The Anarchs' Rule Book: Foreword
Foreword
The title of this book I hope brings to mind another book by a similar name. “The Anarchist Cookbook” is the one I am referring to. To many, that book is a negative contribution to society. This book, however, intends to change the way you look at what we call “Anarchism” and “Anarchists”. This is a work purely based on opinion, with, of course, some research applied where needed. For the most part, I consider these ideas to be common sense, or what I call natural logic.
It seems clear to me, whether intentional or not, “The Anarchist Cookbook” only served to equate what we call “Anarchists” with what we call “Terrorists”. Personally, I lean toward this being an intentional comparison, carefully designed to turn people away from a certain way of thinking. Nearly fifty years later, there is even a documentary purporting the dangers of this book on Netflix. Undoubtedly this serves well to bring the cookbook into the mainstream mindset, again equating what we call “Anarchism” with what we call “Terrorism”.
If we are to have a true paradigm shift, we must break our programming. We must truly reprogram ourselves. We perceive the world purely through our mind. Words are the conduits that construct our thoughts, ideas, and expression. They do make up the world we perceive around us. This is where we must start, in each of our own minds. If the perception of enough people change, the material world will manifest those perceptions by way of each of our actions.
Anarchism has nothing to do with violence. In point of fact, government is intimate with violence. It maintains and expands its control through violence. Odd that it isn’t viewed in the way anarchy is. Even the words we use in reference to anarchy are incorrect. What is the definition of the word “Anarchist”? Google’s definition is particularly telling:
Look at the synonyms used in the definition. Look at how the word is being used in a sentence. This clearly demonstrates what you are meant to believe. Again, I am of the opinion that this is not coincidental. So what does the Google define “Anarchy” as?
This definition is interesting. The first line draws a connection between disorder and anarchy. Anarchy is not a state of disorder, that is what we call “chaos”. Order is the an antonym for “chaos”. It is possible to have order in in one's life without control of an external authority.
You may find it of interest that the widely recognized symbol for “anarchy”, is in fact simply the letter “A” enclosed within the letter “O”. “A” stands for “Anarchy”, and the “O”? You guessed it… The “O” stands for “Order”. Let’s see how Google defines “Order”.
No mention of anarchy or anarchist here. Just simply the opposite of what we call “chaos”.
A more accurate set of words for what is commonly called “anarchism”, or “anarchists” would be “chaosism”, or “chaosists”. I won’t dispute that there are certainly individuals who call themselves “anarchists”, who are in truth “chaosists”, destruction being their main goal and intent. We should refer to them as such. If we see individuals orr groups such as Antifa calling themselves “anarchists”, we should call them what they are “chaosists”. If we can do this, and it sticks, perceptions will change.
It’s obvious that Google, among others, hope to brand these words in a way as to make people scared of them. That’s okay, we can see the tricks. We can let them have these words. Under natural logic these words are incorrect anyway. Let’s think of a word of grandeur that more closely matches. What do you think the opposite of what we call “Anarchy” would be? Could it be what we call “Monarchy”? Interesting isn’t it? Have you ever heard the word “Monarchist” used? What we call an “Anarchist” doesn’t believe another human should rule over them. Doesn’t what we call a “Monarch” rule over the others? So logically, those who believe they need another human to rule them are “monarchists”. Transversely, it seems the correct word for a person that believes in what we call “Anarchy”, is in truth an “Anarch”.
If you believe in order, and absolute individual freedom, you should refer to yourself as an “Anarch”.
How about the word “Anarchism”? This word is similar to “Terrorism”, “Communism”, “Capitalism”. Google defines this as:
Surprisingly, the above is a less negative definition. Still, it seems this word is too much like so many of the “ism”s of the world that have an amorphous meaning. Amorphous, or ambiguity in a philosophy of how one wants to live their life, makes the goal unclear. When striving to build a better future for humanity, one should be clear and concise.
The aim in building a voluntary society should be logic or fact based. It is true that a voluntary anarchic society is only a theory at this time. The word “Theory” is similar to Anarchy; what is good about likening it to a theory is a theory strives for the truth. The word “Theorem” is a variant of the word “Theory”. Where a “theory” is an idea, a “theorem” is a set of rules, though not self evident, are put forth forth with an expected result. It then follows that replacing the word “Anarchism” with a new word “Anarchem” would possibly put this philosophy further into a positive light. The sound of it, gives it a certain concrete weight. If we focus on the specific steps we can take to reach our goal, we will have the theorem to achieve a truly voluntary society. It may seem unimportant to change your vocabulary, but it will transform how you, and those around you, view this philosophy. We must redefine what Anarchy means to us, in this world instead of how it is has been defined for us if we want to free ourselves from mental bondage.
As Anarchs in this world, we reject the idea of what is called “government”. It is crucial to not view what we call “government” as adversarial to Anarchem. The Anarch should instead view the idea of government as unnecessary. Government is not even a worthy adversary, it is useless. It shouldn’t be assigned any weighty words that may give it power.
The word Government is taken from root words in Latin meaning loosely: “mind control”. “Gubenare” meaning to direct, rule, guide and “mense” / “ment” which in Latin means mind. The Anarch is in control of their own mind, therefore there can be no external control imposed, and so called “government” has no power. It would be helpful to not even use the word “government” when possible. It should be referred to with less weighty, amorphous words such as “Oligarchy”, “Demogarchy”, or “Kakistocracy”. Even satirical words such as “demonacracy” are more appropriate.
You maybe be thinking, the name of this book is an oxymoron. “How can there be rules in anarchy?” I would say you are perhaps a chaosist, not an Anarch. Or perhaps you are an Oligarchist that doesn’t truly grasp the idea. Anarchem is not about chaos or disorder. Anarchism is thought of by the average Oligarchist as chaos. The term brings to mind some punk rock kid with a nose ring and mohawk, sporting an anarchy symbol patch on their jean jacket. Though, it really has nothing to do with chaos. Oligarchists submit to the rule of the Oligarchy, they are effectively owned by the Oligarchs. The Anarch submits only to his or her own rule, taking complete ownership in themselves. If you are to rule your life, you must certainly have established an order within it. Becoming an Anarch may not be an easy thing. In fact, if a voluntary society of Anarchem were to be successful in this world, order within the individual and their life should be a requirement in order to participate in such a society.
No man is an island. It is unrealistic to think any society can exist without some form of cooperation between those within it. Cooperation is essential in any system. It is paramount that participation in such a society be voluntary. Together we can decide the most important problems we are facing, and solve them through innovation and ingenuity… Something that government has never, and will never do.
Kali, Goddess of destruction. You may only be familiar with this aspect of the mythological goddess. In actuality, Kali is the Goddess of Time, Change, and Destruction. In western traditions of faith, she may be looked upon as a demon. If you study her, you will find that she is not a demon. To the contrary, she is a demon slayer, thought of as the ultimate reality.; destroyer of the ego. I bring her up because if we wish to transform our world, if we aim to enact change, this will take time. So many of the corrupt systems in place today are the result of ego. Those in power putting systems into place to maintain their stranglehold. Even if we create a new system, if we operate from the ego… We will only rebuild what exists today. We must work with intent to destroy the old paradigm without ego. Kali is the Goddess of Destruction and Creation. With the destruction of the old, comes the creation of the new.
Where “The Anarchist Cookbook” intended to empower Anarchists with intimate knowledge in techniques and applications of destruction and violence, this book intends to empower Anarchs with knowledge in techniques of creation and unity. The Oligarchy of America is a master of destruction. Destruction through violence is a force that will never serve to benefit humanity. It is absurd to think you will overpower the source of destruction and violence with destruction and violence. Knowledge is the only king the Anarch should bow to. I endeavor to document ways to become self sufficient, ways Anarchs can build a voluntary society. I’ve been wanting to research ways of living more self sufficiently. I will use this to document my own learning process, hopefully compiling useful information as I move along.