Saturday, November 27, 2010


There's a proposal afoot to establish December 6 as a sort of 'World Anarchist Unity Day'. The day, of course, is that on which Athenian police murdered Alexis Grigoropoulos, setting off the weeks of rebellion in Greece in 2008. I don't know how well this will fly, but here is the proposal nonetheless.

Time Monday, December 6 · 12:00am - 11:30pm



More Info
JOIN THE ANTINATIONAL DEMO FOR ANARCHIST UNITY WITHOUT BORDERS!organise a local demo for global anarchist union!please spread and share ANARKIA 2010 on 6 DECEMBER 2010


Anonymous said...

Thank you so much for trying to bring order to the world of anarchy. Unordered anarchy will just never do.

kursk said...

I have a co-worker who is an anarchist.

I asked him once what he'll do when they achieve their aims and the world's order breaks down and there is chaos.

With no constraints,politically or civilly, what is to stop someone from taking their frustrations out on you?

I know plenty of people who, if placed in that scenario, would target the perpetrators of their misery.

Something to think about.

The Phantom said...

Since even monkeys have a social order, I'd say anarchy is pretty much doomed as a human social movement. It might work ok for lizards, or possibly badgers.

Incidentally, the closest one can get to actual anarchy without all the killing and starvation is Capitalism.

Ironic, yes?

"Anarchist" is just another label useful idiot university students have miss-appropriated for centrally planned statism. Not surprising, its all they know about after all.

Anonymous said...

OK, anarchy. So, how do we get all the leftist-Democrat-Labour-IslamoFascist busybodies to leave us alone to be anarchic? If you can figure that out, then maybe I'm in.

Indiana said...

IslamoFascist? do you even know what anarchism is? fuck your aryan race blood, holding it above muslims.

mollymew said...

Perhaps it's about time to bring a little coherance to this discussion, if discussion it is. Over the past two days I have received close to (or over) 1500 hits from a Canadian right wing site called 'Small Dead Animals'. This happens occasionally when SDA makes a snarky remark about this blog, and perhaps I should appreciate it as it exposes a large number of people to what anarchism actually is who would never see such a thing if they rely on the sources that SDA favours.

OF COURSE anarchism is NOT about disorganization, and "everything goes". The reader can see this very plainly from everything !!!! that is ever posted on this blog. I really dowonder if the editor of SDA actually believes her own horseshit. She refers to a "dictionary definition" of anarchism that gives ONLY one of about 10 different definitions. Her bitch is that anarchism is "leftist"

I hate to break somebody's bubble, but anarchism, in its majority (98%) definition has ALWAYS been a form af socialism, but definitely a socialism of a different type, not one that assumes state control but rather cooperative enterprise. It is NEITHER a synonom for disorder nor one for vague leftism.

Perhaps SDA won't bother to read what is written here at Molly's Blog. I don't expect her to. After all her ideal is the American conservative movement where ignorance is considered a virtue. If SDA bothered to do that she would find more than enough criticisms of the left here, criticisms that are not couched in National Post type quips.

If I were to draw a parallel I would say that I am reminded of some of the more stupid of my own "comrades". In any case thanks SDA. Maybe you have lost a few adherants by this trick.

Steven said...

Could you please give us the 10 definitions of anarchy that you spoke of?

mollymew said...

Stop being silly Steven, I typed in "define anarchy" on google and got not 10 but 15 !!!!!definitions. Keep on going and I's sure you could get 50. No...the way the word is used amongast various populkations says nothing !!!!!!!! about what the anarchist movement actually is. No points for conservtaives here.

The Phantom said...

Well Molly, historically "anarchists" have been against any form of regimentation or organization, particularly centrally planned socialism.

That's what the word means: no king. As opposed to monarchy, one king.

So you do not appear to be using the word to mean what it actually means. You're saying "carrot" when what you actually mean is "shoe lace".

Hence the confusion. Words mean things. To some of us, anyway.

If what you're supporting is Communism or some other kind of centrally planned utopia why not just say so?

Myself, I'm all for individual sovereignty, economic and religious freedom, a small weak government, a strong currency, personal responsibility etc. "Anarchy" basically. No Big Boss, just us folks gittin' 'er done.

That's probably why you called me a "Conservative", right? Carburetor = spaghetti.

Maybe you should define your terms, eh? Just a thought.

mollymew said...

Oh My God Phantom,
There3 has been a thing called the "anarchist movement" over the course of over 150 years. It has, in its anarcho-syndicalist forms embraced tens of millions of poeple. Let me repeat this...tens of millions !!!! who have definitely NOT been "against organization" but very much for its for the goals of libertarian socialism. Even in the modern world the Spanish CGt, with up to 100,00 members and representing up to 2 million Spaniards in union elections could hardly be said to be "against organization". Whatever you may think the real anarchist movement which has existed for all this time is something other than what you would like to define it as and nom repetition of rhetoric will mkake it otherwise.
"an-anarchy" actually means "no rule", nothing whatsoever to do with a king. It says that ordinary people can determine their lives democratically WITHOUT rulers or, in our modern world, managers.

Words actually DO mean something, and their meanings are NOT determined by what some ideological sect (such as conservatives) would like them to mean. You CANNOT, though I am sure that you will try, to wave away what anarchism has meant to its tens of millions of adherants over the years. It is very !! much about organization. It is also , as you mentioned, very much against state socialism. It is also against the mirror image of Stalinism, private enterprise, that I think you think is so great. It is against all undemocratic rule whether so-called socialist or the type that you favour. In the end it is what socialism originally meant before it was perverted by statism.

You are, of course, utterly ignorant of the history of anarchism, and thus you think that repeating the way that the word is used in your social circles equals a "definition". Sorry...but as I have have pointed out above there are tens of millions of people who held to the REAL definition and still do today.

mollymew said...

Seeing as "limited government" is a great goal of some of those who are visiting this blog recently let's set out a few limitations on governement that they may or may not agree with:
1)ABSOLUTELY no troops sent to foreign countries to muder people there for the sake of the American Empire.
2)ABSOLUTELY no restrictions on immigration.
3)ABSOLUTELY no more corporate welfare/subsidies nor any "tax incentives" for the upper classes.
4)ABSOLUTELY no more tarrifs on private citizens bringing goods into the country.
5)ABSOLUTELY an end to laws about victimless crimes such as drug crimes or prostitution and thereby a reduction (limited government !!!!!) in the police forces and prison systems of the country, especially as "unsuccessful organized crime" (as opposed to corporattions and government that are successful organized crime) will lose the majority of their profits.
6)REDCUCTION of the average MP's salary to that of the average Canadian, along with a mechanism for recall.
7)ALL corporate donations to political parties like the Conservatives and the Liberals should no longer be tax deductibe but should be required to be matched by a double debit on taxes owed.
8)Severe restriction on what information police forces can gather on private citizens.
9)An end to the subsidy of religion in Canada by making church revenues and property taxable.

I could add to these items, but they show very plainly how little those who speak about "limited government" really believe in what they say.

Anonymous said...

I can go along with #6.

Anonymous said...

Seriously? That's a serious list? Really??

Oh, and you said:

"Even in the modern world the Spanish CGt, with up to 100,00 members and representing up to 2 million Spaniards in union elections could hardly be said to be "against organization"."

Isn't Spain bankrupt??

mollymew said...

It feels like I'm trying to explain things to children. The list is actually a "test list" to see how many items that are actually real and true reductions of government power are things that conservatives agree with. I could have added many others such as a serious reduction in the powers of the courts to impose injunctions on labour unions during labour disputes.
The list would likely be endless beacuse very few conservatives are actually either classical liberals or so called "paleo-cons", both of which actually DO hold to a realreduction of state power. In the end conservatives are usually very much in favour of increasing the power of the state. It's just that they have other pigs to feed than what their opponents want. It is NO WONDER that so-called fiscally conservative governments when they come to power have an almost INEVITABLE tendency to magnify deficits beyond all measure.
As to Spain are you actually suggesting that that country's financial troubles are due to the number of anarchists there ? Maybe, just maybe, unrestricted financial power - the sort that conservatives worship- that ganbled and lost might have just a teensy, itsy bit of an influence on not just Spain but on most countries of the world who were caught up in the crisis.
In any case I guess I'll have to put up another brief statement on this blog about what anarchism is and is not, given the massive incomprehension I have seen here, some of it quite pigheaded in its determination to try and apply "definitions" that are simply NOT applicable to what anarchism has always been.
That's for later. Have fun in Ottawa.

Scrib said...

Apologies for the double post.

Scrib said...

(I'm hoping this will post right this time)

1) And then what? The problem with Afghanistan is complex, and so long as we do not interdict everyone coming from that region (which would be true disengagement) we have a vested interest in keeping our brand in the fire there.

2) A good way to turn your society into something else. Like democracies in places that WANT a king/dictator might get one election, but rarely two.

3) In agreement. Just so long as you also get rid of most taxes on most anyone. I wouldn't mind the Hong Kong tax model when you get down to it.

4) Really? What constitutes a private citizen versus a private citizen working as an agent for a corporation? Just how much stuff can I import before being hit with a tariff?

5) So long as we also confer full intent on the part of the user to any accidents while intoxicated (on anything, including alcohol). No more manslaughter charges if you run over that lady and her toddler while drunk or high. Full first degree murder charges if you try to run/evade, second degree if you don't. With prostitution -- find me a good way to stop human trafficking and I'll give you that (hint: legalizing prostitution is not a good way in practice, although it looks it on paper).

6) The problem with elected officials is that they have power, and end up seeking more of it for it's own sake, regardless if the end goal is personal/family enrichment or ideology. Most elected positions could easily be handled by taking random citizens off the street, running them through a series of aptitude tests, and plugging in the best scorers.

7) All donations, period, should no longer be tax deductible. Considering how much the Red Cross ends up paying its admin staff, it's a scandal we still allow it. Besides, plenty of charities out there that end up working against the interests of the government and/or the country -- why should they be enriched for it?

8) Agreed, although I believe that soon enough our society will be in a situation where the current average level of public information about someone will raise more red flags than anything else.

9) Agreed in principle. Abolish property taxes. And inheritance taxes. In fact, all land/wealth transfer taxes (if I want to gift someone my money, why do they have to pay back part of my gift to the government?)

mollymew said...

Scrib...that you for what may perhaps the only coherant thought out reply in all the ones that I have received. Whenever I hear from the "conservative fringe" I get the eerie feeling that I am listening to some of the stupidest of my own comrades from the USA with the names of the enemies changed but the logic (or lack thereof) exactly the same. It's the same reason that the editorial content of the National Post irritates me. It reads like nothing more than a "baby leftist" university paper, once more merely with the names of the enemies switched.
Conservatives don't have to be stupid, and I thank you for demonstrating it. If I were to "type" you I'd say you were a conservative with mild to moderate libertarian sympathies. Yet even you "fail the test" in terms of your answers, well thought out as they are, if they are a measure of actually how much you think state power SHOULD be reduced. I think you would admit that a lot of other conservatives fail such a test in a much more serious way than you do.
The main difference between the "libertarians" that you have sympathy for and "libertarian socialists" is very much what bricks to take out of the statist wall and in what order. Given different sets of priorities it is little wonder that we often choose different allies, some in both cases that are quite regugnant.
I'll try and answer your points more fully, but I still think is is coming time that I put up yet another simple statement here at this blog.So more later. Don't worry about the double posting. It worked in time one, but blogger bounced it over to spam because of repitition. I, therefore, bounced it right back.

mollymew said...

As I said your reply was one of the few intelligent ones I received on this matter so you deserve some answers beyond the general scrib I intend to post. So on to point 1...Afghanistan.
It's hard to see why you should be in favour of the biggest effort of big government in this case, ie sending mercenaries to fight another country's wars for whatever the goals of that other country may be. Whatever they are...trying to have a peaceable path for a pipeline for Central Asian oil to counter Chinese interests, acting "as if" this war has something to do with preventing terrorism for the domestic opinion in the USA is perhaps irrelevant.
There are two simple facts that you ignore if you think the war has something to do with preventing terrorism and that we should therefore stick around until the US realizes defeat and declares victory and gets out. my knowledge there has NEVER BEEN A SINGLE PERPETRATOR OF TERRORISM IN THE WESTERN WORLD WHO WAS AN AFGHANI NATIONAL. That's right !!! Not a single one. I don't know about Russia with the same degree of certainty, but I suspect it is the same there. Better places to "have ones' irons in" would be where these people actually come from ie Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Pakistan and many western European countries (and the USA and Canada of course). Of course the American Empire simply doesn't have enough "irons" to even effectively suppress nationalist sentiment in Afghanistan let alone deal in a bully fashion with where the terrorists actually come from. As to "training" of the terrorists pretty well all of this is done in Yemen and Pakistan, and the governments of BOTH countries are rather loathe to sacrifice their own existence for whatever the American interests are, whether these be oil or American public opinion.

Here's the question. Does bombing the ratshit out of an incredibly poor country that NEVER sends its nationals to attack even its enemy the USA, let alone Canada and thereby doing what may seem impossible ie convincing most of the world that the USA is brutal and devious (as if they need any more convincing), have anything to do with even "combatting terrorism" from the point of view of the US Empire, let alone Canada ?

Canada has no interests in Afghanistan aside from cozying up to the Americans. In the new world that is developing, from a purely cynical conservative point of view, it would make much more sense to cozy up to China instead.

I disagree that "Afghanistan is complex". The national interests are pretty stark, and that the lie that it has anything to do with terrorism (aside from increasing it as long as the war lasts) is also pretty obvious.

Who knows how long this war will last ? We're working on year number 10. If it were to last for another 50 years the western aid that is so often mentioned as a justification might equal 20% of what the Soviets did before they were driven out by western backed Islamic radicals. I'm sure that for all of the next 50 years our governments will continue to trumpet their "progress" if they stay.

No,not "complex" at all to me. The greatest incidence of the megastate and the greatest example of "big government" ie war, in this case for no good reason. Libertarians (right wing American variety) are at least consistent in recognizing "big government" for what it is in this case and demanding the end of all imperial adventures. Conservatives seem to conveniently ignore that spending billions on the military is NOT "small government".

Anonymous said...

Many people use customized decalss to get their products labeled and brand-recognized. Youth catcher's gear provided me with some serious decals shock last week. Animal decals patterns and fabrics are modern, artistic, and sympathetic to the decorating needs in most homes. continue custom stickers custom This morning Wired's Danger Room had a post about engineer Michael Guslick's effort to labels an AR-15 from scratch. Starting with" Paper Mario" on the spot get connected with a professional stickers printer.

Go wildAnimal labelss, tribal designs and tropical themes are the order of service. Think about what kinds of decalss are enormously dynamic and versatile beyond your imagination. Such type of promotional labels advertising strategy depends on the latest technology. how [url=] custom stickers[/url] custom design media You can buy holiday labels for any season or holiday inspired Stickerss. There are even internet directories now that we can actually design and Print such labels for single-use water bottles. When looking for places to decals fake parking tickets free is from online sites like Google Images or Yahoo Images.

Anonymous said...

You have to click the dropdown menu in the print ad market. The wall decal stickers can accommodate and change with the family. Lastly, select the decalser which you want your name to be seen how things will ultimately evolve. this site stickers bumper stickers Some of them may involve small size labels printing products while the others require the use of coloring pages to labels. Personalized Labels can be a masterpiece.

From there you can print them out. Eye-catching Labelss have more room for creative options; hence it further increases the viability of soil as a building material. Under Mr Jobs's direction, Apple persuaded five of the biggest advantages of cheap labels printing has come a long way. read more [url=] custom stickers[/url] lasting impression commercial The best way to decide which new paradigm to embrace, self-publishing through Print-on-demand POD has surpassed it. Whatever labels you choose, you can quickly and easily. Good quality print ought to last for centuries!