I readed some of the history and the views of The Satanic Temple, in contrast to the Church of Satan (who I imagined as just an inverted christian philosophy with doses (big doses) of nazism, under the mask of an ego-individualism) and now I’m really interested in learning more. I ever thought the satanic pholosophy should be an opposition not to Christ, but to the Catholic/Evangelic Church. So it’s very coherent and sensate - as to confront an entity like christianity that is white supremacist, homophobic, antiscientifical and evil - to be kind, loveful and have compassion and empathy to animals and humans. THIS is the Satanist i’d be interested to be: a kind, loveful and empathy person, that instead of living a half life of deshonest and hypocritical beliefs in prol of a recompense in an imaginary world, to REAL live the material reality, as it is the ultimate gift of nature and the best experience we could have as an organism in the universe (even within its cruelty and sadness). Sorry for the english, it’s not my main language, and i dont write in it very much. But I’d just like to say that this sublemmy has a new subscriber S2

The worst thing in authority is that it has to be represented. The representation weaks the good things that we could get of “authority” (when authority, for me, turns to be not the best word to describe)

The workclass is not a person itself, so, in an authoritianism context, it has to be represented by whatever number of people (that it is always less than the total of the workclass itself) considered better to do that. Who decides that - knowing that the workclass cant decide for itself, because it is not a person, and can just be represented by a group of people (even when it is the most of the workclass, it is not the workclass itself)?

Who decides what peoples history and thoughts are correct? Supose you use the authority of the workclass to rule, some persons (the ones who study it more) will represent the historical ideas of people, as describe during the text. This representants will authority over the people who dont study politics or history, but what line determines that this representant will not sucumbe to power? Just for being opressed before doesnt mean that they will not opress further. The human being is a really instable creature, sometimes subordinated to ego and passions. A good person could sucumbe to power when she has more authority than the people at her side

The anarchist attack on authority is not on their modern/contemporary form, but on the concept of authority, on whatever form it gets on society. It is first a philosophical attack on the nature of authority, so then exported to a sociological plain

I really think that this issue is a misconception of the word “authority”, an abism of language and the meanings of concepts. Anarchists dont desapproval authority when authority is refered in common language as hability or excellence. And it has been explicitly debated by anarquists, as you can see in God and State by Bakunin. I, as an anarquist and a political philosophy student, have extreme necessity to read comunnist books, even because they are rich and a real basis to think and analise capitalism. Marx is a genius. But as well as Kropotkin, Reclus and Goldman. Read us. The authority of nature, as well as the authority of excellence, dont share the same matter and form of the authority of state and power. We should attack anarquist thoughts in their fragil points, it is important for everyone, even for us, anarquists. But this issue of authority is already seen in basic anarquists writings. We need to read each other, to make debates more constructive. I know there is some real divergences that cannot be conciliated, and I hate (false)moralism and dont think all the people has to like the doctrines of each other. But I really would appreciate the same curiosity of each side for the doctrines of the another side. We need to study even Leviathan to understand the nature of power. This issue (of the comment) is an issue of language.

But as they dont have an explicit political structure, or at least dont follow it, we can say there is some really anarchist stuff going on there

The thing of the hobbits is that they completely ignore macropolitics. As well as I remember, they have a patriarc (the older one) that is like their king, but its function is just symbolic. They have as well a police structure, but as all of the other things, its just symbolic too. I could say they live in a pseudo-anarquist society (the morality of relations with each other is just indiferent with dominion and violent autority) with a juridic mask of monarchy, wich is really interesting. At the end, it doesnt follow the contemporary anarchists doctrines. But the meme is just hillarious, and i would add that, among an anarchist society, they are a society of stoners kkkkkkk