Anarchy Begins At Home, So It’s Not a Suicide Pact: Integrations on Preemptive Violence


I guess this is the day for blogging about comments. Those “ten followers” are really putting in overtime. Multiple accounts & all.

Here’s Sean II, which I take to mean he has at least two accounts, so as to help me look more important than I really am.


I’m still perplexed by the ambition of non-violence. In nature there are storms and there are calm seas.

In the case of MLK and Mahatma Gandhi I see two different reasons non-violence worked. In the US you had one side of the equation already accepting that violence is not the answer so the civil rights movement was not gunned down. In India, there were just too many people to mow down.

We have examples in history of populations that have been disseminated through force either by choice or by lacking the technology to overcome their opponents.

I agree with much of your philosophy but I keep getting stuck on this Vulcan fantasy. We are human and we will get violent when resources are stake.

There is an interesting take on Bonobos vs Chimps. Bonobos live in an environment where food is abundant and therefore strength plays a small part in securing food. Their society is run by the women. Chimps live where you have to work hard for your food and hence the stronger men run the society.

Technology has basically guaranteed food is on the table of every family without they having any idea of how it got there. Are humans in developed societies becoming more Bonobo like? If so, what happens when a Chimp thinking society spots that as a weakness.

When an Arab ship was lashed ashore in a storm in India, the crew got help from the locals to get back home and was able to report that India had no navy or fighting army to talk of. They came back in fleets and the rest was history.

Besides the reliance on high IQ to maintain peaceful anarchy, what do you see as the check valve for violence on a global scale?

I have another, far more detailed post in draft about some other nuances of Anarchy, but this is specific enough that I think I can pop something off in short order as a sort of mind-un-fuck. I’m specifically going to address his last sentence.

Sean II is doing exactly what all of you are supposed to be doing. Rather than just assume I’m a lunatic because I say things diametrically opposed to what Kanye West, the Kardashians, Leonardo DiCaprio, Harrison Ford and other entertainers are spewing forth (politicians, too: entertainers, just less popular), he actually puts his brain in gear and politely asks that I explain myself to further his understanding of what I’m attempting to get across.

Do I care whether he ultimately rejects it, or not? Not really. This is why I have my “revolving door blog.”

The essential problem is that most Anarchists write on the topic as though it’s some alternative political system that’s imposed, until such time as everyone is conditioned to be non-violent. Communism a-la Marx actually had many of these elements (with forced altruism as impetus), and we see how that went.

In the American libertarian-ish version of Anarchy, virtually every geopolitical problem is explained away as a consequence of American or Western intervention over long history “dot connecting,” particularly in the Middle East. The anarcho-libertarians are now bordering on overt pacifism, they’re so intransigent in their notions that if we just stopped intervening in international affairs, 7th Century Dirt Scratching Savage Rapists of goats and women who vow to kill you over your beliefs and thought would just leave us alone.

La-la land, which has become tantamount to a suicide pact over the ideology of non-intervention and non-initiation-of-force principles.

Fortunately, the recent revelations of ISIS intent (see here) should sign their death warrant. I’ll explain.

Let’s take American declaratory independence, constitutional encoding, and jurisprudence—under the umbrella of a monopoly state. It contains important, material elements of a suicide pact. If someone comes to your property and issues a threat of death or severe harm that’s credible, but not explicitly prescient—like a gun pointed at you, bomb in hand, or vile of poison—your legal obligation is to go no further than to report it to the “authorities.”

The other side of Golden-Rule Anarchy is Don’t Tread on Me Anarchy.

Any good anarchist, without a State that would prosecute him for murder, would immediately kill that person (or pay a professional to do so) if he could. I would, and I’d throw a party later so people could stand and toast me for acting in the highest traditions of gentlemanly manliness.

You need not wait around for someone to actually do it. That’s a suicide pact. And this is the very nitty gritty about what’s immoral about all states—even modern, benevolent democracies.

In the case where we have a state wrapped in a culture that we generally enjoy and make vast contributions, both voluntary and coerced to maintain, that state is the only practical means we have at our disposal to preemptively kill people who have explicitly stated they mean to do us harm when we have not been explicitly involved in any harm against them.

Carpet bombing every square inch of ISIS territory—women and children social support and indoctrination factory too—is the most anarchist thing to do in the entire world right now, even if it takes a state to get it done. It needs to be done, almost certainly will have to be done, and best to do it now, while the territory is still relatively small. We’re dealing with another state now, one that collects taxes, pays its fighters, has the moral and material support of women, and a baby factory and indoctrination centers for new fighters. And it recruits worldwide.

To make it clear: it is time that anyone issuing support or intention to do “jihad” be killed on sight, no matter where in the world, including a new mother blabbing on Facebook. There ought be no questions, no discussion, but instant death. This is anarchism, even if agents of a state carry it out because you can’t without having your own life ruined.

Anarchists need to stop their forever focus on The Golden Rule. It’s only half the equation. The other half is Don’t You Fucking Tread on Me! To leave off that essential part is to render most Anarchists I see, now, as a bunch of pussy pacifists. If people began killing people instantly who tread upon others because of spurious notions of what “free speech” is, you’d start magically seeing a lot more golden-rule behavior. People might actually start becoming polite and pleasant, and exercise extreme caution in ever issuing anything that could be reasonably construed as a credible threat verbally or in writing, to do explicit harm.

Does that address your comment, Sean II?

Since Covid killed my Cabo San Lucas vacation-rental business in 2021, this is my day job. I can't do it without you. Memberships are $10 monthly, $20 quarterly, or $65 annually. Two premium coffees per month. Every membership helps finance this work I do, and if you like what I do, please chip in. No grandiose pitches.


  1. Lilana on December 16, 2015 at 12:47

    This is merely the same justification for PC-silencing of “micro-agressions”, writ large. How can you have a problem with say, a celebrity or politician saying something that makes someone feel “unsafe” and their subsequent lambasting by the liberal media into apologetic submission, yet be perfectly fine with the more violent version? Someone says something physically threatening, and they’re instantly killed? So is that where you draw the line, then–somewhere between micro-aggression and macro-aggression? Killing someone under those circumstances is just “PC-shaming for conservatives”–upping the ante of intolerance and reactionary violence that’s almost indistinguishable from the methods and ideology of those “dirt-scratching savages” you so often decry. So how does having this zero-tolerance response make us any better or more civilized than they are? Is it merely because our supposed motive behind that response is “to preserve life” when their identical actions are in service of “promoting death”? Seems like a fairly minor distinction when you get the same result either way–death, destruction, families torn apart, homes in ruins, children traumatized for life. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

    • John on December 16, 2015 at 13:25

      “‘Where are you’ from is a microaggression and I’ll kill you, racist!” Not reasonable.

      “Enter my property and say ‘I will kill you’ and I will kill you first.” Reasonable.

      We may be “better” and “more civilized” by seeking to preserve culture that holds up the “better” ideals. As in, if our culture embraces equality and freedom for all who embrace those ideals, and your culture demands subjugation of women, death to homosexuals, and murder of all who won’t bend the knee, the distinction in “promoting death” is to preserve the culture that promotes life.

      You ask “how does having this zero-tolerance response make us any better or more civilized than they are?” Its the ideals we seek to protect that make us more civilized, not the actions we take in protecting them – though willingness to defend our ideals is crucial to making us more civilized, too.

    • Richard Nikoley on December 16, 2015 at 15:47

      “Someone says something physically threatening, and they’re instantly killed?”

      I saw what you did there.

    • Richard Nikoley on December 17, 2015 at 09:40


      First, your comment is a complete mess. Even hard to know where to begin. Essentially, you got this silly idea that all this “microagression” (a contradiction in terms, BTW) is somehow alalagous to what I said and rather than do what a truly smart person does once they begin writing it out and developping it, you didn’t delete it and move on (something I do quite often).

      Nope, you round holed that square peg.

      Beyond the fact that you are mischaracterizing my argument to fit your narrative (these aren’t just any threats, but CREDIBLE threats to life or means of survival and well being), you are missing a critical aspect.

      Under the state, we have no choice but to let authorities handle such threats no matter how credible, lest we become outlaws ourselves.

      But in anarchy, you have to decide, and you have to take your chances. Should you preemptively kill someone over a credible threat, then it would be very prudent to have clear and convincing evidence that you were justified, lest not only the family of your victim comes after you, but society in general. After all, who wants a lose cannon around that might kill them over a misspoken word?

      Don’t you see? Anarchy is for very smart people. They get frustrated when they clearly understand how much better of a job they could do managing their own values than all the lowest common denominators of earth put all together.

      • Lilana on December 18, 2015 at 09:04

        Perhaps it was unwise of me to try and even engage you on this very superficial plane on which you are operating—I should’ve just gone deeper to begin with. After all, it doesn’t matter how many times the puppets hit each other or why…what matters is the motive behind the hands inside them. So here’s the nuance under my comment that you failed to grasp:

        Yes, the degree of those two threatening situations, so-called “micro-aggressions” (which I personally think are complete BS) and credible violent threats is very different, and due to that degree, merit very different responses.

        The key thing they have in common, however, is that they are ultimately just being used as tools of control and are not the real issue: both situations force the citizenry into the hegelian dialectic that the establishment wishes to put forth and obtain a manufactured consensus on that will be in its own interests. You are succumbing to one of two predetermined choices, with no room left for free thought. In the liberal sphere, it is “admit that what you said/did was outdated, ignorant and racist, and fall into line” or “deny it and be blacklisted forever”, both of which achieve the same conclusion of silencing the offending person. In the conservative sphere, it is as simple as Dubya once put it regarding the terrorist threat: “you’re either with us or against us”. Essentially, be on our side or we’ll kill you.

        In short, it obfuscates a highly nuanced, gray area-riddled issue and turns into a black-and-white good vs. evil debate, and demands you choose a side without further consideration lest you get lumped in with the ‘evil’ yourself and are subsequently targeted.

        Based on the rigorousness of all your previous scientific inquiry re: diet, frankly I’ve been very surprised that you came so easily to this conclusion that paints massive swaths of people with the same negative brush and demands their extinction, without ever thinking about WHY you are being forced to consider this situation in the first place.

        I will make it easy for you and give you the answer: you are being made to play right into the hands of the war machine and the economic interest it protects. Unlike all the bootlickers in this comment thread going “here, here!” at you, I’m actually going to challenge your notions and help you think critically again.

        Read this, for starters, it’s long but I think you’ll be able to manage it:

        The fourth paragraph under the section entitled “Effects of foreign meddling outweigh self-determination” is exactly the trap you have let your high-IQ self fall right into, which is super great (SARCASM) for the powers that be, considering the large pulpit from which you’ve been preaching your “conclusion”. The threat of Islamic terrorism and ISIS in particular is so negligible in this situation as to be a red herring, a bogeyman engineered (in part by the US itself!—Google it) to garner popular support for this nefarious enterprise that has nothing to do with religion and ideology, and everything to do with monetary and political gain. As I said in my previous comment, “death, destruction, families torn apart, homes in ruins, [and] children traumatized for life” are outcomes that become even less palatable when it turns out it was merely all in service of someone’s bottom line.

      • Richard Nikoley on December 18, 2015 at 09:50

        Ok, Lilana.

        I guess your objective was to be deconstructed in a blog post. I’ll get right on it.

        Time to make your posturing look dumb.

  2. Matthew on December 16, 2015 at 13:20

    Because one is defending an abstract freedom, and the other is attacking a group of people with an expressed allegiance to a doctrine of murder?

    This analogy is so poor as to be non-sensical.

  3. Sean II on December 16, 2015 at 13:27

    First up, I took the name when your buddy from Prague was very active and I was too lazy to change my name.
    Your answer is what I also reasoned without any hand wringing because I too want to free the animal. I think though we make too much about the value of life as a meme. Live in a really poor country and you see how life is cheap. It takes three minutes to get it going. There is grief but you get on with it.
    In anarchy everything happens and the smart ones won’t be going around issuing treats. Full stop. You want to kill a man, you just will, because a treat is a show of a card innit.
    Additionally people will always form inter and intra group interests and many acts of violence would be weighed up in the effect it would have on those interests.
    Christian missionaries give themselves a pat on the back for removing the revenge culture from some tribes in PNG. I read that many years ago and thought it a good thing. Now I am not so sure.

    • Richard Nikoley on December 16, 2015 at 15:51

      “You want to kill a man, you just will, because a treat is a show of a card innit.”

      Yes, typically, but not in geopolitics. In that case, lots of it is posturing and “negotiating” via “diplomacy.”

      The Islamic world have made it abundantly clear that their threats are credible.

  4. Mark on December 16, 2015 at 13:31

    So this comes off as critical, but I’m truly seeking to understand:

    You won’t vote because it would be a personal-level legitimization of an inherently illegitimate construct. But you’re willing to utilize the state as your actor in stopping this aggression, merely because you see it as the most practical avenue?

    This seems internally inconsistent.

    Thanks for the post. It’s brought back into focus a question that I’ve wrestled with for a long time, and one to which I’m no closer to an answer: If force is justified when they’re loading you on the boxcar, was it justified yesterday when they were telling you to show up at the train, or before that when they were making you wear a star, or before that when they were pulling into town for the first time, or, or, or …

    • Richard Nikoley on December 16, 2015 at 16:27


      Yes, I see how on the surface it seems that way. Incidentally, the one argument for voting I’m sensitive to is the argument from self defense. In other words, that and activism is the only legal means people have to do _something_ to protect their lives and property.

      If it were actually effective, rather than a waste of time, I might consider engaging in it.

      So, I actually dealt with this objection in a comment thread over at, in response to Jeffrey Tucker, on my post about how I had changed my position on immigration.

      Not a long thread, but I think I covered the essentials and it’s a similar argument to that one, above.

  5. Hap on December 16, 2015 at 23:11

    How to deal with existential threats is as old as history. I guess the idea partly originated with the Greeks (Plato) that the polity should voluntarily cede authority in return for protection to benevolent philosopher kings and Guardian minions. Skip several thousand years to Hobbes who understood that protection meant from the “state of nature”….a truly existential problem, thus prescribing an irrevocable no holds barred pact with Leviathan, the all powerful State as the only viable solution. Then came Locke and others who saw the (real and potential) evil perpetrated in the name of the State(no matter if at the consent of the people, partly because the people might be led to believe just about anything) and sought to mitigate it , resulting in the American idea. Division of state powers, checks and balances, altered forms of popular representation, limited and enumerated functions. Elimination of monarchs, if only in name. The French just went for the guillotine, a short cut.
    Even with all their machinations for limited government, the DWM’s did foresee in a strange way that it could get out of hand anyway, despite their “good ” intentions and experimental limited government. They knew it was not inevitably successful. Hence our first two amendments protect speech and the inviolability of the individual to his/her life ….or at least given the means to object and with violence if absolutely necessary. That might have been the extent of their anarchistic bent….but it’s turning out to damned important. I read today that Yale students are signing petitions to repeal the First Amendment. WTF? This is no joke. Richard would be in a dungeon or on the lam with Ted Kaczyinski. Decades of indoctrination (public schooling?) and hatred of the founders vision has borne fruit. the ruling elite is not after weapons for no good reason, they understand it’s fundamental bent towards anarchy, which they cannot abide…..and they are not yet ready to pull out the rusty guillotines to pursue their Utopias. But the whole damn thing has turned out be an object lesson in “mission creep”…..towards some kind totalitarianism, but by a thousand cuts (regulations, decrees, restrictions, Supreme Court decisions, and other lawlessness) instead of the guillotine or a Sharia inspired Caliphate.

    So we do make these pacts, these social contracts, to put in place an infrastructure of protection, so we can pursue life, liberty, and happiness (which I understand as free association and exchange of goods on our own mutually agreed terms).

    I am beginning to think that it is all a delusion. An ultra slow motion slippery slope to another totalitarian utopia, with dear leaders and their enforcers. None of it is possible by our own lights. You cannot expect to transcend the animal unless you free the animal first. We are humans but we are human animals and the animal must receive it’s due….it’s respect and desire for life.

    the radical islamist is a very real mortal enemy of that freedom, not just because he/she holds a death cult ideology anathema to it, but because he/she is clearly in a position to carry out the mission on a planetary scale. In Arabic , Islam may partly have the connotation of “peace”, but it also means submission. It’s non negotiable. the animal , if expecting to survive and thrive, must eliminate the threat. Cannot escape by going “off grid” or toasting our intelligence at climate change love fests. Polar bears will do just fine and I still live on the dry land coast. Your mortal enemy is your mortal enemy….and it has a name.

    And by the way…regarding voting. Voting is for citizens (in the broad sense) who freely choose and have accepted the idea of necessary but limited government to provide certain functions and hope to produce some consensus as to establishing some order(norms). People confuse voting with democracy and democracy with absolute majority rule…..mob rule. Our founders had a certain bad taste for mob rule and so limited voting to a certain definition for a citizen, ie someone with basic understanding in the ways of the system and who has skin in the game. Now it’s just a fucking free for all with the intent of creating more voters who have less and less skin in the game and are unthinking and especially ignorant of how we got here. Eliminate the idea of skin in the game and you now have the seeds of division, to exploit for votes. It creates a political class, dedicated to perpetuation of bread and circuses that produce votes with OPM (it’s really never fiat money, rather we know it’s someone elses’ future obligation). Politicians currency is votes. Ultimately, when the mob rules, the concept of citizenship is diminished. the larger the mob(government) the smaller the citizen. I agree with the idea that voting is a form of activism, although at a pretty low but critical standard. While I would not go so far as say it was a duty, it is certainly one way to advocate a system you might support. I mean you can’t start your day without getting out of bed.

    • Lilana on December 17, 2015 at 07:24

      With every passing year, I am more and more proud that I left Yale as a freshman for an alternative that made more sense.

      • Hap on December 17, 2015 at 08:01

        It’s amazing you had the sense to try and and make sense and willing to act on it. I wasn’t that mature.

  6. hello on December 17, 2015 at 07:18
    • Richard Nikoley on December 17, 2015 at 09:27

      Wow, Hello.

      That’s quite an article. Blog worthy, actually, given my previous posts. I have myself, Bea, and four dogs as observable rats.

      Need to chew on this, as I site here at 45 deg F, no gloves, and toasty warm hands.

  7. Sean II on December 17, 2015 at 08:54

    You are correct on the geopolitical issue. I have not reached that stage as yet because I am still thinking of anarchy at home and wondering if it can ever reach state level as we know it.
    In a world of 8 billion sovereign states, are we going to see the level of state competition we see now. I don’t expect isolation but I also don’t see the easy formation of nations based on geography only.
    Back to violence. Watch enough nature documentaries and you see the rest of the planet, flora and fauna, using different technology to protect themselves and to secure food and shelter.
    I think we set ourselves a trap if we think high IQ would save us from pain and death. That kind of thinking can lead to training Venus Flytraps.
    Can violence ever be accepted as being equal in value as peace? Can we think of humans as capable of both and that they are both useful?

    • Richard Nikoley on December 17, 2015 at 09:47

      Sean II,

      One aspect of Anarchy Begins at Home is that there would be as many different varieties in small communities as there are different varieties of families, and how they work stuff out IN THEIR WAY.

    • Richard Nikoley on December 17, 2015 at 14:18

      Ah, it’s hard to do, but sometimes you can get Chief Master Seargent to opine.

      It’s rahter like the Admiral in the video. Pretty reserved. But in the end, he kinda had to tell you the whole truth…more prescient now than ever.

      Chiers, Master Chief (I like to call him by the Navy’s highest equivalent rank, cause it’s one word shorter and rolls off my to tongue).

  8. Sean II on December 17, 2015 at 14:03

    Thanks for the replies and taking it further. Your site is always food for thought and an encouragement to think and act freely.

    I’d like to share this for all and especially for those who think the Internet is full of nonsense. Condi and her piano –

    • Richard Nikoley on December 17, 2015 at 15:24

      Thanks Sean II. I shared it on Facebook.

      “Inconvenient ‘nigger’ update.”

      Just taking advantage of smart folks…..

      • Sean II on December 17, 2015 at 23:59

        “You know the rule goes, where there’s a hoe there’s a hater. Well there’s some hoes over there,
        and I’ll concentrate on the haters later.” – Dr Dre

        The temptation was too great. Free Markets!!

    • Glenda on December 17, 2015 at 16:07

      I’m a classical musician, I’ve always respected and admired her musicianship and her attitude about it.

  9. Lilana on December 18, 2015 at 09:59

    Enjoy yourself making that post. You seem to derive a great deal of pleasure in life from fighting with anyone and everyone, so I’m happy to make you happy for a day :)

    • Richard Nikoley on December 18, 2015 at 11:08

      There are plenty of ways to enjoy myself.

      I regard this as a menial task, but smart people like red meat.

      Like I said, in developing your analogy, you should have recognized at a point that it was dumb, deleted it, maybe tried a different critique that had a level of plausibility.

      Instead, you doubled down. The object it not to make you look dumb, as much as it is to make you an object of how we all get off track at times with dumb ideas and should correct them as soon as we realize it.

      So, chalk it up to charity on your part. I’ll be as Gentile as I can be. :)

    • Richard Nikoley on December 18, 2015 at 11:19

      Ok, just as you ought to have done in the first place, I’ve just decided that this thread is enough and just deleted the draft.

      Hopefully, you got the lesson that you not only need to be critical and judgmental of others, but of yourself most of all. Your analogy to micro aggression is a mess, doesn’t work in the slightest, as it literally relies upon ignoring critical distinctions.

      Think better next time, Merry Christmas, love, yada yada.

  10. Woodchuck Pirate on December 19, 2015 at 08:25

    I’m constricted by consciousness to autonomic thought through imagery. Any betrayal of consciousness is paid exactly through diminishing consciousness. Initiating force against an individual for speech or exercise of any other inalienable right is not something a conscious person is capable of. Aversion to principle manifests menace of pragmatism. If one accepts the imagery of a menace of pragmatism, the concept of toxic shame is complementary.

    Labeling statism as “nuance” appears an “around the corner” admission of toxic shame compartmentalized by those who seek shelter in collective action as comfort zone in attempt to avoid personal accountability. No shelter exists for betrayal of consciousness. Diminished consciousness always exists prior to the initiation of force. A conscious individual is incapable of initiating force. If an individual does not respect their own inalienable rights they will violate the rights of others.

    Rationalizing a lifetime in betrayal of consciousness, to facilitate collective initiation of aggression, while attempting to diffuse toxic shame by labeling it “nuance”, is pretty much standard procedure within the human race. I read someone aptly to the human race as a virus wearing shoes. A virus does not choose its goals, does not select its strategies, and does not attempt to rationalize its aggression as “nuanced”. The difference between the actions of a virus and the human race is betrayal of consciousness.

    I prefer that individuals adhere to the non-aggression principle or die of the bone cancer they deserve. However I’m content to watch them dance themselves to death. I’m fully respectful of individual sovereignty, but joyfully watched the police force remove a hoarde of heroin junkies collecting entitlements squatting in the house next door. This did not cause me shame. I’m not motivated to label my satisfied emotional response toward watching the carnage of socialism as “nuanced”. It’s bedrock rational to expect that no self respecting anarchist will lift a finger to impede the slaughter of socialist versus socialist.

    The nuanced dance is a safety dance of false security because statism is not only obsolete it’s truly dead. Some individuals will face their toxic shame and accept “your life is yours”. The rest are walking compost by their own design. This reminds me of the imagery from my farm this past week. It came to me when mentally constructing an email reply to Laurent Seiter at Church Of Zer for his inquiry about angels. He’s writing a fictional book I assume based on anti-state concepts. Here’s the text per the imagery of slaughter, compost, homestead anarchy, and consciousness vulnerability as a bio-mechanical construct:
    Oh yeah, I’m writing to respond to your question of angels. I guess you mean Canadian angels. I’ve only been to Canada once, and that was 1977, my senior trip. I have no memory of angels then, but I used to forget things. These are more savage days, full of diffuse drama, sex appeal. Anything goes, except my memory, and radio soul. For instance today at the farm…while shoveling my 11th ton of stone, I watched two drones, hover the woodline. I know they read minds. Accessible critters. Reflections of the herd is how they converse. They collect data I deliver them verse. Fuck, “I” don’t even know who I am. They’re very good editors. Suddenly one drone broadcast the face of Bill Murray a-la Hunter S. Thompson, shifting cigarette holder from tooth to teeth..and he said:

    advancing irony,
    suit and dress,
    faithful dregs,
    word possessed,
    perfect specimens of doom,
    Good people.”

    To this the second drone broadcast the face of Nixon, and he said:

    “Fuck the doomed.”

    To this I said:

    “Wait ’til they cross water, compost directly to soil, I’ve got enough work to do here.”

    As the shots rang out, I remembered Neil Young’s strange pronunciation of the word “a”, singing “where seldom is heard “a” discouraging word and the skies are not cloudy all day.”

    Then I went back to thinking, “Home on the range, fuck “I” don’t know who I am. They’re very good editors. Fucking angels.”

    Enjoy your evening,

    Woodchuck Pirate
    aka Raymond J Raupers Jr USA

    • sassysquatch on December 19, 2015 at 11:53

      Woodchuck – ‘you’ are indeed a deep thinker. ‘I’ on the other hand, draw from a shallow well of thoughts. But I enjoy my front row seat to the great drama unfolding.

      Thanks for the insight…..or out-sight as it IS. :-)

      • Woodchuck Pirate on December 20, 2015 at 17:03

        Hello sassysquatch,

        Nice to read your words again.

        Insight out-sight no one gets a free ride; there is no separateness. The great mystery is no”thing” as I am no”thing”. There is thought but it is not my true self. I observe my art.

        I revisit imagery of Lennon’s lyrics, “Words are flowing out like endless rain into a paper cup, they slither while they pass, they slip away across the universe.”

        It appears Lennon recognized that form is the art of living, not existence itself.

        It is my observation that a decision characterized as a “shallow well of thought”, is wisdom enacted. Consciousness does not require belief or even thought. Therefore your position if accurately contrasted to mine is superior, or else an underlying assumption is erroneous. I do not know if you see my true self. I can not see anyone’s true self, except that which is mirrored as my own. All else appears form.

        I suspect I am primarily effecting a degree of distance, aligning myself with the narrow way, so as to manipulate form (the art of living) while the ancient madness unfolds with the precision of math rock. I’ve witnessed Stefan Molyneaux define his mission of being proactive in manifesting valid philosophy through his show, and Richard Nikoley rising to grasp a differentiation through anarchy somehow motivated by the finality of internalizing the belief system of atheism. I’m grateful for every word and drop of sweat these individuals shed, but my paradigm of infinite truth finds me outside the boundaries of identity as “form”.

        By rejecting membership in collective egos, I am returned to manipulate form which appears to others as an isolationist vision. However it is the mission of collective ego to isolate. Ego sees what it wants to see. Therefore I speak, mostly to observe my words as true self, to validate or invalidate what I write and say, lest I fail to kill my ego. Like you, I have taken a seat, and wait. The noisy vibrations I make are likely simple impatience with this inferior life-form shell I’ve outgrown. I’ll never share self-professed atheist adoration for the human life-form. It sucks but it’s paid for so I don’t throw it out. I’ve heard rumors that someone will finally get ’round to collect it. Meanwhile, it helps to watch words slither and slip away…

        Enjoy your evening.

        Woodchuck Pirate
        aka Raymond J Raupers Jr USA

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.