The Path of Most Resistance

And now for something a little out of the ordinary...

2008-05-20T14:27:00.000-07:00

Singapore Sling....wow, I don't know quite what to say about this gem of a movie.

Once in a great while a film will impress me through it's pure innovation and creativity. This doesn't happen too often with most Horror/Exploitation films, because they tend to rely on standard conventions and clichés...I don't need to tell you what they are, any Horror movie watcher worth his or her salt already knows. I think it's especially egregious in slasher films.

Singapore Sling, though...this is a highly original film. Shot in beautiful black and white, it tells the story of a detective (who also happens to be a mute and an alcoholic) searching for a woman named Laura who's case he had been involved in. She disappeared from his life, and in the course of his travels he gets shot (this event is never really explained in the film, one of my few complaints) in the middle of a huge storm.

His story is intercut with the actions of two women, a mother and daughter duo, who are...how shall we say..."different". When they aren't having sex with each other or the mummified patriarch of the family, they're killing and burying their servants ("with aromatic flowers"). One of the most fascinating elements of Singapore Sling, in my opinion, is how often it breaks the so-called "4th Wall". The female characters address the audience regularly about their devious plans. To tell you the truth, I'm not exactly sure if I liked this or not; it certainly was unique, in any case.

Anyway, the man crawls wounded to the house where the two incestious lesbians live. That's when the movie takes a dramatic turn for the seriously deranged. The lesbians (who also happen to have a sadomasochistic streak, as it turns out) tie "Singapore Sling" (the name they give him) up, and proceed to do weird things with him, mostly involving electroshock and various bodily fluids. They also eat dinner with him (the dinner scenes in the film are probably the most spectacularly disgusting and bizarre dinner scenes I've ever seen) and have threesomes with him and other sick shit. There is also a particularly memorable scene involving a kiwi. I will say

no more!

On the negative side: the movie wears out its welcome a little bit near the end. It's almost two hours long; I definitely would have made it shorter. The print that they used for the DVD has burnt-in English subtitles for the parts that are in Greek, which are fuzzy, hard to read, and inaccurate. Synapse remedied this by placing their own subtitles over the old ones which are accurate and easy to read, as well as interpret the few lines of French in the film; however, their subtitles are encaptioned in big grey boxes that cover up a good deal of the picture, which is even more annoying than the original subtitles. There are no extras on the DVD to speak of. With this one, the feature presentation is petty much whatcha get.

Besides that, though, Singapore Sling is a pretty great film, combining exploitation, film noir, gore, a bit of Horror...you basically get the whole 9 with this one. Another thing that's great about it that I forgot to mention was the acting, especially by the mother and daughter in the film (as Singapore Sling himself never gets much chance to act). It's quite good.

All in all, I give Singapore Sling a solid 8 out of 10.

I'm a dishonest bastard.

2008-03-25T22:25:00.000-07:00

I said I'd post something over my spring break, and I didn't. What a dishonest wanker I am....may God have mercy on my soul.

Anyway, since I can't think of anything else to talk about at the moment, I might as well talk about the book I'm currently reading, which is "Strike!" by Jeremy Brecher. I'd highly recommend it to anyone who wants to know the basics of labor history in the United States; it's written in clear language, and concerns very engaging, interesting subject matter (for me, at least).

I've always known that labor struggle had turned bloody more than once in the United States, but I never quite appreciated the extent of some of the conflicts; the struggle in Colorado and the Great Upheaval general strike of 1877 almost degenerated into straight up class warfare. Workers in 1877 in Pennsylvania were setting railroad yards on fire and firing at soldiers sent into break the strike. Supposedly, according to the soldier's testimony, police officers were also firing at them as they retreated! Talk about solidarity. It also reminded me of the dishonest tactics that business used by weilding the government as its henchman, such as in the Pullman Strike. The Attorney General of the United States at that time was openly alligned with one of the railroads that was losing money because of the strike, which was eventually broken with soldiers. The book also discusses some of the ideological motivations that many of the workers held.

It brings to mind just how much unions have lost their way. They used to have far reaching, democratic goals; now they just appear to be another cog in a gigantic, state crony capitalist machine, which is built on beauracracy and screwing the average worker. And it pains me dearly to say that, as I've been part of strikes and labor struggles myself. Rightly conceived, I think that organized labor could form a protective barrier against some of the more negative effects of capitalism, and more importantly it would emerge organically, as opposed to regulations pushed by the state.

Anyway, check it out, if you can; it's interesting.

Wow.

2008-02-02T22:37:00.000-08:00

I haven't posted on this blog in a while!

I recently got back from vacation, but I've been paying attention to the news. How couldn't I?! It's so awful, yet at the same time, endlessly fascinating. Watching the election coverage has been like watching a horrific car crash in slow motion: so horrible you want to turn away, but you can't pry your eyes away.

So, anyway, I might post sometime in the near future about our glorious up-and-coming leaders and their illustrious plans for Change (yes, it's capitalized, like all imaginary deities). Or, I might write a movie review or a analysis of "Thus Spoke Zarathustra", which I slogged through recently. Who knows.

With pepper spray and nightsticks for all

2007-12-19T23:18:00.001-08:00

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-12-17-Copmisconduct_N.htm

Disturbing.

Fuck your politics, fuck your candidates, and fuck voting.

2007-12-19T18:18:00.000-08:00

As we near the hallowed time where all good men and women of this country vote, it's worth reconsidering the voting process. Voting has become one of the strangest traditions in the United States. On the one hand, politicians are looked upon in this country almost universally as total scum, as Pyotr Kropotkin pointed out long ago. Well, not much has changed. But at the same time, people still take voting as something very, very serious. I've often heard that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting different results. If that's really the case, then voting may very well be the most insane institution in the country.

Voting is a big deal in the United States. People take it terribly seriously. Saying that you don't vote will get you shocked looks; it's often the equivalent of proclaiming that you hate Jesus. Because, you see, not only are we granted this self-indulgent privilege, but people died for us to have it! How can you be so selfish!

Well, I suppose I am selfish. But at least I'm not delusional.

The myth of the so-called "rational voter" is a pretty widespread one. Candidates mount platforms, give speeches, throw fundraisers, and do their little dance for the American people, all while spewing feel-good platitudes about freedom, the American way of life, God (that one is essential-you must be best buddies with Jesus if you are to get anywhere close to the throne of power), and how America is the greatest country in the world. They try desperately to appear like they have the answers: I KNOW what the economy needs! Or they can try a different tactic-fear. This one is just as, if not more, effective than giving Americans the proverbial "stroke". Fear tactics range from, "We have to stop the homos from gettin' married", to "the terrorists want to come over here and take away our freedom", and everything in between. Many times it's used as a wedge, to divide one part of the country from the other. For all the nonsense about being "nonpartisan" and "reaching across the aisle", politics exists solely as a function of people disagreeing, and is by nature divisive.

Ultimately, though, few people are rational voters. Irrational voters range from people who are shameless partisan hacks and love to tow the party line, to people who only vote on one issue, to people who vote for what they feel will benefit the country, but in reality lacks any sort of empirical evidence of any kind to support said assumption. I won't even go into the media's role in all this, as they are to easy of a target.

My personal reasons from "voting abstinence" are numerous, but there are two major points: 1) States, like corporations, exist to perpetuate the so-called "bottom line". In this case, the bottom line is to obtain power, and to perpetuate power. This is why I chuckle at people like Ron Paul. Deny this and you ignore history at your own peril. 2) About half of the eligible voters in the U.S. actually vote. Out of this 50%, usually about half of the half vote for their respective parties. This means that around 26% of the country is imposing their views on the other 74%. I find this repulsive, and it contradicts everything I believe in. I try to practice what I preach, and I preach the holy message from my ideology, leave-me-the-hell-alone-ism.

Now, am I saying that voting in all cases is unacceptable? No, I'm not. I'm perfectly reasonable about voting for improvement on the local level. I'm even open to the theory that voting can be used as a mechanism of self-defense by an oppressed class. But voting for president is a great folly, is totally pointless in my opinion, and is the equivalent of flipping pennies into a wishing well. A whole mystical aura has developed around the voting box, an irrational cult around an object not unlike the Old Testament idols. And I find it repugnant. I will end this polemic with two quotes.

Voting is "merely a labor-saving device for ascertaining on which side force lies and bowing to the inevitable... It is neither more nor less than a paper representative of the bayonet, the bully, and the bullet." - Benjamin Tucker

Democracy is only a dream: it should be put in the same category as Arcadia, Santa Claus, and Heaven. - H.L. Mencken

and finally,

The Fathers who invented it [democracy], if they could return from Hell, would never recognize it. It was conceived as a free government of free men; it has become simply a battle of charlatans for the votes of idiots - H.L. Mencken

Vote, citizen, and be part of the problem!

EDIT: I just noticed this on LRC. It seems to be from a member of the High Cult of Ron Paul. Anyway, it's brief and worth reading, and presents a different opinion: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/maccallum3.html

Crimethinc: Hippies fighting for a future!

2007-12-13T20:08:00.000-08:00

"Your politics are boring as fuck."

This is the famous proclaimation from a group known as Crimethinc. I've heard of Crimethinc for some time, although had never really looked into the group or their "politics". Now that they are releasing a new book, I figure I might as well comment on this...eh, organization? What the hell can you even classify Crimethinc as?

According to Crimethinc's FAQ, the group was started in the 90s, which correlates well with the rise of Post Left anarchism in some circles. Thus far, their new book, "Expect Resistance", will be their third book to date. As to what exactly Crimethinc actually IS, well, that's a little difficult. Their explanation of what Crimethinc and its goals in their FAQ is so tortured it whoever wrote it should be charged under the Geneva Conventions. Basically, though, Crimethinc is a decentralized body dedicated to what they call the pursuit of a freer and more joyous world. How is this accomplished, you ask? Amongst other ways, by being poor, unemployed, shoplifting, dumpster diving, spray painting shit, etc. etc. You get the point. It's lifestyle anarchism, in a nutshell. Of course, trying to live "off the grid" isn't very productive, in my opinion. If you really want to do some damage to capitalism, it's going to take a lot more than feel good hippy nonsense like scrounging for bread scraps in the bottom of a dumpster and feeding off the scraps of capitalism and consumerism. It's Escapism, pure and simple, just like the hippy movement of the 60s was. Although hippies were iconic of the 60s, overall their numbers were pretty insignificant and small, and didn't really accomplish anything of value. Why? Because real change is going to come at a much bigger level than a dirty commune or squatted building. Their desire to distance themselves from established "Red anarchist" groups is a little strange as well. Hell, even Anarcho Capitalism has roots in Left Anarchism (Murray Rothbard was a fan of Goldman and Tucker, agorism, etc.)

Their critique of themselves is incredibly annoying as well. Many times they pretty much openly admit that the whole thing is merely a feel good organization. They try to be mysterious and vague about the organization and its aims whenever possible. Just take a look at the description for their latest book:

"Our third book is an exploration of the complex relationship between ideals and reality; a field manual for a field on which all manuals are useless.."

WTF?!

I don't know why anyone would claim allegiance to this group.

Ronald McDonald: Just as bad, if not worse, than Stalin.

2007-12-10T22:11:00.000-08:00

I know I'm a bit (OK, make that a lot) behind the ball as far as reading Fast Food Nation goes. I've read one of the author's other books (Reefer Madness, I recommend it, if for nothing else than the fascinating section on the porn business).

Basically, what Fast Food Nation reminds me of are those old progressive works chronicling some kind of misdeed due to capitalism. FFN isn't alarmist, though. I think it chronicles pretty well what exactly the fast food corporations do in order to achieve their fantastic influx of cash. Even if you're an ardently anti-corporation (which I am, pretty much), you can't help but be impressed by the pure business savvy of corporations such as McDonalds.

I made the mistake of watching the movie before reading the book (the movie, by the way, is nothing like the book). If you ever get a chance to see the movie, take my advice and don't. I'd call it a train wreck, but it's to slow to receive that dignified title.

Tase me, bro!

2007-11-18T22:07:00.000-08:00

http://www.waxahachiedailylight.com/articles/2007/05/20/dailylight/news/01-05-20-taser.txt

http://www.duiblog.com/2007/11/15/the-war-on-drunk-driving-marches-on/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=494199&in_page_id=1770

http://www.nowpublic.com/life/vancouver-airport-taser-death-raises-questions

http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/news/displayBreaking.htm?StoryID=67806

Expect many more situations like this in the future. There was a story recently of a police officer tasering a middle schooler. Really, guys? I thought cops were tough! Don't you guys work out? Can't handle an unruly 12 year old without a little superior firepower, eh?

Of course, regardless of the situation, expect people to defend the actions of police, no matter how absurd the situation. The cop worship in this country is absolutely bizarre. You would expect men armed with guns and authorized them to use them against American citizens to be subject to very careful strutiny, as to prevent abuses of authority, of which they are granted a considerable amount. But, as we all know, little things like logic do not often enter into the average American's conciousness. A cop could go out in the middle of the street and devour an infant and I guarantee, SOMEONE would defend that action.

I can't wait for the days when everything from jaywalking to "talking back" to a cop gets me a good, refreshing tasing. That day will be so sweet.

"Who's going to believe a talking head? Get a job in a sideshow."

2007-11-15T20:10:00.000-08:00

Once in awhile I like to talk about stuff that doesn't have to do with 1) How my fellow Americans are retarded; 2) Statist oppression; 3) How politicians are scum; or 4) anarchism. Today, I'm going to talk about one of my other passions, Horror films, and one of my favorites, called Re-Animator, which I recently re-watched.

Dear god, Re-Animator has to be one of the greatest movies ever. Scorsese, Kubrick, Hitchcock? All hacks compared to the insane glory of Re-Animator.

The story starts out somewhat confusingly with a young med student named Herbert West getting busted by cops after he resurects a dead man. The dead guys eyes explode shortly afterward, and blood flies everywhere. This was about the point in the film where I knew I had hit the gore jackpot. While not quite on the level of "Dead Alive", Re Animator is a pretty damn gory film.

Later, West returns to the United States (as he was formerely in Switzerland), and takes up residence in the home of a fellow med student. Eventually, his secret (a potion that brings dead people back to life) is uncovered by his landlord, and they collaborate to raid the morgue for stiffs to resurrect. Everything goes to complete hell from there, in a grotesque blood bath, and...well, since the movie is only 80 minutes long, that's quite a bit of it, and I don't want to ruin the ending. I will say that there is an amusing scene involving a zombie with a severed head and an act of cunnilingus. One of the very rare movies I've ever seen that is both suspenseful and hilarious. I give it 5 out of 5 zombies. Go out and watch it, bitches!

Viva class war!

2007-11-12T23:13:00.000-08:00

In case you need anymore proof that Karl Marx was a shameless, plagiarizing prostitute, you might want to give this a read. It's interesting:

http://www.mises.org/story/2217

Marx, you sly dog, you! Stealing "class war" ideas from bourgeious analysts, who woulda thunk it. But, of course, Marx was bourgeious himself, so that means nothing he says can be taken seriously by members of his own ideology, except perhaps Analytical Marxists, whom I'm suprised haven't all died from the contamination all their pretentious bullshit creates.

Fighting a forest fire with a squirt gun

2007-11-11T17:06:00.000-08:00

That's what I've felt like the anti-state movement has come to lately. It's definitely turned into a losing battle for the minority of us who want REAL freedom.

As much as I hate to admit it, people have a firmly entrenched interest in creating more government, at least in the United States. I think we've all seen this with the whole "universal healthcare" debate. "Oh my gawd, the government needs to get involved and stop the eevviil corporations!" Newsflash, geniuses: the government has been far from removed from the health care debacle that we have now. In fact, it, in many ways, is responsible for the corporatist piracy that we're seeing. Maybe some research is in order, although I know that would mean that the populist swill Michael Moore spews out of his cake hole about the beatiful Utopian healthcare system of Cuba and Europe would have to be rethinked to an extent.

Another issue I see is Iraq. While many see supposed "anger" and "discontent" over the job Bush is doing, all I see is apathy. Perhaps this is because I'm young, and thus hang around a lot of people my own age, and see nothing but apathy. Sometimes what I feel we need more than anything is a draft, believe it or not. Maybe that would get the glazed look out of peoples eyes and inspire some real action and mobility. Because with numbers like these, I expect fucking riots: http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

I'm also beginning to see the inherent failures of Minarchism. The problem with the ideology as I see it is that government only begets more power for itself. To put it quite simply, power corrupts, and while Minarchism may not provide "total power" to potential demagogues, there are always ways to expand influence. After all, "the surest way to turn a man into a beast is to give him the power over his fellows". Anyone who says that the State exists to "voluntarily govern the people and lawfully execute their orders" is actually rejecting Hobbes in their endorsement of the State by denying alterior motives for joining in the government into positions of power, because Man, we are told, is a selfish animal. (Even though rejecting Hobbes isn't necessarily a bad thing, because Hobbes was something of a dolt, and his theories are paradoxical, but at the same time I find it vaguely amusing that his supporters reject his views in trying to endorse the State.) I've already grown out of "mainstream" Libertarianism, and I suggest anyone else who is currently enraptured by the ideology do the same. It has already been subverted by Objectivist hacks who worship Rand like Jesus and people who think that all "libertarianism" means is "liberal on duh social issues, conservative on duh economic ones". I laugh every time I hear that feel good, consolidated definition of libertarianism.

This is a good article concerning this issue:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/bylund1.html

I will admit (and this may anger some people) that some Minarchist governments have been tolerable. But I still believe that it is only a matter of time before corrupting elements enter into the equation when it comes to Minarchism.

And finally, because I'm following Ron Paul's campaign as an interesting political anomaly, some of the media on him is discouraging to say the least. Now, I'm not a Ron Paul supporter. I would never vote for the man, because voting is against my principles. And many of his supporters, the so-called "Paulistas" are naive ditto heads who only support him because he would pull the United States out of Iraq, which is basically his main platform. However, it's reports like these...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2821161.ece

...that make me want to barf, especially this notable part:

"He also wants the withdrawal of all American troops from abroad and the abolition of most government departments, including Energy, Education and Homeland Security."

Obviously this was intended to label him as an extremist (which he actually is) by saying he wants to eliminate most government agencies, including *gasp* HOMELAND SECURITY! HOLY SHIT! What would we do without a government agency that was created six years ago?! Heaven knows how we would survive...

Unfortunately, the fact is that Homeland Security hasn't done jack shit except set up a bogus color coding alert system that has got to be the biggest joke in the world. Oh, and lets not forget their colossal fuck up in New Orleans! http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/03/katrina.chertoff/

America is fucked. We really are.

Some of my favorite websites and pages:

2007-10-15T21:14:00.000-07:00

In case any of you are interested, here are some links to websites that I like:

http://strike-the-root.com/

http://lewrockwell.com/

http://all-left.net/

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/archivehome.html

Ron Paul and the rise of the Libertarian Right

2007-10-04T13:26:00.000-07:00

The political power struggle in America today is often broken down by the ignorant into a battle between two opposing forces: liberals and conservatives. This is a far too simplistic view. In fact, there are numerous ideologies within both the "liberal" label and the "conservative" label. These ideologies are frequently locked in power struggles within their own political movements

One such label that has been in frequent use for the past few years has been "neo-conservative". Not that neo-conservatism, or "new conservatism", if you will, is a new concept; it has been around for quite some time. It's just that now we have seen this bastard ideology spring from the primordal ooze of academia and pure theory to become a defining policy of both domestic and, more importantly, foreign policy within the United States. NeoCon policy on these fronts is not the same as traditional conservatism (paleo conservatism) or the libertarian right. While paleos advocate a restrained foreign policy, NeoCons advocate a policy of foreign interventionism, and anyone and everyone knows that foreign war=big government. Most people believe that neo-conservatism theory begins and ends in the realm of foreign policy; however, they are mistaken. In the United States, the NeoCon agenda seems to entail spending like a drunken pro athlete in a strip club. Whether this is on new prisons, corporate welfare, or shooting the military budget into the stratosphere, it really doesn't matter, because the fact is that spending does NOT equal being conservative. Irving Kristol, one of the most prominent figures in NeoCon history, himself said that big government should not necessarily be feared. And there are actually people who think these jokers are conservatives?! Amazing. The only thing NeoCons are are a bunch of ex-Trotskyist fringe liberal academics desperately clutching at the coattails of the GOP in some bid for legitimacy. And they succeded, at least for a time.

But, in the last one or two years, we have begun to see some light at the end of the tunnel.

People are now officially fed up with the chimp we have in office and his ridiculous foreign policy. I don't think I need to tell you how fed up they are, but lets just say that if his poll numbers get much lower, there will be more support for installing Michael Jackson as president than letting George Bush keep his position as head fuck-up. And, just as George Bush is getting flushed down the proverbial popularity toilet, so are the neoconservatives and their ideology.

http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9043308

Just today, a poll came out (released by the Associated Press) that revealed that 70% of the country feel that this country is "heading in the wrong direction". The American people are notoriously gullible when it comes to their own government, but its slowly becoming clear to them that the status quo has got to change.

And this brings us to Ron Paul.

Ron Paul has been described in the media as a two or three tier candidate. I remember watching that self proclaimed ex-pothead Glenn Beck's show (although from watching it, you get the sense that he probably still hits the bong every now and then) and listening to him say that the Republican debates were dull, but that at least Ron Paul was good for comedic relief. You got the sense that everyone dismissed Paul as not being a serious candidate, because he *gasp!* actually had ideas that differed from the Republican Party. I had only a casual interest in the man until he royally reamed Sean Hannity after a Republican debate, after which I investigated him, and he quickly became one of my heroes. The man actually has the courage to speak out for what he believes in, and whether you personally agree or disagree with him, you should at least support his candidacy becoming more mainstream so some of these issues are brought out into the open to be discussed, as many (such as personal liberties) are being flat out ignored by the media and the candidates as it stands.

And lo and behold! He isn't such a joke anymore, is he?:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jd1Fl2xtwI3ahLMkwUCVzU_IkelgD8S218RG0

To me, Ron Paul's rising grass roots support is very incouraging, not just because it represents support for the man himself, but because it represents support for the ideology he represents: the ideology of believing you have the right to be left alone by the government. Hopefully, as time goes on, Libertarianism will become the dominant philosophy of the Right, and braindead, half baked theories like neoconservatism will again be banished to the margins of academia.

The mind blowing stupidity and ineptitude of the Democratic Party

2007-10-02T19:57:00.000-07:00

The Democratic Party, as we all know, handed the GOP their own asses in November by taking over both houses of Congress, and rightfully so. It may have been worth them taking over just to see the crushed looks on the faces of the GOP leadership, whos moronic, Populist pandering strategy when it came to things like gay marriage and flag burning, and War on Terror fear mongering was beyond contempt.

However, now the Democrats are in charge, and have been in charge for quite some time now. They can no longer rely on the excuse, "The Republicans have the majority! We can't enact change!" And now, it seems, it is the Democrats who are contemptable, at least in the eyes of the American people. Some polls show Congress's approval rating to be at 11%. 11 PERCENT! Can you believe that? More people support OJ than the Democratic Congress! But of course, these whiny Statists will probably do what all politicians and political parties do, and blame it all on their opponents, a response that only the most partisan of partisans will buy into. Have we left Iraq yet, or are we at the least THINKING about leaving Iraq in the near future? Has ANY measure from the president to keep feeding tax dollars into the heinous travesty known as the Iraq War come under serious scrutiny? Has one of our most basic rights as citizens been re-instated yet, the right to Habeus Corpus? Have the turds that run our legislative branch done anything of value, besides raise the minimum wage an insignificant amount, vote for a mind numbingly stupid condemnation of Moveon.org, and ruminate on the idea of national healthcare? Please, if they have, tell me, because I'm genuinely curious.

I guess we should count our blessings, though. After all, when Congress doesn't accomplish anything, you feel that the American people, at least for the moment, are safe.

A little backround on me

2007-09-28T21:09:00.000-07:00

Well, this being my first blog, I suppose I will introduce myself. For the purpose of this blog, my name is BA77. I've lived in a number of different places in my somewhat brief lifetime, although the vast majority of my life has been spent in Alaska, where I was born. My youth was spent, for the most part, being a bored, rebellous kid who liked drugs and punk rock (I still like punk rock). About the time our illustrious president, George W. Bush, came to power, I started to become interested in politics. Perhaps this was because even though I knew little of politics at the time, I did know that something was wrong with the way things were happening in the country, and this belief became only more intense as time went on. I searched for an ideology that suited me, and eventually discovered libertarianism, and shortly afterwards, anarchism. These two schools of thought (which are actually quite similar; in most European nations, libertarian is simply another word for anarchist, although in the US, it has taken on a whole different meaning) greatly influenced and still influence me. I consider myself currently a Minarchist, and have a strong dislike for the government. Although, I admit: sometimes it's impressive just how much they can fuck things up.

Other than that, I currently live and work as a self employed commercial fisherman in Kodiak, Alaska. I have actually had the unique privilege to live some of my ideals there; for the most part, I live off the land, growing and hunting for my own food, and I don't have to participate in the consumer culture as much as many people do. I'm also very proud of the fact that I'm a self employed member of the working class. Besides my residence in Alaska, I also spend time in New York, where I'm involved in a couple of anti-State organizations and groups. Anyway, thats about all for me for now. If I think of anything else, I suppose I'll post it. Later.

So this is blogging...

2007-09-28T17:41:00.000-07:00

Now everyone on the web will be able to see my own pretentious, jackass opinions! Mwahahahaha!