From RT:
Note: This poll is NOT scientific. But funny still.
Who would you vote for in the US Presidential Election:
16% : Democratic incumbent Barack Obama all the way
11% : Republican challenger Mitt Romney to get America back on track
19% : Any of the third party candidates, left or right
54% : No one! The system is rigged and the election is meaningless
Let’s face it: all we can really do is laugh at this point.
James Tuttle at C4SS ponders why this is.
I often think of those two quotes, especially when people ask why there are so few women anarchists and libertarians. The recent anarchist survey came back with 82% of the respondents being men. Libertarian surveys also have lopsided results.
Why?
From CNN:
Obama has already authorized 283 strikes in Pakistan, six times more than the number during President George W. Bush’s eight years in office, Bergen wrote earlier this month. As a result, the number of estimated deaths from the Obama administration’s drone strikes is more than four times what it was during the Bush administration — somewhere between 1,494 and 2,618.
From RT:
On Thursday, legal documents intended to be cloaked indefinitely were accidently unsealed in US District Court in Seattle for a moment, finally offering a small bit of insight as to why the FBI has been targeting adherents to a specific ideology and intensifying what some have equated to a politically-motivated witch-hunt aimed at anarchists.
The Seattle Times reports that an affidavit dated October 3 was momentarily made available during last week’s court proceedings, revealing to those in attendance that the investigation into Plante and her peers dates back to earlier this year when the FBI first began spying on a group of suspected anarchists they believed were conspiring to commit acts of violence and destruction.
The third presidential debate is over. The air has been filled with mindless drivel. But the so-called election continues. Tomorrow, and for a few more days, the talking heads will also tell us what to think. They will continue to sprout the pseudo-gospel of politics, the lie that we have a choice, a voice in what happens in this country.
But that is a lie. We have no such choice. We have the illusion of choice. Our voice is muted cronies and the lobbyists and the corporate interests. They own the government. And the government owns us. Freedom be damned.
In November, the election will be over. Or should I say THIS election will be over. For a few weeks after this election, the talking heads will once again tell us what this outcome means for this country. The corporate media will go into its spin. If Obama wins, MSNBC will continue to paint him as the messiah, while Fox will treat him as the Anti-Christ. If Romney wins, fox will treat him as the messiah and MSNBC will come two steps short of calling him the spawn of Satan. Despite the fact that these two ‘candidates’ offer the same policies—more drone strikes, less freedom, more debt, etc.
Then the spin will continue. The talking heads will debate about the mid-term elections. Who will take the Senate? What about the House? The media will again pretend we have choice. There is no choice. There can be no choice. The very system itself doesn’t work. The system is anti-choice. That is the very foundation of the system. The system I refer to, of course, is the demonic entity of the state.
The state can only exist through force, coercion and theft. That is it. There is no choice in that. If you want democracy, abolish the state. The market, the thing of spontaneous order where voluntary actions—choices—move society. A stateless society, one of voluntary choice. That is true democracy. That is freedom. That is choice. All things in society will be allocated by voluntary action, by individual choice. But that can only happen when the state is out of the picture—completely
I didn’t watch the debate. I didn’t see much point in it. If I had watched it, I probably would have felt about twenty percent dumber.
As far a voting goes, I’m not really opposed to it if it’s going to help spread the message of liberty. Some people don’t share my opinion, and that’s perfectly fine. I can completely respect that opinion. I, and I’m sure many other people, came to anarchism after first becoming a minarchist libertarian. So if voting for someone is going to eventually spread the eventually spread the message of anti-statism, then I don’t see anything wrong with it.
But voting just for the hell of it doesn’t make any sense, especially when the choice is between Goldman Sachs 1 and Goldman Sachs 2.
But what really irks me is when statist left-wingers say that the corporations own the government (which, of course, they do) and then propose that the government should be given more power, as if that would lead to some sort of propitious outcome. There is apparently some belief that our wise, benevolent overlords will break free from their corporate chains and our masters will wave their magic wands and fix everything that’s wrong with America.
Then there are the people that call non-voters ‘apathetic.’ But is it really apathy to not vote when the choice is between to corporatist stooges? I call it common sense. To me blindly believing in the message of a politician, who is no different from his predecessor, while blaming his failures on the previous administration is much worse than ‘apathy’; it is a rejection of reason.
But I guess you can have it your way. If you want to call me ‘apathetic’ for refusing to choose between two government stooges to take away my freedom, then go ahead. I’ll just call you stupid.
2012 elections are upon us. We are seeing great divides in the movement amongst libertarian statists and libertarian anarchists. Many are caving further and further into the political process, although everyday we see great losses for liberty using this method.
Once great libertarian organizations are becoming statist and tyrannical in the way that they manage themselves and their members. They will participate in activities or act buddy-buddy with government sympathizers for personal or financial gain. Many students realize this and quickly refuse to take part of said groups. S4SS is not represented by leaders and will personally strive to get non-anarchist donations.
S4SS is what you want it to be. It can be a place to network with other anarchist students around the world. It can be a weekly meeting group at your school or a place to chat online. The groups that have already formed are very active and are a shining beacon to other anarchists that you can start this at your own school!
Here are a few quick tips to starting a group at your school — if you are reading this, I wish to persuade you to do this right now:
S4SS does not require you to beg to your masters (your school admin) to start a group. All that you need to do is go on Facebook — start a group (not a page, groups allow more communication/notifications). “YOU SCHOOL Students for a Stateless Society.” Invite like minded friends. Let the conversations begin and once you feel like you have enough members, create an event! Meet at a local cafe, in an open room in your school, anywhere! Especially do this if you already have a student group that may ascribe itself to general libertarian principles. Anarchists are different from political libertarians — you should know this!
Good luck, stay strong, keep growing.
In 1923, the war for leadership in the power vacuum of post-Tsarist Russia was decided in favor of the Bolsheviks. The anarchists were prosecuted, banished, sometimes executed. In order to prevent anarchist insurgents from revolting against the newly installed Marxist government in Moscow, Lenin ordered Trotsky to find a way to keep the anarchists “intellectually busy”, so they wouldn’t have to revolt against the communists. Trotsky, a very intelligent, cunning man, succeeded in creating a ghost that would keep the European anarchists fighting shadows until this very day. We are of course talking about the ghost of “antifascism”. Until this very day, anarchists blindly follow the dictates of Marxist theorists. They are nothing but the useful idiots of authoritarian statists, fighting their fights, bleeding for their causes, while the Marxist themselves, can debate and network in their salons, while the anarchists do the dirty work. This is the unfortunate state of the anarchist movement. Under the banner of “antifascism”, anarchists are making a fool out of themselves. And the judeo-marxist are laughing.
It is a long-time dream of me to emancipate anarchism from Marxism. In America, I don’t think this is much of a problem, because Marxism never was taken seriously by a significant part of the population and anarchists didn’t have a common history with them, like they did in Europe. But in Europe, this is a sad reality. How do we achieve this emancipation? The answers might lie within the thoughts and work of the Swiss anarchist writer James Guillaume (1844 – 1916). Guillaume was one of the prominent members of the First International of September 1864, but ceded from the International in 1872 during the Hague Congress, after the famous dispute between the authoritarian Marx and the anarchist Mikhail Bakunin. The anarchists were expelled from the first International, after which Guillaume founded “The Anti-authoritarian International” in Saint-Imier. The organization consisted of several anarchist groups, mainly from Italy, Spain, Belgium, France, Switzerland and the US. Their main goal was “that the aspirations of the proletariat can have no other aim than the creation of an absolutely free economic organization and federation based upon work and equality and wholly independent of any political government, and that such an organization or federation can only come into being through the spontaneous action of the proletariat itself, through its trade societies, and through self-governing communes”.
As you can imagine, the breach with the communists was complete. The St. Imier International lasted until 1881 and was a strong voice of opposition against the Marxist agenda and the Marxist insurgent groups in Germany and Russia. In 1882 the anarchist intellectual thinkers in Europe withered away and the group was dismantled. The core of anarchist enthusiasm shifted from Europe to America, where the “Black International” was founded. Unfortunately, after the Haymarket bombings, the Black International died out as well. Since then, there has been no significant platform that brought anarchist thinkers from all over the world together.
During the period of the St. Imier International, Guillaume wrote a book I can highly recommend: “L’Internationale: Documents et Souvenirs”, in which he trashes the Marxist theory and agenda completely. Unfortunately, many of today’s anarchist, are not open to these ideas. Only a few have heard the name Guillaume from a distance, nobody seems to agree. I cannot but hope that they are struck by the baton or a tazer from a fascist police officer. I have no sympathy for these people and I wish them all the pain and suffering a political activist can endure. The book isn’t solely a political testament, it is also a book of history. Guillaume describes the First International like a diary, in which he talks about his encounters and discussions with Marxists, and how the anarchists would be verbally, sometimes physically attacked by the Marxists.
Although we can debate Guillaume’s views in great detail (his “communism in two steps”, where he considered anarchism to be nothing but a prelude of communism or his ardent belief in technological progress) I chose to put more stress on his “break-up” with the Marxists and how he exposed their totalitarian, inhumane agenda. He shows that they weren’t interested in life or liberty, only in revolution. They were willing to sacrifice millions for their cause, as we have seen in the 20th century. He predicted Marxism would shatter into moral decay and weak people, which came true as well. Guillaume might not be the best defender of the anarchist cause, he is a great refuter of the Marxist cause, and he deserves to be remembered for that.
Lest we forget that Marxism is evil, and evil to the bone. We will not know true freedom as long as they roam the earth.
On February 4th, we remember one of the great feminists of our time: the American writer and activist Betty Friedan. She is remembered today as a well-spoken and intelligent defender of women’s rights and approached subjects such as sexism and gender-rolls from a psychological, rather than a sociological point of view. In the sixties and seventies, this approach to social problems was new. The self-proclaimed sociological analysis of women liberation had become somewhat cultish by then and became associated with frustrated hippies who marginalized themselves in society, deliberately or not. Friedan proclaimed a different message: she wanted women to claim their role in society as productive and individualist citizens. She wanted the feminist movement to carry out a message of action, to give women perspective in life. Both professionally and within their own homes. She did not condemn the free choice of women to be a housewife, like the hippies of the sixties did. And she did not condemn women wanting to look attractive to the opposite sex. Rather, she wanted women to express themselves how they are. Which was a very new and interesting idea at the time. Somewhat derailed over time, maybe, but that is a different discussion.
In 1952, Friedan was sacked from her job because of her pregnancy. This event shaped the later carreer of Friedan as an activist and respected opinion-maker. She noticed how many of her female friends and acquaintances saw their carreer abruptly ended because of family-related issues. Whether it was marriage, motherhood or discrimination of women in the workplace, women rarely seemed to develop a carreer equal to that of the man. In 1963 she wrote the book “The Feminine Mystique”, a book I can highly recommend. In this work, Friedan describes the gender-roll of the middle class housewife and the mind-numbing effect it has on these women, the so-called “house wife syndrome”. Friedan describes the evolution of the family situation in the industrial age. In the 19th century, both husband, wife and children would work and the factory and the household would play a secondary roll as opposed to work, which would be the predominant activity in the life of the family. In the 20th century, wages have risen to the point that the family could afford to live from the income of one member, in probably all cases, that would be the man. There was no need for the woman and the children to partake in bringing in wages to support the family. Also, the household itself and leisure activities became more important for working class and middle class families. The role of the wife shifted from a working roll to an entertaining roll. This had huge psychological impacts on the women’s roll in society and her self-image.
These women would become isolated from social interaction with other people. They would become depressed from living to serve her husband and children, rather than being a productive supplier of the household. They would suffer from compulsive disorders from living within the house in a too strict day order. They would suffer from a mother complex, which means that the mother feels as if she is nothing but an extension of her own children, rather than a separate individual. Loss of a sense of time and context. They would doubt, if not suppress their own desires, talents and capacities and they have to deal with a lot of stress from the peer pressure of neighboring households. These symptoms have been described in male-dominated psychological literature to find their origin in the Medea complex, which implied that women were hysterical just because their women and their hormone balance and cerebral activity result in hysterical behavior. Friedan exposed these theories to be false and rooted in sexism, rather than science.
Friedan’s book became a best-seller and all across America, and later Europe, women would organize themselves in self-help groups and establish women’s clubs (which was common in the upper classes) in order to have a social life, outside of the household. Bu the 1970’s and 1980’s, women became – once again – a prominent part of the workforce. In popular media, women were portrayed as strong individuals who think and work for themselves (“She works hard for the money”, Donna Summer). In 1966 Friedan founded the National Organization for Women (NOW), and in 1969, she helped to establish NARAL, an organization that fought for the legalization of abortion. Unfortunately, the NOW has evolved into a pressure group that promotes affirmative action and NARAL actively rallies to maintain the current controversial Supreme Court ruling of Roe v. Wade, something a lot of libertarians want to see repealed.
The story of Betty Friedan is interesting, in a sense that it showed us how households and the place of the women in her family has evolved since the Industrial Revolution and well throughout the 20th century. The 21st century is completely different age, with new challenges and problems for women. As a man, I refuse to work out a theory of my own, because I have no idea what it is like to be a woman in this society. The only thing I can do is applaud the work of feminists such as Friedan, who do respectable, academic fieldwork and organize themselves to help emancipate women across the world. I can support these women and not be a male chauvinist towards them. This is as much as I can do. But I can’t be a role model for them. I can’t talk to them about women’s problems and I can’t tell them what to do. This is for the women of this, and other blogs. I invite people such as Stacy and Julia to write down their thoughts on the challenges of women in the 21st century and how they can inspire women to develop themselves as independent self-aware human beings.
Happy Birthday W.H. Auden!
(To JS/07/M/378) This Marble Monument Is Erected by the State
He was found by the Bureau of Statistics to be
One against whom there was no official complaint,
And all the reports on his conduct agree
That, in the modern sense of an old-fashioned word, he was a saint
For in everything he did he served the Greater Community.
Except for the War till the day he retired
He worked in a factory and never got fired,
But satisfied his employers, Fudge Motors Inc.
Yet he wasn’t a scab or odd in his views,
For his Union reports that he paid his dues,
(Our report on his Union shows it was sound)
And our Social Psychology workers found
That he was Popular with his mates and liked to drink.
The Press are convinced that he bought a Paper every day
And that his reactions to advertisements were normal in every way.
Policies taken out in his name prove that he was fully insured
And his Health-card shows he was once in a hospital but left it cured,
Both Producers Research and High-Grade Living declare
He was fully sensible to the advantages of the Installment Plan
And had everything necessary to the Modern Man,
A phonograph, a radio, a car and a frigidaire.
Our researchers into Public Opinion are content
That he held the proper opinions for the time of year;
When there was peace he was for peace when there was war he went.
He was married and and added five children to the population,
Which our Eugenist says was the right number for a parent of his generation,
And our teachers report that he never interfered with their education.
Was he free? Was he Happy? The question is absurd:
Had anything been wrong, we should certainly have heard.