School Boy Is Chided For Intervening In A Knife Attack.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/06/was-a-canadian-student-punished-by-his-school-after-stopping-a-knife-wielding-classmate/  As a philosophical anarchist, I often here the refrain that if anarchy were to take effect, it would lead to chaos. I like to respond by asking what do you call what we have now, if not chaos? I actually feel that if persons were empowered to take initiative, in handling interpersonal/social problems, then such threats could be directly nipped in the bud, at a grass roots level, before it would have opportunity to develope into a stronghold of violent crime. I therefore support a do it yourself approach of indivisual responsibility. Now this certainly does not mean that there are never times when one should seek help from others, or that violence is always the best way to deal with conflicts. We should certainly not resort to becoming vengeful vigilantes, lest we set off a vicious cycle of violence. But sometimes just, and proportionate force is called for in dealing with dangerous situations. And furthermore, I would like to address what I see as being the hypocritical, and nonsensical, atiitude which people such as namely Americans have towards violence. If someone, such as Briar Maclean, the boy mentioned in this story I linked to, get mixed up in a fight, though no one is killed, or even seriously hurt, he is faulted. But, if someone goes overseas to fight in a war, and ends up killing many people, including inadvertantly civilians, he will be lauded, and if killed honored with a memorial shrine. And religions, such as namely Christianity, do not help matters either. For it has a seemingly incoherent view of violence. It's position ranges from nonresistance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonresistance#Christian_theology, to the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive warfare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine#Compassionate_belief_and_religious_influence, with the more nuanced view of Just War Theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory in between. But more than this, I've noticed that Christians tend to cite various Bible passages, that are alternatately pro, and anti- violence, however they feel is convenient to suit their purposes. If you study the Bible, with the standpoint of "tota scriptura", it will be left to you to try and make over all sense out of it's precepts, such as pertains to the existance of violence, and what our position should be in relation to it. Now speaking for myself, as one whom might be described by some as being a Christian deist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_deism, I adhere to the non-aggression principle http://nap.univacc.net/. Though probally most Christian anarchists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_anarchism abide by absolute pacifism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_pacifism. But whatever principled position you might take, let's resolve to acts as we deem fit, in not only pursuing happiness for ourselves, but also the wellbeing of others. We should not have to be made to feel dependent upon the government in being benevolent. The welfare, and warfare, state can not do as optimal a work as voluntary mutual aid, and mutual defense, between persons within a given community. And upon such time as the people are altogether mature enough to be able, and willing to do so, the only sort of government we shall have will be self-government http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-governance, which in my view is the best government.

Snowden Shows How The Secret Police Are Violating Civil Rights

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/10/edward-snowden-basic-liberties_n_3414824.html As I have suspected for some time now, according to the testimony of Edward Snowden, whom I consider to be an exceptional example of an honest, conscientious, government agent, the various intelligence agencies have been using their expanded powers to spy on Americans. As part of the "Prism" program http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program), telecommunications, and digital data can be accessed, and recorded. Now, if this were specificly used to target known enemies of the U.S.A., and were subject to the due process of the law, I would not have a problem with it. I think that it would be necessary in order to keep current with the modern digital information age. However, as I've pointed out before, in prior blog posts, it's not just groups such as Al Qaida that are being focused on, and the operations aren't altogether taking place within the scope of the criminal justice system. In fact, comparabley to Nazi Germnany http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichssicherheitshauptamt, various police agencies are now collaberating together under the direction of the secret police. http://rt.com/usa/fusion-center-director-spying-070/ And as I've alluded to if you're either left, or right of center, and might have opposition towards, and/or concerns about the government, you might come under suspicion, and even under fire, by the secret police, and their storm troopers. Look, if their is a valid concern about an imminent threat, then they should be permitted to get a warrant in order to investigate, and if needed apprehend suspected seditionists, and saboteurs. But we should not be targeted, and subsequently persecuted, simply based upon our opinions. Just think about it, if the federal government were to have possessed this power, and followed this policy, during the time leading up to the Civil War, it would have used it to crack down on abolitionists. Remember, the Fugitive Slave Act was in effect. And the raid on the Harpers Ferry arsenal was carried out by a fanatical abolitionist, John Brown.  http://www.civilwar.org/150th-anniversary/john-browns-harpers-ferry.html So, abolitionists would have been regarded as being criminal subversives, just as like how today anarchists such as myself will tend to likewise be viewed with animosity. But before some of you start to think that we have it coming, due to our opposition to institutions of power in our society, including the state, I for one, amongst others strictly adhere to the principle of non-aggression http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle / value of non-violence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-violence. So I do not feel that it would be justified to initiate force for any reason, not even to try to effect desired social change. And also, as I mentioned earlier in this article, it's not just those on the far left whom are being suppressed, but also various persons who are old right. http://www.humblelibertarian.com/2011/08/were-all-terrorists-now.html, http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2009/04/12/homeland-security-document-targets-most-conservatives-and-libertarians-in-the-country/ So just because you might think that you're a good person, who has done nothing wrong, and therefore should have nothing to hide, and be worried about, doesn't mean that the powers that be will automaticly agree. Sometimes those in government might become prone to jump to conclusions, and over react. Which is why it is necessary for us to have the protections of the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights, in order to keep the political powers in check. P.S. To those whom might be thinking that it's my fault that all of this is happening, since you presume that either I voted for Obama, or did not vote at all, you'd be wrong. Eventhough I largely consider myself to be a libertarian Democrat http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Democratic_Freedom_Caucus, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Democrat, I voted for the Green Party candidate, Jill Stein http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jill_Stein, as I have been concerned about a number of Pres. Obama's policies, such as the NDAA. I feel that we should always strive to vote for candidates who are pro-freedom, and I also prefer that they be in favor of social justice http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice as well. So that's why I sometimes will vote for Greens over Democrats. But also, to any right-libertarians, and/or disgruntled Republicans, whom might be reading this, I feel that the Libertarian, Gary Johnson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Johnson was not all that bad a choice either. And I hold no hard feelings towards those who chose to vote for him.

The Second Amendment Needs Clarification.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/05/opinion/rewrite-the-second-amendment.html? Coincidently, I was thinking about this very thing, and share the sentiment of the author. The only thing I would add is that virtually no one understands what the Second Amendment really means. What it had intended to do was to create a system much like what still currently exists in Switzerland. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland ,http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/01/21/gun-violence-proposal-militias-second-amendment-nra-obama/ So basicly, this constitutional amendment was intended as a "nuts to you" directed at the notion of a professional standing military. What the framers wanted to avoid were "few, and proud marines", for example. Instead they wanted for the people to be empowered to defend both themselves, and their free state. But from what I've been seeing, conversly, people whom support gun rights in this country also are expressing support for the military. I disagree with this attitude. If we entrust our protection to an armed elite, then what's the sense of even having civillian firearms ownership? The Ohio State Constitution puts it even more explicitly. http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/constitution.cfm?Part=1&Section=04 But with that being said, another thing that gun rights extremists seem to forget is that the U.S. Constitution was initially drafted in response to the abuses of the right to bear arms, as it pertained to Shay's Rebellion http://www.calliope.org/shays/shays2.html. And during The Whiskey Rebellion, the Federal Government used state militias to suppress the use of private civillian firearms against the government. http://consortiumnews.com/2012/12/21/the-rights-second-amendment-lies/ , http://cognidissidence.blogspot.com/2013/01/2nd-amendment.html The last time that this system was used in America was during the Civil War. My one ancestor, Stephen Duncan Burns was part of the state militia sent to quell the rebellion of secession, and guard Pennsylvania from invasion. http://www3.familyoldphotos.com/photo/pennsylvania/7358/stephen-duncan-burns It seems that after the Civil War however, the Federal government no longer tended to trust the people to responbibly defend itself, without potentionally commiting sedition, and/or other violent crimes. And so the Second Amendment has since been disregarded in various ways. P.S. I haapen to know from personal experience that in Western PA. , the spirit of the Whiskey Rebellion still lives on. Pres. Barack Obama's remarks, however blunt perhaps, were spot on. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mayhill-fowler/obama-no-surprise-that-ha_b_96188.html It's practicly a functional anarchy over in the backwoods country. Rather than keeping up any sizable local police forces, they just tend to rely on their own selves, and guns, in solving problems, and settling disputes. It's just the way that it's traditionally been. And it might even explain somewhat my own libertarian political tendency, left-wing though it be. :) So if you ever decide to visit our fair state, keep in mind that "don't tread on me" is not merely a slogan, it's a way of life.

The Christian Right's Pervasive Underlying Anti-Semitism

I'm sure that we've all heard about Islamic anti-semitism. In fact, unfortunately the Islamic world seems to have picked up where Christian Europe has left off. But fewer people seem to realise the anti-semitism promoted by a number of Christian right groups. http://www.publiceye.org/ifas/fw/9405/antisemitism.html If this expose creates a backlash for me, then so be it. Ignorance, and intolerance, are things every decent good natured person should stand up against. And I myself have noticed how the rhetorical charecteristics of key Christian right figures, and groups, namely Christian Reconstructionists/dominionists, resembles, and is even at times identical to the propoganda of Nazis. The only real subtle difference between the dominion theologians as a whole, and more specificly Christian Identity, and/or Kinism, is that the former only seek Christian religious supremacy, while the latter also seeks white racial supremacy. People can rest assured, or if they are the above mentioned enemies of democratic freedom, can be forewarned, that I shall continue to both address, and counter, the extremism of the ultra-right. Just as people in the west like to call on both current, and former, adherents of Islam to denounce the excesses of their religious background, so shall I, as an ex-christian denounce the excesses within my former faith. All those whom sincerely love freedom should use their recognised legal civil liberties to counter those who would threaten to undermine a free secular society, just as ironicly enough, the fascists, and various theocratic fundamentalists use the rights they are afforded, in order to challenge the very foundation of civil society. They are like a cancer upon the body politic. We should not allow the enemies to get the better of us, by using our freedoms against us. Amongst the rights we should exercise is our right to bear arms. I do not care all that much which weapons you choose to own, and operate, whatever the established laws in your country/place of residence permits you to have, as a civilian. I myself prefer to use a crossbow, as it is silent, so you have the benefit of stealth, if and when you go to take out a target, in combat. Also besides not having shell shock, you also avoid the blow back, which you get from guns. But I certainly don't begrudge gun owners, as long as they are both law abiding, and safety conscious. To those whom might over react to my advocacy of armed preparedness, I am refering specificly to the perverbial collapse of society itself, comparable to what Somalia has experienced. I am not trying to endorse the initiation of force, eventhough it might be justified if we were to adhere to the "Bush Doctrine" of pre-emptive warfare. But I do not adhere to this notion. Instead I abide by the "non-aggression principle". It's just that I do not wish for the people to be caught unawares, if like during the days of the Weimar Republic, we might need to form resistance groups, such as either the Reichsbanner http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichsbanner_Schwarz-Rot-Gold , German Iron Front http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Front, or the Red Front http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotfrontk%C3%A4mpferbund, depnding upon your exact political persuasion. We might even have to stage an armed revolutionary insurection, such as is the film, and graphic novel series, "V for Vendetta" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_for_Vendetta. Who says that survivalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivalism is only for rightists? I assert that survivalism, including various forms of self defense, and combat, should be considered a fundamental part of a D.I.Y. lifestyle approach http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIY_ethic. The most important thing is to become fully aware of the nature of the enemy, and their tactics, in order to be enabled to counteractively respond accordingly. And, as an apostate/defector from the Christian right, and it's diverse movements, and subcultures, I feel particularly qualified to take up the task of taking on the potentional threats, and problems, caused by it's pernicious presence. P.S. No I'm not simply trying to lump together everyone in the broad category of the political right. I know that they can range from old right palaeo-conservatives to new right neoconservatives, and also various strains of right-libertarians http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-libertarianism. I, as a left-libertarian, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism oppose them all, to some degree. However, I recognise that the approach used in opposition should vary depending on the exact situation presented by the nature of the political position. Anarcho-capitalists, a type of right-libertarian, share my commitment to non-violent political action, and so are not regarded by me as being an enemy, in the same manner that I regard the theonomists. I mean their ideology I find to be rather pathetic, and therefore unfeasible in practice, but they are still friendly towards freedom.

People debate gun control measures, in the aftermath of shootings.

I've noticed that lately various people, from both sides of this issue, are concerning themselves with gun control, since the senseless, tragic, killings, by such persons as Adam Lamza, and James Holmes. I myself have mixed views, on this subject, as one might imagine. First off, here are some posts I'd made about it, on my Facebook page, which in the interests of annonomity, I've made private, in regards to this blog. 

"And now some words from Fm. Pres. James Madison, on the second amendment, and gun control. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ume73vmDqQQ Also thses articles from "The Daily Beast" http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/18/gun-rights-adv...ocates-should-fear-history-of-second-amendment.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/18/gun-control-foes-misunderstand-the-intent-of-the-second-amendment.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/18/how-we-can-regulate-guns-using-the-second-amendment.html. The framers of the Constitution were actually concerned about such incidents as the "Whiskey Rebellion" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion , and also "Shay's Rebellion" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays%27_Rebellion. And so the Federalists crafted the Constitution, in order to strengthen the powers of government." "

I just recently read posts on Facebook, made by people who feel that school shootings such as what took place in Conn. , are a fairly recent developement, and even is a sign of moral decline. Well, as a student of History, just let me tell ...you that they are wrong. http://www.k12academics.com/school-shootings/history-school-shootings-united-states Murders took place back in the "good old days" too. And even if the would be shooters were to hear that murder is ungodly, and/or unjust, as I'm sure they all had, at some point in their lives, human nature with it's base impulses would still remain the same. There is a good story which illustrates the existance of both yetzer ha ra (bad nature), and the yetzer ha tov (good nature) http://www.firstpeople.us/FP-Html-Legends/TwoWolves-Cherokee.html. So that's my commentary on this tragedy, seeming as just about every other person on Facebook has already posted something on it. P.S. Sometimes, as I well know, from on-line aquaintance, someone might react violently in adverse response to religious upbringing, which he deems to have been oppressive http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Colorado_YWAM_and_New_Life_shootings. So not all religions are positive. Some might actually be repressive, if not abusive, cults. But as long as persons have free will, and we all do, and there's no one who can completely suppress that, these sorts of things might continue to happen. For man has ill will at times, not just natural virtue. So we'll all just have to cope with it the best we can, and try to make the best of it."

  Now with that being said, I do respect the general right of the people collectively to bear arms, in defense of both life, and liberty. In regards to a perverbial future anarchic society, I like to imagine that the possession, and use of firearms will be confined to a citizen's militia. Sort of like what has been had in countries such as both present day Switzerland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland , and the former Czechoslavokia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Militias_(Czechoslovakia). I am of the opinion that as long as the guns are all registered,  it's owners liscenced, and/or authorised to possess them, and are operated safely, and away from all residential areas, the right to bear arms should not cause any undue amount of violent crime. Now I know that on one end, there will be anarcho-pacifists who might contend that all weapons are invalid, and that we should all just take the high road by not using violence for any purpose. There are actually anarchist based intentional communities, such as most notably "Christiania" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freetown_Christiania#The_community. And on the other end, there will be anarchists whom feel that there should be a recognised indivisual right to bear arms, without any preconditions. As to the former, while I respect the right to particular communities to make their own standards concerning conduct, in accordance with self determination, I myself advocate the principle of non-aggression, rather than non-resistance. I feel that the lives of good natured persons should be considered to be of more value than of any aggressive adversary that might attack. And in regards to the latter, would you seriously want to afford the same right to bear all manner of weapon to such ilk as neofascists, islamists, and/or dominionists? Because I sure don't. I feel that the common good, and defense, of the people should take precedence over the permissive liberties of various persons. But of course, indivisual intentional communities may rightly set their own standards in dealing with the issue of weapons possession, and use.

Affirmative Action is Being Challenged.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/world/asia/indias-rich-benefit-from-schools-affirmative-action.html Now here is a topic which might set off heated controversy. What happens when people of darker "varna" (colour) actually prosper over those who are lighter complected? I myself feel that it's a shame that there aren't enough places both educationally, and vocationally, for all meritous persons to have opportunity. And I can also see how a priveledged class might develope amongst those peoples who benefit from affirmative action, in the higher education. Like for instance, let's say that a lower caste student marries another student, whether or not the other student is of the same caste. Their children would be doubly favoured, in regards to admission to that colledge, both as a lower caste, and as a child of an alumnus. Where as higher caste, yet lower class, persons might have a harder time being accepted. Personally I feel that affirmative action was possibly developed in order to try to prevent the various peoples from joining together, on order to do away with the verry system which pits different races against each other, in a competitive rivalry. I feel that capitalism thrives on competition, not only between companies, but between castes. It favours aristocracy over meritocracy. And so therefore, in my opinion, is incompatible with democracy.

Young Anarchists Go To Trial Due to Possession of Books.

http://thesoundandnoise.com/2012/09/14/young-persons-called-to-private-grand-jury-for-owning-books/ I'd read of this issue, and addressed it, on my blog. http://libertariansocialist.blogspot.com/2012/08/police-go-on-fishing-expedition-based.html I think that it's a horrid shame that this has gone to trial. I also think that the federal government should specify whom the enemy is. During the Civil War, in which President Lincoln assumed emergency powers, such as suspension of habeas corpus, it was only applied against those deemed to be Confederates. Not abolitionists, of whom a number took part in John Brown's raid, and were in violation of the Fugative Slave Act, which was still in effect, at the time, and not even socialists, whether they be Marxian, or Fourierist. Anarchists have been a presence in American thought, from earliest times. Including men such as Josiah Warren http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josiah_Warren , Lysander Spooner http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysander_Spooner , and women such as Voltairine de Cleyre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltairine_de_Cleyre. After hearing of this, I will never let any police into my personal place of residence, not without a warrant anyway. I have "Understanding Power", by Noam Chomsky, and "The Radical Reader". I wonder if perhaps that deputy sheriff who came straight to my property, after someone reported hearing automatic gunfire, might have been hoping to have been permitted to look into my trailer, under the pretext of looking for weapons. Growing up, as an evangelical Christian, I was brought up to prepare myself for the event that a tyranical regime might come looking for Bibles, if the practice of the Christian religion were to become prohibited. But now that I've become a libertarian socialist, I might have to fear them coming after me due to my anarchist literature, and views. I never seriously imagined that the American authorities would ever abuse their power like this though. Not this blatantly, and not in my lifetime anyway.