Do We Ever Really Get Out of Anarchy? – Questions For Corbett #051
Today James fields a question on anarchy among the elitists and finds that the REAL question is whether we ever really get out of anarchy at all.
Watch this video on BitChute / Minds.com / YouTube or Download the mp4
SHOW NOTES:
Do We Ever Really Get Out of Anarchy? – Essay Summary
Keith Knight on BitChute / Minds.com / Archive.org
Do We Ever Really Get Out of Anarchy? (Essay)
Revisiting “Do We Ever Really Get Out of Anarchy?â€
Filed in: Questions For Corbett
Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
THANK YOU for posting this James, this is a great video for sharing with family and friends who haven’t figured it out yet. Please make more when you have time on this subject, I know you make a lot of videos on this subject already. But I mean something specifically teaching people who aren’t in the know about Anarchism in a way that is easy to understand and ties well into their daily lives, so many people are absolutely clueless as to the definition and practicality of Anarchism, to the point of believing lies. If you have any other source material you suggest please let me know. I follow Ron Paul, Judge Andrew Napolitano, Lew Rockwell, the Mises Institute, Tom Woods, Hans Hoppe, Bill Buppert (who would be a GREAT person to interview, he has great commentary and analysis), and several others. Thanks as usual.
I feel that ideological analysis is hopelessly naive and misses the point to put the focus in ‘thinking’ that is part of the nature of our deceit.
The lawlessness that we are experiencing is protected or masked over by layers of of lies or invested self illusion.
This is no less true in our own mind than in the collective representation.
The definitions and meanings of words used is fundamental and without a critical regard for what we mean we let wishful thinking serve a narrative cover story for self evasion of conflicts we have learned NOT to see – not least by engaging in a world of diversion and displacement – because our inner conflicts are no less active for being hidden.
The idea of God as light and life, source and true Nature – has been devalued by taking the names and symbols of Life for vanity or self-illusion – such that the realm of self-illusion is framed in self possession and control – instead of under discernment in the heart as a result of love of truth and honest enquiry. The realm of self-illusion is – in a sense the ‘Matrix’ idea – in which the wish NOT to know is synchronous to the MEANS by which knowing is denied. But because we think – like Pinocchio – to have become a ‘real boy’ without strings – we have set a negatively framing filter or mind of oppositional suppression and denial to the true movement of our being – while we are living our dream of autonomy – turned to nightmare. But overlaid upon a Life and light of an awareness we do NOT create – as a self and world that we have in a sense made up (together).
Thus we have the mind of judged categorisations, identities and invested narratives that assert, impose, cast out and override, those that are judged against, instead of uncovering and sharing who we are, in Life.
The problem is not in managing conflict. The problem is an identity framed in doublethink (conflict).
Governance is natural to the heart and mind as one purpose.
In fact it is invisible or transparent to the alignment and flow of thought action and relational engagement.
The idea of Sovereign Will is a religious or heart idea that has been – as I say – devalued by being (as stated above) overridden and usurped by lack, fear, conflict and fear of pain of loss.
It is that ‘separation trauma’ taking a different pattern of relational breakdown and entanglement, which has become the invisible basis of our mind and world-experience. Instead of the unself-conscious spontaneity of Life recognised and extended in though, word and deed.
Look at the infants.
But note they are already committed to a realm of adaptation to lovelessness – set under narrative dictates that may have an element of truth but may also have an element of aggrieved ‘autonomy’ set in the attempt to ‘regain possession and control’.
[SNIP – Please keep comments to 500 words or less. -JC]
No offense personally intended to its author, but this comment is so abstractly idiosyncratic as to be uncommunicative. Perhaps that was its point, I don’t know; but if so, less words would have indeed left it just as clear.
I’ve been wishing I could understand several commenters who seem to be making valuable points. Having concluded that I must be very slow indeed, I have given up trying to figure out their meaning. (Like Harmonizer — a musical-sounding name if there ever was one! — I mean no offense to anyone. I guess I’m just letting Harmonizer know that I sympathize.)
P.S. By “several commenters” I meant those who comment on other Corbett offerings–not just this one.
“It is that ‘separation trauma’ taking a different pattern of relational breakdown and entanglement, which has become the invisible basis of our mind and world-experience.”
Well, sounds like something I personally, at least, should look into…
If a Law is tolerable, then I will tolerate it. If the law is absurd then I break it. This is how everyone lives. Just look at how many yuppie state lovers drive their cars well above the speed limit while talking on the cell phone. As far as I can tell no one cares about laws(or “safety”), and especially not the police!
It’s a good question.
I think Anarchism is often under sold because of its very nature it is not often recognised for what it is and gets classified as something else. You can’t point to Anarcasia on the map!
Actually they ARE telling us how to live, who to associate with, who to disassociate with, who to marry, etc.
Many listen, some ignore, and others make a concerted effort to voice their indignation of being told.
Case in point, the many govt school indoctrinated marxists who have no tolerance for “free speech” of anyone else but themselves…were told the collectivist way to live is superior (yak). Those women who boldly state: Not interested in any conservatives or Trump supporters…were told that such types are evil, greedy, polluter, racists, sexist, homophobes…project all their own ills onto an opposition target.
Sorry for the bad writing but cannot help it if the edit function takes a leap across the page whilst typing.
The creators/perpetrators of coercion are not anarchists they are despots. Those who are obsessed with limiting freedom will suffer related stifling effects of the control they project. The dystopia we experience is lived by all- both the “perpetrators” and the “victims”. The whole idea of anarchy, in my mind, is wilderness – the very lack of any institution. Let the fires burn out the seeds of our twisted addictions.
Great question, lots of food for thought.
the archon is of necessity someone who rules
over while not being ruled over.
Therefore the archons’ independence from rules
is the direct consequence of imposing on others that which they
do not want imposed on themselves, the amount of liberty
they enjoy comes in direct proportion to the amount
of liberty subtracted from others.
In anarchy, enjoying one’s freedom does not entail
a degrading of the liberty of others.
The presence of coercion in the way archons relate to others
should call for a change in the term that is used to describe this “independence”(they’re freer than the slaves, but still need them).
Therefore, malarchy does seem more appropriate.