I had leftover Penne Alfredo for breakfast. With more garlic and chili than a reasonable man might mash into his food. I’m not even entirely sure those are traditional accompaniments for an Alfredo and its entirely possible I’m being judged for my exploits. (By people besides my long suffering spouse I mean, whose olfactory sensibilities are being sorely tested) I don’t really mind though. It was delicious.
I’m oscillating through dietary… eh… phases. This is my first (simple) carbohydrate in about two weeks. And my God it was it delicious.
I think it was Epicurus, who namesake epicureanism obviously derives from, who, despite what modernity has made of this philosophy, didn’t max out his excess every moment he was upright. He was supposedly known for fasting for weeks before ‘breaking’ his fast with a bout of ingurgitated debauchery (and possibly other forms of debauchery as well). He (apparently) noted how much better everything was when it had been denied to you for a while.
I think he may have had a point, especially these days with the instant gratification (on the road to type 2 diabetes) vibe we’ve got going on.
My wife is back on the mend and hobbling round the house. Albeit in double moon-boots. Still, it means I am no longer living the single-parent life and have supplementary time to enhance myself once more. And also to boot up my Playstation which has been, for the last while, feeling very neglected.
As an aside. It should be noted that it is nigh on impossible to have sex with someone with two broken feet. Especially since she has a pin poking out through the bottom. Well probably not impossible-impossible. But not really fun for anyone involved.
Anyway… I promised myself I wouldn’t buy anymore books until I’d made at least a significant dent in the ones I already own. Last night I bought the kindle version of Michael Malice’s Anarchist Handbook. Not to be confused with the Anarchists Cookbook, which Amazon informs me are often bought together… which… well… I’d like to deride the sort of people that feel the need to own the Anarchists Cookbook… but I’d have to include myself in that circle of derision.
To be fair. I didn’t so much own it as ‘borrowed’ it from a friend of mine when I was sixteen. As I remember it he bought it using his moms credit card. Someone phoned his mother (he bought it online, this was not something regular bookstores sold), in any event, she assumed it was an actual cookbook and intimated that she was totally fine with this endeavor. Pretty sure this action got you tagged on some sort of government watch-list, even back then in analog-olden-times.
Rust and aluminum shavings makes thermite. I remember shaving down a pencil sharpener for the latter. Iron oxide is easy enough. The trick is getting it lit. For that we… um… appropriated a strip of magnesium from the science lab at school. I don’t think the results were as impressive as I imagined they were going to be though.
Hmm. Do kids today still blow themselves up with chlorine and sugar bombs? This kid who I caught the bus with in the mornings took a three inch glass shard to the chest (at velocity) from some sort of incendiary device they were building… although I think that he was tapping potassium nitrate from several dozen firecrackers into a jar… and then lighting it.
How did any of us make it into adulthood I wonder?
In any event. Michael Malice. Armchair Anarchist. Podcaster (although isn’t everyone these days). And all round, kinda weird guy. I’ve watched a couple segments that feature him in interviews that the Youtube algorithm has sent my way.
I actually thought he was a conservative commentator originally… since (as far as I can gather) he appears quite often on Fox to help bash the left. I tend to roll my eyes at anyone who decries the main stream media but is happy and obliging to whore themselves out on Fox News. That and I missed out on that whole Sid Vicious late seventies, early eightees punk-burn-it-all-down-ambiance. (although I think Malice and I are more or less the same age… so he would have missed out on it too)
In any event, for the longest time I was ‘yeah whatever’ about the exploits of one Mr. Malice. His podcasting persona and antagonistic (and often sarcastic) diatribes have (so far) put me off delving any deeper into his world.
Still, there is quite a bit of Venn diagram overlap between libertarian positions and those of Anarchism. And I think a lot of libertarians (I certainly do) have a soft spot for anarchism. To be fair, I don’t think this flows the other way. To an anarchist, a libertarian is still a statist. Ha ha
I’ve obviously given this a lot of thought and I can just about wrap my brain around a Nightwatchmen system of ‘governance’. But that’s usually where things end for me. I don’t think I’ll ever be able to march under the black-flag. Not without at least a dash of yellow.
I’ve only ever read one other book on Anarchism, and it was dry, textbookish and boring AF. Even the font upset me. Ha ha. Although nothing will ever upset me as much as the font Jocko Willink uses. God!
Anyways, this book piqued my interest. Mostly because its a collection of essays by notable ‘anarchists’ through the ages rather than Malices own thoughts.
Let me cut and paste the blurb.
Anarchism has been both a vision of a peaceful, cooperative society—and an ideology of revolutionary terror. Since the term itself—anarchism—is a negation, there is a great deal of disagreement on what the positive alternative would look like. The black flag comes in many colors.The Anarchist Handbook is an opportunity for all these many varied voices to speak for themselves, from across the decades. These were human beings who saw things differently from their fellow men. They fought and they loved. They lived and they died. They disagreed on much, but they all shared one vision: Freedom.
One of my favorite peeps gets a chapter right near the end, Murray Rothbard. Murray was a follower of Austrian Economics and a student of Ludwig von Mises (one of my top five favorite peeps). Whether Murray can be claimed by Libertarians or Anarchists is, imo, der Narzissmus der kleinen Differenzen, or the narcissism of small differences. In any event, this is an excerpt from his book, Anatomy of the State, published in 1974.
“The State is almost universally considered an institution of social service. Some theorists venerate the State as the apotheosis of society; others regard it as an amiable, though often inefficient, organization for achieving social ends; but almost all regard it as a necessary means for achieving the goals of mankind, a means to be ranged against the “private sector” and often winning in this competition of resources. With the rise of democracy, the identification of the State with society has been redoubled, until it is common to hear sentiments expressed which violate virtually every tenet of reason and common sense such as, “we are the government.” The useful collective term “we” has enabled an ideological camouflage to be thrown over the reality of political life. If “we are the government,” then anything a government does to an individual is not only just and untyrannical but also “voluntary” on the part of the individual concerned. If the government has incurred a huge public debt which must be paid by taxing one group for the benefit of another, this reality of burden is obscured by saying that “we owe it to ourselves”; if the government conscripts a man, or throws him into jail for dissident opinion, then he is “doing it to himself” and, therefore, nothing untoward has occurred. Under this reasoning, any Jews murdered by the Nazi government were not murdered; instead, they must have “committed suicide,” since they were the government (which was democratically chosen), and, therefore, anything the government did to them was voluntary on their part. One would not think it necessary to belabor this point, and yet the overwhelming bulk of the people hold this fallacy to a greater or lesser degree. We must, therefore, emphasize that “we” are not the government; the government is not “us.” The government does not in any accurate sense “represent” the majority of the people But, even if it did, even if 70 percent of the people decided to murder the remaining 30 percent, this would still be murder and would not be voluntary suicide on the part of the slaughtered minority. No organicist metaphor, no irrelevant bromide that “we are all part of one another,” must be permitted to obscure this basic fact.”
Its a great passage, and really this whole post is because I wanted an excuse to record it here for posterity. Having cut and pasted what I needed to, I have boxes to pack and progenies to pick up from school. Onwards and upwards