re: Anarchism and Atheism, Theism and Statism

Mikey Granule — Mon, 04 May 2009 19:39:45 GMT

Atheism is a far superior philosophy to anarchism. Atheism undermines the basis of patriarchy. Anarchism merely undermines the idea of government; without atheism, anarchism is doomed.

If there were such a word as apatriarchal, you could have written a more encompassing article. Even so, I believe that patriarchy depends on theism to create the illusion of cross-generational authority.

Personally, I follow through my atheism with a philosophy of apatriarchalism. Patriarchy is the basis of most hierarchies: churches definitely, government departments, but also the structure of private enterprises.

Patriarchy also thrives on placing women in patriarchal positions of authority. I know many organisations (including atheist campaigning groups!) which have a woman at the helm who has taken the role of the patriarch. Infact the Margaret Thatcher / Queen Elizabeth I / Joan of Arc figure is a profound necessity of all patriarchies from time to time. They're usually not subject to election and if they are, it's only when the electorate has been sufficiently intimidated to guarantee the right result.

It's important to understand the techniques and structures of patriarchy, because even though an organisation may no longer worship a god, they can and do still worship patriarchy, its forms and methods, without necessarily calling it worship or recognising any deity.

There are a number of characteristics of patriarchal organisations which I often use to spot them.

1) An absence of any electoral process or democratic processes

2) A predominance of men in the main body of the organisation

3) A tendency to exclude (i.e. excommunicate) members who question things or state alternative opinions

4) A tendency towards nationalism and distrust, suspicion and rejection of foreign cultures in preference to the home culture

5) A tendency to deal with disputes through authoritarian edict rather than due process

6) A culture of loyalty to the patriarchal (male or female) figure

Putting these things right doesn't automatically stop an organisation being patriarchal, however it does tend to start turning the organisation into a tolerable alternative to the rigid structures of our intensively patriarchal society.

Many thanks for the article, it has sparked off some really good ideas for me.

re: Anarchism and Atheism, Theism and Statism

MhRipley — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 05:38:53 GMT

Right. I'm of the view that our brand-new, ''secular'' age is actually a fraud and the same thing as what came before it, albeit in another, more malevolent guise. It is likewise equally doomed in this respect!

Of course anarchism and atheism are more often than not given a negative correlation. You know why? Because if people truly woke up from their Platonic/Kantian/Crutch-needing slumber, they'd end up suddenly realizing that they have been nothing more than brainwashed into keeping the fascist established order, with their industry of euphemisms and dubious claims, alive. This isn't merely a far-fetched claim, just consider the load of non sequiturs and imaginary enemies they use to keep people fearfully clinging to them (i.e.: ''Satan'', ''bomb throwers'', etc. ''Terrorists'' also fall in that category, like anything else)

''Anarchism and atheism are both defined in negative terms. As general paradigms they do not actually advocate any particular belief or system of organization. They represent the lack of a belief.''

Yeah, and that's what terrifies the herd so much. Only, they don't realize that much of their held beliefs are in actuality little more than DELUSIONS in the first place.

''Religion and statism are also similar in that they bring forth the existence of multiple ideological groups that conflict with each other, with each group claiming a monopoly on morality and truth.''

Yep. Like I say: ''Philosophically speaking, the church and the state are actually one and the same!'' (emphasis mine)

''The Hobbesian war of all against all is in fact a description of contemporary political democracy rather than anarchy.''

Hum, yeah. I believe that, too.

''It could easily be argued that organized religions came about directly as a result of attempts by states to control the gullible populations of times past. ''

''In either case, the history of the state as an institution is clearly linked at the hip to religion.''

Hum, I get the impression that the case is being made. At best reinforced, at worst proven. The clues are here, there and everywhere. It goes without saying that the unwillingness of many persons to examine this is also quite revealing.

''In some respects religious institutions used to be states in themselves.''

Ditto. Where there's smoke there is fire.

''Even in our comparatively secular modern age, political leaders are often treated almost as if they are gods capable of doing miraculous things.''

Yeah, and that's precisely the problem. But, rest assured, it's a doomed fraud.

''It would most certainly be self-contradictary for an anarchist to oppose voluntary and non-violent religious expression.''

Yeah, despite the church's actual history, that is.

''To clarify, there are plenty of anarchists who are not atheists and plenty of atheists who are statists.''

''But I do mean to imply that there is cognitive dissonance involved in simultaneously holding onto anarchism and theism in one's mind. For it does not make sense to reject the need for human rulers while maintaining that there is a need for a deity to function as a ruler. There is also cognitive dissonance involved in simultaneously holding onto statism and atheism in one's mind. For how can one deny the existance of and need for gods while still believing that there is a need for a state to function precisely as a god and while thinking of the state as a sovereign individual entity in itself?''

I don't understand this, any more than you do. Let alone why it is even that way at all. The desperate need of the herd for crutches and hanging onto contradictions remains a possible explanation. As for the cognitive dissonance, thankfully it isn't my case. I certainly wish there were more like me. But I get the impression that people could not pull out of it without self-induced trauma, feeling stranded, or alienated. (The desperate, absolute need for crutches is the herd's inherent weakness. Er, I'd go even further and say that they're all about weakness!)

Otherwise, I'm glad to see I'm not the only one seeing this, not kidding myself, and your article summed up very much my own thoughts nicely.