Such fascinating distinctions … anarch vs anarchist.
Key insight: “This renders them incapable of understanding why the source from which the individual draws her or his freedom is in fact more collective than the human collectivities with which they identify.”
Personally, as one who reserves the right to disagree with anyone or any line of thought, as new evidence comes to light and my thinking evolves, I instinctively identify as a staunch Marxist — Groucho that is, in that I would not “...want to belong to any club that would accept me as one of its members.” While Groucho was being humorous, like all good jokes, it is based on a deep undercurrent of truth.
Anarchism is a perfectly natural state of mind, however at the other end of the spectrum I'm surrounded by rules and regulations that have to be obeyed as these are enforced by the uniformed bullies who are in a different state of mind, some call these fascist, I tend to agree.
No place to call home but an old truck parked somewhere up in the mountains next to a creek with the cleanest water running through it, sounds idealistic but one is not allowed to remain here for long you know rules and regulations.
How does an anarchist maintain their sanity in a world gone mad with all this sadistic tyrannical authority which made me think of a few people who, when hauled before a court refused to recognize the self appointed authority of the crown corporation and walked away a free person.
An anarchist will always be forced to lead a lifestyle that's bound to be considered illegal by the authorities after all that's what they do they make things illegal.
Its possible to survive without having to conform too much, you know. Take parking tickets - I just pay them and get on with life, rather than fret about them.
Yes, its a question of reasonableness - there are things I can change, and things I cannot. I try to focus on what I can do, and not fret about the rest. And to be only fair, consider my relatively comfortable and libertarian existence in Scotland. Here I am free to march, and have done so over the last few years on various issues I wish to express a view about, such as the Gaza genocide, opposition to fracking, support for unpaid carers, Scottish independence, and opposition to the Covid lockdowns - without any aggro from the police or counter-demonstrations . In many countries around the world, this would be much more difficult and dangerous.
Paying the parking ticket is legitimizing their self appointed authority, when it can be challenged.
Correct me if I'm mistaken but isn't this what anarchist are supposed to do?
Question or go all the way and or challenge authority !
So here's an example - the following really happened - a tribal sovereign living in a continent known as ''Australia'' challenged the authority of the legal system [on a traffic related incident which is absolutely brilliant story on it's own] on the basis that tribal ''Australians'' never ceded sovereignty to the crown and therefor the judicial system which they impose is invalid.
My point is that the man has successfully challenged the legal system - the judge walked out of the court and he walked away a free man.
As soon as Captain Cook set foot on this continent he subjected himself to the rules and laws that had already been established [Or will the anarchist claim that there's another form of authority]
Reminds me of a little Green book by Chomsky I bought In Amsterdam, The main message was that there's good authority and then there's bad authority and from that aspect I hold tribal laws in higher esteem then the laws that lead back to the city of London corporation
Yes, but my point is that these disputes are trivial and occur in any society - which can be even fiercer in tribal societies which usually have taboos involving land, animal resources, sex and childbirth, etc. So you have to pick your fights wisely.
I've been thinking this for a while. It's a shame that 'anarch' is a bit clunky sounding. 'Ism' relates to doctrine, practice, system, theory. Anarch simply means (one) without ruler. Much better.
Beautiful... and perhaps your most profound writing yet.
I think the impediment of the standard "anarchist" attitude that you critique is best distilled, as you have done, in the phrase "modern materialistic mindset," also related to the socially obsessed "ego." Opposed to it is that quality the social anarchist so glibly dismisses, but which you so consistently champion: the *mystical* (or spiritual) dimension of natural freedom.
Bravo Paul, this is an excellent essay. It brings to mind the distinction that can be drawn between 'expectation' with its desire for material results in a certain time frame and 'aspiration' which is much deeper in it's desire for growth and freedom from the heart rather than from the expectant concrete mind.
A historical problem with anarchism is that it opposes all structures of power, just for the sake of it, independently from them being good, bad or even necessary in many cases.
Unfortunately, anarchism does not have deep philosophical roots, but it was a trendy fashion that served more as a distraction than to solve a real problem.
It may be even possible to find similarities between anarchism, feminism, hippy drug use, progressivism, woke ideology and other sorts of neo-liberal ideologies.
However, in recent years things have changed and it has become very clear that whoever rules over us is pushing the same globalist, zionist and anti-human agenda.
In this new context, finding an escape from this type of society makes sense, but this does not mean that we should stop resisting or that we should cut connections with like minded people.
I'm now more sympathetic towards anarchists, but note that fragmentation of society is what they want, because a fragmented society is weak, remissive and not able to oppose tyrannical governments.
I became an anarchist not because I instinctively oppose social stability, natural order or tradition, but rather because I could see that the current system represents nothing of the sort. It is a total abomination and has to be overturned. My kind of anarchism does not seek a fragmented society, but rather a cohesive and organic one, free from the fragmentation caused by exploitative and illicit power.
A lot about the anarch reminds me of a mystic, especially one following the direct path of Advaita Vedanta, Non-Duality as taught by Nisargadatta Maharaj.
Labeling oneself as an anarchist assumes you believe there is an opposite, perhaps something like unbounded government authority. No one is born believing that their future life is dictated by a tyrannical government or any government.
We are born free and that is all there is. Government is virtually forced upon us at birth and we do not have the power to escape. We are still free and it is only a purely selfish and self-serving government that assumes otherwise.
The minute you identify with anything, you have lost your soul, mind and heart to its machinations. If you be of spirit, there are no labels and identifiers.
We are ruled from birth and even from inside the womb. Who is born independent of their caretakers? No one. They are our (albeit) tiny government. The rest of our lives progressively interact with larger forms of rule as our lives expand in scope.
We all live according to some law even if the law of anarchy. There is no way around it. Even someone who lives in total isolation in the wilderness lives by the laws of nature.
I have found only One who is worthy of ruling me. God. That has freed me from the rule of man. More and more every day. I am in this world but not of it. - Jesus Christ
Maybe you'd like to enlighten us further, to offer your, I am certain, detailed analysis. Or, are you just a troll strolling through the forests of your misunderstanding taking shits on the high quality efforts of others? Maybe some more pics of flowers and cats are more in your purview? Purview......get it, cat lover?
Such fascinating distinctions … anarch vs anarchist.
Key insight: “This renders them incapable of understanding why the source from which the individual draws her or his freedom is in fact more collective than the human collectivities with which they identify.”
Personally, as one who reserves the right to disagree with anyone or any line of thought, as new evidence comes to light and my thinking evolves, I instinctively identify as a staunch Marxist — Groucho that is, in that I would not “...want to belong to any club that would accept me as one of its members.” While Groucho was being humorous, like all good jokes, it is based on a deep undercurrent of truth.
Thanks for yet another brilliant bit of writing.
Anarchism is a perfectly natural state of mind, however at the other end of the spectrum I'm surrounded by rules and regulations that have to be obeyed as these are enforced by the uniformed bullies who are in a different state of mind, some call these fascist, I tend to agree.
No place to call home but an old truck parked somewhere up in the mountains next to a creek with the cleanest water running through it, sounds idealistic but one is not allowed to remain here for long you know rules and regulations.
How does an anarchist maintain their sanity in a world gone mad with all this sadistic tyrannical authority which made me think of a few people who, when hauled before a court refused to recognize the self appointed authority of the crown corporation and walked away a free person.
An anarchist will always be forced to lead a lifestyle that's bound to be considered illegal by the authorities after all that's what they do they make things illegal.
Anarchist in mind and spirit, always.
Its possible to survive without having to conform too much, you know. Take parking tickets - I just pay them and get on with life, rather than fret about them.
That's pretty much what Jünger is saying. His character Martin conforms on the outside but remains free within.
Yes, its a question of reasonableness - there are things I can change, and things I cannot. I try to focus on what I can do, and not fret about the rest. And to be only fair, consider my relatively comfortable and libertarian existence in Scotland. Here I am free to march, and have done so over the last few years on various issues I wish to express a view about, such as the Gaza genocide, opposition to fracking, support for unpaid carers, Scottish independence, and opposition to the Covid lockdowns - without any aggro from the police or counter-demonstrations . In many countries around the world, this would be much more difficult and dangerous.
The issuing of a parking ticket is commerce.
Paying the parking ticket is legitimizing their self appointed authority, when it can be challenged.
Correct me if I'm mistaken but isn't this what anarchist are supposed to do?
Question or go all the way and or challenge authority !
So here's an example - the following really happened - a tribal sovereign living in a continent known as ''Australia'' challenged the authority of the legal system [on a traffic related incident which is absolutely brilliant story on it's own] on the basis that tribal ''Australians'' never ceded sovereignty to the crown and therefor the judicial system which they impose is invalid.
My point is that the man has successfully challenged the legal system - the judge walked out of the court and he walked away a free man.
As soon as Captain Cook set foot on this continent he subjected himself to the rules and laws that had already been established [Or will the anarchist claim that there's another form of authority]
Reminds me of a little Green book by Chomsky I bought In Amsterdam, The main message was that there's good authority and then there's bad authority and from that aspect I hold tribal laws in higher esteem then the laws that lead back to the city of London corporation
Yes, but my point is that these disputes are trivial and occur in any society - which can be even fiercer in tribal societies which usually have taboos involving land, animal resources, sex and childbirth, etc. So you have to pick your fights wisely.
I don't think these matters are trivial or I never would have mentioned them.
It's all about the authority and the legal system to enforce the ticket which is acquiring more and more power with each passing day.
I've been thinking this for a while. It's a shame that 'anarch' is a bit clunky sounding. 'Ism' relates to doctrine, practice, system, theory. Anarch simply means (one) without ruler. Much better.
Beautiful... and perhaps your most profound writing yet.
I think the impediment of the standard "anarchist" attitude that you critique is best distilled, as you have done, in the phrase "modern materialistic mindset," also related to the socially obsessed "ego." Opposed to it is that quality the social anarchist so glibly dismisses, but which you so consistently champion: the *mystical* (or spiritual) dimension of natural freedom.
Bravo Paul, this is an excellent essay. It brings to mind the distinction that can be drawn between 'expectation' with its desire for material results in a certain time frame and 'aspiration' which is much deeper in it's desire for growth and freedom from the heart rather than from the expectant concrete mind.
Interesting article and topic.
A historical problem with anarchism is that it opposes all structures of power, just for the sake of it, independently from them being good, bad or even necessary in many cases.
Unfortunately, anarchism does not have deep philosophical roots, but it was a trendy fashion that served more as a distraction than to solve a real problem.
It may be even possible to find similarities between anarchism, feminism, hippy drug use, progressivism, woke ideology and other sorts of neo-liberal ideologies.
However, in recent years things have changed and it has become very clear that whoever rules over us is pushing the same globalist, zionist and anti-human agenda.
In this new context, finding an escape from this type of society makes sense, but this does not mean that we should stop resisting or that we should cut connections with like minded people.
I'm now more sympathetic towards anarchists, but note that fragmentation of society is what they want, because a fragmented society is weak, remissive and not able to oppose tyrannical governments.
I became an anarchist not because I instinctively oppose social stability, natural order or tradition, but rather because I could see that the current system represents nothing of the sort. It is a total abomination and has to be overturned. My kind of anarchism does not seek a fragmented society, but rather a cohesive and organic one, free from the fragmentation caused by exploitative and illicit power.
A lot about the anarch reminds me of a mystic, especially one following the direct path of Advaita Vedanta, Non-Duality as taught by Nisargadatta Maharaj.
thoughtful and interesting.
Labeling oneself as an anarchist assumes you believe there is an opposite, perhaps something like unbounded government authority. No one is born believing that their future life is dictated by a tyrannical government or any government.
We are born free and that is all there is. Government is virtually forced upon us at birth and we do not have the power to escape. We are still free and it is only a purely selfish and self-serving government that assumes otherwise.
The minute you identify with anything, you have lost your soul, mind and heart to its machinations. If you be of spirit, there are no labels and identifiers.
We are ruled from birth and even from inside the womb. Who is born independent of their caretakers? No one. They are our (albeit) tiny government. The rest of our lives progressively interact with larger forms of rule as our lives expand in scope.
We all live according to some law even if the law of anarchy. There is no way around it. Even someone who lives in total isolation in the wilderness lives by the laws of nature.
I have found only One who is worthy of ruling me. God. That has freed me from the rule of man. More and more every day. I am in this world but not of it. - Jesus Christ
Great article. Thank you.
Amen
Sounds like your ready for the wilderness?
Fucking bullshit semantics🙄 Just another tool of the ruling class to keep us divided.
Maybe you'd like to enlighten us further, to offer your, I am certain, detailed analysis. Or, are you just a troll strolling through the forests of your misunderstanding taking shits on the high quality efforts of others? Maybe some more pics of flowers and cats are more in your purview? Purview......get it, cat lover?
🤡