|
printable version
- js reader version
- view hidden posts
- tags and related articles
View article without comments
by Charles Amsellem and Heidi Werntz
Wednesday, Aug. 13, 2003 at 3:48 AM
blackreb@earthlink.net
graphic © 2003 by charles amsellem. all rights reserved. activists may reproduce for non profit use only
sherman_editorl.gif, image/png, 305x155
KAFKA PAYS A VISIT TO LOS ANGELES ACTIVIST
Based On an Interview with Sherman Martin Austin and Jennifer Martin, by the
Los Angeles Independent Media Center.
Article and Interview by Heidi Werntz and Charles Amsellem.
Enjoying the hospitality of Jennifer Martin's cozy Sherman Oaks apartment,
and the playful affections of her spotted dog, with its radiantly pleasant
disposition, was a warm beginning for this somber occasion. Martin's twenty
year old son, Sherman Martin Austin was recently unjustly convicted for posting
bomb making information on his website, with
intent to further an act of violence. We were there to get their side of
the story; conspicuously absent from the mainstream media's reports on the
case. With us that afternoon, were Sherman's longtime friend, Chantel, and
his girlfriend, Lupe.
It all began on the May 1, 2001 (May Day) demonstration in Long Beach, California, which was a turning point for the activist. The police were reportedly out of control, brutalizing the crowd, arresting Austin and several others after shooting his calf with 'non-lethal' pellets that sometimes lodge deeply within the skin, cause bleeding sores, and always smart. He was approached from behind while videotaping the event when he was shot at close range, with the plastic ammunition. The incident marked Austin's first arrest and galvanized his resolve to continue his activism in the community and on behalf of his website, www.raisethefist.com. RTF, along with reporting on news items not adequately covered by conventional media sources, if at all, also was a good source of info on anarchism, police brutality, race relations, activism, and global social justice issues. As the hits to the website and the postings on the newswire swelled with activity from web surfers all over the world, so too did the monitoring from the police, intelligence and other government agencies from those regions.
The website attracted thousands of non-authoritarians and others that filled the exchange with their youthful energy and annoyed those charged with keeping perceived subversives, and their unacceptable independent thinking, in line. Finally, shortly after the hits to the website from authorities around the globe spiked, a small army of federal agents and police personnel across departmental lines raided Austin and his mother's home on January 24, 2002. Austin’s mother was not at home when the raid began. Austin, who was eighteen years old at the time, was awakened by his sister, who informed him that armed men had their home surrounded.
In charge of the heavily armed cadre, was Special Agent, John I. Pi, of the FBI. Sherman was questioned for over four hours, while his mother, who arrived approximately an hour later, was barred from entering her own home. Although when Ms. Martin arrived she requested a warrant, it took the FBI hours to produce a warrant and allow Ms. Martin back into her residence. After confiscating all of Austin’s computer equipment, political literature, and a collection of common items, Austin and his mother were assured by Special Agent Pi that Austin had crossed the line and everything would be just fine in the end so long as he crossed right back, however; Austin was not taken into custody. Undaunted by this latest outrage by the Thought Police, Austin attended the demonstrations in protest of the World Economic Forum in New York. What followed over the past year and a half was described by the LA Weekly as a series of Kafka-esque twists. The authorities were shaking Austin up with a series of arrests, interrogations, and then releasing him only to arrest him again. After being extradited to California on the charge of "distribution of information related to explosives over the internet," he was released without charge. Six months transpired, and the aforementioned collection of common items was transformed by Special Agent Pi's reports into menacing terrorist devices. A closed bag of potting soil was categorized as fertilizer. A Snapple bottle became a Molotov cocktail. A $19.95 disassembled toy car was described as a remote controlled detonator.
Ms Martin's life was turned upside down by what happened to her son: "...I had this idealistic attitude that the justice system would work. But I found out slowly, that it just eats away at your freedom and at your rights by pressuring you from all sides. If you don't agree to what they want you to agree to, they find other alleged crimes or violations to threaten you [with], such as... [the] terrorism enhancement." The terrorism enhancement clauses, when applied to any charge, impose very harsh penalties. If convicted, Austin could have faced twenty years in prison. After agonizing over these affairs, Austin finally submitted to a 'binding' plea agreement of one month in jail and five months in a halfway house for breaking a law sponsored by Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.), that prohibits the "distribution of information relating to explosives, destructive devices, and weapons of mass destruction with intent that such information be used in furtherance of a federal crime of violence." (Editor's note-Austin's case number under this provision is [18 U.S.C. & 842 (p) (2) (A)]). During plea negotiations, Austin was assured that the terrorism enhancement would not apply if he signed the plea. However, the government reversed their decision when Austin resolved to challenge the plea agreement. Austin, who did not author the website with the bomb making info, was hosting it on his server and linked to it from raisethefist.com. The author of the website was interrogated by Agent Pi, but was not charged with a crime.
On September 30, 2002 U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson rejected the ‘binding’ plea agreement which entailed one month in custody, and made statements that he wished to give Austin at least twelve months in custody (see transcripts posted on www.la.indymedia.org ) . According to Sherman’s Federal Public Defender Ronald Kaye, “The judge’s demeanor was unequivocally hostile toward Sherman and he stated that the offense was very serious,” so the defense received permission from the Court for the probation office to create a pre-plea report to determine what sentence Austin would be facing. The pre-plea report included four character references and a psychological evaluation from a Senior Psychologist of the California State Prison System, LAC. In the plea report the Psychologist stated that “Mr. Austin is quiet and personally non aggressive,” and that Austin “is likely to become a victim by virtue of his youth…and more likely to become brutalized by the experience of prison than to learn from it.” In addition, the Psychologist recommended that Austin would benefit from performing extensive community service. While the pre-plea report was being prepared, the defense continued to negotiate with the government and agreed on a second ‘binding’ plea that presented the judge with a sentencing range of 6 to 12 months, however the prosecution, Justice Dept, and FBI recommended that Austin be sentenced to 4 months in prison and 4 months in a community corrections facility. The second ‘binding’ plea with attached recommendations was presented to the judge on June 30, 2003. However, the recommendations were not enough for U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson, who ordered the prosecutor to contact the head of the FBI and Justice Department to get their opinion. The final hearing was scheduled for July 28, 2003, but on the day of the hearing Austin and his family were told by the defense, while waiting in the court room, that the Court failed to calendar the hearing. The final proceedings were rescheduled to August 4, 2003.
On August 4, 2003 the judge sentenced Austin to twelve months in custody even though the head of the FBI and the Justice Department agreed to a four month sentence. The recommendations, and favorable psychological evaluation were ignored in Wilson's courtroom, and he hammered Austin with a sentence that the Electronic Frontier Foundation condemned as being poorly matched to the crime: one full year in federal prison, and three years of restrictive probation that places virtually all of Austin's computer activity, telephone privacy, and interactions with activists of like mind under the thumb of post-corrections officials. A $2000 fine was imposed along with other outrageous measures like unannounced seizure of his computer equipment during the probationary period.
"I think the criminal justice system is more like a system of organized crime for injustice, to basically benefit the people at the top," said Sherman during the interview. Indeed, it's RTF that has survived numerous hacking attempts that Austin believes are from people working with the FBI. "They've also hacked into my other accounts and commandeered some of my [Instant Messenger (IM) Service and] email accounts. They were sending messages like, “'You're next' and 'Your ass is going to jail!' “Austin’s friends and online acquaintances received messages disguised in his language tone and nuance attempting to extract information. What about these crimes of harassment and civil rights/privacy violations? Are there going to be any investigations, reprimands, or arrests? Of course not, that's only for anarchists and activists.
Eyebrows were raised when it was discovered that Attorney General John Ashcroft released a memo the same day that Austin's sentencing was rescheduled due to an alleged clerical error in the filing of his sentencing hearing. Ashcroft's memo asks prosecutors to monitor which judges impose lenient sentences and is assailed by advocates of judicial fairness and prison reform for limiting judicial independence in sentencing by putting merciful judges on a watch list. Justice Wilson, who ignored the Justice Dept's recommendation by imposing an even harsher sentence may not have had anything to fear in this particular case but the implications for judicial restraint in general are foreboding nonetheless.
Since we are living in an uncommon era of political repression, and the scaling back of our rights and civil liberties, it may be best to conclude with recommendations and lessons that Austin has learned and experienced from the injustices that he has endured:
If the authorities really want to harass or jail you, they will find common objects or minor offenses and turn them into major crimes. Furthermore, some are not above inventing evidence outright to make their case. Therefore, "...don't let it get to a point where it gets you paranoid and gets you in a state of fear. Because that's what they want..."
On the other hand, don't fall into their hands by giving them the ammunition they're looking for either, "...Anything you do online is never 100% secure. You can never assume you are anonymous online." Austin explained that there are even ways to monitor a computer that isn't connected to the net.
It's not illegal to post or publish bomb making information; it's illegal to do so with the INTENT to further an act of violence, which is difficult to prove in most cases.
Learn from Austin's tragic example that a 'binding' agreement from a prosecutor can be thrown out by the judge and a one month sentence today can turn into a year and more come sentencing time if you plead out.
These terrifying proceedings would weigh heavily on anybody as they must on Austin. Yet he remained outwardly calm during sentencing and in the course of this interview by preparing his mind to expect the harshness of the sentencing and jail time.
If you are a committed activist, in these times, it's a wise policy to squirrel away whatever you can into a defense fund: "It's just obvious that if you don't have a lot of money, you can't buy your way out of things. People are convicted and they cop pleas because they feel like they can't fight the system."
If you would like to contribute to Sherman Austin’s defense fund, please send contributions to:
Ms. Martin
12115 Magnolia Blvd. #155
North Hollywood, CA 91607
Jmi4678@netscape.net
Report this post as:
by de.indy
Saturday, Aug. 16, 2003 at 2:16 AM
de.indymedia.org/2003/08/59628.shtml
Report this post as:
by ChiChi
Saturday, Aug. 16, 2003 at 8:04 AM
A man ADMITS distributing "INFORMATION RELATING TO EXPLOSIVES, DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES, AND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION WITH THE INTENT THAT SUCH INFORMATION BE USED IN FURTHERANCE OF A FEDERAL CRIME OF VIOLENCE" . . . .
And IndyMedia says he was "unjustly convicted"????
Only in LaLa land is it "unjust" to convict someone after he confesses!
Try BullshitMedia.
Report this post as:
by an informed citizen
Saturday, Aug. 16, 2003 at 2:29 PM
Sherman was pressured into signing the plea--educate yourself about the criminal justice system before you JUDGE others on how they deal with the pressure!
Report this post as:
by yorick
Sunday, Aug. 17, 2003 at 5:17 AM
EVERYBODY is pressured to cop a plea - it's the nature of the beast. Sherman isn't unique in that regard. What I do find unique is that an avowed anarchist would be so willing (and naieve) to bargain with the beast, putting all of his eggs in one basket (so to speak) with the ruling of a judge rather than opting for a jury. At least with a jury, there would have been opportunity for Sherman to advance his political views and possibly even reveal the capricious nature of the beast. At best the jury would find Sherman (and future archivists who get entangled with the beast) not guilty of any crime.
Report this post as:
by AWARE
Sunday, Aug. 17, 2003 at 6:13 AM
Sherman's defense advised him to sign the plea, and SHerman was 18 when this happened. 1+1=2
Report this post as:
by Message From A Former PO
Sunday, Aug. 17, 2003 at 7:20 AM
your public defender was lame -- try to find a Hollywood lawyer, who eats the anti-1st amendment prosecutors for breakfast
Report this post as:
by Legal Advice
Sunday, Aug. 17, 2003 at 7:23 AM
If I understand your case correctly, you are being jailed under a law that prohibits the publication of certain material if the publisher has "the intent" to induce others to commit crimes. I recently successfully overturned a similar law here in Washington state. The federal judge (correctly) ruled that "a true threat, for First Amendment purposes, does not turn on the subjective intent of the speaker."
Report this post as:
by yorick
Sunday, Aug. 17, 2003 at 3:32 PM
...bigfoot, the KKK isn't an official part of the US government alphabet soup. not suprising though that a fascist moran like you would like to see it otherwise.
Report this post as:
by yorick
Sunday, Aug. 17, 2003 at 3:40 PM
if you consider the current authoritarian model successful, then you and i don't measure success by the same criteria.
Report this post as:
by terrist
Monday, Aug. 18, 2003 at 4:23 PM
unlawfulassembly2.jpg, image/jpeg, 500x323
error
Report this post as:
by The OTHER forums
Monday, Aug. 18, 2003 at 5:44 PM
This was taken from:
"The webpage, RAISETHEFIST.COM/EXIT/TACTICS.HTML, for "police tactics and how to defeat them" included the following information: (1) "One would attack the poorly defended positions by hurling rocks and firebombs. Since regular police could not sustain that for any longer period of time, the riot police would have to come to their aid. Then the second group of protesters would attack the now much weakened main objectives and possibly seize them." (2) "If more aggressive approach was desired, one group of protesters would lead the police in a trap by making a quick assault and falling back immediately afterwards, as if fleeing the scene. The police would usually pursue them haphazardly, falling easy prey to a flanking attack of other protesters who would suddenly rush out from side streets." (3) "Cars can be wonderful barricades and can be easily set on fire."
WAKE UP, LEFTYLAND!
To me, the surveillance, investigation, and succesful conviction of this arrogant young terrorist is demonstrating a great Federal Bureau doing its job. It isnt just what he printed, how about this little tidbit?
At the time of the search, AUSTIN stated that he owned all the items inside his bedroom at his residence. During the search of AUSTIN's bedroom, the FBI Special Agents discovered, among other things, the following items:
a. Two glass bottles both of which contained gasoline or petroleum-based products. One of these two glass bottles had a metal screw top in which a hole had been punched. The other glass bottle contained a ong white material with burnt marks.
b. One gasoline tank which had the smell of petroleum-based fluid. c. Four boxes of bottles, which included 63 glass bottles and five plastic bottles, stored in the closet of AUSTIN's bedroom.
d. One radio remote triggering detonation device, which was modified from a radio controlled car. AUSTIN explained that he had modified this radio-controlled car to ignite matches. According to the explosive ordinance specialist, Special Agent Brendan Finn of the FBI, both the remote control unit and radio-controlled car were mechanically modified to perform only the above function. "
REWIND:
"One radio remote triggering detonation device, which was modified from a radio controlled car. "!!!!!!!
I hope Sherman Austin stays there for a LONG LONG time. If his acts had been committed by a Middle Easterner, would you see this terrorist in a different light, instead of the hazy candlelight of left wing martyrdom.
Report this post as:
by Chris
Monday, Aug. 18, 2003 at 9:55 PM
I've known Sherman and his family for most of his life. He is a mild mannered individual who wouldn't hurt a fly. He did not write nor did he post the Reclaim Guide. A young man, Nick, who lives in Orange County with his RICH parents not only wrote the Reclaim Guide, but posted it on Sherman's server. Sherman donated server space to people. Nick was one of these people. Nick , a 15 year old white kid, ran a web site for his mother off of Sherman's server. Sherman did not read the the Reclaim guide, he only glanced at it, before he scripted a link to Nicks web page which had a link to to the Recalim Guide on it.
This wasn't a case of 'posting with intent', infact it wasn't posting at all--it was linking. Check your terminology, there is a difference between posting and linking. Unfortunatly we are dealing with a defense, judge, and prosecution that did not understand the difference, and were too arrogant to admit it. This case should have gone to court--Sherman would have won! I was in Sherman's room many times before the raid and he was not making Molotov cocktails or bombs in his room. If that were the case the FBI would have arrested him during the raid--they did not. Possession of a Molotov cocktail is a federal offense--if they find one in your home you go to jail--they don't leave without you. This case is the biggest FARCE ever.
I hope you learned something from this Sherman--don't ever sign away your right to a fair trial --as a black male you will always get screwed. Where is the Orange County white boy who authored and posted the Recalim Guide--hiding his head in the sand and allowing the system to blame Sherman for an act that NICK committed. Nick, you should be ashamed of yourself, and your RICH REPUBLICAN parents should at least have the decency to donate $$$ to Sherman's defense fund.
Report this post as:
by I thought I was an American
Monday, Aug. 18, 2003 at 9:57 PM
fight this*******fight this******fight this******fight this****
You have my support!
Report this post as:
by yorick
Tuesday, Aug. 19, 2003 at 2:23 AM
you mean you can't wait to pounce. once again you've slanted the question to conform to your ideals. what's so great about "large-scale"? you from texas? obviously, authoritarianism is hostile to anarchism, and as there are more of them than there are of us, it's not particularly easy to establish a long-term anarchist society. still, there is one current society i can think of, and that's the nomadic rainbows. in existance since 1972 and regularly attaining numbers of 15k to 20k at their yearly annual gatherings. I get the feeling though (perhaps from your sneering manner) that you've no interest in anything beyond your smallish reality bubble. rather than arguing with those who're hostile to my ideology, it's my belief that my time is better spent making information available to those who've yet to form an opinion, so this is the last you'll see from me on the subject.
Report this post as:
by billder
Tuesday, Aug. 19, 2003 at 3:33 AM
This is why everyone needs to be armed...not to protect ourselves from the media created boogymen (addicts created with government drugs---www.barryandtheboys.com) but against the nazi police of this fourth reich...they who will make examples of the helpless, as this so graphically illustrates.....These schmuck reporters here think they can actually stop stuff like this from happening by talking about it and reporting it...bullshit...these nazi scum have hidden the researches and weapons developement of their takeover for 50+ years (CIA) and its because THEY are scared...they definitely think twice before raiding someones home who they know carrys a pistol and will use it, or has other legal ,weaponry stored because they are truly cowards at heart...their scare tactics are just like the SS and 1% of the American people, properly armed and concentrating on making America free again from such shit as christianity and the federal reserve, could make this scum dry up and blow away...all the reporting and protesting in the world is not going to change things...the only language and action they understand is violence or the threat of it...this guys problem is he was way over his head and presented a totally helpless target which was perfect for them to feed upon, parasites that they are.....bg
www.luxefaire.com
Report this post as:
by Bob
Tuesday, Aug. 19, 2003 at 6:04 AM
cheroitaliana@hotmail.com
Billder, we need guns to protect ourselves from the likes of Sherman and company. We don't need some young little weasel who has never made it out of his parent's home trying to tell me that I should not own a business or make money. I am armed to protect myself and my property that I worked for.
Sincerely, A rich republican
Report this post as:
by Praxis
Tuesday, Aug. 19, 2003 at 6:20 AM
You know Bob, you're pathetic. There's no circumventing that. It's rather stupid that you think revolutionaries are somehow trying to "boss you around". You clearly don't have an aversion to having propertied fucks boss everyone around. And I hope you enjoy the money and property as much as the rest of you capitalist-nihilists. So things are the ONLY thing you care about...
Report this post as:
by Praxis
Tuesday, Aug. 19, 2003 at 6:24 AM
I'm sure the Neocons on this board don't care to much about the neo-Nazis with caches of weaponry. I guess those guns are oh so sacred Nazi property, right Bob? I guess you wouldn't want to come down hard on armed white supremacists, seeing as they're the cavalry for capitalist society and all.
Report this post as:
by MOM
Tuesday, Aug. 19, 2003 at 6:53 AM
Please delete the postings that encourage violence. They do not represent Sherman or his political position. They are posted with the intent to engage others in inappropriate conversation regarding this case. They should be removed.
Report this post as:
by Bobby
Tuesday, Aug. 19, 2003 at 8:14 AM
DigitalBoB12@yahoo.com
I was astonished when i read this article, although i shouldn't be based on some of the stories i find online. The "justice" system has gone to far, and will continue to take advantage to the average person that is narrowminded, and believes everything they are told. Anyhow, I figured whoever reads this article would maybe be interested in another good article i liked. http://www.atlanta.creativeloafing.com/2003-07-17/rant.html its a good story on how some innocent people become hassled and bothered by the FBI, also one other link i have for u. This is a link to download a free song off of the anti-flag website, http://www.anti-flag.com/MU40.php, watch the right is the name of the song, the lyrics go along perfectly with theses kind of situations, and with that i wish luck to Sherman Austin and his mother, and everybody, keep fighting.
Report this post as:
by Eric O
Tuesday, Aug. 19, 2003 at 8:24 AM
You don´t have to mention a long-term large scale anarchistic society to have such a political idea. Freedom of speach includes the freedom to express any political idea revolutionary OR democratic. By the way, mention a "democratic" western large scale society that isn´t oppressing ethnic minorities. It can´t be done.
Report this post as:
by ne
Tuesday, Aug. 19, 2003 at 8:34 AM
--mention a "democratic" western large scale society that isn´t oppressing ethnic minorities--
Define "oppress". Because, I've seen a lot of Vietnamese who came over in 1975-76 who didn't sit around and wait for government handouts, they simply went to work and made their own way.
Prosperity in American is up to the individual. If you don't know how to take advantage of situations as they present themselves, don't blame others because they do. No excuses.
Report this post as:
by Ernest
Tuesday, Aug. 19, 2003 at 12:59 PM
shakleton_7@hotmail.com
"Prosperity in American is up to the individual. If you don't know how to take advantage of situations as they present themselves, don't blame others because they do. No excuses."
i know the capitalist system it is supply and demand if there was enought to around then everything would be free.... There is enough to go around so the government restricts acces and restricts supply in britain the is a housing shortage and yet the government is knocking down council houses. People are starving and yet food is withheld. The fact is if *everyone* did work hard and did as they were told there still would not be enough to around. My last point is that you loose the human face of poverty...When people are born into poverty and live up in poverty then they see there suroundings and think they are worth nothing so take drugs and all break the law. If you are in a rich familly and go off the rails then you have daddys money to bail you out if you are poor you get no bail out. I am not saying it is impossible to achive because it is possible because 3% of millionaires in the usa had fammillies that were working class but it is that much more difficult. You have to be not just a genius but lucky and all the rest of it. The usa has the biggest wealth gap the highest child poverty and many other very bad statistics when compared to the other first world countries. this guy seemed like the scape goat and the example to the rest of us.... if we let this get to us then we wont get anywhere with trying to get some sort of society based on egalatarian and being-nice-to-each-other principles we will have to battle on club together unite and all that. peace
www.urbanparanoia.co.uk/rants
Report this post as:
by Bob
Tuesday, Aug. 19, 2003 at 6:15 PM
Hey Praxis, Us good people on the right do not believe in any racial supremecy. As far as being "Nazi" guns, remember that the first thing a dictator does, including the Nazis, is disarm the citizens. If I recall, the bad left, not the good right, wants to disarm the citizens. I've seen your violent protest and I know you people hate cops, so how should I protect my property from you guys? Why do you think I am white? By the way, my next door neighbor and very good friend is black and very conservative. Speaking of weapons, wasn't your buddy found to have remote detonator? I read the article and thought it was funny about it being characterized as just a disassembled remote controlled car. As a former federal criminal defense attorney, I would not take your buddy's case. He wants to overthrow one of the greatest nations on earth. Do you guys operate out of North Korea? Which is another disarmed society.
Report this post as:
by newshound
Wednesday, Aug. 20, 2003 at 12:48 AM
The Sunday, August 17 New York Times Week in Review's front page feature by James Glanz ("Its Coils Tighten, And the Grid Bites Back") tells readers how to take down the electric grid system. "You go to a Texas gun show and buy a grenade launcher. You drive by an electric power station and you point in the right direction and bang." It wasn't Glanz who said it. He was quoting Charles Perrow, a professor at Yale.
Soooo, using the logic of Ashcroft et al, shouldn't Glanz be locked up and the New York Times shutdown? No double standards until everyone has one standard!
Report this post as:
by Alex
Wednesday, Aug. 20, 2003 at 1:05 AM
im sorry but its only partially true if u say dictators and fascists disarm population: Europe has extremely tough conditions for weapon possesion. theres no fascist around here..disarming ppl just has somethin to do with preventing things such as the columbine massacre. btw, u ppl call a society based on +-100 years longterm succesfully? look at industral revolution...was a capitalist system,and it was unsuccesfull.it was changed by the pressure created by labour unions and activists. and even if u add those years to capitalism,its still only 200 years of existance? thats not longterm imo. for references to anarchism visit this site: educate urself before arguin,even if its only "to know ur enemy": http://www.diy-punk.org/anarchy/
Report this post as:
by th eposter formerly known as mr wilson
Wednesday, Aug. 20, 2003 at 1:15 AM
Interesting.
"You don´t have to mention a long-term large scale anarchistic society to have such a political idea. Freedom of speach includes the freedom to express any political idea revolutionary OR democratic."
Indeed. And I fully support EVERYONE'S right to freedom of expression (la-imc, take note...you might want to try it sometime).
However, there is not just an expression of anarchistic ideals here; there is advocacy of them.
I'd like to see some basic, practical ideas about life under such a society. What about public works? Who will pay for road construction and maintenance? What about national defense? How will you get the money to pay for all of it? In short, how will the anarchistic society provide all the benefits to it citizens that the government of the United States provides to its citizens now?
Not only that, but how will you convince the citizens who don't want to play your game? And what about the National Guard? They won't be real keen on it.
Does anyone have any concrete answers to these questions, or is anarchy just a lot of hot air?
Report this post as:
by systemfailure
Wednesday, Aug. 20, 2003 at 1:25 AM
WHat do you want? someone to write a thesis? go look up "social libertarianism". Thats what "anarchism" is within the political boundries of systemology.
now a question for you,,,, is your internet broken or are you just lazy?
ps i think it is spelled "freedom of speech" not s-peach
www.infoshop.org
Report this post as:
by answers
Wednesday, Aug. 20, 2003 at 2:46 AM
"What about public works?"
These anarchists believe that everyone will just pitch in for the "common good".
"Who will pay for road construction and maintenance?"
Same as above.
"What about national defense?"
These people don't believe in borders or countrys. Should a group try and invade the land we now call the US, people will simply band together and defend the land.
"How will you get the money to pay for all of it?"
There is no money. In anarchy, goods and services are exchanged. The farmer plows to provide the food while the carpenter works to provde shelter and other things, and neither ask of the other or complains they are carrying the lion's share of the load, they just accept that they are all working for the common good. People care for each other out of the goodness of their hearts. If Mr. & Mrs Jones have 10 kids, and they can't or won't do any work in the collective to support them, everyone else will gladly pitch in to feed, clothe and shelter them. It is truly "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", just without government. You've heard of communes? Same thing.
"In short, how will the anarchistic society provide all the benefits to it citizens that the government of the United States provides to its citizens now?"
We as people will simply care enough about our fellowman that we will see to it that everyone gets what they need, and we'll all live off the land without harming it.
Anarchy is a pipe dream, and not a very well thought out one at that. They completely ignore the nature of man to look towards leaders. They claim if someone or some collective of people starts to work within a heiracrchy system, the others will confront them and stop them. They preach freedom, but it's only freedom provided you stay within the boundries of anarchy as a way of life, which is not freedom at all. It's just their version of freedom.
Report this post as:
by Ernest
Wednesday, Aug. 20, 2003 at 3:34 AM
"Anarchy is a pipe dream, and not a very well thought out one at that. They completely ignore the nature of man to look towards leaders" some people look towards leaders some don't but in this society leaders are forced upon us. when leaders are forced upon someone they no longer become leaders because lead only those who choose to be led these 'leaders' are now dictators.
"They preach freedom, but it's only freedom provided you stay within the boundries of anarchy as a way of life, which is not freedom at all. It's just their version of freedom." You have touched on an important point when someone wants freedom what do they want to be free from? a sheep can have their wool taken from them by force or they can be 'freed from their wool' also you have a contradictory argument 'freedom provided within the boundaries of anarchy' anarchy has no boundaries. Anarchists think that people are resonable human nature is not saintly but it is good in general. There are practicle examples of anarchy and historical examples also unfortunatly anarchists have always under estimated the power of the state. Also lets get one thing clear anarchy is not about killing people with molotov cocktails it is not about war fighting swearing drinking it is about a desire to be left alone and to have nothing. If you can get your head around wanting to have nothing then you got anarchy sorted. i reccomend proudhouns description of government as a starting point for those wanting to understand the anarchist phyche. peace love hug trees and be paranoid
Report this post as:
by Emma
Wednesday, Aug. 20, 2003 at 3:50 AM
"some people look towards leaders some don't but in this society leaders are forced upon us. when leaders are forced upon someone they no longer become leaders because lead only those who choose to be led these 'leaders' are now dictators."
You dodged the point, that being it is the nature of mankind to migrate towards those who hold leadership qualities. Because society as a whole prefers to have some sort of limited government does not mean those who wish for no government are being oppressed. Of course, you view yourselves that way. You view any form of government as being a "police state".
"also you have a contradictory argument 'freedom provided within the boundaries of anarchy' anarchy has no boundaries."
No, it's not. In a world of anarchy as a way of life, any collective of individuals who chooses to live their lives in a heirarchy would be living beyond the bounds of anarchy. Heirarchy is simply not permitted in anarchy, and anarchists would impose their own will upon those who would choose to live in a heirarchy by trying to prevent such from happening. You would not allow others the freedom to live in a heirarchy.
"it is about a desire to be left alone and to have nothing"
I don't want to "have nothing". I don't want to live in a world where all things belong to eveyone, where there are no possessions. Should you force me to live that way, then you would not be "leaving me alone" to do as I wished. Once again, your version of freedom.
Report this post as:
by Bob
Wednesday, Aug. 20, 2003 at 5:15 AM
What does your anarchy system do when a group does not belong to your goals, but wants to impose their system on you. For example, what if the United States gave into the sytem you are preaching and the taliban or al queada decided that we are to live under their version of islam or die. How would we defend ourselves? Wouldn't we need a national defense? Wouldn't we need spies and the like to infultrate their government?
With all seriousness, if you do not want possessions and want communual living, why don't you go to such a country. The only one I know of is North Korea, but I am sure there are others. I do not mean that sarcastically. I mean it because I like capitalism and I do not want your anarchy forced on me. You can go to a communist country and live happily without imposing your sytem on me. We both win.
Report this post as:
by Ernest
Wednesday, Aug. 20, 2003 at 6:29 AM
"it is the nature of mankind to migrate towards those who hold leadership qualities. " some people do these are generally those who feel unempowered and it is not the nature of mankind because i know many people who dont do this and instead move away from those authoritarian types. As i said anarchy alows for both having governments does not. Also i don't know many people if given the chance that would *choose* to be at the bottom of a hierachy pirimid when i do find someone who wants that then i will let you know(!) I don't think you understand what have nothing means because it would be fine to have a house as a possession but to have a thousand houses become property. possesions are ok property is not. Your version of freedom is much more contradictory than mine. You want the freedom to have your life interfered with by the state and private companies... i want the freedom to be left alone to my own devices and to be allowed to have autonomy etc... "What does your anarchy system do when a group does not belong to your goals, but wants to impose their system on you. For example, what if the United States gave into the sytem you are preaching and the taliban or al queada decided that we are to live under their version of islam or die. How would we defend ourselves? Wouldn't we need a national defense? Wouldn't we need spies and the like to infultrate their government? " giveing someone no reason to hate you and therefore no reason to want you dead is a good place to start. Look at communism for example it was defeated mainly by america and the western countries putting aid grouops into the USSR and getting rid of the infrastructure and support systems that they relyed on.
"The only one I know of is North Korea" north korea is bassicly a state capitalist system and not whot i am about. They invest all their money into weaponry and i dont want weapons i want the basics and freedom to express what i want.
Report this post as:
by Emma
Wednesday, Aug. 20, 2003 at 6:45 AM
Oh, I know about anarchy.
"...it is not the nature of mankind ..."
Sure it is. It's been the history of mankind. If it wasn't the nature of mankind, history would have ended it years ago. It wouldn't have lasted this long if it weren't a part of us.
"possesions are ok property is not."
But, if you prevent me from owning property (land), then you a not leaving me alone. You are imposing your wishes that no one own land upon me. what kind of freedom is that? Nothing I want anything to do with, that's what.
"i want the freedom to be left alone to my own devices and to be allowed to have autonomy etc..."
Let's see just how "free" you will allow others to be. Answer this question:
If a group of people choose to live in a capitalist economy, would you be opposed?
Report this post as:
by Alex
Wednesday, Aug. 20, 2003 at 8:50 AM
"Sure it is. It's been the history of mankind. If it wasn't the nature of mankind, history would have ended it years ago. It wouldn't have lasted this long if it weren't a part of us." - Emma
The trouble is that by looking at history, you're looking a one tenth of one percent of human existence. Humans live an anrchist lifestyle for 200,000 years before civilization came along.
Yes, tribes often had leaders, but not "rulers". The difference is that rules impose their rule through power, violence, and/or threat of violence, while leaders are the ones most respected and the ones who take on the most responsibility.
Anarchy (like all social systems) ONLY works on a small scale. You couldn't have an entire nation run on anarchy for example unless it was some kind of cooperative agreement like the Iroquois Constitution.
The real problem is that people must realize the fact that there is no objective way to see the world. This myth of objectivity is where things fall apart. By having a false belief in objectivity, it becomes possible for people to conceive that there might be ONE way to live that's right for everyone. Cultural systems can certainly have consequences, but this doesn't make the right or wrong -- just healthy and unhealthy. So armed with this belief, we have civilization, holy wars, stupid laws, and all the rest. I deliberately include civilization in the list because we all seem to have this odd idea that civilization is the best thing ever. If that were the case, the natives of this land would have joined up in droves as opposed to fighting to the death to preserve their way of life.
"What does your anarchy system do when a group does not belong to your goals, but wants to impose their system on you." - Bob
It would not occur to a subjective (tribal) culture to impose their culture on others because they don't have the belief that their way is the only "right" way to live. Sure they might raid their neighbors, or fight over territory, but these fights were kept small. Not because they were "noble", but because it's not practical to have a prolonged and fatal conflict (for either side) when you've only got 20 men in your tribe.
Alex
www.SacredLands.org
Report this post as:
by Praxis
Wednesday, Aug. 20, 2003 at 8:54 AM
Freedom doesn't equal the freedom to oppress others. It's certain that when people decide to throw off mind numbing consumer culure and authority, that the varied forces of repression will team up to crush them. This was seen in Spain, where Liberals, Fascists and Communists issued propaganda against anarchism, even when the workers and peasants had been embracing it. To throw off governments means AL-Qaeda, DPRK, the U.S, and every other variation. And 2 other points: 1.> "Dictatorships disarm people" Welcome to the U.S.A then! Where anarchists can't publish anything closely related to weapons, much less carry guns, whereas "rich republicans" and Neo-Nazis can store caches of weaponry. In other words, civilian disarmament is political everywhere. 2.> "People look up to leaders" Good luck proving that! And anarchists are full of hot air huh? Word wizard George W. Bush is not the most respectable example of this crumbling Feudal thesis (even if some people back his ideological agenda), nor are other heads of state, Such as Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong IL, Tony Blair, or Jacques Chirac. Fewer and fewer people can even work up the nerve to respect politicians or bosses. So much for leadership!
Report this post as:
by Bob
Wednesday, Aug. 20, 2003 at 10:00 AM
Who decides who possesses what? In other words, who decides who possesses which land. What if ten of us want to live on the same parcel of land, who gets it? What if I want a big house and pool, how do I get it? Does everyone get one? How are people rewarded for hard work? Is owning two houses OK? Maybe I want a summer house and a winter house.
What if the taliban and other groups don't like your freedom, how do you defend yourselves? What if another country decides it wants our resources and invades, how do we defend ourselves? What if, in reference to WWII, one contry decides to kill all our people of a certain ethnic background, how do we defend against that?
Report this post as:
by Ernest
Wednesday, Aug. 20, 2003 at 10:40 AM
"Who decides who possesses what? " we decide amongst ourselves... you are making it complicated anarchy is simple you simply get back to basics, what do you need? i admit you may not like it if you own alot of things cos you will loose out but those at the bottom that own no property having possessions is all they can get. If you grow alot of crops then maybe your community will reward you or maybe you will be altuistic and hand it to the needy? that has happened and will continue to happen especially among the poor and needy. "What if the taliban and other groups don't like your freedom, " the taliban and who ever are not a big movement they have gained support because of the dislike of american government policies in the arab/muslim world. in anarchy these policies would not be able to be carried out. If it was another country wanting resources then they would not be allowed to operate in these areas. During the russian revolution the germans army gained aload of land in russia but the people didnt stand for it so they kicked them out it wasnt the red army it was local and community rebelions.
Report this post as:
by Josef
Wednesday, Aug. 20, 2003 at 2:36 PM
I can;t believe how stupid people can be, STUPID STUPID STUPID.
It's insultingly stupid.
Report this post as:
by -divib-
Wednesday, Aug. 20, 2003 at 2:49 PM
You couldn't write an interesting criticism of anarchism to save your life I bet.
If you could you would
Report this post as:
by tpfkamw
Wednesday, Aug. 20, 2003 at 3:05 PM
It looks like anarchy can work, as long as it's limited to small, agrarian/hunter-gather, isolated societies.
Not too many of them left. And exactly zero in the United States.
So, you wanna switch to an anarchistic society. What are you gonna do about the people who don't want to? You better get some guns. However, just so everyone isn't shooting people at random, you ought to have a plan. A plan implies a leader; otherwise you're gonna have a revolution by committee, and THAT never works.
But wait! It's anarchy! You can't have a leader! Well, okay...it's just temporary. So when the revolution is over, you've got a guy with a gun who's used to running the show. Uh-oh. I doubt if he'll want to stop running things, so you better have a plan...and that implies a leader...etc., etc.
Seriously, though, if everyone were a nice guy, concerned with the welfare of his fellow citizen, it could work. However, you're overlooking a basic drive in the human psyche...the "look out for number one" urge. That alone will guarantee the failure of anarchy.
Economically, you're basically talking about a bartering system. That works good for small, self-sufficient communities...but not for large, interdependent ones. That's why money was invented. Money allows you to pay for goods and services in a more convenient manner than carrying chickens around. If money is inherently evil, as many of you seem to believe, what makes barter any less evil? Money merely represents the things exchanged in barter.
Your reliance on human kindness won't work. Your economics won't work. There's no way you can change the United States to anarchy.
Sorry, guys...it ain't happening.
Report this post as:
by hahahaha
Wednesday, Aug. 20, 2003 at 3:09 PM
gee that was real quality political insight there.
Report this post as:
by tpfkamw
Wednesday, Aug. 20, 2003 at 3:29 PM
1. How will you bring about this anarchistic society?
2. How will you deal with the people who don't want to play your game?
3. How will you deal with the National Guard? They have tanks and jets, you know.
4. How will your economy work, exactly?
5. How will you deal with national defense? The policy of "leave everybody alone and they'll leave us alone" won't work with radical Islamist groups, who want you either converted, enslaved, or dead.
6. How will you get money (or chickens or goats or your preferred medium of exchange) to pay for essential public services?
Answer these questions, in a calm manner, with concrete, workable answers, and I'll quit bugging you.
Report this post as:
by tpfkamw
Wednesday, Aug. 20, 2003 at 3:29 PM
1. How will you bring about this anarchistic society?
2. How will you deal with the people who don't want to play your game?
3. How will you deal with the National Guard? They have tanks and jets, you know.
4. How will your economy work, exactly?
5. How will you deal with national defense? The policy of "leave everybody alone and they'll leave us alone" won't work with radical Islamist groups, who want you either converted, enslaved, or dead.
6. How will you get money (or chickens or goats or your preferred medium of exchange) to pay for essential public services?
Answer these questions, in a calm manner, with concrete, workable answers, and I'll quit bugging you.
Report this post as:
by tpfkamw
Wednesday, Aug. 20, 2003 at 3:30 PM
1. How will you bring about this anarchistic society?
2. How will you deal with the people who don't want to play your game?
3. How will you deal with the National Guard? They have tanks and jets, you know.
4. How will your economy work, exactly?
5. How will you deal with national defense? The policy of "leave everybody alone and they'll leave us alone" won't work with radical Islamist groups, who want you either converted, enslaved, or dead.
6. How will you get money (or chickens or goats or your preferred medium of exchange) to pay for essential public services?
Answer these questions, in a calm manner, with concrete, workable answers, and I'll quit bugging you.
Report this post as:
by tpfkamw
Wednesday, Aug. 20, 2003 at 3:46 PM
...for the multiple posts.
Report this post as:
by geez relax officer
Wednesday, Aug. 20, 2003 at 3:47 PM
... there's no revolution tonight you silly copass goof. give me one good reason i should bother to answer your questions.
hint: your inability to come up with a halfway competent statement on political theory is not my problem.
if you really want to know you should do some research.
you should come back and debate when you have an argument.
Report this post as:
by tpfkamw
Wednesday, Aug. 20, 2003 at 3:51 PM
...I will know you're nothing but tough talk around a cup of coffee.
When it comes to action, you've got a conflicting appointment.
Face it: you have no plan. You have no answers. You have no chance.
If you were so proud of your ridiculous politics, if you believed it had a chance of success, you wouldn't hesitate to tell me.
Pathetic.
Report this post as:
by you're crackin me up
Wednesday, Aug. 20, 2003 at 3:59 PM
i can't believe you're acutally sitting there getting worked up about this stuff you dumbasscopmachoman!!
i have no tough talk for you - sorry you're going to have to go ask a street officer for some macho poses to admire.
you might not know anything about politics but you sure are an amusing toy to play with.... for a few minutes.
Report this post as:
by tpfkamw
Wednesday, Aug. 20, 2003 at 4:11 PM
...is yourself.
I'm not a cop; I'm just a guy looking for some answers.
You have none, obviously. And I'm willing to bet your paycheck (assuming you earn one) that none of the other disenfranchised, disillusioned, and impotent posers you hang out with do either.
You're nothing but talk, with no hope or chance of doing anything about it. You fancy yourself on the cutting edge, when in reality you're just riding the wave of a fashion. And like all fashions, this one is transient.
So I ask you: what''s the point of holding on so desperately to something with no hope of success? You do realize, don't you, that the United States will never convert to anarchy?
So I ask one more time: can you name a long-term, large-scale successful anarchist society?
If you can't, shouldn't that tell you something?
Report this post as:
by timeless
Wednesday, Aug. 20, 2003 at 6:13 PM
vgs695@hotmail.com
It seems to me that everyone, us on the left and those on the right, have a tendency to make ignorant, uneducated statements about the other. Such as accusing the left of working for North Korea, or accusing the right of being all Nazis. We need to realise that the majority of people are not so bad, and that neither wants world domination, etc. If you keep the masses squabbling amongst each other, then you never have to worry about them organizing together to fight the corporations, big government, and so on. Remember that we're all one human family. We don't need to step on our fellow human just to improve ourselves, that's selfish.
Report this post as:
by Bob
Wednesday, Aug. 20, 2003 at 6:22 PM
cheroitaliana@hotmail.com
tpfkamw and I asked some questions regarding your theories, but you never answer them. You are asking for support of an admitted felon, yet you cannot answer questions regarding his theories. We are not convinced that he is anything but a trouble maker.
Suppose we go along with your game of anarchy. Suppose a country, which we'll call ss, decides that they do not like peope of a certain ethnic background, who live in our tribe. The ss come and take these people away for extermination. How do we protect ourselves from this?
What is the incentive to advance the tribe? For example, who is going to spend the years it takes to understand drugs and medicine to practice medice and make pharmecuticals? What incentive is there for this study?
Didn't your society more or less exist in a violent sense with the indians? They were thousands of years behind the Pursians and Europeans.
Report this post as:
by Russ
Wednesday, Aug. 20, 2003 at 6:32 PM
I was reading some of the arguments here and as much as I would like to respond to all of these questions, I know I can not right now, I need sleep. However, I would like to provide a few examples of various movements and societies where anarchism or social libertarianism has been highly successful.
First there are the Basque Collectives in the Basque Region (officially known as being in northern Spain although the people maintain their autonomy). Originally based around Marxists roots, the people have formed more traditional Anarchist Collectives and maintained and produced entirely for themselves. Currently, this region is home to the world’s largest and most successful independent collectives.
Secondly there is a prime example of non-authoritarian collectivism happening just south of the American border in a beautiful province in southern Mexico called Chiapas. There, the Zapatistas (representing predominantly the Mayan indigenous peoples) have recently declared their autonomy and have successfully been expropriating land since the beginning of the uprising in January of 1994 and using the newly acquired land to organize collective farming communities. The Mexican government has even been forced to grant major concessions due to the massive support of the Mexican people and the people of the world. I would love to go into more detail and I will as soon as I get some sleep so I will leave you with a definition of anarchy as I'm sure many of us see it. This was written by Wasserman in the "Handbook of Political ISMS" from 1941.
"Anarchism is the doctrine which proposes that society shall be reorganized on the basis of small, self-governing communities in which the land, produce, and machinery of production will be owned in common, and the power of the political state abolished in order that the fullest measure of individual liberty and equality may prevail. The philosophy of anarchism represents the most literal form of individualism, as well as collectivism. It is the most extreme opposite of what is termed "fascism". It conceives of man as naturally good and just, rational in his outlook, cooperative in his relationships with others.
To the anarchist, institutionalism and central authority are parasites feeding on human freedom. The inherent satisfaction of men in their work has been debased by the wage system. Modern society is built on a basis of force and coercion. Anarchists regard the criminal in society as one who is not inherently bad but is rather expressing the symptoms of social maladjustment in a socially decayed culture.
The anarchist believes that punishment is not a remedy, but it is society that needs change, and with that, the criminal will automatically follow suit, provided the right guidance is given.
The absence of government does not, according to the anarchist, mean the absence of order. On the contrary, the state of disorder existing in society everywhere is claimed to be the consequence of the "legal force" imposed upon the population by the state.
When this rule of coercion is abolished, the natural cooperativeness of men will take the place of organized repression and manipulative competitiveness. Government over men will give way to the impersonal administration of things. The very notion of competition, under the anarchist model of society, would be relegated to sport, leisure time and used ONLY FOR FUN.
Anarchists preach a moral and spiritual transformation of the individual as the first step to social change. Since coercive government and private-property ownership result in social disruption and moral decay, this school of thought advocates a voluntary renunciation of these institutions."
Report this post as:
by 6Men
Wednesday, Aug. 20, 2003 at 7:33 PM
1. How will you bring about this anarchistic society?
Anarchism isn't about 'bringing about' any form of society. That is for the politicos who think they 'know' what society is. In reality they are just mimicking their programmed idols and performing whatever it is their societal programming has conditioned. The Anarchist is only interested in society being a natural reflection of what the free individual is and that it's better to throw your lot in with your fellow man's freedom than it is to try and enslave and control him out of fear. It is by far more critical that one understands his own nature and is free to do so, than it is to determine what it should be for everyone else. Tis the blind leading the blind you madman. Know thyself and stop trying to control what is beyond you.
2. How will you deal with the people who don't want to play your game?
You will simply be yourself, independent of what others are or aren't.
3. How will you deal with the National Guard? They have tanks and jets, you know.
Oooh, tanks and jets! Fear is not the answer my friend. Is your defense of these forces your fear and humiliation in being enslaved by them?
4. How will your economy work, exactly?
As it should. One thing is for certain, an economy based on the preservation of life as opposed to it's destruction will be far more in accordance with the natural law. It will no longer be controlled by the institutions of power who are themselves dominated by a bloodthirsty elite. They have become the machine. And the only way the machine can live is to kill you and everything else. What a fun world that would be! Follow the dictates of those with the tanks and guns right? Again the fundamental view of life is based on fear and scarcity and that is what you create with your beliefs.
5. How will you deal with national defense? The policy of "leave everybody alone and they'll leave us alone" won't work with radical Islamist groups, who want you either converted, enslaved, or dead.
So your media spectacle informs you. But in reality it is more likely that your government's policies themselves fund these radicals, protect them, and give them much cause to hate you. Live and let live. You are not God. Everything has it's time and place. The good people would do a far better job at defending themselves than their rogue governement that conditions them with terror and who's ultimate intention is to either destroy, control, or outright own them.
6. How will you get money (or chickens or goats or your preferred medium of exchange) to pay for essential public services?
The gold standard would be a place to start. Education in self suffiency is not something one should mock. Understanding nature and effecient harmonious use of it will be far more beneficial than a fractional reserve banking system and fiat currency whiich is designed to implode into a one world megaopoly.
Answer these questions, in a calm manner, with concrete, workable answers, and I'll quit bugging you.
The answer you truly seek is within. But I have to tell you that the possibilites extend far beyond the buffers that provoke your worry dear fellow.
add your comments.
Report this post as:
by Dannyboy
Thursday, Aug. 21, 2003 at 12:24 AM
This has been an interesting discussion - I have a few points to add. Firstly, lots of you guys who are asking questions about anarchism seem to be fixated on the fact that you don't want to be forced to "play the game". You have missed the point entirely. A true anarchist would never force another to live any way that they didn't want to. All you can do (and ask for) is the freedom to live your life how you want to, without outside interference. If I and my community wish to live in a sustainable and self-sufficient fashion, then we should have the right to do so without federal government (or anyone else) coming down on us and demanding protection money (under threat of prison or violence). This is what the Zapatistas in Mexico demanded (and got) by taking up arms and defending the land they were living on from invading coffee and mining companies (who were throwing them off the land with the support of the Mexican government - reducing them to a state of corporate feudalism). They don't want to fuck with anyone, they just want to live their life. A big part of anarchist theory is "freedom of association". This is the freedom to live in a situation or group if it suits you, or to leave if it does not. In most "developed" countries it is simply not possible to leave the "protection" (as in racket) umbrella of government. The government owns you and the full force of the "law" will hit you if you decide to opt out. This freedom cannot be forced upon anyone. How do you force someone to freely associate? Secondly, with regard to the question of economics, I salute the person who mentioned the gold standard. Anarchist societies do not necessarily mean an absence of money or a return to barter. Anarchists do condemn the various fiat-money systems that the federal reserve and banks have created in the US and around the world. Money should be a simple abstraction of work done (in either services rendered or goods produced). Fiat money moves it away from this and in effect allows people with the power to print bank-notes to create wealth out of thin air. This makes an illusion of wealth that generally is sustained by shifting the fiat money off-shore as IOUs that can never be repayed. Just look at the US national debt. The main export from the US now is the dollar. This is a swindle and before long it will come crashing down. The US Federal Reserve has been printing "fiat" money for 70 years. That is, money that has nothing to back it up but threats and promises. In 1930s Germany, this same swindle caused the hyperinflation that destroyed the German economy and allowed Hitler to come to power... The German fiat swindle only lasted for a few years, the current global monetary system has been running in the same (but more rigorously controlled) manner for 70 years. The best way to control inflation and therefore increase the real value of the money in circulation, is to increase taxes (especially on the super-rich) and reduce government spending. This has the effect of paying back the government accrued debts with real services rendered and products manufactured. George Bu$h and his cronies are essentially driving the American economy like they stole it. Massive tax cuts and even more massive government (military) spending... This is causing foreign investors to lose confidence in the value of the dollar and hence the US economy is in free-fall. The neo-conservative thinking is that they don't need a strong dollar if they can force people to use it by other means. Military means. It is no coincidence that the Iraqis are now spending dollars. For an good introduction to the black-art of "making" money: http://proliberty.com/observer/20030602.htm Peace people, Dan T. http://samizdat.zapto.org
Report this post as:
by tpfkamw
Thursday, Aug. 21, 2003 at 1:00 AM
Thank you for your responses. That's what I was looking for.
I feel compelled to point out, though, that the Basques and Zapatists are primarily agricultural societies, are they not? No heavy industry. How would such a thing as , say, an automobile factory, with all its corporate trappings, fit in? Thanks in advance for your response.
6men, you answered most of my questions, but not with actual answers, with the exception of the gold standard answer. As for the rest, you merely parrotted some flowery language which takes up space and says nothing.
For instance, when asked about the National Guard, you replied: "Oooh, tanks and jets! Fear is not the answer my friend. Is your defense of these forces your fear and humiliation in being enslaved by them?"
Meaningless. For the record, I am not in fear of being enslaved by anyone. I predict you will now reply that I already am enslaved by corporations and big government.
Read Russ and Dannyboy's posts, 6men. That's the kind of reasoned discussion I'm looking for. Not rote recitations of passages from somebody's basement-printed pamphlet.
Report this post as:
by alright...
Thursday, Aug. 21, 2003 at 8:35 AM
these people seem smart..
they sure seem to know more about politics than you. i want to learn more about the zapatistas i'm feeling more hopeful already.
Report this post as:
by Dannyboy
Thursday, Aug. 21, 2003 at 9:30 AM
"Thank you for your responses. That's what I was looking for." My pleasure :o) "I feel compelled to point out, though, that the Basques and Zapatists are primarily agricultural societies, are they not? No heavy industry. How would such a thing as , say, an automobile factory, with all its corporate trappings, fit in? Thanks in advance for your response." Corporate trappings are the problem - the factory itself is not: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- trap·ping P Pronunciation Key (trpng) n. - An harness for a horse; a caparison. Often used in the plural. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- All communities of human beings have something they can add to the economy given the chance. It does not necessarily have to be just agriculture (of course we cannot all go back to farming or hunter-gathering) it can, is and should be industry, entertainment, agriculture, research, medical care, teaching... This list goes on and includes all the various aspects of human culture. The problem comes when these means of work are owned and controlled by an unaccountable group of managers, who have very little to do with the actual work, but get exceedingly rich at the worker's expense. In the current global situation this has been taken to incredible extremes, with a tiny fraction of the global population "owning" the vast majority of land, property and labour. Everyone else is a vassal to this global uber-class. Including you (I assume, unless your name is Rockefeller or somesuch). For a detailed description of this wealth disparity see here: http://www.lcurve.org/ There is no reason why every factory, office, school, farm etc could not become a collective possession of the local people who work and live in the area. Break up the huge corporate behemoths into small, independent units funnelling all the (non-fiat) money made back into the local population and infrastructure. Modern networking and communications technologies make this more than a pipe-dream. Why do we need vast centrally controlled enterprise, when a multitude of small units could operate just as (I think more) effectively, trading and working together, each for the good of the people doing the actual work. Rather than lining the pockets of shadowy global administrators. Decentralised like the internet, thousands of nodes interconnected in a vast global network of local efforts. Think globally, act locally (the motto of the global justice movement). I currently work for a multinational (not for much longer I hasten to add) and I know the nature of the beast. People in my office resent the fact that they are expected to work long hours and produce quality work, only to be given a subsistence wage as the profits from their labour are siphoned up the management chain to the guys at the top. We know we could run the (local) business ourselves and pay everyone a fair share of the profits - giving the workers much better motivation to work hard. This is not possible when the whole shebang is "owned" by some shadowy parent corporation which makes no actual productive contribution to the work. This is the essence of anarchist opposition to hierarchy. Power concentrates at the top of the pyramid and is easily abused as each lower level of the hierarchy absorbs and buffers against the struggles of the ones below it. Dog eat dog. Scramble to the top of the heap, stepping on those below to get a position of power and privilege. What we, as anarchists want are far flatter power structures - more transparent and easily changeable incase of abuse. Of course you need "project leaders" and "decision makers" for efficient operation (contrary to popular anarchist belief, committee is not feasible in time-critical undertakings) and some representation is necessary. These representatives must be constantly under surveillance and under threat of immediate recall the moment a majority of the represented feel the power is being abused. Contrast this to the power structures we have in politics and business today. For more on general anarchist theory go here: http://flag.blackened.net/intanark/faq/ I hope this helps and the molotov-throwing, teen-anarchist wannabes don't put you off what is actually a very well thought-out, just and workable system for society. Dan T. http://samizdat.zapto.org
Report this post as:
by whoah
Thursday, Aug. 21, 2003 at 9:43 AM
this person has done some good work here!! what a contrast... thanks for posting that info.. it's good to see that there's some people here who know what they're talking about here's some more info i found: http://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/07/72523_comment.php#75792
Report this post as:
by Dannyboy
Thursday, Aug. 21, 2003 at 9:47 AM
in posting, there seems to have been a little database trouble just then. Cheers Indymediaistas for sorting it out! You can find more about the Zapatistas here: http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/mexico.html http://www.zapatistas.org/ http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR994/ By the way, with regard to workers taking control of the factories - this is actually going on now in Argentina. After the International Monetary Fund - induced collapse of Argentina's economy, many factories shut down because the managers shifted all the money off shore to prevent it being devalued in the economic-implosion. The local population started occupying and re-opening the factories to run them as community owned resources. The government has been trying to shut them down: http://flag.blackened.net/pipermail/infoshop-news/2003-May/002628.html South America is undergoing a political siesmic shift right now - more are more countries are throwing off the harness of global capitalism and starting afresh: http://www.3bh.org.uk/IV/main/IV%20Archive/IV344/IV344%2015.htm Might have to get my self out to Chiapas one of these days ;o) Peace, Dan T. http://samizdat.zapto.org
Report this post as:
by Bob
Thursday, Aug. 21, 2003 at 10:05 AM
cheroitaliana@hotmail.com
The collective farms are nice for some poeple in agricultural societies, but what about when those societies expand. For example, how would your society battle a virus, such as sars? More to the point, you will require lots of people to do lots of research and experimenting. How do you lead these massive efforts. This takes a lot more than 20 simple farmers. It takes a massive coordinated undertaking.
If these people are taking a chance to develop something, how are they rewarded? For example, researchers may decide not to farm, but rather find a sars cure. Most of these efforts will be failures, but there will be some success. How do you encorage massive groups of people to take chances like this? Will the rewards of success offset the losses of failure?
Who decides how to control your military? There were armed conflicts in southern Mexico and there continue to be conflicts in northern Spain. Without a military, how do you control armed uprisings?
History has shown that many groups will invade and kill those who do not believe in their ideas. For example, there was the spanish inquisition. Throughout European history, people changed from catholic to protesant and visa versa in order to save thier hides. The Hutus and Tutsies killed over ethnic backgrounds as did the serbs, croats and whoever else was in the balkans. How do you defend against such an invasion?
By the way, it is fun to have a civilzed discussion. Let's keep it this way.
Report this post as:
by AWARE
Thursday, Aug. 21, 2003 at 9:19 PM
Sherman did not post the Reclaim Guide. A 15 year old rich white kid who lives in Orange County with his parents, authored and posted the Reclaim Guide on a piece of donated server space that lived on Sherman's server. Sherman partitioned a piece of his drive for donated space. Nick probably didn't understand the law or the seriousness of his actions (he was just another naive kid who should not be prosecuted). Nick was interviewed by John I. Pi, the special agent assigned to this case. During the interview Nick admitted to the crime. Special Agent Pi stated that posting the information was not a crime, but the fact that Sherman had maps to the protests in NYC linked to his web site proved intent. The links to maps and the link to the Reclaim Guide lived on two different web pages that were not related and were authored by two different people (Nick and Sherman). This kid, Nick, ran a web site for his mother's business along with a political site where he attempted to organize others. Nick, uploaded the Reclaim Guide to Nick's web site which lived on Sherman's server, and Sherman, without reading the entire contents of the Reclaim Guide, scripted a link from raisethefist.com to Nick’s web page--the link to the Reclaim Guide lived on Nicks web page. The defense, prosecutor, and judge did not understand the terminology of the case. This case should have been fought in court--not plea bargained. Sherman will be serving time for a crime that NICK committed.
Report this post as:
by Rational Normal Person
Thursday, Aug. 21, 2003 at 9:35 PM
So you tell us who the REAL criminal is..... You gave us a name.
You RAT!!!!! You gave up one of your own?
I now have a deep respect for Sherman Austin, he took the fall to protect someone else. He did the honourable thing. He did not implicate his fellow anarchists or plea bargain his way to a lesser sentence by naming names.
Report this post as:
by Ernest
Friday, Aug. 22, 2003 at 7:35 AM
Another key issue to do with capitalism and such like is the division of labour. work and life, work and play have been divided so that work is for money not for enjoyment or natural satisfaction. Also work is specialised so that only those that have special training can become electricions, mechanics ect.... This has led to a reliance on key workers and added to the domination of the ruling class one of the ways we must work to over throw capitalism is through skills sharing and even D.I.Y!
Report this post as:
by .
Friday, Aug. 22, 2003 at 7:57 AM
>work and play have been divided so that work is for money not for enjoyment or natural satisfaction.
Maybe to you. I enjoy my work. It's satisfying.
>Also work is specialised so that only those that have special training can become electricions, mechanics ect....
I know tons of people who work one job during the week, but are weekend eletricians and mechanics, usually for enjoyment.
Quite frankly, I don't want unqualified people doing work for me. Thank goodness for special training.
>This has led to a reliance on key workers
Whatever economy we might have, you're going to have specialized workers. Some people are naturally going to be better than others at a particular job, and given the choice, that's the one I want doing that particular job.
>and added to the domination of the ruling class
How does me choosing which plumber I want unstopping my drain add to the domination of the ruling class?
Report this post as:
by Bob
Friday, Aug. 22, 2003 at 10:13 AM
We have specialized labor because of our advancement in technology, which has made our lives easier. Look at a good mechanic. They need to study quite a while in order to diagnos and repair a modern vehicle. The medical profession relies on experts. Wouldn't you want a heart specialist treating a heart problem. You would not want a liver specialist.
I find it hard to believe this guy Austin was railroaded. I had many clients plead guilty in federal court. All the defense attorneys I know, including me, only allow a client to plead if they are absolutely certain that the client is guilty AND that the fed can prove the case. Likewise, the judges question the defendant and make sure the defendant is actually guilty. Besides, no attorney is going to but his livelihood on the line so that the fed can prosecute someone who the attorney knows is not guilty.
Report this post as:
by md
Friday, Aug. 22, 2003 at 2:09 PM
Corruption exists everywhere. Especially in the FBI. Some call it evil, I disagree, I believe it's a distasteful part of our society which I term as imperferct. Simply, lessons that have not yet been learned and right now and the only justice I see for these people who exploit for their own greedy gain is reincarnation. They'll have to come back and do it all over again. I sincerely hope it exists because there are a lot of people who have made this a distrustful world. The best example of FBI corruption I've found is under the Freedom of Information Act, using Google as the search engine, type in Einstein/FBI. Einstein was silenced for his views on communism. The reading is fascinating. Enjoy
Report this post as:
by md
Friday, Aug. 22, 2003 at 2:44 PM
Corruption exists everywhere. Especially in the FBI. Some call it evil, I disagree, I believe it's a distasteful part of our society which I term as imperferct. Simply, lessons that have not yet been learned and right now and the only justice I see for these people who exploit for their own greedy gain is reincarnation. They'll have to come back and do it all over again. I sincerely hope it exists because there are a lot of people who have made this a distrustful world. The best example of FBI corruption I've found is under the Freedom of Information Act, using Google as the search engine, type in Einstein/FBI. Einstein was silenced for his views on communism. The reading is fascinating. Enjoy
Report this post as:
by nonrepublican
Friday, Aug. 22, 2003 at 3:26 PM
The Right will never have enough guns to protect themselves from their own mistakes.
Report this post as:
by tpfkamw
Friday, Aug. 22, 2003 at 3:39 PM
You mean the proles vs. the bourgies?
Ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Hey, didn't you hear they already had the Worker's Revolution?
8 people showed up.
Then they went back to the unemployment office.
Better luck next time!
Report this post as:
by activist
Friday, Aug. 22, 2003 at 3:56 PM
You mean the proletariat. Well my friend, who do you think were among the 6 - 10 MILLION PROTESTORS who marched world wide to oppose the unjust war on Iraq. Do you think these people are all in the unemployment line? Pay attention, a better world is possible..
Report this post as:
by Ted Thompson
Friday, Aug. 22, 2003 at 4:25 PM
Hey Activist, Are you saying that the world was a better place when Saddam ruled Iraq?
Report this post as:
by Josef
Friday, Aug. 22, 2003 at 4:47 PM
Is that the whole system is based on comical assumptions about human nature. For a collective to work it requires that everyone is co-operative, helpful and has few ambitions in life.
Look, the human animal is not like that and never will be. We always produce a few alpha males among us who dominate, it's their nature to do so.
When you advocates of anarchist utopia get some more experience in life you'll see what I mean.
Report this post as:
by stupidity
Friday, Aug. 22, 2003 at 6:19 PM
Hey Ted Thompson, Are you saying that the world is a better place under george forest....ooops bush....total disrespect of the UN blood sucking PARASITE all he wants is blood money it ain't 'bout justice it ain't 'bout freedom it's about oil
Report this post as:
by Ernest
Saturday, Aug. 23, 2003 at 12:43 AM
So you would prefer to have someone that did the work for money as oppose to someone who did the work for the love of it. They might have the same skills but because one has a card saying it is his life they should be payed and not the guy who would do it for free.
Report this post as:
by tpfkamw
Saturday, Aug. 23, 2003 at 1:01 AM
Let's be generous and say 10 million protestors.
World population is 6 billion people.
My calculator shows that 0.16% of the world protested the war.
Only a lefty could call 0.16% a mandate.
You say a better world is possible. I agree...and add that it's on its way, thanks to George Bush and Tony Blair. Especially for the Iraqi people. You know, the people who would still be living under daily threat of torture, rape, plastic shredders, acid baths if the coalition of the willing hadn't had the courage to do the right thing.
And to think that you wanted all that to continue by opposing the war.
What's wrong with you?
Report this post as:
by someone
Saturday, Aug. 23, 2003 at 3:11 AM
Actually the poles across the world indicated that even in the coalition countries people were against war from the usa and allies. In spain it was about 90% against war, italy about 75% UK 65% so whatever
Report this post as:
by tpfkamw
Saturday, Aug. 23, 2003 at 3:14 AM
That means more of the world didn't mind seeing Iraquis tortured, mutilated, raped and murdered.
I repeat: What's wrong with you?
Report this post as:
by .
Saturday, Aug. 23, 2003 at 3:37 AM
Mature!!
>So you would prefer to have someone that did the work for money as oppose to someone who did the work for the love of it.
I prefer someone who loved it and would do it for free, but this is not Fantasyland. Given it's the real world, I prefer someone who is competent whether they are doing it for money or for the love of it or both.
>They might have the same skills but because one has a card saying it is his life they should be payed and not the guy who would do it for free.
That's so damn stupid you shouldn't even have bothered us with the thought. I've had friends who have offered to do work around my house for free, but I always offer to pay or ask if they want to stay for dinner, something. Some take it , some don't. But that's not your concern. Butt out!
If you're going to write again, make it worthwhile. Idiot!
Report this post as:
by Khun
Saturday, Aug. 23, 2003 at 4:25 AM
I originally came to the comments section to let people know that I couldn't reach the www.raiseyourfist.org from my internet shop in thailand. Censorship abounds! But now to respond to "Bob" and "tpfkamw" Do you notice that your examples of what an anarchist community should fear all have to do with exactly what anarchist communities do fear? States! and very powerful ones at that. Third Reich Germany was a very powerful, well organized state, capable of undertaking massive projects, like the 'cleansing' of Poland. Likewise, the Rwandan state that carried out genocide against the Tutsis was one of the strongest in the region at the time. The whole program was very well organized. Read the book "We wish to inform you that tomorrow we will be killed with our children..." to get beyond the brutally simplistic NYT rendition of the story that fostered an international climate which allowed this to continue. (You know france, china, and south africa supplied weapons to that regime right?) And the tanks? As hardcore as the national guard training is, I think virtually all their members would tire of firing on unarmed civilians after a while? Don't you? Come on give the guys some credit, they signed up to serve. As for Ted Thompson, who bafflingly thinks opposing war implies support for Baath party rule, (ooh needs history lessons there! what was the peace movement position on US military support to Saddam Hussein in the 1980's? Thumbs up or thumbs down do you think?) have you considered in contrast the current plight of the Iraqi people? Freedom of assembly hasn't been restored, as you would know if you got your news from any newspaper. Lots of people are under arbitrary detention, and probably being tortured at least a little to extract information. Some of those people will be completely innocent bystanders, who will have no information to give, thereby compounding their 'guilt'. The rest of the Iraqi peoples have been suffering from disrupted food and water supplies mistaken fire at checkpoints, abondoned cluster bombs in colors attractive to children, and a Uranium-235 strewn landscape. Given the history of military operations in the last 100 years, it's unlikely - to the point of being extremely naive - that incidents of rape have decreased since the beginning of hostilities in the gulf. So, perhaps now that you've considered all that, you can understand why excitement at the end of the Baath party government would be slightly tempered by the military operation which brought it about. There were a minimum of 20,000 civilian casualties in the war. That's according to only published accounts in major edited news media. There were a minimum of 6113 civilians killed by the conflict. That's almost two deaths for every person killed by the hijackers who attacked the Twin Towers in NYC. Something which notably and admittedly has absolutely no connection with the Baath party, but it is an idea which has been left in many peoples minds by innuendo, suggestion, and manipulation of the media. Sources: http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
Report this post as:
by Albert
Saturday, Aug. 23, 2003 at 4:54 AM
Dear Confused,
Your comments about the unsuitablity of barter and the distribution of 2nd houses (leaving out mansions?), show that you passed "Intro to Microecon" just fine, but didn't pursue the subject much further, nor did you pay any attention in "Anthropology" or "History."
In non-monetarized or partially monetarized societies, people don't barter everything! They develop complicated protocols to exchange goods. They use credit, usually social credit. Social credit has a number of advantages over bank issued credit enforced with weaponry: the most salient being that it naturally limits wealth disparity and hinders excessive suffering from poverty. You can't hold on to wealth while people starve unless you satisfy a few conditions: a) you are heartless OR b) you make yourself so aloof that you can avoid considering the problem enough to be callous about it AND c) you are well protected, by people willing to use violence
Even today our society is not COMPLETELY monetarized. We all regularly exchange things among family and friends without precise accounting. At the same time we socially regulate these exchanges to prevent them from becoming excessively unfair, burdensome, or oppressive.
The basic idea of anarchy is to build a community that is safe to live in, welcoming, and trustworthy enough to extend the same role of friendship and exchange to.
Sincerely, A.
Report this post as:
by pointer
Saturday, Aug. 23, 2003 at 5:10 AM
"Third Reich Germany was a very powerful, well organized state, capable ....."
Every reference of history at IMC's, always 1930's nazi Germany.
It's a good thing the internet wasn't invented by Al Gore in the 1920's, otherwise you people would have nothing to talk about.
Report this post as:
by observer
Sunday, Aug. 24, 2003 at 9:46 AM
" I've had friends who have offered to do work around my house for free, but I always offer to pay or ask if they want to stay for dinner, something. " exactly you didnt pay them money it is much closer the social payment said before. even if you did pay them money it was not part of a contract it was not taxed or ensured by the state... it is funny how some people through their own arguments can add to the arguments of their advisary...
Report this post as:
by Colin
Monday, Aug. 25, 2003 at 8:07 PM
If you are a defense attorney then you must be a very bad one. You cannot even read the original story and understand it so I suspect that your reading/interprertation of a brief would be abyssmal.
Report this post as:
by Bob
Tuesday, Aug. 26, 2003 at 11:24 AM
Colin, providing a true defense requires more than reading one side of a story as you would do. The defense rests in defending aginst the charges, which the story did not post. If you were to defend a client based on his or her version of the counts, you would certainly lose. Nobody would post the indictment or the charges to which Mr. Austin plead.
Stay out of law. You are far to naive to defend anyone.
By the way, stating that no attorney that I know would pressure a client into pleading solely so the fed could get a conviction is true. In fact, no attorney pressures a client into pleading. As I said, we only suggest it if we know the client is guilty and the case can be proven.
Report this post as:
by Scottie
Wednesday, Aug. 27, 2003 at 2:40 AM
"You are far to naive to defend anyone."
You are far too STUPID to defend anyone. Idiot.
Report this post as:
by An Insider
Wednesday, Aug. 27, 2003 at 10:19 AM
I was there.com
In response to your posting: I find it hard to believe this guy Austin was railroaded. I had many clients plead guilty in federal court. All the defense attorneys I know, including me, only allow a client to plead if they are absolutely certain that the client is guilty AND that the fed can prove the case. Likewise, the judges question the defendant and make sure the defendant is actually guilty. Besides, no attorney is going to but his livelihood on the line so that the fed can prosecute someone who the attorney knows is not guilty.
The problem with this case that you are not seeing is that Sherman's FPD, Mr. Kaye, did not read the facts, allowed the prosecutor to intimidate him into pressuring Sherman to sign the plea, had a low level of technological expertise, and did not welcome help when help was offered. Sherman's lawyer may have believed that Sherman was guilty because he DID NOT DO HIS JOB. He was out-the-door--waiting to open up a private practice in downtown L.A. He wanted a clear plate before he left and a feather in his cap for future overflow. He was either too lazy OR just too stressed to deal with this case the way it should have been dealt with AND he obviously was not a court room attorney (first-hand witness). He should have never requested that Sherman sign a PLEA. He should have proved Sherman's innocence. This case stinks of railroad, FBI set-ups, paid informants who hacked into Sherman's system and used his IP address to bring down web sites, lies, and uninformed defense. The FBI tried to destroy Sherman’s character and the defense was too naive to notice and too stressed to care. Sherman signed the plea because his defense thought he was guilty??????—a possibility, yes, but the truth will come out because Sherman was NOT GUILTY. This gives new meaning to YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR. MORE TO COME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
An Insider
Report this post as:
by nobody believes you're an attorney
Wednesday, Aug. 27, 2003 at 11:08 AM
If you are, post your name. I want to be sure to NEVER hire you for anything.
We're supposed to believe that there was a big conspiracy out to get some little 18 year old punk, because he was on his crappy little website making trouble?
Get a clue. The punk plead guilty because he was guilty. Every "activist" knows how to manipulate the system for his/her own best interests. You punks study up on this crap, it's Activist 101. So Sherman was smart enough to set up a website, distribute bomb making materials, go to protests and on and on...but not smart enogh to plead innocent when he knows that he is innocent? And where were hsi parents? Were they in on it too? So we've got the FBI, the Judge, the lawyers, and Shermans mom/dad, and basically the whole world ganging up on poor lil Shermie.
Yeah right.
Report this post as:
by Scottie
Wednesday, Aug. 27, 2003 at 11:24 AM
"I want to be sure to NEVER hire you for anything."
I wouldn't hire you to scrub my toilet. Moron.
Report this post as:
by Scottie
Wednesday, Aug. 27, 2003 at 1:08 PM
all posts that are just ad hominem attacks and have titles like "^" are not me. easy enough
Report this post as:
by Scottie
Wednesday, Aug. 27, 2003 at 1:09 PM
I did not make the above comment.
Report this post as:
by Scottie
Wednesday, Aug. 27, 2003 at 1:10 PM
No I didn't.
Report this post as:
by tpfkamw
Wednesday, Aug. 27, 2003 at 1:11 PM
We all know.
The faker is fooling no one.
Neither is he amusing anyone.
Except his 14-year-old buddies.
Report this post as:
by Rational Normal Person
Wednesday, Aug. 27, 2003 at 1:14 PM
You should be on a cocktail of psychiatric meds for your level of paranoia. Please seek professional help.
Report this post as:
by Mad Ax
Saturday, Oct. 18, 2003 at 8:51 AM
You fat, white, racist rednecks obviously diden't even bother to read Chris' post! Go back to freak republic, you wothless insects.
Report this post as:
by Meleena
Thursday, Apr. 01, 2004 at 11:14 AM
Melehualia19@hotmail.com 571-274-0243
Revolution will happen weather you want it to or not. Where will you be when it does? check out: Http://www.SOJAmusic.com Their message is a blessing.
Report this post as:
by Kurt Brown, alter-ego Saint Ram Bone
Friday, Jul. 30, 2004 at 6:03 PM
America The Prison Capitol of The World
wingedmanseal.jpg, image/jpeg, 635x414
That bitch Dianne Feinstein has also taken away the right to bear arms according to some information I received. I got a felony and three years probation for owning a firearm. That was after mafia within the federal banking regulatory system tried to kill me, an ex-bank examiner.
Our enemies are crawling upon us like snakes in government. I once heard someone say "If the house is infested with snakes and you can not rid the house of the snakes, Burn The House Down."
That is America, a house full of snakes in the highest rafters. Dianne Feinstein is a self-serving rich bitch who needs to be removed from government. Of course, there are thousands of others just like that pampered pimp for the rich.
Pass the match.
True Horror, Science, Comedy, Art, Music at site. Skim some writing if repetitive. Links prove atrocity by government, as if that needs to be proven.
Organized crime has taken over USA government. It will take organized Militias to remove them. If you need to know how to make bombs, just search on the web. It is everywhere.
They picked on Sherman because he is poor and it makes good headlines to criminalize the poor. Never mind those cold hearted mass murderers leading the planet to extinction.
Invent your own weaponry. There is a vast amount of biological technology in gene splicing that could reap rewards of revenge, e.g. the Brucella bacteria's DNA can be spliced with other types of DNA to come up with unique airborne strains of biological weaponry, e.g. ebola. Of course, sometimes that is like setting a blaze you can not stop if you have no vaccination beforehand.
Feinstein needs to check her rear view. America is not a happy place and we are not safe from the governmental beast and we recognize the caste system she and her cohorts want to maintain.
But first, you must get permission from the murderers and fascists leading the nation before you design any new weapons. Those are THEIR rules.
The pic was sent to me and shows that warfare is the way of primitive man. Perhaps things will change, but I seriously doubt it. Take a look at the weapons housed by the conquering beasts of the nation.
Feinstein is an idealist with a cabinet full of guns at the local police station. We mean nothing to them. When I called the police and sent messages to the fed, I was ignored. Never mind I was running for my G.D. miserable life in this wretched miserable nation.
Therefore, what comes around goes around, rich bitch. Look back in time at the pic, look forward at what is hanging.
www.angelfire.com/zine2/democracyordeath/
Report this post as:
by jose
Saturday, Jan. 22, 2005 at 1:19 PM
it's funny how white people always say "it's the past, get over it" or what not.. but they don't realize that they're the blame for everything! i mean first they wanna take the Native American's land, and then they force Africans on to ships and make them slaves.. and then during war, they prison the US Citizen Japanese-American into camps cause they think they are a threat? While these Japanese-American (US citizens) are put on the front lines with African Americans to fight their own grandparents and their parents families and stuff? I mean.. people like Bob who post comments about "reward" and that bull shit.. you need to ask Mr President, instead of blaming all these other peoples, when we're all working just as hard as you or even harder, the question back to you then, where is all our rewards for being forced to work on plantation fields or locked up forced to work under minimum wage, for what, the color of our skin?? That's bull shit.. and then accuse minorities for "stealing" but yah it's ok for white people to steal people's land and people from different countries... and all they can say to us is.... "it's the past, get over it"??? come on now.. take responsibility for your own actions
Report this post as:
|