Fundamentalism / Ideology In General and Anarchists In Particular
Release Four(1)

Textbook movies about Fundamentalists / Ideologues (FIs) include Agora, starring Rachel Weisz; and American History X, starring Edward Norton. I identify FIs by their shared logic-fail / propaganda case for their beliefs, whether intentionally or unintentionally: "God" by whatever name or ism, is on their side; e.g., "Because pure freaking magic, that’s why"; or "Because that’s what I believe". If another disagrees, FIs add more non sequiturs, or escape logic with methods such as "Agree to disagree", escalation up to and including violence, or squid-fogging(2).

For instance, some Islamic FIs initiate fraud / property-destruction / theft / violence / etc because they claim having God aka Allah on their side. Some Christian FIs(3) make the same case for KKK type actions / inactions(4). The same pattern applies to many groups(5), including FI anarchists / voluntaryists. They exist at different points on the traditional left-right spectrum (e.g., respectively AnCom and AnCap); with anarchy sometimes as their version of "God is on my side", and sometimes with themselves as "God".

I claim to be a voluntaryist type of anarchist, but not an FI. My voluntaryist-anarchist political position is multi-generational and non-aggressionist in the tradition of Carl Jung (towards the middle of the traditional spectrum), Noam Chomsky (more left), and Murray Rothbard (more right). Where I see myself on this spectrum is irrelevant to this short essay.

To conclude, deciding if one is or isn’t an FI requires at least an understanding of Aristotelian logic, archetypes, introspection, and others’ feedback. I don’t claim perfection, but I do claim to be a free-thinker(6), the opposite of an FI.

(1) Update published Oct 7, 2019, on my Facebook page under "Notes". Updates: Wordsmithing; Ver Two abbreviations; Ver Three conclusion paragraph added; Ver 4 endnote 5 added details. Like the New York cab driver joke Passenger: "Do you know how to get to Carnegie Hall?" Driver: "Practice, practice, practice."

- By anarchist / voluntaryist / etc, I mean self-identified. By argument, I mean two sides each making a logic-based case, not verbally or otherwise fighting.

- I use the slash to mean *and / or*, and dashes when two or more words together result in one meaning. I put some words / phrases / terms in between two asterisks to not lose meaning in plain text. I use *etc* without a period when it doesn’t end a sentence. *e.g.* is Latin for "for example"; and *i.e.* Latin for "that is".

(2) All logic-fails / propaganda-techniques are variations of *non sequitur* (Latin for "does not follow"). Examples include skipped premises; changing word meanings in mid-argument; not having an agreed-upon axiom (i.e., an agreed-upon foundation such as what the argument subject is); argument from authority (e.g.., Einstein was a socialist and so socialism is best); and argument from emotion (e.g., escalation, "You’re wrong because f*** you", up to and including violence).

- Credit goes to Stefan Molyneux on his call-in show for me realizing the squid-fog concept. A defensive squid or octopus creates a large black cloud, and when the fog clears, the squid or octopus is long gone. I saw a mother do this when confronted about sibling favoritism. Rather than talking about it, so she threw an extreme emotional fit, and by the time all present were over the shock, she was in her car down the road. Similar squid-fog techniques include adults crying like children, taking infinitely repeating time-outs, etc, etc.

(3) "inaction" here referring to not helping when basic morality archetypes say to.

(4) The Bible is empirically much longer than the Quran and thus has a wider range of interpretations; e.g,, in the US 1700s and 1800s, the Methodist Church split into the anti-slavery Northern Methodist Church and pro-slavery Southern Methodist Church; both claiming to read the Bible without any intrerpretation. An FI 12-stepper once told me in reference to the AA literature "Only read the black letters on the white page with nothing added or taken away." I hold this is impossible because all individual human minds process complex abstract concepts differently, with the exception of FI programmed minds -- but even among those, there are sometimes disagreements.

(5) Some FI self-proclaimed anarchists such as some Antifas interpret their ism as justification / rationalization for initiating fraud / property-destruction / theft / violence / etc; claiming fill-in-the-blank "________ started it." The same principle applies to those whom Thomas Sowell calls "The Anointed Ones"; e.i., elected and unelected bureaucrats, politicians, college administrators, etc, etc, who raise and spend taxpayer money collected at gunpoint in fraudulent and ridiculous ways almost all, if not all, taxpayers vehemently disagree with.

(6) I partly agree with the Wikipedia definition: "Freethought (or ‘free thought’) is a philosophical viewpoint which holds that positions regarding truth should be formed only on the basis of logic, reason, and empiricism, rather than authority, tradition, revelation, or dogma." I say "partly" because I also agree with Carl Jung’s concept of archetypes; further, I claim to know nothing 100%. Rather I consider all my knowledges to have a percentage of probability.

- For instance, did Lee Harvey Oswald act alone if at all in the JFK assassination? I say 99% probability no. Is global warming/climate change caused by us humans? I say the question is way too simple and instead of answering, needs to be broken down into several questions, such as "What role, if any, do humans play in global warming/climate change; and if so, approximately what percentage are we presently playing?"

- This endnote is close to a copy-and-paste from one or more of my other essays.