| On Nation States, Governments, Corporations, Cults, and Anarchy 11-01-13 mpg Forget Democrazy, Give Me Safe Borders A quote...."The logic? Very simply, this: If you don’t have territorial integrity, you don’t have a “state.” If you don’t have a state, you cannot build institutions. If you don’t have institutions, you will never have representative government. -- The foreign geniuses who thought they could invade and “regime-change” their way to “democracy” with first Iraq and Afghanistan, then Libya and Syria, forgot the foundational elements of a nation-state – namely, sovereignty and territorial integrity. When you cross a border uninvited and undermine a central government, you rip at the seams of the state itself.." True, but of course that was ALWAYS the intention of the "Trinity of Evil" and their professed goal in implementing Israel's PNAC Protocols. Nation-state destruction HAS ALWAYS BEEN their objective all along. And before people begin to believe this website editor is a "statist", understand quite clearly this website editor considers the nation-state structure to be the worst form of organized societal structures....save all others. They are large enough in this day and age to be efficient and powerful enough to defend themselves, but not too exploitative as would be an empire, yet they're small enough to limit their destructive damage, unless of course they form coalitions, essentially nation-state gangs or syndicates to rip off other nation-states. This is what the original League of Nations and its later incarnation the United Nations was supposed to prevent. Wilson did not try hard enough with the League of Nations, it was simply designed to fail. No doubt he was constrained by the Zionist Banksters who ruled over him. The United Nations however has become an utter, unnecessary, tragedy, a mockery of its original concept It has now been perverted and twisted by Israel's North American colonial agents to the point where almost everything it says or does these days has become an ugly exercise in Orwellian hypocrisy. Where a policy of deliberately unacknowledged, in-your-face, blatant support of the Saudi Parasitic Family's non-stop terrorist activity for over a decade against selected nation-states, horribly destructive as such a policy is, is than used as a "humanitarian" pretext to bomb to smithereens whatever remains of the afflicted nation-states being targeted. All so they can be more efficiently looted of their natural resources on behalf of dollar hegemony, to help spread the Saudis bastardized un-Islamic Wahhabism, and so Israel doesn't have to contend with any competitive nation-state structures nearby for its growing mini-empire of racist Zionism. Many people don't like nation-state structures, especially all of those anarcho-libertarians out there (to dream the utterly impossible dream), they would disagree, or perhaps even vehemently dispute the concept that true anarchy cannot be used for societal governance. Fine, let's go over it again shall we? From small to large here are some examples of societal structures: two people, family, group, extended family, village, tribe, tribal nation, city-state, nation-state, confederation, and empire. At no point during the last five thousand years of these ever increasingly larger societal organizations was there ever a successful experiment in anarchism. For two reasons. The first, extremely obvious reason is that SIZE does matter. Larger societal structures are usually able to compete better, last longer and acquire more resources than smaller structures, especially when they do so by force. Which is why there is always a steady tendency for these structures to get larger. The individual will almost always lose out to two or more individuals. The family will almost always lose out to the extended family, or tribe. The tribe will almost always lose out to the city-state or nation-state, and so on and so forth. You can call it the law of aggregation if you wish. The second reason is that the VERY INSTANT you agree to ANY SET, of common rules, even JUST ONE, to regulate relations between two or more people, or entities, you have a form of contract, a law, a constitution, or whatever you wish to call it, and when any of these are violated, whatever they are, there will usually be some form of agreed upon sanction. In other words, governance. Therefore, by definition, you no longer have a state of "anarchy". It's like that old cliche where a man makes a proposition to a chaste, religiously observant woman while offering increasingly larger sums of money to get her to agree to his demands. When she finally hints she might relent in her opposition to his promises of outrageous sums, he states "now that we've established what you are, we're just haggling over the price" There is simply no point in talking about "anarchy". It doesn't exist. You can have more freedom or less freedom within an agreed upon societal structure, but there will still be a structure. The closest experiments in anarchy that ever existed in history were places like Europe during the hundred years war, or the Middle East today, and these examples were thankfully a far cry from true anarchy. Once any rules are agreed to, if there is no fair or consistent sanction for those who violate them, you have EXACTLY what we have now in this nation. A parasitic class violating the previously agreed upon rules (the constitution) while using the enforcement structure of a societal organization (in this case a declining empire) to oppress and exploit the rest of the population. A form of societal break-down or dare one say it....anarchy. Now you can TRY to base a society's entire organizing principle on something other than an agreed upon governing structure or set of rules. For instance, transnational organizations like corporations. Corporations are extremely powerful at maximizing profit by efficiently allocating resources based on their own self interested bottom line. However they cannot provide, nor are their structures designed to provide, ANY of the other functions of societal organizations. They are essentially unregulated, undemocratic, unaccountable, amoral, profit making machines that in many cases instead of producing wealth, which many of them do quite efficiently, actually extract it, or even reduce it, in a given societal structure by unfairly externalizing their costs, internalizing their profits, while stripping or capturing what were previously freely available public assets or institutions from societal organizations without just compensation through the use of Banksterism, bribes, intimidation, outright theft and in some cases, warfare. Corporate structures CANNOT be used as the organizing basis of societal structures. They are part of and in many cases depend on, or even feed, on societal structures. Another organizing principal you can TRY to base a society's structure on would be that of religion. This has been tried three times as far as this website editor can tell.
Whether these two cults are violently altered, or more reasonably changed over time will of course be up to them and their adherents. This website editor does not have high hopes that it will be the later of those two choices - mpg |