Showing posts with label Community. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Community. Show all posts

Monday, 8 April 2013

National-Anarchist Communities: Will I Be Accepted?


This essay is included and first published in the recently released 2013 publication,  National-Anarchism: Methodology and Application, edited by Troy Southgate and available from Black Front Press.


by Neil G. Hiatt


“In a world of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” - George Orwell, 'Nineteen Eighty Four'

                        This article has stemmed from a question posed by an enquiring mind and the conversation that developed in response on the National-Anarchist Movement (N-AM) Facebook group [1]. It was a reasonable question, for the only 'stupid' question is the one that is not asked, as long as it is posed in a respectful, civil and constructive manner, and one that arose due to the misunderstanding (either genuine or because of the lies spread by our detractors with an ulterior fascistic motive) of the National-Anarchist 'ideology'. That is, specifically, in regards to National-Anarchist communities and how they would relate to people of 'mixed heritage' and whether or not they would be accepted into an above mentioned community, or for that matter, which community they would be 'placed' into.

However, important as it is, this article will not limit itself to those solely of mixed ethnic background, but all manner of individual characteristics and how they would relate to acceptance within a National-Anarchist community. Some characteristics of the individual, whether relating to cultural, sexual orientation, gender, or by any number of distinctions, may not be mentioned due to the overwhelming number alone, but I trust the gist of what I am saying will be clearly understood nevertheless.

I thought it a question that, as it rears its head every now and again, deserved to be put into article format for the benefit of others that may have similar questions, if only reiterating the points and various views made elsewhere by myself and others – a sort of bringing it all together in one place if you will. Yet, I do not claim this to be the final answer on the topic and welcome others to elaborate upon it if the desire is felt.

The first thing that needs to be pointed out is that National-Anarchism is for every race, and not the 'white race' or any one race alone (however you may define race) as is sometimes believed, and more-so that National-Anarchism has supporters of many racial, ethnic, cultural, and religious backgrounds, and from all over the world. Indeed, it must also be pointed out for those that are not familiar with National-Anarchism in general or from a non-hostile perspective, that there is far more to National-Anarchism than mere race! This can be seen by anyone with an open and unbiased mind with the willingness to learn the truth and not have their opinions subject to, and tainted by, smears – often by so called 'Anarchists' that have far more in common with fascists and that act like Nazi-Stormtroopers. This is often the case with dogmatic leftists stuck in their political cages, unable to view anything or anyone from outside of their own narrow minded and ideologically restrictive shackles. And, of course and not forgetting, the first port of call for many in the internet age with the significantly flawed and biased Wikipedia article. But as Voltaire is quoted as stating, “Our wretched species is so made that those who walk on the well-trodden path always throw stones at those who are showing a new road." And, I think, followed up nicely by Henry Louis Mencken when he stated, "Any man who afflicts the human race with ideas must be prepared to see them misunderstood."

I once read an eloquent comment, so poignant in its avowal narrative contextually and directly, that regrettably it escapes me from whence it came or of its original form, that went something to the effect: There really must be a resilient viral strain, an endemic of psychosis in prodigious scope here in the western world, that makes it decidedly insurmountable for anyone to have such an imagination necessary to evaluate objectively anything at all from another context than their own. After-all, having the eyes to see and ears to hear mean absolutely nothing without a mind to think.

I urge those truly interested in learning the truth to view the numerous articles and radio interviews on the National-Anarchist website, read the manifesto, the various discussions on the National-Anarchist facebook groups, and specifically the books on National-Anarchism put out by National-Anarchists. [2]

As I have stated before, regardless of what you may or may not believe, nor how strong you hold on to whatever convictions you might have, it is an eternal truth that to hold a valid, intelligent, and educated opinion on any subject or matter, and to make any decision based on such, you need to always, and regardless of consequence, look at both sides of the story. Equally important is that you delve into any issue of debate or interest with an open and unbiased mind. This is, I am afraid, the only way to truly hold an informed and edified sentiment in any area, that is reasoned, rational and sophisticated and equally impartial, non partisan and realistically fair. Without such you can never hope to be taken seriously, by others, nor importantly I might add, by yourself. To have any hope of holding an educated opinion you need to listen to both sides of the story and then, and only then, can you truly decide for yourself on your stance in such a way as laid out above. You need to do research and one should always look at all angles from all possible roots in an open-minded manner, regardless of any particular area of study, without bias, prejudice or personal preference. This is the only way to get an unbiased and balanced point of view. That much is fact.

The question of 'race' and the confusion over the term 'National' (and its alleged oxymoronic status when when linked to 'Anarchism') and various lies spread about the National-Anarchist Movement have been the subject of a number of articles and discussions [3], addressed and thoroughly refuted by writers far better than myself, because, as Mark Twain is credited as stating, "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes." So, that need not be discussed here. However, that being said, the question of communities, race, and acceptance, does.

So, where to start? Well, let us begin here...

If one was Black, Asian, Jewish, White, or mixed, etc, racially speaking, would they be accepted into a National-Anarchist community? The short answer is yes, even if that community has to be started by that person, or persons, themselves. By extension, if one was homosexual, Muslim, Christian, Odinist, environmentalist, vegan, etc, they too would be accepted into a community, even, as I have stated above, that community has to be started by that person, or persons, themselves. Having said that, they may also be accepted into another already existing community, and one that isn't formed on the basis of homogeneity - racially, religiously, or culturally speaking. Like I said, the short answer is yes, but there are also many a letter between the Alpha and Omega, metaphorically speaking. And, to illustrate this, that is ultimately up to the parties involved themselves to decide, freely, and respectfully.

At the end of the day, whatever community accepts you, and you agree to their standard of living and operating, is that which you are a part.

The key to understanding this concept of communities within a National-Anarchist framework, is that of non-coercion, free-association, and mutual respect. But also not forgetting autonomy and decentralisation from the state.

And, it needs to be made perfectly clear that there is no vision or secret plan for an all-powerful oligarchy that will decide and force people into certain groups and areas like pawns on a chessboard. Indeed, that would go against the very concept of Anarchism itself. Anyone thinking that has a fundamental misunderstanding of National-Anarchism in general, and Anarchism overall.

Village-communities will spring up based on whatever criteria those involved agree upon (as I have pointed out is already happening in another article [4]), whether it be any of the above or otherwise. We certainly do not wish to place anyone, individual or group, into any assemblage whatsoever – that would be so far from the truth and reality of National-Anarchism that that opinion would be like a dot to us on the proverbial horizon. It must be made clear, that association is the sole responsibility of each individual to decide for themselves who they wish to affiliate with, and conversely, the decision of the existing group as to who they wish to let into their tribal village-community.

For example, and for arguments sake, I am white, and I come across an already existing National-Anarchist community that is based upon Odinic principles, spiritually speaking. That community may be based on spirituality alone, or also incorporate racial separatism into the mix, or not as the case may be. Now, I am an Odinist anyway and the community accept me, but I may not agree with the fact that they are racially separatist or that they are not vegan like I am. So, what then? Well, it is rather simple when looked at from an Anarchist perspective, based upon 'non-coercion, free-association, and mutual respect', or common sense for that matter. That is a community that developed with a group of individuals with shared opinions, and ideologies, that are not interested in what anyone else is doing as long as it doesn't affect them and they don't force anything upon anyone else. It was created entirely out of mutual understanding and agreement, so I either accept their stance, or move on. Now, I can either find a group of others that share my view of a community or I can form one myself, or work on my own for that matter. But like I say, it is down to, and I stress again, non-coercion, free-association, and mutual respect. It is actually very simple when you look at it.

For me to come into a group, that has come together and mutually agreed upon what they want their community to consist of or ideals based upon, and start saying that they're wrong, or things should be done differently, or that we should exclude homosexuals (if that existing group welcomes them or is a homosexual community to begin with), or we should only consume vegan food, or that my way works best, is rather fascist in and of itself, and unless it was a respectful discussion in which we all came together to discuss freely, and I accepted the outcome, I'd rather be acting, for fear of repeating myself, like a Nazi-Stormtrooper.

Tribes or groups, whichever term you prefer, may have any number of criteria as to how their communities are formed and to what extent they are ultimately based upon. Yes, some may use race or ethnicity as a separator, and race is a reality to National-Anarchists, but race is not the be all and end all of National-Anarchism, and National-Anarchism extends far beyond such limitations, and into many diverse, yet interconnected areas, as the Manifesto makes apparent. This makes perfectly clear, and is obvious to me at least, that there is simply not just a singular ideal for a National-Anarchist community, but room for any number of them based upon whatever criteria is chosen by those involved.

Race, religion, spirituality, culture, ethnicity, heritage, sexual-orientation, etc, are only some of the components with which different individuals and various groups will choose to come together on in a mutually agreed manner and form a village-community or autonomous-zone out of such cooperatively.

And, of course, as there are now already within the National-Anarchist Movement, groups active that are not based on any of the above, where all are free and welcome to join. But that is the key thing... freedom - the freedom to choose and to associate with whomever you wish, so long as you don't force your opinions and requirements upon others, and equally, others don't force their feelings, persuasions, and sentiments upon you. It is very much live and let live as the saying goes. This ultimately leads to pure and true self-determination and individual autonomy, for those that can mutually cooperate upon whatever criteria they choose, either within the community, or two separate communities based on differing criteria being cooperative and respectful with each other.

If you want to live within a black separatist, homosexual, or raw-food diet only enclave, then so be it! If you want to subsist within a mono-racial or multi-racial community then good for you! If you want to have cohabitation within a naturalist environment with like minded people, then go for it! Any combination of the above or more? Then knock yourself out! The possibilities are endless as long as it is freely and mutually agreed upon. Others should respect you for that and not bother you unless you mutually agree to cooperate for whatever reason, and equally, those separate groups should not bother each other, unless as I state, you mutually agree to cooperate.

As Nathan Wild has said, and I agree, National-Anarchism “is a recognition that communities of different cultures/ethnicity want to be separate to achieve their collective potential. If anything I feel that that is a refreshing honesty or realistic appraisal of reality.”

The point is that autonomy of the individual is paramount, and each person has the unalienable right to associate freely with anyone he or she chooses and sees fit, or, of course, with no-one at all.

As should be apparent by now, National-Anarchism itself doesn't set the boundaries by which communities are made or in any way that individuals should associate, but the communities of individuals themselves set the markers for how they wish to live, freely, and without interference. Ultimately, the individual nor the group should tell any other individual or group how to live or how to think, so long as each individual or group actions do not impede those of others.

To paraphrase Mr. Southgate, non of what is proposed by the National-Anarchist Movement is to be forced upon anyone at all, and is entirely voluntary, with no one being goaded. Furthermore, it is certainly not for the entire country either, whatever country you may reside in. In effect, it is for those that choose it, and, to quote, “must be very gradual and designed to meet the needs and aspirations of those people who wish to preserve their own identities in the face of increasing globalisation. It has more to do with seceding, dropping out or breaking away, than with trying to drive a wedge between people.”

Of course, there are those that enjoy multiculturalism that are not of mixed race, and there are those that are, and that is absolutely fine. What is more, as I have tried to express, is that if a community based upon this is wanted, then so be it, as long as it is voluntary. But, conversely, if there are those that want a community also but are not interested in multiculturalism, then this is fine also, and what is there to stop them cooperating? And, even if they don't want to cooperate and want to be entirely separatist, then this is perfectly fine also. It is all about freedom and respect. I fail to see why anyone would think hate would come into it, that is totally nonsensical. Of course, there are those that hate, but they would have no place within the National-Anarchist Movement. But for those interested in looking deeper, you will find that race is only one element of National-Anarchism, but sadly for some, it means removing their blinkers to see as much.

It really isn't that difficult to understand, and far from how our detractors like to portray us. And, as I have read elsewhere and fully agree,  'anyone that claims the title of 'Anarchist' yet seeks to deny others the right to form communities and associate with others with whom we see fit, based on whatever criteria we mutually agree upon, are not only the furthest removed from true Anarchist principles, but are in actual fact the only real fascists and Nazis left. Furthermore, it is high time that the Anarchist title was reclaimed, and in comparison to typical Right Wing Hollywood Nazi's and Left Wing Marxists, National-Anarchism is indeed a breath of fresh air.'

The childish shouting of the nasty little smear words 'Nazi' or 'Fascist' at us (in effect used to frighten others from talking to us and taint their opinions), rather than engaging in debate in a respectful and constructive manner, is the last line of defence for those without an argument or the ability to converse in a civil way. As Samuel Adams has said, “Mankind are governed more by their feelings than by reason.” These people are not Anarchists, and nor are they shining examples of the humanity they claim to be a part of and astonishingly, represent. They can be seen for what they truly are, hate-filled fascists and puppets of the state, whether they know it or not. Much of it is projection, coupled with their inability to participate in polite dialogue.[5]

See, for example, these far more rational comments on the subject of 'Fascism' within National-Anarchism, with Michael Schmidt, founder and ex-member of the Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Front (ZACF) of South Africa, stating that:

"On balance, in his [Gandhi] völkisch nationalist decentralism, I would argue for him to be seen as something of a forebearer of “national anarchism,” that strange hybrid of recent years. Misdiagnosed by most anarchists as fascist, “national anarchism” fuses radical decentralism, anti-hegemonic anti-statism (and often anti-capitalism), with a strong self-determinist thrust that stresses cultural-ethnic homogeneity with a traditional past justifying a radical future; this is hardly “fascism” or a rebranding of “fascism,” for what is fascism without the state, hierarchy and class, authoritarianism, and the führer-principle?" [6]

And, commenting in the National-Anarchist Movement facebook group, Troy Southgate observes:

“National-Anarchists are also opposed to Fascism. On the other hand, we prefer to avoid using the term 'anti-fascist' because we are not interested in suppressing free speech or free association as many other so-called 'anti-fascists' do, although we are most certainly anti-fascist in terms of our hostility towards fascist centralisation and state dictatorship. In fact our manifesto makes it perfectly clear that National-Anarchism and Fascism are diametrically opposed.”

Indeed, as Noam Chomsky has stated, “If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.”

Labels simply do not have any meaning these days, and using them as smears in some adolescent way to somehow silence someone either shows that person’s lack of understanding of the terms real meaning and association or their complete inability, as mentioned, of being able to hold their own in the civil and respectful conversational manner. Only the immature and foolish mock and scorn that which they have absolutely no knowledge or understanding, nor indeed for that matter, the intellect to grasp such given the opportunity to do so. Mediocrity of the mind, no matter how well one tries to conceal it, will always reveal itself to be as such. Of course, not everyone that childishly disagrees with you is simply not understanding the self evident and logical, but it is on purpose and with an ulterior agenda. Having said that, I fully acknowledge and agree that there are going to be those with genuine questions, and to those we are more than willing to explain and take any and all criticism, and take the time to converse. One thing is for sure, is that we will give far more respect, civility and constructive discussion to those that wish to silence us, than they give us.

I write these words in response to the sick and rotten root of defamatory  accusation that will, when nurtured, grow and spread its disease like an incurable cancer, watered and loved by those with fragmentary circumstantial beliefs, vindictive mindsets, and simple and hateful yet ill-conceived agendas. But, ever the ready gardener will rise above such mediocrity of mind and look to his blessings with honour, respect and decency and move forward with pride and honesty in his heart.

Indeed, who am I to tell others how to live and who to associate with? I certainly wouldn't be an anarchist if I did, more-so a fascist dressed in anarchist clothing. Which, oddly, is what I have come to discover many of the dogmatic leftist 'anarchists' are, fascists in anarchist clothing. Let it be said, we as National-Anarchists are above the fascism and dogmatism of the right, and beyond the dogmatism and fascism of the left.

This movement encourages liberty, justice, autonomy, agorism, self-sufficiency, trade, bartering, environmental deference, non-coercion, free-association, mutual respect and cooperation, and the freedom from interference from the state. Ultimately, it sets you on the path to self-determination and true freedom. But you need to take the first step!

Professor Noam Chomsky has commented that, “If we choose, we can live in a world of comforting illusion.”, yet for an anarchists this should not be an option, so, in summary, I will leave you now with the words of Britain's first Jewish Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli, to ponder:

"To be conscious that you are ignorant is a great step to knowledge."

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Josh Bates, Justin Gillespie, Nathan Wild, and Troy Southgate, for without their valued input and inspiration, I may never have decided to put this article together in the first place, which with respect, incorporates some of their openly expressed opinions, some in paraphrase, that, as a National-Anarchist, I wholeheartedly share.

NOTES

1] 

2] 

3]
* Is National-Anarchism An Oxymoron? – National-AnarchismIn  A Nutshell which also featured in the first volume of National-Anarchist publications, 'National-Anarchism: A Reader' (2012, Black Front Press)
* 'National-Anarchism: Setting The Record Straight' by Troy Southgate, featured in the third volume of National-Anarchist publications, 'National-Anarchism: Theory and Practice' (2012, Black Front Press)
* Lies About National-Anarchism (Links To A Number Of Conversations)

4]
See note 3 in the article 'It Can Be Done, But We Have Too Wake Up' by Neil G. Hiatt which featured in volume three of National-Anarchistpublications, 'National-Anarchism: Theory and Practice' (2012, Black Front Press)

5] 
* The BF Debates here or alternatively here.

6]
* Michael Schmidt, founder and ex-member of the Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Front (ZACF) of South Africa - http://www.anarkismo.net/article/23404



-----------------------------------------------

Monday, 8 October 2012

Organic Farming: Resilience in the Time of Drought

As climate change brings extreme weather, organic farmers say their methods are the answer

While the historic drought that has plagued the Midwest for months wreaks havoc upon many conventional farmers' soil, organic farmers are saying it is not conventional farming or genetically modified crops that will save agriculture from the effects of climate change. Rather, organic farming is the best way forward to be resilient in the age of climate change.

As Mother Jones writer Tom Philpott has written, the drought has laid bare the failure of industrial, or conventional farming. "The message from the Midwest is clear: Chemical-intensive, industrial-scale farming is vulnerable to spells of hot, dry weather—some of the very conditions we can expect to become common as the climate warms," writes Philpott.

University of Illinois small farm advisor James Theuri tells Al Jazeera that organic farming can beat those vulnerabilities. "If indeed we are going to see a climate change and we are going to see less of rain," says Theuri, "organically managed soils will definitely have advantages over conventionally managed soils." Of conventional farming, he says, "We are destroying life below ground."

Unlike industrial farming, organic farmers' soil conservation techniques are better prepared to weather droughts.

Jonathan Foley, director of the Institute on the Environment at the University of the Minnesota, has noted that "decades of industrial farming have depleted the natural organic matter (and 'tilth') of many Midwestern soils, reducing their ability to absorb and store moisture. Fortunately, no-till agriculture and organic farming practices can restore the health of the soil, and greatly improve the resilience of crops to extreme weather."

Organic farmer Molly Breslin tells Al Jazeera, "A lot of people say organic food can't feed the world, and my response is, if we put as much money into research for organic agriculture research as we do for conventional agriculture, then I think that that would probably be a different story."


-----------------------------------------------

Sunday, 7 October 2012

Bhutan aims to be first 100% organic nation

Bhutan's focus on wellbeing and the
environment has caught the UN's eye

NEW DELHI — The Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan, famed for seeking "happiness" for its citizens, is aiming to become the first nation in the world to turn its home-grown food and farmers 100 percent organic.
The tiny Buddhist-majority nation wedged between China and India has an unusual and some say enviable approach to economic development, centred on protecting the environment and focusing on mental well-being.

Its development model measuring "Gross National Happiness" instead of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has been discussed at the United Nations and has been publicly backed by leaders from Britain and France, among others.

It banned television until 1999, keeps out mass tourism to shield its culture from foreign influence, and most recently set up a weekly "pedestrians' day" on Tuesdays that sees cars banned from town centres.
Its determination to chart a different path can be seen in its new policy to phase out artificial chemicals in farming in the next 10 years, making its staple foods of wheat and potatoes, as well as its fruits, 100 percent organic.

Two-thirds of Bhutan's 700,000
strong population depend on farming
"Bhutan has decided to go for a green economy in light of the tremendous pressure we are exerting on the planet," Agriculture Minister Pema Gyamtsho told AFP in an interview by telephone from the capital Thimphu.

"If you go for very intensive agriculture it would imply the use of so many chemicals, which is not in keeping with our belief in Buddhism, which calls for us to live in harmony with nature."

Bhutan has a population of just over 700,000, two-thirds of whom depend on farming in villages dotted around fertile southern plains near India and the soaring Himalayan peaks and deep valleys to the north.
Overwhelmingly forested, no more than three percent of the country's land area is used for growing crops, says Gyamtsho, with the majority of farmers already organic and reliant on rotting leaves or compost as a natural fertiliser.

"Only farmers in areas that are accessible by roads or have easy transport have access to chemicals," he explained, saying chemical use was already "very low" by international standards.

In the large valleys, such as the one cradling the sleepy capital Thimphu, chemicals are used to kill a local weed that is difficult to take out by hand -- a challenge compounded by a lack of farm labour.

Elsewhere, the fertiliser urea is sometimes added to soil, while a fungicide to control leaf rust on wheat is also available.

Bhutan has been determined to phase
out artificial chemicals in farming
"We have developed a strategy that is step-by-step. We cannot go organic overnight," Gyamtsho said, describing a policy and roadmap which were formally adopted by the government last year.

"We have identified crops for which we can go organic immediately and certain crops for which we will have to phase out the use of chemicals, for rice in certain valleys for example."

Bhutan's only competitor for the first "100 percent organic" title is the tiny self-governing island of Niue in the South Pacific, which has a population of only 1,300. It aims to reach its objective by 2015-2020.

Nadia Scialabba, a global specialist on organic farming at the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation, says the organic food market and its premium prices are attractive for small countries and territories.

"This is happening in very small countries who are not competitive on quantity, but they would like to be competitive in quality," she told AFP.

The country's staple foods of
wheat and potatoes are
100-percent organic
The global organics market was estimated to be worth 44.5 billion euros (57 billion dollars) in 2010, according to figures from the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture and the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements.

Bhutan sends rare mushrooms to Japan, vegetables to upmarket hotels in Thailand, its highly-prized apples to India and elsewhere, as well as red rice to the United States.

By shunning fertilisers and other chemicals, the country also stands to gain by reducing its import bill -- a particular concern for a country short on foreign currency.

Peter Melchett, policy director at Britain's organic Soil Association, says the main benefit of becoming 100 percent organic is an assurance of quality to consumers.

"Because there won't be pesticides or other chemicals on sale in the kingdom, they would be able to offer a high level of guarantees that products are organic," Melchett explained.

In countries like Spain, for example, there is a problem of contamination when organic farms are next to highly industrialised producers using large quantities of artificial chemicals, Melchett said.

"It's difficult for organic farmers in those circumstances to keep their crops and supply-chain free of contamination."

Bhutan's organic policy would "start to give the country a reputation of high quality organic food which in the long-run would give them a market advantage and the possibility of price premiums," he added.

Jurmi Dorji, a member of the 103-strong Daga Shingdrey Pshogpa farmers' association in southern Bhutan, says his fellow members are in favour of the policy.

"More than a decade ago, people realised that the chemicals were not good for farming," he told AFP. "I cannot say everyone has stopped using chemicals but almost 90 percent have."

(Source)

-----------------------------------------------

Thursday, 4 October 2012

The US middle class families without enough to eat


Throughout the 2012 presidential campaign, the BBC has returned to Levittown, Pennsylvania to explore issues facing America's middle class.

At a basement food pantry in suburban Pennsylvania, 2,000lb (907kg) of food are given to roughly 160 families a week.

The majority of families come from the Levittown neighbourhoods - an iconic planned suburb that once ushered in the era of a post-World War II American dream.

But times have changed and even in quiet, leafy suburbs families now struggle with the basic needs of food and shelter. The number of residents using food pantries has risen dramatically over the past few years throughout the county.

Even those who have jobs can still find the cost of living is too high to make ends meet, as the BBC's David Botti reports.

Watch the video HERE.

-----------------------------------------------

Friday, 28 September 2012

City of Toronto Workers Destroy Free Community Food Garden Amid Growing Food Crisis


City of Toronto Workers Destroy Free Community Food Garden Amid Growing Food Crisis

This morning workers from the City of Toronto were ordered by City of Toronto Parks Director Richard Ubbens to remove all live plants and food from the People's Peas Garden in Queens Park. They were ordered to take the plants and food to the dump and lay sod overtop of this most beautiful free comm

unity food garden, without warning, without a chance to remove the rare heirloom plant species or harvest the food. The garden was planted by Occupy Gardens and allies on May 1st, in defense of local and global food security. While the garden has been growing undisturbed for nearly 5 months, with the help of hundreds in the community, the city deliberately decided to have it removed upon the eve of the Autumn Jam: A Harvest Party and celebration of sharing, community and free local food, which is happening tomorrow from 12-6pm at the garden in Queens Park (northwest section).


The reason? The people did not have permission to grow free food on public land. I come from a city and country where one does not need permission to do the right thing. We are experiencing a "glocal" food crisis, where more and more people are lining up at food banks for kraft dinner and peanut butter, waiting lists for community gardens are growing, food prices rising, and our leaders are nowhere to be seen. Rather they are hiding behind their desk ordering the workers to destroy whatever hope we have left.

We need help sharing this story far and wide.

We will be having our Autumn Jam harvest party/vigil tomorrow as scheduled from 12noon-6pm in the northwest section of Queens Park.

As a side note - last Monday Sept 17th gardeners travelled to Ottawa on a Peas Keeping mission for national, global food security, where we planted a free heart-shaped food garden on Parliament Hill, at which point the RCMP stomped on the plants and threatened arresting people, we removed the plants and relayed the sod.

Thanks so much for your time and help,

In Peas, Lovage & SOILidarity!

Jacob Kearey-Moreland- Occupy Gardens Toronto

RCMP Stop Occupy Toronto From Planting Garden On Parliament Hill

Monday, October 1st- Right to Food Rally - NO GARDEN IS ILLEGAL http://www.facebook.com/events/185270878275210/
we are bringing the garden to them and are going to plant a free food garden at city hall



-----------------------------------------------

Tuesday, 25 September 2012

Are You An Anarchist? The Answer May Surprise You! (David Graeber)


Chances are you have already heard something about who anarchists are and what they are supposed to believe. Chances are almost everything you have heard is nonsense. Many people seem to think that anarchists are proponents of violence, chaos, and destruction, that they are against all forms of order and organization, or that they are crazed nihilists who just want to blow everything up. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. Anarchists are simply people who believe human beings are capable of behaving in a reasonable fashion without having to be forced to. It is really a very simple notion. But it’s one that the rich and powerful have always found extremely dangerous.

At their very simplest, anarchist beliefs turn on to two elementary assumptions. The first is that human beings are, under ordinary circumstances, about as reasonable and decent as they are allowed to be, and can organize themselves and their communities without needing to be told how. The second is that power corrupts. Most of all, anarchism is just a matter of having the courage to take the simple principles of common decency that we all live by, and to follow them through to their logical conclusions. Odd though this may seem, in most important ways you are probably already an anarchist — you just don’t realize it.

Let’s start by taking a few examples from everyday life.

If there’s a line to get on a crowded bus, do you wait your turn and refrain from elbowing your way past others even in the absence of police?

If you answered “yes”, then you are used to acting like an anarchist! The most basic anarchist principle is self-organization: the assumption that human beings do not need to be threatened with prosecution in order to be able to come to reasonable understandings with each other, or to treat each other with dignity and respect.

Everyone believes they are capable of behaving reasonably themselves. If they think laws and police are necessary, it is only because they don’t believe that other people are. But if you think about it, don’t those people all feel exactly the same way about you? Anarchists argue that almost all the anti-social behavior which makes us think it’s necessary to have armies, police, prisons, and governments to control our lives, is actually caused by the systematic inequalities and injustice those armies, police, prisons and governments make possible. It’s all a vicious circle. If people are used to being treated like their opinions do not matter, they are likely to become angry and cynical, even violent — which of course makes it easy for those in power to say that their opinions do not matter. Once they understand that their opinions really do matter just as much as anyone else’s, they tend to become remarkably understanding. To cut a long story short: anarchists believe that for the most part it is power itself, and the effects of power, that make people stupid and irresponsible.

Are you a member of a club or sports team or any other voluntary organization where decisions are not imposed by one leader but made on the basis of general consent?

If you answered “yes”, then you belong to an organization which works on anarchist principles! Another basic anarchist principle is voluntary association. This is simply a matter of applying democratic principles to ordinary life. The only difference is that anarchists believe it should be possible to have a society in which everything could be organized along these lines, all groups based on the free consent of their members, and therefore, that all top-down, military styles of organization like armies or bureaucracies or large corporations, based on chains of command, would no longer be necessary. Perhaps you don’t believe that would be possible. Perhaps you do. But every time you reach an agreement by consensus, rather than threats, every time you make a voluntary arrangement with another person, come to an understanding, or reach a compromise by taking due consideration of the other person’s particular situation or needs, you are being an anarchist — even if you don’t realize it.

Anarchism is just the way people act when they are free to do as they choose, and when they deal with others who are equally free — and therefore aware of the responsibility to others that entails. This leads to another crucial point: that while people can be reasonable and considerate when they are dealing with equals, human nature is such that they cannot be trusted to do so when given power over others. Give someone such power, they will almost invariably abuse it in some way or another.

Do you believe that most politicians are selfish, egotistical swine who don’t really care about the public interest? Do you think we live in an economic system which is stupid and unfair?

If you answered “yes”, then you subscribe to the anarchist critique of today’s society — at least, in its broadest outlines. Anarchists believe that power corrupts and those who spend their entire lives seeking power are the very last people who should have it. Anarchists believe that our present economic system is more likely to reward people for selfish and unscrupulous behavior than for being decent, caring human beings. Most people feel that way. The only difference is that most people don’t think there’s anything that can be done about it, or anyway — and this is what the faithful servants of the powerful are always most likely to insist — anything that won’t end up making things even worse.

But what if that weren’t true?

And is there really any reason to believe this? When you can actually test them, most of the usual predictions about what would happen without states or capitalism turn out to be entirely untrue. For thousands of years people lived without governments. In many parts of the world people live outside of the control of governments today. They do not all kill each other. Mostly they just get on about their lives the same as anyone else would. Of course, in a complex, urban, technological society all this would be more complicated: but technology can also make all these problems a lot easier to solve. In fact, we have not even begun to think about what our lives could be like if technology were really marshaled to fit human needs. How many hours would we really need to work in order to maintain a functional society — that is, if we got rid of all the useless or destructive occupations like telemarketers, lawyers, prison guards, financial analysts, public relations experts, bureaucrats and politicians, and turn our best scientific minds away from working on space weaponry or stock market systems to mechanizing away dangerous or annoying tasks like coal mining or cleaning the bathroom, and distribute the remaining work among everyone equally? Five hours a day? Four? Three? Two? Nobody knows because no one is even asking this kind of question. Anarchists think these are the very questions we should be asking.

* Do you really believe those things you tell your children (or that your parents told you)?

“It doesn’t matter who started it.” “Two wrongs don’t make a right.” “Clean up your own mess.” “Do unto others…” “Don’t be mean to people just because they’re different.” Perhaps we should decide whether we’re lying to our children when we tell them about right and wrong, or whether we’re willing to take our own injunctions seriously. Because if you take these moral principles to their logical conclusions, you arrive at anarchism.

Take the principle that two wrongs don’t make a right. If you really took it seriously, that alone would knock away almost the entire basis for war and the criminal justice system. The same goes for sharing: we’re always telling children that they have to learn to share, to be considerate of each other’s needs, to help each other; then we go off into the real world where we assume that everyone is naturally selfish and competitive. But an anarchist would point out: in fact, what we say to our children is right. Pretty much every great worthwhile achievement in human history, every discovery or accomplishment that’s improved our lives, has been based on cooperation and mutual aid; even now, most of us spend more of our money on our friends and families than on ourselves; while likely as not there will always be competitive people in the world, there’s no reason why society has to be based on encouraging such behavior, let alone making people compete over the basic necessities of life. That only serves the interests of people in power, who want us to live in fear of one another. That’s why anarchists call for a society based not only on free association but mutual aid. The fact is that most children grow up believing in anarchist morality, and then gradually have to realize that the adult world doesn’t really work that way. That’s why so many become rebellious, or alienated, even suicidal as adolescents, and finally, resigned and bitter as adults; their only solace, often, being the ability to raise children of their own and pretend to them that the world is fair. But what if we really could start to build a world which really was at least founded on principles of justice? Wouldn’t that be the greatest gift to one’s children one could possibly give?

Do you believe that human beings are fundamentally corrupt and evil, or that certain sorts of people (women, people of color, ordinary folk who are not rich or highly educated) are inferior specimens, destined to be ruled by their betters?

If you answered “yes”, then, well, it looks like you aren’t an anarchist after all. But if you answered “no”, then chances are you already subscribe to 90% of anarchist principles, and, likely as not, are living your life largely in accord with them. Every time you treat another human with consideration and respect, you are being an anarchist. Every time you work out your differences with others by coming to reasonable compromise, listening to what everyone has to say rather than letting one person decide for everyone else, you are being an anarchist. Every time you have the opportunity to force someone to do something, but decide to appeal to their sense of reason or justice instead, you are being an anarchist. The same goes for every time you share something with a friend, or decide who is going to do the dishes, or do anything at all with an eye to fairness.

Now, you might object that all this is well and good as a way for small groups of people to get on with each other, but managing a city, or a country, is an entirely different matter. And of course there is something to this. Even if you decentralize society and put as much power as possible in the hands of small communities, there will still be plenty of things that need to be coordinated, from running railroads to deciding on directions for medical research. But just because something is complicated does not mean there is no way to do it democratically. It would just be complicated. In fact, anarchists have all sorts of different ideas and visions about how a complex society might manage itself. To explain them though would go far beyond the scope of a little introductory text like this. Suffice it to say, first of all, that a lot of people have spent a lot of time coming up with models for how a really democratic, healthy society might work; but second, and just as importantly, no anarchist claims to have a perfect blueprint. The last thing we want is to impose prefab models on society anyway. The truth is we probably can’t even imagine half the problems that will come up when we try to create a democratic society; still, we’re confident that, human ingenuity being what it is, such problems can always be solved, so long as it is in the spirit of our basic principles — which are, in the final analysis, simply the principles of fundamental human decency.

(Source)

Related articles

Anarchy 101 (Bob Black)


-----------------------------------------------

Friday, 21 September 2012

How "Crazy Survivalists" Make The World A Better Place


I was recently interviewed by a journalist for a local newspaper who was developing a story on the exponential rise of the “prepper lifestyle” in America, most especially in Western Montana. Being an outsider to the Liberty Movement, she was naturally curious as to what motivated us to make what some in our culture would see as a drastic and bewildering leap away from the mainstream. She was equally fascinated with our willingness to travel great distances and make substantial sacrifices to live in regions like the American Redoubt. 

I will not deny, Montana has indeed become a “hotbed” of survivalism and Constitutionalism, or what the Southern Poverty Law Center would call “extremism and domestic terrorism”. I lived in Pittsburgh for years while writing for Neithercorp and Alt-Market and rarely ran into like minded individuals aware of the tenuous status of our society. Within days of moving to Montana, I was being recognized by complete strangers in supermarkets excited to discuss the inner workings of Keynesian monetary corruption, precious metals investment, and Alinsky disinformation tactics. Yeah…I know…it’s weird.

After living for a while in the Redoubt, you begin to forget that there are still many people in this country that are utterly oblivious to the epic dangers around them, as well as painfully helpless in knowing what to do when those dangers land on their doorsteps. Speaking with the newspaper reporter, and my experiences at Paulfest in Tampa, Florida, reminded me that the world has yet to be reminded of the value of survivalism. There is still a gap, a disconnect, a psychological twitch of the masses, and it compels me to explain, yet again, what they are missing.

I had thought about using parables like the ancient Greek story of Cassandra, who was given the gift of foresight and prophecy, but also stricken with a curse which prevented anyone from believing her dire warnings. Or the story of Noah, who was given an omen, a vision of catastrophe, and directed by God on how to save a remnant of life, while knowing that most of the people around him would perish. And what about Galileo, who simply tried to point out the scientific operations of the universe in which we exist, only to be ostracized by his church and government. In these modern times, however, many find it increasingly difficult to relate to mythology, bible lore, or even historical precedence. Luckily, there is always cinema…


While considering this topic, as if by design, I stumbled upon the film ‘Take Shelter’, the story of a man who suffers from acute intuition. His vivid dreams warn him of a nightmare event, but is he a prophet, or a schizophrenic with delusions of doom?


Human beings hold within them a natural mechanism, a moral dynamo that compels them to alert others to the dangers they see silhouette on the horizon. Every survivalist today has at one time or another felt the overwhelming weight of responsibility that comes with knowing; not believing, but KNOWING the future. The film 'Take Shelter' illustrates the internal and external dilemmas of the survivalist in a way that is striking, beautiful, and affirming.

Prophetic dreams and spoken messages from the heavens are not necessarily required to understand the dilemmas our nation faces in the new millennium. It does not take a psychic to see the mathematical certainty of dollar devaluation and loss of world reserve status. The degradation of our civil liberties in the name of state security. The formation of unaccountable supranational bodies which are quickly encroaching upon our individual sovereignty. In fact, a person would have to be mentally blind, deaf, and dumb to NOT grasp what is happening right under their noses. Sadly, this is where a majority of the American populace lives. 

Even at Paulfest, a convention and congregation of what I consider some of the most awake and socially aware people on the planet, I discovered that at least half of those in attendance had a minimal sense of urgency as far as a true national crisis was concerned, clinging to the assumption that they had yet more time to stab at top down solutions and political tap dancing that continually falls short of what is necessary to restore liberty.

It is difficult to retain one’s composure in the face of the astounding absurdity of normalcy bias. The idea that today’s comforts will continue on tomorrow and forever is a powerful one. To break such apathy requires steadfast resolve. Sometimes, only startling and terrifying events are enough to rattle the mindless masses. Sometimes, you just have to let the chips fall where they may, speak the truth to the best of your ability, and let the herd sort out the rest in their own good time, whatever there is left of it. What we see as a forgone conclusion, what we passionately fight to expose, in their minds often translates into belligerence and a frightening subversion of their joyous naivety:



As we invade their perfect world with the dreadful facts of life, their subconscious reflex is to regard us as a tangible threat. The first reaction is always to laugh. Ridicule without substance is the primary defense of the ignorant. But, what if you don’t go away? What if your arguments are too precise? What if there is too much clarity to your position? What if you have a whole movement of people behind you? What if you are a force to be reckoned with, and cannot be refuted or dissuaded? What if logic dictates the admission that you are right, and they are wrong?

Then arises fury…

It is not uncommon for the truth tellers of an era to be labeled the enemies of society. To be held as criminals, traitors, and terrorists. In fact, the establishment has in the past two decades made every effort to paint survivalists as the boogeymen of our age; unstable and unpredictable wild-men hell bent on destruction in the name of some hallucinatory ideology. Using generalizations, false associations, and outright lies, corrupt governments seek to fool the citizenry into viewing survivalists as a fringe element and a dark underbelly of their otherwise serene state sponsored existence.

In contrast, I would like to point out to the non-prepper populace the advantages of having some of us “loony” survivalists around. Rarely in the mainstream are we ever presented with the utility of survival proponents, and how they actually serve the interests of the “greater good” to quote a phrase often used by drooling collectivists and statists who desperately try to defame the prepper subculture…


Advantage #1: Survivalists Have Their Own Stuff – They Don’t Need Your Stuff

Survivalists have their own stuff, which means, they will likely not feel compelled to take your stuff, if, that is, you have any stuff worth having. In the midst of a calamity, being surrounded by preppers is one of the best insurance policies a person could acquire. Think about it; would you rather have me as a neighbor, with my guns, ammo, food supply, off-grid solar power and water, and anti-establishment angst, or, would you rather have some superficial sickly fake friendly suburban yuppie with a Mercedes, an overpriced boat, a $100,000-plus debt obligation, a repressed inferiority complex, a vicious department store-addicted trophy wife, three spoiled crusty children with a vocabulary of 80 words or less, and an empty pantry? In a crisis, who is the real threat? Come on!


Advantage #2: Survivalists Keep To Themselves – Your Business Is Your Own


Have you ever lived in the metro areas of California, New York, or Illinois? Ever notice how disgustingly nosy many people tend to become in the more socialist minded regions of America? Neighborhood administrations that cite you for tall grass. Permits on top of permits. Sneers when you smoke a cigarette, even outdoors. Environmental restrictions bordering on the insane. City governments telling you what you are allowed to eat and drink and how much. It’s so enraging it makes you want to wrench someone’s head off their neck and crush their skull like a giant zit.

Survivalists respect privacy. Grow a garden on your front lawn. Smoke your cigarettes (or whatever). Drink your damned 2 liter mega-gulp. Let your kids play with the water hose for hours, or open a lemonade stand. Don’t worry; the authorities will never be told, because we don’t care.


Advantage #3: Survivalists Are Handy


Ever have that one friend, or neighbor, or family member who just seems to have all the right answers when it comes to gardening, or solar power, or repairing that hunting rifle? Who knows all the best camping and fishing spots? Who always seems to be willing to go out of his way to help you set up a good emergency kit in case of that next hurricane, flood, tornado, earthquake, etc? You may very well be working with a survivalist and not even know it. 


Advantage #4: Survivalists Insulate A Region


The more survivalists there are in a particular area, the more likely you are to get through a disaster, whether you have prepared for it or not. A network of survival communities offers an enormous variety of skills, an alternative economy and barter system to tap into, safety from harm during a major implosion or socially unstable times, and the ingenuity required to rebuild after the disaster. 

Let me put it this way: who is more likely to return your environment to a livable state? Groups of survivalists with the know-how and the desire because they actually LIVE in the region? Or, a faceless government bureaucracy like FEMA with no meaningful ties to the community in which you live? 


Advantage #5: Survivalists Cook Up A Mean Barbecue


Show me a survivalist that doesn’t grill like an artist. I defy you!


Advantage #6: Survivalists Stand Their Ground When It Counts


If you ever need someone to back you up in a terrible situation, you can’t do much better than a survivalist. They are used to adversity. In fact, many of us deliberately put ourselves through strenuous training environments in order to learn where we will falter. We make a point to uncover our own weaknesses and improve upon them. Our current comfort obsessed society is almost devoid of this characteristic. Finding a single person who will not let you down is a gift. Finding an entire movement of such people is a miracle. Don’t let it go to waste…


Advantage #7: Survivalists Are Time Capsules For Liberty


Every culture needs watchmen. Not government paid watchmen who seek out power, but citizen volunteers who shun power. Without such watchmen, fundamental principles can be lost or destroyed, and the people of a nation are apt to forget where they came from, and what made them successful in the first place. Though the masses have a tendency to be lured away from the legacy of freedom which once served them towards the twisted ideologies of tyrants and collectivists, in the long run they always return, searching for the almost forgotten abundances of liberty. When the people go searching for freedom once again, the survivalists, the enduring watchmen, will be waiting to greet them.


Advantage #8: Survivalists Are Not Afraid To Remind Society Of Its Mistakes


It is easy to be apathetic to the criminality of government. It is easy to cocoon one’s self inside his own little life, within the minor dramas of his family and of his job. It is easy to turn away from the big picture and hope that the monsters of the world sort themselves out, or overlook us entirely. Unfortunately, this is not how human history has ever been resolved. The worst problems never disappear on their own. Survivalists understand this and are willing to take personal risks in order to uncover the nature of the beast for anyone willing to listen. They understand that their best chance of survival is to preempt a disaster before it ever occurs. The value of this to the longevity of our species cannot be calculated. Without those who can overcome the fears created by conformity, mankind is lost. Our very future depends upon the principles of survivalism, which teaches us to embrace our individuality, love the individualism within others, stand unyielding in the face of oppression, and fight to our dying breath to see that the best in all of us is one day fully realized.

-----------------------------------------------

Tuesday, 18 September 2012

Permaculture: It's not just for hippies and homesteaders anymore

James Islander Shirley Brown has turned her front yard into a permaculturist's 
dream with productive plants  and a sustainably designed garden.

Permaculture may conjure up images of drum circles and people of the patchouli persuasion, but it's much more than a hippie lifestyle handbook. In fact, many people are practicing its principles without even realizing it. If you've recycled, composted, planted a garden, bartered with a neighbor, or canned vegetables, you are already on the road to becoming a permaculturalist. Although the definition is as ever-changing as the environment it seeks to imitate, permaculture is an ecological design system that aims to create efficiency using three main tenets: take care of the earth, take care of the people, and share the surplus. In practice it can take the form of solar panels, straw bale houses, bicycles, aquaponics, backyard chickens, or rain barrels, and it's often associated with homesteading.

At the most recent meeting of the Charleston Permaculture Guild, attendees ranged in age from 20 to over 60, a diverse group of people who work in affordable housing, agriculture, medicinal herbs, and computer science. The common thread among the group is learning how to utilize permaculture principles to help themselves and others live more efficiently, with a smaller footprint, and with increased self-sufficiency.

Chris Carnevale, a co-founder of the guild, admits that he was surprised at the mix of people that attend Charleston meetings compared to the more granola audience he saw in Colorado. "Our membership is over 120 people, and it is very diverse. Our members are looking for practical solutions." (Read further: Source)


-----------------------------------------------