End The Terror War

I’m not making authoritative decrees regarding censoring others, nor am I claiming special arbitration ‘authority’ on how people ‘should’ or ‘shouldn’t’ conduct themselves - I just go by the golden rule. It’s worked fairly well so far, no need to throw in the trash-bin.

Who won the Democratic debates last night you may ask? I can tell you who lost: the American people. No, I’m not being hyperbolic, and no I’m not a Republican. I’m actually a communist and I’m here to tell you liberals that you all lost.

The thing about elections and yes that does include your precious Democrats, is that it’s all a spectacle of democracy all contained within the sham that is bourgeois republics. Actually liking candidates and thinking they will make things better is fake and I don’t know what could possibly possess anyone to believe such a blatantly false thing when we have over 200 years of history to disprove that.

What you’re really choosing in the primaries between Sanders and Clinton or in the elections between a Republican and a Democrat is the next bloodthirsty murderer to occupy the official position of Bloodthirsty Murderer for 4-8 years. Think of the elections as a new season of America’s Next Top Soul-Sucking Imperialist.

It doesn’t matter who wins because international policy will be the same. Actually scratch that, Hillary and any Republican President will be about 5-10 points more evil but otherwise following the same exact trend of America being a destructive hellstate that massacres people regularly, supports dictators and destabilizes governments. You think drone bombings on innocent people and mass deportations of immigrants is kind of evil? Guess what you are not changing by supporting any of these monsters. Before anyone comes in to say that domestic policy would be different and that is why we should care - I just want to let you know that what you are saying is that your safety, comfort and privileges are more important than human lives being destroyed by American imperialism. If that’s a stance you want to take then just say it. Just say you believe American comfort is more important.

This is not an anti-vote post because not voting doesn’t actually have a very significant impact on anything. Not-Voting-as-Praxis is an empty gesture that does nothing. In fact it is just as insignificant as voting. This is a post to all you liberals who for whatever reason care about this nonsense at a deeply intellectual/intimate level without realizing that you are supporting the most evil people in a country of evil people. If you can sleep at night knowing that, I guess that’s ok.

Care about actual real things, like I don’t know, not seeing voting as the be-all end-all of political consciousness and action or not wanting to eternally perpetuate the cogs of a fearworthy death machine God that is the genocidal settler States of America. But maybe that’s too advanced for some of you.

(btw Hillary definitely didn’t win shit. Her answers were veiled Islamophobic imperialist rhetoric, saying “I’m a woman” repeatedly and then being an apologist for Wall Street and the banks - and if that’s winning to you then you are too far gone imo).

“I’m actually a Communist.”

I have no idea why you wear that as some sort of badge of honor, but alright??

“Hillary and any Republican President will be about 5-10 points more evil but otherwise following the same exact trend of America being a destructive hellstate that massacres people regularly, supports dictators and destabilizes governments.”

In other words, perfectly aligned with Communism. I don’t know why you’re upset about your ideology working wonders within the U.S. federal government model? If anything, you should be ecstatic and cheering for it.

“I just want to let you know that what you are saying is that your safety, comfort and privileges are more important than human lives being destroyed by American imperialism.“

Obviously not very ‘safe’, ‘comfortable’, or ‘privileged’ living in the Communist States of America..but sure, go ahead and believe what you want. Imperialism seems well within the Communist modus operandi.

“..not voting doesn’t actually have a very significant impact on anything. Not-Voting-as-Praxis is an empty gesture that does nothing.“

Is that right? Well, the absence of voting is the proliferation of direct action. (Direct action is best when it DOESN’T mix with reformism, imho). Maybe you should reassess that absurd claim that it “does nothing.” Maybe because it doesn’t seek to work in any manner YOU personally like, doesn’t mean it hasn’t achieved anything for itself.

“Care about actual real things, like I don’t know, not seeing voting as the be-all end-all of political consciousness and action or not wanting to eternally perpetuate the cogs of a fear-worthy death machine God that is the genocidal settler States of America.“

I agree that voting isn’t the be-all-end-all of praxeology that can be exercised, however, being Communist, you evidently have no grievances with Statism. Lacking ends-means consistency has got to be a terrible experience for you, I’d imagine.

“Hillary definitely didn’t win shit. Her answers were veiled Islamophobic imperialist rhetoric, saying “I’m a woman” repeatedly and then being an apologist for Wall Street and the banks - and if that’s winning to you then you are too far gone.”

From neither of you has come any recommendations of how to stop the beloved State (and just in case that honestly needs clarification, I used beloved with heavy sarcasm). I don’t understand how this goes from a discussion of corruption & wrongdoing to one of economics. Nor can I as of yet grasp how exactly the US or its people would be any better off without a State (though I can understand how one can infer the benefit of its absence to other nations).

To me, both the state and the non-state sectors of this country are corrupt. Private power and public power have both been eating away at things. In fact they appear to be in constant collusion. Capitalist, communist, tyranny, anarchy, they all look the same to me. Rooted in precisely this kind of contention, forces pushing against one another, never reaching any balance. NEVER reaching meaningful consensus nor compromise based on reality.

No more state military? It’ll just be replaced by a private one. No more state control over banking? Well, we’ve seen how private banking has gone. No more crappy policy X, then crappy policy Y.

I still find nothing wrong with the system, but everything wrong with the individuals. Corruption. I don’t get why we blame the state or the system or the whatever, when it always boils down to the corruption of individuals. Everyone’s on about the ‘definition’ of what it is to be on label or another.

What’re we going to do to change the situation? That’s what I want to know…

“Have you ever thought that perhaps a community can exist with a communist economy without a state just as a capitalist community can?“

Have I thought about it? Yes. Does it make sense to me? No.

If you don’t wish to live with a State, which is based on coercion, than adherence to Communist ideology will not turn that coercive environment into voluntaryism or freedom. It’s logically a lot simpler just to stick with anarchism and kick Communist adherence out the window.

“From neither of you has come any recommendations of how to stop the beloved State.”

Let’s count how many posts I’ve made regarding the freedom umbrella of direct action alone as a singular recommendation to lead to abolishment of the State: Sept 7 response to you; Sept 8 response to skananigans; Sept 14 response to you; Sept 21 response to you; Sept 24 response to evilelitest2; Oct 6 response to stoicdaydreamer; Oct 6 response to trii-aan; Oct 6 response to twerkcircus; Oct 11 response to terrorismwatch; Oct 17 response to anarchamarxistdrowfeminism; and finally, this current post on Oct 18. That’s 11 times I’ve recommended a single solution on “how to stop the State.”

I’ve provided several recommendations recently, and they fall on deaf ears. It’s a lie to say that I haven’t provided any options to followers of my blog, when I hyperlink them in every relevant discussion in tackling reformism and other issues. As demonstrated above, it’s going on 3 months now since the release of my freedom umbrella article (August-November) and I’ve publicized it around this website in plentiful amounts and have every intention of continuing to do so.

I’ve also encouraged the following actions: taking political field trips and canceling their voter registration, thereby giving people first-hand experience with the State to determine if they still “like” Statism and to revoke their “consent of the governed.” I’d say I’ve more than sufficiently provided recommendations thus far. And, as always, I spite reformism for the benefit of others to revoke the political means of making money and instead to use the economic means.

“Nor can I as of yet grasp how exactly the US or its people would be any better off without a State.”

I’m sure it must be difficult to imagine the horrible conditions that would exist without centralized coercion to ‘govern’ over other people. So terrible!

“Capitalist, communist, tyranny, anarchy, they all look the same to me. Rooted in precisely this kind of contention, forces pushing against one another, never reaching any balance. NEVER reaching meaningful consensus nor compromise based on reality.”

I wouldn’t be an anarchist if I started compromising my ends-means consistency to appease ideological authoritarianism I disagree with..such as Communism (tyranny is redundant, but might as well be synonymous). I don’t require populist consensus with the enemies of liberty.

You’ve got an odd grasp on objective reality to assume any anarchist worth their weight in consistency should supposedly join a mob-rule or compromise their integrity with the very same forces who by their inherent philosophical nature will not and cannot keep to their contracts.

“No more crappy policy X, then crappy policy Y.“

You’re erroneously assuming with the presence of anarchism in a geographic area that ‘policies’ must be enacted, which would require a State to exist in the first place. Contrary to the very nature of anarchy: An absence of a monopoly on violence to arbitrate decisions.

I don’t propose policies that rely on the State as a central hub, because that requires adherence to government.

“I still find nothing wrong with the system, but everything wrong with the individuals. I don’t get why we blame the state or the system or the whatever, when it always boils down to the corruption of individuals.“

Whether we take it at the individualist or collectivist level, the problem remains coercion instead of voluntaryism to resolve issues. Therein lies the problem with “the system”, that is the source of the corruption you’re rightfully condemning.

“What’re we going to do to change the situation?”

Who won the Democratic debates last night you may ask? I can tell you who lost: the American people. No, I’m not being hyperbolic, and no I’m not a Republican. I’m actually a communist and I’m here to tell you liberals that you all lost.

The thing about elections and yes that does include your precious Democrats, is that it’s all a spectacle of democracy all contained within the sham that is bourgeois republics. Actually liking candidates and thinking they will make things better is fake and I don’t know what could possibly possess anyone to believe such a blatantly false thing when we have over 200 years of history to disprove that.

What you’re really choosing in the primaries between Sanders and Clinton or in the elections between a Republican and a Democrat is the next bloodthirsty murderer to occupy the official position of Bloodthirsty Murderer for 4-8 years. Think of the elections as a new season of America’s Next Top Soul-Sucking Imperialist.

It doesn’t matter who wins because international policy will be the same. Actually scratch that, Hillary and any Republican President will be about 5-10 points more evil but otherwise following the same exact trend of America being a destructive hellstate that massacres people regularly, supports dictators and destabilizes governments. You think drone bombings on innocent people and mass deportations of immigrants is kind of evil? Guess what you are not changing by supporting any of these monsters. Before anyone comes in to say that domestic policy would be different and that is why we should care - I just want to let you know that what you are saying is that your safety, comfort and privileges are more important than human lives being destroyed by American imperialism. If that’s a stance you want to take then just say it. Just say you believe American comfort is more important.

This is not an anti-vote post because not voting doesn’t actually have a very significant impact on anything. Not-Voting-as-Praxis is an empty gesture that does nothing. In fact it is just as insignificant as voting. This is a post to all you liberals who for whatever reason care about this nonsense at a deeply intellectual/intimate level without realizing that you are supporting the most evil people in a country of evil people. If you can sleep at night knowing that, I guess that’s ok.

Care about actual real things, like I don’t know, not seeing voting as the be-all end-all of political consciousness and action or not wanting to eternally perpetuate the cogs of a fearworthy death machine God that is the genocidal settler States of America. But maybe that’s too advanced for some of you.

(btw Hillary definitely didn’t win shit. Her answers were veiled Islamophobic imperialist rhetoric, saying “I’m a woman” repeatedly and then being an apologist for Wall Street and the banks - and if that’s winning to you then you are too far gone imo).

“I’m actually a Communist.”

I have no idea why you wear that as some sort of badge of honor, but alright??

“Hillary and any Republican President will be about 5-10 points more evil but otherwise following the same exact trend of America being a destructive hellstate that massacres people regularly, supports dictators and destabilizes governments.”

In other words, perfectly aligned with Communism. I don’t know why you’re upset about your ideology working wonders within the U.S. federal government model? If anything, you should be ecstatic and cheering for it.

“I just want to let you know that what you are saying is that your safety, comfort and privileges are more important than human lives being destroyed by American imperialism.“

Obviously not very ‘safe’, ‘comfortable’, or ‘privileged’ living in the Communist States of America..but sure, go ahead and believe what you want. Imperialism seems well within the Communist modus operandi.

“..not voting doesn’t actually have a very significant impact on anything. Not-Voting-as-Praxis is an empty gesture that does nothing.“

Is that right? Well, the absence of voting is the proliferation of direct action. (Direct action is best when it DOESN’T mix with reformism, imho). Maybe you should reassess that absurd claim that it “does nothing.” Maybe because it doesn’t seek to work in any manner YOU personally like, doesn’t mean it hasn’t achieved anything for itself.

“Care about actual real things, like I don’t know, not seeing voting as the be-all end-all of political consciousness and action or not wanting to eternally perpetuate the cogs of a fear-worthy death machine God that is the genocidal settler States of America.“

I agree that voting isn’t the be-all-end-all of praxeology that can be exercised, however, being Communist, you evidently have no grievances with Statism. Lacking ends-means consistency has got to be a terrible experience for you, I’d imagine.

“Hillary definitely didn’t win shit. Her answers were veiled Islamophobic imperialist rhetoric, saying “I’m a woman” repeatedly and then being an apologist for Wall Street and the banks - and if that’s winning to you then you are too far gone.”

From neither of you has come any recommendations of how to stop the beloved State (and just in case that honestly needs clarification, I used beloved with heavy sarcasm). I don’t understand how this goes from a discussion of corruption & wrongdoing to one of economics. Nor can I as of yet grasp how exactly the US or its people would be any better off without a State (though I can understand how one can infer the benefit of its absence to other nations).

To me, both the state and the non-state sectors of this country are corrupt. Private power and public power have both been eating away at things. In fact they appear to be in constant collusion. Capitalist, communist, tyranny, anarchy, they all look the same to me. Rooted in precisely this kind of contention, forces pushing against one another, never reaching any balance. NEVER reaching meaningful consensus nor compromise based on reality.

No more state military? It’ll just be replaced by a private one. No more state control over banking? Well, we’ve seen how private banking has gone. No more crappy policy X, then crappy policy Y.

I still find nothing wrong with the system, but everything wrong with the individuals. Corruption. I don’t get why we blame the state or the system or the whatever, when it always boils down to the corruption of individuals. Everyone’s on about the ‘definition’ of what it is to be on label or another.

What’re we going to do to change the situation? That’s what I want to know…

“Have you ever thought that perhaps a community can exist with a communist economy without a state just as a capitalist community can?“

Have I thought about it? Yes. Does it make sense to me? No.

If you don’t wish to live with a State, which is based on coercion, than adherence to Communist ideology will not turn that coercive environment into voluntaryism or freedom. It’s logically a lot simpler just to stick with anarchism and kick Communist adherence out the window.

“From neither of you has come any recommendations of how to stop the beloved State.”

Let’s count how many posts I’ve made regarding the freedom umbrella of direct action alone as a singular recommendation to lead to abolishment of the State: Sept 7 response to you; Sept 8 response to skananigans; Sept 14 response to you; Sept 21 response to you; Sept 24 response to evilelitest2; Oct 6 response to stoicdaydreamer; Oct 6 response to trii-aan; Oct 6 response to twerkcircus; Oct 11 response to terrorismwatch; Oct 17 response to anarchamarxistdrowfeminism; and finally, this current post on Oct 18. That’s 11 times I’ve recommended a single solution on “how to stop the State.”

I’ve provided several recommendations recently, and they fall on deaf ears. It’s a lie to say that I haven’t provided any options to followers of my blog, when I hyperlink them in every relevant discussion in tackling reformism and other issues. As demonstrated above, it’s going on 3 months now since the release of my freedom umbrella article (August-November) and I’ve publicized it around this website in plentiful amounts and have every intention of continuing to do so.

I’ve also encouraged the following actions: taking political field trips and canceling their voter registration, thereby giving people first-hand experience with the State to determine if they still “like” Statism and to revoke their “consent of the governed.” I’d say I’ve more than sufficiently provided recommendations thus far. And, as always, I spite reformism for the benefit of others to revoke the political means of making money and instead to use the economic means.

“Nor can I as of yet grasp how exactly the US or its people would be any better off without a State.”

I’m sure it must be difficult to imagine the horrible conditions that would exist without centralized coercion to ‘govern’ over other people. So terrible!

“Capitalist, communist, tyranny, anarchy, they all look the same to me. Rooted in precisely this kind of contention, forces pushing against one another, never reaching any balance. NEVER reaching meaningful consensus nor compromise based on reality.”

I wouldn’t be an anarchist if I started compromising my ends-means consistency to appease ideological authoritarianism I disagree with..such as Communism (tyranny is redundant, but might as well be synonymous). I don’t require populist consensus with the enemies of liberty.

You’ve got an odd grasp on objective reality to assume any anarchist worth their weight in consistency should supposedly join a mob-rule or compromise their integrity with the very same forces who by their inherent philosophical nature will not and cannot keep to their contracts.

“No more crappy policy X, then crappy policy Y.“

You’re erroneously assuming with the presence of anarchism in a geographic area that ‘policies’ must be enacted, which would require a State to exist in the first place. Contrary to the very nature of anarchy: An absence of a monopoly on violence to arbitrate decisions.

I don’t propose policies that rely on the State as a central hub, because that requires adherence to government.

“I still find nothing wrong with the system, but everything wrong with the individuals. I don’t get why we blame the state or the system or the whatever, when it always boils down to the corruption of individuals.“

Whether we take it at the individualist or collectivist level, the problem remains coercion instead of voluntaryism to resolve issues. Therein lies the problem with “the system”, that is the source of the corruption you’re rightfully condemning.

“What’re we going to do to change the situation?”

The news that National Geographic has now been placed in the hands of Rupert Murdoch prompted a predictable outcry, roughly akin to what happens in the movies when the clearly evil tycoon takes the orphans away. A bastion of popular science is now controlled by a very prominent climate change denier who, despite his company’s assurances of editorial integrity, has spent decades interfering with the independence of his properties. A tabloid king could now apply the values of the New York Post to one of the world’s oldest magazines.

This is just one example of the kind of commentary I’ve received in response to that recent post on a cop killing a teenager. (You can see even more colorful commentary on that post.)

I think it perfectly encapsulates how cop-defenders take on the violent and abhorrent personalities of those they revere.