The 10 commandments of Anarchy

enjoy :-)

1.Thou shall seek to destroy capitalism in all forms

This is the first and foremost greatest commandment for all Anarchists. Everything flows from this first commandment. Anarchists seek to subvert the capitalist system and capitalists themselves at any appropriate time.

2.Thou shall disengage from the system and NOT worship consumerism

Anarchists should seek to reduce their inputs into the system. This includes any form of financial input which maintains capitalism, in particular Anarchists should NOT consume goods from the multi-national, like McDonalds, KFC, Bunnings or Harvey Norman et al. and instead support small business enterprise. Think about setting up a local co-op, and use credit unions instead of banks, or Richies supermarkets which donate profits to community groups.

3.Thou shall seek self-sufficiency
Following on from commandment 2, Anarchists should learn to make their own clothes, grow their own food, and any form of self-sufficiency. This reduces an individuals need to operate within the capitalist system. Alternatively, using trade or the barter system amongst similarly minded people. Anarchists should constantly seek to improve themselves through the development of their skill set. This includes; martial arts for self-defense, learning mechanical skills for fixing cars, plumbing or any other household repairs.

4. Thou shall Respect the sovereignty of others
Respect the soverignty of individuals and their right to choose. That means Anarchists do not use violence nor coercion against any individual for their right to express opinions no matter how different from our own as long as their actions or words are not physically harming or coercing another. What we oppose is the system and corporations who are treated as individuals but without accountability. Subverting the system DOES not literally mean SMASHING the system.

5. Thou shall go forth and multiply
Like Christians who go out and evangelise to increase their numbers, so too should an Anarchist. Learn how to network and communicate your ideas to new people. The system will never change if we only associate with like minded people.

6.Thou shall encourage freedom of speech
Anarchists should see the abolition of censorship by the media, State, and individuals. Repression of freedom establishes fear, and disengages individuals from their political people power, which only serves to increase apathy and maintaining the status quo.

7. Thou shall NOT give away personal information to authorities

Anarchists should never use programs such as facebook or myspace where personal information is easily available for authorities to obtain. Anarchists should be in the habit of using Proxy servers to limit the availability of their IP address being available in the ether for tracking. Unless you are asked specifically by the authorities for your personal information, don't give it away for nothing.

8. Thou shall work together for the benefit of mankind

Anarchists should endeavour to work for the greater good, rather than seeking to increase their stature. Anarchists involvement in the movement should not be for financial gain (obviously), but should also avoid the pitfalls of narcissitic self-importance by Anarchist community notoriety, which borders on self-appointed charismatic leaders. Thus, Anarchists should work for the betterment of the community, not for themselves, which, in practice includes community service. This promotes anarchy as an option for social change; Food not bombs is a good example.

9. Thou shall NOT commit anarchy while in the presence of an agent of the law
You're no good to the movement if you're caught. Check to see if police or other authoritarian is present first!

10. Thou shall be paranoid when discussing actions against capitalism

Unlawful actions against capitalism (i.e. spray painting) should not be discussed, and follows from commandment 8 that Anarchists can find themselves entraped due to the pitfalls of egocentrism. Always assume that even your lawful actions (creating a co-op) are going to be subject to infiltrators and trolls who seek to maintain capitalism.

Bank staff push ethics

Industrial Action

The Age, October 29, 2007, In Brief

"Westpac staff want the right to refuse to push financial products such as insurance, credit cards and hefty personal loans on customers who cannot meet their repayments. The staff are demanding their new enterprise agreement severs the link between performance pay and the sale of loan and credit, especially given the record level of household debt in Australia.

But they are heading for a clash with Westpac, which, like all banks, increasingly requires staff to be more entrepreneurial. The employees are also up against industrial relations laws that prevent unions from negotiating "conscience clauses" or engaging in action that disrupts the right to run a business."

Your future is our future

(Westpac's latest slogan)

Westpac's latest advertising (propaganda) campaign shows a number of Australians from diverse backgrounds whom Westpac is declaring that the fate of their future is the fate of Westpac's future, and even includes images of penguins struggling on icebergs with upbeat and hip music.

Considering the disaster in America with sub-prime mortgage loans and the global impact during their demise, one would think that Australian financial institutions would be more realistic in their sales targets. Rather we see banks like Westpac push their employees for a 20% increase per annum in selling credit and loans in exchange for 5% salary bonuses.

Is it a case of those who can't teach, do; and those who wont do, advertise?

News Just In - War with Iran and more Protesting

News hot off the press, War with Iran is imminent!

My finance industry source has informed me that in Australia as of today Oct 26, 2007 all financial transactions to Iran are to be halted IMMEDIATELY. Any employee who disregards the latest embargo will be placed on sanctions.

The Australian newspaper describes how U.S embargos are being forced through the international finance community.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22651090-2703,00.html

The fact that Western Countries are halting all economic involvement with Iran can mean only one thing, we soon will be at war with Iran. The powers that be have been planting the idea of Weapons of Mass destruction in the media over the last year or two. Now we wait for the official announcement.

In other news....

Anti-Fascist Protest at Football Federation Victoria
by Michael Williams

Yesterday I was one of the few to attend the anti-fascist protest at the Football Federation in Thornbury. I was probably the only Anarchist to attend, to those who were too busy or too lazy, SHAME ON YOU! (this includes you Alex)!

The protest wasn't very exciting but the main goal was achieved thanks to Anthony Main, the media liason who organised the response from the Federation. A media statement was released stating they had no involvement in the decision to allow a fascist rock concert, and they regret it happening and claim it won't happen again......

The rock concert was held on October 13th by the two main "bonehead" groups in Melbourne, Blood and Honour and Southern Cross Hammerskins, who held their annual gig to commemorate the death of Ian Stuart, who formed Blood and Honour and ended up dying in a drunken car crash.

Now all we can do is continue to fight the system. I personally believe that as much as I hate Nazis, these petty fascist groups aren't as big a problem as others. Our main concern as Anarchists should be fighting the state and the many forms of capitalism.

Keep up the fight everyone, to those that joined me yesterday, well done!

White Guilt Week

Or some such malarkey. I thought it might be time to tread the fine line between free speech and pissing people off on some racial issue. Hence the title, White Guilt Week.

Indigenous reconciliation hasn't quite become a mainstream issue yet, despite John Howard's superficial attempts at some vague symbolic gesture.

The indigenous issue aside, I feel it's important to note some observations, which I'll relate back to the Aboriginal story. Today I was speaking with a colleague who happens to be from Singapore, half Indian, half Chinese, with Australian citizenship (boy is that a mouthful!). Based on his racial heritage I think it's safe to say he has the ability to discuss race without the knee jerk response of being considered a racist.

We talked about martial arts, and he was discussing his sensei who had studied in Japan, to which i asked "is he Japanese?" to which he replied "no, Aussie".

"No, Aussie"? In colloquial terms, he was referring to the White-Anglo-Saxon-Protestant.

I have also noticed that people are too often afraid to mention racial heritage when describing what a person looks like. This makes it incredibly difficult when trying to figure out who they're referring to. For heavens sake, if the person is Chinese, just say "the Chinese looking lady", or if you're not sure they are from China, Thailand, Malaysia, Japan, or if they are Australian Born Chinese (ABC) simply say "the asian lady". It's certainly not "racist" to make a judgement on what you think someones racial heritage is. I was honestly suprised when my colleague was uncomfortable to use the term "white" to describe someone of Anglo-Saxon heritige. Thus, it seems to me that describing a person's race is not something that just effects "white fellas" but rather an issue that effects everyone in this country.

I am the politically correct apostate.

I fail to see how the euphemism "Aussie" relates to an Anglo-Saxon, and I have the ability to say this as a 7th generation Australian, as my ancestors arrived on the first fleet to this country. I have a direct connection to the colonization disaster for the Indigenous people. For this i feel shame as well as pride. Shame for what it has done for their people, and pride for mine. The pride part is important, important because it allows the issue of reconciliation to become a national mainstream issue.

When you approach a typical "Aussie" on the street about reconciliation, the majority of the time they will not want to talk about the issue or accept the blame for past wrongs. I have two theories as to why.

1.) Blame Game - who wants to deal with shame? Who wants to take that on? I've got enough shame over my addiction, my consumerism, my blah blah blah. Shame is negative, it brings people down, and it's not the way to make friends (something about honey flies and vinegar).

2.) The immigration issue. Immigrants claim to be as Australian as myself, a 7th generation Ango-Saxon colonial. However, because a migrant has no direct connection (as I do) to the British history or a connection to Indigenous history, they don't take on their responsibility for Aboriginal Reconciliation. (I'm stereotyping here).

There are two things that need to change for real Aboriginal Reconciliation. Firstly, migrants who accept they are Australian, should accept their personal role in the Aboriginal story. By accepting the old euphemism "Aussie" to refer to the Anglo-Saxon, they are in an indirect way dismissing Aboriginal suffering as a white issue alone. You cannot become an Australian citizen without taking on the Aboriginal story. If as a new Australian citizen you refuse to accept your role in Aboriginal suffering and that it is an anglo only issue, as time marches on, with further immigration, the Indigenous people of this country will never see justice, acceptance and convalesce.

Secondly, many Anglos are proud of Australia (their role in WWII as one example), and focusing on all the negatives, only further alienates them from the history of Aboriginal suffering. There needs to be access to both the pride and shame in the history of this country, and for all of us, 7th generation Anglo and first generation migrant to accept not only our historical role, but also our individual roles. This will only take place when we remove the "Aussie" euphemism in our vernacular as the old Ango-Saxon stereotype.

Free Speech or Hate Speech?

I wrote a post a little while ago about Free Speech, holding the party line and disgraced Professor Andrew Fraser making comments about different races, and since then I've come across another dishonoured professor.

"Harvard President Lawrence Summers was driven out of his university post in 2005 after he suggested at a conference that gender differences might account for an under representation by women in science, math and engineering."

The article from Real Clear Politics goes on to say....

"Summers, the Blasphemer was banished into the outer darkness. There's no debating that he was punished for saying something that made a special group feel bad -- the new blacklisting offense. To be called a sexist, racist or homophobe today is tantamount to being a communist sympathizer 50-60 years ago."

The question of whether hate speech is free speech has again arisen, this time in the Sunday Age, News Extra pg 20 "Race, Hate and DNA" on October 21, 2007. Nobel Prize winner Professor James Watson has stated in regards to Africans

"All our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really".

However his comments were deemed so offensive that a sold out talk he was to give at the science museum in London was cancelled, stating

"We feel that Watson has gone beyond the point of acceptable debate".

So when do comments turn from free speech to hate speech? When is something someone says unacceptable, and who decides what speech is and isn't acceptable?

I personally know a number of anarchists who are strong anti-fascists and very anti- hate speech, which superficially seems reasonable. However, in keeping with anarchism and it's non-totalitarian nature, who are we as anarchists to decide what people can and cannot say? In fact, to pressure people or the state into censorship is anti-anarchist by its very nature. The reason is quite simple, to apply censorship is to apply rule over another, which by its definition, totalitarian.

However, what happens when something is said that is totally abhorrent to you as an individual? I've stated that anarchists shouldn't engage in censorship, but what about the State? Is it OK for the Government to engage in censorship? The answer unfortunately, is no. We shouldn't have censorship. For the answer we need only look to Channel nine last night and the "Great Debate". Mr Howard decided he didn't want the worm, and thus the feed to channel nine was cut. Ray Martin was even heard to say during the coverage

"So much for free speech in Australia".

Herein lies the problem; one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. Everything is open to personal views, and to give an individual control over the information provided to the general public (censoring) will always be biased. The problem lies in where to draw the line. Drawing the line at hate speech might be acceptable for some, but the thin edge of the wedge is that even mainstream information is then subject to censorship by the whims of the State.

Anarchists more than any other group should advocate free speech (including hate speech) to provide the masses with more accurate information in which they can decide for themselves. Considering the fact that the comments by Professor James Watson are self-evident hate speech, let people decide for themselves. THIS IS ANARCHY!

Hate speech in its most basic form runs parallel with anarchist dogma. If anarchy was to "rule" the country, each person with their own ideas and agenda would be free to speak their mind and subsequently offend (which by it's definition is hate speech).

So the next time someone says something you think is "inappropriate" congratulate them for not being tools of the state. In fact, encouraging free speech in all it's forms, and you'll be encouraging the Anarchist way of life.

References:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/09/larry_summers_the_thought_poli.html
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/minisite/election_article.aspx?id=307689&sectionid=6046&sectionname=minisiteelection

New Zealand Consulate Protest

The following article was written by Michael Williams, an Anarchist in Geelong. He attended the Aotearoa solidarity protest on Tuesday 16th October 2007 at 11am and has written his report on the event.

Tuesday the 16th saw a group of twenty protestors stand in solidarity against the unjust actions of the New Zealand federal police against a group of New Zealand activists. The protest was held at 11am outside the New Zealand Consulate-General in Melbourne. The protestors included left-wing activists from many different backgrounds, including myself, a more covert Anti-fascist activist. We were graced by the presence of the mainstream media and of course the State Fascists in Victoria Police and two armed Federal Police officers.

On the 15th October in the early morning, up to 17 activists were arrested and charged with Possession of Firearms offences. A number of houses were raided, including activist community houses in Auckland and Wellington. The police have made the claim that those arrested may be involved in guerrilla type training in the mountains of Aotearoa/New Zealand.

In an article by the publication “Crikey,” an Anarchist activist speaks about the raids; http://slackbastard.anarchobase.com/?p=899

“As far as I understand it, those who have been charged have been charged with possession of arms and ammunition at some point in the past - ie, they had none of it on them when they were arrested...” “The raids started in Ruatoki at 4am, at the house of well-known Tino Rangatiratanga activist Tame Iti...”

“... there was a knock at my door. I opened it to find four police officers, all in plain-clothes but wearing police vests over the top. One of the officers showed me his ID, at which point I asked him if he had a warrant. He did not reply, and instead asked me if a certain person was in my house. I asked again if he had a warrant, and when he said that they didn’t, I told them to leave the property, and closed the door...”

“I was demanding they leave immediately under the Trespass Act. They refused to leave, and demanded I prove I was the occupier, or else they would stay. My flatmate soon produced our lease form, which I showed them. They wrote down our names, I told them again to leave, and shortly afterwards they did so...”

“I think that just goes to show how ludicrous these trumped up charges are. At the Wellington activist community centre, while police were supposedly searching the house for weapons, they simultaneously had no issue with residents using huge kitchen knives to cut up apples and make apple pie."

Likewise, this morning we have already seen Jamie Lockett, one of the arrestees in Auckland, released on bail [only to then have his bail denied by a higher court]. None of this seems to fit the picture of a dangerous terrorist network! And while the police found no weapons at the Wellington activist community centre, they did confiscate a backpack containing carrots and an avocado!” It seems that the actions by the New Zealand police do not fit in with the severity of the allegations made by both the police and the media. If it was truly believed those arrested were dangerous terrorists plotting armed revolution it would make sense the police would be armed to the teeth during the raids, according to the NZ Anarchist quoted above, the police were armed only with batons... Something is definitely fishy about this!

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22601472-23109,00.html

“At a bail hearing for one of the arrested men, Jamie Lockett, prosecutors said he had sent a series of text messages saying he intended to launch a war. The messages, intercepted by police, were said to include "White men are going to die in this country'' and "I'm declaring war on this country very soon".”

Though I do not denounce political activism against the government, if the above quote is true, I must reject and denounce Jamie Lockett for his blatant racism. I believe in the protection of the Maori people in Aotearoa/New Zealand and I am against any oppression against them by the Capitalists in power, Maori activists cannot put the blame on ordinary White workers. The enemy is the government, which includes people of all colours and creeds. I do not want to descend this article in to a rant about racial equality, I'd rather talk about the positive protest I attended on Tuesday...

The protest began at about 11am, with a fellow activist performed a bit of a satire pointed at the New Zealand Suppression of Terrorism Act, the act was very funny and included some volunteers from the audience wearing a variety of military style hats and throwing paper airplanes at the New Zealand Consulate... All very amusing! After the fun we heard speeches from both Sina Davis, a Maori spokesperson in Australia and a very emotional speech by an activist that knew many of the people involved. It is very scary and depressing when loved ones are arrested on unjust charges and held in prison with very little information about their condition released. In all, the protest was very successful and resulted in some media exposure. I'd like to send my good wishes to all those activists in Aotearoa/New Zealand and I hope the court cases result in true justice for everyone involved. We must all stand in solidarity against state oppression and fight for what is right!

What's for dinner? How about our national symbol?

Eating roo could cut greenhouse gas emissions?

A report in the Business Day section of The Age on Thursday, October 11, 2007, suggests that substituting 20% traditional beef with kangaroo meat could help cut greenhouse gas emissions by 15 tonnes per annum.

I've often suggested to people that eating our national symbols would be far better environmentally than eating traditional beef, so this Greenpeace report by Dr Mark Diesendorf comes as no surprise to me.

Firstly, why import and breed animals for food when there is a native species capable of supporting the populations food needs? Secondly, kangaroos are culled in the thousands due to their plague numbers invading farm land. What a waste! Western Australia has started exporting Kangaroo meat, but the industry should think about subsidising the current beef farming industry (in terms of food production rather than their current "delicacy status"). Kangaroos require far less water and are adapted to the harsh Australian climate. Traditional livestock damage river beds when drinking, ruin topsoil through compression with their hooves, and produce high quantities of methane gas (the average cow produces 600L methane a DAY!). Kangaroos being native have a much smaller ecological footprint.

"Australian native wildlife is a renewable resource. If managed in an ecologically sustainable manner, wildlife can provide a perpetual source of economic benefits for all Australians" In fact, Michael Archer Head of the Australian Museum, Sydney, NSW states that "farmers can get filthy stinking rich killing kangaroos".

Although there is still debate about the ability to farm kangaroos, including the amount of meat viable from an animal, and the expense due to fencing costs, it's time to start thinking outside the square. The CSIRO needs to invest more research into the viability of kangaroo farming in the interests of finding a sustainable food source in a country with severe water restrictions and a burgeoning population.

References;
http://www.greenpeace.org.au/blog/energy/?p=90
http://www.awpc.org.au/newsite/archive/competition.html
http://www.kangaroo-industry.asn.au/morinfo/BACKGR1.HTM
http://www.greenhouse.crc.org.au/greenhouse_in_agriculture/methane.cfm