Diary of A Dissident: Selected Subversion No. 7

  1. The mercantilist policies favored by Trump clearly show that he wants to make England great again.
  2. Republicans: Nothing says “free market” like removing the competition by force.
  3. When you “vote for the anti-establishment,” and they win, they become the establishment.
  4. Republicans are saying Trump isn’t a politician, but he is now that they have made him one.
  5. Politicians and corporate elite tend to stick together. I highly doubt Trump, or anyone else, is going to arrest any politicians. They long ago mastered the art of propaganda, and hardly ever do they sacrifice one of their own. They don’t need to. No matter how corrupt, “the people” don’t ever actually do anything besides “vote.” It might happen, but highly unlikely.
  6. Citing one politician’s crimes does not abdicate another politician of theirs.  It’s one thing to point out the hypocrisy of the Democrats, it’s another to be a blind sheep who believes two wrongs make a right.
  7. Anarchy contains elements of both “chaos” and “order.”
    It’s not a guarantee “chaos won’t happen.”  It’s no a guarantee that people won’t be oppressed. Robbing people is not consistent with anarchism as a philosophy, but it doesn’t “stop anarchy” or mean “anarchy doesn’t exist.”
  8. I think it’s pretty creepy to have kids reciting allegiance pledges to “Government” regalia.
  9. At least lots of so-called “illegals” actually work, while politicians stand around signing papers about how you have to live your life.
  10. When it comes to “taxation,” “regulation,” and indeed, “immigration control,”
    The real question is does the state have the RIGHT to 1. charge compulsory dues 2. kick you off for not paying for things you never asked for, i.e. “tax.” If the answer is yes, then you are NOT the rightful owner. If the answer is no (which is my answer) then the State is a thief (which it is).
  11. Republicans by and large seem to have forgotten the real problem of the welfare state, and have been strung along to support these fascist blights on the face of individual liberty known as “tariffs” and “immigration control.”
  12. Republicans spent 8 years rambling on about how government is tyrannical, and now they worship it just the same, even as it’s increasing it’s control. They have a renewed faith in Democracy.
  13. After all the hype, you might think Trump would try to bring charges against Obama for violating the “U.S. Constitution,” human rights, etc., but the Republicans possess very short attention spans and have already moved on to committing their own crimes.
  14. “Libertarians” and “Minarchists” can be the worst.
    At least “democrats” and such start off believing “Government” is a great thing, inherently legitimate, etc. “Minarchists” spend most of their time railing against “Government,” then turn around and support it anyway.
  15. Anarchists believe that the initiation of force is illegitimate.
    No one has the right to use/threaten force in situations where initial force or fraud has not been used.

    Government/”law” IS force, backed by force, etc.
    Every “law” which threatens force on people who have not themselves threatened force or committed fraud is illegitimate.

    “Drug laws” are an easy example of this, but it goes all the way to down “taxation” itself, which is the threat of force to compel people to pay for ‘Government’ even if they do not want or use it.

    Government, as it is based on the initiation of force, is inherently illegitimate.

  16. State worshipers often say that large organizations are not possible without the government. Well, then I guess we don’t have to worry about anyone or any group getting too powerful and taking over.Their claim is actually false, but the inconsistency of their logic is the point here.
  17. Anarchy is not actually an option.
    An option implies there is another choice, but there isn’t.
    Anarchy is inescapable.
Advertisements

Diary of A Dissident: Selected Subversion No. 6

 

 

  1. To “govern” is to rule, to rule is to control, so who “governs” you?
  2. Anarchism as a philosophy is not the same thing as anarchy.
    Whether an individual adheres to anarchism as a philosophy or not does not change that we exist in a state of perpetual anarchy, i.e. nothing is controlling “society,” there is no “rightful ruler,” etc.
  3. The problem is not “power,” or the literal physical ability to coerce, though that can be problematic. Perceived legitimacy is actually the entirety of the problem. “Government” is just the hallucination that violence is legitimate when “some people” do it, based on their belief in Authority. Without this belief States would not become so “powerful” to begin with.
  4. What’s the worst thing that could happen “in Anarchy?” A holocaust? Some gang trying to control you, like “Government?”
  5. You do not need legislation to have rights.
    You do not need legislation to enforce your rights.
    Legislation does not alter rights, or morality, etc.
    It is irrelevant aside from the case where “legislation” conflicts with rights, which it does inherently, as it implies it can by nature of the concept.
  6. Nobody “governs” you but you. Nobody possibly could.
    Even if a person threatens another with violence and demands they obey, as the people in “Government” and other crooks do, there is a choice. Statists and other “authority” worshipers choose to obey because they believe in “authority.”
    You have a choice, too, and you’re the only one who can make it.
  7. Every single statist wants the state to protect them. They see defense as extremely important, I’m sure.
    Every single statist who thinks they support free markets says they are against violence and monopolies.
    Every single statist supports a violent monopoly in defense,  and claims it’s the only way there can be “civilization.”
  8. Taxation is theft because
    1. The state does not own all the land in the “borders,” therefore has no right to dictate compulsory dues
    2. They dictate compulsory dues anyway, and take regardless of consent or usage. State advocates speak as if “high taxes” are theft, when the quantity is irrelevant to whether or not it’s theft. Do you call the firm with the higher priced commodity a thief? Of course not, because they don’t demand you buy and take regardless of your consent, like the state does. Do you say a person isn’t a thief if he only takes 50 cents without your consent? Furthermore, they speak as if their usage of state “services” has anything to do with taxes outside of propaganda. The state demands you pay before any services even exist to use, and continues to demand even if you don’t actually use it, e.g. “public school,” etc.
  9. The majority doesn’t vote, but these politicians won’t leave us alone.
  10. Voting isn’t actually a violation of the nap in reality, it’s just a superstitious cult ritual which results in people lining up and pushing buttons. Voters don’t actually threaten or do violence “in the world” unless they’re cops.
  11. Communists want to eat your cake and have it, too.

 


Diary of A Dissident: Selected Subversion No. 5: “Immigration Control”

What right does the State have to tell you that you can’t be “here” ?

 

Immigration and emigration are both false concepts and improper to use in regards to human movement, since countries are false concepts and those words/ideas are entirely dependent on the concept of countries. The proper term would simply be migration.

As countries do not actually exist, that is, they are not legitimate property boundaries or constructs, there are no “immigrants,” only migrants who are being extorted by way of “immigration laws.”

 

Individuals who say they favor “immigration laws” due to the potential threat of “immigrants” either threatening them directly or by way of “voting” for the expansion of State intrusion must logically advocate perpetual “immigration control,” for one can never know who might be a terrorist, Democrat, or Republican.

 

It is true that migrants may one day threaten you, but “immigration laws” necessarily imply a threat against everyone living in the “country” for the potential crimes of others.

 

It’s logically impossible for state borders to be consistent with individual property rights. State borders and “immigration control” are conceptually an assault on private property rights by default, as the State arrogates to itself the “power” to decide who can and cannot live “here,” which includes all properties within their alleged “jurisdiction,” implying that no one but the State actually owns any property.

 

The argument that “immigration control” can be legitimate only rings true when it comes to explicitly “private” communities where such rules as “no advocating communism” are explicitly stated by a clearly defined owner or group of “owners/tenants in common.” Attempting to apply it to the current situation regarding State borders fails since “we” do not currently live in a “private” community, are not “joint-owners” of the “country,” “tenants in common,” or any such thing.

Applying the argument to the current situation can only come about through the delusion that the “country” exists and “we” own it.

 

State immigration control is simply the violent manipulation of the housing and labor markets. The manipulation of “society.”

 

“Immigration control” advocates have gone off the deep end and begun to claim that they are the owners of all “lands” said to be held by the State, but the illegitimacy of “national parks” is not based on the fact that the State is an extortionist, it’s more-so based on the fact that no one actually homesteaded expanses of those lands. Apparently they have completely forgotten about the Lockean conception of property which itself is the logical basis for rightful ownership (production).

A “tax payer” is not justified in stopping an “illegal” from homesteading in some open forest the State pretends it owns, any more than a random “capitalist” or “communist” is justified in stopping people from homesteading such areas.

Are they going to show up in some former “national park” and kick someone out who has already built a home there, because they were robbed by the gang called the united states and he was born “in Mexico” ? Would they do that now, as they are currently being robbed by the state? If so then they are the aggressors, as paying taxes doesn’t mean you own something the State says they own but do not, just because they force you to pay and lie about their ownership. Clearly no one owns lands which have not actually been homesteaded.

If they think they own huge expanses forests because the state robs them, they’re delusional. That’s more of a throwback to feudalism than a Lockean conception of property, as they are making the claim that anyone can own land without actually laboring on it; without actually exerting their will upon it.

 

 

RB

 

 

 

Diary of A Dissident: Selected Subversion No. 4 (12-17-16)

If “taxation” is theft, and it is, then “Government” does not exist.
People have been saying it’s theft, but clearly aren’t fully realizing it.
Calling armed robbery “taxation” is a con. If they are “Government,” this implies they and their “taxes” are legitimate, thus not theft.

It can’t be theft if politicians are “Government/Authority,” because this implies they have the right to rule, and that “citizens” have a corresponding obligation to obey.
The fact that they are NOT “Government” is why “taxation” is theft (that and because the actions are the same, but the issue of the delusion of Government is that it literally leads people to view the same actions as being different ethically).

It’s not a slogan, it’s literally armed robbery, no different than if it were perpetrated by any other mob that you don’t call “Government.”

 

Immigration and emigration are both false concepts and improper to use in regards to human movement, since countries are false concepts and those words/ideas are entirely dependent on the concept of countries. The proper term would simply be migration.

 

As countries do not actually exist, that is, they are not legitimate property boundaries or constructs, there are no “immigrants,” only migrants who are being extorted.

 

If Hitler was a Fascist and Stalin was a Communist, I am an Anarchist.

 

The most greedy capitalists are communists.

 

The only way to avoid being a “wage slave” is by having your own means of production (assuming you will choose to ‘produce,’ as opposed to foraging, rummaging, or providing service for trade sans capital goods, if possible, etc). Would this be “capitalism” or “socialism” and why does it matter?
Most of what communists talk about is taking over “society.”
Only the ones who consider themselves anarchists even come close to advocating peaceful, voluntary production, co ops, etc, while leaving others be. Generally communism does not mean “worker owned production” in discourse, it means state control of production, which is what communism as a “political philosophy” always translates to in reality.

 

If you want to produce and serve and give it away for free that’s your prerogative and right. If you demand and threaten others do it then you’re enslaving them.

 

The “legalization” of cannabis isn’t much of a “step” toward liberty–  it’s more like spinning in circles in that people are accidentally correct and incoherently stumbling between freedom an slavery. People should not be threatened and caged for things which harm no one, but getting State permission in general is contrary to the very spirit of liberty. One does not need permission to exercise one’s rights, or to do that which harms or involves no one else.

 

However, it’s generally good that people won’t be extorted as much when it comes to that. However, “legal” is a false compromise as it still implies “state sanction” or “the state allows.”

The end result is similar, if not the same, but if the mind-state does not fundamentally shift, people will continue to oppress in other ways and call it “Government.”

 

Nobody wants to be forced against their consent. To say otherwise defies logic, as it is implied by the words and concepts of force and consent. It would be like saying “I want to be forced against my consent; even when I don’t want to be.”

We all essentially “believe” in the nap, at least regarding ourselves.

 

Government means “not a mafia” to statists, and pretty much in general.
We have realized what a state is- a state is a mob of terrorists.
But “Government” is the entity they hallucinate which accounts for their belief that the State is not a mafia.

 

You are entitled to the product of your labor, obviously. Anything else would be slavery. Who else should own what you produce?

Communists just don’t understand that other people made and traded for the things they use as an employee, and they too are entitled to the product of their labor.

 

 

 

Redblood Blackflag

Diary of A Dissident: Selected Subversion No. 3 (2016 U.S. Election Edition; 11-12-16)

Millions of people tried to elect Hitler Jr. last night. Millions of others succeeded.

 

The majority of “voters” pretty much elected Hitler.
Good job. They fell for the exact same propaganda, again… or, their beliefs are very, very similar to those of the Nazis.
Also, the communists.

To be somewhat “fair and balanced,” the Statists didn’t have much of a choice. They’re both basically spewing the same fundamental nonsense.
They miss the third option, though (honestly the “other” option, as all Statism is fundamentally the same)… anarchism.

 

At the very least, perhaps the Democrats will begin to lose their faith in Democracy.

 

Don’t blame me. I didn’t vote.

 

Facebook notified me that I have new “Representatives.” What is that nonsense? Who represents me? What? Sorry, you dont get to decide who represents me. No matter how many times you say it, it’s never going to make any sense, or be true.

 

One of my favorite and most used pieces of rhetoric is to ask Democrats if George Bush was their leader. They overwhelmingly say yes. The problem is they’re Democrats.

 

If Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, etc., were capitalists, “state” or otherwise, then there is no alternative to capitalism.

 

It’s different to say “has a right to do anything they want,” though. Anarchism as a philosophy has only one “rule,” which is “don’t rule others,” basically.
A statement of “I have the right to enslave whoever I like” would not really fit with anarchism as a philosophy, but that doesn’t mean people won’t/don’t enslave others. It’s anarchy out there.’

Refusal to vote is not blind inaction, ignorant, or naïve. We know that abstention doesn’t matter. We know the State will impose regardless of us not voting. That is our entire point. Refusal to vote can be the active manifestation of an ethical statement: I do not consent to or condone your insane circus.

Politics is like professional wrestling, and voters are the children who believe it’s real.

Voting is a non-issue. It’s a symptom. It would be like focusing your attention toward the people in the pews during the Spanish Inquisition.

Redblood Blackflag

Diary of a Dissident: Selected Subversion No. 2 (11-6-2016)

Here’s the issue: there is a gang of crooks calling themselves Government who basically take everyone’s money, tell them what they can and cant do, throw them in cages if they disobey, even if they don’t hurt anybody, use their stolen money to murder people all over the planet, etc., etc. I’m against that.

 

Slavery was never abolished. They just call it “income tax” now.

 

People say our current technological marvels are due to the State’s massive funding and it’s alleged “fostering of an environment which incentivizes innovation.” States don’t fundamentally change and they have nothing to do with human innovation or ingenuity. States are an ugly parasite which hold humanity back by leeching from everyone.
Individuals innovate. I bet I could be pretty “innovative” if I had practically unlimited resources, which I take from everyone else.

Employment is not coercion. If you were out in the wilderness, with no “capitalists,” you’d still have to work or starve. Someone offering you something in trade for your labor is not coercion.

 

“In anarchy” there is a possibility you will be attacked. If there’s a “Government” running around it’s a guarantee they will attack someone.

 

If a politician is calling for it, you know it’s bullshit.
People are saying this recent “scandal” is hurting his chances to be “President.” I guess they haven’t been paying attention. You basically have to be a scumbag to even be considered for “President.”

Everyone should sign up for welfare and start avoiding taxes. Even if the State doesn’t go broke, the applications will at least bog them down.

 

If we’re not in anarchy, is Government? What Governs Government? Government’s Government? What governs Government’s Government?

I don’t live on your property, you don’t live on my property, and we do not jointly own any property. “We” do not own “the country,” and neither do the politicians.
You are not viewed to have the right to “revoke authority,” by definition, and the very nature of the concept. Authority means “the right to rule, command, etc.” To say you are “revoking authority” would be to say you are violating another person’s right to rule. The statement makes no sense due to the very concept, but also because no one can ever possibly have the right to rule another inherently.

Diary of a Dissident: Selected Subversion No. 1 (10-31-16)

Selected Subversion is a collection of random thoughts I have had and comments I have made in discussions which I feel stand well on their own.

 Government is the opposite of freedom.

 

Imposing a monopoly on the administration of justice is inherently unjust.

 

We need more bad cops. Cops that fail at their “duty” of “law enforcement,” and do not enforce the politician’s nonsense commands. Bad cop = good person.

 

The state is not accountable to the citizens. When this happens it is a fluke of “procedure,” or outright propaganda. in the end the state decides whether it is “accountable,” e.g. Owes some “citizen” damages, broke it’s own “laws,” etc.

 

Limited government is an oxymoron, though you can, in reality, “limit the state” by force. The State is the gang/instiution manifested by human behavior due to their belief in Government. Government implies authority. Authority implies unlimited, essentially.

 

“The Government isn’t omnipotent…” -“minarchist.” Anarchy wins again.

 

“Viva Democracy!” -Republican voters

 

Only two types of people like tariffs: communists and nationalist socialists. Just kidding. They’re the same.

 

Communists don’t seem to actually believe people are entitled to the product of their labor. If they did they would advocate the homestead principle.

 

Slavery is the ultimate form of Government.

 

If you believe your rights come and go according to the laws of Government, you already believe you are a slave.

 

Communism is equality, in the sense that everyone is everyone else’s slave.

 

“A vote for Donald Trump is a vote for change that will make America great again.” -some commercial. They literally just repeat the same shit over and over. Yeah, ok Donnie Obama, vote for you and everything will be great. A future you can believe in. Heard that before. Your propaganda is bad and you should feel bad.

 

Redblood Blackflag.