“Terrorism is the war of the poor, war is the terrorism of the rich.” ~ Peter Ustinov

I wrote a piece a few weeks ago in response to a response to the Sandy Hook Massacre: Newtown Changes Everything, And Welcome To Year Zero.

I had hoped to interest Blog for Iowa (rather staunch democrats) in this article but while they reposted the Donald Kaul piece, complete with irreverant Obama ribbing, they declined to post my piece. Not a surprise really, but I thought it was worth a try. Perhaps it is just too serious.

At the same time, the Center for a Stateless Society expressed interest in the piece but when reviewed by the entire editorial board it was rejected. I’m of the opinion that this is not the fault of my own lack of clarity but rather the murkiness of the issue given the inadequate language with which to articulate the failings of capitalism using the deeply flawed language of the masters.

The revision that I placed in an attempt to get a piece fundamentally critical, yet not completely without praise for the recent social agenda wins, and Obama’s endorsement of them, this last electoral season, amounted to my changing the statement: “that those that didn’t want us to evolve obviously included the president”. And yet I think I clearly expressed my concern that the person that was supposedly going to “lead” the discussion on gun violence in America himself has a kill list and how this utterly disqualified him. The suggestion that Obama “may be” among those uninterested in evolving past violence, including the idea that military might is an effective means to “enforce peace” was the best I could offer even though I knew it wasn’t true. I think that was giving way too much ground. It was inaccurate, the broader question of “does the president want us to evolve?” I think is quite clearly no. At least when it concerns the legitimacy of state violence. Barack Obama has continued the Bush legacy and even attempted to legitimized it in legalistic language designed to carve these new powers into executive stone in perpetuity. The national security state is not interested in anything but control. And the silence following war is not by any means peace.

So, contrary to what anyone might think, this isn’t meant to be propaganda. This is a mapping as best I can in a few weeks where I think the different ideologies might be with this issue of gun violence, and violence in general in America today. I would like to shed a little light upon how it is connected to the hyper-militarization that has crept into American society over the last 40 years, mostly through the drug war, the most readily available scapegoats being black, brown, the poor, drug addicted, and marginalized dissidents of the 60’s who simply wouldn’t shut up and get back to work.

State violence => Hobbes (Huxley, LeBon et. al) => (public as enemy) => \_(O_o)_/ <= individual violence (govt. is enemy).

I’d like to clarify the statement above. The person in the middle, is the scapegoat of society. Typically black, brown, female, gay, dirty hippie, etc.

The violence of the state is often claimed to be justified (however erroneously) by the idea that w/o the threat of violence we would all live nasty, brutish, and short lives. And no one would pay their debts.

“But debts aren’t sacred, relationships are.” – David Graeber – Debt: The First 5000 Years

“Anarchists are idealists, believing human beings do not need authorities and the threat of violence to govern them but are instead capable of governing themselves by cooperation, negotiation, and mutual aid. They stand on one side of a profound debate about human nature and human possibility. On the other side, the authoritarian pessimists believe that order comes only at the point of a gun or a society stacked with prisons, guards, judges, and punishments. They believe that somehow despite the claimed vileness of the many, the few whom they wish to endow with power will use it justly and prudently, though the evidence for this could most politely be called uneven. The cases drawn from disaster largely contradict this belief. It is often the few in power rather than the many without who behave viciously in disaster, and those few do so often exactly because they subscribe to the fearful beliefs of Huxley, Le Bon, and others.” ~ Rebecca Solnit – A Paradise Built In Hell