Government Is Unnatural, Anarchy Is Natural [Original ed.] 9798375468228

Table of contents :
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31
Page 32
Page 33
Page 34
Page 35
Page 36
Page 37
Page 38
Page 39
Page 40
Page 41
Page 42
Page 43
Page 44
Page 45
Page 46
Page 47
Page 48
Page 49
Page 50
Page 51
Page 52
Page 53
Page 54
Page 55
Page 56
Page 57
Page 58
Page 59
Page 60
Page 61
Page 62
Page 63
Page 64
Page 65
Page 66
Page 67
Page 68
Page 69
Page 70
Page 71
Page 72
Page 73
Page 74
Page 75
Page 76
Page 77
Page 78
Page 79
Page 80
Page 81
Page 82
Page 83
Page 84
Page 85
Page 86

Citation preview

Government Is Unnatural, Anarchy Is Natural A practical analysis therein Naturosophy

1

If you have an open mind that permits you to objectively view reality, then this book is for you. Ignorance is no excuse.

Copyright 2023 Cory Edmund Endrulat ISBN 9798375468228 2

Chapters: 1. The Natural (4) 2. Government (21) 3. Anarchy (52) 4. Suasion (67)

3

Chapter 1: The Natural

The natural represents that of nature. The word “nature” comes from Latin natura "course of things; natural character, constitution, quality; the universe.” By the mid-14th century, as "the forces or processes of the material world; that which produces living things and maintains order." From the late 14th century as "creation, the universe" or "heredity, birth, hereditary circumstance; essential qualities, inherent constitution, innate disposition, initial character.” Some sources detail how the word comes from Egyptian “NTR”, meaning "god,” symbolized hieroglyphically as a simple stylized flag on a pole, which represented a force that was known to exist through its observable effects, but difficult or impossible 4

to see with the eye. NTR was actually pronounced inetfer/ (ne-cher), extremely close to the English pronunciation of "nature": inextfar/ (nay-cher). Nature may be wholly defined as “the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.” From post-romantic philosophy (Rousseau, Romanticism, Transcendentalism, Muir, Christianity, Mill etc.) as “the whole of material reality, considered as independent of human activity and history.” From Stoicism, Atomism, Epicurism, Taoism, Descartes, Bacon, Spinoza, Aristotle, Mill, etc. as “the whole universe, as it is the place, the source and the result of material phenomena (including man or at least man’s body).” From Heraclitus, Hegel, Nietzsche, Darwin, Vitalism, etc. as “The specific force at the core of life and change.” Also from Aristotle, Mill, etc. as “the essence, inner quality and character, the whole of specific physical properties of an object, live or inert.” Therefore among these definitions, the macro (whole world) view of nature would be “the all” or “that which contains all that is natural”, whereas the micro (parts of the whole world) view of nature would be looking at the individual natures, that of which is natural within nature.

5

The essential understanding for what is considered “of nature” based on our definitions, is viewing nature through the lens of time. While everything within nature (the micro) is constantly changing, nature (the macro) stays the same. If nature is the “constitution”, “birth” or “initial character”, the “source” or “god” that is “core to change” itself then the natural must be what has always existed, being that it is “of nature.” The natural is then an alignment to nature, the present aligned to the ever-present, the micro aligned to the macro. This relates to the common notion of the universal and timeless “natural law” or the “law of nature” which is seen as the inescapable or immutable (it cannot be changed), even if attempted or justified otherwise. For ourselves to understand this law, we come to follow it, rather than “violate” it in the attempt to disobey. Nature may be likened to a selfoperating machine, for which we are one of the gears placed within that may work with the machine. This worldview upon all things places scrutiny and question for if they are remaining natural, of nature. For instance, we may ask ourselves if human beings are creating things which have not always existed. Even our own very selves are not permanent or timeless. When we compare ourselves and our creations (micro) to our natural world (the creation, macro), we come to 6

understand the man made and unnatural as opposed to the natural. Change, time and nature itself must too be evaluated by the natural and unnatural. For instance, the change that always exists as opposed to change that humans create, or the time that always exists as opposed to time that humans create, or the nature that always exists as opposed to nature that humans create. Whatever we accept or embrace within our lives, we assume as natural to exist and therefore natural to persist. This gives us the simple equation: what is natural to exist is what is natural to persist. People may assume everything is natural if it exists or can exist, however you must merely ask yourself one question: why does it exist? In the same ways an individual may attempt to disregard morality, is the same ways an individual may attempt to disregard the concept of the natural versus unnatural. Just because something naturally occurs, does not mean it is natural to exist, and just because something is natural to exist, does not mean it is natural to use. Morality, that concerning what is right and wrong, is the very distinction between the natural and unnatural. This distinction must be, since human beings cannot decide to go against the constitution of life, they cannot choose to go against nature. Human beings can only 7

attempt to violate nature, but since they did not create nature itself, they have no power to actually change it. What humans have power over, are their own creations and themselves (the micro). Just because human beings are created within the world, does not make them unnatural, as for as far as our own comprehension may seek, the creation of ourselves or beings as a whole, has always existed. In the same way, the trees grow and give birth. We cannot change the fact humans exist, and we have long existed, as even perhaps in different forms. We cannot speak wholly of nature, for we are only part. Therefore, we may not fully comprehend ourselves or our world, but that does not mean we don’t try and learn our place. It however means that we recognize a sense of humility and mystery, as with our need for constant learning. We are given humanity by nature, the ability to breathe, to learn, to create and much more. It is our choice of what to do with what we are given. It is the ability of choice which makes us free, and it equally makes us powerful, especially when we know what choices we make. Time is important because time tells all truth, and time heals all wounds. Therefore, in case we do wrong to ourselves or our world, nature helps us learn. If we are willing to learn or not, nature will teach us one way or another, this has been said to be karma, natural 8

law, the law of attraction, the golden rule, the moral law, and many other names through many different micro cultures and peoples all observing an ever similar macro nature. When we attain knowledge, we attain an understanding of nature(s). When we attain an understanding of nature(s), we may better live with nature. Every thought is a question, and every person’s life is at question while nature is the answer. Of the countless quotes, the following quotes are from Socrates, a founding father of philosophy, not of government. This helps encapsulate much of this text: “There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.” “To know, is to know that you know nothing.” “To find yourself, think for yourself.” “To know, is to know you know nothing. That is the meaning of true knowledge.” “I cannot teach anybody anything. I can only make them think.” “Strong minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, weak minds discuss people.” 9

“He who is not contented with what he has, would not be contented with what he would like to have.” “If you don't get what you want, you suffer; if you get what you don't want, you suffer; even when you get exactly what you want you still suffer because you can't hold on to it forever. Your mind is your predicament. It wants to be free of change. Free of pain, free of the obligations of life and death. But change is law and no amount of pretending will alter that reality.” “Everyone wants to tell you what to do and what's good for you. They don't want you to find your own answers, they want you to believe theirs.” “The easiest and noblest way is not to be crushing others, but to be improving yourselves.” "No man is capable of causing great evil, without thinking he's doing the right thing.” In understanding morality and the concept of nature, we must also examine word usage. Every word we use is representative for an idea, a particular nature that becomes more definitive, the clearer our definition is. However, since the word “definition” means to limit or prescribe, and being that we create words, the 10

definitions are prone to change and several words may define the same idea. Therefore, the goal is not to get stuck on words, but rather to always seek for context and intent. There are many words and word variations related to that of natural (nature) or right (rightful), and that may include: honest (honesty), health (healthy), truth (truthful), real (really), just (justice), standard, genuine, moral (morality), regular, correct, sensible, reasonable, unforced, fundamental, whole or essential. Whereas, the words related that of unnatural (denature, denatured) or wrong (wrongful) may include: dishonest (dishonesty), unhealthy (unhealthiness), untruth (untruthful), unreal (not really), fake, artificial, illusory (illusion), unjust (injustice), immoral (immorality), abnormal, aberrational, forced, pretended, feigned, contrived or incorrect. The similarities among these words also further proves their close correlations. We may further realize that we cannot escape these terms in our day-to-day lives, as because we are always making choices for ourselves. With knowledge, we know what we are really doing, and therefore we know how our nature interacts with the nature of the world around us. Furthermore, we may replace the word “really” with the word “naturally,” or the words “really good” with the words “naturally natural”, or the word “sad” with “more unnatural”, or even the word “good” 11

with “happy.” Disputes upon the similarities may help us see why these different words exist in the very first place. We could choose to make new words for the same meanings, but why wouldn’t we use the same words unless we feel as if they do not fulfill a certain meaning, a certain nature. These reasons all explain as to why Naturosophy exists as a term and philosophy. To know what we are doing in life (nature), is to have an answer, and equally so, purpose, intent, reason, meaning, no confusion, clarity and direction. If we ensure that what we are doing is natural, then the direction we go, we know; what we sow, we know. Do we only learn about what is natural through time? Would nature not give us other signs or warnings? Time tells us all truth, all natures in their respective time and place as because nature and it’s laws constitutes order, it is again, the constitution. Therefore, when you ask upon what is not just natural to exist, but what is also natural to use or occur, always take into consideration that nature will tell you through time, coming to affect your own very existence, usage and occurrences, forming effects. Not everyone will look at macro nature this deeply, as among looking at every micro nature within, however people partake in this learning everyday just as much as they use the 12

terms. As you learn, you come to know. As you feed yourself, you come to grow. Inversely, as you do not learn, you come to be ignorant. As you do not feed yourself, you malnourish. As you invest in whatever you choose, you attract and come to achieve. If an individual thinks of the unnatural as natural, so they will follow it’s path. This path or direction, is affect to effect, nurture to nature, continuously. The natural supports nature, whereas the unnatural supports the denatured. Another way to be said, effects may be either naturalizing (natural, right) for naturalization (nature, naturalized), or denaturing (unnatural, wrong) for denaturalization (denaturalized, denatured). Being that all that is unnatural is that not of nature, not real, not truthful, it can only be attempted in existence. Time will show that the unnatural cannot persist without taking a toll on the natural that lives underneath, that allowed it’s very existence. A simple formula may be recognized: the naturalizing supports or gives to the natural, whereas the denaturing violates or steals from the natural. If we embraced the underlying foundation, being the natural nature, this would be much akin to embracing “the way of nature” or the “tao” as mentioned in Daoism and the Tao Te Ching. The unnatural can only take from nature, it cannot create anything new. Even when it attempts to create 13

something new, it really hasn’t, hence the definition of illusory. However, seeing the unnatural requires knowledge of the natural. The very terms unnatural and natural would not exist if it weren’t for some sense of detachment or unalignment to our world. If an individual were to say “natural nature”, it is redundant in the context that nature is always nature, unless it can sometimes not be, but it always is. Therefore, the natural or natural law simply is nature, being that it is what consists of nature. The nature of all denaturing or evil alike is to create the unnecessary, or the distraction. If individuals aren’t able to see this, they permit the unnatural as if it is natural, they embrace what will come to be a world of confusion or the unknown. Every lie is a distorted truth, it makes truth no longer truth, and following it always leads to confusion. To rather be honest, allows the truth to express, always leading to knowledge. In the macro scale, a world of consistent, persistent or aggregate naturalization will allow evolution, progress, optimization, generation, and sustainability; whereas, a world of consistent, persistent or aggregate denaturalization will create regret, stagnation, extinction, loss and degeneration. Being able to live life and therefore allow life, is one where you need not create more, you already have 14

much, you embrace or recognize nature, the infinite. The natural comes natural, the tao is embraced. The man made in this light, may seem by default, unnatural, as it certainly is not the most natural (infinite), it is not more of nature, it is more of man. However, man will always create, as it is also in his nature. His creations, with the knowledge of nature applied, can have natural (naturalizing) effects, helping us understand that just because something is not natural to exist does not mean it is not natural to use. Therefore, man should not depend upon his creations if he knows their limited nature, or their very dependency, man and nature itself. Creations reflect the creator and creation, and the creator reflects creation and other creators. With dependency onto our creations, we may lose touch with creation itself and create loss despite how much we created to gain. What was to be complimentary becomes supplementary. To truly gain or win, for that of nature, you may need to lose, that of the man-made. This paradox in more being less, or in the man made not being truly fulfilling, is recognizing the way of nature and naturalization. It is important to know that one can take without stealing, and every choice we make, as it is our answer, it is equally a taking. Stealing is taking something that does not naturally belong to you, it violates ownership. If we do something that is out of 15

place, or not for the right time, we must further our alignment to nature, to time and place, so to make wise choices. In any case, nature helps to bring us back to focus, on track and at a balance, order and harmony; it must, since it is the constitution we cannot avoid, it is the birth born ever before our birth. To have dependency, assumes in the very first place that it is essential or natural to your living. If you do not know how to live without a man-made stove, without manmade food, without a man-made drug or any other thing, you accept the premises that it is natural to your nature and to your life. When we long accept the unnatural and it becomes our aggregate reality, nature may seem distant and unclear until it becomes no longer. Therefore, even if it seems like we have lost the natural, it is only because of the presence of the unnatural, like a veil of darkness covering the light, the light is still there but being suppressed and therefore lacking in function. If man creates the problem, then equally so, man can get rid of it. For another simple equation, we may understand that when we think, say or act from knowledge or embrace of nature, we do so for naturalizing; whereas, when we think, say or act from the lack or disregard (ignorance) of the natural by man-made “authority”, we do so for denaturing. Effects can also be seen through the lens of time, because 16

humans may need the naturally “wrong” for them to use, to learn what is naturally right for them to use, and they cannot persist in doing what is wrong too long. Indeed, there are natural “problems” in the world in relation to humans, such as poisonous plants or mistaken behavior, but those may always exist, and are essential for learning. The fault is not on nature but on man, if human beings have the nature to learn and align to nature. Trying to put nature in any box or limited perspective, even if it makes sense, is often the very problem, and there are endless perspectives upon nature. Everything that man creates is encapsulating some part of nature and using it in ways according to man’s own will. If man should attempt to alter or supplement nature, creating dependency onto it or him, this creates man-made authority. The word “authority” implies what should be followed or obeyed. If man is complimenting nature with his creation in recognizing its faults and natural roots, creating naturalizing effects with no dependency unto it, it would be to respect natural authority. This is much like keeping oneself in their own place, their own control; they belong to themself, they own themself; the authority and time and place is where it should be. This is much like creating 17

something to reflect or express oneself, realizing that it is not oneself wholly, the identity or thing is not the natural individual, no unnatural attachment shall be made. In light of natural authority, for individual sovereignty (self-mastery, self-control, ruler of self), is coming to know that we each may assist each other for further learning, as because we all have something to share being that we are each unique, of our own observations and experiences. If we know our boundaries, then we help others but do not transgress (violate) upon them. In practice for that of this shared pursuit for knowledge as our individual selves come together, we may recognize that every nature has a nature of it’s own, and therefore we must ask ourselves what consists of such a nature. There is no only one way to seek out the constitution or nature of anything, however let us learn of one optional method which may be called “the nature dynamic.” You start with thinking of some thing, it can be anything simple or complex. Once you have it in your mind or written down, you break it down with the following procedures. Your answers replace the word “nature” in the brackets. The simple or true nature: what is the intended use or function? [for nature] The base nature: what are the requirements? 18

[from nature] The core nature: what is it made of? [of nature] The second nature (the second simple natures): what are the impacts or effects? [can be the nature of nature] Optional descriptives: The general nature: what is the type or form? [a nature] The higher nature: what is the greater simple nature? [for a nature] Another method for learning the nature of anything or how it can be shared can be found by reading Nature’s Radical Honesty: A practical application of Naturosophy. As this is all a practice within Naturosophy, we are all ever practicing within life, understanding the nature of anything may best be known by reading Sapientia Naturae: The Guidebook. These dynamics and topics will be used in the following chapters, to help create an example diagnosis (diagnosis: by way of knowledge) or analysis of that which humanity has partaken in for many years, affecting them in many ways. In conclusion, understanding nature is coming to also understand ourselves, we learn what to create with what has been created. We give birth with what has given birth. The word genus is Latin for “birth” alike gene- “give birth.” Nature, from natus or nasci “birth, born, to be born.” Homosapien is the “genus of human beings”, for which homo-sapere means “man being 19

wise”, alike “human” from Latin humanus “humane, gentle, learned.” We may want to ask ourselves if we are allowing wisdom, if we are learning, if we are giving birth to that which goes against birth. It is all the matter of the way we take in our lives, what world we are creating or contributing toward. Is nature, and hence, it’s knowledge in the aggregate? Or is it be veiled off by a darkness, a lie or deception in the aggregate? If you care about nature, inquire about your way. When we say “of nature” is that which is natural, the word “of” also means “away or away from” and therefore it means “away from nature”, but indeed, it is “a way.” The word “from” may also mean “forward”, which means “before-toward”, bringing in the aspect of time once-more, providing more perspective in the never ending etymology of words. Everything we do may be a way from nature, but the question is, how far will we go and in what way? It is nature which is the given reality, which is why following it is merely living it, allowing it. If we want life, we must live. We are among each other in this life, we must live with each other and therefore, let each other live.

20

Chapter 2: Government

The concept of government is the concept of “authority.” It is what tells people what they must obey, or else punishment will be done unto them. If a government is not given to us by nature, then that would make it man-made government, it would be man-made authority. Since the authority, law or government of nature is already present everywhere and at all times, the idea of natural law, natural authority or natural government would simply be negated, as it is just nature. Therefore, the terms of “law”, “authority” and “governments” are usually in reference to the man-made constructs. Governments call their rules as laws, and may even call their guidelines for laws as constitutions, your birth in their

21

system as naturalization, their presence as the state, their necessary existence for order. As differing from organizations or businesses, governments use violence against those who do not comply with it’s rules, it’s laws. This makes government, by definition, involuntary, meaning that individuals cannot freely choose to live without government. Violence is also known as initiatory force or aggression, a violation upon nature, an involuntary action. Governments claim to control large portions of land, including everything within that land. All the people, businesses and organizations must submit to the rule of government. While this may relate to a criminal organization, a gang or mafia enforcing it’s own commands, governments are not perceived in the same way. Governments may commit immoral (unnatural) acts just as they do, but be seen as moral (natural) for having done so as because they are perceived to be “authority”, whereas a criminal gang may commit immoral acts and people would see them as immoral. In a gang, the victims may comply but not out of any moral (natural) obligation to obey, rather merely out of fear. If the victims were given the chance to resist, they would do so without feeling the slightest guilt. The victims know that the situation they are in is 22

not natural for their condition, and in order to maintain their nature, they must defend it against any and all aggressors or violators. The victims do not assume the gang to be rightful or legitimate rulers, an “authority” which they must obey for the “greater good.” Yet, if they did, that would be government. The concept of “authority” or government is the idea that some people have the moral right to use violence in controlling other people. In other words, it is the belief that some people have the natural nature to use violence while others cannot, allowing them to be above or exempted from basic morality and nature. It may be said as the belief that someone can be above nature’s government, law or authority. Government must be involuntary and based on belief, or else nature would be the only government to embrace. Deception (lying, ignorance) and violence would be required to attempt to make it otherwise. “the naturalizing supports or gives to the natural, whereas the denaturing violates or steals from the natural” To claim to be above human beings and all the land, would be claiming to be nature itself, as it is what constitutes and controls the world at large by definition. This would make government the epiphany of man23

made authority, the attempt to make man as god. If an individual wanted to alter or denature all of nature, they cannot do so unless they created a system in artificial imitation of it. It would require that they attempt to keep hidden and suppress, the systems of nature, hence why systems of natural law may at times be considered “occult” or hidden. It would require people contributing to the creation of such a system by their own belief in it’s necessity, assuming that it is natural. It would require the unnatural justifying the unnatural, so to seemingly strengthen and further legitimize it’s existence. Governments make violence legitimate, natural to nature. Yet, violence is directly a violation of nature. If individuals are born into such a system and see that as nature, as it is what they must embrace, it would appear to make an unnatural system seemingly natural. The mere identity or belief in “authority” cannot change the nature of morality or the nature of nature, and therefore what is natural or unnatural, right or wrong. In other words, a wrong cannot become a right, and the unnatural cannot become natural, an individual in natural ownership of himself cannot be owned by another. A belief insinuates that it is unfounded in knowledge, it is not known to be real. The belief in “authority” is the belief in government, but it has also been said as the belief in the “right to rule”, that 24

someone can be not a leader, but a ruler. It has been called “the most dangerous superstition” (Larken Rose), “the biggest religion”, creating “the only divide” (Mark Passio), where to put an end to it, would be “the end of all evil” (Jeremey Locke). It is to order-follow, ignoring your own natural conscience or individual decision making, so to ignore nature and give way to every evil’s growth to it’s aggregate. The controversial and shocking psychological studies known as the Stanley Milgram experiment and the Stanford Prison experiment, proves the danger of this belief system. In the Stanley Milgram experiment, the average person of any demographic was willing to torture their fellow man just because an “authority” figure told them to do so. They would then attempt to give away their own responsibility, and place the blame on the victim or the order-giver, when they were the ones who actively carried out the order. The common excuse is “I was just following orders”, as if it is not in their nature to think for themself what is right and wrong, or as if they weren’t acting as their self. In other words, it’s an attempt to give away one’s own nature. If it’s not with them, who is it with? This is the importance in knowing thyself. Very few individuals were willing to say “no” because they know, they were mentally strong 25

enough to disobey “authority” because of morality, natural authority. The reason for there being only few individuals doing this can heavily be attributed to the government schooling system which is commonly designed to teach “authority”, or legality as morality itself, just as it would be to say that man-made authority is natural authority itself. It is not in our nature to be obedient slaves or subjects, for which is why chattel slavery was abolished in the 19th century by the spread of knowledge or moral suasion in the efforts of abolitionists, and why slaves or subjects must believe and be trained into their own slavery or subjugation with ignorance and violence, for it to be maintained. This also explains why many of the order-followers were laughing with insecurity and nervousness in the experiments, because they were feeling uncontrollable of themself. With the Stanford Prison experiment, average individuals of well respected demographics were given the role of “guard”, becoming an “authority” figure for a prison. Within just a matter of days, their rulership became tyrannical and cruel, that the experiment had to be ended because they embraced the identity of “authority” and put themself above their fellow man in nature, in rights. These individuals would then come out of the experiment to talk about how they never expected to do what they did, how they couldn’t 26

believe that they acted in such a manner. Therefore, it shall be known that humans cannot continually act like a monster without eventually becoming one, the unnatural gives way to the unnatural and what we embrace, we give way to. One cannot assume governments naturally occur, just as one should not assume slavery naturally occurs just because it is something long in our existence that we are born into and propagandized into thinking it’s supposed necessity. These same experiments proved to demonstrate that an individual can refuse to be a prison guard or refuse to be an order follower, however on the basis that they know they shouldn’t. “when we think, say or act from knowledge or embrace of nature, we do so for naturalizing; whereas, when we think, say or act from the lack or disregard (ignorance) of the natural by man-made “authority”, we do so for denaturing” Another common excuse is the idea that government is a “necessary evil”, however this amounts to saying that the unnatural is natural. With this phrase, it’s not even insinuating that evil is unknown or not clearly evil, it is explicitly saying it is evil, that it is unnatural. For what reason do we have to call it evil, if we also say it is necessary, then this would 27

be putting the blame on nature. It would be to say nature cannot be embraced without man’s creation, none the less, an immoral creation in both existence and usage. What has already been shared will not be enough for the individual attached to their long-held and engrained belief, because understanding nature equally requires introspection into ourselves. May you answer the following questions (by Larken Rose, author of “The Most Dangerous Superstition”): 1) Is there any means by which any number of individuals can delegate (give) to someone else the moral right (natural nature) to do something which none of the individuals have the moral right (natural nature) to do themselves? 2) Do those who wield political power (presidents, legislators, etc.) have the moral right (natural nature) to do things which other people do not have the moral right (natural nature) to do? If so, from whom and how did they acquire such a right (nature)? 3) Is there any process (e.g., constitutions, elections, legislation) by which human beings can transform an immoral (unnatural) act into a moral (natural) act (without changing the act itself)? 28

4) When law-makers and law-enforcers use coercion and force (denaturing) in the name of law and government, do they bear the same responsibility for their actions that any-one else would who did the same thing on his own? 5) When there is a conflict between an individual's own moral (natural) conscience, and the commands of a political authority, is the individual morally (naturally) obligated to do what he personally views as wrong (unnatural) in order to "obey the law"? Upon these questions, you may easily notice the terminology used. For instance, the “delegation” or “granting” of natures insinuates that man can rule over other individuals, assuming the place of nature. One can believe that they are now “king” or any other title, no matter how many others believe that it is true, but they are still just a human being subject to the same natural world as everyone else. “Political power” being in the endless belief-based forms such as “legislation”, “law-makers”, “law-enforcers” or “presidents,” are all temporary or non-timeless and non-universal constructs, not found in nature. Yet, humans attach themselves to these as if they are, where to not do so, you may be perceived as immoral or unorderly. If one follows the idea of some sense of equality in nature, 29

based on understanding that although we have different experiences, we are all born in the same way, of the same species, in the same world, then the granting or revoking belief-based political games or different forms of slavery are not assisting in this mere embrace of knowledge. One may even be aware of potential problems partaking in government affairs themself, and so they lie to themself in ways so to justify it, then coming to learn over time wondering how they ever could have become or contributed to the corrupt or denatured. This is the “politician” “running” “for the people.” It’s the unnatural titled natural person, believing in the unnatural system and using it against the unnatural system, as mere symptom management for which the roots are found only with nature. The man made can never truly fulfill, as people will see how it never lasts. The “limited government” is merely limited violence, where the unnatural or immoral is still being justified, so it will aggregate to “tyranny” or “dictatorship” once again until it falls by its own chaos, as disharmony with nature grows ever more clear with time. It’s the power itself that is unnatural, no man is supposed to be in a position higher than their fellow man. Therefore, whether you change the individual or what that individual does, it does not matter and will never truly bring good or the natural so long as the 30

position of that individual is within itself unnatural or immoral, justified as if it’s natural. Especially starting with the basis of an unnatural aggregate, governments claiming control over everything will then come to corrupt economy, culture and everything within to the deepest essence, the longer it is permitted. All that would otherwise be natural becomes unnatural, for which is why government is the most dangerous belief against nature, it is the most dangerous to nature. Once all has been corrupted (denatured), complete political slavery or centralized control has been manifest. In politics, even the idea of “running” for others does not account to a natural action, because nobody can run for you. In the same way, your “vote” is not your “voice”, and it is just another attempt to make you feel personally connected to the idea of government, as if it is a business or organization based on consent, which it is not, or that it is nature which is necessary, which it is not. No majority or minority can make the unnatural, natural, and in the same way, it is unnatural for one or many people to impose their opinion or will on any individual because they are not nature nor the individual. Have your opinions and respect other’s opinions, simply do not impose it as truth backed by violence.

31

Voluntary (consensual) interaction is natural as we all have the ability to choose what to do with our own lives, with our own freedom. This is why businesses and organizations, voluntary hierarchies will always exist. We also do not assume that one business or organization should be set for all of time or for everybody as they are, whether they like it or not, or that there is one perfect form. When they start to act like a government, people are often naturally averted because they want to maintain control of their own life. In promotion of voluntary or natural interactions, the word and concept of voluntaryism has been created. When government does not act like government, the only way is if it isn’t government, it isn’t involuntary. Your life and freedom naturally provides possibility and choice. Applying voluntary interaction is applying a rule in your life, in the same way you may apply the nonaggression principle, the idea that you should never initiate violence upon another. Similarly, recognizing ownership and property is a rule. These are rules based on respecting nature to prevent the unnatural, these are not rulers. Rulers, another word for that of “authority” or government, imply persons being the rule, they proclaim to be the sole source of rules, and therefore, proclaiming that they are nature. Therefore, in government, it is not the rules that must be obeyed, 32

it’s actually the rulers. In reality, we are each the rulers of ourselves, and we may guide or assist each other in the shared pursuit of nature or happiness, but we cannot dictate or command others, as we cannot live other people’s lives or forcibly make people live the way we want them to. People will always create rules for others, but nobody is under any natural or moral obligation to obey by the threat of violence. If they were, that would be government, that would be political slavery. The whole concept of slavery is built upon the idea that you do not own what you own, that you cannot choose how to live your own life, that instead of interactions being based on consent, you need permission to exercise your nature by “authority.” If you need permission to be free, then you are not free. If government would be built upon consent, if it were not slavery, then it must not be government. It is the equivalent of an individual treating man or government as god, begging for their own ability or existence by “authority”, and that it may even be written down as commandments called laws, alongside it’s symbols and rituals, many of which may be used to appeal to and further manipulate people sub-consciously. Many of the abolitionists of the 19th century also understood this, for which is why they used the 33

“government of god” for moral suasion as an argument against chattel slavery and all forms of human authority. They were called radical, a word meaning “roots”, “grounded”, “essential” or “going to the origin”, as they opposed political change, being that it was also opposed to nature’s government and backed by violence. Among them was William Lloyd Garrison, Lysander Spooner, Adin Ballou, Henry Clarke Wright, Ezra Heywood, Josiah Warren, Charles Lane, Henry David Thoreau, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Jeremiah Hacker, William Batchelder Greene, Stephen Pearl Andrews and many more thereafter their time such as Leo Tolstoy and Benjamin Tucker. Today, these individuals would be considered voluntaryists, against man-made government. The truth as to the natural nature of voluntaryism as opposed to government will only grow in time, for now there are many more voluntaryists than there were then. People only have one source to obey and that is nature. An individual can personally choose to not obey nature in every aspect of their life, and still practice voluntaryism, but they would not support government, they are not claiming to be nature itself. Therefore, the risks they take are of their own nature and they still recognize natural authority in the aggregate. Similarly, an individual who does potential wrong (denaturing) to 34

himself may be said to be partaking in a “vice,” whereas an individual who does wrong (denaturing) to others may be said to be partaking in a real “crime.” Nobody is perfect, nor makes perfect decisions, we all must learn from nature together and help others do the same. To say that men must be angels in order for no government, is to say men must be perfectly natural, which is impossible by definition. However, to say that humans are not angels for which is why none are fit to rule, is to say men are not perfectly natural, which is why they must ever continually strive to be (by learning from nature) and nobody inherently is the “authority” which is. Election after election, man made creation after man made creation, and yet man is never fulfilled. As the quote from Francis Bacon states: “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.” In the whole process of acquiring a nature or “right” bound for oneself, how else will one achieve that other than by nature, or with nature, strengthening or aggregating natures which already exist. Attempting to create a new nature is akin to attempting to create a new species, and then people wonder why other’s compare them to “vampires,” sheep or “zombies.” By people believing in others as naturally higher, they 35

make themselves to be naturally lower, so that in this context, the vampires rule over the sheep, or the sheep try to become new vampires and the cycle continues, as above, so below. Assuming there must be a “process”, a “command” or necessary violence, in application of the political power, also implies that man has a ritual in order to further attempt to uphold his “authority,” and that it is much unlike the Tao Te Ching, where the only process embraced would be nature. This is why in Daoism, the natural or the ziran, the selfregulating intelligence of the world is brought upon by the wu-wei, or the effortless. Man is not being effortless, or letting people live their own lives, by claiming “jurisdiction” or ownership over nature, needing to justify many man made rituals and create words to change perceptual meanings in order to make it seem more and more legitimate or natural. All man ends up doing, is making the already complex natural world, more complex to the point of confusion for perpetual ignorance, fear and control. Another justification for government may be made when the ignorance is embraced and individuals think to themself that they just have to learn their man-made rights, or that there are experts who know more than them about the man-made system, so to make it seem as if it is backed by knowledge, so to be natural and trusted in 36

existence. Will mankind truly empower themselves? If one cares for nature, all one must do is ask themselves the simple question, how long has government existed? No, not just the idea of government, but the actual idea brought into existence. The first form of government, “Sumeria,” was the first form of systemic slavery, the simple structure of a priest class thought to have the “divine right to rule” and slaves who must earn their freedom, with it being called “enfranchisement” or “manumission” as further detailed in reading Slavery Gone For Good: Modern Abolitionism. As history has shown, no government lasts and no government fulfills. Every government violates, never protects and always results in chaos, in the form of democide, the top cause of unnatural death. Yet, for how obvious “the top cause of unnatural death” may sound, people continually believe the unnatural aggregate will not result in death or chaos, and will actually rather result in the natural. To say it would be chaos without such a denaturing system, is to say that it would be chaos without chaos, that slavery and violence in an unnatural aggregate is necessary for freedom, order or peace. That which people truly desire, is the natural aggregate. Yet, governments call their process of becoming a citizen or subject, as 37

“naturalization.” When you are born on the land that they arbitrarily claim, you are naturalized. When you fill out the paperwork that they arbitrarily created, you are naturalized. However, this has nothing to do with nature, or helping to create the natural. As if the illusion is not strong enough, natural-ize means “to make, be or do the natural.” Calling the process of citizenship as naturalization makes it seem as if it is natural to be under a government, when people who are simply born into the world and propagated into the government have not even given their explicit consent. The same goes with the “constitutions” of governments, these are “social contracts” that you never personally signed. They tell you that you are obligated to follow it, yet it’s just a piece of paper that supposedly applies to hundreds to millions of people, with it’s arbitrary rules broken all the time. Many of the most corrupt or tyrannical countries in the world have had constitutions, yet they always fail to prevent evil, often doing the exact opposite of what they were intended to do. The abolitionist Lysander Spooner details how we never gave our consent in his document titled “No Treason: The Constitution Of No Authority.” As if it was the writing down that “slavery is illegal” that made it immoral, people assume paper has the power or “authority” to alter nature. It isn’t some contract you 38

personally signed, but again, people assume as if it is, so to make it seem natural. The illusion of any man made thing seeming natural has caused great deception and evil in history, when people aren’t able to see and embrace the natural beyond it. People attach themselves to these things, dependent upon them for their natural nature, they make themselves the slaves, with mental slavery as such being considered the most dangerous form by many writers. If the mind is enslaved, so will come to be the body and world. If you give yourself freedom and you are comfortable with it but yet you still live an illusion, where freedom is in the hands in others and you are not totally free, as with “limited” government, it is more dangerous than overt tyranny because the denaturing is not so obvious, and therefore it is embraced. In the same way, people who think their “voice” (vote) is added into the government, that they have a “contract” (constitution), that it is a system made up of relatable people, of wise individuals of the past, or that it is how society has always been functioning, then you think of how it could work if done in a certain way, these all make governments appear natural. Among this, another simple reason people are fooled into this illusion is because they assume the more freedom as 39

nature, and therefore with a lack of grounding principle, they are willing to accept it until it inevitably grows to tyranny again. It does not have to be embraced, but it will be if one does not see nature’s government. Some may even think they can “balance” government, as if it has a time and place of it’s own, but if it’s unnatural and it’s slavery, then there is no time and place, it would be akin to a problem that can be mostly entirely prevented. The politician who partakes in government affairs of any kind makes change dependent upon him, he asks to be man-made authority. In the process, he may even become a celebrity-like influence upon peoples despite how it’s not merely for influence, it is for “authority,” making him once-more deceitful as the unnatural is seemingly natural because “influencers,” leaders and organizers may always persist in nature. There becomes ego and attachment to the arbitrarily endless political ideologies and attention one receives in the process, where the influence may first provide so many seemingly naturalizing effects, it may appear as if it is the right thing to do, although directly justifying a man made system of “authority” with it’s denaturing effects, becoming more and more consumed into the manmade world. You may simply observe the actions of any politician, what they wear and how they try to appeal to people by every means possible, begging for 40

money and votes, how they are known for being dishonest, not just to people, but in this case, to nature itself. They lie to their own nature by putting themselves in an unnatural position, or by trying to be somebody they are not. Many actively learn how to persuade people and use the right gestures and catchphrases, all as a means of indoctrination and bandwagon for their “authority.” Notice what appeals to people the most, the genuine-looking character, what people desire, whether its a mother-like figure or fatherlike figure, a protector or nurturer, all unaddressed traumas or excuses used to undermine nature. Furthermore, an insecurity or trauma may be the very purpose for an individual seeking out power or control over others or nature to begin with, may it also attract psychopaths or sociopaths, or the worst of characters of the sort in addition. Insecurity feeding insecurity, fear of losing government feeding fear of losing power, people desiring freedom yet receiving the exact opposite every-time, what a system humans have built. From an aliens perspective, as done with the animations by Man Against The State’s Graham Wright, it becomes evident that humans don’t know what they are doing, this is a game they’ve been trying to figure out but can’t although they invented it because it is to topple the already-game of life or nature. It’s like 41

asking “how can we create a system that becomes peoples reality, so that way they are dependent on us,” trying to find a way to reinvent reality, which it being an invention, can only ever be based on some whim or opinion, with endless forms of man-made political doctrine that never seems to work. If we take government as just another invention that needs more work, it may also appear natural to us, except it is still involuntary and doesn’t serve any function other than to hinder natural functions, mask unnatural functions, along with restricting freedoms and different solutions. The word constitution is just another word for nature, and people say we must always “uphold the constitution,” indeed we do, but it isn’t man-made by definition. The only must or always, is nature. The constitution of man is what makes him, what constitutes him. Nature makes him, as that is what naturalization really means, if you can see past the illusions created by government. When nature is embraced, it means nature’s government is in the aggregate, it means you are naturalized in nature. People may do wrong within such a system, but the aggregate of nature would not permit their wrong-doing to grow, simply because nobody would give the wrongdoing power to grow, as nobody would believe in man42

made “authority.” In addition, the rules or natural laws would be expressed in nature, such as that of voluntaryism, the non-aggression principle, karma or the hermetic principles. How could one be afraid of potential chaos in order to face it, because wrong-doing will always be created, problems are natural to occur, we simply need to know how to prevent them from growing. People would be obligated to be responsible, to teach morality, not “authority.” When governments call their rules as “laws”, they are ignorant of morality, as well as any such thing as natural laws or principles. Governments give criminals the power to do wrong on mass scale, they give anyone more power than they would otherwise have, than they are meant to have. We have it in our nature to learn and guide, and nature will teach us, yet we create governments that we think should be the teacher, although it would be an authoritarian one at best and therefore, not a teacher but a dictator. This is again why rulers cannot be leaders, why rulers cannot be the rules. If a man-made law aligns to natural law, it is irrelevant since it already exists, whereas if it is against natural law, then it shall be disobeyed; either way, it is unfit to exist. People don’t learn their lesson or what is truly right or wrong, if their life is ran by pieces of paper and other individuals through governments telling them what to do simply 43

because it is told of them to do so, simply because of their “authority.” “If man should attempt to alter or supplement nature, creating dependency onto it or him, this creates man-made authority.” If an individual were to inquire the government of nature (natural government), or god, it would be what is given to us, it would be natural authority, the rules. It must be followed because it cannot be changed, natural authority is the only true authority, truth or morality is authority, negating any concept of “authority”, it is whether we want it to be or not, as nature with time tells all truth. There is no ruler when we have rules that urge us and teach us how to rule ourselves. Nature is not just naturalization, the law or constitution, it is also defined as order, for which those yelling “chaos” are simply unwilling to work with or recognize. Those who believe in government, will claim it’s necessary for “order”, again assuming the man made necessary for the natural. How will humans ever get along with one another without “authority”, oh my I wonder, it must have nothing to do with morality or the natural. Every excuse made against the abolition of chattel slavery is virtually the same or similar to that of the abolition of government, where worries of the 44

economy and chaos is brought forward due to fear. Order in nature may not appear perfect to you, as you may look around the world and want people to act in certain ways, but if you keep yourself in order, you will not impose chaos upon anyone by becoming or promoting an “authority” to fulfill a man-made version of “order.” People can learn to accept others, or at least, not use violence if they think their ideas are so just. As everything in nature, humans are self-organizing and as morality (naturality) increases in the very first place to abolish government, as rules are necessary for no rulers, peoples will create order among themselves. The market of ideas will come together and compete, as everything does in nature, and there would be no monopoly for just one solution as it is in the case of government. The only thing you truly can sort out anyways, is your own life. Instead of trying to change others, thinking externally to across the world and in places out of your natural control, people can better themselves and their own pocket of the world, that of which is in their natural control. You don’t live other people’s lives, you don’t know what they are going through, they are on their own trajectory. Who are you to tell them what to do, as all you can ever do is guide someone, if you respect who they are as an individual self. Similar to that of the idea of constitution, nature is 45

the only state or condition for that of all the earth. When government calls itself “the state”, it presumes to act like it is existence, the condition of life itself being bound to it. It is similar to say “nobody is above the law,” as if the man-made law is natural law. The belief in government is often known to be called “statism”, that which creates “the state.” People may not pick up on this language, but these terms only make people associate government with society, with life and nature, a reality inescapable. While one may debate upon terms, the context is of the most relevance. A natural government or state would just be nature, therefore whatever word preference you choose, it all comes down to the core distinction in morality, right versus wrong, the natural versus the unnatural. If ignorance or belief is the excuse for keeping an unnatural system, it isn’t, because ignorance and belief is dispelled by knowledge or moral suasion, which comes from learning nature. Upon optionally using the nature dynamic in learning the nature of “government” based on our knowledge: The intended use or function (simple or true nature) may be said: for peace, security or protection. The requirements (base nature) are: from political action, violence, law, the belief in authority. 46

That of what it is made (core nature): of people, pieces of paper, buildings. The impacts or effects (second nature): can be the nature of tyranny, democide, debate, superiority, inequality, imposed opinions. The type is (general nature): an organization. The greater function or use (higher nature) is: for a better place, a place without chaos. Together: for peace, security or protection, from political action, violence, law, the belief in authority, of people, pieces of paper, buildings, can be the nature of tyranny, democide, debate, superiority, inequality, imposed opinions; an organization, for a better place, a place without chaos. Now upon this assessment, which you may very well expand upon, check for any contradictions or connections, such as the fact an organization is based on violence, uses violence for peace or the fact it uses opinion which can alter any of the answers. Does it always use violence for peace? If it’s made of just people, why is there a belief in “authority”? We may even ask, in what “place” does it function? You may notice that the word “law” could be broken down separately for more context, likely to lead us back to opinion, creating more connections that help us see what government really is. We see the function is security or peace, yet it isn’t so clearly defined among our analysis how that would be done. If we think of a way that could be done, you may 47

assess that and check back. For concepts as large as this idea, it can take more assessments to get to the heart of what it is. However, whether it is law, war, tyranny, democide, inequality, a sole or centralized source of security, paper or people having abnormal power, or legitimate violence, it all leads back to the belief in “authority” for these to even be possible. Nature would be unimaginable without government, for peoples who never saw that the natural world was here all along. If government is such a necessity, then you must not be able to live your life without it, but wait, you can, and most people can and would. Look around you and ask yourself, is it really some people in their suits and ties, or other fancy outfits and titles, some pieces of paper, holding together society in order? Does the jail systems, the school systems, the police systems, the regulatory systems ever truly help us? Do they help us gain freedom or reduce freedom, learn more or learn less, become more healthy or less healthy? Who is it that must make the world better and protect freedom? Everyone. The idea of protecting property relies on all of us, not some select “class.” It’s all just people, it’s all it ever was. People can organize, they do not need violence to do so. Nature has stayed the same, it 48

appears relatively similar to what it has always been, the same earth our ancestors lived on. We live with advances in technology and medicine, vocabulary, the ability to spread education; from security cameras and alarm systems, to the ability to network anywhere at anytime, to create media and express ourselves in anyway, to the century-long calls for mass education, to ending chattel slavery, and yet do we still need the old barbaric practice of governments, that which ever founded or maintained any form of systemic slavery? If humanity wants to evolve, we can do a lot better than living with a perpetual “necessary evil”, accepting the fact we shouldn’t have self-ownership or selfresponsibility, or the ability to teach others and nurture them naturally as nature intended. Let all the medicines show, let all the people express themselves and live out their passions, let the small businesses grow, let the child imagine without deception, let the child grow without confusion, let violence be known as evil, governments as an usurpation of nature. People will say that they have no choice but to live under governments, but you do have a choice, you create them. The idea that you don’t have a choice is the very problem, it is disrespectful to your own nature because you always have the choice, you are not to be or succumb to be a slave, nor make others as slaves. Will 49

you accept nature as the answer always present, or have government be the answer? Government justifies violating the individual for the collective, and in the case of “taxation” or theft, it guarantees that everyone’s property gets stolen to supposedly prevent possible denaturing, possible property theft. Just like any lie, it leads to and justifies the unknown. Just like any attachment to the unnatural, it leads to or justifies the unnatural. Yet, this belief in “authority” is not just a lie, belief and superstition, it can only ever be the biggest lie, belief and superstition, as it really is just a presumption that man can be nature in every way possible, none the less any way. It gives people the power to destroy other people’s lives, yet people believe in it so much to carry out it’s orders, and “it” isn’t even an identifiable or tangible thing. It doesn’t even provide an essential resource, it can only take from what already exists, steal from some people to provide for other people, including for it’s own existence. It will steal peoples money and use it to fund it’s own army, to continue stealing from peoples. According to it’s logic, the simple pen and paper can justify the mass slaughter of populations. It is a set of buildings, wait, a set of people, wait, a set of documents, wait, it’s a deceptive mafia, either way it’s 50

just human beings, actually you and I believing that other human beings have “authority.” We all must grow up eventually, as a whole species. As it has not always existed, it cannot exist to persist. As it violates by it’s nature, it cannot be used for nature. As people must be indoctrinated or mentally enslaved for it’s very existence, it does not naturally occur. Government can only ever be an unnatural aggregate. “Governments” essentially claim to be nature itself. If you aren’t in control of you, if nature isn’t your ruler, it must be someone who proclaims to be “authority.” In order for governments to exist, “authority” must be seen as legitimate and therefore, natural. If nature isn’t your government, then your government is unnatural. “Is freedom anything else than the right to live as we wish? Nothing else.” – Epictetus

51

Chapter 3: Anarchy

Anarchy is a world without “authority.” From Greek an-archon “no rulers,” just as monarchy from mono-archon means “one ruler.” Anarchy does not mean no rules, it means no rulers. The idea of rulers implies that of “authority,” governments. The idea of rules implies that of morality, ownership, principle or law. If one were to inquire upon a world of law without government, or morality without legality, rules without rulers, the source of rules must not be man, even if it is man who applies them. If legality was morality, then it would simply be morality. If law or government was natural law, then it would simply be nature. If rulers were rules, then they would not be rulers. However, the rulers proclaim that they are the source of rules, as if you need rulers for rules, as if morality needs legality. 52

This assumes that rulers are natural, however as by studying the nature of government and “authority” previously, we see they cannot and must not be. The attempt for rulers, for the rulers to be the rules, is the very problem, as it is for the unnatural to be natural. It is evident within nature that there are rules to our existence, even for mere social order, or among people’s businesses and property. These rules are timeless and universal, discovered among learning from our nature. For instance, knowing that you own yourself and that others cannot own you, is a rule that you inquired by the nature of beings. It didn’t take a ruler to tell you that you own yourself, for even if they did, they cannot change nature, the inherent rules, order or constitution of life. The laws of inertia, thermodynamics, cause and effect cannot be changed, these are considered natural laws which must be followed. The word “law” even means “an existing condition which is binding and immutable,” meaning it can not be changed. In light of this definition, manmade law is merely an illusion of natural law, an opinion at best. When we learn of these laws, we follow them more, otherwise we may get hurt or cause unexpected or unintended reactions. For instance, one can jump off a cliff and assume no consequence, but the laws of nature dictate what will occur, whether 53

humans like it or not. When natural law is also spoken of, or in the lens of principle, such as that of the non-aggression principle or voluntaryism, it may relate to how humans engage in social behavior or property rights. Most people know that it is wrong to violate others, this is a rule they live with, because if they did not, they would not maintain good relationships with others and society would condemn them. If an individual owns their shoe because they worked for it and paid for it, or they have their own business, they maintain ownership over their property by ensuring they have control over it, meaning that they maintain rules. They are not imposing rules for other’s property, only for their own property. If they want to have rules with others for the same property, they work with them but not making them follow their rules by the threat of violence, they are voluntary. Most people will settle situations without violence as a prerogative, as it would be most productive for the mere rule of living life naturally. It has been similarly said as the golden rule, karma, moral law, law of attraction, do no harm, the tao, virtue, universally preferable behavior and the list goes on. These would all have no value if legality was the sole arbiter of morality. The whole existence of these is based on 54

knowledge and experience over time, for which time tells all truth in nature. Although karma may not always work spontaneously, or people may not always be able to defend one another on-the-spot, with morality upheld, the laws or principles of nature will be embraced in the aggregate. If there is a dispute between two peoples, they may have a third-party help settle it between them, but that third-party isn’t the sole judge for everyone. This also creates a market incentive for more people to judge fairly and offer help, it may be said that nobody is above the natural law. No one person gets to decide how everything works for everyone else, as one should always strive to determine what is right. If it’s right one day and wrong the next, then find what is right in the next. If it’s right for one person but wrong for another, then find what is right for another, this is time and place, a world of nature always awaiting our rightful embrace so that we may live on in order, in harmony with it. These are taught as rules by others, not something that is created into the world by any government or ruler. The only exception to this is when they are acting as an “authority,” people will believe it is right or necessary to violate others. Therefore, the exception to rules come as the consequence of rulers 55

imposing their will or opinion as the rules, or as people believing in the whole notion of rulers, that of manmade “authority.” People can do wrong, but they will not be able to continue unless people allow their wrong-doing through the belief in “authority.” Even those who proclaim to be rulers, are subject to the laws of nature or rules of the mass public. This all amounts to the fact that rules are superior to any idea of rulers, if people were to embrace them. There must be trust in the fact people will eventually learn to know how to act, and therefore, we must allow people to learn to know how to act, even sharing it with them in the form of moral suasion. When they cross the line, being that they harm or come to affect others, then peoples may be at the defense of the victim. If one wants to hire some private security, different organizations for different means will grow, but there will be no monopoly for one service unlike the involuntary government services. It was no surprise when Lysander Spooner attempted to set up his own post office, he was shut down by the government so that they can have a monopoly on postage, although his competition lowered the prices overall. One can only imagine how many companies or businesses with good products did not survive through taxation, government demands and monopolies, how much innovation the world could have 56

had. In this light, rulers have kept hidden the rules that may help the world, and this would make sense if we consider the fact knowledge is power. Whereas, rulers are an unnatural power that requires violating individuals, keeping them in ignorance and fear of their true or better nature, so to keep them dependent on or enslaved by those imposing upon them. Rulers want to maintain an unnatural naturalization, to feed on the powerless while contributing to their ignorance of real powers, such as that of individual conscience and decision making, to keep their own man-made power. Whereas, rules of nature helps us to naturalize into the real world, helping all individuals understand their own real power. Yet, people will claim anarchy is “utopian” or impractical and not the real world; this is perfect for the unnatural. If everyone deserves freedom, everyone deserves knowledge. The rules shall be known by all who play the game of life, so that way no people are the pawns. For why rules are relevant to the idea of no rulers, it is because it is the requirement. Anarchy requires the self-control of individuals. Since it is in the nature of individuals to be in control of themselves, then nature equally requires the self-control of individuals. If an individual were to fear their freedom 57

and be ignorant of it’s real requirements, they will never truly attain it. This would be the goal of those who want to remain as “authority,” to convince the masses of people that freedom is dangerous and therefore should not be embraced, that anarchy means chaos, when it does not. However, such a deception would make sense from a system that seeks to replace nature or anarchy itself. In addition, if individuals never see true freedom as a possibility to be imagined, it will be difficult to ever create it. However, freedom does not need to be created, it needs to be allowed, because nature is the only need in allowance and nature provides us all with freedom. We may have to play by the rules of nature, but so long as we do, we are considered free. Once we impose man-made involuntary rules, or enslave one another, that is when we are no longer considered free. Freedom is the exact antithesis of slavery. To say you are enslaved to nature, it negates the idea of slavery; just as it is to say nature is your government, it negates the idea of government. Since anarchy means no rulers, no government, and you really are born into the world of nature of no title or imaginary lines or documentation, anarchy is nature. You may live in a world which does believe in using the man-made to attain freedom, however the freedom it will achieve will not be anarchy. 58

It will be a false form of freedom, making it as dangerous as lies mixed with truth to make the lie more appealing, the unnatural seemingly natural. Even if one used firearms for self-defense, it’s not the firearm that creates the freedom, it’s the education or rule behind it for why it is used by a natural human being, in preventing violators of nature. The man-made can never truly fulfill the natural, no matter how much it attempts. Paperwork and man-made rituals concerning freedom is therefore meaningless, because freedom by definition means not being morally (naturally) obligated to use any one thing for it. Freedom means infinite possibility, to ability to live your life as you wish so long as you do not cross other’s freedoms. One can choose to be a pacifist or nonresistant, have no security. One can choose to have a commune where products are shared among people. One can choose everything for their own life, because it’s their own. People can freely choose who they want to associate with, but nobody is having to comply against their will, otherwise that would be government, that would assume rulers. Since it is in the nature of everybody to make their own decisions and associate, as it’s their own body, their freedom is natural and they have no ruler but themself. Anarchy is therefore freedom so much as 59

it is nature. To fear it simply because it is told of us to fear it, when we practice it everyday by voluntary interactions except in the case of “authority,” it is mere ignorance. If attaining no rulers means you rule yourself (internal monarchy), that means you are free (external anarchy). If you’ve always ruled yourself and you simply gave way into the belief that you do not, then it’s just the matter of unraveling all the veils of ignorance or deception keeping you from your own freedom, ultimately your own self. Most people desire freedom, it is their source of fun, health and happiness in all matters of life. If every individual is free from the chains of another, recognizing why and protecting why, as there would be with no rulers and only rules, then there becomes anarchy in the aggregate. The so-called “state of nature” is even said to be anarchy, yet nature is another word for constitution and order, how does this make sense? Humans will start hurting each other just because there isn’t a ruling class writing something on a piece of paper miles and miles away, or a centralized monopoly on defense? To assume humans will do nothing about any problems is quite silly, especially as we can see how powerful technology has come to assist in the efforts of sharing knowledge, creating transparency and holding people accountable. Indeed, we can use the man-made to prevent the 60

unnatural, because the man-made is not inherently unnatural, we will always create and do things, we simply do not need to violate nature in order to do so. Those who justify “authority” or ruler-ship, justify endless violations against nature, as it represents the unnatural aggregate, the whole concept of “authority” proclaims to be nature itself, that man can do whatever with no repercussion. The idea of “authority” is virtually the same in that of the criminal or man with bad intent who thinks he can justify violating nature for his benefit, or out of his own internal problems. Notice, the intent to do something wrong comes directly thereof the lack of rules, for this is where confusion (internal anarchy) leads an individual to carry out wrong acts. One may feel sympathy for this individual, as they may have had bad (unnatural) experiences leading them to do bad (unnatural) things in response. It won’t seem bad to the person doing it, because they know no better, that’s why they do it. With moral suasion in learning the rules, individuals like this may be helped. However, if instead one insists that they follow the rulers, they will never learn what is actually right, they may even rebel further due to the pressures or further confusion. When we put ourselves in our old shoes, as well as other individuals, we see the shared sense of humanity and nature found within everyone. Seeking out the freedom that each 61

individual desires and helping them achieve so as by rules, not rulers, will help the world tremendously. What makes anarchy helpful, is not merely because it is natural, but because the possibility of chaos within is a teacher even without moral suasion. With “authority”, the chaos through violence and slavery is guaranteed, affecting large populations, even seen as moral (natural) or necessary. Whereas, if any chaos were to occur as mere possibility in nature, in anarchy, there would not be mass bloodshed wars despite how conflicts may always persist, and the chaos would be seen as immoral (unnatural) or unnecessary. Think of the scenario where everyone is doing their thing, minding their own business, but one person acts “out of hand,” they harm someone. Everyone will see the person doing the harm as wrong, having disturbed the natural flow of society and people socially coming together. People are obligated to be responsible and take care of that situation, so to help bring peace back, not wait around for some “authority” to take care of it for them, negating any natural need of responsibility. Now think of the same scenario, except people wait for an “authority,” or better yet, perhaps the “authority” was the very one doing the harm, people would assume it is among the natural flow of society 62

since they trust the “authority.” The matter of trust is much so the matter of what people perceive to be natural, right or moral. The truth is, nobody should trust an “authority,” people should trust morality, good actions and good people, regardless of man-made illusory titles and positions, and therefore, always do the right thing and at all times be ready to do the right thing. This is what anarchy not only obligates people to do, this is what is required to create anarchy. Rules enforces rules, nature enforces nature, humans enforces humans, all is where it should be in their natural time and place. Rulers are not the rules, governments are not nature, “authority” is not human. Reading The End Of All Evil by Jeremey Locke even mentions that there is no such thing as anarchy, and this would be true, if we assume it is simply nature. The notion of government is illusory in usurping nature, but so is the word “anarchy” in describing nature, since if it is freedom and that is everywhere, then equally so, it becomes null and void, only to exist due to the lack thereof, just like the very notion of the natural. Upon optionally using the nature dynamic in learning the nature of “anarchy” based on our knowledge: The intended use or function (simple or true nature) may be said: for living without rulers. The 63

requirements (base nature) are: from freedom, no politics. That of what it is made (core nature): of the natural world. The impacts or effects (second nature): can be the nature of voluntaryism, tolerance, possibility, self-ownership. The type is (general nature): a social system. The greater function or use (higher nature) is: for a better place, a place without chaos. Together: for living without rulers, from freedom, no politics, of the natural world, can be the nature of voluntaryism, tolerance, possibility, self-ownership, a system, for a better place, a place without chaos. Now upon this assessment, which you may very well expand upon, check for any contradictions or connections. What makes this different from our assessment on government is the fact anarchy can be strictly defined as no rulers, whereas government can be of many different forms all pertaining to rulers. How could one describe all of what anarchy looks like, if it has no particular form or politics? If it’s of the natural world and doesn’t really have a function, just a meaning, then it may seem redundant. It’s for a world without chaos, the same as the function for government, yet so we assume. From the meaning or common interpretations of the word, there can be many assumptions, yet if we were to separately assess the word “freedom” and relate it to the Greek roots of anarchy, we’d likely see a 64

connection that we cannot ignore. When nature is found, we know we are on the right track. If we assess that of which isn’t of nature, of course we will have confusion and contradiction; or if we compare such to that of nature to assess, of course we will find redundancy or ourselves trying to find meaning of that which could be self-evident. Learning about anarchy is a good example of apophasis, learning what is, from learning what is not, in the same way we may understand what is right or natural from knowing what is wrong or unnatural. All the many scenarios imagined are covered in What Anarchy Is Not by Larken Rose. Much like time, anarchy has not only proven itself through time with countless forms of governments rising and falling to the top source of unnatural death, it also heals all aggregate wounds over time when embraced. All the mass corruption, mass wars, mass crime or mass poverty will fade with time, as people come to their evolved state, their self-responsibility and selfownership, the promotion of knowledge and consciousness, all the hidden truths and facts about our world coming to the surface after many years of suppression. Man will no longer place a box over nature in his attempts to be god or nature, man will find 65

his place for himself without imposing his will on others to dictate their place, when it will ever be out of place, because it is not man’s place to rule over another man. Anarchy has always existed, beyond all political systems, therefore it is natural to exist; being that it is already present at all times and will always show itself through the need of freedom, it is naturally occurring; being that human beings naturally have the ability to rule themselves and that prevents violations of nature (denaturing) to begin with, it is natural to use, as it is to embrace. Being that anarchy is therefore natural, there is no need to identify ourselves to an identity or -ism such as “anarchist” or “anarchism”, as it is to realize mere humanity, nature and freedom; this would also include the colors and supposed “factions,” adding man-made illusions which may thwart an otherwise natural imperative with attachment away from our unique selves. We are all meant to live as we please, nature wants us to live in anarchy, in a voluntary world free from slavery and free, period. “Even if the absence of government really did mean anarchy in a negative, disorderly sense - which is far from being the case - even then, no anarchical disorder could be worse than the position to which government has led humanity” – Leo Tolstoy 66

Chapter 4: Suasion

Moral suasion is that which creates and maintains the end of the unnatural, it is the end of governments or “authority” and the embrace of anarchy or “no rulers”, the embrace of the natural, the rules. From Old French suasion and Latin suasionem, “a recommending, advocacy, support” and from suadere "to urge, incite, promote, advise, persuade.” To bring people to their senses, helping them to understand the natural world and self, is to utilize moral suasion, otherwise known as natural suasion or naturalization. As a term originally used during the abolition of chattel slavery, the abolitionists understood that in order for any peoples to be free, they must have rules or knowledge concerning their self, they must be inspired and see that morality and nature is above all human 67

forms of “authority.” To rise to their own authority over their own self, or in alignment to nature’s authority. Such an effort for abolishing chattel slavery, a practice done for thousands of years that everyone partakes in, would require a deep and widespread moral persuasion. For what abolitionism is, it’s an action and movement meaning to abolish something, and in a deeper philosophical context, it would mean to get rid of what does not belong, what is contrary to nature, what is not natural. To know of nature may seem like a whole separate conversation as opposed to helping a denatured world know of nature, yet the denatured world is only as a consequence of the knowledge not being shared or embraced. Therefore, the real only solution would be education, which may take many forms. The word education comes from ex-ducere, “to lead out” or “bring out,” particularly, out of ignorance or confusion. Yet, government assumes that their “authority” is leadership, when their own power rests on the idea that others do not have that power, that their own knowledge is knowledge others do not have and that they have the power to change the world, rather than allow or bring out the natural world. By suppressing the power of other people and nature, they attempt to give themselves power with “authority” which nature never provided to them. Rulers proclaim to be 68

the source of rules and order, an immoral or unnatural suasion, making nature or morality dependent upon man and his mere opinion, making an individual’s own conscience solely dependent upon another. Since rulers claim to do this, then the knowledge of rules would be about the ruler, it would be knowledge of political systems. However, as these systems are unnatural, this knowledge is mere illusion, ignorance. With more unnatural suasion in the form of violence to make people comply, the unnatural systems may be further attempted. If moral suasion instead is encouraged, people are empowered to be the change rather than be dependent on others to be the change for them. Their nature gets to express, not be suppressed. They don’t need to ask for permission to be free or to express their natural nature, they never needed to, because nature is the only need, government was an unnatural creation assumed to be natural. Therefore, to assume the action is changing the government in any way possible, is still legitimizing the unnatural and immoral. You can only attempt to change the unnatural, but you must allow the natural, if you expect any natural result, such as freedom or anarchy. To assume anarchy comes from government, no “authority” comes from “authority,” the natural comes from the unnatural, is the very notion of 69

changing government, which is the very thing that changes and claims to be nature. Moral suasion means to allow nature, to align man’s nature to that of nature’s government. It doesn’t make people invest their own natural energies into one or few peoples, to create rulers solely responsible for all the rules. It helps people invest their own natural energies into their own self and those they love, to create the world that they personally want to live in. It is what it means to know thyself, what you know best. It is the knowledge of nature, and this knowledge is the real power, just as it is leadership, because it is nature which we all must obey. To share knowledge is education, to encourage education is moral suasion. In light of abolitionism, moral suasion is the integration or education of the natural for the abolition of the unnatural. For everyone to have that knowledge, is for everyone to have the power and lead themselves, there will be decentralization for nature but unity. However, if it is kept for few, then so will the power and leadership, there will be centralization for government but division (divide and conquer). A peoples never content, never embracing nature, will always be at war or in division, as lies lead to confusion, government class systems create inequality. Whereas for peoples 70

who are content, always embracing nature, knowledge leads to direction and an individual’s own conscience is respected, helping individuals to unite in the shared sense of humanity, equality. Moral suasion is that which manifests the natural aggregate. Ending chattel slavery, for instance, was not a mere opinion, it was a destiny for all of humankind recognized by those who knew the inherent truth (natural nature) in selfownership. One may inquire upon what morality there is to promote, but morality is just another word for naturality, nature. If it is evident that one plus one equals two, or that you breathe for you, then so it is correct and moral, natural and healthy, right and real, among many other terms to describe the same truth. Moral suasion, like the word “anarchy” or the “natural,” is most necessary in the attempted presence of the unnatural, otherwise not much persuasion would be necessary for an individual who recognizes nature as an authority self-evidently to follow at all times. The act of sharing education or moral suasion rests in bringing the very knowledge of what is nature in relation to government, to all the world, persuading people to see the government beyond all governments that you have had to see for yourself. It is sharing the nature of nature itself, of the belief in “authority” and 71

anarchy or voluntaryism. You are not to only share your own experience or the knowledge, you want people to find nature for themself, for which is why moral suasion is merely the individual opening up their own eyes, the natural being allowed. Only they can open up their own eyes, just as only they can know thyself. They shall do this, since their nature depends upon their use of the natural for their very existence. Nature cannot remain nature without the natural, we will see a world we can’t know without it. Our eyes would be closed and we would walk ourselves off a cliff, the desired world would be unattainable or the world we create would be unintended. Helping an individual see their own path as such, is walking them through their own steps, are they sure they know where they are going? Are they taking the necessary (natural) steps? As we have walked the path ourselves, or we see the path that they walk, but we cannot walk for them, all we can do is ask questions. When we ask questions, we are sharing a thought with someone, allowing them to express and for ourselves to connect with the individual, with where they are currently at in their own life. It is the very method which allows Radical Honesty, it is also known as the Socratic method or Larken Rose’s Candles In The Dark method. For us to understand nature in the very first place, the constitution or order of life, we as 72

beings coming into it’s presence must think, reflect and ask questions. When we ask, as by every action we partake from every thought, nature answers our call giving us consequences, continually calling us toward the answers. If we get hurt doing one thing, we know to do something else. All the process of experimentation and learning, nature persuades us to know the truth and we may persuade others to know what nature taught us, we become merely messengers. It is therefore not that we are to simply persuade about the natural or moral, but that our persuasion itself is natural or moral, recognizing the individual must think for themself and come to their own conclusions. Those who partake in this also don’t need to persuade everyone, or even those involved in the unnatural. As nature will do the ultimate persuasion, you shall simply do your best and “plant the seed,” but realize that all it takes is a certain amount of caring individuals to make a difference, to the point where the unnatural can no longer be enforced or upheld. The caring will attract to the caring, those who partake in the natural will manifest the natural. The energy of the loud and passionate minority cannot be ignored for long. For instance, with moral suasion (morale), many politicians, cops or people in governmental activities 73

will step down but not all of them. However, combining that with the fact more people are unwilling to obey what of government does exist, the unnatural system will be much harder to maintain. In addition, the alternative, natural and voluntary systems may greatly appeal to individuals. Those who partake the role of “authority” are very few compared to the many that believe in their legitimacy. We must find the heart in every human being, which is where the beauty in an individual is found. Many of the abolitionists who partook in moral suasion did not use politics and did not want a war. They realized that the government acted as the moral victor for ending chattel slavery, when it was actually the efforts of abolitionists educating the public that ever prompted and aggregated such a natural change. How could government ever partake in moral suasion if it by definition, uses immorality with it’s persuasion based on the threat of violence, based on the idea that one should simply follow orders because it is told of them to do so by “authority.” Voting for an “authority” reinforces the very idea of “authority,” therefore anyone that votes or wants any form of government cannot claim to care for freedom or nature. In other words, if one votes (Latin votum, “pledge, dedication, vow”) for morality (naturality) by way of sharing knowledge, then one 74

cannot be “voting” for any legality (government). Laws are not backed by knowledge, they are backed by violence and opinion, followed by the belief in “authority.” Let it be known that government can never partake in a moral cause, it must be purely a philosophical and educative effort of minds connecting with other minds. From the mind and heart, comes the actions and from the actions comes the world resultant condition. The lie of “authority” is so strong, and the benefits of voluntary cooperation is so great, that it’s just a matter of time for people to embrace what works for everyone, and for all of time, as it is to live according to nature. Among education, there are many thousands of books or philosophies on every single topic, yet they all mostly either ignore nature or solemnly claim to know nature. The understanding of moral suasion, for promoting the natural, is based on what may be said as Naturosophy, merely a form of philosophy with the open claim that you should think for yourself and be your own philosopher, and that this material is merely a guide for nature. Naturosophy, Sapientia Naturae: The Guidebook is based entirely on questions for this reason. Arguably, the roots to all philosophy is anarchic in nature, since the love and ever-striving of knowledge 75

that Socrates taught, or the natural-embrace that Lao Tzu taught, or the stoicism of Epictetus and others only leads us to think for ourselves and question “authority.” If we were to consider abolitionism or moral suasion as a philosophy for the abolition of governments, continuing the movement of the past, it is merely the movement of natures, against all that inhibits our nature. It is no surprise those who argued for changes in alignment with nature, were referencing to laws of nature, all throughout history, even if it were to deceitfully convince the populace to side with an unnatural system. One should inquire from nature for thyself, this would mean not only to detach from this material which openly wants you to agree, but to detach from all material coming from governments which actively makes you agree with them. As Ralph Waldo Emerson states, “The corruption of man is followed by the corruption of language. When simplicity of character and the sovereignty of ideas is broken up by the prevalence of secondary desires, the desire of riches, of pleasure, of power, and of praise,— and duplicity and falsehood take place of simplicity and truth, the power over nature as an interpreter of the will, is in a degree lost; new imagery ceases to be created, and old words are 76

perverted to stand for things which are not; a paper currency is employed, when there is no bullion in the vaults. In due time, the fraud is manifest, and words lose all power to stimulate the understanding or the affections. Hundreds of writers may be found in every long-civilized nation, who for a short time believe, and make others believe, that they see and utter truths, who do not of themselves clothe one thought in its natural garment, but who feed unconsciously on the language created by the primary writers of the country, those, namely, who hold primarily on nature.” The power of questioning, is not just the moral (natural) path toward the moral (natural), but the most effective path due to it. The Socratic method of questioning can be applied to “Socratic” tutoring, seminars, therapy and every aspect of life, for any topic. It leads to an increased responsibility of answers, creating clarity upon direction. It also helps with inspiration, creativity and critical thinking, even to gain expertise in speaking and engagement skills. There is a greater sense of value shared and found by an individual actively listening and genuinely curious about another individual. While the person asking the questions is a facilitator or teacher, they are also a coach, in that they join the conversation as an equal, 77

for the shared effort of a better humanity. Many people who understand a truth that others do not see, may want to shout on the rooftops and tell the whole world, then finding out they should keep it to themself because nobody seems to listen. The goal is to allow, to ask the right questions that help an individual find out the right answers for their right self. This means, sticking to the idea of nature or morality when it comes to the idea of government, learning from the individual their thoughts concerning it, allowing them to get equally curious and not getting sidetracked when the importance is understood, holding ourselves accountable. When we escape our boxes, we see more and find out there is always more to figure out, this process of learning does not end. The admittance of ignorance is our step out of ignorance and toward knowledge, which is why we must always question everything, because even if we think we got something or someone figured out, there is always more to learn, helping us build a greater connection. This process of questioning is a practice, just as much as nature is a practice. Similarly, our nature or rights must be exercised, if we are to be maintained or strengthened. A simple yet powerful example of Socratic questioning in dialogue is as follows: In math, you ask 78

someone “what is 2 plus 2?” and they respond “5,” you remain calm then give them the question that leads to their previously wrong answer by asking “what is 3 plus 2?,” allowing the individual to realize their own mistake or hypocrisy. If we were to apply this to the context of moral suasion for that of the belief in “authority,” when somebody answers one of your questions concerning anarchy or freedom as “chaos,” you may remain calm and proceed to give them the question that leads to their previously wrong answer by asking “what does government create?” genuinely curious to see if chaos is never an answer, or even asking “what does anarchy mean when you break it down?” to help an individual see that chaos is an assumption, perhaps even asking questions related to that of chattel slavery in the past to relate it to the present although most questions may be best kept at inquiring one’s own belief system. If we put ourselves in the shoes of someone on a plantation, there are clearly more slaves than slaveowners, the way out of the situation would require educating fellow slaves and inspiring them to act on their nature, which is not being enslaved. Otherwise, it is the only life they know and will come to accept, as they fear the unknown. People may fear being wrong or they do right assuming it is right when it is not. 79

Navigating through the contradictions or shadows is a process much easier when one individual guides another, and contradiction or division becomes unity or alignment when questioning and dialogue opens us up and helps us gain clarity about everything. Some starting questions may be: What good things and what bad things occur with government? What specifically do you not like that the government does? What would you want funded? What do you think would happen to me if I didn’t want to fund it? Should you disobey a law that conflicts with your own moral (natural) conscience? If it’s bad for you to do a certain thing, is it okay for you to try to get someone else to do the same thing for you? Is it ever good to break the law? Does the majority have the right to do whatever it wants to a minority, as long as it uses voting and the political process? Do you believe that it’s okay for government to force you to fund things that you’re opposed to? Otherwise, sharing material like this where other questions and resources were mentioned, can assist in the effort. Time and patience is required, and bear in mind that not everybody comes to understand everything all at once. It takes some people a matter of decade or two to finally understand these concepts, also depending on how much they care, or how much programming they need to address within themselves. 80

Planting the seed means that you leave an individual with thoughts that they have not previously considered, and you remain as someone they can talk to, or they have resources they can learn more from. You may decide to break down larger questions into parts, or ask questions accordingly to what an individual cares about most, bringing it back down to nature, as all must go. All materials, which are reflections of the passionate and caring mind, help share the word for moral suasion, despite how it must be the individual evaluating themself one way or another. Philosophers have long battled the current norm of ideas throughout every century, trying to find out new ways of thinking or solutions to the world, often being penalized by governments for having done so despite always being the real change-makers. You are a philosopher if you have your own way of looking at the world. However, since everyone lives their own lives as such, everyone is a philosopher, just as everyone is natural, it is simply a question as to if they will embrace it and learn more from themselves just as much as their world. The Tyler cycle developed by Alexander Tytler is representative for the philosophy of how society goes from tyranny to freedom again and again: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual 81

faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence and from dependence back into bondage. However, if we were to cut this cycle in half, what separates faith, courage, liberty and abundance, with complacency, apathy, dependence and bondage is the idea of selfishness. In applying our knowledge of nature, government and anarchy, we would realize that selfishness cannot go far into complacency, apathy, dependence or bondage if the one or few individuals is not given their power by other individuals with the belief in “authority.” Nobody can be “entitled” to rule over other’s property unless they make their title out to be legitimate and natural, moral and necessary. Furthermore, both the Stanford Prison experiments and the Stanley Milgram experiments, as well as the top source of unnatural death known as Democide, would all have a known solution, being the end of the belief in “authority,” the end of that which proclaims to take the place of nature. The man made material world may still affect the natural world, but there wouldn’t be an overarching man made system proclaiming to have the power of nature itself, in that people see it is legitimate (natural) to turn what is wrong or unnatural into what is right or 82

natural. Humans don’t have the power to change nature or reality, they have the power to change themselves and their creations; they must keep it at that. Whether it’s voluntaryism, daoism, stoicism, abolitionism, naturosophy, natural law, karma, the golden rule or whatever moral philosophy, it all accounts to moral suasion so long as it is shared or allowed into being, not enforced by a government to take it’s place through legality, legislation, man-made constitutions, elections etc. If your idea is so great, educate the world and prove it to them, the ideas worth applying voluntarily; in the same way, real leaders are born, their actions worth emulating voluntarily. The internal ruler, who has rules for thyself is sovereign (Latin super-regnum: “above rulership”), they are free by nature. They are not mentally enslaved by the belief in “authority,” for they do not need to believe, they know thyself. This mind made free will be impossible to enslave physically, and so the moral obligation for moral suasion rests on them to share the utterly profound truth they see evidently with their eyes clear and open, upon seeing or experiencing the unnatural world of darkness, of those who have external rulers, who don’t know thyself because they are slaves by government, mentally enslaving themself 83

through their belief in “authority.” Everything “authority” does is not education. If it isn’t “authority,” then what is done is education. “Authority” is the exact opposite of education, for which it is merely violence (the violation of nature). Everything else, is education. The result of “authority” is education, because “authority” never lasts and nature does, to answer man’s ignorance, but this is only when “authority” has shown it’s ugly face for what it is, evil itself, and that evil is shown to us when we have the natural eyes to see it, meaning “authority” no longer is seen as “authority.” Governments may persuade you to keep their rulership over you, but it can never be moral suasion, unless they were talking to you as human beings, in which case, they wouldn’t be government. The false ideas about anarchy may similarly be used to persuade you against nature, but it can never be moral suasion, unless they were talking to you as human beings, in which case, you already have no rulers and nature is the only system or condition to embrace. You must stand by nature at all costs if you want the good, happy and healthy, because life is nature and living is the natural. “He who is brave is free” – Seneca Your suasion involves a necessary sacrifice, indeed a natural one, which can only provide more of 84

the natural, it means you are grounded in the roots, standing the test of time. You remain yourself and you want others to remain their self. You live your life and you want others to live their life. You violate nobody and you want others to violate nobody. You care for others and you want others to care for you. You love nature, or at least it’s knowledge and importance, and you want others to share the same beauty and benefit. You may not be able to save everybody, but by saving nature, you are. “Humans have come into being for the sake of each other, so either teach them, or learn to bear them.” – Marcus Aurelius

Respect and teach nature. This is Moral Suasion & Anarchy. This is you. Do not respect and teach “authority.” This is Government. This is not you.

85

Nature Is The Answer nita.one

The End Of Slavery Summit nita.one/summit

The Liberator 2 theliberator.us

Naturosophy nita.one/naturosophy

Thank you for giving my book your time and attention. Thank you for you. Nature is the answer. Love to all. – Cory Edmund Endrulat

86