In his testimony to the Chilcot Inquiry, Gordon Brown mentioned that the situation with the Israelis and Palestinians had to be taken into consideration at the time of the build-up to the invasion of Iraq.

An obvious question is why?

Just as there was no link between Saddam Hussein’s regime and al Qaeda, there was never a link established between Saddam funding terrorism against Israel.

Brown’s comment kind of confirms that Western foreign policy towards the Middle East, particularly the foreign policy of the governments of Britain and the United States, is geared towards the state of Israel.  But hey, to say such a thing is being anti-Semitic as Congressman Ron Paul found out recently.  In my case, I would be labeled a self hating Jew.

Though there was no established link between Iraq funding terrorist attacks aimed at Israel, there is  a categorical link between Iran funding terrorism against Israel.

Well, soon as the neocons are back in the White House and the military industrial complex has geared up, I’m sure Iran will be the next stop for US troops, if not NATO troops.  What is certain is that British troops will no doubt be involved in whatever unjust jaunt into Iran there’s to be.

I’m sure the Israeli government will appreciate a puppet government of the US installed in Iran just as there was one installed in Iraq.  I’m sure that the military industrial complex likes having a puppet regime of the US government in Iraq, it will also like one installed in Iran.  It’s an excuse for war and war is good business.  Oh and of course, like Iraq, Iran to has a lot of oil and natural resources that could be plundered.

Of course many might point out that the governments of those countries that surround the Israeli state are far more barbarically oppressive towards the people who live in those countries.  I’d not deny that, but I’d also point out that just because the US government installs some puppet regime or backs a regime, it doesn’t mean that regime is any less barbaric in oppressing the people that live under those regimes; a good instance being Saudi Arabia.

The reason Israel would be pressing for a US led invasion of Iran would be the excuse that Iran backs terrorist attacks upon Israel, but the real reason would be that Israel would definitely not want any other country in the region to have nukes other than Israel. Yes, Israel wouldn’t want its ability to bully the Middle East to be hampered by the government of another country acquiring nukes and therefore leveling the playing field somewhat.  If the Iranians do develop a nuclear bomb then the US government won’t solely be listening and talking to Israel, and the Israeli lobby don’t want that.

I don’t think that either the British or US government should be favoring either Iran or Israel.  I think the British and (particularly) the US government shouldn’t have an interventionist foreign policy but a foreign policy supportive of free trade. Its been the constant interference of the US and British governments in the Middle East which has brought harm, time and again, upon the people living in Britain and the US.

Sure, if you put a gun to my head and asked me for a preference between Iran or Israel then I’m going to say Israel because at least a good proportion of the population in Israel have freedoms and civil liberties which are acceptable in the West.  I fully accept Israel’s right to exist and the government’s right to defend citizens from whatever attacks, but I will never accept the pro-Israel lobby bullying foreign governments one way or another into backing Israel.  Yes, Israel has the right to exist but must stand alone in its quarrels with its neighbours and must not bully or lobby the governments of foreign nations into involving themselves in the quarrels with its neighbours.

Such as it was with Ron Paul recently it was with Richard Dawkins a few years back when Dawkins stated that US foreign policy was dictated to by the pro-Israel lobby in Washington.  It really does seem that if anybody doesn’t favour a pro-Israeli foreign policy in the Middle East then they will be automatically accused of anti-Semitism and the debate ends. Errr…  No, the debate doesn’t end there, because how can I, who could be classed as an ethnic Jew, be accused of anti-Semitism?  Oh, as I said above, I’d be accused of being a self-hating Jew so the debate would end there. Errr…  No, it’s not the end of the debate because I’ve got nothing against Israel.  I just don’t want my liberty to be eroded due to the Israeli state lobbying the governments of Britain and the US to be involved in its own affairs.  Those who have quarrels with the Israeli state, end up taking it out on the people living in Britain and the US.  The conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is their conflict.  Not mine or anybody else living in Britain.  Just as any conflict there is or might be between Israel and Iran or Israel and any other nation in that region.

On a nationalistic tone it could be argued that the British taxpayer doesn’t pay tax to fund the support of Israeli state but to fund the support of the British state and therefore it’s wrong for foreign special interests to wield more influence upon the British government than the British taxpayers and voters.  This argument also applies to the government of the United States and, in fact, is more pertinent in regards to the US being that the US government practically bankrolls Israel.

I’ve no problem with Israel and I’d gladly trade with them particularly as Marks & Spencer shrimp are delicious and, if it were legal, I’d gladly buy an Uzi or two.  I just don’t want to suffer the blowback from the foreign policy of the British and US governments which are geared towards supporting the Israeli state in its quarrels and, as a consequence, endangering my liberty and security.

Some years ago, a friend of mine named Andrew had a problem for which a peaceful solution was not obvious. He put it out for group discussion, and brainstorming ensued. As I recall, I was no help in the matter at all, nor were several others involved in the discussion. Simply living with the problem was an option, but a rather crappy option that essentially involved getting socially bulldozed by a bully. Fortunately, a fellow named Dave came up with a brilliant solution which Andrew successfully implemented at his next opportunity. Here’s the story, in Andrew’s words.

No, wait. First, you should picture in your mind a nicely-chiseled, manly ironworker type of fellow with a robust Massachusetts (Boston?) accent. Very nice fellow, but until you know that about him he can seem a bit intimidating. Okay, now you’re ready to read on…

The problem:

It was early this morning, shortly before seven. I was on my way to work, and I had a pretty good headache going.

I was just crossing the Connecticut River into Vermont. A long freight train was going by just as I got to the bridge, so all the traffic had to stop and wait. And wait. It was a long train, well over a hundred cars, probably the better part of a mile long.

The damned kid behind me, he was playing this godawful music, if it can be called music. He was playing it so loud that the windows in my truck were rattling. It wasn’t good for my head.

That used to happen all the time when I lived in the city, but today was the first time it happened since we came to New Hampshire. Usually I just let that kind of thing slide. But the train was a long time in passing, and my head was pounding. After a couple minutes I rolled down my back window and motioned to the kid to turn down his music. In return he looked at me like I was a mute idiot. So I hopped out of the truck, walked back to his driver’s side window and asked him to please turn down the music. He was able to hear me because he had obligingly turned down the music and rolled down his window. But it wasn’t a sign of amicable relations to come.

“Why?” he sneered belligerently at my request.

I was a little taken aback. After a second to compose myself, I replied, “Well you don’t have to get snippy about it. You’re hurting my head. And I’d really appreciate it if you’d turn down the music, just until the train passes.”

He didn’t respond, just sat there looking at me. Then he reached down, still looking at me, and turned the music up so loud I could feel it in my feet.

That day’s ending was not a happy one for Andrew. In fact, he was rather torn up over how he had reacted and over not having been able, even after the fact, to suss out a better way to handle it. But just days later, in a Groundhog Day-style incident, Andrew got a second chance to handle the same problem, and this time he was armed with Dave’s suggestion:

I may be the most famous man in the upper Connecticut River Valley today. It didn’t take real ID, nor surveillance cameras, nor road checkpoints. No, all it took was that pesky punk with the loud radio and the coffee-stained upholstery.

Yep, that’s right. This morning I was sitting on the bridge once again, waiting for the train to pass. As fate would have it, who was right in front of me but Radiokid (that’s right, that’s what I call him now)! I was so happy I almost thanked him for the opportunity to right my wrongs!

Just as polite and cheerful as could be, I hopped out of my faithful ‘Yota and trotted up next to him. “Hi!” I grinned. “Say, would you mind turning down your music, please?”

His response was direct and coarse, and I shall not here repeat what he said. Except to say that it sounded a lot like Fuck you.

That made me even happier. I looked at him real mean, like I was about to rip his guts out through his throat, and I said, “Turn it down right now or I swear I’m going to start dancing.” I waited a second until he realized what I’d actually said, I got a great double take, and then I said, “And you don’t want that.” I then followed up with some more taunting, like Bring it on, and Don’t think I won’t.

Sure enough, he cranked up the volume until his whole car was reverberating. So nice of him to oblige.

And so, right there on the bridge, in full view of the morning traffic, the CT River, and the city of Brattleboro, VT, I worked it, baby. I didn’t just put on a little cha-cha. Oh no. This sucker incurred the full measure of my wrath. And I don’t mind saying, it was a damned fearful thing. Men trembled. Women shrieked. I give Radiokid credit — he lasted nearly a half-minute before he pulled out of line and skinned out. I know exactly which move it was that crossed the line for him, too. But you don’t want to know about that.

Oh, yes, we, his admiring fans, most certainly did want to know!

If you really must know… I hope this doesn’t ruin it for everyone, but… It was when I peeled off my shirt as seductively as I could and started, ah, “crotch flossing” with it.

I lose no sleep over the deaths of career IRS collections thugs or other “enforcer”-type government agents, nor do I have even the tiniest of violins to play for their money-grubbing relatives trying, through similar government-enforced tactics, to get their filthy paws on assets belonging to others who committed no wrong against them.

That said, I do believe there are certainly more clearly ethical and more effective options available to proponents of freedom in the realm of nonviolence- options that do not invoke the damaging appearance of ceding the moral high ground to the state, nor the self-destructiveness of sinking to the level of government agents. Andrew’s example of defusing a situation peacefully through an unconventional method has stuck with me for years, and it has inspired me to really dig deeper whenever it seems as though a problem cannot be solved peacefully.

Yes, there are appropriate times and places in this world for violent action or threat thereof. However, they are much, much more limited than many- perhaps most- people these days are willing to confine them. I understand that. I think much of modern culture, from the school playground to Dilbert-style corporate cubicleland to government regulation and beyond, functions through power hierarchies which destroy problem-solving skills and disempower people thereby resulting in the desire to lash out violently as an antidote to their perceived helplessness. It seems to me that many people have become so accustomed to doing so, or to calling in government thugs to threaten or actually do so on their behalf, that they have trouble conceiving of any alternatives. (For example, how many people trot out the nonsense come election season that if you’re not voting, you’re not doing anything?)

What can we do about that?

My earliest formal introduction to concrete, practical ideas of nonviolent, government-free alternatives to addressing social problems was through the work of Gene Sharp, founder of the Albert Einstein Institute where he is currently a board member and Senior Scholar. Part Two of Gene Sharp’s book series on The Politics of Nonviolent Action, titled The Methods of Nonviolent Action, was published in 1973. From that book comes a list of 198 Methods of Nonviolent Action. Upon browsing this list, it quickly became my standard answer to the accusation that if you don’t vote, you’re not doing anything and have no right to bitch. Gene’s list remains remarkably applicable today. However, I think it could use some updating to include more modern methods as well, and I think Fr33 Agents are the right folks to do that. I invite your participation in that effort.

I am looking for two things:
1. Additional methods of nonviolent action to add to the list.
2. Real-life examples methods on the original list and of the additional methods we come up with being used effectively to promote pro-freedom values or goals including links to relevant videos, audio, articles, websites, etc. demonstrating these methods in practice. Multiple examples are most definitely welcome.

These methods and examples will at some point wind up being part of another project to disseminate them more widely, but I’ll save that for another time. For now, I hope this exercise will help us all recognize and appreciate that we have a lot more options than we may first think for peacefully conducting our own lives and influencing others.

For the most part, getting one’s way through violence or threat of violence is the tactic of the lazy, the uncreative, the ignorant, and the neurologically dysfunctional. Let’s set the bar higher.

Our friends over at LibertarianWiki.org are in the process of rebranding their site. For those of you unfamiliar with Libertarian Wiki, it’s essentially a  clearinghouse of information for libertarian activists that seeks to facilitate online collaboration among freedom-loving people across the world. According to my bud (and site admin) Nathan Larson:

We are presently trying to come up with a new name, a new motto and a new logo to replace the cheesy black-and-white ASCII drawing in the upper left corner of our website. Specifically, we need a 135×135 pixel PNG for that corner and a matching 16×16 pixel FAVICON.ICO. If anyone would like to provide an image or an input, please visit the current discussion thread. Especially as the wiki becomes more popular and well-known, this project could become a nice addition to the portfolio of a libertarian artist.

I thought that some of y’all creative types may have the time and interest to submit potential replacements. One possibility may be to go with the an-cap flag or some variation. Due to the small size of the graphic, it likely makes sense to just to have “Libertarian Wiki” or “Libertapedia” on the image (a couple of options in case they decide to change the name) and the slogan/tagline submitted as text to be added elsewhere.

I should note that when I previously worked at the then-principled Bureaucrash, Nathan and his colleagues not only assisted me in creating and organizing a Wiki of related content (to make it easier for crashers to download/disseminate or upload/share ideas and content) but also housed it on their site. So, they’ve already demonstrated their goodwill and their ability to put ideas into action and I think there could be some collaboration between Fr33 Agents and Libertarian Wiki as the crowdsourcing of this graphic demonstrates.

Just as the economy of Zimbabwe starts to recover after decades of economic mismanagement, Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe’s despotic president, is now intent on canceling any chance of Zimbabwe’s economy recovering.

Mugabe is proposing a law that will require all foreign and white-owned businesses based in Zimbabwe to give up a controlling share to black Zimbabweans. Of course this is a populist move by Mugabe and he is spinning it as a policy that will empower blacks in Zimbabwe. Of course, the reality is that this is in fact a racist policy that will only benefit Mugabe and his cronies and if it becomes law it will be utterly disastrous for Zimbabwe.

When Mugabe and his cronies seized white-owned farms it was disastrous as those cronies of Mugabe who took over ownership of previously white-owned farms knew nothing of how to farm.  Harvest after harvest failed and people in Zimbabwe starved.

Of course some people will defend this as affirmative action, the seizure of white-owned farms, the current seizure of diamond mines and Mugabe’s proposal concerning ownership of businesses based in Zimbabwe. Here’s the question.  Have the policies that Mugabe has enacted benefited the majority of Zimbabweans? I think the answer is that the only people the policies Mugabe has instituted has benefited are Mugabe and his fellow cronies in the Zanu-PF hierarchy but the policies have not benefited the majority of Zimbabweans.

For the Zimbabwean economy to grow and benefit the whole of Zimbabwean society, Zimbabwe desperately needs investment and that is going to have to come from outside Zimbabwe, but Mugabe’s new proposals will just scare foreign investment off. It could very well be that Mugabe may, in fact, want to scare off foreign investment and scupper the chances of economic recovery, because it cements his hold on power in Zimbabwe for the masses to be impoverished.

A thirty six year old man decided to commit suicide on March 4th, 2010. His name was John Patrick Bedell. Perhaps he didn’t make that decision consciously, no one can be certain what he was thinking as he acted out the last moments of his life, but regardless his death was the inevitable outcome of the actions he decided to take that day. From what I’ve heard, he had a history of mental illness. His actions certainly bore that out. It doesn’t take an Einstein to realize this man was disturbed. Still, exactly why he decided to take the actions he did, exactly why he decided to embark on a suicide mission in which he takes on the much more powerful forces of the US military complex will likely remain a mystery.

There seems to be something troubling happening in this country. People are angry. They are so angry that people who would otherwise live out their lives out as productive members of society are behaving in surprising ways. Stress does that to people. Stress will cause unpredictable behavior. Stress will act upon the mentally ill in an even more unpredictable way. Yet many in the mainstream media don’t seem to want to address that. They seem to believe that other factors are causing such despair in people that they see no other option than to carry out some strange suicide attack in the hope they will make some arcane statement. Media personalities ask the wrong questions and explore the wrong avenues as they proffer their ideas as to why these things happen. Perhaps they should ask what caused these people such stress in their lives. It’s almost as if they are purposely avoiding an honest look at the situation.

The first thing the media focused on was that this man smoked pot. Oh? You mean like so many tens of millions of others in this country? The insinuation was that smoking pot makes one a crazy, lunatic murderer. At least, that was the gist I got. So, let’s think about this. Tell me, how many of you smoke pot on a regular basis? Even if you don’t smoke on a regular basis, how many of you have tried it? Did it turn you into a crazed lunatic? How many of you know someone who smokes on a regular basis? Or even just once in a while? How many of them are crazed killers? We’ve seen this propaganda before. In the thirties movie “Reefer Madness” marijuana smoking is portrayed as something that causes people to play the piano fast and commit murders. It was cartoonish in its absurdity and I wonder how many people even back then could see through the propaganda. I think I can safely say that if marijuana smoking alone caused people to commit murder; the population of the US, indeed of the world, would be significantly reduced.

Linking this man’s marijuana smoking with murder is disingenuous unless one takes into account that perhaps he was angry that the federal government enforcement agencies continue to raid state legal medical marijuana clinics despite a promise to the contrary. Linking marijuana smoking in general to such behavior labels the vast majority of the population as crazed violent radicals. Polls show that a huge majority of people in the US favor seeing medical marijuana legalized and yet the political power elite struggle to loosen its grip on even that much power. Not very democratic of them now, is it? These people need a way to reverse the public sentiment and so – in their desperation – they use the desperate act of a desperate man to demonize marijuana to try to maintain the status quo.

As time passed, they changed their story a little, perhaps because they realized how ridiculous they sounded to most people, and claimed that Mr. Bedell was trying to medicate his bipolar disorder with marijuana. This might be true, but was this man taking other medications? They say he refused his medication, but had he taken it in the past? Is it possible that the psych meds themselves had something to do with his final act? After all, it has been shown that most people who end up engaging in a mass shootings are on some kind of anti-depressant. Do the anti-depressants themselves have something to do with this behavior? Perhaps they stop working after a time. Or perhaps it just makes sense that someone with a mental illness might end up shooting up the place no matter how he medicates himself. Perhaps the fact that he suffered from such a disorder in and of itself is all that we need to know about him and why he did what he did.

Yet the mass media insists on linking him with pot smoking and other movements. They link him with the 9/11 truth movement. They link him with anti-government groups. They link him with anti-Bush groups. They link him with being a Democrat. They link him with whichever group they want to demonize. This guy was a lone wolf with big problems. He was evidently under a lot of stress and he decided to deal with it in a crazy manner. Was it in fact the restrictions and regulations imposed by the government that caused him such stress? Was it their policies he was striking against? There’s no doubt that government, with its taxes, fees, fines and laws defining victimless crimes creates a great deal of stress. Just ask any small business man how intrusive, abusive and obtrusive government is with all its regulations and restrictions. Since he’s dead, we may never know for certain exactly what was going through his head. In any case, punishing a group or a group of groups for the actions of a single person is just plain wrong. It was wrong when we were in school and it’s wrong now.

I don’t advocate violence. In fact, I believe that in order to achieve peace we must be peaceful. How can you achieve a peaceful society through violence? It makes no sense. In the case of government, it is questionable as to how effective even the act of self defense is. Their propaganda arm will quickly turn anyone who resists violence with violence into a terrorist or some other form of evil person. I believe that the vast majority of the common folk would agree with me. If the common folk remain peaceful and continue to protest in a peaceful manner, then the government will be forced to expose their own violent tendencies for all the world to see, as happened in Pittsburgh at the g20 summit last year.

Those at the top, however, the corporate power elite, make a profit through violence. The military/industrial complex, the prison/industrial complex and the security/industrial complex all make billions if not trillions through violence. They advocate for wars. They advocate for laws creating victimless crimes. They advocate for laws allowing for the violation of human rights. It is in part their greed and intrusiveness into the lives of ordinary people that cause such stress in our society. It is inevitable that their unjustifiable policies and actions will cause blowback and they know it, yet they continue to act surprised when it happens and they use their compliant media and the actions of crazy individuals to demonize ordinary people and continue the policies which bring them profits.

It’s disturbing to me that these events happen at this particular time. It’s disturbing that they happen just as certain movements are gaining in popularity. It’s disturbing that such events happen as more people are waking up and discovering the principles of freedom and liberty. I don’t like to sound paranoid, but it sure is coincidental that these events occur just when certain interests need some event to provide an excuse for introducing and extending policies which increase and assert their already over bearing controls. These control freaks are introducing a bill which will give the power elite the opportunity to shut down the Internet whenever they feel there is a threat. They are introducing legislation which would allow the US military to arrest political dissenters, just like they used to do in the USSR, label them belligerents and try them in a military court of law rather than a common law court. Fortunately, they still seem to need, or at least want, public support to pass these bills and it appears as if they are using the bizarre suicide attacks of the last couple of weeks to garner such support.

Sometimes paranoia is good. It’s not crazy to be paranoid if someone is really after you. But violence is not going to help against government force. Even if they are after the common folk and they initiate the violence, it is likely not a good idea to even retaliate. It is, however, important that we speak out against such violence. It is important that we shine a light on the reality of the nature of our government. It appears to me that what the power elite is afraid of is the truth. It appears as if they are truly trying to subtly turn this nation into a communist regime. Let’s hope they don’t get more overt about it. They wish to crush free speech, silence all who would disagree with them and control all information reaching the general public just like the world’s other current communist regimes. It is important that we let the power elite know that this is unacceptable. It is important to let them know in no uncertain terms that we demand they adhere to their oaths, respect our God given rights and stop creating laws designed to violate said rights. It is more imperative than ever that we as a society engage in civil disobedience, simply refuse to go along with such schemes, or do whatever can be done to ensure our liberties, otherwise the American dream and the principles upon which it was built will fade into the ethers of time.

New Hampshire has the closest thing to an actual concentration of libertarians; as scattered as we are, one often is the only libertarian for miles.  The itch to move there has only gotten worse for me.  I’ve been getting into fights with my mother over the wars; she actually told me that I was “so far to the left that I’m out of the mainstream.”  She called having a humble foreign policy as being naive – while expecting love from those we bomb is somehow perfectly logical.  Besides, living on a farm in bumfu*k nowhere isn’t my bag.  It may be yours, but not mine.

I already have ideas for what I would do there buzzing in my head:

-I see myself as being a bridge to the decentralist left. One thing I’d like to do is to help revive the mutual aid movement. Those who oppose libertarianism on grounds of welfare do have a point. What about the poor and disabled? What about the unemployed or injured worker? The feeble reply mumbles about charities and such, but there is a reason for the old expression “as cold as charity.”  Mutual aid is not cold, lifting the boats of the poor instead of merely providing relief. Walking through the streets of DC-the big, safe ones – and coming face to face with the plight of the homeless and poor makes it hard to look the other way. Libertarians, of all stripes, should rise to the challenge by providing empowering alternatives to the cold charity of Social Security and soup kitchens.

-Scholarship is pretty important to me; one thing I would do is be the “Free State Scholar”. Whether charting movement history, or writing on the differences between agorism, voluntaryism, anarcho-capitalism, and mutualism; I aim to be the “go to guy”. God, my ego is showing. Might do some historical revision on the side. (Note: I do not support any form of holocaust denialism. That atrocity, besides being the perfect argument against the state, must never be forgotten. My view of the Civil War is this: a revisonist view of the North, combined with the standard account of the South. The North did not much care about slavery, nor did the South care about “states rights”. It was a war between two wrongs in my view.)

-Might contribute some articles to the Keene Free Press, run a blog, or even a podcast.

-Would be quite open with my counter-cultural outlook and bohemian lifestyle. Kind of like Timothy Leary without the acid. More beatnik than hippie, but who knows.

-Been entertaining the idea of some “anarchovillages”; essentially cooperatively owned apartments and houses for libertarians.

-Tons of activism, mainly on the antiwar front. After the war is over, would be centered on gay rights, open borders, and ending the Drug War. Full of street theater and other antics to freak out the squares on the right and left.

-Starting that bookstore and zine. Intend to go into competition with Liberty Books and Comics.

-Drink lots of Manchester Beer

I really want to be there by this summer, right after PorcFest. However, I have four months to work out a career and living situation. If there is anybody already up in NH who can help, or knows someone, that would be awesome.

Though David Cameron and the Conservative Party might seem critical of Gordon Brown and Labour’s difficulties concerning the war in Afghanistan, have no doubt that if the Conservatives win the next general election they won’t be withdrawing the troops.  Don’t be conned.  The Conservatives have just as much enthusiasm for the war in Afghanistan as the present Labour administration, a war which many now say is un-winnable.

Okay, people aren’t going to vote Conservative primarily due to the Conservative Party’s policy on the war in Afghanistan, but I fear that people might vote for the Conservatives thinking that their Afghanistan policy is going to be better than Labour’s Afghanistan policy yet such thinking is idiotic. Have no doubt that the Conservatives are going to keep perpetrating the farce in Afghanistan just as much as this Labour government has done since sending the troops into Afghanistan in 2001.  The Conservatives, if elected,  will continue to fuck things up in Afghanistan.

If the Conservatives had been in power back in 2001, they’d have been just as gung ho about sending the troops in as Tony Blair and his cronies were. In fact, it should be remembered that ALL three major political parties supported sending troops into Afghanistan back in 2001. Yeah, all three major political parties had a hard-on for kicking butt in Afghanistan and, okay, it seemed to be retaliation for 9/11 but here we are best part of a decade later still paying in taxes and blood searching for bin Laden and fighting the not-yet-defeated Taliban.

David Cameron will be just as much a warmonger as Tony Blair proved himself to be; in an interview with the BBC last December Cameron stated that he was against “artificial timelines” in a question about setting a timetable for the withdrawal of British troops. Cameron also stated in the same interview that the British electorate should not expect any troop reductions anytime soon.

As I said previously, the Conservatives are just as gung-ho for the war in Afghanistan as Labour ever was. If you vote for the Conservatives this election believing their spin that they’d implement policies on the ground in Afghanistan that will guarantee defeating the Taliban, you really are an idiot!  Yes, the Tories have claimed that they’d tackle Afghanistan better which would substantially aid the defeat of the Taliban, but it’s no more than a lie because if Cameron doesn’t want to squander his pension or end up with a bullet in the back of the head then he’ll have to pander to the military industrial complex.

Maybe one day the electorate will genuinely wake up to what government and its agencies are; the tool of greed and wickedness. For the likes of the military industrial complex and as long as there is big government  there will only be perpetration and not resolution.  It is the state of perpetual war which exists in Afghanistan that the military industrial complex wants, as it is very good for business. I’m sure that Afghanistan has made a pretty tidy profit for the military industrial complex and they want the dollars to keep rolling in so they are not going to want Prime Minister Cameron in waiting, proposing anything which will jeopardize their profit margins.

A couple weeks ago, Thomas Knapp wrote what should not have to be written in Taxes an Unnecessary Compromise on Marijuana. In it he argues that the government is already against the ropes on the marijuana issue and it is unnecessary for us as libertarians to come up with the compromises — make them come up with the “how ‘bout we tax it” inroads. It is then and only then, says Knapp, that we should accept it as a better than the status quo alternative. I’m very much in favor of this. But fundamentally and in principle it should not have had to have been said.

Firstly, all, and especially new, taxes should be vehemently opposed by libertarians. If you’re a minarchist, I guess there’s going to have to be some State funding, but it should be considered only as, at best, a necessary evil. Secondly, it’s not like marijuana taxation would be used to replace taxes elsewhere. They’ll just want add the revenues to the already excessive tax receipts. When there’s nothing to gain on the taxation end of things, why bother talking about it like it’s some icing on the cake. Your taxes aren’t going to go down.

But a more important point needs to be made. Strategically, active compromising is often viewed as the only way to improve the libertarian predicament. I don’t think there’s anything farther from the truth. Compromise is a bandaid on a cancer — a smokescreen to make you feel like you’ve accomplished something. In the end, the cancer has kept growing and you’re sicker than ever. Being radical is the way to accomplish anything even if your goals are not ultimately radical.

Just imagine if every single marijuana legalization advocate were screaming to legalize heroin. By going on the advocacy offensive, you scare the powerful into coming to the table to appease you. That’s what you should want. Instead of begging your masters for freedom, demand it. It’d scare the shit out of them… well, a lot more than begging would.

Time is of the essence. It’s not like when marijuana is finally legalized you will recoup the effort you put into it. It’s a waste of time to piddle paddle around the issue to seem pragmatic and sensible. The fact that you want to legalize anything already makes you look like a nut to most people anyway. After decades, people are finally becoming jaded enough by the war on drugs to question its value. Meanwhile, billions have been spent and plenty have been killed and imprisoned from the enforcement of the drug prohibition.

It’s not so much that radicalism works so well as that pragmatism doesn’t work at all. By giving headway, you admit you’re wrong and give your opponent the upper hand. By staying consistent and arguing that all drugs be legalized, you force your opponent to grasp at strawman arguments which can easily be refuted. As your position gains followers which most tenable movements eventually do, you bring the opponents to the bargaining table — and you’ll want to be playing a good hand.

Causes like medical marijuana legalization are nobel, but they are still being fought! How is it that a “compassionate” country could still be fighting over such a no brainer? It’s due to the fact that the medical marijuana advocates have limited themselves. They put a brick wall behind them where none was needed and they hit that brick wall. By only advocating for medical marijuana, they made the issue between “yes” and “no” for onlymedical marijuana. When the inroads are made, you get only a part of what you wanted. Expecting to get all of what you want is unrealistic. And the result is some timid step forward like “We won’t raid marijuana clinics on Tuesdays. You better watch your ass every other day though.” As the fight rages on, a couple years later they add Wednesdays to the safe list. Eventually they let more local governments be in charge and then maybe give up. But that entire process takes tons of effort and tons of unnecessary pain has been inflicted upon people meantime. But had the medical marijuana advocates been saying legalize heroin, the inroads would be much more dramatic because the demands placed on the powerful are all that much more dramatic. It would have taken far less time to legalize medical marijuana this way. Instead, the battle is still raging.

The libertarian movement is parallel to the abolitionist movement (if they aren’t already the same thing). Does anyone really think the abolitionists would have been in anyway successful if the had argued that the slaves “get an extra piece of bread each night”? No. Having pusillanimous positions on issues makes you incapable of accomplishing anything!

The objection would of course be that without proposing “sensible” reforms, no one will take you seriously. But does anyone in power take NORML seriously now? And besides, it’s not what you say, it’s how you say it. It’s entirely possible to make radical positions perfectly reasonable to people. Just know what you’re talking about before hand. Give the people the correct and real alternatives and they will be able to delve further into the issue. Giving them a two-bit, half-assed spiel about how “well, medical marijuana could be intercepted by people without illness, but we’ll work hard to prevent that” will just makes everyone even dumber. It legitimizes submission to the rules of the rulers and their mind numbing tactics. The fight for liberty can only be won with principle, honesty, and fervor, not submission. Submission will not be overcome by submissiveness.

There should be no worries about things changing too fast. Nothing is going to change overnight. Radicalism is still going to struggle though but at least it’ll be achieving something tangible. In his essay Why Be Libertarian?, Murray Rothbard quotes radical abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison,

“Urge immediate abolition as earnestly as we may, it will, alas! be gradual abolition in the end. We have never said that slavery would be overthrown by a single blow; that it ought to be, we shall always contend.”

I wouldn’t push Rothbard’s “instant anarchy” button given a more incremental alternative, but the truth is that the opportunity would never arise and, as such, it’s not even worth talking about. Staying radical keeps you on path and on track while remaining coherent in your arguments. When you get to a point at which you are satisfied, just stop advocating. If all you care about is medical marijuana, that’s fine, but you’re only going to get it (and in the most time effective way) by going “balls to the wall.”

Don’t submit. Don’t dumb down. Stay radical. Know how to argue for it. If your goal is freedom, radicalism is the only pragmatic means. In our case, radicalism is practical.

I have a friend and former coworker who is completely enamored and has total faith in Mr. Barack Obama and the Democrat party. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. The guy is a complete sports nut, knowing more about the stats of former and present baseball and football players than he knows about anything else. It’s not a bad thing, I guess, – if I ever want to know anything about sports I know who to ask – but it seems to me that there’s far more important things in life to familiarize yourself with than with such trivia. Perhaps it’s because he is so engaged with the sports mentality that he can’t get away from the team aspect. He sees all life as two teams battling each other and trying to win a game. He has picked the political team he cheers for and has problems understanding that both teams are the same and the players can chose when they want to switch teams. As far as he’s concerned, as long as a guy on his team is in office, his team is winning.

It’s very difficult to convince a man like him of the importance of principles. It’s very difficult to discuss with someone like him the importance of giving greater consideration to issues rather than personalities. It’s more difficult to convince someone like him that it’s more important to look at voting records of those personalities rather than listening to the rhetoric they spew out to make themselves sound good. It’s hard to convince somebody that someone they admire is a liar. People such as my friend will sputter and stutter when the lies are pointed out and they try to make excuses for their team. Sometimes, when the lies and betrayal become too obvious, these people will just shut down and refuse to speak of their “heroes” at all.

I wonder how many Obama supporters are so afflicted now that he has reauthorized the Patriot Act. I wonder how many have come to the realization that Mr. Obama’s promised change amounts to nothing more than the tightening of the grip of government control over all that is. I wonder if they have figured out yet that he never meant to change anything that they wanted to change and always meant to change only the things that would benefit the super rich and powerful elite. Bush or Obama, Republican or Democrat, it doesn’t matter. The common folk are being screwed in the most painful way possible by the corporate establishment. It is the corporate establishment that men like Bush, Cheney, Obama and Biden serve, for these are power seeking men who love being the screwers and detest the screwees.

As far back as I can remember, the establishment politicians who’ve promised peace, or less government, or more accountability, or greater transparency in governing institutions, or more fidelity to the Constitution, or a policy of not infringing on individual rights have been elected to positions of great power. Isn’t if strange how these things just become more and more elusive as time goes on? Isn’t it strange how no matter who we elect, no matter the party, no matter the personality, we get exactly the opposite of what we were promised? We get bigger government, eternal war, no accountability, a greater amount of secrecy, more unconstitutionality, and a destruction of the concept of individual rights that would make the Soviets blush. It’s like politicians are little children forever stuck in that “opposite day” game we all used to play. These guys know exactly what the common folk want, they know how to sweet talk their way into office, but they never seem able to deliver. I don’t believe they want to deliver or serve the people, they only serve the corporate establishment because that’s where the money is.

Mr. Obama had vowed to reverse the constitutional infractions Mr. Bush had engaged in. He never intended to do so. Nor did any of the Democrats who won their seats back in 2006 when there was such a backlash against the policies of the Republicans and the Bush administration that had so hurt this nation. They have all been bought and paid for by the same corporate interests. That is something that should be obvious to anyone who has opened their eyes to see politics for the dirty cesspool of corruption it has become, in other words for the majority of the people. Only those who are like my friend and still stuck in the “my team is better than your team” mentality don’t seem able to recognize that the entire system is broke. Only those who are easily conned or swoon when some smooth talking charmer speaks remain fooled into thinking some superman is going to rise to power to save them. The rest of us, for the most part, seem to have come to the grim realization that there is going to be no savior rising to the top of the political establishment, and yet it seems nigh impossible to put a political outsider into office. The hope that had been promised in the 2008 campaign is quickly disappearing into the black hole of establishment propaganda and the tight grip of corporate control.

Now the political elite have a problem. It seems that more and more people are figuring out what’s going on. They can’t have that. An enlightened public would threaten their hegemony. They have to keep us divided and bickering over minutia to keep us from uniting against them as they continue to move forward with their globalized agenda and the common folk ignore truly important issues.

I remember back when I was a child learning that people in the Soviet Union were scared of their government. I remember learning that under that collectivist system people would only speak in whispers about freedom in places where the public gather because they were worried someone would turn them over to the KGB. They were frightened that if they spoke poorly of the government they’d be declared dissidents and sent to a gulag or worse. I learned that this was the case in most countries under communist rule. Collectivist governments care not for individual rights. To them, the state is above all else and any individual who may disagree was dealt with swiftly, decisively, mercilessly and violently. It was quite effective in silencing the voice of the common folk and keeping the power elite in control.

I also learned that the United States of America was different because the government had to abide by a document known as the Constitution which limited their power so they couldn’t legally partake in such practices. People in the US weren’t afraid to speak their minds and could freely complain, protest and insult government policies and the politicians who support them. This doesn’t seem so true now a days. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard people hush someone talking bad about the government in a public venue. I’ve heard people say more than once to watch what one says about the government in a paranoid manner. It oft times amazes me when this happens, but the US does have its own equivalent to the KGB and it’s known as the CIA. There are people who are genuinely afraid that speaking poorly of the government in public will lead to some form of retribution.

One way or another, the powers that be need to keep the people from realizing what’s really going on. They need to keep up the illusion that there are two different teams in politics and that the people have a choice. The mass media leads the effort to make this so, but they are no longer as effective as they once were. The establishment is likely running scared as more people turn away from their controlled media and start looking to alternative media sources for their information. They worry that they might have to resort to more overt actions to quiet dissent. In order to maintain their power, they need laws that will allow them to stifle and chill anyone who might be inclined to talk about such things, laws like the Patriot Act.

On the 28th of February, on the very last day possible, Mr. Obama signed a bill that renewed the Patriot Act in full for another year. Had he waited a few more hours, many of the more intrusive and objectionable aspects of the law would have expired. Not only was this done at the eleventh hour without fanfare, but it was hidden in a bill which had nothing else to do with the Patriot Act. This suggests to me that the Democrat controlled congress and the Obama administration knew exactly what they were doing and consciously made an effort to ignore one of the mandates their constituents put on them when they were elected into office. They must have known they were doing something wrong to go to such lengths to be so sneaky and secretive. They must be worried about what their constituents would think should this action be subjected to the light of day. I think, more than this, they have even more nefarious reasons for extending this bill than they care to admit.

The Patriot Act wasn’t renewed to protect you from terrorists. The Patriot Act was renewed to protect the power elite from you. It is a law that can and likely will be used to quell political dissent. It is a law meant to frighten people into silence as more and more common folk are labeled “terrorist” by the corporate controlled media. It is a law meant to terrorize people into obedience and quiescence as they run rough shod over the Bill of Rights and dismantle any semblance of a true republic we once might have enjoyed. It is a law that can even be used, if push comes to shove, to imprison anyone who dares challenge the politically powerful, even if that challenge comes in the form of using the political process, simply by labeling such a person as a “terrorist” or accusing them of being involved with any group labeled a “terrorist” organization. In short, the Patriot Act was renewed to protect the terrorists on Capitol Hill from the masses who might not like the looting of our nation. It was renewed simply to ensure that power stays in the hands of the corporate interests which can afford to pay. Don’t expect the establishment to let go of such a law anytime soon.

Even the mainstream media is now picking up that there is nobody sitting on the committee of the Chilcot inquiry with the expertise necessary to conduct an investigation of the  invasion of Iraq. Unfortunately, though the mass media might be questioning the lack of military experts, it hasn’t as yet expressed what I long ago realised: that this so called inquiry into the Iraqi War and the participation of Britain in it, is a rigged affair. After all, this is an inquiry which was set up by the same government that participated in the illegal and unjust invasion of Iraq back in March 2003. It’s no wonder that nobody is willing to ask any probing questions, being as it’s rigged from the start in the government’s favour. Don’t be expecting any prosecutions to be coming out of this inquiry and don’t expect a finding against the government’s decision to go to war.

Given this knowledge, I didn’t expect Gordon Brown to be given a hard time when he gave his testimony. He wasn’t.

To give Gordon Brown his due, he has pulled the troops out of Iraq and was the first leader of a NATO government who has talked about setting a timetable for withdrawing troops from Afghanistan. Brown did state on a couple of occasions some regret for the loss of life, both military and civilian, as consequence of the military intervention in Iraq. Okay, Brown was more conciliatory than Tony Blair and if there was any way to register public opinion concerning his testimony to the Chilcot inquiry there were less anti-war protesters across the road from hall where the inquiry is being held then on the day when Tony Blair gave evidence. Of course, when Tony Blair gave evidence, he was so arrogant that he was right about participating in ordering the military intervention in Iraq that he couldn’t bring himself to apologise or show any regret for the blood spilt as a consequence.

Brown might have been more conciliatory than Blair but he’s no less guilty for participating in the orchestration of Britain’s participation in the unjust and illegal invasion of Iraq. He did say in his testimony that he thought the invasion of Iraq was right and that the decision to go to war was a collective decision made by the cabinet. If it was a collective decision by the government to go to war in Iraq then he’s admitting he’s just guilty as Blair. Thing is, I don’t think it was a collective decision by government but a decision made by Blair and George W. Bush when they met up at Bush’s ranch down in Crawford, Texas. If you believe some sources, Blair and Bush said God instructed them to invade Iraq. Strange that the inquiry did not ask Blair about this and whether he’d been assessed by a psychiatrist to see whether he was suffering from schizophrenia. The inquiry did ask Brown whether he was privy to any decision Blair and Bush made to invade Iraq whilst they met in Crawford, Brown said he wasn’t and I believe him.

Of course, some will ask how Brown could not of been privy to any advanced decision to go to war in Iraq as he was the government minister in charge of the government finances. Before the Falklands War, Margret Thatcher took advice from Harold Macmillan and he was meant to have told her, for heaven’s sake, to keep the treasury out the war cabinet. It’s believable that Blair did keep Brown out of the loop when it came to invading Iraq.

Of course, the question many have for Brown concerning Iraq was his penny-pinching when it came to equipping British troops. It’s kind of a stupid question. I mean, anybody knows that whoever is in charge of the household kitty will want more for less and it’s just the same when it comes to government finances. The government treasury will want to conduct war on the cheap. Of course, Brown denies this and stated that the treasury told the military that they would fund anything they requested in regards to the invasion of Iraq. There has, however,  already been some evidence given to the inquiry contradicting this.

Whatever reasons Blair and Brown might have for thinking invading Iraq was the right thing to do, it was unjust to do so because the then regime in Iraq were not threatening the British public’s liberty or security. By the British establishment’s participation in the invasion of Iraq, the British public’s liberty and security has been seriously eroded. The ultimate irony is the British taxpayer funded the Iraqi misadventure and is now paying for it in more ways than one.