I was thinking of launching into commentary on the philisophical libertarian principle I hold that violent physical force should never be used against any individual for complicity by the state (or anyone else for that matter), but I've been quite disgusted and disturbed that some individuals (one establishment supporting sleazeball in particular) have been attempting to associate my name with racists, or racist groups.
That's quite interesting since I believe the Lincoln monument should be demolished, and that a new monument for Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rosa Parks should be built in its place, by hand, voluntarily by the people of this country so that we can show in person our respect for two of the greatest freedom fighters this country will ever see.
They were remarkable individuals who opposed the state's enforcement of segregation, and they stood up to the state non-violently, with the strength of their convictions to guide them past their fear.
I intended for this part of the series to focus on my philisophical opposition to the use of force, but is seems I will have to move forward on an issue I wanted to write about next week, that in a country that is 2.2/3 white in racial makeup, the Democratic and Republican Establishment have been representing "white nationalism" quite well by ignoring minorities once their establishment candidates are elected, by trying to subvert or deny them their right to a fair vote, and also using vote manipulation wherever possible through electronic voting.
And if the Establishment Democrats actually cared about minorities, the large mass of minorities that suffered Katrina wouldn't have been shown to be poor and broken spirits, and would have been able to leave that eventual disaster zone before the disaster occured. The true racism in this country may very well rest on the Establishment Dems who haven't done anything to change that situation effectively, even though they had nearly complete control over the state of Louisianna.
But, even though I will address that racism in a future diary, I feel we must discuss the root of it by explaining why statism has been such a prevailing concept, even though it has lead to many genocides.
There is nothing more disgusting to me than the worship of a mass-murdering statist such as Lincoln.
There is a reason W. always fondly references to himself as a modern Lincoln. Both of these "presidents" are habeas corpus suspending Constitution abusers (much worse than a flag-burner in my opinion).
If you need much more evidence of this, simply consider that the modern genocide/politicide being carried out on innocent people in Iraq is not much different than the genocide authorized by Lincoln of innocent civilians by destruction of the economy in the South during Sherman's March to the Sea, from Atlanta to Savannah, among other structurally destructive acts.
Of course, there is the argument that is made that the American Civil War enforced the abolishment of slavery, which I agree that abolition was a remarkable goal which had to be acheived to secure the greater freedom of every individual in this country.
But I have to wonder, was there no peaceful way to accomplish such a goal? Or was 1 million deaths by force during the American Civil War, 1/3 of them civilian, the only possible way? I guess the question I have to ask is whether genocide/politicide is the appropriate avenue of acheiving freedom, as it is violent force in the service of "freedom"?
Well, if the person answers in the affirmative, then won't future generations be justified in saying that the genocide/politicide in Iraq was justified because it freed us from Saddam Hussein's threat of Weapons of Mass Destruction, or allowed us to fight "Islamist terrorists" over there rather than fight them here?
Aren't both of these genocides remarkably similar in that they primarily preserve the state, but have side generalizations that can help rationalize their genocides once the state eventually makes it so, as they write the history books that our children are educated with?
Am I wrong to believe that there could very likely have been non-violent solutions to both of these enormous conflicts?
I believe there was likely a peaceful resolution for the purpose of freedom possible in both scenarios, instead of the imposition of statism that we found with the civil war, and what the current administration is attempting to create in Iraq.
Because one thing is for certain, centralized statism is far more easy to corrupt by corporations and lobbyists, and so both Lincoln, Bush, and many other presidents, Democrat and Republican, have served their masters well.
I believe racism to be one of the most vile, inhumane, and uneducated positions any human being could possibly support, however, I also believe any individual who supports statist genocide shares the same disgusting characteristics. The Democratic Party should be based on the principle of anti-statism which recognizes the disgust of both.
Keep in mind how vile and disgusting we consider Hitler, and keep in mind that he was a statist who lost.
I am a person who believes in decentralized freedom and a small Constitutional state, I am not racist, and I believe the worship of Lincoln should become an item of contempt among any individual who opposes genocide as a viable option. Force is probably the easiest option, but it isn't a necessary one, especially when the targets are innocent civilians.
But, on the other hand, I'd like to complicate things a bit. It is quite obvious that our state was a necessity in destroying the racist and genocidal German Nazi state commanded by Hitler, but we obviously acted far too late as the deaths of millions occured before we arrived. So a good question here should be "is a state a necessity simply for the destruction of other states, and if so, are we good enough at determining whether (and when) a certain state needs to be destroyed by our state based on the merits of the argument for its destruction, regardless of the civilian casualties we might inflict?"
Of course, I advocate the freedom of every individual around the world from the corruption of putting the centralization of power into a state, which I hope someday would prevent the creation of any destructive genocidal state.
Still, I think we must seriously answer these questions as they are at the heart of the Iraq War, and any future war we might find our state involved in. Here's hoping we have these answers before our state openly invades Iran.
I would like people to consider my poll question below with the interaction between two ideas in mind. The American Civil War's "war on slavery", a battle of a federal state vs. individual states which brought about the end of slavery, and the Iraq War's "Operation Iraqi Freedom", a battle of the US vs. another country's monarchy which some may argue was to bring about the freedom of the subjects of that monarchy (if we are to put it in a good light).
Keep in mind that I am not considering the American Revolutionary War in this argument, as I believe it is justifiable to fight for your freedom from the state if that state chooses to use violent war-like force against you. Of course some will argue that is how many Rebels of the south viewed their actions.
I also want to be clear this is not a "pro-slavery diary". Slavery existed and was abhorrent and I wished people had never commited such an attrocity against another free individual. That doesn't mean I don't think it was impossible to deal with slavery non-violently, just as I believe we could've dealt with Iraq non-violently, and just as I believe we can deal with any issue non-violently. We, as free-thinking people, are that good.
Update: Apologies to anyone who wanted a tip jar, I posted a comment to another individual here which stated that I would fight to thedeath for the personal freedom of any individual regardless of race, sexual orientation, sex, or religion. And that that was the reason I am even here, because I don't believe the current system works, and I want to work on ideas to fix it. And that I risked autoban to do it, but just had to tell the person that to their face.
Of course, as I predicted in my previous diaries, it was TR'd and deleted. I suppose they were hoping for autoban, but I must have some mojo saved from the fact that I've been posting here consistently since early January of 2006 so I emerged unscathed. It is obvious a tip jar would have disappeared just as quickly, so what's the point? I realize I'm largely expressing some intolerable truths here, and I'm fine doing so with my limit of 1 diary a day.