★ Ⓐ ζ ☯ ♥ ☭ ☠ ☮ ★

Anarchy can sound wildly utopian – complete freedom, yet with effective equality and an economy dependent on the practice of solidarity. All good stuff, but seemingly dependent on everybody living and working according to an incredibly high moral standard. This sort of thing will work in a nation of angels, but can it possibly happen with human beings?

No, human nature is not fundamentally virtuous, but it doesn’t need to be for anarchism and communism to make sense. 

2009 was Darwin’s great anniversary year, and it went predictably – popularisers of science have invested massive labours to make sure that the Darwinian scientific legacy is widely understood and welcomed. Hopefully the Jerry Coynes, Richard Dawkinses and David Attenboroughs have collectively managed to increase public understanding of evolution as a scientific principle and the history of life on Earth.

It is however tragic that these efforts are even necessary. Huge sections of the population are either ignorant or persistently sceptical, actively resisting the truths of modern scientific understanding. It seems amazing that evolution has remained so controversial, despite being the established central theorem of biology, proven way beyond all reasonable doubt. There is no scientific debate anymore – the basic question of life’s history is utterly settled.

The dissent comes from people who object to the philosophical implications of the fact of evolution, and unscientifically cling to any evidence that they can twist into discrediting it. “Evolutionism” is seen as a world-view or ideology that is inherently objectionable for multiple reasons. To elaborate, I have to give a brief history of the Creation-Evolution controversy, as it existed before and after Darwin.

Creationism and Evolutionism

The Law of the Jungle is Survival of the Fittest

The Selfish Gene

“We can see the long-term benefits of participating in a ‘conspiracy of doves’, and we can sit down together to discuss ways of making the conspiracy work.  We have the power to defy the selfish genes of our birth and, if necessary, the selfish memes of our indoctrination.  We can even discuss ways of deliberately cultivating and nurturing pure, disinterested altruism -- something that has no place in nature, something that has never existed before in the whole history of the world.  We are built as gene machines and cultured as meme machines, but we have the power to turn against our own creators.  We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators.”

~ Richard Dawkins; closing words of The Selfish Gene

tl;dr

OK, here’s a quick summary for if you don’t want to bother with 9 pages of rambling historical commentary.

Darwinism is the quintessential example of the central importance of Hume's guillotine - what is true or natural has zero relevance to what is right or good.

This is the way of the world - Darwin was correct to apply the “Malthusian Struggle” model to the world's past and present ecosystems... But Malthus was wrong to apply it to the human race. Darwinian evolution remains a neutral fact of the ecosystem, and Social Darwinism a falsehood.

We are sentient, informed beings, and so have our own values and agendas distinct from those of the selfish genes. Darwinism is not the inevitable principle of society - we can apply any form of social ethics that we want.

By Kevin Carson.

While it’s possible for a person to be libertarian in the sense of accepting the nonaggression principle, and without formal contradiction simultaneously favor such voluntary forms of authoritarianism as the patriarchal family, the hierarchical employment relationship, and various other forms of cultural domination ... it would be just plain weird. Why would the sort of person with an affinity for that sort of thing draw the line at state authoritarianism, in particular?

Unfortunately, there seems to be a great deal of such authoritarian weirdness among professed libertarians.

Blame this one on the satanic music I listen to. Werewolves and demons and time-travel oh my!  =P
The monologue is very blunt and matter-of-fact because I'm an ass pie who can't write shit the character is in pain, delivering a very blunt quick message which needs no emotive hyperbole to communicate the seriousness of the matter. The author does not endorse any of the theological, metaphysical or ethical views expressed herein. Look at me, I'm doing CREATIVE WRITING! Isn't that awesome!?
 

The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged are by most accounts (I've read only a few chapters of the latter) terrible, terrible books. But bad as the writing may be, it's the philosophy & the fanbase that makes them really astonishingly horrific.  An idealised libertarianism, elevating callous selfishness, ruthless self-interest and a cruel class-based mentality as the highest values for the rational individual.

Laissez-faire ultracapitalism taken to its inhuman, violent, exploitative conclusion. A universe of antisocial egotists who destroy everything and everyone that gets in the way of their mission of conquest, rape and cannibalism of the unfortunates below them in the social scale, enthusiastically blaming the victims all the while with words like "you got where you are by your own efforts alone".

Randianiasm is the inability to differentiate between healthy self-interest and antisocial greed... as contrasted against healthy human compassion, which is presented as identical to insane surrender of all individuality into the Herd or State.

Time to post something not my own work again, becase it's genuinely worth reading.
This was posted on Facebook earlier this year. Not very well written, but nonetheless highly insightful and delivering a radical progressive message which everybody needs to hear.

~by Scott Nestler~
☆Ⓐ☆

Just so there's no confusion: Yes, I AM a nutty ideologue.
This is a lightly edited series of extracts from the first few chapters of The Conquest of Bread, a revolutionary book by the Russian prince Peter Kropotkin in 1892. Here he outlines the basics of Anarchist Communism.
The full text (280 pages) is available online from many sources.
☆☭☆Ⓐ☆☭☆Ⓐ☆☭☆Ⓐ☆☭☆Ⓐ☆☭☆Ⓐ☆☭☆Ⓐ☆☭☆Ⓐ☆

Lolz! ...Who wants to 'shop the face of the President-elect onto this, with that corny grin?

Luxuries are by definition unnecessary. Addictive, maybe, but not needed. On the other hand, everyone does have real material needs - the necessities of survival and of life being worth living. The output of one healthy man's labour (aided by the right technology) is wholly sufficient to meet all of the basic needs not just of himself, but of his family and of any friends too, and only take up less than half the hours of his day. Therefore there is no fundamental reason why any human on Earth, even with the present inflated population, should be unable to survive comfortably.
Affluence, like all luxuries, is not at all necessary for survival, nor for health... nor for happiness. It is not just possible but easy for the whole world to live healthily and happily in what we would call "poverty". Insatiable greed, the state of being always aware that one could have more than what one has and wishing/striving to get it, is a disease that retards the individual. It isn't healthy to pursue one's infinite "wants" with a sense of hunger - if your needs are satisfied, then to be a happy developed individual (surely the highest goal of life?) merely involves spending your time on activities that you enjoy, and in experiencing the love of your friends and colleagues. You'll soon find that the most enjoyable tasks are those that produce things of value or benefit to yourself and others. 

I walk a lonely road
The only one that I have ever known
Don't know where it goes
But it's home to me and I walk alone

I walk this empty street
On the Boulevard of Broken Dreams
Where the city sleeps
and I'm the only one and I walk alone

I walk alone
I walk alone

My shadow's the only one that walks beside me
My shallow heart's the only thing that's beating
Sometimes I wish someone out there will find me
'Til then I walk alone

I'm walking down the line
That divides me somewhere in my mind
On the border line
Of the edge and where I walk alone

Read between the lines
What's fucked up and everything's alright
Check my vital signs
To know I'm still alive and I walk alone

I walk alone
I walk alone

My shadow's the only one that walks beside me
My shallow heart's the only thing that's beating
Sometimes I wish someone out there will find me
'Til then I walk alone

I walk this empty street
On the Boulevard of Broken Dreams
Where the city sleeps
And I'm the only one and I walk a...

My shadow's the only one that walks beside me
My shallow heart's the only thing that's beating
Sometimes I wish someone out there will find me
'Til then I walk alone...

"The Saga of the Nostalgia House" was a half-finished story written by two TDFers and myself a little over a year ago. All the ideas were produced in an anarchic MSN conversation between us three and several others too. Here is that conversation.

You are the Hanged Man

Self-sacrifice, Sacrifice, Devotion, Bound.

With the Hanged man there is often a sense of fatalism, waiting for something to happen. Or a fear of
loss from a situation, rather than gain.

The Hanged Man is perhaps the most fascinating card in the deck. It reflects the story of Odin who offered himself as a sacrifice in order to gain knowledge. Hanging from the world tree, wounded by a spear, given no bread or mead, he hung for nine days. On the last day, he saw on the ground runes that had fallen from the tree, understood their meaning, and, coming down, scooped them up for his own. All knowledge is to be found in these runes.

The Hanged Man, in similar fashion, is a card about suspension, not life or death. It signifies selflessness, sacrifice and prophecy. You make yourself vulnerable and in doing so, gain illumination. You see the world differently, with almost mystical insights.

What Tarot Card are You?
Take the Test to Find Out.