#free palestine abstainers are not your enemy

[titleknown]

I will say, to people chastising the Free Palestine voters for "costing us the election" (Which, statistically speaking from all available evidence I can see, no they fucking didn't)...

A) Congrats on showing you're unsafe to be around when you in any way feel inconvenienced by a marginalized group, and B) Congrats on being the sort of sucker that's let the Dems get away with failing the people who needed them for over 20 slutty, slutty years.

Like, I will say I think nonvoting as a tactic is not useful, I don't think it works on a pure practical level. I don't think bitching at people for not voting is helpful either, but I don't think it's a useful tactic because "the principle of the thing" only matters so far as it can change the world to match those principles.

But, if you can blame nonvoters for why Trump won, I think I feel safe in blaming people who bitch about nonvoters rather than a shitty conservative party as why we keep getting a Democratic party where the people who've been giving us candidates who fail us since '04 haven't been tossed out onto the street and Matt Yglesias isn't living in the sewer eating bugs, because politically minded people are more willing to yell at nonvoters than the real problem.

[spot-the-antisemitism]

I don't know if you've answered this question before so feel free to disregard this ask if you have, but what's your opinion on people abstaining from voting or voting third party for the sole reason of what's happening in Gaza?

For me, I'm just really confused by the whole thing. I understand that Palestinians suffering and getting murdered is a horrible and cruel thing that is happening and people want to do everything they can to ease that pain and stop it entirely so they think not voting/voting third party is a way to protest or make sure that Trump or Harris won't get into office, but I feel that going about in that way just seems really ineffective and will only backfire in the long run. Unless these same people are rallying a large amount of the US population outside of the internet to vote for Jill Stein or someone else to be elected (which is highly unlikely because 1. A lot of Tumblr users are almost always all talk and/or don't know how effectively do something so large-scale and risky like that & 2. We still have the electoral college to worry about and they will not pick a third party candidate), the only one who is going to win this election is either Donald Trump or Kamala Harris. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. With one side dead set on helping continue the war while fucking over marginalized US citizens in the process and the other side having a chance of calling for a ceasefire and not have more people lose their rights, it's pretty obvious to me that the latter one is the best option to pick.

So the fact that there are people on here not seeing that and even saying that Americans should be happy to lose their rights if it means Palestine is free is mind-boggling to me because that is NOT what's going to happen. Like congratulations, your movement caused Trump to win and now marginalized people are suffering under his presidency AND Palestinians are still getting killed too. Great work guys.

Sorry for the long ask. I just think this whole thing regarding not voting for either party seems to be really misguided unless there's some other factor I'm not considering. I'd like to hear your thoughts on it if you haven't already shared. And again, feel free to ignore this ask if you have already talked about this

Dear anon,

You have a lot of thoughts and are quite intelligent but you do not understand how these people think because have had the fortune of never interacting with their allerationist ideology

Acellerationism is basically atheist belief in a rapture. They believe that to make things better things have to get much much worse and then overthrown in a glorious revolution and their enemies slain in a reign of terror.

Kamala will make things better and not incite the populus to riot, Trump will make things worse and bring about the revolution.

While I don't think banning trans healthcare or a war in gaza are genocides one's conversion therapy torture and the other is a brutal war, this meme remains apt:

You expressed this even better with:

"Like congratulations, your movement caused Trump to win and now marginalized people are suffering under his presidency AND Palestinians are still getting killed too. Great work guys."

as for my thoughts for those who don't vote let me make something clear,

if you can't even show up to the polls and jump through the hoops they set up to keep you from voting (which should be abolished it's poll tests 2.0) you AREN"T going to join the glorious revolution. You're a poser that will be killed in the reign of terror for insufficient loyalty, get the hell away from me and my followers you miserable chronically online keyboard warrior and either do your civic duty or gtfo.

Let me make this clearer if you didn't vote I hate you more than if you're a trump supporter. At least the Trump Supporters admit that they voted for Trump.

[thebeeepitaph]

Freedom Isn’t Free

I support Palestine. I am not a supporter of terrorist or evil, I am a supporter of my fellow human beings that deserve their basic rights of living without being controlled or bombed for their existence. To deny support for them, is denying those who still are alive the chance to continue to remain so. Israel is not entitled to continue their bloodbath just because they have more firepower and more countries aiding them because the countries are led by cowards and hypocrisy. Or that they are “chosen ones”. Or that they have “more claim” to a sacred piece of land.

They imprisoned an entire people like livestock, then decided to slaughter the “livestock” when the Palestinians had had enough. When a group decided that if there was going to be change, some drastic measures needed to be taken. (I do not condone what the group chose to do, but the ideals of change I do wholeheartedly support. We all need change)

Growing up as I have, I say with my whole heart and soul that what Israel is doing is wrong. What the world is doing is very wrong. Governments are oppressive and not fair, they do not care about what they do to accomplish their own agendas. Israel in it’s attempt to accomplish its own agenda, believing in its superiority and the support of those who believe they are God’s chosen ones, goes unchecked in its genocide. Believing in God does not give a right to kill innocents and I never agreed with the warmongering God the Bible presented to me or in all the genocides done in the Lord’s name or at his request or by his chosen ones in Old Testament. And those who know, know that the Old Testament was meant to be done away with when a certain event in the New took place. Leaving only Jesus’ messages and commandments.

Love one another. That’s what Jesus said, and here we are (yes even you Christians) hating. My Gran used to tell me that to hate someone was like stabbing them in the heart. She also used to constantly want for us not to be ugly to one another and would call us out on if we were. You can bet that ugliness on the inside will overpower anything on the outside (*cough* rich/hot/famous people)

And be ye kind one to another, tender hearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ sake hath forgiven you.

Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not, knoweth not God; for God is love.

Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

It could go on about the messages to just love, but I’ve learned you can’t beat things into people just because you have “physical/supporting evidence”, people are their own people. They have minds of their own. It is unfortunate to say though, that people do not use them and allow others to control their lives knowing and unknowingly. They learn not to question things, to take what comes at face value, to abstain from evolving into who they are meant to be.

By the impossible standards set forth in the Bible, we all have failed, even those who are “saved”. We have because we were told to strive for perfection, to strive to be as Jesus which was an impossible goal, but we were pushed towards it in spite of the repercussions this would present to the individual. Those who have/are suffering crippling depression, self identity crisis, lack of purpose, anxiety, people pleasing, self punishment, self harm, etc. you all know the fallout.

You were meant to save yourself. It was meant that Jesus showed you a different path and by adopting said path you could better yourself and thrive thus being saved. Nothing to do with admitting you’re a sinner and asking Jesus to come into your heart. Jesus doesn’t save you, you save yourself.

Now that many feathers have been ruffled and I’m sure they are rushing to the comments (majority will say hateful things, very unchristian mind you) to defend God and Israel, let me remind you that God has been used to further the agendas of MAN who are wanting nothing but POWER making it CORRUPT. Israel is corrupt. THE UNITED STATES IS CORRUPT. The entire world is corrupt and how dare any of us support more suffering and corruption. How dare any of us be silent knowing people are dying. How dare we go on with our lives pretending it’s five just because we control the news we let in.

Some of this is opinion, biased at that, but like my Grandpa said: just like armpits, everyone’s got an opinion and they all stink. Meaning: my opinion is not yours, and yours is not mine.

With that in mind, a lot of what I have written here is fact.

It is up to you as the individual to interpret and come to the conclusion on your own.

In my own conclusion, I leave you with this:

Our world is on fire.

Are you going to fuel the flames or help snuff them out?

[eretzyisrael]

The EU Is At War With Israel

It's official. For all intents and purposes, the EU is at war with Israel.Some of the members, particularly in Eastern and central Europe aren't participating, but most of the EU is. It isn't a shooting war, but an increasing effort to marginalize the Jewish State so it can be destroyed.. The EU supports anti-Israel NGOs financially,and continues to fund the PLO even though it uses much of those funds to pay terrorists for murdering Israeli civilians, even though that financial support frees up funds to be used in what the PLO refers to as 'operations.' Only Israel has fruits, vegetables and fresh flowers specially labeled as being from 'the Occupied West Bank.' Led by Angela Merkel and Frances Emanuel Macron, the EU has consistently evaded U.S. sanctions against Iran and continued to observe the farcical Iran 'deal' of Barack Hussein Obama. The EU has done this even though Iran has been quite clear of its genocidal intentions towards Israel. And it was none other than Germany's Angela Merkel who pressured Eastern and Central European countries with good relationships with Israel not to relocate their embassies in Jerusalem or face her wrath. The founding director of the European Coalition for Israel in Brussels, Tomas Sandell, reported that  that the  German Chancellor  waged a strenuous campaign to stop central and eastern European countries from moving their capitals to Jerusalem.. “I have spoken to many Germans these last few days in Brussels,” he said. “They are not aware of this, and all of them would be shocked that all of the countries in the European Union today would want to block an embassy move to Jerusalem, not only for your own country, but for other countries that have the conviction [that] this is the right thing to do, the only country to do would be Germany. This is a big shock.” According to Sandell, most of  Merkel’s calls to put the squeeze on European leaders happened when “many of the nations were seriously considering moving their embassies.” This isn't a shock to me at all,but let's continue. Germany also implemented  the marking of Israeli goods from 'disputed territories' in 2015. Not only did Germany start the labeling, but Merkel used her influence to get other Eu nations to do the same.The idea, of course is to further isolate Israel as an 'occupying power.' As recently as a few days ago, the EU showed that it had chosen sides against Israel. When American U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley tried to discuss aspects of President Trump's proposed peace plan, they essentially brushed it off. Let's look at their official statement and then dissect what it really means. After the usual horse manure about a 'just peace 'based on international law, relevant UN resolutions and previous agreements', here's what they said:  "The EU is truly convinced that the achievement of a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders with Jerusalem as the capital of both States, that meets Israeli and Palestinian security needs and Palestinian aspirations for statehood and sovereignty, ends the occupation and resolves all final status issues, in accordance with Security Council Resolution 2334 and previous agreements, is the only viable and realistic way to end the conflict and to achieve just and lasting peace." Let's translate this, shall we?

Resolution 2334 is the one former President Barack Hussein Obama engineered when the Security Council had a majority of anti-Israel countries on it and then made sure the US abstained so it would pass, his final hateful attack on Israel. Here's what it stipulated, and it's an  'anti-zionist' wet dream. First of all, it negates every Israeli community as illegal outside the pre-1967 lines and gives East Jerusalem to the PLO. This creates 580,000 homeless Israeli refugees, bars them forever from all their holy sites, and puts all of Israel's central plain and its airports in easy missile and mortar by giving Israel's sworn enemies the high ground. 

Not only that, it also  takes away any notion of security from what's left of Jerusalem that the resolution is willing to leave to Israel. The Israelis themselves had previous experience with this in 1967, when Jordan's King Hussein announced his entry into the war by shelling civilians and having snipers fire on West Jerusalem Even worse, there would be nothing to stop Iran from supplying deadlier and deadlier missiles and arms to both the PLO and Hamas. With the Jordan Valley out of Israeli control, there would be nothing to stop Iran from moving troops, missile launchers and armor  to Israel's new borders. Essentially, what the EU was saying to Ambassador Haley is that they weren't going to support President Trump's plan whatever it was, that Israel should be moved to indefensible borders, and that its enemies should have every strategic advantage so they can finally destroy it. 2334 also  violates the Oslo Accords and the Road Map, agreements the U.S. was a signatory to that stated unequivocally that any settlement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority could only be achieved through direct negations between the two parties. And then of course, there's that notion of 'occupation.' That term has always been used to describe one country forcibly invading and taking control of another country's sovereign territory. And sovereign territory means land inside another established country's recognized borders, like Saddam Hussein occupying Kuwait or the US occupying Germany or Japan. So we have to ask the question...which country's sovereign territory is Israel 'occupying?' It can't be Jordan. Yes, Jordan illegally occupied Judea, Samaria (AKA The West Bank) and East Jerusalem in the 1948 war for 19 years after ethnically cleansing the Jewish population in this area,  but the UN never recognized these areas as Jordanian territory, Israel took it back in the Six Day war after Jordan attacked them and Jordan later gave up all claims to this area as part of their peace treaty with Israel. So it isn't Jordan Israel's occupying. And it can't be 'Palestine' either. It never existed as a sovereign nation with established borders at all. Owning a house in say, Pennsylvania does not make it and maybe your yard a sovereign country, now does it? So there really is no 'occupation.' According to the San Remo Accords between the League of Nations (the UN of its day) and Britain in 1922, the 22% of the Palestine Mandate that includes Judea and Samaria and what is now Israel was supposed to be the Jewish State, while the 78% of it that's now Jordan was supposed to be the Arab State. It's the only partition of the area both sides ever agreed on, and it was reaffirmed in Article 80 of the UN Charter. What the EU and their pals at the UN are doing is pretty simple to figure out. They're simply doing what  Mark Twain predicted they would back in 1899 when the  Zionist movement was  beginning. Here's what he had to say  in a famous article on Jews he did in Harper's Magazine:  I am not objecting; but if that concentration of the cunningest brains in the world were going to be made in a free country (bar Scotland), I think it would be politic to stop it. It will not be well to let the race find out its strength. If the horses knew theirs, we should not ride any more. Want further proof of how the EU has it in for Israel? The recent attempt to simply pass a resolution  condemning unprovoked terrorism by Hamas against Israel in the UN General Assembly failed dismally once Israel's enemies in the UN insisted on a two thirds majority instead of the simple majority Ambassador Haley wanted. You know what did pass? A resolution sponsored by Ireland calling for 'the achievement, without delay”  of the implementing  of U.N. resolution 2334. Since 2334 was a series 6 Resolution that has no status as international law,  Israel promptly rejected it, as any country not interested in national suicide would.But thanks to Barack Hussein Obama, it remains a framework for countries that want Israel gone. And make no mistake,it definitely is about the Jews. Much of what constitutes the EU will never forgive them for Auschwitz. Or for being so successful in a region noted for failed states. Joshuapundit

[anarchistvoting]

~Core anarchist views/thoughts on why (not) vote and 2016 politics extracted from the below articles~

FROM: http://www.infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionJ2

• “Man has as much liberty as he is willing to take. Anarchism therefore stands for direct action”

• Electioneering does not work

• Any government is under pressure from two sources of power, the state bureaucracy and big business, and is thus the same

• "the permanent government" and "the secret state"

• existing power structures cannot effectively be challenged through elections

• difference between voting for a government and voting in a referendum

• Also, "participation in elections means the transfer of one's will and decisions to another, which is contrary to the fundamental principles of anarchism.” picking the authority does not makes us free

• Voting endorses authoritarian social structures

• The state in and of itself is an integral part of the system that perpetuates poverty, inequality, racism, imperialism, sexism, environmental destruction, and war, we should not expect to solve any of these problems by changing a few • nominal state leaders every four or five years.

• anarchists don't just say "don't vote", we say "organize" instead – different from apathy. (apathetic abstentionism is not revolutionary or an indication of anarchist sympathies) we agitate, organize and educate.

• "if the Anarchists were strong enough to swing the elections to the Left, they must also have been strong enough to rally the workers to a general strike, or even a series of strikes”

• politicians are puppets

• voting is not part of the solution, it is part of the problem

• It blocks constructive self-activity and direct action. It stops the building of alternatives in our communities and workplaces. Voting breeds apathy and apathy is our worse enemy.

FROM: http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/rbr/rbr5/elections.html

• we are fervent believers in democracy - in “real” democracy

• Parliamentary democracy does not come anywhere close to real or direct democracy

• the ruling class were shit scared that if they didn't concede something, the working class would set about taking over completely. voting is that concession.

• Anarchists therefore prefer to spend our time helping to create the conditions outside of parliament that will force politicians and governments to make concessions to the working class rather than wasting our time running around trying to get politicians elected

• Direct democracy is the political system with which anarchists aim to replace parliamentary democracy

instead of looking to someone else - politician, boss, bishop or anyone else - to act for you or to make decisions for you, you act for yourself

• protest organized and controlled by ordinary working class

• Many on the left argue however that it is possible to combine both, but this position inevitably leads to compromise

History is littered with examples of parties which started off from this position of “why not both” but which became part of the system

FROM: http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/reclus/dontvote.html

• To vote is to give up your own power.

• The possession of power has a maddening influence

• Instead of entrusting the defense of your interests to Others, see to the matter by yourselves. Instead of trying to choose advisers that will guide you in future actions, do the thing yourselves, and do it now!

FROM: http://www.spunk.org/texts/groups/bad/sp000227.txt

• some anarchists have advocated “lesser evil” voting, a kind of self-defense against the more conservative candidate

• Counterargument 1: voting rarely, if ever, accomplishes any of the goals its advocates claim it can

• Counterargument 2: voting in government elections is an inherently authoritarian activity authoritarian means never yield libertarian results.

• Counterargument 3: voting serves to legitimize the whole political process

• Government is based on coercion

• If people did not vote, the democratic theory of government would lose its legitimacy and politicians would have to justify their rule on the basis of something other than the alleged consent of the governed. This, hopefully, would make the true nature of the state more obvious to the governed.

• any candidate anarchists help elect will implement interventionist policies and initiate coercive actions, the results of which will be incompatible with anarchist goals

• While voting for a Democrat may arguably make intervention in cuba or nicaragua less likely, it could make matters worse in israel/palestine or south africa.

FROM: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/colin-ward-the-case-against-voting

• non-voters are among the largest of the political groups

• Among the abstainers is the unknown quantity of conscientious non-voters

• Parliamentary elections were not merely irrelevant, they were a ruling-class conspiracy to divert workers’ attention from the real struggle

• We need to find new forms of self-organization for the social functions that the state fulfills through the bureaucracy, and that ‘as long as this is not done, nothing will be done.’

• ‘If voting changed anything they’d make it illegal.’

FROM: https://troubleandsqueak.com/2015/04/25/anarchists-it-is-our-duty-to-vote-in-elections/

• it is our duty to question everything

• What frustrated me was that we are told, as anarchists, that we have no place voting in an election… I disagree

• Voting in elections is not only a duty of anarchists, it is the single easiest weapon at our disposal.

• All anarchist arguments against voting seem to fall under four main topics. These are legitimacy, fairness, cost, and effectiveness

1) “participating in the election process the government are then legitimized in their role, making them the valid and rightful rulers of the country”

> Counterargument: governments take their legitimacy regardless of voter turnout. “well, I didn’t vote for them”, to which the only response can be, “yes, but you did not oppose them either”

2) Many say that it is an unfair system and that “the game is rigged”

> Counterargument: The system is unfair, it is biased, it is corrupt, and at times the game is even rigged, but withdrawing yourself entirely from the game does nothing to change it.

> if you choose to withdraw from it you will still feel its effects. you are still going to be subject to the rules and laws of the land

> when faced with such a situation, we as anarchists strive to improve it, not to ignore it. Improvement cannot come without participation.

3) The time (cost) taken educating yourself on the parties, the policies, and the representatives would be better spent elsewhere

> Counterargument: educating yourself on the political landscape of the country in which you live is never time wasted

> Voting doesn’t really take much time. Voting/Direct action are two separate tactics and weapons that should be used in conjunction with one another to bring about the desired goal. They are not mutually exclusive.

4)  –“if voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal.” ~effectiveness~

> Counterargument: The reality is that voting does change things and there is absolutely no denying that

> The solitary vote will never decide an election, but Elections are not individual events, they are societal events, and so our vote has to be seen in the context of voters as a whole.

***(Anarchy is about substance)***

• Why Vote?

-Non-voting protects the state

-Voting is the easiest tool to utilize in the anarchist arsenal [ it is open to a person no matter of race, gender, sexual preference, height, ability, age, weight, working pattern, or financial status (uh… NOPE!!!)]

-Choosing the lesser of the evils

-We must be prepared to play the long game (At each and every election the lesser of all evils should be voted for)

-We have a duty to shape a better world, and one of the methods of creating this better world, one of the arenas of opposing the government is through the ballot box

-governments can do nothing if they are voted out of office. So let’s vote them out!!

-Let’s make governments fearful of a large anarchist voting presence at elections

-we must make the most of a bad situation

FROM: https://dailyanarchist.com/2012/07/11/anarchists-who-vote-are-like-atheists-who-pray/

• anarchist who votes is legitimizing a political process that he knows will be used by the State to violate the rights of others

• All who vote are said to render their consent to ‘the system’ by voluntarily participating in it.

• It’s easy to stay away from the polls, and this in itself will create a revolution

• Shrinking government through political means is a fool’s errand

• It is not possible to know what a politician will do once massive power is his to wield.

FROM: http://www.infoshop.org/Voting

• Direct action and other alternatives are more likely to result in a better society than electing Candidate X to political office.

• Anarchists are also anti-statist and anti-hierarchy and see electoralism as contrary to our goals and practice

• These parties have spent so much time trying to win elections that they have stopped even thinking about creating socialist alternatives in our communities and workplaces

FROM: https://cbmilstein.wordpress.com/2014/11/04/voting-versus-electoralism/

• I vote — within collective projects, occupations (the good kind), neighborhood assemblies, and other directly democratic face-to-face structures, wherever and whenever I find them.

• Such voting is miles apart, conceptually and systemically, from electoralism

FROM: https://robertgraham.wordpress.com/2016/12/31/malatesta-looking-forward/

• Anarchists must also present a viable alternative

• Demonstrating that our tactics are better than those of the parliamentarists

• Being right in theory (cherishing loftier ideals, criticizing others, foreseeing the harmful consequences from incomplete and contradictory programs) is not enough

• We must turn whomever we lure away from the fetishism of the ballot box into a conscious and active fighter for genuine, complete emancipation

FROM: http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/298.html

• There is but one evil party with two names

• The refusal to vote is a dogged hope – that if twenty-five million voters refrain from voting, this might make the American people ask…

• Stop yelling about a democracy we do not have.

• Let’s vote when we have a real one

FROM: http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/37922-i-m-an-anarchist-and-i-vote

• What horrible things than can happen when a buffoon occupies the halls of state power…

• I have no illusion that all candidates are equal in their potential for harm

• I see the value of taking a harm reduction approach to elections, particularly when a candidate threatens to cause a great deal of harm to marginalized communities, including those who are barred from voting themselves.

(harm reduction philosophies came out of drug users and their allies' response to the AIDS epidemic in the '80s and '90s)

(harm reduction accepts that people are going to use drugs whether they are illegal or not, and the best strategy for dealing with that reality is to make sure the harmful effects associated with drug use are minimized)

• The elections will go on, with or without our input

• If this perennial electoral process is going to happen whether we like it or not, why not occasionally take the practical approach and vote in a way that reduces the harm associated with our elected leaders and government?

• The choice is not between either direct action organizing or voting, but both/and. The choice is not mutually exclusive.

• this harm-reduction style voting is but a small part of a larger strategy for social and economic justice

• things do not have to get worse to shake people from their complacency and rise up

For things to get worse before they get better means more death, poverty, incarceration, hunger and terror for our most precarious communities. That is not a price I am willing to pay for a revolution that may not actually be around

the corner.

• Things need to get organized, not worse, before they get better.

“I will vote to boot my Tea Party, anti-abortionist, homophobic, anti-environmentalist, gun lobby apologist "representative" out of office, and to keep a right-wing proponent of bigotry from ever reaching the White House. Locally, there are a number of ballot initiatives I am happy to push for at the ballot box, and if they lose, with continued direct action. I will vote to decriminalize recreational marijuana. I will vote for ranked-choice voting for future governors, so least-liked candidates like LePage will never win office again. I will vote for background checks on all gun sales. I will vote to significantly raise the minimum wage for tipped and un-tipped workers.

• I do not see harm reduction voting as irreconcilable with my anarchist politics

• The 30 seconds it took me to vote today by absentee ballot from Montréal feels simple and necessary

• You will never hear me exclaim the virtues of voting or encourage electoral politics beyond harm reduction voting, but it is one of many small strategies to make another world possible, and I remain unconvinced that never voting is a winning strategy to do anything

• Elected governments will manage many aspects of our lives, despite our rejection of them.

• Voting is just a tool that can be deployed strategically to reduce the harm they do to our communities.

FROM: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/09/anarchists-for-donald-trump-let-the-empire-burn.html

• We should vote for Donald Trump

• “There’s no way I’ll pull the lever for Clinton, because I know what a Clinton presidency bodes. More of the same neoliberal plundering with a friendly Democratic smile to quiet the left

• What’s needed now in American politics is consternation, confusion, dissension, disorder, chaos — and crisis, with possible resolution — and a Trump presidency is the best chance for this true progress”

• A politics of arson

• “With Trump it's a flip of the coin. Heads: his primary run was brilliant hyperbolic political theater that will mellow in the general, he's right on TPP, and less hawkish than Clinton internationally. Progressives gain ground in Congress (the more important body of government anyway) in the midterms, setting a foundation. Tails: he wasn’t acting and his presidency will summon a degree of economic uncertainty and social disorder that promises gasoline onto the flickering flames that is the nascent re-emergence of a grassroots radical left awakened with Occupy and given form in the candidacy of Bernie Sanders.”

• Both candidates are monsters.

• We are already living in (what Princeton political scientist Sheldon Wolin calls) a soft or inverted totalitarian system, an illiberal democracy

• The trump transformation will be welcome, clarifying, a fresh breath of honesty, in which the trappings are tossed aside and the ugly reality is revealed.  

• Such a revelation may inspire real resistance

• Or not. It’s the risk of the wild card. TRUMP!  Let the fire burn how it will.

(^^^Response) FROM: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/06/leftists_for_trump_what_is_to_be_done_about_these_insufferable_nihilists.html

• I recoil from a personality type—not uncommon in radical movements—that treats politics as a realm in which to enact revenge on society for its own alienation and to claim a starring role in history

• The above article implies that that deteriorating social conditions would radicalize the populace and empower the left.

• ^ This isn’t how American politics work. When the right is in power, the political center of gravity moves right as well.

The left flourishes when Democrats are in power, raising people’s political expectations.

• Ketcham is, naturally, blithely uninterested in reckoning with the human cost of the political apocalypse he fantasizes about.

There’s not a word in his piece about the immigrants who would be rounded up and put into detention camps under Trump’s plan, or the people of color who would be terrorized by a total breakdown in the norms that make even an imperfect multiethnic democracy possible

• What is surprising is that the left sees politics purely in terms of personal catharsis.

FROM: https://markstoval.wordpress.com/2016/08/07/an-anarchist-looks-at-voting-in-2016/

• Some think we should weaken the state by not participating and looking hopefully toward the future in the knowledge that the nation-state will fall someday.

• BUT What if we don’t have much time left? What if this election cycle may determine if we live or die?

• So, who to vote for? I will vote Trump to stop the evil, corrupt, war-mongering, murdering Clinton.

FROM: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/king-anarchists-secretly-vote-donald-trump-article-1.2630345

Shaun King

• “Trump might also make sense to anarchists — who see a Trump presidency as a shortcut to mass chaos, protest, dissidence, and anger in our nation.”

• I could imagine complete chaos if Donald Trump won this election.

• Now I would never vote for Donald Trump under any circumstance, but for people who may want to see this country devolve into a horrific state of mass chaos, I think they're right —

voting for Donald Trump would send our nation down a path unlike anything we've experienced here before. I think this is why white supremacists, armed militias, and hate

groups are so enthusiastic about a Trump presidency — they see what anarchists see — the very real possibility of an ethnic, religious war in which even regular folk decide to choose a side.

(^^^Response) FROM: http://www.thestranger.com/slog/2016/05/09/24063753/no-anarchists-dont-want-trump-to-win

• King is hitting on an important truth here. A Trump win would make the country more volatile.

• but ~”NOT ALL ANARCHISTS…”~

• Noam Chomsky… would "absolutely" vote for Hillary Clinton if he lived in a swing state where Trump was the alternative.

• I'm sure most anarchists—the decent ones—share this view

• They'll do what they can within the constraints of the political system to stop Trump. They certainly won't vote for him.

• They'll be on the front lines, putting their bodies on the line

• That's a far more accurate snapshot of anarchists today than the notion of them sneaking into the voting booth to cast ballots for Trump.

FROM: http://washingtonmonthly.com/2017/01/27/the-myth-of-catharsis/#.WI1e4Sv4XcU.twitter

• Myth: Trump will “heighten the contradictions” of late capitalism

 – this will lead to a “catharsis” that will“purge” the system of its rottenness or “rip the Band-Aid off” society’s wounds

• It’s tempting to find comforting rationalizations that things will come out right in the end

• Myth: “things have to get worse before they get better.”

• Because the United States is the world’s oldest continuous constitutional republic, many Americans have been lulled into a belief that it has sort of inherent stability

• Democracies, and perhaps especially flawed ones like ours, are inherently fragile

• People rapidly acculturate themselves to the new regime and assume its features are the norm

• The notion of Trump as some sort of summer thunderstorm that will clear the air of American democracy is not only a fallacy that results from lazy thinking

Trump is not some deus ex machina intervening out of nowhere, but a culmination of all the underlying symptoms of its sickness.

FROM: http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/noam-chomskys-8-point-rationale-voting-lesser-evil-presidential-candidate

NOAM CHOMPSKY

• the so-called “lesser evil” voting strategy (LEV) is that which many regard as the most effective response to this dilemma

where you can, i.e. in safe states, voting for the losing third party candidate you prefer, or not voting at all. In competitive “swing” states, where you must, one votes for the “lesser evil” Democrat.

• ***what needs to be challenged is the assumption that voting should be seen a form of individual self-expression rather than as an act to be judged on its likely consequences***

• the consequences of our actions for others are a far more important consideration than feeling good about ourselves

• Those reflexively denouncing advocates of LEV on a supposed “moral” basis should consider that their footing on the high ground may not be as secure as they often take for granted to be the case

• Far right victories not only impose terrible suffering on the most vulnerable segments of society but also function as a powerful weapon in the hands of the establishment center

• Cost/benefit strategic accounting is fundamental to any politics which is serious about radical change.

• Those on the left who ignore it, or dismiss it as irrelevant are engaging in political fantasy…

• The left should devote the minimum of time necessary to exercise the LEV choice then immediately return to pursuing goals which are not timed to the national electoral cycle

1) Voting should not be viewed as a form of personal self-expression or moral judgement

2) The exclusive consequence of the act of voting in 2016 will be (if in a contested “swing state”) to marginally increase or decrease the chance of one of the major party candidates winning.

3) ) One of these candidates, Trump SUCKS  (“denies the existence of global warming, calls for increasing use of fossil fuels, dismantling of environmental regulations and refuses assistance to India and other developing nations as called for in the Paris agreement, the combination of which could, in four years, take us to a catastrophic tipping point. Trump has also pledged to deport 11 million Mexican immigrants, offered to provide for the defense of supporters who have assaulted African American protestors at his rallies, stated his “openness to using nuclear weapons”, supports a ban on Muslims entering the U.S. and regards “the police in this country as absolutely mistreated and misunderstood” while having “done an unbelievable job of keeping law and order.” Trump has also pledged to increase military spending while cutting taxes on the rich, hence shredding what remains of the social welfare “safety net” despite pretenses.”)

4) The suffering which these and other similarly extremist policies and attitudes will impose on marginalized and already oppressed populations has a high probability of being significantly greater than that which will result from a Clinton presidency.

5) (4) should constitute sufficient basis to voting for Clinton where a vote is potentially consequential-namely, in a contested, “swing” state.

8) Conclusion: by dismissing a “lesser evil” electoral logic and thereby increasing the potential for Clinton’s defeat the left will undermine what should be at the core of what it claims to be attempting to achieve.

FROM: https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/comments/4vf0le/voting_in_presidential_election_2016/  (Forum)

• If you must vote, select Jill Stein. This way at least you're not responsible for Clinton/Trump

• Individual votes have no effect on the outcome of a national election

• I am against voting for "representatives" of any kind in principle, regardless of the individuals… I am frustrated by how much energy people spend on national elections when there are local elections and issue-specific referenda, not to mention direct actions, that could use the attention so much better.

FROM: https://libcom.org/forums/theory/anarchism-voting-bernie-sanders-02032016 (Forum)

• Every four years, some American idiot anarchist decides that this time it's the most important election of our lifetimes... As if the continual erosion of the electorate isn't happening, as if the Supreme Court decision that corporations are actually people didn't irreparably damage the illusion of individual participation, as if "the issues" were actually on the table, as if...

• The lesser-evilism fallacy

• l think that voting is channeling people's energies in the wrong direction.

any recent positive changes to the law, have been made because of constant action and pressure of grassroots organizations

• If we want reform, there is a way to do it - but it is just harder than voting.

• Does casting a ballot or even endorsing a candidate channel much energy of many people identifying as anarchist anyway?

• No, not in itself, but by doing so it does suggest there's some value in the electoral system - which can and does lead to people getting involved in election campaigns as well

• Reinforcing the belief change comes from above, not our own self-activity.

• There is a difference between what a sanders and a cruz would do in office. to that extent, it's worth your time to vote

• So I don't see much offense in tossing a vote for the candidate who does't call for the mass expulsion of over eleven million people or barring Muslims from entering the US, particularly given that Trump's success is probably already increasing the likelihood of racial pogroms. Definitely nothing to do with anarchism or communism, though.

• Isn't it simple game theory? You gain little by voting, but you can lose much by not voting.

• If there was a candidate running who was likely to privatize the healthcare system or increase tuition costs of higher education, then I would certainly go out and vote for the other candidate.

If every left-leaning person avoided voting altogether then their lives would be made even more miserable by rightwing presidents.

FROM: https://libcom.org/forums/theory/anarchist-voting-strategy-13102016 (Forum)

I was pretty shocked at how many anarchists I know personally got on the Bernie bandwagon. There's a lot of social democracy lurking right underneath the surface of the anarchist movement...

"the existence of the state and the existence of slavery are inseparable"