The Pyramid Must Fall

Yellow is the New Red
September 30, 2009, 10:43 pm
Filed under: America | Tags: , , , , , , ,


Perhaps this is long overdue. Perhaps the timing is just right. There is a group of people who have conspired since time immemorial; conspired against all of us. They walk amongst us in our communities. They smile at us and shake our hands. But in reality, they live sick double lives. Their plots are some of the most wretched and ruthless ever to be hatched. The number of lives they’ve claimed is astronomical. But who these actors are is still poorly understood. There’s nothing to differentiate them from the regular population. They want to take down the U.S. government and they’ve nearly succeeded before, as they have with others. They’re as strong now as they’ve ever been, and their numbers rank in the millions. If the fabric of society does not hold and unite against this threat, they could win. They’ve made incredible gains thus far and they won’t rest until their goals are achieved.

The good news is that we’ve beaten them before. History is riddled with instances of us beating them. The number of forms this threat comes in is many. Their aim, though, remains the same: the overthrow of governments and concentration of power in their hands. I talk, of course, of free market libertarians.

The name is intentionally misleading. Calling the unregulated market “free” is a misnomer. It shouldn’t be called that. The freedom to exploit and enslave is not just freedom. It’s also exploitation and slavery. It would be more accurate to call it the slave market; for that’s what it contains, without exception. But history is against these people. Generations upon generations of human beings have fought and died in the war against them. There is no Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the world they seek to create. Such a document is seen, by them, as an impediment to freedom, rather than a guarantor of it. That really says it all, does it not?

What they’ve done is, for the umpteenth time, re-invented a maligned ideology and rebranded it, giving it a veneer of moral importance. What they’ve done is shoved an army into a wooden horse, slipped a razor blade into a piece of candy. They’ll tell you it’s just a horse, it’s just a piece of candy, but it’s not. It’s really just an army, just a razor blade. The veneer doesn’t matter. It’s what’s inside that counts, for what’s inside is most impactful.

Regular twenty-first century people see there being no valid reason to ever eliminate the law prohibiting discrimination, or assault, or rape, or slavery, or murder. We’re not concerned with discriminator’s rights, or slave-owner’s rights because we have an accurately ethical understanding of the concept of human rights. Yours end where someone else’s begin, and no matter how convincing you are, that doesn’t give you the right to mistreat someone. No matter how gullible, unintelligent, or unassuming someone may be, that doesn’t give you the right to do them harm.

Free market libertarians are people who wish to do away with every law passed by every public institution in the world. They’re internationalists, in this regard. To them, the only valid laws are those passed by contractual agreement in the private sector. Who would enforce these contracts, or enforce the contract with the contract enforcer, no one knows, and they hardly care. As I said before, this is a plot; a conspiracy. They continue to believe they will find some ultimate kernel of logic in this illogical theory of human interaction that will negate and justify the cornucopia of injustice that will follow as a result of the application of their suggestions.

Slavery is implied any time they use the word liberty. Don’t be fooled. They are against the public institution itself. They are enemies of the United States government, and of every government. They are against the justice we know is a result of it, and not just the injustice. They would throw the baby out with the bathwater, just to get a perfectly empty tub.

Of course, government is a medium of human interaction that can be used for great ills and to the great detriment of others and, on occasion, we may see fit to eliminate it in favor of another, better one. But we do not see good reason to eliminate government without replacing it with another. They do.

They see the will of the people as interference into their private matters, no matter what their private matters are. They openly ask what right the government has to tax them; a direct challenge of the government’s jurisdiction and legitimacy and we should treat it as such instead of calling it something it’s not; patriotic.

For the longest time, God has been the missing kernel of logic necessary for their theory to work, but as of late, this insurgence has become secularized, and differentiated from the political right wing. Still, the truth is that the right wing in American politics is nothing more than an infiltration; a plot to destroy the government. They use phrases like “small government” as way to appease those who wish for the complete abolishment of the United States itself in favor of something else or nothing at all. That we have tolerated their incursion is a failure as a nation.

They pervert the Constitution and reject most Supreme Court rulings. They state that most U.S. laws are unconstitutional and advocate for the complete dismantling of all governmental agencies. What is this but a plot? What is this but a conspiracy? They don’t use bombs and they don’t use guns (though this is debatable), but haven’t they threatened to? Don’t they do so on a daily basis?

I call this threat “the yellow scare”.

An unfortunate reality is that there has been a sort of unofficial alliance with these people on the part of those with a little black on their red flag, thinking the black unites them in a common cause. It doesn’t. Nor is the all-black flag an identifiable entity unto itself. It’s only coherent in conjunction with another color. The accompanying color changes the nature of that black. These bi-colored flags are not the merger of anarchism and something else. They are differing forms of anarchism. Note, I didn’t say ‘antistatism’, I said ‘anarchism’, which means “no-leader-ism”. Not having leaders is doable under the American system. Anti-statism, on the other hand, is anti-American by definition.

The yellow and black flag aims to eliminate leaders through competition. The red and black flag aims to eliminate leaders through cooperation; presumably democratically. The arch of history favors the red and black flag, seeing it as the most pure and moral. On this flag, the black exists for the right reasons; not the elimination of authority due to that authority being a competitor, but because authoritarianism is seen as unnecessary in the operation of a harmonious society.

In broad terms, the red and black flag, used to designate libertarian* socialism, symbolizes the ethic of minimizing government’s leverage while maximizing its function. The yellow and black flag, used to designate free market libertarianism, symbolizes the ethic of maximizing government’s leverage while minimizing its function, likely eliminating it as a public entity. Either way, free market libertarians stand for increased militarization in order to defend the liberated against the oppressed. In other words, their conception of the state is the man with the gun who makes sure there’s no slave revolt and fends off any outside attempt to liberate the slaves (which they call “defending liberty”). Metaphorically speaking, the state’s job, in their eyes, is to execute Harriet Tubman. They invoke militarization in the name of the divine right of capital.

The yellow and black flag and the red and black flag have nothing in common. They are, in fact, polar opposites.

The cappies, the yellows, say that America is what was omitted from the Constitution; that, they feel, is its “spirit”. Most people, on the other hand, see the “spirit” of America as being what was included in the Constitution.

The cappies, the yellows, say the “spirit” of the institution is self-hate whereas the rest of us see the “spirit” of America as self-love; love of its preoccupation with justice and morality. Differently put, they see America as a guarantor of non-intervention even in the face of injustice whereas we see America as a guarantor of intervention in the face of injustice. So, which one is it? Which one is America’s spirit? Which one does history support?

I see more evidence for the latter conception. One need look no further than the ultimate gauge of this character, the Civil War.

Should we really be so surprised that this country is so polarized? Should we really be so surprised that our disagreement wasn’t so superficial so as to disappear over a span of 150 years? Is that really that long? We went to war. We were killing each other. And then, suddenly, it was over, and we were supposed to be able to live together after that.

In keeping with their ideology, these people would have you believe (at the same time) that the Union conquered the Confederacy strictly for economic reasons, and also not for economic reasons, because they would like you to believe that the North and South had the same political and economic philosophy. That’s very untrue, and the Union won.

If their flag is a yellow flag with a rattlesnake and the motto “don’t tread on me”, then our flag is a red flag with a mongoose and the motto “don’t tread on them”. Some people would prefer to ignore this American duality and refrain from using the language of “us and them” no matter how practical it is, but that’s ignoring the reality, and that’s never constructive. The facts must be faced. The Civil War never ended. It just came to Washington.

There is a rising yellow tide in this country, despite our victory in the Civil War. History has shown that America’s spirit is the red and black flag, not the yellow and black flag. We’ve already shown that that’s impossible. America’s flag is the red flag with the mongoose and the motto “don’t tread on them”. Perhaps the occupant of the White House is the best evidence of that. The yellow flag is the flag of insurrection. Perhaps Joe Wilson, U.S. Representative from South Carolina, having infiltrated the party of Lincoln**, the commander in chief during the Civil War, yelling out that the black president is a liar is the best evidence of that.

The spirit of America is socialist.

The yellow flag isn’t American, it’s Confederate.

The yellow scare is upon us.

There is reason to go on the offensive again. There are many they are treading on, still.

*This word, in this context, designates a logical conception of liberty; that being a balance of positive and negative rights.

** They killed Lincoln.

submit to reddit


93 Comments so far
Leave a comment

Obviously you have no concept of the meaning of the word “libertarian”. Hey, you’re not alone. Lots of people who call themselves libertarians are in the same boat. Here’s the only definition I recognize (from


“Zero Aggression Principle”:

A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being for any reason whatever; nor will a libertarian advocate the initiation of force, or delegate it to anyone else.

Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim.

— L. Neil Smith


Initiation of force is the daily diet of the state. Hence, those who embrace the Zero Aggression Principle (ZAP) realize that the ZAP is incompatible with the state, an organization that forces the minority, at the point of a gun, to comply with the wishes of the majority. An organization that lives on massive theft (aka taxation). An organization that enforces its edicts by kidnapping (aka arresting) those who do not submit. An organization that has killed hundreds of millions of innocent people, in the twentieth century alone, and that continues to kill innocents every day.

Libertarians and anarcho-capitalists are lovers of peace. We harm no one, except in self defense. States live on lies, theft, assault, kidnapping, and murder. How can any moral human being support that?

Comment by Bill St. Clair

I’m familiar with the ZAP. I’m also very familiar with your definition of liberty (which I believe I described in the blog). I just disagree. Strictly negative liberty is not true liberty and the ZAP is not enough to guarantee people freedom.

We’re not concerned with discriminator’s rights, or slave-owner’s rights because we have an accurately ethical understanding of the concept of human rights. Yours end where someone else’s begin, and no matter how convincing you are, that doesn’t give you the right to mistreat someone. No matter how gullible, unintelligent, or unassuming someone may be, that doesn’t give you the right to do them harm.

You would say that as long as someone agrees to something (a contract or a deal) then there’s no aggression there. But advertising itself is a form of coercion. Or it can be. People have to be protected from exploitative vampires that capitalists really are. People are pressured financially into certain situations. Though it’s doubtful your precious ZAP include nuances such as these. It’s flawed.

Comment by antiherogoodkind

We certainly disagree. I believe only in negative rights. The right to be left alone, and to do whatever you want as long as you don’t infringe on anybody else’s rights.

Positive rights are incompatible with negative rights, since they require theft; somebody has to pay for the yours-by-right food, shelter, clothing, and medical care. And enforcing that theft requires aggression.

Comment by Bill St. Clair

Admitting you only believe in negative rights is only admitting your shortcomings as a human being.

“Positive rights are incompatible with negative rights, since they require theft; somebody has to pay for the yours-by-right food, shelter, clothing, and medical care. And enforcing that theft requires aggression.”

That’s incorrect. If a community of people want a certain way of life to exist in their community and they don’t want pilferers or non-compliers to exist in their community, they have a right to kick you out or, if you won’t leave, make rules that you have to follow. States are nothing but social contracts that people sign of their own volition. But they’re agreements to be subjected to the laws of the community, the general will of the voting population.

Comment by antiherogoodkind

Really? When did I sign this “social contract“?

Comment by kentmcmanigal

Well, factually-speaking, you didn’t. The institution of the United States was created on a permanent basis. It’s what I would call a “perma-state”. That’s an inherent flaw, but I don’t think it was done for nefarious purposes, only practical ones. This makes it backed by force, but that doesn’t mean it should be abolished and not replaced with something else.

Comment by antiherogoodkind

I have signed the only “social contract” I need: The Covenant of Unanimous Consent

Comment by kentmcmanigal

That made us sound way cooler than we actually are.

Comment by thhunter

I beg to differ. We’re that cool.

Comment by antiherogoodkind

I mean the free marketeers.

Comment by thhunter

Oh. Well, then I concede, you’re not that cool. LOL

But you don’t have to be cool to be dangerous and/or powerful.

Comment by antiherogoodkind

Nice straw man you’ve constructed there.

Comment by kentmcmanigal

Not a straw man. Just informing people that the free market has been tried and it wasn’t pretty. Also, the public institution (whether temporary or permanent) is the only thing that can guarantee freedom and safety. I don’t see any way a private institution would be protective of someone who is unable to pay them.

Comment by antiherogoodkind

“I don’t see…”
And there lies the heart of the problem. Just because you can’t conceive of it you believe it can’t happen.

I have written on how “it” would work many times, as have others. You could do a little research before saying no one has explained it. Blaming the current economic problems on a “free market” is like blaming sasquatch for killing your chickens. Neither was anywhere near the scene of the crime.

Comment by kentmcmanigal

It just doesn’t make logical sense. How would a person without anything to offer have the upper hand in any disagreement? In this hypothetical world, there is nothing not run capitalistically. Do you at least acknowledge that poverty, maybe extreme poverty or an epidemic of extreme poverty is possible in your Utopia? I mean, am I the only one who’s noticed most of you guys’ unwillingness to help those in need?

To me, you guys represent a real threat and people have to be made aware of it. I’m not blaming the financial crisis on a “free market”. Never once did I even mention such a thing. Worse, I’m blaming previous problems on a freer market, which we have, as a state, overcome through war. Capitalists were treading on people and we refused to let them do so.

The problem with capitalist ideas is they’re never coupled with revolutions in moral thinking. If they were, though, they wouldn’t be capitalist ideas.

Comment by antiherogoodkind

There is no one on the planet who has “nothing to offer”. Everyone has something. It may not be monetary, but there is always something. To reduce everyone down to their bank account is incredibly shortsighted.

There is no “system” that can make poverty totally go away. There is only one way to give everyone a fair shot, though. By removing “legitimized theft”. I have helped people who were in need, even to the point of hurting myself financially. If government were not stealing from me, I could help a lot more. It feels good to help people. It is wrong for me to “help” people with money I steal from you. You can’t do “the right thing” by doing the wrong thing.

Comment by kentmcmanigal

“There is no one on the planet who has “nothing to offer”.


That’s altogether terrifying, if you don’t mind me saying (and even if you do).

So, what you’re saying is everyone has their LABOR to offer, right? I think I’m gonna be sick. How does this not reinforce my statement that

“It would be more accurate to call it the slave market; for that’s what it contains, without exception.”??

So, if you’re in a disagreement and the person you’re in a disagreement with has more money, you have your labor to offer as a counter to his monetary power. You can WORK for the arbiter!

Sounds like slavery to me.

Yet more evidence you guys are seriously unhinged.

Comment by antiherogoodkind

Hardly my point at all. Friendship is something I value highly. It involves no slavery or “labor” (unless you are saying I am so unpleasant that I shouldn’t be imposed on anyone).

Comment by kentmcmanigal

We have written a critique of your statement. We hope it is well-appreciated.

Comment by rocktownrebel

Excellent. I will be addressing that, no doubt.

Comment by antiherogoodkind

Kamerad Antiherogoodkind,

My aren’t we full of conspiracy theories? The only conspiracy that I see here is your attempt to convince others that socialism which is embodied by the slogan of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” is a benign and loving system which would be much more beneficial for America. In your system if I CHOOSE to work 16 hour days to provide the best possible life for my family you will forceably deprive me of the fruits of my labor in order to provide for those who you deem more needy than myself. Socialism strips free will from people. Your system has been tried before and it has FAILED. It is a system of CONTROL, death and destruction as attested to by the deaths of 110,000,000 people which have occurred in your socialist utopian societies. That amounts to two thirds of all government mass murders in the 20th century. If that is your idea of utopia I want no part of it!

Your attempt at doublespeak would make Orwell proud but rest assured that if you attempt to force your control upon me I will resist it with ALL of my being and every means available to me, as will the vast majority of Americans who daily work hard to feed their families rather than being state parasites who feed off of the real producers in society.

Libertarians want nothing more than to be left alone and allowed to live their lives in peace and tranquility. Your article is nothing more than a disingenuous attempt to incite hatred and violence against some of the most peace loving people on the planet.

Comment by Redleg

I’m only advocating a democratic economy. Under the economy regulated by the supremacy of private property laws (which you somehow call the free market, even though it’s regulated), many workers are and will be deprived of what they earn. What we earn is funneled into the waiting arms of tyrannical shareholders, and this is a process that is destroying lives and also the living planet. And you have the fucking balls to tell me that socialism has failed? Anarcho-syndicalism hasn’t been given the opportunity to work. It existed for a brief time only in Catalonia.

And now, when you go to work (if you’re not a private sector monarch, that is, i.e. business owner), you’ll enjoy many of the fruits of trade union struggle and take it all completely for granted, chirping COMMUSOCIALISUM HAS FAILEDZORZ!!!11 without even realizing what an ignorant, comfortable, civilized pissant that makes you.

Next time just say “I don’t know anything on this topic” and cut your losses.

Comment by antiherogoodkind

You are a walking breathing contradiction! How can you be an anarchist and a socialist. Those two ideologies are completely at odds with one another.

Socialism/communism = government controls all aspects of the people’s lives.

Anarchism = Individual control all aspects of their own lives. They don’t concede government the right to control anything.

I look forward to your tap dancing around that blatant contradiction.

At least I now know why your arguments are inconsistent and scattered all across the board like a shotgun blast.

What do tou do, flip a coin before you write a response or get up every day? Heads I wil respond and act as a socialist today, tails I will respond and act as an anarchist today?

What a joke!

Make up your mind what you really are. Anarchy is INCOMPATIBLE with socialism/communism. Pick one please so the rest of us can figure out how the hell to respond to your arguments.

Comment by Redleg

“That’s incorrect. If a community of people want a certain way of life to exist in their community and they don’t want pilferers or non-compliers to exist in their community, they have a right to kick you out or, if you won’t leave, make rules that you have to follow.”

Ye maun try.

Of course, I note that none of you Heroes of the Revolution typing your way into history ever want to impose your Utopia on the strength of your own convictions and your own resources; instead you send hired thugs with guns.

Here is a thought experiment for you: What if, one fine day, the thugs get tired of going out in the morning and not coming home at night?

Comment by Ken

That’s a pretty intense comment. I’ll give you that.

Just more evidence that the yellow scare is upon us.

To answer your question, it’s a law enforcement situation at that point, a situation of forensics. Cappies and other wannabe archons would be addressed by the community as a whole, I suppose.

Comment by antiherogoodkind

Just as I thought — you’re more than willing to fight to the last dead badge-toting functionary, just like all the other coffeehouse revolutionaries.

I see you also fail to take my point: at that point, it has ceased to be a “‘law’ enforcement situation,” because there will be no one left to try to enforce your positive law against free men and women on your behalf.

Then what?

Comment by Ken


They are cowards. If they are so convinced of the moral superiority of their system why do they insist in forcing it upon us at the end of the barrel of a hired gun? If their system was superior people would willingly embrace it. Besides the parasites in our society who want something for nothing, Americans are not fooled by their utopian drivel. If they send their vermin to subjugate me I will stand firm and punch through until my last round and last breath! I am not afraid to confront evil after 15 years in the Army. I have done it before. I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees.

If Antiherogoodkind is so sure of the superiority and morality of his ways let him personally force me to submit instead of sending hired killers to do his bidding!!!

Comment by Redleg


If your system was superior people would willingly embrace it, also. Instead, you’re minoritarians and hypocrites who use the state to subjugate us to your system of control as you and your intellectual lineage have done since the beginning of civilization. Can you blame us for finally wanting to be free of your private tyranny?

Let me ask you this (and you may want to start a new thread if you choose to respond), it may sound at first like a ridiculous question, but do you support the absolute inviolability of private property?

Comment by antiherogoodkind

“who use the state to subjugate us to your system of control”

That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard! If ever there were a group of individuals more at odds with the federal leviathan and its one size fits all mentality it would be Libertarians. We desire to control NO one and in the process only ask to be allowed to remain free from the control of others in return.

I don’t know where you have developed your ideas on Libertarianism but you are the most misinformed individual I have ever had the misfortune to correspond with.

I want nothing to do with the government nor with you. Leave me alone and I most assuredly will reciprocate. It is as simple as that. I concede to you the right to live your life as you see fit if you give me the same level of respect. Why are you making something more out of this than there is. All this talk of little colored flags is ridiculous and meaningless.

Comment by Redleg

I can’t help but laugh. You advocate the validity of hierarchy, but you seek to control no one? Isn’t that what hierarchy is? In effect, you advocate monarchy, you just want to move it over into the private sector, thinking that somehow makes it legitimate or justifiable.

Leaving you alone requires that I must abide by the idea that private property is legitimate. You somehow want the right to have your own little sovereign state/private kingdom in the middle of our community, like an island. That’s absurd. That island is nothing more than a tumor.

Comment by antiherogoodkind

Not all hierarchies are invalid. Only the involuntary ones. I will happily allow someone to be “over” me for a specific purpose (such as learning from a master-craftsman). I will not submit willingly to an overlord who imposes his will on me regardless of my consent.

If property is not legitimate, how does your community claim the land it occupies?

Comment by kentmcmanigal

What I really heard you say is “not all archies are invalid”. You can stop calling yourself in anarchist now, that is, if you still are.

I didn’t say property is invalid. I said private property is invalid.

Comment by antiherogoodkind

I told you plainly what I mean. You can choose to hear what you want and to understand or not.

How do you have communal food, toilet paper, or water? If you ate a meal and another member of your community wanted the food, would you regurgitate it for them? Is anyone in your community welcome to walk into your house anytime they want, and walk out with anything that catches their fancy?

Comment by kentmcmanigal

So I ask you again since you say private property is invalid, are you really an anarchist or juast a communist/socialist trapped in an anarchists body?

Hurry now, flip your coin to decide before you respond!

Comment by Redleg

I don’t think you understand. I’m really not advocating any violence here, although you are. I’m only advocating self-defense; protecting the lives of the members of society against cappie terrorist scum. Why would you kill people for finally being free from authority? Why would you kill fellow members of humanity for finally governing themselves? Why would you demand access to communities you obviously don’t belong in? Why do you demand the right to impose your worldview on other people?

We wouldn’t ever run out of people to enforce the law. Are you kidding me? You’d be a pariah.

Comment by antiherogoodkind

I am NOT advocating violence here, only self-defense against those who would force their world view upon me. I concede the right of everyone to live their lives as they see fit. If you and all of your socialist friends wanted to create your own socilaist utopia in some city somewhere I say more power to you but when you attempt to change the entire nation in your desired image I have a SERIOUS problem with that.

Why is it that you are unwilling to let people live their lives as they see fit without attempting to exert some form of control over them?

All you have to do is agree to live and let live. Is that so hard?

Comment by Redleg

As an anarchist, I’m unwilling to let hierARCHY exist. Private property is nothing more than a private kingdom in which one person has absolute power. Why am I unwilling to let absolute power exist? Do you really have to ask that question? I’m an anarchist. Where there is concentrated power, there is need for decentralization.

(Start a new thread if you’re going to respond.)

Comment by antiherogoodkind

While I disagree with you on private property I agree with you on the following “Where there is concentrated power, there is need for decentralization”.

Comment by Redleg

My body is simply another “private kingdom”, then. I have absolute power over it by right. Anyone who tries to violate that has initiated force and is subject to my defensive actions. My other property is simply an extension of that primary property. Would you like to attempt to take that from me as well?

Comment by justasqpeg

Now that is a definition of private property that I agree with!

Comment by Redleg

So, because you work on something, that somehow makes it “yours”, permanently? Anyone who claims something as THEIRS just because they expended labor on it and hurts people who try to use that stuff as well has initiated force by furthering the notion that material things can be owned. This notion is not self-evident. It’s subjective.


Comment by antiherogoodkind


I do not find you a hero or a good person. You preach hate the same as Custer and those who killed the first People.

I understand that you believe that you have the right to use force and hired armed people called law enforcement to compel me to do what you want me to do.

I understand that my peaceful, kind, generous, productive, harmless existence is a threat to your need to have absolute control over all members of some imaginarily-bounded “community” where I may live on my small farm. I understand that you believe you have the right to attach labels and encourage hatred and violence against anyone who disagrees with your beliefs.

And so I ask: where is your moral high ground? What are your ethics? Where are your attributes of kindness, understanding, goodness, and peace that you try to impress us by waving some flag? You preach hate and war against other peaceful humans. I do not think you are a teacher, but a crier for war.

Because if you will engender hatred against me today, and declare me an enemy because I may disagree with you philosophically, and refuse to obey your edicts, what will stop you from doing the same tomorrow to another person who is not a mixed race person such as myself? What will stop you from kicking out elderly people who can no longer meet your quotas or who argue with your ideas, or who criticize your use of force?

Do you not see how ugly and violent, how cruel and inhumane your concept of community ruled by the majority, by the strongest, by those who can best afford to hire “law enforcement” people is?

Come visit a reservation, and see what a majority government did to a people. Come see what “law enforcement” did to the Nations of this land early on. You are preaching the same thing, and holding up government of might and force as the standard by which you want people to live, or be kicked off their farms and land. I know what your words say. I am not fooled.

You are teaching the same hatred, the same “might makes right” and the same rationale for kicking people around as did the government under those who sent out soldiers to kill the People who had long lived on the land. People who asked only to be left alone to live their lives on land they had long hunted were instead hunted and killed, even the women and children, by haters just like you, by the government you love so very much. A government of war, slavery, killing, and theft. It is still doing that today, all around us. Open your eyes.

Shame on your for your hatred, for your hard words, and for your lust for power, influence, and control over other humans. Shame.

Comment by feralfae


I, and many, many, more like me will stand shoulder to shoulder with you to resist the socialist controlers like Antiherogoodkind.

Comment by Redleg

I think that more important is that we stand mind to mind, spirit to spirit. But I think you meant shoulder to shoulder as a metaphor, is that not so? We seek no battles, but only teaching through reason and truth.

We seek to live in peace.

We seek no initiation of violence, no war.

We seek peace and the right to live our lives in peace. We only wish to be left alone. We seek only peace.

We wish to have government leave our land. We wish to no longer walk in fear of our lives and the lives of our children when we do not agree to some majority-imposed “community social contract” that is backed up by slaver guns and hired killers.

We must talk out loud and shame these war criers and slavers.

We must not harm them, but we must parade their thoughts before the world, and let The Peoples see how these war criers want to use force and violence against peaceful Peoples.

Violence is the way of government and of those who wave its flags of slavery, calling them by other names to fool us. We will not be fooled.

Let ours be the way of peace.
Thank you.
I thank you brother.

Comment by feralfae

Where there is concentrated power, there is need for decentralization. This is the anarchist’s creed. If you don’t follow this creed, then you are not an anarchist. I am not preaching hate or violence of any kind. That would be a mistake on my part. What I’m preaching is peoples’ sovereignty, which you have come out against. You fail to understand that by demanding access to our communities, and demanding the ability to behave in them the way you want, you are imposing your worldview, your philosophy, on us. It’s much like you demanding the right to trespass and then denying the owners of that land (which will be many, not few) have the right to dictate what kind of things go on on their own property.

I’m calling for only de-centralized government, legislatively-speaking. Really, it’s just community self-management.

You’re such a hypocrite. You can’t even see it. You’re peacefully advocating violence whereas I am violently advocating peace, and I’m the bad guy? Give me a break. Take your hierarchy and shove it.

Comment by antiherogoodkind

“You fail to understand that by demanding access to our communities, and demanding the ability to behave in them the way you want, you are imposing your worldview, your philosophy, on us. It’s much like you demanding the right to trespass and then denying the owners of that land (which will be many, not few) have the right to dictate what kind of things go on on their own property.”

You are pretending that by the vote of 51% (or more) of those eligible to vote (or interested in voting) you can make it “your community” and violate the property rights of the 49% who do not wish to live in your “Utopia”. That is just mob rule. You are not talking about “peoples’ soveriegnty”, you are talking collectivism and “one size fits all” rules. Then you are advocating hiring thugs to enforce your desires on your neighbors who only want to live and let live.

Comment by kentmcmanigal

I’m not advocating perma-statism, dick. Stop fucking straw-manning me. If you’re not able to debate using honest tactics, then it simply will cease to happen.


Comment by antiherogoodkind

Why “should” people sign the social contracts that turn them into subjects? The one I signed has no such suicide clause in it. I would sign nothing of the sort, and I wonder why you demand that I do.

Comment by kentmcmanigal

Well, what land area is under the jurisdiction of your contract? You can’t claim the planet as your own.

Comment by antiherogoodkind

A social contract has no need to apply to a particular piece of land, or any land at all. It applies to those who sign it wherever they may be.

Comment by kentmcmanigal

So all current property ownership is valid. Is that what you’re saying? Even though it was divvied up under the state’s rules?

Comment by antiherogoodkind

Social contracts have nothing at all to do with land. That is a completely separate issue.

But, no, not all current property ownership is valid. For example: no government can own any property since governments have nothing they did not steal. The rules dividing property pre-date government “laws” also.

Government is not necessary for agreements to be reached and maintained. The problem is that a great many people have been brainwashed into not being able to see any other way it could work.

Comment by kentmcmanigal


Again one of the most asine things I have ever heard before. You have achieved two firsts today. Why would I sign a contarct and give up my freedom and self-determination to someone like you Kamerade. Oh I forgot, it is for the greater good. Well who determines what the greater good is? That is the flaw in your system. Your system will create an elite like all of the others. I say no thank you. I will continue to decide what is best for me without some group of utopians telling me how to live!

Comment by Redleg

You wouldn’t, but many people would because they know that’s the only fucking way law exists. You’re jurisprudentially illiterate.

“My” system doesn’t create hierarchy. It eliminates it wherever it is found. Now you’re just lying. To yourself, mostly.

Comment by antiherogoodkind

Your idea of “law” requires government and enforcers. That is “counterfeit law

Comment by kentmcmanigal

“So, because you work on something, that somehow makes it “yours”, permanently?”

Of course not. That is a socialist/communist idea. You know “the workers’ paradise” sort of thing. If I work on something with the understanding that it is “mine”, that is different than working on something for pay or for friendship. If I build a house for myself with materials I either bought or made myself, on land which I paid for, then it is mine(although governments do not recognize that fact).

Comment by kentmcmanigal


And why does exchanging pieces of paper make something yours?

I’m sorry, that’s hilarious. Humans are such narcissists. Your system is not based in some divine, self-evident logic. In fact, it looks very absurd from the outside looking in. Capitalists and their magic paper!

Comment by antiherogoodkind

It isn’t the “pieces of paper” that make it yours or mine. It is the part of your life and labor that those pieces of paper represent. No one is obligated to agree to the trade, of course. I much prefer to use real money (or trade goods) rather than those pieces of paper you speak of.

Comment by kentmcmanigal


I prefer to use silver rounds myself!

Comment by Redleg

Me too.

Comment by kentmcmanigal

What rights would you grant to other humans, then, hero person?
What rights would you grant to a tribe, or Nation, or group?
And who is giving you the right to grant rights or deny rights to other human beings?
I would very much like to know your answers to these questions, for I do not understand the self-contradictions you seem to be stating, as I am one who approaches your words from the perspective of one who has lived on tribal land.
Thank you.

Comment by feralfae

I have great respect for the culture and tradition of tribal peoples, since they have traditionally showed great respect for the Earth. Before white people came across the ocean, carrying with them the cancerous idea of private property, tribal peoples’ lives somewhat harmoniously with each other. Their “institutions” were very lax, very informal, more communal. Within the tribe, at least, and oftentimes with other tribes, too.

I would grant to humans almost all the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I would grant people the right to profit shares in any company they work for. I would grant people the right of free health care and a clean environment. I would grant animal kingdoms the right to exist. Most of all, I would give people the right of citizenship in corporate society, which people do not have right now.

It wouldn’t be so formal. It would just be letting peaceful, cooperative people live and work with each other peacefully and cooperatively. That’s how it should be.

I am only saying what rights I would grant people under social contracts which I would prefer to sign. By signing this pact, me and a bunch of people would just be agreeing to live a certain way together. We would be giving the other members of the group the right to stop us if we don’t behave the way we said we would behave. There is no valid property ownership on the planet. One cannot evaluate property along the lines of valid or invalid, just fact or not fact. People occupy the land they occupy. It is neither wrong nor right, just true.

Comment by antiherogoodkind

So how do you get rid of those who currently live in “your area”, but who do not wish to sign your social contract?

Comment by kentmcmanigal

By negotiation. If that doesn’t work then by the next most humane way possible, and so on and so forth until all options are exhausted, then we just occupy the space, and try to treat the previous occupant as humanely as possible.

What I am talking about is really just the philosophy that dominated the land mass we call America before Europeans came across the ocean. Tribal jurisdictions weren’t so rigidly-defined. Neither were possessions. They may have gotten in skirmishes, but they also cooperated with each other quite a lot. Instead of there being skirmishes to solve disputes, though, I’d rather there being some form of democratic arbiter to resolve inter-community disputes.

Comment by antiherogoodkind

I’m right with you up until you fall back on theft if you don’t get your way. Why not just leave him alone and refuse to do business with him in any way until he allows you to “buy him out”? Or is that not even an option for the community?

Is it only “real estate” you feel OK about taking or is it smaller “goods” too(as I asked in my previous comment, somewhere above)?

Comment by kentmcmanigal

I was just wondering since you have already called such hold-outs a “tumor”. That implies a “need” for violent excision from your presence, if every other option fails, does it not?

Comment by kentmcmanigal

I actually refer to capitalists as cancerists quite often because in a functional, sustainable community of people (the body) these people have the philosophy of a cancer cell which thinks it has been bestowed with the divine right to just grow and grow in wealth without regard to anyone else.

Buying him out is something that would be resorted to before any initiation of force is resorted to (and, if it’s necessary, yeah, it would be resorted to). It would be stupid for him not to leave, though, for he could most likely find a group of people he could associate with that would want to live the same way he does.

Comment by antiherogoodkind

Of course, if the “capitalists” give no value; have no regard for anyone else, they do not grow wealthy. You may not appreciate the value they give, but someone does.

I have no “roots” so I doubt I would choose to live surrounded by communists just to stay on one piece of ground, however I know a lot of people who have deep connections to one piece of ground and value it more than any payment they could receive and enough to resist any threats or coercion designed to make them leave. That is their legitimate choice to make.

Comment by kentmcmanigal

I am laughing out loud!

Rivers and mountains clearly defined hunting territories for many Peoples. Gathering grounds and farming lands were clearly defined as well. We did not need your paper maps: we know the land.

You may not mean to do so, but you sound like a politician, offering to grant things that are not yours to grant to People so they will let you take their land and their goods.

I have personal, private possessions which have been handed down to me from my many-great grandmothers, and our land we have farmed by the river is our land to farm as long as there are members of our clan who wish to farm it.

We have private property. We have personal possessions. We have horses that are our own. I do not know what books you are reading, but they are not true.

How can you grant health care, and where do you get it to give it to people? From the sky?

You can go make any community you want and agree with other people about it, but when you “humanely” shove people who are already there aside, then you violate their basic human rights to live and exist on that land, no matter how many of you there are, and no matter how few of them there are. That is not your right.

You must know enough history to know about the People who were promised peace if they made their marks on pieces of paper, and then their lands were taken, their horses killed, and their women abused.

Those who came with the pieces of paper, to have agreements signed, made the same sorts of promises that you are trying to make, and they also promised things that were not theirs to give, and they made promises from the wind.

You say there is no valid property ownership because you want to use that as an excuse to take the land and property of other People who do not sign their mark on your pieces of paper.

Do you think you can fool the People with your empty promises? Do you think we have learned nothing from watching what people do who first talk about no property rights, and make empty promises of giving things that are not theirs to promise or give?

If you want to live in peace among other Peoples, then walk in peace, and come in front of them, offering what you, one person, have that is yours, not what you hope to steal from other People.

You cannot trade the wind. You cannot steal from my neighbor to trade with me. You cannot tell me that my family does not own our farm, just because we do not sign your paper.

You can not guarantee us anything except what you, as one person, have to offer. The only way you can get more than is yours is to steal it using force, and if that is your way, we do not want you to live among us.

If you come in peace, offering what is yours, what you have made, and offer to trade your work for food and shelter, then we might have a trade.

But you have no health care to give us unless you are a doctor with your own medicines, and still, we have our own medicines and doctors, so we may not need yours.

What do you, one person standing before People, have to offer that we might invite you to live among us? For that is the question every person must answer. Some are singers, some are mystics, some are hunters, some are farmers, some are storytellers, some guard the horses, some care for the children, some are loving and are cared for because they make us smile. Elders are cared for and teach us much. Those who are hurt can teach how not to get hurt. Everyone who lives in peace has a place, but no one who comes with empty promises has a place. You cannot give what is not yours.

What do you, as one person, have to offer to a People to make you welcome? And it cannot be wind promises or marks on pieces of your paper.

Do you not understand this? Words you are writing here are just the same words the BIA, the Indian Agencies, the war generals have offered for a long time. Words you are writing here are the same words that were written for the Moro, the Amazonian tribes, the first People of Australia, and many more.

Come as one person, stand before others, and offer your self in peace, and become part of a group.

You are making up rules that benefit you and harm others, and that is not a good way. Do you not see this when you read your own words? How are you not following the same path as those who took the lands, over and over, from other Peoples?

How are your empty promises better than those of the treaty men who promised to leave the land and the animals, then took the land and killed the animals?

Do you not hear your own empty words? You speak from some power place outside your own self, when all you really have is you, and what you can offer as a person, to live in peace with others. Speaking from some power place means that you will need to steal or get someone to steal from other Peoples to keep the wind promises you make. Bring us your own free health care, if you wish, but do not take from others to give gifts that are not from you, you as one person, one person standing before us on your own.

I think you do not know very much about other cultures, or you would not think or say that we do not have property rights. If you and some other people want to live with no property rights, good luck. But you have no right to impose that notion on any other Peoples. And if you have no property rights, then do you own yourself? Do you own your labor? Do you own what you make? Do you own where you plant corn, even, or can anyone come and claim your corn?
I do not understand your thinking, except that is appears very confused to me. But I may be too simple to understand your complex philosophy, for it seems to me you are saying that if a group arrives on land already occupied, they can take it and slowly force the other People who have farmed that land for generations to go away, and there is no right or wrong, just true. That is a wrong way to think, and it is the way I have learned from history, is the way of war people. Is this your way?
I am studying what you write here very carefully.

Comment by feralfae


Those are indeed words of wisdom and power. You have my utmost respect for your candor and truthfulness!!!

It would be a priviledge and an honor to live in a community of people such as yourself & Kent.

If only more people had your wisdom and insight the world would be a much better place today.

Your words are indeed the words of peace and brotherhood!

Comment by Redleg


You have blown me away. Thank you! Bless you!

Comment by Bill St. Clair

Not thinking is not the least confused. He is a sophist, saying whatever he thinks will win him the debating point and gain him power over us. He just sucks at it.

Comment by Ken

Tovarisch antireasongumbohead’s thinking is not the least confused. His language is obfuscatory, because he is a sophist, saying whatever he thinks will win him the debating point and gain him power over us. He just sucks at it.

Comment by Ken

Just out of curiosity, is there a summary of your views anywhere? Mine is here

Comment by kentmcmanigal

Bravo Kent!

Extremely well said!!! I don’t see how any lucid, logical, and clear thinking individual can argue with your statement, unless of course they are a CONTROLLER.

Comment by Redleg

P.S. I believe your statement to be a fair representation of the core beliefs of Libertarianism. How anyone can try and turn that into an evil so called “yellow scare” is totally beyond me. As I said in an earlier post the Anti-hero is truly misinformed as to what Libertarianism is.

He seems to be more hung up on private property than anything else which leads me to believe that he is indeed a real COMMUNIST, he just doesn’t know it.

Comment by Redleg

Entries will eventually be added to this (very new) blog that will summarize my views, though not just mine, but other peoples’ as well. I’m thinking about writing something on perma-statism. Either that, or the democratization of the economy, which happens to be a pretty popular topic these days, much to my delight.

I’m taking pretty typical anarcho-syndicalist positions, only with a little contractarianism thrown in.

Comment by antiherogoodkind

Just a suggestion, take it or leave it, but you might try to summarize exactly what you believe and stand for without using the “-ist” and “-ism” labels. Everyone reads each of those a little differently (as I have been told over and over) and they may take it to mean something other than what you mean.

Comment by kentmcmanigal

Anarcho-syndicalists view it as a potential force for revolutionary social change, replacing capitalism and the State with a new society democratically self-managed by workers. Is this definition of anarcho-syndicalist correct?

Anarcho-syndicalism is a branch of anarchism which focuses on the labour movement. Anarcho-syndicalists seek to abolish the wage system, regarding it as “wage slavery,” and state or private ownership of the means of production, which they believe lead to class divisions.

If so please explain to me how you can reconcile anarchy with socialism.

Comment by Redleg

I really hope this is not your first encounter with anarcho-syndicalism. Pretty much all libertarian socialists are anarcho-syndicalists. They’re simply two ways of saying the same thing.

We seek to abolish the state as far as it’s a relic of feudalism. We don’t all wish to abolish the rule of law. The rule of law was something that originated on the community level.

Comment by antiherogoodkind

In all honesty, yes it is and I can not seem to get my head around the blend of anarchism and socialism. The two seem to be mutually exclusive to me.

Am I missing something here?

Please enlighten me.

Comment by Redleg

And I can’t seem to get my head around anarchism and capitalism. The two seem to be mutually exclusive to me. Anarcho-syndicalism was the original anarchism. The red and black flag was simply the anarchist flag for a long time. The problem is, your mind is just so diseased by atomism, hierarchism, and competition that it’s just impossible for you to conceptualize voluntary togetherness, mutual aid, and real cooperation.

Maybe this video will help?

Comment by antiherogoodkind

I watched the video. Those people were not “anarchists” no matter what they called themselves. They were nihilists and socialists. They embraced Rulers (and committees of Rulers), they just wanted to destroy the social structure and impose their own Rulers. They set up another kleptocracy, but with different thieves than the governmental ones who had been the problem before.

Comment by kentmcmanigal

I have no desire to abolish real law. You know, the laws that forbid actual initiated force, fraud, or theft. Those are the ones that originated at a community level. Anything else is a counterfeit “law” and has been added by excessive statism.

Comment by kentmcmanigal

Counterfeit law is just something you made up. It’s stupid. Law exists whether you agree with it or not until it’s made not to exist. You also have a wrong definition of theft. Claiming absolute ownership of something is theft. This world and everything in it belongs to all of us.

Comment by antiherogoodkind

Every idea, including your false notion of “law” was made up by someone at some time. Your idea of theft is perverse, but it is good to know it in case people encounter you.

So, I will once again ask the question of you that I asked before:

How do you have communal food, toilet paper, or water? If you ate a meal and another member of your community wanted the food, would you regurgitate it for them? Is anyone in your community welcome to walk into your house anytime they want, and walk out with anything that catches their fancy?

Otherwise, you are not telling the truth about your idea of the illegitimacy of “property”.

Comment by kentmcmanigal


It may be awhile as he has to wait for his lithium to kick in in order to minimize one of the competing voices in his head. Maybe you’ll get lucky though and he will flip his anarcho-socialist coin. Heads he uses the socialistic approach of governmental oppression and unleashes the hounds of war upon the “tumor” or tails he goes with the anarchistic approach and resorts to the live and let live philosophy.

Comment by Redleg

And that would be funny, wouldn’t it, if there were voices in my head? Then I could provide the valuable service of being someone for your kind to laugh at and kick the shit out of and maybe occasionally throw some change at, on the rare occasion that you feel a fleeting trace of humanity and compassion. Unfortunately for you, I don’t. DARN!

I’m fine with the live and let live philosophy, just GTFO of my community.

Comment by antiherogoodkind

None of us would lay a hand on you. Why do you continue to imply that we routinely resort to the initiation of force? You are way of the mark as is your continued sterotyping of us as uncaring. I give generously of my time & resources, but I give to who I want to, not to who the government commands. I have found the traits which you accuse us of to be more in line with collectivists. How anyone thinks that providing free health care as long as you are a producer but then feels that limiting treatment in old age when it is needed most is supposedly caring is beyond me.

Do you feel that the use of curse words adds something to your arguments? Is it that we anger you because you are unable to CONTROL our minds and thought processes that you find it necessary to refer to us as “dicks” and other such words?.

Finally, I would gladly leave your community immediately, of which I am currently trapped (People’s Demokratic Republik of Kalifornia), if it was only that simple. Hopefully soon I will be able to escape this collectivist state and reside in a community with honorable individuals such as Kent & feralfae.

Comment by Redleg

No, you’d just LET a hand be laid on me. You’d just let someone with mental problems waste away on the cold streets because they have nothing to offer. Because they can’t provide for themselves. Because they’re human trash.

No, as I said in the essay, you’re all about non-intervention. You do advocate violence. You advocate economic violence, a systemic neglect and lack of concern.

How anyone thinks that providing free health care as long as you are a producer but then feels that limiting treatment in old age when it is needed most is supposedly caring is beyond me.

No one does that. That’s a myth, propaganda for stupid people.

I curse because that’s who I am, because I care, and because I’m not dead inside.

Comment by antiherogoodkind

“Non-intervention” is not the same as “non-coercion”. We are not about “non-intervention” we are against coercion. There is a huge difference. It is as different as theft and trade. Intervene and help anyone you want to help, as will we.

We do not advocate economic violence. Economic violence would be theft or fraud. We would defend your right to defend yourself from such acts.

The “systemic neglect” you speak of is the result of collectivism. When you make it “society’s responsibility” to take care of those who need it, then everyone has an excuse why they don’t do something personally. Blame shifting: It is the risk of collectivism.

Many libertarians/anarchists spend a lot of time and effort helping those who need it. We are concerned, but we do it ourselves instead of stealing from others to “help” those who need help. Charity is wonderful; welfare is destructive and degrading.

Comment by kentmcmanigal

you are way off. The problems with this country are not the -isms or labels, it is the lack of respect for freedom as outlined by the US Constitution. It is no more complicated than that. Freedom and a govt that protects it is what is needed. You should move to another country that has full fledged socialism and leave the US to freedom lovers. Enjoy yourself somewhere else.

Comment by mike

If you live in Weston Florida and plan on refinancing an existing mortgage or get a new mortgage beware of scam artist Tulio J. Rodriguez. This so called “Mortgage & Finance Specialist” will tell you just about anything to get your business. His group of scavengers “Real Estate Agents and Mortgage Specialists” lie through their teeth to take your money.

Comment by traipropigmax

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: