Recent comments

Good choice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VbYZDohsHk The First Thanksgiving The early settlers of America, who braved the privations of those incredibly difficult years, were a fabulous lot, indeed. We can hardly imagine the burdens they endured to make a new life for themselves in a new land. Their turning point began one Friday in the middle of March,1621. Samoset An Indian, wearing nothing but a leather loincloth, strode up their main street to the common house, and to their startled faces boomed in flawless English, "Welcome." His name was Samoset, a sagamore (or chief) of the Algonquins. He had been visiting the area for the previous eight months, having learned his English from various fishing captains who had put in to the Maine shore over the years. He returned the following Thursday with another Indian who also spoke English, and who was to prove "a special instrument of God for their good, beyond their expectation." His story was to prove no less extraordinary than the saga of Joseph being sold into slavery to Egypt. His name was Tisquantum, also called Squanto. Squanto His story began in 1605 when Squanto and four other Indians were taken captive, sent to England,and taught English to provide intelligence background on the most favorable places to establish colonies. After nine years in England, Squanto was able to return to Plymouth on Capt. John Smith's voyage in 1614. Lured and captured by a notorious Capt. Thomas Hunt, he, with 27 others, were taken to Mlaga, Spain, a major slave-trading port. Squanto, with a few others, were bought and rescued by local friars and introduced to the Christian faith. Thus, it appears that God was preparing him for the role he would ultimately play at Plymouth. He was able to attach himself to an Englishman bound for London, then he joined the family of a wealthy merchant, and ultimately embarked for New England in 1619. He stepped ashore six months before the Pilgrims landed in 1620.1 When he stepped ashore he received the most tragic blow of his life. Not a man, woman, or child of his own tribe was left alive! During the previous four years, a mysterious plague had broken out among them, killing every last one.2 So complete was the devastation that the neighboring tribes had shunned the area ever since. The Pilgrims had settled in a cleared area that belonged to no one. Their nearest neighbors, the Wampanoags, were about 50 miles to the southwest. Stripped of his identity and his reason for living, Squanto wandered aimlessly until he joined the Wampanoags, having nowhere else to go. But God had other plans. God's Provision Massasoit, the sachem (or chief) of the Wapanoags, entered into a peace treaty of mutual aid with the Plymouth colony that was to last as a model for forty years. When Massasoit and his entourage left, Squanto stayed. He had found his reason for living: these English were helpless in the ways of the wilderness. Squanto taught them how to catch eels, stalk deer, plant pumpkins, refine maple syrup, discern both edible herbs and those good for medicine, etc. Perhaps the most important thing he taught them was the Indian way to plant corn. They hoed six-foot squares in toward the center, putting down four or five kernels, and then fertilizing the corn with fish: three fish in each square, pointing to the center, spokelike. Guarding the field against the wolves (who would try to steal the fish), by summer they had 20 full acres of corn that would save every one of their lives. Squanto also taught them to exploit the pelts of the beaver, which was in plentiful supply and in great demand throughout Europe. He even guided the trading to insure they got full prices for top-quality pelts. The corn was their physical deliverance; the beaver pelts would be their economic deliverance. The First Thanksgiving The Pilgrims were a grateful people-grateful to God, grateful to the Wamp-anoags, and grateful also to Squanto. Governor Bradford declared a day of public Thanksgiving, to be held in October. Massasoit was invited and unexpectedly arrived a day early-with an additional ninety Indians! To feed such a crowd would cut deeply into their stores for the winter, but they had learned through all their travails that God could be trusted implicitly. And it turned out that the Indians did not come empty handed: they brought five dressed deer and more than a dozen fat wild turkeys. They helped with the preparations, teaching the Pilgrim women how to make hoecakes and a tasty pudding out of cornmeal and maple syrup. In fact, they also showed them how to make one of their Indian favorites: white, fluffy popcorn! (Each time you go to a movie theatre, you should remember the source of this popular treat!) The Pilgrims, in turn, provided many vegetables from their gardens: carrots, onions, turnips, parsnips, cucumbers, radishes, beets, and cabbages. Also, using some of their precious flour with some of the summer fruits which the Indians had dried, the Pilgrims introduced them to blueberry, apple, and cherry pie. Along with sweet wine made from wild grapes, it was, indeed, a joyous occasion for all concerned. The Pilgrims and Indians happily competed in shooting contests, foot races, and wrestling. Things went so well (and Massasoit showed no inclination to leave) that this first Thanksgiving was extended for three days. The moment that stood out the most in the Pilgrims' memories was William Brewster's prayer as they began the festival. They had so much for which to thank God: for providing all their needs-and His provision of Squanto, their teacher, guide, and friend that was to see them through those critical early winters. by Chuck Missler 1The Pilgrims lived that first winter aboard ship and suffered the loss of 47 colonists. 2This epidemic, from 1615 to 1617, is believed to have killed 95,000 Indians, leaving only about 5,000 along the coast. 3Canada first adopted Thanksgiving as a national holiday in November 1879, and it is now celebrated there annually on the second Monday in October. http://www.mayflowerhistory.com/History/BiographyTisquantum.php For many Native American people, Thanksgiving is cause for mourning rather than celebration? Although the First Thanksgiving included the Pilgrims' Native American neighbors, that spirit of cooperation did not last long between the native people and the colonists. The land and lives of the native people were pillaged and destroyed countless times during the early history of the United States of America. Racism and bigotry persist until this day. As a result, Thanksgiving has taken on greater historical significance for many Native Americans, who view that First Thanksgiving as the beginning of centuries of oppression and discrimination.

I'd like to explore the question "whether a person can volunteer to be a slave" further. Where can a line be drawn between offering oneself for hire in a typical employee relationship vs. a slave? Certainly if the "master" has a legal right to terminate my life, then I'm a slave. Anything short of that seems to be a matter of contract, however. I haven't read the discussion at TOLFA; could you provide a link? Thanks, JdL.

A comment and sentiment I can get behind no matter who says it. Well said Sam. isms and ians are the true enemy. Forming and controlling the debate on freedom without the consent of those attempting to be free is in itself a form of aggression.

Evan: "...To some degree, I think a "taboo on ownership" (when it comes to land and other living beings,) is a good idea in that it's a peaceful voluntary way to promote a culture that values individual autonomy and maximizing liberty. Regardless of "legal status," I strive to be a good steward of the land and the plants and animals on which I depend, and I try to keep in mind the interconnectedness of everything..." The question on a forum such as STR is, "in a 'free society' who emerges as the enforcer(s) of such taboos?" I think a major factor in the combative nature of the white man's incursion onto this land centuries ago is contained in this question. The natives [stupidly called "Indians" to this day] who had already been settled here and had, for the most part, gotten along fine with each other save skirmishes over such things as stealing each others' women and horses; simply could not understand the white man's proclivity to think he had authority to mark-off segments of spirit-given land and claim private "ownership" thereof. That made no sense in the world to them. They did not mark off fictitious lines in the sand and call them "borders". They had no "states" or "counties". If my history is accurate, there were Cherokee "nations" and Choctaw "nations" and the like. But even the term "nation" was white man's vernacular, not natives'; and they did not celebrate boundaries or borders. As I understand it there was little objection by natives to sharing with the white man. He (the white man) even to this day commemorates a political holiday in the fall ("Thanksgiving" -- a classic misnomer, I perceive) where his teachers chirp stories to the kiddies about the original "Thanksgiving" and how the natives helped by bringing wild turkeys, etc., to the feast. Of course in the collectivist ("public" ha ha) schools they have to interject the idea that the "governor" or the "president" declared this to be a "public holiday", and therefore it is a holiday. Many of those tribes planted, harvested and preserved certain crops (herbs) for their own consumption and in cases to exchange for goods with neighbors. They, like any of us, had to contend with defending their harvest from neighboring tribes and bands of ne'er-do-wells and predators (the precursors to what we now lovingly call "policymakers"). White Indian is correct, however, that agriculture as we know it gives rise to state. Before even progressing to lobbies of farmers demanding of state predators to rob citizens in order to "subsidize" farmers for the fickle nature of cash crops; the way the white man wanted to farm seemed to demand the farmer have "title" to the area of the earth on which he would plant. The white man had all kinds of "legal" reasons for that -- also a complete mystery to the natives here. If you can't sit down together, make agreements you intend to keep, smoke a pipe together and have a trust relationship, you might as well fight each other to the death of the loser and be done with it. As I've said before, my favorite American politician is Aaron Burr. He fought the only just war in US history. He didn't drag US citizens into the forray. He challenged Hamilton to a duel and shot his ass. Sam

Amen to that Sam. TL:dr.

Sorry, I can't get used to this Drupal "Edit" thingie. My original comment seems to have vanished; it was to thank Sam for his generous remarks and to concur that government-funded research tends to be suspect. It also said my source for the migration dates in the article was Spencer Wells as it says, and he's done some good work with DNA tracking.

"...vast state subsidies...currently prop up such unsustainable systems [non-organic agriculture] and allow them to externalize their costs onto their organic competitors." ~ Evan Amen ["verily, truly"]

As far as I can tell, despite all his fiery rhetoric, it seems like WhiteIndian wouldn't mind if you engaged in agriculture, as long as it's "permanent," (i.e. permaculture.) This may seem paradoxical, because if "agriculture creates government," then wouldn't permanent agriculture create permanent government? But I digress, because while I disagree that agriculture inevitably results in government, I too see permaculture as a way forward. Permaculture is land-use design that seeks to work with nature, rather than against her, to create stable, productive environments that provide for human needs. Waste is transformed into food, work is minimized, and yields increase. I must strongly disagree with whoever it was earlier in this thread that predicted that a truly free market / free society would favor non-organic agriculture over organic farming, considering the vast state subsidies that currently prop up such unsustainable systems and allow them to externalize their costs onto their organic competitors. Permaculture is a tool that belongs in every good agorist's bag of tricks, and I would even go so far as to say that the success of the agorist strategy depends on how effectively agorists integrate the insights of permaculture into their activism. When it comes to individual sovereignty / personal autonomy, I have to say that I'm not a fan of the "self-ownership" terminology. I think phrasing it that way isn't very good marketing, and as a market anarchist, I think we should be marketing anarchy as effectively as possible. To some degree, I think a "taboo on ownership" (when it comes to land and other living beings,) is a good idea in that it's a peaceful voluntary way to promote a culture that values individual autonomy and maximizing liberty. Regardless of "legal status," I strive to be a good steward of the land and the plants and animals on which I depend, and I try to keep in mind the interconnectedness of everything.

Jim, this essay and those past ones of yours to which you link are examples of why I hold you up as a mentor in the discipline of self-ownership. I may not always totally agree with your facts (although one of the things I like about your writing style is that you are not a "fact-dogma" writer -- you suggest your observations and allow the reader to make conclusions), your presentations are informative and educational. Thanks for another #10 (my rating)! As Golefevre commented above, I can only speculate upon that which I have not seen with my own eyes and experienced with my own senses. I'm perhaps a few years older than most on here (76), and I look at it thus: I have a valid time frame of reference of somewhere more than 70 years. I have an older sister (80), and anything previous to 70 years ago that I think I recall is difficult for me to accurately discern from stories she has relayed to me about our lives in the mid to latter 1930's on the various farms. I can't be certain an event or object is actually something I remember, or whether it is something about which she or a peer has told me. Suffice it to say I'm limited in my active knowledge of time and space. When historians talk about "discoveries" indicating "man" as having accomplished this or that 10,000 years or so ago and longer I can only believe what I have the confidence to accept as far as their credentials and/or abilities to make those determinations (knowledge of and access to carbon dating, etc). And I'm acutely aware that the number of doctorates one has written has little to do with that human limitation of time and space. Education and "scientific" study helps one to be capable of locating tools to measure, based upon what "we" know here and now of carbon depletion (and presume it has always depleted evenly across time -- the key word being "presume"), but I still have to rely solely upon my confidence of "science", much of which is funded by parasites of state through stolen resources. I always have to laugh at scientific proclamations of distance in terms of "light years" and my confidence in any of their capabilities to grasp such tidbits of time/distance. As a professional truck driver I know something about cramming 862 miles of flat land driving into the white man's 11-hour daily drivers' limit on his log books, but light years???? I read once that light is supposed to travel at 186,282 miles per second -- (that's not miles per hour, mind you -- there are 3,600 seconds in an hour last time I counted). It's a good thing those guys are government funded I say. I do not disagree with White Indian's assessment of the historical blame for today's crises in food and economics. But I have to once again side with Golefevre: I only have today to become free. If I'm going to be free I have to become so with the cards I hold in my hand today. I don't have time for hand-wringing about how it came to be this way. I only have to proceed with what I know. And Jim, your essay has improved what I know to become free. Thanks! Sam

State level politics is the way things are. Libertarian types constantly refer to how things "could have been" or "should be." Are libertarians the ones you refer to as "forever bitter and hateful?"

I agree, well said. People imprisoned by the way things "could have been" will forever be bitter and hateful. The outlook "to live as sovereign as possible and not participate in politics" is as good as it gets IMHO.

Benjamin Franklin describes a White Indian who abdicated a "good Estate" to live a Non-State lifeway, as follows: When an Indian Child has been brought up among us, taught our language and habituated to our Customs, yet if he goes to see his relations and make one Indian Ramble with them, there is no perswading him ever to return, and that this is not natural to them merely as Indians, but as men, is plain from this, that when white persons of either sex have been taken prisoners young by the Indians, and lived a while among them, tho' ransomed by their Friends, and treated with all imaginable tenderness to prevail with them to stay among the English, yet in a Short time they become disgusted with our manner of life, and the care and pains that are necessary to support it, and take the first good Opportunity of escaping again into the Woods, from whence there is no reclaiming them. One instance I remember to have heard, where the person was brought home to possess a good Estate; but finding some care necessary to keep it together, he relinquished it to a younger Brother, reserving to himself nothing but a gun and a match-Coat, with which he took his way again to the Wilderness. ~Benjamin Franklin Philadelphia, May 9th. 1753 James Axtell has a whole chapter in the following book describing such White Indians, as follows: Chapter 13. The White Indians The Invasion Within: The Contest of Cultures in Colonial North America by James Axtell Oxford University Press http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/HistoryAmerican/ColonialRe... The White Indians of Colonial America by James Axtell The William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, Vol. 32, No. 1 (Jan., 1975), pp. 55-88 Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture http://www.shsu.edu/~jll004/colonial_summer09/whiteindians.pdf

Strictly out of curiosity, why pick the name "WhiteIndian"? Is there some significance to that user name?

Are you really going to claim there is plenty of food now? Seriously? Billions of people in agricultural civilization are either starving or suffering major food insecurity, and even those "well-fed" at the center of empire are suffering from agriculture with Diseases of [agricultural] Civilization. High stress is endemic to the civilized population. It has become the leading cause of death in the United States. At the same time, while one quarter of U.S. citizens suffer from some form of mental illness, one would be hard-pressed to find any examples of mental illness among foragers. Thesis #21: Civilization makes us sick. by Jason Godesky | 2 January 2006 http://rewild.info/anthropik/2006/01/thesis-21-civilization-makes-us-sick/ P.S. Not only maladies like diabetes are diseases of civilization; Dr. E. Fuller Torrey, MD relates how Schizophrenia is a disease of civilization. Schizophrenia and civilization Torrey, E. Fuller http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=acls;idno=heb02208

Nobody holds the view that North American natives never had State level governments. There have been several agricultural civilizations and agricultural chiefdoms rise and collapse in North America, and I've referred to them, several times. And I've referred to "The Great Law of Peace" and how their Egalitarian Non-State sociopolitical typology influenced American ("all men are created equal") and then French politics (liberté, égalité, fraternité,) as described in "Indian Givers: How the Indians of the Americas Transformed the World" by Jack Weatherford.

Actually it was caused by the bronze age. Haven't you wondered what the forges that made the hundreds of thousands of bronze swords and such used as fuel? The forests were destroyed to quarry rock and to smelt metals. Also to build the tens of thousands thousands of ships that the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, etc. used. I am sure agriculture played a part, but the forests took their biggest drop when they were being clear cut for fuel for the forge fires and timbers for the ships. Not saying agriculture doesn't destroy things when done improperly, but stating as a definitive something that is not so weakens your argument.

"This method was a cheap and effective method of slow death. The victim was bound and buried up to his neck near an ant hill. A sweet substance, usually tree sap, was poured over the victim's head. He was then left to be slowly eaten by the ants. this method was used by Native American tribes and sometimes involved a second captive who acted as a witness. The witness would see what kind of death the victim suffered and was allowed to go back to his village to report what he had seen. This was supposed to act as a deterrent of further white settlement. However, this usually produced quite the opposite effect and angered the whites."

John, it would be nice if an anarchist society were perfect, but I don't know anyone who makes that claim; rather, it is just by far the best possible form of society. Any time one person enforces his will upon another, there's a government in miniature. It may happen. That's why a justice industry will arise. http://www.strike-the-root.com/81/davies/davies4.html shows how I think it will function.

Of course it wasn't all Garden of Eden in America before the government-loving Europeans arrived. The natives frequently fought with one another, and torturing people from another tribe to death seems to have been a favorite pastime. I am second to no one in my loathing of American government today, but must admit to misgivings about what life without government will be like.

The idea that human minds can be swayed by information is daunting all by itself. The nature of government (a small number of sociopathic human beings exerting coercion upon the masses -- mostly non-sociopaths) is undergirded by this actuality. It's been that way throughout history. All "public media" is devised to make use of the fickle nature of the unwashed masses. But you know all that. That's part of the reason "capitalism" always reverts to "corporatism" (and why on sites like this one we who should know better are led to fight and haggle over the "evils of capitalism" -- a strange phenomenon in itself when you consider STR is pro-liberty). Media information is edited to lend support to "the state" (the real predators of society), who are dependent upon the large producers (lobbying corporatists) who rely on and seek legislation for the elimination of competition in the marketplace. I am emotionally fragile and easily swayed. At least that's the way I'm SUPPOSED to be. And sometimes that's the way I am -- but the web has opened avenues of previously inaccessible information and new doors of understanding for me. I'm not the same man I was ten years ago. In 2002 I was still clinging to a certain degree of statist mentality. But I'm not unlike many folks, I just want to be left alone. In safety. I'd like to know I can relax at home and ride my bicycle without fear of (non government) predators. The internet has shown me the main threat to my families' and my safety is government predators. Therefore the internet MUST be smashed. And it WILL be smashed. State parasites will see to that. Laissez faire must not be allowed into the heads of the proletariat in anything other than a negative light. It is essential the masses chant slogans of freedom; but they must not be allowed to catch a glimpse of freedom. Watch the video. It tells a valid story. Sam

War Street Journal's usual plea for the Owner Class. War, rape, and plunder of Mother Earth and her Non-Owner children must not stop for anything. This reminds me of the Libertarian crap about smoking not causing lung cancer, in defense of the brave tobacco heroes. They'd rather murder the planet, somewhat like Ayn Rand stupidly killed herself with smoking.

The drug war protects The Owner Class' privation property values against you-guess-which-race "aggressors." "In short; RACIALIST SCIENCE is properly not an act of aggression or a cover for oppression of one group over another, but, on the contrary, an operation in defense of private property against assaults by aggressors." ~Murray Rothbard "Cops must be unleashed, and allowed to administer instant punishment ... unleash the cops to clear the streets of bums and vagrants. Where will they go? Who cares?" ~Murray Rothbard

This guy laments about the absence of a "free market": http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=B_FncAQsAJg#!