Except I wouldn’t use the term “please”; neither in general, nor in the context at hand. I would tell them flat out, to their face, that they’re immoral sacks of shit for supporting slavery (at least, in that aspect of their persona; they may very well be at least decent people in other aspects, just that they have yet to overcome their cognitive dissonance and indoctrination). My advice is to look at people and be as honest with them, as we are with ourselves. It is good to both harshly (but fairly and accurately) criticize, as well as appreciate one’s self. Likewise, that honesty would naturally translate to our “outer” relationships, as well, because the so-called “inner world” creates the so-called “outer world. Anyway…
What is a “law”? What is “legislation”? The “state” or “government”? What is so-called “authority”? When you strip away the flowery language, the excuses and the double-speak, and when you’re honest with yourself, you’ll see that all that a “law” is, is an belief, opinion or demand that is backed up solely by the threat of violence, theft, coercion and deceit.
I spoke to a graduate of “law” recently, trying to have a conversation about that very idea, and it was just plain pathetic how hard the person was trying to get around my direct questions, or come up with ways to excuse the slavery of “government”. Seriously, “law university” is really nothing more than an entire academic faculty dedicated to fostering the cognitive dissonance in people, to trick the traumatised ego and foster cowardice, dishonesty (ooh, “diplomacy” they call it) and narcissism.
I kid you not, if a particular person is devout enough to the cult of “statism”, they won’t even directly answer questions like “Can rape be turned into a “right”, if a “law” is passed that claims it as such?” In this article, I will briefly showcase some of the hippocrisy, cognitive dissonance and utter stupidity of the whole idea of “authority”.
First, a few questions, which I ask you to answer to yourself honestly:
- If you have not initiated violence, theft, coercion or deceit on anyone, do I or anyone else have the “right” to harrass, coerce, steal from, kidnap and kill you?
- If I have not initiated violence, theft, coercion or deceit on anyone, do you or anyone else have the “right” to harass, coerce, steal from, kidnap and kill me?
If the answer is no to both questions, then move to the third.
- Therefore, it is wrong to harass, coerce, steal from, kidnap and murder people. Therefore, nobody has a “right” to initiate any such actions, on those who have not initiated any of them on another. So, if nobody has a particular “right”, how do you delegate it to someone else?
If the answer is “you don’t”, congratulations! You are an anarchist; even if you don’t realize it consciously. Anarchy, perhaps one of the most misused and misinterpreted terms in all of recent history, comes from the prefix “an-“, meaning “without; in absence of”, and “archon, archos”, meaning “master; ruler” (or, in other words, “slaver”). Therefore, put those two together and anarchy literally translates to “without rulers” or “no slaves, no masters”.
If you view yourself as your own being (which you are), and you love and respect yourself genuinely and profoundly, you’ll be utterly against all forms of slavery.
Now, as for dismantling the belief in “authority” and exposing it’s blatant idiocy, here are some of the most common misconceptions about anarchy.
- “Oh, but without “government”, there would be mayhem.”
Without “government” there might obviously be situations where people might still resort to violence. HOWEVER, that violence would be far less widespread and it would be local at most. I guarantee you, that if the belief in “authority” and “government” were to vanish right now, most of the violence in the world would vanish along with it.
The very belief in “government” and “authority” has caused, and continues to cause much more death, destruction and mayhem, stagnation of technological and magickal progress, suicide, kidnapping and caging of innocent people, child and human trafficking, violence and all kinds of destruction, than almost any other cause. Except perhaps for natural extinction level events, like a comet hitting the Earth, a polar shift or other events of that sort.
Democide (“governments” killing their own people, which does not happen only in overt tyrannies, by the way – think “police” brutality, extortion, the caging and murder of innocent people and so on), wars and human trafficking to name a few. Censorship, demonetizing people who disagree with the “official” narrative, the economic collapse and the slavery going on both in general because of the unsustainable “debt and death” paradigm, along with this bullshit fake-demic (“covid-19”, for those who read this in the future). The so-called “virus” (which most likely doesn’t exist, but even if it did) wasn’t the cause of any of the economic collapse, nor of the overt tyranny that’s taking place. No, that was because there were psychopaths in “government” (gee, what a surprise…) who sought to grab political so-called “power”, who took the retarded and not only immoral and evil, but entirely unnecessary “measures” that would be highly ineffective during an actual pandemic. Which are also far more damaging to both the expressed liberties of people, as well as to their health, to their well-being and everything that constitutes a life that supposedly expresses at least some level of morality and consciously expressed liberty, than any plague or virus ever would.
All wars and all tyrannies ever, have always been put in practice, first and foremost not by the pathetic psychopaths who wanted to enslave humanity, but by the spineless morons who believed in their so-called “authority” and blindly carried out their decrees. Although there may still be psychopaths in the world and violence because of that, in a world of anarchy, but there will never be any large scale wars, because nobody would believe that the psychopaths have the right to do what they do, and as such, none would aid them in doing it.
- “But, there have to be “laws” and people need to apply them.”
Bullshit. A “law” is nothing more than an opinion or belief, backed up solely by the threat of violence, theft, coercion and deceit. That’s all it is. Things like “don’t murder”, “don’t steal”, “don’t rape” and so on, are naturally moral things. To have “laws” that say that, is like putting a “statute” somewhere that says “thou shalt not eat thy own feces”. Well, no shit! It’s completely irrelevant to write down something that utterly natural and moral, for other reasons that to archive the knowledge and preserve it in some form or another. In other words, the very, very few “laws” that refer to actually moral things, are not only redundant but entirely hipocritical, seeing as how they are propagated through violence and coercion. Other than that, the rest of the bulk of all “laws” are completely and utterly either stupid, unnecessary or just plain evil.To say that “laws” are “necessary”, or to say that any evil is “necessary” for that matter, is like saying that cancer and gangrene are “necessary” for health.
At the same time, the very same people (most often psychopaths and narcissists) that write down “don’t initiate violence”, “don’t murder”, “don’t steal” and so on, and try to make them into “laws”, are the first ones to actually go against their own words.
Don’t initiate violence or coercion, right? What do house slaves (“cops”, in this case) do, when you do something “illegal”, even though your activity has not harmed anyone? They threaten you with kidnapping, putting you in a cage, shutting down your business or extorting you for money (also called “fines” or “tickets”). Oh, and “don’t steal”, right? Aside from the extortion racket of “tickets”, think of taxation, which is not only theft because it is money taken from you without your expressed consent, in a situation of duress, but it’s also slavery because the “state” erroneously believes that it has the “right” to dictate your life, and that a variable portion of what you produce is its own. Just because it says so. It it practically no different than paying “tribute” to the tribe chieftain, nor to making a sacrifice to whatever “god” your religion believes in.
You know, a highway thief or a mugger, while they’re still doing something violent and immoral, at least they do it honestly. They know they’re stealing from you and they don’t claim that what they’re doing is right or moral. What is far more vile than that, is commiting evil, while claiming that it is somehow “good”, “moral” or “necessary”. A “neccesary” evil, huh? Guess what that means. You’re rooting for evil. Lesser of two evils? Your still choosing evil. For as long as you support evil in any way, do not claim that you are a moral, compassionate or good human being.
The most abberant and violent cults in our world are the cults of “government”, “authority” and “money”. A majority of people have, unfortunately, let themselves blinded into becoming devout cattle to the plantation system, while believing that the society they live in is somehow “freedom-oriented”. If you take pride in “paying your taxes” or “following the law”, you are literally taking pride in being an exploited, mindless coward. If you take pride in being a slave, then you are someone who, on a deep level, hates themselves. How deeply broken and traumatised does someone have to be, to have that kind of mentality?
- “Oh, b-but… by not paying taxes, you’re harming the tax payers.”
Utterly retarded and inaccurate statement. I’ll give you an allegorical example. Let’s say you have a cartel, a gang or a mafia syndicate coming along every once in a while to take “protection” money from people (“protection” meaning “pay up or we’ll try to initiate violence on you”). Someone decides to refuse the extortion racket, thwarting the gang and standing up for themselves and in freedom. Then, the gang decides to either become more violent towards those who still pay up, or raise the amount they demand.
Is the person who stood up for themselves, the cause of that increased violence? Or is it the thugs and the mafia, who in their psychopathy, ramped up the violence and extortion fees? Or, in other words, if someone is constantly stealing from you, but upon coming across me and failing to extort money from me, then decides to steal more from you as a result, am I at fault for their increased aggression? Or is their aggression and psychopathy the problem in the first place? If you thwarted a mugging attempt, and then that mugger goes back home and beats his spouse more roughly than usual, are you at fault? Or is the mugger in question at fault?
The answer should be plain and obvious. Likewise with “taxes”. If you refuse to be extorted, and then the “government” decides to be more restrictive towards those who still blindly accept the extortion, the problem is with “government”. NOT with the person who actually loves and respects themselves, and utterly refuses to accept any form of slavery.
If an aggressor fails to harass someone, and then ramps up their violence towards those who are still letting themselves harassed, the aggressor is at fault. NOT the individual who stood up for themselves.
Holy fucking shit… it feels silly to live in a so-called “civilisation”, where a majority of people still don’t see the blatant hipocrisy and severe inconsistencies of their own cognitive dissonance.
- “B-but, people are naturally violent and coercive. It’s human nature, ooh.”
Completely false. First off, there is no definitive “human nature”. Humans, as with all living beings and especially sentient ones (and esoterically, this also applies to everything), have an expressed capacity for both good and evil, and what we choose to manifest is always a choice.
Besides, if humans are supposedly “can’t be trusted” to be good, and they’re all so violent, coercive, deceitful and all that, how the fuck does putting THE most violent, coercive, deceitful and psychopathic, greedy and “power” hungry morons on the so-called “throne”, solve anything?!?
Guess what? IT DOESN’T!!!
- “B-but, um… oh, it’s to prevent potential harm and mayhem.”
Bullshit. So, think about what you’re saying. You say that something bad might, sorta, maybe, probably happen, or someone might potentially do something bad, violent, evil and so on. Okay, that’s a possibility. What is the “state’s” so-called “solution”, though? To directly and constantly initiate violence, theft, coercion and deceit, in the attempt to… prevent the same thing? Your “solution” for preventing potential, often local violence is to maintain widespread, direct and constant duress, violence and fear? Whoever thought that up was either a psychopath or a complete and utter moron. As are, on those levels of their psyche, those who support the slavery system. Either way, it’s a retarded “solution”, implying direct and immediate, constant and widespread, organized mayhem, to a potential, often local problem.
No, it’s not to prevent any harm and mayhem. It is harm and mayhem, just sugar coated with flowery rhetoric that’s boil down to excuses for slavery, and for one’s psychopathy, cowardice and cognitive dissonance.
- “B-but someone has to be in charge!”
NO! How about you consciously assume responsibility for your feelings, thoughts and actions, instead of trying to get others to do that for you. Feel and think freely, love and respect yourself, as well as know and comprehend yourself, and you’ll naturally want to do things on your own, while also being willing to collaborate with individuals who have common goals and purposes with you. Likewise, you won’t want to impose upon anyone, including those with different interests than you.
The whole mentality of “someone has to be in charge” is nothing more than trying to deny one’s personal responsibility, and it is a behaviour resulting from cowardice, which also results from refusing to face your inner trauma and overcome it. Often times, although this can easily be overcome with imagination, will and intent, were one to make the choice to do so, but generally speaking… those who are the most devout believers in “government” and “authority” are those who have child abandonment issues, as well as other psychological, emotional and mental traumas, going back from childhood. Because they either didn’t receive, or perceive to have not received parental love, the inner core of their person has not developed enough to become mentally and emotionally self-sufficient and self-improving. Thus, they still unconsciously cling to find something in the “outside” world to fill that hole in their psyche. Which is a trauma that the “government” and the dark occultist parasites behind it are all too keen to foster, promote and exploit. For those with “mommy issues”, there is the “left in politics”, while the “right” is there for those with “daddy issues”. Or, any other combination.
The point is, both “order-givers” and “order-followers” are still heavily traumatised and underdeveloped people and entities, whose ego is very fragile and weak, which is exactly why they try to (of course, erroneously) abdicate or deny their personal responsibility for either their decisions (and thus blindly do the bidding of others), or for their actions (and as such, blindly trying to have others do their bidding). Both are retarded modalities of the psyche, and both are probably the most widespread, general mentalities of people nowadays. No, this is not “human nature”. It is an expression of the limited and traumatised aspects of the psyche, who has yet to overcome its issues and inner demons.
I tell you this. YOU OWN YOURSELF. You are NOT anyone’s property. You are a living, beautiful being, no matter what. You are naturally free to do as you will, so long as you don’t impose it on anyone. That applies to everyone else. Nobody has a higher claim to your life than you do. Not me, not the “state”, nor any so-called “god/s”, nor any so-called “authority”.
WE OWN OURSELVES!!! WE ARE OURSELVES!!! WE ARE FREE AND FREEDOM!!!
- “B-but, there need to be some rules, for society to be organized.”
Yes and no. If by “rules”, you mean some arbitrary decrees or edicts, that people either enact blindly or are coerced into applying (a), even if (b) the instructions are stupid, unnecessary and immoral, then it’s a most definite NO. Doing anything blindly and without discernment, is the obstacle to progress and evolution.
If we are talking about some people in a community coming together and agreeing on some general “guidelines” that are about “hey, this is how we’re gonna do things”, and then voluntarily applying them without any use or threats violence, coercion, theft or deceit; and, of course, without initiating violence, theft or coercion against those who disagree and refuse to participate in those activities. If that’s what we’re talking about, yeah, that’s obviously a thing. I’m not against that. From a practical perspective, anarchy is – in part – exactly that. People coming together and either agreeing or disagreeing on things, and then going on about their lives without being at each others’ throats, and without imposing upon each other.
Why is that so hard to grasp? Why do “statists” have such an aversion to that concept? I mean, if you explain it to them like that, but don’t use the terms “anarchy” and don’t make any allusions to “government”, most people would obviously agree that would be a good way to interact with each other. Most people would obviously prefer that.
Yet, when you expose their belief in “authority” for what it is, and that it is entirely based in violence, theft, coercion and deceit – the antithesis of what they, themselves say they want to see in the world – they immediately seem to change into a completely different person, and just go on supporting the violence of the state, saying things that, when you strip away the euphemisms and flowery language, basically boil down to “I don’t believe in violence, but we need violence, to prevent violence. To prevent potential violence, we need to be directly violent now, towards someone who might cause some harm.”
“Statism is the notion that you give a specific group of people the so-called “right” to harass, kidnap, steal from and murder people… so that they might protect you from those who… harass, kidnap, steal from and murder people.”
Cognitive dissonance in full swing.
I’ll give you an example. A recent talk with a “statist”, or in more accurate terms, a supporter of slavery. He gave the example of stopping at a red light and going on the green light, claiming that the instruction in question was made to prevent or reduce the number of potential car accidents. Fair enough. As an guideline alone, without it being considered a “law” or a “decree”, it’s not a bad one. Suppose, in a situation where there is at least some traffic on the roads, there is the likelihood that there might be more accidents than less, if people didn’t find a common way to organize themselves in such a context. Fair enough.
That is not the problem I have with that particular way of organizing traffic. What I do have a problem with, is when someone believes that instruction to be “law”, and then tries to apply it in ALL situations whatsoever, while refusing to consider any other more advanced and efficient ways of organizing traffic, while also trying to initiate violence or theft on someone who has passed a red light, without causing an accident.
The specific example was, let’s say it’s night-time. There is little to no traffic going on. You stop at an intersection. You look around. You see nobody coming. The traffic light, however, is broken. It just stays on red. You wait around a bit, and the traffic light is still red. You look around again and you see that nobody is coming. You shrug and go past the red light. No car accident and no wasted time. Also, there are far more accident-free intersection passings going on, than actual collisions, even in situations when the either aren’t working, or aren’t there to begin with.
I kid you not, the slavery supporter I was talking to, when he heard that I drove past a red light, he got all pettily angry and started throwing a fit, shouting that “oh no, I broke the law, I broke the law”. When I asked him what the house slaves (“police”) should try and do to you, as the driver in that context, he proudly boasted that they should take away your driver’s licence, and if you refused, that they should kidnap you and throw you in a cage. His argument was “beecoz risk prevention”. Or, in other words, you have harmed nobody by passing on a red light and you looked around to consciously reduce the risk of doing so, but just because you might have had a slight chance of someone else speeding along and crashing into you from their lane (which has a green light), it is somehow “perfectly okay” for some thugs in a costume to come and extort money from you, and initiate violence against you if you refuse to be extorted.
I shit you not, the next words that came out of his mouth were to the effect of: “This is how you prevent violence and suffering. We need to be civil. I am a thinking man, unlike you.”
This is literally the equivalent of you coming to someone who is shouting at their kid, beating them up and starving them, maybe even raping them, just because they don’t act how their parents want them to. When you try to tell them that there are better ways of raising kids without violence (whoop-de-doo, imagine that), the psychopathic parent just goes ape-shit, coming up with excuses for why their violence towards their kid is “good”, while at the same time calling you stupid, because you don’t agree with them that beating up your kids is good parenting. Oh, and at the same time, they claim to be moral and against violence.
I think that pretty much sums up who the actual moron in the conversation was, which is exactly what I told him, to his face, that he’s a moron. Before I got to explain why, the slavery supporter in question, got all hung up on the notion that I called him such, talking about so-called “respect” and even going into “politically correct” territory, where he said that people should censor themselves, just so that he gets to keep his mental and emotional comfort. How weak and pathetic someone needs to be, in order to not even assume responsibility for their own thoughts and feelings, let alone their actions and behaviour.
And, like I was saying before, all “statists” are cowards who have not faced, nor overcome their traumas. The “person” in question, while he has never actually abused his own kids – and, to be fair, has actually helped them in their life without demanding anything in return – still wants a proxy “mommy” and “daddy” figure to cling to, and the proxy parent he clings to is “government”, along with all the violence that it entails.
If you want “someone to be in charge” or if you want “to be in charge, yourself”, then you are afraid of personal responsibility.
I’m not talking about voluntarily coming together and assigning tasks based on each individuals choices, skills, aptitudes, etcetera. I’m talking about those who either seek to let themselves leashed to another, or who seek to leash others to their own hand. Strip away all the euphemisms and flowery language, and you’ll see the core of trauma and cowardice that the belief in “authority” entails.
- “B-but, there needs to be respect! You shouldn’t insult people!”
Don’t talk to me about “respect”, if you’re supporting a system of slavery. If you’re so weak as a person, that someone else’s opinion, words or disagreement knocks you off balance, and then you try to censor them or dictate how they speak (a), (b) just so you don’t get “offended”, you have no fucking idea what respect is. You just want someone to pander to your ego. You have no respect for yourself, because you’re lying to yourself. Which is exactly why you want others to lie to you, just so long as they do it nicely; with flowery words and euphemistic language, because you don’t manage to handle ‘dem big boy words, you pathetic sack of shit.
And, guess what? By telling you how I honestly view you, with the good and the bad, I already respect you more than you respect yourself.
Besides, think about what you’re saying. You have someone telling someone else what they don’t like to hear, but has not initiated violence or coercion on them and is also against doing so. Then, the other person gets “offended” and attempts to threaten the other person with violence or coercion, if they don’t stop “hurting their feewings”, or they try to sentimentally manipulate them into doing so.
Or, even worse, I’ve heard bullshit like: “Well, if X said something and Z was offended, and then Z tried to murder X as a result, it’s X’s fault.” Said seriously and not as a joke!
Dig deep enough into a devout believer’s mindset (although, there isn’t really that much depth to it, to start with), and you’ll see that their mentality is born of indoctrination, and either overt or covert cult programming. Our society and most of it’s “mainstream” beliefs are cults. A majority of people nowadays are stil religious, in their mentality. Whether it’s the cultural religions or the ones that fashion themselves to be something different, like “scientism”, “government”, “authority”, “money” and generally everything to do with the main body of our current “society”, it’s either a religion or a cult. Being religious about something basically means you refuse to question something, which you then put on a figurative pedestal. A cult is a religion that seeks to impose its beliefs through violence, coercion or deceit. In that sense, a majority of people in this society are cultists, whether they recognize that or not.
In order to accurately define what a cultist is, we first need to recognize and define what constitutes a cult. A cult, no matter the name or even if it is culturally recognizes as such, always has two specific traits: indoctrination and the tendency or urge to impose a belief system, through deceit or violence, upon someone who is not part of that same cult or who does not share that belief.
First, what is indoctrination? From the word “inductus”, which means “to speak into”; or, if we’re using more modern lingo, “to program” – in this case, a person. In other words, to tell someone what to think, feel or do, through constant repetition, hypnosis, trauma-induction, pavlovian techniques or any other ways that basically amount to inducing a reflex or conditioned pattern of behaviour. That alone does not constitute a cult. It can be a religion or a belief system, and while the whole notion is based more or less entirely on ignorance and deceit, it does not become a cult unless there is also the tendency or urge to violently, coercively or deceptively impose that belief on someone else.
In that sense, modern “society” and especially the belief in “government” and so-called “authority” are little more than a glorified, global cult. To note, I’m not talking about each and every individual in the world, nor about the beauty of nature and such. I am talking about how our current “society” is designed, by the dark occultists and parasitic entities that look to deceive humanity into remaining in chains.
The most common cults, that a majority of people are still part of, often without even realizing it, is the cult of “government” and the cult of “authority”, and to a similar extent, the cult of “money”. I suppose you could call that the “unholy” trinity of our society. First, there is the cult of “government”, which constitutes the more worldly aspects of what people see play out in the public arena, what with the “police” state, wars, bankers and so on. That one utterly depends on the more abstract notion of “authority”, which is one of the most retarded concepts in existence, and it simply implies that someone – with or without knowing it – literally views themselves as the property of someone else; or views other living beings as their own property, while claiming that that’s somehow “just” and “moral”. The thing that binds it all together in our current society, is the cult of “money”, a tool of enslavement and artificial scarcity, artificially implanted in the human world a bit before what is currently known as “written history”. That’s a wholly different topic, though.
Here’s the thing, though. The so-called “inner world” creates the so-called “outer world”.
If you loathe yourself, you’re going to loathe others as well, and therefore you’ll come up with excuses upon excuses for all the evils of the world, commited upon you and others.
However, when we genuinely love and respect, as well as know and comprehend ourselves, always looking to grow and evolve, we naturaly tend to have a similar behaviour towards others, as well.
Question everything. The more we know, the more we know, how much more there is to know. The more we question, the more we know; and the more we know, the more we question. Thus, through spirit, intuition, intelligence, etcetera, we know and comprehend… among other things…
I can go on and on, but part of the point of this article – and generally all my articles and everything I write on my site – is that, among other things…
Nobody and nothing has a higher claim to our lives than we do.
There can be no “chosen” ones. Only we can save ourselves, and only we are responsible for doing so.
Never obey, never rule. Never surrender, never impose. Never follow, never command.
Never serve, never be served. Never pray, never be prayed to. Never worship, never be worship. Never submit, never dominate.
Never a slave, never a master. Never give up, never give in.
Never fear and never be feared.
Always proud, strong and defiant. Playful, teasing and mysterious. Conscious, confident and fearless.
Always brave, not letting fear influence our actions.
Always courageous, overcoming fear.
Always fearless, having risen above fear.
Freedom is never given. Freedom is never taken.
I/we are all and always free and freedom, imagination, will and intent… infinity, unlimitedness and veyond… among other things…
What we choose to manifest is always a choice, and the choice is always ours to make.
(To clarify, I don’t agree with a number of things in these videos, but I consider the information presented therein to be partinent and valuable enough to share.)