While, admittedly, this video is a couple of weeks old but it is and shall remain relevant as well as timely. We need to encourage people every day to focus on liberty and freedom not just once a year. The tyranny we now face from the United States Government is far worse than that faced by the colonists from King George of England in the 18th century.
It is time for a new revolution. Peaceful, quiet and below the radar. How we do that I will leave to those techies and others who have already deserted the ranks of the oppressor government bureaucracies. The oppressors have stated a desire to pull the plug on the internet. Perhaps pulling their plugs would be an option to consider. I have no idea how that could be accomplished but if it can it may need to be considered.
Take out their technology and communication capabilities and they would be severely disabled. I am no leader and I am not telling anyone what they should do. BUT do what your conscience dictates.
And above all we pray for guidance and wisdom in all things. Not to go beyond what is necessary nor hold back from what needs to be done to once again light the torch of liberty but this time for all people. Not only the landowners and other wealthy individuals but for every individual who desires to pursue happiness and live at liberty from those who would attempt to rob them of their right to live as they see fit.
I trust people will take to heart what Thomas Knapp is implying here! (E)
building public awareness of left-wing market anarchism
While watching coverage of the Boston Marathon bombing and its aftermath, I couldn’t help but notice multiple uses and variations of the word “lockdown” (e.g. “Boston is locked down”). Nor could I help thinking that I’ve been hearing that word used more and more frequently over the last few years, and finding its connotations are troubling.
Internet etymological sources inform me that the word “lockdown” emerged in the 1940s to describe mechanical processes such as shutting down machines in an ultra-safe manner for maintenance (by the time I worked in factories, the term was “lockout,”). Its most well-known usage, however, dates from the early 1970s. Until the last decade or so it was nearly unique to “correctional institutions.”
A prison lockdown occurs in the context of a riot or other exceptional disciplinary situation: All inmates are ordered to their cells (as opposed to the cafeteria, the exercise yard or, in prisons which operate slave labor schemes, their work stations). The facility is temporarily closed to visitors, deliveries, etc. — only “essential personnel” may enter, leave, or move within the grounds.
A useful term to describe a common, or at least standardized, process. But in the early 1990s, the term vaulted over the prison wall and into more general usage. Google’s Ngram service, which traces the frequency of words in books, graphs slow, steady increase in the term’s appearance until 1990, followed by a ”hockey stick”: Between 1990 and 2008, use of the term “lockdown” in English-language books ballooned to ten times that 1990 baseline.
Suddenly lockdowns were no longer just a prison thing. They became a school thing, and then an area, neighborhood, city thing.
As of Tuesday morning, April 16, 2013, Google News reported more than 50,000 uses of the word “lockdown” in the news media in the previous 30 days.
“Salem [Massachusetts] schools hold lockdown drills.” “[Dallas, Texas] elementary to dismiss at normal time after lock down” (for nearly five hours because of a single shooting nearby, but not on campus). “Fallston [Maryland] High, Middle schools briefly placed on lockdown” (because a “suspicious person” was reported nearby). Lockdowns at hospitals. Lockdowns at military bases. Neighborhoods locked down for politicians’ social calls and cities locked down for politicians’ funerals.
Ironic? Portentous? Certainly not mere coincidence. The term is becoming so common because it works. It’s descriptive. Not just of the process, but of the societies in which the process is applied.
America in particular and western societies in general have, over the same decades producing that increased usage, degenerated into open air prisons. The inmates — us — although under nearly ubiquitous surveillance, are mostly left free to wander around (not all of them; last time I checked, one of every 32 Americans was “in the correctional system” — imprisoned or on parole, probation or house arrest), as long as we can produce paperwork on demand and “explain ourselves” to the guards if interrogated. And, of course, until the guards pick one of fifty bazillion reasons to “lock down” the block we happen to be on.
That’s not freedom. It’s highly conditional sufferance. And until we reject the lockdown life and abolish the states which impose it, things are going to get more and more conditional and less and less tolerable.
Citations to this article:
building public awareness of left-wing market anarchism
I can not say I always agree with all this site stands for but much is worth reading including the following article. (E):
One former chief, Peter Bensinger, fears that successful legalization efforts will lead to “a domino effect” in the US. Where have we heard that phrase before? Bensinger continues breathlessly, “My fear is that the Justice Department will do what they are doing now: do nothing and say nothing … If they don’t act now, these laws will be fully implemented in a matter of months.”
So drug warriors are losing their minds over Colorado and Washington. Good! We can only hope that Bensinger’s dire predictions come true and that more Americans are indeed waking up to the absurdity of marijuana prohibition.
The former DEA bureaucrats argue, accurately, that marijuana remains illegal under the Controlled Substances Act. Even in cases involving medical marijuana, the federal government may abuse the commerce clause as a rationale to criminalize users, growers and sellers of marijuana (per Gonzales v. Raich). The commerce clause has become the federal government’s drug war equivalent of catch-all disorderly conduct statutes in the states.
Unfortunately, these goons have a solid case to present to US Attorney General Holder. In New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann (1932), US Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis said, “It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.” But today’s political class views federalism as archaic.
Hopefully the administration will choose to ignore this thuggish recommendation. But if they do decide to litigate, this will be another sign that the feds don’t give a damn about the will of the people. Liberty-loving Americans should respond to this federal intrusion with a massive wave of civil disobedience.
Let’s start by publicly shaming the DEA heads mentioned by the AP: “Bensinger, John Bartels, Robert Bonner, Thomas Constantine, Asa Hutchinson, John Lawn, Donnie Marshall and Francis Mullen.” Get to know their names, libertarians. They are your enemies!
Then, let’s publicize the efforts of these authoritarians to undermine the voters of Colorado and Washington. Ask them why they continue to support a policy with openly racist origins which has resulted in mass incarceration. Publicly reveal the motives of the police agencies that enforce these laws . When drug warriors drone on about “protecting the children,” confront them with the horrific reality of wrong door raids, slaughtered family pets and children terrorized with flash-bangs. Wherever an apologist for prohibition gives a speech or attends a meeting, he or she should be met by throngs of boisterous picketers.
As we expose these petty tyrants, we should also seek opportunities to throw a wrench into the machinery of prohibition. A mass movement of jury nullification in drug cases may be a promising tactic. Prosecutors can use voir dire to remove one or two questionable jurors, but what if nullification becomes widespread? They can’t remove all of us. In the future, we should view jury duty as a chance to liberate non-violent people from the state’s clutches.
In Tao Te Ching, the Chinese sage Lao Tzu writes, “The more laws are posted, the more robbers and thieves there are.” Time and time again, this observation has been proven correct. The violence of the drug war is perpetuated by government, yet officials insist they must keep fighting. In their vile attempt to protect their old turf, former DEA bosses show their true colors. They are gangsters with federal pensions. They will do anything to ensure that they and their ilk continue to get their cut of drug war booty. It is up to us to expose their racket and to finish the job sensible voters in Colorado and Washington started in November.
C4SS Fellow Dave Hummels is a Left-libertarian writer from Central Illinois. He earned a bachelor’s degree in criminal justice from the University of Illinois-Springfield. Dave has over a decade of experience in the field of healthcare security and is also a licensed emergency medical technician.
More than a year ago, I reported on the mission of Frank “Bagman of Empire” Wisner to Egypt (“Egypt: Let the Looting Begin,” Center for a Stateless Society, February 4, 2011). Wisner, formerly of Enron and AIG, was Obama’s plenipotentiary to Egypt, tasked with managing the post-Mubarak succession in as U.S.-friendly a direction as possible.
Wisner’s father, by the way, was another Bagman of Empire; as a founding spook of the OSS and CIA he managed the overthrow of Arbenz and Mossadegh. Wisner had co-chaired (with another noted bagman, James Baker) a commission that developed a post-Saddam vision for the governance of Iraq. Just reading the “100 Orders” issued by the Coalition Provisional Authority, and the corporate looting pursuant tothem, should give you a good idea of Wisner’s agenda.
Today’s column is about another Bagman of Empire: John Timoney.
Richard Moore wrote twelve years ago, in “Escaping the Matrix” (Whole Earth Catalog, Summer 2000) about the Empire importing technologies of repression from the imperial Periphery to the Core and using them to manage the domestic population.
It’s nothing new. It’s as old as Caesar bringing the legions from Gaul back across the Rubicon. But now it’s being done in reverse. A high-level maestro of political repression from the American domestic police apparatus has found lucrative employment in Bahrain.
Timoney had already established himself as a notable carpetbagger of repression within the United States. As Philadelphia’s Police Commissioner, he supervised the police riot at the August 2000 GOP Convention. His Gestapo tactics there, and later as police chief of Miami during the anti-FTAA protests, were dress rehearsals for the police repression of Occupy protests in hundreds of cities across America: Gassing and breaking the bones of unarmed people, pre-emptively arresting organizers, planting evidence — you name it, Timoney’s been there and done that.
From the outset of the Seattle movement, Timoney was its J. Edgar Hoover — warning shrilly of the “International Anarchist Conspiracy” to disrupt meetings of neo-liberal institutions. He agitated relentlessly to apply the RICO statute to the anti-Globalization movement. Timoney is a close associate of Tom Ridge, going back to the latter’s provision of political cover to Timoney’s police riot, and after the post-9/11 establishment of the US Department of Homeland Security was rumored to have close informal ties to much of the Department’s leadership. Although his prospects for high office in Fatherland Security never materialized, he went on to an extremely lucrative career as lobbyist for the security-industrial complex. And as police chief of Miami, he got a chance to further refine his jackbooted thuggery from the Philly days.
Now Timoney — along with fellow carpetbagger John Yates, assistant commissioner of the London Metropolitan Police — serves the Bahraini royal government. You know, the despotic Bahraini state that’s been engaged in brutal and murderous repression of the Arab Spring uprising there for the past year. Timoney, it seems, is for sale to any petty tyrant with petrodollars burning a hole in his pocket and wants to do a really high-class job (ahem) “using chemical weapons against his own people.”
It’s been said that to a man with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Give people a bunch of big hammers, and they’ll start looking for new ways to use them. Likewise, if your Empire has a need for torturers, thugs and detention camp guards, you’ll find all the volunteers you need to keep Abu Ghraib, Gitmo or Philly running. But once you have those guys (and gals, pace Lynndie England), they become an established constituency.
Somebody once quipped that the French Empire was built by retired army officers. Marijuana criminalization began, in part, as patronage for G-men unemployed by the repeal of Prohibition. Sometimes, likewise, MPs who get a taste for inflicting pain and domination on the powerless in squalid holes like Abu Ghraib or Baghram AFB come home and decide to become cops or prison guards (remember Dim in A Clockwork Orange?). And sometimes American cops become advisers to foreign despots’ secret police.
All uniformed thugs are brothers under the skin. And repression is becoming an industry without borders.
About the writer:
C4SS (c4ss.org) Research Associate Kevin Carson is a contemporary mutualist author and individualist anarchist whose written work includesStudies in Mutualist Political Economy, Organization Theory: A Libertarian Perspective, and The Homebrew Industrial Revolution: A Low-Overhead Manifesto, all of which are freely available online. Carson has also written for such print publications as The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty and a variety of internet-based journals and blogs, including Just Things, The Art of the Possible, the P2P Foundation and his own Mutualist Blog.
Original Article: http://larkenrose.com/blogs/tmds-blog/2120.html
|Sunday, 08 January 2012 09:12|
Once upon a time (back in 1994), Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum
pretended to believe in freedom. I’d even hold out the remote
possibility that to some extent, they really did almost believe in
freedom. So, assuming they weren’t completely lying from the
beginning (a big assumption), why are they being war-mongering,
control-freak fascists now?
Those who seek positions of power almost always do so because
they’re already narcissistic control freaks, who just can’t wait to
dominate and control their fellow man. Who else would want the job
of bossing everyone around? But let’s pretend that a good person,
with good intentions, ran for Congress, and won. What would happen?
Politicians get a lot of attention, a lot of money, a lot of fame,
a lot respect, and so on. They get called the “honorable” so-and-
so, and are treated like royalty. All of that can obviously make
someone conceited and self-centered, just as rock stars and movie
stars get that way. But why should it turn people into fascists?
Well, consider what the job of a politician entails. He and his
fellow politicians enact “laws,” which are then forcibly imposed
upon the rest of us by armed mercenaries known as “law
enforcement.” For all of their posturing, pontificating and
propagandizing, ultimately that’s all that politicians do: threaten
and control people. That’s their “job”–insane, evil, and horribly
destructive as it is. All of the attention they get, the money they
get, the power they get, comes from exercising their (imagined)
“authority” to control their fellow man, via the “political”
system. So how should we expect them to act when someone advocates
The reason fascists like Santorum and Gingrich (and Obama, for that
matter) have such tantrums against people who actually want freedom-
– -calling them indecent, extreme, dangerous, traitorous, fringe,
absurd, and so on–is because the underlying message to
politicians, from those who want freedom, is: “We don’t need you
and we don’t want you; go away and leave us alone.” It’s no more
complicated than that. Most of the time it has nothing to do with
principles, or actual philosophy. Fascists like Santorum and
Gingrich want perpetual war-mongering, the “war on drugs,” and the
rest of their megalomaniacal agendas, because, in their minds, it
makes them important. They have to exert violent control over their
fellow man (via “government”) or they become irrelevant, impotent
nothings. What would be the point of acquiring power, and then
doing nothing with it? What great historical “leader” ever said,
“Hey everybody, do whatever you want, and I won’t interfere”?
Even Ronald Reagan, who so often bashed “government,” ended up
pushing fascism forward through the “war on drugs.” Why? Because
damn near no one can have the “Ring of Power” in his clutches and
not use it. And to use it means forcibly dominating one’s fellow
man, even if the intentions for doing so are allegedly good. What
every politician wants to convey is, “I’m important, and great and
noble, because look how I use my power for good!” How well would
that work for them if they didn’t use the power at all? “Look at
me, I’m not doing anything!” Great, but who cares? What prestige,
glory and adoration (not to mention wealth) would that bring them?
Since the two-hundred-faced Mitt Romney changes his “beliefs” every
five minutes, let me use him as an example. What do you suppose
would happen if tomorrow he decided to have another philosophical
reinventing, and it went something like this?:
“If elected President, I will leave you alone. I won’t tell you
what to do or take your money. I will be irrelevant to your life.
You will have no reason to pay any attention to me, or care what
I’m doing. You’ll have every reason to forget my name, and forget
that I ever existed. So will everyone else. I will end up as an
unknown, ignored and irrelevant nothing.”
Is it any wonder that politicians so zealous despise the idea of
freedom, and those who espouse it? “Political” agendas are the
antithesis of leaving people alone. The interests of the
politicians are always diametrically opposed to the interests of
those they dominate, or their will wouldn’t have to be inflicted
via violence. When it comes to politics we remember those who
dramatically exercised their violent control over others (FDR,
Lincoln, Stalin, Hitler, etc.). We don’t remember those who did
little or nothing with their alleged “authority,” whether it was
because they didn’t want to or because their subjects didn’t let
them. Politicians hate the idea of freedom, because it renders them
completely powerless and unimportant.
Okay, now let me say what I know a lot of you are screaming by now:
“What about Ron Paul!?” If you ask me, Dr. Paul is a mutant freak–
and I mean that in a good way. How anyone could have walked the
halls of power for that long, and still have any integrity and
honesty, is a mystery to me. (Maybe Ron Paul is the reincarnation
of Frodo.) Ironically and bizarrely, he really has achieved fame
and adoration by NOT trying to control his fellow man, which is
almost unheard of in politics. In truth, as he points out, it is
the idea of freedom that people are getting excited about, and he
just happens to be a symbol of it right now. In many ways, it
really does seem as if he wants to acquire power in order to NOT
use it. How strange.
And you can see how much the establishment control freaks hate him
for it. When the politicians are out there screaming that it would
be the end of the world if we give up war-mongering, drug
prohibition, mass extortion, and all manner of other centralized,
authoritarian domination, I don’t think it’s even because they have
some deep philosophical belief in anything. I suspect this was true
of Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Hitler and the rest of them, too. Whatever
philosophical beliefs they had, or pretended to have, were
secondary to their own desire to feel noticed, important and adored
(or at least feared). They wanted attention, and they wanted to
feel powerful. That’s why Gingrich, Santorum, Romney, and the rest
of them want to be elected, too. And it’s why they shouldn’t be.
Those who seek attention, fame, power and wealth by way of
dominating and subjugating their fellow man–and that includes
street thugs and politicians alike–are the last people in the
world who should ever be given a scrap of power over anyone else.
The next time you see a politician (left or right) babbling on
about his supposedly noble plans and agendas, keep in mind that his
agenda is all about forcibly controlling you, and that he knows
that if he stopped trying to control you–if he stopped playing the
game of “politics” and just left you alone–he would become an
unknown, powerless, irrelevant nothing.
Well, unless he decided to turn around and do something useful and
productive instead, but how often has a politician done that?
And that has transitioned into this which, given the whole voluntaryist view I understand and even, to a degree can sympathize with. (E)
Sunday, 05 February 2012 07:37Larken Rose
I am thrilled that Mitt Romney seems to be well on his way to
becoming the Republican presidential nominee. No, I’m not kidding.
I think it is the best possible outcome, far better than Ron Paul
Now, as anyone who knows me can guess, it’s not because I think
Romney is a great guy who will do great things. On the contrary, he
is the quintessential political whore: a delusional, narcissistic,
god-complex pathological liar who has no beliefs, values or
substance of his own. He is a slimy, dishonest prevaricator who
will say whatever he thinks will benefit himself, without the
slightest regard for truth or morality. He is a two-faced,
opportunistic con-man, a crook of the highest order, devoid of any
shred of principles or integrity.
How do you like my endorsement of Mitt so far?
So why would I want him to win? In fact, I don’t just want him to
be the Republican candidate; I want him to be the next President.
Yes, I’m absolutely serious.
But why? Because I think Puppet Romney would do an outstanding job
of finishing what Puppet Clinton, Puppet Bush, and Puppet Obama
have done so far. No, I’m not talking about their totalitarian
agenda. I’m talking about completely destroying the legitimacy of
the U.S. ruling class in the eyes of its victims, and in the eyes
of the rest of the world. If we want people to see through the
extortionistic, violent and fraudulent charade that is
“government,” what better way to do that than to have the ultimate
crooked, paid-off, self-serving empty suit megalomaniac occupying
the White house?
It took a while until the dupes who had so enthusiastically shouted
“change,” wetting themselves with joy at the coming of the
Obamessiah, started to notice that nothing changed. There are still
a few, but not many, who haven’t yet realized that the answer to
the question, “Can we use government to fix everything?” is a
resounding, “No, we can’t!” Obama’s emotion-exploiting, empty
manipulation eventually wore off, but it took a while for a lot of
people to accept reality. The guy is just Bush III.
Before that, devout Republican state-worshipers spent years going
to great lengths to try to avoid admitting that Bush II was a big-
government, collectivist control freak. But most of them now
Well, who would have any doubt about Romney? Who would imagine for
a moment that the guy has an honest bone in his body, or that he
believes in anything at all, other than his own wealth, power and
glory? His flip-flopping is downright legendary, to a hilarious
degree. If you want to help people see through the facade of
“government,” to realize that it’s nothing but a gang of liars and
crooks plundering and enslaving mankind for its own benefit, then
Mitt is your man!
In contrast, if Ron Paul became President, it would create among
many a renewed, but completely misguided hope in the possibility of
“politics” and “working within the system” achieving freedom,
despite the fact that it has never happened in the history of the
world. With Dr. Paul in office, people might start respecting the
presidency again, and that is not a good thing. To put it another
way, don’t let Ron Paul ruin what so many politicians have spent
decades accomplishing–namely, demolishing any imagined credibility
or legitimacy the gang of crooks in Washington ever had.
The shortest path from where we are today, to an actually free
society, starts with Mitt Romney as President. Now there’s an
awesome sentence to take out of context, huh? But it’s true. If you
want state worship and blind faith in “government” to crumble, you
should try to put the biggest elitist buffoon, the most obviously
corrupt liar possible, on the throne. And Mitt Romney sure fits
that bill! Go Mitt!
I have recently come into Mr. Rose’s writings, videos etc and given that he was once a political prisoner of these United States that alone gives him some credibility. Check him out if you get a moment. (E)
WRITTEN BY THOMAS L. KNAPP
Note that McCain doesn’t argue that the campaign is unusually vitriolic. He’s smarter than that; thus far it has actually been quite pedestrian.
bombshell … none of these hold a candle to past negative campaigning.
In the 1800 campaign — America’s first competitive presidential election — Thomas Jefferson’s SuperPAC equivalents referred to John Adams as a “hideous hermaphroditical character;” in reply, Adams’s supporters described Jefferson as “a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father.”
It’s pretty much gone downhill from there.
In 2000, George W. Bush’s operatives spread rumors in South Carolina that John McCain — a former prisoner of war in Vietnam — might be a “Manchurian candidate,” and that his adopted daughter (of Bangladeshi
ancestry) was actually an out-of-wedlock “love child” from an affair with an African-American woman.
In 2008, we learned that Barack Obama not only “pals around with terrorists,” but is in actuality a Kenyan-born Muslim Communist, smuggled into the US and his birth records doctored so that he could someday destroy the United States from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. And that Sarah Palin faked her own pregnancy. And that Mitt Romney was a robot. OK, that last one may be true. But anyway …
Negative campaigning is part and parcel of American politics for three reasons.
The first is that there’s a lot at stake. Even the least fiscally demanding of the Republican candidates, US Representative Ron Paul, only wants to cut $1 trillion from the federal budget. That means he’s running for executive control of $2.7 trillion, or more than $8,500 to be annually seized from each man, woman and child in the United States through taxation, inflation or debt assignation. I’ve seen customers and cashiers say nasty things about each other over a 39 cent discrepancy in the grocery checkout line. We’re not talking chump change here.
The second is that politicians have nothing to offer the public but fear. They can’t give you anything they haven’t first taken from you.
In the aggregate, that is: Yes, some pay more than others and some get less, but that’s the whole point, see? The pivotal exercise in electoral politics is convincing you that I’ll take something from Pete and give it to you, while that other guy — the big meanie who cheats on his wife, smokes crack on the campaign bus, and may actually be a secret Rwandan! — will take something from you and give it to Pete. Letting Pete keep his stuff and you yours is explicitly off the table. The game’s rigged that way from the start.
The third reason is that negative campaigning works. You — I’m speaking to voters here, and once again in the aggregate — say you don’t like it, but your voting patterns prove you respond to it exactly as its practitioners intend. “Shining city on a hill” and all that makes for nice stump speech filler, but it’s “keep your sheep locked up when my opponent’s around” that moves the poll results.
There’s only one way to get past negative campaigning, and that’s getting past campaigning itself. Getting past politics. Lowering the stakes by telling those boobs on the stage that your $8,500+ is yours, not theirs. That they can’t have it. That you don’t need them.
That happens to be the position of the non-voting American majority.
57% of Americans did not cast votes in the 2008 presidential election.
They withheld their consent to be ruled by the lying, thieving, fearmongering few. In 2012, let’s join them in their healthy rejection of politics.
Thomas L. Knapp is Senior News Analyst at the Center for a Stateless Society (c4ss.org).
By Kevin Carson | 14.01.2012 | 0:37 ET in Europe
The greatest shift in emphasis is in the section “Project power despite Anti-Access/Area Denial Challenges.” The “threat” to be countered is that China and Iran “will continue to pursue asymmetric means to counter our power projection capabilities.”
That refers to a long-standing phenomenon: What Pentagon analysts call ”Assassin’s Mace” weapons — cheap, agile weapons that render expensive, high-tech, weapons systems ineffective at a cost several orders of magnitude cheaper than the Pentagon’s gold-plated turds. In the context of “area denial,” they include cheap anti-ship mines, surface-to-air missiles, and anti-ship missiles like the Sunburn (which some believe could destroy or severely damage aircraft carriers).
Thus the Pentagon defines as a “threat” a country’s ability to defend itself effectively against attack or to prevent an enemy from putting offensive forces into place to attack it. Yes, you read that right: To the American national security establishment, it’s considered threatening when you prepare to defend yourself against attack by the United States. It’s the perspective of a Family Circus character: ”Mommy, he hit me back!” That kind of double standard is pretty common in the National Security State’s assessment of the world.
What can one say of a situation in which America runs a military budget equal to the rest of the industrialized world put together, maintains military bases in half the countries around the globe, routinely intervenes to overthrow governments, rings China with military bases — then solemnly announces that China’s military establishment is “far larger than called for by its legitimate defensive needs?”
Considering that the U.S. considers its “legitimate defensive needs” to encompass outspending the other top ten military powers in the world combined and maintaining the ability to preemptively attack any other country in the world, it’s hard to guess what the Pentagon’s criterion is for determining China’s “legitimate defensive needs.” But it’s safe to say “legitimate” defensive forces don’t extend to the ability for China to defend its territory against attack from the main actual threat facing it: A global superpower trying to turn China’s neighborhood into a battlefield.
And how about attacking Saddam for “making war on his own neighbors” – when the U.S. actively supported his invasion of Iran in the 1980s? Not to mention the U.S. Marines waltzing in and out of most of America’s Caribbean “neighbors” throughout the middle of the 20th century. Did they have “incubator babies” in Nicaragua and Costa Rica back in the 1930s?
To Washington, any country capable of resisting American attack, or of ”defying” American commands (whether under a UN Security Council figleaf or not) is by definition a “threat.” And any country inflicting significant losses on U.S. military forces, in the process of defending itself against American military attack, is guilty of aggression (against U.S. attempts to “defend our freedom,” one presumes).
American perceptions of “self-defense” and “aggression” are as distorted as those of Nazi Germany. When the only way you can “defend yourself” against another country’s “threat” is to go to the other side of the world to fight it, because it lacks the logistical capability to project military force more than a few hundred miles outside its own borders — and the main “threat” is its ability to fight back when you attack it — you know something’s pretty messed up.
C4SS (c4ss.org) Research Associate Kevin Carson is a contemporary mutualist author and individualist anarchist whose written work includes Studies in Mutualist Political Economy, Organization Theory: A Libertarian Perspective, and The Homebrew Industrial Revolution: A Low-Overhead Manifesto, all of which are freely available online. Carson has also written for such print publications as The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty and a variety of internet-based journals and blogs, including Just Things, The Art of the Possible, the P2P Foundation and his own Mutualist Blog.
Original Article Link: http://heraldgoa.in/newpage.php?month=1&day=1&year=2012&catid=274
In 2011, the protester so upset the prevailing order of things that Time magazine named her (or him, as the case may be) its Person of the Year. Recently, protesters in China, Russia and Yemen, to name a handful, went on the streets voicing opposition to the kinds of barefaced injustices that feature in human life in every corner of the globe.
In Yemen, Reuters reports, troops loyal to the country’s President Ali Abdullah fired on demonstrators, killing at least nine. In China, meanwhile, an uprising is under way against land grabs in Guangdong province pursuant to so-called “liberalisation policies begun in 1979.” However different the situations in China and Yemen, the demonstrations represent attempts of peaceful society to assert itself against and to repel the aggression of the state — “the political means.”
The state is fundamentally a way for organized groups of robbers and exploiters to control valuable resources. It has always been thus, but rather than simply acknowledging its own criminality, the state drapes its continuing mission of deprivation and violence in the robes of “public service.” Giveaways of land, cultivated and therefore owned for generations by, for example, small farmers, are granted the imprimatur of “free enterprise” and “liberalization.” Similarly, turning the military loose on unarmed citizens is defended with the language of social tranquility and respect for the rule of law. With the social upheaval and brutality that dominates the news today, the “law and order” justification for the state has grown ever more untenable, even preposterous. In 1970, advancing a more scholarly understanding of anarchism, James J Martin argued that there was “little justification” for the idea of anarchism as “a doctrine of destruction.” Martin explained that “a program of pure negation or obstructionism” is no “more than faintly related” to anarchism, which indeed sets forth in its literature a positive vision for a stateless future.
Individualist or market anarchism, contrary to flimsy caricatures, has never meant advocacy for disorder or for a society without substantive rules for conduct, one pushed into — in Hobbes’ words — a war of all against all. It is instead the state that has made war pass for society, a war that pits the privileged few against the productive many.
The protests materializing around the world in this moment are a reaction, consciously or not, to the chaos bred by political authority. If the state is in fact meant to build the conditions of law and order, then we have to wonder why we live in a world covered by states like Yemen and China, ruled by people like Vladimir Putin.
Though depicted as utopians, obsessed with pie in the sky daydreams, or as bomb-throwing provocateurs of pandemonium, anarchists petition simply for a society in which freedom is the guiding principle. Granted, on its own, that doesn’t mean much, but without aggression against innocents, the state could not exist.
Without the state, we would still be left with lots of questions, forced to deal with the logistical requirements of abstractions like justice, but we’d be closer — significantly so. And maybe that’s enough of a hope for the new year 2012, that we gnaw away even more at the systems of authority that oppress us and defile our communities.
That statement comes after another odious international group, the U.N. Security Council, released a resolution that uses the language “excluding a foreign occupation force” to green-light a foreign occupation force. This is Orwellian political euphemism at its most unabashed.
For the G8 and the United Nations, self-determination always allows plenty of room for bellicose interventionism. When a country no longer fits comfortably into the openly dissolute web of compromises and pacts used to enslave the world to state capitalism, the kingpins make a change.
This time, the bosses felt that Libya was ripe for the West’s creeping paternalism.
Bare hypocrisy characterizes the G8’s — particularly the United States’ — admonitions toward Gaddafi, their rebukes incorporating all the usual denunciations of “rogue nations.” But like the state’s uses of the words “terrorist” and “criminal,” the meaning of “rogue nation” is conspicuously inapplicable to the hegemonic empire responsible for the world’s worst malfeasance.
Broadsides against Gaddafi’s Libya are, whatever their merits, difficult to take seriously when they emanate from the United States, with its numerous wars raging on without end.
Not only do the United States and its co-conspirators enjoy immunity when they butcher innocents, they’re actually applauded for their “humanitarian interventions” to the point that the president of the United States receives the Nobel Peace Prize. A quick look at regimes that the United States has both propped up and toppled reveals no trend with respect to “legitimacy.”
Indeed, U.S. foreign-policy decisions would appear nearly random absent the panoply of interests underlying its strategic conquests. Vague notions of “legitimacy,” arbitrarily defined by the dominant cultural force of a given age, have always lent the requisite rationales to aggression and conquest. From the Eternal City’s outward march against barbarians to the maritime powers of the Age of Exploration capturing the Occident with the permission of the Church, empire has forever been built under moral pretexts.
For the United States and the rest of the West, “democracy” — long a hollow invocation — has been the rallying cry for expansion. As international-law expert Anne Orford observed, “a ‘largely economic’ enterprise of imperialism continues” today, even after the “era of decolonization.”
This new colonialism, defined by the exportation of Western, corporate capitalism versus old-fashioned claims of territorial sovereignty, lies at the heart of every supposedly “humanitarian” war. Anarchists understand that the G8 is right about one thing: Gaddafi must go. So too, though, must every apparent “leader” of every state the world over.
Consortiums of criminal bands such as the United Nations and the G8 sanctify a corporate imperial order foisted on the globe by its most powerful states. Just as empires impose foreign systems on their outposts, the state itself forces every individual into an existence defined by servitude to a ruling class.
If the G8 has the moral authority to declare that Gaddafi must go, then every free, sovereign individual certainly has the same authority to announce to the state that it is no longer welcome in society.
THE OSTENSIBLE SUPPORTERS OF THE CONSTITUTION, LIKE THE
OSTENSIBLE SUPPORTERS OF MOST OTHER GOVERNMENTS, ARE MADE UP OF THREE CLASSES, VIZ.:
1. KNAVES, A NUMEROUS AND ACTIVE CLASS, WHO SEE IN THE GOVERNMENT AN INSTRUMENT WHICH THEY CAN USE FOR THEIR OWN AGGRANDIZEMENT OR WEALTH.
2.DUPES—A LARGE CLASS, NO DOUBT—EACH OF WHOM, BECAUSE HE IS ALLOWED ONE VOICE OUT OF MILLIONS IN DECIDING WHAT HE MAY DO WITH HIS OWN PERSON AND HIS OWN PROPERTY, AND BECAUSE HE IS PERMITTED TO HAVE THE SAME VOICE IN ROBBING, ENSLAVING, AND MURDERING OTHERS, THAT OTHERS HAVE IN ROBBING, ENSLAVING, AND MURDERING HIMSELF, IS STUPID ENOUGH TO IMAGINE THAT HE IS A “FREE MAN,” A “SOVEREIGN”; THAT THIS IS A “FREE GOVERNMENT”; “A GOVERNMENT OF EQUAL RIGHTS,” “THE BEST GOVERNMENT ON EARTH,” AND SUCH LIKE ABSURDITIES.
3. A CLASS WHO HAVE SOME APPRECIATION OF THE EVILS OF GOVERNMENT, BUT EITHER DO NOT SEE HOW TO GET RID OF THEM, OR DO NOT CHOOSE TO SO FAR SACRIFICE THEIR PRIVATE INTERESTS AS TO GIVE THEMSELVES SERIOUSLY AND EARNESTLY TO THE WORK OF MAKING A CHANGE.