the ongoing distress of a non-violent anarchist in an unabashedly violent capitalist republic ...

not quite a year, but close. not that i give a fuck how much time passes between the bullshit i enter into this journal. i don't.

i have decided that, without debate, republicanism is second only to despotism in worst possible governments. of course, this is under the assumption that a monarchy can, at times, be called despotism. but outside of those times, it is a superior form of government to republicanism.

i don't really care to offer supporting evidence. so ... yeah, fuck off on that one. i can, though, ramble on about some of the natural faults of the republican system. the primary of said faults certainly being the illusion cast unto the citizens of the republic that they live in a democratic society, or even a society that aspires toward democracy.

think of it as such, votes in this nation are cast for one of two options, whether on measure or on public servant. there cannot be a democracy, by definition, if there are only two parties in power. such a notion stands as an assumption that all citizens fall within two groups. (other than by gender ... the separation by which would actually be far more democratic, for what it's worth. as if we simply voted by gender and not party, there would be a balance of power between the two and a far more representative diversity in each camp.)

i mean, if given only two choices, are you really fucking free?

not that i give a fuck about that shit either. i am not sure it is even wise to trust anyone who is not an anarchist, or a libertarian at least. that which stands between an intelligent man and anarchism is a general distrust of his fellow human beings. i make no attempt to see into the hearts and minds of women, but just note that i have noticed that trustable women are more often given to libertarianism than men of the same worth are.

this distrust of human beings, though, represents a profound and broad gap between our present society and a utopian society (or at least world peace on a realistic level). people believe that others are not trustable, and that laws and governments keep those people in place -- preventing them (to a certain extent) from committing crimes against the well being of others.

of course, if those people were simply wrong, as i assert, than i would imagine one might suggest there would be no crime. alas, this is a false suggestion ... and for that matter, the reason one should not trust someone who does not lean toward anarchism as a general philosophy. the problem is that those who do not trust others lack in trust because they know their own hearts.

fundamentally, i suppose i am asking how one can trust someone who does not trust them in return. of course, that doesn't fucking matter anyway.

i am just saying that it's hard to convince yourself that you live in a democratic society when you are forced to vote for cocksuckers who don't even trust you. you certainly can't convince yourself that you have representation in washington. and what the fuck do i care about washington either?

i am convinced, however, that it is best to just imagine that wherever you go is an autonomous collective with a democratically elected local governing body to maintain the infrastructure. at the same time, one must ignore all laws, and act only on one's moral intuition. at least, that seems to work for me as a way to pacify my own growing disillusionment.

what i am really saying here is that the government of the united states is a sick despotism, and the citizens of the republic are so void of critical thought that they can't even see it. and one doesn't really need to look beyond the prison system and statistics to find supporting evidence.

of course, one must also eventually accept that not everyone wants anarchism, and the cornerstone of anarchism demands that one not be forced into something they do not want. a simple but seemingly insurmountable obstacle.

and moreover, oft times one finds anarchists who do not aspire toward anarchism at all, but rather some sort of chaotic and unappealing general anarchy. where they think they would find popular support for such a notion is beyond me itself, still they soil the ideals of democracy, autonomy, and liberty.

i do, though, believe in an anarchism that can accept individualism and collectivism, as well as a reasonable notion of property ownership for rural people who have only known said property as a means to identify themselves. in that, i am saying that poor people in urban areas equate property ownership with the evils of society because they have never known property ownership. conversely, poor rural folk think of themselves in terms of the property that they own, and have been forced to spend most of their lives fighting off the advances of the authoritarian regime on that property.

certainly the concept of property rights has been the downfall of society, and is beyond any doubt the root of the violence that plagues our world. it is property taxes that pay for virtually all of the violence, except for the violence in pursuit of capital -- itself based on the notion that laws established to protect property serve the purpose of making lawlessness profitable and leaving virtue without value. violence is little more than a physical manifestation of capitalism, and will only intensify the further away society moves from its humanity.

i will find pictures later.

i toed the line, and the line won ...

there is certainly a delicate balance in the nature of government, at least one that i have never seemed to feel at ease with. and through this, i am always led back to my anarchism rather than a want to embrace socialism, though at the same time i am more at ease with the liberals than my fellow conservatives.

really, my problem with conservatives is the tax issue -- and it's really a fundamental issue. by virtue of my anarchistic roots, i fully believe that government should be as small as possible. in fact, i would suggest that any level of government is going to lead to a consistent balance in the favor of corruption over productivity (using some socratic logic, i call that balance 60/40 or closer).

but the motive has to be, honestly, less government and less that the corrupt can use to get their feet in the door of power in the united states. being that the united states is the most powerful nation in the world, it is essential that no one political aim should have power. this, though, is not the problem now. the problem now is an unholy alliance between warring factions. i do not believe that george bush and donald rumsfeld are from the same school of thought.

i am concerned that when conservatives have money, motives quickly evolve. one could, and should, argue that to have more is to fear your government more. certainly i have nothing, and fear my government not at all -- despite my distrust in the system at large. so in one sense, that argument would hold water. and to that extent, i do not doubt that the begotten child of conservative values and wealth has some conservativism left in it.

i am saying that i believe that mainstream conservatives would prefer to pay less taxes, and have the government protect their increased value to an increased degree. that would be getting your pussy and eating it too, and i can't help but want to salt that game.

ideally, we would want a system that allowed for power to center around the more naturally powerful individuals, and the residual powers be balanced evenly throughout society. in that, two weaker individuals would hold equal weight, and a more powerful individual would have both more responsibilities and a natural authority over them.

a natural authority is distinguished from other authorities in that it is not dictated by writ but rather assumed via common respect. in that, i am saying that to have a true authority, your jurisdiction must only encompass those who fully endorse the authority.

a natural power, therefore, is an authority that encompasses those who do not endorse it.

there are two significant reasons that i can think of for power to be centered around the naturally powerful ones, whom also receive the natural authority. the first of these reasons is in the mentality of those who possess natural power.

there is a common mentality among weaker individuals to try and gain power via intimidation. you see this most common in a smaller dog -- thus labeling it the "small dog" mentality -- in how it relates to the other mammals ... whom it fears. small dogs act in haste, with straw defenses, and without the means to enforce.

those who have had natural power all their lives are more comfortable with authority. they are far less likely to use it with the same tendencies as the small dogs.

the second reason is that if one wishes to challenge authority, the authority should have the natural power to enforce itself over the challengers. this is because the primary agreement between the governed and the government is physical protection.

that leads to the dilemma. if you first enter into this governing agreement, and you know full well that you will have a nearly 60/40 balance of corruption and productivity, then don't you have to endorse more authority, leading to more productivity, and causing more corruption until you have a payout in productivity that makes the corruption tolerable. the logic being that 6 dominating 4 is bad, 60 dominating 40 is less bad, and 60 million dominating 40 million is not so bad. the dilemma is an avoid/approach. approach ideal productivity and avoid an intolerable level of corruption.

that's a really complicated way of saying that if you give into the evil that is government, then shouldn't you get the most out of it as is practical? so ultimately, i would prefer no government, but any government should not be content until it has pleased all who endorse its authority.

i am not sure what i think of this, i am going to have to read over it tomorrow.

it could have been this simple ...

bush had always been called stupid. he knew that's what people said, and he knew he was a lot smarter than they thought. laura was all he really needed anyway. she was the one that saw him through the darkest times. fuck cheney. that fat bastard was using him to bring his fat bastard dreams to fruition.

george thought about everything for a second, as he rose from his uncomfortable (or too comfortable?) bed in the west wing, and looked down on laura's naked body. he knew he was still in love with her. and he knew that she wouldn't take this shit, if she were standing in his shoes.

he thought the leak had been the straw that broke the camel's back. sure, the war in iraq was his idea. but he knew he didn't need a lot to go to war. he was a simple man, sure, but he read the art of war, and understood the aggression of alphas. but he didn't really understand time.

time is so simple in theory. but something is lost in the translation from the watch to the real experience. dick cheney seemed to understand time. and george stood there thinking about how he thought dick was so right when he said that we had to invade iraq soon, as time would run out before the blink of an eye.

and he had to be right. bush stood there thinking that saddam was done for. the old man didn't have many bullets left in the gun, but he had one last trick. and that he would sit silent for years, maybe even beyond the sanctions (enacting trade agreements that would allow russia access to a lot of oil). but then, without warning, saddam would just blow his wad. and bush coudln't wait for that day to happen.

he remembered that day he told dick to just get it done. he knew in the back of his head that he had used the wrong language for a man with such a violent tendency. he knew that what was really bothering him was that guilt eating at the back of his heart -- that's why he was having these silly but romantic feelings of devotion for laura ... she never made him feel guilty.

he decided right then that he was just going to take the bull by the horns. his father had put together his administration, and that if he asked it of him, the old man would do the same again ... on a moment's notice.


bush called a meeting that morning. he said his good mornings to everyone, and then immediately asked who had leaked the wife's name. but no one answered. he then patiently explained how he thought that joe wilson was simply trying to hurt him, but that there was a line that should never had been crossed.

"we are americans," he said. "when we stop being americans, we have gone to far. and i just don't see anything american about surrendering the name of one of our own intelligence agents."

dick was the first to speak up. "the reporters had the woman's name." he didn't get much else out of his mouth.

"just shut the fuck up, dick. i am not in the mood to be lied too. now i want the name of the leaker in front of me now, or you are all fired." no one moved. bush sat there for what seemed like an eternity, just waiting to see if anyone on his staff had the stones to step forward, but he already knew the answer.

he picked up the phone, and asked his assistant to get his father on the line. he looked around the room, and no one seemed to move.

when his father came to the phone he said, "daddy, i am going to fire my entire staff. can you help me put a new one together." that was when someone cracked ... it was dick.

"it was scooter. it was a number of us. you wanted him burried. you can't be mad at us."

"you're right, i am not mad. but it's time i stepped up and did what was right ... what my wife would be proud of. you're fired dick. i want your resignation on my desk by five tonight. anyone here that leaked that woman's name, you're fired too. if you think you can get away with it, go ahead and try. but the second i see the evidence, you're gone. it's best to confess now. waiting will only make it worse."