Thanks Candice for posting this.

The violence in this world is an effect of those who are violent (emotionally or physically) to children.  The best way to stop violence in this world is to recognize the roots and first stop being violent, especially towards children, and speak out against those who are violent against children.

I am going to try vlogging for awhile and see if it suits me. I will improve the quality of these videos as soon as I get a bigger memory card for my camera. Feel free to subscribe to my Youtube Channel if you are interested in keeping up. I may not post all videos to this blog.

One of my fellow Atlanta Anarchists made a good point when he watched this documentary:

“Well I have my own ideas of what a future society should look like. I have written about them. I think that at the most general level that we should be seeking out forms of authority and domination and challenging their legitimacy. Now ’sometimes’ they are ‘legitimate’, that is, let’s say they’re ‘needed for survival’. So for example I wouldn’t suggest that during the second world war, the forms of authority, we had a totalitarian society basically, and I felt that there was ’some justification’ for that under the wartime conditions. And there are other forms, for instance ‘the relation between parents and children’ for example involve forms of coercion, which are ’sometimes justifiable’.” – Noam Chomsky

So basically, Noam Chomsky considers coercion to be justified if it meets his criterion ‘needed for survival’. WTF? Who decides if coercion X is ‘needed for survival’ or not? (I’d guess Noam Chomsky or his fellow elites decide.) How much totalitarianism does he think is justified? I have trouble even considering how the US aggression overseas in Japan and Europe could possibly be considered ‘needed for survival’. That is the same BS that every politician uses, such as Bush regarding Iraq and Afghanistan and Obama regarding Yemen and Pakistan. ‘Needed for survival’ is pretty much how most statists justify The State. And how the hell can one sometimes justify the coercive relationship between parents and children. If a child does not like his parents, then that child should be free to leave that relationship, no questions asked. What if the parents are forcing that child to attend one of Noam Chomsky’s socialist indoctrination/re-education centers after discovering that child exhibiting individualist, selfish, or capitalistic behavior? Does Noam Chomsky consider that coercion to be justified? I would be very interested in hearing a clarification of Noam’s idea about the legitimate use of violence. If anyone out there knows of a short essay or youtube video specifically addressing this, please post it to my wall. It could very well be that I am taking his words out of context or misunderstanding him since it was such a short clip, but I have a bad feeling that he is on the same page as the Randroids on this, so it is probably safe to completely ignore such “anarcho”-syndicalists need time I run into one.

For some reason I was struck with this question today. If we accept that anarchy already exists, why did the free market choose violence and separation of people into 2 classes?

When I first asked this question it made perfect sense in my mind, but I can see the need for clarification. To understand my question you must first accept that “the government” is an invalid concept (which I do). In other words the government is just a descriptor for a group of people with opposite moral rules, which makes no logical sense thus making it more of a (contradiction filled) descriptor than a concept. Second you must accept that we are already living in an anarchic society due to the government being an invalid concept.

So to expand upon my question, why in our current anarchic society* have we decided that some people can use violence to solve problems while others can’t? Why is that the dominant competitor in the marketplace of ideas?

I think a short answer to this question is that this is where our society is at psychologically. But why did anarchy result in this at this point? That is something I am having trouble understanding. How did society become so violent and divided in their minds in the first place? Is this a result of the early tribal need to subjugate oneself to a stronger opponent in order to survive? Not quite sure, but something that has set my mind a whirring. Feel free to comment with your thoughts.

*When I refer to society I simply mean people in general.

I’ll keep this one short and sweet. Whenever I hear someone say, “The government should do X” or “We need X reform” all I hear is “Get my gun, this problem can only be solved with violence.”

Tags: anarchy, NAP, violence

I went to the local anarchist meetup group again tonight where I encountered two anarchists who still support Ron Paul. I am trying to work out why this is such a surprise to me and why I was caught of guard by it. I know the arguments for removing my sanction from the political system and yet I found myself being tripped up by statements like, “well you use fiat money right? Then you are giving your consent!” I left the meetup feeling very dizzied and frustrated. Here’s the playlist of all of the arguments against supporting politics. It’s time that I review it again myself.

Also, for those of you still on the fence about supporting political parties or members, How (not) To Achieve Freedom is a must.

When I was very young I was fascinated by the cosmos.  I had a room with an accurate map of the stars painted on my ceiling with glow in the dark paint.  I had the solar system painted on my walls.  I would fall asleep almost every night listening to a tape that described a journey through our universe.  I wish I could remember the name of that tape and who narrated it, but unfortunately I lost track of that tape years ago.

Recently I discovered Cosmos by Carl Sagan on Hulu.  It reawakened my fascination with the universe and science.  I highly recommend this series because Carl Sagan gives a passionate account of the birth of the universe and our evolution, but most importantly he speaks about how important science and rationality are and how dangerous mysticism and religion are and have been to the progress of our species.

I have found this series great to fall asleep to because I think it helps bring me back to my childhood when my passion for rationality and science were so new, fresh, exciting and yet to be stomped down by public education, my family and the general populace. It really helps to relax me and make me feel genuine happiness at being a unique life-form in this universe.

Carl Sagan says in this series, “I believe our future depends, powerfully, on how well we understand this Cosmos in which we float like a mote of dust in the morning sky.”

Compared to what? The cosmos. What is killing each other when we are so small, yet so significant? So unique. It helps me to appreciate my life and life in general more. Please watch this series and let me know what you felt while watching it.

Tags: atheism, cosmos, rationality, science

I have been watching Cosmos, by Carl Sagan on Netflix.  I have really been enjoying Sagan’s passion for life and condemnation of violence.  Global warming came up in one part of the series and I began to consider the possibility that humans could effect their environment in such a way to harm people.  It’s a subject that I am reluctant to approach since there is such hysteria about it at the moment.  In this post, I will consider the possibility that humans could effect the earth in such a way that could be ultimately detrimental to all life on earth.

I know that thinkers like Sagan look towards solutions to climate change, such as reforestation, cutting toxic emissions, helping third world countries become self sustainable and seeking alternative means of power.  All of these solutions are interesting, and probably the correct direction to look if humans are truly killing themselves off, but I wonder by what means Sagan believed that these solutions be achieved.

I know what most of his contemporaries have decided.  They have decided that violence is the means.  Since Sagan and other scientists like him have provided us with the possibility that humans could destroy themselves through climate change, men in power have twisted these ideas into weapons of fear against the masses to further enslave them.  Don’t believe me?  When people talk about global warming now-a-days where does the conversation next lead?  Politics.  Can you have an intelligent conversation with most people about the possibility of climate change without discussing the Kyoto protocol, Al Gore or what Obama should do to stop pollution?

When most liberals find out that I am against government solutions to problems, they become angry with me.  I suspect it is because I make them look like a conservative when they stand next to me.  What I mean by that is that I expose the gun in their hand.  When they talk about the climate, health care or a slough of other human-interest subjects they think that they have peace on their side.  If you call yourself liberal, green or any other term that suggests that you are a fan of life… and at the same time support government solutions to problems, you have just as much blood on your hands as the conservatives.

You want a real solution?  First recognize that violence is never a solution.  All else will flow naturally from there.

Ever since I saw Bowling for Columbine I have watched every one of Michael Moore’s productions and most of the videos that were against Michael Moore.  I have been fascinated that someone who has more vocal haters than fans can rise to such popularity.  I bought tickets to his shows and rented his movie simply because I wanted to know what hornets nest he stuck a stick in.

What was so unique about Michael Moore’s documentaries (I use that term only because that is what they are classified as) was how much of Michael Moore’s perspective and personality was injected into the film.  His documentaries were anything but the classic informational borefests of the past.  They hit you emotionally in many different ways.  I remember laughing, feeling fury and feeling sympathy (sometimes to the point of tears) when watching all of his documentaries.  In Bowling for Columbine I felt sympathy for the children who has been victims of gun violence.  In Roger and Me it was the workers at GM whose lives and town had been torn apart.  In Fahrenheit 9/11 it was the Iraqis and propagandized American teens.  In Sicko it was the poor.  In every one it was a group of people that I had not previously even considered in my day to day. What I would not admit to others at the time was the sympathy I felt, especially for those who were effected by whatever subject he was focusing on.

Most of the time Michael Moore’s political ideology was the opposite of mine, and yet I felt myself going back time and time again to learn more about him and his messages.  Often I wrote him off as a propagandist, other times as a whacked out socialist and rarely thought about what his intentions were for creating these documentaries and why I connected to them despite my opposition to viewpoint that he supported.

After watching this video (spoilers), I realized what it was that connected emotionally with me.  It was that he was against violence.  That is also why he had so much vocal opposition, because he was pointing out guns where people were not used to seeing them.  It made them (myself included) nervous everytime Michael would shine the light on yet another source of violence in our country.

What frustrates me to this day is that although he is showing where violence lies, he is still  not getting to the root.  He still supports the biggest gun of all; the government.  His solution to violence is more violence, although I think he is unaware of that consciously. Imagine the uproar he would cause if he were to say the solution to a problem was no more violence, no more government. Very few have the bravery to do that.

One of the hardest challenges I have is to not let the evil in this world sour me against trying to save this world.  I see a video about children singing praises about Obama in school.  I see a story about “anarchists” acting out their abusive childhoods in Pittsburgh.  I meet someone who claims to support the non-aggression principle support the use of force against someone else (by praising the murder of a census worker)…  To see those who claim to hold the same values as I do act in the complete opposite way by supporting force!  It’s hard not to fall into misanthropy.

Fortunately I have my friends to remind me that there is a minority of humans who still try their hardest to not only speak their values but live them.  A group of people who looks forward to the future and strives to live it in their own lives as an example of what the future can look like.  A group of people who do not stand for violence in any form.  It’s very rare to find, and very scattered about this earth, but fortunately it exists to help me maintain hope that humanity is worth saving.

When I feel low about most of humanity, I remind myself why I am doing this.  This video is part two of why I continue to strive for the best in this world.

Tags: anarchy, misanthropy, NAP, nihilism, philosophy

Here’s a good look at atheists, a group that is currently considered the least trusted group in America.

Here is a link to all of the sources used in this video.

Tags: atheist, atheists, christian, christianity, dave ramsey, god