I planned on uploading an essay of mine from my history class and not just doing this blog roll call but maybe I’ll get to that later in the day or next week. Either way it should be soon. Regardless here are the blogs I found interesting for the week.


FSK on some terminology used by the state that he finds offensive because of the way that language is used to confuse individuals and secretly reinforce their slavery to the state.

Some mathematical terms equations and ideas for you to get cynical about politicians.

Bill O’Reilly’ call for support for Mubarak only stems from a false choice which is talked about here.

FSK on the nonsense of Pete Eyre’s arrest and statism in comparison to religion.

A section of the article:

“There are two conflicting sides to this issue. First, there’s “WTF? Contempt of court for refusing to take off your hat?” Second, there’s “Don’t you have better things to do, than get arrested/kidnapped for something minor?”

Look at it from the point of view of the judge/bailiff. He had two choices:

1. Let him leave his hat on.
2. Violence.

It’s an easy decision. If slaves can disrespect the “Don’t wear a hat!” rule, then they’ll start questioning all other sorts of stuff.”

A rebuttal to the State of the Union and some of the misconceptions of it can be found here just in case any of my fellow anarchists actually cared.

Free Dissent*

Julia Pitt had a decent rebuttal to typical reformist attitudes on the side of social-anarchism which can be found here

A few sections of the post,

“Take a look at history. Every time we put trust in the State, it always has a way of backfiring. All the time I hear: “Oh Julia, Peru (I’m picking a random country) just got a new president who says he’ll be all kind to labor unions and he’ll abolish private property and he’ll give working people all sorts of goodies!” Yeah, that’s what comrades were saying about the Soviet Union when it first came into being. Then look what happened: Kronstadt, ripping apart Makhno’s Ukraine, liquidation of labor unions, you get the idea.”

“With the reformist anarchists it’s always: “It’s not my philosophy or plan that’s wrong, it’s the conditions. The conditions aren’t right yet. The conditions aren’t right yet. We have to set the conditions first.” This, to me, is a purely elitist way of thinking. I’d suggest doing what the classical anarchists did and study the conditions in reality, and then form your theories. When you create some kind of day dream-style perfect world out of nothing you end up digging yourself into a hole when it comes time to apply your ideas to the real world.”

And yours truly wrote a pretty long return post on whether anarchists can favor property redistribution.

Closing words

(I thought it would be more convenient for the reader to have a more definable indicator of where I’m stopping)

That’s it for this week, hopefully I can get around to posting that essay sooner rather than later.