power. The rights of the State.
We need a complete and utter counter-revolutionary movement in thinking to work on destroying totalitarianism in the coming generations. We don't need the 'Human Rights' allegedly granted by the very elites who are conspiring against us, and the institutions like the United Nations, which are their Trojan horse for World Communism - we need a new doctrine 'The Rights of Mankind' - and it must be developed outside the elites circle of power and influence and rejects all of the rights the State assumes to itself, and the useful idiots in the top 10% of societies help to enforce because they are riding the gravy train.
Thanks for taking the time to read and then reread this essay.
As to your first point: I don't disagree that oppressive, hierarchical structures are ancient. I think the modern state may be a version of that, but it is a modern development. In my thinking, the modern state has a few defining characteristics: it is national (hence, we speak of nation-states, and not an empire--though it may also found an empire like the British empire; further, and maybe most importantly, it has well-articulated bureaucratic structures, and it is dependent on the emergence of certain 'scientific' knowledges to allow it more effective control over a population than was typical previously, such as statistics which allows it to tax and control effectively down to the individual level. The particular beast I mean is usually thought of coming into existence during the eighteenth century (Hobbes being in the seventeenth). So, I don't think we really disagree, I was just pointing to a very particular sort of governmental structure.
As to your second point: I absolutely agree we need a robust and new anti-totalitarian philosophy, though, no doubt, it will draw on older philosophies as well. I also agree with your insight that it must rest on something other than rights granted by the state or some scheme of the state limiting itself, as in classic liberalism.
I think regarding the point about the hierachy you are right we are in agreement.
I simply see it now as the Evil that rules humanity, and the western "governments" are simply a transformation of the models for ruling with totalitarianism, monarchy, which is the ancients agenda for what is essentially World Communism - by Communism I am defining it as the very totalitarian state and principles embodied in Hobbes 12 principles of the State that Hobbes outlined.
Throughout history it keeps changing names - King of Kings, Empire, Roman Empire, the Universal Monarchies of the Roman Catholic Church, the British Empire, Russian Communism etc. All the same virus.
The ruling elites have a philosophy that keeps their agenda alive and well through the millennium and shape shifting and transforming through history. So no matter how they spin it then it is the same thing - totalitarianism, which is at heart communism, where the state is the party of the ruling elites, just like in an absolute monarchy, and seizes control of everything. Indeed I regard communism as the exact same structure of the Vatican and the Roman Catholic Church monarchy, and its monarchy nations model, with god stripped out and discarded and simply a reversion to absolute tyranny to terrorize the slaves into submission.
And we see it clearly today as to use their own words "World Government" (think UAE World Government Summit and organization), which is "globalism" and because they are pushing it with the United Nations - World Economic Forum public private partnership, signed in 2019, the very definition of global fascism, and using the Sustainable Development Goals as their master-plan - which is a sophisticated and extremely evil blue print for creating a digital dystopian prison planet to enslave all humanity in their techno-feudal world using technology, then it is simply totalitarianism all dressed up in collectivism's fake narratives to justify it.
Am I repeating myself in this comment? Lol.
Back to the second point. I am glad you agree.
I think the only way forward for humanity to fight what I think is best defined as the Evil of totalitarianism (and monopoly) is the establishment of a philosophy as a guiding set of principles - a Humanitarian Manifesto - which must include as we agree a statement of the Rights of Mankind - and this is essentially what the American experiment attempted to do. But it has now been corrupted beyond recognition by American traitors and Biden's "Our Democracy" - what democracy! The USA is a Republic.
Another idea I have had for some time and am jotting thoughts down on is the establishment of an alternative to the World Economic Forum, perhaps it could be called something like the World Humanitarian Forum, and use it as a way of working on these issues from A to Z, as the WEF does, only from the point of view that the we do need a Great Rest as King Charles said, but not their vision, we need a Great Humanitarian Reset. If this could be gotten up and running you would be a great man to have onboard.
Hi LR,
Thanks for the comment. I suspect we may agree on more than we disagree on (maybe). The situation you describe, of communities pulling themselves together to achieve collective ends, I would describe as ‘natural,’ but not what Hobbes means by ‘state of nature.’ Hobbes means unassocisted individuals who then form a modern state. I think Aristotle, whom I mention and who Hobbes has in his sights, was more accurate. For him, we are naturally ‘political animals’ and naturally form increasingly complex associations from the family to villages to polises (smallish self-governing societies). Each level is aimed at allowing us to obtain a higher aim. Thus far I think we mostly agree. Most people extend that to the modern state. Following Hobbes though, I agree the modern state is not a natural association. Something like a republic might fit. Something like a federation of communities might fit. The modern state as described by Hobbes, for me, is problematic and not in line with our nature.
I would encourage you to read my series (part 1 is out, others to follow pretty much weekly) on egalitarian anti-modernism. I hope to see comments from you on that. Will be fun and probably helpful.
Universality can be deducted through pure reason. The state of nature did exist; and in the state of nature people are forced to create borders, to secure communities, and to protect themselves from rogue degenerates who think it's just good fun to go pillage and rape. In other words, to protect universality you need an organized actor. You need multiple communities, with common interest, collaborating to protect themselves. These communities will negotiate, will compromise, and will work together to ensure their survival and security. A nation state is only an extrapolation of these small communities into a larger actor, necessary to secure a way of life.
The monguls, for example, led by Ghengis Khan, were a massive entity hell-bent on destruction because, and this is in his own words:
“The greatest happiness is to vanquish your enemies, to chase them before you, to rob them of their wealth, to see those dear to them bathed in tears, to clasp to your bosom their wives and daughters.”
That's pretty scary. When a guy talks like that and he has an army at his back, anarchy isn't going to help you.
The coercion and force that we see today seems to be directly related to two fundamental factors:
1) The introduction of the federal income tax;
2) the introduction of the Federal Reserve. When you allow banking to legally form a cartel capable of placing a noose around the economy (through coercion), and you force individuals to pay taxes to a centralized actor, in this case the Federal government, then you will inevitably increase the power of that centralized actor to the extent that it imposes its will upon the citizens.
But that is not a failure intrinsic to a republic; it's just bad public policy. Anarchy is not superior to a republic. Humanity has already tried anarchy. It doesn't work. Unless you have god-like powers you cannot secure the inalienable and at the same time be an island unto yourself.
Hi W.D.,
I first read this essay of yours in July last year, and I filed it.
And this morning I came back to it and read it again.
During the period between readings my own thoughts on the Evil ruling humanity, which I believe is the ancient philosophy of totalitarianism which seeks monopoly of all things and the slavery of the majority, I had come across Hobbes Leviathan, which to me is a work of pure Evil, and the fact that he was lauded as a great philosopher and this was a 'masterpiece' - Wikipedia sings his praises, shows our western establishment's ruling elite embrace and laud this evil.
And why would it be any other way - since Babylon crowned Saragon as a man-god-king, and developed (or borrowed from past empires) the doctrine of King of Kings mankind has been ruled by totalitarianism of the monarchy structure - the pyramid of power, which is best represented by the pyramid on the US dollar note, with the capstone floating above and the eye of Horus watching humanity to guard the elites power.
When I reread your essay this morning my thinking on totalitarianism had advanced to a point where I understood this essay all the better than I did when I first read it. And I was grateful for your depth of thinking and efforts in tracking it and developing an understanding of the totalitarianism of the western elites.
So I have 2 points to share with you -
First - when you stated that "The first is the 17th century theorist of the State Thomas Hobbes, who most accurately described what a modern state was before any of them actually existed" -
I find myself in strong disagreement of the last part of your sentence 'before any of them actually existed."
All of our ruling paradigms going back thousands of years have had this same totalitarian structure - monarchies, pharaohs, emperors, the Roman Empire, the Roman Catholic Church - the 'State' as Hobbes expressed it is simply a statement of the existing philosophy and repackaging it up to apply it to 'nation states.' That's my take on it. What do you think?
Second - Hobbes, and all the other useful idiots throughout history who lived, worked, and were paid by the ruling elites and the philosophy of totalitarianism, be is soft or hard, all of these thinkers were put to the purpose of justifying the State's supreme monopoly over power. The rights of the State.
We need a complete and utter counter-revolutionary movement in thinking to work on destroying totalitarianism in the coming generations. We don't need the 'Human Rights' allegedly granted by the very elites who are conspiring against us, and the institutions like the United Nations, which are their Trojan horse for World Communism - we need a new doctrine 'The Rights of Mankind' - and it must be developed outside the elites circle of power and influence and rejects all of the rights the State assumes to itself, and the useful idiots in the top 10% of societies help to enforce because they are riding the gravy train.
What do you think?
Best regards
Ivan M. Paton
Hi Ivan,
Thanks for taking the time to read and then reread this essay.
As to your first point: I don't disagree that oppressive, hierarchical structures are ancient. I think the modern state may be a version of that, but it is a modern development. In my thinking, the modern state has a few defining characteristics: it is national (hence, we speak of nation-states, and not an empire--though it may also found an empire like the British empire; further, and maybe most importantly, it has well-articulated bureaucratic structures, and it is dependent on the emergence of certain 'scientific' knowledges to allow it more effective control over a population than was typical previously, such as statistics which allows it to tax and control effectively down to the individual level. The particular beast I mean is usually thought of coming into existence during the eighteenth century (Hobbes being in the seventeenth). So, I don't think we really disagree, I was just pointing to a very particular sort of governmental structure.
As to your second point: I absolutely agree we need a robust and new anti-totalitarian philosophy, though, no doubt, it will draw on older philosophies as well. I also agree with your insight that it must rest on something other than rights granted by the state or some scheme of the state limiting itself, as in classic liberalism.
Hi W.D.,
Thanks for such a quick reply.
I think regarding the point about the hierachy you are right we are in agreement.
I simply see it now as the Evil that rules humanity, and the western "governments" are simply a transformation of the models for ruling with totalitarianism, monarchy, which is the ancients agenda for what is essentially World Communism - by Communism I am defining it as the very totalitarian state and principles embodied in Hobbes 12 principles of the State that Hobbes outlined.
Throughout history it keeps changing names - King of Kings, Empire, Roman Empire, the Universal Monarchies of the Roman Catholic Church, the British Empire, Russian Communism etc. All the same virus.
The ruling elites have a philosophy that keeps their agenda alive and well through the millennium and shape shifting and transforming through history. So no matter how they spin it then it is the same thing - totalitarianism, which is at heart communism, where the state is the party of the ruling elites, just like in an absolute monarchy, and seizes control of everything. Indeed I regard communism as the exact same structure of the Vatican and the Roman Catholic Church monarchy, and its monarchy nations model, with god stripped out and discarded and simply a reversion to absolute tyranny to terrorize the slaves into submission.
And we see it clearly today as to use their own words "World Government" (think UAE World Government Summit and organization), which is "globalism" and because they are pushing it with the United Nations - World Economic Forum public private partnership, signed in 2019, the very definition of global fascism, and using the Sustainable Development Goals as their master-plan - which is a sophisticated and extremely evil blue print for creating a digital dystopian prison planet to enslave all humanity in their techno-feudal world using technology, then it is simply totalitarianism all dressed up in collectivism's fake narratives to justify it.
Am I repeating myself in this comment? Lol.
Back to the second point. I am glad you agree.
I think the only way forward for humanity to fight what I think is best defined as the Evil of totalitarianism (and monopoly) is the establishment of a philosophy as a guiding set of principles - a Humanitarian Manifesto - which must include as we agree a statement of the Rights of Mankind - and this is essentially what the American experiment attempted to do. But it has now been corrupted beyond recognition by American traitors and Biden's "Our Democracy" - what democracy! The USA is a Republic.
Another idea I have had for some time and am jotting thoughts down on is the establishment of an alternative to the World Economic Forum, perhaps it could be called something like the World Humanitarian Forum, and use it as a way of working on these issues from A to Z, as the WEF does, only from the point of view that the we do need a Great Rest as King Charles said, but not their vision, we need a Great Humanitarian Reset. If this could be gotten up and running you would be a great man to have onboard.
My email by the way is ivanpaton@hotmail.com - feel free to contact me there too.
Welcome to the Holler.