20 votes

Is Julie Borowski an Anarchist? Part 1

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Just by listening to the first 2 minutes, YES SHE IS!

In the first 2 minutes, she sure sounds like an anarchist, I vote HELL YES! Come on Julie. We pick you to be on our team.

Immediate deception

When falsehood rules people they, as a rule, and with few exceptions, begin speaking to each other with dictatorial falsehoods, or immediate deception.

Case in point:

"Should the government redistribute ITS citizens wealth?"

People govern, people produce valuable things, if people cooperate then people produce valuable things at a higher rate.

The false question, or loaded question, dictated in a false form of a false (loaded) question was well answered in a book written by a man who was later called the First American Anarchist.

That book is available on-line here:

I have a hard copy loaned out.

Josiah Warren answered the question of how commerce among free people works equitably and his work included working examples of how commerce among free people works equitably so as to move theory into practice.

To this day the concepts offered in Equitable Commerce work when people work cooperatively such as:

Principles govern people. If the principle governing people is lies regurgitated by criminals upon victims, then people degrade into beasts of burden as those lies bind them to abject stupidity.

Yes, abject belief in falsehood without question is unkind.

So, here is retelling of the dictatorial command hidden behind a thin veil of a question again:

"Should the government redistribute ITS citizens wealth?"

Answer: Principles based upon accurate accounting govern people well enough to avoid criminals claiming to be government as criminals then lie well enough to convince their victims to fund the crime you speak of as it grows exponentially more destructive the longer the lie remains as the governing principle.

How did the person Julie handle the question, and why are people labeled with labels such as "anarchist"?

How did Julie answer the question and did Julie ever study the work of people who were labeled "anarchists" in American history?

"No, the government should not..."

Here is where I point out how the governing principle of falsehood captures people like Julie.

If the governing principle is accuracy in accounting then Julie could have asked for a rephrasing of the question from the false form that the question was asked and instead of a false question the people speaking free from falsehood could then continue based upon an accurate principle instead of a false one.

Such as:

"I do not govern myself according to falsehood, so please ask an accurate question instead of parroting a well worn lie, and then I can answer the accurate question with an accurate answer, and if my response sounds to you like I am speaking in a foreign language, then you can stop speaking in double speak yourself, and you can start speaking according to a governing principle of accurate accounting too, and then we can understand the subject matter rather than being captured by it."

So, out with the false question as such:

"Should the government redistribute ITS citizens wealth?"

In with the accurate account of those words when looking at the subject matter accurately:

"Do the criminals get away with stealing when the criminals convince the victims that the criminals are the government?"

The answer is yes, the criminals often get away with stealing when the criminals convince the victims that the criminals are the government, and that was a well published accurate accounting in 1776 in this country as told by Thomas Paine in Common Sense and as told in that document called The Declaration of Independence, just in case you refuse to take my word on this answer to your loaded question.

I can offer links and quotes as needed in answer to the leading question.

Julie had no time to answer in that way, or is Julie governed by the LIE too?

The interrogator then repeats another leading question when the interrogator works at indoctrinating the target of interrogation because the target of indoctrination/interrogation offers resistance concerning the lie being parroted by the "interviewer."

Julie offers an honest account concerning what she things people should do with their productive capacity, and the interrogator repeats the leading question as follows:

"You don't think that the government should protect the citizens from people who want to use force to take their money?"

1. People are the government (people are governed by principles)
2. Citizens are the government, people are the government
3. How do people stop being people and how do people become the government: according to the lie, and those who repeat the lie?
4. People who use force to take (steal) are criminals
5. Criminals are governed by a principle such as falsehood, or violence, or the combination of falsehood and violence which is threat of violence as a governing principle used by criminals to govern themselves and to govern their targeted victims.
6. Money is not necessarily an accurate accounting of who produces what and who controls what is done with surplus wealth in any form whatsoever.
7. Criminal money based upon the falsehood principle works as a device to facilitate theft that is perpetrated by criminals and all the victims need to do to find the criminals when that happens is to follow the criminal money to those who create the criminal money.
8. Money governed by the principle of accurate accounting removes the capacity of the criminal power to steal.

Mr. "Interviewer" WILL not interview me. Why would he? He would be immediately exposed in time and place as one of the people who are governed by the principle of falsehood.

"Why is that the government's Job?"

That reminds me:
"Kiss me like you mean goodbye," said the spider to the fly.
When all those times you thought that you were wrong, you were right.

Before diving into the interrogators response the question by Julie ought to be understood and well communicated.

It is our job as people, we the people, we the government, to defend each other effectively, for if we do not, then the spider (falsehood) eats our heart (Liberty).

"So...you don't think that the "government" should have a "police"?"

Julie is not ready with a very precise answer, but I am.

"I think that's very much a last step, I think there are things that you have to go to...before you get there (police state?)"

Julie may have a vague idea concerning due process or rule of law such as the common law example of trial by jury offered in the following comprehensive work (done by another American "anarchist"):


A "police officer" hired by the people, for the people, and of the people, not a "police officer" hired by criminals, for criminals, and of criminals, was known as a sheriff, and even during those days in merry ole' England there were the good ones and the bad sheriffs and the method by which the good were accurately identified was that trial by jury due process, or that rule of law, guided by that principle of accurate accounting.

Perhaps that is what Julie is reaching for under these conditions of interrogation by falsehood?

"Ultimately you think that would be optimum where each citizen is responsible for their own defense and there would be basically no government: right?"

Answer (under interrogation by falsehood):
"I just want steps in the right direction at least."

Steps in the right direction is government by a principle that can be accurately (even forensically) measured as morality.

The Interrogator offers two false choices as such:

Government by falsehood
No government

The reason why that is a false choice is obvious as Julie responds with the obvious alternative option:

Government by falsehood
No government
"Responsibility must be Individual, or there is no responsibility at all." Quote from Equitable Commerce by Josiah Warren

If people are going to step in the right direction and if it will be the right direction then it will be a direction driven by moral principle, or governed by moral principle. Julie obviously offers the answer to the dictatorial falsehood of blind obedience to falsehood without question.

Blind obedience to falsehood without question is expressed very well in the false offer offered by the interrogator.

False government or no government, your choice, meaning: pay me to protect you from me and don't question the payments.

The obvious answer to such lies is a better accounting process whereby people offer choices to each other in Liberty.

False government or no government, your choice, meaning: pay me to protect you from me and don't question the payments.


No thanks, we the people over here prefer to question false authority such as the false choices offered by the extortionists who dream up new lies each day, thanks, but no thanks.

Leading (false) interrogation repeated:
"But you either want the government to have a role, a function, of protecting the individual rights of the citizens, or you think there should be no government and each citizen should protect its, his own, rights."

Is that one of those Freudian slips with the possessive word ITS?

It, meaning a thing, a citizen, a thing, has something such as rights?

The plot thickens when falsehood is the driving principle governing the criminals and the victims who are led to believe in false choices offered by false people?

When moral principle is our choice of governing principles, instead of falsehood being our choice of governing principles, what happens, and is it at all difficult to accurately measure what happens when moral principle is our choice of governing principles?

Obviously, measurably, and accurately measurable are the facts of what happens when people choose to be governed by falsehood as their governing principle.

I found an expert, an authority, on what happens when falsehood is the governing principle chosen by people UPON people in time and place.

Here is a link and quote from a proven authority on that subject:

"We shall be told: what can literature possibly do against the ruthless onslaught of open violence? But let us not forget that violence does not live alone and is not capable of living alone: it is necessarily interwoven with falsehood. Between them lies the most intimate, the deepest of natural bonds. Violence finds its only refuge in falsehood, falsehood its only support in violence. Any man who has once acclaimed violence as his METHOD must inexorably choose falsehood as his PRINCIPLE. At its birth violence acts openly and even with pride. But no sooner does it become strong, firmly established, than it senses the rarefaction of the air around it and it cannot continue to exist without descending into a fog of lies, clothing them in sweet talk. It does not always, not necessarily, openly throttle the throat, more often it demands from its subjects only an oath of allegiance to falsehood, only complicity in falsehood."

I have other things to do, but this is a good educational video worthy of my time and energy (my power) as my choice of an investment in our common defense.

More people like Julie working to defeat the rule of falsehood are needed for our common defense against such abject belief in falsehood without question and all the HELL on EARTH that goes with such foolishness.


~87% of burglaries go unsolved...

In addition, riddle me this - How does one go about limiting a government? Thousands of years of experience show it to be impractical to the point of virtual impossibility - especially when implemented on a large scale.

But who will protect you from theft?

Currently the FANTASTIC govt solution to robbery, police, are doing such a swell job of "protecting you" from robbery and even retrieving your stolen goods. I think the police deserve a raise across the board.

Sincerely, Sally Sarcasm.

We are all trying to find the

We are all trying to find the truth...

I think what is happening is Mr Helfeld is focused on his Socratic method so much so that, he is unable to back up and expand perspective to see that she needs help coming to a conclusion, and he should assist. Because either-

1. She does not know what the best option is, or

2. She is just focused on not giving away her position, and doesn't want to
be backed into a corner like she has seen in his other videos.
She leans towards privatization of police or self protection.

So I think the answer is no, she is not an anarchist. She is just concerned with the overreaching of tyrannical government, and looking stupid from a trick question. And here, this is the only way she can think to respond.I think he is unknowingly making it too complicated. But he is still cool in my book. This is just his schtick.

Jan Helfeld's picture

Thank you for your support and praise.

Thank you for your support and praise.

Jan Helfeld

Your welcome, wow I wasn't

Your welcome, wow I wasn't paying attention. I didn't know it was you making this post. Good luck.

I read this in Morpheus's voice, haha!

I think Jan needs to practice his interviewing skills a little more. He literally asked the same question over and over again. There was no tact in it, he didn't try to rephrase his question, and you could tell Julie was getting really annoyed. I could hardly watch that interview because it was so bad. I mean she stated that as a pragmatist, the issue doesn't concern her at the time. So why couldn't Jan ask her where she classified herself philosophically as a libertarian, either a minarchist or an ancap, but let her elaborate as well. Say something that could bring her to making a clearer statement rather than repeatedly ask her the same question. Even then it didn't seem like the interview was finished, but if I were Julie, I probably would have told him to stop asking the same question, or politely decline interviewing him.

I am a proud libertarian Muslim.

Here are some awesome Islamic Libertarian links:




Jan Helfeld's picture

Have you seen my neocon interviews?

Have you seen any of my neocon interviews: John Bolton, James Woolsey, Fred Barnes etc.?

Jan Helfeld

Any chance of getting

"tea-party Mike" in a one-on-one interview? He talks a big game in front of crowds, and then votes completely the other way (in 2012 he voted with the socialists 70% of the time). It would help tremendously if somebody experienced like you can get him on video. Voters in my neck of the woods seem to lack reading comprehension:


"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

Jan Helfeld's picture

Thank you for your support and suggestion

Thank you for your support and suggestion.

Jan Helfeld

I haven't but I would like to sometime.

Maybe this one interview was a bit off. I've heard that you were a good interviewer and I was confused about this video because it was just frustrating to watch to be honest with you and her going back and forth for ten minutes without even changing the subject. It almost seemed like you were attacking her to be honest. Maybe you were just nervous at the time but I think the interview could have gone a bit better if you had tried to rephrase your question just a little more. Don't take anything I'm saying personally though. I think you're awesome!

I am a proud libertarian Muslim.

Here are some awesome Islamic Libertarian links:




Jan is tops.

I haven't seen anybody who drills more than he does, except for perhaps me, lol ;-)

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

Jan Helfeld's picture

Thank you for your support and praise.

Thank you for your support and praise.

Jan Helfeld

Jan Helfeld's picture

My neocon interviews are on DP

My neocon interviews are on DP: John Bolton, James Woolsey, Fred Barnes etc.?

Jan Helfeld



Jan seems to think there would be no laws in a free society

That's a classic noob mistake. Google "private law society"

You seem to make assumptions.

How could one act lawful without laws. What he says is you don't need someone in the same room with us with a gun to our heads at all times.

Case in point -- bundy ranch -- laws. lol

Did I miss something in the interview?

Doesn't he equate anarchy with having no laws?

And what's up with Bantu?

This guy has some serious beef with her to be repeatedly making negative comments about her again and again and again! I do think her videos are getting a bit stale though, kind of like reading Shrek greentexts on 4Chan. Her Freedomworks videos particularly disappoint me because it's the same videos with poor special effects to boot. I think she should go on to do new "libertarian routines" or make more intellectual policy videos.

Still, I think she's one of the coolest libertarians out there.

I also have a weird suspicion, which I'm sure can't be true though, that Proud American First is in fact Julie, though I have nothing more than the fact that the user is always the first to add one of her videos or articles and claims to work for Freedomworks. That would be cool in and of itself anyways. I'm such a nerd lol.

I am a proud libertarian Muslim.

Here are some awesome Islamic Libertarian links:




Was that a misspelling of my

Was that a misspelling of my name or are you talking about someone else?

Dang autocorrect!

Sorry it was you I was wondering about. Why are you so pissed off with Julie Borowski? I'm just curious is all. You just seem to really dislike her to write multiple negative comments about her.

I am a proud libertarian Muslim.

Here are some awesome Islamic Libertarian links:




BTW are you the "libertarian

BTW are you the "libertarian Muslim" from the RP site-chat that has some popularity a couple of years ago? If you are: Hello again, I hope you're doing well.

hmm... good question.. In the

hmm... good question..
In the sea of good quality informational and philosophical video-series there are out there on the internet I guess I just find her annoying. Not much of value, if any at all, have I ever found from her vids. But for the longest time people on this site and others have been praising her as some kind of genius. I guess it just never made sense to me and I do like to speak my mind, while I still can, on this site, others and while AFK. Now with this video where she clearly cannot, or will not, explain her thought-process about her ideals makes me.. scared i guess. Especially now when someone said that she works for freedomworks and such. We need more philosophically pure and bold Ron Pauls out there not whimpy, "I can't speak for my principles because I really want to be president someday"-Rand Pauls.

No offense, but that was a god awful interview!

It was creepy and awkward and cringe worthy.

Julie Borowski (not Borowsky; I'm OCD on spelling!) actually originally stated that she doesn't believe that government should be responsible for maintaining the defense of individuals, which heavily implies anarchism, and then backtracked on the issue, saying that regardless of what stance you hold, we can all agree that limiting government back to its constitutional boundaries is important. Considering that she has a pretty large conservative,, but not yet libertarian fan base, many of whom are skeptics chomping at the bit for the moment to call libertarians anarchists or Somalians, publicly stating that she endorses anarchism as the logical end to the NAP, and thus most ideal, definitely wouldn't fly with her fans, or the FreedomWorks statist base. If she loses that, she's out of a job. So yeah, if I were her I would probably just politely decline and explain off camera of course.

Even then, Jan never explicitly goes so far as to say something along the lines of "Even though we may never achieve anarchism in our times and it may not be pragmatic as of now, philosophically speaking as a libertarian, what is your position on Rothbard's conception of anarchocapitalism or agorism, especially since you've attended anarchist events like PorcFest?"

He never gets to it so I would say Julie sufficiently outmaneuvered him, or if you will, out Rand-ed him.

I am a proud libertarian Muslim.

Here are some awesome Islamic Libertarian links:




I wish you would've asked this

"You seem to want to take steps that have a legitimate chance of happening. What are some realistic things you're doing and, more importantly, where do you hope they ultimately lead to?"

I really like Julie but this was disappointing to watch

Her internal struggle is apparent, in that she appears undecided on taking a philosophical position with conviction, or is unwilling to state hers for whatever reason. Claiming "practical" reasons is a poor excuse for not standing on principle.

I'm an anarchist and hold no shame in defending that. To me, it is the logical conclusion to a strong belief in libertarian philosophy of self-ownership, volunteerism and the non-aggression principle. These are not sliding-scale concepts in my book. In other words, you either own yourself completely or you simply don't own yourself. Does this mean I must believe anarchism is achievable in my lifetime to hold such a position?


I'm an anarchist because I wholeheartedly believe in its righteousness. Thus, a 100% completely free society is what I'm striving for and advocate, regardless if anyone else joins me or not.

If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one.

I appreciate your POV, but...

...for better or for worse, politics DO exist and ignoring it is non-productive. Here's why: If you want our society to be anarcho-libertarian, is coming out and saying we should disband the gov't going to help you achieve that goal? I'd say it won't as--in our current state of the western world--that opinion would not only fail to persuade more than an insignificant minority of people, it would make almost everyone stop listening to you. Is that what you want to achieve?

Julie states her philosophical preference for the NAP--upon which both of you seemingly agree--while avoiding areas that would make people stop listening to her. As a result, she attracts people to her view in smaller steps that people will accept, instead of shooting for the moon in a giant leap which will turn people off.

This is why I've been saying for years now that anarcho-libertarians and minarcho-libertarians need to stop fighting over differences and work together. Both want to move in the same direction and there's a long way to go to satisfy either. So it makes sense to join forces and row together until there's something to fight over.

Non-productive is better than less than non-productive

Your comment:
"politics DO exist and ignoring it is non-productive"

Participating in politics is less than non-productive because the time can be better spent on more important things. We are closer to the collapse than we are to the repairs. If we focus our time on being really productive in our own ways and prepare for the whole thing to fall apart then we will be better off now and in the long run.

We don't need politics we need justice. Politics was never designed to solve a crime problem. Justice is what remedies crime and ensures a lawful society. Politics is the last thing we should be doing. The voting system is corrupted and unless the unlawful voting system and especially anonymous voting is being torn down as the first order of business then politics has not only no value but a negative value if we spend our time on something that is corrupted and has no bearing on reality whatsoever. We could be forming community watch groups and using the internet to build intelligence dossiers on the criminals and begin to hone in on the details of their crime and we could have millions of people working asymmetrically to consolidate intelligence of criminals so that We the People can bring them to justice. That would be WAY more productive than politics because we could have the criminals thrown in prison and remove them from the political process completely.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

I get what you're saying

I completely understand your POV. But we are where we are. We're not going to move from here to where you want to be all at once with the number of supporters the anarcho folks have. Can you name any movement where such a small percentage of the populace sparked a revolution? Now of course, there is a chance/opportunity that when the economics of the current system goes in the dumper that there will be a massive social change of heart. I hope so. But I have heavy doubts that it will be enough to persuade the masses.

Look at it another way. We were a minarchist society in the late 1700's . We didn't change from that to today's majority who believe that gov't should take care of you in a day or a week. Folks like you and I need to nudge people back the other way. In the end, you need numbers to make the anarcho thing happen and you clearly are nowhere close. To the misinformed masses, saying we need no gov't is the equivalent to saying "the sky is red".