StylesGrant

I'll offer a twist. Pollution is good, power is good, environmentalism is good, but living your life on negations is not. "My point is not that everything is bad, but that everything is dangerous...If everything is dangerous, then we always have something to do. So my position leads not to apathy but to a hyper- and pessimistic activism." -Michel Foucault "Perhaps I should have said that Nature is politically incorrect. and ultimately everything that has been and ever will be is an extension of Nature. we are Nature. war is Nature. love is Nature. survival is Nature. when talking about meanness, one must even grant understanding to the human organism which exhibits it. everything that life does is an extension of the will to survive. there isn't really any meanness, only a misunderstanding about the best way to try to survive." -Lindsay Zywiciel "There's no such thing as life without bloodshed. I think the notion that the species can be improved in some way, that everyone could live in harmony, is a really dangerous idea. Those who are afflicted with this notion are the first ones to give up their souls, their freedom. Your desire that it be that way will enslave you and make your life vacuous." -Cormac McCarthy "Power is not a commodity that can be possessed, and it cannot be centered in either the institution or the subject. . .We will never be entirely free from relations of power. . .Rather, resistance must take the form of agonism - an ongoing, strategic contestation with power - based on mutual incitement and provocation - without any final hope of being free from it. . . As political subjects we must overcome ressentiment by transforming our relationship with power. To affirm eternal return is to acknowledge and indeed positively affirm the continual 'return' of the same life with its harsh realities. Because it is an active willing of nihilism, it is at the same time a transcendence of nihilism. We must acknowledge and affirm the 'return' of power, the fact that it will always be with us. To overcome ressentiment we must, in other words, will power. We must affirm a will to power - in the form of creative, life-affirming values." -Saul Newman Let me put this in terms. If you poison my child with coal ash and my water with fracking chemicals and my family gets sick with heavy metals from the water and coal ash, then yes they have committed aggression. If the government shuts them down and destroys the local town economy and I have to leave and go into debt, then the government has committed aggression. Typically, in reality, the regulatory standards and legal proceedings tend to argue many of these cases as 'neglect', not aggression. In fact, coal ash isn't even regulated as hazardous waste, its put into containment ponds for the industry to do as it sees fit. There's virtually no way to escape pollution. You're swimming in it. You're blood will test positive for hundreds of things. Your child's will. The only real clear 'ends to a mean' de facto argument of culpable blame and aggression, are those accusations which can be levered against those who stand in the way of 'treating' a problem that cannot be avoided. The people who lie in the medical system and create false diseases to describe what are pollution caused diseases namely. When the American Medical Association gets in the way of me trying to treat my wife for the heavy metal contamination from the coal ash, because they say there's no treatment, or they deny that her illness is caused by coal ash and fracking. When the IRS or some other federal stipulations or results of the monetary policy cause my company involved in renewable energy research to collapse or be banned. When the feds raid your local legal weed dispensary and cause you to have to drive 8 hours to the nearest one to get the only medicine you can treat your twenty year old son's epilepsy with. When the corporations who own the senators you refuse to vote for decide to create harmful subsidies and loop holes that give corporate welfare to the most polluting energy industries while penalizing renewable start ups. In everyone of these cases there are clear intents to engage in domestic intervention of trade on behalf of protecting special interests. In every case there is a war criminal, in tantamount. And then of course there is always the lies about research. Extreme censorship of academic journal's contemporary understandings of environmental health, technology, energy, and engineering. In every case there's a good reason to consider the NAP broken by the highest executives engaged in suppression and prohibition. But I don't care about the NAP, of course, I'm not a purist, just a realist. And well, you know what happens to the war criminals that actually get sentenced.

Frankly, its difficult to even begin to make my point. At first I wasn't sure I would come back onto freedomain, as I've had my differences. Yet, I don't think I was taking things case by case. At the very least, there are some pretty knowledgeable people in the crowd here about psychoanalyzing the self. And, honestly maybe I just need to get to a point where I can read certain books on fundamental patterns in adult behavior and its connection to childhood and how you rewire the damned thought process. Which is not to say I haven't been trying. Even a fool who isn't endowed with such books, will if desperate enough battle his own destructive character over the years as I have. Succinct point: I have pretty serious health issues, agoraphobia, lack of autonomy, lack of desire to 'be an adult', pursue a life of my own, total lack of desire to create real life friendships. . .But I have a solid plan to fix my health issues. It will work, over the course of two years approximately. It's the interim, the 'now' during that time that scares me. My answer for my inability to connect with people, when I had more health, had been college. Career, work, money, loans, academia, . .just bury myself in intellectualism and future fantasies of a real job where I can continue burying everything under work. . .prolific work, . . work I enjoy.. but still. So in healing my health, am I just trying to get back to that stage of my life? I never really could process all of the reasons I failed to maintain connections with people. When I was younger I did ultimately go through a process of divorcing myself from my family's negativity and abuse. I at least came to the sense of seeing that I would have to treat people in the real world, workforce, school, etc radically better than I had been treated, see things more in terms of win-win, then 'cut you before you cut me, do this or I'll do 'x' to you,',. ;partly a divorce of my upbringing, and a departure from the small town mentality of illegitimate power relations in the towns,. ex. no employer could get away with treating a person born in Portland the way he could a person from a small rural Texas town in his local business. The subculture is that people push illiberal convention on to you in all areas of life, i.e. they push their overbearing authoritarian parental character, religion, politics,. because Southern Catholic and Protestant are very authoritarian. But ironically, I wasn't directly raised religious, I was just raised by a single, severely psychotic, alcoholic mother with frequent involvement of deeply manipulative aunts. The blunt quick explanation is that a) our family was extremely judgmental and hyper critical and moralistic, like all the religious guilt and control without the religion, because she and her sibling were raised Catholic. There general views on life were profoundly negative, manipulative, vindictive, and reactionary. b) My mother always had severe health issues as well. To add to that, my health was poor in high school, and I had considerable weight problems. I know the weight issues have kept me averse to other people, but it didn't really get better during a 3 year period of healthy weight. I just could not take the leap of really socially developing in college. I just focused on work. I find that I cannot really approach people or share my identity or views or especially my current situation. For me I think poverty always made me extremely self-conscious to share. I wouldn't ever let people know about where I lived, ate at, drove, whether I worked. I've lived my life on the defense, suspecting bereavement at every turn by anyone who gets too close. Fast forward a bit to health and yes even mental health. Well I have a main protocol. I've got a main diet. I want to relose the weight. Exercise, hell even maybe cold thermogenesis. I'm seriously considering reading Taoism, and Stoic texts, beginning meditation. I'm pretty intensely into the biohacking thing. I listen to Tim Ferriss, Joe Rogan, and Duncan Trussell quite a bit. So anything along the line of meditative texts, martial arts, deconstruction of the character, is basically bullseye attention from me. I just basically lost a friend after a year and a half, well the closest thing to a friend/woman who I met online. Now granted, its easy to attack low hanging fruit when its a woman, but let me be clear: No 'human' relationship of mine lasts that long, let alone anything remotely romantic. Wasn't that it ended bitterly. We drifted apart. Couldn't get her to respond or reconnect. It blows really. The last conversation we had, she told me she had been doing dialysis, moving, dealing with a sick grandparent, school, but 'to bare with her' 'wait' 'I want you around, keep coming around'. .anyhow she drifted away with no real desire to get in touch. I take it she grew bored of me. Hard Knocks. So I'm speaking to another girl who I've known for a little while, who I already know I am not going to bother to attempt to bullshit with any feigned flattery or passion. It isn't worth it, and her interest won't take. But, this is where I know I'm really screwing up. I learned that she too grew up really poor, in Oregon on a farm and trailer park, the fifth child, wore hand me downs till she was 15. Worked in a canning factory while in high school from 15 to 21 to help pay for college, got a very good albeit poorly marketable degree. Like at this point, it isn't coincidence, it's straight up mockery in that its my subconscious psychology. My mother worked from the time she was 14, is the fucking fifth child, that wore hand me downs, lived in a trailer park. Hell if you look at this girl, and look at my mom when she was 19 in her pictures. . .its a fucking joke its so blatant. And this girl is smart as can be in psychology and anthropology and things of that sort. Surprisingly my mom was too before her illnesses and habits wore her down to something now that's really just a shell of the original. Which I know, Molyneux said some things about 'trying to save your mother through women'. But, well this girl is doing vastly better than me, she's happy, has money, travels, stable, . .but is definitely socially averse and defensive like myself. So I had to include that diversion to point out an example of how I know all these patterns are coming up from past memory. Part of my health issue though, I have some pretty intense memory issues. I really haven't dwelt on my adolescence much the last few years. I know its simmering in the back. To the degree I could try to pick apart even case of how my family fucked me over, well even if I could, I'm not sure what I'd remember. I remember the way they made me feel far more than what was said. So now all I know is, physical healing is definitely not enough, almost surely. I truly don't know what the hell to do with my so called 'childhood'. But, I know I'm working with a short straw, and something's got to be addressed.

And I suppose I've heard the worst of both sides of the debate. It is a dangerous world in a lot of ways. It's so discouraging and bleak. I just want to hear a success story. I just want to know its possible to be happy.

For me, at least based on my understanding of anthropology, history, and science and not just ethics I come across more liberal about human sexuality than stef and obviously people outside the anarchist community. I feel like its a highly contextual argument. The truth may be that which does the least harm in this current environment and current culture, and that is certainly ultimately when children are involved the conservative stance. The area where I get fuzzy and heated with FDR is relationships not involving children. Obviously one of the things I have been fairly disproved on, are attempts to justify bad relationships or nonreciprocal ones. I gotten some pretty awful extremes tossed into the equation which has really bogged me down and slowed me ability to concentrate on this weak area in my life. I basically see the heavy onus on people to decide what's best for themselves in relationship behavior so long as it doesn't affect my immediate life. The argument for social purity or protecting the moral structure of society or reinforcing morals through shame. . .it is something that shuts the conversation down for me. But in reality, I can't really afford to let it get shut down. The thing is, that of course people are quite destructive in relations where there isn't due diligence and fairness and reciprocity. And ultimately if enough of society contains people who are that irresponsible and narcissistic and terrible at people skills it is going to affect the stability and wealth of society. But I feel like its very dangerous to paint with a broad brush, and so often social shame is just that. I would even argue, that over the last 5 years I have been tilting to the right on many things slowly. But I still know how brutal a christian shame driven culture can be, and haven't forgotten. Even other unreligious cultures are quite shame driven. Koreans. . .Kicking a kicked dog does not change the situation. And of course actually I do have a problem with a woman, but I feel like its mostly my own self destruction. And its a very gray area. I go to them, never the other way. Its just a hard stressed estranged friendship over a game and the internet basically. So there is no children, or sex, or money. . but its still bludgeoning my heart. But we were more sexually involved in the past. Its been like six months. Stef was part of the reason I stopped the majority of it and put it in its place. And now the person is actually in a much stabler situation with someone else, which is a huge improvement for her and her vices and issues. But this person begged me not to go completely. Its sort of like that scene in Good Will Hunting when Ben Affleck tells Matt Damon, that I hope I walk up to the door and your gone one day moved on with your life. I keep hoping she will tell me to go, put me in my place, just cut me off and disappear. Another women in the past did that, and my life got immensely better for a couple years. Because I actually went and I buckled down and worked like a dog at my college degree and focused on improving myself. But this person is making a point to be full of cordiality and politeness. But she has tremendous boundaries, I assure you. She wants a very impersonal, discreet relation. They can't handle stress or criticism or really even dinner conversations. She's a recovering addict as of the last year and a half, and still goes to AA meetings. When we met it started off as kind of this mutual understanding of the need for us to both get better and change our character. That's honestly what it was, and it was a real tear jerking process of getting to know the similar faults and history of abuse we shared. And part of the very reason she keeps me at a distance, is because of her intense fear of emotional destabilization and anything that could interfere with what the AA is pushing, essentially her taking her life into control and discipline. And that's kind of the whole point with FDR. It seems like the whole point is always 'abandon that person get away from that person' and 'take responsibility for your faults, self knowledge etc' but this person is trying hard to be nice to me when few other people ever have, to be there at least as a smile as a nonintrusive, nonjudgmental impartial upbeat bit of company. And I think about leaving a lot, because we go weeks without talking. But for once I'd like to hear stef or anarchist talk about how to actually save a friendship, assuming its worth saving. And I'm going to at least put in my terms why I don't agree with the reasoning that hard line traditionalist do. I can't live with an all or nothing attitude. I am not the alpha male or the beta male. There are just certain, or most things outside of platonic conditions that I do not want or need from this girl and I'm not going to give her things. I know she is beyond giving me emotional support and confidence. One of my huge points is that I have to look for all the things I can't have with this girl, in other people and places. I certainly need support and confidence and guidance from elsewhere. And there are a lot of other nuances in personality and intelligence that make me not want to get involved with her on a substantial level. But when we met the first five months or so, I honestly think she saved my life. I was so intensely cynical then, I thought friendship was impossible. And again, if anything I think that's the flaw in conservatism, is that concept of total possession. Whereas, I think its about context and calling a spade a spade. I mean, if I have a kid and a wife I am definitely not going to trust my wife spending tons of time with another guy, but you do have to have trust. In some sense shame does lead to coercion. Most modern men trust their wife around coworkers and etc. She has moral agency, and its on her basically. Whereas, Saudia Arabia has little moral agency, its hyper conservatism and jealousy and control over the woman. And I hate to tell you, but I've read some of the articles on these anti-social justice warrior sites, and its just brutal towards women who aren't in long term monogamous relations. I grew up in the South, THE SOUTH, old school. I've seen how the cops treat women and my mother, how men treated my mother growing up, how my own family treated her, they were certainly giving the Saudi's a run for their money. My mother was also a mercurial, drunk, guilty of many things, but not being a whore. She was with basically five men, in her entire life, and they were just the scum of the earth. They were all essentially socially conservative, and that didn't stop them from being scum. Philosophy is culturally objectivism in many ways. Kind of one of the reasons I like Sam Harris so much for his consistency. But I guess the gender rights on both side of the aisle, just drove me a bit up the wall. My mother picked those men largely because she was raised Catholic, or in one case because she was rebelling against Catholicism. It was all the absence of secular ethics. The men were utterly culpable, they would have given an army of feminist a just cause. And it shouldn't be that way, of such extremes that lead to the justification of feminism and mra. My grandfather was married to my grandfather for over 40 years, and he was a hyper-abusive person. That's where a lot of the feminism comes from, old school terrible things. The root causes are obviously in both genders. So I know that's a bit of a meander, but my point is that I think the trend in liberalization means men and women are learning to be rational and secular enough to be able to be friends without ruining relationships and risking things, especially with women having so much more agency with birth control. Our evolutionary behavior involved brutalizing women out of paranoia because there was no birth control, so social customs had to be built on intense reactionary stances of absolute demands of chastity. I think that that intense absolute possessiveness is all that could work in an agrarian society, and largely today as well. But it was a lot different the vast history of our species. Well we obviously, can't go backwards. And as I've said, in this situation in these conditions, a more conservative approach to children and long term relations is needed. Especially because deep mental and emotional bonds are built on monogamy. But just such absolutism isn't ethically right or necessary. Obviously I don't agree with child support laws 100%, but I can tell you in the case of my brother his father just walked out and conservative anarchist have to make a case for me in a voluntary society where dead beat dads do not make promises they can't keep, which his did. It was a planned pregnancy. But I believe it is a liberalized modernized secularized society that allows men and women to be equals and to see each other as peers on a philosophical level, gender roles aside, on a level of empathy. And what I have for this girl that I mentioned is not totally hopeless beta male love, it is empathy about what we are and what we come from and towards her for being there when no one else was. I am close to just ending any attempt to talk to her. But it kills me that she is as friendly still, as I've said. I am not in a position to be ultra picky about friendships and acquaintances, and she's always reachable. It just seems, that with mercury, an easy excuse to cut someone out is always brewing, as it keeps you vindictive. If she's going to continue to be there, and to be civil, I want to try to keep a bridge of empathy and at least some connection. I've given her many a chance to tell me to go away, but I think she just wants the positive company. I've been a negative critical mean dude at times, and she didn't tell me to shove it. She's forgiving in some instances. If there is any way I can hold onto a positive friendship with her, so long as she has that door open in a non manipulative sense, while I try to deal with these other issues and anarchism and personal psychology, than that's what I want. From my perspective, its easy to kill relationships, very easy, and I feel like the quote about living in your irresponsibility, hiding behind it and the truth that you can improve, is partly what I'm doing. There is a reason I have no one in my life, and it isn't the mercury its the behavior caused by the mercury and other negative factors, and that behavior is what is on display. This behavior is why I can't accept that there are rational reasons I cannot get people to reciprocate, reason, negotiate, or give me what I want as friends or anything else. I get stef. Some women are pretty bad. But if no women, and no friends, and no employers, and no family want to open up a line of communication and connection with you, it has to be you the individual.

@Kevin Beal I misinterpreted this quote at first. But, I slept on it. I realize its a huge huge deal. I mean huge. Because if you think about it, that quote describes Nietzsche and a whole assortment of other famous neurotic people. And, it also describes much of the 'liberal' behavior that gets lambasted, but it also describes the pathological neurosis of war hawk conservatives. So it as you say ultimately about the methodological and evident conclusion of what is philosophical truth. I think there has to be at least an aspect of the subconscious that drives people to the truth. And I've barely dealt with the FDR community or stef's vids in the last year, but with some of the really poor judgment I've made since I feel this constant sense of dread that I walked away from basically ANY truth. I certainly stand by some of my hard assessments of the conservative anarchist concept, but I am realizing that I am in a quandary all aside. The thing is, that with mercury especially when you've had the complications I've had - mistreating and redistributing it around with more into the brain, which is all as bad as it sounds, you just about lose the ability to concentrate on large amounts of reading. Podcast and videos that involve call ins, forums, basically social interaction, sort of bypass all that and are a bit ADD proof. I've been slamming away at all sorts of podcast every since I got sick about 3 and half years ago in college and its literally one of the only things that has developed me on a personal level - podcasts of various sorts of people. I mean I've just wrecked my life in so many other ways, but with that I've actually grown compared to people stuck in the 9 to 5 grind. Stef kind of covers it all, offensive and otherwise, but more importantly, and this is where I am most apprehensive and doubtful- there are these forums which potentially, potentially very well may be the only place on the internet with people oriented towards personal psychology and behavior. I actually think that the time I've spent just debating politics in facebook forums has only pulled me deeper into avoidance of my issues and my own health. It isn't that its ultimately wrong to debate politics or learn abstract economics, its just that in my situation I think that the slightest chance I am given to intellectualize and rationalize and apply politics or economics to a situation that really boils down to personal responsibility, will lead me to excuse making. And I mean this even in capitalistic terms. I can literally just bullshit about markets and history lessons all day just to avoid telling you why my personal relations are just utterly destroyed. I know the why, but not really the solutions beyond some sort of heavy change in character AND the mercury removal. . .I believe its possible, but its chicken and egg and bitter and slow. But I mean, here at least, this may be the only place outside of perhaps something like Addicts Anonymous or expensive therapy even comparable. I am suppose to use the mercury support group forum on yahoo and facebook and I don't. The people there said that it was crucial to stay in support, but that I was self sabotaging that.

Ok, lot of comments, lot to comment on, so. . My grammar? I wrote hastily, fair enough. I actually like this kind of dialogue brought up a lot. It is the sort of thing that got me interested in Molyneux's videos initially. Historical analysis and psychology. Its tough though. . I got a crummy rating again. . .and that ties back into the subject. I hate evaluation, shame, criticism, etc I brought up the point about political and economic neutrality in the sense that I am trying to focus on rationally applying psychology to my character, my flaws, irresponsibility, incompetence, etc But its very easy to just apply hard line conservatism to people. The quote by the friend about 'you're a bully, you want an easy path at the expense of others, when I didn't get such' is a typical conservative approach. The other extreme is full moral relativism and full communism or bleeding heart liberalism, which I'm also trying to avoid. On one hand you have people who are vindictive from their own experiences and on the other those who want to totally deny responsibility. Personally I was raised by someone who was hyper vindictive, irresponsible, manipulative, critical, narcissistic, and prone to rationalize self-destructive behavior. I was raised in a very 'dirty south' environment. I'm not William Faulkner, but he's a good read. I like southern writers, because they are really good at pointing out how twisted the abusive nature and convolution of the southern conservative culture was. There are certainly very deterministic aspects of reality that can be difficult to challenge, and yet I am for free will. It is confusing, as you say, because its a confusing thing to contend with and fight. I wake up, and I have to fight to believe in free will. But what exists in this life, are conditions within context and a moral agency or a sentient intention and reason to have character and choice. Often those conditions and context are quite unforgiving. Often people wont fight it. I don't think being broken is a super power either, but it is being different. It is reference in a world of many references. Cormac McCarthy has a line in The Councilor by a character who says 'that every man should make an economy for tragedy', in effect death is a part of life. Or it's also like Ivan Illich by Tolstoy. The character Ivan denies his own blindness to the suffering of others, his own unrighteousness, his own hypocrisy, his entire life- until it all goes to hell and he has to confront illness and death. I like to look at life as a constant life boat scenario. I want to know how people will act if they are confronted by extreme adversity. And yet it goes both ways. I miss out on a great deal, because I don't have in effect, . . an economy for happiness. I just cannot even integrate or participate in building and retaining things built on love and solidarity. If you say some people deny that there are options for living a life of virtue or stability or goodness than that is certainly true. I am not one of them, but I will resist and argue as a partial relativist, skeptic, egoist, hedonist, cynic, and libertine that anyone has moral certainty on nuances in behavior, economy, and culture. I have dealt with those who say there are no ways to heal. I was raised by one. I raised in a culture full of them. The blue collar mentality can be quite toxic. So let me explain my health. It's really simple at least at face value, and ruthlessly complicated to understand why. And that is mercury. Mercury has heavily affected my life. Not the insurance, not a car, not a stripper, but the damn poison. Its poison. I'm not going to get into the details of where the mercury came from, but it wasn't vaccines. I'm not going to get into the details on how I know its not something else. You'll have to accept the case of the argument in this situation, regardless if you disagree, at least for the sake of this topic. Its not Lyme's disease, but that's another great example. Most people who have Lyme's have mercury poisoning. Chicken Egg argument. And often Lyme's patients have personality defects of considerable nature, financial issues, etc. Those types are often burdens and wrecks who's illness defines them and creates a drag on other peoples lives who would of course readily tell them that they are incompetent, manipulative failures. Healthy people and American society in general are often quite brutal and stigmatic against the chronically ill, even though about a fourth of the country is chronically ill. Aids is certainly another good example. Mercury affects epigenetics. It affects everything. It affects the mind the most. Nietzsche had mercury poisoning. His books are the mercurial personality at the ultimate expression. Its possible Rand had mercury poisoning. Al Capone had it. It affects judgment, behavior, morals, and especially creates a fatalistic, egoistic, disassociative, resigned sort of paradoxical tendency. It obviously does a great deal of physical harm to the rest of the body and metabolism. It obviously creates a fragmented forgetful mind, a chaotic one at that. Can it be removed? Yes. Will the epigenetics change you to a different kind of person with a different personality? Yes. But it takes a long time. A really long time. At the least a year, two, to three and four. The removal process will make you seriously consider giving up. I've been poisoned for so long, I don't even know who or what I am or would have been if I had ever had a chance for an economy of happiness. And I know that if I don't go through treatment, I will stay in a state that is, if not deterministic, heavily rigged to fail. Just like the people Molyneux seeks to council, if they do not change the underlying conditions, than the current predicament and series of decisions and actions will lead them to fail. What am I suppose to do in the in between? I am tired of saying 'I'm going to do this after I get better'. Its a faulty premise. And, to make matters worse, I can barely get a long with Molyneux because of his conservative angle. I am trying to strike a balance or moderation. I did respect his work at one point in large context. And in fact, I would probably agree with the first half of his database of things that I had sampled. Truth is, I've never listened to a large portion of his material. I've dabbled. And since the last 18 months or so, he has created a tremendous amount of material solely related to women and men's right's activism, which has attracted a bad crowd in my opinion. When I first listened to Molyneux, I did not realize just how conservative he is about women, poverty, markets, etc. It comes off as Calvinistic. Nietzsche himself said you can't dissolute the Christian morality from the Christian religion. . .you can't apply puritanism to libertarianism on scientific grounds. . only philosophical artifice. In science, we are just whorish monkeys- not something I relish or aspire to or necessarily defend, mind you. There's a very real reason most libertarians are religious and conservative. We're all largely influenced by Christianity whether we want to admit it or not. Now I am aware that libertarianism had an origin in secularism, deism, and liberal skepticism. I am aware that classical philosophy and classical liberalism and objectivism are indeed tied to secularism, but none the less, its a hybrid political phenomena. Those normative ethics took a long time to be crafted, and are quite tied to custom and religion. So to me, I feel put off by the moral certainty of the community, but I do need to focus on psychology and my behavior. I can't even defend Molyneux on a lot of things anymore in good conscience. The people who can't see a mid ground are a part of the problem as well. I am seriously hoping to find some libertarian/volyunteerist sources, that are quite similar to the discussion of religion, economics, psychology, childhood, parenting, essentially personal ethics and ethics in psychology outside Molyneux. So far, I've found School Sucks Project, and that's about it. If I have to choose between Miley Cyrus twerking on beetle juice and white trash mothers and honey boo boo and the full blown purposeful anti-feminism of those anti-social justice warrior sites who have desires for a 'strong masculine nation'. . .than I know the matter at hand is unethical. Its a pain too, it really is, because I am not with a woman, won't be, won't be having any children anytime soon, and it isn't relevant to my own personal behavioral concerns, whereas economics and self esteem and happiness and a desire for friendships are (Trust me, I have no friends). But with one mess comes another, and any community obsessed with shaming women is going to shame other people for other things, just like the religious crowd that I despise and avoid like bubonic plague. I have seen and known horrifically bad parents, and have little in the way of intention on having my own children or even pets. Of course I think they are immoral, terrible people. And yet, these people are always in a society full of moral shaming and sexism. From what I've seen, a lack of personal freedom for women is just as destructive as feminism and state socialism and other institutional hindrances. If I am dealing with people parroting Rush Limbaugh, than I know I am not going to be able to actively listen to any sort of critique on character that they have to give. As a whole, on a whole, I still think the modernity and liberalization and secularization of people has created a freer society. The shame, religion, self-repression, and stigmatic moral puritanism has been at the heart of all the disturbed people I have had the misfortune of being screwed over by. It created people who could not deal with moderation or subtlety or relative grey area or discretion nor rationally critique their own morality, but rather those that could only vacillate between irrational shame and rationalized self hatred. Its a very neoliberal notion to think that you might have to pay for the mistakes of someone's poor parenting or promiscuous tendencies, illness, poverty, or incompetence, citing its added cost to society, putting yourself on the cross as the tax payer or individual; yet, these people can't admit that that they're a part of an overall culture that systemically creates the conditions that drive peoples' failure to rationally assess their behavior. Health care is the perfect example. You shouldn't need to have universal health care that cost tax payers, because you shouldn't be sick, because you shouldn't have to pay for profiteering and manipulated and rigged crony markets protected by the state, you shouldn't have to have your health dictated to you insurance death panels, the prices shouldn't not be what they are, the denial of health care shouldn't be as it is, because the people have in so many cases been made sick by state crimes created by neoliberals who privatized the profit and socialized the cost of agriculture and nutrition, and so many countless markets, creating structural poverty, pollution, and lowering quality of life, strapping people into a state corporate puritanical culture, and then expecting you to want their drugs, which will make you even sicker and make you die sooner, whereby then the government will rob what they haven't from you yet, and to pay for it and calling a you welfare whore when you don't.

Brett had done elaborate critiques of Kant actually. He was sort of neutral towards him, and not keen on Hegel.

In some ways I am a hard line determinism when it comes to arguments about hard biological science, neurobiology, behavior, and medical concerns. And yet I know, that this is a poor attitude. Really even those who fail worst at psychology, self knowledge, self ownership, and rationality would realize I have a bad attitude. I've fought against myself, and veered away from meat and potato self psychological analysis more than I'd care to admit. And in some sense I don't try, because I realize I have serious health issues that affect my brain. So I have a determined depression, reduction in faculty, memory loss, erratic behavior, etc, etc. But I do think free will plays in. I think if you have a lack of coherence, you know, grasping your teeth into the thick of an analysis of the psychology of the situation. That really evades me. You need coherence. I feel like I need to keep it neutral, as devoid as politics and economics as I can. I sort of perpetually conflate my depression and the consequences with economic failure, so I have tremendously little patience with hard handed cultural and behavioral arguments. In that regard I am a relativist. So that's convoluted. But so it is. I was at one point better at this,. . .in the past when my health was right. So yes, I really need to change my thoughts to something more supportive.

To me Brett Voinette comes across at many angles. While I've grown pretty far from an objectivist traditionalist conservative anarchist model, Brett's use of Objectivism is ruthlessly effective at explaining history. I think I've listened to about 20 podcasts of his, all the ones with Thaddeus. I've listened to Joe Rogan and Christopher Ryan interview Thaddeus too. Thaddeus has convinced me that much more of why I dislike modern liberals and progressives, and Brett Voinette has convinced me that I have an almost endless hate for public education. I feel like their criticisms of education really sync up with the left-market-libertarian view of 'corporatizing' peoples faculties. This acknowledgment and personal dissatisfaction with high education and corporate science and neoliberal economics/lobbyist corruption has pushed me heavily into a centrist anarchist perspective. I would say that I were more of a humanist, a meta-modernist, an economic mutualist. C4ss.org and School sucks seriously have me more and more interested in the libertarian cases for agorism, georgism, and mutualism. I certainly have been heavily influenced by post-modernist, Guiles Deleuze, Felix Guatri, Zizek Slojov, Michel Foucalt. .I would consider the Matrix to be highly post modern, as one of the books was by Baudrillard. . and Kevin Kelly is just O.u.t there. Relativism can certainly liberate your mind from total cultural imprisonment, but it has its limitations. As I go along and see the need for rational, practical solutions and alternatives in the market, with rational evidence driven results, it makes me understand the necessity of Austrian economics, or at least emergent order and catallactics (Hayek). I would even strongly argue that many of the ideas in the Matrix, promote Catallactics, .that complex system theory and Catallactics ARE anarchy and anarchy IS nature's order. Thaddeus had an excellent argument against appeals to natural law, because dogmatist have always used nature as an excuse for slavery. There is a similar argument to be made in comparing Voltaire's relativism against the God's Chain of Order argument by Alexander Pope. For me especially, being a die hard natural scientist, I get labeled a fascist and hippy a great deal as have the zeitgeisters for making appeals to nature. Relativism is tough, and in fact many people fail to realize that the left and right have their own forms of relativism. The capitalist school, which this is really interesting in that as an Objectivist, Brett voinette takes a stab at the historical tradition, once again siding with the left-libertarian thought against corporatism- that the history of state capital exploitation and structural poverty resided strongly in utilitarianism and pragmatism and unitarianism. The state often upheld this, and the religious culture upheld it as well. You, and this is till the case, have the state, the church, and the market coordinating together to push in this case neoliberal economics, the contemporary form of amoral utilitarianism as a system of economic control. And this is where the zeitgeisters don't get credit again, they are making arguments against dogmatist. But no one argues over the constants in physics, the hard law equations, etc. But the American capitalist culture has always had a legacy of taking a stab at the biological sciences. And this is where it gets especially muddled. Communist and socialist were traditionally more associated with biological science and anthropology, and the modern left now fights like hell against religious dogma that doesn't hold up to anthropology and evolutionary biology. Without hard genetics, the amount of violence that dogmatist could get away with in the name of racial hostility would. . .look like the days of phrenology and gas chambers. . not fun. And they still deny it. Hardcore Jesus on a Velociraptor 40 virgins and a mule denial. The only thing protecting civilization from that, is heavy tax paid state academic and private corporate infrastructural science that applies advanced biology and is taught by mostly moderate and modern liberals. Modern liberals are thieves, annoying, morally destructive and often sophistic, but evangelist are ANTICIPATING and WELCOMING at any given time, total nuclear holocaust. Listen to Rush Limbaugh. If you fear that moral tribal savagery, and do not understand secular libertarianism, you'll probably intentionally pay twice the taxes, put your children through twice as much public school, to protect them from the cultural toxicity of evangelist conservative nationalism. Add to that, that the modern left violently defends corporate corrupted science as objective positivistic authority in the biological sciences, whilst condemning sustainable agriculture, environmental toxicology, and preventative medicine. It is an appeal to nature to say that the aforementioned are more 'proper', but it is because its empirical also. In reality the market is so skewed with copyright and state corruption that the relativist lie gets sold, while the empiricism remains in an obscure peer reviewed journal only accessible to other die hard independent researchers. Institutions in the left and right both push their relativistic causes. The dirty hippies advocate for plurality, evidence, and catallaxy to vet their biological research. . .while the corporate science hides behind the state and institution. Sadly many Objectivist defend market relativism, and biological relativism in the case of agriculture/medicine/environmental science. Molyneux in particular has compared environmentalism towards Protestantism 'original sin', but I don't see the argument, where in clear cases pollution is force. And yet, ironically, Protestantism gave rise to unitarianism and utilitarian capital management of resources. It's the natural law religious dogmatist, often evangelist, who defend fossil fuel and resource extraction under religious pretense. The modern left defends hard empirical data on the ecology and natural science, even taking a relativist approach to management, i.e., experimentation, management practice, etc. But unfortunately, the modern liberal and hippie rejects have certainly regulated everything to death from the slave morality perspective. Their are ways certainly in which environmentalism ties back to German tribal law, Judaism, Christianity, and Communism, but its still largely an empirical, scientific, relativistic skeptical defense against old testament and capitalist dogma. This is where the zeitgeisters really went wrong. They took a strong scientific, skeptical approach and mixed it in with slave morality and half-baked communism. I would even argue that a classically liberal 'Physiocracy' is where environmentalism needs to head. One man's relativism is another man's moral truth. Your local hippie food co-op is far more voluntary than you doctor's adamant desire to given you prozac for your migraine because of a ruthlessly institutional market built on fundamentalist reductive concepts. The people who talk shit about hippies, need to go back to 1905-circa 1935 America/Ukraine/Russia/Germany and get a taste of what real Guyana Punch was like. Those periods make Rush Limbaugh look like Cenk Ugyur. Times are better. If there's anything to be learned about relativism, conspiratorial history, and institutional indoctrination, I think c4ss.org and School Sucks have nailed it down in explaining that what the left blames the right and vice versa, is largely a collusion dating back to early Prussia. The proof of puritanical objective ideological claims in both socialism and capitalism, with a classist intention, is there. To me, that signifies the need for voluntary socialism and agorism, i.e, mutualism, classical liberalism, catallaxy and emergent order, intertwined with heavy skepticm and relativism. Relativist who doubt relativist, skeptics who doubt skeptics. You could fix the world with peaceful parenting, home schooling, soil science, bit coin, evil marxist robots, skepticism, satire, wit, and die hard actuary and guild structures. Your hippies, accountants, geologist, hackers, comedians, and gamer rejects will inherit the world. Which incidentally, aside from the gaming, Molyneux's background largely includes those things. So I let him off the hook, even though his social shaming approach to women's morality pisses me off endlessly.

This seems pretty legit to me. http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2010/10/enlightened-catallaxy-reciprocally.html SUNDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2010 Enlightened Catallaxy: A Reciprocally-Altruistic Politicoeconomic Theory Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973) and Friedrich Hayek (1899-1992) I recommend that the public (in that word’s true sense, meaning the agglomeration and enumeration of all individuals living within a given society, bar none, even criminal transgressors and political prisoners), as a means to forge its own destiny independent of centralized state apparati (including political parties) and of trade and labor unions, resolve, through the utilization of direct, organic, grassroots, localistic, non-bureaucratic, non-representative, and populist methods, to advocate for the discovery of data pertaining to the characteristics - qualitative, causal, and otherwise - of any and all forms of capital (including land, labor, consumer goods, and political capital) which are or may become available for exchange or purchase, as well as the subsequent communication and disclosure of such data for access and use by the general market-going populace. I believe that if this condition were to be fulfilled, it would provide a solution to the problem presented by a claim that was made by eighteenth-century classical liberal economist Adam Smith, which is that an individual, in exercising his freedom to voluntary participate in marketplace activities, generally “neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it”. I believe the consumer- and citizen-advocacy activities of a truly organic, all-voluntary public sector (as an alternative to centralized government structures which perform the same or similar functions) would allow investors to make economic and political decisions in a manner that is - to the extent to which it is possible - well-informed, conscious of the causality of the outcomes of the (inter-)action upon the remainder of the public, and morally acceptable to the investor-citizen as well as consistent with any intentions he or she may have in making the decision. Twentieth-century Austrian neo-classical economists Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich von Hayek used the term “catallaxy” to describe the order brought about by the mutual adjustment of many individual economies and of voluntarily-cooperating actors in the market. Catallaxy is not an order that can be imposed by any state apparatus, because it is just that; one that is completely voluntary for all participating actors, each of whom accepts the terms of a negotiation or transaction when each party sees the agreement as sufficiently beneficial to oneself. This is crucial because each party must have the freedom to subjectively determine what is advantageous and valuable to it. A grassroots, public-sector consumer- and citizen-advocacy program would allow this catallactic market order to exist under a state of high-quality politicoeconomic education and information, resulting in what I would term an “Enlightened Catallaxy.” Such a condition would permit a free market completely unhindered by the often monopolizing effects of corporate welfare and protectionism, and allow for free and informed choice in economics (a term which means personal and household fiscal management). Also, it would exist under a system that fulfills perfect anarcho-capitalism, while still allowing a perfect anarcho-collectivistic public sector to exist, although not as a strong, assertive, authoritative, discriminatory, monolithic, oligarchical, bureaucratic, centralized state government. In this politicoeconomic system, all public-sector apparati would be completely brought about and funded through voluntary, direct-action public service efforts, supplemented by charitable monetary donations solicited from a voluntarily-contributing populace on an individual basis, abhorrent of the initiation of coercive taxation. Furthermore, a public sector satisfying these conditions coexisting alongside an all-voluntary private sector would result in a perfect syncretism of both economic systems (socialism [fiscal collectivism] and capitalism [fiscal individualism]), thereby ridding each of their more coercive and authoritarian elements. It would create an economically-syncretistic, minarchistic polyarchism, meaning that minimal amounts of control and authority would be exercised in order to allow voluntary practice of economic and political systems and greater entertainment of diversity and freedom in the election of political and legal representation, and in legal and physical defense. It would be a system in balance, if only people could prove themselves truly ready to commit to and accept the axiomatic utopian solution which has been recommended by many critically-thinking minds throughout history, which is that some of us must, at least occasionally, be prepared to volunteer to perform labors whose rewards are evident in their own result; i.e., that sometimes, some people must recognize that work can be its own reward, and that we should at times help others without guarantee that we will be helped to a degree of equal value by our own subjective standards. This system would allow people to act freely in accordance with their morality, and consumers would be free to exercise their will either to refuse to - or agree to - compromise with people who they believe act in ways that are contrary to their own morality. It is a system which acknowledges that individual human beings, and not groups, organizations, or government apparati, are and should be the only ones who can act on principled voluntary decisions and opinions. To those who would argue that this system would permit racism and undermine civil rights, remember that Jim Crow laws were just that: laws, mandated by the governments of the southern states and of racist local city commerce councils. Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 illegitimately deemed all private commercial establishments as public accommodations, and thus they were within the jurisdiction of the federal government under the Commerce Clause, preventing private business owners from ever having the opportunity to choose not to discriminate. Additionally, to speak to the issue of racial inequality, classical-liberal monetarist economist and sometimes-Keynesian Milton Friedman saw the minimum wage law as the single current law which discriminates against African-Americans the most, due to the fact that it causes the least-skilled laborers to be perpetually unemployed and / or underemployed. Many modern proponents of capitalism believe that to lower or abolish the minimum wage would increase hiring rates, leading to a decrease in unemployment, resulting eventually in higher wages once the economy begins to feel the effects of higher employment rates. I would like to add that this idea is central to the issue of the employment of illegal immigrants. Most white Americans would complain much more about immigrants taking their jobs if there were no minimum wage, because whites would no longer be afforded the privilege of having to make sacrifices to compete with typically less-skilled non-whites who find it advantageous to undervalue their own labor. We should foment an economic philosophy and system that embraces the ethic of reciprocal altruism, and I believe that the philosophy and system which I have termed "Enlightened Catallaxy" embodies and fulfills that ethic. I believe that to realize this ethic as a central tenet of a successful, pragmatic politicoeconomic philosophy would be tantamount to proving the intrinsic worth of the human spirit, being that it would reject any semblance of a notion that people are inherently amoral or immoral or that people need to be compelled to share and act charitably without the promise of immediate equitable compensation. You will notice that nowhere in the above paragraphs did I employ the terms “democracy” or “republic.” I am convinced that neither a codified republican system of law and contract enforcement, nor a doctrine of democratic majority rule, nor even a conjunction of the two, are either necessary or sufficient methods of constituting political or economic systems which would embody the ethic which I have put forth as essential to a sound anarchistic philosophy. For more entries on consumers' issues, please visit: http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/economic-policy-for-2012-us-house.html For more entries on enterprise, business, business alliance, and markets, please visit: http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2010/10/loss-of-public-planning-department.html http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2010/12/on-konkin-schulman-bastiat-and-agorism.html http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2011/01/what-is-social-libertarianism.html http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2011/10/comparative-economics.html http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2011/07/agorism-summary.html http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2012/08/panarchist-welfare-economics.html http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2012/11/on-market-anarchism.html http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2012/11/new-institutional-economics.html http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2013/02/agorism-and-mutualism-summaries-and.html http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2013/03/is-ron-paul-wrong.html http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2013/03/market-panarchy-without-adjectives.html http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2013/08/anarchist-kindergarten-open-letter-to.html http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2013/09/proposal-for-cooperative-party-of-oregon.html http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2013/12/nonapartism-in-social-market-economy.html http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/01/twenty-five-reasons-why-political.html http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/conservatives-for-georgism-and-social.html http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/my-criticism-of-ron-paul.html http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/municipal-services-fifth-amendment-and.html http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/using-profit-incentive-to-promote.html http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/labor-protectionism.html http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/agorist-protection-agencies-and.html

I am not going to listen to Thomas Hartman because well, duh he's not intellectually honest or genuine. However, I assume or speculate and perhaps wrongly, that the real point of a privatized science accusation is a reference to regulatory corporatism, corporate raiding, regulatory capture, and using the state as a weapon to get the corporate welfare to do your bidding, which is indeed brutally awful for science (and a reason why I advocate open-source frame works and copyleft). If it is about global warming, screw it/irrelevant, because there are countless measurable ecological impacts related to real environmental degradation that can be blamed on regulatory capture and predatory kleptocracy. And in addition to that, the entire video by Molyneux on Net Neutralitiy is one of the best explanations of regulatory capture I've ever heard, and applys to basically all major economic sectors in Amerika and markets abroad. Good science requires good ethics.

Perhaps it was condenscending on her part, but I did get a distinct 'facebook isn't that great' point out of it. Which, yes, and no,. .I agree social media has some very tooth and claw flaws to it, and it is always, always hippy paleo-progressive people who go on rants about 'real community' 'real person to person relation' rants against media. But seriously, walking in traffic while on your phone and not eating dinner together, spending time together, etc. Maybe its just better to do it and not say it, its in the how, and if you come across as a pretentious critical person, it loses the message. On the other hand, social media is probably the only thing that is going to save the collapse of Empire. This and this movie I just watched, 'Goodbye World' on Netflix, has got me thinking back to that episode of South Park where everyone is homophobic so they get in the 'big gay pile' and at the end they decide to start farming and growing sustainable as a community, .. . Really just, set awareness and what not by example, because I assure a 'big gay pile' and an absence of social media isn't going to make people want to be more hippy dippy.

About 80% or more of the people here who do know of the plot in a fair, thorough sense of a Canadian series called Continuum (which I am guessing probably not that many, its a series on Netflix) will probably not agree with the show. It's too easy to cop out and lump it in with I suppose Elysium or Avatar (Which I would defend avatar but that is a whole other story so not now thank you). The Canadians were smart with this one, they do not really go to great lengths to portray a good guy in the series. It is laid out raw and nasty for the whole 3 seasons and only builds on the truth towards the end. It focuses on the debate between crypto-currency, transhumanism, anarcho-capitalism, corporatism, socialist and marxist revolution, agorism, and debates over civil rights related to. . .the types of issues Chomsky focuses on, more than any TV series or movie I've ever seen. To me the show is a gritty critique on power relations and the social psychology of hierarchy and technology and capitalism. The show doesn't make power positions look good at all. I've really only seen one other sci-fi that did this as a series and that is Farscape. But Farscape is very fantastical and fictional, whereas this is set relatively contemporary. This show is not just a marxist or progressive critique on corporate power. It is a critique of social manipulation, propaganda, demagoguery, and behaviorism. It does focus on the militarization of police, private defense, security technology, espionage, surveillance state, ...a very chilling critique of the war on terror, a smarter, accurate approach to 'alex jones' subjects. Its an accurate critique on what you might call crypto-fascist or subtle tendacies towards totalitarianism. Honestly, if the show were just a bit darker, and deeper, if it had a touch of the Coen brothers or the style of Gattaca and Blade Runner (sadly even the Matrix didn't quite achieve the depth and cerebral somberness of Blade Runner)....if this show could continue on for like 10 seasons and not tip to far in favor of the demagoguery of the revolutionaries and their techno-Bolshevism or the pro-corporate zuckerburg outcome... to serve as a cautionary tale of how dangerous social ideologies in themselves are. I also consider the show to be a scathing critique of Rand's objectivism, overwhelmingly. Behind this show is another underlying concept that isn't stated, but its implied - the collective appeal to expertise, i.e., Positivism and its positive reactionary corollary of objective truth. http://anarchism.pageabode.com/sidewinder/science-ideology-beyond-positivist-versus-relativist-antimony

What follows is a long, boringly read, but well written, though not wonderfully morally compelling video of a socialist anarchist essay by a guy by the name of anarchopac, and a great deal of debate over it. I included the debate because well, that's the sauage making. The part you really need to see. And yeah the video too obviously. What I will state about my opinion, is that I do ultimately see things in a consequentialist sense, but I differ sharply from anyone that claims most of the history of consequentialism ( a lot of violence obviously). What I do advocate is as much deontological volunteerism as possible, with as much natural rights, natural law, and inalienable rights as possible. But I acknowledge as Michael Cain put it, some men want to watch the world burn. A polycentric, techo-feudalistic system will be just that, something that tries very hard and succeeds in a great way to ensure social justice, but ultimately becomes co-opted by power hungry plutocrats who will engage in all the same tricks that socialists, feudalist, imperialist, and in the contemporary sense regulatory captured corporatism and banking fraud has engaged in. They will do as much as they can to subvert it to their hegemony, and as much as they can to domineer the culture and inculcate obedience into poor irrational 'folks' so as to convince them to oblige to their attempts to consolidate and buy power, and ultimately corrupt contract law and legal systems even in a polycentric stateless contract market. And if people try to apply the philosophy of cryptography to it, they will simply co-opt the 'algorithmic regulation', subverting the inherent social justice of transparent mathematical objective arrangements with exploitative conditions that will be too poorly understood by the majority who wont see the increasing trend of an oligarchic class of men slowly pushing a crushing law of culturally derived Confederate style sharecropper mentality into the construction and very moral nature of the contracts themselves. So the danger really is a lack of informed individual prepared to resist cultural inculcation and prepared to resist the amoral ability to buy justice.

Bullshit #1 I come from a background of Catholics and Pentacostals, trust me they don't understand child psychology. Bullshit #2 Because no concepts of volunteerism involve any forethought of societal ramifications and peoples quality of life whatsoever, right? Define ordinary American. Bullshit #3 This one is true, actually. Anyone who favors nation-state identity, and civil political-moral cultural linguistic frameworks as a method of imposing legal authority will ultimately resort to normative ethics to regulate smaller communities or just out right arbitrary classist exploitation. Colionial powers have done it. Michel Foucault explains how the Socialist did it, Zizek Slojov does as well, both of which are Socialist with deep criticisms of socialism. Not to mention Chomsky. This is what is better known as cultural hegemony, something I consider more dangerous than statism. Most of the pitfalls in 'ancapistan' and 'ancomistan' arguments rest on the issue of multiplicity and cultural conflict. This is why I am a big proponent of Open Source, Crypto Finance, the Internet, and Panarchy. As well as here is a thought.....being more open minded and empathetic to different ways of life. So in affect, using the same political discourse of Plato, Rousseau, and Kant to justify cultural demagoguery to defend yourself from people doing the same. Honestly, things haven't changed since Rome. Bullshit #4 Considering the deep layers of psychological flaw in our primitive cultures and the effect it has on the mind, (I recommend watching those videos of drawings on a marker board by Jeremy Riffkin) and books by people like Lolyd Demause, and the well studied effects and history of progressive public education and nation state identity, and the endless bag of horror of the psychological effects of religion... it isn't so hard to see that it is indeed strongly predicated on violence, inculcation, and indoctrination by a ruling class that wants... once again cultural hegemony. So the resounding answer, is YES, YES, YES it is the result of false consciousness. More over it is to assume through reduction that, just because deeply anti-national people do not like manufactured cultural consent and civil discourse through moral, political, and legal systems against their consent, that they lack any identification whatsoever with the greater society. Clearly people want a global society, free of tribalism, exclusion, and racism. Clearly humanity is heading towards more empathy and understanding, and in reality, the nation-state model interferes, because it is not in favor of a multiplicity of moral and political outcomes that also preclude violence. Because we see identity with other people and do not feel the need to obliterate them with relative civil religion ,i.e. American foreign policy, something like a open access economy, open finance, bitcoin, peer to peer, objective extension of natural rights by access and technology and economy, as opposed to delegated civil, moral, religious, and political prescription would indeed be supported because it favors collective identity and empathy, with the fucking human race! Bullshit #5 You wanna live in a useful myth to prevent somalia/congo? This is an appeal to authority, as well as a form of fatalism. The reality of the fact, is that people are poorly informed, poorly educated, easily manipulated, except when they step outside that realm and make use of access to information, primarily the internet, which continues to the primary bane of modern liberalism and state capitalism, and certainly religion. The internet is eroding nation state identities. Now, because we lack the ability to make good choices in most cases, it stands that we would have no rational interest in the civil discourse that effects us, so the solution is to continue to appeal to authority in a romantic sense, as opposed to.....learning! Yes the solution to apathy is tyranny, and to virtue, terror. Bombing for peace, fucking for virginity, etc. Why are people apathetic, why are they under informed, why are the uneducated, why are their actions infinitesimal? Perhaps in a sense, volunteerist concepts, and anarchy on a broad front, all bickering and purism aside, does lack a cohesive moral ecology or culture, or sense of yearning, perhaps. But, it does seem to be picking up. It's the how, that makes Nation State ideology so dangerous. Where there is a lack of empathy there tends to be absolutist terms, and imperialism, toward as Zizek Slojov calls it the 'The Other' or as Lolyd Demause calls it 'The Bad Self'. These moral impositions come from culture (see Edward Berkins Terror Management Theory and The Denial of Death) and often traumatic childhood experience. It shapes tribalism. On a macrocosmic level this evolves to demagoguery, and certainty of morality and civil systems. Collective ideology is running on an engine of 'dangerous monkey DNA' for lack of a better way of describing. The key to getting past this lies in understanding a multiplicity of interests, diversity, plurality, that can be tolerated in a peaceful way, openess, collaboration - not moral absolutism. So if you are a statist conservative scared of the progressive Boegey Man, resorting to the same psychological trap isn't going to protect you from Soviet style politburo coercion in the long run. These things ultimately boil down to generic fascism that discriminates against all.