Larken Rose - Five Bogus Excuses for Opposing Freedom

This video is Larken's response to A response to "5 Reasons Why I'm not An Anarchist," by Austin Petersen. (In turn, Larken's basis for his position is explained at length in his book: The Most Dangerous Superstition.

Stefan Molyneux: They Control Humans With Words.

This is in response to a listener question regarding the domination of Leftist politics in academia in the West, specifically in the Humanities and related fields (i.e. not STEM). Molyneux is an Anarcho-Capitalist, so he's anti-authoritarian and anti-Left, but the arguments he makes regarding the use of language and narrative control is equally applicable to the Right's authoritarians (they just suck at it by comparison). Be prepared for his crack at psychology near the end; it is consistent with his overall position (an insistence on independently-verifiable evidence for claims made).

Gnostic Media: Kristov Atlas, pt2 : Anonymous Bitcoin, Cryptography and Online Safety - #204

Their Description:"This episode is part 2 about Bitcoin, cryptography and online security and safety and is called Anonymous Bitcoin, Cryptography and Online Safety: It's being released on Wednesday, July 2, 2014, and was recorded yesterday on Tuesday, July 1, 2014.

Kristov Atlas is a network security and privacy researcher who studies crypto-currencies. He is the author of Anonymous Bitcoin: How to Keep Your Ƀ All to Yourself, a practical guide to maximizing financial privacy with Bitcoin. Kristov is also a correspondent for the World Crypto Network, appearing regularly on the the weekly roundtable show "The Bitcoin Group", and host of "Dark News", a show about un-censorship technologies"

On Property

The anarchist community remains divided over the question of property. The more visible Anarcho-Capitalist wing is all about private property, unaware or unwilling what that term means in practice, while the Anarcho-Socialist (etc.) wing doesn't really unpack that term properly and thus gets tripped up when attempting to argue for their form of anarchism.

I will attempt to unpack that term.

"Property" is the word, in English, that we use to refer to items or locations of a discrete nature that can be accounted as belonging to one specific individual or group. The laptop I'm using to compose and publishing this post is property. The blog that I published this post at is property. The body I used to transmit my thoughts from my mind to this post is also property. The house I reside in, the food that I consume, the books that line my shelves, and so on- all of this is property.

"Private" is the word, in English, that we use to refer to items or locations that are specific to an individual or group and not available without pause to the population at-large. The above property? Private, all of it. The roads I travel on, however, are public property. The airwaves over which I'm using WiFi is also public property. So are the parks I live nearby, and visit as I wish, and so are the libraries.

The issue is not "public" vs. "private". The problem is "personal" vs. "private."

"Personal", in English and referring to things, means that the item or location is particular to a specific individual or entity. In practice, we use this word to refer to items that one holds, wears, uses, or occupies. Anything more abstract in terms of ownership trends over to "private", in practice, as we see when talking of patents, copyrights, trademarks, offices, and so on.

What all anarchists agree upon is that personal property is a self-evident thing. One can, and usually does, own those items that one holds, uses, wears, or occupies. The clothes that I wear are my personal property. The laptop I'm using is my personal property. The knives I carry and use are also my personal property, so is the bed that I sleep upon. Therefore, what these two camps fight over is not about personal property. They fight over what is beyond the personal; they fight over what is "private" property.

In short, they're fighting over what is otherwise deemed "capital". They're fighting over mills, kitchens, workshops, hospitals, laboratories, and other places where work is done--something is made or a service provided--as well as the tools (including abstract ones, like theorems and algorithms) used to make that work possible. It's a fight over what is actually personal and what is actually public, for all intents and purposes; it's a fight over those goods and services, and the systems used to distribute and administer them- specifically, over an individual vs. collective paradigm of anarchy and how to make it work.

The problem, as I see it, is that both sides are ignoring their respective fatal flaws. The An-Capitalists want a system that, whenever it arises (and it has, albeit unknowingly so most of the time), inevitably produces a new feudalism; this is the experience of American colonialism in what is now the Southern Atlantic states (including Florida, eventually) as well as Carribean colonies. Because power and influence, in practice, stems from wealth and that is derived from ownership of private property it means networks of socio-economic tension between haves (landowners, ultimately) and havenots (everyone else). This leads to the creation of a State by the haves to create a barrier between them and the havenots. The An-Collectivists want a system that, whenever it arises, turns into a snitch-cum-police state as a body inevitably arises to "adminster" things and that becomes a power base in itself; the "anarchist" society becomes Statist when this body reaches critical mass and uses propaganda and leg-breaking to enforce conformity.

In short, the former produces Facism or Inverted Totalitarianism. The latter creates classic Totalitarianism. (Or, if you will, Abusive Father-as-State vs. Abusive Mother-as-State; both are toxic and democidal.) Neither of these creates a sustainable anarchy. The fight over property, quite frankly, that they do cannot end any other way. That doesn't mean that there isn't another way out.

Acknowledge the difference between "personal" and "private". Personal property is self-evident manifestations of Natural Law. Private property is the fiction shat out of Man's ass, and inevitably requires the creation and perpetuation of the State to keep the illusion up and running; it has sweet fuck all to do with Natural Law. A strict individualist stance on what property is, and therefore how to deal with it, is how you navigate these seas between Scylla and Charybdis. Disavowal of both Capitalist and Collectivist ideas will go a long way towards putting down the problems that exists in Anarchism right now; instead, stick to the personal- "If you don't hold it, then you don't own it." is a very useful guideline to follow.

Working towards an alternative paradigm for when Empire falls.

So, What Kind of Anarchist Are You Mr. Walker?

Previously, I wrote at length as to why I am not an Anarcho-Capitalist. Today, it's the other side, and by that I mean the Anarcho-Syndicalists/Communists/etc.- in other words, the left-leaning sort.

The problem with the Anarcho-Capitalists (henceforth, "An-Cap(s)") is that they refuse to recognize Capitalism as the predatory thing that it is, which is why cronyism and gangsterism are inevitable developments and cannot help but lead to the creation of the State as a means of creating a differential edge that cannot be countered: the power of the State in service to their interests.

By comparison, the problem with Anarcho-Collectivists (as that is what synidcalism, communism and so on build their argument upon) is that they refuse to recognize that the same phenomenon that produces the centralization of power in the An-Cap paradigm still exists in the Anarcho-Collectivist paradigm (henceforth, "An-Col(s)"): the presence of the potential for centralized power draws predatory people who seeks that power and will do what it takes to get it, inevitably leading to corruption of the collective and its transformation into a new State.

Let me break that down.

The premise of the An-Cols is that practical sovereignty is only viable when one surrenders or sublimates their individual existence and identity into that of a group of some sort--a union, a village, a free company, etc.--which possesses the economic capital required to establish and maintain a truly autonomous community. The small religious commune is an An-Col manifestation. The worker-owned collective is an An-Col manifestation. The problem with these, and all others that conform to this pattern, is that these are not emergent gatherings that perform a function that Natural Law demands. You don't need a co-operative to cultivate land, grow food, establish a homestead and raise a family; you don't need a commune, a union, or any other formal social construct either.

The family and the homestead are naturally-occurring emergent organizations, existing to fulfill purposes necessary for individuals to survive and thrive, and when no longer necessary they dissolve as easily as they emerged. These lawful institutions, and these alone, are all that Mankind needs to overcome any challenge or achieve any goal. This is because these entities are most friendly to the development and refinement of the individual when functioning properly; all other institutions--especially the State--are poor copies of these two naturally-emerging institutions. Even when they function improperly, they function well enough to still be better than any artifice of Man. These poor copies lack the elements that prevent, for the most part, the creation of cults and other destructive mind controls that turn these things into gangs and then into new States as the transformation concludes and crystalizes into the end-stage of predatory paradigms.

That's right, folks: I am an Individualist. I see collectivism of all sorts as nothing more than openings for predatory personalities--psychopaths--to slip into positions of power within these collectives, turn them away from their original purpose and towards making them into personal fiefdoms. The end result is that these become cults--religious, business, political or otherwise--and cults inevitably turn their totalitarian authoritarianism away from their own and towards outsiders, which is usually when they become States. In other words, the An-Col path is also a sucker's path because it is nothing more than the creation of the conditions needed to create a cult or gang, and then grow it from there until it becomes the State and thus has become the thing it was made to destroy.

The Individualist path, which eschews Capitalism as being predatory inherently and Collectivism as being a self-destructive delusion, seeks nothing but mastery over oneself. The family naturally emerges because being a child is the first experience of being the student, and raising a child is the practice of being the mentor as dictated by life itself; the household naturally emerges as the most efficient way to collect and distribute the resources required to accomplish this task. As each child is a unique individual, only the unique attention of individual mentors is sufficient to fully develop one's abilities and discover one's method of employing them in this life. No form of collectivism permits this in practice (just as no capitalist system does in practice) as collectives see people as capitalists do--just human resources, one or two steps away from being proper money--and therefore cannot help but to violate the inherent rights of a child in service to unnatural demands of the predatory paradigm. It is child sacrifice to blood-thirsty demon-gods in all but name. Only by holding to the way of the Individual, perfectly sovereign in himself and acknowledging the same quality in all others, can one fulfill the potential to achieve true and real autonomy and freedom that Anarchism offers to Mankind.

This is what sort of Anarchist I am, and by walking this path I will live to see Empire fall.

Peter Joseph on Stefan Molyneux: "The Art of Nonsense" - Pathology or Con-Artistry?

This is enough for me. Stefan Molyneux and his videos will no longer appear here. He's not an honest actor, and I regret ever giving him attention.

The True Costs of War: Stefan Molyneux of Freedomain Radio speaks at the University of Toronto

Today, I'm bringing to you an address that Stefan Molyneux gave recently at the University of Toronto in Canada regarding war and how the institutions that benefit from it conceal the true costs that warfare imposes upon all involved in it and instead sells both victor and victim on a fantasy that makes it acceptable--even when on the business end of it--to them instead.

Peter Joseph in Berlin: Economic Calculation in a Natural Law / Resource-Based Economy

Peter Joseph gave this address at a Zeitgeist Movement event in Berlin, Germany recently. This is a long one, coming in at two hours at 45 minutes, but it is well worth your time. The address, as the title indicates, focuses upon the issue of economic calculation--one of the consistent complains from the Anarcho-Capitalists--and how it works in a world that's run on a resource-based economy.

If you want to skip ahead to the bits that most interest you:

• Intro: 0:00
• Part 1: Why Change?: 4:12
• Part 2: Post Scarcity: 30:59
• Part 3: Economic Organization and Calculation: 1:11:01
• Q&A: 1:45:10

There Is No Such Thing As "Crony Capitalism"

Anarcho-Capitalists and their Libertarian counterparts push, as an axiom of their paradigm, that there is such a thing as "pure capitalism" and therefore the "crony capitalism" we see all over the world today--this increasingly globalized corporatist prison planet--is an aberration that must be destroyed so the purity of true capitalism can be witnessed for all and sundry.

As my cousins across the pond would say, "BOLLOCKS!"

Peter Joseph said it best when he clashed with Stefan Molyneux: The Anarcho-Capitalist/Libertarian "Free Market" set are willfully blind to differential advantage, and therefore are dishonest in their defenses of the market and Capitalism because they refuse to address this very real emergent property of their paradigm as it actually works in the real world.

The capitalist assumes, as an axiom, that competition between rivals and enemies is ultimately beneficial for all Mankind because this competition in the marketplace--the "free market"--for the attention, and therefore the custom, of others forces capitalist enterprises to innovate their way into superior efficiencies at every point of their operation or they will be beaten out of existence by those same rivals and enemies. As this is the way that one's means to survive and thrive are gotten, this puts the weight of existential threat behind one's efforts in the marketplace. Therefore, it is inevitable that one will seek out and hold on to any possible difference that grants an advantage to you while denying the same to your rivals and enemies. Failure to do so will destroy you.

When the stakes reach the level of an existential threat, Fight Or Flight thinking cuts into the OODA Loop, and rivals quickly transition into a hit list of enemies that must be annihilated as security threats. The obsession with seeking differential advantage, and denying it to others, quickly translates into "If I am the only option, then why not destroy my enemies?" and that translates into committing violence upon those same others. This is where the capitalist marriage to the State arises.

Gangsterism is the origin of all government, and capitalism--because of differential advantage--inevitably leads to gangsterism; if there is no State, or it is in the hands of enemies, the capitalist will create one the old fashioned way (as the Mexican cartels are now). Otherwise it will align itself with the State, trading support in exchange for State intervention in the capitalist's favor; the need for differential advantage compels the capitalist to use the violence of the State as a proxy for its own gangsterism, wielding the State's power to destroy enemies and create advantages for itself that a rival cannot handle without also attempting to buy favors from the State. The State and the Capitalist are compelled into this marriage. This is why "crony capitalism" is NOT an aberration; it is, instead, the fully mature state of the capitalist paradigm- Fascism and Inverted Totalitarianism are the Endgame Stage of Capitalism, making Anarchy impossible.

This is why no amount of economic reform will bring about the structural changes necessary to be compatible with Natural Law. The Anarcho-Capitalists and their friends are deluding themselves if they think that their way is NOT going to destroy them in the end, which is why I cannot stand with them and instead go with the Zeitgeist Movement and the Venus Project as more practical alternatives; the An-Caps are Patsies for Empire, and so are their Libertarian counterparts, making them allies only to a given point past which they become counter-productive to Man's freedom. No amount of crying "voluntarism" can fix this fatal flaw, and so I brush aside the black-and-yellow An-Cap banner in favor of something better and for now am just another Anarchist In Black. (Because I'm not that keen on the An-Coms or the An-Socs either.)

The Fatal Flaw of Anarcho-Capitalism: It's the Psychopaths, Stupid

I have an issue with the anarcho-capitalists (and, by extension, libertarianism), one that does not get acknowledged, above and beyond the matter of structural violence (and their denial of it): their conception of a free marketplace and a capitalist economy cannot possibly happen so long as psychopaths exist.

Stefan Molyneux, Adam Kokesh and the rest of that camp refuse to acknowledge that the psychopath problem is the sticking point that makes their paradigm a non-starter. They refuse to acknowledge that predators exist, that these predators--being cunning folk--know better than to fight fair; they can, and they will, shape the terrain to their advantage every single time. In plain terms, they fetter the market and seek to centralize power in their hands- they seek dominance and authority, which means that they are the shitsacks that create the State whenever it doesn't exist because that's what criminal masterminds do- first the gang boss, then the godfather, then the lord major, then king, then emperor and eventually god-emperor of all Mankind.

This is because A-Cs erroneously conceive of what Capitalism really is. They think it's a sport, where competition is restrained by good character via the ethics of sportsmanship; psychopaths, anarcho-communinists, anarcho-syndicalists, the Zeitgeist Movement and the Venus Project all acknowledge (in their own language) that this is bullshit- that Capitalism is really War By Economic Means, which is why the end-game of it always involves the creation of the State and the rise of either Fascism or Inverted Totalitarianism (i.e. Corporatism of one form or another) and finally a full-on manifestation of a Feudal system of masters and serfs/slaves. In other words, Capitalism--so long as psychopaths exist--cannot be ANYTHING other than Empire given a non-Mannish form; violation of the Non-Aggression and Self-Defense Principles (Sacred Feminine and Masculine, respectively) is inevitable, and thus the A-C paradigm is doomed to fail.

This is why I can't go along with Thomas Sheridan's "no contact ever again" solution; it just pushes the problem on to someone else (which he does admit) and does not actually solve the predation problem, yet I share his concern over the very real possibility of a witch hunt so I can't scream "EXTERMINATE!" like I'm a Dalek (IRONY!) either, which is where I'm stuck. I don't know what solution can be had that is both effective and moral, yet, other than to deal with each individually as they prey upon we common people (whereupon the Self-Defense Principle legitimates retribution via force). I'd rather find a solution that works at the highest possible level, yet meets those moral requirements, such as a gene treatment to kill the genetic root of psychopathy; once the born-that-way cohort (who cannot be fixed conventionally; it just makes them better predators) are gone, the secondary strain--the ones abused by the primaries into this dysfunction--can be repaired conventionally and thus their predatory culture wiped out of Creation forever.

Larken Rose: If Not For Goverment

Well, That Escalated Quickly: Peter Joseph vs. Stefan Molyneux

Oh dear.

This post will have a lot of embedded YouTube videos. These videos document an encounter between Peter Joseph and Stefan Molyneux, one that began with a debate and then exploded into a series of response videos that--starting with Molyneux's response video--escalated into character assassination, which got Joseph irked and prompted a second response video that went up today. Rather than spend words on it, I decided to embed the videos for your convenience and let you see for yourself how this derailed.

First, we have the debate itself:



Second, we have Peter's first response video:



Third, Stefan's response video:



Finally, Peter's second response video:

*sigh*

I, like Thomas Sheridan, am rather annoyed with the drama of such situations. Like Sheridan, I see that this incident is the result of someone thinking like a psychopath dealing with someone that does not. Peter Joseph's assessment of Stefan Molyneux's behavior is accurate, and I regret my previous support of Molyneux; that post will be amended to reflect this incident and the exposure of Molyneux's less-than-ethical behavior.

An Ally Against Empire: Stefan Molyneux and the Freedom Radio Show

Freedomain Radio is the online home base for noted Anarcho-Capitalist philosopher and activist Stefan Molyneux. I don't recommend him because I think that Anarcho-Capitalism is the way to go. I recommend him because he is intelligent, educated, charismatic and therefore has a following in the independent media that seeks an alternative to Empire. He's a successful man working in this field, and that commands respect and attention. Being an Anarcho-Capitalist, he extols the concepts of Voluntaryism and the Non-Aggression Principle in one's behavior and inter-personal affairs coupled with the promotion of the Free Market as the basis for socio-economic action and organization.

Stefan's is worthy of your attention not only because he presents ideas and principles that deny the claims of Empire and its Thralls, but also argue that there is a viable and practical reality that Empire and its Thralls pervert and corrupt for its own ends- and at our cost. His conception of Mankind as a people who organize without coercion for mutual advantage, using the Common Law and Natural Law as the sole source of community regulation, is not without merit or past experience that was not a failure; there are problems, many of which arise when debating with philosophical opponents, but nonetheless he's a man whose ideas cannot be dismissed out of hand. While he is often at odds with others, intellectually and philosophically, who come from a position that gainsays and challenges the precepts of the Free Market (as well as those who do not embrace Anarchism, however minimal, such as Libertarians) it is certain that no successful successor to Empire's reign can happen without taking these ideas and principles into account- and that means Stefan (figuratively speaking) has a seat at the table. Take the time to get familiar with him and his work; it will aid in you becoming what you need to be to make Empire fall.

UPDATE (10/6/2013): Since this post, Molyneux debated Peter Joseph of the Zeitgeist Movement. That did not end well. Molyneux revealed himself to be less-than-honorable and honest, and discredited himself and his position through his behavior. I've embedded all of the videos showing this in the linked post immediately above, so see for yourself.