Olduvaiblog: Musings on the coming collapse

Home » Posts tagged 'Philosophy'

Tag Archives: Philosophy

Activist Post: 4 Things the ‘Powers-That-Be’ Don’t Want You to Know About Anarchy

Activist Post: 4 Things the ‘Powers-That-Be’ Don’t Want You to Know About Anarchy.

“None are more enslaved than those who believe they are free.” – Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Gary ‘Z’ McGee
Activist Post

There are few subjects as controversial and taboo as the concept of anarchy. It mostly leaves a bad taste in people’s mouth due in no small part to years of psychological conditioning, backwards reasoning, and smoke & mirror political propaganda. But, as Voltaire ingeniously suggested, “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.” By explaining what anarchy truly is, we indirectly end up criticizing the powers-that-be, revealing the emperor is not only naked, but insecure and weak at the prospect of free men and women. Here then are four things the powers-that-be don’t want you to know about anarchy.

#1. Anarchy ≠ Chaos

“Anarchy doesn’t mean out of control; it means out of their control.” – Jim Dodge

Anarchy does not equal chaos. Anarchy has been the natural order of human beings since time immemorial. There’s a reason why tribal and nature-based societies have survived the trials and tribulations of millions of years of evolution, because they governed themselves in a healthy way: through natural anarchy. It’s actually hierarchal and state-run society’s that equal chaos. It all comes down to a matter of power.

Here’s how: hierarchal and state-run societies have centralized institutions with the monopoly on the use of violence. This large concentration of power attracts a particular type of leader: politicians who crave power. And since “power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely” then such power almost always leads to war. Such wars naturally lead to more power, and so the vicious cycle continues, while keeping the powers-that-be continuously in power.

This is not to say that anarchic societies don’t have hierarchy, they just have considerably less hierarchy. But even anarchic societies with hierarchies are less likely to monopolize power, because they are engineered in such a way that groups never get to the point of concentrated centers of power. They are engineered so that brutes, or even groups of brutes, cannot rise to power. The checks and balances inherent within the anarchic system, along with the polarizing effect of self-governance, maintains a healthy equilibrium within a society.

When it comes down to it, anarchists are peaceful people who just want to govern themselves. Anarchism does not imply nihilism. Anarchism implies only adherence to, and respect for, the natural order of things: a healthy respect for the unpredictability and improbability of the cosmos, the interconnectedness of nature and the immense diversity of the biosphere, and the holistic inclusion of mankind as a social being with great powers that, thereby, requires an even greater amount of responsibility. To say that anarchy only ever leads to chaos is not only ignorance of the natural world, but ignorance of the nature of the human condition itself.

#2. Anarchy = Freedom

“You don’t become completely free by just avoiding being a slave; you also need to avoid becoming a master.” -Naseem Nicholas Taleb

Simply put, anarchy prefers dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery. It prefers uncomfortable truth over comfortable lies. It prefers the pain of knowledge over the bliss of ignorance. As was written in the Bhagavadgita:

“Better to live on beggar’s bread with those who love alive. Than taste their blood in rich feasts spread and guiltily survive.”

A common argument against anarchy is that there is no governance. But a society without a government isn’t necessarily a society without governance. Really, there is no such thing as a society without governance. A society with no sense of order is oxymoronic; it isn’t a “society” at all. A society (a group of people who agree to live among each other) that allows its people to govern themselves is an anarchic society. A group of people allowed to govern themselves is a free society (anarchy). A group of people who are not allowed to govern themselves is an unfree society (tyranny). The question is what type of order is preferable: liberty or tyranny. Most reasonable people will choose liberty. And liberty is, by nature, anarchic. As H.L. Mencken wrote, “I believe that any man who takes the liberty of another into his keeping is bound to become a tyrant, and that any man who yields up his liberty, in however slight the measure, is bound to become a slave.”

#3. Anarchy ≠ Slavery

“If I want the slave to become conscious of his servitude, it is both in order not to be a tyrant myself and in order that new possibilities might be opened to the liberated slave and through him to all men. To want existence, to want to disclose the world, and to want men to be free are one and the same will.” -Simone De Beauvoir

The Confederacy of Dunces is always ballyhooing, “But, but, but don’t we need leaders” implying that an anarchic system of governance would be leaderless. But what these dunces fail to realize is that they are confusing domination with leadership, in the first place. Raised, as these dunces are, under the tyranny of the state, they cannot see that they are subordinate it. They are under the false notion that the state is a benign institution which satisfies their need for leadership. When, actually, the state is nothing more than a malignant institution of coercive authority that is satisfying its own need for power. This is domination, not leadership. The fact that these dunces vote is just smoke and mirrors, the illusion of freedom, but is not actually freedom itself. It’s important to note that anarchists do not reject all authority, only that which is unhealthy or unjust. They don’t have a problem with rules, but with rulers. Like Simone De Beauvoir wrote, “A freedom that is interested only in denying freedom must be denied.”

If human beings are the most intelligent animal on the planet then why do we need to pay other people to think for us while we slave away for them? No other animal is stupid enough to do this, probably because no other animal is stupid enough to invent such a thing as money. That aside, the current economic slavery perpetuated by the state is unprecedented in the history of mankind. We live in an authoritarian society that most of us are not even aware of because we’ve been conditioned to except it. We are daily being preached to by propagandized advertisements on the one side and polarizing bipartisan politics on the other: conform, buy this, be afraid of “the other,” you must be approved of by others, be less than you are. It turns out that the best slaves are the ones that don’t even know they’re slaves. As Naseem Nicholas Taleb wrote, “Those who do not think that employment is systematic slavery are either blind or employed.”

#4. Anarchy = Harmony

“Our species needs, and deserves, a citizenry with minds wide awake and a basic understanding of how the world works.” –Carl Sagan

If, as Nietzsche wrote, “The Übermensch is the meaning of the earth… I beseech you, my brothers, remain faithful to the earth, and do not believe those who speak to you of otherworldly hopes” then it stands to reason that since anarchy is the way the earth governs itself, then it’s also the way that mankind ought to govern itself. This is the power of Nietzsche’s Übermensch: responsibility to the earth and to the natural order of things. And so it should also be the duty of the anarchist to subsume such power. The only thing preventing the anarchist from his/her responsibility to the earth is the smoke and mirrors of the state.

The state perpetuates the psyche-cosmos split. It aggrandizes mankind over nature itself. It dissociates us from the natural order of things so that it can maintain its power over us. One of the ways the state does this is by claiming that human nature is inherently corrupt and therefore must be governed. But human nature is not fixed. It changes according to its environment. The idea that humans are naturally evil and greedy creatures by default is a complete farce. If we live in an environment that perpetuates militarization, violence, greed and power, then we will behave in militarized, violent, greedy and power-mongering ways. If we live in an environment of compassion, empathy, love and prestige, then we will behave in compassionate, empathic, loving, prestigious ways. It really is that simple. This has been proven time and time again by nature-based cultures the world over.

The difficult part is seeing through the mess of it all. To be truly free is both very easy and very difficult. But if we can keep our moral compass focused on the principles of liberty, peace, love, and the ethics of reciprocity, then it will point the way, True North, toward a truly free society. It will reveal a society that preserves the moral Golden Mean and the middle-way, as opposed to the immoral, suffocating greed of state politics. It will uncover a society that exemplifies the Golden Ratio of nature, as opposed to the state’s expropriation of nature and nature-based cultures. It will bring to light a society that realizes that by hanging the “greater villain,” in the first place, neither man nor woman would ever have to steal the goose from off the common.

“They hang the man and flog the woman who steals the goose from off the common, but leave the greater villain loose who steals the common from under the goose.” -Anonymous

This article first appeared at WakingTimes.com

Gary ‘Z’ McGee, a former Navy Intelligence Specialist turned philosopher, is the author of Birthday Suit of God and The Looking Glass Man. His works are inspired by the great philosophers of the ages and his wide awake view of the modern world.

The World-View Behind Minimum Wage Advocacy – Ludwig von Mises Institute Canada

The World-View Behind Minimum Wage Advocacy – Ludwig von Mises Institute Canada.

British Columbia, why do you hate the poor?

It’s at times like these, with minimum wage laws suddenly in vogue again, that one realizes that having the evidence on one’s side is not enough to win public policy debates.  The intellectual framework that people use to order their experience of the world must also be taken into account. How people interpret the facts is actually more decisive than the facts themselves.

Yes, I realize that there are studies purportedly showing that minimum wage legislation does not reduce employment. But these are significantly outnumbered by studies demonstrating the opposite that such laws give rise to job losses among the least skilled workers in society, precisely in line with the standard economic theory of wages (see hereand here). As William Watson tells us, even the panel that the Ontario government convened to study the issue noted that in Canada, “researchers have generally found  an adverse employment effect of raising minimum wages especially for younger workers … those studies find that teen employment would drop by 3-6% if the minimum wage is raised by 10%”. Yet the Ontario government brushed all this aside and went ahead this week to raise the province’s minimum wage by 75 cents to $11 per hour.

So why doesn’t this evidence register with the advocates of minimum wages? Much of it, if not all of it, reflects the powerful human tendency to make sense of things in terms of one’s moral priors. Jonathan Haidt’s The Righteous Mind is the most recent work to recognize this feature of the human mind. This propensity towards the moral interpretation of reality is not irresistible — indeed, it must be overcome if one is ever to arrive at the truth. But it is very difficult to thoroughly bracket one’s deep moral convictions, especially in trying to understand the social universe, where ethical issues pervade just about every inch of the entire scene. It’s a trait rarely to be witnessed, even among the most celebrated intellectuals, whose renown in fact is often predicated on their consistent application of a widely held moral view.

Supporters of minimum wage laws, being mostly on the political left, believe that the overriding aim of government policies should be to improve the condition of the less advantaged. By itself, this goal does not dictate any particular means of achieving it, but the passion with which that goal is espoused clearly predisposes its advocates to favor the most forceful means that immediately presents itself.

In other words, if you feel very strongly that poverty needs to be reduced, you are apt to choose the most direct route — which is have the government compel higher wages for those currently earning the least. You are not going to have much patience for someone claiming that high wages cannot be coerced into existence. Nor will you give much credence to someone pointing to a less direct route to the alleviation of poverty involving relatively abstract forces like supply, demand, capital, and productivity. You are liable to come away viewing someone like that as a mouthpiece for the employers whose stinginess you see as the problem.

Buttressing this set of beliefs is a more comprehensive theory of society. Naturally, it offers an interpretation favoring political over market solutions to social problems. The theory pays short shrift to the idea that individuals can interact voluntarily with each other in exchanging goods and services. Instead, society is portrayed as an intricate web of power relations, all of it ultimately reducing itself to the operation of two distinct groups — with the one holding more power having the advantage over the other with less power. Society comes to sight as a  battle between oppressors and the oppressed. Morality, then, summons us to side with the oppressed by calling on the state to deploy its power to force the hand of the oppressors.

Ever since Marx, this has been the essential thread in the left’s understanding of society. All that has varied is the definition of the basis of power. With Marx, of course, it was the ownership of the means of production. Since about the 1960′s, a more culturally oriented left, the post-modernist left if you will, has tended to emphasize race, gender, and ethnicity in its conception of power.

The case for minimum wages basically takes us back to the Marxist identification of power with property. The underlying premise is that the relationship between companies and workers is not consensual. Since workers have less leverage, the state must be brought in to make up for the power imbalance.

Such is the constellation of ideas that classical liberals and libertarians are up against, not just on minimum wages but on a much wider range of issues in which questions of power are apt to arise. Evidence from ordinary experience, history, and the social sciences can be helpful in waging this intellectual struggle. To more effectively sway minds, though, the job will have to emphasize moral and political philosophy in addition to the elaboration of more correct theories of the economy and society. Mindsets need to changed more than facts need to be adduced. That is the lesson to be taken away from this latest rage for minimum wages.

Tomas Salamanca is a Canadian Scholar.

Collapse of Industrial Civilization | Finding the Truth behind the American Hologram

Collapse of Industrial Civilization | Finding the Truth behind the American Hologram.

tumblr_ll00m5PRZz1qi2mngo1_1280

Even with all the environmental reports I read about the numerous species man is pushing off the face off the Earth, the biospheric havoc he is wreaking, and the violence he inflicts upon his fellow man, I still find the idea of human extinction surreal when I flip on the TV and see commercials for Viagra, breast augmentation, and ‘Hoveround’ power wheelchairs. I mean, we’ve managed to walk on the moon and send out exploratory space crafts and robots to other planets, yet we cannot even manage ourselves adequately enough here at home to keep from irrevocably fouling things up?!? How can that be? That we can achieve such feats of genius, but end up shooting ourselves in the proverbial foot with greenhouse gases just seems like one enormous and macabre cosmic joke to me. Doesn’t it strike you as tragically humorous? Oh, but the word is that we humans would be crazy if we didn’t reach deep down into our bag of technological tricks, if only for one last desperate time, to try to fix this doozy of a problem we’ve gotten ourselves into. Why not? We’ve already FUBARED the planet as it is, what with the chain of climate feedback loops irretrievably out of the genie’s bottle, making any mitigation and adaptation plans a day late and a dollar short. Faith in technological progress is certainly a myth that will not go down easily. We’ll keep trying to right this plane even as it does barrel rolls into the side of a mountain. What a horrible accounting error humans made by ignoring depletion and pollution in their calculations. Governments pretended that peak oil and global warming were simply figments of our imagination. If only their jobs didn’t depend on maintaining such an epic falsehood. Who knew 9 billion humans would become the next deposit of fossil fuels.

Snap 2013-12-09 at 06.56.02

We had other things on our mind though, didn’t we. Money and the ability to generate it became the raison d’être for humans. Saving the environment simply was not profitable, unless you could convert it into some sort of tourist attraction. Wealthy people could hop on a CO2-belching airline and traipse around in those “protected areas” with their safari hat on and an assortment of modern electronic paraphernalia to record the momentous occasion, not too dissimilar to those annual climate change conferences the industrial world would put on. Humans always were great at maintaining appearances, even if it did cost them an entire civilization that spanned the planet. They were so good at detaching themselves from their surroundings that they could literally monitor a species into extinctionwhile calling the whole process conservation. How’s that for self-delusion! As long as someone was getting paid, no one really cared about the end results.Biostitutes indeed!

Snap 2013-12-05 at 21.55.43

So one could say that the human path to extinction was paved in greenbacks, if not gold. Nobody dared whisper that all the wealth humans had built up and accumulated over the last several hundred years since the industrial revolution was simply a grand illusion, a phantasmagoria of the fossil fuel age. It is said that there are two things certain in this world, but actually there are three: death, taxes, and ecological balance. Man may exploit, pollute, exterminate, and plunder all he wants, but in the end Mother Nature will always claw back what was taken without forethought or reflection. The first mistake made by man was to proclaim dominion over nature. From that point onward many other bonehead maneuvers were orchestrated by humans, but perhaps the biggest one was when they gave personhood to an economic entity devoid of feelings, morals, or conscience. How could anyone seriously think corporations were people??? Homo sapiens must suffer from an inferiority complex to have labeled its kind “wise”.

2230-dystopiaSo this is my second eulogy to man, my first being ’The Short Story of Carbon Man and Industrial Civilization‘. There are no Hollywood happy endings or cliff-hanger climaxes. Mother Earth will slowly take back what was stolen while billions of tiny humans scurry around to higher ground and find ways to temporarily hold off the gathering forces, but no mercy will be given to those who brushed off decades of warnings and prescient predictions. There will be no miracles here for a species that believes itself separate from and above the natural world.

In Memory of Man

2,000,000 B.C. – 2060 A.D.
He who once dominated the Earth with his technology and ingenuity,
but whose overwhelming numbers and psychopathic leaders
pissed it all away in a sea of radiation,
toxic chemicals, and plastics

“The planet is fine. The people are fucked.”

― George Carlin

ego-vs-nature

 

Hot, Wet, and Deadly: The First Decade of the 21st Century in Review | Motherboard

Hot, Wet, and Deadly: The First Decade of the 21st Century in Review | Motherboard.

 

%d bloggers like this: