What Now, My Loves?

A lot of agorist minded people believe that we need to start to build parallel systems to replace govt. I am inclined to agree with this.

However, one of the biggest hurdles for society that govt pretends to really help with which most agorist minded people want to ignore is the need for unified, cohesive society.

The agorist says if we get rid of govt, the great divider, we just automatically get unified.

I think deep down any grown up can acknowledge that this is bullshit. People in our society don’t just have different value systems, they have competing and exclusive systems to one another. Society worldwide has the battle scars of trying to maintain a multicultural union. Our incompatible differences do not make us stronger.

The only way to create a unified society is to either kick out the people who divide society or to find our like minded friends and then allow others to find their like minded and start sectioning off ourselves into regions to live as a cohesive societies. Most of the people I know are ok with this segregated society concept when they imagine voluntary villages. Essentially, if you have enough money as a collective, many wax poetic about buying off segments of land to invite like minded people to live and build together somewhat independently. While this sounds simple enough, I rarely see anyone trying it much less doing it effectively. None of these people advocate doing it where you already live or moving to regions already populated with people of more common values. They may be too afraid of post WWII propaganda about what a state of culturally unified people may lead to. They tend to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I think the greatest challenge with voluntary villages is the fact that most the people who endorse such an idea are too individualist. The groups are populated with too many single men, not enough family men. Families don’t really want their money and their future tied up in the likelihood of someone not working equally as hard to build such a thing or ending up with people whose values don't prioritize family above individualism. Families also have to consider safety threats posed by single men to their unit.

Another issue I have noticed is that generally, voluntaryists look for insanely good deals on large plots of land, which I think usually comes with some price, some reason the large plot wasn’t purchased already by some building contractor. For example, the property may be not very accessible or the soil or region may not be ideal for growing. There’s usually a host of issues with anything that seems too good to be true. If you have to reinvent and build your own electrical power plant for your private society, it becomes too ambitious.

Another challenge is that we are all strung out so thin if we are family minded, just trying to pay the bills and support the family. We don’t have much leftover for building a whole other society. So the people attracted to such ventures tend to be once again, single, not family minded or family oriented. Families are the building blocks of society. In the case of societies not planned by family minded men, it's a lost cause before it begins.

This is the biggest challenge it seems all societies face with or without govt. How does a society support families and encourage growth and generational evolution? It’s tricky because the people who go into govt management have the same issues that the people who build voluntary societies. They have too much free time on their hands with which to ideally do the job of management but little if any connection to the group most needed in building a functioning society. Think of Joe Biden. Think he's a good father? LOL! If he's not a scary pedophile, at the very least, he's got a narcissistic streak. I think that's true of most of the people in power at any given time. People in politics are there usually because their focus is not on their family. Often, their families are trophies and dysfunctional.

In the long and the short run the problem with society today comes down to this: families have a need that seems to best be fulfilled through churches. I know this sounds crazy. I’m not saying you have to adopt the entire belief system of said church. However, it’s not a fucking accident that church has been the lynchpin for all of society for eons. And while it can be abused and exploited and even corrupted, for the most part, a church that supports families supports the world. The mega churches that support egomaniacal zealots and recovering addicts with narcissistic tendencies, those that work best through televangelism and also have little intimacy or fellowship, are not what I am concerned with. Ultimately, these religious big box stores wouldn’t survive if families became the heart of society again. Those church corps thrive today because families have gone away from churches.

A society starts to fall apart when it loses its cornerstone. When its objective is to tear apart families and turn children into slaves for its own agendas, the ship is sunk. This destruction comes with state education. It comes with separating families from churches. It comes from inflation of the dollar. There are many factors working right now against family unity as cornerstone of a thriving society. I would say the primary objective of world dominating power is to upend family values as a virtue. They, the elusive architects of modern culture, destroyed a lot of individuals doing this.

Which brings me back to my first question. How do we build a parallel solution that does not require the current corrupt state’s intervention? I think it’s going to have something to do with churches. I think it’s going to have something to do with policing and restricting our communities by rejecting people who use any power or influence to divide families or go against the interest of unifying families. I lean more and more toward the kicking people out who don't respect a family based value system.

I am not a radical. I'm not saying kick people out from a different religion or kicking out gay people. I'm simply suggesting that if some part of your life goes against traditional family values it shouldn't be influencing our children. What maybe happens in the bedroom needs to stay in the bedroom and not on display for the indoctrination or influence of children against their parents' instinctual sense of duty to the to keep their children safe from exploitation. That’s the goal of the parental instinct, not some radical idea of safety but one that is innate and has been around since the dawn of time. Right now in our "decadent society" as Dave Smith recently phrased it, the state is obstructing kids from benefiting from these innate parental protections and the state does so in the name of “safety” for children. Something has gone terribly awry.

My suggestion is that if you feel this burden of what I would call evil influence upon your heart and upon your family, you need to huddle together with those clinging to traditional family values, even if you don't change your entire belief system. Come home after church and talk amongst yourselves about what you agreed with or didn't align with each week in the doctrine taught. Discuss what knowledge you gained in either case and what opportunities you took to invest in fellowship with people who share the cornerstone value of family. When in Rome… but let Rome in this case be a place of virtuous family values.

If more people took to this institution (trying to find a not too cultish religion. For example, some tell you what underwear to wear which sort of defeats the purpose of keeping bedroom stuff private) and used it as a way to rebuild society, we would probably get there a lot quicker. We’d sooner eliminate the riff raff or at least disempower those trying so desperately in our world to work against us.

All reactions:

3Chris Cofer, Greg Robinson and 1 other