Part 1: Introduction
I am an Anarchist. This means that I believe that authority, or all non-defensive forms of coercion, are antagonistic towards the public good. When it comes to politics, this means that I am a Libertarian; I advocate a social order that allows for the greatest amount of personal independence, a system where the laws are determined wholly by the people. Of course there will be insults to the decision-making ability of the common people. But, it is only the people who can be trusted to look after their own interests genuinely. It's not really a question of who is more capable, more intelligent, or more willing -- in fact, these are all wonderful characteristics of famous leaders throughout history, but it was their exceptional skill which allowed them to oppress their people effectively. The question of politics is a matter of who determines the law. Is it the people, the ones who the law is made for, or is it the governors, those who always find themselves avoiding the penalties of crime simply by their position? We must be free of any and all political tyrants. They are the persons who abuse the good will of the people and manipulate the flow of information, only that they may build their own personal greatness on the suffering of the multitudes.
When it comes to the issue of commerce, trade, and the economy, being an Anarchist means I am a Socialist. A political authority that bans literature, imprisons dissidents, and murders the innocent is a threat to the common people of society. It is equally unjust when an economic authority pays so little to the workers that they must work sixteen hours shifts, hiring their children to sacrifice their life and limbs operating dangerous machinery. What is it that makes an economic or political authority? One is made an authority when they possess the ability to coerce others to their whim. All oppressive, totalitarian authorities use force as a method of gaining the compliance of the masses. Under threat, people are required to change their behaviors so that nothing they do can harm or otherwise change the system. A political authority's strength lies in the ability to imprison or kill. It is recognized immediately as a threat. An economic authority, however, will compel society to its wishes by threatening the same thing: if you do not adhere to our demands, you will not be given money, and you will therefore not be able to purchase the necessities of life.
The force behind both political and economic authorities then is distinctly violent and cruel in nature. For those who are in control, the only goal they can have is the maintenance and development of their power. And this translates to creating masterful, new systems of social control. The greater the compulsion, the stronger the authority.
I believe in the abolition of authority and the removal of those who victimize the people. This is the definition of an Anarchist.
Part 2: People Need the Government
In nearly every public address that George Bush has given, he has used the word "terrorist" multiple times; he uses phrases like, "If you're not with us, you're against us," or "If we stop now, the terrorists will win," or "The United States government is constantly combating terrorism." It's a very rare occurrence to see the president speaking in public without using the word "terrorist" once. And since the horrible destruction that happened on September 11 of 2001, the word "terrorist" has taken on a completely new and reformed image in the hearts and minds of Americans. The 9-11 Commission investigated the matter and accused the FBI of having the fault of "...perceived legal barriers to sharing information..." [Section: "Problems in the FBI."] From an outside perspective, this actually translates to: The intelligence agencies in the United States were all fully aware of the attacks that were going to take place on the World Trade Center. Those who held the reigns of power, however, had so much more to gain from the bombings than those terrorists could ever think they were accomplishing. While the militants and extremists started to celebrate the deaths of our children, the Bush administration and other government officials also had a reason to celebrate: now the people will become more obedient to government, they will sacrifice civil liberties for a perceived sense of justice, they will blindly follow the law -- patriotism starts to flow through the veins of Americans again as the one thing necessary for oppression and tyranny rises: people having a stronger sense of needing their "protector."
There is really no excuse for what the Bush administration allowed to happen on that fateful day. A few politicians talked about "information sharing problems between intelligence agencies." Again, more lies fed to us by our government. Is this really the first time that the FBI, the CIA, and the NSA had information about a national disaster and then did nothing? Well, there is the case of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International...
Of course the issue of BCCI is a very complicated one. The CIA and other intelligence agencies in the United States were all well aware that BCCI was stealing billions of dollars from those who banked with them. The records that were obtained from BCCI, however, showed that the CIA was pay rolling terrorists in Third World countries -- they had a vested interest in keeping the oppressive syndicate alive and well. In the end, over ten billion dollars was stolen from the public, sparking the recession of the early 1990's. The people of Pakistan made a wise choice when they voted in the Socialist Party; an initial move of Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was the nationalization of the banking system, since it was especially rife with this kind of abuse. Among the first corporations banned from his nation was the BCCI bank. His people were saved from a rate of unemployment and joblessness that debilitated the American economy. And of course there were politicians and "representatives of the people" at this time who claimed they worked to reform "information-sharing" among the intelligence agencies.
The deaths of thousands of Americans and then ten billion dollars stolen from those who banked with BCCI. But, no, the history of government manipulating information to make people need them doesn't start in 1980 and end in 2002. There is the case of the Pentagon Papers, which still remain largely unpublished and unavailable to the public. The intelligence agencies of the United States government promised the public that America was winning the Vietnam War; one of the promises he made to the American people was a demilitarization of the efforts in that Southeast Asian nation. Journalists from our time would recall what had happened...
The Spanish American War is accepted by most historians today as a simple matter of conquest and Imperialism. It was not a matter of defending the rights of American citizens or stopping a terrorist threat. The USS Maine was parked in the harbor of Havana, Cuba, where an explosion ripped through it and killed hundreds of men. The United States government had released official reports at that time from its intelligence agencies that the explosion was caused by the Spanish, which became their justification for war. It seems a little suspicious to anyone with an eye for the scientific method; the United States government places its soldiers and troops in another country "for non-military purposes," and the result is their destruction from a nation that has showed absolutely no aggression towards Americans? Of course, a probe later would uncover that the explosion was internal; if one were so willed to the truth and dedicated to the evidence that history has furnished, they might come to the theory that there was a bomb placed on the USS Maine by American leaders. The Bush Administration relied on bad intelligence when invading Iraq as it has admitted, but there was sharp criticism of the evidence he had been using. The history of government repeats itself: the government encourages the people to believe that they are defending their rights, that everyone has something to fear from a foreign enemy, and in the end, every time, it is always the domestic government which has been the greatest and most unrelenting enemy of the people.
The 9-11 Commission's report was a bit historically inaccurate. In one part, it reads: "It would be able to influence the leadership and the budgets of the counterterrorism operating arms of the CIA, the FBI, and the departments of Defense and Homeland Security." [Section: Unity of Effort: A National Counterterrorism Center.] One might say that the entire report is invalid if its writers truly believe this. If the CIA is truly a "counterterrorism" organization, then why do we have extensive and undeniable evidence of them pay rolling terrorists in other countries? Are bombings and executions acceptable, so long as they are inflicted only upon those who are not Americans? Does that not count as "terrorism"? The governments of the world are much more interested in pitting people against other people; if the masses ever realized who was truly threatening their culture, their society, and their way of life, all governments would be dissolved in a matter of days or weeks.
Image: By Doctor Seuss
Can the governments of the world be trusted? Can our faith be safely placed in to the hands of nation states? World War One was raging for years before the United States entered the battle. German forces sank the Lusitania, a luxury ship carrying nearly 1,200 passengers, many of them Americans. Woodrow Wilson delivered a speech to his people, saying, "Even hospital ships and ships carrying relief to the sorely bereaved and stricken people of Belgium, though the latter were provided with safe conduct through the proscribed areas by the German Government itself and were distinguished by unmistakable marks of identity, have been sunk with the same reckless lack of compassion or of principle:" [Woodrow Wilson before congress, April 2, 1917.] The American people were led in to this great world war, with the unflinching belief that there was a superpower that had threatened them and their way of life. What was neglected in all of the mainstream newspapers at that time was that the Lusitania was also carrying munitions and weapon supplies to England. The US government had involved the entire nation in a world war on the false premise that its ships weren't being used to give military aid to England during the war. But when the government repeats over and over again, that terrorists, Spain, Germany, Mexico, Cuba, Grenada, Haiti, Guatemala, Vietnam, Korea, China, and Russia are a threat to the people of America, the citizenry is raised up in arms. Fifty thousand Americans were sent to their deaths; and they only marched willingly because the government and the mainstream media had constantly perpetuated the false notion that Germany was attacking America's ships without cause.
The Treaty of Versailles effectively crippled and destroyed the economy of Germany, creating the perfect conditions for the rise of a militarist dictator who had less than half of the support of his own country. The sight of concentration camps, of tens of millions enslaved and executed, of governments slaughtering their people openly in the streets -- all of this might have been avoided if someone was willing and strong enough to expose the lies of Woodrow Wilson. But, there were dissidents. Big Bill Haywood and over one hundred others were convicted and sentenced to twenty years imprisonment, because they promoted the truth: the idea that war is a tool of governments, to satisfy the interests of the economic and political elites, at the great cost of human life. [Siitonen, Harry (March, 2005). The IWW - Its First 100 Years. Industrial Workers of the World. URL accessed on 2006-03-31.] Once again, wartime brought with it a suspension of civil liberties and civil rights. Looking at history as it happened and not as our presidents so slyly elude to will change your perception of the world as it happens today. George Bush constantly makes references to the Patriot Act as a tool of America to defeat the enemies of its people. And, of course the title "Patriot Act" is used, because anyone who would oppose the United States fighting terrorists must not be a patriot. The games the government plays today are hardly new. In fact, they perfectly capture the activities of organized states as they have been carried out for centuries. Perhaps George Bush's violation of personal liberties and freedoms will be enough to spark another international war -- and Americans will only have to blame themselves when rain of nuclear fire strikes them, because their government involved them in a war after repeatedly lying to them and then imprisoning those who try to tell the truth.
Part 3: Opinion-Setting Campaigns
On American currency, one can find the phrase "E Pluribus Unum," which translated directly from Latin reads: "One out of more." There are few phrases more worthy of describing a real Democracy, but since the Enlightenment, people have started to believe that the government was made for them and that they were not made for the government. The policy of the state has since changed, from an aggressive and enslaving tone to a sympathetic and quietly coercive manner: the orders of the state no longer carrying the seal of the church, god, and the army, but they all come with the message that the people need its government to be strong and powerful. The people, our masters tell us, need the army, the navy, the air force, the police, congress, parliament, the president, and all other authoritarian aspects of the state. People start to believe that an authority with power is the greatest tool in defeating the things which threaten their lives and their culture; few people stop to think that such a great tool will also be used against them.
E Pluribus Unum... It stands for real Democracy. The will of the people is the only inviolable course for a society to take. Those today who are called presidents, prime ministers, congressmen, and senators, they are all referred to as representatives, because they were held with the sacred task of representing the interests of all of society and then carrying them out in all policy. I believe, like Jean Jacques Rousseau that "the voice of the people is in fact the voice of God." ["A Discourse on Political Economy," 1755.] The most democratic of statesman will consider himself a blank canvas, to obligingly and lovingly carry out the will of the people, regardless of his own personal opinions. At best, this model of government serves to eliminate the complications of setting the policy of a collective by giving one person the authority to interpret the voice of society. Naturally, the faith of citizens has betrayed them, sending them their children in boxes, casualties of some armed conflict, or casualties to the massive poverty created by our socio-economic organization, one constantly defended by the military and the organized states as "the equivalent of justice."
Benito Mussolini, the dictator of Italy and butcher of his own people, would deliver in a speech, "Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society; it denies that numbers alone can govern by means of a periodical consultation..." ["What is Fascism?" 1932.] Perhaps Mussolini should have looked to the wisdom of the other Italian political theorists before him. To quote Machiavelli, "...one cannot by fair dealing, and without injury to others, satisfy the nobles, but you can satisfy the people, for their object is more righteous than that of the nobles, the latter wishing to oppress, whilst the former only desire not to be oppressed." ["The Prince," by Nicollo Machiavelli, written c. 1505, translated by W. K. Marriott, chapter 9.] By being the majority, the individuals of a collective are the greatest judges of what they as a society can want; and it is the society, having its own continual experience with itself, that understands its own pains best. Should the power ever leave their hands and be secured by absolute dictators and authoritarian magistrates, the end result -- as history constantly proves -- is countless dead and dying, following orders with pure obedience, because they were led to believe that sacrificing themselves for a government meant the same thing as dying for liberty and the security of their own people. With the ideas the world has about humanity, it is no longer simple enough for a government to coerce its people by gun and bayonet. It has now become a war of ideas...
In the 1950's and 1960's, there were many journalists who were critical of the way President Richard Nixon was running the government. Plans were made by the Nixon administration to poison these journalists with LSD while they were reporting the news, to induce hallucinations and awkward behavior that might discredit such reporters. The White House Chief of Staff for Richard Nixon, Harry R. Haldeman, would write...
Of course, in their discussions and preparations for carrying out this plan, I imagine the question of legality never came up. With all of their propaganda on the destructive capability of drugs and how no citizen is good enough to be trusted with such a chemical, one might think that Nixon's administration would have been the first to oppose such a plan. Nor did they ever doubt their righteousness when it came to secret bombings or clandestine break-ins; the protectors of the American people never stopped once to think that they were disobeying the will of their citizens by burning their buildings and putting their lives at risk. But, the makers of the law are also the greatest violators of their own policy.
Why would a government ever find a means and method of profiting by manipulating opinions and ideas? In the past, the state has forged and fabricated evidence to justify its military actions, but now it is using the same tactics to change opinions. Nixon had use in dosing his opponents with LSD because then the people would start to believe that those who opposed the government were psychotic, emotionally unbalanced, and otherwise untrustworthy. The only role of Democratic government is to accept the will and wishes of the people as though god was speaking directly to them; but opinion-setting campaigns have become a particularly favored pastime of all governments. The state is no longer the humble and sincere carrier of people's will. It now sets the agenda for what people should believe. Our only natural conclusion can be that the idea of authority and the state is antagonistic towards a real and genuine expression of the people's will, that is, true democracy.
The National Security Agency in the United States right now is engaged in a wiretapping program that listens to all phone calls made overseas. President George Bush has launched a criminal investigation to discover who leaked this information to the public. Of course he claimed that his concern was "national security." ["John Dean appears at hearing on whether Bush should be censured," Friday, March 31, 2006, Associated Press.] I'm sure Woodrow Wilson's concern was "national security" when he was shipping weapons to England, involving his people in a world war that would lead to the deaths of possibly hundreds of millions. President McKinley, who knowingly invaded Cuba on forged and fabricated evidence, must have also held the same concern: the average American cannot be trusted to know what their government is doing internationally, whether or not the actions of the government will lead to the deaths of its own citizens. In the case of international banks stealing billions of dollars, terrorists being paid by the FBI in third world countries, the government suppressing information about what it knew on 9/11, every time, again and again, our leaders always tell us that they are the ones who have absolute and irrevocable authority; and it is the people who try to expose the lies that find themselves sitting in prisons and jail cells. The lies the US government told its people have led to an unbelievable cost of human sacrifice. Though the intentions of Conservatives and Republicans in the White House may be "national security," I'm sure it will be their covert military operations in foreign countries that spark another world war. Following their program of national policy is going to be what causes more hate and disgust for our nation in the world image.
When Vladimir Lenin gained control of the Russian government, he delivered in a speech to his people: "The government abolishes secret diplomacy, and, for its part, announces its firm intention to conduct all negotiations quite openly in full view of the whole people. It will proceed immediately with the full publication of the secret treaties endorsed or concluded by the government of land-owners and capitalists from February to October 25, 1917." ["Second All-Russia Congress of Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies," Lenin, Report on Peace, October 26 (November 8).] An absolute authority is always so willing and unflinching to expose the lies and cruelty of the one before it. Upon gaining power in the Russian government, Lenin handed over most of his peoples' homeland to Germany. It was a bit ironic, seeing as it was the German government that endorsed and encouraged Lenin, when extradited, to overthrow the Russian government. The self-proclaimed hero of the Russian Revolution sacrificed the homes and lives of his people to pogromists, murderers, and rapists. Perhaps Lenin forgot the true slogan of all socialist revolutionaries: no peace without justice. Being the "master of socialist and Marxist theory," one might assume that Lenin wouldn't drink the blood of the Capitalist system. The leader had promised to save his people if only they gave him absolute authority; and once power was within his grasp, it was used for the explicit purposes of exploiting, manipulating, and controlling the people.
Wikipedia today is the world's free encyclopedia: anyone is allowed to go in and edit any entries. Oddly enough, with such a free style of writing, editing, and publishing, it has been hailed as a very informative and relatively unbiased collection of articles, now passing over one million entries. Members of the White House, however, made more than a thousand edits to the online encyclopedia, writing out all of the negative or otherwise harmful content about the elected representatives. For example, the entry for Marty Meehan, the Representative of Massachusetts, originally read: "Meehan first ran for Congress in 1992 on a platform of reform. As part of that platform Meehan made a pledge to not serve more than four terms, a central part of his campaign. This breaking of the pledge has been a controversial issue in the 5th Congressional District of Massachusetts." The edited entry reads: "Meehan was elected to Congress in 1992 on a plan to eliminate the deficit. His fiscally responsible voting record since then has earned him praise from citizen watchdog groups. He was re-elected by a large margin in 2004." Countless other changes can be found. ["Rewriting history under the dome," By Evan Lehmann, Sun Washington Bureau.] If the true purpose of government is to defend the rights and liberties of its citizens, then why is tax money being spent on restricting what information is available to the public about their elected candidates? Somehow, I'm sure Bush's administration could explain lying to the public about the public record of his associates is the equivalent of defending national security. The Alien and Sedition Acts passed by President John Adams allowed him to deport any immigrant or imprison anyone who spoke out against the government. The Sedition Act reads...
These acts included the Naturalization Act, which nearly tripled the amount of time it required for an immigrant to become a citizen with voting privileges. The Wikipedia entry on the Sedition Act reads: "Because most immigrants became Democratic-Republicans, the Naturalization Act's longer residency requirement meant that fewer of them could become citizens and vote against the Federalists." ["Alien and Sedition Acts," Wikipedia.] Laws were enacted by the federal government to prevent its people from partaking in politics, but it only restricted those who might vote against John Adams and his political party. The Jim Crow Laws are another marvelous example of the government restricting the freedoms and liberties of citizens, when respecting the political rights of those citizens would threaten the foundation of the corrupt government. Derrick Guidry, a pro-Democracy advocate, had volunteered to help a strike. He was convicted of the charge of "Disrespecting an Officer;" the District Attorney, the lap dogs of government-sponsored terror, asked for a ten year imprisonment. ["You can't jail the spirit but you can't kill it either," Publish Date: 07/10/1991, The Minnesota Daily, Archives.] Other laws loitering, obstruction of a public passage, and criminal trespassing (on public property) are all used as the purpose of arrest by many police officers during peaceful protests. It's a type of abuse that has become expected by the people. And over two hundred years ago, some very faithful political theorists would write...
Programs like DARE constantly spend millions of tax dollars in their attempt to convince the public to take the position that drugs are harmful and ought to remain illegal. Again, more opinion-setting campaigns. The DEA released a publication called "Speaking Out Against Drug Legalization;" the cover had a picture of a syringe lying on top of a Marijuana leaf. Their aim is to teach that "Crime, violence, and drug use go hand-in-hand." [March 2003, DEA.gov.] The learning institutions ban all professors who might try to use their ten plus years worth of degrees at establishing the value and use of drugs to society, such as the case was with Timothy Leary. If it is true that drugs only create crime, violence, and drug use, then why has the government banned all research in to the matter? A scientist who tries to experiment to discover the value of Marijuana will be imprisoned for years. A petition to add ADD to the list of qualifying conditions of the Oregon Medical Marijuana Act reads: "There is a complete lack of clinical data to support a finding that cannabis is an effective treatment for ADD. The information is circumstantial. This is in large part due to Federal policies which routinely reject any research request aimed at establishing the basis of cannabis' efficacy." [Oregon Medical Marijuana Act, Debilitating Medical Conditions Advisory Panel, March 28, 2000.]
Some American citizens might find it a bit disconcerting that the Republican Party in the late 70's and early 80's received most of its campaign funding from terrorists in the Middle East. Everyone is familiar with the 52 hostages held captive in the American Embassy in Iran. In order to have them freed and have the cooperation of such terrorists, Reagan supplied them with weapons of mass destruction. Barbara Honegger, a member of the Reagan-Bush policy research analyst team, would describe the details: "Lavi [the Iranian emissary] also claims that he first offered to arrange for the U.S. hostages to be delivered to the Reagan-Bush camp in Karachi, Pakistan, before, not after, the election in exchange for the delivery of approximately $50 million worth of military equipment and spare parts for Iran's F-14 fighter jets." ["October Surprise," by Barbara Honegger, 1989, page 17.] This is hardly surprising. In the 1996 Clinton-Gore campaign, the Democrats received campaign funding from the Chinese Communist Party, hardly a defender of human rights, liberty or genuine Socialism. When Clinton was elected, he gave rocket technology to the Chinese government, making them more effective butchers of their own people. [Kerrey: Senate report on Clinton-China ties no 'love letter', May 5, 1999, CNN.com.] This is our representative government, but the Anarchists will show no surprise at what both the "conservatives" and the "liberals" are doing. The fact that our national elections are determined by foreign powers responsible for putting millions in slavery -- this fact should come as a bit startling to anyone who considers themselves a defender of truth and justice.
Image: U.S. Propaganda
Part 4: Revolution
Every year, immigrants in this country allowed to become citizens if they uphold the laws of the nation -- little is said about defending the rights of the people; in fact, the less said, the better. If they were immigrants, individuals like Martin Luther King and Susan B. Anthony would have been the first people deported. What makes someone a true citizen of their society is not whether they respect the law or not, but whether they have the strength and willingness to break the laws they know to be wrong and oppressive. Instead, immigrants are forced to take an oath to uphold all of our laws.
People constantly point to humanity as the greatest menace to the planet, leaving destruction and shattered existence in its path. This isn't quite true. It is people guided by authority, the ambitious carriers of orders, that are responsible for the disaster that has come to accept the title modern life. As much as the intention of the enlightenment thinkers was to put mankind in a better disposition against himself, they all have failed. The government panders to the interests of its people through propaganda, opinion-setting schemes, and misinformation. There is no other way for an authority to behave. The only alternative to these systems of self-destruction, violence, and coercion is the absolution of authority in every form. It has failed us on moral level and ultimately, it has failed us on a practical level.
Some authors have the poor happen of mistaking Capitalism, the Free-Trade style of economy, as the greatest champion of liberty. I don't understand where their logic comes from. Capitalism produces a society of people who need to carry out the orders and the will of a few elites in order to survive. And that is the greatest prerequisite to any tyranny: people coerced into a social condition that requires them to fight and die for things they'll never understand. Few things can be more tyrannical than the masters of wealth distributing crumbs to watch the rest of the world dance; to say that Free Trade is the equivalent of liberty is to make the gravest of mistakes. This doesn't necessarily make Socialism the de facto alternative. No, that requires a bit more space to prove: I recommend reading Class Conscious.
An authority is defined as a person who holds the privilege of possessing more strength in determining the economic, the social, or the political order of a collective. Pure Anarchism, as the most complete and absolute theory of Libertarian ideology, stresses that if anyone ever possesses authority, it will naturally draw out iniquity and injustice of every type, and that these things can naturally only stem from authority; that is, authority as defined by one person having more privilege than the others in directing the activity of all of society. The definition of authority here is essential. Anarchism is a really complicated issue, and people don't understand the way phrases like "authority" or "will of the people" are used. Sometimes authority interpreted as "expressing your will against the will of another," but no, it actually means the ability to express your will on society in a way that nobody else is allowed to, by the organization of the social order. That is the principle difference of Anarchism and Statism.