An Introduction to Anarchy - How to Consciously Evolve

Ask somebody what they think of when they hear the word ‘anarchy’ and a popular response is ‘chaos’. In fact, the opposite is true. Anarchy is peace, order and true freedom. The chaotic face of anarchy has been grafted on by a skilled and controlled media so I was looking with this blog to help remove that facade and let you see the true nature of anarchy.

Before we begin, I'd like to quickly define in etymological terms, what 'anarchy' means: it comes from the Greek prefix 'an-' meaning 'without' and 'anarkhos', meaning 'ruler'.

So anarchy literally means, without ruler.

So being an anarchist means you have no ruler. No human being is above you on the pecking order and nobody can force you, with legitimacy, to carry out tasks you do not wish to perform consensually. This includes any human-written laws and any ‘authoritative’ institutions such as government, religion, the Crown etc…

No rulers does not mean no rules.

I understand that certain types of rules need to be obeyed for the better good of the community - these can be enforced privately. The only law we are subject to is not written by humans. This is Natural Law.

These Laws are intrinsic to the universe and cannot be changed by any living being in the cosmos. They apply to every self-aware, conscious being who has free will within the boundaries of the universal truths. As we are part of a fractal universe, these Laws are also intrinsic to every human being on the planet.

Throughout history, these Laws were known to the ancients and kept alive within wisdom traditions and cultures such as the alchemists, hermetics, the Greek philosophers, the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Sumerians, the Stoic’s, the Maya, the Aryans, eastern philosophers, the Romans, theosophists, the Freemasons, Rosicrucian and many, many more. The Rights are immutable. They cannot be amended. They cannot be taken away or added to. A constitution will not grant these as ‘rights’, it will only list them as pre-existing and inalienable. Removing or introducing a constitution will not affect these principles. Simply put, they are:

The Non- Aggression Principle - The moral recognition that it is inherently wrong to initiate violence against another individual or their property. This is the moral distinction between the aggressive violence of initiation of force and the use of defensive force when aggressed upon.
The Golden Principle of Self Ownership - The moral recognition that each human owns themself and by extension, the fruits off their labour.

This is not to say that these Natural Laws cannot be broken but there will be certain consequential, detrimental societal and personal ramifications if they are.

So what is government? Is it a building or a person? Is it a group of people and buildings? Is it documents and laws? If I point at an politician and ask, is he government? Is he acting on behalf of government? Is he a public servant or do the public serve him?

Government is an abstract creation of man represented by a group of humans who claim authority.

At this point I’d like to ask you five questions, and answer honestly:

1) Is there any means by which any number of individuals can delegate to someone else the moral right to do something which none of the individuals have the moral right to do themselves?

2) Do those who wield political power (presidents, legislators, etc.) have the moral right to do things which other people do not have the moral right to do? If so, from whom and how did they acquire such a right?

3) Is there any process (e.g., constitutions, elections, legislation) by which human beings can transform an immoral act into a moral act (without changing the act itself)?

4) When law-makers and law-enforcers use coercion and force in the name of law and government, do they bear the same responsibility for their actions that anyone else would who did the same thing on his own?

5) When there is a conflict between an individual's own moral conscience, and the commands of a political authority, is the individual morally obligated to do what he personally views as wrong in order to "obey the law"?

Do you see the hypocrisy?

Humans need to learn the state of being that allows an external anarchy combined with an internal monarchy.

This means that we can rule ourselves individually and not expect, want or accept rule from anybody but ourselves. Our own internal rules are set by re-tuning our moral compasses and acting on it. Until this happens, there will be no peace either with ourselves individually or as a group.

A ‘statist’ is a person who believes in government and authority. This comprises 99.9% of the population. When presented with the option of dissolving government they usually counter with questions such as: ‘who will build the roads?’, ‘who will empty the bins?’, ‘who will protect us?’ and endless more ‘who will…’ questions to highlight how important government are.

If we dismantle government and the roads don’t get paved then so be it. If we, as a community, can figure out how to upkeep the cities and the status-quo of current society then so be it. If not then society will have to change and adapt; so be it. There is no compromise when it comes to being enslaved as psychological children. I’ll travel down dilapidated roads and dispose of my own rubbish if needs be. I will organise my community and defend myself from violence. I will govern myself and be free. However, if humans can cooperate peacefully to create this laptop without the support of government, I'm sure we can repair some roads.

This essay will probably aggravate some people. We don’t like to be told that we are psychological children and we don’t like to be told that we are slaves. However, as Aristotle said

“’It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it”.

So I would ask the reader to entertain the writing above and if any of it resonates with you, do your own research for there is a world of knowledge just waiting at your fingertips.

The Romans had a word for ‘freedom’ – Liber. This word also means ‘book’. It is the source of the English word ‘Library’ and ‘Liberty’. To achieve true freedom one must educate oneself.

This is the truth and, by definition, truth is objective whether you agree with it or not.

“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” – Thomas Jefferson