I know many of us are still trying to make sense of the seemingly insane, and definitely disturbing, political developments of the past several years. Left and right, up and down, seem all jumbled up. Perhaps most disorienting has been the rapidity of the changes in how ‘Western Liberal Democracies’ behave as political actors.
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.
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
Thank you so so much for this. We’re appreciating your research, thought and insights.