FBI Makes Arrest in A.L.F. “Lone Wolf” Arsons in Denver

Source: Voice of the Voiceless

Informant used in arrest of Walter Bond for “A.L.F. Lone Wolf” arsons

News is emerging, but the FBI has arrested a man in connection with the A.L.F. arson at Sheepskin Factory in Denver, Colorado. Walter Bond, 34, was arrested by federal agents Thursday.

The FBI alleges Bond admitted to an informant to setting two additional fires – one at Tandy Leather Factory, the other at Tiburon (foie gras restaurant), both in Utah. In anonymous communiques, “A.L.F. Lone Wolf” took credit.

The criminal complaint outlines the case against Walter Bond, and alleges the following:

*On July 1st, investigators received a call from a confidential informant wishing to provide information on the Sheepskin Factory and Tandy Leather Factory arsons. The informant stated Bond had told him/her in a telephone call from the Salt Lake City library to refer to Voice of the Voiceless and scroll down to an article on the Sheepskin Factory arson to learn what he’d “been up to lately”.

*On July 22nd, the confidential informant arranged a monitored conversation with Walter Bond in a Ramada Inn in Denver, Colorado. Investigators allege Bond was heard admitting to three arsons: Sheepskin Factory, Leather Factory, and Tiburon. Bond was arrested subsequent to the conversation.

The arrest follows three months of A.L.F. activity in which three businesses (in UT and CO) were targeted by arson. “A.L.F. Lone Wolf” took credit for all three arsons in two communiques. Coverage of the arsons can be read at:

Sheepskin Factory arson story

Tandy Leather Factory arson story

Tiburon restaurant arson story

To date, Bond is charged only with the Sheepskin Factory arson. The crime carries a mandatory minimum of 5 years in federal prison. Additional charges for the two Utah arsons are possible.

The suspect also served prison time in 1997 for an arson at a meth lab in Iowa. Bond received notoriety when the vegan straight edge band Earth Crisis wrote a song about Bond and the arson titled “To Ashes” for their 2009 album “To The Death”.

The criminal complaint makes note of the term “Go Vegan” used in one of the Long Wolf communiques, and Bond’s “Vegan” neck tattoo (see below).

The timeline of events leading to Walter Bond’s arrest, as outlined in the criminal complaint, are as follows:

April 30th, 2010

Fire destroys Sheepskin Factory store in Denver, Colorado. The uninsured building is destroyed, causing $500,000 damages.

Investigators review security camera footage showing an individual wearing a hooded sweatshirt and backpack near the building around the time of the fire.

June 5th, 2010

The Tandy Leather Factory in Salt Lake City, Utah is broken into and a fire is set causing extensive damage.

July 1st, 2010

The FBI receives a call from a confidential informant, stating Walter Bond had admitted to him/her he was responsible for two fires: the Sheepskin Factory arson, and a second fire at Tandy Leather Factory in Salt Lake City, Utah. The informant stated he/she believed Bond contacted him/her from a payphone at the Salt Lake City Library. When asked what he had been up to lately, Bond reportedly told the informant to visit http://www.voiceofthevoiceless.org, and that that’s what he’d “been up to”.

July 3rd, 2010

Tiburon, a restaurant serving foie gras in Sandy, Utah, is set on fire. Damages estimated at $10,000.

July 22nd, 2010

The informant arranges a meeting with Walter Bond at a Ramada Inn in Denver, Colorado. The meeting is recorded and monitored by the ATF. Agents state they hear Bond admit to setting the fires at Sheepskin Factory, Leather Factory, and Tiburon. Bond reportedly stated it angered him the business made a profit from animals. Agents also report he stated he intended to burn Sheepskin Factory down again “in a couple of years”.

Subsequent to the monitored conversation, agents arrest Walter Bond. On his person they allegedly find a copy of “Declaration of War – Killing People to Save Animals and the Environment“.

Bond remains held in a Denver jail.

More news on the arrest will be made available as it emerges.

-Peter Young

An Appropriate Response to Street Harassment

by Dykonoclast
Boston Anti-Authoritarian Movement #33

You got a real sexy walk, mama. Can I be your boyfriend? Look at THAT! Are you a fag or a dyke? Hey, you with the legs! Can I ride? Don’t get mad, baby, lemme hit that! What—I was just trying to say hi.

Random sampling of some remarks to which I am subject pretty much every time I leave the house. And no, it doesn’t matter what I’m wearing or how long it’s been since I’ve showered. I am invariably regarded by much of the male population as a walking (or bicycling) fuckhole. And no, it’s not just from poor men or men with dark skin. And no, I am not fucking flattered by it —a glance in the mirror or the words of my l—overs are far more convincing than ‘Hey, Mrs. Jugs!’ from some douche with no self control. And no, these men are not ‘just being friendly’ and no, they are not ‘just trying to get to know me.’ Most things that are said to emboobened folks on the street are not conducive to starting conversations, let alone starting a healthy socio-sexual relationship.

I hate that this is such a personalized narrative that I’m writing here because I’m writing about an extremely widespread phenomenon that affects most, if not all, people marginalized for their sex or gender presentation. Street harassment is a highly effective way men have of defining and controlling public spaces as masculine male spaces. The rest of us are interlopers and we are reminded of this every time we have the gall to appear in public. It’s effective because it keeps so many of us in fear.

To have one’s delusions of being a sovereign human being worthy of respect dashed repeatedly every time one leaves one’s house is utterly soul is utterly soul crushing. Many have been the times I have elected to stay in rather than face a leering male public and I strongly suspect that street harassment plays a role in why agoraphobia afflicts twice as many women as men (agoraphobia = fear of being in public spaces).

To counteract the thoroughly isolating and disempowering effects of street harassment, projects have arisen around the world from Hollaback websites (started in NYC, now represented in most major cities, including http://hollabackboston.blogspot. com to Blank Noise Project in New Delhi, India. Hollaback sites encourage folks to send cell phone pictures and stories of harassers to be posted online, Blank Noise arranges street occupations and media projects. There is also stopstreetharassment.com which is a fantastic resource for global information, stories, resources, resistance campaigns, and it also exists to promote a forthcoming book of the same name, the first of its kind.

As exciting and inspiring as it feels when learning about activism around street harassment, that all tends to evaporate when the next sleazy fucker verbally ejaculates on you. Again. And again. Every available option is exhausting and draining; either continue in silence or yell back. Neither guarantees your safety. Many anti-street harassment activists advocate for legislation recognizing street harassment as a crime for which punitive measures are to be enforced. But can we really expect police to react appropriately to these situations if we call them? These are the folks who arrest you for disorderly conduct and disturbing the peace if you call them after your asshole partner hit you. Cops are the ones who call you a lying slut if you call them after someone raped you and they’re the ones who let your rape kit sit untested in a lab for years, decades, or for all eternity. I know I’m not the only one who has been sleazed at by cops on the street. It’s clear whose side the police are on. Even if we could expect police to take our plight seriously, do we really need more people locked up? With 1 in 31 folks in the US already under punitive state supervision, it should be abundantly clear that the state and their punishments are not the solution.

Some reality: not all of the New Jersey 7 are out of prison for defending themselves as Black lesbians against a man who promised to ‘fuck them straight’ in 2006 before physically attacking them. With more convictions to come, Shakida Bowers and Nichelle Carter are two teenaged girls imprisoned in Virginia for the next few decades because, at the age of 15, they fought back against an adult man who groped one of them, and are now being held responsible for his death in a ‘gang-related mob attack.’ In 2008, Mildred Beaubrun was shot dead at age 18 by some harassers she declined to fuck. March 6th 2010, 15-year-old Shayla Raymond was killed fleeing her harassers. A few days later, a man in NYC was so incensed at getting rejected by a woman that he followed her into the shitter at a bar and beat her unconscious. Broken eyesocket. Shattered jaw and ‘other injuries’ including the possibility that he sexually assaulted her.

I complain about street harassment a lot. It happens to me a lot. It actually happens to women and queers and genderqueers and trans people all over the world. A lot. And a lot of people, particularly the men I talk to about it, never really know how to react. Asshole randos on the street aren’t really part of a community we can hold accountable. Lucy Parsons once wrote, ‘Anarchists know that a long period of education must precede any great fundamental change in society.’ So if you are blessed with the kind of male privilege that keeps you from comprehending the reality I’m describing here, maybe you should use it in defense of the rest of us.

Brainstorm some ways of challenging these repulsive behaviors, whether in yourself, your friends, or asshole randos on the street.

Anarchism and Nonviolence: Time for a ‘Complementarity of Tactics’

This article originally appeared at Waging Nonviolence. via Infoshop.org

With the conclusion of the G20 protests in Canada, the inevitable post-mortem dissection has begun in earnest. Activists prepare to file lawsuits, organizers vow to do things differently next time, police pledge to investigate further, the media highlight the purported “destruction” before moving on to the next big story, and world leaders promise to continue their efforts unhampered by the misguided protesters. And, as is by now par for the post-protest course, pretty much everyone seems to cast blame on “the anarchists.”

More recently, in the aftermath of the Oscar Grant verdict in Oakland, the media fan the flames by blaming the few stray acts of window-breaking and looting on “self-described anarchists,” while police officials emphasize that this de facto terrorist segment justifies their conduct vis-à-vis protesters in general. More rifts develop in the streets, and although a tenuous solidarity is at times expressed as well, the lasting images once again are of anarchists acting in seemingly unproductive ways that put the interests and safety of larger movement contingents in jeopardy.

These are but two recent examples of a phenomenon that has been regularly played out in North America since at least the WTO protests in Seattle in 1999. Antipathy toward anarchists seems to have increased steadily since then, not only from corporate elites and law enforcement officials, but from a number of fellow movement participants as well. Ironically, this comes at a time when interest in anarchism among activists has greatly expanded, and likewise when its impact upon American activism in general has seen a strong resurgence in recent years.

Critical voices regularly chastise anarchists without indicating that they fully understand what anarchism actually is. But anarchists as well oftentimes seem to act in contravention of both historical and political senses of what anarchism represents. This is further made problematic by the basic fact that anarchists generally eschew doctrinaire definitions and ideological litmus tests, suggesting that people ought to be free to define their own actions and ideas in the manner of their own choosing. And yet, a kind of orthodoxy that increasingly seems like “fundamentalist anarchism” may be taking hold among some sectors that posture as “real revolutionaries,” who denigrate as “pathological” those who would seek to deploy their version of anarchism in less spectacular ways than overtly “smashing the state” by striking at some of its symbolic targets.

Interestingly, this plays right into the hands of the caricature of anarchism as violent, bomb-throwing, chaotic behavior that seems to be the first question one gets asked when their anarchism is presented in mixed company. Indeed, I always enjoy getting that inevitable query: “Isn’t anarchism just violence and destruction?” To which I usually reply: “How many people would you estimate have been killed by anarchists in the last hundred years? Now, how many would you say have been killed by liberals, or conservatives, in that time frame? If a lawyer or corporate manager were here before you now, would you ask about the blood on their hands or just let it slide as part of business as usual? The state didn’t save us from the violence of anarchy — it simply monopolized it, institutionalized it, and expanded its role in our lives.”

I recently had the opportunity to facilitate a series of workshops on “Anarchism and Nonviolence” in the U.S. and Canada. As one might expect, spirited conversations ensued in which many powerful young voices felt challenged by the notion of being nonviolent in a world that in their lifetimes has appeared as inherently violent. Indeed, these issues get at the heart of matters of ethics, tactics, and visions for the future, comprising some of the most basic concerns for social movements and individual consciences alike. One of the exercises we did in these workshops was to create a working definition of anarchism, and then one of nonviolence. Comparing the two lists, many overlapping values emerged: self-governance, rejection of domination, respect and mutual aid, antiwar and anti-oppression practices, solidarity, a radical egalitarianism, and the politics of “prefiguring” the future society. Further, it was pointed out that both notions, (an)archism and (non)violence, trace their linguistic origins to the negation of something — yet have developed proactive self-definitions despite an initial reactive framing.

And the synergies don’t end there. Among the anarchist milieu, we find figures such as Emma Goldman, who dabbled in the use of revolutionary violence in her younger days but came to reject it in her later years. She once told her comrade and coconspirator Alexander Berkman that “violence in whatever form never has and probably never will bring constructive results,” and further elucidated her position that “methods and means cannot be separated from the ultimate aim. The means employed become, through individual habit and social practice, part and parcel of the final purpose.” In the end, Goldman saw nonviolence and revolution as intertwined:

It is one thing to employ violence in combat as a means of defense. It is quite another thing to make a principle of terrorism, to institutionalize it, to assign it the most vital place in the social struggle. Such terrorism begets counter-revolution and in turn itself becomes counter-revolutionary.… The one thing I am convinced of as I have never been in my life is that the gun decides nothing at all. Even if it accomplishes what it sets out to do — which it rarely does — it brings so many evils in its wake as to defeat its original aim.… If we can undergo changes in every other method of dealing with the social issues we will also have to learn to change in the methods of revolution. I think it can be done. If not, I shall relinquish my belief in revolution.

Ira Chernus, in chapter five of his book American Nonviolence, assesses Goldman’s transition:

It is not surprising that Goldman eventually endorsed nonviolence. Her anarchist views embraced the fundamental premises of the nonviolent abolitionists. She believed that all people should be treated as equals because no one should have authority over another…. She believed that when people do have authority over others they are coercing others, and thus they are bound to do violence. She believed that no one could achieve right ends by wrong means. Her anarchism also foreshadowed important ideas that would later shape the nonviolence tradition. She believed that all power is based on consent. No one can impose their authority upon another.

Another parallel to consider is the inherent anarchism of Mohandas Gandhi’s worldview. Known of course as an iconic figure of nonviolence, Gandhi likewise borrowed from and advanced many aspects of anarchism in his social and political philosophies. As described by Josh Fattal in the Winter 2006 edition of Peace Power, Gandhi’s anarchism was made plain in myriad ways:

Mohandas Gandhi opposed the State. The State is the military, police, prisons, courts, tax collectors, and bureaucrats. He saw the State as concentrated violence.“The State represents violence in a concentrated and organized form. The individual has a soul, but as the State is a soulless machine, it can never be weaned from violence to which it owes its very existence.” Gandhi recognized that the State claims to serve the nation, but he realized that this was a fallacy. “While apparently doing good by minimizing exploitation, [the State] does the greatest harm to mankind.” According to Dr. Dhawan, Gandhi was a philosophical Anarchist because he believed that the “[the greatest good of all] can be realized only in the classless, stateless democracy.” While Gandhi advocated democracy, he differentiated between direct democracy and western democracy…. He had no more appetite for majority democracy of America; “It is a superstition and an ungodly thing to believe that an act of a majority binds a minority.” By centralizing power, western democracies feed into violence. Thus, he thought decentralization was the key to world peace…. Reiterating the idea of Anarchy, Gandhi said, “In such a state (of affairs), everyone is his own ruler. He rules himself in such a manner that he is never a hindrance to his neighbor.”… Gandhi’s concept of swaraj elucidates the connection between the individual and society. Swaraj translates into ‘self-rule’ or ‘autonomy.’…  The principle of swaraj ultimately leads to a grassroots, bottom-up, ‘oceanic circle’ of self-ruling communities.

Anarchists will recognize many familiar themes here, including autonomy, self-governance, decentralization, self-sufficiency, and a federated network of horizontal communities. As Gandhi explained:

Independence begins at the bottom… It follows, therefore, that every village has to be self-sustained and capable of managing its own affairs…. In this structure composed of innumerable villages, there will be ever-widening, never ascending circles. Life will not be a pyramid with the apex sustained by the bottom. But it will be an oceanic circle whose center will be the individual. Therefore, the outermost circumference will not wield power to crush the inner circle but will give strength to all within and derive its own strength from it.

There are more such examples — as well as some that contradict the thesis being advanced here, of course — but a fuller exposition will necessarily await another opportunity. The point of offering this nexus between anarchism and nonviolence at this juncture is simply to suggest that we look for ways to support and bolster both paradigms since they are increasingly coming into contact with one another in the real world of on-the-ground activism and organizing. Rather than repeat useful but by now tired mantras about respecting a “diversity of tactics,” we might consider instead looking to generate a “complementarity of tactics” in which the choices we make are mutually-reinforcing. This is particularly true in an era when provocateurs and propagandists alike can easily exploit the tensions among movement cohorts to denigrate all.

It seems to me that this is a matter of urgency for our movements. I’m not going to assert that my reading of anarchism as inherently nonviolent is somehow correct or true. I am, however, strongly suggesting that anarchists consider the implications of the moment in which we find ourselves. The “useful idiot” sense of anarchists becoming the justification for the escalating police state and all of its retributive techniques against activists in general has become palpable (even as we recognize it as obviously fallacious and revisionist). What worked once or even a few times as a tactic can grow stale when done repeatedly, and frankly begins to seem neither creative, spontaneous, or very anarchistic at this juncture. Not to mention that it has created a situation so rife with the prospect of infiltration that it cannot even be certain any longer whether anarchists themselves are in fact guiding their own course of conduct and self-definitions.

This may not win me any new friends among fellow anarchists, yet it needs to be said: Anarchists ought to publicly and demonstrably proclaim their nonviolence, especially in the context of mass demonstrations. This will make it clear that any violence done in that theater — which time and again is used to legitimize mass arrests, bloated police budgets, and the rest of the fascistic enterprise — is not the product of anarchists but more likely of agents of the state itself. After all, that is the basic notion being advanced, isn’t it? To wit: the state (including its corporate underwriters and beneficiaries) is inherently violent both overtly and structurally; anarchists above all reject the state and thus would do well to highlight the fundamental contrast. “The state is violent, and we are not” would be a very good place to start the discussion.

Reddit.com Interviews Noam Chomsky

A great interview where Chomsky is challenged with a variety of questions critiquing Anarchism. The video is a little over 30 minutes, but definitely worth a watch.

CNT Demonstrates in Madrid against Labor Reform and Government Cutbacks

Source: Centrum Informacji

On Saturday July 3, about 1000 members and sympathizers of the CNT took to the streets to protest against labour reform and cutbacks which the working class has had to endure over the last few months.

Click the image to go to a gallery of this event

The demonstration started punctually down Atocha St. at 12:00 with comrades from Valencia, Granada, Córdoba, Salamanca, etc. The demonstration at times turned into a combative march, with its participants shouting “workers, if you don’t fight, nobody listens” “union, action, self-management”,”workers, wake up, unemployment is at your doorstep” and other slogans criticizing labour reform.

The demonstration went without notable incidents until the Puerta del Sol. There, Carmen, secretary of the Regional Confederation Centre, took the microphone and clearly and directly denounced the new blow to the working class that represented by labour reform, where the workers themselves must pay contributions to a fund which pays for their own dismissals. She denounced the situation where the workers had to pay for the crisis while the government reinforces its capital and spoke of the necessity to fight harder than ever against the enemies of the working class. Then Velasco from the local federation CNT-Madrid, denounced the failure of capitalism, which only works for a few resting on the exploitation of the vast majority of human beings. He warned that we cannot expect anything from those who govern; we are in the hands of corrupt businesspeople, politicians and unions who have created the lastest labour reform. He referred to the mindset that tries to convince us that the neoliberal measures taken to alleive the alleged economic problems are the only ones possible. This marked the failure of the reformist political projects which have also failed morally. In light of this, all that is left is the dignity of fighting for social justice, which ultimately should lead to libertarian communism, a system created by the people themselves, for the people themselves – not against them. (To eradicate the exploitation of people by people.) A system which is above all based on revolutionary humanism, fraternity and mutual aid.

Be Positive!

Found this great article which is a fantastic stepping off point for this blog; the idea of being positive! The article discusses much more than that, including a brief history of Anarchism and some alternative definitions (which are kind of funny) of the state. Enjoy!

Source: March 2006 Idaho Observer

When the word “anarchy” is mentioned, most of us envision mayhem in the streets; societal collapse; roving bands of bikers marauding the citizenry and no government to protect us. We have been conditioned to perceive anarchy this way. Such a scenario is among the definitions of anarchy: “Absence of government; state of society where there is no law or supreme power; lawlessness or political disorder.”

Those who hold the reins of political power prefer that we think this way. If we think that the absence of government will result in lawless mayhem, they stay empowered. So the corporate, government, media collective frequently reinforces the programming—life without them would be terrifying.

But like most things in the inverted reality we live in, it’s not exactly true. In fact, we could be doing much better without most of government. There is another side to “anarchy,” a positive anarchy which we can explore, but first: Is the present state of “government” a quasi-anarchy?

A contradiction in conduct

The founding of our nation was based on principles that have ceased to be operational. The unalienable rights endowed upon us by our Creator are no longer the concern of government. Neither is establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, providing for the common defense, promoting the general welfare, and securing the Blessings of Liberty. This is evidenced by ample examples of governmental conduct, at home and abroad.

Contrasting the contents of government’s operational rule book, the Constitution, with the vast expanse of what pretends to be government, we see mostly lawlessness and political disorder. The present “government” is certainly not without its laws and a political system to create even more laws, but having exceeded their lawful authority, they are, in reality, lawless—a quasi-anarchy.

The hordes of agencies which currently surround us produce swarms of officers, which are sent hither to harass our people and eat out our substance. In many cases, roving bands of marauding bikers would be more welcome. They are at least honest about their intentions. The bikers will eventually move on, but government bureaucrats plan to make looting the public a career—with a retirement plan.

Ultimately, government is a force, emanating from the barrel of a gun. There are less oppressive options commonly used before the guns come out, but when government deems it necessary, the guns will come out. The primary policy of today’s government is to exert coercion and obtain compliance. Consent of the governed?

Consent of the governed

Consent of the governed is alive and well. The problem is how we are governed and what they do to obtain our consent. Most often, we are deemed to have consented when we fail to object to how they govern. When we fill out the form, accept the benefit or otherwise subscribe to their mandates, we have “consented” to be governed.

Like a problem child, government refuses to listen and is constantly seeking the next level of misdeeds that it can get away with. And like a negligent parent, we allow our child to get away with murder—literally.

When will it stop? Does government plan to have less agencies, “laws” or authority? Government is ever-growing and history says it will continue to do so until its oppression foments a revolution and we return to a state of complete anarchy.

Positive anarchy

The first impression in your mind at the mention of “anarchy” is likely to be images of mayhem and violence. There is a positive side to anarchy that our cursory minds probably haven’t considered. Imagine a society, living peacefully, in a voluntary, cooperative association, where each individual is free to pursue his dreams, impeded only by their respectful responsibility towards each other’s pursuits and dreams. Does that fit the programming that your mind associates with “anarchy?”

Those who fear anarchy the most—government and its corporate comrades—and have the most to lose—their livelihoods and all the power they can usurp—have programmed the fear of anarchy in the public’s mind. What are the definitions of the other side of anarchy that governments fear?

Anarchy:

“At its best it pertains to a society made orderly by good manners rather than law.”

“A political theory, which would dispense with all laws, founding all authority on the individual conscience.”

“A theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principle mode of organized society.”

Anarchism:

“The theory that all forms of government interfere unjustly with individual liberty and should be replaced by the voluntary association of cooperative groups.”

“Political theory that all forms of government and governmental restraint are morally wrong and must be abolished if absolute individual and social liberty is to be achieved.”

“A doctrine urging the abolition of government or governmental restraint as the indispensable condition for full social and political liberty.”

Is this the anarchy that we have all come to know and fear? Is there anything wrong with the absence of coercive government, voluntary association of cooperative groups and absolute individual and social liberty? A bit utopian perhaps, but the principles deserve more consideration and, wherever possible, implementation. This is what our “government” fears.

Our nation’s founders envisioned and intended to form a limited government; a near anarchy with minimal coercive powers and a maximum of individual and social liberty. But we have not kept it. Our problem-child government is now getting away with murder and countless other felonies—with all the immunity and impunity that our spoiled brat has come to expect and demand.

Voluntary society

Leaving aside any discussion of how we might properly discipline our problem child and send him back to his room (the Constitution) until he agrees to reform his conduct and abide by the rules of the house (our nation), we have important questions for which we must find answers:

Is American humanity ready for a voluntary society with absolute individual and social liberty? Is our primary fault yielding our personal responsibility and power to government? Would most people be responsible if there were no government to be irresponsible for them? Do Americans have the intellectual gravity, moral foundations and intestinal fortitude to make it on their own—in the absence of coercive government?

There are two anarchies. The question of which one will prevail depends on what kind of people we are and what we will endeavor to become. On the one hand, is the belief correct that human nature at its base level is rapine, murderous and looting? Or, are most people basically decent, and left to their own resources, will they build a better world for themselves, their neighbors and their posterity?

We need not define anarchy—it will define us, by whether we continue with a lawless, coercive government or create a voluntary society of individual and social liberty.

A brief history of anarchy

Anarchy is not merely a description of an occasional human condition. Anarchism was a movement that began to emerge, with varying degrees and forms, along with communism, socialism, capitalism and the other “isms” as the reign of monarchies began to fade into human history. Columbia Encyclopedia (1963) briefly describes the history of anarchism:

“Theory that equality and justice are to be sought through the abolition of the state and the substitution of free arrangements between functional and territorial groups. Capitalism and private property, considered limitations on the freedom of the personality, would be abolished. Necessary production would be carried on by decentralized, freely associating groups. Anarchism differs from SOCIALISM in considering the state an intrinsic evil. Zeno of Citium, founder of Stoic philosophy, is regarded as the forefather of anarchism. It is important to distinguish the philosophic and literary school of anarchism from that which has a political tendency and even a program. The philosophy of modern political anarchism was outlined in the 18th and 19th centuries by William Godwin, P. J. Proudhon, and others. Bakunin attempted to orient the First International towards anarchism, but was defeated by Marx. Bakunin gave modern anarchism a collectivist and violent tone that has persisted despite the revisionary efforts of Kropotkin and Leo Tolstoy. Political anarchism in Russia was suppressed by the Bolsheviks after the Russian Revolution. Anarchism’s only real mass following was in Latin countries, where its doctrines were often combined with those of SYNDICALISM, especially in Spain. In the United States early anarchists such as Josiah Warren were associated with cooperatives and utopian colonies. Violent doctrines were introduced from Europe and, after the Haymarket riot in Chicago in 1886 and the assassination of President McKinley in 1901, a Law was passed forbidding anarchists from entering the country. The execution of Sacco and Vanzetti in 1927 attests to the fear of anarchism in America. As an organized movement anarchism is well-nigh dead, but it retains importance as a philosophical attitude and a political tendency.”

Human beings have attempted to organize many different kinds of political systems. There is a tendency among a few people to entice and coerce people to yield their personal power and authority to various schemes of collective government. If left to follow their course long enough, most end up debased and subverted into some manner of oppressive regime by usurpation. Humanity then suffers the evils of such abuse until such evils become insufferable and, by force, the people terminate such coercive collectives.

Worth a try?

Positive anarchy, with a policy prohibiting the existence of any coercive collective, could be humanity’s answer for future self-government. It may not be a perfect system, and we may not be ready to assume the personal responsibility intrinsically associated with liberty, but at least it deserves a try. As Mae West said, “whenever I am confronted with the choice between two evils, I like to choose the one I haven’t tried yet.”

The evil we have is a government showing us no limits to the horrors that it will perpetuate in the name of government. Government is a force, ultimately emanating from the barrel of a gun. Government IS a terrorist organization!

Positive anarchy offers “good manners rather than law, founding all authority on the individual conscience; the absence of all direct or coercive government and the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principle mode of organized society.” Its fundamental principle is “that all forms of government and governmental restraint are morally wrong and must be abolished if absolute individual and social liberty is to be achieved.”

The evil of positive anarchy is that WE may not be ready to live in freedom and responsibility.

Are you ready for anarchy? It’s coming. The economic matrix, a derivative castle of cards, remains precipitously on the verge of global meltdown. The impostor president and the American regime of global terrorists have over extended themselves in their war on everything. They can only kick so much butt with a vaccine-damaged, Depleted Uranium-infested military which is growing tired of fighting against other people in their countries for no discernibly good reason.

The facts which evidence the events of September 11 as an inside job are beginning to hit even the controlled mainstream press. Americans, usually the last to get a clue, are beginning to realize what much of the world has known for sometime. The Bush administration may soon be on trial for its complicity in the murder of Americans on September 11 and the subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq waged because of their contrived “Attack on America.”

As the great over-consumer of resources, America has set an example of opulent splendor for the world to follow. Our planet of considerable, but finite resources is challenged by greed and exploitation in this very capable industrial age. Now all six-and-a-half billion of us on this planet want a piece of the American action. There is a limit to how many children Mother Nature can suckle at her breasts.

The elite who deem themselves as the best managers of our little fish bowl in space have had the aquarium grow beyond the level which they can competently manage. They can no longer stay on top of humanity. We are growing beyond them. Their solution is to create a mass die-off and cull the herd with more of their clandestine genocidal agendas.

Social, political and economic manipulations have not been enough. Chemtrails, electronic warfare, vaccinations, gross malpractice by the Pharma cartel, toxification of the food, water and air supply and a state of perpetual war are necessary to maintain their dominance.

These are interesting times. Change will be mandatory. How we change depends on how we respond to the opportunity.

Last month we discussed the other side of anarchy: “A theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principle mode of organized society”—positive anarchy—the possibility of life after government as we know it.

Most citizens operate under the paradigm that government is a benefactor, a protector, or at least a necessary evil. But, before we revisit the subject, let’s look at a past paradigm and what many would consider a preposterous notion today—The Divine Right of Kings.

The Divine Right of Kings

In 1680, Sir Robert Filmer published Patriarcha, or the Natural Power of Kings. Among the principles espoused by Filmer were that Kings have a divine right of absolute power; that this power is the same as the right of a parent to govern their children; men are born into this world and under a kingdom; we are, therefore, naturally subjugated and owe our obedience to our earthly sovereign patriarch; the power of royal fatherhood began in Adam, descended to Noah and his sons after the flood and continues in the lineages of the royal patriarchs that God hath ordained to rule over men.

In 1690, John Locke published his Two Treatises of Government. The first treatise rebutted Filmer’s Patriarcha, eloquently assailing the Divine Right of Kings. Piece by piece, he dissected the Patriarcha, arguing against the absurdities presented by Filmer. Locke’s first treatise is humorous to read, in part because his style creatively mocks the notion of the Divine Right of Kings, but also because he was quite serious about the subject he was arguing. At the time, the subject was so seriously believed in, that he had to publish it anonymously.

The point? Three-hundred-odd years ago, western humanity lived under the paradigm that absolute power was vested in a king; the king could do no wrong and; all of humanity was, as a matter of divine right, subject to such authority, without question. Today, such a notion is preposterous. We are so far beyond the Divine Right of Kings that we can barely even imagine it for the purposes of historical understanding.

With the perspective of this 300-odd year old paradigm as our historical anchor, let’s begin to move our thinking forward to a time when our present notion of the “divine right” of our ever-expanding, corporate, administrative, government becomes equally preposterous.

The Divine Right of Fascism

Fascism, the amalgamation of corporate and political interests into a dictatorial authority which holds its collective power as superior to and superseding the rights of the citizenry, is rarely declared as an operative political system. But it is the primary form of government actually operating in this industrial age. From China, throughout Europe, the Americas and to the tip of Africa, fascism is cloaked in many names by governments which pretend to operate a variety of “other” political systems.

In the more “liberal” forms of fascism, people are free to protest and organize political opposition, usually to no avail. In its extreme forms, dissent is a well punished crime. Does voting, lobbying, protesting and petitioning really change the current course our country is on? Are the political/corporate machinations rolling along, undeterred by many good efforts? Is the active practice of dissent increasingly becoming a crime?

But more importantly, under what paradigm do most people relate to “their” government? Under the evidence of conduct, do we accept the “Divine Right of Fascism?”

Will we pay a tax, whether or not we owe it, just because government says we must?

Do we comply with the many regulatory “obligations” legislated only by bureaucrats?

Have we grown to accept that a “license” is necessary to travel, to marry and to engage in commerce in many areas that would otherwise be a private right?

Will we allow ourselves to be searched, photographed, scanned, cataloged and identified in compliance with the most flimsy ruse—the pretense of protection?

Can we own and use property including “our” vehicles without the direct and mandatory interposition of the state?

If we fail to pay taxes on real and personal property, will we still “own” the property?

Can our property be taken whenever it is deemed more useful for public or even commercial purposes?

Do we pull over and stop when blue lights are flashing in our rear-view mirrors, knowing that the perpetrator behind us is armed, dangerous and only here to take from us what does not rightfully belong to him or his employer?

Are many of these “requirements” instituted for the benefit of various corporate and commercial interests?

Do most Americans, knowingly or otherwise, accede to the “Divine Right of Fascism?”

We would laugh if someone claimed we were subject to the Divine Right of Kings.

But what do we accept in our relationship to the empire of fascism? Do we give our full faith and allegiance to the deity of government? How many of your friends and neighbors would give you that glassy-eyed-stare, as if you were a heretic, for detailing the evidence that 9/11 was an inside job; that there is no law that requires you to pay income tax; or George W. was not elected because votes are created, not counted, by machines? Have we really made it very far in the last three-hundred-odd years?

The SUCKS

I offer a new definition for modern government, and, in the spirit of administrative governance, its own acronym. We are living under a Social Union of the Coercive, Kleptocratic State (SUCKS). We are compelled to participate with a state of mandatory larceny.

Most Americans have been “unified” by enfranchisement into this Social Union. With birth registration, voter application, and a myriad of applications for permission (permit, license, etc.) to operate and exist, people have simultaneously succumbed to and authorized this Social Union.

Many are enticed by the “benefits” offered by the Union. The SUCKS have a very expansive series of benefits targeting everyone from major corporations down to the homeless. Few can resist such “benevolence.”

Almost everyone has been indoctrinated by the SUCKS educational system. Programming begins early at school and we are indoctrinated often as we progress through life. Enrollment in the SUCKS program is perpetual so long as one continues watching, listening and reading the mainstream media.

Those of us who are wayward and non-compliant people with notions of freedom and personal independence, have received various forms of the hard fist. Coercion is an institutionalized component of the SUCKS.

An unspoken, but fully operational component of the SUCKS is organized grand theft. To maintain the Union many must be employed and all who succumb to membership must pay for its operation. At many levels, wealth and property are taken and redistributed by the SUCKS. This satisfies both the profit and power needs of the kleptocratic regime. Some takings are for income generation; others are to exert control.

We are united under a state which operates primarily as a theft by deception scheme. Frederick Bastiat explained it in his book The Law:

“But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.”

We have the SUCKS and millions of sucks—citizens, corporations, institutions, businesses and even illegal aliens who actively live by suckling at the breasts of the SUCKS. Grants, tax incentives, government contracts and budget expenditures feed the institutional sucks; entitlement programs and a myriad of welfare programs and societal benefits feed the common sucklings. Again from Bastiat:

“Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state wants to live at the expense of everyone. Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.”

My statements may sound like extreme descriptions of government, private institutions and the citizenry, but consider two “facts”: Reportedly, one-third of all workers in America are employed by governments and the average taxpayer gives over half his wages to taxes, hidden or otherwise. Do these simple “facts” adequately evidence the institutionalized suction occurring in America today?

A state of coercion

Would we willingly comply with mere requests for such wealth extraction? If a man with a gun came up to you and said give me half of all the money you have and send me half of everything you ever earn, would you open your wallet and continue to mail him half of your pay forever? Many Americans do, because strong-arm mobster tactics are an institutionalized component of the SUCKS regime.

Coercion is a government policy and many government employees carry guns so that you will be effectively coerced to give them half of what you earn and comply with their mandates, however violative they may be of any legal, lawful or common courtesy principles. In addition to gun-toting employees, those carrying briefcases and a special class of “judgment” providers in black robes facilitate the ongoing exercises of legally plundering the citizenry.

The majority of prisoners now warehoused in “correctional” facilities are not there because they violated another person or their property and therefore belong in prison. The majority of them are there because they “violated” the mandates of the SUCKS and must be coerced into compliance with the SUCKS’ institutionalized system of legal plunder.

Limited anarchy—

Limited government

The problem before us is how to create just enough government to do things for us, without creating so much government that it does things to us. How to give limited powers to a government which will serve us and keep that government within those bounds, continues to be humanity’s challenge. We have yet to demonstrate the ability to effectuate the operation of limited government on a sustainable basis.

The tendency of those who operate collective organizations like the SUCKS is to create evermore solutions in search of a problem. Or to quote Burke, “necessity is the plea for every infringement.”

By finding more problems which require government as the solution, or at least by spending lots of time and money pretending to solve the problem, government expands its scope of authority. In the due course of time this expanded “authority” greatly exceeds any actual authority granted to it. Eventually, a third of the people will work for government and half of what we earn will be taken to pay for it.

The challenge

The challenge before us is how to create and maintain a limited government. Essentially, we need to develop and implement a system of government that is not much larger in its scope of authority than organized positive anarchy—”the absence of all direct or coercive government… and… the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principle mode of organized society”.

How can we refine and redirect the American experiment in self-government? There are three phases if we plan to get anywhere:

Phase One

Phase One is where most of us in this “movement” are now—waking up America, exposing the beast—an educational process to win the hearts and minds of the people and extricate them from the SUCKS matrix. This important first step is necessary to release the population from the cage to which it has grown accustomed, but it is only a first step. We must also accept that statistically-significant numbers of individuals are uneducable and will refuse to step out of their cages and into freedom.

Phase Two

Phase Two is rarely given any serious consideration. The people can’t vote them out, sue them effectively, bring criminal charges or institute any mechanism to mandate accountability and limit the scope of their “authority.” The SUCKS have afforded themselves numerous shields of immunity and offensive tactics against any person or group which attempts to dethrone them.

Those who have wreaked holy hell and havoc on this planet and its people are criminals posing as a government. Fraud, treason and crimes against humanity are but a few of the potential charges. They must suffer the consequences of their crimes and be actively removed from power. The mechanisms within our current fascist collusion of power are not designed to remove the criminals which operate the system. Phase Two requires the development of mechanisms to terminate the present paradigm of power and hold the criminal element accountable. Effective Phase Two procedures are likely to involve serious martial challenges—a potentially violent armed civil conflict between the people and the forces of “government.”

Phase Three

Phase Three is perhaps our most important consideration: What system of governance do we want for our future? To move forward, we must acknowledge that the original American experiment in self-government has failed. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, it is our right, it is our duty to throw off such failed government and to provide new guards for our future security: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

What new form of government might we institute? On what principles should it be founded? How can we organize its powers so we do not end up repeating the current failed experiment?

Are we ready to grow up and finally end our allegiance to the “Divine Right of Fascism?” How many of us are ready to move forward and what can we do with the huddling, witless masses–the clueless hordes that have surrendered their all to the present paradigm—the SUCKS?

Are you ready to live responsably, in freedom and without a coercive state regulating your every move? If so, stay tuned for some concepts in civilization engineering.

Practical Anarchy – A Very Brief Introduction

Welcome to Practical Anarchy! This blog was created to help those interested in Anarchism to inject a little bit into their lives. Many tasks and duties we preform are done simply because someone told us to do them. Well, what if you made time to do, create, manufacture, expound all of the things you’ve always wanted to? You would be taking charge of your time and your life, two concepts crucial to the Anarchism movement.

Capitalism demands you make money to live, but what if you could make most-all, if not all, of the things you need with just a little know-how and time? Practical Anarchy is a focus on discovering the things in our lives we have control over and then taking that control and creating the life that we want and not waiting around for orders.