ISIL Is An Emerging State

October 13th, 2014   Submitted by Michael Hendricks

ClintonIsIsOver the last year the Islamic State in Iraq and Levant (ISIL) has been getting a lot of airtime on the mainstream news. They’ve beheaded western journalists and prisoners, and now control large territories throughout Iraq and Syria. In the beginning of this year ISIL forces managed to take much of Al-Anbar province in western Iraq. ISIL is a violent non-State actor striving to become a State, just as the Taliban began as a non-State movement (including Osama Bin Laden) to resist Russian occupation, and became the State in Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001. ISIL and the Taliban both started out as a resistance to occupation, and like the Taliban, ISIL may already qualify as the de facto State in the Levant region.

What is a State? One definition that may prove useful is:

“A nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government.” ~Oxford English Dictionary

ISIL was previously known as “Al-Qaeda in Iraq,” but split from Al-Qaeda early this year. It’s simply the latest name in a long list going back to the first US intervention in Iraq. ISIL regards itself as a global Caliphate, with Abu Bakr al Baghdadi as the Caliph. ISIL is fighting both rebel groups and government forces in Syria and Iraq, and rules according to a harsh Salafist form of Sharia law. Tribal leaders in the area are complacent to their rule, because those who have resisted were met with incredible brutality. ISIL’s current plan is to expand in the Levant, an eastern mediterranean region consisting of Cyprus, Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, Jordan and Israel. Indeed, ISIL’s motto is “Remaining and Expanding.”

ISIL is organized. It controls territory, and governs it. And it is able hold neighboring governments at bay. So, ISIL fits all the conditions of being a State. While their rhetoric shows their intent to attack the United States, to date they have shown more proficiency in conventional, and guerrilla warfare than in terror tradecraft.

The sections that follow are divided to analyze the strategy from the perspective of each actor in the region. How an anarchist either in the US or in the Middle East should respond to these events is an open debate.

In June ISIL launched a major offensive in Iraq. Iraqi security forces abandoned their uniforms and equipment, and fled. This desertion demonstrated that the Iraqi military was unable to organize and command its soldiers. It also allowed ISIL to seize supplies, including military equipment, and the contents of a bank. ISIL also freed hundreds of prisoners, potentially adding members and sympathizers to their cause as they consolidate their power in the region.

ISIL took Mosul, which was Al-Qaeda’s de facto capital prior to the troop surge of 2007, and a strategic Al-Qaeda stronghold even after that. ISIL now uses Mosul as a cash cow, extorting an estimated $1.6 million a month in protection money from local businesses. In the United States street gangs operate similarly, extortingmoney from businesses in their turf using the same racket. In fact, all States have a similar set up. They call it taxes.

Iraqi security forces are stretched thin. They do not have the ability to eradicate ISIL, nor to prevent ISIL cells from operating inside Baghdad. Some strategists recommend closer cooperation with Kurdish security forces, but warn that it may bolster Kurdish ambitions for a separate Kurdish State. A more powerful Iraqi/Kurdish alliance may be preferable to an ISIL controlled Iraq, but any increase in government power is obviously sub optimal. On the other hand, greater autonomy for a separate Kurdish State would likely bring stability to the region. The current borders in the Middle East were established in 1916 as a part of secret deal called the Sykes Picot Agreement. This deal divided the Middle East into areas of British and French control.

There are significant Kurdish populations in Turkey, Syria, Iran and Iraq, which could play an important role in handling the ISIL threat in those countries. Independent Kurdish forces have already mobilized defensive and offensive operations against ISIL.

This month ISIL has clashed with Iraqi security forces and retaken ground within a mile of Baghdad. However, the concentration of Iraqi security forces and Shia militias in Baghdad means that ISIL probably won’t be able to take the capital anytime soon. ISIL has conducted local terrorist attacks, however only the Al-Qaeda core (the original founders, and their franchise) has demonstrated the ability or ambition to operate at an international level.

The situation in Iraq is obviously still volatile.

The Al-Qaeda franchise in Syria is known as “the Al-Nusra Front,” and has been fighting ISIL forces. ISIL’s push into Iraq could force them to commit fighters to Iraq, taking pressure off Syrian rebel groups, and the Assad regime. The Free Syrian Army (FSA) opposes both ISIL and Assad, and has allied with the Al-Nusra Front in the past. US airstrikes targeted both ISIL and the Al-Nusra Front, which angered some rebel groups opposing ISIL and Assad, due to the fact that Al-Nusra has helped them.

The Assad regime has been getting support from Hezbollah, and Iran in the form of arms and fighters. Shiite fighters from Iraqi militias have also been fighting ISIL in Syria. According to Stratfor Intelligence, foreign influence in Syria will be more important than the elections. Although, it is widely acknowledged that the Syrian elections are rigged in favor of President Assad.

As ISIL spreads across Iraq it moves closer to the Iranian border. Iran seems to be playing the sectarian game, supporting Assad (Alawis are a branch of Twelver Shia Islam), Hezbollah, and Iraqi Shia fighters. ISIL is a Sunni group. Iran and the US have opposing interests in Syria because Obama wants to see Assad out of power. However, Iranian interests agree with US interests in Iraq because both want to stop ISIL from expanding. Iran has supported the current Shia government in Baghdad, but in light of Iraqi security force losses to ISIL they have begun supplying men and arms to local Shia militias, which may ultimately weaken Baghdad, harming any gains Iran makes there.

Jordan and Israel
Being located in the Levant region, ISIL has ambitions to take over Jordan and Israel at some point. However, for the moment ISIL is focused on taking territory in Syria and Iraq where its resources and manpower are spread thin in the midst of heavy casualties. Analysts suggest that Jordan could not withstand an ISIL invasion alone, especially if ISIL captures the resources available in Iraq and Syria, which would reportedly include M1 Abrams tanks, more typical of a conventional State military, and less common among terrorist groups. It has also been suggested that if ISIL threatens Jordan, Israel would defend it. At the moment Jordan and Israel are allies, and that would be consistent with the 1994 Israel-Jordan peace treaty in which each country agreed to cooperate against terrorism, including thwarting border attacks, and preventing any hostile attack from outside. Both countries are also heavily in the US sphere of influence, and Jordan is a participating in the airstrikes with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), against ISIL.

Rumors suggest that Turkey has been secretly supporting ISIL. A New York Times article claims that Turkey tolerated an ISIL recruiting station in Ankara’s tourist district. Turkey also wants to keep Turkish Kurds within their national sphere. Helping ISIL could be a way to weaken and intimidate Kurdish separatists. ISIL also recently released 49 abducted Turkish diplomats, which some think confirms their support.

Turkey’s reluctance to get involved doesn’t necessarily mean a conspiracy with ISIL. If we look at events in Afghanistan and Pakistan during the Russian occupation, and compare them to Turkey today, things make a little more sense. In the 80s Russia tried to expand into Afghanistan, and ended up in a long guerrilla war against the Mujahadeen operating out of Pakistan, and backed by the US (essentially the opposite of what is going on today). The Mujahadeen (some of whom became the Taliban), and other fighters used Pakistan as a staging area during operations in Afghanistan. In 2003 Turkey refused to allow US troops to stage in their territory for a northern invasion of Iraq. Pakistan is still having border troubles. Perhaps some of Turkey’s reluctance comes from a desire to avoid similar border instability.

Border instability is likely to occur anyway as the result of the ongoing conflict in Syria. This month Turkey’s parliament approved deployment of troops to Syria and Iraq to fight ISIL, which may disprove the rumors of cooperation. In response, the foreign ministry of the Assad regime warned Turkey that any form of military intervention in Syria would be seen as an act of aggression. A recent battle in Kobani is located on the Turkish border with Syria. Spillover is bound to happen, and it seems like Turkey’s moves are designed to protect its borders.

United States
Last month Obama promised to destroy ISIL without putting conventional troops on the ground. Instead he sent in Special Ops to train “moderate” rebel fighters in Syria, and is attempting to create a coalition of regional powers to combat ISIL. A “moderate” rebel is pretty much just the one that the State wants to support. “Moderate” is most likely a fluff word intended to pacify those who remember that Osama bin Laden was once armed and trained by the US.

Last month Airstrikes were carried out by the US and a number of Muslim majority countries including Bahrain, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. This included strikes against twelve makeshift oil refineries near the cities of Abu Kamal, al-Mayadeen and Al-Hasakah. These refineries supplied more than half of ISIL’s financial resources.

Qatar supported several rebel movements during the Arab Spring, and continues to support groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, putting it at odds with other GCC members. Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, UAE, and Russia all consider the Muslim Brotherhood to be a terrorist organization. In March Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates withdrew their ambassadors from Qatar. The participation of Qatar in these airstrikes is a huge step for the GCC.

There are obviously risks to arming rebels in Syria, as have been noted. High on the list is the difficulty in vetting the fighters receiving US aid. Obviously it’s counter-productive for the US to arm rebels intent on attacking the US. Obama’s challenge is to find “moderate” rebels that are resisting both the Assad regime and ISIL, and that aren’t committing war crimes. One option would be the Free Syrian Army (FSA). The legend goes that Syrian armed forces were targeting civilians, and that some officers and soldiers refused to follow those orders, deserting their positions, and forming the FSA to fight those who were committing war crimes. Although, if the FSA aren’t who they claim to be, the US could be arming the enemy Obama is trying to combat.

Sleeper Cells in the US
The fear that ISIL may use sleeper cells in the US is put forward as the reason to fight ISIL in the Middle East. This is likely more propaganda than strategy, because conducting an attack inside the US wouldn’t be expensive or complicated. That’s the asymmetrical nature of terrorism. A sleeper cell is a small group of agents designed to blend into society and remain dormant until called upon. Typically to set up a sleeper cell an organization has to have the funds to maintain the agents in the foreign land for an extended period of time. ISIL likely doesn’t have the resources to do this, especially considering the losses they’ve incurred as they expand in Iraq and Syria. But when a cause is ideological another strategy is to attempt to radicalize new agents that are already embedded and financially maintaining themselves, and then encourage them to commit attacks where they live. ISIL has apparently tried to launch terror attacks in the US and failed, suggesting ISIL doesn’t have the necessary financial or ideological support to pull of such an attack.

At the moment the only terrorist organization that has displayed the ability to project power internationally has been the Al-Qaeda core, which has sustained heavy hits recently and has lost its experienced leaders. Some sources are claiming that recent missile attacks against the Al-Nasra Front have killed Muhsin al-Fadhli, the alleged leader of the Al-Qaeda core.

In other words, ISIL is primarily able to fight a conventional and guerrilla war, but can’t pull off the asymmetrical tactics of typical terrorist groups, another way in which they more closely resemble a nation State.

The fact that ISIL is taking territory, building a tax infrastructure, and conducting war the expensive way suggests they’re behaving more like a conventional State than a terrorist militia. Their rhetoric clearly shows their intent to conduct terrorist operations outside of their standard Area of Operations, but as yet they haven’t developed the necessary terror tradecraft to make attacks successful.

What’s an anarchist in the region to do? It depends on who you ask. Sure, blame the blow back on government foreign policy for the last century. But if you want to fight ISIL, what if you have to ally yourself with the Iraqi State, or the Kurdish security forces, or Iran, or even the US? I’d be willing to bet that most anarchists would make the pragmatic choice, rather than the principled one, if directly faced with the ISIL threat. “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” can make for strange allies. If you were an anarchist on the ground in Iraq or Levant what would you do? Would you want the US, or the GCC, or even Iran to help you fight ISIL?

Tags: , ,

80 Responses to “ISIL Is An Emerging State”

  1. No, ISIL is not an emerging state. ISIL is the International Society for Individual Liberty. You’re talking about ISIS or ISIS. Pray stop besmirching the name of a great libertarian institution by associating its acronym with an unrelated group of savages.

    • HReardenNo Gravatar says:

      Apparently the author knows it is called ISIS because there is a photo of Clinton next to the article with the caption. ” depends on what your definition of IS IS.” It is supposed to be called Islamic State in Syria, not ISIL. When one calls is ISIL they are besmirching the town of Levant, ME. I don’t think that the people who live in Levant, ME want to be associated with that group of savages.,_Maine

      • Michael HendricksNo Gravatar says:


        Levant in this context is a region in the middle east consisting of Syria, Aleppo Turkey, Jordan, Isreal, Lebanon, Palestine, and Cyprus. Some meanings add all of Turkey and Egypt to the mix.

    • Shaun ChittickNo Gravatar says:

      Islamic State in Iraq and Levant (ISIL) is an accepted definition and abbreviation that is geographically separate from ISIS.

    • Michael HendricksNo Gravatar says:

      Nope ISIL is one of the many names that those savages have gone by. More recently they call themselves IS or simply the Islamic State.

      They’ve been known as al Qaeda in Iraq as well as Daesh in the past.

      Point is you’re wrong.

      Thanks for your time!

  2. Jim DaviesNo Gravatar says:

    Good article, Michael, rich in info. Thank you!

    IS is (yes, great illustration too!) morphing itself into a State, and it will be fun to see what the UN will do if and when it applies to join the club. Meanwhile it governs those in the area it controls, and that’s the point. It over-rules the wishes of people, contrary to their inherent right of self-rule. So do all governments.

    What should an anarchist there do? Keep his head down, and if at all feasible, avoid working for the IS government. That’s the universal prescription. Then, one by one, so educate his friends that they, too, decline to work for it.

    Eventually, then, nobody will work for it and so it will collapse, like ours. That is the idea of TOLFA and (sorry, no Arabic version yet) and is the only way I know.

    • Jim DaviesNo Gravatar says:

      Oh and by the way, don’t let’s get too scared, ahead of Halloween, by the rumors of Stateside IS terror cells. It’s all part of the FedGov’s propaganda to keep us all servile, and as today’s Zero Government Blog suggests, just say “Boo!”

    • DNo Gravatar says:

      IF there was an ancapist in daesh territory (which i doubt) then that would mean he doesnt believe in sharia law, which means torture, crucifixion or off with his head. If you dont think that freedom and islam are at opposite ends of the spectrum you are kidding yourself. Educate his friends? I lived in iraq for two years. Ive talked to hundreds of iraqis. The idea of trying to spread anarcho capitalism over there is hilarious.

      • Michael HendricksNo Gravatar says:

        Ha really wasn’t where I was going with this. 😉

      • Jim DaviesNo Gravatar says:

        Thanks D, that looks to be a well-informed rebuttal. You were in Iraq with the Army, perhaps? – but your conclusion is that “Islam and anarchism aren’t compatible” based on your hundreds of conversations. That’s very bad news. I’m “reaching”, but might it have derived from errors of translation?

        It says that something like a quarter of the human race has no hope of ever becoming free. Do you therefore deny that freedom is for everyone? – that freedom is the natural state of all human beings?

        If so, I have to reconcile that with my understanding that right here on DA, Davi Barker is a Muslim. Your help would be appreciated.

        • Jim DaviesNo Gravatar says:

          PS: Sorry for the italics. They were intended only for the word “natural”.

        • DNo Gravatar says:

          Do i wish the whole world was free? Of course i do. My point is that as long as islam is in the middle east it wont be. Islam is government. You cannot seperate the two. You can tell yourself you can, but that doesnt make it so. The reality is what it is. I can say that i am two opposite things at the same time, but if you compare the two concepts you will see the discrepancies. If you are an anarchist then there are several parts of the koran that you have to ignore. Hell, just look at how islam started and spread. Not exactly a NAP success story.

          • Jim DaviesNo Gravatar says:

            Good. So what solution would you propose for Muslims, if “education” guided by a “friend” is “ludicrous”?

            • DNo Gravatar says:

              There is no solution, the two are incompatible. You could ignore the qur’an, but then would you still be a muslim?

          • Sam SpadeNo Gravatar says:


            “…Do i wish the whole world was free? Of course i do. My point is that as long as islam is in the middle east it wont be…”

            I’d further that as long as religiosity is in “The Bible Belt” there will be precious little freedom in that area of the world as well. Religion and state walk hand-in-glove throughout history.

            Actually, I have no argument with religious folks — as long as their religion is a part of their governance. But it’s probably time for “anarchists” to come to see the difference between “government” (state) and “governance”.

            Incidentally, our friend Kent had a good post on his blog this morning pertaining to this topic.


            • DNo Gravatar says:

              Islam isnt just about religion or faith and so it isnt fair to compare it to christianity or most other religions. Islam is theocracy. There is no seperating the two.
              As far as our bible belt goes-they might resist anarchy but i doubt they will do so in the name of god, just like big government liberals in the northeast wont use god. They resist us based on their inability to imagine a world without government. Muslims on the other hand, would fight you while invoking the name of allah. Zakat, which paul posted about, is just one of many examples of how islam is more than religion. Zakat is not just something IS came up with, its been around since the time of muhammed. Davies article was most definitely cherry picking. For every example he gave I can give 5 stating the opposite. Just compare the lives of the two prophets, jesus and mohammed. One became the government and the other was killed by government.
              And for the record I am an atheist, so i dont have a dog in that fight.

  3. DNo Gravatar says:

    Islam and anarchism arent compatible. Everyone keeps trying to do the PC thing and say it is because they hate israel so much or some other stupid reason. You think living under democracy is bad? Try living under sharia law. I actually heard lew rockwell say that christianity has more violence in its history than islam. He has lost all credibility with me. And ron paul isnt far behind. Hey ron, why dont you try living in ‘palestine’ for a day, see if they dont cut your head off.

      • Sam SpadeNo Gravatar says:


        As I see it, Davi, you’ve identified the crux of all these arguments at that point where the rubber meets the road — but few, it seems, are willing to stop fighting long enough to examine it. Don’t know who was first quoted: “…every now and again somebody will stumble upon the truth; but they’ll normally pick themselves up and rush on…”

        I’ve said forever (it seems) that the human family is the only legitimate governing unit. The factor that separates human kind from “mammals” or “the-animal-kingdom” has to do with the nature of the newborn. The human newborn is totally dependent upon adult caregivers (hopefully a loving, caring and dedicated Mum & Da) not only for survival, but also for what is scientifically called “epistemology” — the knowledge they will acquire to successfully jump the puberty hurdle into adulthood. And life.

        And how they will acquire that knowledge — and what they will do with it once they get it.

        As you mentioned in your linked article, you came into that phenomenon commonly called “higher education” with a host of collectivist concepts. The curriculum offered probably only served to augment those ideas. Collectivism seems to always lead to conflict, combat, and war. There appears to be no way around it.

        But then you began to think critically. Critical thinkers, I believe, will by their very nature eschew collectivist boilerplate. And scheming. And statism. And war.

        The plurality of these Middle east/Ukraine debates gravitate down to “grouping-and-tagging” (thanks, Robert Ringer): You can’t see Islam without seeing terrorism. You can’t see Chr-stianity without seeing the incestuous relationship between church and state.

        You can’t simply stop and think.


    • HReardenNo Gravatar says:

      I agree that islam and anarchism and liberty are not compatible regardless of claims made that they are. Totalitarianism is not compatible with anarchism or liberty. I’m sure someone will post with the “No True Scotsman Fallacy” and claim that groups like ISIS are not “True” muslims. Just like the claim that the USSR was not a “true” communist society. I don’t buy that argument.

      • Michael HendricksNo Gravatar says:

        It’s all about intrepretation. In the same way that not every Christian is a Westboro baptist not every Muslim is a Salafist (in fact the Salafist/Whahabi school was discredited before the creator died).

        Point is that not every Muslim is crazy.

        • HReardenNo Gravatar says:

          I get that but would you say that not all National Socialists were bullies? Yes, I made that comparison. Why be a member of a group that has members who display the worst of human behavior and do it in the name of the group claiming that they speak for that group? Were there nice Nazis? No amount of nice things they did could make up for the evil they were involved in. Thus in the final analysis there were no good National Socialists. Keep in mind those Nazis who turn on the regime were no longer members when they decided to turn on them. Once they turned I would not have considered them National Socialists anymore. I don’t know if Stauffenberg was a party member but if he was when he turned on the regime he would not have been at that point.

  4. PaulNo Gravatar says:

    An Islamic organization in Chicago published a document about zakat with the following helpful points:

    (1) “Zakat is one of the five fundamental obligations of Islam. It is an obligatory form of worship (Ibadah)…”

    (2) “The establishment of the institution of Zakat is a function of an Islamic State [sic].”

    (3) “the Muslim community is obligated to establish the institution of Zakat”

    (4) “the benefits of Zakat have not been fully realized due to a lack of centralization and coordination.”

    (5) “The mission of the Central Zakat Committee [of the Council of Islamic Organizations of Greater Chicago] is to make Zakat a living institution in order to realize its spiritual and socio-economic impact on Muslim individuals, businesses, as well as Muslim communities in the Greater
    Chicago area. Indeed, it has a potential for developing enormous resources for the community.”

    (6) “Zakat is one of the rights of the poor member [sic] in a Muslim society. It is also regarded as a debt payable to Allah. Therefore, delinquency in Zakat payment is punishable in this world by an Islamic state.”

    “The Institution of Zakat”, © 2005; available in PDF:

    • Michael HendricksNo Gravatar says:


      What’s your point?

      Are you saying that the taxation model that IS is using is based upon this? If that’s true what is the importance of the distinction?

  5. Martin BrockNo Gravatar says:

    ISIL is hardly the de facto state in the Levant, a region that incorporates Cyprus, Jordon, Lebanon, Israel and the occupied territories as well as parts of Syria. ISIL controls, to some extent, some of the least valuable parts of eastern Syria and northern Iraq. Their control of these regions barely constitutes a state, but insofar as it does, the state incorporates only a tiny part of the Levant and has no realistic prospect of controlling even the rest of Iraq and Syria, much less the Levant.

    • Michael HendricksNo Gravatar says:

      You make valid points Martin. I enjoy your feedback. It’s true that so far the population centres aren’t yet controlled by ISIS.

      But check this series out when you have the time. ftqeRZr

      And this one: gUsZSf7

      A synopsis. The Regime and the FSA are both extremely worn down fighting forces in Aleppo. And ISIS is closing on Aleppo. ISIS also destroyed the 7th Division (Assad) and took an airfield during filming of one of the series (I believe it’s the second one about ISIS)

      Peace be with you.

      • Martin BrockNo Gravatar says:

        It’s a sad story. Boys playing GI Joe with real guns and grenades in what is already the wreckage of a city abandoned by civilization. Of course, no single band of bad guys encourages the boys to spend their lives this way, but every band is evil, and I won’t be choosing sides. If one faction or another manages to hold a corner of this wreckage, what have they gained, and what do they do with it when the demonic forces financing them withdraw their support? When the fighting subsides or these fighters tire of it, will John McCain give them more than a photo op, even with the tax money he would loot to keep them in the fight? I doubt it. All of these guys would be better off as crack addicts in any LA ghetto, and the imperialists paying them to squander their lives this way, in the name of God no less, are more devilish than any crack dealer.

  6. GenghisNo Gravatar says:

    ISIS is a proxy army for the Saudi’s and all the Sunni’s. All this is is religious infighting between the Shiites, Sunni’s and Kurds. Obama does his Master’s bidding, the House of Saud, Praise be to Allah.

    It is really that simple. No need to complicate anything.

  7. Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

    How is the US military protecting the USA by bombing ISIS? We started all this by such things as deposing Saddam and Quadafy who were assholes but non-religious assholes. Our best bet today is to let the Muslims kill each other while we bring our military home to do its supposed job, protecting the USA. If we don’t watch out we will end up with nearly as bad of problems with the Muslims as they do in Europe. Playing world cop has lots of unintended consequences.

    • HReardenNo Gravatar says:

      I take it you are or were a member of the US military recently given your use of “we” and “our”. Am I correct in assuming that?

      • DomNo Gravatar says:

        So what if he was?

        • HReardenNo Gravatar says:

          I was just asking. Maybe is wasn’t. Maybe he like many others uses “we” and “our” when he is not personally part of the “we” and “our”. Even liberty advocates and some Anarchists do that when referring to the USA or USA military.

      • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

        HRearden, you couldn’t be more wrong. I went to college and majored in draft evasion while getting a BS in Physics. I am extremely anti-militarism. But, since I am a citizen of the USA, using “we” when referring to actions of “our” government seems accurate even though those actions are not what I wish done.
        I find it interesting that you ignore what I said, but were jumping on the fact that I might be military. Perhaps you are associated with the military and were looking to turn in someone with a non-conformist attitude? I know that a couple of “friends” on facebook dropped me because the military read their facebook account and might punish them for having a friend who was radically anti-military. So much for freedom of speech! I have no more reason to believe this than you did to think I was military, but speculation is a pretty human activity.

        • Sam SpadeNo Gravatar says:

          Fritz (responding to HRearden):

          “…I find it interesting that you ignore what I said, but were jumping on the fact that I might be military…”

          Can’t speak for HRearden, but I’m not ignoring what you said:

          “…Our best bet today is to let the Muslims kill each other while we bring our military home to do its supposed job, protecting the USA…”

          First about any suspicion you might be “military” — I couldn’t care less if you were. Even if you were an enlistee (I wasn’t smart enough to evade in school — I’m an old draftee), you’d still be a slave. You couldn’t walk away if you wanted to. But that would not affect what I write or say. As others have said, I have no dog in the fight.

          It’s funny — the dupes who had enlisted in the u.s. marines used to like to put bumper stickers on their pickups: “Either lead, follow, or get out of the way”. To which I’d respond, “I ain’t leading, I sure as hell ain’t following you, and you ain’t man enough to move me out of the way…” That was back when I still had some teeth that had not been knocked out. Now that I’m old and feeble I’m like Doug Stanhope: I try to keep my mouth shut (partly so my dentures don’t fall out).

          Back to what you said, I (and I think you’ll agree) find it insane that human beings feel driven to maim and kill each other out of stupidity — “Muslim” or no — I don’t care about religion. But for any of us to become free, I submit that the first step is to act free, talk free, and write free. Free of collectivism.

          You write, “our best bet…” Whose “best bet”? Yours? Or mine? I mean, I don’t have any military to “bring home”. I am a sovereign state and have total responsibility for my own defense. Now it appears the white man has come up with a scheme to further interfere with my personal defense program if I allow that to happen: “Ebola“. There will no doubt be plenty of military goons up and down the street “…protecting-the-u.s.a.”

          That will come about, however, through the natural expansion of a violent monopoly — not “bringing-the-troops-home”.

          Batten down the hatches, mates! The fun’s about to begin.

          And please: abstain from beans!


          • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

            Sam, I use “we” because, like it or not, I am a citizen of the USA and as such am technically part “owner” of all governmental decisions including military operations.

            I empathize with being old and decrepit. I still pump iron but am surely not the man I once was. I really wish my legs would let me play basketball still. I just loved the game!

        • HReardenNo Gravatar says:

          I have never been in the military. As I stated which you ignored is that the reason I asked is because you used “we” and “our”. I do not use “we” and “our” when referring to the US government and US military because that would be inaccurate given that I am not part of either.

          • Sam SpadeNo Gravatar says:

            Here is a good essay outlining the destructiveness of reification — allowing the perpetrators of egregious wrongs to hide under mindless abstractions such as “Russia” or “China”.


            • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

              Thanks, I was not familiar with the term reification. I consider that a primary evil of corporate law. Obviously it is also prevalent in government. By the way, corporations are just government wannabes.

              Yes, the concept of individual accountability could be the answer to many problems in our world. But individuals hiding behind the collective is different from individuals recognizing that they are part of a group. For example, I am white. Denying it will not change the reality. One way to look at it is that we are all individuals but we all share certain characteristics which make us also part of a collective. I the individual am part of the human race.

          • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

            Like it or not you are connected to the US military and government if you are a citizen here. I do not blame you for not wishing to be considered part of either, but you could be held responsible for either’s actions by terrorists or other governments. Just because one does not wish to be associated with a particular group does not necessarily preclude such association.

    • Michael HendricksNo Gravatar says:

      These folks have stated their intent to attack the US they can’t do it now which is why they need to be killed. So they never have the means to achieve that end.

      You’re right though blow back is a big deal. Seems that letting the borders fall where they will might be the best bet. What happens when IS wins and all of Arabia is unified and taught to hate the US from the day they are born?

      I really don’t know where I come down on this stuff anymore. Since I’ve made a point to 1) keep up with current events 2) study tactics and strategy 3) Study History 4) Study the individual countries their histories, looking at their military doctrine; my world view isn’t as clear anymore.

      • DNo Gravatar says:

        Finally someone i can relate to!

      • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

        Michael, I empathize with your not being too sure where you come down on this stuff. I too realize that the complexity of the world situation today might make any decision seem stupid in hindsight. But semi isolationism could work out in the long run for without the USA propping up many countries, they would need to focus resources on survival and would have little left to fuck with us. But you are correct that this is dangerous too. I have faith in human stupidity. If we could get a ten year or so break, those who hate us badly enough to attack would have had time to die or cool down. But so long as we have our military everywhere, we will continue to elicit hatred all over the globe. There are no panaceas. You pay your money and take your chances.
        By the way, if the Muslims do become united under a caliph, isolation may be our best shot for I highly doubt that anything under Sharia law will be efficient in a modern world. They will be even more fucked up than they are now and unable to mount much of an offense. Especially if the modern world refuses to trade with them.

        • Sam SpadeNo Gravatar says:

          It’s time to step back and take an overview: the tendency is to think in terms of “the-complexity-of-the-world-situation” (a globalist sympathy indeed). The world revolves around MY belly button — not yours. My world.

          That understanding puts me at a distinct advantage, because I know YOUR world revolves around YOUR belly button — whether you admit it or not. That keeps me from needing to be angry at what you say (even when you’re wrong ha ha ha).


          “…so long as we have our military everywhere, we will continue to elicit hatred all over the globe…”

          I don’t have a military. Anywhere. I don’t elicit hatred. I hope. If I were a collectivist I would favor something like Switzerland, I suppose — although I would never pledge allegiance with psychopaths who claim to possess “jurisdiction” as “government” (“country”, “nation”) if I did happen to migrate to that area of the globe (or “New Hampshire”, or Costa Rica, or Chile).

          All monopoly upon violence (“the state“) will always lead to tyranny. And war.

          Only monopolies upon violence can create sub-monopolies — corporatism, mercantalism. Monopolies cannot arise in a totally free market — which is something none of us has ever seen, nor can many of us envision., ,

          I believe in individual secession — not collectivist secession. If you secede, more the better for me. But my freedom does not depend upon what you do — even though I truly, sincerely wish you well (and secretly wish you WOULD secede). Sam

          • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

            Sam, we share much the same attitudes. So I can appreciate you even knowing you are wrong, but at least you are on the right track! HA!

            Seriously, I agree about the desirability of secession, especially individually. But realistically, secession requires power. Typically the individual can’t come up with enough power to truly secede. Thus we get people like you who want to believe they can free themselves by claiming to be free despite all evidence to the contrary. Remember the scifi classic Shield by Poul Anderson? Something like that is what one needs to truly secede as an individual. But such force fields do not exist now at least, so the power to secede needs to come from many individuals each fighting for his own freedom towards a common goal. Much like a group of individualists cooperating on the basketball court to obtain the common goal of winning.

            One definition of government is that entity with a monopoly on violence in a particular area. Thus the old adage “War is the Health of the State”. I want to put individuals in position to use violence if necessary to be free, thus destroying the state’s monopoly on violence by promoting each individual’s ability to defend his own freedom.

            Yes monopolies can arise in a totally free market, but only if they are so super efficient at what they do that competitors will not even bother to try. This would be rare indeed but not a bad thing for such a monopoly would always be at risk of failure if it started trying to maximize profits at the expense of service and price.

            Unfortunately in the real world your freedom definitely depends on the actions of others. For example, a guy is living his life freely and smokes pot. He is arrested and incarcerated. His freedom has been denied by the actions of others. He might have the mental attitude that he is a free man, but in reality he is not.

            • Sam SpadeNo Gravatar says:

              I don’t know how many anarchists who visit this site have ever actually opened and read the link I so frequently post to the late Delmar England’s “Insanity As the Social Norm“. It’s long, and not too easy to decipher in places. England uses unfamiliar terms in reference to the principles of mind that are absolutely necessary to comprehend if one is ever to come out from under what he calls “government think”. I urge anybody who thinks s/he is too naturally weak to be independently free to simply scroll down to that sub-title (almost to the end of the essay), “Government Think”, and take a few minutes to read it.

              Our minds have been inculcated from the time we were babies with the propaganda that we are to see “the government” (a lifeless abstraction) as huge and powerful, and “the individual” as small and weak and incapable of being free without state power (or at least some collectivist “power”) — wars — and endless slogans.

              You can believe what you like. But I relentlessly state that you can be free. Here. Today. “Where you’re at”. Sam

              • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                I do not have time to read it today. Will try to remember next trip to the library. I do agree that the state is an inconvenient fiction, but nevertheless individuals acting in its name wield a lot of power. They have fucked me too many times to not recognize that!

                • Sam SpadeNo Gravatar says:


                  “…I do not have time to read it today. Will try to remember next trip to the library….”

                  Not sure if you were referring to this essay. But I can cite you an axiom upon which you can rely: You will find no information pertaining to genuine freedom or anarchy in a public or a university library. Those places exist for the purpose of disseminating the party line (“statism”).

                  So if you sincerely intend to read the above linked anarchist article, you will need to visit the link. Sam

              • HReardenNo Gravatar says:

                Insanity can be defined as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

                • Sam SpadeNo Gravatar says:


                  “…Insanity can be defined as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result…”

                  Which is what war is. And aggrandizing those who participate in wars. And bread-and-circus presentations (called “elections“). And “voting” in said presentations.

                  Indeed, Insanity IS the Social Norm.


            • VanmindNo Gravatar says:

              A free person can become a kidnapping victim and still consider themselves as a free person who happens to be caught up in an unfortunate circumstance. Indeed, that explains much of what governments have tried to do over the centuries: kidnap otherwise free people by way of canards like Divine Right and Social Contract. Freedom is the rule, while rule is the fraudulent exception.

              Even under anarchy there wouldn’t be a single day during which no one anywhere attempted fraud against someone else. Every day there would be at least one literal kidnapping, yet society would consider everyone as being “free.” First comes the attitude adjustment (“I am already victorious over self-professed philosopher kings because I cannot re-ignorant myself about Nature”), then come the attempts to ignore pretense of jurisdictional authority.

              The Doctor offers more on individuals/teams and pretense of jurisdictional authority.

              • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                Van, good point about the kidnapping victims. But it emphasizes my point. Consider the reality not the emotions. I recognize that total freedom is physically impossible, so I do not claim to be free even though I am very free minded. If it makes one feel good to pretend that one is free then go for it. It does not change reality. Anarchism would be a great improvement upon any state, but people still would not be totally free, just free of government.

                • Sam SpadeNo Gravatar says:


                  “…I recognize that total freedom is physically impossible, so I do not claim to be free even though I am very free minded…”

                  Fritz, I humbly submit that once you achieve true free mindedness, you will be free. But you must achieve it — not merely say it to yourself (and us).


                  “… If it makes one feel good to pretend that one is free then go for it…”

                  I often quote the late Carl Sagan:

                  You can’t convince
                  a believer of anything;
                  for their belief
                  is not based upon evidence,
                  it’s based upon
                  a deep seated need to believe.

                  ~Carl Sagan


                  Sagan referred not just to religionists — he was pointing at any of us who want to believe a thing in contradiction with what is actual reality. I hope I’m not doing that. But if I am, I’ll be the last to see it.

                  And as to my declaration of sovereignty — who knows? The cowardly police and their “swat teams” might come roaring through my door tonight with their firearms and their vicious dogs and haul me off to one of their rape cages on some trumped up charge. It happens. Every day it happens.

                  As an educator in another life I used to tell students: If you say you can, you are correct. If you say you can’t, you are also correct.

                  I believe that same principle applies to liberty. If I tell myself I cannot be truly free, I am correct. etc etc.

                  But the fact is, more and more people every day are waking up to see the evidence that freedom and liberty arise from between one’s ears — not from some external force (and certainly not from that monopoly of psychopaths called “state”). I don’t know where critical mass takes effect and the state becomes totally ineffective due to non-compliance. I hope to live to see the day.

                  Because the world will end the day I die. My world. I’ll spare you my belly-button thesis this round. Sam

                  • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                    Sam, you remind me of Carnigie’s power of positive thinking BS. I often quote Ben Franklin. “I prefer the pessimest to the optomist. The optomist is continually disappointed. The pessimist prepares for the worst and when something good happens is pleasantly surprised.” Freedom lovers need to recognize the reality of our police state and prepare to defend your liberty. If you can do that while stating that you are already free, great! It is the action that defines your real philosophy of life. The words are secondary.

                • VanmindNo Gravatar says:

                  Sure, but such a state of existential angst is part and parcel of each sentient being’s take on reality (as opposed to their take on something outside reality), all of which represents a significant part of the whole creation-versus-evolution debate as well as dialectics-versus-grammar and objectivity-versus-subjectivity and meatspace-versus-cyberspace. A kidnapping victim in an anarchist society recognizes that they are in a dire situation despite the fact that they remain a free person (convincing them or some hypothetical slave on a plantation that they aren’t free entails forcing them into a psychotic mental state — which in and of itself has no bearing on reality). Reality transcends mere physical circumstance, which is precisely why science qua objective reality ain’t exactly all that and a hamburger.

                  The only way a person’s physical circumstance could determine whether or not they’re free would be if the very concept of a state of mind was itself psychotic. That’s something NWO Change Agents of recent centuries have been earnest about conjuring, some artificial sense that individuality is psychotic while “the group” is sane — yet separating emotions from some faulty premise of objective reality is an utter impossibility other than as a mental exercise, other than as a facility for ponderation of what might “exist” outside the realm of whatever reality actually is. In other words: if it actually exists, then reality subsumes all physical and metaphysical possibilities including thought itself.

                  Individuals comprising the NWO, on the other hand, hope to trick people into believing that perceptions are what count. Not reality, whatever that might be, but perceptions. Think moral relativism and the so-called noble lie about how perceptions represent “good enough” reality. Saying “I just kidnapped you” does not mean you’re saying “Your reality just changed,” not even if you go on to say those exact words. Rather, it means “Your physical circumstance just changed, but reality remains the same despite the altered perception that I forced onto you.” One can reach an altered state of perception (e.g. being high on drugs or becoming psychotic by way of torture), but no one can alter reality no matter how many times they kidnap/torture someone. Winston Smith didn’t travel to some alternate dimension where two plus two equals five, he became a victim of some NWO-esque archetype who was determined to pretend that they could shape reality by forcing artificial perceptions onto people.

                  Similarly, one of Mel Gibson’s characters yelled “Freedom!” after being kidnapped and tortured to the point of death. Who was psychotic about reality, Wallace or Longshanks? The answer is either “neither” or “both,” although it’s a rare occasion to witness some self-professed pragmatic person who goes along to get along talking very much about freedom. Their psychosis tends to compel them otherwise. This is why psychotic goons try with such desperation to torture people into physical submission, hoping beyond hope that such an accomplishment can alter reality itself (e.g. hoping to convince a free person that they are not free by doing something other than forcing a pain-compliance perception onto that person).

                  A freedom fighter has the same number of rights as everyone else: zero. Such a person, whether subject or slave, doesn’t fight in order to gain freedom. Such a person is willing to fight because they already recognize themselves as a free being and therefore hope to convince certain others that they’d better stop pretending to have some kind of right to claim otherwise. No one who is not psychotic is ever anything other than free, although plenty of people through history have allowed the NWO of their time to force them into such a psychotic frame of mind (e.g. substituting manufactured “code of law” perceptions for whatever might be reality).

                  Slightly OT (and rather far removed from the original ISIL topic about which this avatar has no interest), but claiming rights is merely crying that one has more power than those claiming other rights. It’s all on-its-face laughable, nothing but a reminder of the “let’s you and him fight” Cultural Marxism that is threatening civilization (e.g. the Change Agent canard about how “the personal is the political”).

                  • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                    Van, interesting word play. I think I get what you mean. I just disagree. You are using a different definition of reality than what I am meaning. Yes, the totality or gestalt of reality does not change much when the individual’s circumstances change. But to me, the individual, when my circumstances change my reality changes. i.e. I am not the same person today as I was yesterday. By that token freedom is dependant upon your physical circumstances. I normally speak of freedom in the political sense of invulnerability to coercion which is how old Rayo defined it.
                    I agree with you that rights do not really exist. I think of rights more as preferences that one either does or does not have the power to have and hold.

  8. Sam SpadeNo Gravatar says:

    I am free of rattlesnakes. Primarily because I don’t traipse out into the woods. If I do, I wear protective gear. Because a snake respects no property “rights” (I quit using the term “rights” some years ago — and generally substitute the term “choices” — because “rights” presumes there is a force outside myself to protect them. There ain’t).

    The advantage that I have with the snake is in the fact that he knows he’s a snake. The dangerously armed psychopath in costume with tin badge does not know s/he is a gangster. More sophisticated survival skills are required.

    However, more and more people are catching onto that, and we see new names every day here at Daily Anarchist and other anarchist forums. As that happens, my survival will become easier. So will yours — soon as you accept the fact that your servitude is indeed voluntary (presuming you’re still of a mind that you’re not free — that you cannot be a sovereign state)

    Because Étienne de la Boétie’s principles are as correct today as they were nearly five centuries ago when he wrote this. The beast has no more power than his slaves voluntarily confer upon him. Once the serfs and slaves cease voluntarily complying, the beast will lose his “power”.

    And please, my fellow anarchists: abstain from beans. Sam

    • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

      Sam, I walk without fear in my woods every day. I keep the environment cleaned up so snakes do not wish to be there. That is what we need to do in our society. Make the system unattractive to the predators. Anarchism could do this. As for beling free just by claiming to be free, I only wish it were so. LI do claim to be free minded, but that is a lot different than being able to live free.

      • VanmindNo Gravatar says:

        Is it possible for anarchism, which this avatar associates with a lack of any politicized system, to encourage and enable a system that is unattractive to predators yet remains anarchist? Predators need a system, any system, to maximize the impact of their fraudulent intent. Anarchism minimizes predatory opportunity by way of denying people their precious systems of political imposition. Wouldn’t a system presented as having baked-in anti-predatory political devices become more attractive than anarchy to aspiring predators (this avatar is thinking of the hag who spearheaded the purging of that Cantwell guy from the FSP “system”)?

        This avatar is probably picking nits. Still, the distinction seems important enough to remind other avatars that what “we need” isn’t necessarily what we need, if all y’all catch this avatar’s drift.

        • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

          Sorry Van, I do not get what you are aiming at. Yes predation will likely be less under anarchism though there will always be social systems available for predators to use. So folks will always need beware of con men. Just under anarchism one would not have huge organizations predicated upon predation.

          • Sam SpadeNo Gravatar says:


            “…under anarchism one would not have huge organizations predicated upon predation…”

            And there, sir, you have placed your finger upon the pulse of the beast.

            However, I’m not comfortable with the use of the idea, “…under anarchism..” I do not see anarchy as one of the “ism’s”. I’m not certain if it was this thread or another that I posted my long (115 or so entries) list of “libertarian” and/or “anarchy” “ism’s”, but anarchy is merely the absence of central political authority. Nothing “ism” about that.

            Once you kill ’em all dead, they no longer exist — ‘though I’m not endorsing the murder of anybody. That’s the purveyance of political “authority”. It’s what they do — when the final bell tolls — to maintain “authority”

            I do highly recommend that you abstain from beans. When the host no longer exists the parasite succumbs. Sam

            • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

              Sam, thanks for the link to it has been a long time since I have read Lefever. Though I share his attitude in many things, like I share with Rothbard or Wendy McElroy, I get there from a different perspective. I do not buy into the concept of natural moral law. I think natural laws are the laws of physics and their corollaries or even the law of club and fang that Jack London wrote of. But morality is an ambiguous abstraction ever changing over time and circumstance. Like the idea of “situational morality”. It may guide one’s personal actions, but it will have nearly zero effect on promoting anyone else’s actions.
              I kind of agree about anarchism, but it is a convenient shorthand. When one gets into more nuanced discussion a defining of terms becomes more relevant. To me “anarchism” simply means no government. That is the prime necessity for the creation of a free society. A necessary but not sufficient condition. It is analogous to losing weight. Since insulin resistance is the largest driver by far of fat retention one must do what is necessary to reduce insulin production to lose bodyfat. For most people that means a large reduction of carbohydrate intake, which means practically giving up most of the things we like (especially sweet things). But to be healthy, one needs to do much more than lose fat, like exercise regularly, use proper supplements, and avoid doctors. So reducing insulin production is a first step, a necessary but not sufficient condition for total health.
              Oops. I went far afield again. My old girlfriend said she wanted to make a portable soapbox for me. She figured she could patent the idea, sell it to wives and girlfriends across the country, and get rich!

  9. Sam SpadeNo Gravatar says:

    There comes a time in a long thread where one must simply throw up his hands and quit. I mean, who the hell are you going to convince? Is it “ISIL” or is it “ISIS”? People attempting to take “power” tend to want names, labels and slogans — acronyms; but I’m not going to try to make a determination over someone’s declared statehood — or their collectivist groups or organizations.

    I state: “If you say you are free, you are correct. If you say you’re not free, you’re also correct.” My mantra: freedom starts between one’s ears. So for me to try to tell you what “state” you’re in is like pissin’ into the wind. Fully half of those who want to insinuate that I’m kidding myself at my declaration of sovereignty also seem to link me with “sovereign state” movement(s), etc.

    So you clean your neck of the woods so thoroughly (good luck) the snakes leave. They migrate deeper. Where there are woods there will be snakes. I doubt you will ever clear the woods of snakes — nor the social “woods” of statists and collectivists. That’s my anthology. Or my simple analogy.

    Watching videos I often get distracted by the list at the right (even more interesting videos) I ran into this one (old, 2012) today. I don’t know who the guys are, but the main speaker makes a lot of sense regarding the topic of states, statism, groups, movements, etc.

    I need to go back to trucking. Retirement’s making me spooky — wrangling over snakes, etc. Sam

    • VanmindNo Gravatar says:

      Nothing says sovereignty like The Way Of The Road.

      That’s a Trailer Park Boys reference.

      • HReardenNo Gravatar says:

        Based on that quote, these Trailer Park Boys don’t sound like distinguished philosophers.

        • VanmindNo Gravatar says:

          This avatar couldn’t imagine anything to be more of an understatement, yet philosophers of a type each of those characters remains.

          One guy: “Never stop drinking.”
          One other guy: “Never stop loving dem kitties.”
          One other guy: “Falafel whatever is fu*king sh*t anyway.”

          • HReardenNo Gravatar says:

            You just confirmed my point. These Trailer Park Boys are not distinguished philosophers. Based on those quotes that sounds like they got their philosopher from what they read on the so called “prize” from a box of CrackerJack.

            • VanmindNo Gravatar says:

              Those characters confirm their own philosophical point in every episode. That’s what makes the show amusing.

              They ain’t geniuses, but they are philosophers just like every other person who ever lived. It’s merely the “distinguished” qualifier that differentiates such characters from other philosophers.

              Keep in mind, as well, that “distinguished” never implies “more likely to be correct.” Such false analysis leads to either elections and consequential enslavement or undisguised dictatorships and consequential enslavement. There are no such things as philosopher kings.

              • Sam SpadeNo Gravatar says:

                I appreciate the validation, Van! 🙂

                I shall forthwith declare myself a “distinguished sovereign state”.


              • HReardenNo Gravatar says:

                Who said distinguished means more likely to be correct? Often philosophy is one’s opinion. You may think a particular person who claims to be a philosopher is correct and I might disagree and think another person who is regarded as a philosopher is correct.

    • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

      Sam, I doubt anyone will ever clear out all the snakes either in the woods or in society. But one can drastically reduce their numbers by controlling the environment. Cleaning up the brush in the real woods helps a lot. Clearing out the laws in society would help a lot there.
      So you are a retired trucker. I am retired out of concrete masonry. Strong back and a weak mind. One does pay for your youthful transgressions. If I ever get a day where my body does not hurt I will have died! I try to work in the woods when I can. It keeps me busy, and I do like the result.

      • Sam SpadeNo Gravatar says:

        Fritz, I’m with you in clearing out the brush. Burning off grass helps.

        But “…clearing out the laws in society???…” Good luck at that. I mean, where do you advise one starts on such a project? Voting?

        I’m with my cyber friend, Mark Davis, when it comes to participating in partisan politics:

        When you go into the voting booth,
        the only meaningful significance
        that your action will have
        is to show that one more person
        supports the state.

        ~Mark Davis

        From Be Free, by Mark Davis July 10, 2005.


        • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

          Sam, as you aptly point out, voting is a bad joke. I could maybe understand it in a small voluntary group, kind of like the old town hall meetings. But even there it supports the concept that the majority somehow has the “right” to rule the minority. I simply do not buy that.
          As for eliminating laws, as an anarchist that is the ultimate goal. How to get there is the big argument. I think a combination of education and defense of individual freedoms may have some chance of moderate success if the USA falls due to the government’s asininity or some natural cataclysm (i.e. the super volcano under Yellowstone going up again). The one thing that will not occur is the ruling elite peacefully ceding their power.

  10. FrankNo Gravatar says:

    ISIS is a creation of US intel. Probably something it has in common with this phony controlled op disinfo site IMHO!