‘Looking at its etymology, “nice” is not a “nice” word for us new wave of tradition folks. We’re not supposed to be “nice” guys. We have a saying in Iceland, as elsewhere, that the last person to laugh has the best laugh. The following is said to your benefit, bona fide, my dear bon homes.
Definition is a tool of the LORD. He separates light from dark, for in the darkness all is equal. All the cows are black in the night. I.e. they are equal,
in pitch black:
equally dark. As in the Darkness of Communism, where all are equally human. Except the capitalist pigs.
We all see through a glass darkly. What if the anarchy you see has its origins within you? What, my dear M., if it is you who are an anarchist?
Certainly, we are living in a certain order. An arche.
A New World Order. Such as Bush Senior called the order of the world after Sovietism.
The world order of a Liberal somewhat-Democractic State under Capitalism with a degree of Market freedom. In an empire of merchants; artists, and machinators.
That order is easier—apparently—to dispute now with acts of terrorism being frequent within its borders.
Yet I think one has more chances of dying in a normal car crash than in a terrorist attack.
So it hasn’t disturbed the order much. Our beloved Coca-Cola still tastes.
Which is to say we are living in an order.
If you never challenge me, you will probably not grow, and remain retarded in this regard. Stunted.
I am not an anarchist myself, but, to use a word etymologically: an archeologist. Or, to avoid confusion, an Archist. Perhaps an anarch in the Storms of Steel sense,
but never an Anarchist. I am not for disorder as a political path. I am for things like, what is meant with “organized chaos”, i.e. chaos as an organ for growth or creativity. Relative anarchy is unavoidable, but anarchism is a misnomer for (self-)conscious enough autonomist causes. Anarchy is e.g. what I call it when people get too drunk and do things they regret for the rest of their lives. They were anarchic. They ruined the bar in anarchy. Disorderly or not acting according to their essentially and typically preferred order of things. This is all because anarchy means without (an) order (arche). Anarchy means disorder. A large percentage of self-styled anarchists are actually more properly called autonomists. While a number of them are anarchic criminals properly called anarchists. They are simply maldeveloped humans, maladjusted and thus in rebellion against the image of the pedagogue. However, there are legitimate rebellions against tyrannous fathers, and these are not anarchic or done by anarchists, typically, but autonomist.
A bad father sets bad law, so that law is replaced by better law. Anarchy was providentially used to rebell and replace the tyranny, but that does not make the autonomists anarchists. They obviously set their own rules. Thus they are archists. Rightists. Archons. That was organized anarchy, anarchy made into an organ for greater archic status.
It also seems to me you cannot decide whether you are mostly for private property or a bit more for communism. Yes, there is a commonwealth but the degree to which the Romish Catholic Church took it was over the limit and into Communism. Hence, their eternal struggle with princes and emperors — the latter, which were, I promise you, capitalists. Who did things for wealth. You cannot be very wealthy for very long without upholding a degree of justice. Justice — is required for capitalism. Let’s be clear, the ancient and medieval States were set up by raiders. That is worse than being a capitalist, as that is invading another’s land and taking their valuables for wealth. That’s how England came to be, as well as the empires of the Russians, the Franks, and of course the Romans.
But commies and anarchists dispute that there is justice in capitalism. You may claim there is a third way, a non-communist anti-capitalism, but that is a misunderstanding of concepts. Fascism is rather communist. Yes, it is a mix, (and societies are never “pure” ideologically or otherwise, but are always a mix) but one which is utilized (successfully domesticated) by the Capitalists which won both World Wars. The Third Way — shall we say of the Church — is relatively communist. Communist: means that the means of production are “commonly” but not privately owned. Capitalist means that they are privately owned. There is always a commonwealth, i.e. some form of communism (such as of air—oxygen—and sunlight), but cross certain limits and you are within Communism. There is never any stateless society, but there are societies in different states of Statehood. Historically, and realistically, and thus actually, State-owned means of production are communistic. There’s always a strata within society which is more statelike than those members who are less operating as crafters of state. The Romish Catholic Church, Roman-so far as it was headquartered in Rome, and based on Indo-European Latin customs, partly, was a State.
So far as it held the means of production, such as sexual reproduction, and food production, land, for an egalitarian ideal, it was communistic. This does not equate “Böse” (badness). It were the communistic monastic orders that laid some of the foundations of Modern Science.
It is the same with other States, of princes, kings or emperors. So far as these powers held the means of production for an ideal, such as the ideal of the noble family, whose production is sexual reproduction (the continuation of the lineage), and the production of an order of arms and war (the continuation, and-preferably-the expansion of borders), these powers were fascistic. They also produced security against roaming nigger bandits, or else blonde or mongolian militiaries who might invade—from the South, and from the East—if not from the North.
Who were the producers of wealth? Those who made things of beauty and health. Those who would provide you with food, when your crops failed.
Frankly, I’m sure you value your private property and its privation towards others. You’ll wish your bedroom to be a privation to but your dearest and closest.
You may think I’m being facile here, but a communism of bedrooms has often been tried and even been forced. It was forced under the Church sometimes.
The issue of capitalism misunderstood and rebelled against, seems an idée fixe for you. You cannot separate the disappointments people have had in their lives with their private economies, from the concept of Capitalism. That is very common. It is more common than not.
People blame capitalism like they blame religion.
If you cannot stick to a degree to the dictionary definition of capitalism, the word is relatively meaningless and its use mostly sentimental.
It is me, and Nick Land, who came to serve as my (ideo-)logical terra firma for the Empire I am creating,* who is using the commonwealth of ordinary dictionary
meanings, indeed of the great commonwealth of Wikipedia. It is you who are using the pet definitions of anarchists.
You wish for a degree of autonomy, so do I, so we have a common goal there.
You wish to see the fair Kingdom, and so do I.
Millions now living will never die.
Strange events in the sky.
Heal the lame.
* you serve as my Idealistic heaven.
Signaturum rex infernalis,
30 September anno domini 2017
I. Guðjón Ólafur Eiríksson Öfjörð
Hofslundur, Gnúpverjahreppur, Iceland