http://www.volconvo.com/forums/blog1210.html A debate, talk, and discussion forum for politics, religion, economics, science, arts and other topics. en Mon, 20 May 2013 03:51:36 GMT vBulletin 60 http://www.volconvo.com/forums/images/misc/rss.jpg http://www.volconvo.com/forums/blog1210.html http://www.volconvo.com/forums/entry987.html Fri, 21 Sep 2012 16:01:38 GMT If we examine history's rogue's gallery, we see some differences between the leaders. Unlike Napoleon Bonaparte, Hitler and Mussolini weren't military heroes, for example. However, they did have common ground. Today they make many of us cringe in repulsion, but in their heydays they offered something hopeful, something virtually all political ideologues offer: The promise of being a chosen people in a chosen land.

Now, what does the term "chosen people" mean? It is, quite simply, the striving to be a select people with a coherent political and social existence. This ideal is very pervasive, and very convenient for the powers that be. When we don't like what a politician says, we may still cater to what a religious authority preaches, what the Bible commands, or what some other distinguished, authoritative guide instructs. And, of course, the same is true vice versa. For these guides, gurus, politicians and the divine documents they wave around, many borders are constructed and wars launched (including so-called "preemptive" wars and "terror attacks") - supposedly for the benefit of the people. Those who object to this state of affairs may be shunned, penned off into "free speech zones" outside of party conventions, faced with police violence, officially excluded from discussion, or simply persecuted. Such exclusion is an important issue in its own right, but it's largely omitted from the "national dialogue" in authoritarian cultures, for mainstream media tends to the demands of the bully. Instead, we'll hear vague rhetoric about our being a free and open country, even when saddled with a ruling class of some kind. When the excluded are noted, it tends to be in a purely derogatory manner; maybe the excluded are traitors, sinners, rioters, or absolutely nothing but human filth. In the process, many legitimate demands for change, for justice and equality are omitted, or at least simplified to the point of ridiculous caricatures and mindless labels. Xenophobia and racism are grown.

Now, what do I mean by "xenophobia?" Contrary to what some say, "xenophobia" is more than just a petty, singular insult or "emotional appeal" to throw around in an argument. It's a regretfully common phenomenon with deep implications. The term is typically used to describe fear or dislike of foreigners, or people different from one's self. The stronger this fear, the greater the xenophobia is.

It comes from the Greek words ξένος (xenos), meaning "foreigner," "stranger," and φόβος (phobos), meaning "fear." Many fit this description well, and plainly so. Why else would we have the term "illegal aliens," which brings to mind not images of human beings, but of hordes of extraterrestrial "things," or mere legal "entities"? Such phrases are used to depersonalize people, to carefully abstract them. And it works extremely well.

Another phrase, "anti-American," serves to divert attention from serious issues. Among America's political right, the term is employed to make critics of the US government sound like sympathizers for the Taliban, "Commies," "Saddam loyalists," or some other traitorous boogeyman to the American race. To some, even mild-tempered critics must have sold us down the river to some GI killer. However, none of this is a purely American phenomenon. The term "xenophobic" serves well to describe vast portions of the human world, both expansionist and isolationist. In fact, some say it describes every country. Xenophobia and authoritarianism constitute virtually the same thing, and share on obvious characteristic: The "chosen people" attitude, which is often considered an innate, almost biological imperative that must be fulfilled. In order to fulfill this elitist vision, it's only natural to have elitists at the helm.

Certainly, people are territorial beings in one sense or another. To an extent then, some degree of territoriality is how the world works. However, I'd add a simple admonition: Where elitism and authoritarianism strive, people have the most problems. Some will attack this general statement as being far "too simple," but go ahead and pick up a history book. If history is any kind of guide, and if territoriality is innate or genetically determined, then we may indeed be programmed for self-extermination. It sounds dramatic, but predictability needn't be easy on the eyes. It bears repeating that this is not a loose and fantastic opinion, but something revealed by a cursory glimpse into history. Most of us are raised on authoritarian logic, to want to be American citizens, to want a great God presiding over us (and often a certain God that only a select group will see). And just as there is a special authority to help us untangle the "mystery of God," so too are there specialists regarding statecraft or economic privilege.

Not everyone came freely to believe in God or State. "Civilization" often means conquering foreigners and stealing their resources, and this is increasingly admitted with candor, at least by some. In fact, it was through conquest that the system called "America" was established. The conquest against and subjugation of "weaker races" is why people today argue English should be America's "national language." Control (and sometimes the elimination) of communication is an important thing to authoritarians, for language is a crucial aspect of human freedom. They will seek to regulate language as much as possible, such as declaring English (or what other language) to be the "official" language. Implied in such a declaration is linguistic and cultural supremacy. Anti-authoritarians, on the other hand, feel that only natural circumstances should dictate how we speak, and that officiating language is not only unnecessary, but rude. We don't need the state pressuring us into speaking any language, or determining our culture for us in any other way. Some say imposing English upon others is necessary, because it's the most common language in America. But do people need to be compelled "to make communication easier?" Don't we make communication easier by applying reason, by learning more about language in general, and not by shaming people or regulating how they speak? If I feel learning another language makes communication easier, I can just exercise my own free initiative and try to learn that language.

When you're under the boot of cultural elitists, communication is not truly easier. It's just forfeited, and that's what "chosen people" tend to do. They forfeit individuality for "the nation." If they've already forfeited it for themselves, they're more than willing to do it for others. It's the stuff of "re-education camps," like those instituted to brainwash "Indians," or -to use a well-known example - like those which indoctrinated Germans into so-called "National Socialism". If people woke up to what free speech actually entails, they'd recognize language and cultural expression as a key component of it. They would scoff at all attempts to regulate language in any significant way. They would not fear or distrust foreign tongues, but just admit their own ignorance of that language and go about their business. We should not only seek to rid others of centrist ideologies, but abolish that childish, selfish mania which lies in ourselves. We can use perfectly reasonable means to do this, I believe. It can be done primarily through example, by discussion and yes, by formal education. Free societies don't mean we absolutely have to speak this or participate in that. It's about choice. And a free and open system is more reliable, if reliability is directly proportional to ease of accessibility (meaning, in social systems, egalitarianism and accountability). In this case, we mean language accessibility, or multilingualism. The animating ideology I advocate here is egalitarianism, fairness. It has nothing to do with imposing anything on anyone. ]]> grandpa http://www.volconvo.com/forums/entry987.html http://www.volconvo.com/forums/entry840.html Tue, 27 Mar 2012 00:10:05 GMT Occupy Wall Street has been condemned as “unfocused and leaderless,” but a lot of things could be considered that way. For example, has America really been “liberating” the Middle East? Look at... Occupy Wall Street has been condemned as “unfocused and leaderless,” but a lot of things could be considered that way.

For example, has America really been “liberating” the Middle East? Look at Iraq. First of all, the country was run by a dictator America previously supported, and Iraq was worsened by the US-backed Iran-Iraq War, by all the subsequent wars, and by UN sanctions which virtually crippled the country. The elections only occurred because thousands of Iraqis opposed the occupation government which had, among other things, disbanded the Iraqi army (thus hurting the economy even more) and banned Iraqi newspapers.

Obama is not the antidote some were hoping for, either.
Regarding foreign policy, Obama doesn’t propose too many actual reforms. Maybe the newspapers tell a different story, but anything even marginally different is usually considered extremely leftist by the right wing press. Israel still has massive support by the United States, despite its clear crimes. Etc. etc. etc.

Countless sums of taxpayer dollars wasted over a span of 60 years (JFK was partly responsible for Saddam Hussein’s getting into power). ]]> grandpa http://www.volconvo.com/forums/entry840.html http://www.volconvo.com/forums/entry839.html Mon, 26 Mar 2012 22:44:11 GMT Ending the monopolies, and the monopoly of the monopolies
Wade Wainio (my real name)

Frankly, anyone arguing for the "right to pay
taxes" is probably not the sharpest cookie.
But why do we pay taxes, anyway?
We're not all smart, but we're also not all stupid.
Most are afraid to bite the hands which appear to feed them.

Of course, their fear is not entirely well-founded.
It's the workers who actually feed themselves, and their fellow workers,
while a class of wealthy people and legislators rob them by force of law.
As a classical anarchist text notes:
"Rent is the monopoly of land, interest the monopoly of money, profit
the monopoly of trade, and government the monopoly of the monopolies."
To elaborate on this point, Laurance Labadie called "the 'health, education, and welfare' section of government" just "another boondoggle." "First," he said, "we manufacture indigent and superfluous people by legal monopolies in land, money and idea patents, erecting tariff barriers to protect monopolies from foreign competition, and taxing laborers to subsidize rich farmers and privileged manufacturers. Then we create 'social workers,' etc., to care for them and thereby establish a self-aggravating and permanent institutionalized phenomenon..."
By such means, the odds are stacked against us average folks.

Provided there are taxes -- and other economic burdens -- imposed on younger
generations, I don't see a peaceful, warm & fuzzy solution
to their socio-economic problems.
The older generations are inevitably to blame for that, sadly.
And, being brainwashed by their elders, the new generation takes a current trend and
projects it indefinitely into the future.
Thus are spawned more little tax-and-spend yuppies and greedy corporate crooks, and the chicanery of law used to protect their interests and assert their dominance.
Thankfully, some workers are doing their best to assert their interests over those of so-called "public" and "private" institutions.
For example:
"In a record turn-out, as many as three million people hit the streets in France...to protest against the government's economic policies in response to the global crisis, according to union estimates. The numbers were closer to 1.2 million, say the police. The country's airports, trains, schools and public transport were disrupted by the mass demonstration - the second general strike faced by France in two months."

(1)
Similarly, "When the 250 workers at the Republic Windows and Doors factory in Chicago were told that the plant was shutting down, they decided to take matters into their own hands.... the workers occupied their factory in an act that echoes the sit-down strikes of the 1930s in the US and the occupation of factories during the 2001 crisis in Argentina."
(2)
In Ireland, the workers at Waterford Crystal occupied their plant.
"Rather than accept the closure of the business, the loss of all the jobs and the destruction of the area’s premier industry; workers seized the buildings making liquidation impossible for the receiver."
(3)
A broader message is this:
Get rid of legal compulsion and people are free to (a) create their own currency or IOU's, or (b) barter freely, basing value entirely on what is actually traded.

It can happen!

NOTES:
1. "Up to three million march in French mass protest," Elitsa Vucheva, EUobserver.com, 20.03.2009: http://euobserver.com/9/27815
2. "Workers Occupy Chicago Factory: Echoes of Argentina's 2001 Worker Uprising," Benjamin Dangl, CommonDreams.org, December 9, 2008: Workers Occupy Chicago Factory: Echoes of Argentina's 2001 Worker Uprising | Common Dreams
3. "Clear as Crystal … Waterford shows how to fight," James McBarron, Workers Solidarity MOvement, March 11, 2009:
Workers Solidarity Movement | Anarchist organisation in Ireland


Interested in another specific example?
Check out the link:
The Anarchist Collectives in the Countryside during the Spanish Civil War ]]> grandpa http://www.volconvo.com/forums/entry839.html