...Unless You Believe in the Lies
An Open Letter by Punkerslut to
There's some curious remarks in your "about" page. For instance, your organization "believes in the freedom of the individual in all aspects of life to as great an extent as possible." At the same time, one your principles of a "Free Society" is "Strong National Defences." That is to say, in less popular language, "a police state," or a government can heavily outpower, in force and influence, any private individual or association in society. There is much in your national opinion that would convince any average reader of this.
Consider, your stance on the European Union. "The EU is encroaching on our criminal justice system eroding English common law and slicing away our protections against an overweening state." At first thought, I think about the case of McDonald's versus Morris and Steel, where the United Kingdom Supreme Court ordered that scientists, activists, and journalists publicly apologize for saying that fast food is unhealthy. Your criminal system is pathetic and rotten, and even Orwell said "The degree of freedom of the press existing in this country is often over-rated." ("Freedom of the Park," Orwell, 1945.)
But, you didn't quite make much of a clamor against the system of Bourgeoisie Capitalism that essentially stripped every British citizen of the capacity to express ideas intelligently. Or, as Orwell continued, "...even those who declare themselves to be in favour of freedom of opinion generally drop their claim when it is their own adversaries who are being prosecuted" (Same article.) Isn't this a peculiar sight? Strong national forces contributed to sterilizing the intellectual environment of Britain, because it was illegal for any person to say "eating beef tainted with steroids, antibacterial drugs, artificial sugars, and synthetic preservatives is unhealthy." Who enforced this policy? Strong national forces. Who fought against this policy? It was not.... the strong national forces.
This brings up an even more important matter: the incompatibility of Democracy and Capitalism. You believe in "Individual Freedom" and "The Rule of Law" (which entails equal treatment of all citizens). Yet, the government machine guns workers in the streets. Look at the Union Control Acts passed by Winston Churchill, look at the celebration of the bombing of unions by labour and conservative MP's during World War 2 -- everywhere you turn, the law is made not represent the people, but to represent the wealthy classes. Why else would war be waged in Afghanistan and Iraq? Why else would corporations donate millions of dollars to the political campaigns of politicians seeking war? Why else was it illegal to say the basic truth about deep-fried, rotten flesh in Britain?
Namely, because the Capitalists control government, and rule of the common people is impossible. Where is there citizen rule, when dictators are propped up by the US and the UK, such as in Iran and Haiti, in Chile and South Africa, in Venezuela and Indonesia, in China and in Vietnam? How do you believe in "national parliamentary democracy" when it has never existed? For a small population of the British Empire, it may, but democracy isn't about a small population -- it's about everyone. How do you support strong national defenses when they have been used for nothing but dictators, oppression of organized workers, and violating the civil rights of every citizen on behalf of capitalists?
At best, it seems like you want to retain the concept of freedom, without what it actually implies. "Rule of Law"? No, the law states that all shall be treated equally, and this does not occur. Corporations that embezzle billions from the public fund, like the RIAA or any London financial group, don't receive prison time. Children who steal food from the public markets, though, do serve prison time.
Why is it that stealing ten cents worth of bread is treated more harshly than stealing $40 billion from the public taxpayers? I would say because Capitalists rule government, and a poor homeless and starving child, obviously the child of the whole working class, is not worth so much compared to the profits of Capitalism. More importantly, I dare ask, why is it that you don't say a thing about it? Why is it that "rule of law" matters when it comes to breaking up unions, but not to treating associations equally? Why is "limited government" a principle in destroying social spending, but not in restricting the use of police and injunctions against the poor? Why is "free market economy" free for the rich, but a prison for the poor? You have no answers, and if you read that Scottish philosopher, Adam Smith, maybe you would know...
If you doubt this, in the words of Adam Smith, then you are "as ignorant of the world as of the subject [of economics]." This was written two hundred years ago in Britain, so you should know full well that the modern father of economics has never seen Capitalists do anything to improve the conditions of the people around them. Why might such an elementary book with such basic ideas escape your attention? Again, we can turn to George Orwell, "...the fact that most of the press is owned by a few people operates in much the same way as State censorship."
Have you seen an empire that did not have vassals, aristocrats, an upper caste, capitalists, corporations, or some type of exploiter? No, you probably have not. Every form of slavery comes through "strong national defenses." There is no logic in trying to attain personal liberty by having more guns and bayonets in the hands of those who murder unionists in the street, who rig elections in underdeveloped nations, and who support capitalist dictatorships across the globe. How can we be more free if you think freedom means "arming those who oppress the people"?
Equality, freedom, liberty, rule of law. All of these concepts have been redefined by you to mean something completely alien to what they originally are. Have you read Rousseau and the Social Contract? Then you know that no citizen can have a law enforced against them, unless they individually consent to the law. "...in the presence of the person represented, representatives no longer exist." ("Social Contract," Book 3, Chapter 13.) "Rule of Law" translates to "circumventing all liberties to establish the dominance of a few capitalists." "Limited Government" translates to "huge, gigantic armies in the hands of the oppressors." And "Free Market Economy" translates just to "Unfree Capitalist Domination."
Even the word "Libertarian" has been taken. Do you even know where this word comes from? Did you ever consider maybe looking it up in the dictionary before, say, using it to describe your organization? Last time I checked, it was coined in the 1840's, by a self-described, French Anarcho-Communist, Joseph Dejacques, in a letter to Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.
He used the word to describe what he himself believed: that a person ought to have complete liberty in economy and politics. That is, the wealth you make is yours -- it is your property, and since Capitalists make nothing, everything they possess is stolen. Capitalism, itself, is theft. Government is the co-conspirator of theft. This is what Libertarianism means. But, it sounded nice, and probably looks good on paper, so why not throw in "Libertarian." Throw it in next to "Individual Freedom" and "Limited Government," and make your lies well-rounded.
I've read through your material. I can only hope you've read this far. Thank you, I patiently await your response.