Anarchy Is For Everyone

[dianna]

Released in 2000, as one of Crimethinc.’s first published books Days of War Nights of Love began Crimethinc.’s polished slick design, delivering its messages with a high contrast, organic, cut and paste style.

The chapters are organized in a fashion that don’t have to be read in sequential order to make sense, making it an attractive book to the non-reader. Topics are arranged alphabetically which places contrasting themes in the same chapter.



Days of War Nights of Love was a book that I found on a merch table at a hardcore show. I don’t remember how much I paid for it or what convinced me that I should buy it. After the last band had played as I left the hall, even before the sweat on my skin had dried I knew I had a treasure.

Flipping through the pages of my new book I found the validation and expansion of the ideas that were already bubbling in my mind. From shoplifting to dumpster diving, Crimethinc. explained anarchist perspectives on work, gender, and domestication (and so much more). Telling us that our uncompromising and unquenchable desire for freedom is the fuel for the revolution. And I ate that **** up; driving me from the comfort of aloof nihilism to an outspoken advocate for social criticism.

Days of War Nights of Love does have its problems and shouldn’t be read as the gospel. Although the book presents some radical ideas and critiques of todays mass culture it can quickly become a dangerous self affirming lifestyle package for the disenfranchised. Crimethinc.’s writings have been critiqued for being written for the ignorant middle class, but there’s more to these pages then just a manifesto for the bored suburban hooligan.

In the interest of accessibility Crimethinc has made all of the chapters of this book available online as a PDF form free of charge. Also an anarchist collective, audio anarchy, has recorded an audio version, found with other interesting anarchist audio texts for free download on their website. ∆

http://www.daysofwarnightsoflove.com


Raoul Vaneigem

[christian]

Posted by DeDukshyn (here)
I didn't clarify where I was talking about the creation of the concept of corporation, vs people setting up a corporation for use -- two separate things.

My entire point had nothing to do with whether or not people are behind these things - of course they are, my point is that a person driving a nearly impenetrable and nearly indestructible vehicle my be inclined to drive it far differently then a vehicle that is fully transparent and the operators can be held responsible, likewise a person hiding behind the mask of the corporation will make different decisions than he would for himself where he would have full accountability -- this in a sense creates two very different decision making motivations. My final point was that you have to draw a distinctions between people operating under protection of a corporation or other such entity, and those not - because their motivations for making decisions become not their own, but rather for the entity itself.

Certain situations cause people to act outside of moral decision making, not having retribution for action is one of them. In Anarchy, everyone is fully responsible for his actions.

Your point in favor of banning corporations is pretty much like arguing to ban guns. It's not practical and not feasible, in my opinion. How would you abolish corporations? You could only do it through an institution/corporation where people are not really held personally accountable. It doesn't add up. That's why the solution is to allow all forms of institutions that people agree on, I think, and work on ourselves while being vigilant and offering guidance.

In Anarchy, people are responsible for their direct actions, of course. But what about indirect effects of actions? That'll always be there, imagine people altering their environment and thus affecting others. Or when they organize institutions, and people will always do that, then you have something like abstract management decisions. It's hard to pinpoint accountability there.

[risveglio]

Posted by TargeT (here)

Posted by christian (here)


http://mises.org/

Although they often call it Libertarianism or the Austrian School of Economics.

To me it seems that libertarian-ism and Anarchists are nearly the same thing, in fact I can't think of an area where the two disagree.

There are a couple popular jokes among anarchists

What’s the difference between a libertarian and an minarchist? Six months.

What’s the difference between a minarchist and an anarchist? Six months.

[giovonni]

will share this here ...

Robert Anton Wilson - Politics and Conspiracy ...

"A remastered/noiseless version of "Politics and Conspiracy"
from the series "Robert Anton Wilson Explains Everything" ...

From Wikipedia ~ Who is Robert Anton Wilson

Published on Dec 13, 2013

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=yS6JixCEotU

[risveglio]

Posted by TargeT (here)

Posted by christian (here)


By the way, Stefan Molyneux, despite the interesting thoughts he comes up with at times, is super creepy when it comes to his take on family. He helped a lot of people to think for themselves, but he is also responsible for a lot of families breaking apart.

This is a quote from him:

"Deep down I do not believe that there are any really good parents out there - the same way that I do not believe there were any really good doctors in the 10th century."

More about Molyneux and his take on families is in this article from The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandst...fdr-defoo-cult

I've got to say, that's as clear a "hit piece" as I've ever seen....

Molyneux stays very true to his philosophy of voluntarism and relationships that are not forced (ie tax payer & the state, parents and children fall under that too). if you have another link, I'd read it but that one is really just character assassination centered on one story with a very biased writing perspective.

besides, this portion of your post is basically the logical fallacy "add Homenon" and I'm not really sure why you ignored the message & went after the messager.....


so... back to the topic!

I like a lot of what Molyneux says and especially love some of his videos; "Story of Your Enslavement" being a classic, but I would be interested on knowing more about him. There are some pages dedicated against Molyneux and FreeDomainRadio on some sites, including anarcho-capitalists sites. It has been hard for me to tell at this point if they are legitimate problems or if some kid is just pissed because his hot ex-girlfriend moved on after Molyneux made her realize she could do better.

[risveglio]

A little off topic but the below book is about the not so wild west and how most towns were successful with little or no government. Definitely a good read for Americans who mostly think the west was chaos.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0804748543/...I2Z4EQYSG4I0DE

[DeDukshyn]

Posted by christian (here)

Posted by DeDukshyn (here)
I didn't clarify where I was talking about the creation of the concept of corporation, vs people setting up a corporation for use -- two separate things.

My entire point had nothing to do with whether or not people are behind these things - of course they are, my point is that a person driving a nearly impenetrable and nearly indestructible vehicle my be inclined to drive it far differently then a vehicle that is fully transparent and the operators can be held responsible, likewise a person hiding behind the mask of the corporation will make different decisions than he would for himself where he would have full accountability -- this in a sense creates two very different decision making motivations. My final point was that you have to draw a distinctions between people operating under protection of a corporation or other such entity, and those not - because their motivations for making decisions become not their own, but rather for the entity itself.

Certain situations cause people to act outside of moral decision making, not having retribution for action is one of them. In Anarchy, everyone is fully responsible for his actions.

Your point in favor of banning corporations is pretty much like arguing to ban guns. It's not practical and not feasible, in my opinion. How would you abolish corporations? You could only do it through an institution/corporation where people are not really held personally accountable. It doesn't add up. That's why the solution is to allow all forms of institutions that people agree on, I think, and work on ourselves while being vigilant and offering guidance.

In Anarchy, people are responsible for their direct actions, of course. But what about indirect effects of actions? That'll always be there, imagine people altering their environment and thus affecting others. Or when they organize institutions, and people will always do that, then you have something like abstract management decisions. It's hard to pinpoint accountability there.

Silly, When someone shoots you with a gun you can't sue the gun. Not remotely the same. What if your only action legally allowed was to be able to sue the gun, while the trigger puller walks away? This is what corporations (as legally defined) allows to happen.

To fix the problem with a corporation is to abolish the "sole entity" concept and make each person who makes decisions in the company, responsible for those decisions. Suddenly, the business and economic landscape would become much more "moral" and "ethical", as people wouldn't be able to keep suing "guns" (corporations) instead of holding the perpetrators responsible.

[christian]

Posted by DeDukshyn (here)
When someone shoots you with a gun you can't sue the gun. Not remotely the same. What if your only action legally allowed was to be able to sue the gun, while the trigger puller walks away? This is what corporations (as legally defined) allows to happen.

People did sue gun makers. Without success though. Anyways, I meant that both weapons and corporations are instruments for people and that banning the instrument doesn't go to the root.

The problem that individuals in corporations are not accountable as they should be is due to our legal system, not due to the existence of corporations. The accountability of people within corporations could be handled differently.

Posted by DeDukshyn (here)
To fix the problem with a corporation is to abolish the "sole entity" concept and make each person who makes decisions in the company, responsible for those decisions. Suddenly, the business and economic landscape would become much more "moral" and "ethical", as people wouldn't be able to keep suing "guns" (corporations) instead of holding the perpetrators responsible.

Exactly. You wanna sue a corporation over something this corporation does? This should affect the people who are responsible for that particular thing that the corporation does. That's really just common sense, and it's not applied today because the legal system is corrupted.

[DeDukshyn]

Posted by christian (here)

Posted by DeDukshyn (here)
When someone shoots you with a gun you can't sue the gun. Not remotely the same. What if your only action legally allowed was to be able to sue the gun, while the trigger puller walks away? This is what corporations (as legally defined) allows to happen.

People did sue gun makers. Without success though. Anyways, I meant that both weapons and corporations are instruments for people and that banning the instrument doesn't go to the root.

The problem that individuals in corporations are not accountable as they should be is due to our legal system, not due to the existence of corporations. The accountability of people within corporations could be handled differently.

Posted by DeDukshyn (here)
To fix the problem with a corporation is to abolish the "sole entity" concept and make each person who makes decisions in the company, responsible for those decisions. Suddenly, the business and economic landscape would become much more "moral" and "ethical", as people wouldn't be able to keep suing "guns" (corporations) instead of holding the perpetrators responsible.

Exactly. You wanna sue a corporation over something this corporation does? This should affect the people who are responsible for that particular thing that the corporation does. That's really just common sense, and it's not applied today because the legal system is corrupted.

I think you see my main point now. I don't see guns as making people do bad things because unless in war (that's a different topic) the gun trigger puller is responsible at the time it shoots someone, with a corporation the "gun" is the one held responsible -- this causes the people directing the corporation to act in way he would otherwise not. Yes people are ultimately responsible for what happens as decision need to be made to make them happen, but when you take away that "responsibility" - it creates a situation where no one is responsible for resultant actions, thus changing the behaviour of the people. So there is a difference between those acting as a person and those acting as a gun - the latter which cannot be responsible for a crime.

Thus I felt a distinction was needed here in my original post on the topic. Not that you were wrong - but just that a distinction was needed.

[Zanshin]

Christian and De Dukshyn,

You are both addressing what I perceive to be the crux of the whole 'commercial redemption' movement.
We have the power to hold people accountable for their actions without the limited liability protection of their corporate role.

In a word - affidavits. Only a real wo/man can sign an affidavit and any of us can write one and have it witnessed.
The only way to rebut an affidavit is point for point, under unlimited commercial liability and penalty of perjury.

If a corporate employee receives an affidavit in their role as a corporate officer, will they rebut it for the boss on their own unlimited liability?
Can a corporation rebut an affidavit?

An unrebutted affidavit stands as truth in commerce evidencing the agreement between the parties. [failure to rebut means agreement]

That private agreement can then be used as evidence in the courts.

Speaking from experience, corporations and their employees (including govt. departments) never respond to affidavits (not sufficiently to count).
Using this agreement by non-response is where the remedy lies.

The people still hold the power.

[Delight]

I came across an article that was shockingly sad and I guess many have seen it. It regards a family isolated in the bush in OZ for 4 or more generations. They are retarded humans. The level of primitive devolved savagery is stark. The misfortune of the people looks raving mad.

There is absolutely no reason we should expect people without learning to be able to function. Humans do not have the animals capacity to do what they do to stay healthy. It is a price paid for "independent" capacity. Humans cannot "just go wild". We forgot wilderness tribal natural beingness to become individuals? I doubt anarchy would be an interest for birds.

Apparently without education of basic hygiene (and incest is unhygienic), humans suffer. Just look at how the casualty rate in the Crimea was so high before Florence Nightingale's team arrived? Look at how purpural fever killed mothers after delivery when doctors did not wash hands between patients? Too few germ exposures is also a neglect to challenge the immune system. Only intelligent people can afford anarchy IMO.

Anarchy cannot work without self responsibility and basic knowledge. The kind of anarchy that is happening in pockets is one where people know how to stay out of the way of "the artificial matrix" and use Universal law to effect the present through the mind/heart/intention etc. practices we have seen all around.

I feel I had a taste of anarchy at it's best when I was in my late teens to late 20's. It was a GREAT time in Atlanta in that we had public transportation and the rents were low, scool costs were low. I am lucky.

A group of us were living anarchically by not having "teachers< authority figures , rules". We kind of just were able to cooperate? Not city wide or even neighborhood anarchy, It was personal Free behavior. We just went our way under the radar. It worked for us. Now it might take more funding as money seemed less a concern? We were all quite broke until some got "real jobs" such as nursing, teaching, social work.

In retrospect, we each assumed we would have jobs and we always were doing some kind of work. There was a value for participation in community activities (one friend was a voluntyeer in a Mennonite social service like Vista or the Peace Corps). We were neither outrageous or sedate. We as a group of friends "lived the way we wanted" and did all the sex, music, drugs etc. of that late 70's early 80's time.

Our life style was based in certain hygeines...like we knew about Birth Control, about cleanliness, about eating well. We did not rip people off. We did not sabotage one another. That was a legacy of growing in "good enough" families so we were workable in relationships and we were all into learning, study, creativity, being "contributive".

No one I know personally has ever been in jail, beat up by police, hounded by agencies, harassed or ANYTHING. Some are inventors. I am sure this is no accident. We grew up knowing how to use the laws that we never called laws. it was just an unspoken sense of I am responsible and I will be left alone when I insist. Just don't go looking for fights. They come if you request the strife out of rage fear and defense. I love this factor.

My boyfriend was from Greece where he had butted heads in a Junta and was in house arrest for 5 years. He had a "socialist" philosophy when I knew him that was anarchistic. It had to do with consideration and consciousness. Maybe it was because we were all interested in metaphysics too that the "experiment" in anarchy worked.

My long time friends are still doing their life just fine, being self sufficient (no welfare) and being smart and having friendship supports. My latest close confidants all KNOW that we cannot expect to have something in the physical BEFORE we have it in the INvisible.

I notice the story from Australia and feel sad at the ignorance so well demonstrated. Neglect and ignorance is stupid, nasty, ugly and unnecessary IMO. The Australian family may become a poster family for the need for stricter social monitoring? I hope NOT.

However, If people do not have a useful "structure" for health and humane actions and are set loose from knowledge of reality and an ethic based on reasonable principles, they may end up being barbaric. (two favorite words combined becomes the HYGIENE OF ANARCHY).

[panopticon]

Posted by Delight (here)
I came across an article that was shockingly sad and I guess many have seen it. It regards a family isolated in the bush in OZ for 4 or more generations. They are retarded humans. The level of primitive devolved savagery is stark. The misfortune of the people looks raving mad.

There is absolutely no reason we should expect people without learning to be able to function. Humans do not have the animals capacity to do what they do to stay healthy. It is a price paid for "independent" capacity. Humans cannot "just go wild". We forgot wilderness tribal natural beingness to become individuals? I doubt anarchy would be an interest for birds.

Apparently without education of basic hygiene (and incest is unhygienic), humans suffer. Just look at how the casualty rate in the Crimea was so high before Florence Nightingale's team arrived? Look at how purpural fever killed mothers after delivery when doctors did not wash hands between patients? Too few germ exposures is also a neglect to challenge the immune system. Only intelligent people can afford anarchy IMO.

Anarchy cannot work without self responsibility and basic knowledge. The kind of anarchy that is happening in pockets is one where people know how to stay out of the way of "the artificial matrix" and use Universal law to effect the present through the mind/heart/intention etc. practices we have seen all around.

I feel I had a taste of anarchy at it's best when I was in my late teens to late 20's. It was a GREAT time in Atlanta in that we had public transportation and the rents were low, scool costs were low. I am lucky.

A group of us were living anarchically by not having "teachers< authority figures , rules". We kind of just were able to cooperate? Not city wide or even neighborhood anarchy, It was personal Free behavior. We just went our way under the radar. It worked for us. Now it might take more funding as money seemed less a concern? We were all quite broke until some got "real jobs" such as nursing, teaching, social work.

In retrospect, we each assumed we would have jobs and we always were doing some kind of work. There was a value for participation in community activities (one friend was a voluntyeer in a Mennonite social service like Vista or the Peace Corps). We were neither outrageous or sedate. We as a group of friends "lived the way we wanted" and did all the sex, music, drugs etc. of that late 70's early 80's time.

Our life style was based in certain hygeines...like we knew about Birth Control, about cleanliness, about eating well. We did not rip people off. We did not sabotage one another. That was a legacy of growing in "good enough" families so we were workable in relationships and we were all into learning, study, creativity, being "contributive".

No one I know personally has ever been in jail, beat up by police, hounded by agencies, harassed or ANYTHING. Some are inventors. I am sure this is no accident. We grew up knowing how to use the laws that we never called laws. it was just an unspoken sense of I am responsible and I will be left alone when I insist. Just don't go looking for fights. They come if you request the strife out of rage fear and defense. I love this factor.

My boyfriend was from Greece where he had butted heads in a Junta and was in house arrest for 5 years. He had a "socialist" philosophy when I knew him that was anarchistic. It had to do with consideration and consciousness. Maybe it was because we were all interested in metaphysics too that the "experiment" in anarchy worked.

My long time friends are still doing their life just fine, being self sufficient (no welfare) and being smart and having friendship supports. My latest close confidants all KNOW that we cannot expect to have something in the physical BEFORE we have it in the INvisible.

I notice the story from Australia and feel sad at the ignorance so well demonstrated. Neglect and ignorance is stupid, nasty, ugly and unnecessary IMO. The Australian family may become a poster family for the need for stricter social monitoring? I hope NOT.

However, If people do not have a useful "structure" for health and humane actions and are set loose from knowledge of reality and an ethic based on reasonable principles, they may end up being barbaric. (two favorite words combined becomes the HYGIENE OF ANARCHY).

Thank you Delight.

Your personal story was very interesting and I personally commend your spirit.

It might surprise you but I agree that these are things that many people who talk about "change" either ignore or gloss over.

Just to clear up a couple of things though, this extended family group (3 generations from what I've read) were not isolated.

They had neighbours who reported that they heard nothing untoward (though reported that were surprised they hadn't heard the sounds of children playing/laughing).

It was a wilful act on behalf of the adults to deliberately avoid examination.

When the adults sensed they were about to be investigated by the State based Department of Family and Community Services they would shift State.

The males appear, from what I've read, to have all been working (some for the local council) and while the children were both physically and emotionally abused (most, if not all, were sexually abused), living in squalor, suffering from malnutrition and with some being reported as cognitively impaired, I haven't come across any reference to them being at a 'level of primitive devolved savagery'.

A duty of care was undertaken by a number of people from the public (eg. bus driver, teachers), in reporting to the appropriate officials, and it is represented as being a lack of response to these concerns/reports submitted to the FaCS which permitted it to continue.

Not only were the children victims but the adults were too. They had been bought up in this environment and they had all been abused when they were children.

It is a multigenerational failure to protect the weakest members of society which has led to this tragedy.

It is a story of power and control being transferred between generations and instilled as appropriate behaviour.

Truly an appalling situation for those involved and in this instance I view them all as victims (I assume the Grandfather was also abused in New Zealand).

For those interested in the Australian references here are the articles I'd read on it:
Children removed after generations of incest
Secluded hills hid a family's darkest secret

If this is a different story to the one you're referring to Delight (I hope not!) please point to the right one.

-- Pan

[panopticon]

Posted by TargeT (here)
the funny thing to me is this: we don't need riots, protests, "occupy"; we need no social movements at all really... we just need to DO it, we may need an education campaign or two to get everyone on the same page, we definitely need to be un-indoctrinated (even those of us participating on this forum). This change could happen very quickly, I think the gradual approach will cause a lot of issues for the first 99 monkeys, but once the barrier is breached its amazing how quickly acceptance follows.

G'day Target,

I view that it is the social movements that bring things into the mainstream.
They bring it into the consciousness of the population.
The concept of the 1% is now firmly entrenched within the Western world and it will take years of media re-indoctrination for that to be overcome by them.
Social movements point to the questions, they ask "Why is this happening?".
It's not necessarily their purpose to offer up solutions (the Occupy Movement is a good example of this).
This is how people learn certain things and (yeah, I know someone going to be a smart arse here) how the discourses that surround us and work through us change.

There are many levels and layers to how money, control and power operates and I think social movements are a key tool at our disposal on a very unlevel playing field.

It's certain change will occur. On that we can all be definite.

Just what sort of change will it be?

-- Pan

[panopticon]

Posted by christian (here)

Posted by panopticon (here)
My view of implementation revolves around decentralised "communities" [. . .]

I see! I like what you describe. If I were to categorize it, I'd say this is one way to organize a "community." The guys I quoted were looking more at how to organize it all on a massive scale. Of course, they don't address too much of the transition process. In that process, communities that experiment with different models such as the ones that you describe pave the way, I think. In reality, you'd always have communities with different practices.

Exactly! That's the joy of it all.

There are way to many people who think on the macro, who say "this is how it will be" and not very many who say "I don't know what it will look like in the end exactly but this is how I reckon we might start".

I view it all as an organic process with certain things being adopted and others rejected. An evolutionary process in a way. Though not wanting to label or restrict it maybe I shouldn't have said that!

I know there's a long way to go. I know the path will be hard.

That's why I base my ideas for a transition process within nature.

I view the "community" as a guild (as used in Permaculture) and the economic/political/interactive processes as zones (for example the wider population that interacts regularly with the community being classified as zone 3, the casual interaction with the community as zone 4 and the non-interactive elements as zone 5).

I came to Anarchy from Permaculture over a quarter Century ago and was greatly influenced on this journey by many writers. One of the most influential, strange as it may sound, was Einstein. His article 'Why Socialism?' got me on the path and from there I found common ground with Permaculture that led to Social Anarchism. Einstein's article is available here.

Just to add. The questions asked at the end of Einstein's article were the ones that sent me on my journey:

• How is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening?
• How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?

-- Pan

[dianna]

You’re Barred: Cocktail barman attempts citizen’s arrest on Tony Blair in London

21st Century Wire says…

In these troubled times, a ‘feel good’ story like this is most welcome, especially when it features Tony Blair. This cocktail barman deserves a Nobel Peace Prize, but only after a round of drinks – on us…

What began as an ordinary Friday night for a barman at an upscale London steakhouse ended on a more dramatic note after former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair entered the establishment.

Twiggy Garcia, a barman at London’s trendy Tramshed, apparently thinks about much more than just mixing cocktails.

Ever since visiting a website devoted to arresting Blair, Garcia said he has “fantasized” about making a citizen’s arrest against the former premier for “crimes against peace” in Iraq.

“I had been waiting for the opportunity after seeing the website arrestblair.org, and it just so happened we were in the same place at the same time,” Garcia explained to the Independent, a British daily. “I believe Blair is responsible for the mass murder of Iraqi civilians after taking our country into an illegal war.”

The website offers a reward of 8,500 pounds to anyone who can “arrest” Blair.

Garcia explained how his “heart rate increased” when he learned of Blair’s “eerie presence” in the restaurant, before he saw his opportunity to arrest the former Labour leader.

“[Blair] was sitting at the head of a table upstairs with about eight other people eating dinner. I think he was out with his family and a few friends,” Garcia said. “I went over to him, put my hand on his shoulder and said, ‘Mr. Blair, this is a citizen’s arrest for a crime against peace, namely your decision to launch an unprovoked war against Iraq. I am inviting you to accompany me to a police station to answer the charge.’”

Blair, 60, who earned the nickname ‘Teflon Tony’ for his uncanny ability to deflect criticism, performed some verbal gymnastics on the bartender as he twisted the discussion to the situation in Syria, where a years-long civil war continues unabated.

Garcia said Blair “kept changing the subject and talking about Syria” before advising him, “I think you should be more concerned about Syria.”

“I didn’t expect him to start debating with me. I think he actually believed the lies that were coming out of his mouth.”

At this point, Garcia realized the debate was coming to an end when one of Blair’s sons “went to get the plain-clothes security from downstairs.”

“I decided to get out of there sharpish... I quit my job there and then,” Garcia explained.

A spokesman for the former PM told the Independent, “There is nothing to report here apart from the fact that Mr. Blair did offer to discuss the issue. That offer was declined and the individual walked off. Nothing else happened. Everyone is fine and they had a great time.”

Twiggy Garcia is the fifth person to have made an attempt to arrest Tony Blair, who is now serving as a Middle East peace envoy.

“It will keep people from forgetting he is a war criminal,” the bartender said, explaining his motivation to attempt a citizen's arrest on the British statesman. “I hope one day he faces his charges in The Hague. People seem to think those laws only apply to Nazis and African warlords.”

Tony Blair continues to be hounded publicly by activists who say he is to blame for the hundreds of thousands of deaths caused by the war in Iraq, which is still suffering violence today following a nearly nine-year military operation begun by the US military in March 2003.

Critics of Blair’s decision to join the United States in the military campaign against Iraq point to the so-called Downing Street Memo, a record of a meeting in July 2002 between British intelligence and the office of Tony Blair that some say is the 'smoking gun' that proves the former premier followed Washington into war despite bad intelligence.

The memo, quoting Sir Richard Dearlove, director of the UK’s foreign intelligence, revealed that Bush wanted to remove Saddam Hussein, through military force, “justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD.”

However, “intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”

Then-Foreign Secretary Jack Straw informed Blair that “the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.” Straw then suggested that “we should work up a plan” to produce “legal justification for the use of force.”

Today, one of the many tragic consequences of the war in Iraq, which has transformed into a sectarian battle between Shia and Sunni militants, not to mention outside terrorist forces with ties to Al-Qaeda, has been an unstoppable wave of violence that continues to leave thousands of innocent victims in its wake.

Twiggy Garcia (photo, above), a barman at London’s Tramshed Steak House, interrupted the ex-PM Blair during his meal and asked him to come down to the local police station to answer to accusations of international war crimes. The citizen’s arrest was made, but Blair refused to go to the police station. Rather predictably, the highly unpopular spineless politician proceeded to do what he does best – to slither his way out of discussing the issue directly, while pressing the panic button for his private security to come bail him out of a nervous situation.

It was a bold move by the young barman. Knowing his employer might be in hot water, and that he’d probably be asked to resign, barman Garcia quit his job that night. Impressive, to say the least.

http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/01/2...air-in-london/

[dianna]

The People's Voice: Twiggy Garcia Interview -- Tony Blair Citizen Arrest

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=ghiVfL6LfTU

[ExomatrixTV]

• Michael Malice: Totalitarianism and Anarchy | Lex Fridman Podcas:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=R5rNoV1Qy_Q

• Emma Goldman - Anarchism:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=REdoXJkB6Tw

For nearly half a century, Russian emigrant Emma Goldman was the most controversial woman in America, taunting the mainstream with her fervent attacks on government, big business, and war. To the tabloids, she was "Red Emma, queen of the anarchists," but many admired Goldman for her defense of labor rights, women's emancipation, birth control, and free speech. Learn more about EMMA GOLDMAN including where to watch the full film here.

[ExomatrixTV]

• Michael Malice Explains Anarchy To The Jimmy Dore Show:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=VCfxxIElmZM

Podcaster, author and agent provocateur Michael Malice recently appeared on The Jimmy Dore Show to discuss his dedication to anarchism, the two-party system, the breakup of the Soviet Union and the comparative ways propaganda is disseminated through a population in totalitarian vs democratic states. Jimmy and Americans’ Comedian Kurt Metzger engaged in a wide-ranging conversation with Malice touching on all these topics and more.

[ExomatrixTV]

• Why You Should Take The White Pill - Michael Malice | Modern Wisdom Podcast 575

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=z0SNYGIc5vM

"The complexity of the truth is inconvenient for both sides."

Michael Malice is an author, political commentator & podcaster. The 1900s saw some of the worst atrocities in human history. Evil was abound and the bad guys were on top a lot, with the Soviet Union being one of the most brutal examples. Given this, what reason do we have for hope in the modern world? Expect to learn just how brutal the Soviet jails and gulags were, the torture methods used to extract confessions, how the Western Press were complicit in covering up Russian crimes, the incredible heroism and ingenuity used by people to get through the Berlin wall, why the bad guys don't have to win, Michael's justification for there always being hope and much more...

• 00:00 Intro
• 02:13 Do the Public Know Anything About the Cold War?
• 07:20 Michael’s Message of Hope
• 12:35 Why is Cynicism So Prevalent in Society?
• 19:02 Why Ayn Rand’s Speech is Important
• 24:39 The Inability to Foresee Consequences of Communism
• 32:12 Political Philosophy at the Start of the 20th Century
• 39:53 Fundamental Philosophy of the Soviet Union
• 41:50 The dark side of Scientism & Technocracy
• 52:40 Marxism’s Goal of Global Communism
• 1:00:57 The Most Brutal Aspects of the Soviet Union
• 1:08:46 Who Was Walter Duranty?
• 1:13:07 Soviet Tactics to Arrest Innocent People
• 1:22:03 Soviet Methods of Torture
• 1:33:10 The Importance of the Berlin Wall
• 1:40:42 Reasons for Hope
• 1:53:09 Our Present Fight Against Evil
• 1:53:21 the moment a book gets summarised
• 2:02:47 Michael’s Experience of Writing the Book