Since you are staking your Substack on unvarnished truth, here’s mine.
I am anti-political. I do not believe that politics can solve any problem without creating unwanted side effects that ultimately will prove to be worse than the original problem. My perspective is based on such an overwhelming preponderance of empirical evidence that I am utterly baffled as to why it’s opaque to the vast majority of my fellow humanoids. I do not know why this blindness exists, but I have been forced to accept that it does.
I fully endorse the preamble to the Declaration Of Independence—specifically, everything from “We hold these truths..” to “…their Safety and Happiness.” The rest of it is pretty good too, but the preamble establishes the philosophical basis upon which the nation was founded. It also establishes the test by which any clear-thinking individual can determine that the monstrous political state that has become a counterfeit of true government, as defined in the Declaration, is in large part (but not fully) the antithesis of true government.
I do understand that the term “anti-political” might not be clear. Most folks immediately infer, “Ah…then you’re an anarchist.” Nope. That’s a false alternative, based on the assumption that the only societal mechanism capable of providing true government is a political state, which is an institution founded on arbitrary artificial political laws enforced by legalized coercion or the threat thereof.
There is a further “democratic” assumption that sanctifies the legality of the state based on the premise of “majority rule”, a rationally and morally bankrupt superstition that the number of people who believe a thing is right makes it so. This is tantamount to an endorsement of the equally absurd premise that, while it is axiomatic that the minority should not be able to tyrannize the majority, it’s perfectly fine for the majority to tyrannize the minority.
No it’s not. That’s exactly what happened in Germany in 1933-1945. No one in the majority minds the tyranny as long as they’re in the majority. But in a society where what is right is determined by what is legal, sooner or later the concept of unalienable rights is thrown under the bus, and politics becomes the principal obsession.
Sound familiar? That’s exactly how you end up with a nation wherein the majority are cowed into reticence to speak the truth for fear of being attacked by a very loud minority of irrational, immoral, very angry people who accuse anyone who disagrees with them of “hate speech”, while their own hatred remains invisible to them.
Anyhow, I take you at your word, Ivana. Based on your description of the purpose of your Substack, I suspect (or at least hope) that we are kindred spirits. I think there’s a better way of governing ourselves than by giving the power to interfere with our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness to people who want to control others and hope they won’t abuse it.
I won’t take sides in the never-ending, unresolvable us-vs-them zero-sum-game circus of politics, but I won’t silence myself when it comes to principle. I’m not here to advance any political agenda, but you can count on me to adhere to the philosophy in the preamble to the Declaration. Every societal problem we have today is a result of stomping that philosophy into the dirt, and it has all been done with legality.
That doesn’t make it right. If you agree, I’m glad to be aboard.
Thank you for sharing your perspective—it’s refreshing to hear someone articulate their stance with such clarity and conviction. I can’t say I disagree with much of what you’ve said. The preamble of the Declaration is indeed a cornerstone of what should guide governance, but it’s painfully clear that most modern systems and ideologies have trampled over those ideals in favor of control and self-interest.
I understand your disdain for the political circus; it’s hard not to feel like it’s all just theater meant to distract us while the foundations erode. Your rejection of majority rule as a justification for tyranny resonates deeply. There’s nothing democratic about silencing dissent, and yet, that’s the climate we find ourselves in—a loud minority dictating terms while the majority bites their tongue out of fear of being labeled, canceled, or worse.
I appreciate your commitment to principle over politics, and your point about legality versus morality couldn’t be more relevant. Legal doesn’t mean just, and what’s enforced by the state doesn’t always align with natural rights or human decency. That’s a critical distinction people overlook when they’re too blinded by the illusion of “progress.”
If we are indeed kindred spirits, I’m glad to have you here. This Substack is a space for unapologetic truth and bold ideas. I don’t expect everyone to agree with me—or each other—but I do expect honesty and a shared desire to reject the herd mentality that’s suffocating society. Glad to have you on board.
Since you are staking your Substack on unvarnished truth, here’s mine.
I am anti-political. I do not believe that politics can solve any problem without creating unwanted side effects that ultimately will prove to be worse than the original problem. My perspective is based on such an overwhelming preponderance of empirical evidence that I am utterly baffled as to why it’s opaque to the vast majority of my fellow humanoids. I do not know why this blindness exists, but I have been forced to accept that it does.
I fully endorse the preamble to the Declaration Of Independence—specifically, everything from “We hold these truths..” to “…their Safety and Happiness.” The rest of it is pretty good too, but the preamble establishes the philosophical basis upon which the nation was founded. It also establishes the test by which any clear-thinking individual can determine that the monstrous political state that has become a counterfeit of true government, as defined in the Declaration, is in large part (but not fully) the antithesis of true government.
I do understand that the term “anti-political” might not be clear. Most folks immediately infer, “Ah…then you’re an anarchist.” Nope. That’s a false alternative, based on the assumption that the only societal mechanism capable of providing true government is a political state, which is an institution founded on arbitrary artificial political laws enforced by legalized coercion or the threat thereof.
There is a further “democratic” assumption that sanctifies the legality of the state based on the premise of “majority rule”, a rationally and morally bankrupt superstition that the number of people who believe a thing is right makes it so. This is tantamount to an endorsement of the equally absurd premise that, while it is axiomatic that the minority should not be able to tyrannize the majority, it’s perfectly fine for the majority to tyrannize the minority.
No it’s not. That’s exactly what happened in Germany in 1933-1945. No one in the majority minds the tyranny as long as they’re in the majority. But in a society where what is right is determined by what is legal, sooner or later the concept of unalienable rights is thrown under the bus, and politics becomes the principal obsession.
Sound familiar? That’s exactly how you end up with a nation wherein the majority are cowed into reticence to speak the truth for fear of being attacked by a very loud minority of irrational, immoral, very angry people who accuse anyone who disagrees with them of “hate speech”, while their own hatred remains invisible to them.
Anyhow, I take you at your word, Ivana. Based on your description of the purpose of your Substack, I suspect (or at least hope) that we are kindred spirits. I think there’s a better way of governing ourselves than by giving the power to interfere with our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness to people who want to control others and hope they won’t abuse it.
I won’t take sides in the never-ending, unresolvable us-vs-them zero-sum-game circus of politics, but I won’t silence myself when it comes to principle. I’m not here to advance any political agenda, but you can count on me to adhere to the philosophy in the preamble to the Declaration. Every societal problem we have today is a result of stomping that philosophy into the dirt, and it has all been done with legality.
That doesn’t make it right. If you agree, I’m glad to be aboard.
Thank you for sharing your perspective—it’s refreshing to hear someone articulate their stance with such clarity and conviction. I can’t say I disagree with much of what you’ve said. The preamble of the Declaration is indeed a cornerstone of what should guide governance, but it’s painfully clear that most modern systems and ideologies have trampled over those ideals in favor of control and self-interest.
I understand your disdain for the political circus; it’s hard not to feel like it’s all just theater meant to distract us while the foundations erode. Your rejection of majority rule as a justification for tyranny resonates deeply. There’s nothing democratic about silencing dissent, and yet, that’s the climate we find ourselves in—a loud minority dictating terms while the majority bites their tongue out of fear of being labeled, canceled, or worse.
I appreciate your commitment to principle over politics, and your point about legality versus morality couldn’t be more relevant. Legal doesn’t mean just, and what’s enforced by the state doesn’t always align with natural rights or human decency. That’s a critical distinction people overlook when they’re too blinded by the illusion of “progress.”
If we are indeed kindred spirits, I’m glad to have you here. This Substack is a space for unapologetic truth and bold ideas. I don’t expect everyone to agree with me—or each other—but I do expect honesty and a shared desire to reject the herd mentality that’s suffocating society. Glad to have you on board.