Action

So if anyone remembers, earlier in the year I brought up the idea of an anarchist group of sorts that would carry out some form of activity in the anarchist nature. After doing promotional work I've done for Outback Championship Wrestling, I've realized how simple it is to put stuff out there. So I was wondering who would be interested in doing some work putting together different sorts of irritating yet unavoidable political material... just stuff to spread ideas and messages that could perhaps make one or two people rethink things and maybe even make a difference. If one person sees a poster or letterdrop and considers it, then maybe they'll spread the message themselves. So why not give it a go. We can all design posters and fliers and what have you, if not as a good social activism device, then at least as a good old-fashioned fun experience. Who's in? Leave a comment or message me in some other format.

Trust

So here's where my mind is at right now.

Terrorism. Australia at war. Well... not war, if Mr. Tony Abbott is to be listened to. (What's that? He's not?)

But seriously. Pope Abbott I says it's not to be thought of as a war, so let's not think of it as a war... let's think. Armed forces moving into another country to forcefully disable a powerful and international terrorist organisation...seems like a bit of a struggle... what can we call it...? Hmm... struggle...? Hang on! Struggle...jihad!!! It's a jihad!!!

"Mr Abbott, what are your thoughts as far as this new war goes?"

"Well, I don't think that it's a war. I think it's more of a struggle, a jihad, if you will."

"Oh, well... um... what are your plans for Australia's involvement in this war?"

"Please! It's a jihad! Jihad, I say!"

"Okay, I'm sorry... what are your intentions for this... jihad?"

"Well, I'm hoping that we, alongside the U.S., will be able to dismantle the terrorist organisation known as ISIS and bring about peace."

"How many soldiers do you plan on deploying in the future?"

"Not soldiers, jihadists!"

"Okay... so how many jihadists are being sent out?"

But I digress. There's a lot of debate going on about whether or not Australia should get involved here. And here's my little glimmer of unpredictability... I agree with the decision. I think that this parallels World War II to some extent, and that this war or jihad or whatever has a decent intention. I'm not totally crazy after all, I don't think ISIS were set up by the U.S. to spread insecurity or anything like that, I think there's a serious problem to be dealt with in Iraq.

BUT, I am concerned about the future. I don't think Australia will be much more of a target than it is now, but I am worried about the almost inevitable fact that eventually, our guys are going to fuck things up somehow. I'm just waiting for the point where America decides to bomb the entire northern section of Iraq, or something of that sort. I guess it just comes down to trust.

To elaborate on that, I have much more concern over the localised issues we're seeing. You may have heard of the raids in Sydney earlier today, and the fact that the people in this house were found to have been planning the beheading of any random member of the public. Now, I don't dismiss the likelihood of this. I'm not saying this is a clear lie. But I, once again, have to say that I just don't trust police or government. When you look at every single historical conflict involving the U.S. in the last 100 years, the countries on its side always end up being lied to in some way by their governments. It's a matter of time, if it hasn't happened already, that terrorism threats become exaggerated, stories are fabricated, etc.

When you look back over history, I don't understand how you can't be cynical about what you're told. With all the talk over involvement with ISIS and how much of a threat they are, it seems all too strategic to just make up a narrowly avoided beheading in Australia and whip up the hysteria.

Like I said, I'm not actually making the claim that it WAS a lie... I can't draw that conclusion. But what I am saying, is that we all just have to be wary of what we hear. Stay critical, and don't take everything as gospel truth... because after all, who the fuck thinks we can actually listen to Tony Abbott?

Vote for Apathy

Who's ready for a claim more large-scale than any I've ever made on this blog? Ready?

Democracy doesn't work.

Democracy is a lie, and it serves only to appease you... I'm gonna keep saying 'you' or 'us' because it's better than saying 'people who vote'. It's only a few months off anyway.

Now, don't get me wrong. Democracy is by far the best running system of government that currently exists. But that's also the problem. Society is so goddamn complacent with things. With any given concept, people ignore its flaws and put up with it because no one's in a gas chamber.

But we're not hypocrites here. What are democracy's positives?

• It involves the people having a say in the who governs them.
• It is the only one of the three main systems which allows the people to see everything that's happening and make decisions about it.
• It ensures the people who come to power are representative of the majority's best interests

So democracy sounds good so far. Negatives?

• In reality, there is little to no distinction between the candidates, meaning only one group is being represented - thereby defeating the purpose of democracy.
• There is little transparency - dishonesty in politicians has become so commonplace it's the basis of jokes. This means that the people are voting for people to run their lives with only a small amount of the knowledge required to make an informed decision.
• Despite the range of candidates who could potentially represent the minorities, there are two parties that for some reason are placed in the forefront. This also defeats the purpose of democracy.

Democracy is supposed to mean that the public decides on a figure that best represents them. Why, then, do we have two rich white guys in suits running the fucking show? Where's the young brown Pastafarian lesbian?

But seriously, there's no free choice when there's one option. Now, that's not to say there are literally no other options. We have minor parties all over the place. But the only attention the media (you know, that fair and unbiased source we rely on for freedom of information?) gives those parties is condescending garbage to subtly tell you they're not worth a damn.

And of course, we listen. "Well, it makes sense. How could those amateurs run a country?" Seems like a fair point, too. But that's before you turn around and review our situation. We're sitting here, laughing our asses off at the fucking clowns in Parliament, hurling schoolyard insults and stopping just short of pulling out the motherfucking super soakers.

It's a chronic illness our society has. We continuously vote one of two ways, crossing our fingers that this time there'll be no fuck-ups. Yeah, twelfth time's the charm. And then when there is a fuck-up, we swap sides and vote for the other guy. "He won't fuck it up! He'll fix everything!" And when he makes things worse? "This time, it'll be alright! We'll vote for the first guy again, and maybe thirteenth time's the charm!" Fuck it. But if you even hint at breaking this wholly sacred ritual of election time (potentially upsetting the Ancient Ones), you get the third degree by all the "sane" people, who recognise the absolute stupidity of voting a minor party because they're untrustworthy and unqualified. "We can't vote for a minor party! They have no experience in Parliament! They'll surely fuck it up! I'm much more comfortable voting for people who I at least know are fuck-ups."

So I pose the question: why do we ridicule the minor parties, based on the possibility that they'll mess it up, while putting all our trust in the people who we constantly criticise for messing up?

There's such a stupid fucking trend we have going on where we vote someone that history and common sense tells us is incompetent, then spend 3-4 years repeatedly bashing the capability of any and all the politicians in Parliament (including the ones we voted in), then vote for the other guys (who we were also bashing), repeat step 2 then step 1.

It seems like I'm just missing something crucial here, and please help me understand what it is. Because it's either that, or we're very obviously stuck in some kind of rut that ultimately gets us nowhere, drains our pockets and our quality of life, and improves the lives of those who profit off our collective self-destruction. Please tell me it's the former, or else humanity has to do some serious contemplation.

The Return

So I'm back, I guess. To be quite honest, I have no idea why I was gone, and how it happened. It just did. Anyway, I thought I'd outline my stance on something I haven't really looked at in-depth here. War.

I'm going to ask you some questions which I'll answer as well. What are your thoughts on these?

1. What are your thoughts on soldiers - heroes or enablers?

2. Is war necessary?

3. What's an ideal alternative?




My thoughts:

1.  I have a mixture of feelings for soldiers - pity and frustration. The thing is, most people don't join the army because they want to kill Arabs or gooks. They do it because they think it's the right thing to do. They want to serve their nation and protect its citizens. And that's a load of bollocks, because war more often than not ends with civilians everywhere being fucked over. Whether it's families disrupted because some poor sod got his legs blown off, or entire villages and cities getting torched or bombed. I don't think it's possible for war to exist and purely be between the armed troops. Thing is though, can you really blame the soldiers that much? That's where my conflicted feelings come into it. I feel sorry for them, because they're fed horse-shit about how they're doing a great service to the nation and how they're helping make the world safe. It's just that - horse-shit. What's war ever achieved that fierce negotiation couldn't have, aside from billions of dollars worth of damage and a shitload of corpses and debris to sweep up? (I speak, of course, with the exception of just war - WWII, for example, probably couldn't have been fixed without physical action). 

At the same time, it's frustrating to see so many people jumping on board with this whole concept. I'll outline the alternative later on, but this ridiculous cycle of war and slight peace can't end until we make that adjustment - stop volunteering to enable it. That said, I reiterate the point that the governments are to blame for misleading the citizens they're supposed to be protecting and serving into dying for them. I mean, look at those fucking recruitment ads. Have you EVER seen a soldier getting a bullet in the eye socket in those ads? They don't show you what you're signing up for. Instead, they take some photos of a bunch of guys with beers in their hands chilling out enjoying life - as though military life is regular life with a nice uniform and more people to socialise with. JOIN THE ARMY - VOTED AUSTRALIA'S #1 SOCIAL NETWORK!

Fuck right off. Check this ad out. Fucking bullshit.


2. No. War is not fucking necessary. I want to put this in perspective by using innocent eyes. Try to cast out of your mind all your knowledge and images of war. Pretend you've never heard the term before. Try your hardest. Or even better, try to type out how you would explain war to a child, without exaggerating or bending anything. Straight up. What would you say? That's the best way to really understand something. Here's my attempt. And God help me if my kid ever asks me what war is, because I don't want to lie, and I don't want to ever tell a kid this either.

War is how governments settle their problems. You know how we always tell you that violence is never the answer? That's not true sometimes. If one country's president has a serious disagreement with another country's president, they each lie and exaggerate to their country's citizens, and convince as many as possible to volunteer to join a team. Then they go and try to kill as many people from the other team as they can. Each of the teams gets a bunch of big guns and bombs, and they do whatever they can to kill the other team, and sometimes even people who didn't want to play. There are rules, but a lot of the time they ignore the rules, and they're only punished for it sometimes.

That's essentially war. A bit biased, I admit. But that's the gist, isn't it? A government's purpose is to protect and serve the community. They're meant to maintain order and stability, and maximise the quality of their citizens' lives.

So isn't it a bit out of order for them to lie and manipulate facts to convince people to offer their lives, and then take another person's from them? Why is it so fucking commonplace to imagine a 20-year-old killing another 20-year-old purely because they've been told to by their governments? The governments are the ones having the problems. Citizens have no connection whatsoever to them. How does it make sense for these citizens to be the ones killing each other over it?

I mean, seriously, think about it simplistically. What purpose could it possibly serve to solve a problem by just getting a bunch of guys to keep killing another bunch of guys? How the fuck does that end up settling official governmental disputes? Is it like chess, where they keep battling and killing each other until one side has no more pieces? Please, enlighten me as to how it helps. "Ah, yes, Mr Obama. I didn't agree with you before, but that attack really opened my eyes. Those 200 of my men dying just persuaded me." Or is it more like, keep going until one side gives in? Which is just plain sick. Using citizens' lives as a means of bargaining. "Do you give up yet, Obama? Or do I need to kill another 300? I'm doing it... Oh, shit, lost 150 in the process. But I have the stronger will. I shall not surrender yet! You there, go kill more of his guys!" "But we'll be slaughtered, sir!" "I SHALL NOT SURRENDER YET! DO IT!" Which leads me to the alternative...


3. I know this sounds stupid. But, if it's actually the case that negotiation just isn't plausible, then why isn't it the governments doing the fighting? Look at the fucking waste of lives, who had no relevance whatsoever to the actual issue at hand. Just pieces of garbage being lobbed at the other side of the table. Wouldn't it make more sense for the people having the disagreement to be the ones fighting it out, instead of the chess pieces they apparently own? Human citizens are not chess pieces. They should not be treated as such because their presidents decide to send them to battle. Especially the case when conscription happens.

I know it sounds ridiculous. But like I've established, wouldn't the current war system sound just as ludicrous to an outsider? Say, an alien? It's like when you think about what it would be like if "lemon" was pronounced "leemon". It only sounds so fucking dumb because we're used to it being "lemon". But if it had always been "leemon", then we'd find the idea of "lemon" to be absurd.

See what I mean? In reality, I think war as it is just doesn't make sense, compared to the idea of the governments themselves fighting each other. If, for example, Obama decided to take action against Vladimir Putin, I think it would be more effective if they fought each other, one-on-one. Sounds too primitive and barbaric, you say? Fine. Let's stick with the current method of thousands of innocent people murdering thousands of other innocent people until someone decides to compromise.


I'm sorry if I sound childish and simplistic. But I believe if everyone held that simplistic view, the world would be a better place. Anyways. I'm bound to be disagreed with, so let's have a discussion.