My Political Essay, “Pragmatic Anarchy: Reasoned Steps Towards Human Liberation”


This essay will serve to posit to the reader, and hopefully a majority collective of liberated thinkers, that there are clear, pragmatic, practicable steps that an individual, a society or societies, and even world entire, may take to free themselves from the fetters of fascism, the tethers of tyranny, whether real or self-imposed, and which are based on inherent law, or common law, and established socio-political and even religious tenets and codes which provide a set of maxims or axioms that are, ipso facto, proof of the already-liberated man, woman, child, and humankind itself, and which can be accessed, utilized, and supplemented by the individual’s own research and establishment of a personal version of such tractates, laws, tenets, etc.

I will outlay a methodology of personal and societal liberation from so-called Draconian and fascist laws, codes, and other usurpations and subversion of the human spirit, and human rights as codified, commonly-accepted codes of conduct and laws of the land. I will include in this essay examples of codified, established human rights documents, case law examples, moral and religious tenets and codes, along with a personal viewpoint or philosophy regarding social, legal, and moral codes which help us keep a sense of “law and order,” but also keep us free from egregious assaults upon individual and societal liberties.

It should also be stated that the word “anarchy” (particularly related to its use herewith) merely denotes a social or political condition of being “absent of a ruling body,” or more specifically, according to the Oxford Dictionary, “absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal,” i.e. self-governing. As a political philosophy more accurately worded as anarchism, it advocates a very reasoned embrace of self-governing, anti-authoritarian societies made up of voluntary institutions, helmed by ultimately self-responsible beings. And who could not regard this as a “political ideal” in light of decades of fleecing, deception, enslavement of and outright genocide being perpetrated upon mankind? We are already living in a state of anarchy – -the “lawlessness, disorder, and chaos” (as anarchy is defined by other authoritative sources) practiced by the out-of-control, murderous junta that directs entire armies to kill; or, one could say, an international, predatory military-corporate caliphate which seems hell-bent upon total destruction of Earth’s people and resources entire, and which sits in the highest seats of political power in the world today – namely, in the G-7 and G-20 nations.

Our collective survival as a species absolutely depends upon all of us employing the methodology of pragmatic anarchy as a very viable social and political philosophy, in order to kill the vicious parasites who are killing us en masse in countless, obvious (as well as not-so-obvious) ways.

May humanity live long and be free to become itself, which is a liberated, dancing, dreaming, innovating, inventive species unhindered by despots who parade as our leaders but who constantly plot the extinction of not only human beings, but life as a whole upon Earth.



Part One: On The Human Being Becoming Him-Her-Itself

The belief in human freedom is exactly that (in the mass consciousness) – a belief, not yet a reality, for all of its representation in history and mass media as being a fait accompli and being taken for granted by society at large in the so-called democratic, developed lands or nations. The hedge upon the general bet or delusion that we are in fact, free, is the greatest impediment to an existentialist-ontological rebellion within the collective and individual human psyche and spirit, and must be obviated at once, if we are to survive the next generation as a species.

Let’s begin our delving into current-day political philosophy with a word lesson.

It should be a well-understood fact by all who live under any national flag anywhere that the word “government” literally means “mind control”. This is not “conspiracy theorist” conjecture, but an etymological verity. Broken into its constituent syllabic etymology, “to govern” is to control, and –ment comes from the root word mental – specifically from the Latin mens, meaning “mind, understanding, reason” – i.e. to control the mind, understanding, and reason. So, we can deduce from this etymological fact that anything anti-government is saying NO to mind control and the systematic control as well of reason and understanding. As the song says, “We don’t need no education. We don’t need no thought control”. All we need is for the obfuscations of truth, information, reason, understanding and the means to true mindfulness to be removed, and we can obviate draconian government (mind control) in a pragmatically-anarchistic way.

To me, this is one of the first (political) steps to enlightenment and liberation for anyone living under government control today. Aside from the political, there are the religious, educational, institutional, bureaucratic, social, spiritual, intellectual, and even physical areas of liberation. But if we are to see the taking of the political first steps all the way through before moving to the next steps, I would follow up the liberation of the mind through word meaning with the recission of one’s self from any government or bureaucratic “benefits, services and privileges” of licensing, registration, or any other way that an individual hands over their free and unfettered rights and property to the state and even foreign banking and bureaucratic interests who rule the United States of America and other states via subversive means like corporate holdings of the Federal Reserve. Other agencies to completely rescind one’s self from are the IRS, DMV, and anything involving the courts or banks, which are one and the same. This includes marriage license and registry, child registry through the legal trust account involving a “certificate of live birth” which they use to hypothecate the debt you will owe them over the course of a lifetime as their putative slave, or chattel.

If some of this is going over your head, then I would suggest doing some creative web searches on the aforementioned topics which you are unenlightened on; if you are nodding your head along with me, then obviously you are at least aware of this stuff, or have even done something like rescind from any ABC agency’s “benefits, services, and privileges” (which amount to nothing more than handing your power, property, and sovereignty over to some bureaucratic or pseudo-bureaucratic agency via (improperly-disclosed or non-disclosed) contract with them as a benefactor of their nanny-state “benefits”). You may begin your return to self-recognizant reserving of true rights over privileges by stating something in writing to any of such agencies as, “I did not understand at the time that I unwittingly contracted with you that I was giving up my inherent rights for your so-called program of benefits and services. I did not have proper disclosure from your agency that I would be handing over my sovereign rights in favor of your doling-out of “privileges,” which are nothing more than thievery which I have unwittingly consented to. I wish at this time to rescind from your system permanently, as I no longer wish to receive your questionable and confiscatory “benefits and services,” instead choosing a path of total sovereignty and self-responsibility which requires no agency oversight whatsoever”.

This language is but one example of many ways in many occurrences or interactions whereby one may take the “reasoned steps towards human liberation” mentioned in the title of this essay. The first step is to know what agencies to rescind from, followed by how to state your recission from their bogus programs of “benefits”. Control of knowledge equals control of reason and understanding, and this is the biggest way they control the masses, leaving us believing lies in every part of life and human action. In fact, such control or outright obscuration of human reason and understanding almost completely obviates human action, giving them their quotidian fait accompli perpetrated upon the whole of humanity as one of Hannah Arendt’s banalities of evil. It is so pervasive and invisible that one cannot even see it without knowing what it is, what to look for, and even how to look for it. This is the illuminati’s or new world order’s “mission accomplished,” some of the effects of which are the ridicule of those who do discover the truth and seek to liberate themselves and others; the policing by one human being of another, even when friends, neighbors, associates, or even spouses and other family members. Their uniformed, murderous gestapo hit-squads are just the icing on their cake of tyrannical control, for if the other modalities of human control fail, and one of the sheep breaks free of its enclosure, they can now just cut you down in a hail of bullets in a summary, de facto execution. They are criminals. Murderers, plain and simple.

So, we have a moral and ethical, as well as personal and spiritual obligation to counteract, contradict, and combat this system in whatever ways we can. We have a moral, ethical, and even civic obligation to disregard and disobey the “laws” made by these globally-syndicated madmen and criminals. And make no mistake – these are indeed certifiable madmen and criminals at the collective helm of world power, who consider anyone not in those positions of elite power to be “groundlings,” sheep, cattle, and expendable slaves which they can use and throw away for any purpose they can and will sacrifice us for. Forget any noble, patriotic notions of “fighting for freedom” and justice, or whatever excrement their jingoistic propaganda machine has fed you on. If you go to war, it is only to fight for their freedom to continue to exploit and sacrifice YOU, the aforementioned cattle – there is simply no evidence to support any argument against this absolute verity. Saying “No, I will not fight,” and “No, I will not pay taxes and feed your draconian system of barbarity,” and refusing assent or consent to their specious war machine via the tactics espoused by Gandhi, i.e. non-violent non-cooperation should be the personal and political manifesto of each and every conscientious, clear-thinking, reasoning individual in not only the developed world, but also the world entire. And once we are all leading by example, the rest who have been living their so-called lives in a state of drowsy, brainwashed stupor believing everything they are spoon-fed, will have their own epiphanies and enlightenment, and awake to the higher cause and greater reason for their lives, which surely must rise above the station of being cannon fodder or meat for their Satanic grist mill. The curtain of tyranny will finally, ineluctably be torn down, never again to be hung up by the power-mad artificers.

As a pragmatic anarchist, one needn’t kill anything or anyone – just one’s dependency on government, religion, mainstream media and medicine, and other outmoded institutionalized absurdity which can never ipso facto have your upliftment or enlightenment as part of its cruelly avaricious aims or ends. You need only throw Molotov cocktails of the mind at such entities and organized enslavement which have lorded false power and authority over the all-too gullible human race and called it “leadership”. One need only graffiti the storefronts of the representative institutions which exist in the mind to lull the unwitting into lives of maligned, abject folly via false and poisonous belief systems and doctored truth and history. One need merely embrace the ironic or juxtapositional ironies or dichotomies of positive negativity and what we could conceive of as “good and needed deaths”.

Let us consider for a moment all of the ways by which we arrive at perspective, assumption, and human wisdom.

All of human endeavor is falsehood found out (whether nixed or believed-in), assumption thwarted or carried forth, immaturity embraced or discounted, and wisdom denied or tenanted – if all goes well. But, what is well in a world which is insensible, irrational, and collectively mad?

I have a glowing image, or vision, alive within me now. It is of a belfry, its windows aglow with a sickly though persistent light. It is a belfry in the tower of Man, which is a pale mimic to a belfry in the tower of God. I see writing on an otherwise blank wall as my mind’s eye passes through the windows of this belfry, spying inside. The writing says:

God vs.

Man vs.

Nature vs. (written in a black mold stain on the wall)

Each phrase reinforcing the next and former, in an inexorably circular, cyclical whirl of confrontational conflict and tautological certitude, so fixed and centrifugal that we become dizzy, perhaps nauseous, in the existential sense, and we must look back out the window for a delicate tree branch with a spring finch or songbird upon it to regain our senses – Nature, in the end, being our only conceivable master and solace in that dizzying whorl.

From this belfry emanates a pale, cool blue light (which sometimes flashes bitter red, then flips back to its steadier, more operant blue), atop a tower as white as bone or newly-scrubbed tomb, or deep winter snow, and as solitary and distinct from the surrounding natural environs it inhabits as a craft from outer space would be. But it is strangely alluring and familiar, this tower of solitude with its palely-lit belfry hiding its graffiti-scrawled wall within – it is warm, inviting, a sentry and haven for human perception and insecurity. It is not, seemingly, gaudy or irrational (on first glance); neither is it, similarly, a rude and differentiated outgrowth of the land which it occupies. It is a distinct and separate expression upon a chthonian stage that complements it only in so far as it holds it up from collapsing and plummeting into the void. It is, we can say, an anomaly of the first order.

And this is Man’s lot and nature in regards to the particular planet, home, orb, sphere on which he resides: to be anomalous, distinct and separate from Nature per se, and decidedly not of, from, or for his blue-green promenade of endless abundance and refulgent surroundings. There is here an air of mystery to the light which radiates from atop this tower of Man’s, but he is not an oracle. This is the stray, wandering elder child, lost in the wilderness of a fickle and far-flung, non-verbal Creation. He is that which seeks, not that which is sought. He is the endlessly traversing pilgrim, never truly arriving, and propounding a very dubious “progress”. He is the end result of a concatenation of forces which have coalesced to create him, either by deliberate design, or, more likely, by eons of trial and error, and biological and experiential addition and subtraction – or, one may say, subduction. He is a symphony composed and conducted by the mad, wild, and even chaste daimonic urges and passions which exist in his mettle and fold. Many hands have been in this pie, one suspects, with ample evidence in the anthropological and metaphysical realms to support the contention. He is a soufflé, long in the oven, billowing and spilling over the top of his pan, perturbed by the frictional forces of gravity, and his false sense of proportion and measure, intrinsic make-up, and elements of unnatural, non-conformist valuation. He is vigor and protest, dominance and subservience; here is all that can be found flowering or floundering in Nature – outside the gates of Eden. He carries it all on his back – his, her, its, man, woman, child, masked, unmasked, created, conjectured, caricatured, creatured, castrated, allured, inured, redeemed, forsaken, fellaheen, verbose, vulgar, noble, heroic, and insensate – and like Sisyphus, bounds in repetitive ritual at his eternal labors.

Valor and treason also haunt this belfry in a kind of antithetical dance – as do all the other forever-married opposites of this duality of uncanny savagery. There is also music; at first serene, like a cygnet taken to first spring waters. Soft and subtle it comes to us, then which builds in tension and contrapuntal dynamism, dotted by accents which are by turns graceful, scornful, insightful, noisome, building then to a straining, boisterous, troubling, and explosive crescendo that, in the realm of music, perhaps only Beethoven has adequately captured. Some poets and painters have truly captured it; some architects; a few novelists, and perhaps only one or two philosophers have heard its lines and rendered or reproduced it. A few madmen (or women) in the streets, besotted to the bone marrow have expressed it (though in far cruder but maybe more realistic terms) – but ultimately the music of the belfry is inexpressible, in that it cannot be properly transmitted to and transplanted into the soil of its surrounding environs; its non-existent garden (or, shall we say Eden?) of “ideal development”. It was, likely, not meant to take root but in our souls, which are eternal and ethereal in substance, and which are expressed in the emotional-physical-intellectual bodies as a modus operandi of metaphysical and abstruse means and influence. Indeed, here is evoked Man’s “fallenness”; here is his ineluctable and unmendable fallacy; here is the tomorrow that at once is ever-promised, arriving, yet which never comes.

The central image of this belfry has been expressed throughout the ages accurately in the arts: it is the “ivory tower” of pejorative lore, and a frequent haven for the pragmatic-anarchistic type; it is the lighthouse guardian against rocky, unforgiving shores; it is the outpost on the utterly stupefying way, bereft of companionable answers or complementary or sympathetic characters along his cold journey. It is the tower with the light on in its topmost windows which is a hushed outcry of both loneliness and indifference. Is he to be pitied, shunned, aided, admired, or simply ignored? Does his fragile light draw like ones from across the Universe to his aid or commiseration, or is it the warning beam of a cautionary tale? Is it the simple glow of a “home fire burning” that acts as perennial sentinel to other travelers, or is it the heat and light generated by an aberration, a kind of Frankenstein-esque monstrosity which was (unwittingly or not) unleashed on an otherwise (mostly) innocent cosmos? Was he the product of a great corruption of that mostly, or ostensibly innocent cosmos, rather? Is he the ignorant stepchild of perpetually-warring factions of good and evil – they themselves the product of a Creator of dualities set forth toward a Hegelian conflict-synthesis construct – who spawned a primate race which has been the ages-long testing ground and Petri dish for some mad, gross, existential experiment? Or, is he simply the lost offspring of uncaring progenitors, having proffered this tower and belfry of abject aloneness, wherein he scratches out the preternaturally solitary rhythms of a specious scion who is subconsciously tapping out an SOS to a void he cannot or will not comprehend, to idols of artifice he cannot conceive or fathom?

No other creature on Earth celebrates the irrational and unfathomable (as well as unspeakable) with such hopeless zeal the way Man does. He cannot even collectively see the petulant, immature beast he is, enough to envisage a cure and catharsis for/from such colossal, insensate savagery as is indicative of the record and character of mankind. Poets, playwrights, painters, scientists, inventors, and even a few statesmen (Marcus Aurelius, King Solomon, and King Arthur come to mind, but there are surely more on this short list) have attempted to put their fingers on it, put their paintbrushes and pens to it in categorically anarchistic and pragmatic fashion, but, remember – this is, at last, “a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing” as the Bard of Avon said (more recent provenance showing it to actually be the work of Sir Francis Bacon, but that is another essay entirely). So, it might be asked, what is this “idiot” doing flailing about in his flatulent sea of nothingness (and thing-ness), surrounded by verdant, lush expressions of “something-ness” (in that its tautological imprimatur has meaning, purpose, life, and fulfilling endeavor)? Even tavern owners and cow-milkers have attempted to grasp it (no offense to the great tavern owners and cow-milkers – I could have said ditch-diggers and manure-carters).

In the last century, some quite anti-establishment, and “pragmatic anarchist”-type film directors and other artists have tackled the subject to moving effect – Kubrick, Tarkovsky, and Malle are the first few directors that come to my mind – and have given us as humans, beyond being mere filmgoers, a mite more than just negligibly-satisfactory exegeses on this, our eternal and most persistent conundrum of “Who Are We?” Specifically, Kubrick, in 2001: A Space Odyssey perhaps came closest to successfully penetrating and explicating the seemingly insurmountable mystery and even symbolism of human existence and destiny. When we hear those grand, plaintive notes of Also Sprach Zarathustra by Strauss, combined with those otherworldly images of man first discovering outer space, we feel the pith, grandeur, and momentousness of it in our synapses and DNA, if we are so attuned. Even the ignorant must feel something when beholding a piece of art such as 2001. Louis Malle in Black Moon (1975) hit upon it in a much more Earthly, pastoral setting, though utilizing symbolism regarding the human condition, to more muted effect. Andrei Tarkovsky in the films Stalker and Nostalghia show us slow ballets of Man vs. God and Nature which show unequivocally that we are far out of naturalistic alignment and are in existential danger because of it. All of his films are remarkable to an extraordinary degree. And, I cannot leave out Alejandro Jodorowsky and his body of anarchic, surrealist cinematic poetry; he continues to make films better than most all living and dead directors at age 86, evidenced in particular by films such as The Holy Mountain (1973), and, astoundingly, the unmade film of Dune he attempted in the 1970s, and which now has attained its own mythic status as something which would have been psychedelic, anarchic and phenomenological where concerns man’s outward, cosmic questing to a great degree. Other film directors who embody this kind of pragmatic-anarchistic métier for me include Gus Van Sant, Lars von Trier, and perhaps Chantal Akerman, all of whom seem to me “on point” germane to this study of the human condition, character, and mystery. Chantal Akerman may be the only film director searching for meaning in this regard – but only where women and the female character are solely concerned. Her camera asks, “What are women doing?” or “What are women to do?” as well as, “What is a woman?” better than any other. Jeanne Dielman, made in the mid-1970s at the height of second-wave feminism, is a “stab in the light” rather than a “shot in the dark” at what the answers to these questions might be, and the results are shocking-to-the-core of what we think of as acceptable or respectable ideas of class, lifestyle, values, social norms, etc., as the film lulls and hypnotizes us via a very bourgeois-appearing protagonist who goes about her daily, mundane business with all the joie de vivre of a postman ready for retirement. Man (or, Woman) is not at all what He (She) appears to be, says the film. S/he is a wildly rebellious flower of thorny tendrils and veiling petals, in the final analysis. His/Her belfry (and they are as separate as individual sexes as Man himself is from Nature – the feminists could rightly argue that Woman is interchangeable or synonymous with Nature, accounting for the insurmountable gulf betwixt the sexes) radiates an unknowable light that surges and dims, blinds and yet provides elucidation, but never indicates a pattern germane with or at home in Nature. I maintain that it is less our collective, conscious will that this be so, than it is the aforementioned innate, a priori corruption (aka original sin) – either in the cosmos or himself, or both – which has caused him to become so askance and astray from that which would term him/her morally innocent (him more than her, though we do have our Catherine the Greats, Elizabeth Bathorys, Lizzy Bordens, Margaret Thatchers and Hillary Clintons, too). Man has been, I contend, both created and led astray by the same demiurgic, demagogic forces which formed and laid him on this earthen ground like the out-of-place, weirdly-glowing tower that he is. One can discuss Satanic and Luciferian conspiracies and “abandonment by a deaf, uncaring God” all day long, but after the debate, will he be end up being his own rescuer, or will he end piping his lonely tune in the weirdly-lit belfry of his tower for an inconceivable eternity of “long-suffering night”? Let us hope he awakes to his pragmatic-anarchic compulsion and finds (we find our) rescue and redemption before his/our home planet is completely poisoned, denuded, destroyed, and made void of life; not one more plant, animal, woman, child, innocent suffering or perishing needlessly and unnaturally, due to his or other, darker forces’ unabashed, unashamed ignorance and arrogant skullduggery and folly.

So, in art, the force of pragmatic anarchy is a return, inevitably, to a naturalism which man has lost. It is the profound search for meanings, gestures, symbols, and expressions of man returning to Nature.

I name films of these renowned directors – as well as the medium of film in general – because it appears to be our most pragmatic-anarchic art form, in the right hands. It is a potent outlet for spellcasting upon the human heart and imagination, it being the most highly-visual medium. Humans learn and are moved primarily via visual mediums; this is why TV has been so grotesquely effective in shaping the human mind of the last sixty years, or so. Film, however, makes the leap into the mythical unlike its counterpart-in-a-box, which exudes a certain sense of limitation and novelty, however popular and effective a propaganda tool it has been.

But, why are we still so afraid of the word “anarchy,” given now what we know about its etymological reality and potency? Knowing that the word can be translated to mean ‘self-governing,” shouldn’t it then be the rallying cry of all who seek freedom, truth, and justice, and who seek to abolish the runaway junta of globalist agendas of “governance” and “law and order” which are hostile to life? I say that it must be, if we are to survive as a species. We must take rational, reasoned steps to become self-governing, self-responsible people and societies should we wish to see our grandchildren – at all.

But it is other art forms which have celebrated or expressed the pragmatic-anarchic urge – dancers, such as Nijinski and Isadora Duncan have expressed it and lived it; Buckminster Fuller and Frank Lloyd Wright broke us out of a utilitarian hell of cookie-cutter sameness and short-sighted monotony in the realm of architecture; even now quantum physicists and other scientists are helping expand humanity’s urge to self-govern, by allowing the light of higher knowledge to break through the curtain of false beliefs and misinformation. I say that the revolution of pragmatic anarchy which must sweep the world and enlighten every mind and life must take place in all areas of life: social, political, scientific, the arts, religious and spiritual, medical, legal, educational, financial, and in the workplace – where we would again see the rise of labor unions and the empowered worker, earning living wages at the bare minimum. And to say this last is to say we as a species which is in its entirety on the “endangered species list” must take control of all these areas with full individualistic oversight and input in them. no longer will we be the long-suffering cattle being fed on a diet of lies and “arbeit macht frei” as the motto that never died out with the Nazi Third Reich, along with its tenets of fascist exploitation and “power for the few” credo, but rather, we will be a truly self-liberated species, at last.

Man must make his own myths, and mythological image, instead of having it made for him by shadowy, unknown demiurgic forces who have no interest in seeing humanity liberated, or even knowledgeable or conscious of its true history and origins. We have been lulled into a (not even restful) sleep by symbol-wielding, demon-possessed overlords who enforce their imposed laws and codes of meaning, belief and “order” by means of brutal, hidden hands who foment war, chaos, pestilence, and every kind of division for the end of divide-and-conquer, Hegelian synthesis of social control. Man, then, must be his own liberator: he cannot wait for some Biblical image of dubiously-proffered, redeeming savior descending from a cloud to take his hand and lead him to Heaven. It is beyond obvious that if there were any compassionate deity watching from on high, he is a Sadistic devil who enjoys the specter of war, death, with primarily children and other innocents being the victims of this constant genocide. Non-violent non-cooperation, alas, only goes so far. Gestapo thugs in the United States will gun you down now for jaywalking, being a paraplegic, young black man, refusing their criminal orders, etc., so I would side with Jean-Peal Sartre on this point, who began advocating violence against the establishment war machine beginning in the early 1970s. I only advocate such violence as being or arising from a self-defense stance, or “fight fire with fire” ethos, in step with the framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Sartre, to expand upon my reference of him here, was the father of existentialism (though truly it was Schopenhauer, by way of Nietzsche), as well as, indirectly, my theory of pragmatic anarchy, although I maintain that he did not go far enough in his anarchist philosophy or critical theory. Perhaps it was because, as a quite specific zeitgeist, the need for “reasoned steps” had not yet reached the emergent, critical urgency in his lifetime as it now has. Fair enough – I have nothing but the highest esteem for Sartre’s brilliance as cultural critic and anarchic, philosophical theorist. He sowed the seeds, like an early prophet of the looming age which we now find ourselves enmeshed in and intrinsic part of, for the “ultimate revolution,” if you will – the one to end all fascist empires and imperialist hegemony in all its forms

The baton is passed to we, the new founders of critical theory of our age, subsequent to our predecessors who also saw and foresaw society’s principal shortcomings, agitators and pathology, and who now must rise en masse, in one voice of dissent against these brutal hands and methods of madness, to put an estoppel upon it, to use the legal term.

And with that, let us segue into more of the practical, “reasoned steps” side of this tractate, which prominently includes legal (amongst other) means to remove one’s self from “the system” successfully – or at least to the point where one can successfully argue one’s self out of, or away from the overlording tyranny dispensed by the only-revenue-seeking courts in most nations on our decaying, dying Earth.

The odd, blue light in the belfry flickers, flashes red for a time, then flashes out, the tower now completely endarkened, its silhouette a blackened mass in a dark chaos of Nature…


Part Two: Pragmatic Anarchy as Modern Concept and Context

What lights the tower of man’s peculiar existence here on Earth? And what seeks to snuff out that light?

It can be seen that the idea of pragmatic anarchy is a purely modern concept, by counteractive necessity and arising in solely contemporaneous context. It could not have been a product of the backlash against the scientific age of the 19th and 20th Centuries; nor could it have arisen even from the Rousseauian and Voltairian ideals of the Enlightenment, at the advent of Industrialism. No one even a generation ago could have conceived of anarchy as a pragmatic, reasoned, common-sense political ideology. I believe this is why it was painted in decades past as being the province of a few disaffected malcontents throwing Molotov cocktails and sporting spiky leather and mohawks, spewing epithets and espousing random chaos. Well, the lords of misrule and chaos who prop up the governments don’t like any competition, now do they?

If Thomas Paine and Sam Adams were alive today, they would surely be pragmatic anarchists. Probably, so would Mahatma Gandhi, and perhaps even Yeshua-ben-Joseph, or Jesus Christ. As a societal, humanist, and even biological imperative, its analog or diagrammatic metaphor would be healthy T-cells in an addled or compromised immune system – the T-cells of course being the pragmatic, realist, self-governing, tyranny-eschewing anarchists. To wit: those opposed to vaccination programs which are becoming steadily more Orwellian and Draconian have been labeled criminals; just as those who seek the true story behind systematic media disinformation campaigns are labeled terrorists – the so-called malcontents being, in all actuality, the equivalent of healthy T-cells devouring parasites, viruses, and pathogens which have been introduced into our collective bloodstream by nefarious, “Archontic” forces (to use the Gnostic term for usurping, demonic overlords) who are categorically opposed to human liberation for a number of reasons.

As mentioned earlier, one need not use any “on the street” violence whatsoever to fight tyrannical means and methods of perpetuating its odious stain upon the collective body politic. I said also that I side with Sartre on using violence against it as well. Both are contingencies, and both should be open to we, the people, to be able to ensure and promulgate a world free of the true potentates of violence – violence which is causal, not reactionary. I say that violence need not necessarily be used, i.e. one can withdraw one’s self from “manufactured consent” (Chomsky’s term) and legalistic, “implied consent” which the courts and judiciary use to imprison us in the land of our “guaranteed” rights and freedoms.

So, we can define pragmatic anarchy, then, as corollary of our thesis here, as “a practicable self-governance”. This idea, of a practicable self-governance, really amounts to the human individual declaring independence from the corrupt bureaucracies of the world, whatever form they may take. It is the human individual adhering to common sense, common law, self-recognizance, and self-determinism over the endless false “benefits and services” as well as the so-called privileges of government-bureaucratic  doling-out (which is well-disguised as social services, such as social security in the States, but which are simply a front for nanny-state monitoring of their property, their chattel, their children).

Our modern context for and of pragmatic anarchy is that it is simply the most immediate, potent, and efficacious antidote to the brutality and civil rights-obviating modalities of statism. It is the ideological counterpart to the “last lines of defense” such as the right to bear arms and other Bill of Rights Amendements that safeguard basic human, civil rights. It is the attendant philosophy which has been missing in the argument regarding gun-ownership rights, and all the other modes of self-defense, whether legal, physical, or otherwise. Armed with the political philosophy of pragmatic anarchy, as well as its subordinate tenets of immediate practicable application to all areas of life, one can navigate a modern world which cruelly holds his liberty hostage and demands ransom paid in endless taxes, fees, and the ticket prices for his quotidian frivolities and distractions which bribe him into the mistaken belief that he is in fact not a slave, a tenant on the birthright of his own “divine trust” of the very land which grants and perpetuates his life.

Therefore, anything which abridges or seeks to vitiate such birthrights can and will be seen as criminal, and subject to prosecution under the common law. Again, we have an ethical and moral obligation to disregard the laws of the land which have been made and ratified by criminals, and their criminal junta, or government by force, or might. In the case of these criminal governments, the people shall rise as one and say, “Might makes wrong, we shall make it right”.

When one begins the laborious but rewarding process of liberating themselves from “the system” or establishment, one witnesses the gradual way that the layers of counterfeit legitimacy fall away dramatically, like crashing shards of a malignant glacier giving way to the sea, revealing a green valley beneath its once-held sway. One sees ever-clearer how corrupt and illegitimate are the many-tentacled arms of government, corrupted to the core as it is in most places – Iceland, I will tip my hat to you as a standout paragon of what the people can collectively achieve with a sense of pragmatic anarchy under their wings – with every discarding of each layer of embedded tyranny. One gains ever-more clarity and elucidation on just how oppressed humanity has been as these layers of obfuscation slide away.  Once one shuts off and shuts out all the fake, corporate news TV shows, TV in general, and all “popular” modalities of media as they are doing this in and for their lives, an individual will gain much more in the way of individuation, as Carl Jung termed it, and a much more reasoning, Stoical, calm-center-of-the-storm tranquility (as Marcus Aurelius imparted to us), as opposed to the constant mechanistic buzz and white noise of Distractions, Inc., subsidy of Murder, Inc.

The idea and ideal of pragmatic anarchy also has its roots with Nietzsche, and his “transvaluation of all values,” as well as the fundamental eschewing of mundane social codices laid out in works such as Beyond Good and Evil, Human, All Too Human, Thus Sprach Zarathustra and The Antichrist. Germane to Nietzsche’s attempts to script Man’s liberation from stale and pernicious moral and social codices, I contend that humanity must rise up and be its own “ubermensch,” i.e. Superman, overman, or, one may say, overlord. His idea of the “will to power” was not, as was wrongly interpreted or inferred-as by the Nazis and certain literary critics or cultural pundits, some kind of call to fascism, but was, instead, a Promethean rallying cry to humankind from the “bracing heights” of Nietzsche’s transcendent perch for us to liberate ourselves. As well, his “God is dead” statement was antithetical to man-made doctrines of hate and divisiveness done in Christ and God’s name which had rendered the idea of a loving God to be dead on arrival. The phenomenological existentialists followed Nietzsche’s lead in the 20th Century by making their own calls for revaluations and re-evaluations of humankind’s aims in the areas of religious, political, and social and educational institutions. Surely, Sartre’s atheism was a product of Nietzsche’s declarations that Man had killed God, leaving the thinking, reasoning (wo)man of intellect and reason to make his/her transvaluation of all values as s/he saw fit.

To wit: take the path of least resistance, and bury your head in the sand, and wake up one day to find that that simply allowed the criminal tyrants in power to drive you to ever-dimmer and smaller areas to even have a path, to the eventual point of being painted into a corner by the gradual onset and burgeoning of totalitarian, fascist, corporate plutocracy that has taken control of every aspect of your life. Satisfied, bubble-world people? I think not! It is high time to get the whole pragmatic anarchy thing into your very bones and declare your personal independence and just say no to draconian juntas that steal your freedoms and life-force and make you pay for it! Taxation without representation has become taxation without human designation. Taxation without peace, progress, common sense, civil rights, freedoms of all types, and even sanity.

I will take the modern context of my argument back to a 1971 debate between Michel Foucault and Noam Chomsky in which Chomsky calls the state (of the United States) criminal, and calls for “federated, decentralized system of free associations” to replace the capitalist-imperialist system of the then already-corrupt and war-profiteering Nixon administration, which he called “anarcho-syndicalism”. This call by Chomsky parallels my own call for actions against the criminal state of the U.S. (forty-four years later!), as well as any state which so profligately and readily and systematically violates human and civil rights and calls such actions the needful prosecution of enemies of the state, or terrorists, as they are quite fond of labeling those who seek in earnest (and all-too often in vain) for human justice. I do also agree with Mr. Chomsky that we can go a long way and achieve more, perhaps, via acts of civil disobedience, like Gandhi’s self-styled “non-violent non-cooperation,” and also agree with him that violence as a means of a defense of social and political justice, as well as the prevention of further immoral acts by a corrupt, criminal state, cannot be completely ruled out by the proletariat, or those portions of society embedded in civil disobedience and revolt against criminal statism.

In Common Sense, Thomas Paine says, “But it is not so much the absurdity as the evil of hereditary succession which concerns mankind. Did it ensure a race of good and wise men it would have the seal of divine authority, but as it opens a door to the foolish, the wicked, and the improper, it hath in it the nature of oppression.” In saying this, he was acknowledging broken and counterfeit nature of man’s hierarchical constructs ab initio, or whereby his corruptible and corrupted state is the side that leans toward or chases the seats of power. Here again, the people find that safeguarding their freedoms is an ongoing, everyday endeavor, and straying from that vigilance for one moment is like looking away from a toddler who is roaming near to deep water. It is to succumb to the perils that surround us like vipers constantly. Surely, Common Sense was written more for posterity, and our own times in particular, than for Paine’s own time period. Here we find yet more pragmatic anarchism catalogued in historical writings that endure, fitting into a modern context. Paine also said, apropos of our current times, “Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.” Paine was a pragmatic anarchist, to be sure, and should be read by every 10th grader and individual in the land.


Part Three: Reasoned Steps and Practical Applications

Know the difference between “citizen,” “person,” and private individual.

Know the difference in conveyances of transport and travel, and your inherent rights therein; this area is where fascism operates the most vigorously.

Remove yourself from the book and record as subject to any king or bureaucracy, i.e. as being chattel for purposes of commerce and revenue, and declare yourself a sovereign. Basically, this means withdrawing your consent to or participation in any and all contracts with the state which exploit you as chattel, instead of guard your rights and liberties, like the IRS, DMV, and any other abusive bureaucracies.

Know and practice the difference between common law conveyance and that of admiralty or maritime law. In the former, you are a flesh and blood man or woman; in the latter, you are commercial property of the king and queen, or proxy rulers, i.e. the U.S. Corporation, or any other hegemonic government construct using you as collateral for its debt.

Get rid of “nanny state” thinking completely. This is where leftist liberals fail miserably, thinking there has to be a government teat in everyone’s mouth for anything to happen, or for human life to flourish or occur at all. Do whatever you can for yourself. If you can’t DIY, then find others in your community to help you with it, or build it. If it can’t be done either of those ways, then it probably isn’t worth doing.

Don’t wait for the government to do for you what you can do for yourself (as an adjunct to the previous tenet).

Arm yourself against ignorance – especially your own. Knowledge is the highest form of power – this is why they guard it so covetously, and feed society on lies and half-truths. Dig, research, find out for yourself the facticity of things. If all else fails, go within, where Yeshua ben Joseph told us the kingdom of Heaven lies – kingdom of knowledge that it is.

Make daily affirmations that back-up and reinforce these tenets. Say them aloud. Gird your loins and your wits alike. Guard against the slow, imperceptible incursion of hatred, jealousy and tyranny upon goodness, forthrightness, and common-sense vigilance.


[Updated 1/13/16, 12/27/15 and 12/21/15; further excerpts forthcoming, essay in its entirety to be published in book form available via Amazon]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s