The Reality of Political Systems

If the people are spiritually conscious, wise, sovereign, loving - then it doesn't really matter what political system you have… It will be a harmonious, moral, and free society.

If the people are spiritually ignorant and asleep, selfish, obedient, existing in lack - then it doesn't matter what political system you have… There will be violence, immorality, slavery, injustice, and rule by whatever group is most psychopathic and therefore seizes and wields power.

America's Constitutional Republic was the attempt to create a government that only existed to hold the least amount of power possible in order to preserve individual Rights and Freedoms. It was quickly subverted and has become the world's most violent and immoral Empire operating through secrecy, and the American people are the most propagandized people on Earth.

There is no political solution.

Only a deep inner change in the consciousness, morality, and sovereignty of the individual will lead to collective change.

We ARE our governments. They can only reflect the consciousness and character of the people. Their egoism, narcissism, and deceitfulness is a reflection of the shadows within the populace.

Those who puppet our governments can only do so as long as the population allows and participates in it.

Even 10% of the population refusing to participate in taxation and other violent and coercive institutions would be enough to end the legitimacy and power of the State.

If people had Knowledge of Natural Law and Right & Wrong, they would be sovereign and moral beings and our societal structure and organization (i.e. government) would reflect that.

Elite Theory

The Power Elite

In 1956, sociologist C. Wright Mills wrote The Power Elite, calling attention to the interwoven interests of the leaders of the military, corporate, and political elements of society and suggesting that the ordinary citizen in modern times is a relatively powerless subject of manipulation by those three entities.

Vilfredo Pareto

Pareto introduced the concept of Pareto efficiency and made important contributions to economics. He was the first to claim that income follows a Pareto distribution - a power law where 80% of the wealth belongs to about 20% of the population.

Pareto developed the notion of the circulation of elites, the first social cycle theory in sociology. He is famous for saying "history is a graveyard of aristocracies."

Pareto argued that democracy was an illusion and that a ruling class always emerged and enriched itself. For him, the key question was how actively the rulers ruled.

The Italian School of Elitism

Vilfredo Pareto, Gaetano Mosca, and Robert Michels were cofounders of the Italian school of elitism, which influenced subsequent elite theory in the Western tradition.

The outlook of the Italian school is based on two ideas:

1. Power lies in position of authority in key economic and political institutions.
2. The psychological difference that sets elites apart is that they have personal resources (intelligence, skills) and a vested interest in the government; while the rest are incompetent and do not have the capabilities of governing themselves.

Pareto's Two Types of Elites:

• Governing elites
• Non-governing elites

He extended the idea that a whole elite can be replaced by a new one and how one can circulate from being elite to non-elite.

Mosca emphasized the sociological and personal characteristics of elites. He said elites are an organized minority and that the masses are an unorganized majority. The ruling class is composed of the ruling elite and the sub-elites.

Mosca divided the world into:

• Political class
• Non-Political class

Mosca asserted that elites have intellectual, moral, and material superiority that is highly esteemed and influential.

The Circulation of Elites

"The circulation of elite is a theory of regime change described by Italian sociologist Vilfredo Pareto (1848–1923).

Changes of regime, revolutions, and so on occur not when rulers are overthrown from below, but when one elite replaces another. The role of ordinary people in such transformation is not that of initiators or principal actors, but as followers and supporters of one elite or another."

The Iron Law of Oligarchy

The iron law of oligarchy is a political theory first developed by Robert Michels in his 1911 book Political Parties. It asserts that rule by an elite, or oligarchy, is inevitable as an "iron law" within any democratic organization.

Michels' theory states that all organizations, regardless of how democratic they are when started, eventually develop into oligarchies.

Michels observed that since no sufficiently large and complex organization can function purely as a direct democracy, power within an organization will always get delegated to individuals within that group. "Who says organization, says oligarchy."

According to Michels, all organizations eventually come to be run by a leadership class who often function as paid administrators, executives, or spokespersons. Far from being servants of the masses, this leadership class will inevitably grow to dominate the organization's power structures.

By controlling who has access to information, those in power can centralize their power successfully, often with little accountability, due to the apathy, indifference and non-participation most rank-and-file members have.

Michels stated that the official goal of representative democracy of eliminating elite rule was impossible, that representative democracy is a façade legitimizing the rule of a particular elite, and that elite rule (oligarchy) is inevitable.

Darcy K. Leach summarized them briefly as: "Bureaucracy happens. If bureaucracy happens, power rises. Power corrupts."

Any large organization has to create a bureaucracy to maintain efficiency—many decisions have to be made daily. For the organization to function effectively, centralization occurs and power ends up in the hands of a few. Those few will use all means necessary to preserve and further increase their power.

Connection to Orwell's 1984

The iron law of oligarchy is similar to the concept in The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism, a fictional book in Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four:

Throughout recorded time, and probably since the end of the Neolithic Age, there have been three kinds of people in the world, the High, the Middle, and the Low. They have been subdivided in many ways, they have borne countless different names, and their relative numbers, as well as their attitude towards one another, have varied from age to age: but the essential structure of society has never altered. Even after enormous upheavals and seemingly irrevocable changes, the same pattern has always reasserted itself, just as a gyroscope will always return to equilibrium, however far it is pushed one way or the other.

Celine's Laws

Celine's Laws are a series of three laws regarding government and social interaction attributed to the fictional character Hagbard Celine from Robert Anton Wilson's Illuminatus! Trilogy.

Celine's First Law

National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity.

Celine's Second Law

Accurate communication is possible only in a non-punishing situation.

Wilson rephrases this as "communication occurs only between equals."

Celine's Third Law

An honest politician is a national calamity.

Celine recognizes that the third law seems preposterous from the beginning. While a dishonest politician is interested only in bettering his own lot through abusing the public trust, an honest politician is far more dangerous since he is honestly interested in bettering society through political action, and that means writing and implementing more and more laws.

Celine argues that creating more laws simply creates more criminals. Laws inherently restrict individual freedom, and the explosive rate at which laws are being created means that every citizen in the course of daily life does not have the research capacity to not violate at least one of the plethora of laws. It is only through honest politicians trying to change the world through laws that true tyranny can come into being through excessive legislation.

The Political Spectrum

Left vs. Right

"You can't move off the left-right axis, that's not how language works. Except for me, I don't describe myself as left or right."

• Michael Malice

Thomas Sowell defines it as "How malleable is human nature?" If you believe people's nature can be changed you lean left, if you believe their nature is fixed you are right.

Collectivism vs. Individualism

The legitimacy of hierarchy:

• Left says no hierarchy - Leftists assume all hierarchies are illegitimate, and must be overthrown in order to achieve "equality."
• Right acknowledges that there are hierarchies in nature based on different skills and abilities and that's ok.

"Ask a leftist if some people are better than others, and you will get a speech."

• Michael Malice

According to Norberto Bobbio, the left believes in attempting to eradicate social inequality—believing it to be unethical or unnatural, while the right regards most social inequality as the result of ineradicable natural inequalities, and sees attempts to enforce social equality as utopian or authoritarian.

The True Political Spectrum

The normal political spectrum is very inaccurate. Rather it reflects the erroneous beliefs that many people have been indoctrinated into. Namely, "Left = good, Right = bad"

When the true political spectrum is:

• Left = more government, collectivism, and totalitarianism
• Right = less and less government and therefore more individual freedom/responsibility

Anarchism (depending on your perspective) either exists at the far-right end of the spectrum OR it exists completely off the political spectrum altogether and is neither right-wing nor left-wing.

Nazism is not right-wing - the name comes from "National Socialism" and is a collectivist ideology. The Nazis were leftists!

Fascism is defined as being authoritarian nationalism and could manifest on the right or left (although the true right wing is anti-authoritarian).

Recently, people are warning that humanity is in danger because of "moving away from democracy towards autocracy" and that this is a phenomena of the political right.

I posit that the authoritarianism and totalitarianism in our current world is most often coming from the political left, not the right. See everything that has happened around the covid plandemic and the totalitarian and authoritarian actions of supposedly "liberal" "democracies".

ALL governments are mafias that exist by and through violence. Freedom, morality, and flourishing for all can never come through "democracy" - especially our current governments that have become totally hijacked by corrupt psychopaths.

Democracy: The God That Failed

"The problem with democracy is that those who need leaders are not qualified to choose them."

— Michael Malice

"Democracy is a government by for and of the people…. but the people are stupid."

• Osho

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

• Winston Churchill

Example: 10 people going to a restaurant - 6 vote for steak and make the other 4 who are vegetarians pay for steak for everyone.

Democracy is fear-based organization (involuntaryism) — the euphemization and legitimization of violence.

Constitutional Republic

"A democracy is that which allows for an unlimited majority to rule, but absolutely provides no basis for the protection of individual and minority rights. A republic allows there to be a democratic process of voting, but through a constitution imposes controls on the majority to allow for individual and minority rights."

• Bashar

The State: Keeping The Status Quo

To be confined in The State is the antithesis of freedom.

The earliest forms of states arose about 5,500 years ago. For many millennia before that, humans lived in stateless societies.

Human beings have now accepted the inevitability of the State. But is The State something that should not have been? Could it have arisen from the very beginning as a way for a certain class of people to rule over others?

Are we not in a place now where we can evolve beyond the need for a State entity that governs human affairs?

Why "State"?

Our words have deep meanings and significance. Why was this word applied to represent government?

State: A condition or mode of being, as with regard to circumstances. A condition of being in a stage or form, as of structure, growth, or development.

The word state ultimately derives from the Latin word status, meaning "condition, circumstances". Latin status derives from stare, "to stand," or remain or be permanent.

"The State" denotes a fixed point of being. Everything in life must be alive and changing. The State is fundamentally wrong because it is violent, it is coercive, it is against nature.

The Status Quo

The State is the status quo. That is all The State is. It exists to keep the status quo, to keep the ruling class in power. To keep things in a fixed state.

It is a structure. It serves to organize and shape things. To take something amorphous and fix it into place.

Everywhere there is state, things are kept in a fixed condition artificially, as nothing in nature can ever be truly static.

THE State

It is THE State - for there can be only one.

The State violently destroys anything that arises to challenge its hegemony and authority. There cannot be two different States sharing the same space. No, there can only be one.

Max Weber defined The State as the entity that "claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory."

Coexistence is impossible, for The State is inherently totalitarian.

Violence & Control: The Lifeblood of The State

The State's function is to bring order to chaos. To take infinite possibility and confine it within the four walls of a structure with rules and hierarchies.

It is not a holistic, natural, creative Order that arises spontaneously from the individual level. It is the order of authority, of control, of violence.

Anarchy is "chaos", the chaos of freedom. But the State's order is externally imposed, is top-down violent control.

Anarchy is creative. Government is restrictive and destructive.

Without violent force, the State would immediately cease to exist. Without taxes, state police, propaganda, indoctrination, and war, it would dissolve.

Violence is the lifeblood of government. "War is the health of the State."

The Myth of Limited Government

Governments always tend to grow and expand. It is in their very nature to keep expanding.

The US was meant to be a very limited government and decentralized states, but that quickly changed and is now the world's most extensive empire.

The US constitution has been powerless to stop the creation of the biggest empire the world has ever known.

The Central Problem

There is a central problem at the heart of all political philosophies:

• Those who need and want leaders are in no way qualified to choose them
• Those who don't need or want leaders are forced to live within States that impose them
• Those few who are actually worthy of leading often have no desire to do so
• The lowest quality and most psychopathic people desire political power and will do anything to get it

A single individual, or a small group of individuals, with great wisdom, morals, intelligence, and vision would be the only form of government that would work.

But how does that individual become the sovereign leader in a nation of idiots and corruption?

Noocracy: Rule of the Wise

Noocracy where nous means 'wise' and kratia means 'rule' therefore 'rule of the wise' is a form of government where decision making is done by wise people.

One of the first attempts to implement such a political system was perhaps Pythagoras' "city of the wise" that he planned to build in Italy together with his followers, the order of "mathematikoi".

Theories of State

Consent of the Governed

In political philosophy, the phrase consent of the governed refers to the idea that a government's legitimacy and moral right to use state power is justified and lawful only when consented to by the people or society over which that political power is exercised.

A key question is whether the unanimous consent of the governed is required; if so, this would imply the right of secession for those who do not want to be governed by a particular collective.

All democratic governments today allow decisions to be made even over the dissent of a minority of voters which, in some theorists' view, calls into question whether said governments can rightfully claim to act with the consent of the governed.

The Social Contract

Social contract arguments typically are that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority (of the ruler, or to the decision of a majority) in exchange for protection of their remaining rights or maintenance of the social order.

The starting point for most social contract theories is an examination of the human condition absent of any political order (termed the "state of nature" by Thomas Hobbes). In this condition, individuals' actions are bound only by their personal power and conscience.

Thomas Hobbes said that in a "state of nature", human life would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short." In the absence of political order and law, everyone would have unlimited natural freedoms, including the "right to all things" and thus the freedom to plunder, rape and murder.

To avoid this, free men contract with each other to establish political community through a social contract in which they all gain security in return for subjecting themselves to an absolute sovereign. Though the sovereign's edicts may well be arbitrary and tyrannical, Hobbes saw absolute government as the only alternative to the terrifying anarchy of a state of nature.

Locke and Rousseau argued that we gain civil rights in return for accepting the obligation to respect and defend the rights of others, giving up some freedoms to do so.

The central assertion that social contract theory approaches is that law and political order are not natural, but human creations.

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's Alternative

Proudhon advocated a conception of social contract that did not involve an individual surrendering sovereignty to others. According to him, the social contract was not between individuals and the state, but rather among individuals who refrain from coercing or governing each other, each one maintaining complete sovereignty:

What really is the Social Contract? An agreement of the citizen with the government? No, that would mean but the continuation of Rousseau's idea. The social contract is an agreement of man with man; an agreement from which must result what we call society. In this, the notion of commutative justice, first brought forward by the primitive fact of exchange, ... is substituted for that of distributive justice ... Translating these words, contract, commutative justice, which are the language of the law, into the language of business, and you have commerce, that is to say, in its highest significance, the act by which man and man declare themselves essentially producers, and abdicate all pretension to govern each other.

— Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century (1851)

Lysander Spooner's Critique

Lysander Spooner, a 19th-century lawyer and staunch supporter of a right of contract between individuals, argued in his essay No Treason that a supposed social contract cannot be used to justify governmental actions such as taxation because government will initiate force against anyone who does not wish to enter into such a contract.

As a result, he maintains that such an agreement is not voluntary and therefore cannot be considered a legitimate contract at all.

Defining The State

Anti-statism is present in a variety of greatly differing positions and encompasses an array of diametric concepts and practices. Anti-statists differ greatly according to the beliefs they hold in addition to anti-statism.

A significant difficulty in determining whether a thinker or philosophy is anti-statist is the problem of defining the state itself. Terminology has changed over time and past writers often used the word state in a different sense than we use it today.

Anarchist Mikhail Bakunin used the term simply to mean a governing organization while other writers used the term state to mean any lawmaking or law enforcement agency.

Revolutionary socialist Karl Marx defined the state as the institution used by the ruling class of a country to maintain the conditions of its rule.

According to liberal Max Weber, the state is an organization with an effective legal monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force in a particular geographic area.

"I heartily accept the motto,—'That government is best which governs least'; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe,—'That government is best which governs not at all'; and when men and women are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have."

— Henry David Thoreau, Resistance to Civil Government