A Call To Anarchists: Defend The State

On @larkenrose's [post](https://steemit.com/anarchism/@larkenrose/you-should-be-offended), with the general idea and notion that there are "so many anarchists" on steemit, @laconicflow  has "been increasingly compelled to write a long post called in defense of the state and knowing this is the wrong room for it only makes me want to do it more." 

He is "putting it off because it feels to [him] like arguing for the vertues of hydration."

I'm glad to start because I have found a key spot in my philosophical discoveries that grants me the ability to argue for The State coherently, and I welcome you to join in with your own methods and thoughts; if we can argue for The State better than statists, we shan't be cut off guard by their arguments. I know that I for one have found myself occasionally flabbergasted by their answers and contentions.

The basic truth of it is that there is only one thing that exists, and that one thing cannot exist; it is from this divide of Energy, which necessarily must split itself in twain - and where but to split but itself? - and by such a division, creates for itself amnesia about itself, and thus life, with the full spring of environments wherewith to inact and interact with the created story of coming back to itself. 

The State is this amnesia, literally being as well, the state of mind that we have in fear, or when we are caught. It is during this time of tribulation that our fate is decided by our ability (or lack thereof) to be Present. The less present you are, the more you and your life breaks. The more present you are, the more of a God you are. When people speak of "[human nature](https://steemit.com/anarchy/@somethingsea/freedom-gov-god-and-human-nature)", it is of this that they speak; what they refer to is our history of trauma and abuse. 

Now, whether we can get past that trauma and abuse is somewhat up for debate. Frankly, I'd say the majority of the world has been working on showing anarchists, collectively, that 95% of people are not able to get over their trauma. Certainly that would be nice, but they have not shown signs of mental transition. Have they now? Do you not suppose that it might not have been always like this? A small percentage arguing for freedom while the rest remain stanch advocates of slavery without realizing it? Is it not true that humanity has, collectively, shown, predictively, predominantly, and principally poor behavior? Is not freedom an exception to the rule?

So let's say that you call this fatalist, and that I'm ignoring logic - after all, rape makes a person free up, and rape traumatizes a person. Am I saying that rape was necessary for their life?

Yes.

# WHAT?!

I'm saying that without rape, without slavery, without genocide, without racism, without x, y, z, and so forth of all the shitty things throughout history, we wouldn't be here: We need them. They are our story. 

Ah, but that we have them in our history -- that doesn't mean we should *keep doing* them, right?! Certainly not, but let's not divorce ourselves from the reality of what humanity is: full of rapists, murderers, and complete sociopaths. This is what humanity has in it and is capable of. We have many of them right here, right now. 

But hey - if people simply didn't listen to the sociopaths --
Now what did we start with?
Ah, yes:
"Now, whether we can get past that trauma and abuse is somewhat up for debate. Frankly, I'd say the majority of the world has been working on showing anarchists, collectively, that 95% of people are not able to get over their trauma." 

But, certainly, if the beginning is to fall asleep and go into amnesia, then the conclusion would be waking up?

Well, that's to assume that "waking up" is the end point.

Life never ends.

Sure, there might be 10,000 years of peace and some sort of "[Golden Age](https://steemit.com/anarchy/@somethingsea/i-am-a-slave-and-you-are-too)," but if you're going to use yin-yang and up-down and the continuous motion of energy, that necessarily means that *after* that 10,000 years, there will be another cycle of people being shit-brain assholes. And then, to be a real asshole about it, if you're going to use the premise that everything is energy, then originally, we started out with "anarchy". There was no inconsistency - and with that, no different. Everything was the same, and nothing "manifested". 

So, we have infinite tries to make the manifest world however we wish, and while from this manifest perspective action X is bad, and action Y is good, based on "sustainable practices", like not stealing, because that can't be universally applied... *it actually can*: since you are energy and you simply come back in a different form via reincarnation, you stole, and now you'll be stolen from. So, mainly, the reason for morality is simply about preferences at this moment: you prefer to have a society of peace. That doesn't mean that that will be the overall reality. 

You're just part of a small group of people, of part of a global society that will wane as a new and different empire arises from the ashes of this current society. Perhaps there will be World War 3 and humanity will wipe itself out. The Earth will still be there, still ready to do the whole shebang again in 3 billion trillion years. When you have infinite time, always, 3 billion trillion years here or there is nothing. Literally. You can have 3 billion trillion... 3 billion trillions. 

So, if it's the case that I'm saying it doesn't matter whether, say, people kill and then eat other people, why couldn't a neighbor of mine walk up to me and say,
"Hey. I'm hungry, and I'm going to eat you."
Would I defend myself? What reason would I have to do so?
Well, I prefer not to be eaten. Perhaps the person will listen to me, and if he doesn't... then the mightiest wins. And perhaps my neighbors will help me if they also do not want to be eaten, or help *him* if they're hungry and want to eat me too. 

How is preference anything of morality?
It's the ultimate form of inclusion; it's not a moral theory.
It's simply how things work - by preference.
Some people - many people - are fooled into thinking their preference is things that destroy them and us.
Our preference is to not be destroyed.
They aren't listening. Some are, but most aren't. 

What do I suggest we do?
Band together and destroy them, when the time comes.
They are not filled with awareness, and we are.
They insist on being sub-par in their consciousness.
You think it is preferable to keep them when they have shown such a stubborn will to abide the destruction of you and me, with our preference being to live? 

This is the statement of the war on the coming death:
The majority of humanity is beyond reason.
If they will not accept peace, they must be destroyed, if you prefer to live.
By force and by brute, by manipulation and redirection, the soldiers of FEMA will be directed to destroy those who proclaim America, saving those who declare non-contradictory Anarchy, whereby those who remain shall be known as the Neo-Anarchists Of The Living, Earth's Self-Selected Survivors And Thrivers.

We who accept Truth and Logic have the advantage at our side:
We are not morons.
And we shall prevail. 

And we shall eventually fail.
But we shall have much fun before then, and may our great grand children 2 millenia from now forgive us our cosmically-endowed ignorance, as we forgive our ancestors theirs; without them, without us, they would not be.