The Brag of the SubGenius. MP3 Audio, 5 minutes 25 seconds, 5MB. Read by Mike Gogulski aka Rabbi Guano Infusion, KSC (deceased).

–a fragment. Transcribed from a cassette tape recording made at a seance in 1973.

The Book of SubGenius -- Buy now!

“I PICK THE GOD DAMN terror of the fucking gods out of my NOSE! Pardon my language. But YEEEEEHAW, let the sons of God and man bear witness! Even in the belly of the Thunderbird I’ve been casting out the False Prophets; I’m busting a gut and blowing my O-ring, and ripe to throw a LOAF! For I speak ONLY the fucking TRUTH, and never in my days have I spoke other than! For my every utterance is a lie, including this very one you hear! I say, “Fuck’em if they can’t take a joke!” By God, “Anything for a laugh,” I say. I am the last remaining Homo Correctus, I am the god damn Man of the Future! I’ll drive a mile so as not to walk a foot; I am a human being of the FIRST god damn water! Yes, I’m the javalina humping junkie that jumped the Men from Mars! I drank the DEVIL under seven tables, I am too INTENSE to die, I’m insured for acts o’ God AND Satan! I was shanghaied by bodiless fiends and alien jews from a corporate galaxy, and got away with their hubcaps! I CANNOT be tracked on radar! I wear nothing uniform, I wear NO god damn uniform! Yes baby, I’m 23 feet tall and have 13 rows o’ teats; I was suckled by a triceratops, I gave the Anti-Virgin a high-proteine tonsil wash! I’m a bacteriological weapon, I’m ARMED and LOADED! I’m a fission reactor, I fart plutonium, power plants are fueled by the sweat from my brow; when they plug ME in, the lights go out in Hong Kong! I weigh 666 pounds in zero , COME AND GET ME! I’ve sired retarded space bastards across the Cosmos, I cook and EAT my dead; YAH-HOOOOO, I’m the Unshaven Thorn Tree of the Atlantis Zoo! I pay no taxes! The Devil’s hands are my IDEAL playground! I hold the Seven-Bladed Windbreaker; the wheels that turn are behind me; I think BACKWARDS! I do it for FUN! My imagination is a FUCKING cancer and I’ll pork it before it porks me! They say a godzillion is the highest number there is. Well, by God! I count to a godzillion and ONE! Yes, I’m the purple flower of Hell County, give me wide berth; when I drop my drawers, Mother Nature swoons! I use a python for a prophylactic; I’m THICKER, HARDER, and MEANER than the Alaskan Pipeline, and carry more spew! I’ll freeze YOUR seed before it hits the bathroom tile! YEE! YEEE! I kidnapped the future and ransomed it for the past, I made TIME wait up for me bleed my lizard! My infernal breath wilts the Tree of Life, I left my SPOOR on the Rock of Ages, WHO’LL TEAR FLESH WITH ME, WHO’LL SPILL THEIR JUICE? WHO’LL GOUGE WITH ME, WHOSE CANDLE WILL I FART OUT? WHOOP! I’M READY! So step aside, all you butt-lipped, neurotic, insecure bespectacled slabs o’ wimp meat! I’m a Crime Fighting Master Criminal, I am Not Insane! I’m a screamer and a laugher, I make a SPECTACLE of myself, I am a SIGHT! My physical type CANNOT be classified by science, my ‘familiar’ is a pterodactyl, I feed it dipshits!  I communicate without WIRES or STRINGS! I am a Thugee, I am feared in the Tongs, I have the Evil Eye, I carry the Mojo Bag; I swam the BERMUDA TRIANGLE and didn’t get wet! I circumcise dinosaurs with my teeth and make ‘em leave a tip; I change tires with my TONGUE and my TOOL! Every night I hock up a lunger and extinguish the SUN! I’m the big-footed devil of Level 14, who’ll come SHOE me? Where’s the robot giant who’ll try to blow me down? I’ve packed the brownies of the gods, I leak the Plague from my nether parts, opiates are the MASS of my religion, I TAKE DRUGS! Yes, I’m a rip-snorter, I cram coca leaves right into my arm-veins before they’re picked off the TREE! SPACE monsters cringe at my tread! I wipe the PYRAMIDS off my shoes before I enter MY house. I’m FUEL-INJECTED, I’ll live forever and remember it afterwards! I’m IMMUNE!  I’m RADIOACTIVE! Come ON and give me cancer, I’ll spit up the tumor and butter my BREAD with the juice! I’M SUPERNATURAL, I bend CROWBARS with my meat ax and a thought! My droppings bore through the earth and erupt VOLCANOES in CHINA! Yes, I can drink more wine and stay soberer than all the heathen HINDOOS in Asia! YEEEE HAW! GUT BLOWOUT! I am a MORAY EEL, I am a KOMODO DRAGON, I am a KILLER WHALE BEREFT OF IT’S PUP! I have a triple backbone, I was sired by the Wolf Man, give me ALL your Slack! I told JESUS I wouldn’t go to church and He SHOOK MY HAND! I have my OWN personal saviors, I change ‘em every hour, I don’t give a fuck if there’s life after death, I want to know if there’s even any fucking SLACK after death! I am a god damn VISIONARY, I see the future and the past in comic books and wine bottles; I eat BLACK HOLES for breakfast! I bend my genes and whittle at my DNA with the sheer force of my mighty WILL! I steer my OWN god damn evolution! I ran ‘em out of Heaven and sold it to Hell for a PROFIT! I’m enlightened, I achieved “Nirvana” and took it HOME with me. YIP, YIP, YEEEEEEEE! I’m so ugly the Speed of Light can’t slow me down and  won’t tug at my cuffs! When the Rapture comes, I’ll make ‘em wait!  They’ll NEVER clean MY cage! Now give me some more of…”

(Tape runs out.)

          -a fragment.  Transcribed from a cassette tape recording
          made at a seance in 1973.
  "I PICK THE GOD DAMN terror of the fucking gods out of my NOSE!  Pardon my
language.  But YEEEEEHAW, let the sons of God and man bear witness!  Even in
the belly of the Thunderbird I've been casting out the False Prophets;  I'm
busting a gut and blowing my O-ring, and ripe to throw a LOAF!  For I speak
ONLY the fucking TRUTH, and never in my days have I spoke other than!  For my
every utterance is a lie, including this very one you hear!  I say, "Fuck'em
if they can't take a joke!"  By God, "Anything for a laugh," I say.  I am the
last remaining Homo Correctus, I am the god damn Man of the Future!  I'll drive
a mile so as not to walk a foot; I am a human being of the FIRST god damn
water!  Yes, I'm the javalina humping junkie that jumped the Men from Mars!  I
drank the DEVIL under seven tables, I am too INTENSE to die, I'm insured for
acts o' God AND Satan!  I was shanghaied by bodiless fiends and alien jews from
a corporate galaxy, and got away with their hubcaps!  I CANNOT be tracked on
radar!  I wear nothing uniform, I wear NO god damn uniform!  Yes baby, I'm 23
feet tall and have 13 rows o' teats; I was suckled by a triceratops, I gave the
Anti-Virgin a high-protien tonsil wash!  I'm a bacteriological weapon, I'm
ARMED and LOADED!  I'm a fission reactor, I fart plutonium, power plants are
fueled by the sweat from my brow; when they plug ME in, the lights go out in
Hong Kong!  I weigh 666 pounds in zero gravity, COME AND GET ME!  I've sired
retarded space bastards across the Cosmos, I cook and EAT my dead; YAH-HOOOOO,
I'm the Unshaven Thorn Tree of the Atlantis Zoo!  I pay no taxes!  The Devil's
hands are my IDEAL playground!  I hold the Seven-Bladed Windbreaker; the wheels
that turn are behind me; I think BACKWARDS!  I do it for FUN!  My imagination
is a FUCKING cancer and I'll pork it before it porks me!  They say a godzillion
is the highest number there is.  Well, by God!  I count to a godzillion and
ONE!  Yes, I'm the purple flower of Hell County, give me wide berth; when I
drop my drawers, Mother Nature swoons!  I use a python for a prophylactic; I'm
THICKER, HARDER, and MEANER than the Alaskan Pipeline, and carry more spew!
I'll freeze YOUR seed before it hits the bathroom tile!  YEE!  YEEE!  I
kidnapped the future and ransomed it for the past, I made TIME wait up for me
bleed my lizard!  My infernal breath wilts the Tree of Life, I left my SPOOR on
the Rock of Ages, WHO'LL TEAR FLESH WITH ME, WHO'LL SPILL THEIR JUICE?  WHO'LL
GOUGE WITH ME, WHOSE CANDLE WILL I FART OUT?  WHOOP!  I'M READY!  So step
aside, all you butt-lipped, neurotic, insecure bespectacled slabs o' wimp meat!
I'm a Crime Fighting Master Criminal, I am Not Insane!  I'm a screamer and a
laugher, I make a SPECTACLE of myself, I am a SIGHT!  My physical type CANNOT
be classified by science, my 'familiar' is a pterodactyl, I feed it dipshits!
I communicate without WIRES or STRINGS!  I am a Thugee, I am feared in the
Tongs, I have the Evil Eye, I carry the Mojo Bag;  I swam the BERMUDA TRIANGLE
and didn't get wet!  I circumcise dinosaurs with my teeth and make 'em leave a
tip; I change tires with my TONGUE and my TOOL!  Every night I hock up a lunger
and extinguish the SUN!  I'm the big-footed devil of Level 14, who'll come SHOE
me?  Where's the robot giant who'll try to blow me down?  I've packed the
brownies of the gods, I leak the Plague from my nether parts, opiates are the
MASS of my religion, I TAKE DRUGS!  Yes, I'm a rip-snorter, I cram coca leaves
right into my arm-veins before they're picked off the TREE!  SPACE monsters
cringe at my tread!  I wipe the PYRAMIDS off my shoes before I enter MY house.
I'm FUEL-INJECTED, I'll live forever and remember it afterwards!  I'm IMMUNE!
I'm RADIOACTIVE!  Come ON and give me cancer, I'll spit up the tumor and butter
my BREAD with the juice!  I'M SUPERNATURAL, I bend CROWBARS with my meat ax and
a thought!  My droppings bore through the earth and erupt VOLCANOES in CHINA!
Yes, I can drink more wine and stay soberer than all the heathen HINDOOS in
Asia!  YEEEE HAW!  GUT BLOWOUT!  I am a MORAY EEL, I am a KOMODO DRAGON, I am a
KILLER WHALE BEREFT OF IT'S PUP!  I have a triple backbone, I was sired by the
Wolf Man, give me ALL your Slack!  I told JESUS I wouldn't go to church and He
SHOOK MY HAND!  I have my OWN personal saviors, I change 'em every hour, I
don't give a fuck if there's life after death, I want to know if there's even
any fucking SLACK after death!  I am a god damn VISIONARY, I see the future and
the past in comic books and wine bottles;  I eat BLACK HOLES for breakfast!  I
bend my genes and whittle at my DNA with the sheer force of my mighty WILL!  I
steer my OWN god damn evolution!  I ran 'em out of Heaven and sold it to Hell
for a PROFIT!  I'm enlightened, I achieved "Nirvana" and took it HOME with me.
YIP, YIP, YEEEEEEEE!  I'm so ugly the Speed of Light can't slow me down and
Gravity won't tug at my cuffs!  When the Rapture comes, I'll make 'em wait!
They'll NEVER clean MY cage!  Now give me some more of..."
                           (Tape runs out.)

That conversation was face-to-face, so there’s no record. Here, though, is the record of our instant messaging conversation earlier this evening, in its entirety but minus some personal irrelevancies and with typos and whatnot fixed up a bit. This may all be old hat to most of my readers, but who knows?

[6:44] Jana: Oh, you know what?
[6:44] Mike: tell me
[6:44] Jana: I thought about the stateless world some more.
[6:45] Jana: And I’d like to know if you assume that by getting rid of government everyone will miraculously become all peaceful and, you know, good.
[6:45] Mike: certainly not
[6:46] Mike: there is an interesting way of thinking about this issue
[6:46] Jana: Because if there are no laws and no prisons…
[6:46] Mike: chaos, rampant crime, etc
[6:46] Jana: What’s gonna stop the baddies from robbing or killing me?
[6:46] Mike: well, stand by now
[6:47] Mike: there are a couple of questions to answer
[6:47] Jana: Okay.
[6:47] Mike: the first, and which I tried to dig into the most yesterday, is “Is the state morally justifiable?”, and along the way point out a number of reasons why it is not.
[6:47] Mike: the other question is, “Is the state necessary, and if not, what alternatives are there?”
[6:48] Jana: Okay, so the answer to question 1 is no.
[6:48] Mike: another way to look at the first question is “Is there any way to have a state which doesn’t fail at its primary mission of protecting people and property? Is there a way to constitute a state so that it simply can’t be evil?”
[6:49] Mike: that leads to this:
[6:49] Mike: there are many ppl in the world
[6:49] Jana: Yes.
[6:49] Mike: are they good or are they evil?
[6:49] Mike: well, there are some options
[6:49] Jana: Both.
[6:49] Mike: 1: all ppl are good
[6:49] Mike: 2: all ppl are evil
[6:49] Mike: 3: more ppl are good than are evil
[6:49] Mike: 4: more ppl are evil than are good
[6:50] Mike: now, in case 1, everyone’s a saint… why should a state even be necessary in such case?
[6:50] Jana: Wait!
[6:50] Mike: and, since we know that 1 isn’t true, we can discount it anyway
[6:50] Jana: There’s 5: about the same number of people are good as there are bad
[6:50] Mike: fine, can be, but 3 and 4 turn out to be equivalent propositions anyway
[6:51] Mike: and the statistical probability of that is miniscule, assuming a mix of “good” and “evil” human natures, against present world population
[6:51] Mike: so case 1 is out, because if everyone were saints, there would be no need of a state for crime prevention/investigation/punishment — there would be no crime
[6:51] Jana: Exactly.
[6:52] Mike: now for case 2. if all of us are evil, then will not the MOST evil people try to obtain control of the state, so that they can use its power to aggrandize themselves?
[6:52] Jana: Probably!
[6:53] Mike: seems a bit like giving a blank check to those who’d screw us, even though we might do the same in their position, being as we’re evil and all
[6:53] Mike: remember now that being PART OF the state means that you can do things which are disallowed to ordinary citizens
[6:54] Mike: like: if a police car has a hundred kilos of cocaine in the trunk, the presumption is that it’s evidence, and that’s okay.
[6:54] Jana: Right.
[6:54] Mike: but if you had a hundred kilos of blow in your trunk, you’re a criminal, because you don’t have a fancy uniform, etc.
[6:54] Jana: Right again.
[6:54] Mike: so, even a society comprised entirely of evil people ought to recognize that having a state is too dangerous
[6:55] Mike: now, unless we’re going to include ourselves in “everyone is evil”, #2 doesn’t really operate anyway
[6:55] Mike: I don’t feel particularly evil
[6:55] Mike: and I doubt you are either
[6:55] Jana: Me either.
[6:55] Mike: so we are left with the two mixes
[6:56] Jana: Okay, now what?
[6:56] Mike: in case number 4, more people are evil than are good
[6:57] Mike: well, unless we want evil to triumph here by sheer force of numbers, certainly the GOOD people in that world don’t want the state, because it’s bound to be comprised of a majority of evil people with uniforms and official documents — even forgetting that evil people will TEND to try to become part of the state, so that they can commit crimes with official permission
[6:57] Jana: No, we don’t want evil to triumph.
[6:58] Mike: we have a preference for the good, and tend to reject philosophies which promote evil
[6:58] Mike: so what about case number three, where most people are good, but some are evil?
[6:59] Jana: That’s where we’d probably want the state.
[6:59] Jana: And hope not too many evil people would become part of it.
[6:59] Mike: need I remind you at this point that Adolph Hitler was democratically elected?
[6:59] Mike: that George W Bush was democratically elected?
[6:59] Mike: etc?
[7:00] Mike: and sorry, it’s not good enough to say “they cheated”
[7:00] Mike: the evil people will ALWAYS cheat to obtain the levers of unaccountable power
[7:00] Jana: I’m just saying that in this case we might be interested in having a state.
[7:00] Jana: Because we want the protection.
[7:00] Mike: we might be, if we could find that it was both necessary and morally defensible
[7:01] Jana: I think something is necessary.
[7:01] Jana: What are the alternatives then?
[7:01] Jana: I asked you yesterday but we didn’t get to that part at all.
[7:01] Mike: we made the observation earlier that having a state results in the division of people into two classes: those who can commit crimes with impunity, and those who may not.
[7:02] Mike: even if most people are good, if we have a state, we create a vehicle for the evil people to commit their crimes without facing any consequences.
[7:02] Mike: seems like a rather risky proposition, especially in light of the historical record of what states’ agents have actually done
[7:03] Jana: But some did end up in prison.
[7:03] Jana: Or executed.
[7:03] Jana: Or something.
[7:03] Mike: yes, that’s true. but how did that help their victims, both living and dead?
[7:04] Jana: Those who were victims already probably not much, but at least there were no more victims.
[7:09] Mike: so, we probably both agree to the proposition that crime is not desirable, and should be eliminated or at least minimized.
[7:10] Jana: Yes, please.
[7:10] Jana: And how do we go about that?
[7:10] Mike: so let’s think about crime for a sec
[7:10] Jana: (think)
[7:11] Mike: if you believe, as I do, that taxation is theft, and therefore no more honorable than a robbery in the street, and that the killings done by soldiers and police in uniforms are generally murders, then you realize there’s a whole shitload of crime out there that is legally defined otherwise.
[7:11] Jana: Okay, yes.
[7:12] Mike: so by simply getting rid of the state and the privilege that attaches to states’ agents, a huge amount of evil acts are prohibited straight off
[7:12] Mike: in addition to this, there are HUGE numbers of peaceful acts which are defined by states to be crimes, even though they really aren’t
[7:12] Mike: the cocaine in the car, for example
[7:12] Mike: no victim, no crime
[7:13] Mike: failing to pay taxes leads to being classed as a criminal
[7:13] Mike: operating a business without a license
[7:13] Mike: immigrating without state permission
[7:13] Mike: and on and on
[7:13] Jana: Right.
[7:14] Mike: real crimes, the ones that all of us rightly fear and wish to eliminate, are those which violate the life, liberty or property of one or more other persons
[7:14] Mike: one cannot commit a crime against oneself, by definition (despite this, suicide is illegal in many places)
[7:14] Jana: Illegal?
[7:15] Mike: so, once again by getting rid of the state, we see that a huge part of the “crime problem” simply evaporates
[7:15] Jana: So if you kill yourself, you can be charged, too?
[7:15] Jana: Yes, a huge part, but the part we really care about doesn’t.
[7:15] Mike: well, some people who have attempted suicide have been charged, yes… doesn’t happen often, but the laws are on the books in places
[7:16] Jana: The real crimes that violate the life, liberty and property.
[7:16] Jana: Crazy, man.
[7:16] Mike: right: murder, theft, arson, extortion, rape, kidnapping, enslavement, etc.
[7:16] Mike: and fraud
[7:18] Mike: now let’s think a bit about what’s usually called “justice”
[7:18] Mike: if someone comes and robs you of your money, or burns down your flat, or kills your dog, what benefit is it to YOU if that person is caged in a concrete and steel box for a period of years as a punishment?
[7:19] Jana: I don’t know. I’d rather get my money or my flat back. Or kill him back for killing my dog.
[7:20] Mike: now you’re onto something
[7:20] Mike: you’d like to have your situation restored to be at least as good as it was prior to the crime
[7:20] Jana: Exactly.
[7:20] Mike: you’d also probably like to be compensated to some degree for the bother and hassle of having to go through that
[7:20] Jana: And maybe get some cash as compensation for my trouble.
[7:20] Jana: Yes.
[7:20] Mike: punitive damages or something, right
[7:21] Mike: now, in the law, when we get to acts like these, we find there is a big difference in how those cases go to the courts, versus the cases like, say, your tree fell on my house and I want you to pay damages
[7:21] Mike: those are “civil” cases, where it’s “Mr. White vs. Mr. Green” in the court documents.
[7:21] Jana: Right.
[7:22] Mike: alleged victim and alleged perpetrator come to court, and in theory the process should determine if a harm (a “tort”, in the legal language) occurred, and if so, how the victim of that tort can be made whole again
[7:23] Mike: if, instead of Mr. Green’s tree falling on Mr. White’s house, Mr. Green goes and burns Mr. White’s house to the ground, the court documents are not going to be able “White v. Green”
[7:23] Mike: they will be “THE STATE v. Green”
[7:24] Jana: Because Mr. White burned to death?
[7:24] Mike: Mr. White was away on holiday in this case
[7:24] Jana: Oh, good.
[7:24] Mike: or escaped, whatever
[7:24] Mike: yes, lucky for Mr. White, eh?
[7:24] Jana:
[7:25] Mike: so what happens is that the state takes Mr. Green into court and charges him with the crime of arson
[7:25] Mike: and some prosecuting lawyers get on the case and work to prove that Mr. Green is guilty of the crime of arson, and if so, how long he should spend in prison for that.
[7:25] Mike: the interests of the real victim, here, Mr. White, are largely pushed to the side.
[7:26] Jana: Oh!
[7:26] Mike: the fact that Mr. White was threatened or inconvenienced by Green’s action is not really under consideration. What must be proven is that Mr. Green *broke the law*
[7:26] Jana: Well, great.
[7:26] Mike: all kinds of problems, here
[7:28] Mike: among other things, it means that the victim’s interests are not really being represented in the search for “justice”
[7:28] Mike: in terms of penalties, what the state seeks is punishment of the criminal (in order to deter others from committing crimes), rather than recompense for the victim(s)
[7:29] Jana: Well, this side effect of the punishment is actually quite welcome.
[7:29] Mike: deterrence is necessary, sure
[7:29] Mike: what Mr. White really wants here is a new house and some money to compensate his inconvenience and stress
[7:30] Mike: that money ought to come from Mr. Green, or, perhaps, from some sort of insurance that Mr. White purchased against such an eventuality.
[7:30] Mike: what we get into next is a topic that has been done at book-length by several authors
[7:30] Jana: What’s that?
[7:31] Mike: assumption: there’s no state, but there’s still some crime
[7:31] Mike: what are you gonna do about it?
[7:31] Mike: Well, as I said yesterday, you can go buy a bunch of guns, and defend yourself, or try to extract compensation from people who commit crimes against you by force.
[7:32] Mike: that works, to some degree… if a robber sees you walking alone in the woods today, his estimation of the likelihood you’re carrying a pistol is probably close to zero, because the state makes it very difficult for you to do that
[7:33] Jana: And I don’t really want to carry a gun anyway.
[7:33] Mike: well, if there were no state and no alternative, I think you might rapidly change your mind about that
[7:33] Jana: Probably.
[7:33] Mike: fair enough
[7:34] Jana: But that’s why I still think having a state is more convenient than having none.
[7:34] Mike: first of all, in the absence of states, a lot more people would take matters of personal self-defense into their own hands, as is their right. I myself would almost certainly carry a pistol nearly everywhere I went.
[7:35] Jana: As would a lot of psychos.
[7:35] Mike: well, that is precisely WHY we want to be well armed
[7:35] Mike: we don’t need to worry about normal people with weapons
[7:36] Mike: so there’s one idea. if the would-be rapist or robber had to contend with the fact that his intended victim very likely has the ability to quickly put a bullet in his brain, well, that’s a massive crime deterrent
[7:36] Jana: True.
[7:36] Jana: But what about gangs?
[7:37] Mike: purty young thangs like you might choose to carry a pistol on each hip, and maybe a fully-automatic rifle just to be sure
[7:37] Jana:
[7:37] Mike: gangs are just groups of criminals — like states
[7:37] Mike: okay, but this is not a complete answer yet
[7:37] Jana: Yes, but a lil’ ole me with one or two guns wouldn’t stop a gang from gangraping me.
[7:38] Mike: and it’s not a basis for a peaceful society, either — it’s not desirable that everyone should walk around armed, and it’s not desirable that many conflicts gets resolved through gunfire
[7:38] Mike: no, that’s true.
[7:38] Jana: So how do we get to have a peaceful society?
[7:39] Mike: what has been envisioned by those book-length writers can be described as Private Defense Associations or Dispute Resolution Organizations
[7:39] Mike: PDAs or DROs
[7:39] Mike: same thing, different wording
[7:39] Jana: How would they work?
[7:39] Mike: today if a crime is committed against you, you can only go to THE state for help
[7:40] Mike: and if you believe that the one-and-only state doesn’t do a good job with prevention, prosecution, or recompense, you have no alternative… you can’t cancel your subscription to the local police department
[7:40] Mike: it has been widely recognized in both economic and moral terms that monopoly providers of services are undesirable
[7:41] Mike: they’re inefficient, lack of competition makes them fat and lazy, and they’re unaccountable because customers have little voice
[7:41] Jana: True.
[7:41] Mike: what might be better is a world in which we have crime prevention, dispute resolution and justice-mediating organizations in free market competition with one another
[7:42] Mike: i’d like to know that i’m getting good value for my policing-and-investigating dollar
[7:42] Mike: and i’d like to be able to switch to a different provider of those services in the event that someone else can do it better, faster or cheaper
[7:43] Jana: Yeah, that’d be great.
[7:43] Mike: so, we go back to Messrs. Green and White
[7:43] Mike: White comes home one day from Ibiza to find his house has burned down
[7:43] Jana: :O
[7:43] Mike: he rings up his DRO, which is also an insurance company of sorts, and he has 2 questions:
[7:44] Mike: 1: Why didn’t you prevent this?
[7:44] Mike: 2: When do I get my money?
[7:44] Jana: What answers does he get?
[7:44] Mike: well let’s say White’s DRO does some investigation. They determine that arson was involved.
[7:45] Mike: White’s contract with his DRO covers this sort of thing, like a property insurance contract does today. White and the DRO both agree it was arson, the DRO immediately pays White enough to rebuild his house.
[7:46] Mike: if they don’t do this, then White and all of that DRO’s other clients would have switched to a service provider who will provide that level of service
[7:46] Mike: let’s imagine White’s DRO is called ABC Corp.
[7:46] Jana: ok
[7:46] Mike: ABC now has a problem
[7:47] Mike: they just had to buy White a new house, so they’re out the cost of the house
[7:47] Mike: they know a crime was committed, so they begin investigating
[7:47] Mike: after a time, they determine that Green was responsible for the arson.
[7:47] Mike: so they go to Green and ask him for the money
[7:47] Jana: Just like that?
[7:48] Mike: and a bit more, to compensate for their efforts and White’s inconvenience
[7:48] Mike: well, it’s more complicated than that, of course
[7:48] Mike: So, they come to Green’s house with all their evidence, and ask Green to pay up
[7:48] Mike: Green says “fuck you, I ain’t gonna pay”
[7:48] Mike: fine
[7:48] Mike: turns out that Green, too, was a subscriber to ABC Corp’s personal defense and dispute resolution services
[7:49] Mike: well, not anymore he ain’t!
[7:49] Mike: his policy is canceled
[7:49] Jana: Was there a clause about committing crimes?
[7:49] Mike: (assume there was — would YOU subscribe to a DRO that allowed its customers to commit crimes with impunity?) additionally, ABC sends a letter to all the other DROs in the area
[7:50] Mike: “Dear other DROs, Mr. Green did a bad thing, we canceled his policy and we’d advise you not to cover him either, until he pays compensation to Mr. White”
[7:50] Jana: Oh, okay, that would work.
[7:50] Mike: or, Green was a customer of XYZ instead of ABC
[7:51] Mike: ABC already beleives he did the crime
[7:51] Mike: Green says “call my DRO!” and slams the door on the ABC guys
[7:51] Mike: so ABC and XYZ get together and review the evidence.
[7:51] Mike: perhaps they both agree that Green did the crime
[7:51] Mike: in that case, XYZ cancels green’s policy and sends that letter to the other DROs
[7:51] Mike: or, they fail to agree
[7:52] Mike: the two DROs then have two choices: they can go to war over the matter, or they can find a peaceful way of resolving the dispute
[7:52] Mike: and so they take the case, perhaps, to the DRO re-insurance company they both subscribe to, or, perhaps, to an independent arbitration company, which has a great reputation for honesty, fairness and thoroughness
[7:53] Mike: like a court, except without the fancy imperial costumes and bowing before the judge
[7:53] Jana:
[7:53] Mike: ALL of those 3 parties (ABC, XYZ and the third-party arbitrator) are keenly interested in getting the facts right
[7:54] Mike: if the screw up the investigation and smear Mr. Green for a crime he didn’t commit, they lose reputation in the marketplace, leading to loss of customers and eventually loss of their business entirely
[7:54] Mike: if they decide they’re going to favor White at Green’s expense, same thing
[7:54] Mike: and so on
[7:55] Jana: Interesting.
[7:55] Mike: the market forces playing upon them compel them to be honest and to do the best job they can in determining the truth
[7:55] Mike: and keep in mind, White has ALREADY been paid for his burnt-down house, according to his contract
[7:56] Jana: Hm.
[7:56] Jana: Okay.
[7:56] Mike: so, we’re not *quite* finished here
[7:56] Mike: remember that ABC and XYZ both agreed that Green did the crime
[7:56] Mike: they both come to Green and demand payment
[7:56] Mike: maybe they arrive at an installment plan with interest, which Green can repay over time, who knows
[7:57] Mike: If Green actually pays, okay. Justice has been done in that Mr. White’s situation was restored to what it was before, plus a bit extra for his trouble, as you said
[7:57] Mike: What if Green refuses to pay now?
[7:57] Mike: Well, first of all, ABC and XYZ both inform all of their trading partners of what Green’s done, and say they’ve canceled their coverage of him.
[7:58] Mike: Green then tries to go on a holiday, to get away from all this shit he’s created.
[7:58] Mike: phones up the airline to book a flight to Cuba, or something
[7:58] Mike: the airline asks Green which DRO covers him
[7:58] Mike: Green says that he has no cover
[7:58] Jana: Uh-oh.
[7:59] Mike: the airline refuses to do business with Green … it’s too risky to carry an un-covered passenger on an intercontinental flight
[7:59] Mike: or, perhaps the airline has found it beneficial to its market position to refuse service to un-covered people, because that brings it more customers
[7:59] Mike: huh, so Green can’t go on holiday now, because he refuses to compensate
[8:00] Mike: Well, maybe he’ll rent a car and go someplace nearer, instead
[8:00] Mike: nope, no DRO cover, no car rental
[8:00] Mike: hmmm
[8:00] Jana: Wow!
[8:00] Mike: “public” transportation, of course, does not exist
[8:00] Jana: See where a little arson can get you?
[8:00] Mike: wanna get in my taxicab? show me your DRO card
[8:00] Mike: want to ride my bus, my train? whose gonna pay me if you destroy my property? No dro card, no service
[8:01] Mike: maybe it even becomes more severe than that
[8:01] Mike: there’s no “public” property in this world, either.
[8:01] Mike: there is private property, and property that is owned by nobody
[8:02] Jana: Oh yeah, property is something I wanna talk about, too. But in the next episode of this discussion. I kinda need to get ready to go out soon.
[8:02] Mike: ok
[8:02] Mike: anyway, what you get to here, is a comprehensive, networked, profit-driven form of ostracism
[8:03] Mike: in the ultimate extent, Green can’t even LEAVE his house
[8:03] Jana: Yeah, I like that.
[8:03] Mike: he doesn’t own the road in front of his house
[8:03] Jana: Really?
[8:03] Mike: the road operating company doesn’t permit people on the DRO blacklist to use the road
[8:03] Jana: Well, but he CAN walk on it, can’t he?
[8:03] Mike: remember: someone OWNS the road… maybe Mr. Black down the street built it, and he owns it
[8:04] Mike: if Black owns the road, he can refuse service and access to anyone, for any reason
[8:04] Jana: Man, poor Mr. Green – he probably just found some matches and wanted to play with them…
[8:04] Mike: but he’d be a fool to do that except in the most extreme of cases, where this is a risk to his property or business — which Mr. Green, being an arsonist who refuses to pay damages, clearly represents
[8:04] Mike: hehe
[8:05] Mike: So Green becomes a prisoner in his own house until he at least agrees to start working to pay off the debt to White’s DRO, and rejoins society that way.
[8:05] Mike: hell, maybe he can’t even get food delivered…
[8:05] Mike: maybe the three different companies that compete for the water-supply business in his area learn he’s on the “bad” list with the DROs and stop delivering water
[8:06] Jana: We don’t want him dead, though!
[8:06] Mike: no, we’d like him to pay
[8:06] Jana: Yeah!
[8:06] Jana: (flex)
[8:06] Mike: but we certainly have no DUTY to continue providing sustenance or service of any kind to such a criminal, do we?
[8:06] Mike: Green can live and grow vegetables in his garden and collect rainwater
[8:07] Mike: in a cave, effectively, apart from society
[8:07] Jana: You’re cruel! He can make his own mobile phone out of a chunk of wood, too, right?
[8:07] Mike: he can try, but who’s going to allow him to connect to their mobile phone network?
[8:07] Mike: who’d give him credit?
[8:08] Jana: Oooh, he’d have to start his own network, too!
[8:08] Mike: a network requires at least 2 nodes…
[8:08] Mike: anyway, that’s most of the outline
[8:08] Jana: Cool, thanks.
[8:08] Jana: That’s some food for thought.

Would that such images reflected reality.

For every “revolutionary” decision handed down by Courts Supreme and by Tribunals Most High — which merely reflect and elucidate, rather than alter or discover, the fundamental nature of that which ought be justice — those same bodies deliver a torrent of support and endorsement for the present system and for that pile of unjust historical deadweight called “precedent” but which, in the words of Kevin Carson, might better be called “the subsidy of history”.

These august incarnations of unquestionable, unaccountable power are dressed up in the finest of robes, placed on the highest of perches and set above all other men, so that they may — to the half-blind, numbed, unthinking bulk of humanity — discover truth, lay blame where it belongs and issue a judgment most holy, and one which contributes positively to the betterment of humankind.

In reality these Holiests of Holies sit not in service of truth over falsehood but in service, rather, to whatever they can get away with to appease and gratify those who own and dominate not only the judges themselves but also the entire society which pretends to or actually does submit to their judgment. And they arrogate unto themselves the power to kill, not in the service of law or truth or virtue, but to the service of those who employ them, as tools, and do so as they have for generation after generation, century after century. The power to kill, on a whim. The power to kill, especially, when a litigant’s ideas threaten the very basis of their own unaccountable, comfortable, profitable and entirely traditional, family-values-right-down-to-that-time-my-gangster-uncle-murdered-a-hobo-who-dirtied-his-shoe-and-ain’t-that-just-the-way-it-is-and-by-god-we-gotta-get-together-and-protect-ourselves foundational power ethic, their perception of and re(ta)l(i)ation to reality.

The statist dreams that the judges will be the best of society in that they are selected and trained by the best of society’s methods. But when the judgement over what those methods ought to be and how those (s)elections ought be carried out is left up to a bunch of people who are highly skilled only in becoming elected officials and playing the statist system to the maximum advantage — rather than to those who must all directly pay the costs and suffer the problems of the system but yet remain able to change it quickly and directly since they are part of it — well, what do you expect? They do not serve truth or justice or virtue over all other things. When they serve those concepts at all, they do so only if — and, often, because — our masters have agreed to stop trying to kill us if we disagree.

Hey there,

You know, it’s funny, after reading your recent interview, I feel as though essentially you and I believe in the same (or a very similar) ideal world. I never realized that might even remotely be the case. I guess that could be because we rarely if ever engaged in political debate with one another, assuming the other felt very differently.

One day not too long ago, I was describing my ideal ‘political’ system and basically it hearkens back to my teenage fascination with communes and dropping out of society at large in order to live with like minded people who create their own guidelines to live by – growing their own food, caring for one another’s children – communally. Ideally, small groups/communities would ‘govern’ themselves: everyone could sit in a room together and have a vote and the group would be small enough that each voice would be heard. I think that’s what government was meant to be (or at least should have been), but it got all fucked up when it grew – it wasn’t scalable.

Although, you’d likely leave out all the warm fuzzy hippy-sounding bits of what I’ve said, I think we seem to essentially have very compatible ideal visions of the future.

And I respond:

Okay, I’m stunned by the synchronicity here, because literally at the same time you were likely writing this I was playing a video game and thinking to myself that it’s a pity that we find ourselves so divided on political questions, and that if you understood more of the background – or if I were better at explaining it to you – that we would find we have much more common ground than we thought.

Agorism is a revolutionary strategy for achieving a voluntary society. Intellectually, it grew out of the anarcho-capitalism of Murray Rothbard. The principles of that philosophy are not entirely compatible with more “socialist” forms of anarchism, in that anarcho-capitalism rejects almost everything which flows from economics based on the Labor Theory of Value in favor of Austrian subjective value theory (marginal utility), rejects the notion that hard titles to land are immoral or indefensible, and rejects the propositions found in many schools of thought which say that profit, rent and interest are either immoral or would disappear in a stateless society.

What is interesting is that the ancap model, I believe, is capable of subsuming all of the other models within itself, and serving as an overall framework under which any given philosophy of property and economics could be freely tried out within areas inhabited by people who wanted to adopt their own, so long as agencies for resolutions of disputes between communities with different philosophies could be agreed upon.

Within the anarcho-capitalist panarchy communities could choose to organize themselves along whatever lines they wanted to. Communes? Fine, have at it. Rugged individualists? Great, just don’t come stuffing it at the rest of us. Worker self-management and a society of independent contractors? That’s permissible. Syndicalist communes where the workers control the means of production? Fine, so long as they acquire their property legitimately. Corporations? Absolutely, but good luck maintaining anything even remotely like the predatory corporate forms of today or the past without State-backed limited liability, corporate personhood and the massive subsidies and externalizations of costs granted to big businesses by States today. Any or all of these could exist side by side – and of course, there’s a lot more to it than just a general permissiveness.

Overall, and perhaps of great interest for you, who I believe approaches questions of what ought to be in society more from a “harmonious human systems” approach than from an egoist individual rights approach, is that a society of this nature would naturally entail the disappearance of the corrupt, predatory, coercive and downright evil practices used by today’s ruling classes and wealthy elites via today’s States against poor and repressed people all over the world and throughout the horrible history of humanity. Revolutionaries everywhere want to overthrow their ruling class, but usually seek to replace it with their own familiar personal despotism, and let there be blood. The Agorist seeks to subject the bloated, loathsome carcasses of State and ruling class to the merciless creative destruction of the marketplace.

Agorism implies a great many things which challenge the ruling classes and what is called today by many “the Capitalist system” (though it ought better be called something like “the neo-Mercantilist system”) at fundamental levels. People who make money smuggling human beings from one country to another ought to be celebrated as heroes provided they are not selling people into slavery and they take necessary safety precautions. The real crime is that since the activity of smuggling people across artificial State borders is illegal, there’s no effective way to drive evil or careless operators out of the business. If the evil ones could be identified and excluded, the remainder are the Agorist’s allies if they are susceptible to an Agorist ideological conversion.

Likewise the drug dealers of today. Not the top layers of the extremely violent organized crime rings and their State accomplices, but the far more numerous minor dealers who form perhaps the one or two levels of connection to the ultimate drug user and who are rarely involved in violence or fraud. The same with the pimps and the whores and the bookies and the loan sharks and all the tradesmen willing to do a household repair job “under the table” and all those unlicensed day care centers operating in suburban homes and all other people engaged in nonviolent activities which are prohibited by States or done in ways States do not permit. All of these people are allies against the State if they accept the basic contract: Don’t tread on me, honor your agreements, and, if we fall into dispute, pledge to find a non-State solution. The Agorist is anyone who, at least part of the time, trades in markets the State prohibits, or does so in manners which aren’t permitted by States – such as without complying with ridiculous regulations that serve to create barriers to market entry for the benefit of existing participants and/or wealthier entrants, or without reporting the activity for taxation.

I’m attaching two fairly brief and highly influential works [ed: attached were Konkin's New Libertarian Manifesto and Agorist Class Theory]. Keep in mind that Agorism is a theory of revolution. Though it grew out of anarcho-capitalism and is grounded in that theory, it is quite distinct. You will not find a description of Utopia here (though I can tell you where to find plenty). In my mind, the Agorist praxis can be employed by a social revolution toward pretty much any Utopian vision, so long as the State and all of the privilege connected to it is eliminated along the way.

Enjoy

Workers in general do not care about profits nearly as much as they care about their own wages and well-being.

I’m not sure whether or not you fell off the definitional rails here. To the worker, his profit is his wages. More specifically, his profit is his subjective value of his wages minus the subjective value of the opportunity cost and the time+labor he forfeited to obtain them.

Let’s go through a likely and probable scenario for the creation of a new business in an Anarchist system:

1. A group of investors, be they relatively rich people, managers of a planned community or people interested in the boom of a town or neighbourhood, or a private bank acting for millions of normal people looking for a way to make some interest, see an opportunity, and pool their resources together.

With you.

2. These investors attract workers, who become the first owners of the new business. The investors give these workers a starting capital (as well as perhaps an ideal location or new ideas to use) in exchange for a set return on their investment.

Breakdown. Who are these investors? Santa Claus? They just come around and give the “workers” a whole bunch of money AND a great idea, in exchange for a “set return”? I’ve met banks that work that way, but never investors. Is it possible for “workers”, as you go on to describe more in what follows, to become investors? If so, why would their values and motivations change so much?

3. The workers get to work and pay off the investment and interest.
4. Having paid off the investment and interest, the workers are now working solely for themselves (self-management). They decide of their own working conditions and wages. They decide of their management and the future of their business.

The non sequitur just deepens here. Let me try to get this straight, for my own understanding. The investors come together around a great idea which can create a self-sustaining and profitable business for those who own it, and then they just give it away to the people they need twisting knobs, pulling levers and bashing on keyboards to make it real. Why? Would you, if you were one of those investors with the brilliant idea to create wealth and the connections to bring an organization into being that could realize that idea just give it away for a “set return” on investment? If so, sir, you are a true saint and a man of great virtue, one to be admired and sung of down the ages. Funny, I can’t find anyone matching such a description in the phone book or my history texts.

In the world that I live in, investors want to become part-owners. Yes, they want others to perform the labor. But they provide the capital to make that labor possible, especially within the window where success or failure is not known and all money invested may be lost. I doubt very seriously that this dynamic would change in any substantial way minus the state, or that it ought to. To me, it’s simply an observation of human nature, and I believe that it is not human nature that we ought to elect to contest.

The workers would have a strong incentive to make the business grow so they can pay off the initial investment faster, and thus have free reign. But when that’s done, the workers (the only people who legitimately own the business) have a much stronger incentive to secure better wages and work conditions for themselves than they do of making more profits. So businesses (not corporations, obviously, since the corporate status is a creation of the State), as organizations, would seek to improve the quality of their work environment and their service, instead of trying to expand or make more profit.

If we accept a ridiculous premise, we can arrive at all sorts of ridiculous conclusions. I’m using forceful language here because I know you respond to it and because I believe you are a person with his eyes open. The workers in your scenario might or might not be motivated as you suspect. They might be motivated not by potential future security in the maintenance of a self-sustaining and growing business, but rather by the grim necessity of earning a wage to feed their children. They might be motivated instead by a cultural diktat which says that hard work is virtue. They might be motivated by the continuing chance to steal from the cash drawer. They might be motivated by the need to maintain a certain wage in order to maintain a gratifying lifestyle. They may know nothing of economics, and nothing of political theory. They may have extremely short time horizons which renders speculation about their incentives meaningless or at best questionable. They may be insane!

That was a response to the first sentence. Now the parenthetical, “the workers (the only people who legitimately own the business)”: Huh? I do understand there is a historical and moral critique which suggests that those “employed” today ought rightly seize and legitimately own the means of production put at their disposal through employment. I also understand there is a position which states that workers “should” own their means of production. The reality of things is much different, though, even if we imagine starting from a utopian genesis in which all property titles were legitimate and in which coercion were never employed except in legitimate defense. Inequalities of wealth will still occur. They will be based upon such factors as natural resources available in the starting areas and the intelligence of the economic actors, and become amplified over time. Eventually there arises a group of people with the capital to become investors. You or I or the lowliest of our brothers might be members of that class. But they rise from the same stock! They are not going to look around with superhuman virtue, seeking places where they can offer to advance the species for something as shitty as a “set return”! Were you or I in their place, we would rightly and honestly seek better than that.

To the second sentence, I say again that there is a fuzzy barrier here between the concept of “wages” and the concept of “profit”. It’s made even worse now in that the workers have taken over the ownership of the business. What then is to be the logical blade which separates “wage” from “profit”? If I am a co-owner with a few others of the means of our production — and thereby the means of sustenance of our selves, our families, our values, our political philosophies and our blogs — how could this division even exist at all? I will certainly not appoint one of my comrades in the industrial collective as he who shall determine what is “wages” and what is “profit”, especially being that “profit” as defined is that which shall be swallowed up by those who exploit us. The enterprise has input costs and it receives sales revenues. That difference is called net income, or something similar. From that income, that excess, that “gross profit” in a broader sense than the accounting textbooks define, must be derived the fixed wages of all employees (shareholders/members/comrades), plus the amount to be reinvested in expansions (via marketing, territorial growth, hiring, product diversification, etc.), plus the amount that should be disbursed to investors as compensation for their interest, plus amounts to be employed in improving efficiency, etc.

Would the fully-vested co-owner of such an enterprise sit around trying to draw lines between “profit” and “wages”? Surely not! These categories have become meaningless to his calculations, whether those calculations serve only his own aggrandizement or some nobler ideal of group advancement. “Profit” as bogeyman has become meaningless.

First of all, and let me be very clear, I love you guys (and girls).

Around 8:30am Pacific Time on September 11, 2001, after my girlfriend and I had watched — shocked, horrified, and barely awake — mass murder in our bedroom as the second World Trade Center tower collapsed , her prior boyfriend sent out a message on a local Santa Cruz, California-based chat and messaging system that predates the modern internet.

What he said exactly, I don’t remember. But the essence of it was this: “This is the end of America. Martial law is coming. The last barriers have fallen today.”

I recognized the truth of this immediately. The thought was my own, though he found a voice for it first. He’s at least one more standard deviation away from the human average intelligence than I am, so it was no surprise that he’d get through the shock to the most important conclusion more rapidly than I could.

He was right of course. We both were. The USA PATRIOT Act, the Global War on Terror, Military Commissions Act, FISA, fusion centers, national security letters, Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo, Afghanistan, Iraq, FOX NEWS, stormtroopers on the streets, gleeful embrace of the new American authoritarianism, mothers forced to publicly consume their own bottled breast milk at the airport, the Imperial Presidency, $400 million for construction of large-scale detention centers inside the US, no impeachment no matter how great the lies, the rise of a modern Stasi culture in the land of the “free” and home of the “brave”, all set to the stirring anthems of American exceptionalism and slogans evoking bygone days when things like words and principles and logic actually meant something.

No matter what you think is the truth of 9/11, no matter what you’ve heard or read or thought or said, you do have to watch the video. I’ll explain why in a moment.

What do I believe, you ask? I am really not sure what to believe. I’ve watched and read and listened to probably every substantive argument made, every investigative dissection and every crackpot, jackass theory about the events of 9/11. I’ve seen all the movies, I’ve watched all the YouTube videos. I’ve read the manifestos, the scientific probes and the loony fringe theories.

What falls out of all this, so many years later, is that there does not exist a preponderance of evidence  — nay, not even so weak a standard as probable cause — to believe that the official story of the events of that day is substantially in accordance with the truth. Some ancient cultures believed such rubbish as that the Earth was flat and carried on the back of great elephants who stood on the backs of cosmic turtles who rested atop more elephants and further turtles, ad inifinitum. At least the ancients chose such solid, believable creatures as elephants and turtles. What we are asked to believe today is that the modern reality of Western civilization is a world, donut-shaped, resting atop a house of cards supported by toothpicks and propped up by tissue-paper origami.

The 9/11 Chronicles: Truth Rising is a landmark film. The actors are nothing special, the audio mixing is often sub-par, the cinematography is uninspiring and there is no plot to speak of. Even the subject matter, at times — and especially for the uninitiated — may fail to connect and evoke the emotional response necessary for cinema to be an effective medium for human expression.

Also available in higher quality via BitTorrent download and from infowars.com on DVD.

What you are watching, though, isn’t an entertainment production. It’s not even really a documentary in the traditional sense. But what occurs, powerfully and over and over again is a profound conflict, a human story of several extraordinarily passionate serfs confronting their masters with their own hypocrisy, and refusing to back down in the face of overwhelming force. Whatever you believe about 9/11, whatever you believe about “Islamofascists” and “Axes of Evil”, even the most benighted and deluded of you should recognize — in what they do, what they say, and how they act — the human spirit. The indomitable, courageous and unyielding force of a being strong and brave enough to stand up to his master and say: “WHAT THE FUCK?” and “NO MORE!” and “HOW CAN YOU SLEEP AT NIGHT, AND STILL CALL YOURSELVES HUMAN?”

And again, and again, and again and again, the response comes back, oh so clearly, from those they challenge, those who have sold their souls and their humanity — be it for mere money, for status, for power or just for the chance to be on the team they feel is winning. The response is nearly uniform in its contempt, in its disgust that these mere peons would dare to question their masters. It is entirely uniform, though, in the self-abnegation, the servility displayed by those so-called “humans” who would defend that donut-shaped earth atop that house of cards supported by those toothpicks resting on that tissue-paper origami.

For showing this clearly, the authors of the film have won my endless praise. The bravery and dedication necessary to do this is no trifling matter. These people face death threats, harassment, physical assault, ridicule and legal action everywhere they go.

The fundamental analysis of the 9/11 truth movement is simple: the global elite — whoever they are — using their governmental tools either caused the attacks to happen or let them happen in order to profit from them. Those responsible are criminals of the highest order, and must be brought to justice.

If you accept that analysis, however, you must imagine that this elite is both very powerful and completely divorced from the morality of the common people.

Yet the 9/11 truth movement has adopted a rather strange posture in response. The call goes out over and over again to “demand a new investigation”. Who is going to carry out this investigation? Who shall be charged with carrying out the mechanics of bringing the criminals to justice? Why, the state, of course! That very institution which the fundamental analysis of 9/11 truth puts forward as being the instrument of the attacks. That very institution which is the tool of the elite who wanted the attack to happen. A great many of the people in the movement believe that the state was culpable in producing the destruction and terror of 9/11, yet they persist in appealing to the state to discipline itself.

This is madness! If the fundamental analysis of 9/11 truth is correct, what you are doing is the equivalent of asking a group of war criminals, the darkest evil in their hearts, heavily armed and with the support of millions, to simply turn themselves in. Why on earth would they do that? Why would they take any action whatsoever to disadvantage themselves? And do you really think that trying to shame those responsible will have any effect whatever? If they are responsible, they set aside such petty human concerns as shame, guilt and empathy long, long ago. You might as well approach the rabid dog that just tore your child’s throat out and ask, “now, puppy, don’t you feel ashamed for what you’ve done?”

If the 9/11 truth movement’s cause is just and if it is to succeed in bringing justice, a change of strategy and tactics is required. The state will never deliver justice if it itself is culpable.