Can you smeeeelll what the Net is cooking?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------This is sort of an unofficial sequel to my other post on the value of the internet. I have been seeing more and more importance in the internet in relation to living in a stateless society. It may seem like baby steps, but slowly the ability to copyright and trademark things is going down the tube. Music and movies, television shows and copies of books are all over the place. These days it's seen as a vital part of marketing something to give away free things on the internet (i.e. an mp3 from a new album).

In addition information is pletiful on the web which seems to be decreasing the need to pay for education. I had a friend who taught himself how to edit movies through pirated software and now works in Hollywood editing films. He actually edited the Omen and the Passion of the Christ.

The internet has also allowed people to buy (though illegally) from offshore pharmacies instead of paying for overpriced meds.

The internet has given people with similar ideas to link up around the world. Finally, a semi-safe place to discuss ideas.

It is also an almost completely free market where new companies pop up and fail every day. Software or hardware becomes outdated and outmatched by up and coming competitors (For example: It was IBM, then Apple, then Windows, and now it's between Apples and Lenux). Today's Amazon is yesterdays CdNow.

I truly think people undervalue how much the internet can really mean to us. It is the ultimate freezone, where laisezz faire type behavior leads to much of the bad being weeded out, and most of the good coming to our attention. Notice how google prioritizes results so that low quality returns don't show up until a few pages in.

There is also an abundance of natural law on the internet. If one person go's around trolling or hacking, often they will be banned or counterhacked.

I hope you feel lucky every time you have a half hour on the internet, because that 30 minutes of potential knowledge could change the world as we know it.

Keepin' it Real with Illegal Immigration

Alright. I know this is a very sensetive subject with a lot of people on all sides. There are the American born Americans who feel angry about the situation. There are Legal immigrants in America who feel angry. There are legal immigrants who feel sympathy. There are American born American who feel sympathy. There are illegals who are angry at the Americans. There are illegals who feel lucky to be here.

With this many sides, this type of topic can real stir up emotions.

Let me start with saying that I have known lots of illegal immigrants from Mexico and Ecuador. Most of them were in situations where they had to immigrate because of wars, violence, lack of work etc. But many had alright lives there and just came over because it's better here. I must admit that if I was stuck in some buttfuck Mexican town getting paid shit, and being in the midst of drug ring crossfire and corrupt police tactics I would probably immigrate to America too.

But there are obviously problems with this. The U.S. and California have shown that we cannot support nearly as many as we are supporting. There are not enough jobs, resources etc. here for this many people legal or not. Many come to this country and get fake papers (which is very easy especially in L.A..) so they can either work one job under that name, one job under the table, and also receive welfare on a third name. This is incredibly harmful to our budget on a state, local, and federal level.

But look at this realistically. Instead of spouting off facts about how much illegals are hurting our country, and how they're stealing our jobs or whatever else, how about taking a look at the actuality of this situation. South America is not getting any better. It sucks to live there unless you have a lot of money. There is poverty, gang violence, corrupt police and militant groups covering the territories.

So what makes us think that we have the right to judge their motives for coming here? Even if it is simply "for a better life", I can respect that....I mean shit. We stole Mexico from them, and the rest of the U.S. from the Natives. I would just say this is karma.

But it doesn't end on that, whether we deserve it or not. The real point is - No one is ever going to be able to stop illegals from entering the country. Not anymore than we could stop drugs or weapons or child porn from entering the country. We keep focusing on "building a fence", or "increasing border security" when this is a very irrelavent part of the problem.

It's almost like our government doesn't want them to stop coming over here. They "buff up" border patrol once in a while to please the public, but it rarely results in less people immigrating.

So let's assume that we can't stop illegal immigration. Then what? Well, as an anarchist I don't believe in making laws and such to stop the abuse of the system. But this would be a better alternative to what's happening. How about employers verify employees social security cards? How about we announce that "anyone who comes into the hospital or emergency room must be verified as a citizen before treatment". It sounds harsh, but what if we give it a year before we do it. Just let people know it's coming so you better either carry your S.S. card with you, or go run to a country that will take you into their E.R. How about we tighten up welfare and stop letting people with fake social security numbers receive help?

The political side of me says this would work. But still, my anarchist tendencies lead me more towards the point that tax dollars shouldn't be paying for things like healthcare and welfare anyways. So if the only "systems" to rip off were private charities, then it would be the private charitie's responsibility to verify citizenship and/or choose whether they want to serve immigrants or not.

My bottom line here is that we need to take our focus off "those evil illegals" and point the blame at the real criminals. If our government is going to take tax money from us to spend on programs like welfare and medicare then they damn well better scam-proof the system. They want us to blame the illegals because it takes the heat off of them. Just a thought.

The Fastest Way to Get Somewhere....

They always say that "the fastest way to get somewhere is in a straight line". In this modern society of tightly woven suburban houses, factories, and enormous buildings we have prescribed paths that we are meant to take. You don't have to take all these paths, but eventually you will realize that society has set things up so taking any other path is dangerous or illegal. When I walk to the store every morning I could technically hop a few fences and get there in about four minutes flat. But following all the different sidewalks and crosswalks it takes atleast five to seven minutes.

It's sort of funny because I find myself in the randomness vs predestination argument. Are we truly free when the pathways in our homes, our yards, our neighborhoods, our cities, our freeways are all planned out for us? How much room do you have to live your life naturally when there are unnatural paths for us to follow?

I know this may seem like a little thing to most people. "It's just a walkway man...Get over it". But it brings up the bigger questions of "How much control do we have over our own lives?". How much of our life is affected by taking the prescribed paths? Now this can be on a very low level such as what I'm talking about. But it can also be an issue of how much we really run our own existence.

For example the other day my friend and I were walking to the bus stop to go to the mall. On the way there she says to me "I don't want to walk up the hill, let's take the long way". There are two ways to get to the bus stop. One is up a hill and down one street. It's uphill but it's shorter. The other way is all flatland but takes an extra three or four minutes to reach the bus stop. So we went the flatland way. As we start to cross the supermarket parking lot her parents drive up in their Jeep and offered us a ride. This meant we got to the mall atleast fifteen to twenty minutes faster than if we were to have not gotten a ride.

This may sound insignificant, but just think back to all the times a simple wrong turn or an unplanned visit into a new store changed everything. In highschool I met many of my friends through random ways. Some people I would become friends with because one of us happened to be wearing a band T shirt that the other one was also into. Some people I met because we were both class clowns. Some people it was just the simple act of another friend bringing them around.

When I was raided by the DEA for marijuana sales in 2003 they found almost 4 ounces (a quarter pound) of dried cannabis. The night I was raided I was smoking out of a hookah with three other people and was about to leave to nightschool. We decided to smoke one more bowl. About half way through the police busted in and arrested me. I think back sometimes about what would have happened if I had left for school instead of smoking. One simple change of mind, or a decision to stay a few more minutes, or drive a little faster can completely change your life.

So in this world of prescribed paths, how much does this actually affect our freedom of choice? In more "primative" times we would hack a pathway through forests, cross lakes and rivers etc. These days if you tried to cut out a mile and a half by crossing the river instead of going around to the bridge, everyone would look at you like you're crazy, not to mention most likely getting arrested.

So what's my point? Well, there's not a whole lot you can do about this kind of thing except give an answer, which I don't have. I see the universe and society as random in nature, but with chances and possibilities combining to form certain paths. Within these set paths is the ability to use free will. The problem is that it's usually much harder to make some choices than others. For example taking the free way may be the way you're supposed to go, but flying an airplane in a straight line to your destination would be much faster. The problem there is not everyone has an airplane, and there's not exactly landing strips at every location you're trying to get to.

So my advise is this: In your every day life remember that you are subject to extreme pressure to conform and make decisions based on their level of difficulty. To thrive and stay a vital human being you must actively make choices for yourself. If you see a quicker way to get somewhere, by all means take it. If a law doesn't make sense, by all means break it. And most importantly - never regret anything that has come to pass if it was a decision that you made on your own. The only things you should regret are things that you did because of pressure from peers, society, church, government, friends, family etc.

"I took the path less traveled" - Cliche quote from Robert Frost

Anarchy is a State of Mind

If you google the words "anarchism", "anarchist", or "anarchy" you will get results ranging from shirts and buttons, to punk bands and songs, to various descriptions of anarchism branches, to articles on Somalia. I think the only point that all people can agree on is that anarchism deals with the idea that no government is the best government. Sure many also reject the idea of gods or idols, some use "anarchist" as a word to slander someone, some use it in a very shallow sense, and some simply want to tear down the government to build a "better" one. But the one constant is that "anarchism" deals with living without government (even if it's only temporarily).

One thing that I've heard come out of the mouth of everyone from democrats to republicans to libertarians and oligarchists is "Anarchism would never work". I've had personal ideological struggles with this over the years. People have pointed out many ways that an anarchist society could fail, and how the current state of mankind would never let such a great system work.

But this blog entry is not to counter the many points of disagreement between anarchists and non-anarchists, nor is it to counter the points which anarchists argue about amongst themselves. I truly believe that having no true government could be a very realistic possibility, even with today's state of man. But the point of this entry is to voice my opinion that anarchism is often misunderstood. It is not a one world system, nor is it necessarily a one country or one state system. Even if the entire government was under a military style totalitarian government, anarchism has and will always exist.

People always assume that anarchists plan to take over the world (or country) and take away the government. I think that most anarchists realize that some countries, due to social stigmas, religious pressure etc. may never dissolve their government. On the first level, think of the idea of sovereign states is very important to remember. The way I imagine anarchism would work on this level of human consiousness would be in the same way the South tried to seperate from the U.S. during the civil war. If enough people get together with roughly the same ideologies it would not be unlikely that small government-free societies could thrive. Let's start on a small level.

Let's say that tomorrow Van Nuys California decided to become a sovereign state. The way the Federal and California State government is going, it's not like it would be unthinkable that Van Nuys may have enough money locally to thrive. And as much as I would hope violence would not be a part of this struggle, I would think that the people of Van Nuys could probably hold off the State from trying to reclaim the area. Let's say that the bankrupt California government decided "Hey, we need their tax dollars. Let's go physically force them to rejoin us.". Well, firstly they would have to get past all the armed locals, and whoever they designated as "police" (in the Anarcho capitalist sense of the word). Next, assuming the local economy was doing well, Van Nuys may actually have more funds to fight with than the State itself.

Of course this is a hypothetical, and Van Nuys would not be the most likely place to become or stay sovereign. So what about...hmmm...Green Valley California? It's a remote area with lots of ranch type properties, and untouched natural areas. This area is not heavily patrolled by police. For example it takes about 45 minutes for cops to respond to accidents in some of the more isolated areas. If the majority of Green Valley residents decided to seperate from the state, there's not much the State could do. Assuming the state even had the funds to send a ton of police to reclaim the area, not only is it a hard area to penetrate, but the state would be looked down on for doing this, since it is in our constitution that we may seperate from the rest of the Country if we feel it to be necessary.

I guess my bottom line is that if people were organized enough, there's not much the State could do. And this is only talking about one area seperating. If multiple areas in close proximity to eachother seperated and became alies, what choice would they have but to let it go? The confederacy was such a large amount of land that the U.S. could not let it go for financial reasons. But if just one street, one town, one city, one state at a time became independent, it would be very hard to stop...especially without the federal government.

Infact, areas like Green Valley are almost sovereign in a sense. They pay taxes, but the amount of police out there is so minimal that it's sort of a "take care of yourself" type place. My friend who lives there was burglarized twice, and both times the criminals were chased off with the family's guns. Another reason I don't support gun control.

But this is all somewhat irrelavent to this post. I was just trying to paint the picture that once an area becomes independent, it's a huge hassle for the State/Federal government to bring you back without one hell of a fight (i.e. The civil war). I relate this to my main point: Anarchy is a state of mind. Now this can be an individual or collective state of mind, but here I will be talking about the individual.

Take someone like my favorite beat author William S. Burroughs. He was a bisexual, gun carrying, heroin addict. He spent most of his life making money off of writing. He also spent most of his life on drugs, running from State to state, country to country avoiding several charges he collected over the years. He never slowed down, never gave up, never went to jail. He was an anarchist in the truest sense of the word. It wasn't until his old age that he returned to Kansas where he lived out the rest of his life, still abusing opiates, and reading new age books.

Or look at Buddha, or Jesus, or Gandhi, or Henry David Thoreau. While these people weren't exactly "active" anarchists, they lived their lives how they wanted to. Some got away with it and some didn't.

I site these examples to give strength to the idea that "anarchy IS a state of mind". This can apply on many different levels. First you can live in anarchy by simply not following rules you don't see as useful or just. Second you can live in anarchy by living in the spiritual world as opposed to the physical. Even when locked in a small prison cell, if the mind is free, so is the person in question.

I think this is a major problem with anarchists today. They live in the modern system waiting for the day that they announce on the news "We're an anarchy now!". What they don't realize is that to be in the mindset that you must be in to live without masters, rulers, kings or presidents, you must first already be free. I fuck up sometimes and take the easy way out. But the last few years I have been living in my own personal anarchy. I don't work a typical job. I pay my rent in cash, off the record. As far as I know there are no records as to what my current address is. I don't pay attention to the few tickets I've received, and don't plan on it. I don't drive or own any property. I do my best to avoid taxes, though I do have to pay sales tax, since it's quite hard to live in a suburban neighborhood without a car and find alternative ways of aquiring living supplies. But overall I follow no law, rule, or social code that I don't see fit. I don't pay attention to any laws except the laws that I have created for myself. Once again, I'm not flawless, but I have done quite a good job surviving while doing exactly what I want.

It comes down to the fact that this is your life, and it may be your only chance to experience existence. Who knows if there is other forms of existence? I personally believe there is, but I can't verify it. No matter how much trouble comes out of me not living the way society sees fit, I can't just hand my life over to the powers that be. I don't believe that I can be paid enough to spend my time doing things that I don't want to do. Life is very short when you think about it. So why would anyone take the "easy" way out? I don't regret anything that's happened to me (and I've had tons of fucked up things happen, let me tell you) because they are all results of choices that I made without influence from government, society, churches etc.

P.S. I know this post is a bit disjointed. Sorry. I just didn't feel like following the rules! Hahaha...

-W.K.

Obama-Care Narcs!

Just thought I'd warn anyone unaware that our government is looking for people to snitch on anyone who has views against the Obama health care reform plan. Yep, it's sort of like McCarthyism for libertarians.

I personally have a lot against the reform ranging from conflicts with the socialist/fascist nature of the program, the history of the quality of socialized medecine, and mostly the government running private companies out of business. Someone better turn me in!

There's also a picture being posted around Los Angeles of Obama photoshopped in the Joker's makeup (Heath Ledger's version), with the word "socialism" below it. A ton of people are super pissed about this. Ranging from the horrid depiction of our president (even though Bush was transformed into a vampire in a poster during his presidency), to the "white face" makeup (assuming this was an intentional racist gesture). LA Weekly freaked out about it.

I know that when we have Republicans in office we're subjected to open oppression (i.e. the patriot act), but is this quiet oppression any better? Instead of being open totalitarians (i.e. The Republicans), they sneak around using informants to turn in "anti Obama care" crazies. Recently the government also issued a warning against "far right extremists", which can mean anything from Rush Limbaugh, to Murray Rothbard, to the Unibomber. They said that right wing ideologists are more likely to use violence as a means of spreading their message, while left wing extremists are more likely to use cyber crime and protesting to spread theirs. How soon we forget the collectevist-anarchist lead assault on the World Trade Organization and it's surround businesses. Or how about the Animal/Earth Liberation front (which I support by the way)? Their main tactic is destruction of private property. Or what about the Sea Shephard, who uses everything from water cannons to a ramming device on the front of the boat?

I'm not necessarily condeming any of the above acts, but it's ridiculous to assume the left wing extremists are peaceful.

Another point is that a lot of people who are accused of being right wing are usually far more libertarian in nature. Timothy McVeigh, the Unibomber, and the Waco "cult" were of mostly libertarian mindsets. I do not consider myself right wing, or conservative in the least. But I often get grouped in with them because of my stances on firearms, privacy, and big government.

Everybody watch out! Big Brother is lubing up his big red, white and blue penis, getting ready to fuck us all in the ass.

Step One: Never trust your government

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I get the label "conspiracy theorist" alot. Why I agree that there have been many government conspiracies in the past, I do not fall for every single theory out there. I am still undecided about the moon landing (though I am puzzled by the low quality of the tapes used), I do not believe 9/11 was an inside job (atleast not in the traditional sense), and I don't buy the fact that the freemasons or the Bavarian illuminati have any real influence on society (except the individual members it produces).

But I do believe certain things had very fishy elements to them. And some I think were outright conspiracies. In this blog I will summarize several events in American history that are either highly suspected to be or are confirmed as cover ups or conspiracies.

THE FEDERAL RESERVE - Before 1913 when the federal reserve was established, banks made their own currencies. There was also an official federal currency, but it was not exclusively used. When banks began to ensure the safety of money and then loan out that money to other customers, big problems came up. The banks would not get paid back loans and have to tell their customers they couldn't pay them. The word would get around and everyone would come for their money. The bank would pay off as much as they could, then go under. Many people lost all their money this way. The demand for federal control over banks and currency became overwhelming. A group of elite bankers, politicians etc. went to Jekyll island and secretly came up with the structure of the Federal reserve. They kept this very secret, because the people coming up with the new system were the same ones who ran the banks that ripped everybody off. It wasn't until after 1913 when public support for the reserve was high that they began to brag about their secret meetings.

TUSKIGEE SYPHILIS STUDY - From 1932 to 1972 the U.S. Department of Public Health knowingly infected African Americans with syphilis to research advance stages of the disease. They were promised free health care in return. When they could have easily been given penecillin, they were instead left to die....And you think animal testing is bad!

HUMAN RADIATION STUDIES - From 1944 to 1974 the U.S. government performed thousands of human radiation experiments, and intentional releases of radiation. When asked if it could happen again they said "Yes". During times of crisis they could waive consent, and it would not be up for public scrutiny. Let's hope they don't summon you for "radiation duty" the next time they need a human guinea pig.

MK-ULTRA - Though there are many more questionable acts and outright cover up/conspiracies, this is my favorite example. Starting in 1950 the government began a study on the possible use of mind control, behavior modification and/or using drugs as weapons of war. They gave Americans (many military) doses of marijuana, LSD, Psilocybin, Mescaline, Heroin, Barbituates etc. It is also reported that they experiemented with sound wave technology and it's effects on the mind. In the early 1970s the CIA intentionally destroyed all records of the event. Many participants in the study have permanent mental and physical problems from the research.

So why is it that we wait for leaks to come out, or for the government to admit their actions after the fact? What good does it do us to discover (some) of their evil ways, if we simply ignore their behavior in the future? I think it's equally dangerous to believe everything is a conspiracy. But not believing that our government could, or would do such terrible things and lie about them is the first step in losing your freedom.

Our government can, has, and will do anything it can to keep it's power and money. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I just like to say I have a good "bullshit detector".

Cannabis, Prisons, Taxation and Regulation...

Here is a complicated issue for me. I have held several stances on medical marijuana and recreational marijuana for years. I have been a medical marijuana patient (officially) since 2004 under California State law as well as local laws in Los Angeles county. I have many conflicts with both the government and the marijuana movement. I will try and explain my beliefs in a clear manner.

First off I have a problem with outlawing crimes which essentially hurt no one besides the "lawbreaker". As much as they try and tell us cannabis (or any drug) causes violence between gangs/cartels and funds terrorism, it's complete horse shit. The only thing that causes violence in the drug business is the reactions of cartels and gangs to the boundaries of prohibition. There would be no drug cartels if drugs were legalized. They would be sold in stores, and if any violence was happening behind the scenes, it wouldn't be any more than violence between oil or banana cartels. The only thing prohibition has ever done is anger people, violate the constitution, raise drug prices, cause violence, and give more power to the underground thugs.

But as you know I am very pro counter economics. As much violence that goes on because of the black market, I believe it's possibly our most valuable tool in giving power back to the people. So my next problem is with the complete legalization, taxation, and regulation of marijuana. Medical and recreational marijuana advocates act like if it's legalized it will be available for sale in high quantity/quality for a good price, and that they'll be able to grow it in their back yards. The reality of government regulation has never been so nice.

In Canada when the government set up a medical marijuana "stash" to send out to varified medical marijuana patients, patients complained it was a low quality grade of dry cannabis which was shred up into "shake" and then sent.

When our government took over the tobacco industry not only did tobacco become filled with toxic and addictive chemicals, the price has increased significantly and you must have a license to grow or sell tobacco.

When prohibition was repealed alcohol's quality probably increased as far as safety, but the alcohol content has been decreased significantly and it's still not legal to make your own booze.

When the government began to come up with opiate derived painkillers they were outlawed for use without a prescription, and to grow for use entirely. The price increased dramatically, and many were combined with very harmful drugs like tylenol or aspirin.

The steps that it seems the government takes when legalizing drugs are the following: Control who can grow and/or sell it, Tax it as much as possible, control active chemical content (usually reduce). Why does anyone in their right mind believe the government will just let California's number one cash crop (above grapes) go to the stoners? Why when California alone could pull in ATLEAST 1.5 Billion dollars anually would our corrupt, financially devistated state legislature ever give it up? This is just California. Our federal government is also in serious financial trouble, and I doubt they are going to let billions of dollars in revenue and billions of dollars saved in the war on drugs go out the window?

I guarantee that if marijuana is entirely legalized/taxed it will increase in price, decrease in quality, decrease in availability, and be almost impossible to grow or sell it legally. I'll use California as an example. As of last year they began taxing medical marijuana. A gram that used to cost $20 now costs about $22. Not a huge amount, but enough to screw the average sick person out of their medecine for that day. I've gone there with $20 and had to beg them to let me owe them $2. If they're willing to tax the sick, then I imagine they won't think twice about taxing the average stoner.

Now my major problem with drug laws (particularly cannabis) is the amount of people we have in prisons for non violent marijuana related crimes. 2003 figures from an article on police overcrowding stated that:

2,078,570 men and women incarcerated on June, 30, 2003, an increase of 57,000 more inmates than state, local, and federal officials held on the same state a year earlier.

---

2001 Statistics on marijuana arrests stated:

641,108 people were arrested in 2001 for marijuana possession charges.

---

While this does bring in revenue from all the useless marijuana tickets given out, the amount of people who don't have the money to pay the ticket (in California) and wind up doing jail time is significant. This is a loss of revenue. Statistics also show that people incarcerated have a much higher chance of reoffending than if they were never introduced to the prison enviroment.

Another thing this does is it takes up the time of police, when they could be doing things like stopping burglaries, or solving murders. In Los Angeles towns like Downtown's skid row, or South Central - the Police spend more time harassing drug dealers and buyers than they do stopping the horrid crimes that go on there every minute of the day.
There are old homeless women who get abducted by crackheads. They imprison them in a tent or squat and once a month force them to cash their social security checks. Homeless people and meth heads kill eachother on the corner for someone looking at them wrong. There are children being abused by their family members both physically and sexually. It's amazing that they feel busting a pot dealer is significant even in the smallest meaning of the word.

So in conclusion, my hope for cannabis is that it becomes decriminalized and/or tolerated as in Amsterdam. Coffee shops function there freely, people smoke and buy cannabis there without being harassed. Hell, people smoke crack on the streets there. And time has shown that their crime rates and addiction rates are quite low, considering. I hope that personal marijuana growing will be possible, sales and purchase of marijuana will not be a crime, and that the price and quality of cannabis stays in the hands of the people.

All I'm saying is, be careful what you wish for.

What the hell is Capitalism?!?!?!

As a member of anarchist culture of all kinds, I of course listen to many anarchist bands. The ones that stick out in my mind are Crass, chumbawamba, aus rotten, flux of pink indians, rudimentary peni, poison girls, against me!, ghost mice, this bike is a pipebomb, defiance ohio, Refused, the international noise conspiracy, billy bragg, and woody guthrie.

Every single one of them is either a proclaimed socialist/communist or an anti-capitalist. All the anarchists they have on the news destroying buildings, with bandanas on their faces are socialist anarchists. I really am starting to think that many, if not most of these people are not so much against capitalism as they are ill informed on the subject.

They seem to think that capitalism is the practice of greed, big government, monopolies. But the fact is that the main points of their discontent are things that are not part of capitalism but economic fascism. Capitalism is interchangable with the term 'Laissez Faire' which translates to "Let it be".

The problem that we have is that we (America) call ourselves a free market, capitalist society. The whole structure of capitalism/the free market rests on government not being involved with business. But this is exactly what we do. We have politicians from big oil and weapons companies working in the white house (Ahem...Dick Cheney), we have Barack Obama giving billions out to crooks and liars who don't know how to run a business (unless you mean run it into the ground), he's stopping the economy from "bottoming out" with tax dollar stimulus (an economy must bottom out to recover, stimulus just prolongs the agony), and taking over General Motors (running ford out of business). Now he is attempting to enact a health care plan which will not only raise the rates of private insurance companies (the plan is largely supported by taxing these companies more), and likely drive them out of business. It's not right for the government to be a business competitor.

These acts of sticking your hand in the cookie jar of the private sector are a strange mix of socialism and fascism. We are both giving tax dollars to criminals, spending tax dollars on "saving" GM (thus countering the idea of competition), spending tax dollars on stimulus, and giving out free or cheap health care at the cost of the private companies. This is the socialism aspect (big buisness socialism?). Merging state and government by absorbing GM, having a hand in supporting and dictating the actions of several banks and mortage companies, and becoming competition to private companies are all aspects of fascism. Fascism is defined by Benito Mussolini as "The merging of state and corporate". It's called the corporate state. I can't see a better example than this.

Wikipedia defines capitalism as:

Capitalism typically refers to an economic and social system in which trade, industry, and the means of production (also known as capital) are privately controlled (either singly or jointly) and operated for profit.

Wikipedia defines the Free market as:

A free market is a term that economists use to describe a market which is free of government intervention (i.e. No regulation, no subsidation, no single monetary system and NO governmental monopolies).

I don't understand how an anarchist of any kind can think that a lack of government intervention in ANYTHING could be bad. We are not using true capitalism in this country, so of course it's a mess. Because if the anarcho socialists want to get their way, they're going to have much more of a struggle than the capitalist/individualist anarchists, because giving up private property and living in any communal sense is not easy to convince someone to do. If they expect the world to change for their ideology, they're just being utopianists. A free market, retention of property rights, and overall individualism would make it so different people could live different ways. Different areas would have different laws, so snobby rich people can live in a clean town with no crime, and the glue sniffing crack head can live without drug laws. Being free of rule is the point of anarchism, and to realistically be able to gain power you would have to become a sort of government. At the very least a higher power.

If anarchists believe in "without rulers" or "no gods, no masters" then how can they support an ideology which would need force and aggression to exist? They attack market anarchism because of it's imperfections and flaws. But what they don't seem to realize is that market anarchism is openly imperfect. Anarcho socialism/collectivism bases it's philosophy around a situation in which people were all good and noble and hard working. There are flaws with both wings of anarchism, but the difference is that anarcho socialists act like their way is perfect (or close to it). We never said that market anarchism is perfect, we just say that it's the best, most fair, and most realistic method of obtaining true liberty. Would there be some problems? Sure. But the other option is a Marxist overthrow of the government and the citizens.

Just look at all the anarchists on the news during the WTO riots and such. They are all anarcho socialists who are destroying things and fighting cops. This is the type of mentality we're dealing with here. Do you really believe that between their belief that it is their right to intimidate a company out of business, and their belief in Marxist overthrows of land and power that they will be peaceful about obtaining their utopian collectivist society?

I watched the Care Bears as a child. Great show. But we don't live in that world. We are not multi colored bears running around on clouds all day. Many humans don't care about sharing, or advancing the country/town/society/humans/the world. This should be their right, as long as they are obeying natural law, and not stepping on other's freedom. Is it sad that someone with $100 billion dollars won't donate to support the disabled or the hungry? Of course. But many wealthy people already donate money to charities, and would probably donate more if it wasn't being taken out of their taxes for 'government charity'.

Also, if we had a truly free market competition would drive prices down on goods, which would make the money that private charities make be able to get far more food/medical care/housing etc.

Our problem is not capitalism, our problem is the government trying to control private business.

Pariter-Simulism: My spiritual beliefs encompassed [external link]

Since I can't copy and paste here for some stupid reason, I have compiled a rough outline of what exactly it is I believe as far as spirituality is concerned. Click the link below to go to my MYSPACE blog. It is the top post...

http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.listall&friendId=474735664

Sorry for being so damn lazy

I have been really lagging with posting new blogs on here. I wanted to explain that I am working on a manifesto type thing to coherently string my ideas together so people have a point of reference for my views. I find myself constantly having to go over my beliefs in politics and spirituality with every conversation I have. I am tired of explaining my logic over and over, so I am creating a database type paper which I can use as a "forward" or "disclaimer" to my posts. A rough draft should be done within the week. I will post it here. Check back every couple days until then. And btw, if anyone has any ideas for posts let me know. I'm always interested.

-W>K>

The Internet = The key to our salvation

There is much debate about what technology is doing to our society. Some people believe it is increasing the power of the "powers that be" to monitor us. Some people believe it is a step in the direction of a one world government/new world order.

As much paranoia as I have about a one world government, and electronic currency the point is this; as much ability as they have to fuck with us, we have to fuck with them. For every time they monitor someones behavior, or collect information on unwilling participants, there is the opportunity to block them (or "defend" yourself) or attack them back through hacking etc.

But that's not the point. The point is that with the internet we now have billions of pieces of unregulated information available for our consumption. Of course some pieces of information are incorrect or biased, but that is up to us to distinguish. The internet is almost like a virtual anarchist society. Yes bad things happen, and bad websites "happen". But there is just as much, if not more good that can come out of it.

The major problem is that people are not using the internet to their full advantage. I have been trying to learn scottish gaelic online. There are expensive books and classes which you can take to learn the language, so why not just find the information for free. Finally people are starting to realize that while ideas can be sold, they don't need to be. For the first time in history we have all of the records, databases, literature, and collections of thoughts, theories, theologies, and ideologies which have encompassed the entirety of mankind.

The only thing between you and knowledge is a few clicks of the mouse. And if there is one cliche' out there which deserves to be repeated it is "knowledge IS power".

Counter Economics

It seems in this day and age that we are stuck with paying taxes to a government we do not approve of. Coersive taxation has taken on a new meaning. Now not only do we not approve of things they are spending our tax dollars on, but many of us do not approve of the government at all. I like ideas which make anarchism/libertarianism plausible.

Usually when people think about anarchism it is either a negative thought influenced by too many news stories and punk bands (semi-sarcastic), or they think of it positively, but have doubts or questions about how well it would actually work. We have seen fascism fall. We have seen dictatorships fall. We have seen communism and socialism fall. And we have seen capitalism under the control of the state begin to fall.

The United States is in a financial crisis. How much more proof do we need that government is not there for us? Do we have to see them give every last one of our hard earned dollars away to companies like AIG, General Motors, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Washington Mutual etc.? There is so much contrast in the U.S. government between capitalism and socialism that there is no way it could work. Two very different economic models working against eachother is what we're seeing.

Counter Economics is as described "any action based on free will which the government has prohibited". Now there are people buying drugs and prostitutes and illegal guns every day. While this is technically counter economics, the drive behind the action is to give strength to the black market for a political reason. The more things you buy from the black market, the more you work under the table, hire illegal immigrants/under the table workers, the more you have a part in the underground economy the less the government will get out of you.

The purpose of this is to slowly (or hopefully quickly) outnumber the government and have a stronger black market than the white market. This will in theory enable private security companies to strengthen and bring charges like theft for the government's taxation. It sounds a bit wild, but as long as things went according to plan, it's actually very likely.

Imagine if the security forces now had a larger market of people to sell their services to. If these security forces became the primary security for people, and people relied on them as much or more than the "police" then when police tried to go against the will of the people, the people would ask their security company to arrest the offender. At the moment it's hard to imagine private companies outnumbering the police. But if we could accomplish this then we would have taken care of two problems. The first being that we wouldn't have to pay taxes. The second is that we have essentially privatized police forces. Even if the tax payed police still existedit would still essentially be a free market for security. Much like how today we have private insurance companies, but we still have Medicare. They can function side by side well enough. But it would be preferred to have no public police force.

Here are some examples of counter economic actions:

*Selling/Traffiking, Buying Drugs, narcotics, pharmecuticals, and bootleg liquor
*Traffiking guns, ammo, or other weaponry
*Buying food directly from farmers without taxes payed
*tax evasion
*relying on private security as opposed to police

Finally, here is a short clip from Wikipedia about counter economics. They can say it better than I can: [Used without permission from Wikipedia. Fuck them.]

Konkin's agorism, as exposited in his New Libertarian Manifesto[3], postulates that the correct method of achieving a market anarchist society is through advocacy and growth of the underground economy or "black market" -- the "counter-economy" as Konkin put it—until such a point that the State's perceived moral authority and outright power have been so thoroughly undermined that revolutionary market anarchist legal and security enterprises are able to arise from underground and ultimately suppress government as a criminal activity (with taxation being treated as theft, war being treated as mass murder, et cetera).
According to Konkin's pamphlet Counter-Economics[4]:

Spiritual Anarchism

To rebel politically or socially we must also remember to rebel mentally and spiritually as well. You see, it has very little to do with being "religious". You could be a Muslim, a Christian, a Jew, a Hindu, a Buddhist, or an atheist. The basic idea is the same. We must not only look for truths and disregard the errors of the spirituality we practice, but we must use our spirituality as a divine reason to do what we do.

Even an atheist can realize that we have a soul. An atheist actually might have a better grip on this idea than a Christian, since atheists reject the idea that there are beings superior to us, and the world is shit compared to the spirit world. Atheists usually believe that this life is all we've got.

First I said that we must look for truths and disregard the errors of the spirituality we practice. This means that we cannot rest comfortably with faiths or practices which were taught to us. We must explore all theologies with an open mind and then put together what we believe. If you believe in evolution and creationism, or if you're a Wiccan who follows Buddha's path, that's okay. Just because no one else has put the ideas together, doesn't mean you can't. Of course people will call you a heretic or a blasphemer. But if everyone worried about that all the time, people like Jesus would never have gotten anywhere (since he was technically a heretical Jew).

Secondly I said that we must use our faith in God, Our own Souls, Buddha, Jah, Allah, Rah, Nature - to back up and enrich our social action (or unaction). I believe the spiritual advancement of the modern anarchist is something that is necessary for our creed to survive. The year 2012 is coming fast. Many believe that the end of the 5th Mayan long count calendar is a sign the world will end. Nostradamus also predicted armagedon in 2012. Many new age folks believe that it will be an end to the era of materialism, greed, and hatred.

I'm somewhere in between. I believe that the astrological and solar cycles (new solar cycle begins in 2013, age of aquarius is coming now) will bring both spiritual AND physical change to the earth. I believe that many could perish in natural disasters, but I also believe that they will happen for a reason. A way of the world saying "If you don't know me, or how I function, this is what can happen". We have moved so far away from an interconnection with our planet and it's many cycles and rythms. We have moved away from the ideas of faith or divinity. We say it's all part of advancement for the human race. But I fail to see how this antfarm they have built for us full of fake worries and bills and taxes and cubicles and Pokemon is any better than times in history where we knew our land. Where we knew our planet. Where we knew our solar system.

Now the average person knows almost nothing and relies on the idea that the people who should know, know. Instead of knowing why and when earthquakes happen, we rest on the fact that there are hired "experts" watching over us. But this leads to several problems, the most obvious being that we are usually not given sufficient warning of things like earthquakes. Maybe if we all learned our planet's ways, we would be able to evacuate ahead of time based on our personal knowledge instead of an annoying emergency broadcast on television or radio.

But either way, I think that spiritual advancement is a positive tool in anarchism. I believe it can reinforce our socio-politcal ideology. And I believe that anarchism is also a positive tool in spirituality. It gives us the thinking that we need to question the dogma and errors which exist in all faiths and practices.

My strange crossbreed of Zen, Christianity, Psychology, and Market Anarchism

I could sit here a quote the bible for hours about my kingdom not being of this world, or how we are not to obey the rule of man and so on. But instead I'll start with a breif history of how my theology and politics have evolved. I casually attended a "progressive non denominational" church until the time I was in my adolescence. I then converted to mormonism with my mother at the age of twelve. After two years (and a life time subscription to both Ensign magazine and intensive therapy) in the church, I broke away. My mother followed soon after.
I spent my teens floating between Agnosticism and Zen Buddhism. Over the next few years I began merging my eastern thought with a more western faith, and set of "anti politics". I settled somewhere between Zen buddhism, Anarcho-Capitalism, and progressive Christian thought. They all began to seem interchangable to me. With both men (Gautaum Buddha and Christ) there is a constant theme of the rejection of man's world. Many point out that their motivation was far more spiritual than political. But this just reinforces the connection I see between these schools of thought.
I believe that a supreme being (i.e. the whole of universal energy) created a sort of dream world for us to explore ourselves and eachother. When we have learned to reject illusion we return to a place of perfect perception and can see that we are one again (a.k.a. "being in the kingdom of god"). At this place we are still beings of energy, but we are at a different frequency. I believe that science and the idea of divinity/god (etc.) are not at all seperate. I believe that man has used the only way it can relate to for explaining the god-earth connection. God is seen as a "father" and jesus as a "brother". It is easy for us to understand at this level.
But whatever it is that you believe God is, those of you who do believe in a supreme creator whether it be the Christian god, Mohammad, or something more panentheist such as nature being equivilant to god is irrelavent. Faith in a "higher power" is not submission to leaders, unless it is out of threat or coersion. I do not believe in God, or follow Buddha or Jesus because of the threat of the fires of hell. I follow them because I believe that their message to be true. I believe in God because I believe he does love us unconditionally. I am not by any means forced to follow any deity or prophet.
This leaves me at a place where I am a follower by choice. This means that I choose the rule of God (a.k.a. the rule of myself) over the rule of man. I have adopted Christ and Buddha's morality. It has not been forced upon me. I could choose at any time to disgard it. To me Anarchism is the belief that one can rule for himself. That man has no right to make rule over another (casting the first stone). I have always ruled myself. Now that I have a certain set of theology it doesn't mean that I have given up my own law. What I believe is that for the politics of man you must respond with products of mankind (i.e. Anarchism). But when you are an actively spiritual person you must find a form of spiritual justification (Christian Anarchism) for your cause.
Many try to discredit the idea of acceptance of a higher power in anarchism by quoting crap from the bible to try and show contradiction. But many forget that the bible contradicts itself just as many (if not more) times. I personally do not use the bible in my spirituality. I think it is the product of man, and the number one reason why man has turned away from God. It is filled with God's threats and punishments. It portrays our creator as a vengeful, cranky, uptight son of a bitch and I don't like it. Call me heretical, call me blasphemous. But just like in the realm of man, I am an anarchist in the realm of the divine. I will not accept things blindly.
In conclusion, I believe that the battle against coersion, tyranny, and aggression is best fought with one foot in the earthly realm and one in the spiritual.

Moral Dictatorship

“The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion” - George Washington

We're living in the midst of a moral dictatorship, and no one is doing a damn thing about it.

Many Americans continue to bring up that "our forefathers started this country as a Christian nation". While this is not true in a general sense, it is also known that many of our forefathers were not what we commonly think of as Christians. Many of the founders such as Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Locke, James Madison, and Abraham Lincoln belonged to progressive or non denominational Christian faiths and most if not all could be considered "Deists". According to Wikipedia Deism is: Deism is a religious and philosophical belief that a supreme god created the universe, and that this and other religious truth can be determined using reason and observation of the natural world alone, without the need for faith. Deists generally reject the notion of divine interventions in human affairs - such as by miracles and revelations. These views contrast with a dependence on revelations, miracles, and faith found in many Judeo-Christian,[1][2] Islamic and other theistic teachings.

But this is all beside the point. People assume that things like "One Nation Under God" means the Christian god. But if you go to Islamic nations, they call 'Allah' god. If you go to Jamaica the Rastafarians call 'Jah' god. It's a general name for a higher power. Like in Alcoholics Anonymous they make you accept a higher power. But never do they dare say that you must accept the Christian deity as your higher power.

In modern times when people debate political issues we actually take into account those who use religiously inspired morality. For instance many are against abortion or the death penalty based on their religious obligations.

When we begin running a Nation off of one group's moral or religious beliefs, we are truly living in a moral dictatorship. I will not divulge which political issues I am for, and which I am against. My only point in this blog entry is to make the point that moral absolutism is dangerous and politically stupid.

Taxation is the number one way that other people's morals are forced upon us. Healthcare for the impoverished, public schools, wars in foreign countries, condoms for junkies etc. All these things are special interest programs. Why do they assume that we all think they're good ideas? Whether I do or not is completely irrelavent. Personally, I rather be taxed for public schools and healthcare for the poor than wars in foreign countries. But that's just me. I believe that without coersive taxation, those of us who believe in those special interest groups will continue to support them. Especially if less of our tax dollars are being coersively taken from us.

Our government tells us what to do in every aspect of our existence either directly or through social pressure. They tell us who we can have sex with, what we can put in our bodies, how a private company can function/how big it can get, what special interest groups we have to support, what wars we have to support, whether we keep or abort a child etc.

Some people think it's okay because they haven't gone to extremes of morality yet like "If you swear, you get the death penalty", but if you look closely you can find signs that those things aren't far away.

Recently in California they were thinking about creating a law outlawing "jet black" paint on all vehicles, siting that cars with black paint get hotter, causing people to use more air conditioning, causing more pollution and global climate change. How far are we going to let them go with these things? Are you going to let them tell you how often you can breathe, or what color shirt you can wear on the second sunday of every month? This has gone from a government of forced morality, to a government of control freaks.

Every few years we're given a new reason to be afraid and fall in line with these cronies. Terrorism, Mad Cow, Avian Flu, The Economy, Swine Flu, and my favorite; Global climate change.

I will post a seperate piece on why I think that global climate change is a scam. But for now I will only speak of their place in a moral dictatorship. Now if the government wants us to do something all they have to do is relate it with global climate change, which is remeniscant of them saying "Don't buy illegal drugs because it supports terrorism". So now they'll say to us "Buy this type of car because it will stop global climate change". It's just ridiculous as hell!

Global climate change is just the most recent play they're using to keep us in line, and it's pathetic that we're all buying into it.

On a final note, please discover what it is YOUR morals are. Not your parents, not your friends, and especially not your government's. And realize that even if you agree with the morals they are enforcing, imagine if someone elses morals were thrust upon you.

666 and The Antichrist/The Beast etc. [Taken from Old Blog Page]

[Warning: This is a random blog from my other blog www.myspace.com/timothyxmcveigh - It was not well thought out, but I'm putting it here to introduce you to some of my interests and to use as a marker, so this isn't a blank blog. New posts should be up within a few days.]

666 and the Antichrist Current

I am no theologan. I am not a pastor, preist, reverend, or scholar. Well maybe I am a pastor by Martin Luther's defenition. But the point is I have no credentials in Christian theology or history. My mother and I have always been into finding the most correct truth which exists, whether it destroys our preconceived ideas or strengthens them.She got me interested in studying the historical facts around biblical texts and events in Christianity before coming up with a conclusion. To me, this bridges the worlds between humanity and the divine. Using logic to support (or deny) ideology or events which happened in the bible.I keep hearing people spouting off about the Antichrist, the mark of the beast (666), the new world order and so on. People keep attributing this to Barack Obama. Well, from what I know, this seems highly unlikely.First off let's get something straight. Just like the trinity of The Father (god), the son (jesus christ), and the Holy Spirit, the trinity of evil includes three characters, not one (unless you're talking about the way in which the holy trinity works as one being). First there is Lucifer, the fallen angel (a.k.a. Satan, the Devil, the Dragon). Second there is the false prophet/idol. Third there is the Antichrist. They are not one in the same.Secondly, the Antichrist is only mentioned 5 times in the books of John. He is not a major player in the bible as many assume he is. It is mostly groups with hidden agendas who push his importance. There are also other references which people believe are directed towards the antichrist.Versus in the book of Daniel are thought to relate to the king of the Syrian section of Alexander's empire, Antiochus. He was supposidely a boastful, arrogant man who persecuted the Jews. This is the King the Maccabbes fought against, and won. He is called a "little horn" (on the head of a beast...Beast = antichrist). Also mentioned is a "self exalting king". Many relate this to Antiochus who was known as a small man with a big mouth.In the book of revelation John of Patmos (it is contended whether or not this is the same john as john the apostle, and john the evangelist), while in prison, wrote of the Mark of the Beast, or the number of the beast which is the number 666 (or six hundred, three score, and six). There are theories on this ranging from the fact that it was seen in a dream or vision which could mean that the number is actually 999 (since dreams are supposidely seen upsidedown and/or backwards), or that it's the numbers which will be used on the barcode on the implant chips which will be used in humans for a cashless society or for human monitoring, or that it will be the serial number on the new currency, or that it will be the birthday or social security prefix of the antichrist.The most agreed upon theory is that since the book of Revelation is dated somewhere between the time of the ruler Nero and the ruler Domitian, the mark of the beast is referring to one (or both) of them. Ceasar is another attributed to being the antichrist. Why? Well Aramaic has numerical values to each letter. See below...[Taken from Abovetopsecret.com]Nero Caesar in aramaic is spelled NRON KSR. Aramaic letters have numeral values like roman numerals. N= 50 R=200 O= 6 N= 50 K=100 S= 60 R=200 .....666 Every few years the label of antichrist is attributed to someone new. Napoleon, Hitler, Suddamn Hussein, George W. Bush, and most recently Barack Obama. Since Barack Obama is handsom, and intelligent, and speaks well he is thought to relate to the passage in the bible of a beast which has horns like a lamb, but speaks like a dragon. The dragon/snake/serpant is a metaphor for Satan.People believe that the antichrist will bring the world together under the guise of peace and unity, and then 3 and a half years in he will "show his fangs". Nobody can tell for sure what will happen 3.5 years into his political reign, but I would be more than surprised if he was the antichrist. The only thing which seems strange to me is the fact that exactly four years into his reign, it will be 2012, the year prophesized by the Mayans and Nostradamus as being the end of the world.I still believe that more than a physical end, this will be a spiritual transformation period, where man moves from self centered to universe centered. But this is besides the point.I am just as critical of Barack Obama's politics as the next man. But unless he moves us into a one world economy, denies us the right to buy or sell without the mark of the beast, and rules the entire world with an iron fist in the 4 or 8 years he is in power...then he will be just another "antichrist has been".Hahaha..Anyways. That's enough bible thumping for today. I'm going to go play Dungeons and Dragons now.-W.K. (A)