How lamentable we must be, in existing in a state where we are trapped within a false dichotomy of chaos and order, eternally and in futile manner seeking out order (a relative perception to purpose), due to whatever nature we seek within us, and only finding chaos and a sense of purpose lacking in objective nature perceivable by our rationale. 
 
-Azog Azekzorn 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Blasphemy! (or the pluralistic State and the Anarchist) 

 

Is the state an "evil" in and of itself, as the subjective terminology decrees?  
 
Perhaps I have become a heretic to the anarchist cause, however it seems to me that I must be critical of the anarchists who are opposed to the state in and of itself. As it stands, I feel compelled to argue against de facto opposition to the state for all people. However, even within that viewpoint, I still consider myself an anarchist and seek to further the cause for this ideology.  
 
I see anarchism as the ideal system for the individual, the ultimate affirmation of the ego and the egoist. I fundamentally believe that if an individual holds their own self-mastery to highest degree, and has both realized what their subjective self-interest is and can achieve it best outside of the state, the individual is "justified" and in fact should follow the most rational path to realize this self-interest. The state is to the "anarch" what religion is to the atheist, an enemy at times when embraced by the zealous who wish to impose it upon the lives of the unwilling, but not necessarily the antithesis of anarchism in and of itself should it remain to exist in some sense.  
 
I believe, once more, that the anarchist should, if true to his cause, live outside state and oppose its interference in their own lives, and that the ideal environment for the egoist and anarchist is one of self-reliance and self-mastery towards a cause of maximizing their self-interest and ultimately achieving their subjective goals in life. A master would do well not to be a slave to another system, or slave to any other individual which interferes in their quest for affirmation within their own life.  
Saying this, not all people are egoists, anarchs, and masters. While it is our duty as the spreaders of egoism to seek out a "better man" and to try and illuminate a greater path for all individuals and to "teach" them to be their own master through trailblazing a new ethic, not all people will become true masters in and of themselves.  
 
The sheep will be ever-present. The mob will return, and the mob will remain more or less cognitively uncreative, unthinking, and illogical. In an eternal reoccurrence, we attempt to breed a better man out of the clay of the masses, and, while succeeding in some regards and in some special individuals, fail to see that not all people are necessarily ready in becoming masters of their own intellect and destiny.  
 
It is the hubris of the state and statecraft to attempt to breed perfect system, and perfect individual for that system. The state capitalizes upon the ineptitude of the sheep, and seeks to form a system which treats all individuals like sheep. This, if anything, is the anemetha of the anarchist. A state which supersedes the anarchist's will, in order to pursue a compliant schematic of keeping the people as semi-educated sheep, is a state to be opposed. However, what can be said of a state which does not?  
 
The mob needs discipline. The mob needs to be ruled by an altruistic ruler, one who can help them realize their greatest self-interest in lieu of their own mastery. The mob needs a guide, the same way an anarchist with outside the mob requires their own self-rule.  
 
In a system, there can be separate spheres of political influence. The mob must be kept in check by those who can master the people and guide them to grandeur. Meanwhile, for those already upon that path, things operate best outside of the state. And so an element of pluralism need enter the system to address the dilemma of how to best keep a mob in check and to further discipline it towards a greater self-interest, while maintaining the freedom of those who would rely upon their own merit.  
 
I despise half measures. I despise a minarchist state, a dictatorship of the mob and tyranny of the majority, a state in all but name, and an anarchist in all but discipline. What one should seek out is either total freedom in their own mastery, or a master who is truly one to uphold me to greater levels than I myself am capable of achieving alone. As such, it is a system of both leaders and anarchists which I seek. A state to aid those who require a leader in their lives, and a state of freedom for those capable of living well under it. If a system is to be justified, and supported by a people, let it be one which maximizes self-interest for both the weak and the strong; but above all, one which does so justly, one which does so in a way which maximizes utility for all and for all society. One which, even while supporting the masses, does not impede upon the will of the anarchist and one who truly wishes to take their destiny into their own hands. 
  
The egoist must seek out their own system, but ultimately, one must realize that while we may wish all people to become egoists, not all are ready for the path, nor even able to embrace an egoism. Do we abandon these individuals to their own exploitation? No. Do we sacrifice ourselves for them? No. We further the cause of egoism, we further a system which maximizes the pursuit of well-being of all, both weak and strong, in ways reminiscent of a basic guarantee for all society and individuals. It is in our own rational self-interest to create a basic guarantee allowing all individuals to maximize their self-interest in a system which perpetuates this. We, the egoists, must unite to achieve this for all, for we may be weak alone and unable to achieve political power as a result, but if a union of egoists can guarantee this basic guarantee for society, they as a result guarantee it for the individual.  
 
The path to freedom is long and arduous, and one may hope that all are capable of undergoing it, of living in anarchism, of being their own master even without the state; however, the mob still must be addressed.  
 
Perhaps what is needed for the 21st century is not a return to the old absolutist ideologies of the 20th century, but to a pluralism in politics? In ages past, a pluralism was achieved for religion in society. Why not for politics as well, and why not a system where should an individual seek to abolish their social contract to the state, they are able to cut their ties asunder? The proposition here, is for the anarchist to continue along their own independent path, but that perhaps the state, in some elements, need not be opposed if it does not impede upon the anarchist's path.  
 
Overthrow a state too early, and another emerges. Overthrow it without political power first, and a failed state of multiple tribes creating their own "quasi-states" emerges. To abolish the state, is the ultimate goal, but to do it before the time is ripe, begets great risk for all with the unleashing of the mob and the directionless masses easily influenced by propaganda and their fears. 

 

Even so, should a state exist temporarily, perhaps it is best for the anarchist to strive for a pluralistic one, and for separate spheres of political influence for the independent and the dependent. The current model of states should be opposed for their inability to reform and various flaws as they appear; however, while the anarchist fights the state, not all states and statesmen are without cause if the mob is not ready to diffuse into a situation where each individual becomes truly independent. 

 

Rhetoric and Action 

 

Is it rhetoric that the proletariat, currently struggling in wage slavery and an ever increasing disparity of wealth and relevance to this economies needs, that the proletariat needs? Is it lengthy prose, and academic rhetoric affirming the justice which exists in rebelling against tyranny and those who would exploit one? Is it yet another book explaining anarchism and how we would be fools not to seek it that the proletariat desperately need? No. Academics of this day and age fail to realize, the proletariat and the people just don't care any more. We are not mobilized by that new book the activists at the local starbucks have written detailing why we need to revolt now. We are not interested in student groups not even able to provide an anarchist lifestyle for themselves, instead appearing to take up the cause like a hobby, surviving not on their own merit while they talk of revolution, but on that of either a standard series of student loans, or their parents. 
 
We of course should aspire to have intellectuals; however, in times where there is a great disparity in position and occupation, the downfall of the revolution emerges when we anarchists become inadequate to the task of actually living out what we claim to preach. 
 
We need no more "arm-chair revolutionaries". We need no more people who assume that a protest which lasts for an hour, a day, a week during daylight hours, etc is "revolutionary". We need the real revolutionaries, and we need them now; otherwise, back the fuck off, and refrain from telling us the shit we already know: the world sucks, and we need change. We all dream of it, however it seems to me that a great spirit has seized the left. Gone is the zeal to actually achieve something revolutionary on your own, be that an act of warfare, an act of actually building a community, or the act of sundering all your ties to the "system". In its place, a plethora of new "activists" have risen up, less concerned with actually enacting their politics in a physical realm, but more so in debating them in an intellectual realm and concentrating on raising the same awareness for issues which anyone over the age of 30 grew up knowing about listening to bands like NOFX.  
 
I know the government is corrupt. I know the wars we fight are fought for hypocritical shit reasons. I know I'm being exploited in the wage labor system. So what? While you continuously tell me about that, I rot. I need change now, not just words, but a real uprising. Noble is the person who refuses to be a slave to the system, but I also want to live, to succeed, and to thrive- in this lifetime. I want a real revolution, or to accomplish something for anarchism, you shouldn't doubt that. I just want to live as well; a good life, not just the standard romantic "death at a young age, the world was too cruel". I know I will probably struggle, but grits a part of the process as well. , and more  
 
What we need, more than ever, is less "student committees for the awareness of so and so" (don't get me wrong, those can be pretty chill), and more radical community organizing. What happened to the "anarchist cells" of old, dedicated to furthering the cause of revolution in their own lives? What happened to the community organizers, who pooled their resources, time, and energy together in a mutual self-interest against the destruction of their living space by drugs, racist cops, or poor working conditions.  
 
Rally the gangs. Rally the illegalists. Form your own panthers, your own cells, what have you, but please, for the love of God, actually do something. 
We know the world is probably fucked, but what is better, to continuously be the town crier as Rome is burning, or to actually run out and take an active role in the politics which will emerge during the riots?  
 
This is a criticism of a modernist trend in leftism; the trend to concentrate solely upon raising awareness, upon lax activism, upon riots that aren't really riots, protests which put no pressure upon the state or capitalists to change (protests which in my experience have lasted a few hours and just represent a "im pissed off, and willing to stand here, but not change much about my own life"), and people who do not back up what they claim to preach.  
 
I get that you're pissed off. I'm pissed off as well, but the state doesn't give much of a fuck for a minority that's pissed unless they can really threaten them with a boycott, sanction, or civil insurrection. Either way, I'm not one to rely too heavily on state or the democratic process, of which the protest scene is a part of, to enact change. 
 
Marches may express dissatisfaction, but if you want the news that you really need to know, it's that the state knows that we are dissatisfied and they, for the most part, do not care what a bunch of 20 something year old college students wish for, if at the end of the day they simply return to normalcy and starbucks.  
 
We need to rely less upon going through the state to achieve what we will, less on convincing the state and the masses through the democratic process, and more on simply starting the revolution in our own communities and own lives, regardless of what role the state plays. 
 
Why is it that every revolutionary seems to think we need the masses to start a revolution in our own lives? Form your own community initiatives. Form your own groups, your own cells, your own syndicates and unions. Hell, get the gangs involved. Do what do you have to do to build up your own lives and communities. Don't wait. If slaves exist in wage bondage, we need help now, not years down the road. We need a revolution, but we need to be the ones to fight it now as opposed to talk about it occurring at the infamous "later date". The academic language is pretty chill, but we've already heard it before. All that really matters at this point is what you are willing to do within your own rhetoric that you preach. 
 
A Treatise on becoming Self Sufficient 
 
Our grand American spirit of innovation seems gone. At this point "innovation: has become an empty word to the thick headed people of today, as they repeat the same troupes and stick within socially accepted boundaries in all things. You will not become anyone of any significance in this life (chances are anyways). As far as things go, we individuals from the 90's were raised with expectations that we would some day reach a stage of importance, of grandeur, and be admired members of society. It appears to be a great fairy tail of my generation, that someday we would all be people well known throughout the world, and that each individual would grow up to change and impact that same world.  
 
Fairy tails are not real, which is something we are slowly realizing in its entirety. We will not become rock stars, or revolutionaries, or Che Guevara, or anyone special. As far as things go we are a generation less than average. We were raised to believe that our lives would only hold value is lived adventurously or with grandeur in purpose (emanating the predominant "Disney" mythos of childhood), and when it does not, we become bitterly disappointed. We expect to live these "grand lives", yet have no idea how to achieve glory, other than pure luck. We are a generation raised not to fend for ourselves in our current lives, not to take direct action, but instead to rely on the luck of the Gods or a patron to lift us out of our mediocracy. We simply say, living every day in mediocracy, that my "actual" life has not begun (Humorous). The only ones with the power to make our lives great things are we, ourselves. In the myths, fables, and movies of our childhoods, we were not taught how to become great, only that we were great, and through example of our idols, some day we would get a lucky break from a record company, a politician in need, a revolution, or some other divine act negating the responsibility of our own destinies to someone other than us. We may or may not, as individuals, be lucky enough to be gifted with talents or a chance patron. To rely on the chance that grandeur will touch us, as opposed to our own intention and merit and to surrender all responsibility for our own fate, is fallacy.  
 
The economy is in shambles as I write this. Students are returning from university with degrees in biomedical engineering with no hopes of job prospects. As far as we were taught, if we went to university, got a degree, and proved to be intelligent enough, the world would open up to us and opportunity would simply present itself (how absurd, considering we are beings of action so long as we have a plan, yet rely on providence in the continuation of our plans at the end of university because we have no idea how to take control of our own lives outside of a school system). Within the economy, we seem to forget the notion that we are in constant competition not only with our peers, but with the world at large.  
 
Oh how the system is not fair, we may cry, oh how I am smarter than the others, we may think, yet for the most part, only the few gain any opportunity, and lest we become one of the few who truly stand out enough to deserve what little merit remains in this economy, we will never achieve our dreams, and our degrees, due to competition, become useless. 

 

Even greater than this, another specter looms over our lives post-education; the notion that our education system is fundamentally flawed in its adaptation to the world. Though we may compete, either fruitlessly or with reward with our peers, in the end, our education system has not adapted to modernity. In high school, the basic job we are trained for is a guarantee that we will be able to do the basic skills required of a factory worker or an individual in the service industry. While the service industry still exists, unless we can find axiological value within this sphere of the economy (which is increasingly dominating the job market) we will negate to find happiness within our own lives derived from the status we receive from our job. As for factory jobs, while our high schools, save for university or college, gear us towards achieving a position within the factory, the fact is, our economies have transitioned post industrial, with outsourcing to the third world thanks to neo-liberalism, and unless we plan on learning Spanish or Mandarin and moving across the world with these factory jobs, we are plain out of luck.  

 

Our economies are in a post-industrial quandary, where our only vision of a way to escape the mundane nature of working in the service industry, is in gaining a specialized job via a college or university degree. While this may be possible for some who succeed in the competition, again, it is not a viable route for the entirety of those competing, hence the "return to parents" after university. I lament, it seems a fate inevitable even with successful competition, as we are competing for jobs and positions which may not even be relevant or simply "there" within the global economy. Will I become a paleontologist? Perhaps I haven't thought this through entirely, as the demand for such a field, and may more, is either disappearing rapidly due to financial hardship, or is no longer relevant. As things stand we are a generation and a society damned by our failure to realize that our education system has simply not adapted to the modern economy; yet we still continue to train and hope for jobs which either do not exist, or are confined to the elite of merit.  

 

Take your fate into your own hands, in an act of atonement to regain the lost control over our own destinies. There is only one way forward in the 21st century, and simply put, it is not through relying on the specters of a long lost economic dream, the mechanisms of the education system, or a lucky patron. We need to relearn how to adapt to, and shape the economy in our favor, and our own place within that economy. Now, more than ever, we desperately require innovation, the one thing missing within our own lives and our own failure to grasp at our destinies. When the jobs disappear, except for those which we never dreamt we would partake in during our youth, what does one have to do to remedy this situation if they do not wish to accept working in the service industry or some other similar post-industrial field? What does one have to do to gain the power and control we so desperately desire over our own lives?  Unless one is strong in this modern world, and this market, it is easy and entirely feasible to be swept up in the depression of it all and simply accept that our lives will never be grandiose. If one wishes to elevate oneself in the economy, power is required; and if not, give up now.  In the end, all we are is what we make ourselves out to be. However, from this one, I lament that I seek to become grand, in a world where in order to do so, one must learn how to innovate. And so, the ideal for this coming generation, is to succeed against all odds, and to learn how to gain economic power within our own lives, to dictate our own means of production, and ultimately, to learn how to stand upon our own two feet and own merit in becoming self-sufficient, so that we can afford to not compromise on our ideals for sake of life (cause the romantic idealist who choose their own ideals over their own life is so cliché, in that in our case, its less between the option of life and death regardless of merit, and more a case of laxitivity in seeking out our own self-sufficiency when the olive branch is not presented). Though the struggle may be long, to struggle and to succeed on our own two feet is the only way forward, for lack of waiting for someone else to hand to us the keys to the world. Job types and fields of work are born, move, and die. We need to learn how to anticipate, and procreate the jobs which will die out, and to create new visionary ways of earning our keep not yet innovated within the global economy to a significant or even existent degree. It may not be in technology (though it is certainly a viable option if one follows the trend as it were), but it's gotta be somewhere, as opportunity, often, will not come a' knocking.  
 
The Need for a Domestic Economy 
 
Regardless of success within the market, all will be to no avail. Our economies and global economic practices are based on a form of capitalism which requires an integrated global system in order to allocate resources, as well as, for the Western market, the enforcement of Lockean property rights to generate profit.  

 

Our countries are rapidly transitioning towards a service based economy, and while it may seem stable currently, one thing we seem to forget is that all markets depend on the utilization of primary resources or the creation of a primary good, which may then enter the market to be sold and circulate through various sources to allocate value and create jobs. A service based economy capitalizes on the concept of services being generated to support the allocation or management of primary goods, or the generation and processing of primary goods within a market. While a service based industry may create work, ultimately, the creation of a service based industry requires preeminent access to primary resource, and the monopolization of primary resource to enable it to circulate within the market.  

 

Our economies, while they do have some elements of primary resource being harnessed and generated, by and large are characterized by peoples within the service industry, working to serve a country whose primary source of income is derived through the processing of primary goods, whether it be through farming, the allocation of raw materials, or the monopolization of "property" (rentiership) to generate an "income" through the concept of ownership of land, intellectual rights, or de facto profit and ownership of an economic entity such as a processing plant or factory. A service based economic system, again, requires an influx of raw materials and people generating profit from these raw materials prior to them being able to afford the luxuries of life, which is something we seem to take for granted. 

 

Suppose for an instance, that our domestic raw material industry fails to grow in a way which reflects a growing population? Suppose, vice versa, that we, as a people, fail to manage our resources properly and we inadequately support and commit ourselves to a luxurious economic system (ie a service based one) and ignore a primary economy? Even past this, if we rely on a globalist approach and importing primary goods, there are two fundamental problems; the notion that the exporting countries will continue to need our services and will have an excess of goods to export to afford our service based goods, and the notion that in order for this system to be appropriated, we need enforce the liberal concept of Lockean property rights and foreign ownership of property. In order for the globalist approach to work, markets outside of the domestic market will only require foreign services if their own service industry is not developed enough, and the concept of lockean property rights and rentiership must be enforced, even through might, if necessary. If this process of suppression of the service industry and enforcement of Lockean property rights fails within the globalist economy, then within our own domestic economies, if they are integrated, will suffer untold economic hardship, let alone collapse (if our own domestic production of primary goods is not adequate enough). 

 

The hegemony the West once benefitted from is diminishing in the 21st century, and as things stand, this seems irreconcilable. With the fall of our hegemony, and with our diminishing markets losing out to the rapid industrialization and progress of the economies of the third world, there will come a day when we no longer stand tall as the masters of a liberal economic system. When we lose our economic hegemony and our ability to benefit from the global market, should we not develop our own domestic economies, I shudder to imagine the fallout which will occur.  

 

The fact is that in order to ensure our continuing economic success, we as a people need to develop a domestic economy past the service sector. Certainly we can develop a more technologically advanced post-industrial, such as the process capitalized upon by several East Asian nations; but for lack of this, if we are to ensure domestic survival, we must strive to benefit off of the fringe of the global economy, while simultaneously ensuring our domestic needs are met to ensure that we can afford to have a service sector. If the people do not have the money or resource to afford services, what happens within any economy? Should our property diminish overseas, and should we ignore our own domestic resources, what happens then?  

 

I fear a situation in the future where our economies not only do not transfer post-industrial successfully, but where our economies fail to do anything to address a future economic order where we may not have easy access to global primary resources. This seems to be something largely ignored within politics and economics, with the hubris of imagining that we will always be the masters of global property. If we wish to have lawyers, doctors, manicurists, and other service jobs, which may even be necessary, do we not need to develop farmers, miners, foresters, and other primary jobs to ensure that these service jobs can actually generate a profit, let alone salary, from the people who require these services? Its amazing how you can forget about the necessities of life for a while when you have the luxuries, yet you need not forget, our priority should always be what we fundamentally need. The need to develop a domestic economy is at the forefront of this, and it seems illogical to embrace an assumption that we will always, fairly, remain at the top of a neo-liberal global economic system and be able to procure primary resource from international source, to generate a base income. If we do not have the ability to produce our own food, our own raw materials, and our own sources of power, and rely on importing these things through the money derived from services, what happens when the exporter regions of the world cannot comply with demand for whatever reason, or develop their own service sectors? Where will we be? Where will the researchers, teachers, lawyers, doctors, programmers, and politicians of the world be when there is no source of produce or raw material for them to procure with their money, or for the builders to utilize? The need to develop a domestic market, to save our economy in the face of a global economic shock or collapse is real, and the need to transition post-industrial successfully is both a political and economic issue which need be addressed in a manner not lax. Time is Running outA Brief  
 
On Community and the Individual 
 
Perhaps the greatest of false dichotomies lies in that of the apparently irreconcilable rift between the purpose of the individual and the community. As it lies, this "rift" permeates the ontology of all we experience, and guides the purpose behind our actions. We earnestly believe in a strong sense that, while an individual may work for their community, the justice of such an action would exist only if the separate rights of individuals and of communities remain distinct. 

 

The individual cannot live and seek to thrive without community, and vice versa, community cannot exist without the affirmation of her individuals. As it stands, to explain this sentence, one must understand that we, as individuals, do not exist in the conventional independent sense of "ex-nihilo". The individual is not created spontaneously from nothing, nor are we the product of our own mechanisms. Surely we may choose our own path in life, and have some small impact upon what impacts us; however, in turn, it can be said with certainty that the individual and modern person is the product of their community and how that same individual reacts to the collective knowledge and culture of said community. All we are, are simple manifestations of what has influenced us and how we react to those influences. We are extensions of the cultures we were raised in, unique, though forever indebted. To have been created with no influences of culture, of language, of society at large; is to have been created in a bestial state, where instead of being able to call upon the collective knowledge of humanity as a greater community, one is forced to develop out of a primal state based upon their own merit- something which seems highly impossible. 

 

The individual is therefore the product of the community and the entire collective efforts of humanity. We reflect the human experience, human knowledge, our ancestors genes, and the various cultures which have come and gone. Like rippling waves in a pond, we are mere continuations and manifestations of the community; albeit ones which may take on individual direction, but are forever indebted in our creation to the community. 

 

As such, the individual cannot come into existence without the community; or at least, not come into existence in any sort of way past a primal state of nature, where even language (if one is to examine extreme rare cases where children are deprived of social interaction) does not develop. In this sense, the individual becomes a lost entity as a concept; for the individual is simply the latest evolution of society and humanity at large, and simply takes what the community has manifested within himself to adopt it to an ever changing world. 

 

Is this the end of the dichotomy between individual and collective? No. A paradoxical analysis must be made focusing on the second part of the equation of humanity, the community. As it stands, the community and culture are the abstract and social bonds and traditions carried on throughout human society, which in turn manifest themselves within the individuals who are influenced in their method of seeing the world by them. Community and culture, to survive, must be an organic creation, ever ready to adapt to a changing world. As it stands, the origins of community lie in the socialization of early humans, and the practices, beliefs, languages, and methodology passed on to successive generations. Where does the value in community lie? In its self-preservation throughout the ages, and in its progressive nature in strengthening itself through the individuals it in turn begets knowledge to. The relationship between individual and community, in this sense, becomes symbiotic.  

 

As a function of replicating human knowledge and experience through the generations, community as a concept must be strong enough to last through the ages and to be able to adapt to both internal and external stimuli. The communitarian must, as such, never become married to the idea that community and culture exist to only preserve tradition for the sake of preserving tradition, but must come to understand that the prime function of community is to pass on the bulk of human civilization to the successive generation, to use as they will. The notion of community and culture is one of constant evolution, as each successive generation of individuals input their experiences and thoughts into this collective concept. The community cannot "progress" and adapt successfully to changing trends without the constant input of individuals; while individuals within community benefit from the ongoing collection of experiences from those long dead and those contemporary. 

 

Community and the individual, if one finds oneself on a quest for progress, are integral to supporting one another successively. As such, for one to be altruistic in one's life, one must see the benefits of community and a collective experience towards the goal of our survival as a species. Even past altruism, if one is to follow egotistical goals, community is both the prime creator of our identities and individual knowledge, as well as a reoccurring beacon of which we may gravitate towards, to utilize and benefit from the collective experiences of others who traverse a similar path. 

 

Within the West, a culture of individualism has surfaced which, in recent years, has become one of almost solipsistic indifference; one which seeks to sunder the individual from all aspects of community and to affirm that the individual owes nothing to others other than themselves. One must acknowledge, even in the face of this egotism, that a culture which descends to accepting this notion, that none should live for another, is a culture which nurtures individuals who will not in turn seek to nourish the community which gave birth to them, thus causing the further degradation of culture to that of the barbarian living solely in the mountains for their own needs, never to pass on what they know to society. If one wishes society to progress and a better individual to form within society strong enough to face the abyss and chaos of existence, the best bet lies in nurturing the community. 

 

We do well to remember our roots, to pay homage to the cultures which shaped us; the same way we do well to take what we learn as individuals, and impart our own knowledge to society, to help ensure that other individuals existing within society can learn from our adaptations to the various quandaries one may face. As such, the best way to ensure that society progresses is to bond the individual with the community; however, even within this, another notion must come into play. The notion that the individual should simply reflect what already exists within society and not deviate is a notion which threatens society itself, and its ability to adapt. If the individual lives in a way where the adaptation of new knowledge, skills, and methods of thinking is not only not accepted, but demonized, than society has little to no hope of progressing and adapting to changing circumstances, both internal and external. It is the individual's duty, if one wishes to aid the community, to not only not forget their ties to the community and how the community shaped them, but to also seek to better the community, even to the point of criticizing that which is already stature. The individual must never compromise their views for the sake of the community, but must instead seek to find a way to incorporate them in a way that the community can accept. Those who censor art and thought for the sake of the compliancy of the community, are fools to sensor art and thought, for the very purpose of these practices is not only evident in the celebration of things seen, but in the analysis of things to come, and the altering of minds to see things in new directions, to their own benefit. 

 

Within community, we exist as individuals and bring our own experiences, our own knowledge, and our own understandings to be interpreted by the community for its own benefit and better adaptation into a progressing modernity. We do well to never forget that we are little better than children without community, but community also does well to remember that its strength lies in the collective analysis of individuals and that in order to progress into the modern age and adapt to new understandings and situations as they emerge, must too acknowledge and incorporate the deviations and celebrations of individuals from all directions and allow the people to do with and learn from these individual's experiences as they will. We are all simply the product of how we react to our collective experiences manifesting themselves within our own lives and how we adapt to an ever changing existence, the same way our communities and culture are the manifestations of a collective influence of individual experiences and understandings. Without a sense of duty and comradery in common cause of life, the world becomes a very dismal place to hold a burden alone.  True greatness lies in the individual not only bringing up themselves, but of great individuals paternalistically bringing up the stature of society; and vice versa with a great society paternalistically bringing up the stature of her individuals. 
 
A Brief Comparison with Piracy 
 
A man who was once examining the Strasserites once made the claim that the Strasser brothers, chief architects of producerist fascism under the Third Reich, wished to recreate the so called "guild system" within modernity. If one examines their economic plans, which detail how a system of workplace collectives would, with assistance, from a corporatist state and become self-functioning economies in their own rights, then one can certainly see the commonalities with Strasserism and the guild system of old. 

 

As it stands, egoistic communism, in a sense, can be comparable similarly with that of the politics of pirates within the golden age of piracy. Egoistic communism emerges when like minded groups of individuals, in the form of unions of egoists, come together for common purpose, independent of moralistic qualms imposed upon society, to operate outside of society for their own aims. Power rules all; however, even with all individuals vying for power, a sort of democracy of the strongest emerges, with the mob and powerful individuals within the mob competing for control.  

 

Egoistic communism is thus more than relatable to the late theory of illegalism, of individuals banding together outside of the confines of society and state to, on their own merit, build up their own lifestyles as they see fit. It is a system where bands of like minded individuals, for their own self-interest, group together to preserve the self-interest of the collective, of the ship, and of the system they would see remain in place. To achieve great goals, to wage war against society and state, and to see revolutionary dreams come true, the egoist embraces an illegalistic lifestyle.  

 

If a union of egoists is to be seen in a similar way to the code of piracy in modernity, then the egoists become pirates, and the ship which binds them all together, which guarantees their ability to practice their own egoistic lifestyle, is that of a system defended by all crew-members for their mutual self-interest. From this, a system of Marxist economics emerges, formed through a basis of egoists joining hands to split the spoils of their labor equally, and a system of direct political participation emerges, in the egoist choosing what cause to follow, who to follow if at all, and ultimately, if need be and through group consensus, what battles to wage. 

 

To bring such a system back to modernity is perhaps one of the greatest crusades possible for the egoists. To bring the freedom of the outsider back to the forefront of society, as it reappears throughout history in various forms, is simply the next step in political revolution upheld by the egoists throughout history.  
 
On Heroes 
 
What can the individual do in this age, if the individual realizes the non-permanent nature of existence and ever present metaphysical level of discord within society and the universe? All things rise, and all things fall. Discord and harmony sprout in an eternal reoccurrence throughout the human experience. As such, is there any true goal that humanity should aspire to achieve? 

 

We have embraced a mode of ethics and politics from the age of enlightenment which holds that a "perfect" system of governance for the masses is possible, and for lack of utopia, that we can create a permanent mode of society for the majority of her people. As it stands, within Manifesto of a 21st Century Anarchist, I examined the issue of justice as it appears within mass government, and concluded that a sense of just governance, in respect to autonomy, is paradoxically contradictory as discord arises. 

 

As such, is our mode of thinking, in attempting to achieve a utopian system, or permanent political system for our people wrong? No; however, it is, in the end as all things are, a futile endeavor in the face of the emergence of discord in all systems, which we seem to ignore. 

 

We have geared the methodology of our mind to seek out our goals in consequentialist ways, and to gear our political systems to consequentialist ends. We seek utility, and the greatest system for the majority, for as long as time stands. I say to you, is this the way that we, as a society, should have embraced politics? If, in the end, the non-permanence of things is to be accepted, does that not make all consequentialist goals ultimately fruitless? Perhaps they may be seen as simply relative goals, to achieve utility for a certain period; however, if this is the case, and a utilitarian approach is befit with "evil" for the greater good at various moments,  is one not entitled to seek out a more humane approach to politics at the relative moment where an evil must be done for the temporary greater good? 

 

Perhaps the greatest examination of consequentialist politics emerges in the texts of Dostoyevsky and his book Demons, in which he examines how a new kind of revolutionary, a consequentialist revolutionary, is to emerge within modernity- who abandons the morality of the moment and of the individual for the utility of the future, only to realize that, through the process of trying to achieve utility in a later goal, he has betrayed the moral reasons for which he wished for utopia in the first place. If the world is to be one where evils are committed for later non-permanent utility, does that not beget that evils will eternally be committed throughout existence for an ephemeral greater good? 

 

What is one to do in this age of utility? I propose again that one must follow the cryptic example of Dostoyevsky. Dostoyevsky heralds the coming of consequentialists "possessed" by their will to alter the world in a utilitarian way, who in turn forget the moral indignations which caused them to seek to change the world in the first place. Counter to this, Dostoyevsky celebrates an adversary to this approach to life; that is to say the hero who remains deontological to morality in the moment, as opposed to the here-after.  

 

In the face of non-permanence and discord, it is to the hero that we, as individuals and as a people, should find solace within. We may never be able to create ideal worlds to live in, for the nature of discord eats away at all systems in eventuality; however, though we may not be able to create ideal worlds, we can still live ideal lives till the day of our end. Is it not nobler to fight for an ideal, when victory is uncertain or impossible, for sake of that ideal holding value within our own lives? If one only fights for something when victory is certain, and when an end is in sight, is one truly courageous in their persistence towards the good?  

 

The hero is not one who sees a discernable goal in the future and commits their being towards something with a clear end; to be sure it is to still be admired, yet it lacks in other qualities one may deem truly "heroic". The hero is ultimately the one who perseveres in their quest for truth and to live an ideal life at all times, who tirelessly fights to make the world as they exist more ideal in all moments of their life, for it will not be permanent and all we fight for will die in the end. The hero is the individual who fights and rebels against the madness of non-permanence, who, in a Sisyphean task, continues their fight to be ideal in a world of discord day after day, with no reward or end to their quest in sight. Is it more heroic to engage in never-ending battle to remain virtuous in every moment of life, without hope of reprise; or is it more heroic to become bitter at the realization that the world is full of non-permanence, and even more cynically pursue a consequentialist goal abandoning everyday virtue or simply negate oneself towards living in any sort of ethics? 

 

The hero is the being who looks in the face of uncertainty and ruin, and charges forward, never forgetting the ideals which brought them to where they are in even a single moment. As it stands, the hero is the being who will not allow their values to fall this day, if indeed they must fall someday. The hero may not be able to build a permanent utopia, and to obsess over this goal leads to a possession which negates the force of life itself. Those who are possessed by consequentialist goals abandon the realm as it is, and the individual as they are in any given moment, and commit to the abstract, to utopia, to heaven, and ultimately to an unreachable goal which begets a negation of reality as it is. The possessed consequentialist is one who rejects life now, for life in the here-after, in essence becoming not a savior of humanity, but an escapist from reality willing to abandon the force of life within their virtue in their daily lives for the sake of a non-existent future. We may not be able to build utopia through extraordinary systems, but extraordinary actions are still possible of people. We, as a people and as individuals, must not become possessed by ideas which negate the waking life, but instead must seek to make our existence a better place through our actions and virtues now, as opposed to tomorrow. An age of the hero, as opposed to an age of the possessed, must be achieved; and the realm of virtue in everyday life and on the merit of the individual who is capable of extraordinary deed and fortitude of virtue must be embraced again. Permanence is an impossible idea, yet the need for heroes in this existence to find strength in day to day living is an ever greater need; for the true victory is not to learn to continue living for an "ideal" tomorrow, but to continue to struggle in virtue within a dystopian today. A disaster of politics emerges from individuals failure to perceive reality as it is, instead to seek out the fantasies which may never be. It is not one who relies on the promise of a better fantasy, nor the strength of others who holds the power of true grit; but the one who can take the punishment in the face of all uncertainty, alone if necessary, for the sake of what one's virtue at any moment. If one is to have prestige or true strength, it emerges from a willingness to defend what one holds dear. 

 

What is to be said of this new man? The new man realizes the value of virtue within their own life, however that virtue is formed post-nihilo, and seeks out to live in accordance with the force of life, as opposed to the force of death. The new man embraces life as it is and all its everyday challenges. The new man does not become bitter once they realize the impossibility of utopia, the non-permanence of justice, and the in-proportionate discordian nature of things; but accepts reality and life as it is with a smile, and embraces the challenges presented to the individual in preserving their virtue throughout their life even with the end in sight. The new man is the one to conquer the last man, as Nietzsche once put it, who is not empowered by dreams of fantasy or delusions of grandeur, but instead revels in reality as it is and can earnestly live freely without worry of the future to come, for the force of life exists within the present. The free spirit of humanity, willing to embrace a life full of constant challenges and to celebrate the victory of life against continuing challenges must emerge once more, for is it not the greatest of hubris to imagine the possibility of superimposing upon the world an existence without challenge to our virtue? If left unchallenged, can we truly say that our virtue is something we hold dear? I say unto you, it is not through rejecting life because it is difficult or unfair that we achieve a better man, for to do so invites a bitterness which will never dissipate in the face of an eternally discordian universe; but that it is through the acceptance of a difficult life and the perseverance and earnest happiness of seeing it through true to oneself, to the point that one dies with a smile and at the apex of surviving challenge after challenge, that one measures true merit, true grit, and true heroism. We climb mountains not because the end is within sight, not for any great philosophical meaning, not for any consequentialist goal of utopia; but because we can, because it is a challenge, and because we wish to truly live and to see how far the force of life can take us as individuals. There may not be any great philosophical reason for living life, the same way there may not be any great philosophical reason for climbing mountains, yet we still trudge on, to enter the fray day after day to say at the end of our days that we gave things our best shot, and gave ourselves every opportunity to be proud of our actions and attempts day in and day out. If there is to be a new-man of this age, who can face the realization that all will come to an end and that no political system will last, let it be a new man not possessed by a fervor which denies life, but a man capable of making his own life extraordinary in every waking moment; for utopia exists in the hero of the moment in the face of a surrounding adversity of existence, as opposed to the fantasy of tomorrow which seeks to negate the struggle and render the world an untested place for true grit and true virtue. The strength of man lies in such grit, and the ultimate test of faith in mankind is the faith that our grit can take the punishment of reality as it is, for holding on to our virtue amid suffering speaks of a true driving virtue.  

 

Life won't be easy, but the Kingdom of Heaven is within you as opposed to anywhere else, so to speak.  
 
On the Anarchist as Hero 
 
Let me begin this brief section with  an acknowledgement that I still believe anarchism to be a possible form of organization for mass society, and that I indeed still acknowledge it as the ideal form of organization based upon a concept of "justice" in a sense relative to Rawl's popular "Theory of Justice". As far as all forms of organization go, anarchism has just as much right as any other to exist, as much chance as success, and ultimately is the closest to a utopia for each individual within the system as I can find. Saying that, it is subject to the same flaws as any system of governance or organization, the flaw of humanity. By this, I am referring to the concept of discord as it emerges continuously in the human experience, and the way in which individualism has a keen way of forming instances where compromise between a people is not possible (ie perhaps one who wishes to kill, and one who does not wish to die and not kill combat each other, resulting in one individual's wishes being overrode regardless of the results of the confrontation). As self-interest is a subjective concept dependent upon what the individual values, not even rationale can reconcile this breach in discord, for not all individual's self-interest may lie in the same self-preservation which most take for granted. As a result, I fear the issue of discord and subjectivity lie at the heart of humanity, and threaten any system; either in its foundations for success, or in its practice of justice in granting a choice of how to live for all individuals.  

 

Perhaps there are ways to mediate discord, through heavy indoctrination into a cult of societal standards, the usage of ideology, or the dominance of a culture; these ways may be indeed successful, yet it is not to the "brainwashing" of more "wise" individuals that I believe lies justice, but in the full experience of humanity- which includes individuals finding their own paths in life, exploring all possibilities, and entertaining all sorts of thoughts which reflect and embrace their own will to live and explore themselves in this endeavor, as opposed to simply becoming mindless cogs within the machine.  

 

What is to be done then, for anarchism to succeed? All systems will, in their essence, have to deal with the concept of discord in their own way; and discord, non-permanence, and fortuna will all have their role to play in the undoing of any system, be it one of the mind or one of politics. Perhaps some systems will have more success in stamping out discord, individualism, and the ability of peoples to think and deviate from the norms of society. Should such a path be taken however, I fear for societies ability to adapt, and the stagnation of society as a whole through remaining in a state of stasis in practice and approach to life. 

 

Anarchism will, if it holds true to individualism and holding true to a justice where all individuals may find their own path in life, encounter discord among individuals. As explained within Manifesto of a 21st Anarchist, it appears that, as discord may be inevitable among subjective individuals of radically different practices, that an eternal reoccurrence of battles between individuals of differing ethos, ethics, moralities, etc will naturally occur. What can be done in the face of this, and is it something to truly embrace? A never ending battle between good and evil, with no respite, all for the concept that a just system may endure? Should the anarchist die for a system non-utopian, for a crusade with no end in sight, and a struggle that will test themselves and the movement they believe in for all eternity? 

 

I come to you now, not as a utopian "possessed" by a fervor to abandon all one believes in to achieve a perfect society at a later date, in consequentialist manner, but instead, as a tragic figure convinced in the need of heroes for an even more tragically just crusade. What the world needs more than ever, and will eternally need, are not those "possessed" by a fervor to struggle for a foreseeable goal, who are willing to abandon their humanity, abandon life, and divorce themselves from reality and society; but instead there is a need for those who can embrace life as it is, embrace reality and society, and are possessed by a will to life, and the strength to see it through. What the world needs is not those without the strength to endure forever in Sisyphean task, but those who are able to embrace an eternal struggle for what they believe in, with no respite in sight. Is it not true strength, true fidelity, and true idealism, to struggle for a permanence of ethic in one's life, regardless of goals, circumstances, or the state of the world? What we need, more than ever, are individuals self-assured who emanate and inspire the people to believe in themselves, and hold fast to in strength to foresee whatever it is they believe in, even in Sisyphean state of being.  

 

What we need, is the birth of a "heroic anarchist", and of men and women who uphold the ideals of justice and anarchism within their own lives, who have the strength to do so in the face of great uncertainty, and who, with great reverence, are able to see this endless quest through while not negating themselves from living and life, but through an embrace of life. As a whole, what is indeed needed is the birth of a new soul, one who finds the joys and sorrows of life wholesome, and who can maintain their ideals and lifestyles in peerless non-abaddon.  

 

The task may seem dauntless, but rather than submit into a rejection towards  the impossibility of the task, or a denial of all that is good in life, is it not better to not lay down and die, but more noble to life out your ideals as long as one can, as hard as one can, and in utter embrace of a life and its challenges as they unfold in front of you? To the noble human spirit I profess, that if it is not human to seek out challenges to conquer, for the sake of confirming that one's ideals were worth fighting for, is not the greatest challenge the tireless, endless, but august task of holding a vigil of ideals in the face of the ever encompassing abyss? To hold a candle up to darkness, is the ultimate task of the individual, and I can think of no greater metaphor for the task of the anarchist in the face of darkness and an eternal struggle of ideals, than this of heroic quality.  
 
The Solipsist  
 
What is solipsism? The Concept that the soul of the individual is the only soul in existence, and that, as such, all is simply an illusion. To embrace solipsism in its metaphysical sense appears at first to beget an affirmation of the "outside" universe as irrelevant, and as such justifies the negation of any concept of altruism or care for anything outside of the individual meaningless in the face of the individual's consciousness. A question must be asked. If I can only experience my own consciousness, then why does what exists outside of it matter, and does it even exist? 

 

This concept of solipsism seems from first gaze to fit perfectly within egoism, as it reaffirms that the ego is the supreme creative being within existence, and is in fact the only facet of reality truly there. As such, solipsism has in the past been used as a justification for egoism. The rationale goes along the lines of "I only know my mind and know not what existence out of my consciousness equates to, therefore the question of why I should care for things outside of my ego becomes an existential quandary with no rational aim to care for what exists outside of my consciousness". 

 

I bear contention with this "metaphysical solipsism" however. Egoism, as a philosophy, relies heavily upon the concept of rationalism. Though we may only know our own mind and no other being's consciousness, does that negate reality and confirm that it is an illusion? Nay. At best, it creates a puzzle of reality, a form of metaphysical agnosticism. We know not if the "external" world is a reality independent of our own mind, let alone what our mind and consciousness truly equates.  

 

What the egoist must embrace, is a sort of epistemological solipsism. The egoist knows their own consciousness, or so we perceive. However, the realm outside of the ego, and the consciousness, still remains a mystery, a possible illusion, a possible reality, and a puzzle as a whole. Logically, one cannot truly know the universe from the perception of our consciousness alone, for our consciousness may only look at "reality" from a lens. 

 

The egoist should seek refuse in the ego, in what they know, and in their personhood within a solipsistic viewpoint. However, should the egoist negate the world, and negate what they may not know? Should they believe what does not exist out of their own consciousness to be non-existent and full of no meaning but what the egoist gives it? Meaning may be subjective within out own conscious interpretation of the term; however, does that necessarily reflect the universe metaphysically, if the universe's metaphysics operate beyond our own logic and comprehension? 

 

The goal of the egoist should be to know themselves; however, an exploration of the universe and the possibility of existence outside of the ego and within the egoist's environment should also be undertaken. The ego is the perceived center of the individual, but this does not necessarily negate the universe outside of the ego as non-existent or even unimportant. Though the universe may become an unresolvable question in how it relates and possibly operates independently of the ego, its simple possibility of existence leads to the concept that perhaps, due to the power of existence, there is more for the egoist to take in existence than just that which exists in their mind and personhood. If it was ever implied that the egoist negate reality, perhaps it is time to do away with that notion, and instead embrace an individual who finds refugee within their mind and sole-being, but wonder and purpose within an ever chaotic universe which may exist outside of the mind and moment we breath. We should accept that the source of our purpose emerges from our ego, from what is knowable and what dictates our subjectives. We must also accept, however, the possibility of forces and meanings beyond our own, at work within the universe, and through this the possibility that perhaps the ego as we understand it is not the supreme driving force for all existence within this perceived universe we inhabit.  
 

 

"War and Chaos" 

 

(An essay on the metaphysics of the over soul in affirming life, amidst the indifference of the universe and the ultimate personification of that indifference, war) 
 
What is the ultimate example of life in tune with the universe? Quite simply, war and strife. The universe is at war with itself in every instance, which is to say that the universe is categorized by seemingly contradictory chaos and paradoxes, feeding into itself in ever expanding manner. If the universe is one of chaos, and chaos is personified within war, surly life within a state of war is another personification of the great struggle of the individual within the throes of that same universe? Within war an individual begins to see reality as it is without ephemeral graces, as unjust. The absurdities, grandeur, and despairs which encompass life fully are more understandable and, according to our perceptions, more encompassing of war. Within war, we as individuals fully grasp at our own mortality and we struggle, aimlessly amidst the chaos which ever permeates life as a whole. Within war, we, as individuals are tested to the full of our merit as we are thrown about this chaos, our adaptability to ever changing situations and acceptance that things are out of our hands ultimately in the greater scheme our greatest assets. War is an affirmation of an individual's place in an indifferent universe, regardless of how the individual wishes to react. It is an existence of men wailing in the background of a story badly told, struggling in a Sisyphean task to make sense of their position when they are so close to the fall. War is full of men attempting to escape the "horror" of what they see as injustice, yet this is impossible, as war only brings our perceptions of a universe not guided by rationally objective purpose to its fruition. We bathe in the need for purpose within our everyday waking lives, yet unconsciously we know, but do not wish to admit, that the chaos and indifference of war is more in tune with how the universe operates than any other force we can comprehend. War is chaos personified in a way that the individual cannot ignore, and that is what makes it so powerful within enlightenment and allowing an individual the grace to understand their minute position in all things and that, that position, could instantaneously be wrought out of existence. 

 

The individual who understands and can embrace war, is the ideal individual to survive the abyss of nihilism; the abyss, of course, being an epiphany whereas that same individual comes to understand the impermanence and axiological destruction of values, order, and purpose they once believed to objectively guide action and their own fate within the universe. As Nietzsche claims, the only truth is untruth, and as far as we can perceive rationally, the only universal forces at work are those that we would deem, by our own standards, as not seeking justice. Chaos and Order are both illusions if one is given the chance to fully comprehend them, with "chaos", by our popular terminology, being the closest way to describe the "paths" of the universe. If chaos is actions taken not in congruency with each other, or actions against an objective purpose which appear conflictual, then is everything not chaos if there can be no objective truth to be found, and the universe is full of seemingly conflicting actions relative to the purpose we assign to them?  

 

The individual to survive this abyss is one who can embrace chaos and indifference, one who can embrace finding purpose within the seemingly irrational flows of the universe, and one who will not be broken by dreams of "how reality should cater to us", but instead one who embraces dreams of "how one can find their own subjective purpose within the universe as it already is". By this, the bitter notion of one who rejects the universe because it is not their standard of beauty and justice disappears, for the quest for universal truth is one impossible by human standards and inevitably leads to destruction. The one who embraces reality and life as they see it, lamenting not on notions of "justice" and "injustice" is the true successor of the universe, and the true scion of the new age. The one who can find life amidst chaos and untruth is the one who can find the strength to continue in this non-permanent world; as opposed to the one who can only find life in their escapist quest for justice. As paradoxically as it sounds, the only truth of things appears to be untruth, and the only path for humanity is one which acknowledges a reality guided by nothing. 

 

This new individual, who embraces a life of chaos and a life without permanence, reflective of their will to adapt to the seeming mechanisms of the universe by our perception, is the closest thing to divinity we would see within our world, and perhaps the closest thing achievable to the "over soul"; or one who does not despair in looking into the face of the abyss, but willingly ventures into it and is able to traverse it. In a modernity categorized by a rapid lifestyle, nihilistic values, and an axiological holocaust of sorts as we as a people begin to become dissatisfied with the "truths" of the universe we so ideologically believed in once, to find a path to affirm life as it is within chaos, and not as we wish it to be, appears to be the only way to guarantee not only survival, but the ability to thrive as a species within the abyss.  
 
Blasphemy! Or the State and the Egoist (Continued) 

 

There are always justifications for various political systems, for what guides people is entirely subjective to the individual, and various systems of state and organization cater to those same subjectives. What is self-interest for one individual, may seem like horror to others, and should the individual realize the subjective nature of things, who is there to criticize them for finding refuse in a system of politics alien to one's own? Indeed, as there are many different people, there are numerous political systems which reflect the people they seek to organize. 

 

For the anarchist, the state is enemy, in seeking to usurp their will and supersede their individual self-interest with the interest of those in control of the state and the collective. The anarchist who seeks their own self-mastery need not look to the state; however, what of the person who requires guidance and leadership to realize their self-interest best? While all individuals have the potential to self-mastery and realizing their self-interest on their own account, not all are ready for the process. And so, with regards to that and as a devil's advocate, within a sphere of pluralistic politics, the proposition of a "state" emerges. 

 

What will this "State" be? The only justification for leadership and a state is that of paternalism, and the only form of paternalism acceptable is that of a paternalist who, once their role is over or is unneeded, surrenders power or faces the wrath of a collective of individuals who come together in mutual self-interest against tyranny. The "state", if it has a purpose, is created with a social contract concentrated on transitioning individuals to a state of anarchism, and guiding those not ready following the justification of leading to better realize the self-interest of those who seek the state's aid. 

 

Should the state seek to usurp it's role as benefactor to those in need of guidance, what is to be done?  

 

The power behind a state always rests in those who, through their own will, enable the state to continue in its functions and aid those at the top of statecraft in realizing their ambitions. 

 

Should the state become tyrannical in nature, an educated people is required to realize it is in the self-interest of them, and all others, to only support a leader who can allow them to realize their self-interest in a most efficient way. A basic guarantee in thinking is required in society, that for a state to survive it must forever hold up the social contract that all individuals should rationally live life to further their self-interest, and as the term is subjective, an individual should always seek the best path to realize their self-interest, in or outside of the state. 

 

Should the social contract of self-interest be superseded in any way, the egoists and people need rise up against tyranny in a union, and through their mutual self-interest in preserving the bargain of social contract, oppose any and all who would seek to usurp the ego. 

 

Should a state be formed on any basis in egoistic-communism, let it be known that should the state usurp the will of the egoist, it is more than "justified" and in fact implied that the egoist should do everything in their self-interest to oppose the usurper, and to set a brutal deterrence against any usurpation. Destroy that which would seek to supersede it's will over yours, and let it be a testament to existence. Let it be known, that the power of the state is perhaps the most dangerous power present to the freedom and the egoist. Should a state ever be justified, let it be built upon the model of the ancients, and let its power be fleeting. should power seek to be consolidated, unite and viciously destroy the usurper. Let power not remain for long in the hands of the state, should the people become complicit. Exercise control of the system, to attempt to keep its power in check. Have the position of leader remain one only temporary, with the Sword of Damocles ever justly hovering above the throne of power. Always fight to negate the existence of state, but also know that a state's true power emerges in the weak, those without the will to self-mastery, and those easily led astray by the charismatic. Know that the fight against state and the preservation of a paternalist one, if it is to ever be justified, relies in both opposing tyranny and furthering the education of other's to ensure that when the time comes, they too have a sense of civic duty in opposing the tyrannical.  

 

While the state may not necessarily be an evil, and may be justified in some instances, in effect it is an unwanted development. What is wanted is an educated populace, an egoist populace, and a populace fully integrated in a system of self-mastery. Should a state ever be embraced, in a pluralistic system, there are two things to remember. All must do their part to oppose tyranny and the usurpation of power through the collective consolidation of the weak through power, and all must support the education of the masses to ensure that they do not become complicit in the state, understand the nature of paternalistic justification, know to fight the state when it does not live up to paternalistic standards, and understand the justice of self-interest (best realized with or without state) for all. 

 

If a state of egoistic-communism is to be created, let it be done with these principals in mind alone.