I've debated statists for quite a long time, whether it was friends, strangers, or people online, and I have yet to find a singular logical statist worldvie. Every time you question their notion that the state needs to exist, you never find a valid reason. In fact, I'd dare say they use similar apologetic patterns like you'd might find a christian or muslim use. All of this, in me, cultivates a certainty in my believes regarding anarchism, and, I've come to see statism not as a rational belief, but as a secular religion, the biggest one, the most violent one, and the one that brought the most suffering, an organised religion that brings other cultists to shame, and like every cult, it's built on fraud.

1. The Origin: The Human Farm

If you look at the very states, like the ancient Ur, they weren't formed by people signing a contract, the state doesn't birth itself through negotiation, it came through coercion and fraud. They were formed by roaming raiders, who realised something revolutionary for their careers: it is that pillaging is inefficient. So instead of raiding, they decided to build a giant wall, settle down, and farm the productive, non-aggressive humans. They had to protect the village from other raiders, as that threatens their income, but that doesn't mean they are merciful providers of safety, just like a farmer protecting his slaughterhouse and barns with pigs isn't a symbol of safety to them. This, this revelation in around 4000 BCE, kickstarted the 6000 years of this devastating cult enabling systemic coercion and treating the peaceful as cattle. I did not live 6000 years ago, I cannot see into their minds, but it's safe to say, these anarchist farmers wouldn't let that slide that easily, the statesmen know man is not like any other animal, they needed a mythology, which brings us to the next point.

2. The State of the Gaps

Because the statesmen are a very tiny minority of narcissistic psychopaths compared to the rest of the populace, they had to convince their "livestock" to worship and "need" their "farmer". And as human knowledge progresses, the state has to constantly shift its mythology to survive, once again, a pattern we see in organised religions. The original conception, like Ur or Egypt, these were the states in their purest form, the statesman was god, and he has to be worshipped, obeyed, and given tribute just for existing, when people slowly realised those people clearly aren't gods, the mythology shifted into divine right, now the statesman is not a god, but god wants him to farm you all, so you once again must worship, obey, and give him tribute, and when science and englightenment killed any rational belief in the divine, they dropped the mysticism and pivoted to a secular religion, saying: "You actually chose us to rule you. By simply existing on this side of an imaginary geographical line, you signed an invisible contract agreeing to be farmed."

And I don't know about you, but I know damn well I haven't chosen shit, I never agreed to be threatened by kidnapping and violence if I won't allow them to dictate how I should live and let myself be stolen from. And I know you also never agreed to it, depending on your ideology, you may have ad-hoc decided to accept it, or if an anarchist, trying to withdraw yourself from it the most you can, even if a little, like me. So how is this pretty fragile idea so dominant?

3. The Pivot: From Church to State Schooling

This section hopes to answer that question, because coincidentally, just as the divine was losing its credibility to anyone rationals, the statesmen noticed. And they concluded they need a new indoctrination method, and that became public schooling. The modern public education system is modeled after the Prussian model whose goal was to numb the individual and reward docility and obedience. All of us are conditioned since birth to be dependent on authorite and revere it, it only depends on your mental strength to start questioning it, and there is nothing wrong hearing it from someone else if you cannot get to it yourself. The thing however is, many could, should they not be conditioned against by normalised cultural adultism institutionalised by the state.

4. Adultism: the Psychological Primer

(Adultism is an ageist institutionalised or cultural discrimination against the young, I am mainly referring to how little rights do children have, but adultism is so culturally deep even you most likely take anyone younger than you less seriously.)

As I hinted, the conditioning starts way before school, and that is through institutionally supported cultural adultism. From early childhood we are taught that authority replaces reason when said authority demands it. "Because I said so" therefore, becomes a valid argument. By normalizing a dynamic where rights are just privileges granted by a superior based on age, society conditions children to accept the exact same authoritarian dynamic when they grow up. The Parent/Child dynamic is seamlessly swapped for the Government/Citizen dynamic. We are trained to remain psychological children our entire lives. You can see that how in our modern society, the distinction between an adult and child usually is only a question of age and the ability to produce, not about actual maturity, which I see many adults lack. Adultism is destructive both towards the old and young, because it is useful to the state, it is instituionalised, and culturally promoted, the state never was your friend, it cares about the treasury being filled.

5. Anarchy is Knocking

Anarchy is much closer than you think. In 1577, Étienne de La Boétie wrote about the concept of "voluntary servitude." He pointed out that the ruling class, the politicians, the bureaucrats, the enforcers, are a microscopic minority. They literally do not have the physical power to enforce their will on millions of people. And in our case it's billions, which is why I think the state likes population control but that's for another post entirely. The state rules because you give it attention, privileges, and docile acceptance. If you simply stopped participating in the religion, stopped validating their rituals, and started treating these politicians exactly like the fraudsters, thieves, and human traffickers they actually are, the state would evaporate overnight.

And that is the goal of this post, it is a wake-up call, it is a reassurance to those feeling lonely when faced against the machinery, and it is a very brief summary of my opinion on every single world government. As the ending I'll choose a fitting,and honestly my favorite quote from hoppe:

“If measured by the standards of natural law and justice, all politicians, of all parties and virtually without any exception, are guilty, whether directly or indirectly, of murder, homicide, trespass, invasion, expropriation, theft, fraud, and the fencing of stolen goods on a massive and ongoing scale. And every new generation of politicians and parties appears to be worse, and piles even more atrocities and perversions on top of the already existing mountain, so that one feels almost nostalgic about the past.
They all should be hung, or put in jail to rot, or set to making compensation.”
― Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Getting Libertarianism Right

One thing that's incredibly prevalent in modern political discourse is the discussion of climate change and pollution. I chose the "Asking Everyone" flair because while environmentalism used to be a distinctly leftist position, nowadays almost every non-radical views it as a core goal.

I hold a position that very few people openly defend anymore: We should probably continue burning fossil fuels and polluting until we run completely dry.

To understand why, we need to establish a baseline definition. I define "nature" as environments untouched, or minimally touched, by human hands.

If you look objectively at the animal kingdom, every single species "destroys" nature to survive. Whether it’s hunting, building shelters, or altering ecosystems, animals cause disruption and suffering. Humans are no different in principle, we just became the absolute masters of altering the natural state of things to create the best possible conditions for our own survival.

If we agree on that premise, then even our hunter-gatherer ancestors making fire was inherently "anti-environmental." Imagine if, upon discovering fire, an ooga-booga tribe immediately tried to regulate or heavily tax it to obsolesence. Humanity would have gone nowhere.

>

To clarify, because I define nature as untouched by humans, I am not saying forests or parks shouldn't exist. In my worldview, private forests, nature reserves, and parks are incredibly valuable and awesome. What I am strictly against are artificial restrictions on human growth.

Forcing humanity to "return to nature" is a call for humans to return to poverty, which is the default natural state for any animal.

The reason I believe we should keep burning fossil fuels is that humanity is genuinely ready to handle the consequences. We aren't helpless. We have air conditioning, we construct artificial islands, and we launch satellites into orbit. We can combat the effects of climate change privately and technologically: reclaiming land, building advanced indoor spaces to beat the heat, and engineering our way through it. Ultimately, overcoming a hostile Earth will give us a cleaner idea on how to colonize hostile environments on other planets, like Mars.

Now that you have a glimpse into my worldview, I turn to the pro-environmentalists on both the left and the right:

Beyond the fact that corporate lobbyists and politicians sink billions into these campaigns to push pseudosocialist ideologies for control, what is actually in it for you? Is this a position you arrived at through your own logic and reasoning? If so, why?

Try to change my mind.