Full disclosure: I have known Lauren Smith, one of the subjects of this blog post, for over five years. We are online friends, and I first “met” her through a feminist community I once co-moderated.
An estimated 22 anti-capitalist protesters were arrested on Saturday after police clad in riot gear violently disrupted their march against colonial genocide, which is celebrated each year on Columbus Day. This was the second day of four days of action deemed, “decolonize the new world,” which is aimed at disrupting Columbus Day celebrations.
More than 100 people gathered at Bradley Manning plaza at around 2PM, before taking the streets of San Francisco’s deserted financial district at around 3PM. In between chants of “Hey hey, ho ho, Columbus Day has got to go!” and “No justice, no peace! Fuck the police!” officers were splattered with paint. — Political Fail Blog
According to San Francisco police, members of the group were threatened with arrest because they did not ask for permission to protest on public streets and members became violent. (“Officers arrived in the area and were immediately struck by projectiles thrown by members of this group. One officer was struck in the head and sustained non-life threatening injuries.” — SFPD press release) Sympathetic sources argue that the police instigated any violence that occurred during the protest. Personally, I am far more inclined to agree with the protestors than with the cops. Even assuming that some of the protestors were lobbing rocks at the police, it appears that many — if not all — of the cops were wearing riot gear. They were more than protected from a few pebbles or paint in Ziploc bags. As per normal, the police responded with physical violence against the protestors, many of whom were protected only by sunglasses and bandannas.
But hey, it makes sense to me. Rocks win against helmets, while bandannas form an impenetrable forcefield against nightsticks and pepper spray, amirite?
Yes, it is very easy to find out Lauren’s Twitter info and our mutual friend’s info, but I’ve redacted it for my own reasons.
In between then and now, the police and the DA’s office are in the process of fighting with Twitter to get Lauren Smith and Robert Donohoe’s information, tweets released to them, as well as the political affiliations of everyone they are affiliated with, have ever contacted on Twitter, etc. As Lauren tweeted in the above screencap, this is an obvious ploy to create a network of information to use as a tool of political repression against anarchists, anti-capitalists, and other political dissidents.
Crazy talk, amirite?
San Francisco District Attorney George Gascon is, of course, skirting the real issue at hand, claiming that, “I don’t think that you have a right to privacy when you’re engaged in that type of criminal behavior.” (Because it’s not like that is a pretty fucked thing to say when you work in the damn criminal justice system.)
Smith and Donohoe have filed to quash the subpoena. In the meantime, a support group (Support the ACAC 19) has provided a form fax/email and a script for phone calls. That info is accessible right here. Please, share this link and fax, call, or email the SF DA’s office to pressure them into dropping the charges against the ACAC 19; also, if you have any cash to spare, you can donate to legal funds right here.
(Addendum: You can also email the Misdemeanor Managing Attorney at Wade.K.Chow@sfgov.org and this guy, James.E.Thompson@sfgov.org, who is handling the case for Laura Claster while she’s out of town.)
Whether you are a market anarchist, a communist, or a two party person, I’m sure you can see the frightening implications here. This is a clear move by the state to frighten people out of associating with dissidents, let alone subscribe to those views themselves. This is the exact type of shit that we — as Americans — like to tell ourselves doesn’t happen. Not here, not in this country. We live in a free country, damnit, not Communist China! I’m not somebody who typically shrieks “police state” every time I turn around, but can you really blame someone for thinking we live in a police state?
By: flogleviathan | Jun 10, 2011 Featured
It’s an emotion that we are taught to keep bottled up, to stuff down inside, or to find some way to ‘channel’ in a ‘healthy’ manner.
I’m an anti-authoritarian and I always have been. I’ve labelled myself in different ways as I went through different intellectual/political stages but a common vein has always been anti-authoritarianism; I cannot accept authority easily or lightly, most especially from those that would declare authority for themselves. And while I can (and have) come up with many intellectual descriptions and justifications for why I’m an anti-authoritarian; while I can intellectualize it and explain it and put it in terms that academics and armchair philosophers (I’m one of them, I’m not excusing myself) can nod their heads to and agree with, in the end there is a primary source, the well that I draw from, the fuel that I burn in the fire of anti-authoritarianism.
Raw. Fucking. Rage.
My anti-authoritarian attitude comes down to burning seething anger at every cop who harassed my friends and I when we were kids for the simple crime of being kids.
It’s for every teacher who tried to beat me down intellectually and emotionally, to make me conform and be the same as every other fucking drone they’d ever manufactured.
It’s for every time I’m considered ‘fringe’ because I don’t immediately buy the bullshit that I see on TV or hear on the radio.
It’s easy to dismiss all of the raw emotion, or to try to suppress it. There are great treatises written on anti-authoritarian thought, absolutely crystal and logical essays regarding the role relationship between the authoritarian and the subjugated. There are many, many reasons why those of us who call ourselves anarchists, anti-authoritarians, antifa, etc think the way we do.
And a good portion of people out there seem to think there’s something WRONG with raw emotion driving anti-authoritarianism, like it’s a BAD thing that my rage against authority drives me.
Again, bullshit. Intellectualism without emotional context is simply mental masturbation. To deny the rage that drives most anti-authoritarianism is to devalue the very philosophies that we claim to represent.
In the end, I find just as much inspiration through the expression of rage and contempt for authority in art, music, literature as I do for the logical reasoning by anarchist and other philosophers.
It’s expressed in music:
“Cops is anxious to put niggas in handcuffs, they wanna hang us, see us dead and enslave us, keep us trapped in the same place we’re raised in, then they wonder why we act so outrageous, run around stressed out and pull out gauges, ‘cause every time you let the animal out cages, it’s dangerous to people who look like strangers” -Dr. Dre
“Enough, I call the bluff. Fuck manifest destiny; landlords and power whores on my people they took turns, dispute the suits I ignite and then watch ‘em burn.” -Rage Against the Machine
It’s expressed in poetry:
“It had to be a large room full of murder
It had to be a mounted ass- a solid mass of rage
A red hot pen
A scream in the back of the throat”
-Allen Ginsberg, “Hadda Be Playing on the Jukebox”
It’s expressed in literature:
“In a way, they seemed to be arguing the case as if it had nothing to do with me. Everything was happening without my participation. My fate was being decided without anyone so much as asking my opinion.”
-Albert Camus, from “The Stranger”
Through all of this, the common theme is not intellectualizing the anti-authoritarian – it’s recognizing with gut wrenching certainty that at it’s base level, humanity is FUCKING TIRED of being in cages. I have degrees in philosophy and political science; I have read extensive treatments of anarchism, marxism, etc; I’ve argued with people I consider brilliant about the merits of arguments from some of the great thinkers of history.
In the end, all of that pales in comparison to one thing:
For all of the thought hoops we jump through, for all of the wonderful analysis we see of our current situation, and what we might do to change it, I think it’s vital that we don’t lose the fire that drives us. For every reasoned argument I can come up with, for every intellectual point I can make as to why I am anti-authoritarian – I’m not ashamed to say that a big part of it is as simple as screaming “FUCK YOU!” at a world that would cage me up and force me to conform.
*Thanks to PJC for the chance to do some writing here – if you like what you see here, follow me on Twitter @flogleviathan
The King hearings have been compared to McCarthyism, but McCarthy went after political ideology not racial and ethnic groups, that was Hitler. New York Republican Senator Peter King is using tax dollars to go on an Islamophobic witch hunt in the United Sates. Peter King supported by the right wing will go down in history with the infamous like Goebels and McCarthy.
The narrative in the United States is disturbing. Take a look at the Center for American Islamic Relations (CAIR), a wonderful group. The front page is full of refuting terrorism. The sad reality is that one people group is on the defense against such things to the extent that they have to publicly refute the prejudice assumptions from the masses. I do not see conservative sites being forced to state they are not terrorists. Maybe if we called the terrorism they bring to the world in their holy wars they may have to go on the defense. The big difference is that CAIR does not support terrorism where as the GOP does only under pretty names that legalize and self justify their murder and destruction. The U.S. doesn’t have ‘suicide bombers’ their bombers stay behind computers so they can distance themselves from the lives they are taking. It helps with the dehumanization of their victims.
All Terrorists are Muslims…Except the 94% that Aren’t
King and his ilk are hellbent on going after Muslims in the U.S. when only 6% of terrorists are Muslim. Even Jewish extremism which is at 7% is more than Muslim extremism. How often do we hear of the threat of Jewish Extremism? Well outside of Nazi Germany? These numbers biased because they are coming from FBI data. This is the FBI data that does not count it’s action of terror. This is the same U.S. gov that does not record the numbers of innocents it kills. This is the same government that does not keep tally of the victims of it’s Police or Military.
As the demonization of a people group increases the state has seen fit to go after them to make them answer for the prejudice views against them despite the facts the prejudice supersedes the reality in a call for witch hunts.
King points to symptoms of the problem for justification of his hearings. One symptom of the problem of prejudice and racism is institutionalized racism. This is most often in the form of demonization and targeting of people groups by law enforcement. Law enforcements targeting of these people groups is the reason King gives for looking at this population. Using the symptom of the problem as justification for the problem is a common excuse for prejudice. Here it is institutionalized from the police all the way up to the Senate and nightly on Fox and other news outlets that tell us to fear Islam. I am more afraid of the one who claims to have authority to murder and does not question this murder than I am of people who are being assaulted by mass media and state.
We hold people without warrants. We have detention facilities like gitmo focused on imprisoning Muslims without a trial. Migrants families seeking amnesty are detained like the Japaneese in World War II. Just how much further will the U.S. go? I warn you it’s not over yet. They will take as much liberty as possible. The sentiment in the country is a bit too much like Nazi Germany, if you doubt that the article: Playing the Race Card, Anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and Immigration, shows a bit more in relation to Islamic relations.
Workers solidarity movement has one of the best articles about policing and law I have read in quite a while. It really hits the issue hard and concise:
The police force is the state’s physical and intimidatory means of maintaining a desired status quo in society; one of socio-economic divisions and inequalities. Alexander Berkman stated that crime “is the result of economic conditions, of social inequality, of wrongs and evils of which government and monopoly are parents”. On the one hand we have the state, politicians, bosses and capitalists, who thrive on vast amounts of money and power. Instances of white collar crime, fraud and embezzlement that are actually investigated and brought before the courts are rare (they make up a small percentile of overall economically motivated crime). Most crime, and thus policing action, targets individuals and communities that suffer greatly from social and economic deprivation. In the last decade, crime has increased in areas like Tallaght and Blanchardstown. Drugs have devastated these communities, and economic and property related crimes have soared. Policing action in these areas, to quote Berkman again, “can only punish the criminal. They neither cure nor prevent crime. The only real cure for crime is to abolish its causes, and the government can never do that because it is there to preserve those very causes”.
Read The Full Article: Thinking About Anarchism: Policing and the Law
This brings me back to the argument I often get when speaking out against police. “It’s only the bad cops.” No, it’s not the rogue bad cops I oppose but the good law abiding cops. They are the crux of the state together with the military they provide the force necessary to rule a people by the initiation of force and violence.
I am returning to a fundamental basic in this article. I find the need to clarify in many cases what it is I have been saying. I find that there are basic elements missing a full explanation. I have done so with Law, Libertarianism and now I do so with justified violence. To further add to this I would also strongly suggest the recent article Scott posted A Left Libertarian Manifesto.
We have addressed the non-aggression axiom both in this podcast and in the article of Libertarianism. It would be helpful to understand The Non Aggression Axiom before reading this. I find that no form of violence or initiation of force is acceptable for a civilized society. The Natural History of the State (read text here) can be seen as the beginning of force or waging aggression on one another to structure society. Humankind has long been plagued with authority of the sword. The sword has evolved to a gun, but little forward progression has occurred. We are still chaining up human beings, brutalizing them, executing them and using aggression claiming it is authority. How does this differ from an abusive relationship where a man would use abuse, aggression and threats to dominate his wife? It does not. The same dynamic of the authoritarian interpersonal relationship exists between the powers that be and those it seeks to control.
Over time men have written laws and religious documents to justify their unethical behavior. This behavior could be theft, rape, murder and much more. Rape has been used by countless regimes to obtain dominance over others. Kings and Feudal Landlords laid claim to the bodies of women. This practice is also seen in warfare today in places such as the Congo. Rape is about power. It is about dominance over another human being. Is it shocking that those who seek to dominate and strive after power would be those inclined to rape?
What about murder? Murder is justified by the dehumanization and placing the blame on the victims. When I reject things like prisons and police I am not stating that every ‘criminal’ is a saint. Many criminals are guilty of the same crimes we use to gain power over others. Those criminals that are rapists,murderers and aggress against others are in the same category as those who commit such actions with paper authorizing them to do such acts if they wear the right uniform. I am not stating there are less violent criminals than we believe but that there are more and we embrace a majority of them because their acts of aggression and dominance has enabled them to claim that their violence brings authority.
The use of violence to create something new or to have a ‘revolution’ would be to further the violence and whatever is born of this would be born of the same violence that currently plagues our society. Our society praises those who use violence like the military or the police and they raise these aggressors up to a status that almost worships the violent acts of Men. The media we watch is saturated with the glorification of the aggression of police and military. The cop shows and films often show the western cool manly aggressive individual who saves everyone with his violence. Every little boy is brought up in a culture that teaches him that he should strut his manly stuff around with his gun and dominate the passive woman. It is insulting and barbaric. It also lends to a culture where we praise such a thing, we strive for it and these aggressive behaviors of dominance are rewarded.
If I were to embrace a form of state I would embrace one that rejects aggression and violence. I would also embrace one that cared for people as opposed to victimized people. I would most likely be involved with a socialist democrat movement. I tend to find friends in these circles, love many of their writings and agree with much of what they condone. I tend to deviate in the area of rule by force. Most will not say outright that they support such a thing, but I fail to see their outright rejection of this. I fail to see any way to create a state without aggression and violence.
If you maintain a state like the many states in the United States, you must maintain a dominance by the state. It does not allow for deviation. If the state dictates you must pay a car insurance company you have few options. Of course you could choose not to pay, for anarchism is natural and the given for all humanity. If you choose to exercise this refusal of payment to a corporation the state begins to step in and inflict it’s retribution. This can start with additional fines and eventually leads to caging of human beings. Look at the individual who is striving to find a place of employment to better their life and does not have the wealth to meet the demands. This individual begins to face further hindrances by the state and is labeled a criminal. In a civil society without force most would just go on and not step into the cages the aggressive force would wish to place them in. But this is a structure backed by force. The police will use deadly force to gain your submission. The ultimate outcome of all authority by force is the gun.
I do not see every intent of every politician as an evil intent. Under a state there are some laws that seem to have wonderful results. Some may have even been just. I would most immediately point to the civil rights movement. The changes that occurred I will stand fully behind. This is not an argument screaming that the imagined ‘welfare queen’ is the oppressor. That is absolutely absurd. The oppressed and the victimized are not the oppressor. This is looking simply at the foundation of all authority and power that composes the state. This authority and power is derived from gangs of armed Men ready to use force against those they are told to, or given liberty to attack.
The justification of the violence is paper. The ethics most hold to be true go out the window if you just write it on paper. Mass murder becomes ‘freedom fighting’, kidnapping becomes ‘detainment’ and extortion is a’ticket or fine’. To have a civil society first we must acknowledge that these actions are unethical and unacceptable for all, not just a select few. We must then look at how we can order society without inflicting violence upon one another. This is not a claim that utopia will occur, but it is one that says we can create order that rejects these actions. If this is not a forced order we then begin to look towards voluntary solutions to issues.
Yes, government is violence. Not every action is violent, but the basic foundation is that ‘Law of the jungle’ the strongest win their wars and set their authority maintained by force. Are you interested in finding solutions outside of the authority of violence? Only when you can acknowledge the truth that this disease of aggression is at the heart of our society can you begin to truly walk away from it and address the issue.
Tell someone you want to get rid of government, and they will immediately ask you about police, firemen and teachers — you’ve just branded yourself as a proponent of crime, chaos and ignorance.
Tell them you want to get rid of property, and they will immediately label you a Bolshevik intent on reducing the entire society to poverty and totalitarianism.
Tell them you want to get rid of labor, and they will ask, “But, how will we make things. Where will our food come from?” The very suggestion to them that we can live without labor almost always comes down to, “But who will do things like collect garbage.”
People have a real hard time with garbage collection.
Everyone is anti-statist to one extent or another; they are conditional or arbitrary statists who take exception with one or another feature of modern society.
Marxists, for example, hate inequality, private property, and the concentration of wealth. So, they see no problem taxing wealth away, and even confiscating it. Libertarians, are advocates of property and have an intense dislike of all government interference in individual property rights. So, they are not averse to eliminating the minimum wage, public education, unions (especially public unions) and so forth.
Both Libertarians and Marxists share some common features, however. If you really press a Marxist, soon you will find she is hostile not to property in general, but only private property. She will cogently explain to you why this private property must be replaced by public ownership of the means of production. And, if you really press a Libertarian, you will soon find out he is probably not against all government but just those functions identified with “the welfare state’, i.e., the social safety net erected after the Great Depression to protect society from the booms and busts of the business cycle, and from the greed of the wealthy.
Each, despite a hostility to the agenda of the other, nevertheless wants to retain some features of the existing society expressed in the others ideology.
There is another feature both sides agree on: in my experience both seem hostile to the idea of ridding society of labor itself. While a Marxist might be willing to adjust labor on the margins — say, by some minimal reduction of the work week or flexibility in those hours — the idea that labor itself can be done away with entirely appears to her altogether a fantasy. A Libertarian, if he thinks about labor at all, only thinks of it when he considers the impediments to the freest possible exercise of the property owner’s rights — in other words, only when he advocates to eliminate the minimum wage, unions, mandatory overtime pay, and workplace safety regulations.
For the Marxist, there is some willingness to consider a reduction of hours of work, but only on condition that wages remain unchanged. For the Libertarian, there is some willingness to consider a fall in wages as long as there is no limitation on hours of work. The idea that both wages and hours should go to zero — that all paid work should be abolished — is so inconceivable as an option for society, that even the most determined and radical opponents of the present order find it, at best, Utopian, and, at worst, a recipe for social collapse.
Both ideologies, however, have a profound hostility to empire. militarism, and the imperial adventures of Washington. While they may violently disagree with each other in terms of their positive program for the reorganization of society, they tend to be on the same side with regards to many issues related to the empire and its global machinery of war and repression. I recently came across a Marxist in the ‘net who initially became radicalized under the influence of Libertarianism at a very young age. He tells a fairly incredible story about how he and a friend once invaded a Republican Party meeting to introduce one resolution after another against US involvement in Central America:
… before I was an anarchist, I was a libertarian. As in the Libertarian Party. As in Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, and Murray Rothbard. As in the Koch brothers who fund the Tea Party. I was raised in a left-liberal academic family, attended anti-war demonstrations as a kid, generally identified with anti-colonial struggles around the world, at the age of 9 cheered AIM when they seized Wounded Knee, read Malcolm and Che in junior high, and got involved in anti-nuclear power activism and the Citizens Party (an early version of the Greens) in High School. And then at 16 I became a libertarian and got deeply into that for the next several years.
I was more or less done with the libertarians when on a lark I convinced a friend to attend a Republican precinct caucus with me in the early years of the Reagan administration. We combed our spikey hair down, wore ill-fitting suits that we had bought at church sales and even a couple American flag pins and I introduced resolution after resolution in solidarity with the Nicaraguan Revolution, the armed struggle in El Salvador, the ANC and so on with my buddy seconding them and forcing a debate before each one was voted down 38 to 2. When the time came to elect delegates, my friend nominated me and some other guy seconded after explaining that while he disagreed with everything I said he was just glad to see young people “getting involved.” There were ten nominees for ten seats, five delegates and five alternates. I came in tenth, making me the last alternate. That proved good enough to get me called to attend the County Republican Convention where there was a big fight between the grassroots anti-tax crazies and the more respectable moderates. There was a rabid anti-tax resolution and the moderates were offering a modest amendment of support for law enforcement charged with enforcing existing tax laws, a matter on their minds in the wake of a recent local shootout between some far right anti-tax activist and the FBI. I rose to speak against the amendment, arguing that as our taxes were going to support U.S. policy in Central America we should applaud any actions that would starve the imperialist beast, suggesting incongruously that the posse comitatus nut was some sort of anti-imperialist hero. After I had spoken, a few of the anti-tax people came up to me and urged me to go back and run for precinct captain, but I wasn’t prepared to take that particular stunt any further.
My own story is similar to this person’s, except I was moving from the other direction: I was a Marxist who was strongly influenced by the “anti-tax crazies” in the late 1070s and early 1980s. Although I could not put into words what puzzled me about this movement, I knew they were on to something and the Marxists were missing an important opportunity. It was only in conversation with another Marxist, as I tried to argue for the importance of the anti-tax movement, that it suddenly dawned on me why it was significant: “Why do you care whether they are against paying more in taxes?” I asked her, “It isn’t your government; it isn’t your state — it’s the capitalist state and people hate it.”
That conversation sealed a moment for me. All of a sudden I could see the hidden connections between the arguments both the Left and the Right were making against government in a way, I believe, did not confine me to the ideological prejudices of either side. It has not been easy — honestly it has taken another 20 years to shake off the muck of ideology and realize both what the Left and Right have in common both in positive terms and negative.
Today, for me, the question has become: “What does it take to create a humanist anti-politics?” I want you to notice that I deliberately write the term, humanist anti-politics”, in lower case letters, here. I am not talking of, nor imagining, a movement toward something greater than us as individuals, but something completely subordinated to us — its only over-arching theme is that it has no theme and seeks only to let each of us create our own particular theme alone or in free voluntary association with others. It is movement which puts people — as individuals — in place of things.
A humanist anti-politics doesn’t ask for amnesty for illegal immigrants because governments do not own the earth, we do, and no government has the right to control our access to it.
A humanist anti-politics doesn’t argue for the right tax policy or the right fiscal policy or the right monetary policy for the economy, because we care only about what is right for people not the economy.
A humanist anti-politics doesn’t ask how Washington can protect us from terrorism, but asks how we can protect ourselves from the terrorism of governments around the world.
A humanist anti-politics doesn’t ask how government can create jobs to end unemployment, but how we can end wage slavery.
A humanist anti-politics doesn’t ask how government can improve the education system, but how individuals can be freed from Labor, Property and the State to develop their own capacities as complete human beings.
Humanist anti-politics is humanist because it seeks everywhere to put the liberation of society, as individuals, at the center of social discourse; it is anti-politics because it asks for nothing from government except that it cease to exist.
Is this possible? Can a consistent anti-statist movement be built out of the competing ideologies who each seek to impose their vision of the future on us?
cable 09KABUL1651, 06/23/09 MEETING, ASSISTANT AMB MUSSOMELI AND MOI exposes a U.S. cover-up of the prostitution of young Afghan boys. The U.S. misled the American media in an attempt to keep the sex trafficking out of the headlines. DynCorp, U.S. based corporation hired to train and support the build up of Afghan Police. DynCorp apparently threw a party where young boys were sold into sex slavery to the highest bidder.
Reporters were thrown off this story by DynCorp and told it would be harmful to report such a thing and that it could endanger lives. Quite the opposite is true. DynCorp is funded by U.S. tax dollars. isn’t it good to know that your tax dollars went to help old men purchase young boys as sex slaves?
The cable reveals a discussion between Assistant Ambassador Mussomeli and Afghan Minister Hanif Atmar on how to best keep this information out of the U.S. Media. The practice of the sale of young boys into sexual slavery is known as Bacha bazi.
Bacha Bazi (Persian: بچه بازی literally “playing with children”), also known as bacchá ‘ (from the Persian bacheh بچه “child, young man, calf”) is a practice recognized as sexual slavery and child prostitution in which prepubescent children and adolescents are sold to wealthy or powerful men for entertainment and sexual activities. This business thrives in southern Afghanistan, where many men keep them as status symbols. Some of the individuals involved report being forced into sex. The authorities are barely attempting to crack down on the practice as “un-Islamic and immoral acts” but many doubt it would be effective since many of the men are powerful and well-armed former commanders.
A documentary by Najibullah Quraishi about the practice was aired on PBS Frontline in the United States , and True Stories in the UK on 20 April 2010. This film premiered at the Royal Society of Arts on 29 March 2010.
Our first Podcast is finally out! Here it is, please check it out and leave some feedback. I am excited to hear what you all think.
Today we discuss Michael Chertoff, the TSA and the coercive power of the state. Also we reference the article posted about the TSA and Trauma. We also discuss We Won’t Fly and the incident of Celeste.
Tags: Anarchist Podcast, Barack Obama, Gonzo Times Radio, John Pistole, Libertarian Podcast, Michael Chertoff, Police State, Rapiscan Systems, Transportation Security Administration, TSA, United States, United States Department of Homeland Security, United States Secretary of Homeland Security
A quick note about tomorrow which is November 24th. Your resistance is needed. If you are not flying, your presence is needed to help educate the public. The state does not like this. Nor should it, for it is in danger of loosing it’s rule over the cattle in this area. Beware the cattle may awake and realize it does not need to continue to submit to it’s masters.
A recent article at Northeast Intelligence Network shows how the state is perceiving us as a threat to it’s unquestionable authority. It appears a document has been released labeling citizens who say no to the violations of the state as ‘domestic extremists’.
The introductory paragraph of the multipage document states that it is issued “in response to the growing public backlash against enhanced TSA security screening procedures and the agents conducting the screening process.” Implicit within the same section is that the recently enhanced security screening procedures implemented at U.S. airports, and the measures to be taken in response to the negative public backlash as detailed [in this directive], have the full support of the President. In other words, Obama not only endorses the enhanced security screening, but the measures outlined in this directive to be taken in response to public objections.
The terminology contained within the reported memo is indeed troubling. It labels any person who “interferes” with TSA airport security screening procedure protocol and operations by actively objecting to the established screening process, “including but not limited to the anticipated national opt-out day” as a “domestic extremist.” The label is then broadened to include “any person, group or alternative media source” that actively objects to, causes others to object to, supports and/or elicits support for anyone who engages in such travel disruptions at U.S. airports in response to the enhanced security procedures.
For individuals who engaged in such activity at screening points, it instructs TSA operations to obtain the identities of those individuals and other applicable information and submit the same electronically to the Homeland Environment Threat Analysis Division, the Extremism and Radicalization branch of the Office of Intelligence & Analysis (IA) division of the Department of Homeland Security.
For “any person, group or domestic alternative media source” that actively objects to, causes others to object to, supports and/or elicits support for anyone who engages in such travel “disruptions” at U.S. airports (as defined above) in response to the enhanced security procedures, the [applicable DHS administrative branch] is instructed to identify and collect information about the persons or entities, and submit such information in the manner outlined [within this directive]. -via DHS & TSA: making a list, checking it twice
Do not let the state blame it’s actions on you if you choose to stand for your rights. They will blame others for long lines and long waits or missed flights at airports where they are holding up traffic with their actions. Do not let the state blame the victim in it’s standard rape mindset. Non-violent resistance is necessary. Do not simply do as the state tells you. Stand up against their coercive tactics and threats. It’s time to stand up to the schoolyard bully.
At this point almost everyone has heard the controversy over the TSA and it’s new screening techniques. Much of the problem is ignored and much of the discussion is based on some pro-war is-ought argument. The tragedy in September of 2001 was a horrendous crime. This tragedy of September 11th has been exploited over the last decade repeatedly to terrorize the citizens of the United States. Many back this terrorism any time you mention 9/11 or the undie bomber. We need safety and security, but that is not what is happening here. I would use the phrase ‘Security Theater’ to describe what is going on. The TSA is committing acts of terrorism & inflicting Trauma victimizing citizens.
Not every person who goes through one of these scanners or through the enhanced pat down techniques will be traumatized, but some will. Furthermore, those who suffer from PTSD and victims of sexual assault can even more easily become re-traumatized.
Celeste is a seasoned traveler and a rape victim who was re-traumatized by these new enhanced procedures. What really got to her was after being felt up all over her body the TSA agent began to run his hands through her hair which she said felt like being raped all over again. You can read more oh how this rape survivor was devistated by the TSA here.
The two elements essential for interpersonal trauma are present in the Current TSA procedures we see are: The absence of consent. Consent being defined as not the absence of a NO but the presence of a clear and freely given ‘YES’. Another factor to trauma would be a real, imagined or otherwise perceived threat to the body the person hood.
During the procedure it is obvious that it is not consent that is required for the TSA to move forward with the scan or physical search. The body touching is used as a coercive measure to make people choose the naked scanner over public sexual humiliation and unwanted sexual touching. The state agency in this case is saying if one wishes to go on the business trip for work or visit family for the holidays they must submit to demands or they will invade an individuals personal space in a more invasive manner or deny access. Many will do so to fulfill obligations for jobs or loved ones.
The identified threat would be humiliation or embarrassment of feeling one has no choice but to expose ones body or one has to submit to this search. The search is a real physical violation in which a stranger is touching the body.
Yes it looks alot like trauma and it would not be too far fetched to say for some the procedure is traumatic. This is even more so if a person has survived trauma prior to this abuse at the hands of the TSA. Post Traumatic Stress symptoms can be exacerbated, heightened or worsened. Those symptoms can look like Panic attacks, flashbacks (or re-living the traumatic event), withdraw, aggression, heightened arousal (crying, anger or hyper-vigilance). When we look at the natural symptoms of this trauma we see how the state may swiftly label some natural symptoms of the trauma they are inflicting as ‘criminal’. Most specifically in the area of aggression and anger.
The TSA often maintains a stance that they are at war. This brings the question who are they at war with? Yes, the state is at war with it’s citizens in it’s battle to control and to force human beings into submission. We must not say that the problem will be fixed by changing the procedures in this process, but the problem will be fixed when the TSA is no more.
In Response to ‘terrorism’ the state has begun to use terrorism on it’s own citizens. As pointed out in the Blog Government Against the people the actions of the TSA fit the legal description of terrorism.
Section 802 of the U.S. Patriot Act, titled “Definition of Domestic Terrorism,” provides several definitions of domestic terrorism, including this one:
“The term `domestic terrorism’ means . . . activities that appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population.”
You may read the pertinent passage by going to the text of the Patriot Act here and searching for “Sec. 802.”
People passing through airport security certainly qualify as a “civilian population,” and at least one TSA agent has admitted that this population is being deliberately coerced. Many air travelers who have experienced these violations would say that they have been intimidated as well.
We must not confuse terrorism and attacks on individuals for ‘security’. We must take this power from the state and we must not rest until the TSA is no more. This is just another issue of state power and coercion. It is not one of how TSA can do it’s job effectively. This should only be an issue of the elimination of rule by force in this cast through the tyrannical bureaucracy of the TSA.
But, the state will continue to take the stance that one gives up rights for purchasing certain products or services because it just has more guns to shoot you and more cages to lock you up if you disagree. Please visit We Won’t Fly .com.
There are over 60 detention facilities nationwide that are run by Corrections Corporation of America (CCA). CCA and it’s employees are active in seeking harsher penalties for crimes in the united states as a way to profit. This company is also a large part of the war on Migrants. The Nativist and Culturalist movements in the United States also stand behind locking up other human beings not born in the same place they were. Not just men and women but children also.
CCA often works closely with ICE as a private corporation used to enforce United States Human control and inventory. In a country where 13% of the population is Black and 57% of the prison population is black one must ask themselves how we have committed such an injustice against that people group. Then we must look at the other people groups that are being victimized by the state and the Corrections Corporation of America.
The T. Don Hutto Residential Center in Taylor Texas is a family prison. Here families are thrown into jail like an internment camp, concentration camp or a ghetto. It is most accurately a concentration camp for it fits the definition:
The Random House Dictionary defines the term “concentration camp” as: “a guarded compound for the detention or imprisonment of aliens, members of ethnic minorities, political opponents, etc.”, and, the American Heritage Dictionary defines it as: “A camp where civilians, enemy aliens, political prisoners, and sometimes prisoners of war are detained and confined, typically under harsh conditions.” – Via Wikipedia
A recent conversation I had with one claimed it was not comparable to a concentration camp because the conditions at places like Auschwitz included starvation, gas chambers and other tragedies we have assumed are not used in these detention facilities. I would no doubt put being stripped of all dignity and rights and being forced into a cage as bad enough. The actions are not justified because another country was even more brutal and inhumane.
Most often the people held in the T. Don Hutto Detention Facility have been convicted of no crime. They are locked in cages waiting a day in court, waiting for the state to find a way to label their presence as criminal.
On top of this we find the dilemma posed by amnesty in the U.S. People are abused, tortured and brutalized by the their governments and others from where they come with no protection. They flee to escape the abuse. The catch is that if you are fleeing you most likely won’t have a legal visa or passport. If you wish to ask for amnesty you must make it to the United States to do so. What does the U.S. do to these people? We throw them in a cage.
I urge you to watch the documentary ‘the least of these’ if you have not already. It addresses much of this. I also urge you all to begin to take a critical look at CCA.
There was the old cliche of coming to the U.S. was gazing on the statue of liberty. Well in the 21st century this is no more you get to go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200. You will no longer gaze on lady liberty but on the raped beaten bruised bound corpse of lady justice. Amerika Fuck Yeah!
Naomi Wolf has some wonderful stuff to say. I will say that she has too much faith in the government to begin with, but her observations are important. Please share this with your friends.
October 15, 2010 – My name is Michael Roberts, and I am a pilot for ExpressJet Airlines, Inc., based in Houston (that is, I still am for the time being). This morning as I attempted to pass through the security line for my commute to work I was denied access to the secured area of the terminal building at Memphis International Airport. I have passed through the same line roughly once per week for the past four and a half years without incident. Today, however, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) agents at this checkpoint were using one of the new Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) systems that are currently being deployed at airports across the nation. These are the controversial devices featured by the media in recent months, albeit sparingly, which enable screeners to see beneath people’s clothing to an extremely graphic and intrusive level of detail (virtual strip searching). Travelers refusing this indignity may instead be physically frisked by a government security agent until the agent is satisfied to release them on their way in what is being touted as an “alternative option” to AIT. The following is a somewhat hastily drafted account of my experience this morning.
As I loaded my bags onto the X-ray scanner belt, an agent told me to remove my shoes and send them through as well, which I’ve not normally been required to do when passing through the standard metal detectors in uniform. When I questioned her, she said it was necessary to remove my shoes for the AIT scanner. I explained that I did not wish to participate in the AIT program, so she told me I could keep my shoes and directed me through the metal detector that had been roped off. She then called somewhat urgently to the agents on the other side: “We got an opt-out!” and also reported the “opt-out” into her handheld radio. On the other side I was stopped by another agent and informed that because I had “opted out” of AIT screening, I would have to go through secondary screening. I asked for clarification to be sure he was talking about frisking me, which he confirmed, and I declined. At this point he and another agent explained the TSA’s latest decree, saying I would not be permitted to pass without showing them my naked body, and how my refusal to do so had now given them cause to put their hands on me as I evidently posed a threat to air transportation security (this, of course, is my nutshell synopsis of the exchange). I asked whether they did in fact suspect I was concealing something after I had passed through the metal detector, or whether they believed that I had made any threats or given other indications of malicious designs to warrant treating me, a law-abiding fellow citizen, so rudely. None of that was relevant, I was told. They were just doing their job.
Eventually the airport police were summoned. Several officers showed up and we essentially repeated the conversation above. When it became clear that we had reached an impasse, one of the more sensible officers and I agreed that any further conversation would be pointless at this time. I then asked whether I was free to go. I was not. Another officer wanted to see my driver’s license. When I asked why, he said they needed information for their report on this “incident” – my name, address, phone number, etc. I recited my information for him, until he asked for my supervisor’s name and number at the airline. Why did he need that, I asked. For the report, he answered. I had already given him the primary phone number at my company’s headquarters. When I asked him what the Chief Pilot in Houston had to do with any of this, he either refused or was simply unable to provide a meaningful explanation. I chose not to divulge my supervisor’s name as I preferred to be the first to inform him of the situation myself. In any event, after a brief huddle with several other officers, my interrogator told me I was free to go.
As I approached the airport exit, however, I was stopped again by a man whom I believe to be the airport police chief, though I can’t say for sure. He said I still needed to speak with an investigator who was on his way over. I asked what sort of investigator. A TSA investigator, he said. As I was by this time looking eagerly forward to leaving the airport, I had little patience for the additional vexation. I’d been denied access to my workplace and had no other business keeping me there.
“Am I under arrest?” I asked.
“No, he just needs to ask you some more questions.”
“But I was told I’m free to go. So… am I being detained now, or what?”
“We just need to hold you here so he can…”
“Hold me in what capacity?” I insisted.
“Detain you while we…”
Okay, so now they were detaining me as I was leaving the airport facility.
We stood there awkwardly, waiting for the investigator while he kept an eye on me. Being chatty by nature, I asked his opinion of what new procedures might be implemented if someday someone were to smuggle an explosive device in his or her rectum or a similar orifice. Ever since would-be terrorist Richard Reid set his shoes on fire, travelers have been required to remove their footwear in the security line. And the TSA has repeatedly attempted to justify these latest measures by citing Northwest flight 253, on which Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab scorched his genitalia. Where, then, would the evolution of these policies lead next?
“Do you want them to board your plane?” he asked.
“No, but I understand there are other, better ways to keep them off. Besides, at this point I’m more concerned with the greater threat to our rights and liberties as a free society.”
“Yeah, I know,” he said. And then, to my amazement, he continued, “But somebody’s already taken those away.”
“Maybe they have,” I conceded, watching the throng of passengers waiting their turn to get virtually naked for the federal security guards.
As a side note, I cannot refrain here from expressing my dismay and heartbreak over a civil servant’s personal resignation to the loss of civil liberty among the people by whom he is employed to protect and serve. If he no longer affirms the rights and freedom of his fellow citizens, one can only wonder exactly what he has in view as the purpose of his profession.
The TSA investigator arrived and asked for my account of the situation. I explained that the agents weren’t allowing me to pass through the checkpoint. He told me he had been advised that I was refusing security screening, to which I replied that I had willingly walked through the metal detector with no alarms, the same way I always do when commuting to work. He then briefed me on the recent screening policy changes and, apparently confused, asked whether they would be a problem for me. I stated that I did indeed have a problem with the infringement of my civil rights and liberty.
His reply: “That’s irrelevant.”
It wasn’t irrelevant to me. We continued briefly in the conversation until I recognized that we were essentially repeating the same discussion I’d already had with the other officers and agents standing by. With that realization, I told him I did not wish to keep going around and around with them and asked whether he had anything else to say to me. Yes, he said he did, marching indignantly over to a table nearby with an air as though he were about to do something drastic.
“I need to get your information for my report,” he demanded.
“The officer over there just took my information for his report. I’m sure you could just get it from him.”
“No, I have to document everything separately and send it to TSOC. That’s the Transportation Security Operations Center where we report…”
“I’m familiar with TSOC,” I assured him. “In fact, I’ve actually taught the TSA mandated security portion of our training program at the airline.”
“Well, if you’re an instructor, then you should know better,” he barked.
“Really? What do you mean I ‘should know better’? Are you scolding me? Have I done something wrong?”
“I’m not saying you’ve done something wrong. But you have to go through security screening if you want to enter the facility.”
“Understood. I’ve been going through security screening right here in this line for five years and never blown up an airplane, broken any laws, made any threats, or had a government agent call my boss in Houston. And you guys have never tried to touch me or see me naked that whole time. But, if that’s what it’s come to now, I don’t want to enter the facility that badly.”
Finishing up, he asked me to confirm that I had been offered secondary screening as an alternative “option” to ATS, and that I had refused it. I confirmed. Then he asked whether I’d “had words” with any of the agents. I asked what he meant by that and he said he wanted to know whether there had been “any exchange of words.” I told him that yes, we spoke. He then turned to the crowd of officers and asked whether I had been abusive toward any of them when they wanted to create images of my naked body and touch me in an unwelcome manner. I didn’t hear what they said in reply, but he returned and finally told me I was free to leave the airport.
As it turned out, they did reach the chief pilot’s office in Houston before I was able to. Shortly after I got home, my boss called and said they had been contacted by the TSA. I suppose my employment status at this point can best be described as on hold.
It’s probably fairly obvious here that I am outraged. This took place today (now yesterday, when I wrote all this down), 15 October 2010. Anyone who reads this is welcome to contact me for confirmation of the details or any additional information I can provide. The dialog above is quoted according to my best recollection, without embellishment or significant alteration except for the sake of clarity. I would greatly appreciate any recommendations for legal counsel – preferably a firm with a libertarian bent and experience resisting this kind of tyrannical madness. This is not a left or right, red or blue state issue. The very bedrock of our way of life in this country is under attack from within. Please don’t let it be taken from us without a fight.
Malo Periculosam Libertatem Quam Quietum Servitium
Michael S. Roberts
3794 Douglass Ave.
Memphis, TN 38111
October 18, 2010
Michael S. Roberts [send him mail] is a pilot for ExpressJet Airlines.
Copyright © 2010 by LewRockwell.com. Originally posted: Pilot to TSA: ‘No Groping Me and No Naked Photos’
Gilan Justice Branch 11, to Rev. Joseph Ndrkhany charges of apostasy, has requested the death penalty. Ndrkhany the prisoner’s wife and was sentenced to life imprisonment. Rev. B. Khanjani risk of execution in Shiraz also threatened.
Rev. Joseph Ndrkhany residents of Rasht and in prison since October 2009 the city remained. Because of his evangelism in their home church, so many times is summoned and arrested hint. Mr. Ndrkhany which had employed 35 year old father of two children.
Pastor Reza Dehghani, Church Leadership Council announced the details of the DW death sentence for apostasy charges Ndrkhany Joseph’s will: “He went to court last three times it was three weeks ago. Telephone to his lawyer’s Oral have issued a death sentence but did not make formal written notice. Is usual that such a reaction to public opinion and to measure the people. ”
Ms. Fatima admirable, the wife of Joseph Ndrkhany June Bhsr takes 89 years in prison. Peasant priest says that the couple has two young children under six years of age and are saved with his aunt: “Ms. acceptable sentenced to life imprisonment because the Islamic Shari’a, an apostate male death sentence women to death and apostates, is life imprisonment.”
B. Khanjani peasant priest reminds the pressure on “Christian Nvaymanan” Iran has intensified after the election last January, and only thirty people have been arrested so far: “arrests in Tehran, Shiraz, Isfahan and were north. Most of them have been released on bail and they are waiting for their Tribunals. Vsyqhhay they seem heavy and thus be asked to file their individual and not collectively to consider. ”
Mr. Dehghani dangerous situation in Shiraz prison Rev. B. Khanjani said, adding that his death has been charged with apostasy: “His wife was also arrested and is now released on bail.”
Members of the “Church Leadership Council” who are resident in Europe and America, tried the public and human rights organizations Location countries to keep John “Nvaymanan Christian” to draw. Pastor Reza Dehghani versus sample protest demonstration against the Iranian Embassy in Ottawa and sent letters to the State Department and Human Rights Organization of Canada remembers.
The first sentence “apostasy” for Nvdynan Christian in Iran after the revolution in 1990 was issued. Pastor Hossein useful, and this year the city of Mashhad in the crime “apostasy” was hanged.
@cranks_rants has a good post Terrorism: The New “Justification”, The New McCarthyism. I agree to an extent, but I have to say that it is not coming but here. he wrote:
Yesterday I linked to a story about a very vague ‘terror threat’ that said in essence ‘someone, somewhere, is planning something’. As myself and many others have pointed out this is ridiculous, and the vagueness of it only serves one purpose: driving up the rhetoric and driving up support for the fake ‘war on terror’.Well today we have the first fruits of that vague ‘threat’, as http://antiwar.com and others are reporting that the U.S. have stepped up drone attacks in Pakistan, as well as increased NSA wiretaps and ‘other measures’ in Europe – using the flimsy justification of the ‘credible but non-specific’ threat from yesterday.Why do I get the feeling it’s just a matter of time before the next Joe McCarthy sets up shop looking for ‘terrorists’ (rather than communists)?But I guess it’s not unexpected – after all, every government needs an ‘enemy’, lest the people realize that they don’t need the government.Please visit his blog here.
The hunt has already begun. It has been taken further than Joe McCarthy could have ever taken it. Joe McCarthy only went after citizens. People once screamed that ‘atheists are trying to invade our christian country with communism’ now they scream that ‘Muslims are trying to invade our christian country with terrorism’.
We went from a cold war on ‘communism’ to an active war on ‘terrorism’. Just as McCarthy used flimsy accusations to attack people and to rile up the masses with the blind complacence of the media so did the Bush administration rile up a nation to the point they released the armed forces on a mission of mass murder across the middle east as well as a war on liberties at home with the patriot act.
We have our modern McCarthy, in fact we have many. There was Cheeney & Bush, Limbaugh & Beck, Palin & McCain, the list goes on. In fact I would say that it’s not limited to the GOP but Obama has made plenty of attacks based on ‘someone somewhere is planning something bad’ ideas. Obama has only perpetuated this modern McCarthyism with expanded actions, assassination of American citizens and another war.
The Government does not hate you. The Government does not like you. It is indifferent. The Government is not an entity with feelings, remorse, ethics or conscious. It is a collective of individuals working according to rigid flawed guidelines. The government is not an individual therefore the government as a whole has no rights whatsoever. People can have rights, this corporate entity called the United States has no rights. It functions to take rights and to oppress. There are often individuals within the government who wish to ‘do good’ but overall that is impossible. The nature of government prohibits any good for the very means of which the state reaches its ends is immoral.
Individuals who work within the government or are employed by the government may have rights, but no more than any other individual. This makes the actions of many of the states employees criminal by the very nature of their jobs. Marines and Soldiers often engage in murder and invasion. They justify this by stating that the non-individual ‘the state’ is responsible. What is the state? It is nothing more than these individuals acting in a criminal manner to assert force and control over other human beings. If a gangster claims they have the right to murder because the gang they belong to calls for this murder, do we accept that as a justified?
Police by the nature of their job simply defend the will of the state with force. They partake in what would be seen outside of the context of the state as extortion, theft, murder, assault and kidnapping on a daily basis. This is simply justified by stating ‘they were just doing their job.’ Even the youngest elementary school child is taught this is wrong. “Would you jump off a bridge if Jimmy told you to?” We learn that just because someone tells us to do something it is not justified. Somehow statist apologetics seem to defy those simple ethics.
These people who have committed crimes against humanity under the titles the government provides them would still exist in a system without government. The aim of eliminating government can be seen as an aim to end the unethical nature of the state. By eliminating the crux of the state which is the power of the Police and Military that uses force to obtain it’s will and command over others. The average person sees these as necessities for order. To bring up alternatives for order in a more ethical manner tends to bring up doomsday scenarios and a debate that compares anarchism to a certain utopia they have even failed to obtain through their force. As an anarchist I do not seek utopia, but to reject a system that is every bit as criminal as what it claims to oppose. I seek to oppose hierarchy, power over others and oppression. To claim that we must accept oppression on one level to avoid oppression on another level is inaccurate. This returns to the statist mindset that in order to end crime we must also partake in those crimes under the title of ‘Police.’ I am not asking for oppression or crime on any level, rather pointing at how we accept it on one level for a ‘greater good’ justified by ‘the will of the people’ or the ‘divine rights of kings.’
If you have faith in these people to keep order and to find solutions with coercion why then do you not believe that this order can not be found outside of criminal means?
Those in the state that seek to keep order are just people. Individual human beings preforming a job under a misguided ethic. Once we have eliminated the hierarchy and oppression of the state it will still be people or individuals in non-coercive entities and through voluntary means providing similar services. There is a misunderstanding that somehow order is only found with these people if the state exists. The only tool for order is often seen as the state. This is partially because the state has educated us to believe such. Individuals have a difficult time perceiving a system outside of the systems that they have always known.
I am not one to say that a Dispute Resolution Organization (DRO) or Voluntary Contractual Arrangements are the definitive answer. In a truly non-coercive system we would see all and more. We would see amalgams of these as well as other concepts for protection defense and order. To state that we must choose one is the flaw of the statist. I n a truly liberated society I am not forced to choose between Mutualism, Anarcho-Syndicalism and Anarcho Capitalism, but I am free to join in the systems of order I find most effective or appropriate. To cling to only one is the way of the state. This keeps the flaws of the system choose also with no option and no way out.
Society like the government is not an individual or an entity with rights to supersede the rights of the individual. Society however is a reality. We may each be individuals with rights but we often find we are interdependent. This interdependence creates society, markets, syndicates and all forms of interaction. To say that one solution is sufficient for all needs is to oversimplify reality. To embrace anarchism is to embrace the reality that there is no one perfect way to interact and to embrace that there are flaws in systems. To embrace the state is to embrace one way that is believed to be the only solution and to enforce that belief and way upon others.
The expectations of statists for anarchism are far above that which they have achieved with statism. It is the statist who will ask for a solution to a problem and when given one they are restricted to the statist idea that this is the only solution. They will then ask impossible tasks that they have even failed to find effective solutions for. One example is defense. The statist sees the state as the only solution. When one looks at anarchist solutions we see many options. The anarchist will often start with prevention and move to other solutions from there. The statist is limited to the government they grant a monopoly over the industry of aggression.
In closing I will state that to reject the state is not to stand in opposition to order or to ignore problems that exist, but to embrace the reality that there is no one way that will be the answer to all. We embrace that fact that people can bring solutions and that they should not be disregarded because they do not lead to utopia.
I am quick to criticize Police. I feel that I should give a description of what I would like in place of our current system. This may make it easier for many to comprehend what I am promoting. First off we must look at what our Police do and what I would like to see in place of what we have. I wish to see a system that focusing on Prevention Restitution and Reparations.
Our current system does not protect and as I have mentioned countless times police are under no obligation to keep us safe according to a ruling by the supreme court in 2005. They simply are there to enforce the demands and mandates of the state with violence or the threat of force. The majority of the time they are busy running a legalized extortion racket with fees, tickets, fines etc… Threatening to throw us into cages for not buying our human inventory products from the state such as drivers licenses and license plates etc…
But if the state agents don’t monitor the state monopolized transportation system who else will pull me over and charge me money for not bowing to their unending mindless mandates?
I would rather have options. I want to be able to choose from more than one source of protection. I want protection, not control over other human beings. The system I promote would be one that would take prevention and protection as a first measure. With options some may not want protection to be the first thing so you can choose another service or have none. I would find none foolish but that is your choice. The situation of multiple systems to replace state monopolies that I often speak of would be one where I could leave if I felt they were abusing me like the current system does to individuals. This would more than likely lead to those that act in a predatory manner as the police would not be able to continue operating. I promote a variety of structures from syndicates, co-ops, communal services and free market alternatives.
Privatization of police will do nothing in itself but make the owner wish to use his power to gain at the expense of others. The key in this is to create a variety of options so that if one fails we have another to turn to. These systems will and can live side by side, not restricted to a region. I can not stress how important having choices is.
I will not say all will function in the manner I envision, but I do believe the model I wish to see will be more embraced. We will then have protection that works for us and needs us to survive as opposed to protection that works for our rulers that they need to survive. It looses the monopoly enjoyed by the abusive police forces. I can not stress how important options and alternatives are. Without choice you are stuck with no choice therefore the monopolizing force can do as they please like our current system.
The prevention, restitution and reparations model when heard by most makes sense. The first line is prevention and protection. Not a call after the fact and some guy saying they might find the bad guy one day. I want to go with the system that takes prevention and my protection seriously. I would like this system to guarantee that if they fail at prevention and protection that they will pay restitution or reparations as applicable. If my family member is raped the current system will put the rapist in jail, and after that you are on your own. I want assurance it won’t happen, and if it does I want our therapist bills, increased security bills and everything else to be covered by the one that claimed they would prevent such a thing. This would often lead to the protector seeking such restitution from the criminal offender.
If my car or TV is stolen I am lucky to get it back. It is doubtful there will even be an investigation. Really the only reason cops are called is because the crime is over and now they can clean up and write about it. You will rarely have your possessions returned. Often there is no compensation even if the criminal is apprehended. If the criminal is apprehended then we pay to keep him detained as the state exacts its’ vengeance. In a system of reparations and restitution this would not be our financial burden, but the criminals to bear.
The majority of crimes can be handled with restitution and reparations. I will not say that they will be a fix all for society. I do not claim to have a key to utopia. I do however see much room for improvement in this area.
We force doctors to go to school for over a decade. They do not decide to kill people on a daily basis but their knowledge and practice may lead to death that is unintentional. I want to know why people who determine if they are justified to take a life are given such power with nothing more than a high school diploma most of the time. I do not feel safe with the less intelligent of our species being given a free ticket to murder if you do not bow to their demands. I would rather see someone with at the very least a master degree or even a doctorate in sociology or something that I feel will help them understand the people they are dealing with and threatening. Giving such power to the ignorant is ignorant.
More often than not the crimes people become criminals over are abstract demands of the state. They did not buy insurance, they did not pay the state, they bought a joint or a hooker. These things can lead to a life spiraling out of control within the justice system. We invent our criminals out of these victimless crimes. Really victimless crime is a joke there is a victim in a victimless crime often and it is the one the state labels ‘criminal’.
I feel some of these ideas while born in structuring an anarchist concept could be helpful even for a minarchist or a statist. At least I hope they will take a look at changing their system if they are not willing to look at anarchism.
The U.S. government’s attempt to expand the surveillance state — in this case to make it easier to wiretap the Internet — is pretty much a dog-bites-man story.
A fairly typical response is: “I’m not worried. After all, I’m not doing anything wrong.”
Sure. Because governments have never done bad stuff to people who weren’t doing anything wrong. The right-wingers have a good word for people who implicitly assume that the government means well and can be trusted, and that its only motivation is to stop “bad guys.” They call them “sheeple.”
You think the Jews living in Europe in the 1930s were “doing anything wrong”?
But lest I be accused of triggering Godwin’s Law, let’s stick to the United States. God knows there’s enough material in our own history to keep the most naive goo-goo liberal awake nights.
Look at the role of the state in the post-Haymarket repression of anarchists and leftists, and the direct role of federal troops in breaking strikes like the Pullman Strike. During the Copper Wars out West at the turn of the century, governors proclaimed martial law to suppress the unions.
Look at the police state nightmare under Woodrow Wilson, during and after WWI. The War Hysteria and Red Scare under St. Woodrow included wholesale repression of dissent — American Railway Union leader and socialist presidential candidate Eugene Debs was imprisoned — and culminated in the Palmer Raid’s political imprisonment of socialists and Wobblies and shutdown of left-wing newspapers.
Then there was the internment of Japanese Nisei in 1942. Were they doing anything wrong?
And don’t forget COINTELPRO.
And all those civil rights organizers who were “shot trying to escape” in police custody down South. Were they doing anything wrong?
How about the people who had drugs planted on them by cops who “knew” they were guilty — or worse yet, had guns planted on them by the cops who murdered them — what were they doing wrong, other than being foolish enough to trespass on the turf of vicious thugs whose gang colors are blue?
Folks, the U.S. government has murdered or imprisoned countless people who weren’t doing anything wrong but being stupid enough to believe the government only goes after “bad guys,” and that “not doing anything wrong” makes a snowball’s difference in hell. If the government perceives you as a threat to the class interests and the system of power it upholds, you don’t need to be “doing anything wrong.” It will make something up.
The question is why anyone would be gullible enough to trust the GOVERNMENT not to do anything wrong.
This post is originally from the Center For A Stateless Society Here.
Just the other day, President Obama urged other countries to stop censoring the Internet. But now the United States Congress is trying to censor the Internet here at home. A new bill being debated this week would have the Attorney General create an Internet blacklist of sites that US Internet providers would be required to block.
This is the kind of heavy-handed censorship you’d expect from a dictatorship, where one man can decide what web sites you’re not allowed to visit. But the Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to pass the bill this week — and Senators say they haven’t heard much in the way of objections! That’s why we need you to sign our urgent petition to Congress demanding they oppose the Internet blacklist.
Read more about the bill: COICA Fact Sheet.
“We all use the web now for all kinds of parts our lives, some trivial, some critical to our life as part of a social world,” says Tim Berners-Lee, creator of the Web. “In the spirit going back to Magna Carta, we require a principle that: No person or organization shall be deprived of their ability to connect to others at will without due process of law, with the presumption of innocence until found guilty. Neither governments nor corporations should be allowed to use disconnection from the Internet as a way of arbitrarily furthering their own aims.”
I urge you to sign the petition, but watch out with giving money to this group. It looks like the money may be going to the DNC so watch out before you donate. That’s your choice.
Did Rothbard by chance inspire modern pop culture? If he didn’t the same concepts are there. It is nice to see the philosophies of Rothbard in popular culture reaching younger generations if it was intended or not, the ideas are all there. Perhaps the next generation will embrace such ideas even more with such things out in the popular media. We can hope.
Suppose a society which fervently considers all redheads to be agents of the Devil and therefore to be executed wherever found. Let us further assume that only a small number of redheads exist in any generation – so few as to be statistically insignificant. The utilitarian-libertarian might well reason: “While the murder of isolated redheads is deplorable, the executions are small in number; the vast majority of the public, as non-redheads, achieves enormous psychic satisfaction from the public execution of redheads. The social cost is negligible, the social psychic benefit to the rest of society is great; therefore it is right and proper for society to execute the redheads.
The militarized police state is here, has been here and is reality. One of the best examples in the United States of Orwellian Double Speak is the term “Peace Officer.” We use this to define an individual hired to use aggressive force against the citizens and throw them into cages. Most accept this and do not perceive is as an issue. Many defend it’s presence and declare it a ‘necessary evil.’ By declaring it a ‘necessary evil’ you have already acknowledged it is evil. Now one must reject the idea that evil is necessary.
We all commit abstract ‘crimes’ against the state, some are just lucky enough not to be caught. There is a double standard which favors those in the state to this which I briefly mentioned in another article called “Not All Are Equal In The Eyes Of The Law.” The reality is that police are under no obligation to protect you. They are to serve the will of the state. They are the power the state uses to assert its power over you. This was validated by the Supreme Court in 2005 when Justices ruled that Police do not have a constitutional duty to protect someone.To even claim we need police for ‘safety’ is a complete misunderstanding in what their purpose is.
One can point to many abuses of power that have been caught on tape recently. Police are objecting more and more to being filmed. It is frightening that they wish to use aggressive force on citizens and not be held accountable for what is going on. What do they hide? Why is recording something they fear? The state backs them, like in Illinois where you can receive up to 15 years for filming a Cop. One thing that is essential is to film these people carrying out the states will. News reports of Children being slaughtered while they sleep like in the case of Aiyana Jones, violent abuse of citizens, murdering household pets and much more have been in recent headlines. Websites like Injustice Everywhere do a good job at collecting reports of the massive violations and criminal activity within these departments.
Military Surplus is being bought up in bulk by police departments for use against citizens. Often the true criminal activity taking place is by the Police Department. In the case of Joe Arpaio the power of the police force is used for self gain. Joe Arpaio is the criminal who is declared a national hero. Here we see business owners being forced to dump their resources into defending themselves against the allegations of the state. It does not matter if the business or individual is innocent or guilty, they have been crushed by court and lawyer fees attempting to defend themselves. The absence of conviction, or a declaration of ‘innocent’ does not serve as reparations to all the loss and damage. Some have opened their eyes now with talks about deploying drones and Army units on U.S. soil. The reality is that those are just minor concerns compared to what already exists.
There is the constant theft by the police of the citizens property. Not only are they the force necessary to maintain the extortion racket they call taxation, but they directly steal property. Civil asset forfeiture is the practice of seizing and keeping property that police claim was used in a crime. This property does not have to actually be used in a crime, only a claim has to be made. It can be the property of someone other than the individual the police stole it from.
In a system where people are detained in jail cells before being found guilty justice is a joke. “In jail awaiting trial.” Guilty until proven innocent is the American way. It is time we began to question the power of the government. ‘Big Government’ did not start with ‘ObamaCare’ or the ‘Patriot Act.’ The structure and foundation for the power of the state was accepted by giving up our liberty on what many perceive as a smaller scale by throwing that liberty away for what we were told was a little protection which in reality exists to defend and strengthen the state. Until we abolish this state ran monopoly they will continue to seize more power and trample on your rights.
I am uncertain of how much support H.R. 5741 will do in the house. Part of me sees it as ridiculous, but with the power individuals invest in the words written by these men and women labeled as “law” nothing shocks me. H.R. 5741 is labeled the “Universal National Service Act.” This is just another of the many examples of nationalism in the united states. It describes itself as a bill:
To require all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, to authorize the induction of persons in the uniformed services during wartime to meet end-strength requirements of the uniformed services, and for other purposes.
What wartime? We seem to be a nation that has been at war for decades. When we have no enemy we invent them. Prohibition has become the “War on Drugs.” We war against concepts like “terrorism.” Then we go to the endless oil wars in the middle east. We start out waring over an oil company and overthrowing governments in the 1950s’ and this has continued to build and spiral out of control.
As the empire grows taxation can only go so far until you must directly serve the state. We labeled our nationalism and defense of culture “homeland security” one of the most nationalist concepts in the United States. A war against people who have not paid homage to the state by paying the state for it’s freedom and legitimacy as a citizen. The Republicans mostly want those people out of the country. The Democrats want those people to be registered in the databases of the state. Both parties want to trap those people in the system and control over them so they can steal the products of their labor. Now they are seeking them to directly serve the state with the rest of us.
The term ‘national service’ means military service or service in a civilian capacity that, as determined by the President, promotes the national defense, including national or community service and service related to homeland security.
This also seems to be giving more direct power to one office and title to determine how you will serve the state. You may be of the camp that President Obama means the best for us all, but I ask you what about when the Republicans regain control? What about the next George W. Bush?
We are looking at what seems to be mostly a new draft and forced servitude to the military in this bill. It also extends to other areas. What I spoke of in my articles pointing out the brainwashing of the individual by the state through it’s military is no doubt essential to making this happen. Read the article here. Devotion to the state will only increase at this point.
If something like this becomes law the brainwashing will not be limited to those who choose to be a part of it. It will be forced on a majority it seems. Every able bodied citizen shall be devoted to the state.
Many places are calling it the Slavery Bill. I would be more eager to compare it to other nationalist movements. Our sense of nationalism is strong especially with the right in certain areas. The left has embraced a certain nationalist devotion to the new Obama administration. These two factions both devoted to the state show how more and more are coming to worship the state.