Showing posts with label borderless_world. Show all posts
Showing posts with label borderless_world. Show all posts

8 July 2016

Brexit will be "An Exit To Nowhere"

Ryan Calhoun


Elites will never be stripped of their privilege by the method of their ascension. The impoverished will never stop being robbed of their potential by handing it over to new elites. The decision by the majority of voting British citizens to leave the European Union has been seen as a mandate against unaccountable technocratic governors in the EU. Objections to this technocracy are not always pretty though. In place of a centralized system of control in Europe, those who voted to leave the EU wish for the tools of power to be shifted back to Britain.

No matter their intentions, and really no matter which side of the vote British citizens found themselves on, very little has changed for the control people have over their own lives. The nationalists wish to take back control of “their borders”. The economic isolationists want control of “their trade”. The Remain voters wish to sustain “their” unity with Europe. No matter the reason, the commonality here is one mass collective illusion. It is the illusion of democratic control and representation. Despite all evidence to the contrary people think this system exists in order to support them, and that a referendum is the best way to assert control.

Democracy has divested common people of control. It has made the individual’s decision making orders of magnitude from mattering. Your participation in the voting process is inconsequential. It may be one of the most inconsequential activities a normal person can engage in. But even if it wasn’t, even if the direction of your vote counted in the re-shuffling of the deck, it will never be you holding the cards. A resentment of technocracy has merely led to a reversion to an earlier model of false representation of your interests. The same institutions that will now decide the fate of borders and trade had previously negotiated away that control, and your opinion on it could not have mattered less.

Now those who had felt so disenfranchised hope to divest others of control, namely the immigrants they begrudgingly deal with now as neighbors. But the logic that denies the right to an open system of migration and residency for immigrants is also an attack on the freedom of natives. National borders advertised as “theirs”, as a tool of sovereignty for the people who call Britain home, is in fact the opposite. It is the tool of British elites. Those with the most political sway in Britain will now get to decide who citizens can communicate with, who they can employ, who they can live with, which countries they are permitted to travel to. It is also the tool of foreign elites, who will carve up trade agreements based on national boundaries rather than on the true will of the individuals. The right to a referendum on this matter is a right to a whispered suggestion in a sea of other whispered suggestions. Will these suggestions enhance your power? No. They merely change some terms of negotiations between the world’s most powerful economic and political interests.

The right to self-determine begins and ends with you. Any domestic ruler of yours telling you otherwise is selling your birthright back to you as a democratic privilege at 1/64,000,000th the value. If you wish to look for the true spirit of sovereign behavior and self-directed action look to your immigrant peers. Look to those who saw the conditions of their homeland they were told represented them, that defined them, that gave power to them. They left. They willed a better life for themselves regardless of borders. The European Union facilitates this behavior for those citizens of member nations, but it too is merely granting technocratic authorization on a matter they have no concern over. Those who cross borders legally and those who cross illegally have an equal moral right to self determination. The EU has acted inclusive of European travel and trade, but that same loathsome bureaucracy prevents you from networking with anyone unpermitted to cross its borders. While nationalist and federalist economic policies ensure the individual citizen’s disempowerment and impoverishment the same power structure is also trapping refugees into encampments rife with human rights violations. The EU is using its unjust and sweeping power to financially strong arm other nations into obedience with its migration policies. What of the sovereignty of people in these countries? Doctors Without Borders recently refused further funding from the EU in their efforts to ensure the health and safety of refugees, objecting to this form of bribery to aid human rights violations. Here is their grievance, from a press release:

“Last week the European Commission unveiled a new proposal to replicate the EU-Turkey logic across more than 16 countries in Africa and the Middle East. These deals would impose trade and development aid cuts on countries that do not stem migration to Europe or facilitate forcible returns, rewarding those that do. Among these potential partners are Somalia, Eritrea, Sudan and Afghanistan – four of the top ten refugee generating countries.”

Put aside your nationalism. Put aside your false hopes for democratic resolutions. These are false idols. These representatives of your identity you think you have chosen were decided for you by people you have never known, for reasons beyond your interests or understanding. It is time to not reject globalism, but to make it own up to the name. The power to communicate, to network and trade, to travel and connect has never been greater. It should be you that benefits and not some fraudulent system of representatives and delegates. Nations, federations, trading zones carved up by multinationals and political opportunists have grown stronger by keeping the world divided. The Leave Campaign merely shifted the balance. It is time to dismantle it. It is time to demand no less than full access to the social, economic, and technological capacities stolen from you and sold back to capitalist and democratic institutions which have no place in a truly global age. It has kept you down. It has kept the people of your nation and of Europe down. It has nearly destroyed regions of the world and created refugees out of people who wanted nothing more than their home and their communities to prosper as you do. Brexit is over. Let’s start talking about a true exit from this nightmare.

Originally published 28 June, Center for a Stateless Society

Read More »

20 May 2016

Would a world government create war?

The Blog


Any "world government" created out of the current international system would be faced with civil war instantly, an article posted to Aral Bereux's site Dystopian News noted.


Hypothesizing that humans are still slaves to their violent instincts and territorial behavior, a short post to the site puts forward a gloomy assessment of what might happen if a powerful organization tried to make humanity clean its act up and unite under a single authority.

Unstable states faced with disintegration are suggested as examples of what would immediately happen to a world government attempting to secure its authority and legitimacy in the same fashion as existing governments.




Asking the question, "Do You Want to Live in a Stateless World?", however, could be beside the point. Most political scientists agree that states are now confused, stressed by supranational influences, and failing to provide security (and jobs) for their subjects on the greatest scale seen in modern history.

Books such as Wallerstein's Utopistics show the reason for the apparent tragedy of state erosion is not a conspiracy or because a group of people "want" it to happen, but because the historical social system (international capitalism regulated and enforced by nation-states) is at the end of its lifespan and faced with economic contradictions, migration, and new technologies.


The clubof.info Blog

Read More »

4 March 2016

West-Islam dialogue on values needed

The Blog


A dialogue on values between the west and Islam is needed as an alternative to the "clash of civilizations" and "imposition of western culture by force" on Muslims and others.


This is the advice given by Sonia Mansour Robaey at her own blog Les Politiques as well as at the publication Iran's View.

  • Read the version at Les Politiques here
  • Read the version at Iran's View here
  • Read one response at Beliefnet here

From the author's conclusions:
As I wrote in the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo tragedy, a dialogue on values is urgently needed to silence the voices of confrontation.  The clash of civilizations is an idea as backward as the barbaric terrorism it sets out to explain... and fight... by curtailing our civil liberties and creating an artificial wedge between civilizations destined to increase their common ground in an era of rapid communications where societies are becoming more open and more welcoming. 
The promoters of the clash of civilizations are the new enemies of the Open Society.
Open society can mean different things. In its use in Robaey's analysis, it seems to refer to social globalization creating the borderless world, whereas in its original pre-globalization usage by Karl Popper it referred to the liberal democratic state model that only exists in western countries.

Les Politiques was recently added to the blog listings of the Mont Order society. The Mont Order has itself managed to host an element of dialogue on values between the Muslim and western blogospheres by inviting the Pakistan-based Voice of East magazine to add views to online conferences otherwise only seating western bloggers.


The clubof.info Blog

Read More »

5 January 2016

US incites global chaos: friend of Mont

The Blog


The anticipated fourth commentary from Mont friend and writer L'Ordre, is now online and addresses the corresponding point in the Mont Order code.


Like the other two articles, the L'Ordre commentary has been published to the widely circulated progressive newsletter Dissident Voice, where previous commentaries already address their points of the Order's code.



Our earlier reports on the Mont Order code commentaries by L'Ordre:

On the first point
On the second point
On the third point

You can read the fourth commentary itself at the unofficial Mont Order website lordre.net, which is sometimes used by Mont members to post content. However, if you are low on time, the best items from the commentary offering unique judgments are recorded below.

  • "This so-called new world order, for all the enemies it has attracted, could have been a good thing. The concept of uniting the whole world in a single global society, however it may be accomplished, is not a bad thing."
  • "The US saw only its own bloated image when it thought about the future of the world, and set about imposing its own will on others without asking their consent."
  • "If actions speak louder than words, then the US is not taking humanity forward to a united global polity."
  • "In the Middle East, the US strategy is even more divisive, attempting to co-opt and bribe even the smallest tribes and sects to attack the cohesion of stable governments."
  • "The worst offense of all is the devotion to the myth, as rejected in the Mont Order code, that Islam is inherently plagued with extremism and sectarianism."
  • "The claim that Syria, Lebanon and other states are experiencing mutual warfare between Shias and Sunnis is untrue."
  • "From Syria to Ukraine, the US policy consists of incitement to civil war, thereby retarding human development, subverting the goals of the United Nations and disrupting projects to unite the world in peace."

L'Ordre, "On the Fourth Point of the Mont Order", Dissident Voice, 30 December 2015


The clubof.info Blog

Read More »

22 December 2015

Libertarians and the immigrant "threat"

The Blog


In an open letter to the Platform Committee of the US Libertarian Party, Garrison Center director Thomas L. Knapp called for the party's platform document to remove a vague justification for denying the freedoms of immigrants.


Currently, the Libertarian Party platform mentions "a credible threat" as a suitable reason to refuse immigrants entering the United States. Knapp and others were concerned that this created the grounds for "authoritarian" misinterpretations of the document.

Some Libertarian Party supporters, according to Knapp, were interpreting the platform's wording as a justification for rejecting immigrants from entire social, ethnic or religious backgrounds, seeing them as a "threat". However, this search for exceptions to freedom and excuses to treat people as inferior would not increase freedom, and is in fact more threatening to liberty than the current US regime and its policies. With Libertarians having an obligation to be the party of minimum government, Knapp points out that it would be absurd for them to be perceived to argue for a more vigilant national security state than already exists.


Thomas L. Knapp, also known by the online nickname KN@PPSTER, is a member of the Center for a Stateless Society think tank (C4SS) as well as the dissident Mont Order society. His open letter to the Libertarian Party can be read here and can be endorsed by your signature here.


The clubof.info Blog

Read More »

27 November 2015

Terror sponsors say borders are sacred

The Blog


Reports show an increasingly muddled and desperate regime in Turkey clashing with Russia, because of the defeats suffered by Turkish-backed terrorists at Russian and Syrian hands in recent days.


Despite being pushed out of the battlespace by the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) backed by Russian airstrikes, the failing Western-backed militants in Syria are clinging to the Turkish border for survival. Here, they depend on streams of men and equipment from the Turkish regime to continue the terror against the people of Syria.

Recently, in full view of the world's media and global powers, Turkey shot down a Russian jet bomber inside Syrian airspace. Turkey claimed the bomber violated Turkish airspace for a few seconds, but Russia denies this. Even worse, there is evidence that terrorists supported by the Turkish regime murdered an unarmed Russian pilot who escaped the burning aircraft, and later joked on video that they should have tortured him.

What followed was the Turkish regime's muddled, hypocritical and conflicting rhetoric over the incident with the Russian jet. Turkey is known to have rejected Syria's reasoning for shooting down Turkish jets that violated Syrian airspace, but has followed even more hostile rules of engagement against Syrian and Russian jets.

In addition, rather than speaking directly with Russia about the incident, Turkey instead called a NATO session, where it cowered and begged for US protection from Russian retaliation. This protection is extremely unlikely, given NATO's record of only defending US interests and ignoring the interests of lower-ranked allies such as Turkey.

Writing at Counterpunch shortly after the Russian-Turkish air incident in Syria, analyst Mike Whitney noted that Turkey is trying to provoke greater NATO involvement in Syria, possibly even trying to instigate NATO-Russia military buildups in the Syrian territory. The problem here is that Russia is only acting in accord with international law, legally approved within Syria's airspace, while the NATO side is motivated by the political fantasies of conquest and regime change in Damascus. The rest of NATO is aware of the danger, but Turkey seems to be acting radically and unpredictably in Syria, even by US standards, and may attempt to drag NATO on a war of conquest.

Seeing the danger of having an unpredictable NATO state that wages war on the Kurdish people and shoots down Russian planes, Garrison Center director and Mont blogger Thomas L. Knapp recommended Turkey should be suspended from NATO.


The US, as expected, came out in support of Turkey's right to protect its "border", despite the US and its allies violating Syria's borders and breaking international law on a daily basis. The US and Turkey continue to keep the Turkish "border" wide open in order to supply men and materiel to terror groups inside Syria, despite their hollow rhetoric about the sanctity of borders when it serves their own security.

According to its hypocritical claims, NATO thinks it is okay for war to be waged across the Turkish border into Syria, but unacceptable for there to be any violation of Turkish territory. On one hand we see the West dismissing the borders of non-Western states or even planning to dissolve them. On the other, we see the West aggressively protecting its own national borders from even a tiny, seconds-long violation. In line with the cult of Western supremacy, the West's definition of "self-defense" continues to only be about the security of the American regime and its puppet states.


The clubof.info Blog

Read More »

17 November 2015

Rockwell talk dismantled by antistatists

The Blog


C4SS analysts slammed a talk by Lew Rockwell at the Mises Institute, in which open borders were characterized as an attack on private property.


The argument by the anarcho-capitalist activist seemed to be based upon conflating the borders and roads of the states receiving immigrants with "private property", as follows:
...immigration decisions are made by a central authority, with the wishes of property owners completely disregarded. The correct way to proceed, therefore, is to decentralize decision-making on immigration to the lowest possible level, so... individual property owners consent to the various movements of peoples.
The Center for a Stateless Society's antistatist theorist Kevin Carson hit back at this analysis, refuting it by arguing:
...So the basic idea is that all roads are the “private property” of the majority, who can restrict comings and goings on them at will. This is nonsense on stilts... The streets of cities and towns were laid out as a public commons at the time of settlement, by and large, and were never privately owned.
Embracing his fellow C4SS writer's above response, KN@PPSTER wrote that Lew Rockwell will go as low as "he has to go to continue dragging in money from a market niche he considers under-served due to the fact that decent human beings find that niche too sickening to serve."


The clubof.info Blog


Enter your email address:


Delivered by FeedBurner
Read More »

2 October 2015

Dissolve borders to help Syria refugees?

The Blog


The solution to the suffering and inhumane treatment of Syria's refugees fleeing into Europe is to dissolve the borders of nation-states, an anarchist writer argues.


In his short post published via the Center for a Stateless Society (C4SS), Dylan Delikta urged humanity to move beyond the "tyranny of borders". Delikta wrote, "Borders create feelings of animosity that cause people to turn their backs on fellow humans simply because they come from a different region and don’t share their customs".

Added to this, the anarchist accused Western states of "decades (arguably centuries)" spent promoting war, exclusion and poverty in poorer regions of the Middle East, giving rise to these refugee flows.

Blaming the ideology of the inviolability of nation-states for justifying the use of "humiliation, detainment or outright slaughter" of whole populations who don't look or sound like us, Delikta expressed longing for a civilization without borders and constraints on the flow of humans. Much of what Delikta argues is already established liberal thinking in the West, but government leaders refuse to apply this ideology of liberty and equality during times of political crisis. Instead, at times of crisis affecting their own security, Western leaders tend to abandon their high humanitarian rhetoric revert back to archaic Nineteenth Century thinking about national integrity and sovereignty.

Delikta's argument to dissolve the borders for the Syrian refugees is mainly an antistatist theoretical one rather than a humanitarian one, with the end goal of antistatists being the dissolution of all current regimes. In practice, however, border dissolution is spreading the Takfiri Islamist violence to other countries and increasing suffering on the ground, with Lebanon and Iraq being existing examples of this cross-border spread of terrorism.

Of grave concern to many Europeans is the threat of infiltration by Takfiri militants from Syria into Europe. Western powers have constantly insisted on heavy counter-terrorist screening of Syrians before giving any help to them within Syria but no such screening is used on thousands of refugees actually entering Europe.


The clubof.info Blog


Enter your email address:


Delivered by FeedBurner
Read More »

4 September 2015

Elections irrelevant to the world-system

The Blog


Creator of the world-systems approach to political science, Immanuel Wallerstein, argues that anxiety-based electoral campaigns in the US and elsewhere will have no impact on the crisis of the world-system.


While noting that wise elections of more humane leaders can "minimize the pain" of the world's impoverished social classes and regions, Wallerstein stated that nothing can change the crisis of the modern world-system and the need to replace the current world order with a better one. Wallerstein terms the alternate economy he is referring to as a "post-capitalist" one, and has referred to it in past essays as a "socialist" world government of sorts.

Immanuel Wallerstein is not a radical left-wing philosopher and is actually the world's top sociologist, who sees the current world economy as unsustainable and destined to replaced by the aforementioned global alternative.

Commentating on the candidacy of Donald Trump in the US 2016 elections, as well as Bernie Sanders, Wallerstein described both of them as campaigning on the basis of "anxiety" that comes from growing global unemployment - although in their cases they focus on the US's part in it. Wallerstein characterized Trump's anti-immigrant rhetoric as something that will be unavailing, with geopolitics and the forces of the world-system in the end dooming this rhetoric to fail as any kind of policy.

Wallerstein dismissed that the most Trump could accomplish through his anti-immigrant rhetoric is "there is some tightening on the entry of migrants and some tightening of welfare state expenditures for the poorest sectors of the population. There is some increased anti-minority violence within the country."

While labeling such possibilities as "negatives", Wallerstein stressed that the real battle is not about elections or who wins them, and rather we "have to fight the longer middle-run (20-40 years) battle of transforming the capitalist system into the kind of post-capitalist one that will be better and not worse than the present one. If Wallerstein's sociology is credible, the futuristic alternative would be a world where authority is diminished significantly, ownership and rent are nonexistent much as the Venus Project advocates, and the world is governed as a single human community rather than a set of protectionist nation-states.


The Blog


Enter your email address:


Delivered by FeedBurner
Read More »

7 August 2015

Walls and borders should be torn down

The Blog


GOP politicians favoring Donald Trump's idea of a wall between the United States and Mexico have forgotten why the Berlin Wall was wrong.


Roderick Long at the Center for a Stateless Society (C4SS) argued in a post on 27 July that Republicans have "learned to love" the Berlin Wall and see it as justifiable for a state to impose totalitarian restrictions on movement on its citizens. This is coming from the same Republican ideologues who idolize and (in the case of Jeffrey Lord who is mentioned in the post) worked for Ronald Reagan, who decried state-imposed walls as totalitarian and fundamentally against liberty.

The C4SS post noted that Jeffrey Lord was correct about one important thing: there is no moral difference between a regime denying migrants the right to enter its borders and a regime refusing to allow its citizens to migrate. In both cases, the post argues, the state is acting as an unwelcome third party interfering in the liberties both of foreigners and its own citizens (who may either wish to depart, or allow migrants into their country).

In its conclusion, Long's analysis calls for the abandonment of borders and walls of all kinds in favor of a world with more freedom of movement.

In many ways, absolute freedom of movement and absolute freedom of circulation of property and information are all facets of late modernity and are inevitabilities of technology. Since the formation of nation-states upon national telegraphic and rail links, such polities have become untenable because of inexorable pressures from modern technology and communication infrastructure including the Internet and social media itself.

The Blog


Enter your email address:


Delivered by FeedBurner
Read More »

10 April 2015

Britain's abortive authoritarianism

The Blog


British people are lucky their government is as incompetent and inefficient as it is, because anything less might result in rampant authoritarianism, the dissident website We Are Change explains.


From the article:
In a recent issue that has sparked controversy, civil society group Cage alleged that British security services harass Muslims disproportionately. This practice, the argument goes, contributed to the radicalization of Islamic State terrorist Mohammed Emwazi, more widely known as Jihadi John. Cage’s claims came to many people’s attention in the media when they were condemned by the British government as “reprehensible”. No matter what we may think of the analysis that the jihadist was motivated by state mistreatment of Muslims, the fact the comments provoked such a furious response from the government makes them only more worthy of attention. 
It should be noted that Cage has a history of criticizing indefinite detention, torture and extrajudicial killings, among other state practices in the so-called war on terror. Their profile of Mohammed Emwazi doesn’t defend the jihadist’s actions, or even claim that the security services’ guilt in helping to radicalize him is incontrovertible. Despite this, Cage has been condemned by the government as “apologists” for the Islamic State itself. Coupled with the Charity Commission taking action against Cage, this seems to only confirm that the British government seeks to censor Muslim voices speaking against the security services for the profiling and harassment of Muslims amidst the increasing climate of Islamophobia. 
The most inflammatory words condemning Cage seem to have come from Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond, who argued, “We are absolutely clear – the responsibility for acts of terror rests with those who commit them. But a huge burden of responsibility also lies with those who act as apologists for them.” Boris Johnson made similar comments.
The article refuted the idea of national security as archaic and counterproductive and labelled British security forces as illegitimate, asking the scathing questions "What kind of legitimacy can you find in a state that targets all the people it rules over as potential enemies, and cowers behind an iron curtain of secrecy and suspicion against the people? Further, what has the farce of national security become?"

Appealing to readers to consider the Flagless theses, the article rejected national security arguments as lies and argued that geography does not need to be protected, inviting all people to cast off their national identities to embrace the human family.

The clubof.info Blog


Enter your email address:


Delivered by FeedBurner
Read More »

6 March 2015

State disintegration inevitable: #LOrdre

@hjbentham.


Commenting on the US private intelligence firm Stratfor's comments about Russia's eventual disintegration as a country, the L'Ordre blog on the Fox-owned Beliefnet website argues that all countries will disintegrate.


Not only this, but embracing the future entails actively helping our countries to disintegrate as the end of their very evolution:

Let this stand as a comment from me that I’m not on any particular country’s side, especially not my own. I may criticize the US government more than the UK government, but only because it seems to be in charge of more foreign policy decisions concerning the UK than than the UK. 

No country should be exempt from our scorn, especially not the countries in which we ourselves reside. The future is the inevitable, but being part of the future means helping it happen. Your country needs you. Help it to be defeated.

Read more: http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/lordre#ixzz3T9Q6JmaPRead more at http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/lordre#J0wlM4oUE32qGv68.99


Based on Harry J. Bentham's extensive writing such as Catalyst: A Techno-Liberation Thesis, this is a prediction that should be greeted in the passionless spirit of inevitability. All governments are doomed and no-one should be loyal to them. They are as doomed as ancient forms of feudalism and aristocracy that came before them, and will eventually be ridiculed by the whole of humanity as primitive and obscene.

In recent years, the recognition that Nineteenth Century nation-states are obsolete has been growing, not just among academic circles and marginal futurists but among entire movements. The Venus Project, created by futurist Jacque Fresco, is an example of such a movement and its magazine has published articles acknowledging that old models of political legitimacy are dwindling and losing appeal in an increasingly borderless world.

Similar movements include the Zero State transnational autonomous community, and others involved in the gatherings of the Mont Order dissident club.

More: ClubOfINFO video calls for destroying the influence of mainstream media to empower people and spread free speech



Enter your email address:


Delivered by FeedBurner
Read More »

Russell Brand’s #Revolution

Robert Kirchner


Russell Brand's popular book, Revolution

We’ll get to the book in a bit, but first I have to say a few things about the phenomenon of Russell Brand himself. Frankly, I’m a bit worried for Russell Brand. He has shown tremendous personal courage in recent years, transforming himself from a bad-boy British comedian/celebrity, whose comedy revolved around his own dionysian excesses of sex, drugs and odd fashion sense, into a prominent voice for radical change, a razor-sharp critic of the media Spectacle [1] he is part of, and of the ruling class interests that this Spectacle serves. He is in recovery from his addictions, one day at a time, and he speaks with personal authority against the uselessly punitive War on Drugs in the UK and US. He has been able to use his celebrity status to penetrate territory where radicals have long been denied entry: popular TV talk shows in Britain and the US, not only putting forth radical leftist political perspectives, reaching millions of viewers, but also exposing the prevailing vapid discourse of these forums and of the other glitterati personalities who inhabit them.

In 2013, he was interviewed by Jeremy Paxman, an attack-dog pundit of the BBC: Brand not only called for massive redistribution of wealth, and cheerfully admitted that he doesn’t vote; he rebuked Paxman and the political class for pretending that voting makes a difference. The initially sneering Paxman was reduced to whimpering lame protestations. Brand went on to start “The Trews” (a portmanteau of “true news”), a regular on-going Youtube series in which he interviews radical thinkers on a range of current political and social issues. And now he has written a book, Revolution.[2]

Well, the Spectacle, and its ruling class owners, do not suffer such public challenges gladly. The Observer’s Nick Cohen, for example, dismissed Revolution as “atrocious: long-winded, confused and smug; filled with references to books Brand has half read and thinkers he has half understood.” Their knives are now out for Russell Brand, waiting for a misstep. Given Brand’s volatile personality (he has been diagnosed with attention deficit and bipolar disorders), it is a testimony to the strength of his addiction recovery work (or, as he would probably say, to the help of his Higher Power) that he hasn’t, under this kind of pressure, self-destructed already. Meanwhile, we anarchists find ourselves in a rather awkward position: we’ve been offering serious critiques of capitalism and state violence since forever, but the first person in decades to reach a mass audience with such critiques, including many young people, is this charismatic bad-boy celebrity, Russell Brand. We don’t do charisma.

Moreover, Brand is not a systematic ideologue. His political theory remains somewhat inchoate. There are clearly some things he is against (gross political and financial inequality, consumerism, immigrant-bashing), and some things he is for (real democracy, non-violence, sane environmental policy). But readers of Revolution expecting to find therein a comprehensive blueprint for a new society, with step-by-step instructions on how to get there, will, like Nick Cohen, be disappointed. (Though anarchists should not be ruffled by this: on the contrary, we have long eschewed top-down political programs in favour of bottom-up emergence of democratic solutions.) But what will Brand call for next, and will we be able to agree with him, on either substance or strategy? Many are urging him to stand for Parliament or Mayor of London, some out of sincere admiration, others in the hope that he’ll get buried in the quagmire of electoral politics, and that will put an end to his whinging about social problems. Given his (self-acknowledged) predilection for attention-getting behaviour, this may be a difficult temptation for Brand to resist.

This brings us now to what may be the central question for followers of the C4SS website: is Brand, in fact, an anarchist? What he says is,
I don’t know much about anarchism, I only know about anarchy from graffiti, the Sex Pistols, and as a kind of slur or reprimand from my mum: “Is that what you want? It’d be anarchy!” (pp. 74-75)
But this occurs as the lead-in to an interview with the noted anarchist anthropologist David Graeber, whom Brand approvingly cites for his ideas on debt cancellation.
Well, according to David Graeber, there’s more to anarchy than not tidying your bedroom, spitting, and having a Mohican. In fact, it isn’t defiantly disorderly at all; it is society that has no centralized power…. David as an anarchist is opposed to centralized power in any form. He believes that people should be entrusted and empowered, that given the opportunity, released from the chains of authority and the spell of a corrupting media, we will form fair and functioning systems; they may not be perfect, but remember, we’re not competing with perfection, we’re competing with corruption, inequality, and destruction…. I asked him what he envisaged … “My dream [said Graeber] is to create a thousand autonomous institutions that can gradually take over the business of organizing everyday life, pretty much ignoring the authorities, until gradually the whole apparatus of state comes to seem silly, unnecessary, a bunch of buffoons useful for entertainment perhaps, but no one we have to take seriously.” I like the idea of creating autonomous organizations to perform necessary social functions that are not motivated by profit. This along with the principles of equality, nonviolence, and ecological responsibility are necessary pillars of Revolution. (pp. 75-81)
I think this passage, combined with his public anti-voting stance, is sufficient to identify Brand as, at the very least, anarchist-friendly. And he refers back to Graeber’s anarchism, repeatedly and with approbation, through the rest of the book. Moreover, later in the book (ch. 27, 30), he quotes Noam Chomsky at length, another anarchist public intellectual, regarding US foreign policy. He also seems to recognise that M.K. Gandhi was essentially anarchist, in his tactics if not his nationalist goals. But most tellingly, Brand is aware of the anarchist organizational principles [3] underlying Alcoholics Anonymous and its various 12-step fellowship offspring, to which he (presumably) owes his own recovery from addiction.[4] In ch. 32, he characterizes Alcoholics Anonymous as “a successful, worldwide, leaderless, anarchist collective with millions of members” (emphasis mine).

This does not keep Brand from calling, intermittently, for statist solutions to social problems. He’s in favour of tighter laws against greenhouse gas emissions and other forms of environmental degradation; a better financed National Health Service (NHS) and other health and welfare benefits for vulnerable members of society; getting corporate money out of politics; more rigorous tax enforcement against big corporations; and many other things that statist leftists typically call for. But so have many avowed anarchists, from Proudhon to Chomsky, as interim measures to deal with particularly egregious forms of suffering and injustice, without abandoning the ultimate goal of a stateless society. (Personally, I don’t believe that working for statist policy reform is a fruitful strategy, even in the interim, but other anarchists may disagree.) Even within C4SS.org, the point has repeatedly been made that, in the face of massive upwardredistributions of wealth through state-enforced monopolies and rents, anarchists should hardly be focussing their ire on NHS and the few remaining “welfare-state” institutions and policies which redistribute small amounts of wealth in the opposite direction.

In Brand’s case, though, I suspect that this mixture of anarchist and statist positions is merely due to a failure to think it through and recognise their incompatibility. Brand writes with passion, often based on personal experience, in a style that is sometimes funny (as one would expect from a professional comedian), and sometimes movingly poetic, particularly in his descriptions of the underclass society he grew up in. Which is to say that Brand is clearly more of a poet than a philosopher: to paraphrase Emerson, Brand’s mind is not hobgoblinned by ideological consistency, foolish or otherwise. But on the whole, the various solutions Brand proposes through the course of the book are overwhelmingly anarchist in spirit, including relocalization of the food system, abolition of personal titles (Dr., Lord, Mr. President, etc.), nonviolence (on this point he is consistent)[5], promotion of worker cooperative businesses, and a general disposition to engage with people in democratic discussion and see what emerges.

So, the book is called Revolution. What kind of revolution, then, does Brand have in mind? Robert Colville of The Daily Telegraph sneered that Brand “has not even the faintest fragment of an inkling of how his Revolution will come about” and “[a]s for how things would work afterwards, don’t ask.” I think though, that the mystification is Colville’s, not Brand’s; it stems from Colville’s obvious (professionally obligatory) ideological hostility to Brand, and, more interestingly, from his rather outdated (though still widely shared) conventional understanding of what a revolution is – i.e. simply a popularly supported coup d’état: the old regime falls (peacefully or violently) and a new regime assumes power, enacting some program of change. But this has never been the anarchist understanding of revolution, and it is not Brand’s either. For anarchists,revolution is not a single cataclysmic political event, but an ongoing social process of “building the new society in the shell of the old”, or as Gandhi put it more succinctly, “be[ing] the change you want to see in the world”.

Brand takes this a step farther — and here he may part company from some “ni-Dieu-ni-maîtres” anarchists, not to mention completely befuddling establishment critics like Colville. For Brand insists that we cannot “be the change” without undergoing a personal spiritual awakening that puts us in relationship with a loving Higher Power. As Brand says, “I know society can change, because look at how I’ve changed,” from fame-besotted heroin addict to activist. And that change, according to the 12-step program in all its incarnations, requires “a decision to turn one’s life and one’s will over to to the care of God as we understood God” (Step 3). What distinguishes this position from Evangelical Christianity (or various other forms of fundamentalist religion) is the eschewal of dogmatism: as millions of recovered alcoholics and other addicts have found, it is sufficient to trust in a “Power greater than oneself” — however that is conceived. That won’t win over militant atheists like Richard Dawkins, (whom Brand pokes fun at throughout Revolution), but it should reassure the rest of us that Brand does not aspire to become a new Jerry Falwell.

Indeed, Brand is nothing if not eclectic in his spirituality: he describes a number of religious experiences in Revolution, from Kundalini Yoga and Transcendental Meditation to an altar call in an Eritrean church. He shows an almost indiscriminate openness towards unconventional forms of spirituality, just as he sometimes seems to fall for any sort of anti-establishment political argument. But auto-didacts like Brand come by their intellectual quirkiness honestly; and “quirkiness” is, of course, a purely subjective judgement. So, the reader may be inspired or put off by Brand’s exploration of religion. But it should be understood that, for Brand, this spiritual openness to change is precisely how the Revolution starts.

Notes


[1] I’m using “Spectacle” in the sense of Guy Debord and the Situationists, i.e. capitalism’s tendency to replace authentic social relations with objects, such as consumer products and celebrities. Brand, by the way, devotes chapter 15 of Revolutionto Situationism, so he’s well aware of this phenomenon.

[2] This is not Brand’s first book. He has written two autobiographical books, called My Booky-Wook, and Booky-Wook 2.

[3] For discussion of the classic anarcho-communist Pyotr Alexeyevich Kropotkin’s influence on Bill W., the co-founder of AA, see http://www.scribd.com/doc/38398959/Benign-Anarchy-Voluntary-association-mutual-aid-and-Alcoholics-Anonymous.

[4] Brand has to be slightly cagey on this point, due to Tradition 11, which says, inter alia, “we need always maintain personal anonymity at the level of press, radio and films”. That is, one doesn’t “out” oneself or one another as members, not merely out of respect for confidentiality, but also so that the fellowship doesn’t come to be publically associated with particular high-profile personalities. Brand merely says that he’s part of an “abstinence-based recovery” program and fellowship; he doesn’t identify it as Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, or any 12-step group. I should add that my inference that it is a 12-step fellowship is merely an assumption on my part, based on no personal acquaintance with Brand.

[5] As I never tire of pointing out to my fellow Quakers, the logical conclusion of nonviolence is anarchism; one can’t have a state without violence.
Read More »

3 March 2015

Edward #Snowden and the Great Removal

Thomas L. Knapp


NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden continues to loom large in the world’s daily news. Revelations from the trove of data he disclosed to journalists roll out on a near-weekly basis, followed by denials and excuses from politicians and bureaucrats he exposes as responsible for rights violations around the world. Citizenfour, a documentary covering his heroic actions on behalf of the public, just grabbed the Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature.



It’s easy to get lost in the minutiae of Snowden’s individual disclosures. And that’s OK. Each disclosure tells us something important about those who rule us. But there’s more to it than the details. There’s a bigger picture.



In a February 23 “Ask Me Anything” discussion on Reddit, Snowden encapsulated that bigger picture. “[W]e the people,” he wrote, “will implement systems that provide for a means of not just enforcing our rights, but removing from governments the ability to interfere with those rights” (emphasis Snowden’s).

That’s the whole ballgame right there, folks. The purpose of political government has never been, as the US Declaration of Independence claims, “to secure these rights [life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness] … deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The purpose of political government has always been to monopolize violations of rights and to use those violations to redistribute power, control and wealth from you to the political class.

Many — perhaps most — of us don’t get it. Sometimes Snowden himself doesn’t seem quite sure of it. But the politicians know it deep down in their guts.

When the world’s panicked potentates and powermongers squeal that people like Snowden make it more difficult for them to “protect” us, what they really mean is that people like Snowden unlock and open the doors of the cages we’re kept in.

The politicians aren’t afraid of bad actors getting in. They’re afraid of us getting out. Worse, they’re afraid that while we’re out, we’ll realize we never needed them. They fear that the final shred of the emperor’s clothes — the notion that the state is a “necessary evil” — will fall away, revealing them to us in all their nakedness as the unnecessaryevil they’ve always been. And that fear is fully justified.

Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden (among others; Barrett Brown and Ross Ulbricht also come immediately to mind) have earned their places as central figures in the pantheon of human liberty. They will one day be revered (indeed, they already are among many) as modern-day Thomas Paines.

Paine’s work brought down the British Empire in one small corner of Earth; it also inspired and informed the revolution in France. The effects reverberate across more than two centuries of human history down to this very day.

Snowden and those others are in the process of completing Paine’s mission by bringing down the global political class’s preferred governance model of the last 400 years, the Westphalian nation-state.


Snowden’s Great Removal is in progress and unstoppable. It deserves our enthusiastic embrace.

Citations to this article


Read More »

27 February 2015

The grand plan of the #MONT Order?

@ClubOfInfo.


Search for more of this hauntingly subversive anti-establishment style of apparel.

The global dissident affinity club calling itself the Mont Order sees antistatism and transhumanism as two elements of the same grand plan to overcome conflict, scarcity and suffering.


This exchange between Mont advisers comes from the Mont Order February Conference, a defining act in the history of the new modern and tech-savvy variant of the Order's mysterious tradition:
DIRK BRUERE: And if enough people say it, often enough on TV, you know, climate change, disaster, resource depletion, disaster, disaster, disaster – it’s just totally demoralizing, you know. It not only gives people a bad feeling, it makes people feel helpless. And if you can make people feel helpless, they don’t work towards anything better, because they’re assuming – 
HARRY J. BENTHAM: Yes, it’s like – 
DIRK BRUERE: Like being handed a death sentence. You know, you don’t make plans beyond your death. 
HARRY J. BENTHAM: Yes. It’s like with the Scottish Referendum, I think was an example of that kind of fear-mongering. Because it was like – in the end, fear won over hope because the Independence Movement was about hope of building an alternative, whereas the No Camp was just about, “no, you don’t want to do that, because these bad things might happen.” 
DIRK BRUERE: Yes, “oh right, you Scottish people, vote to stay England’s bitch because you might lose your pensions.” 
HARRY J. BENTHAM: Yes, and it is like – people for some reason, when they’ve come into contact with challenges, just tend to overwhelmingly think that they don’t want that challenge. Rather than that they want to overcome it. So, like, for me, the idea that probably the nation-states will become less legitimate and weaker in the future, I view that as a challenge – so I look at it positively and I think that, how can we – how can we get through this and build alternatives in the future? Whereas other people would just say, “no, if you – that’s unacceptable – if that happened, the Islamists would just take over – or if that happened, then the anarchists would take over,” or something like that. You know, like, all these negative images of what might happen. 
DIRK BRUERE: Yes, people are always willing to point out the faults in your plan but they don’t put forward a plan themselves. 
HARRY J. BENTHAM: Yes, yes. 
DIRK BRUERE: You know, it’s like these fifteen thousand transhumanists on Singularity Network. And what they – only a fraction of one percent of them actually do anything. 
HARRY J. BENTHAM: Yes. But if it is really happening, if the nation-state really is in crisis and humans are going to become something more than human – if these are facts, that these things are going to happen – whether or not we endorse them, which is probably the case, then it doesn’t really matter that there are a bunch of people saying “oh, what about this or that, it might be dangerous”. 
DIRK BRUERE: They’ll get steamrollered. 
HARRY: It doesn’t really matter that they think that. Because in the end, the time will come when they have to support these things because there’s no alternative. 
DIRK BRUERE: But, it doesn’t matter whether they support them or oppose them, as long they’re ticking boxes on Facebook, because they’re irrelevant. 
HARRY J. BENTHAM: Yes, yes. 
DIRK BRUERE: You know, the future – it’s like one of the slogans of the Transhumanist Party, you know, “the future doesn’t happen, the future is made by people. You’re not one of those people – yet.” 
HARRY J. BENTHAM: Yes. 
DIRK BRUERE: I mean, how many people make the future? It’s very few.
Is something else possible, unburdened by human "nature" and the hostile old models of "national security" that form the basis of the conflicts driving our species to extinction?

If so, it is an answer sure to be held by the Order and its confident participants as they continue their great works to lobby and influence the future of civilization. Inheritance, Equilibrium, Order.

Enter your email address:


Delivered by FeedBurner
Read More »

24 February 2015

#Multiculturalism is 'old as culture itself'

@iwallerstein.


As Islamophobic paranoia and demagoguery gain appeal among audiences in Europe and the US, we ought to remember that our own cherished "West" is little but an illusion.


That's the message being advanced by top US academic sociologist Immanuel Wallerstein, at his syndicated column. And in a world with growing violence on an increasingly irrational basis, it is apparent that more people need to listen:
Both its advocates and those who denounce it seem to be under the illusion that multiculturalism is something very new. But it isn’t new at all. Multiculturalism is as old as human cultures have existed. And it has always been the subject of passionate debate.
Considering the cultural side of Immanuel Wallerstein's analysis of the world-system is important at such a tense moment in the crisis of our world-system. Think, for example, of the knee-jerk cultural reactions to Islam that seem to drive numbers of Europeans and Americans increasingly towards imagining a political resurgence of Christianity in their countries, with many believing that Christianity is intrinsically superior to Islam due to its comparative lack of terrorists.

But the main reason for a lack of terrorism by Western Christians isn't because Christianity is peaceful. It's because Christianity is kept powerless under our constitutions. The separation of church and state keeps Christianity from hurting people in the way that Islam is alleged to hurt people. With this in mind, advocacy of political Christianity as an answer to political Islam would be a recipe for hypocrisy and medieval sectarian warfare, and not a solution against militant groups like Islamic State and al-Qaeda.

Beyond defeating religious illusions that instigate violence lies defeating the state itself, which relies upon nationalist illusions to instigate violence. These crises understandably make many people confused and violent, but there is a future. Alternatives are being conceived, and these alternatives that will make us better than the state and better than human are where the most elite architects of the future are turning.

In many respects, dwindling resources and the inevitable trends of migration and modern communication are pressuring groups into competition with each other, and they are grasping at any petty difference to reject the other and instigate warfare against them. It is a trap that will accelerate the death of our species:
Humans have always been on the move for many reasons. One is ecological exhaustion of the area from which they are moving. Another is the attraction of a higher standard of living elsewhere. A third is that for some reason they are being chased out of the area from which they are moving. The reality is that, if we trace descent far enough into the past, no one is where their ancestors once were. We are all migrants. We are none of us indigenous except by suppressing historical reality. 
To be sure, this issue has caused more acute strife in recent decades for two simple reasons. Technological advances in transport and communications make it far easier to migrate further and faster than in earlier times. And the polarization of the world-system is much greater, making it considerably more tempting for persons in poorer countries to move to richer countries. 
In addition, the fact that we are living amid the structural crisis of the modern world-system has meant that the rate of real unemployment has mounted very sharply. Hence the search for scapegoats has led to focusing on the migrants who are supposedly the cause of the high unemployment rates in the wealthier countries.
Here are the cultural questions that shake the foundations of our dwindling society:
Can we in effect support the inevitable and desirable form of multiculturalism that is the basis of a fruitful peaceful interchange of cultural values? Or will we succumb to xenophobic ethnic cleansings across the world?
Just as Wallerstein is urging, people must rise above the primitive impulses that create the conditions for ethnic cleansing. We must look beyond the protectionist boundaries of both the state form and the human form, to envisage a future that is not despair and extinction.

Enter your email address:


Delivered by FeedBurner
Read More »

17 February 2015

It’s Time to Destroy #DRM

@jfrost.


On January 20, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) announced the Apollo 1201 project, an effort to eradicate digital rights management (DRM) schemes from the world of Internet commerce.


Led by well-known activist Cory Doctorow, the project aims to “accelerate the movement to repeal laws protecting DRM” and “kick-start a vibrant market in viable, legal alternatives to digital locks.” According to EFF, DRM technologies “threaten users’ security and privacy, distort markets, undermine innovation,” and don’t effectively protect so-called “intellectual property.”

EFF’s aim is true. DRM plays a huge role in extending the life of intellectual property monopolies and their evil effects on creation and innovation. Indeed, as EFF notes, DRM has become so intertwined with our society that a world with no DRM technologies seems hard to fathom. The debate becomes even more relevant given the widespread adoption of 3D printing, which is capable of making many “IP”-protected goods, and given moves by corporations to extend post-purchase control over those who buy their products.

Keurig, for example, recently tried to market a DRM-protected coffee machine that only recognizes its own “official” pods. Consumers weren’t too happy to find out they would have to hack their own spresso machines to brew coffee, since the so-called “2.0” pods weren’t available in sufficient quantities to satisfy demand.


From Apple’s cat-and-mouse race with jailbreaking phone buyers, to Amazon’s move into “exclusive” programming for its streaming service, to Netflix’s region-blocking (enthusiastically supported by the Motion Picture Association of America, a powerful US IP lobby), to rampant user control schemes by console video game makers, DRM has a long record of enabling predatory behavior by politically privileged players in captive “markets.” The enforcement of “intellectual property” claims has become so extensive and intrusive that “rights holders” feel increasingly free to interfere in production of content formerly considered fair use.

While corporations try to set up force fields around the content they control, users find ways to consume it without monitoring, breaking locks and sidestepping restrictions. While corporations treat their customers as potential criminals and try to control them at every turn, “pirates” supply ease and comfort.

The DRM world and the larger universe of state-granted and state-enforced “intellectual property” monopolies are black holes of inefficiency and bad customer service. It’s no accident that large corporations and their political cronies love DRM. They fear a genuinely free economy — one with no “intellectual property” and no “digital rights.”

Citations to this article:



Enter your email address:


Delivered by FeedBurner
Read More »

Featured

Frivolous Litigation Watch: Alaska Already Solved This “Problem”

In a rather strange lawsuit — United States v. State of Alaska, filed on October 23 — the US Department of Justice asked a court to block th...

Follow Me on Twitter