Deus Ex Machina: Crucifying the dream of limited government in the U.S.

I have been told by a respected member of the patriot movement that I routinely bring up rather heretical topics. I consider it a compliment, but also consider this a trigger warning…apparently the statists are not the only people who get bent out of shape confronting inconvenient truths. Much debate and discussion has occurred among the various free-thinkers here in the U.S. about the future of our government and what the replacement will look like. Thankfully, we have seen a gradual movement beyond ‘restoring the Constitution,’ but the discussion continues to be mired in the desire for the unattainable. I intend to put the matter to rest, driving a stake through the heart of the libertarian, anarchist, and paleoconservative. Undoubtedly this will result in consternation among the diehard supporters, but I believe looked at objectively, the facts will speak for themselves.

spr.jpgA government is an ethereal mixture of reality and perception. Governments exist at the whim of the populace at large, they rely on compliance by the vast, vast majority of the population to function. Consent of the governed is not a philosophical statement, but a statement of fact. A microcosm would be the nearest city to me, having a population of ~70,000, and a combined LEO presence of 300. Assuming every LEO will act in unquestioned obedience, it leaves us with a ratio of 233:1. In a strictly rational sense the perception of omnipotence, or at least near omnipotence is a larger part of the equation than the reality of non-parity of weaponry on a national scale and parity at the local level. As a result of this reliance on perception, a government is ultimately a reflection of the aggregate zeitgeist, intellect and education of the population. The government may have a long tether, but it is tethered to the population nonetheless. The services, authority and control that are acceptable will manifest themselves. Some will ask about PRNK or PRC and state that surely people cannot want that level of tyranny. The continued compliance of the general populace means that logically we must draw that conclusion. Perhaps revolt would be of horrific consequences, but the population is still making the choice that compliance is preferable to revolt. Few governments have the capability to quell a true rebellion of a simple majority of their population, and even fewer have leaders willing to exterminate 51% or more of their population.

The dire warnings of Jefferson, Franklin, Adams and other luminaries about the necessity of a specific culture and education level to maintain a constitutional republic largely fell on deaf ears. Because governments are a function of the aggregate populace, we can draw correlations between the manifestation of particular types of governments and the supporting populations. Populations who can support nearly all of the responsibilities historically delegated to governments, such as infrastructure, economic and social safety nets, and dispute resolution require the median citizenry (50th percentile) to operate at a higher function of both intelligence and self-regulation. Contra, the higher burden placed on a government, the less intelligence and self-regulation is required  by the citizenry. In social contract theory this can be explained through an equilibrium of exchange between the two parties, citizens and the government. Few services and regulation in exchange for a low level of compliance and monetary compensation for providing regulation and services (taxes). Abundant services and massive regulation require large amounts of compliance (a crude form of behavior modification) and monetary compensation. The entire philosophical idea can be expressed in terms of a bivariate quadratic equation, the respective unknown variables being self-regulation and external regulation in its most basic terms, but always self-balancing.¹

The application of this theory to modern and historical nations, particularly in the case of the United States, illustrates the problem with the forms of government having less regulation than the current model, a significantly degraded constitutional republic, or more accurately a socialist democracy. Many within the libertarian, anarchist and other more classically liberal forms of government focus on the proof of concept. Unfortunately, this philosophical exercise ignores the real-world limitations of the populace. In essence, they have designed a modern GE turbofan before the discovery of superalloys. The plan is sound, but the prerequisites are nonexistent. “The U.S. ranked 16th out of 23 countries in literacy proficiency, 21st in numeracy proficiency, and 14th in problem solving in technology-rich environments, according to the OECD survey.²” In terms of strictly literacy, “50% of adults cannot read a book written at an eighth grade level, 45 million are functionally illiterate and read below a 5th grade level, 44% of the American adults do not read a book in a year, 6 out of 10 households do not buy a single book in a year.³” The Flesch-Kinkaid scale ranks the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence at a 17.8 and 15.1 grade level, respectively. While unscientific, I believe it is completely reasonable to assert a wholesale ignorance of the philosophical, economic and moral philosophies that gave rise to the constitutional republic in the United States. Aside from the esoteric knowledge, the social norms have also been removed, leaving no functional bulwark to provide social pressure to behave responsibly in fiscal, personal or social matters. The populace has largely lost the ability to delay gratification for future growth, voluntarily place the benefit of the community or household over personal gratification and actively engages in persecution of deviation from the mean, providing a disincentive to excel in any meaningful field of work. In simple terms, the American populace has devolved to a point below which the original design of a constitutional republic can function. The equilibrium is becoming increasingly unbalanced as the populace fails to self-regulate and thus continues to push more and more decision making upon government entities.

finalAs the graph illustrates, I believe there is ample evidence to a positive correlation between the median intelligence and morality of a population and the type of government supportable by the population. As one increases along both the x and y axis there is a divestment of decision making by governmental bodies, because at its heart it is an inefficient way to distribute resources and artificially suppresses cultural and economic advancement. While IQ fails to wholly encompass the idea of intelligence, it serves handily as a label. What is truly meant by this label is the collective practical, philosophical and mathematical knowledge relating to everyday activities. At the level of anarchy the vast majority of the population requires a working knowledge of free market economics and possession of sound business acumen, as well as the foresight to make pragmatic contributions to public infrastructure. An example of this would be local businesses collectively widening and repaving a road to provide increased traffic flow for the town,indirectly benefitting the proprietors and recouping the expenditure via increase customer flow. As one moves down the curve, less and less collective intelligence is required. Statism for instance requires no thought by the local businessmen and substitutes that private exchange of ideas for a government order to widen and pave the highway, likely to increase traffic flow to the state-owned store where the profit-motive is nonexistent.

As you may note, a high level of intelligence without a moral bulwark results in sociopathic behavior. An amoral society cannot be a free society. Again, if we look at local businesses in an anarchist society we see the need for implicit trust between the owner and his customers. While in some cases tainted product might become immediately apparent, often it is not the case. Independent bodies might be established to ensure consumer confidence, but the opportunity for bribery and graft still exist without any moral component. Quite simply, individuals must discern between what they can do and what they should do. Simply because one has the ability to strip mine upstream from a local town and poison the water supply does not mean it is a moral decision. Maintaining a free society absolutely requires a significant level of cultural investment and the passing on of similar values to succeeding generations to prevent devolution or a complete crash to statism or tribalism. Conversely, cultural values and morality have little place and virtually no influence in highly regulated societies. As we have increasingly seen in the U.S., the religious and cultural spheres are being eclipsed by regulation stating what is and is not acceptable to believe, practice and say. The reason I specifically referred to Western cultural values is the undeniable fact that Western society has been the only segment of the world population to evolve past a functional monarchy. While Japanese and Chinese cultures have a long and storied tradition of relative stability, neither has been able to create a populace capable of sustaining more than a monarchy. Recent history has relegated them to either a constitutional monarchy that is quickly failing and a devolution back to statism.

Anarchy, panarchy, paleoconservatism and libertarianism are all exciting and largely untested forms of government. Interesting to contemplate and discuss, I do not discount the ideas as invalid, ignorant or irrational. What has been lost in translation is their unattainability. While most of the proponents of these forms of government are largely educated and moral people, there seems to exist a projection by many supporters that everyone else is much the same. If history, statistics and personal experience are any indication, one must take a decidedly low view of the public at-large in the United States. I believe the 2016 election cycle illustrates that point rather well. One candidate is markedly less felonious than the other, but in a nation of 360M+ people, these are not the two most qualified or even in the 1% of the most qualified. So my anarchist friends, I don’t hate you. I don’t even disagree with you on many things. I wish there were more of you. However the idea that people incapable of behaving responsibly with what limited freedom we have in this country will transform into a nation of John Adams’, Frederick Bastiats and Adam Smiths, is a vampire sucking valuable time and energy up from surviving the plunge to tribalism we are currently in. While not pleasant, it is time we put a stake in its heart and let it die. No doubt if we manage to survive the next few decades it will be a topic worthy of discussion, but even among many patriots and most conservatives, advanced forms of government are simply unsustainable. The public is now the equivalent of a 500 lb. obese pre-diabetic and we are arguing about whether he should climb K2 or Everest. Let it break and get out of the way. I know it sucks, but let go. A toast, here’s to the ideologues on the right side of the Bell curve and the wrong side of history. May we once again not only rise to such great heights as a people, but surpass them.

Jesse James

¹[ Nx² + Ny² = 0 ] I lack the necessary mathematical acumen and time to come up with an equation accurately representing the proposed model, but I believe this could be an advancement in our understanding of political theory. Pointy-head math types are free to email me.




25 thoughts on “Deus Ex Machina: Crucifying the dream of limited government in the U.S.

  1. God I wish you weren’t right. Unfortunately I see it happening all around us. Such a shame to the end of the greatest country in history. And by that I mean brought more people out of poverty and hopelessness than ever before.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Thank you for providing the stake, and driving it in. I’ve been saying the same things in abbreviated, halting and muddled fashion for many years, to little avail.

    I wish you had done so years ago and saved myself and many another less perceptive and articulate than yourself hours of fruitless and frustrating “debate” with anarchists and other theorists, utopians and ideologues.

    Very well written and reasoned. Congratulations. You are now the lightening rod for their fury. Many of us will have your back.


  3. “As you may note, a high level of intelligence without a moral bulwark results in sociopathic behavior. An amoral society cannot be a free society.”

    Sums it up.This why I abandoned the Libertarian ideology. Without a moral framework that entails so many facets of ones personal conduct, there is no way the single law of ZAP (Zero aggression Policy) would ever hold in a Libertarian world. ZAP becomes a single point of failure.


  4. I’m a little slow on the uptake. What you are proposing?
    “Screw it. We need the tyrannical police state to keep the stupid, violent proles and EBT army at bay. Let’s just try to stay in power so we can reward our friends and allies and punish the libs. ”
    Or “let’s smash it to bits and return to tribalism and hope that our great great great grandson is Thomas Jefferson 2.0”.


    1. We’ll call this a mulligan. As diktator of JJstan I try not to do straw men or false dilemmas. The crux of the article was X is not an option, so stop wasting time on treating X as an option. Frankly, you don’t need me to figure out what you’re supposed to do. It is an intensely local and personal decision. I have my own thoughts on the matter, but I do not share them because that is not information I want public for OPSEC reasons. Pragmatically, we DO need at the very minimum a constitutional monarchy with a statesman at the helm to have even a remote possibility to avoid the abyss. Is it possible? Negatory, ghost rider. So I don’t waste time with it, not to mention the inevitable misunderstanding that will result as people jump to conclusions and morph ‘this is the best option out of all bad options…none of which I want,’ into ‘I’m a statist and think monarchy is the best ever.’ Secondly, I’m not in power and neither are my people. I don’t even know if I have any people per se, the few that might be ‘my people’ couldn’t fill a bus most likely. The whole point of the post is that the current power structure is unsustainable and rapidly devolving. It is going to be smashed to bits and likely return to tribalism if we are lucky, whether I will it or no. What comes after will likely be local tribalism, regional dictatorships, pseudo-monarchies/oligarchy and unstable democracies. If not, we wind up at national statism with a brutal apparatchik to keep the dirt people from causing problems. What you choose to do with that information or how you will mollify this terminal trajectory depends on your morals, your skills, your friends and your location. Haha, as an aside, I would be very unhappy if any grandkids of mine were to turn into a Jefferson. We would all be better without his influence on constitutional discussion, we may have avoided the poison pill of federalism altogether and went closer to Patrick Henry or George Mason’s approach. Jefferson is brilliant and I admire him for that, but I certainly have deep disagreements with his approach.


      1. That is a really great and thoughtful, and thought compelling lucid piece JJ.
        Patrick Henry was right, he was always right.
        All I know is it all begins with me. No matter what it begins with me. It is all I can do, no matter what else. The funny thing is I believe you are right about what you contend, but that truth of us doesn’t make what can be impossible either. It is what I do with the time left to me, how I comport myself that matters.
        My bus is so small it’s one of those special buses, but lots of little buses add up to a train.
        Hey, really great piece here you wrote.

        One never know’s, as you imply correctly, you got to have faith, stranger things have happened. The good Lord works in very mysterious ways.


    1. Perhaps I should have included the literacy rate was relevant to the voting public at the time. I have doubts about the veracity of data collection in 1870 among the general populace, but let us suppose they are entirely correct. Marrying into a family of teachers gives you a rather dismal look into exactly what our educational system has devolved into. A graduate can be illiterate or ready for an Ivy-league school. Most trend toward the illiterate, and I mean that in the literal sense. Many of the public schools place illiterate students in ESL classes to push them out the door. The point being that we could have 99% graduation rate and be a ‘more educated’ population than 1900. In terms of actual knowledge held by the average American, we might be far, far behind. Samples of educational textbooks from even the turn of the century certainly indicate a higher level of civic understanding. I simply fail to understand how a country where the majority of people aren’t even aware of what ‘separation of powers’ is, maintains a functioning republic. It is difficult to pin knowledge down to a metric, as people like Gates or Edison might have vast amounts of knowledge and little education. Literacy rates yield some insight into that. It is worth noting that 14% of the population cannot read above a 5th grade level while 20% were illiterate in 1870, with the caveat that slavery had been abolished and added 4M people who largely could not read into the equation. I don’t have any other readily available metrics to measure average awareness of civic and economic principles, but I’m open to suggestions.


  5. Do not neglect the aspect of human nature. There has always been the pursuit of territory, resources, power, control, etc. Without removing these inherent aspects of human nature there can be no change. How do we remove the sins of greed, lust, power, control from imperfect human beings? The only deterrent is law, social, community or peer pressure. The aggregate of any group up to 300 adults can be the decision, policy, and law makers and judges based on any standards that are acceptable to their group only and not imposed on any other group. When everyone in the group know each other there is less room for deceipt and better checks and balances. As the group becomes larger the checks and balances become frayed until self-control, the moral of doing the right thing, “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” and the “rule of law” become quaint notions and the field of any human endeavor becomes ripe for exploitation and corruption.


    1. We don’t remove the fallen nature of man. It is the primary and biggest mistake made by statists, that man is inherently good. Hence the requirement of morality if we are to take increasing amounts of dispute resolution away from government. Rather than the government, we rely on the aggregate of individuals to provide their own internal checks and balances. I doubt the possibility of achieving that goal, but I don’t discount it either. This was a primarily philosophical argument, practically applied. In practicality we may never see another constitutional republic again, as the various social, economic and religious forces present at the time may never collide in such a way again. I’m a firm believer in the Dunbar Number, so I definitely understand where you are coming from.


      1. “It is the primary and biggest mistake made by statists, that man is inherently good.”

        If statists believed man is inherently good, then they wouldn’t believe in the necessity of the state to force them to behave well. But they do, Consequent denied, antecedent false; hence your claim is false. Frankly it looks to me like a roundabout way to stick with the likewise false premise that man is inherently evil.

        Peeps are what they choose to be, always. This is absolutely foundational to any rational social arrangement.

        Now, I speak of statists of the run-of-the-mill variety, like the vast majority of Americans. Looters would be going after the loot no matter what anyone believed. Duh, it’s what makes them looters. That’s why I personally think it’s a waste of time to ponder what to do with such looters…belief and persuasion have nothing to do with them. OTOH I also believe that the vast, vast majority of people don’t want to be thieves or looters…they’ve just been intellectually snookered and unwittingly directed into it. The goal isn’t to have everyone be a good person; the goal is that no evil person should have power over others…and that in turn directly implies that those others must have more power. That’s what gave rise to the bullshit governments in the first place, a desire that good people should have overwhelming power over bad people. Not a stupid idea intellectually, just naive. It’s so oversimplified that even the bad people could figure out what to do with that arrangement.

        Even worse, they did it.


        1. ” It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.” – Madison (Federalist 51)

          Jeremiah 17:9 “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?”

          Romans 3:10-11 “As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.”

          If statists believed mankind had a sin nature then the entire premise of the argument that an all-powerful government (of sinful men) could create a paradise on earth and solve the problems of greed, corruption and basic unfairness of life is a non sequitur. A great deal of words were spent justifying limited government at the founding of this country using that very reason. Rousseau, Hegel and Marx were quite clear that the evil mankind must be purged of was due to environment rather than mankind. Rousseau’s (the only real intellectual heavyweight among modern statists) primary disagreement with Hobbes was the nature of man. Hobbes adhered to the Biblical philosophy and Rousseau went with the exact opposite of Hobbes’ ‘state of nature’. I suggest his Discourse on Inequality, if you can stomach it the whole way through. My religious beliefs compel me to maintain that mankind has a fallen nature. We must agree to disagree. Throughout history there has always been people more than willing to take what isn’t theirs and follow men willing to do it. Unless you can guarantee others will come to your defense on their own free accord, the idea is equally as naive as unrestricted government. There almost wasn’t a western civilization because the Greeks could barely come together in the face of an existential threat.


          1. “If statists believed mankind had a sin nature then the entire premise of the argument that an all-powerful government (of sinful men) could create a paradise on earth and solve the problems of greed, corruption and basic unfairness of life is a non sequitur.”

            Sure, and that’s why we are where we are—reality admits of no contradiction. Thing is, people do. Your hidden minor premise there is, “If something is a non sequitor, then people won’t do it,” easily demonstrable as false. Heck, these days it might be tough to show that people ever do anything logical!

            Sorta the same point with Rousseau, Hegel and Marx. Who gives a hoot what they said? People lie too, and even when not lying are often mistaken.

            To me, the whole thing sounds like the oft-repeated comment…”Anarchists are dreaming of some utopia where all men get along with other men.” Well, you were saying that of statists but the two claims are similar. Poppycock; I’ve never heard a single (modern) anarchist say anything even close to that. The argument, or at least one of them, is quite a bit simpler—“If theft and slavery are wrong, then don’t institutionalize them or strive to do them more efficiently.”

            Any way you cut it, someone who believes that man is inherently good is not going to be pushing for a giant Leviathan to make them that way. Statists inevitably do. In my experience, statists are not very vocal in shouting about the decent nature of men. I’d be impressed if a cop ever did.

            I’m not sure any of it matters anyway, since we’re well beyond intentions meaning very much at all. They may be important in judging a person’s actions, but not nearly as important as what that person does.


            1. I think we are talking at cross-purposes, perhaps. If they can be believed (a big if), the general Fabian philosophy, which is where most of the idiots in FUSA trace their ideological heritage back to, is that environment produces bad people. Remove/control the environment and you eliminate the problem. That line of thinking is quite prevalent, eliminate poverty to prevent crime, education to prevent poverty/crime and so on. We are all rich beyond imagination compared to 500 years ago, and our standard of living is likely better than European royalty had at the time. Yet we still steal, still covet, still murder. A TRUE socialist, say Bernie Sanders, I think actually buys into the line that changing the environment removes all barriers to utopia. As do most of the educated cosmic whites. I’m sure you’ve heard the oft regurgitated Magic Dirt Theory that’s led to such illustrious places as Dearborn, or Lewistown. FDR was big on this idea, and I think part of it is thoughts I’ve admittedly had myself at times. Stupid people need direction and like kids, they need to be told what to do for their own good. I empathize with the urge, but I also can’t square it with my faith and mankind’s history. I think the other, more malevolent line of statist is really just a petty tyrant. Concerned with accruing wealth through power or vice versa, he’s more of a Luca Brasi than an ideologue. Your low IQ, brain-dead voters, most FLEAs and bureaucrats are this way, if my personal sampling is to be believed. They don’t give a crap about the nature of man if they’ve ever even contemplated it, and are materialists or sadists. I am with the ‘leave me alone’ school of thought. The only thing I believe many anarchists to underestimate is the willingness of their fellow man to cooperate for the wrong reasons. My only real concern is with charismatic sociopaths accruing power and followers and going on the warpath against people largely unable to coalesce for their own survival even as we speak. Is it worse than statism? Not by a long shot. There are ways to ameliorate the problem, but few seem to really want to look at the actual application of it in detail. You’re right though, intentions are out. Right it’s pretty much about who’s going to be on the right and wrong side of the gun barrel.


  6. The way I read your essay, it seems you’re conflating IQ/intelligence with education/knowledge. Do you feel that if part of society has a g factor 15 points lower than the rest that they are incapable of living in a libertarian society given proper education? Thanks. (The answer, however, won’t change our current situation at all.)


    1. I stated in a previous comment that both concepts are difficult to quantify, so it is difficult to speak of it in absolute terms. While IQ and knowledge (education is a piece of paper tbh) are not identical, they are highly correlated in real life. I will say, the following is mere conjecture on my part. G factor -15 would depend entirely on the median. Not to confuse the two, but turn it into a more usable term for this example, let’s assume we have in JJstan an average IQ of 140 (it’s a real small place). Let’s say a drop to 125 occurs, it is entirely possible for someone at that level of intelligence to maintain a libertarian society if they maintain a minority, say 20-30%. Education may help mollify that difference, but would not erase it. The difference would slowly disappear as genetic mixing occurred, but initially it would be noticeable. Much would depend on if the less gifted segment was marginalized economically or socially. I personally believe you could maintain a libertarian society with 100 IQ, but to make the jump to it would require significantly higher. Think of it like an electron making a quantum leap, you need an absorption of energy to push it to an outer shell. I do believe there is a limitation to a society capable of sustaining a libertarian society. Where that is, I am not entirely sure. Whether it is hereditary g-factor or developed cognitive abilities, certain societies and cultures seem unable to produce sufficient brain power to make the jump above tribal societies or dictatorships (the history of Rhodesia comes to mind), or from monarchy to republic (UK) or from republic to libertarian/anarchist (US). More specific commentary can be had via email should you require it, sir (or ma’am). Good question though.


  7. “I have been told by a respected member of the patriot movement that I routinely bring up rather heretical topics.”

    Only then do people begin to think. That thought must be perpetuated by learned individuals the way you’re doing it.

    Another well grounded essay, Brother.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Dark topic, but an important one!

    There is no doubt that the present state of affairs is not sustainable. The real question is- what percentage of the population is required to establish and sustain a given cultural and governmental type? is that percentage higher or lower for more developed types of either? What influence does communication technology have? Does average IQ affect the above answers?

    All interesting questions, to which we will be providing a datum point in the near future.

    There is no doubt that there are conceptual and physical pre-requisites for a culture of liberty.
    See also

    Loss of the electrical power grid in these presently united States, such as might result from a Carrington Event or a HEMP, or even a major disease pandemic, has been estimated to result in anywhere from 90% to 99% fatalities in the general population, disproportionately affecting the urban centers. If those who hold the values of liberty are disproportionately represented among the survivors, at what percentage of the remaining population would those values become dominant? Under normal conditions, one would think that it would take 1/3 of the population or more to share a value before it became dominant, but my gut reaction is that this percentage might be much lower in the circumstance of a national or international catastrophe.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. JJ, you have stated my position with elegance and eloquence! Although it would be an engaging way to waste some time, I will forgo the offer to develop the mathematical equation more fully. Over the past few years I periodically attempt to address the elephant in the room, that of the true nature of mankind. We are broken creatures in rebellion and it shows, time after time it shows. It will ALWAYS show until He returns.

    I admit that I find pleasure in reading utopian anarchist writings, but they simply cannot admit to man’s true nature. As a Christian I understand the failures in all cultures: I am the problem. Even with higher average levels of intellect culture will devolve without the strong moral compass of a Christian worldview. It also relates to population density. I refer people back to Gen 11 as a guide to what happens when too many people end up in close proximity. They exalt themselves and turn from God. Look at morality and voting patterns vs population density in this country. There are no “blue states” but merely blue population centers.

    For the Christian who clings to Rom 13 as evidence that full submission to ANY government is mandatory, I suggest a reading of 1Samuel 8. God points out to Samuel that the ‘desire for a King like the other nations’ is a rejection of Himself! Our founders were largely Christians (or STRONGLY adherent to a Christian worldview) and rejected their British ruling government.

    There is no answer to this world other than the Return of THE King. We will flounder and struggle until that time. I am fond of reminding people that this life is a training ground, boot camp for eternity. Nothing more. And I confess I am so weary of boot camp! Hard times are ahead. It always happens as empires collapse and fragment. But the road is not of my choosing, that belongs to my King. I will attempt to do my meager best, I can do no more.


    1. Thank you, ApoloDoc.

      Between your comment and JJ’s treatise and comments, this whole topic and the anarchist fervor should be laid to permanent rest. Should be, but won’t because it is the ultimate rebellion against both Man and God, the ultimate exaltation of Self before others. Beatifying the ego as does one of the more persistent representatives is the lowest form of idolatry.

      As a correspondent of mine recently wrote in regard to this thread, “Have you ever noticed how the vast majority of anarchists are atheists?”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s