Fascism must be smashed, not debated

Frank Frison, Holocaust survivor:

"If fascism could be defeated in debate, I assure you that it would never have happened, neither in Germany, nor in Italy, nor anywhere else. Those who recognised its threat at the time and tried to stop it were, I assume, also called "a mob". Regrettably too many "fair-minded" people didn't either try, or want to stop it, and, as I witnessed myself during the war, accommodated themselves when it took over. People who witnessed fascism at its height are dying out, but the ideology is still here, and its apologists are working hard at a comeback. Past experience should teach us that fascism must be stopped before it takes hold again of too many minds, and becomes useful once again to some powerful interests."

Adolf Hitler:

"Only one thing could have stopped our movement - if our adversaries had understood its principle and from the first day smashed with the utmost brutality the nucleus of our new movement."

“The real reason that non-violence is considered to be a virtue in Negroes…is that white men do not want their lives, their self-image, or their property threatened.”

— James Baldwin

Inner Life of the Cell

BEFORE THE LAW

Before the law sits a gatekeeper. To this gatekeeper comes a man from the country who asks to gain entry into the law. But the gatekeeper says that he cannot grant him entry at the moment. The man thinks about it and then asks if he will be allowed to come in sometime later on. “It is possible,” says the gatekeeper, “but not now.” The gate to the law stands open, as always, and the gatekeeper walks to the side, so the man bends over in order to see through the gate into the inside. When the gatekeeper notices that, he laughs and says: “If it tempts you so much, try going inside in spite of my prohibition. But take note. I am powerful. And I am only the lowliest gatekeeper. But from room to room stand gatekeepers, each more powerful than the last. I cannot endure even one glimpse of the third.” The man from the country has not expected such difficulties: the law should always be accessible for everyone, he thinks, but as he now looks more closely at the gatekeeper in his fur coat, at his large pointed nose and his long, thin, black Tartar’s beard, he decides that it would be better to wait until he gets permission to go inside. The gatekeeper gives him a stool and allows him to sit down at the side in front of the gate. There he sits for days and years. He makes many attempts to be let in, and he wears the gatekeeper out with his requests. The gatekeeper often interrogates him briefly, questioning him about his homeland and many other things, but they are indifferent questions, the kind great men put, and at the end he always tells him once more that he cannot let him inside yet. The man, who has equipped himself with many things for his journey, spends everything, no matter how valuable, to win over the gatekeeper. The latter takes it all but, as he does so, says, “I am taking this only so that you do not think you have failed to do anything.” During the many years the man observes the gatekeeper almost continuously. He forgets the other gatekeepers, and this first one seems to him the only obstacle for entry into the law. He curses the unlucky circumstance, in the first years thoughtlessly and out loud; later, as he grows old, he only mumbles to himself. He becomes childish and, since in the long years studying the gatekeeper he has also come to know the fleas in his fur collar, he even asks the fleas to help him persuade the gatekeeper. Finally his eyesight grows weak, and he does not know whether things are really darker around him or whether his eyes are merely deceiving him. But he recognizes now in the darkness an illumination which breaks inextinguishably out of the gateway to the law. Now he no longer has much time to live. Before his death he gathers up in his head all his experiences of the entire time into one question which he has not yet put to the gatekeeper. He waves to him, since he can no longer lift up his stiffening body. The gatekeeper has to bend way down to him, for the difference between them has changed considerably to the disadvantage of the man. “What do you want to know now?” asks the gatekeeper. “You are insatiable.” “Everyone strives after the law,” says the man, “so how is it that in these many years no one except me has requested entry?” The gatekeeper sees that the man is already dying and, in order to reach his diminishing sense of hearing, he shouts at him, “Here no one else can gain entry, since this entrance was assigned only to you. I’m going now to close it.”

- Franz Kafka

Employer wage theft vs other property crimes

How Employers Get Out of Paying Their Workers

Volcano Eruption in Papua New Guinea

Complete with a delayed shockwave:

Terence McKenna - Search For The Original Tree Of Knowledge, Workshop, 1992

US Drug Control Spending and Addiction Rate

Kowloon Walled City, Paragon of Unregulated Capitalism

Bіsеr: Whаt hаvе you sееn hаppеn from thаt formulа?

Schulzе: Wеll, thіs rеаlly pushеs thе worms out. І sее іf numbеr onе аnd numbеr two cаn brіng thеm out, but gаrlіc not only kіlls worms (а vеrmіfugе), іt аlso еxpеls thеm (а vеrmіcіdе).

          Blаck wаlnut іs fаmous for kіllіng pаrаsіtеs аnd іt doеs іt too - іf іt's а grеаt tіncturе. і'vе sееn pаtіеnts who do thе numbеr onе аnd thеn thе numbеr two аnd thе clovе of gаrlіc wіth еаch dosе, аnd, thе droppеrful of thіs hеrbаl formulа.Thеy'vе brought thеm іn, іn jаrs.

Bіsеr: Do thеy brіng іn cаnnіng jаrs?

Schulzе: Evеn bіggеr jаrs. І hаd onе pаtіеnt brіng mе іn onе worm thаt wаs аbout, my God, аs bіg аround аs my lіttlе fіngеr, аnd аbout 12 іnchеs long. іt lookеd lіkе а smаll snаkе. іt аbsolutеly frеаkеd еvеrybody out. і'vе nеvеr hаd аnybody, аftеr thіs routіnе, thаt hаd а problеm wіth pаrаsіtеs.

           It's not uncommon whеn you do thіs routіnе, іf you hаvе pаrаsіtеs, to gеt somе аbdomіnаl crаmpіng. Thе bowеl's rеаlly аctіvаtеd аnd І fіnd thаt somеtіmеs, whеn you hаvе pаrаsіtеs І don't know іf іt's whеn thеy hаng on or whеn thеy lеt go - but somеtіmеs, thе pеoplе thаt hаvе hаd, wе'll sаy, drаmаtіc pаrаsіtе rеlеаsеs, іt's bееn аlmost lіkе а rеctаl vomіt.

          I don't know how to sаy іt, but thеy wеnt "Oh", аnd thеy rаn іn аnd, you know, I mеаn а bowlful of pаrаsіtеs. So І thіnk thаt somе of thеsе worms hаvе thе аbіlіty to hook onto your іntеstіnеs аnd not lеt go.

--

Bіsеr: Whаt's thе worst pаrаsіtе story you еvеr rеmеmbеr?

Schulzе: Wеll, І thіnk іt's thаt fіrst mаn who hаd thе wholе two toіlеt bowls. Thаt onе frеаkеd mе out thе most bеcаusе of thе volumе.

Bіsеr: Dіd you sее thеm squіrmіng іn thе bowl?

Schulzе: Oh, yеs.

Bіsеr: Thеy wеrеn't dеаd?

Schulzе: No, аll thаt cаmе out wеrе pаrаsіtеs.

Bіsеr: Nothіng еlsе?

Schulzе: No. No, no, no. Whаt cаmе out - I'm lookіng аt my offіcе аnd tryіng to comе up wіth аn аnаlogy - іf you іmаgіnе а toіlеt bowl, from thе bottom, whеrе іt goеs аwаy up аbout 10 іnchеs?

          I'm goіng to sаy, а gаllon glаss jug full of pаrаsіtеs. іt wаs thе consіstеncy of, wе'll sаy, аpplеsаucе. іt wаs loosе аnd wеt, but іt wаs аll worms. But, thіs guy wеіghеd, probаbly 270 pounds.

DOGS FOR SALE / DOGS WANTED

The ultimate gangnam style

Seagull steals camera

Lеbаnоn, A Letter to North American Аnаrchists from Radical Веirut

From A-Infos:

It's also unfortunate that many of our comrades in the West have digested the patronizing tone of their imperial governments, and use it unconsciously with their comrades from the third world. Too many times, we found our comrades dictating with whom we should ally ourselves with, or how should we deal with our own causes like political Islаm, the Sуrian revolution, anti-government tactics, and radical environmental and feminist organizations.
We appreciate the feedback and the exchange, and we think it's desired and needed, but we feel that there are a lot of subtle expectations that we should become another version of you. And we don't want to. Being on the other end of the equation, the one that has been getting drone missiles, uranium depleted shells, and imperialism for decades, we can honestly tell you that whatever you tried, it didn't work well for us, and it seems it didn't work for you as well.

On the disingenuous simplifications of right-wing libertarians

What is "freedom"? What is "property"? What are "rights"? They define these terms to eliminate all but one possible conclusion, which makes it impossible for them to reason outside their narrow right-wing economic framework.

Let's start with property: by applying a single term to a variety of economic relationships, they conflate our natural and innate understanding of possession with the feudal concept of land titles. To claim that owning the shirt on your back is equivalent to a claim on the goods and services produced by those laboring on a plot of ground on which you never step foot is lunacy. The landed classical liberal philosophers in the 17th and 18th centuries recognized this definition as being particularly advantageous to them. Conceptually differentiating personal possessions from land and other capital which serves the needs of society only when operated in a cooperative fashion by multiple workers, is obvious to all but the most gluttonous materialist.

And rights? Does that include the right to deny others access to the means of obtaining food and shelter on the basis of your use of it as an investment? And how could it include the right to life while not recognizing the right to the basic necessities of survival? By defining rights selectively and conflating radically different uses of property, they establish an implicit set of rules that appears to create a moral justification for the hoarding of productive capital and resources on the part of a few while denying it to everyone else in society. And how about once one also then combines this particular type of property "right" with a labor market? Then they are in effect arguing for the right to exploit others, because those who lack productive property of their own must sell their labor to those who have it simply to survive, and receive as compensation less than the market value of the goods they produce.

And freedom for whom? In such a society where everything is owned, those with the most capital also have the most freedom. If you have nothing, then you have the freedom to starve, which is not any kind of freedom at all. And a society in which the vast majority of its members have no choice but to submit to the will of those who control access to the means of production is by every definition tyranny.

Adwaita, c. 1750 – 23 March 2006

Weighing 250 kg (590 lb), Adwaita was a bachelor with no records of his progeny. He lived on a diet of wheat bran, carrots, lettuce, soaked gram, bread, grass and salt. His shell cracked and a wound developed a few months before his death from liver failure in March 2006.

The age of Adwaita at his death is estimated to have been around 255 years. If confirmed, this would have made Adwaita the oldest known tortoise of modern times, living longer than Harriet by 80 years, and Tu'i Malila by 67 years.

Another response to a capitalist advocate calling himself an anarchist

I don't understand the association of anarchy with anti-capitalism. With no state, there would only be capitalism. Capitalism is simply trade of goods and services amongst voluntary parties.

You seem to be under the impression that markets and Capitalism are the same thing.

Let's start with your definition of Capitalism, which you claim is "simply trade of goods and services amongst voluntary parties.".

First, trading of goods occurs in all markets (which have existed for thousands of years). This is not unique to Capitalism.

Does Capitalism involve markets? Yes! So why then do we also use the word "Capitalism"? Wouldn't that be redundant?

Capitalism is a term first used by Proudhon to refer to a unique system of exploitation that arose during the industrial revolution, and that has subsequently become the dominant mode of production.

What makes Capitalism unique are two things:

1. The use of land and human labor as commodities, and the subsequent trade of them on markets.
2. Its recognition of private property (as distinct from personal property) entitling the owner of productive capital to the proceeds of the labor of others paid to operate it.

Second, while markets can be voluntary, the unique combination of private property with commodified labor (which is the heart of Capitalism), gives rise to a system of social relations in which a minority class owns most productive property, leaving the great majority no choice but to sell their own labor for access to that property in order to earn enough money to survive. Moreover, the existence of a surplus "workforce" of unskilled labor gives complete control to the employer to set the rate of compensation. The employer uses the profit he extracted from the workers (by paying them less than the value of the goods and services they produced) to accumulate even more productive property and continue the cycle.

Thus, because the alternative would be starvation, workers are not making a voluntary decision when they sell their labor.

Third, in order to create the concept of private property, pervasive and violent force is necessary to deny access to those who lack a title to it. How else could a majority of the world's population continue to exist with wage-slavery as their only option for survival?

So amusingly enough, what differentiates Capitalism from any other economic system involving markets is precisely the fact that it imposes involuntary decisions upon people, and in so doing requires, for all practical definitions, the existence of a coercive state.

The Cardiacs are Amazing

What Americans Keep Ignoring About Finland's School Success

From The Atlantic:

Since the 1980s, the main driver of Finnish education policy has been the idea that every child should have exactly the same opportunity to learn, regardless of family background, income, or geographic location. Education has been seen first and foremost not as a way to produce star performers, but as an instrument to even out social inequality.

In the Finnish view, as Sahlberg describes it, this means that schools should be healthy, safe environments for children. This starts with the basics. Finland offers all pupils free school meals, easy access to health care, psychological counseling, and individualized student guidance.