Noam Chomsky versus Sam Harris

I have contacted Sam Harris through his site to discuss his meta-ethical example of the chess game. I’ll try to avoid this abstract and philosophical debate here, untill he has replied. I can accept he’s busy. I only mention this, so I won’t get a cease-and-desist for quoting almost an entire chapter from his (though outdated) book. First give me a reply Mr Harris! I’ve never mailed or contacted Noam Chomsky because I feel he’s busy enough, I have too many of his books to read first and he’s old (so I assume his time is too precious).
I’m also looking forward to reading Harris’ new book “Lying”. So far, he seems to be against it: “Even with Nazis at the door and Anne Frank in the attic, Howard [teacher of “The Ethical Analyst", the course Harris was taking] always seemed to find truths worth telling and paths to even greater catastrophe that could be opened by lying”. In the End of Faith, his utilitarian approach of equating do and allowing (which I agree with in principle mind you) is illustrated with Peter Unger, who “made a persuasive case that a single dollar spent on anything but the absolute essentials of our survival is a dollar that has some starving child’s blood on it.” (footnoting: P. Unger, Living High & Letting Die: Our Illusion of Innocence (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1996). Wikipedia (I admit not reading Unger’s book, because I agree as I already stipulated) says: “Unger argues that for people in the developed world to live morally, they are morally obliged to make sacrifices to help mitigate human suffering and premature death in the third world, and further that it is acceptable (and morally right) to lie, cheat, and steal to mitigate suffering”. Obviously, Harris either took the course after he wrote the End of Faith, or he’s using Unger to make a point. The point being that “intentions matter” (making Harris, at most, a rule-utilitarian; the rule being intentions matter, but letting people die is a bad intention and shouldn’t be a rule). However, as Chomsky points out in a conference (to be found on youtube, but I don’t think I need proof to make this general anarchist critique -if you find it; contact me, save me the hassle of looking it up myself and I’ll edit this part-), Hitchens (the war) and Harris are state apologists. I’ll quote Harris in the End of Faith: “But we are, in many respects, just such a “well-intentioned giant.” And it is rather astonishing that intelligent people, like Chomsky and Roy, fail to see this”. I’m currently reading Stephen Jay Gould’s book “The Mismeasure of Man” and most recently “The White Man’s Burden” of Rudyard Kipling was quoted. I don’t think I need to quote the entire poem of the response of Teddy Roosevelt (writing to Henry Cabot Lodge).
The next section of Harris’ book discusses “Perfect Weapons and the Ethics of “Collateral Damage”.
“Consider the all too facile comparisons that have recently been made between George Bush and Saddam Hussein (or Osama bin Laden, or Hitler, etc.)—in the pages of writers like Roy and Chomsky, in the Arab press, and in classrooms throughout the free world”. These “facile comparisons” are what most moral philosophers call “universality”. As Chomsky puts it:”That’s not what I was saying. The statement of mine that you just quoted is a very conservative statement, in fact it was articulated by George Bush’s favorite philosopher, Jesus Christ, who famously defined the notion of a hypocrite. A hypocrite is a person who focuses on the other fellow’s crimes and refuses to look at his own. That’s the definition of hypocrite by George Bush’s favorite philosopher. When I repeat that I’m not taking a radical position. I’m taking a position that is just elementary morality”. Harris continues “What would Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden do with perfect weapons? What would Hitler have done? They would have used them rather differently”. As if these people have a bloodlust and would not try to attain global domination/hegemony if it could be done without needless killing. They are the unhumans, it would seem. To claim the same of our leaders, is the make a mockery of democracy. However, if this is the argument which Harris proposes (and it’s not clear he does), then we are all indeed complicit in the crimes of our leaders and nobody in those towers was innocent. As the terrorists claim. I’d rather go with the analysis that half of the US population doesn’t even vote because “it doesn’t matter”. Of course, Harris claims they’re not crimes. They’re collateral damage. We just haven’t found the perfect weapon yet. But if our enemy had it, he would cause needless bloodshed. I won’t defend Islam. In fact, whenever I meet a believer of anything, I’ll discuss untill they kindly run away:”Any honest witness to current events will realize that there is no moral equivalence between the kind of force civilized democracies project in the world, warts and all, and the internecine violence that is perpetrated by Muslim militants, or indeed by Muslim governments. Chomsky seems to think that the disparity either does not exist or runs the other way”. As if The Troubles were settled with atheists from the Continent and their critique of what was happening in between Europe and America. Perhaps this is a false comparison, but it’s the first one that came to mind and seems plausible enough. I invite you to explain in the comments what’s wrong with it and I’ll come up with a new one if needed. Perhaps I don’t need to. The very next paragraph in Harris’ work relates to Saddam’s rule (so faith seems to be false enemy, it’s secular rule by a mob style ganster and his posse):”Consider the recent conflict in Iraq: If the situation had been reversed, what are the chances that the Iraqi Republican Guard, attempting to execute a regime change on the Potomac, would have taken the same degree of care to minimize civilian casualties? What are the chances that Iraqi forces would have been deterred by our use of human shields? (What are the chances we would have used human shields?) What are the chances that a routed American government would have called for its citizens to volunteer to be suicide bombers ? What are the chances that Iraqi soldiers would have wept upon killing a carload of American civilians at a checkpoint unnecessarily? You should have, in the ledger of your imagination, a mounting column of zeros”. To answer the questions: 1) If they had the same military might, it might not have been so different. But I can’t say with the same certitude as Harris, because we don’t live anywhere near that kind of society. 2) Perhaps they’ve seen more misery than our volunteer army (called mercenary army by Chomsky) and they’ve lost all humanity. 3) Israel seems to be a good case study of doing more with less. They do use human shields. I’ve seen the pictures (teens on the hoods of cars, younger childeren in front of IDF forces). But this questions was in parenthesis. Pure rhetoric and deserves no response as none was expected. 4) Suicide missions only seem to exist in the movie version of the US Army. Marines never leave a man behind, so the issue doesn’t arise. However, if the military is broken and citizens are needed to bomb the enemy, I’m sure they’ll have to risk their lives too. 5) I’m not sure the tearducts or Iraqi soldiers are unable to function. We hear the same stories from anti-war soldiers returning from Iraq. The story being that most of the company don’t care that much about Iraqis and it’s hard to get these stories out. Hate breeds more hate. Being in the war won’t make ‘them’ better people. It’ll make ‘us’ worse. 0) This is the only zero. I’m sorry Sam, but I have some imagination. Harris continues to claim “But you would not know this from reading Chomsky. For him, intentions do not seem to matter. Body count is all”. From reading Chomsky I get the feeling he’s saying the intentions of the population matters and if the population votes to go to war, maybe we should. Body count is relevant. ‘Liberals’ often take about the cost of war, never mentioning the human cost. He’s trying to side-step this “It’s moral, but we’re doing it wrong and it’s costing us too much money” discourse. He seems to be a ‘better’ utilitarian. Nevertheless, as a child of the Enlightement, Chomsky sees Kant as an extension of Hume and Mill and all those guys as one great tradition. He does not claim intentions are not important. He merely points out that geo-political interests (eg. oil) are often the true motivation and noble excuses are thought of later. Intentions are important for Chomsky when, say, he defends attacking fascism in the ’40′s after the fall of anarchism in the ’30′s. But Harris seems to be a libertarian and has his own ideological filter. One that allows for a Pax Americana it would seem. Or as he puts it:”We are now living in a world that can no longer tolerate wellarmed, malevolent regimes. Without perfect weapons, collateral damage—the maiming and killing of innocent people—is unavoidable”.

Second part of fiction

We always believe the masses were ignorant and the rulers unjust. But we now know better. There are no more rulers, yet everybody remains equally devoid of any sense of justice. Including the masses, whom were now everywhere and nowhere, had known for some time now what the problems were. To claim that they should have made radical changes, is to deny their humanity and the social and biological conditions we were faced with. But that’s all over. The radical change has occurred. A revolution, if that means a saltational evolution in the reverse direction. Even though it’s very clear that there was no direction. No progress, no obvious horizon.
It wasn’t always like this. But there’s no going back. We’ve gone back. In so many ways it has become unlikely… – nay – impossible, to revert to that ancient state of degradation. We have entered a new phase. Unwilling, yet fully conscious.

“Please, no more. This is torture”. The man nearest to me was visibly fatigued. After the exorbitant act of asking somebody to do something else -in this case me- than what they were doing, others nodded in agreement; only tempered by their shyness and sense of guilt to tell a dying human what to do. But we were all dying and I felt no sense of entitlement to say out loud what all already knew. They had gathered here precisely to make the last hours of their lives count, not the analyze themselves into a depression. When death is so imminent, there’s no longer any time for sadness.

We marched on. Leaving this group behind. Or so we thought. I talked aloud endlessly and my companions said very little of this habit. Ignoring my ramblings and being visibly enerved by some rants, they’d tell me to “be quiet for a moment”, but almost always because silence was needed to proceed. Never because the sounds I was making made a semantic impact. The meaning was already known to everybody. I was just contemplating out loud.

“Haboob!”, several exclaimed simultaneously. We saw the sandstorm in the horizon, rolling over the distant hill. It wasn’t going straight for us, but we were heading straight for it. There was no real cover to speak of and a sense of duty informed our actions to head back and help the others if they were still alive. They weren’t. By the time we had reached them, the sandstorm had passed outside our radius and they were all dead for all intents and purposes. That that there were many purposes left to help you motivate your intentions. We gathered all supplies we could find. But our group was over twice their size and they only planned on waiting to die for a couple of days. Needless to say there weren’t a lot of supplies to be found.

The cadavers made my companions uneasy and they wished to return to the city. There were plenty of people their in comparison, most of whom were alive. Unable to choose novelty over nostalgia, I remained silent and followed the group back to what seemed familiar, but had become as alien as the rest of the environment. To say I wanted to experience the rest of the world, to meet new people, would have been a fallacious statement. I kept my companions for the same reasons they headed back to the city dwellers. That is to say, I followed them and they me. To keep has lost its significance. It’s all so ephemeral. So finite. So very, very short. We did not tolerate each other out of some sense of justice. It was compassion and a lack of wanting to be just. For it was to cruel and vengeful. It was too late. The human race has reached to finish line. There’s no point in trying to be first, last, fastest or anything like that. Perhaps kindest. People remained kind and those who were kind were treated kindly. But how cynical it is to be kind to a member of a dying species. If we didn’t know better, we’d console one another with lies. Knowing the end is near and there’s no reason to be upset. The people who became upset were far too homo- and suicidal to have lasted this long anyway. We were free to do what we want, but nobody knew what they should want. All hope is gone now and people just want to be alive until they die. To hope for more is hubris.

This work is intended as fiction and is to bear no resemblance to reality.

There was nothing left. Nothing of value. After the crash.

I told them I used to live there and they asked me how. I didn’t know. I lied. I said the government provided for me. It provided for everybody. That what it was there for. Before. Before the crash.

They taxed the rich and that was enough, I explained. Enough for me to live here that is. The middle of the city. People close enough to provide for each other. All within walking distance. Able to provide the services needed to have some honor. Honor had become important again. And was distributed via the computing power the remaining technology had provided. The programs only worked with an equal playing field and we got it. Our history erased, our memories lost, our culture destroyed.

It had become a meritocracy. Not a democratic society, not a sudden apocalypse, no more violence, none of it. Life was too short and we’re all that’s left. “Is that why you take care of us?”, they asked. I shook my head, shoulders and body. It was a strange response to combine it all. I said nothing. I should have said, “Who says you’re not taking care of me?”. But I didn’t. And it never happened. A lost chance. One among many.

Though, perhaps, not that many.

I always thought the end of times, if it were to happen, would be an egalitarian society. Something we’d accomplished. We’d distributed everything fairly. But fair had become a different things. Sure, after the riots (and they were smal in scale compared to the significance of the event) there was no more violence. None. That was surely a good thing. It wasn’t demanded. Not be force. Perhaps by fear. Or worse, apathy. People had stopped caring enough to be willing to kill. Life had become finite and too precious. I say precious because it had a price. It was easily calculable now. There are X people. We don’t know how many there were. We know there will be no more people. We know what we have. There’s no more virtual economy. There’s no more real economy.

First there were news reports about bombs and murders and disasters. It all seemed normal. Nothing suspicious about that. But it was the last news we had before it all really went bad. After the internet pretty much broke down, electricity soon followed. There was screw ups in the food supply and soon everybody who wasn’t growing their own plants was dead. It all happened so fast. The disasters piled up and nature wasn’t pretty after our fragile last fragment of ecomanagement crumbled. The floods. I’ll never forget the floods. The floated around. I picked them up. We’ve been together since. It was touch and go there for a while. Where did that phrase originate from? I never bothered to learn. Good thing perhaps. None of the planes can fly anymore. None that depend on fuel anyway. Or can’t handle a decent storm now and then. The humidity was inhuman. It was always humid now. I looked at the building and realized that if I’d live there now, it would never be as it once was. Besides, the person who lived there now deserved it. I deserve a lot, but this was a little too lucky to be honest. We walked away. Too many building have collapsed in the city. With the quakes and the rats, we may as well leave and had for the nearest town. It would be difficult, no doubt.

The remaining people had huddled together and every nucleus of Peoples that remained had gathered all material wealth. Entire trucks of non-contaminated earth was brought in with the remaining bio-fuel. We couldn’t get to the fossil anymore. It was all gone, outside of reach. Since then, we’ve not had a chance to exploit our surroundings. We’ve failed as a race. Well, as the human race. The little race that could. A rat race. They’re the only ones that could have survived us. But they didn’t. Our lab rats were released and a success. Artificial animals, though not born alive, were among us for a long time. But to survive and adapt in this climate, they soon become movable molds. Clinging to whatever wasn’t blown away by the winds. It wasn’t the smell that bothered me. It was the air. It became hard to breath when they were around. Whenever humans were around too, but never that bad. And it was always worth it. If things still have value. But they don’t. They can’t. We moved on. A village with some people remaining had decided that all were equally worthy. They had no outside contact, so they were entitled to do so. Provided they didn’t need providing. But that meant death. Perhaps they were right. A quick death. They couldn’t have lived over a month after we passed through. It was impossible to survive without help. We asked how long they thought they’d last. A couple of days, a week tops they responded. They were all so calm about it. Everybody was, I suppose. There’s nothing to panic about anymore. It ends with us.

The West Wing: Big Block of Cheese Day

TOBY

[enters] Excuse me. I was waylaid.

C.J.

By what?

TOBY

30,000 tourists.

LARRY

You know, the protesters.

TOBY

No, don’t call them protesters, I’ve seen better organized crowds at the DMV.

LEO

Two tons this block of cheese weighed…

TOBY

[still muttering] In my day, we knew how to protest.

C.J.

What day was that?

TOBY

1968.

JOSH

How the hell old were you when you were protesting?

TOBY

My sisters took me. [staffers chuckle] Anybody have a problem with that?

LEO

No one has a problem with that.

TOBY

The police are always seven steps ahead of them. The cops know exactly where they’re

going to be and what’s going to happen. You know how they know? By logging onto their

website. We had the underground. We had rapid response.

C.J.

And by God, you were home by supper on a school night.

TOBY

These people are amateurs. What’s my assignment?

LEO

Meeting with the amateurs.

TOBY

Huh?

LEO

World Policy Studies is having a forum… there’ll be about a hundred of them.

TOBY

Doing what?

LEO

Listening to you conduct a free exchange of ideas.

TOBY

Really?

LEO

Josh thinks it’s a good idea.

TOBY

Oh well, if Josh thinks it’s a good idea, then you bet, I’ll do it.

LEO

Look…

TOBY

What else is there?

C.J.

I’ve got Cartographers for Social Equality.

JOSH

So, now you have two choices… meeting with an unruly mob or meeting with lunatic

mapmakers.

TOBY

Or getting paid a lot more money working almost anywhere else I want.

LEO

Seriously, Toby, there’ll be security there. But still…

TOBY

What about press?

C.J.

Just wires.

TOBY

No, I mean T.V.

C.J.

No cameras.

TOBY

You negotiated that?

C.J.

Yeah.

TOBY

They agreed to it?

C.J.

You want to make out with me right now, don’t you?

TOBY

Well, when don’t I?

—

CUT TO: EXT. WASHINGTON, D.C. – DAY

The protesters are on the sidewalks, yelling. Toby is sitting in a car, whistling. The

car stops, and he rolls the window down.

TOBY

Toby Ziegler.

OFFICER

Yeah.

Toby continues whistling as he gets out of car.

CUT TO: INT. BUILDING – CONTINUOUS

RHONDA SACHS, another police officer, is standing by the door.

OFFICER

[over radio] Rhonda, this guy coming in is Toby Ziegler.

SACHS

Copy that.

Toby enters.

SACHS

Mr. Ziegler?

TOBY

Yes, ma’am.

SACHS

Rhonda Sachs. They asked me to make sure you go home in one piece.

TOBY

You fully trained?

SACHS

Yes.

TOBY

How many different ways you know how to kill a man?

SACHS

How many different ways do I need?

TOBY

I like you.

SACHS

Thank you.

TOBY

Officer Sachs?

SACHS

Yeah?

TOBY

It’s going to be a day at the beach.

—

FADE IN: INT. A SMALL AUDITORIUM – DAY

The protesters are gathered, yelling. Toby and Rhonda are on stage in the front.

TOBY

Fire your gun.

SACHS

I can’t fire a warning shot indoors.

TOBY

No, I mean fire at them. [beat] Just kidding.

TOBY

[to lead protester Webber] Hey, Solzhenitsyn. Come here. You’re the group leader?

TERRY WEBBER

Yeah, I am. I’m Terry Webber.

TOBY

You know what you did today that was really stupid? You gave away the cameras. With

cameras in here I’ve got a problem ‘cause I don’t want to look like I can’t control

the crowd. Without the cameras, I can sit here, read the sports section for two hours,

walk outside and say we talked. So, if you guys want to talk, that’s fine. But you’re

in charge of crowd control, know what I’m saying?

WEBBER

Yeah. [over bullhorn] Folks. People, let’s listen up.

The yelling subsides.

TOBY

Good morning… [microphone doesn’t work, raises voice] Good morning, my name is Toby

Ziegler and I’m the White House Communications Director and a senior domestic policy

advisor to the President.

PROTESTER 1

Advise him we need clean air more than free trade!

Yelling begins again.

PROTESTER 2

How many 12-year-olds made your shoes, Toby!?

GROUP

Global justice now! Global justice now! Global justice now!

TOBY

[to Sachs] You want to send out for pizza or something?

GROUP

Global justice now! Global justice now!

Toby sits down with a newspaper and puts his feet on the table.

—

CUT TO: INT. WORLD POLICY AUDITORIUM – DAY

The crowd is still yelling. Toby and Rhonda are at a table on stage.

WEBBER

[to protesters] Look, I’m not saying that we’re going to like their answers. I’m saying

we’re going to give him a chance to talk. Now if you do have a question…

PROTESTER 4

Yeah, my question is who elected his boss the people or Kaiser-Permanente?

PROTESTER 5

He’s not my President, let’s vote.

PROTESTER 6

Who do you really work for?

More yelling.

SACHS

[to Toby] You’re having a pretty good time, aren’t you?

TOBY

Well, it’s not like being at a Yankee game.

PROTESTER 7

You suck!

TOBY

Well, actually… [chuckles] Yeah, it’s like being at a Yankee game.

SACHS

So, Toby?

TOBY

Officer?

SACHS

Since you’re not really doing anything right now, I was wondering, what’s this all about?

TOBY

It’s about the WTO, Rhonda, the World Trade Organization.

SACHS

Well, I get that from the signs and the newspapers.

TOBY

The World Trade Organization’s a group of 140 countries who have agreed to specific trade

policies.

SACHS

So, what’s wrong with that?

TOBY

Nothing’s wrong with that.

SACHS

What would they say if I asked them the same question?

TOBY

They’d say the WTO benefits corporations and not people.

SACHS

Does it?

TOBY

Benefits both. [pause] Look at them.

SACHS

Yeah.

TOBY

Philistines.

SACHS

Take my nightstick and go kick their ass.

TOBY

Yeah, make all the jokes you want but let me tell you something they claim to speak for

the underprivileged but here in the blackest city in America, I’m looking at a room with

no black faces. No Asians, No Hispanics. Where the hell’s the Third World they claim to

represent?

SACHS

Lot of Third-Worlders in the Cabinet Room today, were there?

TOBY

You’re starting to bother me.

SACHS

That’s ‘cause I’m armed.

TOBY

No, I like that. [pause] I’m going outside.

The crowd continues yelling.

—

CUT TO: INT. WASHINGTON, D.C. STREET – DAY

The protesters are shouting.

TOBY

It’s activist vacation is what it is. Spring break for anarchist wannabes. The black

t-shirts, the gas masks as fashion accessories.

SACHS

These kids today, with the hair and the clothes…

TOBY

All right, that’s it, flatfoot.

SACHS

I got great feet.

TOBY

You want the benefits of free trade? Food is cheaper.

SACHS

Yes.

TOBY

Food is cheaper, clothes are cheaper, steel is cheaper, cars are cheaper, phone service

is cheaper. You feel me building a rhythm here? That’s ‘cause I’m a speechwriter and I

know how to make a point.

SACHS

Toby…

TOBY

It lowers prices, it raises income. You see what I did with ‘lowers’ and ‘raises’ there?

SACHS

Yes.

TOBY

It’s called the science of listener attention. We did repetition, we did floating opposites

and now you end with the one that’s not like the others. Ready? Free trade stops wars. And

that’s it. Free trade stops wars! And we figure out a way to fix the rest! One world, one

peace. I’m sure I’ve seen that on a sign somewhere.

SACHS

God, Toby… Wouldn’t it be great if there was someone around here with communication skills

who could go in there and tell them that?

TOBY

Shut up.

Josh enters through the police line.

JOSH

Toby…

TOBY

What are you doing here?

JOSH

Came down to see how it was going. [to Sachs] How’s it going? Josh Lyman.

SACHS

Rhonda Sachs.

JOSH

Any trouble?

SACHS

No.

TOBY

[raises his hand] Josh. The WTO is undemocratic, and accountable to no one, decisions

are made by Executive Directors and the developing world has little to say about

institutional policy.

JOSH

What was that?

TOBY

I protested to you.

JOSH

Why?

TOBY

‘Cause I’m not allowed to get arrested anymore.

JOSH

Let’s go back.

TOBY

No, I hate these people with the heat of a nova. Yet here I go.

SACHS

Attaboy.

TOBY

Shut up.

SACHS

I got your back, man, you know? Or not.

All three enter the building.

TOBY [enters] Excuse me. I was waylaid.
C.J. By what?
TOBY 30,000 tourists.
LARRY You know, the protesters.
TOBY No, don’t call them protesters, I’ve seen better organized crowds at the DMV.
LEO Two tons this block of cheese weighed…
TOBY [still muttering] In my day, we knew how to protest.
C.J. What day was that?
TOBY 1968.
JOSH How the hell old were you when you were protesting?
TOBY My sisters took me. [staffers chuckle] Anybody have a problem with that?
LEO No one has a problem with that.
TOBY The police are always seven steps ahead of them. The cops know exactly where they’re going to be and what’s going to happen. You know how they know? By logging onto their website. We had the underground. We had rapid response.
C.J. And by God, you were home by supper on a school night.
TOBY These people are amateurs. What’s my assignment?
LEO Meeting with the amateurs.
TOBY Huh?
LEO World Policy Studies is having a forum… there’ll be about a hundred of them.
TOBY Doing what?
LEO Listening to you conduct a free exchange of ideas.
TOBY Really?
LEO Josh thinks it’s a good idea.
TOBY Oh well, if Josh thinks it’s a good idea, then you bet, I’ll do it.
LEO Look…
TOBY What else is there?
C.J. I’ve got Cartographers for Social Equality.
JOSH So, now you have two choices… meeting with an unruly mob or meeting with lunatic mapmakers.
TOBY Or getting paid a lot more money working almost anywhere else I want.
LEO Seriously, Toby, there’ll be security there. But still…
TOBY What about press?
C.J. Just wires.
TOBY No, I mean T.V.
C.J. No cameras.
TOBY You negotiated that?
C.J. Yeah.
TOBY They agreed to it?
C.J. You want to make out with me right now, don’t you?
TOBY Well, when don’t I?
—
CUT TO: EXT. WASHINGTON, D.C. – DAYThe protesters are on the sidewalks, yelling. Toby is sitting in a car, whistling. The car stops, and he rolls the window down.
TOBY Toby Ziegler.
OFFICER Yeah.
Toby continues whistling as he gets out of car.
CUT TO: INT. BUILDING – CONTINUOUSRHONDA SACHS, another police officer, is standing by the door.
OFFICER [over radio] Rhonda, this guy coming in is Toby Ziegler.
SACHS Copy that.
Toby enters.
SACHS Mr. Ziegler?
TOBY Yes, ma’am.
SACHS Rhonda Sachs. They asked me to make sure you go home in one piece.
TOBY You fully trained?
SACHS Yes.
TOBY How many different ways you know how to kill a man?
SACHS How many different ways do I need?
TOBY I like you.
SACHS Thank you.
TOBY Officer Sachs?
SACHS Yeah?
TOBY It’s going to be a day at the beach.
—
FADE IN: INT. A SMALL AUDITORIUM – DAYThe protesters are gathered, yelling. Toby and Rhonda are on stage in the front.
TOBY Fire your gun.
SACHS I can’t fire a warning shot indoors.
TOBY No, I mean fire at them. [beat] Just kidding.
TOBY [to lead protester Webber] Hey, Solzhenitsyn. Come here. You’re the group leader?
TERRY WEBBER Yeah, I am. I’m Terry Webber.
TOBY You know what you did today that was really stupid? You gave away the cameras. With cameras in here I’ve got a problem ‘cause I don’t want to look like I can’t control the crowd. Without the cameras, I can sit here, read the sports section for two hours, walk outside and say we talked. So, if you guys want to talk, that’s fine. But you’re in charge of crowd control, know what I’m saying?
WEBBER Yeah. [over bullhorn] Folks. People, let’s listen up.
The yelling subsides.
TOBY Good morning… [microphone doesn’t work, raises voice] Good morning, my name is Toby Ziegler and I’m the White House Communications Director and a senior domestic policy advisor to the President.
PROTESTER 1 Advise him we need clean air more than free trade!
Yelling begins again.
PROTESTER 2 How many 12-year-olds made your shoes, Toby!?
GROUP Global justice now! Global justice now! Global justice now!
TOBY [to Sachs] You want to send out for pizza or something?
GROUP Global justice now! Global justice now!
Toby sits down with a newspaper and puts his feet on the table.—
CUT TO: INT. WORLD POLICY AUDITORIUM – DAYThe crowd is still yelling. Toby and Rhonda are at a table on stage.
WEBBER [to protesters] Look, I’m not saying that we’re going to like their answers. I’m saying we’re going to give him a chance to talk. Now if you do have a question…
PROTESTER 4 Yeah, my question is who elected his boss the people or Kaiser-Permanente?
PROTESTER 5 He’s not my President, let’s vote.
PROTESTER 6 Who do you really work for?
More yelling.
SACHS [to Toby] You’re having a pretty good time, aren’t you?
TOBY Well, it’s not like being at a Yankee game.
PROTESTER 7 You suck!
TOBY Well, actually… [chuckles] Yeah, it’s like being at a Yankee game.
SACHS So, Toby?
TOBY Officer?
SACHS Since you’re not really doing anything right now, I was wondering, what’s this all about?
TOBY It’s about the WTO, Rhonda, the World Trade Organization.
SACHS Well, I get that from the signs and the newspapers.
TOBY The World Trade Organization’s a group of 140 countries who have agreed to specific trade policies.
SACHS So, what’s wrong with that?
TOBY Nothing’s wrong with that.
SACHS What would they say if I asked them the same question?
TOBY They’d say the WTO benefits corporations and not people.
SACHS Does it?
TOBY Benefits both. [pause] Look at them.
SACHS Yeah.
TOBY Philistines.
SACHS Take my nightstick and go kick their ass.
TOBY Yeah, make all the jokes you want but let me tell you something they claim to speak for the underprivileged but here in the blackest city in America, I’m looking at a room with no black faces. No Asians, No Hispanics. Where the hell’s the Third World they claim to represent?
SACHS Lot of Third-Worlders in the Cabinet Room today, were there?
TOBY You’re starting to bother me.
SACHS That’s ‘cause I’m armed.
TOBY No, I like that. [pause] I’m going outside.
The crowd continues yelling.—CUT TO: INT. WASHINGTON, D.C. STREET – DAYThe protesters are shouting.
TOBY It’s activist vacation is what it is. Spring break for anarchist wannabes. The black t-shirts, the gas masks as fashion accessories.
SACHS These kids today, with the hair and the clothes…
TOBY All right, that’s it, flatfoot.
SACHS I got great feet.
TOBY You want the benefits of free trade? Food is cheaper.
SACHS Yes.
TOBY Food is cheaper, clothes are cheaper, steel is cheaper, cars are cheaper, phone service is cheaper. You feel me building a rhythm here? That’s ‘cause I’m a speechwriter and I know how to make a point.
SACHS Toby…
TOBY It lowers prices, it raises income. You see what I did with ‘lowers’ and ‘raises’ there?
SACHS Yes.
TOBY It’s called the science of listener attention. We did repetition, we did floating opposites and now you end with the one that’s not like the others. Ready? Free trade stops wars. And that’s it. Free trade stops wars! And we figure out a way to fix the rest! One world, one peace. I’m sure I’ve seen that on a sign somewhere.
SACHS God, Toby… Wouldn’t it be great if there was someone around here with communication skills who could go in there and tell them that?
TOBY Shut up.
Josh enters through the police line.
JOSH Toby…
TOBY What are you doing here?
JOSH Came down to see how it was going. [to Sachs] How’s it going? Josh Lyman.
SACHS Rhonda Sachs.
JOSH Any trouble?
SACHS No.
TOBY [raises his hand] Josh. The WTO is undemocratic, and accountable to no one, decisions are made by Executive Directors and the developing world has little to say about institutional policy.
JOSH What was that?
TOBY I protested to you.
JOSH Why?
TOBY ‘Cause I’m not allowed to get arrested anymore.
JOSH Let’s go back.
TOBY No, I hate these people with the heat of a nova. Yet here I go.
SACHS Attaboy.
TOBY Shut up.
SACHS I got your back, man, you know? Or not.
All three enter the building.

Politics and work

I recently heard Plato’s idea reflected that politicians should have no stake in the decisions they make. That they ought to live in some proto-communist society. In most European countries bribing politicians is illegal, in north America it’s called lobbying. Here’s my innovation: Let’s all be politicians. No doubt, we’ll be at least just as flawed. But the main flaw is that power corrupts, therefor we should all be equally flawed. Being able to make decisions without fear of repercussion. Risk aversion is a real psychological phenomenon. We’re afraid or too busy to think about these things. Making a decision without any repercussion isn’t taking a risk at all, so how can this be possible? We can’t guarantee the survival of the human species without interfering (further) with our habitat. There’s only one planet, we can’t pretend our resources are infinite. So what’s the solution to this very basic problem? My premise is that it is shouldn’t be left to someone else. Somebody who will take the time to think, the risk, the energy to investigate, the blame, … for us. Because we ARE all involved, whether we like it or not. We ALL have something at stake here. So let’s be equals in being able to make a decision. This is not centralism, nor leadership in the sense that it implies followers. Rather it includes the willingness to follow ideas and therefor the leadership to challenge them where they are not yet perfected. And they will never be perfected. Which is why we all have to pitch in. It’s not enough to leave it up to the ‘leaders’. YOU are the leader, just as much as you’re the follower. We can’t elect leaders, because we’ll effectively elect ourselves out of ‘office’. Now, nobody wants to be in the office. Not even politicians, they’re humans too. Some dare say that’s what makes (some) politicians voteworthy. I say it makes them equal to use. And no less, nor more qualified than us. On a brighter note, one could easily claim this is already the case. Therefor there’s nothing to worry about. Those who CONSIDER themselves to be entities with something at stake – be it lifeform, human, westerner, politician, etc. – already have such a system. Bankers profit from the socialism for the rich and the retards who refuse to be engaged end up with what’s often called capitalism. Which, using the strict definition (as I do), implies that some people have the money and others have the labor. Both are equally interchangeable at the marketplace which as only rule has Demand versus Supply. In labor markets, this implies simple things like: The more people are willing to work, the less their labor is (per capita) worth. So get off your arses and stop working! There are things to be done! I’ll come down to earth for a minute and keep some facts in mind. The problem with government is governing. The same problem exists within any structure of decisionmaking. These can claim to be egalitarian. However, in a socialist party there’s often more hierarchy than in others. This is hard to explain. I’ll give it a shot. Everybody gets behind the ideology rather than behind the idea of having ideas. Of course, a party system isn’t the only way. Nevertheless, it’s the one we see most clearly in what’s called the (in my opinion, very narrowly defined) political arena. When we vote, we are part of that system. Only at this moment. When we are unable to vote or influence this sphere, we are by very definition not part of that network. However, most people are at work most of the time (not voting). Who will defend your rights there? So far, if you’re ‘lucky’, it’s the unions. These are filled with human flaws as well as organisational flaws. But one thing is often left out. You’re there more often. This seems to be obviously stated in the premise. However, we don’t consider ourselves to be voting for our job (and working conditions) by showing up. But this is what we implicitly do by not getting fired. Now, being without a job is no fun. But neither is a job. This is what I mean when I talk about wage slavery. Now, one could argue that paying people to do something is the only way to go about things. It’s true, that being productive could and perhaps should be rewarded. But what would be the value of that? Is it to simply make the system function? Sure, you’re functional. But only in the way that you’re perpetuating a system. You’re being payed to be obedient, not to think for yourself. That would imply that you’re paying yourself Being productive enough so you’ll have freedom to be [a creative creature]. Most jobs however consist mainly out of not questioning authority. Authority generally doesn´t stand for that. That´s what I`m talking about when I refer to anarchism. This is not the same as anarchy, which can be used to refer to chaos. This term is often used with the implication that some consistent theory exists which can state the full description of reality which we all know and abide by, thereby avoiding chaos. The world is transparant and already at an optimum. This is a view I´ve tend to adopt when concluding that thinking more about the issue would be of little use. In that it´ll be too hard, depressing or exhausting.

Psychoanalysis and therapeutic effects.

Departing from Freudian analysis, I shall mainly take a more bioneural approach to the brain. Not disregarding concepts of the mind, as stablished by C.G. Jung and partners; this will be my main focus.

Sigmeund Freud has to be placed in historical context. In a time when fictional characters such as Sherlock Holmes were hailing the use of cocaine, it did not take long for Freud to look at it as a “wonderous medicine”. He, of course, explains his increased libido as a central enforced personal trait. In patients, he sees it makes them “more normal” and administers it if they feel depressed. After some research is done on this chemically refined use of coca leaves, he is devasted by the scientific consensus: It’s highly addictive and worse than a cup of coffee (which were the effects when chewed as done by native americans for millenia). He goes on to work with C. G. Jung, who places emphasis on the collective consciousness. We have evidence from 5000B.C. that mushrooms were used in Central and South America were reverence. The molecular biology of
and deserves attention at this point.

These subjects are controversial because they were outlawed (but recreational users and medicinal research) during times of racism. A class of people was seen as not being able to control themselves. ‘Crazed negro’ with a ‘bullet to the heart…in self-defense’ would not stop a cocaine pumped agent of that class. This would leave a scar on our social consciousness and psychological freedom restricted to an irrational degree. After alcohol and opium, cocaine was pronounced as the third scourge of mankind. Pemberton treated his morphine addiction with a cocaine drink to provide an alternative to an alcoholic beverage (outlawed during the latest dry era). However in 1970 through the controlled substances act, research on psychedelics and cannabis (still described as marihuana to link it with mexicans rather than the industrial crop hemp) is prohibited. However, psychedelics are by definition:
From Greek psykhe- “mind” (see psyche) + deloun “make visible, reveal,” from delos “visible, clear.” Psychedelia is from 1967. Earliest in 1956, of drugs, suggested by H. Osmond in a letter to Aldous Huxley and used by Osmond in a scientific paper published the next year.
Fitting into a larger criminal market for over 300 billion dollars and over 200 billion euros a year, it remains outcast to the darkest corners of society.
Unlike coffee, alcohol in most countries and tabacco; these products are doomed to make profits near the size of oil revenus of users and addicts, none of whom receive any honest help from their government of social milieu. Most is based on myth and tradition, being biased one way or the other, without relevant data or educational information explaining levels of dependency, mortality rate and so forth.
This is part of the grander setting in which the Self must seated. The set, the internal framework of those who would use a substance to alter their state of mind and thereby enhance the effects of psychoanalysis and/or therapy. The id, ego and superego would in a freudian framework be connected to the set. The ego would be unable to reconcile with the superego on the basis that reality is slanted and only Id could possibly arise from such an irrational disaster.
In other words, the experience becomes tainted. Tryptamines are associated with trips, which are in turn associated with the possibility of a bad trip. In the free associations game that goes on during synaptic free firing neurons, such a view of reality is skewed and causes baseless conceptions of the world to enter what is essentially, a very delicate moment. In other, more ancient, cultures, traditions and rituals would do the same by declaring these as sacred. To view perceptions as real, say gods or aliens; would be to miss the point. Psychotherapy and sjaminism deserve no greater place on the cast system of society than mechanics and mathmeticians.
A lot of energy must first be invested in fixing such a society, which must divide and structure so competitivly.
No one occupation, status, class or use of leisure time should define a person in its entirety. I say it, because it’s a conceptual structure. This abstract person extends to all categorical aspects of life (social, political, economical, territorial, structural). The biological perspective has a lot of evolutionary twists and turns, so for now I’ll leave this page as it is. All of this should be part of the educational system. We ought to learn the basics of food. Nutrition and toxins for the body and mind.

War on War

Edmond Burke once said: All evil needs to triumph, is for good men to do nothing. Even though we consider ourselves to be good people, war still is fought (in the name of god or people). Hardly ever dare we say it is a good war or that any war could in fact be good. There are two simple things we could all do to end ‘war’.
To explain why you’d need to do these things, I’m going to tell a story, see if you recognize yourself.
I know I’m a good person, because I live in a western democracy, have access to the internet and know just how bad the world is. I’m rich enough to give to charity and it’s tax deductible so I do it. I lean towards buddhist philosophy so I’m willing to look at people as sentient beings, willing and able to do good deeds (and therefor be described as ‘good’). All that needs to be done is for the veil of ignorance to be lifted and compassion to take its place. The buddha nature of mankind has no choice to to manifest itself in such an environment.
Now how does one actually go about this? Random acts of kindness are no enough. We must wage war on war. Tactics and skill are required to combat this illness. The intellectual gravitas of striking metaphorical swords is often delegated to chess players and philosophers. To remain limited to these dimensions is to allow mankind to perish by its own sword, now a fully automatic rifle and smart bombs. To declare war on an idea is the nature of a warriorlike society, such as the United States of America. They’ve had wars on poverty, drugs and even terror. Because when terror takes on the grandeur of war, I’ve decided to nuance and engage myself.
Large scale terror and war are a disease to humankind. Strategic planning is needed for our habitat and our species to survive. This rate of expansion and encrouchement on each others space (Homo Sapiens amongst each other and at the expense of the ecological system sustaining them) is destructive, indeed, self-destructive. Some guidelines on how to prevent this follow.
First, hug strangers. This is perhaps the most nervewrecking and horrible experience that I’m saving for last. This interpersonal contact seriously alters once consciousness and that of others. The ‘self’, your personal space included, is violated and contact is made, up to an organ that covers our body, the skin. Touching has actual biological ramifications in the sphere of health. But that’s not the point, the point is it has consequences on well being. Empathy is mentally reinforced and neurons associated with laughing/smiling (because or by lack of embarressment) are burned even more deeply into memory and thought pathways. Not only is the almost inevitable effect that you’ll be a happier, friendlier human being; in the act of hugging, reciprocality often occurs. It becomes a two way street of equals, sharing this odd and pleasant experience. Suddenly, the streets are filled with persons for two people! Potential hug autonoma come more into focus. Cars and consumption goods are dimmed in light of this potentialities. Aggression and dominance are tendencies of any biological system, but in we can address these issues neutrally. We can observe the effects of actions, by experimentation they can be proven or refuted by scientific means. This action related to culture. There are many other systems that define our behavior. Less related to the ‘software of the mind’ as Hofstede tends to call it, is the hardware.
Mckenna called this the ‘operation system’ of the mind, and perhaps he’s more accurate on a deep level. Discounting Paul Stamets idea that fungi are sentient and John M. Allegro’s thoughts on Jesus being an allegory for one, I’m inclined to think of fungi and plantea as inferior to animalea. In the tree of life this makes no sense, because Darwin would be surprised at any attempt to make a taxonomical distinction into a hierarchical one. Nevertheless, I’m an egalitarian for animals only. Bacteria have to die of natural causes (my immune system) and even (animalea!) insects that will bite or suck my blood are subject to extermination when they invade my sleeping area. Granted there are preferences even within this system of life. I prefer people feed and lavish people first with water, then other (descendents of) primates. After these conditions have been met, perhaps we could eat some animals, such as the ones with exoskeletons (protein). In the meanwhile, there’s nothing in my moral perception of life that could stop us from eating seeds, flowers(fruits), leaves(vegetables) and roots of plants. Even fungi aren’t safe. Perhaps this explains why India (and ancient persian cultures) venerates cows. Their dung is the easiest place for spores to grow. Visual accuity is increased by low consumption, higher doses enable higher rates of procreation. The evolutionary effects are explained by McKenna is what is vulgarised into the ‘stoned ape theory’. Early (pre) religions and burial of the dead (belief of something beyond this) occurs around this time. Currently we’re still experiencing the mead (honey based alcohol) evolutionary path of neurochemistry (though by the use of cybergenitics this could easilty be altered in the future). This wasn’t always so. Since the ‘new’ stone age, the most recent one, when most tools were being made that bonobos or chimps can’t seem to make, we also grew hemp and it’s psychoactive sister. Having learned fire, dried weed(s) were often used to (dried leaves and even flowers burning faster than wood) keep it going. The effects were similar to what in popular culture is called passing the peace pipe (native americans who used tabacco). Having moved out of africa into the asians plateaus, cannabis (the plant containing 60 cannabiniods) is found to be flourishing everywhere. The endocannabiniod system is over 600 millions years and has several receptors in the mammalian brain, especially homo sapiens sapiens having at least two (conservative well studied ones) CB-receptors. This co-evolution could be between rather aware lifeforms (plants are older in the evolutionary branches of life, but they wanted to spread faster so they grew more complex and faster lifeforms) but assume that there’s no ‘knowledge’ on either side.
Imagine early hunter gatherer not knowing what he was consuming or putting on fires before he started domesticating the animals that produced these specific plants and fungi and fungi not knowing where you just stepped and instantly growing towards that spot -as it does for some reason, like tropisme in photosyntetic plants. In this instance (which could be said to hold true for most of modern day human society), what goes in, still must come out. If we eat less red meat and consume less alcohol, there will be an observable effect on both body and mind. But this is not enough given what we know (and more importantly we don’t know and have not tested as possible) about our evolution. Most of nature has been around for a long time (before homo sapiens first appeared, the rate of extinction was 100-100x slower as it is today -depending on which species you count-). Some of it only became taboo or even illegal recently (hemp replaced by wine 2000 years ago, made into an actual crime 200 years ago). Though generations this has an effect, but nothing that we couldn’t genetically engineer in the near future. Not that we need to do this. It still has a within generation effect, it is indeed culture. Neuropathways are blown apart and reconfiguring at increasing rates. Suddenly the effects seem to have worn off, but reality is never perceived the same (of course it never is, we constantly travel through time and space, negating the possibility of having an actual deja vu). THC and CBD grow a social conscioussness, psilocybe is deeply introspective (re-evaluating beliefs, assumptions and shared values). Therefor, the second step must be guerilla growfare. Have flamethrower equipped police be a requirement for this insane policy to be inforced. Just make sure you’re near the smoke when they torch it all. Free spores and seeds! Throw them everywhere!

Journal of a law abiding citizen

In Confoederatio Helvetica, a utupic future (and not so distant past), might look like this.
Morning, get up. Wash with water.
Need soap and shampoo from pant H. It grows on the mountainside and requires no maintenance.
Just water. Which flows because of global warming from our precious glacier.
I like the smell, so I made deodorant (also made from H) also smell like it. I´m not a lavander person.

Time to eat something. Ate last of my personally slaughtered chicken yesterday. Time for something less meaty today. Let´s see. Tomorrow I might eat soy, but for now, something more digestable. I´ll just take some seeds from plant H from the near brook. It´s got energy (567 calories/100g), Protein (30.6/100g), Carbohydrate (10.9) Dietary fiber (6), Fat (47.2), Saturated fat (5.2), Oleic (18:1 Omega-9, 5.8), Polyunsaturated fat (36.2), Linoleic (18:2 Omega-6 27.6), Linolenic (18:3 Omega-3 8.7), Linolenic (18:3 Omega-6 0.8). And zero cholesterol. About 5grams will be water from the near brook, but I’m cool with that.
It’s got Vitamin A, Thiamine (Vit B1) , Riboflavin (Vit B2), Vitamin C, Vitamin E, Calcium and Iron. So that’ll be enough for breakfast. Save some of the seed oil for treatment of eczema.
Also no gluten in it, so I can share it later with people who have celiac disease.

It´s noon. I just worked in the barn, feeding the animals with plant H I brought back from the mountainside. What they don´t eat can be used as hay. I´m exhausted. Still have a long day. Better eat something made of plant C butter. Can´t swallow the painkillers because they have too many side-effects on my stomach.

Evening. Just looked to see if plant C was doing fine. I try to keep it seperate from plant H. Otherwise it all turns H. Far relatives of hop, which I don´t brew. I don´t need to have an industrial only variety to make of for this lacking thirst as they call it. I harldy use Fords T-model. Made it after his and diesels design myself. Same fuel source and all. Made from, mainly plant H and runs on it too.
Time to relax. I eat some more butterscones from C. I throw some of the outdoor variety on the campfire, it was growing too close to H and might start mixing. I take some more blankets to keep warm, also made from H, as are my clothes.

As I write this down on paper made from H, I take some plants C and vaporize it to fight the depressing and grim reality. This isn´t utopia, this is the real world.

My plant H is of course, Herbicide. Plant C, Change.

Update: I couldn´t stop nature from crosspollinating. The plant spreads like a weed. Growing in all climates and deserts. Withstanding the conditions of central asia. Even though it originated from the rainforest. Started growing the domisticated variety, tribes used it a couple of thousand years in this manner. The molecule with medicinal values reaches 8% which is sufficient.

Chomsky On Education

On education

Click on the icon.
Obama Facts: here

I suggest the corporation (moral person) be allowed a maximum of 150 people. Democratic control by the “employees”. Capital should flow in the same way, unless the majority decides otherwise.

Free associations by federation will rule this planet!

Violence as legitimate means

I just saw the clip “Rise Against – Re-Education (Through Labor)” and it reminded me of Fight Club. But also of 24 and Xe.
The clip started with a quotation from John F. Kennedy:”Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”

Now, if all of us (wealthy worldcitizens, access to internet etc) were to adopt this principle; the world would be an ugly place.

Don’t get me wrong, I like JFK. But the (cold) war rethoric bothers me. If anarchists (meaning people who identify themselves with the anti-authoritarian tradition) were to use the ‘propaganda of the act’ as it were, we’d all be terrorists.

If ANYBODY, starts adressing their grievances (such as state terror on a massive scale) by mimicing the abhorrent behavior, we’re in for a very long and destructive circle (if not spiral, but I doubt cycle) of violence.

Imagine, the anarchist cookbook and the destructive nature of such literature being applied by all extremes of the political spectrum. From left wing commies, claiming all private property is theft, to right-wing contractors who feel the only way to keep order is to do it themselves.
That doesn’t include the people desecrating public property because they feel what one arm of government does, they should annihilate its legs.

The logic is destructive. Meanly because it’s war logic. If you look at this as a war, we’re all going to be fucked.
But as george carlin points on (on education -must see!-), the owners of this country won’t allow us to learn anything. So if we (the masses) can’t think (if that’s reserved for elites), we’ll have to act. Without rational thought I feel this could easily lead into harsh situations.

However, if one (leftist) would replace say, class warfare with class cooperation, he’d quickly have a fundamental change of position (even it’s its only implemented after nationalising the collectives’ wealth); we’d end up with fascism.

Which is a difficult position to maintain. Of course, if you WANT power and you want to achieve your OWN political agenda: Fascism is the way to go.

It is the only thing that does not tolerate anarchy. It doesn’t even tolerate the mob. CIA had to rebuild that with the french connection (drug money, prohibition excluded liquids again). There was order in the streets. The manifesto had been somewhat realised. People listened, and the ones that didn’t were dealt with.

If I lived in the world wars, I hope I’d have been a pacifist. Maybe I’d had joined the resistance, because there was so much suffering around me and no wealth.

But right now, even if I were to -for the sake of argument- think of the current world regime/empire is more totalitarian than it could have been over 50 years ago, I’d still use non-violent means to address the issue.
Like say, words, ideas, concepts, etc.

There was a massive movement, even followed by the Czar (because his poor weaponry) leading up to the Great War. In the Second World War, it becomes hard to repeat Dwight on the american version of The Office and say that “it was a war we never should have gotten involved with”.
Even Einstein and Chomsky thought fighting it was right, and I kinda look upto these guys. But winning a war never determines who’s right, only who’s left.
In this case, the guys with the nukes won. Thank you a lot, Einstein!
And then there’s an MIT (pentagon budget) professor who teaches linguistics who can’t decide on paying taxes or not (or any other act of civil disobedience) because it might lead to fascism.

Of course, I don’t live in a country with the same budget lay-out (military is lik 15% here and most of it goes to social security and health, my region gives most its money away on education and health), so I pay my taxes (well I don’t because I’m a student and I hardly work, when I do the tariff is low and I give most of it away on causes so I get a refund). So even non-violent oppossition isn’t really an option for me either, either by voicing my opinion (because it’s easier to encounter people who might actually recognize me then in such a small country as mine) or by not paying taxes (even though 147 dossiers of 100000 known fraudulents cases are handed over to the justice department of further selection).

As for violence as legitimate means…To what? For what? What’s the end? In my world view it’s peace and non-violence. It’s dialogue, reason, and above all freedom and justice. The first two being the means. The latter two the goals, incompatible with legitimating violence.

For the ends are the means, and anarchism ought to be about deconstructing institutions of power (when classified as illegitimate), not about repeating mistakes of the past.

Make new ones. Do anything, try anthing. Just try not to infringe on other people’s right to do the same. And violence tends to target the weak. You may feel strong knowing that information is free and it’s surprisingly easy for any individual to destroy a lot of infrastructure, human lives, systems of dominance and whatnot.

If not, I’m sure EVERYONE will be able to find SOMETHING they’d be willing to burn, pillage and rape over.
Albeit, most might not abide by that order.