ANARCHY: The American Way
by Jim Shamlin

Foreword
“Anarchy: The American Way” is a work in progress. It began a few years ago as a radio address (16 March 1993 on WZMB 91.3 FM)
Because I wrote ATAW for live performance, it tends to be empassioned, inflammatory, and downright vicious – this was by design, as I had to keep the interest of a live audience and needed to draw a response strong enough to make listeners pick up the phone and dial into the show. At the time, it worked, but since then, especially now that the piece is in print, I’ve had reservations about a number of “Hyde park” passages.
I’ve made an effort to de-toxify the rhetoric in order to communicate the central ideas of the essay to a more literate and sober audience – but, admittedly, some overly dramatic passages remain. My apologies, in advance, for any unnecessary offense a reader might take to the more abrasive passages that remain.
Also, because I spoke from a skeletal outline and a few pages of notes, the piece tends to ramble at times. I’ve considered revising it to improve the focus, but doing so would require the deletion of some passages that I’d rather keep.
Furthermore, I must admit that my own study of anarchism is a work in progress. In the past dozen years, I’ve changed my mind (or had it changed for me) on many points; and although I firmly believe that anarchism and the corollaries I’ve developed from it are based on solid logic, I am open to the possibility that I may be entirely mistaken on any given issue – and I will (endeavor to) periodically update this material to rectify whatever errata I uncover.
Off-line, I am working to expand ATAW into a more comprehensive dissertation on anarchism in general. The present essay may well serve as the prologue, and additional material may be posted as it becomes publishable – or maybe sooner.

Of all the various political philosophies, Anarchism is the most maligned – it seems to be the common enemy of all the others. Democrats and Republicans, who spend most of their time fighting each other, stand side-by-side to snarl at a passing Anarchist, joined by such grotesque mongrels as Communists, Fascists, and Socialists. Even those who have no idea where they stand shake off their despondency and bare their fangs at the mention of the word “Anarchy.”

They hate one another, but they loathe Anarchists.

The primary source of all this hatred is, as usual, is a lack of understanding. Everyone hates Anarchy, but nobody seems to know what it means, not even many – perhaps even most – who claim to support it.

DISPELLING THE MYTHS

There’s a lot of misinformation about what Anarchy really means. The oppressors claim that “Anarchy” means “chaos and senseless violence” in order to scare people into their political camps. Terrorists propagate the same slanderous misinformation in order to whitewash their criminal actions and fascist cravings, to give their perversion a facade of righteousness.

Because of all the prejudice, slander, and misinformation, it’s necessary, first, to talk about what Anarchism isn’t, so that one can approach its true definition in a more objective light.

Anarchy and Chaos

Some people seem to think that freedom is dangerous–thus the universal freedom Anarchy provides will result in chaos, complete confusion and turmoil in a society without guidelines. Conceded: in an Anarchistic society, there is no-one to provide rules and regulations, but it is an utter fallacy to think that chaos would perpetuate. The thought of an entire society of people living in chaos for an extended period of time is absurd. Even children have the mental capability to perceive and derive a system of guidelines for interaction.

There is an experiment used in many kindergarten classrooms in which a teacher provides a game – a board and various pieces–but no rules, and tells two children to play. Invariably, the children realize that a game without rules can’t work, and so they devise rules of their own – by nature, these five-year-old children create order from the chaos. If children at the age of five have the mental ability and behavioral tendency to create an orderly system of interaction with a playing board and various pieces, it would certainly be possible, and probable, that adults living in a society would devise their own system of interaction.

By the way, this is not an oversimplification – sociologists have shown the relevance of game theory to social interaction. In both cases, there are people (citizens or players) involved in a given situation (a game or human interaction) with fixed parameters (playing pieces or goods and services) and a given goal (winning a game or gaining a social benefit).

The only difference is that a game has a definite ending at which point there is a single winner. In civilization, there may be a definite ending, but the result of human interaction can be mutually beneficial – both parties, in most cases, gain from interaction.

Returning to the original point, Anarchy does not create a system of perpetual chaos – rules, customs, and laws will invariably arise in any society. The difference between Anarchism and statism is that in an Anarchistic society, the rules are created by the people involved in a given interaction – each person has an input and can protect his rights.

The only alternative is to have a third party dictate and enforce the rules, and enforce them at the point of a gun, to force the two parties to interact, regardless of whether the interaction is mutually beneficial. In reality, no one can claim absolute objectivity, thus there is no third party – the gun is held by a single player, who makes up rules for his own benefit – with little to no regard for the rights of the others.

Those who fear Anarchy, believing that it will create an environment of perpetual chaos, lack confidence in their own mental ability. In effect, they are begging for some third party to put a gun to their heads and force them to live, because they would rather not think for themselves.

The other kind of person who favors a statist system is far less innocent–this person wants to be the state, to make the rules, and to hold the gun to the heads of others.

This kind of person does not condemn Anarchy on the grounds of brute force, because brute force is what he wants, it is the true motive of any statist.

Anarchy and Violence

The most outrageous slur on Anarchy is that it promotes violence. This is the connotation promoted by many people who attempt to cloak their criminal actions – who believe that Anarchy gives them the right to do whatever they want to whomever they want, justified by brute force.

In such situations, there are two classes of people, the masters and the slaves, and the masters enjoy the benefit of their so-called freedom only by the oppression and exploitation of the slave class. In any situation in which Anarchy exists, there can be no slave class. Anarchy demands freedom, and there is no freedom where anyone wears chains – there is only a system of oppression, of tyranny, which is the exact opposite of Anarchy.

When rule by brute force is practiced on a large scale, the result is militocracy or dictatorship, in which a small group of people controls the rest by means of force – armies and police. To practice this sort of political system on a large scale necessitates a hierarchy of leadership, a chain of command from the fuhrer, king, or dictator, through an elite group of officers, to the soldiers who hold the guns to the heads of the civilian public.

Clearly, this is not Anarchy – but Anarchy has often been claimed by those who want to justify murder, theft, and rule by brute force. This is not Anarchism. This is fascism.

In order for Anarchy to work, in order for freedom to exist, force must be removed from the equation – there can be no masters and no slaves, only free citizens who interact with one another by choice and mutual consent, without compulsion or coercion.

Is this something to be feared?

 

Violence and chaos are the two words most people have been told to associate with Anarchy. Nothing could be further from the truth. Chaos simply cannot exist for an extended period of time, and violence isn’t the tool of Anarchism, but of its diametric opposites, statism and oppression.

ANARCHISM DEFINED

It is a typical statist tactic to smear things with so much rhetorical mud that the original form is obliterated. This is precisely why Anarchism is so rare in today’s society: most of our so-called “intellectuals” are so inundated with statist propaganda that violence and chaos are all they can associate with Anarchism. They don’t realize that there’s anything underneath all the mud.

However, there is something beneath all that muck that’s been raked over the truth – and when one clears away all the propaganda, connotations of violence and chaos, the form and shape of Anarchy remain intact. Moreover, the truth about Anarchy takes many people by surprise. As it turns out, it’s not to be feared at all: in fact, it’s the echo of a promise that was made long ago, a promise that was broken shortly after it was made, and has been trampled, along with all of human rights, by the statist faction of our government ever since.

 

It would be easiest to start at the beginning, in the language from which the term is derived. In ancient Greek, the prefix “a-” or “an-” means “without” and the root word, “archos,” means, “leader, ruler, king, master, despot, or dictator.” The actual meaning of the word “anarchos” or “anarchia” is “having no ruler,” which means being ungoverned, which means being free.

Of course, when placed in political context, the denotation of the term changes slightly. To quote from Peter Angeles’s Dictionary of Philosophy, “Anarchism is the social ideology that refuses to accept an authoritarian ruling government, It holds that individuals should organize themselves in any way they wish in order to fulfill their needs and ideals.”

At this point, the true nature of Anarchy is clear: it is not, as the statists declare, opposed to all leadership and all law, but to authoritarian leadership and oppressive law. In other words, it is opposed to statism.

As for the similarity between antinomianism and Anarchism–both of them are opposed to the same things. They differ, however, in their reaction to oppression. The antinomian reaction is to withdraw, to escape an oppressive society, whereas the Anarchist’s reaction is to overthrow the oppressors and thereby free the society in which he lives.

As a side note, antinomianism is the more passive of the two, and hence the more attractive to pacifists – however, there is no longer a new world. Every corner of the globe is populated, and there is simply nowhere for an escapist to escape to, with the possible exception of an alternate reality, which serves as one explanation of the modern epidemic of substance abuse. Those who resent oppression can no longer be cowards about it because our backs are to the wall. We are cornered, with no place let to run, and in order to survive, we must turn to Anarchy. We must fight for freedom.

That is the extent to which Anarchy advocates violence, in the overthrowing of oppressors–in the alteration or abolishment of any government that has become destructive of its purpose and function. In this context, it is clear that Anarchy accepts violent action only in self-defense–only when it is practiced by a victim to protect himself from an attacker, a fundamental right that is upheld in the courts of even the most oppressive countries by virtue of its fundamental inalienability and undeniable moral righteousness.

 

Obviously, Anarchy is a political philosophy – it has often been confused as an aesthetic one that validates anything anyone wants to do as art. Hence the creatively impotentates of art who demand the so-called “right” to be paid for whatever senseless rubbish they churn out. This is not Anarchism, this is Dada, a movement best characterized by its name, which is derived from the babble of an infant, the kind who spatters the walls with puréed asparagus and excrement, creating a festering and putrid mess that closely resembles the products of some of today’s most ÒtalentedÓ artists.

Also, Anarchy has been confused with epistemology or metaphysics, entirely separate branches of philosophy that deal with the origins and nature or knowledge and of its integration into a logical system. Thus the idiot-savant who fobs himself off as a professor of philosophy, and teaches his students that nothing exists, not even knowledge, that the universe is a threatening and uncontrollable place and that we should live in fear. This is not Anarchy – this is nihilism, solipsism, and the various other mongoloid offspring of philosophers whose only concrete concern is a state-provided paycheck.

Also, Anarchy has been confused with ethics, by such men as the nineteenth-century mad bombers and modern day terrorists who call themselves Anarchists, further smearing the term. To them, Anarchy means the right to do whatever they want to whomever they want – the right to enforce their will upon others by means of brute force. As I mentioned in the discussion of violence, this is not Anarchy – when practiced by an individual, that individual is a criminal; when practiced by a collective, that collective becomes tyrannical, both arch-enemies of an Anarchist.

 

What, then, is Anarchism? What does it imply as a political philosophy?

Primarily, Anarchism stresses the primacy of the individual – every human being is an end in himself, a free entity, as opposed to the property of a state or the servant of a collective, whether that collective is defined as a race, a people, a nation, a public, or a tribe. In a single word, Anarchism demands freedom – not freedom for some at the expense of others, but freedom for all, to its fullest extent.

The implication is that every person has certain rights – not by the permission of government, but by inalienable nature: chief among these rights are the rights to purse whatever course of action is necessary to sustain one’s life, to ensure one’s opportunities, and to act on one’s own behalf.

The only form of “government” Anarchism recognizes is one that is made up of the people it protects and serves, installed and upheld by the people it protects and serves, and conducted in such a way that it provides the fullest extent of liberty for the people it protects and serves.

Notice, too, the rhetoric of that statement – in Anarchism, the role of government is not to rule the people, but to protect them and to serve their interests. There are only three proper functions of a legitimate government:

1. A government must protect its people from any foreign threat, which necessitates the maintenance of a voluntary army or the provision of training for civilian militia.
2. A government must protect its people from domestic threat, which necessitates the maintenance of a voluntary police force to apprehend suspects, a criminal court system to determine guilt or innocence, and a penal system to isolate felons from the general population until they are proven harmless and able to return to society.
3. A government must protect the rights of its citizens by providing a forum in which disputes may be peaceably and logically resolved and the maximum extent of freedom defined in instances of conflict, which necessitates a civil court system.

Should any government overstep those bounds, it is no longer serving its proper function – it has become oppressive, and is then the right and responsibility of the people to alter it in such a way as to excise the oppressive elements, or to abolish it completely and institute a new and proper system of government.

 

By now, this should sound terribly familiar – many of the tenets of Anarchism are virtual paraphrases of some of the most profound statements of American culture: “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”; “government of the people, by the people, for the people”; “government derives its powers from the consent of those governed”; “establish justice, ensure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense”; and most importantly, “when any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it.”

 

Anarchism is the demand freedom, it calls the tender of a promise made over two hundred years ago – the promise of a free nation of equal citizens. Many have fouught and died, over countles centuries, for such an ideal – and many still would.

I ask those same patriots to examine their consciences – I ask them to explore their motives, to seek out the spring from which those passions flow. Is it really the pride of living in such a dream, in such a perfect nation? Or is it the pain of knowing what was possible, of hearing the promise and believing the dream, only to watch it shattered?

If we are such a perfect nation, why are we so detached from it? Why do we watch the political arena with less interest than a football game? Why do we select our leaders with less care than our wardrobes? Why do our own citizens burn the emblem of their own nation?

The answer is simple: we do not live in the country those documents describe – this is not the United States of America, the nation that was conceived two hundred years ago. It is similar only in name. The political philosophy that founded this nation has been sold out, corrupted, perverted, and subjugated ever since.

 

“But we are a free country,” the patriots proclaim.
Are we really?
“Remember Soviet Russia, remember Nazi Germany, think of all the suffering in China,” they cry.
When you look at it that way, you begin to see the truth–we are only free in comparison to the bloodiest tyrannies in history.

So we are the freest country on earth – but “Freedom” is not a comparison – it is an absolute. You either have it or you don’t – and we don’t. We’re not the freest people on earth, we’re the slaves who wear the lightest chains – but chains, regardless of their weight, are chains.

Regardless of how our country looks in comparison with worse ones, the glass is still half empty and we should never be satisfied until it is full.

AMERICA IN CHAINS

In spite of a few flaws, America began as a free nation, a nation true to the tenets of individualism and to the rights of its citizens – at the onset, they seemed to know what “rights” meant. Since the beginning, government oppression has borne down on the citizens – by the year 1984, there were many parallels between our government and “Big Brother” of the novel 1984. Today, those parallels are more numerous, more obvious, and more ominous.

George Orwell was like many of the prophets of his age – he saw the future clearly, predicted it through trends, and was amazingly accurate, but he expected things to develop much more quickly than they actually did. People of that time thought we’d have colonies on Mars by now – we haven’t, but we probably will, eventually, if space technology continues to progress. Likewise, Orwell thought we’d be living under totalitarian control by now – we’re not, but we probably will be, eventually, if the oppressive trends in government continue to progress.

Oppression in the modern world falls under two fundamental categories: moral and economic oppression. No political leader – not one in all of American history – can claim innocence on both counts.

Moral Oppression

The first and most obvious form of oppression is moral oppression. It is most obvious in the propaganda from the political “right,” the so-called conservatives, and the Republican party. One of the major factors in former President Bush’s defeat in the 1994 elections was his promise to bring “family values” to America by forcing everyone to behave like the Cleavers at the point of a gun.

This stems, in part, from a throwback to the medieval age, when every kingdom had an official religion, generally that of the king – and a many right-wingers, both citizens and politicians, want to make America’s official religion Christianity and thrust its impossible and unnatural moral codes upon every citizen. The morality, benevolence, passivity, and other properties of that or any other religion is not the point of this argument – the point is that any religion, regardless of its properties, promises, and propaganda, has no place in a free and proper government.

First of all, there’s the separation of church and state, a centuries-old idea that, most people agree, is the only moral policy a government may rightfully uphold. It is echoed in our own first amendment, guaranteeing freedom of religion. Second, there is history: many of the first colonists came here seeking religious freedom when the European states became heavy-handed in enforcing their own interpretations of religious texts, which was intolerable enough to make people flee to an untamed wilderness, where they founded a society based on freedom of ideology.

And yet, there remain those who declare that the Christian Bible – or, more aptly, their own subjective interpretation of it – should replace the constitution of the United States.

But there is already a constitution, and in it, there are two references to religion – George Washington signs “in the Year of our Lord 1700 and 87,” which is no more indicative of a right to oppress than a Chinaman signing something in the year of the Dragon, and the first amendment, where religion is preceded by the words “freedom of” – it is not followed by the phrase “for Christians only.” It is freedom of religion – of every religion, which includes everything from Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism all the way down to cults of Druids, HarŽ Krishnas, and even Satanists. If a right exists, it exists without exception.

But it’s not just hard-core Christians who are on the rampage to put chains on our morality – there are many people out to ban things simply because they don’t like them. Surprisingly, most of this oppression comes from the left – and, ironically enough, from people who call themselves “rights” activists. The violation of freedom of speech is widespread – think about what you’re reading right now, my very words. There are certain words I can’t post on the net because of censorship – you know the ones I’m talking about.

Let me say that again, you know the words – anyone over the age of five does, and they’re common in everyday speech, but no-one can say them in the media because of government censorship. The FCC maintains an air of righteousness because they won’t shut a broadcast station down right away for violating unwritten moral codes – but they will shut it down when license-renewal time comes. Likewise, no government body will prevent a writer from writing whatever s/he pleases, but they will arrest them, charge them with “distribution of obscene material,” or violation of another ludicrous moral charge.

Words are only the first step in moral oppression – the next step up is ideas. Do you think it won’t come to that? Well, think about this…

A short time ago, the women’s rights movement moved to ban their opposition from even expressing their opinions in the abortion debate – in direct violation of the freedom of speech. They wanted the government, with guns, to silence one side of the argument entirely, on the premise that such things as public speeches and passive sit-ins might provoke violence. (Conceded, the uproar was started by those who went further, but the proposed legislation was much more invasive.) Aside from the fact that no crime has been committed until violence actually has happened, the wider application of similar laws, which can be based on such a precedent, would stop people from criticizing anything the government enforces, turning every newspaper in the country into Pravda. Even stupid people have the right to express their opinion, and one can never equate saying “I think this is morally wrong” with throwing a hand grenade – the chain of causation there is made of smoke rings.

A similar thing happened a few years ago in the battle over flag-burning: they wanted to make it a crime. If you think about it, a person burning a scrap of cloth isn’t harming anyone – providing that the cloth isn’t someone else’s property, providing that he burns it in such a way as to harm no-one and that he cleans up the ashes so as to avoid littering.

No-one wanted to ban it because it was dangerous, or because it interfered with anyone’s right – but merely because it was offensive – because they didn’t like it.

There are a lot of people who think that scrap of cloth still symbolizes freedom and liberty – if it did, the argument would be moot, because no-one would have a reason to burn it at all. In reality, if they want to stop people from burning the flag, they need to turn it into the standard of a country that’s worthy of respect.

But back to the point: there was actually a proposal before the Louisiana state congress to give people the right to physically attack flag-burners – giving citizens and, more profoundly, the police force, permission to respond to a nonviolent expression with physical violence, to beat, maim, perhaps even kill someone merely because they don’t agree.

To silently consider such a practice is a sign of a twisted mind – to express it verbally is indiscreet – to argue for its implementation into law, even in private, is worse – but to actually put such a suggestion before a legislative body is nothing short of hideous.

To Louisiana’s credit, the bill wasn’t passed, but it wasn’t voted down either – they merely put it aside, and many Louisiana politicians have been apologizing for it, or trying to talk around the issue, ever since.

Some of them, however, aren’t apologizing. Some of them wanted to put it to a vote. Some of them wanted to pass it.

And when any government passes a law making it illegal, punishable by violence, to express dissatisfaction with that government, it’s time to flee – because that gives them the right to do whatever they want to citizens can’t even object to it.

Or, most poignant of all, consider the current debate over censoring the Internet. No-one really believes that children are somehow at risk – that they will be involuntarily subjected to streams of mind-bending images (if images, indeed, have the power to bend minds). In order to access any information or images, one must jack in, a process complex enough to keep most legislators off the net, and then manually type in a lengthy URL, which one must research beforehand.

In addition to the relative complexity of this process, it’s entirely voluntary. An adult who looks up the address of a smut shack in the phone book, drives over, buys a few dozen periodicals, and takes them home to leaf through them cannot claim to have been involuntarily assaulted by what he sees – nor can anyone who goes through the lengthy process of establishing an internet connection, researching an internet address, and keying it in.

Once again, this legislation isn’t about protectionism – which is itself an ethically questionable practice – it’s about outlawing something because someone doesn’t like it.

 

It may seem odd to defend the people who want to shout profanity, murderous religious extremists, flag-burners, and the sort of perves who regularly moon over skin-pics on their monitors, but if there’s going to be freedom, there has to be freedom for everyone. These are not the worst people I’ve taken up for – I’ll even argue for the rights of racist hate-mongers and cultists, because “liberty and justice for all” means Liberty and Justice for all – not just for the people I agree with. It applies to even my worst political enemies, to the people I despise most, because freedom is not a privilege to be dispensed at will, it is a right to be held by all.

There’s an old tenet that many soldiers mouth without really understanding – I think it’s something they’re taught by rote in basic training: “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend, to my death, your right to say it.”

That statement should apply to the general population as well. Since we haven’t pledged our lives to the nation’s defense (or, in many cases, the furthering of its imperialistic interests), there’s no need to say “defend to my death,” but we should at least say “respect your right,” or at least “promise not to violate your right.”

But it takes more than empty words memorized by rote and droned out like an automaton to protect and maintain a nation’s freedom – people have to do more than merely say things – they must understand them, they must believe them, and they must abide by the tenets they pretend to adopt.

Economic Oppression

Some of the most severe intrusions into human rights in the twentieth century are in the sphere of economics. This is the primary form of oppression inflicted upon us by members of the left, including the so-called “New Left”; the liberals, and the Democratic party. recent elections seem to suggest that we may have a reprieve, or at least an abatement, but it is inherently perennial, and will eventually return in full force.

Concerning property ownership, the government has gotten way out of hand. Think about drugs, for example – simply put, you don’t have the right to own them. You’ll be arrested. Sure, using drugs is pretty stupid, but the right to be stupid is inalienable. If congress made stupidity a crime today, they’d have to run this country into the ground from Attica, Leavenworth, and Sing-Sing tomorrow.

On an even more ludicrous level, think about arms – the second amendment right to bear them. President Clinton swells with pride over having signed the Brady Bill, and a lot of so-called “rights” activists applaud him for it. Government wants them banned because they’re dangerous weapons – people kill people with guns – but it’s the act that’s a crime, not the object. Or is it? People kill people with kitchen knives – do we outlaw them, too? I once read about a woman who killed her husband with a leg of lamb. Do we ban mutton?

Oh, and yes, that seems absurd – the right to be stupid, and banning mutton – it sounds pretty outrageous. Is it any less outrageous when the government actually passes those kinds of laws? It’s certainly not as funny. Further, it hides more ominous facts, such as the banning of firearms is really meant to leave the people unarmed against tyranny’s military forces – against government agents who, like Feinstein, want to disarm their constituents while they, themselves, remain armed.

The main problem, though, is that the right to acquire property has been replaced by the right to have property without the necessity of obtaining it – when the government promises a chicken in every pot, all the leeches and moochers vote “yes” without stopping to think about where those chicken are coming from. The government doesn’t have any chickens – so it has to send out its armed forces to all the chicken farms in the country and put guns to the farmers’ heads, which is great for everyone, unless you happen to be a chicken farmer.

The other alternative, of course, is to pay the farmers, which our government usually does – but where does the money come from? It comes from the same place the government gets all its money – axes. So that chicken in your pot isn’t free at all – you paid for it, the same way you’d pay for it at the grocery store.

What’s the difference?

First of all, it undermines your freedom of choice – it forces you to buy that chicken regardless of whether you wanted it at all – maybe you’d rather have beef, or maybe you’re a vegetarian. Where is the benefit now?

Second, you have no control over the quality – you can’t even choose the chicken: you’ve got to take what you’re given.

Third, when you buy the chicken, you pay for the chicken – and only the chicken. When government gets it for you, you have to pay the salaries of all the government employees who are, pardon my honesty, not the most productive, efficient, or scrupulous workers in society.

Finally, consider the government’s carelessness in spending our tax money. A few years ago, there was a report that the government spent something like $13 for a bolt that anyone else could buy for a nickel at a hardware store. Just imagine what they’d pay for a whole chicken!

It’s even worse, though, when it’s applied to services. Take education, for example – we were guaranteed the right to pursue an education. In 1960, when the Democratic Party dropped the word “pursue” from its platform, then its wish list, then the law, and since then, the quality of education in this nation went straight to hell. Compare public schools to private schools, and then ask yourself what government has done for education.

And the bleeding-hearts whine: “it made it available for people who couldn’t afford private education!” Did it really? Just like the chicken example, it didn’t make it affordable, it made you pay for it.

At one bargain-basement public university, students pay about $600 a year out of pocket – or, in most cases, out of their parents’ pockets. In addition to that, the government taxes their parents over $5500 dollars for the students’ education here. The proof was printed on every tuition bill – the figure is right there, preceded by “state funds contributed per student.” Putting the two together, tuition there cost over $6000 a year, over $8000 for out-of-state students – and there are some pretty good private schools these students could attend if they could spend all that money at their discretion, universities whose degrees will get them a lot more consideration, and a lot higher starting salary, than they’ll get with a piece of paper from a state school – but they don’t have a choice. Why not? Because government is stuffing a rancid chicken in their pots. Why? Because, in the name of human “rights,” they asked for it.

What’s worse, people are asking for more, in the crucial field of health care. They’re asking the government to tax them even more for health care that will go downhill quickly.

How can I be so sure that it will go downhill? Well, look at Canada. There was an article in Reader’s Digest about the national health-care program in Canada – about eighteen-month waiting lists for heart bypass surgery, about the increasing number of the brightest students turning to fields where they’ll be justly compensated and, most telling of all, about the hordes of Canadians flocking over the border to pay for health care in the United States – would they drive over the border to pay for something they could have for free at home if their own system was good?

The only real difference between the American plan and the Canadian system is rhetoric. We call ours “National Health Insurance.” The Canadians are a bit more honest, They call it “Socialized Medicine.” In other countries, they’re even more honest – they don’t pass laws forcing doctors to work without pay, they draft them into the army and threaten to shoot them if they don’t follow orders.

But still, that National Health Insurance scam sounds really great – to anyone who isn’t a doctor.

Economic oppression is so widespread that everyone is a slave to everyone else’s needs, with the government standing in the middle, holding a gun and collecting a fat commission on every exchange.

Some people call our government a fascist regime – which sounds like extremist propaganda, ludicrous and false – until you think about it: In a system of fascism, the government pretends to let people own private property, but places strict controls over the way they use it and enforces them at gun-point. Isn’t that what our government is doing?

Taxes are just a mask to hide the truth. To paraphrase political columnist P. J. O’Rourke, taxes are not voluntary. If you refuse to pay, they put you in jail – try to escape, and they shoot you. Just because you don’t see the gun doesn’t mean it’s not there. Uncle Sam’s got a gun, all right – he keeps it in his pocket most of the time, but it’s always there.

Freedom’s End

Moral oppression denies us the right to liberty. Under moral laws, there is no freedom of action, of speech, or even of thought. Economic oppression denies us the right to the pursuit of happiness. Even though “materialism” is depicted as evil, we live in a physical environment, and filling our most basic needs, not to mention comforts, require the right to possess and obtain material goods – under the current system, such actions are illegal.

But there is a third item in the triad, the right to life, and even that does not remain untouched. When either form of oppression is carried to its fullest extent, the right to life goes with it.

If we can be put in prison for the things we think and say, there to be killed in a prison riot, or by an epidemic, or shot down when we try to reclaim our freedom – or worse, if a law is passed to support those who would physically assault us, literally beat us to death in the streets, for saying something they don’t like, there is no right to life.

If government, in the name of the “common good,” can take the food out of our mouths, the clothes off our backs, and the roofs from over our heads – can deny us the barest material necessities, there is no right to life.

The ultimate end of this oppression is to deny us the right to life – to kill us – so it’s no exaggeration when I state that our very lives are at stake.

 

Death is the ultimate end of the current trends in government, and it’s growing closer every day, and it’s embraced by hordes of lemmings, under the disguise of “progressive social policy,” a term that becomes paradoxical when put into practice.

In the current year, you have to be careful of what you do or say so as not to offend anyone. Currently, it’s a matter of manners, of being polite – soon, it will be a matter of survival.

In the current year, government intrusion has made the economy so bad that it takes two incomes to supply a family with the basic necessities, and even fewer luxuries than a single salary provided twenty years ago. There is little chance for an unmarried parent to survive, even to scrape by, and economic desperation forces unmarried people to cohabitate, to share a roof with an equally desperate stranger – sometimes two or three. There is less and less food on our plates, our clothing grows threadbare, and the cardboard boxes we call houses are slowly falling apart.

The years ahead will be a trail – we will be pushed to the limit to see how much we can take, to see how little we can live on, to see how long we’ll keep taking it and not say a word.

But there is a limit – it may as much as two decades away, provided things don’t get much worse – which is hardly likely. There will come a time where something, somewhere, has to give under this pressure – and the cracks are already beginning to show.

Frustration breeds violence, which is a crime in any society, and you can see it in the rising crime rates.

Mass frustration breeds mass violence – and you’ve seen the first crack in Los Angeles, where most of the rioters admitted that they weren’t as upset by the outrageous verdict of the King trial as they were by economic frustration – note that the riot wasn’t so much an attack on the “white” population as it was the pillaging of stores, the theft of food and clothing within minority neighborhoods. You’ve seen the second crack, in Oklahoma City – though it’s no wonder that the perpetrators of that particular event haven’t been allowed to tell their side of the story.

And when that mass grows larger, there will be violence beyond control – there will be rebellion and, in its wake, a reconstruction – but without knowing the true flaws in the former establishment, there’s little chance of constructing a new one that will avoid making the same mistakes.

THE PROBLEM

So government is oppressive and it’s a bad thing – what’s the solution? Before anyone can propose a solution, one must identify the root of the problem as opposed to its symptoms. And as much as I rant and rave about government, government is not the root of the problem. Too many terrorists claiming to be Anarchists target the government itself, thinking that if they knock off a particularly stupid official, the problem will be over. That has never worked. There will be an election, and the people will pick another thoroughbred loser.

The problem is in the people who do the electing. “Government derives its power from the consent of those governed” – those aren’t just words. If people don’t like a government, if they really hate it, they’ll overthrow it. If people like the system but hate the leaders, they’ll impeach them and replace them with people they do like.

The problem is the people – and I’m not talking about some other group of people, I’m talking about you – each and every one of you who is reading this, and the countless others who are not, who are asleep in more than the physical way. You want to see the root of all your problems? Look in the mirror. Your problem is you.

Of course, there are three different kinds of “you”s I’m talking about – those who are inert, those who are acting blindly, and, worst of all, those who are acting to oppress us with full knowledge of what they are doing.

“Innocent” Bystanders

The fight for freedom has two sides – Anarchists and oppressors. There is no safe place to stand until it’s over, until we’re utterly free, or utterly enslaved, or utterly dead. You who stand in the middle of the road are standing between the trenches, and are in imminent danger of being caught in the cross-fire – and the only thing that grants them some sense of security is the fact that they haven’t been shot, at least not yet.

In this conflict, the statement “If you’re not with us, you’re against us” is not a fallacy – doing nothing is the worst thing you can do, because you’re no-one’s friend and everyone’s enemy. And you’re not innocent – choosing not to choose is still a choice. By withdrawing from the debate over any given issue, you grant power to the oppressors – and by complying with a law once it’s passed, you grant them your tacit consent – and, what’s more, you grant them permission to push you even further

The worst are those who hold strong opinions but refuse to act all the same. How many of you even take the trouble to vote? You don’t have to choose between two unworthy candidates; you can cast an unmarked ballot – blank ballots are tabulated, and that protest is noted. Also, you can vote on clearer issues – some laws are put to popular vote – and then, there is a clear choice between right and wrong.

There was an old slave song that went, “before I’ll be a slave, I’ll be buried in my grave.” It indicates a knowledge that a situation is completely wrong and that there’s a need to fight, even to die, in order to set things straight. The sad historical fact is that most of the slaves who sung that tune remained slaves – they knew it was wrong, but they didn’t fight, and so generations lived in chains until some exterior force came to free them. As a result, that lyric expresses a noble sentiment, but not much more.

They say we study history to avoid making the mistakes of the past – but here we are, wearing the chains, singing the blues, and doing nothing. Unless we avoid the slaves’ mistake, we’ll die in chains, too – because this time, there is no outside force strong enough to free us. We must free ourselves.

Polyester Zombies

Then, there’s another kind of person who’s a part of the problem, even worse than the so-called bystanders. A lot of the people who do act are half-awake, like zombies. They’re groping blindly at the controls that run this country and, in ignorance, they are steering in the wrong direction.

These people think they know the answers – they act in accordance with false instructions from Democratic or Republican party propaganda, the Communist Manifesto, or, worse sources. In the end, they oppress themselves.

Looking at the chaotic freak show they have made of politics, it’s truly a wonder that the nation has survived this long. In defense of their lunacy, it is only fair to state that, by and large, the American people are not idiots, but merely ignoramuses.

There is a difference: an idiot will throw a brick into the air and try to catch it with his forehead, whereas an ignoramus will carelessly lob the same brick, look up to see where it will land, and get hit on the head just the same. Either way, the brick-lobbing pea-brain in question ends up with a concussion.

True to the metaphor, most citizens cast their ballots about as carelessly as these dingbats hurl bricks, and there are packs of demented lobbyists chucking cider blocks in all directions. After more than 200 years of constant buffeting, you still haven’t learned your lesson. You’ve been oppressed so long that you think the cure lies in more oppression. “Please, force us to pay for second-rate health care,” you cry. “Force us to pay for that rancid chicken we want you to chuck in our pot!”

These idiots are dangerous, and there are a lot of you who fall into this category. Some of you can be turned around if someone will provide a coherent solution – but many of you are permanently stoned, wigged out on some utopic vision that leads you to believe that your lives would be improved if you were taken care of like animals in a zoo.

Action alone is not a solution – you have to know what the consequences will be – you have to know whether that liquid you’re throwing on the fire around you is water or gasoline.

Maniacal Oppressors

Far more dangerous than the ignorant hordes of ballot-casting lemmings are those who are driving them over a cliff are the power-crazed egomaniacs who know what they’re doing, who demand special privileges at the expense of others. Whether they want political privileges or material goods, their battle cry is invariably “take from them and give to me.” That’s what our government has become – an institutionalized thief who robs Peter to pay Paul. It can always count on the support of Paul, and often, it can count on Peter, too.

This sort of attitude is parasitic and extortionistic, a criminal motive disguised as a political issue. They want to crack the whip and give orders to the people in chains. They want slavery, as all fascists do, and they want to be in control.

It is this kind of person who gives Anarchy a bad name – in the name of freedom, in the name of liberty, they want to institute slavery for their own personal comfort. This is the face of the vilest enemy of freedom.

Luckily, few are that demented. Most are merely deranged. They think that they are acting for the common good – but the “common good,” becomes paradoxical when it’s applied by extortionists who are, by the way, the only ones who use the “common good” to sanctify their otherwise criminal actions.

And it’s exactly this – the illusion of some “common good” that gathers the support of Peter, of the people who are being exploited. Brainwashed into thinking that what they’re doing is actually having some positive effect for the rest of mankind, they bend right over, of their own free will, and beg the oppressors to go ahead. Some of them, stoned on the pain of self-sacrifice, have even learned to like it.

In either case, the oppressive slave-drivers and their happy masochist prey see only half the equation – they see the benefits, but they do not count the cost – by and large, they are the products of a credit-card mentality, and they think that someone else is going to pay the bill.

I explained before, when I used the “chicken in every pot” metaphor, how socialism ends up doing more harm than good, often to the people who asked for it in the first place, and dragging the rest of the nation down with them.

There are many who think that the government is the source of free money – free goods and free services. Likewise, I showed you that government produces nothing – not even freedom anymore – and that it has to get everything it provides either though extortion or taxation, which are the same thing in the end.

Some, though, think the taxes will be paid by somebody else. That’s a fallacy in itself. There’s a line in a sixties lyric that goes “tax the rich/ feed the poor/until there are no rich no more.” The question that the singer fails to ask is “What will the poor eat when there are no rich to tax?”

The rich stay rich by investing their money in the businesses that create the goods and services we need and enjoy, as well as providing jobs with salaries that allow us to obtain the products of others’ work. Of all the sources that have money in this country, there is only one that makes it: business. “So tax business,” you say. “They’ve got plenty to spare!” A lot of people are taken in by that one. In an editorial column last fall, I explained that business do not pay taxes – they’re just a middleman.

To reiterate that equation in brief, “business” is not a money tree – it gets its money by selling something – whether a good or a service – to a consumership composed of us. Taxes are an expense that is figured into the cost of a product or service that, with a markup, is passed along to the consumer – so in the end, you pay for it all the same. The moral cleanliness of the political parasites and looters is preserved only by the mass ignorance of that equation – but there are those who know, all too well, that whatever they get will come from putting chains on someone else and forcing him to provide it.

But now you know it – and you’re ignorant no more, so when some lobbyist comes asking you to support a cause that will put a chicken in your pot, ask him where he plans to get the chickens. If he admits, right away, that he wants to enslave the farmers, slam the door in his face – because you know that he’s going to promise the farmers that he’ll put chains on you. If he says “from taxes,” tell him where taxes come from, then slam the door even harder.

 

Most of the people in this nation fall into one of those three categories – those who silently accept oppression, those who mindlessly follow its spokesmen, and the spokesmen themselves. These are the three classes of people who have drug this nation down – these are your enemies. Fight them.

THE SOLUTION

Up to this point, I’ve griped about the problems we’re facing today – I’ve identified the enemy and said “fight them,” but I haven’t suggested a practical solution. That comes next:

First of all, don’t confuse a political fight with a physical one – that’s the problem with most would-be Anarchists who end up being terrorists, landing themselves in jail and sending the media hounds barking in every direction. Guns and bombs are the tools of oppressors. If you use them in this fight, you will become your own worst enemy. You won’t succeed in defeating oppression, you will only succeed in becoming an oppressor, and the enemy of all your former allies.

There is still a narrow margin of freedom in this nation, and the political establishment still possesses the mechanism to widen that gap and, in the end, to bring down the walls of the prison in which we live. Establishing freedom, the ultimate goal of Anarchism, does not require violence except in response to violence – and most of us haven’t been attacked. We’ve merely been pushed around, and it’s appropriate to respond only with similar force.

An Anarchist, or any freedom fighter, needs only two things: intellect and integrity. The intellect to perceive and the integrity to act upon that perception. The active use of a working brain is the only thing that differentiates human beings from human cattle – that, in effect, determines who will be the living, and who will be the dead.

Everyone has the potential for integrity and intellect – but they don’t work automatically. The oppressors have set these weapons aside. They’re not useful in a system that’s based on irrationalism and self-sacrifice. Simply put, they put them down because they don’t know how to use them. Pick them up – they are yours – and if you learn use them, then no-one can victimize you.

First, Think

The first step in any battle is preparation, gearing up for the fight. The oppressors sharpen their knives, you must sharpen your mind. Just think, that’s all it takes. More importantly, before you dedicate yourself to a concept, check your premises; and before you set any goal, know what it will take to achieve it, and know its full impact.

In the field of morality, know the range of freedom, demand no right for yourself that can’t be applied to or practiced by everyone to the same extent. Know the value of freedom of thought, of freedom of expression, of the freedom of unoppressive action, and protect those things, above all, for everyone, even those who oppose you.

In the field of economics, know what is necessary to achieve your goals – who is going to provide the things you demand, and how will they be compensated? If the answer requires putting chains on anyone, find another solution – because, eventually, someone will use your own stratagem as a precedent to put chains on you.

Above all, know the truth, know the laws of nature and of science that nobody’s whim can violate – these, along with the rights of others, are the only limits to your freedom.

Finally, separate your ego and your irrational fantasies from the truth – they have nothing to do with one another. No amount of fervor can turn a lie into the truth. Don’t close your mind so far that you become blind, but don’t open it so far that anyone can preach to you. Examine all ideas with an active mind – that includes your own ideas as well as any idea someone else wants to install, and when you’re wrong, admit it, but not until it’s proven.

Next, Speak

Once you’ve discovered the truth, let it be known. Because of the silence of so-called non participants, our democracy has degenerated to the level of gang rule, in which majority oppresses minority.

That is only partially true – the majority and minority are not the majority and minority of all people, but only of those who are involved. Thus, it is entirely possible to an active and outspoken minority to oppress the majority – which is too often the case, as the true majority in this country remains silent.

To break this silence, all one must do is speak – or, when speaking falls short, shout.

 

The first time to speak is when you arrive at an idea – let it be tested. Keep your mind open to the possibility that you may be wrong, but don’t lose faith until you’ve been completely and objectively disproved.

You can start small, in arguments between two people, the kind that occur in everyday conversation. Once you’ve tested your ideas and feel they’re fairly sturdy, put them into the public forum to invite debate – write letters to the editor of a newspaper – use the other media if you can.

If your ideas are solid, they will persevere – and then, it’s all the more important to let them be known because they will be accepted and adopted by others – the truth is far more seductive than any oppressor’s lie – and when the tenets of freedom are held by the majority, they will eventually make their way into government, which – believe it or not – will rectify itself in response.

Speaking of government, that’s your most important audience – write letters to your representatives to let them know how you think and feel. Those letters are read – albeit by some secretary or aide, but if enough constituents write in about the same thing, that secretary or aide will alert the representative, who will be forced to deal with the issue.

Also, ask questions in public forums, especially political debates or in the question-and-answer session that follows a speech and, if the opportunity arises, take a more active role. Let your voice be heard.

 

A second and more important time to speak out is in reaction to the lies that others try to fob off on you. In the public forum, everything is accepted as truth until it’s refuted – and silence is an agreement, a tacit assertion that a statement is irrefutable.

Such silence, sadly enough, is the hallmark of our generation. In a classroom, a professor can say “2+2=3” and the students will sit there, even though they know it is wrong, and wait for someone else to say something. Worse, when no-one says anything, they’ll assume it’s they who are mistaken. They’ll record some outrageous mistake in their notes and they’ll study it until they actually believe that 2+2 *is* 3. In terms of oppression, nothing is more dangerous – it’s a bad habit that we need to break immediately.

The classroom analogy is particularly fitting: In the public forum, anyone who takes the initiative to speak is teaching the rest, indoctrinating them, and the silence of the masses is used as acceptance for the most outlandish ideas and the justification for the most unspeakable crimes against humanity.

 

Most important, however, is to speak out whenever you’re oppressed – let them know what they’re doing to you, and that the only reason you’re complying is because they’re holding a gun to your head.

When someone stands on your foot, at least say “ouch” to let them know you don’t appreciate it. If you don’t tell them that they’re standing on your foot, they probably won’t guess on their own, and they’ll just keep standing there. Or, when they know damned well they’re doing it, they may think that you like it, and they’ll bear down a little harder.

This sort of protest is absolutely necessary, and it’s easy enough to do. Speak – or shout. Make yourself be heard.

Finally, Act

But, as I said, you need integrity – to think is fine, to speak better, but nothing will get done until you get around to doing it.

I mentioned before the sad history of the slaves who sang the blues, at a time when the slaves outnumbered their oppressors at least 20-1 and a gun could only fire one bullet. Which is better – to live a slave or to die free? The simple fact is that slavery is death, by a slow, tortuous process – either way, it’s death, but by remaining passive, there’s no way to change things.

Luckily, this isn’t China, no-one’s going to run us over with tanks for acting in protest, and there’s still the right to peacefully assemble – for the present, anyway. Passive resistance is not futile – it has accomplished many things for racial minorities through the Civil Rights movement; it can be equally useful in accomplishing things for all people in a Civil Rights movement that would embrace the participation every race.

Finally, there’s purposeful non-action, or, in other words, breaking the law. I am not one to advocate running out and doing something criminal for the sake of making a protest. Such action is futile and, quite frankly, pretty stupid – in the eyes of the public, it merely justifies the oppression, an can often be used as justification to extend the scope of oppression. I do advocate, however, ignoring the law in your daily life. Once you have developed a firm code of ethics, live by it – follow your own code. That is effective.

Think about the speed limit on interstate highways – the “law” said 55 mph, but people ignored it and drove as they pleased – and when government realized that the law was impractical, they changed it.

This sort of action requires the utmost discretion and careful consideration. Before you act, ask yourself what would happen if everyone acted in the same way, if you applied the same freedom you want to everyone else, because that’s how freedom works – if you assume the right to take someone else’s property by fraud, force, or government action, what would happen if everyone did the same? Chaos. Such a morality is impractical.

Also, you should be careful about the laws you disregard. If you refuse to pay your taxes, you’ll be shot and killed, which is hardly worth making a protest.

In those cases, stating your dispute will have to suffice. If you face charges for an oppressive law, let your disagreement be noted in the transcript – or when forced to comply, make your dissatisfaction clear to the official in charge.

There was a man who wrote a check for his tax bill on the back of a shirt – in such a way that it was perfectly legal tender – and he mailed it to the IRS. Although that seems sort of funny and a bit sophomoric, it definitely got his point across. In addition, it made it a bit more difficult, and a bit more embarrassing, for the IRS to cash that check.

 

The next thing you can do is vote – it doesn’t sound like much, but it is. The majority of people in this country do not vote, and they are oppressed by the minority who do – because those who vote control the military and the police, the war dogs and blue-clad thugs who have the legalized privilege of pulling the trigger and saying, “just doing my job.”

Even if you don’t support a candidate, vote. Cast a blank ballot to register your protest – those things are tabulated. By registering, you reserve your right to cast a ballot in other matters, such as referendums and bond issues, in which the choice between right and wrong is clear.

While we serve no king, we do have a master: the nation, the public – which means any mass of voters large enough to oppress the rest. If you join that voting group, you help to shift the balance in your favor, and you exercise a bit of control over the laws that will be inflicted upon you.

At the very least, you will be able to say, “I did what I could” and be partially right.

Take Control

In addition to voting, there is a need for honest and clear-minded people in politics. Get involved.

It may sound paradoxical to encourage anarchists to involve themselves in government itself – but it is the only realistic course of action in the present environment: every bloody coup d’état in history has resulted only in a more oppressive régime. Moreover, the principles upon which American government is founded are machinery enough to restore autonomy to the individual, if those who operate the machine are so inclined.

There are many “minor” offices on the state and local level with an need for competent professionals. A number of would-be politicians never run for office, thinking that victory is impossible for a regular person – but every politician was, at one time, a regular person, though most were always a bit deranged.

AS for the higher offices, one need only look at some of the clowns who have occupied them. A washed-up B-movie actor who played second fiddle to a monkey warmed the chair in the oval office for two terms. Not only was he elected, he was elected by a landslide – twice.

It doesn’t matter who you are or where you’re from, If you speak the truth plainly and clearly, people will listen. Even if you don’t get into office, you will get the media attention, you will make your point known through debates and speeches, and that will, at least, give people food for thought.

By and large, most people don’t have political ambitions because politics is a dirty game – which only reinforces the need for a few clean hands.

 

All the same, most people have false modesty, they don’t want to get involved, or they have other ambitions, which are quickly being made obsolete, and lack the desire to change things – they’d rather wait for somebody else to do it for them.

That’s unavoidable – freedom includes the freedom to lay down and die if you want to, but if you don’t, you need to at least remain politically alert in order to spot an honest candidate, the savior you’re waiting for, when he or she appears – and, if you can, you should do more than vote.

The incumbents, the rogues’ gallery that’s been running this country into the ground for decades, has a racket on elections. They use public funds and the resources of their offices to promote themselves, so a newcomer faces an extreme disadvantage in terms of personnel and campaign funds.

If you can, devote some time and money to promote worthy candidates – even if it’s just a few hours or a few dollars, every bit helps, and the return on such investments can be far better than any financial endeavor.

 

These are just some of the things you can do to set things straight. It will take more than grumbling to turn the nation around, to return it to freedom.

At yet, there are still the hard-core ignoramuses, closed-minded and hell-bent on self destruction. They are the casualties of this fight. There is nothing we can do to stop them from destroying themselves. Suicide will always remain an inalienable right. However, we can, and must, prevent them from taking us along on their ride to the death they call “utopia,” to the butcher they call “God.”

We, who know that freedom is the most important possession; we Anarchists who remain awake, have a mission. We must wake the sleeping – our only alternative is death.

 

contact:

greg miaskiewicz
(miask@cvn.net)

alan wehler
(littlewehler@earthlink.net)