Consider this a friendly, diplomatic missive to the Steemit Anarchist/Voluntarist Community to inform them that some among their community are engaging in a very antagonistic attitude towards military veterans at a time where actual threats exist... you know, of the existential variety.
For anyone who missed it, I had offered a pointed challenge to @jakemccauley over his post entitled "Is It Evil To Join The Military". Though he offered a video response in which he addressed the points I made in my response, he ignored my challenge to an actual debate and instead used it as an opportunity to talk to the audience instead of debate with me on the topic.
While I can certainly appreciate and understand arguments against military intervention around the globe, I see absolutely zero wisdom in antagonizing an entire demographic of people who can and should be natural allies to anarchists, voluntarists, and their ethos.
Anarchists and Veterans: Arguments for Natural Allies
the VAST majority of combat arms veterans are strong conservative and libertarian types who understand the concepts of individual liberties, self-reliance, and working as a team
combat arms veterans tend to STRONGLY DISLIKE progressive ideology, progressive politicians, and anyone who presumes to know how others should best live their lives
as a general rule, we hate war more than people who haven't experienced it, which should come as no surprise to anyone
we are typically fathers and husbands who abide by the law, yet we have developed the courage needed to stand up when necessary (note: this confidence was earned through the expenditure of time, blood, sweat, and tears)
the vast majority of us fucking despise the Clinton Crime Family as a general rule
Important Note: the term combat veteran applies to those who serve in direct combat roles (infantry, special operations, artillery) or roles that require the risk of direct engagement with a live enemy.
Although I am not a card-carrying member of the Anarchist/Voluntarist movement, from the gist of what I've picked up over the past few months on Steemit, I resonate personally with many of the core fundamentals of the ideology. This probably has a lot to do with the fact that the Venn Diagram overlap of conservatives, libertarians and anarchists seems to be 'statistically significant' putting it mildly.
Enemy of my Enemy
While this is not a new experience to me having argued with hundreds of progressives since joining the military, it is one of the first instances where I was arguing with someone who believes strongly in personal liberty and freedom AND considers veterans mere tools of the state at best or 'worshippers of the state' at worst.
The strangest part about this stance is that my role overseas was to assist the Iraqi Army fight against a two-fold force of organized crime and Islamists who were actively working to subjugate the population through fear... precisely the sort of thing veterans are accused of AND the exact thing anarchists and voluntarists advocate for.
So if both of us hate tyrants and despots, why are we at each other's throats?
Numerical Advantage
Here's a tip from basic military doctrine: it is considered unwise to engage an enemy unless you have 3-1 odds in your favor. Initiating an open conflict without this advantage creates a tremendous amount of risk, unless there are some tactical advantages in your favor.
As far as I can tell, aside from a legitimate superiority in ideology (of which I share), anarchists and voluntarists simply do not have the numbers to make their voices heard. If it weren't for Steemit, I wouldn't have heard of the phrase 'voluntarist', nor would I have had an understanding of the fundamental tenets of voluntarism or anarchism in its working state.
This may make it seem more cool and hipsterish, but the hopes of a world without nation states seems to rely solely on the strength of the ideas. That almost never works, with few exceptions. Regardless, hope is not a strategy.
There are far more military veterans and family members of military veterans who believe in the SAME PRINCIPLES and are vocally in favor of many of the things anarchists look for -- except for the validity and viability of the state. Anarchists and voluntarists would be wise to exploit this common thread and establish more common ground while advancing your messaging within relatively friendly audiences.
What's the Plan?
My last strategic point is that anarchists appear to have no plan to achieve the extremely lofty goal of the elimination of nation states. Given the literal meaning of an-archy (without rule), this probably shouldn't be surprising. However, based on my own leadership experience, the only way to build credibility when working towards a common goal is to have an actual, workable plan utilizing people who have a proven capacity for reaching these sorts of goals in the past.
I have see none of this from the anarchist/voluntarist movement.
Granted, this may be by design (again, pointing to the literal definition of anarchy), but working towards the elimination of nation states with no discernible plan or strategy is a surefire way to shatter confidence in people, projects, and movements who may actually agree 100% with the ideology.
Meanwhile, in the real world...
... a religion that literally means "Submit" is spreading across the globe through the use of fear, violence, and subjugation. Yet, we're over here playing the finger pointing game amongst in some vain attempt to lay some blame at the feet of veterans after the fact as if they're the root cause of the violence? Seems like an extravagant waste of energy when a threat is staring you in the face.
Conclusion
It's a blessing to have allies who share the same beliefs, views, and incentives as you. The only type of person who would drive a wedge in something like that is either a fool, crazy, malicious, or all of the above. With what appears to be coming on the horizon, from increasing unrest in the cities, global economies teetering towards who-knows-what, and documents proving the felonies of presidential candidates being released to a silent media, we're in for some more rough waters ahead.
Call me a Nazi, state-worshipping, war-monger if you'd like, but if I'm walking into a fight, I'd prefer to have allies with the sort of temperament, experience, and perspectives that I have personally found in the military among combat arms veterans.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts, Blake,
There are a lot of nuances to this discussion. It's tough to bring them all together.
Perhaps one of the more important ones is that many military personnel serve for the right reasons, even if misguided. The desire to defend freedom is clearly virtuous.
The problem, on the other hand, is manifold.
-All wars that the US has engaged in for the last seven decades, at least, have been built on lies that profit a select few at the expense of not just American lives, but those they're sent to attack.
-When you sign the dotted line to become military, it is a form of slavery. You go where told, do what you're told, take injections, fight against contrived enemies, etc. You receive the information they want you to believe so that you can feel like you're engaging the "enemy" for a just cause (except for the few who will follow orders regardless and the even fewer who see through the lies and refuse to engage).
-With the militarization of the various LEOs now, there is a very real fear that posse comitatus will be breached. Is there enough integrity left in the military brass to stand up to such tyranny on behalf of the people? It seems that in light of the willingness to attack contrived enemies right now, that the concern may be founded.
My family has a military background all the way back to at least Bloody Mary. They've fought in every US war from the Revolutionary War to Vietnam. It stopped there. I considered the military when young, but decided against it after learning that the recruiters were "permitted" to lie in their recruitment and that any agreements were not binding.
There are so many clichés that are tossed around, but have no meaning. Of course, the biggest one is that soldiers defend our freedom - No, not really. My freedom has never been so threatened as it is today, by those who are sending soldiers to bomb people in far away lands. The tool of the military to build up the illusion of threats so they could attempt to justify their tyranny is doing nothing for my freedom. While many soldiers are willing to fight for my freedom, while it is severely threatened and has been incredibly undermined, it has yet to be threatened by foreign enemies.
I don't say this to disparage soldiers. If their hearts are in the right place then they're fighting for the right reasons, even though those reasons are lies. For that, they deserve respect. But it's hard for many to separate the deeds of the elite from the actions of their tools. And, though nobody wants to be called such, the US military is clearly a tool of the elite, and has been since at least WWII. Ike, and many before him, warned, but who listened?
You'll find that many who claim the anarchist title are well versed in the history of the Fed and their manipulation of US economy and foreign affairs. This, in and of itself, is a form of forced servitude = slavery. We're all treated like pawns in their master plan, but the military doubly so. And, now, we're watching as "law enforcement" agencies are continuously turned against the people to enforce the unconstitutional whims of their string pullers. Is this the freedom that our military has defended, spending many times what it would cost to feed every man, woman and child in the US?
Respectfully,
Joe
@anotherjoe Your statement about our wars going back 70 years being founded on lies is subjective. World War 2 wasn't declared on lies, and Vietnam was, but LBJ and JFK before him had actual reasons for fighting that war, they lied to accomplish what they saw as important ends, and afganistan was totally justified as far as I'm concerned. I think the major point you are refusing to admit is that a person is free to choose to join the army or not join the army. A person can know all the facts you know and join the army. They can believe that the American people are expressing their will through elected officials, rather than being enslaved by those officials, and that's a judgement call. If you and I worked from the same facts, you'd say the system was a lie, and I'd say it wasn't, to oversimplify.
You anarchists argue like communists..
Actually, documents declassified a few decades ago proved that Roosevelt knew exactly what he was doing when he forced Japan into a corner, prompting Pearl Harbor. He knew about the attack well before it happened. They were not the aggressor. He was. And he did it to force the US into the war. The American people refused to fully engage up to that point, and he knew they wouldn't unless provoked. It's documented, not a guess, supposition or subjective.
I agree with everyone's right to choose to join the military. I don't agree with everyone being forced to pay for it. And I certainly don't agree with the US' "right" to go around attacking people. Police state? It's all about profits. Perhaps this is something you should investigate further.
If you worked from the facts I view, you joining the army would be the same as asking to be a slave and have your life thrown away for the profit and mechanizations of the oligarchy. If you could do that, then your statement is accurate.
"You anarchists argue like communists.." Did you really say that? This is perhaps the most idiotic thing I've seen said throughout this discussion. It's inflammatory and uncalled for. You look through all my responses and I've simply disagreed and tried to show why some anarchists have a poor view of soldiers, mostly because I'm sympathetic to what this article is saying.
"You anarchists argue like communists.." This is uncalled for and inflammatory...
I'm a vet and I approve of this sentiment, though I've never felt the need to validate my anarchy. One thing I'd point out is that Anarchy actually means without rulers, not rule or rules. There are some fantastic pieces on DAO/Insurance based economies that outline some viable alternatives to the nation state. voluntaryist.com has their entire archive of newsletters up until today, filled with information that addresses the lack of a plan you cited.
So there is a viable plan, but anarchists disdain the idea (as do I) of seizing 'power' and forcing anyone to do it, because it stands against every ideal of anarchy. You can't force a horse to drink, but I think with continued dissemination of ideas, we can help shape the paradigm shift that is required to remove the veil from our collective eyes.
I'd have your six bud.
Awesome! Glad to know this...
Your affinity for @prufarchy has increased +10! :)
Thank you for that website tip.. I'll dive into that. I agree and assumed what the situation was on 'plans' and agree that seizing power would necessarily be required for anything to occur in the short term, but that would be a hypocritical move for anarchists. Nature abhors a vacuum and if a revolution like that were to happen, I wouldn't want to be around for who picks up that check.
Brilliant. That could be a great post by itself!
Many thanks for the great response. If you're interested, we should do a podcast/hangout sometime with a discussion on this topic. Shoot me a memo sometime!
As a Veteran I am not offended at all. I say bring all the young men and women home. Simplistic? Yes, that is the point.
It doesn't matter if you don't care about wars elsewhere, they will eventually care about you.
Holing up in a proverbial bunker of isolationism is a sure-fire way to attract belligerence from antagonists or the greedy. It didn't work well for Britain during WW2, or the US.
There will ALWAYS be tyrants willing and capable of raising armies to subjugate and murder their way to expand power, influence and control. If you DO NOT HAVE risk mitigation measures baked into your operating strategy, YOU WILL DIE, ideologically or biologically.
There are soooo many peaceful ways to pursue this. US rampant aggression is not the answer. We could take a queue from Switzerland on this one. In some ways, we're halfway there. It's just that the US likes to be the playground bully.
I'd like to believe what you say about pursuing peace but, I have to agree with @blakemiles84 on this one. What we are seeing are the effects of globalization on, in the main, a tribal culture that is stuck in the 7th century. Many of the isolationist memes presented in this discussion mimic those from the lead up to WWI and WWII. In fact, you could change only a few present day colloquialisms and the arguments would be indistinguishable. Further, if, as you say, the "US rampant aggression", is the problem; Why isn't it called the United States of Planet Earth? I am being serious. If there had been some giant conspiracy designed so the US would run the whole planet it would already be done. We would probably still be arguing over who got what state number.
Narrowing this a bit, and returning to my earlier comment about globalization; One can understand that having your entire identity smashed to bits by a vision of the future that invalidated your belief structure - would cause a backlash against the perceived offender. Our methods for fighting this backlash, thus far, have proved effective on the battlefield - far less so in the ideological arena; Which, unless I am mistaken, is one of the points made in the original article.
Your parting shot; ",,,the US likes to be the playground bully."); can not hold true under an objective observation of the facts. The point here is - just so I am not misunderstood - if that were true we would own all the turf from Pakistan to Turkey.
Cheers.
Why win a wars and take over countries overtly when there's so much profit in waging them and taking over subversively?
I don't say this with any degree of disrespect, but it doesn't seem that either of you are really understanding the significance of the oligarchy, central banks and the whole uber-elite manipulation of international affairs.
Like I said before, just follow the money. There's no real "defence" in these wars. It's just the rich men having the henchmen do their dirty work while they continue banking nicely. All they have to do is recruit or draft more henchmen and they can keep on baking on it...
The worst kind of slavery is one that is defended by slaves who think they're free.
I'm a true believer in supporting people in the military, police, and any position of power. We need to ban together and figure this stuff out. If (or when, errr) bad orders come down the pipeline this is essential. We are all people, we were all tricked at some point. Thank you for your post.
There are detailed plans on how to achieve our freedom without rulers (but with rules), it is a task to put it all together and experiment with new ideas. Every post can't possible cover everything. Thanks for all your efforts I'm sure you'll find many great ideas and I would love to hear from you again.
The advantage of our struggle is that it does not hit the enemy where they are strongest (by force) but rather where they are weakest (by number and supporters). As you are seeing we have many great minds that wake people up to tyranny. One can have hope that it will reach the masses. All the guns in the world will do you no good if you're the only one there to fire them.
As a trained adviser in strategic matters of unconventional warfare, you guys suck at PSYOPS :)
The fact that a contingent in the anarchist/voluntarist movement views veterans (different than active duty military) as the enemies to THEIR freedoms is absurd and a major strategic flaw, IMO.
Thanks for the response!
As you are seeing we have many great minds that wake people up to tyranny. One can have hope that it will reach the masses.
Yea .. combat arms veterans know how to fire and how to train others to fire as well... and I LOVE teaching.
I meant the tyrants! The ones giving bad orders to use the guns should not get their way. I'm interested in not sucking at PSYOPS btw..
The missing point in everything is the fact that no matter the belief...... everyone is being played by all governments.... everywhere around the world. That's why the establishment in the US is putting up such a fight. All the belief systems are being played so that everyone fights against everyone..... Destabilize the world, implosion, excuse for a new system that's worse than the one now.
I don't think that implosion would be pretty. Odds are high that the enormous vacuums that are created would be quickly filled by the most violent, manipulative, sociopathic individuals that survive the meat-grind to the top of their food chain.
Sorry. I have children and a wife. I would prefer not to live in that world if I don't have to, and I would prefer people think through the logical progression of the strategies they espouse.
I'm in the same position as you with a wife and daughter, always thinking things through, what could possibly happen? I always end up looking at history and the human mass psychology. The cycle always repeats.... just rolling with the punches at the moment..... but good always prevails in the end and things will sort out, just going to be a pain in the ass until then.
This doesn't make any sense to me.
Of course religions are a source of tyranny and authority, but to say that we need to forcefully attack them with weapons is absurd.
Of course Islam means "submission", but Christianity, a popular religion among conservatives, also has little phrases attached that hint at submission and humbleness. They say be meek, but what they want is for you to be weak.
As long as you have any form of authority in your life, be it religion of some sort or a political ideology, you can be tamed.
What we need is a second atheist movement. One that pairs itself with anarchism. This means scientists, philosophical atheists, and anarchists must work together to stomp out all forms of authority and power structures.
Atheism and anarchism must work together, for when you beat down a political leadership, a religious one rises up, and when you beat down a religious leadership, a political one rises up.
What we need to do is play "Whack-a-Mole" with two hammers.
Smash both at once, and then break the entire machine. Not continue trying to hit one mole, while supporting a powerful statist military that I suspect has its own religious influence.
Who would do the "stomping out of all forms of authority and power structures?" To what set of individuals would you turn to accomplish this violence? At what point in time would you consider all the 'whacking' done? When no Koran, Bible, or Torah is left unburned? Do you understand that the evil you hope to prevent would be overshadowed by the horror you unleash?
While I am not unsympathetic to your frustrations, the only outcome I can foresee in the approach you have suggested is one more traumatic than the present state of affairs. If we understand governments as bodies whose primary goal is establishing human control measures, and, there is ample evidence to support this belief; Why did that come to pass? Did it happen slowly, with good intention by well-meaning thinkers? How did it become commonplace to add to the body of law to prevent, shape, and control, human behavior? As you hinted in your reply, a combination of the religious and the political was at work. But, at the core of both these things was and is an ideology that, in my opinion, needs to be expunged from human thought - altruism. You can only fight that with a better philosophy. Here's to hoping that the voluntaryist/anarchist community seeks education over violence.
Cheers.
Beautifully well-written response to that. Read mine below. We're on the same page for sure. Followed!
You're taking my words out of context -- only ONE religion worries me right now.
This is more of a theological discussion, and well outside the bounds of this discussion IMO (would love to discuss some other time). But I will say the reality of the "submission" in Islam is that you "submit" to the ENTIRE hierarchy from Allah to Mohammed on down to your older brother, at least as outlined in Sharia Law by their scholars. Jesus Christ, on the other hand, taught meekness before God and humility among your brothers and sisters. He also told those who would listen to stand strong in the face of anyone seeking to tempt you away from meekness before God and humility (think the Last Temptation).
Anyone can be relatively tamed with the proper amount of force, atheist or otherwise. Sometimes, being tame yields tactical advantage. Brash, aggressive or antagonistic behavior is rarely the wisest path. Actually, the only time aggression makes sense is in combat where your life chip is on the giant poker table of life squaring off against the life chips of your opponents. The hands, flops, turns, and rivers of combat are exciting, terrifying, and awe-inspiring (not always in a good way).
How does this fall into a voluntaryist model? This seems to force people into boxes and antagonize them into a fight. How do you expect to "beat down" religious leadership without incidentally beat down everyone who agrees with that leadership? What is the logical progression of this strategy other than open warfare? This seems wholly antithetical to what I understand of anarchic/voluntarist concepts.
Breaking the entire machine quickly will lead to lots of mass graves, blood in the street, and general insecurity. The worst hit would be those in the third world under the thumb of despots already. You're seriously advocating for that?
Also another topic for another time...
You said "Only ONE religion worries you", and then you mentioned how you see your own religion as valid and good?
Tsk tsk. What a troublesome world this is. Humans are so strange.
How can you go and tell me that your religion is good and just, because it teaches meekness and humility, but then another religion teaches the same concepts using different words, and you say it's wrong?
That's simply silly. Look in a mirror.
Next you'll tell me that the USA military is justified, but all others are not?
Or that you by default are the "good guys", and anyone who opposes you are the "bad guys"?
You humans are simply troublesome. The moment you realize where I'm coming from, you'll probably instantly purge your stomach, because woah, the things you say are just absurd.
I mean really, "Jesus taught good things", "Islam teaches bad things". Is that really what you think?
Religion is absolutely foul, and as long as you believe in authority, be it a made-up god, or a government, you are tamed.
Tamed, not coerced.
How many suicide bombings occur on a weekly basis tied to ISIS or Islamic adherents to Sharia? I haven't heard any in the news recently and I pay attention. I can pick a BUNCH of cities that have had innocent blood spilled by the Sharia Pushes.
This is just getting to be an antagonistic foray into some thinly veiled ad hominem attacks.
You don't see me forcing my religious beliefs on your personally, but you have an entirely closed off mind to my ARGUMENTS due to your disgust of my religious beliefs.
Who do you propose I am "tamed" by? And what exactly am I tamed from? Would you prefer I throw some rocks and molotov cocktails at police officers to prove a point?
My counter-point to your philosophy: as long as you despise your subjective view of what is defined as 'authority', you will always tend towards being your own 'god', and I would not trust you to lead me into anything since you sound the opposite of self-less.
Just my opinion since the door of personal judgement was opened by you.
@blakemiles84
Those who haven't bled for a cause have no right to judge those who did.
I still can't talk about what I did, partly because my discharge still prevents it and partly because what I went through is not something I have words for.
Let's just say I spent a goodly amount of time as a brig rat for doing the right thing , for the right reasons at the wrong time. This gave me a lot of time to think about things.
I won't judge any man that had to look down the barrel of a gun and make a decision as to who gets to live that day.
War is hell, if you haven't been to hell, shut the hell up about it.
Veterans aren't tools, nor are we toys.
We're people who did what we felt we had to ensure our way of life continued.
Someone once said, the art of winning a war is convincing the other guy to die for his cause first.
Based on some of the comments in here, we're being judged plenty.
Nice to know I have another empathetic voice in here.
I think the reason that we currently have a country (here in the US) in which people can even discuss the possibilities of anarchy/getting rid of those currently in power is due in large part to the sacrifices of our military personnel, both past and present.
It's arguable that really only that first war that started this whole experiment was the one that protected freedoms. Since then it's been expansionist in nature. World War II was no threat to the mainland of the US and did not serve to protect our freedoms but instead discriminated against a minority of the population and jailed them.
So I'm definitely down with giving props for the Revolutionary War, but after that the whole narrative falls apart for me.
Well, you could throw the war of 1812 in there as well. The british were literally capturing citizens and forcing them to serve in the british navy.
While that was used as a justification, it wasn't a very widespread practice. The more general claim was harassment of ships by the British navy. Even with that, was war the answer, or could problems have been dealt with in more civilized ways? Much of the country was opposed to the war, especially in New England. It was often argued at the time that it was a war of imperialism and conquest, and that the true objective was to annex Canada (which was under British rule.)
Eh... on a long enough timeline, it would have most certainly been a threat to the mainland. I'm sure there are a lot of secret squirrel stories we don't know about the German American Bund members being rounded up and 'disappeared'. The German SS were NOT the German Army. They were specifically chosen and indoctrinated to possess racial ideology, which is markedly different from the ideology 'indoctrinated' into those who swear an oath to the Constitution. The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and if there weren't numbers of ships from the Pacific Fleet outside of the docks, the naval war in the Pacific would have been MUCH different had they sunk every boat that would have been there. A threat to the Western Seaboard would have been more real than it was already.
The enemies of liberty and freedom within our government worry me more than enemies from abroad, and that held true during WW2 as well.
@blakemiles84
I have to wonder how you felt when you saw the video from the ISIS training camp in Jordan.
The clip that pissed off the Jordanian leaders... because it was IN Jordan, and clearly visible on the far right as the camera briefly panned to the right was an Israeli colonel standing there.
Oh! You didn't see it?
hmmm...
Source?
Wait .. you think I'm surprised about the Obama administration and the Clinton State Dept. essentially training and funding militant groups with 2nd and 3rd degrees of separation from IS?
Nope. Not surprised at all. But no, I didn't see that video.
But that said -- you know what would happen if IS killed off all the non-believers? They'd start killing each other over the Sunni vs Shia divide. That should tell you all you need to know about that ideology.
@blakemiles84 The enemies of freedom in the government haven't managed to topple it yet, unless your one of those people who think we're currently living in a distopia; TBH I'm worried about Trump because he falls outside the bounds of our standard presidencial candidates. . . But aside from that I trust the American people to make the right descisions enough of the time to create the society they want. Also, I wrote you a reply about my thoughts on anarchisms feelings about the military, but I included your rep number in the handle.
purge the partisan tunnelvision man, and wake the hell UP!
Notice how all the neo-cons are now for Shillery? Ahem, its not a very wide aisle apparently.
They have to keep the illusion of a 2 party system afloat, so people with the tunnel vision keep playing the mythical tug-o-war.
IT ISN'T REAL man, any more than the reasons they told you to go to IRAQ.
It was a Wall St war, and you were a pawn.
Trump has pulled back the curtain (more like a thin lacy veil) on the little wizard man.
The real sludge at the bottom gave him the lead, and the others didn't like to see and realize the bottom dwellers were driving their 'party' ... news for them, they always did.
As for the ISIS training camp with the Israeli colonel, do a search, if learning the bare truth doesn't frighten you. Read about the Jordanian response to the video. Its AN EYE OPENER.
And GOOD GOD MAN !!!
Its NOT the "OBAMA State Dept", its the same freakin State dept we've ALWAYS HAD. Kerry/Obama isn't doing anything they aren't told to do by their paymasters... like the folks in the PNAC, they are STILL in charge. YES. Purge the partisan mental conditioning, along with all that brain washing you suffered in the military.
Senator Kagan's wife Victoria (Fuck the E.U.) 'Nuland' (real name Noodleman) is giving Kerry his orders. If you PAY ATTENTION you'd see it. She monitors everything he does, stands over his shoulder, watching his every move for fuck sake.
Don't ask for sources man, do your own homework.
AND LEAVE THE RESERVES BEFORE THEY KILL YOU.
The things I'm saying aren't partisan. I simply believe there is a big difference between Trump and Clinton. I don't consider myself a Republican, but I despise progressivism because it always leads to more government intervention into daily life. How is that partisan? I have no love for the GOP as an organization and I see the DNC as a destructive force.
I'm not looking back wistfully at previous State Departments. I'm pointing out that the State Department with bureaucrats "appointed" by the Obama administration has done a superb job at accelerating the destabilization around the globe. How is that objectively false?
Being told you've been brainwashed is always an interesting conversation. What exactly am I brainwashed about ?
I do my own homework in my own time. If someone says that there is something out there I should look at, I may or may not. I'm not sure what you think it will change in my mind? I will ask for sources because you're the one who brought it up.
I haven't been in the military since 2011.
I know the Republicans and Democrats are basically playing a rigged shell game with no possibility to win. Power is centralized in DC and state capitals due to an ever-increasing reach of scope and authority from the federal and state governments.
What the hell do we disagree on again?
The revolutionary war was a counter-revolution which had nothing to do with securing the freedoms of the general public and everything to do with securing the economic and political freedoms of the American aristocracy.
@fingolfin No shit. Also, the fact that we set up a system where there is freedom of speech, freedom of the press, etc makes discussion of anarchism possible. The surprising thing I learned when talking to anarchists on steemit is they say all government is equally bad, If you say this in NorthKorea you get put into a concentration camp. they don't draw distinctions between states. This attitude is like flying in a plane for practicalities sake while saying how you think flying is the worst immoral act a person can commit.
I like your style :)
This is an important perspective. I think the issue people have with the military in general is that it gets used as a tool by globalists for goals involving power and material wealth more than freedom and democracy, although the latter sentiments are used in recruiting as well as selling the American people on the engagement. Personally, what I want to see is political leaders who truly love America and will deploy the military with that front and center. I'm not an anarchist, but like you resonate with some aspects of the philosophy. Also, the ISIS threat is very real, and needs to be dealt with decisively regardless of why we think it's there.
Thank you for your service to our country.
Your name rings true. Thank you for that post. Upvoted and followed!
I think politicians have lofty ideas when running for office but after elected reality sets in. In the end if things don't go well the military is the "rubber that meets the road"! God bless them!
that may be true for some, but something tells me Hillary will say anything to convey her lofty ideas with the SOLE intent to be elected. Her internal focus is to further degrade liberties and expand the nanny state while killing businesses (that she and her staff won't accept bribes from).
I could see Hillary starting all sorts of wars, particularly given how weak she undoubtedly appears to the rest of the world. I didn't even have to mention that her and her staff is covered head to toe in corruption (PROVABLE corruption no less!).
Thanks for the response!
I don't think that the anti-war stance of anarchocapitalists and voluntaryists is intrinsically repugnant to those in the military or formerly serving who already have some inkling of what is at stake here.
It will not help to soften the stance, but rather, to take more indirect routes. Adopting again military strategies, if you can't make a frontal assault, disappear to the sides and flank them. I also have not failed to see a utility in understanding military strategy to weaken the resistance of supporters of incumbent establishment philosophies, by taking indirect approaches. In this regard I think you are right on with what you are saying.
Just because we soften our approach, does not mean we are surrendering, nor should we consider surrendering our positions, because fundamentally, they are unassailable. But without numbers, we cannot mount an assault from this redoubt. Rather, we should fan out, blend in a little more, and poke and prod at these people with questions that make them also begin to have questions. Sowing the seeds of doubt towards the efficacy of conventional, accepted mainstream ideas about how to run and secure society, should naturally be of interest to any person who has undertaken any amount of military training or seen combat. It is always better to get 'hearts and minds' than to shoot them in the head.
Brilliant post. We are on very similar wavelengths with this.
My role in the military was specifically unconventional warfare, psyops, civil affairs, construction and training. Each and everyone one of those things plays directly into any sort of strategy of challenging, or overcoming a sitting power structure.
Thank you! Upvoted and followed for sure!
I follow people who both like what I say, and whose posts I also like, so, right back atcha.
You would have to agree therefore, with your grounding in military strategy, that cryptocurrencies are a very fundamental challenge, one that ultimately the power structure cannot in fact fight against. Like the rebel Romanians in the Transylvanian Alps who kept the communists at bay for 47 years, cryptos have advantages that spread their resources so thin that they can take down one little thing, like they did with the Silk Road, but politically and tactically (and strategically) they can't attack distributed network databases that are not centrally controlled.
I have been saying for a while now, and more cogently since I learned a bit more about insurgent tactics, that we are waging an insurgency against the system, to take back our lives. To me, Steem in fact represents a major step forward. It's like Bitmessage, but the whole point is rather than to hide our communications, to make them impossible to delete.
Absolutely! That was part of the reason I went into a fugue state the first time I found bitcoin.
I wrote up this article a while back and just reposted -- it kind of touches on the topic of fundamental changes in power structures: Cryptocurrencies and Unconventional Warfare
Would love to hear your take on that if you get time. Thanks lok1!
To all those who think military personnel blindly serve the powers that be, know there are organizations such as the "Oath Keepers", a nonprofit open to current and former military, that explain the mindset of most military personnel
A long time ago, I thought I was a pacifist. Never touched a gun, never fired one.
Then I learned I am a warrior, and that I am in the middle of a huge battle.
Maybe it is a coincidence, but just a few days ago I translated an old comment I made years ago in my language, and in it - although addressed at the "Occupy Wall Street" hippies - I pointed out how important it is to include "the arch enemies" police and military into "our" peaceful "revolution"; not in their functions as stooges for the elite, but as our fellow humans with the drill and skill necessary to oppose or better even prevent any attempt at silencing the movement by force, as those who will have to decide whether to execute an order or not. No, Sir, no!
As someone else said: an-archy means "without ruler", not "without rules" <- that one is called "anomie".
Anarchists of all flags and colors will hopefully elaborate better than myself, but there are plans. Not only that, some concepts have even been tried, sometimes quite successfully even.
What exactly would you miss if there would be no-one to rule over you?
Well, in my mind, rule != lead.
I want to follow leaders that I believe in based on my ethos, but I simultaneously want to lead others if they believe in me and my mission (whatever that may be). I fear what will come if natural leaders are shunned by the 'fatalistically cynical', of which I see some of in this thread. I have served with and alongside great men who were great leaders, so I understand what can be accomplished with a brilliant team of fearless individuals.
So, rule over me? I feel like that with the current political class and their IRS arm. But I certainly didn't feel like that on my team because I HAD A VOICE that was considered and often valued highly by my peers and the team leadership, despite being the youngest on the team by about 6 years.
Absolutely! Can you imagine how hard it is to express certain thoughts in my native tongue simply because its word for leader has such a weird aftertaste?
It is "Führer", in case you wondered...
Anarchy and leadership are not mutually exclusive ideas, quite the contrary, the better world depends on leaders to show the ways that have been scouted already.
Nice to find some great solid ground. Thanks for the discussion!
I was in a hurry, I apologize. Here's a little reading list, click anywhere you like, maybe there is an anarchy that resonates with you.
(To circumvent the "Führer" problem, most of the time I use "Lehrer" (teacher) instead, btw. The greatest heroes of anarchy and its principles and ideals have been leaders or teachers or rabbis.)
Personally, I count among my "leaders" Jesse the Carpenter and Siddharta of course, one must mention Proudhon, Lafargue (my Steemit article on him), MLK, Mohandas Karamchand, RAW and many many more. They are all pretty dead (not quite sure about Jesse and Gautama yet) and can't defend themselves anymore, but maybe you can connect with Ken O'Keefe? (youtube him!)
Practical examples are listed on Wikipedia, don't miss the List of anarchist communities, esp. the mass communities: Revolutionary Catalonia or Anarchist Aragon, all were beat down by force, except Rojava so far.
So my thinking was always that the people with the funny flowery hairdos and ideas of peace and harmony and prosperity sort of welcome home those broken, wounded and shattered by the atrocities they have "survived" (sorta-ish /s /i disclaimer iykwim :/ ).
They are our oathkeepers, and only they can speak to their sons and daughters who are still active, explain why not to relay or execute Order 66.
They shall be warriors for the tribe, not soldiers (from Old French soudier, "one who serves in the army for pay") anymore, and fight for the peace that can't be won by bombing and shooting the crap out of each other.
That one would be my personal favourite anarchy, the revolution that is won without a blade drawn.
But it will only work if the people know that military and police won't shoot them, and military and police know the people won't fall into their backs.
I know, this particular one is the weird kind of anarchy, trying to forge a pact between religion, military personel, lower upper class and peace doves (oh yes the plan is big), but I really think except for a few reptilians overlords we're all humans and want the same:
peace and prosperity. And if we're really smart about it, we can do it.
I thank you!
I'll have to make a post this weekend about what I view "the plan" to be. :)
Regarding "a plan" there is not one but many, and that could be a major asset in winning "the hearts and minds" of more and more people away from the insanity of statism.
Please forgive my collectivist grouping of the military here, but the military mindset is trained to think in terms of a hierarchical structure to battle an enemy, rather than the way terrorists think, that being a more independent (i.e. decentralized), "cell" network. However, fear and intimidation is a tool both use.
Coming up with "a" plan to fight against ISIS, an organization that would not exist as it does today without the massive help of the USA, via training camps the USA runs to train people to fight our enemies, which interestingly seem to morph into groups like ISIS and alCIAda that consider the USA to be their enemy, and use the raw materials left behind by the US military back against the USA.
No, there is no single strategy or orchestrated set of tactics to fight against the tyranny statism brings to the world, and that may just be more effective than a finite set of "leaders" to come up with a battle plan. If enough people who want freedom surface who are wiling to be vocal and actually fight for it, not with guns, tanks and bombs but with the power of words, the power of their actions to turn their backs on corrupt institutions and implement alternative solutions, then it will prevail. Nothing can stop an idea whose time has come. The question is what is the collective strength of the true freedom fighters? There is no way to know definitively.
I will add that I am grateful for the OP as it raises good points and the discussion that has followed is one so very needed. I tend to align my perspective more with averageJoe's than with blakemile84, but I very much appreciate the way blakemile84 has articulated his concerns.
It is great to see veterans willing to "think outside the box" so to speak and consider alternative perspectives to statism. However, I believe there are good reasons for being skeptical of the military (in general), due to the fact the they have all committed themselves to following the chain of command over their own judgement. Even those who are willing to violate the chain of command I am distrustful of, because they are just a small part of a big machine that limits the information individual soldiers receive and thus deprives them of true free will to make good decisions. I fear the erosion of posse comitatus and the unleashing of soldiers who are willing to follow the chain of command and ignore their oath to uphold the constitution and violate the protective provisions of the Bill of Rights.
I recognize the benefit of "the chain of command" when a group of soldiers must act quickly, and do not have the luxury of individual thinking because it is not efficient and could lead to paralysis and casualties. I just don't believe there are enough people in the ranks of the military machine that are willing (or able due to not being given accurate information) to put the chain of command below their own judgement. The evidence of that is the atrocities of war US soldiers have taken part in through the centuries.
Larken Rose has it right, that our biggest enemy is the belief in (hierarchical, not expert) authority, not those who have been deceived by it. We must keep that thought in mind and judge individually, not collectively, but that's not always easy to do.
I mentioned this above but the world I came from in the military dealt specifically with what you mention here. As an example, I wrote this up and reposted it -- Cryptocurrencies and Unconventional Warfare
You are correct - the only way to beat an insurgency is to wage a legitimate counter-insurgency which requires similar tactics (read: what big Armies are not suited for). This stuff was my bread and butter.
Unfortunately, its the nature of the beast when you put humans in that sort of a pressure cooker. Precisely why sane veterans hate fighting.
Take heart.. the military is not full of automatons. When bad things happen, people find out. Careers are ruined and people do go to jail. It's far from perfect, but what is in a highly dynamic environment?
I wrote a response as well though I don't think it got much visibility. Vice a direct disagreement I try to explain why if someone feels joining the military is evil then working for company is equally culpable and equally evil.
https://steemit.com/life/@hunterisgreat/is-it-evil-to-work-for-anyone
Let me help you out, @blakemiles8465 At least this group of anarchists see all government as evil, full stop. As far as I can figure it out, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, a government that doesn't have the consent of one hundred percent of the people for every action is evil. Th people who disagree with this position can never do so on principal, but only because they are not well enough informed to come to the right conclusion. Anarchists see no difference between the current American government, and the current NorthKorean government, the problem in their eyes is government. Free speech just keeps you passified. They won't vote because that's buying into the system. Thank you for your service, and I'll be voting for the Clinton crime family.
I can see both sides. The very reason we have the rise of things like ISIS is because of ill thought out and potentially criminal military intervention.
The origins of modern Islamic extremism are in the CIA/ISI interventions in Afghan/Russian war and their attempts to create an anti-communist form of the religion. Extreme puritanism combined with militarism was the result.
Once you create a monster it is hard to get rid of it and history is full of these kind of lessons if only people would learn them.
That said sometimes there is no choice but to go to war good example being WW II - most of what has happened since then though is highly questionable.
I wouldn't blame the people in the military though they are just pawns like the rest of us.
It is the people in charge and the corporations that own them that decide what actually happens.
ISIS and other radical Islamic Jihadist groups which have popped up in the middle east are the direct result of the CIA'S (and other U.S. agencies) organizing, funding, training, and equipping in order to prop up the U.S. economy and further this nation's federal government's diabolical plans. As sure as 9/11 was an inside job and not the actions of Osama Bin Laden and that the U.S.'s unlawful invasion of Iraq & Afghanistan for the sole express purpose of preventing Iraq's sale of its oil in something other than U.S. Dollars and Afghanistan specifically to create a CIA backed heroin connection. Also, Libya was destabilized and Its Ruler killed because He sought to come off the PetroDollar.
Please know that this is NOT a light thing for Me to say. I was an Intelligence Specialist aboard the U.S.S. Saratoga CV-60 (now decommissioned) during it's Mediterranean-Indian Ocean Cruise 1985-1986. During that time, from March 23-31, 1986, We sat near the Gulf of Sidra, crossed the Line of Death and engaged the Libyan military forces. Approximately 25 years and 4 months later Libya's Leader was murder in the streets by U.S. backed rebels.
@luminousvisions Lol I'm a coward just because I don't have a one dimensional opinion like you? Are you like 12 or something? Must try harder.
Seriously.. how old are you?
You're one of the most antagonistic people I've come across on Steemit.
You appear to be incapable of disagreeing without being disagreeable.
I'll let you pick a moderator for the debate. Preferably someone who is at least more capable of objectivity than yourself. Judging by your responses, that could be pretty much anyone here.
No my arguments are scattered above and I'm not going to repeat them when YOU are the one who began to insult.
This isn't stopped being a debate or discussion with you. This is now just a mud slinging contest. Don't go away angry. Just go away.
EDIT: Actually -- I just changed my mind -- you want to have a debate sometime, you just name the time and place. We can record and post for the rest of the Steemit community to see.
That way you can call me a coward to my face and whatever other insults you'd like to throw in lieu of objective arguments.
Rule by force is the problem, that and we are a nation of little bitches too scared to stand up for what is right.
Why isn't hitlery in jail, because the ag is more scared of her than of us.
The fibies leader said as much, I don't want to end up mysteriously dead.
The programming runs deep.
You address something that I have been feeling as well. As a still fairly recent "red piller" and a former Iraq war supporter, I have had to come to terms with some tough realities such as how I feel about the military. I think the members of the military are well intentioned and brave individuals and have done some good in the past. However, the government is now completely out of control, and is compromised. Thus, making the military an extention of that corruption. There is a big disconnect between what the recriutes are joining for and what they will be used for. I'm not sure exactly when this disconnect began but it looms large today and creates a situation where well intentioned motivated people could do some real damage. Thanks for your post. Its a good discussion.
Solid point. I agree with your assessment here... I certainly wouldn't want to enlist under this president, this congress, and the clowns appointed in the Dept. of Defense right now.
I think you're right about it looming large. Trump has been a catalyst to force the elected despots and their handlers to making moves before they would have intended to. I think its going to create a situation where Americans have to decide which side they're on quickly.
Another civil war seems to be all part of the plan.
Very well said!
I like this concept of the state:
The State is the network of institutions that mediate and standardize the relationships and exchanges between individuals.
So far, in human history, we have only experienced societies that operated through trust in institutions or trust in tribalist gangs. What anarchists want is actually institutions without explicit rulers. Many anarchists have an oversimplified understanding of what is a state and the history behind political philosophy.
I will actually write a paper on a new metapolitical theory based on network theory and game theory.
Here's my poetic hint at what it encompasses:
An implication that follows this is that the conflict between statism and anarchy is an illusion. You're simply dealing with different centrality measurements and valuing certain parameters differently. Clustering is inevitable in social networks regardless of your political beliefs, and there are inherent mathematical attributes of clustering that cannot be brushed away by ideology.
It doesn't change the central formula that the use of force and anything that aids this is accessory to the crime. I agree, fundamentally humans have to run some kind of network, and it will naturally be somewhat hierarchic. But with the 'common knowledge' that the force of the state is necessary for peace, this centralisation is incentivised and rewarded, and the cost is incaclulable.
We need to have people willing to do things that might be ignorantly called 'violent', I say ignorant because it ignores the very basis of the meaning of 'violate' which is to initiate trespass upon the rights of another. Under most systems of jurisprudence, any response to this initial trespass is not violence, but self defence, since by violating the violator is thereby stating by their actions that the violated is in fact their property, since only property has no rights. This therefore makes the opposite and equal position, that then the defender has the right to treat the violator as property, and dispose of them. The defender is right and just. The violator is not.
The deceptive concealment of this right to violate, and its inherent claim of property rights over human beings, is the central premise of States. When you have a society where this is not the status quo, it cannot be called a state. Governance might be a term that can be used for this competitive regulation, and you are right in pointing out that parts of it necessarily must contain the star/tree network graph topology. But in a system where violence is shunned, and recognised for what it is, these star networks cannot grow large because the bigger they get, the more likely they are to cause disorder to arise, not least of all when the head (trunk, or centre) is cut off. The so-called 'power vacuum'.
It simply cannot arise if there is already the right of defence for everyone that is founded upon the sanctity of the individual. Those who sell their services of defence and use centralised chains of command, when these networks get corrupted, simply by the freedom to redirect funding to others who do not do this, as well as affirmation of the rights of disorganised groups (insurgencies) to eliminate this threat to peace and prosperity, such events will become rare and not be any longer the central pattern recurring over the history of humankind.
It inevitably, eventually must happen, and it is happening, and the decentralised communication of the internet is the core enabler of this happening.
War is not the answer to to problems we face in the 21st Century. Peace
War is not the optimal answer but it is an option employed by organizations all over the globe.
You may not think war is an answer, but many powerful people do.
Too bumper-stickery for me.
That, and violence as solved basically every conflict in the history of animals from current modern warfare to who bee's deal with an invading wasp.
Are you both familiar with Smedley Butler? "War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives."
War is a racket (1935)
You argue the case for war when actually we should turn that on it head and should demand peace. Until such time you play into the hands of the psychopaths in governments and the corporations that produce weapons of mass destruction. Speak truth to power, we are many they are few and the many will overcome. A global movement started in opposition to the Iraq War. Millions of people stood up to Blair and Bush (war criminals) and that movement has not gone away. Not sure what you mean by the bumper stick comment? Peace
All Marines know well who Smedley Butler is. Yes people get rich off war. They also get rich off cancer drugs, jails, funeral expenses, childbirth expenses, divorce litigation, etc.
One group can demand peace and refuse to reciprocate violence. All it takes is another group willing to do violence to put the first group in a mass grave
Yes. War is a racket. But so is taxes and a lot of other things. Another quote is that war is an extension of politics when diplomacy fails. Some people don't speak diplomacy. They speak intimidation and murder if you don't submit to their will. Asking them nicely to stop doesn't work.
What I mean by the bumper sticker comment is that regardless of how bad everyone wants peace, some people want to enslave, dominate, and murder others en masse.
How do you propose to stop that from happening by 'demanding peace'?
Worked out great for Neville Chamberlain.
well said
I think your are guilty of stereotyping those indoctrinated by the American Military as "anti-liberal", and "anti-Islam", which is not entirely fair, but probably mostly correct.
However, it totally misses the larger point of Anarchism , which stands against the imposition of ALL hierarchical systems on individuals, not just certain types of hierarchies.
While Anarcho-Capitalists may be painted as the "right wing" of the Anarchist movement by some, (probably not really a fair or accurate description), they are still Anarchists, not fucking American Republican Libertarians.
Others here are more qualified to explain the many, and vast, differences between Anarcho-Capitalism, and American Libertarian, political ideologies, but suffice it to say- unless you are willing to refusal ALL gods and masters, you are not much of a helpful ally to Anarchists.
Being against shitty tax policies, and only wanting your children to be brainwashed by Christian religious nonsense, does not make you Anarchist.
We seek Warriors willing to die rather than concede the inherent right of all human beings to self-rule. Not Soldiers willing to kill for whatever cause they are brainwashed into viewing as the enemy.
@ghostofgoldfish
We seek Warriors willing to die rather than concede the inherent right of all human beings to self-rule. Not Soldiers willing to kill for whatever cause they are brainwashed into viewing as the enemy.
You'll never win. Warriors aren't going to sign onto that. The people "willing to stand up for a right to self rule", are by definition never going to stand with you.
You'll find yourself on a hill leading a charge and you'll find yourself alone.
There is by definition no "united anarchist cause". If you're trying to impose your will on others then you are no anarchist. You are a zealot seeking power over others.
Anarchy can only win by standing down and using logic and reason. This is a war that bullets can't win.
BTW -- did you create this account just to post this?
I kind of agree with you about the uselessness of nowadays so-called anarchists. In my post https://steemit.com/anarchy/@herverisson/do-we-really-need-anarchy-is-the-anarchy-around-not-enough-for-you I try to emphasize how anarchy is totally miscontrued.
Anarchist here. "Conservative and libertarian types" are not my natural allies. They are my enemies. As are people who express Islamophobia as you went on to do later in your post.
Care to expand on why we're enemies now?
Playing the Islamophobe card as well? First -- Islamophobe implies I have an irrational fear based on misunderstanding. Its not irrational because I can recognize patterns well enough to see whats going on in the world whenever the pushers of Sharia come to play; its not 'fear' -- it is trying to wake up those around me of the threats that do actually exist in this world. My understanding of Islam is based on research and experience.
I have a problem with Islam and the violence it tends to produce around the globe. I do not have a problem with Muslims who have no desire to force their views with the sword.
Excellent post.
My fear now is civil war. The way that the United States are dividing between Trump and Clinton (I won't even say Republicans vs Democrats, it's deeper than that) if one or the other wins, the tensions are so high, I fear civil war.
While the country fights amongst itself, the "enemies" can simply sit back and say "We won."
False. The ones who paid attention during their oath and live up to it serve the Constitution first. Once they leave the military, many still hold on to that Oath (tightly).
Aside from the progressive taxation system, I fail to see how the Constitutions principles is markedly different from the broad brush fundamentals of anarchists and voluntarists (validity of the state, aside).
To be frank, that sounds like an argument I would hear from a freshman international relations 101 discussion.
You just attempted to sum up the entirety of human conflict in one paragraph and you expect someone to swallow the entire sum of what you say as indisputable, objective, truth, regardless of nuance?
Fed scam? Check. Power from money? Check. Elected representatives voting themselves free money and power from the legislative body for campaign donations? Absolutely.
Pretending there are no enemies to America or Westerners abroad? Fatalistically foolish.
The Constitution has BECOME "some words on a piece of paper", but that doesn't change its importance in history in forging the road towards representative republics and democracies and away from monarchies. The words in that document are far more important to me than any politician past or present because its like the kernel of an Operating System. Bad mouth it all you want, but its created a nation that has churned out some brilliant scientific and business minds who have created and accomplished world changing advancements.
You think the military has more of a role in the scam of the money printing? Or the elected representatives who use that same money to buy votes from people who simply want to be taken care of their whole lives?
Also more antagonism -- "betray yourself" ; "believing the lies"... you assume I'm ignorant or a fool. Based on your arguments, I just assume your perspective is limited and your belief system can't allow any competing information to enter without feeling the need to lash out at the messenger. I don't think you're ignorant or a fool at all, but I get the sense you feel that way about me.
To that point -- how old are you? I would guess early 20's. This matters because of the 'perspective' thing I mentioned
@luminousvisions - right into the ad hominems. Game. Set. Match.
Have a nice life.