8 Common Misconceptions About Anarchism

Few weeks ago, I published an article calling for the political independence of America and I was pleased to see that many people were open to the idea, so I have decided that the readers are ready to explore the source of this philosophy: anarchism.

Ever since I took the black pill of anarchism, I haven’t been able to see the political world the same way. All that I’ve accepted as normal, all the power structures that I saw as both legitimate and inevitable, and my perception of personal freedom and autonomy were all flipped upside down. I realized that it was either anarchism or slavery—there is no other option.

So for those who are curious, here are eight points to guide you through one of the most misunderstood ideology for freedom.

1. Anarchism isn’t what you think it is

No, this crazy feminist puke is not an anarchist. She probably doesn’t even have a clue what anarchism means.

As soon as the average person hears the word “anarchist,” the first image he conjures in his head is that of unemployed losers dressed in black, who are causing trouble for no good reason. This is unfortunately part true as the anarchist ideology has been hijacked by the leftists who turned it into a movement of their own (Ted Kaczynski made a prescient warning about this in his manifesto, Industrial Society and its Future). This was also the reason why I’ve been reluctant to take anarchism seriously for the longest time.

While I’m not a fan of saying “They’re not real _____!,” the case must be made against the fake anarchists of today who are giving the entire ideology a bad name. The fact is, while anarchism at its core is about the abolition of state power (and all other forms of rule from above) in favor of total freedom and self-determination, these leftists thugs, like the Antifa, are more interested in combating those whom they consider “fascists.”

And who is a fascist? Someone who rejects the ideals of globalism and equalism promoted by the establishment. So what we have with the leftist “anarchists” are bunch of goons who act as the unwitting foot-soldiers of the elites by fighting against the anti-establishment groups who may be more anarchist than they are. These leftists dregs are no more anarchist than some African dictatorship is a “republic.”

2. Anarchism is not about total chaos and disorder

The best way to think of anarchism is to see it as a push for a total decentralization and full local autonomy rather than some nightmare scenario Thomas Hobbes liked to imagine. Anarchism is not about no rule, but self rule. This means no government interference, no coercion of any sort by the state, and no policing of your innate freedom.

The only rules you abide by are the ones you and your community decided for yourselves and the rule of nature—you are solely responsible for yourself and your tribe. If you can’t protect or support yourselves, or if your system of rule fails in anyway, you’re on your own with no government to bail you out.

One of the main argument against anarchism is that everything will cease to function and everyone will suffer in lawless destitution without the government’s graceful rule. This notion that people would be completely helpless and lost without the the state is a ridiculous one. Are we to believe that people are incapable of working for themselves and being responsible for their own lives? Are we some helpless children who can’t even defend ourselves without the police (as opposed to now where the government restricts weapons for citizens while criminals are free to use them)? Are we to think that the people won’t have any clue as to how to build and maintain roads, water supplies, and establish civic order without some incompetent and wasteful government doing it for them?

With anarchism, you’re simply cutting out the middleman and manager who mishandles your tax money (which they extorted from you). With anarchism, you get to live without the nanny who’s telling you what to think and how to act for the benefit of “progress” and and the good of all.

3. There are many different types of anarchists

Leftist “anarchists” like these fools make the entire ideology look like a joke to everyone else.

There’s an anarchist group for just about any political ideology that isn’t mainstream today. The most popular ones are the various socialist strands and the anarcho-capitalists, but there are also many others including, but not limited to: anarcho-communism, anarcho-primitivism, Christian anarchism, anarcho-feminism (which is a joke), national-anarchism (a form of anti-statist nationalism), and so on. I’ll venture to declare that many other groups and organizations that don’t call themselves anarchists are also anarchist in nature as long as they challenge the current rule in favor of greater autonomy and self-determination.

Now, you don’t have to agree with any of these offshoots. All you have to recognize is that people get to determine their own way of life with anarchism, which contrasts to today’s world where we are forcibly integrated with people who we don’t even want to associate ourselves with while being restricted and having our freedoms eroded in the name of establishing social harmony.

4. The state is the greatest enemy of man

Our greatest enemy is not the feminists, “Muslims,” or SJWs, but the state. The modern state, as represented by the globalist governments of today, is the number one enemy of men and it does not hide its blanket contempt for us. The system that rules over us does everything it can to divide us and control us like cattle.

Think about it: the insane PC culture would not exist if it weren’t for the state, feminism would have remained a lunatic fantasy of mad women if it weren’t for the governments that enable it, there would not be the systemic destruction of human race, culture, and masculinity if we weren’t forcefully herded, engineered, and conditioned. All the social, political, and cultural problems we witness today all have its roots in government control.

All men should remind themselves that the state has absolutely no right over them—none whatsoever. You were already born with all the freedom in the world until the state decided to limit your existence. You don’t need the government, the government needs you.

And if you still think the state has a right to rule over you, watch this video of a man and his family being harassed by government agents for no reason and see if you can still utter support for your masters with a straight face:

5. Statism must be separated from people and culture

The biggest problem I have with nationalism is that most of its proponents fail to separate the statist nature of nationalism from the idea of promoting healthy existence of race and culture. Personally, the issue of blood and “civilization” is very far below the list of my priorities when compared to the need for freedom, privacy, autonomy, and so on. But not only do disturbing number of nationalists and “patriots” overlook these needs, but many seem willing to sacrifice them as part of their flag-worshiping ritual.

One only needs to observe how gladly the people consent to the government’s shift towards a total police state in the name of security against BLM riots and terrorism. But this sort of acquiescence to state control must be rejected. I don’t think it’s radical or impossible to preserve your political, cultural, and racial identity without maintaining a nation. In fact, it could probably be done more effectively without government interference.

6. “Democracy” is not freedom

The main reason why statism continues to persist is because most people are tricked into believing that they live in a society of freedom: the cult of democracy. Because citizens get to vote every few years, they are made to think that they enjoy true freedom because their leash is longer than some poor bastard’s in some faraway country—they are deceived into thinking that they don’t live in a farm because theirs is free range. But free range farm is still a farm.

You must remember that those who have real power are those who are unelected, often operating behind the curtains. And no matter who’s elected and running show, you are still ruled and still unfree. Not only that, more than half of the time, you’re ruled by a leader or a party you don’t even support.

The election circus and all the drama involved in it are a joke. The only true democracy is the one where you get to rule yourself—there can’t be exceptions.

7. Anarchism is the most masculine political expression

I would argue that anarchism, at its core, is the most masculine political expression for the simple reason that it is the only ideology that advocates for total freedom and self-determination for the common man. In addition, anarchism is tribalistic to the core: you either fight for your tribe’s existence, or you perish along with it.

And those are exactly the reasons why feminism or any other form of progressivism will never sprout in an anarchist order. Where will the feminist harpies go to cry about “misogyny” when all the gynocentric institutions are gone? How will women extort and imprison their former husbands without the professional white-knights police? How many women will still harp about equality when they don’t have a government to lean on for “empowerment”?

Men, on the other hand, will have to be masculine, strong, and honorable (a la Jack Donovan’s The Way of Men) to survive and thrive in the new world. Cucks, betas, and other low-T males will be naturally selected one way or the other as their mommy government won’t be around to shelter them like it does now. Without governments, men will no longer have an excuse to sit around and hope that some sock puppet will navigate through the democratic mumbo-jumbo and not fuck things up too much.

Last, anarchism is a political ideology that doesn’t ask for permission. Anarchists will ask for nothing: no government handouts, no imaginary “rights,” and absolutely no permission for anything. Anarchists will do what they want and take what they can. I don’t know what more a man can ask for in this world.

8. Anarchism may be inevitable

An anarchist from a century ago once predicted that, in the future, everyone will either be socialists or anarchists. Overlooking the semantics, we can see this polarization forming today as people are increasingly becoming divided into two camps: the progressive, internationalist camp that wants universal equality in a global society where all humans become live in harmony thanks to technological innovations, versus the various resistors of all sorts that want to preserve their identity, beliefs, and way of life from being swallowed in this tidal of globalism.

The latter group includes: nationalists, traditionalists, racialists, anti-establishment movements, Russia and its allies (to an extent), and so on. And as national institutions slowly fade to the background while the people cry out ever louder for freedom and the preservation of their identities, more and more individuals will have to choose between accepting the new global order or resisting against it as anarchists; it will become progressively harder to just sit on the fence.

To learn more

I’ve only been able to scratch the surface to give you an idea of what anarchism is at its core. For those who want to delve further, and for everyone else with more than a passing interest in politics, I highly recommend Attack the System by Keith Preston to shatter your old worldview.

Remember: It’s either freedom or nothing.

Read More: A Brief Introduction To The Country Formally Known As Sweden

244 thoughts on “8 Common Misconceptions About Anarchism”

  1. Few men are capable of governing themselves, let alone governing others. While this quote is often used to support anarchism (it was promoted by Edward Abbey, best described as an anacrho-environmentalist), it speaks the truth: In anarchy, few men are capable of governing themselves.
    ROK should be advocating minarchism, which is the least amount of government possible to enforce private property laws. I’ve sparred heavily with anachro-capitalists and anachro-communists, and the key point they miss is that the enforcement of private property laws is a key part of individual liberty.
    As is seen in the very red-pill series “The Last Kingdom”, based upon Bernard Cornwell’s Saxon Chronicles (Cornwell also wrote the Richard Sharpe series), lack of enforcement of private property laws leads to Danish viking raids. It took Alfred the Great to organize the kingdom of Wessex to defend against the Danes wanton savagery.
    While the series happens between 866-876 AD, it should be noted that without enforcement of private property laws, there is little incentive to develop land and innovate: why do so if the Danes are simply going to steal the land you’ve worked and tilled your entire life?
    This is seen in the case of numerous African tribes, where tribal chieftans would whimsically re-allocate lands between various tribal members: Africa fell behind in the technology race because there was little incentive to develop land if the tribal chief would simply give your land to someone else in a few years.
    The allure of anarchy in present-day world of government corruption, largess and media “fake news” is seductive: there is nothing so permanent as a temporary government program. Government should avoid trying to solve problems and limit itself to common defense and enforcement of private property laws.

    1. Interesting view, but using Vikings as an analogy was not the best use. They were desperate to expand and would have done anyway. Even minarchism gives permission for someone to use force against YOU. It will never stay small to satisfy your definition because statism is a cancer, and like all cancers spreads until you have to deal with it before it kills YOU.
      By the way your avatar shows you have Britannia too much in your heart anyway to let it go… 😉

      1. There will always be anarchy of a sort, even when it is between nation states or organizations. The only difference is what “level” the anarchy is present: in complete anarchy, it is between individuals. With nation states, it is between countries. Today, it’s between West, East, Middle East etc…

    2. I’ve been reading Richard Sharpe this month …… on book 18 now.
      Good luck with your private property laws in the western world …. if the state doesn’t want it, they give it to your wife when she divorces you. Western men own NOTHING, and have no rights. I once thought I owned a $1,000,000 property ….. I was mistaken my wife owned it, according to the judge, even though she didn’t contribute $1 to it’s purchase.

      1. If you’re on book 18, you have probably read how Sharpe loses £10,000 to his wife after she cheats with Lord Rossendale.
        The more things chamge, the more they stay the same.

  2. Excellent article, thankyou Corey.
    Its not necessary for EVERY man to government themeselves. Most people are like sheep so they will follow us by example if WE govern ourselves.

  3. I’m as small-government as anyone, but Anarchy has always struck me as very similar to Communism – nice in theory, but completely unworkable in real life. That is probably due to the fact that I have actually seen anarchy in person after Baghdad fell. We were focused on the remnants of the Republican Guard and the Fedayeen, and so we left the civilians to do their own thing. No shit – it took about two hours before I watched a mob of them gather around a warehouse with Saddam’s picture on it, loot and burn it. The guy who owned the warehouse showed up to protect his property. The mob beat him to death and dragged him down the street to his house, which they also ransacked and burned. This was only the first thing I saw, but there was plenty more that happened while we still had orders not to intervene.
    Anarchy sounds great, but imagine if you were told that you could do whatever you wanted, and the only possible repercussion would be if someone stronger could stop you. You’d have to be completely ignorant of human nature to not see that it would take about one month to devolve into Somalia.
    We had anarchy in this country too once. It was called the frontier. And you’ll notice upon a brief read of history that as soon as a critical mass of people got tired of being scalped by indians, or shot by bandits, or lynched by mobs, or starved due to the weather and insufficient infrastructure, they all decided to get some government in there as quick as possible.
    And it’s fine to say that should be “local” or “community” government, as this article does, but that concedes the point that it is not a binary choice between freedom and slavery, and shows exactly why this is nothing more than a thought exercise. Community government is great, until my community decides I can’t fly my flag or paint my house a certain color, and then suddenly its tyranny. This argument eats itself. The reality is that we all decide to give up a certain degree of autonomy for the convenience that government can provide.
    Now, I’m all about trying to balance it so that freedom is the default in the vast majority of instances, and that minimal power is in state hands. But anarchy is a fiction, just as communism is, and just as pure democracy is. Interesting to use as a theoretical basis to discuss the proper role and scope of government. But anyone who seriously advocates it as a workable political system should be viewed with great suspicion.

    1. Human nature is always the X in the equation that many forget. Remove law enforcement and electricity for an extended period and people lose their shit to settle scores or gain power. New Orleans after Katrina is another example, but I always keep in mind Iraq after Saddam feel as well.

      1. I read a quote from a national guardsman who served in Baghdad, and was then sent to New Orleans after Katrina. He remarked that NOLA was just like Baghdad, only the people spoke English. (Well sort of spoke English, I guess.)

        1. Oh, you mean the Feds who were going around door to door breaking and entering and disarming law-abiding wealthy people after Katrina?

          You have freed your mind from the Liberal Feminist Agenda.
          Now free your mind from the fake Conservative Govt Law and Order Agenda

        2. Ruby Ridge and Waco did that for me, it was more of a commentary on the behavior of, shall we say, “the natives”.

        3. I have earned 104000 bucks in 2016 by freelancing online a­­n­­d I manage that by wo­rking part-time f­o­r several h /daily. I followed an earning opportunity I was introduced by this website i found online and I am so thrilled that i made so much money. It’s very beginner-friendly a­n­d I’m just so grateful that I found out about this. Here’s what I did… http://jump.wtf/2hJBjCL

      2. If you put the entire burden of order into the hands of a far away authority, then the moment that authority is not operating you will have chaos. If you put the burden of order into the hands of the men, and train the men so that they understand the reasons for order and how to establish order, and work together to do so, then as long as you have men you will ALWAYS have authority.
        And note, I said “men”, not “women”.

    2. Agreed fully. The significant relationship between anarchy and communism is that neither is sustainable in its idealized format in any greater scope/size or length of time. As you say: a fantasy, another wrapping of Utopia, Shambala, etc.

      Historically proven (anarchy after all comes before more formal forms of government such as monarchy and democracy and simply collapses from the weight of time, social unrest, and diversity), but the most relevant points:
      1. Factions/tribes will war constantly halting most invention not affiliated with conflict (directly or indirectly) leading to unrest, lowered quality of life, and other like forces which end in social upheaval.
      2. “Agreed to terms” are the very foundation of centralized government whether a pact between leader(s) and follower(s) or a treatise between chieftains. Once begun, the wheels are set in motion to roll right out of anarchy. And the more it is forced to be maintained, the quicker it unravels.
      3. By nature, the people most willing to align to make such enterprise work will be ambitious, they will form alliances to take on power, there will be no personal freedom for anyone else that isn’t won at the point of a sword. The mistake modern anarchists make is the assumption that it will be they who wield it. There’s always a bigger fish (or if needed, school of fish) and ultimately the largest alliance will win out and then codify rules to keep their gains. Then there is need of an enforcement mechanism, then a need to guarantee guilt before punishment (because someone of status will or will have a relative attempt to go around the rules and be found out or need eliminating by a rival), then to be able to alter rules which don’t neatly fit the circumstances and soon you essentially are left with a written measure of law (such as a Constitution) and two or more branches of government, your size increases with the prosperity of peace, success, and invention, not to mention improved survivability rates and unchecked population explosion and you are right back in the same boat trying to maintain what worked while ever more diverse opinion shouts for your head.
      Having an anarchal attitude at a personal level may work (I’d argue a familial level requires a form of dictatorship), but it simply won’t work at a much broader level because the masses can always overthrow whomever they deem “tyrant.”

        1. You realize this only confirms my point. Y’know that it is unsustainable. Whether by diversity or nefarious intervention by ___________, or some other means. Fact is, it didn’t hold up.
          In this case, against a larger force at work.
          In fact, the conversion of the frontier would be evidence I would use to prove it.
          As an aside, this link author holds up the myth that John Smith married Pocahontas, odd.

        2. right Anarchism /Communism 2 sides of the same Utopian coin?? I think so. Say if you had the Anarchy(ism) system what if a group wanted to bring back child sacrifice and slavery??

    3. The way I initially evaluate novel political ideas is to look at how they worked out in history. I agree with your description of actual anarchy, but allow me to be more charitable to the author, and maybe even anticipate his rebuttal: You’re not describing the anarchy he’s thinking of.
      So what is he thinking of? Greek nation-states? African or Indo civilizations? Is there an example he or you could provide for our consideration?
      Is his anarchy just another progressive transhumanist dream?

      1. The Amish are a self organizing group with their own hierarchy and institutions separate from the State. While of course they are forced to live within a State framework, when things become too burdensome to their virtue and morality, they simply pull up their stakes and move. Their entire goal is to be left alone to worship as they wish, and generally they opt out of as much government as they can without getting thrown into prison.

        1. I can appreciate your example of anarchy pointing to my fellow Christian fundamentalists. Could we also point to Mormons/Utah?

        2. I really don’t know enough about Mormons to give you an educated answer. I’m awash in Amish though here where I live, heh.

        3. All we have to do is force everyone to behave exactly like the Amish and this whole Libertarian thing just might work out!

        4. Libertarian != anarchist.
          There are varieties of libertarianism, and surely there is anarch-capitalism, but the vast bulk of libertarian thought is minarchist in nature, not anarchist.

        5. I like flaunting elitist status wherever I can. Heh.

        6. I passed through libertarianism on my way to conservatism, on my way to fascism. When you really parse through the BS, you can’t have a healthy society without a set of rules and common framework based on what is best for the group. It’s understandable to loathe government under the current rotten example we’ve been shown, because we have never had a true meritocracy or a nationalist state.

        7. Every form of governance, even anarchy, can work if everybody consents and agrees to the rules and then follows them. Every form of governance fails humanity however because those conditions are too much for human nature to sustain. I find fascism as silly as any and every other form of socialism. It, like every other system of governance, can only last if everybody consents and agrees. Eventually, and with fascism this “eventually” comes pretty early on, force is going to be needed to keep everybody in order, and then…the bombings start.
          So no thanks man. The less I have people poking their dicks in my face and “governing” me, the better.

        8. The only reason the Amish or Mormons are able to live without overt fascism is because they are bound by an invisible fascism. Same with Jews. First and foremost, the question is always – Is this good for XXX?
          White Protestants seem to be the only ones who fiercely reject this natural tribalist instinct, and they are getting their clocks cleaned all over the planet because of it. We are headed for certain Muslim rule if we don’t pull our heads out of our asses.
          The only way your model of individual freedom works out is with a 95% + homogeneous ethnic population, a globally-dominant military, and tightly sealed borders. We have none of those things any more.

        9. I’ve already addressed the flaws of all form of governance with you on this thread I believe. Everything fails, in the end. And calling hierarchy fascism basically eliminates any meaning from the word.

        10. It’s the truth. And by “in the end” I mean “pretty fucking fast”. The U.S. was on the path away from the Founders even while some of the Founders remained alive. Fascism seems to put itself on the fast track to destruction pretty quickly, faster than most others (outside of communism I think).
          There are no static forms of governance that can survive in its established form. Human beings corrupt everything, or better put, bend it to their own self interest in time. You have one generation where any kind of government may work, assuming everybody opted in and bought into the system wholesale. After that, you’re back to square one and people gaming the system for their own personal ends.
          Just part of the human condition.

        11. I agree for the most part but that doesn’t stop me from wanting to strive for excellence. That’s the weird thing about us men, we don’t stop pushing for our vision of utopia even when it seems hopeless. It’s what got us where we are.

        12. I’m basically stuck between favouring libertarianism and fascism at this point.
          The reason I am leaning towards fascism though is that as I understand it not everyone in a libertarian state will be able to make it. It’s basically survival of the fittest from an economics and social point of view.
          I appreciate that we shouldn’t need the state to force us to be good to each other, and that charity could serve the less fortunate, but I think if things continue as they are and begin to activate people’s survival instincts, the best path is to organize those instincts for a higher purpose rather than let them run wild. The libertarian police state would have to grow simply to prevent anarchy regardless.
          I’m beginning to understand that fascism is the natural response to communism. Leftists preach that “diversity is strength”, and the right responds “unity is strength”. If the current malaise cannot be solved through words, I think this pattern might be inevitable.
          I’m open to being proven wrong.

        13. Keep in mind how quickly the global powers that be rushed to stomp out the budding national socialist state, versus how eagerly and voraciously they seek to spread communism.

        14. China, North Korea, Iran, Japan, Russia, etc
          All fiercely nationalist/fascist states. Many of them in expansionist mode. Want to compete with them as a loosely affiliated motley crew of SJWs and bong-hit libertarians? Yeah good luck with that.

        15. Maybe those global forces wouldn’t have “rushed to stomp out the budding national socialist state” if it hadn’t, you know, invaded another nation. As I recall, there was a lot of admiration for Germany and Italy from many Western powers until they started getting their Blitzkrieg on.
          Even if they hadn’t started the war, they wouldn’t have survived in ideologically pure form past the 1960’s, tops.
          I find thinking that any form of government will actually sustain, survive and thrive as founded as silly as the utopianism of anarchy.

        16. and that’s not even mentioning the rapidly spreading Shariah State-Within-A-State, where all open democratic nations are being subverted from within by hostile enemies seeking dominance. This is where freedom and democracy gets us. A bunch of insane dykes in charge, self-destructing our entire civilization. How could it lead to anything but this?

        17. If you study your history you see they were goaded into it brah, perhaps even forced, due to the slaughters in Poland. But I gotta go to work so I don’t want to open a WW2 debate.

        18. Yeah, they had no choice but to invade Poland. England and the U.S. and France were all like “You better damn well invade Poland…or else!” and then when Germany did they turned around and stabbed Adolph in the back. A treacherous lot, wot?
          Sorry but I’m just not into fascism apologist stuff this morning. I probably need more coffee.
          Have a good day at work.

        19. Individuality versus conformity.
          Wild wind and wilderness. Or suppression. Forced compliance. Stagnation and carbon-copies, starving souls in pretty cages.
          Balance is ordered yet it is untamable.

        20. We’re too big, there are way too many variables and there is no homogeneous identity to adhere to, that would by needs have to be present to have any chance of even establishing a real fascist state here (in the States and Canada). And as noted, the moment it gets established you’re going to have actual real life human beings running it who would, very quickly, manipulate it towards their own self interests, and then the dying starts. No thanks.
          As to everybody not making it, so what? Our society in general is in dire need of a good culling. I’m heartless i know, but we’ve let foolishness evade the consequences of natural selection far too long. The truly needy can be accounted for and dealt with, and meanwhile we can let the blue haired hipster or out of it oblivious Boomer perish by their own stupidity. Fine by me.

        21. Corgan is the man. Dont make em like that anymore. Couldnt sing, but he wrote amazing music

        22. In many ways Lamb Chop is the paradigm for every young mans first sexual crush.

        23. I’m a disappointed former utopian, in reality. I am highly of the mind that we need to strongly inject reality back into politics, dash and eject emotions in regard to politics, and scale everything back, and let nature take its course in removing the weak from our society. It’s way overdue. I’m also of the mind that we better damn well develop a sense of national interest, quick, or we’re fucked.
          I really don’t mind the elite and strong ruling naturally, and even if I did, that wouldn’t stop them. I learned a long time ago that there is now, always has been, and always will be a hierarchy when dealing with human beings. I’m at peace with that fact and don’t battle it, and since then, have come to a sense of peace in regard to politics. I have my principles and I stand by my rights, but I don’t kid myself about utopian visions or the world “wanting saved” by my particular ideas and ideals. Those who agree with me can associate with me as they choose, those who don’t are free to go their own way.

        24. EXACTLY.
          Similarly, you also know you’re going to die some die. That doesn’t stop you from trying to live forever.

        25. I think we are in whats called inverted fascism- unlike fascism in the past, there is no strongman who plasters his likeness on the currency, on buildings etc…the power is distributed more, and those with the power dont want publicity…

        26. fukkin ay. A favorite. That book blew my young mind. And the movie lived up to it for the most part.

        27. High pt of comic flicks was this and the Batman with Ledger- both within 6 months of each other. Watchmen comix was a little before my time, maybe 10 when it came out. I remember the comic store owner refusing to sell this or the original Miller Dark Knight to young kids- whatever the threshold was(14? 16?) he refused to sell these to younger boys. Imagine that happening today? Me neither…

        28. Oh, my bad then, it’s just a shorthand I’ve always used.

        29. I never got into comic books, but out of the blue a friend lent me Watchmen when I was 20 or so. Pulled me in. Shit, I even got my father to appreciate it!

        30. Well good you got away from libertarianism it’s for weed smoking fence sitters and I would agree that we need a small dose of fascism at this point in history..

        31. Interesting summary Leftists preach that “diversity is strength”, and the right responds “unity is strength” it’s a bad situation, society year by year outdoes the “anything goes” of the previous year, now it’s showing signs of breaking apart, and only an iron fist will restore it…

        32. reality for example as I heard in a speech from a conservative German politican yesterday not acting like the rights of 0.25% of the population that is transgender to special bathrooms is suddenly important enough to debate in parliament

        33. The Amish are a good example of how America is supposed to work. If you want, you have the choice of going to a premodern, traditional society while still enjoying protection under federal law (so not anarchism). I hope the Left doesn’t destroy them.

        34. Thank you for drawing the thread from socialism to fascism. Fascism ultimately winds up being socialism for a select social group. The Nazi platform was hugely socialistic, so long as you were part of approved classes. On the equal opposite side, socialism tend so to mutate to communism when it is for everyone. Either way, what everybody ends up with is getting cockslapped by the state.

        35. I too believe in striving for excellence. And I want the form of governance and institutions that makes achieving excellence most likely for individuals. As for what that system is structurally, I remain agnostic– so long as it is built around the premise of the preservation of unalienable rights as understood by the American Founders. No acknowledgement of rights = no freedom to engage the unexpected = no excellence, individually or collectively.

        36. You are not wrong about insane dykes running our show. Our civilization is experiencing suicide-as-a-shit-test. It took me a *long* time to accept that truth, but it is the truth.
          But, hyper organization (fascism) as a response to the ratsnest of chains that fetter us under the gynocracy does not sound like a solution to me. Freedom, imagination, play, joy, elective danger, and balls are exactly what is missing from our values and from our social world. We need a lot less structure, and a lot more freedom.

        37. But most of what they are trying to to do is ape us and our successes, that we achieved when we are the most free– all the while not understanding that individual liberty is the key to our dominance.
          Tight social controls are an evolutionary dead end.

        38. A friend of ours married a girl from Germany. Once we were discussing the Amish and their lifestyle, and she said to me, “They would never get away with that in Germany.” She swallowed her Godless, secular, philosophical materialist training hook, line, and sinker. Ah yes, the horrors of the Amish need to be swept from the Earth. Now Muslim “refugees” on the other hand…

        39. I don’t know about that. The key thing about the amish is that they have purged their ranks of people who don’t get along well. They also live within a society that guarantees peace, which is the key role of the state. I doubt either assumption will work unless we’re willing to be a subject class.
          And even then, I have my doubts about whether or not the ruling political system will be even remotely stable.

        40. Hate to get racial and cultural on you but the systems you describe work best ( I think require imo) ethnic homogeneity , a monoculture say as in Japan. Also I think you need security and stability before anything can work . Examples : Libya and Iraq were better under their dictators than now. Now they are both failed states. Chaos.. Ditto with Somalia…

        41. Yes exactly.
          I feel like the traditional social contract is gone. What’s holding things together is creature comforts at this point.
          If economics drops and people start to feel the pangs of survival instinct kick in, I fear this multicultural experiment will turn out to be a huge disaster.

        42. “As to everybody not making it, so what?”
          Just don’t act surprised when people don’t die off voluntarily.

        43. The fundamentalist FLDS are the cheese. Sovereign to the bone. They have to be. Conversely the mainstream LDS has more government brown nosers in high security clearance jobs like it’s a rite or something. Like it’s part of life’s greater mission. They’re covering all back doors in government kind of like the early Jesuits did with competing churches. It’s clever but their main attraction of the extreme patriarchal polygamy is now gone from the mainstream LDS. They eat a lot of junk sweets but the creme pie stack of wives is ostracized sadly. Go FLDS instead.

        44. The plain clothes loss prevention guy walking around at the mall or at WalMart is an example of ‘minarchist’. He’s the only ‘government’ in the WalMart building. Everyone going through the self checkout is pretty trustworthy and self governing. Every once in awhile a fat lady will try to sneak a 12 pack of sody out the door in the bottom of her cart and the minarchist guy has to be both savvy to catch her outside and also compassionate to determine if it was intentional, if she simply forgot or if she was fiending for the stuff.

        45. You are too impressed with large systems. Large Men with big swords riding giant horses stopped being a problem the day gun was invented.
          Large armies with expensive electronics stopped being a serious issue to anyone with access to both atomics and upper atmospheric capable delivery systems.
          Not to put to fine a point on it, but anyone can end the entire nation of China in 15 minutes with one nuke on top of an ICBM (ok, maybe 3). You just have to detonate it in the right place and most if not all of their electronics systems will be so much junk, which means the starvation and utter destruction of their entire society.
          Small self sufficient societies that are resilient and have the ability to rebuild quickly from a variety of sources are what’s important.
          We are entering an age where the quality of a system will start to trump quantity.

        46. “survival of the fittest”
          There are always loser’s in the evolvution race. Any animal born disabled is left to die, preventing that in the human race hurts the strongest, unless you let them choose through charity over government.

        47. A nation of people who work together will always be stronger than a nation that is loyal to no one.

      2. I understand your point and expect that would be the rebuttal, but I would note that all of those things you mention are still “states.” When anarchists posit that you face a binary choice between freedom and slavery, anything other than individual freedom is slavery by default. Don’t like that your father has rules in his house? Slavery! It’s just unworkable.
        Again, I don’t have a problem with local governance. But to an anarchist, as soon as the local government does something you don’t like, that’s slavery and we should revert to individual rule. Well, no. It’s a system of “compromise” to prevent people from resorting to violence to resolve disputes.
        If my dog is violent and bites everyone, it’s fine to say that I should control my dog and make amends. But suppose I’m the shithead who doesn’t. Without a mechanism for people to take me to court (government – to which I don’t consent) and enforcement mechanisms to make me pay damages and seize the dangerous animal, what recourse do others have but to come to my house and kill my dog, which, as you can imagine, I might resist?

    4. The phrase is “to descend into anarchy” and there would have to come a point where the government permits that much lawlessness by pandering to the left and white guilted cucks that such a transition happens.

    5. This comment is just a rehash of “The Wild Wild West” myth created by Hollywood…where the Sheriff (big govt) shows up and everyone lives happily ever after.
      There was true anarchy (not violence and mayhem) in the frontier until the Feds (and their guns and Eastern corporate cronies) showed with Manifest Destiny to kill off the natives and subjugate the locals to make railroads and build an empire.
      All people (native and settlers) got along much better until those Easterners showed up.
      Read “The Culture of Violence in the American West: Myth versus Reality” by Thomas DiLorenzo (a non-govt historian) to know the truth about anarchy in the West
      Big Government Law & Order “Conservatism” as represented by this comment seems logical to those of us raised by govt school…as it did to me at one time. However, it is a false narrative by govt psychologists to keep us under their thumb.

      1. People are more civil to each other the fewer laws there are. More laws = less civility.

      2. In case you missed it, I saw anarchy first hand, clown.
        And if you’re going to recommend books, try reading Empire of the Summer Moon and get back to me about how peaceful all those natives were. The Comanche had weapons for a reason.

        1. Holy shit great book “Empire of the Summer Moon”…those Comanche were devils on horseback and cruel. I think that book won the pulitzer ?

    6. The people you mention who pillaged were already wiped like a blank state. They knew nothing but the regime and the ins and outs of navigating daily life in the asylum. Then they got a crash course in freedom without gradually learning the basics of self governance and conduct. Disarmed Chicago or DC would burn the same if a complete government holiday were declared. The non self sufficient, the dependents of the state and working consumers who are reliant on infrastructure and services are similarly primed for a hard fall.

    7. At some level there must be law. There must be patriarchs who enforce the law, and patriarchs who lay down the law.
      Any society that does this succeeds, any society that fails to do this falls apart.
      But how much, who, and what they do, that’s another series of questions.
      The original Israelite tribes had independent courts for each tribe, all men trained extensively in combat under their fathers direction, all men knew the law, and while they would meet 3 times a year in Shilo, they still had a great deal of independent spirit. And there were occasionally judges that were respected by all the tribes and would be turned to. Samuel was one such judge.
      God was disgusted when the people wanted a king, He openly said that the desire for a human king was really because unconsciously the people did not want Him as king. Read the passage in question, it’s clear that He was disgusted with what the people wanted, and makes it clear that a king is no great thing to have.
      But when you think about it, it’s fear, and self doubt and even self contempt that leads people to go the king route. We don’t trust ourselves or each other to step it up and do what’s right. We don’t believe in God the way we should, I don’t mean sitting in beit knesset (in your case church) and saying how much we believe, I mean genuinely believing that Divine retribution exists. Of course, sometimes you have to make an example out of people to keep order, but I see so much hatred. Isn’t it enough to hang a man? Now we have to rip him to pieces? Tearing a man apart, torturing a man isn’t about Justice, it’s about Vengeance. We’ve lost the belief in Divine punishment, and so we try to enact it ourselves.
      And that’s really at the root of all State overreach. People cannot trust God to enact punishment and support the righteous in keeping order, so we turn to “systems” each one more complicated and grandiose than the last, and each one chokes the life out of everyone under it just a little bit more.

    8. >> that as soon as a critical mass of people got tired of being scalped by
      indians, or shot by bandits, or lynched by mobs, or starved due to the
      weather and insufficient infrastructure, they all decided to get some
      government in there as quick as possible.
      That is exactly the problem.
      These people are “lazy”, nothing else. If they are women and children this might even be understandable. But in core, if there are inalienable rights – such as personal freedom – then that also means that you cannot delegate that right to somebody else. It means it is somewhat obliged to you to defend yourself. Self-defence, nothing more, noting less.

      1. Arming yourself against one other armed man is fine. Arming yourself against an entire war party is futile. It called “common defense.”

        1. What question? I don’t see a question mark in your comment.
          Also, your automatic weapon is nice, but when hopelessly outnumbered, your situation is still hopeless.
          And your hypothetical assumes you will see your attacker coming. Suppose someone sneaks up and shoots you from behind. Perhaps we ought to have a system of laws and people who enforce them to sever as a deterrent since you won’t be around anymore to do it yourself.

        2. You’re a faggot. See, we can both play this game. Care to make your point? Or is your point only to demonstrate that you have some fantasy shootout in your head that’s tactically retarded?

  4. Thanks for the awesome article.
    The only honest governance is self-governance based upon timely religious values, for governance not based on the Truth can’t be Truthful.
    However, that’s too idealistic given the circumstances of our times.
    I’d settle for a very minimal (minarchist libertarian) secular government, as I think that form of government most closely approximates the ideal.
    Anarchism (lack of coercion) isn’t based on any concrete values, and if it is, I think it essentially leads back to small-scale religious self-governance.

  5. In the name of freedom:
    The french rebelled against the monarchy & replaced it with imperialism.
    The americans rebelled against the British Empire & after that they became the world’s policeman.
    The russians rebelled against Nikolai II & they replaced him with Stalin.
    You rebel against the state & what you’ll get is another authoritarian regime.
    I presume not even in death will you find freedom.

    1. “I presume not even in death will you find freedom.”
      Nope. From a catholic, and I assume others, perspective, “hell” is depicted as eternal torment. Hell must be ran by women then.

      1. Well seeing as how Venus is the Morning Star the devil might be a woman.
        Shukra(venus in sanskrit) is the creator of asuras in hindu mythology.

    2. There is no man-made “fixit” that will lead to eternal harmony. Just as you have to eat, work and exercise to live, so does any system or code require constant maintenance, guidance, course-correction.

        1. Get rid of all your expectations. Find someone who is strong enough to go to war, and be so absolutely loyal that they never have a reason to fight you. If you are a fighter, fight for them. If you aren’t, then be so productive that they can’t afford to restrict your freedom. And If you can’t stand being under the authority of someone else, then strike it out on your own and hope you are strong enough to take all comers.

        2. That’s not freedom, those are choices that you’re forced to make. Once you’re set on a path then you can’t go back, choosing a path is the very definition of being limited in your freedom.

        3. This is a site about being a man. Being a man is about making a choice and suffering the consequences. If you can assert your own independence profitably, then go do it. If you can’t then don’t claim that you’re STRONG AND INDEPENDENT, and throw your weight around like you actually matter.
          You’re not a woman.

  6. What is the proper role of government?
    Say a group of people lands on some deserted island, and need to establish some form of governance. A person has the God given right to protect themselves, to engage in commerce, to make agreements with others…etc. However, a person does not have the right to steal from others. If the individual does not have those rights as an individual, it cannot morally delegate those rights to a government. Socialism is a form of thievery.

      1. Unrepresented taxation and redistribution to a specific entity is theft. However, you can get together with your friends and decide to buy a pizza together. Or, you can opt out. That is the key, being forced to pay for something you want no part of is theft. Being forced to pay taxes for to support some druggie is theft. If you want to contribute to some charity out of the goodness of your heart, that is a different story.
        Common services like roads or defense, are not theft. Everyone uses them. Problem is there comes a point where those services and costs go beyond what was originally decided on, at which point it does become theft.

        1. Not to mention the common services (eg. roads) become a means to generate “tax revenue” (most duplicitous word out there) which is thrown into the general (slush) fund.

        2. Perfect.
          and “the costs go beyond what was originally agreed upon” because our government has stopped being accountable to it’s constituency.

  7. A state is a natural entity. Pre-modern society, humans were incredibly weak creatures who harnessed their superior intellect by banding together.
    Modern times: So we abolish ‘the state’ in one fell swoop. No states anywhere in the world. Now we have millions of folks let off their leash. So what happens? We band together with our neighbors for protection. The River Oak suburb becomes the River Oak Tribe. Weaker individuals join in return for protection. Rules are established. Laws are enforced. Specific people are empowered to enforce them.
    Other tribes are then encountered, some with bad intentions. Resources are fought over. Tribes are absorbed. Patrols are established. Militias are created. Militaries take form. Your state has been born again.

      1. Unfortunately, government is no hedge against chaos and instability. Most of the time, those guys with the black uniforms with letters on their chest are nothing more than codified gangs with guns, and are as violent and savage as normal gangs in every crucial sense.

        1. Sure, but that’s my point. Over time, you at least get to a point where there are only a few of these guys around, and you can know the rules about what will bring them down on you. In a tribal situation, you have to know what pisses off every other tribal leader, and always be worried about this stuff.

        2. This is why the “Warlord Fallacy” falls apart.
          We already have warlords. They just aren’t as violent as the ones in people’s dystopian fantasies and African deserts because our Warlords have a high degree of compliance.
          It is the compliance with their threats of violence that actually keeps the peace. Not “heroic” presence and shiney gold stars.

    1. “Other tribes are then encountered, some with bad intentions. Resources are fought over.”
      You got that right.
      Look at prisons, if you remove the wardens you’ll then get motherfuckers fighting each other for food, beds, sometimes for “honor”, sometimes just for the fun of it.

    2. Humans are social creatures. They only point I could see anarchy having a temporary existance is when people simply have nothing to lose and believe the risk is worth a gamble for a possible better long term outcome. Violence would be needed to suppress for awhile, but that only escalates the cost of the eventual rebuttal.

    3. The key is that the state has subjects, unlike tribes. The distinction being that that unlike slaves, subjects are free in all but the political (violent) sense.

  8. I am an Antichrist, I am an anarchist, dunno what I want but I know how to get it. I wanna destroy ………

  9. Look up Troy Southgate’s National-Anarchism for a mix between anti-globalist nationalist politics and non-governance.

  10. Anarchism of any kind is an adolescent fantasy. Putting it into actual practice wouldn’t lead to freedom, but lawless savagery. Just because government can go too far isn’t a reason to abandon government. It’s an argument to limit it.

    1. As a philosopher the matter is simple: we already live in an anarchy. The cosmos is an anarchy. Human survival is anarchy.
      In our anarchy we choose to bind ourselves together in government.
      Whenever anarchy shows up around these parts, militant Christian fundamentalists like me show up with six shooters to take care of business.
      In other places it devolves into narco-terrorism, etc.

    2. NO NO NO NO NO NO.
      That’s how we got where we are today. If the government had absolute power, it would be ruled by either a king or a bureaucracy of individuals acting in the collective interests of their tribe.
      Instead, what we have is a bureaucracy of individuals acting in their own individual interests, but sharing power collectively. This creates a tragedy of the commons, which is the cause of all the blatantly morbid government policies, which benefit the individual bureaucrat but harms not only society, but also other bureaucrats.
      If you really want to restrict the state, then exercise your own personal influence WITHIN the government. But don’t try to control the government from the outside, or you will get a degenerate situation like we have now.

        1. Not having strong violent impulses.
          Btw, you must have mistakenly taken me for a Trump-hater, I only opinionated on how easy it would be to create chaos by killing him.

    1. Any way that doesn’t involve the initiation of or threat of violence. It breaks down like this:
      Rule number one: No human being has the natural right to rule over another human being through acts of violence.
      Rule number two: Every han being has the right to protect themselves from acts of violence by shooting the son of a bitch who violates rule number one.
      Anarchy would work on those two principles applied to everything and everyone.

  11. I don’t think that anarchy is reconcilable with human nature once you have more than three people together in a room. Generally speaking almost nobody does, wants to or could ever be convinced to get along peacefully no matter how much you try to persuade them with reason. Of all of the political systems, anarchy requires by far the greatest degree of individual virtue, which hey look around, you won’t find most people willing to invest in. Virtue, morals, good and evil and a strict adherence to doing right is just not something that the bulk of people did, do or will ever do. Some of us, sure, but the majority, no fucking way. Plus, even outside of virtue, you still have crazy people and worse, manipulative type of people who will eventually end up with the biggest guns and badda bing, you’re in a government again.
    If you want an example of a working anarchy, you have to go to small communities that enforce a very strong code of virtue, for example, the Amish. And even they have dissenters who fall out of their natural ordered society.
    Personally at an individual level if I want to do something, I do it regardless of whatever a bunch of goons in government say, think or mandate. But most people, and I mean the bulk of humanity, just aren’t cut out for total self ownership and will, in a heartbeat, slit your throat in the middle of night to steal your bread. Guaran-fucking-teed.
    Minimum government is where I stake my claim. The very minimum to ensure that we have some small systems to deal with common tasks and needs, such as a system of justice and common defense. Of course what we have today is nowhere near this and is a Leviathan, but that’s another story altogether.

    1. “But most people, and I mean the bulk of humanity, just aren’t cut out
      for total self ownership and will, in a heartbeat, slit your throat in
      the middle of night to steal your bread. Guaran-fucking-teed.”
      It’s very interesting to note that this is one idea that there is broad agreement on from both ends of the political spectrum, though very few would acknowledge it. The left thinks this is exactly why everyone should be disarmed with all power given to the state to protect us. The right thinks this is exactly why everyone should be armed to protect themselves, and the state should be armed too for good measure. We ALL know that the average person is capable of unspeakable atrocity and cruelty. Read basically any history book – that’s what the entire fucking this is about!

      1. The Left’s premise for disarmament is entirely illogical, as it assumes that when somebody becomes a government official, that he becomes selfless, altruistic, just and decent. Now if this *were* true, and assuming that you could station a cop with every single non-cop citizen for instant defense at need, then it would make sense to empower government and disarm people, but even a casual acquaintance with reality informs us that government officials are human beings and subject to all of the same evil nonsense as anybody else. Trusting them with your personal safety is a huge mistake for so many reasons. I really don’t understand how Leftists can be so blind to human nature once you slap a government title on an individual. They’re practically like a cult.

        1. Oh yea, don’t get me wrong. I think the left’s view is retarded on this point for exactly the reason you point out. Just in the past couple of years, we’ve seen cops go off the rails and kill all kinds of people – I’m not even talking about some of the questionable shoot a dude at a traffic stop things – think Chris Dorner, complete psychopath cop. The idea that you become “good” just because you put on a badge is just wrong.

        2. “..think Chris Dorner, complete psychopath cop.”
          Which reminds me. It’s Ash Wednesday this week.

        3. What the Dorner drama unfolded serveral years ago on TV it was right before Lent and I mentioned in passing “dead man walking.” Wife asked what did I mean. I explained the guy shot 3 cops to death, the police will not take him alive no matter what he does (so it goes). He died in a cabin that was set ablaze– which was the day before Ash Wednesday.

    2. Do you think that maybe people’s inability to reason comes from them being “educated” to be unreasonable?
      I think the natural default nature of humans is cooperation over conflict. I think this “no one could ever be convinced to get along no matter how much you try to persuade them with reason” is a character trait that is forcefully instilled in us. Think about this, what if kids are educated based on the NonAggression Principle instead of a Dependency on Authority model? Don’t you think that the “higher moral virtue” that you talk about being necessary for anarchy, would be instilled in people’s character just as much as authoritarianism is?
      After eight hours a day, five days a week, nine months a year for twelve years, I think a whole different mindset would be instilled that could allow for an actual free and open society.

      1. I’ve educated my kids on the non-Aggression principle, however, lots of other parents around me have not, nor will they ever. Even during the American Revolution only around 13% of the population were all about the Enlightenment ideals and fought for the FF’s.
        I’m all for a free society, but I also know that most people are not and never have been throughout human history. The best I can do is transmit the values to my children and friends and hope people make the best choices that they can, but don’t kid yourself here, most people love and adore having the boot on their neck AND on your neck. They will fight you and kill you and your entire line to get you on board with their control impulses.

        1. “They will fight you and kill you and your entire line to get you on board with their control Impulses.”
          I noticed that socialism and islam share those common traits. Those who want to follow it are welcome to it, but somehow they require your submission and demand you to bow before their alter.
          This is why there will always be blood when it involves either.

  12. We all need to be governed by something. For most decent people, it is their own self conscience, rather than the threat of jail that keeps us from bludgeoning the little old lady and taking her purse. Unfortunately, there are the 1% that need to be governed in some other way.

    1. I’d tend to believe the opposite. Vast majority of the people are animals, splashed with a coat of primer to hide their stripes.

        1. Generally yeah, that’s true. We have sheriffs out here, but no police force per se. I rarely if ever see a deputy cruising the roads. Where I’m moving there is like one sheriff’s office in the county and no police to speak of. Quiet, decent people who leave their doors unlocked still.

        2. Other than the rare county patrol, we won’t see any police in my home town. It has been a couple months that I have known one to swing through. That being said, you are nearly expected to volunteer on the fire department, and there are quite a few EMT’s who do it as a part time gig. If there was a need for the police, it would be a half-hour response time. Lots of guys hold conceal carry permits.

    2. People who are shit heads need to be dealt with through rules of governance. I agree. The anarchist/libertarian position is that the services of governance should be handled through free market enterprise instead of a monopoly of coercive force.
      Gustave Molinari write about what you’re talking about in his book “Production of Security”.

  13. I used to think like this, but I figured out that other humans can’t understand the concept of private property anarchy. If you say anarchy they tend to think of the people who don’t believe in private property.
    Lou Rockwell (and others) say anarchy doesn’t mean no rules, it just means no rulers. One day I realized this is what we have now. We have rule-makers in the government who have all the power. The traditional rulers- those that own property are rulers of said property. Obviously, all the rules the rule makers make are held as more important than what the owner wants to happen in his realm.
    Given the history of anarchist thought, our use of the term is likely destructive to our aims. Anarchists, historically, and today, destroy property. It’s a pity, because it could have been a useful word, but then leftists destroy words too.

    1. There are different strains of anarchism. The black flag Leftist violent strain is an offshoot of Communism, but is not representative of other forms of anarchist theory. Unfortunately, you are correct that when the word “anarchy” is used, the black flag faggots are almost always the first thing that pops into people’s minds.

        1. Very true. Their form of “anarchy” is only able to be advocated from the safety of a strongly structured society that protects their right to be idiots in public without being shot. As you note, put them in the wild and they’d be dead in less than a week.

    2. When they destroy property, they are not anarchist, by definition. When using the initiation of violence to acheive a particular end, the person/persons initiating the violent action are making an attempt to “rule” over the subject of their violence. It is at that point where they are authoritarian not anarchist.

      1. When they destroy property, they are not anarchist, by definition.

        Well, they’re not *anarcho-capitalist” by definition. They would shoe in quite well as communist anarchists though, since communism doesn’t abide by private property right out of the gate.

        1. I think AnrchoCommunism is an oxymoron. To acheive communism, a state of coercive force is necessary to implement communist mandates. Communism is then no longer anarchist if the associations aren’t voluntary. When these retards say, “I’m AnarchoCommunist” I usually say, “I’m a BananaOctopus”. Both have about as much the same basis in reality.

      2. Look, historically, people who called themselves anarchists were violent. Right now, people who call themselves anarchists are violent (Berkeley). So, if you use the term for yourself, people will think you are violent, and that you don’t care about property.
        It is unfair, not particularly logical, etc… but it is a pointless battle to try and resurrect a word lost long before any of us were even born.

        1. I see your point. I was arguing from definitional semantics, when in reality it doesn’t matter because of public perception. (Thanks public school!)
          I think that is why a lot of anarchists I know identify as “voluntaryist”, because people don’t understand the difference.

    1. Didn’t watch the awards, never have, never will, but I did see them fuck it up from the news shows this morning.

        1. Part of me wonders if La La Land actually won the award, but they chickened out and revised the decision post-award.

        2. It was choreographed for effect…because, “diversity”. Diversity rules, it’s all about diversity of everything (except diversity of thought and diversity of opinion – can’t have that, no, no)…

        3. Staged to get attention. Swj Claim attempt of racism, like if the evil white try to steal the oscar from the black dudes. They are actors, they act it´s their job.

      1. I was gonna change the title of the best picture winner to Coonlight…but I didn’t want to upset any PC individuals. I’m considerate that way.

  14. Although i agree that the western governments of the past and present centuries have been one disaster after the other, i don’t buy into to this libertarian BS that less government or self rule is the best form of governance. What is needed IS more gov control, but a patriarchal, traditionalist and enlightened government. The alternative would be this “power to the people” rhetoric which is adolescent/academic horseshit. Look at Mark Dice videos or go for a stroll outside and ask yourself whether you would entrust these people with any serious policy making. They unfortunately do make up the majority of “the people” and they are sheep. + they want to be lead because it reassures them that they’re not left to fend for themselves. Self rule and small localised gov would end up in self-appointed militias, clustered alliances and ultimately chaos.
    You can laugh but walking dead series (yes very verySJW) kind of highlights this point accurately. Besides are the policies implemented by Trump at the present not a sign of a strong government and efficient state power? With smaller local governments and self rule, globalists special interests would make worms meat of us in days which is why every country needs so-called enlightened elites which de facto act as “guardians of the realm”. Granted this is not always the case and is not easy to achieve but great civilisations of the past have proved this to be the best solution. As a commentator correctly pointed out below, anarchy as well as libertarianism are nothing but adolescent fantasies.

    1. Libertarian run over your dog when you were a kid or something?
      You can keep your strongman worship dude, I’m not particularly wont to agree to your terms of “government”.

      1. Well Well, good old ghostof jeff and his spastic squad.
        @ghostofjeff, you should ask moderator to remove that ludicrous “nationalist”tag and just put “GAY” instead.
        More adequate.
        Speak later ladies.

        1. Wow, ad hominem. On the internet yet. How original, daring and edgy.

        2. I am honestly laughing at this….its like stealing someone’s business card and replacing them with ones that list the title or position as “GAY”…

    2. Who in the world can you trust with INCREASED control of your life? You’re talking about the so-called benevolent despot, which is a fallacy.

      1. Id Rather have a despot who loves his nation and views you as an American than a libertarian president who believes the people of his nation are interchangeable with foreigners and who views you as a mere faceless consumer in a global market.

        1. Sure but the power of such a position will outlast the individual entrusted with it.
          The next guy might be an asshole.

        2. I’d rather have an asshole who feels responsible for the well being of his nation and people as a whole than a libertarian president who views the country as a giant market and the people of the nation as interchangeable with foreigners and the individual as a faceless consumer.
          I repeated myself on purpose. A despot is an asshole. But to me that is way more desirable than liberal ideas of extreme individualism which destroys civilization and identity, yes, even humanity.

        3. “…who feels responsible for the well being of his nation and people as a whole”
          What guarantees the next despot will feel this way?

        4. Nothing is ever guaranteed in life. All we have are facts in the real world. And there will always be evil and corruption due to man’s nature. I just feel that classical liberalism, as an experiment of enlightenment ideas (egalitarianism), has failed and created the worst evil the world has ever seen.

        5. Well we agree on that: The more people try to ‘fix’ everything through newer, better, more complicated Systems, the more fukked up it gets.
          Consider the horrors of our most modern creation – Soviet Communism. Indeed it caused more death and suffering than any two despots combined!

    3. Not just more gov. but the leader must ‘own’ the country.
      A president is nothing more than a mercenary who don’t benefit in any way of the people prosperity, safety, etc. It takes altruism to be a good president as idealized by democracy, and altruism is degeneracy.
      A monarch in the other hand, is directly affected by its people quality of life and prosperity, therefore, he has an egoistic reason to care.

      1. A monarch is head of the state…not just a chief among equals like a president. You’re right. The aristocracy has been replaced by globalist elites who have no stake in the future of their country. To them, America is a market, not a nation. We need a real leader who “owns” his nation.

    4. You’re right. People don’t realize that classical liberalism and extreme individualism (libertarianism) are responsible for many of the evils of the modern world including the feminism so many here complain about. An iron will and strong government are necessary to keep the individualist idiots from fragmenting civilization. The “every man is a king” idea is pure Marxist nonsense.

  15. Good Government is a contradiction in terms but anarchy is just pure insanity. People are by nature corrupt, wicked and irresponsible so require a minimum amount of supervision or at the minimum harsh punishment and strict discipline to maintain order and deal with misbehavior. People only do what is right when it is in their best interests.

    1. So, in other words, what you are saying is that people are bad so we need people to protect people from people because people are bad. So we need people to protect people because they’re bad.
      Do you not see your circular reasoning here?
      If people in general are so bad, what makes those people with power to use violence against you so benevolent? How is a politician somehow morally superior to anyone else when their job’s very existence is dependent on coercive theft?

      1. It is part of the Fallen Nature of Human Beings. I recognize Good Government is a Contradiction in Terms but at the same time Government is a Necessary Evil which is probably why Democracy has worked quite well and lasted as long as it has in the US with its system of Checks and Balances as opposed to where it is falling apart in Europe and South America.

  16. Well-written article, but fascist states are the only ones that will survive this century.

  17. We’ve already got varying shades of anarchy all over the world that we can draw conclusions from. Start with the Congo.
    Big-Man Rule, lawless gangs strip-mining everything of value, violent squabbles between petty warlords, and a complete breakdown of morality, education, technology, and family.
    You’d have to spend your entire existence training for violence, hunting food, and working out.

    1. So having a government means you won’t get invaded by foreign governments?
      I’m not for anarchism for the masses, but let’s not make silly analogies as if it only applies to one philosophy.

      1. You have a much higher chance of defending against a foreign state invader if you have a government than if you don’t. BRB organised foreign army against unorganized militias

  18. Great article and points, good justification. That being said, I think anarchy is one of those things that can work in it’s purest form, but when a dash of the human condition is added to the equation, things get messy. It wouldn’t be long before gangs start to form and take advantage of the lack of large scale organization. Definitely something that can work in smaller communities. But in a teeming alpha world city of millions of people, unlikely.
    To live out our lives peacefully and to the fullest, there needs to be some law and order. Current Western governments (and others) are simply taking this way too far and overstepping their set boundaries. Nobody can step up to them because they control the police and the military.
    I think it would be a good exercise for the gents here at RoK to crowd-source a reliable method of holding governments accountable for their actions while still keeping decision making non-susceptible to the masses of idiots.
    My first thought was a voting app where the general public would actually have a say in every single government decision. The issue with that however is also the inherent flaw in democracy; most people are morons. Then you would have muslim majority communities voting to give tax dollars to the local mosque.
    Turns out creating a government system that is bullet proof is hella fucking hard. But if anyone can do it, the RoK community can! What do you think gents?

  19. Anarchism is a tool like Prestone radiator flush. You don’t leave it in indefinately. It too gets flushed and then you replace it with the good green stuff.

  20. By definition ‘archy’ or rule is inherently male. An-archy precipitates matriarchy or no man ruling.
    These are human dwellings in an aboriginal matriarchal culture:
    Notice how the design of the structures resembles a vagina? To be born into a matriarchal culture, you remain in the vagina your entire life. You climb out of the hole in the morning and return at dark.

  21. “Men, on the other hand, will have to be masculine, strong, and honorable (a la Jack Donovan’s The Way of Men) (….)”
    So you are learning masculinity from a fag who likes getting fucked in the ass?

    1. exactly. everything Donovan writes about men is affected by his physical attraction to men. i’m sure Jack is a good guy and it’s not my business whom he sleeps with. by how proponents of “masculinity” can umm swallow his stuff is beyond me.

      1. I’m going to be a little freudian here: I think Donovan embraces every stereotype and cliche associated to masculinity (lifting iron, tattoos, alcohol, rightwing politics, pseudopaganism, metal music, etc, etc, etc) only because he knows, deeply in his mind, that getting fucked in the ass is not masculine.

        1. But one way or the other, it brought him to an understanding of masculinity that many men (and women, and gays) can relate to as “mankind among the other kinds of humans.” There’s real value in that. I thought at least 50% of that book was insightful and spot on.

      2. So you completely unhitch yourself from identifying with anything the dude wrote in “The Way of Men”? Despite his predilections and peccadilloes, it seemed there were some quality nuggets of universal, ancient truth in parts of that book (to me).

    2. Well observed. If some gays want to contribute intellectual fodder to the debate, fine and well, but I don’t really accept them trying to define masculinity for us, for the same reason that I don’t accept women defining masculinity for us.

  22. Good article, I would add the control of the state in education and health, has removed the responsibility in the education of our children and a responsible health since the state is nothing but the “democracy” of the corporations. One Spanish author points out that the possible cause of the black plague in Europe was the emergence of the modern state, based on the need for powerful armies and factory productivity that clashes with the anarchist / tribalist mentality of medieval man.

  23. If you want to learn about Rational Anarchism, read “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress”. Fiction but very good fiction.

  24. this is all well and good for Anarchy in America. But what about anarchy in the UK? Over there they don’t know what they want, but they know how to get it. They want to destroy the passerby.

  25. Who would be leader in a total Anarchy…oh wait…leadership always means government of some sort which means laws and crime. A leader will always emerge in a social situation. Anarchy is fantasy. Face nature. We are a social animal with a pronounced hierarchy and rank system. The alpha will be king and ruler. Humans have never existed in an anarchy system. Even if offered one, our nature and genes would reject it. We either need to lead or be led. This is how groups work.

  26. I believe a more realistic and doable solution is a minarchist type society. A very small governing body that provides basic safety things like military, police, firefighters, etc… and also handles contractual agreements made between parties, including enforcement of these contracts between individuals. There would be no contracts with the state directly such as legal marriage.

  27. Anarchism is Commie bullshit disgised as cool.
    When the Communist state disintegrated in Hungary in 1956, instead of a free-for-all chaos and anarchy, people organised themselves to be able to continue their daily lives, and organised self-defence. Anarchy will not exist. Nations and nation-states exist for a reason.

  28. Very nice in theory, but it all falls apart when one tribe decides it isn’t anarchist anymore, takes over its neighbors, and uses superior mobilization to bring everyone else under the jackboot. This happened in Russia when Nicholas II abdicated and left a power vacuum to be exploited by the Bolsheviks.

    1. The government schools and media psychologists have taught you well.
      These “power vacuums” happen only in societies where the people are disarmed and mentally subjugated.

      1. Russians were not disarmed until the Bolsheviks killed the various gung-ho Cossack types opposing them.

      2. Is that so? Then name one, just one society, where people are not disarmed or mentally subjugated, or both. The USA, perhaps? LOL They got guns, but the other part is right on the spot.

        1. I would rather say, most of the people are subjugated mentally. Yes, in the USA as well. You personally, probably not, otherwise you would not be here.
          What I would say is, anarchy would not exist, even if the state failed. People always organise themselves to carry on the daily lives, even in failed states, even during civil war. The state of anarchy is not possible, it will not exist.
          In the USA, if the Federal Government and the local states failed and ceased to exist from tomorrow, people everywhere would organise themselves. It would not be like a first-person shooter rpg free-for-all for everyone. People would not want to live like that. They would want to return to normal, whatever normal is to them, asap.

  29. If it wasn’t for Big Government law enforcement, we’d all kill each other!
    If it wasn’t for Government Schools, we’d all be illiterate!
    If it wasn’t for Worldwide Militarism, we’d all be speaking German/Vietnamese!
    If it wasn’t for Feminism, women would be oppressed!
    Please save me govt! Save me Big Brother!

    1. I’ve never heard German Vietnamese spoken before. Seems like that’s a really far flung branch from the Indo European language tree.

  30. THANK YOU, op.
    This is exactly right. For those interested, I have an anarchist philosophy blog over at http://www.the-3-pillars-of-anarchy.com, and this is exactly the kind of thing I address over there.
    Anarchy, self rule, defined as “without leader, or ruler,” truly is the most masculine philosophy a man may subscribe to.
    Let’s look at its opposite – feminism. Cries for more government intervention, more arbitrary laws, and biger and bigger state intervention. Anarchy is quite literally the exact opposite.
    Please, for those curious, or for those who think anarchy is “unworkable,” come over to the blog, and let’s talk about it.
    I’ll give you a hint though: you live in anarchy virtually every second of your life, and you probably don’t even realize it. Let me prove it to you.
    In any case, great post Corey.

  31. Unless the state is going to regulate population thought strict immigration control and mandatory birth control for welfare queens, sperm donors and criminals, all other forms of regulation is pointless. Any prosperous and peaceful society will soon be overrun by the unwashed(blue pill) masses.
    Population size and quality must be regulated by the state or anarchism is inevitable.

  32. We’re better off when we solve things without pretending it requires anarchy and wild revolution, upending civility and sowing chaos.
    Revolution, and by that I mean “hard revolution” as a byproduct of Anarchy? Not so constructive, often reductive and flawed. Frequently over-romanticized. No thanks. Don’t want one. The aggressive, edgy charm it connotes lays false bedrock on a treasured and deeply cool pop-culture notion: “Rather than offer concession or treaty, I would prefer all of creation burn if I could rule over the ashes.”
    Things get dangerous, and can end badly. There’s a frantic glamorizing of anarchy/revolution as neutrality is cast aside, leading to mania and tipping points, often by those who have no concept about just how scary it is for humankind to rejoin the primitive ways of the jungle.
    I strive to provide sanctuary for innocent children, the “good” women, the elders, the crippled, the broken and yes even the defective thinkers among the left. They won’t do it for themselves, so it’s up to me. I can’t “provide” and fulfill my role in a state of anarchy. But if anarchy comes? Ever forward…I’ll take it to task and risk death.

  33. The problem with anarchy is that statelessness can’t exist. The State is the entity that is capable of using violence at its own discretion. Abolishing any particular state will not get rid of the fact that violence can be used by some person.
    Given the above, Donovan-style tribal anarchy can exist. But the problem with that is that such a system relies on external competition being stronger than internal competition. Once internal competition is more profitable, anarchy, or the collective ownership of the monopoly on violence, degenerates to a classical tragedy of the commons, as individuals will no longer find it rewarding to behave in a collectively rational manner.
    (Side note: this is more or less what has been happening within the government Bureaucracy for many decades. It has not gone critical, as there are mechanisms holding everything together forcefully, but the organization does not act in its own interests, otherwise society would not be in a general economic and social crisis.)
    Once that degeneration happens, the only solution is to privatize the monopoly on violence, that is, to institute feudalism. Which, i will grant, is a kind of anarchy with respect to the feudal lords. That system isn’t very economically productive though.

    1. That kind of feudalism deincentivizes the development of technology. What citizen would want to further empower their lords with more tools of control? I propose more of a feudal patriarchal theocracy where men are gods over their women.

      1. Well, any citizen who looked down on criminals or wanted to gain favor with his lord would develop that technology. Yes, there are upsides and there are downsides, but you don’t have any power in the current system, and yet technological progress is happening anyway.
        And you’re missing the point. Once the feudal lord has established that he is in control, he has every incentive to recreate a free society under his own protection. It’s just going to be a really small one.

        1. Every shitlord has their own working model of the perfect society in their head already. It’s just a matter of putting it together. New foundations will be laid with every vacuum that opens up as the old guard erodes. The droning mouthpieces of the MSM hang by a string and the current of the renegade voice of the soverign has greater amperage now. We must realize this. Small communes, clans, collectives and packs will form and spring up with increasing number. The new foundations must be hard core patriarchal so we must keep the patriarchal call loud and audiable everywhere. MAN is returning to the throne. With this, the problems encountered with civilization being founded upon and then being fraught with elites whose allegiance is to a ‘great whore’ will be nipped at the bud.

        2. there is no perfect society, just one where the theft and murder is kept to a minimum. Violence as a social institution is acceptable, but once it becomes economic, all bets are off.

  34. Unfortunately anarchism is unworkable in large scale society, as great as it’s sounds. More people just mean more assh*les trying to f*ck each other over to get ahead. Our genes strive for immortality, and if they can see an advantage they will take it…at the expense of others. Altruism only works when benefit swings BOTH ways. Besides people are stupid, they don’t want to think they just want a roof over their head and food in their stomachs and mindless entertainment, give them that and you can bleed the suckers dry…something the Corporatocracy in the US knows only to well…how’s the Weather Underground?

  35. idealized view of utopian anarchism, confused with Libertarianism. Anarchists are anarcho-communists thugs, ready to cut your throats, take your property, destroy your nation and burn your churches. Also they are paid by Soros shills.
    People are realistically free through their private ownership of property. All anarchists are against it, some allow rhetorically small individual properties but since there is not a defined line, you can’t know for sure if you are the next bourgeois to be eradicated. Ask the simple farmers of Southern Russia and Ukraine during the terror of bolsevik monsters. The social aspect of society is best served through the national unity and solidarity of an ethnic nationalist country.

  36. Anarchy is not possible to sustain. As soon as you get rid of the government and achieve anarchy, a new group of people will take power and become the new government.
    If there is a power vacuum, someone will step in to fill the vacuum. It’s physically impossible for there to be no government/rulers whatsoever.

    1. The only exception I can come up with is a sparsely populated region. But as soon as you get cities into the mix, -somebody- has to be in charge.
      Too bad it’s usually an idiot. 🙂

      1. Even in anarchy, someone is in charge. I will use the example of the pagan Vikings: they had Jarls and Kings. But a king wasn’t what we think of as a king these days – they were not absolute rulers. They were the “first among equals” within a tribe. The very word “king” comes from “cyning” meaning, literally, a “scion of the kin”. Meaning tribal chieftain. There were laws, mostly from custom and precedent (known as common law) and they were enforced. The King mostly presided over his tribe at the pleasure of his tribe.

  37. Society must be organized around a principle that works with the human beings you have, not some Homo Libertarianicus. Mises pointed that out as one of the first things in On Human Action – what will REAL (not ideal) actual humans actually do.
    Replace government with nothing? That means not imposing the Non-Aggression principle. Somalia had no government, and the Somali wanted to get to Minnesota, not stay in the chaos. And the Anarchos didn’t all move there and create their Utopia, easily convincing the Somali by translating Rothbard into their language and finding instant converts.
    Sorry, but Christopher Cantwell gets this right. Culture precedes societal organization.
    But even you call for government: The only rules you abide by are the ones you and your community decided for yourselves – by the consent of the governed.
    This notion that people would be completely helpless and lost without
    the the state is a ridiculous one. Are we to believe that people are
    incapable of working for themselves and being responsible for their own

    Guess what happened the last time EBT cards failed. Most people can’t defend themselves or can find food or water if there is no Wal-Mart. What if Katrina lasted two months instead of two weeks. Lots of dead people.
    One of the red-pill corners is the fragility of society – the blue states are dependent on the red – the pilled correlates. Are the beta orbiters and hypergamic women going to do well with freedom?
    The State is like fire. Confined to the furnace or hearth it provides warmth, can be used for cooking, forging and foundry. Outside it destroys.
    Worse, the “privatized” violence might not be contained. Imagine a bunch of libertarian “private security and arbitration” corporations are converged by SJWs so “regret rape” is considered actual rape? What if a SJW buys the “private” road that runs in front of your home or the electric company that provides power?
    Anarchists will do what they want and take what they can. I don’t know what more a man can ask for in this world.
    How about being secure in their lives, liberty, and property. Take what they can – from other anarchist men, via stealth or force? Just kill each other, and rape women. That is what you are suggesting.

    1. The road to self governance has to be gradual. The EBT mobs I believe are by design. The state values its dependents and persecutes outliers who declare self suffiency especially when the people declare ‘soverignty’.

    2. It is true. An anarchist society would be a more violent and warlike society. See the Mongols who were united under Warlord Genghis Khan and steamrolled all of Asia.
      But is the respect for violence such a bad thing?

  38. cool article RoK. I’m all for anarchy. We like to think we have civilization and that there is fairness and balance but there is always a possibility of corruption and malice. Anarchy is human nature and is our natural environment. Anarchy is like fresh water at the top of the mountain and as it goes down into the rivers, lakes, then out to sea it get’s more dirtier, and filthy (more corrupt, hidden agenda’s, twisted). If everyone could put the communities needs, hopes, dreams, before their own it would be paradise.

    1. Without some regulation or laws, some people will just shit in your meat for no reason at all or not take proper procedures to keep the water clean. Perfect anarchy is as impossible as Ayn Rand’s perfect Galt’s Gulch/

      1. I guess this goes back to, treat others as you would like to be treated. Would you shit in your meat and then eat it? lol.

        1. Understood, but we are all human, some are cowards,, some are stupid, some are lazy, some are mouth breathing oxygen-wasters.
          Even if there is no bad intention to hurt people, when the guy in charge of your water supply or your food has the running shits or doesn’t know/care about hygiene, there will be bad consequences for everyone

        2. doubt is a double edged sword. You can doubt the good in people and you can doubt the horrible, evil, negative in people. I would like to see as small as government as possible, but not sure if that will happen. So therefore, I pay high taxes, I work hard and I grow poorer. It’s a cycle. I always look around and see, cops, more laws, more politicians, more SJW’s, more thought control. It’s exhausting.

        3. I’m with you there man, but I look to other places for any alternatives and all I see is African tribes slaughtering each other or dirt farmers living on the barest of means for survival with no culture, art or vision for the future.
          What we have now may be the least shitty alternative, and we are so spoiled by safety and easy living that we make it to be worse than it is

      2. Regulation and laws happen at the local level. Pre-Christian Viking society – arguably anarchist, for example, had laws and enforced them.

  39. I like the idea behind the article, but it too suffers from the “no true scotsman” fallacy. There are protesters who identify themselves as anarchists (all leftists of course) and preach anarchy, but they don’t fit into the author’s view of what an anarchist SHOULD be, so he says they are not real anarchists.
    Anarchy is all well and good as long as you can dream about the ideal don’t have to live in it.

  40. Small government is a concept that has been relegated to internet discussion only. The only way it will ever come about is if (or when) the current government system collapses. No government ever voluntarily shrank. They do, however, cave in on themselves, usually through fiscal mismanagement. We can fantasize about anarchism and libertarianism, but in a blue pill world, getting enough people to embrace the idea is practically impossible. It will likely have to be their only option before they accept it. A golden opportunity for red pills if they are prepared.

  41. Russia isnt good example tbh – they are “fighting against” only on the outside, on the inside its as corrupted and capitalist/globally oriented as other big states.
    The only reason Russia is playing this “we against” game is because they want their share of pie in the global dominance game and will not hesitate to oppress and occupy their neighbouring countries just like they have done in the past.

  42. Anarchy is a world of Chaos and Disorder where Tyranny is Order to the extreme. The only way Anarchy could be Viable is if Human Beings were the Natural Savages of Liberal Imagination, Born Good BY Nature Corrupted by the World Around them where in reality People have a Fallen Nature and the world around us is not what corrupts us the world is the reflection of our own Corrupt Nature. If you want to think of a world of Anarchy well one need only look at the Orcs/Goblins of Tolkien.

  43. Anarchism seems to me to ignore human nature. There will always be a majority of sheep needing or wanting to be led or helpless before strong men who will use them to accomplish what is their personal will to do. Anarchy is pie-in-the-sky.
    Humans are by nature tribal. History shows that virtually all groups of humans that have ever existed sought leaders competent in whatever endeavor demanded it. Tribes will work against other tribes for scarce resources and inevitably the stronger tribe prevails that has the best leadership and most resources, including personnel. As tribes increase in size and power you end up with nations. What exists now did so because it can.
    Truth is not what one wishes it to be, rather it is what it is and one must deal with that.

  44. I agree with nearly all of your points, as anarchism is the logical conclusion in both the Hegelian and Marxist dialectic. It makes sense that in the fight against globalist imperialism via nationalism – and the new victorious nationalist world order, that the abstraction of the nation will also enter the dustbin, and thus TRUE nations – around heritage, biology, culture, etc – will come to light. It’s a matter of scale. Local rule.
    There is however a fatal flaw in anarchism, and is being prone to subversion. Although egalitarian statism is also prone to subversion (our society).
    One example of subversion back when the pagan Teutonic tribes were subverted by Christianity. Their societies during pagan times were good examples of anarchism. The Jarls and kings were merely the first among equals with heavy dependence on customs rather than codified law.
    They were essentially powerless to stop the spread of Christianity, though due to lack of unity. Conversely, it is entirely possible for a fellow anarchist state to develop imperial endeavors and start stomping on its neighbors (the Mongols)
    There is a sweet spot between statism and anarchism and I think the English had it right before they decided to become an imperialist administrative state. It was the pre-feudal (Saxon society) to feudal England (Magna Carta) that did the most to maximize freedom while being vigilant against subversion.

Comments are closed.