Lessons From Revolutionaries

An Antidote to Reformism

Aug 22, 2022

(Originally written as a submission to the 2021 Scyldings event and featured in their 2021 Event Book, tickets for the upcoming event—August 27th-29th—can be found here)

Like many others I have committed a large amount of my time to reading and engaging across a broad set of subjects; Politics, Economics, History, Philosophy, to name a few. I do so not just because I enjoy the material and the discussion around it. I do so because I believe that the ideas, concepts, strategies and logic from such material can be applied to the world around us to the effect of great change. I presume that many others too operate via this thought pattern and wish to, at the least, disseminate ideas amongst those who they feel could benefit from them, but to what ends?

I choose to commit my time and energy for what may be seen as idealistic goals, I do so because I refuse to accept compromise, I take lessons from history and theory, and fully understand that effective change from the right does not come about via corporate tax cuts or 3% less immigration each year, I will not accept a revised public school curriculum or allow myself to be pawned off into some special interest group. If you are anything like me you want something most Britons will not recognise, much akin to those actors who got us here in the first place, I want to bring about substantial and lasting change, and if anyone else is willing to join me in such an endeavour you must completely reject the lines of reformism, this may seem like drastic action but I will go on to assure you that the attempts to reform the current state of affairs are both futile and ultimately a distraction, the kicker being that a subset of revolutionary thinkers have been trying to show you this for years.

To begin we must start by identifying that which we are truly up against, we must fully recognise what stands against us on the path to any meaningful and lasting change within society. The key pillar and legitimising component of what we stand against is the state in its modern form and the role it plays, which is aptly described by Hoppe, as an “...agent (that) must be able to insist that all conflicts among the inhabitants of a given territory be brought to him for ultimate decision-making or be subject to his final review. In particular, this agent must be able to insist that all conflicts involving him be adjudicated by him or his agent. And implied in the power to exclude all others from acting as ultimate judge…”(1). From this it should be obvious that the modern state cannot function without a special privilege granted upon itself as the only body within a nation that can engage in accountability in any true sense, it may allow you some minor ability to do so against your fellow man in civil disputes or in legal cases, but there again the state and its sanctioned agents arbitrate the appropriate verdict and punishment with no option to seek third party challenging of said decisions. Furthermore when a dispute opens up between the state or its agents, and those citizens who live under it, there are again only avenues offered up and adjudicated upon by the state itself as a method of “legitimate” accountability. This system of accountability, justice and law is open to rife abuse and expropriation, starting from the very simple premise of man’s natural inclination to some level of self interest it should be evident that the those at every level of the state’s functions have an near endless set of opportunities to materially enrich themselves at the cost of others, abuse the citizenry for their own sick pleasure, or take advantage of the unaccountable nature of its structure to seek power in a manner that is improper and unearned. This basic set of incentive structures has and will continue to bring about abject misery to untold numbers if left to continue on its current form.

As those at the helm or the lower level of the state’s multiple arms began to understand their position and their privileges, so too did those who lived in its shadow and its wrath. Even those who throughout history have been unequivocally proven wrong on countless matters, were still able to identify the nature of the state even if it is within a framing we may not entirely agree with. Marx being paraphrased in Lenin’s State and Revolution grasps how the state functionally operates within society “...the state is an organ of class rule, an organ for the oppression of one class by another, it is the creation of ‘order’, which legalises and perpetuates this oppression by moderating the conflict between the classes.”(2) Now many, as I know that I do, will take issue with the certain necessities that Marx stipulates in the creation and continuation of the modern state. However one cannot deny that he clearly lays out the dynamic of the state, it’s agents and those who live under it in regards to who holds power and who exists under the boot. Not only this but he identifies the same need as Hoppe for the state to be the arbiter of order, and the monopoly provider of accountability in its ultimate form. The strict class dynamic of Marx’s framework and its focus on entrepreneurial activity without first engaging in analysis of it outside of the state, very much neuters these points to most on The Right however there are some much like Hoppe, who were influenced early on in life by these constructs of the state and managed to still work this very simple us/them dynamic into their writing, what this allows is an absolutist and yet easily understandable rhetorical framework that will become important further on.

A much more agreeable and familiar class framework, which also takes influence from Marx, is that of James Burnham whose concept of the managerial class has brought upon a drastic change in Right Wing thinking, And I believe has become much more impactful through reformulations such as Sam Francis’ Leviathan & Its Enemies. It remains strongly related to Burnham’s elitism but takes further consideration on the effects that democracy and the revolution of mass and scale have had on society in the years since 1941. Through Francis’ writing he develops a much more encompassing idea of the managerial class, not just one that involves itself in business, but both directly and indirectly within politics and multiple cultural outlets. “Control of all these modes is necessary to establish dominance, and it is argued that, despite differences and subsidiary conflicts among the managerial groups in each mode, these groups share sufficient interests, beliefs and perceptions in common that it is meaningful to speak of a unified managerial elite, if not a managerial class.”(3) This class emerged as a reaction to and an attempt to revolutionise the lasting elements of what Francis refers to as the “Bourgeois elite”, this elite consisted of the monarchy, religious leaders and a variety of local and community figures. The managerial elite whether knowingly or not, depending on their ideological motivations, sought to “...undermine the legislative assemblies, electoral districts, decentralised institutions, and local communities in which bourgeois political power is based.”(4) Once achieving this the “Managerial elements thus encourage the extension of the franchise to groups that the bourgeois elite cannot discipline…” And in doing so set the preconditions that brought about the previously mentioned monopoly on accountability under the guise of representation and bringing the state and its organisational miasma into the lives of the masses. Francis goes on to say “...by implicitly or explicitly rejecting the legitimacy of the bourgeois political ideal of a limited and neutralist state and thus contains the revolutionary presuppositions that in effect redefine the ends of the state.”(5) What is identified clearly was the need for the old order to be revolutionised into something that bastardised the legitimacy once granted upon those with power, the managerial class abused the last vestiges of its cultural significance to reconstruct order in a manner which can no longer be questioned or appealed to outside of its own purview by selling the underclasses the false lie that it was ultimately done for their interests.

No longer could one appeal to a law and cannon which transcended both material and class as a method for the delegitimization of power in the public sphere. Only highly technical policy from within the structure itself is up for debate. Those capable of seeing through crooked leaders could no longer demand change from any other “legitimate” avenue than the ballot box, and even when they may succeed on this front the nature of the modern managerial state and its all encompassing methods leave no ability for them to make a meaningful change. Both on the grounds of the sheer complexity of its structure and the public perception that each and every step to remove the legitimacy of its special accountancy privileges are a direct attack upon them, and they would somehow be powerless without it. We can then come back to the words of Lenin in regards to class dynamics knowing that the bourgeois he spoke of consisted of a once legitimate and accountable order soon to be dismantled so that the managerialists could emerge from its ashes, democratic state in hand, as the petty-bourgeoisie. Whether he fully realised it or not he once again played upon the notion that members of a subclass can seek privileges of their own from the arms of the state, he claims “That the state is an organ of the rule of a definite class which cannot be reconciled with its antipode, is something the petty-bourgeoisie will never be able to understand.”(6) It is likely that he saw this misunderstanding as an aspect of Marx’s concept of false consciousness, however once we suggest that this misunderstanding is consciously espoused to the effect of denying any guilt from one’s material or immaterial gain at the exploitation of others the statement takes on a whole new meaning. No longer is the capitalist class supposedly dominating the workers, but much more accurately; leaders, capitalists and workers alike exploit those who are subjects of the state whilst denying the functions of the very real and identifiable power structure that benefits them. As Bastiat once said “The state is a great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else”.

Given all this, there must then arise the question of how the managerial class or any ruling class can manage to pull off such a task and hold onto their new found hegemony and its privileges? The most obvious answer is of course violence, as Hoppe posits “What would you do to maintain your position (provided you didn’t have any moral scruples)? You would certainly use some of your tax income to hire some thugs. First to make peace amongst your subjects…”(7) Note here the similarity with Lenin’s paraphrasing of Marx, in which the state is framed as an organ of “...moderating the conflict between the classes.” Hoppe goes on to say that “...more importantly, because you (the leader) might need these thugs for your own protection should the people wake up from their dogmatic slumber and challenge you.”(8) Any and all force utilising resistance must be crushed, it cannot even have the chance to ascertain any semblance of power via the threat of force. This point is also highlighted as a necessary aspect of the modern state via Hegel again paraphrased by Lenin “When asked why it became necessary to have special bodies placed above society and alienating themselves from it (a national police force and standing army), the Western philosophers and Russian philistines are inclined to utter a few phrases borrowed from Spencer and Mikhailovsky…”.(9) Not only is the necessity of force brought up but so is the mindset that is required to justify such an approach. This creates an Asymmetric system and understanding of violence within society, the ability to use force must be monopolised in the same manner that accountability must be. In the end we have a society within which the only “legitimate” violence is done at the hands of the state and is beyond questioning.

This process extends down to the very individual on their own land, to a notion I believe to be in a way highlighted by Carl Schmitt that the "Sovereign is he who decides on the exception."(10). To use violence on your own grounds is to highlight what you deem to be the exception in regards to acceptable behaviour and ergo to exercise some level of sovereignty, in a sense, for that brief moment you are the ultimate arbiter of accountability and violence of your own sovereign land. This attacks the state's monopoly on violence to the extent that not only is it deemed illegal to do so, but merely possessing the means to do so is either a bureaucratic nightmare or even outlawed entirely as is becoming the common trend in many modern Western states. This should arouse suspicion in any and all who do not wish to be out and out serfs to the managerial class and its structure. Hoppe eloquently summarises this process by positing the question “...who would want to be protected by someone who required of him as a first step to give up his ultimate means of self-defence.”“(11) This idea would be frankly ridiculous in any private dealing and would speak to the insidious and ill-motivated nature of such an individual or group. Yet the modern state and its operatives ask the very same of its subjects “... the democratic state has worked not only to strip its citizens of arms, but also to strip domestic property owners of their right of exclusion, thereby robbing them of much of their personal and physical protection”.(12) It then should be of no surprise that the Randy Weaver’s, Albert Dryden’s and David Koresh's of this world cannot be allowed to exercise or even threaten their ultimate defiance against the state and engage with justified violence on their own grounds.

The application of violence in such a manner also propagates learned helplessness as framed by who I believe to be one of the most neglected yet tactful right wing thinkers, Theodore John Kaczynski, he states that “Much of modern technology serves to minimise the effort that we have to make in order to accomplish things, and this drastically reduces the benefit that we get from the experience of exercising control even in life and death matters”.(13) This statement is then further elucidated by demonstrating that the simplification of acquiring basic necessities required for a fruitful life via mass food production and centralised security forces, removes us from the harsh realities of performing these functions and the true knowledge required to take matters into our own hands and shape the world around us. We become lax in our attentiveness to what needs to be done by our own hands to secure a property or community, we become detached from the true nature of interpersonal interactions and their consequences. Not only do we lose knowledge and skills via this phenomenon but we lose power. This concept can be further extended beyond just physical technology but to what I choose to refer to as mental technologies these are essentially the same as the managerial techniques described by Francis however furthered to include not just pragmatic social engineering, but all ideology and high level abstraction. Much like physical technologies, mental technologies require development, innovation and varying attempts at application within society. In carrying out such actions the very same learned helplessness is curated and furthered with the spreading of ideas and concepts that lull the populace into a false sense of security as the belief in such concepts is enough to trick them into believing that all is well and nothing about the current situation need be changed, unless of course such change is developed by the current managerial class within the techno-structure. The idea that any forceful ruler must require a justification other than raw violence is well known, “For a minority cannot lastingly rule a majority solely by brute force. It must rule by opinion”.(14) But to functionally view the top down construction of opinion making as the application of technology allows us to see its effects in a much more tangible fashion.

One of the most insidious mental technologies propagated by the managerial class is democracy, it is a necessary requirement for the existence of the modern state as it completely detaches the subjects from the true process of power and creates the supposedly peaceful transfer of power. Universal suffrage helps to further legitimise this fabrication by fooling each and every individual voter into thinking that their choice matters and will be reflected in the way in which their nation will be ruled. All the while the very same class that imposed and implemented said technologies upon the people become ever more powerful. Francis has a great analysis of this process, “The increasing democratisation of the state in the late 19th century and early 20th century and the increasing participation of the mass population in formal political processes did not appreciably modify the emergence of a new managerial elite in government and, in fact, assisted its emergence and its acquisition of power”.(15) Within this statement it is implied that the development of “democratic ideas” was a conscious and deliberate effort, the effects of which were more than likely understood by the implementers. It creates a comforting dissonance within the minds of the average man, he is fully aware that his vote on its own is meaningless and makes no change to the world around him, but given the simplicity and detachment from the process, he openly accepts that due to each having supposedly their own and equal say in regards to the order of the world around him that this is the best solution as it avoids having to seriously consider or engage in politics, power and ultimately violence. Learned helplessness takes over and the individual in question is open to accepting and relying on further simplifications and detachment.

Much like accountability and violence there is a need to centralise the development and implementation of technology in both a physical and mental sense, it must be such as there needs to be an inherent air of legitimacy to all state solutions and conversely a suggestion that all non-state solutions must be in some way inadequate or incapable. This is brought about by implanting the idea of “...the of legitimacy of the institution of the state as such, and hence that even if a particular policy (technological solution) may be wrong, such a mistake is an ‘accident’ that one must tolerate in view of some greater good provided by the state.”(16) And this can only be achievable in a total sense through a number of steps; first you must recognise that public persuasion on such a wide scale can be possible “...only with the help of intellectuals.”(17), secondly recognising the minimal market demand for intellectuals and their material you must of course employ them and further to keep up to construct the hegemonic pantheon of state thought “You must employ them all - even the ones who work in areas far removed from those that you are primarily concerned with...”(18), Finally one must seal the deal and fully ensnare the intellectuals and the entire distribution network of mental technology at all levels within society one must “...secure also their loyalty to the state. Put differently you must become a monopolist. And this is best achieved if all ‘educational’ institutions, from kindergarten to universities, are brought under state control and all teaching and researching personnel are ‘state certified’.”(19). The conclusion from Hoppe’s words should be clear, we must never expect that any true rebellion or dissent will originate within traditional academic spheres, not just insofar as a subset of ideas being underwritten within the curriculum will propagate more leftism amongst society with very little opposition. But that the very structure of the educational institutions, we are near legally compelled to interact with by truancy laws and forced to comply with via state enforced credentialism, is unreformable. We can only attack it from outside of itself in the hopes that it somehow collapses under its own strain, or attempt to construct alternatives such as the Mises institute and the academic agency, to sap away the state's ardent loyalist elites and create a class of true intellectual renegades.

The state’s implementation and enforcement of public education creates a further air of egalitarianism and universalism, which suggests that each and every one of us can have our lives planned from above and that there is a one size fits all method for bringing us into the world from cradle to grave. The pipelines of school to higher education to technocratic public service to public pension and the wide reaching and sometimes unavoidable socialised health, childcare, unemployment insurance and elderly care allows the populace to carry on their life everyday having never considered what uncertainty may come upon them, tomorrow, next month or decades from now. This is of course social engineering writ large, an attack upon natures inherent uncertainty as an attempt to cleave us from reality to the effect that, a populace which considers its own time horizons in regards to income, saving, healthcare and the raising of children, without the state providing a supposed safety net, would be conscious of what services they must afford and may or may not make use of, and how important it then is to make such decisions based on their own estimations of value and expected income, free time and domestic situations in varying time frames. This general thinking and the way in which one plans in such a fashion varies between individuals and even within individuals intertemporally, this variation is referred to as time preference and it can be shown as higher or lower depending on how long one chooses to defer gratification within actions. The social engineering mentioned previously is an attack upon the time preference of both individuals and society as a whole, each new policy designed to simplify and provide utilitarian solutions stunts the ability of those to develop a lower time preference and incentivises a more present orientation which can then be further pandered to. The first and foremost attack on time preference was the widespread implementation of universal suffrage during the interwar period in Europe as “...it set in motion a seemingly permanent tendency toward wealth and income redistribution.”(20) As of course each “free” and universal solution offered to those who would happily fall into a high time preference dependency in turn for majority support required payment, by a class of individuals who accrued their wealth from the natural incentive structure of the market rewarding them for their low time preference and continued deferral of gratification. This creates a vicious cycle understood within simple economic thinking “...that one will end up getting more of what ever it is that is being subsidised…”.(21) And conversely that one will end up with less of that which one taxes. As public services grow there becomes ever more parasitism within the population whilst making it harder and less rewarding to reject parasitism and become productive. This relationship has continued on long past the public coffers being almost entirely raided and the material gain of each new service marginally bleeding off to very little, even to the extent that financial managerialism had to step by step disconnect both the money supply from physical goods such as gold, and the credit structure from production and wealth via ever lowering interest rates. This illusion cannot last forever and must be recognised by all who wish to attack the current ruling managerial elites and the state as the structure which makes such a wide scale rigging of economic planning possible, however this is not where the effects of democracy end.

The implementation of democracy is furthermore an attack on the metaphysical understanding of human interaction, the enforcement of interactions within voting blocks creates a false notion in the way in which humans organise themselves. All universalism and attempts at collective thought are assaults upon Methodological Individualism, which by the nature of free will and singular consciousness must be the way in which humans act. Mises’ general description of the idea is that any social scientist “...must realise that all actions are performed by individuals. A collective always operates through the intermediary of one or several individuals whose actions are related to the collective as a secondary source. It is the meaning which the acting individuals and all those who are touched by their action attribute to an action, that determines its character.”(22) This leaves no other option than to suggest that “...a social collective has no existence and reality outside of the individual members’ actions”.(23). The voting block, the demographic, the party membership are constructs that only exist in the mind of the individuals who directly see themselves as such or those who wish to engineer such groups into action as they see fit. These categorisations on their own are not the problem but when justified as groups capable of collective action via faulty lines of thought they become dangerous. “Universalism, collectivism and conceptual realism sees only wholes and universals.”(24) These lines of faulty logic can begin to drip down into the minds of the state’s subjects leading them to consider themselves the member of some collective above their own individual consciousness and to become the pawn of a constructivist mass psychology. No longer are they actors with their own values, goals and destinies, they become part of the democratic underclass and have their values and goals universalised and handed down to them whilst being falsely convinced of the need to sacrifice themselves as a component of the democratic will for the greater good.

This is why I choose to view concepts such as democracy as nothing other than technology, despite the philosophy and argumentation that attempts to justify it, it is employed by the elites towards some other end. Those at the helm of the managerial class cared not for implementing democracy for its own sake, they only cared for what it could grant them. And it was not just the nullification of opposition via breaking the rules, anyone aware of the events in the US in 2020 would have to agree with me, it also gave the state the ultimate majoritarian excuse for any tyrannical action as the will of the people and their consent granted the managerialists free reign to do as they pleased, whilst their opponents could be slandered with the titles of undemocratic and authoritarian, oh the irony. This notion of concepts and even whole ideological systems of thought being used to some other means, even ones antithetical to their original conception was identified by Lenin as he made note that the “Social-Chauvinists”, of his time “...are now ‘Marxists’. And more and more frequently German bourgeois scholars, only yesterday specialists in the annihilation of marxism, are speaking of the ‘national-German’ Marx, who they claim, educated the labour unions which are so splendidly organised for the purpose of waging a predatory war!”.(25) Ideology is merely just a component of the technocratic tool kit of the elites.

Given the necessity for physical infrastructure to implement mental technologies any meaningful attempt to bring about great change can not just exist within a circulation and replacement of the current elites, in doing so we would only inherit the systems and methods developed to create an unaccountable state with a sedated democratic underclass. Even if we were to attempt to reform the state and its structures we would be left with a public service class and a media class that would see us as the ultimate enemy. I would even go to the lengths of suggesting the slightest curtailing of social programs by an elite would see them ousted within weeks and the normality of democratic state serfdom continuing. This leaves us in a conundrum whereby “There is no way of reforming or modifying the system so as to prevent it from depriving people of dignity and autonomy”.(26)We must reject the structure itself. In doing so we would no longer fall foul to “... a consistent tendency, going back at least as far as the industrial revolution, for technology to strengthen the system at a high cost in individual freedom and local autonomy.”(27) We cannot attempt to oppose the current social order and the technological systems that uphold it piece by piece. “Success can be hoped for only by fighting the technological system as a whole; but that is revolution, not reform.”(26).

There are numbers of ways in which this may be done, there will of course be a political struggle in both a rhetorical sense and in a deceptive strategic sense to create a popular front, there will be the intellectual battle wherein there can be no compromising in an outright attack against the sacred cows of the current order, new institutions, organisations and networks will have to be created and revised to allow ingroup communication, logistics and consolidation, and finally there must be a focus within communities and localities in regards to action, action may mean simple community planning however when the appropriate time comes there may be direct action taken against the current order

The rhetorical framework that I feel is the best attack vector for our goals would be the attempt to, counter-intuitively I admit, create a class consciousness amongst those who are crying out for an oppressor narrative but reject the bog standard progressive line of the eternal struggle for some vague material improvements, instead we abuse the mental technology the populace has been subjected to. Most are primed to see the world as a basic us/them dynamic, so why not declare our enemies and the technological structure that they sit upon as the very thing they should aim their anger at, furthermore give them examples of how corrupt and unwavering the current hegemonic order is in its attempts to sustain itself, tell them what they could otherwise be if it weren’t for such an order. This goes even as deep as the realms of economic arguments, given the utter widespread illiteracy on the subject across the populace, their understanding of an exchange economy is tainted by the assumption of each transaction being zero-sum or even a net negative on their behalf. Now whilst I'd like every man and woman in Britain to have read and understood Human Action, this would be a frankly impossible endeavour. So why not reframe their supposed expropriation as one only possible by the means of the state, tricky wordplay to suggest such a thing as “state capitalism” or “democratic capitalism”, is the problem will not only keep the conversation focused upon political structures and the symbiosis of big business and the state working hand in hand, it will even grant you kudos in Marxist circles and allow you to open up a conversation between different branches of radicalism. Some may be familiar with such a strategy, I for one am familiar with it as post-Marxism which as discussed before is the line of thinking that Burnham, Hoppe and others have come through. Not only does it allow you to take advantage of a pre-existing and widely recognised, if not consciously realised, lines of argumentation. You can further take advantage as I have done in this very piece, of Marxist rhetoric and framing from figures such as Lenin who’s powerful and uncompromising style is one which would do wonders to spread. This all together allows the construction of a popular political front, to abuse the very notion of mass movements and collective action to our own ends as those before us did the very same, to twist majoritarianism into a force against the minority of elites, even if it is in part deceitful in its framing, it would make us no different to any other political force that achieved its goals.

It should be the task of intellectual elites within our circles to step outside the bounds of the traditional academic spheres both physically and mentally, whilst building and supporting new platforms and institutions, one should also attack the panaceas of the current age. The priority of these attacks should be on the idea of democracy for “The current mess is also the result of ideas. It is the result of the overwhelming acceptance, by public opinion, of the idea of democracy. As long as this acceptance prevails, a catastrophe is unavoidable, and there can be no hope for improvement even after its arrival.”(28) It is pertinent that any and all who wish to change the role of ideas within society in a recognisable and lasting manner must accept that their task is to “...turn the tide of and prevent an outright breakdown (via) the ‘deligimation’ of the idea of democracy as the root cause of the present state of progressive ‘civilisation’”.(29) In doing so there are multiple angles of assault, some may choose to focus on the democratic state as an affront to free exchange and material progress, some may choose to argue on the grounds that the implementation of democratic ideas and the process of democratisation replaced an order within society that lasted for centuries, others may choose to attack democracy on Machiavellian grounds, much as I have attempted to, in an effort to show the inherent elitism within any group of human actors, and that despite all the bluster democracy has and will always be a tool of the elites that benefits them to some other end. All of these avenues of rebuttal will be predicated upon one single relationship that brings the implementation of democracy into a much more revealing light, that the false notion of egalitarianism amongst all and their ability to have equal say and equal ruling is entirely fallacious, even in a setting where all have the same right to a vote, there is such a vast divide in understanding and knowledge throughout society that democracy can only be a tool for deception and a conscious one at that. An emotionally driven and anti-rational public could never agree upon a method for running society never mind one which functions towards an end other than the simplistic self-enrichment for one against the other. Even despite the advocates of wider political suffrage attempting to support a supposedly ever more “educated public”, which as shown before is a claim which becomes all too coincidental when the process as a whole in relation to the state is viewed. We still end up with a situation aptly described by Erik Ritter Von Kuehnelt-Leddihn in 1952, “...as a result of all this, emotions increasingly dominate the political scene; and the shrinkage of ‘one world’, on the other hand rapidly multiplies the number of questions having a bearing on individual nations. Owing to the perversity of this situation we have a never ending series of failures, the reaction to which is often a cry for an unlimited rule by experts. These are asked to rule with an iron fist, and to enforce a pagan utilitarianism of the worst Benthamite stamp. Ethics and human freedom would then be dispensed with as needless impediments”.(30)

Lastly I come to the most important, most simple and yet possibly most challenging aspect of where we go from here, action within communities. By this I do not necessarily mean that one must prepare for a civil war against the parliamentarians, however it may not be the worst of ideas. I ask that we engage in our local communities in a manner which solves problems, launches initiatives and engages in planning for the future. We must attempt to be as proactive as possible in superseding the necessity any of our neighbours have upon the state; social issues, logistics and even crime can and must be handled without the need for the state and its public services. Not only will this help to change the psychology of those around us to one of a locally aware mindset as opposed to one which is left destitute by the supposed of virtues of participating in the nation state and its existential zeitgeists, if done in accordance across many communities the high-trust society that so many clamour for may once again be a reality. These are the real revolutionary goals we must aspire to if we ever want to challenge the hegemony of the state and its managerial class of social engineers. Each and every step away from the state will add up to an impactful cultural moment where a rejection of the state becomes mainstream, the further and more rapid these steps are taken the more powerful this culminating effect will be. I fully understand that this will not be easy and that the risks associated with even non-violent rejections of the state as such and that supplanting state entitlements for rights guaranteed on your own land, by your own hand can be enormous but we must choose to sacrifice something now, before we are left with nothing to sacrifice. We must choose the most revolutionary act of all in such a totalising and universalist age, “...to withdraw one’s consent and willing cooperation from the state and to promote its de-legitimation in public opinion so as to persuade others to do the same. Without the erroneous public perception and judgement of the state as and necessary and without the public’s voluntary cooperation, even the seemingly most powerful government would implode. Thus liberated we would regain our right to self-defence…”.(31)

(1) Hans Hermann Hoppe: The Great Fiction

(2) Vladimir Lenin: State and Revolution

(3,4,5) Sam Francis: Leviathan & Its Enemies

(6) Vladimir Lenin: State and Revolution

(7,8) Hans Hermann Hoppe: The Great Fiction

(9) Vladimir Lenin: State and Revolution

(10) Carl Schmitt: Political Theology

(11,12) Hans Hermann Hoppe: The Great Fiction

(13) Ted Kaczynski: Technological Slavery

(14) Hans Hermann Hoppe: The Great Fiction

(15) Sam Francis: Leviathan & Its Enemies

(16-19) Hans Hermann Hoppe: The Great Fiction