sitakali

The following is an excerpt from The Barefoot Bum:

Anarchism is a curious topic. Its linguistic roots mean literally “no rule”. But by these roots no self-described anarchist can impose a definition of anarchism…

Taken to the logical extreme of its roots in a non-vacuous sense, anarchism would entail absolutely no coercion whatsoever…

Locking your front door or physically hanging onto your wallet is coercive: you are using physical force to prevent a person from doing what he wants to do.

(Bold emphasis mine)

Let’s start at the beginning, shall we?

1. “No rule” means “no imposition/coercion.” The Barefoot Bum concludes that “no rule” means “no imposition.” This step in his argument is already false. “No rule” means exactly that—no rulers. Generally, most anarchists are more specific in saying that anarchism means “no government” or “no state.” Most, including me, will stop at that.

No government doesn’t even mean no governance; governance is the act of administering policy and decisions. If an anarchist society were divided up into syndicates (as it probably would be, since this is the most practical application of anarchism), each syndicate might elect a representative who would then speak to the representatives of other syndicates. The leadership could be rotational, the decision-making could be through consensus, but whoever carries out a decision, even if it is agreed upon by all, is practicing governance.

2. “No coercion” means you cannot lock your doors or keep your wallet/shirt. As I have already demonstrated that the “no imposition/coersion” assumption is false, I don’t really need to go on, but I will anyway. Even if “no rule” did mean “no coercion,” it wouldn’t necessarily be logical to push the argument even further down the slippery slope to “no locked doors/ no personal belongings.”

The Barefoot Bum uses the argument that someone (George) cannot hang on to his own shirt*, because if someone else (Sue) wants the shirt, George would have to use physical force to keep Sue from taking it. But by that same logic, Sue would be using physical force to take George’s shirt, if he doesn’t want her to. By The Barefoot Bum’s own arguments, both parties are using coercion, simply depending on what either person wants. These wants cancel each other out, once again rendering The Barefoot Bum’s argument moot.

In the real world, including the anarchist world, the desires of the person who wears the shirt are more important than the desires of the person who wants to take the shirt (assuming everyone has enough clothing, which they would in a libertarian socialist society). Anarchism does not prohibit possession (not to be confused with private property), nor should it, even if there were no form of governance in that society. Forcing somebody to do something they don’t want to do, which would have an adverse affect on them physiologically/psychologically, is very different from e.g. forcing a toddler to share his toy. Yet both are technically forms of coercion. One form of coercion (the form The Barefoot Bum was talking about) cancels itself out easily using simple logic. The other doesn’t.

What I hate about these slippery-slope arguments is that they are so abstract and philosophical, they have no bearing on the real world except that they distract people from it, and convince people with poor reasoning skills that the argument made is actually valid. As I explained to The Barefoot Bum, a similar argument could be made about socialism:

Socialism is about equality. Therefore, it’s about 100% equality. Therefore, nobody can have or do anything that anybody else can’t have or do. If anybody is in a wheelchair, everybody has to be in a wheelchair. If anybody is blind, all have to cover their eyes. And if there are any women in a socialist society, all men have to make themselves bleed for five days out of the month.

I have seen that argument made seriously by right-Libertarians, and I can tell you, it’s a poor argument. Simply the fact that it’s made by right-Libertarians should point to that obvious fact.

Here’s another one:

Monarchy means “rule of one.” Therefore, only one person can rule. Therefore, if anybody but the monarch has any influence whatsoever on a policy, that policy must be scrapped. If the monarch chooses to change a policy based on his/her popularity or what the populace thinks about him/her in general, that policy cannot be changed. But then it has to be changed, because it was indirectly influenced by the populace.

etc.

Perhaps this is why I hate philosophy, in the “I have a degree in Philosophy” sense. Don’t get me wrong, my closest friends in college were philosophy majors. But a lot of it is plain intellectual masturbation (sorry, guys).

One (especially a philosopher) can take any idea or even political philosophy and render it useless if one has enough wanking time. I’m personally surprised that The Barefoot Bum didn’t just say something to the tune of:

Anarchism literally means ‘no rule.’ But what does ‘rule’ mean? And what does ‘no’ mean? Isn’t ‘no’ the ultimate negative statement? Should any system based on such a negative exist? Could it? And what does ‘it’ mean? I don’t know. Who am ‘I?’ What am ‘I?’ Who am I to claim to know what ‘I’ am…perhaps somebody else know more what it is like to be ‘me’ than ‘I’ do…?

…And so forth. I used to have these existential debates inside my head when I was eight.

* I chose to use a shirt instead of a wallet in the example so as not to bring money into the equation.

That’s what we tell our precious children. For, it is more important to us that they grow a tough skin than that we become aware of who is being bullying and abusive. And if you can catch a bully at a young age, you are much more likely to prevent them from becoming worse and worse.

But the wounds go deeper. This isn’t just about children in school. Many siblings may remember their older siblings being cruel and sadistic towards them, then telling them not to “tattle,” so their parents never know what’s wrong. What’s worse, some parents punish the younger sibling if they do “tattle,” instead of the older one for being a brat.

Yet even deeper. Truly abusive children and adults alike use this logic because it permeates our society, and any child can be forced to obey it. I am very close to many people who were abused and told not to “tell.” One was molested by their twelve-year-old babysitter, then told not to be a tattle tale. Another by their teacher. Yet another was sexually abused by their grandparents. But it’s a secret. “Our little secret.”

This is a culture of silence. Silence infests our ghettos and Third World countries; silence imprisons the weak and the helpless; silence saturates every crevice, every corner of our society. If you are attacked on a street in broad daylight, chances are nobody will come to your aid. We are the innocent bystanders. Feeling sick yet? If you’re not, perhaps you’re not paying attention.

As a child, I was ridiculed in school. I was treated horribly from age 6 to 13. I had several physical threats during that time. Yet I was never hit or attacked. Why? Because my mother taught me to tell. “If someone is hurting you, either your feelings or your body, tell someone.” I was trained that if one adult wouldn’t listen, to keep telling until somebody did. This helped perpetuate the ridicule to an extent, but really it was my insecure attitude more than anything else. And nobody touched me.

This video was sent to the police, and the bully was arrested. All the more reason to “tattle.”

Language can be used for control through fear, inspiration, anger, and pain. You can hurt somebody with words, even if you’re not looking at them. You can do it through the internet. Most people, however, believe that if you are hurt by somebody’s written verbal abuse, you should DEAL WITH IT. I put that in capitals, because that’s how they’ve said it to me. I’m not talking about someone saying, “you’re an asshole.” That’s just silly. I’m talking about persistent, cruel, sadistic attacks.

Many are unaware of the psychological damage that verbal/written abuse can cause. They should learn a little about sociology, anthropology, and the fact that above all else, humans are social beings. Language is our foundation, and it affects us as profoundly as anything else. It can be used to begin movements, start revolutions, and strike fear into people.

People these days are obsessed with conspiracy theories. From the global warming “hoax” and 9/11, to UFOs, the New World Order and the “socialist agenda,” loud people on the internet love to get their panties in a knot about whether or not some ginormous cover-up is happening. It’s as if a conspiracy is the most terrifying and disturbing thing that anyone can imagine.

Well, I’ve got news for you. The real world is seriously fucked up, and massive conspiracies are (at least mostly) not to blame. Who needs secrecy when our entire global socio-economic system is set up to benefit those in power already? What I am appalled by is how blatantly obvious some governments and organisations are about all the horrific shit they’re up to. Murdering over one hundred thousand people in Iraq wasn’t a cover-up. It was just labeled “war,” and was therefore justified in our sick, twisted minds.

There’s no cover-up involving world hunger; it is well-documented that empires raped and pillaged the land and the people of the Third World long ago, and forced them to focus on cash cropping (now called “exports-based agriculture”) instead of feeding themselves. The IMF and World Bank proudly boast their monstrous policies as “aiding” poor countries, by offering them loans that they couldn’t possibly pay back on conditions (such as the privatisation of public sectors) that destroy entire economies.

Some of this pride is also passed on to the public. The cries against “socialism,” the hatred of those less fortunate, and the reverence of individualistic greed (disguised as “personal responsibility” and “rational self-interest”) are all endorsed by the masses, most of whom would benefit greatly from socialist, pro-poor policies. We have been taught very well how to hate ourselves.

More terrifying than any conspiracy, more devastating than any government cover-up, is the fact that we are aware of the horrors that those in power create, and we passively perpetuate that status quo.

Perhaps we should focus on promoting public awareness of things that are already technically known.

Just to give you an idea of how much energy my brain uses versus how much time I spend putting my ideas to work, here are the fourteen novels whose entire plots I have in my head, none of which I have come even close to actually finishing.

Please note: If I don’t share details it’s because I don’t feel comfortable sharing them at this time.

Series

The Vampire Series:

Voice of the Ages: The Story of Ereshkigal – The story of the 15,000-year-old mother of all vampires.

The Hunter Sub-Series

Kali – The Hunter’s first life 3,000 BCE
Michael – The Hunter of the 16th century
Nina – The Hunter of the 1960s/70s

Dust to Dust Tetralogy: – the present Hunter


1. Dust to Dust (name flexible) – The Hunter (Vanessa) develops her abilities – This is the book I am focusing on right now.
2. The Tainted Soul
3. Disciples of Satan
4. The Next Generation

The Hunter is a very powerful vampire hunter who is reincarnated every time she dies (sound familiar? Get used to it, there isn’t anything “original” under the sun…). The series incorporates a lot of ancient Indian history and Hindu mythology into its own mythology.

Single novels

Teaching Angel - Chronicles a troubled girl’s last year in high school, and the bond she forms with her teacher.

The Twisted Knife – Two orphaned sisters living on their own discover a family heirloom that awakens witchy powers in them.

Awakening – The journey of a young woman who awakens to her conscience after having murdered three people.

Ghost from a Wishing Well (name flexible) – A teenage girl tries to heal the trauma of having witnessed her best friend’s accidental death, with the help of her other friends.

Immune – A girl obsessed with infectious diseases falls in love with an HIV-positive guy.

Bindi – A modern tale using Hindu mythology.

Just a question for deniers, since the science is already out there – What empirical “proof” would you need to convince you that global warming is getting worse, and is anthropogenic? Would the sky have to burst into flames? Perhaps we find a gigantic cauldron in middle of the US? Or, okay, how about this:

• Severe drought in Africa and Australia?
• Acidification of the oceans due to absorption of CO2?
• Hundreds of millions of climate refugees?
• Extinctions of species due to severe climate variation?
• Increased spread of tropical diseases and insects?

I know, I know, you can counter my evidence with the fact that “Wisconsin is really friggin’ cold right now.” I suggest that all those of you who actually think that is an argument against antrhopogenic climate change leave RIGHT NOW, so that people who actually understand science (at least from a primary-school level) can continue this conversation.

1. “Damn, I missed it. What horribly perverted scientific explanation did they use for the apocalypse?”
2. “So, which national monument’s dramatic, explosive destruction did I miss?”
3. “How many times should the plane have been decimated in the previous scene?”
4. “Have the people in power revealed that they are greedy fucktards yet?”
5. “Did I miss any not-so-subtle attempts at religious symbolism?”
6. “Has the protagonist’s romantic adversary died tragically yet?”
7. “Was the survival mission unnecessarily delayed until the last minute yet?”

And finally…

1. “Has every survivor started cheering and partying yet, despite the fact that over 6 billion people died horribly and violently?”
   

   Noooo!! Not the statue!

I found the Huffington Post through one of my favourite teachers from high school. He posts there occasionally and I enjoy what he has to say. He is thoughtful, articulate (of course—he was my English teacher), and a true progressive. For some strange reason, I assumed that the HuffPost was truly progressive too.

I enjoyed reading other writers as well, including celebrities like Alec Baldwin and Scarlett Johansson. I was okay with navigating around Deepak Chopra’s woo-woo crap, as long as the political posts were good. I decided to subscribe to the politics section there.

My first warning sign was when I was surfing the site and came across a post where you could—I kid you not—rate which celebrities had the best boobies. This struck me as the same form of cynicism that led PETA (People for the Exploitation of Tits and Ass) to put naked women in their ad campaigns. I’m sure it increased HuffPost’s male misogynist readership exponentially.

This was in a Huffington Post article

This BS continued. More celebrity gossip (Fergie: I’m Bisexual, Husband Josh Is “Well Endowed”)  and grossly anti-feminist eye candy (Eva Mendes Is Unbuttoned, Braless!) continued to spew forth from the website’s pages. And I continued to my version of ignoring it (quietly stewing and gagging). But then, on the politics page, came this article:

A Marred Holiday for One Arab American Vet

Sounds like the harrowing story of yet another Arab-American getting shit for his ethnicity due to the Fort Hood shootings, right? Well, not quite. This man felt so guilty for what Al Qaeda did on 9/11 that he started helping assist in interrogations. I had trouble feeling sorry for him:

One day Rajai’s team went into a house and was greeted by an old man and his two sons. “The man was so nice. He served us tea and no topic was off limits. We discussed politics and shared family pictures,” Rajai [Hakki] recalls. As they left the house, a commander came and ordered them to go back and arrest the two sons because this was a “target house”. Rajai had no option but to obey orders. He returned and placed bags over the sons’ heads and led them away, as their father looked on in silence.

“That kind of thing was always tough,” Hakki told the Huffington Post.

Really? Tough? Bagging human beings for torture is tough?! So I assume he can handle working at Guantanamo Bay then?

Hakki recently returned from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where he’d spent five months working for a contractor as an Arabic translator.

Oh, nice. He’s got quite a resume there. Anyway, that wasn’t the worst part. I scrolled down to look at some of the comments:

Rajai…You have NOTHING to be ashamed of. You are a true, brave American. Just because you come from the Middle East and your family practices Islam, doesn’t make you responsible for any of the deeds carried out by those who have hijacked your religion. You make us all proud.

*****

Maybe we need to take a lesson from the Chinese American Buddhist monks in the Los Angeles area who subscribe to the philosophy that we are ALL ONE people when they describe themselves as Americans.

*****

Rajai-
Stand proud brave American. You are judged for your actions not the actions of others.
Peace and prosperity to you.

Actually, that comment was quite fitting for how I feel. He is judged by his own actions. So I wrote a comment. It was censored and deleted. I assumed it was probably because I put the f-word in there (their policy is against “excessive swearing”), so I tried again:

Wow…that’s some serious moderation there.

What I was saying before was that I’m frankly shocked that this article is not about one of the many regular Arab-American soldiers out there. It’s about a man who participates in “interrogation,” a euphemism for torture.

This man is not responsible for what happened on 9/11—nor should he feel that he is–but he is responsible for his own actions in response to 9/11. I have never seen another article at the Huffington Post that paints an interrogator as a patriot, and never seen so many comments that commend an interrogator for being a “brave American.” If such an article had been posted in the past, the people here would be pissed.

My next comment was in response to another comment, and went like this:

And by the way, I can’t think of any other industrialised country in the world where people actually put that much pride in where they happened to be born. Americans are “all one people?” How about humans? Wow, moving to New Zealand has really opened my eyes to the culture of self-congratulation in the United States.

That one passed moderation. The previous comment didn’t. Why? Because I was offering a dissenting opinion of the actual topic of the article? It appears that arguing with another commenter is fine, as long as I don’t argue with the point of the article.

I have seen the Huffington Post move more and more towards the mainstream, and it’s making me feel ill. I have lost all respect for the site, and I invite others to comment or send them messages regarding their recent move toward the right…and their apparent transformation into a tabloid. And now they’re censoring dissenting views?! Needless to say, I have unsubscribed, and I hope others will too.

This morning, I was woken up by loud, high-pitched meows. It was my flatmate’s cat, Kaiya, a cute, petite five-year-old tortie. My flatmate had left for work, and Kaiya was hungry.

Kaiya has a normal sounding meow—that is until you try to sleep. Maybe it’s the fact that women are programmed to be awakened by high-pitched noises (like that of a baby), but whatever the reason, it is absolutely impossible for me to sleep through her meows.

I’m not supposed to feed her for various reasons, plus it’s just annoying to have a cat expect you to feed them at eight in the morning. My cat Sita (residing with my parents) waits until I get up. Plus, even though her meow is louder, it’s lower-pitched, so it doesn’t necessarily wake me.

Anyway, Kaiya meowed. And meowed. And she didn’t stop for an hour. I finally got up to check to see if she could get out. She could, she just didn’t want to. I should have thrown her out the door and closed all the windows, considering what happened next.

She came into my bedroom and got onto my bed, which she sometimes does. But then she crawled on top of me and started kneading the blanket, and I felt her claws through the comforter. I pushed her off, and she got on top again, kneaded me again, and laid down and fell asleep.

This was okay for the few minutes that I didn’t need to move, but when I did I pushed her off again. She got on top of me as soon as I had moved.

This continued about seven times throughout the morning until she finally left my room. And started meowing again.

About a half hour later, when I was officially awake, I picked up my laptop and opened it. Then I moved back toward my pillow to sit up. Unfortunately, there was something extremely furry in my way; I had almost sat on the cat. I picked her completely limp body up and told her she was the biggest pest in the world. After that, she finally left…hallelujah!

This is basically what she looks like.

A historically-challenged anarcho-capitalist (okay, that should go without saying) decided to take some of his precious time trying to educate me about the real world and why unregulated capitalism is soooo wonderful. I would like you to especially take note of this “Libertarian’s” laughably insincere concern for the poor sweatshop-less people of Cambodia.

Okay–now that you’ve had your say, will you listen to a staunch anarcho-capitalist? If yes, I would like to start you off with a great article from (of all places) Nick Kristof at the New York Times, entitled “Where Sweatshops Are a Dream.” Watch the video attached, read the article, and ask me questions if you wish.

But just remember a few maxims underpinning libertarian thought: 1) Poverty cannot be cured through force of arms or government decree–only by independent business. 2) Wealth is the foundation for all businesses except multinational conglomerates with sweet government contracts. Redistribution hurts everyone _except_ the Monsantos and Halliburtons. 3) The only power governments have military, and the only money they have is other people’s money. 4) Subsidizing an enterprise with ‘government’ money is no different than when identity thieves buy jet-skis with your credit card–it’s theft, pure and simple.

Next time you want to talk about capitalism being about “controlling and hurting other people,” remember that capitalism is the only thing keeping you from living a terribly harsh subsistence-agrarian lifestyle, such as the vast majority of humans on this planet must endure. Perhaps if the mother of that article had been in a more capitalist country, her son wouldn’t have been backed over by a garbage truck looking for scrap plastic. It’s rather hypocritical to mock the very thing that allows you and I to maintain such an expensive and comfortable existence, isn’t it?

This is my response.

Thank you for taking the time out of your day to educate me on the harsh reality (which apparently you inhabit 24/7) outside of my little utopian fairytale. I have a few humble comments about your enlightening and historically-accurate interpretation of how the world works. First, I’ll start with your list:

1) Poverty cannot be cured through force of arms or business—which continue to exacerbate it—or government decree, though that can make a huge difference. Poverty can only be cured by local communities taking responsibility for their people’s welfare.

2) Wealth is the foundation of all businesses. Period. Multinational conglomerates may have sweet government contracts, but that is still wealth. The problem with our system isn’t whether or not businesses are founded on wealth; it is that wealth in this economy is based on wage labour and the exploitation of the poor. Redistribution doesn’t “hurt” anyone. If I tell a child to share a toy with their friend, is that hurting them?

3) The only power that Objectivists want governments to have are through the military and criminal law. These are the two reasons why governments are so dangerous in the first place. Take away the military and criminal law, and all they can do is serve the people. You essentially have an anarchist society.

4) Subsidizing an already enormous enterprise through government money is completely unnecessary, but that’s what gets subsidies. Subsidizing a small business gives them the leverage they need in a competitive environment. Otherwise, the most ruthless competitors (AKA the ones that exploit humans and the environment the most) would have the upper hand…as they do today. So wouldn’t taking subsidies away from large corporations even the playing field? Yes, in the same way that cutting my hair would me closer to the height of an infant.

Aww yes, those poor people living in landfills. That must be because they aren’t working in wonderful sweatshops! Please learn a little history. Have those people been living in landfills for hundreds of years? Are they the People of the Landfill, whose simple culture has been waiting forever for a chance to work sixteen hours a day absorbing toxins through the air and passing out from exhaustion? Or is it perhaps related to the industrial revolution, or Western countries ravaging Third-World nations’ resources at the expense of the majority of the people on Earth? Such a simplistic view of labour is reserved only for the economist (who is taught from a young age to have tunnel-vision and accept economics as a “hard science”), and the Objectivist (who agrees with Rand that Native Americans deserved to be destroyed due to their primitive economic systems). That’s exactly how this mess started: Westerners destroyed the land that other societies lived on, and massacred indigenous people, so now they cannot hunt and gather or develop small farms; instead they must become intentional slaves.

Perhaps if you wish to understand the real reason why Cambodians are in such a bad way they’re willing to work in sweat shops, you will read this.

And now for my favourite: Capitalism is keeping us from living a “terribly harsh” subsistence-agrarian lifestyle. Let’s look at that for a second, shall we? People who live subsistence lives tend to be the happiest, most fulfilled people in the world. If African nations still used subsistence agriculture, they wouldn’t have any of the problems they have today (as a result of their subsistence lifestyles being forcefully transformed into cash-cropping and exports-based agriculture). No, the harsh existence that most people on this planet endure is directly caused by capitalism and imperialism, and is due to the fact that subsistence living has been all but destroyed globally. I hope that one day everyone will realize that the only way to combat poverty and environmental destruction is to grow your own food.

By the way, I live in an ecovillage community. We grow our own food here. We look after each other. And—whaddaya know!—we like it.